Summa de Ecclesia

¹

The error of the aforesaid lost men having been disproved, it remains to answer their objections. To the first, which is founded upon that passage Matt. 20, You know that the princes etc., I answer that that authority does nothing for the adversaries. For they do not understand it well and rightly, but are deceived in two ways. First indeed in this, that it is not true, as they claim, that in the aforesaid words the Lord forbade to the apostles all dominion or principate, nor consequently simply all coercive jurisdiction, since Christ is read to have said to Peter: Over my people I have constituted thee prince, and concerning the apostles it is said in Ps. 44: Thou shalt constitute them princes over all the earth; but only that dominion and jurisdiction which the Gentiles and worldly men use over their subjects, reducing them into servitude and abusing their life for their own advantages and glory, as we have fully expounded above, in ch. twelve, answering this objection. Second, the adversaries fail in this, that that administration to which the greater men of the Church are deputed is not administrative as a servant administers to his master, or a brother to his brother, as they pretend, but as a lord and president intends the conveniences of subjects, as a physician intends the health of the infirm, a father the correction of sons, a shepherd the care of the flock, a rector the rule of the people, and a pilot the direction of the ship. But administration of this kind does not exclude coercive jurisdiction in ministers over those to whom it is administered, as the aforesaid heretics falsely imagine, but rather includes it. Hence it is evident that that authority, catholically understood, does nothing for the adversaries.

²

³

To the second I answer by denying the minor as most false and heretical, since concerning Christ it is said, Isa. 33: He is our Lord, our judge, our lawgiver and our king, which things seem unable to be predicated of Christ without coercive jurisdiction. Moreover Christ himself says, Matt. last: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Moreover how would he have given coercive jurisdiction to the apostles, Matt. 18, saying: Whatsoever you shall bind, etc., unless he himself had had it? And to the proof, when it is first said that coercive jurisdiction cannot be exercised without riches, I answer that this is false and foolishly said, as is manifest concerning spiritual coercive jurisdiction, which is exercised most fittingly, and by any prelate however much he lacks riches, whatever be the case concerning secular coercive jurisdiction, which sometimes obtains execution by power of arms. But to that which is secondly said, that Christ came to minister and not to be ministered unto, we have already answered in the first response that this was foolishly said, since ministry of this kind of Christ did not empty out coercive jurisdiction in Christ, just as neither, as has been said, in the apostles, since such administration was as of a superior and lord and master toward disciples and his servants, according to that passage John 13: You call me master and lord, and you say well, for so I am. And again: As I have well done, so do you; the servant is not greater than his lord, nor the apostle greater than he who sent him. But what is thirdly adduced, that Christ in no way exercised coercive jurisdiction, is false. Which is evident from many things. First in this, that Christ gave not only counsels but precepts both concerning the sacraments and concerning the conduct of life. Concerning the sacraments he says, John 3: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Concerning the sacrament of the Eucharist, John 6: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. Concerning the sacrament of penance, Matt. 4: Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Concerning the conduct of life he says, John 15: This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you, and the like. But to command belongs only to one having coercive jurisdiction, since, as Gregory says, and it is held in ch. what is commanded, 14, q. 1: What is commanded is ordered; what is ordered must necessarily be done; but if it is not done, it has a punishment; where counsel is given. Whosoever does not obey the precepts is guilty and a debtor of punishment. Then second, he exercised coercive jurisdiction when he added the punishments of eternal damnation to those not obeying his precepts and institutions, as is evident above, which most especially belongs to coercive jurisdiction. Then third, he also exercised coercive jurisdiction when he violently cast out of the temple those selling and buying, as is read Matt. 21 and John 2. Upon which word blessed Gregory in Morals 25 speaks thus, which greatly strikes the foolish understanding of the adversaries. Nor in vain did God through himself pour out the money of the money-changers and overturn the chairs of them that sold doves, since indeed, signifying that through masters indeed he judges the life of the peoples, but through himself he examines the master.

⁴

To the third objection, which is taken from the authority of Origen, I answer that Origen does not wish to exclude coercive jurisdiction from the prelates of the Church, but by this only wishes what also the other holy doctors, Augustine, Isidore and Bernard, say: that spiritual prelates ought to wish to be loved more than feared. But this is evident, since by gentleness and benevolence alone without the correction of discipline no republic in this mortal life can be perfectly governed. For as Gregory says in the Morals, and it is held in ch. discipline, dist. 45, discipline or mercy is much forsaken if one be held without the other. But toward subjects there ought to spring up in rulers both mercy justly consulting and discipline piously severe, etc. To the fourth objection likewise I answer with the same response. For we say that it is not true that blessed Chrysostom excludes all coercive jurisdiction from the prelates of the Church, since he himself says on Matthew: So ought the prelate to exhibit himself that he can be feared smiling and loved, etc. But he excludes, as Christ did, that tyrannical coercive jurisdiction which the princes of the Gentiles use over subjects, because, as we have said above, such does not befit the prelates of the Church. Hence the difference between ecclesiastical and secular princes is not in having and not having coercive jurisdiction, as the adversaries falsely dream, but in having and not having tyrannical coercive jurisdiction, as we have explained above.

⁵

To the fifth, which is of blessed Ambrose in ch. Convenior, 23, q. 8, I answer that, well understood conformably to the other sayings of the same doctor, it does little for the purpose of the adversaries, since although the power of arms, and in their own person, does not befit priests resisting those invading ecclesiastical goods, since the Church knows not corporal arms, as Pope John says in ch. Porro, 16, q. 3, yet on this account there is not excluded from priests spiritual coercive power or jurisdiction, since blessed Ambrose himself is read, as we have adduced above, to have excommunicated Theodosius the great Emperor, as in ch. there are two indeed, dist. 96, which he could not have done if he had had no coercive jurisdiction.

⁶

To the sixth, which is taken from the authority of blessed Chrysostom in his book of dialogues, I answer that it does nothing for the purpose of the adversaries, since Chrysostom speaks concerning those who are without, that is, who have never received the faith of Christ. For upon such no force is to be inflicted, but they are to be invited with charity to faith and correction of morals; but he does not speak concerning those who have already received the faith, since such are to be compelled to retain the faith and religion which they once received and confirmed by vows. Hence in the fourth council of Toledo concerning the Jews it is read to have been thus defined, as is held in ch. concerning the Jews, dist. 45: Concerning the Jews moreover the holy synod has commanded that henceforth violence be inflicted upon no one to believe; for on whom God will he has mercy, and whom he will he hardens; for such are not to be saved unwilling, but willing, that the form of justice may be whole; for as man by the voluntary will of his own choice, obeying the serpent, perished, so, with grace calling him, each one by the conversion of his own mind is saved by believing. therefore not by force but by the free will of choice and faculty are they to be persuaded that they be converted, not rather to be impelled; but since they who were long ago once imbued with the faith, since it is established that they are now associated with the divine sacraments, they must be compelled to hold the faith which they received; these things there. So is the sentence of the Apostle in 1 Cor. 5, when he says: For what have I to do to judge them that are without, that is, outside the Church. For to these, as the Gloss says, blandishment is rather to be applied. Do you not judge those who are within?, where the Gloss thus holds: Within, that is, in the Church by profession and name; for in these putrefaction is to be cut away; this the Gloss. But it is manifest that this cannot be done without jurisdiction; therefore the Apostle presupposes coercive jurisdiction to be in the Church.

⁷

To the seventh, which is assumed from that passage, 2 Tim. 2: No one serving etc., I answer by denying the major, in which it is said that to him who has coercive jurisdiction it belongs to be entangled in secular affairs. And to the proof, when it is said that to him it belongs to settle contentions and suits, I answer that that proof is worth nothing, since to settle contentions and suits among any, especially ecclesiastics, and concerning ecclesiastical things, is not to be entangled in secular affairs. And when it is said that contentions and suits and things are reckoned among secular affairs, Extra, lest clerics in secular affairs, etc., ch. 1, I answer that in the aforesaid chapter to love contentions or suits is well reckoned among secular affairs, but not to settle suits; there is indeed a great difference between to love suits and contentions, which is a carnal vice, and to settle suits, which is of charity, as is evident of itself.

⁸

To the eighth, which is taken from Bernard, I answer that it does nothing for the purpose, since blessed Bernard speaks concerning earthly and secular causes and tumultuous suits; for to these the apostles did not attend, not because they lacked all power of jurisdiction, but because they were intent upon greater things, namely preaching and prayer. Moreover if the apostles did not attend to secular judgments of this kind but left care of this kind to inferior men, according to the counsel of the Apostle in 1 Cor. 6: If you shall have secular judgments, appoint the contemptible, that is, wise men of lesser merit who are in the Church, to judge, not on this account does it follow that they were not judges of men in other spiritual causes.

⁹

To the ninth objection, which is taken from the saying of blessed Gregory, I answer that in nothing does it favor the purpose of the adversaries, since although Gregory says that they who are endowed with spiritual gifts ought not to be entangled in secular affairs but to intend superior things especially, yet on this account neither do such lack coercive jurisdiction simply. Which most clearly appears if the authority of blessed Gregory be placed whole; for he says thus, as is held in the Gloss on 1 Cor. 6: Let them examine earthly causes who have received the wisdom of exterior things; but they who are endowed with spiritual goods 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. But yet it is more properly to beware that they who shine with spiritual goods in no way utterly abandon the affairs of infirm neighbors, but commit these to be treated by those to whom it is worthy or manage them through themselves. This he. From which it manifestly appears that the adversaries have Gregory against them and not for them.

¹⁰

To the last objection, which is taken from the Gloss on 1 Cor. 6, I answer that that Gloss in no way favors the adversaries, just as we have said above concerning the saying of blessed Gregory; for although that Gloss says, following the Apostle, that for the judgment of secular causes and earthly affairs not the greater men, who ought to be intent upon greater and spiritual things, but other men of inferior merit are to be appointed, yet it does not exclude coercive jurisdiction from the prelates of the Church, which is the adversaries' point, as is manifestly plain. From these things the most damnable error of Marsilius of Padua, who says that neither the pope nor even the whole Church together can punish any man with coercive punishment unless the emperor concedes it, is most clearly refuted.