Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Confirmation
Chapter 12: On the Minister of This Sacrament
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramento Confirmationis, the second general controversy on the sacraments. 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 follows the fifth controversy: whether the minister of the sacrament of Confirmation is the bishop alone. And the heretics indeed, although they take this rite out of the number of the sacraments, yet, even if it were a sacrament, in their opinion too they deny that its ministry belongs in any way to bishops alone. John Wyclif, book 4 of the Trialogus, chapter 14, openly denies that to confirm is the proper office of bishops. Calvin has the same, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 19, section 10; Chemnitz in part 2 of the Examination, page 325; and perhaps all the others, especially since they scarcely recognise a difference between bishop and presbyter, as we showed in the book on clerics.
Of the Catholics there is only Richard of Armagh, who in book 11 of the Armenian Questions, chapter 4, thinks that the office of confirming is common to bishops and presbyters; and Thomas Waldensis, book 2 On the Sacraments, chapter 114, judges that Wyclif drew his heresy from this Armachanus: for Armachanus was a little older than Wyclif, though they lived in the same age. All the others teach by common consent that the bishop alone is the proper minister of this sacrament.
There is indeed a question among Catholics whether at least by dispensation a presbyter can confer this sacrament. For St. Bonaventure, Durandus and Adrian, on book 4, distinction 7, contend that it can in no way be entrusted to presbyters; but St. Thomas, part 3, question 72, article 11, and all his disciples, and many other theologians on book 4, distinction 7, as Richard, Paludanus, Marsilius and others, and all the canonists on distinction 95, teach the contrary; and indeed what these latter affirm is far more true. For Ambrose, on chapter 4 to the Ephesians, testifies that in Egypt presbyters confirm in the absence of the bishops, and does not find fault with that custom. Gregory, book 3, letter 26 [book 4, letter 26, in the modern numbering], most openly permits the presbyters of Sardinia to confirm in the absence of the bishops; and because this place of Gregory has been corrupted, perhaps by the supporters of the contrary opinion (for it says that he permits them to anoint those to be baptized, when it ought to say the baptized), let this place be compared with letter 9 of the same book 3, and the corruption will appear manifestly. For in letter 26 he says that he permits what he had forbidden in letter 9; and he had forbidden presbyters to anoint the baptized on the forehead. Hence too Gratian and St. Thomas cite this place as it ought to be, not as it is now read in the printed books. Besides, the First Council of Orange, canons 1 and 2, and the First of Toledo, canon 20, and Martin of Braga, chapter 32 of the Greek synods, and that of Florence in the instruction of the Armenians have the same. Lastly the Council of Trent, session 7, canon 3 on Confirmation, says that the ordinary minister is the bishop for this reason, to show that by extraordinary power the same can be done by a presbyter too. From which appears the error of Chemnitz, who in his Examination, part 2, page 325, says that the council defined, against St. Thomas and certain other doctors, nay even against St. Gregory himself, that the bishop alone is the minister of Confirmation.
But leaving these, the Catholic truth is proved by a most open testimony of Scripture. For in Acts 8 Peter and John were sent to give the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands to those whom Philip had baptized in Samaria; and in Acts 19 Paul himself, the apostle, lays hands on those whom others had baptized. But surely no cause seems able to be imagined why the apostles alone lay on hands, nay why they come for this very thing from one place to another, except because this office belongs properly to the first ecclesiastical rank, which is without controversy the episcopal.
To this Wyclif answers that those whom Philip had baptized were perhaps not lawfully baptized, and therefore had to be baptized again by the apostles, that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
But this solution is most foolish. For who would believe that Philip the deacon, after he had received the Holy Spirit, did not baptize rightly? And then, if they were to be rebaptized, what need was there for the apostles to come from Jerusalem? Could they not signify it by letter, or send another to baptize them duly? Lastly, why did the apostles only lay on hands, and not baptize too, if those had not been duly baptized? Nor does it stand in the way that they are said to have been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and not in the name of the Trinity. For (as we showed above) Luke describes the rite of Baptism briefly, wishing the whole to be understood from a part.
Calvin, in the place cited, answers that what the apostles did cannot be ascribed to bishops, or at least not to bishops alone. For bishops are not apostles; and if they hold the place of the apostles in some respect, presbyters too hold the same place. For otherwise it would not be lawful for presbyters, but for bishops alone, to give communion under both kinds; for the apostles alone did that at the Lord's supper.
I answer: Bishops alone succeed the apostles simply and absolutely. For it is to be observed that in the apostolic authority all ecclesiastical power is contained. For the apostles were, first, Christians and members of the Church. Second, they were priests. Third, high priests. Fourth, highest not in one place but in the whole world; for they could everywhere preach, baptize, ordain, make laws, punish, and so on. But this last was in Peter alone an ordinary office, in the others extraordinary and as it were delegated; and therefore we see that Peter alone is succeeded, and not any other apostle, in that highest power over the whole world. The other three were ordinary to all. Wherefore, although all Christians in some way succeed the apostles, in so far as they were the first Christians; and all priests succeed the same apostles, in so far as they were the first priests; and all bishops succeed the same, in so far as they were the first high priests; yet these last alone succeed them simply, because they succeed in their whole ordinary authority, in which alone there can be succession. And this is plain also from practice and from the testimony of the saints. For if anyone asks who succeeded the apostle James, all answer: the bishop of Jerusalem. Who the apostle John? The bishop of Ephesus. Besides, the Council of Neocaesarea, canon 13; Damasus in letter 4 on country bishops; Jerome in the letter to Marcella on the errors of Montanus; Leo, letter 88; Augustine on Psalm 44, on that, “Instead of thy fathers, sons are born to thee”; and other ancients everywhere affirm that bishops succeed the apostles.
But you will say: whence do we know that the apostles laid on hands, Acts 8, as bishops, and not as presbyters, or as apostles by extraordinary power? I answer: that it was not as presbyters is established from this, that Scripture never gives this office except to the apostles themselves, while it gives the other offices, as of preaching and baptizing, to other lower ministers too. That it was not as apostles by extraordinary power is gathered both from this, that in Hebrews 6 this laying on of hands is counted with the other ordinary rites of the Church, and from this, that this custom always remained in the Church, that bishops laid hands on the baptized.
Second, the same truth is proved by testimonies and by church tradition. For the councils, pontiffs and Fathers cited in the first controversy teach by common consent that bishops alone are properly the ministers of this sacrament; and they prove it from chapter 8 of the Acts.
Third, it is proved also by reason. For Confirmation is the completion and perfection of Baptism; and so it is fitting that it be given by the chief minister: for so in all other things the last form is impressed by the first agent. Besides, in Confirmation we are enrolled in the warfare of Christ; and to enrol in warfare is proper to generals and commanders.
Nor are the arguments of Calvin and Chemnitz hard to answer. Calvin's first argument: it is the error of the Donatists that the sacrament depends on the dignity of the minister. I answer: if moral dignity is meant, that is true; if ecclesiastical, most false. Otherwise it would also be the error of the Donatists that presbyters alone minister the body of the Lord, nay and Baptism too, according to Calvin. The second argument: presbyters succeed the apostles, as is plain of the ministry of the Eucharist, which had been committed to the apostles alone. I answer: the apostles were made presbyters at the last supper, not bishops; for they were made bishops after the resurrection, when it was said to them, John 20, “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you,” and so on. And so presbyters succeed the apostles in some thing, but not in all, nor absolutely, as we have said.
The third argument: in 1 Timothy 4 Paul says, “Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee with imposition of the hands of the priesthood”; and Ananias, Acts 9, laid hands on Paul, and yet was not a bishop. I answer to this argument, which is Armachanus's: that place does not treat of Confirmation, but of the ordination of Timothy; and besides, by that word, “of the priesthood,” is understood the company of the presbyters, that is, of the bishops, as Chrysostom and others expound it; for several bishops ordain one bishop, but one alone confirms.
As to that of Ananias, which Calvin borrowed from Wyclif, as he from Armachanus, I say that Ananias laid his hand on Paul for this, that he might receive his sight, as we read in the same place. Wherefore that laying on of the hand was not confirming but healing; hence it was done before Baptism, not after, as Confirmation ought to be done; nor did the Holy Spirit then come down visibly, but there fell from his eyes as it were scales. But, they say, Ananias, when he laid on his hands, said: “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus hath sent me, that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost”; therefore the end of that laying on of the hand was the gift of the Holy Spirit. I answer: Ananias set out at the same time the near and the remote end of his coming. For the near end was the healing from blindness; the remote end, perfect justification and the infusion of the Holy Spirit, which Paul obtained a little after through Baptism. Hence a little before, the vision of Paul is described, by which he foresaw beforehand what was to come: “And he saw,” says Luke, “a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hands upon him, that he might receive his sight”; and in chapter 22 of the Acts, where Paul himself narrates this whole story, he says that he received nothing from Ananias except the driving away of the blindness, and afterwards Baptism. And it is very probable that Paul, like the other apostles, received Confirmation immediately from God, without human laying on of hands.
The fourth argument: If by divine right it is proper to bishops to confirm, how is Gregory read to have granted it to presbyters too? I answer: by divine right bishops alone are the ordinary ministers of this sacrament. But it does not follow from this that it cannot by extraordinary grant belong to presbyters too; as also by divine right it is proper to bishops to preach, and yet by their grant presbyters too preach, and sometimes deacons as well.
But certain Catholics press: to confirm belongs to the bishop either by reason of order or by reason of jurisdiction. If by reason of order, it can in no way be granted to those who do not have that order, as is plain in like things; for it cannot be brought about by any dispensation that a deacon consecrate the Eucharist. If by reason of jurisdiction, then a bishop not consecrated could confirm, because he has the presbyteral order and the episcopal jurisdiction. I answer: to confirm is an act of order, and that order is also in the presbyter, at least begun and imperfect. For it is to be observed that the episcopal character, whether it is other than the presbyteral or the same but wider and greater, is an absolute, perfect and independent power of conferring the sacraments of Confirmation and Order; and therefore that not only can the bishop confirm and ordain without any other dispensation, but also that he cannot be hindered by any higher power from truly conferring those sacraments if he wills, although he sins if he does it against the prohibition of the supreme pontiff. But that the presbyteral character is indeed an absolute, perfect and independent power as regards the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist, but a begun, imperfect power, dependent on the will of a superior, as regards the sacrament of Confirmation. Wherefore, unless that power is perfected through the dispensation of a superior, the presbyter in confirming would do nothing; but if it is perfected, he will then confirm by his own character. Which will seem less wonderful if we consider that the character is not some physical power which works something physically (for then it would be hard to understand how it could be perfected through a papal dispensation), but is the sign of a certain divine covenant, by which God concurs to produce the sacramental effect with him who has the character, and not with others; for it is easy to understand that one character is the sign of an absolute covenant, another the sign of a conditional covenant. But so much for these things.
The fifth argument is Chemnitz's, in the place cited: Scripture does not know the difference between bishop and presbyter. I answer: Scripture does not fail to know it, but Chemnitz does not know Scripture. For in 1 Timothy 5, when it is said, “Against a priest receive not an accusation, but under two or three witnesses,” there is most openly set as great a difference between the bishop and the presbyters as there is between a prince and his subjects. Wherefore the Aerians are called heretics for this very reason by Epiphanius, heresy 75, and Augustine, heresy 53, that they denied this difference.
The sixth argument of the same Chemnitz. Jerome, in the dialogue against the Luciferians, says that it is done for the honour of the priesthood that bishops alone lay on hands, not from the necessity of a law. I answer: this place makes most of all for us. For Jerome does not deny that it is lawful for bishops alone to give Confirmation after Baptism; nay, he affirms this, and below proves it by the example of the apostles, who set out for Samaria to confirm those whom Philip had baptized. And besides he gives the cause why the Lord willed this to be proper to bishops: because the honour of the high priesthood required it. For, as he himself explains more fully a little after, there must be one bishop in each church, lest, if there are many equals and the highest things are not referred to one, schisms arise. Hence, then, the Lord willed certain things to be proper to bishops, that by them their eminence above the others might appear. And that phrase, “not from the necessity of a law,” is not referred to the law of ministering Confirmation, but to the law of obtaining salvation: for Jerome signifies that it is not absolutely necessary to salvation that one be confirmed by a bishop; for even without such Confirmation one can be saved by Baptism alone. Hence he at once adds, explaining what he had said, “not from the necessity of a law”: “otherwise those would be to be mourned who, baptized in prison by presbyters or deacons, die before they are visited by bishops.” And if this does not please, it can be said that Jerome speaks of the law which is taken from the nature of the thing, so that the sense is: this is granted to bishops alone not from the necessity of a law, that is, not because the nature of the thing necessarily requires it, as though it could not be done otherwise; but because the Lord willed to honour the episcopal dignity by this thing.
The seventh argument. For many years now in Germany almost no bishops confirm, but certain suffragans, who are feigned bishops, and masks of bishops rather than bishops. I answer: suffragans are true bishops, because they have both ordination and jurisdiction, though they lack possession of a church of their own. Wherefore, although they cannot confirm outside their own church by their own authority, yet they can if they are invited to it by the proper bishop.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPiT xn.
De ministro hujus sacramenli.
Seqnilur conlroversia (ininln-.Ulrum ministcrsn-
crumenti Confirmutionis sil solus episcopus. Et
(piideni liaerclici Iici>l Iniiic, riluiii c iiiimero s;icra-
mentornni aufcranl , Uiinen eliamsi sacramentinn
cssct i|)sonim qiioqm», o|)iiiione, ne},'anl ad solos
cpiscopos cjus ministerium ullo iiiodo |i(M'liiiere.
.Io;iiines Wiclef lih. i. Tri;iIogi c;ip. 14. apcrte ne-
g;it episcopornm proprium munus connrmare. I-
dein liahet Calvinus lib. i. Institut. cap. 11). § 10.
Kcmiiilius in 2 p;irl. l']\;iiiiiiiis, p;ig. .125-. cl alii
forle oiniics, pracsertiin cum ipsi vix iignoscanl
din'(Mcnli;im iiiicr cpiscopum el presbylerum, nl
in lih. dc cliMMcis osteiidmms.
Kx catholicis solus esl liichardus Armachanus ,
cpii in lih. 11. Armenicaruin m]. ciip. 4. existimal,
(Miminniie csse episcopis el presbyleris munus coii-
lininiiidi, atque ab hoc Armachano arbitriilur Tlio-
m;is W;ildensis lib. 2. de sacramenlis, cap. 114.
hiiiisisse Wiclefiiin snam haeresim: Fuil ciiim Ar-
miichiimis paulo anliquior Wiclefo , quamvis oo-
dem saeculo vi\crint.Caeteri omnes communi con-
sensu docent. solnm episcopum csseproprium hu-
jus siicramenti minislrum.
Kst «pjidem inter ciilholicos qnacslio, nn sallcin
cx dispensalione possit presbylcr lioc sacrameu-
luin conferre. Nain s.Bonavcnt. Durandus ct Adria-
nus in 4. dist. 7. contcndunl id nullo modo coni-
mitli posse prcshyteris; sed s. Thom..3. p. qiiacst.
72. art. 11. et omncs ejus discipuli, ct mulli alii
Ihcnlogi in 4. dist. 7. ul Richardus. Paiud;inus ,
Marsilius, et alii. clomnes canonistae in 1. dist.
\io. contrarium docent: elquidcm longc verius est,
quod isli postcriorcs afTirmanl. !\am Ambrosius in
cap. 4. ad Ephes. lestalur in Aegyplo preshyteros
confinnarc in ahsenlia episcoporum. neque repre-
heiidit eum usum. Gregorius lib. 3. episl. 2<). a-
p(!rlissiiiie permittit presbyleris Sardiniac , ul in
iibscntiii episcoporum conGrmenl: ct ipiia corru-
plus esl hic locus Grcgorii, forte a fautorihus con-
trariae senleniiae ( nam dicit sc permitlerc, ^U
haptizandos ungant, cuin diccrc dcberet, ut ha-
p(i,:a/os);confcriitur hic locus cuin episl. 0. cjns-
dcin lih. .3, inde eniin manifeste iipparehit corru-
ptio. Si quidem in epist. 20. dicil , se pcrfnilterc ,
qiiod in episl. 9. prohibueral: prohibueral auiem ,
ne presbyteri nngerent in fronte haptizatos. Undc
eliiini Gratianus. et s. Thomas hunc locum ila ci-
lant, ut csse debet, non ut mcdo legiturin codici-
bus impressis. Praeterca concilium arausicanum I.
can. 1. et 2. et Tolelanum I. can. 20. et Martinus
Bracarensis, cap. 32. graccarum synodorum, ct
florentiniim in inslr. Annenoium, idein hah(mt.
Deni(pie concilium tridenl, scss. 7. can.3.deCon-
firmalione, ideo ait, ordinarium ministrum esse e-
piscopum. ut indicarct, posse extraordinaria polc-
stale id(Mn fieri eliam a presbytero. Ex quo app;irel
error Kemnilii, qui in suo Exam. part. 2. pag.22a.
dicil, concilium definivisse contra s. Thom. ei alios
quosdara doclores, immo et contra ipsum s. Gre-
goriuni, solum episcopum esse ministrum Confir-
matioiiis.
Sed liis omissis,probatur catholica veritas aper-
lissimo Scripturae lestimonio. Nam Actor. 8. missi
sunt Petrus et Joannes, ut per imposilionem \wa-
nuum darenl Spiritum s;inclum iis, quos Philippus
in Samuria baptizuveral; ct Aclor. 11). Puulus ipse
\m\ SLlCUiNDUS
231
aposloliis maiHis imponil illis . qiios alii bapliza-
verant. Al cerle nulla vidclur po^sc finsi causa ,
cur soli aposloli manus imponanl; in)mo cur ad
hoc ipsuin veniant cx uno loco ad alium, nisi quia
hoc munus proprie perlinet ad primum gradum
ecclcsiasiicum, qui cst sinc conlroversia episco-
palis.
Ad hoc Wiclefus respondet, illos , quos Philip-
pus baplizaverat, forle non fuisse lcgilime baptiza-
los, et ideo rursus fuisse baplizandos ab apostolis,
ul accipercnt Spiritum sanctum.
Sed haec solutio ineplissima est. Nam quis cre-
dat, Philippum diaconum post acccplum Spirilum
sanclum non rccte baptizasse? et deinde si eranl
rebaplizandi, quid opus eral, ut aposloli vcnironl
ex llierusalem? non poterant signilicarc pcr lileras
aut alium raittere, qui illos rite baptizaret? Deni-
quc apostoli cur lantum imposuerunt manus, et
non eliara baplizarunt, si illi non erant rite bapti-
zali?Neque obstat,quod dicantur baptizali in nomi-
ne Domini Jesu , et non in nominc Trinilalis.
Nam (ul supra ostendimus) Lucas brevitcr descri-
bil ritum Baplismi , ex parle iutelligi volens to-
tum.
Calvinus loco citalo respondet, quod aposloli fe-
cerunt non posse tribui episcopis, aul cerle non
solis episcopis. Nam episcopi non sunl apostoli :
quod si lenent, quoad aliquid,locum aposlolorum,
eundem locura lenentetiara presbyleri. Nara alio-
qui non liceret presbyleris, sed solis episcopis
coramunicare sub utraque specie: id enim soli a-
postoli in coena Doraini fecerunt.
Respondeo: Episcopos solos simpliciter.et abso-
lute apostolis succedere. Observandum enim est
in apostolica auctorilate contineri omnem ecclc-
siasticara poteslalem. Eranl enimaposloli Primura
Christiani, et membra Ecclesiae. Secundo erant
sacerdotes. Tertio sumrai sacerdotes. Quarto sum-
rai non uno in loco, sed in tolo orbe terrarum, po-
lerant enim ubique praedicare, baptizare,ordinare
lcgcs ferre, punire etc. Sed hoc ultimum in solo
Pelro fuit ordinariura raunus, in caeteris exlraor-
dinarium, et quasi delegatum: et idcirco soli Pelro
succedi videraus, non autcra ulli alleri apostolo in
illa surama in totura orbem potestate. Caetcra tria
erant oranibus ordinaria. Quare licet omncs Chri-
sliani aliquo raodo succedant apostolis, quatenus
illi fucruni prirai Chrisliani; et omnes saccrdotes
eisdorn apostolis succedanl, quatenus illi luerunt
primi sacerdotes: ct omnes episcopi eisdem succe-
dant, quatenus illi fuerunt prirai summi sacerdo-
les: tamen soli isti simplicitcr illis succcdunl,quia
succedunt in tota corum ordinaria auctoritate, in
qua sola succedi potest. Idquc patet eliam cx pra-
xi, et leslimonio sanctorum.Nam si quis pctal.quis
successit apostolo Jacobo? orancs rcspondenl: Epi-
scopus Ilierosolymae. Quis apostolo Joanni?Epi-
scopus Ephcsinus. Ad hacc conciliuni ncocaesa-
riense can. 13. Damasus in epist. 4. de chorcpi-
scopis. Ilieronymus in epist. ad Marcellam dc er-
rord)us Monlani. Lco epislola 88. Augustinus iu
l)sal. 4i. in illud:P/'o Palribus nati sunl lilnlUii;
el alii vetcrcs passira allirmanl, cpiscopos aposlo-
lis succcdcrc.
Scd Dices: Undc scimus aposlolos manus impo-
suisse, Actor. 8. ul episcopos, et non ut presbyle-
ros, vel ut aposlolos per extraordinariam potesla-
tcm? Respondeo: Quod non ul presbylcri, inde
constat, tura quia Scriptura numquam Iribuit hoc
otTiciura nisi ipsis apostolis,cura alia onicia,ut prae-
dicandi, ct baptizandi tribuat eliam aliis infcriori-
bus rainistris: quod non ut aposloli per cxtraordina-
riara potestatem, colligilur lum exeo, quod Ilcbr.
G. numcratur haec raanus impositio cum rcliquis
ordinariis Ecclcsiae rilibus; tum ex co, quod scm-
per in Ecclesia mansit isla consucludo, ut episcopi
raanus imponerent baplizalis.
Secundo, probalur eadem vcritas teslimoniis, ct
Iraditione ecclesiastica. Nam concilia, pontillces e t
Palres cilali in prima controversia, communi can-
sensu docent, solos episcopos esse proprie sacra -
raenti hujus minislros; idque probant cx cap. 8.
Actor.
Terlio, probalur etiam ratione. Nam confirmalio
esl complemenlum, ct pcrlectio Baplismi; proindc
convenit, ut a primario minislro detur: sic enira in
oranibus aliis rebus ultima forma imprimitura pri-
rao agentc. Practerea in Confirmalione adscribi-
mur ad Christi militiara; adscribere auteni ad rai-
litiam, proprium est ducura et imperatorum.
Neque arguraenta Calvini, el Remnitii diniculler
solvuntur, Arguraentura Primum Calvini: Error est
Donatislarum, quod sacramenlum pendeat a di-
gnitate rainislri. Respondeo:Si dc dignitale morali
agalur, verum est, si de ccclesiaslica.falsissimum.
Alioqui csset eliara crror Donatistarum. quod soli
presbyleri ministrent corpus Domini, immo et Ba-
ptisraum, secundura Calvinum. Secundum argu-
mentum: Presbytcri succedunt apostolis , ut palet
de rainisterio Eucharistiae , quod solis aposlolis
commissum fuerat. Respondeo: Apostolos in ulti-
raa cocna presbyteros crcatos fuisse, non autera
episcopos; Episcopi enim post resurreclionem fa-
cli sunt, cum eis diceretur, Joan. 20. J^ccc cgo
milto vos elc. Itaque presbytcri in aliqua re apo-
stolis succedunt, sed non in omnibus,neque abso-
lule, ul diximus.
Tertium argumentum, I.Timolh. i. Pnulus ail:
Nolinegligere graiiam,quae data est titriper im-
positionem mammim presbyterii ; cl Ananias A-
ctor. 9. imposuit manus Paulo, ct tamen non crat
cpiscopus. Rcspondeo ad hoc argumcntum, quod
csl Arraachani; Non Iractari co loco dc Confirnia-
tione, sed de Ordinatione Timolhci: et praeterea
per illam vocem (Presbgterii) inlelligi chorum
prcsbyleroruni, idcst, cpiscoporura, ul exponunt
Chrysostoraus, el alii: mulli enim episcopi, unum
cpiscopum ordinant ; unus autem solus conUr-
mat.
Ad illud dc Anania, quod muluo acccpil Calvi-
nus a Wiclcfo, ut ille ab Armachano;dico Ananiam
imposuissc manum Paulo ad hoc, ut visum reci-
pcret, ul ihidem lcgimus. Quarc non fuil conlir-
maloria, sed curatoria illa imposilio manus; unde
facla est antc Baptismum, non poslca, ut licri (h;-
bct Connrmalio: nequc dcscendit luuc visibililcr
Spiritus sanclus.scd ccciderunt lani(|uam sqiiamae
ab ocuiis ejus: At, inquiunl, Ananias, cum im-
23'
UK SACllVMK.Mu lld.NnHAI \il(».\lS
ponerel tnunuti, dicfbal: Sah*: fvalcr, Damiiuta
Jvauii tui>il VH\ nt viiica^, vt itnplcavi^ SpirilH
.^tincto: iinUir finiii illiua inipofiilionis tiianufi fuil
donuin SpivHus sancti. Hespomlco: Aniiniiim c\-
posuisse siiiiul liiKMn iiroxinnnn ol n>niotiun siii
udvenlus. Finis cnini pioxinius cr;it. cmalio ii c;ic-
cilale, liiiis rcinolus. pcirccta juslilic;ilio, cl inru-
siu Spirilus saiicli, (luani paulo post consecinulus
i-sl I';uilus pcr i>a|ilisiiUMn. riide p:iiilo antc;i dc-
scriliMur \isio Pauli. t]u;i anle pracvitlit, (piod lu-
lurum cral : Ktvidil, inquil Lucas, virutti ititroi'.-
untcin ad sc, Ananiam notnine, el itnponrntcnt,
sihi manutn. nt visuin rccipiat: cl cap. 22. Aclor.
iibi iKirral ipse P;iulus lol;ini h;mc liislori;nn, niliil
sc acccpissc dicil ;il) \nani;i.nisi depulsioncni cac-
cilalis. cl poslca l]aplisiiium. Esl auhMii v;dde pro-
bal)ile 1'aulum. ul c;iclcros apostolos, immcdiale
;i Deo acccpissc Contirmalioncm sine liumana ira-
positione m;iniium.
Arizumcntum Ou;irtum: Si jurc divino cpisco-
poruin csl proprium conlirmiire, quomodo id cl-
lam presbytcris (Jrcgorius concessissc leifitur? Re-
spondco: Jurc divino solos cpiscopos cssc ordina-
nos minislros hujus sacramcnli. Al non indc sc-
tiuilur, quin extr;iordinaria conccssione id possit
cliani preshylcris coiivenirc: sicul ctinm jurc di-
vino proprium cst cpiscoporum prncdicarc ; cl ta-
mcu eorum conccssionc pracdicanl etiam presby-
icri. cl aliquando etiam diaconi.
Scd inslant quidam cotliolicorum: Confirmnrc ,
aiil convcnit episcopo rationt; ordinis , nnt rnlionc
lurisdiclionis. Si ralionc crdinis,nullo modo potest
id concedi iis, qui non habcnt cum ordincm,ul pa-
lol in similibus; ncc cnim polcst ulln dispcnsalio-
ne iicri. ul diaconus consccrcl Kucharistiam.Si ra-
lione jurisdiclionis: ergo posset episcopus non
consccraliis coniirmnre; quia liabet ipsc ordincm
prcsbyteralem. et jurisdiclionem episcopalcm. Uc-
spondeo: Confirm;uc csse aclum ordinis , et eum
i.rdinem csse elinm in presbylero, sallern inchoa-
lum cl impcrfeclum. Obscr\imdiim csl cnim cha-
raclcrcm episcopalem, sive sitalius a presbyterali,
sivc idora cxtcnsior, et m:ijor, cssc poleslalcm ab-
solutam, et pcrfectnm , ct indcpendcntem confe-
rcndi sacramenla Confirmntionis et Ordinis, ct i-
dco non solum possc episcopum sinc aliadispen-
salione confirmare, ct ordinare , scd eliam non
possc impediri ab uUa superiori potcstalc.quin re-
vcra sncramenta ista conrerat. si vclil. jicet peccet,
si id faciat. prohihente sumrno pontificc: chara-
cierem aulem presbyternlera esse quidcm polesta-
teni absolulam, pcrfcclnni . ct independcntem ,
quoad sacramenlum Daplismi el Kucharistiuc; esse
aulem poteslatem inchoalam, imperfectam , et de-
pcudcntem a voluntale superioris , quoad sacra-
menlum Confirmntionis. Quocirca nisi perficiatur
per dispcnsalionem superioris ea poleslas,presby-
ter confirmando nihil ageret, at si perficiatur, jam
cx ipso suo charactere confirmabil. Id quod minus
mirum videbitur. si cogilemus , characterem non
tsse physicam aliquam polcnliam, quac physice a-
liquid operetur (lunc cnim difficile csset inlellige-
re quomodopossel perfici per dispensationem pon-
lificiam), sed esse signura divini cujusdam pacli ,
(|uo Deo concurril ad clTccluiu sncramcnl;ilcm pn)-
(luccndum cuiii co, (pii hiibcl ch;iractcrciii, ct non
cuin ;iliis: lacilc ciiim csl intciligcre, unum ch;ira-
clcrcm essc signuin pacti nbsoluti , aliuni aiilcm
csse signum pacli condilionali. ISed dc his liacle-
nus.
Oiiintum nrgumcntum cst Rcmnilii , loco cilato.
Scriplur;i ignornt diircrcnliam cpiscopi ct prcsby-
tcri. llcspondco: A'on Scriptur;i id ignor;il, sed
Kcmnilius Scripluram igiioral. N;ini I. Timolh. C.
cum dicilur: Advcrsus presbifleruni a.ccusnlionem
noli recipcre,nisisub duobus,aul tribus lestibua:
iipcrtissimc l;intuin discriiiic.n ponitur iiitcr cpisco-.
piim cl |.)rcsbylcros , (|ii;iiiliiiii cst inlcr principcm,
cl cjus subdilos. Quocirca Acriani ob hoc ipsuin
haci(!lici dicuntur nb K|)ipli;inio h;icres. 7">. ct
Auguslino liacres. 5."). quod ncgiivciint hoc discri-
incn.
Scxtum arguracnlum ciusdcm Kemnitii. Hicro-
nymus in dialogo conlra hucileriauos dicit, ob ho-
norcm saccrdolii Ueri , ul soli cpiscopi maiius im-
ponant, non ob lcgis ncccssitalem, I{cspondco:Lo-
cum liunc pro nobis maxiine laccre. Nam lliiirony-
mus non ncg;il, solis cpiscopis licere Confirm;i-
tioncm dare post Bnplisma; immo hoc aflirmal, et
infra id ipsum probal cxemplo npostolorum, qui in
Samariam profccli sunt, ut cos confirmarenl. quos
Philippus baptizaveral. El praetcrea cnussain rcd-
dit, cur id volucritDominu> proprium esse episco-
porum;quia id rcquircbal honor suinmi saccrdotii.,
i\am ut paulo posl ipsc idem magis explicat, nc-
ccsse est in singulis ecclcsiis cssc unum epi-
scopum , nc si multi sint pnres, el non ad u-
num summa refernlur , schismata fianl. llinc i-
gilur Dominus vuluil , quaednm esse propria e-
piscoporum , ut inde eorum eminentia supra cac-
tcros apparcret. Illud autcm (non oblegisne-
cessilalem ) non refertur ad legem minislrandi
confirmalionem , scd ad lcgem conscquendae sa-
lutis: significat cnim Ilicronyraus non csse neces-
sarium ad salutem nbsolule, ut quis ab episcopo
confirmctur;nara cliam sinc tali Confirmalione per
solum Baplisma salvari potest.Unde conlinuo sub-
jungil, explicans quod dixeral: A'o?i ob legis ne-
'cessitatem; alioqui lugendi essent, qui in vincu-
lis a presbylcris, vel diaconis baplizali ante mo-
riuntur, quam ab episcopis invisantur. Quod si
jd non placeal, dici potest, loqui Hieronyraum de
lege, quae sumalur cx natura rei, ut sensus sit; id
cssc tribulum solis cpiscopis, non ob legis neces-
sitalcra, idcst, non quod id neccssario requirat na-.
tura rei, quasi aliter fieri non posset; sed quia vo-
luil Dominus hac re honorare episcopalem digni-
tatem.
Septimum argumenlum. A mullis jam annis in
Gcrmania iiulli fere e[)iscopi confirmanl, sed suf-
fraganei quidam, qui sunt ficlilii episcopi, et lar-
vae episcoporum polius, quam episcopi. Respon-
dco: Suffraganeos cssc veros episcopos, quia et
Ordinalionem habent, el jurisdiclionem, licet ca-
reanl posscssionc propriac Ecclcsiae. Quocirca li-
cet non possiut exlra suam Ecclesiara confirmare
sua auclorilale, possunt laraen si ad id invitenlur
a proprio episcopo.
LIBE» SECLM)LS
223