1. First Position of Others, Understood in Two ways

23. About the second article [n.11], those who rely on the words of Dionysius and Isidore (cited for the first side [nn.6-7]), and the canonists [e.g. Gratian, Decretum p.1 d.21 ch.1], say that the episcopacy is properly an order.

24. In favor of this seems to be the argument that, since a certain special power belongs to a bishop insofar as he is a bishop, it is either one of order, and then the conclusion is gained, or it is one of jurisdiction, and then it could be taken away by a superior - which seems unacceptable, because a consecration much lesser than a bishop’s cannot be taken away without the one who was once consecrated remaining always consecrated. The proof is from the Gloss on Gregory IX Decretals III tit. 4 ch.9 [“Sacramental anointing is perpetual and cannot be lost, though the exercising of it may sometimes be suspended”].

25. This approach [n.23], comparing the episcopacy to the priesthood, could be held in a double way.

26. In one way as follows, because ‘rank’ can be called eminent either because of the universality of the acts that it has regard to, or because of the nobility of the act that it has regard to. And this distinction appears in other polities where many acts belong to someone and fewer to someone else, but a nobler one can belong to the latter (as a judge can pronounce sentence, which is a nobler act than many others that belong to a lower person). But he who has universality for acts has also the nobler act, because in the universality for acts is included the nobler act. And therefrom does it seem that the rank which includes and regards the universality of acts is simply superior to the one which regards precisely the noblest act. And thus would the episcopacy be called a simply superior and nobler order, because it has an order to all ecclesiastical acts, but the priesthood does not have an order to them all, though it does have an order to the noblest of them.

27. And then the argument of a certain doctor [Richard of Middleton, Sent. IV d.24 princ.5 q.2] against this conclusion [n.26], which is that “the one order does not depend on the other as concerns necessity for the sacrament, but if a non-priest were to be ordained a bishop, nothing would happen etc.,” proves rather the opposite, for by how much the order of the episcopacy more includes the priesthood and other lower ranks, by that much is it simply more perfect, because it more essentially regards the acts of the ranks it includes.

28. Holding to this conclusion [n.23], namely that the episcopacy is properly an order and different from the priesthood, it could yet be said that it would not be nobler, because although, by its including the priesthood and episcopacy, it is a more eminent rank (since it is for more acts than by the other rank alone), yet what the episcopacy precisely adds above the priesthood is not as excellent as is the priesthood. For acts as noble as belong through the priesthood to the priesthood do not belong to the episcopacy through what, above the priesthood, is added to it.

29. Nor would those [who hold this view] regard it as unacceptable that an imperfect order presuppose (and necessarily presuppose) that it receive a more perfect order when the more imperfect one is adds to ecclesiastical acts some universality - a universality that the one that is more perfect does not include, but only includes order to a more perfect act.