Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Church Militant · The Church Spread Throughout the Whole World
Chapter 25: The Fifth Mark: Succession of Bishops
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Ecclesia Militante, On the Church Militant (of the controversy On Councils and the Church). 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).
The fifth Mark is the Succession of Bishops in the Roman Church, traced from the Apostles down to us; for hence it is called Apostolic. And therefore all the ancients used this succession, as a most evident argument, to show the true Church. Irenaeus, Book 3, chapter 3, enumerates the Roman Bishops from Peter down to Eleutherius, who sat in his time; and he says that by this succession all heretics are confounded. Tertullian, in his book on prescription: “Let the heretics,” he says, “unfold the origins of their Churches, let them roll out the order of their Bishops, so running down through a succession from the beginning that that first Bishop had for his author and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of Apostolic men. For in this manner the Roman Church reckons Clement ordained by Peter.” Let the heretics feign something of the sort! Eusebius in his history and in his Chronicle, and Jerome and Prosper, who continued the Chronicle of Eusebius, most diligently note the succession of the Roman Bishops, that thereby the continuation of the Church may be manifest. Epiphanius, in heresy 27, which is that of Carpocrates, enumerates in order the Roman Pontiffs, and subjoins: “And let no one wonder that we recount each so exactly. For by these the clarity is always shown.”
Optatus of Milevis, Book 2 against Parmenian, enumerates all the Roman Pontiffs from Peter down to Siricius, who then sat, to show that the Church is not among the Donatists, who by a similar succession could not ascend to the Apostles; and he adds: “Do you,” he says, “show the origin of your chair, you who wish to claim for yourselves the holy Church.”
Finally Augustine, in letter 165 to Generosus, to the same end enumerates the Roman Pontiffs from Peter down to Anastasius, who then sat. And in the Psalm against the party of Donatus: “Number,” he says, “the Priests even from the very See of Peter, and in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom. That is the rock which the proud gates of hell do not overcome.” And in his book against the letter of the foundation, chapter 4: “There holds me in the Church,” he says, “the succession of Priests from the very See of Peter the Apostle, to whom the Lord commended His sheep to be fed, down to the present Episcopate.”
If therefore the ancients made so much, for showing the true Church, of the continuation of 12, or 20, or 40 Pontiffs, how much ought we to make of the uninterrupted continuation of 200 Pontiffs and more? — especially since we see that the other Apostolic Sees failed, the Antiochene, Alexandrian, and Jerusalemite, in which, after those places were taken from the Romans by the Persians or the Saracens (which happened 900 years ago), the succession was either none or most obscure. And in the very city of Rome the form of temporal dominion was so often changed — now Emperors, now Kings of the Goths, now Greek Exarchs, now even Consuls ruling, whether justly or unjustly — and the city itself several times overthrown, and yet the See of Peter never failed, nor was overthrown, but always remained immovable.
But that the force of this argument may be better understood, some things are to be noted. The first is that the Church can in no way be without Pastors and Bishops, as Cyprian rightly teaches, letter 9, Book 4, where he says that the Church is a people united to its Bishop, and that the Bishop is in the Church and the Church in the Bishop. Wherefore Jerome, in his book against the Luciferians: “It is not a Church,” he says, “which has no Priests.” Which is plainly proved from Paul, Ephesians 4: And he gave some indeed apostles, and some prophets, and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the edifying of the body of Christ, until we all meet, etc. Where he teaches that after the Apostles there shall be pastors in the Church until the day of judgment; for then shall we meet the Lord in the unity of faith, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ. And that Bishops are the Pastors of this flock, the same Apostle teaches, in Luke, Acts 20: Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the Church of God. Nor does Luther deny this; nay rather in his book on the Church and Councils he sets among the marks of the Church the having of true pastors. From which it follows that that is not the true Church which has either no pastors, or not true ones.
Note secondly that those alone have always been held in the Church for true Bishops who were shown to have descended from the Apostles by legitimate succession and ordination. But all others were thieves and robbers, as who had not entered by the door, but had climbed up another way. For it is established that Christ, from whom the Church of the New Testament began, chose only twelve Apostles as Bishops and Priests, and committed to them all authority of feeding and governing the Church; and that the Apostles afterward chose and ordained other Bishops, and delivered to them a like power of ordaining still others in turn — which is plainly shown not only from the ancient histories of Eusebius and the like, but even from the very Centuries of the Magdeburgians. And hence it is that Paul, who was made an Apostle by Christ out of the ordinary course, after the ascension into heaven, would not have been acknowledged in the Church as such, unless he had first been baptized in the Church, and had received the right hands from the Apostles; nay, had also been ordained by them, as is plain from Acts 9 and 13 and Galatians 1. And so, just as in the people of the Old Testament, which was propagated by carnal generation, none belonged to that people of God but those who descended from the twelve sons of Jacob, and no Priests but those who descended from Levi through Aaron — and therefore genealogies were then most diligently preserved, as is plain from the whole Old Testament — so in the people of the New Testament, who are multiplied by spiritual generation, none are Christians but those converted by the Apostles, or their successors, or those sent by them; and none Bishops but those who legitimately succeed to the same; and therefore the successions of Bishops are so diligently noted by our writers.
Note thirdly that two things are required for anyone to be said to descend legitimately from the Apostles, and accordingly to be a legitimate Bishop. One is succession, the other is ordination. As to succession, this is required: that he who wishes to be held a true Bishop succeed some Apostle, as Clement succeeded Peter and Polycarp John; or at least succeed someone whom some Apostle made a Bishop, as Ignatius succeeded Evodius, and Anianus Mark, whom Peter had made Bishops; or finally, if the bishopric is new, that he be made Bishop by him who has Apostolic authority, who is the Roman Pontiff alone. For, as blessed Augustine writes in letter 162, in the Roman Church there has always flourished the primacy of the Apostolic Chair.
The reason of this is that the institution of new bishoprics cannot pertain to anyone who has a defined region, such as the particular Bishops are, but to him who presides over the whole Church, and to whom properly the care of propagating the Church belongs — such as all the Apostles were: Peter indeed by office, and the rest by delegation; and whoever enters otherwise is not of the Apostolic Church, since he cannot show his origin from the Apostles. Nor yet on that account do we deny that Patriarchs and Metropolitans too may sometimes erect new bishoprics, which it is established that Saint Athanasius did in the East, and Saint Boniface in Germany — provided they had the faculty from the Apostolic See.
As to ordination, it is required that he who is to be a Bishop be ordained by three Bishops, who themselves too are ordained by others, and those by others, until one comes to the Apostles. This is clearly had in Canon 1 of the Apostles, where it is enjoined that a Bishop be ordained by two or three Bishops, that is, by two assisting the Metropolitan, or by more. Likewise Anacletus, letter 2, teaches that James was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem by Peter, James, and John, and that in the same manner all others ought to be ordained by three at the least. The same is had in the first Council of Nicaea, chapter 4, and in the fourth of Carthage, chapter 2. Nay the Apostle indicates this very thing, when he writes, 1 Timothy 4: Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee with the imposition of the hands of the priesthood; since by the name of the priesthood he understands the assembly of Bishops, who together with the ordainer laid hands upon the head of him to be ordained, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Oecumenius expound. Nor is it strange that an assembly of Bishops is called a priesthood; for the name of Presbyter was once common to Presbyters and Bishops, as is plain from the letter of Irenaeus to Victor, which is in Eusebius, Book 5 of his history, chapter 24, where Irenaeus calls the Roman Pontiffs — Victor, Anicetus, Pius, Telesphorus, and Xystus — Presbyters. And so there can be no doubt that ordinarily three Bishops at the least are required for the ordination of a new Bishop, unless perhaps by dispensation there be present, with one ordaining Bishop, mitred Abbots who bear the place of Bishops, as is sometimes wont to be done because of the rarity of Bishops.
Note fourthly that the ancient heretics were wont, for the most part, to imitate the Church in the ordination of Bishops, as is plain from Cyprian, Book 1, letter 3, and Augustine, letter 163; and therefore the holy Fathers reproved in them nothing but the defect of succession, and from that alone proved that they were not true Bishops, as who did not pertain to the Apostolic Church, since they did not draw their origin from the Apostles by succession. But the heretics of our time have neither, that is, neither ordination nor succession, and therefore far more shamelessly than any other heretics ever did, they usurp to themselves the name and office of Bishop.
From which an insoluble argument is taken in this way. The Church cannot be without Bishops, as we have shown. Among the Lutherans there are no Bishops, for they have neither ordination nor succession from the Apostles; therefore among them there is no Church. And indeed that neither Luther, who was held to be Bishop of Wittenberg, nor Zwingli, who was held to be Bishop of Zurich, nor Oecolampadius, who in the very epitaph of his sepulchre is called the first Bishop of Basel, nor Calvin, who was called Bishop of Geneva, nor any others, were ordained by three Bishops, nor by dispensation by one with Abbots assisting, is most well known, nor do they themselves deny it. Therefore at least by the Fathers of the Council of Nicaea and of Carthage, nay by the very Apostles, who decreed that a Bishop ought to be ordained by three Bishops, these are not Bishops; and to them applies what Cyprian says, in his book on the simplicity of Prelates: “These are they who, of their own accord, among rash factions, without divine appointment set themselves at the head; who constitute themselves Prelates without any law of ordination; who, no one giving the Episcopate, assume to themselves the name of Bishop.”
Brentius answers: We are legitimately called by the people and the magistrate, and from them we received the Episcopate, and we did not intrude ourselves. But on the contrary: for here we are not disputing about the election of a Bishop, which we know was celebrated variously in various times. For it is established that the Apostles and the ancient Roman Pontiffs sent Bishops to various cities, without any consent of the peoples being required. It is established also that sometimes the people together with the Clergy elected the Bishop, sometimes the Clergy alone. But however the election was made, ordination was always necessary, which not the people, but the Bishops alone, and indeed three at the least, regularly conferred — which no one is ignorant of, but he who reads nothing. Let Luther then say by what Bishops the Prelate of Wittenberg was ordained. Let the rest too say by whom they were ordained: but they neither say, nor can they say.
Next, that they did not succeed the ancient Bishops in the bishopric is most certain: both because in all the cities where these made themselves Bishops there were before, and still are in most places, Catholic Bishops who legitimately succeeded the ancients — and one does not succeed except to Bishops deceased or legitimately deposed; and also because they themselves confess that they are the first Bishops of those cities. Certainly at Basel there still stands an epitaph at the sepulchre of Oecolampadius, where it is said, as I noted a little before, and I myself read, not without laughter, that Oecolampadius was the first Bishop of that city. Of these therefore can be said what Cyprian says, Book 1, letter 6, to Magnus: “Novatian is not in the Church, nor can he be reckoned a Bishop, who, the Apostolic tradition despised, succeeding no one, was ordained by himself.” And below: “Or how can he be held a pastor, who, the true pastor remaining, and presiding in the Church of God by successive ordination, succeeding no one, and beginning from himself, becomes an alien and a profane person?” And Book 4, letter 2, to Antonian: “Cornelius,” he says, “was made Bishop when the place of Fabian, that is, when the place of Peter, and the grade of the priestly chair, was vacant; which being occupied by the will of God, and confirmed by the consent of us all, whoever now wishes to be made Bishop must needs be made outside.” Like these are the things we cited above on legitimate succession, from Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, Optatus, and Augustine.
But they object, first: The Papist Bishops deserted the true faith, therefore they are no longer Bishops, therefore the pious Ministers may deservedly occupy their places.
I answer to this argument of Brentius (granting that it were doubtful where the true faith is, although among us it is most certain that it is) that the Catholic Bishops, who through so many ages possessed their sees peacefully, cannot be deprived of them unless they be legitimately judged and condemned. For in every controversy the condition of the possessor is the better. But it is established that the Catholic Bishops were condemned in no legitimate judgment. For who condemned them, except the Lutherans? But they themselves are accusers, not judges. For who constituted them our judges? Moreover, even if ours were already condemned, those do not straightway succeed, since no one instituted them Bishops who had the authority of instituting Bishops; nor are they true Bishops, since no one ordained them who had the right of ordaining, as we showed above.
Secondly, Brentius objects in the same place, that is, in the Prolegomena against Peter a Soto: Caiaphas legitimately succeeded the ancient Pontiffs, and could have traced his ancestors up to Aaron, and yet the Apostles did not seek to be ordained by Caiaphas; but Caiaphas, and all those Pontiffs who legitimately succeeded, being unwilling, they were made Bishops and Pontiffs without any succession; therefore now too, since the ordinary Bishops imitate Caiaphas, it is lawful to bear the Episcopate without their ordination and succession.
I answer that the Aaronic priesthood was temporal, and lasted only until the beginning of the New Testament; but that thereafter began the priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech, instituted by Christ, of which priesthood, since the Apostles were the first-fruits, they ought not to succeed Caiaphas, but to be the beginning of the new priesthood, as is plain from Psalm 109: Thou art a priest for ever; and from chapter 7 to the Hebrews. As therefore from Aaron to Christ there were no true Priests but those who succeeded Aaron, so from the Apostles to the end of the world there will be no true Priests but those who succeed the Apostles. Yet it is true that, so that the Aaronic priesthood might be borne with honor to its burial, the Apostles honored it, as is plain from Cyprian, Book 1, letter 2 to Cornelius, and Book 4, letter 9 to Florentius Pupianus, where he adduces that from Acts 23: I knew not, brethren, that he is the high priest.
Thirdly, Calvin objects, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 2, §§ 2 and 3: why do we not also enumerate the successions of the Bishops of Africa, Egypt, and all Asia; and he himself answers, insulting us, because that sacrosanct succession has perished there.
I answer: Calvin, from the fact that the succession has perished in those places, wishes to conclude either that there is no Church, or that there is a Church. If the first, he makes for us: for if there is no Church there because there is no succession there, then here is the Church, because here is the succession. If the second, we answer that those who there pertain to the true Church cannot indeed show the continuous succession of their particular Bishops, but can show the continuous succession of the universal Bishops, who are the Roman Bishops, to whom they confess themselves subject. For this is the reason why the ancient Bishops were more solicitous about the succession of the Roman Pontiff than about their own. Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyons in Gaul; Optatus and Augustine were Bishops in Africa; Epiphanius of Salamis in Cyprus; Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine; and yet none of them wished to weave the succession of his own Church, but only of the Roman Church. For it seemed to them enough to show the continuous succession in the principal Church, of which they rejoiced to be members.
Fourthly, the same Calvin objects: In the Greek Church an uninterrupted succession of Bishops is still preserved, and yet that is not the true Church, according to our opinion; therefore succession is not a Mark of the true Church.
I answer first that a certain succession cannot be shown in the Greek Church; for first of all Calvin confesses that in Asia and Egypt, and accordingly at Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria, the succession was interrupted; there remains only the Church of Constantinople among the Patriarchal ones, which seems never to have lacked its own Patriarch. But the Church of Constantinople is not Apostolic, nor does it show a certain origin from the Apostles; for although Nicephorus the Patriarch, in his Chronology, endeavors to trace the succession of the Bishops of Byzantium from Andrew the Apostle, yet no ancients deliver this, nor was the Byzantine or Constantinopolitan Church ever called Apostolic by the Fathers; and the Fathers of the first Council of Constantinople, in their letter to Damasus the Roman Pontiff, openly confess that that Church is new. And so the Church of Constantinople has indeed some succession from the time of Constantine down to now, but not from Apostolic times, which is chiefly required.
I say secondly that the argument from legitimate succession is brought by us chiefly to prove that there is no Church where this succession is not, which indeed is evident; from which yet it is not necessarily gathered that there is a Church where there is succession. And so by this argument we prove evidently that there is no Church among the Lutherans. But that among the Greeks there is no Church we prove in another way, namely because they were legitimately convicted in three plenary Councils — the Lateran, the Lyonese, and the Florentine — of schism and heresy; and chiefly of the heresy concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, which even the Lutherans and Calvinists confess to be a manifest heresy.
Add lastly that all those Patriarchal Churches had, through long times, Bishops who were manifest heretics, and accordingly the succession of the ancient Pastors was interrupted.
Fifthly, the same Calvin objects that the ancient Fathers, who show the Church from the succession of the Roman Pontiffs, do this because in those times it was established that the faith and religion had not been changed in the Roman Church; but now the contrary is established.
I answer: Calvin either understands that at that time it was established to Catholics only, or to Catholics and heretics together, that in the Roman Church religion had not been changed. If he takes the first, he says nothing; for even at this time it is established to Catholics that religion has not been changed in the Roman Church. If he asserts the second, he openly lies. For there would have been no heretics, if all had always thought that in the Roman Church there was the true faith. Moreover the Donatists attacked the Roman Church, as now the Lutherans and Calvinists do.
Optatus, Book 2 against Parmenian: “Whence is it,” he says, “that you Donatists strive to usurp the keys of the Kingdom, who by your presumptions and audacities war with sacrilege against the chair of Peter?” And Augustine, Book 2 against the letters of Petilian, chapter 51: “What has the chair of the Roman Church done to thee, in which Peter sat, and in which now Anastasius sits? Why dost thou call the Apostolic chair the chair of pestilence?” And yet Optatus and Augustine argue against the Donatists from that very succession, as we said above.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VIII. Nota quinta. Quinta nota est Successio Episcoporum in Romana Ecclesia ab Apostolis deducta us¬ que ad nos; hinc enim dicitur Apostolica. Ac propterea omnes veteres hac successio¬ ne, tanquam argumento evidentissimo usi sunt ad veram Ecclesiam ostendendam. Ire- naeus lib. III, c. 3. enumerat Episcopos Ro¬ manos a Petro, usque ad Eleutherium, qui suo tempore sedebat. Ac dicit, per hanc successionem confundi omnes haereticos. Tertullianus in lib. de praescript. : «Cedant, inquit, haeretici origines Ecclesiarum sua¬ rum, evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suo¬ rum, ita per successionem ab initio decur¬ rentem, ut primus ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis, vel Apostolicis viris habuerit auc¬ torem et antecessorem. Hoc enim modo Ro¬ manorum Ecclesia Clementem a Petro ordi¬ natum refert. » Confingant tale aliquid hae¬ retici. Eusebius in historia et in Chronico, et Hieronymus ac Prosper, qui Chronicum Eusebii continuarunt, diligentissime anno¬ tant successionem Romanorum Episcopo¬ rum, ut inde continuatio Ecclesiae manifesta sit. Epiphanius haeres. 27. quae est Carpo- cratis, enumerat ordine-Pontifices Romanos, et subjungit : « Et ne quis, inquit, miretur, quod tam exacte singula recensemus. Per haec enim semper claritas ostenditur. » Optatus Milevitan. lib. II contra Parme- nianum, enumerat omnes Romanos Pontifi¬ ces a Petro usque ad Siricium, qui tunc se- CAPUT VIII. 375 ciebat, ut ostendat non esse Ecclesiam apud Donatistas, qui per similem successionem ad Apostolos ascendere non poterant, et subdit : « Vos, inquit, vestrae cathedrae ori¬ ginem ostendite, qui vobis vultis sanctam Ecclesiam vendicare. » Denique Augustinus in epist. 165. ad Ge¬ nerosum, ad eumdem finem enumerat Pon¬ tifices Romanos a Petro usque ad Anasta¬ sium, qui tunc sedebat. Et in Psalmo con¬ tra partem Donati : « Numerate, inquit, Sa¬ cerdotes, vel ab ipsa sede Petri, et in ordi¬ ne illo Patrpm, quis cui successerit, videte. Ipse est petra, quam non vincunt superbse inferorum portae. » Et lib. contra epist. fun¬ damenti, cap. 4. : « Tenet me, inquit, in Ecclesia ab ipsa sede Petri Apostoli, cui pascendas oves suas Dominus commenda¬ vit, usque ad praesentem Episcopatum suc¬ cessio Sacerdotum. » Si ergo veteres tanti fecerunt ad veram Ecclesiam ostendendam continuationem 12, vel 20, vel 40 Pontificum, quanti nos facere debemus continuationem non interruptam Pontificum 200 et amplius? praesertim cum videamus defecisse alias Apostolicas sedes, Antiochenam, Alexandrinam et Hierosoly¬ mitanam, in quibus posteaquam a Persis, vel Saracenis, ea loca Romanis adempta sunt, quod accidit ante annos 900, aut nulla, aut obscurissima fuit successio. Et in ipsa urbe Roma toties mutatam esse formam temporalis dominii , nunc Imperatoribus, nunc Regibus Gothorum , nunc Exarchis Graecorum, nunc etiam Consulibus, sive jus¬ te, sive injuste dominantibus, et ipsam ur¬ bem aliquoties eversam, et tamen sedem Pe¬ tri nunquam defecisse, neque eversam fuis¬ se, sed immobilem semper permansisse. Sed ut vis hujus argumenti melius intel- ligatur, aliqua notanda sunt. Primum est, non posse ullo modo Ecclesiam esse sine Pastoribus et Episcopis, ut recto docet Cypr. in epist. 9. lib. IV, ubi dicit, Ecclesiam esse plebem Episcopo adunatam, et Episcopum esse in Ecclesia, et Ecclesiam in Episcopo. Quare Hieron. in lib. cont. Luciferianos : « Ecclesia, inquit, non est, quae non habet Sacerdotes. » Id quod aperte probatur ex Paulo Ephes. IV : Et ipse dedit quosdam qui¬ dem Apostolos , quosdam autem Prophetas , alios Pastores et Doctores ad consummationem Sanc¬ torum, in cedificationem coiporis Christi , donec occurramus omnes etc. (1) Ubi docet Aposto¬ los, futuros pastores in Ecclesia usque ad diem judicii; Tunc enim occurremus Domi¬ no in unitate fidei, in virum perfectum, in mensuram aetatis plenitudinis Christi. Esse autem Episcopos Pastores hujus gregis, do¬ cet idem Apostolus, apud Lucam Act, XX ; Attendite vobis et universo gregi, in quo vos Spiritus sanctus posuit Episcopos regere Ec¬ clesiam Dei (2). Sed nec Lutherus id negat, quin potius in lib. de Eccl. et Cone, inter notas Ecclesiae ponit, habere veros pastores. Ex quo sequitur, eam non esse veram Eccle¬ siam, quae aut nullos, aut non veros habet pastores. Nota secundo, illos solos in Ecclesia sem¬ per habitos fuisse veros Episcopos, qui ab Apostolis per legitimam successionem et or¬ dinationem descendisse ostendebantur. Om¬ nes autem alios fures et latrones, quippe qui non per ostium intrassent, sed ascen¬ dissent aliunde : Nam constat, Christum, a quo Ecclesia novi Testamenti coepit, duode¬ cim Apostolos tantum elegisse Episcopos et Sacerdotes, et eis commisisse omnem aucto¬ ritatem pascendi et gubernandi Ecclesiam ; Apostolos autem postea elegisse atque ordi¬ nasse alios Episcopos, et eis tradidisse simi¬ lem potestatem, alios deinceps ordinandi : Id quod ex historiis non solum antiquis Eu- sebii et similium, sed etiam ex ipsis Centu¬ riis Magdeburgensium aperte ostenditur. Et hinc est qued Paulus, qui extra ordinem Apostolus a Christo post ascensionem in coe¬ lum factus est ; non fuisset agnitus in Eccle¬ sia pro tali, nisi prius in Ecclesia baptizatus fuisset, et ab Apostolis dexteras accepisset ; imo et ab illis ordinatus fuisset, ut patet ex Act. IX et XIII et Gal. I. Itaque sicut in po¬ pulo Testamenti veteris, qui per carnalem generationem propagabatur, nulli erant de populo illo Dei, nisi qui descendebant a duo¬ decim filiis Jacob ; nulli Sacerdotes, nisi qui descendebant a Levi per Aaron. Et idcirco diligentissime tunc conservabantur genealo¬ giae, ut patet ex toto veteri Testamento : ita in populo Testamenti novi, qui spirituali ge¬ neratione multiplicantur, nulli sunt Chris¬ tiani, nisi per Apostolos, vel eorum succes¬ sores, aut ab eis missos , conversi ; nulli sunt Christiani, nisi *per Apostolos, vel eo¬ rum successores, aut ab eis missos, conver¬ si ; nulli Episcopi, nisi qui eisdem legitime (1) Eph. IV, 11 et 12. — (2) Act. XX, 28. 376 LIBER IV. succedunt, et ideo tam diligenter annotan¬ tur a nostris Episcoporum successiones. Nota tertio, duo requiri, ut aliquis Epis¬ copus dicatur ab Apostolis legitime descen¬ dere, et proinde esse legitimus Episcopus. Unum est successio, alterum est ordinatio. Quantum ad successionem, id requiritur, ut is qui verus Episcopus haberi cupit, succe¬ dat alicui Apostolo, quomodo Clemens suc¬ cessit Petro, et Polycarpus Joanni, vel certe ut succedat alicui, quem aliquis Apostolus fecerit Episcopum, quomodo Ignatius suc¬ cessit Evodio, et Anianus Marco, quos Petrus fecerat Episcopos, vel demum, si Episcopa¬ tus est novus, ut fiat Episcopus ab eo, qui habet Apostolicam auctoritatem, qui est so¬ lus Rom. Pontifex. Nam, ut B. Augustinus scribit in epist. 162. in Romana Ecclesia semper viguit Apostolicae Cathedrae princi¬ patus. Ratio hujus est, quia institutio novorum Episcopatuum non potest pertinere ad ullum, qui habeat definitam regionem, quales sunt Episcopi particulares, sed ad eum, qui toti Ecclesiae praeest, et cui proprie cura incum¬ bit Ecclesiam propagandi, quales fuerunt omnes Apostoli. Petrus quidem ex officio, et caeteri ex delegatione, et quicumque aliter intrat, non est de Ecclesia Apostolica, cum non possit ostendere originem suam ab Apos¬ tolis. Nec tamen ob id negamus, quin etiam Patriarchae et Metropolitani aliquando pos¬ sint novos Episcopatus erigere, quod sanc¬ tum Athanasium in Oriente; et sanctum Bo- nifacium in Germania fecisse constat ; modo a sede Apostolica facultatem habuerint. Quantum ad ordinationem autem, requi¬ ritur, ut qui sit Episcopus, ordinetur a tri¬ bus Episcopis, qui et ipsi sint ab aliis ordi¬ nati, et illi ab aliis, donec ad Apostolos ve¬ niatur. Id clare habetur Canon I Apostolo¬ rum, ubi praecipitur, ut Episcopus ordinetur a duobus vel tribus Episcopis, id est, a duo¬ bus assistentibus Metropolitano, vel a pluri¬ bus. Item Anacletus epist. 2. docet, Jacobum ordinatum luisse Episcopum Hierosolymae, a Petro, Jacobo, et Joanne, et eodem modo a tribus, ut minimum, omnes alios ordinari debere. Idem habetur in Concilio Nicaeno I, cap. 4. et in Carthag. IV, cap. 2. Imo Apos¬ tolus hoc ipsum indicat, cum I. Tim. IV scribit : Noli negligere gratiam quce in te est , quae data est tibi cum impositione manuum Presbyterii (1) : Siquidem nomine Presbyte¬ rii intelligit coetum Episcoporum, qui simul cum ordinante imponebant manus super ca¬ put ordinandi, ut exponunt Chrysostomus, Theophylactus, et QEcumenius : Neque mi¬ rum est, Episcoporum coetum vocari Pres¬ byterium ; nomen enim Presbyteri commu¬ ne erat olim Presbyteris et Episcopis, ut patet ex epist. Irenaei ad Victorem, quae est apud Eusebium lib. V hist. cap. 24. Ubi Ire- nseus vocat Presbyteros Romanos Pontifices, Victorem, Aniceturn, Pium, Telesphorum et Xystum. Itaque dubium esse non potest, quin requirantur ordinarie tres, ut minimum, Episcopi, ad novi Episcopi ordinationem, nisi forte ex dispensatione cum uno Episco¬ po ordinante adsint Abbates infulati, qui vi¬ cem Episcoporum gerant, ut aliquando fieri solet ob Episcoporum raritatem. Nota quarto, antiquos haereticos consue¬ visse, ut plurimum Ecclesiam imitari in or¬ dinatione Episcoporum, ut patet ex Cypriano I. lib. epist. 3. et Augustin. epist. 163. et ideo sanctos Patres non reprehendisse in eis, nisi defectum successionis, et ex eo solum probasse , eos non esse veros Episcopos, quippe qui ad Ecclesiam Apostolicam non pertinerent, cum ab Apostolis per successio¬ nem non ducerent originem. Nostri autem temporis haeretici neutrum habent, id est, nec ordinationem , nec successionem , et propterea longe inverecundius, quam ulli unquam alii haeretici, sibi nomen et munus Episcopi usurpant. Ex quo argumentum insolubile sumitur hoc modo. Ecclesia non potest esse sine Episcopis, ut ostendimus. Apud Lutheranos non sunt Episcopi, nam non habent ordina¬ tionem, nec successionem ab Apostolis : igi¬ tur apud eos non est Ecclesia. Et quidem quod nec Lutherus, qui habitus est Episco¬ pus Wirtembergensis , nec Zwinglius, qui habitus est Episcopus Tigurinus, nec QEco- lampadius, qui in ipso sepulchri Elpitaphio vocatur primus Basileae Episcopus, nec Cal¬ vinus, qui dictus est Episcopus Genevensis, nec ulli alii ordinati sint a tribus Episcopis, neque ex dispensatione ab uno, assistentibus Abbatibus, notissimum est, nec ipsi negant. Ergo saltem Patribus Nicaeni et Carthagi¬ niensis Concilii, imo et ipsis Apostolis, qui statuerunt, Episcopum a tribus Episcopis debere ordinari, isti non sunt Episcopi, eis- (1) I. Tim. IV, 14. CAPUT VIII. 377 que convenit, quod Cyprianus lib. de sim¬ plicitate Praelatorum ait : « Ii sunt, qui se ultro apud temerarios convenas sine divina dispositione praeficiunt, qui se Praepositos sine ulla ordinationis lege constituunt, qui nemine Episcopatum dante, Episcopi sibi nomen assumunt. » Respondet Brentius : Nos legitime vocati sumus a populo et magistratu, et ab eis Episcopatum accepimus, et non nos intrusi- mus. At contra ; Nam hic non disputamus de electione Episcopi, quam scimus varie variis temporibus celebratam. Constat enim Apostolos et veteres Romanos Pontifices, misisse Episcopos ad varias civitates, sine ullo consensu populorum requisito. Constat etiam, aliquando populum simul cum Clero Episcopum elegisse, aliquando solum Cle¬ rum. Caeterum quomodocumque fieret elec¬ tio, semper fuit necessaria ordinatio, quam non populus, sed soli Episcopi, et quidem tres ut minimum, regulariter conferebant, quod nemo nescit, nisi qui nihil legit. Dicat ergo Lutherus, a quibus Episcopis ordinatus fuerit Antistes Yirtembergensis. Dicant etiam cseteri, a quibus fuerint ordinati : sed nec dicunt, nec dicere possunt. Deinde, quod uon successerint in Episco¬ patu antiquis Episcopis, certissimum est, tum quia in omnibus urbibus ubi isti se fe¬ cerunt Episcopos, erant antea, et sunt etiam modo in plerisque locis Episcopi Catholici, qui legitime successerunt antiquis ; non au¬ tem succeditur, nisi Episcopis defunctis, aut legitime depositis. Tum etiam, quia ipsi fa¬ tentur, se primos esse earum urbium Epis¬ copos. Certe Basilese exstat adhuc epitaphium ad sepulchrum OEcolampadii, ubi dicitur, ut paulo ante notavi, et ego ipse legi, non sine risu, QEcolampadius primus illius urbis Epis¬ copus. De istis ergo dici potest, quod ait Cyprianus lib. I, epist. 6. ad Magnum: «No- vatianus, inquit, in Ecclesia non est, neque Episcopus computari potest, qui Apostolica traditione contempta, nemini succedens, a seipso ordinatus est. » Et infra : « Aut pas¬ tor haberi quomodo potest, qui manente ve¬ ro pastore, et in Ecclesia Dei ordinatione succedanea, praesidente, nemini succedens, et a seipso incipiens, alienus fit et profanus ? » Et lib. IY, epist. 2. ad Antonianum : « Cor¬ nelius, inquit, Episcopus factus est, cum Fabiani locus, id est, cum locus Petri, et gradus cathedrae sacerdotalis vacaret, quo occupato de Dei voluntate, atque omnium nostrum consensione firmato, quisquis jam Episcopus fieri voluerit, foris fiat necesse est. » His similia sunt, quae supra citavimus de successione legitima, ex Irenaeo, Tertul¬ liano, Epiphanio, Optato et Augustino. Sed objiciunt primo, Episcopi Papistae de¬ seruerunt veram fidem, ergo non sunt am¬ plius Episcopi, ergo merito possunt pii Mi- nistxi loca eorum occupare. Respondeo ad hoc Brentii argumentum (admisso quod sit dubium, ubi sit vera fides, quamquam apud nos certissimum est esse) Episcopos Catholicos, qui per tot saecula possederunt sedes suas pacifice, non posse eis privari, nisi legitime judicentur, et dam¬ nentur. Nam in omni controversia melior est conditio possidentis. Constat autem, Episco¬ pos Catholicos in nullo legitimo judicio esse damnatos. Quis enim eos damnavit, praeter Lutheranos ? At ipsi accusatores sunt, non judices. Quis enim eos constituit judices nos¬ tro^? Praeterea etiam si nostri jam damnati essent, non continuo illi succedunt, cum ne¬ mo eos Episcopos instituerit, qui habuerit instituendi Episcopos auctoritatem : nec veri sint Episcopi cum eos nemo ordinave¬ rit, qui habuerit jus 'ordinandi, ut supra ostendimus. Secundo, objicit Brentius ibidem, id est, in Prolegomenis contra Petrum a Soto. Cai- phas legitime successit antiquis Pontificibus, et potuisset usque ad Aaronem deducere majores suos, et tamen non petierunt Apos¬ toli, ut a Caipha ordinarentur ; sed Caipha, et omnibus illis Pontificibus, qui legitime • succedebant invitis, facti sunt Episcopi et Pontifices sine ulla successione, ergo etiam modo cum ordinarii Episcopi imitentur Cai- pham, licet sine eorum ordinatione et suc¬ cessione Episcopatum gerere. Respondeo, sacerdotium Aaronicum fuis¬ se temporale, et solum durasse usque ad inchoationem novi Testamenti ; deinceps autem coepisse sacerdotium secundum ordi¬ nem Melchisedech a Christo institutum, cujus sacerdotii cum primitiae fuerint Apos¬ toli, non debuerunt succedere Caiphae, sed esse principium novi sacerdotii, ut patet ex Psalm. CIX : Tu es Sacerdos in ceternum (1) ; etexcap. YII ad Hebraeos. Sicut ergo ab Aaron usque ad Christum non fuerunt veri (1) Psal. CIX, 4. 378 LIBER IY. Sacerdotes, nisi qai successerunt Aaroni, ita ab Apostolis usque ad finem mundi non erunt veri Sacerdotes, nisi qui Apostolis succedent. Yerum tamen est, quod ut cum honore sacerdotium Aaronicum deferretur ad sepulturam, Apostoli illud honorabant, ut patet ex Cypriano lib. J, epist. 2. ad Cor¬ nelium, et lib. IV, epist. !). ad Florentium Pupianum, ubi adducit illud ex Act. XXIII : Nesciebam fratres , quia Princeps Sacerdotum est. Tertio, objicit Calvinus lib. IV Instit. cap. 2. §. 2 et 3. cur non enumeremus etiam suc¬ cessiones Episcoporum Africae, ^Egypti et totius Asiae ; et respondet ipsemet nobis in¬ sultans, quia periit ibi sacrosancta ista suc¬ cessio. Respondeo, vel Calvinus ex eo, quod pe¬ riit successio in illis locis, vult concludere, non esse Ecclesiam, vel esse Ecclesiam ; si Primum, pro nobis facit : Nam si ibi non est Ecclesia, quia ibi non est successio, ergo hic est Ecclesia, quia hic est successio. Si se¬ cundum, respondemus, eos qui ibi ad ve^am Ecclesiam pertinent, non posse quidem os¬ tendere successionem continuam Episcopo¬ rum suorum particularium, sed posse osten¬ dere successionem continuam Episcoporum universalium, qui sunt Romani Episcopi, quibus illi subjectos se esse fatentur. Hasc enim est causa , cur veteres Episcopi magis solliciti fuerint de successione Romani Pon¬ tificis, quam de sua. Ireneeuserat Episcopus Lugdunensis in Gallia, Optatus, et Augusti¬ nus erant Episcopi in Africa, Epiphanius Sa¬ laminae in Cypro, Eusebius Caesareae in Pa¬ laestina, et tamen nullus eorum texere voluit suae Ecclesiae successionem, sed Romanae tantum Ecclesiae. Satis enim illis videbatur ostendere continuam successionem in Eccle¬ sia principali, cujus ipsi se membra esse gaudebant. Quarto, objicit idem Calvinus. In Ecclesia Graeca adhuc servatur successio non inter¬ rupta Episcoporum, et tamen non est illa vera Ecclesia, secundum opinionem nos¬ tram, non igitur successio est Nota verae Ec¬ clesiae. Respondeo primum , non posse ostendi in Ecclesia Graeca certam successionem ; nam imprimis fatetur Calvinus, in Asia, et iEgvp- to, et proinde Antiochiae , Hierosolymae, et Alexandriae interruptam fuisse successio¬ nem ; sola restat Constantinopolitana Eccle¬ sia ex Patriarchalibus, quae non videtur un¬ quam caruisse proprio Patriarcha. At Con¬ stantinopolitana Ecclesia non est Apostoli- ca, nec ostendit certam originem ab Aposto¬ lis ; Tametsi enim NicOphorus Patriarcha in Chronologia conetur deducere ab Andrea Apostolo successionem Episcoporum Byzan¬ tii, tamen nulli veteres id tradunt, nec un¬ quam a Patribus Ecclesia Byzantina, sive Constantinopolitana dicta est Apostolica, et Patres Concilii Constantinopolitani I in ep. ad Damasum Romanum Pontificem, aperte fatentur, Ecclesiam illam novellam esse. Ita¬ que habet quidem Ecclesia Gonstantinopoli- tana qualemcumque successionem a tem¬ pore Constantini hucusque, non autem ab Apostolicis temporibus, quod praecipue quee- ritur. Dico secundo, argumentum a successione legitima adferri a nobis praecipue ad pro¬ bandum non esse Ecclesiam, ubi non est haec successio, quod quidem evidens est; ex quo tamen non colligitur necessario, ibi esse Ecclesiam, ubi est successio. Itaque hoc ar¬ gumento probamus evidenter, non esse Ec¬ clesiam apud Lutheranos. Quod autem apud Graecos non sit Ecclesia , probamus alio mo¬ do, quia nimirum convicti sunt legitime in tribus plenariis Conciliis, Lateranensi, Lug¬ dunensi, et Florentino , de schismate et hae- resi : Ac praecipue de haeresi circa processio¬ nem Spiritus sancti a Filio , quam esse ma¬ nifestam haeresim , Lutherani et Galvinistae etiam confitentur. Adde ultimo , quod omnes Ecclesiae illae Patriarchales habuerunt per longa tempora Episcopos manifestos haereticos, et proinde interrupta est veterum Pastorum succes¬ sio. Quinto, objicit idem Calvinus, veteres Patres, qui ostendunt Ecclesiam ex succes¬ sione Pontificum Romanorum, id facere, quia illis temporibus constabat non fuisse muta¬ tam fidem et religionem in Ecclesia Romana ; at nunc contrarium constat. Respondeo, vel intelligit Calvinus, eo tem¬ pore constitisse Catholicis tantum, velCatho- licis simul et haereticis, quod in Romana Ecclesia non esset mutata religio. Si primum assumat, nihil dicit, nam etiam hoc tempore Catholicis constat, non esse in Romana Ec¬ clesia mutatam religionem. Si secundum as¬ serat, aperte mentitur. Nulli enim fuissent hseretici, si semper omnes putassent in Ro¬ mana Ecclesia esse veram fidem. Prseterea Donatistee Romanam Ecclesiam oppugna- CAPUT IX. 379 bant, ut nunc faciunt Lutherani et Calvi- nistse. Optatus lib. II, cont. Parmenianum : <i Unde est, inquit, quod claves Regni vobis Donatistae usurpare contenditis, qui contra cathedram Petri vestris praesumptionibus et audaciis sacrilegio militatis ? » Et August. lib. II, contra litteras Petii. cap. '51. : « Ca¬ thedra tibi quid fecit EccJesiae Romanae, in qua Petrus sedit, et in qua nunc Anastasius sedet? Cur appellas cathedram pestilentiae, cathedram Apostolicam? » Et tamen Optatus et Augustinus a successione ista contra Do- natistas argumentantur, ut supra diximus.