Summa de Ecclesia

¹

It remains to explain what of truth or falsity the sixth supposition of the adversaries contains, and thus it will be seen of what weight the objections drawn from it are. First we say that that supposition in all its parts is false, which we show thus. For this, it must be known that that supposition contains several parts. In its first part the adversaries first say that to every creature, to which God has given a certain period by which it is determined how long it can live or endure, he has given its own innate and intrinsic virtue by which it can conserve itself in its being and resist those adverse to its destruction. This part seems to us false, since the conservation of every creature depends on something extrinsic, namely on God himself, who is the cause of subsistence to every creature, according to that to the Hebrews 1: Upholding all things by the word of his power, where the Gloss says: As they were created by him, so they are unchangeably conserved by him. Likewise in the book of causes it is said: The establishing of every intelligence, that is its permanence, is through the goodness of the first, which is the first cause. If therefore the establishing of an intelligence is not through any innate or intrinsic virtue of the intelligence itself but through the first cause, much more does the conservation of other creatures depend on something extrinsic. For a clearer confutation of this supposition of the adversaries and a showing of its falsity, it must be known, according to Saint Thomas in the first part, question 104, article 3, that something is conserved by another in two ways. In one way indirectly and by accident, as he is said to conserve a thing who removes what corrupts it, for instance if someone guards a boy lest he fall into the fire, he is said to conserve him; and thus God too is said to conserve some things but not all, because there are some which have no corrupters that must necessarily be removed for the conservation of the thing. In the other way someone is said to conserve a thing by itself and directly, in that what is conserved depends in its being on the conserver, so that without him it cannot be; and in this way all creatures need divine conservation, for the being of every creature depends in such a way that not even for a moment could they exist but would be reduced to nothing unless they were conserved in being by the operation of the divine virtue, as blessed Gregory says. With this noted, the falsity of that part of the supposition of the adversaries who say that God has given to every creature etc. is quite easily gathered. For if we speak of the mode of conservation by which something is said by itself and directly to conserve another, what the adversaries say is manifestly false, because in this mode of conservation no thing is said to be conserved except by him on whom it depends in being; but to no creature has been given a virtue by which it depends on itself in being. Therefore to no creature has been given a virtue by which it conserves itself. The consequence is manifest and is confirmed by the sayings of the adversaries. For they say, and rightly, that the principles of being and of conserving are the same; but it is not intelligible that any creature through any innate virtue is a principle of being to itself. Therefore neither is it intelligible that through any innate virtue it conserves itself in its being. From this foundation Saint Thomas in the first part of the Summa, in the place above, refutes the aforesaid supposition of the adversaries in these words: since properly a conserving cause is cause of its effect depending on it, as to no effect can it be granted that it be a cause of itself, so to no effect can it be granted that it be conserving of itself. But if we speak of the second mode of conservation, namely indirect and by accident, by which something is said to conserve another through the removal of and impediment to the action of what corrupts it, even so the aforesaid supposition of the adversaries seems to be false, because although it is natural to each one to conserve itself as much as it can, yet that in every creature, even a corruptible one, there is some intrinsic virtue or power by which it conserves itself in its being in this mode of conservation, namely by resisting adversaries and corrupters, does not seem true. For we see daily innumerable things destroyed, corrupted or consumed, in which no virtue or power appears which could impede or remove by its action the action of those corrupting them. And so it appears that the supposition of the adversaries in its first part is false.

² The second part of the same supposition, in which it is said that God has given an intrinsic virtue or power by which it can conserve itself in its being, is also easily shown to be false. And first, concerning that mode of conservation by which someone is said to conserve something by itself and directly, it is clear: since to say that in this mode of conservation the Church has an intrinsic power and virtue of conserving itself in its being is not only false but erroneous. This is clear, since, as to conserve the Church in its being in this mode of conserving belongs to none but him on whom it depends in being, to say that the Church has an intrinsic virtue and power of conserving itself is to say that the Church depends on itself in being, which is manifestly heretical and foolish. Plainly, as God alone founded the Church in the being of nature and grace, so he alone conserves and guards it in this kind of conservation. Hence the Prophet, as he says in Ps. 126, Unless the Lord build the house, they have laboured in vain who build it, so he adds: Unless the Lord keep the city, he watcheth in vain who keepeth it. Where the Gloss says: this psalm teaches that the building and keeping of the Church is from God alone. It is clear therefore that, speaking of this mode of conservation by which, namely directly and by itself, someone is said to conserve something, it is false that the Church itself by some intrinsic virtue given to it conserves itself in its being, but its conservation in this mode must be attributed to the divine virtue alone. But the proofs brought forward by the adversaries for their supposition are of no account.

³ Not the first indeed, since the preceding supposition from which he argues here concerning the Church is false, as we have shown.

⁴ Nor secondly does what is said in Matt. 16, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church, serve their proposition, because from the fact that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church it does not follow that this is because the Church has some such intrinsic virtue or power by which it conserves itself in its being. But this belongs to it by virtue of its foundation on which it rests, namely Christ, whence if that text is read well and in full it appears most clearly that the whole strength and virtue of persisting of the Church depends not on any virtue intrinsic to itself but on the virtue of the foundation upon which it is founded, which is Christ. Whence in the same place it is said thus: upon this rock, the Gloss, that is, Christ in whom you believe, I will build my Church. There follows: And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, the Gloss, that is, they shall not separate from my charity and faith. The whole strength therefore of the Church and its firmness depends on its adherence through faith and charity to Christ its foundation, and not on any other virtue or power intrinsic to itself which is feigned by the adversaries. Whence the Gloss upon that Matt. 16, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, says thus: The gates of hell are sins, threats, flatteries, heresies by which the weak rush into death, who believing have built the house of their profession not on the true rock but on sand; for he who has received the faith of Christ with intimate love of heart conquers whatever assails him from without. Thus far the Gloss.

⁵ To the third, the adversaries allege that passage of Cant. 6, where it is said of the Church, terrible as an army in battle array, but neither does that do anything for the adversaries, since from this it is not had that the Church is conserved by some intrinsic virtue or power of its own, but in its being. This is most clear from the Gloss on the same text, which reads thus: terrible, because compacted through the unity of charity it opens no place through the evil of discord to enemies, that is to heretics or unclean spirits.

What the adversaries further add, how the Church would be perfect and terrible if it had to seek the help of its conservation from something extrinsic, seems to us said very foolishly, for two reasons. First, because although the works of God are said to be perfect in Deut. 32, nevertheless their conservation depends extrinsically on God, as has been said; whence, as blessed Thomas says in the question on power, among other things which pertain to their perfection is this, that they are held together in being by God, and so it must be said of the Church, that however perfect it is said to be, it pertains to its perfection that it be continually conserved in being by God, since as the prophet says where above, Unless the Lord keep the city, he watches in vain who keeps it. Second, because in this argumentation of his the adversary seems to hint at one of two errors, namely that the conservation of created things does not depend on God, or that God is an intrinsic principle of created things, each of which is heretical. What the adversary says, that the principles of being and of conserving are intrinsic, is most false. For the first principle, which is God, on whom principally the being and conservation of things depends, is intrinsic to no creature; whence also the effective principle or efficient cause is distinguished against intrinsic principles, as found in the second book of the Physics and the fifth of the Metaphysics. The second mode of conservation, indirect and by accident, which is through the removal of impediments adverse to the safety of a thing, with respect to the Church can well be attributed to others besides God, yet not without God, namely to angels, to prelates, and to faithful secular princes. Concerning angels it is expressly said in Isa. 62: Upon the walls of Jerusalem, the interlinear Gloss, that is the Church, I have set guardians all day and all night. Upon which word blessed Bernard says thus: You are kind, Lord, who are not content with the frailty of our walls but set the guard of angels over the very guards of men. Plainly this is the order of divine providence, that the human hierarchy be aided by the garrisons of the angelic hierarchy. The Church is also guarded in this mode of conservation by holy men and doctors, both by enlightening it with doctrines and by interceding to God with continual intercessions. Whence upon that Ps. 124, Mountains are round about it, Aug. says: It is a great thing for us to be in that city which mountains have surrounded, wonderful mountains, lofty mountains, preachers of the truth, whether evangelists or apostles or prophets; they themselves are round about Jerusalem, they surround it and as it were make a wall for it. Of this Bernard also speaks on the Canticle, Homily 73: It goes well with you, O mother Church, it goes well with you in the place of your pilgrimage; from heaven and from earth help comes to you; they who guard thee neither slumber nor sleep; thy guardians are the angels, the spirits, and the souls of the just; he errs not who perceives thee to be guarded by both kinds. Thus far Bernard. That the guard of the Church is also attributed to prelates is manifest, since they are said to be its shepherds, to whose office it belongs, as no one doubts, to protect and conserve the flocks committed to them; whence blessed Augustine on the psalm Unless the Lord keep the city etc. says thus: The Church has guardians as it has builders; as it has labourers that it be built, so it has guardians. For to guardianship pertains what the Apostle says: I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtlety, so your minds be corrupted from the charity which is in Christ; he guarded, he was a guardian, he watched as much as he could over those over whom he presided, and bishops do this, for hence a higher place is appointed to bishops, that they may superintend and guard the people. Thus far Augustine. Hence it is that to the Roman pontiff, as shepherd of the whole Church, it especially belongs in this kind of conservation to protect and guard the Church. Whence blessed Boniface the Martyr says, as found in ch. si papa, dist. 40: That the whole body of the faithful prays so much the more intently for the lasting state of the Pope as it perceives its own salvation after God to depend more readily on his safety; but because the Pope and the other prelates of the Church are not the principal conservers of the Church, but only as ministers, nor are they conservers directly and by themselves, as those on whom the being of the Church depends, but indirectly and by accident. Hence it is that if the prelates refuse or neglect to guard, the Church will not on that account fail, although it is at times molested in many ways and shaken by various disturbances, since its principal guardian and conserver Christ always watches, who guards it according to that of the prophet: He shall neither slumber nor sleep that keeps Israel. Whence Aug. on that Ps. 126, Unless the Lord keep the city, in vain do they labour who build, etc., speaking of prelates to the people, says thus: Since therefore we guard, as men, what we can, as we have received, and because we guard as men and cannot guard perfectly, will you therefore remain without a guardian? God forbid. For where is he of whom it is said: Unless the Lord keep the city, in vain do they labour who keep it? We labour in guarding, but vain is our labour unless he guard who has seen your thoughts. He guards you when you watch; he guards you when you sleep. For he slept once on the cross, and having risen he now sleeps not; be Israel, for he shall not slumber nor sleep that keeps Israel. Thus far Augustine. Further, this mode of conservation and protection of the Church in some way belongs also, as we have said, to faithful secular princes; whence blessed Isidore says, as found in ch. principes 23, q. 5: Let the princes of the world know that they will have to render an account to God for the Church which they undertake to protect for Christ. But as to whether in this kind of conservation, namely indirect and by accident, one can be said to conserve oneself in its being, we say yes, in the way in which one, by the aid of natural reason, or instructed by the doctrine of another, or fortified by the protection of divine grace, can preserve and guard himself from evils which can bring harm to him either in his natural or in his moral or gratuitous being, or even by repelling force with force, since it is natural to each one to conserve itself in being as much as it can. But from this mode of conservation in being, since it is common to all, nothing follows for the proposition of the adversaries.

⁶ The third part of the supposition of the adversaries is that the Church has an intrinsic virtue and power of ruling itself and governing itself. This supposition can be well or badly understood, and in one sense it will be false and in another true; nevertheless it seems to us that in the sense which the adversaries pretend it is false. For they pretend, as has often been seen, that to the Church in all its members there is given a spiritual power of governing and ruling, in the manner in which we say that in the principate of a polity the power of government is with the people and not with some one person who presides over the whole people. For this it must be known that the power of ruling and governing is spoken of in two ways: one, namely, which is called the power of public administration, of which it is said in 3 Kings 21: Thou art of great authority, and thou governest well the kingdom of Israel. Such a power of ruling is not given to anyone indiscriminately, nor does it befit anyone, but only those who in the community have public administration of rule according to the diverse species of polity or principate. Indeed without this distinction of order no society could subsist, as Boniface says in ch. ad hoc, distinct. 89. But since the Church is believed to have been constituted by Christ in the best disposition of rule and principate, it is believed without hesitation that the rule of the Church was constituted by Christ himself monarchical or royal. So that the supreme power of rule of the whole community of the Church is located in one alone and not in many nor in the community itself, as we have shown in many ways above. And so speaking in this mode of the power of rule, that part of the supposition of the position of the adversaries is false.⁷ In another way the power of ruling and governing oneself is said to be the faculty by which everyone possessing reason can virtuously rule himself in his operations. Of which power Prosper says: He does not lack royal power who knows how to command his own body reasonably; and Gregory in the Morals says: They are kings who preside over themselves. They are kings who know how to rule themselves, who while they temper the motions of desires in themselves rule the subjected thoughts with the law of virtue; and Seneca: Do you wish a great kingdom for yourself? Rule yourself. This faculty or power of rule is common to all rational creatures, and in such terms the supposition of the adversaries has truth, since the Church is a gathering or convocation of faithful rational creatures; but from such a power of rule there is nothing for the proposition of the adversaries.

⁸ The fourth part of the supposition of the adversaries is that the Church has an intrinsic virtue or power of resisting those adverse to its destruction. That part, like the preceding, can have a twofold sense, since either it speaks of the power of resisting by way of the spiritual sword, by restraining and punishing adversaries through jurisdiction, and then we say that the Church well has this power, but in its prelates, to whom it was said in Matt. 18, Whatsoever you shall bind etc., and most of all it has this in the prelate of prelates, of which kind is the Roman pontiff, in whose see, and as is held in ch. nolite errare, dist. 11, God has placed the principate of the whole Church, in sign of which Peter, kindled for the defence of the Lord and wishing to resist the crowd coming to seize Christ, struck with the sword one of the servants of the chief priest; upon which word Gregory says, as found in ch. si Petrus 24, q. 1: Peter takes away the ear; why Peter? Because he is the one 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 to resist in this mode, namely with the sword of spiritual power, does not belong to anyone at all, since the sword of spiritual power has not been given to anyone at all, nor even to the community of the Church itself together in all its members, as has been most openly demonstrated above. Whence in this sense, namely that to the very body of the Church together in all its members such a power was given, as the adversaries seem to pretend, that part of the aforesaid supposition is false. But if the power of resisting adversaries is said to be the faculty of in any way gainsaying and resisting adversaries and their attempts at its destruction, the supposition of the adversaries is true, but does not serve the proposition, since such a faculty is common to all men, not only the faithful but unbelievers. For it is natural to each one, as we said above, to conserve itself in being as much as it can. Add also, according to the laws: It is lawful to repel force with force, with the moderation, however, of blameless self-defence.

⁹ The fifth part of the supposition of the adversaries is concerning what that intrinsic virtue or power given to the Church, by which it could conserve and protect itself in its being, is. For they say that it is the common sentence of the doctors that such a power is the power of the keys, namely the knowledge of discerning and the potency of judging. But that this part is not only false but foolish is shown in many ways. First, because the aforesaid power of conserving itself in its being, as is gathered from the sayings of the adversaries, always was, is, and will be in the Church, since it is said to be its intrinsic virtue; but the power of the keys was not always in the Church. This is clear, because not in the time of the law of nature, in which time nevertheless there was a Church, which is said to have begun from Abel. For as blessed Aug. says, as long as there were saints on earth there was a Church, as we disputed more fully in the first book. Nor was there the power of the keys in the time of the law, as is clear, since, as before the passion of Christ the kingdom of heaven, for the opening of which the keys are ordained, was not open, the priests of that time are not said to have had the keys of this kingdom of heaven, but only the keys of the material temple; and yet for that time it was said of the Church that it is terrible as an army in battle array, Cant. 6. Second, that the power of conserving itself in being belongs to every rational creature, as the adversary says; but such a power cannot be called the power of the keys; therefore neither can that which is said to belong to the whole community of the Church. The consequence is clear, because the virtue of the part and the virtue of the whole seem to be of the same nature, as Aristotle argues in the first book of the Physics concerning a clod of earth and the whole earth. Third, the angels, as has been said, have a ministerial power of guarding the Church, and yet that is not the power of the keys. Fourth, the power of conserving itself in being, taken in the good understanding shown above, is common to more in the Church than the power of the keys, as is clear of itself; therefore they are not the same. But what is said on the other side, that it is the sentence of all the doctors that such a power is the power of the keys, is manifestly clear to be false.