Summa de Ecclesia

HAVING REFUTED sufficiently the aforesaid error of the adversaries, it remains to reply to their objections. To the first¹, when it is said that Christ was subject to the jurisdiction of Pilate and Caesar, reply is made in two ways. First, by denying the consequence. Then, first, because that subjection by which Christ was under the jurisdiction of Caesar was not ordinary, but voluntarily assumed. For out of the highest charity and humility Christ willed to be subject to him, that in this he might show how great charity he had for the human race, since he willed to be judged by one who was not his judge and to be condemned without cause to a most shameful death. Whence in Esa. 53 it is said: He was offered, because he himself willed it. The like is had concerning the observance of the legal rites, to which he willed voluntarily to be subject, that he might free others from their burden, as the Apostle says in Gal. 4: When the fullness of time came God sent his Son made of a woman, made under the law, that he might redeem those who were under the law. It is clear, however, that from a work of supererogation no obligation is argued in him, nor in his vicar or his disciples.

Secondly, that reasoning does not proceed: since, as lord Alvarus answers in his book on heresies in the fifth part, Pilate did not judge Christ as a public person or one preeminent in dignity, but as a private person accused by the princes of the synagogue and the people of the Jews as a malefactor, because in this respect he was of the forum of Caesar and Pilate, since he was governor in Judea for the Emperor. Whence Pilate himself says in Luke 23: You have brought this man to me, this man, insofar as man, as a private person, and not as pontiff, not as constituted in dignity; for then, as lord Alvarus says, Christ did not bear the person of the pope, but simply of a man accused before his judge: nor in this does the pope succeed Christ or bear his place, but in the pontificate, that is, in pontifical authority, not however in the wicked accusation made against him. Since therefore Christ, as priest, was accused neither before his own judge even as pontiff nor judged by his own judge as such, nothing can be concluded from this example concerning the subjection of the pope or of clerics to the power of Caesar or of a secular prince, just as if a lay judge should pass sentence of death against a cleric thinking him not to be a cleric, as for instance one in whom no traces of clerical discipline appear, he cannot by this act acquire any jurisdiction over clerics.

Secondly, reply can be made to the aforesaid objection by denying the minor, namely that Christ, insofar as mortal man, was by ordinary subjection subject to the jurisdiction of the Emperor. For Christ from the incarnation was constituted universal judge of the living and the dead, whence in Acts 10 it is said of him: He it is who is constituted judge of the living and the dead. And in Matt. 28: All power is given to me in heaven and on earth. Although Christ said this after the resurrection, since then his power was manifested and made known, nevertheless he had that very power from the instant of conception, although he was then mortal man, as both the Master of the Sentences and Saint Thomas in the third book say. Wherefore it seems manifestly false what the adversaries say, that Christ was subject to the jurisdiction of Caesar as to his ordinary judge. This also seems manifestly gathered from Matt. ch. 17, where Christ shows and proves that he is not liable or bound to pay tribute to Caesar, to which nevertheless he would have seemed liable if Caesar had been his ordinary judge. For census is a sign of subjection, Extra de cens. omnis anima. For Christ says thus to Peter: What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth receive tribute or census, from their own sons or from strangers? And he said: from strangers. Jesus said to him: therefore the sons are free; but lest we scandalize them, etc., where the Gloss says: Our Lord, etc. According to the flesh he was the son of a king, born of David, and the Word of the Almighty; therefore as son of kings he did not owe tribute, but for the humility of the flesh — for it is fitting to fulfil all justice. Thus far there. And to the proof of the adversaries which they bring from John 19, You would have no power against me, etc., it is answered that from this passage it is not had that Pilate or Caesar was the ordinary judge of Christ: since although to Pilate saying, Do you not speak to me, who have power to crucify you and have power to release you, Christ answered, You would have no power against me at all unless it were given to you from above, namely by Caesar whose vicar he was in Judea, or by God permissively, it does not follow from this that Caesar was the ordinary judge of Christ, just as from the fact that other emperors and secular judges were permitted by God to kill many martyrs it does not follow that they were the ordinary judges of the holy martyrs. And so in the case proposed: since that concession of power by God is to be understood by permission, as Chrysostom says, and it is had in the continuous Gloss: unless it were given to you from above, that is, conceded, as if he should say: I have permitted this to be done. Thus far Chrysostom. Nor does what they bring from Bernard to the archbishop of Sens serve the purpose of the adversaries, granted that blessed Bernard says so, there is a great difference between ordered and ordinary, for since all things which are done by God or permitted to be done must necessarily all be ordered, nevertheless not all are called ordinary. For that is called ordinary not only which is ordered, but which is ordered according to the common law or order instituted in the republic. It is clear, however, that by such a law or order of the universe Christ, on whose thigh is written King of kings and Lord of lords, Rev. 19, was not subject to Caesar, but to God the Father, of whom he says in John 14: The Father is greater than me, namely than me as man, as the Gloss says.

To the second objection concerning the privilege of Constantine² reply is made by denying the minor. For the Roman pontiff does not have his primacy from Constantine, but from Christ, who to blessed Peter, and in Peter to his successors, said in the last chapter of John: Feed my sheep. And to the proof from ch. Constantinus, dist. 96, it is answered that in the whole chapter it is not had that the Roman pontiff had his primacy from Constantine; indeed Constantine asserts that blessed Peter, whom the Roman pontiff succeeds, had the primacy from Christ. Whence he says thus: Just as blessed Peter is said to be constituted on earth vicar of the Son of God, etc. Whence he did not give the privilege of primacy, but what he believed to have been given by Christ to the Roman pontiff he commanded to be observed and venerated through all the churches of the world; and so he was not the institutor of the primacy, but rather the executor of the law and ordination of Christ, as was also said above concerning ch. 42.

To the third³ reply is made by denying the assumption: namely that the Emperor was the ordinary judge of blessed Peter. And to the proof reply is made in two ways. First, by denying the assumption in which it is said that all the apostles were equal as regards subjection. For we say that for blessed Peter, in whom was the highest power, spiritual as well, and the vicar of Christ, it was more repugnant to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Emperor than for the other apostles, who were not assumed to the universal principate and the general vicariate of Christ the King of kings. And so there is no likeness between Peter and the other apostles. Secondly, reply is made by denying that Paul was subject to the jurisdiction of the Emperor as to his ordinary judge. And when it is said that he appealed to Caesar as to a superior, we say that he appealed against the injury done him to Caesar as to an ordinary superior — not his own, but that of the judge from whom he appealed, from whom he suffered injury; and so the reasoning does not proceed. Thirdly, reply could be made by denying the consequence: since if that consequence were good, it would follow that both the pope and the whole clergy would be subject to infidel powers or princes, of which sort were Caesar and Pilate, which is foolish to say; for although, as Saint Thomas says in 2.2, q. 10, art. 10, in the beginning, before the aforesaid division of the faithful from the infidels the preeminence of Caesar and other infidels would not have ceased in whole on account of the conversion of some converted to the faith, nevertheless after the multitude of the faithful was increased it does not follow that it is the same. Whence in 1 Cor. 6, in the beginning, the Apostle rebukes the faithful of Corinth for daring to bring their neighbors before infidel judges, saying: Does any one of you having a matter against another dare to be judged before the unjust, that is the infidels, and not before the saints, that is the faithful.

To the fourth concerning the priesthood of the old law⁴ reply is made according to Master Alexander of Ales, and a like reply has been brought in above from lord Bonaventure, that there is no likeness between the priesthood of the Old Testament and of the New. For the priesthood of the old law was carnal, and succeeded and was continued by carnal propagation, although it was ordained to spiritual service, namely divine worship, and as a figure of the spiritual priesthood of the New Testament; and therefore in that part in which it was carnal and earthly it was subject to earthly power, namely the royal. For as Aug. says, the Old Testament is so called on account of the earthly promise which pertains to the old man; and therefore in the Old Testament the highest power was the earthly power, but not in the New Testament, where there is a spiritual priesthood and a promise of spiritual things. For in the New Testament earthly things are not promised as reward but are added for sustenance and necessity, according to Matt. 6: Seek first the Kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added to you. Whence the ecclesiastical state is not subjected to the temporal, and much less the prince of the spiritual state to any earthly prince. Saint Thomas agrees in the second book on the rule of princes.

Secondly, it is answered that Solomon did this by the special precept of God, who had foretold these things to him. Whence in 3 Kings 2 it is said thus: Solomon therefore cast out Abiathar, that he should not be a priest of the Lord, that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled which he spoke concerning the house of Heli in Silo; and so the reasoning is not to the purpose.

To the last objection concerning Pope Leo⁵ reply is made according to Master Alexander of Ales, that when Pope Leo subjected himself to the judgment of the Emperor Louis or of his envoys, this was a work of supererogation and not of obligation. Whence from such a work the argument does not proceed, as was said above.