Question II: Whether, and how, it is a sin of acceptance of persons to choose the unworthy, or less deserving, for benefices

Dignities and Offices, as the Holy Doctor observes in the Speculum, cap. 3, are of two kinds: some are Ecclesiastical, others Secular. Again, of the Ecclesiastical, some have annexed care of souls, such as Bishoprics and Prelacies (praepositurae); and others are simple benefices.

Distributive justice intervenes in the distribution of Ecclesiastical benefices, and consequently the opposite vice in a bad distribution: so judge D. Bonaventure, loco citato, art. 2, Valencia, disput. 5, quaest. 7, puncto 2, and others; for these benefices are not proper debts owed to anyone by his merits, but are compared with all the men of the community, so that a worthy man may be taken from among them, and among the worthy the worthier may be chosen, if need be. Yet I would not deny that Commutative justice also intervenes, which gives stipends of tithes even to the ministering benefice-holder, etc., as is intimated in Num. 18, Luke 10, 1 Cor. 9, 1 Tim. 5. Add that in the cap. finalia, extra de rescriptis, it is laid down: a benefice is not given except on account of an office, and even before the distribution one looks at whether he has merits proportionate adequately; but here it does not stop, but proceeds to compare his merits with the merits of others; and thus, among many compared, one is chosen. Hence it is called Election, as it were the selection of one from among many, as the Holy Doctor proves in book 1, dist. 40, art. 2, quaest. 2, from that text of Cant. 5: My Beloved is chosen out of thousands.

It is certain, moreover, that in elections to benefices it is necessary that a worthy man be chosen. So testifies Innocent III with the General Lateran Council, in cap. Grave nimis, which the Holy Doctor often urges in his treatises on Poverty. Hence the Council of Trent, cap. 1 de Reformatione, declares that there is no election to benefices — those which in Cathedral Churches have annexed the office of reading Sacred Scripture — in an unworthy person, or one less suitable, and who cannot himself fulfill that office.

The question is a grave one: whether they are bound to choose not only worthy men, but even the worthier.

The first opinion is that it is enough to choose a worthy man. So Hugo and the Apparatus seem to think, on cap. Licet ergo, § quaest. 1, and on cap. Monasterium 16, quaest. 7, and others, as cited by Covarruvias, Relectio on the rule Peccatum non dimittitur, nisi restituatur ablatum, part. 2, § 7 — who nevertheless says they spoke in the external forum.

Very many have followed this view, if any of the following conditions is present. First, when the excess is not notable; second, when the worthier man is of another house, or of another Church, or a stranger; third, when the greater part wishes to elect the less worthy man, then the lesser part may give him their suffrage, even if they had sworn to elect the worthier; fourth, when another unworthy man is elected, if he does not give his suffrage to this less worthy one, and the worthier would have to be excluded on account of the fewness of votes; fifth, when the worthier man presides over another Church and would have to be postulated; sixth, when the worthier man is entangled in external affairs, or does not reside as much as the less worthy; seventh, if the less worthy is already experienced and eloquent in the Prelacy, and the worthier inexperienced; eighth, when it is not free for the collator or the institutor to confer upon another, or to institute another, than the one presented to him by the Patron; ninth, if a benefice, by an institution confirmed by the Church, is to be given to someone from a certain Family or township; tenth, if the founder of a parochial benefice presents a worthy man, and not the worthier; for this is permitted him. Eleventh, when someone resigns a benefice to a worthy man, passing over a worthier one. Finally, a lay patron may elect and present a less worthy man, leaving aside a worthier. You will find all this in Valetus, de differentia utriusque fori, v. electio, diffic. 1; Ioan. de Cruz, in direct., part. 1, punct. 7, quaest. 7, art. 2, dub. 9, concl. 2; Riccius, part. 3, decis. 214, num. 3; Sylvius, 2. 2, quaest. 63, art. 2, quaeritur 4, concl. 3; Tanner, 2. 2, diffic. 4, quaest. 8, dub. 2, num. 17; Lessius, lib. 2, cap. 34, disp. 13, num. 58; Villalobos, in summa, Tom. 2, tract. 8, diffic. 4, num. 6. See also Malderus, 2. 2, tract. 9, c. 2, dub. 7; Diana, part. 2, tract. 5, resol. 110; Bassaeus, V. electio, num. 10; Lezana, tract. 1, cap. 15, num. 14; Bonagratia, V. electio, num. 161.

Far more do they assert that it is licit for a Patron to present a less worthy man, excluding the worthier — with regard to a lay Patron: Lambertus, de iure patron., part. 1, lib. 2, quaest. 10, art. 3, num. 17; Riccius, in decis., part. 3, decis. 306; Belletus, in disquis. clerical., part. 1, § 4, num. 50; Ioan. Valetus, in differ. utriusque fori, v. Electio, num. 1 — and Ledesma calls this opinion probable, summa, part. 2, tract. 7, cap. 2, conclus. 7, diffic. 9; Bannes, 2. 2, quaest. 63, art. 2, dub. 4; and most recently Garzias follows it in its terms, de benef., tract. 2, part. 7, cap. 16, num. 19; Petrus Navarrus, de restit., lib. 2, cap. 2, num. 150. Diana does not reject it, part. 1, tract. 15, resol. 37.

SENTENTIA, however — the view holding that one is bound in conscience to choose the worthier man for any Ecclesiastical benefice whatever — is expressed by D. Bonaventure in the Speculum animae, part. 3, where he says: Around the conferring of Ecclesiastical benefices I then understand acception of persons to have the character of mortal sin, when an Ecclesiastical benefice is conferred upon someone unworthy, knowingly with the worthy passed over, whether out of regard for kinship, or even for a temporal benefice, or for spiritual affection; Likewise, too, to elect a rich man to a dignity of the Church, contemptuously passing over a poorer but better-instructed man. Hence Augustine, on that text: "Do not in acception of persons," etc., James 2: Who (he says) would endure it, if someone should elect a rich man to a seat of honor in the Church, contemptuously passing over a poorer man, better instructed and holier? But if the benefices are temporal, in them acception of persons can be mortal sin in the article of necessity, when someone is bound to confer a benefice by precept, and the benefice is given to him who does not need it, by reason of a particular love; and he who is in straitened necessity is despised. Such is the word of St. Bonaventure.

D. Thomas followed him, here, 2. 2, quaest. 63, art. 2, and in quodlibet, quaest. 7 and 8; Alexander of Hales, 2. part., quaest. 136, memb. 2; Lyranus, on cap. 21 of John; Richard and Maior, in 4 Sent., dist. 15; Adrian, quaest. de restitut.; Covarruvias, relect. on the Rule Peccatum, part. 2, § 7, num. 4; Soto, lib. 3 de Iustitia, quaest. ultim., art. 2; Valencia, disput. 5, quaest. 7, puncto 2; Caspensis, Tract. 18, disput. 2, sect. 2; Fagundez, lib. 8 on the eighth precept, cap. 22, alleging very many who constantly affirm that even the Supreme Pontiff, electing less worthy men with the worthier left aside, sins lethally. These are Decius, in cap. constitutus, 2, § 7, num. 4; Cajetan, 2. 2, quaest. 63, art. 2; D. Thomas de Salonis, ibidem; Navarrus, de orat., Miscell. 38; Azorius, part. 2, lib. 6, cap. 15, quaestio 1; Reginaldus, tract. 3, num. 19; Sayrus, decis. 22 de poenitent.; Riccius, in collectan., part. 4, coroll. 93; Stephanus Gratianus, decis. 97; Raudensis, decis. 25; Barbosa, in remiss. ad Trident., sess. 24, cap. 8, numero 27; Goncales, regul. 8, glossa 4, numero 128; Rodriquez, in summa, part. 1, cap. 106; Cardinal Zapata, de provis. benefic., part. 2, num. 5, fol. 53; Lessius, lib. 2 de Iust., cap. 34, num. 64 — and Tanner says it is the common view, disp. 4, quaest. 8, num. 14; Bassaeus, V. electio, num. 11.

Indeed, not only in Pastoral benefices but even in the other simple Prebends they expressly deny that it is licit to elect a less worthy man: Vasquez, opusc. de benef., cap. 2, dub. 8, num. 78, and, as regards the more distinguished benefices, Rebellius subscribes, de obligatione Iustitiae, part. 1, l. 3, quaest. 9, num. 22; Salon, quaest. 3, art. 2; and the others cited above by Fagundez.

THOUGH on this point Reginaldus holds the opposite, Tom. 2, tract. 3, cap. 15, n. 179; Aragon, loco cit.; Lessius, l. 2, cap. 34, dub. 14, num. 66; and others cited by Fagundez, saying it is not deadly if done only once or twice; and universally the opposite is held by Navarrus, de restit., l. 2, cap. 2, num. 172; Ledesma, in summa, part. 2, tract. 7, cap. 2, concl. 7, diffic. 15; Gutierrez, can. quaest., lib. 2, cap. 11, num. 12; Gazia, de Benefic., Tom. 2, part. 7, cap. 16, num. 16; Diana, part. 1, tract. 15, resol. 38.

I ASSERT, with the sentiment of D. Bonaventure, that the worthier man is always owed election in conscience for any Ecclesiastical benefice whatever.

It is PROVED by D. Bonaventure, first, on cap. 21 of John, where Christ the Lord, about to elect the Supreme Pontiff, examines Peter three times: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? The Holy Doctor discusses this passage, collat. 99 on 21 John, finding Anthony of the Prelates in those words. For the first part: Simon, is interpreted as Hearing, or Obedient; for he who wishes to preside over others and to command must first have learned to be subject and to obey. The other part is Ioannis, or Ione; for he is called in Matth. 16 Simon Bar-iona, that is, son of the Dove, on account of the simple innocence of his life. But this name was changed into Cephas, which signifies head, κεφαλή, as the Holy Doctor says, so that he might have the eminence of perfection and holiness such as is owed to a Head, in whose figure Saul was good, and better than he was not in all Israel, and from his shoulder and upward he overtopped with his whole head, as is said in 1 Reg. 10. Yet let him keep humility together with loftiness. Hence he calls him Simon, by which name he was called while as a poor man he toiled at fishing, so that he might always remember his former state; for so too it was said to Saul, 1 Reg. 15: When thou wast a little one in thine own eyes, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel? Now in the head science flourishes; for thus he must be most learned. Hence God threatens him, Osee 4: Because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will reject thee, that thou shalt not exercise the priesthood for me, etc. Straightway Christ says: Lovest thou me more than these? to show that he ought to be more eminent and outstanding than the rest in Charity, so as to fulfill the office of Pastor most perfectly, even to offer his throat and expose himself to the slaughter of six hundred beasts for the safety of the flock. Hence D. Augustine says, Tract. 123 on John: If thou lovest me: feed my sheep, not thine own; seek my glory, not thine own; my gains, not thine own.

Of this also Isidore, Etymologiae, lib. 7, cap. 9. Hence Augustine says that to love is: To love God gratuitously, and not to expect other goods besides him. But in what manner he ought to be loved, he had said above, cap. 14: If any man loves me, he will keep my word. For, as Dionysius says, de divinis nominibus, cap. 4: the divine love is ecstatic, not allowing its lovers to remain in themselves; and because to love God in this way is to feed the sheep of the Lord, which he redeemed with his own blood, therefore there follows here: Feed my lambs, or sheep; that is, if thou lovest me, feed them, as D. Augustine, cited above, says: Feed with the word, feed with example, feed also with the fruits of the holy prayers, as St. Bernard says, epist. 101. More particularly, in what way the sheep ought to be fed spiritually, the same Bernard says, serm. 76 in Cant.: The Pastor of sheep ought to be in the pastures of the Scriptures, as in the inheritance of the Lord. And this, so that precepts may be imposed upon hard and carnal souls; the burdens of dispensations upon the weak; sound counsels and strong exhortations upon the healthy. Such is his word. Such Pastores the Lord promised, Jer. 3: I will give you Pastors who shall feed you with knowledge and doctrine.

THEREFORE in figure the ancient Fathers fed sheep before they were called to Scepters, as Moses, Exod. 2; David, 1 Reg. 16; and others; wherefore Christ, Jo. 10: I am the good Shepherd. Hence he wished first to be revealed to shepherds, as D. Ambrose notes in the Homily on the Nativity of the Lord. Hence Peter himself, 1 cap. 5: Feed the flock which is among you. Hence the reproach: Woe to the Pastors of Israel, who fed themselves, Ezech. 34. And Thren. 1 he laments: Her Princes are become like rams that find no pasture; and Joel 1: The herds have groaned, because they have no pasture, etc. Such is the word of the Seraphic Doctor, collat. 50 on cap. 21 of John, cited above.

HENCE in a grave commentary he closes with an Epiphonema, and here there stands open what is necessary for the successors of Peter, namely a fervid and true love of God, so that they love God, not themselves, and the Divine honor, not their own, and Divine gains, not their own. And perhaps first he says: Feed my lambs, twice; and once: Feed my sheep. For by lambs are signified the simple, the weak, and the poor, who ought to be fed with a twofold pasture, namely bodily and spiritual. By sheep are signified the stronger and richer, who ought to be fed with spiritual pasture. Hence the Gloss: To feed sheep is to provide, if need be, earthly succor to subjects, to furnish examples of virtues: as the Pastor feeds his flock: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and shall take up the young in his bosom, Isa. 40. Therefore he who succeeds to Peter in the pastoral office, and does not love God, nor feed the sheep, is an Idol, not a Pastor — O Pastor, and idol, leaving the flock, Zach. 11. But I resume the name Cephas, Xefali, head, and send it back to that discourse on election, in which I have adapted the Anatomy of the human head in every way to a Rector, or to the Head of some Church.

It is PROVED secondly by the Holy Doctor, from the Fathers, lib. 3 of the Pharetra, cap. 38, all with one mouth approving it.

D. GREGORY, lib. 25 Moral., cap. 11, writes thus: Because we close our eyes to things internal and invisible, and are fed by things visible, we often venerate a man not for what he himself is, but for what surrounds him; and since we do not look at what he is, but what he can be, in acception of persons we are led not by persons, but by things adhering to them. Read what he pursues there.

D. JEROME, on cap. 2 of Malachi: Among all the sins of Priests, this is noted as if the greatest, that they consider not causes but persons, and despising the just poor man, honor the unjust rich. The authority of D. Jerome is also cited, 8, quaest. 1, cap. Licet ergo.

He also, lib. 2 on Isa., cap. 3, in the Gloss, on the words: "Why do ye crush," sharply rebukes thus: Our Princes, while they publicly accuse and confound poor delinquents, make not even a gesture at the rich sinning worse, in whose houses is the rapine of the poor, while they treasure up to themselves the goods of the Church and abuse for their pleasures what is given for the sustenance of the poor, and reserve to themselves, or distribute to their kinsmen, and make of others' want their own riches, or those of their own; and lib. 3, on cap. 6 of Amos: Whoever in judging is led by kinship, or friendship, or on the contrary by hostile hatred or enmities, perverts the judgment of Christ, which is justice.

D. AMBROSE, lib. 2 de officiis, cap. 24: Far be grace the cause; let merits be discerned: let there be nothing of opinion; nay, it weighs upon Faith, if in judging thou favorest the more powerful, accusest the cause of the inferior, or the innocent poor man, and excusest the rich man guilty of fault.

ST. BERNARD, lib. 2 de consideratione: Think it no small guilt of sin, if thou takest the faces of sinners, and judgest not rather the causes of merits. Here he addresses the Supreme Pontiff Eugenius III.

The same St. Leo asserts, epist. 84, cited in cap. Metropolitano, dist. 63, where he commands that, the Metropolitan being deceased, the best man be substituted and ordained.

AND Innocent III, cap. unica extra, prescribes that Ecclesiastical benefices ought not to be dispensed out of carnal affection, but by discreet judgment to the more suitable person. The same is clear from the letter of Pope Siricius to all the Orthodox, Tomo 1 of the Concil., and from the Council of Basel, where in the form of the oath exacted from electors it is prescribed (he says): I will elect the worthier.

FINALLY in the Council of Trent, sess. 24, in the Decree de Reform., cap. 1, it is asserted that the Electors of Bishops, communicating in the sins of others, sin mortally, unless they take care to prefer those whom they themselves judge worthier and more useful to the Church, etc., by reason of their demanding merits. Regarding this, Clem. VIII, decreto Reform. Regular., and Urban VIII, demand before elections the oath of electing the worthier.

It is PROVED by reason by both Holy Doctors. Whenever a less worthy man is preferred to a worthier one for a benefice, he must be preferred on account of irrelevant conditions, whether of friendship, of kinship, or of other similar things; but this is to accept persons: Therefore. This argument St. Bonaventure brings, in the Speculum, loco citato, and in the Pharetra, from the Fathers alleged above.

It is PROVED fourthly by the Holy Doctor, on Luke 12, in those words: Who, thinkest thou, is the faithful and wise dispenser, where he says: He calls prelates dispensers: So let a man account us, as the ministers of Christ, and dispensers of the mysteries of God. Such faithful men it is difficult to find. Hence there: Now it is sought among the dispensers, that some faithful one be found; namely faithful and prudent in election. Hence Prov. 27: Be diligent to know the countenance of thy cattle, and consider thy flocks. Few are intent upon the utility of the flock; hence Ezech. 34: Woe to the Pastors of Israel.

Consider the Holy Doctor, who infers that these are dispensers, not lords; and consequently cannot dispense goods except to the intention of the Lord; and he brings the example of Joseph, who was the best Dispenser in the land of Egypt, Genes. 41. Hence he pronounces Woe upon them, who in elections do not conduct themselves faithfully and prudently, providing most excellently, as far as can be done, for the ministers of the Church.

Fagundez uses this argument, num. 2, where he also observes, with Cotta de memorabilibus, V. Papa, pag. 655, and D. Ambrose de dignitate Sacerdotali, and D. Gregory, homil. 9 in Evangelia, that the Supreme Pontiff is not excluded from this obligation; nay, he is bound the more, the greater and more universal the administration with which he is endowed. This the Holy Doctor also shows in the place cited, and Pinellus, lib. de rescindendis vend. p. p., cap. 2, num. 30. Nay, D. Bernard de considerando uses this very medium.

By these arguments it is shown that the same must be observed even in simple benefices; for these too are goods falling under dispensation, not under free jurisdiction. Wherefore the reason is not taken from the side of the benefice as it is relative to the spiritual good of the people, but as in itself it is a good for the recipient, and a good of the Republic, or of the Church, which the faithful dispenser is bound to confer to the mind of the Lord, without acception of persons; and thus St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and others spoke universally, as Diana saw, p. p., tract. 15, resol. 38, with Bannes, 2. 2, quaest. 63, art. 2, dub. 5.

NOR do they adequately extricate themselves, with others there cited by Diana, by inferring that all future Prelates will be in an evil state: For they often elect less worthy men.

I SAY, indeed: Let them look to themselves; yet not all are of that kind.

He urges secondly: For the Council of Trent commands that only Pastoral benefices be conferred upon the worthier, and consequently does not seem to include Canonicates, which in sess. 24, cap. 12 it admonishes should be conferred, if it can be conveniently done, at least in part, upon Doctors or even Licentiates in Theology: Therefore it does not compel that they be conferred upon the worthier.

It is CONFIRMED from practice: For Pastoral benefices are conferred by concursus; not so the rest. Nor do the Laws speak of these so clearly.

But truly, as is gathered from what has been said, all simple benefices too are included in this prohibition, as is clear to the reader of the testimonies. Nor does the Council of Trent proceed by mere admonition in these benefices; but in sess. 22, cap. 2 it commands that: Whosoever hereafter shall be assumed to Cathedral Churches, he not only be fully endowed with birth, age, morals, and life, and other things required by the sacred Canons; but also constituted previously in Sacred Order, at least for a space of six months. The instruction regarding which matters, if their knowledge is nothing or recent, let it be taken from the Legates, or Nuncios of the provinces, of the Apostolic See, or from his Ordinary, and he failing, from the neighboring Ordinaries; and in knowledge, besides these, let him so excel that he can satisfy the necessity of the office imposed upon him. And therefore let him previously in a university of studies have been meritoriously promoted Master, or Doctor, or Licentiate in Sacred Theology, or in Canon law, etc. But if he be a regular, let him have a like attestation from the Superiors of his Religion. And all the aforesaid, from whom the instruction or attestation is to be taken, let them be bound to report these things faithfully and gratuitously: otherwise let them know that their consciences are gravely burdened, and they will have God and their Superiors as avengers: This the holy Council decrees under grave obligation of conscience.

¶ Since these things are so, much more must this be asserted in Pastoral benefices, as nearly all assert, cited by Fernandez in Exam. Theol., part. 4, cap. 4, § 1; Castellinus, Tract. de elect. can., cap. 9; Molfesius, in summa, tom. 1, tract. 6, tit. de benefic., num. 6 and 61; Turrianus, 2. 2, tom. 2, disp. 22, dub. 2; and others whom Barbosa cites and follows, in collect. prael., 1, l. 1, tit. 6, cap. 19, num. 4; Vega, in summa, Tom. 1, cap. 109; Malderus, 2. 2, tract. 9, cap. 2, disp. 7; Vasquez, opusc. de benefic., cap. 2, § 3, dub. 1 and 8; Azorius, part. 2, l. 6, cap. 15, quaestio 1, 8 and 9 — all of whom pronounce the transgression of this precept mortal. Whatever the Gloss on cap. licet erg., 8, quaest. 1, and on cap. Monasterium, dist. 16, quaest. 7, and cap. 2 de offic. custodis, and cap. 3 de iure patron., with Rocchus, de iure patron. et honorificum, quaest. 15, toward the end, may assert to the contrary; Pedrazza, in summa prax., tr. 7, § 36; Filliuccius, tom. 3, tract. 41, cap. 4, n. 181; and Alexander of Ales, part. 2, quaest. 136, § 2 — who says that the passing over of the worthier is sin only in Bishoprics, but not in the other benefices, even those having care of souls. And Kings too are held to this, as Lessius notes, lib. 2, cap. 34, dub. 14, num. 64. Though regarding these, and regarding the Pope, they judge the opposite probable, besides those alleged; so also Diana, p. p., tract. 15, resol. 40, and others cited by Fagundez, cap. 22.

¶ Nay, I deduce from what has been said that even those resigning benefices are held to this, as Navarrus teaches, in miscell. 38, n. 7; Soto, de Iustitia, l. 3, quaest. 6, art. 2; Vasquez, opusc. de beneficiis, cap. 2, § 4, disp. 7, num. 100. Whatever Diana may judge to the contrary, loco citato, resol. 41, with Reginaldus, Tom. 1, l. 30, tract. 3, cap. 74, n. 110; Lessius, l. 2, cap. 34, dub. 13, num. 61; Malderus, 2. 2, tract. 9, cap. 2, dub. 7, citing Cajetan, Sà, and Salon. For he is a distributor, even if he resigns a benefice to a Nephew fixed upon beforehand, without comparison; for he still excludes the worthier, and sins against Distribution, and also against Commutative Justice; because he is unworthy, though flesh and blood may present him as worthy: Hence Vasquez infers that such commit more crimes than they think.

¶ But here a question arises: Whether not only he who elects an unworthy man, but also he who elects a less worthy man, omitting a worthier, sins against Commutative Justice, and is held to restitution.

The first opinion is that the matter is not against the Commutative, but only against the Distributive, from which no obligation of restitution arises. They judge it probable and safe in practice: Villalobos, in summa, Tomo 2, tract. 8, diff. 8, num. 15; Soto, de Iustitia, l. 4, quaest. 6, art. 3, ad 6; Navarrus, cap. 17, num. 74, and others, to whom Diana subscribes, parte 2, tract. 5, resol. 110, where he adds that the less worthy man, even conscious of his lesser dignity, may safely accept that benefice. Turrianus consents, 2. 2, Tract. 2, disp. 22, dub. 3, num. 8; Soto, de Iustitia, l. 3, quaest. 6, art. 2, after conclusion 9.

Yet Turrianus adds that this is true after the election; for before it, if he knows, he is bound not to concur, lest he cause injustice. Ledesma subscribes to him, Tom. 2, tract. 7, concl. 7, diffi. 19; Sylvius, 2. 2, quaestio 63, art. 2, concl. 4. Moreover Lessius says the less worthy man may even offer himself, by concurring. So l. 2, cap. 34, dub. 41, num. 70, cited by Diana.

¶ But truly, that this is a sin against both justices is held commonly, cited by Fagundez, on the 8th Precept, l. 8, cap. 22, num. 4, and Cardinal Zapata, per the cited num. 11, fol. 55. And so they judge it to be against Commutation with respect to the Church, which is deprived of worthier ministers, and against Distribution on account of the worthier man rejected; and the better Doctors hold that restitution is owed, to be made to the Church. Of this sentiment D. Thomas seems to be, quaest. 63, art. 2, in corpore. They hold it: Gazia, de benefic., 7, cap. 16, num. 53; Bannes, 2. 2, quaest. 62, art. 2, ad 6; Salon, ibid; Ledesma, part. 2, tract. 7, cap. 2, concl. 7 — against Robellus, p. p., l. 3, quaest. 4, num. 14.

Yet they do not hold that restitution is owed to the worthier man rejected, because they judge that from a violation of distributive justice no debt of restitution arises. So Lessius, l. 2, cap. 34, dub. 15; Azor, tract. 2, l. 6, cap. 15, quaestio 12; Toletus, l. 5 of the summa, cap. 4, vers. 4, and cap. 78; Valencia, quaest. 7, puncto 7; Navarrus, summa, cap. 17, num. 72; Covarruvias, on the Rule Peccatum, 2. part., § 7, num. 6; Molina, de primo genit., l. 2, cap. 5, num. 57; Gutierrez, can. qq., l. 2, cap. 11, from num. 97; and others, whom Fagundez follows, loco cit. See also Caspensis, disp. 3, quaestione 2.

Though Molina says the contrary, Theol. de Iust., Tract. 2, disp. 714; Rodriquez, Tom. 1, summa, c. 108, num. 6; Salon, 2. 2, quaest. 63, art. 4, controv. 3, concl. 4; Bannes, ibid, asserting that from a violation of Distributive Justice there results a debt of rigorous restitution, and that the elector is held accordingly to restore to the worthier man the loss thence resulting to him.

¶ But the worthier man is not to be judged that one who excels in learning or in holiness; but he who is more apt for the government of the Church, by the judgment of prudent men. So teaches Soto, l. 3, quaest. 6, art. 2; Riccius, in praxi, resol. 498, fol. 394; Covarruvias, loco citato, § 7; Hoieda, de incompatibilitate benefic., part. 2, cap. 23, num. 130; Lupus, on cap. per vestras, not. 3, § 6, num. 12, de donat.; Fagundez, num. 5.

¶ And so, just as dignity consists in legitimate age, in learning, in morals, in the orders required for a benefice, cap. cum in cunctis, § Inferior de electione, so that he be not under twenty-five years, as is had in cap. Cum in cunctis, for which a Bishop cannot dispense for honors, extra de elect.; that they have no other benefice of cura, extra de clericis, Dudum, etc. — which St. Bonaventure has in confessionali, cap. 5, particula 59; Selva, de benefic., part. 3, quaest. 5; Council of Trent, cap. 1 with the following, sess. 7, and cap. 2 and 4, sess. 22; Riccius above; and others — so indignity consists in this, that they lack the required qualities, according to Rebuffus, de pacifica possess., num. 7; D. Thomas, 2. 2, quaest. 63, art. 2; and D. Bonaventure in the places alleged, and to be alleged below. In this, however, the judgment of the superior elector avails very much. So Baldus, on cap. si pro debilitate, de off. deleg.; Menochius, de arbitr., quaest. centur. 1, casu 67, num. 13; Alexander, consil. 33, lib. 1, num. 7; Tiraquellus, de nobilit., cap. 10, num. 12; the Doctors on cap. sedes, de rescriptis. Nevertheless, by these things no infallible judgment of a Bishop, or of another Prelate inferior to the Pontiff, is established, and therefore an appeal is given from them; for in such arbitrary matters deceit can be committed. Baldus, l. si fugitivus, col. ult., and so it is clear from the Cod. de servis fugit.; Alexander, ad Bartolum, on l. si quae poena, 2, 44, at the end, ff. de verb. signific., after the Gloss there, v. poena, at the end; Tiraquellus, l. si unquam, v. omnia vel partem, num. 32, Cod. de revocand. Donat., to whom Fagundez subscribes, num. 6.

The QUALITIES of those to be elected, Valencia says, are to be taken from the end, in view of the variety of Prebends. And so, if the benefice is for teaching, say a Theological one, or for receiving confessions, there will be need of Theological doctrine and of the sacred Canons, as the Holy Doctor at length treats in his Confessionale. If for the care of souls, he will need to be endowed also with a greater Charity, as the Holy Doctor taught above on the passage of John at the end, and the Council of Trent in the places related at the beginning.

IN these matters, moreover, many things are to be guarded against, and many observed, for the public good. Hence it was rightly provided, cap. Nullus and cap. oportebat, dist. 79, that the Pope be elected by the College of Cardinals alone, lest Schisms arise.

THEN it was rightly provided, cap. Nullus, dist. 61, and cap. Metropolitano, dist. 63, that the Election of Bishops be not made except from the same Church where they previously served, if suitable men are there; for these are presumed to love the people more.

BESIDES, often also rightly in certain elections it is provided that some be promoted with respect had to nobility and the splendor of family; for these promote the good of the Church.

SIMILARLY, rightly excluded from elections are those who already have other Churches espoused to themselves; for Churches are not frequently to be changed by way of providence, so that after other sheep have been known, they be transferred, and unknown ones be taken up to be governed. Hence it was provided that this not be done, in the Councils: Nicaea, can. 15; Arelate 2, can. 13; Sardica, can. 1; Carthage 4, can. 27 — although sometimes these changes are expedient, as is clear from the letter of Pope Evaristus, epist. 2 to the Bishops of Egypt; Calixtus I, epist. to Benedictus; Antherus, epist. to the Bishops of Boetica and of the Toletan province.

FINALLY, above all, the life must be attended to, so that the life of him who is to be preferred not be gravely depraved. For he who is evil to himself is good to no one. On which matter many, with D. Bonaventure, discoursed at length upon those words of Matth. 24: Who, thinkest thou, is the faithful and prudent servant, and of Luke 12: Dispenser, etc.

ELEGANTLY the Holy Doctor says in the Apol. pauperum, art. 1, at the end, from D. Jerome, epist. 85: Let such a one be elected as future Pastor of the Church, in comparison with whom the subject people may deservedly be called a flock; and from D. Gregory, 1. part. de cura pastorum, cap. 1: So much ought the action of the people's prelate to precede the action of the people, as the life of the pastor is wont to differ from the flock.

Of the condition of Prelates the Seraphic Bonaventure discoursed most eloquently, and most wisely out of the practice of all, who for eighteen years governed the most ample Order of Minors; then made Bishop of Albano, Coadjutor of the Supreme Pontiff, Cardinal, a most strong Atlas of the Church, turning the axis upon his shoulder, he kept in view the whole orbit of the Ecclesiastical world.

He discourses on the conditions of prelates in the Libello Apologetico, against those who oppose the Order of Friars Minor, quaest. 5, where he requires maturity of Age, a becoming demeanor of person, integrity of life, discreet learning, providence, industry, and prudence, zeal for justice and the discipline of order, mildness, fraternal piety, devotion, the pursuit of prayer, etc. See it itself.

He wove an excellent little work, whose title is De sex alis Seraphim, in which, taking up that apparition of God described in Isa. 6, where in the temple, with God seated, two Seraphim having six wings stood by, with two veiling the face, with two the feet, and with two flying, etc. — he notes that Prelates are adumbrated by these, endowed as it were with wings, with six virtues especially necessary for governance: that with zeal for justice together with piety they veil the face; that with patience and exemplary life, as it were with two other wings, they cover the body even to the feet. But with circumspect prudence and devotion they fly aloft; and they are Seraphim, adorned with wisdom and Charity. I send you back to the Holy Doctor, discoursing excellently on this matter. Would that all Prelates bore those words inscribed on plates of gold in their breast, like the Rationale, in which DOCTRINE and TRUTH shine forth; I send you back also to what we discoursed on this above, disp. 20, quaest. 7.

In the first part also of the Pharetra, cap. 11, he pours forth many sentiments of the Holy Fathers on the right governance of Prelates, and others in cap. 12 compressed against wicked Prelates.

AGAIN, in the work on the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, he erects the hierarchy of all the Orders of Governors, and sets it in excellent parallels against the celestial Hierarchies.

Therefore the Prelates, the dispensers of benefices, are held to attend to these; nor is the Pope exempt from this law. For although he has the supreme power, independent of men; yet he is subject to the laws of nature and of Divine Justice; and by this doctrine the arguments of the opposite opinion are answered, taken from cap. 2 de praebendis, in 6, and from the first Clementine, in fide, which begins: Si duobus, where full and free disposition of the dignities of the Church is asserted.

FINALLY, the doctrine of D. Bonaventure must be noted with regard to secular benefices; of which he says in the Speculo animae, loco citato, in the words alleged above: But if the benefices be temporal, thus in them acception of persons can be mortal sin in the article of necessity, when someone is bound to confer a benefice by precept, and the benefice is given to him who does not need it, by reason of particular love; and he who is in straitened necessity is despised. But in those things in which one is not bound to give, acception of persons does not come in, according to that of Matthew 20: Is it not lawful for me to do what I will?

The Holy Doctor wished, moreover, to abstain from defining whether Kings in their Kingdoms can dispense benefices — that is, revenues and stipends — in whatever villages they wish; for the goods of Kings seem to be their own free property, and consequently, by the common sentiment of very many whom you have noted above, they can dispense them freely, since they are not only dispensers but Lords. So also hold the Gloss on cap. finali, 9, q. 3, verbo ad nos; Decius, in cap. quae in Ecclesiarum, de constit., num. 26; Ripa, l. 2, respon., cap. 19, num. 5; Gomez, on the rule de non tollendo iure, quaest. 1, quod. 3; Baldus, on l. Rescripta, num. 7, Cod. de precibus Imper. offer.; Gigas, de pensionibus, quaest. 10, num. 4; Socinus, consil. 13, num. 34, l. 1; and consil. 266, num. 46, l. 2; and consil. 87, num. 21, d. 3; Selva, de benef., 1. p., quaest. 1, num. 42; Alciatus, reg. 3, praesumpt. 8, num. 2; Caccialupus, de pensionib., quaest. 19, num. 30; Panormitanus, C. Inter quatuor, de maioritate et obedientia. The same is held by all who assert that Kings can take away benefices freely conferred by themselves; so the Lusitanian law, l. 1, tit. 98; Cabedo, 2. p., decis. 20; Socinus, consil. 53, l. 3; Decius, l. finali C. de pactis, loan.; Lupus, at the beginning of his repetitio de donat. inter virum et uxorem; Suarius, allegation 12; Afflictus, on cap. 1, v. potestas, num. 14, quae sint regal. feud., l. 3; Thomas Grammaticus, decis. 46; Benedictus, on C. Raynutius, verse duos, num. 37; Felinus, on C. quae in Ecclesiarum, num. 40, de const.; Ripa, respons., l. 2, cap. 19, num. 4; Gomez, on the reg. cancell., reg. de non tollendo iure, quaest. 1, col. 3.

But that the aforesaid Doctors assert the same even of offices is not proved. For there is a valid argumentation from benefices to offices; but the Pope cannot dispense and take away benefices at his pleasure: Therefore neither can Kings without cause, as Fagundez well argues from the above, cap. 23, at the line of D. Bonaventure, who wills that in those things which pertain to the public administration of government Distributive Justice be observed.

AND SO in useful goods, with which Kings erect stipends or revenues from their own treasuries, they can dispense freely; not, however, withdrawing what has already been granted, except for some cause, since it was freely assigned. To dispense with some of these, leaving others in straitened necessity, or grave necessity without succor, the Holy Doctor judges to be against Charity, and it seems also against the distributive, according to the various principles brought in disp. 1, where I showed probabiliter that it is against the law of nature, altered by the law of nations, as I said in disp. de eleemosyna, quaest. 7.