Summa de Ecclesia

There have arisen certain heretical men, men utterly lost, who have presumed so far to detract from the truth of the apostolic principate and from the honor of the holy Church that they are not ashamed to affirm that the Roman pontiff and the other prelates of the Church have no coercive jurisdiction over other faithful unless the Emperor concedes it, saying that the principate of the prelates of the Church from the institution of Christ consists in administration and service alone and not in coercive jurisdiction. They strive to confirm this most damnable error in many ways, whose arguments, as Ockham sets out in his dialogue, are as follows. First thus. It is said, Matt. 20: You know that the princes of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they who are greater exercise power over them; it shall not be so among us, but whosoever will be greater among you shall be your servant. From these words they say it is given to be understood that the superiority and primacy of him who is greater and first among all the faithful consists in ministering and serving. Since therefore the Pope is greater and first among all Christians, his superiority consists only in ministering and serving, and consequently he has no coercive jurisdiction over others, just as that seems forbidden to all prelates of the Church. Second thus: the pope has no greater coercive jurisdiction than Christ had, whose vicar he is, but Christ insofar as mortal man had no coercive jurisdiction. Both because coercive jurisdiction cannot be exercised without riches or without the aid of those having riches, which Christ did not have. And because by his own witness he came to minister, not to be ministered unto. Therefore he did not come to exercise coercive jurisdiction, therefore he did not have it, therefore neither consequently does his vicar have it. Third thus, by the authority of Origen, who on that passage Matt. 20, The kings of the Gentiles etc., says thus: You know that the princes of the Gentiles lord it over them, that is, not content only to rule their subjects, they strive to dominate them violently; but among you who are mine these things shall not be; for all carnal things are placed in necessity, but spiritual things in the will. So also they who are spiritual princes, that is prelates, their principate ought to be wholly in love, not in fear. From these words, he says, it is given to be understood that the whole principate of the prelates of the Church, and consequently of the supreme pontiff, ought to consist in will and love and not in fear; therefore they ought to be loved, not feared. But they who use coercive jurisdiction are feared by the evil, by the witness of the Apostle at Rom. 13, who says that they who have done evil fear, namely the power of the prelate. Therefore the prelates of the churches ought not to have coercive jurisdiction. Fourth, to the same point they adduce Chrysostom, who on the same passage says thus: The princes of the world exist to dominate their inferiors and to subject them to servitude and to despoil them and to use them even unto death for their own advantage and glory. But the princes of the Church exist to serve their inferiors and to minister to them whatever they have received from Christ, to neglect their own advantages and to procure those of the others. From these words, they say, the distinction between the secular princes and those of the churches is clear: for the secular princes dominate their subjects, whereas the princes of the Church serve their inferiors and minister to them; therefore they cannot exercise coercive jurisdiction over them. Fifth, they adduce to the same point blessed Ambrose, who, as is recited in 23, q. 8, ch. Convenior, etc., says thus: I shall be able to grieve, I shall be able to groan; against arms, soldiers, cohorts, my tears are my arms; for such are the instruments of the priest; otherwise I neither ought nor am able to resist. From these words, they say, it is held that the priest ought to resist evils by prayers and tears and not by temporal power, and consequently he has no coercive jurisdiction. Sixth, they adduce blessed Chrysostom, who in his book of dialogues entitled on the dignity of the priesthood, book 2, ch. 3, on that word of the Apostle, 2 Cor. 1, We do not lord it over your faith, says thus: Those who are judges outside, when they have subdued evildoers, display very great power in them, and restrain the unwilling from wicked morals; but in the Church one ought to be converted to better things not by coercion but by consent, because no such power has been given to us by the laws that by the authority of a sentence we restrain men from offenses. More clearly, they say, it cannot be said that the Church does not have coercive jurisdiction, since in the Church no one ought to be compelled to better things, nor ought anyone to be restrained by judicial sentence from offenses. Seventh thus: to him who has coercive jurisdiction it belongs to be entangled in secular affairs, because to him it belongs to settle contentions and suits. But contentions and suits and quarrels are reckoned among secular affairs, Extra, lest clerics in secular affairs, etc., ch. 1. But it does not belong to the supreme pontiff to be entangled in secular affairs, by the witness of the Apostle, 2 Tim. 2, who says: No one serving God entangles himself in secular affairs. Therefore coercive jurisdiction does not belong to the supreme pontiff.

¹

²

³

⁴

⁵

⁶

⁷

⁸

Eighth thus. The Pope has no greater jurisdiction than blessed Peter, but blessed Peter and the other apostles received no coercive jurisdiction from Christ. Therefore neither does the Pope have coercive jurisdiction from the ordination of Christ. The major is manifest; the minor is proved by the authority of blessed Bernard, who in his book to Pope Eugene says: They will not show, I think, who say this, where any of the apostles sat as judge of men. And a little after: For I read that the apostles stood to be judged, but I do not read that they sat judging; indeed that never was. From these words it is given to be understood that the apostles were not judges of men; therefore blessed Peter did not have coercive jurisdiction.

⁹

Ninth, that the apostles were not judges of men blessed Gregory seems to hold, who treating those words, If you shall have secular judgments, says thus in the Morals: They examine earthly causes who have received the wisdom of exterior things. But they who are endowed with spiritual gifts ought not to be entangled in earthly affairs, so that while they are not compelled to dispose inferior goods they may be able to serve superior goods. Since therefore the apostles were endowed with the greatest spiritual goods, they were in no way occupied with the causes and suits of men.

¹⁰

Tenth, the Gloss on that passage to the Corinthians, Secular judgments therefore, seems openly to hold this. For it says: appoint the contemptible — that is, any wise men, who yet are of lesser merit — to judge; for the apostles, going about, did not attend to such things. He wished, therefore, that the wise who remained in their places, faithful and holy men — not those who run hither and thither on account of the Gospel — should be examiners of affairs. By these words, they say, it is shown that the apostles in no way applied themselves to deciding the causes of men. From which it is inferred that they did not receive coercive jurisdiction from Christ, because every office enjoined upon them by Christ they most diligently fulfilled.