CHAPTER II
CHAPTER II
SECOND POINT OF THE First ANSWER: THE CAPI-
TAL ERROR ABOUT THE WAY OF MANIFESTATION
OF PERFECTION AND IMPERFECTION Is SHATTERED,
AND THE EXEMPLARITY OF TRUE PERFECTION
AND ITs DIFFERENCE FROM IMPERFECTION ARE
REVEALED "ieee US, the sound opinion of Doctors has overthrown the adversary of Christ's mercy.
But even more: we shall see that the sharp edge of this man's very argument cuts off the head of his own perverse teaching. Not only does the a : opponent of evangelical perfection fall away AGH the ich distorting the Scriptures into impious meanings, and obscuring divine plans with words of ignoJb. 38:2 rance; in addition, he even contradicts himself.
Since it would take long to explain one by one the many instances of warped interpretation and abuse of the Scriptures, the twisted opinions and insults to common sense, found in his text, we trust that it may suffice for the prudent reader if we deal briefly with some examples.
2. Thus, when this writer, in a preliminary statement, comes to define perfection, he says: "Perfection in this life consists, not in being without sin, but in preventing its reign in your mortal body.' A truthful saying, in a CathRom. 6:12 olic sense, and one accepted by the saints.
Yet, because he places here the terminal point of evangelical perfection, making its fulfillment consist in this, he stands convicted
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
of being far from the full notion of perfection. For every man is bound by divine precept to avoid the reign of sin within himself; every man, therefore, would be called to be perfect.
Again, if any small measure of love were enough to produce this effect, it would follow that the smallest love would attain the summit of perfection. This would render meaningless the saying of Augustine: "Love should be increased, so that being increased it may be perfected."
Furthermore, if perfection consists in nothing more than the avoidance of the reign of sin within us, imperfection consists in allowing this reign. But sin cannot reign within us unless we are in a state of mortal sin: and so imperfection is always equated with mortal sin. No sensible person could fail to see that this is absurd and far from the truth.
3. Next, let the careful reader note how this author then proceeds to clear self-contradiction in defining imperfection. "Imperfection," he continues, "consists in not con forming with Christ within the possibilities of the human condition." But "not conforming," thus qualified, is possible not only without mortal sin, for no one is bound to it, but even without venial sin,' specifically as regards matters which are of counsel only, depending upon freedom of choice, and hence may be omitted without any sin; such matters, that is, as the vows of poverty and virginal cf. Mt. 19:16ff.; 1 Cor. 7:25f}.3
1 Jn. 2:3 continence.
Our author adds to this by saying that "to depart from Christ's commands and from His works is an imperfection," and that "the Apostle cautioned the disciples against such a thing." Now, here he not only strikes a discordant note, he even puts together two contrary propositions: to depart from Christ's command is always a mortal sin,
CHAPTER II
whereas to depart from Christ's works may be a venial sin, or even no sin at all. It appears, then, that this man does not understand what he is saying since he includes in one sentence two intrinsically different ideas.
To continue: he goes on to comment thus on the meaning of imperfection: "Imperfection of life consists in a distortion that turns us away from the rule of justice and from the footsteps of Christ in matters in which Christ may be imitated as far as is possible by the corruptible flesh." Here he shows that he lacks understanding, not only of the truth, but even of the meaning of words. We are not greatly concerned, of course, with the words in themselves; but here it is important to discuss the mean~ing assigned to them, and to reject it because it is wrong.
He says that "imperfection turns us away from the rule of justice." Now, it is a fact that, as Anselm says, "justice consists in rectitude of the will'';* but if there exists a certain justice that is perfect and another that is imperfect, it necessarily follows that there exists a certain rectitude that is distorted!
Furthermore, if rectitude is justice, distortion is injustice, and so, if imperfection is a distortion, the imperfect will be unjust. It follows, therefore, if imperfection is a distortion, that some justice is unjust!
Finally, since in the words of Augustine, "every virtue is a right reason," it necessarily follows that distortion is a sin.
If, therefore, imperfection is always a distortion, imperfection is always a sin. Now, since some forms of charity are imperfect, it follows that some forms of charity are sinful!
Hence, according to the explanations of perfection given above, it may be deduced from [our author's] premises
92.
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
that justice is unjust, rectitude distorted, and charity vicious!
4. As a further proof of his ignorance, he adds a little later that "the wise man asserts that it is great glory to follow the Lord, and since this is said unqualifiedly, it
Ecclus. 23:38* is to be understood universally." Now, it is greatly presumptuous to desire to follow the Lord in every one of His actions—as, in His miracles, in His judgments, in the chastisement He inflicted, in His foresight of fuGas Lib
ture events, and \ = i w= o= a so forth. Hence, pee Ne, if this man were NAS, Sop, right and this Li; Shs 2: saying, because Niaz Set ieD unqualified, = i 38° 2 — + ee were to be taken S\ WE universally, S BZ SS iB it either it is great glory to follow Zp @ the Lord in some things which it is impious and presumptuous to desire, or else the wise man is proved to have said something wrong.
And, to this instance of madness, he adds another of no lesser degree; for he asserts that Christ said to the young man, "Follow Me," without distinguishing in what
Mt. 19:21 things, and how much, and thus said it unqualifiedly.
"And great," he concludes, "is the presumption of desiring to make distinctions where God makes none, for the legislator alone has the right to interpret the laws he has established."
CHAPTER II
5. Now, in saying this, the author directly contradicts at one and the same time faith itself, the teachings of the holy Fathers, and his own expressed belief.
In the first place: If in every instance in which Christ makes no distinction, we also are to make none, the CathJn. 14:28 olic interpretation of His saying, "The Father is greater than I,'"' is erroneous, for it teaches that these words should not be applied to His divinity but to His humanity. Next: the saints are also in error whenever they explain the words of Christ by means of distinctions and interpret His intention in the light of such expositions. And finally: the man negates his own stated position by proceeding himself to make a qualification, in these words: "This is not understood of the acts concerned with the distinction between levels and dignities, but only of other acts."
6. Nor is he content even with such folly, but piles it up higher. Concerning the statement that the Lord gave to the perfect some precepts that did not apply to the imperfect, he remarks that to believe this was the error of the Manicheans, and a very dangerous one.
He forgets the words that Jerome wrote "Against Jovinian": "Has it ever been prescribed to all that they may not have two garments, cf. Mt. 10:9ff. cf. Mk. 6:8f. cf. Lk. 9:3 cf. Mt, 19:21 cf. Lk. 3:12-14 or food in their bag, or money in their belt, or shoes on their feet; that they are to sell everything they have and follow Jesus? Has not this been prescribed only to those who wish to be perfect? Otherwise, how could something different have been prescribed by John the Baptist to the soldiers and to the publicans?''® Jerome thereby shows that such is not merely his personal view, but first of all the clear purport of Scripture.
And it is this which this new doctor, following the teaching of Jovinian, now condemns as heretical and dangerous.
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
When he adds that man is not made imperfect by the commandments, because a commandment, being holy and Rom. 7:12f. just and good, does not bring about death, 'and imperfection is a certain kind of death," by attempting to prove a clear truth through an obvious falsehood, he is revealing both his imprudence and his fallacy. It is indeed certain that the commandments make no one perfect or imperfect, since both the perfect and the imperfect are bound to observe them.
It is also certain that there is not so much distance between perfection and imperfection as there is between life and death.
For if imperfection is death, it is either a punishment or the result of guilt. If it is a punishment, no one in this life is perfect, not even Christ; if it is the result of guilt, since the guilt deserving of death is mortal sin, no one would be imperfect without at the same time being deprived of life through mortal sin. And if this man says that death may in a certain sense be predicated of venial sin, he is speaking incorrectly, and even falls into formal error, for if venial sin is a death that makes man imperfect, since there is no more reason [for this] in any one venial sin than in any other, as often as a man falls into venial sin, he falls away from the state of perfection. Again, because no one, whatever his virtue, is entirely immune to venial sin, no one in this life will be perfect with the perfection Christ counsels. Now, such a proposition is heretical and must be condemned. cf. Mt. 5:48
7. He later makes a still further addition to the mass of errors by saying that imperfection is a mere limping which does not fall under the precepts, but is a matter of toleration; that, for instance, to reclaim one's own property is not commanded, but tolerated. But this is plainly false, since toleration, according to Augustine in his work "On
CHAPTER II
the Good of Matrimony," implies some sin,' and to claim one's Own property is permitted to the imperfect, for the gloss on the sixth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians says: "It is permissible to the weak to claim their own property, and even to bring their claim before a judge.'
In the same spirit, after some vain and frivolous considerations, the author continues that "in the New Testament, even when matrimony is contracted for the sake of the offspring, it is only tolerated.'' This is clearly contradicted by Augustine in the work just cited. "Certainly," he says, "no doubt is permitted concerning the sinlessness of matrimony as such. That is why indulgence is directed, not to marriage, but to that intercourse which derives from incontinence, not for the sake of procreation alone, but for a reason entirely independent of procreation, and which marriage does not require, but which it excuses.
Intercourse for the sole purpose of generation is without any guilt, and this alone is proper to marriage."
Here, there is such a difference in words and in meaning between the ancient Doctor and the new one that one of the two must necessarily be wrong. If the author will follow, not his own interpretation, but that of the more eminent Doctor, he will be less likely to fall into the pit of error. He should cease, therefore, to describe imperfection as a distortion or a limping, lest he himself be forced by this very distortion and limping to stray from the truth.}
} There is also a great difference between the teachings of ''the more eminent Doctor" and that of contemporary theologians whose doctrine is that intercourse for the sake of fostering mutual love is not only sinless, but meritorious, even without being directed towards procreation.
The generally low esteem in which medieval theologians held marriage appears clearly in the last sentence of paragraph 9, below.
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
8. Next, he adds that Christ never did anything for imitation by the perfect alone, arguing that Christ does not begrudge perfection to anyone; as if there could be no gradations and distinctions in the examples and words of Christ corresponding to the different levels and states in the organization of the Church. Such an opinion does not conform at all with the Scriptural testimony. For Christ specifically said to the apostles: "To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God, but to the rest in parables." And again, speaking to His Father: "Thou didst hide these things from the wise and prudent, and didst reveal them to little ones."
Lk. 8:10
Mt. 11:25
Is God partial because He does not reveal the secrets of His wisdom to all? It is clear that, just as Christ spoke words that were proportioned to those who received them,
He used the example of Himself in the same way. It is not at all out of partiality, but out of the highest dispensation of the wisdom of God, who allots to everyone according
1 Cor. 12:11 as He will, that some things are proposed as examples to prelates, and not to their subjects; others to rational creatures, and not to animals; others to the perfect, and not to the imperfect; others again to the strong, and not to the weak, as expressly appears from the above quotation from Jerome's argument against Jovinian.t On the other hand, we do not mean that the works of the counsels and of supererogation are proposed only to those who are already perfect. Rather, they are for all who wish to ascend to the summit of perfection; but since this implies difficulties and painful effort, it will gain a response, not from the many, but from the few. t Cf. | 6, above.
CHAPTER II
9. Our adversary, then, attempts to prove that the works and examples of Christ are equally proposed to all
— under the pretext that, if He had done something for the imitation of the imperfect alone, it would then seem that He would also have been bound to take a wife and to get involved in legal disputes so as to let the imperfect see examples of these things. This reasoning has no weight whatsoever: it proceeds from a thought deeply disordered. No one indeed would reason in this way without at the same time committing the distasteful lapse of associating the practices of carnal passion and argumentative litigation with the condescension of divine sweetness that consisted in assuming our infirmities.
It amounts to declaring that if Christ condescended to human weakness in the acts of eating and fleeing, he should have condescended also in the acts of physical love and processes of law; otherwise the reasoning is senseless. And indeed it is: for there is no similarity between what He did and the suggested course of action, since it was good that Christ should condescend to those infirmities which are commonly related to fallen nature and have no guilt annexed to them, but there was no reason whatsoever to make Him stoop to the others."°
10. Finally, if close attention is given to the conclusion our adversary attempts to draw, it will be clearly apparent that, through his own false reasoning, he involves himself in a manifold error. He says indeed: "There are two elements in perfection: to sell and distribute what one has, and to follow Christ the Lord; so also it is required as a foundation of perfection that a man give up everything he has, but also, as a complement, that once this has been done, he also imitate Christ to the limit of human possicf. Mt. 19:21 bility." In his view, it is "no small blasphemy" to assert,
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
as regards the things done by Christ in conformity with our nature, that those persons in particular who try to be perfect are to imitate Him in some of these things only, not in all of them. Now, while such words may claim a certain superficial justification, this man's reasoning is empty if judged by the canons of truth, and his conclusion full of errors. It is by no means the same thing to give up one's possessions and to imitate the actions of Christ. For the first is a single and simple act, consistent with perfection as long as it is whole, that is, as long as possessions are abandoned, not in part, but entirely.** On the other hand, the actions of Christ are manifold and various, and even though all are perfect as being His, when considered in their nature some are most excellent, others of lesser quality, and still others merely condescensive; which was partly demonstrated in the preceding discussion,} and will be more clearly proved in what is to follow.
11. If it is true that perfection indicates an unvarying conformity to the works of Christ, and imperfection some departure therefrom, many absurdities inevitably ensue.
For example, since Christ was assisted by women who went about with Him and cared for Him, it follows that Paul was imperfect in not having such companions; since Christ dwelt among men, John the Baptist was imperfect because he abandoned the crowds and sought a solitary abode; cf. Lk. 8:2ff. cf. 1 Cor. 9:5ff. cf. Mt. 3:1ff. since Christ drank wine, the Baptist again was imperfect in eschewing wine and strong drink; since Christ spoke to a woman when He was alone with her, anyone is imperfect who avoids the company of women; since Christ allowed His feet to be kissed by a sinner, anyone is imperfect cf. ibid. 11:18ff. cf. Lk. 1:15 cf. Jn. 4:7ff. cf. Lk. 7:37 ff.
+ Cf. ch. I, ({ 10, ff.
CHAPTER II
who shuns and shrinks from the contact of women; since Christ refused to divide the inheritance between two brothcf. Lk. 12:13ff. ers, anyone is imperfect who leads back to peace and equity the relatives embroiled over the division of an inheritance; since Christ knowingly entrusted the purse to a thief, anyone is imperfect who passes over a thief and seeks out an honest man; since Christ was in a state of fear when His cf. Jn. 12:6 cf. Mt. 26:37ff. passion was approaching, anyone is imperfect who runs to his martyrdom in a state of joyful confidence; since Christ remained silent during the passion itself, anyone is impercf. ibid. 26:63 fect who proclaims the truth while suffering for Christ.
The same reasoning may be developed in many other instances, in addition to those that concern the avoidance of women and the use of food or money. All such conclusions are so absurd that anyone attempting to defend them would seem to be not so much mistaken as demented.
12. In order that the prudent reader may be free of such and similar lapses into which the one we are answering has fallen through frivolity of mind, let him note carefully that there is a double cause for such misrepresentations.
First, while the author knows that Christ is the Exemplar of all perfection, he fails either to grasp or to consider the nature of this exemplarity; second, while he is clearly aware that imperfection falls short of perfection, he is unable to investigate the extent of this difference.
We should understand that since Christ is the Word both Uncreated and Incarnate, there is in Him a twofold principle of exemplarity, the one eternal and the other temporal. By the eternal, I mean the principle according to which He is the brightness of the Father's glory, and the image of His substance, and also the refulgence of eternal cf. Heb. 1:3
Wis. 7:26 light, the spotless mirror of the power of God. In this
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
mirror all things shine forth in their exemplarity, and they are produced, in their spirit and in their matter, from the beginning of the creation of the world until its end, for the perfecting of the entire universe. It is in this sense that Christ is the Uncreated Word, the intellectual Mirror and the eternal Exemplar of the whole fabric of creation." But insofar as He is the Incarnate Word, in the actuality of His assumed humanity, He is also the mirror of all graces, virtues, and merits; and therefore the dwelling of the Church
Militant should be set up at this example, the dwelling of which Moses mysteriously says: See that you make...
[it] according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.
Ex, 25:40
From this single and undivided eternal Exemplar there flows such a variety of created natures, and such a variety of perfections in these natures, according to the degree of their participation in the supreme Good itself, that all cannot be possessed together by any given creature
— for which reason God established diverse species of beings so that the universe should be complete. And likewise, the diverse states, levels, and orders are derived in their exemplarity from the Incarnate Word, as from the original principle of grace of whose fullness we have all received, and as from a mirror in which and from which shines forth all the fullness and beauty of holiness and wisdom. These states, levels, and orders are derived from Him according to the various distributions of the gifts, and the various manners in which the Exemplar is to be imitated. Within them, the manifold perfection of Christ is distributed according to a multiform participation, in such a way that it is found at the same time in all things. And yet it does not glow in any one of them in the fullness of its universal plenitude: but each state and level receives that kind of influence
(aoi16
CHAPTER II
from the Exemplar, and approaches its likeness to that greater or lesser degree, which accords with the proportion of its own [determined] nature.
13. Thus, manifold actions shine forth from Christ as from the exemplar and origin of our whole salvation. Now, some of these actions pertain to LOFTINESS OF POWER, such cf. Mt. 14:26ff.
Ch. ft, 237 ffcf. Mt. 14:19ff. cf. ibid. 17:2 as walking on the water, transmuting the elements, multiplying the loaves, transfiguring Himself, or performing miraculous cures. Other actions pertain to the LIGHT OF WISDOM, such as revealing the mysteries of heaven, pene~ trating the secrets of hearts, or predicting the future. Still others pertain to SEVERITY OF JUDGMENT, such as expelling cf. Mt. 21:12ff. cf. ibid. 26:
26ff. cf. ibid. 9:2ff. the hucksters from the temple, overturning the tables of the sellers of doves, or severely reproaching the priests.
Others again pertain to the DIGNITY OF OFFICE, such as conferring the Sacrament of His most holy Body, imposing His hands, or absolving from sin. Further actions pertain to CONDESCENSION toward our misery, such as hiding when persecuted, trembling with dread before death, or cf. Jn. 8:59 cf: Mk. 14:33ff. praying the Father for the removal of the chalice. Some, finally, pertain to the REVELATION OF THE PERFECT LIFE, cf. Lk. 2:51 cf. Mt. 14:23 cf. Lk. 23:34 cf. Jn. 18:4ff. such as observing poverty, maintaining virginity, subjecting
Himself to God and to men, watching in prayer throughout the night, praying for those who crucified Him, or offering Himself to death out of supreme love for His enemies.
Now, while there are six different kinds of action, perfection consists in imitating Christ in the last category only. To aspire to imitate Him in those deeds that are of unique excellence would be impious and worthy of Lucifer, unless a special privilege were conferred on some man by way of a gift. The actions related to severity and dignity
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
belong to those who preside and to prelates. And those related to condescension pertain to the weak—to speak only of intrinsic actions.
Thus, supreme Christian perfection consists, not as our adversary would teach, in the universal imitation of the actions of Christ, but in the imitation only of those proposed as examples of the perfect life.
14. It appears then that ignorance of this truth was the first cause of such error.
Another cause, closely related to it, is the fact that our adversary did not make a rational distinction between perfection and imperfection; for he imprudently asserts that "perfection and imperfection differ as do rectitude and distortion, justice and sin, purity and pollution, glory and infamy, life and death, health and disease, or walking and limping." From such a statement must necessarily proceed falsities both numerous and great.
Some of these have been indicated earlier.t Let the attentive reader note that perfection and imperfection do not differ as contraries,* but as a greater good is distinct from a lesser one, that which is close to the goal from that which is far from it, a more meritorious action from one of lesser merit, a deed better conformed to God from one less so, a greater glory and holiness from one not so great.
15. Now, even though this is clear upon reflection to intelligent men, it should be thoroughly established by referring to the saints, in order that the slightest doubt may be eliminated.
Ambrose, in the first book "On Offices," says: "Every service is either mediocre or perfect. And this we can well prove by invoking the authority of the Scriptures, for we read in the Gospel that the Lord said: 'If thou wilt enter
Mt. 19:17, 18 t Cf. (3, 6 and 7.
CHAPTER II
into life, keep the commandments. ... Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery'... etc. To abstain from crimes is but to perform a mediocre service, one in which there is something missing. Therefore, Christ continues:
'If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell what thou hast, and give Mt. 19:21 to the poor,...and come, follow Me.' This, indeed, is a perfect service, which the Greeks call katép@aya, and through which all things are set aright that might otherwise have had some defect.''4
From these words of Ambrose, we may gather that he does not call sinful a mediocre and imperfect service, since it is still consistent with the observance of the commandments. And writing on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, he speaks to the same effect: "Try to lead the faithful to moderation in the use of legitimate goods, so that they may appear not only innocent but glorious: for to refuse a permitted advantage is a deed of very great virtue.'''* And so, if there is innocence in the enjoyment of legitimate goods and perfection in the fact of refraining from them, it is clear that innocence may coexist with imperfection: and so imperfection is not sin.
Augustine likewise, in his work "On the Good of Matrimony," writes: ""What could be said against the entirely clear words of the Apostle: 'Let him do what he will; he does not sin if she should marry'; also: 'If thou takest a wife, thou hast not sinned. And if a virgin marries, she has not sinned'? Hence it is certainly not right to doubt whether marriage is truly without sin. The Apostle does
1 Cor. 7:36 ibid. 28 not condone marriage as if he were forgiving it, for who would go to the extreme absurdity of saying that forgiveness is being granted to those who have not sinned?'"* Yet it is a fact that marriage is not consistent with evangelical
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
perfection,f in which Christ teaches that virginity is to be maintained for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.
Mt. 19:12
Imperfection, then, does not require forgiveness, nor is it in itself any sort of sin. The same author writes in the same book: "The work of Martha was good when she took care of the service of the saints, but what her sister Mary did was better. We praise the goodness of Susanna in her conjugal chastity, but we place on a higher level the chastity of the widow Anna, and much higher still that of the Virgin Mary. Those who provided out of their substance for the needs of Christ and of His disciples were doing what was good, but those who gave up all of their substance the more completely to follow Christ the Lord were doing what was better.''*' In such words Augustine excellently shows that the perfect does not differ from the imcf. Lk. 10:40 cf. ibid. 39 cf. Dn. 13:22ff.
Cf Ik, 2536f, cf. ibid. 1:27 cf. ibid. 8:2 cf. ibid. 5:11 perfect as virtue from vice, but as a greater good from a lesser one.
Blessed Jerome expressed the same opinion even more clearly in his letter to Hedibia: "If you wish to be perfect and to stand on the highest level of honor, do as the apostles did.'** And later: "If you do not wish to be perfect, but to hold the second place in the order of virtue, give up whatever you have, all your possessions, give everything to your children, to your relatives. No one shall reproach you if you follow the lesser degree, as long as you know that anyone who has followed the higher is superior to you by right.'""? Note how evidently he asserts that imperfection, which is a secondary and inferior state t Cf. Foreword, pp. VIII, IX.
In the light of the next quotation, it appears that to "do as the apostles did" means to give up material possessions and to live in the state of perfect chastity. Augustine seems to forget that John and Paul alone stand out as the unmarried ones.
CHAPTER II
or grade, is not to be held reprehensible or sinful. The same author, writing to Demetriades, says: "Evil actions are forbidden, good actions are commanded, mediocre actions are tolerated, perfect actions are counseled. All of sin is encompassed within the first two categories, for the others are left to our free disposition, so that we may acquire a lesser glory through the use of things tolerated and permitted, or a greater glory through their rejection."'"°
Could arguments more cogent be given in favor of our position? It seems beyond question that they must cleanse even the slowest intelligence, unless it were blinded by malice, of the darkness of the errors explained above; particularly if it would also bring itself to consider the fact that a newly baptized soul, though not even close to the summit of perfection and merit, is not infected by any stain of sin.
AED thy ve fea he tina ore Ne ao siviey ate bio It ne.S 'pape 3 Gey eens Hirt ee srt testo yp Pe Slee 48% Shade! Set heathy Sone we z Seas ae ieee hae ae fr Taseb * tulle : nil} ebtencs-of Fae estefan ata? aa nis: sa rt Roe th pies with x. iZ ar ney. yur ei $j rer ete % —