Dist. 24, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 3
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/4/d/24/q/bon-sent-IV-d24-p2-a2-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *Whether the episcopate is an order.*

Thirdly it is asked whether the episcopate is an order. And that it is, seems [to be the case]:

1. Distinction seventy-seven: Pope Gelasius, distinguishing the grades of orders, says at the end: «Then a subdeacon, then a deacon, and afterward a presbyter, and thereupon, if he deserves it, let him be ordained bishop».

2. Likewise, Isidore in the seventh book of the *Etymologies*: «Of bishops the order is fourfold»: therefore the episcopate is an order.

3. Likewise, it seems [so] *by reason:* because no one is properly said to be ordained except by the reception of an order; but he who is promoted to bishop is properly said to be ordained bishop, as is intimated by all the canons that speak of this matter: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, that is the chief virtue among the virtues which governs the other virtues and commands them: therefore, by parity of reasoning, that will be the more chief [order] in the [rank of] order which dispenses and rules the others; and that is the episcopal order: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, this seems [so] from the definition of order. «For an order is, as the Master says, a seal by which spiritual power is handed on to the one ordained»; but all this is in the episcopate, as is clear: therefore etc. The *minor* [premise] is clear through the very ordination of the bishop, in which the staff is handed to him, which signifies spiritual power; whence it is said to him, when the staff is handed to him: «Receive the staff of the pastoral office, that is, the power of binding and loosing; and be, in correcting vices, piously severe, in fostering virtues soothing the minds of the hearers, in the tranquillity of severity not laying aside censure».

6. Likewise, a more solemn unction, a more solemn benediction and imposition of hands is made in the consecration of a bishop than of a priest; but such an unction cannot be void of signification and efficacy, since it is of the new law: therefore it is of greater efficacy. If, then, the priesthood is an order, much more strongly does it seem that the episcopate [is].

**On the contrary:**
1. Master Hugh of St. Victor, distinguishing the grades of orders, speaks thus: «The first is that of doorkeepers, the second of readers, the third of exorcists, the fourth of acolytes, the fifth of subdeacons, the sixth of deacons, the seventh of priests. This [seventh] grade has, within the same order, unequal dignities, namely that of the bishop» etc.: therefore the episcopate bespeaks only a dignity, not an order: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, every distinction of grades and orders is on account of the ministry of the altar, namely on account of the sacrifice, in which is the consummation of all divine worship: therefore, when one has come to that, there ought the terminus to be; but in the priesthood one comes [to it]: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the ecclesiastical grades have such an order that it is possible to receive a later one, the prior having been omitted; which is clear through what is said in distinction fifty-two, *Sollicitudo* etc., and in the Extra[vagantes], On the Cleric ordained by a leap, *Tuae litterae* etc.; but it is impossible for anyone to be promoted to bishop, the priesthood having been omitted, as is said in the Extra, On the Excesses of prelates, *Ex litteris,* and below, where Innocent says: «The pontifical office cannot be fulfilled without the ministry of the altar»: therefore it seems that the episcopate is not another order than the priesthood.

4. Likewise, one promoted on Saturday to a sacred order ought not on the following day to receive another sacred order; but one promoted to the priesthood can on the following day, namely the Lord's day, be promoted to bishop: therefore it seems that the episcopate is not a sacred order.

### Conclusion.

> The episcopate is properly not an order, but an eminence or dignity of order.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as has been touched upon, since the power of order is principally ordained to the dispensing of the Sacraments and most of all of that most noble Sacrament, namely the body of the Lord, therefore there is [in it] the terminus of the ascending grades and orders, and thus beyond the priesthood there is no grade of order. Yet nevertheless within this grade and order there happens to be a distinction of dignities and offices, which however do not constitute a new grade or order — such as archpresbyter, bishop, archbishop, patriarch, Supreme Pontiff — which beyond the priesthood add no order nor a new grade, but only a dignity and office. And so the episcopate, insofar as it concerns the order of priesthood, can well be called an order; but insofar as it is distinguished against the priesthood, it bespeaks a certain dignity or office annexed to it, and is not properly the name of an order, nor is a new character imprinted, nor is a new power given, but the power given is enlarged. Whence, just as it does not receive other keys, so neither [does it receive] another order. — And this Master Hugh held, this too the Master of the Sentences held, as is clear through what he says in the text, that they are not names of orders, but of dignities; this too the common opinion holds, that in the episcopate no new character is imprinted, but some eminence is conferred on it, which always remains together with the very character of order, all jurisdiction being removed. Sustaining, therefore, this opinion, let us say that the episcopate, strictly speaking, is not an order, but an eminence or dignity of order.

**To the arguments for the affirmative side:**

1. 2. 3. To that, then, which is objected first concerning Isidore and Gelasius, it must be said that to their authorities and the like a single response can be given, [namely] that they enlarge the name of order to [include] offices and dignities; but our masters take it more strictly, namely for a *grade of power;* and this is clear through what Isidore says, that «of bishops the order is fourfold». For since one ordained bishop, if he be raised to the archbishopric, is not consecrated anew, but only receives the pallium; it is clear that it cannot be understood that there is a new order there, but only a higher *dignity.* If, then, he says that they are diverse orders, it is manifest that he extends the name of order to offices and dignities. — And through this the other, following [point] is clear. For just as the term and signification of *order* is enlarged, so also is the *verb,* when it is said: this man is ordained to the episcopate; whence one is not so properly said to be *ordained,* when he is promoted to bishop, as when he is promoted to the priesthood, but is more properly said to be *consecrated.* Whence also the Apostle, speaking *properly,* says in Acts twenty: *He has placed you as bishops* etc.; and in the first to Timothy, chapter three: *He who desires the episcopate desires a good work.*

4. To that which is objected, that through the episcopate orders are dispensed; it must be said that they could never be dispensed by the bishop, unless he had those orders which he dispenses, and most of all unless he had the priesthood; and therefore I readily concede that the episcopate necessarily includes the most perfect order, namely the priesthood, and superadds to it some *eminence,* which the very name too intimates to us; for a bishop is [so] called from *epi,* which is "above".

5. To that which is objected, that an order is a *seal,* in which [is] spiritual power etc.; it must be said that the episcopate is deficient as regards both parts of the definition. For first it is deficient in respect of the account of *order* as to this, that it is called a *seal;* because "seal" is there taken for *character;* and this is not imprinted in the episcopate, of which the sign is that a bishop cannot be consecrated unless he be a priest, and thus of itself it does not imprint a character. Further it is deficient, because there is not given there a *new power,* but only the power of binding and loosing is enlarged, and therefore as a sign of this the pastoral staff is held out. Whence, just as the conferring of the pallium does not give a new order to the archbishop beyond the bishop, so neither [does] the conferring of the staff, or the ring, or the mitre, or anything of the like beyond the priest. For such things are rather sacramentals than Sacraments; for sacramentals do not only precede the Sacrament, but can also follow [it].

6. To that which is objected, that the unction is more solemn; it must be said that this is true, for the reason that [the bishop] is raised to the supreme pontificate, and there is given there an eminence of status and a pastoral dignity, in which there ought to be an *eminence of holiness;* whence that eminence of holiness ought to be signified by the superabundant unction, according to what is said of the supreme pontiff Aaron: *Like the ointment upon his head, which ran down upon the beard, the beard of Aaron.* Because for that office a greater *holiness* is required than is required for the [other] orders; hence it is that a greater *unction* is made. For kings and princes have been accustomed to be anointed as a sign of dignity, on whom not an *order* is conferred, but *royal dignity;* so too the bishops, on whom the sacerdotal order is conferred. And on account of this that argument is not valid, because the unction does not regard the order, insofar as it is an *order,* but rather the *dignity.* Whence also the priest is anointed not for the necessity of the order, but rather for the solemnity, that he may worthily consecrate the most holy body of Christ.

---