CHAPTER IV

IS IT LAWFUL FOR A RELIGIOUS, WHO HAS NOT THE CURE OF SOULS, TO PREACH AND HEAR CONFESSIONS?

THE enemies of religious, not content with trying to hinder them from producing fruit in the Church by teaching and expounding the Holy Scriptures, endeavour to do still further and greater harm, by preventing them from preaching and hearing confessions, in the hopes, that, thus, they may be rendered unable either to encourage the faithful in virtue, or to eradicate vice. They that act in this manner, clearly show themselves to be those persecutors of the Church, who, as St. Gregory says (20 Moral, on the words Quasi caputio tunicae), "make a special effort to hinder the word of preaching."

             These enemies of religion adduce several arguments in support of their persecution. First, they quote the words which occur XVI. quaest. I., "The office of a monk is one thing: that of a cleric is another. Clerics feed their sheep: I (being a monk) am fed." Again in VII. quaest. I. cap. Nequaquam, the following words are found: "The duty of the monastic life is not to teach, nor to preside, nor to feed others with the word of God, but to be subject." To preach is to feed with the Divine Word, as is seen in John xxi. 17. The Gloss on the words "feed my sheep," says, that "to feed the sheep of Christ is to strengthen the faithful lest they fall away." Hence, monks, and religious who are counted as monks, cannot preach. This is more clearly laid down in XVI. quaest. I. cap. ADJICIMUS, in which the following passage occurs: "We declare that, with the exception of the priests of the Lord, no one has license to preach, be he layman or monk, no matter how great a reputation for learning he may enjoy." Again, in CAP. Juxta, we read as follows: "We ordain, that monks shall cease entirely from preaching to the people." St. Bernard, likewise, says, in his work on the Canticles: "Preaching does not beseem a monk; it is not expedient for a novice; it is not permitted to anyone who is not sent, to preach."

             Again, it is argued that they who nourish the people with the word of God, ought also to minister to their temporal necessities. For, as the Gloss says, "to feed the sheep of Christ, means to strengthen the faithful, lest they fall away; and, if necessary, to provide for their temporal needs." As religious are, by their profession of poverty, unable to supply the people with material necessities, they cannot feed them, by preaching the word of God.

             The prophet Ezekiel asks: "Should not the flocks be fed by the shepherds?" (xxxiv. 2). By "shepherds," says the Gloss, are signified bishops, priests, and deacons, to whom the flock is committed. Hence, religious, being neither bishops, priests nor deacons, and having no charge of the flock, may not preach.

             Again: we read, (Rom. x. 15), "How shall they preach, unless they be sent?" But, Our Lord has sent none but the twelve Apostles (Luke ix.), and the seventy-two disciples (Luke x). The "twelve Apostles," says the Gloss, represent bishops; and the "seventy-two disciples" the priests of the second rank, or parish priests. St. Paul likewise (1 Cor. xii.) speaks of "helps," meaning those who assist their superiors, as Titus helped St. Paul, or as archdeacons help bishops. Religious, therefore, being neither bishops, parish priests, nor archdeacons, have no right to preach.

             We read in the decretals (dist. LXVIII.), "Chorepiscopi are strictly forbidden both to this Holy See and to all bishoprics throughout the entire world. This institution is an abuse and corruption." The reason of the prohibition is given in these words, "For, Our Lord only, as we know, established two orders, to wit, the twelve Apostles, and the seventy-two disciples. Whence this order arose, we know not, but, as there is no reason for its existence, it must be abolished." Preaching religious (our adversaries add), being neither bishops (i.e. successors of the Apostles), nor parish priests (i.e.successors to the seventy-two disciples), ought, likewise, to be suppressed.

             Dionysius (CAP. VI. Ecclesiast. hierarch.), says that, "the monastic Order ought not to be in a position of superiority to others," or, according to another version, "is not instituted for the purpose of guiding other men." Now, men are led to God by teaching and preaching. Hence, neither monks, nor other religious, ought to preach, or to teach.

             The hierarchy of the Church is modelled on the celestial hierarchy, according to the words (Exod. xxv. 40), "Look, and make it according to the pattern that was shown thee in the mount." Now, in Heaven, angels of an inferior rank never exercise the functions proper to those of a superior degree. Since, then, the monastic order is counted among the lesser orders of the Church, monks, and other religious, ought not to perform the office of preaching, which belongs to bishops, and other prelates of a higher rank (Dionysius, CAP. VI. Ecclesiast. hierarch.).

             Again, when a religious preaches, he does so either with power, or without power. If he preach without power, he is a false apostle. If he preach with power, he has a right to demand the means of subsistence. Our Lord, when sending forth His Apostles to preach, bade them take with them nothing on the way save only a staff (Mark vi.). This staff signifies, (according to the Gloss), the power of accepting the necessaries of life, from those subject to them. Now, it does not seem fitting that religious should demand the means of support. Therefore, they ought not to preach.

             Bishops have more right to preach than have religious, who are not entrusted with the cure of souls. But, a bishop cannot preach outside his diocese, unless he be requested to do so by other bishops or priests. For, it is clearly laid down (IX. quaest. III.), "Let no Primate, or Metropolitan presume to judge the church, or parish, or anyone belonging to the parish of another diocese"; and the same rule is given in several other chapters. Therefore, religious, who have neither diocese nor parishes, may not preach, unless specially invited to do so.

             A preacher ought not to build upon another man's foundation, nor to glory in another man's converts. He ought, rather, to imitate St. Paul who says, (Rom. xv. 20), "I have so preached this gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation." And, again, the same Apostle says, (2 Cor. x. 15), "Not glorying beyond measure in other men's labours," which words the Gloss explains as meaning "not glorying where another has laid the foundation of faith, which would be to glory beyond measure." In the same chapter, St. Paul uses the expression, "not to glory in another man's rule," which the Gloss interprets as signifying, "not to glory in those who are under the government of another." Therefore, those who have not the cure of souls ought not to preach to such of the faithful as are entrusted to others. They ought, rather, to lay the foundation of the faith among unbelievers.

             The adversaries of religious, not content with these efforts to prevent them from preaching, endeavour, likewise, to prove that they have no right to hear confessions. In support of this opinion, they quote from XVI. quaest. I., Cap. Placuit: "We positively, and irrevocably, decree, that no monk shall administer penance to anyone." And, in another chapter, we find the words: "Let no monk presume to administer penance, to receive a child to baptism, to visit or anoint the sick, to bury the dead, or to meddle with any office of the kind." Again (Cap. Interdicimius), the following words occur: "We forbid abbots and monks to impose public penance, or to visit or anoint the sick." From all these passages it appears evident, that monks and religious, (who are included under the same laws), have no right to hear confessions.

             Further, in the book of Proverbs (xxvii. 23) the following exhortation is addressed to priests in charge of churches: "Be diligent to know the countenance of thy cattle." The Gloss thus comments on these words: "The Pastor of a church is bidden to take diligent care of those committed to him. He must know their doings, and he must remember to correct the vices which he may observe among them." But how is the pastor of a church to know the actions and failings of those under him, save by confession? Hence, the faithful should not confess to any except to their own parish priest.

             We further find, that the following words were pronounced by Pope Innocent in a general council (extra de paenitentiis et remissis). "Every one of the faithful, of both sexes, shall, on reaching years of discretion, confess all his sins privately at least once a year to his own priest. He who is thus absolved of his sins, need not confess them again." Hence it follows, that, if any, save a parish priest, had the right to hear confessions and to give absolution, the faithful would not be bound, once in the year, to make their confession to their own parish priest. Now, as religious are not parish priests, and have not charge of the faithful, they ought not to hear confessions nor to absolve penitents.

             The faithful are, likewise, bound, according to the same decretal, to receive the sacraments from their own priests. None but those in due dispositions ought to receive the sacraments. As a priest can only, by means of confession, judge of the state of soul of him to whom he administers the sacraments, it follows, that only parish priests can be empowered to hear confessions and to give absolution.

             It is necessary that the Church should avoid not only sin, but the risk of sin, "that I may cut off the occasion from them," as St. Paul says (2 Cor. xi. 12). Now, if the faithful are at liberty to confess to others, besides to their own priests, many may say that they have been to confession, and yet approach the sacraments without confession. The parish priest would be powerless to hinder this abuse. Therefore, Religious ought not to be allowed to hear confessions, as they are not parish priests.

             The power to absolve sinners, belongs only to him, whose duty it is to correct them. Dionysius, in his epistle to Demophylus the monk, expressly says, that correction is the office, not of monks, but of priests. Hence, religious ought not to administer absolution to penitents. As religious have no defined province, or diocese, or parish, they may, if they be allowed to preach or hear confessions at all, do so anywhere. Their power therefore exceeds that of bishops, primates, or patriarchs, who are not universal rulers. Even the Pope has forbidden himself to be called Bishop of the Universe. And in Decretis (dist. XCIX.) it is distinctly laid down, that, "no Patriarch shall ever make use of the name, Universal." The same prohibition is repeated in the next chapter.

             Arguments are further brought forward to prove, that religious cannot, by authority of bishops, preach or hear confessions. It is objected, that a man no longer possesses what he gives away; and, therefore, if bishops commit the charge of parishes to parish priests, the care of those parishes belongs no longer to the bishops themselves, but to the parish priests. Hence, they cannot give to religious faculties to preach and hear confessions, without the consent of the parish priests. Again, it is urged, that, by laying on a priest the care of a parish, the bishop frees himself from its responsibility, which rests on the priest to whom the charge is committed: "keep this man: and if he shall slip away, thy life shall be for his life" (3 Kings xx. 39). If a bishop were answerable for all the parishes in his diocese, his responsibility and burthen would be intolerable. The care of each parish belongs to the priest appointed to take charge of it; and the bishop should not interfere with it further.

             It is further maintained, that, as a bishop is subject to his archbishop, so are priests subject to their bishops. But archbishops cannot meddle with the subjects of a bishop, unless he be proved guilty of negligence. "Let archbishops do nothing in matters concerning the affairs of the bishops without taking counsel with them" (IX. quaest. III.). On the same grounds, bishops must not meddle with the affairs of parish priests, without their consent; unless a priest be proved guilty of negligence or fault. Each parish priest is the bridegroom of the church entrusted to him. But, if other clergy, besides those commissioned by the bishops, exercise in parish churches the ministry of preaching or hearing confessions, the Church will have many bridegrooms. This state of affairs would clearly be opposed to the decree (VII. quaest. I.), ordaining that "as it is unlawful for a wife to commit adultery, or to be judged or disposed of during the lifetime of her husband, without his permission; so the spouse of a bishop (i.e., his church or parish), may not, during his lifetime, be, without his will and consent, judged or disposed of; neither is it lawful to exercise ministry in such a church or parish." And this prohibition, as Gratian says, applies not only to bishops, but to all ministers of the Church.

             Our opponents, also, endeavour to prove, that religious are not, even by the permission of the Apostolic See, allowed to preach or hear confessions. For, not even the authority of the Pope can establish any custom, or make any law opposed to the statutes of the Fathers. This is clearly expressed XXV. QUAEST. I. CAP. Contra statuta: "If it be against the statutes of the early Fathers, that any should preach or hear confessions, save only the priests of the Lord, permission so to do can be given to no one, even as a privilege granted by the Pope" (Cf also XVI. quaest. I.). We, also, find in XXV. QUAEST. I. CAP. Sunt quidam, the following words: "If, which God forbid, the Roman Pontiff should try to overthrow the teaching of the Apostles and Prophets, he would be convicted, not of giving an opinion, but of falling into error." If, then, there be an Apostolic ordinance "not to glory in another man's rule" (2 Cor. x.) the Pope, were he to confer the privilege just mentioned, upon any man, would commit an error.

             It is a law, that, when a sovereign grants permission to a man to erect a building in a public place, it is understood that he to whom this privilege is conceded, may only use it in so far as it be not to the prejudice of anyone. (See Ne quid in loco publico oedificare, lib. I. Si quis a principe.) And in XXV. QUAEST. II. CAP. de ecclesiasticis, St. Gregory says: "As we defend our own property, so let each one of us be jealous for the rights of his own church. I will not, through partiality, concede to any man more than he deserves; nor shall any cunning cause me to refuse to anyone that which is his right." But, if a man preach or hear confessions in a church uninvited, he is doing an injustice to the parish priest. Hence, no permission for the exercise of these functions ought to be granted, without the consent of the clergy of the parish.

             Again, if a sovereign grant to any individual freedom to make a will, he does not, thereby, give him permission to do more than to draw up an ordinary and legitimate will. It is not conceivable that a Roman governor, the protector of law, should desire, by one word, to prevent the observance of the statutes concerning wills, which have been framed with such laborious care. (De inoffic. testament. lib. SI QUANDO.) In like manner, if the Pope should grant to any persons the privilege of preaching or hearing confessions, the permission ought to be understood in its usual sense, i.e., subject to the wishes of parish priests.

             A monk receiving priestly Orders, has not the faculties for performing the functions attached to the sacerdotal office, (e.g. the administration of the Sacraments), unless he be canonically appointed to the care of a parish. We, further, find it laid down (XVI. quaest. I., cap. Adjicimus Monachi autem), "If the office of preaching be, by a Papal privilege, committed to any man, he cannot exercise it when souls have not been entrusted to him."

             Moreover, neither the Pope nor any other mortal man can overturn, or alter, the ecclesiastical hierarchy, which has been divinely instituted. For this power has been given to no one "unto destruction, but unto edification" (2 Cor. x.). But, in the order of the Church, monks are amongst those who are to be made perfect (see CAP. VI. Ecclesiast. hierarch.). Nothing, therefore, can so alter this order, as to place monks amongst those whose office it is to make others perfect.

             Those who argue in this manner, strive, further, to prove, that religious have no right to seek permission from bishops or parish priests, to preach, or hear confessions. If they do so, they are actuated by an ambitious desire of usurping the ecclesiastical office. In VIII. QUAEST. I. CAP. Sciendum, we meet with the following words: "When a command is laid upon a man to assume an exalted position, he who obeys the order loses the merit of obedience, if he ambitiously aspire to the post." Now, preaching and hearing confessions are duties of the ecclesiastical state, and, therefore, confer dignity and power. Hence, religious cannot, without notable ambition, ask for permission to preach and hear confessions. They can only do so when required. Here, then, is the source from which the error mentioned before has arisen. For as Boetius says, the road of faith runs between two heresies; just as virtue keeps on the centre line between vice. For, virtue consists in preserving the due balance of things; and by doing too much or too little, man falls from virtue. In the same way, he that holds either more or less than the truth, falls into error; but truth is the centre line of faith. Now, it must be remembered, that there have been certain heretics, and some now exist, who consider that the power of the ecclesiastical ministry depends upon sanctity of life, and that he who is not holy loses this power, and that this power is increased in proportion to a man's holiness.

             This opinion does not concern our point; but, let us, for the moment presume it to be erroneous. From this error has arisen the presumption of certain men, especially of monks, who, elated by their holiness, have, at their own pleasure, usurped the functions of ecclesiastics--preaching, and giving absolution, without any episcopal commission. We find their audacity rebuked (XVI. quaest. I. PERVENIT AD NOS), in the following terms: "We are astonished that in your parish, certain monks, and abbots, have, contrary to the decrees of the holy Fathers, arrogated to themselves the rights and functions of bishops. They administer penance and remission of sins, bring about reconciliations, and dispose of tithes and churches. They ought not to presume to act thus, without license from the bishop, or authority of the Apostolic See." Now, in their condemnation of the presumption of these monks, certain men have fallen into the error of rashly saying, that religious are unfitted to perform the duties just enumerated, even though they be appointed thereto by the authority of the Bishop. This error is thus mentioned (XVII. quaest. I.), "There are certain men, filled rather with bitter jealousy than with love of truth, who, without any grounds for their assertion, have the presumption to state, that monks, who have died to the world in order to live to God, are unworthy of exercising the priestly office, and are incapable of administering penance, of teaching Christianity, or of giving absolution, in spite of the power divinely committed to them at their ordination. But this is a complete error." Other men, again, are led by their audacity into another mistake. They assert that religious are not merely precluded, by their state of life, from exercising the sacerdotal functions; but, that, bishops cannot, without the consent of the parish priests, grant them faculties for their performance. Nay, the Pope himself, they say, cannot qualify religious to act as priests. Thus, this error leads to the same result as that which we have previously mentioned. For while one error detracts from the ecclesiastical power, the other asserts that the power of the church depends upon sanctity of life.

             Our next task will be to refute this error, and we shall proceed in the following order. First, we shall show that bishops, and superior prelates, can preach, and absolve those who are under the care of priests, without needing the permission of those priests. Secondly, we shall prove that they can empower others to act in like manner. Thirdly, we shall make clear, that religious are, when commissioned by a bishop, capable of exercising these functions. Fourthly, we shall demonstrate that it is expedient, for the welfare of souls, that others, besides parish priests, should be allowed to preach, and hear confessions. Fifthly, it will be shown, that a religious order, may, advantageously, be founded for the purpose of preaching, and hearing confessions, with license from the bishops. Sixthly, we shall reply to the objections of our adversaries.

             1. The fact that a bishop has, in any parish of his diocese, all the powers of a priest, is proved by these words from X. QUAEST. I. CAP. Sic quidam: "All that has been established in the Church, by her ancient constitution, belongs to the office and power of a bishop." Again, in the next chapter, the same is laid down. Now, the temporal things of the Church exist for the sake of that which is spiritual. Hence, with far greater reason, the spiritual concerns of parishes are committed to the bishops. Again, in the same quaestion it is said, that, "every parish is to be administered under the care and supervision of the bishop, by the priest or the other clerics, whom he shall appoint, in the fear of God." In the following chapter, we likewise read, that, "a church must be governed and conducted, according to the judgment and power of the bishop, who is charged with the souls of his whole flock."

             Again, a priest in charge of a parish can do nothing in it, without a general or particular permission from his bishop. Hence, XVI. QUAEST. I. CAP. Cunctis fidelibus, we find the following passage: "All priests, deacons, and other ecclesiastics, must, above all things, bear in mind, that they may do nothing without license from their respective bishop. Without this license, a priest cannot in his own parish say Mass, baptise, or perform any other office." Hence a bishop has more power in each parish of his diocese, than have the priests of those parishes. For, they can do nothing without the Bishop's leave.

             The Gloss commenting on the words (1 Cor. i.), "in every place of theirs and ours," says: "these words signify in every place originally committed to me," and the Apostle was speaking of suffragan churches, i.e., churches subject to the Church of Corinth. If, then, bishops are the successors of the Apostles, and retain their office, as appears from the commentary in the Gloss on Luke x., the chief power in a parish belongs rather to the bishop, than to the parish priest. For the words, "in every place of theirs and ours," cannot mean that the church was first entrusted to St. Paul, and then taken from him, and given to another, else it would have ceased to be his.

             Apollo was a priest, ministering to the Corinthians, as we know from the words (1 Cor. iii. 6), "Apollo watered," i.e., "by baptism," (Gloss). Nevertheless, St. Paul regulated the affairs of the Church of Corinth, as we learn from his own words, "The rest I will set in order, when I come" (2 Cor. ii. 34). And again, "For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ" (2 Cor. ii. 10). And, again, he writes to the Corinthians (1 Ep. iv. 21): "What will you? Shall I come to you with a rod? or in the spirit of meekness and charity?" Again, "according to the measure of the rule, which God hath measured to us, a measure to reach even unto you" (2 Cor. x. 18). In another chapter, he says: "Therefore, I write these things being absent, that being present, I may not deal more severely according to the power which the Lord hath given me" (2 Cor. xiii. 10). This "power," as the Gloss says, was that of "binding and loosing." Hence, we clearly see, that a bishop retains full jurisdiction over the people entrusted to priests.

             Again, priests are said to be successors of the seventy-two disciples, and bishops successors of the twelve Apostles (cf. Gloss on Luke x). Now, it would be absurd to maintain, that the apostles had no power of binding or of loosing and of performing other spiritual works, without permission from the seventy-two disciples. This argument holds good in like manner, with regard to the relations between bishops and priests.

             Dionysius, furthermore, says (cap. V. ECCL. HIER.), that, "Although the duty of the episcopate is to perfect others, that of the priesthood to enlighten them, and that of the diaconate to cleanse them; nevertheless, bishops are bound, not only to perfect but likewise to enlighten and to purify their people. In like manner, it is the office of priests, not only to enlighten, but likewise to purify their flocks." He gives the following reason for his assertion: "Inferior powers cannot become capable of the higher works; and it would be unjust were they to aspire to such a dignity. But the more divine powers are able to perform inferior operations, as we see by the words of Maximus."

             It is plain, then, that, if a priest can do the work of a deacon, a bishop can accomplish all, and more than all, that is done by a priest. A priest can, without permission from his deacon, read the gospel in his church. Therefore a bishop can, without license from the parish priest, absolve and administer the other Sacraments in any parish church of his diocese. What a man does through the agency of another he can do himself; but when priests give absolution it is their bishop who is said to absolve by their instrumentality. Hence Dionysius (VI. cap. ECCLESIAST. HIERARCH.) writes: "He who, according to us, is the high priest, does, by means of priests, his ministers, cleanse and illuminate us. It is he who is said to exercise these functions; because he entrusts others with the power of performing these sacred actions in his stead." Hence, a bishop may, in his own person, give absolution, or preach.

             Again, the inferior clergy owe obedience to their prelates, in all that regards their cure of souls. Thus St. Paul says (Hebr. xiii. 17)," Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch (i.e., they are solicitous for you in preaching) as being to render an account of your souls." A parishioner is more stringently bound to obey his bishop, than his parish priest. For, as the Gloss says, in the commentary on the words Rom. xiii., obedience must be paid rather to the higher than to the lower power; thus a proconsul must be obeyed rather than a governor, and an Emperor rather than a proconsul. For, obedience must be proportioned to rank. This maxim applies to spiritual, far more strongly, than to temporal affairs. Hence, bishops, who are invested with power superior to that of parish priests, are, at the same time, more fully responsible for the people. The words of the book of Proverbs (xxvii. 25), "Be diligent to know the countenance of thy cattle," refer to the cure of souls, and are chiefly carried out by hearing confessions. Therefore, it beseems bishops, even more than parish priests, to hear the confessions of the faithful.

             As the seventy-two elders, of whom we read (Num. vi.), were given to Moses as assistants; so priests are appointed as coadjutors to bishops, who could not bear their burdens unaided. Hence, at the ordination of a priest, the bishop makes use of the following, and other similar words: "The weaker we are, the more do we stand in need of assistance." But, the fact that a bishop has a coadjutor, does not deprive him of his own powers; for he still continues to be the primary agent, and priests are his ministers. Hence, bishops have as good, yea better right, than priests, to perform every sacerdotal office, without the permission of any priest.

             Further, bishops hold, in the Church, the place of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore Dionysius says (Cap. V. ECCLESIAST. HIERARCH.), "The Pontifical order is the first of divine ordinances, and supreme in the hierarchy of the Church. In it all degrees of the ecclesiastical hierarchy are consummated, and made perfect." As we behold the universal hierarchy summed up in Jesus, so each particular hierarchy attains its fulness in its own chief priest, i.e., its bishop. St. Peter (1 Ep. ii. 25), says of Christ, "be ye converted to the pastor and bishop of your souls." These words also apply, chiefly, to the Roman Pontiff, "before whom," as St. Cyril remarks, "every head must, by divine right, bow; and whom all must obey, as they would obey Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself." St. Chrysostom says, commenting on the text of St. John, "feed my lambs": "These words are equivalent to saying, ' do thou be, in my place, head and master of thy brethren."' Hence, it is absurd, and almost blasphemous, to say that a bishop, who represents Christ, cannot exercise the power of the keys over any person in his diocese.

             In order to give absolution, it is necessary to have the power of the keys, and jurisdiction, over every soul in a diocese. By this the matter is determined; and, for the administration of penance as for the other Sacraments, all that is necessary is the power of Orders, and the matter, together with the appointed form and due intention. Now, a bishop being a priest has the keys. He has jurisdiction over every member of his diocese, otherwise he could not summon them to appear before him. Hence, without the permission of any priest, he can give absolution to everyone in his diocese.

             It is argued, that it is necessary for parish priests to hear confessions, because they have the duty of administering the Blessed Eucharist, which no one should receive who is in mortal sin. But, Confirmation and Holy Orders, likewise, require a state of grace in their recipients; and these Sacraments can be given by bishops only. Hence, a bishop is entitled to hear the confession of every person in his diocese.

             Further, no one can reserve to himself what is not within his own power. Now, by a common usage, bishops reserve to themselves certain cases for absolution. But, in order to act thus, they must have power to absolve. Hence they must likewise have power to absolve in all other cases, in which they desire to do so.

             Dionysius remarks that, in our hierarchy the episcopal power is universal, the power of priests and other ministers particular (I. Cap. and V. ECCLESIAST. HIERARCH.). But, as we know by philosophy, universal power acts more efficaciously on that which is subject to a particular power, than does that particular power itself. Hence, a bishop exercises the power of the keys more efficaciously on those who are subject to priests, than do priests themselves.

             Further, it is plain, that no man can give to another anything that he does not himself possess. It is the office of a bishop to give authority to priests. But, by imparting this authority, a bishop does not deprive himself of it; for spiritual gifts are only bestowed by the action of the giver on the recipient. But as an agent does not, by acting, lose the power of acting, a bishop retains all that power which he gives to parish priests.

             2. Our next task will be to prove, that certain men can be commissioned by bishops to preach, and hear confessions, in the parishes entrusted to priests. For, as it is stated (de officio judic. ordin. cap. INTER CÆTERA), "a bishop may, with expediency, choose out certain men fit for the holy office of preaching." And again, "we enjoin that, both in cathedrals and in conventual churches, bishops should appoint certain coadjutors and fellow-workers, who shall assist, not only in the duty of preaching, but in that of hearing confessions, imposing penance, and other such offices as may pertain to the welfare of souls." From these words, it is plain, that the clerics of monastic churches, who are not parish priests, may, by the authority of the bishop, preach and hear confessions.

             Again, in Extra DE HÆRETICIS, cap. excommunicavimus, quia vero, it is laid down that, "All such as have been forbidden to preach, or who have not received, publicly or privately, license to preach from the Apostolic See, or from the Catholic bishop of a place, and shall yet usurp the office of preaching, do so under pain of excommunication." Hence we see, that the Pope, or a bishop, can give to any priest authority to preach.

             Further, it is certain, that the Apostles, of whom bishops are the successors, ordained certain priests in cities and villages, to dwell continually among their people. But they, likewise, sent forth others to preach and to perform other offices, for the good of souls. Thus, St. Paul writes (1 Cor. iv. 17), "I have sent to you Timothy, who is my dearest son and faithful in the Lord: who will put you in mind of my ways, which are in Christ Jesus." Again (2 Cor. xii. 18), "I desired Titus, and I send with him a brother," i.e. Barnabas or Luke. The Apostle also writes to Titus (i. 5), "For this cause I left thee in Crete that thou mightest correct what was wanting, and that thou mightest appoint priests, as I appointed to thee." Hence, other priests, besides those in charge of parishes, may preach, and hear confessions, with license from a bishop.

             The offices of preaching, and of hearing confessions, pertain both to jurisdiction and to Orders. But offices pertaining to jurisdiction, can only be exercised by those who have received Orders. Hence, if a bishop without asking permission of the parish priest, can preach or hear confessions in any parish church within his diocese; another priest, may, by the commission of the bishop, act in the same manner.

             This proposition is likewise proved, by the fact, that persons seeking admission into the Church, receive from the Papal penitentiaries letters empowering them to make their confession to any priest whatsoever. And the Papal legates and penitentiaries preach everywhere, and hear confessions without asking any permission from parish priests, but solely by the authority of the Pope. This proves that commission can be given to certain priests both for preaching and for hearing confessions, without any necessity for a further license from parish priests.

             3. It now remains to be proved, that religious are fit to perform the functions of preaching and hearing confessions. For, in XVI. QUAEST. I. CAP. Pervenit, it is stated that "without the license of their own bishop monks and abbots may not presume to administer penance." Whence it follows, that religious, when authorised by the Pope or by a bishop may lawfully hear confessions. Again, in the same chapter the following words occur: "We, in our Apostolic discretion and tenderness, decree that it is lawful for monks who are priests, and who represent the Apostles, to preach, baptise, give communion, pray for sinners, impose penance, and absolve from sin."

             In the next chapter, "Sunt tamen nonnulli," Pope Boniface speaks thus: "We believe that, by the operation of God, the office of binding and loosing may be worthily accomplished by monks in priestly orders, if they have been deservedly exalted to this rank. We further ordain, that, for the future, those shall be reprimanded who contend, that priests of the monastic profession are excluded from the exercise of the sacerdotal functions. For the higher a man's rank the greater is his power."

             Again, bishops are bound, as far as possible, to imitate the divine judgments. St. Paul says (1 Cor. ii. 1), "Be ye imitators of me, as I also am of Christ." But, God has judged some monks worthy to preach without any human authorisation. This was the case with the monk Equitius, as St. Gregory relates (in Dialog.), and also with St. Benedict. Hence, bishops may rightly esteem certain religious to be fit to preach.

             Further, everything that is lawful to secular priests is lawful, likewise, to religious, with the exception of any points forbidden by their rule. In ARG. XVI. QUAEST. I. Sunt tamen nonnulli, it is laid down, "that it is right for monks to absolve and to perform similar functions. St. Benedict the gentle guide of monks has not forbidden such offices to be undertaken by religious." Secular priests, when authorised by a bishop, may preach and hear confessions. Hence, as there is no rule forbidding monks to perform these duties, they may preach and hear confessions in like manner.

             It is a greater dignity for a man to preach by his own authority, than by the commission of another. Now, religious are always liable to be raised to the episcopate, in which rank they have a right to preach, and do other work expedient for the welfare of souls, at their own discretion. Why then should they be deemed unfit to preach, by the permission of a bishop?

             The fact that a man is in a state of perfection does not incapacitate him from preaching. On the contrary, preaching is a ministry peculiarly befitting the perfect state professed by religious. Hence, the Gloss, commenting on the words of Esdras (1 Esdras 1), "All the rest," etc., says: "All those who have been chosen and delivered from the powers of darkness, belong to the liberty of the glory of the children of God; and they all rejoice at being declared to belong to the society of the holy city (i.e., the Church); but it is the prerogative of the perfect alone to labour at building up the Church, by preaching to others." The fact that these words apply to the perfection of religious, is proved by the following words: "The more earnestly preachers instruct their hearers to love heavenly things, the less will they care about earthly goods. Nay, they will even abandon what they already possess, in the hope of obtaining an eternal heritage." This interpretation, further, appears in the interlinear commentary, which says, "all the rest," i.e., "the rich who cannot preach." Hence, religious are not less fit than others to preach, and, with the commission of a bishop, have as much right to hear confessions and to preach, as have parish priests.

             On the words, "then we set forward from the river" (1 Esdras viii. 31), the Gloss thus comments: "Let us, likewise, call to our assistance the religious army of brethren; by whose help we may carry the souls of the faithful to the society of the elect, and to the fortress of a more perfect life; as we should carry holy vessels to the temple of the Lord."

             The right of religious to preach and hear confessions is proved by the common custom of the Eastern Church, in which almost all the monks are confessors.

             Again, a greater responsibility attaches to the office of legate, and to the work of confirming bishops, and setting them over churches, than to the office of preachers or confessors. But, as we know, that the first and more onerous duties are entrusted to religious, there is no reason why they should not perform the less important ones.

             Again, the work of hearing lawsuits has less connection with the religious life, than have the tasks of preaching or absolving. But, as religious are employed in the former office, they may, with far greater reason, be entrusted with the latter functions.

             4. It now remains for us to show, that it is expedient for the salvation of souls, that others, besides parish priests, should preach and hear confessions.

             Our first proof is taken from the words of Our Lord (Matt. ix. 37), "The harvest indeed is great"--or as the Gloss explains, "There is a vast multitude capable of receiving the word and of bearing fruit"--"but the labourers are few," i.e. (according to the Gloss), "the preachers who shall gather together the church of the elect." "Pray ye, therefore, the Lord of the harvest, that He send labourers into His harvest." These words show, that it is salutary for the Church, that the word of God should be announced to the faithful by many preachers, with an ever increasing number of believers.

             Again, it is written in the Book of Wisdom (vi. 26), "In a multitude of counsellors there is wisdom." These words are interpreted by the interlinear commentary to signify, "a multitude of preachers brings health to the whole world."

             St. Paul says (2 Tim. ii. 2), "The things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men," i.e., "men of sound faith" (Gloss), "who shall be fit," i.e., "fitted by their good life, their learning and eloquence" (Gloss), "to teach others also." In other words, "the office of preaching ought to be committed to those capable of fulfilling it" (Gloss).

             Again, the Gloss has the following comment on the words of Esdras (1 Esd. iii.), "all that were come from captivity unto Jerusalem": "Not only is it the duty of bishops and priests to build up the house of God, whereby is signified His faithful people; but the people themselves, who are called out of captivity into Jerusalem, the vision of peace, ought likewise to require ministry of the Word from them that know how to preach."

             St. Gregory (XIX. Moral) remarks on the passage in Job xxix., "when I washed my feet with butter": "What shall we bishops say, who care not to impart the Word entrusted to us, when we see this married man who does not suffer himself to be hindered from preaching, either by his worldly garb, or his pressing occupations?" By these words we see, that others, besides prelates and parish priests, may rightfully exercise the office of preaching.

             We learn the same lesson from many other passages of the Old Testament. David is praised for having extended the worship of God, and for having established twenty-four priests for the benefit of the people (1 Paral. xxiii. and xxiv.). The same thing is related of Ezechias (2 Paral. xxx. 6): "The posts went with letters, by commandment of the King and his princes, to all Israel and Juda, proclaiming, according to the King's orders: 'Ye children of Israel, turn again to the Lord God,'" etc. Assuerus, again, as we are told in the book of Esther (Cap. vii.), sent swift messages through the provinces, to announce the deliverance of the people of God. With much greater reason, then, may others, besides parish priests, be commissioned to preach, and to perform such like offices, for the salvation of souls.

             St. Gregory, in a homily (cap. V. Part I. on Ezechiel), says: "The pastors of souls and they who have undertaken the responsibility of feeding the flock of Christ, ought very seldom, if ever, to change their dwelling. But those, who, for love of God take journeys, for the sake of preaching, may be compared to wheels of fire. For the zeal which devours them, and wherewith they inflame others, causes them to travel swiftly from place to place." This is another proof, that the office of preaching should be committed, not only to parish priests, but to others who can, by travelling from one place to another, spread the knowledge of the truth.

             Again, it behoves a preacher of the Word to be free from any other occupation; whereas parish priests are constantly engaged in good works, and in ecclesiastical business. The Apostles said, "It is not fit that we should leave the word of God and serve tables" (Acts vi. 2). On this account, it is right, that those who are in charge of parishes, should be assisted by others not thus occupied.

             The necessity for priests devoted to the ministry of preaching is, furthermore, shown by the great ignorance prevailing in some places amongst many of the clergy; some of whom know not even how to speak in Latin. It is rare to find any who are conversant with the Scriptures. Yet a knowledge of the holy writings is essential to those who would preach the word of God. Hence, if preaching be entrusted, solely, to parish priests, the faithful will be greatly the losers. The ignorance which prevails among the clergy, is, also, most detrimental in the duty of hearing confessions. For, as St. Augustine says, (in libro De Paenitentia), "If any man desire to confess his sins, let him seek out a priest who knows how to bind and to loose. For if he be negligent in the matter, he may be neglected by Him who incites him and moves him to seek for mercy; and so both may fall into the ditch, which, in his folly, he strove not to avoid."

             Additional priests, deputed to preach, and to act as confessors, are, likewise, called for, on account of the great multitude of souls often committed to the care of one pastor. For, were some parish priests to devote their whole lives to the task, they would scarcely be able to hear the confessions of all their flock. It happens, likewise, that some of the faithful having no opportunity of confessing to any save to their parish priest, will abstain altogether from confession. For, they are ashamed to acknowledge their sins to those whom they see every day. Sometimes, again, they fancy that the priest is unfriendly to them, and the like. Hence, bishops act very judiciously, in providing them with other confessors, and thus preserving them from despair.

             5. The foregoing reflections naturally lead us to consider the expediency of a religious order being instituted, for the express purpose of assisting parish priests in preaching and hearing confessions. Episcopal permission would, of course, be needed to authorise the brethren of such an order to undertake their duties.

             Every religious order is based on the model of the Apostolic life. We are told that the Apostles practised community of life: "all things were common to them" (Acts iv.). The Gloss says, that, "the word 'common,' is, in Greek, rendered by caena, or common meal, whence come the words cenobites, i.e. dwellers in common, and caenobia, i.e. common dwelling places." The Apostles practised this mode of life, in order, that, leaving all things, they might be at liberty to preach the Gospel throughout the world. For the same reason, they prescribed this common life to their successors. Hence, a religious order is, peculiarly, well adapted to the office of preaching.

             St. James says, "Religion pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the orphan and the widow in their tribulation." The most necessary form of visiting those in affliction, is that which is practised by such as labour for the salvation of souls. A religious order may, then, with great advantage, be instituted with this object in view, that its members may seek out such as are in trouble, and encourage them to have patience, and to hope in the promises of Scripture.

             In the interlinear commentary we find, on the words, "it is not fit that we should leave the word of God and serve tables (Acts vi. 2), the following observation: "Food for the soul is better than banquets for the body." Now, certain orders have already been instituted for the purpose of assisting men in their corporeal needs; it is still more fitting, that another order should be established, to minister to their spiritual wants." St. Augustine says: "It is better to nourish the soul that will live for ever with the Lord, than the body that must decay in death. The health of the body depends upon the condition of the soul; but the soul's health does not depend upon bodily constitution."

             It is more seemly for a religious to fight with spiritual weapons, than with sword and shield. But there are already in existence several military orders. It is therefore expedient that an order should be founded, for the purposes of spiritual warfare. The religious of such an order, ought, principally, to preach the gospel, according to the exhortation of St. Paul, "Labour like a good soldier of Christ" (2 Tim. ii. 3), "by preaching the gospel against the enemies of the Faith," as the Gloss explains.

             It is essential, that they who labour for the salvation of souls, should be remarkable, both for learning, and for sanctity of life. It is not easy to find enough priests, with such a reputation, to take charge of all the parishes throughout the world: neither is it possible, among secular priests, to carry out the statute of the Council of Lateran, which enjoins that there should be teachers of theology in every metropolitan church. This desire of the Church is, however, through the mercy of God, being carried out through the instrumentality of religious. In the words of Isaias (xi. 9), "The earth is filled with the knowledge of the Lord." Thus, it is highly expedient, that a religious order should be founded, in which the brethren are learned, and addicted to study, and, at the same time, have leisure to help secular priests, who are not so well adapted to teach theology.

             The advantage of such orders, is further proved by the beneficial results produced by their labours. For, in many parts of the world, heresy has been destroyed; many infidels have been converted; careless Christians have been instructed in the law of God; and many have been brought to penance, by the efforts of religious. Hence, anyone who condemns such orders as useless, is clearly sinning against the Holy Ghost, by envy of the grace, whereby God co-operates in the labours of these men.

             Again, in XXV. quaest. I., we read the following words: "No one can, either safely or rightly, pass rash judgments either on the Divine constitutions, or on the decrees of the Holy See." Since, therefore, certain religious Orders, as is proved by their very name, (for, as St. Augustine puts it in his book on the Christian Life, "no one is called by a name without a cause"), have been established, by the Apostolic See, for the purposes of which we have spoken, anyone who condemns them, does, by so doing, himself incur condemnation.

             6. We must now proceed to our final task, that of answering the objections of our opponents.

             Their first argument is, that the duty of monks is, "not to feed a flock, but to be fed." This saying is to be understood as meaning, that monks have not, by right of their monastic profession, the office of instructing the faithful. It was directed against the mistaken notion, that sanctity of life alone, is sufficient qualification for the ecclesiastical state. But, it is equally true, that, it is not the duty of a secular priest to feed a flock, unless he have the cure of souls, or unless he bear a commission from those holding such a charge. Religious are as fitted as are the secular clergy, for the office of preaching. The only difference between them is, that religious require a double license, viz., the authorisation of a bishop, and permission from the superior of their order, without which they may not act. The second objection must be answered in exactly the same way. For the words, "Let none, save the priests of the Lord, dare to preach," is true, if we understand them to mean, that no one may preach without a commission to do so.

             In like manner, the prohibition to monks to preach, which is quoted against us, is to be understood to mean that monks may not, merely because they are monks, arrogate to themselves the office of preaching. And, in the same way, when it is said, that "it does not beseem a monk to preach," the words mean that the monastic state does not, of itself, confer a right to preach.

             When it is objected, that they who feed the people with the word of God, ought, likewise, to supply their material necessities, we reply that this is perfectly true in cases where such charity is possible. For, as St. John says (1 Ep. iii. 17), "He that hath the substance of this world and shall see his brother in need, and shall close the bowels of his mercy against him, how does the charity of God abide in him?" But, almsgiving is not always the necessary accompaniment to preaching; otherwise the Apostles would not have preached, for they possessed nothing to give. "Silver and gold have I none" (Acts iii. 6). Nevertheless, religious, who themselves are poor, are able, at times, to provide for the wants of the poor out of the donations made to them by the wealthy. St. Paul tells us, that, when he was sent to preach to the Gentiles, he was careful to remember the poor (Galat. ii.). To the objection, that pastors are bound to feed their flocks, we reply, that they cannot feed them entirely by their own efforts; they must be assisted by others, to whom they entrust the task. For he, by whose authority a deed is accomplished, is held responsible for its performance.

             When it is urged, that none have a right to preach, save those who are sent; and that we only read of Our Lord's sending the twelve Apostles and the seventy-two disciples, our answer is, that they who are sent by God have power to send forth others. St. Paul sent Timothy to preach: "therefore have I sent to you Timothy" (1 Cor. iv. 17). Thus, likewise, other men may be sent forth to preach, at the bidding of bishops and priests. But, all thus sent, must be regarded as the emissaries of the Lord; because it is by His power that they receive their commission. And all who are thus authorised to preach must, although not archdeacons, be regarded as the coadjutors of the bishops, because they are rendering them important assistance, such, indeed, "as Titus gave to St. Paul, or as archdeacons afford to their bishops" (Gloss). Hence, it, by no means, follows, that none save archdeacons, can assist bishops in their labours. For, when any priest, bearing the commission of a bishop, preaches, or hears confessions, these functions are accounted as having been performed by the bishop himself. Although it may be true that only two orders were instituted by Our Lord for the purpose of preaching; the Church, or the Pope, to whom is confided all ecclesiastical power, could found a third order of preachers. For, as we are reminded by the Master of the Sentences, there were, in the early Church, two degrees only in Holy Orders, priests to wit and deacons; but in course of time other grades were established.

             Our answer to the next objection which follows, is, that the decree to which it refers, regards a certain order of men called chorepiscopi, who were ordained, not in cities but in hamlets and villages, and who were invested with certain faculties not granted to ordinary priests, such, for instance, as that of conferring minor orders. For some time, these chorepiscopi were recognised in the Church as invested with ordinary powers; but they were finally suppressed, (as is related in the same distinction,) on account of their unjustifiable usurpation of the episcopal functions. Thus, the decree mentioned in this objection, bears no reference to those religious, who, not having ordinary faculties, act as confessors, by commission from a bishop. Such an order of religious, does not exist in opposition to the number of orders established by Our Lord; since, as it has been instituted by His authority, it is rightly regarded as having been ordained by Himself, (see the words of Dionysius quoted above). The only conclusion concerning monks that can be drawn from this passage of Dionysius, is, that monks have not, on account of their profession, the status of prelates, or of those whose duty it is to guide others to God. There is, however, no reason wherefore a monk should not receive ordinary power, or a commission to guide others, especially as the decree quoted merely says that the monastic orders are not instituted in order to be in command of others, or to guide. It does not say, that the members of these orders cannot, or ought not, to hold such a position. This is evident from the authority of Dionysius quoted above.

             The argument that the ecclesiastical hierarchy is a copy of the heavenly hierarchy, is only partially true. In the heavenly, but not in the earthly hierarchy, there is a distinction of gratuitous gifts, according to the distinction of orders. Hence, as the angelic nature is immutable, the angels of an inferior rank cannot be transferred to a superior grade, as is the case with mortals in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Nevertheless, in the celestial hierarchy, angels of an inferior order can remain in their own rank, and yet can perform the functions pertaining to a higher grade. Thus Dionysius (XIII. Caelest. hierarch.) says: "The angel that cleansed the lips of Isaias is called a SERAPH, because he fulfilled the office of the Seraphim." And St. Gregory, in his homily on the hundred sheep, says that, "the spirits who are sent forth, bear names denoting the order of their ministry." Hence, it is not unseemly, if, in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, a man belonging to one of the inferior orders, be commissioned to perform duties specially pertaining to a higher rank.

             To the objection that religious preach "either with power or without power," we reply, that they preach, not with ordinary power, but by that conferred by special commission. It does not, therefore, follow that they have the right of demanding means of support; for this power has not been granted them. They could, however, exercise this power, were it conferred on them by those to whom it belongs.

             It is untrue to say, that if religious have faculties to preach, they possess powers superior to those of bishops or patriarchs. For, bishops, and patriarchs, can, by their ordinary power, preach in any place; but religious, who have not the cure of souls, can never preach by ordinary power. They can preach, not by ordinary power, but only by special commission; just as a bishop can exercise episcopal functions in a diocese belonging to another, with the permission of the bishop of the diocese in which he is staying.

             It is urged, that no man ought to build on a foundation laid by another. This statement is untrue, and is against the teaching of St. Paul, who says, (1 Cor. iii. 10), "As a wise architect I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon." This "building" is explained by the Gloss, and by St. Ambrose, to signify, "preaching and teaching." When the Apostle says: "I have so preached this Gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation" (Rom. xv. 20), his word must be understood to signify, not that it would have been unlawful for St. Paul to have built upon another man's foundation, but that he did not, at that moment, consider it expedient to do so. Hence, the Gloss, commenting on these words, says: "Lest I should build upon another man's foundation, i.e., lest I should preach to those converted by other men. Not that St. Paul would not have so acted, had such a course appeared to him desirable; but that he preferred to lay the foundations of the faith in some spot, wherein it had not as yet been preached." Were it unlawful to preach where another has already taught the Word of God, St. John the Evangelist would not have preached at Ephesus, in which city St. Paul had planted the Faith; nor would St. Paul have preached at Rome, where St. Peter had already been. But what will our opponents say, if it should so happen, that the religious whom they so bitterly denounce, be divided in such a manner that some go forth to preach the Word to unbelievers, and others remain among the faithful to assist the bishops? But this objection has, really, no connection with the point in question. For, to build on another man's foundation, and to preach to another man's converts, are not the same thing. Otherwise, every priest when preaching in his own parish would be building on another man's foundation; for his parishioners would, probably, be the converts of former priests of the parish.

             The words of St. Paul, (2 Cor. x.), "not glorying beyond measure in other men's labour," are, by those who are averse to the preaching of religious, interpreted to mean, that to labour where another man has laid the foundations of the faith, is to glory beyond measure. The Gloss does not explain these words as signifying that, if St. Paul had laboured where another had already preached, he would have been glorying beyond measure. It understands the text to mean, that, had St. Paul taken to himself the glory of having laid the foundations of the faith in such a place, he would have gloried beyond measure.

             The objection to the preaching of religious, founded on the words, "not to glory in another man's rule," is due to a misinterpretation of the commentary of the Gloss on this passage. The Gloss is quoted as saying, "not to glory in another man's rule, i.e., in those who are under the government of another." This is a misquotation. The passage of the Gloss referred to, runs as follows: "Our rule, i.e., our ministry, which is imposed upon us by God, is to preach the Gospel freely, not only in a few places, but in those (places) which are beyond your present dwelling. But we hope not to glory in another man's rule; for those who are at a distance from you, are not under any man's government." If the passage in the Gloss, really, stood as it is represented by our adversaries, it would be difficult to understand, how one Apostle could preach in a province evangelised by another. St. Paul preached at Rome and at Antioch, which were subject to St. Peter; but he did not glory in those churches, as if they were committed to him; he, therefore, did not glory in another man's rule. And, further, religious who are commissioned by bishops to preach, do so in no diocese, save in that one, for which they have faculties. Thus, they do not preach to another man's flock. They are the coadjutors of the bishop, whose commission they hold.

             It is easy to answer the objections to the propriety of religious hearing confessions. The decree quoted as opposed to it, only forbids religious to act as confessors on their own authority. It does not prohibit their doing so, at the bidding of the Pope, or of a bishop. This is clearly shown XVI. QUAEST. I. Pervenit. Neither, are religious less fit, than are secular priests, for this duty (CF. XVI. QUAEST. I. Sunt tamen nonnulli).

             To the next objection, viz., that parish priests, as pastors of souls, ought to study the faces of their flock; which they cannot do, except by hearing their confessions, we answer, that confession is not the only means, whereby we may know whether a man be good, or bad. For, we can draw a conclusion from the judgment passed upon him by his superior. Hence, if a bishop absolve one of his flock, either by his own act, or through the agency of another commissioned by him, his parish priest ought to be as satisfied that he knows such a man, as if he himself had been his confessor. He knows that his parishioner has been approved by the judgment of a superior, whom he himself has no right to criticise. And, further, if according to the decretal, he hear the confessions of his parishioners once a year, it gives him sufficient opportunity for knowing them.

             To the objection that, everyone is bound, once in the year to confess his sins to his own priest, we reply that the expression "his own priest" applies not only to the parish priest, but to the bishop of the diocese and to the Pope, who have, in a more extended sense than parish priests, the cure of souls. The expression "his own priest" is used, not in contradistinction to the bishop, or Pope, who is the common priest, but in contradistinction to a stranger. Hence, he who has made his confession to his bishop, or to a vicegerent appointed by him, has confessed to his own priest. And further, anyone who confesses once a year to his own parish priest, and makes himself intelligible to him, is not forbidden to make his confession at other times, to any other priest who has faculty to give absolution.

             The objection, that, unless a priest hears a man's confession, he cannot know whether he be in a fit state to receive the Blessed Eucharist, is based upon an error. For a priest can know the state of a communicant's soul, by the judgment of the superior who has given him absolution, and whom he ought to trust as he would trust himself.

             The argument, that the permission to confess to a priest other than the parish priest, affords opportunity for concealment of sins, is fallacious. For, a priest ought to believe what a penitent says, whether it be for, or against, himself. Therefore, if the penitent says, that he has made his confession, it ought to be taken for granted that he is speaking the truth. Even if the parish priest were to act as his confessor, he might be deceived; for the penitent might confess his more venial offences, and conceal his grievous sins. And it must, likewise, be remembered that, though the facility for confessing to different priests may be abused, it is nevertheless, as we have already shown, a safeguard against far greater evils.

             The argument, that, a monk, having no power to correct others, cannot absolve them, is only true in a very limited sense. For, though monks have not this power in an ordinary way, they are able, by the commission of a bishop, both to correct and to absolve. The Demophilus to whom Dionysius wrote the words quoted was not a priest, nor even a deacon. This is clear from the Epistle quoted by our adversaries.

             The same answer must be returned to the objection, that, if religious can hear confessions anywhere, they can do so everywhere; and thus they become rulers of the Universal Church. Monks, on their own authority, can hear confessions nowhere. They can act as confessors, only where they are commissioned to do so; and if the Head of the Church give them permission to hear confessions everywhere, they can do so everywhere. This, however, does not constitute them governors of the Church; since they absolve sinners, not by their own power, but by the authority delegated to them. The Pope is not styled universal Bishop, not because he does not possess complete and direct power over every diocese in the Church; but, because he does not rule any particular diocese, as its peculiar and special pastor. Were he to do so, the powers of the other bishops would lapse. This reason is given in the chapter quoted.

             The arguments brought as proofs that religious cannot, even with episcopal permission, preach or hear confessions, are easily answered. The proposition, that what a man gives away he does not still possess, does not hold good in things spiritual. These are communicated, not like physical things, by the transference of some dominion over them, but rather by an emanation of an effect from its cause. When one man communicates knowledge to another he does not, on this account, deprive himself of this knowledge; for it remains in his power. In the same way, he that confers some power upon another, does not, by so doing, deprive himself of that power. A bishop does not, by conferring on a priest the power to consecrate the Body of the Lord, cease to be able himself to do so. St. Augustine, treating of the communication of spiritual things, says (I. de Doctrina christiana), "Everything that is not lessened by being imparted, is not, if it be possessed without being communicated, possessed as it ought to be possessed." In like manner, when a bishop confers upon a priest the power of absolving, he does not himself lose that power; unless the power of a priest in his parish is considered similar to that of a soldier in his town. This idea is, of course, ridiculous; for priests are not masters, but servants. "Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ," St. Paul writes (1 Cor. iv. 1). Our Lord, also, said to His Apostles, "The Kings of the Gentiles lord it over them: but you not so: but he that is the greater among you, let him become as the least: and he that is the leader, as he that serveth" (Luke xxii. 25).

             The statement, that a bishop, by committing the care of a parish to a priest, relieves himself of all responsibility connected with it, is untrue. For, a bishop is still answerable for the care of all the souls in his diocese (SEE X. QUAEST. I., CAP. Quaecumque). Hence, St. Paul, after speaking of all his labours, concludes by saying, "Besides those things that are without: my daily instance, the care of all the churches" (2 Cor. xi. 28). His burden, however, is rendered supportable to a bishop, because he has assistants of an inferior rank. But, even granted that a bishop, by committing a parish to a priest, relieves himself of its responsibility, it would not, on that account, follow, that he would abrogate his power in that parish. For, the ministers of Christ are able to labour for the salvation of the faithful, not only by freeing themselves from responsibility, but, likewise, by increasing their own merit, and producing greater fruit among souls. Thus, St. Paul undertook much work for the salvation of the elect, which he might, without any danger to his salvation, have omitted.

             The argument, that a priest is subject to a bishop, just as a bishop is under an archbishop, is not quite correct. For, an archbishop has not immediate jurisdiction over an episcopal diocese, except in matters specially referred to him. Thus, an archbishop cannot summon before him, or excommunicate, one who is the subject of a bishop. A bishop, on the other hand, has immediate jurisdiction over his parochial clergy; he can cite any of them to appear before him; and he has power to excommunicate them. The reason of this distinction is, that, as the power of a priest is imperfect compared to that of a bishop, priests are, by divine right, subject to bishops, as Dionysius proves. The subjection of a bishop to an archbishop, depends, only, on an ecclesiastical ordinance, and is limited by it. But a priest, being, by divine right, subject to a bishop, is subject to him in all things. The jurisdiction of a bishop over his priests, resembles, in kind, that of the Sovereign Pontiff over all Christendom. For the Roman Church has not been given supremacy over other churches by the decrees of any synod, but by the words of Our Lord and Saviour Himself (see IN DECRETIS, DISTINCT. XXI., CAP. quamvis).

             To the argument, that parish priests are the bridegrooms of the churches committed to them, we answer, that, strictly speaking, the Spouse of the Church is Christ, of whom are spoken the words, "He that hath the bride is the bridegroom" (John iii. 29). He, by His Church, begets children to bear His name. The other, so called spouses, are in reality the servants of the Bridegroom, who co-operate with him, exteriorly, in this work of spiritual generation; but who do not beget spiritual children for themselves. Although they are but ministers, they are termed spouses, because they take the place of the true Spouse. Hence, the Pope, who is the vicegerent of Christ throughout the entire Church, is called the spouse of the universal Church. In like manner a bishop is termed the spouse of his diocese, and a priest of his parish. But, at the same time, the Pope is the spouse of every diocese; and the bishop is the spouse of all parishes within his see. But, it does not follow from these words, that there is, in one church, a plurality of spouses. For, priests assist their bishop in his work; and bishops co-operate with the Pope; he, finally, is the direct minister to Christ. Thus, Christ, the Pope, the bishops, and the priests are but the one spouse of the Church. Hence, the fact that the Pope, or the bishop, hear the confessions of the faithful of a parish, or commit this office to another, is not proof that one church possesses a plurality of spouses. True plurality would consist in the appointment of two ecclesiastics of the same rank to the same office. Hence, were there two bishops in one diocese, or two parish priests in one parish, there would be the plurality forbidden by the canons.

             We must next answer the proposition, that, not even Papal permission can authorise religious to preach or to hear confessions.

             The first reason on which this assertion is grounded, is, that the authority of the Roman See cannot alter anything established by the statutes of the Fathers, or institute anything contrary to these statutes. This is true with regard to those decrees, which, in the judgment of the Saints, are of divine right, e.g., the articles of the faith, formulated by Councils. But those matters which the Holy Fathers have declared to be of positive right, are left to the judgment of the Pope, to be altered, or abolished, by him, according to the requirements of the times. For, the holy Fathers assembled in councils, cannot promulgate any decree save by the authorisation of the Sovereign Pontiff, without whose permission, no council is allowed even to meet. Again, if the Pope see fit to act, otherwise than in the manner established by the holy Fathers, he does not act counter to their statutes. For, although, in such a case, the words of the statutes be not obeyed, the intention of them that have drawn up the statutes (to wit the welfare of the Church), is fulfilled. For, in matters which are of positive right, it may be impossible, at all times, and under every circumstance, to adhere to the letter of a statute; although the intention with which it was framed is respected. One statute will, necessarily, be abrogated by a subsequent one. But, the fact that certain religious, being neither bishops nor parish priests, exercise the functions of preaching, and hearing confessions, is not contrary to the statutes of the Holy Fathers, unless such religious act thus on their own initiative, unauthorised by the Pope, or by a bishop.

             In answer to the second objection, the Pope, as we have already shown, does not, by giving to religious the privilege of preaching or hearing confessions, act contrary to St. Paul's admonition; for these religious do not preach to another man's people. It is not true to say, that the Pope cannot alter any Apostolic decree; for the penalties pronounced against bigamy, and against fornication among the clergy, are, by authority of the Holy See, sometimes in abeyance. The power of the Pope is limited, only, in so far, that he cannot alter the canonical scriptures of the Apostles and Prophets, which are fundamental to the faith of the Church.

             To the objection, that the privileges granted by sovereigns are to be understood in the sense that they are only granted in so far as they be not prejudicial to any other, we reply, that, an injustice is done to another when something is withdrawn from him, which has been established for his gratification or advantage. Hence Ezechiel says (xxxiv. 2), "Woe to the shepherds of Israel that fed themselves. Should not the flocks be fed by the shepherds?" But, it is nowise prejudicial to a parish priest, if one of his parishioners be withdrawn from his authority. In the same manner an abbot may, by the Pope, be withdrawn from the authority of a bishop, and a bishop from that of an archbishop, without injustice to either. In fact, if such a course tend to the salvation of their parishioners, far from being prejudicial, it is most beneficial to all pastors who seek the things of Christ, and not such as are their own. St. Gregory commenting on the words in the eleventh chapter of the Book of Numbers, "why hast thou emulation for me?" says: "A spiritual pastor who seeks not his own honour, but the glory of his Creator, desires to be helped in his actions by all men." A faithful preacher would wish, that, were it possible, the lips of all mankind should proclaim the truth which he, alone, is incompetent to utter.

             The argument, that, when a sovereign grants to a subject permission to make a will, it is with the understanding that such a will is only to be made in an ordinary and legal manner, holds good with regard to the Pope. When the sovereign Pontiff commissions anyone to preach and hear confessions, he only allows him to do so, in a legitimate way; his preaching must be unto edification. But, if a man hold a commission from the Pope to preach, he need not, in order to preach lawfully, seek a license from any other superior. Such a course would stultify the authority of the Pope. A man who has obtained permission from his Sovereign to make a will, need not have another license from anyone else. All that is required of him is, to make his will in due form. A preacher, licensed by the Pope, requires no other authorisation. He need only observe the proper rules of preaching, such as that of using one style in addressing the poor, and another in speaking to the rich, and such other points as are mentioned by St. Gregory in Pastorali.

             When it is urged that a monk does not, at his ordination, receive power to exercise his priestly office, unless he be placed in charge of souls; we reply, by reminding those who make this objection, that the priesthood is instituted for two ends. Its first and principal end, is the true consecration of the Body of Christ. Power to accomplish this end, is conferred at ordination, unless there be some defect in the administration, or in the recipient of this Sacrament. The second end for which the Priesthood is instituted, is for the welfare of the mystical body of Christ, by the keys of the Church, entrusted to the priest. Power to accomplish this end, is not conferred at ordination, unless the priest ordained be placed in charge of souls, or unless this power be given him by the authority of someone who has the cure of souls. But, the power of the priesthood is never given in vain; for every priest has power to fulfil the principal purpose of his ordination. But the power of preaching is bestowed for no end, save for that of preaching. Hence, as a privilege conferred by a sovereign, cannot be useless to him on whom it is bestowed, so, when the Pope gives to any priest a commission to preach, he has power to execute such a commission. Nevertheless, the Pope by so acting, does not give to a religious the office of preaching, but rather the power to exercise such an office. For, religious do not, as we have said, make use, in preaching, of their own power; they use the power entrusted to them by another.

             The words quoted from I. QUAEST. de Doctrina, were written by Dionysius of lay monks, i.e., of monks who are neither bishops, priests, nor deacons. But, even if they be applied to all religious, the Pope, by sending monks to preach, would not be disturbing the order of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. For, as we have said before, he who is of an inferior rank can exercise an office belonging to a higher grade, thus imitating the action of the celestial hierarchy. Furthermore, in the ecclesiastical hierarchy those of a lower order can be promoted to a higher rank. This cannot take place in the heavenly hierarchy. Hence Pope Innocent III., before a General council, sent some Cistercian monks to preach at Toulouse.

             The last objection, brought against religious who preach, is, that it is ambition on their part, to seek permission to exercise this office. This is untrue; for, a desire to preach inspired by charity, is on the contrary praiseworthy. Isaias (vi. 8) offered himself to the Lord, saying: "Lo: here I am: send me." This function may, likewise, be meritoriously declined, out of humility. Thus Jeremias said (i. 6): "Ah, ah, ah, Lord God: behold, I cannot speak; for I am a child." This is evident from the Gloss of St. Gregory. The same view is found in VIII. QUAEST. I. CAP. In scripturis. We must remember, that ecclesiastical offices are accompanied both by dignity and by labour. Therefore, they may, on account of their dignity, be declined; and they may be desired, for the sake of the work. "If a man desire the office of bishop, he desires a good thing," says St. Paul (1 Tim. iii. 1). On these words St. Augustine says (xix. de civitate Dei), "The Apostle desired to explain what is meant by the episcopate; and how far it may be desired; for the name implies labour not glory" (cf. VIII. quaest. I. qui episcopatum, also the Gloss, on the same text). Hence, if the labours of the episcopate be distinguished from its attendant dignity, it may laudably and without danger of ambition, be desired. In like manner, a religious, who seeks from a parish priest or a bishop, permission to preach, shows, not that he is inspired by ambition, but that he is filled with the love of God and of his neighbour.