Tractatus I: PRIMUS DE VIRTUTIBUS THEOLOGICIS

Quaestio I: Whether a BISHOP is in the state of perfection

IT IS CERTAIN that they are in the state of perfection. It is proved from the outstanding titles given to the Bishop.

IT IS PROVED by D. Bonaventure, first in the Apology for the Poor, chapter 3, first response, at the end, from D. Dionysius, On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 1, where he says: As he who says Hierarchy says summarily the whole array of sacred things, so in saying Hierarchy he points to that which abides in God, and to the Divine man, in whom every Hierarchy is perfected. Hence the same Saint, in chapters 5 and 6, calls Bishops perfecters, even with respect to religious, as Valentia also notes, disputation 10, question 2, point 4.

NEXT he brings forward D. Jerome, epistle 128 to Fabiola: So great should be the knowledge and erudition of the Pontiff of God, that his steps and movements and all his utterances may be vocal; let him conceive truth in his mind, and resound with it in all his habit and adornment, so that whatever he does, whatever he says, may be the doctrine of the Apostles.

HE OBSERVES, however, with D. Jerome, epistle 85 to Oceanus, that the Bishop is indeed not held to excel in all things — otherwise he could not be a Bishop unless he were a Virgin — but it is fitting that he excel in those things which pertain to the office of feeding the flock. Therefore St. Jerome says: Let him be chosen as future Pastor of the Church in comparison with whom the subject people may deservedly be called a flock.

HE BRINGS FORWARD also D. Gregory, part 2 of the Pastoral Rule, chapter 1, where he says: The action of the Prelate ought to precede the action of the people by as much as the life of the Shepherd is wont to differ from the flock: he cites the same in the Pharetra in the place quoted. Whereupon D. Gregory infers: It is not fitting to approach the state of prelacy unless one be perfect: powerful in Virtues, let him come to govern even when compelled; empty of Virtues, let him not approach even when compelled.

IT IS PROVED also by D. Bonaventure, book 1 of the Pharetra, chapter 19, from the perfections which the holy Fathers require in Bishops.

D. GREGORY, in the Registrum, book 5, chapter 129: When the Bishop changes his mind together with his place: Let him not believe that reading alone and prayer suffice him, so that, withdrawn from others, he may sit studying and bear no fruit from his hand, but let him have a generous hand, let him meet the necessity of the suffering, let him consider another's poverty his own: because if he has this not, he holds the name of Bishop in vain.

THE SAME, book 8, chapter 119: Let your fraternity hasten to present itself with its whole mind humble in prosperity, and, when adversities come, upright with justice, friendly to the good, opposed to the perverse. Pressing never the face of anyone speaking the truth for it; devoting himself to works of mercy according to the possibilities of his substance, and desiring to be able to devote himself to them even beyond; compassionating the weak, rejoicing with the well-disposed, reckoning the losses of others as his own, exulting over the joys of others as over his own, vehement in correcting vices, soothing the spirit of his hearers in cherishing virtues: in anger holding judgment without anger: in tranquillity not abandoning the sentence of his severity.

THE SAME, part 2 of the Pastoral Rule, chapter 1: The action of the Prelate ought to transcend the action of the people by as much as the life of the Shepherd is wont to differ from the flock. For he must diligently study to measure himself, under how great a necessity of uprightness he is held to be bound, under whose care the people is called a flock.

D. ISIDORE, book 2 On Ecclesiastical Offices, chapter 5: To the Bishop, when he is consecrated, a staff is given, that by his judgment he may either rule the subject people, or correct it, or sustain the infirmities of the weak.

D. AUGUSTINE, in the Dialogue, question 65, to Orosius: Let him know that he is not a Bishop who desires to preside, not to profit.

The same, book 19 On the City of God, chapter 19: Bishop is a name of work, not of honor: for episcopos in Greek we may say in Latin superintendere, to superintend, that he may understand that he is not a Bishop who has loved to preside, not to profit.

D. AMBROSE, On the Dignity of Priests, chapter 3: As the episcopal grade is higher than all others, so, if it slips through negligence, its fall is more grievous.

D. JEROME, on chapter 3 of Sophonias: He who desires a bishopric desires a good work; see what he said: work, not dignity. But if he has looked only at dignity, he will quickly fall.

D. BERNARD, epistle 42: In all things, after the example of the Apostle, let your ministry be honorable — ministry, I say, not lordship: him indeed you shall honor, not yourselves. For he who seeks his own desires himself to be honored, not the ministry. But you shall honor it not by the finery of garments, not by the ostentation of horses, not by spacious buildings, but by adorned morals, spiritual pursuits, and good works.

THE SAME, much earlier in the same place: In all his acts or words let the Bishop seek nothing of his own, but only either the honor of God, or the salvation of his neighbors, or both.

THE SAME, book 4 On Consideration: Holiness befits the house of a Bishop, modesty befits it, honesty, and discipline of morals.

IT IS PROVED also by the S. Doctor, part 2 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, cited chapter, where he compares Bishops to the celestial Dominations, which, as D. Dionysius says, On the Celestial Hierarchy, chapter 3, just as they are elevated above the other inferior choirs, so they elevate them to God. For Bishops are destined to the lofty ministries of ruling peoples toward the supreme end, of entering the Holy of Holies as mediators between God and us, of consecrating Priests, of anointing with chrism, nay even of making the Chrism and the holy Oil, of applying the keys, of judging, of excommunicating rebels, of feeding the sheep with doctrine, and of directing them, so that they do not refuse to give their soul for them. Which gifts, and others, demand heroic CHARITY; for no one has greater CHARITY than to lay down his life for his friends. Hence Zacharias, cited chapter 6, speaking of the ancient Pontiff, who prefigures our Bishops, says: He shall sit, and shall rule, and shall be a priest upon his throne; and there shall be a counsel of peace between them, and the crowns shall be for a memorial in the temple of the Lord.

Therefore Peter, 1 Peter chapter 5: Feed the flock of God which is among you, etc., neither as domineering over the clergy, but being made a pattern of the flock from the heart.

The S. Doctor shows the same from the epistles of Paul to Timothy and Titus, in which he prescribes the norm of sanctity by which Bishops, shining forth most splendidly, may, as it were exemplars, be able to instruct and correct others, and be censors of vices more by life than by words.

It is proved also by the S. Doctor, sermon 22 of the Hexaëmeron, before the middle, because Bishops are destined not only for the most high sacrifice, which is not granted to Kings, whence they even excel them in this, as D. Bernard says, sermon on the Lord's Supper, cited by D. Bonaventure, part 2 On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 1, but also to be anointed with Chrism, and to distribute ordinations, and to give the Holy Spirit, which was granted to the Apostles alone. Wherefore they succeed the Apostles in high dignity, and accordingly they are held to emulate Apostolic sanctity. Therefore the Bishop must be so holy as to be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince those who contradict, as is said in Titus 1. Therefore Bishops ought to be perfect, and among them the Supreme Pontiff most perfect. This from S. Bonaventure, in the place cited.

You will object, first: To aspire to the state of perfection is worthy of praise; but to aspire to a bishopric is not praiseworthy: therefore it is not the state of perfection.

The S. Doctor answers, in the cited place in the Pharetra, from D. Jerome: that to desire a bishopric is to desire a good work, so long as the work is desired, not the eminence of dignity.

You will object, secondly: For perfection poverty is required, which is not in a Bishop.

The S. Doctor answers, in the Apology for the Poor, in the cited place, that poverty is not necessary to every perfect man, but that in some riches are also required, provided he be detached in heart from covetousness. For Bishops are destined for the governance of the people, for the sustentation of the poor and of the clergy, and other splendid expenditures, and therefore they ought to have revenues. The S. Doctor pursues this at length in the Apology for the Poor, third response, chapter 2, at the end.

Therefore in the Pharetra, in the cited place, he brings forward that saying of D. Augustine, sermon 52 to the Fathers in the desert: It is not for a Bishop to keep gold and to withdraw his hand from the beggar.

From what has been said you have whence Bishops contract the obligation of perfection.

It is answered, first, that it arises from the office of feeding the flock by word and example, as the S. Doctor pursues at length above.

It is answered, secondly, that it arises also from fidelity, for the Bishop is the Spouse of the Church, Can. licet, and Can. inter among the extracts On the translation of Bishops, and Can. sicut cui, question 7, question 1, as Valentia says, point 4: for he ought to be holy, that he may exercise the holy wedlock, seeking the things that are above for himself and for others. That this is signified by the sandals of Bishops, opened above, D. Bonaventure says, on Psalm 119.

Quaestio II: Of what kind he must be who is assumed to the Episcopate

What sort of man he ought to be who is taken up to the Episcopate.

I suppose that he is not required to be the best of all in absolute perfection, but in relative perfection with respect to governance.

The conditions for choosing a Bishop in the best way the Apostle describes in the letters to Timothy and Titus, to whom the holy Doctor refers in S. Luke, where he asserts that Bishops, the successors of the Apostles, are bound to be men of Apostolic character, irreprehensible, etc.

On these matters many testimonies are brought forward by Gratian from dist. 24 up to 51. They treat of this matter the Council of Carthage IV, Trent sess. 6. 24. and 25. c. 1. D. Gregory in his book on Pastoral Care. D. Augustine in his book on the Pastors, Chrysostom in his books on the Priesthood, Bernard in his books on Consideration, and everywhere the Pontiffs in their Canonical Epistles. We will briefly review these things.

First he must be immune from every impediment of law, namely lest he be irregular, or twice married, or have anything of those things which are enumerated in dist. 51. Can. qui in aliquo, and many are related by S. Bonaventure in his Confessionale, cap. 5.

The remaining prerogatives, however, due to Bishops, are recounted everywhere by the Fathers, especially by those related above, quaest. 1.

The first is integrity of life, which is contained in charity and the other virtues.

Valentia gathers this, quaest. 3. puncto 1. as necessary from many causes. For first, therefore, when Christ was about to institute Peter as Pontiff, he asks him about charity, Joan. ult., as the holy Doctor observes, where he excludes the man who loves himself, whom Paul excludes, Timot. 3., and Chrysostom also adduces it, Homil. 8. in Joan. Hence he concludes that he who succeeds Peter in pastoral care, and does not love God, does not feed the sheep, and can be called: Pastor, et Idolum. Zach. 12.

Secondly, because the Bishop ought to go before others by example, as Leader, teacher, and model, according to that word Joan 10. Ante illas vadit. As the holy Doctor observes, weighing there and elegantly distinguishing the conditions there noted of the good Pastor, especially holiness and wisdom. The first is there referred to, that he enter through Christ, not through cunning, or simony or violence, or because of the greed of avarice and ambition, seeking himself more than the glory of God and the salvation of souls, concerning which Ezech. 34. Vae Pastoribus Israel, qui pascebant semetipsos. Therefore the good Pastor enters through the door, Christ: Ego sum ostium. Qui autem intrat per ostium, Pastor est ovium. Thus entered the Apostles, 2. Cor. 5. Pro Christo legatione fungimur. Therefore he must enter humbly and with holy intention, that he may minister rightly to God and imitate the supreme Pastor, as D. Augustine says, tract. 45. in Joan., fulfilling his office for the honor of God and the salvation of souls.

Secondly he must announce the doctrine of God, instruct, teach, etc., there: Vocem eius audiunt.

Thirdly he must rightly know the face of his flock, as it is said Prov. 27.; therefore it is said here: Proprias oves vocat nominatim.

The fourth office is to lead the sheep forth by the ways of justice: et educit eas, that is, from the Egypt of vices to lands flowing with milk and honey.

Fifthly he goes before them by example: Ante eas vadit. Hence in numer. 27. it is said: Provideat Deus hominem, qui sit super multitudinem hanc: qui possit exire, et intrare ante eos, et educere illos. Then the sheep follow the Pastor going before them. Therefore Peter says, first chapter 5: Pascite, qui in vobis est, gregem; and he continues: Formam facti gregis ex animo. Last of all, he must lay down his soul for the sheep.

Hence the holy Doctor, lib. 2. Eccl. Hierar., adduces other reasons, namely, because the Bishop is a Hierarch, who must exercise the acts of the Hierarchy, purging his subjects from vices, illuminating, perfecting, and as D. Dionysius teaches, cap. 11. Eccl. Hier. Therefore also he is bound to be holy and learned.

FINALLY, because the Pontiff must be a mediator between God and us, as we have in Heb. 5. Omnis Pontifex ex hominibus assumptus, pro hominibus constituitur in his, quae sunt ad Deum, ut offerat sacrificia pro peccatis; therefore he is bound to be holy and illuminated.

From the testimonies brought forward the holy Doctor gathers, loco cit. and in the Pharetra, lib. 3, with the holy Fathers brought forward above, quaest. 1, that the holiness of a Bishop ought to be solid; established, not recent; therefore he does not wish a Neophyte as Bishop, as the holy Doctor observes, ad 6. Lucae. Of this, however, D. Leo treats, P. epist. 82. et 85., Innocent, epist. 12. et 24., Caelestinus I, epist. 2. ad Episcopos Hispaniae.

The REASON is, because it cannot happen that an inveterate habit of sinning does not diminish authority and liberty of soul, as S. Jerome notes, ex cap. 3. ad Titum.

Of old it was ALSO REQUIRED that he be long and much exercised in the ministries of the Church, as is clear from the cited epistles, and the epistle of Nicholas the Pope to Michael the Emperor; but now it is required that he have been in sacred orders for at least six months, from Concil. Trident. sess. 22. cap. 2. de Reform.

KNOWLEDGE is also required in Bishops, Malach. 2. Labia sacerdotis custodiunt scientiam, et legem requirent de ore eius. Of this Gratian treats at length, dist. 36. can. Qui Ecclesiasticis. In the Council of Trent, however, sess. 22. cap. 2. de Reform., it is required that the Bishop to be chosen be a master or Doctor or Licentiate in Canon law or in Theology, or at least have the public testimony of some Academy that he has advanced so far in either of these sciences that he can teach others; and if he is a religious, such testimony is required from his own Prelates.

WHICH of the two is more necessary: Hostiensis and Panormitanus, ad cap. 1. de affinit. et consang., say that where heresies are raging, Theology is more useful; elsewhere, however, Canon law.

I SAY, however, that Theology is simply more useful. So Valentia, quaest. 1. puncto 1., Sotus, lib. 3. de Iust. quaest. 2. art. 6., Cajetan here, and others. The reason is, because the Bishop must above all instruct the people in the mysteries of the faith, according to that word, Matth. ultimo: Praedicate Euangelium; and Theology teaches this above all. Therefore when a Bishop is ordained, he is asked, not whether he knows Canon law, but both testaments.

The THIRD part of a Bishop is greatness of soul and constancy, for the Bishop must resist tyrants and heretics. Likewise he must punish the wicked, even the powerful. Hence that word of Ecclesiasticus 7. is to be weighed by a Bishop: Noli fieri iudex, nisi valeas virtute irrumpere iniquitates: ne forte extimescas faciem potentis. Hence Hierem. 1. Ne formides a facie eorum, and Ezech. 3. Ecce dedi faciem tuam valentiorem faciebus eorum, frontemque duriorem frontibus eorum. Hence Timoth. 3. Argue, obsecra, increpa, etc. But it must be noted that this severity is to be tempered with mildness. Of which D. Leo admonishes the Bishops, epist. 90., and Concil. Trident. sess. 13. cap. 1. de Reform. All of which the holy Doctor pursues at length, lib. 2. de Eccl. Hierarch. and the opusc. de sex alis Seraphim, as I shall say presently.

FINALLY, who does not know that prudence is necessary for a Bishop? For the governance of souls is the art of arts, as D. Gregory says at the beginning of his Pastoralis.

S. Bonaventure published an INTEGRAL little work on this matter, which bears the title: de sex alis Seraphim, so that it may be understood that Bishops ought to be like those Seraphim who stood beside the altar of God, adorned with six wings, duabus velabant faciem, duabus pedes, et duabus volabant, Isa 6.

The holy Doctor PROFESSES, however, that in this he follows the Apostle, and assigns those conditions of Bishops which he himself handed down to Timothy in two epistles, ut scias (ait 1. cap. 3.) quomodo oportet te in domo Dei conversari, quae est Ecclesia Dei: For thus he addresses him whom he had made Bishop of the Church of Ephesus.

He PREMONISHES, however, with D. Bernard, that not all who are good in themselves are fit for governance, but that they ought to shine with relative goodness. Hence in Exodi 18. Moses is commanded to choose men knowledgeable and fit for governance. Certainly he must first be good in himself, that he may imitate Christ, qui coepit facere, et docere, Actorum 1.

He ADMONISHES also that some exercise and practice are necessary, as I said above; for those who are beginners are not fit masters, but need a master, Heb. 5. Indigetis, ut vos doceamini, quae sint elementa exordii sermonum Dei: egent enim sicuti filii a matre retrahi a periculis, Proverb. 2. servabit te, ut eruaris de via mala, et ab hominibus, qui perversa loquuntur.

THEREFORE those who must be masters of others are bound to be so illuminated that, going with unoffending foot, they may lead others safely, as it is said, first Cor. 10: Sine offensione estote Iudaeis, et Gentibus. They must be so humble that they are neither lifted up by prosperity nor cast down by adversity, that they refer all excesses of thought, speech, and omission to the goldsmith's balance, judge subtly, and in all these things are so firm from habit that they cannot be changed from their state by any levity, or distraction, or difficulty, or fear. Hence the Apostle, Rom. 8. Quis nos separabit a Charitate Christi? etc. But because few attain so great a goal of perfection, they need to be subject, in such a way that they shine with those virtues by which they obey their Prelates, and by which they preside over their subjects; that they may live irreprehensibly.

Although they OUGHT to have all the virtues, nevertheless, because the senary number is the first of perfect numbers, constant in its own kind of perfection from its aliquot parts; therefore the good Rector of souls is bound to be endowed as it were with six wings of the Seraphim, that he may shine forth among the more eminent hosts of the heavenly spirits.

The FIRST wing of the Bishop is zeal for justice, whereby he is not able to sustain anything unjust without a murmur of heart, in himself and in others. For a man is so much the better as he is further from evil; for as much as a thing is loved, so much is one grieved at its destruction. These imitate Christ the supreme Pastor, who, although he was blessed in himself, was not content unless, having taken the form of a servant, he drew men back from evil, and brought the sons with him into glory, as it is said ad Heb. For zeal for justice burns with the charity of God and neighbor, charitas autem non quaerit, quae sua sunt, primo Cor. 13.

THEREFORE the true Zealot of justice takes heed first, lest he do or teach evil; then, lest he permit it in his subjects, lest he perish together with his sons as Heli did, 1. Reg. 4. Therefore Ezech. 33. si non fueris locutus, ut custodiat se impius a via sua: ipse impius in impietate sua morietur, sanguinem autem eius de manu tua requiram. Let the good zealot therefore show how much he loves God, in that he promotes what is pleasing to him in himself and in others, and let him not grow soft in this zeal through sloth.

The SECOND wing of this Ecclesiastical Seraph is piety, or fraternal compassion, so that as the charity of God inflames to zeal for justice, so fraternal love should fashion toward piety. For even if the rod that strikes is owed to vices, yet the staff that sustains is necessary to infirmity, the Prophet saying, Psal. 22. Virga tua, et baculus tuus, ipsa me consolata sunt.

So also that Samaritan poured into the wounds of the half-dead wounded man wine of burning zeal, and oil of soothing piety.

SEE S. Bonaventure, drawing out by parallels with the cures of infirmities the Prelates to piety. For this, moreover, it can help if they themselves have experienced necessities; thus of Christ it is said, Heb. 4. Non habemus Pontificem, qui non possit compati infirmitatibus nostris.

They must, HOWEVER, have compassion on their sheep, taking the example of Jacob, Genes. 33. Nosti quod parvulos habeam teneros, et oves, et boves faetas mecum: quas si plus in ambulando fecero laborare, morientur una die cuncti greges. Therefore from the more distinguished Rectors of the old testament, the chief ones were taught in the school of the Pastors.

OR, if you prefer, let them take an example from mothers and nurses, as it is said, first Thessal. 2. For on the contrary the Lord complains of the hard ones, Ezech. 34. Quod infirmum fuit, non consolidastis, et quod aegrotum, non sanastis, et quod confractum, non alligastis, et quod, perierat, non quaesivistis. Therefore D. Bernard says, serm. 23. in Cant. Ut quid gravatis iugum vestrum, cum cernitis Discipulorum, quorum vos potius iugum portare debetis? Ponite onera, producite ubera, pectora lactate, quiescant: Et si interim severitate opus sit, paterna sit, non tyrannica, iuxta illud numer. 11. Porta eos in sinu tuo, sicut portat mulier infantulum suum, et defer in terram pro qua iurasti, etc.

The THIRD wing of the Ecclesiastical Seraph is patience, and constant longsuffering: and this is certainly necessary for many reasons that press in. Under the shade and roof of this tabernacle the interior parts were clean, and it received the dusts, rains, and hailstones. So the Hen exposes herself to the Kite for her chicks.

FIRST of all, patience is necessary for the Bishop on account of the manifold labors, cares, and occupations, not only in spiritual things but also in temporal ones; for often he is bound to provide temporal things also for his subjects, as Paul narrates of himself and of the other Apostles, Galat. 2. So also the Lord, the crowds whom he had nourished with his word, he also fed with bread, Marci 6.

VARIOUS OCCUPATIONS also, as much from domestic cares as from external matters, break a man, as Moses confessed of himself, Deuter. 1.

NEXT, patience is necessary for the slow progress of those for whom he labors, and for their ingratitude, for whom he expends his sweats, undermines his health, and consumes his life.

IN these things he is bound to conduct himself thus. First, that he reply to each one modestly and kindly, lest he show impatience in words or gestures. Thus Gedeon, replying modestly to the men of Ephraim wrangling against him, checked the spirit with which they were swollen, Iudicum 8. For, as the Wise man testifies, Prov. 15. Responsio mollis frangit iram, sermo durus suscitat furorem. For hardly is agitation settled by agitation. For the impatience of a Prelate confounds those good things which he ought to have promoted. In these ways he scandalizes others, according to that, Prov. 14. Qui impatiens est, exaltat stultitiam suam. He renders him contemptible, Prov. 12. Qui vanus, et excors est, patebit contemptui. He makes him hated, Eccl. 9. Terribilis est in civitate sua homo linguosus, verbo suo odibilis erit. He provokes others to anger, Prov. 15. Vir iracundus provocat rixas: Qui autem patiens est, mitigat suscitatas. His subjects do not dare to open to him their necessities, according to that, Iob 4. Si coeperimus loqui tibi, forsitan moleste accipies: He fills the house with murmuring. Prov. 11. Qui conturbat domum suam, possidebit ventos. He puts to flight the tender of mind, and makes the faint-hearted. Prov. 18. Spiritum ad irascendum facilem, quis poterit sustinere? Nemo audet eum admonere de hiis, quae forent emendanda.

SECONDLY he must be peaceable, lest he avenge injuries, after the example of the supreme Pastor, Lucae 6. eritis filii Altissimi, quia ipse benignus est super ingratos, et malos. Hence the holy Doctor says that many Bishops and Prelates were sanctified; because thus they arrived at the summit of the virtues. Therefore Paul says, first Timot. 3. Qui Episcopatum desiderat, bonum opus desiderat, etc.

THIRDLY let him be patient, and diligent in carrying out what is of his office; Therefore it is said, second Paral. 15. Vos ergo confortamini, et non dissolvantur manus vestrae, erit enim merces operi vestro. See the holy Doctor, discoursing most excellently.

The FOURTH wing is, that he be exemplary in life; for he must be the norm of living, that what he teaches in words he may show in the figures of his actions, as one who teaches Geometry paints on the tablet the demonstrations of figures, that what he says may be better grasped; for it is said, Act. primo. Iesus coepit facere, et docere. And Ioan. 13. exemplum dedi vobis, ut quemadmodum ego feci vobis, ita et vos faciatis. And Iudit. 3. Gedeon: Quod me facere videritis, hoc facite. So ad Titum 2. In omnibus te ipsum praebe exemplum bonorum operum. See the holy Doctor, setting forth wonderful things.

The FIFTH wing of this Ecclesiastical Seraph is discretion, and provident consideration of the things to be done. This is the wisdom that Solomon asked for governance, 3. Reg. 3. Dabis ergo Domine servo tuo cor docile, ut iudicare possit populum, etc. And Sapien. 6. Ad vos ergo Reges sunt hi sermones mei, ut discatis sapientiam, et non excidatis. And Psal. 2. et nunc Reges intelligite, erudimini, qui iudicatis terram. And Matt. 5. Vos estis lux mundi.

THEREFORE a DOUBLE circumspection is necessary for a bishop: that he may know what is to be done, and how. For neither is a good simply good, unless it be well done, that is, as is fitting; hence Bernard says, serm. 49. in Cant. Tolle discretionem, et virtus vitium erit, ipsa ipsa zelus praecipitat, teste Apostolo: AEmulationem Dei habent, sed non secundum scientiam, Rom. 10. item compassio condescendit nimis sub specie pietatis. Proverb. 13. Qui parcit virgae, odit filium. Patience without discretion renders one remiss in governing. Therefore Levit. 2. In omni sacrificio offeres sal. et Rom. 12. rationabile obsequium et Genes. 4. Si recte offeras, recte autem non dividas, peccasti, iuxta LXX. That is, doing good neatly does not suffice, unless one appears discreet, how, when, where, and why it was to be done.

But there are FOUR things especially in which the discretion of Bishops ought to shine. Therefore Exod. 28. the Pontiff wore on his breast the Rationale, adorned with four orders of gems, so that each order contained three gems.

But FOUR things pertaining to governance he must turn over in his breast. First, how he may govern his subjects in their due state, so that their good may prosper and persist.

Second, how he may correct the fallen and the wayward. Third, the external affairs that are required of him, you must arrange fittingly. Fourth, how he is to conduct himself in these. See the holy Doctor, fitting three gems to each.

The SIXTH wing of Prelates is devotion. This unction of the Spirit teaches all things, 2. Ioan. 2. See all these things most excellently arranged in the holy Doctor; for I am weary to transcribe them literally; there indeed he exhibits the Hierarch of the Church as a Seraph to be contemplated, with breathing lineaments. See also the conditions of Bishops in quaest. 1. above, from the Fathers.

SIMILARLY in part. 2. Eccl. Hierar. c. 1. he assimilates the Bishops to the Dominations. For the Dominations are called Angels of the first order of the middle Hierarchy, because, dominating over the inferior Angels, they instruct and inform them how in the office of Prelacy they ought to call their subjects back to the divine likeness, and, tyranny being set aside, order the deeds of their subjects liberally, as D. Isidore teaches, lib. 7. Ethymol. c. 5.; nearly the same has S. Dionysius in de caelesti Hierarchia, c. 3.

Bishops and Prelates are THEREFORE called spiritual, because true dominion is when vices are overcome, and virtuous works dominate in the kingdom of the soul, that is, of the Church. See the holy Doctor applying most excellently the state of the celestial Dominations to the governance of Bishops.

Quaestio III: Whether it is lawful to seek, or refuse, an Episcopate

Whether it is lawful to seek, or to refuse, a Bishopric.

IT MUST BE NOTED that there are three kinds of those who seek a Bishopric: some are unworthy; others are worthy, but seek it perversely out of avarice or ambition. Others are worthy, and seek it for right reasons of faith, as the holy Doctor teaches, lib. 1. Pharetrae, cap. 19, from the Fathers.

I ASSERT first: that it is a mortal sin for an unworthy man to seek a Bishopric.

IT IS PROVED because it is against Justice, nor can he receive the revenues; it is also against charity, for he harms the sheep. So Laym., tract. 2. lib. 4. cap. 15. num. 10; Valencia tom. 3. disp. 10. quaest. 3. puncto 1; Navarr. de orat. miscel. 42; Diana part. 4. tract. 4. res. 100; Bassaeus verb. Episcopus.

I ASSERT secondly, that to seek a Bishopric out of ambition or avarice is perverse and mortal.

IT IS PROVED by D. Bonaventure, loc. cit. Pharetrae: for it is to order the Bishopric perversely to lower goods; hence D. Augustine, ad Oros. quaest. 65, says that such a man is not a bishop. Likewise he has lib. 19. de civitate cap. 19, which D. Jerome subscribed in Sophoniae cap. 3, where he cries out that such a man will quickly fall, as he related in quaest. 1. This is asserted also by Caiet. here, Sotus de Iustitia lib. 10. quaest. 2. art. 1, Tanner. disp. 6. quaest. 3. dub. 3, and Bassaeus.

IT IS CONFIRMED by D. Bonaventure from 1. Timot. 3, where he says: if anyone desire a Bishopric, he desireth a good work. Where the episcopal work is to be desired, if a Bishopric is desired, namely laboring for the glory of God and watching over the salvation of subjects; otherwise it would be perverse, and against the institution, he admonishes with the holy Fathers: Jerome loc. cit., Chrysostom homil. 35. in Matth., Augustine 19. de civitate, cap. 19, Gregory in the Pastoral, part. 1. cap. 8, whom Tannerus also relates.

I ASSERT thirdly, that it is lawful to seek a Bishopric in order to serve God and the Church.

IT IS PROVED by D. Bonaventure, de sex alis Seraphim, cap. 5, from the passage of the Apostle cited above. Hence he observes that very many have in the Episcopate reached the summit of sanctity and have been canonized; but he notes that this was true in that laborious time of the Church's need, from D. Gregory in the prologue of the Pastoral, whom St. Bonaventure relates in the Pharetra, in the place cited.

INDEED in the Pharetra, loc. cit., he says with D. Thomas, art. 1, that it is dangerous. Valencia adds, punct. 2. concl. 2, that commonly this appetite is mortal, because he casts himself into peril of his salvation. And truly the one seeking it makes himself unworthy, says D. Clement, epist. 1, from the sentence of D. Peter, where he says: This chair does not seek one who desires himself, and boldly seeks it, but one adorned in morals and erudite in words.

I ASSERT fourthly, that it is not necessary for him who recognizes that he is to be assumed to judge himself certainly worthy, but it is enough not to have a conscience of an evil condition. So D. Thomas, art. 3.

IT IS PROVED from Tannerus num. 57, arguing from St. Bonaventure, lib. 4. Pharetrae, cap. 35, taken from D. Bernard, serm. 76. in Cant., where he says: Not in vain has it been so often repeated: Peter, lovest thou me, in the commission of the sheep; I indeed think that this was signified thereby, as if Jesus had said to him, unless thy conscience bears thee witness that thou lovest me, and lovest me most perfectly, that is, more than thine own, more than thy friends, and even more than thyself, so that the number of my repetitions be fulfilled, thou shalt in no wise undertake this care, nor intermeddle with my sheep, for whom surely my blood was poured out.

Therefore if he does not have a conscience that he would set aside all things for the service of God and neighbor, even if he does not see that he has all the conditions, he may accept it.

The same the holy Doctor maintains, citing D. Gregory in the Pastoral, parte 1. cap. 9, who says: Let him who is strong in virtues come compelled to the government; let him who is empty of virtues, not compelled, not approach.

AND in the Prooem. of the Pastoral: When the necessity of things demands it, great thought must be given to how each one comes to the summit of government: and how, duly arriving at this, he lives: and living well, how he teaches: and teaching rightly, with what daily consideration he recognizes his own infirmity: lest either humility flee the access, or life contradict perfection, or doctrine desert life, or presumption exalt doctrine.

THE SAME, homil. 22. in Evang.: They ought to take up the pastoral care who know in their own heart how to tame luxuries that pass away: so that when they preach mighty things to others, they themselves may not weakly succumb to soft desires.

HENCE I add fifthly, that it is not lawful for him who is worthily elected to refuse the Bishopric. So St. Bonaventure in the places cited with the Fathers, D. Thomas art. 2, Sanch. lib. 4. mor. cap. 8. num. 38, Bassaeus num. 4.

FOR thereby, Can. 37. Apost., he is excommunicated who refuses a Bishopric enjoined upon him, as D. Bonaventure intimates in the 4th, in the place cited. It is evident also from the council of Antioch cap. 10, and from the sentence of D. Peter in Clement, epist. 1, saying that he sins more gravely who, in the necessity of the Church, on account of private peril, rejects a Bishopric, than he who would not bring aid to a Christian people laboring amid the waves, when he could. Therefore the latter would act against charity.

HERE, however, they ask, who is the one who has the power to oblige one to accept a Bishopric: I say it is the Pope. See Diana, part. 6. tract. 8. resol. 33.

IN the creation of a Bishop three things intervene: Election, confirmation, and consecration. c. inter. c. licet extra de translat. Episcopi, et extra de elec. c. cum in cunctis.

BEFORE Confirmation he cannot by common law exercise any acts, C. qualiter, extra de elec. But he can by dispensation, C. nihil est. The one confirmed, however, can exercise all acts of Jurisdiction, but not of Order, until he is consecrated. See Valencia, quaest. 3. puncto 3.

THEREFORE the election and confirmation of Bishops belongs to the Roman Pontiff, as St. Bonaventure teaches, serm. 22. Hexaemer., and in 4. d. 29. quaest. 3. ad 3, where he also says it must be supposed that a just precept is given by the Pope; yet if the elected one knows that he exposes himself to peril of soul on account of his insufficiency, he teaches that he is not bound to obey. The same holds Soto, lib. 10. de iust. quaest. 3. art. 2. But Valencia denies it, indeed says he is bound, citing the dictum of B. Peter above; but he speaks of peril of life, not of soul, as is evident.

That these things belong to the Roman Pontiff is established from the perpetual tradition of the Church: thus Anacletus Pope, epist. 2. ad Episcopos Italiae, related at 75. cap. 1; Innoc. I. epist. 1. ad Decentium; Pelagius epist. 2; Leo epist. 84, or 82; Gregor. lib. 4. regist. epist. 34; Concil. Later. cap. 5; Concil. Tolet. XII. cap. 6. See Valencia loc. cit.

Thus, Can. 31. Apost., he is excommunicated who has been created a Bishop by secular power; and in the Eighth Synod, Can. 22, Princes are excommunicated who constitute Bishops by their own authority. See Valencia on these.

Note, however, that the Roman Pontiff cannot elect for himself a successor, as the Gloss notes on cap. Apostolica, 8. quaest. 1; yet he can establish the mode of electing the Roman Pontiff, as Symmachus defined in the first Roman Synod, celebrated under him, which is related at 79. dist. cap. si quis Papa, cap. si transitus. Hence Nicholas I. decreed that this election is to be made from the concordant vote of the Cardinals, as is had in dist. 23. cap. in nomine Domini, and dist. 79. cap. si quis Apostolicae. But afterwards Alexander III. in his Lateran Council, cap. 1, decreed that two parts of the Cardinals suffice. It is related in extra de elect. cap. licet; and this is observed even to these times, as is evident from cap. ubi periculum, de elect. in 6.

Yet Peter could do this by the singular nod of God. See Turrecremm., lib. 2. summae Ecclesiae, cap. 51.

Therefore the Pope alone can oblige anyone to accept a Bishopric; not indeed Prelates.

I assert sixthly, that for a grave cause one can renounce a Bishopric. So D. Thomas art. 4, D. Bonaventure loc. cit. above in 4. The reason is, because an impediment may be present, rendering him insufficient, such as ignorance, sin, infirmity, etc.

This, however, cannot be done without the authority of the supreme Pontiff, from Innocent III., cap. nisi cum pridem, extra de renunc., and many decrees 7. quaest. 1.

I assert seventhly, that outside of such a cause, since he is necessary to the people, the one renouncing sins.

The reason is, because he prefers his own good to a grave public good. Therefore a Vow in religion would be null, since it concerns a lesser good.

I assert eighthly, that in many cases one sins by not renouncing.

Six causes, moreover, for which one is held to renounce a Bishopric are enumerated by Innocent III. loc. cit. The first is a sin impeding the execution of the episcopal office, even after penance has been performed. The second, weakness of body, impeding the execution of the pastoral office. Third, a lack of knowledge. Fourth, such malice of the people that there is no hope of profiting for that Bishop. Fifth, the scandal of the little ones, when from some probable cause they are so offended with the Bishop that he profits nothing among the people: Sixth is bigamy, or another irregularity. These D. Bonaventure also relates here and there.

The holy Doctor concludes on cap. 2. regulae min. that he who desires a Bishopric in order to decline the rigor of Religion shall sit with Lucifer on the sides of the North.

Quaestio IV: Whether Residence is necessary for Bishops, and by what law

It is certain that residence in their own churches is necessary for Bishops.

It is had in multis decretis 7. quaest. 1. cap. pervenit, from Gregory in Regist. lib. 5. epist. 25; cap. suggistum, from Liberius epist. 1; cap. sciscitaris, from Nicholas ad Numfridium, and from the Council of Trent, sess. 23. cap. 1. de reformatione.

Yet an absence for a brief time is not condemned, as the Council of Trent explains; and it also declares that they can be absent for grave causes, even for a long time. Four are enumerated: first, Christian charity, if one should aid another diocese gravely needy at little inconvenience to his own. Second, pressing necessity on account of persecution or illness; thus Julius P. also declares to the Eastern Bishops, and Pelagius II. epist. ad Benignum, and the holy Doctor proves it on cap. 10. Ioannis, with those words of Christ: If they have persecuted you in one city, flee, etc., with D. Augustine tract. 46. Third, due obedience to the Pontiff calling him to himself. Fourth, the utilities of the Church, such as studies and other necessities.

The question, however, is: whether they are bound to reside by divine law.

The first opinion is Catharinus', tract. de residentia, holding that they are bound by ecclesiastical law alone.

Yet the true opinion is that Bishops are bound by Divine law to reside. So Tutrianus tract. de residentia, Sotus lib. 10. de iust. quaest. 3, Caiet. ad art. 5, Covar. lib. 3. var. cap. 3, Gregorius de Valentia diff. 10. quaest. 3. puncto 5, who says it is the common opinion; the same says Tambur. tom. 1. diff. 14. quaest. 1, and Bassaeus 11. resid. num. 4.

It is proved by D. Bonaventure, primo on cap. 9 and 10 of Luke; for in cap. 9 he laid down the norm for the Apostles, and in them for all Bishops, for the executing of their office; for the Apostles, according to their Etymology, were sent to teach and instruct peoples, and to build them up by example: and into whatsoever house they had entered, he said: abide there, and go not out from thence, unless cast out: now the Apostles are the pattern of Bishops, and the seventy-two Disciples of the lower Pastors; but to all he proposed the office, as to laborers and reapers, Ioan. 4: See the regions, for they are white already unto the harvest. I have sent you to reap. So Matt. 10: Pray the laborers, etc. And to the idle he inculcates, Matth. 20: Why stand you here all the day idle? Indeed in the figure of this he placed man dwelling in Paradise, that he might work, Genes. 2. This he explains in Lucae 10: The harvest indeed is great, but the laborers few, etc. Soon he compares them to Pastors, indeed even to Lambs: But the good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep, and he watches lest they be devoured by wolves: on the contrary: the hireling sees the wolf coming, and flees. Hence he says this is fulfilled Isaix 11: The wolf shall dwell with the lamb. Hence Peter 1. cap. 5: Feed the flock which is among you. These things indeed (the holy Doctor says) show attendance, and not any sluggish one, but a laborious one, a toilsome one, a vigilant one. Valencia uses this argument.

Soon he instituted them so that they enter into the cities, and there abide teaching; and if they are expelled, let them shake the dust from their sandals in testimony of their blameless flight. See the holy Doctor.

IT IS CONFIRMED by the holy Doctor in the Pharetra, loc. cit. quaest. prima and 3, from the Fathers, who show that the Bishopric, the work, and the laborious attendance are signified at those words, 1. Timot. 3: He who desires a Bishopric desires a good work.

IT IS PROVED secondly by D. Bonaventure, de Eccl. Hierarchia, part. 4. cap. 2. et 3. He shows that their presence is necessary for the things to which the Apostles and Bishops are likened. FIRST, indeed, they are compared to the heavens, Iob 26. The spirit of the Lord adorned the heavens, as D. Greg. expounds, lib. 17. moral. cap. 19; Psal. 18. The heavens show forth the glory of God: and the firmament declares the work of his hands; soon: Their sound went forth into all the earth. But where we have firmamentum, the Hebrew has: רקיע Rachia, which word is rendered in Latin expansio, which is understood also of the aerial heavens, as the holy Doctor notes according to the phrase of scripture, Matth. 13. The birds of heaven came; Psal. 103. over it the birds of heaven shall dwell; Iob 12. The birds of heaven shall tell thee. Now these heavens are present to us, thundering, snowing, raining, and sending forth dew. Therefore Isaias 45, desiring the presence of the Apostles, cried out: Drop down dew, O ye heavens from above.

They are also called fiery heavens, Thren. 1. Zachariae 22. Now fire is present in order to warm things, for mover and moved must be together.

Soon, however, cap. 3., the holy Doctor compares Bishops to the sidereal heavens, which send down celestial influxes to us; for they distribute the Sacraments, especially MANNA. Bishops are called heavens, because they diffuse light, Matth. 5. You are the light of the world, with their spherical motion, by which they revolve around the center, they are ever present, bringing days, months, and years, producing germs and living things. These and other things which the holy Doctor pursues express excellently the residence and presence of Prelates necessary by Divine law, and by nature.

IT IS PROVED thirdly by the holy Doctor part. 1. Eccl. Hierar. and in that whole work, for Bishops are as it were the Dominations, preeminent Angels, who attend upon the lower ones to be purged, illumined, and perfected; thus they are adorned with the name of Angels, Isaiae 33; Malach. 2; Apoc. 1.

INDEED if Pastors are laborers, and Angels keeping watch are vine-dressers, Bishops are bound at least to attend; otherwise they will lose the name of Bishop, as the Fathers cited say, quaest. 1. et 3., and St. Damasus, epist. 4.

THEREFORE Christ reproached the Pastor who deserts his flock, Ioan. 10. He reproaches him, Zach. 11. O Pastor, and idolum, leaving his flock, as the holy Doctor observes, ad 10. Ioannis. That this is indeed necessary is proved, that the Pastor know the face of his flock, as is said, Prov. 27, and the holy Doctor attends to it, ad 10. Ioannis.

TYRRIANUS, tract. de residentia, cites the Canon of the Apostles, which he says he read in a most ancient codex, in which those are deprived of the communion of Christ who are absent from their flock.

FINALLY the Council of Trent commands this very thing, sess. 23. cap. 1. de reform.

From what has been said you have also that Bishops are bound to residence by natural law, because natural law commands a rector to fulfill his function.

Catharinus' arguments are easily solved by Valencia, puncto 5.

He urges only this: divine law cannot be dispensed by the Pope; yet he dispenses concerning residence.

IT IS ANSWERED, that the Pontiff does not remove the bond, but supplies other means of the Bishop's residence. Moreover, the Bishop during all the time he is absent without cause forfeits his whole revenues pro rata, from Concil. Trid. sess. 25. cap. 1. See Tol. cap. 4; Fernandez, part. 4. cap. 7. num. 8; Bassaeus v. Episcop. num. 8. Truly it is also mortal, if it be notably so: but he forfeits the fruits by that very fact without declaration, and they are applied to the fabric of the Church.

Quaestio V: Whether the Church, and Bishops, have dominion over certain temporal things

Whether the Church, and Bishops, have dominion over certain temporal things.

THERE WERE certain heretics, whom Valencia disp. 5. quaest. 10. punct. 2. relates, whom Vuicleph followed; he was condemned for it in the Council of Constance, sess. 8., as were those also denying that dominion over things is lawful to ecclesiastics.

I ASSERT, however, as of faith, that dominion over temporal things is lawful to the Church, and to Bishops.

IT IS PROVED by D. Bonaventure, in Apol. pauperum, responsionis tertiae cap. 2., from Iosue 21, where the priests of the old law had possessions and fields.

IT IS PROVED secondly by the holy Doctor, resp. tertiae cap. 1. ex 5. Actorum, where Peter says to Ananias: While it remained, did it not remain to thee, etc., as Chrysost. observes, homil. 12. in Acta, and Valencia notes, disp. 5. quaest. 10. punct. 2. It was declared also by the Church, as the holy Doctor teaches, cap. 2. resp. quartae; and it was declared in the Councils of Antioch, cap. 24, Agath. cap. 48, Carthag. III. cap. 49, and it is had in multis decretis, which the holy Doctor brings forward, loc. cit.

FIRST, Can. si quis de clericis 12. quaest. 2. it is had: if any of the clerics should presume, with damnable and punishable obstinacy, either to suppress, or deny, or take away, or perhaps hand over to adversaries, the documents by which the possession of a Church is firmly held, whatsoever loss has been brought upon the Church through the absence of the documents, let him restore from his own means.

D. GREGORY the Great, registr. lib. 2. epist. 43., and it is related at 12. quaest. 2. c. Sicut, where it is had, as the Church ought not to lose her own things, so she ought not with the heat of rapacity to invade things belonging to others.

IN the Council of Agath.: If a Bishop shall have granted liberty to slaves of the Church, those things which had been given to them in the manumission they shall hold with perpetual firmness. The Church therefore has slaves; but where there is servitude, the correlative dominion is present, as the holy Doctor infers.

MOREOVER, that distinct dominions belong to distinct Churches is proved by the holy Doctor, 16. quaest. 2. Can. Si quis, Nicholas P., where he says: if any of the Bishops should arrange to build a church in the territory of another city for whatever advantage of his own, let him not presume to make the dedication, which belongs to him in whose territory the church arises.

THE SAME cause, quaest. 3. Can. Praesulum, Gelasius Pope: it has also pleased that this be annexed, that if, which God forbid, the means of a Church, and likewise Dioceses, should be possessed by certain Bishops, claiming them to themselves by right, the tricennial law has closed it: because the authority of our sons the Princes has so commanded.

THE SAME quaest., among the things mentioned, where the question of boundaries is decided, Innocent says: cap. 6. inter, si a legitimate boundary does not enclose the same Basilica, and yet a long-time prescription is proven to be alleged, the appeal of the present Bishop shall not avail: since the tricennial objection imposes silence upon them. These things also secular Princes enjoin, as the Roman authority decreed for prelates.

Hence the holy Doctor gathers not only that Churches have distinct dominion, because they prescribe mutually against each other, but also that they have it according to Divine law equally, and human, for the reason that prescription, as is evident in the alleged canon, arises from the edict of Princes; yet the approval rests on the authority of the supreme Pontiff.

He proves this more openly from 11. quaest. 1., the words of Ambrose against Auxentius: If the emperor demands tribute, we do not deny it; let the lands of the Church pay tribute (the holy Doctor infers) but he who is bound to tribute to Caesar by reason of estates — those estates are held not so much by divine law as by human, the Savior bearing witness, who says, Matth. 22: Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God, the things that are God's.

Further, dist. 8. cap. 1., from D. Augustine on John: By what right do you defend the villas of the Church? Divine, or human? Divine right is had in the Divine scriptures; human in the laws of kings. Whence by what right does anyone possess what he possesses? Is it not by human right? Not by Divine right: The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof, Psal. 23. The same he has on John: Do not say, what is it to me, and to the king? What then to thee, and to thy possession? for by the laws of kings possessions are possessed. Thou hast said: what is it to me, and to the king? Do not call them thy possessions, for thou hast thyself renounced those human laws by which possessions are possessed. What can be said clearer than these things (the holy Doctor says) to show that the Church truly possesses temporal goods by Divine and human right? Wherefore he proclaims him importunate and impudent who denies these things.

It is proved also by reason by the holy Doctor at the end of that chapter, and D. Thom. art. 6, which Gregorius de Valencia, puncto 6, proclaims evident. To that which is not in the precept, but only in the counsel, no one is bound, unless someone binds himself to it by a particular vow; or it be necessary to execute the duty of the office owed: But the renunciation of temporal things is not commanded by God, nor do ecclesiastics vow it, nor is it necessary for ecclesiastics to rightly fulfill their function: Therefore. Tannerus also uses this argument, disp. 6. quaest. 3. dubio 3. num. 61.

He proves the same from the Fathers, Chrysost. homil. 8. in Matth., Orig. homil. 16. in Genes., Gregor. lib. 3. Dial. cap. 14., August. cont. Adimant. c. 26. See the holy Doctor, resp. tertiae cap. 1.

You will object: as religious ought to be poor in order to serve God, so also clerics according to their name, because they are called into the lot of the Lord.

The holy Doctor answers, that clerics and Religious dedicate themselves to God in different ways; for clerics do not vow poverty.

You will say: the ancient clerics led a common life, 12. quaest. 1. cap. Scimus, from Pope Urban.

The holy Doctor answers, that clerics led the common life only by counsel; afterwards, charity growing cold, it had to be otherwise. And so D. Augustine, who admitted no one to orders who would not live in common, afterwards changed his opinion, as he himself testifies, 12. quaest. 1. cap. Certe ego, from serm. 2. de communi vita clericorum, or: ad fratres in eremo.

Quaestio VI: Whether Bishops, and other Ecclesiastics, have dominion over revenues that are superfluous to their state

Whether Bishops and other Ecclesiastics have ownership of the revenues that are superfluous to their state.

I have already shown that they have ownership of certain goods; and indeed the ownership of immovable goods given to the Church resides with the Church, as St. Augustine discusses tract. 6. in Ioan., for the Bishop cannot alienate them, nor even lease them, except under certain conditions. Say the same of consumable goods, for which the same reasoning holds Authent. Praeterea, C. de sacrosanctis Ecclesiis.

But they have ownership of the stipends given them for their own particular ministries, as for Masses, etc.; the same of the distributions (as they are called) which they receive for personal services, as is gathered from cap. un. de cler. non residentibus, in 6.

It is also certain that they have ownership of that part designated to them, namely one of four. For it was the ancient custom that the goods of the Church be held in common and possessed by the Clergy, distributed by the Bishop, as is gathered from Can. 38. Apost. Afterwards, as the number of clerics grew and the dishonesty of dispensers increased, this arrangement was instituted by Sylvester in the Roman Synod, cap. 4., that the total income of the Church be divided, with the first part for the Bishop; the second for the other clerics; the third for the poor; the fourth assigned to the fabric. So it appears also in 12. quaest. 2.

Therefore, where this distribution still prevails, the Bishop has his fourth part in ownership; but where all things are held in common, he has ownership of those things that befit his state. All of this the holy Doctor has, more or less, loco citato.

The question, then, is: whether he is the owner of that part of the revenues that is superfluous, and so is bound to give to the poor only out of charity; or also out of justice, because their ownership resides with the poor.

The first opinion is that of Cajetan here, that other Ecclesiastics besides Bishops are not bound to dispense anything to the poor out of justice, and so are owners of everything. But Bishops ought out of justice to give to the poor that part which by the judgment of the wise is found not necessary for them, because it is too ample.

The second opinion denies to Bishops, and to all Ecclesiastics, ownership of the part of the income that is superfluous, and accordingly teaches that they are bound out of justice to give it to the poor. Thus Alensis 3. part. quaest. 36. m. 5. art. 2. Richar. 4. dist. 45. art. 3. quaest. 1. Palud. in 4. dist. 24. quaest. 3. art. 3. Antoninus 3. part. tit. 15. cap. 1. §. 19. Gabriel. in 4. dist. 15. quaest. 8. concl. 5. Maior. 4. dist. 14. quaest. 17. Petrus a Soto lect. 3. de Sacerd. vita, Michaël Medina lib. 7. de recta in Deum fide, cap. 27. Thomas Vuald. lib. 1. doctrinalis fidei antiquae, l. 4. cap. 42. and others cited by Couar. in can. cum in officiis, de testam. And it is the common opinion of the Canonists, vigorously defended by Nauar. tract. et Apolog. de reddit. Eccl.

The third opinion holds that Bishops and the others have ownership of these revenues. Thus D. Thom. here, and quodlib. 6. art. 12. Adrian. de restit. quaest. 12. Sylvester. verb. clericus, 4. quaest. 20. et verb. restitutio, 3. quaest. 5. Gerson in suis moral. tit. de avaritia, Sotus lib. 10. de iustitia, quaest. 4. art. 3. Driedo lib. 2. de libertate Christiana, cap. 4. Ioan. Arbotaeus in Theoph. disp. 10. quaest. 3. puncto 7. Tannerus disp. 6. quaest. 3. num. 3. dub. 22, where he asserts that the part of the poor is owed by justice when it is set apart.

As for D. Bonaventure, he seems clearly to favor this opinion in the Apology for the Poor, fourth response, cap. 1, toward the end, where he compares Ecclesiastics, in giving their superfluities to the poor, with the religious, and says they bear some obligation, though not an equal one, because they are indeed not bound by so strict a law to give those things to the poor; for it is not of perfection to give to each his own. But he refers us to part 1 of the third response, where he plainly follows the second opinion.

I assert, with the second opinion, that all Ecclesiastics are bound by justice to give their superfluities to the poor.

It is proved first by the holy Doctor by a universal argument, in the fourth response of cap. 1: for by the law of nature all things were common; afterwards, when things were usurped by the powerful, it was agreed by the law of nations that the rich should possess what they had acquired, provided they bound themselves to dispense their superfluities to the needs of the poor. This clearly pertains to justice.

It is proved by the holy Doctor in the third response of cap. 1, from the most weighty arguments of D. Prosper in de vita contemplativa, lib. 2. cap. 9, where he says: The holy men knew that the goods of the Church were nothing else than the vows of the faithful, and the prices of sinners, and the patrimony of the poor: they did not claim them for their own uses as their own property, but dispensed them as entrusted to the poor.

Hence the first argument is drawn: the goods of the Church are said in the decrees of the Fathers to be given to the Lord God, as appears in 12. quaest. 2. cap. Qui Christi, and 12. quaest. 1. cap. Res Ecclesiae, while Ecclesiastics are said to have only their administration. This argument the holy Doctor repeats in the third response, cap. 1, toward the end.

Valentia responds that the meaning is that those goods were given over to the worship of God; otherwise they would not be owners of any necessary portion.

This, however, is frivolous, for the necessary part for the ministers is understood; for the title stands: Who serves at the altar, let him live from the altar. Moreover, it presses the point that they are said to be not owners, but universal administrators. I urge this: for D. Bernard calls the Pope himself by that name in the book de consid.

From this the second argument is also brought out: always in the Church, among holy men and the Fathers, it has been understood that goods of this kind pertain especially to the poor, to widows, etc., as appears from Clem. lib. 2. Constit. Apostol. cap. 29. cap. 30, and 12. quaest. 1. cap. Praecipimus, and cap. ex his.

Valentia responds that by this alone is indicated that the strictest precept of almsgiving presses.

On the contrary: because, when by the intention of the givers they are applied to this use, it is no longer a precept of mercy, but of justice.

The third argument is drawn: for in various decrees they are said to be dispensers, not owners, as in 16. quaest. 1. cap. Decimae, and 23. quaest. 7. cap. Quod autem, and Extra de donationibus, cap. 2.

Valentia responds that either immovables are meant, or utensils; if revenues, it is understood for that time when some part has been set apart for the uses of the poor; or if they speak universally, the meaning is that the precept of Almsgiving presses.

Against this, however: for they plainly deny ownership, and assert mere administration.

I urge further: for in other decrees they are called murderers of the poor, plunderers, etc. if what is left over to them they do not give to the poor, as in dist. 42. cap. Ordinamus, and 12. quaest. 2. cap. Gloria, §. Amico, and often elsewhere.

Valentia responds that these things are said by way of exaggeration; as also of avaricious Laymen.

But in truth the things laid down in the decrees are defined for practice, and decreed as statutes, not for sermons.

It is confirmed further: for those goods were bequeathed under this condition: therefore they have no force unless the condition is fulfilled, as appears in the Civil Law, Cod. de Donationibus, which are sub modo, or under a condition, and in the Canon Law cap. Verum, extra de conditionibus appositis.

Valentia responds that this is not firm enough, for otherwise Ecclesiastics who do not give their superfluities to the poor would not be owners of any portion. But those goods do not seem to have been given under that express condition, as appears from the form of the ancient donations, such as those of the Emperor Constantine, Tom. 1. Conciliorum.

But in truth it suffices that the donations were given according to the formula commonly understood by holy men, as D. Bonaventure used to say.

It is confirmed: for by the Canon Law they are even forbidden to make wills: therefore they are not owners; nor does it avail to say they can do this by dispensation; for dispensation is then made by the authority of the Apostolic See, as Tanner noted, disp. 6. quaest. 3. num. 82.

Valentia heaps up many things, quite frivolous, to defend his opinion.

For first he vainly proclaims our opinion harsh and groundless. But it is not harsh, since it is what is commonly accepted in the Church, nor is it said without foundation.

He objects secondly from the Council of Trent, sess. 23. cap. 1. de reform., where it is decreed that Ecclesiastics having the care of souls who do not reside shall not make their fruits: therefore it supposes that those who do reside make their fruits. It is confirmed: for those who do not attend the offices do not acquire distributions, cap. unic. de cler. non resid. in 6, where it is decreed.

It is answered that this concludes, at most, that they make their fruits and acquire distributions according to the rite of the Church, such that what must be spent according to their state is in their ownership.

He objects thirdly: the ministers of the Church ought not to be in a worse condition than the other ministers of the commonwealth; but these become owners of the whole stipend: therefore.

It is answered that they have these goods as Ecclesiastics, and therefore are not of a worse condition, but of a higher state of perfection, as the holy Doctor admonishes in both places, where he compares Laymen with Ecclesiastics.

He objects fourthly certain absurdities. First, the poor could steal from avaricious clerics who do not dispense alms. Secondly, those who pay tithes could reserve a part so that the poor be rendered indemnified. Thirdly, an action in court would be given to the poor against clerics who do not dispense. Fourthly, why has the Church permitted the right of the poor not to be observed?

These things are frivolous, and are resolved in one word: for neither is it free to anyone to make justice for himself; nor does the Church fail, since it has added very many decrees on this matter.

Hence Azor. p. p. lib. 12. cap. 8. quaestio 3. Malder. 2. 2. quaest. 32. art. 6. dub. 2. Bassaeus V. eleemos. num. 6. say that the Bishop is bound to seek out the poor, that he may relieve them.

Quaestio VII: Whether those Bishops who were formerly Religious are bound to Regular observance

MUtatur the obedience of the Religious assumed to the Episcopate, so that he is subjected no longer to Praelates, but to the supreme Pontiff, the Father of all Religions, in a higher way, as D. Bonavent. teaches in 4. dist. 38. q. ultima, ad ult., and it is found in can. statutum, 18. quaest. 1.

They inquire here whether a Religious is capable of ownership of stable goods.

It is answered negatively with D. Bonav. 4. dist. 38. art. 2. quaest. ult. ad ult. D. Thom. 2. 2. q. 185. art. 8. et quaest. 88. art. 11. ad 4. Sotus lib. 19. quaest. 5. art. 7. Sylvester V. religio 7. n. 11. Rodriquez tom. 2. quaest. 58. art. 1. Sylvius 2. 2. quaest. 185. art. 8. Valerus in differ. utriusque fori verb. regularis, differ. 5. Tolet. lib. 5. cap. 4. Diana part. 2. tract. 2. resol. 61, who all, with others, adduce that the Bishop is bound, on one assumed from among the regulars, to the observance of the vows by cap. de monach. 16. quaest. 1. That this is the common opinion, Azor says, tom. 1. lib. 12. cap. 7. quaestio 4.

They think indeed that such an exemption from the obligation of the vows is granted, Villalob. sum. tom. 2. tract. 25. diffic. 40. Medina de sacra hominum continentia, lib. 5. cap. 26. et 27. Angles in 4. quaest. de voto, dub. 6. Quand. in 4. dist. 38. prop. 17. I add that things repugnant to the state do not bind, as D. Thom. says, loco cit. Valentia puncto 8. Sylv. ad locum cit. D. Thom. Bassaeus V. episc. num. 7.

But they inquire: whether a Bishop assumed from a religion becomes the owner of ecclesiastical revenues, and in this respect is absolved from the vow of poverty.

The negative opinion the holy Doctor holds, loco cit., together with forty-two Doctors cited by Sanchez tom. 2. lib. 6. cap. 6, to whom add Tanner dist. 5. quaest. 4. dubio 6. num. 151. Sanctarellus tract. de Apost. cap. 6. dub. 3. Cenedo de paupert. relig. dub 43. Barbosa in collect. tom. 4. part. 2. causa 18. quaest. 1. Faustus in Thes. lib. 6. quaest. 190, cited by Diana part. 2. tract. 2. resol. 50.

The reason is that these men ascend to a higher state of perfection, and so ought not to relax anything except what is repugnant to the state of a Bishop. But poverty does not stand in the way as regards ownership.

The opposite, however, is taught by Sotus lib. 7. q. 4. art. 2. Medin. de sacr. cont. lib. 5. cap. 26. Angl. 4. 2. part. quaest. unic. de vot. art. 2. dub. 6. Vasquez 1. 2. disp. 165. cap. 8. num. 91. Diana part. 3. tract. 2. Resol. 50. et part. 5. tract. 8. Resol. 31. Hurt. 2. 2. diff. 160. sect. 3. and others cited by them. They rely on this, because in cap. unic. 18. quaest. 1. de religioso Episcopo it is said: Like a lawful heir he has afterwards the power of claiming by law his paternal inheritance. But claiming belongs to owners alone, leg. in rem, ff. de rei vendic.

¶ You ask also whether he is bound to the observances of fastings, prayers, and the like, if they are not repugnant to the Episcopate.

I think he is not bound, so long as he has other weighty occupations. So think Sanctarellus loco cit. Lessius lib. 2. cap 40. dub. 14. num. 113. Sanchez loco cit. num. 19. Villalob. num. 17.

Hence it follows that such a Bishop is not bound to the offices of his religion, nor to the fasts. So Faustus in Thes. lib. 6. quaest. 194. Diana loco citato.

It follows secondly that he is not bound to wear the habit of his Religion; Sanctarellus above tract. de apost. cap. 1. dub. 4. Barbosa in collect. tract. 3. lib. 3. tit. 24. and others. He does indeed enjoy the privileges granted to the individual members of the Religion, as Bassaeus says, num. 7.

From what has been said you have that the Bishop is bound to residence. He is bound also to preach, if he can, from 1. Timot. 3. and the Council of Trent, sess. 5. cap. 4. and sess. 24. cap. 2. He is bound to convene a Synod every year; and to make visitation. He is bound to administer the Sacraments of Confirmation and Orders, but especially to have fit ministers.

I treat many other things concerning the duties of Bishops in my proper treatises; wherefore I stop here.

Tractatus I: PRIMUS DE VIRTUTIBUS THEOLOGICIS

Proemium I: Prooemium

Disputatio I: ON FAITH

Quaestio I: What FAITH signifies, and what it is

Quaestio II: What the object of FAITH is

Quaestio III: Whether the object of FAITH is something complex

Quaestio IV: Whether the object of FAITH can be false

Quaestio V: Whether the object of FAITH can be evident scientifically

Quaestio VI: Whether FAITH is concerned with those things which are seen by vision on the way

Quaestio VII: Whether the articles of FAITH are evidently credible

Quaestio VIII: Whether the things to be believed are rightly arranged according to the articles

Quaestio IX: Whether the articles of FAITH have grown over the course of time

Quaestio X: Whether FAITH has grown as regards light

Quaestio XI: Whether Faith has grown in certitude

Quaestio XII: Whether the articles of Faith are to be expounded by some authority which is an infallible teacher, and what it is

Quaestio XIII: What are the marks of the true Church, in which the authority of expounding FAITH resides

Quaestio XIV: What must be believed by the necessity of means

Quaestio XV: What things are to be believed by the necessity of precept

Quaestio XVI: Whether we are bound to confess FAITH, and when

Quaestio XVII: Whether it is lawful to dispute about FAITH, and when

Quaestio XVIII: Whether Faith resides in the Intellect

Quaestio XIX: Whether Faith is perfected by Charity, as by its form

Quaestio XX: Whether it is certain that FAITH remains without CHARITY

Quaestio XXI: Whether, and how, FAITH is a VIRTUE

Quaestio XXII: Whether FAITH is ONE VIRTUE

Quaestio XXIII: Whether FAITH is the first of the Virtues

Quaestio XXIV: Whether FAITH is more certain than any science, or than any intellectual habit

Quaestio XXV: Whether one can know with certainty that he has FAITH

Quaestio XXVI: In whom FAITH is found

Quaestio XXVII: Whether FAITH is a substantial Gift of GOD

Quaestio XXVIII: Whether the difference between FAITH and other acts, natural as opposed to supernatural moral acts, always arises from the object

Quaestio XXIX: On the effects of FAITH

Quaestio XXX: On the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING

Dubitatio I: Whether UNDERSTANDING is a gift of the Holy Ghost

Dubitatio II: Whether the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING can coexist with FAITH

Dubitatio III: Whether the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING consists in the contemplation of the Creator and of Creation

Dubitatio IV: Whether the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING is found in all who have grace, and whether in these alone

Dubitatio V: What is the necessity and utility of the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING

Dubitatio VI: Whether* **the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING** *corresponds to the sixth beatitude, namely, Blessed are the clean of heart, etc.

Dubitatio VII: Whether* **to the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING** *there corresponds, among the fruits of the Holy Ghost, Faith

Quaestio XXXI: On the Gift of Knowledge

Dubitatio I: Whether* **KNOWLEDGE** *is a gift of the Holy Ghost

Dubitatio II: Whether knowledge is concerned with Divine things

Dubitatio III: Whether the gift of knowledge is speculative

Dubitatio IV: Whether the third Beatitude corresponds to the Gift of Knowledge: Blessed are they that mourn, etc.

Disputatio II: On Unbelief

Quaestio I: What UNBELIEF is, and what kind of sin it is

Quaestio II: Whether all the works of unbelievers are sins

Quaestio III: Whether unbelievers can be compelled to hear FAITH

Quaestio IV: Whether unbelievers can be compelled to embrace our FAITH, when it has been sufficiently set forth

Quaestio V: Whether unbaptized unbelievers can be compelled to abandon errors or rites contrary to natural reason

Quaestio VI: Whether the rites of unbelievers are to be permitted

Quaestio VII: Whether it is lawful to make agreements with unbelievers about the toleration of their rites

Quaestio VIII: Whether unbaptized unbelievers can retain power over the Faithful, and whether they can be deprived of it

Disputatio III: On Heresy

Quaestio I: What HERESY is

Quaestio II: Whether one who doubts about the articles of FAITH is a heretic

Quaestio III: Whether one who gives merely opinionative assent to an article of FAITH is a heretic

Quaestio IV: Whether, and what, Ignorance excuses from Heresy

Quaestio V: What pertinacity is required for HERESY

Quaestio VI: Whether, for one to be deemed a Heretic, it is necessary that he have been baptized and a believer

Quaestio VII: Whether the Church can compel heretics to receive the Catholic FAITH

Quaestio VIII: On the other means the Church uses against heretics, by forbidding their Books

Quaestio IX: Whether we are bound to avoid the conversation of heretics

Quaestio X: What excommunication is inflicted upon heretics

Quaestio XI: On the other spiritual punishments of heretics

Quaestio XII: On the temporal punishments of Heretics

Disputatio IV: On Hope

Quaestio I: What HOPE is

Quaestio II: What the material object of HOPE is

Question III

Quaestio IV: Whether a certain object is set forth for HOPE, and is hoped for

Quaestio V: Whether Hope is a Virtue

Quaestio VI: Whether HOPE is a Theological Virtue

Quaestio VII: Whether HOPE is at times formless

Quaestio VIII: Whether HOPE arises from merits

Quaestio IX: Whether Hope precedes Charity

Quaestio X: What the proximate subject of HOPE is

Quaestio XI: Whether HOPE remains in the Blessed

Quaestio XII: Whether there is a precept of hoping in GOD

Dubitatio VI: Whether* the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING *corresponds to the sixth beatitude, namely, Blessed are the clean of heart, etc.

Dubitatio VII: Whether* to the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING *there corresponds, among the fruits of the Holy Ghost, Faith

Dubitatio I: Whether* KNOWLEDGE *is a gift of the Holy Ghost