Summa de Ecclesia

¹

How most damnable an error of the aforesaid adversaries, saying that both the Roman pontiff and the other prelates of the Church have no coercive jurisdiction from the ordination of Christ but from the concession of the Emperor, we easily show. We show moreover in the first place the falsity and error of the first part, in which they say that prelates from the ordination of Christ have no coercive jurisdiction over the faithful. Second, the error of the second part, in which they say that the prelates have had coercive jurisdiction of this kind from the Emperor or from the secular power. But the first part is shown to be error in many ways. First by the authority of sacred Scripture. Second by the authority of the sacred councils. Third by the definition of the apostolic see. Fourth by the testimony of the holy doctors. Fifth by reasons. But in the first place that first part is shown by the authority of sacred Scripture. First from that which Christ said to Peter, and in Peter to his successors and to all prelates of the Church, Matt. 16: To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. He says keys in the plural, because, as is the common doctrine of the saints, both the key in the forum of conscience and in the forum of exterior judgment. Hence the interlinear Gloss says: the power of the present judgment. And there follows: Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, whether in the forum of conscience or of exterior judgment, shall be bound also in heaven. But since not only the willing are bound but also the unwilling, it is manifest that in the keys given to Peter and in him to his successors is understood coercive jurisdiction given. Second, the aforesaid error is disproved from that passage Matt. 18, where it is held: But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go and rebuke him between thee and him. And below: But if he will not hear thee, tell the Church; but if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican. Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind, etc., where Jerome in the Gloss says: He granted power to the apostles, that they may know that they who are condemned by such have the human sentence confirmed by the divine sentence. Moreover the Apostle, rebuking the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 6 because, despising the faithful, they litigated before infidel judges, to prove that the power of judging secular and earthly things was with the Church, says: Know you not that we shall judge angels, how much more secular things; the Gloss: concerning secular things. But there is no doubt that such condemnation pertains to coercive jurisdiction; therefore the apostles and their successors had coercive jurisdiction from the ordination of Christ. Third, the same can be shown from that passage Matt. 26, where it is said of Peter that he drew his sword and, striking the servant of the chief priest, cut off his ear. By which it is designated that coercive power for correction would be with Peter. Hence blessed Gregory, as is had in ch. Si Petrus, 24, q. 1, says: Peter therefore takes away the ear; why Peter? because he it is who received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For he condemns who also absolves, since he has obtained the same power of binding and loosing. But he takes away the ear of him who hears badly; he takes it away with the sword; with the spiritual sword, the inner ear of him who understands badly. Fourth, the same is gathered from that passage Luke 22, where, the apostles saying, Behold two swords here, the Lord answered, It is enough. Where, since by the two swords are mystically understood the two powers, namely the spiritual and the temporal, as blessed Bernard expounds in his book on Consideration to Pope Eugene, which he says reside in some manner with the Roman pontiff, it is manifestly given to be understood that the Roman pontiff has coercive jurisdiction, which is designated by the swords, from the ordination of Christ. Fifth, the falsity of the aforesaid error is shown from that which the Lord said to Peter in the last chapter of John: Feed my sheep, where he commits to blessed Peter the office of shepherd, which office it is most plain cannot be well performed without coercive jurisdiction, since the Gloss in that place says: To feed sheep is to confirm believers lest they fail, to provide earthly supports to subjects if necessary, to give examples of virtues, to oppose adversaries, to correct sinners. Sixth, the same is shown from apostolic doctrine, whence in 1 Cor. 4 Paul says: Shall I come to you with a rod, or in charity and in the spirit of meekness, where he most openly shows himself to have coercive jurisdiction, whence in the following chapter it is held that Paul delivered a certain fornicator to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit might be saved. From which it manifestly appears that the Apostle had coercive jurisdiction, and it is evident that not from the Emperor, who was an infidel; therefore from God. Consequently the aforesaid error is confuted second from the deeds of almost all the universal councils, and especially of those four principal ones in which many heretics are read to have been condemned, excommunicated, and deposed from their dignities, as in Nicaea Arius, in Constantinople Macedonius, in the third, namely Ephesus, Nestorius, in the fourth, namely Chalcedon, Eutyches, as in ch. Canones, dist. 15. And in like manner in the other councils. But the holy fathers could in no way have done this unless they had had coercive jurisdiction from the ordination of Christ. Moreover the whole fifth book of the Decretals, which is entitled on punishments, manifestly shows the falsity of the aforesaid error. Third, the temerity of the aforesaid error is shown from the determination of the apostolic see, which is the mistress of the faith, which is in the Extravagant of John 22 which begins: Although according to the doctrine of the Apostle, where he reprobates and condemns Marsilius of Padua and John of Jandun, authors of the aforesaid error, and certain others. Fourth, the aforesaid damnable error is shown also by reason. The spiritual power is greater and more conjoined to God than the secular, as above toward the end of the first book we have shown in many ways. But the secular power has coercive jurisdiction annexed for the exercise of its office, for it is the minister of God, at Rom. 13. Therefore also the spiritual power, since its minister also acts as His vicar, likewise has coercive jurisdiction annexed in a manner befitting itself, necessary for the exercise of those things which pertain to the office enjoined upon it, whence it is said in Ecclesiasticus 10: A wise judge will judge his people; therefore also the spiritual power; the consequence is manifest. Second thus. Of the reason of any perfect principate whatsoever it is to have coercive jurisdiction. But the ecclesiastical principate is most perfect, whence it is compared to the sun, according to ch. Solitae, Extra, de ma. et ob. Therefore the ecclesiastical principate has coercive jurisdiction; the consequence is good. The major is Aristotle, Ethics 4. For since persuasive discourses propped up by any reasoning whatsoever are not always powerful to move subjects to good, which is the principal intention of a good prince, it is necessary that with the prince there be coercive jurisdiction which by punishments effects what it could not by persuasions. Hence it is that of law, as Isidore says in the Etymologies, and it is held in the Decree, dist. 3, every law is not only to command, forbid, and permit, but also to punish. And this suffices concerning the disproof of the first part of the aforesaid error. But the second part, in which the aforesaid pestiferous and most damnable adversaries say that the coercive jurisdiction which belongs to the prince in the Church is from the concession of the emperor, appears by the clearest light to be error. First from what has already been said above in the reprobation of the first part of the aforesaid error. For it is established that blessed Peter for himself and his successors received the principate from the First; therefore from him, namely Christ, he had jurisdiction, and his successors have it, and not from any other. The consequence is manifest; the antecedent is evident not only from what has been said but also above from ch. 31. Second, the same is shown from the antiquity of the ecclesiastical principate, arguing thus: The ecclesiastical principate even with coercive jurisdiction preceded Catholic emperors by much time; therefore it follows that it does not depend in the coercive jurisdiction which it has upon emperors. The consequence is manifest, since the prior does not depend upon the posterior, unless the adversary were blinded with such blindness as to say that the Roman pontiff received the principate from the emperors, even infidels — as all were except the two Philips, father and son — but not on the Christian side, as Eutropius says, down to Constantine the Great. Third it is shown thus: The noble and perfect does not receive from the less noble and less perfect the perfection of its power and virtue, for as Aristotle says in book 2 on the Soul, and Augustine on Genesis, the agent is nobler and more excellent than the patient. But the ecclesiastical principate is much nobler and more perfect than the secular, as much as the soul than the body, as Hugh of St. Victor says, as much as the sun than the moon, as Innocent says in the proximately alleged case, as much as gold than lead, as Ambrose says in ch. Duo quippe, dist. 96. Therefore it is in no way to be said, but is to be cast away as false and erroneous, that the coercive jurisdiction of the pope and of the prelates of the Church depends upon the emperor. Fourth thus: From him by whom anything is committed to anyone, those things are committed to them without which the office cannot be performed. But by Christ and not by the emperor was committed to Peter and to his successors the pastoral office and the care of the whole Christian people and rule, as was shown above. Therefore it must necessarily be said that the Roman pontiff has coercive jurisdiction from Christ and not from the earthly emperor or from any earthly power. Fifth thus: Emperors are read to have been punished, namely excommunicated and deprived of dignity by the Roman pontiffs, indeed even by other lesser prelates of the Church. Therefore the coercive jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff and of the other prelates of the Church does not depend upon emperors or upon any other earthly power; the consequence is most clear; the antecedent, although it is evident from many histories which are known, is nevertheless proved by that word of Pope Gelasius in ch. Duo quippe, dist. 96, where, writing to the Emperor Anastasius, he says thus: There are two indeed, august Emperor, by which this world is principally ruled, the sacred authority of pontiffs and the royal power, in which the weight of priests is so much the heavier as they will hereafter render account even for the kings themselves in the last examination. And after a few words: You know therefore that among these you depend upon their judgment; they are not to be reduced to your will. Supported therefore by such institutions and strengthened by such authorities, many of the pontiffs have excommunicated — some kings, others emperors. For if any special example concerning the persons of princes be required: blessed Pope Innocent excommunicated the Emperor Arcadius because he consented that St. Chrysostom be driven from his see. Blessed Ambrose, although holy, yet not bishop of the universal Church, for a fault which to other priests did not seem so grave, excommunicated Theodosius the great Emperor and excluded him from the Church. Manifestly therefore appears the falsity of the aforesaid error in either head.

²