2. To that which is objected from Anselm, that Christ by redeeming man recalled him to his pristine liberty: it must be said that this is understood with respect to the total species, not with respect to any individual whatsoever. For the burden of bodily servitude can stand together with the grace of the Holy Spirit and the Sacrament of baptism; and through this, much more strongly the burden of voluntary subjection, which flows from pure will, is not repugnant to the liberty of grace.
3. To that which is objected, that acts of service, the less they are owed, the more pleasing they are: it must be said that the notion of debt is twofold: one, which comes from a liberal promise; another, which comes from the obligation of a pact and mercantile commerce. The first in no way is repugnant to the graciousness of the service, but only the second. And the reason for this is: because, although the second is founded upon private and mercenary love, the first is founded upon the most liberal love, by which someone wills to offer to God not only the fruit of the tree, but also the trunk and the root. Whence, as Anselm exemplifies concerning two persons, one of whom offers to God the fruit of the tree, reserving the ownership to himself; but the other offers both: and he who offers both is more pleasing: so also in the matter at hand it is to be understood.
4. To that which is objected, that the evangelical law is a sweet yoke: it must be said that the burden is twofold, namely a burden that weighs down, and a burden that strengthens and assists, and consequently lightens and supports. Therefore the yoke of obedience, superadded to the evangelical load, is similar to a burden that does not weigh down but strengthens; just as a cart does not increase the weight upon the horse but lightens it, and a multitude of feathers lifts birds upward rather than drags them downward: so also obedience, which subjects a man to one like himself, excludes the weight of pride and arrogance that came from love of one's own sense and one's own will, which was most repugnant to evangelical perfection: therefore it makes one apt and agile for bearing it.
5. To the objection that the evangelical law does not admit alongside itself the servitude of the written law: it must be said that the case is not similar, because the servitude of the ceremonial and judicial precepts is discordant with the new law both on account of the veils of figures and on account of the burdens of afflicting penalties. Therefore the law of the Gospel, which was introduced through Christ, through whom grace and truth came , excludes both kinds of those precepts and the servitude in their observance, not on account of difficulty, but on account of imperfection. Since therefore, although it is difficult for a man to obey, this difficulty is repugnant neither to truth nor to grace nor to perfect virtue, which is "concerned with the arduous and difficult," it is consequently not repugnant to evangelical perfection; indeed, it rather gives complement to it.
6. To the objection that it is burdensome to obey divine commands: the response is already clear, because, as has been shown, the gravity and difficulty of a work is rather consonant with evangelical perfection than repugnant to it; and he is truly perfect who bears heavy things with promptitude of will.
7. To the objection concerning Christ: it must be said that Christ, insofar as was fitting for the redemption of the human race, subjected himself to men, and this with an excellent and perfect will; and because his will was confirmed in the good and was not changeable as ours is, therefore there was no need for it to be bound by a vow.
8. To the objection that the addition of a vow does not contribute to the complement of obedience, which was not in Christ: the response is already clear, because in Christ there was something in place of a vow with respect to obedience as well as poverty as well as chastity, namely a confirmed will, which is more excellent than a vow; and because we approach that confirmed will through the strengthening of purpose and the emission of a vow, hence it is that the vow, by binding us and in a certain way strengthening us, renders us conformed to Christ by its inviolability; and therefore the summit of perfection increases from it, although it was not in Christ according to the emission of a spoken word.
9. To the objection that such a vow of obedience was not in the Apostles: it must be said that one can speak of obedience in three ways, namely with respect to the act and the habit and the mode. There was therefore in the Apostles a promptitude of obeying through a perfect habit; there was also the act, by which they were obedient to Christ even unto death and unto diverse kinds of torments, so that they were obedient not only in carrying out works but also in sustaining sufferings. But the mode of obedience by which one subjects himself to another as to a prelate was not fitting for them except for the time when they were with Christ, because they themselves were prelates of the Church and were moved by the fullness of the Holy Spirit, and being upright they governed others. Nevertheless they themselves were first obedient to Christ himself, and afterward they exhibited due reverence to the Apostle Peter; and therefore from this it cannot and ought not be concluded that obedience should not be vowed especially by those for whom it is fitting to be governed by others.
10. To that which is objected, that it is presumptuous to vow, because one either considers oneself sufficient, etc.: it must be said that to attribute sufficiency to one's own virtues and free will is a matter of presumption with respect to however small a good, since the Apostle says in Second Corinthians 3: Not that we are sufficient, etc. But to attribute this to divine grace, which one hopes will not be lacking to oneself on account of divine munificence, is not a matter of presumption, but of confidence and of the certainty of hope, by which we believe that God is a helper to the man who wills to adhere to His counsels. On account of which the same Apostle immediately after the aforementioned word adds: Our sufficiency is from God; and the same, in the last chapter of Philippians: I can do all things in Him who strengthens me; and by this hope ought he to be sustained who, inspired by the divine Spirit, not only proposes the perfection of the evangelical counsels, but also promises it by vowing.
11. To that which is objected, that to profess oneself perfect is presumptuous: it must be said that there is perfection with respect to merit and with respect to state. To profess oneself perfect with respect to merit is a matter of presumption, not of perfection, since Paul says in Philippians 3: Not that I am already perfect. But to profess oneself perfect with respect to state is not a matter of presumption, because this places the praise not upon the person in herself, who can be culpable through her own merits, but upon the common life and the manner of living approved by the counsel of Christ's own mouth.
12. To that which is objected, that it is pride to wish to be set over a just man: it must be said that one can wish to be set over another in two ways: either because one wishes to be set over simply, or because one wishes to be set over in a lofty manner through love of one's own excellence; and thus this will is depraved both in the one who wills it and in the others who consent to him, as it was in Lucifer and the other demons adhering to him.
In another way, someone wishes to be set over so that he may preside usefully, through love of the commonwealth and the universal Church, stirred by the spirit of heavenly charity; and in this way neither does he himself sin, nor do the others who consent to him, since God has so ordained that the mystical body of Christ is to be governed according to the preeminences of grades, offices, and dignities.
13. To the objection that it is dangerous to commit oneself entirely to an unknown person, it must be said that if someone were to commit himself with no law, no norm, no rule prescribed, but for every eventuality, this would without doubt be foolish. But when someone vows obedience according to an approved form of rule, there is no danger therein, because, since some things are according to the rule, some things below the rule, some things above the rule, and some things against the rule: to the first he binds himself even without the command of a superior; to the second, however, by command; to the third, however, he is not bound, unless he wishes to act from perfection, as blessed Benedict says, that indeed the perfectly obedient person ought to undertake even what is imposed on him as impossible—which nevertheless is not of necessity but of supererogation, even for the perfect themselves. But what is against the rule, in no way, by no agreement is one bound through obedience to observe; similarly also what is against the law of God, such as is everything that tends to the detriment of our salvation or of the divine honor; and therefore one incurs no danger in making a vow according to the aforesaid manner.
14. To the objection that the more and greater the things to which a person is bound, the more he is placed in greater dangers, it must be said that this is true, all other things being equal. But here other things are not equal, because in the making of a vow helping grace is added, the opportunity for sinning is diminished, and the force driving one into danger is weakened; because the more one withdraws from worldly things and draws near to Christ, the less one is entangled in the snares of worldly dangers, and thereby one is raised up more freely and more securely to heavenly things.
15. To the objection that the evangelical law removes the oath, it must be said that this is not analogous, because an oath of itself is close to evil and is of little utility; but the vow of perfection is most close to the good and the best, and thereby of the greatest utility; and therefore it ought not to be forbidden by the law of the Gospel, but rather encouraged.
16. To the objection that it is imperfect because it is done at another's command, just as a sin is lesser which is done at another's suggestion, it must be said that this is not analogous, because the impulse to sin diminishes the character of sin, since it diminishes the character of the voluntary; but command with respect to the good does not diminish the character of the voluntary, because command can arise from pure charity and will; whence, with the freedom of the will preserved, it contributes to the fulfillment of the will, and thereby to the summit of the perfection of perfect merit.
17. To the objection that one is moved the more perfectly the more immediately one is moved toward God: it must be said that this holds true in the case of those who are so fully united to God that they have no need of any intermediary leading them, as is the case with the Blessed in the fatherland. But in the case of those who are in the state of wayfaring and need to ascend by degrees, this does not hold true; rather, they climb better and arrive from the lowest to the highest in an orderly fashion through the intermediary degrees of creatures — on account of which we also pray not only to God but also to the Saints, that through them we may be led to God — so also God willed that man should be subject to man, so that through the ministry of man he might be led back to God, and the merit of obedience might be increased.
18. To the objection concerning the anchorites, it must be said that anchorites were chosen through obedience: and indeed this was not granted except to those already so proven in the observance of regular obedience that they were believed without doubt to be suitable for the immediate governance of the Holy Spirit guiding them interiorly; to which they could in no way have arrived unless they had first bound themselves through voluntary subjection to obedience to man.
19. To the objection that through this the way of salvation is closed to the weak: it must be said that this is false:
rather, out of the many ways in which one can wander and even go astray, a certain surer and better way is chosen as a more direct path and a more efficacious remedy.
20. To the objection that to subject oneself to many persons is of greater perfection: it must be said that this is true with respect to reverence and the condescension of benevolence and the showing of honor, but it is not true with respect to the vow of obedience and regular profession, because according to the latter certain persons must be subject to certain definite persons, so that in all things confusion may be avoided and the rectitude of order may be observed.
ARTICLE III.
On the obedience owed to the Supreme Pontiff.
Finally it is asked whether it belongs to the Christian religion that all should obey one person. And that it does is shown both through the Old Testament and through the New and through canon law and through the evidence of reasons.
First, then, it is shown through the Old Testament as follows.