Summa de Ecclesia

The answers having been given to the disproofs of the adversaries adduced against the principal foundations from which we have shown that blessed Peter held the primacy among the apostles, it now remains to answer the reasonings by which the adversaries attack that very primacy of blessed Peter. And first to those which seemed to be taken from the Gospel. ¹ And to the first, when it is said that the apostles received equal power etc., it is answered that this assumption is false. And to the proof which is adduced from the authority of Matt. 28 and the last chapter of John it is answered that nothing is proved from those authorities, since although from those authorities it is had that the power of the keys was given to all the apostles, yet it is not had that it was given equally to all, just as although, as the Apostle says in Rom. 13, there is no power but from God, yet it does not follow that to all things having power equal power has been given. And so it is in the matter proposed. For although the power of the keys was given to all the apostles, nevertheless to Peter, who was ordained as head and prince of the others, it was given more fully, as is clear from the Gloss on Matt. 16 adduced above in ch. 5. Hence St. Thomas says in book 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, that it might be shown that from him this power ought to descend to the others, on account of which he says to him singularly: Confirm thy brethren, and feed my sheep, that is in my place, as Chrysostom says. Be thou the set-over and head of the brethren that they, taking thee in my place, may preach and confirm thee sitting on thy throne throughout the lands.

But to the two authorities consequently adduced, namely of saints Anacletus and Cyprian, in which it is said that the apostles in equal sharing of honor etc., ² it is answered in two ways. First that when it is said in equal sharing etc., we say that the word equal does not state equality of power or honor but likeness. Hence it must be expounded as equal, that is, in common or like power. For parity is read to designate in sacred letters not only equality but also likeness, hence in Lev. 18 it is said: Beware lest it vomit you out likewise when you have done equal things, the Gloss: like things. And that in this signification the name of parity must be taken in the matter proposed is from the sentence of blessed Pope Leo, who writing to Anastasius the Thessalonian bishop says thus: Since among the most blessed apostles in likeness of honor there was a certain distinction of power, and although the election of all was equal, to one alone it was given that he should excel the rest. Behold what Anacletus and Cyprian say there, in equal sharing of honor etc., Pope Leo as if expounding says: in likeness of honor. Secondly it is answered that, as has been said above in book 1 and is touched in the Gloss on ch. Sacrosancta, dist. 22, power is called twofold. Namely one of orders or consecration, and one of government or administration. We say therefore that that parity of which Anacletus speaks, and also Cyprian, must be taken as to the dignity of orders or consecration. For that was equal in all the apostles, but it must not be understood as to the power of government or administration, nay in this power Peter was superior and greater. And that such was the intention of the aforesaid saints is clear from their sayings, for Anacletus in the chapter read before, namely Sacrosancta, dist. 22, says thus: Among the blessed apostles there was a certain distinction of power, and although all were apostles, yet to Peter it was granted by the Lord and they among themselves wished him to preside over all the other apostles, and to hold cephas, that is the head, and the principate of the apostolate. Likewise blessed Cyprian designates this same thing, 1. ch. the Lord speaks, 24. q. 2, where after the adduced words he subjoins thus: But the beginning proceeds from unity that the Church of Christ may be shown to be one. Moreover it is clear from what below he calls the head of this Church and says the origin of power to be the apostolic see. From which it is most clearly shown that the sentence of these saints is that Peter held the primacy among the apostles and holds the principate in the universal Church.

³ To the second reason it is answered by denying the antecedent, and to the proof from ch. Matt. 20 it is answered that Christ does not forbid the apostles all lordship or principate but only the lordship which pagans and worldly men use over subjects. For which it must be noted according to St. Thomas in his postil on Matt. expounding the aforesaid authority, that to lord is taken in two ways. In one way it is taken for to preside, and in this way Christ does not speak in the aforesaid place in Matt. 20, nor does he forbid the apostles such lordship. Hence Christ is read to have said to Peter: I have constituted thee prince over my people. And concerning the apostles it is said in Ps. 44: Thou shalt constitute them princes over all the earth. And concerning the exercise of the pastoral presidency committed to blessed Peter it is said in the last chapter of John: Simon son of John, feed my sheep. In another way to lord is said according as it is said relatively to a servant, hence so to lord is the same as to subject a servant to oneself servilely, and in this way it is taken in the place read before when the Lord says: The princes of the Gentiles lord it over them etc. For princes are constituted for this that they procure the good of subjects. But if they wish to reduce them to servitude then they abuse the principate who use free men as servants. And because this was customary among the Gentiles, and still is among some, he says: The princes of the Gentiles lord it over them, that is they reduce their subjects to servitude according to that place in Ezek. 10: Thy princes in the midst of it are like ravening wolves. And such principate or lordship is forbidden by Christ to the apostles when the Lord says: It shall not be so among you. Hence blessed Chrysostom on Matt. treating this word says thus: The princes of the world exist for this that they lord it over their lesser ones, and abuse their life for their own utilities and glories. But the princes of the Church exist for this, that they serve their lesser ones, and minister to them whatever they have received from Christ, that they neglect their own utilities and procure theirs, so he says.

Chryso.

⁴ To the third reason which follows from that place in Luke 22, There was a strife etc., it is answered, to the first part, by denying the consequence, for we say that although the apostles then had not yet fully known who ought to preside over the rest after Christ's bodily absence, and therefore strove about this: it does not follow on account of this that by Christ's disposition no greater one had been preordained among them, indeed the Lord expressly intimates this when he says: He that is greater among you etc.

⁵ To the second part of the same reason it is answered that Christ in those words did not teach the apostles that each should deem himself lesser than each in inferiority of office or authority, nor did Christ teach this by his example who says in John 13: You call me master and lord and you say well, but he taught this that the greater anyone was among the apostles the more humble he should be, according to that place in Ecclus. 3: The greater thou art, humble thyself in all things.

⁶ To the fourth reason it is answered, when it is said that he ought to have had the principate among the apostles who immediately succeeded Christ in the Church etc., we answer that this is true understanding it of succession as general vicar, hence that one alone was blessed Peter who as general vicar succeeded Christ in the whole world and not James the son of Alphaeus who was ordained bishop at Jerusalem by Peter himself afterwards. Hence St. Thomas expounding that place in the last chapter of John, Follow me, says according to Chrysostom that although James after Christ's ascension had the special care of that place: yet Peter obtained the universal care of the whole Church. But that Peter succeeded Christ immediately also at Jerusalem is clear from this that there he exercised first among all the offices of the supreme pontiff as to preaching, as to the election of Matthias, and as to the other things expressed above, as has been copiously shown above in ch. 5. But although the place of Jerusalem was more glorious by the consecration of Christ's blood, nevertheless Rome was fitter for the succession of the supreme pontiff, as will be shown below. Hence Peter at last chose to establish his special see at Rome, appointing blessed James bishop at Jerusalem: and this beautifully or fittingly, as blessed Bernard says in book 2 on consideration to Eugene, that, placed there, he might raise up seed to his dead brother where he was slain, for he was called the brother of the Lord.