William of Ockham, Dialogus,
part 3, tract 2, book 3, chapters 1-4.

Text and translation by John Scott.

Copyright (c) 1999, The British Academy

CAP. I. Discipulus In scripturis divinis non memini {*explicite add. &NaMzPeRe} me legisse omnem potestatem in spiritualibus imperatori si esset catholicus denegari, ideo {*ideoque &NaMzPeRe} an imperator super spiritualia aliquam potestatem habeat {*trs. &MzNaPeRe} vel sit capax huiusmodi potestatis {*in add. &NaMzPeRe} hoc tertio libro investigare propono. Porro {*quia add. &NaRe} {quod add. &Pe} non solum gratia, virtutes, dona Dei, sacramenta, iura ecclesiastica et causae ecclesiasticae ac res ad ecclesias {*ecclesiam &MzNaRe} pertinentes et huiusmodi quae specialiter ad clericos spectare dicuntur {dignoscuntur &Pe} sed et {*etiam &NaPeRe} personae seu homines inter spiritualia computantur, ideo de potestate imperatoris super spiritualia quaesiturus a personis spiritualibus inchoabo. In primis autem duxi {dixi &Re} quaerendum an imperator super aliquas personas spirituales {*trs. &MzNaPeRe} habeat potestatem.	Chapter 1 Student: I do not remember having read explicitly in the divine scriptures that in spiritual affairs all power has been denied to the emperor, if he were catholic, and therefore I propose to investigate in this third book whether the emperor has some power over spiritual matters or is capable of power of this kind. Moreover, because not only are grace, virtues, the gifts of God, sacraments, ecclesiastical rights, ecclesiastical causes, goods that belong to the church and things of this kind which are said to pertain especially to clerics reckoned to be among spiritual matters, but also persons or men, I will begin my inquiry about the power of the emperor over spiritual matters with spiritual persons. First of all, however, I have considered that it should be asked whether the emperor has power over any spiritual persons.
Does the Emperor have any power in spiritual matters?
Does the Emperor have any power over spiritual persons?
Magister Nonnullis apparet quod personae seu {*sive &NaMzPeRe} homines possunt dici spirituales dupliciter. Quidam enim dicuntur spirituales quia secundum spiritum et legem christianam {om. &Mz} quae lex spiritualis est {quod add. &Mz} virtuose vivunt {trs. &Pe} et de {*talibus add. &MzNaRe} spiritualibus sic {*om. &NaMzPeRe} loquitur apostolus 1 ad {om. &MzNaRe} Cor. 2[:12-3] cum dicit, "Nos autem non spiritum huius mundi accepimus, sed spiritum qui ex Deo est, ut sciamus quae a Deo donata {dotata &Re} {data &Pe} sunt {sive et donata sunt add. &Pe} nobis. Quae et {etiam &Mz} loquimur non in doctis humanae sapientiae verbis sed in doctrina spiritus, spiritualia spiritualibus {*trs. &MzNaPeReVg} cooperantes {*comparantes &NaMzPeReVg}." Alii possunt vocari spirituales, licet non vivant secundum spiritum virtuose, {sed add. &Re} [[interlinear]] quia sunt spiritualibus officiis spiritualiter deputati, sicut sunt clerici et religiosi, quorum multi non spiritualiter vivunt nec vitam {*spiritualiter ... vitam: spiritualem vitam et &NaRe} virtuosam sed carnalem et vitiosam ducere dignoscuntur, ita ut laici vitae comparatione ipsos et {*etiam &NaPeRe} episcopos qui inter clericos sunt maiores habeant iudicare, teste Hieronimo qui ut habetur 8, q. 1, c. Vereor, ait, "Plurimi in populis {populos &Pe} episcopos iudicent {et add. &Pe} subtrahentes se ab ecclesiastico gradu et ea quae {ipsi add. &NaPeRe} episcopo conveniunt non exercentes." Super {sunt &Mz} homines spirituales primo modo dictos quamplures {*imperator obtinet potestatem, eo quod quamplurimi /quamplures MzPe\ add. &NaMzPeRe} laici et {*om. &NaMzPeRe} sibi subiecti spirituales primo {secundo &Pe} modo accipiendo vocabulum {*primo ... vocabulum: illo modo accepto vocabulo &MzNaRe} sunt censendi, quia non secundum carnem sed secundum spiritum sunt {sanctum &Re} viventes. {sed add. &Re} De hominibus spiritualibus secundo modo dictis sunt opiniones contrariae, quibusdam dicentibus imperatorem super eos nullam potestatem habere, aliis asserentibus {assertionibus &Mz} contrarium.	Master: It seems to some that persons or men can be called spiritual in two ways. For some people are called spiritual because they live virtuously according to the spirit and christian law, which is the spiritual law, and the apostle is talking about such spiritual people when he says in 1 Cor. 2:12-3, "Now we have received not the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. And we speak of these things in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things to those who are spiritual." Others can be called spiritual, even if they do not live virtuously according to the spirit, because they have been assigned spiritually to spiritual offices, as clerics and religious have been, many of whom are known not to lead a spiritual and virtuous life but a carnal and vicious one, so that, by comparison of their life, laymen have the power to judge them, even bishops who are the greatest among the clerics. Jerome attest to this when he says in 8, q. 1, c. Vereor [c.22, col.597], "Very many people judge bishops who withdraw from their position in the church and do not engage in those [activities] which befit a bishop." The emperor has power over many men called spiritual in the first sense because many laymen subject to him should be considered spiritual, taking the word in that sense, since they are living according to the spirit not according to the flesh. There are opposed opinions about men called spiritual in the second sense, some saying that the emperor has no power over them and others asserting the opposite.
CAP. II. Discipulus De hominibus spiritualibus secundo modo dictis solummodo quaerere intendebam. Ideo prosequamur {prosequimur &Pe} de ipsis a summo {*supremo &NaRe} ipsorum, scilicet a {om. &Pe} summo pontifice, inchoantes, investigantes primo an imperator in electione summi pontificis potestatem habeat seu ius aliquod {*habeat ... aliquod: aliquam seu ius habeat &NaRe} vel habere possit. Secundo an super ipsum in summum pontificem {summum pontificem: summo pontifice &NaPeRe} constitutum aliquam habeat {trs. &Pe} vel habere valeat potestatem. Primo autem cupio indagare an electio summi pontificis {*electio summi pontificis: ius eligendi summum pontificem &MzNaRe} possit personae imperatoris competere {*trs.312 &NaRe}.	Chapter 2 Student: I was intending to ask only about men called spiritual in the second sense. Let us go on with them, therefore, beginning with the highest of them, that is the supreme pontiff, investigating first whether the emperor has or can have any power or right in the election of the supreme pontiff and second whether he has or can have any power over him who is appointed supreme pontiff. First, however, I want to investigate whether the right of electing the supreme pontiff can belong to the person of the emperor.
Does (or can) the Emperor have any power in relation to the pope?
Can the right of electing the pope belong to the Emperor?
Opinion 1: The Emperor cannot have the right to elect a pope
Magister Circa hoc sunt assertiones contrariae. prima {*Una &NaRe} est quod personae imperatoris non potest competere tale ius quamdiu manet {maneat &Pe} imperator.	Master: Contrary assertions are made about this. One is that such a right can not belong to the person of the emperor as long as he remains emperor.
Discipulus Pro ista assertione aliquas allegationes {rationes &Pe} adducas.	Student: Would you bring forward some arguments for that assertion?
Magister Pro ipsa potest multipliciter allegari. Qui enim non est capax iurium spiritualium non potest habere ius eligendi summum pontificem, quia ius eligendi summum pontificem videtur primum locum {om. &Pe} inter iura spiritualia obtinere. Sed imperator et alii laici non sunt capaces iurium spiritualium, teste glossa Extra, De iudiciis {*c. add. &Pe} Quanto, quae ait, "Laicus ius tale {*trs. &NaReZn}," scilicet ius patronatus, "potest possidere {praesidere &Mz} cum {si &Mz} non sit mere spirituale sed {si &Na} ei annexum {om. &Pe}, sed alia iura {*mere add. &NaMzPeReZn} spiritualia iure {*om. &NaMzPeReZn} possidere non potest." igitur {*Ergo &MzNaRe} ius eligendi summum pontificem non potest imperatori competere.	Master: Many arguments can be brought forward for it. For he who is not entitled to spiritual rights can not have the right to elect the supreme pontiff because the right to elect the supreme pontiff seems to have first place among spiritual rights. But the emperor and other laymen are not entitled to spiritual rights, as the gloss on Extra, De iudiciis, c. Quanto [col.523], attests when it says, "A layman can possess such a right," that is the right of patronage, "when it is not merely spiritual but is bound to him, but he can not possess other rights which are purely spiritual." Therefore the right to elect the supreme pontiff can not belong to the emperor.
Amplius, sicut papa praeest {*in add. &NaMzPeRe} spiritualibus, ita imperator in temporalibus. Sed iura temporalia sive secularia, maxime quae potissimum locum inter iura secularia habere noscuntur, nullo modo possunt competere summo pontifici et aliis clericis, ut {*scilicet &NaMzPeRe} iura causas sanguinis exercendi, quae praecipue iura secularia censenda videntur. Igitur {*Ergo &MzNaRe} iura praecipue spiritualia, inter quae ius eligendi summum pontificem videtur primum, nullo modo potest {*possunt &NaRe} competere imperatori et aliis {*laicis add. &MzNaRe}.	Further, just as the pope presides in spiritual affairs, so does the emperor in temporal affairs. But temporal or secular rights, especially those which are known to have the most important place among secular rights, can in no way belong to the supreme pontiff and to other clerics, for example, rights to engage in cases of blood, which seem to be considered especially secular rights. Rights which are especially spiritual, therefore, among which the right to elect the supreme pontiff seems to be first, can in no way belong to the emperor and to other laymen.
Rursus {cum add. &Pe} ille qui solummodo actibus secularibus debet esse contentus non est capax potestatis aut {ac &Mz} iuris eligendi summum pontificem, quia eligere summum pontificem inter actus spirituales est enumerandus {*numerandus &NaPeRe}. Sed imperator tantummodo {solummodo &Na} secularibus {temporalibus &Pe} debet esse contentus, teste Nicolao papa qui, ait {*ut legitur &MzNaRe} dist. 10 {4 &Pe} c. {om. &NaRe} Imperium, {*ait add. &MzNaRe}, "Imperium vestrum suis publicae rei quotidianis administrationibus debet esse contentum, non usurpare {usurpando &Pe} quae sacerdotibus Domini solum {om. &NaRe} {solummodo &MzPe} conveniunt {*conveniant" &NaMzPeReZn}, ubi dicit glossa, "Distincta est enim potestas sua a potestate pontificali, ut infra {*eadem add. &Zn} c. Quoniam et {om. &Mz} 86 {*96 &MzNaReZn} dist. {om. &MzNaRe} Cum {86 dist. cum: 6 c. &Pe} ad verum. 'Alioquin si usurpet {*usurpat &MzNaReZn} {usurpantur &Pe} eorum officia, lepra percutiatur {*percutitur &NaMzPeReZn}, ut Ozias, 2. q. 7. {8 &Pe} c. {*Plerumque add. &Zn} # item cum Baalam {*cum Baalam: David &Zn} {c. # item cum Baalam: # sicut Azias &MzNaRe} {c. # item cum Baalam: ?aliter vestris? c. sicut Azias &Pe}.'" igitur {*Ergo &MzNaRe} imperator non est capax huius iuris eligendi summum pontificem.	Again, he who ought to be content with secular acts only is not capable of the power or right to elect the supreme pontiff, because to elect the supreme pontiff should be reckoned among spiritual acts. But the emperor should be content with secular [acts] [[Add in Latin?]], as Pope Nicholas attests when he says, as we read in dist. 10, c. Imperium [c.5, col.20], "Your empire ought to be content with its daily administration of public matters and ought not appropriate those things which belong only to the priest of the Lord." At this point the gloss says [col.32], "For its power is separate from priestly power, as within in the same [distinction] c. Quoniam and dist. 96, c. Cum ad verum: 'Otherwise if he appropriates their duties, he is struck with leprosy, as was Ozias [[see 2 Chron. 16-20]], 2, q. 7, c. Plerumque, # item David.'" Therefore the emperor is not endowed with this right to elect the supreme pontiff.
Praeterea potestates distinctae habent actus distinctos {*trs. &MzNaPeRe}, teste Nicolao Papa qui, ut legitur dist. 86 {*96 &MzNaRe} c. Cum ad verum, ait, "Idem mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus, actibus propriis et dignitatibus distinctis officia potestatis utriusque discrevit." Sed potestas secularis et ecclesiastica sunt potestates distinctae. igitur {*Ergo &MzNaRe} habent distinctos actus. {teste Nicolao ... actus om. &Pe} Constat autem quod actus eligendi summum pontificem convenit {*competit &NaMzPeRe} potestati ecclesiae {*ecclesiasticae &NaRe}. igitur {*Ergo &MzNaRe} non competit potestati seculari et per consequens imperator talem actum exercere non {debet seu add. &Pe} potest.	Moreover, separate powers have separate functions, as Pope Nicholas attests who says, as we read in dist. 96, c. Cum ad verum [c.6, col.339], "That mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, distinguished between the duties of each power by his own acts and separate dignities." But the secular power and the ecclesiastical power are separate powers. Therefore they have separate functions. It is certain, however, that the act of electing the supreme pontiff belongs to the ecclesiastical power. Therefore it does not belong to the secular power and, consequently, the emperor ought not to engage in such an act.
Item sicut in corpore humano diversa membra habent diversos actus, {trs.231 &Pe} Ioh. {*Romanos &MzNaRe} 22 {*12 &NaMzPeRe}[:4], ita in corpore ecclesiae diversa membra diversos actus habere debent. Unde Gregorius, ut habetur dist. 89 {93 &Pe} {*c. add. &NaMzPeRe} Singula, {*ait add. &NaMzPeRe}, "In ecclesiae corpore multa membra sunt {*multa membra sunt om. &NaMzPeReZn} secundum veridicam sententiam Pauli in uno eodemque spirituali corpore {uni add. &NaMzPeRe} conferendum est officium hoc {*trs. &MzNaPeReZn}, uni {om. &NaMzPeReZn} alii committendum est illud," et infra, "sicut indecorum est, ut in corpore humano {corpore humano: carne humana &Pe} ut {*om. &NaMzPeReZn} alterum membrum alterius fungatur officio, ita nimirum {in mirum &Re} nocivum {*noxium &Zn} {novum &NaRe} {novumque &MzPe} simulque {simul &Mz} {om. &Pe} turpissimum {simul add. &Pe}, est {*om. &Zn} si {om. &Na} singula rerum mysteria {*ministeria MzNaPeReZn} personis totidem non fuerint {fuerunt &Mz} distributa." Sed clerici et laici sunt diversa membra {*corporis ecclesie add. &NaMzPeRe}; igitur {*ergo &MzNaRe} actus habent distinctos; eligere autem summum pontificem spectat ad clericos, dist. 22 {*23 &NaRe} In nomine; ergo nullo modo poterit ad laicos {*trs.231 &MzNaPeRe} pertinere.	Again, just as different members have different functions in the human body (Romans 12:4), so in the body of the church different members should have different functions. Hence, as we find in dist. 89, c. Singula [c.1, col.311], Gregory says, "In the body of the church, according to a truly spoken opinion of Paul's, in one and the same spiritual body the one duty should be conferred on one person, and the other [duty] should be committed to another person ... just as it is unbecoming that one member in the human body should discharge the duty of another, so it is certainly harmful and also most wicked if the separate ministeries of affairs have not been distributed to just that many persons." But clerics and laymen are different members of the body of the church; therefore they have separate functions; to elect the supreme pontiff, however, pertains to clerics (dist. 23, In nomine [c.1, col.77]; in no way, therefore, will it be able to pertain to laymen.
Item imperator et alii laici non possunt eligere patriarchas, archiepiscopos, et {*om. &NaRe} episcopos et aliarum ecclesiarum collegiatarum {om. &Mz} praelatos; igitur {*ergo &MzNaRe} multo fortius non possunt eligere summum pontificem. Consequentia manifesta videtur. Antecedens {dicens &Mz} per sacros canones videtur {*aperte add. &MzNaRe} {manifeste add. &Pe} posse {om. &Mz} probari. Ait enim Adrianus Papa, ut habetur dist. 63, c. 1, "Nullus laicorum principum vel potentum semet inserat electioni {om. &MzNaRe} vel promotioni patriarchae, {vel add. &MzNaRe} metropolitae aut {*vel &MzNaReZn} cuiuscunque {*cuiuslibet episcopi &MzNaReZn}, ne videlicet inordinata et {vel &Pe} {magna et add. &Mz} incongrua fiat electio vel {*electio vel om. &MzNaReZn} confusio vel contentio, praesertim cum nullam in talibus potestatem quenquam potestativorum vel caeterorum laicorum habere conveniat." Et Gregorius Nonus {14 &Pe}, ut habetur Extra, De electione c. Sacrosancta, ait, "Ius eligendi in collegiata ecclesia non cadit in laicum"; et eo *{idem &MzNaRe} {*eodem titulo add. &NaRe} c. Massana ait, "Edicto perpetuo prohibemus ne per laicos {*cum canonicis add. &MzNaReZn} electio pontificis {*trs. &MzNaReZn} {prohibemus ... pontificis om. &Pe} praesumatur. Quae {quod &Re} si forte praesumpta fuerit, nullam obtineat firmitatem, non obstante contraria consuetudine, quae dici debet {debeat &Pe} potius {trs.312 &Pe} corruptela," ubi dicit glossa super vocabulo consuetudine quod, {quia &Mz} "Talis consuetudo [...] quia {om. &Mz} non est rationabilis non {nec &Mz} potest praescribi." Ex quibus verbis {om. &Re} colligitur quod ex nulla consuetudine possunt laici habere ius eligendi praelatos, et per consequens non {nec &Re} possunt {*hoc add. &MzNaRe} habere ex iure humano, quia quicquid potest tribuere ius humanum, potest {etiam add. &Mz} consuetudo tribuere. Constat autem quod laici non habent ius eligendi ex iure divino, quia tunc eo privari non possent {possunt &Pe}. et {*Ergo &MzNaRe} {igitur &Pe} per consequens nullo modo possunt habere ius eligendi ipsos {*episcopos &NaMzPeRe} et praelatos ecclesiarum collegiatarum. Quod quamplurimi alii sacri canones qui habentur dist. {*63 add. &NaMzPeRe} {*c. Adrianus infra et add. &NaRe} {c. ait Augustinus et add. &Pe} c. Si per ordinationem et c. Non est et c. omnis et {*c. omnis et om. &MzNaRe} c. Non licet {*liceat Zn} et 79, {*dist. c. Si quis et add. &MzNaRe} c. Si quis pecunia et 16, q. 1. {*om. &NaMzPeRe} 7, c. Si quis deinceps {episcopus &Pe} [[written over deinceps erased]] et 16, q. 1, {*16. q. 1. om. &NaMzPeRe} c. Quoniam et c. Si quis episcopus et q. 2. {*q. 2. om. &NaMzPeRe} c. Sane et c. Si quis clericus et c. constitutum {*Constitutiones &MzNaRe} {consuetudines &Pe} et c. Nullus et c. Per laicos et c. Non placuit et c. Laicis et aliis locis quamplurimis videtur assentire {*quamplurimis videtur assentire: quampluribus videntur asserere &NaMzPeRe} manifeste.	Again, the emperor and other laymen can not elect patriarchs, archbishops, bishops and the prelates of other collegiate churches; it is much more the case, therefore, that they can not elect the supreme pontiff. The consequence seems clear. The antecedent seems plainly provable by sacred canons. For as we find in dist. 63, c. 1, Nullus [c.1, col.234], Pope Hadrian says, "Let no layman, prince or potentate, involve himself in the election or promotion of a patriarch, a metropolitan or any bishop at all, lest, that is, an irregular and unsuitable confusion or disagreement arise, especially since it is not appropriate for any of the powerful or any other layman to have any power in such matters." And as we find in Extra, De electione, c. Sacrosancta [c.51, col.92], Gregory IX says, "The right of electing in a collegiate church does not fall on the laity"; and the same pope, in c. Massana [c.56, col.95] of the same title, says, "We forbid by a perpetual edict the election of a bishop to be undertaken by the laity together with the canons. If by chance it is undertaken, let it acquire no durability, notwithstanding any opposed custom, which should rather be called a corruption." The gloss here on the word "custom" says [col.205] that, "Such a custom ... because it is not reasonable can not be prescribed." We gather from these words that by no custom can the laity have the right to elect prelates, and consequently they can not have this by human right, because whatever human right can bestow, custom can bestow. It is certain, however, that laymen do not have by divine right the right to elect, because then they could not be deprived of it. As a result, therefore, they can in no way have the right to elect bishops and the prelates of collegiate churches. Many other sacred canons seem clearly to assert this: they are found at dist. 63, c. Adrianus [c.2, col.235], c. Si per ordinationem [c.5, col.236], c. Non est [c.6, col.236], c. Non liceat [c.8, col.237], dist. 79, c. Si quis [c.2, col.276] and c. Si quis pecunia [c.9, col.278], 16, q. 7, c. Si quis deinceps [c.12, col.804], c. Quoniam [c.13, col.804], c. Si quis episcopus [c.14, col.804], c. Sane [c.15, col.805], c. Si quis clericus [c.16, col.805], c. Constitutiones [c.17, col.805], c. Nullus [c.18, col.805], c. Per laicos [c.20, col.806], c. Non placuit [c.23, col.807], c. Laicis [c.24, col.807] and at many other places.
CAP. III. Discipulus Assertionem praedictae contrariam libenter audirem.	Chapter 3 Student: I would willingly listen to the opposite opinion to that one.
Opinion 2: The Emperor can have the right to elect a pope
Magister Assertio contraria praedictae {*supradictae &NaMzPeRe} est quod licet imperator specialiter {spiritualiter &Mz} {specialem &Pe} ratione imperatoriae dignitatis non habeat {habet &Pe} ius eligendi summum pontificem vel alios praelatos inferiores, inquantum tamen Christianus, catholicus et fidelis ius eligendi summum pontificem {vel alios prelatos inferiores add. &Pe} potest sibi competere ita quod imperialis sublimitas non reddit eum non capacem huiusmodi {huius &PeRe} dignitatis {*om. &NaMzPeRe} potestatis sive iuris; imo quodammodo reddit eum magis dignum huiusmodi {huius &PeRe} potestatis vel iuris {*potestatis vel iuris: potestate sive iure &NaRe}.	Master: The opposite opinion to the above is that although the emperor specifically does not have by reason of his imperial dignity the right to elect the supreme pontiff or other lesser prelates, yet, in so far as he is Christian, catholic and believing, the right to elect the supreme pontiff can belong to him in such a way that his imperial elevation does not render him incapable of a power or right of this kind; on the contrary, to some extent it renders him more worthy of a power or right of this kind.
Discipulus Pro ista assertione aliqua motiva profer in medium.	Student: Bring forward some argument for that opinion.
Magister Pro ipsa multipliciter {modo &Pe} allegatur. Nam ipsa {*illa &NaRe} {ista &MzPe} potestas vel ius potest imperatori competere quam vel quod de facto alii {*aliquando &NaRe} reges {*aliqui add. &NaRe} habuerunt. Sed de facto aliqui reges habuerunt potestatem {potestates &Na} sive ius eligendi summum pontificem. Igitur {*Ergo &MzNaRe} talis potestas sive ius potest imperatori competere. Maior videtur nullatenus probatione {*trs. &MzNaPeRe} indigere. {et add. &Pe} Minor autem {*om. &NaMzPeRe} auctoritatibus videtur {*trs. &MzNaPeRe} manifeste {*manifestis &NaMzPeRe} et {*om. &NaMzPeRe} aperte probari. {trs. &Pe} Nam ex Historia Ecclesiastica, ut legitur {habetur &Pe} dist. 63, c. Adrianus, ubi {*om. &NaRe} sic habetur, "Adrianus Papa Romam venire Carolum regem {francorum add. &Pe} ad defendendas {defendendum &Pe} res ecclesiae postulavit." et infra, "Deinde Romam reversus," scilicet Carolus rex, "ibi {ibidem &NaRe} constituit {*trs. &MzNaPeReZn} synodum cum Adriano Papa in Patriarchia {*patriarchio &NaMzPeReZn} Lateranensi {Laterani &NaRe} in ecclesia sancti Salvatoris; quae synodus celebrata est a centum quinquaginta tribus episcopis et {*om. &NaMzPeReZn} abbatibus et religiosis {*trs.321 &MzNaReZn}. Adrianus autem Papa cum universa synodo tradidit {*tradiderunt &NaPeReZn} Carolo ius et potestatem eligendi pontificem et ordinandi apostolicam sedem. Dignitatem quoque patriciatus ei {eius &Mz} concessit {*concesserunt &NaMzPeReZn}. Insuper episcopos archiepiscopos per singulas provincias ab eo convestituram {*investituram &NaMzPeReZn} accipere diffinivit, {*et add. &NaMzPeReZn} ut, nisi a rege laudetur et investiatur episcopus, a nemine consecretur; et quicunque contra {om. &Na} hoc decretum ageret {*esset Zn} {ierit &MzNaRe} {egerit &Pe} anathematis vinculo eum innodavit, et {om. &Re} nisi resipisceret bona eius publicari praecepit."	Master: There are many arguments for it. For that power or right can belong to the emperor which any kings have in fact sometimes had. But some kings have in fact had the power or right to elect the supreme pontiff. Therefore such power or right can belong to the emperor. The major [premise] does not seem to require proof. The minor [premise] seems to be clearly proved by plain texts. For as we read in dist. 63, c. Adrianus (col.322), the following is found in the Historia Ecclesiastica, "Pope Hadrian requested King Charles to come to Rome to defend the possessions of the church. ... Then when he," that is King Charles, "returned to Rome he established a synod there with Pope Hadrian in the church of the Holy Saviour in the Lateran palace, a synod celebrated by 153 bishops, religious and abbots. Then Pope Hadrian, together with the whole synod committed to Charles the right and power to elect the pontiff and to ordain to the apostolic see. They also granted to him the dignity of the patriciate. He also pronounced that bishops and archbishops in every province were to accept investiture from him, and that a bishop was to be consecrated by no one unless he was confirmed and invested by the king; and he bound with the chain of anathema anyone who was against this decree and ordered that his goods be confiscated if he did not come to his senses."
Item Leo Papa, ut in eadem distinctione {dicitur &Mz} {*habetur add. &NaRe} c. {cum &Mz} In synodo, sic ait, "In synodo congregata Romae in ecclesia sancti Salvatoris. et {*om. &NaMzPeRe} Ad exemplum beati Adriani apostolicae sedis {sede &Mz} {pro add. &Mz} antistitis, qui domino Carolo, victoriosissimo regi {rege &Mz} Francorum et {*ac &NaMzPeRe} Longobardorum, patriciatus dignitatem ac ordinationem apostolicae sedis et investiturarum {*investituram &MzReZn} {investiturum &Na} episcoporum concessit: ego quoque Leo, servus servorum Dei, episcopus, cum cuncto clero {trs. &Pe} ac Romano populo constituimus, confirmamus {confirmavimus &Mz} et corroboramus {corroboravimus &Mz} et per nostram apostolicam auctoritatem concedimus atque largimur domino Ottoni primo, regi Theutonicorum, eiusque successoribus huius regni Italiae in perpetuum {ordinandi add. &NaMzPeRe} sibi facultatem eligendi successorem atque {ac &Re} summae {summum &Mz} sedis apostolicae pontificem ordinandi ac per hoc archiepiscopos seu {om. &Mz} {et &Pe} episcopos ut {et &Pe} ipsi ab eo investituram accipiant {recipiant &Mz} et consecrationem, unde debent {debet &Na}, exceptis his quos imperator Romano {om. Zn} pontifici et archiepiscopis concessit; et ut {trs. &MzNaPeRe} nemo deinceps cuiuscunque dignitatis {etatis &Pe} vel religionis eligendi successorem {*om. &NaMzPeReZn} vel patricium {patriarcham &Pe} vel pontificem summae {om. &NaMzPeRe} sedis apostolicae, aut quemcunque episcopum ordinandi habeat facultatem absque consensu ipsius imperatoris." et infra, "Si a clero et a {*om. &NaMzPeReZn} populo {papa &MzPe} quis {aliquis &Pe} eligatur episcopus, nisi a supradicto rege laudetur et investiatur {trs.4132 &MzNaPeRe}, non consecretur." Ex his {*quibus &NaRe} colligitur quod aliqui {alii &Mz} reges in {*et &Re} {om. &Pe} imperatores promovendi potestatem et ius eligendi summum pontificem habuerunt. igitur {*Ergo &MzNaRe} talis potestas vel {*sive &NaMzPeRe} ius potest imperatori competere.	Again, as we find in the same distinction, c. In synodo [c.23, col.241], Pope Leo says the following, "In the synod gathered together at Rome in the church of the Holy Saviour. At the instance of the blessed Hadrian bishop of the apostolic see who granted to the lord Charles, most victorious king of the Franks and the Lombards, the dignity of the patriciate, the [right to] ordain to the apostolic see and the [right] to invest bishops; I too, Leo, bishop and servant of the servants of God, together with the whole clergy and Roman people, determine, confirm and strengthen and, by our apostolic authority, concede and grant to the lord Otto I, king of the Teutons, and to his successors in this kingdom forever, the capability of choosing his successor and of ordaining the pontiff of the highest apostolic see, and, therefore [of ordaining] archbishops or bishops, so that they accept investiture and consecration from him from whom they ought, with those excepted [the ordaining of] whom the emperor has granted to the Roman pontiff and archbishops, and so that no one then of any dignity or piety has the capability, without the consent of that emperor, of choosing the patriarch or pontiff of the highest apostolic see or of ordaining any bishop. ... If someone is chosen as bishop by the clergy and people he will not be consecrated unless he is confirmed and invested by the above king." We gather from these that some kings and emperors have had the power to promote and the power to elect the supreme pontiff. Therefore such power or right can belong to the emperor.
Item ex concilio colligitur, ut habetur eadem dist. 63, capitulo {*om. &NaMzPeRe} c. Cum longe, sic, {habetur add. &NaMzPeRe} "Cum longe lateque {late &Pe} diffuso tractatu {*tractu &MzPeZn} terrarum commeantium impenditur {*impeditur &NaMzPeReZn} celeritas nunciorum, quo aut {autem &Pe} nequeant {non querat &MzPe} {*non queat &NaReZn} regibus audientibus {om. &NaMzPeRe} decedentis praesulis transitus notificari, aut de successore {successione &Mz} morituri {*morientis &MzNaReZn} {meritis &Pe} episcopi libera principis electio expectari," {*etc add. &NaMzPeRe} et infra, "Unde placuit omnibus pontificibus {episcopis &Pe} Hispaniae atque {et &NaMzPeRe} Galaciae {*Gallie &PeZn}, et {*ut &NaMzPeReZn}, salvo privilegio uniuscuiusque provinciae, licitum maneat deinceps Tholetano pontifici, quousque {*quoscumque &NaMzPeReZn} regalis potestas elegerit et iam dicti episcopi Tholetani {*trs. &MzZn} iudicium dignos {dignus &Pe} esse probaverit, in {et &Re} quibuslibet provinciis in praecedentium {decedentium &NaMzPeRe} sedibus praeficere {om. &NaRe} praesules." Ex quibus verbis sequitur {*habetur &NaMzPeRe} quod aliquando reges habuerunt {haberent &Mz} potestatem eligendi episcopos.	Again, as we find in the same dist. 63, c. Cum longe [c.25, col.242], we gather the following from the Council, "When the speed of messengers coming and going is impeded by their track stretching far and wide through the lands so that either the passing of a dying bishop can not be notified to kings who are listening or a free election of the successor of the dying bishop can not be expected of the prince [[is this right?]] etc ... Whence it has pleased all the bishops of Spain and Gaul that, saving the privilege of each province, it should remain permissible for the archbishop of Toledo to put in charge in any provinces in the above mentioned sees whatever bishops the royal power has chosen who have been approved as worthy in the judgement of the same bishop of Toledo." We find from these words that kings sometimes had the power to elect bishops.
Amplius imperator {*imperatores &NaRe} et laici possunt interesse electionibus episcoporum. Igitur {*Ergo &MzNaRe} {*et add. &NaPeRe} {etiam add. &Mz} imperatori potest competere ius eligendi summum pontificem. Consequentia tenet quia de uno et de alio videtur esse eadem ratio {*tenet ... ratio: videtur ex hoc probari quod eadem ratio videtur esse de uno et de alio &NaRe} {tenet ... ratio: videtur ex hoc probari quod /quia Pe\ de uno et de alio videtur esse eadem ratio &MzPe}. Antecedens probatur per illud {*octave add. &NaMzPeRe} Synodi quod ponitur dist. 63, c. Adrianus {*infra add. &NaRe} ubi postquam synodus diffinivit ut nullus {*laicorum add. &NaMzPeRe} semet inserat electioni episcoporum subiungit ibi {in &NaRe} haec verba, "Si vero quisquam laicorum {si vero quisquam laicorum om. &Pe} ad contractandum {concertandum Zn} vel {*et &NaMzPeReZn} cooperandum invitatur ab ecclesia, licet huiusmodi laico {laici &Pe} {*om. Zn} cum reverentia, si forte {om. &Mz} voluerit, obtemperare sese {*se &NaMzPeReZn} assistentibus {*asciscentibus Zn}." Ubi {ut &Mz} dicit glossa, "Hic invitantur laici ad electionem." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod laici saltem invitati {invitatine &Mz?Pe} in electione {electionem &Mz} episcoporum votum {*vocem &NaMzPeRe} habere possunt {*trs. &MzNaRe} et ita potestatis huiusmodi {huius &NaRe} sunt capaces.	Further, emperors and laymen can take part in the elections of bishops. The right to elect the supreme pontiff also, therefore, can belong to the emperor. The consequence seems to be proved by the fact that there seems to be the same reason for the one as for the other. The antecedent is proved by what is included in dist. 63, c. Adrianus [c.2, col.235] from the eighth synod where the following words are added after the synod has pronounced that no layman should involve himself in the election of bishops, "If, however, any layman is invited by the church to consider and to co-operate, he is permitted, if by chance he so wishes, with reverence to obey those who admit him." The gloss at this point [col.314] says, "Here laymen are invited to an election." We gather from these words that at least those laymen invited to the election of bishops can have a voice and so are capable of power of this kind.
Item, ut habetur dist. 63, c. Valentinianus, {om. &MzPe} {*de eodem Valentiniano legitur quod episcopis convocatis pro electione add. &NaRe} episcopus {episcopi &NaMzPeRe} Mediolanensis, quando fuit electus beatus Ambrosius dicit {*dixerit &NaRe} {dixit &MzPe} sic {*trs. &MzNaRe}, "Nostis aperte, eruditi divinis eloquiis, qualem oporteat {oportet &NaMzPeRe} esse pontificem et quia non decet eum verbo solo sed etiam conversatione gubernare subiectos, et totius {totus &Pe} populi {*om. &NaMzPeReZn} semetipsum imitatorem virtutis ostendere testemque {testem quoque &NaMzPeRe} doctrinae conversationem bonam habere. {trs. &NaRe} Talem itaque {utique &Pe} in pontificali constituite {constituere &Pe} sede cui et nos, qui {om. &Mz} gubernamus imperium, sincere nostra capita {trs. &Pe} submittamus et eius monita, dum tanquam homines delinquemus {deliquerimus MzNa} {*delinquimus &ReZn} {relinquerimus &Pe} necessario {necessaria &NaRe} veluti curantis {corrigentis &Mz} {et ?cautis &Pe} medicamina {medicamine &Pe} suscipiamus." Post quae {haec &Pe} verba {*ibidem add. &MzNaRe} immediate subiungitur, "Haec enim {*autem &MzNaRe} cum {om. &Re} dixisset imperator, petiit synodus {synodum &Mz} ut magis ipse decerneret {*discerneret &NaMzPeRe} sapiens et pius existens." Ex quibus verbis ut videtur {trs.231 &Mz} infertur aperte quod secundum assertionem synodi praedictae {*supradictae &NaRe} imperator poterat {potuit &Mz} eligere episcopum Mediolanensem quamvis noluerit. Unde et ait episcopis illis, "Super vos inquit {om. &NaMzPeRe} est talis electio." Ex quo enim imperator eligere recusavit, ad episcopos illos pertinebat electio.	Again, as we find in dist 63, c. Valentinianus [c.3, col.235], we read about that Valentinianus that when the bishops had been called together for the election of the bishop of Milan and blessed Ambrose had been elected he spoke as follows, "You know plainly, you who have been instructed in divine eloquence, what kind of man a bishop should be and that it is not fitting that he govern those subject to him only by his word but also by his way of life, and that it is appropriate that he himself be an imitator of every virtue and lead a good life as a witness to his teaching. And so appoint such a man in this episcopal see before whom we who govern the empire may sincerely lower our head and whose advice we may receive of necessity, when we fail as men do, as the remedy of one who heals." After those words the following are immediately added in the same place, "When the emperor had said this, however, the synod besought him that it should rather be he who was to separate out a wise and pious man." It seems that these words clearly infer that according to the declaration of that synod the emperor was able to choose the bishop of Milan, although he did not wish to do so. And so he said to those bishops, "Such an election falls on you." For because the emperor refused to elect, the election pertained to those bishops.
Rursus non minus pertinebat imperatori ius vel potestas {*pertinebat ... potestas: potest imperatori competere ius &MzNaRe} eligendi summum pontificem quam concedere episcopatus pro suae voluntatis arbitrio ad preces summi pontificis, quoniam {*quia &MzNaRe} minus esse {*om. &NaRe} videtur {trs. &Mz} eligere summum pontificem quam summum pontificem rogare debere {om. &Pe} {*trs. &MzNaRe} imperatorem ut ipse imperator concedat episcopatus personis idoneis. {*Sed imperator aliquando potuit ad libitum suum concedere episcopatus personis idoneis add. &NaRe} ad preces summi pontificis. Unde Leo Papa, ut habetur dist. 63, c. Reatina, scribit {*scribens &NaMzPeRe} Lotario et Ludovico Augusto {*Augustis &NaRe} ait, "Vestram mansuetudinem deprecamur quatenus Colono humili diacono eandem {om. &Na} ecclesiam," {*scilicet Reatinam add. &NaMzPeRe}, "ad regendum concedere dignemini, ut, vestra licentia accepta, ibidem {*eum add. &NaMzPeReZn} Deo {domino &Mz} adiuvante, consecrare valeamus episcopum. Sin {*Si &MzPeZn} autem in praedicta eccelsia nolueritis ut praeficiatur episcopus, Tusculanam {*Ausculanum &NaReZn} ecclesiam, quae viduata existit, illi vestra severitas {*serenitas &NaMzPeReZn} dignetur concedere ut, consecratus a nostro praesulatu Deo omnipotenti vestroque imperio grates {gratias &NaMzPeRe} peragere valeat." Ex quibus verbis habetur quod imperator poterat {*potuit &NaRe} concedere episcopatus personis idoneis; ergo et sibi potest {debuit &Re} [[in margin: competit in text with erasure marks]] competere ius eligendi summum pontificem.	Again, the right to elect the supreme pontiff can no less belong to the emperor than the right to grant episcopates as he himself wills and wishes at the request of the supreme pontiff, because it seems less to choose the supreme pontiff than for the supreme pontiff to have to ask the emperor to grant episcopates to suitable persons. But the emperor has sometimes been able to grant episcopates at his own pleasure to suitable persons at the request of the supreme pontiff. Hence, as we find in dist. 63, c. Reatina [c.16, col.239], Pope Leo, when writing to the emperors Lotarius and Ludovicus, says, "We beseech you in your clemency to deign to grant to the humble deacon Colonus rule of that same church," that is Reatina, "so that with your leave received we can, with God's help consecrate him as bishop in that place. If, however, you do not want a bishop placed in authority over that church, would your serene highnesses deign to grant him the church of Ausculanus which remains deprived [of a head], so that, consecrated by our papal dignity, he can offer thanks to the omnipotent God and to your imperial highnesses." We learn from these words that the emperor could grant episcopates to suitable people; the right to choose the supreme pontiff, therefore, also belongs to him.
Item illi potest {trs. &Mz} compete {*competere &NaMzPeRe} ius eligendi summum pontificem cuius iussione {vissione &Re} [[aliter iussione in margin]] potest fieri ordinatio summi pontificis; sed iussione imperatoris potest fieri ordinatio summi pontificis, {sed iussione ... pontificis om. &NaPeRe} quia ex gestis Romanorum Pontificum, ut legitur {habetur &Mz} dist. 63, c. Agatho, {*sic habetur, "Hic," scilicet add. &NaMzPeRe} Agatho papa, accepit {*"suscepit &NaMzPeReZn}, ab illo scilicet imperatore divalem {*ab illo ... divalem: divalem," ab eo scilicet ab /om. MzPe\ imperatore &NaMzPeRe}, id est regiam {*id est regiam om. &NaMzPeReZn} "epistolam {om. Zn} secundum suam postulationem, {secundum suam postulationem om. &NaMzPeRe} per quam levata {relevata &NaReZn} {*revelata &MzPeZn} est quantitas {*pecunie add. &MzNaRe} {pertinentium add. &Pe} quae solita erat dari pro ordinatione summi {*om. Zn} pontificis {*facienda add. &NaMzPeReZn}; sic tamen ut si contingeret {*contigerit &NaPeReZn} post eius transitum electionem fieri non debeat ordinari qui electus fuerit, nisi prius decretum generale introducatur in regiam {regimina &Re} urbem secundum {scilicet &Mz} antiquam consuetudinem, ut cum eorum conscientia et iussione debeat ordinatio {om. &NaRe} prosperari." Igitur {ergo &Mz} imperatori potest competere ius eligendi summum pontificem {igitur ... pontificem om. &NaRe}.	Again, the right to choose the supreme pontiff can belong to him by whose order the ordination of the supreme pontiff can be carried out; but by the emperor's order the ordination of the supreme pontiff can be carried out, because we find the following in the Deeds of the Roman Pontiffs, as we read in dist. 63, c. Agatho [c.21, col.240], "This man, "that is Pope Agatho, "received at his own request an imperial letter," that is, from that emperor, "by which the quantity of money which it was customary to pay for carrying out the ordination of a bishop was revealed; the result was that if it happened that the election was carried out after his passing, he who was chosen should not be ordained unless, in accord with the ancient custom, a general decree first be introduced into the royal city, so that with their knowledge and at their order the ordination should thrive." Therefore, the right to choose the supreme pontiff can belong to the emperor.
Discipulus In {item &Pe} verbis praescriptis quoddam insinuatur mirabile, quod scilicet {si &Pe} electio summi pontificis debuit praesentari imperatori antequam ordinaretur in summum pontificem. Ex quo sequi videtur {sequi videtur: sequitur vidi &Re} quod electus in summum pontificem {ex quo ... pontificem om. &Pe} per imperatorem debuit confirmari quia {quod &Mz} electio aliqua nulli debet praesentari nisi ad quem etiam {*om. &NaMzPeRe} pertinet eandem confirmare {*trs. &MzNaRe}. Si igitur {ergo &Na} electio summi pontificis imperatori debuit praesentari eadem electio debuit confirmari ab eodem.	Student: Something remarkable seems to be implied in those words, namely that the election of the supreme pontiff should be placed before the emperor before the supreme pontiff is ordained. It seems to follow from this that the one elected as supreme pontiff should be confirmed by the emperor, because any election should only be placed before him to whom it pertains to confirm it. If the election of the supreme pontiff should be placed before the emperor, therefore, that same election should be confirmed by him.
Magister Videtur {*Respondetur &NaMzPeRe} quod non semper ad eundem {illud &NaRe} {*illum &MzPe} pertinet confirmare aliquam electionem cui debet praesentari. Unde et nonnullis apparet quod electio imperatoris debet nunc praesentari summo pontifici per quem tamen minime {om. &Na} est {*trs. &MzRe} confirmandus. Praesentabatur etiam {*ergo &MzNaRe} {igitur &Pe} electio summi pontificis imperatori, non ut imperator confirmaret eandem electionem sed ut imperator examinaret eandem {*electionem &NaMzPeRe}, qua examinata imperator consentiret eidem electioni et mandaret ut omnes subiecti sibi {*trs. &MzNaPeRe} haberent electum pro vero {*papa et pro vero add. &MzNaPeRe} summo pontifice postquam esset ordinatus. Hoc {haec &Pe} Gratianus in supradicta {*sepedicta &MzNaRe} dist. 63, para. {c. &Pe} {?secundum &Mz} Principibus testari videtur cum {qui &Mz} ait, "Principibus vero ac {*atque &MzNaReZn} imperatoribus electiones Romanorum pontificum atque {ac &Re} aliorum episcoporum referendas usus atque {*et &MzNaRe} constitutio {constitutiones &Pe} tradidit pro schismaticorum atque haereticorum discussionibus {*dissentionibus &NaMzPeZn} {discessionibus &Re}, quibus nonnunquam ecclesia Dei concussa periclitabatur; contra quos {quas &MzPe} legibus {legimus &Pe} fidelissimorum imperatorum frequenter ecclesia Dei {*om. &NaMzPeReZn} munita legitur. Repraesentabantur {praesentabatur &Na} {praesentabat &Re} {*Repraesentabatur &MzPeZn} ergo electiones {*electio &NaMzPeReZn} catholicorum principibus, {pertinet add. &Mz} ut eorum auctoritate roborata nullus haereticorum vel schismaticorum auderet {audeat &NaMzPeRe} contraire, et ut ipsi principes tanquam devotissimi filii in eum consentirent, quem sibi in patrem eligi {om. &Mz} viderent, ut {*et &NaMzPeReZn} ei {eis &Pe} in omnibus suffragatores existerent." sicut {*Sic &NaRe} secundum quosdam modo repraesentatur electio imperatoris summo pontifici non ut papa electionem confirmet {confirmat &Mz} vel ut imperialem sibi conferat {confirmat &Mz} {*trs. &NaRe} dignitatem, cum eo ipso quod sit {*est &NaRe} electus sit {est &Mz} imperator verus {*trs. &MzNaPeRe}, sed ut auctoritate papae electio {*electione &NaRe} imperatoris sic {om. &NaRe} roborata nullus clericorum vel {*aliorum add. &NaRe} adhaerentium papae {om. &Pe} qui imperii dissipationem affectant, quorum ut creditur est his temporibus maxima multitudo, audeat contraire {trs. &Mz} et ut ipse papa, tanquam zelator imperii et boni communis, consentiat in eum {*trs.231 &MzNaPeRe} et eidem in omnibus maxime {trs.312 &Mz} in coertione malorum coadiutor existat.	Master: The reply is that the confirming of some election does not always pertain to him to whom it ought to be placed before. Hence it also seems to some people that at this time the election of an emperor should be placed before the supreme pontiff, yet it ought by no means be confirmed by him. The election of the supreme pontiff was placed before the emperor, therefore, not so that the emperor would confirm that election but so that the emperor would examine the election. When it was examined the emperor would consent to that election and command that all those subject to him should hold the elect as true pope and true supreme pontiff after he had been ordained. Gratian seems to attest to this when he says, in the oft-quoted dist. 63, para. Principibus (col.326), "Indeed custom and order have handed it down that on account of the dissensions of schismatics and heretics the elections of Roman pontiffs and others bishops should be referred to princes and emperors; because the church of God has sometimes been shaken by these people and put at risk, we read that it has frequently been defended against them by the laws of most faithful emperors. The election of catholics was handed over to princes, therefore, so that strengthened by their authority no heretic or schismatic would dare to oppose it, and so that those princes would be in accord as most devout sons with him whom they saw elected as their father and would become his supporters in everything." In the same way, according to some people, the election of the emperor is now placed before the pope, not for the pope to confirm the election or to confer the imperial dignity on him, since he is a true emperor by virtue of the fact that he has been elected, but so that no cleric or other adherent of the pope who strives for the destruction of the empire, of whom we believe there is a very great number in these times, dares to oppose the election of an emperor strengthened by the authority of the pope, and so that the pope himself, as one zealous for the empire and the common good, is in accord with him and becomes his helper in everything, especially in restraining the wicked.
Discipulus Pro assertione vel opinione praedicta {trs.3421 &Mz} nitere adhuc {*pro assertione ... adhuc: adhuc pro praedicta assertione nitere &NaRe} allegare.	Student: Try to argue further for that assertion.
Magister Videtur quod praedicta assertio possit tali ratione probari. Si imperatori non possit {*potest &MzNaRe} competere ius eligendi summum pontificem, hoc erit quia hoc aliquo iure irrevocabili vel {*sive &MzNaRe} indispensabili extitit {*existit &NaMzPeRe} prohibitum. Sed {*Si &NaMzPeRe} cum {*enim &MzNaRe} {om. &Pe} in {*om. &NaMzPeRe} nullo {communi add. &Pe} iure prohibeatur {*prohiberetur &MzNaRe} {prohibetur &Pe} imperatori {*imperator &NaRe} eligere summum pontificem ita posset {*ipse add. &NaRe} eligere sicut quicunque alius; sed nullo iure irrevocabili sive indispensabili prohibetur imperatori {*imperator &NaRe} {imperatorem &Pe} eligere summum pontificem; igitur {*ergo &NaRe} ius eligendi summum pontificem {ita posset ... pontificem om. &Mz} potest sibi competere. Maior videtur clara {*trs. &MzNaRe} et {*om. &MzNaRe} Minor probatur quia {quod &Re} si imperatori {*imperator &NaPeRe} prohiberetur {*prohibetur &MzNaRe} eligere summum pontificem, aut prohiberetur {*prohibetur &MzNaRe} iure divino aut {*iure add. &NaMzPeRe} naturali aut iure humano. Sed non prohibetur iure divino, quia ius divinum in scripturis divinis habemus, dist. 8, {*c. add. &Pe} Quo iure, sed {scilicet &Re} nunquam {*nusquam &NaRe} legitur in scripturis divinis quod imperator electioni summi pontificis non debeat interesse. igitur {*Ergo &MzNaRe} hoc iure divino minime prohibetur.	Master: It seems that that assertion can be proved by the following argument. If the right to elect the supreme pontiff does not belong to the emperor, this will be because it is prohibited by some irrevocable or indispensable law. For if the emperor were not prohibited by some law from electing the supreme pontiff, he could elect him like anyone else; but the emperor is not prohibited by any irrevocable or indispensable law from electing the supreme pontiff; therefore the right to elect the supreme pontiff belongs to him. The major [premise] seems clear. The minor [premise] is proved, because if the emperor is prohibited from electing the supreme pontiff, he is prohibited either by divine law or by natural law or by human law. But he is not prohibited by divine law because divine law is found in the divine scriptures (dist. 8, c. Quo iure [c.1, col12]), but nowhere in the divine scriptures do we read that the emperor ought not involve himself in the election of the supreme pontiff. Therefore this is not prohibited by divine law.
Discipulus Videtur quod hoc sit prohibitum {*in add. &NaMzPeRe} iure divino saltem implicite. Nam solis ecclesiasticis viris qui sunt {qui sunt: propter &Pe} successores apostolorum {*conceditur add. &NaMzPeRe} a iure divino {huius add. &Na} potestas eligendi praelatos inferiores summo pontifice. conceditur {*om. &MzPeRe} Ergo multo fortius a iure divino huiusmodi {huius &PeRe} potestas eligendi {praelatos ... eligendi om. &Na} summum pontificem solis viris ecclesiasticis est concessa, et per consequens non potest imperatori competere. Antecedens probatur per hoc quod solis apostolis qui erant ecclesiastici viri concessa fuit potestas eligendi {trs. &Pe} LXXII discipulos, quorum officium {*tipum &NaRe} gerunt inferiores praelati, {*teste Anacleto qui, ut legitur add. &NaMzPeRe} dist. 21, c. In novo, ait, "Videntes autem ipsi apostoli messem esse multam et {om. &Pe} operarios paucos, rogaverunt dominum messis ut mitteret operarios in messem suam; unde ab eis electi sunt 72 discipuli, quorum typum gerunt presbyteri atque {ac &Re} in eorum loco sunt constituti in ecclesia." Si igitur soli apostoli habebant {*habuerunt &NaMzPeRe} potestatem eligendi successorem {*om. &NaMzPeRe} 72 discipulorum {*discipulos &MzNaRe}, soli successores apostolorum habent potestatem eligendi successorem {*successores &NaMzPeRe} 72 discipulorum, quales sunt inferiores praelati. igitur {*Ergo &MzNaRe} ex iure divino habetur, scilicet evangelico, {scilicet evangelico om. &Pe} {*trs.231 &MzNaRe} quod soli viri ecclesiastici habent ius eligendi praelatos, et per consequens ex iure divino concluditur quod nec imperator nec alius {*aliquis &MzNaRe} laicus potest habere ius eligendi summum pontificem.	Student: This seems to be prohibited at least implicitly in divine law. For the power to elect lesser prelates than the supreme pontiff is granted by divine law only to men of the church who are the successors of the apostles. It is much more strongly the case, therefore, that a power of this kind to elect the supreme pontiff has been granted by divine law only to men of the church, and, consequently, can not belong to the emperor. The antecedent is proved by the fact that it was only to the apostles, who were men of the church, that the power of choosing disciples, who are the type of lesser prelates, was granted, as Anacletus attests who says, as we read in dist. 21, c. In novo [c.2, col.69], "When the apostles saw, however, that the harvest was great and the labourers few, they asked the lord of the harvest to send labourers to the harvest; hence 72 disciples were chosen by them, and these are the type of the priests who were established in the church in their place." If only the apostles had the power to choose the 72 disciples, therefore, only the successors of the apostles have the power to choose the successors of the 72 disciples, and these are the lesser prelates. We find by divine, that is gospel, law that only men of the church have the right to elect prelates, and, consequently, we conclude by divine law that neither the emperor nor any layman can have the right to elect the supreme pontiff.
Magister Ad hoc respondetur quod quamvis Christus voluerit quod apostoli rogarent ipsum ut mitteret operarios, scilicet 72 discipulos, in messem suam, non tamen {om. &Pe} voluit ut soli successores apostolorum in apostolica dignitate haberent potestatem eligendi successores 72 discipulorum {om. &Pe}. Ex hoc enim {om. &Mz} sequerentur duae {duo &Na} absurditates, una est {*om. &MzNaRe} quod canonici ecclesiarum cathedralium {*trs. &MzNaRe} non possent habere ius eligendi episcopos, quia illi non sunt successores apostolorum; alia est {*om. &MzNaRe} quod diaconi, cardinales {*trs. &MzNaRe} et presbyteri non possunt {*possent &MzNaRe} habere ius eligendi summum pontificem cum non fuerint {*sint &NaMzPeRe} successores apostolorum, quia qui non potest habere ius eligendi episcopos inferiores {trs. &Mz} non potest habere ius eligendi {episcopos ... eligendi om. &Pe} summum pontificem.	Master: The reply to this is that although Christ wanted the apostles to ask him to send labourers, that is the 72 disciples, into the harvest, yet he did not want only the successors of the apostles in the apostolic dignity to have the power to elect the successors of the 72 disciples. For from this would follow two absurdities, one that the canons of cathedral churches, because they are not the successors of the apostles, could not have the right to elect their bishops, the other that cardinals, deacons and priests, since they are not the successors of the apostles, could not have the right to elect the supreme pontiff, because he who can not have the right to elect lesser bishops can not have the right to elect the supreme pontiff.
Discipulus Arguendo {*argumentando &NaRe} {arguitive &Pe} dixisti quod iure divino non prohibetur imperatori {*imperator &NaPeRe} eligere summum pontificem. Nunc eandem argumentationem prosequaris {*prosequere &NaRe}.	Student: You have said in adducing proof that the emperor is not prohibited by divine law from choosing the supreme pontiff. Would you now follow up that line of argument?
Magister Iure etiam {om. &Mz} naturali {arguitur vel add. &Pe} videtur quod imperator minime prohibeatur {prohibetur &Pe} eligere summum pontificem, quia hoc dictamini rationis naturalis minime videtur {*trs. &MzNaPeRe} obviare. Nec prohibetur iure humano irrevocabili sive indispensabili, quia omne ius humanum quo prohibetur est canonicum vel civile; sed utrumque est revocabile seu dispensabile; ergo nullo iure humano irrevocabili seu indispensabili prohibetur. Quare ergo {*om. &NaMzPeRe} ius eligendi summum pontificem potest imperatori competere.	Master: It seems that by natural law too the emperor is not prohibited from choosing the supreme pontiff, because this does not seem to conflict with any precept of natural reason. Nor is he prohibited by any irrevocable or indispensable human law, because every human law by which one is prohibited is either canon [law] or civil [law]; but each of these is revocable or dispensable; he is prohibited, therefore, by no irrevocable or indispensable human law. The right to elect the supreme pontiff, therefore, can belong to the emperor.
CAP. IV. Discipulus Allegationes pro ista {*om. &NaRe} opinione secunda tam evidentes mihi videntur ut non curem ad ipsas responsiones audire, et ideo dic quomodo ad allegationes in contrarium respondetur.	Chapter 4 Student: The arguments for the second opinion seem so plain to me that I do not care to hear replies to them. And so tell me how reply is made to arguments for the opposite view.
Magister Ad primam earum {*ipsarum &NaMzPeRe} dicitur quod imperator et alii laici multorum iurium spiritualium sunt capaces, quia sunt capaces omnium illorum iurium spiritualium quae possunt alicui competere non propter ordinationem quam {*ordinationem quam: ordinem quem &MzNaRe} habeat {habeant &Mz} nec propter aliquod divinum officium cui mancipatus {mancipati &Mz} existat {existant &Mz} sed propter communem utilitatem ecclesiae, hoc est congregationis fidelium; et ideo, cum ius eligendi summum pontificem non competat {competit &Pe} alicui ratione ordinis nec ratione officii {*ratione officii: propter aliquod officium divinum &NaRe} cui habens [[aliter hoc: margin Re]] ius eligendi sit {est &Pe} mancipatus sed {scilicet &Na} propter communem ecclesiae utilitatem {*trs. &MzNaPeRe}, ut scilicet ecclesia habeat caput {apud add. &Mz} quod ipsam {imperium &Mz} regat, ideo hoc ius potest cadere ad {*in &NaMzPeRe} imperatorem et alios laicos. Quod enim plurium iurium spiritualium laici sunt capaces, {*ita add. &NaMzPeRe} ut etiam causas spirituales valeant {valeat &Re} terminare, hoc {*om. &MzNaRe} {ut &Pe} testatur glossa Extra, De iudiciis, c. Decernimus {decrevimus &Mz} dicens, "Papa vero civiles, criminales et spirituales {scilicet add. &MzNaRe} causas potest laico delegare, {*arg. add. &MzNaReZn} 88 {*32 &NaMzPeReZn} dist. Honoratus, 10, q. 3, Illud, 14 dist. {*Honoratus ... dist.om. &NaMzPeReZn} {*c. Praeter add. Zn} {*# add. &MzNaReZn} {c. add. &Pe} Verum, {*2 /9 Mz\ /14 Pe\ q. 5 add. MzNaPeReZn}, {*Mennam add. Zn} {Mere nam add. &NaMzPeRe} et 63 dist. In synodo et {*c. add. &NaMzPeReZn} Adrianus et 4 {*10 &MzNaReZn} q. 6 {*3 &NaMzPeReZn} {*c. add. &PeZn} {in add. &Mz} Illud." Igitur quod {*Igitur quod: cum ergo /igitur Pe\ &NaMzPeRe} dicit glossa allegata ibidem quod laici {*iura add. &NaMzPeRe} mere spiritualia possidere non possunt, si intelligat de iuribus mere spiritualibus quae nulli competere possunt nisi ratione ordinis vel {ratione add. &Pe} divini officii {*cui add. &NaMzPeRe} est aliquis deputatus, sicut est ius consecrandi ecclesias {*et add. &NaMzPeRe} ordinandi clericos et celebrandi missas et quae {*om. &NaMzPeRe} huiusmodi, {huius &Re} sunt {*sic &NaMzPeRe} iura mere spiritualia nec secundum iura divina nec secundum iura humana {*trs.52341 &MzNaRe} possunt laico {*laici &NaMzPeRe} competere {*possidere &NaMzPeRe}; si autem intelligat quod {*de &MzNaRe} {talibus quod add. &Pe} iuribus mere spiritualibus quae ideo dicuntur iura mere {trs. &Mz} spiritualia quia solum ad {*trs. &MzNaPeRe} officium spirituale non seculare {*officium ... seculare: effectum spiritualem non secularem &NaPeRe} tantummodo et {*om. &NaRe} principaliter {principatus &Re} [[corrected interlinear]] ordinantur, {trs.312 &Mz} {ordinatur &Re} sic secundum constitutiones {institutiones &Mz} et consuetudines humanas quae iam ordinatae sunt et de facto observantur {*servantur &NaMzPeRe} seculares {*laici &MzNaRe} {om. &Pe} iura mere spiritualia possidere non possunt; quae tamen possiderent {*possidere possent &NaMzPeRe} si huiusmodi constitutiones et consuetudines {et consuetudines om. &Re} humanae essent revocatae quae ex causa rationabili revocari possent, {quae ... possent om. &Pe} quemadmodum aliquando constitutiones contrariae {*trs. &MzNaRe} et consuetudines humanae rationabiliter conservabantur {*servabantur &NaMzPeRe}; et ideo huiusmodi iurium laici sunt capaces absolute, quamvis non salvis {*servatis &NaMzPeRe} constitutionibus et consuetudinibus humanis quae nunc servantur.	Master: To the first of them it is said that the emperor and other laymen are capable of many spiritual rights, because they are capable of all those spiritual rights which can belong to someone not on account of the order which he holds nor on account of some divine office to which he is dedicated but on account of the common benefit of the church, that is of the congregation of the faithful; and therefore, since the right to choose the supreme pontiff does not belong to anyone by reason of their order nor on account of some divine office to which the one having the right to elect is dedicated but on account of the common benefit of the church, that is, so that the church will have a head which rules it, this right can as a result fall to the emperor and other laymen. For the gloss on Extra, De iudiciis, c. Decernimus [col.522] attests that laymen are capable of many spiritual rights, so that they can even determine spiritual cases, when it says, "Indeed the pope can delegate civil, criminal and spiritual cases to a layman, as argued in dist. 32, c. Praeter, para. Verum, 2, q. 5, c. Mennam, dist. 63, c. In synodo and c. Adrianus and 10, q. 3, c. Illud." Since, therefore, the gloss adduced says in the same place that laymen can not possess rights which are merely spiritual, if it means merely spiritual rights which can not belong to anyone except by reason of his order or of the divine office allotted to him, such as the right of consecrating churches, of ordaining clergy, of celebrating masses and the like, laymen can not possess rights merely spiritual in this way according to human laws or according to divine laws; if it means merely spiritual rights, however, which are called merely spiritual rights because they are only principally disposed to spiritual effect alone not to secular [effect], laymen can not possess merely spiritual rights, in this sense, according to human constitutions and customs which have now been enacted and are in fact observed; yet they could possess them if such human constitutions and customs, which could be revoked on reasonable grounds, had been revoked, just as opposed human constitutions and customs were sometimes rationally observed. Laymen are capable absolutely of rights of this kind, therefore, although not with the human constitutions and customs observed which are now observed.
Ad secundum {*secundam &NaMzPeRe} dicitur quod sicut aliqua secularia papae convenire {*competere &MzNaPeRe} possunt {*trs.321 &MzNaPeRe}, licet praesit in spiritualibus, sic {sicut &Pe} aliqua iura spiritualia possunt competere imperatori, licet praesit {in spiritualibus ... praesit om. &Mz} in temporalibus sive in {*om. &NaMzPeRe} secularibus, et ideo sicut iura potissime spiritualia {*secularia &NaMzPeRe} non potest habere {*papa, ita iura potissime spiritualia non potest habere add. &NaMzPeRe} imperator. Huiusmodi autem ius spirituale potissime {*trs. &MzNaPeRe} non est ius eligendi summum pontificem, sed huiusmodi ius potissime spirituale est illud ius quod ratione ordinis competit ecclesiasticis viris, quale ius cadere non potest in laicum.	To the second [argument] it is said that just as some secular [rights] can belong to the pope, although he rules in spiritual affairs, so some spiritual rights can belong to the emperor, although he rules in temporal or secular affairs; and therefore, just as the pope can not have rights which are chiefly secular, so the emperor can not have rights which are chiefly spiritual. The right to choose the supreme pontiff, however, is not a chiefly spiritual right of this kind, but a chiefly spiritual right of this kind is that right which belongs to men of the church by reason of their order, the kind of right that can not fall to a layman.
Ad tertium {*tertiam &NaMzPeRe} dicitur quod imperator inquantum imperator secularibus debet esse contentus, et hoc intendit {*intelligit &MzNaRe} Nicolaus Papa dist. 10 {8 &Pe} {*c. add. &Pe} Imperium. Sed tamen imperator inquantum christianus, {et add. &Pe} catholicus et Romanus potest intromittere se in {*de &MzNaRe} spiritualibus. Et ita {*om. &NaRe} licet non {trs. &Pe} ratione imperatoriae dignitatis {*maiestatis &NaMzPeRe} tamen {cum &Mz} inquantum christianus et Romanus {catholicus &Pe} {*et Romanus om. &NaRe} potest imperator habere in eligendo {*in eligendo: ius eligendi &NaMzPeRe} summum pontificem potestatem {*om. &NaMzPeRe}.	To the third [argument] it is said that the emperor, as emperor, should be content with secular affairs, and this is what Pope Nicholas means in dist. 10, c. Imperium [c.5, col.20]. But as a christian, a catholic and a Roman, however, the emperor can involve himself in spiritual affairs. And the emperor can have the right to choose the supreme pontiff, although as a christian and not by reason of his imperial majesty.
Ad quartum {*quartam &NaMzPeRe} dicitur {*respondetur &MzNaRe} quod quia potestas secularis et ecclesiastica sunt potestates distinctae, ideo actus qui competunt aliquibus ratione huiusmodi potestatum sunt distincti. Persona tamen habens {*unam add. &NaMzPeRe} potestatem potest habere aliquem actum talem qualem habet persona {personam &NaRe} [[corrected Re]] {scilicet add. &Mz} alia {om. &NaRe} habens aliam potestatem, alioquin {*nec add. &NaRe} papa nec quicunque {*om. &NaMzPeRe} alius {*aliquis &NaMzPeRe} ecclesiasticus praelatus {*trs. &MzNaPeRe} posset {posse &Pe} habere {habet &Pe} quencunque actum iurisdictionis sive potestatis secularis. Eligere autem summum pontificem non competit laico ratione potestatis secularis, et ideo {*tamen &NaRe} {*ille add. &NaMzPeRe} qui habet potestatem secularem potest etiam habere actum et {habere add. &Pe} ius {*et ius om. &MzNaRe} eligendi summum pontificem.	The reply to the fourth [argument] is that because secular power and ecclesiastical power are separate powers, so the acts that pertain to anyone by reason of such powers are separate. Nevertheless a person having one power can have an act which another person having another power has; otherwise neither the pope nor any prelate of the church could have any act of secular jurisdiction or power. To elect the supreme pontiff, however, does not belong to a layman by reason of his secular power, and yet he who has secular power can also have the act of choosing the supreme pontiff.
Ad quintam respondetur {dicitur &Pe} dupliciter: uno modo quod sicut membra diversa in corpore humano {om. &Pe} habent quaedam officia propria et quaedam communia - {contraria &Mz} motum {*movere &NaPeRe} {om. &Mz} [[gap left in text]] enim {*et add. &NaRe} sentire possunt omnia membra humana; percutere {etiam add. &Na} et {in &Pe} portare et plura alia potest homo diversis membris mediantibus {*trs.312 &MzNaRe}; alia autem sunt {om. &Mz} membrorum {*om. &MzNaRe} officia {*trs. &NaRe} propria, {proprium &Pe} sicut videre, audire {trs. &Pe} et huiusmodi - sic in corpore ecclesiae sunt quaedam {*trs. &MzNaPeRe} officia communia clericis et laicis et {om. &Pe} quaedam propria clericis {*et add. &MzPe} quaedam propria laicis. {clericis quaedam propria laicis om. &NaRe} Eligere autem praelatum nisi per consuetudinem et {*vel &NaRe} constitutionem humanam aliter ordinetur ad utrosque quia {*ad utrosque quia om. &NaMzPeRe} eius {*om. &NaRe} officium {trs. &Mz} est {*trs. &NaRe} commune clericis et laicis, spectat {*om. &NaPeRe} et ideo licet eligere summum pontificem competat clericis nihilominus potest competere laicis {et laicis ... laicis om. &Mz}.	There are two replies to the fifth [argument]. One is that just as different members in the human body have some duties that are their own and some that are communal - for all human members can move and feel; a man can strike and carry and many other things because different members help; other duties, however, are proper, such as to see, to hear and the like - so in the body of the church some duties are common to clerics and laymen and some are proper to clerics and some proper to laymen. To choose a prelate, however, unless it is ordained otherwise by custom or human constitution, is a duty common to clerics and laymen and, therefore, although it pertains to clerics to choose the supreme pontiff, it can nevertheless pertain to laymen.
Aliter dicitur quod non est omnino simile de membris in corpore humano et de membris in corpore ecclesiae, licet enim {*om. &NaRe} {trs. &Pe} {omnia &Mz} simile sit {*trs. &MzNaRe} quantum ad multa. Officia enim {om. &Mz} propria membrorum {*trs. &MzNaRe} in corpore humano ex natura sibi {*om. &NaMzPeRe} competunt ita ut unum {om. &Pe} membrorum {*membrum &MzNaRe} defectum alterius ex necessitate quacunque {*trs. &MzNaPeRe} complere {*supplere &NaMzPeRe} non possit; sed membra in corpore ecclesiae quantum ad multa officia et {*etiam &NaPeRe} quodammodo propria possunt mutuo defectus suos supplere. Potest enim clericus supplere vicem et defectum secularium, etiam quo ad illa quae sunt quodammodo secularibus propria {*trs. &MzNaPeRe}, sicut potest {*posset &NaMzPeRe} per multa quae prius tacta sunt {*trs. &NaRe} probari; sic etiam {et &Mz} laici possunt in multis supplere defectum et negligentiam ac etiam malitiam clericorum. Licet igitur {*ergo &MzNaRe} quantumcunque {*quando &NaMzPeRe} corpus ecclesiae esset optime dispositum, quantum permittit status vitae praesentis, diversa officia diversis committi debent {*deberent &NaPeRe}, quando tamen corpus ecclesiae diversos {effectus vel add. &Mz} defectus {effectus &Pe} in diversis membris patitur non est inconveniens immo necessarium quod uni diversa committantur {committant &Re} officia et quod unum membrum alterius fungatur officio. Et ideo est {*esto &NaMzPeRe} quod eligere summum pontificem esset {om. &Pe} quodammodo proprium {sit add. &Pe} clericis, non est {*erit &PeRe} {esset &Na} inconveniens quod in casu summum pontificem vel eligat solus imperator {*trs.2413 &MzNaPeRe} vel cum aliis.	Otherwise, it is said that there is not complete similarity between the members of the human body and the members of the body of the church, although there is similarity in many respects. For the proper duties of the members of the human body come from nature, so that one member can not make good the defect of another for any necessity at all; but the members of the body of the church can, with respect to many duties, even to a certain extent those that are proper, mutually make good each other's defects. For a cleric can make good the vice and defect of seculars, even with respect to those things that are to a certain extent proper to seculars, as could be proved by many [examples] that were touched on earlier; in the same way laymen too can in many cases make good the defect, negligence and even malice of clerics. Although, therefore, when the body of the church was best ordered, in so far as the state of this present life allows, different duties had to be committed to different people, yet when the body of the church suffers different defects in different members, it is not unsuitable, indeed it is necessary, that different duties be committed to one person and that one member discharge the duty of another. And granted, therefore, that to choose the supreme pontiff was to a certain extent proper to clerics, it will not be inappropriate that in a particular case the emperor, either alone or with others, chooses the supreme pontiff.
Ad sextam {quartam &Re} dicitur {*respondetur &MzNaRe} quod modo imperator et alii {*om. &NaMzPeRe} laici non possunt {om. &NaRe} [[add. margin Re]] eligere praelatos ecclesiarum collegiatarum {trs. &Pe} quia hoc est per constitutiones humanas prohibitum, et ideo quando non fuerit {*fuit &NaMzPeRe} prohibitum per constitutiones humanas tunc poterunt {*poterant &NaMzPeRe} {*eligere add. &NaMzPeRe} archiepiscopos {*et add. &NaMzPeRe} episcopos et aliarum ecclesiarum collegiatarum {trs. &Pe} praelatos. eligere {*om. &NaMzPeRe} Omnes igitur {ergo &Na} canones dicentes laicos non debere interesse electionibus praelatorum et {*quod add. &NaMzPeRe} ius eligendi non cadit in aliquem {om. &NaRe} laicum loquuntur pro tempore pro {*om. &NaMzPeRe} quo laicis {*laicos &NaMzPeRe} prohibitum est {*prohibitum est om. &MzNaRe} eligere praelatos {om. &Pe} {*huiusmodi /hic Mz\ est prohibitum add. &MzNaRe} per constitutiones humanas. Et cum dicitur quod laici ex nulla consuetudine possunt habere {om. &NaRe} [[add. margin Re]] ius eligendi praelatos quia, sicut {om. &Pe} allegatum est, talis consuetudo non est rationabilis nec potest praescribi, respondetur {ostendetur &Pe} {*quod add. &NaMzPeRe} talem consuetudinem non esse rationabilem nec posse praescribi non est ex natura rei sed {*est add. &NaMzPeRe} ex constitutione humana. Multa enim sunt {*fiunt &MzNaRe} {om. &Pe} inpraescriptibilia {praescriptibilia &Pe} per solam consuetudinem {constitutionem &Mz} humanam. Talis enim {*ergo &MzNa} {igitur &Re} consuetudo non est modo {*trs.312 &MzNaRe} rationabilis quia est contra iura {om. &Mz} et modo {*om. &NaMzPeRe} non potest praescribi quia hoc, ius {*om. &NaMzPeRe} ne scilicet praescribatur, est ordinatum per iura humana quae {quod &Pe} ex causa rationabili abrogari valerent. {valeret &Pe} Sic igitur {*ergo &MzNaRe} licet de facto constitutum sit ne imperator et alii laici non {*om. &NaMzPeRe} habeant ius eligendi summum pontificem et alios praleatos, hoc tamen {non &Re} posset eis competere si per constitutiones humanas irrevocabiles {*revocabiles &NaMzPeRe} non esset prohibitum.	The reply to the sixth argument is that the emperor and laymen can not now choose the prelates of collegiate churches because this is prohibited by human constitutions, and when it has not been prohibited by human constitutions, therefore, they were able at that time to choose archbishops, bishops and the prelates of other collegiate churches. All the canons, therefore, which say that laymen ought not to involve themselves in the choice of prelates and that the right of choosing does not fall on any layman, are speaking of the time when laymen were forbidden by human constitutions to choose prelates of this kind. And when it is said that by no custom can laymen have a right to choose prelates because, as has been argued, such a custom is not reasonable and can not be prescribed, the reply is that it is not in the nature of things that such a custom is not reasonable and can not be prescribed but is by human regulation. For many things are made unprescribable by human regulation alone. Such a custom is not reasonable now, therefore, because it is against the laws, and can not be prescribed because this fact, namely that it not be prescribed, has been established by human laws, which can for a reasonable cause be annulled. Therefore although it has been established in this way that the emperor and other laymen do not have the right to choose the supreme pontiff and other prelates, it could nevertheless belong to them if it had not been prohibited by revocable human constitutions.

Return to Table of Contents