1. The words of St. Clement above quoted show that even as early as the first century bishops were considered to be of a higher order than priests. The Church always recognized the principle that the bishops were the successors of the apostles, while the inferior grade of simple priests was prefigured by the seventy-two disciples, who were inferior to the apostles (48).

2. The bishops have, moreover, the power peculiar to them of administering the sacraments of confirmation and holy orders. According to the testimony of tradition, priests have in no case been the ministers of the order of the priesthood; while it is only by special papal delegation that they can become the extraordinary ministers of confirmation (169). The declaration of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII. can. 7) is explicit on this point.

III. With the hierarchy of orders is intimately connected the hierarchy of jurisdiction.

Only priests and bishops who, besides orders, have received a canonical mission, or jurisdiction, are lawful ministers of the sacraments and preachers of the word of God. Without this mission they cannot lawfully administer any sacrament, although they have received the power to do so in holy orders; nor can they validly absolve in the sacrament of penance; for absolution, as we have seen, is essentially a judicial act, which of its very nature requires jurisdiction (190).

1. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII. can. 7) anathematizes "whoever asserts that those who have neither been duly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority, but have come from elsewhere, are lawful ministers of the word of God and of the sacraments." Here the council speaks of bishops as well as priests.

2. Besides, it is evident that if the pope is the supreme pastor of the whole flock no one can lawfully feed any part of it without his consent; and that a bishop who, without the authority of the pope, as the supreme pastor, would usurp any part of the flock could only be regarded as an intruder, a thief, and a robber (John x. 8).

3. It is a historical fact that not only the bishops, but also

the patriarchs, of the Eastern Church always sought the pope's confirmation, and that even patriarchs were deposed by the pope when just causes demanded it. Thus in the sixth century the Patriarch Anthimus was deposed by Pope Agapetus I.; and in the ninth century Photius, patriarch of Constantinople, by Nicholas I Confirmation and deposition of bishops can have a meaning only in the supposition that jurisdiction is not conferred by the act of episcopal consecration, but that it is a distinct power emanating from the pope.

4. A bishop is then only a successor of the apostles when he belongs to that body which was instituted for the government of the Church (52). Now, he cannot belong to that body without being admitted (cf. Trid. Sess. XXIII. can. 8) or confirmed by its head, the pope; for all members of a body must be subordinate to the head, and receive their influence from it.

We have already shown that neither the assemblage of the faithful nor the state can confer spiritual jurisdiction. A bishop appointed by the people or by the state is an intruder. The same may be said of one invested with the episcopal dignity by the clergy, or even by a chapter, contrary to the laws of the Church. All who support a priest, bishop, or diocesan administrator who has not lawfully received his mission from the pope, and all who hold intercourse with him in spiritual matters, are, like him whom they support, treated by the Church as schismatics, because by such action they separate themselves from the Church's unity.

202. The character of the priesthood once received can never be efraced.

1. Tradition teaches that the sacrament of holy orders, once duly administered, whether within or without the Catholic Church, cannot be repeated more than baptism itself. Therefore the Church was always convinced that holy orders, or the priestly character, could not be lost by apostasy or any other crime.

2. The cause why holy orders cannot be effaced is the indelible character it imprints upon the soul. This character being indelible (160), the powers resulting from it are likewise indestructible; and, consequently, the priest is a priest forever. 3. This truth, which is the constant teaching of tradition,

was thus defined by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII. can. 4): "If any one assert that he who was once a priest can again become a layman; let him be anathema."

Hence all those functions of a priest or bishop which de pend only upon the power of orders are in all cases valid. An apostate, suspended, or deposed priest, if he uses the matter and form prescribed, and has the intention of the Church, can validly consecrate. An apostate or excommunicated bishop, in like manner, can validly administer the sacrament of confirmation or of orders. But the case is different with regard to those functions which depend for their validity upon jurisdiction (48, 190), since no priest or bishop who is not in communion with the Church can possess jurisdiction, unless the Church in some case make an exception, as it actually does in favor of the dying, whom all priests have power to absolve from al sins (158).

G. Matrimony.

203. The bond of marriage was restored by Christ to its original unity and indissolubility.

1. Matrimony, or the permanent bond between man and wife for the propagation of the human race, was instituted as the union of one man with one woman. (a) God in instituting marriage clearly pronounces its unity. "It is not good for man to be alone. Let us make him a help like unto himself" (Gen. ii. 18). "God created man to His own image; male and female He created them. And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth" (Gen. i. 27, 28). Afterwards, it is true, when the life of man had been shortened, God, in order that His chosen people might be multiplied, permitted simultaneous polygamy. For, although polygamy is less in accordance with the secondary end of marriage, that is, with the mutual help of husband and wife, yet it cannot be said to be contrary to the primary end, that is, the propagation of the human race; whence it could be permitted by God. (b) Christ, however, restored marriage to its original unity; for, pointing to its divine institution,

He says: says: "Have ye not read that He who made man in the beginning made them male and female? And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh " (Matt. xix. 4-6).

2. Christ also restored marriage to its original indissolubility. (a) That marriage was indissoluble in the beginning may be inferred from history, which makes no mention of divorce till the introduction of the Mosaic law. But the words of Christ put the matter beyond all doubt. "Moses

by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so" (Matt. xix. 8). (b) Christ abolished the right of divorce, and thus restored the original indissolubility of the marriage bond. This is manifest from the teaching of Christ Himself and of the apostles, from tradition, as well as from the definitions of the Church.

(1) Christ, speaking of the New Law, says without restriction: Every one that putteth away his wife and marrieth another comraitteth adultery" (Luke xvi. 18). Again, the Pharisees asked Him: "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? But He answering saith to them: What did Moses command you? Who said: Moses permitted to write a bill of divorce, and to put her away. To whom Jesus, answering, said: Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you that precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause a man Ishall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife. And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together let no man put asunder. And in the house again His disciples asked Him. concerning the same thing. And He saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband and be married to another she committeth adultery" (Mark x. 2-12). Christ makes no exception even when the disciples ask for further explanation. Nor does the Apostle make any restriction. "To them that are married, not I, but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, that she retain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife" (1 Cor. vii. 10, 11. The exception which Our Lord makes in the case of adultery (Matt. v. 32) evidently does not refer to a severance of the bond of matrimony, but only to a separation from bed and board; for in the same place He declares that he who marries a divorced woman-though she may have been divorced for adultery-commits adultery, which could not be if the bond of marriage were entirely loosed in the case of adultery.

(2) The Greek as well as the Latin fathers declare that marriage is indissoluble. St. Chrysostom (Hom. 17, in Matt.), commenting on the text "He that shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery" (Matt. v. 32), remarks that the reason is "because she that is put away remains the wife of him who dismissed her." St. Jerome (Ep. 55, ad Amand.), on being consulted on the matter, declared that in no case is a second marriage validly contracted as long as the former husband or wife is living, for the obvious reason that one who marries a divorced party during the lifetime of the other party is an adulterer. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV. can. 5, 7) declared: "If any one assert that marriage may be dissolved on account of heresy, or the irksomeness of cohabitation, or the unwarranted absence of one of the parties; let him be anathema." Again : "If any one assert that the Church errs in teaching that, according to the evangelic and apostolic doctrine, the bond of marriage cannot be dissolved on account of adultery committed by one of the parties, and that both, or even the innocent party, who gave no cause for the adultery, are free to contract a second marriage during the lifetime of the other; or that the Church errs in teaching that he who having put away his wife for adultery marries another woman, and she who leaves her husband on account of adultery and marries another man, thereby commit adultery; let him be anathema."

(3) What has been said in regard to the indissolubility of the marriage bond refers to marriages contracted and consummated among Christians. Marriage between non-Christians may be dissolved in favor of one who is converted to Christianity and cannot live peaceably with the non-Christian party. For St. Paul says: "If the unbeliever depart, let him depart. For a brother or sister is not under servitude in such cases. But God hath called us in peace" (1 Cor. vii. 15). Among Christians also a non-consummated marriage may be dissolved by the solemn profession of one of the parties in a religious order approved by the Church (Trid. Sess. XXIV. can. 6), or by the intervention of the pope for grave reasons. A separation from bed and board, however, without dis'solution of the marriage tie, is sometimes permitted, but only for very grave reasons, either by mutual consent, or on account of illtreatment or crime.

204. Christ raised Christian marriage to the dignity of a cacrament.

Protestants denied the sacramental character of matrimony. But unjustly, since Christ gave it all the marks of a sacrament. 1. He made it an outward sign of inward grace; in the first place by making it a representation of His own union with the Church. St. Paul says: "The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church. ... Therefore, as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives