William of Ockham, Dialogus
part 3, tract 1, book 4

Text and translation by John Scott.
Revised by John Kilcullen

Copyright (c) 1999, 2000, The British Academy

Conventions used in collation files

CAP. 1

Discipulus Postquam conferendo quaesivimus quae scripturae recipiendae sunt ad ecclesiastica dogmata confirmanda ad principale revertamur intentum, an videlicet Christus de facto constituerit beatum Petrum principem et praelatum aliorum apostolorum et universorum fidelium. Circa quod diversas opiniones studeas recitare.

CHAPTER 1

Student Now that we have sought to learn by discussion what writings should be accepted for the purpose of confirming teachings of the Church, let us turn back to our original intention -- whether, that is, Christ did in fact establish blessed Peter as chief and ruler of the other Apostles and all the faithful. Would you endeavour to list the various opinions about this?

DID CHRIST IN FACT MAKE PETER HEAD OF THE CHURCH?

Magister Una opinio est {*trs. Mz[3]} quod Christus de facto beatum Petrum non constituit principem et praelatum aliorum apostolorum et universorum fidelium. {circa quod ... fidelium: om. Mz[4]} [[added in Mz margin [5]]] Quod multis modis videtur posse probari.

Master One opinion is that Christ did not in fact establish blessed Peter as chief and ruler of the other Apostles and all the faithful. This seems provable in many ways.

First opinion (Marsilius): he did not

Et primo quidem ostenditur quod nullus apostolus ex ordinatione Christi {*trs. FrMz[6]} caeteris apostolis nec quantum ad dignitatem sacerdotalem essentialem nec quantum ad aliquam aliam potestatem fuit superior. Quod videtur convinci ex Lucae 22 c. {om. FrMz[7]} Nam tribuens Christus apostolis potestatem {*ad add. FrMz[8]} eucharistiae consecrandae {*sacramentum Marsilius: consecrandae Ly, <IB>omitted<IE> Mz Fr Pz} inquit ad eos, "Hoc est enim corpus meum quod pro vobis datur; hoc facite in meam commemorationem", id est, hoc faciendi potestatem habete, proferendo tamen verba consimilia quando actum hunc exercere debetis, videlicet, "hoc est {*enim add. FrMz[10]} corpus meum." Nec dixit haec verba plus ad {om. LmPz[11]} [[ad add interlinear Lm [12]]] {*beatum add. FrMz[13]} Petrum quam ad alios. Non enim dixit ei Christus, "Fac et aliis apostolis sic faciendi potestatem tribuas", sed dixit "Facite" in plurali et omnibus indifferenter.

First, it is shown indeed that no apostle was superior by Christ's decree to the rest of the Apostles with respect to his essential sacerdotal dignity or with respect to any other power. This seems to be demonstrated in Luke 22:19. For in bestowing on the Apostles power in respect of the sacrament of the eucharist, Christ said to them, "For this is my body, which is given for you; do this in memory of me", -- that is, have the power of doing this, yet by uttering similar words when you are to carry out this act, namely, "For this is my body." And he did not say these words more to blessed Peter than to the others. For Christ did not say to him, "Do [singular] this, and bestow the power of so doing on the other Apostles", but he said, "Do" in the plural and to all of them without distinction. [Cf Marsilius, II.xvi.2]

Item idem {quod hoc FrMz[14]} quoque per omnia faciendum {*sentiendum Marsilius; sciendum FrMz[15]} est {*om. Marsilius, FrMz[16]} de clavium potestate, sive his eisdem verbis traditae {*tradita FrLmMzPz[17]} fuerint {*fuerit FrMz[18]} apostolis sive aliis aut alio tempore, {Item ... tempore: repeated FrMz with note to omit first occurrence Fr[19]} ut de {*om. FrMz[20]} his quae habentur Iohann. 10 {*20 FrVg[21]}:[21-3]. Postquam enim Christus dixit apostolis, "Sicut misit me pater et ego vos mitto", insufflavit et dixit eis, "Accipite spiritum sanctum. Quorum remiseritis peccata remittuntur eis et quorum retinueritis retenta sunt" {eis add. Fr[22]}. Dicit {*dixit FrLmMzPz[23]} ergo Christus, "Mitto {mittite Mz[24]} vos sicut me misit pater" {*trs.312 FrMz[25]} nec dixit Petro aut alteri apostolo singulariter, "Mitto te {mitto te: mittite Mz[26]} sicut pater etc et tu alios mitte." Nec rursum {rursus Fr[27]} dicitur Christus insufflavit "ei" {insufflavit ei: inflavit eis Fr[28]} sed dixit "eis" non uni per alterum. Nec dixit Christus ad Petrum, "Accipe spiritum sanctum et aliis postmodum tribue." Sed dixit "Accipite" in plurali ut indifferenter omnibus loquens.

Again, absolutely the same should be thought concerning the power of the keys, whether it was handed on to the Apostles in these same words or in others or at some other time, for example those found in John 20:21-3. For after Christ said to the Apostles, "As the father has sent me, so I send you", he breathed on them and said, "Receive the holy spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." Christ said, therefore, "I send you [plural] as the father has sent me", and did not say to Peter or another apostle in the singular, "I send thee as the father", etc., "and do thou send the others." Nor again is it said that Christ breathed on "him", but he said "on them", not on one through the other. Nor did Christ say to Peter, "Receive thou [singular] the holy spirit, and then do thou bestow it on the others," but he said, "Receive" in the plural, as speaking to them all without distinction. [Marsilius, II.xvi.2]

Item Apostolus ad hanc quaestionem diffiniendam, ut videlicet nemo credat aliquem {credat add. Fr[29]} apostolorum praerogativam habuisse {*trs. FrMz[30]} seu auctoritatem super alios, ipsam expresse removet a Petro, de quo fortasse videbatur hoc magis propter aliqua sibi a Christo singulariter dicta et quia senior caeteris erat. Unde 1 {*2 Vg[31]}:[6-9] ad Galatas ait, "... mihi enim qui videbantur esse aliquid nichil contulerunt {contulerint Lm[32]}. Sed econtra cum vidissent quod creditum est mihi evangelium praeputii, {praeciputii Pz[33]} {om. FrMz[34]} [[gap in text Mz]] sicut Petro circumcisionis - qui enim operatus est Petro in apostolatum circumcisionis, operatus est {et Mz[35]} {*add. et Vg[36]} mihi inter gentes - et cum cognovissent gratiam {inter add. Fr[37]} quae data est mihi Iacobus et Cephas et Iohannes qui videbantur columnae {alumpni FrMz[38]} esse dederunt dexteras {*trs. FrMzVg[39]} mihi et Barnabae societatis etc." Qui igitur {*ergo FrMz[40]} operatus fuit Petro in apostolatum operatus fuit et Paulo. Hic autem fuit Christus. Igitur {*ergo FrMz[41]} huiusmodi officium non suscepit {susceperit Mz[42]} a Petro et {nec Fr[43]} similiter nec {om. Fr[44]} apostoli reliqui. Ubi in Glossa secundum Augustinum hoc amplius exprimens inquit, "'Illi qui videbantur esse aliquid', scilicet {sed LmPz[45]} Petrus et alii qui fuerunt cum Domino, 'nihil contulerunt', id {*est add. FrLmMzPz[46]} addiderunt 'mihi'. In quo {*patet add. Marsilius} quod non illis inferior sum, quia a domino Deo perfectus sum ut nihil {michi LmMzPz[47]} esset quod in collatione perfectioni {*meae add. FrMz[48]} adderent." Ecce quod Paulus non fuit inferior Petro nec aliis {alius FrMzPz[49]}. Consequenter ad hanc intentionem subiungit Glossa, "'Cum vidissent quod evangelium praeputii creditum est mihi', ut fideli, {*ita principaliter add. Marsilius} 'sicut Petro circuncisionis...'" Ecce quod aeque principaliter missus fuit Paulus quemadmodum et Petrus et non a Petro aut apostolorum aliquo sed a Christo immediate." Quod amplius exprimens apostolus eodem {eadem FrMz[50]} 1:[1] cap. sic ait, "Paulus apostolus non ab hominibus neque per hominem sed per Iesum Christum et Deum patrem." Ubi Glossa secundum Ambrosium: "'Paulus apostolus non' electus neque {*vel FrMz[51]} missus 'ab hominibus', scilicet ab Anania, ut quidam dicebant, vel ab aliis, ut quidam ab apostolis electi et missi fuerunt..." Denique parum {patrum LmPz[52]} infra subdit secundum Augustinum, "Ceteri ei {*enim FrLmMzPz[53]} apostoli videbantur esse maiores quia priores, iste minimus {minus Fr[54]} quia novissimus. Sed inde apparet dignior quia priores constituti sunt per Christum, adhuc {om. Fr[55]} ex parte {ad add. Fr[56]} hominem id est mortalem, novissimus vero {*Paulus add. FrMz[57]} per Christum iam totum Deum, id est ex omni parte immortalem et {om. LmPz[58]} ut {*om. FrMz[59]} Deum patrem qui hoc fecit per filium. Atque ut aperiret cum {*cur Marsilius} dixerit 'neque per hominem' subdit 'qui suscitavit eum a {de Fr[60]} mortuis'. Et ita dignius constituit me per immortalem Christum quam alios per mortalem."

Again, to settle this question -- that is, so that no one would believe that any of the Apostles had a privilege or authority over the others -- the Apostle expressly takes it away from Peter, of whom this seemed more likely, perhaps, because of some things said separately to him by Christ, and because he was senior to the others. Whence in Galatians 2:6-9 he says, "Those who seemed to be something contributed nothing to me. On the contrary when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, as Peter had been for the circumcised -- for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle for the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles -- and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognised the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship," etc. He who "worked through Peter", therefore, "making him an apostle", worked also through Paul. Now this was Christ. He [Paul] did not receive this office, therefore, from Peter, and similarly neither did the rest of the Apostles. On this the gloss taken from Augustine, explaining it more fully, says, "'Those who seemed to be something', that is, Peter and the others who were with the Lord, 'contributed', that is, added, 'nothing to me'. In this it is clear that I am not inferior to them, since I have been made perfect by the Lord God, so there would be nothing they could add to the bringing about of my perfection." See, then, that Paul was not inferior to Peter or to the others. In accord with this opinion the gloss adds, "'When they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised' as one who was faithful, just as principally 'as Peter had been for the circumcised...'" See, then, that Paul was sent equally principally as Peter was, and not by Peter or any of the Apostles, but directly by Christ. Expressing this more fully, the Apostle speaks as follows in the first chapter (1:1) of the same letter, "Paul, an apostle, not by men or by a man but by Jesus Christ and God the father." On this, the gloss taken from Ambrose [says], "'Paul, an apostle, not' chosen or sent 'by men', namely by Ananias (as some were saying), or by others, as certain people were chosen and sent by the Apostles..." Finally, a little further on [the gloss] taken from Augustine adds, "For the rest of the Apostles seemed to be greater because they were earlier, he [Paul] the least because the most recent. But then he appears worthier because the earlier were established by Christ, still partly a man, that is mortal, but Paul, the most recent, by a Christ who was now totally God, that is completely immortal, and by God the father who did this through the Son. And to explain the reason why he said 'not by any man', he adds 'He who raised him from the dead'. And thus he appointed me more worthily through the immortal Christ than the others through the mortal Christ." [Cf. Marsilius, II.xvi.3.]

Rursus confirmans hoc apostolus eodem c {om. FrMz[61]} alt {*ait FrLmMzPz[62]}, "Notum enim vobis facio evangelium fratres evangelisatum {* est a me, quia non est secundum hominem; neque enim ego ab homine accepi illud neque didici, sed per revelationem Iesu Christi". Ubi glossa secundum Augustinum: "'Notum enim vobis facio evangelium, fratres, quod evangelizatum est add. Marsilius} a me quia non est per hominem' docentem me vel mittentem. Et vere non est ab homine. 'Neque enim accepi illud ab homine (*ab homine: om. Marsilius) neque didici ab homine', ubi {*ut Marsilius} homo eligeret me ad evangelisandum vel mihi iniungeret, non {*'neque Marsilius} didici' ab homine docente me 'sed per revelationem Iesu Christi {Iesu Christi: om. Lm[63]}'". Ecce quod neque {om. Mz[64]} Petrus neque alius {*apostolorum add. FrMz[65]} aut homo quisquam elegit, misit aut iniunxit Paulo mysterium evangelii. Idem quoque videndum {*iudicandum Marsilius} est de apostolis reliquis. Nullam ergo potestatem eoque {eo quod Mz[66]} {eo quia Fr[67]} minus coactivam {coactam Fr[68]} iurisdictionem habuit Petrus a Deo immediate super apostolos reliquos neque instituendi eos in officio sacerdotali neque segregandi eos seu mittendi ad officium praedicationis, nisi quod hoc sane concedi potest ipsum fuisse priorem aliis aetate vel officio fortasse secundum tempus aut in {*om. FrLmMzPz[69]} apostolorum electione qui eum {qui eum: quod enim Fr[70]} propterea reverebantur merito, quamvis hanc electionem ex scriptura nemo convincere possit {potest Fr[71]}.

Again, confirming this, the Apostle says in the same chapter (Gal. 1:11-12), "For I inform you, brothers, that the gospel proclaimed by me is not according to man; for I did not receive it or learn it from a man, but through a revelation of Jesus Christ". Upon this the Gloss, following Augustine, says: "'For I inform you, brothers, that the gospel proclaimed by me is not according to man' teaching me or sending me. And truly it is not from man. 'For I did not receive it or learn it' from a man, so that a man chose me to proclaim it or imposed it on me. And I did not 'learn it from a man' teaching me, 'but through a revelation of Jesus Christ.'" See, then, that neither Peter nor any of the Apostles nor any man at all chose, sent, or imposed on Paul the task of preaching the gospel. The same judgement should also be made about the rest of the Apostles. Over the other Apostles, therefore, Peter did not have immediately from God any power, and much less coercive jurisdiction, either to appoint them to their priestly office or to set them apart or to send them out with the duty of preaching: except that it can certainly be granted that he was first of the Apostles in age, or perhaps in the time he was in office or by the election of the Apostles, who for that reason held him in due reverence (though no one can demonstrate this election from scripture). [Cf. Marsilius II.xvi.4]

Adhuc ergo per signum ostenditur, quia beatum Petrum nullam sibi assumpsisse {regulariter seu add. Fr[72]} singulariter auctoritatem supra reliquos apostolos invenimus ex scriptura, sed magis cum ipsis aequalitatem {equalem FrMz[73]} servasse. Non enim sibi assumpsit auctoritatem determinandi quae dubia erant {*circa add. Marsilius} evangelii praedicatione {*predicationem FrMz[74]} quod pertinet ad doctrinam, sed quae dubia fuerunt {fuerint Lm[75]} in hoc ex communi deliberatione apostolorum et aliorum fidelium magis doctorum determinabant {* determinabantur Marsilius}non Petri aut alterius apostoli seorsum determinatione. Unde Actuum 15 dissensione orta inter praedicatores evangelii an oporteret circumcidere incircumcisos fideles {fide FrLmMzPz[76]} ad salutem aeternam consequendam, quibusdam dicentibus oportere {oporteret FrLmPz[77]} Paulo vero et Barnaba reclamantibus contra hoc, "convenerunt apostoli et seniores videre de verbo hoc". Super quod {*quo FrMz[78]} locuti sunt Petrus et Iacobus non opertere. Quorum sententiae seniores et reliqui consenserunt apostoli. Unde subditur infra (Acts 15:22-3), "Tunc placuit apostolis {apostolos Fr[79]} et senioribus cum {in Fr[80]} omni ecclesia eligere viros et mittere Antiocham {*Antiochiam FrLmMz[81]}" etc {et etiam FrMz[82]} "scribentes per manus eorum", et fuit modus scribendi modo {modus FrMz[83]} deliberandi {liberandi Lm[84]} conformis et talis {tales FrLmMzPz[85]}, "apostoli et seniores fratres his qui sunt Antiochiae et Syriae et Ciciliae {*Cilicie MzVg[86]} fratribus ex gentibus salutem etc." Similiter {etiam add. LmPz[87]} {*simile etiam FrMz[88]} habetur hoc {*om. FrLmMzPz[89]} infra {* eodem add. Marsilius} continuata sententia cum dicitur (Acts 15:25), "Placuit ergo nobis collectis ex {*in FrMzVg[90]} nobis {*unum Vg[91]} eligere {colligere Fr[92]} viros et mittere ad vos." Et parum post {*om. FrMz[93]} infra (Acts 15:28), "Visum enim {om. Fr[94]} est Spiritu {*Spiritui FrLmMzPzVg[95]} Sancto et nobis nihil ultra imponere vobis oneris." Non ergo determinavit Petrus supradicta dubia circa fidem de plenitudine potestatis.

Further, this is shown, therefore, by a sign [[i.e. something understandable on this hypothesis but not otherwise]], because we discover from scripture that blessed Peter did not assume any separate authority for himself over the other Apostles, but rather preserved equality with them. For he did not assume to himself authority to determine doubtful points in the preaching of the gospel, which pertains to teaching, but doubtful matters of this kind were determined by the joint deliberation of the Apostles and the more learned of the other faithful, not by the determination of Peter or another apostle alone. Whence in Acts 15 when a dispute arose among the preachers of the gospel about whether it would be necessary to circumcise the faithful who were uncircumcised in order for them to obtain eternal salvation, with certain people saying that this was necessary but Paul and Barnabas exclaiming against it, "the Apostles and elders met together to see about the question". Peter and James said that it was not necessary. The elders and the remaining Apostles agreed with their opinion. Whence it is added below (Acts 15:22-3), "Then the Apostles and the elders with the consent of the whole Church decided to choose men and send them to Antioch", etc., "writing in their own hand". Their way of writing was similar to their way of deliberating and was as follows: "The brothers, both the Apostles and the elders, to the brothers of gentile origin in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia, greetings", etc. We read a similar thing further on in the same chapter as their opinion continues, when it says (Acts 15:25), "We have decided as a gathering to choose men from among us and send them to you." And a little further on (Acts 15:28), "For it has seemed good to the holy spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden." It was not Peter from the plenitude of his power, therefore, who determined the above doubts about the faith . [Cf. Marsilius II.xvi.5.]

Deliberavit ergo dubium {*determinavit add. Marsilius} elegit et scripsit fidelium doctorum congregatio. Hac etiam auctoritate validum fuit sic determinatum atque mandatum. Congregatio enim apostolorum amplioris fuit auctoritatis quam solus Petrus aut alter apostolus. Unde ab ipsa Petrum legimus missum in Samariam, ut apparet Actuum 8:[14], "Cum igitur audissent apostoli quia recepit {recepisset Vg[96]} Samaria verbum Dei miserunt ad eos Petrum et Iohannem." Petrus igitur {*ergo FrMz[97]} servavit aequalitatem cum caeteris apostolis iuxta praeceptum Christi dicentis Mathaei 23:[8], "Nolite vocari rabbi, unus est enim magister vester," Christus, "omnes autem {*vos add. FrLmMzPzVg[98]} fratres estis." Confirmatur {*autem add. FrMz[99]} haec sententia {*trs. FrMz[100]} per apostolum ad Gal. 2:[2] ubi {Christus add. FrLmMzPz[101]} ait, "Ascendi autem secundum revelationem et contuli cum illis evangelium quod praedico in {om. Fr[102]} gentibus." Ubi Glosa secundum Augustinum, "Et non didici ab illis tanquam maioribus," a Petro scilicet nec aliis principalioribus apostolorum {apostolis Fr[103]} de quibus infra dicetur {dicitur FrMz[104]}, "sed 'contuli cum eis' tanquam cum {*om. FrMz[105]} amicis {operibus add. FrMz[106]} {*et paribus add. Marsilius}. Idem rursus infra eodem cum dixit apostolus (Gal. 2:11), "Cum autem venisset Cephas Antiocham {*Antiochiam LmMzPzVg[107]} in faciem ei restiti {resisti LmPz[108]} quia reprehensibilis erat etc." Ubi Glossa secundum Hieronymum, "Ipsi nihil {om. FrMz[109]} mihi contulerunt sed ego contuli Petro", et subiungit consequenter: "Ego restiti ei tanquam par. Hoc enim non auderet facere nisi sciret se non imparem fore." Ecce ergo quod Paulus fuit par {pari FrMz[110]} officio et dignitate Petro non inferior, licet Petrus fuerit aetate senior et tempore prior pastor.

The gathering of the learned faithful, therefore, consulted about the doubt, decided, chose [messengers], and wrote. What was determined and sent in this way was valid because of this authority. For the gathering of the Apostles was of greater authority than Peter or another apostle alone. Whence we read that Peter was sent by that [gathering] into Samaria, as is clear from Acts 8:14: "Therefore when the Apostles heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them." Peter maintained equality with the rest of the Apostles, therefore, in accord with Christ's precept in Matthew 23:8, "You are not to be called rabbi, for you have one master", Christ, "and you are all brothers." This opinion is confirmed, moreover, by the Apostle when he says in Gal. 2:2, "I went up in response to a revelation and communicated to them the gospel that I proclaim among the gentiles." About this the gloss taken from Augustine says, "I did not learn from them as from those who were greater", that is Peter and the other more important of the Apostles who will be mentioned below, "but 'I communicated to them' as to friends and equals." The same point is found later in the same chapter when the Apostle said (Gal. 2:11), "But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face because he was to be blamed", etc. About this the gloss taken from Jerome says, "They did not communicate anything to me, but I communicated to Peter", and it adds accordingly: "'I opposed him' as an equal. For he would not dare to do this unless he knew that he was not unequal." See, then, that Paul was equal in office and dignity to Peter, not inferior to him, although Peter was older and had been a pastor longer. [Cf. Marsilius, II.xvi.6.]

Item Augustinus De quaestionibus novi et veteris testamenti, q. 44 ait, "Eodem die", id est Penthecostes {*Penthecostis FrMz[111]}, "lex lata est quo et Spiritus Sanctus decidit in discipulos ut auctoritatem caperent et {ac Mz[112]} scirent evangelicum ius praedicare."

Again, Augustine says in question 44 of On Questions concerning the New and Old Testament, "On that same day", that is Pentecost, "that the law was made, the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples, so that they would obtain authority and know how to preach the gospel law." [Cf. Marsilius, II.xvi.8.]

Amplius sicus {*sicut FrLmMzPz[113]} Petrus Antiochae {*Antiochiae LmMzPz[114]} legitur electus in episcopum per multitudinem, aliorum apostolorum confirmatione vel consecratione non indigens, sic et apostolorum reliqui praefuerunt {profuerunt FrMz[115]} in aliis provinciis absque Petri scientia institutione vel consecratione aliqua. Fuerunt {*fuerant FrMz[116]} enim per Christum consecrati sufficienter. Propter quod similiter opinandum horum apostolorum successores non indiguisse aliqua confirmatione successorum Petri. Quinimo multi successores aliorum apostolorum fuerint {fuerunt Lm[117]} electi et instituti episcopi rite ipsorumque provincias rite et {om. Pz[118]} {*rite et: om. FrMz[119]} sancte rexerunt {rexerint Lm[120]} absque institutione vel confirmatione de ipsis facta per successores {per successores: om. Fr[121]} Petri et extitit hoc sic legitime observatum usque {*quasi add. FrLmMzPz[122]} ad tempora Constantini Imperatoris qui quandam praeeminentiam et potestatem tribuit episcopis et ecclesiae Romanorum super caeteras mundi ecclesias.

Further, just as we read that Peter was chosen bishop at Antioch by the multitude, without needing confirmation or consecration by the other Apostles, so also the rest of the Apostles became heads in the other provinces without Peter's knowledge, or any appointment or consecration by him, for they had been sufficiently consecrated by Christ. For the same reason it must also be held that the successors of those Apostles did not need any confirmation by the successors of Peter. Indeed, many successors of the other Apostles were elected and established as bishops in a proper manner and have ruled their provinces piously without any establishment or confirmation of them by the successors of Peter. This is how things were legitimately observed right up to about the times of the emperor Constantine, who bestowed on the bishop and Church of the Romans a certain pre-eminence and power over the rest of the Churches of the world. [Cf. Marsilius, II.xvi.9.]

Item aequalitatem Petri et apostolorum signavit apostolus ad Galatas 2:[9] cum dixit, "Dexteras dederunt mihi", etc. Iacobus Petrus atque Iohannes, "ut nos in gentes ipsi autem {aut LmPz[123]} in circumcisionem." Dexteras societatis igitur {*ergo FrMz[124]} et aequalitatis, {*ut add. FrMz[125]} Ex {et Lm[126]} Glossa secundum Augustinum satis ostensum est supra, quamvis {*in add. FrMz[127]} hoc dictum apostoli sic sit apertum ut glossam non {cum FrMz[128]} egeat. Quod etiam ex epistola Hieronimi ad Eliandrum patet cum dicit, Omnes episcopos "sive Romae {romane LmPz[129]} sive" alibi "eiusdem sacerdotii atque meriti" seu potestatis a Christo collatae immediate.

Again the Apostle, in Galatians 2:9, marked the equality of Peter and the Apostles when he said, "They", James, Peter and John, "gave to me the right hand", etc."that we should go to the gentiles and they to the circumcised." This is the right hand of fellowship, and therefore of equality, as has been shown sufficiently by the gloss taken from Augustine [cited] above, although in this matter the saying of the Apostle is so clear that it does not need a gloss. This is also clear from Jerome's letter to Evander when he says that all bishops, "whether at Rome or" elsewhere, "[are] of the same priesthood and merit" or power, conferred directly by Christ [Cf. Marsilius, II.xvi.9.]

Si autem beatus Petrus a quibusdam sanctorum princeps apostolorum scribatur, dictum est large ac {et Fr[130]} improprie sumendo {sumendum FrMz[131]} vocabulum principis, et nisi sic, aperte contra Christi sententiam et oraculum est {*om. FrLmMzPz[132]}, ut (*ubi Marsilius} Mat. 20:[25] et Luc. 22:[25-6] inquit, "Principes gentium dominantur eorum ... vos autem non sic." Ideoque {ideo Fr[133]} dicendum est {*om. LmPz[134]} sic {est sic : sit FrMz[135]} sanctos locutos *{fuisse add. Marsilius} non propter potestatem aliquam a Christo super apostolos sibi datam immediate sed forsitan quia aetate senior aut quia Christum prius est confessus fuisse verum Dei {deum et uni dei Fr[136]} consubstantialem filium vel quia forte {*fortasse FrMz[137]} fuit in fide ferventior atque constantior aut quia cum Christo conversatus et frequentius vocatus in consiliis et {*om. Fr[138]} secretis. Unde apostolus ad Galatas 2:[9], "Iacobus et Cephas," id est Petrus, "et Iohannes videbantur columnae esse", ubi Glossa secundum Ambrosium: "quia honoratiores erant in apostolis, quia semper in secretis cum domino fuerunt.

If, however, blessed Peter has been described as "chief" of the Apostles by some of the saints, this has been said taking the word "chief" broadly and improperly, and if it is not so taken, it is openly against the thought and pronouncement of Christ, when he says in Matthew 20:25 and Luke 22:25-6, "The chiefs of the gentiles lord it over them ... but not so with you." And so it must be said that these saints spoke in this way not because of some power over the Apostles given directly to him by Christ, but perhaps because he was the oldest of them, or because he was the first to confess that Christ was the true consubstantial son of God, or perhaps because he was more fervent and constant in faith, or because he kept close company with Christ and was called more often into private discussions. For this reason the Apostle says in Galatians 2[:9], "James and Cephas," that is Peter, "and John seemed to be pillars", about which the gloss taken from Ambrose says "that they were the more honoured among the Apostles because they were always with the Lord in private". [Cf. Marsilius, II.xvi.10.]

Item quod Petrus super apostolos nullam a Christo habuerit {habueret Fr[139]} potestatem probatur auctoritate Christi potestatem huiusmodi interdicentis et dicentis Mathaei 22 {*23 FrLmMzPz[140]} :[8], "Vos autem nolite vocari rabbi {et add. Mz[141]}. Unus est enim magister vester, vos autem fratres estis omnes."

Again, that Peter did not have from Christ any power over the Apostles is proved by the authority of Christ who forbids power of this kind and says in Matthew 23:8, "But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one master and you are all brothers." [Cf. Marsilius, II.xvi.10.]

CAP. II

Discipulus {*Magister Fr[142]} {om. Mz[143]}: Praeter praedictas {istas Fr[144]} allegationes si {*om. FrLmMzPz[145]} occurrant {*occurrunt FrLmMzPz[146]} aliae ad probandum quod Petrus non erat caput princeps et praelatus {omnium add. Fr[147]} aliorum apostolorum recita {*om. FrLmMzPz[148]}. Magister {*om. FrLmMzPz[149]}: Eusebius {*enim add. FrLmMzPz[150]} Caesariensis talem superioritatem videtur negare a Petro et asserere {assessione Fr[151]} quod fuerit inferior Iacobo fratre domini. Dicit enim in Ecclesiastica historia lib. 2. cap. 1. "Iacobum, qui et {est Fr[152]} Iustus cognominatus est ab antiquis, virtutum merito et insignis vitae privilegio primum historiae {Rufinus, Ly: historiam FrLmMzPz[153]} tradiderunt suscepisse ecclesiam {*ecclesie FrLmMzPz[154]} quae etiam {*in Rufinus} Hierosolymis est {*sedem Rufinus} [[gap left Mz [155]]], sicut Clemens in sexto disputationum {*dispositionum Rufinus} libro asserit dicens, 'Petrus enim et Iacobus et Iohannes post assumptionem Salvatoris quamvis ab ipso fuerint {fuerit LmPz[156]} {fuerunt Fr[157]}[[Fr in margin [158]]] pene omnibus praelati tamen non sibi vendicant primatus gloriam sed Iacobum qui dicebatur {dicitur Fr[159]} Iustus episcopum apostolorum statuerunt {statuerint Lm[160]}." Ex quibus verbis colliguntur duo. Primum est quod Petrus non fuit praelatus a {de Fr[161]} Deo omnibus aliis apostolis cum in verbis contineatur et scripturis {*et scripturis: omit Sc} quod Petrus et Iacobus et Iohannes post assumptionem Salvatoris {*post assumptionem salvatoris: om. FrMz[162]} praelati fuerunt a domino pene omnibus. Igitur {*ergo FrMz[163]} saltem Petrus non fuit praelatus Iacobo et Iohanni. Secundum est quod Iacobus per electionem Petri et Iohannis fuit praelatus factus aliorum apostolorum et per consequens Iacobus fuit superior Petro tanquam episcopus Petri et aliorum apostolorum {et per consequens ... apostolorum: om. Fr[164]}.

CHAPTER 2

Master Other arguments in addition to the ones above present themselves to prove that Peter was not chief and ruler of the other Apostles. For Eusebius of Caesarea seems to deny such superiority to Peter and to assert that he was inferior to James, the Lord's brother. For he says in the first chapter of the second book of his Ecclesiastical History, "Histories record that through the merit of his virtues and the prerogative of his distinguished life James, surnamed the Just by the ancients, first received the episcopal chair of the Church which is in Jerusalem, as Clement asserts in the sixth book of his Dispositions, where he says, 'Although through the Saviour they were rulers of almost everyone, yet after his assumption Peter, James and John do not appropriate the glory of the primacy for themselves, but established James, who was called the Just, as bishop of the Apostles.'" [Rufinus, in Eusebius Werke, Bd. 2, Die Kirchengeschichte, Teil 1, ed. E. Schwartz, Leipzig, 1903, p. 105] We gather two things from these words. The first is that Peter was not by God's doing the ruler of all the other Apostles, since we find in the words and writings that Peter, James and John were by the Lord's doing rulers over "almost everyone": at the least, therefore, Peter was not the ruler of James and John. The second is that James was made ruler of the other Apostles by the choice of Peter and John, and as a result James was superior to Peter as his bishop and the bishop of the other Apostles.

Item {idem Fr[165]} in eadem Ecclesiastica historia lib. 3. cap. 21. sic habetur, "In urbe Romana {*Roma FrMz[166]} Clemens quoque tertius post Paulum et Petrum pontificatum tenebat." Ex quibus verbis videtur haberi quod non plus erat pontifex Petrus in Roma {*trs.231 FrMz[167]} quam Paulus. Idem videtur haberi lib. 4. cap. 5. ubi sic dicitur, "Romae autem vicesimo primo anno memorati principatus, sexto 21 annis ecclesiae {om. Fr[168]} gubernaculis functo, Thelesforus {Theleforus LmPz[169]} septimus ab apostolis subrogatur." Et lib. 4 {*5 Zn[170]} cap. 11 {2 FrLmMzPz[171]} sic habetur, "Effloruit apud Alexandriam Clemens eodem vocabulo quo et ille in urbe Roma apostolorum et successor {successorum FrMz[172]} et discipulus vocitatus." Clemens igitur {*ergo FrMz[173]} successor fuit {*trs. FrMz[174]} apostolorum et per consequens uterque apostolus eodem fungebatur {fungebantur Fr[175]} officio quo et Clemens. Ergo et {om. FrLmMzPz[176]} Paulus fuit summus pontifex in urbe Roma {Romana Fr[177]}.

Again, in the 21st chapter of the third book of that same Ecclesiastical History we read as follows, "Clement was also the third after Paul and Peter to hold the position of pontiff in the city of Rome." [Rufinus, in Eusebius Werke, Bd. 2, Die Kirchengeschichte, Teil 1, ed. E. Schwartz, Leipzig, 1903, p. 237] We seem to find from these words that Peter was not more the pontiff in Rome than Paul was. The same point seems to be found in book four chapter five where the following is said, "In Rome in the 21st year of the aforesaid principate, after the sixth [occupant] had carried out the government of the Church for 21 years Thelesforus was chosen in his place, the seventh after the Apostles." [ibid., p. 307]In book five chapter eleven we read as follows, "Clement flourished at Alexandria with the same name by which that disciple and successor of the Apostles in the city of Rome was also called." [ibid., p. 453] Clement was a successor of the Apostles, therefore, and each apostle consequently administered the same office as he did. Therefore, Paul also was the highest pontiff in the city of Rome.

Item beatus Anacletus hoc sentire videtur qui ut legitur dist. 21. c. In novo ait, "Hic ergo", scilicet Petrus, "ligandi {*atque add. Zn[178]} solvendi primus potestatem accepit ille {*om. FrMzZn[179]} a {ille a: illa LmPz[180]} domino primumque {*primusque Zn[181]} ad fidem virtute suae praedicationis populum adduxit. verbo {verboque FrMz[182]} instituit {*verbo instituit: om. Zn[183]} Ceterique {*Ceteri vero FrMzZn[184]} apostolici {*apostoli FrMzZn[185]} {*cum eodem add. Zn} pari consortio honorem et potestatem acceperunt ipsumque eorum principem esse voluerunt." Item Beatus Cyprianus ut habetur 24, q. 1, c. Loquitur ait, "Hoc erant utique caeteri apostoli, quod Petrus fuit, {fuerit Lm[187]} pari consortio praediti et honoris et potestatis." Ex quibus verbis tam Anacleti quam Cypriani videtur quod caeteri apostoli tam quantum ad honorem quam quantum ad potestatem pares fuerunt beato Petro. Ergo non fuit princeps eorum nec superior eis quoad officium et potestatem.

Again, blessed Anacletus seems to feel this. As we read in dist. 21, c. In novo [c.2, col.69] he says, "This man, therefore," namely Peter, "first received from the Lord the power of binding and loosing and he was the first to lead the people to faith by virtue of his preaching. The rest of the Apostles certainly shared equally with him in honour and power and wanted him to be their chief." Again, blessed Cyprian says, as we read in 24, q. 1, c. Loquitur [c.18, col. 971], "In this way the rest of the Apostles were undoubtedly endowed with an equal participation in honour and power to Peter." It seems from these words of Anacletus and Cyprian that the rest of the Apostles were equal to blessed Peter with respect both to honour and power. He was not their chief, therefore, nor their superior with respect to office and power.

CAP. III

Discipulus Si alia est opinio circa istam materiam ipsam cum suis motivis non differas pertractare.

CHAPTER 3

Student If there is another opinion on this matter, do not hesitate to investigate it and the arguments for it.

Second opinion: Christ did make Peter head, superior to the other Apostles

Magister Alia est opinio tenens quod Christus constituerit beatum Petrum caput, principem et praelatum aliorum apostolorum et quod Petrus fuit ipsis superior. Quod multis modis ostenditur.

Master Another opinion holds that Christ did establish blessed Peter as head, chief and ruler of the other Apostles and that Peter was superior to them. This is shown in many ways.

First argument for Peter's superiority, from John 21:15-17

Hoc enim ex verbis Christi quae recitantur Iohannis ultimo [21:15-7] videtur posse probari. Ad Petrum enim Christus singulariter dixit, "Pasce oves meas. Pasce agnos meos", {*ter add. Marsilius} replicans eandem sententiam; et per consequens cum Christus non distinxerit inter has oves et illas, primus et universalis pastor etiam apostolorum immediate a Christo beatus Petrus institutus fuisse videtur. Quod ibidem Chrisostomus expresse videtur asserere cum ait, "Ex [[rex in margin of Fr [188]]] numero {om. FrLmMzPz[189]} [[space left in LmMzPz]] {*ex numero: eximius Marsilius} enim apostolorum erat Petrus et os discipulorum et vertex collegii. Unde et negatione debita mittit {*debita mittit: delata committit Marsilius} ei praelationem fratrum."

 

 For this seems to be provable from the words of Christ recorded in the last chapter of John [21:15-17]. For Christ said separately to Peter, "Feed my sheep. Feed my lambs", repeating that last sentence three times; and since, consequently, Christ did not distinguish between these sheep and those, blessed Peter seems to have been established directly by Christ as the first and universal shepherd even of the Apostles. Chrysostom seems to assert this explicitly when he says, commenting on the same passage: "For Peter was the foremost of the Apostles, spokesman of the disciples and the head of the group. As a result, after he had withdrawn his denial, he [Christ] entrusts to him leadership over his brothers." [Cf. Marsilius, II.xxvii.2.]

Discipulus Ex his quae legi tam in {scripturis et add. Fr[191]} historiis authenticis quam etiam in scripturis sanctorum patrum, quorum nonnullae sententiae in decretis habentur, mihi videtur quod omnium Christianorum, praesertim obedientium Romanae ecclesiae, fuerit {fuit Fr[192]} communis sententia beatum Petrum fuisse institutum a Christo caput et principem {*apostolorum et etiam add. FrMz[193]} omnium fidelium. Quae tamen sententia his temporibus impugnatur et ad motiva in quibus {*in quibus: quae in Ki} scriptura divina fundari videtur {*videntur Ki} ex intentione seriosius respondetur. Ideo ut mihi et aliis praebeatur occasio subtilius intuendi an priores fuerint {*fuerunt FrMz[194]} in hoc decepti, motiva praecedentium cum responsionibus modernorum quorum {*quorumdam FrMz[195]} propono tecum discutere diligenter. Responsiones eorum non truncate sed integre recitabo et tunc recitabis {*indicabis FrMz[196]} quomodo vere et realiter aut apparenter seu sophistice valeat {*valeant Sc} reprobari.

Student From what I have read in authentic histories and also in the writings of the holy fathers, some of whose opinions are found in the Decretals, it seems to me that the common opinion of all christians, especially those obedient to the Roman Church, has been that blessed Peter was established by Christ as head and chief of the Apostles and also of all the faithful. Yet that opinion is attacked these days and there is a very serious deliberate [ex intentione] reply to arguments which seem to be based on divine scripture. In order, therefore, that I and others should be offered an opportunity of considering more accurately whether our forebears were deceived in this, I intend to discuss with you carefully their arguments and the responses of certain moderns. I will set out their replies not in an abbreviated way but fully and you will indicate how they can really and truly or apparently or sophistically be rejected.

Marsilius' objections to argument from John 21:15-17

Magister {*om. FrLmMzPz[197]}: Dicitur igitur ad motivum praescriptum quod sensus secundum Glossam praeallegatorum verborum Christi scilicet pasce oves meas etc. est quod "oves pascere {*trs. FrMz[198]} est credentes ne deficiant confirmare, {*confortare Marsilius} terrena subsidia, si necesse est, subditis providere, exempla virtutum praebere, adversariis obsistere", fide {*fidei Marsilius}, scilicet, "peccantes {peccatores Fr[199]} corrigere". Et subditur in Glossa, "Et cum tertio audit a Petro se diligi iubet pascere oves. Ternae {*trinae Marsilius} negationi redditur trinae {*trina FrLmMzPz[200]} confessio ne minus amori lingua serviat quam timori". Ex hoc autem non aliud convincitur nisi quod ipsum pastorem ovium {?omnium FrMz[201]} Christus instituit. Non tamen ex hoc sequitur quod ipsum super reliquos apostolos praetulerit {*praetulit FrMz[202]} quoad {ad Mz[203]} {*quantum ad Fr[204]} auctoritatem vel dignitatem priorem. Nec rursum sequitur ex hoc alios apostolos non fuisse institutos pastores. Oppositum enim utriusque consequentis iam dicti stat cum antecedente videlicet cum sermone Christi praedicto.Testatur autem praedictis {*dictis FrLmMzPz[205]} quod ecclesia catholica cantat de omnibus apostolis indifferenter: "Vere dignum et iustum est aequum et salutare, te domine {*quidem omni tempore Marsilius} suppliciter exorare ut gregem tuum pastor aeterne non deseras sed per beatos apostolos tuos continua protectione custodias ut eisdem rectoribus gubernetur quos operis tui vicarios eidem {eisdem LmPz[206]} contulisti praesse pastores" {pastoris Fr[207]}. Ecce apostolos in plurali rectores, vicarios et pastores per Christi collationem immediatam non autem solum aliquem rectorem, vicarium aut pastorem constitutum per Christum {ipsum Fr[208]}.

Objection 1: A response to the above argument, therefore, is that acording to the Gloss the sense of those words of Christ, namely, "Feed my sheep etc", is that "to feed sheep is to strengthen believers lest they fail, to provide subjects with earthly assistance, if it is necessary, to offer examples of virtues, to resist opponents", i.e. of the faith, "and to correct sinners". And the gloss adds, "When he hears a third time from Peter that he is loved by him, he orders him to feed his sheep. A threefold confession is rendered for the threefold denial, lest his tongue less serve love than fear." From this, however, nothing is demonstrated except that Christ established him as the shepherd of his sheep. It does not follow from this, however, that he set him over the other Apostles in superior authority or dignity. Nor does it follow from this that the other Apostles were not established as shepherds. For the opposite of either of the consequences just set down is compatible with the antecedent, that is Christ's statement above. What the catholic Church sings without distinction of all its Apostles supports what we have said: "Truly it is worthy and just, it is right and beneficial humbly to beseech you always, O eternal shepherd, not to desert your flock, but through your blessed Apostles to guard it with constant protection so that it might be governed by those same rulers whom you gave it to rule as shepherds-vicars of your work". Notice "Apostles" in the plural, "rulers", "vicars" and "shepherds", by Christ's direct appointment, and not only some one ruler, vicar or shepherd appointed by Christ. [Cf. Marsilius, II.xxviii.8.]

Interroganti {interrogata Fr[209]} vero cur Christus hoc Petro singulariter dixerit, dicendum utique est {trs. Lm[210]} quod Christus quandoque sermonem dirigebat {*ad hominem add. Marsilius} in personam propriam {*personam propriam: persona propria FrLmMzPz[211]} ut in remissione peccatorum, sanatione infirmorum et suscitatione mortuorum. Quandoque dirigebat sermonem ad alterum in personam omnium aut plurium, ut Iohannis 5:[14], "Vade et amplius noli peccare ... ne deterius tibi contingat." Unde idem {*id Marsilius} officium Christus committendo Petro ille {*illi FrLmMzPz[212]} loquebatur in persona omnium apostolorum, sicut ipsemet {*met Mz Marsilius[213]} testatur hunc modum loquendi suum Matth {*Marc Vg[214]} 13:[37] cum dixit, "Quod uni ex {uni ex om. Vg[215]} vobis dico omnibus dico." Specialiter tamen ad Petrum direxit sermonem {*trs. FrMz[216]} quia senior erat vel quia charitate ardentior vel ut significaret ecclesiae futurae {futurum Fr[217]} quales debeant pastores institui, quoniam aetate maturi, ex qua signatur {significatur Fr[218]} prudentia seu scientia, et charitate pleni, ex qua significatur cura et diligentia quas debent habere pastores - aut fortasse ne videretur tanquam {*om. FrMz[219]} abiectior {abiectioni Mz[220]} relinqui quia Christum negaverat. Quod sapere videtur Glossa cum dicit {dixit FrMz[221]}, "Trinae negationi redditur trina {responsio seu add. Fr[222]} confessio ne minus amori lingua serviat quam timori."

If anyone asks why Christ said this to Peter separately, it should surely be said that sometimes Christ would direct his speech to a man in his own person, as in the remission of sins, the healing of the sick and the raising of the dead. Sometimes he would direct his speech to an individual in the person of [i.e. as representing] all or many, as in John 5:14 [[a conflation of 5:14 and 8:11]], "Go your way and do not sin again ... so that nothing worse may happen to you." So in committing that office to Peter, Christ was speaking to him in the person of all the Apostles. He himself attests that this is his way of speaking in Mark 13:37 when he said, "What I say to one of you I say to all." [[In the Vulgate it is to "you" in the plural that Christ speaks - and O. quotes him sometimes accurately and sometimes not.]] He addressed his words particularly to Peter, however, because he was the oldest or because he was more ardent in charity or in order to indicate to the future Church what sort of shepherds should be established, namely of mature age, which signifies prudence or knowledge, and full of charity, which signifies the care and diligence shepherds should have -- or perhaps so that he [Peter] would not seem to be left too much cast down because he had denied Christ; the gloss seems to think this when it says, "A threefold confession is rendered for the threefold denial, lest his tongue less serve love than fear."

Hoc enim certissime constat quod omnibus Matthei ultimo dictum est indifferenter, "Euntes ergo docete omnes gentes", nec dixit Petro, "Vade et alios mitte." In quo signavit {significavit Fr[223]} omnibus auctoritatis aequalitatem, sicut etiam {ex Fr[224]} {*ex add. Mz[225]} Matthei 13 {*23 Vg[226]}:[8] cap. {*om. FrMz[227]} praedicto {*pridem Marsilius} induximus dum ad eos inquit Christus, "Nolite vocari rabbi", supple invicem aut unus super reliquum vel reliquos. "Unus enim est {*trs. FrMzVg[228]} magister vester, vos autem omnes fratres estis."

For this is absolutely certain, that in the last chapter of Matthew (28:19), "Go therefore and teach all nations", was said to all without distinction, and he did not say to Peter, "Go thou and send the others." By this he indicated equality of authority for them all, just as we also quoted above, from Matthew 23:8, when Christ said to them, "You are not to be called rabbi" -- understand over one another or one over the other or others -- "for you have one teacher and you are all brothers." [Cf. Marsilius, II.xxviii.9.]

Audiendum {*Aut dicendum FrMz[229]} est valde probabiliter atque secundum veritatem mihi videtur quod pro tanto dixit Petro, "Pasce oves meas", ut sibi simpliciter {*specialiter Marsilius} sicut et Moysi {*sicut et Moysi: om. FrLmMzPz[230]} propter sui constantiam committeret populum Israel qui durae cervicis populus fuit versus Deum ut apparet Exod. 33, ut {*et FrLmMzPz[231]} inducit apostolus per Esaiam Actuum ultimo, et quoniam propter hunc populum convertendum et salvandum principaliter venerat {*Christus add. FrLmMzPz[232]}. Unde Matth. 15:[24], "Non sum missus nisi ad oves quae perierant {*perierunt Vg[233]} domus Israel" -- 'non sum missus', 'principaliter' supple -- Ideo {*ideoque FrMz[234]} huiusmodi {*huius Marsilius} populi curam beato Petro specialiter commisisse videtur cum dixit, "Pasce oves meas". Et videtur hic fuisse apostoli aperte {*aperta FrLmMzPz[235]} sententia cum Ad Galatas 1 {*2 Vg[236]}:[7] dixit, "Cum vidissent quia creditum est mihi evangelium praeputii sicut Petro circumcisionis", etc. Ubi {*glossa add. FrLmMzPz[237]} secundum Augustinum, "Cum vidissent quod evangelium praeputii a Domino creditum est mihi ut fideli ita principaliter sicut et Petro evangelium circumcisionis. Christus enim dedit Paulo ut ministraret {*gentibus qui etiam petro dederat ut ministraret /ministret LmPz[238]\ add. FrLmMzPz[239]} Iudaeis. Ita tamen dispensatio distributa est illis ut etiam Petrus {petens Fr[240]} gentibus praedicaret si sic causam exegisset {*causam exegisset: ex causa fecisset FrLmMzPz[241]} et Paulus Iudaeis." Nec video quod aliunde Paulus {Paulus add. Mz[242]} vel alter {alius Fr[243]} sanctus assumere poterit {*potuerit FrMz[244]} populum Iudaicum specialiter et principaliter fuisse Petro commissum nisi ex eo quod Christus illi dixit, "Pasce oves meas", cum dicat Paulus ad Galatas 2:[7] sibi creditum evangelium praeputii quemadmodum Petro circumcisionis. Si namque creditum erat evangelium universaliter Petro plus quam Paulo vel aliis apostolis, inconvenienter utique dixisset Paulus verba praedicta; quinimo totus eius sermo praedictus fuisset {sermo add. Fr[245]} inanis et comparatio quam etiam fecit in eo.

Objection 2: Or it should be said with a strong degree of probability -- and it seems to me [i.e. Marsilius] to be true -- that he said to Peter in particular, "Feed my sheep", to commit especially to him because of his constancy the people of Israel who were a stiff-necked people towards God, as is clear from Exodus 33:5 and as the Apostle quotes from Isaiah in the last chapter of Acts [28:26-7] and since Christ had come principally to convert and save this people, as in Matthew 15:24, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" -- with 'I was not sent', supply 'principally'. And therefore the care of such people seems to have been especially committed to blessed Peter, when he [Christ] said to him, "Feed my sheep". And this seems to have been the clear opinion of the Apostle when he said in Galatians 2[:7], "When they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been entrusted to me as the gospel for the circumcised had been entrusted to Peter", etc. Here the gloss taken from Augustine [says], "'When they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been entrusted' by the Lord 'to me' as a faithful man, as principally 'as the gospel for the circumcised had been entrusted to Peter' ... for Christ gave Paul the task of ministering to the gentiles as he had given to Peter the task of ministering to the Jews. Yet this dispensation was distributed to them in such a way that Peter would also preach to the gentiles, if there was reason, and Paul to the Jews." I do not see from what else Paul or any other saint could have assumed that the Jewish people were especially and principally committed to Peter unless from the fact that Christ said to him, "Feed my sheep", since Paul says in Galatians 2[:7] that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been entrusted to him just as the gospel for the circumcised had been entrusted to Peter. For if the gospel had been entrusted universally to Peter more than to Paul or the other Apostles, Paul would surely have uttered the above words unsuitably; indeed, all the aforesaid speech of his and the comparison which he made in it would have been worthless. [Cf. Marsilius, II.xxviii.9.]

Ad Glossam autem ex Chrysostomo sumptam una responsio datur {om. LmPz[246]} {*trs.312 FrMz[247]} quae generalis est ad illas {*illam Ki} et ad plures alias quae idem sonant. Dicitur igitur quod auctoritatem nullam essentialem quam sacerdotalem isti vocant neque auctoritatem {actualem FrLmMzPz[248]} {*accidentalem Marsilius} aliquam pastoratus et excellentiam super reliquos apostolos Christus immediate Petro tradidit sed ab illo et caeteris {*in add. Marsilius} invicem removit, ut alibi conantur {conatur LmPz[249]} ostendere per scripturas et expositiones sanctorum doctorum. Propter quod, ut dicunt, Christum et apostolum et ipsorum quorundam et {*scilicet FrMz[250]} glossatorum alibi dicta sequentes, declinant sententiam quam superinducta scripturae loca et alia quaeque similia dicere videntur de tali primatu seu principalitate, aliter quam alibi dicunt scilicet 10 {*16 FrLmMzPz[251]} et 21 secundae {?sedem Lm[252]} editionis {*dictionis FrLmMzPz[253]} sui operis, quoniam talis sententia nec est canonica nec canonicam sequitur; quinimo ipsorum aliqui oppositum dixerunt alibi exponendo scripturam [Hic autem talia proferunt extra scripturam -- Scholz] ex propria sententia sequentes {sequentis FrLmMzPz[254]} consuetudinem et magis attendentes quaedam dicta famosa quam verba scripturae. Quis enim {*non admirabitur, contendentibus apostolis quis add. Marsilius} eorum esset maior inter se discipulis quaerentibus {*inter se discipulis quaerentibus: om. FrLmMzPz[255]} Christum {dixisse vel add. Fr[256]} respondisse semper inter ipsos aequalitatem esse debere {*esse debere: om. FrLmMzPz[257]} et prioritatem auctoritatis ab ipsorum quocunque negasse si intendebat beatum Petrum constituisse ipsis principaliorem et caput. Denique {quod enim FrLmMzPz[258]} {*quid etiam Marsilius} Christus non dabat reliquis mandatum ut Petro subessent in officio pastorali ne tantum mysterium lateret eos et ipsorum {eorum Fr[259]} successores quando tunc {*quando tunc: quantum Marsilius} erat caput ecclesiae. Nusquam enim legitur in scriptura tale mandatum fuisse datum {datis Mz[260]} apostolis. Quomodo etiam dexteras dedit Petrus Paulo societatis? Imo dare mandatum {*trs. FrMz[261]} debuit tanquam superior. Quare {*om. FrLmMzPz[262]} {*Tota Scriptura, ubi tangitur add. Marsilius} materia haec huiusmodi {*huius Marsilius} sententiae oppositum clamat {clamet Fr[263]} aperte {apte Fr[264]}.

To the gloss taken from Chrysostom one response is given which is common to it and to many others which suggest the same. It is said, therefore, that Christ gave immediately to Peter no essential authority (which these people [i.e. Marsilius] call priestly) and no accidental authority of pastoral care and no excellence, over the rest of the Apostles, but removed it from him and the rest in relation to one another, as they [i.e. Marsilius] try to show elsewhere from the scriptures and the expositions of the holy doctors. For this reason, they say, following Christ and the Apostle and the sayings found elsewhere of certain persons (namely some of the glossators), they reject the opinion which the texts of scripture mentioned above and any others which are similar seem to say about such a primacy or rulership, at variance with what they [i.e. Marsilius] say elsewhere, namely in the sixteenth and twentyfirst chapter of the second discourse of his work [i.e. Defensor pacis, dictio 2], since such an opinion is not canonical and does not follow from anything canonical; indeed some of them [the glossators] have said the opposite elsewhere in expounding Scripture. [But here they depart from Scripture [conjectural addition by the editor of Marsilius]], from their own opinion, following custom and considering certain famous sayings rather than the words of scripture. For if he intended establishing blessed Peter as their chief and head, who will not wonder that when the Apostles disagreed about which of them would be greatest Christ always replied that they were equal and denied priority of authority to any of them? And why did Christ not command the rest to be under Peter in his pastoral office, lest so great a truth be hidden from them and their successors as that there was a head of the Church? For nowhere do we read in the scripture that such an order was given to the Apostles. How too did Peter offer Paul the right hand of fellowship? On the contrary he should have given him an order as his superior. The whole of Scripture, when it treats of this matter, clearly declares the opposite of this opinion. [Cf. Marsilius, II.xxviii.25-6]

CAP. IV

Discipulus {*Magister &FrMz[265]}: In verbis praescriptis non solum habetur quomodo ad praeadductam allegationem tenentes sententiam contrariam satagunt respondere sed etiam plures allegationes pro sententia contraria continentur. Et ideo si vis nunc omnia discuti oportet me non solum {om. &FrLmMzPz[266]} opponentis seu improbantis sed etiam respondentis personam assumere.

CHAPTER 4

Master: In the words just written we find not only how those holding the contrary opinion try to reply to the argument presented above, but it also contains many arguments for that contrary opinion. Therefore if you want everything to be discussed now, it is appropriate that I assume the person not only of someone opposing or disproving but also of someone replying.

{*Discipulus add. &FrMz[267]} Et tu utrunque facias. Sic forsitan magnam partem istius materiae disseremus {diceremus &FrMz[268]}.

Student You may indeed do both. In this way perhaps we will discuss a large part of that material.

Magister In verbis istorum duae responsiones principales habentur. Quarum prima in hoc principaliter videtur consistere quod Christus illa verba, "Pasce oves meas", dirigebat ad Petrum in persona {personam &Fr[269]} omnium apostolorum licet aliqua alia quasi incidentaliter videatur {videantur &Fr[270]} adiungere. Ideo primo ante omnia aliquas allegationes adducam quibus videtur posse probari quod Christus verba praedicta dirigebat ad Petrum in persona propria et non in persona omnium apostolorum.

Master Two main responses are found in their words. The first of them seems to consist mainly in this (even if he seems to add some other things incidentally, as it were), that Christ directed those words, "Feed my sheep", to Peter in the person of all the Apostles. Before everything else, therefore, I will first bring forward some arguments by which it seems provable that Christ directed those words to Peter in his own person and not in the person of all the Apostles.

Answer to Marsilius' first objection: "Feed my Sheep" was addressed to Peter in his own person

Quod ostenditur primo sic. Verba per quae aliquis promovetur {movetur &Fr[271]} ad aliquam dignitatem vel officium ad illum cui dicuntur in propria persona non in persona aliorum diriguntur. Alioquin cum per verba aliqua aliquis instituitur in seculari vel ecclesiastica dignitate omnes alii praesertim eiusdem conditionis vel meriti intelligerentur in eadem dignitate instituti et ita si imperator per literas vel ore proprio talibus verbis vel consimilibus instituo aut {autem &Fr[272]} facio te {ducem aut comitem add. &Fr[273]} iudicem, comitem, ducem {*trs.321 &Mz[274]} {comitem ducem: om. &Fr[275]} aut advocatum talis vel talis regionis aut civitatis omnes alii intelligerentur institui {*instituti &FrMz[276]} in eadem dignitate. Et sic idem {*sic idem: om. &FrMz[277]} eadem ratione {*sic add. &FrMz[278]} esset de institutione rectorum plebanorum et aliorum quorumcunque praelatorum ecclesiae sentiendum. Quod quam sit absurdum nulli debet existere dubium ut videtur. Sed per praedicta verba fuit {?fiat &Fr[280]} in dignitate et officio et {*om. &FrLmMzPz[281]} pastorali constitutus {institutus &Fr[282]} sicut et {etiam &Fr[283]} praedicti opinantes concedunt cum dicunt quod ipsum pastorem omnium Christus instituit. Ergo illa verba dirigebantur ad beatum Petrum in persona propria et non in persona quorumcunque aliorum.

This is shown first as follows. The words by which someone is promoted to some dignity or office are directed to him to whom they are said in his own person, not in the person of others. Otherwise, when someone is appointed by some words to a secular or ecclesiastical dignity everyone else, especially of the same condition or merit, would be understood as appointed to the same dignity, and so if an emperor, in letters or from his own mouth, [speaks] in these words or similar ones, "I appoint or make you duke, count, judge or advocate of this or that region or city", everyone else would be understood as appointed to that dignity. And by the same argument a judgement like this should be made about the appointment of parish rectors and any other prelates of the Church. It seems that it should not be doubtful to anyone how absurd this is. But by the above words he was established in that dignity and pastoral office, as even those who hold the above opinion grant when they say that Christ appointed him as shepherd of all. Those words were directed, therefore, to blessed Peter in his own person and not in the person of any others.

Amplius si verba praedicta dirigebantur ad beatum Petrum in persona aliorum aut ergo dirigebantur ad beatum Petrum {ad beatum Petrum: om. &Fr[284]} in persona omnium aliorum {ad beatum Petrum &Fr[285]} Christianorum aut in persona {Christianorum aut in persona: om. &LmPz[286]} apostolorum et omnium presbyterorum aut tantummodo apostolorum {*Christianorum ... apostolorum: fidelium aut omnium aliorum prebiterorum aut omnium aliorum apostolorum &FrMz[287]} {et omnium ... apostolorum: om. &LmPz[288]} aut omnium aliorum {qui erant add. &Fr[289]} solummodo qui erant praesentes cum Christo et beato Petro. Primum non potest dici quia tunc quilibet fidelis fuisset constitutus pastor ecclesiae. Nec isti possunt dicere secundum {sed &Mz[290]} cum dicunt quod ista verba dirigebantur ad beatum Petrum in persona omnium apostolorum de aliis presbyteris nullam facientes ibidem penitus mentionem {mansionem &Mz[291]}. Nec possunt dicere tertium quod tunc fuisset data aliqua auctoritas beato {om. &Mz[292]} Petro et ceteris apostolis super alios presbyteros quod isti negant. Nec possunt dicere {secundum cum dicunt ... dicere: om. &Fr[293]} quartum, {quantum &Fr[294]} {*tum add. &FrMz[295]} quia tunc non fuisset data eadem potestas sive auctoritas omnibus apostolis cum non omnes fuerint {*fuerunt &FrMz[296]} tunc praesentes quia de apostolis solummodo erant praesentes Petrus et Thomas et duo filii Zebedei, tum quia tunc fuisset data maior potestas aliquibus aliis quam quibusdam {ab &Fr[297]} apostolis, quia tunc erant alii praesentes scilicet Nathanael et duo alii ex discipulis Christi, ut patet Ioh. 21:[2].

Further, if those words were directed to blessed Peter in the person of others, they were directed to blessed Peter in the person either 1) of all the other faithful or 2) of all other presbyters or 3) of all other Apostles or 4) only of all the others who were there with Christ and blessed Peter. The first can not be said, because then every one of the faithful would have been established as a shepherd of the Church. Nor can they say the second, when they say that those words were directed to blessed Peter in the person of all the Apostles, making no mention at all in that place of other presbyters. Nor can they say the third because then some authority over the other presbyters would have been given to blessed Peter and the rest of the Apostles, and they deny this. Nor can they say the fourth, firstly because then the same power or authority would not have been given to all the Apostles, since they were not all present at the time (because of the Apostles only Peter, Thomas and the two sons of Zebedee were present), and secondly because then greater power would have been given to some others than to some of the Apostles (because at the time there were others present, namely, as is clear from John 21:2, Nathaniel and two others disciples of Christ).

Rursus quod de uno conceditur de alio negatur (dist. 45, Disciplina, 1, q. 1, c. Per Esaiam), sicut quod de uno negatur {conceditur &LmPz[298]} de aliis conceditur {negatur &LmPz[299]} (dist. 25, Qualis, 15, q. 3, Decimae. Igitur {*ergo &FrMz[300]} consimiliter verba quae dicuntur uni ad alios minime diriguntur. Sed verba praemissa dixit Christus soli Petro. Ergo ad alios minime diriguntur et per consequens non dirigebantur ad Petrum in persona aliorum apostolorum {om. &Fr[301]}.

Again, what is conceded of one is denied of another (dist. 45, Disciplina [c.9, col.163] and 1, q. 1, Per Esaiam [c.98, col.396]), just as what is denied of one is conceded of others (dist. 25, Qualis [c.4, col.94] and 15, q. 3, De crimine) [c.1, col.751]. In a similar way, therefore, words which are said to one are not directed to others. But Christ said the above words to Peter alone. They are not directed to others, therefore, and consequently were not directed to Peter in the person of the other Apostles.

Discipulus Ista allegatio efficax non apparet, quia non est universaliter verum quod illud quod dicitur {om. &Fr[302]} de uno {affirmatur add. &Fr[303]} de aliis negatur, cum secundum assertiones sanctorum patrum quod uni dicitur vel conceditur ad omnes extenditur (dist. 5, Ad eius, dist. 38, Ignorantia, 16, q. 1, Praedicator). Ergo illa verba {om. &FrMz[304]} memorata a {*beato add. &FrLmMzPz[305]} Petro ad alios debent extendi.

Student: That argument does not seem to be effective, because it is not universally true that what is said of one is denied of others, since according to assertions of the holy fathers what is said or conceded to one is extended to all (dist. 5, Ad eius [c.4, col.8], dist. 38, Ignorantia [c.1, col.141], and 16, q. 1, Praedicator) c.64, col.782]. Those aforesaid words ought to be extended, therefore, from blessed Peter to the others.

Magister Respondetur quod verum est regulas praedictas non esse universaliter veras quin aliquando fallant. Tamen illa regula, "Quod de uno dicitur de alio {*aliis &FrMz[306]} negatur", in casu isto de beato Petro non fallit sed tenet. Cuius ratio assignatur {est &Fr[307]}, quia sicut quando conceditur unum conceduntur omnia consimilia, {consilia &Fr[308]} ut innuit beatus Gregorius, prout habetur dist. 4, Denique et notat Glossa ibidem. Et consimiliter omnia conceduntur quae sunt eiusdem censurae (Extra, De exceptionibus, Cum inter). Tamen uno concesso non conceduntur omnia {*om. &FrMz[309]} dissimilia nec illa quae non {om. &Fr[310]} sunt eiusdem censurae. Sic quod uni dicitur ad alios extenditur qui sunt eiusdem conditionis et est eadem ratio dicendi uni et aliis et ita expedit ut dicatur aliis sicut uni et {ut &Fr[311]} ubi ad hoc quod aliquid intelligatur aliquibus dici non oportet ut illis explicite et nominatim et {*aut &FrLmMzPz[312]} aequipollenter dicantur {*dicatur &FrMz[313]}. Sed in proposito non fuit expediens ut in eadem dignitate constituerentur alii apostoli ideo {*per &FrMz[314]} illa verba Christi dicta beato Petro {om. &Mz[315]} {*in qua constituebatur beatus /om. &Mz[316]\ petrus, quia non fuit expediens ut essent plura capita universalis ecclesie. Ergo illa verba christi nominatim dicta beato petro add. &FrMz[317]} non extendebantur ad alios.

Master: The reply is that it is true that the above rules are not universally true but sometimes fail. In this case, in regard to blessed Peter, however, that rule, "What is said of one is denied of others", does not fail but holds. The following reason is given for this, that when one thing is conceded all similar things are conceded, as blessed Gregory implies, as we find in dist. 4, Denique [c.6, col.6] and as the gloss notes at that place [col.13]; and similarly all things that are of the same valuation are conceded (Extra, De exceptionibus, Cum inter) [c.5, col.376]. When one thing is conceded, however, dissimilar things are not conceded, nor those things which are not of the same valuation. Thus, what is said to one, is extended to others who are 1) of the same condition, and 2) there is the same reason for speaking to one as to others, and 3) it is as useful that it be said to the others as to the one, and 4) where for something to be understood to be said to some people it need not be said to them explicitly and by name or equivalently. But in the present case it was not 3) useful that the other Apostles should be established in the same dignity in which blessed Peter was established through those words of Christ said to blessed Peter, because it was not useful that there be many heads of the universal Church. Those words of Christ, therefore, addressed to blessed Peter by name, were not extended to others.

Rursus nullus, sicut tactum est supra, promovetur per aliqua verba {*trs. &Mz[318]} ad aliquam dignitatem nisi de ipso per ea fiat mentio specialis aut aequipollens speciali quo {que &Fr[319]} ad ipsum. Quemadmodum licet quod de iure communi conceditur uni intelligatur alii eiusdem conditionis esse concessum, tamen quod ex privilegio conceditur uni non intelligitur alii etiam eiusdem conditionis et meriti esse concessum {tamen... concessum: omitted Fr, added Frm} nisi explicite hoc dicatur vel mentio etiam privilegii fiat de ipso (7, q. 1, Petisti et 6 {*16 &FrLmMzPz[320]}, q. 1, huic {*Hinc &FrMzZn[]). Sed per verba illa {*trs. &FrMz[321]} Christi tanquam per privilegium speciale fuit beatus Petrus ad dignitatem sublimatus. In ipsis autem nulla fit mentio de aliis apostolis. Ergo ad alios apostolos minime debent {debet &Fr[322]} extendi. Ista responsio colligi potest ex glossa dist. 5 super capitulum Ad eius vero {om. &FrMz[323]} concubitum, quae {qui &FrLmMzPz[324]} ait in haec verba super verbo uni ergo, "quod uni conceditur per consequens aliis videtur esse concessum, sicut supra {*dist. 4 add. &Zn[]} c. Denique et hoc verum est ubi de iure communi aliquid conceditur; secus est si ex privilegio et {*ut &FrMzZn[325]} 15 {*16 &FrLmMzPzZn[326]}, q. 1, huic {*Hinc &FrMzZn[]} et 8 {*7 &FrLmMzPz[327]}, q. 1, c. Petisti."

Again, as was alluded to above, no one is promoted through any words to some dignity unless they make of him some special mention, or equivalent to special mention, in respect of him. Similarly, although what is conceded to one person by common right is understood to be conceded to another person of the same condition, yet what is conceded as a privilege to one person is not understood to be conceded to another person, even of the same condition and merit, unless this is explicitly said or mention of the privilege is made concerning him (7, q. 1, Petisti [c.17, col.574] and 16, q. 1, Hinc [c.39, col.771; cf. gloss s.v. sigillatim, col. 1107]). But through those words of Christ blessed Peter was raised to his dignity as by a special privilege, and in those words no mention was made of the other Apostles; therefore, they ought not be extended to the other Apostles. That reply can be gathered from the gloss on dist. 5, Ad eius vero concubitum [col.15], which comments on the word 'one' as follows: "What is conceded to one person seems consequently to be conceded to others, as above, dist. 4, c. Denique. And this is true where something is conceded by common right, but it is not so if [it is conceded] as a privilege, as in 16, q. 1, Hinc and 7, q. 1, c. Petisti."

Ex praedictis convincitur quod sancti tractantes verba Christi praemissa et sententialiter et verbaliter asserentes per eadem verba specialiter soli {solo &Fr[328]} Petro commissam esse dominicarum ovium curam rectum intellectum eorum et catholicum expresserunt {concesserunt &Pz[329]} {excesserunt &Lm[330]} et quod alius intellectus ipsorum, nisi patenter distorqueantur {distorqueatur &Fr[331]} non solum contra ipsa sed etiam contra praecedentia et sequentia, si inspiciantur omnia diligenter, haberi non potest.

The above demonstrates that the saints, when they considered those words of Christ and asserted both in effect and in so many words that by those words care of the Lord's sheep was committed especially to Peter alone, expressed the correct and catholic understanding of them, and that no other understanding of them can be held unless they [the words] are obviously distorted not only against themselves but also (if the whole context is looked at carefully) against the words preceding and following.

 Sed ut liquido pateat {trs.2341 &FrMz[332]}, quod nonnullis appareat {*apparet &FrLmMzPz[333]}, quod ista fuit sanctorum sententia de multis paucas eorum autoritates adducam. Ait itaque sanctus Maximus {Maximinus &LmPz[334]} episcopus in sermone de Petro et Paulo qui incipit "Gloriosissimos", "Iam necessarium terminum {*carissimi &Zn[335]} reor ut proprias eorum," et {*scilicet &FrMz[336]} apostolorum Petri et Pauli, "specialesque virtutes prout ariditas nostrae linguae ingeniique tenuitas patitur imo ut misericors Deus annuit proloquamur." Et infra, "Hic est Petrus cui Christus ascensurus ad patrem {om. &FrMz[337]} pascendas oviculas suas ovesque commendat ut quos ille pietate {*pietatis &FrMzZn[338]} miserationeque {*miseratione &FrMzZn[339]} redemerat {redimerat &FrLmMzPz[340]} hic fidei suae virtute servaret. Et recte {*sane add. &FrMzZn[341]} ei arbiter occultorum Dei filius pascendas oves suas tuendasque commisit cui noverat in nutriendo {mittendo &FrMz[342]} grege dominico nec studium deesse nec fidem." Ex quibus {*verbis add. &FrMz[343]} datur intelligi quod cum sanctus ille primo dicat se velle proloqui proprias specialesque virtutes apostolorum et postea in speciali de beato Petro praescripta subiungat ipse voluit quod oves Christi generaliter soli Petro pascendae essent commissae per verba Christi praemissa.

But so that it may appear plainly, what appears to some, that this was the opinion of the saints, I will bring forward a few out of many of their texts. And so bishop St. Maximus says in his sermon on Peter and Paul which begins "Gloriosissimos [PL. 57, cols 392 and 394]", "I think it is necessary now, dearest children, that we declare the particular and special virtues of these men," that is the Apostles Peter and Paul, "in so far as the meagreness of our vocabulary and the slightness of our wit allow, or, rather as the mercy of God grants. ... Peter is the one to whom Christ, as he was about to ascend to his Father, entrusts the duty of feeding his lambs and sheep, so that those whom he (Christ) had redeemed by the compassion of his piety this man (Peter) would keep safe by virtue of his faith. And rightly indeed did the judge of what lies hidden, the son of God, commit the duty of feeding and protecting his sheep to him whom he knew to lack neither faith nor zeal in feeding the Lord's flock." From these words we are given to understand that when that holy man says first that he wants to declare the particular and special virtues of the Apostles and then adds the words above about blessed Peter in particular he meant that by the above words of Christ the duty of feeding Christ's sheep generally had been committed to Peter alone.

Item Gregorius super illud Ioh. 21:[1], "Manifestavit se iterum Iesus ad mare Tiberiadis", ait, "Iam credo quod charitas vestra advertat quid est quod Petrus rete {rethe &FrLmPz[344]} {*trahit add. PL} ad terram; ipsi quippe sancta ecclesia est commissae {*commissa &FrLmMzPz[345]}, ipsi specialiter dicitur, 'Simon Iohannis, amas me? ... Pasce oves meas.'" Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod Petro in propria persona non aliorum dixit Christus, "Pasce oves meas."

Again, Gregory says about those words from John 21:1, "Jesus showed himself again by the Sea of Tiberias", "I believe now that your charity observes how it is that Peter hauls the net ashore [John 21:11]; to him indeed was the holy Church committed; to him especially it is said [John 21:17], 'Simon, son of John, do you love me? ... Feed my sheep.'" We gather from these words that Christ said, "Feed my sheep", to Peter in his own person and not in the person of others.

Item sanctus Leo Papa in quodam sermone de ascensione domini qui incipit Post beatam et gloriosam ait, "{*beato add. &FrMzZn[346]} Petro apostolo supra caeteros post regni claves ovilis dominici cura mandatur". {*Ex quibus verbis datur add. &FrMz[347]} intelligi quod per illa verba, "Pasce oves meas", Petro erat commissa cura totius dominici gregis.

Again, the holy Pope Leo says in a sermon on the Lord's ascension which begins "Post beatam et gloriosam" [PL 54, col. 395], "After the keys of the kingdom, the care of the Lord's sheepfold is entrusted to the blessed apostle Peter above the others." We are given to understand by these words that care of the whole of the Lord's flock was committed to Peter by those words, "Feed my sheep".

Item Ambrosius in sermone qui legitur in Festo {festi &Fr[348]} sancti Petri {om. &Mz[349]} ad vincula ait, "Cum tertio interrogaretur a Domino, "Simon amas me?" respondit {*tertio added PL}, "Domine tu scis quia diligo te", et ait Dominus, "Pasce oves meas", et hoc tertio. Quod quidem {quidam &Fr[350]} ut dictum est ad operationem {*compensationem PL} prioris {om. &Fr[351]} profecit {*fecit PL} erroris. Qui enim dominum tertio negaverat tertio confitetur et quotiens culpam delinquendo incurrerat {negaverat &FrMz[352]} totiens gratiam diligendo conquirit {conquerit &LmPz[353]}. Videte qualiter fletus profuit Petro. Antequam fleret lapsus est et postquam flevit electus est et qui ante lachrymas praevaricator extitit post lachrymas {*pastor add. PL} assumptus est et alios regendos accepit qui prius seipsum non rexit." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod illa verba "pasce oves meas" dirigebantur ad beatum Petrum in persona propria non aliorum cum per ipsa ad regimen ecclesiae {ipsa ad regimen ecclesiae: om. &Mz[354]}[[gap left]] {ad regimen ecclesiae om. &Fr[355]} assumptus est et rector aliorum effectus. Nemo autem per verba quae dicuntur alteri eligitur neque assumitur neque rector aliorum efficitur.

Again, Ambrose, in a sermon which is read on the Festival of Saint Peter in Chains, says, "When he was asked a third time by the Lord, 'Simon, do you love me?' he replied a third time, 'Lord, you know that I love you' and the Lord said to him a third time, 'Feed my sheep.' As has been said this made compensation for the earlier error. For he who had denied the Lord three times, acknowledges him three times, and he seeks grace by loving as often as he had incurred blame by transgressing. See how weeping benefited Peter. Before he wept, he fell, and after he wept, he was chosen, and he who was a transgressor before his tears, was after them appointed pastor, and he who before did not rule himself, received the rule of others." We gather from these words that the words, "Feed my sheep", were directed to blessed Peter in his own person and not in the person of others, since by them he was raised up to rule of the Church and was made ruler of others. No one, however, is chosen or appointed or made ruler of others by words that are said to another.

Praedictis beatus Gregorius super illud Math. {*Marci &Vg[356]} 16:[1], "Maria Magdalenae, Maria Iacobi' etc concordare videtur, pro ut habetur dist. 50, c. Considerandum, cum dicit, "Considerandum nobis est cur omnipotens Deus eum, quem cunctae ecclesiae praeferre disposuerat, ancillae vocem pertimescere et seipsum negare permisit. Quod nimirum magnae actum esse pietatis dispensatione cognoscimus ut is, qui futurus erat pastor ecclesiae, in sua culpa disceret qualiter aliis misereri debuisset. Prius itaque praeposuit {*ostendit &Zn[]} eum sibi et tunc praeposuit caeteris." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod Petrus post passionem domini cunctae ecclesiae praeferebatur a {om. &FrMz[357]} [[? added between lines Fr] Deo cum constet Deum illud quod de eo disposuerat implevisse. Non autem legitur quod Deus praetulerit eum cunctae ecclesiae nisi {om. &FrMz[359]} [[nisi add. interlinear Fr] cum dixit ei {*christus add. &FrMz[361]}, "Pasce oves meas". Igitur {*ergo &FrMz[362]} illa verba dirigebat ad eum Christus in propria persona et non in persona aliorum apostolorum.

Blessed Gregory seems to agree with the foregoing when he says upon that text of Mark 16:1, "Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James...", as we find in dist. 50, c. Considerandum [c.53, col.198]: "We should consider why the omnipotent God permitted him whom he had determined to place at the head of the whole Church to fear the voice of a maid servant and to deny him. We know that this was doubtless done to confer great piety, so that he who was going to be the shepherd of the Church would learn from his own fault how he ought to have mercy on others. And so first he showed him himself, and then he put him in charge of others." We gather from these words that after the Lord's passion Peter was placed by God at the head of the whole Church, since it is certain that God fulfilled what he had ordained for him. We do not read that God placed him at the head of the whole Church, however, except when Christ said to him, "Feed my sheep." Christ directed those words to him, therefore, in his own person and not in the person of the other Apostles.

Item hoc Ambrosius, ut habetur dist. 50, c. Fidelior, testari videtur cum dixit {*dicit &FrMz[363]}, "Fidelior {testari ... fidelior: om. &Lm[364]} factus est Petrus postquam se fidem perdidisse deflevit, atque ideo maiorem gratiam reperit quam prius amisit. {et add. &FrMz[365]} Tanquam bonus pastor tuendum gregem accepit." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod Petrus postquam perdidit fidem pastor gregis dominici fuit effectus, sed non nisi tunc vel tunc postissime quando dixit sibi Christus, "Pasce oves meas." Ergo tunc factus fuit pastor. Nemo autem sit pastor aut praelatus per verba quae in singulari dicuntur alteri. Ergo esto quod Christus fecisset alios apostolos pastores aequales Petro, saltem per {*illa add. &Mz[366]} verba quae in singulari dixit Petro dicens, "Pasce" - {*et non pascete add. &Mz[367]} - "oves meas", nullus alius apsotolus fuit factus pastor {per verba quae in singulari ... pastor: om. &Fr[368]} ecclesiae neque aequalis neque inferior Petro. Ergo illa verba dirigebat Christus ad Petrum in propria persona non in persona aliorum.

Again, as we read in dist. 50, c. Fidelior [c.54, col.198], Ambrose seems to attest to this when he says, "Peter became more faithful after he wept at his loss of faith and found as a result a greater grace than he earlier let go of. As a good shepherd he received a flock to defend." We gather from these words that after Peter lost his faith he became shepherd of the Lord's flock -- but only, or especially, at the time when Christ said to him, "Feed my sheep." It was at that time, therefore, that he became a shepherd. No one, however, is a shepherd or ruler through words that are said in the singular to another person. Even if we grant, therefore, that Christ had made the other Apostles shepherds equal to Peter, at least through those words that he said in the singular to Peter, "Feed thou" - and not feed [plural] - "my sheep", no other apostle became a shepherd of the Church, either equal or inferior to Peter. Therefore Christ directed those words to Peter in his own person and not in the person of others.

Hoc etiam Bernardus ad Eugenium Papam affirmat aperte sicut postea patebit {*apparebit &FrMz[369]}. Qui etiam idem sentire videtur in quodam sermone De septem panibus dicens, "Testis est {*et add. &FrMz[370]} Petrus cui post trinam negationem totius ecclesiae pastoralis cura commissa est sed nonnisi quando sibi dixit {*trs. &FrMz[371]} Christus, 'Pasce oves meas.'" Ergo illa verba Christi {*om. &FrMz[372]} dirigebantur {*dirigebat &FrMz[373]} ad eum {*Christus add. &FrMz[374]} in persona propria non in persona aliorum.

Bernard clearly affirms this too, [writing] to Pope Eugenius, as will be evident later. He also seems to think the same thing in a sermon On the seven loaves, where he says, "Peter is also a witness, he to whom pastoral care of the whole Church was committed after his triple denial", but only when Christ said to him, "Feed my sheep". Christ directed those words to him, therefore, in his own person and not in the person of others.

Quod {quia &Mz[375]} ex canonibus Paschasii Papae Extra, De electione c. {om. &FrMz[376]} Significasti et Innocentii tertii Extra, De maioritate et obedientia c. Solitae patenter habetur.

This is openly found in the canons of Pope Paschasius (Extra, De electione c. Significasti [c.4, col.49]) and of Innocent III (Extra, De maioritate et obedientia c. Solitae [c.6, col.196]).

CAP. V

Discipulus Allegasti contra illud in quo prima responsio supra ca. 3. recitata {om. &Fr[377]} fundari videtur. Ideo nunc tracta alia quae opinantes illi videntur {videtur &Mz[378]} asserere respondendo, per quae {om. &FrMz[379]} argumentum {predictum add. &Fr[380]} adductum evacuare et suam responsionem declarare nituntur. Et primo incipias ab illo quod dicitur quod Christus tali modo loquendi usus est quod scilicet aliquando aliqua verba dixit uni et tamen dirigebat ipsa ad illum cui loquebatur in persona aliorum. Quod ipse solus {*om. &FrMz[381]} testatur cum dixit {*dicit &FrLmMz[382]} Math {*Marci Marsilius Vg[383]} 13:[37], "Quod uni {*vobis &FrMzVg[384]} dico omnibus dico."

CHAPTER 5

Student You have argued against what seems to be the basis of the first reply recorded in chapter 3 above. Deal now, therefore, with the other points that those of that opinion seem to assert in their reply, through which they try to nullify the argument brought forward and to clarify their own reply. First, would you begin with the point that Christ used such a manner of speech, namely that sometimes he spoke words to one person and yet was directing them to the one to whom he spoke in the person of others, as he testifies himself when he says in Mark 13:37, "What I say to you I say to all."

Magister Nonnullis apparet quod per illa quae dicta sunt in praecedenti capitulo intelligentibus patet aperte quomodo illud ad propositum nihil facit, quia verum est quod Christus aliquando tali modo loquendi usus est quia interdum loquendo uni dirigebat sermonem {sermones &Fr[385]} ad alios {reliquos &Fr[386]}, sed hoc non fuit nisi quando fuit eadem ratio docendi {*dicendi &FrMz[387]} aliquid unum et alios {*unum et alios: uni et aliis &FrLmMzPz[388]}. Quod accidit quando {unus seu add. &Fr[389]} aliquis inducitur ad agendum vel non agendum aliquid sive ad credendum vel non credendum aliquid quod alii ita tenentur agere vel non agere, credere vel non credere, sicut ille cui dicitur in singulari et universaliter ubi ille cui aliquid dicitur et alii consimiliter se habent et habere {haberi &Fr[390]} debent sive {cum &FrMz[391]} tenentur se habere ad illud quod dicitur. Quod veritatem habet in illo de quo praecesserat sermo Christi cum postea dixit Math {*Marci Marsilius, Vg[392]} 13:[37], "Quod autem uni {vobis &Vg[393]} dico omnibus dico, vigilate." Ita {*enim add. &FrMz[394]} indiguerunt et indigent alii viatores vigilare quando nesciunt quando dominus veniet, sicut apostoli. Sed quando alii non consimiliter se habent vel non tenentur consimiliter se habere ad illud {istud &Lm[395]} de quo est sermo tunc quod dicitur uni non propter hoc intelligitur aliis {*esse add. &FrMz[396]} dictum. Non enim quando dominus dixit Petro, "Vade ad mare et mitte hamum" etc, omnes alii discipuli et apostoli qui hoc audierunt currere cum Petro tenebantur ad mare. Sic quando Christus dixit Petro Iohannis ultimo, "Sequere me", noluit ut Petrus intelligeret illud eodem modo esse dictum aliis sicut sibi. Propter quod interroganti Petro de Iohanne, "Domine hic autem {om. &FrLmMzPz[397]} [[autem add. interlinear Fr] quid?" respondit ei {*omitted Sc} Iesus, "Si {sic &FrLmMzPz[399]} eum volo manere donec veniam quid ad te? Tu me sequere." Sic dico non semper quod dicitur uni intelligitur aliis esse dictum. Quod etiam {*om. &FrMz[400]} non videtur veritatem habere quando aliquid dicitur uni ut praeficiatur alteri {*aliis &FrMz[401]} sicut in proposito fuit {sunt &Fr[402]}.

Master It appears to some that because of what was said in the previous chapter it is quite clear to those with understanding that that point is not relevant to the argument. Because it is true that Christ sometimes used that way of speaking, since sometimes he was directing his speech to others when speaking to one person, but this was only when there was the same reason for saying something to one and to others. This happens when someone is induced to do or not do something or to believe or not believe something which others are bound in the same way to do or not do, to believe or not believe, as in the case of one to whom something is said in the singular and universally where he to whom it is said and others are, and should be or are bound to be, similarly related to what is said. This is true in the matter Christ had been speaking about when afterwards he said in Mark 13:37, "What I say to one I say to all: Keep awake." For just as the Apostles needed to keep awake, so other wayfarers needed and need to keep awake when they do not know when the Lord will come. But when others are not or are not bound to be similarly related to the matter the speech is about, then what is said to one is not for this reason understood to be said to others. For it is not the case that when the Lord said to Peter [Mat. 17:26], "Go to the sea and cast a hook", all the other disciples and Apostles who heard this were bound to run to the sea with Peter. Thus when Christ said to Peter in the last chapter of John [21:22], "Follow me", he did not want Peter to take this to be said to the others in the same way as it was said to him. For this reason when Peter asked him about John, "Lord, what about him?" Jesus replied to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me." So I say that it is not always the case that something said to one person is taken to be said to others. It does not seem to be true when it is said to one person that he should rule others, as it was in the present case.

Per praedicta patet, ut videtur quibusdam, falsum esse {falsum esse: om. &FrMz[403]} quod tamen post recitationem verborum Christi et Glossae dicunt opinantes praefati quod {om. &FrMz[404]} "Ex hoc non aliud convincitur nisi quod ipsum pastorem Christus instituit. Non tamen ex hoc sequitur quod ipsum super reliquos apostolos ad auctoritatem vel dignitatem priorem praetulit. Nec rursum sequitur ex hoc alios apostolos non fuisse institutos pastores". Errant enim {*om. &FrMz[405]} aperte {apte &Fr[406]} quia etiam sequitur quod Christus Petrum pastorem instituit et quod constituit eum priorem auctoritate et dignitate apostolis aliis, quia per verba illa Christus non constituit aliquem alium pastorem quam Petrum {*trs.231 &FrMz[407]}, sicut {*videtur add. &FrMz[408]} aliquibus demonstrative probatum. videtur {*om. &FrLmMzPz[409]} Et etiam non {om. &FrMz[410]} distinxit inter oves has Christi et illas. Ergo etiam super alios apostolos qui erant oves Christi constitutus fuit per illa verba {id est add. &FrMz[411]} beatus Petrus.

It is clear from the above, as it seems to some people, that what the holders of that opinion nevertheless say [above], after reporting Christ's words and the gloss, is false, namely: "From this, however, nothing is demonstrated except that Christ established him as the shepherd of his sheep. It does not follow from this, however, that he set him over the other Apostles in superior authority or dignity. Nor does it follow from this that the other Apostles were not established as shepherds." They [the holders of this opinion] are clearly wrong, because it does also follow that Christ established Peter as shepherd and that he set him up as superior in authority and dignity to the other Apostles, because by those words Christ did not set up anyone as shepherd but Peter, as seems to some people to be proved demonstratively. Nor indeed did he distinguish between some of Christ's and others. By these words, therefore, blessed Peter was set over the other Apostles who were Christ's sheep.

Cum autem dicitur "nec rursum sequitur ex hoc alios apostolos non fuisse institutos pastores", non errant si intelligantur verba sicut prima facie sonant quia, non obstantibus illis verbis {*trs. &FrMz[412]} Christi, apostoli fuerunt constituti pastores per alia verba Christi. Sed postea per illa verba dicta Petro singulariter, "Pasce oves meas", subiiciebantur Petro retenta auctoritate et dignitate aliis apostolis ante concessa a Christo.

When it is said, however, "Nor does it follow from this that the other Apostles were not established as shepherds", they are not wrong if they mean the words to be taken at face value, because, notwithstanding those words of Christ, the Apostles were established as shepherds by other words of Christ. But by those later words said separately to Peter, "Feed my sheep", the other Apostles were subjected to Peter but retained the authority and dignity already conceded to them by Christ.

CAP. VI

Discipulus Narrasti quomodo improbatur responsio antescripta. Nunc narra qualiter respondetur ad illa {illam &Fr[413]} quae in responsione eadem allegantur {allegatur &Fr[414]} ad probandum aequalitatem aliorum apostolorum Petri.

CHAPTER 6

Student You have explained how the earlier reply is rejected. Now explain how it is replied to the arguments in the same reply to prove the equality of the other Apostles with Peter.

Answer to Marsilius' arguments for the equality of the Apostles

Magister Ad evidentiam {evidentem &LmPz[415]} illarum allegationum et multarum aliarum primo dicitur esse notandum quod Christus non sic commisit etiam {*curam &FrLmMzPz[416]} pastoralem Petro super apostolos omnes et cunctos fideles ut ea quae ipse fecerat revocandi potestatem {presertim &Lm[417]} {*revocandi potestatem: circa apostolos revocaret vel potestatem revocandi presertim &FrMz[418]} absque causa iusta Petro concederet nec sic ut ab omni regimine et cura apostolorum et aliorum fidelium etiam innotescente fidelibus abstineret; quinimo voluit {noluit &LmPz[419]} quod illa quae fecerat servarentur {observarentur &Fr[420]} et fidelibus saepe innotuit ipsum post ascensionem suam. suum esse vicarium {*suum esse vicarium: om. &FrLmMzPz[421]} et postquam fecit Petrum vicarium suum plura fecisse miraculose et potestative. {Erat fidelis add. &FrMz[422]}

Master To make clear those arguments and many others, it is said first that it should be noted that Christ did not commit to Peter pastoral care over the other Apostles and the rest of the faithful in such a way that he [Christ] revoked, or that he conceded to Peter the power to revoke without just cause, those things which he [Christ] himself had done in regard to the Apostles, nor was in such a way that he [Christ] would abstain from all rule and care of the Apostles and other faithful, even abstaining from making things known to the faithful. Nay rather, he wanted those things that he had done to be preserved, and often after his ascension, and after he made Peter his vicar, he [Christ] made known to the faithful that he had done many things miraculously and powerfully. [The point seems to be that the Preface Marsilius mentions prays that Christ will continually protect and guide the Church through the Apostles: the answer is that Christ's continued action through agents, such as Peter and the other Apostles, is not inconsistent with Peter's superiority.]

Per hoc {quod add. &FrMz[423]} dicitur ad {per &Fr[424]} illud {hoc &Lm[425]} quod allegatur de praefatione quae de apostolis legitur et cantatur quod Christus apostolos in plurali rectores, vicarios et pastores constituit non tamen per verba illa {*trs. &FrMz[426]} "pasce oves meas" sed per alia. Omnes tamen subdidit rectori, vicario et pastori supremo, scilicet Petro, quamvis hoc non dicatur in praefatione illa sed ex scriptura canonica quae maioris auctoritatis habetur.

Through this it is said to the argument from the Preface which is read and sung about the Apostles that Christ established the Apostles, in the plural, as rulers, vicars and shepherds, but he did not [do this] through those words, "Feed my sheep", but by other words. Nevertheless, he subjected everyone to the supreme ruler, vicar and shepherd, namely Peter, even if this is not said in that Preface but in canonical scripture, which is held to be of greater authority.

Aliter dicitur quod Deus multa dicitur facere quae tamen facit mediantibus aliis; et ideo cum in praefatione praescripta non dicatur quod Christus nullo modo mediate {mediante &FrMz[427]} constituerit apostolos {*trs. &FrMz[428]} operis sui vicarios, ex ipsa inferri non potest quod non constituerit eos mediante Petro. Et per consequens multo minus potest ex ea concludi {concludere &Fr[429]} quod non constituerit eos rectores, vicarios et pastores sub supremo pastore, vicario et rectore, scilicet Petro.

It is said in another way that God is said to do many things which in fact he does through the mediation of others; and since, therefore, in the Preface quoted above it is not said that Christ did not establish the Apostles as vicars of his work in any way mediately, it can not be inferred from this that he did not establish them through Peter's mediation. As a consequence it is even less possible to conclude from this that he did not establish them as rulers, vicars and shepherds under the supreme shepherd, vicar and ruler, namely Peter.

Ad aliam cum dicitur quod "omnibus Matthaei ultimo indifferenter dictum est, 'Euntes igitur {*ergo &FrMzVg[430]} docete omnes gentes', non dixit Petro, 'Vade et alios mitte'", respondetur quod auctoritas docendi data fuit omnibus apostolis immediate a Christo nec alii apostoli eam habuerunt a Petro. Sed ex hoc non sequitur quod non fuerint inferiores Petro {Sed ex hoc ... Petro: om. &Fr[431]}. Constat enim quod in potestatibus secularibus multi inferiores imperatore et {*aut &FrLmMzPz[432]} rege dignitates obtinent seculares quas tamen ab isto imperatore aut rege minime habuerunt sed a praedecessore receperunt. Quo tamen non obstante isto imperatori aut regi {*imperatori aut regi: imperatore aut rege &FrLmMzPz[433]} sunt inferiores et eidem sunt subiecti. Sic etiam praelati inferiores nonnulli veras habent ecclesias et {*ecclesias et: ecclesiasticas &FrMz[434]} dignitates et tamen non a superiori superstite sed a praedecessore instituti fuerunt nec alia institutione postea indiguerunt. Ergo multo fortius poterant {poterunt &Fr[435]} apostoli alii auctoritatem docendi habere a Christo et non a Petro et tamen esse inferiores {inferioris &Fr[436]} beato {*om. &FrMz[437]} Petro. Et ideo quamvis per illa verba quae dixit Iesus apostolis, "Euntes ergo docete omnes gentes" {*omnes gentes: om. &FrMz[438]} etc, non possit probari quod Petrus fuit superior aliis apostolis, tamen ex hoc non sequitur quod Petrus non fuit superior sed par, quia superioritas eius ex aliis ostenditur sicut probatum est. Quamvis ergo Christus non dixerit {non dixerit: om. &FrMz[439]} Petro, "Vade et alios mitte", {*trs. &FrMz[440]} sed {om. &FrMz[441]} {*scilicet &LmPz[442]} quando dixit apostolis, "Euntes ergo docete omnes gentes" {*omnes gentes: om. &FrMz[443]} etc, tamen quando dixit sibi, "Pasce oves meas", implicite dixit, "Mitte saltem alios quos non misit specialiter" Christus, quia concedendo sive imponendo sibi curam omnium generalem iniunxit simul ea {om. &Fr[444]} sine {simul ea sine: illegible in &Mz[445]} quibus eadem cura salubriter geri non potest, quemadmodum concesso principali omnia accessoria {antecessoria &Pz[446]} conceduntur {?quo ceduntur &Mz[447]}, Extra, De officio {officii &Pz[448]} {*et potestate iudicis add. &Zn[449]} delegatorum {*delegati &Zn[450]}, praecedente {*Praeterea &FrMzZn[451]}. Non ergo cum dixit Christus, "Euntes ergo docete omnes gentes", significavit in omnibus auctoritatis aequalitatem, sed solummodo docendi iniunxit officium quod {quia &FrMz[452]} aequalitatem auctoritatis inter {vel &Fr[453]} doctores {doctoris &Fr[454]} non requirit.

To another argument, which says that, "Go therefore and teach all nations", in the last chapter of Matthew [28:19], was said to all without distinction and that he did not say to Peter, "Go thou and send the others", the reply is that the authority to teach was given to all the Apostles directly by Christ and the other Apostles did not have it from Peter. But it does not follow from this that they were not inferior to Peter. For it is certain that among the secular powers many who are inferior to an emperor or king possess secular dignities which they did not obtain possession of from that emperor or king but received from a predecessor. Notwithstanding this, however, they are inferior and subject to that emperor or king. Thus too, some inferior prelates have real ecclesiastical dignities but were appointed not by their present superior but by his predecessor and did not need to be appointed again later. A fortiori, therefore, the other Apostles could have acquired authority to teach from Christ and not from Peter and yet be inferior to Peter. And although, therefore, it can not be proved through those words which Jesus said to the Apostles, "Go therefore and teach", etc., that Peter was superior to the other Apostles, yet it does not follow from this that Peter was not their superior but their equal, because his superiority is shown from other words, as has been proved. Although, therefore, Christ did not say to Peter, "Go thou and send the others" (that is, when he said to the Apostles, "Go therefore and teach", etc.), yet when he said to him, "Feed my sheep", he did say implicitly, "Send at least those others whom he, Christ, did not send specifically", because in conceding to or imposing on him the general care of everyone he did at the same time enjoin on him those things without which that care can not be advantageously exercised, just as "when the principal is granted all the subordinate matters are granted" (Extra, De officio et potestate iudicis delegati, c. Praeterea [Cf. Gloss, v. ex eo quod causa, col. 330]). It is not the case, therefore, that when Christ said, "Go therefore and teach all nations", he indicated an equality of authority among all, but he enjoined only the duty of teaching which does not require equality of authority among the teachers.

Ad aliam vero cum dixit Christus apostolis, "Nolite vocari rabbi" etc, multipliciter respondetur. Uno modo quod hoc {hic &Lm?MzPz[455]} dixit apostolis et aliis antequam aliquem ex eis praeficeret aliis in praelatum, quia hoc dixit ante passionem suam dum ipse et non alius erat praelatus fidelium {Quia hoc ... fidelium: om. &Fr[456]}.

To another argument [based on] Christ's having said to the Apostles, "You are not to be called rabbi", there are many responses. One is that he said this to the Apostles and the others before he set any one of them above the others as ruler, because he said this before his passion while he himself and not another was ruler of the faithful.

Aliter dicitur quod Christus verba sua ibidem de supremo et primo {et primo: om. &Fr[457]} rabbi et magistro volebat {voluit &Fr[458]} intelligi, ut scilicet praeter Deum seu Christum nullus primus seu {*et &FrMz[459]} supremus rabbi pater et magister fidelium putaretur. Neque enim Christus voluit ut fidelium quilibet {*trs. &FrMz[460]} eum qui genuit ipsum non haberet pro patre vel ipsum recusaret vocare patrem, sed voluit ut Deum superiorem patre carnali pro patre superiori {supremo &Fr[461]} et principaliori haberet. Sic proportionaliter de rabbi et magistro dicendum videtur. Ad cuius evidentiam dicitur esse sciendum quod saepe moris est scripturae aliquod {*aliquid &FrLmMzPz[462]} negare ab aliquo cui [[?nisi margin &Fr [463]]] primo et principalissime seu anthonomatice {anthonomasice &LmPz[464]} non convenit, licet secundario et non principaliter anthonomatice {non convenit ... anthonomatice: om. &Fr[465]} de ipso dicatur. Sic enim dixit apostolis Mat. 10:[19-20], "Cum autem tradent vos, nolite cogitare quomodo aut quid loquamini" et post "Non enim vos estis qui loquimini sed spiritus Patris mei {vestri &Vg[466]} qui loquitur in vobis", scilicet primo et principaliter {principalissime &Fr[467]}, qui tamen secundario tanquam moti a principali erant qui loquebantur {qui loquebantur: om. &FrMz[468]} Sic etiam dixit Christus ut habetur Lucae {Act. &Mz[469]} 18:[19], "Nemo bonus {18 nemo bonus: om. &FrMz[470]} [[space FrMz; nemo bonus add. margin &Fr [471]]] nisi solus Deus", scilicet essentialiter et primo, et tamen {atque &FrMz[472]} [[crossed out and namque add. margin Fr; gaps left Mz [473]]] angeli boni et beati in coelo atque iusti omnes {om. &FrMz[474]} [[gap left Mz]] sunt boni. Sic dicitur in proposito quod Christus in verbis istis solummodo voluit quod {*ut &FrMz[475]} Deus et Christus principaliter et quasi anthonomatice {anthonomasice &LmPz[476]} haberetur pro patre {parte &LmPz[477]} rabbi et magistro et nullus alius.

Another response is to say that Christ wanted his words there to be understood of a supreme and first rabbi and master, that is, so that no one except God or Christ would be thought of as first and supreme rabbi, father and master of the faithful. For Christ did not want any of the faithful not to regard as father the one who begot him or to refuse to call him father, but he wanted them to consider God as superior to their father in the flesh and as their higher and principal father. It seems that the same thing should be said, in proportion, of rabbi and master. To make this clear it is said that it should be known that it is often the custom of scripture to deny something of someone which is not suitable to him primarily and principally or par excellence, although it may be said of him secondarily and not principally [[add seu?]] or par excellence. For he spoke thus to the Apostles in Matthew 10:19-20, "When they hand you over do not worry about how you are to speak or what you are to say, ... For it is not you who speak but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you", that is primarily and principally, although secondarily it was they who spoke, as being moved by a principal. Christ also spoke in this way in Luke 18:19, as we read, "No one is good but God alone", that is, essentially and primarily, and yet the good angels, the blessed in heaven, and all the just are good. Thus it is said in the present case that in those words Christ only meant that God and Christ, and no other, should be considered principally and, as it were, par excellence, as father, rabbi and master.

CAP. VII

Discipulus Nunquid potest probari quod verba illa Christi non debent intelligi sicut ipsa praedicti opinantes intelligunt.

CHAPTER 7

Student Can it be proved that those words of Christ should not be understood as the holders of that opinion understand them?

Magister Videtur quibusdam quod sic. Dicunt enim quod ista allegatio et consimiles sunt similes illi allegationi in qua se fundant quidam haeretici, dicentes quod nulla ex causa licet iurare {quod add. &Fr[478]} propter hoc quod Christus dixit {*dicit &Mz[479]} Matt. 5:[24], "Ego autem dico vobis, non iurare omnino." Quia sicut illi dixerunt {dixerint &Lm[480]} quod nulli in quocunque casu licet iurare propter praedictum praeceptum Christi sic isti videntur dicere quod nullo modo est concedendum {credendum &Fr[481]} Christum instituisse aliquem apostolum superiorem aliis propter praedicta verba quibus eis videtur aequalitatem iniungere. Sed sicut, non obstantibus Christi verbis {*trs. &FrMz[482]} praemissis de iuramento, licet in casu iurare, ita, non obstantibus verbis {*Christi add. &FrMz[483]} illis quibus aequalitatem quandam fidelibus videtur imponere, licet vocari rabbi et magister et pater.

Master It seems to some people that the answer is 'yes'. For they say that that argument and ones like it are similar to that argument on which certain heretics base themselves when they say that it is not permissible to swear for any reason because of the fact that in Matthew 5:24 Christ says, "But I say to you. Do not swear at all." Just as those people have said that because of that precept of Christ no one is permitted to swear under any circumstances, so in the same way the holders of this opinion seem to say that it should not be granted in any way, because of those words by which he seems to enjoin equality on them, that Christ established any one apostle as superior to the others. But just as in some cases it is permissible to swear, notwithstanding the above words of Christ about swearing, so it is permissible to be called rabbi, master and father, notwithstanding those words of Christ by which he seems to impose a certain equality on the faithful.

Primo igitur ostenditur quod intellectus quem praedicti opinantes videntur habere de praefatis {om. &Fr[484]} verbis Christi non possit {*potest &FrMz[485]} stare. Secundo explicabitur verus et catholicus intellectus illorum verborum ut nonnullis apparet. quod igitur Christus non intenderit illis quibus loquebatur per illa verba sic aequalitatem iniungere ut ab eis praesertim pro futuris temporibus omnem superioritatem {superiorem &Fr[486]} excluderet {excludit &Fr[487]} multis apparet {om. &FrMz[488]} modis. Nam Christus dirigebat verba illa non solum ad apostolos sed etiam ad omnes suos discipulos imo etiam ad turbas. Sic enim ibidem promittitur {*praemittitur &FrMz[489]}, "Tunc locutus est Iesus ad turbas {*et add. &FrLmMzPzVg[490]} ad discipulos suos dicens, 'Super cathedram" etc, sed non intendebat ab omnibus saltem pro {in &Fr[491]} futuris temporibus omnem inaequalitatem {aequalitatem &FrLmMzPz[492]} [[corrected Fr]] et superioritatem {*et superioritatem: om. &FrLmMzPz[493]} excludere. Tunc enim nunquam ex ordinatione Christi aliquis inter fideles fuisset superior aliis. Et per consequens Petrus per ordinationem {per ordinationem: ex ordinatione &Fr[494]} Christi nunquam fuisset superior quibuscunque {*et ita non fuisset pastor quorumcumque add. &FrLmMzPz[495]} constitutus a Christo. Quod etiam opinantes praedicti negant. Et ita Christus aequalitatem omnimodam auctoritatis nec apostolis nec aliis tunc iniunxit {*trs. &FrMz[496]}.

First, therefore, it is shown that the understanding that the holders of that opinion seem to have of those words of Christ can not be valid. Second, the true and catholic understanding of those words, as it appears to some, will be explained. Therefore, that Christ did not intend by those words to enjoin on those to whom he was speaking such equality as to exclude them from any superiority, especially in future times, is seen in many ways. For Christ directed those words not only to the Apostles but to all his disciples, indeed even to the crowds (for the following is set down before [those words] there [Matt. 23:1], "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 'On the seat ...'"). But he did not intend to exclude all of them from all inequality, at least in future times, for then none of the faithful would ever have been superior to the others by Christ's ordination, and consequently Peter would never have been superior to anyone at all by Christ's ordination, and so he would not have been appointed by Christ as shepherd of anyone at all -- which even the holders of that opinion deny. And so Christ did not at that time enjoin complete equality of authority on the Apostles or on others.

Amplius si Christus tunc apostolis {om. &Fr[497]} aequalitatem auctoritatis iniunxit ergo non licuit apostolis postea contra idem praeceptum Christi nec Petrum nec alium per se superiorem constituere. Quod tamen isti negant dicentes quod apostoli elegerunt et constituerunt Petrum superiorem se. Imo sequitur quod nec quibuscunque Christianis liceret aliquem super se eligere superiorem cum Christus ibidem non ad solos apostolos sed etiam ad alios discipulos {sed etiam ad discipulos om. &Fr[498]} praesentes et futuros intenderit verba praedicta dirigere {diregere &Pz[499]} et utrosque instruere. Tunc enim poterat Christus dicere illud quod dixit Matth {*Mark &Vg[500]} 13:[37], "Quod vobis dico omnibus dico."

Further, if Christ did at that time enjoin equality of authority on the Apostles, then it was not right for the Apostles themselves later to appoint either Peter or any other person as their superior, against that precept of Christ's. Yet they [the holders of this opinion] deny this, saying that the Apostles chose and appointed Peter as superior to them. Indeed, it follows that no christians at all would be permitted to choose someone as their superior, since in that place Christ intended to direct those words not to the Apostles alone but also to other disciples, present and future, and to instruct both groups. For then Christ could say what he said in Mark 13:37, "What I say to you I say to all."

Discipulus Forte dicerent isti quod licet Christus sic {*tunc &FrMz[501]} apostolis {om. &Fr[502]} iniunxerit aequalitatem auctoritatis non tamen interdixit eis quin ex iusta causa possent postea aliquem super se constituere.

Student Perhaps they would say that although at that time Christ enjoined equality of authority on the Apostles, yet he did not prohibit them from being able, later for some rightful reason, to establish someone above them.

Magister Istud quibusdam non placet. Nam si Christus non interdixit apostolis et per consequens nec aliis quin ex causa iusta posset {*possent &FrMz[503]} postea aliquem {*postea aliquem: om. &FrMz[504]} super {*supra &FrMz[505]} se constituere superiorem, multo magis sibi ipsi non imposuit legem quin postea posset unum apostolum praeferre aliis. Ergo per illa verba quae dixit Math. 13 non potest ostendi quod postea Christus non praetulit aliis apostolis beatum Petrum, licet posset ostendi quod per illa verba quae recitat Matt. 13 {23 &FrMz[507]} {*28 Ki} non praetulerit eum aliis apostolis. Quod conceditur a quibusdam.

Master That is not acceptable to some people. For if Christ did not prohibit the Apostles, and consequently others, from being able, for some rightful reason, to establish a superior over themselves, much more is it the case that he did not impose that law on himself, but rather he was able later to prefer one apostle to the others. It can not be shown, therefore, by those words in Matthew 13 [rather, Matthew 23:8, "Do not be called Rabbi"] that Christ did not later prefer blessed Peter to the other Apostles, although it could be shown by those words which Matthew 13 [rather 28:19, "Go and teach all nations"] records that he did not prefer him to the other Apostles. This is granted by some people.

Rursus apostoli verba illa Christi sicut prima facie sonant non servabant quia sententialiter et vocaliter se vocabant et reputaverunt {*reputabant &Fr[508]} se magistros et patres et rabbi. Ait enim apostolus 1 Tim. 2 {5 &Fr[509]}:[7], "Veritatem dico non mentior doctor gentium." Si autem doctor et magister. Unde et 2 Tim. 1:[11] ait, "Ego praedicator et apostolus et magister gentium." Et in eadem epistola vocat Timotheum dilectum filium. Si autem Timotheus fuerit {fuit &Fr[510]} filius, ipse reputavit se patrem. Et eidem scribit ca. 5 {2 &Fr[511]}:[1], "Seniorem ne increpaveris sed obsecra ut patrem." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod licebat Timotheo vocare seniores patres et tamen Christus dixit {*dicit &FrMz[512]}, "Patrem nolite vocare vobis super terram." Et beatus Iohannes 1 epistola sua ca. 2:[1 & 28] ait, "Scribo vobis filioli", et infra, "Et nunc filioli manete in eo." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod licuit illis quibus scribebat beatus Iohannes vocare eum patrem. Sententialiter ergo apostoli vocaverunt se magistros {om. &Fr[513]} et rabbi {et magistros add. &Fr[514]} quod nequaquam fecissent si Christus interdixisset eis talibus vocabulis se vocare quia, {*si add. &FrMz[515]} "non dubium est committere in legem {*eum add. &FrMz[516]} qui {*verba legis amplexus contra legis nititur voluntatem" (C., de legibus 1), non dubium multo magis committit in legem qui add. &FrMz[517]} tam muntem {*mentem &FrLmMzPz[518]} quam verba legis transgreditur. Nequaquam igitur Christus omnimodam aequalitatem auctoritatis tunc apostolis pro temporibus futuris iniunxit.

Again, the Apostles did not observe those words of Christ as they appear at face value because, both in effect and in so many words, they used to call themselves and regard themselves as masters, fathers and rabbis. For in 1 Tim. 2:7 the Apostle says, "I, a teacher of the gentiles, am telling the truth, I am not lying." If a teacher, however, also a master. Whence he also says in 2 Tim. 1:11, "I am a herald and an apostle and a teacher [magister, master] of the gentiles." And in the same letter (1 Tim. 1:2) he calls Timothy his "beloved son": if Timothy was his son, however, he regarded himself as his father. And he writes to him in 1 Tim. 5:1, "Do not speak harshly to an older man, but speak to him as to a father." We gather from these words that Timothy was permitted to call older men fathers, and yet Christ says [Matt. 23:9], "Call no one your father on earth." And blessed John says in 1 John 2:[1, 28], "I write to you little children ... And now little children abide in him." We gather from these words that those to whom blessed John was writing were permitted to call him father. In effect, therefore, the Apostles called themselves masters and rabbis, something that they would not have done if Christ had prohibited them from calling themselves by such names, because if "there is no doubt that a person violates the law if, embracing its words, he works against its intention", (Code, De legibus, 1 [1.14.5]), much more is there no doubt that a person violates the law if he transgresses both its intention and its words. At that time, therefore, Christ did not enjoin complete equality on the Apostles for future times.

Oportet ergo alium quam praedictum promissorum {*premissorum &FrLmMzPz[519]} verborum Christi quaerere intellectum. Ad quorum evidentiam dicitur {dicititur &Pz[520]} esse notandum quod Christus omnia verba illa, "Nolite vocari rabbi ... patrem nolite vobis vocare {trs. &Lm[521]} super {supra &Fr[522]} terram ... nec vocemini magistri", {magister &FrPz[523]} {hoc add. &Lm[524]} dixit propter Phariseos et Scribas qui ambitiosi dignitatum erant et honorum {bonorum &LmPz[525]} et vehementes {vehementis &LmPz[526]} inanis gloriae amatores {amatoris &Fr[527]} qui propter huiusmodi omnia opera sua fecerunt. De quibus Salvator dicit ibidem, "Omnia vero opera sua faciunt ut videantur ab hominibus." {omnibus &FrMz[528]} Ubi eos de inani gloria aperte notavit. Quos etiam de ambitione {ambulatione &Pz[529]} notavit {Quos etiam ... notavit: om. &FrLm[530]} cum dixit, "Amant autem primos {primus &FrMz[531]} recubitus in coenis et primas cathedras in synagogis et salutationes in foro {fori &Fr[532]} et vocari ob {*ab &FrLmMzVg[533]} omnibus {*hominibus &FrMzVg[534]} rabbi." Dicitur igitur quod cum Christus, occasione vitiorum Phariseorum et Scribarum scilicet inanis gloriae et ambitionis, post praemissa verba {*trs. &FrMz[535]} de Phariseis et Scribis subiunxit {subiungit &Fr[536]} dicit {*dicens &FrLmMzPz[537]} discipulis suis omnibus, "Vos autem nolite vocari rabbi" etc, non aequalitatem auctoritatis discipulis suis iniunxit nec etiam tunc interdixit omnem superioritatem. Sed ipsos volens ad humilitatem inducere ambitionem et inanem gloriam dissuasit prohibendo vel consulendo ne extra casum necessitatis, quae {qui &Fr[538]} etiam utilitatem includit, ut notat Glossa Extra, De iureiurando, Et si Christus, magisterium imo quamcunque {?quantumcumque &LmPz[539]} prelationem et superioritatem aut maioritatem appeterent vel etiam nominibus importantibus dignitatem aut superioritatem vocari gestirent. Quod non tantum per praecedentia in eadem serie sed etiam per sequentia potest patentius {patentibus &FrMz[540]} declarari, quia non magis interdixit cuilibet eorum omnem auctoritatem et superioritatem per illas negativas, "Nolite vocari rabbi ... nec vocemini magistri", quam interdixerit eis subiectionem quae est respectu superiorum {*superioris &FrMz[541]} auctoritate {*auctoritatis Ki} per verba sequentia cum dixit, "Qui maior est vestrum erit minister vester." Sed per illa verba noluit indicare quod maior inter eos deberet esse subiectus aliis {*tamquam add. &FrLmMzPz[542]} praelatis. Ergo per alia verba, scilicet per negativa {*negativas &FrLmMzPz[543]}, noluit eis omnimodam aequalitatem auctoritatis iniungere sed ipsos ad humilitatem contra ambitionem et inanem gloriam incitare. Propter quod post omnia verba praescripta subiunxit, "Qui autem se exaltaverit humiliabitur."

We must therefore look for another meaning of the aforesaid words of Christ besides that one. To make this clear it is said that it should be known that Christ said all those words (Mat. 23:8-10), "You are not to be called rabbi ... Call no one your father on earth ... Nor are you to be called masters", because of the Pharisees and Scribes who were ambitious for dignities and honours and were ardent lovers of empty glory and who carried out all their deeds for reasons of that kind. In the same place the Saviour says of these [Mat. 23:5], "They do all their deeds to be seen by men." Here he has openly censured them for empty glory. He also censured them for ambition when he said [Mat. 23:6-7], "They love to have the place of honour at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues and to be greeted with respect in the market places and to have men call them rabbi." It is said therefore that when Christ, on the occasion of the vices of the Pharisees and Scribes, namely empty glory and ambition, speaking to all his disciples, added after the above words about the Pharisees and Scribes, "But you are not to be called rabbi", etc., he did not enjoin an equality of authority on his disciples and he did not also at that time forbid any superiority, but, wanting to lead them to humility, he dissuaded them from ambition and empty glory by forbidding or advising them, except in a case of necessity (which also includes expediency, as the gloss on Extra, De iureiurando, c. Et si Christus [col.822] notes), not to desire to be master, or indeed to have any kind of rulership or superiority or greatness, or even to long to be called by names implying dignity or superiority. This can be made more plainly clear not only by what comes before it in the passage but also by what follows, because he no more forbad any of them all authority and superiority by those negatives [Mat. 23:8, 10], "You are not to be called rabbi ... You are not to be called masters", than he forbade them the subjection that relates to the authority of a superior by the words that follow [Mat. 23:11], "The greatest among you will be your servant." But by those words he did not want to declare that the greatest among them ought to be subject to others as to rulers. By the other words, therefore, that is by those negatives, he did not want to enjoin on them complete equality of authority, but to incite them to humility and against ambition and empty glory. For this reason he added after all the above words [Mat. 23:12], "Whoever exalts himself will be humbled."

CAP. VIII

Discipulus Discute secundam responsionem quam saepe dicti asserunt opinantes.

Answer to Marsilius' second objection to the argument from "Feed my sheep": the other Apostles were sheep (as well as shepherds)

Magister Illa responsio consistit in hoc quod per illa verba, "Pasce oves meas" [John 21:17], specialiter beato Petro propter sui constantiam commissus fuit populus Israel qui durae {duris &Fr[544]} cervicis fuit versus Deum. Sed nonnullis videtur quod haec responsio oppositum illius quod tenet patenter concludit. Nam si per illa verba, "Pasce oves meas", commissa fuit Petro cura populi Israel et Christus in illis verbis inter has oves et illas de populo Israel non distinxit nec aliquas oves excepit {accepit &LmPz[545]}, ergo omnium ovium Israel fuit cura commissa beato Petro. Inter oves autem Israel praecipue fuerunt apostoli. Ergo per illa verba fuit commissa cura reliquorum apostolorum beato Petro.

Discipulus Forte responderent opinantes praedicti quod licet Christus in illis verbis, "Pasce oves meas", non distinxerit inter has oves et illas nec aliquas tunc exceperit tamen alibi distinxit et aliquas scilicet apostolos manifeste exceperit {*excepit &FrLmMzPz[546]}. Tunc enim videtur apostolos excepisse {accepisse &LmPz[547]} quando eos misit sicut Petrum et eandem potestatem dedit eis quam dedit Petro cum dixit {dicit &LmPz[548]} omnibus, ut habetur Matth. 18:[18], "Quaecunque {quodcumque &Fr[549]} alligaveritis {ligaveritis &Fr[550]} super terram", etc. Et tamen {*cum &??[551]} dixit eis, ut habetur Io. 20:[21-3], "Sicut misit me pater, et ego mitto vos." {*et post add. &FrMz[552]} "Accipite Spiritum Sanctum quorum remiseritis peccata remittuntur eis et quorum retinueritis retenta sunt {eis add. &Fr[553]}." Et cum omnibus dixit Math. ultimo [28:19], "Euntes {*ergo add. &FrMzVg[554]} docete omnes gentes baptizantes eos in nomine patris", etc. Et cum omnibus dixit, ut legitur {habetur &Fr[555]} Mat. {*Marci &Vg[556]} ultimo [16:15-6], "Euntes in mundum universum praedicate evangelium omni {universe &Fr[557]} creaturae. Qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit salvus erit" etc {om. &Fr[558]}. In omnibus his videtur Christus apostolos ab aliis fidelibus ovibus distinxisse et eos a potestate Petri penitus {om. &Fr[559]} exemisse {eximisse &Fr[560]}, quia cum verba illa, "Pasce" {oves add. &Fr[561]} etc, dicta Petro fuerint {fuerunt &Fr[562]} generalia et "generale {*generali &LmMzPz[563]} deroget speciali {*speciale &FrLmMzPz[564]}" Extra, De rescriptis c. 1, sequitur quod illis verbis generalibus dictis Petro derogatum est specialiter quoad apostolos quibus Christus dedit specialiter potestatem eandem quam Petro sicut per praedicta patet ut videtur.

Magister Haec responsio impugnatur quod licet Christus dederit {*ceteris add. &FrMz[565]} apostolis aliquam potestatem specialem nunquam tamen concessit eis potestatem generalem vel aequalem potestati {potestate &LmPz[566]} Petri. Verbo enim generaliori usus est in praeficiendo Petrum, scilicet verbo pascendi, quod communius est quam verbum docendi vel baptizandi aut aliud tale. Quibus {qualibet &Mz[567]} {*qualibus &Fr[568]} verbis usus est in concedendo potestatem in {*om. &FrMz[569]} aliis apostolis. Et ideo quamvis aliquando distinxerit Christus inter apostolos et alias oves suas ac ipsos quoad {ad &FrMz[570]} aliquid exemerit aliquo modo a potestate Petri tamen quando dixit Petro, {oves meas add. &Fr[571]} "Pasce" etc {om. &Fr[572]}, ipsum praeficiendo omnibus non distinxit inter ipsos et alios {alias &Fr[573]}. Et ideo ipsos non exemit nec manere exemptos {manere exemptos: exemptos habere &Fr[574]} voluit seu liberos a potestate Petri nisi quantum ad illa quae expressit in concedendo eis {om. &Fr[575]} potestatem specialem. Propterea {*propter quod &FrMz[576]} non fuerunt exempti a potestate Petri nisi quantum ad officium praedicationis baptizandi, ligandi et solvendi a peccatis et si qua alia Christus expressit quando eis contulit aliquam potestatem. Cum ergo dicis quod mandatum speciale derogat generali {hinc quod &FrMz[577]} conceditur {in generali add. &FrMz[578]} quantum ad ista quae exprimuntur in speciali mandato non quantum ad alia. Et ideo mandatum datum apostolis de baptizando, praedicando, docendo, solvendo et ligando derogabat mandato illi dato Petro, "Pasce oves meas", quantum ad illa solummodo quae Christus iniunxit apostolis. Et tamen non in casu omni, quia si {*in add. &FrMz[579]} huiusmodi excessissent ratione delicti etiam quoad illa fuissent subiecti Petro quia exempti ratione delicti sortiuntur forum et "privilegium meretur amittere qui permissa sibi abutitur potestate" (Extra, De regularibus c. {om. &FrMz[580]} Licet et {om. &FrMz[581]} 11, q. 3, Privilegium).

Discipulus Ista impugnatio contra veritatem militare videtur {militare videtur: impugnare videtur et militare &Fr[582]} quia apostoli non solummodo {*solum &FrMz[583]} fuerunt praedicatores et doctores habentes potestatem baptizandi, ligandi et solvendi sed etiam fuerunt a Deo consitituti pastores {pastoris &Fr[584]} teste apostolo {*qui add. &FrMz[585]} ad Eph. 3 {*4 &Vg[586]}:[11] ubi {*om. &FrLmMzPz[587]} loquens de Christo ait, "Et ipse dedit quosdam quidem {quidam &?LmPz[588]} apostolos, quosdam autem prophetas, alios autem {*vero &FrMzVg[589]} evangelistas, et alios {*et alios: alios autem &FrMzVg[590]} pastores et doctores." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod Christus ita constituit alios apostolos pastores sicut Petrum et per consequens vocaliter seu {*vel &FrMz[591]} sententialiter ita dixit cuilibet alii apostolo, "Pasce oves meas", sicut Petro. Ex quo concluditur quod omnem potestatem importatam per verbum pascendi dedit aliis sicut Petro, quia talem potestatem nullis {nullus &Fr[592]} magis dedit quam apostolis. Ergo apostoli eandem auctoritatem habuerunt in omnibus cum Petro.

Magister Huic obiectioni tuae respondetur quod Christus qui etiam nunc ecclesiam non desinit invisibiliter gubernare secundum apostolum quosdam mediante {immediate &FrMz[593]} [[changed to mediate Fr]] Petro constituit pastores. Nec apostolus dicit quod Christus dedit absque ministerio Petri quosdam pastores sed quod dedit pastores quia dedit eos {eis &Fr[594]} mediante ministerio et auctoritate Petri quod verum est.

CAP. IX

Discipulus Dic nunc breviter quomodo respondetur ad auctoritatem apostoli et Glossae quae adducuntur ad probandum aequalitatem specialiter beati Pauli ad Petrum {Pauli ad Petrum: Petri ad Paulum et econverso &Fr[595]}.

Answer to authoritative texts used to support Marsilius' second objection

Magister Ad omnes illas auctoritates respondetur per ea quae dicta sunt prius, quia licet alii apostoli a beato Petro non fuerint {fuerunt &Fr[596]} constituti a Christo pastores universalis ecclesiae nec super universalem ecclesiam habuerint {habuerunt &FrMz[597]} potestatem eandem quam habuit Petrus, tamen beatus Paulus officium praedicationis habuit immediate a Christo. Quod officium antequam vidisset ipsum {*Petrum &FrMz[598]} vel Petrus sciret ipsum fuisse conversum exercuit {excircuit &Pz[599]} {excercuit &Lm[600]}, quia de ipso scribitur Act 9:[18-20], "Surgens baptizatus est et cum accepisset cibum {cibum add. &Mz[601]} confortatus est. Fuit autem cum discipulis qui erant Damasci per dies aliquot {aliquod &Fr[602]} et quod {*om. &FrMzVg[603]} continuo ingressus {*om. &Vg[604]} Paulus {*om. &Vg[605]} in Synagogis {Synagogas &Mz[606]} {in Synagogis om. &Fr[607]} praedicabat Iesum quoniam hic est filius Dei."

Et quod tunc nullam auctoritatem habuerit praedicandi a Petro videtur per illa quae sequuntur cum dicitur, "Cum autem venisset in Hierusalem temptabat iungere se discipulis et omnes timebant eum, non credentes quod esset discipulus. Barnabas autem apprehensum illum duxit {dixit &FrLm[608]} ad apostolos et narravit illis quomodo in via vidisset dominum et quia locutus est ei et quomodo in Damasco fiducialiter egerit in nomine Iesu."

Quod autem dixit {*dicit &FrMz[609]} apostolus sibi creditum esse evangelium praeputii sicut Petro circumcisionis. Dicunt quidam hoc non esse dictum ab apostolo quia Paulus fuerit tantum doctor et praedicator gentium Petrus solummodo Iudaeorum cum hoc scripturae canonicae {hoc add. &Fr[610]} repugnare apertissime videatur {videantur &FrLmPz[611]}. Uterque enim {autem &Fr[612]} auctoritatem et potestatem habuit praedicandi tam praeputio quam circumcisioni, hoc est tam gentibus quam Iudaeis, et aliquando uterque praedicavit utrisque, et de Paulo quidem {quidam &FrLmPz[613]} manifeste patet Act 9[:20] 7 {*et &(Knysh)[614]} 13[:5] et 14[:1] quod praedicavit Iudaeis. Quod autem fuerit etiam {fuerit etiam: ipse fuit &Fr[615]} doctor gentium ipse in epistolis suis asserit.

Quod etiam de ipso {de ipso: ipse de &LmPz[616]} apostolica testatur historia. De Petro etiam patet idem. Praedicavit enim Iudaeis, ut ex multis locis liquet, qui {*in add. &FrMz[617]} gentibus scilicet Cornelio et aliis, sicut patet Act. 10, praedicavit. Sed ideo dicit apostolus sibi creditum esse evangelium praeputii et Petro circumcisionis quia Paulus magis erat intentus conversioni gentium et Petrus {*conversioni add. &FrMz[618]} Iudaeorum. Ita ut saepe et in diversis provinciis praedicaverit duntaxat Iudaeis teste Eusebio in Ecclesiastica historia qui l. 3. c. 2. ait, "Petrus Pontum et Galathiam, Bithuniam, Capodociam caetera sed {*caetera sed: ceterasque &FrLmMzPz[619]} confines provincias Iudaeis duntaxat praedicans circuisse deprehenditur" [Rufinus, in Eusebius Werke, Bd. 2, Die Kirchengeschichte, Teil 1, ed. E. Schwartz, Leipzig, 1903, p. 189]; et tamen {cum &FrMz[620]} sibi licebat gentibus praedicare quemadmodum Paulo {Paulus &FrMz[621]} fuit licitum praedicare Iudaeis." Quod Glossa quam praedicti opinantes in responsione nunc tractata adducunt asserit manifeste dicens, "Ita tamen dispensatio distributa est illis ut etiam Petrus gentibus praedicaret si causa exegisset {fuisset &Fr[622]} {*fecisset &Mz[623]} et Paulus Iudaeis." Quod etiam ex Ecclesiastica historia asserente quod Petrus et Paulus Romanam fundaverunt ecclesiam sicut post {*postea &FrMz[624]} dicetur {diceretur &FrMz[625]} colligitur evidenter.

Cum autem dicit Glossa ista evangelium praeputii ita principaliter esse {credendum seu add. &Fr[626]} creditum Paulo sicut evangelium circumcisionis Petro, respondetur quod hoc dicit Glossa propter hoc quod Christus immediate tradidit {*credidit &FrLmMzPz[627]} Paulo officium praedicandi et sine Petro, ita quod officium praedicandi non habuit a Petro; et tamen Paulus quodammodo erat subiectus Petro etiam quantum ad praedicationis officium quia si {quia si: quasi &Lm[628]} in officio sibi a Christo commisso excessisset fuisset corrigendus a Petro.

Cum autem accipitur in ratione {*responsione &FrLmMzPz[629]} praefata quod nec Paulus nec alter sanctus potuerit aliunde assumere populum Iudaicum specialiter et principaliter fuisse Petro commissum nisi ex eo quod Christus illi dixit, "Pasce oves meas", respondetur quod Paulus plura dixit de Christo et apostolis quae ex canonicis novi testamenti scripturis non accepit. Dixit {Dicit &FrMz[630]} enim 1 Cor. 15:[6], "Deinde visus est", scilicet Christus, "plusquam quingentis simul" et {om. &Fr[631]} ut legitur Act. 20 {2 &LmPz[632]}:[35], "beatus {*beatius &FrMz[633]} est magis dare quam accipere", et tamen ista in scripturis novi testamenti prioribus {om. &Fr[634]} non habentur. Sic etiam potuit dicere de beato Petro tanquam ille qui gestorum Petri pro magna parte habebat notitiam quod sibi erat creditum evangelium circumcisionis quamvis nec {om. &FrMz[635]} ex illo verbo, "Pasce oves meas", nec ex aliquo alio quod aliquis acceperit ante eum scripserit {*acceperit... scripserit: scripserit... acceperit &??[636]}.

CAP. X

Discipulus Quia sicut antea {ante &Fr[637]} dixi multi vel omnes tenentes Christum constituisse beatum Petrum caput et principem aliorum apostolorum per illa verba Christi, "Pasce oves meas", hoc principaliter probare conantur. Ideo illa verba volo adhuc amplius discuti ut melius intelligam veritatem eorum.

A new objection: "Feed" need not imply authority

Videtur igitur {ergo &Fr[638]} primo [see above] quod sicut alii innuunt per illa verba probari non potest quod beatus Petrus fuerit constitutus princeps et praelatus quorumcunque, quia verbis et exemplis et etiam subsidio corporali potest quis pascere alios quamvis super eos nullam habeat {habet &Fr[639]} {potestatem seu add. &Fr[640]} auctoritatem omnino. Ergo per hoc quod dixit Christus {om. &Fr[641]} Petro, "Pasce" etc {oves meas &Fr[642]}, nullam ei auctoritatem super alios pascendo {*pascendos &FrMz[643]} commisit omnino.

Magister Videtur quampluribus quod ista responsio minime satisfacit {satisfaciat &Fr[644]}. Nam sicut in concessione beneficii {*vel add. &FrMz[645]} privilegii concessio indefinite et simpliciter facta intelligitur generaliter Extra, De privilegiis, Quia circa, sic etiam {concessio seu add. &Fr[646]} commissio potestatis vel officii {beneficii &Fr[647]} indefinite et simpliciter facta debet intelligi universaliter {om. &FrMz[648]}, ut scilicet omnia intelligantur esse concessa seu commissa quae non sunt prohibita et de quibus est eadem committendi {committendum &Fr[649]} vel concedendi {concedendum &Fr[650]} ratio {om. &FrMz[651]} et {om. &Fr[652]} de quibus non est verisimile seu probabile quod committens seu concedens ea in speciali commisisset minime {*trs. &FrMz[653]} seu concessisset, quia qui {quia &Mz[654]} {om. &LmPz[655]} nihil excipit et potuit excipere totum concessisse seu commisisse videtur ut sacri canones protestantur. Sed Christus in verbis illis, "Pasce oves meas", aliquid {ad &Mz[656]} importatum per verbum pascendi {pascendum &Fr[657]} commisit beato Petro et iniunxit. Ista autem commissio seu iniunctio indefinite et simpliciter facta fuit. Ergo {illa add. &Fr[658]} omnia intelliguntur esse commissa quae non inveniuntur prohibita et de quibus est eadem ratio committendi {committenda &Mz[659]} de quibus non est verisimile seu probabile quod ipsa committens in speciali minime commisisset.

Sed per verbum pascendi non solum importatur pascere alios verbo et exemplo ac subsidio corporali {temporali &Fr[660]} sed etiam potestative et cum auctoritate {pertinent importantur add. &FrMz[661]}, praesertim secundum quod verbum pascendi in scripturis sacris et expositionibus sanctorum patrum accipitur. Quod copiose posset {*possit &FrMz[662]} ostendi sed sufficiat pauca adducere. Ait itaque Ezechiel imo Dominus per Ezechielem prophetam 88 {*34 &Fr[663]} {83 &LmMzPz[664]} ca:[2 & 4] dicens, "Vae pastoribus Israel qui pascebant semetipsos", et post, "Quod infirmum fuit non consolidastis, et quod aegrotum non sanastis, quod confractum non alligastis, et quod abiectum est non reduxistis, quod perierat non quaesistis." Errantes autem {om. &Fr[665]} oves {*ad gregem reducere, perditas add. &FrMz[666]} quaerere et reportare inventas spectat ad potestatem habentem super oves. Et veritas ipsa, ut habetur {ut habetur om. &Fr[667]} Ioh. 10:[2-4], ait, "Qui autem intrat per hostium pastor est ovium. Huic enim ostiarius aperit et oves vocem eius audiunt et proprias oves vocat nominatim et {om. &LmPz[668]} educit eas et cum proprias oves emiserit ante eas vadit et oves illum sequitur {*sequuntur &FrLmMzPzVg[669]}". Ex quibus verbis Christi ac aliis quae sequuntur colligitur quod pastor fidelium Christi pastori {pastor &Fr[670]} ovium irrationabilium quantum ad officium assimilatur {assimulatur &LmPz[671]}. Sed ille ex officio aliquam habet superioritatem et potestatem super oves domini sui. Ergo etiam pastor ovium Christi quae sunt fideles ex officio potestatem et auctoritatem habet super easdem. Quod in expositionibus et assertionibus sanctorum {sermonum &Fr[672]} patrum tam patenter et evidenter {*et evidenter om. &FrMz[673]} invenitur quod hoc probare per ipsos videtur omnino superfluum. Ergo {om. &FrMz[674]} Christus sibi per verba illa, "Pasce oves meas", aliquam potestatem super oves suas beato Petro commisit, praesertim cum non inveniatur prohibuisse sibi omnem penitus potestatem et auctoritatem. Fuit etiam eadem ratio concedendi sibi auctoritatem aliquam et potestatem super omnes {*oves &Fr[675]} et committendi sibi pascere oves Christi bonis verbis et exemplis, quia ita indigebant rectore et potestatem habente super ipsas sicut indigebant pastore qui {pastore qui om. &FrMz[676]} aedificando {*eas add. &FrMz[677]} bonis verbis et exemplis Christi oves pavisset {Christi oves pavisset om. &FrMz[678]}. Et ideo non est verisimile nec probabile quod talem potestatem sibi in speciali minime concessisset. Ex quibus relinquitur quod Christus aliquam potestatem concessit per illa verba {*trs.2341 &FrMz[679]} et commisit beato Petro.

CAP. XI

Discipulus Hic {?sic &Pz[680]} possem {posset &Lm[681]} allegando ex dictis infirmare quod Christus omnem etiam potestatem, ac plenitudinem potestatis talem qualem Papae attribuit prima sententia {*supra add. &FrMz[682]} primo huius 1 c. recitata, super oves suas commisit Petro, ex quo illa commissio {*fuit add. &FrMz[683]} indefinite et simpliciter facta est {*om. &FrMz[684]} sed de hoc postea conferam tecum. Ideo ad aliam allegationem ad probandum quod per illa verba, "Pasce" etc, Christus non constituit Petrum superiorem aliis apostolis me converto.

Another objection: "Feed my sheep" is indefinite; "sheep" may not include the Apostles

Videtur itaque quod saepe indefinita non {om. &Fr[685]} aequipollet universali sed potest verificari etiam pro uno singulari. Cum ergo Christus indefinite dixerit {dixit &Fr[686]}, "Pasce" etc, {oves meas &Fr[687]} hoc potest intelligi de aliquibus ovibus etiam {*om. &FrMz[688]} {et &LmPz[689]} absque hoc quod intelligatur de omnibus, et per consequens absque hoc quod intelligatur de apostolis [see above]. Non ergo per illa verba potest ostendi quod beatus Petrus fuit superior reliquis apostolis.

Magister Putant quidam quod huic allegationi potest faciliter responderi. Nam licet tam in iudicatis quam in aliis [[space left Mz[690]]] non semper verbum indefinite prolatum generaliter debeat intelligi tamen quando alicui committitur potestas super aliquos verbum indefinite prolatum generaliter debeat {*debet &LmMzPz[691]} intelligi ut nullus tunc intelligatur exceptus nisi per alia possit probari exceptus. Cuius ratio assignatur, quia, sicut iudices non debent esse incerti quia de similibus simile iudicium est habendum, ergo quando committitur potestas seu praelatio alicui super aliquos {*per verbum /per verbum: prove &Pz[692]\ indiffinite add. &FrMzLmPz[693]} prolatum, tantum indefinite debet intelligi {*tantum ... intelligi om. &FrMzLmPz[694]} quemadmodum nec procuratores nec tutores nec arbitri, sicut testantur leges tam canonicae quam civiles et ratio hoc suadet, ita et praelati et subditi non debent esse incerti; imo omnes quibus idem est commune [[communiter Fr in margin [695]]] debent intelligi, nisi aliunde possit ostendi quod aliqui sint {sunt &Fr[696]} excipiendi. Aliter enim subditi in illo casu essent {omnes &Fr[697]} incerti. Ergo per illa verba, "Pasce oves meas", omnes fideles Christi debent intelligi ne oves pascendae {pascendo &Fr[698]} a Petro sint incertae, nisi de aliquibus aliunde ostendatur quod sint exceptae. Quod de apostolis ostendi non potest, sicut dicunt multi respondentes ad omnes allegationes quibus ostenditur quod apostoli erant a potestate Petri excepti.

 

CAP. XII

Discipulus Allegationem qua probatur quod Petrus fuit superior ceteris {aliis &Fr[699]} apostolis per hoc quod Christus sibi dixit pasce oves meas diffuse tractavimus ideo ad allegationem aliam pro assertione eadem te converte.

CHAPTER 12

Student We have dealt copiously with the argument by which it is proved that Peter was superior to the rest of the Apostles by virtue of the fact that Christ said to him, "Feed my sheep". Turn therefore to another argument for the same assertion.

Second argument for Peter's superiority, from Matthew 16:18-9

Magister Hoc tali modo probatur. Christus singulariter dixit Petro, "Ego dico tibi quia tu est Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam et tibi dabo claves regni coelorum", etc. Per quae verba Christus expresse videtur pronunciasse beatum Petrum futurum caput et fundamentum ecclesiae praesertim mortuo Christo.

Master This is proved as follows. Christ said singly to Peter (Mat. 16:18-9), "I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." By these words Christ seems expressly to have pronounced that blessed Peter would be the head and foundation of the Church, especially after Christ was dead. [Cf. Marsilius, II.xxvii.2]

Marsilius' objection to the argument from Matthew 16:18-9

Discipulus Quidam {quod &FrMz[700]} praecedens motivum nituntur repellere etiam ad hoc tali modo respondent dicentes caput et fundamentum ecclesiae unicum esse et fuisse ordinatione immediata Dei et hoc Christum, apostolorum vero {uno &FrMz[701]} neminem etiam in absentia Christi, quemadmodum per scripturam indubie ut dicunt convincunt {coniungunt &FrMz[702]}, prout recitatum est supra primo huius {huiusmodi &Mz[703]} ca. 3. Cum igitur dicitur, "super hanc petram" etc, dicunt secundum Glosam et asserunt, "'super hanc petram', id est super Christum in quem credis", ubi glosa nichil {*interlinearis Marsilius} addit; "'tu es petrus', id est, a me petra, ita ut mihi retineam fundamenti dignitatem." Petrum autem vocavit {*eum added Marsilius} Christus, id est constantem in fide {*fidem &FrMz[704]}. Quod isti non negant qui et dicunt quod esto quod aliis constantior fuerit {om. &FrMz[705]} et merito perfectior non propter hoc dignitate prior, nisi forte tempore {*trs. &FrMz[706]}. Quod confirmatur per Augustinum dicentem in libro Retractationum, "Dixi in quodam loco de apostolo Petro quod in illo tanquam in petra aedificata sit ecclesia. Sed scio me postea saepissime sic exposuisse quia {*quod &Zn[]} a domino dictum est, 'Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam', et {*ut &FrMzZn[708]} super hunc intelligeretur quem confessus est Petrus dicens, 'Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi', ac si {*sic &Zn[]} Petrus ab hac petra appellatus personam ecclesiae {assignaret seu add. &Fr[709]} figuraret, quae super hanc petram aedificatur. Non enim dictum est illi, 'Tu es petra', sed 'Tu es Petrus.' Petra autem erat Christus, quem confessus est Simon, sicut enim {a &FrMz[710]} {*ei Marsilius}, Christo scilicet, tota ecclesia confitetur, dictus est Petrus." Et potest de {*om. &FrMz[711]} hoc {haec &FrMz[712]} {*huius Marsilius} ratio assignari secundum scripturas quoniam Petrus quamdiu viator extitit errare potuit et peccare per sui arbitrii libertatem. Unde Christum negasse legitur et quandoque ad veritatem evangelii ambulasse non recte. Tale autem non poterat esse fundamentum ecclesiae. Sed ille solus fuit Christus, ut apparet 1. Cor. 3, qui aberrare {ab ecclesia errare &Fr[713]} non potest eo quod ab instanti suae conceptionis etiam {om. Fr} {*impeccabilis add. Marsilius, Fr} {peccabilis add. &Mz[714]} fuerit {et add. Fr between lines} confirmatus. Unde apostolus ubi supra, "Fundamentum autem aliud nemo ponere potest praeter id quod positum est quod est Christus Iesus."

Student Some people try to refute the preceding argument even on this point [i.e. the headship after Christ's death]. They reply to it as follows, saying that there is and was a single head and foundation of the Church ordained directly by God and that this is Christ, not indeed any of the Apostles, even in the absence of Christ, as they demonstrate without doubt (they say), from scripture, as was recorded above in the third chapter of the first book of this work [Marsilius refers to Defensor pacis II.xvi and xxii]. When it is said "on this rock", etc., therefore, they say and assert, according to the gloss: "'On this rock', that is on Christ in whom you believe", where the interlinear gloss adds, "'you are Peter', that is, a rock through me, so that I retain for myself the dignity of foundation." And Christ called him Peter, that is steadfast in faith. They do not deny this, but they also say that even if it was the case that he was more steadfast than the others and more perfect in merit, he was not for that reason first in dignity, except perhaps first in time. This is confirmed by what Augustine says in his book Retractions [CCSL, 57, p.62]: "Somewhere I said of the apostle Peter that the Church was built on him as on a rock. But I know that later I most often expounded the Lord's statement, 'You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church', in such a way that it [rock] referred to the one whom Peter confessed, saying, 'You are the Christ, the son of the living God', and so Peter, named from this rock, was a figure of the Church which is built on this rock. For it was not said to him, 'You are a rock' but 'You are Peter'. However, the rock was Christ, who was acknowledged by Simon, and when Simon confessed this, just as the whole Church confesses to him", i.e. to Christ, "he was named Peter." And a reason can be given for this in accordance with the Scripture, since as long as Peter was a wayfarer he was able through the freedom of his will to err and sin. Whence we read that he denied Christ and sometimes did not walk rightly, according to the truth of the gospel; the Church could not have such a foundation. But Christ alone was that foundation, as is clear in 1 Cor. 3. He cannot go astray, in that he was confirmed as incapable of sin from the moment of conception. Whence the apostle says in the same place (1 Cor. 3:11), "And no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ." [Marsilius II.xxviii.5]

Et quod addebatur "Tibi dabo claves regni coelorum" nullam Petro super reliquos apostolos auctoritatem tribuit, quoniam hanc eandem iudiciariam potestatem caeteris apostolis tribuit {tradidit &Fr[716]} secundum Hieronymum et Rabanum, quorum Glossas alibi inducunt. Amplius {*quoniam add. &FrLmMzPz[717]} Christus potestatem clavium illi non videtur tradidisse per haec verba -- inquit enim "Tibi dabo", quod sonat futurum, {et add. &Fr[718]} non dixit, "do". Sed Ioh. 20:[22-3] indifferenter omnibus dixit, "Accipite Spiritum Sanctum; et {*om. &LmVg[719]} quorum remiseritis peccata" etc -- esto tamen quod Petrus his verbis potestatem hanc recepisset, non concluditur ex hoc nisi quod tempore prius fuerit {fuit &Fr[720]} pastor institutus. Et quod illi {ille &Fr[721]} singulariter has tradidit Christus claves significare voluit ecclesiae unitatem in fide ad quam fideles invitavit Christus per singularem clavium traditionem sive promissionem, ut Glossa dicit. Vel fortasse quia Christum Dei filium esse primum constanter et manifeste confessus est primum tempore dotatur clavibus et honoratur aut honorari permittitur {*promittitur Marsilius}, ut sic etiam confitendi Christum palam et constanter per huiusmodi praemium vel promissum ceteris praeberetur exemplum. Non tamen propter hoc convincitur {convincuntur &LmPz[722]} ipsum fuisse ceteris dignitate seu auctoritate priorem, quamvis hoc plures Glossatorum dicere videantur a se non habentes hoc a scriptura.

As for what is added (Mat. 16:19), "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven", this did not bestow on Peter any authority over the rest of the Apostles, because, according to Jerome and Rabanus, whose glosses they [i.e. Marsilius] bring forward elsewhere, it bestowed this same judiciary power on the rest of the Apostles; further, because Christ does not seem to have handed over to him the power of the keys by these words -- for he said, "I will give you", which indicates the future, he did not say, "I give"; but in John 20:22-3 he said to them all without distinction, "Receive the holy spirit. If you forgive the sins of any", etc. But even if Peter had indeed received this power by those words, we can conclude from this only that he was the first in time to be appointed shepherd. As for the fact that Christ handed these keys over to him singly, he wanted to indicate the unity of the Church in faith, and to this unity Christ invited the faithful by the singular handing over or promise of the keys, as the gloss says [quoted by Marsilius in II.xxvii.2]. Or perhaps, because he was the first to confess steadfastly and clearly that Christ was the son of God he is the first in time to be endowed with the keys and honoured (or promised to be honoured), so that by this reward or promise an example of openly and steadfastly confessing Christ in this way would be offered to the rest. It can not be demonstrated from this, however, that he was superior to the rest in dignity or authority, even if many of the glossators seem to say this, getting it from themselves and not from scripture. [Marsilius II.xxviii.6]

Significat {*signat &FrMz[723]} autem infallibiliter ut dicunt eos verum {eorum &Fr[724]} dicere {*evangelii series add. &FrLmMzPz[725]}, quae habetur Matth. 20:[25-7] et Luc. 22;[25-7] ubi Christus quaesitum hoc aperte diffiniens dixit nullum esse ipsorum {*trs. &FrMz[726]} superiorem aliis. Facta enim erat contentio inter eos quis eorum esset maior. Et idem habetur Mat. 23:[8]. Ad quos sic inquit Christus, "Vos autem", invicem supple, "nolite vocari rabbi; unus enim est magister vester; vos autem omnes {*trs.321 &FrMz[727]} fratres estis", id est aequales. Non ergo excedit {*excepit &FrMz[728]} aliquem. Et est ridiculum {miraculum &Mz[729]} {mirum &Fr[730]} {*mirandum Marsilius} quod {*si &FrMz[731]} magis credere debeamus auctoritati Glossae quam Christi, quicunque fuerit ille Glossator, etiam sanctus, et maxime cum hoc non dicat tanquam Glossator sed proprio sensu. Series enim scripturae tam manifesta est quod Glossa non eget. Amplius Glossatores ipsi oppositum {contrarium &Fr[732]} dicunt exponentes apostolum ad Gal. 2.

There is an infallible sign (they say) that they are stating the truth in a passage of the gospel found in Mat. 20:25-7 and Luke 22:25-7, where Christ, clearly settling this question, said that none of them was superior to the others. For a dispute had arisen among them as to which of them was the greater, and in Matthew 23:8. Christ spoke to them as follows: "But do not be called Rabbi", understand in relation to one another, "for you have one master and you are all brothers", that is equals. He did not except anyone, therefore. And it is to be marvelled at if we ought to believe the text of the gloss rather than Christ, whoever that glossator was, even if he was a saint, and especially since he says this not as glossator but according to his own opinion. For the text of scripture is so clear that it does not need a gloss. Further, the glossators themselves say the opposite when expounding Galatians 2. [Marsilius II.xxviii.6]

Haec {hoc &LmPz[733]} est prior {priorum &FrMz[734]} {*eorum Ki} responsio. Quam nitaris {*incipe &FrMz[735]} {niteris &LmPz[736]} improbare {reprobare &Fr[737]}, et qualiter ad motiva quae pro se adducit valeat responderi secundum aliquorum opinionem studeas enarrare.

This is their reply. Begin to refute it, and take pains to explain how, according to the view of some, reply can be made to the arguments which it brings forward in its support.

Reply to Marsilius: it is presumption to reject the ancient interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19

CAP. XIII

Magister Sunt {?nunc &Lm[738]} quidam qui praedicta opinantes quo ad totam interpretationem seu expositionem praescriptorum verborum Christi specialiter de temeritate et praesumptione nituntur arguere, quia esto ut dicunt quod praecise per illa verba, "Tu es Petrus" etc, nude {?unde &Lm[739]} intellecta non posset patenter contra proteruos ostendi quod Petrus erat superior aliis apostolis. Tamen per ipsa et alia verba scripturae canonicae et expositiones seu assertiones probatorum virorum probari potest quod illa verba Christi sic debent intelligi ut credatur per ipsa tunc primatus super omnes fideles fuisse Petro promissus.

CHAPTER 13

Master There are some people who try to accuse those who hold the above opinion specifically of temerity and presumption in respect of their whole interpretation or exposition of Christ's words written above. Because even if, as they say, it could not clearly be shown against the last-ditch objector precisely by those words "You are Peter", etc., understood by themselves, that Peter was superior to the other Apostles, yet by those and other words of canonical scripture and the expositions or assertions of approved men it can be proved that those words of Christ should be understood in such a way that we should believe that by them Peter was then promised primacy over all the faithful.

Et esto quod non esset necesse credere viris quantumcunque probatis post scriptores scripturae canonicae in his quae purae sunt scientiae seu peritiae, tamen omnino esset temerarium reputandum tam probatis viris praesertim illis qui discipuli apostolorum fuerunt a quibus intellectum scripturae canonicum audierunt vel vicini apostolorum operibus extiterunt absque infallibili probatione contradicere, quoquomodo intellectum contrarium affirmando. Quia {quam &FrMz[740]} {*quamvis Ki} enim, ut leges civiles astruunt et Glosa 24, q. 1, super c. Pudenda notat {om. &Fr[741]}, "Nihil est ita indubitatum quin sollicitam {solitam &FrMz[742]} recipiat dubitationem" et etiam contradictionem, et ideo {non &FrMz[743]} contra multorum verborum scripturae sacrae catholicum sensum multa possunt obiici et adduci etiam apparenter (nam secundum beatum Clementem, ut {etiam &FrLmMzPz[744]} recitatur dist. 37, c. Relatum, "Sunt multa verba in scripturis divinis quae possent {*possunt &FrMzZn[745]} trahi ad eum sensum quem sibi unusquisque praesumpserit"), tamen hoc fieri minime debet, quia, ut dicit ibidem beatus Clemens, "Ex ipsis scripturis sensum capere veritatis oportet, et ideo oportet ab eo scientiam {*scripturarum add. &Zn[746]} discere qui eam a maioribus secundum veritatem sibi traditam servat ut ipse possit eam quam recte suscipit {*sucepit &FrMzZn[747]} competenter asserere." et {*om. &FrMz[748]} {*oportet ergo asserere Sc} intellectum verborum Christi cum dixit {dicit &FrMz[749]}, "Tu es Petrus" etc, qui {que &FrMz[750]} accipi ex scripturis potest ut {et &FrMz[751]} eas intelligunt praecipue viri probati qui eum {eam &FrMz[752]} a maioribus et praecipue ab apostolis didicerunt.

And even if it were not necessary in matters purely of knowledge or skill to believe men [who wrote] after the writers of canonical scripture, however much they have been approved, yet it would be considered completely rash to contradict, by asserting any kind of contrary meaning without infallible proof, men who have been so approved, especially those who were the disciples of the Apostles, from whom they heard the meaning of canonical scripture, or those who were close to the works of the Apostles. For although, as the civil laws affirm and the gloss on 24, q. 1, c. Pudenda [col.1401] notes, "Nothing is so certain that it does not admit of very careful doubt", and even contradiction, and against the catholic meaning of many words of sacred scripture, therefore, many things can be objected and brought forward even with plausibility (for according to blessed Clement, as we find in dist. 37, c. Relatum [c.14, col.139], "There are many words in the divine scriptures which can be dragged to the sense that anyone invents for himself"), nevertheless this ought not be done, because as blessed Clement says in the same place, "We must take the truthful meaning from those writings, and therefore we must acquire knowledge of the scriptures from him who maintains it according to the truth handed on to him by his predecessors, so that he can assert correspondingly that which he has rightly received." [We must therefore assert] the meaning of Christ's words when he says, "You are Peter", etc., that can be taken from the scriptures as they are understood especially by men who have been approved and who have learnt it from their predecessors, and especially from the Apostles.

Et esto, sicut tactum est, quod non esset simpliciter necessarium credere eis, tamen {?cum &LmMzPz[753]} horribilis et omnino stulta esset temeritas contradicere ipsis, maxime absque {om. &Fr[754]} infallibili ratione quae etiam adversarios et viros intelligentes aperte convinceret. {*Cum autem predicti opinantes contra intellectum memoratorum verborum Christi a /om. &FrMz[755]\ viris probatis etiam /et &LmPz[756]\ aliquibus qui apostolorum discipuli extiterunt et ab eis in scripturis divinis edocti fuerunt etc. Hic deficit aliqua pars huius capituli /etc. ... capituli: om. &LmPz[757]\ add. &FrLmMzPz[758]}

And even if it were not, as has been suggested, simply necessary to believe them, yet it would be horrible and completely foolish rashness to contradict them, especially without an infallible argument that would clearly convince even opponents and men with understanding. Since, however, those who hold the above opinion [argue] against the understanding of the above words of Christ [acquired] from approved men, even some who were disciples of the Apostles and were taught by them in the divine scriptures, etc. [Some part of this chapter may be lacking.]

CAP. XIV

Discipulus Circa {Contra &FrMz[759]} responsionem praedictam quam allegando esse temerariam ostendisti, nitaris nunc probare circa intellectum illorum verborum Christi tu es petrus etc {om. &Fr[760]} quod {om. &FrMz[761]} credere tenemur {teneamur &FrMz[762]} aliis quam scriptoribus scripturae canonicae.

CHAPTER 14

Student Concerning the above reply, which you have shown by argument to be rash, now in connection with the meaning of those words of Christ, "You are Peter" etc, try to demonstrate that we are bound to believe other writers than those of canonical scripture.

We should believe ancient approved interpreters

Magister Hoc ut quibusdam apparet tali modo {tali modo: aliis modis &Fr[763]} probatur. Fide dignis viris omni exceptione maioribus est credendum in his quae vocaliter seu sententialiter cognovisse se asserunt per {*se add. &FrMz[764]} ipsos vel per alios quibus credere {credendum &Fr[765]} tenebantur seu quae dicuntur tanquam a se cognita {tamquam add. &FrMz[766]} altero modorum illorum. Talia enim taliter cognita, quamvis ad ea quae scientiae sunt valeant pertinere, tamen aliquo modo {*etiam add. Ki; autem add. &FrMz[767]} spectare possunt ad ea quae facti sunt vel saltem cognitio qua asseruntur cognosci inter ea quae facti sunt computari potest. In his autem quae facti sunt fide dignis viris est credendum, ut probatum est 3 {*tertio &Mz[768]} huius c. 22. Aliter enim pro veracibus et fide dignis minime haberentur quod irreverentia damnabili non careret. Sed fide digni viri omni exceptione {acceptione &Mz[769]} maiores sententialiter asserunt se non per ratiocinationem {rationem &Fr[770]} vel studium seu meditationis virtutem sed per seipsos vel alios quibus credere tenebantur cognovisse praedicta verba Christi, "Tu es Petrus" etc {om. &Fr[771]}, sic debere {debent &Fr[772]} intelligi ut per ea intelligatur primatus super apostolos et omnes alios fideles fuisse beato Petro datus vel commissus a Christo. Plures enim fide digni et probatissimi viri qui fuerunt apostolorum discipuli vel per apostolorum discipulos in literis sacris instructi praedictum intellectum illorum {om. &Fr[773]} verborum Christi asserverunt expresse. Omni autem probabilitate carere {tenetur seu add. &Fr[774]} videtur quod viri studiosi et literati, sacrarum scripturarum indagatores {indagatoris &Fr[775]} solertissimi, {solertissimum &Fr[776]} cum beato Petro et aliis apostolis et apostolorum discipulis fuerunt conversati et praedictorum verborum Christi verum ab ipsis non didicerunt intellectum, praesertim cum verus intellectus ipsorum ad sciendum cui vel quibus tanquam praelato vel praelatis fideles obedire deberent {tenentur &Fr[777]} et cui tanquam praelato summo instituto a Christo parere minime {om. &Fr[778]} tenerentur fuerit {fuit &Fr[779]} necessarius {necessarium &FrMz[780]} toti ecclesiae Christi. Non enim sunt oves extra periculum ignorantes quem tanquam verum pastorem debeant sequi. Multo autem improbabilius videtur quod huiusmodi viri apostolorum et {*vel &FrMz[781]} discipulorum ipsorum discipuli falsum circa praedicta verba Christi docuerint intellectum. Et ita debent tenere fideles quod ille est verus intellectus praedictorum verborum Christi quem apostolorum discipuli et a discipulis apsotolorum edocti firmiter asserebant, quia illum intellectum non acceperunt solummodo per ratiocinationem ipsum ex verbis illis {ipsis &Fr[782]} tantummodo concludendo sed acceperunt eum ab apostolis qui eos verum intellectum ipsorum sollicite docuerunt tanquam necessarium toti ecclesiae Dei. Et ideo didicerunt {*dixerunt &FrMz[783]} eum non tanquam notum eis per viam scientiae seu ratiocinationis sed tanquam expressum eis et dictum {*doctum Ki; ductum Mz} ab apostolis, quibus credere tenebantur quia apostoli verum intellectum eorundem {illorum &Fr[784]} verborum certissime agnoscebant. Propter quod dicere viros fide dignos et probatos, apostolorum discipulos vel a discipulis apostolorum edoctos, {*docuisse add. &FrMz[785]} falsum intellectum {*illorum add. &FrMz[786]} verborum docuisse {*om. &FrMz[787]} est dicere ipsos non {om. &Mz[788]} per ratiocinationem {rationem &Fr[789]} sophisticam deceptos sed scienter fuisse mentitos, quia scienter dixissent intellectum contrarium illi quem ab apostolis didicerunt. Quod non est vacuum irreverentia et blasphemia detestanda.

Master It is seems to some people that this is proved as follows. Men worthy of trust rising above all objection should be believed in matters that, either in effect or in so many words, they assert (1)they have known immediately or (2) have learnt through others whom they were bound to believe, or are said as being known by themselves in one or other of those ways. For even if such things known in such a way can pertain to matters of knowledge, yet they can also pertain in some way to matters of fact, or at least the knowledge by which they are asserted to be known can be reckoned among those things that are matters of fact. In matters of fact, however, men worthy of trust should be believed, as was proved in chapter 22 of [book] 3 of this [tractate]. For otherwise they would not be considered veracious and worthy of trust, which would not be without irreverence worthy of condemnation. But men worthy of trust rising above all objection assert in effect that they have learnt, and not through reasoning or study or meditation but immediately or from others whom they were bound to believe, that those words of Christ, "You are Peter", etc., ought to be understood so that they mean that primacy over the Apostles and all the other faithful was given or committed to blessed Peter by Christ. For many highly approved men worthy of trust, who were disciples of the Apostles or were instructed in sacred letters by the disciples of the Apostles, have expressly asserted that meaning of those words of Christ. It seems to lack all probability, however, that studious and learned men, skilled investigators of the sacred scriptures, lived with blessed Peter and the other Apostles and their disciples and did not learn from them the true meaning of those words of Christ, especially since a true understanding of them was necessary for the whole Church of Christ to know whom the faithful were bound to obey as a prelate or prelates and whom they were not bound to obey as the highest prelate appointed by Christ. For sheep are not beyond danger if they do not know the one they should follow as their true shepherd. It seems much more improbable, however, that such men, disciples of the Apostles or their disciples, would have taught a false understanding of those words of Christ. And so the faithful ought to hold that the true meaning of those words of Christ is the one that the disciples of the Apostles and those taught by them firmly asserted, because they did not receive that meaning only by reasoning, merely inferring it from the words themselves, but they received it from the Apostles who carefully taught them their true meaning as necessary for the whole Church of God. And they said it, therefore, not as something known to them by way of knowledge or reasoning but as something expressed and taught to them by the Apostles, whom they were bound to believe because the Apostles most certainly knew the true meaning of those words. For this reason, to say that approved men worthy of trust, disciples of the Apostles or taught by those disciples, would have taught a false meaning of those words, is to say not that they were deceived by fallacious reasoning but that they knowingly lied, because they knowingly declared a meaning contrary to that which they learnt from the Apostles. This is not devoid of irreverence and should be abominated as blasphemy.

CAP. XV

Discipulus Aliquorum fide dignorum et probatorum testimonia qui fuerint {*fuerunt &FrMz[790]} apostolorum discipuli vel ab eorum discipulis saltem mediate instructi asserentium saepe dicta verba Christi, "Tu es Petrus" etc, praemissum debere intellectum habere audire desidero.

CHAPTER 15

Student I wish to hear the testimonies of some of those approved men worthy of trust who were disciples of the Apostles or at least were instructed mediately by their disciples and who assert that those often mentioned words of Christ, "You are Peter" etc, should have the meaning set out above.

The testimony of Anacletus

Magister Hoc {*Sc: omit} Anacletus Papa -- qui fuit apostolorum discipulus et ab ipsis discipulis {*apostolis &FrMz[791]} imo a beato Petro in scripturis divinis {*trs. &FrMz[792]} instructus, de quo improbabile omnino videtur quod nesciret an Petrus reputaret se super alios apostolos superioritatem habere et qualiter Petrus intellexerit {intellexit &Fr[793]} verba Christi praemissa, {*et add. &LmPz[794]} de quo nullatenus est credendum quod falsum intellectum eorundem verborum scienter docuerit et in scripturis reliquerit {reliquerunt &Fr[795]} -- eundem intellectum verborum illorum patenter astruit et expresse. Qui ut habetur in decretis dist. 22, c. Sacrosancta ait, "Sacrosancta Romana {ecclesia add. &Fr[796]} et {id est &FrMz[797]} apostolica ecclesia non ab apostolis sed ab ipso Salvatore Domino {*trs. &FrMzZn[798]} nostro primatum obtinuit, sicut beato Petro apostolo dixit, 'Tu es Petrus' et reliqua usque 'soluta sunt in coelo'. {reliqua ... coelo: super hanc petram edificabo ecclesiam meam &FrMz[799]}. Adhibita est societas in eadem Romana urbe beatissimi Pauli apostoli {trs. &FrMz[800]}, vasis electionis, qui uno die unoque {*eodemque &Zn[]} tempore cum Petro gloriosa morte coronatus est et amba {*ambo &FrLmMzPzZn[801]} sanctam Romanam ecclesiam consecraverunt {om. &FrMz[802]} atque aliis urbibus omnibus {trs.312 &FrMz[803]} in universo mundo tam sua praesentia {praecepta &Mz[804]} quam venerando praetulerunt {praetulerint &Lm[805]} triumpho {*trs. &FrMzZn[806]}." Et infra {post pauca &Fr[807]}, "Inter beatissimos {*beatos &FrZn[808]} apostolos quaedam fuit discretio potestatis, {om. &Zn[]} et post licet omnes essent apostoli, Petro tamen a Domino concessum est, et ipsi inter se {ipsum add. &Fr[809]} voluerunt id ipsum {trs.231 &Mz[810]}, ut reliquis omnibus praeesset apostolis, et Cephas, id est, caput et primatum {*principium &FrMzZn[811]} teneret apostolatus." Ex quibus ut videtur patenter habetur quod secundum Anacletum, qui fuit papa ante Clementem, ut testatur Ecclesiastica Historia lib. 2 cap. 14, et qui fuit cum Petro apostolo conversatus, Christus illis verbis, "Tu es Petrus" etc, promisit Petro vel dedit primatum. Et quod dederit {dedit &FrMz[812]} sibi vel promiserit primatum non solum super alios fideles sed etiam super apostolos patet cum dicit {*dicat &FrMz[813]} quod inter apostolos erat {om. &FrMz[814]} [[erat added in margin Fr [815]]] discretio potestatis et quod praeerat aliis apostolis non solum de voluntate apostolorum sed etiam de concessione seu ordinatione domini, cum dicat, "Licet omnes essent apostoli Petro tamen a domino concessum est", etc.

Master Pope Anacletus -- who was a disciple of the Apostles and was instructed in the divine scriptures by them, indeed by blessed Peter, of whom it seems completely improbable that he would not know whether Peter reckoned himself to have superiority over the other Apostles and how Peter understood those words of Christ, and of whom it ought not be believed that he knowingly taught a false understanding of those words and left it in his writings -- clearly and expressly affirmed that understanding of those words. As we find in dist. 22, c. Sacrosancta [c.2, col.73], he says, "The inviolable and apostolic Church of Rome obtained its primacy not from the Apostles but from our Lord and Saviour himself, as he said to blessed Peter the apostle, 'You are Peter ... will be loosed in heaven'. In that same city of Rome the fellowship of the most blessed apostle Paul was brought to him, Paul, that vessel of election, who on the one day and at the same time was crowned with Peter by a glorious death. They both consecrated the holy Roman Church and put it before all other cities in the whole world both by their presence and their revered triumph. ... Among the blessed Apostles there was a certain distinction in power, and afterwards although all were Apostles, yet the Lord granted it to Peter -- and among themselves they wanted this -- that he should rule over all the rest of the Apostles and that he should hold "Cephas", that is, headship and leadership of the apostolate." It seems that we clearly find in these words that according to Anacletus, who was the pope before Clement, as chapter 14 of book 2 of the Ecclesiastical History attests [Not 2.14 but 3.15; see Eusebius Werke, Bd. 2, Die Kirchengeschichte, Teil 1, ed. E. Schwartz, Leipzig, 1903, pp. 229], and who lived with the apostle Peter, by those words, "You are Peter", etc., Christ promised or gave to Peter primacy. And that he gave or promised him primacy not only over the other faithful but also over the Apostles is clear when he says that there was a distinction of power [[The edition romana of the decretals incudes 'of power' but Friedberg's edition, which the mss usually agree with, does not.]] among the Apostles and that he had ruled over the other Apostles not only by their will but also by the grant or decree of the Lord, when he says, "Although all were Apostles, yet the Lord granted it to Peter", etc.

Ex praescriptis etiam verbis Anacleti potest accipi alia ratio principalis ad probandum quod Petrus de ordinatione Christi praefuit aliis apostolis. Nam sub quo intellectu Christus dixerit Petro ut habetur Iohann. 1:[42], "Tu vocaberis Cephas", Anacletus hoc {*omit Sc} exprimit manifeste cum asserit Petrum fuisse Cephas quia caput et primatum {*principium &FrMz[816]} tenuit apostolatus. Cum itaque Anacletus vir fuerit eruditus et sanctus et cum Petro {*apostolo add. &FrMz[817]} conversatus verisimile non videtur quod ignoraverit quomodo {om. &Fr[818]} Petrus illa verba intellexerit {*trs.312 &FrMz[819]} quae dixit sibi Christus, "Tu vocaberis Cephas." Nec est aliquomodo credendum quod mentiretur scienter et in hoc quod per seipsum cognoverit falsum astrueret licet crederetur quod in his quae pure sunt scientiae {?conscientie &Mz[820]} seu rationis decipi posset {possit &Fr[821]}. Ergo Anacletus illorum verborum intellectum, "Tu vocaberis Cephas", quem habuit Petrus expressit. Petrus autem illorum verborum verum habuit intellectum. Ergo Anacletus in verbis praescriptis illorum verborum verum {om. &FrMz[822]} protulit intellectum. Et per consequens Christus intendebat quod Petrus vocandus erat Cephas et {*id est &FrMz[823]} caput et princeps {principium &FrMz[824]} omnium {*om. &FrMz[825]} aliorum apostolorum. Et per consequens tunc erat futurus pastor et praelatus eorum.

From Anacletus's words above we can take another chief argument to prove that by Christ's decree Peter ruled the other Apostles. For Anacletus expresses clearly with what meaning Christ said to Peter, "You will be called Cephas", as we find in John 1:42, when he asserts that Peter was Cephas because he held the headship and leadership of the apostolate. And so since Anacletus was an erudite and holy man who lived with the apostle Peter, it does not seem likely that he did not know how Peter understood those words, "You will be called Cephas", which Christ said to him. Nor should it be in any way believed that he would lie knowingly, and that in something he knew himself he would assert a falsehood, though it might be believed that he could be deceived in matters purely of knowledge or reason. Therefore Anacletus expressed the understanding Peter had of those words, "You will be called Cephas". Peter, however, had a true understanding of those words. In his words above, therefore, Anacletus put forth the true meaning of those words. And consequently it was Christ's intention that Peter should be called Cephas, that is head and chief of the other Apostles. And as a consequence he was at that time going to be their shepherd and prelate.

Allegatio suprascripta {praescripta &Lm[826]} taliter confirmatur. Moris erat apostolorum et discipulorum ipsorum mox, cum contra veritatem aliqui insurrexerunt errores, ipsos comprimere et publice confutare ita ut cuicunque in hoc parcendum minime reputaret {*reputarent &FrLmMzPz[827]}. Unde et beatus Paulus Petrum cum non ambularet recte ad evangelii veritatem reprehendit, ut legitur ad Gal. 2. Sed in nulla invenitur historia vel chronica quae a catholicis habeatur quod aliquis apostolus vel discipulus apostolorum super praedicta assertione reprehenderit Anacletum. Quorum tamen {plures et plurimi add. &Fr[828]} tunc temporis plurimi {om. &Fr[829]} erant haeresim {*haeresum &Mz[830]} et errorum orientium vigilantissimi {*et acutissimi add. &FrLmMzPz[831]} correctores et correptores {et correptores: om. &Lm[832]} quorum gesta et scripta ad nostra tempora pervenerunt {pervenerint &Lm[833]}. Ergo omni versimilitudine caret quod beatus Anacletus in hoc erraverit et animas {animal &LmPz[834]} in errorem {*animas in errorem: errare &FrMz[835]} induxerit {*orthodoxos add. &FrMz[836]}.

The above argument is confirmed as follows. It was the custom of the Apostles and their disciples, as soon as any errors arose against the truth, to curb them and to disprove them publicly, so that they would not consider that anyone should be spared in this matter. Whence blessed Paul even censured Peter when he was not walking rightly according to the truth of the gospel, as we read in Galatians 2. But we do not find in any history or chronicle possessed by catholics that any apostle or disciple of the Apostles censured Anacletus about the above assertion. Yet at that time very many of these were the most vigilant and keen correctors and censurers of heresies and errors that were arising, and their deeds and writings have come down to our own time. It lacks all likelihood, therefore, that blessed Anacletus erred in this and induced the orthodox to err.

CAP. XVI

Discipulus Orthodoxum {orthodoxos &LmPz[837]} {*om. &FrMz[838]} aliquorum aliorum sed paucorum testimonia adducas ad probandum quod praedictus fuerit intellectus illorum verborum Christi, "Tu es Petrus" etc {etc: om. &FrLmPz[839]}.

CHAPTER 16

Student: Would you bring forward the testimonies of some few others to prove that the above [meaning] was the meaning of those words of Christ, "You are Peter" etc?

The testimony of Marcellus and Cyprian

Magister Hoc sentit Marcellus papa et martyr qui propter propinquitatem temporis apostolorum vel discipulorum ipsorum absque omni dubitationis scrupulo poterat scire quomodo apostoli et ipsorum discipuli intellexerunt verba illa Christi. Ait enim ut habetur in decretis 24, q. 1 {om. &FrLmMzPz[840]} [[1 added between lines Fr [841]]] c. Rogamus. "Rogamus vos, fratres dilectissimi, ut non aliud doceatis neque sentiatis quam quod a beato Petro apostolo et patribus accepistis. Ipse enim est caput totius ecclesiae. Cui ait dominus, 'Tu es petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam.'"

Master Marcellus, pope and martyr, thinks this and because of his closeness to the time of the Apostles or their disciples he was able to know without any shadow of doubt how the Apostles and their disciples understood those words of Christ. For, as we read in 24, q. 1, c. Rogamus [c.15, col.970], he says, "We ask you, dearest brothers, not to teach or think anything other than what you received from the blessed apostle Peter and the fathers. For the former is the head of the whole Church. The Lord said to him, 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.'"

Idem etiam videtur sentire Cyprianus martyr qui etiam propter similem {similitudinem &LmPz[842]} propinquitatem ad tempora apostolorum non videtur ignorasse quomodo apostoli intellexerunt verba illa Christi. Ait enim, ut habetur 24. q. 1. c. Loquitur, "Loquitur dominus ad Petrum, 'Ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam.' Super unum aedificat ecclesiam, et quamvis apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat et dicat, 'Sicut misit me pater, et ego mitto vos. Accipite spiritum sanctum', tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, {*unitatis eiusdem originem add. &Zn[]} ab uno suam {*sua &FrMzZn[843]} auctoritatem {*auctoritate &FrMzZn[844]} disposuit."

Cyprian the martyr also seems to think the same. Because of a similar closeness to the times of the Apostles he too does not seem to have been ignorant of how the Apostles understood those words of Christ. For, as we read in 24, q. 1, c. Loquitur [c.18, col.971], he says, "The Lord says to Peter, 'I say to you that you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' He builds the Church upon one man, and although he bestows equal power on all his Apostles after his resurrection and says, 'As the father sent me, so I send you. Receive the holy spirit,' yet, in order to show unity clearly, he arranged by his authority that the origin of that unity should begin with one man."

Ex his aliisque quam pluribus colligitur quod probatissimi et literatissimi viri de vero intellectu scripturae sacrae maximam curam habentes qui per dicta {praedicta &Fr[845]} aut scripta apostolorum aut discipulorum ipsorum verum intellectum praedictorum verborum Christi certitudinaliter accipere potuerunt eadem verba Christi intellexerunt {intellexerint &Lm[846]} modo praedicto. Quare {qualiter &LmPz[847]} absque temeritate idem intellectus negari non potest praesertim cum nullus inveniatur apostolorum discipulus aut qui vicinus fuerit eorum temporibus qui intellectum illum neget {negat &Fr[848]} aut affirmet contrarium.

We gather from these and very many other [authorities] that the most approved and learned men, who had the greatest care for the true meaning of sacred scripture, who could have learnt with certainty the true meaning of those words of Christ through the sayings or writings of the Apostles or their disciples, understood those words of Christ in the above way. That meaning can not be denied without rashness, therefore, especially since no disciple of the Apostles or anyone whose time was near theirs is found who denies that meaning or affirms the contrary.

CAP. XVII

Discipulus Antequam procedas ulterius dic secundum aliquam {expositionem seu add. &Fr[849]} opinionem per quae verba inter {om. &Fr[850]} illa quae dixit Christus Petro cum dixit, "Tu es petrus" etc, sibi primatum super apostolos et omnes fideles promisit.

CHAPTER 17

Student Before you proceed further, explain, according to any opinion, by which words, among those which Christ uttered when he said to Peter, "You are Peter", etc., he promised him primacy over the Apostles and all the faithful.

Magister Una est opinio dicens quod Petrus sicut et quilibet successorum {*successor &FrMz[851]} duplicem habuit potestatem. Unam scilicet ratione ordinis et aliam ratione administrationis. Hanc duplicem potestatem ponit glosa dist. 21. super cap. In novo. Prima potestas promissa fuit Petro per illa verba, "Tibi dabo claves regni coelorum et quodcunque ligaveris" etc {super terram erit ligatum et in celis &Fr[852]}. Secunda promissa fuit sibi per illa {haec &Fr[853]} verba, "Super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam." Primam autem recepit ante secundam, quia primam recepit simul cum aliis apostolis quando Christus dixit sibi et aliis apostolis, "Accipite spiritum sanctum. Quorum remiseritis peccata", etc. Tunc enim omnes illi potestatem ligandi atque solvendi receperunt {receperint &Lm[854]}. Quia potestas retinendi vel remittendi peccata est potestas ligandi et solvendi {peccata add. &Fr[855]}. Secunda {*Secundam &FrMz[856]} autem potestatem recepit quando Christus dixit sibi, "Pasce oves meas", et licet ista potestas pascendi fuerit {fuerat &FrMz[857]} data Petro post potestatem ligandi atque solvendi tamen absque ipsa potest inveniri. Istam enim potestatem habet quilibet electus in summum pontificem, quamvis non sit sacerdos qui solus habet potestatem ligandi et solvendi et est tunc verus papa quantum ad hanc potestatem, dist. 23. In nomine. Et per istam potestatem quam ultimo percepit {praecepit &Mz[858]} Petrus factus {est et add. &Fr[859]} fuit Petrus {caput &Fr[860]} caeteris omnibus {et add. &Fr[861]} superior et {atque &Fr[862]} praelatus et ideo per illa verba, "Super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam", fuit primatus Petro promissus.

Master There is one opinion that says that Peter, like any successor of his, had a double power, namely one by reason of order and the other by reason of administration. The gloss on dist. 21, c. In novo [c.2, col.95] sets down this double power. The first power was promised to Peter by the words, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever you bind", etc. The second was promised to him by the words, "On this rock I will build my Church." He received the first before the second, however, because he received the first at the same time as the other Apostles when Christ said to him and them, "Receive the holy spirit. If you forgive the sins of any", etc. For at that time they all received the power of binding and loosing, because the power of retaining or forgiving sins is the power of binding and loosing. He received the second power, however, when Christ said to him, "Feed my sheep", and although that power of feeding was given to Peter after the power of binding and loosing, yet it can be found without that [power of binding and loosing]. For anyone elected to the highest pontificate has that power [of feeding], even if he is not a priest (who alone has the power of binding and loosing), and is at that time a true pope with respect to this power (dist. 23, In nomine [c.1, col.77]). And by that power which Peter received last he was made superior to and prelate over all the rest. And therefore by those words, "On this rock I will build my Church", primacy was promised to Peter.

CAP. XVIII

Discipulus Intellexi quomodo improbatur responsio suprascripta. Nunc indica qualiter respondeatur {*respondetur &FrMz[863]} ad motiva quibus se munire conatur.

CHAPTER 18

Student I have understood how the above reply is disproved. Indicate now how reply is made to the arguments by which it tries to fortify itself.

Answers to Marsilius' arguments concerning Matthew 16:18-9: The Church was founded on the Apostles, Peter especially

Magister Ad primum cum accipiunt ut adductum est supra c. 12 {13 &Fr[864]}, "caput et fundamentum ecclesiae unicum esse et fuisse ordinatione immediata Dei et hoc Christum apostolorum vero neminem" etc, respondetur quod hoc tam scripturae canonicae quam expositoribus approbatis scripturarum sanctarum aperte repugnat. Apoc. enim {*vero &FrLmMzPz[865]} 21:[14] sic habetur, "Murus civitatis habens fundamenta 12 [...] nomina apostolorum." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod apostoli fuerunt aut sunt fundamenta militantis ecclesiae vel triumphantis. Civitas enim illa vel est ecclesia militans vel triumphans et si quidem est militans habetur intentum {intentus &Mz[866]}. Si quidem {militans habetur intentum. Si quidem om. &Lm[867]} est triumphans sequitur quod apostoli multo fortius fuerunt fundamenta ecclesiae militantis, quia non magis est solus Christus fundamentum ecclesie {om. &Fr[868]} militantis quam triumphantis. Dicere ergo quod nullo modo fuit aliquis apostolus fundamentum ecclesiae aperte sacrae scripturae repugnat. Hoc et {in &Mz[869]} {*etiam &FrLmPz[870]} assertionibus sanctorum patrum asserentium beatum Petrum fuisse fundamentum ecclesiae et ecclesiam super ipsum fuisse fundatam et aedificatam obviat manifeste. Ait enim sanctus {*om. &FrMz[871]} Augustinus in sermone De cathedra sancti Petri, "Recte ergo ecclesiae natalem sedis illius coluit {*colunt &FrMz[872]} quem {*quam &FrMz[873]} apostolus pro ecclesiarum salute suscepit dicente domino, 'Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam.' Petrum itaque fundamentum ecclesiae {*Dominus added PL} nominavit. Et ideo digne hoc fundamentum ecclesia colit super {*supra &Mz[874]} quam {*quod &??[]} ecclesiastici aedificii altitudo consurgit. Unde convenienter psalmus qui lectus est dicit, 'Exaltent {exultent &Fr[875]} eum {enim &Fr?Mz[876]} in ecclesia plebis, et in cathedra seniorum laudent eum', dum {*bene autem PL} eum dominus in ecclesia exaltari praecepit quia dignum est ut fundamentum hoc in ecclesia honoretur per quod {*ad added PL} coelum ascenditur." Ubi dicunt notandum esse {*ubi dicunt notandum esse: Ecce &FrMz[877]} quod tribus vicibus August. nominat Petrum fundamentum ecclesiae.

Master To the first when they take [as a premise], as was brought forward in chapter 12 above, "that there is and has been a single head and foundation of the Church ordained directly by God and that this is Christ, not indeed any of the Apostles" etc, the reply is that this openly conflicts with canonical scripture and with the approved expositors of the holy scriptures. For we find the following in Revelations 21:14, "The wall of the city has twelve foundations ... the names of the Apostles." We gather from these words that the Apostles were or are the foundations of the Church, militant or triumphant. [Church "militant": on active service, in this world. Church "triumphant": in heaven.] For that city is either the Church militant or the Church triumphant. If in truth it is [the Church] militant, the point is made. If, however, it is [the Church] triumphant, it follows that the Apostles were even more the foundations of the Church militant, because Christ alone is no more the foundation of the Church militant than of the Church triumphant. To say, therefore, that no apostle was in any way a foundation of the Church openly conflicts with sacred scripture. It is also clearly opposed to the assertions of the holy fathers, when they assert that blessed Peter was the foundation of the Church and that the Church was founded and built on him. For in a sermon On the seat of St. Peter [PL, 39, col. 2100] Augustine says, "Rightly therefore do they reverence the anniversary of that see of the Church which the apostle received for the salvation of Church when the Lord said, 'You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church.' And so the Lord named Peter as the foundation of the Church. Appropriately therefore does the Church venerate this foundation upon which the height of the ecclesiastical edifice rises. Whence the psalm (107:32) that has been read says fitly, 'Let them extol him in the congregation of the people, and praise him in the assembly of the elders'. Well did the Lord order him to be extolled in the Church, because it is fitting that this foundation through we ascend to heaven be honoured in the Church." Notice that on three occasions Augustine names Peter as the foundation of the Church.

Item Hieronimus super illud Matth. 18 {*16 &FrMzVg[878]} :[13], "Venit Iesus in partes Caesareae Philippi", "Quid est hoc quod ait, 'et ego dico {om. &Fr[879]} tibi'? {dabo add. &Fr[880]} Quia tu mihi dixisti, 'Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi', et ego dico tibi -- non sermone casso et nullo habente opus, sed dico tibi quia meum dixisse fecisse est, 'quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam'. Sicut ipse lumen apostolis donavit ut lumen mundi appellarentur, et caetera quae ex domino sortiti sunt vocabula, ita et Simoni qui credebat in petram Christum Petri largitus est nomen. Ac secundum metaphoram {metha petre &LmPz[881]} {*petrae add. &FrMz[882]} recte dicitur ei, 'Aedificabo ecclesiam meam super te.'" Ecce quod secundum Hieronymum Christus dixit Petro, 'Aedificabo ecclesiam meam super te'. Ergo ecclesia Christi fuit aedificata super Petrum. Ille autem super quem aedificatum erat aedificium ecclesiae {aedificium ecclesiae: om. &FrMz[883]} potest fundamentum ecclesiae appellari, quia fundamentum est illud super quod erigitur aedificium.

Again, Jerome, on Matthew 16:18 [CCSL 77, p. 141], "Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi", [says], "Why does he say this, 'And I say to you'?. Because you have said to me, 'You are the Messiah, the son of the living God', I also say to you, not in vain words of no effect, but I say to you because it is mine to have said, to have done, that 'You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church'. Just as he endowed the Apostles with light so that they would be called the light of the world, and so also with the rest of the words the Lord chose, so the Lord bestowed the name of Peter on Simon who believed in Christ the rock. And it is rightly said to him, in accord with the metaphor of 'rock', 'I will build my Church on you'." See that according to Jerome, Christ said to Peter, "I will build my Church on you." The Church of Christ, therefore, has been built on Peter. That one, however, upon whom the edifice of the Church has been built can be called the foundation of the Church, because the foundation is that upon which the edifice is erected.

Item beatus Leo papa in sermone De festo apostolorum qui incipit, "Omnium quidem {quidam &Pz[884]} sanctorum", ait loquens de beato Petro, "Iam Anthiochenam ecclesiam, ubi primum Christiani {Christi &Fr[885]} nominis dignitas est exorta, fundaverat {*fundaveras &FrLmMzPzZn[886]}." Fuit igitur beatus Petrus fundamentum ecclesiae Anthiochenae et eadem ratione Romanae.

Again blessed Pope Leo in his sermon 'On the feast of the Apostles' which begins Omnium quidem sanctorum [ccsl. vol.138a, p.508], says about blessed Peter, "You had already founded the Church at Antioch where the dignity of the name 'christian' first arose." Blessed Peter was therefore the foundation of the Church of Antioch and, by the same argument, of Rome.

Item Beatus Maximus {Maximinus &LmPz[887]} in sermone qui incipit 'Gloriosissimos' ait, "Hic est Petrus cui Christus dominus communionem sui nominis libenter indulsit. Uti {Ubi &FrLmMzPz[888]} enim, sicut apostolus docuit, petra erat Christus, ita quod {*om. &Zn[]} per Christum Petrus factus est petra dicente ei domino, 'Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam'. Nam sicut in deserto dominico sitiente populo aqua fluxit de petra ita universo mundo perfidiae ariditate lassante {lascente &Fr[889]} {*lassanti &LmPz[890]} de ore Petri fons salutiferae confessionis emersit." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod non solum Christus sed etiam Petrus erat petra illa super quam Christus suam erat fundaturus ecclesiam. Quare aliquo modo concedi debet quod Petrus erat fundamentum ecclesiae.

Again blessed Maximus in a sermon which begins Gloriosissimos [PL.57, col.392] says, "This is Peter to whom Christ the Lord freely granted participation in his name. For just as Christ was the rock, as the Apostle taught, so Peter was made the rock by Christ when the Lord said to him, 'You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church.' For, just as in the desert water flowed from a rock when the Lord's people were thirsty, so with the whole world weary from the dryness of falsehood, a spring of healing confession came forth from Peter's mouth." We gather from these words that not only Christ but also Peter was that rock on which Christ was going to found his Church. It should be granted in some way, therefore, that Peter was the foundation of the Church.

Item hoc dicit Gregorius qui, ut habetur dist. 12. c. Praeceptis, ait, "Cuius auctoritatis {auctoritatem &Fr[891]} sanctionem omnes teneant sacerdotes qui nolunt ab apostolicae petrae supra quam Christus universaliter {*universalem &FrMzZn[892]} fundavit ecclesiam soliditate divelli." Super apostolicam ergo petram, id est super Petrum apostolum, fundata est universalis ecclesia.

Gregory also says this, stating, as we find in dist. 12, c. Praeceptis [c.2, col.27], "Let all priests who do not want to be separated from the strength of the apostolic rock on which Christ founded his universal Church maintain the law of his authority." It is on the apostolic rock, therefore, that is on the apostle Peter, that the universal Church was founded.

Item Eusebius Caesariensis in Ecclesiastica historia libro 3 c.4 asserit manifeste apostolos fundasse ecclesias dicens, "Si qui constans {*constantes &FrLmMzPz[893]} in fide et aemulatores {aemulatoris &Fr[894]} verbi {*dei add. &FrMz[895]} reperti sunt etiam qui {*om. &FrMz[896]} regendas ecclesias quas apostoli fundaverunt susceperunt."

Eusebius of Caesarea in book 3, chapter 4 of his Ecclesiastical History also asserts clearly that the Apostles founded the Churches. He says, "If some were found who were constant in faith and imitators of the word of God, they also received rule of the Churches that the Apostles founded." [Rufinus, in Eusebius Werke, Bd. 2, Die Kirchengeschichte, Teil 1, ed. E. Schwartz, Leipzig, 1903, p. 193]

Item Nicolaus papa, ut habetur Extra, De verborum significationibus {*significatione &Zn[]} c. Exiit, hoc idem asserit manifeste cum dixit {*dicit &FrMz[897]}, volens de apostolis facere mentionem, "Primi fundatores militantis ecclesiae, prout ab ipso fonte," scilicet Christo, "hauserant, in {*om. &Zn[]} volentes perfecte vivere, per doctrinae ipsorum alveos derivarunt." {dirivarunt &FrMzPz[898]}. Fuerunt ergo apostoli et non solum Petrus fundamenta {fundamentum &Fr[899]} ecclesiae et etiam fundatores.

Again, Pope Nicholas too clearly asserts the same thing, as we find in Extra, De verborum significatione, c. Exiit {c.3, col.1109] when, wanting to make mention of the Apostles, he says, "Just as the first founders of the Church militant had drunk from that spring," namely Christ, "those wanting to live perfectly have drawn from the channels of their teaching." The Apostles, therefore, and not only Peter, were the foundations of the Church and also its founders.

CAP. XIX

Discipulus Qualiter respondetur ad motiva opinantium praedictorum quibus probare nituntur quod solus Christus erat fundamentum ecclesiae?

CHAPTER 19

Student How is reply made to the arguments by which those who hold the above opinion try to prove that Christ alone was the foundation of the Church?

Answer to Marsilius' auxiliary arguments

Magister Ad primum eorum cum adducitur {adducit &FrMz[900]} Glossa interlinearis qua probatur {*videtur &FrLmMzPz[901]} quod Christus sibi videtur retinuisse fundamenti dignitatem, respondetur per distinctionem de fundamento quia {*quod &LmMzPz[902]} quoddam est fundamentum ecclesiae primarium et principale absque quo nulla potest fundari ecclesia. Et illud fundamentum est sol {*solus &FrLmMzPz[903]} Deus sive Christus. Aliud est fundamentum ecclesiae secundarium, sine quo poterat fundari ecclesia sine quo tamen non fuit fundata de facto {*trs.231 &FrMz[904]} et tale fundamentum non est solus Deus nec solus Petrus; imo omnes apostoli sic fuerunt fundamenta ecclesiae inter quos tamen quodammodo principalius et universalius fundamentum fuit beatus Petrus. Glossa autem loquitur de fundamento primo modo dicto et {om. &Fr[905]} non de fundamento secundo modo dicto.

Master To the first of them, when the interlinear gloss is brought forward in which it seems that Christ seems to have retained the dignity of foundation for himself, the reply is by a distinction of [the word] 'foundation', because there is a certain primary and principal foundation of the Church without which no Church can be founded. And that foundation is God alone, or Christ. There is another secondary foundation of the Church, without which the Church could be founded, yet without which it has not in fact been founded, and that foundation is neither God alone nor Peter alone; rather, in this way all the Apostles were the foundations of the Church, although among them blessed Peter was in a certain manner the more principal and universal foundation. The gloss, however, speaks of foundation in the first way, not in the second way.

Consimiliter dicitur ad auctoritatem Aug. sumptam ex libro Retractationum quod August. non reprobat {reprobet &Fr[906]} dictum suum de apostolo Petro quo asseruit quod in illo tanquam in petra aedificata sit {*fuit ecclesia &Fr[907]} {edificata add. &Mz[908]} sed dicit se aliter saepe exposuisse, ut scilicet per petram intelligatur Christus {*et utrumque istorum est verum quia et per petram ibi cum dicitur, "Super hanc petram edificabo ecclesiam meam", intelligitur Christus add. &FrMz[909]} tanquam petra principalis super quam {*quem &FrMz[910]} principaliter aedificata est ecclesia. Non enim in fundamento aedificii materialis ponitur semper unica petra sed saepe plures et una super aliam et ita {ideo &Fr[911]} per distinctionem talem petrae concordantur auctoritates sanctorum patrum quae repugnare videntur. Nequaquam igitur {beatus add. &Fr[912]} Augustinus dictum suum reprobat aut revocat vel corrigit sed declarat et asserit quod locus scripturae quem {quam &Lm[913]} volebat exponere alium potest habere sensum qui priori sensui minime contradicit. Sed per distinctionem praedictam unus est cum alio concordandus. Non enim Augustinus semper reprobat aut corrigit quae retractat sed aliqua dicitur retractare {recitare &Fr[914]} quia iterum ipsa tractat declarando ipsa et cum aliis concordando.

Similarly, to the text of Augustine taken from his book, Retractions, it is said that Augustine does not reject his remark about the apostle Peter in which he asserted that the Church was built on him as on a rock, but he says that he had often expounded it otherwise, namely, so that, by "rock" is understood Christ; and both of these are true, because at that place where it is said, "On this rock I will build my Church", Christ is understood by "rock" as the principal rock on whom the Church is principally built (for it is not the case that a single rock is always placed in the foundation of a material building, but often more, and one upon another). And so by such a distinction concerning "rock" the texts of the holy fathers which seem to conflict are harmonised. It is not the case, therefore, that Augustine rejects, revokes or corrects what he said, but he declares and asserts that the place in scripture that he wanted to expound can have another sense, which does not contradict the earlier sense. But by the above distinction one should be harmonised with the other. For Augustine does not always reject or correct what he "re-tracts", but he is said to retract some things because he treats them again by making them clear and by harmonising them with others.

Ad rationem qua {contra &FrMz[915]} saepe dicti {dictos &FrMz[916]} opinantes probare nituntur quod beatus Petrus non fuit {fuerit &Fr[917]} fundamentum ecclesiae quia fundamentum ecclesiae non potest errare nec peccare, respondetur quod principale fundamentum ecclesiae sine {sue &Fr[918]} quo totum aedificium rueret, imo {primo &Fr[919]} sine quo nullo modo construi posset, nec peccare nec errare potest aut potuit. Et illud fuit Christus non Petrus. Sed secundarium fundamentum, sine quo poterat erigi totum aedificium ecclesiae, potuit errare et peccare, quamvis inquantum fuit fundamentum actualiter fundando non potuerit errare nec peccare {fundare peccando &Fr[920]}. Quando enim Petrus negavit Christum et quando postea ad veritatem evangelii non recte ambulavit non actu fundavit ecclesiam sed quando primo post Christum praedicando veritatem apostolos {*populos &FrMz[921]} ad veram fidem convertit tunc novellam fundavit ecclesiam.

To the argument by which those who hold the oft-mentioned opinion try to prove that blessed Peter was not the foundation of the Church because the foundation of the Church can not err or sin, the reply is that the principal foundation of the Church without which the whole edifice would fall down, indeed without which it could in no way be constructed, can not or could not either sin or err, and that was Christ, not Peter. But the secondary foundation, without which the whole edifice of the Church could be erected, could have erred and sinned, although in so far as he was the foundation actually founding he could not have erred or sinned. For when Peter denied Christ and when afterwards he did not walk rightly according to the truth of the gospel, he did not actually found the Church, but when after Christ he first converted people to the true faith by preaching the truth, then he founded the new Church.

Ad auctoritatem autem apostoli Cor. 3. respondetur quod apostolus ibi locutus est de principali fundamento ecclesiae non de secundario. Et certe fundamentum principale nemo aliud {alius &Fr[922]} ponere potest praeter id quod positum est quod est Christus Iesus. Est autem sciendum {quod add. &Fr[923]} secundum quosdam, sicut dictum est {sicut dictum est add. &Mz[924]} prius, quod modus scripturae saepe est negare aliquid ab illis quibus non competit principaliter quamvis secundario competat. Sic enim dixit Christus Luc. 18:[19], "Nemo bonus nisi solus Deus." Sic etiam de Iohanne Baptista dicitur non erat ille lux Ioh. 1, et tamen sicut apostoli erant lux, dicente eis Christo, Matt. 5:[14], "Vos estis lux mundi". Sic et beatus {*om. &FrMz[925]} Ioannes Baptista fuit lux. Fuit enim "lucerna ardens et lucens" Ioh. 5:[35].

To the text of the apostle from 1 Cor. 3:11, however, the reply is that the apostle there spoke about the principal foundation of the Church, not about the secondary one. And certainly no one can lay another principal foundation besides that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus. According to some people, however, as has been said before, it should be known that scripture's way is often to deny something to those to whom it is not principally appropriate, even if it is secondarily appropriate. For thus Christ said in Luke 18:19, "No one is good but God alone." So also it is said of John the Baptist in John 1 that "He was not the light", and yet just as the Apostles were the light, for Christ said to them in Matthew 5:14, "You are the light of the world", so also John the Baptist was the light. For he was "a burning and shining lamp" (John 5:35).

Cum ergo {*vero &FrMz[926]} dicitur quod Christus potestatem clavium non videtur Petro tradidisse per haec verba, "Tu es petrus" etc, respondetur quod tunc Christus non tradidit Petro potestatem clauium sed promisit. Nec etiam tunc praefecit eum reliquis apostolis sed promisit. Et ideo qualiter et quibus praefecit eum ex istis verbis, "Tu es petrus", ultimate nequaquam colligi potest nisi referendo ad ipsa verba quibus scilicet {*om. &FrMz[927]} postea praefecit eum, scilicet illa, "Pasce oves meas." Et tamen ex istis verbis, "Super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam", potest ostendi aliquo modo quod promisit sibi primatum super omnes, ex quo indefinite dixit 'ecclesiam meam', non distinguendo inter hanc ecclesiam particularem et illam. An autem Christus eandem potestatem clavium tribuerit aliis apostolis postea poteris si tibi placebit inquirere.

Now when it is said that Christ does not seem to have handed over to Peter the power of the keys by these words, "You are Peter", the reply is that at that time Christ did not hand over to Peter the power of the keys but promised it. And at that time too he did not put him in authority over the rest of the Apostles but promised him this. And therefore how and whom he put him in authority over with those words, "You are Peter", can not ultimately be gathered except by referring to those words by which he later put him in authority, that is, "Feed my sheep." Nevertheless from those words, "On this rock I will build my Church", it can be shown in some way that he promised him primacy over everyone, because he said "my Church" indefinitely, not distinguishing between this particular Church and that. Whether Christ bestowed the same power of the keys on the other Apostles, however, you can ask later if you wish to.

Cum autem dicitur quod Christus potestatem clavium non tradidit per haec verba, "Tu es petrus", sed Ioh. 20. quando indifferenter omnibus dixit, "Accipite spiritum sanctum et quorum remiseritis", etc, respondetur iuxta praemissa supra c. 17 quod potestatem clavium quae competit ratione ordinis accepit Petrus simul cum aliis apostolis per verba praescripta Ioh. 20, aliam tamen potestatem accepit super apostolos cum Christus sibi dixit, "Pasce oves meas".

When it is said, however, that Christ did not hand over the power of the keys by these words, "You are Peter", but when he said to all without distinction in John 20:23, "Receive the holy spirit and if you forgive" etc, the reply is, according to what was set down in chapter 17 above, that Peter received that power of the keys that belongs by reason of order at the same time as the other Apostles by the above words from John 20, yet he received another power over the Apostles when Christ said to him, "Feed my sheep."

Cum vero dicitur esto quod Petrus his verbis potestatem hanc accepisset {*recepisset &FrMz[928]}, non concluditur ex hoc nisi quod tempore prius fuerit pastor institutus. Respondetur quod si Petrus illis verbis, "Tu es petrus" etc, potestatem aliquam recepisset illam potestatem recepisset {illam potestatem recepisset om. &Fr[929]} super omnes qui erant de ecclesia Christi. Quia sicut tactum est prius in collatione potestatis super aliquos certi debent esse super quos confertur potestas, quia sicut praelatus debet esse certus ita subditi debent esse certi. Cum ergo nec per illa verba nec per quaecunque praecedentia vel {seu &Fr[930]} subsequentia appareat {apparet &Fr[931]} quod Christus aliquos de ecclesia sua specialiter exceperit seu exemerit, si per illa Petrus {*trs.312 &FrMz[932]} {*verba add. &FrLmMzPz[933]} recepisset super aliquos de ecclesia Christi, eandem recepisset {recipisset &Pz[934]} super omnes potestatem. Et ideo Christus per illa verba non solum significare {signare &Mz[935]} voluit ecclesiae unitatem in fide sed etiam unitatem capitis praeferendi {*praeficiendi &FrMz[936]} ecclesiae universae. Nec tantummodo tempore prius dotatur clavibus et honoratur aut honorari promittitur ut isti dicunt sibimet ipsis in {*om. &FrMz[937]} hoc etiam contradicendo, quia secundum eos simul tempore omnibus apostolis Christus contulit clavium potestatem. Sed per illa verba, "Tu es petrus" etc, ultra clavium potestatem communem sibi at aliis apostolis quae eis ratione ordinis competebant alia fuit sibi promissa potestas super omnes. Et ideo per illa verba, "Tu es petrus" etc, intellecta ut ea intellexerunt apostoli et eorum discipuli aperte convincitur Petrum {Petro &Fr[938]} fuisse caeteris dignitate sive auctoritate superiorem. Et ideo Glossatores {*hoc add. &FrMz[939]} dicentes non acceperunt hoc a se sed a scriptura intellecta ut eam intellexerunt apostoli. Qui intellectus ab ipsis apostolis usque ad ipsos serie tractatorum et scriptorum catholicorum sibimet succedentium et asserentium ipsum pervenit.

Now when it is said that "even if Peter had indeed received this power by those words, we can conclude from this only that he was the first in time to be appointed shepherd", the reply is that if he had received some power by those words, "You are Peter" etc, he would have received that power over everyone who was of the Church of Christ because, as was alluded to above, in the bestowing of power over people it should be certain over whom the power is conferred, because just as the prelate should be certain, so the subjects should be certain. Since it is clear, therefore, that neither by those words nor by any that precede or follow did Christ particularly except or exempt any members of his Church then, if by those words Peter had received power over some members of Christ's Church, he would have received the same power over all of them. And by those words, therefore, Christ wanted not only "to indicate the unity of the Church in faith" [above], but also the unity of the head who was to be set in authority over the universal Church. And it is not only that "he is the first in time to be endowed with the keys and honoured (or promised to be honoured)" [above], -- as they say, actually contradicting themselves by this, because, according to them, Christ conferred the power of the keys on all the Apostles at the same time -- but by those words, "You are Peter" etc, besides the common power of the keys promised to him and the other Apostles, [keys] that belonged to them by reason of order, another power over everyone was promised to him. And therefore by those words, "You are Peter" etc, understood as the Apostles and their disciples understood them, we can clearly conclude that Peter was superior to the rest in dignity and authority. And the glossators who say this, therefore, did not get this "from themselves" [above] but took it from scripture understood the way the Apostles understood it. This understanding came down to those glossators from the Apostles themselves through a series of commentators and catholic writers succeeding one another and asserting it.

CAP. XX

Discipulus Narra qualiter respondetur ad allegationem sequentem.

CHAPTER 20

Student Explain how reply is made to the following argument.

Magister {om. &LmMzPz[940]}: Ad illam {aliam &Fr[941]} allegationem cum accipitur quod series evangelii quae habetur Matth. 20 et Luc. 22, ubi Christus hanc quaestionem diffinit {*diffinivit &Mz[942]} cum contentio esset inter eos quis eorum esset maior, et Matt. 23 cum dixit Christus, "Nolite vocari rabbi", ostendit nullum fuisse superiorem aliis, {Magister add. &Lm} respondetur dupliciter. Uno modo quod omnia illa verba Christi intelligenda sunt pro tempore illo quo dicta fuerunt a Christo et pro tempore ante exaltationem Petri super reliquos apostolos. Tunc enim solus Christus fuit praelatus omnium et nullus apostolus fuit tunc praelatus sed solummodo apostolus. Aliter dicitur quod Christus non intendebat imponere eis aequalitatem excludentem superioritatem praelationis, saltem pro tempore futuro, sed ipsos ad humilitatem exhortans imponebat eis omnem aequalitatem excludentem omnem superioritatem superbae {*superbiae &FrLmMzPz} iniustae asperae et tyrannicae potestatis, quemadmodum Sapiens Eccl. 33 {32 &FrLmMzPzVg}:[1] rectori superioritatem concedit et quandam aequalitatem iniungit cum dicit, {cum dicit add. &Mz} "Rectorem te posuerunt? Noli {te add. &Fr} extolli. Esto in illis quasi unus ex ipsis." Sicut etiam [Eccl.] 3. c.:[20] maiori non solum aequalitatem sed etiam quandam inferioritatem inducit dicens, "Quanto magnus es humilia te in {om. &Fr} omnibus." Humilitas enim quandam infirmitatem {*inferioritatem Ki} {imponit seu add. &Fr} importat. Sic etiam Christus exemplo sui qui maior existens se minorem exhibuit maioribus non solum aequalitatem sed etiam minoritatem quandam suasit, dicens Luc. 22:26-7, "Qui maior est in vobis, fiat sicut minor, et qui praecessor est, sicut ministrator. Nam quis maior est, qui recumbit an qui ministrat? {qui recumbit an qui ministrat: quis ministrat aut qui recumbit &Fr} Nonne qui recumbit? ego autem in medio vestrum sum, sicut qui ministrat." Christus igitur nec Mat. {Mar. &LmPz} 20 {29 &Lm} nec Luc. 22 nec Mat. 23 omnem superioritatem praelationis apostolis interdixit sed ipsos ad humilitatem inducens omnem superioritatem iniustam et illicitam {illicitum &LmPz} ac modum regendi fatuosum {*fastuosum &FrMz} et iniquum amovit. Nec movere debet quod Christus dixit Mat. 13 {*23 &Vg}:[8], "Omnes autem vos fratres estis", quasi omnem aequalitatem inter eos esse tenendam insinuans. Nam nec etiam inter fratres est omnimoda aequalitas observanda, sed saepissime expedit ut unus aliis praeferatur, quemadmodum saepe a Deo et sanctis viris in scripturis divinis legimus fuisse factum.

Master To that argument, when it is taken [as a premise] that the gospel passage found in Matthew 20 and Luke 22, where Christ determined the question when there was a dispute among them as to which of them was the greater, and in Matthew 23:8 when Christ said, "You are not to be called rabbi", shows that no one was superior to the others, reply is made in two ways. The first reply is that all those words of Christ should be understood for the time when they were said by him and for the time before the raising up of Peter above the rest of the Apostles. For at that time Christ alone was the prelate of all and no apostle was a prelate but only an apostle. The other reply says that Christ was not intending to impose on them an equality that excluded the superiority of a prelacy, at least at some future time, but, exhorting them to humility, he imposed on them a complete equality which excluded all superiority of pride, of unjust, harsh and tyrannical power, just as the wise man in Ecclesiasticus 32:1 grants superiority to a ruler and enjoins a certain equality when he says, "Have they made you a ruler? Do not exalt yourself. Be among them as one of them." In Ecclesiasticus 3:20 he also recommends to one who is greater not only equality but even a certain inferiority, when he says, "The greater you are the more you must humble yourself in everything." For humility implies a certain inferiority. So too by his own example Christ, who though greater presented himself as lesser, recommended to those who are greater not only equality but even a certain lowliness, when he said in Luke 22:26-7, "The greatest of you must become like the lesser, and the leader like one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one at the table? But I am among you as one who serves." Christ did not, therefore, in Matthew 20, Luke 22 or Matthew 23 forbid the Apostles all superiority of prelacy but, to lead them towards humility, he took away from them any unjust and illicit superiority and a haughty and iniquitous way of ruling. Nor ought it persuade us that Christ said in Matthew 23:8, "And you are all brothers", as though urging that complete equality be maintained among them. For not even among brothers should equality of every kind be observed, but very often it is appropriate that one be promoted over the others, as we read in the divine scriptures was often done by God and holy men.

Cum vero accipitur quod mirandum est si magis credere debeamus auctoritati Glosse quam Christi, respondetur quod nemo magis debet credere cuiquam Glose vel sancto quam Christo. Tamen saepe per viros sanctos qui glosas vel scripta alia ediderunt et praecipue per illos qui ab apostolis instructi fuerunt {*vel vicini apostolorum temporibus extiterunt add. &FrMz} quis sit catholicus intellectus verborum Christi addiscimus {addicimus &Pz}. Et ideo quandocunque {*quandoque &FrMz} verba Christi possunt esse ambigua plectenda est temeritas ab assertionibus et expositionibus huiusmodi virorum recedere et interpretationi seu expositioni proprie adhaerere.

Now when it is said that "it is to be marvelled at if we ought to believe the text of the gloss rather than Christ", [above] the reply is that no one ought to trust any gloss or holy man at all rather than Christ. Nevertheless, from holy men who have produced glosses or other writings, and especially from those who were instructed by the Apostles or lived at a time near theirs, we often learn what is the catholic understanding of the words of Christ. And whenever the words of Christ can be ambiguous, therefore, the rashness of abandoning the assertions and expositions of men of this kind and clinging to one's own interpretation or exposition should be punished.

Discipulus Forte dicerent isti quod verba Christi quae adducunt non possunt esse ambigua. Ubi autem verba non sunt ambigua non est locus interpretationi ut notat glosa Extra, De consuetudine, Cum dilectus.

Student: Perhaps they would say that the words of Christ which they are adducing can not be ambiguous. "Where words are not ambiguous, however, there is no place for interpretation", as the gloss on Extra, De consuetudine, Cum dilectus notes [v. iuri communi, col. 94].

Magister Multis apparet quod istud sit irrationabiliter dictum. Nam multa verba Christi quae apertiora videntur possunt esse ambigua. Ergo et ista possunt esse ambigua. Et de praedictis {*de predictis: per predicta &FrMz} constat quod possunt esse ambigua cum praedicti opinantes aliter ipsa intelligant quam multi alii literati viri et intelligentes et qui expositionem per similia et multos alios modos ostendunt.

Master: It seems to many people that it would be unreasonable to say that. For many of Christ's words which seem quite clear can be ambiguous. Therefore these too can be ambiguous. And it is certain from the above that they can be ambiguous, since those who hold the above opinion understand them differently from many other learned men with understanding who demonstrate their exposition through analogies and in many other ways.

Discipulus Quid dicitur ad hoc quod isti dicunt multos Glossatores dicere oppositum?

Student: What is said to their claim that many glossators say the opposite?

Magister Respondetur quod Glossatores nusquam dicunt oppositum si intelligantur {intelligant &FrLmMzPz} sane.

Master: The reply is that if they are understood soundly, the glossators nowhere say the opposite.

CAP. XXI

Discipulus Aliam allegationem pro praelatione Petri adducas?

CHAPTER 21

Student: Would you bring forward another argument for Peter's prelacy?

Third argument for Peter's superiority, from Luke 22:32

Magister Hoc ostenditur Luc. 22:[32] cum ad ipsum specialiter dixit Christus *{trs. &Mz}, "Ego autem rogavi pro te Petre ut non deficiat fides tua sed tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos." Apostolorum ergo et aliorum fidelium prima cura pastoralis et confirmatio beato Petro commissa fuit propter suae fidei firmitatem. Pro qua ne {non &Fr} deficeret specialiter Christus orasse videtur ne deficeret in ipso neque in ipsius aliquo successore {*ubi glossa add. &FrMz}, "confirma inquit {*om. &FrLmMzPz} fratres tuos" cum te principem apostolorum constituerim. Hoc autem non solum intelligendum est de apostolis qui tunc erant ut roborarentur {roborentur &LmPz} a petra {*petro &FrLmMzPz} sed etiam de omnibus fidelibus. Et parum infra subdit per poenitentiam obtinuit Petrus, scilicet ut esset antistes mundi.

Master: It is shown by Luke 22:32 where Christ said particularly to him, "But I have prayed for you, Peter, that your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers." The primary pastoral care and strengthening of the Apostles and other faithful, therefore, was committed to blessed Peter because of the strength of his own faith; that his faith should not fail Christ seems to have prayed particularly, that faith would not fail in him nor in any of his successors. Here the gloss says: "'Strengthen your brothers', since I have appointed you chief of the Apostles. This should be understood, however, not only of the Apostles then existing, that they should be strengthened by Peter, but also of all the faithful". And a little further on it adds: "By his repentance he", that is Peter, "obtained the chief priesthood of the world". [Cf. Marsilius, II.xxvii.2]

Marsilius' reply to the argument from Luke 22:32

Discipulus Responsionem praecedentium opinantium ad istam allegationem recitabo. Dicunt itaque quod ex verbis Christi inferri non potest quod Christus Petrum reliquorum apostolorum praelatum fecerit. Quod {sic add. &Fr} probatur per scripturam, quia Paulus contulit Petro in evangelio non econtra. Hoc autem per Glossam probatur ibidem quae ait, "Sicut ego te orando protexi ne deficeres sic tu infirmiores fratres {*exemplo tuae penitentiae add. Marsilius} confirma ne de venia desperent", intelligens per 'fratres' indifferenter fideles. Quod {*etiam add. &FrMz} dicens Petro voluit {*fecit &FrLmMzPz} alios apostolos intelligere facturos. Unde Mar. 13:[37], "Quod uni dico", vel secundum aliam literam sensum tamen eundem, "Quod vobis dico, omnibus dico." An {*aut Marsilius} forsitan {*fortasse &FrMz} illud {*id &FrMz} Petro singulariter dixit, etiam Glossa hoc {*id &FrMz} sentire videtur quoniam praesciebat Christus Petrum se negaturum. Unde, "Tu aliquando conversus", id est "exemplo tuae poenitentiae", eo quod verbo et sui exemplo qui veniam meruerat infirmos in fide singularius confortare seu confirmare valeat {valebat &FrMz}. Haec est eorum responsio de qua cupio scire an omnibus opinantibus contrarium appareat non valere.

Student: I will relate the reply to that argument made by those who hold the above opinion. They say, then, that it can not be inferred from these words of Christ that Christ made Peter prelate over the rest of the Apostles. This is proved from scripture because Paul "contributed to" Peter concerning the gospel and not vice versa. This is proved by the gloss on the same place, which says, "Just as I have protected you by praying that you do not fail, so you should strengthen your weaker brothers by the example of your penitence so that they do not despair of forgiveness", understanding by "brothers" the faithful without distinction. In saying this to Peter he made the other Apostles understand that they were to do it too. Whence Mark 13:37 [says], "What I say to one" (or, according to another version, yet with the same sense, "What I say to you") "I say to all." Or perhaps he said this to Peter particularly, as also the gloss seems to think he did, because Christ foreknew that Peter would deny him. Whence [he said] : "You, when once you have turned back", that is "by the example of your repentance", in that more especially by the word and example of him who had merited forgiveness he was able to comfort or strengthen those who were weak in the faith. [Cf. Marsilius II.xxviii.7] This is their reply, concerning which I want to know whether it seems invalid to all who hold the opposite opinion.

Magister Videtur quibusdam apparentia non carere, quia ut videtur per illa verba Christi praecise non posset ostendi quod Christus fecerit beatum Petrum praelatum et principem aliorum. Et ideo si inveniantur sancti exponere verba illa de primatu Petri tenendum est quidem {quidam &Fr} quod sensus ille est verus, non tamen tanquam sensus literalis verborum illorum Christi sed tanquam sensus {om. &Fr} mysticus. Cuius veritas ex aliis verbis Christi literaliter intellectis potest sufficienter ostendi.

Master: To some it seems not to lack plausibility, because (it seems) by those words of Christ alone it could not be shown that Christ made blessed Peter prelate over and chief of the others. And therefore if saints are found to expound those words in connection with the primacy of Peter it should indeed be held that that is their true meaning, yet not as if that were the literal meaning of those words of Christ but their mystical meaning, whose truth can be adequately shown from other words of Christ understood literally.

CAP. XXII

Discipulus Adhuc aliquas sed paucas allegationes adducas ad probandum superioritatem Petri respectu aliorum apostolorum.

Fourth argument for Peter's superiority: constant belief from ancient times

Magister Hoc tali modo probatur. Quod a temporibus apostolorum usque ad tempora nostra praelati et doctores ecclesiae sibi continua serie succedentes et populi eius {*eis &Mz[940]} subiecti senserunt ab omnibus catholicis est tenendum firmiter. Haec scilicet maior {*scilicet maior: om. &LmMzFr[941]} auctoritate Augustini in libro contra Manicheos et habetur in decretis dist. 11. c. Palam videtur aperte posse probari cum dicit, "Palam est quod in re dubia ad fidem valeat auctoritas catholicae ecclesiae quae ab ipsis fundatissimis sedibus apostolorum usque ad hodiernum diem succedentium sibimet episcoporum serie et tot populorum consensione confirmatur."

Quae nihilominus quia quidam dicunt ut patet supra auctoritates aliorum quam scriptorum scripturae canonicae et generalium conciliorum non esse recipiendas {recipiendos &LmPz[]} ratione probatur. Nam etiam secundum contrarios universalis ecclesia errare non potest. Quare quod sensit et sentit universalis ecclesia firmiter est tenendum. Universalis autem ecclesia solummodo comprehendit praelatos ecclesiae et populos sibi subiectos. Quare quod praelati ecclesiae sibi continua serie succedentes et populi sibi subiecti a temporibus apostolorum usque ad tempora nostra senserunt firmiter est credendum. Sed praelati ecclesiae ab ipsis {*apostolis add. &MzFr[942]} usque ad haec tempora cum populis subiectis sibi {*trs. &FrMz} tenuerunt et senserunt Petrum fuisse superiorem aliis apostolis. Hoc tenuit Anacletus papa, ut allegatum est supra, qui in hoc veritatem non potuit ignorare. Beatus etiam Clemens papa apostolorum discipulus idem sensit. Qui, ut habetur dist. 80. c. In illis, ait, "Nec inter ipsos apostolos par fuit institutio sed unus praefuit omnibus", et non alius quam Petrus. Hoc etiam sentit Eusebius Caesariensis qui, quia in doctrinis traditionibus et scripturis illorum {*eorum &Fr[]} qui fuerunt discipuli apostolorum et a discipulis eisdem edocti fuit imbutus quid praecedentes senserint minime ignoravit. De quo nullo modo praesumendum est quod falsum scienter docuerit cui nullus praelatorum ecclesiae aut doctorum postea contradixit et per consequens omnes tacendo consenserunt eidem. Ait itaque in Ecclesiastica historia quam transtulit beatus Hieronymus lib. 2 capitulo decimo quarto, "Claudii temporibus clementia divinae providentiae probatissimum omnium Apostolorum {*et add. &LmMzFr[943]} maximum fidei magnificentia et virtutum {*virtutis &Zn[944]} merito primorum principem Petrum ad urbem {*Romam add. &Zn[945]} velut animadversum {*adversum &LmMzFrPz[946]} humani generis communem pernitiem repugnaturum deducit {*ducem add. &MzFr[947]} quendam {quemadmodum &Fr} et magistrum militiae suae scientem divina praelia gerere et virtutum castra ductare." [Rufinus, in Eusebius Werke, Bd. 2, Die Kirchengeschichte, Teil 1, ed. E. Schwartz, Leipzig, 1908, p. 139] Hoc sentit beatus Hieronymus et {*beatus &MzFr[948]} Ambrosius, beatus Augustinus, beatus Marcellus Papa, beatus Cyprianus {beatus Cyprianus om. &Fr}, sicut per auctoritates ipsorum in locis diversis superius allegatis {*allegatas &LmMzFr[949]} patet expresse. Ab omni autem verisimilitudine alienum videtur quod praedicti viri scripturarum canonicarum historiarum {et add. &Fr} cronicarum gestorum consuetudinum et traditionum universalis ecclesiae diligentissimi scrutatores nescierunt {*nescierint &Mz} quid circa rem tam necessariam toti ecclesiae Christi senserint apostoli et discipuli eorundem de quibus etiam est nullatenus praesumendum quod scienter falsum tenuerint {*docuerint &FrMz[950]}. Quare tenendum est quod assertio supradicta ab ipsis apostolis per cronicas et historias fide dignas quarum nos fortassis aliquas non habemus et per traditionem et consuetudinem universalis ecclesiae usque ad ipsos continuatam ad eosdem pervenit. Assertionem autem suprascriptam tenuerunt omnes alii praelati et doctores ecclesiae a temporibus {*tempore &LmMzFr[952]} beati Sylvestri usque ad tempora nostra, sicut multipliciter posset ostendi. Praemissis autem praelatis et doctoribus in eadem assertione catholici populi consenserunt quia nullus inventus est populus catholicus qui contradiceret eis. Ergo haec assertio est universali ecclesiae tribuenda {*ascribenda &Mz[953]} {ascribenda distribuenda &Fr[954]} et per consequens firmiter est tenenda.

Discipulus Forte dicent aliqui quod non omnes populi Christiani hoc senserunt. Nam fertur quod Graeci qui fuerunt Christiani et catholici antequam Romani, hoc non tenent et ita non omnes populi Christiani hoc usque ad tempora nostra crediderunt.

Magister Haec responsio ab aliis impugnatur. Nam Graeci dum erant catholici doctorum catholicorum sequentes doctrinam in hoc consenserunt. Non enim legitur et {*nec &LmMzFr[955]} videtur probabile quod populus Graecorum antequam dividerentur a Romana ecclesia secutus non fuerit doctrinam catholicorum doctorum {*graecorum add. &MzFr[956]}. Doctores autem ipsorum assertionem praedictam publice docuerunt et reliquerunt in scriptis {scripturis &Fr}. Eusebius enim Caesariensis qui Graecus fuit et in scriptis omnium doctorum Graecorum peritus, ut ex Ecclesiastica historia quam composuit liquido patet, hoc docuit et scripsit, ut ex supradictis patet. Ergo Graeci dum erant Catholici praedictam sententiam tenuerunt. Errores autem ipsorum postquam se a Romana ecclesia diviserunt allegationem praedictam nullo modo impediunt. Quare secundum Latinos tenendum est quod Petrus omnibus aliis erat superior.

Discipulus Aliter forte aliqui responderent ad allegationem praedictam dicentes quod quamvis omnes populi Christiani consenserint praelatis et doctoribus fidei {*om. &MzFr[957]} in assertione praescripta non tamen omnes de populo {*potest autem veritas fidei salvari in paucis de populo add. &MzFr[958]} ergo allegatio antescripta non procedit.

Magister Ista responsio per hoc refellitur quia secundum Apostolum ad Romanos 8 [10:10], "Corde creditur ad iustitiam ore autem fit confessio ad salutem", quando scilicet periclitatur fides. Non suffecisset igitur {*om. &FrMz} aliquibus paucis de populo {qui totum populum christianum add. &MzFr[959]} corde tenuisse assertionem contrariam, si esset catholica, nisi etiam ipsam ore publice contradicendo errantibus confessi fuissent. Cum ergo non legatur quod a temporibus apostolorum vel discipulorum eorundem usque ad tempora Patrum nostrorum quicunque etiam pauci de populis Christianis assertioni publice contradixerunt {contradixerint &Fr} memoratae, tenendum est quod eadem assertio universali ecclesiae debet asscribi. Universalis autem ecclesia nullo tempore etiam parvo errare potest contra fidem et in his quae iuris sunt pertinentia ad fidem vel bonos mores, licet secundum quosdam in his quae facti sunt scilicet habendo aliquem pro Papa vel {pro add. &Fr} bono viro licet non sit et in consimilibus, possit {posset &Fr} errare. Ergo praedicta assertio firmiter est credenda.

 

CAP. XXIII

Discipulus Adhuc pro ratione fundata {*pro ratione fundata: per rationem fundatam &FrLmMzPz} tamen {om. &Fr} in his quae sunt fidei {*et add. &FrLmMzPz} morum conare probare quod Petrus fuit caeteris Apostolis ex ordinatione Christi superior.

CHAPTER 23

Student Again try to prove, but through argument founded on matters of faith and morals, that Peter was by Christ's decree superior to the rest of the Apostles.

Fifth argument for Peter's superiority: Christ would not have left the Church headless

Magister Videtur quibusdam {*quod add. &FrLmMzPz} hoc {*potest add. &FrLmMzPz} tali modo posse *{ratione &FrMz} probari. Christus ab Apostolis et ecclesia corporaliter recessurus instituit caput et rectorem ecclesiae universalis qui secundum optimum modum regiminis ecclesiam gubernaret. Christus enim qui ecclesiae suae in necessariis non deficit {*defecit &FrMz} {et add. &LmPz} ecclesiam suam acephalam non reliquit. {relinquit &Fr} Nam habere caput est inter {tunc &Fr} caetera {om. &FrMz} maxime necessarium ecclesiae. {et sic &Fr} Ergo Christus aliquod caput dedit ecclesiae. Non autem instituit caput ecclesiae seu rectorem secundum debiliorem seu minus perfectum modum regiminis, ne facto videretur praecepisse ecclesiae quod caput secundum optimum {oppositum &Fr} modum regiminis minime sustinerent, cum omnis Christi actio sit nostra instructio. Optimus autem modus regiminis est regimen unius, ut unus omnes alios regat, quia talis modus regendi maxime principatui regali, qui est optimus secundum philosophos in hoc non errantes, et principatui paterno, qui est naturalis, assimilatur. Ergo Christus unum caput {om. &Mz} dedit universali ecclesiae et non plura, non autem alium quam Petrum, quia nunquam aliquis {alius &Fr} catholicus tenuit quod aliquis alius apostolus vel non apostolus {vel non apostolus: om. &Fr} fuit caput et princeps aliorum apostolorum. {*Petrus ergo fuit institutus a Christo caput universalis ecclesie et per consequens aliorum apostolorum. add. &FrMz}

Master It seems to some people that this can be proved by argument as follows. As he was about to withdraw bodily from the Apostles and the Church, Christ established a head and ruler of the universal Church who would govern the Church in accord with the best way of ruling. For Christ, who did not fail his Church in anything necessary, did not leave it without a head. For, among everything else, it is especially necessary for the Church to have a head. Christ, therefore, gave the Church some head. He did not, however, establish a head or ruler of the Church in accord with a weaker or less perfect way of rule, lest in doing so he would seem to have ordered the Church that it not maintain a head in accord with the best way of rule, since every action of Christ's is an instruction for us. The best way of rule, however, is the rule of one person, so that one person rules all the others, because such a way of ruling is especially like royal government, which is the best according to the philosophers, who are not mistaken in this matter, and like paternal government, which is natural. Christ therefore gave the universal Church one head and not many, and this one was no one but Peter, because no catholic has ever held that any other apostle or non-apostle was the head and chief of the other Apostles. Therefore Peter was appointed by Christ head of the universal Church and consequently of the other Apostles.

Haec allegatio confirmatur quia Christus fecit apostolos capita pastores et rectores aliorum fidelium etiam {*et &FrMz} secundum adversarios, sicut per praefationem apostolorum quam allegant aperte patet. Aut ergo praefecit aliquod caput collegio apostolorum et habetur intentum quia nullum alium praefecit illi quam Petrum, aut nullum caput praefecit apostolorum collegio quod absurdum videtur quia ex hoc plures absurditates sequerentur. Quarum prima est quod Christus collegium apostolorum reliquisset acephalum. Secunda est quod universalem ecclesiam non secundum dispositionem optimam ordinasset, quia tunc solummodo est aliqua societas seu communitas optime ordinata quando habet unum caput et regitur ab uno et non a pluribus eo quod simpliciter melius est regi ab uno quam a pluribus etiam optimis, quemadmodum principatus regalis secundum philosophum est principatui aristocratico praeferendus. Tertia est quod Christus ex hoc {*quo &FrLmMzPz} ecclesiam docuisset *{trs. &FrMz} nec uni praelato nec uni collegio debere subesse quia Christus non praefecit apostolos aliis fidelibus tanquam collegium sed tanquam singulares personas. Dispergendi enim erant apostoli in universum orbem ad regendum fideles minime congregandi, et ideo tanquam collegium non regebant. Cum {*quando &Mz} enim aliqui {et ideo ... aliqui: quando enim aliqui &Fr} aliquid faciunt tanquam collegium simul esse debent. Si ergo Christus Petrum non praefecit universali {universe &Mz} ecclesiae et multominus aliquem alium apostolum sed solummodo praefecit apostolos tanquam singulares personas, exemplum dedit ecclesiae ut nec uni praelato nec uni collegio obediret.

This argument is confirmed, because even according to the opponents, Christ made the Apostles heads, shepherds and rulers of the other faithful, as is quite clear from the preface of the Apostles which they bring forward. [See above.] Either he appointed some head for the college of Apostles, therefore -- and then the point is won, since he did not appoint any other head for it except Peter; or he appointed no head for the college of Apostles -- and this seems absurd, because many absurdities would follow from it. The first of these is that Christ would have left the college of Apostles without a head. The second is that he would not have regulated the universal Church according to the best arrangement, because then only is any society or community best regulated when it has one head and is ruled by one person and not by many, in that it is simply best to be ruled by one rather than by many, even by the best, just as according to the philosopher royal government should be preferred to aristocratic government. The third is that by this means Christ would have taught the Church that it should not be under one prelate or one college, because Christ did not place the Apostles in authority over the other faithful as a college but as individual persons. For the Apostles had to be scattered throughout the whole world to rule the faithful, not gathered together, and therefore they did not rule as a college. For when some do something as a college they ought to be together. If Christ did not place Peter in authority over the universal Church, therefore, and much less any other apostle, but only placed the Apostles in authority as individual persons, he gave an example to the Church so that it would obey neither one prelate nor one college.

Objections to the fifth argument

CAP. XXIV

Discipulus Praedicta forte aliqui impugnarent. Primo quia licet regimen unius de se sit optimum tamen {non &Lm} aliquando per accidens et in casu non est optimum quia quando sunt plures aequales vel nullus {om. &FrMz} omnes alios meritis et sapientia {non add. &FrMz} excedit non expedit ut unus {aliis add. &Fr} omnibus aliis praesit. Hoc, ut quibusdam videtur, ex multis quae allegata sunt {supra &Fr} secundo huius {?sit add. &Fr} potest aperte probari. quod {*om. &FrMz} Petrus {*autem add. &FrMz} meritis et sapientia omnes alios nullatenus praecellebat. Sapientia enim videtur minor fuisse Paulo. Meritis autem Iohanne videtur fuisse inferior {minor &Fr}. Ergo communitas fidelium non fuit {*fuerit Sc} optime ordinata si Petrus fuisset a Christo {*caput add. &FrMz} caeterorum apostolorum et omnium fidelium caput {*om. &FrMz} institutus.

CHAPTER 24

Student Perhaps some people would oppose the above [argument], firstly because although the rule of one person is best in itself, yet sometimes, accidentally and in a particular case, it is not best, because when many are equal or none excels all the others in merits and wisdom it is not appropriate that one be in command of all the others. It seems to some people that this can be clearly proved by many [arguments] which were brought forward in the second [book] of this [tractate]. Peter, however, did not excel all the others in merits and wisdom, for he seems to have been inferior to Paul in wisdom and to John in merits. The community of the faithful would not have been best ordered, therefore, if Peter had been appointed by Christ as head of the rest of the Apostles and all the faithful.

Amplius Christus recedens corporaliter ab ecclesia ipsam in optima conditione reliquit quantum permittit haec vita, sed melius est ut ecclesia habeat potestatem mutandi modum regendi quandocunque {quam &Fr} {*quandoque &Mz} expedit quam quod {quam quod: ut &FrMz} alligetur determinato {determinate &Mz} modo regendi eo quod quilibet modus regendi in pluribus casibus potest esse nocivus vel minus utilis, quemadodum principatus regalis, qui est unius {unus &FrMz}, quamvis de se sit optimus tamen in multis casibus magis expedit quod plures principentur aristocratice quam unus regaliter. Christus ergo non dedit unum caput ecclesiae nec Petrum nec alium sed dedit ecclesiae potestatem instituendi sibi unum caput vel plura secundum quod ei expedire videtur.

Further, when Christ withdrew bodily from the Church he left it in the best condition which this life permits. But it is best that the Church should have the power of changing its way of ruling whenever it is expedient to do so than that it be bound to a prescribed way of ruling, because any way of ruling can be harmful or less useful in many cases, just as although royal government, which is rule of one, is in itself the best, yet it is in many cases more expedient that several should rule aristocratically than one royally. Christ did not give the Church one head, therefore, neither Peter nor any other, but gave the Church the power of establishing for itself one head or many according to what seems advantageous for it.

Replies to objections to fifth argument

Magister {om. &Mz} [[gap left]]: Ad primum istorum respondetur quod licet regulariter non expedit {*expediat &FrMz} ut unus principetur pro tota vita sua sibi aequalibus nec principatus unius in tali casu sit regulariter optimus tamen casualiter potest principatus unius esse optimus, in tali casu, scilicet si inaequales {*aequales &FrMz} sint tales quod de eis probabiliter praesumatur quod prompte ac sponte seu voluntarie in omnibus licitis et iustis *{trs.321 &FrMz}, prout expedit, velint {velit &Lm} obedire uni licet etiam sit meritis et sapientia minor. Causa enim {autem &Fr} secundum aliquos quare non expedit ut aliquis principetur sibi similibus et aequalibus est ne subiecti valeant dicere colorate iniustum est aequalem eis dominari et ipsos subesse. Haec autem causa locum non habet si aequales vel maiores ex humilitate vel obedientia aut amore rei publicae vel communis utilitatis prompte et sponte velint subesse. Apostoli autem scientes ordinationem Christi ex humilitate et obedientia promptissimi erant obedire Petro pro toto tempore vitae suae. Et ideo licet apostoli etiam omnes fuissent aequales vel maiores Petro melius fuit ut ipse praeesset aliis apostolis et universis fidelibus quam ut praeessent plures. De aliis enim ab apostolis et maxime illis qui proni erant ad dissensionem et inobedientiam planum apparet quod Petrus meritis et sapientia praecessit {praecesserit &Fr} eos et ideo debuerunt rationabiliter esse subiecti.

Master The reply to the first of these is that although it is not as a rule advantageous that for the whole of his life one man should rule those who are his equals, and the government of one man is not as a rule best in such a case, yet on occasion the government of one man can be best, namely in the following case: if the equals are such that it may probably be presumed about them that they would be willing readily and willingly or voluntarily to obey one man, even if he is inferior to them in merits and wisdom, in everything that is permitted and just, as is useful. For, according to some people, the reason why it is not appropriate that someone rule those who are similar and equal to him is lest the subjects can plausibly say that it is unjust for their equal to rule them and for them to be subordinate. This reason is not relevant, however, if out of humility or obedience or love of the republic or the common advantage, those who are equal or greater readily and willingly want to be subordinate. Knowing Christ's decree, however, the Apostles were very ready out of humility and obedience to obey Peter for the whole of his life. And therefore, even if every one of the Apostles had bee equal to or greater than Peter, it was better that he should be in authority over the other Apostles and all the faithful than that many of them should be in authority. For it is quite clear about the others apart from the Apostles, especially those who were prone to dissension and disobedience, that Peter surpassed them in merits and wisdom, and therefore it was reasonable that they ought to be his subjects.

Ad secundum respondetur quod Christus instituendo Petrum caput omnium fidelium ecclesiam suam in optima dispositione quo ad genus regendi reliquit quia, eligendo et praeficiendo unum cunctis fidelibus, facto docuit ecclesiam quod optimum genus regendi, ut scilicet sit unum {*sit unum: unus sit &FrMz} caput et rector omnium, debet omnino servare si potest absque detrimento boni communis. Plus autem profuit ecclesiae quod Christus qui scivit certissime quis esset magis idoneus ad regendum praefecit Petrum quam si ecclesia quae non nisi per coniecturam scire potuit maiorem idoneitatem {idonietatem &Mz} ipsius elegisset {eligisset &Fr} eundem. Christus itaque secundum quosdam praeficiendo unum alligavit ecclesiam suam optimo generi regiminis extra casum manifestae necessitatis et {*vel &FrLmMzPz} utilitatis. Praeficiendo autem {om. &Fr} non quemcunque unum sed Petrum, qui vel in ecclesia {*in ecclesia: erat &FrMz} simpliciter optimus inter omnes vel optimus et maxime idoneus est {*om. &FrLmMzPz} ad regendum, innuit facto quod non totaliter {*taliter &FrMz} ecclesiam suam optimo generi {*regiminis add. &FrLmMzPz} obligavit quin in casu manifestae necessitatis vel utilitatis posset illum modum *{trs. &FrMz} regendi omittere vel mutare, nullum scilicet eligendo vel eligendo plures, si id {unum vel alicuius &FrMz} communitati fidelium manifeste *{trs.312 &FrMz} expediret vel aliquod illorum facere cogeretur, sicut aliquando oportuit fideles dimittere per plures annos vacare apostolicam sedem. Unde sicut legitur in Legenda sancti Marcellini {Marcelli &Fr} Papae et martyris temporibus Diocletiani et Maximiniani {*Maximiani &FrMz} Imperatorum quod {*om. &FrLmMzPz} post mortem praedicti Marcellini Papae {*propter add. &Fr} [[in margin]] severitate {*severitatem &FrMz} persecutionis per praefatos imperatores in Christianos agitante {*agitate &FrMz} vacavit sedes apostolica annis septem mensibus sex diebus viginti quinque. Cessante tamen necessitate vel utilitate ad optimum modum regendi, ut {*scilicet add. &FrMz} unus sit caput universalis et rector, redire tenentur {tenetur &Fr} et {om. &Fr} ideo Christus praeficiendo Petrum omnibus ecclesiam suam quo ad genus regiminis in optima dispositione reliquit.

The reply to the second is that by appointing Peter as head of all the faithful Christ bequeathed to his Church the best arrangement with respect kind of rule, because, by choosing and putting one in charge of all the faithful, he taught the Church by that act that, if it can do so without detriment to the common good, it should wholly preserve the best kind of rule, namely that one should be head and ruler of all. It was more beneficial to the Church, however, that Christ, who most certainly knew who would be more suitable for ruling, set Peter in authority than if the Church, which could have known his greater suitability only by guessing, had elected him. And so some people say that by setting up one man in authority Christ bound his Church to the best kind of rule except in a case of manifest necessity or advantage. By setting up in authority, however, not just anyone at all, but Peter, who was either simply the best of all or the best and most suitable for ruling, he indicated by that deed that he did not bind his Church to the best kind of rule in such a way that it could not, in a case of manifest necessity or advantage, give up or change that way of ruling, namely by choosing no one or by choosing many men, if it were clearly advantageous to the community of the faithful or if it were forced to do one of those things, as it has sometimes been fitting for the faithful to allow the apostolic see to be vacant for many years. [How did Christ by choosing Peter indicate that the Church might sometimes have no head or several heads? Perhaps the point is that Christ chose the best person, and not just anyone at all for the sake of having a head, any head -- suggesting that when no one person is best or good enough no single person should be chosen as head.] Whence, as we read in the Legend of St. Marcellin, Pope and Martyr, after the death of that pope, Marcellin, in the times of the emperors Diocletian and Maximianus the apostolic see was vacant for seven years six months and twenty five days because of the severity of the persecution conducted by those emperors against christians. When the necessity or advantage comes to an end, however, they are bound to return to the best way of ruling, namely that one man should be universal head and ruler, and therefore by setting Peter in authority over everyone Christ bequeathed to his Church the best arrangement with respect to kind of rule.

CAP. XXV

Discipulus Puto quod {om. &Fr} si praedicta quibus ostenditur quod Petrus fuisset superior aliis apostolis possent solvi omnia alia quae pro eodem allegari possunt de facili refelli valerent. Ideo causa brevitatis omissis aliis qualiter ista assertio ad allegationes quae supra primo capitulo huius quarti {quarte &Fr} sunt inductae respondeat non differas indicare.

CHAPTER 25

Student I think that if the above [arguments] by which it is shown that Peter was superior to the other Apostles could be refuted, every other [argument] that can be brought forward for the same [conclusion] would be able to be disproved easily. Leaving aside the others for the sake of brevity, therefore, do not hesitate to indicate how that assertion replies to the arguments brought forward above in the first chapter of this fourth book.

Reply from the standpoint of those who assert Peter's superiority to the arguments in favour of Marsilius' opinion

Magister Ad primam illarum quae de potestate conficiendi corpus Christi procedit respondetur quod potestas conficiendi corpus Christi omnibus apostolis quos Christus ante passionem suam elegit {eligit &Pz} data fuit immediate a Christo quia ipse eos sacerdotes ordinaverat {*ordinaverit &FrLmMzPz} et quantum ad hanc potestatem omnes apostoli erant pares, quemadmodum nunc omnes sacerdotes in hoc sunt apostolico pares licet ex causa valeat apostolicus sacerdotibus interdicere executionem huius potestatis.

Master To the first of them, which is derived from the power of making the body of Christ, the reply is that the power of making the body of Christ was given directly by Christ to all the Apostles whom Christ chose before his passion, because he ordained them priests, and with respect to this power all the Apostles were equal, just as now all priests are equal in this to the apostolic [i.e., the pope], although for a reason the pope can forbid priests the exercise of this power.

Ad aliam de potestate clavium dicitur a quibusdam quod apostoli omnes ex speciali privilegio Christi fuerunt pares beato Petro inquantum claves peccata specialiter in foro poenitentiali respiciunt. In aliis autem fuerunt inferiores eo. Christus ergo {*igitur &FrMz} quando dixit omnibus apostolis, "Sicut misit me pater" etc, tanquam praelatus et superior Petro omnes etiam misit {iussit &FrMz} et omnibus potestatem dedit super peccata quos tamen postea beato Petro subiecit absque tamen revocatione illorum quae eis in speciali concesserat. Et ideo quamvis tunc non dixerit Petro, {om. &Fr} "Mitto te et tu alios mitte", quia tunc non fecit eum praelatum aliorum, tamen postea cum {*quando &FrLmMzPz} dixit, "Pasce oves meas", dedit ei potestatem mittendi alios qui non erant specialiter missi a Christo quos tamen ex causa iusta et necessaria posset certis provinciis deputare.

To another [argument], about the power of the keys, it is said by some people that because of a particular privilege from Christ all of the Apostles were equal with blessed Peter, in as much as the keys relate to sins, particularly in the penitential forum. In other matters, however, they were inferior to him. When Christ said to all the Apostles, therefore, "As the father sent me" etc, he as the prelate and superior of Peter also sent them all and gave them power over sins. He later subjected them to blessed Peter, yet without revoking those [powers] which he had granted to them in particular. And therefore although he did not say to Peter at that time, "I send you and you send the others", because at that time he did not make him prelate of the others, yet afterwards when he said, "Feed my sheep", he did give him the power of sending others who had not been particularly sent by Christ and whom he could for a just and necessary reason allot to certain provinces.

Ad aliam allegationem sumptam ex verbis Pauli ad Gal. 2:[6] respondetur quod intentio Pauli cum dicit, "Mihi enim qui videbantur aliquid esse nihil contulerunt" etc, fuit quod Paulus quantum ad doctrinam non fuit inferior {non fuit inferior: suam non habuit neque a &Fr} Petro {*quia doctrinam suam non habuit neque a petro add. &Mz} neque {*a add. &FrMz} reliquis apostolis nec fuit primo missus ad praedicandum a Petro, quia antea praedicavit tanquam immediate missus a Christo, cum quo tamen stat quod in aliis fuit inferior Petro. Et ideo conceditur quod officium praedicandi sive apostolatus Paulus non suscepit a Petro sed ex hoc non sequitur quod Petrus non fuit praelatus eius, sicut multi religiosi praedicatores verbi Dei tempore Clementis Papae V vel Bonifacii VIII non habuerunt officium praedicandi a Bonifacio Papa vel Clemente et tamen Bonifacius Papa aut Clemens fuit praelatus eorum quia habuerunt officium praedicandi a praedecessore vel praedecessoribus. Si {*sic &FrLmMzPz} Paulus recepit officium praedicandi a praedecessore Petri, scilicet Christo.

To another argument, taken from the words of Paul in Galatians 2:6, the reply is that Paul's intention when he says, "For those who seemed to be something contributed nothing to me" etc, was that he was not inferior to Peter in respect of his teaching because he received his teaching neither from Peter nor from the rest of the Apostles and he was not first sent out to preach by Peter, because before that he preached as sent directly by Christ. Yet it is consistent with this that in other matters he was inferior to Peter. And it is granted, therefore, that Paul did not receive the office of preaching or of the apostolate from Peter. But it does not follow from this that Peter was not his prelate, just as many religious preachers of the word of God in the time of Pope Clement V or Boniface VIII did not receive their office of preaching from Pope Boniface or Clement, and yet Pope Boniface or Clement was their prelate, because they received their office of preaching from his predecessor or predecessors. In the same way Paul received his office of preaching from Peter's predecessor, namely Christ.

Ad auctoritatem ibidem adductam secundum Augustinum respondetur quia secundum Augustinum Petrus et alii apostoli qui fuerunt cum Domino nihil contulerunt, id est addiderunt, Paulo quantum ad doctrinam evangelicam. Et ideo in doctrina non fuit inferior Petro ac {*et &FrMz} aliis apostolis quia a Domino fuit ita perfectus in doctrina quod perfectioni {perfectione &LmPz} suae doctrinae nihil addere potuerunt. Qui tamen quo ad multa alia sibi addere valuerunt {valuerint &Mz}, sicut {si ut &Lm} et de facto addiderunt {addiderint &LmPz} cum dederunt sibi et Barnabae dexteras {*dextras &FrMz} *{trs.312 &FrLmMzPz} societatis. Inferioritas ergo quam negat Augustinus a Paulo est solummodo inferioritas doctrinae evangelicae de qua loquitur ibi Paulus. Et ideo conceditur illud quod isti concludunt quod quodammodo aeque principaliter missus fuit Paulus quemadmodum et Petrus, scilicet ad praedicandum, quia quando primo fuit missus ad praedicandum non fuit missus neque a Petro neque ab aliquo alio homine. Et hoc intendit apostolus cum dicit 1 c.[:1], "Paulus Apostolus non ab hominibus neque per hominem", etc.

To the text of Augustine brought forward there, the reply is that according to Augustine Peter and the other Apostles who were with the Lord contributed, that is added, nothing to Paul in regard to the teaching of the gospel. And therefore he was not inferior to Peter and the other Apostles in teaching because he was made so perfect in teaching by the Lord that they could have added nothing to the perfection of his teaching. Yet in respect of many other things they could add to him, as in fact they did add to him when they gave the right hand of fellowship to him and Barnabas [Gal. 2:9]. The inferiority, therefore, which Augustine denies of Paul is only the inferiority in the teaching of the gospel about which Paul is speaking in that place. And what they conclude, therefore, is granted, that in a certain way "Paul was sent equally principally as Peter" [see above], namely to preach, because when he was first sent to preach he was sent neither by Peter nor by any other man. And the apostle means this when he says in Galatians 1:1, "Paul an apostle, sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities", etc.

Et sic dicitur intelligenda Glossa Ambrosii ibidem allegata quia tunc apostolus non fuit missus ab Anania neque {*nec &FrMz} ab aliquo alio puro homine. Ex qua Glossa notatur quod apostolus loquitur ibidem de sua prima missione quando aliqui poterant putare eum missum fuisse ab Anania a quo tunc extitit baptizatus. Et sic etiam de prima missione dicitur {*esse add. &Fr} intelligenda Glossa quae idem {*ibidem &FrMz} secundum Augustinum consequenter adducitur quia Paulus tunc non fuit missus ab aliquo homine mortali sicut caeteri apostoli sed a Christo, qui tunc extitit immortalis, et secundum hoc habuit {habet &Fr} quandam praerogativam supra alios {*apostolos add. &FrMz}, quorum tamen non erat praelatus. Et ideo {*sicut add. &FrMz} ex verbis Augustini non potest ostendi quod Paulus auctoritate fuit superior Petro, quamvis dicat quod Paulus fuerit {*fuerat &FrLmMzPz} dignior, ita ex eodem {eadem &Fr} non potest ostendi quod non fuerit inferior auctoritate. Quare a simili licet inveniatur dictum a sanctis quod Paulus fuerit par Petro non potest, tamen {om. &FrMz} inveniri quod Paulus fuerit {fuerat &FrMz} par {*petro add. &FrMz} quantum ad praelationem quia sufficit quod fuerit {fuerat &Fr} par quantum ad aliqua alia, puta quantum ad doctrinam et auctoritatem praedicandi -- in hoc quod non habuit {habuerit &Mz} primo auctoritatem praedicandi a Petro nec mediate nec immediate sed a Christo -- et quo ad alia plura, quia, sicut non omnes qui dicuntur similes in omnibus sunt similes *{trs.3412 &FrMz}, sic {sicut &FrMz} nec omnes qui dicuntur pares sunt pares in omnibus.

And it is said that the gloss by Ambrose brought forward there should be understood in that way because at that time the Apostle was sent neither by Ananias nor by anyone else who was purely a man. The gloss notes that at that point the Apostle is talking about his first mission, when some men could have thought that he had been sent by Ananias by whom he had at that time been baptised. And in the same way it is said too that it is about his first mission that the gloss taken from Augustine, consequently brought forward at that place, should be understood, because at the time Paul was not sent by any mortal man, as the rest of the Apostles were, but by Christ who was then immortal, and for this reason he had a certain privilege above the other Apostles, yet without being their prelate. And therefore, just as it can not be shown from Augustine's words that Paul was superior in authority to Peter, even if he says that Paul had been worthier, so it can not be shown from that same [text] that he was not inferior in authority. By a similar [argument] therefore, although the saints are found to have said that Paul was equal to Peter, nevertheless we can not find that Paul was equal to Peter with respect to his prelacy, because it is enough that he was equal with respect to some other matters, such as with respect to teaching and to his authority to preach -- in that he did not originally receive his authority to preach from Peter, either directly or indirectly, but from Christ -- and with respect to many other matters, because, just as not all people who are said to be similar are similar in everything, so not all people who are said to be equal are equal in everything.

Et eodem modo respondetur ad auctoritatem aliam *{trs. &FrMz} apostoli cum dicit, "Notum vobis facio evangelium" etc, quia ex hoc sequitur quod Paulus immediate missus fuit *{trs.312 &FrMz} a Christo, quem nec Petrus nec alius apostolus tunc elegit nam Christus {nam Christus: nisi &FrMz} tantum misit aut iniunxit Paulo ministerium evangelii, sed ex hoc non sequitur quod non fuit {?fuerit &Fr} subiectus Petro, quemadmodum ex hoc quod Deus immediate saepe misit Esaiam et alios prophetas ad praedicandum et increpandum idolatras et alios impios inferri non potest quod non fuerint {fuerunt &Fr} auctoritate inferiores summo Pontifice aut supremo rectore {rectori &Fr} populi Israelitici. Qualem autem potestatem et in quibus habuerit {habuit &Fr} Petrus super Paulum et alios apostolos postea valebis inquirere.

And the same kind of response is made to another text of the apostle when he says [Gal. 1:11], "I want you to know that the gospel" etc, because it follows from this that Paul was sent directly by Christ and that neither Peter nor another apostle at that time chose him, for it was Christ alone who sent Paul or enjoined the service of the gospel on him, but it does not follow from this that he was not subject to Peter, just as from the fact that God often directly sent Isaiah and other prophets to preach and to rebuke idolaters and other impious men it can not be inferred that they were not inferior in authority to the high priest or the supreme ruler of the Israelite people. You will be able to ask later, however, what kind of power Peter had over Paul and the other Apostles and in what matters.

Ad aliam allegationem, quae in hoc consistit quod non invenitur in scriptura Petrum sibi assumpsisse aliqualem {*aliquam &FrLmMz} potestatem super caeteros apostolos sed magis cum ipsis aequalitatem servasse, respondetur quod multa fecerunt apostoli quae non {sunt nec add. &Fr} reperiuntur in Biblia quorum tamen multa licet non omnia ad nos per scripturas discipulorum apostolorum et aliorum fidelium pervenerunt. Et ideo licet ex scripturis canonicis {*vel add. &FrLmMzPz} contra protervos efficaciter {*vel veraciter &FrLmMzPz} non posset convinci {conveniri &Lm} quod Petrus usus fuit auctoritate sibi concessa super apostolos sed magis de facto aequalitatem servavit {servaverit &FrMz} non tamen propter hoc esset dicendum ipsum non fuisse huiusmodi usum *{trs. &FrMz} potestate. Nec ex hoc quod legitur aliquando ipsum servasse aequalitatem cum aliis potest inferri quod nunquam sua fuerit usus auctoritate seu potestate, quia sancti praelati saepe exemplo Christi, qui praelatus existens venit ministrare, suam potestatem {exerceret add. &Fr} nequaquam exercent {om. &Fr} sed tamquam servos {suos &FrMz} vel etiam inferiores se exhibent sibi subiectis. An autem assumpserit {sumpserit &Lm} sibi auctoritatem determinandi illa quae erant dubia circa evangelium vel voluerit in hoc deferre Iacobo aut toti collegio cuius erat pars postea poterimus investigare *{trs. &FrMz}. Quod enim saltem toti collegio poterit {*potuerit &FrMz} fidelium *{trs. &FrMz} in hoc deferre aut etiam tenebatur multi tenentes praelatum fuisse universorum concedunt quia, ut multi {om. &Fr} dicunt, in causa fidei summus praelatus fidelium est inferior universali ecclesia et etiam concilio generali.

To another argument, which consists in this, that we do not find in scripture that Peter assumed any power over the rest of the Apostles but rather preserved equality with them, the reply is that the Apostles did many things which are not found in the Bible, many of which, although not all, have reached us through the writings of the disciples of the Apostles and others of the faithful. And therefore although it could not be demonstrated from the canonical scriptures against the last-ditch objector, or indeed truly, that Peter used the authority granted to him over the Apostles but rather that in fact he preserved equality, nevertheless it should not on this account be said that he did not use this power. Nor can it be inferred from the fact that we read that he sometimes preserved equality with others that he never used his authority or power, because holy prelates, following the example of Christ who despite being a prelate came to serve, often do not exercise their power but present themselves to those subject to them as servants or even as inferiors. We will be able to investigate later, however, whether he assumed to himself the authority to determine doubtful questions about the gospel or whether in this matter he wanted to defer to James and the whole college of which he was part. For many people who hold that he was everyone's prelate grant at least that he could have deferred to the whole college of the faithful in this matter -- or was even bound to do so -- because, as many say, on an issue of faith the highest prelate of the faithful is inferior to the whole Church and even to a general council.

CAP. XXVI

Discipulus Dic an videatur aliquibus quod in aliquo authentico valeat reperiri quod Petrus fuerit aliquando {*trs. &FrMz} usus potestate sua super alios apostolos.

CHAPTER 26

Student Tell me whether it seems to some people that we can find in any authentic [writing] that Peter sometimes used his power over the other Apostles.

Magister Nonnullis apparet quod hoc ex verbis {beati add. &Fr} Clementis, qui gesta beati Petri minime ignoravit, colligitur evidenter qui, ut habetur dist. 80, {81 &Mz} c. In illis, ait, {om. &Mz} "In illis vero civitatibus, in quibus olim apud ethnicos primi flamines eorum atque primi {prime &LmPz} legis doctores erant, episcoporum primates vel patriarchas beatus Petrus poni praecepit, qui reliquorum episcoporum causas et maiora negocia in fide agitarent. In illis autem, in quibus dudum apud praedictos ethnicos erant eorum archiflamines, quos tamen minores tenebant quam memoratos primates, archiepiscopos institui praecepit. {*In singulis vero reliquis civitatibus singulos, et non plures episcopos constitui precepit add. &FrMzZn}, qui episcoporum tantum vocabula sortirentur {*potirentur &Zn}." Ex quibus verbis habetur quod beatus Petrus de facto disposuit non solum de episcopis et archiepiscopis sed etiam de supremis primatibus et patriarchis qui erant in ecclesia Dei. Supremi autem et primi primates seu patriarchae, quibus vocabulis idem importatur ut {*et &LmPz} eodem loco habetur, successores sunt apostolorum. Nam, ut ait Lucius Papa ut {et &LmPz} recitatur eadem dist. 80. c. Urbes, "In ipsis vero urbibus apostoli eorum successores patriarchas et primates posuerunt." In quibus verbis Lucius Papa patriarchas et primates apostolorum successores appellat. Patet igitur ex supradictis quod beatus Petrus aliquando fuit usus sua auctoritate in alios apostolos {quibus vocabulis idem importatur ... apostolos: hic deficit aliqualis copia huius partis &FrMz}.

Master It seems to some people that we gather this clearly from the words of Clement, who was not ignorant of the deeds of blessed Peter and who says, as we find in dist. 80, c. In illis [c.2, col.280], "Indeed in those cities in which formerly among the pagans were their first priests and the first teachers of the law, blessed Peter ordered that the primates or patriarchs of bishops should be placed who would deliberate upon the cases of the remaining bishops and the more important matters of faith. In those [cities], however, in which the high priests of the pagans used formerly to be, he ordered archbishops to be established, who were held as less important than the aforesaid primates. [[Despite word order this adjectival clause surely goes with bishops not flamens]] In each of the remaining cities he ordered that single, not many, bishops be appointed and these received only the name of bishop." We know from these words that blessed Peter in fact arranged not only for the bishops and archbishops but also for the supreme primates and patriarchs who were in the Church of God. But the supreme and first primates or patriarchs (their names imply the same thing and they are have the same role) are the successors of the Apostles, for as Pope Lucius says (as is reported in the same dist. 80, c. Urbes [c.1, col.279]), "Indeed in those towns the Apostles established their successors, the patriarchs and primates" -- in these words Pope Lucius calls the patriarchs and primates the successors of the Apostles. It is clear from the above, therefore, that blessed Peter sometimes used his authority over the other Apostles.

Return to Table of Contents