Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On the Clergy (Book I)
Chapter 3: That the Right of Ordaining Pastors Does Not Belong to the People
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Clericis (De Membris Ecclesiae, Book I), On the Clergy (On the Members of the Church, Book I). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
Let this, then, be our first proposition or opinion: “The ordination both of bishops and of the other ministers of the Church pertains not to the common people, but to the bishops alone.” This the divine Scriptures everywhere testify, the decrees of Councils testify, the ancient Fathers testify, and finally the custom of the people of God and the examples of our forefathers testify. Aaron and his sons, the first priests of the Old Testament, Moses the priest and pontiff alone ordained and consecrated (Leviticus 8). And that Moses was a priest David testifies (Psalm 98): “Moses,” he says, “and Aaron among His priests.” Philo testifies (Book III, at the end, On the Life of Moses): “This was the life and death of Moses, king, lawgiver, seer, and pontiff.” Jerome testifies (Book I against Jovinian); Augustine testifies (in the commentary on Psalm 98); Gregory Nazianzen testifies (in the oration to Gregory of Nyssa); and finally Saint Leo testifies (letter 88 to the bishops of Germany and Gaul).
In the New Testament, wherever mention is made of the imposition of hands — by which rite ordination is celebrated even among the adversaries — it is always attributed to the Apostles and the other bishops, but never to the common people. Acts 6: the Apostles alone ordained the deacons by the imposition of hands. 1 Timothy 4: “Neglect not,” says the Apostle, “the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by the imposition of the hands of the presbytery.” In which place “presbytery” signifies the assembly of bishops, as almost all the interpreters testify, and especially the Greeks — Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact: “He does not here speak of priests,” says Chrysostom, “but of bishops; for surely priests did not ordain him.” Likewise in the same place the Apostle says to the bishop: “Impose not hands lightly upon any man.” And again (2 Timothy 1): “Stir up,” he says, “the grace which was given thee by the imposition of my hands.”
And so from the divine writings it is sufficiently proved that the office of ordaining is proper to the bishops. The same could be confirmed from very many decrees of the Councils. But since the matter is plain and most well known, I will recall to memory in this place only that canon by which it is defined that a bishop is to be ordained by three bishops — which canon is the first among the canons of the Apostles, and again the fourth among the canons of the First Council of Nicaea, ecumenical, greatest, and most celebrated; and finally the twelfth of the Second Council of Carthage, the thirty-ninth of the Third, the second of the Fourth, and the fourth of the Sixth. Which Councils, although they were not ecumenical but national, were nevertheless most numerous, and illustrated by the presence and vote of Saint Augustine.
Add that the ancient Fathers constantly teach that it belongs to the bishop alone to initiate into sacred things, whether priests, or deacons, or even bishops themselves, and that this is in no way lawful to priests. See Epiphanius (heresy 75, which is that of Aerius); John Chrysostom with the other Greeks (in the commentary on chapters 3 and 4, chapter 1, of the epistle to Timothy); Jerome (in the letter to Evagrius); Augustine (in the little summary, conference 3, chapter 5). But if it is not lawful for priests to ordain bishops or priests, because that office suits bishops alone, how much less will it be lawful for clerics of a lower grade, or even for laymen?
Add, lastly, the most ancient and perpetual custom of the whole Church, which is wont to be the best interpreter of law. For, to use the words of the Gospel, from the beginning of the world it has not been heard that a bishop should be ordained by one who is not a bishop. Nor of this thing will any institution from discipline, or example from the histories, or even usurpation from heretical license, ever be brought forward. For among the Lutherans too and Calvinists, who have taken away almost all ecclesiastical rites, those alone impose hands and make pastors or ministers who, although in reality they are not pastors and bishops, yet wish to be held and called such. Wherefore, as regards ordinations, not the clergy and the whole people, but the pontiffs alone create bishops and priests.
But, they say, although the clergy and people do not by themselves impose hands on bishops, yet this is not because authority is lacking to the multitude, but because, to avoid the confusion which would necessarily arise if so many hands were to be imposed on the head of one man, it seemed better that this care be entrusted to a few pastors. And so the authority of ordaining ministers belongs to the whole multitude, but the execution to the pastors. But since the pastors, in what they do, do it by the authority and in the name of the whole clergy and people, the clergy and people themselves too can be said to ordain and consecrate ministers.
But certainly the adversaries are deceived, or wish to deceive, when they thus reason. For what they say — that pastors are ordained by pastors by the authority and in the name of the whole clergy and people — can be understood in three ways. First, in the way that the tongue speaks in the name of the whole body, the eyes see, the ears hear, and so of the other members in the same way. For what a part of the body does is wont to be attributed to the whole body too, although the rest of the body neither ever performs, nor can perform, what is proper to that part. The whole man sees with the eyes, but so sees that in no way can he see with the tongue, hands, feet, or other member. And if the adversaries meant in this way that ministers are ordained by the whole multitude through its pastors, there would be no need to contend greatly with them. For they would place no power or authority in the multitude itself beyond that which the pastors have, who are numbered among the members and parts of that same multitude. But this alone they do not seek, nor are they content with this moderation.
In a second way, then, it can be understood that prelates are ordained by pastors by the authority of the people: namely, that in the people itself, even all pastors being removed, there is a true power of ordaining, and nothing hinders the people from in fact imposing hands on pastors except the confusion of the multitude — in the way that praetors in cities, by the authority and in the name of the prince, sit on the tribunal and administer justice to the citizens. For a praetor so holds the place of the prince in administering justice that the prince can nevertheless, if he will, administer justice by himself.
But neither ought this way to be approved by the adversaries, if they wish to be consistent with themselves. For if only the confusion of the multitude hindered the people from ordaining ministers, the same people could certainly entrust the office of ordaining to a few men of its own body, that is, even to non-pastors. But this is repugnant not only to the decrees of the Councils, and to perpetual custom, and to the testimonies of all the Fathers, but even to the examples and words of the adversaries, and to reason itself. For, as we said a little before, in the assemblies of the heretics not anyone of the people, but only the pastors are wont to impose hands on those to be ordained, so that if it be done otherwise, the ordination is deemed void; and John Calvin (Book IV Institutes, chapter 3, section 16) teaches that it must altogether be done so, from the custom of the Apostles, in these words: “Although there exists no certain precept about the imposition of hands, yet because we see that it was in perpetual use with the Apostles, that so careful observance of theirs ought to be to us in place of a precept.” And below: “This lastly must be held, that not the whole multitude imposed hands on its ministers, but the pastors alone.” Thus he. And indeed, since the power of order, which is necessary for ordaining ministers, is received through ordination, who can grasp that either the whole people, or a few of the people, no ordination having first been received, can impose hands and ordain ministers?
There remains, then, a third way in which what the adversaries say can be understood — that pastors are ordained by pastors by the authority of the multitude: namely, that although the multitude does not have the power of order, yet it has that of jurisdiction, and accordingly the right of commanding the pastors to impose hands on certain men designated by it.
But since about this power of jurisdiction, which the adversaries attribute to the people, we must dispute in the following chapter, now only from what has been said, and what is affirmed by the adversaries, we will gather an argument — unless I am mistaken, an indissoluble one — that they have no Church. And this is the argument. They are not true pastors who are not ordained by true pastors through the imposition of hands. This Calvin most rightly gathered from the perpetual custom of the Apostles, which (as he himself says) ought to be to us in place of a law. But Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and the rest, who are held to be the first pastors among their own, were not ordained by true pastors through the imposition of hands. For if otherwise, by whom, I ask? By their own? Or by ours? Not by their own, for they themselves are the first; for neither before Luther were there any Lutherans, nor before Zwingli Zwinglians, nor before Calvin Calvinists, who could ordain them pastors. Nor likewise by ours, since in the Catholic Church, from which they withdrew, neither Luther, nor Zwingli, nor Calvin were bishops, but only priests. Now priests, who to Calvin are ministers, not pastors, do not have the power of ordaining: “What does a bishop do,” says Jerome (in the letter to Evagrius), “except ordination, which a priest does not do?” And Calvin, subscribing to Jerome, said a little before that ministers are ordained by pastors alone, that is, by bishops.
Add too that the adversaries make nothing of Catholic ordination. For thus Calvin speaks of our ordination (Book IV Institutes, chapter 5, section 3): “Ordination is nothing else than a mere mockery.” And Martin Kemnitz (in the place noted) contends that the ordinations of Catholic bishops are no more valid at this time than of old, in the apostolic times, were those of Annas and Caiaphas, pontiffs of the Jews.
But if those first bishops and pastors of the adversaries were not true pastors and bishops, certainly neither were the second, nor the third, nor the rest who succeeded to those first. But the Church cannot be without bishops and pastors, as the same Calvin truly affirms (Book IV Institutes, chapter 3, section 4): “There follow,” he says, “pastors and doctors, of whom the Church can never be destitute.” Thus he. “For the Church, as Saint Cyprian defines it (in letter 9, Book IV), is the people united to the bishop, and the flock adhering to its pastor.” It follows, then, that the adversaries, who have no true bishops and pastors, have no true Church either.
By this argument Saint Jerome (in the Dialogue against the Luciferians) most openly confuted a certain heresiarch, Hilary: “Hilary, since he withdrew as a deacon from the Church, and is alone, as he thinks, the crowd of the world, can neither confect the Eucharist, having no bishops and priests, nor deliver Baptism without the Eucharist. And when the man is now dead, together with the man his sect too has perished, because after himself the deacon could ordain no cleric; but that is not a Church which has no priests.”
Only one refuge Calvin finds; for he writes (Book IV Institutes, chapter 3, section 4) that in a constituted Church pastors are to be ordained only by pastors; but that when the Church is either first constituted, or again renewed and restored, God is wont in an extraordinary way to raise up Apostles and Evangelists, in whose number he without doubt wishes himself and Luther to be held: “Although,” he says, “I do not deny that God afterward too, or at least in their place, sometimes raised up Evangelists, as was done in our time; for there was need of such men to lead back the Church from the defection of Antichrist. Yet I call the office itself nonetheless extraordinary, which in rightly constituted Churches has no place.” But this is a wretched refuge. For the Church once well constituted by Christ cannot fall, nor defect to Antichrist, since it is founded not upon the sand, but upon the firm rock (Matthew 16). Wherefore it has no need of new Apostles and architects.
Then, if Luther and Calvin had been new Apostles, they would altogether have come with the signs and miracles of the Apostles; for thus the true Apostles of Christ proved their legation. Otherwise, why shall we receive Luther rather than Manichaeus? Calvin rather than Arius? For all came in the same way. Add that the first Apostles were all ordained by the imposition of hands — Peter indeed by Christ, the rest by Peter — as John of Torquemada shows (Book II, chapter 32), and as we taught in the first book On the Pontiff, chapter 23, when we enumerated the prerogatives of Saint Peter.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT III.
Non pertinere ad populum jus ordinandi Pas¬
tores, sive Ministros.
Sit igitur haec prima nostra propositio seu
sententia : « Ordinationem tum Episcopo¬
rum, tum aliorum Ecclesiae Ministrorum,
non ad plebem, sed ad solos Episcopos per¬
tinere. » Testantur id passim divinae Scrip¬
turae, testantur decreta Conciliorum, testan¬
tur veteres Patres, testantur denique mos
populi Dei, et exempla majorum. Aaronem,
et filios ejus sacerdotes primos Testamenti
veteris, solus Moses Sacerdos et Pontifex
ordinavit et consecravit Levit. VIII. Mosem
autem Sacerdotem fuisse, testatur David in
Psalm. XCVIII. Moses , inquit, et Aaron in
sacerdotibus ejus {i). Testatur Philo lib. III ex¬
tremo de vita Mosis : « Haec, inquit, fuit vita,
obitusque Mosis Regis, Legislatoris, Vatis
et Pontificis. » Testatur Hieronymus lib. I
in Jovinianum, testatur Augustinus in Com¬
mentario Psalm. XCVIII. testatur Gregorius
Nazianzenus oratione ad Gregorium Nysse-
num, testatur denique S. Leo epist. 88. ad
Episcopos Germaniae et Galliae.
In Testamento novo, ubicumque mentio
fit manus impositionis, quo ritu etiam apud
adversarios ordinatio celebratur, semper
ea Apostolis, caeterisque Episcopis, nunquam
vero plebi tribuitur. Actor. VI. Soli Apos¬
toli per manus impositionem Diaconos ordi¬
narunt. I. Timoth.IV: « Noli, inquit Aposto¬
lus, negligere gratiam, quae in te est, quae data
est tibi per impositionem manuum. Presbyte¬
rii (2). Quo loco Presbyterium, Episcopo¬
rum coetum significat, ut testantur omnes
fere interpretes, ac praesertim Graeci, Chry-
sostomus, Theodoretus, QEcumenius, Theo-
phylactus : « Non de Presbyteris, inquit
Chrysostomus, hic loquitur, sed de Episco¬
pis, neque enim profecto Presbyteri ipsum
ordinarunt. » Item in eodem loco loquitur
Apostolus ad Episcopum Manus cito nemini
imposueris. Ac rursus II. Timoth. I : Resus¬
cites, inquit, gratiam , quae data est tibi per im¬
positionem manuum mearum (3).
(1) Psal. XCVIII, 6. — (2) I. Tim. IV. 14. — (3) I. Tim. V, 22; II. Tim. I, 6.
CAPUT III.
421
Itaque ex divinis litteris satis probatur,
munus ordinandi proprium esse Episcopo¬
rum. Quod idem ex plurimis Conciliorum
decretis confirmari posset. Sed quoniam res
est perspicua et notissima, eum solum cano-
nem hoc loco ad memoriam revocabo, quo
Episcopum a tribus Episcopis ordinandum
esse, definitum est, qui Canon primus est
inter canones Apostolorum, et rursus 4. est
inter canones Concilii I Nicseni, cecumenici,
maximi, ac celeberrimi. Denique 12. est Con¬
cilii II Carthaginiensis, trigesimusnonus III,
secundus IV, et quartus VI. Quae Concilia
etsi non ceeumenica, sed nationalia fuerint,
fuere tamen frequentissima, et S. Augustini
praesentia ac suffragio illustrata.
Accedat, quod veteres Patres constanter
docent, solius Episcopi esse initiare sacris,
sive Presbyteros, sive Diaconos, sive ipsos
etiam Episcopos, neque id ullo modo Pres¬
byteris licere. Vide Epiphanium haeres. 75.
quae est Aerii. Joannem Chrysostomum cum
caeteris Graecis in commentar. III et IV,
eap. I epist. ad Timoth. Hieronymum in
epistol. ad Evagrium. Augustinum in brevi¬
culo, collat. 3, cap. o. Quod si Presbyteris
ncn licet Episcopos, aut Presbyteros ordi¬
nare, quod id munus solis Episcopis conve¬
niat, quanto minus id clericis inferioris gra¬
dus, aut etiam laicis licebit?
Accedat postremo afitiquissima, ac perpe¬
tua Ecclesia? universae consuetudo, quae op¬
tima juris interpres esse solet. Nam, ut ver¬
bis utar Evangelicis, a saeculo non est audi¬
tum, ut Episcopum non Episcopus ordinaret.
Neque hujusce rei ullum unquam vel insti¬
tutum ex disciplina, vel exemplum ex histo¬
riis, vel etiam usurpatio ex haeretica licen¬
tia proferetur. Nam apud Lutheranos quo¬
que et Calvinistas, qui ritus Ecclesiasticos
pene omnes sustulerunt, ii solum manus im¬
ponunt, et Pastores, seu Ministros faciunt,
qui Pastores et Episcopi, licet revera non
sint, tamen haberi et appellari volunt. Quare
quod attinet ad ordinationes, non Clerus, et
populus universus, sed soli Pontifices Epis¬
copos et Presbyteros creant.
Sed, inquiunt : Etsi Clerus ac populus per
se manus Episcopis non imponat, id tamen
non eo fit, quod desit multitudini auctoritas,
sed quod ad vitandam confusionem, quae
necessario existeret, si tot manus super unius
hominis caput imponendae essent, visum est
melius ut paucis Pastoribus ea cura deman¬
daretur. Itaque auctoritas ordinandi minis¬
tros, totius multitudinis est, exeeutio vero
Pastorum. Sed cum Pastores, quod faciunt,
totius Cleri, ac populi auctoritate , et nomine
faciant, ipse etiam Clerus et populus ordi¬
nare, et consecrare ministros dici potest.
At certe falluntur, vel fallere volunt ad¬
versarii, dum ita ratiocinantur. Nam tribus
modis potest intelligi, quod ipsi dicunt, auc¬
toritate, ac nomine totius Cleri, et populi a
Pastoribus ordinari Pastores. Primum, quo¬
modo nomine totius corporis lingua loqui¬
tur, oculi vident, aures audiunt, et de caede¬
ris membris ad eumdem modum. Quod enim
pars corporis facit, toti etiam corpori tribui
solet, licet reliquum corpus neque praestet
unquam, neque praestare possit, quod est
illius partis proprium. Videt oculis totus ho¬
mo, sed ita videt, ut nulla ratione queat lin¬
gua, manibus, pedibus, aliove membro vi¬
dere. Quod si hoc modo vellent adversarii
ab universa multitudine per suos Pastores
ordinari ministros, non esset cum eis magno¬
pere contendendum. Nihil enim potestatis
vel auctoritatis in ipsa multitudine ponerent
praeter eam quam habent Pastores, qui in
membris, ac partibus ejusdem multitudinis
numerantur. Sed non id solum illi quaerunt,
neque hac moderatione contenti sunt.
Altero igitur modo potest intelligi, aucto¬
ritate populi Antistites a Pastoribus ordinari,
ut videlicet in ipso populo, remotis etiam
omnibus Pastoribus, sit vera ordinandi po¬
testas, neque aliud impediat, quo minus po¬
pulus reipsa Pastoribus manus imponat,
quam confusio multitudinis ; quomodo pia¬
tores in urbibus, auctoritate ac nomine Prin¬
cipis, pro tribunali sedent, ac jus civibus
dicunt. Ita enim praetor injure dicendo lo¬
cum Principis obtinet, ut possit tamen Prin¬
ceps, si velit, per se jus dicere.
At neque hic modus adversariis probari
debet, si ipsi sibi constare velint. Nam si
sola confusio multitudinis impediret, quo
minus populus ordinaret ministros, 'posset
certe idem populus munus ordinandi paucis
hominibus de suo corpore, id est, etiam ncn
Pastoribus demandare. At id non modo Con¬
ciliorum decretis, et perpetuae consuetudini,
et omnium Patrum testimoniis, sed etiam
adversariorum exemplis, et verbis, et ipsi
rationi repugnat. Nam ut paulo ante dixi¬
mus, in haereticorum coetibus non quivis e
populo, sed soli Pastores manus imponere
ordinandis ita solent, ut si secus fiat, irrita
censeatur ordinatio, et Joannes Calvinus
422
LIBER I.
lib. IV Institut, cap. 3, §. 16. ita omnino
faciendum esse ex Apostolorum consuetu¬
dine his verbis docet : « Licet nullum exstet
certum praeceptum de manuum impositione,
quia tamen fuisse in perpetuo usu Apostolis
videmus, illa tam accurata eorum observatio
praecepti vice nobis esse debet. » Et infra :
« Hoc postremo habendum est, non univer¬
sam multitudinem manus imposuisse suis
ministris, sed solos pastores. » Haec ille. Et
sane cum potestas ordinis, quae ad ordinan¬
dos ministros necessaria est, per ordinatio¬
nem accipiatur, quis capere potest, ut vel
populus universus, vel pauci depopulo, nulla
prius ordinatione accepta, manus imponere,
et ordinare ministros possint?
Restat igitur modus tertius, quo possit in-
telligi quod adversarii dicunt, auctoritate
multitudinis Pastores a Pastoribus ordinari,
nimirum, licet non habeat multitudo ordinis
potestatem, habeat tamen jurisdictionis, et
proinde jus Pastoribus imperandi, ut certis
hominibus a se designatis manus imponant.
Sed quoniam de hac potestate jurisdictio¬
nis, quam adversarii populo tribuunt, in se¬
quenti capite disputandum erit, nunc solum
ex iis quge dicta sunt, quaeque ab adversa¬
riis affirmantur, argumentum, ni fallor, in¬
dissolubile colligemus, Ecclesiam eos nullam
habere. Est autem hoc argumentum. Non
sunt veri Pastores, qui non sunt per manus
impositionem a veris Pastoribus ordinati. Id
Calvinus ex Apostolorum perpetua consue¬
tudine, quae nobis pro lege, ut ipse ait, esse
debet, rectissime collegit. Lutherus autem,
Zwinglius, Calvinus, et ceeteri, qui Pastores
primi apud suos habentur, non fuerunt per
manus impositionem averis Pastoribus ordi¬
nati. Nam si secus, a quibus obsecro? a suis
ne? an a nostris? Non a suis, ipsi enim sunt
primi, neoue enim ante Lutherum ulli fue¬
runt Lutherani, neque ante Zwinglium
Zwingliani, neque ante Calvinum Calvinistae,
qui eos Pastores ordinare possent. Non item
a nostris, siquidem in Ecclesia Catholica,
unde recesserunt, neque Lutherus, neque
Zwinglius, neque Calvinus Episcopi fuerunt,
sed tantum Presbyteri. Porro Presbyteri,
qui Calvino Ministri sunt, non Pastores, non
habent ordinandi potestatem : « Quid facit,
inquit Hieronymus in epistol. ad Evagrium,
excepta ordinatione Episcopus, quod Pres¬
byter non faciat ? » Et Calvinus Hieronymo
subscribens paulo ante dixit, a solis Pas¬
toribus, id est, Episcopis Ministros ordinari.
Adde etiam, quod ordinationem Catholi¬
cam adversarii nihil faciunt. Sic enim Calvi¬
nus de nostra ordinatione loquitur lib. IV
Instit. cap. 5, §. 3 : « Ordinatio autem nihil
aliud est, quam merum ludibrium. » Et
Martinus Kemnitius loco notato, non magis
ratas esse contendit hoc tempore Catholico¬
rum Episcoporum ordinationes, quam olim
fuisse Apostolicis temporibus Annee et Cai-
phse Pontificum Judaeorum.
Quod si primi illi adversariorum Episcopi
et Pastores, veri Pastores et Episcopi non
fuerunt, certe nec secundi, nec tertii, nec
caeteri, qui primis illis successerunt. At Ec¬
clesia sine Episcopis et Pastoribus esse non
potest, ut idem Calvinus vere affirmat lib.
IV Instit. cap. 3, §. 4 : « Sequuntur, inquit,
Pastores et Doctores, quibus carere num-
quam potest Ecclesia. » Haec ille : « Est
enim Ecclesia, ut S. Cyprianus eam definit
in epist. 9, lib. IV, plebs Episcopo adunata,
et Pastori suo grex adhaerens. » Sequitur
igitur, ut adversarii, qui veros Episcopos,
et Pastores non habent neque veram Eccle¬
siam habeant.
Hoc argumento S. Hieronymus in Dialogo
adversus Luciferianos, Hilarium quemdam
haeresiarcham apertissime confutavit : « Hi¬
larius, inquit, cum Diaconus de Ecclesia re¬
cesserit, solusque, ut putat, turba sit mundi,
neque Eucharistiam conficere potest, Epis¬
copos et Presbyteros non habens, neque
Baptisma sine Eucharistia tradere. Et cum
jam homo mortuus sit, cum homine pariter
interiit et secta, quia post se nullum Cleri¬
cum Diaconus potuit ordinare : Ecclesia au¬
tem non est quae non habet Sacerdotes. »
Unum dumtaxat effugium invenit Calvi¬
nus; scribit enim lib. IV Instit. cap. 3, §. 4.
Ecclesia constituta, nonnisi a Pastoribus
Pastores ordinandos esse. At cum Ecclesia
vel primum constituitur, vel iterum renova¬
tur, ac restituitur, solere Deum extraordina-
rio modo excitare Apostolos et Evangelistas,
in quorum numero se et Lutherum sine du¬
bio vult haberi : « Quamquam, inquit, non
nego, quin Apostolos postea quoque, vel
saltem eorum loco, Evangelistas interdum
excitarit Deus, ut nostro tempore factum
est ; Talibus enim, qui Ecclesiam ab Anti-
christi defectione reducerent, opus fuit. Mu¬
nus tamen ipsum nihilominus extraordina¬
rium appello, qui in Ecclesiis rite constitutis
locum non habet. » Sed hoc miserum est
perfugium : Nam Ecclesia semel a Christo
CAPUT IV.
423
bene constituta non potest ruere, nec defi¬
cere ad Antichristum cum non sit fundata
super arenam, sed supra firmam petram
Matth. XVI. Quocirca non eget novis Apos¬
tolis et architectis.
Deinde, si Lutherus et Calvinus novi Apos¬
toli fuissent, venissent omnino cum signis,
et miraculis Apostolorum, sic enim veri
Christi Apostoli legationem suam probave¬
runt. Alioqui cur potius Lutherum recipie¬
mus, quam Manichaeum? Calvinum, quam
Arium? Eodem enim modo omnes venerunt.
Adde, quod primi Apostoli omnes per im¬
positionem manuum ordinati fuerunt, Petrus
quidem a Christo, cseteri a Petro, ut Joannes
de Turrecremata ostendit lib. II, cap. 32. et
nos in primo libro de Pontifice cap. 23. do¬
cuimus, dum sancti Petri praerogativas enu¬
meraremus.