Summa de Ecclesia

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.