Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Order
Chapter 1: That Ordination Is Truly and Properly a Sacrament of the New Law; and That It Is Shown from the Divine Letters
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramento Ordinis, the fifth 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).
On the sacrament of Order, the questions which belong to this place are these. First: whether the ordination of ministers is a sacrament truly and properly so called. Second: whether the ordination of all ministers, or only of some, is a sacrament. Third: what is the matter and form of this sacrament. Fourth: what its effect. Fifth: who its minister. Sixth: with what ceremonies it is conferred. Certain other things could be brought back to this place, which have already been explained by us in another place: namely, on ecclesiastical power; on the number, distinction and office of the several Orders; on the priesthood, and on the things annexed to the priesthood, such as continence; and other things of that kind.
Chapter 1. That Ordination Is Truly and Properly a Sacrament of the New Law; and Who among the Heretics Have Denied It
The first and chief question, then, is whether Ordination is a sacrament properly so called. Luther denies it, in the book On the Babylonian Captivity, the chapter on Order, where he disputes without any order and most petulantly. Illyricus also denies it, in the Antwerp Confession, chapter 11, and Chemnitz in the second part of the Examination, in the disputation on the sacrament of Order, page 1162 and following. But Calvin, although in most places he lays down only two sacraments, Baptism and the Supper, yet in book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 14, section 20, and chapter 19, section 31, acknowledges that Ordination is a true sacrament; and he says that he had before laid down only two because he was speaking of the sacraments which are common to all the faithful.
Philip Melanchthon too, although in the Commonplaces first published he had laid down only two sacraments, yet in the Commonplaces published in the years 1550, 1552 and 1558 will have Ordination to be a true sacrament, and proves it at length. Likewise in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, article 13, which is on the number of the sacraments, he teaches plainly enough that the ordination of ministers is a sacrament properly so called.
Nor does Chemnitz's answer hold, on page 1167, where he says that the Apology is to be understood of the word “sacrament” taken in a broad way. That, I say, does not hold. For Philip says that three things are required for sacraments properly so called: a rite, a promise of grace, and a command; then from this foundation he proves that Baptism, the Eucharist and Absolution are sacraments properly so called. Then from the same foundation he rejects Confirmation and extreme unction, and a little after, Matrimony also. But concerning Order he distinguishes: for if it is taken for the priesthood, he denies that there ought to be any priesthood in the Church; if it is taken for the ordination of ministers, he says that he does not unwillingly admit it among the sacraments, and he proves it from the foundation laid down above, because it has a rite, a command and a promise. So Chemnitz, without fruit, even though he did not dare to confess it openly, opposes in this controversy not only Calvin but even the chief Lutherans, and attaches himself to Illyricus and other more obscure and fewer Lutherans.
Chapter 2. That Ordination Is a Sacrament Is Shown from the Divine Letters
That Ordination, then, is a sacrament truly and properly so called is shown from the sacred letters. Three things are required for a sacrament properly so called, as the adversaries confess, as the Apology of the Confession asserts, article 13, which Chemnitz admits, since he has sworn to its words: namely, an external symbol, or rite; a promise of grace; and a command, or divine institution. All these are found in Ordination.
And first, the rite and external symbol is the imposition of hands, of which there is very frequent mention in Scripture: as in Acts 6, where the deacons are ordained by the imposition of hands; in Acts 13, where Paul and Barnabas are ordained bishops by the imposition of hands, for so Leo understands that place, letter 81 to Dioscorus, and Chrysostom in his commentary on it; in Acts 14, where we have, “When they had ordained to them priests,” in Greek cheirotonesantes, that is, when they had created priests by the imposition of hands; 1 Timothy 4: “With imposition of the hands of the priesthood”; and chapter 5: “Impose not hands lightly upon any man”; and 2 Timothy 1: “By the imposition of my hands.” All these places are understood by all the expositors of Ordination; whence also among the Greeks ordination is usually called cheirotonia, that is, the stretching out, or imposition, of hands.
The promise of grace is had expressly, 1 Timothy 4: “Neglect not the grace,” and so on; and 2 Timothy 1: “I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace,” and so on.
Lastly, the command and institution: Acts 13, “Separate me Saul and Barnabas”; Acts 20, “Wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops”; Ephesians 4, “And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some pastors and doctors.”
Chemnitz answers, in the place noted, that all these things are nothing to the purpose. For that external symbol, that is, the imposition of hands, was indeed used in Ordination, but it was nothing else than a ceremony which the apostles used when they prayed for anyone and commended him to God. And so they laid hands on those whom they ordained, not to hand on any sacrament, but to commend them to God. The promise of grace is indeed had in the Scriptures, but not the promise of the grace that justifies from sin; and this is necessary for a sacrament properly so called. Lastly, the command is had that ministers be ordained, but there is not had a command that it be done by any definite rite. For the Lord, when he ordained the apostles, Luke 22, said, “Do this”; but no ceremony is read by which he ordained them. Then in John 20 he gave them again ecclesiastical power, saying, “Whose sins you shall forgive”; and yet he did not lay hands on them, or anoint them, or give them the instruments of consecration, which we now do; but only breathed on them, which we do not do at all. Nor do the apostles anywhere hand down that they received a command to lay on hands when they ordained ministers.
I answer. As regards the imposition of hands, that it was used not only for praying but also for ordaining. This is proved, first, because Scripture makes no mention of prayer in 1 Timothy 4 and 5 and 2 Timothy 1, where the imposition of hands is treated.
Second, in Acts, chapter 6, where the deacons are ordained by the apostles, prayer is most openly distinguished from the imposition of hands; for so we read in the Greek, kai proseuxamenoi epethekan autois tas cheiras, that is, “and when they had prayed, they laid hands upon them.” And again in chapter 13 one ceremony is distinguished from the other: “Then they, fasting and praying, and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away.”
Third, because in 1 Timothy 5 those words, “Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be partaker of other men's sins,” cannot be expounded of prayer, but of the ceremony by which ministers are ordained. For he who prays for another, even for one most unworthy, does not share in another's sins; but he who ordains one unworthy, he truly shares in another's sins.
Fourth: those words of Acts 14, cheirotonesantes presbyterous, can in no way be expounded of prayer. Nor does it stand in the way that the adversaries will have cheirotonein to mean not to lay on hands but to stretch out the hand, or raise it, as a sign of a vote. That, I say, does not stand in the way; for in the Scriptures and in the usage of the Church cheirotonein signifies to stretch out the hands over the heads of those to be ordained, and in that way to ordain; so that cheirotonia and cheirothesia are the same. This is plain from Chrysostom, homily 10 on the first letter to Timothy; and from the letter of the Council of Nicaea to the Alexandrians, in Theodoret, book 1 of the History, chapter 9; and from other Greeks, who call the ordination which is done by the bishop cheirotonia; and yet bishops do not ordain by raising their hands as a sign of a vote, but by stretching them out over the heads of those to be ordained. And from this very place of Acts 14 the same is plainly gathered; for Luke does not say that the apostles appointed priests at the cheirotonia of the people, as he ought to say if he meant what the adversaries will have; but he says that the apostles themselves used cheirotonia, that is, the stretching out of the hands, in appointing priests.
Lastly, St. Jerome, most skilled in both languages, on chapter 58 of Isaiah, interprets cheirotonia as the imposition of hands which, with the invocation of the voice, completes Ordination. Lastly, even if it were certain that prayer was always joined with the imposition of hands, Chemnitz would gain nothing: for then we should say that the sacramental words are a kind of prayer; whence also they are called mystical prayers by the ancients.
As to the promise of the grace of the remission of sins, I answer: either Chemnitz will have every sacrament to be instituted of itself for the remission of sin, or he will have it enough if it confers sanctifying grace, which is effective to blot out sin if it finds it, although of itself it is ordered to another end.
If he affirms the first, he will not be able to defend the Eucharist as a true sacrament; since it is certain that the Eucharist was not instituted of itself to take away sin, but to preserve and increase the spiritual life. This is plain from the fact that it is given immediately after Baptism, and so to those who have no sins; nay, it is not given except to those who are said to be clean and pure from sin, since Paul says, 1 Corinthians 11: “But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread,” and so on.
If the second, we shall easily show that Ordination is a true sacrament. For the grace which is promised to it is not some gift freely given, like prophecy or the gift of tongues, but justifying grace. For, first, in John 20, when the Lord gave the apostles the power of remitting sins, which is a certain part of the priesthood, he said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost”; and that gift which can be in the wicked is not called absolutely the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures. Moreover, in 2 Timothy 1, where the Apostle had said that grace was given to Timothy by the imposition of hands, he subjoins, explaining what that grace is: “For God hath not given us,” that is, us bishops, “the spirit of fear: but of power, and of love, and of sobriety.”
As regards the command, or institution, we do not indeed read in express words that Christ said, “Ordain ministers by the imposition of hands”; but we gather it evidently from the sacred letters. For, as we said of the other sacraments, no man can bind grace to a definite sign; and this the adversaries also grant. But according to the Scriptures grace is bound to the imposition of hands in Ordination, as is plain from those words, 1 Timothy 4: “Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.” Where that “by prophecy” is not the instrument, but the impelling and moving cause; but the instrument of conferring the grace is that “with imposition of hands.” For the sense is, as even Calvin rightly expounds: Neglect not that grace which was given thee when thou wast ordained bishop by me, according to the revelation made to me about thee (for God had revealed it to Paul and had commanded him to ordain Timothy, which is also had in the first chapter), according to the prophecies going before on thee. But that the instrument of conferring the grace was the imposition of hands is had still more clearly in 2 Timothy 1: “I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands.” Since, then, grace is bound to Ordination through the imposition of hands, it is necessary that God be the author and institutor of that ceremony.
Nor do the arguments of Chemnitz against these things conclude. For the Lord, who was not bound to the sacraments, could give the apostles the effect of the sacrament without the sacrament, that is, ordain them priests and bishops without the imposition of hands; just as he confirmed the same apostles without a sacrament, and absolved Magdalene without a sacrament.
Add that we are not even compelled to believe that the Lord conferred Ordination on the apostles without the imposition of hands. For although it is not written that the apostles were ordained by Christ through the imposition of hands, yet neither is the contrary written; and the Lord did many things which are not written.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
DE SACRAMESTO ORDIPJIS
LIBER m'[Cl'S
Dc sacramenlo Ordinis, quae ad hunc locum
pcrlincnt, sunl hae quaesiiones. Prima\ An silOr-
dinalio minislrorum sacramenlum vere ac proprie
diclum. Secunda: Omnium nc ininislrornm , an
quorundam tanlum Ordinatio sit sacramenlum.
Terlia : Quae sil malcria et fonna sacramenli
liujijs. Quarla ; Quis elTeclus. Quinla ; Quis
minislcr. Sexta: Quibus caeremoniis conferalur.
Alia quaedam ad hunc locum revocarl posscnl ,
quae sunl a nobis alio loco jam explicala,i:imiriini
de poteslale ecciesiaslica, de numero, dislinction,
alque oITicio singulorum Ordinum , de saccrdolioe
de annexis saccrdolio,ul de conlinenlia,a!iisquc id
genus rcbus.
CAPUT PRIMU3I
Ordinationcm vcre ac proprie fiacramenlum e.ssc
novac kgifi, quinegavcrinl ex Jiacrelicis.
Esl igitur quaeslio prima enque praecipua: Sit-
vie Ordiiialio sacriimcnlum propric diclum. Ncgiit
LuUicrus in lib. de caplivil. babyl. cap. de Ordi-
iic.ubi sine ullo ordine,cl pcluIaMtissiiiic dispulat.
Negal eliam Illyricus in confcssione anlucrpicnsi
cap. 11. cl Kciniiitius in 2. par. exain. in (Jis[)iila-
lioiic dc sacramcnto Ordiiiis pag. llG2.el sequcii-
libus. Calvinus autem ctiamsi plerisque iii locis
duo tanliim poiiil sacramcnta, IJiiplismum ct coc-
nam. lamcn lib. I. Inslitut. cap. H. § 20. et ciip.
V.). § 31.agnoscit Ordinalionem csse verum s;icrii-
mciitum: iic dicit s(; lanlum duo iinlea |)osuissc ,
qnnd loqniirdur dc sacramcnlis, quae omnibus fi-
dclibiis coiiiinuiiia sniit.
Pliilip|)us quoquc 3Ietanclithon,clsi in locis pri-
nio cdilis diio tantuin posiicrat sacramciilii, lamcn
iu locis cdilis aiino .'50. o2. ct .'iH. Ordinationcin
vult essc verum sacriuncntum , et fuse id probiit.
Itera in apologiii confcssionis iiugusliinae art. 13.
([ui esl dc nuiiicro sacramcntoruiii ; salis apcrli!
docet, Ordinalionem ministrorum csse sacraincn-
lum propric dictum.
INcc valel rcsponsio Kcinnitii pag. 11G7. ubi di-
cil: A{)ologiam esse inleilit'eiiduin dc vuce sacra-
mcnti largo modo accepta. Id, inqiiam. non vabM.
Niiin Pliilippus dicil iid sacraincnla propric dirla
tria rcquiri, riluiii. prumissioncm gratiiie ct iiiiin-
datum; dcinde ex hoc bindamcnlo probiit sacra-
meiitii essc propric dicla.Baptismuin.Eiiciiiirisliiini
el Absolutionem. Dcinde cx eodcm fDiidiimciilo
rejicil Conririnalioncin et exlrcmam Unctionem, et
p:uilo post etiiim Jbilrimoiiiiim, Dc OrdiiK! iuitciii
dislin.Ljuit: nam si accipiiilur pro saccrdolio, iicgat
iii Ecclcsia ulliiin cssc dcbcrt! Siiccrdolium; si iic-
cipiiiliir pro Ordinalionc miiiislrorum , dicit iioii
griiviili; sc admillcrc Ciim iiitcr sacr;imciilii. cl pro-
bal (!X fundamcnlo supra posito, ipjia liiibcl ntiiiii.
maiidiitiim cl promissionem. ItiKpic sinc fiultio
Kemnitius, eliamsi id coiiiUeri piil;iin non iiudiiil ,
rcpugiiiil in hac conlrovcrsia non soluin Cilvino ,
scil (Jliiim Lullicriinis praccipuis: scipic iidiiiiigil
Illyrico. aliisque obscurioribus ct paiicioribus Lu-
llicranis.
CAPIT II.
Ordinalioncui aacraiiwnluni cssc dnnoniilrdlur
ex dirinis {ilcriH.
Quod igitiir Ordinatio sil sacramcntum vcre ac
pro[)ric dictiim . dcmonstratiir ex siicris lilciis.
Tria rcquiruntur ad sacramciitum i)ro|)rie diclum.
!6l
nKSACnAMRNlO OlUil.MS
ul aihcrsani l.iloiUur, lU assoril apoloi^iia i-oiilVs-
sioiiis arl. lii. quain adinillil Komnilins: oiini in
ojus vcrha juraveril. Niinirum syml)olnm oxlcr-
nuin, sou riliis. promissio },MMliao; el manilatnm ,
scn iusiilnlio ilisina. Maoc omnia roporinnlur iii
Ordinalionc.
Ac primum, rilns . cxlornumqnc symI)olnm csl
inanuuin imposilio: de iiua osL in Soriplura fro-
qucnlissima monlio. ul Aclorum G. uhi ordinanlur
diaconi por manus imposilioncm. Aclornm 115. im-
posilionc maniuim ordimmUir episcopi Pauhis cl
IJarnahas, sic cnim onm looum inloUi^ils. Lco c-
pist. 81. ad Dioscorum cl Chrysoslomus in com-
incnlario cjus Kkm. Aclornm 15. uhi hahcmus :
Cum consliluisscnt cis prcsbyleros , jiraccc csl
yitpo-^v/js-av-c;. idesl, cum por manus imposilio-
nein creassenl proshylcros. 1. Timolli. i.Cum ini-
])0^itiono ninnuum prosbtitcrii El cap. ,^). Piemini
citoinanus imposu^iris. Kl 2. Tim.l. Per imposi-
iionem manuani mearum. Quae omnia loca in-
lclliguntur ah omnihus cxpositorihns de Ordina-
liono: undc oliam apnd Gniecos ordiualio ZsipoTc;-
via appcllari soh^.l, idesl, mauuum exlcnsio, sivc
imposilio.
Promissio graliac habelur expresse, 1. Tim. i.
yoli nedligcrc (jratiam etc.Y.['l. Tim. l. Admo-
nco ie. ul rcsuscHcs gratiam etc.
Deuique mandatnm cl instilulio.Aclor.l3.Sef/?'e-
gale mihi Sauluni et Barnabam. Actor.20./7i qxio
vos Spirilas sanctus posuit episcopos. Ephos. 4.
Ipse dedil quosdam quidem aposlolos, alios pro-
plietas, alios pastores et doctores.
RespoiukH Kenuiilius loco notato: Ilaec omnia
nihil ad rcrn laccrc; nam symbolum illud exler-
num, idesl. manus imposilio, adhibcbalur quidem
in Ordinalione, sed non erat aliud nisi caeremonia,
qua ulehaniur aposloh, cum pro ahquo orabant,
cumque Dco eommendabant. Ilaque imponebant
manus iis, quos ordinahanl, non ul sacramcntum
aliquod Iradcrcnt, sed ul eos Deo commendarcnt.
Promissio autem graliac habelur quidem in Scri-
pturis, sed non promissio gratiac justificanlis a
pcccalo; haec autem necessaria est ad sacrainen-
lum proprie diclum. Denique mandalum habetur,
ul minislri ordinenlur,sed non habelur mandatuin,
ul liaal certo aUquo rilu. Dominus cnim cum ordi-
navit aposlolos Luc. 22. dixit: ifoc facile; sed non
legilur uUa caeremonia, qua eos ordinaveril. Dein-
de Joannis 20.dcdit illis ilerum ecclcsiasticam po-
lcslatem. dicens: Quoriim remiseritispeccala: nec
lam^n imposuit manus, aut unxit illos, aut dcdit
inslrumenla consecrationis, quod modo nos faci-
mus, sed lantum insulllavit. quod nos minimefaci-
mus. Xcque apostoli usquam lradunt,se mandatum
acccpisse: ut manus imponerent, cum ordinabant
ministros.
Uespondeo. Quod altinet ad manus imposilio-
ncm.adhihitam cam fuisse non solum ad orandum,
scd etiam ad ordinandum. Id probatur Primo. quia
Scriplura non u;cminit orationis 1. Tim. 4. el o.ct
2. Timolh. 1. ubi de manus imposilione agitur.
Secundo in Aclis cap. 6. ubi ordinantur diaconi
ab aposlolis, distmguilur apertissime oratio ab im-
posiUone manuum, sic enim legimus graece ; /a\
TtpoiTsu^dijLSvoi £T:c'ry//av au-.^su- ta^ ■/v.(.'x:,. idcsl:f,7
ciun orasscnt. impos\icrunl cis 'manus. VA rursiis
cap. 13. dislinguitur nna cacremonia ah alia: Jcju-
nantcs. inqwn.ct oranles,imponcnlesque illisma-
nus. diniiscrunt cos.
Tcrlio* Quia 1. Tim. 5. illa vcrba : I\cmini cito
manus imposucris, neque communicaveris pec-
catis alienis. non possunt cxponi dc oralionc, scd
dc cacrcmonia, qua ordinanlur minislri. Non cnim
communicat pcccalis alicnis, qui orat pro nlio. cl-
iamsi indignissimo; scd qui ordiiial indignum, is
vcre communicat pcccatis alicnis.
Qiiarlo: Ilhi vcrha Aclor. 14. X£tpcT&vy;o-avx£;
rpio-^JTspou; nulla ralionc possunl cxponi dc ora-
tionc. Noque obslat, quod advcrsarii nolunt yjipo-
tovilv csse manus imponere; scd manum exlcndc-
rc, sive attoUcrc in signum suirragii. Id, inquain,
non ohslal; narn in Scripluris cl usu ccclcsiastico
%£'.po-ovcl'v signiticat exlcndcre manus soper capi-
ta ordinandorum, el eo modo ordinare; ita ul sil
idcm ysipOTOvia, el yciporcffia. Id palet cx Chryso-
slomo hom. 10. in priorcin ad Timothcum, et cx
opistola concilii nicacni ad Alexandrinos apiid
Theodoretum lib.t. hislor. cap. 9.et ex aliis Grae-
cis, qui Ordinalionem, quae ah cpiscopo fit.vocaut
ysipoTOviav, el tamen cpiscopi non ordinant altof-
lendo manus in signum sufTragii, sed cxtendcndo
super capita ordinandorum. Et ex hoc ipso loco A-
clor. 14. idem aperle colligilur; nam Lucas non
dicil: .4.poslolos consliluisse presbylcros ad yzi^o-
Tcvloi.y populi, ut dicere deberel, si intelligerel id
quod adversarii volunt, scd dicit ipsos apostolos
usos %£ipoTovfa, idest,manus exlensione in consli-
tuendis presbyleris.
Denique sanclus Hieronymus perilissimus ulri-
usque linguae, in cap. 58. Isaiae , ^stpoioviav,
inlerprelatur inanus imposilionem,quae cum vocis
imprecalione,Ordinationem perficil.Denique eliam-
si conslaret cum manus imposilione semper con-
jiinclam fuisse oralionem, nihil obtineret Remni-
tius: tunc enim diceremus, vcrba sacramenlalia cs-
se oralionera quandam; unde etiam mysticae pre-
ces dicunlur a vcteribus.
Quantum ad promissionem gratiae remissionis
peccatorura, Rcspondeo: Vel vult Remnilius omne
sacramenlum per se csse inslilutum ad remissio-
nem peccati, vel id salis esse, si conferat graliain
gralum facicnlem,quae sit cITicax ad pcccalum dc-
iendum, si illud inveniat, licet per se ad alium ti-
nem ordinetur.
Si primum airirraal, non polerit defendere Eii-
charistiam esse verum sacramentum.siquidem cer-
tura est, EucharisUam non esse pcr se inslilnlam
ad peccalura lollendura. sed ad vilam SDiritualem
conservandam el augendain. Id quod palet ex eo,
quod datur immediale post Baplismura: proindo
iis, qui non habent peccata; immo non dalur nisi
iis, qui dicantur mundi et puri esse a peccalo,cura
Pauh)s dicat 1. Corinlh. M.Probel autem seipsuvi
homo, et sic de pane illo edal etc.
Si secundura: Facile ostendemus Ordinalioncm
esse verum sacramentuin. Nara gratia,quae illi pro-
missa est, non est donum aliquod gralis daium. ul
prophetia, vel donum linguarum, sed gralia jusli-
l.llJEIi 1'RI.WS
753
ficans. Niiin iii priiiMS, Jonn. 20. cuni Dominns tri-
buil aposlolis poleslalcin rcmiliendi [icccalii, quae
esl pars quaedam sacerdolii. dixil: Accipite Spiri-
tum sancl.u '.non aulem vocatur absolnle Spirilus
sanclus in Scripluns donum illud, quod in impiis
esse polesl. Praelerea, 2. Timolh. 1. ubi dixerat
Aposlolus, graliam Timolheo per manus iraposilio-
nem datam. subjunijil explicans. quac sil iilii gra-
lia: iYo/i cnini. iuquit, dcdil nobis, idesl. nobis e-
piscopis, Dcus spirilum limoris; scd virtulis, cl
dileclionis, el sobrictatis.
Quod aulcra perlinel ad mandalnm, sive inslitu-
t.ionem. nou lcgiinus quidem diserlis verbis Chri-
stum dixisse. Ordin;ile ministros per manus impo-
silionom: sed evideiitcr id colligimus ex siinciis li-
leris. Nam ut diximus de iiliis sacriimentis, non
polesl nllus homo graliam aliigare certo signo: id-
<iue eliam aiiversarii concedunt: alqui secundum
Scriplnras iilligalii esl gratia maniis imposilioni in
Ordinalione, ut ex illis verbis palet, 1. Timolh. 4.
ISoli negligere qratiam quac data esl libi ;::er jyro-
phctiani. cuni impositionc manuum presbi/lerii.
Ubi illud, Per prophctiam,non est inslrumenlum,
sed caussa .impellens et inovens : inslrumcnlum
aulom conferendae gratiae cst illud: Cum iniposi-
itone ?7ia?i?tum. Sensus enim est, ut recle eliam
Caivinus exponit; Noli negligore gratiam illam,
quae tibi data esl, qnando episcopus a cne ordina-
lus cs,.inxla revcliilionem de li; miiii f.iclam (Dimis
enim rcvelaveral l'iiulo el jusseral.ul Timulheum
ordinarel, id qnod eliam habetur in primo capilc)
secundum praeccdentes in te prophelias.Quoti ;iu-
tem instrumcnlnm graliiie confercndac, fucrit im-
posilio manuum, babelur adhnc cliirius, 2.Tim.l.
Admoneo tc. ul resuscites rjratiam, quae in te
es^, per imposilioncm manuuni mearum. Cum i-
gilnr gratia sil alligala Ordinalioni per m;inus im-
positionem, necesse esl Deura cssc auclorem et
inslilutorem illius caeremoniae.
^cque argumenl;i Kemnitii (;ontra allala conclu-
dunl. Uominus cnim, qiii siicramenlis, allig;ilus
non erat, poterat aposlolis dare eircctum siicra-
menli sine sacramenlo, idest, ordinare presbyte-
ros el episcopos sine manus impnsilione: sicnle-
osdem ;iposlolos sine sacr;imenlo confirmavil, cl
Magd;ilenarn sine sacramcnlo ahsolvil.
ki\i\i'; quod neqiie cogimiir credere, Dominum
sine impositione miiniis Ordinalionem aposlolis
conlulissc. Nam ctiamsi scriptum non esl, per iin-
posilionem mannum ordin;itos iiposlolos a Christo;
tamen neqtie scriplum esl (;onlr;irium: el mull;i fe-
cit Dominus quac scripta non sunt.