Summa de Ecclesia

The discourse concerning the universal Church having been completed in the earlier book, it remains that we take up the second book, in which we promised to speak of the Roman Church and the primacy of its pontiff. But we shall show in the first place, as the most important foundation of all the things to be said in this book, that in the Church (which in the earlier book we showed to be distinguished and adorned by the variety of manifold orders, states, and offices) there ought to be and is an order or degree of superiority, by which some in it are superior to and more powerful than others in power and dignity or office. That this is easy for us to show from many things. First thus, according to St. Thomas in bk. 4. For God willed to produce his works in his own likeness so that they would be perfect, and through them he could be known; and therefore in his works he is represented not only according as he is in himself but also according as he flows into others. He has set this natural law for all things, that the last be perfected through the middle, and the middle through the first, as blessed Dionysius says. Most fittingly therefore, lest beauty of this kind be lacking to the Church, he set order in it, so that some flow into others by dispensing the sacraments to others, in their own way assimilated in this to God as co-workers with God: therefore in the Church there is order and a difference of degrees in power. Secondly thus. Equally or rather more ought the process of the Church, ordered to the being of grace, to be a regulated process than the process of nature, ordered to the being of nature: but in the process of nature there is an order by which some are superior to others in office and have to flow into others: therefore also in the Church there ought to be an order by which some are superior to others in power and office and have to flow into others, namely by doctrine and the dispensation of the sacraments. Thirdly thus. The Church militant is modeled on the triumphant or heavenly one, according to the words of Exod. 24: Look, and make according to the pattern shown to you on the mount. Whence blessed Dionysius in ch. 6 of the ecclesiastical hierarchy says thus: For our hierarchy, holily disposed by the orders handed down by God, is conformed to the holy and heavenly hierarchies. Of which conformity also the very founder and lover of the heavens says in Job 36: Do you know the order of heaven, and will you set its rule on earth, understanding as I do, says blessed Gregory in the Gloss. The order of heaven is indeed set on earth, that is in the militant Church, when the militant is disposed and formed after the pattern of the triumphant Church: but in the triumphant Church there is an order by which some angels are superior to others in power and dignity and have to flow divine illuminations into them: therefore likewise in the militant Church an order or degree of superiority is to be set by which some have to minister divine things to others. And this is the reason of blessed Gregory speaking thus in ch. Ad hoc, 89th distinct. But because no creature can be governed or live in one and the same quality, the pattern of the heavenly hosts instructs us, since while there are angels and archangels, they are not equal but differ, as you know, one from another in power and order. Fourthly this reason is confirmed thus. The militant Church is instituted after the form of the hierarchy. Whence concerning the ecclesiastical hierarchy blessed Dionysius made an illustrious book which is thus entitled concerning the ecclesiastical hierarchy. But the notion of hierarchy consists in order of power. For hierarchy is said from hieros, which is holy, and archos, which is rulers, as it were a holy principate. And Dionysius, defining hierarchy in bk. on the celestial hierarchy, ch. 3, says that it is an order of knowledge and action etc.; therefore it follows that the aforesaid hierarchical order is to be set in the Church. Fifthly thus. The Church is constituted of a twofold wall or side, namely the lay and the clerical; but in the lay wall there is order, as for instance emperor, king, duke, count, tribune, bailiff, centurion, decurion: all these bespeak order: therefore it seems that in the clerical wall, which serves God in spiritual warfare, there ought to be order of this kind; the reason is manifest. Sixthly thus. Every multitude is either confused or ordered; but the whole body of the Church, since it was instituted by the wisest Christ, and the Apostle says in Rom. 12: The things that are of God are ordered, cannot be confused. Whence of it is said in Cant. 4 that it is as an army set in array; therefore it must necessarily be confessed that in it there is and ought to be order, especially since order makes for concord and beauty and for the firm existence of the whole body, according to the words of blessed Gregory in ch. Ad hoc, distinct. 89, speaking thus: For this purpose of dispensation he constituted diverse degrees and distinct orders, so that while inferiors showed reverence to superiors, and superiors bestowed love on inferiors, true concord might be made, and from diversity a joining, and a right administration of the offices of each be carried on. For no whole body could stand by any other reason unless an order of great difference preserved it, thus far he. And by reason of the beauty which arises in the Church from a difference of order of this kind it is said in 3 Kings 10 that the queen of Saba, seeing all the wisdom of Solomon, and the dwellings of the servants, and the orders of those ministering, had no longer any spirit. Which word treating at length, Origen in bk. 2 on the Canticle says: By this I think the ecclesiastical order is meant, which is held in the seats of bishops or priests. From these things the error and folly of those denying order in the Church is most openly refuted, asserting that all ministers of the Church are equal in power.

Now the order which is and ought to be in the Church must be so understood that one supreme prince, ruler, and governor in the whole universality of the Christian commonwealth is believed to be. Which is gathered by manifold reason. First thus: From what has been said there is an order of power in the Church, as was shown in the preceding chapter; but that order is understood according to prelacy and subjection. Now prelacy is considered according to ascent and descent, not according to equality; and in ascending upward there must be a standing and a reduction to one, since there is no process to infinity, and conversely in descending, multiplication. Therefore according to the right order of the Church there had to be some one prelate and supreme one, in whom there would be the standing of the whole ecclesiastical power, who would be the ruler and shepherd of all others. Whence the Lord, speaking of this future disposition of the government of his Church through the prophet, says, I will raise up over them one shepherd, Ezek. 34.

And one shepherd shall be over you all, Ezek. 37. Secondly thus, according to holy Thomas in book 4 against the Gentiles: There ought to be no doubt that the government of the Church is most excellently ordered, as disposed by him through whom kings reign and framers of laws decree just things. Now the best government of a multitude is that which is ruled by one, which is plain both by the authority of Aristotle in book 11 of the Metaphysics and book 3 of the Politics, and from the end of government. For peace and unity of subjects is the end of the ruler, as Augustine says. Now one is a more fitting cause of unity than many. Therefore the government of the Church is believed to be so disposed by God that one presides in it over the whole Church. Thirdly thus: For the unity of the Church it is required that all the faithful agree in faith. Whence in the first to Cor. 1 the Apostle says, Say you all the same thing, and let there be no schisms among you. Now faith is the foundation of the Christian religion, according to that to Heb. 11, Without faith it is impossible to please God. But concerning matters of faith it happens that questions are raised. Now through diversity of opinions the Church would be divided unless it were preserved in unity by the sentence of one. Therefore, to preserve unity of faith in the Church, it is required that there be one who presides over the whole Church, as doctor and ruler; but it is manifest that Christ has not failed the Church in necessary things, the Church which he loved and for which he shed his blood, since even of the synagogue it is said through the Lord, What more ought I to have done for my vineyard that I have not done, Isa. 5. Therefore it is not to be doubted that by the ordination of Christ one presides over the whole Church. Fourthly thus: The Church militant, as was argued in the preceding chapter, is derived from the Church triumphant; whence John in Apoc. 21 says, I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down from heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband; but in the triumphant Church one presides who also presides over the whole universe, namely God; therefore in the militant Church also there ought to be one presiding over all. Blessed Bernard uses this reason in book 3 on Consideration, to Eugene, speaking thus, Do not think that this form which on earth has its form in heaven. See this, who said, I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down from heaven, etc.; for as the Seraphim and Cherubim and the other orders are under one head, God, so also here the patriarchs, archbishops, and the rest are under one supreme pontiff; which is not to be lightly esteemed, seeing it has God as author and draws its origin from heaven; thus he. Fifthly thus: In the Church of God there ought not to be a lesser unity than in the synagogue, indeed a so much greater one as the evangelical priesthood is more excellent than the Levitical; but in the synagogue there was one high priest who presided over all the priests, Aaron, and afterwards Eleazar, and so of the other successors, since he who did not obey the high priest was guilty of death, as is found in Deut. 17; therefore much more in the Church ought there to be one supreme pontiff whom all are bound to obey as superior. Sixthly thus: In one particular people of one church one bishop is required who is the head of the whole people, since the sum of the government of the faithful people pertains to the episcopal dignity; therefore also in the whole Christian people it is required that there be one head of the whole Church. The consequence is plain. Seventhly thus, according to holy Thomas in book 4: Wherever there are many things ordered to one, there must be some universal government over particular governments, for in all powers and acts, as is said in book 1 of the Ethics, there is order according to the order of the end. Now the common good is said to be greater than the particular good, and therefore over the preceding ruling power which communicates a particular good there must be a ruling power in respect of the common good; otherwise there cannot be a binding together into one. Therefore, since the whole Church is one body, if that unity must be preserved, there must be some ruling power in respect of the whole Church over the episcopal power by which each particular church is ruled and governed; and this is the power of the Pope. Whence holy Thomas concludes from this that those who deny this supreme power are called schismatics, as dividers of ecclesiastical unity. Eighthly thus: The government of the Church is not believed to be less ordered than the government of nature, indeed more orderly disposed, since grace surpasses nature; but in the things we see in nature, wherever there is a natural government, that whole government is always reduced to one principal ruler of all, as in the body of an animal, in which there are diverse members deputed to diverse offices and diverse acts, one member must be given, namely the heart or the head, from which the motion, sense, and governmental rule of all the other members is derived. Likewise the whole fabric of the universe is one heavenly body, namely the first movable, by whose motion the motions of the lower bodies are moved and ruled, as is found through Aristotle in book 8 of the Physics. In the whole world also there is one supreme one, God, one king of the whole earth. Therefore likewise in the government of the Church there must be one who presides over the whole Christian universality, its head and ruler. Ninthly thus: The whole Church of God is one, Cant. 6, One is my dove. It is one body, 1 Cor. 12, Being many we are one body. It is one city, according to that of the psalm, Jerusalem which is built as a city. One hierarchy, as is plain through holy Dionysius in the book on the ecclesiastical hierarchy. One fold, John 10. Therefore necessarily in the whole Church there is to be given one supreme president and ruler, one head of the whole body, one prince of the whole city, one hierarch of the whole hierarchy, one shepherd of the whole fold or flock of the Lord; and so the same as before. Hence it is said in Joel 1, The children of Judah and the children of Israel shall be gathered together, and shall appoint for themselves one head. And the Lord says in John 10, There shall be one fold and one shepherd. Tenthly thus: The Church is a kingdom, or the principate of the Church is monarchical or royal. This is plain both from many places of sacred Scripture where the Church is named the kingdom of heaven, whence also in Isa. 9 it is said, A little child is born to us and a son is given to us; and it follows, He shall sit upon the throne of David and over his kingdom, the Gloss: the Church; and in Luke 1 it is said, Of his kingdom there shall be no end; and also because the best kind of polity is the monarchical or royal, since according to the opinion of Aristotle in book 3 of the Politics, of all constitutions the most perfect is kingship, which consists of every order to one according to the most perfect government; on account of which Dionysius in the book on the divine names, ch. 2, says that kingship is the end of all law and the distribution of order. But a kingdom is that in which the power of government resides with one presiding over the whole multitude, as is plainly gathered both from book 8 of the Ethics and from book 3 of the Politics. Therefore such a principate of the Church was constituted by God that one presides and holds princedom in it, superior in power. For this is of the nature of a royal or monarchical principate, as has been said. For it is called monarchical from monos, which is one, and archos, which is prince, as one prince presiding over a whole multitude. And it is confirmed by what the same divine Dionysius says at the beginning of both the celestial and the ecclesiastical hierarchy, that the principle of ornament and of the most becoming disposition is considered in the consonance and connection of ordered things to one another and to one simply first monarch. Eleventhly thus: That principate seems more excellent and nobler than all others by which charity and peace and concord among subjects are above all nourished, fostered, and preserved, and by which sedition and discord, which is the common corruption of any community, is chiefly avoided. This is plain, since these are the things which above all the prince of any principate is bound to nourish and foster in his subjects. For as Cassiodorus says in his letters, it befits the care of the royal eminence to keep the nation committed to it in concord, since it is attributed to the praise of the ruler if peace is had by his subjects. Nothing also so commends a prince as a quiet people and a harmonious senate, the whole commonwealth veiled in honesty of morals. Whence Christ, the prince of peace, upon whose shoulder the principate was made, Isa. 9, when about to depart bodily from the faithful, commended peace and love to them above all, saying, My peace I leave to you, my peace I give to you, John 13; and again, This is my commandment, that you love one another; but this is done more and more fittingly if the principate is with one, as in a kingdom, than if it is with many, as in aristocracy or polity; for one is a more fitting cause of unity and peace than many. Therefore it follows that such a principate of the Church, namely the monarchical or royal, in which there is a reduction and unification of all ordered things, be reduced to one prince presiding over all in power and authority. Hence the Church is designated by the ark of Noah, which was finished in one cubit, Gen. 6. Twelfthly, the aforesaid order, namely the unification of all to one in the Church, is most clearly proved from that which is more commendable and more excellent. Whence Master Albert the Great speaks of its commendation in his book on the Mass, saying, This unification, namely of many through every order of grades of the Church to one head, shining in heaven, is shown in natures, exemplified in works, commanded in the divine laws, and observed in the whole mystical body. For in heaven the angels to the archangels, the archangels to the principalities, and the principalities to the powers, the powers to the virtues, the virtues to the dominations, the dominations to the thrones, and the thrones to the cherubim, and the cherubim to the seraphim are ordained in an order ordained according to the order of obedience and illumination, and the multitude of angels which is in each host is unified to one person who is preeminent in each order. And therefore it is called the order of heaven, because every order is of many differing in grades to one, Job 38, Dost thou know the order of heaven, and wilt thou set its rule on earth. This is also shown in natures, where many twigs to shoots, where many shoots to a branch, where many branches to one trunk, where many trunks are engrafted in one root, that all things may become associates and partakers of the sap which is in the root, Rom. 11, Thou art become a sharer of the root of the olive and of its fatness. So many cranes follow one in lettered order; so many members in a body receive the benefits of one head, 1 Cor. 12, For as in one body we have many members, but all members have not the same act, so we, being many, are one body in Christ. In the works of Christ this unification is also exemplified, for the work of Christ is always to gather dispersed things into one. But the work of the devil is to divide and scatter things unified. Hence it is that in John 10 it is said, Let there be one fold and one shepherd; and in Matt. 12, He that gathereth not with me scattereth. This unification is commanded in the divine laws, for as blessed Dionysius says, It is the law of divinity to reduce the middle through the first, and the last through the middle. But such a reduction of the last to the middle, and of the middle to the first, cannot be except in order to the first. So therefore the law of divinity is: as there is a descent of illuminations and charisms from one, so a reduction to the first. For this law, as it admonishes the higher things and binds them to providence and care for the lower, so it binds the lower to obedience to the higher, that in this way all things may be connected, psalm 47.

¹

Distribute its steps, that you may declare in another generation, and Dan. 10, Stand in thy grade. For thus by eight grades is ascent made to the temple and worship of the Godhead, as is said in Ezek. 40: the Papacy or Patriarchate, Primacy, Archiepiscopate, Episcopate, the reverence of Abbots, Provostship, Deanery, parochial cure. For we comprehend the charge of archdeacons under the provostship. This is also observed in the whole mystical body which is the Church, in which all things are directed to one, which things are committed to the keys of Peter. Matt. 16, I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, etc. This key is committed to one, that fullness of power be shown in one, and be committed from him to others according to the share of solicitude to which they are called; thus Albert the Great. From these things the error of those who say that the principate of the Church is not monarchical is manifestly confuted.

There are certain adversaries, enemies of the aforesaid truth, who strive to empty the arguments adduced in the preceding ch. to show that one prince, ruler and governor of all the faithful is to be given in the Church, reply to the said arguments, saying that that one ruler and shepherd whom the said arguments necessarily conclude to be in the Church is Christ, who is head of every principate, as the Apostle says to the Colossians, Col. 1; and that no other mere man is to be given as prince in the universal Church. They strive to support this response with three arguments.

¹

First, because (as they say) the unity of the universal Church is to be taken from the ordering of the Christian people to one head, which is Christ, their Saviour and Redeemer, to whom they are joined by faith, hope and charity, and not with respect to any other.

²

Second, because they say that even if the principate of the Church is monarchic or royal, this is with respect to Christ and not with respect to any other who should be set as principal and preside over the whole Church, such as the pope is. For if the principate of the Church were royal with respect to another, then someone other than Christ would come to be called king of the universal Church, which does not seem fitting.

³

Third, they say that just as in secular power and principate, notwithstanding the aforesaid arguments, it does not seem necessary, nor perhaps expedient, that there be one prince over all the other lay princes and kings, so in ecclesiastical principate it does not seem necessary that one be given who presides over all.

That the aforesaid reply of the adversaries to the reasons adduced in the preceding chapter for the unity of the one ruler and prince who presides over the whole Church is null, and that the reasons adduced in favor of their view are of no strength, we shall easily observe. And first, that the reply given is null. Every community must have one head or ruler who visibly dwells with it, exercising his ministry of its government over its persons according to the variety of times, places, and persons, passing sentence on this or that matter, correcting this or that person according to the common course. But Christ does not now dwell with his faithful in the aforesaid manner. Therefore, according to the reasons previously made, it seems necessary for the good government of the Church that there be someone other than Christ, yet bearing his stead, who is the ruler and pastor of the Church itself and visibly dwells with the Church itself. Hence the blessed Thomas, in the fourth book against the Gentiles, ch. 76, emptying the aforesaid reply of the adversaries as less than sufficient, speaks thus: If anyone should say that the one head and one shepherd is Christ, who is the one spouse of the one Church, he does not answer sufficiently. For it is manifest that Christ himself accomplishes all the sacraments; for he himself is the one who baptizes, John 1, and he himself is the one who forgives sins, John 1; he himself is the true priest who offered himself on the altar of the cross, in whose power his body is continually consecrated on the altar, as is also held Extra, on the supreme Trinity and the catholic faith, ch. 1, and On consecration, dist. 2, ch. because the body. And yet, because he was not to remain bodily with all the faithful, he chose ministers through whom he might dispense the aforesaid things to the faithful; by the same reason, since he was about to withdraw his bodily presence from the Church, it was fitting that he commit to someone the care of the universal Church in his place. Hence it is that to Peter before his ascension he said: Feed my sheep, last chapter of John; and before the passion: But you, when once converted, confirm your brethren, Luke 22; this is what holy Thomas says. That the reasons which the adversaries adduce in favor of their errors are of no strength we shall show. As to the first, this is clear. For although the unity of the body of Christ, which is the Church, is to be taken principally from order to Christ, who is its principal head, to whom all the faithful who are his true members are joined by faith, hope, and charity, nevertheless the unity of the Church as to exterior government, according to which by divine institution there is order among the prelates and rulers of the Church themselves, is also taken and assumed from order to one principal vicar of Christ, the prince and pastor of the whole universal Church. Such unity is both demonstrative of, and preservative of, the interior unity of the Church to Christ. Demonstrative indeed: for Cyprian says in the epistle to Magnus: The Lord, insinuating to us the unity coming from divine authority, sets it down and says: I and the Father are one; to which unity, reducing his Church, he says: And there shall be one flock and one shepherd. Likewise in ch. Loquitur, 24, q., Cyprian speaks thus: The Lord speaks to Peter: I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church. Upon one he builds the Church. And below: The beginning proceeds from unity, that the Church of Christ may be shown to be one. Further, this unity in the Church in respect of order to the one general governor and ruler of the Church is preservative of the interior unity of the faithful to Christ. For the Gloss says on that passage in Matt. 16, To you I will give the keys, etc.: Christ granted the power of the keys to Peter in a special way so that he might invite us to unity. For he constituted him prince of the apostles for this reason, that the Church might have one principal vicar of Christ to whom the diverse members might have recourse if perchance they should disagree among themselves; but if there were diverse heads in the Church, the bonds of unity would be broken; this is said there. And Jerome says: From the twelve one is chosen, so that, a head being constituted, the occasion of schism might be taken away.

¹

The second reason of the adversaries is also of no strength, since what they say is false, namely that the principate of the Church with respect to the Pope is not monarchical or royal. For this seems contrary both to holy Scripture and to reason. It contradicts holy Scripture indeed, which is held in John 10: There shall be one fold and one shepherd. Likewise that passage of holy Scripture where the blessed John in Apocalypse 21 says: I saw the holy city Jerusalem, new, coming down from heaven, etc., where the Church militant is said to descend in imitation from heaven, because it has the form of the celestial order, as the blessed Bernard says in the third book on consideration to Pope Eugene, speaking thus, as was adduced above in the second chapter: Do not reckon vile this form which is on earth; it has its form in heaven; see indeed him who said, I saw the holy city Jerusalem new coming down, etc.; for as there the Seraphim and Cherubim and the other orders are under one head, God, so here too the Patriarchs, archbishops, and the rest are under one supreme pontiff, which is not to be little esteemed, seeing that it has God as author and took its origin from heaven; this is what he says. From these points it is clear that the opinion of the adversaries is opposed to holy Scripture. That it is also opposed to reason is clear. Both because the same species of polity remains in the principate with respect to the principal, and with respect to a vicar instituted by the principal with fullness of power — whence the court of a bishop and of his vicar is reckoned the same, as in ch. Romana, Extra, on appeals, book 6 — and because the government of the Church had to be disposed in the best way not only in the bodily presence of Christ, which is to be disposed and ordered under the supreme and noblest species of government or polity, of which sort is the royal, but also in his bodily absence. For there are the reasons made above in the second chapter for this. To this effect there is also: First, because the principate of one over many is more natural than that of many over one can be. For the nature of principles loves singularity, as the blessed Augustine says in the first book on marriages and concupiscence. Hence Aristotle, proving the unity of the first principle in the twelfth book of the Metaphysics, says: Beings refuse to be badly disposed, nor is plurality of principalities good; therefore one prince. Among bees too there is one prince, and cranes follow one in lettered order, as the blessed Jerome notes in ch. In apibus, 7, q. 1. Secondly, because among the species of governments of human civil communities the nobler and more excellent is the species of royal government, in which the sum of power and the authority of the principate is with one, as Aristotle teaches in the third book of the Politics. Thirdly, because such a disposition of government is more assimilated to the divine government, in which God presides over the whole world, one God, governor and ruler of all, Ecclesiasticus 1: One is the most high, creator of all. Fourthly, because in the triumphant Church, from which the militant Church exemplarily descends, in the last chapter of the Apocalypse, one supreme hierarch presides over all the orders, in whom every hierarchy is consummated, as the divine Dionysius shows in the fifth book of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. Fifthly, because in the old law, which was the figure of the new law, one high priest was constituted by divine appointment, whom all the rest ought to obey. Sixthly, because with one presiding over the whole Church, there is no doubt that the unity of the faith, by which the Church is above all called one, is better preserved, concerning which the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians 1: Say all the same thing, and let there be no schisms among you. As to what the adversaries argue, that if the principate of the Church were royal with respect to another than Christ, another than Christ would have to be called king of the Church, which they deem unfitting. This counts for little. For first, because it is not to be reckoned unfitting that the Pope be called king of the Church under Christ, as his vicar, although usage does not have it; since, as the Pope is ruler of the Church, as to the interpretation of this word there is no doubt that he can rightly and truly be called king. For he is called king, as Isidore says, from ruling. Moreover it does not seem more unfitting that the Pope be named king than that he be named prince. But he is recorded as named prince by Christ, according to that word by which the Church commemorates it as said by Christ to Peter when he says: Simon Peter, before they called thee from the ship I took thee, and I constitute thee prince over my people. By this name also all the apostles are called by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of the prophet, Psalm 44: You shall constitute them princes over all the earth; whence also the bishops, holding the places of the apostles, are named princes in ch. Ecclesiae principes, dist. 35. Wherefore it is no wonder if they are also named kings, especially attending to the fact that the apostles themselves and their successors are described by the Holy Spirit under the name of king, Psalm 44, where it is said: The daughters of kings have delighted thee. This word Augustine, expounding Psalm 44, thus explains: For all the churches, which were born through their evangelizing and preaching, are daughters of kings, and the churches, daughters of the apostles, are daughters of kings; for he is the king of kings, but they are kings of whom it was said: You shall sit upon twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel; this is what Augustine says. Nevertheless, although the Pope and the prelates of the Church could truly be called kings, this is not done for a twofold reason, as lord Alvarus touches in his book on ecclesiastical power. The first is to avoid pride, which seems to be imported by the name of king, according to that word of the apostle Peter: To the king as excelling, 1 Peter 2. For Christ, the master of humility, according to that passage in Matt. 11, Learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart, willed his disciples and vicars to keep humility in all things. Hence in Luke 22 he said: He that is the greater among you, let him become as the lesser, and he that excels as the minister; on account of which he willed them to decline not only pride but even words of pride, especially since nothing shines more splendidly on the episcopal neck than humility, as in ch. Contra morem, dist., ch. The second cause is that, just as between spiritual and temporal princes there is a difference of power, so also there should be a difference in names. The secular princes have therefore taken to themselves a name expressive of worldly glory, namely the name of king. But spiritual men are called by other humbler names designating their proper office and demonstrating their ultimate end. For they are called shepherds, rulers, judges, priests, provosts, pontiffs, etc. Hence in ch. Duo sunt, dist. 69, it is said: There are two by which this world is principally ruled, the sacred authority of pontiffs and the royal power. It is clear therefore that although the Pope by reason of humility is not named king of the Church, from this it does not follow that the principate of the Church is not monarchical or royal, and that the government of the Church is not monarchical or royal; because the proper character of a kingdom consists in this, that its government and principate is with one, by whatever name that one is called, whether by the name of king, or of duke or pontiff, or of shepherd, or of emperor.

²

³

Secondly moreover the reason of the adversaries is empty, because it is not unfitting that another in the person of Christ be called king or ruler or shepherd or prince of the Church, so long as he is not another in authority. For the Pope, since he is the vicar of Christ, bearing his stead in the Church, is not another king of the Church by otherness of authority than Christ.

⁴

Further, the third reason also does not hold, for a twofold cause. The first, because it seems to presuppose that in the Christian universality there is not one who presides over all both in spiritual and in temporal matters, which to deny simply and absolutely does not seem to us can fittingly be said; since, as with God's help we shall show below, the Pope, who is that one who in the stead of Christ presides over all, has principate or power not only in spiritual matters but also in some manner, to be expounded below, in temporal matters over the whole Christian commonwealth, by the disposal of him whose vicar he is, on whose thigh it is written: king of kings and lord of lords, Apocalypse 19. The second cause for which the reason of the adversaries does not hold, granting that that one does not preside in temporal matters, is that the case is not the same for one presiding in temporal matters and in spiritual matters. First, because a rending of the unity of the faith in the Church, for preserving which it was above all instituted, as we showed in the second chapter, that one should preside over the whole Church, is most perilous and worse, since outside it there is no salvation, according to that passage in the last chapter of Mark: But he that does not believe shall be condemned; and that word of the Apostle in Hebrews 11: Without faith it is impossible to please God. But it is not so with any other unity to be observed in any polity among the faithful, since it is not necessary that they all meet in a common polity, but according to the diversity of climates and tongues and conditions of men there can be diverse modes of life and diverse established polities, on account of which it is not so necessary that the world be ruled by one having full power in all things in temporal matters as in spiritual matters. Secondly, because it is not necessary that the civil laws by which kingdoms and provinces are ruled be conformable or the same among all nations, on account of the variety of customs and conditions of men in diverse provinces; indeed, according to the variety of nations they are varied, because the same laws cannot suit all, nor can all laws be possible to all according to nature and custom, which yet is of the character of law according to that passage of Isidore, and it is held in dist. 4, ch. Erit autem, where it is said: But law shall be honorable, possible according to nature and according to the custom of the country, fitting to place and time. But it is necessary that the observance of the divine law, through which there is entrance to life, according to that passage in Matt. 19, If you will enter into life, keep the commandments, be observed uniformly by all in the whole Christian commonwealth. And because it greatly works to this end, as we proved above, that one ruler and master preside in the whole Christian polity, therefore it is more necessary that one preside in spiritual matters in the Christian commonwealth than in temporal matters. Thirdly, because one can more easily preside over the whole Christian people in spiritual matters than in bodily matters, both on account of the diversity and varied multiplicity which is found greater in temporal affairs than in spiritual, and because the sword's edge which the prince of the Church uses against rebels and those in error, which is excommunication, is more easily extended to however distant nations than the material sword wielded by secular princes extends, concerning which the Apostle says in Rom. 14 that he bears not the sword without cause. Fourthly, because that one should preside in the whole Church in spiritual matters is by divine right and divine institution, according to that passage in the last chapter of John: Simon, feed my sheep. But that one should preside fully in temporal matters over the whole Christian people seems to be held expressly neither by natural nor by divine right; since, although the Philosopher in the Politics says that lordship is in individual cities or regions, he does not say so of empire or monarchy. Hence Augustine in the fourth book on the City of God says that the commonwealth was ruled better, that is more peacefully, when the kingdom of each was bounded by the limits of its own country. From what has been said in this chapter the error of those who say that there is not a spark of appearance that there must be one head ruling the Church in spiritual matters, dwelling ever with it, is most clearly refuted; this error was condemned among the errors of John Hus in the Council of Constance, as is clear in the bull of the lord Pope Martin V.

Having shown how most fittingly there is to be given in the Church of God a shepherd and ruler of all, who in the place of Christ presides over the whole body of the faithful, the next thing is to see who in the Church that man is. For the proof of which we have shown in the first place that blessed Peter was the first after Christ to be of such sort as to have held primacy over all in the Church, which is easy to show both by authorities of sacred Scripture and by plain reasons.

¹

First indeed the primacy of blessed Peter among the apostles, and his primacy in the Church of God, is shown from that passage Matt. 10, where blessed Matthew the evangelist, describing the names of the apostles, says: These are the names of the twelve apostles: the first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, etc. But in that he names Peter the first of the apostles, and places him at the head of the apostles, he manifestly shows that he held the primacy of apostolic dignity, since he seems to speak of priority of dignity and not of calling: for in order of time it was not Peter, but his brother Andrew, who first followed Christ, and consequently in order of time he was first in the discipleship of Christ, as is had in John 1. Hence the lord Albert the Great, expounding on Matt. that passage, The first, Simon, etc., says thus: First in dignity, not in calling, on account of which he is called the crown of the apostles. But Andrew is second, and so of the rest in order, since all subject to Peter are equals. And note that although Peter is called the crown and first, yet Andrew is not called second, nor Philip third, and so of the rest in order: because all are second to Peter as regards jurisdiction, since one is not under another, but all are under Peter. Thus far Albert; the ordinary Gloss also, on that passage Matt. 10, The first, Simon who is called, sufficiently explains the primacy of Peter, saying thus: The Lord wished the prince of the apostles first to be called by another name, that from the very change of name the liveliness of the mystery might be commended.

²

Secondly the primacy of blessed Peter is shown from that passage Matt. 16, where the Lord, speaking to Peter alone, says: And I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven, etc.

³

On this word the ordinary Gloss says: He granted the keys to Peter in particular, to invite us to unity; for he appointed him prince of the apostles for this reason, that the Church might have one principal vicar of Christ to whom the diverse members of the Church might have recourse if by chance they disagreed among themselves, because if there were diverse heads in the Church the bonds of unity would be broken. Likewise to the same effect Rabanus in the Gloss, and Bede also in a homily, says thus: For he who confessed the king of heaven with greater love than the rest was deservedly endowed, above the rest, with the conferred keys of the heavenly kingdom.

⁴

Thirdly the primacy of Peter is shown from that passage Matt. 17, where the Lord, asked for payment of the tribute, says to Peter: Go to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up that fish which first cometh up, and opening its mouth thou shalt find a stater: take it and give it for me and for thee. Here the prerogative of the primacy of Peter is manifestly marked by the fact that in the payment of the tribute Christ associated Peter alone with himself. For the didrachma money, as Ambrose says, was the payment of the head, whence it was already given to be understood that Peter was to be appointed after Christ as head and first over the other apostles. Hence blessed Aug., in the book on questions of the new and old testament, q. 79, raising this question why Christ paid the didrachma for himself and Peter alone, says thus in reply: When our Saviour orders the didrachma to be given for himself and Peter, he is seen to have paid for all, because just as in the Saviour were all the causes of the mastership, so also after the Saviour all are contained in Peter, for he appointed him to be their head, to be the shepherd of the Lord's flock. Thus far Aug.

⁵

Fourthly the primacy of Peter is shown from what follows in Matt. 19, where the apostles ask the Lord, saying: Who, thinkest thou, is the greater in the kingdom of heaven, which they ask for this reason, as Chrysostom and the interlinear Gloss say.

⁶

Because the disciples, seeing in the rendering of the tribute that Peter had been likened to the Lord, judged that Peter was set over the apostles as prelate. Fifthly the primacy of Peter is shown from that passage Luke 22, where it says that there was strife among the disciples of Christ as to which of them should seem to be the greater. Which word Gregory commented on thus: This strife seems to have had its occasion because, since the Lord was to depart from men, one of them was to be made prince of the others, as it were bearing the Lord's place. And again Chrysostom on the same place: The highest place among the apostles was to be believed Peter's. But he said to them: The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, etc. Behold here it appears that one among those apostles was to be ordained greater than the rest, leader, and prince. Hence he says: But he that is the greater among you, let him become as the less, and he that is the leader as the servant: but who such a leader or greater one would be Christ did not disclose, until speaking to Simon Peter he said: Simon, behold Satan hath desired you that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren. Here, from the fact that he commands Peter in the presence of the other apostles to confirm those failing or wavering in faith among them, he manifestly gives them to understand that Peter is ordained their leader, ruler and prince. Hence the most blessed Leo the Pope in a certain sermon says thus: Common to all the apostles was the dread of danger from temptation, and their equal need of the aid of divine protection, since the devil desired to harass all and longed to crush all; and yet special care for Peter is taken up by the Lord, and supplication is made strictly for the faith of Peter, as though the state of the others would be more secure if the mind of the prince were not conquered. In Peter therefore the strength of all is fortified, and the aid of divine grace is so ordered that the firmness which through Christ is granted to Peter is conferred through Peter on the apostles. Thus far he.

⁷

Sixthly the primacy of Peter is shown most plainly from that passage John 13, where Christ, about to wash the feet of the disciples, came to Peter, and Peter said to him: Dost thou wash my feet? on which the interlinear Gloss says: He came to Peter not after the others, but first to the first of the apostles. And Aug. in the Gloss: Who does not know that most blessed Peter is the first of the apostles? First, however, as is to be understood in line with what was said above, in dignity not in calling, since in calling he was not first.

⁸

Seventhly the primacy of Peter is shown from that passage in the last chapter of John, where Christ, about to ascend into heaven, with the other apostles present, commits the care of his sheep universally to Peter alone, saying: Simon, lovest thou me; feed my lambs, feed my sheep. On this word blessed Chrysostom says: He is set over my own, and the head of his brethren. From which it manifestly stands that Christ willed blessed Peter to hold the primacy in the Church in his place in a singular way.

⁹

Eighthly the primacy of Peter is shown from the fact that the teaching which Christ handed down to all the apostles and disciples he taught through Peter to diffuse to the others. Hence in Matt. 18 it is written: Looking upon his disciples Jesus said to Simon Peter: If thy brother shall offend against thee, go and rebuke him between thee and him alone.

¹⁰

Ninthly the primacy of Peter is shown from the fact that Peter himself was wont, as it were always, to answer Christ before the rest and to question Christ on behalf of all the disciples. Hence when Christ questioned the disciples, But whom do you say that I am, Simon Peter answered, saying: Thou art the Son of the living God, Matt. 16. On this word blessed Chrysostom speaks thus: Questioning all concerning the opinion of the people, but with all the disciples questioned, Peter, as the mouth and head of the apostles, answers for all, whence it follows, Simon Peter answering, etc. Likewise when Christ asked whether the apostles wished to go away with the other disciples who had gone back, Simon Peter answered, the Gloss, one for all: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of God, John 6. Moreover when Christ said, Be you also ready, for at what hour you think not the Son of man will come, he alone asks for all whether Christ refers his teaching to those disciples alone or to all, saying: Lord, speakest thou this parable to us or to all, Luke 22. On which the Gloss of Theophylact says: Peter, to whom the Church was to be entrusted, as bearing the care of all, says: Truly thou hast set forth this parable to all. Likewise when Christ said it would be hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven, Peter alone questions for all: Behold we have left all things and followed thee, what therefore shall we have, etc., Matt. 19. On this word blessed Chrysostom says: He who had received the keys of the kingdom of heaven is now confident concerning the things that are therein, and questions concerning all things for the whole world. And so it is with many other instances. Who therefore will now doubt, with this continuous license of questioning and answering for all which Peter claimed for himself, that Peter himself was first of the apostles in dignity and more excellent in authority? For indeed the Gloss on ch. placuit, dist. 16: that in an assembly speech is owed first to him whose authority is the weightier.

¹¹

Tenthly the primacy of Peter is shown from the things which Peter, present with the other apostles and with their consent, publicly did after the ascension of the Lord. In the first place indeed, as is had in Acts 1: Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, showing from the Scripture of the old testament that another was to be substituted in the apostolate in place of Judas the traitor, says: Wherefore of these men who have been assembled with us must one of these be made with us a witness of his resurrection. Plainly this seems the word of a prince, which blessed Chrysostom attests on that passage, Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren said. Peter vehemently, as one inflamed, and as he to whom the fold had been committed by the Lord, and as prince he ever took up speech. Likewise: They were 120, and seek one out of the whole multitude. Fittingly indeed Peter first governs a matter of this sort, since he himself had received all into his power. For to him Christ said: And thou, being once converted, confirm his brethren. Moreover, when the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the disciples on the day of Pentecost, and with them speaking in diverse tongues many mocked them, saying they were filled with new wine, Peter, with the other eleven disciples, lifting up his voice spoke, showing them the testimony of Joel the prophet that they were not drunk but spiritually filled, as is had in Acts 2. But that this also marks the primacy in Peter is shown by the Gloss in the same place, saying: The shepherd speaks for the sheep. Moreover Peter alone is read to have pronounced the sentence of death upon Ananias and Sapphira, who lied to the Holy Spirit, saying thus to Ananias: Why hath Satan tempted thy heart to lie to the holy Spirit and to defraud of the price of the field? In this matter the primacy of Peter is most shown. Hence the Gloss: Although Ananias and Sapphira had laid part of the price of the field at the feet of the apostles, yet Peter speaks as prince of the apostles. In like manner also against Simon Magus, offering money to the apostles that he might have the power of giving the holy Spirit, Peter brought forth against him the sentence of condemnation, saying: Keep thy money to thyself unto perdition, because thou thinkest that the gift of God may be purchased with money, Acts 8, where the interlinear Gloss on that passage, But Peter said: Peter speaks as prince, first. Moreover, as is read in Acts 15, when there was great inquiry among those converted to the faith whether converts from the Gentiles ought to be circumcised and observe the other legal observances, the apostles and elders met to see about this word. But Peter rising up said to them: Men brethren, you know, etc., where Peter brought forth in the general council the sentence that converts from the Gentiles were not bound to be circumcised or to observe the ceremonial laws. That this also was a sign of the primacy of Peter is shown by the Gloss on the word, Peter rising up, saying thus: Before all he speaks as prince. From these deeds therefore done through blessed Peter after the ascension of Christ, which are the clearest testimonies of the primacy of Peter, it manifestly appears that Peter was greater and prince of the apostles: since it is not likely that blessed Peter, spiritually filled, the chief commender of humility, would have attempted such things before the others unless he had known that it fell to him by office, and had not doubted that he was set over the rest as prelate. From which the error of those saying that blessed Peter the apostle was preferred to the other apostles not by reason of any greatness of power or authority, but by reason only of some virtue preeminent in him, is most plainly refuted.

Although the testimonies of sacred scripture adduced ought to suffice for proving the primacy of blessed Peter, and the superiority of his authority over the other apostles, and consequently over all the other faithful, nevertheless for the fuller illustration of the truth we shall take care to demonstrate it by open reasons, beginning from the most blessed apostle Peter. First thus. With natural reason dictating and experience teaching, we see that any wise father of a family, having several sons, lest he leave his family confused and without order, sets some one as it were firstborn over the rest, whom he makes universal heir, but the others particular heirs under him, just as in Gen. 27 Isaac says to his son Jacob, to whom he had given the rights of the firstborn: Be thou lord of thy brethren. Therefore it seems that likewise the most wise father of a family, Christ, whose sons are all who believe in him according to that of John 1: He gave them power to become sons of God, to them that believe in his name, who also says to all the apostles: You are brethren, Matt. 23, must so be believed to have done, lest he leave his family confused without a ruler, that he set some one man over the other apostles as prelate and shepherd. But Peter was of this kind, as the testimonies of sacred scripture which we adduced in the preceding chapter most openly designate. Hence Cyril, a most distinguished man and doctor, upon that of Luke 22: I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not, thus says: Christ, passing over the rest, came to Peter as set over the rest. Secondly thus. He to whom it was committed by Christ to confirm or strengthen his other brethren when failing and wavering in faith seems to have received primacy and masterly authority over the others from the Lord. But to blessed Peter the apostle it was committed by Christ that he should establish and strengthen in faith his other brethren, the apostles and disciples of Christ, if it should happen that they wavered or failed in faith, according to that of Luke 22: And thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren. Therefore blessed Peter had primacy over the apostles. Hence blessed Cyril, treating that word, Thou being once converted confirm thy brethren, as if saying: after thou hast denied me thou shalt weep, and if thou repentest strengthen thy other brethren, since I have appointed thee prince of the apostles; for this befits one who art strength with me and rock of the Church. Thirdly thus. He to whose care and rule in the time of the apostles the whole flock of the Lord was committed by Christ, over all who then were and were to be of the flock of the Lord, had or obtained primacy; but to the care and rule of blessed Peter the whole flock of the Lord was committed by Christ when he said to Peter in John last: Simon, feed my sheep, distinguishing neither these nor those, and the apostles themselves are by no means to be reckoned outside the flock of the Lord, but to be counted within; therefore blessed Peter had primacy and principate over the apostles. The consequence is plain. Fourthly thus. The head is known to have primacy over all the members; but blessed Peter was head of the apostles. Hence in John 1 Christ says to Peter: Thou shalt be called Cephas, which indeed in the Greek tongue means head. For blessed Anacletus says, as is had in ch. Sacrosancta, dist. 22, that among the blessed apostles there was a certain distinction of power, and although all are apostles, yet to Peter it was granted that he be set over all the other apostles, and that the apostolate hold Cephas, that is headship and principate. And by the same reasoning it is gathered from that chapter of blessed Pope Leo, Thus the Lord, dist. 19; therefore it follows that blessed Peter had primacy over all the other apostles. Fifthly thus. Blessed Peter had received power from Christ to rule and govern all the apostles and the other faithful, with blessed Gregory as witness, as is had in ch. Peter, 2, q. 7, who says: Peter had received the power of ruling, and yet the same first of the apostles, though complaint was made against him by the faithful, etc.; therefore it follows that blessed Peter the apostle had principate over all the other apostles and the rest of the faithful. Sixthly, this same is most openly attested by the testimony of the whole Church, which universally sings to him: Thou art the shepherd of the sheep, prince of the apostles; to thee God delivered the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

¹

The adversaries of the truth rise up from the opposite side in manifold ways. First indeed they strive to show that the fundamental reasons adduced from the authorities of sacred scripture for the primacy of blessed Peter above in the 5th ch. are insufficient. And in the first place they say that the reason taken from this, that Matthew describing the names of the apostles, Matt. 10, names Peter first among the apostles, does not sufficiently prove that blessed Peter had the primacy, because by the same reason blessed James would have to be called greater than blessed Peter, in that Paul, Gal. 2, describing the apostles with whom he had been at Jerusalem, prefers James to blessed Peter, saying thus: And when they had known the grace which was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars of the Church, gave to me and to Barnabas the right hands of fellowship etc., where the Apostle calls Peter Cephas, according to that John 1: Thou shalt be called Cephas. Therefore it seems that that reason does not make sufficient faith that Peter had the primacy.

²

That second reason also does not seem to prove sufficiently the primacy of Peter which was adduced from this, that blessed Peter was called the foundation of the Church, when to him it was said: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; because the same would equally have to be argued of the twelve apostles, since they too are called foundations of the Church. Whence Apoc. 21 it is said that the wall of the city of the Church had twelve foundations, and in them were the names of the twelve apostles; and so it seems that that reason does not sufficiently prove the primacy of blessed Peter.

³

Thirdly that reason also does not seem to prove sufficiently the primacy of Peter which was taken from this, that it is read as said to Peter in consequence: To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; since this same was said to all the apostles, as is read Matt. 18: Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven. For the keys of the kingdom of heaven seem to be nothing else than the power of binding and loosing. Fourthly neither does that reason seem to prove sufficiently the primacy of Peter which was taken from that, John, last ch.: Feed my sheep; because to feed sheep in particular befalls only in three ways, namely by salutary doctrine, by exemplary life, and by discipline or correction; but each of those ways of feeding the sheep of Christ was common to all the apostles. For all the apostles had to feed all the sheep of Christ by doctrine, with Truth itself testifying, which commands all the apostles, Matt., last ch.: Going teach all nations, baptizing them etc. All too had to feed by exemplary life, with Christ saying to them, Matt. 5: You are the light of the world. And it follows: So let your light shine before men, etc. Of the way of feeding by corrective discipline it is had, John, last ch., where Christ said to all the apostles: Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, etc.; therefore it seems that Christ committed to all the apostles the power of correcting others, and consequently that reason does not seem sufficient for proving the primacy of blessed Peter.

Further, against the principal conclusion itself which we established concerning the primacy of blessed Peter over the other apostles, the adversaries object many things, also from the gospels. First thus: all the apostles seem to have received equal power from Christ; therefore none of them by the institution of Christ had a principate over the others. The consequence is clear, because an equal over an equal is known to have no principate. The antecedent they deduce from many places of the gospels. First from that Matt. 18: Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven. Second from that John ch. 20: Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them etc. From these words the adversaries say it is manifestly clear that the power of binding and loosing was given equally by Christ to Peter and the other apostles. This they also believe to be confirmed by the testimonies of some holy fathers. First by the authority of blessed Anacletus the Pope, who, as found in ch. in novo, dist. 22, says that the other apostles with blessed Peter were endowed with equal fellowship and received honor and power. Second by the authority of blessed Cyprian, who, as found in ch. loquitur dominus 24, q. 1, says that what Peter was, the other apostles were, endowed with equal fellowship of honor and power. Second thus principally: Christ forbids to the apostles lordship and the principate of power; therefore it follows that none among them had primacy over the others. The consequence is clear, because to receive a power over others which the receiver ought not to exercise over them is superfluous and void and useless, which cannot be in the works of Christ, who is highest wisdom. The antecedent is clear from that Matt. 22, where Christ says thus to the apostles: You know that the princes of the Gentiles lord it over them and they that are greater exercise power over them; it shall not be so among you; and in Mark ch. 10 the same is found. Third thus: in Luke ch. 22 it is said of the apostles that there was a strife among them which of them seemed to be the greater. And the Saviour says to them: The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they that have power over them are called beneficent; but you not so: but if anyone is greater among you, let him become as the lesser, and he that is leader as the minister etc. From this authority the adversaries argue in two ways. First thus: if the apostles contended about greatness, that is, of honor or primacy, therefore it follows that none among them had primacy. The consequence is clear, because if he had had it, since it would have been known to them, they would not have contended about it. Second, from the fact that the Lord, resolving the contention, says to them that each should reckon himself less than each other; but the apostles could not do this if someone among them had a principate, since he himself could not with truth esteem himself less than the others; therefore it seems that none among the apostles had a principate. Fourth thus: if anyone was greater among the apostles, and prince, he should rather be said to be he who immediately succeeded Christ in the Church militant, in which Christ held the pontificate and which he glorified by his passion; and thus therefore James Alphe[i] should rather be called the vicar of Christ and his successor and the prince of the Church than Peter; but this is not so; therefore it seems that neither should Peter be said to have had a principate.

The adversaries argue consequently from ch. 2 of the epistle of blessed Paul to the Galatians, and most of all from that first where blessed Paul speaking of the principal apostles of Christ says thus: For to me, they who seemed to be something added nothing, among whom was Peter: but when they had known that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to me, that is, to be preached to the Gentiles, as also to Peter that of the circumcision, that is, to the Jews. For he who wrought in Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought in me among the Gentiles: they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision. From which place the adversaries argue against the primacy of Peter from four heads.

¹ First, from what Paul says: They added nothing to me. From which, says the Gloss, it is clear that I was not inferior to them, I who am so perfected by the Lord God that there was nothing which they added in the conferring of my perfection, for he who gave sense to those unlearned gave also to me: thus the Gloss. From this they argue thus: If Peter had been prince, holding primacy among the apostles, surely Paul and the rest having power in the Church would have received it from Peter: since it belongs to the head to infuse sense and motion of rule into all the other members.

² Secondly, they argue from that where the Apostle says: When they had known that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to me, as also to Peter that of the circumcision, because in this Paul seems to make himself equal to Peter: since he hints that he received power among the nations equal to the power of Peter among the Jews, most of all since the Gloss says in this place: The Gospel was committed to me, the faithful, as principally as also to Peter. But there is no doubt that these things are repugnant to the primacy of Peter.

³ Thirdly, they argue from what the Apostle says, that they gave to him and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship. For since fellowship seems to import a certain parity, a prince is not to be named associate of a subject or of one subjected.

⁴ Fourthly, from what follows: That we unto the nations and they unto the circumcision. Where Paul seems to restrict the apostleship of Peter to the circumcision only. From which they say it is manifestly seen that by the institution of Christ Peter was not superior to Paul nor to the other apostles.

⁵ Consequently they argue through the adversaries from what the Apostle says in the aforesaid ch. 2 to the Galatians thus: But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face because he was to be blamed. From this they argue that Paul would in no wise have dared so publicly to reprehend Peter the Apostle if Peter had been his prince or superior: since it is a precept of the law, Deut. 21: Thou shalt not speak ill of the gods, and thou shalt not curse the prince of the people. Whence blessed Jerome in this place says, as is had in 2, q. 7, ch. Paulus, that Paul reprehended Peter, which he would not have dared unless he knew himself not unequal: therefore it seems that Peter was not greater than Paul, and consequently not prince of the apostles.

¹ FURTHERMORE the adversaries strive to firm up their error from the Acts of the Apostles. And first from Acts 1, where the election of the apostle Matthias is treated, because if Peter had held primacy among the apostles he would not have concurred with them in the election of any inferior whatsoever, but would rather have instituted him by his own authority: but Peter did concur with the other apostles in the election of Matthias, as is had in Acts 1, where it is said that the eleven set up two, Joseph who was called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias, and praying they said etc. And it follows: They gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the 11 apostles. And thus it is clear that Matthias was elected at once by Peter and by the others; therefore it follows that Peter did not have any primacy over the apostles.

² Secondly the same is argued from Acts 6, where concerning the election of the 7 deacons it is thus written: And the twelve, calling together the multitude of the disciples, said: It is not right etc. And below: They chose Stephen and six others and set them before the sight of the apostles, and praying they imposed hands on them. From this they argue thus. If Peter had been prince of the apostles, the elect ought to have been presented to him and not to all the apostles, and confirmation or imposition of hands ought to have belonged to him and not to all the apostles; but we see that this was not done but was done equally to all; therefore it seems that Peter did not have primacy among the apostles.

³ Thirdly thus. It seems to be against reason that inferiors send superiors. For sending seems to import superiority in the sender with respect to the person sent. But it is not to be believed that the apostles did anything against reason; but in Acts 8 it is had that when the apostles heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them: therefore it seems that Peter was not superior to the other apostles who sent him.

It will readily be evident that the disproofs of the adversaries brought in above against the points from which we have principally proved the principate of Peter are of no force, since we shall have shown that our reasons received their foundation from elsewhere than whence the adversaries supposed.

¹ In the first place, indeed, the first disproof is nothing, for we did not argue that the apostle Peter had the primacy because he was named first among the apostles, but because he was called the first of the apostles. For the evangelist speaks thus. The names of the twelve apostles are these: the first, Simon who is called Peter. But he was called first, as we said above in ch. 5, by the priority of apostolic dignity, not by priority of time in his calling to the apostolate. Hence the Gloss on this passage, which is Rabanus's, says thus. Simon, that is obedient, who on account of the primacy of the apostolic order is called Peter, that is firm. Moreover, that blessed Paul in Gal. 2 named James before Peter, he did not do this because James was greater than or equal to Peter in authority, but, as Saint Thomas says on the epistle to the Galatians, because he was bishop of the Jerusalemites among whom these things took place. And thus says the lord Peter of Tarentaise on the epistles of Paul.

² Further, the second disproof was nothing, because we did not argue that Peter had the primacy because he was called the foundation or Rock of the Church, but because Christ, with the other apostles present, singularly named Peter the Rock of the Church. From which it is seen that, although it was common to the other apostles with Peter to be the foundation of the Church, as is openly found in Eph. 3 and Rev. 21, as will be found more fully below, nevertheless Peter was after Christ the principal foundation, and the foundation of the whole Church; hence, on the testimony of blessed Dionysius, Paul is reported to have said to Peter as he faced death: Peace, says he, be with thee, thou foundation of the churches, and shepherd of the sheep, ye bishops. Hence Pope Leo in the third sermon of his consecration says that in Peter the strength of all is implied, and the aid of divine grace is so ordained that the firmness which through Christ is attributed to Peter is conferred through Peter on the apostles — thus far he.

³ Thirdly, the third disproof was nothing, since we did not prove that Peter had the primacy either from his having received the keys from Christ or from its having been said to him, Whatsoever thou shalt bind etc., but from Christ's having singularly promised to him, with the other apostles present, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and from his having said to him alone earlier in time, Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth etc., than he had said to him and the other disciples in common, Whatsoever you shall bind etc. Hence, as Saint Thomas says in 4, dist. 24: Although the power of binding and loosing was given in common to all the apostles, yet, that some order might be signified in this power, it was first given to Peter alone, to show that it ought to be derived from him to the others. This is plainly a manifest sign of the primacy of Peter. Further, from the difference of the words too which Christ used when he gives the power of the keys to Peter alone and which he used when he bestowed it on him and the others in common, the very primacy of Peter is also proved. For to Peter he used these words: Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound also in the heavens etc. But to the apostles thus: Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven. Upon which Origen says: To the apostles, he says, in heaven, not in the heavens as to Peter, because they were not of such perfection as Peter. And so it is clear that that disproof of the adversaries is nothing.

⁴ Fourthly, this same thing is easily shown concerning the disproof made in the fourth place, and this for three reasons. First, because we did not argue the primacy of blessed Peter from the commission of pastoral care alone, but from Christ's committing to Peter alone, with the other apostles present and no mention made of them, the unlimited care of his flock, saying: Simon son of John, lovest thou me; feed my lambs, feed my sheep. Hence Theophilus says in the Gloss: But the Lord, passing over the others, speaks to Peter of such things, for he was outstanding among the apostles and the head of the college. Likewise blessed Gregory on John, and Saint Thomas, adduce it in the Gloss on that passage of John 21: Simon went up and drew the net. But to Peter the holy Church has been committed; it is spiritually said: Feed my sheep. Nor does it stand against this that Augustine says that this too was said to all, because even if it is understood to have been said to all the apostles, nevertheless it was said to them in the person of Peter as from whom the power was to be derived to the others, through which the singular prerogative of Peter's primacy is shown in that he bore the figure of all the others. Hence blessed Augustine on John says that Peter the apostle, on account of the primacy of his apostolate, bore in generality the figure of the whole Church as a person. Secondly, the disproof of the adversaries is nothing, since, although that manner of feeding was common to all the apostles, yet not equally, since there was a distinction of power among them, as blessed Anacletus says in ch. Sacrosancta, dist. 22. For Peter alone had in the whole world the authority of feeding, as shepherd of the whole flock of the Lord. The others, however, not universally but according to a measure to be assessed and limited through Peter. Hence the Gloss on that passage of 1 Peter 5: Feed the flock which is among you, says thus. Just as the Lord commanded Peter to have the care of the whole flock, so Peter by right enjoins upon his successors that each one guard with solicitous governance the flock of God which is with him — thus far. This singularity of Peter's preeminence blessed Ambrose touches upon, on the last chapter of Luke, expounding the aforesaid words, John, last chapter: Peter, lovest thou me etc., where he speaks thus: Well aware of himself, Peter testifies an affection long since known to God, not assumed for the occasion — who is there besides who could readily profess this of himself? Therefore because he alone out of all professes it, he is preferred before all — thus Ambrose. Thirdly, it can be said that the adversaries assume what is false when in arguing they say that to feed the sheep comes about in only three ways, which is clear from the Gloss on the last chapter of John, which is Alcuin's, speaking thus: To feed the sheep is to strengthen those who believe in Christ lest they fail from the faith; to furnish earthly supports to subjects if need be; to bestow examples of the virtues along with the word of preaching; to resist the adversaries; to correct erring subjects — thus the Gloss. It is clear, therefore, that the pastoral care committed to blessed Peter contains more authority than do those things which were said to Peter and the other apostles together. But of this more fully below.