William of Ockham, Dialogus
part 3, tract 2, book 1, chapters 18-31

Text and translation by John Scott.

Copyright (c) 1999, The British Academy

CAP. XVIII

{cap. xviii: om. &Pe} Discipulus Postquam disputative {*et recitative add. &MdMzNaPePzRe} quaesivimus an expediret {*expediat &MdMzNaPeRe} mundo uni imperatori subesse et quibus virtutibus imperator mundi praecellere {*praepollere &NaRe} debet {*debeat &NaRe} {*trs. &MdMzNaPeRe}, ad Romanum imperium descendamus, inquirentes {querentes &Mz} primo a quo Romanum processit imperium, utrum videlicet fuerit {fuit &Pe} {trs. &Pe} ab hominibus vel {an &Mz} a {ex &Mz} Deo.

Chapter 18

Student After we have sought to learn by way of discussion and recitation whether it is appropriate for the world to be under one emperor and by what virtues the emperor of the world ought to be distinguished, let us come to the Roman empire, asking first from what the Roman empire has come, whether, that is, it is from men or from God.

What is the source of the Roman Empire?

Magister Una est opinio quod imperium {*romanum add. &MzNaRe} fuit a Deo {trs.312 &Pe} constitutum {*institutum &MdMzNaPeRe} et non ab hominibus {trs.23451 &Md}. Alia {secunda &Md} est quod fuit {sit &Mz} primo constitutum {institutum &Ly} a Deo et tamen per homines scilicet per Romanos {*primo ... romanos: ex hominibus scilicet a populo romano &NaRe} {primo ... romanos: ab hominibus scilicet a papa romano &Mz} {primo ... Romanos: ab hominibus et a papa romano /add. institutum Pe\ &MdPePz}. Tertia opinio {*om. &MdMzNaPeRe} est quod verum imperium Romanum fuit a Papa. Dicunt {dicit &Mz} enim quod Constantinus Magnus postquam fuit conversus ad fidem catholicam {om. &Pe} {*trs. &MzNaRe} illam inordinatam potestatem qua {quae &Pe} forte {foret &NaRe} [[?omission sign &Re]] {*foris &Mz} antea allegative {*illegitime &MzNaPeRe} utebatur {trs. &Md} humiliter ecclesiae resignavit, scilicet {constantinus &MdPe} summo Pontifici, et recepit iterum {intus &MzNa} {inter &Re} a Christi vicario {om. &Mz}, successore scilicet {*videlicet &MzNaRe} {sancti &Md} {*beati add. &NaRe} Petri {petro &Mz}, ordinatam divinitus potestatem imperii, qua {quia &Re} deinceps ad vindictam malefactorum laudem vero bonorum {beatorum &Re} legitime uteretur, et qui prius utebatur {*abutebatur &NaRe} potestate permissa deinde fungeretur auctoritate concessa. Dicunt igitur isti quod antequam Constantinus reciperet Romanum imperium a successore beati Petri non {*fuit add. &MzNaPeRe} verum imperium habuit {non &Md} {*om. &MzNaPeRe} sed {*om. &NaRe} {*ymo add. &Re} [[margin]] usurpatum ab hominibus et permissum a Deo, non concessum nec {neque &MzNa} ordinatum {*a deo add. &NaRe}.

Master One opinion is that the Roman empire was established by God and not by men. Another is that it was from men, that is from the Roman people. A third is that the true Roman empire was from the pope. For they (the last group) [[or read dicit with Mz]] say that after he was converted to catholic faith Constantine the Great humbly transferred to the church, that is to the highest pontiff, that irregular power which he was previously wielding abroad illegitimately, and received back again [[could intus be right, parallel with earlier foris?]] from the vicar of Christ, the successor that is of blessed Peter, the ordinate power of empire from heaven, which thereafter he used legitimately to punish evildoers and to praise the good, so that he who before was abusing his permitted power was then discharging the authority granted to him. They say therefore that before Constantine received the Roman empire from blessed Peter's successor it was not a true empire, rather usurped by men and permitted by God, neither granted nor ordained by God.

 

Opinion 3: The Roman Empire is from the pope

Discipulus Quia constat mihi quod ista ultima opinio fuit cuiusdam {eiusdem &MdPe} qui erat de maioribus totius {*om. &MzNaRe} mundi praelatis {*trs.312 &MdMzNaRe}, ideo ipsam volo {trs. &Pe} tecum magis {trs. &Pe} exquisite {disputative add. &Md} disputando discutere, allegando pro {quod &Na} ipsa et contra ipsam ac {et &Md} {vel &Pe} etiam {*om. &NaRe} allegationibus respondendo, ut studiosi occasionem accipiant intelligendi catholicam veritatem quae {quam &MdRe} plurimos, {et add. &Md} {*etiam add. &MzNaPeRe} qui literatissimi [[beatissimi in text, corrected margin Pe]] vocantur {*reputantur &NaRe}, forte latet. Primo igitur pro ipsa {pro ipsa: quod ipsi dicunt &Re} [[dicunt in margin]] {pro ipsa om. &Mz} [[gap left]] studeas allegare.

Student Because I am sure that that last opinion was that of one who was one of the greatest prelates in the world [Innocent IV?], I want to discuss it with you by a more careful disputation, by arguing for and against it and by replying to those arguments, so that those who study it will have an opportunity of understanding a catholic truth which is perhaps unknown to many, even those who are regarded as most learned. Would you first, therefore, undertake to argue for it.

Arguments for Opinion 3, with answers

Magister Ista opinio quae videtur sententialiter in Glossis supra {*super &NaRe} Decretum {*Decreta &MzNaRe} et Decretales saepius recitari et etiam approbari quamplurimis {*quampluribus &NaPeRe} {quam consimilibus &Mz} rationibus fundatis in dictis {trs. &Pe} maiorum videtur posse probari. Unde et Glossa dist. 96. c. {*Cum add. &LyMdMzNaPeRePzZn} ad verum {*aliquas rationes pro ipsa videtur /videntur Re\ innuere /imminere Na\ quarum una potest sic formari add. &NaRe}: ab eo {*illo &NaRe} est {*verum add. &NaRe} imperium {ab eo est imperium om. &MdMzPePz} Romanum qui potest imperatorem deponere. {*Sed add. &MdMzNaPePzRe}, sicut insinuat Glossa praedicta, Papa "deponit imperatorem {om. &Mz} (15, {5 &Md} q. 6, c. Alius {aliis &Md} et c. Iuratos)". Igitur {*ergo &MzNaRe} verum imperium Romanum {trs. &Mz} est a Papa.

Master That opinion, which seems to be often repeated in substance in the glosses on the Decrees and Decretals and to be proved by many reasons based on sayings of the seniors, seems to be provable. [1] Thus the gloss on dist. 96, Cum ad verum [col. 466], seems to hint at some reasons for this [opinion], one of which can be formulated as follows: the true Roman empire is from him who can depose the emperor. But, as the aforesaid gloss implies, the pope "deposes the emperor (15, q. 6, c. Alius and c. Iuratos" [col. 466]). The true Roman empire, therefore, is from the pope.

Discipulus Ista allegatio videtur aperte deficere et {in &Md} Glossa allegata videtur male allegare capitula quae adducit {adduxisti &Pe}. Et ideo qualiter ad haec respondetur manifesta. Magister Dicitur quod {*Et ideo ... quod: om. &MdMzNaPePzRe} capitulum {*enim add. &MdMzNaPeRe} primum {*trs.321 &MzNaPeRe} non loquitur {legitur &Pe} de Imperatore Romano sed de rege Francorum. Verba enim illius capituli {trs. &Re} sunt haec, "Alius {illius ecclesie &Mz} {*item add. &NaReZn} Romanus Pontifex, Zacharias {nomine add. &MdMzNaPeRe} scilicet, {om. &Md} regem Francorum non tam pro suis iniquitatibus quam pro eo quod tantae {quod tantae: quae tanti &Md} potestati erat inutilis a regno {?recto &Mz} deposuit {disposuit &Mz} et Pipinum, Caroli Imperatoris patrem, in eius locum {*loco &MzNaReZn} {eius locum: loco eius &Md} substituit omnesque {eiusque &Mz} Francigenas a iuramento fidelitatis absolvit." In quibus verbis de imperatore nulla sit mentio. Igitur {*ergo &MzNaRe} per illud capitulum non potest {trs. &Pe} probari quod imperium Romanum {trs. &Mz} sit a Papa licet videatur {*posse add. &MzNaPePzRe} probari quod regnum {regimen &Md} Francorum sit a Papa.

 

Student That argument seems clearly to fail and the gloss described seems to bring forward erroneously the chapters it adduces. For the first chapter [it cites] (Alius [c.3, col.756] does not speak of the Roman emperor but of the king of the Franks. For these are the words of that chapter: "Again another Roman pontiff, that is Zacharias, deposed a king of the Franks from his kingdom, not because of his iniquities but because he was incompetent for such great power, and in his place he substituted Pippin, father of the emperor Charles, and he absolved all the Franks from their oath of fidelity." There is no mention of an emperor in these words. It can not be proved by that chapter, therefore, that the Roman empire is from the pope, although it seems provable that the kingdom of the Franks is from the pope.

 

Discipulus {*Magister &MzNaPePzRe} Si concederetur {*concedatur &NaRe} {conceditur &MdMzPe} {concedetur &Pz} quod regnum {regimen &Md} Francorum sit a Papa videtur posse concludi quod Romanum imperium {trs. &MdMz} sit a Papa, quia non est maior ratio de regno {trs. &Pe} Franciae quam de {a &Mz} Romano imperio.

Master If it is granted that the kingdom of the Franks is from the pope it seems that it can be concluded that the Roman empire is from the pope, because it is not a stronger argument for the kingdom of France than for the Roman empire.

Magister {Discipulus &MzNaPePzRe}: Ad istam obiectionem {om. &Na} diversi diversimode conantur respondere {*trs. &MzNaRe}. Dicunt enim quidam {om. &Md} quod non est simile de Romano imperio et de regno {om. &Mz} Franciae quia magis ut dicunt potest subesse regnum Franciae Papae quam {qua &Na} Romanum imperium. Nam ut dicunt regnum Franciae fuit antiquitus tam de iure quam {tam &Na} de facto subiectum Romano imperio et adhuc est de iure, teste Glossa Extra, Qui filii sunt legitimi, Per venerabilem ubi {*quae cum &MdNaRe} {qui cum &Pe} dicit Papa, "Cum {om. &Md} rex", {*scilicet add. &NaPeRe} Franciae, "superiorem in temporalibus minime recognoscat" {recognoscit &Pz} {*ait add. &MdMzNaRe} {aut &Pz} "De facto tamen {et &MdPe} {et add. &LyPz} de iure {*trs.231 &MzNaReZn} {tamen add. &MdPe} subest Romano imperio" et Glossa {dicit add. &Pe} dist. 2. {c. add. &Pe} Ius quiritum ait, "Imperator et {*est &LyMdNaPePzReZn} {vero &Mz} princeps totius mundi [...] ff {om. &Md} ad leg. Rhod. l. {ad L. Rhod. l.: ad li romanorum &Md} {ad L. Rhod. l.: propter ad le? romanorum &Pe} {ad leg. Rhod: ad le. ro. &Mz} [...] qui levande {levante &Md} {Rhod. ... levande: romanam que lavande &NaRe} dicitur {*om. &MdNaPeReZn}. Qui igitur {*ergo" &NaReZn} non vult esse sub Romano imperio nec hereditatem habere {non add. &Md} potest." ibidem {*om. &MdMzNaPeRe} et Glossa Extra, De primis {om. &NaPeRe} privilegiis c. {om. &MdNaPeRe} Super specula asserit manifeste quod leges Romanorum Imperatorum debent de iure {*trs.231 &MzNaPeRe} ab omnibus observari licet de facto non ab omnibus {hominibus &Md} {trs.231 &MdMz} {non add. &Pe} observentur. Ex quibus aliisque {aliisque: et aliis &Md} quampluribus colligitur quod regnum Franciae de iure est {trs.312 &Md} subiectum Romano imperio. Quare Imperator Romanus {*Romanorum &MdMzNaPeRe} cui est subiectum {cui est subiectum: om. &MdPe} potest committere papae sicut et aliis potestatem deponendi regem Franciae pro diversis iniquitatibus. In {pro &MdPe} quibus non posset {potest &Md} {possit &Mz} committere papae potestatem deponendi imperatorem. Quare {qualem &Re} saltem ex commissione imperatoris {*imperatorum &MdNaRe} et {*om. &Md?Re} Romanorum potest regnum Franciae esse magis {trs. &MdPe} subiectum papae quam Romanum imperium. Quod confirmatur per hoc quod Imperator Romanorum non est magis {minus &Pz} subiectus papae quam princeps {*principes &NaRe} qui de iuri {*iure &LyMdNaPePzRe} subest {*subsunt &NaRe} imperatori. Si igitur {*ergo &NaRe} rex Franciae de iure subest imperatori [[si ... imperatori: interlinear &Pe]], imperator non est magis subiectus papae [[margin &Md]] quam rex Franciae, {*ut videlicet papa possit deponere imperatorem et non regem Francie add. &MdMzNaPeRe}.

Master [[This sounds like the master's speech. There is some confusion here.]] Different people try to reply to this objection in different ways. For some say that the Roman empire and the kingdom of France are not similar because, as they say, the kingdom of France is more subject to the pope than is the Roman empire. For, as they say, the kingdom of France has been from ancient times subject to the Roman empire both in law and in fact and still is subject in law, as the gloss on Extra, Qui filii sunt legitimi, c. Per venerabilem [col.1543] attests. When the pope says, "Since the king" of France, that is, "does not recognise a superior in temporal affairs," it [the gloss] says "Yet in law and in fact he is subject to the Roman empire". And the gloss on dist. 2, c. Ius quiritum says, "The emperor is the ruler of the whole world ... ff. ad leg. Rhod. qui levandae. He who does not want to be under the Roman emperor, therefore, can not have an inheritance." And the gloss on Extra, De privilegiis, c. Super specula [col. 1832] clearly asserts that the laws of the Roman emperors ought by right to be observed by everyone, even if in fact they are not observed by everyone. We gather from these and very many others that the kingdom of France is by right subject to the Roman empire. The emperor of the Romans, therefore, to whom it is subject can commit it to the pope, just as he also [can commit] to others the power of deposing the king of France for various crimes. In matters of this kind he could not commit to the pope the power of deposing the emperor. By commission of the Roman emperors, therefore, the kingdom of France can be more subject to the pope than the Roman empire can. This is confirmed by the fact that the Roman emperor is not more subject to the pope than are those princes who are by right subject to the emperor. If the king of France, therefore, is subject to the emperor by right, the emperor is not more subject to the pope than the king of France is, in such a way, that is, that the pope can depose the emperor and not the king of France.

Aliter {alii &Md} dicunt quidam {trs.321 &Md} quod papa auctoritate papali nec imperatorem nec regem Franciae potest deponere nisi pro haeresi, tamen papa auctoritate Romanorum posset {potest &Md} pro quibusdam aliis causis deponere imperatorem et auctoritate Francorum potest {*posset &MzNaPeRe} {*pro add. &MzNaPePzRe} quibusdam aliis {om. &NaRe} causis deponere [[auctoritate ... deponere: margin &Md]] regem Francorum {*Francie &NaRe} et haec {*hoc &MdNaPeRe} Glossa super {om. &Pe} capitulo allegato {praeallegato &MdPe} {*capitulo allegato: praeallegatum capitulum &MzNaRe} sentire videtur. Quae super verbo deposuit ait, "dicitur deposuisse quia deponentibus consensit", {consentit &MdPe} recipiendo scilicet ab eis potestatem deponendi. {*Et add. &MzNaPeRe} ideo quasi {quia &MdPe} una cum eis deposuit.

Some people say otherwise, that by his papal authority the pope can depose neither the emperor nor the king of France except for heresy, yet with the authority of the Romans he could depose the emperor for certain other reasons and with the authority of the Franks he could depose the king of France for certain other reasons. The gloss on the chapter adduced above (15, q. 6, c. Alius [col. 1083]) seems to suppose this. About the word deposed it says, "he is said to have deposed because he agreed with those who were deposing", that is by receiving the power of deposing from them. Therefore, he deposed, as it were, together with them.

Aliter dicitur quod Zacharias Papa deponendo regem Francorum {*Francie &NaRe} misit falcem suam in messem alienam potestatem {*videlicet add. &MdMzNaPeRe} usurpando sibi {in messem &Md} ex officio {suo sibi add. &Md} [[margin]] {*suo add. &MzNaPeRe} nullatenus competentem, quod et {etiam &Mz} alii summi pontifices in praeiudicium laicorum {*saepe add. &MdMzNaPeRe} facere dignoscuntur, teste Glossa quae Extra, De foro competenti c. {om. &Re} Si quis clericus ait "Papa sive [[margin &Md]] sint {sunt &Pz} {?servi add. &Pe} {secundum add. &Mz} negligentes", scilicet laici in exhibendo iustitiam clericis, "sive non quotidie concedit literas clericis contra laicos super quacunque quaestione et ita usurpat iurisdictionem aliorum," contra {*illud add. &MzNaPe} {id add. &Re} quod dicit {*supra add. &NaRe} capitulo proximo super verbo fuit {novit &LyPz} {verbo fuit: eodem novit &Md?Mz} {verbo fuit: novit &Pe} {*super verbo fuit: c. Novit &NaRe}, ubi sic loquitur {*legitur &MzNaRe}, "Non putet aliquis quod iurisdictionem istius {*om. &MzNaReZn} illustris regis Francorum turbare {*perturbare &NaReZn} {ac add. &MdPe} {autem add. &Pz} minime {*aut minuere &MzNaReZn} intendamus, {contendamus &Mz} cum ipse iurisdictionem nostram nec velit nec debeat impedire."

In another way it is said that Pope Zacharias put his sickle into another's harvest, namely by usurping to himself a power which was not within the competence of his office, something other highest pontiffs are often known to do to the prejudice of the laity, as the gloss on Extra, De foro competenti, c. Si quis clericus [col.541-2, but this is the wrong reference. Offler (OP 1, p. 85): Si quis laicum, s.v. de consuetudine] attests when it says, "Either they are negligent", that is, the laity in showing justice to clerics, "or the pope does not daily grant letters to clerics against the laity on any question at all and so usurps the jurisdiction of others," against what the immediately preceding chapter, the chapter Novit [c.13, col.242], says. We read there, "Let no one think that we intend to disturb or diminish the jurisdiction of the illustrious king of the Franks, since he neither wishes to nor ought to obstruct our jurisdiction."

Discipulus {Magister &MzNaPeRe}: Dixisti {Dixi &Pe} motiva aliquorum quare male Glossa {*trs. &MdMzNaPeRe} allegat c. Alius {alias &Md}. Nunc dic quare {*videtur quod add. &MzNaRe} eadem {om. &MdPe} Glossa {*trs. &MzNaRe} male allegat c. Iuratos.

Disciple You have set down the arguments of some people that the gloss brings forward the chapter Alius erroneously. Now explain why it seems that the same gloss brings forward the chapter Iuratos [c.5, col.756] erroneously.

Magister {Discipulus &MzNaPeRe}: Hoc videtur quibusdam quia illud capitulum nullam facit mentionem de imperatore sed de quodam milite, qui vocabatur Hugo, cui iuraverant quidam alii milites, nec Papa ibi deposuit {trs. &Pe} dictum Hugonem de {*a &MdMzNaPeRe} dignitate vel potestate sua sed tantum mandavit ut praeciperetur militibus ut non {*ut non: ne &MzNaRe} servirent Hugoni praedicto. Hoc autem non fuit deponere praedictum {*dictum &NaPeRe} Hugonem quia cum {dum &Pe} {*quando &MzNaRe} dominus aliquis excommunicatus est vasalli sui ei obedire {trs. &Pe} vel {*seu &NaRe} communicare non debent et tamen {om. &MdPe} propter excommunicationem suam {*om. &NaRe} dominus {tamen add. &Pe} [[interlinear]] non deponitur a dominio suo nec etiam tollitur obligatio qua vasallus {obligatio qua vasallus: ab hoc quod a vasallis &MdPe} ei tenetur, teste Glossa quae. {*11 add. &LyMdMzNaPePzRe} q. 3. c. Iulianus ait, "Verum est quod excommunicatio non tollit obligationem qua {quia &Md} {quae &Na} vasallus est {*trs. &MzNaReZn} obligatus domino suo {*om. &MzNaReZn}, sed tantum effectum obligationis. Unde domino absoluto {*statim tenetur add. &MzNaReZn} {statim add. &MdPe} [[margin &Md]] ei obedire tenentur {*om. &NaReZn} {tenetur &Pe} {trs.312 &MdPe}."

Master This seems to be so to some people because that chapter does not mention an emperor but a certain knight called Hugh to whom certain other knights had taken an oath, and in that place the pope did not depose the said Hugh from his dignity or power but only ordered that his knights be enjoined not to serve the said Hugh. This was not to depose the said Hugh, however, because when some lord is excommunicated his vassals ought not obey him or communicate with him, and yet the lord is not deposed from his lordship because of the excommunication and the obligation by which a vassal is bound to him is not even removed, as the gloss on 11, q. 3, Julianus [col.955] attests. It says, "It is true that excommunication does not remove the obligation by which a vassal is bound to his lord, but only the effect of the obligation. So if the lord is absolved he is immediately bound to obey him."

Sed {*om. &MzNaRe} propter {Sed propter: secundum &MdPe} praedicta et nonnulla {*om. &MdMzNaPeRe} alia plura nonnullis {nonnulla &Mz} apparet quod per illud capitulum {*illud capitulum: illa capitula &MzNaRe} probari non potest quod papa {*deponat vel add. &NaRe} deponere possit {*posset &NaRe} imperatorem. quoniam ut {*quoniam ut: om. &MdMzNaPeRe}

For these and many other [reasons] it is clear to some people that it can not be proved by those chapters that the pope deposes or could depose an emperor.

 

Videtur {*etiam add. &MdMzNaPeRe} aliquibus quod ad Papam non spectat de iure deponere imperatorem quia non maiorem potestatem habet {*papa add. &MdMzNaPeRe} super imperatorem et Romanum imperium quam super alios reges et alia quaecunque regna {trs. &MzRe} quia si maiorem potestatem haberet super imperatorem quam super alios reges {et alia ... reges om. &Na} aut haberet talem potestatem {talem potestatem: tales potestates &Md} {trs. &Mz} a iure divino aut a iure humano: non a iure divino {aut a iure ... divino: om. &Pe} quia in tota scriptura divina {scriptura divina: sacra scriptura &Md} non legitur quod aliqua potestas sit tradita {*tributa &MzNaPeRe} papae super imperatorem Romanum quae non sit sibi {ibi &Mz} concessa super alios reges; nec habet {*talem add. &MzNaPeRe} potestatem {*specialem super imperatorem add. &MzNaRe} a {om. &Md} iure humano quia non videtur quod aliquis sibi dederit vel dare potuerit huiusmodi potestatem,

It also seems to some people that it does not pertain by right to the pope to depose an emperor. Because the pope does not have greater power over the emperor and the Roman empire than over other kings and any other kingdoms:- because if he were to have greater power over the emperor than over other kings he would have such power either (a) by divine law or (b) by human law:- [he does] not [have it] (a) by divine law, because we do not read anywhere in divine scripture that any power over the Roman emperor was bestowed on the pope which was not granted to him over other kings; nor does he have such special power over the emperor (b) by human law, because it does not seem that anyone gave him or could have given him power of this kind:--

quia {quod &Re} si aliquis {*sibi add. &MdMz} dedit vel dare potuit huiusmodi potestatem aut fuit imperator aut inferior imperatore; non {*sed &MzNaRe} imperator {tum add. &Md} [[margin]] quia {*om. &MzNaRe} non potuit dare {*pape add. &NaRe} talem potestatem super imperatorem et non super alios reges. Tum quia non potest imperator magis {*trs.312 &MdNaPeRe} subiicere imperatorem papae quam alios reges. Tum quia non habet imperium per {par in parem &Mz} imperatorem {*per imperatorem: par in parem &NaRe}. Tum quia si imperator qui dedit talem potestatem Papae super imperatorem non fuit subiectus Papae et {om. &MdPe} imperator sequens {francos &Na} fuit {fuit add. &Na} subiectus Papae, imperator sequens {fuit ... sequens: om. &MdPe} non fuit verus successor quia quando successor est magis subiectus quam praedecessor {quia quando ... praedecessor: om. &Pe} non est vera successio in ius alterius {*et add. &MdMzNaPeRe} ita imperator sequens non esset verus imperator. Et per consequens imperator qui taliter subiugasset Romanum imperium Papae fuisset destructor imperii quantum in se est vel {*est vel om. &MzNaRe} fuisset et {quo dato sequitur quia &MdPe} per consequens nihil egisset quia nullus imperator valet destruere imperium et quicquid egerit {*ageret &MzNaPeRe} ad destructionem imperii non teneret de iure {*trs.3412 &MzNaRe} sed etiam {esset add. &MzPe} per successorem suum {*esset &NaRe} {om. &Pe} {successorem suum: successionem &Mz} de iure et {vel &Mz} de facto in {esset tamquam &Md} irritum esset {*om. &MdMzNaPeRe} revocandum.

because if someone gave or could give him power of this kind it was either (a) the emperor or (b) someone inferior to the emperor. But (a) the emperor could not give the pope such power over the emperor and not over other kings. This is (i) because an emperor can not subject an emperor to the pope more than other kings, (ii) because an equal doe not have power over an equal, iii) because if an emperor who gave such power over an emperor to the pope was not subject to the pope and the emperor who succeeded him was subject to the pope, the succeeding emperor was not a true successor, because when an emperor is more subject than his predecessor there is not a true succession to the right of the other, and so the succeeding emperor would not be a true emperor. And so an emperor who had subjected the Roman empire to the pope in this way would have been the destroyer of the empire so far as in him lay, and consequently he would have done nothing, because no emperor can destroy the empire and anything he would do towards the destruction of the empire would not hold up in law but should even be revoked by his successor as vain in law and in fact.

Nec aliquis inferior imperatore dedit vel dare potuit talem potestatem Papae {*trs.312 &MdMzNaPeRe} super imperatorem, ex quo imperator dare non potuit eam {*trs.4123 &MzNaRe}.

And (b) no one inferior to an emperor has given or could have given such power over the emperor to the pope, because an emperor could not have given it.

Propter hoc {*haec &NaRe} nonnullis {nonnullus &Mz} apparet quod {quia &Pe} ratio illa {*ista &MzNaRe} est {trs.231 &Md} invalida ad pro- bandum quod verum imperium Romanum {*trs. &MdMzNaRe} est a {sub &Md} Papa.

For these reasons it seems to some people that that argument is inadequate to prove that the true Roman empire is from the pope.

CAP. XIX

{*om. &MdMzNaPeRe} Discipulus {om. &MzNaRe} {Magister &Pe} Aliam igitur {*ideo &NaRe} {*recita add. &MzNaRe} rationem {?recte add. &Md} ad probandum idem adducas {*om. &MzNaRe} {enarra &Pe}. {*CAP. XIX add. &MdMzNaRe}

Chapter 19

Student In that case would you bring forward another argument to prove the same opinion?

Magister {Discipulus &Pe} Aliam rationem innuit Glossa ubi prius quae potest sic formari. Ab illo enim {*om. &MdNaPeRe} [[gap after enim &Mz]] est imperium cui datae sunt claves caelestis et terreni imperii; sed {scilicet &Pe} beato Petro et per consequens successoribus suis {*eius &NaRe} datae sunt claves {et add. &Pe} caelestis et terreni imperii {sed beato ... imperii om. &MdMz}. Unde Nicolaus Papa, ut legitur 22 dist. {*trs. &MzNaRe} c. {dist. c: q &Pe} 1, sic {sicut &Mz} dicit, Christus {*"Illam" &NaReZn} {etiam scilicet &Mz} {ius &Pe} {om. &Md} [[gap in &Md]] {*scilicet add. &NaRe}Romanam ecclesiam, "solus ipse constituit {instituit &NaRe} et {*constituit et om. Zn} fundavit et supra petram fidei mox nascentis erexit, qui beato {sub &Md} Petro clavigero aeternae vitae {*trs.231 &MzNaReZn} simul terreni {*trs. &MzNaReZn} et caelestis imperii iura commisit." Ergo Romanum imperium est a papa {ergo ... imperium om. &MdPe}.

Master The gloss cited above implies [[it does not seem to]] another reason, which can be formulated as follows. [2] The empire is from that one to whom the keys of the heavenly and earthly empire were given; but the keys of the heavenly and earthly empire were given to blessed Peter and consequently to his successors. Whence, as we read in dist. 22, c.1, [Omnes sive patriarchi col.73], Pope Nicholas speaks as follows, "He alone who entrusted the rights over both the earthly and heavenly empire to blessed Peter, the key-bearer of eternal life, founded it", that is the Roman church, "and built it on the rock of the faith that was soon to be born." The Roman empire therefore is from the pope.

Discipulus {om. &Pe} Ista ratio fortis mihi videtur et tamen si aliqui nitantur respondere {*trs. &NaPeRe} ad ipsam {trs.3421 &Mz} enarra.

Student That argument seems strong to me and yet tell me if some people try to answer it.

Magister Nonnulli volunt eam {*volunt eam: ipsam /om. &Na\ mulitpliciter /modo &Mz\ conantur &MzNaRe} {volunt eam: nituntur ipsam &MdPe} repellere {*refellere &MdMzNaPeRe} quia dicunt quod {*si add. &MdMzNaPeRe} auctoritas Nicolai in qua fundatur ratio ista si {*om. &MzNaRe} {sic &MdPe} intelligatur {intelligitur &Pe} sicut intelligunt eam {trs. &MdMzPe} illi {om. &Mz} {*eam illi om. &NaRe} qui eam {ea &Re} adducunt plures absurditates imo certi {*om. &MdMzNaPeRe} {certe &Pz} errores aperte {*aperti &NaRe} sequuntur. Prima absurditas sive error est quod omnia regna sunt a Papa et quod nullus est {om. &Md} verus rex nisi qui regnum suum suscipit {suscepit &Pe} a Papa. Nam in tota sacra {om. &Mz} scriptura {*sacra scriptura: scriptura divina &NaRe} vel {*in add. &MdMzPeRe} quacunque scriptura autentica nullatenus invenitur quod Christus aliter plus {*om. &MdNaPeRe} commiserit beato Petro iura Romani imperii quam iura aliorum regnorum. Si igitur {*ergo &MzNaRe} per auctoritatem illam {aliam &Mz} potest ostendi quod [[interlinear &Md]] Romanum imperium est a papa et quod non est verus imperator nisi qui suscipit {*recipit &MzNaPeRe} imperium a Papa, {et quod ... Papa om. &Md} sicut {*ut &MzNaRe} tenet opinio {om. &Md} in {om. &Na} cuius fulcimentum est adducta ista {*haec &NaRe} ratio {*trs.3412 &MzNaRe}, sequitur quod omnia alia regna {*trs. &MdMzNaRe} sunt a papa et ita {sic &Mz} alii reges non sunt veri reges nisi regna sua {trs. &MdPe} a papa suscipiant. Quare cum nulli vel pauci sua regna suscipiant {*trs.321 &MzNaPeRe} a Papa nulli vel pauci sunt veri reges.

Master Some people try to refute it in many ways because they say that if the text of Nicholas on which that argument is based is understood as those who adduce it understand it, many absurdities, indeed clear errors, follow. The first absurdity or error is that all kingdoms are from the pope and that no one is a true king except he who receives his kingdom from the pope. For we do not find in the whole of divine scripture or in any authentic writing that Christ entrusted to blessed Peter rights over the Roman empire in a different way than rights over other kingdoms. If it can be shown by that text, therefore, that the Roman empire is from the pope and that the only true emperor is he who receives the empire from the pope, as that opinion holds in support of which this argument is adduced, it follows that all other kingdoms are from the pope and so other kings are not true kings unless they receive their kingdoms from the pope. Since none or few of them receive their kingdoms from the pope, none or few of them are true kings.

Discipulus Satis videntur reges sua regna suscipere {recipere &Pe} {*trs.321 &MdMzNaRe} a Papa ex quo parati sunt sibi {*ei &MzNaPeRe} obedire qui etiam si placeret Papae praeparati {*parati &MdMzNaPeRe} essent {trs. &Mz} resignare sua regna {*trs. &MzNaRe} Papae et ipsa {ipsi &Md} ab eo suscipere {*recipere &NaPeRe} {vel recipere &Mz}.

Student Kings seem to receive their kingdoms from the pope in a sufficient way because they are prepared to obey him and would even be prepared, if it were pleasing to the pope, to resign their kingdoms to the pope and receive them back from him.

Magister Multi istud {*trs. &MzNaPeRe} negarent. Unde {*et add. &MdNaPeRe} {etiam add. &Mz} de rege Franciae {om. &Mz} specialiter {*papa add. &MzNaRe}, ut notatur Extra, De electione {ut notatur ... electione: papa dicit &Pe} {ut notatur ... electione: papa [gap in ms] Extra &Md} {*ut notatur ... electione: Extra &MzNaRe} {ut notatur ... electione: om. &Pz} Qui filii sunt legitimi, c. {om. &NaPzRe} Per venerabilem, testimonium perhibet {prohibet &MdPz} quod superiorem in temporalibus non recognoscit. et tamen {*et tamen om. &MdMzNaPePzRe} rex {*ergo add. &NaRe} {igitur add. &MzPe} Franciae {*non add. &MzNaPePzRe} {ergo rex francie non add. &Md} est verus rex {om. &Pz} nec unquam fuit aliquis qui putavit se in temporalibus {non add. &Md} superiorem {*non add. &NaPePzRe} habere {trs. &Md}.

Master Many people deny this. So the pope bears witness about the king of France in particular (Extra, Qui filii sunt legitimi, c. Per venerabilem [c.13, col.714] that he does not recognise a superior in temporal affairs. The king of France, therefore, is not a true king nor has anyone ever been who thought that he did not have a superior in temporal affairs.

Discipulus Nunc videtur mihi {*trs. &MdMzNaPeRe} quod auctoritas Nicolai prius {*superius &NaRe} {Nicolai prius: in casu superius &MdPe} allegata potest in praeiudicium regum {om. &Re} et specialiter regis Franciae intelligi. Sed quaeso dic ibi {*om. &NaRe} quid {om. &Na} {quod &Md} illi per {*qui &MdMzNaPePzRe} auctoritatem praedictam {*dictam &MzNaPeRe} {istam &Md} {*trs. &MzNa} Nicolai {in casu &MdPe} Papae et opinionem {opinionis &Md} {opinione &Pe} pro qua adducitur intelligunt {illus add. &Mz} sicut {sic &Re} et {*om. &NaRe} verba {*prima facie add. &MzNaRe} sonant, et quae {*qui &MdMzNaPeRe} etiam arbitrantur, {quod add. &MdMzNaPeRe} sicut {sic &MzPeRe} iura omnium regnorum Christus commisit beato Petro, quod omnes reges tenentur {teneantur &Pe} {tenerentur &Pz} recognoscere {cognoscere &Md} Papam superiorem etiam in temporalibus, {*sentiunt add. &NaRe} [[gap left &Mz]] {sumunt add. &MdPe} de rege Franciae et de {om. &Md} aliis regibus et principibus qui etiam {*om. &MzNaRe} in temporalibus papam minime recognoscunt superiorem {*trs.312 &MzNaRe} {trs. &Md}, an {aut &Md} scilicet eorum error sit talis quod sit inter haereses {hereticos &Md} computandus?

Student Now it seems to me that the text of Nicholas brought forward above can be understood to the disadvantage of kings, and especially the king of France. But, I ask you, tell me what those who understand the said text of Pope Nicholas and the opinion for which it is adduced in the sense the words mean on first sight, and who also think that, as Christ entrusted rights over all kingdoms to blessed Peter, all kings are bound to recognise the pope as their superior even in temporal affairs, think about the king of France and other kings and princes who do not recognise the pope as a superior in temporal matters? Is their error, that is to say, such that it should be counted among the heresies?

Magister Dicunt nonnulli quod si praedicta opinio {*trs. &MzNaRe} vera est {vera est: sit &MdPe} error iste {*ille &NaRe} {om. &MdPe} debet inter haereses computari quia secundum opinionem illam ex sacra scriptura {*trs. &MzNaRe} colligitur quod Christus {om. &MdPe} sic {sicud &Md} {si &Pe} omnia {*om. &MzNaRe} iura omnium regnorum commisit {Christus add. &Md} beato Petro {*trs.231 &NaRe} quod omnia regna vera et legitima sunt a beato Petro {*beato Petro om. &MdNaPeRe} summo Pontifice et summus Pontifex etiam in temporalibus est superior omnibus regibus; sed omnis error qui obviat {obvit &Pz} scripturae divinae est inter haereses numerandus. {annotandus &Md} asserere autem {*asserere autem: Quare si praedicta assertio &NaRe} {asserere autem: si assertio scilicet &Mz} quod {*scilicet add. &NaRe} {si add. &Pe} aliquis rex non debet {debeat &Md} recognoscere in temporalibus superiorem in terris est contra scripturam divinam et per consequens haereticum {hereticalis &Mz} est {om. &MdPe} censendum {censendus &Mz} {*et per ... censendum: est hereticalis censendus &NaRe}.

Master Some people say that if the above opinion is true, that error should be counted among the heresies because, according to that opinion, we gather from sacred scripture that Christ bestowed rights over all kingdoms on blessed Peter in such a way that all true and legitimate kingdoms are from the highest pontiff and the highest pontiff is superior to all kings even in temporal affairs; But every error which conflicts with divine scripture should be counted among the heresies. Therefore, if the aforesaid assertion, namely that no king should recognise a superior on earth in temporal affairs, is against divine scripture it should be considered heretical.

Discipulus Nunquid secundum {om. &Pe} istam opinionem rex Franciae et {vel &Md} alii {non add. &Md} tenentes istam {*om. &NaRe} assertionem {*praedictam add. &NaRe} sunt inter haereticos numerandi?

Student Should the king of France and other who hold that view be counted among the heretics according to the said opinion?

Magister Si ista {si ista: sed illa &NaRe} assertio sit {est &MzNaPeRe} haereticalis et rex Franciae vel alius non tenet eam pertinaciter non est propterea {*om. &MdMzNaPePzRe} haereticus reputandus. Si autem sit haereticalis et rex Franciae vel alius pertinaciter [[margin &Md]] adhaereret {*adhaeret &MdMzPeRe} eidem {trs.34512 &Md} haereticus est censendus. Qualiter autem debeat {om. &NaRe} {*debet &Mz} quis de pertinacia {*trs.231 &MzNaPeRe} convinci {convincit &Re} in primo tractatu huius Dialogi libro quarto {om. &Md} [[gap in Md]] {8 &Pe} est aliqualiter indagatum.

Master If that assertion is heretical and the king of France or someone else does not hold it pertinaciously he should not be regarded as a heretic. If it is heretical, however, and the king of France or someone else clings to it pertinaciously he should be considered a heretic. How someone should be convicted of pertinacity, however, is investigated in some way in the fourth book of the first tractate [[i.e. part]] of this Dialogue.

Discipulus &Recitasti secundum opinionem quorundam unam absurditatem quamplures includentem {*trs. &MdMzNaPeRe} sequentes {*sequentem &MdNaPeRe} ex auctoritate Nicolai Papae intellecta ut ista opinio eam intelligit. Nunc autem {*om. &MzNaRe} secundum alios {*aliquos &MzNaRe} dic an {*trs.3412 &MzNaRe} aliqua alia absurditas {trs. &Md} sive {*seu &MzNaRe} error sequatur ex eadem secundum intellectum eundem {*illum &MzNaPeRe} {*trs. &MdMzNaPeRe}.

Student You have recounted one absurdity, including many [aspects], which follows, in the opinion of some people, from the text of Pope Nicholas understood as that opinion understands it. Now tell me whether, according to some people, any other absurdity or error follows from that same opinion understood in that way.

Magister Alia absurditas secundum quosdam sequitur ex ipsa, scilicet quod regnum caeleste sit a Papa, quia ita asserit ista {*illa &MdNaPeRe} auctoritas quod Christus commisit beato Petro iura caelestis imperii sicut terreni {terram &Pz}. Si igitur {*ergo &MzNaRe} ex ista {*illa &NaRe} auctoritate potest concludi quod terrenum imperium sit {*est &NaRe} a Papa, eadem ratione concluditur {*concludetur &NaRe} ex ipsa quod coeleste imperium sit {*est &NaRe} a Papa, quod videtur {est &Md} absurdissimum. Tum quia ante Christum {*quam &NaRe} esset Papa supra {*fuit &NaRe} [[fuerit margin Re]] coeleste imperium {ante ... imperium: Christus an est supra celeste imperium quam fuit papa &Md}. Tum quia sine auctoritate Papae multi {Papae multi: nulli &Md} recipiuntur {reciperetur &Md} in coelesti imperio {Tum quia ante ... imperio om. &Pe} [[eadem ratione ... imperio: margin &Md]] {quod videtur absurdissimum add. &Md}. Tum {quia add. &Pe} etiam quod {*om. &MdMzNaPeRe} quando sedes vacat multi recipiuntur {*recipiantur &MdNa?Re} ad coeleste imperium.

Master Some people say that another absurdity follows from this, namely that the heavenly empire is from the pope, because that text affirms that Christ entrusted to blessed Peter rights over the heavenly empire as [he did] over the earthly one. If it can be concluded from that text, therefore, that the earthly empire is from the pope, it may be concluded from it by the same reasoning that the heavenly empire is from the pope. This seems most absurd (i) because there was a heavenly empire before there was a pope, (ii) because many are received into the heavenly empire without the pope and (iii) even when the see is vacant many are accepted into the heavenly kingdom.

Discipulus Audivi quomodo aliqui moliuntur ex auctoritate Nicolai Papae {trs. &Pe} intellecta prout {*eam add. &MzNaRe} intelligit opinio in praecedenti capitulo recitata plures absurditates et errores concludere. Nunc dic quomodo isti illam {om. &Md} auctoritatem intelligunt {intelligant &Mz} ex quo potero adducere {*advertere &MdMzNaPeRe} quomodo ad allegationem quae fundatur super ipsam respondere nituntur.

Student I have listened to how some people strive to demonstrate many absurdities and errors from the text of Pope Nicholas understood as the opinion recorded in the previous chapter understands it. Now tell me how they understand that text, so that I will be able to perceive how they try to reply to the argument based on it.

Magister Dicunt quod sicut {om. &Na} Nicolaus Papa {*om. &MdMzNaPeRe} per imperium coeleste non intelligit imperium quod possidet ecclesia triumphans, quia {quod &Na} illud regnum {regimen &MzPe} non datur a Papa sed a Deo, licet Papa habeat {habet &Pz} claves illius {istius &Md} et sit claviger, non dominus, illius imperii, sic per terrenum imperium non intelligit imperium temporale quod possidet imperator, sed per tale {*om. &MdMzPeRe} coeleste imperium {*intelligit add. &MzPeRe} {imperium temporale ... imperium om. &Na} supra {*om. &MzNaPeRe} bonos {supra bonos: intelligit imperium &Md} {tantum add. &Mz} in ecclesia militante {*et add. &MdMzNaPeRe} per terrenum imperium intelligit malos super quos Papa noscitur {trs. &Pe} potestatem habere {trs. &Md}.

Master They say that just as by heavenly empire Nicholas does not mean the empire which the church triumphant possesses, because that empire is not given by the pope but by God, even if the pope has the keys to it and is the key-bearer, not the lord, of that empire, so by earthly empire he does not mean the temporal empire which the emperor possesses, but by heavenly empire he means the good people in the church militant and by earthly empire he means wicked people, over whom the pope is known to have power.

Aliter {alio modo &Md} dicitur quod Nicolaus Papa non dicit {debet &Re} [[changed to fuit interlinear]] quod {*om. &MdNaPeRe} commisit {*commissum &NaRe} beato {om. &MdPe} Petro dominium coelestis et terreni {*trs.321 &MdNaPeRe} imperii sed iura, et ideo terrenum imperium non est a papa, et tamen Papa habet aliquod ius in terreno imperio quando a Christiano gubernatur. Tum quia habet potestatem spiritualem super imperatorem. Tum quia habet ius participandi {precipiendi &Na} {*percipiendi &MdPeRe} carnalia ab imperio {*imperatore &MdMzNaPeRe} cui ministrat spiritualia, iuxta illud apostoli 1 ad Cor. 9:[11], "Si nos vobis spiritualia seminamus {*seminavimus &Vulg} non {*om. &Vg} est {*om. &MdMzNaPeReVulg} mirum {magnum &Mz} {*om. &NaReVulg} {*/seu add. &Md\ magnum est add. &MdNaPeReVulg} si {*nos add. &MzNaReVulg} carnalia vestra {bona &MdPe} metamus."

In another way, it is said that Pope Nicholas does not say that lordship of the earthly and the heavenly empire was entrusted to blessed Peter, but rights [over them], and therefore the earthly empire is not from the pope. The pope does have some right, nevertheless, in the earthly empire when it is governed by a christian. This is both because he has spiritual power over the emperor and because he has the right of obtaining material things from the emperor to whom he ministers spiritually, according to what the apostle says in 1 Cor. 9:11, "If we have sown spiritual good among you, is it too much if we reap your material benefits?"

CAP. XX

Discipulus Aliam allegationem pro opinione praedicta adducas.

Chapter 20

Student Bring forward another argument for that opinion.

Magister Aliam rationem innuit Glossa dist. 10, c. Quoniam idem. Ex qua ratio talis potest sumi. Ab illo est Romanum imperium qui transfert et {transfert et om. &Na} transferre potest {*romanum imperium add. &MzNaRe} de una {*domo vel add. &MzNaRe} gente ad aliam. Sed Papa transtulit imperium de Graecis ad {*in &MzNaRe} Germanos {Romanos &LyMdMzPePz} Extra, De electione, {*c. add. &MzPe} Venerabilem. Igitur {*ergo &MzNaRe} imperium Romanum {*trs. &MzNaPeRe} est a papa.

Master The gloss on dist. 10, c. Quoniam idem (cols. 33-4) implies another argument. [3] The following argument can be taken from it. The Roman empire is from that man who transfers and can transfer the Roman empire from one house or people to another. But the pope transferred the empire from the Greeks to the Germans (Extra, De electione, c. Venerabilem [c.34, col.79]. The Roman empire, therefore, is from the pope.

Discipulus Ista ratio videtur insolubilis et tamen cupio scire an aliqui nitantur {nituntur &MdPe} eam {*ipsam &MdNaPeRe} refellere.

Student That argument seems incontestable; nevertheless I want to know whether some people try to refute it.

Magister Putant aliqui quod ex {*ista add. &MdMzNaPeRe} ratione intellecta ut aliqui {*quidam &MzNaPeRe} eam {*trs. &MdMzNaPeRe} intelligunt sequitur absurditas manifesta, quod {qua &Md?Pe} videlicet Papa potest transferre quaecunque regna {trs. &Mz} Christianorum {trs. &Pe} et aliorum de domo in domum et {om. &MzPe} de gente in gentem et ita {et ita: ut &Pe} potest {*posset &MzNaPeRe} transferre regnum Franciae {*de francis add. &NaRe} {de francigenis add. &Mz} in Anglicos et {*vel &NaRe} Theutonicos aut {ad &Re} Hispanos {Hispanios &Pe} vel alios, secundum quod transtulit Romanum imperium {*trs. &NaRe} de Graecis in Germanos {Romanos &LyMdMzPePz}. Quod autem ista absurditas {*trs. &MzNaRe} sequatur probant {etiam add. &Md} per quoddam fundamentum per quod multi nituntur probare quamplurima {*quamplura &LyMdNaPePzRe} {quam multa &Mz} circa materiam istam. Est autem {etiam &Pe} hoc fundamentum quod etiam {et &Re} tactum est prius, scilicet quod {*trs. &MdNaPeRe} nullam potestatem spiritualem {*specialem &NaPeRe} dedit {dederit &LyPz} Christus beato Petro super Romanum imperium quin illam {istam &Md} {*quin illam: quam sibi /illi &Pe\ non &MzNaPeRe} dedit {*dederit &MdNaPeRe} super regnum Franciae et alia regna {signa &Mz} quaecunque. Quod duobus modis ostendere {ostenditur &Na} moliuntur.

Master Some people think that from that argument, understood as certain people do understand it, a manifest absurdity follows, namely that the pope can transfer any kingdoms at all, of christians and others, from house to house and from people to people, and so he could transfer the kingdom of France from the Franks to the English or to the Germans or to the Spanish or to others, just as he transferred the Roman empire from the Greeks to the Germans. That this absurdity follows, moreover, they prove by a certain foundation on the basis of which many people try to prove many things about this subject. This is the foundation, moreover, which was also touched on above, namely that Christ gave blessed Peter no special power over the Roman empire which he did not give him over the kingdom of the Franks and any other kingdoms. They try to show this in two ways.

{et add. &Re} Primo probatur {*om. &NaPeRe} sic {probatur sic: ostenditur &Mz}: In tota scriptura sacra ubi sit mentio de potestate Papae {*om. &MzNaRe} collata sibi {*om. &MzNaRe} a Christo {*beato petro add. &MzNaRe} nulla sit mentio {de potestate ... mentio om. &Md} specialis de Romano imperio nec ab illa {ista &Md} potestate aliquod regnum {regimen &Mz} eximitur. Cum enim dixit {dicit &Pe} Christus beato Petro, "Quodcunque ligaveris {*super terram add. &MzNaRe}" etc {*et add. &MdNaPeRe} cum iterum dixit, {dicit &Pe} "Pasce oves meas", non plus a tali potestate eximitur regnum Franciae vel aliquod aliud quam Romanum imperium et idem {*et idem: eodem modo &NaRe} {ideo &MdPe} in omnibus auctoritatibus quibus probatur potestas specialis Papae {*specialis papae: papalis &MzNaRe}. Cum enim {*scilicet &MzNaRe} dicitur Genesis 1:[16], "Fecit Deus duo luminaria magna" etc, per quae intelligit {intelligunt &MdMzPe} {*intelliguntur &NaRe} regnum et {om. &NaRe} sacerdotium, et cum dicitur Ieremiae 1{10 &Md}:[10] "Ecce constitui te hodie super gentes {gentem &MdPe} et super {om. &Pe} regna" [[et cum ... regna: margin Pe]], et cum dicitur Lucae 22:[38], "Ecce duo gladii hic", et in similibus {*consimilibus &MzNaPeRe} nulla sit mentio {hic add. &MdPe} specialis de aliquo {*om. &MzNaRe} {quocumque &MdPe} regno {*francie vel alio add. &MzNaRe} nec {*ut &MdMzNaPeRe} intelligitur {*intelligatur &MzNaRe} specialiter exemptum {exceptum &MdPe} a {*quacumque add. &MdMzNaPeRe} potestate data {*beato add. &MzNaRe} Petro a Christo magis quam Romanum imperium. {*Ergo nullam potestatem accepit beatus petrus a christo super romanum imperium add. &NaRe} {?de gente in gente add. &Pe} [[interlinear]] quod {*quam &MzNaRe} non acceperit {*accepit &MdNaRe} super Franciam et {vel &Md} alia regna. Quare si ex potestate data beato Petro a Christo Papa potest transferre Romanum imperium de gente in gentem poterit eadem potestate transferre regnum Franciae de gente in gentem [[poterit ...gentem: margin Md]].

First, as follows: In the whole of sacred scripture wherever there is mention of the power granted to blessed Peter there is no mention of special power over the Roman empire and no kingdom is excepted from that power. For when Christ said to blessed Peter, "Whatever you bind on earth" etc, and again when he said, "Feed my sheep", he no more excepted the kingdom of France or any other kingdom from that power than the Roman empire, and it is the same in all the texts by which papal power is proved. When it is said, for instance, in Genesis 1:16, "God made the two great lights" etc, by which kingdom and priesthood are understood, and when it is said in Jeremiah 1:10, "See, today I appoint you over nations and over kingdoms", and when it is said in Luke 22:38, "Look, here are two swords", and in similar examples, there is no special mention of the kingdom of France or another kingdom such that it is understood to be specially excepted, more than the Roman empire, from any power at all given by Christ to blessed Peter. Blessed Peter received from Christ, therefore, no power over the Roman empire that he did not receive over France and other kingdoms. If by the power given by Christ to blessed Peter, therefore, the pope can transfer the Roman empire from people to people, he can by the same power transfer the kingdom of France from people to people.

Secundo probat {probant &LyMzNaPz} {*probatur &MdRe} idem sic: non fuit maior potestas beato Petro data {*trs.312 &MzNaRe} super Romanum imperium quam super partes {partem &Md} Romani imperii vel super regna quae erant subiecta Romano imperio. Sed quando Christus dedit beato Petro potestatem papalem regnum Franciae, sicut {om. &Md} et alia regna, fuit {*erat &NaRe} {erant &Pe} {sicut et alia regna fuit: erat &Md} pars Romani imperii vel subiectum Romano imperio. igitur {*Ergo &MzNaRe} non maiorem potestatem recepit beatus Petrus a Christo super Romanum imperium quam super regnum Franciae {om. &Md}.

Second it is proved similarly, as follows: greater power was not given to blessed Peter over the Roman empire than over parts of the Roman empire or over kingdoms that were subject to the Roman empire. But when Christ gave blessed Peter papal power, the kingdom of France, like other kingdoms too, was part of the Roman empire or subject to the Roman empire. Blessed Peter did not receive greater power from Christ over the Roman empire, therefore, than over the kingdom of France.

Discipulus Forte dicerent {dicunt &Mz} {dicent &Pe} aliqui quod {add. &Md} [[margin]] dominium regni {*dominium regni: dum regnum &MzNaRe} Franciae erat subiectum Romano imperio et {*om. &MdMzNaPeRe} [[add. interlinear Pe]] omnem potestatem quam habuit Papa super Romanum imperium habuit etiam {om. &Md} {Papa ... etiam: etc &Pe} super regnum Franciae. Sed modo non habet eam quia regnum Franciae non est subiectum Romano imperio.

Student Perhaps some people would say as long as the kingdom of France was subject to the Roman empire, all the power which the pope had over the Roman empire he also had over the kingdom of France. But he does not have it now because the kingdom of France is not subject to the Roman empire.

Magister Ista responsio multis videtur {esse add. &Pe} absurda. Tum quia per rebellionem regni Franciae vel exemptionem {exceptionem &Mz} Papa non debuit aliqua potestate privari. Tum quia potestas {potestatem &Pe} quam habet {habuit &Pe} {potestas quam habet: ponentes quod habuit &Md} [[potestatem habet: ad. margin Md]] Papa ex ordinatione Christi {dicunt quod potestas habet non add. &Md} [[margin]] non potest {non potest: potuit &Md} mutari nec auferri ab eo {aliquo &Pe} per aliquem inferiorem Christo. Tum quia tunc Papa qui fuit post rebellionem vel exceptionem {*exemptionem &MdPeRe} {vel exceptionem om. &Na} regni Franciae non fuisset aequalis potestatis cum Papa {cum Papa: Pape &Md} qui praecessit et ita {sic &Mz} non fuit {*fuisset &MdMzNaPeRe} verus successor eius {*om. &MdMzNaRe}.

Master That reply seems absurd to some people, (i) because the pope should not be deprived of any power by the rebellion or exemption of the kingdom of France, (ii) because the power which the pope has by Christ's decree can not be changed or removed from him by anyone inferior to Christ, (iii) because then he who was pope after the rebellion or exemption of the king of France would not have been equal in power to the pope who preceded him and so would not have been a true successor.

Discipulus &Recitasti quomodo {*ista ratio add. &MdMzNaRe} {ista add. &Pe} impugnatur, {pugnatur &Re} nunc narra quomodo respondetur ad ipsam.

Student You have set down how that argument is attacked; explain now how a response is made to it.

Magister Respondetur {*ad ipsam add. &MzNaRe} quod per qualem potestatem et {*potestatem et om. &NaRe} auctoritatem Papa Zacharias deposuit regem Franciae et Pipinum instituit {*substituit &NaRe}, ut allegatum est supra, per talem et {*vel &MdMzNaPeRe} consimilem transtulit Romanum imperium {*trs. &NaRe} de Graecis in Germanos. {Romanos &MdMzPePz} regemque {*Regem autem &MzNaRe} Franciae non deposuit auctoritate vel potestate sibi data a Christo sed {*vel add. &MdMzNaPeRe} haec {*hoc &MdMzNaPeRe} fecit auctoritate Francorum, qui sibi illa vice auctoritatem et {talem vel &Mz} potestatem dederunt talem {*trs. &NaRe} {om. &Mz}, vel, secundum {*sicud dicit &MdMzNaPeRe} glossam {*glossa &MdNaPeRe} super illud capitulum Alius, "Dicitur deposuisse quia {om. &Md} deponentibus consensit." Sic Papa non auctoritate vel potestate sibi data a Christo sed auctoritate Romanorum, {*qui /cui &Md\ /om. &LyMzPePz\ pape /om. &LyMdMzPePz\ tamquam persone excellentiori inter romanos add. &LyMdNaPePzRe} talem potestatem dederunt illa vice, transtulit Romanum {*om. &NaRe} imperium de Graecis in Germanos {Romanos &MdMzPePz}, vel potest dici transtulisse quia transferentibus consensit {asserit &Na}.

Master The reply to it is that Pope Zacharias deposed the king of France and substituted Pippin, as was brought forward above, through the sort of authority through which, or through similar authority, he transferred the Roman empire from the Greeks to the Germans. He did not depose the king of France, however, by the authority or power given to him by Christ but he did this (i) either by the authority of the Franks, who gave him such authority and power on that occasion [[?illa vice]] (ii) or, as the gloss on the chapter Alius [col. 1083] says, "He is said to have deposed because he agreed with those who were deposing". So the pope did not transfer the empire from the Greeks to the Germans through the authority or power given to him by Christ but (iii) through the authority of the Romans who gave such power to him in that office as the most excellent person among the Romans. (iv) Or he can be said to have transferred it because he agreed with those who were transferring.

Discipulus Ista responsio {ratio &MdPe} videtur fundari {fundata &Re} in illa {ista &MdPe} opinione quae ponitur {*ponit &MzNaPePzRe} quod Papa habet veram {*aliquam &MdNaPeRe} potestatem {*trs.231 &MzNaRe} a Christo immediate, scilicet {et &Mz} potestatem in spiritualibus et ius percipiendi {*participandi &Mz} carnalia necessaria sibi pro sustentatione {*sua add. &MzNaRe}, et exercendo officia {*officio &NaRe} {et exercendo officia om. &MdPe} sua {suo &NaRe} habet aliquam {*trs. &MdMzNaPeRe} a conciliis generalibus auctoritatem, {aliqua &Md} {*aliquam &NaPeRe} a congregatione {a congregatione: aggregationem &Re} fidelium, saltem per tacitum assensum {*consensum &MdMzNaPeRe} ipsorum, {*aliquam add. &MdNaPeRe} {aliam add. &MzPz} a diversis gentibus vel imperatoribus vel {*aut &MzNa} {a &Re} principibus vel huiusmodi {*aliis fidelibus &MzNaRe}. De qua opinione poteris {*potero &MdMzNaPeRe} invenire quamplurima in tractatu De potestate Papae et cleri. Ideo ad praesens quamplures impugnationes {?impugnatores &Na} illius {*istius &NaPeRe} responsionis omittam et unam adducam quae talis est.

Student That reply seems to be based on the opinion which maintains that the pope has some power directly from Christ, that is power in spiritual matters and the right of sharing in the material goods necessary for his sustenance, and, in carrying out his duty, he has some authority from general councils, some from the congregation of the faithful, at least by their tacit consent, some from different peoples or emperors or princes or others of the faithful. I can find many things about this opinion in the tractate, "On the power of the pope and clergy". For the moment, therefore, I will pass over many attacks on that reply and bring forward just one, as follows.

Quando aliquid {aliud &Na} fieri dicitur {*trs. &MzNaRe} a {de &Md} sede apostolica {et add. &Re} non intelligitur fieri per aliquam potestatem concessam personae Papae {proprie &Mz} solum {*solummodo &MzNaPeRe} sed intelligitur fieri auctoritate officii concessi {*commissi &MzNaRe} {om. &Pe} a Christo sibi {*trs.312 &MdMzNaPeRe} et {vel sibi &Md} {om. &Pe} commissi {*et commissi om. &MzNaRe}. Decretalibus {*decretalis &LyNaPzRe} autem illa Venerabilem dicit sedem apostolicam transtulisse imperium de Graecis in Germanos. {romanos &MdMzPePz} Verba enim {*dicte add. &MzNaRe} decretalis sunt haec. "Istis {*Illis &NaReZn} principibus et {*om. &NaReZn} ius et potestatem eligendi regem in {et &Md} imperatorem postea promovendi {*promovendum &MzNaReZn} cognoscimus {*recognoscimus &MzNaPeReZn}, ut debemus, ad quos de iure et {de add. &MdPe} antiqua consuetudine noscitur pertinere, praesertim cum ad eos ius et potestas {praesertim ... potestas om. &Md} huiusmodi {huius &Re} {om. &Na} a {*ab &MzNaReZn} sede apostolica {*trs. &MzNaReZn} provenerit {*pervenerit &MzMdPeZn} quae Romanum imperium in {ut &Pz} personam {persona &MdPePz} Magni Caroli a Graecis transtulit in Germanos {Romanos &MdMzPePz}." Igitur {*ergo &MzNaRe} Papa auctoritate officii commissi sibi a Christo transtulit Romanum imperium.

When something is said to be done by the apostolic see it is not understood to be done by some power granted to the person of the pope only but is understood to be done by the authority of the office entrusted to him by Christ. That decretal [Extra, De electione c.] Venerabilem says, however, that the apostolic see transferred the empire from the Greeks to the Germans. For these are the words of that decretal [col.80]: "We acknowledge that it is to those princes to whom it is known that they pertain by right and ancient custom that we owe the right and power of choosing the king to be afterwards promoted to emperor, especially since this kind of right and power has come to them from the apostolic see which transferred the Roman empire from the Greeks to the Germans in the person of Charles the Great." The pope transferred the Roman empire, therefore, by the authority of the office entrusted to him by Christ.

Magister Respondetur ad impugnationem istam quod saepe apostolica sedes {*trs. &MzNaRe} accipitur pro Papa et saepe illud quod sit a Papa inquantum Papa {*persona &MdMzNaPeRe} dicitur {debet &Mz} fieri a sede apostolica {*a sede apostolica: ab apostolica sede &MdNaPeRe}. Et ideo quia Papa {*om. &MdNaRe} habens potestatem a Romanis transtulit imperium sedes apostolica dicitur transtulisse imperium {om. &MdPe}.

Master The reply to this attack is that often "pope" is taken for "apostolic see" and often that which is from the pope as a person is said to be done by the apostolic see. And therefore because one having power from the Romans transferred the empire, the apostolic see is said to have transferred the empire.

CAP. XXI

Discipulus Adhuc allegationes alias pro opinione praedicta discutiamus.

Chapter 21

Student Let us discuss now other arguments for the aforesaid opinion.

Magister Pro eadem {ista &Mz} opinione {pro eadem opinione om. &Pe} allegatur Augustino {*aliter &NaRe} sic. Ab illo habet imperator Romanum imperium a quo postquam electus est examinatur {om. &Na} confirmatur et {*om. &MzNaRe} inungitur {ungitur &MdPe} {et add. &Mz} consecratur et {om. &Mz} coronatur et cui iurat {iuratur &Pe}. Sed imperator Romanus postquam est electus examinatur a Papa confirmatur inungitur {confirmatur inungitur om. &Md} {confirmatur inungitur: et &Pe} consecratur {confirmatur add. &Md} et coronatur et ei iurat {coronatur et ei iurat: huiusmodi &MdPe}, Extra, De electione c. {om. &NaRe} Venerabilem et dist. 63, Tibi domino. Ergo imperator imperium habet a Papa.

Master [4] It is argued in another way for that opinion as follows. The emperor has the Roman empire from him by whom, after he is elected, he is examined, confirmed, anointed, consecrated and crowned and to whom he takes an oath. But after he is elected the Roman emperor is examined, confirmed, anointed, consecrated and crowned by the pope and to him he swears an oath (Extra, De electione, c. Venerabilem [c.34, col.79] and dist. 63, Tibi domino [c.33, col.246].

Discipulus Ista ratio {responsio &MzNa} videtur includere multas particulas {*om. &MzNaRe}. Dic ergo secundum aliquam sententiam an per hoc quod electus in imperatorem examinatur a papa possit ostendi quod imperator imperium recepit {*trs. &MzNaRe} {recipit &MdMzPe} a papa.

Student That argument seems to include many parts. Tell me, therefore, whether, according to any opinion, by the fact that one elected as emperor is examined by the pope it can be shown that the emperor has received the empire from the pope.

Magister Dicunt quidam quod non. Nam et {om. &Md} {*litere add. &MzNaRe} legati {litere add. &MdPe} examinari debent ab {illo vel add. &Md} illis ad quos mittuntur {*mittitur &NaPeRe}, dist. 97, Nobilissimus ubi dicitur {*dicit &LyMdMzNaPePzRe} glossa, "Legati sine periculo non recipiuntur. Unde in eis maior {*trs.312 &MzNaReZn} est facienda {trs. &Mz} examinatio." Et tamen legationis officium non est ab ipsis. Ergo per examinationem probari non potest quod examinatus non {*om. &MdMzNaPePzRe} habet officium suum ab examinante. Tum quia {tum quia: sed etiam &Pz} licet {*Tum quia licet: Licet etiam &MdMzNaPeRe} examinare literas Papales {pape &Pe} Extra, De crimine falsi, et {ad &NaRe} {*c. Ad &MdMzPe} falsariorum et tamen examinatores huiusmodi {huius &Re} non habent super literas examinatas aliquam potestatem. Ergo per hoc quod electus in imperatorem examinatur a Papa inferri non potest quod imperator habet imperium {trs. &Mz} a Papa. Examinatur ergo {*igitur &MzRe} electus in imperatorem a Papa non ut Papa conferat sibi imperium sed ne Papa et alii habeant pro imperatore unum {*illum &MzNaRe} qui non est electus legitime et per consequens qui non est verus imperator, quemadmodum volentes uti literis papalibus examinant eas ne literas falsas pro veris recipiant.

Master Some people say `no'. For the letters of a legate should be examined by those to whom he is sent (dist. 97, Nobilissimus [c.3, col.348], where the gloss says, "Legates are not accepted without danger. So a greater examination is made of them.") And yet the office of a legation is not from them (?the examiners). It can not be proved by an examination, therefore, that the one examined has his office from the one examining. It is even permitted to examine papal letters (Extra, De crimine falsi, c. Ad falsariorum [c.7, col.820]), and yet examiners of this kind do not have any power over the letters examined. By the fact, therefore, that one elected as emperor is examined by the pope it can not be inferred that the emperor has the empire from the pope. One elected as emperor, therefore, is examined by the pope not so that the pope may confer the empire on him but so that the pope, and others, do not have as emperor him who was not elected legitimately and consequently him who is not the true emperor, just as those wanting to accept papal letters examine them so that they do not receive true letters for false ones.

Discipulus Video quare dicitur quod per examinationem probari non potest quod imperium sit a Papa. Nunc {nec &Re} refer {refert &PeRe} quid dicitur de confirmatione.

Student I see why it is said that it can not be proved that the empire is from the pope because of examination. Now tell me what is said about confirmation.

Magister Dicitur quod in nulla scriptura autentica antiqua {om. &Pe} {quod add. &Md} invenitur quod imperator fuerit {fuit &Mz} confirmatus a Papa. Unde et {*nec &MdNaPePzRe} in decretali Venerabilem quae magis sonare videtur quod imperium sit a Papa de confirmatione non {*om. &NaRe} sit mentio {*sermo &NaRe}. Unde dicitur quod imperator antiquitus {*trs. &NaRe} non confirmabatur a Papa. Si autem aliquis postea {*trs. &NaRe} confirmatus fuerit {*fuit &NaRe} {*trs. &NaRe} a Papa {Unde et ... a papa: sed &Mz} ex simplicitate vel {*et &MdMzNaRe} humilitate imperatoris processit non {et &Md} tamen {quod imperium sit a papa non add. &Md} potuit legem imperatori {*successori suo /om. &Md\ &MdMzNaPeRe} imponere.

Master It is said that we do not find in any authentic ancient writing that the emperor was confirmed by the pope. So in the decretal [Extra, De electione] Venerabilem, which trumpets it forth that the empire is from the pope, there is no word about confirmation. So they say that in former times the emperor was not confirmed by the pope. If, however, later on any [emperor] was confirmed by the pope this resulted from the emperor's simplicity and humility, yet he could not impose this law on his successor.

Discipulus Nunquid per inunctionem consecrationem {*et add. &MzNaRe} coronationem ostendi potest quod imperium sit a papa?

Student Can it be shown that the empire is from the pope because of anointing, consecration and coronation?

Magister Dicitur quod non, quia alii reges inunguntur consecrantur et coronantur ab {ad add. &Re} archiepiscopis et episcopis regnorum suorum et tamen non habent ab ipsis sua {om. &Md} regna {*trs. &MzNaPeRe}.

Master They say `no', because other kings are anointed, consecrated and crowned by archbishops and bishops of their kingdoms and yet they do not have their kingdoms from them.

Discipulus Nunquid {*Nonne &MdMzNaPeRe} per iuramentum potest ostendi quod imperium sit a Papa?

Student Can it be shown that the empire is from the pope because of the oath?

Magister Dicitur quod non, quia non potest probari quod aliquis imperator praestiterit aliquod {*aliud &MdMzNaPeRe} iuramentum Papae quam illud {id &Mz} quod fecit Otho Imperator Iohanni. Sed iuramentum Othonis non fuit iuramentum fidelitatis et subiectionis quod praestat vasallus domino suo pro feudo {eo &Md} quod recepit {*recipit &MdMzNaPeRe} ab ipso. Ad quod probandum tam iuramentum Othonis praedicti quam {tam &Pe} iuramentum quod praestat vasallus domino suo [[pro feudo .. suo: margin Pe]] adducuntur {*adducitur &MzNaRe}. Iuramentum autem Othonis, {*ut add. &NaRe} {quod add. &Md} habetur dist. 63. {om. &Md} [[gap in Md]] {et in add. &Md} c. Tibi {summo add. &Md} domino, tale fuit, {sit &Pe} "Tibi domino Iohanni Papae ego rex Otho promitto {*promittere &MdMzNaPeReZn} et iuramentum {*iurare &MdMzNaPeReZn} facio per Patrem {*et add. &MdMzNaPeReZn} Filium et Spiritum Sanctum, per hoc lignum vivificae {vivice &Re} {universe &MzPe} crucis et per has reliquias sanctorum quod {quia &Md}, si permittente {permittendo &Pe} Deo {*Domino &MdMzNaPeRe} Romam venero, sanctam Romanam ecclesiam et {per &Mz} te rectorem {rectore &Pe} ipsius exaltabo secundum meum posse, et {*numquam add. &MdMzNaPeReZn} vitam aut {etiam &Md} membra neque {nec &Re} ipsum honorem quem habes {habeas &Pe} mea voluntate aut meo consilio aut meo consensu {aut meo consensu om. &MdMzNaPeRe} aut {*mea add. &MzNaPeReZn} exhortatione perdes. Et in Romana civitate nullum placitum aut ordinationem faciam de omnibus quae ad te aut {*ad add. &MdMzNaReZn} Romanos pertinent {spectant &Md} sine consilio tuo {*trs. &MdMzNaPeReZn}. Et quicquid {et quicquid om. &MdPe} [[add. margin Md]] de {et quicquid de: si &Mz} terra sancti Petri ad nostram {meam &MdMzNaPe} potestatem {pacem &NaRe} pervenerit {*venerit &MdMzNaPeReZn} tibi reddam. Et {*om. &MdMzNaPePzReZn} Cuicunque regnum Italicum commisero iurare faciam illum, ut tui {om. &Re} adiutor {*trs. &MzNaZn} sit ad defendendum {*defendendam &NaZn} terram sancti Petri secundum {iuxta &Mz} meum vel {*meum vel om. &MzNaReZn} suum posse." Forma autem qua iurat vasallus domino suo {om. &Mz} est haec ut dicit Hostiensis {*trs.34512 &NaRe}. "Iuro ego super {*ad &MdMzNaPeRe} sancta Dei Evangelica {*evangelia &LyMzNaRe} quod a {an &Re} modo in {om. &LyPz} antea ero fidelis tibi {*huic &MzNaRe}, sicut debet esse vasallus domino suo, nec illud {id &Re} quod mihi sub nomine fidelitatis commiseris {*commiserit &MzNaRe} pandam alii {aliis &Pe}, me sciente, ad eius {tuum &Md} detrimentum." Aliam formam {*novam add. &MzNaRe} {?noviter add. &Pe} ponit idem Hostiensis quae talis est, "Ego Titius iuro ad {*super &MzNaRe} {supra &Pe} sancta Dei Evangelica {*evangelia &LyMzNaRe} quod ab hac hora in antea usque {*ad add. &MzNaPeRe} ultimum diem vitae meae {om. &Pe} ero fidelis tibi Gaio {om. &MdPe} domino meo contra omnem hominem." De {*ex &MdMzNaPeRe} istis formis {causis &Mz} iurandi nonnullis apparet quod iuramentum Othonis imperatoris non fuit iuramentum fidelitatis. Tum quia in illo {isto &Mz} iuramento nulla sit mentio de fidelitate {*trs.45123 &MzNaRe}. Tum quia esto quod per aliqua {alia &Mz} verba eiusdem {illius &Md} iuramenti aliqua {alia &Mz} fidelitas debeat {deberet &Md} {debet &MzPe} intelligi per nulla verba tamen {*trs. &MdMzNaPeRe} posita in illo {isto &MdMz} iuramento {*trs. &NaRe} intelligitur fidelitas illa quam debet vasallus domino {suo add. &MdMzPz} {*non enim omnis /om. &MzNa\ fidelitas est fidelitas quam debet vasallus domino suo /om. &LyMzPz\ add. &LyMzNaPePzRe}. Nam {om. &Na} nonnunquam quis {aliquis &Md} debet servare fidelitatem hosti suo quia fides hosti est servanda {*trs. &MdMzNaPeRe}, 23, {21 &Md} {13 &Mz} q. 1, Noli. Et tamen fidelitas illa {ista &Md} quam debet {videlicet add. &Pe} vasallus domino {*suo add. &MdMzNaPeRe} non est hosti servanda.

Master They say `no', because it can not be proved that any emperor offered a different oath to a pope than that which the emperor Otto made to John. But Otto's oath was not the oath of fidelity and subjection which a vassal offers to his lord for the fief which he receives from him. To prove this we bring forward both the said Otto's oath and the oath that a vassal offers his lord. Otto's oath, as we find in dist. 63, c. Tibi domino [c.33, col.246], was as follows, "I, King Otto, do promise and swear to you my lord, Pope John, through the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, through this piece of wood from the vivifying cross and through these relics of saints, that if the Lord allows it and I come to Rome, I will magnify the holy Roman church and you its ruler in accord with my power, and by my will or counsel or agreement or encouragement you will never lose your life or limbs or that honour which you have. And in the city of Rome I will not, without your advice, make any decree or agreement [[technical words?]] about anything that pertains to you or to the Romans. And whatever comes into our power from the land on St. Peter I will return to you. And I will make the one, whoever it is, on whom I bestow the Italian kingdom swear that he is your helper in defending the land of St. Peter in accord with his power." However, the form by which a vassal swears to his lord is, according to Hostiensis, as follows, "I swear by the holy gospels of God that from this very moment [[a modo in antea -- antea means the past]] I will be faithful to this person, as a vassal should be to his lord, and what he has bestowed on me in the name of fidelity I will not, to his detriment, knowingly open for anyone else." The same Hostiensis describes another recent form which is as follows: "I Titius swear on the holy gospels of God that from this very moment until the last day of my life I will be faithful against all men to you, Gaius, my lord." It is clear to some people from these forms of swearing that the oath of emperor Otto was not an oath of fidelity. This is (i) because there is no mention of fidelity in that oath and (ii) because even if some fidelity should be understood by some of the words of his oath, yet by none of the words in it is that fidelity understood which a vassal owes to his lord. For not every fidelity is the fidelity which a vassal owes to his lord. For sometimes someone should maintain fidelity with his enemy, because faith should be maintained with an enemy, (23, q. 1, c. Noli [c.3, col.892]. And yet that fidelity which a vassal owes his lord should not be maintained with an enemy.

Discipulus Videtur quod iuramentum Othonis fuit iuramentum fidelitatis ex hoc quod iuravit sibi quod nunquam {aut add. &Pe} vitam aut membra aut honorem perderet sua voluntate {vel add. &MdPe} consilio vel exhortatione. Hoc autem spectat ad iuramentum fidelitatis, 22, q. ultima c. De forma, ubi sic legitur, "Qui domino suo {suam &Pe} fidelitatem iurat ista sex semper in memoria {*trs.231 &MzNaReZn} habere debet incolume, tutum, honestum, utile, possibile {posse &Mz} facile {*trs. &MzNaReZn} {possibile facile: posse &MdPe}; incolume videlicet ne sit in damnum domino suo de corpore suo." Ex quibus verbis {*ut videtur add. &MzRe} colligi potest {ut vid... add. &Pe} quod qui iurat alicui ne sit ei in damnum de corpore suo {*ne sit ... suo: quod non erit /sit &Mz\ in damnum sibi de vita et membris &MzNaRe} iurat sibi fidelitatem. Hoc autem continetur {concipitur &Mz} in praedicto iuramento Othonis. Ergo iuravit {iurat &Md} Papae fidelitatem.

Student It seems that Otto's oath was an oath of fidelity from the fact that he swore to him that by his (Otto's) will, advice or encouragement he (the pope) would never lose his life or limbs or honour. This, however, pertains to an oath of fidelity, 22, q. 5, c. De forma [c.18, col.887], where we read the following, "He who swears fidelity to his lord should always have these six things in his memory: unharmed, safe, honest, useful, easy, possible; unharmed in the sense that he should not harm his lord's body." It seems that we can gather from these words that he who swears to someone that he will not harm his life or limbs swears fidelity to him. This, however, is contained in Otto's oath above. Therefore he swore fidelity to the pope.

Magister Dicitur {*respondetur &MzNaRe} quod non omnis qui iurat alicui ne sit ei in {om. &NaRe} damnum de corpore suo iurat sibi fidelitatem quam debet vasallus {trs. &Md} domino suo. Nam sicut legitur 1. &Reg. 30 {3 &Pe} {c. add. &MzNaRe} David iuravit puero Aegyptio {Aegypto &LyPz} qui ducturus eum erat ad Amalechitas qui percusserunt {*percusserant &MdMzNaRe} {percusserat &Pe} {percussit &LyPz} Sichelet quod non occideret {occidet &Mz} eum et non {et non: nec &MdPe} traderet {tradet &Mz} {que add. &Mz} eum [[nec traderet eum: margin Pe]] in manum {manu &MdPz} {*manus &MzNaPeRe} domini sui et tamen David non iuravit illi {illo &Mz} puero {*trs. &MdMzNaPeRe} fidelitatem quam vasallus debet {*trs. &MdMzNaPeRe} domino suo. Et per consequens ex hoc quod Otho iuravit Papae quod sua voluntate aut {suo add. &Pe} consilio non perderet vitam aut {et &NaRe} membra non exhibuit sibi iuramentum fidelitatis; imo quamvis iurasset sibi quod nihil mali ei unquam {quod ... unquam: et nihil malum ei numquam &Md} faceret non posset concludi quod iurasset ei {*sibi &MzNaRe} fidelitatem quam debet vasallus domino suo. {om. &Md} {*Nam taliter iuravit Ysaac Abymalech regi palestinorum cuius tamen non erat vassallus nec iuravit ei fidelitatem quam debet vasallus domino suo add. &MdNaPeRe} licet iuraverit ei quod nihil noceret {mali faceret &Pe} sibi {ei &Md}, {*et add. &MdMzNaPePzRe} Abimelech similiter {*consimiliter &MzNaRePz} iuravit {cum tamen non erat vasallus nec iuravit fidelitatem ei quam debet vasallus domino suo licet iuraverit ei quod nihil noceret sibi et Abimelech similiter iuravit add. &Pz] Isaac. Sic legitur enim {*trs. &MdMzNaPeRe} Gen. 26:[26-29 & 31], "Ad quem locum cum venissent de Gerariis Abimelech et Achosat {?Ochoras &NaRe} {Othos &Md} ad {*om. &NaRe} amicos {*amicus &NaVg} {amicis &Re} illius et Phicol dux exercitus {*militum &MzNaReVg}, locutus est eis Isaac, `Quid venistis ad me hominem quem odistis et expulistis a vobis?' Qui {quid &Md} responderunt. `Vidimus dominum esse tecum et idcirco nunc {ut &Mz} diximus, sit iuramentum inter nos et {ut &Md} iuremus {*ineamus &MdMzNaPeRe} {iuramus &Pz} foedus, et {*ut &MzVg} non facias nobis quicquid mali.'" Et post {statim sequitur &Mz}, "Surgentes mane iuraverunt sibi mutuo." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod Isaac iuravit illi {*alii &NaRe} cuius non erat vasallus et econverso quod {*non add. &MdMzNaPzRe} noceret {*nocerent &NaRe} ei {*sibi &MzNaRe} {om. &Md}. Et per consequens licet Otho iurasset Papae quod non {*foret add. &MdMzNaRe} [[margin Md]] sibi in damnum nec {neque &Na} de corpore suo nec {neque &Na} {*de add. &MdMzNaPePzRe} secreto vel munitionibus {vel munitionibus om. &Mz} neque {*nec &Re} de iustitia sua neque {*nec &Re} {*de add. &MdMzNaPeRe} possessionibus neque {*nec &Re} de quocunque pertinente ad ipsum non posset {potest &Md} ex hoc concludi quod iurasset sibi fidelitatem quam debet vasallus domino suo quod {*quia &MdMzNaRe} non continetur in iuramento quousque {*quod usque &MzPeRe} {quod &Na} ad ultimum diem vitae suae foret sibi fidelis contra omnem hominem, sicut vasallus domino suo. Sed

Master The reply is that not everyone who swears to someone not to harm his body swears the fidelity to him that a vassal owes his lord. For, as we read in 1 Kings 30, David swore an oath to the Egyptian boy who was going to lead him to the Amelakites who had attacked Sichelet that he would not kill him and would not deliver him into the hands of his lord, and yet David did not swear to that boy the fidelity that a vassal owes his lord. And consequently the fact that Otto swore to the pope that he would not lose his life or his limbs by his (Otto's) will or advice did not reveal an oath of fidelity to him; indeed although he had sworn to him that he would never do any wrong to him it could not be concluded that he had sworn the fidelity to him that a vassal owes to his lord. For Isaac swore in this way to Abimelech, king of the Philistines, yet he was not his vassal and he did not swear to him the fidelity which a vassal owes his lord, although he did swear to him that he would do him no harm and Abimelech made a similar oath. For this is what we read in Genesis 26:26-29 & 31, "When Abimelech went to him from Gerar, with Ahuzzath his friend and Phicol the commander of his army, Isaac said to them, `Why have you come to me seeing that you hate me and have sent me away from you?' They replied, `We have seen that the Lord is with you; so we say, let there be an oath between us and let us make a covenant so that you will do us no harm.' ... In the morning they arose early and exchanged oaths." We gather from these words that Isaac and another man, neither of whom was the other's vassal, swore an oath that they would not harm each other. And consequently, although Otto swore to the pope that he would not harm his body and would not secretly harm his fortifications, his justice, his possessions or anything at all pertaining to him, it could not be concluded from this that he had sworn to him the fidelity a vassal owes his lord, because the oath does not say that he will be faithful to him against every man until the last day of his life, as a vassal does to his lord.

{*Discipulus MzNaPzRe} Videtur quod {sic add. &Pz} Otho Imperator poterat iurare fidelitatem et subiectionem Papae absque hoc quod iuraret sibi fidelitatem quam debet vasallus domino suo. {Sed videtur ... suo om. &MdPe} Nam sicut habetur Extra, De iureiurando {*c. add. &MzPe} Ego episcopus, episcopi iurant illam {*om. &MdMzNaPeRe} fidelitatem domino Papae et tamen non iurant sibi {om. &Md} illam fidelitatem quam debet vasallus domino {*suo add. &MdMzNaPeRe} quia episcopi non sunt vasalli Papae, sicut nec Papa est dominus ipsorum {*episcoporum &MzNaPeRe}, iuxta illud Beati Petri, "Neque {nec &Re} dominantes in clero."

Student It seems that emperor Otto could have sworn fidelity and subjection to the pope without swearing to him the fidelity that a vassal owes his lord. For as we find in Extra, De iureiurandso, c. Ego episcopus c.4, col.360], bishops swear an oath of fidelity to the lord pope, and yet they do not swear to him that fidelity that a vassal owes his lord, because bishops are not vassals of the pope, just as the pope is not the lord of the bishops, as blessed Peter says [1 Peter 5:3], "Do not lord it over those in your charge.

Magister {om. &Pe} Respondetur quod sermo est de {sermo est de om. &Md} iuramento quod dicitur debere {*deberi &MdNaRe} fieri ab imperatore ratione imperii Romani, quod dicitur esse a Papa quia dicitur quod nullus est verus imperator Romanus nisi percipiat {*recipiat &MdMzNaPeRe} Romanum imperium a Papa. Ex quo concluditur quod imperator debet infeudari a Papa et per consequens imperator est vasallus Papae. Ex quo sequitur quod si debet iuramentum praestare {*iuramentum praestare: iurare &MdMzNaPeRe} Papae pro {quod &Md} Romano imperio debet sibi iurare fidelitatem quam debet vasallus domino suo.

Master The reply is that the discourse is about the oath which it is said should be made by the emperor by reason of the Roman empire, which is said to be from the pope because it is said that no one is a true Roman emperor unless he receives the Roman empire from the pope. We conclude from this that the emperor should be enfeoffed by the pope, and consequently the emperor is the vassal of the pope. It follows from this that if he ought to make an oath to the pope for the Roman empire he should swear to him the fidelity that a vassal owes to his lord.

Discipulus Videtur quod Otho iuravit Papae Iohanni fidelitatem illam quam debet vasallus domino {*suo add. &MdMzNaPeRe} quia vocat eum dominum suum cum dicit tibi domino {*meo add. &NaRe} Iohanni Papae {*etc add. &MzNaPeRe}.

Student It seems that Otto swore to Pope John that fidelity which a vassal owes his lord, because he calls him his lord when he says, "... to you my lord Pope John" etc.

Magister Respondetur quod sicut ibi {om. &Na} Otho vocat Papam dominum {om. &Md} ita {*etiam add. &NaRe} {et add. &Mz} Papa {et &Md} vocat imperatorem dominum suum, 11, {2 &MdPe} q. 1, {2 &Md} Sacerdotibus. {Discipulus add. &MdPe} Igitur {*Ergo &MzNaRe} sicut ex tali modo loquendi non potest {possit &MdPe} concludi quod Papa est vasallus imperatoris ita ex modo tali loquendi Othonis non potest concludi {*ostendi &NaRe} quod imperator est vasallus Papae. {Magister add. &Pe} {*Dicitur add. &NaRe} igitur {*ergo &MzNaRe} quod Otho vocat Papam `dominum' suum {*om. &MdMzNaRe} non est {*om. &MzNaRe} quia Papa est {*sit &NaRe} eius {suus &Mz} dominus {*trs. &MzNaRe} temporalis sed {non add. &Pz} propter praerogativam {praerogationem &Mz} officii et dignitatis, {dignitatem &Md} quemadmodum {quandam &Md} saepe domini temporales vocant etiam mendicantes {et add. &Re} `religiosos [[margin Md]] propter praerogativam sanctitatis et religionis non quia {om. &Na} reputant {*reputent &NaRe} se vasallos eorum. Qui et {*etiam &MdMzNaPeRe} modus loquendi saepe legitur {trs. &MdMzPe} in scripturis divinis.

Master The reply is that just as Otto calls the pope `lord' in that place, so also the pope calls the emperor `his lord', (11, q. 1, c. Sacerdotibus [c.41, col.638]). Just as it can not be concluded from that way of speaking, therefore, that the pope is the vassal of the emperor, so it can not be shown from Otto's way of speaking that the emperor is the vassal of the pope. It is said, therefore, that Otto calls the pope `lord' not because the pope is his temporal lord but on account of the prerogative of office and dignity, just as secular lords often call even mendicants religious lords on account of the prerogative of sanctity and religion, not because they regard themselves as their vassals. We often find this way of speaking in the divine scriptures too.

Discipulus Nunquid tenebatur Otho etiam non {*om. &MzNaPeRe} requisitus {non requisitus: ?irrequisitus &Md} iurare domino {*om. &NaRe} Papae {*Johanni add. &MzNaRe}?

Student Was Otto bound, especially if asked, to swear to Pope John?

Magister Respondetur quod Otho spontanea voluntate iuravit Papae Iohanni {om. &NaRe} {*et add. &MdMzNaPeRe} ad tale autem iuramentum cogi {colligi &Re} [[constringi: interlinear Re]] non potuit. Quod tali ratione probatur {?probat &Na}. Nam {*om. &MdNaPeRe} Non plus ex ordinatione Christi tenetur imperator papae pro Romano imperio quam rex Franciae et quicunque alii pro regnis suis {trs. &Md} {om. &Pe}. Sed rex Franciae et multi alii reges non tenentur iurare Papae nisi voluerint. Ergo nec imperator. Et ex hoc concluditur quod imperator non [[et ex ... non: margin Md]] habet imperium a Papa nec est vasallus eius quia vasallus tenetur iurare domino suo {etc add. &Pe} potissime si fuerit requisitus {potissime si fuerit requisitus om. &MdPe}.

Master The reply is that Otto swore to Pope John of his own free will, and could not, nevertheless, have been forced to an oath of that kind. This is proved by the following argument. By Christ's ordination the emperor is no more bound to the pope for the Roman empire than the king of France and any other [kings] are for their kingdoms. But the king of France and many other kings are not bound to swear to the pope unless they want to. Neither, therefore, is the emperor. And from this we can conclude that the emperor does not have the empire from the pope and is not his vassal, because a vassal is bound to swear to his lord, above all if it is demanded of him.

CAP. XXII

Discipulus Tange breviter aliquas {om. &Mz} alias {om. &Pe} rationes pro saepe dicta opinione.

Chapter 22

Student Touch briefly on some other arguments for that often quoted opinion.

Magister Alia ratio est {*haec add. &NaRe}. {alia ratio est om. &Pe} Papa supplet defectum imperii vacante imperio, Extra, De foro competenti, c. {om. &MdNaRe} Licet. Ergo imperium dependet a Papa.

Master [5] Another argument is this. The pope makes good the deficiency in the empire when there is a vacancy, Extra, De foro competenti, c. Licet c.2, col.250]. Therefore the empire is derived from the pope.

Discipulus Dic breviter {Dic breviter om. &Md} quomodo respondetur ad illam {*istam &NaPeRe} rationem {*trs. &MzNaRe}.

Student Tell me briefly how that argument is replied to.

Magister Dicitur quod sicut Papa ex auctoritate sibi data a {domino seu add. &Pe} Christo non intromittit se de temporalibus vacantibus aliis regnis multis nec etiam est tutor aliorum regnorum vel haeredum eorum {*aliorum ... eorum: haeredum aliorum regnorum qui /que &MdPe\ sunt &MdNaPeRe} infra aetatem legitimam {illegitimam &Pe} sic Papa auctoritate papali sibi data a Christo non intromittit se de imperio {romano add. &Md} vacante illo {*imperio &MzNaRe}, sed quod intromittat {*intromittit &MdMzNaPeRe} se (si rite faciat {*et add. &Re} intromittit se) auctoritate Romanorum vel electorum, ad quos {quem &Pe} {*vel ad cunctos electores add. &NaRe} {electores add. &Mz} spectat specialiter {*principaliter &NaRe} supplere defectum imperii imperio vacante {*trs. &NaRe}, qui potestatem suam transferre possent {*possunt &NaRe} in papam.

Master It is said that just as by the authority given to him by Christ the pope does not meddle with temporal affairs when there are vacancies in many other kingdoms and also he is not the guardian of the heirs of other kingdoms who are less than full age, so by the papal authority given to him by Christ he does not meddle in the empire when there is a vacancy, but (if he acts rightly in meddling) by the authority of the Romans or of the electors, to whom [the Romans], or to all the electors, it principally pertains to make good the deficiency in the empire when there is a vacancy, who can transfer their power to the pope.

Discipulus Aliam rationem adducas?

Student Would you bring forward another argument?

Magister Alia ratio {om. &Pe} {*talis add. &NaRe} est. Papa habet utrumque gladium, materialem scilicet et spiritulem. Ergo imperium est ab ipso {eo &Pe}.

Master [6] Another argument is as follows. The pope has both swords, that is, the material and the spiritual one. Therefore, the empire is from him.

Discipulus Dic quomodo respondetur ad {*rationem add. &MzNaRe} istam.

Student Tell me how that argument is replied to.

Magister Dicitur quod Papa non habet utrumque gladium, teste Nicolao {*papa add. &NaRe} qui ut legitur 30 {23 &Md} {*33 &MzNaPePzRe} q. 2, c. Inter hoc {*haec &MdMzNaRe} {ubi add. &Mz} loquens de Ecclesia ait, "Gladium non habet nisi spiritualem. Non occidit sed vivificat."

Master It is said that the pope does not have both swords, as Pope Nicholas attests when speaking of the church he says, as we find in 33, q. 2, c. Inter haec c.2, col.1152), "He only has the spiritual sword. He does not kill but restores to life."

Discipulus Glossa respondet ibidem quod ecclesia {etiam &Pe} non habet gladium nisi {trs. &Mz} spiritualem {spirituale &NaRe} "quoad executionem" habet, tamen gladium materialem {materiale &Na} quasi {trs.312 &Mz} reconditum in vagina cuius executionem imperatori committit. In gremio enim fidelis ecclesiae ambo gladii sunt reconditi. Unde quisquis ibidem non fuerit neutrum habet. Quod probatur per hoc quod Dominus non dicit {*dixit &MdMzNaRe} Petro, `Abiice {abiicere &Md} gladium' sed {*dixit add. &MzNaRe}, `Converte gladium {*tuum add. &MzNaReVg} in vaginam', ut scilicet Petrus non per seipsum sed per {om. &Md} imperatorem potestatem gladii communicet {exercet &Na} {*exerceret &MzRe} {convincet &Md} {committit &Pe}. Potestas enim gladii materialis apud ecclesiam est implicita sed per imperatorem qui eam {eum &MdMz} recepit {*recipit &MzNaRe} {repetit &Md} explicatur. In cuius signum summus pontifex quando coronat Caesarem exhibet sibi gladium in vagina contentum. Quem acceptum {antequam &Mz} princeps evaginat {*eximit &NaRe} {exuit &MdMzPePz} et vibrando innuit se illius executionem {exercitium &MdPeRe} {exercitum &Na} accepisse {acceptasse &Pz}.

Student The gloss at that place [col.1652] replies that the church only has the spiritual sword "with respect to execution", yet has the material sword hidden as it were in its sheath and bestows it on the emperor to use it. For both swords are hidden in the breast of the faithful church. Whoever, therefore, is not in that place has neither [sword]. This is proved by the fact that the Lord did not say to Peter, `Throw away your sword', but said [cf. Mat.26:52 and John 18:11], `Put your sword back into its sheath', so that Peter would employ, that is, the power of the sword not himself but through the emperor. For the power of the material sword is attached to the church but is deployed by the emperor who receives it. As a sign of this, when the highest pontiff crowns a Caesar he shows him the sword held in its sheath. When he has received it the prince takes it out and indicates by flourishing it that he has accepted the exercise of it.

Magister Ista {illa &Mz} ratio a nonnullis qui eam haereticalem reputant [[margin Md]] multipliciter improbatur {*reprobatur &MdMzNaPeRe}.

Master That argument is condemned in many ways by some people, who regard it as heretical.

Discipulus Quia illa {*Quia illa: Quare ista opinio hereticalis putatur /reputatur &MdMzPe\ inferius dices cum recitabis quare &MdMzNaPeRe} opinio quam modo {non &Pz} tractamus haereticalis aestimatur. Ideo breviter narra quomodo illa {*ista &MzNaRe} ratio {*responsio &NaRe} improbatur {*reprobatur &NaRe}.

Student Why that opinion is thought to be heretical you will explain below when you recite why the opinion we are now treating is considered heretical. So set down briefly now how that reply is condemned.

Magister Improbatur primo sic. Rex Franciae et alii reges quamplures non recipiunt gladii potestatem a Papa; {*ymo add. &MzPeRe} etiam quando regnare incipiunt ipsam de nullo requirunt nec pro coronatione nec pro alia potestate concedenda ipsis. Ergo nec imperator recipit gladii potestatem {concedendam ?etiam ipsis ergo nec imperator recipit gladii potestatem add. &Md} a Papa {etiam quando regnare ... a Papa om. &Na}.

Master It is attacked first as follows. The king of France and very many other kings do not receive the power of the sword from the pope. Indeed even when they begin to rule they do not need it from anyone, either for their coronation or for any other power granted to them. Therefore the emperor too does not receive the power of the sword from the pope.

Secundo quia extra ecclesiam est gladii potestas {*trs. &MzNaRe}. Aliter enim nullus paganus fuisset vere {*verus &MzNaRe} princeps.

[It is attacked] secondly because the power of the sword is outside the church. For otherwise no pagan would have been a true prince.

Tertio quia quando Christus dixit {dicit &PePz} Petro, "Converte gladium tuum in vaginam" {in vaginam: nam &Pz}, {*Petrus non fuit /trs.231 &MdMzPe\ papa. Nam add. &MdMzNaPeRe} post resurrectionem factus fuit {*fuerit &MdNaRe} {om. &Pe} pastor licet prius fuit apostolus, dist. 50, {*c. add &Mz} Considerandum {cum fide &Md} et c. Fidelior. Igitur {*ergo &MzNaRe} per illa {ista &Md} verba non potest ostendi quod potestas gladii fuit data {*trs. &NaRe} Papae {om. &Md} a Christo.

[It is attacked] thirdly because when Christ said to Peter, "Put your sword back in its sheath", Peter was not pope. For he became a shepherd after the resurrection, although he was an apostle beforehand, (dist. 50, c. Considerandum [c.3, col.198] and c. Fidelior [c.4, col.198] It can not be shown through those words, therefore, that the power of the sword was given to the pope by Christ.

Quarto quia alii reges accipiunt coronam ab episcopis vel archiepiscopis {*trs.321 &MzNaRe} regnorum suorum per quam {quod &MdPe} designatur {*regalis add. &MzNaRe} auctoritas {regalis add. &MdPe} et etiam potestas temporalis et tamen illi {*illam &MdNaPeRe} {illa &Mz} non habent ab episcopis vel {*et &MzNaRe} archiepiscopis {*trs.321 &MzNaRe} regnorum suorum dominium {om. &MdPePz} {*regnorum suorum dominium om. &MzNaRe}. Omnem enim gladii potestatem et administrationem {*administrationis &MdMzNaPeRe} temporalem {*temporalis &MdMzNaPeRe} habent ante coronationem quam habent post et multo magis {*minus &MdMzNaPeRe} recipiunt in coronatione {confirmatione &Md} {confirmationem &Pe} quam clerici {*electi &MzNaPeRe} confirmati in consecratione {consecrationem &Pe} et {*qui &MdMzNaPeRe} tamen ante consecrationem consequuntur {consequentur &Mz} omnia {om. &Md} quae sunt iurisdictionis, Extra, De translatione episcoporum c. 1.

[It is attacked] fourthly because other kings receive from archbishops or bishops the crown of their kingdoms by which royal authority and even temporal power are designated and yet they do not have it from the archbishops and bishops. For they have all the power of the sword and of temporal administration before their coronation that they have after it, and at their coronation they receive much less than those who have been elected do when they are confirmed by consecration; yet before their consecration the latter acquire everything which is in their jurisdiction, (Extra, De translatione episcoporum, c. 1, Cum ex illo [c.1, col.96].

Quinto quia electus in imperatorem ante coronatur in regem quam {*coronetur add. &MdMzNaPeRe} in {om. &Pe} imperatorem a Papa coronatur {*om. &MdMzNaPeRe} {coronetur &LyPz}. Omnis autem rex habet potestatem gladii materialis. Ergo antequam imperator recipiat {*accipiat &MzNaRe} a Papa gladium in vagina contentum habet etiam quo ad executionem gladium materialem.

[It is attacked] fifthly because the one who is elected as emperor is crowned as a king before he is crowned as emperor by the pope. Every king, however, has the power of the material sword. Therefore before the emperor receives from the pope the sword held in its sheath he has the material sword, even with respect to its use.

CAP. XXIII

Discipulus Ista ratio {*responsio &MdMzNaPePzRe} apparenter refellitur ad quam postea forte redibimus. Ideo tange aliam rationem {responsionem &Pz} ad eandem conclusionem {*trs. &MzNaRe}.

Chapter 23

Student That reply [[ratio or responsio?]], to which perhaps we will return later, is clearly refuted. So touch on another argument for the same conclusion.

Magister Alia ratio talis est. Ab ipso {*illo &MzNaPeRe} {episcopo &Pz} est potestas Romani imperii qui a Christo recepit {suscepit &Mz} potestatem ligandi omnia et solvendi. Sed talem potestatem dedit Christus beato {om. &MdMz} Petro, qui ut legitur Matth. 16:[18-9] dicit {*dixit &MdMzNaPeRe} ei, "Tu es Petrus et super hanc {et super hanc om. &Pe} etc {petram edificabo ecclesiam meam &Md} usque {*etc usque: petram edificabo ecclesiam meam et porte inferi non praevalebunt adversus /om. &Na\ eam. Et tibi dabo claves regni celorum et quodcumque ligaveris super terram erit ligatum et in celis et quodcumque solveris super terram &MzNaRe} erit solutum et in {om. &Md} coelis." Igitur {*ergo &MzNaRe} beatus Petrus omnia potuit. Et per consequens [[et per consequens: margin Md]] potuit [[interlinear Md]] dare imperium imperatori {*trs. &MzNaRe}.

Master [7] Another argument is as follows. The power of the Roman empire is from that person who received from Christ the power of binding and loosing everything. But Christ gave that power to blessed Peter when he said to him, as we read in Matthew 16:18-19, "You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Blessed Peter, therefore, could do everything. And consequently he could give the empire to the emperor.

Discipulus Quamvis de fundamento illius {huius &Md} {*istius &NaRe} rationis plura {plurima &Pe} poterimus {potuerimus &MdMz} invenire in tractatu De potestate papae et cleri, tamen dic breviter hic {*trs.321 &MzNaRe} an omnes consentiunt {*consentiant &MdMzNaPeRe} quod absque omni exceptione papa omnia possit. Videtur enim quod sic cum Innocentius tertius videtur {*videatur &MzNaPeRe} hoc {*trs. &MzNaRe} {*expresse add. &MzNaRe} consentire {*sentire &MzNaRe} et dicere sicut legitur {*sicut legitur: qui ut habetur &MzNaRe} {loquitur &Md} Extra, De maioritate et obedientia, c. solet {*Solite MdNaPeReZn}, "Nunc vis non {vis non: autem nec &Md} {nunc vis non: ne &Pe} {nunc vis non: nec &MzNaRe} {*nunc vis non: ... ut Zn} illud tanquam notissimum omittamus quod Deus {*dominus &NaReZn} dicit {*dixit &MdMzNaReZn} ad Petrum et etiam Petrus {Petro &Md} dicit {*etiam Petrus dicit: in Petro dixit &MzNaPeReZn} ad successores eius {*ipsius &MzNaReZn}, `Quodcunque {quaecumque &Md} ligaveris super terram erit {om. &MdPe} {*ligatum et in celis' add. &MzNaReZn} etc, nihil excipiens {accipiens &NaRe} cum {*qui &MzNaReZn} dicit {*dixit &MzNaReZn} {quia dicit add. &Pe}, `Quodcunque ligaveris' {super terram add. &Pe} etc" {*ligaveris etc om. &MdZn}.

Student Although we will be able to find many things about the basis of that argument in the tract, On the power of the pope and clergy, yet tell me briefly here whether everyone agrees that the pope can do everything without any exception. For it seems that it is so, since Innocent III seems expressly to think and say this when he says, as we find in Extra, De maioritate et obedientia, c. Solite [c.6, col.196] "... in order to pass over as very well known that the Lord said to Peter, and in Peter said to his successors, `Whatever you bind on earth will also be bound in heaven' etc, excepting nothing in saying, `Whatever'.

Magister Dicere {dicitur &Pe} quod Papa sine omni exceptione omnia possit multi reputant haeresim, etiam loquendo de illis quae fieri possunt ab homine. Tum quia nihil potest quod est contra ius divinum vel {contra add. &Mz} ius naturale. Tum quia multa non potest quae nec sunt contra ius divinum nec contra ius {divinum vel ius ... contra ius om. &Na} naturale, {*immo add. &NaRe} quorum multa ab aliis fieri possunt.

Master Many regard it as a heresy to say that the pope can do anything without any exception, even speaking about those things which can be done by man. This is (i) because he can do nothing which is against divine law or natural law and (ii) because there are many things which are not against divine law or natural law that he can not do, many of which indeed can be done by others.

Discipulus Quod Papa non possit illa {*omnia &NaRe} {ista &Md} quae sunt contra ius divinum vel {et &Md} {contra add. &Mz} ius naturale non dubito {dubites &Pe}. Ideo non {*nullum &MzNaRe} ponas {probans &Mz} exemplum de illis {*trs.45123 &MdMzNaPeRe} sed breviter tange aliqua {*alia add. &NaRe} {alia &Mz} exempla quae alii adducunt ad probandum quod Papa non potest omnia quae nec sunt contra ius divinum nec {*contra ius add. &MdMzNaPeRe} naturale {*trs.45231 &MzNaRe}.

Student I do not doubt that the pope can not do anything which is against divine law or natural law. So do not give any examples of those things, but touch briefly on some other examples which others bring forward to prove that the pope can not do everything which is not against divine law or against natural law.

Magister Primum exemplum est quod {*quia &NaRe} papa non potest sibi substituere {*instituere &MdNaPeRe} {*trs. &NaRe} successorem qui post ipsum sit Papa, 8, q. 1, c. {*para. &MzNaRe} His omnibus.

Master The first example is that he can not appoint the successor who is pope after him, (8, q. 1, para. His omnibus [c.7, col.591]).

Secundum est quia {om. &Pe} quod infideles {fidelis &Mz} suscipiunt {*suscipiant &NaPeRe} {recipiat &Mz} fidem non est contra ius divinum vel {ius add. &Md} {nec &Mz} naturale {vel naturale om. &Pe} sed consonum. Et tamen Papa non potest cogere infideles {fideles &Mz} suscipere fidem, dist. 35 {*45 &MdNaPe} {41 &Re}, {*c. add &Mz} De Iudaeis et 13 {*23 &MdMzNaPeRe}, q. 5, Ad fidem et c. Quia {*Quali &Zn} nos.

The second is that it is not against divine or natural law, but in agreement with it, that unbelievers should receive the faith. And yet the pope can not compel unbelievers to receive the faith, (dist. 45, De Iudaeis c.5, col.161] and 23, q. 5, c. Ad fidem [c.33, col.939] and c. Quali nos [c.44, col.943]).

Tertium est quod {*quia &NaRe} non potest compellere aliquem absque culpa intrare religionem, 20, q. 3, c. {om. &NaRe} Praesens.

The third is that without blame he can not compel anyone to enter religion, 20, q. 3, c. Praesens [c.4, col.849].

Quartum est quod {*quia &NaRe} {om. &Md} non potest alicui {om. &Md} praecipere {percipere &MdRe} {*trs. &MzNaPeRe} absque culpa et {etiam &Pe} causa {et causa om. &Md} patenti quod quis {*om. &MdMzNaPeRe} servet virginitatem, teste Ambrosio qui ut legitur 32, q. {*1 add. &LyMdMzNaPePzRe} c. Integritas ait, "Sola autem {*om. &MdNaPeReZn} {enim &Mz} est {*enim add. &NaPeReZn} virginitas quae suaderi potest {praecipi &Pz} imperari non potest {imperari non potest om. &Na}. Res magis est {trs. &Md} voti {voluntati &Mz} quam praecepti {praesidenti &Pe}."

The fourth is that without manifest fault or reason he can not order anyone to maintain their virginity, as Ambrose attests when he says, as we read in 32, q. 1, c. Integritas [c.13, col.1119], "For virginity alone, to which one can be persuaded, can not be commanded. It is a matter more of a vow than of a command."

Ex {*quibus add. &MzNaPeRe} verbis istis {*om. &MzNaPeRe} sumitur quintum exemplum, quod scilicet {si &Md} nihil supererogativum {*supererogationum &NaRe} potest {*papa add. &NaRe} praecipere alicui sine culpa et absque causa, {*ut add. &MzNaRe} nec continentiam nec ieiunium {*ieiunia &MdMzNaRe} nisi ratione delicti vel {*ex add. &MdNaRe} causa patenti posset {*possit &MdMzNaPeRe} alicui praecipere, 74, dist. {*trs. &NaRe} c. {om. &NaRe} Gesta, ubi dicit Beatus Gregorius, "Sicut iustum est ut nemo credere {*crescere &MzNaReZn} {?tristis &Pe} compellatur {compellantur &Re} invitus, ita censendum puto ne quisquam insons {om. &Mz} [[gap in Mz]] {iustius &Pe} ab ordinis {ordine &Pe} sui {seu &Pe} ministerio deiiciatur iniuste." Ex quibus verbis sic arguitur. Papa de plenitudine potestatis non potest deiicere iniuste aliquem {*trs. &NaRe} {om. &Pe}. Igitur {*Ergo &MzNaRe} nec de plenitudine potestatis [[non potest ... potestatis: margin Md]] potest aliquem invitum compellere credere {*crescere &MzNaRe} {testem &Pe} nisi ratione delicti vel ex causa.

From these words the fifth example is taken, namely that the pope can command nothing supererogatory of anyone, without blame and without a reason, so that he can not command chastity or fasting on anyone except by reason of some fault or for some clear cause, dist. 74, c. Gesta c.2, col.262], where blessed Gregory says, "As it is just that no one who is unwilling is compelled to multiply, so I think that it should be resolved that no one who is guiltless is to be ejected unjustly from the ministry of his order." From these words it is argued as follows. By plenitude of power the pope can not eject anyone unjustly. Nor can he, therefore, by plenitude of power force anyone who is unwilling to multiply, except by reason of some fault or for some cause.

Sextum est quod {*quia &NaPeRe} papa non potest dispensare cum monacho ut habeat proprium vel contrahat matrimonium, Extra, De statu monachorum, c. {om. &NaRe} Cum ad {om. &Md} monasterium, ubi sic dicitur, "Abdicatio proprietatis {*sicut add. &NaReZn} et custodia castitatis adeo est adiuncta {auuca &Md} {*annexa &MzNaReZn} regulae monachali ut contra eum {*eam &MdMzNaPePzReZn} nec summus pontifex possit licentiam indulgere."

The sixth is that the pope can not exempt a monk so that he may have his own goods or contract matrimony, Extra, De statu monachorum, c. Cum ad monasterium [c.6, col.599], where we find the following, "The renunciation of property, like the guarding of chastity, has been so bound to the monastic rule that the highest pontiff can not grant freedom from it."

Septimum est quod {*quia &NaRe} papa absque causa non potest in quocunque voto dispensare, teste Glossa Extra, De voti et voto {*trs.321 &LyMdMzNaPePzRe} redemptione, c. Non est voti. Quae {ubi &Mz} ait super {sicut &Pe} verbo adimplere, {non est ... adimplere: non est iuri ?videtur dicitur &Md} [[margin]] "Non est securus quoad Deum cum quo Papa dispensat nisi subsit causa dispensandi, sicut {sed &Mz} non {*nec &MzNaReZn} dicitur absolutus qui causam {cum &Pe} excommunicationis supprimit. {om. &Pe} Habebit {habebat &Pe} {om. &Md} tamen {om. &MdPe} exceptionem {tamen habebit add. &Md} quoad ecclesiam ille {iste &Md} cum quo sine causa dispensatum est; quoad Deum sibi allegatio {obligatio &Pe} non valebit {sibi allegatio non valebit: sed alleg.. non habebit &Md}."

The seventh is that without a reason the pope can not grant an exemption from any vow at all, as the gloss on Extra, De voto et voti redemptione, c. Non est voti [col.1280] attests. About the word fulfil it says, "He whom the pope exempts is not safe with respect to God unless there is a reason for the exemption, just as he is not said to be absolved who suppresses the reason for excommunication. That one who is granted an exemption without a reason will nevertheless be exempted with respect to the church; with respect to God the allegation will not avail him."

Octavum est quod {*quia &NaPeRe} papa non potest alienare praedia et {neque &Mz} possessiones ecclesiae nisi ex causa et debito modo, 12, q. 2, c. {et add. &Md} Non liceat, ubi Symachus Papa {om. &Md} {*sic add. &MdMzNaPePzRe} ait, "Non liceat {licet &MdMzPe} papae praedium {praesidium &Md} ecclesiae alienare quoquo modo," scilicet ad placitum suum, sed {*licet &NaRe} in casu et {*om. &NaRe} debito modo posset {*possit &MzNaRe} {potest &Md} alienare. Nec Papa hic {Papa hic: propter hoc &Pe} imponit legem successori suo sed ostendit quid {quia &Mz} {quod &Pe} de iure non potest, ut dicit Glossa dist. 60 {*40 &MdMzNaPzRe}, c. {om. &Md} {ut dicit glossa dist. 60, c.: .?. dist. 40 glossa dicit &Pe} Si Papa non potest {*non potest: om. &MdNa} [[written but erased Md]] {c. si papa non potest om. &Re}.

The eighth is that the pope can not alienate the estates and possessions of the church except for a reason and in the due manner, 12, q. 2, c. Non liceat [c.20, col.693], where Pope Symachus speaks as follows, "Let the pope not be permitted to alienate an estate of the church in any way at all," that is at his own pleasure, although he can do so in a particular case in the due manner. Nor does a pope impose a law on his successor, but shows what he can not by right do, as the gloss on dist. 40, c. Si papa says. [[col. 195-7, but the gloss is not there.]]

Nonum est quod {*quia &NaRe} quondam non potuit {*papa add. &NaRe} cogere subdiaconos {diaconos &MdPe} ad continentiam secundum Beatum Gregorium, ut legitur {*ut legitur: qui ut habetur &MzNaRe} 27, q. 2, c. Multorum et dist. 31 {3 &Pe} {*c. add. &PzNaRe} Ante triennium {terrenum &Pe} qui {*om. &MdMzNaPeRe} reprobat constitutionem antecessoris {*praedecessoris &MdMzNaPeRe} sui. Qui {om. &Md} ut dicit glossa super c. Ante {om. &Md} triennium {terrenum &Pe} ordinavit ut subdiaconi qui non promiserant continentiam "vel contenti essent uxoribus suis tantum vel beneficiis privarentur {om. &MdMzNaPeReZn} [...] . Postea ibidem {*idem &MzNaReZn}" praedecessor Gregorii, {*scilicet "Pelagius add. &MdMzNaPeRe} fecit {*edidit Zn} constitutionem in qua praecise prohibuit ut subdiaconi {amodo add. &Mz} nullo modo {commode add. &Md} {*amodo add. &NaPeReZn} commisceri deberent {debent &Mz} {?cum add. &Pe} uxoribus suis." De qua constitutione scribit Beatus Gregorius dicens "Ante triennium olim {*om. &MdMzNaPeReZn} omnium ecclesiarum subdiaconi {om. &MdPe} Siciliae prohibiti fuerant," scilicet a Pelagio Papa, "ut more Romanae ecclesiae suis uxoribus {trs. &Mz} nullatenus miscerentur {commiscerentur &NaRe}. Quod mihi durum videtur atque {ac &Re} incompetens {impotens &Md} {*trs.231 &MzNaReZn} ut qui usum incontinentiae {*continentiae &MdMzNaPeReZn} non {?omisit add. &Pe} invenit {invenerit &Re} neque {nec &Re} castitatem {*ante add. Zn} promisit compellatur a sua uxore separari ac {ne &Mz} per hoc, quid {*quod &LyMzNaPzReZn} absit, in deterius cadat." Ubi Glossa in assignando casum huius {*illius &NaRe} capituli loquens de illa {ista &Mz} constitutione Pelagii {*pape add. &MzNaRe} dicit sic, "Sed illa {ista &Mz} constitutio fuit iniqua quod aliquis qui non promiserit {*promisit &MzNaReZn} {promiserat &Md} continentiam cogeretur continere. Retractatur hic {hoc &Mz} a Gregorio et constituitur {*statuitur &MdMzZn} hic {om. &Mz} {haec &NaRe} {hoc &Pe} quod si qui diaconi {om. &Md} *(subdiaconi &MzNaReZn} non {*modo &MzNaReZn} sunt {non sunt: fuit modo &Pe} non cogentur {cogantur &MzNaRe} continere nisi velint. Si qui autem in futurum {*sunt add. &MzNaPeReZn} ordinandi non admittantur nisi promittat {*promittant &LyMdMzNaPePzReZn} continentiam." Et Glossa super verbo {verbum &Md} durum dicit sic {si &LyPz}, "Statutum Pelagii fuit contra evangelium ex {*in Zn} quo excipitur sola fornicatio. Et ideo reprobatum fuit."

The ninth is that according to blessed Gregory formerly a pope could not compel subdeacons to chastity. As we find in 27, q. 2, c. Multorum [c.20, col.1068] and dist. 31, c. Ante triennium [c.1, col.111] he rejects a constitution of his predecessor. As the gloss on the chapter Ante triennium (col. 149) says, he [the predecessor] commanded that subdeacons who had not promised chastity "or had been content with their wives were to be deprived of their benefices. Later that same predecessor of Gregory, that is Pelagius, issued a constitution in which he absolutely restrained subdeacons from mixing in any way with their wives from that time on." In writing about this constitution blessed Gregory says [col.111] "Three years ago the subdeacons of all the churches of Sicily were, in the custom of the church of Rome, restrained," by Pope Pelagius, "from mixing with their wives. It seems to me unsuitable and harsh that he who has not learnt the practice of chastity and has not promised purity beforehand should be compelled to be separated from his wife and because of her absence fall into worse [behaviour]." In conveying the legal problem of this chapter the gloss says the following of that constitution of Pope Pelagius [col.149], "But that constitution was unjust because someone who did not promise chastity was forced to preserve it. It is retracted here by Gregory and established here that those who are not subdeacons will not be forced to preserve it unless they want to. If there are any in the future who are to be ordained, however, they are not to be admitted unless they promise chastity." And the gloss on the word harsh [col. 149] says, as follows, "The statute of Pelagius was against the gospel in which only fornication is expressly mentioned. And therefore it was rejected."

Discipulus Si constat quod {*om. &MzNaRe} illud {*istud &NaRe} quod {illud quod om. &MdPe} praecepit Pelagius Papa fuit {*erat &NaRe} contra evangelium illud {*istud &NaRe} {om. &Md} exemplum non probat quod Papa non potest {*possit &MzNaRe} omnia quae non {om. &Mz} sunt contra ius divinum vel {et ius &NaRe} naturale.

Student If what Pope Pelagius commanded was against the gospel, that example does not prove that the pope can not do everything which is not against divine or natural law.

Magister Respondetur {*tibi add. &MzNaRe} quod istud {*illud &MdMzNaPeRe} statutum Pelagii fuit tam {om. &Pe} contra evangelium quam {et &Pe} contra libertatem sive {tam &Md} ius {sive ius om. &Re} illorum subdiaconorum et uxorum suarum {*ipsorum &MzNaRe}, quia cogere voluit {*trs. &MdMzNaRe} subdiaconos continere, non obstante evangelio et {*non obstante add. &MdMzNaPeRe} libertate sive iure tam subdiaconorum quam uxorum eorundem. In potestate enim subdiaconorum de consensu uxorum suarum fuit continere nec hoc erat contra evangelium. Sed illam potestatem subdiaconorum {diaconorum &Pe} et uxorum suarum {*ipsorum &NaRe} non potuit ab {om. &Mz} eis auferre {trs. &Mz} Papa Pelagius, ut testatur Gregorius. Ergo non potuit omnia quae {*non add. &MdMzNaPeRe} sunt contra ius divinum et contra ius {*et contra ius: vel &Md} naturale. Et {om. &Md} ex ista sententia concludit {*concluditur &MzNaPeRe} Gregorii {*trs. &MzNaPeRe} quod Papa nihil {non &Md} potest contra libertatem et ius unius {*cuiuscumque &NaRe} Christiani etiam in spiritualibus {?specialibus &Pe} nisi ratione delicti vel {*ex add. &MzNaRe} causa manifesta, quoniam {*quia &MdMzNaPeRe} {quod &Pz} nullum {*nullus &NaRe} potest privare iure suo et libertate sua sine culpa et absque causa. Et ideo nisi ratione delicti vel {et &Pe} ex causa non potest alicui praecipere continentiam {*om. &MdNaPeRe} nec ieiunium nec eleemosynam {*nec eleemosynam om. &MdMzNaPeRe} ad quod non tenetur {*nec eleemosynam ad quam non tenetur add. &MdMzPeRe} sine {absque &MzNaRe} consensu {precepto &NaRe} suo nec {*aliud add. &NaRe} aliquid simile {*consimile &NaPeRe}.

Master The reply to you is that that statute of Pelagius was both against the gospel and against the freedom or right of those subdeacons and their wives, because he wanted to force the subdeacons to be chaste, notwithstanding the gospel and notwithstanding the freedom or right of both the subdeacons and their wives. For it was in the power of the subdeacons, with the consent of their wives, to be chaste and this was not against the gospel. But Pope Pelagius could not take that power away from the subdeacons and their wives, as Gregory attests. He was not able, therefore, to do everything that was not against divine or human law. And from this opinion of Gregory we conclude that the pope can do nothing against the freedom and right of any christian, even in spiritual matters, except by reason of fault or for some clear cause, since no one can deprive [another] of his right and his freedom without some fault or for some reason. And except by reason of fault or for some cause, therefore, he can not enjoin on anyone, except at his own bidding, fasting to which he is not bound or alms to which he is not bound or anything else similar.

Discipulus De hoc et {om. &Md} sicut {*trs. &MzNaPeRe} de aliis in tractatu de potestate papae et cleri plura {*plurima &Re} poterimus invenire. Ideo {igitur &Md} breviter tange plura exempla.

Student We will be able to find many things about this, as about other matters, in the tract On the power of the pope and clergy. Touch briefly, therefore, on some more examples.

Magister Decimum est {om. &Md} quod {*quia &NaRe} non potest cogere aliquem subdiaconum {*semper &NaRe} {om. &MdPe} nolentem suscipere praelationem, ut notatur in glossa 23 {21 &MdPe}, q. 4, c. Displicet.

Master A tenth is that he can not force anyone who steadily refuses to do so, to take on authority [[or to accept a dignity]], as the gloss on 23, q. 4, c. Displicet notes.

Undecimum est {om. &MzNaRe} quod {*quia &MdNaPeRe} non potest statuere ne de haeresi accusetur, testante {*teste &NaPeRe} glossa quae dist. 60. {*40 &MdMzNaPzRe} {98 &Pe} c. Si papa quaerit nunquid papa possit statuere ne {*possit accusari add. &MzNaRe} de haeresi accusetur {*om. &MzNaRe}. [[gap in &Md]] Et respondens ait, "Non, quia per {de &Pe} hoc periclitaretur {particulariter &Re} tota ecclesia." Et {ex &Pe} consimili ratione {*trs. &MzNaRe} non posset {potest &Md} statuere ne possit {posset &Md} qualitercunque accusari de illo {*alio &NaPeRe} {aliquo &Mz} crimine {*quia non potest statuere ne /quod non &Pe\ possit de illo crimine accusari /trs.4123 &Pe\ add. &NaPeRe} pro quo potest {posset &Md} deponi. Sed pro alio crimine {casu &MdPe} quocunque potest in casu papa deponi, teste glossa ibidem quae ait, {quae ait om. &Md} "Certe credo quod si notorium est crimen eius quodcunque et {etiam &Mz} in {om. &Md} {*inde &MzNaPeReZn} scandalum {*scandalizatur &MdMzNaPeReZN} ecclesiae {*ecclesia &MdMzNaPeReZn} et incorrigibilis sit quod inde possit accusari", et per consequens iudicari quia accusatio coram iudice fieri debet. Igitur {*ergo &MzNaRe} non potest {posset &MdMzPe} statuere ne possit {posset &MdPe} pro {*de &MzNaRe} {coram &Md} quocunque crimine {om. &Md} accusari et iudicari.

An eleventh is that he can not decree that he not be accused of heresy, as the gloss on dist. 40, c. Si papa [col. 195] attests when it asks, "Can the pope decree that he can not be accused of heresy?" In reply it says, "No, because by that the whole church would be endangered." And by a similar argument he could not decree that he can not in whatever way at all be accused of some other crime, since he can not decree that he can not be accused of that crime for which he can be deposed. But for any other crime the pope can, in a particular case, be deposed, as the gloss in the same place [col. 195] attests when it says, "Certainly I believe that if his crime, whatever it is, is notorious and the church is as a result scandalised and he is incorrigible, then he can be accused", and, consequently, judged, because the accusation should be made before a judge. He can not decree, therefore, that he can not be accused of and judged for any crime at all.

Duodecimum est {*secundum aliquos add. &MzNaPeRe} quod {*quia &NaRe} non potest compellere aliquem ad confitendum peccatum quod alteri confessus est qui absoluere potuit, quia confessio sacramentalis {sacramentale &Pe} cuidam {quodam &MzPz} {est &Md} {quod est &Pe} {*sacramentalis cuidam: peccatorum est quoddam sacramentale &NaRe} divino imperio subiacens {subiacet &Mz} est {*om. &MdMzNaPeRe} non humano.

According to some people a twelfth is that he can not compel someone to confess a sin which he has confessed to someone else who could absolve him, because the confession of sins is something sacramental which lies under divine command not human.

Tertium decimum {trs. &Pe} est quod {*quia &NaRe} papa non potest compellere aliquem ut contrahat matrimonium. Cuius rationem reddunt aliqui dicentes quod secundum ea quae ad naturam corporis {corporum &Md} pertinent homo homini obedire non tenetur sed soli Deo {*quia add. &MdMzNaPeRe} omnes homines {trs. &PeRe} natura sunt pares, puta in his quae pertinent ad corporis {corporum &Md} sustentationem et prolis generationem, {gubernationem &Mz} sicut de matrimonio contrahendo vel virginitate servanda vel {*aut &NaRe} {et &Mz} aliquo {*alio add. &MzNaRe} huiusmodi.

A thirteenth is that the pope can not force someone to contract marriage. Some people offer an argument for this, saying that a man is not bound to obey man but only God with respect to those things which pertain to the nature of the body, because all men are equal in nature, that is in those things which pertain to the sustenance of the body and the generation of offspring, as in the contracting of marriage, the maintaining of virginity or anything else of this kind.

Quartum decimum {trs. &Pe} est quod {*quia &NaRe} papa in temporalibus legitimare non potest, ut notatur Extra, Qui filii sunt legitimi, {*c. add. &MzPe} Per venerabilem.

A fourteenth is that the pope can not legitimate in temporal affairs, as is noted in Extra, Qui filii sunt legitimi, c. Per venerabilem [c.13, col.714].

Quintum decimum {trs. &Pe} {est add. &NaPeRe} quod includit quamplura {*quamplurima &MzRe} est quod {quia &MdPe} papa extra metas {*terras &NaRe} {om. &Mz} [[gap in Mz]] iurisdictioni {iurisdictionem &Re} {metas iurisdictioni: captas &Md} {metas iurisdictioni: terras &Pe} suae {suo &MdPe} temporali {*trs.231 &MzNaRe} subiectas non potest illa {ista &Mz} quae {*potest add. &MzNaRe} dominus temporalis super servos inquantum servi sunt {trs. &MdPe}.

A fifteenth, which includes very many [examples], is that outside the lands subject to his temporal jurisdiction the pope can not do those things which a temporal lord can do to his slaves, in so far as they are slaves.

Discipulus Istud {illud &Md} exemplum habet vigorem ex hoc quod non omnes homines {om. &Na} sunt puri servi summi pontificis, quia si papa omnia posset quae non sunt contra ius naturale nec contra ius divinum ipse posset {potest &Md} omnia in {et &Re} imperatores et {ac &Mz} {om. &Md} reges {et add. &MdPe} {*ac add. &MzNaRe} principes ac {*et &MdMzPeRe} generaliter in omnes mortales quae potest dominus quicunque {*trs. &MzNaPeRe} in quemcunque servum suum et ita nullus nisi papa {*nisi papa: praeter papam &NaRe} esset {est &Md} liber sed {et &Pe} omnes essent {om. &Md} servi sui {*papae &NaRe}. Licet autem de isto sicut {*et add. &NaRe} de multis {*omnibus &MdMzNaPeRe} aliis quae {*spectant add. &NaPeRe} ad potestatem papae et cleri spectant {om. &MdPe} {*et cleri spectant om. &NaRe} possumus {possimus &Md} multa invenire {*trs. &MdMzNaPeRe} in tractatu primo {*trs. &MdMzNaPeRe} huius tertiae partis nostri dialogi, breviter tamen hic {*trs.312 &MdMzNaPeRe} allegare {*om. &MzNaRe} conare {conaris &Re} {*allegando ostendere add. &MzNaRe} quod non omnes {om. &Re} homines sunt puri servi papae.

Student That example has strength from the fact that not all men are pure slaves of the highest pontiff, because if the pope could do everything which was not against natural or divine law he would be able to do everything against emperors, kings, princes, and all mortals generally which any lord can do against any slave of his and so no one except the pope would be free but all would be slaves of the pope. Now although we could find many things about that, as also about all the other many things which pertain to the power of the pope, in the first tractate of this third part of our dialogue, would you nevertheless try to show briefly here by argument that not all men are pure slaves of the pope.

Magister {om. &Re} Hoc multipliciter videtur posse probari. {trs. &Na} Primo {om. &Md} sic: {gap left &Md} reges et {om. &Md} principes ac {om. &Md} alii laici habent proprietatem {potestatem &Na} rerum temporalium. Servus autem non {*nichil &MzNaRe} habet proprium. Igitur {*ergo &MdMzNaRe} non omnes homines {*om. &MzNaRe} sunt puri {*om. &MzNaRe} servi papae. {Magister ... Papae om. &Pe} Secundo {*sic add. &MzNaRe}: differentia est inter servos ecclesiae et aliorum {alios &MdPe}. Igitur {*ergo &MzNaRe} non omnes homines {om. &Mz} sunt servi summi {om. &MdPe} pontificis. Tertio {*sic add. &MzNaPeRe}: non omnem eandem potestatem {trs. &Pe} habet papa {habet papa om. &Md} in cunctis {*terris &NaRe} suae iurisdictioni subiectis et in aliis suae iurisdictioni temporali non subiectis. Igitur {*ergo &MdMzNaRe} [[margin Md]] {et in aliis ... igitur om. &Md} non omnes {*homines add. &MzNaRe} sunt {*puri add. &MzNaRe} servi summi {om. &MdPe} [[add. margin Md]] pontificis. Quarto sic: {om. &MdPePz} aliqui sunt domini principales {*domini principales om. &MzNaRe} qui non habent dominos {*principales add. &MzNaRe}, Extra, De haereticis {*c. add. &MzPe} Excommunicamus. Igitur {*ergo &MzNaRe} non omnes homines {om. &MzPe} sunt servi papae. Quinto {*sic add. &MzNaPeRe}: si omnes homines essent puri servi {trs. &Md} papae, papa {non add. &Pe} posset ad libitum alienare quamlibet rem temporalem. Igitur {*ergo &MzNaRe} posset ad libitum alienare {quamlibet rem temporalem ergo posset ad libitum alienare add. &NaRe} praedia ecclesiae quod est {*quod est om. &MdMzNaPeRe} contra illud 12, q. 2, {*c. add. &Mz} Non liceat papae. Sexto sic: {om. &Pe} papa non debet dominari super clerum iuxta illud canonicae {*om. &MzNaRe} {canonico &Md} Petri, "Non dominantes in clero." Igitur {*ergo &MdMzNaRe } clerici non sunt {*puri add. &MzNaPeRe} servi summi {om. &Pe} pontificis.

Master This seems provable in many ways. Firstly, as follows: kings, princes and other laymen have ownership of temporal things. A slave, however, has nothing of his own. Therefore not everyone is a slave of the pope. Secondly, as follows: there is a difference between slaves of the church and of others. Therefore not all men are slaves of the highest pontiff. Thirdly, as follows: the pope does not have all the same power in the lands subject to his jurisdiction and in the others not subject to his temporal jurisdiction. Therefore not all men are pure slaves of the highest pontiff. Fourthly, as follows: there are some men who do not have principal lords, Extra, De haereticis, c. Excommunicamus [c.15, col.789]. Therefore not all men are slaves of the pope. Fifthly, as follows: if all men were pure slaves of the pope, the pope could at his pleasure alienate any temporal thing at all. He could alienate at his pleasure, therefore, the estates of the church, against 12, q. 2, c. Non liceat papae [c.20, col.693]. Sixthly, as follows: the pope should not domineer over the clergy, according to Peter's statement (1 Peter 5:3), "Not domineering over the clergy." Therefore clerics are not pure slaves of the highest pontiff.

CAP. XXIV

Discipulus De ista materia habeo {*habebo &MzNaRe} postea occasionem loquendi. Ideo breviter comple rationes pro opinione quam nunc discussimus {*discutimus &MdMzNaPeRe}.

Chapter 24

Student I will have occasion to speak of that matter later. Therefore briefly complete the arguments for the opinion which we are now discussing.

Magister Quod imperium sit {si &Re} a papa tali ratione probatur. Imperium fuit a Christo quia ipse non solum fuit {*trs.312 &MzNaRe} sacerdos sed etiam fuit rex omnium temporalium, in cuius signum ipse {om. &MdPe} aliqua fecit ut {*in quantum &NaRe} {sicut &MdMzPe} imperator et aliqua sicut {*in quantum &MzNaRe} sacerdos, {sacerdotes &Ly} ut notat Glossa dist. 10, c. Quoniam idem. Igitur {*ergo &MdMzNaRe} {*a add. &MdMzNaPeRe} papa qui est vicarius Christi in terris est dominus {*om. &MdMzNaPeRe} imperii {*imperium &MdMzNaPeRe}.

Master [8] That the empire is from the pope is proved by the following argument. The empire was from Christ because he was not only a priest but he was also king of all temporal affairs, in token of which he did some things in so far as he was emperor and some in so far as he was a priest, as the gloss on dist. 10, c. Quoniam idem [col.33] notes. The empire, therefore, is from the pope who is the vicar of Christ on earth.

Discipulus Dic quomodo respondetur ad rationem istam {om. &Md}.

Student Tell me how reply is made to that argument.

Magister Dupliciter respondetur. Uno modo quod {quia &Md} haereticum est dicere quod Christus inquantum homo mortalis fuit in temporalibus rex {*trs.312 &MzNaPeRe}.

Master Reply is made in two ways; in one way that it is heretical to say that Christ, in so far as he was a mortal man, was a king in temporal affairs.

Discipulus De hoc satis habebimus {*habere poterimus &MzNaRe} {om. &Pe} in tractatu tertio {om. &Mz} tertiae {*secundae &MdNaRe} partis huius Dialogi. Ideo dic quomodo aliter respondetur.

Student We will be able to get enough about this in the third tractate of the second part of this Dialogue. Tell me, therefore, what the other reply is.

Magister Aliter respondetur sic {*om. &MdMzNaPeRe} quod non semper vicarius {*trs.312 &NaRe} habet {istam potestatem vel &Mz} omnem potestatem quam habet ille cuius est vicarius. Et ideo licet Christus fuisset {fuerit &Na} rex in temporalibus et ab eo fuisset imperium ex hoc concludi non posset quod imperium esset {*est &MzNaRe} a vicariis {*vicario &MzNaRe} Christi.

Master The other reply is that a vicar does not always have all the power which the one whose vicar he is has. And therefore even if Christ had been a king in temporal affairs and the empire had been from him, it could not be concluded from this that the empire is from the vicar of Christ.

Discipulus Aliam rationem allega.

Student Bring forward another argument.

Magister Alia ratio est {*haec add. &MzNaRe}. Sacerdos veteris legis fuit super reges et {super add. &Mz} regna {*et regna om. &MdNaPeRe}, teste Deo qui dixit {dicit &Md} Ieremiae prophetae et sacerdoti Ieremie 1:[10], "Ecce constitui te hodie super gentes et super regna" [[teste deo ... regna: margin Mz]] {*etc add. &MzNaRe}. Igitur {*ergo &MdMzNaRe} multo magis summus sacerdos novae legis est super imperium.

Master [9] Another argument is this. A priest of the old law was over kings, as God attests who said to the prophet and priest Jeremiah in Jeremiah 1:10, "See I have set you this day over nations and over kingdoms", etc. Much more, therefore, is the highest priest of the new law over the empire.

Discipulus &Narra quomodo respondetur ad hanc {*ad hanc om. &MdMzNaPeRe}.

Student Tell me how reply is made to this.

Magister Multipliciter {om. &Mz} respondetur. Uno modo sic {*om. &MzNaRe} quod {om. &Md} sacerdos veteris legis non fuit super {*supra &MzNaRe} reges {regem &MzPe} nisi in spiritualibus et {*om. &MzNaRe} non in temporalibus. Et ideo summus sacerdos {*pontifex &NaRe} est super {*supra &MzNaRe} imperatorem in spiritualibus et {*om. &MzNaRe} non in temporalibus {Et ideo ... temporalibus om. &Md}. Aliter {*alio modo &LyMdMzPePz} dicitur quod summus sacerdos novae legis {trs. &Md} non assimilatur summo sacerdoti veteris legis. Et ideo esto quod summus sacerdos veteris legis {Et ideo esto ... legis: qui et si &Pe} fuisset super {*supra &MzNaRe} regem ex hoc inferri non posset {potest &MdMz} quod summus sacerdos novae legis esset super {*supra &MzNaRe} imperatorem. Aliter {aliud &Mz} dicitur quod licet Ieremias fuit {*fuerit &NaRe} {fuisset &Md} sacerdos non tamen fuit {fuisset &Md} summus sacerdos. Et ideo per auctoritatem illam {istam &Mz} non potest probari quod imperium sit {*est &NaRe} a summo sacerdote novae {veteris &Md} legis, nisi {nec &Md} etiam posset {potest &Md} per eandem {eundem &Mz} rationem {*om. &MzNaRe} probari {trs.4123 &Pe} quod imperium est a sacerdote inferiori summo pontifice, quod tamen non est {om. &NaRe} verum.

Master Reply is made in many ways. In one way that the priest of the old law was not over the kings except in spiritual matters, not in temporal affairs. The highest pontiff, therefore, is over the emperor in spiritual matters, not in temporal affairs. It is said in another way that the highest priest of the new law is not considered as similar to the highest priest of the old law. Granted therefore that the highest priest of the old law was over the king, it could not be inferred from this that the highest priest of the new law was over the emperor. Otherwise it is said that although Jeremiah was a priest, nonetheless he was not the highest priest. And it can not be proved from that text, therefore, that the empire is from the highest priest of the new law, unless it could also be proved in the same way that the empire is from a priest inferior to the highest pontiff. This, however, is not true.

Discipulus Adducas aliam rationem.

Student Would you bring forward another argument.

Magister Alia ratio talis est. Summum sacerdotium et imperium intelliguntur per solem et lunam de quibus dicitur Genesis 1:[16], "Fecit Deus duo luminaria magna", etc. Ergo sicut luna recipit lumen a sole ita imperator recipit potestatem a papa {*summo sacerdote /sacerdotio &NaRe\ &MzNaRe}.

Master [10] Another argument is as follows. By the sun and the moon we understand the highest priesthood and the empire. Genesis 1:16 says about these, "God made the two great lights", etc. Just as the moon receives light from the sun, therefore, so the emperor receives power from the pope.

Discipulus Qualiter respondetur ad istam rationem {enarra add. &Pe}?

Student How is reply made to that argument?

Magister Respondetur quod licet per solem et lunam intelligantur {intelliguntur &MzPz} summum sacerdotium et imperium, non tamen omnino {*omni &MzNaRe} {tamen omnino: autem &Md} eodem modo se habet imperium ad summum sacerdotium quo {quomodo &Md} se habet luna ad solem. Hoc enim dato concluderetur {concludetur &Md} {concludet &Pe} oppositum {4th &Md} {?rationi &Mz} conclusionis {quovis &Mz} rationis praefatae. Tum quia sicut luna non est a sole sed ambo sunt a Deo ita imperium non est {*esset &NaRe} a summo {*om. &NaRe} sacerdotio sed ambo sunt vel {*sunt vel om. &MdMzNaPeRe} essent ab alio. Tum quia tunc {*om. &Na} sicut luna habet aliquam {aliam &Mz} virtutem et aliquam {aliam &Mz} {*om. &NaRe} potestatem quam non habet a sole, scilicet supra {*super &MzNaRe} aquas et humores, ita imperator habet {*haberet &MzNaRe} aliam {*aliquam &NaRe} potestatem quam non habet {*haberet &MzNaRe} a papa {et aliquam ... papa om. &Pe}. Ideo dicitur quod quantum ad aliquid est simile {om. &Pe} de sole et luna et de summo pontifice {de summo pontifice om. &Mz} {*summo pontifice: papa &NaRe} et imperatore {et sacerdote summo add. &Mz} et quantum ad aliquid non est simile. Quantum {om. &Pe} enim {om. &Re} ad hoc {non add. &Re} {*trs.231 &MzNa} est simile quia {et &Mz} {*quod &NaRe} {est simile quia: quod &Pe} sicut sol est nobilior {notabilior &Re} et dignior {*trs.321 &MzNaRe} luna sic summum sacerdotium est nobilius et dignius {*trs.321 &MdMzNaRe} imperio, quemadmodum spiritualia sunt digniora temporalibus.

Master The reply is that although by the sun and the moon we may understand the highest priesthood and the empire, nevertheless the relationship between the empire and the highest priesthood is not the same in every way as that between the moon and the sun. For given this, the opposite conclusion can be reached from the aforesaid argument. This is because (i) just as the moon is not from the sun but both are from God so the empire would not be from the highest priesthood but both would be from another. It is because, (ii) just as the moon has some strength and power which it does not have from the sun, namely over waters and fluids, so the emperor would have some power which he would not have from the pope. It is said, therefore, that with respect to one thing there is a similarity between the sun and the moon and the pope and the emperor and with respect to another thing there is not a similarity. For there is a similarity in this respect, that just as the sun is worthier and nobler than the moon, so the highest priesthood is worthier and more noble than the empire, just as spiritual matters are worthier than temporal ones.

Item {iterum &Na} sicut luna recipit lumen a sole sic {*ita &NaRe} in multis imperator debet recipere directionem a papa quando est catholicus bonus et sapiens, scilicet in causis divinis {*dei &NaRe}. Quantum autem ad multa alia non est simile, sicut dictum est {*supra add. &NaRe}.

Again, just as the moon receives light from the sun, so the emperor, in many matters, in God's causes for instance, ought to receive direction from the pope, when he is catholic, good and wise. With respect to many other things, however, there is no similarity, as was said above.

Discipulus Adhuc aliam rationem adducas.

Student Would you bring forward yet another argument?

Magister Alia ratio talis est {trs. &Md}. Ecclesia est unum corpus; ergo {ipsa add. &Md} habet unum caput. Sed imperator non est caput. Ergo papa {non add. &NaRe} est caput ecclesiae. A capite autem derivatur virtus {vultus &Mz} in membra. Ergo imperator {*qui add. &NaRe} est membrum ecclesiae et {*om. &MzNaRe} non caput et per consequens {*et per consequens om. &NaRe} recipere debet virtutem {*trs.321 &MdMzNaPeRe} a papa sicut {*tamquam &NaRe} a {ex &Mz} {om. &Pz} capite. Ergo imperium est a papa {sicut a capite ... papa om. &Md}.

Master [11] The following is another argument. The church is one body; therefore it has one head. But the emperor is not the head. The pope, therefore, is the head of the church. The strength in the members, however, is derived from the head. Therefore the emperor, who is a member of the church not its head should receive his strength from the pope as from its head. Therefore the empire is from the pope.

Discipulus Dic quomodo {*qualiter &NaRe} respondetur ad hoc.

Student Tell me how this is replied to.

Magister Respondetur quod papa est caput ecclesiae quae est congregatio fidelium. Et ideo in spiritualibus subest imperator {*trs. &MzNaRe} papae. Ergo illam {aliam &Pz} {*ergo illam: et ideo aliquam &MdNaPeRe} virtutem spiritualem et directionem {*trs.4312 &NaRe} recipere debet a papa. {Ego illam ... papa: om. &Mz} Sed quia papa [[sed quia papa: margin Pe]] non est caput in temporalibus ideo imperator in temporalibus {ideo imperator in temporalibus: om. &Mz} non subest ei nec imperium recipere debet ab ipso.

Master The reply is that the pope is the head of the church, which is the congregation of the faithful. And therefore in spiritual matters the emperor submits to the pope. And therefore he ought to receive from the pope some spiritual direction and strength. But because the pope is not head in temporal matters, therefore the emperor does not submit to him in temporal matters and he ought not receive the empire from him.

CAP. XXV

Discipulus Aliquantulum diffuse respondendo et arguendo {*trs.321 &MzNaRe} tractavimus {retractavimus &Re} opinionem tertiam supra capitulo 18 {17 &MzNaPzRe} recitatam {praetactam &Mz}. Nunc autem desidero scire quomodo improbatur {*reprobatur &NaRe}.

Chapter 25

Student By arguing and replying we have somewhat copiously considered the third opinion recorded in chapter 18 above. However, now I want to know how it is rejected.

Arguments against Opinion 3

Magister Ista {*illa &NaRe} opinio duo dicit. Primum est quod imperium est a papa. Secundum est {om. &Pe} quod nullum {non &Mz} potest esse verum imperium nisi a papa. Primum quidam {dictum add. &Pe} dicunt {*trs. &MdMzNaRe} esse falsum. Secundum autem dicunt esse haereticum.

Master That opinion says two things. The first is that the empire is from the pope. The second is that no empire can be a true one unless it is from the pope. Some people say that the first is false. The second, however, they say is heretical.

Discipulus Tractes {*tractemus &NaRe} {tracta &Md} {tractetur &Mz} primo secundum et narra {narres &Pe} qualiter {*quare &NaRe} {quomodo &Mz} dicunt aliqui {*trs. &MdMzNaPeRe} illud esse haereticum.

Student Let us treat the second [point] first. Tell me why some people say that it is heretical.

Magister Quod sit haereticum quidam {aliqui &Md} nituntur sic {*trs. &MdNaPeRe} ostendere. Quod repugnat scripturae divinae est haereticum reputandum. Sed non posse esse verum imperium {trs. &Pe} nisi a papa repugnat divinae scripturae {*trs. &MzNaPeRe}. Nam per scripturam {*divinam add. &MdMzNaPeRe} constat ut dicunt aperte quod {p...? add. &Pe} plures pagani fuerunt {sunt &Mz} veri imperatores. Hoc etiam {*enim &MzNaPeRe} {*de octaviano add. &NaRe} testatur evangelista {*cum dicit add. &MzNaRe} Lucas 2 {1 &Mz}:[1], "Exiit edictum a Caesare Augusto ut describeretur universus {om. &Md} orbis." Ex quibus {*verbis add. &MdMzNaPeRe} colligitur quod Octavianus, de quo ibidem {*om. &MdMzNaPeRe} sit {*ibi add. &MdMzNaPeRe} sermo, fuit verus {om. &Pe} imperator.

Master Some people try to show that this is heretical as follows. What is contrary to divine scripture should be regarded as heretical. But that there can not be a true empire except from the pope is contrary to divine scripture. For it is certain from divine scripture, as they clearly say, that many pagans were true emperors. For the evangelist attests this of Octavian when he says in Luke 2:1, "A decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled." We gather from these words that Octavian, to whom those words refer, was a true emperor.

Item Matthaei vigesimo secundo {vigesimo secundo: 12 &Md}:[21] dicit {*dixit &MdMzNaPeRe} Christus Iudaeis, "Reddite quae sunt Caesaris Caesari" {et que sunt dei deo &Mz} {etc add. &Pe}. Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod ille fuit {*erat &NaRe} {est &MdPePz} verus Caesar et tamen {om. &Re} non {habet nec add. &Mz} habuit imperium a papa; imo fuit paganus et infidelis {*trs.321 &MzNaRe}. Ergo verum imperium, verum dominium temporale, vera iurisdictio temporalis et {om. &Mz} vera {iurisdictio temporalis et vera om. &Pe} potestas gladii materialis {?aliter add. &Pe} fuit et esse potest apud infideles et extra ecclesiam catholicam {trs. &Md}, licet infideles nonnunquam et forte ut plurimum {plurium &MdPe} tali potestate legitima abutantur. Sed ex abusu {*utentis add. &MzNaPeRe} inferri {infici &Re} non potest quod dignitas vel potestas sit minus {a deo add. &Pe} [[interlinear]] vera, teste Augustino qui ut legitur {*habetur &MzNaRe} in decretis decimum tertium {*14 &LyMdMzNaPePzRe} q. 5, {*c. add. &MdNaRe} Neque {nec &Re} enim ait, "Nec tyrannicae persecutionis {*factionis &NaReZn} perversitas {persecutionis perversitas: factionis &Md} [[written on erasure]] est {*om. &LyMdMzNaPePzRe} laudabilis {*erit add. &NaReZn} {est add. &Md} [[margin]] si {sit &Pe} regia clementia tyrannice {*tyrannus &MzNaRe} {tyrannos Zn} {tyrranicus &Md} {om. &Pe} subditos tractet. Nec vituperatur ordo regiae potestatis si {sed &Mz} rex {ex &Md} crudelitate tyrannica {tyrannice &Pe} saeviat. Aliud namque est {trs. &Md} iniusta potestate velle iuste {iusti &Mz} uti, et aliud {*est add. &MdZn} iusta potestate iniuste velle {trs. &Pe} uti." Ex his {*quibus &MzNaRe} verbis {his verbis: quibus &Md} datur intelligi {trs. &Md} quod vera potestate et vero dominio {trs. &Mz} potest quis abuti, et ita ex abusu infidelium probari non potest quod apud eos non {om. &Pe} sit verum dominium nec vera potestas gladii materialis.

Again, in Matthew 22:21 Christ said to the Jews, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's." We are given to understand by these words that he was a true Caesar, and yet he did not have his empire from the pope; indeed he was an infidel and a pagan. Therefore true empire, true temporal lordship, true temporal jurisdiction and true power of the material sword existed and can exist among unbelievers and outside the catholic church, although unbelievers sometimes, and perhaps usually, abuse such legitimate power. But it can not be inferred from the abuse of the one using it that his dignity or power is less true, as Augustine attest when he says, as we find in 14, q. 5, c. Neque enim [c.9, col.740], "The perversity of a tyrannical faction will not be praiseworthy if the tyrant treats his subjects with royal clemency nor is the order of royal power censured if the king rages with tyrannical cruelty. For it is one thing to want to use unjust power justly and it is another to want to use unjust power justly." By these words we are given to understand that anyone can abuse true power and true lordship, and so it can not be proved from its abuse by unbelievers that there are not among them true lordship and true power of the material sword.

Discipulus Quantum ad quid isti impugnantes {*impugnatores &MzNaRe} reputant {*reputent &NaRe} opinionem praedictam haereticam ut puto intelligo. Ideo solummodo auctoritates quibus probare conantur quod {quia &Re} apud infideles sit {*fuit &MdMzNaPeRe} verum dominium temporale et vera potestas gladii {scilicet add. &MdPe} materialis adducas.

Student I think that I understand why its attackers might regard the aforesaid opinion as heretical. Would you bring forward, therefore, only the texts by which they try to prove that there was true temporal lordship and true power of the material sword among unbelievers?

Magister Ad hoc adducunt auctoritates tam Veteris quam Novi {trs.321 &Md} Testamenti quam etiam {om. &Pe} auctoritates sanctorum patrum et maiorum. Abraham enim ut habetur {legitur &Mz} Genesis vigesimo tertio {vigesimo tertio: 13 &Mz} noluit gratis recipere speluncam duplicem ut sepeliret in ea {eam &MdPe} uxorem suam sed emit eam ab {om. &Md} Effron infideli, quod tamen non fecisset si Effron in ea verum ius nullatenus habuisset. Iacob etiam fidelis indicavit {*recognovit &MdMzNaPeRe} {rogavit &Pz} quod Labam infidelis verum dominium aliquarum rerum temporalium {*trs. &NaRe} habebat cum dicit {*dixit &MdMzNaRe} ei, {eis &Mz} {om. &Pe} ut legitur {*habetur &MzNaRe} Genesis 31 {23 &Md} :[32,37,38], "Quicquid tuum {*tuorum &MzNaReVg} apud me inveneris aufer." Et {ex &Pe} post, "Quid invenisti de cuncta substantia domus tuae." Et post, "Oves tuae et caprae tuae steriles non fuerunt arietes gregis tui non comedi."

Master To do this they bring forward both texts from the Old and New Testament and texts from the saints, the fathers and our ancestors. For, as we read in Genesis 23:8-16, Abraham refused to accept for nothing a double cave in which to bury his wife but bought it from the infidel Ephron. He would not have done this if Ephron had not had a true right to it. Faithful Jacob too recognised that the infidel Laban had true lordship of some temporal things when he said to him, as we read in Genesis 31:32,37,38, "Take whatever you find that I have that is yours. ... What have you found of all your household goods? ... Your ewes and your she-goats have not miscarried and I have not eaten the rams of your flock."

Item Genesis 39 {32 &Md} :[5] {*scribitur add. &NaRe} {subditur add. &Mz}, "Benedixitque {benedixit &Pe} Dominus domui {domum &Md} Aegyptii propter Ioseph et multiplicavit tam in aedibus quam in agris cunctam eius {om. &MdPe} substantiam." Ergo iste infidelis habuit verum dominium rerum.

Again, it is written in Genesis 39:5, "And the Lord blessed the Egyptian's house for Joseph's sake and multiplied all that he had in house and field." Therefore that infidel had true lordship of things.

Item quadragesimo primo capitulo :[35] {*Joseph add. &LyMdMzNaPePzRe} loquens de legitima potestate Pharaonis ait, "Omne frumentum sub Pharaonis [[ait ... pharaonis: margin Md]] potestate condatur." Et quadragesimo quinto {*quadragesimo quinto: 47 c. &LyMdMzNaPePzRe} :[20-1, 23] scribitur, "Emit ergo {enim ibi &Mz} {emit ergo om. &Re} [[gap left in Re]] Ioseph omnem {om. &Mz} terram Aegypti, vendentibus singulis possessiones suas prae magnitudine famis subiecitque {subiecit &Mz} eam Pharaoni et cunctos populos eius." Et {om. &Re} sequitur {*post &MdNaPeRe} {et sequitur: om. &Mz} "En {ei &Mz} {eum &Pz} ut {vos add. &MdPe} cernitis et vos et terram vestram Pharao possidet {possidebit &Mz}."

Again, speaking in [Genesis] 41:35 of pharaoh's legitimate power Joseph says, "Let all the grain be laid up under the authority of pharaoh." And it is written in [Genesis] 47:20-1, 23, "So Joseph bought all the land of Egypt; for all the Egyptians sold their fields because the famine was severe upon them. And he subjected the land and all the people to pharaoh. ... Behold, as you see, pharaoh possesses both you and your land."

Item Deuteronomii 2:[4-6, 9, 17-9] {*c. add. &MzNaRe} scribitur {*legitur &MzNaRe} quod Deus dedit quibusdam infidelibus {*infidelium &MzNaRe} verum dominium terrarum. Ubi sic legitur {*scribitur &MzNaRe} "Transibitis {*per add. &MdMzNaPeReVg} terminos fratrum vestrorum filiorum Esau qui habitant {habitavit &Pe} in Seir; et timebant {*timebunt &LyMzNaPzReVg} {timebit &MdPe} vos. Videte ergo diligenter ne moveamini contra eos; neque enim dabo vobis de terra eorum quantum potest unius pedis calcare vestigium quia in possessionem Esau dedi montem Seir. Cibos emetis ab eis pecunia et comedetis. Aquam emptam haurietis et bibetis." Et post, "Dixitque {dicitque &Pz} Dominus ad Moysen {*me &MdMzNaPePzRe}, `Non pugnabis {*pugnes &MdMzNaPeRe} {pugnas &Pz} contra Moabitas nec ineas adversus eos praelium; non enim dabo tibi quicquam de terra eorum quia filiis Loth tradidi {*Ar add. &MzNa} [[gap in Re]] in possessionem.'" Et post, {postea &Re} "Locutus est Dominus ad Moysen {*me &MdMzNaPePzRe} dicens, `Tu transibis hodie terminos Moab urbem {urbis &Pe} nomine Ar, et ascendes {ascendens &NaRe} {ascondens &Md} {ascendetis &Pe} {*accedens Vg} in vicinia {viciniam &MzPzRe} filiorum Amon cave ne pugnes contra eos nec movearis ad praelium. Non enim {om. &Re} dabo {dabit &Md} tibi de terra filiorum Amon {Cave ... Amon om. &Pe} quia filiis Loth dedi eam {om. &Na} in possessionem.'"

Again, we read in Deuteronomy 2:4-6, 9, 17-9 that God gave true lordship of lands to certain of the unbelievers. It is written as follows there, "You are about to pass through the territory of your brethren, the sons of Esau, who live in Seir; and they will be afraid of you. So take good heed; do not contend with them; for I will not give you any of their land, no, not so much for the sole of the foot to tread on, because I have given Mount Seir to Esau as a possession. You shall purchase food from them for money that you may eat; and you shall also buy water of them that you may drink. ... And the Lord said to me, `Do not harass Moab or contend with them in battle, for I will not give you any of their land because I have given Ar to the sons of Lot as a possession.' ... The Lord said to me, `This day you are to pass over the boundary of Moab at Ar; and when you approach the frontier of the sons of Ammon, do not harass them or contend with them, for I will not give you any of the land of the sons of Ammon because I have given it to the sons of Lot as a possession.'"

Item ut legitur 3 {2 &Pe} Regum 9 {cum &Md} :[11] Salomon dedit Hiram {*regi add. &LyMdMzNaPePzRe} Tyri qui non est de filiis Israel sponte 20 oppida in terra Galileae; quae {qui &Pe} tamen non dedisset ei sponte si ille non fuisset capax alicuius {*veri &NaRe} dominii aliquarum {*quarumcumque &NaRe} {aliquorum &Pe} temporalium rerum {eorum &Pe} {trs. &Mz}.

Again, as we read in 3 Kings 9:11, Solomon freely gave to Hiram king of Tyre, who is not one of the children of Israel, twenty cities in the land of Galilee. He would not have freely given them to him, however, if [Hiram] had not been capable of true lordship of any temporal possessions at all.

Item 3 Regum 9 {*19 &MdMzNaPePzRe} :[15] praecepit [[non dedisset ... praecepit: margin Md]] Dominus Heliae Prophetae ut ungeret Azael in {*om. &MzNaRe} regem super Syriam qui tamen erat infidelis. Constat autem {om. &Mz} quod regnum datum a Deo est verum regnum. Ergo infidelis fuit capax {caput &Mz} veri {om. &MdPe} regni et veri dominii aut {*ac &MzNaRe} verae potestatis temporalis.

Again, in 3 Kings 19:15 the Lord ordered Elijah to anoint Hazael, who yet was an infidel, to be king over Syria. It is certain, however, that a kingdom given by God is a true kingdom. Therefore an infidel was fit for a true kingdom, true lordship and true temporal power.

Item 2 Paralipomenorum capitulo ultimo {trs. &Pe} :[22-3] et 1 {om. &MzPe} Esdrae capitulo {om. &NaRe} 1 {et &Na} :[2] sic legitur "Suscitavit {sucitabit &Mz} dominus {deus &Mz} spiritum Cyri regis qui iussit praedicari in universo regno suo {*etiam per scripturam dicens add. &NaReVg}, {non per scripturam add. &Mz} `Haec dicit {dixit &Md} rex Cyrus {*trs. &MzNaPeReVg} Persarum: Omnia regna terrae {terrarum &Mz} dedit mihi Dominus {om. &Mz} Deus {terre et &Md} {dedit mihi Dominus Deus: et &Pe} coeli {et terre add. &Mz} et ipse praecepit mihi ut aedificarem ei {sibi &Pe} domum in Hierusalem.'" De quo etiam dicitur {dicit &Pe} Ysaiae 45 {*capitulo add. &MzNaRe} :[1], "Haec {om. &Md} dicit {dixit &Md} dominus {om. &Md} meus {*om. &MdMzNaPeReVg} domino {*christo &NaReVg} meo Cyro cuius apprehendi dexteram {*ut add. &LyMzNaPzReVg} {et add. &MdPe} subiiciam ante faciem eius {et add. &Md} gentis {*gentes &MdMzNaPeReVg} et dorsa regum vertam {vertar &NaRe}."

Again, in 2 Chronicles 36:22-3 and 1 Ezra 1:2 we read as follows, "The Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom and also put it in writing: `Thus says Cyrus king of Persia: The Lord the God of heaven has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem.'" The following is also said of him in Isaiah 45:1, "Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him and turn the backs of kings."

Item Thobiae 2:[20-21] legitur quod cum Anna uxor Thobiae "hoedum caprarum {*accipiens add. Vg} detulisset domui {domum &Mz} {domi &Re} eius {*cuius &MdMzPeVg} cum {om. &Md} {tamen &MzPe} vocem {ovis add. &Md} {eius add. &Pe} balantis vir eius audisset dixit {dicit &Pe}, `Videte ne {*forte add. &MdNaPeReVg} sit furtivus {*trs. &MdMzNaPeReVg}; sed {*om. &NaReVg} {potius add. &Mz} reddite eum dominis suis quia non licet nobis aut {*aliquid &MzNaReVg} de {*ex &MzNaReVg} furto aliquid {*aut &MzNaReVg} edere {egere &Md} aut {aliquid add. &Pe} [[interlinear]] contingere.'" Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod infideles inter quos habitabat Thobias {om. &Md} {habitabat Thobias om. &Pz} habebant verum dominium rerum.

Again, we read in Tobit 2:20-1 [[or a bit differently in NRSV 2:12-3]] that when Tobit's wife Anna "receiving a young kid had brought it home, her husband said to her when he heard it bleating, `Be careful lest perhaps this goat is stolen; return it to the owners for we are not permitted to eat or touch anything stolen.'" We gather from these words that the unbelievers among whom Tobit was living had true lordship of things.

Item Danielis 2 {*c. add. &MzNaRe} :[37-8] dicit {*dixit &MzNaRe} Daniel ad regem infidelem Nabuchodonosor, "Tu rex regum es et dominus coeli regnum fortitudinem et imperium et gloriam {et gloriam om. &Mz} dedit tibi {om. &MdPe} [[add. margin Md]] et omnia {*in add. &LyMdMzNaPePzReVg} quibus habitant filii hominum et bestiae agri {*et add. &NaRe} volucres {volucresque &MdMzPe} coeli dedit in manu tua et universa sub ditione {iurisdictione &MdMzPe} {*trs.231 &MzNaRe} tua constituit."

Again, in Daniel 2:37-8 Daniel said to the infidel king Nebuchadnezzar, "You, O king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, the empire and the glory, into whose hand he has given human beings, wherever they live, the wild animals of the field and the birds of the air, and whom he has established as ruler over them all."

Item {ibidem add. &Mz} 5 capitulo :[18] sic {esdre &Pe} legitur, "Dominus {rex &Pe} {*Deus &MdNaReVg} altissimus regnum et magnificentiam, gloriam et honorem dedit Nabuchodonosor patri tuo." Ex quibus {*verbis add. &MzNaRe} colligitur quod Nabuchodonosor habuit verum regnum et imperium. Non enim dat {dedit &Mz} Deus falsum imperium et regnum sed verum.

Again, we read as follows in [Daniel] 5:18, "The most high God gave your father Nebuchadnezzar kingship, greatness, glory, and majesty." We gather from these words that Nebuchadnezzar had a true kingdom and empire. For God does not give a false empire and kingdom but a true one.

Item Herodes erat {*fuit &MdMzNaPeRe} infidelis {fidelis &Mz} et tamen erat {fuit &MdMz} verus rex Iudaeae. Unde de eo dicitur Matthaei 2 capitulo :[1], {om. &Mz} "Cum {*ergo add. &MzNaReVg} natus esset Iesus in Bethlehem Iudae in {et &NaRe} diebus Herodis regis." Et Lucae 1 {Et Luc 1: etc &Mz} :[5] dicitur {*sic legitur &MzRe}, "Fuit in diebus Herodis regis {Et Luc ... regis om. &MdNa} {*Iudee add. &MzNaRe} sacerdos quidam nomine Zacharias {*etc add. &MzNaPeRe}.

Again, Herod was an infidel and yet was a true king of Judea. Whence it is said about him in Matthew 2:1, "In the time of King Herod after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea ...." And we read as follows in Luke 1:5, "In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah", etc.

Item {et &NaRe} Matthaei 17:[25] legitur Christum {christus &NaRe} interrogasse Petrum dicens, "Quid tibi videtur Simon? {an add. &MdPe} {in add. &Mz} Reges terrae a quibus accipiunt tributum vel {et &Md} censum? a filiis suis an {vel &MzPe} ab alienis {aliis &MdPe}. Et ille {iste &Md} dicit {*dixit &MdMzNaRe}: `Ab alienis.' Et {*om. &NaReVg} dicit {*Dixit &MdMzNaPeRe} illi Iesus: `Ergo liberi sunt filii.'" Ex quibus verbis {om. &Pe} colligitur quod alieni non sunt liberi a tributo sed filii. Et per consequens alieni de iure debent tributum {trs.3412 &Md}. Ex quo sequitur quod reges etiam {et &Re} infideles sunt veri reges quia de illis loquebatur Christus.

Again, we read in Matthew 17:25 that Christ questioned Peter, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their children or from foreigners? When Peter said, `From foreigners,' Jesus said to him, `Then the children are free.'" We gather from these words that foreigners are not free from tribute, but children are. And consequently foreigners owe tribute at law. It follows from this that even infidel kings are true kings because it was of them that Christ was speaking.

Item Lucae 3 {2 &Na} :[12-3] sic legitur {*habetur &MzNaRe}, "Venerunt autem {*et add. &NaReVg} publicani ut baptizarentur, et dixerunt illi {*ad illum &MzNaPeRe}," scilicet Iohanni {*Iohannem &MzNaPeRe} Baptistae {*Baptistam &MzNaRe} {om. &Pe}, "`Magister quid faciemus?' At ille dicit {*dixit &MdMzNaReVg} {*ad eos add. &MzNaPeReVg}, `Nihil amplius quam {om. &Na} quod constitutum est vobis faciatis.'" Publicani ergo {igitur &Md} licite poterant facere {*poterant facere: receperunt &MdMzNaPeRe} {poterant facere: petebant &Pz} ea {*illa &NaRe} quae constituta erant {fuerunt &Md} eis, quae tamen ab infidelibus fuerunt {om. &Pe} constituta {*trs. &NaRe} {erant add. &Pe}.

Again, we read as follows in Luke 3:12-3, "Even tax collectors came to be baptised, and they asked him," that is John the Baptist, "`Teacher, what should we do?' He said to them, `Collect no more than the amount prescribed for you.'" Therefore tax collectors licitly received what was prescribed for them, although it had been prescribed by unbelievers.

Item {*ibidem add. &NaRe} {ibi add. &MzPe} subiungit {*subiungitur &NaRe}, "Interrogabant {interrogabunt &NaRe} autem illum et milites dicentes {trs. &Md}, `Quid faciemus et nos?' Et ait illis, `Neminem concutiatis neque calumniam faciatis, et contenti estote stipendiis vestris.'" Si autem contenti debeant {*debebant &LyMzNaPzRe} {debebat &Md} esse {trs. &Mz} stipendiis quae a paganis principibus receperunt, ipsi principes {*infideles add. &MzNaRe} verum dominium illorum quae {qui &MdNaRe} dabant militibus habuerunt, quia non [[margin Md]] licet militibus recipere stipendia {trs. &Pe} ab his qui nihil habent sed usurpant solummodo tyrannice aliena.

There follows in the same place (Matthew 3:14), "Soldiers also asked him, `And we, what should we do?' He said to them, `Do not strike or make a false allegation against anyone, and be satisfied with your wages.'" If, however, they were to be content with the wages which they received from pagan princes, those infidel princes had true lordship of what they were giving the soldiers, because it would not be permissible for soldiers to receive wages from those who have nothing but only tyrannically appropriate the goods of others.

Item Iohannis 19 {10 &Md} :[11] dicit {*dixit &MdMzNaRe} Iesus {om. &Na} {Christus &PeRe} Pilato, "Non haberes in me {in me om. &Na} potestatem ullam nisi data {*datum &MzNaReVg} esset tibi {*trs.321 &MzNaRe} desuper." Potestas autem desuper data {trs. &Md} est legitima et non usurpata. Ergo Pilatus habet {*habuit &MzNaPePzRe} legitimam potestatem licet non legitime uteretur ea.

Again, at John 19:11 Jesus said to Pilate, "You would have no power over me unless it were given you from above." Power given from above, however, is legitimate and not usurped. Therefore Pilate had legitimate power, although he was not using it legitimately.

Item ad Romanos 13:[1] ait apostolus, "Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita {subiecta &NaRe} sit. Non est {om. &Re} enim {om. &Md} potestas nisi a Deo; quae autem sunt a Deo ordinata sunt." Ubi apostolus de potestatibus infidelium {*infidelibus &MdMzNaPeRe} loqui {loquitur &Mz} videtur, de illis {aliis &MdPe} videlicet {a add. &Md} [[interlinear]] quibus {trs. &Na} Romani {Romanis &Md} praestaterunt {*praestiterunt &LyNaPz} {praestitere &MzRe} {praestabantur &Md} {praestabant &Pe} tributa. Dicente enim {*om. &MzNaRe} apostolo, "Ideo enim tributa praestatis." Et post, "Reddite ergo omnibus debita. Cui tributum, tributum, cui vectigal, vectigal." Romani autem non reddebant tributa nisi Caesari et subditis {*succedentibus &Md} eius qui erant infideles. Ergo infideles etiam {*ibi &NaRe} {om. &MdPe} habuerunt {ibi add. &MdPe} potestatem ordinatam a Deo et ita habuerunt veram potestatem temporalem.

Again, the apostle says at Romans 13:1, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God." The apostle seems to be speaking here about infidel authorities, about those, that is, to whom the Romans offered taxes. The apostle says [Romans 13:6,7], "For the same reason you pay taxes ... Pay to all what is due them, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due." The Romans, however, used to pay taxes only to Caesar and his successors, who were unbelievers. Therefore unbelievers there had power instituted by God, and so had true temporal power.

Item 1 {2 &Md} ad Corinthios 7:[20-1] ait apostolus, "Unusquisque in qua {om. &Md} {eadem &Pe} vocatione {in qua add. &MdPe} vocatus est, {trs. &Md} in ea permaneat {permaneant &Pe}. Servus vocatus es? Non sit tibi cure." Ante vocationem ergo {igitur &Md} ad fidem est aliquis servus, et per consequens aliquis {*alius &NaPeRe} {om. &Pz} est {*verus add. &MdMzNaPeRe} dominus eius.

Again, at 1 Corinthians 7:20-1 the apostle says, "Let each of you remain in the condition in which you were called. Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it." Someone is a slave, therefore, before his call to the faith, and, as a consequence, someone else is his true lord.

Item {*1 add. &MdMzNaPeRe} ad Timotheum 6:[1-2] {*dicit apostolus add. &MzNaRe}, "Quicunque sunt {sint &Pe} sub iugo servi dominos suos omni {cum &Na} honore dignos arbitrentur, {arbitrantur &MdPe} ne nomen Domini et doctrina blasphemetur. Qui autem fideles habent {sunt &Md} dominos, non contemnant quia sunt fratres sed magis serviant quia fideles." Ubi apostolus inter servos habentes dominos infideles {fideles &MdPe} {*et servos habentes dominos fideles /infideles &MdNaPe\ add. &MdMzNaPeRe} videtur distinguere et dominos fideles et servos habentes dominos {*fideles et servos habentes dominos om. &MdNaPeRe} infideles {et servos habentes dominos infideles om. &Mz} praecipit honorari. Quod minime faceret nisi aliqui infideles essent vere {*veri &MdMz} domini.

Again, the apostle says at 1 Timothy 6:1-2, "Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honour, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are brethren but rather must serve them all the more as believers." Here the apostle seems to distinguish between slaves having unbelieving masters and slaves having believing masters, and he orders unbelieving masters to be honoured. He would not do this unless some unbelieving masters were true masters.

Item beatus Paulus asseruit se esse {om. &Pe} civem Romanum, sicut patet {om. &Md} Actuum 16:[37] et 22:[25-7]. Non fuit autem civis Romanus nisi auctoritate et concessione Romanorum cum etiam tunc non fuisset Romae. Ergo {igitur &Md} Romani habuerunt veram potestatem qua poterant aliis civilitatem {civitatem &Re} Romanam concedere.

Again, blessed Paul asserts that he is a Roman citizen, as is clear in Acts 16:37 and 22:25-7. But he was not a Roman citizen except by the authority and grant of the Romans, since also he was not then at Rome. Therefore the Romans had true power by which they could grant Roman citizenship to others.

Item ut {om. &Na} legitur Actuum 24:[10] Paulus dicit {*dixit &MdMzNaRe} {om. &Pe} ad Lisiam paganum, "Ex multis annis esse {ego &Md} te iudicem genti huic {hoc &Mz} sciens, bono animo pro {per &Md} me {trs.3412 &Mz} satisfaciam {satisfaciens &Pe}." Ubi Paulus paganum {*esse add. &MdMzNaPeRe} verum iudicem recognovit.

Again, as we read in Acts 24:10, blessed Paul said to the pagan Lisias [actually Felix], "I cheerfully make my defence, knowing that for many years you have been a judge over this nation." Here Paul recognised that a pagan was a true judge.

Item ut legitur {*habetur &NaRe} Actuum 25 {2 &Mz} :[10,11] {*Paulus add. &NaRe} Caesarem verum iudicem {recognovit ... iudicem om. &Pe} reputavit cum appellavit ad ipsam {*ipsum &MzNaPzRe} dicens, "Ad tribunal Caesaris sto {ibo &Md}. Ubi {*ibi &MdVg} oportet me {*trs. &MzNaPeReVg} iudicari." Et post, "Caesarem appello."

Again, as we find at Acts 25:10-1, Paul regarded Caesar as a true judge, since he appealed to him in these words, "I am appealing to the emperor's tribunal; this is where I should be tried. ... I appeal to the emperor."

Item beatus Petrus epistolae 1 capitulo 2:[13-4] {*ait add. &MzNaRe}, "Subiecti {subditi &Pe} estote omni {*humane add. &MzVg} creaturae propter Deum, sive regi tanquam {*quasi &NaPeReVg} praecellenti, sive ducibus tanquam ab eo missis." Tunc autem nulli Christiani erant reges et duces. Et {om. &Pz} ita {*et ita: ergo &MzNaRe} {Et ita: igitur &MdPe} beatus Petrus regibus et ducibus infidelibus Christianos voluit esse subiectos. {*Quare infideles verum dominium habuerunt add. &LyMdMzNaPePzRe}

Again, in [verses 13-14 of] the second chapter of his first letter blessed Peter says, "For God's sake accept the authority of every human being, whether of a king, as supreme, or of dukes, as sent by him." At that time, however, no christians were kings or dukes. Therefore blessed Peter wanted christians to accept the authority of unbelieving kings and dukes. Unbelievers had true lordship therefore.

Item ibidem subdit {*beatus petrus add. &MzNaRe}, "Servi, subditi estote {trs. &MdPePz} in omni timore dominis, non tantum bonis et modestis sed etiam discolis." In {*om. &MzNaRe} Quibus verbis innuit {innuitur &MdPe} quod etiam discoli possunt esse veri {*trs.312 &MdNaPeRe} domini et quod est eis {trs. &Mz} obediendum.

Again, blessed Peter adds below in the same place [1 Peter 2:18], "Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but those who are harsh." He implies by these words that even the harsh can be true masters and should be obeyed.

Hoc etiam quamplurimis {*quampluribus &MdNaRe} sanctorum testimoniis ut quibusdam apparet posset ostendi sed adducam pauca. Unde Ambrosius ait {*Unde Ambrosius ait: Ait igitur Ambrosius &MdMzNaPe} {unde ambrosius ait: ambrosius ait gregorius &Re} ut habetur {ut habetur om. &Mz} in decretis 13 {*11 &MdMzNaPeRe} [[13 interlinear Pe]] q. 1 {*3 &MzNaRe} {5 &Md?Pe} {15 &Pz} c. Iulianus {*"Iulianus add. &MzNaPeRe} [[interlinear Pe]] {apostata add. &Mz} Imperator, quamvis esset apostata, habuit tamen sub se Christianos milites quibus {qui &MzPe} cum dicebat, `Producite aciem pro defensione rei publicae', obediebant ei." Et Augustinus de {*om. &MdNaRe} eisdem {causa 11, q. c. Julianus &NaRe} {de eisdem om. &Mz} {*c. et q. c. Ita corporis add. &Md} ait de {om. &Md} eodem {*trs.231 &MzNaRe}, "Iulianus extitit {erat &Mz} infidelis imperator. Nonne extitit apostata et iniquus idolatra? Ubi veniebatur {venerabatur &Pz} ad causam Christi {Christum &Pz} non agnoscebant {agnoscebat &Pe} nisi illum qui in coelo erat. Quando volebat {volebant &MdPe} ut {et &NaRe} idola colerent ut thurificarent, praeponebant {*ei add. &MdNaPeRe} {eidem add. &Mz} Deum {dominum &Re} {om. &Mz} {domini &Pz}. Quando autem dicebat, {dicebant &Mz} `Producite aciem, {etiam add. &Pe} ite {tunc &Mz} contra gentem illam', statim obtemperabant {obtemperabunt &Pe} {*et distinguebant add. &NaReZn} {distinguebant add. &Md} [[interlinear]] Dominum {*deum &MdZn} aeternum cum {*a &MzNaPeReZn} domino temporali. recognoscentes {*om. &MdMzNaPePzReZn} Iulianus ergo {igitur &MdMz} quamvis apostata fuerit {*fuit &MzNaRe} verus dominus et verus imperator erat {om. &NaRe}.

It is clear to some people that this could also be shown by very many testimonies of saints, but I will bring forward [only] a few. As we find in 11, q. 3, c. Iulianus [c.94, col.669], therefore, Ambrose says, "Although the emperor Julian was an apostate he nevertheless had under him christian soldiers who obeyed him when he said, `Advance the battle front for the defence of the republic.'" And in the same causa and quaestio c. Ita corporis [98, col.670] Augustine says about the same man. "Julian was an unbelieving emperor. Did he remain an apostate and wicked idolater? When it came to the cause of Christ they [his soldiers] knew only he who was in heaven. When he wanted them to worship idols and offer incense they set God above him. However, when he said, `Advance the battle front, move against those people', they obeyed at once and distinguished the eternal Lord from their temporal lord." Although Julian was apostate, therefore, he was a true lord and a true emperor.

Discipulus Istud videtur nimis absurdum, quod videlicet apostata {*et add. &MdMzNaPeRe} hereticus fuerit {fuit &MzPe} verus imperator et verus dominus in temporalibus {*in temporalibus: rerum /om. &Mz\ temporalium &MzNaRe} cum haeretici nullam rem temporalem de iure possideant, ut colligitur manifeste ex sacris canonibus dist. 8, c. {om. &MzNaRe} {*Quo add. &MdNaPeRe} [[interlinear Md]] {q add. &Mz} iure, et {*om. &MdMzNaPzRe} Extra, De haereticis {*c. add. &Md} Excommunicamus et {*om. &MdMzNaPeRe} 23, q. 7, per totum. Iulianus ergo non fuit verus imperator nec verus dominus rerum temporalium. Quod glossa super {supra &Re} praeallegatum capitulum Ambrosii {Ambrosius &Md} {Ambris &Pe} {*Iulianus add. &MzNa} insinuare videtur dicens, "Adhuc {om. &MdPe} Iulianus {*trs. &MzNaReZn} {ad hoc add. &MdPe} tolerabatur ab ecclesia ne suscitaret {suscitare &Pz} {ne suscitaret: non suscitando &Pe} scandalum adversus Christianos." Ergo Iulianus quamvis toleraretur adversus Christianos {*adversus Christianos om. &MdMzNaRe} ab ecclesia non fuit verus imperator et quod plus est {fuit &Pe} nullam {et quod plus est nullam: nec aliquam &Mz} habuit dignitatem secularem {*et quod ... secularem om. &NaRe}.

Student That seems too absurd, namely that an apostate and heretic was a true emperor and true lord of temporal goods, since in law heretics possess no temporal goods, as we gather plainly from the sacred canons, dist. 8, c. Quo iure [c.1, col.12], Extra, De hereticis, c. Excommunicamus [c.13, col.787], and the whole of 23, q. 7. Therefore Julian was not a true emperor nor a true lord of temporal goods. The gloss on the chapter of Ambrose cited above, Iulianus [col.954], seems to imply this when it says, "Until now Julian was tolerated by the church so that he would not stir up hatred against christians." Although Julian was tolerated by the church, therefore, he was not a true emperor.

Magister Respondetur quod non est de iure divino quod haeretici nihil proprium habeant {*habent &MdMzNaPePzRe} {*et quod nullam habent dignitatem secularem add. &NaRe} sed de iure {om. &Pe} humano, {*et ideo antequam heretici per iura humana add. &LyMdMzNaPePzRe} privarentur dominio rerum temporalium {*trs. &MzNaRe} habebant {habuerunt &Md} verum dominium rerum temporalium {*trs. &NaRe}. Et ideo quia tempore Iuliani apostatae et {etiam &PeRe} haeretici {et heretici: om. &Mz} non fuerunt {apostate heretici add. &Mz} privati temporalibus {talibus &Mz} {*rebus add. &MdMzNaPeRe} Iulianus fuit verus imperator et verus dominus rerum temporalium {*trs. &MzNaRe}. Postea autem per humana iura imperatores {*imperatorum &NaRe} {imperatoris &LyPz} et papae haeretici fuerunt {*trs. &NaRe} privati dominio rerum temporalium {*trs. &NaRe}. Et ideo ex tunc non fuerunt veri {neque &Na} {nec &Re} domini temporalium {*huiusmodi &MzNa} {huius &Re} rerum {trs. &Pe}. Et pro illo {isto &MdMz} tempore loquitur {*loquuntur &NaRe} canon {*canones &MzNaRe} {canone &Md} {*sacri add. &MzNaRe}, non tamen {*autem &MzNaPeRe} pro tempore quo {*quando &MdNaPeRe} fuit Iulianus {apostata add. &Pe}.

Master The reply is that it is not by divine law that heretics have no property and no secular dignity, but by human law, and therefore before heretics were deprived by human laws of their lordship of temporal goods they had true lordship of temporal goods. And because, therefore, in the time of Julian apostates and heretics were not deprived of temporal goods, Julian was a true emperor and lord of temporal goods. Afterwards, however, heretics were deprived of lordship of temporal goods by the human laws of emperors and the pope. And from that time, therefore, they have not been true lords of goods of this kind. And it is about this [later] time that the sacred canons speak, not however about the time when Julian lived.

Ad Glossam autem {om. &Md} {sic ante &Pz} adductam dupliciter respondetur. Uno modo quod Iulianus tolerabatur verus imperator ab ecclesia et non habens imperium verum sed {*verum sed: om. &MdMzNaPeRe} solum {*solummodo &MzNaPeRe} usurpatum. Aliter dicitur quod glossator ibi non habuit {trs.231 &Md} memoriam rerum gestarum tempore Iuliani, quia Iulianus, ut legitur in diversis scripturis autenticis, suscitavit scandalum quod potuit adversus Christianos {*et ideo non toleravit eum ecclesia ne sucitaret scandalum adversus christianos add. &NaRe} Sed ecclesia {*om. &MdNaPeRe} toleravit eum qui {*quia &MdMzNaPePzRe} non potuit eum {om. &Md} de facto {*trs.45123 &NaRe} {ecclesia eum add. &Md} privare imperio {officio imperii &Md}. Et si per sententiam privasset, iam {*illa privatio &MdNaPeRe} primo {*om. &MdNaPeRe} non profuisset {processisset &MdPe} sed nocuisset ecclesiae.

Now it is replied in two ways to the gloss adduced: in one way that Julian was tolerated by the church as a true emperor and not as one having only a usurped empire. It is said otherwise that at that point the glossator had no memory of things done in the time of Julian, because, as we read in various authentic writings, Julian stirred up what hatred he could against the christians, and the church, therefore, did not tolerate him so that he would not stir up hatred against christians. But it tolerated him because it could not in fact deprive him of the empire. And if by its judgement it had deprived him, that deprivation would have harmed the church, not profited it.

Discipulus Aliqua {*alia add. &MzNaRe} dicta maiorum pro eadem assertione adducas.

Student Would you bring forward some other sayings of our forefathers for the same assertion.

Magister Hoc ex Legenda sancti Mauritii et sociorum {et sociorum: sociorumque &Mz} eius colligitur in qua leguntur sic dixisse {trs. &MdMzPe}, "Milites sumus imperator {imperatoris &Pe} tui sed {servi &Md} [[margin]] tamen servi {om. &Mz} quem {*quod &MdMzNaPeRe} libere confitemur Dei {deo &Mz}. Tibi debemus militiam {*trs. &MzNaRe} sed illi {sed illi: illi autem &Mz} innocentiam." Et {*tamen add. &MzNaRe} ille {iste &MdMz} {om. &Pe} imperator, scilicet Maximianus, extitit {fuit &Mz} infidelis {fidelis &Mz}.

Master We gather this from the legend of St. Mauritius and his companions, in which we read that they said the following: "We are your soldiers, O emperor, but yet we are slaves because we freely confess God. We owe you military service, but we owe him our innocence." And yet that emperor, that is Maximianus, was an unbeliever.

Item {et add. &Md} Paulus et Iohannes, ut legitur in Legenda eorum {*ipsorum &MzNaRe}, dixerunt Iuliano apostatae, "Non faciemus {*facimus &MdNaRe} tibi hanc iniuriam ut praeponamus tibi qualemcunque personam, scilicet secularem dominum, tibi praeponimus qui fecit coelum et terram." Ergo {igitur &Mz} isti sancti Iulianum apostatam reputaverunt {reputarunt &Na} verum imperatorem {trs.231 &Mz}.

Again, as we read in their Legend, Paul and John said to Julian the Apostate, "We do not do this injury to you in order to put any person at all, that is a secular lord, before you, but we put him who made heaven and earth before you." Therefore those saints regarded Julian the Apostate as a true emperor.

CAP. XXVI

Discipulus Quamvis illa {*ista &MdMzNaPeRe} opinio quae ponit quod imperium est a papa esset amplius {amplicius &Pe} discutienda, et specialiter quo ad hoc quod ponit quod {juliani add. &Md} {*modo add. &NaPeRe} imperium {non add. &Mz} est a papa, quia tamen de hoc quod ponit quod imperium est a Papa quia tamen de hoc {*quod ponit ... de hoc om. &LyMdMzNaPePzRe} et de aliis quae illa {*ista &MdMzNaPe} {est &Re} opinio {*trs. &NaPeRe} includit erit aliquando occasio loquendi quando tractabimus alias opiniones, ideo breviter videamus de opinione illa {ista &Mz} quae ponit quod imperium Romanum est institutum {*a deo et non add. &NaRe} ab hominibus. Pro qua allegare conare.

Chapter 26

Student Although that opinion which considers that the empire is from the pope should be more fully discussed, and especially in so far as it considers that the empire now is from the pope, yet because there will be in the future an opportunity of speaking about this and other matters which are included in that opinion when we deal with other opinions, let us therefore briefly reflect upon that opinion which considers that the Roman empire was established by God and not by men. Would you try to argue for that.

Opinion 1: The Roman Empire was established by God, not men

Magister {om. &Re} Pro ista {*hac &MdNaPeRe} opinione adducitur auctoritas Iohannis Papae, qui ut habetur in decretis dist. 96 {97 &Pe} c. Si imperator ait, "Habet," scilicet imperator, "privilegia potestatis suae quae pro administrandis legibus publicis divinitus consecutus est." Ubi dicit glossa super verbo divinitus "Non est {*om. &MdMzNaPeReZn} igitur {*ergo &MdMzNaReZn} a papa." Nam {iam &Md} {sed &Mz} imperium a solo Deo {trs.2341 &Mz} est, ut 23, q. 4, {c. add. &Pe} Quaesitum. {*Nam /non &MdPz\ a celesti /celeste &Pz\ maiestate /manifeste &MdPePz\ sed /*om. &MzPePz\ habet gladii potestatem, C de vet. iure /om. &Md\ /et &Pz\ emi /enuca &Pe\ /enim Pz\ /*enucleando Gl\ l. primo in ?primo /*principio &MzPz\ quod concedo de vero imperatore add. &MdMzNaPePzRe}.

Master A text of Pope John is brought forward for this opinion. As we find in dist. 96, c. Si imperator [c.11, c.341] he says, "He," that is the emperor, "has the privileges of his power which he acquired from heaven for the administration of public laws." The gloss on the words from heaven [col.469] here says, "Not therefore from the pope. For the empire is from God alone, as in 23, q. 4, Quaesitum [c.45, col.924]. For he has the power of the sword 'from the heavenly majesty', C, de veteri iure enucleando, l. 1, at the beginning [Justinian, Codex, I.17.1, ed. Kreuger, p. 69], which I concede of a true emperor".

Item eodem capitulo Iohannes papa loquens de imperatore ait, "Neque {nec &Re} {*ne &Zn} contra eum," scilicet Deum, "tendat {tendit &Na} {*abrumpi add. &MdMzNaPePzReZn}, a quo omnia constituta sunt, et contra illius {ius &Md} beneficia pugnare videtur {*videatur &MdNaReZn} {videretur &Pe} {videntur &Pz} a quo {qua &Pz} propriam consecutus est potestatem."

Again, speaking about the emperor in the same chapter, Pope John says [c.11, col.341], "... lest he strive to burst against him," that is God, "by whom everything has been established, and lest he be seen to fight against the benefits of that one from whom he acquired his own power."

Item beatus Cyprianus, ut habetur dist. 10. {*c. add. &NaRe} Quoniam idem, et Nicolaus Papa, ut legitur dist. 96, c. Cum ad verum, eandem sub eisdem verbis {*dicunt add. &MdMzNaPeRe} sententiam dicentes, "Idem mediator Dei et hominum homo {om. &Mz} {*Christus Jesus add. &NaReZn} actibus propriis et dignitate {*dignitatibus &MdMzNaPeReZn} distinctis officia potestatis utrumque {*utriusque Zn} {uniuscumque &NaRe} {quoque &MzPe} discrevit." Et {*Ubi &NaRe} {ergo differt ut &Md} dicit glossa, "Imo videtur contra: quia {contra quia: quod &MdNaRe} non discrevit {descrivit &Md} {et dicit ... discrevit om. &MzPe} sed {si &Na} confudit {confundit &Pz} cum ipse unus et idem utrumque officium gessit. {*Sed /videlicet &Md\ dic quod utrumque officium gessit add. &MdZn} [[margin Md]] per {pro &Mz} se, ut {cum &Pe} notaret, {notaretur &Md} quod de eodem fonte processerunt. Nam dicit lex quod summa a Deo nobis {trs.312 &Mz} dona data {*concessa &MdMzNaPeReZn} sunt, scilicet {om. &Md} sacerdotium et imperium, in auth. quomodo oportet. Episcopos {et ?ce ?cle ad ord add. &Pe} in principio colla. 1 {3 &MdMzNaPeRe}."

Again, blessed Cyprian, as we find in dist. 10, c. Quoniam idem [c.8, col.21], and Pope Nicholas, as we read in dist. 96, c. Cum ad verum [c.6, col.339], assert the same opinion in the same words, saying, "Jesus Christ, at the same time a mediator with God and a man among men, separated the duties of each power by its own acts and distinct dignities." At this point the gloss says [col.466], "Rather the opposite seems to be the case, because he did not separate but confuse when he who was one and the same undertook both offices. But say that he undertook both offices himself to show that they came from the same source. For the law says that the highest gifts, that is the priesthood and the empire, have been granted to us by God, (in the beginning of coll. 1 of Auth., `How it behoves bishops')." [[check]]

Item Innocentius Papa, ut habetur 23, q. 4, c. Quaesitum, loquens de potestatibus secularibus ait, "Meminerant {meminerat &NaRe} {mensurant &MzPe} enim," maiores scilicet {*trs. &MzNaPeRe}, "a Deo potestates {potestatem &Mz} has sibi {*fuisse &NaReZn} {se &Mz} concessas et propter vindictam noxiorum gladium fuisse {concessum vel add. &Md} permissum {concessum &MzNaPeRe} et Dei ministerio {iudicio &Mz} esse datum in huiusmodi vindices {iudices &MzNaPeRe}. Quomodo ergo {*igitur &MzNaReZn} reprehenditur {*reprehendetur &MzNaRe} {reprehenderent Zn} factum quod auctore Domino videtur {viderent Zn} esse concessum." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod potestates seculares sunt a Deo. Ergo potestas secularis {*imperialis &MdMzNaPeRe} potissime est a Deo. Haec omnia confirmantur per apostolum dicentem {prima add. &Mz} ad Corinth. {*Romanos &MzNaRe} 13:[1], "Non est potestas nisi a Deo."

Again, as we read in 23, q. 4, c. Quaesitum [c.45, col.924], Pope Innocent, speaking about secular powers says, "They," that is our ancestors, "remembered that these powers were granted by God and that the sword was permitted to punish the guilty and given to the minister of God for this sort of punishment. How, therefore, will we find fault with an arrangement which is seen to have been granted by God's authorship?" We gather from these words that the secular powers are from God. Most of all, therefore, is the imperial power from God. All these things are confirmed by the apostle when he says at Romans 13:1, "There is no power except from God."

Discipulus Dic breviter quomodo illa {*ista &MdNaPeRe} opinio improbatur.

Student Tell me briefly how that argument is rejected.

Magister Improbatur per hoc quod quia non legitur {loquitur &Mz} ubi {ut &Mz} Deus per {*se add. &NaRe} ipsam {*ipsum &MdMzNaPePzRe} vel {*et non &MzNaRe} per alium constituerit {constituit &Mz} imperatorem, ideo ista {illa &Mz} opinio eadem facilitate contemnitur sicut {*qua &MzNaRe} probatur.

Master It is rejected by virtue of the fact that because we do not read that God himself established the emperor and did not do so through another, that opinion can as a result be disdained with the same ease as it is proved.

Discipulus {*Dic add. &NaRe} quomodo respondetur ad motiva illius {*istius &MdNaPeRe} opinionis.

Student Tell me how reply is made to the arguments for that opinion.

Magister Unico verbo respondetur {quod add. &Md} quia {quod &Re} cum dicitur {cum dicitur: concluditur &Mz} {*cum dicitur: conceditur &NaRe} quod {cum dicitur quod om. &Md} potestas imperialis et universaliter {universalis &NaPeRe} omnis potestas licita et legitima est a Deo non tamen a solo Deo. Sed quaedam {quidam &Mz} est a Deo per homines et talis est potestas imperialis quae est a Deo sed {scilicet &NaRe} per homines.

Master The reply, in a single word, is that it is granted that the imperial power and all licit and legitimate power generally are from God, yet not from God alone. But some [power] is from God through men, and the imperial power is of this kind, from God but through men.

CAP. XXVII

Discipulus Nunc {hanc &Md} opinionem scilicet {*om. &MzNaRe} tertiam {*secundam &NaRe} tactam {tractatam &MzPz} {trs.312 &MdPe} supra capitulo 18 {10 &Pe} tractemus.

Chapter 27

Student Let us now deal with the second opinion touched on above in chapter 18.

Opinion 2: The Roman Empire was established by God through the Roman people

Magister Illa {ista &Md} opinio tenet {*ponit &MzNaRe} quod Romanum imperium fuit primo {*primitus &NaRe} institutum a Deo et {*sed &NaRe} tamen per homines, scilicet per Romanos. Et {*om. &NaRe}

Master That opinion considers that the Roman empire was originally established by God, but yet through men, namely through the Romans.

The Empire was established by the people

Hoc testari {testare &Md} videtur glossa dist. 17, {*para. hinc etiam add. &NaRe} quae ait, "Habet Romana ecclesia auctoritatem a Deo {*domino &NaRe} {conciliis Zn} sed imperator a populo", utcunque {ubicumque &Pe} legimus. Hinc etiam glossa {dist. 17 ... glossa om. &Mz} dist. 2. Lex est constitutio populi ait, {om. &Pe} "Olim populus constituit {*statuit &MdMzNaPeReZn} leges {legem &Pe} sed {quia add. &Mz} hodie {quia add. &Na} {quod add. &Re} {non add. &Mz} {*non, quia add. &MdPeZn} transtulit hanc {om. &MdPe} potestatem in imperatorem." Ab illo autem est imperium qui imperatori contulit potestatem condendi leges. Ergo a populo est imperium.

The gloss on dist. 17, para. Hinc etiam [col.71] seems to attest to this when it says, "The Roman church has authority from the Lord [[councils in Zn]], but the emperor from the people", which ever we read. [[Probably a reference to the fact that the gloss also puts the contrary view that the Roman church's authority is from the Lord.]] Hence the gloss on dist 2, Lex est constitutio populi [col.7] also says, "Formerly the people established laws but not today because they have transferred this power to the emperor." The empire, however, is from whoever conferred on the emperor the power of establishing laws. The empire, therefore, is from the people.

Item ab illis fuit imperium Romanum {*trs. &MzNaRe} qui caeteras nationes {*sub add. &NaRe} Romano {suo &Mz} imperio subdiderunt et qui dominium gentium subiugatarum cui volebant commiserunt et modum {modo &Pz} dominandi ac regendi obedientes Romanis, prout et quando eis visum fuit {*fuerat &MdMzNaPeRe}, incitaverunt {*mutaverunt &MdMzNaPeRe}. Sed hoc fecerunt Romani de gentibus {enim add. &Na} {non add. &Re} subiugatis ab eis. Habetur enim {*om. &MzNaRe} 1 {om. &NaRe} Machabeorum 8:[1,2-4] ubi sic legitur, "Et audivit Iudas nomen Romanorum quia sunt potentes viribus." Et post "Et audiverunt {*audierunt &MdMzNaPeReVg} praelia eorum et {om. &Na} virtutes {trs.231 &MdPe} bonas quas faciunt in Galatia quia obtinuerunt eos et duxerunt sub tributum et {om. &Md} quanta fecerunt in regione {regionem &Pe} Hispaniae {et cetera add. &Pz} {*et quod in potestate /potestatem &MzNaRe\ redegerunt /redigunt &Mz\ metalla argenti et auri que /quia &Re\ illic sunt et possederunt omnem locum consilio suo et patientia /sapientia &MzNaRe\ et terram /om. &Mz\ que longe erat /terra add. &Mz\ valde /om. &Mz\ ab eis et reges qui subiecerunt /superbierant &Mz\ /qui add. &MzNaRe\ supervenerant ad illos ab extremis terre contriverunt /conterverunt &NaRe\ et percusserunt eos plaga magna add. &MzNaReVg}

Again, the Roman empire was from those who subjected the rest of the nations to the Roman empire, who committed the lordship of these subjugated people to whom they chose and who changed, as and when they liked, the way of dominating and ruling those who were obedient to the Romans. But the Romans did this in connection with the people they had subjugated. We find this in 1 Maccabees 8:1, where we read as follows, "Now Judas heard of the fame of the Romans, that they were very strong. ... And they (the Israelites) had heard of their wars and the brave deeds that they were doing among the Gauls, how they had defeated them and forced them to pay tribute, and what they had done in the land of Spain to get control of the silver and gold mines there, and how they had gained control of the whole region by their planning and patience, even though the place was far distant from them. They also crushed the kings who came against them from the ends of the earth, and inflicted a great disaster on them."

Quod autem dominium {*gentium add. &MdMzNaPeRe} subiugatorum {*subiugatarum &MdMzNaPeRe} et obedientium eis cum {*cui &MzNaRe} volebant commiserunt {commiserint &Re} insinuatur ibidem [8:14,16] cum dicitur, "{*Et add. &NaRe} in omnibus istis nemo portabat diademata {*diadema &MzNaReVg} nec induebatur {videbatur &Pz} purpura ut magnificaretur in ea." {nec induebatur ... in ea om. &MdPe} {etc. add. &Pe}. Et post, "Et committunt uni homini magistratum et infra sinunt {*et infra sinunt: suum &MzNaRe} per singulos annos dominari universa {*universe &LyMzNaPzReVg} terrae suae et omnes obediunt uni et non est invidia neque {nec &Re} zelus inter eos." {et infra ... inter eos: etc &MdPe}

Moreover, that they committed to whom they chose the lordship of the people they had subjugated and who were obedient to them is implied in the same place when it says [1 Maccabees 8:14,16], "Yet for all this not one of them has put on a crown or worn purple as a mark of pride. ... They trust one man each year to rule over them and to control all their land; they all heed the one man and there is no envy or jealousy among them."

De mutatione autem modi dominandi et regendi obedientes habetur {trs. &Pe} in scripturis fide dignis. Aliquando enim habuerunt reges aliquando consules aliquando unum qui mutabatur singulis annis. Ultimo autem imperatorem elegerunt {*trs. &NaRe} qui absque mutatione omnibus imperaret. Ergo a Romanis fuit Romanum imperium institutum.

Moreover, we find trustworthy things in writings about changing the way of dominating and ruling those obedient to them. For sometimes they had kings, sometimes consuls, sometimes one man who was changed every year. Finally, however, they chose an emperor who commanded everyone without there being a change. The Roman empire, therefore, was established by the Romans.

Discipulus Non videtur quod a populo Romano fuerit {fuit &MdMz} imperium verum {*trs. &MzNaPeRe} sed solummodo {solum &Re} usurpatum. Nam Romani alios oppresserunt. {*Ergo nequaquam /non fuit &Mz\ verum imperium /fuit add. &Re\ sed solummodo /om. &Pe\ tyrannicum /tyrannice &Mz\ acquisierunt /acquierunt &Pe\ add. &NaPeRe}.

Student It does not seem that it was a true empire from the Roman people, but only one that was usurped. For the Romans oppressed others. They did not acquire a true empire, therefore, but only a tyrannical one.

Magister Ad hoc {ad hoc: adhuc &NaRe} dupliciter respondetur: primo {*uno modo &MzNaRe} quod Romani cernebant quod necessarium fuit pro utilitate communi totius mundi unum imperatorem universis mortalibus dominari. Ideo qui contradixerunt unitati imperii tanquam impedientes {*impeditores &MzNaRe} boni communis potestas {*potestate &NaRe} {potestatem &MzPz} ordinandi de imperio {privati fuerunt. Quare /quando &Mz\ potestas ordinandi de imperio add. &MdMzNaRe} [[margin Md]] ad Romanos et ad {*om. &MzNaPe} alios in {ad &Mz} hoc eis consentientes {*trs. &NaRe} extitit devoluta. Et ex tunc poterant Romani {romanos &Pz} licite contradicentes et rebelles suo {sub &Pe} imperio subiugare.

Master There are two replies to this. One is that the Romans understood that it was necessary for the common good of the whole world that one emperor dominate all people. Those who opposed the unity of the empire, therefore, were deprived, as hinderers of the common good, of the power of making arrangements about the emperor. The power of making arrangements about the emperor, therefore, fell to the Romans and to others who agreed with them about this. And thereafter the Romans could licitly subjugate those who opposed or rebelled against their empire.

Aliter {similiter &Md} dicitur {*quod add. &MdMzNaPeRe} licet Romani primo et {om. &Md} per multa tempora post iniuste compulerunt {compulerint &Md} alios sibi subesse, tamen postquam alii {om. &Mz} coeperunt consentire dominio {romano imperio &Md} Romanorum. {subesse add. &Mz} Romani {om. &Re} {*tunc add. &Mz} super {se add. &Re} {semper &Pz} ipsos {ipsis &MdPePz} verum imperium {*dominium &MdMzNaPeRe} acceperunt, {*et add. &MdMzNaPeRe} ideo {non &Md} postquam {om. &Pe} totus orbis sponte consensit {concessit &MdMzPe} in dominium et imperium Romanorum, idem imperium fuit {fuerit &Md} verum imperium iustum et bonum {*licitum &MzNaRe}.

Otherwise it is said that although at first and for a long time afterwards the Romans unjustly forced others to be subject to them, nevertheless later others began to agree to the lordship of the Romans. At that time the Romans received true lordship over them, and therefore after the whole world willingly agreed to the lordship and empire of the Romans, that empire was a true, just and licit empire.

Discipulus {om. &Re} Numquid ad hoc quod imperium Romanum super totum mundum esset verum imperium oportuit quod {*om. &MzNaRe} totus mundus consentiret {*totus mundus consentiret: totum mundum consentire &MzNaRe} imperio {*in imperium &MdMzNaPeRe} Romanorum?

Student Was it necessary for the whole world to agree to the empire of the Romans in order that the Roman empire over the whole world was a true empire?

Magister {discipulus &Re} Respondetur quod teste Glossa Extra, De constitutionibus, {*c. add. &Pe} Cum omnes, "quoniam {*Quando &MdMzNaRe} [[margin Md]] {trs.312 &Pz} aliqui plures unum sunt {*trs. &MdMzNaPeRe} collegium quantum ad illa quae sunt {quae sunt add. &Na} ex necessitate facienda sufficit quod a maiori parte {*a maiori parte: a maioritate &NaRe} fiant {om. &Md} {*trs.4123 &MzNaPeRe}. Omnes autem mortales sunt unum corpus et unum collegium ita {*et &MdMzNaPeRe} necesse fuit {pro add. &Pe} tempore quo Romani coeperunt dominari {*mundo unum principem dominari add. &MdMzNaPeRe} cunctis mortalibus. Ergo {*ideo &MdMzNaPeRe} tunc temporis maior pars mundi etiam {et &Md} aliis contradicentibus potuit {*poterat &NaRe} {poterant &MdMzPe} imperatorem praeficere {unum add. &Md} {trs.231 &Md} toti mundo nec requirebatur {requirebantur &NaRe} consensus {confessus &Md} omnium, {*sicut add. &NaRe} etiam {et &MdMz} quando {om. &Na} reges et principes praeficiebantur non fuit necesse quod omnes consentirent, sicut etiam {et &Mz} si aliqua patria esset invasa ab {de &Mz} hostibus posset maior pars etiam {*om. &MdMzNaRe} contradicentibus quibusdam {*trs. &MdMzNaPeRe} facere sibi unum caput pro patriae defensione.

Master The reply is that the gloss on Extra, De constitutionibus, c. Cum omnes [col.19] attests that when a number of people form one college it is sufficient, with respect to those things which have of necessity to be done, that they be done by a majority. All mortals, however, are one body and one college and it was necessary, at the time when the Romans began to dominate the world, that one prince should dominate all other mortals. At that time, therefore, the greater part of the world could, even if others opposed them, set an emperor over the whole world, and the agreement of everyone was not required, just as it was not necessary for all to agree when kings and princes were placed in authority and also just as, if some country were invaded by enemies, the majority could appoint one head over them for the defence of their country even if some people opposed them.

Discipulus Videtur {*videretur &NaRe} secundum ista {*trs.231 &NaRe} quod Romani iuste et absque peccato {*sibi add. &MzNaRe} subiugaverunt universum orbem, quod tamen non videtur cum beatus Augustinus reprehendat {reprehendit &Mz} in eis {eos &MdMz} libidinem dominandi.

Student According to that it would seem that the Romans subjugated the whole world to themselves justly and without sin. This does not seem to be so when Augustine censures them for their love of dominating.

Magister Respondetur quod si Romani ordinando de imperio ex solo amore boni communis et rei publicae moti fuissent et non ex libidine dominandi aut {*neque &NaRe} {om. &MdMzPe} vanam gloriam non {*om. &MdMzNaPeRe} intendissent nec aliquam intentionem corruptam habuissent in hoc absque peccato fuissent et forte aliqui eorum in acquirendo imperium vel consentiendo {*cooperando &NaRe} acquisitioni imperii minime peccaverunt. Si autem intendebant bonum proprium {commune &MdMzPePz} ut dominarentur aliis vel {et &Mz} augerent {augerentur &Pz} divitias {suas add. &MdPe} peccaverunt. Haec {*Hinc &MzNaPe} {hic &Re} beatus Augustinus, {et add. &Md} ut habetur {*legitur &NaRe} in decretis 23, q. 1, c. Militare ait, "Militare non est delictum, sed propter praedam {praedictam &NaRe} {praedicta &Pz} militare est peccatum; nec rempublicam gerere criminosum est, sed ideo agere {*gerere &MdMzPeZn} rempublicam {gerere ... rempublicam om. &Pz} ut divitias {divitiae &Mz} augeas, {augeantur &Mz} videtur esse damnabile." Ergo a simili {substantia &NaRe} laborare {labore &Pz} ad subiugandum {*mundum add. &MdMzPeRe} [[margin Md]] uni principi non est peccatum sed hoc facere propter vanam gloriam vel ad incutiendum timorem aliis vel ex libidine dominandi videtur damnabile {*reprehensibile &NaRe} reputandum.

Master The reply is that if in making arrangements for the empire the Romans were moved solely by love of the common good and the republic and not by a love of dominating and had neither intended their own vain glory nor had any corrupt intention in this, they would have been without sin, and perhaps some of them did not sin in obtaining the empire or cooperating in its acquisition. If they were exerting themselves for their own good, however, so that others would be dominated or their own wealth increased, they sinned. Hence, as we read in 23, q, 1, c. Militare [c.5, col.893], Augustine says, "To wage war is not wrong, but to wage war for the sake of booty is a sin; nor is it sinful to govern the republic, but for that reason to govern the republic in order to increase one's wealth seems to be reprehensible." Similarly, therefore, it is not a sin to work to subjugate the world to one prince, but it seems to be regarded as reprehensible to do this out of vain glory or to strike fear into others or out of a pleasure in dominating.

Discipulus Nunquid si Romani in acquirendo Romanum {*om. &MzNaPeRe} imperium habuerunt {habuerint &Md} intentionem corruptam ita ut peccarent damnabiliter {damnabilem &Pe} fuit imperium taliter acquisitum usurpatum {*et add. &MdMzNaPeRe} illicitum et {*om. &MdMzNaPeRe} non verum censendum? ergo {*om. &MzNaRe} Videtur quod non erat verum imperium si fuit taliter acquisitum ex intentione corrupta quia {quod &Mz} nulla res temporalis acquisita illicite et iniuste {*et iniuste om. &NaRe} transit in verum dominium acquirentis. Quod Augustinus videtur asserere {*videtur asserere: tractat in epistola ad vincentium &NaRe} [[gap in Mz]], ut habetur 23. q. 7. c. 1 {om. &Md} ubi ait, "Quod iure divino cuncta {iure divino cuncta: temporalium dominium cunctorum /clericorum Re\ NaRe} iustorum sunt {sint &Mz} et nullo {non &Mz} iure impii {imperii &MdMzNaPePzRe} habent {*verum dominium /imperium &MdPe\ alicuius /om. &MdMzPe\ quia /quod &Md\ nullo iure habent add. &MdMzNaPeRe} illa quae sunt aliorum scilicet iustorum."

Student If the Romans had a corrupt intention in acquiring their empire, so that they sinned reprehensibly, should the empire so acquired be considered usurped and illicit and not a true one? It seems that if it was acquired in this way, with a corrupt intention, it was not a true empire, because no temporal good acquired illicitly passes into the true lordship of the one acquiring it. Augustine deals with this in his letter to Vincent where he says, as we find in 23, q. 7, c. 1 [col.950] [[the letter to Vincent is partly quoted at this point of the canon law, but not this part of it.]], "That the lordship of all temporal belongs to the just and the impious do not by right have true lordship over anyone because they do not possess by any right those things that belong to other just men."

Magister Respondetur quod non obstante corrupta intentione Romanorum imperium {*romanum add. &MdMzNaPeRe} acquisitum de consensu populorum fuit verum imperium quia corrupta intentio non impedit aquisitionem veri dominii. Qui enim emit rem aliquam {malam add. &Pz} mala intentione non propter hoc non acquirit {accipit &Md} verum dominium rei emptae. Et qui mala intentione recipit rem a donatore qui eam {ea &Na} donare potest recipit etiam {*om. &NaRe} {tamen &MdMz} verum dominium {imperium &Pz} rei donatae et illa {*ita &MdMzNaPeRe} mala intentio nec {neque &Na} in transferente rem aliquam temporalem nec {neque &MzNa} in recipiente translationem impedit {*trs. &NaRe} {*vel add. &MzNaRe} acceptionem {*receptionem &MdMzNaRe} veri dominii {translationem ... dominii om. &Pe}.

Master The reply is that notwithstanding the corrupt intention of the Romans, the Roman empire, acquired with the consent of the people, was a true empire because a corrupt intention does not prevent the acquisition of true lordship. For he who buys something with a wicked intention does not on that account fail to acquire true lordship of the thing bought. And he who with a wicked intention receives some thing from a donor who can present it obtains true lordship of the thing presented. And so a wicked intention does not prevent the acquisition of true lordship either in the transferring of some temporal thing or in receiving the thing transferred.

De auctoritate autem {enim &Md} Augustini dicunt {dicit &Mz} aliqui quod quidam {*trs.321 &MzNaRe} male intelligant {*intelligunt &MdMzNaPeRe} eam {*trs. &MzNaRe}. Non enim intendit Augustinus quod in {de &Re} {*om. &MzNaPe} iure divino cuncta sunt {*sint &MdNaPeRe} iustorum quo ad verum dominium, quia tunc nullus peccatorum {*peccator &MzNaRe} {peccatori &Md} haberet verum dominium {quia tunc ... dominium om. &MdPe} [[but add. margin Md]] alicuius rei temporalis. Et ideo {*ita &NaRe} quandocunque aliquis rex vel {*om. &NaRe} aliquis dominus {*aliquis dominus om. &MzNaPeRe} {vel aliquis add. &Md} *princeps vel alius dominus {dives &NaRe} {trs. &Md} peccaret mortaliter verum dominium omnium {om. &Na} rerum suarum transiret in iustos et non remaneret penes aliquem peccatorem. Vult igitur {*ergo &MdMzNaRe} Augustinus quod iure divino cuncta sunt iustorum quo ad dignitatem meriti. Hoc est soli iusti sunt digni vero dominio temporali {*temporalium rerum &MdMzNaPeRe} et nullus peccator est dignus quacunque re temporali. Unde indigne possidet {*quicquid possidet add. &LyMdMzNaPePzRe}.

Now some people say about the text of Augustine that certain people understand it wrongly. For Augustine does not mean that by divine right everything belongs to the just in the sense of true lordship, because then no sinner would have true lordship of any temporal thing. And so whenever some king, prince or other lord were to sin mortally, true lordship of all his goods would pass to the just and would not remain in the possession of any sinner. Augustine means, therefore, that by divine right everything belongs to the just in the sense of the excellence of his merit. This is that only the just are worthy of true lordship of temporal goods and no sinner is worthy of any temporal good. Whatever he possesses, therefore, he possesses unworthily.

Discipulus Adhuc videtur quod Romanum imperium antequam illud resignaret Constantinus {Augustus &Md} non fuit verum imperium quia foris omnia aedificant ad {om. &Pz} gehennam, dicente apostolo ad Romananos 14:[23], "Omne quod non est ex fide peccatum est." Igitur {*ergo &MzNaRe} extra ecclesiam nulla est a Deo ordinata potestas {trs. &Pe}.

Student It still seems that before Constantine resigned it, the Roman empire was not a true empire because everything outside builds toward hell, as the apostle says at Romans 14:23, "Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." No power outside the church, therefore, has been ordained by God.

Item Constantinus non resignasset {*pape add. &MzNaPeRe} imperium nisi advertisset quod non habuit {*antea add. &MzNaRe} verum {imperium add. &Re} imperium. Igitur {*ergo &MdMzNaRe} antea Romanum imperium {*trs. &MzNaRe} non fuit verum imperium.

Again, Constantine would not have resigned the empire to the pope unless he had perceived that he did not have before that a true empire. Before that, therefore, the Roman empire was not a true empire.

Magister Respondetur quod {*istud add. &MzNaRe} non est universaliter absque omni exceptione verum quod {om. &MdMzNaPeRe} omnia quae {qui &Md} foris sunt aedificant ad gehennam. Non enim infideles peccant mortaliter in omni actu. Obstrices {*obstetrices &LyMdMzNaPePzRe} enim {autem &MdPe} de quibus legitur Exodi 1:[15-21] non peccaverunt mortaliter {*servando mares /mores &Mz\ hebreorum, licet peccaverunt mortaliter add. &MzNaRe} vel venialiter in {*om. &MzNaRe} mentiendo. Multi autem {*etiam &MzNaRe} alii infideles {et add. &Md} in multis actibus suis non peccant mortaliter. Quod autem dicit apostolus, "Quod non est ex fide etc {*est /esse &NaRe\ peccatum &MzNaRe}", dicitur {*dicunt &NaRe} apostolum intelligere quod illud quod sit extra {contra &Mz} conscientiam {extra conscientiam: contra scientiam &Na} est peccatum sive fiat a fidelibus {*fideli &MzNaRe} sive ab {om. &Pe} infidelibus {*infideli &MzNaRe}.

Master The reply is that it is not without exception universally true that everything outside builds toward hell. For not all unbelievers sin mortally in every act. For the midwives about whom we read in Exodus 1:15-21 did not sin mortally in saving the Hebrew males, although they did sin mortally or venially in lying. Many other unbelievers too do not sin mortally in many of their acts. Now when the apostle says, "Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin", they say that he means that what is outside conscience is sin, whether it is done by a believer or an unbeliever.

Cum autem dicitur quod Constantinus rex {*om. &MzNaRe} resignavit {assignavit &Pz} imperium dicunt {*hoc add. &MdMzNaRe} {hic add. &Pe} in scripturis {om. &Pe} antiquis hoc {*om. &MdMzNaPePzRe} minime inveniri {invenire &Pz}, sed {*licet &MdMzNaPeRe} quaedam scripturae insinuant {*insinuent &MdMzNaPeRe} quod Constantinus dederit apostolicae sedi imperialem honorem. Nam ut legitur in decretis dist. 96, Constantinus in gestis beati Silvestri sic loquitur {*habetur &MzNaRe}, {legitur &Pe} "Constantinus imperator quarta {quarto &MzNaRe} die sui {om. &MzNaPePzRe} baptismi privilegium Romanae ecclesiae {om. &Md} pontifici contulit, ut in toto orbe terrarum {*romano &MdZn} [[on erasure Md]] pontifices vel sacerdotes ita {unum &Md} {om. &Mz} hinc {habent &MzNaRe} {in add. &Mz} {om. &MdPePz} {*hunc &Ly} habeant {habent &Md} caput {*trs. &MzNaReZn} sicut iudices regem. In quo {*eo &MzNaPeReZn} privilegio ita {om. &MdPePz} inter caetera legitur: 'Utile iudicamus una {om. &MzPz} cum omnibus satrapis nostris {meis &Pz} et {in &Pz} {in add. &Md} universo senatu, optimatibus {obtinentibus &Pz} et {cum add. &MdMzNaPeRe} cuncto populo imperio Romanae {romano &Mz} ecclesiae {gloriae Zn} {etiam &Mz} subiacenti, ut sicut beatus Petrus in terris vicarius [[margin Re]] Filii {vicarius filii: filius &Na} {terris vicarius filii: cunctis filius &Pe} {terris vicarius filii: cunctis fidei &Pz} Dei {om. &Pz} videtur esse constitutus ita {etiam &MzNaPzRe} et {ipsi &Pz} {ipsi add. &MzNaRe} {ita et: etiam christi /ipsi &Pe\ &MdPe} pontifices {*qui add. &Zn} ipsius principis apostolorum in terris {in terris: vicem &MdMzNaPePzRe} {*in terris: gerunt vices &Zn}, principatus {primatis &Na} {primatie &Pe} {primatus &MzRe} {prima &Pz} potestatem {potestate &Pz} amplius quam terrenae {*terrena &Zn} imperialis nostrae {trs. &NaRe} serenitatis {servitus &Pz} {trs.231 &MdMzPePz} mansuetudo {mansuete &MzNaPePz} habere {habetur &Pz} videtur, {ut &Pz} concessam {concessa &Pz} a nobis nostroque {nostreque &Pe} imperio obtineant {obtinent &Mz}, eligentes nobis {om. &MdMzNaPePzRe} [[add. interlinear Md]] ipsum principem {et add. &Pz} apostolorum vel {et &MdMzNaPePzRe} eius vicarios firmos {summos &PePz} apud Deum esse patronos. Et sicut nostra est terrena imperialis potentia {*nostra ... potentia: nostram terrenam imperialem potentiam &Zn} {posita &Pz} ita {om. &Pz} eius {etiam &MzPePz} sanctam {*sacrosanctam &MdMzNaPePzReZn} Romanam ecclesiam {trs. &MdPe} decrevimus et {*om. Zn} {etiam &Mz} veneranter {veraciter &MdMzNaPePzRe} honorare {honorari &MzZn} et amplius quam nostrum imperium terrenumque tronum sedem sacrosanctissimam {*sanctissimam &NaRe} {sacratissimam &Zn} beati Petri gloriose {gratiose &Re} exaltari, {exalterari &Re} {exaltare &MdPe} tribuentes {tribuentis &Pz} ei potestatem {potestatis &Pz} et {om. &MzPePz} gloriam {*gloriae Zn} {trs. &Md} {et add. &Mz} dignitatem et {ac &Mz} {om. &Pz} vigorem et honorificentiam imperialem. Atque {ac &Re} decernentes sancimus {statuimus &Md} [[on erasure; in margin: vel sancimus]] ut principatum teneat tam supra quatuor sedes, Alexandrinam {Alexandriam &Mz}, Antiochenam {Antiochiam &MzPz}, Hierosolymitanam {Hierosolymam &Pz}, Constantinopolitanam, quam etiam {om. &MdMzNaPeRe} super omnes in universo orbe terrarum ecclesias {ecclesiam &Pe} Dei {trs. &NaRe}. Et {etiam &NaRe} pontifex qui per tempora {*per tempora: pro tempore &MdMzNaPePzReZn} sacrosanctae Romanae ecclesiae extiterit celsior et princeps cunctis sacerdotibus et {om. &Zn} totius mundi existat, et {etiam &Mz} eius iudicio {iurisdicio &NaRe} quae {quo &MzPePz} {queque &Zn} ad cultum Dei vel fidem {fidei &Zn} {trs.231 &Pz} {*vel fidem om. &MdMzNaPeRe} [[add. margin Md]] Christianorum vel {in &Mz} {*om. &NaReZn} stabilitatem {vel libertatem add. &Md} [[interlinear]] procuranda {procurandam &Mz} fuerint {fuerunt &Md} disponantur. Et {etiam &Mz} infra {ita &MzPe} {in &Pz}: Ecclesiis {?ecclesie &Mz} beatorum Apostolorum {om. &MdMzPe} Petri et Pauli pro {per &Re} continuatione luminariorum possessionum {possessionorium &Md} praedia contulimus." Et infra, "Ecce {om. &Mz} tam palatium nostrum {nomen &Mz} quam Romanam {Romam &Md} urbem et omnes Italiae sive occidentalium regionum {om. &Pe} provincias loca {*et add. &MzZn} civitates beatissimo pontifici et universali {et universali om. &Pz} papae {beatissimo ... papae: beato Petro et beato &MdMzNaPeRe} Silvestro concedimus atque relinquimus et ab eo et successoribus eius per pragmaticum {per pragmaticum: qui pragmatice &Pe} constitutum decrevimus {*decernimus &MzPzZn} disponenda atque iure {iuri &Zn} sanctae Romanae ecclesiae concedimus permanenda {peragenda &MdMzNaPePzRe} {*permansura &Zn}." Ex his {*quibus &NaRe} verbis colligitur quod Constantinus non assignavit {*resignavit &MzNaPeRe} papae imperium tanquam non habens {*ius et add. &NaRe} potestatem legitimam recipiendi {*retinendi &NaRe} imperium et quod {*quasi &MzNaRe} antea non habuisset verum imperium, sed ex devotione et {ex add. &Mz} imperiali munificentia {magnificentia &Md} concessit ei {om. &Pe} ea de quibus {in quibus add. &NaRe} in praedictis verbis et ab {*om. &MdMzNaPeRe} aliis ibidem {sit add. &Pz} {*sit mentio /ita add. &Mz\ add. &MdMzNaPeRe}, ut scilicet {*om. &MzNaRe} de omnibus temporalibus de quibus mentio sit {*trs. &MdMzNaPeRe} Papa Silvester nihil habuit {*habuerit &NaRe} nisi ex dono Constantini, non ex resignatione alicuius prius iniuste detenti, nec unquam Constantinus fatebatur quod {quin &Pz} ante baptismum non habuerit {habuit &MdMzPe} verum imperium.

When it is said moreover that Constantine resigned the empire, they say that this is not found in ancient writings, although certain writings imply that Constantine gave imperial honour to the apostolic see. For, as we read in dist. 96, Constantinus [c.14, col.342], we find the following in the deeds of blessed Sylvester, "On the fourth day after his baptism Constantine conferred a privilege on the pontiff of the Roman church such that in the whole Roman world bishops or priests have him as head, like judges have the king. In this privilege we read, among other things, the following: 'Together with all our satraps, the whole senate, our nobles and all the people subject to the rule of the Roman church [[glory in Zn]], we judge it to be useful that, just as blessed Peter seems to have been established as the vicar of the Son of God on earth, those pontiffs who perform the duties of that prince of the apostles obtain as a grant from us and our empire fuller power of rule than the earthly gentleness of our imperial serenity is seen to have, choosing the prince of the apostles or his vicars to be strong patrons with God for us. And like our earthly and imperial power, so we have decreed that the sacrosanct Roman church too be reverently honoured and that the most sacrosanct seat of blessed Peter be gloriously exalted, more fully than our empire and earthly throne. We bestow on it power, the dignity of glory, vigour and imperial honour and we decree and ordain that it should maintain rule both over the four sees of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Constantinople and also over all the other churches of God throughout the whole world. Also let the pontiff who is the head of the sacrosanct Roman church at the time be higher than and head of the rest of the priests throughout the whole world and let whatever things which need to be attended to for the worship of God or for the stability of the faith of christians be arranged according to his judgement.' And below: 'We have conferred estates on the churches of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul for the continuation of the wax tributes of their possessions. ... Behold, we grant and leave to the most blessed pontiff and universal pope Sylvester our palace, the city of Rome and all the provinces, places and towns of Italy or the western regions and we decree that they should be managed by the latter and his successors through an appointed advocate and we grant that they will remain by right belonging to the holy Roman church.'" We gather from these words that it was not as someone not having the right and legitimate power to hold the empire that Constantine resigned the empire to the pope nor as someone who before this had not had a true empire. But out of piety and imperial munificence he granted to him those things which are named in the above words and in others in the same document, so that Pope Sylvester did not have any of those temporalities named except by the gift of Constantine, not by the resignation of something previously held unjustly. Constantine never said that he did not have a true empire before his baptism.

 

CAP. XXVIII

{XXVII &Pz} Discipulus Cum {om. &Pe} ista opinio teneat {tenet &Pe} quod verum {*om. &MzNaPeRe} imperium {romanum add. &Pe} [[interlinear]] sit {*fuit &MzNaPeRe} a populo {papa &Md} Romano et per consequens non fuit a papa {adduxisti autem /etiam &Md\ aliqua motiva ad probandum quod imperium fuit a populo /papa &Md\ add. &MdMzNaRe} [[margin Md]]. Nunc alias {*aliquas &MdMzNaPeRe} rationes speciales adducas ad probandum quod imperium {om. &NaRe} non fuit a papa?

Chapter 28

Student Since that opinion holds that the empire was from the Roman people and consequently was not from the pope, you have brought forward some arguments to prove that the empire was from the people. Would you now bring forward some particular arguments to prove that the empire was not from the pope?

The Empire was not from the pope

Magister In glossa {*glossis &MzPeRe} super decreta {decretalem &Re} et decretales aliquae rationes adhuc {*ad hoc &MdNaPeRe} {om. &Mz} innuuntur {inveniuntur &Mz}. Dicit enim glossa dist. 4 {*10 &MzNaRe}, c. Quoniam idem {ibidem &Md} {arguit add. &Md} {*"Arguitur add. &MzNaPeRe} quod imperium non habetur a papa et {om. &Md} quod {a add. &Pe} papa non habet utrumque gladium. Nam exercitus facit imperatorem ut dist. 93, {*c. add. &Pe} legimus." Ex qua sic arguitur: ab illo {isto &Md} non est imperium qui non facit imperatorem; sed imperator non sit a papa {*imperator non sit a papa: papa non facit imperatorem &MdMzPeRe} {sed imperator non sit a papa om. &Na} quia sit ab exercitu {quia sit ab exercitu om. &Pe}; igitur {*ergo &MzNaRe} imperium non est a papa.

Master Some arguments for this are hinted at in the glosses on the decrees and decretals. For a gloss on dist. 10, c. Quoniam idem [col. 33-4] says, "It is argued that the empire is not had from the pope and that the pope does not have both swords. For the army makes the emperor, as in dist. 93, c. Legimus." From this it is argued as follows: the empire is not from him who does not make the emperor; the pope does not make the emperor because he is [made] by the army; therefore, the empire is not from the pope.

Discipulus Per istam rationem imperium non est a {papa add. &Md} populo {*romano add. &MdMzNaPeRe} sed ab exercitu.

Student By that argument the empire is not from the Roman people but from the army.

Magister Respondetur quod exercitus non facit imperatorem nisi auctoritate populi Romani. Hanc {hinc &Na} enim potestatem propter periculum quod poterat imminere ne moriente imperatore in exercitu exercitus careret capite et domino populus Romanus commisit exercitui potestatem eius ad eligendum {*eius ad eligendum: creandi et /etiam &Na\ eligendi &NaRe} imperatorem.

Master The reply is that the army does not make the emperor except by the authority of the Roman people. On account of the danger that could threaten if the emperor were to die while with the army and it lack a head and chief, the Roman people committed to the army the power of creating and electing the emperor. [[Omitting the first potestatem against authority of mss.]]

Discipulus Dic {*om. &MdMzNaPeRe} Aliam rationem {*allega add. &MdMzNaPeRe}.

Student Bring forward another argument.

Magister Aliam rationem innuit glossa Extra, {ex qua &Re} Qui filii sunt legitimi, c. Causam dicens, "Prius fuit imperator quae {*quam &LyMdMzNaPePzReZn} coronam reciperet a papa et gladium ab altari, {altare &Mz} {?altris &Na} 69 {*93 &MdMzNaPeReZn} dist. {c. add. &Pe} Legimus, quod {*quia &MdMzNaPeReZn} ante fuit imperator {*imperium &MdMzNaPeReZn} quam apostolatus." Cum igitur {*ergo &MdMzNaRe} prius non fuit {*sit &NaRe} {fiat &Md} apostolatus {a posteriori &MdMzNaPeRe} sequitur quod imperium non est a papa.

Master Another argument is implied by the gloss on Extra, Qui filii sunt legitimi, c. Causam [c.7, col.1535] when it says, "There was an emperor before he began to receive his crown from the pope and his sword from the altar (dist. 93, c. Legimus), because the empire existed before the apostolate." Since, therefore, the apostolate is not earlier it follows that the empire is not from the pope. [[All mss seem to be wrong here, or should we read a posteriori?]]

Discipulus Istae duae rationes videntur approbare {*probare &MdMzNaPeRe} quod imperium non fuit primitus a papa sed non probant quod modo {quod modo: quomodo &Re} imperium non sit a papa. Potestas enim ordinandi de {om. &Mz} imperatore a {imperatore a om. &MdPe} papa videtur nunc {trs. &Pe} procedere {*imperatore ... procedere: imperio /om. &Mz\ videtur nunc esse penes papam &MzNaRe}, licet non fuit {*fuerit &MdMzNaRe} a principio penes ipsum; imo ante fuit {*fuerit &MzNaRe} imperium quam papa.

Student Those two arguments seem to prove that the empire was not originally from the pope but they do not prove that the empire is not now from the pope. For the power of ordaining to the empire seems now to be in the power of the pope, although it was not in his power from the beginning; indeed the empire existed before the pope.

Magister Dicunt {dicit &Mz} quidam quod per illas {alias &Md} {*istas &MzNaPeRe} rationes probatur aperte quod imperium non est a papa, inquantum papa est vicarius Christi et successor beati Petri. Et hoc principaliter intendunt qui tenent opinionem istam.

Master Some people say that it is clearly proved by those arguments that the empire is not from the pope, in so far as the pope is the vicar of Christ and the successor of blessed Peter. And those who hold that opinion mainly have this in mind.

Discipulus {om. &Re} Alias {om. &Md} rationes adducas?

Student Would you bring forward some other arguments?

Magister Aliam rationem innuit glossa dist. 10, {4 &MdPe} c. Quoniam idem, {*dicens add. &MzNa} {dicentis add. &Re}, "Si ab ipso," {*scilicet add. &MdMzNaPeRe} papa, "habetur {*haberetur &NaReZn}," {*scilicet add. &MdMzNaPeRe} imperium, "licite {tunc add. &Mz} appellaretur ad ipsum in temporalibus, quod {quid &Mz} prohibet Alexander et dicit quod illa {ista &Md} non contingunt {tangunt &MdMzPe} iurisdictionem suam, Extra, Qui filii sunt legitimi, c. {om. &MzNaRe} Causam." Ab imperatore autem {*enim &NaRe} contingit appellare ad illum {ad illum: ab illo &Pe} a quo est imperium.

Master A gloss on dist. 10, c. Quoniam idem [col. 34] implies another argument when it says, "If it," that is the empire, "were had from him," that is the pope, "it would be licit to appeal to him in temporal matters. Alexander forbids this and says that those things do not belong to his jurisdiction (Extra, Qui filii sunt legitimi, c. Causam)." For it is possible to appeal from the emperor to the one from whom the empire comes.

Discipulus Per istam rationem semper potuit fieri appellatio ab imperatore quia semper imperator habuit imperium ab aliquo.

Student By that argument it has always been possible to appeal from the emperor because the emperor has always had the empire from someone.

Magister Concedo {*conceditur &NaRe} quod in aliquibus casibus {*causis &NaRe} semper licuit appellare ab imperatore {*trs.231 &MzNaRe}, {*sed in multis causis non licuit appellare ab imperatore add. &MdMzNaPeRe}. In quibus tamen casibus {*causis &MdMzNaPeRe} fuit licitum ab aliis iudicibus {iudiciis &Mz} appellare. Leges igitur {enim &Mz} quae dicunt quod non {om. &Md} est appellandum ab imperatore non sunt intelligendae de quibusdam causis singularibus quae raro vel nunquam {trs.321 &Pe} accidunt sed de aliis, quemadmodum canones sacri qui dicunt quod {om. &Mz} non est appellandum a papa nisi {non &Pz} {*non intelliguntur &MdNaPeRe} {non intelligimus &Mz} de causa haeresis quia pro haeresi {pro haeresi: propter heresim &Md} licet appellare a papa. [[non intelliguntur ... a papa: margin Md]]

Master It is granted that in some cases it has always been permissible to appeal from the emperor, but in many cases it has not been permissible to do so (though in these cases it has been permissible to appeal from other judges). Therefore the laws that say there should be no appeal from the emperor should not be understood to be some singular cases which rarely or never happen but others, just as the sacred canons about which they say there should be no appeal from the pope should not be understood to be a case of heresy, because it is permissible to appeal from the pope in a case of heresy.

Discipulus Aliam rationem adducas.

Student Would you bring forward another argument?

Magister Aliam rationem innuit glossa ubi prius dicens, "Item ecclesiae solverunt {*solvunt &MzNaReZn} tributum imperatori, ut 2 {*11 &MzNa}, q. 2 {*1 &MdMzNaPeRe} {*c. add. &Pe} Magnum." Ab illo {isto &Md} {*autem add. &MdMzNaPeRe} non est imperium qui soluit tributum imperatori. Ergo {igitur &Md} imperium non est a papa si papa soluit tributum imperatori {etc add. &Pe}.

Master The gloss cited earlier implies another argument when it says [col.34], "Again, churches owe tribute to the emperor, as in 11, q. 1, c. Magnum." However, the empire is not from him who owes tribute to the emperor. The empire is not from the pope, therefore, if the pope owes tribute to the emperor.

CAP. XXIX

{XXVIII &Pz} Discipulus Adhuc circa originem Romani imperii plura restarent tractanda de quibus forte postea occasio loquendi {om. &NaRe} occurret. Ideo ad praesens illis omissis investigemus an Romanum imperium {possit transferri add. &Na} licite {*destrui seu add. &MzNaRe} cassari minui vel {*om. &MzNaRe} {aut &Pe} dividi valeat vel transferri. Inquiramus itaque {ita &Md} primo an Romanum imperium potest {*possit &MdMzNaPeRe} transferri.

Chapter 29

Student There are still more things that remain to be dealt with concerning the origin of the Roman empire and perhaps an opportunity will arise later to talk about these. So putting them aside for the moment let us investigate whether the Roman empire can licitly be ruined, destroyed, made smaller, divided or transferred. And so let us ask first whether the Roman empire can be transferred.

Can the Roman Empire be Transferred?

Magister Quod Romanum imperium {*trs. &MzNaRe} potest {*possit &MzNaRe} transferri tribus exemplis probatur {*trs. &MzNaPeRe}. Primum exemplum {*om. &MdMzNaPeRe} est quod {*quia &MzNaRe} translatum fuit de Romanis in Graecos 69, dist. {*69, dist.: dist. 96 &MdMzNaPeRe} Constantinus. Secundum exemplum {*om. &MdMzNaPeRe} est quod {*quia &MzNaRe} translatum fuit de {a &Pe} Graecis in Romanos {*Germanos &MdMzNaPeRe} in personam {persona &Md} Caroli magni, Extra, De electione, Venerabilem {venerabilis &Mz}. Tertium exemplum {*om. &MdMzNaPeRe} est quod {*quia &MzNaRe} fuit translatum {*trs. &MzNaRe} de Francigenis {*Francis &MzNaRe} in Theutonicos. Unde glossa 63. dist. {*trs. &NaRe} {*c. add. &MdPe} Ego {dist. ego: ?c. 4 &Mz} Ludovicus ait super verbo Francorum, "Nota imperium Francorum prius {*trs. &MdMzNaPeReZn} fuisse sed postea Theutonici virtutibus imperium promeruerunt {*trs. &MzNaReZn}."

Master That the Roman empire can be transferred is proved by three examples. The first is that it was transferred from the Romans to the Greeks (dist. 96, c. Constantinus [c.14, col.342]). The second is that it was transferred from the Greeks to the Germans, in the person of Charlemagne (Extra, De electione, c. Venerabilem [c.34, col.79]). The third is that it was transferred from the Franks to the Teutons. Whence a gloss on the word Franks in dist. 63, c. Ego Ludovicus [c.30, col.329] says, "Note that the empire of the Franks was earlier, but later the Teutons deserved the empire because of their virtues.

Discipulus Dubitandum non videtur mihi {*om. &MdMzNaPeRe} quin {quibus &Pz} Romanum imperium {*trs. &MdMzNaRe} transferri potest {*possit &MzNaPeRe} {posset &Md} {*trs. &MzNaRe} de gente in gentem. Sed qualiter aliquis {om. &Md} {*et a quo &MzNaPeRe} valeat {posset &Md} {*possit &MzNaPeRe} transferre {*transferri &MdMzNaPeRe} videtur magnum {*forte &MzNaRe} dubium multis. Dic ergo secundum opinionem aliquorum qualiter possit {*potest &MzNaPeRe} transferri imperium.

Student It does not appear that it should be doubted that the Roman empire can be transferred from people to people. But to many people it perhaps seems doubtful how and by whom it can be transferred. Tell me, therefore, how, according to some people's opinion, the empire can be transferred.

Magister Imperium Romanorum {*Romanum &NaRe} transferri multipliciter {*trs. &MdNaPePz} potest {multipliciter add. &Na} intelligi {om. &Pz}: uno modo ut sic transferatur imperium a Romanis ut {*quod &MzNaRe} non sit plus {*amplius &MdMzNaPeRe} Romanum imperium ac {*ut &MdMzNaPeRe} si {*scilicet &MzNaPeRe} Romani nullum ius habeant {haberent &MdPe} speciale {*trs. &MzNaRe} in {om. &MdMz} imperio plusquam caeterae nationes. Alio modo potest transferri imperium {*de romanis add. &MzNaPeRe} ut {a romanis et &Md} tamen {?cum &Mz} remaneat Romanum imperium et {etc &Pe} ut aliquam potestatem vel ius speciale habeant Romani in imperio plusquam caeterae nationes. Et haec {*talis &MdMzNaRe} [[margin Md]] {tunc &Pe} translatio adhuc {ad hoc &Mz} multipliciter {*om. &MzNaRe} potest {trs. &Pe} {*multis modis add. &MzNaRe} intelligi: uno modo quod {*ut &MdMzNaPe} detur {quod detur: videtur &Re} imperium alicui cuius progenies iure successionis possideat {?possideant &Md} Romanum imperium; alio modo ut statuatur quod de certa natione vel gente imperator eligatur, puta si ordinaretur quod nullus eligeretur {eligeret &NaRe} in {*om. &MzNaRe} imperatorem {*imperator &MzNaRe} nisi Theutonicus {theutonicos &Na}; alio modo ut alicui {alie &Mz} personae vel personis detur potestas et ius eligendi imperatorem de quacunque natione.

Master The Roman empire can be understood to be transferred in many ways: in one way the empire is so transferred from the Romans that it is no longer the Roman empire, that is that the Romans have no particular right in the empire more than other nations. The empire can be transferred from the Romans in another way, so that it remains the Roman empire and the Romans have some power or particular right in the empire more than other nations. And a translation of this kind can be further understood in many ways: in one way so that the empire is given to someone whose descendants possess the Roman empire by right of succession; in another way so that it is decreed that the emperor is elected from a certain nation or people, if it were ordained, for instance, that no one should be elected emperor unless he is a Teuton; in another way that the power and right to elect an emperor from any nation at all is given to some person or persons.

Discipulus Quis habet potestatem transferendi {referendi &Re} imperium uno modo vel alio modo {*om. &MdMzNaPeRe}?

Student Who has the power to transfer the empire in one way or another?

Magister Respondetur quod potestas transferendi imperium {om. &Md} uno modo vel alio modo {*om. &MzNaPeRe} principalissime est apud universitatem mortalium, sicut et {*om. &MzNaRe} {est &Md} {sicut et: quia &Pe} apud ipsam {*est add. &MzNaRe} principalissime {*potestas add. &MzNaRe} {est potestas add. &Pe} constituendi imperium. Quare si universitas mortalium vellet posset Romanum imperium de quacunque gente transferre in aliam.

Master The reply is that the power to transfer the empire in one way or another belongs principally to the totality of mortals, just as the power of establishing the empire belongs principally to them. If the totality of mortals wished to do so, therefore, they could transfer the Roman empire from any people at all to another.

Discipulus Nunquid posset {potest &Md} {possit &Mz} universitas mortalium exceptis Romanis transferre imperium Romanum {trs. &Mz} a Romanis?

Student Could the totality of mortals, with the exception of the Romans, transfer the Roman empire from the Romans?

Magister Respondetur quod sine culpa Romanorum et absque causa patenti totum residuum mundi non posset {potest &Md} transferre ab eis {*eis add. &MdMzPe} contradicentibus imperium quia non debent privari sine culpa et absque causa iure suo {*trs.6712345 &NaRe}. Tamen pro culpa Romanorum et ex causa rationabili {*om. &MzNaRe} posset residuum mundi ab eis transferre imperium, quia, ut legitur dist. 93, {Legimus add. &NaRe}, "Orbis maior est urbe." Quod non solum est verum de orbe includente urbem eo quod totum maius est {*trs. &MdMzPePz} sua parte sed {*etiam add. &MzNaPeRe} continet veritatem de orbe includentem {*distincto contra &LyMdMzNaPePzRe} urbem. Et ita ex causa vel {non &Mz} pro culpa Romanorum potestas transferendi est penes residuum orbis. Potestas autem transferendi {est penes ... transferendi om. &Pe} imperium a Romanis {*a Romanis: secundario &NaPeRe} {a Romanis: secundum aliquos &Mz} est penes Romanos secundum unam sententiam. Quia enim potest unusquisque {*trs. &MzNaRe} cedere iuri suo et alii {alteri &Md} concedere, possunt enim {*om. &MdMzNaPeRe} Romani cedere iuri suo [[et alii ... suo: margin MdPe]] quod habent super imperium et idem {illud &Mz} ius in alium vel in {*om. &MdMzNaPeRe} alios transferre, quemadmodum populi Romani {*populi romani: populus romanus &MdMzNaPePzRe} potestatem condendi leges et regendi imperium transtulerunt in imperatorem. Verumtamen de modo transferendi imperium per Romanos sunt diversae sententiae. Una est quod {tam add. &NaRe} Romani non potuerunt {*poterant &MdMzNaPeRe} nec possunt a se transferre imperium primo modo, {trs.231 &MdMzPe} ita videlicet quod nullum ius retineant speciale super imperium plus quam caeterae nationes. Sicut enim imperator non habet {*potest &MdMzNaPeRe} legem imponere {trs. &Md} imperatori quia non habet imperium par in parem {in parem: imparem &Pz} {*par in parem: per imperatorem &MdMzPe} et ita {*ideo &NaRe} non potest privare successorem {*suum add. &MzNaRe} eo {*omni &MzNaRe} {eius &Md} iure quod {quo &Md} {*ipse add. &NaRe} habet, ita {itaque &Mz} populus Romanus non potest imponere legem {leges &Mz} populo sequenti nec potest ipsum privare omni iure quod habet super imperium. Et ita {Et ita: alia sententia est quod &Md} populus Romanus non potest {non potest: potuit &Md} cedere omni iuri quod habuit {*habet &MzNaPePzRe} super imperium. {*Alia sententia est quod populus romanus potuit /non potest &Pe\ cedere omni iuri /iure &Mz\ quod habuit super imperium add. &LyMzNaPePzRe}. Qui etiam omne ius potuit transferre in {*alium /alios Pz\ vel /in add. &MdPePz\ add. &MdMzNaPeRe} alios. Licet enim privato {*privatorum &MzNaRe} pacto {*trs. &MzNaPeRe} iuri publico minime derogetur, {derogatur &Pe} (Extra, De foro competenti, {*c. add. &Pe} Si diligenti), tamen pacto {*et add. &LyMdMzNaPePzRe} consensu totius communitatis quod tangat alios tanquam per {*quod tangat alios tamquam per: quam /?quasi &Mz\ tangit aliquod /aliquid &Mz\ &MdNaPeRe} ius publicum eidem iuri publico derogatur dum modo illud ius publicum non sit ius divinum nec ius naturale sed ius {om. &NaRe} positivum vel {*et &MdMzNaPeRe} humanum. Quamvis enim clericus aliquis {om. &Pe} {*trs. &MdMzNaRe} non possit renunciare {om. &NaRe} privilegio clericali quod est concessum {*trs. &MzNaPeRe} toti collegio clericorum, {clericali &Mz} tamen {*totum add. &MdMzNaPeRe} collegium clericorum potest {*posset eidem &MzNaPeRe} privilegio renunciare. Cum igitur {*ergo &MzNaRe} ius quod habent Romani super imperium sit ius humanum {*et add. &MzNaPeRe} positivum, licet fuerit {*sit &NaRe} {fuit &MdPz} ius publicum concessum etiam {*om. &MdMzNaPeRe} communitati Romanorum, de consensu totius communitatis Romanorum [[de consensu ... Romanorum: margin Pe]] poterit derogare {*derogari &LyMzNaPzRe} eidem iuri {om. &NaRe}. Et ita de consensu eorum potest idem {illud &Mz} ius totaliter transferri in alium vel {in add. &MzRe} alios.

Master The reply is that the whole rest of the world could not transfer the empire from the Romans despite their opposition without some fault of theirs or some clear reason, because they should not be deprived of their right without some fault or reason. Nevertheless, if there were some fault of the Romans or some reason, the rest of the world could transfer the empire from them, because, as we read in dist. 93, c. Legimus [c.24, col.327], "The world is greater than the city." This is not only true of the world as it includes the city, in that the whole is greater than a part of it, but it also represents the truth about the world as distinguished from the city. And so the power of transferring for a reason or because of a fault of the Romans is in the power of the rest of the world. However, the power of transferring the empire secondarily is, according to one opinion, in the power of the Romans. For because anyone can cede a right of his and grant it to another, the Romans can cede the right that they have over the empire and transfer that same right to another or to others, just as the Roman people transferred to an emperor the power of making laws and ruling the empire. There are nevertheless various opinions about the way of transferring the empire by the Romans. One is that the Romans were not and are not able to transfer the empire from themselves in the first way, so that, that is, they retain no particular right over the empire more than other nations. For just as an emperor can not impose a law on an emperor because he does not have the empire from an emperor and can not, therefore, deprive his successor of any right which he has, so the Roman people can not impose a law on the people to come and can not deprive them of any right which they have over the empire. And so the Roman people can not cede any right that they have over the empire. Another opinion is that the Roman people could cede every right that they have over the empire. They could also transfer every right to another or to others. For although an agreement among individuals does not modify a public right (Extra, De foro competenti, c. Si diligenti [c.12, col.251]), yet by the agreement and consent of the whole community which some public right affects, that public right is modified, as long as that public right is not a divine or natural right but is a positive and human right. For although no cleric can renounce the clerical privilege which has been granted to the whole college of clerics, yet the whole college of clerics could renounce that privilege. Since the right that the Romans have over the empire, therefore, is a human and positive right, although it is a public right granted to the community of the Romans, that right could, with the agreement of the whole community of the Romans, be modified. And so with their agreement that right can be totally transferred to another or to others.

 

CAP. XXX

{XXIX &Pz} Discipulus Secundum istam sententiam Romani potuerunt {*poterant &MdNaRe} {poterunt &MzPz} totum ius suum quod habebant {habeant &Mz} {habebat &Na} transferre in papam super imperium {*trs.45123 &NaRe} et {*ita add. &NaRe} {sic add. &Mz} poterat esse imperium {*trs. &MzNaRe} a papa.

Chapter 30

Student According to that opinion the Romans were able to transfer to the pope every right they had over the empire, and so the empire could be from the pope.

Did the Romans transfer the Empire to the pope?

Magister Secundum unam sententiam Romani non solum potuerunt {poterant &Mz} sed {si &NaRe} etiam de facto transtulerunt {*totum add. &NaRe} ius {*suum add. &MdMzNaPeRe} in papam. Et extunc imperium fuit a papa et {*ideo add. &NaRe} tunc {*extunc &MzNaPeRe} papa habuit utrumque gladium, non tamen quo ad executionem sed quo ad hoc quod poterat committere cui volebat {volebant &Mz} materialis gladii potestatem. Et per {om. &Mz} hoc solvitur secundum sententiam illam {trs. &Pe} multorum canonum et {*plurium add. &NaRe} glossarum super decreta {decretalem &Re} et decretales apparens contrarietas.

Master According to one opinion, the Romans not only could have transferred every right to the pope, but did in fact do so. And from then on the empire was from the pope, and from then on, therefore, the pope had both swords, not in the sense of execution but in the sense that he could commit the power of the material sword to whomever he wished. And in this way, according to that opinion, the apparent contrariety of many canons and very many glosses on the decrees and decretals is solved.

Discipulus Si Romani transtulerunt totum ius {*suum add. &NaRe} in papam vel transferre poterant {poterunt &Mz} in papam, igitur {*ergo &MzNaRe} transtulerunt vel {ut &Mz} transferre potuerunt {*poterant &MdMzNaPeRe} {*trs. &MdMzNaPeRe} in eum executionem gladii materialis vel {*et ita papa vel habet vel habere potest &MzNaRe} {potestatem gladii materialis vel add. &Mz} gladium materialem quo ad executionem.

Student If the Romans transferred every right of theirs to the pope, or were able to do so, they therefore transferred or were able to transfer to him the execution of the material sword, and so the pope either has or can have the material sword, in the sense of the execution of it.

Magister Respondetur quod Romani poterant transferre ius totum {trs. &Mz} ad {*in &MzNaRe} papam {*trs.3421 &NaRe} et potestatem quam {quod &NaRe} habebat totalis multitudo Romanorum, non tamen transferre poterant totum {om. &Pe} ius quod habebat aliqua persona vel alia {*aliqua &MdMzNaPeRe} particularis et {*seu &MzNaRe} {particularis vel om. &Pe} specialis {*trs.321 &MzNaRe} multitudo Romanorum. Nam non poterant sibi dare omne ius quod habebat imperator Romanus {trs.231 &Mz} nec omne ius quod habebant senatores vel praefectus urbis. Et ita iura partialia {*particularia &MzNaRe} Romanorum {*om. &MzNaRe} personarum vel congregationum seu collegiorum aut communitatum particularium non poterant transferre in papam. Executionem autem gladii non habebat totalis {talis &Mz} communitas Romanorum sed habebat eam {om. &Mz} imperator vel aliqua persona alia {*trs. &Na} {trs.321 &Md} sub eo {ea &Na} vel aliqua communitas {romanorum ... communitas om. &MzRe} particularis. Et ideo executionem gladii materialis non poterat communitas Romanorum transferre in papam.

Master The answer is that the Romans were able to transfer to the pope every right and power that the whole multitude of Romans had, yet were not able to transfer every right that some person or some particular or special number of Romans had. For they could not give to him every right that the Roman emperor had nor every right that the senators or the prefect of the city had. And so they could not transfer to the pope the particular rights of persons, congregations, colleges or particular communities. It was not the whole community of the Romans, however, who had the execution of the sword, but the emperor or some other person under him or some particular community. And therefore the community of the Romans was not able to transfer to the pope the execution of the material sword.

Discipulus Secundum istam opinionem papa non habet {habuit &Md} in temporalibus vel in {om. &Md} spiritualibus plenitudinem potestatis ut omnia possit.

Student According to that opinion, neither in temporal nor in spiritual matters does the pope have plenitude of power to be able to do everything.

Magister Ista opinio reputat haereticum dicere quod papa omnia possit quia quod omnia possit {posset &MzPe} {quia quod omnia possit om. &Re} non {*nec &MzNaRe} habet a Deo nec {habet add. &MdPe} ab homine nec {habet add. &Md} ab hominibus, quia a Deo immediate non habet gladium materialem, {*nec add. &MzNaRe} {quia nec add. &Pe} quo ad executionem nec quo ad hoc quod possit {*alii add. &NaRe} {aliis add. &MzPe} committere executionem gladii materialis. Ab homine {*vero add. &MzNaRe} vel ab {om. &Na} hominibus {*habet vel add. &MdMzNaPeRe} habere potest {*gladium materialem quo ad hoc quod possit committere executionem gladii materialis alteri, non tamen habet gladium materialem quo ad /hoc quod ... quo ad om. &MdPePz [[add. margin Md]] \ executionem add. &MdMzNaPePzRe}.

Master That opinion regards it as heretical to say that the pope can do everything, because neither from God nor from a man nor from men does he have the power to do everything, since from God he does not directly have the material sword, neither in the sense of its execution nor in the sense that he can commit its execution to another. He certainly has, or can have, the material sword from a man or from men, in the sense that he can commit to another the execution of the material sword, yet he does not have the material sword in the sense of its execution.

Discipulus Quod ius igitur {*ergo &MzNaRe} {*trs. &MzNaPeRe} transtulerunt Romani {*trs. &MzNaRe} vel transferre poterant {potuerunt &Mz} in papam {et add. &MdMz} {etiam add. &Pe} super Romanum imperium?

Student What right over the Roman empire, therefore, did the Romans transfer, or were they able to transfer, to the pope?

Magister {om. &Re} Respondetur quod poterant sibi transferre et {*transferre et om. &MdMzNaPeRe} conferre potestatem ordinandi de promovendo in {*om. &MdMzPe} imperatorem, ut scilicet ipse {*ipsemet &MzNaRe} eligat {nec add. &Pe} {*eligeret &MdMzNaPeRe} imperatorem vel aliis committeret potestatem eligendi.

Master The answer is that they were able to confer on him the power of making arrangements for the promoting of the emperor, that is, that he himself elected the emperor or committed to others the power of electing him.

Discipulus Constat per dictam {*dicta &LyMzNaPz} {praedicta &Re} maiorum quod {quia &Mz} papa in multis se intromittit {*intromisit &MzNaPeRe} de imperatore et imperio. Et secundum opinionem istam papa super imperatorem vel {*et &NaRe} imperium non habet aliquam potestatem specialem a Deo plusquam super alios reges et regna quaecunque sed {om. &Na} solummodo a Romanis. Quid {*Quod &MzNaRe} igitur {*ergo &MdMzNaRe} {*ius add. &NaRe} de facto transtulerunt Romani in papam super imperium?

Student It is certain from what our fathers have said that the pope intervened in many matters that concerned the emperor and the empire. And according to that opinion the pope does not have any special power from God over the emperor and the empire more than he has over other kings and kingdoms, but has it only from the Romans. What right over the empire, therefore, did the Romans in fact transfer to the pope?

Magister Respondetur quod nemo potest hic {*hoc &MdMzNaPeRe} dicere, nisi {*qui add. &MzNaPeRe} libere et {*libere et om. &NaRe} diligenter vidisset privilegia papae vel {et &Md} registra {registrum &Md} fide digna vel {*seu &MzNaRe} scripturas autenticas de huiusmodi {huius &NaPe} translatione vel collatione iuris super imperium facta {factum &Mz} papae, eo quod Romani poterant conferre papae pinguius ius vel minus pingue super imperium. Poterant etiam {om. &Mz} tale ius dare sedi apostolicae vel solummodo personae papae. Poterant etiam dare papae pro una vice vel pro pluribus.

Master The reply is that no one can answer this, except someone who had carefully looked at the papal privileges, trustworthy registers, or authentic writings about this kind of transfer or about the right over the empire that was conferred on the pope, because the Romans were able to confer on the pope a more or less substantial right over the empire. They were also able to give this sort of right to the apostolic see or only to the person of the pope. They were also able to give it to the pope for one succession or for many.

Discipulus Nunquid in hac vita {*parte &MdMzNaPeRe} est adhibenda fides soli personae {*assertioni &MzNaRe} papae dicentis in ipsum {in ipsum: imperium et &Mz} totum ius Romanorum super imperium {in eum add. &Mz} esse translatum, licet per scripturas autenticas vel alias {illas &Pe} probationes hoc nequaquam ostenderet {*ostendat &MdNaRe} {ostendit &MzPe}?

Student Should trust be placed in a solitary assertion on this side by a pope saying that the whole right of the Romans over the empire has been transferred to him, even if he does not show this by authentic writings or by other proofs?

Magister {*Respondetur add. &MdMzNaPeRe} quod assertioni unius quantacunque {*quacumque &MdMzNaPeRe} fulgeat dignitate nunquam est credendum in praeiudicium aliorum, patet {*om. &MdMzNaPeRe} 6, q. 2, {et &Re} per totum, {*et add. &MzNaPeRe} ideo assertioni solius {illius &Mz} papae in praeiudicium Romanorum est in hac parte fides minime adhibenda nisi probationes adhibeat competentes.

Master The reply is that no matter with what dignity it shines the assertion of one man should never be believed to the prejudice of others (the whole of 6, q. 2,) and therefore trust should not be granted to the assertion on this side of a single pope to the prejudice of the Romans unless he brings forward competent proofs.

Discipulus Nunquid {om. &Mz} papa potest sibi vendicare ius {trs. &Pe} et potestatem {et potestatem om. &Pe} disponendi de imperio propter hoc quod consuevit se intromittere de imperio disponendo {disposito &Mz} {*cum add. &MzNaPeRe} consuetudo autem legitima {*autem legitima: obtineat /obtinet &Pe\ vim legis et consuetudo &MdMzNaPeRe} dat {*det &MdMzNaRe} iurisdictionem et per consequens ius et legitimam potestatem?

Student Can the pope lay claim to the right and power to make a disposition about the empire on the basis that he has been accustomed to interfere in the disposition of the empire, since custom acquires the force of law and custom gives jurisdiction and, consequently, a right and legitimate power?

Magister Respondetur quod in his quae papa praescripsit legitime contra Romanos papa habet ius et potestatem, et {*om. &MzNaRe} in aliis non.

Master The reply is that in connection with those matters which the pope has legitimately commanded against the Romans he has right and power, but not in connection with other matters.

CAP. XXXI

{XXX &Pz} Discipulus Investigavimus breviter an Romanum imperium possit transferri. Nunc inquiramus an dividi {vel add. &Md} {*possit vel add. &MzNaPeRe} minui {*aut etiam add. &MzNaRe} {aut add. &Pe} destrui seu cassari potest {*om. &MzNaPeRe}. Primo igitur {*itaque &MzNaRe} videamus an Romanum {om. &NaRe} imperium destrui valeat vel {seu &NaRe} {et &Pe} cassari.

Chapter 31

Student We have investigated briefly whether the Roman empire can be transferred. Now let us ask whether it can be divided or made smaller or even ruined or destroyed. And now let us see first whether the Roman empire can be ruined or destroyed.

Can the Roman Empire be destroyed?

Magister Respondetur quod {*respondetur quod om. &MzNaRe} Imperium Romanum pro eo quod {*imperium romanum add. &MzNaRe} est imperium totius mundi destrui vel {*seu &MzNaPeRe} cassari valeat {*om. &MzNaPeRe} {ita add. &Mz} potest tripliciter {*trs. &NaRe} {om. &Mz} intelligi. Uno modo sic, quod simpliciter destruatur ut imperium quod nunc {non &NaRe} {tunc &Pz} est Romanorum nec apud Romanos nec apud {om. &Pe} alios de iure remaneat. Alio modo sic, quod imperium nec {*non &MzNaRe} remaneat apud {*penes &NaRe} Romanos nec unquam ex quacunque causa sit reversurum ad ipsos. Tertio modo {om. &Mz} sic, quod imperium non remaneat {remanet &Md} apud Romanos potest {*possit &NaRe} {posset &MzPe} {*tamen add. &MdMzNaPePzRe} ex causa reverti ad ipsos. Isto {*Secundo &MdMzNaPeRe} modo et secundo {*tertio &MdMzNaPeRe} magis proprium {*proprie &MdMzNaPeRe} videtur dici quod imperium Romanum {*trs. &MzNaRe} esset translatum quam destructum vel {seu &Mz} cassatum. Primo {vero add. &Na} modo diceretur proprie {*trs. &MzNaPe} Romanum imperium esse destructum seu cassatum {Primo modo ... cassatum om. &MdRe}.

Master In that the Roman empire is the empire of the whole world it can be understood as being ruined or destroyed in three ways: in one way, that it is simply ruined so that the empire which now is the Romans' would by law remain neither with the Romans nor with others; in another way so that the empire would not remain in the power of the Romans and would not ever for any reason come back to them; in a third way that the empire does not remain with the Romans yet can for some reason be returned to them. In the second and third ways it seems to be said more properly that the Roman empire would be translated rather than ruined or destroyed. In the first way it would properly be said that the Roman empire is ruined or destroyed.

Discipulus Nunquid primo modo {primo modo om. &Pe} posset {*potest &MdMzNaPeRe} ipsum {*om. &MdMzNaPePzRe} imperium Romanum {trs. &Pe} destrui vel {*seu &NaRe} minui {*cassari &MzNaRe} {vel minui: secundo modo &Pe}?

Student Can the Roman empire be ruined or destroyed in the first way?

Magister Respondetur sicut tactum est supra c. 8 quod de iure {*et add. &MdMzNaRe} licite Romanum imperium minui vel {*minui vel om. &MzNaRe} destrui {*minime add. &MdMzNaRe} potest quia sicut antequam esset Romanum imperium {*trs. &MzNaRe} statui non potuit etiam per {pro &Pz} universitatem {universitate &Pz} mortalium quam {*quod &LyMdMzNaRe} nunquam aliquis ad totius mundi imperium assumeretur {assumetur &Md} ita quod {*om. &MdMzNaRe} postquam omnes mortales uni {uno &Mz} imperio sunt {*fuere &MzNaRe} subiecti etiam {et &Mz} {om. &Md} omnibus consentientibus statui vel {om. &Mz} ordinari minime potest quod {*ut &MdMzNaRe} imperium penitus destruatur quia hoc esset in detrimentum boni communis.

Master As was touched on above in chapter 8 the reply is that the Roman empire can not be destroyed by right and licitly because, just as before there was a Roman empire it could not be decreed even by the totality of mortals that no one would ever assume imperial rule of the whole world, so after all mortals have been subject to the one empire it can not be decreed or ordained, even if everyone agrees, that the empire should be completely ruined, because this would be to the detriment of the common good.

Discipulus Nunquid potest Romanum imperium destrui secundo modo? {trs.231 &Mz} {Magister: Respondetur sicut ... modo om. &Pe}.

Student Can the Roman empire be ruined in the second way?

Magister Una est sententia quod illo {primo &Pe} modo destrui potest, {trs.3412 &Md} ut scilicet ad Romanos nunquam convertatur {*revertatur &MdMzNaPeRe}. Sed taliter ab eis auferri non potest absque culpa manifesta {*trs. &MdMzNaPeRe} Romanorum. Talis enim {*autem &NaRe} posset {potest &Md} esse culpa {Romanorum ... culpa om. &MzPe} eorum quod possent {dig? essent &NaRe} totaliter {*taliter &MdMzNaPeRe} privari imperio quia, sicut persona quaecunque in se et in {om. &Pe} {*omnibus add. &MzNaRe} posteris suis pro culpa sua potest privari omnibus bonis suis temporalibus ac honoribus {*et add. &MdMzPe} iuribus et privilegiis quibuscunque, ita etiam quaecunque universitas seu communitas {*trs.321 &MdMzNaPeRe} particularis propter culpam suam potest privari in perpetuum quocunque honore et iure {*trs.321 &MzNaRe} speciali. Alia sententia {om. &Na} est quod communitas Romanorum propter quamcunque culpam non potest {posset &Md} in perpetuum privari quodcunque {*quocumque &LyMdMzPePz} iure et honore speciali {om. &Md} {spirituali &Pz} vel {*quodcumque iure et honore speciali vel om. &NaRe} imperio Romano {*trs. &NaRe} quia talis privatio perpetua {perpetue &Md} posset redundare in detrimentum totius universitatis mortalium. Ergo non est licita reputanda {om. &Pe}.

Master One opinion is that it can be destroyed in that way, that is, so that it would never come back to the Romans. But it can not be removed from them in this way without the Romans being clearly at fault. Their fault could be such, however, that they could be deprived of the empire in this way, because, just as through his fault anyone at all can be deprived, he himself and all his descendants, of all his temporal goods, his honours and rights and any privileges, so also any particular community or totality can, because of its fault, be deprived forever of any special right or honour. Another opinion is that for no fault at all can the community of the Romans be deprived forever of the Roman empire because such a perpetual deprivation could redound to the detriment of the whole totality of mortals. Therefore, it should not be regarded as permissible.

Discipulus Ista ratio non concludit quod {*quia &MzNaPeRe} sicut {*sic &MzNaPePzRe} {*etiam add. &NaRe} quemcunque privare {privari &Mz} omni {om. &Pe} iure suo {*in perpetuum add. &NaRe} possit {potest &Md} {*posset &MzNaPeRe} redundare {redundari &Re} {redundaret &Mz} in detrimentum boni communis. non {et ideo &MdMzPe} sequitur quod {non sequitur quod: Ergo &NaRe} omnis {*talis add. &MdMzNaPeRe} privatio esset censenda illicita.

Student That argument is not conclusive because to deprive anyone at all in this way of every right of his forever could redound to the detriment of the common good. Therefore every such deprivation should be considered impermissible.

Magister Respondetur quod quemcunque privari omni iure suo sic ut antequam sententia executioni mandetur nullus posset eum {*eam &MzNaRe} revocare propter quemcunque adventum {*eventum &NaRe} neque {*non &NaRe} {nec &Mz} est licitum neque {*nec &MzRe} iustum. Unde quamvis aliquis absolute propter quodcunque crimen damnaretur {*damnetur &MdMzNaPeRe} ad mortem semper aliquae conditiones generales subintelliguntur, quemadmodum in omni iuramento promisso voto et pacto {*trs.321 &MzNaRe} aliquae conditiones generales debent subintelligi. Posset {potest &Md} igitur {*ergo &MdMzNaRe} communitas Romanorum absolute propter culpam privari omni iure speciali et privilegium {privilegio &LyPz} quod habet super Romanum imperium et tamen aliquae conditiones generales debent intelligi {*subintelligi &MzNaPeRe}. Et ideo quia communitas Romanorum penitus deleri non debet igitur {*ideo &MdMzNaPeRe} talis sententia nunquam {*trs.312 &MdMzNaPeRe} contra Romanos sic debent {*debet &LyMdMzNaPePzRe} ad {*om. &MdMzNaPeRe} executionem {*executioni &MdMzNaPeRe} mandari {demandari &Pe} quoniam {?quin &NaRe} {quam &Pe} potest {*om. &MzNaPePzRe} ex aliqua causa {*posset add. &MzNaPeRe} revocari. Possunt autem {*tamen &MdMzNaPeRe} Romani propter culpam vel {*etiam add. &MzNaRe} ex causa sic privari imperio ut nunquam absque nova collatione illius vel illorum qui potest vel {qui add. &Md} possunt eis conferre imperium iuste valeant imperium adipisci nisi omnes alii propter culpam iuste imperium {*trs. &MzNaRe} amitterent.

Master The reply is that to deprive anyone of every right of his in that way, so that no one could in the event of any occurrence at all revoke the sentence before its execution was enjoined, is neither permissible nor just. Whence even if someone is condemned to death absolutely for some crime some general conditions are always implied, just as in every oath, promise, agreement and vow some general conditions should be implied. The community of the Romans, therefore, could for some fault be absolutely deprived of every special right and privilege that it has over the Roman empire, and yet some general conditions should be implied. And therefore because the community of the Romans should not be wholly destroyed, a sentence of this kind against the Romans should never be enjoined for execution since it could be revoked for any reason. Yet for some fault or even for a reason the Romans can be so deprived of the empire that they can never justly acquire the empire without it being newly conferred by that one or those who can confer it on them, unless for some fault all others were justly to lose the empire.

Discipulus Nunquid tertio modo potest {*Romanum add. &MzNaRe} imperium {*destrui vel add. &MzNaPeRe} cassari vel diminui, {*vel diminui om. &MzNaPeRe} ut scilicet Romanum imperium {trs. &Md} non remaneat apud Romanos, potest {*possit &MzNaPeRe} tamen ex causa reverti ad ipsos?

Student Can the Roman empire be ruined or destroyed in the third way, that is so that the Roman empire would not remain with the Romans, yet can for some reason come back to them?

Magister Respondetur {*dicitur &NaRe} quod sic, quia {quod &Md} potest {posset &Md} transferri de {*a &NaRe} Romanis ad alias gentes {*alias gentes: aliam gentem &MdMzNaPeRe} {*vel personam add. &MzNaPeRe}.

Master They say that it can be, because it can be transferred from the Romans to another people or person.

Discipulus Potestne Romanum imperium dividi vel diminui {*minui &NaRe}?

Student Can the Roman empire be divided or made smaller?

Magister Una est opinio quod absque consensu expresso vel tacito totius universatitis mortalium Romanum imperium non potest dividi vel {*nec &NaRe} {neque &Mz} minui {diminui &Md} quia si privata persona vel {*et &NaRe} communitas particularis seu partialis {*trs.321 &MzNaRe} non debet privari iure suo {*absque culpa vel ex causa add. &NaRe} multo fortius communitas universalis mortalium non debet privari iure suo {trs. &Md}. Imperium autem Romanum {trs. &Pe} principalissime spectat ad communitatem universalem {universitatis &Mz} mortalium quemadmodum dominium rerum temporalium ad eandem communitatem principalissime {specialissime &Pe} spectat. Unde pro tota communitate mortalium dicit {*dixit &MdMzNaPeRe} Deus {*dominus &NaRe} ad primos {pueros &Mz} parentes, {pascentes &Mz} "Replete terram {*et add. &MzNaReVg} subiicite eam et {om. &Mz} dominamini piscibus maris." Igitur {*ergo &MdMzNaRe} communitas mortalium non debet privari iure suo super imperium absque consensu {*suo add. &MdMzNaRe} [[super imperium absque consensu suo: margin Md]]. Si autem imperium minueretur vel divideretur {*trs.321 &NaRe} communitas mortalium aliquo iure quod habet {om. &Re} super {hoc add. &Re} imperium privaretur, quia postquam aliqua temporalia sunt divisa inter partes alicuius communitatis {tunc add. &Mz} non sunt totius communitatis. Igitur {*ergo &MdMzNaRe} Romanum imperium {trs. &Pe} non potest minui vel {*aut &MzNaRe} dividi {*trs.321 &MzNaPeRe} saltem absque consensu tacito vel expresso communitatis mortalium.

Master One opinion is that the Roman empire can neither be divided nor made smaller without the express or tacit agreement of the whole totality of mortals, because if a private person and a partial or particular community should not be deprived of its right without some fault or reason, it is much more strongly the case that the total community of mortals should not be deprived of its right. The Roman empire, however, belongs principally to the total community of mortals, just as the lordship of temporal goods belongs principally to the same community. Whence the Lord said to our first parents on behalf of the whole community of mortals [Gen. 1:28], "Fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea." Therefore the community of mortals should not be deprived of its right over the empire without its agreement. If the empire were made smaller or divided, however, the community of mortals would be deprived of some right which it has over the empire, because after any temporalities have been divided among the parts of any community they do not belong to the whole community. Therefore the Roman empire can not be made smaller or divided, at least without the tacit or express agreement of the community of mortals.

Discipulus De potestate {*possibilitate &MzNaRe} destructionis {destitutionis &Re} divisionis {*et add. &NaRe} minutionis {*diminutionis &MdMzNaPeRe} aut {*ac &MdMzNaPeRe} translationis Romani imperii essent tractanda quamplurima, {quia plura &MdPe} sed {*quia add. &MzNaRe} quamplura {quamplurima &Na} eorum postea locum habebunt ideo ad praesens ipsa {*trs.312 &MzNaRe} investigare dimitto. Unum tamen {*tantum &NaRe} interrogo, utrum {*an &MdMzNaPeRe} scilicet aliqua pars communitatis mortalium {om. &Na} {trs. &Md} absque suo consensu {*trs. &NaPeRe} expresso vel {et &NaRe} tacito valeat privari iure suo {*quod in communi habet super imperium add. &MzNaPeRe}.

Student Very many matters should be dealt with concerning the possibility of the destruction, division, diminution and translation of the Roman empire, but because many of them will have a place later, I put aside the investigation of them for now. I ask about one thing only, that is whether any part of the community of mortals can, without its express or tacit agreement, be deprived of the right which it has in common over the empire.

Magister Respondetur quod propter culpam quaelibet persona vel {*et &MzNaPeRe} quaelibet communitas partialis potest privari iure {suo add. &Md} quod habet in communi {*trs.231 &MzNaRe} super imperium ita ut totum ius illius {om. &NaRe} ad alios devoluatur. sicut {*Unde &MdMzNaPeRe} {*et add. &MdNaPeRe} {etiam add. &Mz} nonnulli putant quod totum ius imperii devolutum sit ad Christianos propter culpam haereticorum et Iudaeorum et {*ac &NaRe} aliorum infidelium ut ita valeant libere {*trs. &MzNaRe} Christiani disponere de toto imperio, sicut unquam potuit tota communitas mortalium.

Master The reply is that because of some fault any person and partial community at all can be so deprived of the right which it has in common over the empire, that every one of its rights falls to others. This is why some people also think that through the fault of heretics, Jews and other unbelievers all rights in the empire fell to Christians, with the result that christians can freely dispose of the whole empire, just as the whole community have always been able to.

Discipulus Adhuc circa istam materiam quaero an aliquis Christianus vel alius {om. &Mz} absque {sine &Md} causa {*omni culpa &MzNaRe} sponte et libere valeat renunciare omni iuri quod in communi habet {trs.312 &Mz} super imperium.

Student About this matter I ask further whether any christian or other person can without any blame willingly and freely renounce every right that it has in common over the empire.

Magister Circa hoc diversae sunt {*trs. &MdMzNaPeRe} opiniones. Una est quod licet omni tali iuri humano et positivo licet {*humano et positivo licet om. &LyMdMzNaPePzRe} renunciare. Unde et Fratres Minores, ut dicitur, omni tali iuri licite {om. &Md} renunciaverunt quia omni iuri humano et positivo {dispositio &Re} licet renunciare. Alia opinio {*om. &Re} est quod tali iuri {licite renunciaverunt ... iuri om. &Na} renunciare non licet {*quia iuri publico renunciare non licet add. &MzNaRe}. Tale autem {autem add. &Na} ius in communi est ius publicum. Et ideo ei renunciare non licet.

Master There are various opinions about this. One is that it is permissible to renounce every right of this kind. Whence it is that, as they say, the Friars Minor have licitly renounced every such right because it is permissible to renounce every human and positive right. Another is that it is not permissible to renounce a right of this kind because it is not permissible to renounce a public right. A right of this kind which is held in common, however, is a public right. And therefore it is not permissible to renounce it.

Return to Table of Contents