¹ Rufinus, , Summa C.12 q.1 c.15 (ed. Singer, p. 322).Google Scholar

² Rufinus: ‘sacrosancta videlicet Romana Ecclesia, quae, cum sit apex omnium cathedrarum, cum sit mater ecclesiarum omnium, magistra quoque omnium, dignissim ipsa sola omnium ecclesiarum obtinere meruit monarchiam’: Sermo habitus in Lateranens concilio sub Alexandro Papa III ed. Morin, G., ‘Le discours d'ouverture du concile généra de Latran (1179) et l'œuvre littéraire de Maître Rufin,’ Atti della Pontifica Accademic Romana di Archaeologia ser. 3, mem. 11 (Rome 1928) 117.Google Scholar

³ St. Bernard: ‘Nempe signum singularis pontificii Petri, per quod non navem unam, u*** caeteri quique suam, sed saeculum ipsum susceperit gubernandum. Mare enim saeculum est, naves ecclesiae’: De consideratione 2.2.8 (PL 182.752). Innocent III: ‘Petro non solum universam ecclesiam sed totum reliquit saeculum gubernandum Cum enim mare mundum, iuxta verbum Psalmistae dicentis: “Hoc mare magnum et spatiosum’ (Ps. 103.105); per hoc quod Petrus se misit in mare, privilegium expressit pontificii singularis quod universum orbem susceperat gubernandum' (PL 214.759).Google Scholar

⁴ Cf. especially, Rupp, J., L'idée de Chrétienté dans la pensée pontificale des origines jusqu'à Innocent III (Paris 1939).Google Scholar

⁵ Particular mention must be made of three indispensable works: Kuttner, S., Repertorium der Kanonistik (1140-1234), Prodromus corporis glossarum I (Studi e Testi 71; Città del Vaticano 1937); van Hove, A., Prologomena ad Codicem Iuris Canonici (2nd ed. Rome-Malines 1945); Le Bras, G., Institutions ecclésiastiques de la Chrétienté médiévale: Préliminaires et Ière partie, Livre I (Histoire de l'Église, ed. Fliche, et Martin, ; Paris 1959). Very valuable also are DDC, Studia Gratiana (Bologna 1953 et seq.) and the Bulletin of the Institute of Research and Study in Medieval Canon Law (Traditio 1955 et seq.) Google Scholar

⁶ See especially Maccarrone, M., Chiesa e Stato nella Dottrina di Papa Innocenzo III (Rome 1940); Ullmann, W., Medieval Papalism (London 1949); Tillmann, H., Papst Innocenz III (Bonn 1954); Kempf, F., Papsttum und Kaisertum bei Innocenz III (Misc.hist. pontif. 19; Rome 1954); Pacaut, M., Alexandre III. Étude sur la conception du pouvoir pontifical dans sa pensée et dans son oeuvre (Paris 1956).Google Scholar

⁷ The numerous articles of A.M. Stickler have made available considerable selections of decretist material which has been of great assistance in the writing of this study.Google Scholar

⁸ On this point reference should be made to several important bibliographical articles: Tierney, B., ‘Some Recent Works on the Political Theories of the Medieval Canonists,’ Traditio 10 (1954) 594–652; Folz, R., ‘La papauté médiévale vue par quelques-uns de ses historiens récents,’ Revue historique 218 (1957) 32-63; Michiels, G., ‘Pouvoir spirituel et pouvoir temporel,’ Bulletin de théologie ancienne et médiévale 8 (1958); McNally, R.E., ‘The History of the Medieval Papacy: A Survey of Research, 1954-1959,’ Theological Studies 21 (1960) 92-132.Google Scholar

⁹ E. g. Le Bras, G., ‘Boniface VIII, symphoniste et modérateur,’ Mélanges Louis Halphen (Paris 1951) 383–394; Pacaut, M., ‘L'autorité pontificale selon Innocent IV,’ Le Moyen Age 66 (1960) 85-119; id. La théocratie: L'Église et le pouvoir au moyen âge (Paris 1957), esp. chapter v. Maccarrone, M., Vicarius Christi: Storia del titolo papale (Rome 1952); Cantini, J. A., ‘De autonomia judicis saecularis et de Romani pontificis plenitudine potestatis in temporalibus secundum Innocentium IV,’ Salesianum 23 (1961) 407-80.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Kuttner, S., ‘The Scientific Investigation of Medieval Canon Law: the Need and the Opportunity,’ Speculum 24 (1949) 491–501 at 497.Google Scholar

¹¹ Cf. Eph. 1.22 and Ps. 8.8: Hostiensis, , Apparatus 1.33.6 (Solite) s.v. nihil excipiens qui dixit quodcunque, whence to such polemical writers as Ptolomy of Lucca, , Determinatio compendiosa de iurisdictione imperii (ed. Krammer, H., MGH, Fontes iur germ. antiqui separatim editi 1; Hanover 1909) c.25, p. 50 and Henry of Cremona, De potestate papae ed. Scholz, R., Die Publizistik zur Zeit Philipps des Schönen und Bonifaz VIII (Stuttgart 1903) 465.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 1} Southern, R. W., The Making of the Middle Ages (London 1953) 142.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 2} 2 Cor.11.28. Cited in the very first decretal ever issued (by Pope Siricius in 385: Ullmann, W., The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages [London 1955] 5), this became a cherished formula of papal chanceries throughout the middle ages.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 3} Below, pp. 268.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 4} Hostiensis, , Summa 5.7 § 1 ‘Innocentius pater iuris’; ibid. 5.39 § 12; 5.3 § 10.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 5} Cf. Friedberg, , Corpus iuris canonici II, cols, xiv–xvi (516 decretals) Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 6} Reference may be made to p. 181, n. 6 above, for some of the recent literature on this subject.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 7} This information concerning the origins of these texts is taken from Friedberg's notes to each of the canons in his edition of the Decretum .Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 8} Anglicus, Alanus, Apparatus ‘Ius naturale’: ‘Et indistincte docuit dominus dicens “red-dite que sunt cesaris cesari” etc.’: ad D. 96 c.6 s.v. discrevit (B.N.MS 15393, fol. 70^rb). Characteristically, he added: ‘Verumtamen alteri subesse non negauit.’ Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 9} ‘Anastasius imperator et Gelasius contendebant de preheminencia unius ad alteram. Set Gelasius ostendit quod auctoritas pontificalis longe maior est quam culmen imperiale et hoc probat duabus rationibus: scilicet quia papa de anima imperatoris et aliorum redditurus rationem et quia colla regum et principum submittuntur genibus sacerdotum; et duobus exemplis: scilicet Ambrosii et Innocentii, qui Archadium et Theodosium imperatores excommunicaverunt’: ed. Stickler, A., ‘Sacerdotium et Regnum nei Decretisti e primi Decretalisti,’ Salesianum 15 (1953) 575–612, at p. 33 of the offprint.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 10} Cf. Teutonicus, Johannes, Glossa ordinaria ad D.96 c.10 s.v. iudicio: ‘Zacharias quoque papa regem Francorum deposuit et in locum eius Pippinum substituit, xv.q.vi. Alius.’ For an earlier interpretation, cf. Huguccio, n. 14 below. For a slightly later one, cf. Raymond of Peñafort: ‘Nam imperatores, reges et omnes principes, hac sine distinctione, omnis homo pertinet ad iudicium ecclesiasticum ratione peccati, Extra iii, de iud., Novit, LXIII di. Valentinianus, XCVI di. Quis dubitet, Duo sunt, XI.q.III. Si autem. Et est ratio quia ipse papa et alii prelati ecclesiastici tenentur de omnibus reddere rationem in districto examine ***: Summa iuris 1.11 ed. Ríus Serra, J. (Barcelona 1945) 39.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 11} ‘Gelasius papa scribens contra Anastasium imperatorem dicit quod potest eum deponere propter malitiam suam. Et hoc probat exemplo Zachariae papae qui regem Francorum deposuit non tantum propter sua delicta, quantum pro eo quod inutilis erat: et loco eius Pipinum patrem Caroli posuit, et omnes Francigenas a fidelitate eius absolvit: et milites a vinculo iuramenti [sicut ecclesia frequenter absolvit milites a vinculo iuramenti] in depositionibus episcoporum.’ I have here used the text of the 1561 edition of the Casus supplemented by the words in brackets from Stickler's text, Salesianum 34.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 12} Summa Lipsiensis: ‘Quod ergo hic dicitur, quod habet utrum(que) gladium, id est tam super clericos, quam super laicos imperium habet spirituale, ut quem ligat in terra, ligatus sit in celis’: ed. Juncker, J., ‘Die Summa des Simon von Bisignano und seine Glossen,’ Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kan. Abt. 15 (1926) 492–3 n.2. It was S. Mochi Onory who first gave prominence to this expression, Fonti canonistiche dell' idea moderna dello Stato (Milan 1951) e.g. 6, 111, 115, 121, 122. But language of this sort was common enough when decretists were commenting on Math. 16.19 and on Peter Damian's paraphase of it in D. 22 c.1 ‘(Petro) clavigero terreni simul et coelestis imperii iura commisit’; cf. e.g. gl. anon. (Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge MS 101): ‘tam super clericos quam laicos ius spirituale commisit id est, potestatem ligandi atque soluendi’ (fol. 19^va : Stickler, , Salesianum 22): gl. anon. (B.M. Stowe 378): ‘tam super laicos quam clericos imperium habet quo ad spiritualia velud quem ligat in terra sit ligatus in celo’ (fol. 12^b); gl. anon. (Durham Cath. MS C.I.7: ‘quo ad animas, scilicet ubi ait “Quodcunque ligaveris” etc. usque soluta est in celo, potestatem petro concessam dicit terrenum et celeste imperium’ (fol. 11^rb). This locus was used to debate whether the ius of the terrenum (Romanum) imperium had also been committed to the pope, see below p. 203.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 13} Cf. Hageneder, O., ‘Exkommunikation und Thronfolgeverlust bei Innocenz III,’ Römische historische Mitteilungen (Österreichisches Kulturinstitut, Rome) 2 (1959) 9–50; id. ‘Das päpstliche Recht der Fürstenabsetzung: seine kanonistische Grundlegung (1150-1250),’ Archivum historiae pontificiae I (1963) 55-95.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 14} Huguccio: ‘Set queret aliquis uter utro sit maior? Et quidem in spiritualibus papa maior est imperatore; imperator maior papa in temporalibus, sicut aperte colligitur ex eo quod sequitur et infra eo. Duo et xi.q.i. Magnum, Sacerdotibus et di.xxii.c.i. Set aliter et aliter: papa sic est maior in spiritualibus quod habet iurisdictionem in spiritualibus super imperatorem, ut in eis possit eum ligare et condempnare, ar. di. lxiii, Valentinianus et infra c. Duo; set imperator non sic est maior papa in temporalibus ut e. Duo; nullam enim iurisdictionem uel prelationem habet imperator super papam; set dicitur esse maior in temporalibus quam ille quia maiorem potestatem et iurisdictionem habet in eis quam ille, non tamen super eum, sicut episcopus alterius loci maior est quam iste privatus, qui tamen non subest ei. Sic et illud intelligitur, infra ii.q.vii. § Item cum Balaam usque Item David. Si ergo papa offenderet aliquem in temporalibus, puta auferendo ei capam vel possessionem aliquam uel huiusmodi, non posset conueniri ab illo coram imperatore; posset ibi excipere et dicere: “qui me iudicat dominus est” (1 Cor. 4.4), ar. ix.q.iii. Nemo, Aliorum, Cuncta; tamen de huiusmodi re apud concilium potest deponere querimoniam; si tamen satisfacere noluerit a nemine cogetur, contra autem Leo dicit, infra ii.q.vi, Nos; set non dicit hoc ex communi iure set ex humilitate et dispensatione. Set numquid papa potest iudicare imperatorem in temporalibus? Credo quod sic: per excommunicationem enim coget eum uel respondere coram se uel coram alio per se uel per procuratorem’: ad D. 96 c.6.s.v. officia (Lincoln Cath. MS 2, fol. 172^vab).Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 15} ‘Subiectas: in spiritualibus et quodam modo in temporalibus’: ad D. 96 c.11 (MS cit. loc.cit.) Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 16} ‘Nosti itaque te pendere iudicio: quo ad spiritualia et in secularibus etiam, papa imperatorem iudicare si alterius iudicium subire nolit; nonne dictum est de quolibet nolente satisfacere, “die ecclesie” (Math. 18.17)? Nonne tunc ecclesia cogit imperatorem ut satisfaciat ei quam lesit uel restituat quod male abstulit uel penitentia non debet dari quia inutilis est, ut xviii.q.vi. ci?’ ad D. 96 c.10 (Duo) (MS cit. fol. 172^rb).Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 17} ‘Quod dictum est papa posse eum deponere, credo verum esse de voluntate et assensu principum si coram eo accusetur et convincatur; quod tunc demum intelligo si conuictus et admonitus non vult cessare et satisfacere, tunc debet excommunicari et omnes ab eius fidelitate debent remoueri, ar.xv.q.vi. Nos sanctorum, Iuratos. Si nec tunc corrigitur, tune demum sententia iuste percellitur et armata manu recte expellitur et alius legitime eligitur. Set a quo dabitur sententia? A domino papa coram quo fuit conuictus uel a principibus suis, si hoc romanus pontifex approbauerit’: ad D. 96 c.6 s.v. officia (MS cit. fol. 172^vb).Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 18} ‘Deposuit: Set numquid papa potest deponere imperatorem uel regem qui non subest imperatori? Sic, si de uoluntate principum coram eo accusetur et conuincatur, et conuictus et admonitus nolit satisfacere, tunc debet excommunicari, et si sic non resipiscit, recte sententia depositionis percellitur a papa uel a principibus de uoluntate pape: est enim papa maior eo et preest ei ut di. xcvi, Duo, Si imperator. Set nonne principes et barones si coram eis conuincatur possunt eum deponere? Credo quod sic, si habent assensum pape, aliter non, cum iudex superior, scilicet papa inuenitur; si vero iudex superior non inuenitur, tunc propter defectum iudicis possunt subditi deponere superiorem, ar. di. xl. Si papa et iii.q.i. § ult.’: ad C. 15 q.6 c.3 (B.N. MS lat. 15396 [collated with lat. 3892] fol. 224^vb).Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 19} Huguccio on Cum ad verum: ‘Usque ad aduentum Christi, iura imperialia et pontificalia erant indistincta quia idem erat imperator et pontifex ut di. xxi, Clericos; set a Christo distincta sunt iura et officia imperatoris et pontificis et alia sunt attributa imperatori, scilicet temporalia, et alia, scilicet spiritualia, concessa sunt pontifici, et hoc est factum causa humanitatis seruande et superbie uitande. Si enim imperator uel pontifex omnia haberet officia de facili superbiret, nunc uero cum indiget altero et videt se non plene sibi sufficere humiliatur. Et introducitur hoc capitulum ad ostendendum quod imperator non debet disponere uel iudicare de rebus ecclesiasticis, quondam enim confusa et indistincta erant officia imperatoris et pontificis’ (Lincoln Cath. MS 2, fol. 172^va). Benincasa on Quoniam (glossa ordinaria): ‘Iulianus imperator vendicabat sibi imperium et pontificatum: quod locum habuit in veteri testamento. Sed dicit Cyprianus, quod postquam Christus venit, sic officia utriusque potestatis discrevit, ut imperator terrenis, pontifex coelestibus praesideret, ne propter duplicem potestatem homo superbiens rursum ad inferna demergatur: sed cum opus est, altera potestas vicissim alteram subleuaret. Idem casus est, xcvi. dist. Cum ad verum.’ (ed. 1561: minor textual variants with the text printed by Stickler, , Salesianum 32).Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 20} ‘In talibus itaque causis (scil. que coram iudice ecclesiastico tractandum est) canones legibus imponunt silentium si circa huiusmodi articulum sibi invicem leges et canones adversentur. In secularibus auem negotiis inter seculares personas agitandis, leges non cedunt canonibus. Quod tamen sine distinctione non admitto. Refert enim lex vel consuetudo inducat aliquid in iudicio seculari, quod importet utrique vel alteri parti dampnum tantum pecuniarum, an etiam periculum animarum, ut sunt illa iudicia in quibus Deus temptari videtur, scilicet aque ferventis vel candentis ferri, vel duelli. Canonum enim vigor se extendit ad causas seculares ex quibus et in quibus, anime periculum versatur. Quantum enim ad hoc, ut anime provideatur omnes persone spectant ad forum ecclesiasticum, et in talibus iudiciis, secundum meum iudicium, videtur per canones legibus et consuetudinibus derogatum’: Speculum iuris canonici (ed. Reimarus, T. A., Berlin, 1837), D. 10, pp. 40–41.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 21} Apparatus ‘Ius naturale’: ‘Ostenso ius positivum cedere iuri naturali ostendit legem cedere canoni. § Constitutio a principe promulgatur aut super negotio ecclesiastico auts super seculari. Si super ecclesiastico eo ipso quod lata a principe non valet, ut xcvi.di Bene quidem, xvi.q.ult. Laicis, Non placuit; nisi fuerit privilegium quod ecclesie tribuit imperator, hoc enim ipso iure valet. Talis est constitutio illa, xvi.q.i., Generaliter, C. de episcopis et cler.l.i. (Code 1.3.1). Si super negotio seculari lata fuerit, aut contradicit canoni aut non. Si non, valet et ipsam ecclesia tamquam suam approbat et per eam negotia decidat, ubi canon nichil statuit, ut di.x.c.i, et per totam distinccionem, xi.q.iii, Summopere; que si a principe immutatur, eam immutatam ecclesia habere debet nisi per canonem specialiter fuerit confirmata, tunc enim quantum ad ecclesiam pro canone habenda est, ar. C. de vet. iure enuc. l.i. (Code 1.17.1). Si quedam canoni contradicat, nichilominus in secularibus et in foro seculari valet, nisi legi et euangelio fuerit contraria; tunc enim non valet, ut sunt leges de usuris loquentes et de divorciis. In foro autem ecclesiastico canon illi legi contradicens debet obseruari et secundum ipsum iudicari, ut xvi.q.i, Continua, xxxiii.q.ii, Inter hec. Exempli gratia habeatur illud quod est C. de pre.xxx.vel xl. annorum, Si quis emptionis (Code 7.39.8), extra, de prescript. Vigilanti (X.2.6.5), que sibi contradicunt in prescriptione mala fide possessoris. Set hec vera sunt secundum opinionis tenorem, que dicit imperatorem quoad secularia pape non subesse. Secundum vero aliam est dicendum canonem semper in negotiis secularibus legi sibi contrarie preiudicare, nisi expresse concedat legem illam in secularibus obseruari, ut concedit leges precipientes cruentas ultiones quas, licet canon non inferat, permittit tamen a secularibus potestatibus inferri, ut xxiii. q.v., Iudex, Regum’ ad D. 10 pr. (B.N. MS lat. 15393, fol. 6^va and Stickler, A., ‘Alanus Anglicus als Verteidiger des monarchischen Papsttums,’ Salesianum 21 [1959] 351–2).Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 22} Huguccio: ‘Duobus modis dicitur fieri (scil. lex) contra canones, scilicet ratione constituti et ratione constituentis: ratione constituti, quia ea constituitur quod constitui non debet, ut ille que permittunt usuras, et separationi coniugum sine mutuorum consensu causa religionis ratione constituentis, cum constituitur ab eo qui non habet potestatem constituendi, ut legitur de basilio, ut di.xcvi, Bene quidem’: ad D. 10 c.4, s.v. contra canones (Lincoln Cath. MS 2, fol. 122^va). These neat formulae were adopted by other decretists throughout the thirteenth century, e.g. gl. anon. Caius Coll. Cambridge, MS 676, ad loc. cit. (fol. 4^rb); Apparatus ‘Ecce vicit leo’, ad loc.cit. (B.N.MS Nouv. acq. lat. 1576, fol. 26^vb); Alanus, , ‘Ius naturale’, ad loc. cit. (B.N.MS 15393, fol. 7^ra and ad D. 10 c.1 fol. 6^vb); de Baysio, Guido, Rosarium, ad loc.cit. (Venice 1578, fo. 11^vb).Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 23} It was apparently the canonists of this period who first spoke of ‘canonized’ laws — gl. anon. Caius Coll. MS. 676: ‘per papam leges laicorum canonizate sunt’: ad C.16q.7 c.24 (fol. 139^va); Damasus in his Quaestiones spoke of ‘lex canonizata’ (B.N.MS lat. 14320, fol. 188^rb).Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 24} ‘Constitutio ecclesiastica abrogat omnes leges sibi contradicentes in causis spiritualibus, et breviter in omnibus que spectant ad salutem anime, id est, sine quibus anima salvari non potest vel impeditur ad salutem. In talibus enim sacre leges non dedignantur sacros canones imitari Unde leges que permittunt usuras, vel matrimonium seu repudium, vel similia contra canones, non tenent, etiam leges que permittunt prescriptionem cum mala fide Nam imperatores, reges et omnes principes, ac sine distinctione omnis homo pertinet ad iudicium ecclesiasticum ratione peccati Item leges omnes tractantes de personis ecclesiasticis vel rebus non tenent nisi quatenus sunt per canones approbate. Imperator enim vel aliquis laicus nichil potest disponere de rebus vel personis ecclesiasticis Ille autem leges que non contradicunt canonibus possunt assumi in adiutorium ab ecclesia etiam in spiritualibus causis In aliis vero causis secularibus et coram iudice seculari optinent leges vigorem suum nec posset papa eas tollere nisi in casibus suprapositis vel quoad suum forum’: Summa Iuris 1.11 (ed. cit. 39-40).Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 24a} James of Viterbo, De regimine Christiano (1301-2).Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 24b} The importance of this review was first brought out by Ullmann, W., Medieval Papalism (London 1949) 211-15. The relevant quaestio has now been printed by Stickler, A.M., ‘Sacerdotium und Regnum,’ 41-42, from Monte Cassino MS 393. I have collated this text with Zwette MS 162 to remove some ambiguities in the Monte Cassino version.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 25} Huguccio's position had been most clearly foreshadowed by another Bolognese decretist, Simon of Bisignano. Simon's main argument, which Huguccio incorporated almost literally into his more elaborate commentary, was stated: ‘Propriis actibus, id est, actus utriusque potestatis, uel quod in sua persona facit: pauit enim turbas, uendentes de templo eiecit, quod ad regis officium spectat; et se seipsum in ara crucis immolat, et pro inimicis orauit dicens, “pater ignosce illis quia nesciunt quid faciant,” quod sacerdotis est officium; usque hoc habet: quod imperator vero habet potestatem gladii; distincte enim sunt he potestates nec una pendet ex altera, unde in huius rei figuram dictum fuit, “ecce gladii duo hic”’: ad D. 96 c.6 (Lambeth Palace MS 411 fol. 15^vb). The main decretist protagonists of the position after Huguccio were the anonymous authors of the Glossa Palatina and the Apparatus ‘Ecce vicit leo’ Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 26} Summa Monacensis ad D. 22 c.1 s.v. terreni simul et celestis imperii iura , ed. Stickler, , ‘Imperator vicarius Papae: Die Lehren der französisch-deutschen Dekretistenschule des 12. und beginnenden 13. Jahrhunderts über die Beziehungen zwischen Papst und Kaiser,’ Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 62 (1954) 202. The interpretative tradition which this text represents was perhaps the majority one among decretists and began with Rufinus. Some decretists repeated Rufinus almost verbatim, e.g. Summa ‘Tractaturus Magister’ (B.N.MS lat. 15594, fol. 7^ra); Faventinus, Johannes, Summa (B.M. MS Royal 9.E. VII fol. 46^vb; gl. anon. Caius Coll. MS 676 (fo. 12b); Summa ‘Antiquitate et tempore’ (ed. Stickler, , ‘Imperator vicarius Papae’ 201). Others express the same concept more elaborately in different language from Rufinus (e.g. Summa Bambergensis ed. Stickler, , ‘Imperator vicarius Papae’ 204). In the systematic discussions of the quaestio ‘utrum papa habet utrumque gladium’ it was generally phrased according to the vocabulary of Rufinus e.g.: Summa Lipsiensis: ‘Nota qui primam tenent sententiam dicunt quod summus pontifex utrumque habet gladium: alterum non administratione set tantum auctoritate, ut materialem; celestem vero et ecclesiasticum plena auctoritate‘ (ed. Juncker, , ‘Simon von Bisignano,’ 493); Anglicus, Ricardus, Summa Quaestionum: ‘Sunt alii qui dicunt quod utrumque gladium habet summus pontifex; alterum auctoritate et amministracione, reliquum auctoritate absque amministracione’: MS Zwettl 162, fol 147^va-148^vb and Stickler, , ‘Sacerdotium et Regnum’ 41. It was this case which was ultimately to be successful, see below pp. 223-25.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 26a} Ricardus Anglicus summed up the position: ‘Videtur quod non habet utrumque (gladium): distincte enim sunt potestates, quia nec imperator iura pontificis nec pontifex iura imperatoris usurpare potest ut di.xcvi. Cum ad verum. Item, a deo consecutus est potestatem imperator, ut di. xcvi. Si imperator. Idem dicitur xxiii.q.v. Quesitum, ubi dicitur quod meminerint homines has potestates a deo fuisse concessas. Si ergo a iudice civili ad summum pontificem appelletur non tenet appellacio ut in ex. Alexandri iii. Denique. Ex hoc ergo manifeste potest colligi quod imperator a summo pontifice non habet imperium, quia si haberet ab eo, ad ilium posset appellari. Idem potest confirmari auctoritate illius capituli, ii.q.vi. Omnis oppressus, ubi dicitur de illo qui appellat quod coram patricio debent ventilari secularia negocia, coram ecclesiastico, ecclesiastica. Item, secularium negociorum prohibetur esse cognitor apostolicus, ut xi.q.i. Te quidem, quod videtur ergo quod nullum ius habeat cognoscendi super causis secularibus vel committendi cognitionem secularium aliquibus. Item antequam essent summi pontifices erant imperatores et idem ius et eamdem potestatem habebant quam nunc habent. Unde non videtur quod ab illo nacti fuerint hanc potestatem, set a deo’ (MS cit. fol. 148^ra).Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 26b} ‘Officia: hinc aperte colligitur quod utraque potestas, scilicet apostolica et imperialis instituta sunt a deo et quod neutra pendet ex altera et quod imperator gladium non habet ab apostolico, ar. hic et infra ead. In scripturis, Duo, Si imperator et di. xciii. Legimus et ixxiii.q.iiii. Quesitum’: ad D. 96 c.6 (Lincoln Cath. MS 2, fol. 172^vb).Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 27} ‘Divinitus: id est, a deo, non a papa. Apertissime (per) hoc capitulum ostenditur imperatorem non habere nec accipere gladium et potestatem, nisi forte quo ad confirmacionem, et esse maior eo in temporalibus’: ad D. 96 c.11, B.N.MS 15393, fol. 70^vb .Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 28} Quaestiones Orielenses: ‘Set econtra videtur posse probari (quod imperator non habeat potestatem gladii ab apostolico): ante fuerunt principes quam apostolici et tunc gladii potestatem habebant a Deo, a quo est omnis potestas. Nam et de Pilato est dictum: “non haberes in me potestatem, nisi datum esset tibi desuper.” Non ergo potestas gladii est ab apostolico. Item canones multiplices dicunt quod imperator potestatem gladii habet a Deo, ut di. XCVI, Si imperator et C.XXIII. q.iiii, Quesitum. Item Deus dixit: “Ecce duo gladii hic”, id est due discrete et distincte potestates: ecclesiastica scilicet et secularis; neutra ergo istarum pendet ex altera’: ed. Stickler, , ‘Sacerdotium et Regnum’ 35.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 29} Cf. Laurentius: ‘Officia potestatis discrevit: immo pocius confundit cum utrumque adimpleuerit: set hoc fecit ut ostenderet quod utraque potestas ab eo haberet inicium, ar. xxi. Cleros, et duo nobis a deo data sunt, scilicet imperium et sacerdocium, in aut. quom. opor. epis. in prin. coll. iii. (Nov. 6 pr.) la(urentius)’: ad D. 96 c.6 (B.N.MS lat. 15393, fol. 70^rb). Cf. also Glossa Palatina: officia potestatis discrevit: immo uerum contrarium quia non discreuit set confudit, cum ipse unus et idem utrumque officium gesserit: set dic quod ipse utriusque officium per se gessit, ut notaret quod ex eadem fonte processerunt, xxi.di. Cleros. Nam dicit lex quod summa nobis dona a deo concessa sunt, scilicet sacerdocium et imperium, in aut. quoniam opor. epis. in prin. coll. iii.’ (Durham Cath. MS C.III.8, fol. 36^va).Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 30} Ricardus Anglicus summed up their position: ‘Queri solet utrum summus pontifex utrumque gladium habeat, materialem scilicet et spiritualem. Quod uidetur posse probari: utriusque enim imperii scilicet celestis et terreni ei iura concessa sunt, ut di. xxii. c.i. Si ergo habet utrumque imperium, ab eo habet imperator potestatem quam habet et eodem modo alii principes. Item fidelitatem facit ei imperator tamquam domino, ut di. lxiii. Tibi domino. Item legitur quod papa reges deposuit, puta Zacharias regem Francorum, non tam pro suis iniquitatibus quam pro eo quod tante potestati inutilis, ut xv.q.vi, Alius. Si ergo regi potuit auferre potestatem, uidetur quod ab eo habuerit. Unde a simili uidetur hodie quod si imperator abutitur potestate sua, illi possit auferri imperium et alium principatum. Hoc idem potest probari alio exemplo: Constantinus enim postquam urbem romanam et partes occidentales beato Siluestro concesserat, ad partes orientales imperium et regiam potestatem transtulit et constantinopoli constituit sedem imperii, ut di. lxxxvi. (recte xcvi) Constantinus. Sic itaque aliquando fuerat imperium apud Grecos; postea vero ab Adriano papa Carolo est concessum et eis ablatum est, ut di. lxiii, Adrianus. Ex his ergo uidetur quod utrumque habeat gladium, et imperator ab eo. Item, romana ecclesia potestatem habet de omnibus iudicare, ut ix.q.iii. Cuncta. Item alibi dicitur quod omnis oppressus libere sacerdotis vocem appellet, ut ii.q.vi. Omnis. Ex hoc uidetur quod a iudice ciuili possit appellari ad ecclesiasticum, maxime cum causas privatorum apostolus iussit deferri ad ecclesiam, ut xi.q.i. Placuit’ (MS cit. fol. 147^va-148^ra) Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 31} Damasus, , Brocarda (B.N.MS. 14320 fol. 220^vc) Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 32} The canons were C.9 q.3 cc. 17, 18 in reference to which decretists coined the phrase ‘papa est iudex ordinarius omnium’ which is discussed below, Part II section 2.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 33} 1 Cor. 6.3.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 34} Caius Coll. MS 676, ad D. 63 c.33 (Tibi domino) fol. 42^va .Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 35} This argument recurs frequently, e.g. Simon of Bisignano: ‘Deponitur: id est, depone tibus ipsius regis consensit vel subditos ab eius fidelitate absoluit, quod per consequenciar fuit depositus. Unde hic volunt quidam colligere quod imperator potestatem gladii a apostolico recipiat: non enim videtur posse auferre, si non dedisset’: ad C.15 q.6 c.11 (La beth Pal.MS 411 fol. 51^vb). Summa ‘Reverentia sacrorum canonum’ : ‘Nam si papa rege deponere potuit, ergo potestatem gladii auferre potuit; ergo et conferre’: ed. Stickler, , ‘Imperator vicarius Papae’ 204.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 36} Notably by the Summa ‘Et est sciendum’; Onory, Mochi, Fonti Canonistiche 119. The glosses in Durham Cath. C.II.1 would appear to derive from this work. Compare the tex given by Mochi Onory with the commentary on the same canon (D.22 c.3): ‘Constantin politanae: ‘Quia translatum est imperium ad Greciam. Unde dicunt quidam constantin politanum debere esse romanum imperatorem, quod falsum est. Quodam (tempore) ecclesi ab hereticis vexabatur et tunc vocatus est constantinopolitanus qui venire contempsi datum est imperium (genti) facienti iusticiam et datum est karolo, ut xxiii.q.ult., Hortat et infra, di. lxiii, Adrianus. Set numquid ita potuit papa transferre imperium? Resp.: sic The same manuscript contains an interesting composite gloss on the two-swords questio not hitherto published: ‘Terrenum imperium dicitur potestas spiritualis gladii quam hab papa super laicos terrenis inhabitantes, celestem eam quam habet super clericos: nam h*** et illos potest ligare et soluere. G(andulphus?): uel proprie quia ut duo erant gladii in pa*** sione domini sic et duplex est seueritatis officium et mansuetudinis: gladium materiale commisit imperatori, et eum in hac parte uicarium constituit; gladium mansuetudinis q*** non mortificat set viuificat; sibi reservavit: ideo secundum hoc videtur quod imperator h*** bet a papa potestatem nam et si imperator ea abutatur, papa potest eum deponere, *** xv.q.vi, Alius item. Quod tamen non videtur cum prius fuerunt imperatores quam pap et tunc potestatem habuerunt. Nam omnis potestas a deo est, quia antequam consecret imperator potest uti gladio post eleccionem populi, qui ei et in eum omne ius transfert, *** infra, de institu. De iure scripto. Item cum papa non habet execucionem gladii qualit illum potest transferre in alium, ut xxiii. q.ult. Sepe, Hii? Habet ergo eam a deo, ut d xciii, Nec tempore et xxiii. q.iii. Quesitum. Regem autem hic deposuisse dicitur, quia propter contumaciam eum excommunicato domino teneatur obedire, ut xv.q.vi. Iuratos. Quid ergo de hiis iudicibus qui temporalem accipiunt iurisdiccionem a papa uel ab episcopis qui et comites sunt: a quo accipiunt tales gladii potestatem? Resp: forte ab episcopis potestatem, et a potestate execucionem, vel ab episcopis totum: quidam enim aliis concedere possumus quod nosmetipsos exercere non possumus, ut di. lxxxvii. Episcopus. Set quid si a talibus iudicibus ad tales episcopos fuerit appellatum et in causa sanguinis, de ea possint agnoscere? Resp: Quere et inquire’: ad D.22 c.1 (fo. 20vab). The second gloss is clearly the Summa ‘Et est sciendum’; compare the text printed by Stickler ‘Imperator vicarius Papae’ 203. Two recent studies have clarified the whole course of development of the theory of the translatio imperii , van den Baar, P.A., Die kirchliche Lehre der Translatio Imperii Romani bis zur Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts (Rome 1956); Goez, W., Translatio Imperii (Tübingen 1958).Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 37} Below, pp. 211ff., 223ff.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 38} In particular, four decretals of Alexander III in Comp. I Denique (2.20.7 = X.2.28.7 § 2); Si duobus (2.20.7 = X.2.28.7 § 1); Lator (4.18.5 = X.4.17.5); Causam (4.18.7 = X.4.17.7) Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 39} The expression was Huguccio's ad C.9 q.3 c.13 s.v. iudex .Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 40} These terms are discussed in Part II below.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 41} The Proemium ‘Sapientia edificauit’, deriving from Stephen of Tournai, is less well known and is reproduced here as a statement essentially the same as Stephen's but somewhat more interestingly expressed: ‘Nam ab re, quam prius Salomon domum dixerat, dehinc civitatem vocat. Pro mansionum enim multitudine civiumque multiplicitate civitas dicitur; set quia omnium inhabitantium paterfamilias unus est, quia etiam multitudinis credentium cor unum et anima una (Act. 4.32) merito domus una vocatur. In hac ergo civitate uel domo sub eodem rege et patre, i.e. Christo, duo populi sunt secundum quos duo uite, secundum quos duo principatus, secundum hoc duo iura. Populi, clerici sunt et laici; uite, spiritualis et carnalis; principatus, sacerdotium et regnum; iura, ecclesiasticum et forense’: ed. Stickler, , ‘Sacerdotium et Regnum’ 26.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 42} Cf. John of Salisbury, Policraticus (ed. Webb) 4.3.516a; Honorius of Autun, Summa Gloria (MGH Lib. de Lite III) 18.72; 24.75.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 43} ‘et nota quod principes tenentur ecclesiam defendere, ut xxiii.q.v. Principes, et si admoniti nolunt hoc facere, possunt excommunicari, ut xxiii.q.v. Administratores’: ad D.63 c.22 s.v. ad defendendas (text printed by Stickler, A., ‘Der Schwerterbegriff bei Huguccio’, Ephemerides Iuris Canonici 3 [1947] 217, a fuller version than that given in Lincoln Cath. MS 2, fol. 121^ra). ‘Nam ad hoc sunt constitute seculares, quod per se nequit ecclesia, per eos quasi ministros exercetur, et per eos tuitionem et potestatem et quietem habeat ut xxiii.q.v. Principes, Administratores’: ad D.96 c.16 s.v. usque tueri (Lincoln Cath. MS 2, fol. 172^va). ‘Lex imperatorum: utitur quando vult (ecclesia) ut xvii. Nec licuit et xxiii.q.v. Principes et di.lxxviiii, Si duo: non tamen uti cogitur, ut xxiii.q.ii. Inter hec. Set si uti voluit seculari brachio, ille a quo petitur auxilium tenetur ei obedire et eam defendere, ut xxiii.q.v. Principes, Administratores’: ad D.10 c.1. (Pembroke Coll. MS 72, fol. 122^vb).Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 44} The penal code for heretics was discussed primarily by the decretalists, in relation especially to the canons of the third Lateran Council (in Compilatio I) and the fourth (in Compilatio IV). It is discussed below pp. 219 and 226. See now O. Hageneder, Studien zur Dekretale “Vergentis” (X, V, 7, 10): Ein Beitrag zur Häretikergesetzgebung Innocenz.‘III.’ Zeitschr. der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgesch . Kan. Abt. 49(1963)138–73.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 45} Huguccio: ‘cum omnino sint (clerici) incorrigibiles et per ecclesiam corrigi non possunt, tunc de licencia ecclesie iudex secularis potest eum capere et cohercere, ar. di. xvii, Nec licuit, et xxviii.q.v. De liguribus et tunc curie tradatur clericus enim depositus non debet tradi curie statim ut in ex. Licet preter, set debet poni in monasterio vel alio loco ad agendam penitenciam, ut di. lxxxi. Dictum, et si sic contempserit resipiscere, nec ibi esse in pace voluerit factus contumax excommunicabitur; si nec sic corrigatur nec in aliquo modo corrigi possit per ecclesiam, tunc ultimo tradendus est curie, id est permittendum est, vel etiam precipiendum est iudici seculari ut eum capiat et coherceat’: ad C. 11 q.1 c.18 (B.N.MS lat 3892 fol. 189^ra). Canonist doctrines an the ‘traditio curiae’ have been well presented by Duggan, C., ‘The Becket Dispute and the Giminous Clerks,’ Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 35 (1962) 1–28.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 46} Kuttner, S., ‘Bernardus Compostellanus Antiquus: A Study in the Glossators of the Canon Law,’ Traditio 1 (1943) 277–340 at 284.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 47} Huguccio: ‘Neutra (potestas) pendet ex altera, uerum est quo ad institutionem, set in multis imperialis potestas pendet ex altera’: ad D. 96 c.6 s.v. principaliter (Lincoln Cath. MS 2, fol. 172^rb).Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 48} Summa Reginensis (Petrus Beneventanus?): ‘Dicebat cardinalis Johannis et Pauli (Johannes Sutrinus?) quod inde dominus papa dicitur Christi vicarius quia Jesus Christus preest toto orbi ita et papa’: text published by A. Stickler, who suggests the identities of the author and of the cardinal quoted. Petrus Beneventanus became a papal capellanus in 1205 and was a trusted confidant of Innocent III's: ‘Decretisti bolognesi dimenticati,’ Studia Gratiana 3 (Bologna 1955) 377–410, text at 393, biographical details concerning Petrus, 408. The implications of this vicariate of the whole Christian world were brought out more fully by Alanus Anglicus, cf. below, p. 227.Google Scholar

The decretals of Innocent III will be cited by initia without further reference: Venerabilem. (Comp. III 1.6.19 = X. 1.6.34); Solite (Comp. III 1.21.2 = X. 1.33.6); Novit (Comp. III 2.i.3 = X. 2. 1. 13); Licet (Comp. III 2.2.1 = X. 2.2.10); Per venerabilem (Comp. III 4.12.2 = X. 4.17.13); Vergentis (Comp. III 5.4.1 = X. 5.7.10); Excommunicamus (Comp. IV 5.5.2 = X. 5.7.13).

^{page 212 note 1} Cf. specially, Bayley, C.C., The Formation of the German College of Electors in the Mid-thirteenth Century (Toronto 1949); also Kempf, F., Papsttum und Kaisertum bei Innocenz III: die geistigen und rechtlichen Grundlagen seiner Thronstreitpolitik (Misc. Hist. Pont 19.; Rome 1954).Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 2} It is clear from the commentaries of such leading early decretalists as Vincentius Hispanus and Laurentius Hispanus that the new doctrine was not received altogether uncritically by canonists. But a good deal more work on the composition and relationships of early decretalist Apparatus is necessary before it will be possible to pinpoint with any accuracy the shades of the doubt registered by the critical. For example, it seems that Laurentius was seen by his canonist contemporaries as the least enthusiastic supporter of the doctrine of Venerabilem (cf. n. 19 below). But it is extremely difficult to work out what was his true position, which seems to have modified, in default of a critical study of his Apparatus ad Decretum and its relationship to the Glossa Palatina and the glossa ordinaria as well as to his Apparatus ad Compilationem IIIam. Yet the critical aspect of the short period of the first canonist commentaries on Venerabilem left an abiding mark on the course of development of canonist political doctrines and of medieval political thought generally. The glossa ordinaria ad Decretum, a product of this period, a major piece of literary equipment for all disputants in the theoretical disputes concerning the relationship of the two powers, was very reserved in its teaching about papal possession of two swords. In two of the three contexts in which the topic was ventilated, it was entirely noncommital, stating the case pro and contra, without offering a solution (D. 96 c.6 s.v. usurpavit and D. 22 c.1 s.v. coelestis). In the third (D. 10 c.8 s.v. discrevit) it inclined markedly to a pro-imperial position (the political sympathies of the writer, Joannes Teutonicus, in a different pro-imperial context have been well discussed by Post, G., ‘Two Notes on Nationalism’ Traditio 9[1953] 298–300). There was thus preserved within the canonist tradition and by extension within the medieval tradition as a whole, at least a question mark against the proposition that the pope had two swords.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 2a} One, however, apparently, was the compiler of the Glossa Palatina: ‘Ego non credo unam [potestatem gladii] ex alia pendere: ar. contra, extra iii, qui filii sint legitimi, Per venerabilem, et romana ecclesia transtulit imperium in occidentem et principibus alemanie dedit potestatem eligendi, extra iii, de electione, Venerabilem’: ad D. 10 c.8 s.v. discrevit (Durham Cath. MS C.III.8, fol. 4^ra). Cf. also Stickler, , ‘Sacerdotium et Regnum’ 18.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 3} Summa iuris 1.11, ed. cit. p. 40.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 4} For a detailed study of Philip's request and Innocent III's attitudes, and the circumstances of William of Montpellier cf. Génestal, R., Histoire de la légitimation des enfants naturels en droit canonique (Paris 1905) 182–201.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 5} As the rubric had it. Antonius de Butrio, in the fourteenth century, commented: ‘Haec est solemnis decretalis obscure decidens quod principaliter intendit ipsam declarabo iuxta possibilitatem mihi a Deo concessam’ (cited by Génestal, , op. cit. 182).Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 6} In addition to the text istelf (4.17.6) the very numerous canonist casus to it should be consulted.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 7} Particular weight attaches to this formulation: ‘medium inter causam et causam (cf. Deut. 17.8), quod ad utrumque refertur tam ecclesiasticum tam ciuile: in quibus cum aliquid fuerit difficile vel ambiguum ad iudicium est sedis apostolice recurrendum, cuius sententiam qui superbiens contempserit observare, mori praecipitur, id est per excommunicationis sententiam velut mortuus a communione fidelium separari. Paulus etiam ut plenitudinem potestatis exponeret, ad Corinthios scribens ait: Nescitis quoniam angelos iudicabitis? quanto magis secularia?' There was here a principle of critical importance for the future development of canonist thought. Innocent III was contending that in any difficult or ambiguous case, ecclesiastical or secular, recourse might be had to the pope whose judgment must be accepted under pain of major excommunication. This principle was linked with the term plenitudo potestatis. It was implied that plenitudo potestatis over spiritual things included a papal discretionary power over temporal affairs where the spiritual good demanded the exercise of such a power. This was the germ of the later canonists’ view of plenitudo potestatis in its temporal aspects, which is analyzed in more detail below. It should be noticed that Innocent III had given a marked slant to the standard interpretation of Deut. 17.8, though this did to some extent prepare the way for the Innocentian interpretation; cf. Comestor, P.: ‘De appellatione populi ad summum sacerdotem. Quod si contigeret iudices illos ambigere de sententia aliqua ascenderent ad summum sacerdotem, et quod ille iudicaret, fieret’: Historia scholastica c.6 (PL 198.1253). This Innocentian penchant for turning Old Testament exegesis to the service of papal power was a marked feature of his thought and was an important aspect of his contribution to the canonist tradition, see below pp. 222-23. The text Deut. 17.8 has been interestingly discussed by B. Tierney, with whose interpretation I am in general agreement, “‘Tria quippe distinguit iudicia”: A Note on Innocent III's Decretal Per Venerabilem,’ Speculum 37 (1962) 48-59.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 8} This decretal is not in the Register but figured in Comp. III 1.21.2 = X. 1.33.6 and Rainerius' Collectio (PL 216.1182-85). It was a reply to the Greek Emperor Alexis III who had apparently contended that the imperium was preeminent over the sacerdotium. Alexis' reason for ventilating this problem was explained in the Gesta Innocentii § 62, as a tactical move in the negotiations concerning Greek participation in a forthcoming general council. PL 214. cxxiii.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 9} In an interpretation of the sun-moon metaphor: ‘fecit Deus duo magna luminaria, id est, duas instituit dignitates, que sunt pontificalis auctoritas et regalis potestas.’ Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 10} When commenting on the same metaphor when the point was being made that the one shone ‘maius’ than the other; e.g. Joh. Teutonicus ad loc. cit. (B.M. MS Roy. 11. C.VII, fol. 132^v); gl. ord. ad Decretales, loc. cit .Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 11} Excellently traced by Congar, Y. M.-J., ‘Ecce constitui te super gentes et regna (Jér. 1.10) “in Geschichte und Gegenwart”,’ Theologie in Geschichte und Gegenwart: Michael Schmaus zum sechzigsten Geburtstag dargebracht. (Munich 1957) 671–696.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 12} Cf. Deut. 17.12 Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 13} Cf. above p. 194, n. 16.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 14} Tancred, , Comp. III ad 2.1.2 s.v. contra pacem (Durham Cath. MS C.III.4 fol. 131^ra); J. Teutonicus ad loc. cit. (B.M. Roy. 11. C. VII, fol. 142^v); gl. ord. ad Decretales 2.1.13 v.cit .Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 15} ‘Licet ex suscepto servitutis officio simus omnibus in iustitia debitores, sic tamen in iure suo nos quibusdam convenit providere, ne aliis iniuriam facere videamur, et, quod absit! inde sumatur materia scandali, unde provide debet consideratione sedari.’ (PL 215. 892: except for the first three words, this sentence did not appear in the final version of the letter in the Corpus Iuris). The expression debitor iustitiae was a traditional one and appeared regularly in papal letters at least from the time of Gregory VII (for his usage of it, cf. Reg. i.53 ed. Caspar, , p. 80; ii.44, p. 180; iv.26, p. 341; iv.28, p. 344; vi.13. p. 416) Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 16} As well brought out by Rupp, and Kempf, .Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 17} Institutions ecclésiastiques, p. 24 Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 18} By Chenu, M.D., ‘Dogme et théologie dans la bulle Unam Sanctam’, Mél. J. Lebreto II (Paris 1952) 314.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 19} The gloss in question was formulated essentially by Tancred and with some min modifications was accepted in the glossa ordinaria by Bernard of Parma. His ‘edition’ *** it does not reveal fully the way the gloss developed from discussion among the early de cretalists. Glosses on Comp. I however, make the development clear: ‘Ar. de iurisdiction distincta, ut de Cons. di.iii. Celebritatem, in fine; x. di. Quoniam; xcvi, di. Cum ad veru Qui fil.s.leg. Lator, in fine; xxiii.q.v. Regum; viii.di. Quo iure; xxxiii.q.ii. Interfectore Contra: xxii di. Omnes; v.q.v. Delatori; Qui fil.s.leg. Conquestus; xx.q.iii. Presens; xv.q.v*** Alius; xxiv.q.i. Loquitur. Solutio: Magister Huguccio dicit, et bene, quod a solo Deo hab potestatem in temporalibus imperator, papa in spiritualibus, et sic divisa est iurisdicti Prius enim est imperator qui coronam accipit a papa, et gladium ab altari, ut xciii. di. Leg mus. Nam ante fuit imperium quam apostolatus. lau(rentius). Ego dico cum Alano, sic ipse notavit, de appell. Si duobus, quod imperator habet gladium a papa: est enim unu corpus ecclesie, ergo unum solum caput habere debet. Item Dominus utroque gladio us est, ut xcvi. di. Cum ad verum, et i.q.iii. Ex multis. Sed solum Petrum vicarium suum cor stituit in terra, ergo utrumque gladium ei reliquit. Item Moyses utrumque gladium habui cuius successor est apostolicus. Preterea, iudex est dominus papa quia electum confirma et cassat, ut de elect. Venerabilem, lib. iii. et etiam confirmatum deponit, xv.q.vi. Aliu Et hoc totum inuenitur expresse in quodam extrav. Innocentii tertii, In Genesi. Est tame argumentum contra, Aut. Quo. op. epis. in prin. (Nov. 6), sed canon preiudicat legi. t(a*** credus)’: ad Comp. I 4.18.7 [= X.4.17.7] s.v. ad regem (MSS B.N. 3930, fol. 54^rb, Durh. Catl C. III. 4, fol. 47^ra). The Innocentian decretal cited here has sometimes been misidentifie by modern commentators. It is neither X.1.6.55 nor c. 24 of 4 Lateran Council (as state for example by Onory, Mochi, Fonti canonistiche, p. 199) but the In Genesi of the Regestu de negotio Romani imperii (ed. Kempf, , no. 18 pp. 45-52) and of Rainerius' collection, P 216.1179-1182.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 20} Laurentius: ‘Nec dico istos gladios equales nam materialis recurrit ad spiritualem in causis pro iure reddendo ut spiritualis inuocat materialem tanquam instrumentum suum quantus pro facto supplendo, aliter quomodo posset romana ecclesia transferre imperium ab una persona ut hic, uel regem deponere, ut xv.q.vi, Alius?’ as Comp. III 1.6.19, s.v. a Grecis transtulit (B.N.MS 3932, fol. 116^vb).Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 21} Ad Comp. III 5.4.1 [= X.5.7.10] (Caius Coll. MS 17.28 fol. 303^r; B.M.MS Roy. 11. C.VI fol. 197^r). Cf. also Johannes Teutonicus: ‘Sic ergo papa potest omnes iudices siue duce siue comites deponere propter heresim, et eciam propter alias iniquitates, xv.q.vi. Alius nam et transfert dignitatem de loco ad locum, ex.iii. de elec. Venerabilem’: ad Comp. I*** 5.5.2 s.v. vasallos (B.M.MS Roy. 11.C.VIII, fol. 236^v).Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 22} Ad Comp. III 2.2.1 (Durh. Cath. MS C.III 4, fol. 131^vb).Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 23} Study of his views has been considerably facilitated by Stickler's, A. M. publication of extracts from the two recensions of the Apparatus ‘Ius naturale’ in ‘Alanus Anglicus als Verteidiger des monarchischen Papsttums’, Salesianum 21 (1959) 346–406.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 24} A principle he formulated on at least four occasions — App. ‘Ius naturale’ ad D. 96 c.6 s.v. discrevit (Stickler, , ‘Alan. Anglicus’ 362) and ad C. 23 q.2 c.1 s.v. ex edicto (B.N.MS 15393, fol. 181^va); ad Comp. I 2.20.7 s.v. iuris (Stickler, , art. cit. 364); ad c. Per venerabilem in his collection of Innocent III's decretals, Stickler, , ‘Sacerdozio e regno’ 23.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 25} ‘secundum nos papa super principem est etiam in temporalibus et ideo habet potestatem legitimandi quoad actus seculares’: ad c. Per venerabilem, s.v. seculares actus (Stickler, , art. cit. 23).Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 26} ‘Secundum illos qui dicunt quod imperator et reges debent a papa iurisdictionem habere, potest papa infamiam iuris omnino remittere et quoad actus canonicos et quoad actus legitimos etiam a civili iudice irrogatam. Secundum alios qui hoc non concedunt non potest remittere nisi quoad actus ecclesiasticos’: ad C.2 q.3 c.7 s.v. susceperunt (Stickler, , ‘Alan. Anglicus’ 365–6). That the first of these two views was his own seems a fair deduction from his commentary on D. 96 c.6.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 27} ‘et secundum opinionem nostram quod dominus papa esse iudicem ordinarium principum quo ad spiritualia et quo ad temporalia, ad eum antequam indicat bellum tenetur recurrere ut per eum iusticiam consequatur si potest. Secundum aliam opinionem ad ipsum recurred non oportet’: ad C. 23 q.2 c.1 s.v. ex edicto (B.N.MS 15393, fol. 181^va).Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 28} ‘Ideo dicatur quod ipsum iure suo potuit deponere et hodie omnes principes terre si de hoc facto liqueret et status ecclesie nichil illesus permaneret’: ad C.15 q.6 c.3 s.v. deposuit (Stickler, , ‘Alan. Anglicus’ 367).Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 29} ‘Non intendimus iudicare de feudo: quia ad presens, de plenitudine tamen sue potestatis posset secundum opinionem nostram, qui dicimus quod papa est iudex ordinarius omnium hominum de omni negotio’: ad c. Novit in his collection of decretals, Stickler, , ‘Sacerdozio e regno’ 23.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 30} ‘Set numquid papa posset materialem gladium sibi retinere si vellet? R. Non, quia dominus gladios divisit, ut hic (D.96 c.6, c. Cum ad verum) et ecclesia ex hoc plurimum turbaretur’: Stickler, , ‘Alan. Anglicus’ 363.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 31} The first recension of the App. ‘Ius naturale’ dates from c. 1192, the second, c.1202. Fr. Stickler's article by printing together the two versions clearly demonstrates the development of Alanus from a restrained to a forceful expositor of papal authority. For the unfortunately very scanty biography of Alanus see Stickler, , ‘Alan. Anglicus’ 376–8.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 32} Sermo II: in consecratione pontificis maximi, PL 217-658. The immediate sources from which Innocent drew these phrases would appear to be St. Bernard, , De consideratione 4.7 and the dictum of Gratian: ‘sola enim Romana ecclesia sua auctoritate valet iudicare de omnibus; de ea vero nulli iudicare permittitur’, ante C.9 q.3 c.10.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 33} It is suggested below, p. 304, that it was also Boniface VIII's in Unam sanctam .Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 34} ‘Porro auctorem harum vocum (scil. “directe” et “indirecte”) habemus Innocentium IV pontificem doctissimum. Is enim explicans cap. Novit, De iudiciis, para. de feudo, dicit pontificem directe non iudicare de feudis, secus autem indirecte ratione peccati’: Tract. de potestate summi pontificis in rebus temporalibus adversus Guilielmum Barclajum cap. v. Later he acknowledged that Innocent IV's gloss was taken from the glossa ordinaria on the Decretals, cf. the text cited by Tromp, S., ‘De evolutione doctrinae potestatis indirectae Romani Pontificis circa res temporales in controversiis S. Roberti Bellarmini,’ Acta Congressus iuridici intern. (Rome 1934) 3.106. In fact these ‘voces’ were used by most of the early decretalists, cf. Gillmann, F., ‘Von wem stammen die Ausdrücke “potestas directa” und “potestas indirecta” papae in temporalibus?’ Archiv für kath. Kirchenrecht 98 (1918) 407-9, and the notes following here.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 35} Johannes Teutonicus: ‘non enim intendimus iudicare de feudo: directe set tantum racione peccati et inducendo ad penitenciam, ut vi. q. i. Illi qui et xxii.q.i. Predicandum, xxiii.q.iiii. Ecce, et sic per consequenciam cogetur restituere feodum, ut xxiiii.q.vi. Si res aliena. Io.’: ad Comp. III 2.1.2 (B.M.MS Roy. 11. C.VIII, fol. 142^v ; Gillmann, , art. cit. 408 attributed the gloss to Johannes Galensis. Bernard of Parma reproduced it in toto in the glossa ordinaria of the Gregoriana). Vincentius Hispanus: ‘non enim intendimus directe, set indirecte cognoscendo an peccet et inducendo ad penitenciam, xxii.q.i, Predicandum (B.N. MS 14611, fol. 43^vb ; Gillmann, , loc.cit. printed a contracted version of this gloss). Tancred (?): ‘processiti scilicet amonendo ipsum directe set tamen racione peccati et inducendo ad penitenciam ipsum, ut vi.q.i. Illi qui et xxii.q.i. Predicandum, xxiii.q.iiii. Ecce et sic per consequenciam potest restitui feudum, ut xvii.q.vi. Si res’ (Durham Cath. MS C.III.4, fol. 130^vb).Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 36} Hence it could be stated that ‘omnes cause indirecte spectant ad ecclesiam supra ea. Nouit, 1. iii’ (Johannes Teutonicus, ad Comp. IV 2.2.2 [= X. 5.40.26] B.N. MS 3932, fol. 210^va, B.M.MS Roy. 11.C.VIII, fol. 218^r) or more fully: ‘nota crimen sacrilegii ecclesiasticum esse quod verum est, licet quandoque a iudice seculari punitur, ut C. de sacrosanc. ecc., Si quis in hoc genus. Item crimen usurarum hereseos symonie adulterii ad separacionem thori. Hec directe pertinent ad iudicem ecclesiasticum punienda et omnia alia indirecte, ut est ar. xxiii.q.i.c.ult. ex.iii e.ti. Licet ex suscepto’ (unsigned gloss [Damasus?] Comp. II 2.2.2 = X. 2.2.6] s.v. per dominum, B.M. Roy. 11.C.VIII, fol. 85^v). The quotation in the text above is from the Apparatus of Damasus (B.N. MS 3930, fol. 73^ra). The gloss just cited appears to be substantially the same.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 37} Cf. n. 25 above.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 38} Maintained apparently by Laurentius Hispanus: in patrimonio beati Petri libere potest apostolica sedes (scil. legitimare in temporalibus): Maxime dixit Io(annes Teutonicus), set l(aurentius) contra, quia eo teste non potest legitimare aliquem quo ad forum seculare ubi non habet temporalem iurisdiccionem nisi princeps hoc ei commiserit ut infra e.c. ult. nisi ordine mediante ut infra notaui in seruo ordinato’: ad Comp. III 4.12.2 (B.N.MS.3932, fol. 181^rb: B.M. MS Roy. 11.C.VIII, fol. 191^r). But for another view of what was Laurentius' opinion see the interpretation of St. Raymond, n. 40 below.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 39} ‘Plenam habet potestatem in hoc quia ex quo legitimat aliquem in spiritualibus per consequens legitimus est in temporalibus ut sequitur: tamen per hoc non probatur quod papa habeat iurisdiccionem in temporalibus nam legitimare spectat ad uoluntariam iurisdiccionem ut ff. de off. procon. l.ii. Item quia ad papam nichil spectat de temporalibus, ut supra, de app. Si duobus, l.i. supra de iud., Nouit, l.e., nisi in casibus ut notaui supra, de foro comp. c.ii, l.e: ad hoc dic quod papa non habet potestatem legitimandi in temporalibus set tamen eo ipso quod quis legitimatus est in spiritualibus intelligitur legitimatus in temporalibus unde per quandam consequenciam legitimat, set non directe: sepe enim dimittitur per consequenciam quod per se non permittitur, ut iiii.q.iii. Servi, ff. de auct. tut. l. i. Io.’: ad Comp. III 4.12.2 (B.M. Roy. MS cit. fol. 191^r).Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 40} ‘Item pone quod aliquis est legitimatus quoad actus ecclesiasticos et spirituales numquid per hoc erit legitimatus etiam quoad actus seculares? Videtur quod non, quia sicut imperator indiget auxilio pontificis in spiritualibus, ita e contra pontifex indiget auxilio principis in secularibus, d.x. Quoniam. Verius dicas quod talis intelligitur vel legitimatus indirecte vel per quandam consequentiam etiam ad actus seculares; monstruosum enim videtur ut qui legitimus ad spirituales fieret actiones, circa seculares actus illegitimus remaneret, extra. iii. qui filii sint legitimi, Per venerabilem: multa enim possumus indirecte que non possumus directe, C. de iudiciis, Quoties, extra. iii. de dote post div. restit. De prudentia. Dicunt tamen Laurentius, Vincentius et fere omnes doctores quod non erit legitimatus quoad successionem licet quoad actus legitimos alias sit legitimus’: Summa iuris 2.23, ed. cit. 96.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 41} Cf. Vincentius: ‘Erit legitimus quo ad actus seculares ut possit esse iudex, testis et huius, set quoad habebit hereditatem paternam non credo. vinc.’: ad Comp III, c. cit. (B.M. Roy. MS cit. fol. 191^r).Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 42} The whole discussion was to be reopened by Hostiensis, see below pp. 286–88.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 43} ‘Certis causis inspectis: scilicet cum requiritur (requirimur, B.N.3932) et hoc probatur auctoritate deutronomii, cum scilicet variatum est inter iudices. lau(rentius)’: ad Comp. III, c. cit. (B.M. Roy. MS cit. fol. 191^v). This gloss was retained in the glossa ord. ad Decr Greg .Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 44} ‘(per voces ‘directe’ et ‘indirecte’ intelligimus) potestatem pontificiam per se et proprie spiritualem esse, et ideo directe respicere, ut obiectum suum primarium, spiritualia negotia; sed indirecte, id est per ordinem ad spiritualia, reductive et per necessariam consequentiam, ut sic loquamur, respicere temporalia, ut obiectum secundarium, ad quod non convertitur haec spiritualis potestas nisi in casu, ut loquitur Innocentius III in cap. ‘per venerabilem’, Qui filii sint legitimi: In aliis, inquit, regionibus, certis causis inspectis, temporalem iurisdictionem casualiter exercemus’: Bellarmine, , Tract. de pot. pont. in rebus temp. c.v.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 45} Bernard of Parma was heavily in debt to Laurentius Hispanus for this gloss — see above, n. 43, and Laurentius: usurpare: immo licet ex certis causis, non ideo ordinarius quo ad temporalia, ar. supra, de off. ord. Pastoralis, Ex parte. l(aurentius)’: ad c. cit. (B.N. MS 3930, fol. 190^ra).Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 46} De sacramentis 2.2.2-4 (PL 176.416 ff). The influence of this work in the formulation of Innocent III's In Genesi has been pointed out by Kempf, F. in his edition of the Regestum super negotio Romani imperii (Rome 1947); see pp. 409–12 for the draft of this decretal which shows the influence more clearly than the final version. For the citation of In Genesî in the decretalists' ‘two swords’ quaestio cf. n. 19 above.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 47} Cf. Hostiensis: ‘Unde et secundum fratrem Alexandrum de ordine minorum, ecclesia est multitudo fidelium sive universitas christianorum, quod comprobatur de cons. di.i. Ecclesia, vii.q.i. Novacianus, habens duo latera; dextrum scilicet clericorum qui ea qua ad spiritualem vitam pertinent administrant; item sinistrum, scilicet laicorum qui terrene vite necessaria tractant. Est et duplex potestas spiritualis, scilicet que caput habet summum pontificem, et secularis, que caput habet regem, quod comprobatur xcvi di. Duo sunt, et in eo quod no. infra, qui fil. s. leg., Per venerabilem, Causam que ii. et supra, de eta. et qua., Cum sit ars artium, in prin. Spiritualis prior est terrena in tribus, scilicet in dignitate sive maioritate, in quantum spiritus est maior et dignior quam corpus, supra, de transi. epi. Inter corporalia. Unde Abraham patriarcha tamquam minor obtulit decimas Melchisedech tanquam maiori, Gen. iiii.v. “Benedixit etiam ei Melchisedech tanquam maior” (cf. Gen. 14.19), nam sicut habetur Heb.vii. ubi idem ostenditur, “sine ulla contraditione: quod minus est a maiore benedicitur” (Heb. 7.7), ad idem, xxi.di. Denique, ad finem. Item prior est institutione, quod patet per sacerdotium Melchisedech, de quo promissum est quod precessit legem scriptam, ut no. de const. Translato, et per hoc intellige quod sacerdotium a Deo primum institutum est, Exo. xxviii. v. “Legitimum sempiternum erit Aaron et semini eius post eum sed et hoc facies ut mihi in sacerdotio consecretur” (cf. Exod. 27.21 and 38.1). Demum per sacerdotium iubente Domino, regalis potestas est ordinata, i. Reg. viii. v. “Dixit Dominus ad Samuelem, audi vocem eorum et constitue super eos regem” (I Kings, 8.22) quod et fecit de Saule cui ait I Regum x. v. “Ecce unxit te Dominus super hereditatem suam in principem” etc. (I Kings. 1). Sed et prior est in potestate sive auctoritate, nam spiritualis auctoritas terrenam potestatem instituere habet ut sit iudicare autem si bona non fuerit, i. Cor. vi. “Nescitis quoniam angelos iudicabimus: quanto magis secularia? (I Cor.6.3). Ipsa tamen spiritualis etsi deviet a nemine iudicatur i. Cor. i.v”. Spiritualis iudicat omnia et ipse spiritualis a nemine iudicatur, quod de papa omnino verum est, ix. q. iii. Nemo et c. Aliorum, excepto crimine heresis, xl. di. Si papa’: Apparatus 1.15.1 s.v. potestatem. Hostiensis said he was drawing on the doctrine of Alexander of Hales, but Alexander himself, in this context, was merely reproducing Hugh of St. Victor's teaching. — The mark of this line of argument is very clearly written into Unam Sanctam .Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 1} Carlyle, R. W. and Carlyle, A. J., A History of Mediaeval Political Thought in the West V (Edinburgh and London 1928) 324.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 2} Rivière, J., Le problème de l'Église et de l'État au temps de Philippe le Bel (Louvain 1926) 39.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 3} Carlyle, , op. cit. 324.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 4} Rivière, op. cit. 46.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 5} Pacaut, M., ‘L'autorité pontificale selon Innocent IV’, Le Moyen Age 66 (1960) 85–119 at 88.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 6} Cf. Rivière, , op. cit .Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 7} Pacaut, , art. cit. 111.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 8} PL 214.1193.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 9} X.4.17.13 (Per venerabilem).Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 10} Apparatus ad 4.17.13 s.v. verisimilius. Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 11} ‘Sed dicet aliquis hoc summi pontifices statuere per se: unde cum non sine culpa sacrilegii loquatur’ (App. ad 2.2.10 s.v. vacante; full text printed below, n. 22). I take this to be a reference to the position Frederick II formulated: ‘Nam etsi nos nostre catholice fidei debito suggerente manifestissime fateamur, collatam a Domino sacrosancte Romane sedis antistiti plenariam potestatem in spiritualibus, quantumcumque quod absit sit ipse peccator, ut quod in terra ligaverit sit ligatum in celis, et quod solverit sit solutum, nusquam tamen legitur divina sibi vel humana lege concessum, quod transferre pro libito possit imperia aut de puniendis temporaliter in privacione regnorum regibus aut terre principum iudicare’: MGH Const. 2.362 (July-September 1245). Frederick's position has been fully analyzed by Ullmann, W., ‘Some Reflections on the Opposition of Frederick II to the Papacy,’ Archivio Storico Pugliese 13 (1960) 3–26.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 12} ‘Presentia concilii est ad solemnitatem tamen: quia etiam sine concilio solius pape sententia sufficeret ad damnationem imperatoris, xv.q.vi. Alius, xi.q.ult. Patet et c. seq. Ipse solus habet plenitudinem potestatis, ii.q.vi. Decreto privamus: nota quod papa deponit imperatorem, xv.q.vi. Alius, et est hoc de iure’: App. ad De sent. et re iud. c. Ad apostolice sedis (= Sext. 2.14.2).Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 13} This document constitutes a source for the history of the Council of Lyons which has often been overlooked. Reproduced by Hostiensis in both his Summa and Apparatus, it is a juristic appreciation of the problems on which Innocent IV had asked for the advice of the Fathers in the interval between the second (5 July) and third (17 July) sessions of the Council, cf. Hefele-Leclerq, , Histoire des Conciles V 2.1642, (though this document makes it clear that Innocent IV sought guidance on a wider range of questions than is here suggested). ‘Ideo consultus apud Lugd. in concilio generali quidam episcopus, primo, super potentia deponendi; secundo, super contemptu clavium; tertio, super captione, depredatione et interfectione prelatorum; quarto, super fractione pacis, per ecclesiam firmate: in quibus omnibus, sicut pro firmo tenebat curia, peccauerat Federicus, et iuxta proposita sic respondit: Secundum opiniones maiorum meorum imperator pro quolibet mortali peccato deponi potest, quod intelligas de gravibus et si incorrigibilis sit, maxime quando ecclesia universalis inde scandalizatur et concutitur, ut in isto. De hoc no(tatur) per Ioan(nem Teutonicum), 40 dist. Si papa, in glo. que incipit, ‘quod intelligitur,’ in fin., sup. verbo ‘a fide devius,’ (This gloss reads: ‘Sed pro quo peccato potest imperator deponi? pro quolibet, si est incorrigibilis unde deponitur si est minus utile, ut xv.q.vi. Alius.’) et in summa Hug(uccionis). Si enim Zacharias papa regem Francorum, qui a Romano pontifice coronam non recipit, nec per eum examinatur, nec ab eo comprobatur vel reprobatur, non tam pro suis iniquitatibus, quam pro eo quod tante potestati erat inutilis, a regno deposuit, et alium loco ipsius substituit, xv. q. vi. Alius, multo fortius imperatorem qui specialius quoddammodo subest ei, pro suis iniquitatibus, poterit removere, ut infra eodem, Venerabilem, et 96 dist., Duo sunt, et cap. Si imperator’: Summa 1.6. § 10 (Cambridge, Trinity Coll. MS B. 16. 46, fol. 17^v). I have edited this text with commentary in an article to appear in the Proceedings of the Ecclesiastical History Society, ‘Medieval Deposition Theory: A Neglected Canonist Consultatio from the First Council of Lyons.’ Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 14} There is some controversy as to whether this document, which is not in Innocent IV's Register, is to be accepted as Innocent's work or not, cf. E. Amann DThC s.v. Innocent IV; Rivière, , op.cit. 40; Pacaut, , art. cit. 93; Cantini, J. A., DDC 7.1031-32 s.v. Sinibalde dei Fieschi. I have accepted the view of Ptolomy of Lucca who referred to this letter ‘licet non sit in corpore iuris, sed est quedam epistola apologetica ad Fredericum imperatorem’ (Determinatio compendiosa de iurisdictione imperii ed. Krammer, , 59) and which Innocent ‘per universum mundum transmisit’ (ed. cit. 60).Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 15} For texts of Leo I, Gelasius I, Nicholas I etc. proclaiming the comprehensiveness of papal judicial power, see Ullmann, W., ‘Some Reflections on Frederick II’ 13 n.24.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 16} ‘Generali namque legatione in terris fungimur regis regum, qui non solum quemcumque sed, ne quid de rebus aut negociis intelligeretur exceptum, sub neutro genere generalius universa complectens, etiam quodcunque ligandi super terram pariter et solvendi apostolorum principi nobisque in ipso plenitudinem tribuit potestatis, etiam ut doctor gentium huiusmodi plenitudinem non restringendum ostenderet, dicens: ‘An nescitis quoniam angelos iudicabimus? Quanto magis secularia!’ (cf. Gregory VII, Reg. viii 21 and Innocent III in Per venerabilem; further references in Ullmann, , ‘Some Reflections on Frederick II’ 18 n.23). ‘Nonne ad temporalia quoque porrectam exposuit datam eidem in angelos potestatem, ut hiis intelligantur minora subesse, quibus subdita sunt maiora? Non minoris quidem, immo longe maioris potestatis esse credendum est eternum Christi pontificium in fundatissima Petri sede sub gratia ordinatum, quam inveteratum illud, quod figuris legalibus temporaliter serviebat, et tamen dictum est a Deo illius temporis pontificatu fungenti: “Ecce constitui te super gentes et regna ut evellas et plantes,” non solum utique super gentes sed etiam super regna, ut potestas eiusdem innotesceret tradita de utrisque. Hac potestate usi leguntur plerique pontifices veteris Testamenti qui a nonnullis regibus, qui se indignos fecerant principatu, regni solium auctoritate sibi divinitus tradita transtulerunt. Relinquitur ergo’: ed. Winkelmann, E., Acta imperii inedita s. XIII et XIV, Il (Innsbruck 1885) 677-8.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 17} Cf. Ullmann, W., Growth of Papal Government 431, 461–2.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 18} ‘Nam specialis coniunctio est inter papam et imperatorem, quia papa eum consecrat et examinat et est imperator eius advocatus et iurat ei: et ab eo imperium tenet, supra, de elec. Venerabilem, lxiii di. Ego, Tibi domino’: App. ad 2.2.10 s.v. vacante .Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 19} ‘Nota quod papa deponit imperatorem, ut xv. q.vi. Alius, et est hoc de iure, nam cum Christus filius Dei dum fuit in hoc seculo, et etiam ab eterno dominus naturalis fuit et de iure naturali in imperatores et quoscunque alios sententias depositionis ferre potuisset et damnationis et quascunque alias: ut pote in personas quas creaverat; et donis naturalibus et gratuitis donaverat et in esse conservarerat; et eadem ratione et vicarius eius potest hic. Nam non videtur discretus dominus fuisse ut cum reverentia eius loquitur, nisi unicum post se talem vicarium reliquisset qui hec omnia posset. Fuit autem iste vicarius eius Petrus, Math. xvi. ultra medium, et idem dicendum est de successoribus Petri cum eadem absurditas sequeretur si post mortem petri humanam naturam a se creatam sine regimine unius persone reliquisset, et ar. ad hoc supra, qui fil. sint leg. Per venerabilem ultra med., de hoc nota supra, de fo. comp. Licet’: App. ad c. Ad apostolicae sedis s.v. privamus (= Sext 2.14.2). See n. 22 below for the development of this theme of the vicariate.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 20} Innocent IV's view of the kingship of Christ should be seen in relation to thirteenth-century papal doctrine as a whole, cf. Leclercq, J., L'idée de la royauté du Christ au moyen âge (Paris 1959) 40–64, especially the very perceptive summary at 62-4.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 21} Cf. App. ad 3.34.8 s.v. pro defensione .Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 22} ‘Nota quod deus creavit in principio celum et terram et omnia quae in eis sunt, angelicam et humanam naturam, spiritualia et temporalia: ipsaque per seipsum rexit sicut factor suam rem gubernat et homini quem fecit precepta dedit et transgredienti penam imposuit per seipsum, scil. Ade et Eve, Gen. iii, mulieri quoque dixit etc., et ibi Ade vero dixit etc. Qualiter autem Chain per seipsum puniverit et Lamech et Cham et quosdam alios, in eo. lib. Gen. iii et v, c. legitur; et sic recto mundo per ipsum Deum usque ad Noe; ex tempore Noe cepit Deus creaturas suas regere per ministros quorum primus fuit Noe: de quo qui fuit rector populi ex eo apparet quod sibi Dominus gubernationem arche per quam ecclesia significavit promisit, Gen.v et vi. Item quia etiam Dominus Noe et filiis rectoriam et legem sibi dedit, Gen. ix; de Noe autem, licet non legatur sacerdos fuisse, officium tamen exercuit sacerdotis statim post ingressum arche antequam leges daret, Gen. viii, quod officium sacerdotis simul Abel et Chain, primo fecerant. In hac autem vicaria, successerunt patriarche, iudices, reges, sacerdotes, et alii qui pro tempore fuerunt in regimine populi Iudaeorum et sic duravit usque ad Christum, qui fuit naturalis dominus et rex noster, de quo dicitur in psalmis, Deus iudicium tuum regi da etc. (here Hostiensis professedly quoting Innocent, added: et Esaie xxxiii, Dominus iudex noster, dominus legifer noster, dominus rex noster). Ipse vero Dominus noster Jesus Christus vicarium suum constituit Petrum et successores suos quando dedit claves regni celorum et quando dixit eis: pasce oves meas, licet in multis distincta sunt (as cited below, p. 247) App. ad 2.2.10 s.v. imperio; Hostiensis, , App. ibid.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 23} Hostiensis reproduced substantially the list given by Innocent IV and acknowledged that he was drawing on the work of Innocent whom he invariably referred to as ‘dominus noster.’ In this instance Hostiensis' version is somewhat more clear than the master's and it is given here in preference. The list preceded the outline of history given in the preceding note. ‘Iste est ergo unus casus in quo iudex ecclesiasticus potest se intromittere de iurisdictione seculari: quando scilicet iudex secularis non invenitur, ut hic et alius in aut. ut dif. iud. § in civitatibus, coll.ix. Secundus cum secularis negligit iustitiam facere, ut supra eo.cap. v. dummodo, et c. Ex transmissa, in fine, et infra c.i, in fine, in quo potest etiam ipsum eundem iudicem ad reddendam iustitiam per censuram ecclesiasticam cohercere, xxiii.q.v, Administratores, et nota supra eod. Cum sit generale v.i. super verbis, sunt remissi. Tertius cum super dubio inter seculares iudices variatur, quod dic ut plene no. infra, qui fil. sint legi. Per venerabilem § rationibus v. sed quia sicut, et preced. Quartus quando agitur de terra supposita iurisdictioni ecclesie, infra de appel. Si duobus et no. supra prox. Quintus si est de consuetudine speciali, supra eo. Si clericus. Sextus si sic est de privilegio speciali, supra tit.i. Novit. Septimus de consuetudine generali contra malefactores ecclesie, supra eo. Cum sit generale. Octavus ratione peccati denunciati iuramenti vel pacis, supra ti. i. Novit. Nonus cum secularis iudex est suspectus, ut hic et in fi. et melius in aut. ut diffe. iudi. § si vero contigerit, col. ix. Decimus ratione connexitatis, infra de dona. inter vi. et uxo. De prudentia. Undecimus ratione cuiuslibet criminis et negotii ecclesiastici, vi. q.ii.c.i, infra, de usur. Quia, et iste casus multos habet sub se, ut no. infra eo. Ex tenore et supra eo. Cum sit generale, et supra, tit. i. Novit. Duodecimus ratione mortuariorum a defunctis relictorum, in quo etiam secundum legem si episcopus negligens fuerit, devolvitur potestas ad metropolitanum, in aut. de eccle. ti. § si autem pro redemptione et seq. coll. ix. infra de rebus eccle. non alie. c.fi.; transeunt enim hec omnino sub iurisdictione ecclesiastica, xxii.q.fi. Secundum canonicam et § seq.’: App. loc. cit. It is to be noticed that this list does not differ essentially from that compiled by Tancred, as cited above, p. 225.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 24} ‘Nota quod ecclesiastica libertas consistit in privilegiis super spiritualibus et privilegia super temporalibus. Item consistit in privilegiis generaliter ecclesie concessis et etiam in privilegiis singularibus cuiuscunque ecclesie. Primo ergo dicimus de spiritualibus quod non potest concedere nisi solus deus vel eius vicarius: quale est, quodcunque ligaveris super terram etc.; hoc enim privilegium Christus Petro in persona ecclesie concessit; tale est etiam privilegium quod in omnibus dubiis iuris que per inferiores ratione iurisdictionis humane terminari non possunt, ad ecclesiam recurratur, supra, qui fil. s. leg., Per venerabilem, prope finem’: App. ad 5.39.49 s.v. libertatem. The whole gloss is of considerable interest as an analysis of the important but often somewhat amorphous concept of libertas ecclesiae .Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 25} Hostiensis, , App. ad 4.17.13 (Per venerabilem) s.v. casualiter Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 26} Innocent IV, App. ad 2.2.10, for the text of which this is the generalized summary, see n. 22 above.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 27} The argument is developed below, pp. 275–77.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 28} There is perhaps an echo of Innocent IV's sentiments in Grosseteste's statements *** cerning the pope, who as ‘princeps super omnem populum suum Israeliticum, plenitudin habet potestatis’ (Ep. 127, R.S. 364).Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 29} On Johannes Teutonicus and the Glossa ordinaria super Decretum, see above, p. 226, n. 21. But it should be noted that a certain patriotic feeling for the independence of the empire did not extend as far as denying a papal power to depose emperors, see the texts given above, p. 226, and n. 21.Google Scholar

On Bernard of Parma and the Glossa ordinaria super Decretales see the texts on 4.17.3 s.v. certis causis inspectis cited on p. 233 above; his notabilia on 2.1.13, 2.28.7, 4.17.7 and 5.33.2; and his glosses 2.1.13 s.v. iurisdictionem nostram, 2.28.7 s.v. credimus. But this careful registration of the texts de iurisdictione distincta did not prevent Bernard from holding the ‘two swords’ theory as expressing the relationship of pope and emperor, the papal headship of Christendom (cf. 4.17.7 s.v. ad regem cited above, p. 224 n. 19) and the deposing power (cf. 5.7.10 s.v. precipimus: this gloss is substantially that of J. Teutonicus et alii printed above, p. 225-26, n. 21).

^{page 250 note 30} See also his view on the role of kings in episcopal elections, below p. 298. Since this study was written, Cantini, J. A. has examined very carefully the ‘mens dualistica’ of Innocent IV, ‘De autonomia judicis saecularis et de Romani pontificis plenitudine potestatis in temporalibus secundum Innocentium IV,’ Salesianum 23 (1961) 407–80. But it is clearly going too far to argue that Innocent IV believed in a ‘paritas’ of the powers (cf. p.448).Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 1} The full text may be consulted in Hefele-Leclerq, , Histoire des Conciles VI.1.176; Mansi 24.70 or DThC 9.1384-86, where it is analyzed briefly by F. Vernet. The Creed itself was first sent to the Greeks by Clement IV in March 1267 (Potthast no. 19951; Raynaldus, , a. 1267 §§72-79); for a discussion of the immediate circumstances of the despatch of the Confession cf. Geanakoplos, D.J., Emperor Michael Palaeologus and the West, 1258-1282 (Harvard 1959) 200-04. Part of this Creed, including the sentence ‘Ipsa quoque’ quoted in the text was incorporated in c. 4 De Romani Pontificis infallibili magisterio of the First Vatican Council.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 2} ‘Vices nostras ita tuae credidimus charitati, ut in partem sis vocatus sollicitudinis, non in plenitudinem potestatis’ Ep. 14 (PL 54.671). Cf. Rivière, J., ‘In partem sollicitudinis Évolution d'une formule pontificale’, Recherches des sciences religieuses 5 (1925) 210-31 and especially, Ullmann, W., ‘Leo I and the Theme of Papal Primacy’, Journal of Theological Studies 11 (1960) 25-51.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 3} Ullmann, , art. cit. 44, demonstrating how ‘within the precincts of the theme of papal primacy Leo's theology appeared in the garb of Roman jurisprudence.’ Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 4} The original Leonine text was given in C.3 q.6 c.8; in a text of Pseudo-Gregory IV's in C.2 q.6 c.11: ‘vices suas ita aliis inpertivit ecclesiis, ut in partem sint vocatae sollicitudinis, non in plenitudinem potestatis’; and in a Pseudo-Isidorian one, C.2 q.6 c.12: ‘Ipsa namque ecclesia, quae prima est, ita reliquis ecclesiis vices suas credidit largiendas, ut in partem sint vocatae sollicitudinis, non in plenitudinem potestatis. Unde omnium appellantium apostolicam sedem episcoporum iudicia, et cuncta maiorum negotia causarum, eidem sanctae reservata esse liquet.’ Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 5} Pr. C.9 q.3: ‘Vocantur enim episcopi a metropolitano in partem sollicitudinis, non in plenitudinem potestatis.’ Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 6} Cf. Ladner, G.B., ‘The Concepts of “ecclesia” and “christianitas” and their Relation to the Idea of Papal “plenitudo potestatis” from Gregory VII to Boniface VIII’, Misc. Hist. Pont. 18 (Rome 1954) 63–4.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 7} Cf. Rufinus, C.25 proem. ed.cit. 421 and Brys, J., De dispensatione in iure canonico praesertim apud decretistas et decretalistas usque ad medium saeculum XIV (Bruges 1925) 143.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 8} As for instance in the Summa ‘Elegantius in iure’ (1169-70): ‘Ipsi (scil. summi pontifices). canones abrogare eisque derogare et novos condere et privilegia dare dataque tollere plenam habent potestatem dum tamen in his omnibus nichil contra fidem presumant vel in quo universalem ecclesiam offendant. Mater nostra Romana ecclesia que superlativam in omnibus auctoritatem gerit itaque prima sedes ex cause cognicione corrigendorum causa vitiorum maxime privilegia et imminuendi et immutandi nunc personaliter, nunc generaliter plenariam potestatem habet’: B.N. MS lat. 14997, fol. 8^rv .Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 9} Which decretists discussed in terms of papal legislative authority following Roman law and civilian analyses. Cf. Rufinus: ‘Plena auctoritas illa dicitur que in se continet preceptum et generalitatem’ (ad D.11 c.2 ed.cit. 27); similarly, Joannes Faventinus, B.M. MS Roy.9.E.VII fo. 7^ra; Summa ‘Tractaturus Magister’: ‘qui habet potestatem condendi, necessaria, generalis est in scriptis pape vel imperatoris’: ad dict. Grat. post c.30, C.11 q.1 (B.N. MS 15594, fol. 51^rb); anon. gloss (Durham Cath. MS C.I.7): ‘solus papa plenam habet auctoritatem que tria in se continet, preceptum, generalitatem, necessitatem observancie’: ad D.11 c.2; anon. gloss (Durham Cath. MS C. II.1): ‘ille solus habet ius interpretandi canones: est auctoritas generalis et necessaria, [et] principis: huius est interpretari et condere, et continet in se necessitatem, generalitatem, preceptum: nec generalis, nec necessaria magistri: huius nec est interpretari nec condere et tamen in se preceptum continet; non generalis set necessaria, iudicis: huius non est condere set interpretari et continet in se preceptum et necessitatem’: ad dict. Grat. post c.30, C.11 q.1 (fol. 157^rb). Civilian parallels to this type of analysis may be studied in Quaestiones de iuris subtilitatibus ed. Fitting, H. (Berlin 1864) 57 col.2; Hugolinus, , in Dissensiones Dominorum sive controversiae veterum iuris romani interpretum , ed. Haenel, G. (Leipzig 1834) 330; Rogerius, , Summa Codicis, in Bibliotheca iuridica medii aevi: Scripta anecdota Glossatorum I, ed. Gaudentius, A. (Bologna 1888) 14-15.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 10} As with Rufinus, when in introducing C.9 he stated he intended to show ‘quomodo Romanus pontifex omnium ecclesiarum et clericorum summam potestatem teneat’ (ed. cit. 298); Faventinus, J., similarly (MS cit. fo. 87b).Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 11} De consid. 2.8.16 (PL 182.752), 3.4.14 (ibid. 766): Ep. 131, 132 (ibid. 286-7). For analyses of St. Bernard's theology of the primacy and detailed discussion of his use of plenitudo potestatis , cf. Congar, Y., ‘L'ecclésiologie de S. Bernard,’ S. Bernard théologien (Anal. Sacr. Ord. Cist. 9 [1953] 136–190 at 159-165 and 181-190; also, Jacqueline, B., ‘Bernard et l'expression “plenitudo potestatis”,’ Bernard de Clairvaux (Paris 1952) 345-48.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 11a} Alongside Hobbes's famous gibe: ‘And if a man consider the original of this great ecclesiastical dominion, he will easily perceive that the Papacy is no other than the ghost of the deceased Roman empire, sitting crowned on the grave thereof’ (Leviathan, chap. 47, ed. M. Oakeshott, p. 457) should be placed the more measured judgment of a recent historian: ‘Le droit romain permit à la communauté chrétienne de s'organiser en société. Ce service se poursuivra pendant des siècles. Il fera dans un certain sens, de l'Église catholique la plus authentique héritière de l'Empire romain’: A. Boon, review of Gaudemet, J., La formation du droit séculier et du droit de l'Église , in Bull. de théol. ancienne et médiév. 8 (1958) 178. Various aspects of this theme as it developed from mid-eleventh century onwards, have been examined by Jordan, K., ‘Die Enstehung der Römischen Kurie,’ ZRG Kan. Abt. 59 (1939) 97-152; Leicht, P.S., ‘Il Pontefice S. Gregorio VII ed il diritto romano,’ Studi Gregoriani 1 (1947) 93-110; Schramm, P.E., ‘Sacerdotium und Regnum im Austausch ihrer Vorrechte,’ ibid. 2 (1947) 403-457; Hof, A., ‘Plenitudo potestatis und Imitatio imperii zur Zeit Innocenz' III,’ Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. 66 (1954-5) 39-71; above all, Le Bras, G., ‘Le droit romain au service de la domination pontificale,’ Rev. hist. de droit franç.⁴ 27(1949) 377-98.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 11b} St. Bernard's well-known invective is discussed by Bras, Le, Institutions ecclésiastiques 72 and the progressive penetration of Roman law into canon law summarized into its principal stages, 73, 77-8.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 12} A handy compendium of the individual canons of the Decretum which were the bases of decretist discussion may be consulted in the Margarita Decreti sea Tabula Martiniana, compiled by Martinus Polonus († 1279) printed in many of the early editions of the Decretum s.vv. Apostolica, Ecclesia, Roma, Sedes, Petrus, Papa .Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 13} Decretist exegesis found its chief originality in its discussion of the possible limitations of a personal papal power especially with respect to the definition of the faith in relation to the college of cardinals and a general council. Cf. Tierney, B., Foundations of Conciliar Theory (Cambridge 1955) 23–67; Watt, J. A., ‘The Early Medieval Canonists and the Formation of Conciliar Theory,’ Irish Theological Quarterly 24 (1957) 13-31; Tierney, B., ‘Pope and Council: Some New Decretist Texts,’ Mediaeval Studies 19 (1957) 197-218.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 14} Cf. the texts, especially those of Huguccio, printed by Gillmann, F., ‘Zur scholastischen Auslegung von Mt.xvi, 18,’ AKKR 104 (1924) 40–53.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 15} Put succinctly and strikingly by the decretist Rufinus when as bishop of Assisi he preached at the opening of the Third Lateran Council: ‘Sacrosancta Romana ecclesia cum sit apex omnium cathedrarum, cum sit mater ecclesiarum omnium, magistra quoque omnium, dignissime ipsa sola omnium ecclesiarum obtinere meruit monarchiam’: Le discours (above, p. 180 n. 2) 118. Huguccio gave a classic summary of the reasons why the Roman Church was mater omnium ecclesiarum: ‘racione principii, racione institutionis, racione prelacionis’: D. 11 c.1 s.v. sit mater (Pembroke Coll. MS 72, fol. 124^va). The formulation was still in use at the end of the thirteenth century, cf. de Baysio, Guido, Rosarium, ibid.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 16} ‘Petrum vero quasi in summum sacerdotem elegit, dum ei prae omnibus et pro omnibus claves regni coelorum tribuit: et a se petra, Petri nomen sibi imposuit: atque pro eius fide se specialiter rogasse testatus est; et ut ipse caeteros confirmaret, subiunxit dicens: Ego pro te rogavi Petre, ut non deficiat fides tua; et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos’: dict. pr. D. 21.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 17} ‘Unde cum omnibus discipulis parem ligandi atque solvendi potestatem dominus daret, Petro pro omnibus et prae omnibus claves regni coelorum’: dict. post c.4 C.24 q.1. The apparatus of the glossa ordinaria period interpreted in agreement: ‘pro omnibus ut notetur unitas; pre omnibus ut notetur prelacio’: Gloss. Pal. ad loc. cit. (Durham Cath. MS C.III.8, fol. 70^v); Alanus (B.N.15393, fol. 198^vb); Teutonicus, Joannes (ed. Paris 1561, col. 1447)Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 18} D.21 c.2 (Ps.-Isid.).Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 19} Huguccio stated the position generally in relation to D.21 c.2 which he summarized: ‘In hoc capitulo ostenditur quod ecclesia romana prima est et prelata omnibus aliis; ipsa enim instituit omnes alias set ipsa a solo Christo instituta est, et omnibus aliis prelata est, et qui talem prelacionem vult auferre a romana ecclesia esse hereticus censeatur.’ He developed the theme of Roman prelacio (in discussing the words of the text ‘Hic ergo ligandi solvendique potestatem primus accepit a domino: primusque ad fidem populum sue predicationis virtute adduxit verboque instituit. Ceteri vero apostoli cum eodem pari consortio honorem et potestatem acceperunt: ipsumque principem eorum esse voluerunt’): ‘primus id est maximus et precipuus, id est, precipue: hic dicitur quia totum videbatur fieri ab illo quia habebant ab eo confirmacionem et auctoritatem predicandi et convertendi populum pari consorcio, illi pares fuerunt quo ad ordinem quia quamcunque ordinem habuit Petrus, habuit et quilibet aliorum, set Petrus prefuit illis in dignitate prelacionis, in amministracione, in iurisdiccione; ipse enim de aliis disponebat et eos ad predicandum mittebat. Item prefuit in appellacione quia ipse solus Cephas, id est caput apostolorum dictus est’ (MS cit. fol. 130^rb).Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 20} Huguccio: ‘(papa) qui locum in dignitate Petri obtinet, et quantam dignitatem et potestatem habuit Petrus racione papatus tantam habet eius successor’: ad D. 19 c.2 (MS cit. fol. 128^ra).Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 21} Ad D.21 c.2 (MS cit. fol. 130^rb) Cf. also the text quoted n. 19.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 22} Simon of Bisignano: ‘vices vos sedis apostolice sedis: quia forte summus pontifex hunc archiepiscopum legatum suum fecit (vel?) quia omnes vocantur ab eo in partem sollicitudinis non in plenitudinem potestatis’ (ad D. 100 c.10, Lambeth Pal. MS 141, fol. 16^vb); Huguccio, similarly (Lincoln Cath. MS 2, fol. 176^rb); Joannes Teutonicus: ‘vices: per privilegium fecerat eum legatum suum, sicut suus praedecessor fuerat. Vel ideo dicit, quia omnes vocantur ab eo in partem sollicitudinis, non in plenitudinem potestatis, ut ii. q. vi. Decreto’ (ed. cit., col. 513).Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 23} Code 3.7 (de iurisdictione omnium iudicum) was the Roman law source suggesting parallels for the decretists. The civilian Azo, whose definition of jurisdiction still obtained in canonist thought at the time of Hostiensis (see Summa, 2.2. § 15, col. 409) had this suggestive formulation: dividitur autem iurisdictio, quia alia plenissima est et ea est in solo principe, alia est minus plena et ea est in ceteris magistratibus plenam ergo vel plenissimam iurisdictionem soli principi competere dico: cum lege Hortensia populus ei et in eum omne imperium et omnem potestatem transtulerit’ (text printed by Mochi Onory, S., Fonti canonistiche 67 n.2). Rogerius distinguished between ‘iurisdictio communis et plena’ and ‘semiplena’: Summa Codicis tit. eod. (ed. cit. p. 41). Compare Huguccio: ‘auctoritas pape dicitur plena quia plenitudinem habet potestatis, aliorum auctoritas dicitur semiplena quia vocati sunt in partem sollicitudinis’: ad D.11 c.2 s.v. plena auctoritate. There was therefore a juristic tradition behind St. Thomas‘ well-known analogy: ‘Papa habet plenitudinem potestatis pontificalis quasi rex in regno, episcopi vero assumuntur in partem sollicitudinis quasi iudices singulis civitatibus propositi’: In IV Sent. IV dist. 20.q.1, a.4, § 33.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 24} Cf. e.g. St. Bonaventure: ‘Christi vicarius fons, origo et regula omnium principatuum ecclesiasticorum, a quo tanquam a summo derivatur ordinata potestas usque ad infima ecclesiae membra’: Breviloquium 6.12.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 25} Hostiensis: ‘Nam ab illo (papa) omnis dignitas ecclesiastica originem sumit, 22 di. c.1’: Summa 1.15.8, 32.3. Guilelmus Durantis: ‘et summus pontifex, quia caput est omnium pontificum a quo illi tanquam a capite descendunt et de cuius plenitudine omnes accipiunt, quos ipse vocat in partem sollicitudinis, non in plenitudinem potestatis’: Rationale divinorum officiorum 2.1.17.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 26} E.g. Huguccio: ‘Tocius iuris canonici noticia sit in pectore domine pape, et tocius iuris legalis noticia sit in pectore imperatoris’: D. 18 c.7 s.v. regula (Pembroke Coll. MS 72 fol. 127^vb); Alanus, , Apparatus ‘Ius naturale’: ‘ius enim omne habet vel habere presumitur princeps vel papa in pectore suo, ut C. De testibus l. Omnium’: ad loc. cit (B.N. MS 15393 fol. 13^va). On the future development of this idea, cf. Gillmann, F., ‘Romanus pontifex iura omnia in scrinio pectoris sui censetur habere,’ AKKR 106 (1926) 156-174.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 27} Dig. 49.3.1; 50.1.3.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 28} The dictum and the principle behind it was important in the development of the notion of the pope as iudex Ordinarius omnium discussed below. Cf. Huguccio: ‘quolibet medio pretermisso potest fieri appellacio ad papam quod in aliis non obtinet et hoc videndum est quia romana ecclesia est commune et generale forum omnium clericorum et omnium ecclesiarum et dominus papa est iudex Ordinarius omnium’: ad C.2 q.6 c.4 (B.N. MS 15396, fol. 115^vb).Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 29} Cf. Huguccio, : ‘Set nonne clerici uel populi possent compelli ut impleant quod papa uel princeps vult, cum papa habeat plenitudinem potestatis et omnis potestas sit in principem collata?’: ad dict. Grat. ante D.4 c.4 s.v. moribus utentium (Pembroke Coll. MS 72, fol. 119^va).Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 30} ‘Unde intelligitur uterque plenitudinem potestatis habere quoad hoc’ (scil. ius condendi leges vel canones): loc. cit. s.v. leges .Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 31} La République cited by Mesnard, P., L'Essor de la philosophie politique au xvi^e siècle (Paris 1951) 494.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 32} Ad D. 17 C.3 (MS cit. fo. 126va).Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 33} Cf. e.g. anon. gloss MS Caius 676 ad C.2 q.6 c.4 s.v. ad caput (fol. 80^ra) The early decretalists introduced the practice, which became regular, of summarizing these cases in verse: ‘Restituit papa, solus deponit et ipse/Dividit sic unit, eximit atque probat/ Articulos saluat synodumque facit generalem./ Transfert et mutat, appellat nullus ab illo’: gloss. ad Comp. II 5.13.4 s.v. unire (B.M. MS Roy. 11.C.VII fol. 109^v). Cf. Raymond of Peñafort, Summa Iuris (ed. cit. 49); Hostiensis, , Summa 1.32. § 3 col.280 (with an additional twenty-eight lines added to the four cited above).Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 34} This is not of course to say that Innocent III was the first pope to use the term since Leo I. But it was not generally in use in papal letters of the twelfth century, though it was used occasionally by Lucius III (PL 201.1245, 1288). Its more regular usage by the papal chancery seems to date from the pontificate of Celestine III, cf. the examples cited by Zerbi, P., Papato, impero e ‘respublica christiana’ dal 1187 al 1198 (Milan 1955) 170–73.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 35} Cf. Maccarrone, M., Vicarius Christi: Storia del titolo papale (Rome 1952) 106, citing Huguccio.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 36} ‘Inter quos (apostolos) beatissimus Petrus primus et praecipuus cui singulariter a Domino dicitur: “Tu vocaberis Cephas.” Cephas enim licet secundum unam linguam interpretatur Petrus, secundum aliam tamen dicitur caput (cp. Huguccio on D.22 c.2, note 19 above, as the possible immediate source of this terminology). Quia sicut plenitudo sensuum consistit in capite, in caeteris autem membris pars est aliqua plenitudinis; ita caeteri vocati sunt in partem sollicitudinis, solus autem Petrus assumptus est in plenitudinem potestatis. Unde cum Dominus omnibus simul apostolis loqueretur, universaliter ait: “Quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eis.” Cum autem soli Petro locutus est, particulariter dixit: “Quodcunque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in celis”; quia Petrus potest ligare caeteros, sed non ligari potest a caeteris, ut pote primus et summus magister et princeps Ecclesiae. Quod etsi omnibus apostolis simul dictum fuisse legatur, non tamen aliis sine ipso, sed ipsi sine aliis legitur dictum esse; ut quod non alii sine ipso, sed ipse sine aliis intelligatur hoc posse de plenitudine potestatis’: Sermo 21, In solemnitate D. Apostolorum Petri et Pauli (PL 217.552).Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 37} Ibid. 557.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 38} The typically Innocentian simile to express the derivational thesis: in addition to the example quoted above and in the text, cf. Sermo 7, In festo S. D. Silvestri Pontificis Maximi (PL cit. 482) and n. 41 below; Sermo 13, In festo D. Gregorii Papae (PL cit. 518).Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 39} Sermo 2, In consecratione Pontificis Maximi (PL cit. 657-58). This exegesis of I Cor. 4.4 had been anticipated by Simon of Bisignano (Juncker, , Die Summa des Simon von Bisignano und seine Glossen 489) and by Huguccio, ad C.2 q.7 c.41 s.v. iudicio. For the passages ‘Cum omnibus loqueretur’ and ‘Quia sicut in capite’ compare also Sermo 21, note 36 above.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 40} Chancery usage may be studied in any of the Registers of Innocent III. For Reg. I cf. PL 214.77, 106, 218-9, 286, 319, 324, 394, 456, 458-9.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 41} I have published the eleven decretal usages of the term by Innocent III in my paper given to the Second International Congress of Medieval Canon Law (Boston 1963), ‘The use of the term plenitudo potestatis by Hostiensis,’ Appendix A, to be published in the Subsidia series of the Monumenta iuris canonici .Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 42} Bernard of Parma ad X.1.7.3. Tancred's text on which he had based his gloss reads: ‘dei uicem. In hoc gerit uicem dei quia sedet in loco Iesu Christi qui est uerus deus et uerus homo, ut in instit. innoc. iii. Firmiter credimus. Item de nichilo fecit aliud ut deus, ar. iii. q. vi. Hec quippe et C. de rei uxo. act. l. una, in princ. Item in hoc gerit uicem dei quia plenitudinem potestatis habet in rebus ecclesiasticis, ut ii.q. vi. Decreto, infra, de usu pallii c. ii. Item quia de iusticia potest facere iniusticiam (sic) corrigendo ius et mutando, ut in const. innoc. iii. Ut debitus et c. Non debet. Nec est qui dicat ei cur ita facis, ut de pe. di. iii. § Personam. t.’ (Durham Cath. MS C.III.4, fol. 103^va). An unsigned gloss in B.M. Roy. 11.C.VII on the same text reads: ‘In hoc gerit uicem dei quia de nichilo facit aliquid ut iii. q. vi. Hec quippe. C. de rei uxo. ac. l. una, in prin. Item in hoc quod plenitudinem potestatis habet in rebus ecclesiasticis, ii.q.vi. Decreto. Item in hoc quod supra ius dispensat, ut infra de con.preb. non vac. ci. ut ibi dixi. Alibi tamen appellatur successor piscatoris, xxiiii.q.i. Quoniam uetus’ (fo. 120^r). The actual meaning of some of these tags is not immediately obvious — as the correctores Romani in the standard edition of the Gregoriana pointed out somewhat caustically. But their explanation is useful: ‘Tota haec glossa vix aliquid explicat propriis verbis; quod si bene intelligatur, vera astruit, nam de nihilo aliquid facere est ius novum condere et de iniustitia iustitiam, intellige per constitutionem iuris; et immutare substantiam rerum accipi debet in his quae sunt iuris positivi, et ita loquuntur iura, quae citantur’ (col.217).Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 43} Nor was it necessarily prolix. Vincentius Hispanus managed to reveal much about the background of the term without in fact offering a personal word, simply by attaching four texts to it: ‘plenitudo ecclesiastice iurisdiccionis: s.ii.q.vi. Decreto: s.ix.q.iii. Per principalem; D. de leg. et const. Digna (recte Cod.1.17.4): s. De transla. Inter corporalia, lib. eo. vinc’ (Comp. III 3.8.2. B.M. Roy. 11.C. VII, fo. 168^v). The first two of the texts cited gave the traditional background: Decreto contains the actual term itself and Per principalem is a strong statement of the papacy's position, of what Innocent III would call the ‘totius ecclesiasticae disciplinae magistratus’ (PL 216.1265); the Roman law citation models papal sovereignty on the imperial, and the decretal cited, one of Innocent III's, links the term with the papal position as vicarius Christi .Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 44} Cf. Summa Iuris (1218-1221): ‘Papa est summus inter omnes. Ipse enim habet plenitudinem potestatis, alii partem sollicitudinis, ii.q.vi, Decreto, Qui se scit (cc.11, 12). Item licet aliis apostolis dixerit Dominus ut laxarent retia, soli tamen Petro dixit: duc in altum, et ei soli dixit ut piscaretur hamo per que preeminens iurisdiccio designatur, xxiiii.q.i, Non turbatur, Est aliud (cc.7,8). Item quia ipse est vicarius Christi et maior homine, minor Deo, extra iii, de translacione episcoporum, Inter (Comp. IIIa. 1.5.2). Et ei soli dictum est: tu es Petrus, etc, xxi di. Quamvis (c.3). Et ut melius intelligas preeminenciam eius nota quod quedam adeo inherant pape et sedi apostolice quod non possunt per alios expediri nec transeunt etiam cum generali mandato nisi specialiter demandentur’ (there follows a long list of such cases; ed. cit. 47-49).Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 45} Cf. e.g. in his Sermones de Sanctis: in festo S. Silvestri: ‘Quum autem (dominus) soli Petro locutus est, dixit: Quodcunque ligaveris et addidit: et tibi dabo claves regni coelorum, ostendit quod caeteri vocati sunt in partem sollicitudinis. Solus autem Petrus assumptus est in plenitudinem potestatis, quia solus potest ligare caeteros, sed non potest ligari a caeteris. Quia successor Petri videlicet summus pontifex, principatum cathedrae Romanae ecclesiae possidet et gubernat, qui plenitudinem honoris sui et amplissimam dignitatem caeteris ecclesiis per universum mundum in Domino constitutis distribuit et dispensat, ordinans in eis patriarchas, primates, episcopos, abbatos, priores caeterosque praelatos’: Honorii III Opera omnia , ed. Horoy, , Bibl. Patristica II (Paris 1879) 100. Cf. also his Sermo in cathedra S. Petri (col. 134) for a restatement of the same view. One of Honorius' decretals (Comp. V. 3.9.1) made use of the term. The canonist interpretation of this usage is well brought out in James of Albenga's Apparatus on Compilatio V: ‘de plenitudine potestatis: ipse enim solus uocatus in plenitudinem potestatis, et alii episcopi in partem sollicitudinis, ut supra, de usu pallii, Ad honorem, et ix.q.iii.c.ult. et penult. et ii.q.vi. Decreto et c.seq. tamen dicit cum papa sit uocatus in plenitudinem potestatis, ut iii.q.vii; et uicem ueri dei teneat in terris, ut supra de transl. ep. Quanto l.iii, ubi dicitur (I have here corrected the defective word order of the MS) quod in omnibus potest dispensare, ar. iii.q.vi. Hec quippe et C. de rei uxor. acc. circa prin. et de con. di. ii. Reuera: <intelligitur> sermo igitur preterquam in articulis fidei et preterquam in hiis a quibus pendet generalis status ecclesie quia illa debet usque ad effusionem sanguinis defendere, xxv.q.i. Sunt quidam, et si contra illa faceret posset accusari tanquam hereticus, ut xl.di. Si papa’ (B.M. Roy. 11.C. VII, fol. 262^r-263^v). sermo igitur preterquam in articulis fidei et preterquam in hiis a quibus pendet generalis status ecclesie quia illa debet usque ad effusionem sanguinis defendere, xxv.q.i. Sunt quidam, et si contra illa faceret posset accusari tanquam hereticus, ut xl.di. Si papa’ (B.M. Roy. 11.C. VII, fol. 262r-263v).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Cf.+e.g.+in+his+Sermones+de+Sanctis:+in+festo+S.+Silvestri:+‘Quum+autem+(dominus)+soli+Petro+locutus+est,+dixit:+Quodcunque+ligaveris+et+addidit:+et+tibi+dabo+claves+regni+coelorum,+ostendit+quod+caeteri+vocati+sunt+in+partem+sollicitudinis.+Solus+autem+Petrus+assumptus+est+in+plenitudinem+potestatis,+quia+solus+potest+ligare+caeteros,+sed+non+potest+ligari+a+caeteris.+Quia+successor+Petri+videlicet+summus+pontifex,+principatum+cathedrae+Romanae+ecclesiae+possidet+et+gubernat,+qui+plenitudinem+honoris+sui+et+amplissimam+dignitatem+caeteris+ecclesiis+per+universum+mundum+in+Domino+constitutis+distribuit+et+dispensat,+ordinans+in+eis+patriarchas,+primates,+episcopos,+abbatos,+priores+caeterosque+praelatos’:+Honorii+III+Opera+omnia+,+ed.+Horoy,+,+Bibl.+Patristica+II+(Paris+1879)+100.+Cf.+also+his+Sermo+in+cathedra+S.+Petri+(col.+134)+for+a+restatement+of+the+same+view.+One+of+Honorius'+decretals+(Comp.+V.+3.9.1)+made+use+of+the+term.+The+canonist+interpretation+of+this+usage+is+well+brought+out+in+James+of+Albenga's+Apparatus+on+Compilatio+V:+‘de+plenitudine+potestatis:+ipse+enim+solus+uocatus+in+plenitudinem+potestatis,+et+alii+episcopi+in+partem+sollicitudinis,+ut+supra,+de+usu+pallii,+Ad+honorem,+et+ix.q.iii.c.ult.+et+penult.+et+ii.q.vi.+Decreto+et+c.seq.+tamen+dicit+cum+papa+sit+uocatus+in+plenitudinem+potestatis,+ut+iii.q.vii;+et+uicem+ueri+dei+teneat+in+terris,+ut+supra+de+transl.+ep.+Quanto+l.iii,+ubi+dicitur+(I+have+here+corrected+the+defective+word+order+of+the+MS)+quod+in+omnibus+potest+dispensare,+ar.+iii.q.vi.+Hec+quippe+et+C.+de+rei+uxor.+acc.+circa+prin.+et+de+con.+di.+ii.+Reuera:++sermo+igitur+preterquam+in+articulis+fidei+et+preterquam+in+hiis+a+quibus+pendet+generalis+status+ecclesie+quia+illa+debet+usque+ad+effusionem+sanguinis+defendere,+xxv.q.i.+Sunt+quidam,+et+si+contra+illa+faceret+posset+accusari+tanquam+hereticus,+ut+xl.di.+Si+papa’+(B.M.+Roy.+11.C.+VII,+fol.+262r-263v).>Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 46} For some examples of Alexander's use of the term, cf. In IV Sent. 4.24 (Bibliotheca Franciscana Scholastica Medii Aevi 15; Quaracchi 1957) pp. 406, 425, 426; and 4.38, p.562.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 47} In IV Sent. 4.19. art. 3.q.1: Opera omnia IV Quaracchi (1889) 508; further examples pp. 532, 539, 635 and in 1.11 art.1 q.1: Opp. I (1882) 212.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 48} ‘Dabo autem tibi: singulariter, non quod singulariter acceperit Petrus: sed quia in unitate ordinis ecclesiae unus est, qui accipit in plenitudine potestatis, qui est successor Petri, et Petrus in potestate. Alii autem in eadem unitate accipiunt in parte potestatis, eo quod vocantur in partem sollicitudinis’: Comm. in evang. D. Matth. c. 16 (Opera Omnia 9; Lyons 1651 fol. 308^b) Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 49} Three works, all of Dominican origin, are considered here: (1) an anonymous Tractatus contra Graecos written probably in 1252 by a member of the Dominican house in Constantinople. It has been printed, somewhat defectively by P. Stevartius (Stevart), Tomus singularis insignium auctorum tam Graecorum quam Latinorum (Ingolstadt 1616) 535-631. The fourth distinction (pp. 578-592) is entitled (distinctio) In qua ostenditur quod papa est caput ecclesiae. (2) The Libellus de fide sanctae Trinitatis of Nicholas, bishop of Cotrone, which in its Greek version was presented to Michael Palaiologos and in its Latin version to Urban IV in 1264. Urban sent the work to Aquinas for his comment, which took the form of (3) Contra errores Graecorum (1264), a much improved version of the Libellus. Nicholas' treatise has been printed by Uccelli, P.A., Anonymus liber de fide sanctissimae Trinitatis (Rome 1880) 377–442 and by Reusch, E.H., ‘Die Fälschungen in dem Tractat des Thomas von Aquin gegen die Griechen: Opusculum contra errores Graecorum ad Urbanum IV,’ Abh. Akad. Munich 18 (1889) 673-742: cf. 681-89 for the section de primatu Romanae ecclesiae. The treatises of Nicholas and Aquinas have been reprinted with commentary by Glorieux, P., S. Thomas d'Aquin: Contra errores Graecorum (Monumenta Christiana selecta, Paris 1957). On this branch of literature generally, cf. Dondaine, A., “‘Contra Graecos”: Premiers écrits polémiques des Dominicains d'Orient,’ Archivum Fratr. Praed. 21 (1951) 320-446.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 50} A typical example of the method is afforded in Stervatius' edition on p. 579. One of the Petrine texts is selected, and its exegesis is illustrated with several quotations of John Chrysostom, and the proposition asserted firmly: ‘Petrus autem habuit praerogativam dignitatis super Apostolos et plenitudinem potestatis super omnes homines,’ and again, ‘Commisit quidem Petro praelationem omnium fidelium. Quia etsi Iacobus Hierolymitanam suscepit, Petrus tamen totius orbis: quasi dicat: Sanctus vocatus est Iacobus in partibus Hierosolymitanis sed Petrus in plenitudine potestatis.’ Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 51} Ed. cit. 580. The use of the word ‘vertex’ is interesting. It was not in the usual vocabulary of canonists and others in the thirteenth century who discussed papal primacy. That it entered the Lyons Creed demonstrates that the literature contra Graecos played a significant part in the formulation of the Creed. It was allegedly drawn from the same exegesis of John Chrysostom on John 21.15-17 (cf. In Ioannem homil. 88 n.1: PG 59.478) as cited by the anonymous writer of 1252, Nicholas of Cotrone (ed. Glorieux 104), and Aquinas (ed. cit. 171; cf. also, Aquinas, , Catena aurea on John 21, ed. Paris 1611, col. 1589: ‘Petrus: eximius enim apostolorum erat Petrus, et os discipulorum et vertex collegii: unde et negatione delata committit ei prelationem fratrum’).Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 52} Ed. cit. 167.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 53} That is, the rubrics given in Edit. Rom. I in Opuscula philosophica et theologica, ed. de Maria, M. III (Rome 1886).Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 54} As Reusch argued, art. cit . 712–13.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 55} Nicholas of Cotrone reproduced a long extract from a source he described as figuring ‘in tertio libro Thesaurorum, de Passione Domini’ (ed. cit. 100). It was from this extract, which has not been identified, that Aquinas drew his Cyrillian quotations. It is noteworthy that almost the same extract as that of Nicholas appeared later in the De regimine christiano of James of Viterbo, who also attributed it to Cyril ‘in libro Thesaurorum’: ed. Arquillière, H.X., Le plus ancien traité de l'église: Jacques de Viterbe, De regimine christiano (1301-1302) (Paris 1926) 274–6. It is perhaps not without interest that both Aquinas and James of Viterbo associated this text with the conclusion ‘quod subesse romano pontifici sit de necessitate salutis’ (Aquinas, , ed. cit. 171; James of Viterbo: ‘et quod ei subesse de necessitate salutis est’ ed. cit. 276) — suggestive of the literary background to the well known definition of Unam sanctam .Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 56} Nicholas' text reads (italics indicate the part used by Aquinas): ' a Filio qui ei dedit piene et perfecte claves regni celorum quoniam (‘quantum,’ James of Viterbo ed.cit. 275) sicut ipse accepit a Patre dux et sceptrum ecclesiae gentium ex Israel, egrediens super omnem principatum et potestatem et super omne quodcumque est, ut ei genu cuncta curventur, plenissimam potestatem; sic et Petro et eius diadochis id est successoribus vel vicariis (‘non minus sed’ takes the place of ‘vel vicariis’ in James of Viterbo) plenissime commisit (ed. Glorieux, . 100).Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 57} Nicholas, , ed.cit. 101: Aquinas, , ed. cit. 170.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 58} ‘William of Drogheda and the Universal Ordinary,’ in Roman Canon Law in the Church of England (London 1898) 100–131.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 59} Op. cit. 105. Cf. Decretum C.24 q.3 c.23 (Si quis Romipetas).Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 60} Op. cit. 129.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 61} Op. cit. 104.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 62} Tancred, , Ordo iudiciarius (1214-16), cited from Caius College MS 85 fo.7. The treatise is in print, Bergmann, F., Pillii, Tancredi, Gratiae libri de iudiciorum ordine (Göttingen 1842) 87-316.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 63} As stated, for example, by Bassianus, Johannes:: ‘Et in summa Ordinarius iudex est qui dignitatis nomine gaudet, cuius ratione potest aliquam causam cognoscere, ut archidiaconus, episcopus, preses, pretor, consul’: Libellus de ordine iudiciorum § 3, in Bibl. Iurid. Med. Aev . ed. Gaudenzi, II (Bologna 1892) 213^a, or by Boncompagni: ‘Iudex ordinarius est qui sine speciali mandato potest causas gregis vel populi sibi commissi audire’: Rhetorica novissima 2, ibid. 258^b .Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 64} Wielding the ‘ordinariae potestatis principatus’ as Innocent III put it in 4 Lat. Council c.5 = X.5.33.23.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 65} C.9 q.3 cc.17,18.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 66} Huguccio, : ‘iudex. scilicet summus, id est papa qui antonomastice dicitur iudex’: ad C.9 q.3 c.13 (B.N. MS 15396, fol. 157^rb).Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 67} Ad C.9 q.3 c.21 (B.N. MS 15396 fol. 167^va).Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 68} The full text reads: ‘Ex omnibus his capitulis aperte colligitur quod quolibet medio pretermisso potest fieri appellacio ad papam, quod in aliis non obtinet, ut infra ead. Decreto (c.11), Quisquis (c.19), et q.vii. Metropolitanum (c.45) et viiii. q.iii. Conquestus (c.8), et hoc videndum est quia romana ecclesia (as text above) appellari ad eum, ut in his quinque capitulis dicitur, et viiii.q.iii. Cuncta (c.17), Nunc vero (c.30), Per principalem (c.21)’: ad C.2 q.6 c.4 (B.N. IMS 15396 fol. 115^vb) Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 69} Gloss. anon. (Caius 676) ad C.2 q.6 c.4, fol. 216^vb .Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 70} ‘Praeterea cum sedes apostolica caput omnium ecclesiarum existat, et Romanus pontifex iudex sit Ordinarius singulorum’: Comp. III 1.6.4 = X.1.6.19 (where, however, this passage was omitted). But the point had been registered by the early decretalists: Paulus Hungarus: ‘Nota papa est ordinarius omnium’: Notabilia super Comp. III (B.N. MS 14320, fol. 140^vb) and Tancred, above, n. 64. Hence its place in later decretalist writing was established and this decretal was generally cited when iudex ordinarius omnium was being discussed.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 71} Ad C.2 q.6 c.19 (B.N. MS 15393 fol. 97^a).Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 72} Bernard of Parma: ‘Illud generale est quod ad papam potest appellari omisso medio propter plenitudinem potestatis, ii.q.vi. Quoties ad Romanum (c.26) et in pluribus aliis capitulis ibidem: quia per simplicem querelam potest papa adiri, cum ipse sit iudex ordinarius singulorum, ix.q.iii. Cuncta et c. Per principalem’: ad 2.28.66 s.v. post huiusmodi; cf. also the Notabilia to 5.33.23.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 73} Summa super tit. Decr. (Venice 1586) De appellationibus, fol. 109^vb .Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 74} Apparatus ad 2.2.17. Carlyle, , History V 320 gives this text a political significance though the context of the decretal and commentary is purely ecclesiastical.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 75} Summa, de appell. 2.28 § 4.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 76} Speculum iudiciale 2.3 de appell . § 4 Nunc tractemus (ed. Frankfurt, 1592), fol. 481^b .Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 77} Curialis (1251-70) ed. Wahrmund, L., Quellen zur Geschichte des römisch-kanonischen Processes im Mittelalter 1.3 (Innsbruck 1905) p. 1. The term was not of course confined to the canonists though they had coined and developed it; cf. Albertus Magnus ‘Ad id quod queritur de potestate superioris et inferioris, dicendum per distinctionem. Quia superior aut habet potestatem limitatam, aut potestatis plenitudinem, sicut papa qui est ordinarius cuiuslibet. Si primo modo: tunc non habet potestatem in subditos sine inferioris voluntate. Si secundo modo: tunc habet: quia papa est ordinarius omnium hominum’: Summa Theologiae 2.24.141 (Opera omnia 18 [Lyons 1651] fol. 596^b).Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 78} This was to formulate, after Aristotle, the notion of the Church as a communitas perfecta = ‘ordinata per se ad sufficientiam’ (Aquinas, , In Pol. 1 proem. c.1). Aquinas phrased the idea very clearly, In Ps. 45.v.3: Gloriosa dicta sunt de te civitas Dei: tria sunt in ista civitate secundum est quod habeat sufficientiam per se: in vico enim non inveniuntur omnia necessaria vitae humanae, sanis et infirmis; sed in civitate oportet invenire omnia necessaria ad vitam: quia quicquid necessarium est ad vitam spiritualem, invenitur in ea.’ The canonists were slower to speak of the Aristotelian notion of self-sufficiency as applied to the Church. Joannes Monachus, however, commenting on the citation in Unam sanctam of Cant.6.8, wrote: ‘nam secundum Philosophum totum et perfectum idem nam illud est perfectum quod totum habet et nihil ei deficit, et illud etiam totum est quod omnia habet’: Extrav. Comm. 1.8.1. s.v. sponso. Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 79} ‘nam non videretur discretus dominus fuisse ut cum reverentia eius loquitur, nisi unicum post se talem vicarium reliquisset qui haec omnia posset’: App ad de sent. et re iud. c. Ad apostolice (= in VI° 2.14.2) s.v. privamus (ed. Venice, 1491 fol. 118^vb ).Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 80} ‘Manifestum est autem quod Christus ecclesiae in necessariis non deficit quam dilexit et pro ea sanguinem fudit non est dubitandum quia ex ordinatione Christus unus toti ecclesiae praesit Eadem igitur ratione, quia praesentiam corporalem erat ecclesiae subtracturus, oportuit ut alicui committeret qui loco sui universalis ecclesiae gereret curam’: Contra Gentiles 4.76. The same language was used by later writers, e.g. de Romanis, Humbert, Opusculum tripartitum 2.4, ed. Brown, E., Fasciculus rerum expetendarum II (London 1640) 209, 210: James of Viterbo, De regimine christiano , ed. Arquillière, 167, 212; John of Paris, De potestate regia et populi , ed. Leclercq, J. (Paris 1942) 179.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 81} There was therefore much canonical and theological opinion behind the succinct formulation of James of Viterbo: ‘Verumtamen dicitur Christi vicarius habere plenitudinem potestatis Tanta vero potestas communicata est ecclesiae quanta erat opportuna ad salutem fidelium; quare in vicario Christi tota illa potentia est, que ad hominum salutem procurandum requiritur’: ed. cit. 272.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 82} As reported, for example, by Anglicus, Richardus, Summa questionum: ‘Hii enim, qui summum pontificem utrumque gladium habere (affirmant), alterum tantum auctoritate alterum auctoritate et administratione, dicunt imperatorem habere gladium a summo pontifice et secundum hoc summus pontifex qucmlibet potest restituere infamatum ut ille, qui habet plenitudinem potestatis’: ed. Stickler, , Sacerdotium et Regnum 42. Somewhat later Alanus reported the same view: ‘Secundum illos qui dicunt quod imperator et reges terre debent a papa iurisdictionem habere, potest papa infamiam iuris omnino remittere et quoad actus canonicos et quoad actus legitimos etiam a civili iudice irrogatam. Secundum alios qui hoc non concedunt non potest remittere nisi quoad actus ecclesiasticos’: ad C.2 q.3 c.7, ed. Stickler, , Alanus Anglicus 365-66.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 83} Text at p. 228 n. 29 above.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 84} This phrase had particular relevance in Alanus's thought to the deposing power, as analyzed above p. 228.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 85} ‘quo ad forum seculare non potest legitimare, nisi princeps ei permitteret’: ad 4.17.13 s. v. beati Petri. Cf. also the gloss s. v. habea potestatem. Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 86} Thus Bernard of Parma did not accept Alanus's term iudex ordinarius quoad spiritualia et quoad temporalia: ‘(constitutio papae) omnes astringit: cum sit iudex ordinarius omnium Christianorum et mater [sic] omnium ecclesiarum, ut ix.q.iii. Cuncta per mundum, et si etiam aliquid graue praecipiat, faciendum est, xix. dist. In memoriam (c.3), et c.dist. Contra morem (c.8). Et dic ‘omnes,’ scilicet de sua iurisdictione, quoniam potestates distinctae sunt, x. dist. Quoniam, et infra de appell. Si duobus (2.28.7), nisi forte ratione peccati, infra de iud. Novit (2.1.13)’: Glossa ord. X. 1.2.13. See also a secular text, p. 233 above.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 87} See above pp. 245–49.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 88} ‘Vacante: hoc est propter defectum imperii; in iure enim imperii papa succedit. Unde si alius rector alii superiori quam imperatori subditus negligens esset in reddenda ratione vel non esset rector in aliqua terra, tunc non devolvetur iurisdictio ad papam sed ad proximum superiorem. Nam specialis coniunctio est inter papam et imperatorem, quia papa eum consecrat et examinat et est imperator eius advocatus, et iurat ei, et ab eo imperium tenet, supra de elec. Venerabilem, lxiii di. Ego, Tibi domino, et inde est quod in iure quod ab ecclesia romana tenet, succedit papa imperio vacante. Sed quid si non sit negligens sed subditi sunt sic inobedientes quod non possuat facere iusticiam? Tunc non credo quod succedat in iurisdictionem eius, sed debet eum iuvare et domare rebellionem subditorum, ar. xcvi di. Cum ad verum. Sed quid si alius rex est negligens vel alius princeps qui superiorem non habet? Dicimus idem, scilicet quod succedit in iurisdictione eius, ar. xv. q. vi. Item alius, et supra de elec. Cum inter universas, in fi. Sed hoc non facit quia ab eo teneat regnum, sed de plenitudine potestatis quam habet quia vicarius est Christi supra tit. prox., Novit ver. Non enim. Vel dic ‘quod vacantibus regnis non poterit se intromittere nisi quando peteret in modum denunciationis, ut predicto c. Novit’: App. ad 2.2.9. — Guilelmus Durantis agreed with this contention, but justified it on the principle that the pope was ‘ordinarius omnium fidelium’ — a very clear illustration of how closely the terms plenitudo potestatis and iudex ordinarius omnium were related (cf. Speculum iudiciale 2.1. de comp. iudicis adit. n. 29).Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 89} The authoritative study of the canon law of episcopal elections is that of Barraclough, G., ‘The Making of a Bishop in the Middle Ages,’ Catholic Historical Review 19 (1933-4) 275–319. Powicke, F.M., Henry III and the Lord Edward I (Oxford 1947) 258-74, is a valuable study of the role of the papacy in thirteenth-century English episcopal appointments. I have studied the question in relation to Ireland and have presented a summary of findings in ‘The Papacy and Episcopal Appointments in Thirteenth Century Ireland,’ Proceedings of the Irish Catholic Historical Committee (1960) 1-9.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 90} Hostiensis: ‘(Romanus pontifex) cuius interest communibus utilitatibus providere’: Apparatus ad 3.38.17 s.v. Romano pontifici. Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 91} Hostiensis, , Summa, 1.44 § 4, col. 373.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 92} The principle was expressed as one whereby provision for necessitas or evidens utilitas was made de plenitudine potestatis. The plenitude of power was thus seen as a reservoir of power which was drawn upon to supply defect, amend the law or dispense from it according as the general welfare demanded such ‘extraordinary’ action. Cf. e.g. Honorius III: ‘cum urgens necessitas exigit vel evidens utilitas maxime publica persuadet, sic laxat provide circa quosdam de suae plenitudine potestatis’: MGH Epp.s.XIII, I no. 234, p. 163. Gregory IX: ‘Induite nobis a Domino plenitudinem potestatis secundum diversitatem accidentium experiri nos convenit in necessitatibus subiectorum’ ibid. no. 637, p.350. Innocent IV: ‘quoniam ad hoc Deus in apostolica sede constituit plenitudinem potestatis, ut Romanus pontifex, qui claves in beato Petro potestatis et discretionis accepit, nunc statuta vallet rigoribus, ea dispensative relaxet, prout necessitatis articulis interpellat’: ibid. II no. 8, p. 8. Naturally this way of thinking left its impress on the Corpus iuris. Hostiensis wrote of it: ‘Suppletque scilicet defectum si quis est, infra de transac. cap. 1 (1.36.1); ideo tota die in confirmationibus beneficiorum apponitur haec clausula: supplentes defectum, si qua est, de plenitudine potestatis, et comprobatus supra, de elect. Illa quotidiana instantia (1.6.39), nam secundum ipsam potest de iure supra ius dispensare, ut infra de concess. praeb. et eccl. non vacan. Proposuit § ult. (3.8.4)’: Summa 1.32 § 3, col. 281.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 93} Hostiensis: ‘tunc potest dici papam uti plenitudine officii quando s***ius reddit, ut ibi (scil. 6.44 § Caeterum); quando vero transcendit iura, tunc ***i dine potestatis, de quo habes multa exempla infra de offic. leg. § quid pertinevers. quid ergo et seq.’: Summa 1.8 § 2, col. 135.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 94} Cf. RNRI no. 44 (ed. Kempf 125 lines 3-12); PL 215.1231.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 95} Cf. e.g. PL 214.386,470,979; 215.957; 216.36.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 96} A phrase of James of Viterbo, De regimine christiano, ed.cit. 272.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 97} Cf. Boniface VIII, Extrav. Comm. 2.3.1.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 98} Cf. Especially de Lubac, H., Corpus Mysticum (2nd. ed. Paris 1949) and Kantorowicz, E. H., The King's Two Bodies (Princeton 1957) 193-206.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 99} Kantorowicz, , op. cit. 202.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 1} Hostiensis's career has been in part thoroughly investigated by Didier, N., ‘Henri de Suse en Angleterre (1236?-1244),’ Studi Arangio Ruiz (Naples 1952) 333–51; ‘Henri de Suse, prieur d'Antibes et prévôt de Grasse (1235?-1245),’ Studia Gratiana 2 (1954) 595-617; ‘Henri de Suse, évêque de Sisteron (1244-1250),’ Rev. hist. dr franç. et étrang. ⁴ 31 (1945) 244-70, 409-29. For his later life and an assessment of his work, C. Lefebvre in DDC 5.1211-1227 is especially valuable. Hostiensis became archbishop of Embrun c. 1250 and was made cardinal in 1262. His Summa was finished in 1253 and his Apparatus shortly before his death in 1271.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 2} Hostiensis discussed this question at some length in the Proemium to his Summa and adverted to it at other points in his work, e.g. App. 1.1.1 s.v. quasi communem. Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 3} This treatise, a product of the controversy between Philip the Fair (whose case it is arguing) and Boniface VIII, has been analyzed by Ullmann, W., ‘A Medieval Document on Papal Theories of Government,’ EHR 61 (1946) 180–201. I cite from the edition of Dupuy, Histoire du différend d'entre le pape Boniface VIII et Philipe le Bel, Roy de France (Paris 1655).Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 4} Libellus contra infideles et inobedientes et rebelles sancte Romane ecclesie et summo pontifici , ed. Scholz, R., Unbekannte kirchenpolitische Streitschriften aus der Zeit Ludwigs des Bayern (1327-1354) II (Rome 1914) 105–29 at 111. The tract was written before 1334.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 5} Two characteristic statements on the topic might be noticed: ‘Summa sede sedet, in illa videlicet quam Dominus sibi in personam Petri specialiter elegit, ut infra, qui fil. sint legi. Per venerabilem, § rationibus. vers. sane; haec est navis quae licet fluctuat non periclitatur, 24.q.1. Non turbatur et c. preced. et seq. et ad idem 19, 20, 21, 22 di. pertotum; ideoque summus pontifex appellatur, infra de stat. monach. Cum ad monasterium, in fi. Plenusque vicarius extat: quamvis enim quilibet episcopus dici possit vicarius Jesu Christi, 33.q.5, Mulierem, et supra de sacra unctio. c.i § ad exhibendum v. caput iungitur et § seq. v. ad quod etiam, est tamen particularis, sed papa est vicarius generalis unde omnia gerit de omnibus prout placet iudicat et disponit, 9.q.3. Cuncta per mundum et c. Per principalem, 2. q. 6. Ideo 1 et 2, et de hoc satis not. supra de translation. episcopi § cuius auctoritate v. patet, et ex praemissis et praecedentibus et sequentibus; est etiam plenus, id est, habens plenitudinem potestatis, ad quam vocatus est, alii vero in partem sollicitudinis, supra de usu pal. Ad honorem, 2.q.6. Decreto et c. Qui se scit. Ideo breviter dic quod dummodo contra fidem non veniat in omnibus et per omnia potest facere et dicere quicquid placet, auferendo etiam ius suum cui vult, quia nec aliquis audet ei dicere, cur ita facis? 19 di. In memoriam, de poen. dist. 3 para. ex persona, et omne ius tollere. et de iure supra ius dispensare, infra de cog. spirit. Capite, infra de concess. preb. et eccles. non vacan. Proposuit, quia veri Dei vicem gerit in terris, supra de translat. episcopi, Inter corporalia, respons. 1 et c. Quanto, respons. 1, infra ut bene. eccles. Ut nostrum § 1 v. porro’: Summa 1.32 §3. ‘Consistorium Dei et pape unum et idem est censendum, Ex. domini nostri (i.e. Innocent IV), de appell. Romana, quia et locum Dei tenet, infra ut benefi. eccl. c.1 § 1 et in ligando et in solvendo ratum est quicquid facit clave non errante, sic intelligas 24.q.1 Quodcunque ligaveris. Et breviter excepto peccato quasi omnia de iure potest ut Deus’: App. ad 1.7.3 s.v. veri Dei vicem. For further references of this type see my paper,' The Use of the Term plenitudo potestatis by Hostiensis.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 6} App. ad 4.17.13 s.v. casualiter. Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 7} Ibid. s.v. quod non solum. Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 8} ‘Dicunt tamen Vincentius, Laurentius et Tancredus quod papa non potest legitimare quo ad hereditatem temporalem nisi in patrimonio B. Petri Johannes (Teutonicus) dicit quod hoc uerum est directe, sed indirecte hoc potest, sive per consequentiam: quia eo ipso quod aliquem legitimat quo ad seculares actus, videtur per consequens legitimatus quo ad temporales, nam si maiora conceduntur, ergo et minora sed illud certum est, quod imperator legitimare potest quo ad temporalia, non quo ad spiritualia Salva reverentia aliorum mihi videtur, dominum papam habere potestatem legitimandi quo ad spiritualia et temporalia et ipsum solum nam causa matrimonialis spiritualiter pertineat ad ecclesiam, adeo quod secularis iudex de ipsa cognoscere non potest etiam si incident, nec de legitima filiatione dicas tamen quod imperator legitimat, id est tanquam legitimum etiam spurium ad hereditatem suam admittere potest’: Summa 4.17. §11.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 9} Apparatus ad 1.23.10 s.v. sit situm. Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 10} ‘et quod solutus est princeps legibus appellationem ad ipsum factam poterit recipere de plenitudine potestatis, contra quam non intendimus disputare’: Summa 2.28. § 4.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 11} Apparatus ad 4.17.13 s.v. recognoscat. Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 12} Ibid. s.v. casualiter. Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 13} ‘Potest tamen dispensare sen legitimare si vult idem papa quo ad ecclesiastica et secularia ubi habet temporalem iurisdictionem, et in aliis casibus, ut supra dixi quod intelligas sic: ne fiat preiudicium illi ad quem iam devoluta est hereditas, verum eo qui ius habet consentiente, proderit legitimatio quo ad omnia alias non proderit nisi quo ad spiritualia et honores seculares et actus legitimos in quibus non vertitur privatum interesse Imperator autem potest auferre etiam acquisitum ius, sed forte non sine peccato, nisi ex magna causa fieret vel nisi donandi animum habeat sed papa non potest nisi casualiter, licet per generalem constitutionem solus papa legitimet vel illegitimet et sic generaliter potestas solius papae est specialis; quo ad secularia in quibus vertitur privatum interesse solius imperatoris, nisi in casu; sed quo ad ecclesiastica, solius papae; communis autem est utriusque quo ad secularia in quibus non praeiudicatur alicui: hoc salvo, quod per papam vere legitimatur aliquando, sed per imperatorem nunquam, licet aliquis per ipsum tanquam legitimus admittatur’: Summa 4.17. § 11.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 14} ‘cui omnes homines debent esse subiecti, et ei in omnibus obedire, cuius nauis stabilis est et immutabilis, nam etsi quandoque fluctuet non mergeretur’: App. ad 4.17.13 (Per venerabilem) s.v. plenitudinem potestatis. Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 15} Loc. cit. Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 16} Loc. cit. Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 17} Summa 4.17 § 10.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 18} App. ad 4.17.13 s.v. (preiudicare velimus) sed. Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 19} Ibid. s.v. inter causam et causam. Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 20} Ibid. s.v. ad iudicium. Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 21} Ibid. s.v. certis causis etc.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 22} ‘Non multum discrepant (scil. sacerdotium et imperium) quo ad principium, unde procedunt, sed multum discrepant quo ad majoritatem, inde est quod caput episcopi inungitur, sed armis regis et episcopus chrismate, rex oleo ut scias quod episcopus est vicarius capitis nostri id est Christi et ut ostendatur, quanta sit differentia inter authoritatem pontificis et principis potestatem quia quanta est differentia inter solem et lunam, tanta est inter sacerdotem et regalem dignitatem Quae verba licet per doctores diversimode exponantur: tu tamen dic, quod sicut luna recipit claritatem a sole, non sol a luna, sic regalis potestas recipit authoritatem a sacerdotali, non e contra: sicut etiam sol illuminat mundum per lunam, quando per se non potest, scil. de nocte, sic sacerdotalis dignitas clarificat mundum per regalem, quando per se non potest, scil. ubi agitur de vindicta sanguinis unde et lex secularis debet servire canonicae Per hoc etiam innuitur quod septies millies et sexcenties et quadragesies quater et insuper eius medietatem est major sacerdotalis dignitas quam regalis’: Summa 4.17 § 9. The metaphor was also discussed in generally similar terms, Apparatus ad 1.33.6 s.v. ut quanta. Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 23} The distinction between the auctoritas of priests and the potestas of secular rulers was Gelasian in origin and had been used by Innocent III in his decretal on the anointing of kings (1.15.1). Hostiensis commented: ‘auctoritatem: hic no. ius. potestatem hic no. factum; quod dicit officium episcoporum potius consistit in iure quam in facto, officium vero principum econverso. Primi habent verba, secundi facta; primi scientia, secundi potentia, et ideo etiam dicitur quod unus gladius alio semper eget sed et hic no. quod auctoritas non dependet a potestate sed potius potestas ab auctoritate’: Apparatus ad 1.15.1.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 24} Canon 42 forbade clerics to extend their jurisdiction ‘praetextu ecclesiasticae libertatis’ to the prejudice of secular powers, and ordered them to be satisfied with positions that had been fixed by law and approved custom, ‘ut quae Caesaris, reddantur Caesari; et quae sunt Dei, Deo recta distributione reddantur.’ (An earlier use of this exact form of words is pointed out by Cheney, C.R. and Semple, W.H., Selected Letters of Innocent III concerning England [London 1953] 205, with other Innocentian usages of Matt. 22.22). This canon did not find a place in Comp. IV, cf. García, A. y García, , ‘El Concilio IV de Letrán (1215) y sus comentarios,’ Bulletin of the Institute of Research and Study in Medieval Canon Law, Traditio 14 (1958) 485-6. Innocent's concern to avoid trespass in the secular sphere is noted by Cheney, and Semple, , op. cit. 106 where attention is also drawn to the importance in this regard of his decretals X.2.2.10, 11.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 25} Summa 2.28 § 4.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 26} Summa 4.17. § 10.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 27} Summa 1.2. § 8.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 28} As Hostiensis put it, Summa proemium § 1.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 29} Novit was of course a reply to Philip's challenge that his dispute with John was a feudal matter and did not pertain to the pope. Innocent granted that a feudal matter ‘ad ipsum spectat.’ Per venerabilem acknowledged that William of Montpellier was subject to others and therefore could not claim legitimation in temporalibus from the pope without their assent (‘In aliis autem nosceris subiacere. Unde, sine ipsorum forsan iniuria, nisi praestarent assensum, nobis in hoc subdere te non posses, nec eius auctoritatis existis ut dispensandi super his habeas potestatem’: PL 214.1132; the second sentence was omitted in the version of the letter used in the Gregoriana). The provision in Excommunicamus whereby the lands of a convicted heretic were open to occupation by the orthodox only ‘salvo iuris domini principalis’ is to be seen as a reservation imposed by Philip's strong stand that only he had the right to dispose of forfeited fiefs in France. About Philip's view, cf. Shannon, A.C., The Popes and Heresy in the Thirteenth Century (Villanova 1949) 37.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 30} Summa 3.49 § 13.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 31} Ibid § 4.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 32} Proemium § 3.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 33} Hostiensis: ‘Tamen iudex ecclesiasticus hanc denunciationem non debet admittere indistincte, nisi in defectum iusticie vel ratione pacis vel iuramenti vel secundum dominum nostrum (Innocent IV) quando alias non audiretur in foro civili, puta quando obligatio naturalis tamen est vel quando notorium est peccatum vel quando hanc proponit persona miserabilis et depressa Alioquin si hoc generaliter intelligeres hec absurditas exinde sequeretur quod periret iurisdictio temporalis gladii, et omnis causa per hanc viam ad ecclesiam deferetur’: Apparatus ad 2.1.13 s.v. corripere. Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 34} ‘Unde proprie et vere loquendo, crimen ecclesiasticum dici potest illud quod est crimen secundum canones et non secundum leges: ut crimen usurarum et crimen fornicationis, quod secundum leges non est crimen ideo dic quod ubicunque quaeritur de peccato, cognitio pertinet ad ecclesiam quo ad diffinitionem peccati, nam multa iudicat ecclesia fore peccatum, et in multis casibus in quibus seculares et mundani contrarium iudicarent. Item ad ecclesiam pertinet poenitentiam dare et sic per consequentiam cogere ad satisfactionem, quia non dimittitur peccatum etc. infra, de usuris, Cum tu, et sic potest intelligi quod dicitur, ratione peccati cognoscit ecclesia supra tit. 1, Novit resp. 1, ad fin. Potest etiam adiri ecclesia in defectum iustitiae principaliter, alias cognoscit iudex secularis principaliter de satisfactione temporali, si sit quaestio inter laicos: vel si clericus impetat laicum de rigore iuris’: Summa 2.2. para. 11.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 35} By Le Bras, G., L'immunité réelle (Paris 1920).Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 36} Cf. Summa 2.28 § 4 A quo et ad quem appellatio debet fieri. Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 37} Text with notes in Cheney, C. R. and Semple, W. H., op. cit. 198–201.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 38} von Wretschko, A., Der Traktat des Laurentius de Somercote, Kanonikus von Chichester über die Vornahme von Bischofswahlen, entstanden im Jahre 1254 (Weimar 1907).Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 39} ‘Corpore autem defuncti sepulturae tradito de consuetudine ecclesiae Anglicanae actenus est obtentum, quod sollemnes nuntii, aliqui scilicet de canonicis, ad dominum regem eant petituri ab eo licentiam eligendi’ (ed. cit. 28). A gloss on the two last words (von Wretschko thought the author might be Lawrence himself) reads: ‘Hoc utitur omnino contra iura, de elec. c. Cum terra et c. Quod sicut (1.6.14, 28). Papa tamen scit haec omnia et tolerat, per litteras approbavit’ (ed. cit. 51). On the request for royal assent, Laurentius: ‘Post haec (scil. the election itself, consent of the elect, publication of the result) fiant tria paria litterarum: unum quod mittatur domino regi per eundem electum et aliquos de canonicis pro assensu regio requirendo’ (ed. cit. 33). The gloss on the words in italics reads: ‘Hoc expressum est iure, de elec. c. Quod sicut et c. Cum inter universas, in fine et c. Sacrosancta (1.6.28, 51)’ (ed. cit. 51). This gloss was an adaptation of the glossa ordinaria: ‘electio facta praesentari debet patrono ut suum praestet assensum, supra eo. Cum terra, et c. Cum inter universas et infra eo. tit. c. Sacrosancta’: ad 1.6.28 s.v. impedire. Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 40} Innocent IV: ‘Mors autem defuncti potest nunciari principi et eius consensus requiri si de consuetudine vel privilegio hoc habet princeps et si fiat electio contra consuetudinem vel privilegium cassabitur, lxiii.dist. Lectis, xviii.q.ii. Abbatem’: ad 1.6.28 s.v. nominatio; Hostiensis, , Apparatus ad loc. Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 41} Hostiensis: ‘Sed et electione facta, potest requiri consensus patroni, tamen irritabitur, etiamsi dissentiat sine causa, infra eod. Cum terra, et c. Cum inter universas, in fine et c. Quod sicut; “sine causa” ideo dixi, quia si a principe temporali, temporalia teneat, et suspectus est, vel infidelis, merito audietur, sicut in illustris regis Anglorum privilegio continetur quod comprobatur infra de iur. pat. Nobis fuit § 1: idem videtur etsi temporalia non teneat, arg. in utroque, de iureiur. Nimis et c. Petitio’: Summa 1.6 § 5.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 42} Cf. p. 207 n. 42 above.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 43} ‘Una enim potestas alia semper eget, et ideo tenentur se ad invicem adiuvare, ut xcvi. dist. Cum ad verum, c. Duo sunt, x.di. Si in adiutorium, et c. seq. (Quoniam idem) et c. in lombard. ut episcopi et comites invicem sibi auxilium dent, in rubro et in nigro. Sed secundum dominum nostrum (i.e. Innocent IV) hec est differentia: quod secularis iudex potest cogi ad prestandum auxilium, sed per secularem ecclesiasticus non cogetur, ut infra c. Ad reprimendum, secundum dominum nostrum et melius, infra de iud. Qualiter. Quidni? Secularis enim inferior est, ut patet in eo quod leg. et no. infra, de mai. et obed. Solite. § potuisses: ergo in superiorem potestatem non habet, infra, de mai. et obed. Cum inferior. Et est secunda differentia, quod secularis non habet examinare processum ecclesiastici. Ecclesiasticus nunquam ad peticionem secularis excommunicabit, nisi ex causa rationabili et canonica forma observata, infra de sen. excomm. Sacro, extra. domini nostri, Cum medicinalis (= VI° 5.11.1) et scientia ecclesie eget potencia secularis’: Apparatus ad 1.31.1 s.v. fuerit. Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 44} Apparatus ad 5.32.1 s.v. adiuvantur. Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 45} X. 5.20.7 (Innocent III).Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 46} ‘Et non habeat ultra quid faciat. Ex hoc no. expressum quod nullo modo est utendum temporali gladio nisi premisso spirituali. Tunc enim demum recurrendum est ad secularem potestatem quando ecclesia proficere non potest et non habet ultra quid faciet, ut hic et infra, de here. Excommunicamus, § 1, et de homici. Postulasti, infra, de cler. excom. min. c. ii, cum suis concordantiis. Nec dicas aliud in iudice seculari nam et ipse et gladius suus pars ecclesie sunt. Unde si sane vult procedere primo recurret ad gladium spiritualem antequam et ipse utatur suo, ut no. in summa, de treuga et pa. § quid sit iustum bellum’: Apparatus ad 2.1.10.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 47} ‘Ergo cognitio, examinatio et condemnatio istius criminis ad ecclesiasticum iudicem pertinet principaliter, non ad secularem, licet secularis executionem habeat nam et ratione peccati ecclesia iurisdictionem habet, etiam in temporalibus hoc enim indubitandum est, quod Deus est omnibus praeponendus ergo et est eius vicarius unde Dominus ad Hieremiam: “Ecce constitui te etc.” (Jer. 1.10) secundum Goffredum, et ideo seculares tanquam inferiores, sive sint temporales sive perpetui in principio administrations suae tenentur iurare publice quod a terris suae iurisdictioni subiectis, universos haereticos ab ecclesia denudatos, studebunt exterminare bona fide totis viribus, ut infra eod. Excommunicamus itaque, § Moveantur. Debent etiam iurare, ut requisiti iudicibus ecclesiasticis ipsos bona fide et efficaciter iuxta officium suum adiuvent contra haereticos: quod sacramentum si praestare renuerint, vel praestitum transgressi fuerint illo quo potiebantur honore, privari debent: intelligas quando erat temporalis potestas, nec ad alium eligitur: civitas autem quae his institutis restiterit, si ad comminitionem episcopi non emendaverit, aliarum carere non debet commercio civitatum et episcopali dignitate privari, ut infra eod. Ad abolendam § Statuimus et § Civitas. Sed si dominus temporalis, id est secularis, perpetuus monitionem ecclesiae spreverit, per metropolitanum et comprovinciales episcopos est excommunicandus et si nec sic resipuerit, sed in excommunicatione per annum steterit, significandum est summo pontifici qui anno elapso vasallos suos a fidelitate denunciet absolutos et terram exponet catholicis occupandum, salvo iure domini principalis, si ipse particeps non sit, nec aliquod obstaculum supradictis opponat, alias eandem poenam patitur, etiamsi nullum dominium super se recognoscat, ut infra eodem, Excommunicamus itaque § si vero dominus. Si ecclesia contra rebelles brachium invocat seculare ideoque manu militari sunt haereticis bona omnia auferenda: quia secundum Isydorum et Augustinum et alios sanctos, et ipsa bona nullo iure possunt haeretici possidere, naturali non quia secundum ipsum sunt communia nec iure divino, sicut filius Dei ostendit dicens “Auferetur a vobis regnum, et dabitur genti facienti fructum eius” (Math. 21.43). Item “Labores impiorum iusti edent” (Prov. 13.22). Item “Ora sunt iustorum” (citation not identified) secundum Goffredum et Raymundum, idem nec civili, nec canonico’ Summa 5.7 § 4.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 48} ‘Deponitur etiam haereticus sive sit clericus, sive laicus papa vel imperator, vel alius inferior ab omni dignitate, 40 dist. Si papa, 24 q.1. Qui contra pacem, infra eod. Ad abolendam § 1 et 2, et degradatus traditur curiae seculari, ut ibi Et nota quod domini temporales non solum propter suam heresim, sed etiam aliorum quos dum possunt admoniti exterminare negligunt, excommunicari possunt, et terrae ipsorum exponi catholicis occupandae, infra, eod. Excommunicamus § si vero dominus temporalis. Idem si princeps negligens inveniatur, circa regni regimen et iustitiam faciendam, 17.q.4. Si quis deinceps, 11.q.1. Nullus, 32.q.5. Praeceptum. Unde Zacharias Papa Ludovicum (sic) regem Francorum, praedecessorem Pipini patris Caroli, deposuit hac de causa, 15.q.6. Alius’: Summa 5.7 §§9-11.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 49} Apparatus ad 4.17.13 s.v. plenitudo potestatis. The dictum ‘qui habet quod maius est habet et quod minus,’ which was Innocent III's basic argument in claiming a power to legitimize in temporalibus since he had the power in spiritualibus, derived from an axiom of Roman Law: ‘In eo quod plus sit, semper inest et minus’ (Dig. 50.27.110). It was later to find a place in the Liber Sextus as the regula iuris: ‘Cui licet quod est plus, licet utique quod est minus’ (5.13.53). As a philosophical principle it had an important role in the political thought of Aegidius Romanus and other extremists, cf. Gewirth, A., Marsilius of Padua 1 (New York 1951) 14–20.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 50} Apparatus ad 3.38.17 s.v. Romano pontifici. Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 51} Apparatus ad. 1.21.2 s.v. dispensare. Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 52} This is the case argued in the context of Per venerabilem especially s.v. certis causis inspectis (see above, p. 290) and in relation to Licet substantially reproducing Innocent IV's commentary (cf. above p. 2-5-46 nn. 22, 23).Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 53} App. ad 4.17.13. s.v. casualiter and s.v. sed: ‘verum, quia officii nobis commissi debitam non debemus alicui petenti denegare: hoc autem pertinet ad officium nostrum etiam in temporalibus ubicumque super dubio quocumque requirimur’ Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 54} Thus ‘Sed et quamvis persona imperatoris subsit pape et temporalia per quamdam consequentiam, tamen imperator magis potest in temporalibus que a Deo immediate tenet ut supra dictum est, et ideo dummodo caveat a peccato, de ipsis potest disponere prout placet’: ibid. s.v. casualiter. But this position went along with the principle that the pope had power indistincte in temporal affairs where the common welfare of Christendom was concerned.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 55} Cf. Comp. I 2.20.7 = X. 2.28. 7 § 2.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 56} Above, n. 53.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 57} Above, p. 290, gloss. ad 4.17.13 s. v. certis causis. Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 58} Above, n. 33.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 59} ‘Quadraginta anni sunt quod nos sumus experti in iure, et scimus quod duae sunt potestates ordinatae a Deo. Quis ergo debet credere vel potest quod tanta fatuitas, tanta insipientia sit vel fuerit in capite nostro?’: Dupuy, , Histoire du différend Preuves, 78.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 60} Extrav. comm. 1.2.1 (Unam sanctam).Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 1} Genicot, L., Les lignes de faîte du moyen âge (Louvain 1951) 351.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 2} Gregory VII to Hermann, bishop of Metz: Reg. Greg. VII, 8.21 (p. 553 ed. Caspar, ); Decretum D.96 c.9.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 3} Hostiensis followed Innocent IV in giving this definition: ‘ecclesiae libertatem: que consistit in privilegiis super spiritualibus sive temporalibus generaliter vel singulariter sive a Deo sive a papa sive ab aliis principibus concessis. A Deo multa concessa sunt ecclesie sancte Dei; hic tangimus tamen tria. Primum est illud, quodcunque ligaveris etc., xxiiii.q.i. Quodcunque ligaveris: et quantum ad personam pape extendit ad omnium dubiorum solucionem, qui fil.s.leg. Per venerabilem § racionibus. Secundum est illud quod decime, primicie et oblaciones ad clericos spectent. Hoc enim a Deo concessum intelligimus, xvi.q.i. Revertimini, quod dic ut le. et no. supra, de decimis, A nobis et c. Tua, et infra. Est et tercium a Deo concessum scil. quod ecclesia sola res ecclesiasticas administret, xcvi. dist. Si imperator, supra de re. ecc. non alien. Cum laicis, et quod de spiritualibus ius condere et iudicare potest, xcvi. dist. Denique et c. Cum ad verum. Multa et alia privilegia sunt concessa a Deo clericis quod continentur in novo et veteri testamento’: Apparatus ad 5.39.49.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 4} The justification for the privilege was argued by Innocent IV on the basis of glosses by Laurentius and Tancred: ‘Sed quis eximit (clericos) de iure imperatoris cum prius ei subessent? Respondeo, quod papa consentiente imperatore, xi. q.iii c. iii. in aut. de sanc. epis. § si quis contra. in aut. ut cler. apud proprios epis. § vl. infra, de iur. cal.c.i. This was the solution of Laurentius: to it Tancred added: Sed hec non plene eximunt, unde dicimus quod exempti sunt a Deo, xcvi. di. Si imperator.’ Innocent added: ‘vel dic quod papa eciam sine consensu imperatori bene potuit eos eximere a iurisdictione imperatoris per suas constitutiones, quia cum clerici spirituales res sint, et ex toto corpus et animam dederunt in servitium et in sortem Christi transtulerunt, xii.q.i.c.iii: per consequens pape in iudicio et constitutionibus subsunt, x. di. Imperium, Suscipitisne, et infra c. Solite’: Appar. ad 1.34.2 s. v. principi. Hostiensis repeated substantially the same gloss, App. ad loc. s.v. abiiciatur, pointing out, however, that this was a ‘privilegium personale’ and not ‘reale’ and also that there were exceptions to the former. These exceptions which, he was careful to indicate, were ‘de licentia ecclesie,’ are given Apparatus ad 3.30.25.s.v. de spiritualibus. Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 5} Reg. 1.63 (p.92 ed. Caspar, ).Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 6} Reg. 1.15; 1.29; 5.2 (pp. 24, 46, 349).Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 7} Reg. 2.44; 6.13 (pp. 180, 416).Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 8} It was this notion which Aegidius Romanus drew from the canonists in a key chapter of his De ecclesiastica potestate, 3.9: ‘Quid est plenitudo potestatis et quod in summo pontifice veraciter potestatis residet plenitudo’ (ed. Scholz, R. 90–95), whence to James of Viterbo, De regimine Christiana 2.8 (ed. Arquillière, H. X. 251).Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 9} Le Bras, G., Histoire du droit et des institutions de l'Église en occident , I: Prolégomènes (Paris 1955) 239.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 10} Summa Reginensis (c. 1191): ‘Dicebat cardinalis sanctorum Johannis et Pauli quod inde dominus papa dicitur Christi vicarius quia Jesus Christus preest’: ed. Stickler, , in Studia Gratiana 3 (1955) 393.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 11} Henry of Cremona: ‘Hoc etiam est de necessitate nature, scilicet quod papa sit solus dominus universalis in toto mundo, quia omnes fideles sunt una ecclesia’: De potestate papae ed. Scholz, R., Die Publizistik zur Zeit Philipps des Schönen und Bonifaz' VIII (Stuttgart 1903) 469.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 12} Above, p. 307 n. 59.Google Scholar