Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On the Clergy (Book I)
Chapter 14: On the Distinction Between Bishop and Priest
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).
There arises, then, the question: “Whether a priest is altogether the same as a bishop, and especially by divine right.” It was an ancient heresy of Aerius (Epiphanius being witness, heresy 75, and Augustine, in the book On Heresies, chapter 53) that there is no difference between a bishop and a priest — which heresy he seems to have devised in order to console himself that he had not been made a bishop, as Epiphanius openly signifies. The same heresy afterward John Wycliffe followed (Thomas Waldensis being witness, Book II On the Doctrine of the Faith, article 3, chapter 60), and in our times the Lutherans and Calvinists. For John Calvin (Book IV Institutes, chapter 4, section 2) speaks thus: “Those on whom the office of teaching was enjoined they all named priests. These, from their own number, in each city elected one to whom they specially gave the title of bishop, lest from equality (as is wont to happen) dissensions should arise. Nor yet was the bishop so superior in honor and dignity that he had dominion over his colleagues, but the part which a consul has in the senate — to report on business, to consult, admonish, exhort, to go before the others, to govern the whole action by his authority, and to execute what has been decreed by common counsel — that office the bishop sustained in the assembly of priests; and that this very thing was introduced by human consent for the necessity of the times, the ancients themselves confess.” Thus he. Not unlike are the things Martin Kemnitz has (in the examination of session 23 of the Council of Trent), and Erasmus too notes (on chapter 4 of 1 Timothy).
But the Catholic Church acknowledges a distinction, and teaches that by divine right the episcopate is greater than the priesthood, both in the power of order and in jurisdiction. For thus the Council of Trent speaks (session 23, chapter 4): “Wherefore the holy Synod declares that, besides the other ecclesiastical grades, the bishops, who have succeeded into the place of the Apostles, belong chiefly to this hierarchical order, and are set (as the Apostle says) by the Holy Spirit to rule the Church of God, and that they are superior to priests,” and so on. And canon 6: “If anyone says that in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy instituted by divine ordinance, which consists of bishops, priests, and ministers, let him be anathema.” And canon 7: “If anyone says that bishops are not superior to priests, let him be anathema.” The same opinion the theologians teach and defend (in the Master, on the fourth book of the Sentences, distinction 24, and Saint Thomas, in the Second Part of the Second Part, question 184, article 6).
We, therefore, omitting that question which pertains to the disputation on the Sacraments — whether the episcopate and the priesthood are one order and one Sacrament, or two — will try to demonstrate three things. First, that by divine right the bishop is greater than the priest as regards the power of order. Secondly, that he is greater also as regards jurisdiction. Thirdly, that bishops in the ancient Church were not in the assembly of priests as consuls in the senate, but as kings and princes in an assembly of counselors.
As to the first, it can easily be proved that the bishop is greater than the priest as regards the power of order, and that by divine right. For the bishop alone can ordain priests, and in that way beget fathers of the Church, as Epiphanius reasons against Aerius; but priests cannot ordain, but only baptize, and in that way beget sons of the Church. And that this is so, Damasus teaches (in letter 3), likewise the Council of Antioch (chapter 10) and of Ancyra (canon 12), Epiphanius (heresy 75), Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and Oecumenius (on chapters 3 and 4, chapter 1, to Timothy). Likewise Saint Jerome (in letter 85 to Evagrius): “What does a bishop do, except ordination, which a priest does not do?” Finally Saint Leo (letter 88) teaches the same, and the custom of the Church. For it was never heard that priests ordained priests, or deacons, much less bishops.
And that it is by divine right that bishops alone ordain is gathered from this, that it was held void if any who were not true bishops did anything in that matter. For thus Gregory III writes (in the letter to Boniface): “The priests whom thou hast found, if those men who ordained them be unknown, and it be doubtful whether they were bishops, or those who ordained them — if they [the priests] be of good conduct and Catholic men, and themselves priests in the ministry of Christ, well instructed in the holy law, let them receive from their bishop the blessing of the priesthood, and be consecrated, and so discharge the sacred ministry.” And before him Damasus (in letter 3), speaking of the chorepiscopi, who, being only priests, dared to ordain after the manner of pontiffs: “Empty and void is whatever they did in the aforesaid ministry of the supreme priesthood.” But certainly if by divine right priests had, from their very ordination — that is, from their priestly character — the power to ordain, what they did would not be void, even if they did it with the Church forbidding. Besides, since ordination is a Sacrament (as even Calvin admits), and all Sacraments were instituted by God, certainly he who is greater in the power of order, which is received through the Sacrament of ordination, must also be greater by divine institution.
The same argument can be made from the confirmation of the baptized, and the consecration of temples and altars. For it is established that bishops alone, as the ordinary ministers, can confer the Sacrament of confirmation, and consecrate temples and altars, and that this is not lawful for priests, as Saint Leo teaches (in the letter to the bishops of Germany and Gaul), and before him Damasus (in letter 3, on the chorepiscopi), and before both Dionysius (chapters 4 and 5 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy), where he says that the bishop alone by divine ordinance consecrates the chrism. Nay, we even see (Acts 8) that the Apostles themselves, whom the bishops succeed, were sent to give the Holy Spirit, by the imposition of hands, to those already baptized.
As to the second, concerning the power of jurisdiction — that bishops are by divine right greater than priests — we prove it, first, from the figure of the Old Testament (although this argument, like the following one from the distinction of the Apostles and disciples, proves also concerning the power of order). For in the Old Testament there was one high priest, Aaron, and those who succeeded him. There were besides lesser priests, namely all the sons of Aaron and those who descended from them. And finally there were the other Levites, who drew their origin from Levi, but not through Aaron. And it is established that by divine right these three grades were distinct — of pontiffs, priests, and Levites — so that the pontiff was greater than the priests, and the priests than the Levites; for their consecrations were distinct, and their vestments, and their offices, as is plain (Exodus 28 and 40, Leviticus 8, and Numbers 3, 4, and 20).
And that jurisdiction was in the hands of the pontiff, but not of the assembly of the lesser priests, is plain from Deuteronomy 17: “He that will be proud, refusing to obey the command of the priest, let him die by the sentence of the judge.” Which the Magdeburg Centuriators too confess (Century 1, Book I, chapter 7, column 257): “In the Church of the Jewish people there was by divine law only one supreme priest, whom all were compelled to acknowledge and obey.” Likewise Calvin confesses (Book IV Institutes, chapter 6, section 2): “There He set one prelate, whom all should regard, that they might the better be contained in unity.” But bishops are in the Church what the pontiffs were in the Old Testament; priests among us what the lesser priests there; and our deacons too what their Levites — as Damasus teaches (in letter 3, on the chorepiscopi), Jerome (in letter 85 to Evagrius), Leo (in letter 88 to the bishops of Germany and Gaul), the Second Council of Seville (canon 7), and very many other most grave authors.
And surely no reason permits that the hierarchy should have been more distinct in the Old Testament than in the New, since the former is compared to a shadow, the latter to an image, by the Apostle (Hebrews 10). It follows, then, that as in the Old Testament the pontiffs by divine right excelled the lesser priests in authority, so also bishops in the Church excel priests.
Secondly, this same is proved from the distinction of the Apostles and the seventy disciples. For that bishops succeed the Apostles, and priests the seventy disciples, all the Fathers constantly teach. See the Council of Neocaesarea (canon 13), Damasus (in letter 3, on the chorepiscopi), Anacletus (letter 2), Jerome (in the letter to Marcella on the errors of Montanus), Augustine (in the tract on Psalm 44), Leo (letter 88), Isidore (Book II On the Divine Offices), Bede (on chapter 10 of Luke), and others. Now that the Apostles were by divine right greater than the seventy disciples is gathered openly enough. First, from their distinct and diverse institution. For the Apostles the Lord willed to be only twelve (Luke 6), and He had them almost always with Him and instructed them privately; but the seventy-two disciples He instituted in Luke 10. Besides (John 20) He said to the Apostles alone: “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.” Finally (Acts 1), when by the apostasy of Judas the number of twelve was diminished, Matthias was taken up, and not without a certain solemn ceremony, though he had before been of the number of the disciples.
Thirdly, this same is proved from those words of the Lord (Matthew 24): “The faithful and prudent servant, whom the lord hath set over his household.” For these words Saint Hilary and the other Fathers on this passage will have to be said of bishops; from which we understand that, by the Lord’s own institution, the care and governance of the Church is proper to bishops — to which also pertains that passage of Acts 20: “Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath placed you bishops, to rule the Church of God.”
Fourthly, it is proved from antiquity; for if priests were set over bishops by human right [or if bishops presided over priests by human right], there would certainly be found some beginning of this institution after apostolic times. But in the very time of the Apostles this was the usage of the Church, that priests were subject to bishops; for (1 Timothy 5) the Apostle writes thus: “Against a priest receive not an accusation, but under two or three witnesses.” Where we see the bishop in the time of the Apostles the judge of priests, and accordingly a true prince and superior. Likewise Ignatius, a disciple of the Apostles (in the letter to the Philadelphians), writes thus: “Good are the priests and ministers of the word, but better is the pontiff, to whom the holy of holies are entrusted, to whom alone the secrets of God are committed.” Clement too, a contemporary of Ignatius, in the canons of the Apostles (canon 40): “Let priests and deacons attempt to do nothing without the bishop; for the people of the Lord is committed to him, and he is to render an account for their souls.” Finally Dionysius the Areopagite, a disciple of the Apostle Paul (chapter 5 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy), describing the hierarchy divinely instituted, puts in the first place pontiffs, in the second priests, in the third ministers. Irenaeus, who was next to apostolic times (Book III, chapter 3): “We are able to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they taught the perfect apart and secretly from the rest, they would have delivered them most of all to those to whom they also committed the very Churches,” and so on. Where he says the Churches were committed to bishops, as to the successors of the Apostles. Tertullian, the most ancient of the Latins (in the book On Baptism): “The right of giving Baptism the high priest has, who is the bishop; then the priests and deacons, but not without the bishop’s leave.”
As to the third — that the authority of bishops is not in the assembly of priests as of a consul in the senate, but as of a prince in a council of counselors subject to him — it is gathered, first, from the testimonies already cited of Blessed Paul (in the letter to Timothy), of Clement, Irenaeus, Tertullian; then from the Councils. For all Councils, both general and provincial, even the most ancient, of which Eusebius makes mention (Book V of the history, chapters 23 and 24), were celebrated by bishops alone. And it is established that in Councils jurisdiction is especially exercised, since in them laws are laid down and penalties decreed for transgressors. Likewise from this, that in many places we read of priests excommunicated by bishops, but nowhere of bishops by priests. See the Second Council of Carthage (canons 8 and 9). Finally, from this, that bishops alone have a seat or throne in the church, which is a sign of power; whence they are also said by the Fathers to command after the manner of princes. See Chrysostom (in the book On the Priesthood), Ambrose (in the book On Priestly Dignity), and Gregory Nazianzen (in the oration to the angry prince and the people struck with fear). But now let us dissolve the objections.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIV. De distinctione Episcopi et Presbyteri. Existit igitur quaestio : « Sitne Presbyter idem omnino quod Episcopus, ac praesertim jure divino. » Fuit antiqua haeresis Aerii tes¬ te Epiphanio heeresi 75. et Augustino lib. de haeresibus , cap. 53. nihil interesse inter Episcopum et Presbyterum ; quam haeresim propterea ille videtur excogitasse , ut se ip¬ se consolaretur, quod Episcopus factus non esset, ut aperte significat Epiphanius. Eam- dem haeresim postea secutus est JoannesWi- clefus teste Thoma Waldcnsi lib. II doctrin. fidei, artic. 3, cap. 60. et nostris temporibus Lntherani et Calvinistae. Siquidem Joannes Calvinus lib. IV Institut. cap. 4, § 2. sic lo¬ quitur : « Quibus docendi munus injunctum erat , eos omnes nominabant Presbyteros. Illi ex suo numero in singulis civitatibus unum eligebant, cui specialiter dabant titu¬ lum Episcopi , ne ex aequalitate, ut fieri so¬ let, dissidia nascerentur. Neque tamen sic honore, et dignitate superior erat Episcopus, ut dominium in collegas haberet, sed quas partes habet consul in senatu, ut referat de negotiis , consulendo, monendo, hortando; aliis praeeat, auctoritate sua totam actionem regat, et quod decretum communi consilio fuerit, exequatur. Id muneris sustinebat Episcopus in Presbyterorum coetu; atque idipsum pro temporum necessitate fuisse hu¬ mano consensu indoctum , fatentur ipsi ve¬ teres.» Haec ille. Non dissimilia habent Mar- tinus Kcmnitius in examine sess. XXIII Con- cil. Tridentini. Necnon et Erasmus annotat, ad IV caput. I. ad Timotheum. At Ecclesia Catholica distinctionem agno¬ scit, ac docet jure divino Episcopatum Pres¬ byterio majorem esse, tum ordinis potesta¬ te, tum etiam jurisdictione : sic enim loqui¬ tur Concilium Trident. sess. XXIII, cap. 4 : « Proinde sacrosancta Synodus declaratpree- ter caeteros Ecclesiasticos gradus, Episcopos, qui in Apostolorum locum successerunt , ad hunc hierarchicum ordinem praecipue perti¬ nere, et positos, sicut Apostolus ait, a Spiri¬ tu sancto regere Ecclesiam Dei, eosque Pres¬ byteris superiores esse etc. » Et canon. 6 : « Si quis dixerit in Ecclesia Catholica non esse hierarchiam divina ordinatione institu¬ tam, quae constat ex Episcopis, Presbyteris, et Ministris, anathema sit. » Et can. 7 : « Si quis dixerit Episcopos non esse Presbyteris superiores etc. anathema sit. » Eamdem sen¬ tentiam docent, et defendunt Theologi Doc- res apud Magistrum in lib. IV sentent. dist. 24. et S. Thom. in 2. 2. qu. CLXXXIV, art. 6. Nos igitur omissa illa quaestione , quae ad disputationem de Sacramentis pertinet: Sit¬ ne unus ordo, unumve Sacramentum Epis¬ copatus, et Presbyterii, aut duo : tria de¬ monstrare conabimur. Primo , jure divino majorem esse Episcopum Presbytero, quod attinet ad ordinis potestatem. Secundo, ma¬ jorem esse etiam quantum ad jurisdictionem. Tertio, Episcopos inveteri Ecclesia non fuis¬ se in coetu Presbyterorum, quasi Consules in senatu, sed quasi Reges ac Principes in coe¬ tu Consiliariorum. Quod ad primum attinet , facile probari potest, Episcopum majorem esse Presbyte¬ ro, quantum ad ordinis potestatem , idque jure divino. Nam solus Episcopus ordinare potest Presbyteros, et eo modo generare Pa¬ tres Ecclesiae; ut Epiphanius ratiocinatur adversus Aerium. Presbyteri autem ordina¬ re non possunt, sed solum baptizare , et eo modo filios Ecclesiae generare. Id autem ita esse docet Damasus in epist. 3. Item Conci¬ lium Antiochenum cap. 10. et Ancyranum canone 12. Epiphanius heeresi 75. Chrysos- tomus, Theodoretus, Theophylactus, et QE- / (1) Act. VI, 2. CAPUT XIV. 441 cumenius , in III et IV. cap. I. ad Timo¬ theum. Item S. Hieronym. in epist. 85. ad Evagrium : « Quid facit,! inquit, Episcopus excepta ordinatione, quod Presbyter non fa¬ ciat? » Denique S.Leo epist. 88. idem docet, et Ecclesiae consuetudo. Numquam enim est auditum , quod Presbyteri Presbyteros, aut Diaconos, nedum Episcopos ordinaverint. Esse autem ex jure divino, ut soli Episco¬ pi ordinent, inde colligitur, quod habebatur irritum, si quid in ea re fecissent, qui veri Episcopi non erant. Sic enim scribit Gre- gorius III, in epist. adBonifacium : « Pres¬ byteri, quos reperisti, si incogniti fuerint vi¬ ri illi, qui ordinant , et dubium est eos Epis¬ copos fuisse, aut qui eos ordinaverint, si bo¬ nae actionis , virique Catholici sint , et ipsi Presbyteri in ministerio Christi. De sancta lege edocti, ab Episcopo suo benedictionem Presbyteratus suscipiant , et consecrentur, et sic ministerio sacro fungantur. » Et ante eum Damasus in epist. 3. loquens de Chor¬ episcopis, qui cum solum Presbyteri essent, Pontificum more ordinare audebant : « Va¬ cuum, inquit, est et inane, quidquid in prae¬ dicto sacerdotii summi egerunt ministerio.» At certe si jure divino Presbyteri ex ipsa sua ordinatione , id est , ex charactare suo sacerdotali haberent , ut ordinare possent, non esset irritum quod facerent, tametsipro- Ehibente cclesia facerent. Praeterea cum or¬ dinatio Sacramentum sit (ut etiam Calvinus admittit) et Sacramenta omnia a Deo sint instituta, certe qui major est ordinis potes¬ tate, quae per Sacramentum ordinationis ac¬ cipitur, is quoque major sit ex divina insti¬ tutione necesse est. Idem argumentum fieri potest ex confir¬ matione baptizatorum, et templorum atque altarium consecratione. Constat enim solos Episcopos, ut ordinarios Ministros , confir¬ mationis Sacramentum posse conferre, nec- non templa et altaria consecrare , neque id Presbyteris licere , ut S. Leo docet in epist. ad Episcopos Germaniae et Galliae , et ante eum Damasus in epist. 3. de Chorepiscopis, et ante utrumque Dionysius cap. 4 et 5, Ec¬ clesiasticae Ehierarchiae, ubi dicit solum pis— copum divina ordinatione Chrisma conse¬ crare. Quin etiam videmus Actor VIII Apos¬ tolos ipsos, quibus Episcopi succedunt, mis¬ sos, ut per manus impositionem darent Spi¬ ritum sanctum jam baptizatis. Quod ad secundum attinet de potestate jurisdictionis, Episcopos jure divino Presby¬ teris esse majores. Probamus primo ex fi¬ gura Testamenti veteris, quamquam hoc ar¬ gumentum, ut etiam sequens de distinctio¬ ne Apostolorum et discipulorum, probat etiam de potestate ordinis. Nam in Testa¬ mento veteri erat unus summus Sacerdos Aaron, et qui ei succedebant. Erant preete- rea minores Sacerdotes, omnes videlicet filii Aaron, et qui ab illis descendebant. Ac de¬ nique erant Levitae caeteri, qui a Levi origi¬ nem ducebant, sed non per Aaronem. Con¬ stat autem jure divino fuisse distinctos hos tres gradus, Pontificum, Sacerdotum, etLe- vitarum ; ita ut Pontifex major esset Sacer¬ dotibus, et Sacerdotes Levitis ; nam et con¬ secrationes eorum distinctae erant, et vestes, et officia, ut patet Exod. XXVIII et XL. Le¬ vit. VIII. et Numeri III, IV et XX. Quod autem jurisdictio penes Pontificem esset, non autem penes coetum minorum Sa¬ cerdotum , patet ex lib. Deuteronom. cap. XVII : Qui superbierit nolens obedire Sacer¬ dotis imperio , ex sententia judicis moria¬ tur. (1) Quod etiam fatentur Centuriatores Magdeburgens. Centur. I, lib. I, cap. 7, co¬ lum. 257 : « In Ecclesia, inquiunt, populi Judaici unus tantum erat lege divina Sacer¬ dos summus , quem omnes cogebantur ag¬ noscere, eique parere. » Item quoque fatetur Calvinus lib. IV Institut. cap. 6, §. 2 : «Illic, inquit , unum Antistitem praefecit , quem omnes respicerent, quo melius in unitate con¬ tinerentur. » At Episcopi id sunt in Eccle¬ sia, quod erant Pontifices in testamento ve¬ teri, id Presbyteri apud nos , quod illic mi¬ nores Sacerdotes , ut etiam id Diaconi nos¬ tri, quod illorum Levitae , ut docent Dama¬ sus in epist. 3. de Chorepiscopis , Hierony¬ mus in epist. ad Evagrium 85. Leo epist. ad Episcopos Germaniae et Galliae 88. Concilium Hispalense II, can. 7. et alii permulti gra¬ vissimi auctores. Et sane nulla ratio permittit, ut distinc¬ tior fuerit hierarchia in Testamento veteri, quam in novo cum illud umbrae, istud ima¬ gini comparetur ab Apostolo ad Hebr. X. Sequitur igitur , ut sicut in Testamento ve¬ teri jure divino Pontifices Sacerdotibus mi¬ noribus auctoritate praestabant, ita etiam Episcopi in Ecclesia Presbyteris praestent. Secundo , probatur hoc idem ex distinc- (1) Deut. XVII. 12. 442 LIBER I. tione Apostolorum et discipulorum LXX. Nam Episcopos Apostolis succedere, Pres¬ byteros autem septdaginta discipulis, docent constanter omnes Patres. Yide Concilium Neocsesariense can. 13. Damasum in epist. 3. de Chorepiscopis, Anacletum epist. 2. Hieronymum in epist. ad Marcellam de er¬ roribus Montani, Augustinum tract. in Psal. XLIY. Leonem epist. 88. Isidorum lib. II de divinis officiis , Bedam in cap. X. Lucse, et alios. Porro Apostolos jure divino majores fuisse discipulis septuaginta , satis aperte colligitur. Primum, ex institutione distincta, et diversa. Apostolos enim solum duodecim Dominus esse voluit, Lucse cap. VI. et eos semper fere secum habebat, ac privatim in¬ stituebat ; discipulos autem LXXII. Lucse X instituit. Praeterea Joan. XX. solis Apostolis dixit : Sicut misit me Pater , et ego mitto uos(l). Denique Actor. I. Cum exJudse apos¬ tasia numerus duodenarius imminutus esset, assumptus est Matthias , nec sine solemni quadam caeremonia , cum tamen esset ille antea ex numero discipulorum. Tertio, probatur hoc idem ex illis Domini verbis Matthaei XXIY : Fidelis servus et pru¬ dens, quem constituit Dominus super familiam suam (2). Hsec enim verba S. Hilarius et ese- teri Patres in hunc locum, de Episcopis dic¬ ta esse volunt; Ex quo intelligimus , ipso Domino instituente, Episcoporum propriam esse curam, et gubernationem Ecclesiae, quo etiam pertinet locus ille Actorum XX : At¬ tendite vobis , et universo gregi , in quo vos Spi¬ ritus sanctus posuit Episcopos, regere Ecclesiam Dei (3). Quarto, probatur ex antiquitate ; nam si jure humano Episcopis Presbyteri praeessent, inveniretur certe principium aliquod hujus institutionis post Apostolica tempora. At ip¬ so tempore Apostolorum is erat Ecclesiae usus , ut Presbyteri Episcopis subessent ; nam. I. Timoth. Y. Apostolus ita scribit : Adversus Presbyterum accusationem noli reci¬ pere , nisi sub duobus , aut tribus testibus (4). Ubi videmus Episcopum Apostolorum tem¬ pore judicem Presbyterorum , proinde ve¬ rum Principem, ac superiorem. Item Ignatius Apostolorum discipulus in epist. ad Philadelphienses ita scribit : « Bo¬ ni sunt Sacerdotes, et sermonis Ministri, me¬ lior autem est Pontifex, cui credita sunt san¬ cta Sanctorum , cui soli commissa sunt se¬ creta Dei. » Clemens quoque Ignatii aequa¬ lis , in Apostolorum canonibus canon. 40 : « Presbyteri, inquit, et Diaconi praeter Epis¬ copum nihil agere pertentent; nam Domini populus illi commissus est, et pro animabus eorum hic redditurus est rationem. » Denique Dionysius Areopagita Pauli Apostoli discipu¬ lus cap. 5. Ecclesiast. hierarch. describens hierarchiam divinitus institutam ; primo loco Pontifices, secundo Sacerdotes, tertio Minis¬ tros ponit. Irenaeus, qui proximus Apostoli- cis temporibus fuit, lib. III, cap. 3 : «Habe¬ mus, inquit, annumerare eos, qui ab Apos¬ tolis instituti sunt Episcopi , et successores eorum. Nam si recondita mysteria scissent Apostoli, quae seorsim et latenter a reliquis perfectos docebant , iis vel maxime trade¬ rent ea, quibus etiam ipsas Ecclesias commit¬ tebant etc. » Ubi Episcopis dicit commissas esse Ecclesias , ut Apostolorum successo¬ ribus. Tertullianus antiquissimus Latinorum, in libro de baptismo : « Jus habet, inquit, dandi Baptismum summus Sacerdos, qui est Episcopus , dehinc Presbyteri , et Diaconi, sed non sine Episcopi facultate. » Quantum ad tertium, quod Episcoporum auctoritas non sit in coetu Presbyterorum, quasi Consulis in senatu, sed ut Principis in Concilio Consiliariorum sibi subjectorum, primum colligitur ex testimoniis jam citatis B. Pauli, in epist. ad Timotheum, Clemen¬ tis, Irensei, Tertulliani, deinde ex Conciliis. Omnia siquidem Concilia , tum generalia, tum provincialia, etiam antiquissima, quo¬ rum meminit Eusebius , lib. V histor. cap. 23 et 23. a solis Episcopis celebrata sunt. Constat autem in Conciliis maxime exer¬ ceri jurisdictionem, cum leges in eis ponan¬ tur, et poence praevaricatoribus decernantur. Item ex eo , quod multis in locis legimus. Presbyteros ab Episcopis excommunicatos, nusquam autem' Episcopos a Presbyteris. Yide Concilium II Carthaginiense, can. 8 et 9. Denique ex eo, quod soli Episcopi solium, sive thronum habent in Ecclesia , quod est potestatis indicium, unde et imperare Prin- cipum more dicuntur a Patribus. Vide Chry- sost. in lib. de sacerdotio, Ambr. in lib. de dignitate sacerdotali, et Gregor. Nazianz. in oratione ad Principem irascentem, et popu¬ lum timore perculsum. Sed jam objectiones diluamus. (1) Joan. XX, 21. — (2) Matth. XXIV, 45. — (3) Act. XX, 28. — (4) I. Timoth. V, 19.