Summa de Ecclesia

Since the things we have said of the eminence of the spiritual power over the secular, with a better judgment always reserved, we believe to be true, we shall answer the objections raised to the contrary. To the first it is answered by denying the antecedent, and to the first proof, in which it was said that Cain before the flood was the first lord among men, we say two things. First, that Cain was not truly lord, as having ordinary power, but was a tyrant seeking a principate for himself through violence and oppression. The second is that before Cain usurped that dominion which he had, the offering of Abel had already preceded, whom Christ in the Gospel, Luke 11, calls just, which was a true sacerdotal thing; whence it is added in Gen. 4: And God had respect to Abel and to his gifts, and for this reason, as we said above, blessed Aug. says that among the other praises of justice proved to have been in Abel is the priesthood. To what is adduced in the second proof concerning Nembroth it is answered likewise. Even after the flood, before mention was made either of dominion or of kingdom, memory was made earlier in time of a sacerdotal thing pertaining to sacrifice in this manner. Whence, when Noah had gone forth from the ark with his sons and wife, as is read in Gen. 9, he built an altar to the Lord, and taking of all clean cattle and fowl offered holocausts upon the altar, and the Lord smelled the sweet savor. This offering or sacerdotal act preceded in time Nembroth himself concerning whom the argument was made, since he was fourth from Noah. For Noah begot Cham, and after the flood Cham begot Chus, and Chus begot Nembroth; therefore the spiritual dignity preceded the temporal in time. Second, it is answered that the dominion or kingdom of Nembroth himself was not legitimate but usurped and violent, as is designated in Gen. 10 when it is said: Nembroth was a robust hunter before the Lord, that is, an oppressor of men and a destroyer, as Alchuinus expounds, which is also gathered from this, that the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, which is interpreted confusion. For well is the beginning of his kingdom called confusion, since it was neither just nor legitimate, but tyrannical and usurped, to be called plunder rather than kingdom. And therefore from such usurpation and violent dominion it is not well argued that in the Church of God the earthly power precedes the spiritual or the priesthood. To what is adduced thirdly, that the true priesthood began in Christ, but kingship in Saul, it is answered that "true" is taken in two ways: in one way as distinguished against the feigned, in another way as distinguished against the figured. We say therefore that the legal priesthood was a true priesthood according as true is distinguished against the feigned or false, because it was instituted by God, as is found in Exod. 28. But God, whose works are perfect, Deut. 32, makes nothing feigned or false. Nevertheless we say that it was not true according as true is distinguished against the figured. For it was figuratively the priesthood of Christ, in that all the victims of the Old Testament figured the true victim, which is Christ. Whence in this respect, in that the legal priesthood was figurative, it is said not to be true, because it offered not true victims which would delete sins, but figurative ones of the true victim, and thus imperfect, according to that to the Heb. 7: The law brought nothing to perfection. And so, although the true priesthood, according as distinguished against the figurative, began in Christ, who is a priest forever, yet the legal priesthood, which was a true priesthood according as true is distinguished against the feigned or false, preceded in Aaron, who preceded Saul, the first king in the people of God, and consequently the sacerdotal dignity preceded the royal in the people of God. To the second argument, in which it is argued that the spiritual power does not excel in nobility of origin, it is answered that power, of whatever dignity it be, can for the present be considered as to two things, namely as to the power itself or essence of power, and thus all power is from God, as was argued, and in this way, since there is one and the same origin of all created power, namely the divine majesty, the spiritual and the secular power do not differ in origin. In another way power can be considered as to the manner of acquiring, and thus power is from God when one acquires power in an orderly manner, according to that to the Heb. 5: No man taketh honour to himself, but he that is called by God as Aaron. Sometimes, however, it is not from God but from the perverse appetite of men, by which through ambition or in any other unfitting way whatsoever they acquire power, Amos 5: Have we not taken horns to us by our own strength? And in this way, since, as declared above, earthly dominions were at first introduced not legitimately but through usurpation and violence, while the priesthood was by divine institution, we say that the spiritual power excels the secular power in nobility of origin.

¹

To the third argument it is answered that the royal power is not called excellent in such a way as simply to excel all power, but it is indeed excellent with respect to secular power, and therefore from this it does not follow that it excels the spiritual power, which is of another and higher order, as has been said above.

²

To the fourth argument it is answered that although the pope before consecration, for instance if he be only a deacon or a simple priest, is greater in authority of jurisdiction than the bishop of Ostia who consecrates him, yet he is less than him in dignity of consecration, and this is not unfitting, just as we say of an archbishop with respect to his suffragans by whom he is consecrated. And thus it is true that he who blesses is greater than he who receives the blessing in that wherein he blesses, as the agent is nobler than the patient, 2nd on the Soul.

³

To the fifth it is answered that for the present it suffices. First, that we do not understand the royal power so to depend in causality in the genus of efficient cause on the spiritual power that the royal power, in whomever it may be, were instituted through the spiritual by authority, since, as was argued, both these powers have come forth from the same principle, namely God. But we say that the royal power in the first king who was in the people of God depended ministerially on the spiritual power or priesthood, since, as adduced above, through the priesthood, with the Lord commanding and ordaining, the royal power was instituted, as is clear in Saul through Samuel, 1 Kings 8, and in a certain way also in David, whom the same Samuel by the command of the Lord anointed as king, Saul being rejected, 1 Kings 16. Second, we say, according as we said above, that the secular power can be said to depend causally on the spiritual power as to its perfection, which is weighed by order to the ultimate end simply, which is supernal happiness. Since the secular power, as such, knows nothing of the ultimate end nor of the means leading to it, but this is proper to the spiritual power, it must be that if the secular power has to direct its subjects in order to the ultimate end, it has this from derivation from the spiritual power. Whence Aug., book 2 of the City of God, ch. 21, says that without supreme justice a commonwealth cannot be ruled. But there is no true justice in a commonwealth whose ruler is not Christ. Whence holy Thomas says in 4th, dist. 19: Kings are anointed, that the excellence of their power may be signified to descend from Christ, and that they themselves may rule under Christ in the Christian people. The perfection of the secular power therefore in a certain way depends in the Christian people on the spiritual power; moreover the argument made does not proceed, because, granted that the secular power in the manner of an efficient cause does not depend on the spiritual power, yet it would depend in the manner of a formal and final cause, as has been said.

⁴

To the sixth argument it is answered that when it is said that the king has no superior, it is to be understood in his own order. For there is, as has been said, a twofold order of powers, namely of secular powers and of spiritual powers. In the order of secular powers the king or emperor is greater than all, just as in the order of spiritual powers the pope is superior to all. Nevertheless, a comparison being made of the spiritual power with the secular power, the spiritual power is above the secular, as spirit above body, as has been said. Whence to Jeremy the priest it is said: Behold, I have appointed thee over kings and kingdoms, Jer. 1.

⁵

To the seventh argument it is answered that the Church does not pay tribute to the Emperor or to secular princes in recognition of dominion or subjection, but only for keeping peace and quiet, which the Emperor himself and the secular princes are bound to guard and preserve, as is gathered from the same ch. Tributum; and thus the Church pays tribute not in recognition of dominion, but rather in recognition of the aforesaid benefit or in payment of a stipend. Whence properly it is not tribute. Moreover, neither does the Church pay tribute to the secular power for all temporal things, for not for those things which she possesses perhaps by spiritual and divine right, as tithes and oblations, but for exterior goods which she possesses by temporal lot, as by title of sale or concession.

⁶

To the eighth it is answered that Moses was not only a prince but also a priest, according to that of the psalm: Moses and Aaron among his priests, where the Gloss says: Note that Moses is called a priest, who, even if he offered not victims, yet offered vows to God and supplicated for the people. Second, it is said that it is not true that Moses was simply greater than Aaron, since just as Moses in something was greater than Aaron, so conversely Aaron was greater than Moses, as a sign of which, in holy Scripture, when they are named together, sometimes Moses is set first, as in Ps. 127: Moses and Aaron among his priests, and sometimes Aaron is set first, as in Exod. 6, where it is said: This is Aaron and Moses, where Master Nicholas of Lyra says that Aaron is set first here for two reasons: both by reason of primogeniture, and because the Lord had foreseen him and chosen him as supreme pontiff. Moses, on the other hand, is set first sometimes also for two reasons. First, because to him it was principally granted to lead the children of Israel out of Egypt. Second, because he received the words of the Lord immediately from God and rendered them to the people through Aaron as interpreter.