Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On the Clergy (Book I)
Chapter 15: The Objections Answered
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).
In the first place they object the testimony of Blessed Paul, from which bishops and priests seem to be the same (Philippians 1): “Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.” Certainly in this passage priests are called bishops; for there would not have been many bishops in one city, if the name “bishop” signified some supreme priest. Then why did Paul not say, “with the bishop, priests, and deacons,” if priests were at that time distinguished from bishops?
I answer. Ambrose’s commentary refers that “with the bishops and deacons” not to those to whom he writes, but to those who write; so that by “bishops” in this place are meant Paul and Timothy, and this is the sense: “Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints who are at Philippi, with the bishops” — that is, with Paul and Timothy — “and their deacons, grace to you and peace,” and so on. But the exposition seems too harsh.
Epiphanius (in the book On Heresies, heresy 75) says that Paul was wont to write thus because at that time, on account of the scarcity of ministers, in many places there were no priests, but bishops alone with deacons; for bishops can discharge also the office of priests. But this explanation of Epiphanius would have place if Paul said, “with the bishop and deacons,” or if he wrote not to one city but to many at once. But since he writes to the one city of Philippi, and says that he writes to bishops and deacons, how, I ask, can that explanation have place? For if in one city there could be many bishops, how much more easily one bishop and several priests.
Theodoret (in the commentary on this passage, and more fully on chapter 3 of the first to Timothy) writes that in the time of the Apostles true bishops were wont to be called not bishops but Apostles, and that priests were then wont to be called by the name of bishop. For (Romans 16) Paul calls Andronicus an Apostle, and (Philippians 2) he names Epaphroditus the Apostle of the Philippians — who indeed were bishops. But afterward, the name “Apostle” being dropped, bishops began to be called only bishops, and priests only priests. Which observation of Theodoret, if it be true, satisfies not only the objection drawn from this passage, but from all the others too; for we shall always be able to say that Paul by the name of bishops meant priests.
Easier is the commentary of Saint John Chrysostom and of many others, who teach that in the time of the Apostles those names, bishop and priest, were common to all the priests, both the greater, whom we now call bishops, and the lesser, whom we call priests, although the things themselves and the powers were distinct. And so Paul under the name of bishops embraced all the priests, so that this is the sense: “Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons” — that is, with the priests and their ministers. Add that Blessed Paul seems to have wished to salute the whole clergy, but, that he might not be compelled to number each order, did it in general. For all the orders are brought back to two primary kinds: to priests and ministers, of which the former is subdivided into two analogous species, into high priests and simple priests; the latter into six other species: into deacons, subdeacons, acolytes, lectors, exorcists, and doorkeepers. But although now the name of bishop is wont to be attributed only to the principal analogate, that is, to the high priest, and the name of deacon only to the principal minister, yet the name of bishop befits in its own way the lesser priests too; for they too oversee and rule the people, at least in the forum of conscience and by the bishop’s delegation; and the name of deacon befits in its own way the lower orders too, since all minister to the priest.
The second objection is taken from chapter 1 of the epistle to Titus, where the Apostle speaks thus: “For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest appoint priests throughout the cities, as I also disposed to thee.” And a little below: “For a bishop must be blameless,” and so on. In which passage we see that priests are bishops. But the same answer can be applied which was applied to the former passage; for the names at that time were common.
The third objection is taken from chapter 3 of the first epistle to Timothy, where Blessed Paul, after he had given certain precepts to bishops, at once, priests being omitted, passed to deacons. Wherefore he seems to have held bishops and priests for the same. I answer: Blessed Paul wished to instruct the whole clergy in general, and therefore under the name of bishops comprehended also priests, and under the name of deacons all the lower ministers; for the same precepts befitted all.
The fourth objection, from chapter 4 of the first to Timothy, where Paul says: “Neglect not the grace of God that is in thee, which was given thee by the imposition of the hands of the presbytery.” From which passage Kemnitz affirms that Saint Jerome demonstrated that a bishop can be ordained by priests, and accordingly that there is no difference between bishop and priest. But Kemnitz lies impudently. For Saint Jerome (in the letter to Evagrius, which Kemnitz cites) affirms in express words that priests cannot ordain: “What does a bishop do,” he says, “except ordination, which a priest does not also do?” But Saint Jerome adduced that passage of the Apostle to show that bishops are in the Scriptures sometimes called priests. For thus he expounded those words, “by the imposition of the hands of the presbytery,” as if it were said, “by the imposition of hands by which thou didst receive the priesthood” — when yet it is established that Timothy was not a simple priest but a bishop. In which way also Anselm expounded it, and certain other Latins, and Calvin himself (Book IV Institutes, chapter 3, at the end). Although to us the exposition of the Greeks seems truer, who by the name of “presbytery” understand the choir or assembly of priests, that is, of bishops, who impose hands on the new bishop; for thus expound Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and Oecumenius.
The fifth objection, from chapter 20 of Acts, where Blessed Paul, sending to Ephesus, called to himself the elders of the Church, that is, the priests, and yet, while he addresses them, calls them bishops, saying: “Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath placed you bishops, to rule the Church of God.” Likewise from chapter 5 of the first epistle of Blessed Peter, where Peter addresses the priests thus: “The elders that are among you I beseech, who am a fellow-elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ,” and so on; “feed the flock of God which is among you, taking care of it not by constraint,” and so on. Where that word “elders” in the Greek text is presbyterous, and that word “taking care” in the Greek is episkopountes. Finally from the second and third epistles of Saint John, in which the Apostle calls himself a priest [presbyter], when without any doubt he was a bishop. But to all these it is answered in one word: the names at that time were common, and therefore in all these passages true bishops too are called priests. To these they add the testimonies of the Fathers.
The sixth objection, then, is from Saint Jerome, who (in the commentary on chapter 1 of the epistle to Titus) writes thus: “A priest is the same as a bishop; and before, by the devil’s instinct, partisanships in religion arose, and it was said among the peoples, ‘I am of Paul, I of Apollo, I indeed of Cephas,’ the Churches were governed by the common counsel of the priests. But after each one thought those whom he had baptized to be his own, not Christ’s, it was decreed in the whole world that one chosen from the priests should be set over the rest, to whom all care of the Church should pertain, and the seeds of schisms be taken away.” And below: “As therefore priests know that they are, by the custom of the Church, subject to him who has been set over them, so let bishops know that they are, more by custom than by the truth of the Lord’s disposition, greater than priests, and ought to rule the Church in common.” Similar things the same Jerome has in letter 85 to Evagrius.
These words of Saint Jerome some try to interpret piously, as Saint Thomas, who (in the Second Part of the Second Part, question 184, article 6) writes that Jerome speaks only of the names bishop and priest, not of the thing itself. But certainly those words cited, “the Churches were governed by the common counsel of the priests,” and those, “more by custom than by the truth of the Lord’s disposition greater than priests,” signify something other than a mere community of words.
John Antony Delphinus (Book II On the Church) teaches that, according to Jerome’s opinion, at the beginning of the nascent Church all priests were bishops — not that the episcopate and the priesthood are the same, but that both dignities were at that first time given to all priests. But afterward, to avoid schisms, some began to be ordained only priests, and in this way it came about, by the custom of the Church, that bishops were greater than priests. But this solution too does not fully satisfy. For Saint Jerome tries to maintain the dignity of priests, such as it was in his time, against the insolence of the deacons, as is plain from the letter to Evagrius; and thence he strives to demonstrate that the dignity of priests is the greatest, because it is the same as the episcopal. But he would bring nothing to prove this, if he only taught that the first priests were therefore equal to bishops because they had also the episcopal power and were not simple priests. Then, if the first priests were equal to bishops because they too were true bishops, the distinction which (according to Jerome’s opinion) afterward arose would have come from this, that some afterward received a simple priesthood in ordination. But Saint Jerome signifies the contrary; for he teaches that the episcopate is new and from the custom of the Church, not the simple priesthood; for thus he says: “The Churches were governed by the common counsel of the priests, but after each one,” and so on.
Michael Medina (Book I On the Origin and Continence of Sacred Men, chapter 5) affirms that Saint Jerome held altogether the same as the Aerians, and that not only Jerome was in that heresy, but also Ambrose, Augustine, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, and Theophylact. “And so,” says Medina, “these men, some most holy and most versed in the holy Scriptures, whose opinion nevertheless the Church condemned, first in Aerius, then in the Waldensians, lastly in John Wycliffe.” And below: “Therefore in Jerome and those Greek Fathers this opinion was of old, for their honor and reverence, either dissembled or tolerated in them; but on the contrary in the heretics, because in many other things too they departed from the Church, it was always condemned as heretical.” Thus he.
But this opinion of Medina (to say the least) is very inconsiderate. For, first, it does injury to so many most illustrious Fathers, whom without any cause (as I shall soon show) he makes Aerians. Then it does injury to the Church, which it brands with the mark of respect of persons. For since all the cited authors lived after Aerius, why, I ask, did the Church condemn one and the same opinion in Aerius, and tolerate it in the Fathers? Ought not rather Aerius to have been pardoned, who seemed to have sinned before the Church’s definition, than those Fathers who followed a heresy already condemned? Finally it does injury to the common cause of the Catholic doctors. For with what face shall we bring forward the holy Fathers against the heretics, if we say that opinion was condemned by the Church which almost all the Fathers, both Greek and Latin, taught?
But (says Medina) the Waldensian heretics used the testimony of Jerome; therefore they and Jerome held the same. A remarkable argument indeed. In this way it will be lawful to conclude also that Luther and Paul hold the same; for Luther everywhere uses the testimonies of Paul. The Waldensians, then, lie when they say they follow Jerome as their author.
But Medina insists: Aerius was not ignorant that, according to the laws of the Church, a bishop is greater than a priest, but affirmed that by divine right they are equal. Wherefore, since Jerome most openly says that not by the truth of the Lord’s disposition, but by ecclesiastical custom alone, bishops are greater than priests, there seems to be no difference at all between the opinion of Aerius and of Jerome.
I answer: Jerome differs from Aerius as much as a Catholic from a heretic, and heaven from hell. For, first, Saint Jerome everywhere acknowledges that a bishop is greater than a priest as regards the power of order, and this without doubt by divine right, as is plain from the letter to Evagrius, where he says: “What does a bishop do, except ordination, which a priest does not also do?” But Aerius acknowledged no difference, as can be understood from Epiphanius (heresy 75). Then, as regards the power of jurisdiction, Aerius, like the Lutherans and Calvinists too, not only denied that a bishop is by divine right greater than a priest, but even contended that the Church does not act rightly in setting bishops before priests. But Saint Jerome, although he does not seem to acknowledge a difference by divine right between the jurisdiction of a bishop and a priest, yet acknowledges this very difference as lawfully — nay, even necessarily, to avoid schisms — introduced by the Apostles. For Saint Jerome does not mean that the principate of bishops arose a few years before, from the corruption of the times, but from that time when it began to be said in the Church, “I am of Paul, I of Apollo, I indeed of Cephas” — which words are the Apostle Paul’s (1 Corinthians 1). Accordingly in the very beginnings of the Church, while the Apostles still lived, in the whole world, by the Apostles themselves then ruling the Churches, Saint Jerome means that ecclesiastical jurisdiction was conferred on bishops. And so there is nothing common to Aerius and Jerome. Nor is it in any way credible that Saint Jerome followed the opinion of Aerius, which he knew was already refuted by Saint Epiphanius.
And it is here to be observed that Saint Jerome in that opinion of his does not seem so constant but that it is very probable he was not altogether certain. For he taught (in the explanation of the first chapter to Titus) that the custom which set bishops before priests began from that time when it was said, “I am of Paul, I of Apollo, I indeed of Cephas”; and yet he strives to gather that priests were equal to bishops from the epistle to Titus, and to the Philippians, and from the epistles of Peter and John, which were written after the first epistle to the Corinthians, where those words are had, “I am of Paul, I of Apollo,” and so on. Then (in the book On Ecclesiastical Writers, under James) he says that James, immediately from Christ’s ascension, was ordained bishop of Jerusalem. There was not, then, ever that time in which the Churches were governed by priests without bishops. Besides, the same Jerome (in the letter to Evagrius) compares the bishop to Aaron, the priests to the sons of Aaron; and (in the letter to Marcella on the errors of Montanus) says that bishops succeed the Apostles. But certainly Aaron was by divine right greater in order and jurisdiction than his sons, and the Apostles than all the other disciples of Christ. Finally (in Book I against Jovinian) the same Jerome affirms that by Christ Himself one was chosen from the twelve, that is, Peter, “that, a head being constituted, the occasion of schisms might be taken away.” But if Christ willed one to be eminent among the Apostles themselves, why shall we not believe that He willed also that one be eminent among the priests? And so much of Saint Jerome; and likewise of Anselm and Sedulius, who (in the commentary on chapter 1 of the epistle to Titus) reported Jerome’s opinion word for word.
The seventh objection, from Ambrose, who (in the commentary on chapter 4 to the Ephesians) writes thus: “He calls Timothy, a bishop created by himself, a priest, because the first priests were called bishops, so that, when one withdrew, the next should succeed him. Finally, in Egypt priests confirm, if a bishop be not present. But because the succeeding priests began to be found unworthy to hold the primacies, the plan was changed, the Council providing that not order but merit should create a bishop, constituted by the judgment of many priests,” and so on. But this passage has no difficulty. For (to omit meanwhile that those commentaries do not seem to have been issued by Ambrose) the author of those commentaries speaks only of the manner of the succession of bishops, and teaches that at the beginning of the nascent Church the most senior priest was wont to be ordained bishop, and, he dying, the most senior priest was wont likewise to succeed, without any other election. But that author does not deny that that first priest, when he succeeded to the bishop, had to be consecrated again and receive a new power and jurisdiction. Nor does the same author once most clearly teach that there is much difference between bishop and priest; for in the same commentary on chapter 4 to the Ephesians he says thus: “In the bishop are all the orders, because he is the first priest, that is, the prince of priests.” And on chapter 3 of the first to Timothy: “Of bishop and priest there is one ordination, for each is a priest, but the bishop is first, so that every bishop is a priest, but not every priest a bishop. For he is bishop who is first among the priests. Finally, he signifies that Timothy was ordained a priest, but, because he had no other before himself, he was a bishop, whence he also shows how he should ordain a bishop; for it was neither right nor lawful that an inferior should ordain a superior, for no one gives what he has not received.” Thus he. Where you see that a bishop is greater than a priest, and therefore a bishop cannot be ordained by a priest, because a priest has not the episcopal ordination.
The eighth objection, from Chrysostom (in the commentary on chapter 3 of the first to Timothy), where we read thus (homily 11): “Between a bishop and a priest there is almost no difference; for to priests too the care of the Church is committed, and what he said of bishops befits priests also. For in ordination alone are they superior, and in this only do they seem to have more than priests.” The same teach, and in almost the same words, Primasius, Theophylact, and Oecumenius, in the commentary on the same passage. I answer that from these very words it is openly gathered that bishops are greater than priests, since bishops can ordain, priests cannot, as the cited authors testify with one voice. But, you will say, at least as to jurisdiction priests are equal to bishops, since bishops have nothing which priests do not have, except ordination. I answer: these authors, when they attribute nothing to the bishop which is not common with priests except ordination, speak of those things which in no way befit priests. And there is no such thing except the ordination especially of priests. For the power of jurisdiction, by commission of the bishop, can befit priests too; nay, priests can even confirm the baptized by dispensation. But the ordination of priests is so proper to bishops that it can in no way be permitted to priests. And that Chrysostom held that in the time of the Apostles a bishop was distinct from a priest is gathered also from homily 1 on the epistle to the Philippians, where, expounding that, “with the bishops and deacons”: “What,” he says, “does this mean? Were there then several bishops of one city? By no means; but by this title he designates the priests; for at that time the word was still common.”
The ninth objection, from Theodoret, who (in the commentary on chapter 1 to the Philippians) several times repeats that they were priests whom Paul calls bishops. But this has already been explained before. For Theodoret indeed teaches that of old priests had the name of bishops; but in the same place he adds that true bishops were at that time wont to be called by the name of Apostles, so that always, both in reality and in name, bishops were greater than priests, according to Theodoret’s opinion. Wherefore the same author (on chapter 3 of the first to Timothy) writes thus: “But yet, even if the divine Apostle established these laws for priests, it is clear that these laws the bishops ought to keep first, as those who have attained the greater dignity.”
The tenth objection, from Augustine, who (in letter 19 to Jerome) says thus: “For although, according to the titles of honor which the use of the Church has now obtained, the episcopate is greater than the priesthood, yet in many things Augustine is less than Jerome.” I answer that that “has now obtained” is not opposed to the ancient time of the Church itself, but to the time which was before the rise of our Christian Church. And so the sense is not, of old bishops and priests were equal, but now the use has obtained that the episcopate is greater than the priesthood. But this is the sense: before Christian times those names, bishop and priest, were not titles of honor, but of office or age; but now they are names of honor and dignity, and according to these names Augustine is greater than Jerome, although by many other titles Augustine is less than Jerome.
The eleventh objection: priests succeed the Apostles no less than bishops, as is plain from Clement (Book II of the Constitutions, chapter 32) and Ignatius (in the letter to the Smyrnaeans). Therefore priests are not inferior to bishops. I answer: bishops and priests are compared by the Fathers in various ways, but always the proportion and distinction being preserved. Sometimes they say the bishop holds the place of God, the priest the place of Christ, the deacon the place of the Apostles. So Clement (Book II of the Constitutions, chapter 30) and Ignatius (in the letter to the Trallians). Sometimes they give the bishop the place of Christ, the priests the place of the Apostles, the deacons the place of the seventy-two disciples. So Clement (in the cited place, Book II, chapter 32) and Ignatius (to the Smyrnaeans). Sometimes they give bishops the place of the Apostles, priests the place of the seventy-two disciples, as the Fathers cited above.
The twelfth objection: Christ ordained priests at the Supper, as all Catholics teach; but He is nowhere read to have ordained bishops. Therefore the episcopate was not introduced by divine right. I answer: by Christ Blessed Peter was ordained bishop, by Blessed Peter James and John, by these three the other Apostles, as we showed above in the first book On the Supreme Pontiff.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XY. CAPUT XV. Solvuntur objectiones . Primo loco objiciunt testimonium B. Pau¬ li, ex quo iidem videntur esse Episcopi et Presbyteri, Philipp. I : Paulus et Timotheus servi Jesu Christi , omnibus sanctis , qui sunt Philippis , cum Episcopis et Diaconibus (1). Certe hoc loco Presbyteri dicuntur Episco¬ pi ; non enim in una urbe multi fuissent Episcopi , si Episcopi nomen summum ali¬ quem Sacerdotem significare. Deinde quare non dixit Paulus , cum Episcopo, Presbyte¬ ris, et Diaconibus, si Presbyteri ab Episcopis eo tempore distinguebatur. Respondeo. Ambrosii commentarius non refert illud cum Episcopis et Diaconibus, ad eos quibus scribitur, sed ad eos qui scribunt, ita ut Episcopi hoc loco dicantur Paulus et Timotheus , et bic sit sensus : Paulus et Ti¬ motheus servi Jesu Christi , omnibus sanctis, qui sunt Philippis , cum Episcopis , id est, cum Paulo et Timotheo , et eorum Diaconibus, gratia vobis, et pax etc. Sed nimis dura ex¬ positio videtur. Epiphanius in lib. de hseresibus , hseresi septuagesimaquinta, dicit Paulum ita scribe¬ re solitum, quod eo tempore ob ministrorum penuriam multis in locis non essent Presby¬ teri ulli , sed Episcopi soli cum Diaconibus. Possunt enim Episcopi etiam Presbyterorum officio fungi. At haec Epiphanii explicatio tum haberet locum, si Paulus diceret , cum Episcopo et Diaconibus, aut si non ad unam civitatem , sed ad multas simul scriberet : Sed cum ipse ad unam urbem Philippensem scribat, et dicat se scribere ad Episcopos et Diaconos; quomodo, quaeso, illa explicatio locum habere potest? Si enim in una urbe multi Episcopi esse poterant, quanto facilius unus Episcopus, et aliquot Presbyteri. Theodoretus in commentario hujus loci, et fusius in cap. III. prima3 ad Timotheum scribit, Apostolorum tempore veros Episco¬ pos, non Episcopos, sed Apostolos dici soli¬ tos. Presbyteros autem Episcopi nomine tunc appellari consuevisse. Nam ad Roma- 443 nosXYI. Paulus Andronicum Apostolum vo¬ cat , et Philipp. II. Epaphroditum Aposto¬ lum Philippensium appellat , qui videlicet Episcopi erant. Postea tamen omisso, Apos¬ toli nomine , Episcopos solum Episcopos, Presbyteros autem solum Presbyteros appel¬ lari coepisse. Quae observatio Theodoreti si vera sit, non solum objectioni desumptae ex hoc loco , sed etiam ex omnibus aliis locis satisfacit ; semper enim dicere poterimus, Paulum nomine Episcoporum Presbyteros accepisse. Facilior est sancti Joannis Chrysostomi et aliorum multorum commentarius , qui do¬ cent , Apostolorum tempore nomina illa, Episcopus et Presbyter , communia fuisse omnibus Sacerdotibus, tam majoribus, quos nunc Episcopos dicimus , quam minoribus, quos Presbyteros appellamus, licet res ipsae et potestates distinctas essent. Itaque Pau¬ lum nomine Episcoporum complexum esse omnes Sacerdotes, ut hic sit sensus : Paulus et Timotheus servi Jesu Christi, omnibus sanc¬ tis, qui sunt Philippis , cum Episcopis et Dia¬ conibus, id est, cum Sacerdotibus, et eorum Ministris? Adde, quod videtur B. Paulus universum Clerum salutare voluisse , sed ne cogeretur singulos ordines numerare, generatim id fe¬ cit. Omnes enim ordines ad duo primaria genera revocantur, ad Sacerdotes, et Minis¬ tros, quorum illud subdividitur in duas spe¬ cies analogas, in summos Sacerdotes, et sim¬ plices Sacerdotes : istud vero in sex alias species , in Diaconos , Subdiaconos , Aco¬ lythos, Lectores, Exorcistas, et Ostiarios. Quamvis autem nunc nomen Episcopi tan¬ tum principali analogato, id est, summo Sa¬ cerdoti, tribui soleat, et nomen Diaconi, tan¬ tum principali ministro, tamen convenit suo modo nomen Episcopi minoribus etiam Sa¬ cerdotibus ; nam et illi superintendunt , et regunt populum saltem in foro conscientiae, et ex delegatione Episcopi, et nomen Diaco¬ ni convenit suo modo ordinibus etiam infe¬ rioribus, cum omnes ministrent Sacerdoti? Altera objectio sumitur ex cap. I. epist. ad Titum, ubi sic Apostolus loquitur : Hujus rei gratia reliqui te Cretee, ut constituas per ci¬ vitates Presbyteros, sicut ego disposui tibi. Et paulo infra : Oportet enim Episcopum irre¬ prehensibilem esse etc. (2) quo loco videmus Presbyteros Episcopos esse. Sed eadem ad- (1) Philipp. I, 1. —(2) Tit. I, 5. 444 LIBER I. hiberi potest responsio , quae ad locum su¬ periorem adhibita est ; Nomina enim eo tem¬ pore communia erant. Tertia objectio sumitur ex. cap. III prioris epist. ad Timoth. ubi B. Paulus posteaquam praecepta quaedam Episcopis dederat, conti¬ nuo Presbyteris omissis transiit ad Diaconos. Quare videtur pro iisdem habuisse Episco¬ pos et Presbyteros. Respondeo : B. Paulum generatim instruere voluisse Clerum univer¬ sum, ac propterea sub nomine Episcoporum comprehendisse etiam Presbyteros sub no¬ mine Diaconorum omnes inferiores Minis¬ tros ; eadem enim praecepta omnibus conve¬ niebant. Quarta objectio ex cap. IY. prioris ad Ti¬ moth. ubi Paulus ait : Noli negligere gratiam Dei, quee in te est , quae data est sibi per impo¬ sitionem manuum Presbyterii. (1) Ex quo loco Kemnitius affirmat, S. Hieronymum demon¬ strasse , posse Episcopum a Presbyteris or¬ dinari : proinde nihil interesse Episcopum et Presbyterum. Sed impudenter mentitur Kemnitius. Nam S. Hieronymus in epist. ad Evagrium (quam Kemnitius citat) disertis verbis affirmat Presbyteros ordinare non posse : t Quid facit, inquit, Episcopus, ex¬ cepta ordinatione , quod non etiam faciat Presbyter?» Adduxit autem S. Hieronymus locum ilium Apostoli, ut ostenderet Episco¬ pos in Scripturis interdum appellari Presby¬ teros. Sic enim exposuit verba illa : Per im¬ positionem manuum Presbyterii, ac si dictum esset, per impositionem manuum, qua Pres¬ byteratum accepisti , cum tamen constet, Timotheum non Presbyterum simplicem, sed Episcopum fuisse. Quo modo etiam ex¬ posuit Anselmus , et quidam alii Latini , et ipse etiam Calvinus lib. IV Institut. cap. 3. extremo. Quamquam nobis verior videtur Graecorum expositio, qui nomine Presbyte¬ rii intelligunt chorum , sive coetum Presby¬ terorum, id est, Episcoporum, qui novo Epis¬ copo manus imponunt; sic enim exponunt Chrysostomus, Theodoretus, Theophylactus, et QEcumenius. Quinta objectio ex cap. XX Actor, ubi B. Paulus mittens Ephesum, vocavit ad se ma¬ jores natu Ecclesiae , id est, Presbyteros, et tamen dum eos alloquitur, Episcopos appel¬ lat, dicens : Attendite vobis , et universo gre¬ gi , in quo vos Spiritus sanctus posuit Episco¬ pos , regere Ecclesiam Dei. Item ex cap. V. prioris epistolae B. Petri, ubi Petrus Presby¬ teros sic alloquitur : Seniores , qui in vobis sunt , obsecro consenior et testis Christi passio¬ num etc. Pascite, qui in vobis est gregem Dei , providentes non coacte etc. (2) Ubi illud Se¬ niores in Graeco textu est npza^vTspovg , illud autem Providentes , in Graeco est zTnwKobv- rzg. Denique ex epist. II et III S. Joannis, in quibus Apostolus se Presbyterum vocat, cum sine ulla dubitatione Episcopus fuerit. Sed ad haec omnia uno verbo respondetur. No¬ mina eo tempore fuisse communia, et prop¬ terea in his omnibus locis veros etiam Epis¬ copos Presbyteros appellari. His addunt Pa¬ trum testimonia. Est igitur sexta objectio ex S. Hierony¬ mo, qui in comment. I. cap. epist. ad Ti¬ tum ita scribit : « Idem est Presbyter qui Episcopus , et antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent , et diceretur in populis : Ego sum Pauli , ego Apollo , ego vero Gephae, communi Presbyterorum con¬ silio Ecclesiae gubernabantur. Postquam ve¬ ro unusquisque eos, quos baptizave;’at, suos putabat esse, non Christi , in toto orbe de¬ cretum est , ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris, ad quem omnis Ec¬ clesiae cura pertineret, et schismatum semi¬ na tollerentur. » Et infra : « Sicut ergo Pres¬ byteri sciunt se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine, ei, qui sibi praepositus fuerit, esse subjectos, ita Episcopi noverint , se magis consuetudine, quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate Pres¬ byteris esse majores, et in commune debere Ecclesiam regere.» Similia habet idem Hie¬ ronymus in epist. 85. ad Evagrium. Haec S. Hieronymi verba aliqui pie inter¬ pretari conantur, ut S. Thomas, qui in 2. 2. qm CLXXXIV, artic. 6. scribit, Hieronymum loqui solum de nominibus Episcopi et Pres¬ byteri , non de ipsa re. At certe verba illa citata : « Communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur. » Et illa : « Magis consuetudine, quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores, etc. » aliud significant quam solam communionem voca¬ bulorum. Joan. Antonius Delphinus lib. II de Ec¬ clesia docet , ex Hieronym. sententia initio nascentis Ecclesiae omnes Presbyteros fuisse Episcopos. Non quod idem sit Episcopatus et Presbyteratus, sed quod utraque dignitas omnibus Sacerdotibus primo illo tempore (1) I. Timoth. IV, 14. — (2) Act. XX, 28 ; I. Petr. V, 1. 4 CAPUT XV. 44 daretur. Deinde autem ad schismata evitan¬ da coepisse aliquos solum Presbyteros ordi¬ nari, et hoc modo ex Ecclesiae consuetudine factum esse, ut Episcopi majores Presbyte¬ ris essent. At haec etiam solutio non plene satisfacit. Sanctus enim Hieronymus tueri conatur Presbyterorum dignitatem , qualis erat suo tempore adversus insolentiam Diaconorum, ut patet ex epist. ad Evagrium. Inde autem demonstrare nititur dignitatem Presbytero¬ rum esse maximam , quod eadem sit cum Episcopali. Nihil autem ad hoc probandum afferret, si solum doceret primos Presbyte¬ ros, ideo fuisse Episcopis pares, quod habe¬ rent etiam Episcopalem potestatem, nec es¬ sent simplices Presbyteri. Deinde , si ideo primi Presbyteri fuissent pares Episcopis, quia essent etiam ipsi veri Episcopi: distinc¬ tio , qua3 ex Hieronymi sententia postea exorta est, inde accidisset, quod aliqui sim¬ plicem Presbyteratum in ordinatione postea accepissent. At S. Hieronymus contrarium significat , docet enim : Episcopatum esse novum, et ex Ecclesiae consuetudine , non simplicem Presbyteratum ; sic enim ipse ait : «Communi Presbyterorum consilio Ec¬ clesiae gubernabantur, postquam vero unus¬ quisque etc. » Michael Medina in lib. I de sacrorum ho¬ minum origine, et continentia, cap. S. affir¬ mat S. Hieronymum idem omnino cum Ae- rianis sensisse , neque solum Hieronymum in ea heeresi fuisse,, sed etiam Ambrosium, Augustinum, Sedulium, Primasium, Ghry- sostomum, Theodoretum , GEcumenium, et Tlieophylactum, «Atque ita, inquit Medina, isti viri aliqui sanctissimi , et sanctarum Scripturarum consultissimi , quorum tamen sententiam prius in Aerio, deinde in Wal- densibus, postremo in Joanne Wiclefo dam¬ navit Ecclesia. » Et infra : « Ergo in Hiero¬ nymo , et Graecis illis Patribus olim propter eorum honorem , et reverentiam haec sen¬ tentia aut dissimulabatur , aut tolerabatur in illis : contra in haereticis , quod in aliis quoque multis ab Ecclesia declinarent, tam¬ quam haeretica semper est damnata. » Haec ille. Gaeterum haec Medinae sententia (ut levis¬ sime dicam) valde est inconsiderata. Nam primum injuriam facit tot clarissimis Patri¬ bus, quos sine ulla causa, ut mox ostendam, Aerianos facit. Deinde injuriam facit Eccle* siae, quam acceptionis personarum nota inu¬ rit. Nam cum omnes citati auctores post Aerium vixerint, cur, quaeso, Ecclesia unam atque eamdem sententiam in Aerio damna¬ vit, in Patribus toleravit? Nonne Aerio po¬ tius ignoscendum fuit, qui ante definitionem Ecclesiae peccasse videbatur, quam Patribus illis, qui damnatam jam lieeresim secuti sunt? Denique injuriam facit communi causae Doc¬ torum Catholicorum. Qua enim fronte sanc¬ tos Patres adversus haereticos adferemus, si eam sententiam ab Ecclesia damnatam di¬ xerimus, quae omnes fere Patres, tum Grae¬ ci, tum Latini docuerunt. At (inquit Medina) Waldenses haeretici Hieronymi testimonio utebantur, idem igi¬ tur illi et Hieronymus senserunt. » Egregium profecto argumentum. Hoc modo conclu¬ dere licebit etiam, idem sentire Lutherum et Paulum. Nam Pauli testimoniis passim utitur Lutherus. Mentiuntur igitur Walden¬ ses, cum Hieronymum auctorem sequi se di« eunt. Sed instat Medina, Aerius non ignorabat, secundum Ecclesiae leges Episcopum Pres¬ bytero esse majorem, sed jure divino pares esse affirmabat. Quare cum Hieronymus apertissime dicat, non Dominicae dispositio¬ nis veritate, sed sola consuetudine Eccle¬ siastica Episcopos majores Presbyteris esse, nihil omnino inter Aerii et Hieronymi sen¬ tentiam interesse videtur. Respondeo : tantum distare Hieronymum ab Aerio, quantum Catholicus ab haeretico, et coelum ab inferis distat. Nam in primis S. Hieronymus ubique agnoscit Episcopum esse majorem Presbytero, quantum ad or¬ dinis potestatem, et hoc sine dubio jure di¬ vino, ut patet ex epist. ad Evagrium, ubi sic ait : « Quid facit Episcopus, excepta ordi¬ natione, quod non faciat etiam Presbyter?» At Aerius discrimen non agnoscebat, ut ex Epiphanio potest intelligi, haeresi 75. Deinde quantum ad potestatem jurisdic¬ tionis, Aerius, ut etiam Lutherani et Calvi- nistai, non modo negabat jure divino majo¬ rem esse Episcopum Presbytero, sed etiam contendebat non recte facere Ecclesiam, quae Episcopos Presbyteris anteponat. At S. Hieronymus, etsi jure divino agnoscere non videtur discrimen inter jurisdictionem Epis¬ copi et Presbyteri, tamen agnoscit hoc ip¬ sum discrimen tanquam legitime, imo et ne¬ cessario ad schismata vitanda ab Apostolis introductum. Non enim vult S. Hieronymus ante paucos annos ex temporum corruptela 446 LIBER I. natum esse Episcoporum principatum, sed ab eo tempore quo coepit dici in Ecclesia: E ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo , ego autem Cephee (1); qute verba Apostoli Pauli sunt, I. Cor. I. Proinde in ipsis Ecclesia? primordiis, cum adhuc viverent Apostoli, in toto orbe ab ip¬ sis Apostolis, Ecclesias tum regentibus, vult S. Hieronymus jurisdictionem Ecclesiasti¬ cam ad Episcopos esse delatam. Itaque ni¬ hil commune est Aerio et Hieronymo. Neque ullo modo credibile est S. Hieronymum Ae¬ rii sententiam fuisse secutum, quam sciebat jam a S. Epiphanio refutatam. Est autem hoc loco observandum, S. Hie¬ ronymum in illa sua sententia non adeo con¬ stantem videri, ut valde probabile sit eum non omnino certum fuisse. Docuit enim in explicatione capitis primi ad Titum, consue¬ tudinem, quae Episcopos Presbyteris ante¬ posuit, cajpisse ab eo tempore, quo dictum est : Ego sum Pauli , ego Apollo, ego autem Cephee , et tamen Presbyteros Episcopis pa¬ res esse colligere nititur ex epistola ad Ti¬ tum, et ad Philippenses, et ex epistolis Petri et Joannis, quae scriptae sunt post epistolam priorem ad Corinthios, ubi illa verba haben¬ tur : Ego sum Pauli , ego Apollo etc. Deinde in libro de scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis in Ja- cobo, dicit Jacobum continuo a Christi as¬ censione ordinatum Episcopum Hierosoly¬ morum. Non igitur fuit unquam illud tem¬ pus, quo Ecclesiae sine Episcopis a Presby¬ teris gubernabantur. Praeterea idem Hieronym. in epist. ad Evagrium , comparat Episcopum Aaroni, Presbyteros filiis Aaronis. Et in epist. ad Marcellam de erroribus Montani, Episcopos Apostolis succedere dicit. At certe Aaron jure divino major erat ordine, et jurisdic¬ tione, filiis suis, et Apostoli omnibus aliis Christi discipulis. Denique in lib. I adversus Jovinianum, idem Hieronymus affirmat ab ipso Christo unum electum ex duodecim, id est, Petrum, «ut capite constituto, schismatum tolleretur occasio. » At si Christus voluit inter ipsos Apostolos unum eminere, cur non credemus etiam voluisse eum, ut inter Presbyteros unus emineret? Ac de S. Hieronymo satis, ut etiam deAnselmo etSedulio, qui in com¬ mentario cap. I epistolae ad Titum, ad ver¬ bum Hieronymi sententiam retulerunt. Septima objectio sumitur ex Ambrosio, qui in commentar, cap. IV ad Ephesios ita scribit : « Timotheum Episcopum a se crea¬ tum, Presbyterum vocat, quia primi Pres¬ byteri Episcopi appellabantur, ut recedente eo, sequens ei succederet. Denique apud AUgyptum Presbyteri consignant, si praesens non sit Episcopus. Sed quia coeperunt se¬ quentes Presbyteri indigni inveniri ad pri¬ matus tenendos, immutata est ratio, pro¬ spiciente Concilio, ut non ordo, sed [meri¬ tum crearet Episcopum, multorum sacerdo¬ tum judicio constitutum etc. » Sed hic locus non habet difficultatem. Nam (ut interim omittam, commentaria illa non videri ab Ambrosio edita) auctor eorum commentariorum loquitur solum de ratione successionis Episcoporum, ac docet, initio nascentis Ecclesiae, antiquissimum Presby¬ terum consuevisse ordinari Episcopum, eo- que mortuo succedere solitum, sine alia electione, antiquissimum item Presbyterum. Sed non negat auctor iste primum illum Presbyterum , cum Episcopo succedebat, debuisse iterum consecrari, et novam potes¬ tatem ac jurisdictionem accipere. Neque se¬ mel idem auctor clarissime docet, multum interesse inter Episcopum et Presbyterum ; Nam in eodem commentar, cap. IV ad Eph. sic ait : « ln Episcopo omnes ordines sunt, quia primus Sacerdos est, hoc est, Princeps est Sacerdotum. » Et in cap. III prioris ad Timotheum : « Episcopi, inquit, et Presby¬ teri una ordinatio est, uterque enim Sacer¬ dos est, sed Episcopus primus est, ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit, non tamen omnis Presbyter Episcopus. Hic enim Episcopus est, qui inter Presbyteros primus est. Deni¬ que Timotheum Presbyterum ordinatum significat, sed, quia ante se alterum non ha¬ bebat, Episcopus erat, unde et quemadmo¬ dum Episcopum ordinet, ostendit : Neque enim fas erat aut licebat, ut inferior ordina¬ ret majorem; nemo enim tribuit quod non accepit.') Heec ille. Ubi vides, majorem esse Episcopum Presbytero, et ideo a Presbytero Episcopum ordinari non posse, quod Pres¬ byter non habeat Episcopalem ordinatio¬ nem. Octava objectio ex Ghrysostomo in com¬ mentar. cap. III prioris ad Timoth. ubi sic legimus homil. 41. : « Inter Episcopum at-^ que Presbyterum interest ferme nihil, quippe et Presbyteris Ecclesia? cura permissa est, (1) I. Cor. I, 12; CAPUT XY. 447 et quse de Episcopis dixit, ea etiam Presby¬ teris congruunt. Sola quippe ordinatione superiores illi sunt, atque hoc tantum plus- quam Presbyteri habere videntur. » Idem docent, et verbis fere iisdem, Primasius, Tlieophylactus, et GEcumenius, in commen¬ tar. ejusdem loci. Respondeo, ex istis ipsis verbis aperte col¬ ligi, majores esse Episcopos Presbyteris, cum Episcopi ordinare possint, Presbyteri non possint, ut auctores citati una voce tes¬ tantur. At, inquies, saltem quoad jurisdictionem pares sunt Episcopis Presbyteri, quando¬ quidem nihil habent Episcopi, quod Presby¬ teri non habeant, excepta ordinatione. Res¬ pondeo : hos auctores cum nihil tribuunt Episcopo , quod non sit cum Presbyteris commune , excepta ordinatione , loqui de iis rebus, quse nullo modo Presbyteris con¬ veniunt. Tale autem nihil est, nisi ordinatio prsecipue Sacerdotum. Nam potestas juris¬ dictionis, ex commissione Episcopi, potest etiam Presbyteris convenire, imo etiam con¬ firmare baptizatos possunt Presbyteri ex dis¬ pensatione. At ordinatio Sacerdotum ita propria Episcoporum est, ut nullo modo Presbyteris permitti possit. Quod autem Ghrysostomus senserit, Apos¬ tolorum tempore Episcopum a Presbytero distinctum fuisse, colligitur etiam ex homil. 1. in epist. ad Philippenses, ubi exponens illud, cum Episcopis et Diaconibus : <c Quid, inquit, hoc sibi vult? Itane unius civitatis plures erant Episcopi? Nequaquam; sed hoc titulo designat Presbyteros ; tunc enim tem¬ poris adhuc vocabulum erat commune. » . Nona objectio ex Theodoreto, qui in com¬ mentar. cap. I ad Philippenses aliquoties re¬ petit, Presbyteros fuisse quos Paulus Epis¬ copos appellat. Sed hoc jam antea explica¬ tum est. Theodoretus enim docet quidem, olim Presbyteros Episcoporum nomen ha¬ buisse : sed ibidem addit veros Episcopos nomine Apostolorum, eo tempore appellari solitos, ita ut semper et re et nomine majo¬ res fuerint Episcopi Presbyteris, ex senten¬ tia Theodoreti. Quare idem auctor in cap. III prioris ad Timotheum ita scribit : « Sed tamen, etiamsi Presbyteris has leges consti¬ tuit divinus Apostolus, clarum est, quod has leges oportet primos servare Episcopos, ut qui sunt majorem dignitatem assecuti. » Decima objectio ex Augustino, qui in ep. 19. ad Hieronymum sic ait : « Quamvis enim secundum honorum vocabula, quse jam Ecclesise usus obtinuit, Episcopatus Presby¬ terio major sit, in multis rebus 'tamen Au¬ gustinus Hieronymo minor est. » Respondeo, illud : Jam obtinuit , non op¬ poni tempori antiquo ipsius Ecclesise, sed tempori quod fuit ante exortum Ecclesise nostrse Christianae. Itaque non est sensus, olim Episcopi et Presbyteri erant sequales, sed jam usus obtinuit, ut Episcopatus Pres¬ byterio major sit. Sed hic est sensus : Ante Christiana tempora, nomina ista, Episcopus et Presbyter, non erant honoris vocabula, sed officii aut aelatis, nunc autem honoris ac dignitatis nomina sunt, et secundum haec nomina Augustinus Hieronymo majdr est, quamvis aliis multis nominibus Augustinus Hieronymo minor sit. Undecima objectio. Presbyteri succedunt Apostolis non minus quam Episcopi, ut pa¬ tet ex Clemente lib. II Constit. cap. 32. et Ignatio in epist. ad Smyrnenses. Non igitur sunt Presbyteri Episcopis inferiores. Respondeo : Episcopos et Presbyteros va¬ riis modis a Patribus comparari, sed semper servata proportione et distinctione. Ali¬ quando dicunt Episcopum tenere locum Dei, Presbyterum locum Christi, Diaconum lo¬ cum Epostolorum. Ita Clemens lib. II const. cap. 30. et Ignatius in epist. ad Trallianos. Aliquando Episcopo dant locum Christi, Presbyteris locum Apostolorum, Diaconis locum Discipulorum LXXII. Ita Clemens loco cit. lib. II, cap. 32. et Ignatius ad Smyrnen¬ ses. Aliquando Episcopis dant locum Apos¬ tolorum; Presbyteris locum LXXII Discipu¬ lorum, ut Patres supra citati. Duodecima objectio : Christus Presbyte¬ ros ordinavit in coena, ut Catholici omnes docent : at Episcopos nusquam legitur or¬ dinasse. Non igitur Episcopatus jure divino est introductus. Respondeo-: a Christo B. Petrum ordinatum fuisse Episcopum, a B. Petro Jacobum et Joannem, ab his tribus cseteros Apostolos, ut in lib. I de summo Pontifice supra ostendimus. 448 LIBER I.