Summa de Ecclesia

For a fuller understanding of the present matter, it should be known that some ancient doctors, on account of the reasons set down in the first place, wished to say that in truth the Church began in Adam, and that when Adam and Eve were before sin, the Church existed. They also say that after sin the Church began again from Adam, since it is very probable that they did penance before Abel was born. And if it be asked why then the saints do not say that the Church began from Adam, they answer by saying that it is not necessary for the saints to say every true thing: for although in truth it began from him, yet they did not wish to say it, so that everyone may know that man becomes contemptible through sin not only before God but also before men. They say moreover that the doctors say the Church began from Abel, not because Abel was the first who had faith and charity — for Adam was such — but because in Abel were figured the three principal persons in the Church, namely pastors, virgins, and martyrs. But they add that it is not unfitting to say that the Church, after she had begun, ceased to be, and that the same is now possible, were it not established what the Lord said in Matt. ult.: but I am with you even unto the consummation of the world. But leaving aside the manner of speaking of these doctors, and following the more common opinion of the doctors, we say, as has been said, that the Church whose are the sacraments — for of such is our discourse — began from Abel, for the reasons noted above. Hence what was objected must be answered.

To the first¹ it is answered by denying the consequence: for in order for someone to be called the principle from which the Church which has sacraments began, it does not suffice that he was the first who had formed faith; but it is required that he have shown or professed that faith by some visible sacrament, as was said above, and that in him there was distinction or separation from the opposed congregation of the evil, just as the beginning of one life is where separation from another way first takes place, and that integrity of holiness was preserved by him without interruption. But these things were not in Adam: for although Adam first had faith, yet he is nowhere read to have professed it by any sacred sensible sign — not in the state of innocence, since in that state there were no sacraments. But sacraments, since they are medicinal vessels, as Hugh of St Victor says, do not befit the state of integrity but of the fall, according to Matt. 9: the healthy need not a physician, but they that are ill. But that after the fall Adam showed his faith by any sacred sensible sign, Sacred Scripture nowhere records. Moreover in Adam, on account of his indifferent state and on account of the common principle of generation, the congregation of the good was not discerned in him from the congregation of the evil. But in Abel the separation from Cain took place. Moreover, since Adam fell through sin, there was not in him continuous justice of holiness; hence it was fittingly said that Adam was not the principle from which the Church began, but rather Abel.

To the second² it is answered by denying what is assumed; and to what is adduced from the Master in his Histories, that Adam taught his sons to offer firstfruits etc., it is answered that even if so, it is not understood that he himself offered for himself. Hence, as was said, although he first had faith, yet he is not read to have manifested it in a sign which is sacrament; nor moreover, as was said, was the separation of the good from the evil made in him. Again, secondly, it is answered to the same point that, granted Adam offered sacrifice to God, as other just men also offered sacrifice to God according to the congruity of their time — blessed Gregory saying in 9: among the ancients original sin was remitted to children through the oblation of sacrifices — yet no mention is made in Scripture of his sacrifice, just as no mention is made of the sacrifices of all the just. But why Adam is not read to have offered sacrifice, blessed Thomas says in 2.2 q. lxxxv ar. i: lest in him in whom the origin of sin is marked, the origin of sanctification should also be signified at the same time. This the Apostle also seems to have marked when, commending the faith of the holy fathers of the Old Testament in Heb. 11, he begins from Abel, saying thus: by faith Abel offered to God a greater victim, that is, of greater price, than Cain, by which he obtained testimony that he was just etc.

To the third³, where it is objected that the disease began from Adam, therefore also the medicine: it must be said, according to Alexander in iii, that in truth the medicine began from him — namely the sacrifice of contrition of heart, of love, and of devotion — but the sign of that medicine, namely visible sacrifice, did not begin from him; and this for a threefold reason. First, because from him from whom the example of divine dishonor began, the rite of honoring God ought not have been taken. But from Adam began the example of divine dishonor, since he transgressed the divine command, Gen. 3 — hence Zach. 13: Adam is my example. But the rite of divine honor ought to have begun from him who was the first example of justice and innocence. The second reason is the one said above: since the Church is the gathering of the faithful worshipping God, the rite of worshipping God, and thus the oblation of sacrifices, ought to begin from him from whom the Church begins; but the Church ought not be said to have begun from Adam, but from Abel. The third reason is that, as Augustine says on Genesis according to the letter, Adam was a spiritual man endowed with mind; hence even after the fall he turned rather to the inward sacrifice which is contrition of heart, while others not so endowed⁴ turned to outward sacrifice. Hence it was fitting that first in Adam the oblation of the inward spiritual sacrifice should precede, but afterwards in his sons the oblation of the outward material sacrifice should follow, so that in those first men an example of each sacrifice might be given.

But to the fourth⁵, where it is objected that the sinner Adam was bound to more things than the innocent Abel: it must be said that this is true, yet it does not follow for this reason that he was bound to sacrifices. For sacrifices were first and principally instituted as a remedy for original sin, according to what Gregory says: what with us the water of baptism effects, this effected among the ancients — for children faith alone, for adults the power of sacrifices. Since therefore in Adam there was no original sin distinct from actual sin, it did not befit him to offer visible sacrifice, which was instituted distinctly and immediately against original sin. But in the sons of Adam actual and original sin were first distinct; hence it was fitting that sacrifices should first be offered by them — thus he.

To the fifth, where⁶ it is said that Adam was a member of Christ before Abel etc.: it is answered by denying the consequence. For although, as we said above, speaking universally of the Church as denoting the congregation of all intellectual creatures having formed faith, she was initiated in the creation of the angels, nevertheless distinguishing her as the congregation of faithful men according to the condition of the state of the present life, whose are the sacraments — in which way our consideration is now of her — she was initiated not in Adam but in Abel, for the reasons set down above: for although Adam is said to have first been a member of the body of Christ, as also a good angel in the first state of his condition, nevertheless it does not follow that in him began the Church whose are the sacraments.

But to what was objected⁷ against the reason of the continuance of holiness, that he who is finally good is to be reckoned as persevering in the good: it is answered that this proves no continuance of holiness. But that saying, if it has truth, is to be understood with respect to the attainment of the same reward — namely the communion of the blessed vision — with him who persevered in continuous and uninterrupted justice from the beginning of his life to its end. For the innocent and the penitent attain the same beatitude, though sometimes differing in degree. Thus too is expounded what James says in his canonical epistle, ch. ii: but whosoever shall keep the whole law, yet offend in one point, is become guilty of all — which is said because through one transgression of the divine law a man incurs the same punishment of loss, namely the privation of the divine vision, which he incurs who has sinned against the law by many transgressions, although he who has offended by more sins feels a heavier punishment of sense, as Nicholas of Lyra expounds in the same place. But from such a manner of speaking nothing is proved for our purpose, as is manifest.

But as to what was adduced for a likeness in the argument concerning the faithful, who are said to have always desired indulgence: it must be said that it is not alike, because such a desire of obtaining indulgence can be without perseverance and continuance of good life and holiness. Likewise it is answered that what was adduced for a likeness concerning blessed Peter⁸ is not alike, because Peter is not called the foundation from which the Church first had her beginning, as was said above.

To the sixth, which⁹ is objected concerning Adam's repentance: it is answered by denying the consequence. For although Adam repented before Abel's birth and is believed to have had faith and charity, yet he is nowhere read (as was said) to have offered sacrifice in which his faith was manifested. Moreover in him there was no separation of the good from the congregation of the evil, since there was no other principle on the contrary side dividing against Adam.

To the seventh it is answered¹⁰ by denying the consequence. For more things were required in Adam in order for him to be the beginning from which the Church began, than in order for the Church, when Abel died, to be said to remain in him and in Eve — as is manifestly apparent.

To the eighth, which¹¹ is said of Adam, that he was the active principle etc.: it is answered by denying the consequence. For it is not required that the exemplar of holiness be the active principle of carnal generation, since holiness is not transmitted in the propagation of the flesh.

To the ninth it must be said¹² that it is not alike concerning the good and concerning the evil: for although the principle of the congregation of the evil was the active principle of generation, it is not so concerning the principle of the good — and this rightly, that it might be shown that the principle of malice is from man, and therefore fittingly descends in carnal generation; but the principle of goodness is from God, which descends through spiritual generation, not through carnal, except by accident.

To the tenth concerning Enos¹³ it must be said that Seth or Enos, although they were a certain exemplar of faith to their posterity, yet neither of them was the first exemplar in the separation of the good from the evil. For Abel preceded, who was himself an exemplar of faith and holiness to Seth himself, and to Enos himself, and to the rest.

To the eleventh, which¹⁴ is argued concerning Abraham, it is answered in like manner that Abraham is not called the principle or father of believers simply, but after the general fall from faith, when almost all had declined to idolatry — and this because he was an exemplar of faith to the rest, as the Gloss says. Hence also in him by the seal of circumcision believers were separated from unbelievers; but on this account it is not proved that he was the principle from which the Church first began.

To the twelfth, which¹⁵ was said concerning the Jews, it is answered that taking the beginning of the Church after the fall into idolatry, the Church began from the Jews, because that nation first believed and persevered in the faith until the advent of Christ, at which for the most part it was blinded. Moreover according to the state of the New Testament the Church also began from the Jews, as is clear concerning the apostles and the disciples of Christ — by reason of which, as was adduced, the Apostle says of himself and the other apostles: God chose us as firstfruits; the Gloss: of the faith, that in the primitive Church we might believe in Christ and confess him by faith. And below: he chose us apostles as the firstfruits of all believers, because the apostles first believed — thus the Gloss. But afterwards the Church was spread among the Gentiles and perfected. Hence the Gloss on psal. lxxix, which was adduced in arguing, says thus: by the vineyard he means the Church, which began from the Jews and is perfected in the Gentiles. Yet she is one and the same, though one nation gives the beginning, the other the perfection; but this does not militate against what is said, that the Church began in Abel.

To the thirteenth¹⁶ the answer is clear from what has already been said. For the Apostle does not assert that the apostles are the first believers simply, since many believing patriarchs and prophets preceded the apostles — of whose admirable faith the same Apostle wove a most ample discourse in his epistle to the Hebrews, ch. ii. But he calls them the first believers of the New Testament, with faith now distinct and revealed.

To the fourteenth¹⁷ it is answered by denying the consequence. For although it is true that the Church existed when Abel existed, since at that time Adam and Eve, being just, existed, yet the consequence does not hold — just as neither does this: this house begins from this stone, therefore it existed when this stone first existed. Likewise: the corporation of this city began from such a man, therefore it existed when that man existed. And so in our case the consequence as made has no force. Secondly it can be answered by denying the minor premise: for although the Church, as regards the notion of universality which is imported by this name church — for the Church is called the collection of the faithful, as in ch. church, on consecration, dist. i — cannot stand in one completely, nevertheless as regards the faith in which the Church is founded, and from which anyone is said to take hold of the Church, she is well preserved in one. For blessed Jerome says on psal. cxxxiii: Church — where true faith is, there is the Church. The jurists say that the right of a corporation can well remain in one alone, though not by reason of universality. And thus on that verse of the psalm, they have often fought against me from my youth, the Gloss, which is blessed Aug.'s, says that at one time the Church was in Abel alone, and he was fought by his evil brother. The same many doctors and theologians say; and thus there seems to be found the common observance in days of darkness in the keeping of one candle: that in the blessed virgin alone, in whom the Christian faith remained whole and untroubled during the three days, was the Church. From these that question which is asked by some is easily solved: whether the Church can be saved in one alone. Indeed from what has been said concerning the antiquity of the Church, the folly of those who say that empire existed before the Church, and reigned, is openly refuted — against whom both Sacred Scripture and reason stand. For since the Church had her beginning from Abel himself the just — or, according to others speaking universally of the Church, from the first man Adam himself, who was created in innocence — it is manifest that she preceded by much time whatever kingdom, just or unjust. But the first kingdom which was tyrannically usurped was the kingdom of Nimrod, who was strong and a hunter of men, that is, an oppressor and destroyer, Gen. 19 — of whose kingdom it immediately follows: but the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon. But the first just king was Melchisedech, of whom Scripture speaks in Gen. 14 and in Heb. 7 — whose kingdoms are much later in time than Abel himself. Secondly, since a kingdom is nothing but a certain community of men disposed under a certain form of principate — namely that in which one principate rules the whole community according to virtue, as is said in iii of the Politics — it manifestly appears how foolish it is to say that a kingdom precedes the community of men. Indeed, if a kingdom is just, it presupposes the community of the faithful, which is disposed in the form of royal principate: for as blessed Aug. says, and it is set down in ch. Ubi, 24, q. 1: where faith is not, there cannot be justice, because the just lives by faith. But if a kingdom is unjust and wicked, it also necessarily presupposes a congregation of the evil, which is called the church of the wicked. And thus it is clear that the saying of those men is not only erroneous and heretical, but foolish and stupid.