site: bonaventure

collection: Quaestiones disputatae de perfectione evangelica

title: Quaest. 4, Art. 2

title_alt: Whether it is consonant with evangelical perfection that one bind oneself by vow to obey another

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 183 -->

### Articulus II. *Utrum sit consonum evangelicae perfectioni, quod unus se astringat voto ad obediendum alteri.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum sit consonum evangelicae perfectioni, quod unus astringat se voto ad obediendum alteri. Et videtur, quod non.

1. Lex enim evangelica est libertatis[^p183-2]; sed subdere se homini per votum est necessitatis: ergo astringere se voto ad obediendum homini repugnat libertati evangelicae legis.

2. Item, Anselmus, in libro Cur Deus homo[^p183-3]: «Deus hominem per semetipsum redimere voluit, ut in pristinam libertatem hominem revocaret»; sed in statu pristinae libertatis nullus erat astrictus ad obediendum alteri: ergo ad pristinam libertatem per Redemptorem reductus nulli ad obediendum debet esse astrictus.

3. Item, Gregorius[^p183-4]: «Servitia, quanto minus debita, tanto magis grata»: ergo *ab oppositis,* quanto magis debita, tanto minus grata; sed astringens se voto ad obediendum homini tenetur illi obedire: ergo hic est minus gratus Deo. Sed illud, per quod efficitur homo minus gratus Deo, est contrarium evangelicae perfectioni: ergo etc.

4. Item, lex evangelica est *iugum suave et onus leve*[^p183-5]; sed grave est homini per omnia obtemperare: ergo astringere se ad obediendum homini non concordat levitati evangelicae perfectionis.

5. Item, lex evangelica, quia est *onus leve,* non compatitur secum onus et servitutem legis scriptae: ergo cum gravius sit obedire indistincte praeceptis hominis, quam distincte obtemperare caeremoniis et praeceptis veteris legis; videtur, quod astringere se ad obediendum homini non possit esse cum perfectione evangelica.

6. Item, grave est obedire mandatis divinis: ergo multo gravius est obedire mandatis divinis pariter et humanis; sed qui ex voto subiicit se homini astringit se[^p183-6] mandatis illius: ergo etc.

7. Item, Lucae sexto[^p183-7]: *Perfectus erit omnis, si sit sicut magister eius;* sed de Christo non legitur, quod fuerit sub alio per votum: ergo alteri subdere se per votum non est perfectum, sed, ut videtur, potius superstitiosum.

8. Item, si votum obedientiae auget perfectionem virtutis obedientiae; cum iste gradus non fuerit in Christo, videtur, quod implens hunc gradum sit perfectior Christo; sed hoc est absurdum et inconveniens: ergo et inconveniens est dicere, quod voto se alteri subiicere[^p183-8] augeat perfectionem virtutis obedientiae.

9. Item, Apostoli evangelicam perfectionem potissime in se habuerunt; sed nulli obedientiam devoverunt: ergo etc.

10. Item, videtur, quod istud facere sit *praesumtuosum:* quia aut talis *reputat* se sufficientem ad mandata divina implenda, aut *non.* Si *non:* ergo stulte facit, cum astrictus ad divina praecepta se obligat ad mandata humana implenda; si autem *reputat* se sufficientem ad implenda mandata divina, praesumtuosus est: ergo ulterius se obligare ad mandata hominis maius videtur iudicium praesumtionis.

<!-- page 184 -->

11. Item, si hoc est perfectionis vovere: ergo qui profitetur hoc, profitetur se esse perfectum; sed hoc est praesumtuosum: ergo etc.

12. Item, velle praeesse iusto viro et perfecto est superbia et praesumtio: ergo consentire alii et cooperari, ut praesit, est consentire superbiae et praesumtioni; sed qui astringit se ad obediendum alteri consentit et cooperatur illi, ut praesit: ergo etc.

13. Item, hoc videtur esse *periculosum:* quia committere se homini, de cuius scientia et conscientia ignorat, est periculum; sed qui astringit se voto ad obediendum homini ignorat frequenter, an sit sapiens, vel bonus, seu de ipsius scientia et conscientia: ergo etc.

14. Item, quanto maioribus et pluribus homo astringitur, tanto est in maioribus periculis constitutus; sed qui vovet obedientiam homini pluribus astringitur, quam prius esset astrictus: ergo maioribus exponitur periculis: ergo etc.

15. Item, lex evangelica dissuadet iuramentum propter periurii periculum[^p184-1]; sed qui vovet obedientiam homini est in periculo transgressionis voti: ergo talis offert se discrimini.

16. Item ostenditur, quod istud sit *imperfectum.* Qui enim peccat, alio suggerente, minus peccat, quam ille qui peccat, proprio motu instigante[^p184-2]: ergo similiter qui obedit, alio imperante, minus meretur, quam qui sponte agit, seu solo Deo iubente: ergo qui astringit se voto ad obediendum alteri imperfectius agit, quam qui se non astringit; sed quod diminuit de perfectione dissonat ab evangelica lege: ergo etc.

17. Item, tanto perfectius quis movetur, quanto immediatius fertur in Deum; sed qui solo Deo obedit immediatius fertur in Deum, quam qui subiicit se homini: ergo etc.

18. Item, optimum genus monachorum est anachoretarum, secundum quod dicit beatus Benedictus in principio regulae suae[^p184-3]; sed tales non astringebantur voto ad obediendum homini: igitur ex voto subiicere se alii non est evangelicae perfectionis.

19. Item, qui infirmo praecludit viam sanitatis non curat perfectionem, sed a perfectione recedit; sed qui astringit[^p184-4] se voto ad obediendum alteri claudit sibi multas vias ad salutem, cum talis ante votum multimode aliter salvari possit, quod non potest post votum: ergo talis imperfectissime agit.

20. Item, quanto quis pluribus *subiicitur,* tanto humilius et perfectius agit; sed qui *vovet obedientiam pluribus* male facit: ergo vovere obedientiam alteri non est humilitatis nec perfectionis.

Sᴇᴅ ᴄᴏɴᴛʀᴀ hoc sic obiicitur. 1. Matthaei tertio[^p184-5]: *Sic decet nos implere omnem iustitiam;* Glossa: «Perfecta humilitas habet tres gradus: primus est subdere se maiori, secundus subdere se pari, tertius subdere se minori, in quo est omnis iustitia; et hoc Christus implevit»: ergo si perfecta iustitia est subdere se alteri, hoc autem maxime fit per obedientiae votum; videtur, quod istud sit maxime perfectioni evangelicae consonum.

2. Item, primae Petri secundo[^p184-6]: *Subiecti estote omni humanae creaturae propter Deum:* ergo quanto quis hoc efficacius facit, tanto perfectius agit; sed qui per votum alteri se subiicit, hoc efficacissime facit: ergo talis perfectissime agit.

3. Item, Gregorius[^p184-7]: «Maius est relinquere se ipsum quam sua»; sed qui propter Deum relinquit sua perfecte facit: ergo qui relinquit se ipsum, perfectius. Sed hoc maxime fit in abnegatione voluntatis per obedientiae votum: ergo etc.

4. Item, Anselmus[^p184-8]: «Sicut voluntas Dei est origo omnis boni, sic voluntas propria est origo omnis mali»; sed qui perfecte amovet originem omnis mali perfectissime facit: ergo qui totaliter voluntatem propriam abnegat per votum obedientiae agit perfectissime.

5. Item, Hugo[^p184-9]: «Obedientia est virtus, quae, propria voluntate postposita, animo amplectitur iniuncta opere implenda»; sed qui alteri obedientiam vovet maxime postponit propriam voluntatem: ergo etc.

6. Item, Bernardus, homilia quadragesima secunda super Cantica[^p184-10]: «Parum est, subditum esse Deo, nisi sis et omni humanae creaturae propter Deum: subdere paribus, subdere minoribus; *sic enim decet nos implere omnem iustitiam*»; sed hoc potissime fit astringendo se voto ad obediendum alteri: ergo etc.

<!-- page 185 -->

7. Item, *sufficiens iustitia* est servare divina mandata, ergo *abundans*[^p185-1] super haec servare humana; sed hoc facit qui alteri ad obediendum se subiicit.

8. Item, *humilitas* est consona perfectioni evangelicae: ergo summa humilitas est maxime consona eidem; sed astringere se voto ad obediendum alteri est maximae humilitatis: ergo etc.

9. Item, *liberalitas* est consona evangelicae perfectioni; sed hoc est summa liberalitas, cum homo propter Deum non solum dat sua[^p185-2], sed se ipsum, propriam voluntatem postponendo, per obedientiae votum: ergo etc.

10. Item, *conformitas ad Christum* est consona perfectioni evangelicae; sed Christus mera liberalitate subiecit se homini, Lucae secundo[^p185-3]: *Et erat subditus illis:* ergo se ipsum alteri subiicere facit Christo conformem. Sed hoc maxime fit per obedientiae votum: ergo etc.

11. Item, quod maxime nos *elongat a mundo* maxime consonat perfectioni evangelicae; sed astringere se voto ad obediendum homini maxime elongat nos a mundo, quia *omne, quod est in mundo, aut est concupiscentia carnis, vel concupiscentia oculorum, vel superbia vitae*[^p185-4], a quibus maxime elongamur per obedientiae votum: ergo etc.

12. Item, quod maxime nos *elongat a diabolo* maxime spectat ad perfectionem evangelicam; sed velle subesse et non praeesse maxime nos elongat a peccato diaboli, qui omnino voluit praeesse sine subesse[^p185-5]: ergo etc.

13. Item, omne, quod *conformat nos caelesti hierarchiae,* consonum est perfectioni evangelicae; sed in hierarchia caelesti videmus quod unus Angelus subiicit se obediendo alteri, et Angeli inferiorum ordinum sine repugnantia obediunt Angelis superiorum[^p185-6]: ergo in hierarchia ecclesiastica quod unus homo subiiciat se obediendo alii, conformat nos ordini caelesti, ac per hoc est maxime consonum perfectioni evangelicae.

CONCLUSIO.

> *Astringere se voto ad obediendum alteri, non in omnem eventum, sed ad ea quae evangelicis consiliis sunt consona, hoc est perfectionis constitutivum, expeditivum et consummativum.*

Rᴇsᴘᴏɴᴅᴇᴏ: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam notandum est, quod dupliciter aliquis potest se astringere ad obediendum alteri homini: vel in omnem eventum et omnia beneplacita voluntatis illius, vel ad ea quae evangelicis consiliis sunt consona secundum aliquam certam vivendi normam, a fonte legis evangelicae derivatam. Primo modo nec est perfectum nec perfectioni consonum, immo temerarium et stultum; secundo modo perfectum est, quia hoc et perfectionis est *constitutivum* et *expeditivum* et *consummativum.* Sic enim obedientiam vovere ad hominem et est ipsius perfectionis *pars constitutiva* et *via praeambula* et *completio ultimata.* — Pars, inquam, *constitutiva* est, quia ipsa est unum de illis tribus consiliis evangelicis, in quibus consistit principaliter integritas evangelicae perfectionis.

*Via praeambula* est, quia consilia illa melius et perfectius et expeditius servari possunt, cum quis alieno consortio et adiutorio et exemplo fulcitur, quam si sibi soli relinquatur. Consortium autem non iuvat, nisi sit pacificum; nec pacificum esse potest, nisi sit connexum et ordinatum[^p185-7]; hoc autem esse non potest, nisi per reductionem plurium voluntatum ad unius imperium, secundum cuius nutum ordinentur et dirigantur et per consequens connectantur.

Est etiam *completio ultimata,* propter hoc quod in ipsa completur potissime iustitia *abundans,* cuiusmodi est iustitia evangelica, secundum illud Matthaei quinto[^p185-8]: *Nisi abundaverit iustitia vestra plus quam Scribarum et Pharisaeorum, non intrabitis in regnum caelorum.* — Est enim iustitiae triplex actus, scilicet *rectificare, coordinare* et *compensare.* Iustitia namque nihil aliud est quam *recta* voluntas, *ordinata* et *recompensativa,* quia per ipsam «redditur unicuique quod suum», secundum quod competit *rectitudini iuris* et *ordinis dignitati.* — Perfecta ergo *rectificatio* iustitiae abundantis attenditur secundum conformitatem voluntatis ad veritatem; veritas autem unumquemque humiliat, ut de se minora quam de alio sentiat. Ille igitur perfecte et abundanter rectificatur, qui, secundum quod veritas dictat, non invite, sed voluntarie voluntatem suam sub alio humiliat et quodam modo in servitutem quandam redigit et captivat[^p185-9]; quod quidem fit per obedientiam alteri homini exhibitam, quae maxime repugnat arrogantiae et ambitioni, qua quis vult aliis se praeferre. Unde Bernardus, quadragesima secunda homilia super Cantica[^p185-10]: «Time Deum et noli hanc rem

<!-- page 186 -->

pessimam facere, ut quem humiliat veritas extollat voluntas. Magis autem acquiesce Deo, et sit voluntas subdita veritati».

Perfecta etiam *ordinatio* secundum regulam abundantis iustitiae est, ut non solum inferior superiori, et par pari, verum etiam ut superior inferiori voluntarie se supponat, iuxta quod Matthaei tertio[^p186-1] dicitur: *Sic decet nos implere omnem iustitiam;* ubi Glossa: «*Sic,* subdendo se servo et inferiori, *omnem iustitiam,* id est humilitatem, quae est omnis iustitia, *decet implere.* — Et haec humilitas tres habet gradus: primus, subdere se maiori, et hic vocatur *sufficiens;* secundus est subdere se aequali, et hic dicitur *abundans;* tertius est subesse minori, in quo est *omnis iustitia.* Hunc Christus implevit». Quoniam ergo perfecte tunc subiicitur homo homini, quando se astringit voluntarie, in his quae secundum Deum sunt, alterius imperiis obedire, maxime eius[^p186-2] qui maior eo non erat, sed vel aequalis, aliquando etiam minor — quia omnis homo in aliquo alium excedit, saltem secundum animam — hinc est, quod ad perfectionem iustitiae *ordinantis* secundum viam ordinis *dignativi,* qui currit secundum legem gratiae, quo maior reputat se minorem, concurrit et plurimum facit obedientia, quae uni homini ab altero exhibetur.

Perfecta nihilominus *recompensatio* iustitiae abundantis in hoc attenditur, ut quis totum danti totum reddat. Quoniam ergo Christus Dominus non tantum dedit *nos* nobis, sed etiam *se* dedit nobis; et propter nos non tantum se hominem fecit, sed etiam hominibus subdidit: hinc est, quod, ad hoc quod pro modulo nostrae imbecillitatis *recompensemus,* secundum quod possumus, non tantum Deo, verum etiam homini, non solum quae habemus et membra, sed etiam quod sumus, id est voluntatem nostram, congruit ut subdamus. Unde Bernardus, super Cantica[^p186-3]: «Constat, Deum caritate exinanitum, caritate minoratum ab Angelis, caritate parentibus subditum, caritate Baptistae manibus inclinatum, caritate carnis infirma passum, caritate postremo morti obnoxium, cruce inglorium exstitisse». Ex quo concludit, quod mera voluntate in horum recompensationem debet homo homini propriam subdere voluntatem. — Et in hoc vere perfectio consistit, cum quis voluntatem libertatis pro ipso donat, quae est impretiabile bonum[^p186-4], quo nihil maius ab homine dari potest; qua data, et omnia dantur. Unde si perfectum vere dicitur «cui nihil deest», quod etiam «propriam virtutem attingit[^p186-5]»; in hoc potissime convenit consummatio perfectionis, ita ut inchoetur ab abrenuntiatione bonorum temporalium per paupertatem, proficiat in castificatione membrorum corporalium per castitatem; consummetur autem in dedicatione virtutum interiorum et mentalium per voluntatis abnegationem et votum obedientiae, in qua proprie dicitur homo semetipsum abnegare, iuxta illud Domini, Lucae nono[^p186-6]: *Si quis vult venire post me, abneget semetipsum et tollat crucem suam et sequatur me;* ubi praecipue et potissime votum obedientiae commendatur.

Ex his igitur liquide colligitur, quod cum sint tria consilia evangelica, secundum bonum exterius, inferius et interius, quae opponuntur triplici origini vitiorum[^p186-7]; triplex debet esse votum integrativum perfectionis evangelicae, scilicet paupertatis, continentiae et obedientiae, inter quae obedientia, sicut iam ostensum est, dat toti perfectioni evangelicae altissimum et nobilissimum complementum. — Unde et concedendae sunt rationes, quae hoc ostendunt.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur primo, quod lex evangelica est lex libertatis, quae repugnat necessitati; dicendum, quod duplex est necessitas: una est *coactionis,* et altera *tentionis.* Prima repugnat, secunda non. Nam praeceptum obligat, sicut et votum, et ipsum non excludit libertatem legis evangelicae; dicitur ergo lex Evangelii esse *lex libertatis,* non per exclusionem *obligationis* ex praecepto seu voto venientis, sed per exclusionem *oneris servitutis* legalis ex timore servili procedentis[^p186-8].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Anselmo, quod in pristinam libertatem Christus redimendo hominem revocavit; dicendum, quod illud intelligitur respectu totalis speciei, non respectu cuiuslibet individui. Nam onus servitutis corporalis stare potest cum gratia Spiritus sancti et Sacramento baptismi[^p186-9]; ac per hoc multo fortius onus subiectionis voluntariae, quod ex mera voluntate manat, libertati gratiae non repugnat.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod servitia, quanto minus debita, tanto magis grata; dicendum, quod ratio debiti est duplex: una, quae venit ex promissione liberali; alia, quae venit ex obligatione pacti et commercii mercimonialis. Prima in nullo repugnat

<!-- page 187 -->

gratiositati obsequii, sed solum secunda. Et ratio huius est: quia, licet secunda fundetur super amorem privatum et mercenarium, prima fundatur super amorem liberalissimum, quo aliquis non solum vult offerre Deo arboris fructum, verum etiam stipitem et radicem. Unde sicut exemplificat Anselmus[^p187-1] de duobus, quorum unus offert Deo arboris fructum, proprietatem sibi reservans; alter vero offert utrumque; et ille magis placet, qui utrumque offert: sic et in proposito intelligendum est.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod lex evangelica est iugum suave; dicendum, quod duplex est onus, scilicet onus *aggravans,* et onus *vigorans* et adminiculans, et per consequens allevians et supportans. Iugum igitur obedientiae, superadditum evangelicae sarcinae, simile est oneri non gravanti, sed confortanti; sicut currus non aggravat pondus equi, sed alleviat, et multitudo pennarum aves sursum potius sublevat, quam deorsum trahat[^p187-2]: sic et obedientia, quae superponit hominem simili, pondus superbiae et arrogantiae, quod veniebat ex amore proprii sensus et propriae voluntatis, excludit, quod maxime repugnabat evangelicae perfectioni; ideo ad illam ferendam habilem facit et agilem.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod lex evangelica non compatitur secum servitutem legis scriptae; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia servitus caeremonialium et iudicialium praeceptorum a nova lege dissonat et propter velamina figurarum et propter gravamina poenarum affligentium; ideo lex Evangelii, quae introducta est per Christum, per quem *facta est gratia et veritas*[^p187-3], excludit utrumque genus illorum praeceptorum et servitutem in observantia eorundem, non propter difficultatem, sed propter imperfectionem. Quoniam ergo, licet difficile sit homini obedire, haec difficultas non repugnat nec veritati nec gratiae nec perfectae virtuti, quae est «circa arduum et difficile»; non repugnat per consequens evangelicae perfectioni, immo potius complementum dat illi.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod grave est obedire mandatis divinis; iam patet responsio: quia, sicut ostensum est, gravitas et difficultas operis perfectioni evangelicae potius consonat, quam repugnet; et ille vere perfectus est, qui gravia portat cum promptitudine voluntatis.

7. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Christo, dicendum, quod Christus, quantum conveniebat redemptioni humani generis, hominibus se subiecit, et hoc voluntate optima et perfecta; et quia voluntas eius in bono confirmata erat nec erat vertibilis, sicut nostra: ideo non erat opus, quod esset per votum astricta.

8. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod additio voti non facit ad complementum obedientiae, quae non fuit in Christo; iam patet responsio: quia in Christo fuit aliquid loco voti tam respectu obedientiae quam paupertatis quam castitatis, scilicet *confirmata voluntas,* quae est excellentior voto[^p187-4]; et quia ad illam accedimus per propositi roborationem et voti emissionem: hinc est, quod votum, nos astringendo et quodam modo roborando, sua inviolabilitate reddit conformes Christo; et ideo perfectionis cumulus crescit ex ipso, licet in Christo non fuerit secundum emissionem vocalis verbi.

9. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tale votum obedientiae non fuit in Apostolis; dicendum, quod tripliciter contingit loqui de obedientia, scilicet quantum ad *actum* et *habitum* et *modum.* Fuit igitur in Apostolis promptitudo obediendi per *habitum* perfectum; fuit etiam *actus,* quo Christo obedientes fuerunt usque ad mortem et ad diversa genera tormentorum, ita quod non solum obedientes fuerunt ad *operationes* exsequendas, verum etiam ad *passiones* sustinendas. *Modus* autem obedientiae, quo quis subiiciat se alii tanquam praelato, non fuit eis competens nisi pro tempore, quo fuerunt cum Christo; quia ipsi erant praelati Ecclesiae et a plenitudine Spiritus sancti agebantur, et recti alios gubernabant. Fuerunt tamen et ipsi prius obedientes ipsi Christo, et post reverentiam debitam exhibebant Apostolo Petro[^p187-5]; et ideo ex hoc concludi non potest nec debet, obedientiam non debere voveri ab illis potissime, quibus competit ab aliis gubernari.

10. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod praesumtuosum sit vovere, quia aut reputat se sufficientem etc.; dicendum, quod attribuere sufficientiam virtutibus suis et libero arbitrio, hoc praesumtionis est respectu quantumcumque parvi boni, cum dicat Apostolus secundae ad Corinthios tertio[^p187-6]: *Non quod simus sufficientes* etc.; sed attribuere hoc gratiae divinae, quam sperat sibi non defuturam propter divinam munificentiam, non est hoc praesumtionis, sed fiduciae et certitudinis spei, qua credimus, Deum adiutorem esse homini, qui vult suis consiliis adhaerere. Propter quod et idem Apostolus statim post praemissum verbum subiungit: *Sufficientia nostra ex Deo est;* et idem, ad Philippenses ultimo: *Omnia possum in eo qui me confortat;* et hac spe debet fulciri qui, divino afflatus Spiritu, evangelicorum consiliorum perfectionem non tantum proponit, verum etiam vovendo promittit.

11. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod profiteri, se esse perfectum, est praesumtuosum; dicendum, quod est perfectio quantum ad *meritum* et quantum ad

<!-- page 188 -->

*statum.* Profiteri, se esse perfectum quantum ad *meritum,* hoc praesumtionis est, non perfectionis, cum Paulus dicat ad Philippenses tertio[^p188-1]: *Non quod iam perfectus sim.* Profiteri autem se perfectum quantum ad *statum* non est praesumtionis, quia hoc ponit laudem non circa ipsam *personam* in se, quae potest esse culpabilis per merita propria, sed circa *vitam communem* et modum vivendi per Christi oris consilium approbatum.

12. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod superbia est velle praeesse viro iusto; dicendum, quod praeesse alii potest quis velle dupliciter: vel quia vult praeesse *simpliciter,* vel quia vult praeesse *sublimiter* per amorem excellentiae propriae[^p188-2]; et sic voluntas haec depravata est et in illo qui vult, et in aliis, qui sibi consentiunt, sicut fuit in lucifero et daemonibus ceteris adhaerentibus sibi. — Alio modo vult aliquis praeesse, ut praesit *utiliter,* per amorem reipublicae et universalis Ecclesiae, excitatus spiritu caritatis supernae; et hoc modo nec ipse peccat, nec alii, qui sibi consentiunt, cum Deus sic ordinaverit corpus Christi mysticum gubernandum secundum praecellentias graduum, officiorum et dignitatum.

13. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod periculosum est committere se homini ignoto ex toto; dicendum, quod si quis committeret se, nulla lege, nulla norma, nulla regula praefixa, sed in omnem eventum, hoc absque dubio esset stultum; cum autem quis vovet obedientiam secundum formam regulae approbatam, nullum est ibi periculum: quia, cum sint quaedam *secundum* regulam, quaedam *citra* regulam, quaedam *supra* regulam, quaedam *contra* regulam; ad prima se astringit etiam sine mandato superioris, ad secunda vero ex mandato, ad tertia autem non astringitur, nisi velit ex perfectione facere, sicut dicit beatus Benedictus[^p188-3], quod utique perfecte obediens aggredi debet, si sibi imponatur etiam impossibile; quod tamen non est necessitatis, sed supererogationis ipsis etiam perfectis. Quod autem est *contra regulam* nullo modo, nullo pacto per obedientiam astringitur observare[^p188-4]; similiter et quod est *contra legem Dei,* quale est omne, quod vergit in dispendium nostrae salutis vel divini honoris: et ideo nullum incurrit periculum in emittendo votum secundum modum praedictum.

14. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod quanto homo maioribus et pluribus astringitur, tanto est in maioribus periculis constitutus; dicendum, quod hoc est verum, ceteris paribus; sed hic non sunt cetera paria, quia in emissione voti gratia iuvans additur, opportunitas peccandi diminuitur, et vis impellens in periculum enervatur, quia, quanto quis magis recedit a mundanis et accedit ad Christum, tanto minus periculorum mundanorum laqueis implicatur, ac per hoc liberior et securior ad caelestia sublevatur.

15. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod lex evangelica amovet iuramentum; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia iuramentum de se propinquum est malo et modicae utilitatis est[^p188-5]; votum autem perfectionis propinquissimum est bono et optimo, ac per hoc maximae utilitatis; et ideo a lege Evangelii vetari non debet, sed potius suaderi.

16. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod imperfectum est, quia fit, alio imperante, sicut peccatum est minus, quod fit, alio suggerente; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia impulsio ad *peccatum* minuit rationem peccati, quia diminuit rationem voluntarii[^p188-6]; sed imperium respectu *boni* rationem voluntarii non minuit, quia ex mera caritate et voluntate imperium fieri potest; unde salva libertate voluntatis, facit ad complementum voluntatis, ac per hoc ad culmen perfectionis meriti perfecti.

17. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tanto quis perfectius movetur, quanto immediatius movetur in Deum; dicendum, quod illud habet veritatem in his qui ita plene iuncti sunt Deo, quod non indigent aliquo medio *deducente*[^p188-7], sicut sunt Beati in patria. In his autem, qui sunt in statu viae et indigent per gradus ascendere, non habet hoc veritatem, immo melius conscendunt, et non inordinate[^p188-8] mediantibus gradibus creaturarum perveniunt ab imo usque ad summum — propter quod etiam oramus non solum Deum, sed etiam Sanctos, ut per ipsos deducamur in Deum — sic etiam voluit Deus, quod homo homini subderetur, ut per hominis ministerium reduceretur in ipsum, et meritum obedientiae augeretur.

<!-- page 189 -->

18. Ad illud quod obiicitur de anachoretis, dicendum, quod anachoretae per obedientiam eligebantur; et hoc quidem non concedebatur nisi adeo iam probatis in observantia obedientiae regularis, ut indubitanter esse crederentur idonei ad immediatum regimen Spiritus sancti interius gubernantis[^p189-1]; ad quod pervenire nequaquam potuissent, nisi per subiectionem voluntariam ad obediendum homini se primitus astrinxissent.

19. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod per hoc clauditur infirmo via salutis; dicendum, quod falsum est; sed de multis viis, in quibus vagari potest et etiam aberrare, aliqua certior et melior eligitur tanquam compendiosa via et efficacior medicina.

20. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod pluribus se subiicere maioris perfectionis est; dicendum, quod istud est verum per reverentiam et condescensionem benignitatis et exhibitionem honoris, non autem est verum per votum obedientiae et professionem regularem, quia secundum hanc certis personis debent certi homines subiici, ut in omnibus vitetur confusio, et rectitudo ordinis observetur.

english:
<!-- page 183 -->

### Article II. *Whether it is consonant with evangelical perfection that one bind himself by vow to obeying another.*

Secondly it is asked whether it is consonant with evangelical perfection that one bind himself by vow to obeying another. And it seems that it is not.

1. For the evangelical law is a law of liberty[^p183-2]; but to place oneself under a man by vow is a matter of necessity: therefore to bind oneself by vow to obeying a man is repugnant to the liberty of the evangelical law.

2. Again, Anselm, in the book *Why God Became Man*[^p183-3]: «God willed to redeem man through himself, so as to call man back into his pristine liberty»; but in the state of pristine liberty no one was bound to obey another: therefore he who has been brought back to his pristine liberty through the Redeemer ought to be bound to obey no one.

3. Again, Gregory[^p183-4]: «Services, the less they are owed, the more welcome they are»: therefore *by the opposites,* the more they are owed, the less welcome; but one who binds himself by vow to obeying a man is held to obey him: therefore this man is less pleasing to God. But that through which a man is made less pleasing to God is contrary to evangelical perfection: therefore etc.

4. Again, the evangelical law is *a sweet yoke and a light burden*[^p183-5]; but it is heavy for a man to comply in all things: therefore to bind oneself to obeying a man does not accord with the lightness of evangelical perfection.

5. Again, the evangelical law, because it is *a light burden,* does not bear along with itself the burden and servitude of the written law: therefore, since it is heavier to obey the precepts of a man without distinction than to comply with the determinate ceremonies and precepts of the old law, it seems that to bind oneself to obeying a man cannot stand with evangelical perfection.

6. Again, it is heavy to obey the divine commands: therefore it is far heavier to obey divine and human commands alike; but he who by vow subjects himself to a man binds himself[^p183-6] to that man's commands: therefore etc.

7. Again, Luke the sixth[^p183-7]: *Every one shall be perfect, if he be as his master;* but of Christ it is not read that he was under another by vow: therefore to place oneself under another by vow is not perfect, but rather, as it seems, superstitious.

8. Again, if the vow of obedience increases the perfection of the virtue of obedience, then, since that degree was not in Christ, it seems that one who fulfils this degree is more perfect than Christ; but this is absurd and unfitting: therefore it is also unfitting to say that to subject oneself to another by vow[^p183-8] increases the perfection of the virtue of obedience.

9. Again, the Apostles had evangelical perfection in themselves most of all; but they vowed obedience to no one: therefore etc.

10. Again, it seems that to do this is *presumptuous:* because either such a man *reckons* himself sufficient for fulfilling the divine commands, or *not.* If *not:* then he acts foolishly, since, being bound to the divine precepts, he obliges himself to fulfilling human commands as well; but if he *reckons* himself sufficient for fulfilling the divine commands, he is presumptuous: therefore to oblige himself further to the commands of a man seems the greater judgment of presumption.

<!-- page 184 -->

11. Again, if to vow this belongs to perfection, then he who professes it professes himself to be perfect; but this is presumptuous: therefore etc.

12. Again, to will to be over a just and perfect man is pride and presumption: therefore to consent to another and to cooperate with him that he may be over us is to consent to pride and presumption; but he who binds himself to obeying another consents to him and cooperates with him that he may be over him: therefore etc.

13. Again, this seems to be *dangerous:* because to commit oneself to a man of whose knowledge and conscience one is ignorant is a danger; but he who binds himself by vow to obeying a man is frequently ignorant whether he is wise, or good, or as to his knowledge and conscience: therefore etc.

14. Again, the more and the greater the things a man is bound to, the greater the dangers in which he is placed; but he who vows obedience to a man is bound to more things than he was bound to before: therefore he is exposed to greater dangers: therefore etc.

15. Again, the evangelical law dissuades from an oath because of the danger of perjury[^p184-1]; but he who vows obedience to a man is in danger of transgressing the vow: therefore such a man exposes himself to peril.

16. Again, it is shown that this is *imperfect.* For he who sins at another's suggestion sins less than he who sins at his own motion's prompting[^p184-2]: therefore likewise he who obeys at another's command merits less than he who acts of his own accord, or at God's command alone: therefore he who binds himself by vow to obeying another acts more imperfectly than he who does not bind himself; but what diminishes perfection is dissonant from the evangelical law: therefore etc.

17. Again, the more immediately one is borne into God, the more perfectly one is moved; but he who obeys God alone is borne more immediately into God than he who subjects himself to a man: therefore etc.

18. Again, the best kind of monks is that of the anchorites, according to what blessed Benedict says at the beginning of his Rule[^p184-3]; but such men were not bound by vow to obeying a man: therefore to subject oneself to another out of a vow does not belong to evangelical perfection.

19. Again, he who closes off the way of health to a sick man does not care for perfection, but withdraws from perfection; but he who binds[^p184-4] himself by vow to obeying another closes off to himself many ways to salvation, since before the vow such a man could be saved in many other ways, which he cannot after the vow: therefore such a man acts most imperfectly.

20. Again, the more one subjects oneself to more persons, the more humbly and perfectly one acts; but he who *vows obedience to several* acts badly: therefore to vow obedience to another belongs neither to humility nor to perfection.

Sᴇᴅ ᴄᴏɴᴛʀᴀ, this is objected thus. 1. Matthew the third[^p184-5]: *So it becometh us to fulfil all justice;* the Gloss: «Perfect humility has three degrees: the first is to place oneself under a greater, the second to place oneself under an equal, the third to place oneself under a lesser, in which is all justice; and this Christ fulfilled»: therefore, if perfect justice is to place oneself under another, and this is done most of all through the vow of obedience, it seems that this is most consonant with evangelical perfection.

2. Again, the first of Peter, the second[^p184-6]: *Be ye subject to every human creature for God's sake:* therefore the more efficaciously one does this, the more perfectly one acts; but he who subjects himself to another by vow does this most efficaciously: therefore such a man acts most perfectly.

3. Again, Gregory[^p184-7]: «It is more to leave oneself than one's own things»; but he who leaves his own things for God's sake acts perfectly: therefore he who leaves his very self acts more perfectly. But this is done most of all in the abnegation of the will through the vow of obedience: therefore etc.

4. Again, Anselm[^p184-8]: «As the will of God is the origin of all good, so one's own will is the origin of all evil»; but he who perfectly removes the origin of all evil acts most perfectly: therefore he who wholly abnegates his own will through the vow of obedience acts most perfectly.

5. Again, Hugh[^p184-9]: «Obedience is a virtue which, one's own will being set aside, embraces in mind the things enjoined, to be fulfilled in deed»; but he who vows obedience to another sets aside his own will most of all: therefore etc.

6. Again, Bernard, in the forty-second homily on the Canticle[^p184-10]: «It is little to be subject to God, unless thou be subject also to every human creature for God's sake: to place thyself under equals, to place thyself under lesser men; *for so it becometh us to fulfil all justice*»; but this is done most of all by binding oneself by vow to obeying another: therefore etc.

<!-- page 185 -->

7. Again, *sufficient justice* is to keep the divine commands, therefore *abundant*[^p185-1] justice is, over and above these, to keep human ones; but this he does who subjects himself to another for obeying.

8. Again, *humility* is consonant with evangelical perfection: therefore the highest humility is most consonant with it; but to bind oneself by vow to obeying another belongs to the highest humility: therefore etc.

9. Again, *liberality* is consonant with evangelical perfection; but this is the highest liberality, when a man for God's sake gives not only his own things[^p185-2], but his very self, setting aside his own will, through the vow of obedience: therefore etc.

10. Again, *conformity to Christ* is consonant with evangelical perfection; but Christ of pure liberality subjected himself to a man, Luke the second[^p185-3]: *And he was subject to them:* therefore to subject one's very self to another makes one conformed to Christ. But this is done most of all through the vow of obedience: therefore etc.

11. Again, what removes us farthest from the world is most consonant with evangelical perfection; but to bind oneself by vow to obeying a man removes us farthest from the world, because *all that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh, or the concupiscence of the eyes, or the pride of life*[^p185-4], from which we are removed farthest through the vow of obedience: therefore etc.

12. Again, what removes us farthest from the devil looks most of all to evangelical perfection; but to will to be under and not to be over removes us farthest from the devil's sin, who willed utterly to be over without being under[^p185-5]: therefore etc.

13. Again, everything that *conforms us to the heavenly hierarchy* is consonant with evangelical perfection; but in the heavenly hierarchy we see that one Angel subjects himself by obeying to another, and the Angels of the lower orders obey the Angels of the higher without repugnance[^p185-6]: therefore in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, that one man subject himself by obeying to another conforms us to the heavenly order, and through this is most consonant with evangelical perfection.

CONCLUSION.

> *To bind oneself by vow to obeying another, not in every event, but to those things which are consonant with the evangelical counsels, is constitutive, expeditive and consummative of perfection.*

Rᴇsᴘᴏɴᴅᴇᴏ: For the understanding of what has been said it is to be noted that a man can bind himself to obeying another man in two ways: either in every event and to all the good pleasure of that man's will, or to those things which are consonant with the evangelical counsels according to some determinate norm of living, derived from the fount of the evangelical law. In the first way it is neither perfect nor consonant with perfection, but rather rash and foolish; in the second way it is perfect, because this is both *constitutive* and *expeditive* and *consummative* of perfection. For to vow obedience to a man in this way is both a *constitutive part* of that perfection and a *preambular way* and its *ultimate completion.* — A *constitutive* part, I say, it is, because it is itself one of those three evangelical counsels in which the integrity of evangelical perfection principally consists.

It is a *preambular way,* because those counsels can be kept better and more perfectly and more expeditiously when one is supported by another's fellowship and help and example than if he is left to himself alone. But fellowship does not help unless it is peaceful; nor can it be peaceful unless it is connected and ordered[^p185-7]; and this cannot be except through the reduction of many wills to the command of one, at whose nod they are ordered and directed and consequently connected.

It is also the *ultimate completion,* for this reason, that in it is most fully completed that *abundant* justice, of which kind evangelical justice is, according to that saying of Matthew the fifth[^p185-8]: *Unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.* — For there is a threefold act of justice, namely *to rectify, to co-ordinate* and *to recompense.* For justice is nothing else than a will *right, ordered* and *recompensing,* since through it «there is rendered to each one what is his own», according to what belongs to *the rectitude of right* and *the dignity of order.* — The perfect *rectification,* therefore, of abundant justice is attended to according to the conformity of the will to truth; but truth humbles each one, so that he think of himself lesser things than of another. He, therefore, is perfectly and abundantly rectified who, according to what truth dictates, not unwillingly but voluntarily humbles his own will under another and in a certain way reduces and takes it captive into a kind of servitude[^p185-9]; which indeed is done through the obedience shown to another man, which is most repugnant to the arrogance and ambition by which one wishes to prefer himself to others. Whence Bernard, in the forty-second homily on the Canticle[^p185-10]: «Fear God and do not do this most evil thing,

<!-- page 186 -->

that the will exalt him whom truth humbles. Rather acquiesce to God, and let thy will be subject to truth».

The perfect *ordination* also, according to the rule of abundant justice, is that not only the inferior place himself under the superior, and the equal under the equal, but that even the superior voluntarily place himself under the inferior, according to what is said in Matthew the third[^p186-1]: *So it becometh us to fulfil all justice;* where the Gloss says: «*So,* by placing himself under a servant and an inferior, *all justice,* that is humility, which is all justice, *it becometh him to fulfil.* — And this humility has three degrees: the first, to place oneself under a greater, and this is called *sufficient;* the second is to place oneself under an equal, and this is called *abundant;* the third is to be under a lesser, in which is *all justice.* This Christ fulfilled». Since, therefore, a man is then perfectly subjected to a man when he binds himself voluntarily to obey another's commands in those things which are according to God, and most of all the commands of one[^p186-2] who was no greater than he, but either equal, and sometimes even lesser — because every man exceeds another in something, at least according to the soul — hence it is that to the perfection of *ordering* justice according to the way of the order of *deigning,* which runs according to the law of grace, whereby the greater reckons himself the lesser, obedience which is shown by one man to another contributes, and does very much.

The perfect *recompensation* of abundant justice, nonetheless, is attended to in this, that one render the whole to him who gave the whole. Since, therefore, Christ the Lord not only gave *us* to ourselves, but also gave *himself* to us; and for our sake not only made himself man, but also subjected himself to men: hence it is that, in order that, according to the measure of our weakness, we may *recompense,* as far as we can, not only God but also man, it is fitting that we place under him not only what we have and our members, but also what we are, that is our will. Whence Bernard, on the Canticle[^p186-3]: «It is certain that God was emptied out by charity, made less than the Angels by charity, subject to his parents by charity, bowed under the Baptist's hands by charity, suffering in the weakness of the flesh by charity, at last subject to death by charity, inglorious on the cross». From which he concludes that of pure will a man ought, in recompense for these things, to place his own will under a man. — And in this perfection truly consists, when one gives for his sake the will of liberty, which is a priceless good[^p186-4], than which nothing greater can be given by a man; and when that is given, all things are given too. Whence, if that is truly called perfect «which lacks nothing», and which also «attains its own virtue[^p186-5]», in this most of all does the consummation of perfection meet, so that it is begun from the renunciation of temporal goods through poverty, advances in the chastening of the bodily members through chastity, and is consummated in the dedication of the interior and mental virtues through the abnegation of the will and the vow of obedience, in which a man is properly said to abnegate himself, according to that word of the Lord in Luke the ninth[^p186-6]: *If any man will come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me;* where the vow of obedience is chiefly and most of all commended.

From these things, therefore, it is clearly gathered that, since there are three evangelical counsels, according to the exterior, the lower and the interior good, which are opposed to the threefold origin of vices[^p186-7], the vow which is integrative of evangelical perfection must be threefold, namely of poverty, of continence and of obedience; among which obedience, as has now been shown, gives to the whole of evangelical perfection its highest and noblest complement. — Whence the reasons which show this are to be conceded.

1. To that which is objected first, that the evangelical law is a law of liberty, which is repugnant to necessity; it must be said that necessity is twofold: one is of *coercion,* and the other of *holding.* The first is repugnant to it, the second is not. For a precept obliges, just as a vow does, and it does not exclude the liberty of the evangelical law; the law of the Gospel is therefore called *the law of liberty,* not by the exclusion of the *obligation* which comes from a precept or a vow, but by the exclusion of the *burden of legal servitude* proceeding from servile fear[^p186-8].

2. To that which is objected from Anselm, that Christ, by redeeming man, called him back into his pristine liberty; it must be said that this is understood in respect of the whole species, not in respect of any particular individual. For the burden of bodily servitude can stand together with the grace of the Holy Spirit and the Sacrament of baptism[^p186-9]; 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 services, the less they are owed, the more welcome they are; it must be said that the account of what is owed is twofold: one which comes from a liberal promise; another which comes from the obligation of a pact and of merchant commerce. The first is in no way repugnant

<!-- page 187 -->

to the graciousness of the service, but only the second. And the reason of this is that, although the second is founded upon a private and mercenary love, the first is founded upon a 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 illustrates it[^p187-1] by two men, of whom one offers to God the fruit of the tree, reserving the property to himself, while the other offers both; and he is the more pleasing who offers both: so it is to be understood in the matter proposed.

4. To that which is objected, that the evangelical law is a sweet yoke; it must be said that a burden is twofold, namely a burden which *weighs down,* and a burden which *gives vigour* and supports, and consequently lightens and bears up. The yoke of obedience, therefore, added upon the evangelical burden, is like a burden which does not weigh down but comforts; just as a cart does not weigh down the horse's load, but lightens it, and the multitude of feathers lifts birds upward rather than drags them down[^p187-2]: so also obedience, which sets a man over one like himself, excludes the weight of pride and arrogance which came from the love of one's own sense and one's own will, which was most repugnant to evangelical perfection; and therefore it makes him fit and nimble for bearing that perfection.

5. To that which is objected, that the evangelical law does not bear along with itself the servitude of the written law; it must be said that the case is not alike: because the servitude of the ceremonial and judicial precepts is dissonant from the new law both because of the veils of the figures and because of the burdens of afflicting penalties; therefore the law of the Gospel, which was introduced through Christ, through whom *grace and truth were made*[^p187-3], excludes both kinds of those precepts and the servitude in the observance of them, not because of their difficulty, but because of their 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 «about the arduous and difficult»; consequently it is not repugnant to evangelical perfection, but rather gives it its complement.

6. To that which is objected, that it is heavy to obey the divine commands; the answer is already clear: because, as has been shown, the heaviness 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 that which is objected concerning Christ, it must be said that Christ, as far as was fitting for the redemption of the human race, subjected himself to men, and this by a will most good and perfect; and because his will was confirmed in the good and was not changeable, as ours is: therefore there was no need that it be bound by a vow.

8. To that which is objected, that the addition of a vow does not contribute to the complement of obedience, which was not in Christ; the answer is already clear: because in Christ there was something in place of a vow, in respect of obedience as much as of poverty and of chastity, namely *a confirmed will,* which is more excellent than a vow[^p187-4]; and because we approach to that confirmed will through the strengthening of our purpose and the emission of a vow: hence it is that the vow, by binding us and in a certain way strengthening us, by its inviolability renders us conformed to Christ; and therefore the heaping up of perfection grows from it, although in Christ it was not present according to the emission of a spoken word.

9. To that which is objected, that such a vow of obedience was not in the Apostles; it must be said that it is possible to speak of obedience in three ways, namely as to *act* and *habit* and *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 unto death and unto diverse kinds of torments, so that they were obedient not only for *operations* to be carried out, but also for *passions* to be endured. But the *mode* of obedience, by which one subjects himself to another as to a prelate, did not belong to them except for the time during which they were with Christ; because they themselves were the prelates of the Church and were acted upon by the fulness of the Holy Spirit, and rightly governed others. Yet they too were first obedient to Christ himself, and afterwards showed the reverence due to the Apostle Peter[^p187-5]; and therefore from this it cannot and ought not to be concluded that obedience is not to be vowed, most of all by those to whom it belongs to be governed by others.

10. To that which is objected, that it is presumptuous to vow, because either one reckons himself sufficient etc.; it must be said that to attribute sufficiency to one's own virtues and free choice is a matter of presumption in respect of however small a good, since the Apostle says in the second to the Corinthians, the third[^p187-6]: *Not that we are sufficient* etc.; but to attribute this to the divine grace, which he hopes will not fail him because of the divine munificence, is not a matter of presumption, but of confidence and of the certitude of hope, by which we believe that God is a helper to the man who wills to adhere to his counsels. For which reason the same Apostle straightway after the foregoing word subjoins: *Our sufficiency is from God;* and the same, in the last chapter to the Philippians: *I can do all things in him who strengtheneth me;* and by this hope he ought to be supported who, breathed upon 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 to be perfect is presumptuous; it must be said that there is a perfection as to *merit* and as to

<!-- page 188 -->

*state.* To profess oneself to be perfect as to *merit* is a matter of presumption, not of perfection, since Paul says to the Philippians, the third[^p188-1]: *Not as though I were already perfect.* But to profess oneself perfect as to *state* is not a matter of presumption, because this places the praise not about the *person* himself, who can be blameworthy through his own merits, but about 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 will to be over a just man; it must be said that one can will to be over another in two ways: either because he wills to be over him *simply,* or because he wills to be over him *loftily,* through love of his own excellence[^p188-2]; and thus this will is depraved both in him who wills it and in the others who consent to him, as it was in Lucifer and in the other demons adhering to him. — In another way someone wills to be over others in order to be over them *usefully,* through love of the commonwealth and of the universal Church, roused by the spirit of supernal 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 be governed according to the pre-eminences of ranks, offices and dignities.

13. To that which is objected, that it is dangerous to commit oneself wholly to an unknown man; it must be said that if someone were to commit himself with no law, no norm, no rule laid down beforehand, but in every event, this without doubt would be foolish; but when someone vows obedience according to the form of an approved rule, there is no danger in it: because, since some things are *according to* the rule, some *short of* the rule, some *above* the rule, some *against* the rule; to the first he binds himself even without the superior's mandate, to the second by mandate, but to the third he is not bound unless he wills to do it out of perfection, as blessed Benedict says[^p188-3], that one who is perfectly obedient ought by all means to attempt it, if even the impossible be imposed upon him; which nevertheless is not a matter of necessity, but of supererogation, even for the perfect themselves. But what is *against the rule* he is in no way, by no pact, bound through obedience to observe[^p188-4]; and likewise what is *against the law of God,* which is everything that tends to the loss of our salvation or of the divine honour: and therefore he incurs no danger in emitting a vow according to the aforesaid mode.

14. To that which is objected, that the more and the greater the things a man is bound to, the greater the dangers in which he is placed; it must be said that this is true, other things being equal; but here the other things are not equal, because in the emission of the vow helping grace is added, the opportunity of sinning is lessened, and the force impelling into danger is weakened; because the more one withdraws from worldly things and draws near to Christ, the less he is entangled in the snares of worldly dangers, and through this is the more freely and securely lifted up to heavenly things.

15. To that which is objected, that the evangelical law removes the oath; it must be said that the case is not alike: because an oath is of itself close to evil and is of slight usefulness[^p188-5]; but the vow of perfection is closest to the good and the best, and through this of the greatest usefulness; and therefore it ought not to be forbidden by the law of the Gospel, but rather counselled.

16. To that which is objected, that it is imperfect, because it is done at another's command, just as a sin is less which is done at another's suggestion; it must be said that the case is not alike: because an impulsion to *sin* lessens the account of the sin, because it diminishes the account of the voluntary[^p188-6]; but a command in respect of a *good* does not diminish the account of the voluntary, since a command can be made out of pure charity and will; whence, the liberty of the will being safe, it contributes to the complement of the will, and through this to the summit of the merit of the perfect.

17. To that which is objected, that the more immediately one is moved into God, the more perfectly one is moved; it must be said that this holds true in those who are so fully joined to God that they need no *leading* medium[^p188-7], as are the Blessed in the fatherland. But in those who are in the state of the way and need to ascend by degrees it does not hold true; rather they climb better, and not inordinately[^p188-8], when they come by the mediating degrees of creatures from the lowest up to the highest — for which reason we also pray not only to God but also to the Saints, that through them we may be led into God — thus also God willed that man be placed under man, so that through the ministry of a man he might be led back into him, and the merit of obedience be increased.

<!-- page 189 -->

18. To that which is objected concerning the anchorites, it must be said that anchorites were chosen through obedience; and this indeed was not granted except to those already so tested in the observance of regular obedience that they were believed to be, without doubt, fit for the immediate rule of the Holy Spirit governing them within[^p189-1]; to which they could by no means have come, unless they had first bound themselves by voluntary subjection to obeying a man.

19. To that which is objected, that through this the way of health is closed off to the weak; it must be said that this is false; but of the many ways in which one can wander and even go astray, some more certain and better one is chosen, as a shorter way and a more efficacious medicine.

20. To that which is objected, that to subject oneself to several is of greater perfection; it must be said that this is true in the way of reverence and of the condescension of kindness and the showing of honour, but it is not true in the way of the vow of obedience and of regular profession, because according to this determinate men must be subjected to determinate persons, so that in all things confusion may be avoided and the rectitude of order preserved.

la: Cfr. Gal. 4, 22. seqq.

en: Compare Gal. 4:22 ff.

la: Libr. I. c. 5: An non intelligis, quia quaecumque alia persona [quam persona divina] hominem a morte aeterna redimeret, eius servus idem homo recte iudicaretur? Quod si esset, nullatenus restauraturus esset in illam dignitatem, quam habiturus erat, si non peccasset; cum ipse, qui non nisi Dei servus et aequalis Angelis bonis per omnia futurus erat, servus esset eius, qui Deus non esset, et cuius Angeli servi non essent.

en: Book I, c. 5: Do you not understand that, if any other person [than a divine person] were to redeem man from eternal death, that same man would rightly be judged the servant of that person? And if this were so, he would in no way be restored to that dignity which he was to have had, if he had not sinned; since he who was to be the servant of none but God and equal to the good Angels in all things would be the servant of one who was not God, and whose servants the Angels were not.

la: Haec sententia ab aliis, v. g. Guliel. Antissiodor., S. p. III. tr. 8. c. 2. q. 2, *Augustino* attribuitur, et, ut videtur, elicitur ex illis August. verbis: «Tales enim servos suos meliores esse Deus iudicavit, si ei servirent *liberaliter*» (de Vera Relig. c. 14. n. 27.); de quo cfr. III. Sent. d. 37. a. 1. q. 1. arg. 3. et 4. ad oppos. Ambros., Serm. 13. n. 3. et Serm. 14. n. 24. in Ps. 118. docet, quod «Dominus operationes servulorum spontaneas probat potius quam coactas»; et in Serm. 41. (inter Serm. hactenus Ambrosio ascriptos) n. 1. ait: Et cum utique acceptius voluntarium obsequium esse soleat, quam coactum, et servitium plus placeat, non quod imperio exigitur, sed quod sponte defertur, cur ergo etc. De Gregor. cfr. XV. Moral. c. 18. n. 22.

en: This opinion is by others — for example by William of Auxerre, *Summa,* part III, tr. 8, c. 2, q. 2 — attributed to *Augustine,* and, as it seems, is drawn out of those words of Augustine: «For God judged that his servants were better if they served him *liberally*» (*On True Religion,* c. 14, n. 27); on which compare III *Sent.* d. 37, a. 1, q. 1, arguments 3 and 4 to the contrary. Ambrose, *Sermon* 13, n. 3, and *Sermon* 14, n. 24, on Ps. 118, teaches that «the Lord approves the spontaneous works of his little servants rather than the coerced ones»; and in *Sermon* 41 (among the sermons hitherto ascribed to Ambrose), n. 1, he says: And since a voluntary service is wont to be more acceptable than a coerced one, and that servitude pleases more which is not exacted by command but offered of its own accord, why then etc. Concerning Gregory, compare *Morals* XV, c. 18, n. 22.

la: Matth. 11, 30: Iugum enim meum suave est et onus meum leve.

en: Matt. 11:30: For my yoke is sweet and my burden light.

la: Supplevimus *se,* vel substituendum *astringitur.*

en: We have supplied *se* ["himself"]; or *astringitur* ["is bound"] is to be substituted.

la: Vers. 40: Perfectus autem omnis erit etc.

en: Verse 40: But every one shall be perfect etc.

la: D *subdere.*

en: D reads *subdere* ["to place under"].

la: Matth. 5, 34: Ego autem dico vobis, non iurare omnino etc. Cfr. Iac. 5, 12, et III. Sent. d. 39. a. 2. q. 1. seq.

en: Matt. 5:34: But I say to you not to swear at all etc. Compare Jas. 5:12, and III *Sent.* d. 39, a. 2, q. 1 f.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 21. a. 3. q. 2. fundam. 2. et q. 3. arg. 2. pro parte negativa.

en: Compare II *Sent.* d. 21, a. 3, q. 2, *fundamentum* 2, and q. 3, argument 2, for the negative side.

la: Cap. 1, in quo anachoritae laudantur propter fervorem etc. Cfr. supra q. 2. a. 3. ad 12. Cassian., Collat. 18. c. 4. ait: Tria sunt in Aegypto genera monachorum [coenobitae, anachoretae, sarabaitae], quorum duo sunt optima, tertium tepidum atque omnimodis evitandum.

en: Chapter 1, in which the anchorites are praised for their fervour etc. Compare above, q. 2, a. 3, reply to 12. Cassian, *Conference* 18, c. 4, says: There are in Egypt three kinds of monks [cenobites, anchorites, sarabaites], of which two are the best, the third lukewarm and in every way to be avoided.

la: D *alligat.*

en: D reads *alligat* ["ties fast"].

la: Vers. 15: Sic enim decet etc. — Glossa, quae est *ordinaria* apud Lyranum, est secundum Bernard., Serm. in Octava Epiphan. n. 4. In textu originali Glossae plura interseruntur, et pro *et hoc* substituitur *et hunc,* quod etiam infra in corp. quaest. ponitur in eadem Glossa. — Superius pro *obiicitur* A *dicitur.*

en: Verse 15: For so it becometh etc. — The Gloss, which is the *ordinary* one in Lyra, is according to Bernard, *Sermon on the Octave of the Epiphany,* n. 4. In the original text of the Gloss several things are inserted, and for *et hoc* there is substituted *et hunc,* which is also put below, in the body of the question, in the same Gloss. — Above, for *obiicitur* A reads *dicitur.*

la: Vers. 13: Subiecti igitur estote etc.

en: Verse 13: Be ye therefore subject etc.

la: Libr. II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 32. n. 1: Et fortasse laboriosum non est homini relinquere sua, sed valde laboriosum est relinquere semetipsum. Minus quippe est abnegare quod habet, valde autem multum est abnegare quod est.

en: *Homilies on the Gospels,* book II, homily 32, n. 1: And perhaps it is not laborious for a man to leave his own things, but it is very laborious to leave his very self. For it is less to abnegate what one has, but it is very much to abnegate what one is.

la: Potius Eadmerus in libro de Similitudinibus S. Anselmi, c. 8: Sicut propria voluntas Dei fons est et origo totius boni, ita propria voluntas hominis totius est exordium mali.

en: Rather Eadmer, in the book *On the Likenesses of St. Anselm,* c. 8: As God's own will is the fount and origin of all good, so man's own will is the beginning of all evil.

la: Haec definitio habetur in libro, cui titulus: Tractatus de statu virtutum (inter opera Bernardi), p. II. n. 20. Vide tom. II. pag. 1013, nota 2, ubi etiam verba Hugonis sunt allata. — In hoc arg. desinit A. Sequentia ex solo D sumta sunt.

en: This definition is found in the book entitled *Treatise on the State of the Virtues* (among the works of Bernard), part II, n. 20. See tom. II, p. 1013, note 2, where the words of Hugh are also adduced. — A breaks off in this argument. What follows is taken from D alone.

la: Num. 9: At parum est esse subiectum Deo... propter Deum; sive abbati tanquam praecellenti, sive prioribus tanquam ab eo constitutis. Ego plus dico, subdere paribus, subdere et minoribus; *sic enim decet nos,* inquit [Matth. 3, 15.], *omnem implere iustitiam.*

en: N. 9: But it is little to be subject to God... for God's sake; whether to the abbot as to one pre-eminent, or to the priors as to those appointed by him. I say more: place thyself under equals, place thyself under lesser men too; *for so it becometh us,* he says [Matt. 3:15], *to fulfil all justice.*

la: Deficit in D, sed supplendum esse duximus.

en: It is wanting in D, but we have judged that it should be supplied.

la: Substituimus, contextu requirente, *sua* pro *se.* Cfr. Gregor., XXXV. Moral. c. 14. n. 28.

en: We have substituted, as the context requires, *sua* ["his own things"] for *se* ["himself"]. Compare Gregory, *Morals* XXXV, c. 14, n. 28.

la: Vers. 51.

en: Verse 51.

la: Epist. I. Ioan. 2, 16. Vulgata omittit *aut* et substituit bis *et* pro *vel.*

en: I John 2:16. The Vulgate omits *aut* ["or"] and twice substitutes *et* ["and"] for *vel* ["or"].

la: Gregor., XXXIV. Moral. c. 21. n. 40: Leviathan vero iste, eius [Dei] celsitudinis culmen aspiciens, ius perversae libertatis appetiit, ut et praeesset ceteris et nulli subesset. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 149, nota 7.

en: Gregory, *Morals* XXXIV, c. 21, n. 40: But that Leviathan, looking upon the summit of his [God's] loftiness, sought the right of a perverse liberty, that he might both be over the rest and be under none. Compare tom. II, p. 149, note 7.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 10. a. 1. q. 2. et dub. 2.

en: Compare II *Sent.* d. 10, a. 1, q. 2, and doubt 2.

la: August., XIX. de Civ. Dei, c. 13. n. 1: Pax hominum [est] ordinata concordia. Pax domus ordinata imperandi atque obediendi concordia cohabitantium.

en: Augustine, *On the City of God* XIX, c. 13, n. 1: The peace of men [is] an ordered concord. The peace of a household is the ordered concord of those dwelling together in commanding and obeying.

la: Vers. 20. — De definitione *iustitiae* infra posita cfr. tom. III. pag. 728, nota 1. Cicero, II. Rhet. c. 54. eam definit: Iustitia est habitus animi, communi utilitate conservata, suam cuique tribuens dignitatem.

en: Verse 20. — On the definition of *justice* set down below, compare tom. III, p. 728, note 1. Cicero, *Rhetoric* II [*On Invention* II], c. 54, defines it: Justice is a habit of mind which, the common utility being preserved, assigns to each his own worth.

la: Respicitur I. Cor. 9, 27: Sed castigo corpus meum et in servitutem redigo. Et II. Cor. 10, 5: In captivitatem redigentes omnem intellectum in obsequium Christi.

en: Reference is made to I Cor. 9:27: But I chastise my body and bring it into subjection. And II Cor. 10:5: Bringing into captivity all understanding unto the obedience of Christ.

la: Num. 8. Post *voluntas* textus originalis addit *hoc enim resistere est veritati, hoc pugnare contra Deum.*

en: N. 8. After *voluntas* ["will"] the original text adds *for this is to resist truth, this is to fight against God.*

la: Vers. 15. — De Glossa *ordinaria* apud Lyranum vide supra pag. 184, nota 5.

en: Verse 15. — On the *ordinary* Gloss in Lyra see above, p. 184, note 5.

la: Substituimus *eius* pro *enim,* quod D perperam exhibet.

en: We have substituted *eius* ["of him"] for *enim* ["for"], which D wrongly exhibits.

la: Serm. 42. n. 8. Respicitur Phil. 2, 7; Hebr. 2, 9; Luc. 2, 51; Matth. 3, 13. seqq. et 16, 21.

en: *Sermon* 42, n. 8. Reference is made to Phil. 2:7; Heb. 2:9; Luke 2:51; Matt. 3:13 ff. and 16:21.

la: Iustinian., Instit. imper. lib. I. tit. 6. lege *Non tamen,* § *Cum ergo,* dicit, quod «libertas inaestimabilis res sit». — Post *bonum* D addit *quaeque.*

en: Justinian, *Imperial Institutes,* book I, title 6, in the law *Non tamen,* § *Cum ergo,* says that «liberty is a thing beyond estimation». — After *bonum* ["good"] D adds *quaeque.*

la: Aristot., III. Phys. text. 63. (c. 6.): Cuius autem nihil est extra, id est perfectum et totum; sic enim definimus totum, cuius nihil abest. Ibid. VII. text. 18. (c. 3.): Virtus enim perfectio quaedam est; unumquodque enim tunc maxime perfectum est, cum adeptum est propriam virtutem. Cfr. V. Metaph. text. 21. et 31. (IV. c. 16. et 26.). — D incongrue *propriae virtuti attingit.*

en: Aristotle, *Physics* III, text 63 (c. 6): But that outside of which there is nothing, that is perfect and whole; for so we define the whole, from which nothing is absent. Ibid. VII, text 18 (c. 3): For virtue is a certain perfection; for each thing is then most of all perfect, when it has attained its own virtue. Compare *Metaphysics* V, texts 21 and 31 (IV, cc. 16 and 26). — D incongruously reads *propriae virtuti attingit.*

la: Vers. 23. Vulgata post *crucem suam* addit *quotidie.*

en: Verse 23. The Vulgate after *crucem suam* ["his cross"] adds *quotidie* ["daily"].

la: Epist. I. Ioan. 2, 16: Omne, quod est in mundo, concupiscentia carnis est etc. — Inferius supplevimus *obedientia,* quod in D desideratur.

en: I John 2:16: All that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh etc. — Below we have supplied *obedientia* ["obedience"], which is wanting in D.

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 40. q. 1. et 3.

en: Compare III *Sent.* d. 40, q. 1 and 3.

la: Potius Eadmerus, de Similitudinibus S. Anselmi, c. 84.

en: Rather Eadmer, *On the Likenesses of St. Anselm,* c. 84.

la: De duplici hoc exemplo *currus* et *pennarum,* quod affert Bernard. ex August., cfr. tom. III. pag. 892, nota 2. — D incongrue prosequitur ita: *sic et obedientia desuper ponit hominem simili, pondus superbiae, arrogantiae, quod* etc.

en: On this twofold example of the *cart* and the *feathers,* which Bernard brings from Augustine, compare tom. III, p. 892, note 2. — D incongruously continues thus: *sic et obedientia desuper ponit hominem simili, pondus superbiae, arrogantiae, quod* etc.

la: Ioan. 1, 17. Cfr. de hac solut. III. Sent. d. 40. q. 3. — Inferius allegatur sententia Aristot. de virtute, de qua vide supra pag. 139, nota 4.

en: John 1:17. On this solution compare III *Sent.* d. 40, q. 3. — Below there is adduced Aristotle's opinion on virtue, on which see above, p. 139, note 4.

la: D *vere,* et inferius *quod voto* pro *quod votum.*

en: D reads *vere* ["truly"], and below *quod voto* for *quod votum.*

en: Compare John 20:4 ff.; Acts 12:5 and 15:7.

la: Vers. 5, ubi etiam seq. locus habetur; tertius est Phil. 4, 13.

en: Verse 5, where the following passage is also found; the third is Phil. 4:13.

la: Vers. 12: Non quod iam acceperim, aut iam perfectus sim.

en: Verse 12: Not as though I had already attained, or were already perfect.

la: Respicitur definitio superbiae supra pag. 118, nota 8. ex August. allata. — De peccato luciferi et aliorum angelorum cfr. II. Sent. d. 5. a. 1. et 2. — Superius D *in viro* pro *viro.*

en: Reference is made to the definition of pride adduced above, p. 118, note 8, from Augustine. — On the sin of Lucifer and of the other angels compare II *Sent.* d. 5, a. 1 and 2. — Above, D reads *in viro* for *viro.*

la: In regula c. 68. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 1012, nota 7.

en: In the Rule, c. 68. Compare tom. II, p. 1012, note 7.

la: S. Franciscus in regula sua c. 10. ait: Firmiter praecipio eis, ut obediant suis ministris in omnibus, quae promiserunt Domino observare, et non sunt contraria animae suae et regulae nostrae. Bernard., de Praecepto et dispens. c. 5. n. 11: Quamobrem quisque professus in quovis genere salutiferae vitae nec *ultra* obedientiae leges cogendus, nec *citra* est inhibendus, quam sua ipsius videtur complecti professio. Quanto minus *contra?*... Vota mea nec augeat [praelatus] sine mea voluntate, nec minuat sine certa necessitate; necessitas quippe non habet legem etc.

en: St. Francis in his Rule, c. 10, says: I firmly command them to obey their ministers in all things which they have promised the Lord to observe, and which are not contrary to their own soul and to our Rule. Bernard, *On Precept and Dispensation,* c. 5, n. 11: Wherefore each one professed in any kind of salvation-bearing life is neither to be compelled *beyond* the laws of obedience, nor to be restrained *short of* them, further than his own profession seems to embrace. How much less *against* them?... Let him [the prelate] neither increase my vows without my will, nor lessen them without a certain necessity; for necessity has no law, etc.

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 39. a. 2. q. 1.

en: Compare III *Sent.* d. 39, a. 2, q. 1.

la: August., de Vera Relig. c. 14. n. 27: Nunc vero usque adeo peccatum voluntarium est malum, ut nullo modo sit peccatum, si non sit voluntarium.

en: Augustine, *On True Religion,* c. 14, n. 27: But now sin is so far a voluntary evil that it is in no way a sin, if it is not voluntary.

la: De hoc medio aliisque cfr. II. Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 3, ad 7.

en: On this medium and others compare II *Sent.* d. 23, a. 2, q. 3, reply to 7.

la: D perperam *non ordinate.*

en: D wrongly reads *non ordinate.*

la: Isidor., II. de Eccles. Officiis, c. 16. agit de generibus monachorum. Sub n. 4. tertium genus eorum, scil. anachoretarum, describit et iuxta antiquiorem ed. [in ed. Migne haec propositio omittitur] addit: Sed isti, examinatione coenobiorum probati in omnibus disciplinis monasterii per triginta [iuxta alios *viginti*] annos, ad hanc contemplationem *per obedientiam eliguntur.* Cfr. S. Benedicti regula commentata, c. 1. [Migne, Patrol. lat. tom. 66. col. 250. seq.], ubi inter alia etiam haec Isidori verba et canon VI. Synodi allegatur. — Superius post *per obedientiam* ex cit. loco Isidori supplevimus *eligebantur,* cum in codice aliquo verbum manifeste exciderit.

en: Isidore, *On the Ecclesiastical Offices* II, c. 16, treats of the kinds of monks. Under n. 4 he describes the third kind of them, namely of the anchorites, and, according to the older edition [in the Migne edition this sentence is omitted], adds: But these, tested by the examination of the cenobitic houses in all the disciplines of the monastery through thirty [according to others *twenty*] years, *are chosen through obedience* for this contemplation. Compare the *Rule of St. Benedict with commentary,* c. 1 [Migne, *Patrologia latina,* tom. 66, col. 250 f.], where among other things these words of Isidore too and the canon of the Sixth Synod are adduced. — Above, after *per obedientiam,* we have supplied from the cited passage of Isidore the word *eligebantur* ["were chosen"], since in some codex the word has manifestly dropped out. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (`raw/doctorisseraphic05bona_djvu.txt`, **raw L36301–L37198**), with every heading, italic, apparatus anchor, marginale and digit checked against the 450 dpi plates (`raw/vision/vol5/p-183..189.png`, 2571×3823; **p. 189 extracted ALONE and read first**, then pp. 184–188; p. 183 on disk from `q4-a1`). Body raw usable on pp. 184–185 and 188–189, rough on pp. 186–187; footers usable but digit- and italic-blind. **Apparatus read from the footer bands only**, every entry paired with its body anchor. Fresh literal English translation. One agent, the standard cadence, small incremental appends.

**Structure.** p. 183 (below Art. I's reply 10): `ARTICULUS II.` full measure, italic subtitle *Utrum sit consonum evangelicae perfectioni, quod unus se astringat voto ad obediendum alteri.* — **UNANCHORED** — and a two-column opener *Secundo quaeritur … Et videtur, quod non.* — **also unanchored**; the subtitle prints *se astringat* where the opener prints *astringat se* (both as printed, as `q4-a1` recorded). **Twenty arguments *quod non*** (marginale `Ad opposi-tum.` beside arg. 1, pp. 183–184). **`Sᴇᴅ ᴄᴏɴᴛʀᴀ hoc sic obiicitur. 1.`** in-column small caps on p. 184 (marginale `Fundamenta.` — ⚠ the run-head labels are SWAPPED relative to `q4-a1`, where `Ad opposi-tum.` stood beside the `Sᴇᴅ ᴄᴏɴᴛʀᴀ`: here the article opens *quod non*, so the *fundamenta* are the opposing series) — **thirteen arguments FOR**, pp. 184–185. `CONCLUSIO.` letter-spaced in p. 185's left column over the indented italic conclusion (rendered `> *…*`). **`Rᴇsᴘᴏɴᴅᴇᴏ:`** (so printed) pp. 185–186: the twofold way of binding oneself (in every event = rash and foolish / according to an approved norm = perfect); the vow as *pars constitutiva,* *via praeambula* and *completio ultimata* of perfection; the threefold act of justice (*rectificare, coordinare, compensare*) worked through *rectificatio* — *ordinatio* — *recompensatio*; the three counsels against the threefold origin of vices. Then *Unde et concedendae sunt rationes, quae hoc ostendunt* and **twenty replies** (pp. 186–189), closing at the foot of p. 189's upper right block.

**⭐ WHICH SERIES THE REPLIES ANSWER — MEASURED ON THE LEMMATA: the OPENING series.** Here the count test and the lemmata AGREE: twenty replies against twenty opening arguments and thirteen *fundamenta.* Every lemma checked, one by one: 1 *lex evangelica est lex libertatis* (arg. 1) · 2 *de Anselmo* (arg. 2) · 3 *servitia, quanto minus debita* (arg. 3) · 4 *iugum suave* (arg. 4) · 5 *servitutem legis scriptae* (arg. 5) · 6 *grave est obedire mandatis divinis* (arg. 6) · 7 *de Christo* (arg. 7) · 8 *additio voti* (arg. 8) · 9 *tale votum … non fuit in Apostolis* (arg. 9) · 10 *praesumtuosum sit vovere* (arg. 10) · 11 *profiteri, se esse perfectum* (arg. 11) · 12 *superbia est velle praeesse* (arg. 12) · 13 *periculosum est committere se homini ignoto* (arg. 13) · 14 *quanto homo maioribus … astringitur* (arg. 14) · 15 *lex evangelica amovet iuramentum* (arg. 15) · 16 *imperfectum … alio imperante* (arg. 16) · 17 *tanto quis perfectius movetur* (arg. 17) · 18 *de anachoretis* (arg. 18) · 19 *clauditur infirmo via salutis* (arg. 19) · 20 *pluribus se subiicere* (arg. 20). The `Sᴇᴅ ᴄᴏɴᴛʀᴀ` *fundamenta* are conceded, not answered. **Score in this work: `q1` Contra, `q2-a1` Sed contra, `q2-a2`/`a3` opening, `q3-a1` Contra, `q3-a2`/`a3` Sed contra, `q4-a1` Sed contra, `q4-a2` opening — still no pattern.**

**Forecast checked (the `q2-a2` *replicatio* precedent, taken seriously — this is another mendicant-controversy article).** No note in this chunk forecasts a unit after the replies: p. 183 n. 4, p. 185 n. 8 and p. 187 n. 3 point forward only within this article's own body (*infra in corp. quaest.,* *infra posita*), and p. 184 n. 9 records only where A breaks off. **Measured on the plate: nothing stands between reply 20 and `ARTICULUS III.` on p. 189** — the reply series ends at the foot of p. 189's upper right block and the heading follows full measure.

### ▶ SPAN AND BOUNDARIES — FIXED POSITIVELY ON THE PLATE

**Boundary 8 (p. 183) re-derived: SHARED LEAF, 1/7, as `q4-a1` measured — right in every particular.** Anchors verified on the plate: Art. I's *virtutis*¹ (reply 10, RIGHT); Art. II's *libertatis*² (arg. 1, LEFT), *homo*³ (arg. 2, Anselm, LEFT), *Gregorius*⁴ (arg. 3, LEFT), *leve*⁵ (arg. 4, LEFT), *se*⁶ (arg. 6, RIGHT), *sexto*⁷ (arg. 7, RIGHT), *subiicere*⁸ (arg. 8, RIGHT). Footer: left block nn. 1–4 with **n. 4 running over the gutter** into the head of the right block (*… (de Vera Relig. c. 14.* / *n. 27.); de quo cfr. III. Sent. d. 37 …*) — **logged here as this chunk's**, per the hand-off; right block nn. 5–8. Heading, subtitle and opener read unanchored. No runover in (p. 183's register opens indented at n. 1).

⭐⭐ **Boundary 9 (p. 189) MEASURED FIRST, ON ITS OWN: A SHARED LEAF, split 1/5.** `raw/vision/vol5/p-189.png` was extracted alone before pp. 184–188. Numeral prints `189`; running head `DE PERFECTIONE EVANGELICA QUAEST. IV. ART. III.` Replies 18 (head of the LEFT column) through 20 fill both upper blocks, reply 18 carrying **n. 1 at *gubernantis*¹** (LEFT); reply 20 closes *… et rectitudo ordinis observetur.* at the foot of the upper RIGHT block. Then, full measure: `ARTICULUS III.` with the italic subtitle *De obedientia summo Pontifici debita.* — **UNANCHORED** — and a two-column opener. ⚠ **Unlike every articulus opener in this quaestio so far, Art. III's opener IS ANCHORED**: *Ultimo quaeritur, utrum christianae religionis sit, quod omnes obediant uni*² — n. 2 is the article's textual note (*Hic articulus exhibetur a codd. D E.*). Art. III's further anchors on p. 189: *septimo*³ (fund. 1, Deut. 17), *Psalmus*⁴ (fund. 2), *Eugenium*⁵ (fund. 3, Bernard), *sexto*⁶ (fund. 4, Matt. 16). Footer: left block nn. 1–2, right block nn. 3–6; **no runover crosses the gutter on this leaf**, and the register opens INDENTED at n. 1. ▶ **Hand-off for `bon-qpe-q4-a3`** (the work's LAST chunk, p. 189 → 198): it opens on p. 189 at the `ARTICULUS III.` heading (UNANCHORED subtitle, **ANCHORED opener**), **owns p. 189 nn. 2–6**, inherits no runover from Art. II, and `KNOWN_TOTALS[189] = 6` with nn. 2–6 PENDING. Gutter p. 189: **1162** over Art. III's body. ⚠ Art. III's subtitle (*De obedientia summo Pontifici debita*) and its opener (*utrum christianae religionis sit, quod omnes obediant uni*) both differ in wording from p. 179's opener, which announced the third question as *utrum sit conveniens christianae religioni, quod omnes obediant uni* — **all three as printed.** ⚠ p. 198 ends the work with no colophon (see § PERFECTIONE EVANGELICA); `q4-a3` closes it.

### ▶ RULINGS MET — STATED POSITIVELY

- **Ruling 5: met ONCE, EXTERNAL** — p. 184 n. 2 `II. Sent. d. 21. a. 3. q. 2. fundam. 2` → "II *Sent.* d. 21, a. 3, q. 2, *fundamentum* 2".
- **Ruling 2 (*lumen*): NOT MET** — census over the raw band L36301–L37198: zero `lumen`, zero `lumin-`, zero `lux`.
- **Ruling 1:** one *intellect-* word only, inside II Cor. 10:5 in p. 185 n. 9 (*omnem intellectum in obsequium Christi*) → "all understanding unto the obedience of Christ" (Douay). **Zero bare "intellect".**
- ***vacare*: ZERO sites** (census over the same band: no `vaca-`, no *otium*). **No translator's note written in this chunk.**
- **Numeral edition-sigla:** none met; the sigla here are codices A, D, E only (p. 184 n. 9 *In hoc arg. desinit A*; p. 189 n. 2 *codd. D E*).
- **Cross-references resolved against chunks we hold:** p. 186 n. 1 `supra pag. 184, nota 5` → this chunk (internal, right); p. 187 n. 3 `supra pag. 139, nota 4` → `bon-qpe-q2-a2` p. 139 n. 4 (Aristotle on virtue — the same note `q4-a1`'s p. 183 n. 1 and `q3-a3`'s p. 176 n. 5 reach); p. 188 n. 2 `supra pag. 118, nota 8` → `bon-qpe-q1` (Augustine's definition of pride); p. 184 n. 3 `supra q. 2. a. 3. ad 12.` → `bon-qpe-q2-a3` (unparsed by the resolver; verbal, not paginal).

### ⭐ REGISTER — Q. IV ART. II's FAMILY (carried forward, with the forced items named)

- **The adopted register held throughout:** *obedientia* obedience / *obedire* obey · *votum* vow / *vovere* vow / *devovere* vow (SC-side arg. 9's *obedientiam devoverunt*) · *astringere se* bind oneself (*astrictus* bound, *se astringendo* by binding oneself) · *libertas* liberty (kept for the whole chunk: *lex libertatis* "law of liberty", *pristina libertas* "pristine liberty", *voluntas libertatis* "the will of liberty"; *liberum arbitrium* free choice) · *praelatus* prelate (reply 9, reply 12's *praelati Ecclesiae*) · *subditus* subject · *praeceptum* precept vs *consilium* counsel · *perfectio evangelica* evangelical perfection · *humilitas* humility · *castitas* chastity (the Respondeo's triad *paupertas / castitas / obedientia*) · *continentia* continence (the counsel's name in the Respondeo's summary).
- ⭐ **FORCED — *necessitas … tentionis* → "necessity … of holding"** (reply 1, against *necessitas coactionis* → "necessity of coercion"). The printed word is *tentionis* (read at 2.5×, not *retentionis* and not *tentationis*), and the pair has no settled English; "of holding" keeps the *tenere* root visible against "coercion". **For the WORK-CLOSE gate.**
- ⚠ ***dominium* does not occur in this chunk** — so `q4-a1`'s strained *dominium potentiae* site gains no second witness here. Kept apart where the neighbouring words do occur: *proprietas* → property (p. 187 reply 3, Anselm's man *proprietatem sibi reservans*), *servitus* → servitude, *servitium* → service, *subiectio* → subjection, *praeesse / subesse* → to be over / to be under, *imperium* → command, *regimen* → rule (reply 18's *immediatum regimen Spiritus sancti*), *gubernare* → govern.
- ***ius* and *lex* again interleave and are again kept apart as "right" / "law"** (as `q4-a1` ruled): *ius perversae libertatis* → "the right of a perverse liberty" (p. 185 n. 5, Gregory on Leviathan) · *rectitudo iuris* → "the rectitude of right" (Respondeo) · against *lex evangelica* → "the evangelical law", *lex libertatis* → "the law of liberty", *lex scripta* → "the written law", *lex gratiae* → "the law of grace", *lex Dei* → "the law of God".
- **Also kept apart, new here:** *rectificare / coordinare / compensare* → to rectify / to co-ordinate / to recompense (with *recompensatio* recompensation, *recompensemus* we recompense) · *ordinatio* ordination vs *ordo* order vs *inordinate* inordinately · *ordo dignativus* → "the order of deigning" (strained; the word is rare — for the gate) · *sufficiens / abundans* iustitia → sufficient / abundant justice · *constitutivum / expeditivum / consummativum* → constitutive / expeditive / consummative · *via praeambula* → "preambular way" · *completio ultimata* → "ultimate completion" · *aggravans / vigorans* onus → a burden which weighs down / which gives vigour · *supererogatio* → supererogation · *abnegatio* → abnegation · *anachoreta* → anchorite, *coenobita* → cenobite, *sarabaita* → sarabaite (p. 184 n. 3, Cassian) · *professio regularis* → regular profession · *status* vs *meritum* (reply 11) → state / merit.
- **Scripture in Douay shape:** Matt. 11:30 · Luke 6:40 · Matt. 3:15 · I Pet. 2:13 · Matt. 5:20 · Luke 2:51 · I John 2:16 · Luke 9:23 · John 1:17 · II Cor. 3:5 · Phil. 4:13 · Phil. 3:12 · I Cor. 9:27 · II Cor. 10:5 · Matt. 5:34 · Jas. 5:12.

### ⭐ RAW-VS-PLATE DIGIT CORRECTIONS AND AS-PRINTED ITEMS

- **p. 183 n. 4** `Serm. 13`, `Serm. 14. n. 24`, `Serm. 41`, `XV. Moral. c. 18. n. 22`, `de Vera Relig. c. 14. n. 27`, `III. Sent. d. 37. a. 1. q. 1. arg. 3. et 4.` · **p. 183 n. 5** `Matth. 11, 30` · **p. 183 n. 7** `Vers. 40` · **p. 184 n. 1** `Matth. 5, 34`, `Iac. 5, 12`, `III. Sent. d. 39. a. 2. q. 1.` (raw `d. 89`) · **p. 184 n. 2** `d. 21.` · **p. 184 n. 3** `Collat. 18. c. 4.` · **p. 184 n. 9** `pag. 1013` (raw `4013`) · **p. 185 n. 2** `XXXV. Moral. c. 14. n. 28` · **p. 185 n. 5** `XXXIV. Moral. c. 21. n. 40`, `pag. 149` · **p. 185 n. 8** `pag. 728`, `II. Rhet. c. 54` · **p. 186 n. 3** `Serm. 42. n. 8`, `Luc. 2, 51` · **p. 186 n. 5** `text. 63`, `text. 18`, `text. 21. et 31.` · **p. 187 n. 2** `pag. 892` · **p. 187 n. 5** `Ioan. 20, 4.`, `Act. 12, 5. et 15, 7.` · **p. 188 n. 2** `pag. 118, nota 8` (confirmed at 2.5×; the serif `1`s read as `4`s in the raw) · **p. 188 n. 3** `c. 68`, `pag. 1012` · **p. 188 n. 4** `c. 5. n. 11` · **p. 189 n. 1** `c. 16`, `tom. 66. col. 250`.
- **As printed, not normalised:** the subtitle's *se astringat* against the opener's *astringat se* (p. 183) · `II. Rhet.` for Cicero's *De inventione* II (p. 185 n. 8 — expanded in square brackets in the English only, as `q4-a1` did at p. 179 n. 6) · **arg. 5 on p. 183 prints `5 Item` with no point after the numeral** (the only one in the series; rendered `5.` in the body, recorded here) · p. 184 n. 5's `Superius pro obiicitur A dicitur` and p. 187 n. 4's `D vere … quod voto` transcribed as editorial variants, not applied.
- The raw shatters the running heads (`QU.VESTIONES`, `DK PEHI'i:CTIOM'`) and the heading `ARTICULUS IL` for `ARTICULUS II.`; pp. 186–187's body raw is heavily degraded (`oliiicitiir`, `direndnm`, `Tripiei`) and was set from the plate line by line.

### ⭐ CITATIONS — INBOUND LINES READ, AND THIS CHUNK'S RESOLVER ARTEFACTS

**Inbound (six records changed; read one by one).** (1) ⭐ `bon-brev-p4-c1` p. 241 n. 10 `supra pag. 183, nota 3` — flagged by `q4-a1` as **its** wrong resolution; p. 183 n. 3 is indeed **this chunk's** (Anselm, *Cur Deus homo* I c. 5, *eius servus idem homo*), and the record has now moved from a false `chunk` → **`page-multi` → `bon-qpe-q4-a1+bon-qpe-q4-a2`**. The right chunk is now IN the set, but the resolver still cannot pick the owner of note *n* on a shared leaf: **correct-but-unresolved, not wrong** — the same shape as `bon-itin-c1`'s p. 179 n. 9. (2) `bon-brev-p3-c1` p. 231 n. 5 `supra pag. 188, nota 6` → here, **right** (Augustine, *De vera religione* c. 14 n. 27, on sin being voluntary — the note it names verbatim). (3) `bon-brev-p5-c9` p. 263 n. 6 `Similis distinctio … in Glossa supra pag. 186, nota 1. allegata` → here, **right** (the *ordinaria* Gloss on Matt. 3:15). (4) `bon-praec-c1` p. 509 n. 3 `supra pag. 187, nota 2` → here, **right** (Augustine's example of the bird and its feathers, which p. 509's body is expounding). (5)(6) ⚠ `bon-qsc-q4` p. 25 n. 9 and p. 27 n. 1 `pag. 186` → here, **WRONG, both**: the first is *De humanae cognitionis ratione* pp. 186–187 (Fr. Eustachius), the second is the *Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie* 1889 fasc. I p. 186 — the **bare-`pag. N` tome-inheritance artefact**, now showing as false `chunk` records (the `bon-hex-c6` / `bon-hex-c9` class; for the WORK-CLOSE gate, not an edit).

**Own records: 49 new ledger lines — 26 scripture, 17 crossref (plus verse anaphora), ZERO dangling, ZERO unresolvable, ZERO QA flags attributable to this chunk. Corpus QA total 201, unchanged.** Artefacts for the gate (not edits): `supra q. 2. a. 3. ad 12.` (p. 184 n. 3, a verbal not paginal back-reference to `bon-qpe-q2-a3`) and `In regula c. 68` / `Cap. 1` (pp. 184 n. 3, 188 n. 3, the Benedictine Rule) are **not parsed**; `tom. III. pag. 892, nota 2` (p. 187 n. 2) and `tom. II. pag. 1012, nota 7` (p. 188 n. 3) resolve `page-multi`, i.e. right page, owner unpicked.

### ▶ GUTTERS

183 **1190** over Art. II's body (band 1161–1222, rule island 1190–1194 — as `q4-a1` measured; its 1195 was Art. I's rows) · 184 **1330** (band 1298–1363; ~6 px skew, upper region 1298–1356, lower 1303–1363 — band midpoint adopted, default 1336) · 185 **1145** (band 1117–1172; default 1138 sat on the left sub-band) · 186 **1397** (band 1366–1427; default 1399, agrees) · 187 **1141** (band 1110–1171; default 1137) · 188 **1352** (band 1320–1384; ⚠ **the `colcrop` default was 1376 on a 7 px run — a loud failure, rejected**, and the two flanking low-ink runs 1320–1348 / 1354–1383 give the rule island at 1349–1353) · 189 **1162** over Art. III's body (band 1134–1190; default 1160). **The centre rule was present on every leaf**; on 184, 185, 187 and 188 the default sat on one sub-band of it and the band midpoint was taken.

### ▶ RUNOVERS AND THE INCOMING REGISTERS

**Five runovers, ALL gutter-crossing, none page-crossing.** **p. 183 n. 4** (left block → head of right block, *… (de Vera Relig. c. 14.* / *n. 27.); de quo cfr. III. Sent. d. 37 …* — handed over by `q4-a1`, logged here) · **p. 185 n. 7** (left block → head of right block, *… Pax hominum* / *[est] ordinata concordia …*) · **p. 186 n. 5** (left block → head of right block, *… Virtus enim per-* / *fectio quaedam est …*) · **p. 187 n. 3** (left block → head of right block, *… III. Sent. d. 40. q. 3. —* / *Inferius allegatur sententia Aristot. …*) · **p. 188 n. 4** (left block → head of right block, *… salutiferae vitae nec* / *ultra obedientiae leges cogendus …*). The head of every register was read before its first numeral: pp. 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188 and 189 all open INDENTED at n. 1, so **nothing runs over a page boundary into this chunk or out of it.** Ledger line appended.

### ▶ MARGINALIA, IN BODY ORDER (37)

**p. 183** — `Ad opposi-tum.`
**p. 184** — `Fundamenta.`
**p. 185** — `Duplex obli-gatio.` · `Conclusio.` · `Est pars con-stitutiva.` · `Via praeam-bula.` · `Completio ultimata.` · `Triplex actus iustitiae.` · `Primo, de perfecta re-ctificatione.`
**p. 186** — `Secundo, de perfecta ordinatione.` · `Gradus tres humilitatis.` · `Tertio, de perfecta recompensatio-ne.` · `Quid sit perfectio.` · `Notandum.` · `Tria consilia evangelica et vota.` · `Solutio op-positorum.` · `Duplex ne-cessitas.` · `Notandum.` · `Duplex ratio debiti.`
**p. 187** — `Notandum.` · `Duplex onus.` · `Notandum.` · `Notandum.` · `Distinctio.` · `Distinctio.` · `Notandum.` · `Duplex per-fectio.`
**p. 188** — `Notandum.` · `Distinctio.` · `Notandum.` · `Distinctiones notandae.` · `Notandum.` · `Notandum.` · `Notanda di-stinctio.` · `Oratio ad Sanctos.`
**p. 189** — `Notandum.` · `Distinctio.`

p. 189's `Per vetus te-stamentum.` and `Fundamenta.` beside Art. III's opener and fund. 1 are `q4-a3`'s.

### LEDGER

**51 entries, pp. 183–189**: p. 183 **7** (nn. 2–8 of 8; n. 1 is Art. I's) · p. 184 **10** · p. 185 **10** · p. 186 **9** · p. 187 **6** · p. 188 **8** · p. 189 **1** (n. 1 of 6; nn. 2–6 are Art. III's). Zero `[?]`. `KNOWN_TOTALS` additions: 184 = 10, 185 = 10, 186 = 9, 187 = 6, 188 = 8, 189 = 6 (nn. 2–6 PENDING until `q4-a3`); p. 183's comment updated (nn. 2–8 now landed).

### CHUNK TOTALS

**51 apparatus entries over pp. 183–189. Zero `[?]` flags. Five runovers, all gutter-crossing. 37 marginalia. No translator's note** (no *vacare* site; no *lumen* site). Ruling 5 met once (external). **Replies answer the OPENING series, 20 for 20** (count test and lemmata agree). One forced register choice for the gate (*necessitas tentionis* → "necessity of holding"), plus *ordo dignativus* → "the order of deigning" as strained.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0