509. The distinction between an equal and an unequal society is this: in the former the same rights belong to all, although the exercise of all these rights is not the same among all; but, on the contrary, in an unequal society not only is the exercise of rights diverse among diverse persons, but the rights themselves among some are other and diverse. In the present question, therefore, as anyone sees, we begin an examination of the form of government introduced by Christ into the Church, and thus we approach more closely the deeper investigation of its intimate constitution. In order that the question may be proposed clearly, we shall first briefly set forth Catholic doctrine; then we shall report the errors contrary to it. From this it will be easy to define the true state of the question.
510. I. From the innumerable ecclesiastical documents which pertain to the present matter, we select the following. The Council of Trent, session 23, chapter 4, teaches: “But if anyone affirms that all Christians indiscriminately are priests of the New Testament, or that all are endowed among themselves with equal spiritual power, he seems to do nothing other than confuse the ecclesiastical hierarchy, which is as an army set in array; just as if, contrary to the teaching of blessed Paul, all were Apostles, all Prophets, all Evangelists, all Pastors, all Teachers. Therefore the sacrosanct Synod declares that, besides the other ecclesiastical grades, bishops, who have succeeded into the place of the Apostles, belong principally to this hierarchical order; and that they have been placed, as the same Apostle says, by the Holy Spirit to rule the Church of God; and that they are superior to presbyters… The sacrosanct Synod further teaches that in the ordination of bishops, priests, and the other Orders, neither the consent, nor the vocation, nor the authority of the people, or of any secular power and magistrate, is so required that without it the ordination is invalid; indeed, rather, it decrees that those who, called and instituted only by the people or by secular power and magistrate, ascend to the exercise of these ministries, and those who take them to themselves by their own rashness, are all to be regarded not as ministers of the Church, but as thieves and robbers, not having entered by the door.” Hence in canon 2: “If anyone says that besides the priesthood there are not in the Catholic Church other Orders, both major and minor, through which, as through certain grades, one tends toward the priesthood, let him be anathema.” And in canon 6: “If anyone says that in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy instituted by divine ordination, which consists of bishops, presbyters, and ministers, let him be anathema.” And in canon 7: “If anyone says… that Orders conferred by them [the Bishops], without the consent or vocation of the people or of the secular power, are invalid; or that those who have neither been duly ordained by ecclesiastical and canonical power nor sent, but come from elsewhere, are legitimate ministers of the word and of the sacraments, let him be anathema.” To these we add propositions 2 and 3 condemned by Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794: “The proposition which establishes that the power given by God to the Church, so that it might be communicated to the Pastors who are its ministers for the salvation of souls, is so understood that the power of ecclesiastical ministry and government is derived from the community of the faithful into the Pastors: heretical. Likewise that which establishes that the Roman Pontiff is a ministerial head, so explained that the Roman Pontiff receives the power of ministry not from Christ in the person of blessed Peter, but from the Church, by which power, as Peter’s Successor, the true Vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church, he has authority in the universal Church: heretical.”
511. Moreover, according to these documents, it must first be held that the whole body of the Church is distinguished into two classes, namely into Clerics and Laics. But what these names clerics and laics mean, “I think is doubtful to no one,” says Bellarmine in On the Members of the Church, book 1, chapter 1; “although they have a Greek origin, nevertheless they are common and widely known. For who does not know that laos among the Greeks is the same as populus among the Latins? And that kleros among them is the same as lot or inheritance among us? “From this, therefore, laics are so called as being, as it were, plebeians and of the people, to whom no part of the ecclesiastical function has been entrusted; clerics, however, as being, as it were, the Lord’s lot and inheritance, who, consecrated to divine worship, have received, at God’s own command, the providence and solicitude of procuring religion and sacred things. ‘Let the cleric,’ says St. Jerome in the letter to Nepotian, ‘first interpret his own term, and, once the definition of the name has been set forth, let him strive to be what he is called. For if kleros in Greek is called lot in Latin, they are therefore called clerics either because they are of the lot of the Lord, or because the Lord himself is the lot, that is, the portion of clerics.’”
512. Secondly, it is clear from the same documents that a true Hierarchy was constituted in the clerical order. The name hierarchy, derived from two Greek words, namely hieros, sacred, and arche, principate, according to its etymological force is the same as sacred principate. But where there is a principate, there are also ministers; and among ministers there is a certain inequality, which is constituted by diverse grades of power. Therefore under the name hierarchy comes “a certain order embracing diverse grades, lowest, middle, and highest, and including among them a certain relation of prelacy and subjection.” In this sense St. Dionysius the Areopagite distinguishes in the angels three hierarchies distributed into nine choirs. Compare On God Creating, numbers 294 and following.
513. But lest questions distinct among themselves be confused, we note that there are various acceptations of order. Sometimes it is taken for the assembly of those who are dedicated to the service of the Church, or for the sacrament by which ministers are consecrated to the service of the Church by a sacred and solemn rite; but sometimes for diverse grades. Passing over the first meaning, since it properly pertains to the treatise On the Sacrament of Order, here we consider order insofar as it embraces “persons constituted in diverse offices by diverse received power.” “It pleased the holy Fathers,” says the Catechism of the Council of Trent, on the Sacrament of Order, section 9, “to use this word order, which has a very broad meaning, so that they might indicate the dignity and excellence of the ministers of God. For order, if we take its proper force and meaning, is a disposition of superior and inferior things, which are so fitted among themselves that one is referred to another. Therefore, since in this ministry there are many grades and various functions, and all things are distributed and arranged by a fixed reason, the name of order seems to have been imposed on it rightly and fittingly.”
514. Thirdly, it follows from the same documents that both the distinction between Clerics and Laics and the hierarchy constituted in the clerical order are of divine right; and consequently that by divine right itself a democratic form is excluded from the governance of the Church. For this obtains when supreme authority resides in the whole multitude; not insofar as the whole multitude actually commands and governs, which would be impossible, “but insofar as,” says Bellarmine in On the Roman Pontiff, book 1, chapter 6, “where there is popular government, magistrates are constituted by the plebs itself and receive authority from it. For since the plebs cannot sit by itself to render judgment, it must at least constitute others who do this in its name.” But once a hierarchy divinely constituted in the clerical order is presupposed, authority has already been communicated by Christ to this order, and not to the whole plebs; and therefore from Christ’s institution there does not belong to the people the right of constituting rulers, nor do these rule the Church in the name of the plebs.
515. In order that this may be understood more clearly, let us observe: 1. with Bellarmine, in On the Members of the Church, book 1, chapter 2, that in the creation of Bishops “three things are contained: election, ordination, and vocation or mission. Election is nothing other than the designation of a certain person to ecclesiastical prefecture. Ordination is the sacred ceremony by which the future Bishop is anointed and consecrated by a fixed rite. Mission or vocation grants jurisdiction, and in reality makes one a Pastor and prelate.” 2. Therefore the things are far different: to elect, to ask, and to render testimony. For one who renders good testimony for someone, or asks that the same be elected, confers no right on him for obtaining the dignity, but only bears the person of one praising and beseeching. But one who elects canonically calls to the dignity and grants a true right for obtaining it. 3. But the right of electing magistrates, unless something else has been established in the very constitution of the society, of itself belongs to the supreme power; for no one can oblige a people to obey someone unless the people is subject to him. 4. Wherefore the election of Bishops belongs of itself to the Roman Pontiff, once it is established that he possesses supreme power in the Church. Nevertheless, by his law, or by his approval and consent, that right could rightly be transferred to others; for what is done by someone’s law or consent rests upon that same person’s authority.
516. Here, therefore, is how the ecclesiastical hierarchy can be defined: “the assembly or order of presidents and sacred ministers, divinely instituted for governing the Church and for begetting sanctity in men.” “Since the end of the Church of this kind,” says Cardinal Tarquini, Public Ecclesiastical Law, book 2, chapter 1, number 3, “that is, the sanctification of souls, is had through sanctifying grace, which Christ willed to be had through the sacraments, with man’s cooperation added, whether through suitable dispositions for acquiring that grace or through good works for preserving and increasing it, he directed the care of the end of the Church committed to Clerics to two heads: first, to effecting the sacraments; second, to directing the faithful rightly and, as far as can be done, effectively, so that they may cooperate as is fitting with divine grace, which is conferred through the sacraments. Hence he constituted in the Church two powers, which are called Hierarchies, the one of Order, the other of Jurisdiction. The former is defined as the Power which is ordered to effecting the sacraments; the latter is called the Power of feeding, or of ruling the flock of Christ, both with respect to the intellect through the doctrine of right faith, which is proposed to be believed by the rite of precept, and with respect to the will through true and properly so-called command, by which the faithful are directed in the whole economy of means.”
517. II. Against the aforesaid heads of Catholic doctrine, Marsilius of Menandrino, whom they call of Padua, wrote first of all, and the rest more or less copied him. Desiring to flatter Louis of Bavaria, who was hostile to the Roman Pontiffs, he utterly perverted the divine constitution of the Church. For in the book which he entitled Defensor of Peace: 1. he taught that the subject in which the supreme authority of the Church first resides is the whole body of the faithful. He derives this, as if a priori, from natural right, according to which, by his own testimony, the constitution of any society whatever is of this kind; nor does he think that the constitution of the Church should rather be sought from the positive will and institution of Christ. 2. The power, first residing in the body of the faithful, he then says was transferred to secular Princes; but if these are unbelievers, he thinks it is transferred to Bishops, yet in such a way that these are subject both to the people and to princes. 3. Finally, in truth, he denies power itself; for he recognizes in it no coercive force, but judges that it is situated entirely in admonishing, preaching, and other things of this kind. John XXII condemned him, especially in the constitution Licet, October 23, 1327; Albert Pighius, moreover, refuted him in On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, book 5.
518. From the discipline of Marsilius came forth first the Innovators. These taught: 1. that there is by divine right, or from Christ’s institution, no distinction between Clerics and Laics. Luther, in On the Abrogation of the Private Mass, part 1, writes: “We are content to have said this, that the Christian people is simple, in which there ought to be absolutely no sect, no difference of persons, no cleric, no laic, no anointed one, no shaven one, no monk.” And Calvin, in book 4 of his Institutes, chapter 4, section 9: “This appellation was born either from error, or certainly from a depraved affection, since the whole Church is called by Peter the clergy, that is, the inheritance of the Lord.” And in the commentary on chapter 5 of the first Epistle of blessed Peter: “Would that it had never come into the minds of the Fathers to use this word.” Compare Bellarmine, On the Members of the Church, book 1, chapter 1. 2. They asserted that the fullness of power resides in the Christian people. But since the people cannot immediately perform sacred offices by itself, they said that some are deputed by it who perform them. For this reason they generally call them ministers; but those who are eminent among these, bishops, yet in such a way that these by no means transcend the order of ministers. By a like reason they indeed attribute ordination, customarily done through imposition of hands, to pastors alone; but only for this reason, that the whole people could not impose hands. Hence in this matter they act in the name of the whole people and bear its place; for the whole people by itself could institute new pastors. 3. From this, moreover, they especially infer the necessity of popular suffrage in the election of ministers. Calvin, Institutes, book 4, chapter 3, section 15, says: “We hold this to be the legitimate vocation of a minister from the word of God, where those who have seemed suitable are created by the consent and approval of the people. But other Pastors ought to preside over the election, lest anything be done wrongly by the multitude, either through levity, or through evil pursuits, or through tumult.” And among the Magdeburg Centuriators, century 1, book 1, chapter 4, it is read: “The Church in any place, that is, the whole assembly, both of those whom we now call laics and clerics jointly, has the power of electing, calling, and ordaining suitable ministers.” Compare Bellarmine in the cited place, chapter 2.
519. These things indeed concern the Authors of the Reformation themselves. But concerning their followers, behold what Schenkl writes in Institutes of Ecclesiastical Law, prolegomena, section 46, in the note: “Protestants again and again forge new systems of the Church, of which Pfaff enumerates ten diverse among themselves, and Mosheim enumerates no fewer; but that many more have been devised, and that almost every day new ones are being hammered out, is clear from the writings of Protestants.”
520. Another shoot of Marsilius of Padua is Edmund Richer, doctor and syndic of the Sorbonne College. In order to establish the Gallican doctrines concerning the superiority of an ecumenical Council above the Pontiff upon a solid foundation, as he himself thought, in the year 1611 he published anonymously in Paris a little book entitled On Ecclesiastical and Political Power. He maintains that Christ, in founding the Church, conferred the keys, or jurisdiction, upon the whole Church earlier, more immediately, and more essentially than upon Peter; and therefore that Peter and his successors exercise power only as ministers deputed by the Church, in its name. It is by no means relevant to the present question to mention the other errors of this Author, although discussion will return in the last disputation concerning this very one which we have indicated. The Author, often condemned by the Provincial synods of Paris in 1612 and of Aix in the same year, then by several decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Index, and by a particular Brief from Innocent XI in 1681, twice, as it seems, insincerely, and then with sincere mind, reprobated his doctrine in the year before he departed this life, 1630.
521. Nevertheless his system was adopted by Van Espen, Febronius, under which name lies hidden Nicholas Hontheim, suffragan of Trier, more or less by the Jansenists, and others. Febronius tends directly toward depressing the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff; and, with regard to the present question, he teaches that the legitimate way of exercising the office of this Primacy, that is, of caring for unity, consists only in watching over and directing, through counsel and admonitions, but not in ruling through coercion. Hence he says that that Primacy is properly one of association, inspection, and direction; concerning this matter we shall deal more fully in its own place.
522. These things, therefore, having been set forth: Section II The Proposed Question Is Resolved Proposition XXII. 1. From Christ’s institution an essential distinction flourishes between Clerics and Laics. 2. And in the clerical order a hierarchy of the true name, or sacred principate, was instituted, to which Christ attributed not only the faculty of directing, but the power of ruling. Therefore the Church by divine right is an unequal society, and is entirely alien from a democratic form of government.
523. The first part is proved. I. From the Old Testament. Certainly in the old law God chose for himself the Tribe of Levi from among the others, to which alone belonged the right of performing sacrifices and discharging sacred offices. Hence the priesthood, by God himself thus ordering it, was altogether separated from the rest of the Hebrew people; nor was it permitted to anyone else outside that Tribe to involve himself in sacred things. Hence Saul was rejected in 1 Samuel 13; Uzziah was struck with leprosy in 2 Chronicles 26; Korah, Dathan, and Abiron were swallowed up by the earth in Numbers 16, since, being from an alien Tribe, they had involved themselves in priestly offices. Wherefore by a special reason the Levites are said to be God’s: “I have taken the Levites… and the Levites shall be mine” in Numbers 3; they had to be consecrated to God by a special rite in Exodus 29 and Numbers 8.13; and the Lord himself is called their lot and inheritance in Deuteronomy 18.2. But if the election of those who would minister in sacred things belonged to God in the Old Law, this must obtain a fortiori in the New Testament, even though the propagation of the priesthood is no longer made through carnal generation from some tribe or from some families, but through election or institution made by those who already possess that power. “With the privilege of the Fathers ceasing,” says St. Leo in sermon 3 on his birthday, “and with the order of families passed over, the Church receives as rulers those whom the Holy Spirit has prepared.” Hence when the Apostle had said in 2 Corinthians 3: “Who has also made us fit ministers of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the spirit,” he thus prefers the evangelical ministry to the ministry of the old law: “if the ministration of death was in glory… how shall not the ministration of the spirit be more in glory?”
524. II. From the New Testament. Certainly Christ himself had not received his power from the people; but to whom he directly and immediately communicated that power must be taken not a priori, but from his positive institution. But Christ: 1. immediately communicated his power to certain distinct persons, whom he had already bound to himself in a special way, and not to the faithful people; 2. there is no indication that those persons, already distinguished from the rest of the people, represented the people in this matter; 3. indeed they could not receive power by a delegation, so to speak, from the people, since both the Church was being instituted in those persons and in the conferral of power made to them, and this was not promulgated until after the descent of the Holy Spirit. Therefore. To illustrate this argument, let us observe: 1. Only to the Apostles, whom he chose, did he say in Matthew 28: “All power has been given to me in heaven and on earth; going therefore, teach,” etc. Only to the same, from the number of all the disciples whom he had joined to himself, did he confer the power of binding and loosing in Matthew 18. Only to the same did he say in John 20 and following: “Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them,” etc. Likewise, only to the Apostles did he confer in Luke 22.19 the power of confecting the Eucharist. From the Apostles alone he declared that the public tribunal of the Church was to be constituted in Matthew 18.17. Them alone he called the salt of the earth and the light of the world in Matthew 5.13. Finally, so that the Apostles might have hearers and associates in discharging apostolic offices, Christ designated another seventy-two disciples in Luke 10.1, who would participate proportionately in the administration of sacred things. 2. The Apostles understood the matter in this way and taught it in express words. For they teach that priests must be called by God in Hebrews 5.4: “Nor does anyone take the honor to himself, but he who is called by God, as Aaron was. So also Christ did not glorify himself to become Pontiff, but the one who spoke to him: You are my Son, this day I have begotten you.” They say that Bishops have been placed by the Holy Spirit, that they might rule the Church of God, in Acts 20.28: “Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as Bishops to rule the Church of God.” The Church then recently gathered by the Apostles did not place them, nor did magistrates, nor the people, but the Holy Spirit, from whom they had received the power of order and of jurisdiction, though in different ways, not only that they should teach, but also that they should rule the Church of God. To these can be added the things which we reported in number 420. 3. The Apostles showed the same thing by their practice. For they did not signify that they recognized any power in the assembly of the faithful; nor did they arrange that the people should institute or delegate sacred ministers, as would have had to be done on the hypothesis of the adversaries. Rather, independently of the people, and generally without even seeking its testimony, they inaugurated into the priesthood those whom they themselves approved. Thus in Acts 14.23 Paul and Barnabas are said by their own authority to have constituted presbyters through the several churches. Paul placed Timothy over the Church of Ephesus in 1 Timothy 1.3, and Titus over the Cretan Church in Titus 1.5; St. Peter did the same through all the churches of the West, as Tertullian, in the book On Prescription, chapter 25, Innocent I, letter to Decentius, number 2, St. Augustine, in the abridgment of the conference and in the book On One Baptism, and others testify. Finally St. John, according to St. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, as cited by Eusebius, book 3, chapter 22, and Jerome, On Illustrious Men, chapter 9, placed men chosen by himself over the churches of Asia which he had founded, etc. Therefore. Nor indeed did they merely use this faculty themselves, but they also transferred it to others to be exercised. Hence Paul says in Titus 1.5: “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might correct the things that are lacking and constitute presbyters through the cities, as I also appointed you.” Compare Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, book 1, chapter 6. In the same author, On the Members of the Church, book 1, chapters 1-4, the testimonies of the holy Fathers can be seen.
525. The second part is proved. I. By recalling the testimonies already brought forward. For: 1. Christ evidently sent the Apostles to teach and baptize with power; for he said in Matthew 28.18: “All power has been given to me in heaven and on earth; going therefore, teach,” etc. Hence in Matthew 16 and 18 he conferred upon Peter and the remaining Apostles, proportionately, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and likewise the power of binding and loosing. Now that notion of keys, just like the faculty of binding and loosing, imports a most true and full power of jurisdiction, with which the notion of principate is necessarily joined. 2. What Christ said to Peter in John 21.16-17, “Feed my lambs, feed my sheep,” certainly imports power and jurisdiction, as is clear from the very force of the Greek word poimaine, which properly signifies to feed with command, or to feed by presiding. But St. Peter declares in 1 Peter 5.1-2 that this very thing pertains to all those to whom the care of the Church has been entrusted; for he says: “The elders I beseech… feed [poimanate] the flock of God which is among you.” Hence also Paul said in the place cited above, Ephesians 4.11, that pastors were given to the Church by God; and still more expressly in Acts 20.28 it is asserted that Bishops were placed by the Holy Spirit to rule the Church of God. We shall weigh these testimonies below by a more accurate analysis. 3. The Apostles confirmed the same thing by their practice; for in founding and ordering churches they behaved as true princes of them. In reality, as we showed just now, they set men appointed over the several churches as by their own right. They bore laws, as we read was done, for example, in the Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15.22 and following; they also either threatened or inflicted punishments. Thus, for example, the Apostle threatens that he will come to the Corinthians with a rod in 1 Corinthians 4.21, and that he will avenge every disobedience in 2 Corinthians 10.6. From these things it is clear that they performed those things which could be expected from the princes of any duly constituted society. Indeed, they demanded this very thing from those whom they placed over particular Churches. For in Titus 1.5 the Apostle declares that he left Titus in Crete so that he might correct the things that were lacking, or supply whatever things seemed to be expedient for the utility of the Church. He commands the same in verse 13: “Speak these things and exhort, and rebuke with all authority.” Finally there is no more illustrious argument of jurisdiction than the power of expelling rebels from the Church and separating them from the society. But that power, as is established, has its foundation in that saying of Christ in Matthew 18.17: “If he will not hear the Church, let him be to you as a heathen and a publican.”
526. II. Since it was demonstrated above that the Church was instituted by Christ as a true society, if Christ had not constituted in the clerical order a hierarchy of the true name, power would have been given to the whole Church, or to all the faithful, which indeed the adversaries contend; and consequently, as is clear, the election of ministers would necessarily and always be made by the people, so that otherwise, as the adversaries also contend, it would not be valid. But this conflicts with the whole of tradition and practice. Certainly the Second Council of Nicaea, canon 3, says: “Every election of a bishop, presbyter, or deacon which is made by magistrates remains invalid. For he who is to be promoted to the episcopate must be elected by bishops.” The Fourth Council of Constantinople, canon 28, says: “The holy and universal Synod defines that no lay prince or powerful person is to insert himself into the election or promotion of a Patriarch or Metropolitan, or of any bishop whatsoever; especially since it is fitting that none of the powerful or of the other laics should have any power in such things, but rather should be silent and attend to himself.” Compare also the Council of Laodicea, canon 13, the Council of Antioch, canon 19, the Second Council of Braga, chapter 1, and others. (1) (1) It is permissible to copy out from Cardinal Tarquini, in the cited work, the things which he briefly and lucidly hands down concerning this matter: “In reporting the practice of the Church concerning the elections of Bishops,” he says, “we wish this first to be observed: although various ages can be distinguished, in which various methods of election were observed, nevertheless the same method was never plainly common to all places, so that no slight variety is easily detected not only in all ages collectively, but even in individual ages. Therefore we set forth what was more commonly done through the several ages. “1. In the very beginnings of the Church, that Bishops were constituted by the Apostles or by their mandate is clear from the Sacred Scriptures, Acts 14.23 and Titus 1.5, and from tradition; compare St. Gregory the Great, book 5, letter 60; book 6, letter 37; book 8, letter 35; St. Jerome on chapters 1 and 3 of the Epistle to Titus, and so forth. “2. After the Apostles had died, or even while they were still living, compare St. Clement, first letter to the Corinthians, down to the First Council of Nicaea, it is established that the elections of Bishops were attributed to the other Bishops of the same province; and indeed in such a way that the people were sometimes even expressly repulsed. Compare the Council of Laodicea, canons 12 and 13; the First Council of Antioch, canon 16; and the First Council of Nicaea, canon 4, where the same doctrine is not only confirmed, but is also said to be conformable to ancient customs. Hence it follows: “a. The words kai ho laos hairoito, read as a second condition added by the Fathers of the First Council of Nicaea in the Synodical Epistle, in Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, book 1, chapter 9, after the first condition, ‘that they may seem worthy,’ with regard to those who were to be substituted in place of deceased Bishops, are not to be translated: ‘and the people elected [them]’; but: ‘and the people desired [them].’ For the Greek hairesomai has both senses, of electing and of desiring; but the sense of electing is excluded by the aforesaid canon 4 of the same Council. “b. Likewise, if any part in the monuments of this age seems to be attributed to the plebs in electing Bishops, it must be understood as Geoffrey, Abbot of Vendome, explains in little work 2: ‘The people concurred in elections by petition and by testimonies of good life; but the clergy by right of suffrage. For the people could not give right to the elected one in an ecclesiastical matter.’ This is expressly seen in St. Cyprian, letter 68, otherwise 67,
527. Scholion. It is better to weigh the principal difficulties in a few words. Against the first part, they object, I. those testimonies by which priesthood seems to be attributed to all the faithful. Thus St. Peter says in 1 Peter 2.9: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood,” etc.; and St. John says in Revelation 1.6: “[Christ] has made us a kingdom and priests to God”; and in verse 10: “You have made us to our God a kingdom and priests.” Therefore. I answer by distinguishing the antecedent: all the faithful are called priests in the proper signification, denied; in a less proper or broad signification, granted. Certainly: 1. these texts cannot be explained in such a way that they contradict others cited by us in the proof of the thesis. But a contradiction would arise if the priesthood which is here attributed to all the faithful were the same as that which was previously attributed exclusively to certain persons chosen by God. 2. In reality, although simple faithful are distinguished by divine right from priests properly so called, and are subject to them, they can nevertheless be called priests in some less proper sense, insofar as they receive a certain consecration in baptism and ought to offer spiritual victims to God, as St. Peter teaches in the very objected place, chapter 5; [Continuation of footnote (1)] where it is asserted that “the plebs present ought to be present with those electing in order to bear testimony”; namely, a distinction is made between the elector and the plebs, and only the part of witness is assigned to it. “3. From the First Council of Nicaea to the Fourth Council of Constantinople, which is the eighth among the ecumenical councils, the same discipline is found, that is, that the election of Bishops had to be made by the other Bishops of the province. Compare St. Julius, Roman Pontiff, as cited by St. Athanasius in his Apology against the Arians; the canons to the Bishops of Gaul which Constantius attributes to Siricius, chapter 5; the canons of the Nestorians, who in the fifth century withdrew from the Churches, in the collection of Ebedjesu, tract 8, at the very beginning, as cited by Mai in his new series of ancient writers, volume 8; the Second Council of Nicaea, act 8, canon 3; the Fourth Council of Constantinople, after act 10, rule 22; Stephen V, otherwise VI, in Gratian’s Decree, canon 12, distinction 63, etc. And indeed in such a way that, as regards the people, these points were held firm: “a. That account should be taken of popular opinion in this sense: that by the electing Bishops there should not be elected one who by the common opinion of the people was judged unworthy, or, on the contrary, that one should be elected who by common consent was held most worthy. In this sense also St. Leo warned that the testimony even of those who are outside must be attended to, letter 10, otherwise 89, to the Bishops of the province of Vienne. or also the victim of lips confessing his name, as the Apostle speaks in Hebrews 13.15. 3. Hence the Fathers unanimously, when expounding the same testimonies, teach that the priesthood attributed by Peter to all the faithful does not consist in the administration of sacred things; but either in this, that one “mortifies his members from every concupiscence of the flesh and is crucified to the world,” and so forth, as Origen speaks in homily 9 on chapter 14 of Leviticus; or in this, that someone has been anointed with sacred chrism through confirmation, as St. Ambrose speaks in book 4 of On the Sacraments, chapter 1; or that they “offer a pure conscience and spotless victims of piety from the altar of the heart,” as St. Leo the Great explains in sermon 3 on the anniversary of his election; or that they are members of Christ the priest, as Augustine expressed in book 20 of The City of God, chapter 10, and so forth. But Jerome excellently and elegantly calls baptism the priesthood of the laic in the Dialogue against the Luciferians, number 12, and opposes it to the priesthood of clerics, which is both properly such and is conferred by the proper consecration of order. 4. Hence also is understood that passage in 1 Peter 5.3: “Neither as domineering in the clerics, but being made from the heart a pattern of the flock,” where the people of the faithful seems to be called clergy. For: a. St. Jerome, in the letter to Nepotian, and Oecumenius, on this place, not improbably judge that in the cited text under the name of clergy come true clerics inferior to Bishops, who are subject to them more than simple faithful are, and with respect to whom there is consequently a greater danger of not-right domination in Bishops. b. But if by the name clergy all the faithful are understood, this is said according to a certain generic acceptance, insofar as, namely, they have been called to the Church, have received baptism, and so forth, and thus belong to the lot of the Lord; but the arguments already given forbid the word clergy from being taken properly when the question concerns all the faithful. [Continuation of footnote (1)] “b. Besides this testimony, only the faculty of petitioning could belong to the people; yet in such a way that the electors by no means had to follow imprudently the wish of the people, this sort of sentence having been proposed to them in this matter of election in place of an axiom: ‘The people must be taught, not followed.’ “c. Regularly the people ought ‘to be silent in elections and attend to itself, until the election receives its end in a regular way from the College of the Church,’ which are the words of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, after act 10, rule 22. “4. Around the middle of the ninth century, the practice of investitures began to prevail in the West. These investitures indeed at first were customarily given after canonical election by a rite not at all to be condemned; but afterward they began gradually to oppress the liberty of elections, so that the elections were in reality made by the secular princes themselves, while the Roman Pontiffs reproved this depraved custom and resisted it with the greatest force. Compare the acts of St. Gregory VII and of the following Pontiffs, but especially the First Lateran Ecumenical Council in the year 1125, which was chiefly convoked to abolish investitures. “5. In the twelfth century the right of electing had come to the Chapter alone of the cathedral Church, as is established from the whole title of the Decretals which is On Election. “6. From Clement V, in the Extravagant Ad Regimen, under the same title, that is, from the beginnings of the fourteenth century, and thereafter by the other Pontiffs through rule 2 of the Chancery, the right of electing Bishops was recalled to the Apostolic See, and at first indeed absolutely; but afterward, power being granted to lay princes of presenting one, or several, though usually three, priests worthy of the episcopal office, from whom the Apostolic See, if it finds them truly worthy, chooses the one whom it judges more suitable. And this indeed in such a sense that a faculty of this sort granted to lay Princes is understood to rest merely on an indult of the Apostolic See, and not on any right, whether proper to them or of the people whose person, that is, they bear; since this has been declared by the dogmatic doctrine of the Council of Trent.”
528. They object, II: Tertullian, in On Exhortation to Chastity, chapter 7, writes: “Are not we laics also priests? It is written: he has made us also a kingdom and priests to God and his Father. The authority of the Church has constituted the difference between order and plebs, and honor sanctified through the sitting-together of the order; so that where there is no sitting-together of the ecclesiastical order, you both offer and baptize, and you are a priest to yourself alone. But where three are, there is the Church, even though they are laics.” Therefore. I answer: 1. Tertullian, while still Catholic, wrote these things in On Prescription, chapter 14: “I shall not omit the description even of heretical conduct itself: how futile, how earthly, how human it is; without gravity, without authority, without discipline… Their ordinations are rash, light, inconstant. Now they install neophytes; now men bound to the world; now apostates from us, so that they may bind them by glory, since they cannot do so by truth… Therefore one is bishop today, another tomorrow; today a deacon, tomorrow a reader; today a presbyter, tomorrow a laic. For they impose priestly offices even upon laics.” 2. Tertullian himself, after becoming a Montanist, when he wished to show that successive bigamy was forbidden to laics, used this argument: it is forbidden to clerics; but all the faithful are clerics, since all are priests; therefore it is also forbidden to laics. Compare nevertheless Petavius, On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, book 3, chapter 3.
529. Against the second part they object, I: a true principate does not seem to have been constituted in the clerical order. For Christ himself repelled it from clerics by those words in Luke 22.25-26: “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who have power over them are called beneficent. But you not so; rather, he who is greater among you, let him become as the lesser; and he who is leader, as one who ministers.” I answer. Christ wards off sacred principate itself in itself, denied; its depraved use, granted. Certainly Christ the Lord did not say: “you will not preside in any way,” but: “not so as the kings of the Gentiles,” namely with pride and pomp. But one who says, “you will not preside as that man does,” certainly signifies: “you will indeed preside, but otherwise than he.” Hence in the same place, verse 26, there is added: “he who is greater among you, let him become as the lesser, and he who is leader,” in Greek hegoumenos, that is, leader and prince, “as one who ministers.” Therefore he is greater and leader, although he ought to conduct himself in his office with modesty and humility. Christ confirms the matter itself by his own example: “just as I,” he says in verse 27, “came not to be ministered to, but to minister”; and: “I am in the midst of you as one who ministers.” Yet no one denies the royal dignity of Christ, and he says of himself in John 13.13: “You call me master and lord, and you say well.” And by the same reason St. Peter wrote in 1 Peter 5.2 and following: “Feed the flock of God which is among you… neither as domineering… but being made from the heart a pattern of the flock.”
530. They object, II: Matthias in Acts 1.15-26 and the seven deacons in Acts 6.1-6 are said to have been elected by the whole people. I answer. 1. From the things which were done by the Apostles it is not lawful immediately to infer divine right; for the Apostles could do many things as Rulers of the Church, without nevertheless doing them by divine mandate, as in number 321. 2. Yet in reality, in each objected case, those who had gathered with the Apostles, or the people, did not elect or constitute the Apostle in place of Judas, or the Deacons. For first in Acts 1.23 “they set forth two,” Barsabbas and Matthias; and then it is added in verse 24: “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show whom you have chosen.” But concerning the Deacons it is read in Acts 6.3: “Therefore, brothers, consider from among you seven men of good testimony, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this work”; where the faithful openly render testimony, but “the twelve,” namely the Apostles, constituted the Deacons. 3. But whatever the faithful did in the twofold occasion in question, as is clear from the objected places themselves, they did not perform by their own right, but by the concession of the Apostles. Compare Acts 1.21 and 6.1-3.
531. They object, III: St. Cyprian, letter 68, otherwise 67, says: “The plebs itself especially has the power either of electing worthy priests or of refusing the unworthy; and we see that this very thing descends from divine authority, that the priest, with the plebs present, should be chosen under the eyes of all, and that one suitable should be approved by public judgment and testimony.” It is answered: St. Cyprian does not attribute to the people the right of electing, but the right of bearing testimony concerning suitability. In reality: 1. in the objected words themselves he distinguishes the plebs from those electing, “with the plebs present… should be chosen”; hence when at the beginning he says that the plebs has the power of electing, he takes the word electing in the broader sense for bearing testimony, which is not new among Latin authors. 2. What follows confirms this interpretation; for the holy Doctor immediately adds: “as in Numbers the Lord commanded Moses, saying: Take Aaron your brother and Eleazar his son, and you shall place them on the mountain before the whole Synagogue.” Was Eleazar elected by the people? Certainly not. Moreover, he adds: “God commands that a priest be constituted before the whole Synagogue; that is, he instructs and shows that priestly ordinations ought to be made only under the consciousness of the assisting people, so that, with the plebs present, either the crimes of the wicked may be detected, or the merits of the good proclaimed.” Behold what belongs to the people. 3. For this very end, the presence of the plebs is not absolutely necessary; for testimony concerning suitability can be received in another way, which depends on the discipline prevailing in the Church. Hence St. Cyprian himself admits that the presence of the people is not employed in all provinces, “which is also held among us, and almost throughout all provinces”; but this could not have obtained if the presence of the people had been necessary by divine right.