William of Ockham, Dialogus
part 3, tract 1, book 4, chapters 23-26.

CAP. XXIII Discipulus Adhuc pro ratione fundata {*pro ratiowne 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 Try to prove, still through the established argument, but in matters of faith and morals, that Peter was by Christ's decree superior to the rest of the apostles.
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} 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. 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 optime ordinata si Petrus fuisset a Christo {*caput add. &FrMz} caeterorum apostolorum et omnium fidelium caput {*om. &FrMz} institutus.	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 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 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 established by Christ head of the universal church and consequently of the other apostles. 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. Either he appointed some head for the college of apostles, therefore, and the point is made that 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 at that time any society or community was best regulated only 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 any people do something as a college they ought to do it 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. CHAPTER 24 Student Perhaps some people would oppose the above [arguments], 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 no one 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 established 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, so that it is [[add not?]] 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 one [way], is in itself the best [way], yet it is more expedient in many cases that more should rule aristocratically than that one should rule 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.
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 in such a case the government of one man is not as a rule best, yet the government of one man can be best by chance, in the following case for instance, if equals are such that it may probably be presumed about them that readily and willingly or voluntarily they want to obey one man, even if he is inferior to them in merits and wisdom, in everything that is permitted and just, as is appropriate. 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, although all the apostles were 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 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. 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.	The reply to the second is that by establishing Peter as head of all the faithful Christ bequeathed to his church the best arrangement with respect to how it was ruled, 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 what was more suitable for ruling, set Peter in authority than if the church, which could have known only by guessing that this was most suitable for it, had made the same choice. 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 anyone at all but Peter, who was either simply the best of all or the best and most suitable for ruling, he intimated by that deed that he did not bind his church in such a way to the best kind of rule 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 [[What about readings of FrMz?]] or if it were forced to do one of those things [[is this right?]], as it has sometimes been fitting for the faithful to allow the apostolic see to be vacant for many years. 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. 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 exhibited above in the first chapter of this fourth book.
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 consuming the body of Christ, the reply is that the power of consuming 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 all the apostles were equal with respect to this power, just as now all priests are equal in this apostolic [?function], although for a reason the pope can forbid priests the execution 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 with respect to the keys; they have regard for sins, particularly in their penitential jurisdiction. 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 power over sins to all those whom he later subjected 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 he preached he was sent as it were directly by Christ. Yet it is still the case with him 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. 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.	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 add 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 Paul's sending was to a certain extent equal to that of Peter's and was chiefly 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. 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 by 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, nevertheless 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, although he says that Paul had been worthier, so it can not be shown from that same [text] that he was 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 had been 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 impiios 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 the other 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. 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.	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 shameless, 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. 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 bishops and archbishops but also for the supreme primates and patriarchs who were in the church of God. The supreme and first primates or patriarchs, however, by whose names the same thing is implied and who are found in the same place, are the successors of the apostles. For as Pope Lucius says, as we find 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 against the other apostles.