Summa de Ecclesia

¹ To the first reason taken from ch. 1 of the Acts of the Apostles it is answered by denying the consequence, and the reason is, since although Peter elected Matthias not alone but together with the others, this was not done from defect of the power which was in Peter for making that election since he was prince of the apostles. Hence on that place, Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren said, says the interlinear Gloss: The pastor speaks for the sheep; but it was done with religious intent, for the sake of peace and unity. Which blessed Chrysostom, expounding this place on the Acts of the Apostles, plainly declares, speaking thus: Peter, as inflamed, and as he to whom the fold was committed by Christ, and as prince of the apostles, always first began the discourse. Whence moreover, because Peter does all things by the common will of all, he does nothing principally or dominatively. And below: It is fitting therefore from these men who are with us at all times; why does he thus speak openly to all? Lest contentious matters arise and they come to strife; and therefore he avoided scandals. Wherefore beginning he says: Men brethren, it must be that one be chosen from you; he concedes the election to the multitude of the people, that both he himself might be freed from contention and honor be shown to others. And below: What then etc. Could he not elect him? Certainly he could; but lest he himself seem to give the grace, therefore he did not do it. And below: There were a hundred and twenty, and you seek one from the whole multitude. But opportunely Peter first governs such a matter, because he himself had received all in power; for to him Christ said: And thou sometime converted, confirm thy brethren. Thus far Chrysostom. From this exposition of blessed Chrysostom many ravings of the adversaries are confounded, which were forged from a false understanding of the book of the Acts of the Apostles.

To the second² reason which is taken from ch. 6 concerning the election of the 7 deacons the answer is clear from the answer given to the superior reason by denying the consequence, whose reason is: since it did not stand against the primacy or principate of blessed Peter that for what he alone could do, the other apostles should meet with him to do it: since this was not done because the other apostles were of greater power than Peter alone, or because Peter did it by the aid of their power: but it was done thus for the reasons already stated according to blessed Chrysostom, namely that strife might be avoided, that honor might also be shown to the other apostles, and that in Peter's observance the teaching of his master might shine forth. He that is greater among you, let him become as the minister.

To the third³ reason taken from ch. 8 concerning the sending of Peter it is answered that the assumption is false, namely that every sending imports superiority in the sender in respect of the sent: for this was one of the foundations of Arius for positing inequality of substance and power in the divine persons, because in sacred Scripture the Father is read to send, and the Son and the Holy Spirit are read to be sent: as is openly gathered from book 4 on the Trinity of blessed Augustine. The aforesaid foundation of the adversaries was also one of the foundations of the Armenians against the primacy of the Roman pontiff, as Lord Richard deduces in the book on the questions of the Armenians, book 7, ch. 3. Likewise that that presupposition is false is clear from that place in Matt. 2 where it is said: Herod sending the three wise kings who had come to adore the Lord in Bethlehem said to them: Go and inquire diligently after the child etc., and yet it is clear that Herod had no superiority of authority over the aforesaid kings. Moreover in Gen. 41 Joseph says to his brothers: Send one of you to bring your youngest brother. It is plain that such a sending did not import superiority of authority in the senders in respect of the sent. It is said therefore that there is a sending namely according to the command of authority as a servant is sent by a lord, just as a king sends a seneschal or the Pope a legate. Another is according to counsel, as counselors or the senate are said to send a king to war. These two modes of sending St. Thomas touches in part 1, q. 44, art. 1. The third mode is according to the authority of love, as when companions or even inferiors send a messenger or legate to a king or to the Pope, some greater one among them, in respect of whom they have no authority of prelacy but only of love. With this distinction had it can be said in two ways. First that the apostles did not send by authority of command, but sent him by counsel of providence suggesting to him that he himself should go as more fitting. Both by reason of authority. And because above the rest he shone with greater grace of miracles. But such a sending does not state superiority of authority in the sender. And that such was that sending seems openly to be gathered from the ordinary Gloss of the same text which says thus: Peter associates John to himself, because the virginity of the Church is dear and pleasing. Plainly if that sending had been made by some superior it would not be said that Peter associates John to himself, but rather it would be said that John had been associated with him by the others. Secondly it can be said that that sending by which Peter is said to have been sent by the apostles was, as Lord Viricus says in his summa of theology, by the authority of love which knows no degree, not by the authority of prelacy, since Peter was the summit of the apostles, so says he.