Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Order
Chapter 5: That Episcopal Ordination Is a Sacrament; and That the Diaconate Is a True Sacrament
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).
There follows the second question: which Orders are sacraments. That there are seven Orders we demonstrated in the first book On Clerics: namely, of priests, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes, exorcists, readers and porters. Of these the Order of priests is twofold: for some are greater priests, that is, bishops, others lesser, that is, presbyters. Of these, then, it is agreed among all Catholics that the Order of presbyters is truly and properly a sacrament; of the others it is not altogether agreed. I shall say, then, of each one what seems truer and more probable.
And first, episcopal Ordination is a sacrament truly and properly so called. This opinion, although it is denied by some of the old Scholastics, on book 4, distinction 24, and of the more recent by Dominic Soto, book 10 On Justice and Right, question 1, article 2, and on book 4, distinction 24, question 2, article 3, is yet asserted by all the ancient Fathers; and of the more recent by Peter Soto, lecture 4 on the sacrament of Order, in the Instruction of Priests, and by Cajetan, tome 1, opuscule 11; as also by some of the old Scholastics, as William of Auxerre in part 4 of his Summa of Theology, John Major, Scotus, Durandus and Paludanus on book 4, distinction 24, although Durandus will have it to be the same sacrament as the sacrament of the presbyterate. Lastly, by almost all the canonists, on the chapter Clerus, distinction 21, and the chapter Perlectis, distinction 25.
To me indeed the assertion laid down seems most certain. First, because the Scriptures by which Catholics prove that Ordination is a sacrament are understood of episcopal Ordination, as is plain from 1 Timothy 4 and 2 Timothy 1; for in these places alone the external symbol is expressly laid down with the promise of grace. But in these places the Ordination of Timothy is treated, who was created bishop by Paul, as all the interpreters teach; by the like reason, in Acts 13 the episcopal Ordination of Paul and Barnabas is treated. Wherefore, if episcopal Ordination is not a sacrament, we cannot openly prove from the Scriptures that Ordination is a sacrament.
Second: the testimonies brought forward, of Leo, Gregory, Dionysius, the martyr, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine and Theodoret, are understood of bishops alone. For the ancients by the name of priest, taken absolutely, understood a bishop; whence Ambrose entitles his book On the Priestly Dignity, and Chrysostom his books On the Priesthood, though each treats of bishops alone. And so we shall lose the places of the Fathers too for the principal controversy, if episcopal Ordination is not a sacrament.
Third: episcopal Ordination is a ceremony impressing a spiritual character and conferring grace; therefore it is a most true sacrament. The antecedent is proved; and first of the character, from this, that episcopal Ordination cannot be repeated. And moreover: a bishop can confer two sacraments, namely Confirmation and sacred Orders, which no other lower Orders can confer; and if they try to do it, they effect nothing at all. Therefore the bishop has from his Ordination a spiritual power, and so a new character.
They will say: there is no need of a new character, but it is enough if the character of the presbyterate be extended. But either they mean that that character is extended in reality, or only in signification, namely that in a bishop it is the sign of more powers, in a presbyter of fewer. If they say the first, our argument will have the same force: for the same efficacy is required for really extending a character as for impressing a new one; and so a ceremony which has this spiritual and supernatural effect, that is, the real extension of a character, will without doubt be a sacrament. If they say the second, they will easily be refuted. For although the character does not act in reality, but is only a sign of God's covenant with man concerning the divine concurrence in those sacramental actions, yet this sign is real; and therefore, just as where there is a spiritual power we gather that there is a real character in the soul, so also where there is the addition of a new power we must gather a real addition of character, or a new character, which is more probable.
Lastly, the power of confirming and the power of consecrating the Eucharist are further apart from one another than the power of reading the Gospel and the power of reading the Epistle in the sacrifice. But on account of these the adversaries lay down two distinct characters in the deacon and the subdeacon, and do not say that one is extended; why then will they not have there be two in the presbyter and the bishop?
Now that episcopal consecration confers grace is proved by a most manifest argument. For the theologians prove that grace is given in presbyteral ordination for this reason, that the presbyter must minister certain sacraments which are not worthily ministered without grace. But the bishop too must minister certain sacraments, namely the sacrament of Confirmation and of Order, which are not worthily ministered without grace.
Lastly, it is a wonder that some will have new grace required for the office of deacon and subdeacon, and therefore those Ordinations to be sacraments; and for the office of bishop, which is beyond all comparison more difficult and more excellent, will not have grace required. This reason is confirmed in two ways. First, from the very rite of the consecration of a bishop. For in no ordination is so great a solemnity used as in the ordination of a bishop: there is the imposition of the hand, there the anointing, there very many other things; and it is not credible that so many sacramentals were instituted where there is no sacrament. Second: because if the episcopate is a sacrament distinct from the presbyterate, it will be easy to defend that a bishop is by divine right greater than a presbyter, both in order and in jurisdiction; which in this time all the heretics deny; otherwise it could hardly be defended.
Nor do the reasons which are usually objected to the contrary conclude. First they object: the episcopate is not a new Order, otherwise there would be more Orders than seven. But if not a new Order, certainly not a new sacrament either; for if it were a sacrament, it would surely be the sacrament of Order.
I answer that the episcopate is one Order with the presbyterate, but that they are diverse grades. For the Orders are taken from the relation which they have to the Eucharist; and because the highest power concerning the Eucharist is the power of making it, therefore the first Order is the priestly, that is, of those who can consecrate the Eucharist; nor above this can there be any other greater or higher Order. Yet because presbyters and bishops share this power in different ways, hence there are two grades of priests. Presbyters, in consecrating the Eucharist, at least as to its use, depend on the bishops, who can forbid them to consecrate, or suspend them for a time, or command that they celebrate in such a place, in such a manner, at such a time. And moreover presbyters do not so have this power that they can communicate it to others; but bishops both have it and can communicate it to others.
You will say: this does not seem to be true; for the bishop does not have from his consecration that he can consecrate the Eucharist, but only that he can confirm and ordain; it does not agree, then, with the presbyterate, but is another thing, most diverse.
I answer that the episcopate includes the priesthood in its notion and essence, speaking of the power of Order, of which alone we speak here. For a bishop cannot be understood who is not a priest, since a bishop is nothing else than the highest, or first, priest; just as the papacy includes intrinsically and essentially the episcopate, although it adds much above it. But hence it follows that the whole episcopal Ordination arises from a double Ordination, and that the whole and perfect episcopal character is not one simple quality, but something composed of a double character; and so two sacraments are also required to constitute a bishop.
And so to the argument I answer: the bishop does not have from his last Ordination that he can consecrate the Eucharist, yet he has it from another, preceding Ordination, which is also of the essence of the episcopate. Just as a man does not have from his specific difference that he is sensible, yet he has it from his genus, and so from his nature, which consists of genus and difference.
And hence all the other arguments are solved which Soto and others multiply. For their second argument is of this kind: if the episcopate were a sacrament, it would follow that someone could be ordained a bishop who was not a presbyter, and that he, so ordained, could consecrate the Eucharist; both of which are false by the common opinion. The first they prove, because one Order does not depend on another; as is plain, because if anyone is ordained a presbyter who was not before a deacon, he is truly ordained. The second they prove, because the lower Order is always contained in the higher, at least in power; for a presbyter could discharge the office of a deacon even if he did not have the Order of deacon.
I answer: none of these things follows. For it is impossible for one to be ordained a bishop who either is not before a presbyter, or at least does not now receive both Ordinations at once; because, as I said, both are of the essence of the episcopate. Nor is it true that one Order does not depend on another, except in those of which one is not of the essence of the other. Nor does the likeness of the deacon and the presbyter hold, because the presbyterate does not include the diaconate essentially, as the episcopate includes the presbyterate. By the like reason it does not follow that a bishop who is not a presbyter can consecrate the Eucharist; for the episcopate without the presbyterate is not a higher Order; nay, it is nothing in reality, but a mere figment in the mind, like an archbishop who is not a bishop, or a rational thing which is not an animal.
The third argument: if episcopal Ordination is a sacrament, it certainly impresses a character. Either, then, this character is greater than the presbyteral, or not. If greater, then there is something greater than the power of consecrating the Eucharist, which all deny; and moreover it would follow from this that there is some Order higher than the priestly, which would then have to be numbered the eighth. If it is not greater, then the bishop, as bishop, is not greater than the presbyter, but equal, or rather less, because no character is equal to the priestly.
I answer: the whole and perfect episcopal character is greater than the presbyteral, because it includes it, and one other besides, as we said; and in this way we compare bishops with presbyters, when we say that the one are superior and the other inferior. If, however, one compares the character which the bishop has from his last consecration with the character which he has from presbyteral Ordination, then the latter is greater intensively, because the highest power is to be able to consecrate the Eucharist; the former is greater extensively, because it extends itself to more things. But of these things enough.
Chapter 6. That the Diaconate Is a True Sacrament
Further, concerning deacons, it is very probable, and altogether to be held, that their Ordination is a sacrament, although this is not certain of faith. That it is not certain of faith is plain, because it cannot be evidently deduced from the word of God, written or handed down; nor is there any express determination of the Church on this matter.
But that it is very probable is proved, first, from the common opinion of the theologians; for Durandus alone seems to be the one who asserts that only the priesthood is the sacrament of Order, on book 4, distinction 24, question 2, together with Cajetan, tome 1 of the opuscules, tract 11.
Second: because in 1 Timothy 3 the Apostle Paul, as also in Philippians 1 and Titus 1, always joins deacons with bishops, that is, with priests; for by the name of bishops he understands presbyters also, as Chrysostom teaches in his commentary on these places.
Third: because in Acts 6 the deacons are ordained by the imposition of hands, that is, by a like ceremony to that by which bishops and presbyters are ordained.
Fourth: because deacons, in the absence of the bishops, can baptize, give the Eucharist, reconcile public penitents, preach, and exercise almost all the offices of bishops and presbyters in their absence; from which it follows that they need the special grace of God, and so that their Ordination is a sacrament. The antecedent is plain. For of Baptism Tertullian testifies it, in the book On Baptism, and Jerome in the book against the Luciferians. Of the Eucharist, namely that deacons can minister the Eucharist to lay people, it is plain from the Council of Nicaea, canon 18; nay, formerly deacons ordinarily ministered the blood of the Lord to the people, as is plain from Cyprian, sermon 3, On the Lapsed. Of the reconciliation of penitents it is plain from the same Cyprian, book 3, letter 17. Of preaching Gregory testifies, book 4, letter 88.
And this seems the reason why deacons belong to the hierarchy, and are said to preside over the peoples together with bishops and presbyters, as is plain from Jerome on chapter 2 of Titus, and from Dionysius, who in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy lays down only these three Orders, because these alone are hierarchical; for the lower ones do not preside over the people, but only serve the higher Orders.
Fifth: the diaconate once received is never lost, nor can it be repeated; therefore it impresses a character; therefore it is a sacrament.
Some answer that the diaconate is perpetual, not from a character, but from a certain consecration, and because it is an office by divine right. But the solution does not hold. For if it can come from elsewhere than from a character that the diaconate cannot be lost, certainly the principal reason of the Catholics will fall, by which they prove from this that certain sacraments impress a character, because they cannot be repeated.
Then the consecration of deacons would not be an Ordination unless it were a sacrament; for it would be a simple enjoining of an office. But nothing prevents an office from being taken away and afterward given back again. Nay, no greater consecration can be imagined, if the dedication of a person outside the sacraments is to be so called, than that of monks, who are consecrated to God by solemn profession; and yet, for a just cause and by the dispensation of the supreme pontiff, they can return again to the world, as very learned men judge and some examples testify. Nor does it stand in the way that it is an office by divine right: for that proves only that there must be deacons in the Church, but it does not prove that this man or that must always be a deacon. And so the diaconate could be taken from one and given to another; just as it is also by divine right that there be bishops in the Church with jurisdiction, and yet the supreme pontiff can take the episcopate from a bishop, as to jurisdiction, and give it to another.
But against this proposition some arguments are objected. The first is that many of the ancients say that deacons were instituted not by Christ but by the apostles, as is plain from Cyprian, book 3, letter 9; from Anacletus, letter 3; and Damasus, letter 4. And it is confirmed, because the deacons seem to have been instituted on a certain occasion, namely on account of the murmuring of the Greeks, and assigned to the ministry of tables alone, as is plain from Acts 6.
I answer: Cyprian perhaps was of that opinion, that he thought the diaconate was not instituted by Christ, as we related in another place; perhaps also he means only to teach that Christ did not ordain any deacons, as he ordained bishops and presbyters. But it does not follow from this that Christ did not institute this sacrament; for Christ confirmed no one either, and yet he instituted the sacrament of Confirmation. Further, Damasus and Anacletus teach only that Christ instituted only two Orders of priests, that is, of bishops in the apostles and of presbyters in the seventy-two disciples; which they write against the chorbishops, who wished to seem a third kind of priests, though in truth they were nothing but presbyters. And so these pontiffs do not deny that deacons and the other lower Orders were instituted by Christ, but deny that there is any Order of priests besides those already named.
To the confirmation I answer: the first deacons were indeed ordained on an occasion, but the Order of deacons was not invented on an occasion.
Nor is it true that in the time of the apostles only the ministers of tables were deacons: for there were deacons also at Philippi, and at Ephesus, and in Crete, as is plain from the letters of Paul to the Philippians, to Timothy and to Titus; and yet in those places the Christians did not live in common, so that there should be need of ministers of tables. Then that so solemn Ordination by the imposition of hands certainly indicates something other than the ministry of tables alone. Moreover, Philip, of the first deacons, did not give his labor chiefly to tables, but to preaching and Baptism, Acts 8. Lastly, from the most ancient times deacons are ministers of the altar and of the sacraments, as is plain from Justin, Apology 2, at the end, and from all the ancient authors.
The second argument is: because deacons have no power of doing anything supernatural, or any effect which is void if it is done by one who is not a deacon; therefore they do not have a proper character; for a character is given for acting simply, not for acting well.
I answer: it is not of the essence of a sacrament that he who has it effect something supernatural; but it is enough if it be a ceremony conferring grace. Nor is it universally true that a character is given for acting simply, as is plain from the character of Confirmation, which is given for professing the faith; which yet some catechumens without the character sometimes profess excellently, even to the shedding of blood; and some who are confirmed dare not profess it.
The third argument: the matter of the diaconate is the handing over of the book of the Gospels, as is had in the Council of Florence. But when the first deacons were ordained, the Gospel was not written; therefore either they did not have a true sacrament, or the diaconate is not a sacrament.
I answer: this argument is to be solved in the following question; for directly it proves only that the book of the Gospel is not the matter of the sacrament.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT V.
Eplscopakm Ordinationem sacramenlaDi essc.
Sequilur sccunda quaeslio ; Ouinam Ordines
sinl sacramenla. Seplem essc Ordines denionslra-
vimus in 1. lih. de clericis; videlicel sacerdolum,
diaconorum, subdiacoiiorum, acolylhorum , exor-
cislarum, leclorum el osliariorum. Ex quibus Ordo
sacerdolum duplex esl: sunl cniin alii majores sa-
cerdoles, idesl, episcopi, alii niinores, idesl, prc-
sbyleri. Ex his anlcm convenit inler omnes calho-
licos, Ordinem presbylerorum esse vere ac pro-
l)rie sacranienlum, de aliis non oinnino convcnil.
Dicain igilur de singulis, quid verius ac probabi-
lius videalur.
Ac Primum Ordinalio episcopalis, sacramcnlum
esl vere ac propric diclum, Ilacc sfciilenlia eliamsi
a quibusdam veleribus Scholaslicis negclur, in 4.
(lislinct. 24. el ex recenlioribus a Doininico Solo,
lib. 10. dejuslilia et jure, quaesl. 1. art. 2. el in
4. dislinl. 24. quaesl. 2. art. 3. lamcn asseiilur
ab omnihus anliquis Palribus;ei ex recenliorihus,
a Pelro Soto, lect. 4. de sacramcnlo Ordinis in in-
slilutione sacerdulinn, ct a Cajclano loin. 1. opu-
sculi 11. nccnon ab antiquis nonnullis Scholasli-
cis, ul AUisiodoreiisi. 4. parle summae Iheologi-
cae, Joan. niajori, Scolo, Durando el Paludano in
4. dislinct. 24. licel Durandus idcin sacramenlum
rsse V(;lit cum sacramcnlo presbyteralus. Drjiiiquc
ah omnibas pene canonislis, in cap. Clerus, di-
stincl. 21. et capul PcrkcUs, disUncl. 2.'").
Mihi vero posila assertio ccTlissima vidi.-Uir. Pri-
rno, quia Scriplurae qiiibus catholici probanl, Or-
dinalionem csse sacranicntum,de Ordinalione epi-
scopiili inlelligiiiiliir, ui [)alct ex 1. Tiinolh. \. cl
2. Tiiuolh. 1. in his (Miim solis locis diserle poiii-
Inr symbolum exlemum cum promissione graliae.
Iii his autcm loiiis agiliir dc Ordiii.-iUoni; Timolhci,
qui episcopiis hiit a Paiilo crealus, ul oinncs iii-
lcrprcUjs (i()( cnl: |)ari ralioni!, Aclor. 13. agiliir
de Ordinalionc episcoj)ali Pauli ct Bariiabae.Quaro
si Ordinaliocpiscopalis non cst sacramcnlum. non
possumus ex Scripluris apertc probare, Ordinalio-
nem esse sacramcntum.
Secundo: TcsUnionia ailala, Leonis , Crcgorii ,
Dionysii, lAIarlyni. Chrysostomi, Amhrosii, Miero-
nymi. AugusUni, ThcodorcU, d" solis episcopis
inlelligunlur. Veleres eniiii nonuiie sacenJolis ab-
solule cpiscoi'Uin inlclligcbanl; unde Ambrosiui.
libruni inscribit de dignitalc sacerdolali, el Chry-
soslomus libros de saccrdotio, cnm laracn ulerquc
dc solis cpiscopis agal. Itaque amillenius elia^n
loca Palruin pro conlrovcrsia principali, si episco-
palis Ordinalio non est sacraincnlum.
Terlio:l'ipiscopalis Ordinatio est cacremonia im-
primens characlcrcm spiritualcm et conrerens
graliam, ergo cst vcrissimum sacramenlum. Pro-
batur antecedens: ac Primum de charactere, cx
co, quod episcopalis Ordinalio. non polcsl repeti.
Et Praclcrca: Episcopus polcsl duo sacramenla
conrerrc; nimirum Contirmalioncm ctOrdincssa-
cros, quae non possunt ulli alii Ordines inferio-
res confcire: et si lentenl id faccrc, nihil prorsus
eniciunl;Ergo habet episcopus ex sua Ordinalione
spirilualem polestalem, et proindc novum chara-
cterem.
Dicent: Non esse opus novo characlere, sed sa-
tis esse si cxlendatur characlcr prcsbyicralis. Scd
aul volunt reipsa exlendi characlercni illum, aut
solum significalione. qiiod videlicct in opiscopo
sigiium sit plurium polcstalum , in preshylcro
pauciorum. Si dixcrint Primuin, eandein viin ha-
bcbit argumcnlum nostrum: nani eadetn cfTicacia
rcquirilur ad characterem rcipsa extendendnm el
ad imprimcnduin novum , proindc caeremonia ,
quae habet cileclum istura spirilualum ct super-
iialuralcm, idest, realem extensioncm characleris,
sinc dubio sacramenluin cril. Si dixerint Secun-
dum, facile revincenlur. Nain licet character non
agal reipsa, scd sit solum signuin pacli Dci cuoi
liominc dc concursu diviiio in aclionibus illis sa-
craiiicnlalibus: tamcn hoc signum realc csl, et
idco sicut ubi cst spirilualis potcslas , colligimus
rcalcm cssc in anima characlcrcm; ila quoijue ubi
cst addilio novac polcslalis, oporlcl colligcrc rca-
lcin additioncm charactcris , aut novum characlc-
rein, quod est probabilius.
Dcnique magis dislanl inlcr se polcslas confir-
mandi ct consccrandi EucharisUam, quam pole-
stas legendi evangclium cl cpistolam in sacrilicio.
Sed propler ista ponunlur ab advcrsariis duo di-
sUncti characteres in diarono cl subdiacono, nec
dicunt unum exlendi; cur igilur iiolunt esse duos
in presbylero et episoopo?
Jam quod e|)iscopalis consccralio conferal gra-
liam, probatur maiiifcslissimo argumciilo : iiam
idco probant thcologi in ordiiiatione pre^bytcrali
(lari gratiam, quia dehct prcsbylcr (piacdam sacra-
iiKMila niinislrarc. qiiae sinc gralia non digne mi-
iiisliiinliir. Episcopus aiiliMn diibct (piacdam etiam
sacramcnta ministrare.sacramenlum videlicet Con-
linn;itioiiis et Ordinis, (luac sine gralia non dignc
iiiiiiislrantur.
l)iMii(pie. niirabile est, (piod vdint aliijiii ad of-
liciiiin diiiconi et siibdiaconi reipiiri novam gra-
liiiiii. ct iilco illas Ordiiialioncs cssi; sacraincnla;et
ad olliciiim cpiscopi, qiiod csl sinc ulhi compara-
tione diiTioilins cl excellcntius. iiolint graliam re-
(]iiiri. Coiilirinatiis liacc lalio (lu|)licilcr. Primo, cx
ipso rilii consixralionis cpiscopi. lii niilla cnim
OKliiialioiK! adhibcliir lanla vsoleninitas, (juanta ia
OrdinaUone cpiscopi; ibi e.sl impositio manus, ibi
unctio, ibi plurima alia: non cst aulcm credibilc
16$
DE SACllAMi:.\TO (.mi)lMS
lol sacrumentalia idsliliita. ubi luilliiiu sil sacn-
inoatiiiu. Sooiiiulo: Quia si ('i^iscopaliis sit sana-
(neiiliiiii a preshyloraiu tlisliiicUim , lacile oril do-
fiMiiloro episcopum jurc tlivino majorem esse pre,-
sbylero, lam oriiinc tiiiam juristliclitjue; (]uoil hoe,
l('mpt)re omnos bacrelici nepaut: aliotpii aei:;re iii
defentii poleril.
Ke(iue raliones, qnae conlra objici solcnl, con-
vincunl, Primo i>l»iiciuiil:/'/)<s('()/)a/i/s non c^( Or-
Uo riori/s. iilio(jiii lirdiiws vft^cnl plnrcs qu(im
sepl^m. Si aulcm nonnovu!^ Ordo. ccrlc ncc no-
vnm sacramcnlum-.nnmsi sacramcnlum cssel ,
cssct uliquc sacramcnlum Oniinis.
Hesptuitleo: Kpiscopalum esse, Ordinciii unuin
nim presbyleralu, sed {Tiatius esse diversos: Ordi-
iies eniin sumunlur ai) liabiiudiiie (piam liabenl ad
Eucliaristiam; el t]uia sumiiia cirea Kucluirisliain
esl poleslas ipsam coiilicicmii . idoo priimis Ordo
esl sacerdolalis, idesl , eoruiii ijui EuclKirisliani
eonsecrare possunl: ncc su|ira liuiic pulesl \u\'J,\
alius Ordo major, vel superior. Quia lamen hanc
poteslatem vario modo parlicipanl presbyleri el c-
|)iscopi.intle snnl duo ijradus sacerdolum. I*resby-
teri in con>ecranila I']ucbarislia . sallem quoad u-
sum, pendenl ab e|)iscopis. qui possunt eis intcr-
(Jicerc ne consccrenl, vel suspendere ad lempus ,
vel praeeipere. ut tali loco, lali modo.tali tcmpore
celebrenl. Kl praeterea presbyteri non ila liabcnt
lianc poteslalem. ut eam aliis communicare pos-
sinl: Episcopi aulem, el liabeut, el communicare
aliis possuiit.
Diccs: iNon viilclnr id essc verum; nnm episco-
pus e.\ sua consecrationc non liabet, ut possit Eu-
eharistiam consecrarc, scd solum ut possit coiilir-
niare cl oruinare: non igilur convenil seiicre cuin
presbyteratu, sed esl alia res diversissima.
Respondeo: Episcopatum includere in sua ralio-
ne el essentia sacerdotium, lo(]uondo do potesta-
le Ordinis. de qua sola hic loquiiuur. Nou enim
polesl inlelligi episcopus, qui non sit sacerdos ,
cum nihil sil aliud (>piscopiis , nisi summus. scu
priinus sacerdos: sicut jiapalus iiiclu(lil iulrinseoe
el essentialiler episcopalum. licel niulla sui^erad-
dal. Hinc autem sequitur, ut episcopalis Ortlinalio
inlegra consurgat ex duplici Ordiiialione, el cba-
racler cpiscojialis intcger et perlectus , non sit
una simplex qualilas, sed quid conipositum ex du-
plici charaeiere: proinde etiam duo sacramenta
rt.'(iuirunlur ad episcopum constihiendum.
Ilaque ad arguiiieiilum Kespon(l(;o: E|)iscopuin
non liabere. ul possilconsecrare Eucharisliam, ex
sua ullima Ordiiialione,tanicn id babeie ex alia Or-
dmatione iiraecedimlo. quae esl eliam de essenlia
episcopatus. Sicut homo non liabet ex difTcrenlia
siia specifica. ut sil sensibilis, lamcn id babet ex
penere suo. proinde ex natura sua, quae ex gene-
re et differentia oonstat.
Alque hinc solvuntur omnia alia argumenla,quae
Sotus el aiii multiplicant. Est enim Seeundum eo-
ruin argumenlum ejusmodi: Si episcopalus essct
sacramenlum . sequcrelur posse aliquem ordi-
nari episcopum. qui non esset presbijlcr; cl posse
illum stc ordinalum consecrare Euckarisliam ;
qnorum ulrimqueest falsxm ex comvmnisen-
tcntia. Priiiium iirobant, quia unus Ordo non pen-
del ab alio. ul pat(U:(iuia si (jiiis ordiuelur presbY-
ter, (lui antea noii rueril diaconus. ille esl vere ur-
(liiialus. Secundum [uohaiit, (piia seinper Ordo in-
lerior coiiliiielur iii superiore; salteni in virtutc :
jiosset euim preshyler fiiugi luunerc diaconi , el-
iamsi Ordinem (liacoiii noii haberel.
llespondeo: Nihil corum sequi. INam impossibile
esl ordiuari episcopum, qui vel anlea nou sil [ire-
sbyler,vel cerle uon liiiic siinul accipial ulraiuque
Ordiiiali()nem;quia ul dixi, ulraque esl de esscutia
episcopalus. i\ec esl veruin, unuin Ordinem noii
|)enilere ab alio. nisi in iis. qiiorum unus non esl
de (issenlia allerius: iicc valcl siinililudo diaconi
cl presbyleri, quia prcsbytcratus non includil es-
senlialiier diaconatuin, sicul cpiscopatus includit
presl)yleraluin. Pari ratioue non sequitur , posse
cpisco|)um, (jui nou sit presbyier , consecrare ICu-
charisliam: non cniin episcopatus sine prcsbyle-
ralii. cst Ordo superior. inimo nihil est in re, sed
incruin figiuculum in inculc, quomodo archiepi-
scopus, qui non sit episcopus, vei ralionale quod
non sil auimal.
Terlium argumcnlum: Si cpiscopalis Ordinalio
csl sacraineiilum, characlerem cerie imprimil; vcl
ergo is character est major presbyterali , vel non :
si major, ergo esl arKjuid majus polcstalc conse-
crandi Eucharisliam, quod omnes negant; et prac-
terea hinc sequerclur. csse ordinem aliquem altio-
rcm saccrdotali, qui jam dcbcret numerari ocla-
vus; si non esl major, ergo episcopus . ut episco-
pus, non esl major presbylero , sed aequalis, vel
polius minor, quia nuUus characler est aequalis
sacerdolali.
Hcspondco: Characterem cpiscopalem inlcgruiu
et perfeclum, csse majorein presbylcrali , quia il-
luin iucludit.cl unum practerca alium, ul diximus:
el hoc modo comparamus cpiscopos cum prcsby-
leris, cuin dicimus alios esse supcriores, alios in-
feriores:si tamen quis conferal charactcrem.quciu
habct episcopus ex ullima sua consccralione, cum
eharacl(!re,quem liabcl cx Ordinalione presbylcrali;
tunc isle cst major inlensivc, quia summa polcslas
est, posse consecrare Eucliarisliam: illc est major
cxlensive, quia ad plura se extcudil. Sed de his
satis.
CAPUT VI.
Diaconaium esse verum sacramenlum.
Porro dc diaconis . valde probabile et nmnino
lencnduni esl corum Ordinatiouem sacramenluin
essc, licet id non sit ceriuin ex fide. Qiiod non sit
cerlum cx fide, palet, quia non polesl id cvidenler
dcduci ex verbo Dci scriplo, vcl iradilo: neque cx-
stat uUa Ecclesiae dc hac re expressa dctcrmi-
natio.
Quod aulcm id sit valdc probabile, Piimo proba-
lor ex communi sentenlia Iheologorunv. solus eniin
videtur cssc Durandus, qui asserit solum sacerdo-
tiuin essc sacramenlum Ordinis. in i. distinct. 24.
quaesl. 2. cum Cajelano, tomo 1. opusculorum,
tract. H.
LIBER PRl.MUS :(i9
Secundo: Quia I. Timotli. 3. Aposlolus Paulus, arguraenla. Primum est, quia mulli velerum dicunt,
iil eliain Pliilipp. 1. el ad Tilum 1. semper conjun- diaconos non a Clu-islo, sed ab aposlolis inslilulos,
gil diaconos cum episcopis, idesl, cum sacerdoli- ul palcl ex Gypriano lib. ."J. episl. 9. ex Anaclelo
l)us inlelligilenimnominocpiscoporum, eliam pre- episl. 3. elDamaso, epist. 4. El confirmalur, quia
sbyleros, ul Cbrysoslomus docel in commenlurio videnlur diaconi ex occasionc qmidam insliUili, ni-
horum locorum. mirum ob murmur Graecorum: el solo minislerio
Terlio: Quia Acl. 6. Diaconi ordinanlur per ma- mensarum addicli, ul palet Acl! 6.
nus imposilionem.idest, simili caeremonia qua epi- Respondco: Gyprianum forlasscin ea scnlenlia
scopi el presbyleri. fuissc, ul exislimaret diaconalum a Clirislo inslilu-
Qu.irlo: Quia diaconi in absentia episcoporum inm non fuisse, ut nos alio loco reluliuuis, loitas-
possunt baplizare, Eucharisliam dare, reconciliare se eliam solum velle decere.Chrisluin non ordinas-
poenitenles publicos , pra'idicare ac fere omiiia se ullos diaconos, sicut ordinavil cpiscopos et pre-
mnnera episcoporum el presbylerorum in eoruin sbyleros: sed non inde sequilur. Clirisli non insli-
absenlia exercere: ex quo sequilur, eos gralia Dei luisse hoc sacrameiiluin: nani cliain nulluin Cliri-
spcciali indigere, ac proinde corum Ordinalioncm slus confirmavit , et lamen insliluit sacramenluni
essc sacramiMilum. Aiilccedcns pulct. INain de Ba- Coiilirmalionis. Porro Damasus cl A.iaclelus solum
plismo id teslantur TertiiUianus in lib. de liaplis- docciil Clirisium insliluisse lanluin duos Ordincs
mo, et Hieronymus in lib. conlra Lucilerianos: De sacerdotuin, idest, episcoporuin in apostolis et pre-
Eucharislia,quod videlicet (liaconiEucharistiam lai- sbylerorum in 72.discipulis: id qiiod scribunl con-
cis minislrare possinl, palel cx concilio nicaeno, tra cliorepiscopos, qui lerlium genus sacerdolum
can. Li. immo olim ordiiiarie diaconi sanguiucm vidcri volcbanl. cum lamen revcra niliil essent, ni-
Domini minislrabant populo, ut patet cx Cypriano, si presbyleri. Ilaque non neganl hi ponlifices dia-
serm. 3. de lapsis, De rcconcilialione poenilenli- conos, el alios Ordines inferiorcs a Chrislo inslitu-
nm. palet ex eodein Cy|)riano, lib. 3. epist. 17. De tos, sed negant esse ullum Ordinem sacerdotum,
l^raedicalione testatur Gregorius, lib. 4. epist. 88. praeler quos jam dictos.
El haec videlur ralio, cur diaconi ad hierarchiam Ad coulirmationem Respondeo : Ex occasione
])ertineant, el populis pracesse dicanlur, una cum quidem ordinalos primos diaconos, scd non exoc-
fpi.>copis ct presbylcris, ul palct ex Ilicronymo in casione inventum esse Ordinem diaconorum.
2. cap.ad Titum; et ex Dionysio.qui in Ecclesiasti- Neque verumest,soIum ministrosmensarum fuis-
ca hierarchia non ponit nisi hos tres Ordines, quam se diaconos tempore apostolorum: nam diaconi c-
hi soli sunt hicrarchici: infcriores enim non prae- ranl etiam Philippus el E|)hesi, ct in Crcla, ul pa-
snnt populo, sed lanlura serviunt superioribus Or- let ex epistolis Pauli ad Philip. ad Timothcura et
(linibus. Tilum;cl tainen in illis locis nonvivcbanl Christia-
Quinto: Diaconalus semel accoptus, numquam iii communiler, ut esset opus minislris mcnsarum.
amiliitur, ncc polest repeli: igilur imprimit chara- Deindc illa lamsolemnis Ordinalio pcf manus iin-
clerera, ergo est sacramenlum. positionem, certe indicat aliud, quain solum men-
Respondent : Quidam diaconalum esse perpe- sarum ministcrinm. Praetcrea, Philippus cx diaco-
lunm, non <!X characlere, sed ex (luadam consccra- nis primis, non dabal operain mensis praccipue ,
lione, et quia est oiricium de jure divino. Sed solu- scd praedicationi el Baplismo, Aclor. 8. Dcnique,
tio non valet.Nam si aliunde polesl provenire,quain ab antiquissimis temporibus diaconi snnt ministri
cx charactere.nt non possil ainitli diaconatus; ccrle allaris et sacramcntorum, ul palct cx Jiislino apo-
ruel principalis ratio calholicoruin. (pia inde pro- logia 2. in line , et ex omuibus anti(|uis aucto-
hant,quaedam sacramenta impriraere characteren), ribus.
quia non possunl repeti. Secundum argumentum csl:Qnia diaroni nullain
Deinde non esscl consccratio diaconorum.Ordi- habiMit poteslalem facicndi ali^iuid supernaluralc ,
nalio, nisi esset sacramentum; csset eniin simplcx aiit clTcclum aliqucm, qui sit irritus, si liat a noii
ofricii injunctio, Niliil aulem impedil, quo minus diacono: Ergo non habcnt proprinin charactcrcra;
possit oniciuni tolli, et postea iterum reddi: Immo characler cnim dalur ad opcranduin simpliciter ,
nulla polcst lingi major consecralio, si ita vocand.i non ad bcne opiMandum.
esldedicatio personae extra sacramenta, quam mo- Respondco: Non csse de esscntia sacramcnti.nt
nachorum, (iiii Dco consccranlur pcr scdcmncm (|iii illud habcl, aliquid siiporn.iturah! clli<-ial, sed
profcssioncra; ct laincnjusla caussa,et surami pon- satis cst, si sit cacrcmoiua conrcrcns giaiiara. Ne-
lilicis dispensationc possunl iternin ad sacculuiii (pic cst vermn nnivcrsaliler , ([uod characlcr dctur
rediro, ut doctissirni viri censenl, et exempla ali- ad operandura siniplicitcr , nt patct cx charactero
qua lcstaiilur. INcpie illnd obstat, qiiod sit onicium Contirmalionis, cpii dalur ad prolilcndam lidcm :
(le jiire diviiio: id cniiii soliim probal, dcbcn! esse quain lamcn aliqui calcchumcni sinc characlcre in-
Ecclesia diaconos, scd non probat istura, aut illuni lcrdnin oplimn prolitcnliir. us(|ue ad sanguinis pro-
(lcbere sempcr esse (liaconnm. Ilaquc [)ossel t(dli l"usionera:el alicpia conlirinali non audciit prontcri.
ab niio diaconaliis, et (lari alteri: si(;iil eliain (le ju- Tcrtiuin argnincntiim . Diaconalus malcria, csl
re divino csl, ut sint in Ecclcsia C|)isc()pi ciiin jii- Iraditio libri cviMigcliornm, nt habclur iii concilio
risdictione, et laraen potesl suramus pontifcx auh;r- llorenlino. Scd cuin ordinarcntur primi diaconi,
re ab episcopo episcopatum, quoad jurisdictioncin, non crant scriptuin evaugclium; crgo vcl illi non
et dari alteri. habueninl vcrnin sacraracntum, vcl noii est sacra-
Sed contra hancpropositioncm objiciunturaliquii mciiluin diaconalns.
110
DK S.UIHA.MKMO OliniMS
Hcspoiuleo: lloc arjjiimeiiluin solvcMKliim esse in
»Iuaeslioiu' sfquculi; direcle eiiiin probal snjum,
iioiJ esse lihrum ev.injrelii niateriam saeramcDli.