title: Quaest. 4, Art. 3

title_alt: On the obedience owed to the Supreme Pontiff

source_text:
<!-- page 189 -->

### Articulus III. *De obedientia summo Pontifici debita.*

Ultimo quaeritur, utrum christianae religionis sit, quod omnes obediant uni[^p189-2]. Et quod sic, videtur et per *vetus testamentum* et per *novum* et per *ius canonicum* et per *evidentiam rationum.*

Primo igitur per *vetus* testamentum ostenditur sic.

1. Deuteronomii decimo septimo[^p189-3]: *Si difficile et ambiguum apud te iudicium esse perspexeris, et iudicum verba videris variari; surge et ascende ad locum, quem elegit Dominus Deus tuus. Qui autem superbierit nolens obedire sacerdotis imperio, morietur homo ille*; ibi Glossa: «Hic appellandi tribuit facultatem». Ex hoc textu et Glossa colligitur, quod in veteri lege unus erat summus Pontifex, ad quem recurrendum erat in iudiciis, et cui obediendum erat ab universis. Si hoc ergo erat in lege figurae, multo fortius videtur quod esse debet in lege gratiae. Et hoc triplici ratione; primo, quia maior est unitas nunc quam tunc: ergo multo fortius debet esse Pontifex unus. — Item, pontificatus est dignior et altior: ergo multo fortius nunc debent uni Pontifici subiici quam tempore legis Moysi. — Postremo, quia hic debet esse obedientia maior et hierarchia ordinatior. Ex quibus omnibus colligitur, quod si uni summo Pontifici obtemperandum erat tempore legis Moysi, multo fortius tempore legis Christi.

2. Item, Psalmus[^p189-4]: *Constituit principes super omnem terram*; constans est, quod hoc dictum est de Apostolis: ergo omnis terra est sub principatu Apostolorum; sed principatus iste est principatus stabilis, secundum illud Psalmi: *Nimis confortatus est principatus eorum*; sed non est stabilis, nisi sit unitus, quia *omne regnum in se ipso divisum desolabitur*; nec est unitus, nisi habeat unum principem principalem: ergo secundum testimonium propheticum omnis terra subiacere debet uni, qui sit princeps universorum.

3. Item, ad hoc confirmandum facit quod dicit Bernardus in tertio libro ad Eugenium[^p189-5]: «Orbe ei exeundum, qui forte voluit explorare, quae non ad tuam pertineant curam. Parentes tui destinati sunt, non aliquas regiones, sed ipsum debellaturi orbem; et quidem *in omnem terram exivit sonus eorum*» etc. Et post: «*Nimis confortatus est principatus eorum; constituti sunt principes super omnem terram.* Eius tu successisti in hereditatem, ita tu heres, et orbis hereditas». Ex hoc ergo apparet, quod secundum testimonium propheticum uni debetur universalis obedientia omnium.

Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur per *novum* testamentum.

4. Matthaei decimo sexto[^p189-6]: *Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam* etc., usque ibi: *erit solutum et in caelis*; sed constans est, quod ei qui omnes potest solvere et ligare, debet ab omnibus obediri: ergo Deus sic Ecclesiam
<!-- page 190 -->
instituit, quod ab omnibus obediretur uni. Sed Ecclesia sic est regenda et gubernanda, sicut fuit a Domino instituta: ergo etc.

5. Item, Ioannis ultimo[^p190-1]: *Pasce oves meas*, dictum est Petro; sed oves Christi sunt omnes, qui per viam salutis incedunt: ergo omnibus talibus praelatus est Petrus: unus ergo fuit omnium ovium Christi pastor secundum Ecclesiae fundationem: ergo et secundum progressum et consummationem ab omnibus obediendum est uni.

6. Item, Bernardus, tractans verba praemissa, in secundo ad Eugenium[^p190-2] dicit sic: «Tu es, cui claves traditae, cui oves creditae sunt. Sunt quidem et alii caeli ianitores et gregum pastores; sed tu tanto gloriosius, quanto et differentius utrumque prae ceteris nomen hereditasti. Habent illi sibi assignatos greges, singuli singulos, tibi uni universi crediti sunt, uni unus. Nec modo ovium, sed et pastorum tu unus omnium pastor. Unde probem, quaeris? Ex verbo Domini: *Si me amas, Petre, pasce oves meas.* Quas? Illius vel illius populos civitatis, aut regionis, aut regni? *Oves meas*, inquit. Cui non planum, non designasse *aliquas*, sed assignasse *omnes*? Nihil excipitur, ubi nihil distinguitur». Et post[^p190-3]: «Stat inconcussum privilegium tuum tibi, tam in clavibus quam in ovibus commendatis, nempe signum singularis pontificii Petri, per quod non navem unam, ut ceteri quique suam, sed saeculum ipsum suscepit gubernandum; ita, cum quisque ceterorum habeat suam, tibi una commissa est grandissima navis, facta ex omnibus, ipsa universalis Ecclesia, toto orbe diffusa». — Ex hoc manifeste habetur, quod secundum divinam institutionem uni, scilicet summo Pontifici, debet ab omnibus obediri.

7. Item, Augustinus, ad Optatum[^p190-4]: «In Romana Ecclesia semper apostolicae Cathedrae viguit principatus»; sed hoc non dicitur sola ratione ipsius urbis tantum, quia sic posset dici de aliis locis et aliis episcopis; ergo dicitur respectu totius orbis: ergo secundum hoc omnis orbis debet obedire Pontifici Romano tanquam principi mundi et universali.

8. Item, Hieronymus, ad Damasum Papam[^p190-5]: «Emendari cupimus a te, qui Petri et Sedem tenes et fidem; si autem haec nostra confessio apostolatus tui iudicio comprobatur, quicumque me culpare voluerit, se imperitum, vel malevolum, aut etiam non catholicum, sed haereticum comprobabit»: ergo iudicio unius summi Pontificis et correctioni, secundum Hieronymum, ab omnibus debet stari, non ob aliud, nisi quia Sedem tenet Petri et auctoritatem, quam Dominus dedit ei.

9. Item, Gelasius, distinctione vigesima prima[^p190-6]: «Quamvis per orbem catholicae Ecclesiae institutae unus thalamus Christi sint, tamen sancta Romana Ecclesia nullis synodicis institutis praelata est, sed evangelica voce Domini et Salvatoris nostri primatum obtinuit: *Tu es*, inquit Dominus, *Petrus, et super hanc petram*» etc.

10. Item, Nicolaus, distinctione vigesima secunda[^p190-7]: «Omnes cuiuslibet ordinis dignitates instituit Romana Ecclesia, illam vero solus ipse fundavit et supra petram fidei mox nascentis erexit, qui beato aeternae vitae clavigero terreni simul et caelestis imperii iura commisit. Non ergo quaelibet terrena sententia, sed illud Verbum, quo instructum est caelum et terra, per quod denique omnia condita sunt elementa, Romanam fundavit Ecclesiam; illius certe privilegio fungitur, illius auctoritate fulcitur; quod qui auferre conatur, hic procul dubio in haeresim labitur. *Et infra*: Unde et ipse S. Ambrosius se in omnibus sequi magistram sanctam Romanam Ecclesiam profitetur».

11. Item, Anacletus, ibidem[^p190-8]: «Sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia non ab Apostolis, sed ab ipso Domino Salvatore nostro primatum obtinuit, sicut beato Petro Apostolo dixit: *Tu es Petrus*». Et post pauca: «Inter beatos Apostolos quaedam fuit discretio potestatis; et licet omnes essent Apostoli, Petro tamen concessum est a Domino — et ipsi inter se voluerunt idipsum — ut reliquis omnibus praeesset Apostolis; qui et eandem formam suis successoribus et reliquis episcopis tenendam tradiderunt; et non solum hoc in novo testamento, verum etiam in veteri fuit». — Ex his manifeste colligitur, quod secundum testimonium *utriusque* testamenti ab omnibus est obtemperandum uni.

Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur per *ius canonicum*:

12. Quia *cuius est ceteros iudicare et a nemine iudicari, ei debet ab omnibus obediri*; sed talis est aliquis unus, utpote Pontifex summus: ergo ei est ab omnibus obtemperandum. *Maior* est per se manifesta; *minor* vero probatur per multiplicia iura.
<!-- page 191 -->
Causa nona, quaestione tertia[^p191-1] dicit Nicolaus Papa: «Patet profecto, Sedis apostolicae, cuius auctoritate maius non est, iudicium a nemine retractandum esse, nec cuiquam liceat de eius iudicio iudicare». — Item, Innocentius Papa, ibidem: «Nemo iudicabit primam apostolicam Sedem, iustitiam temperare desiderantem; neque enim ab Augusto neque ab omni clero neque a populo index iudicabitur». — Item, Anterus Papa, ibidem: «Facta subditorum iudicantur a nobis, nostra vero a Domino iudicantur» — Item, Gelasius Papa omnibus Episcopis, ibidem: «Cuncta per mundum novit Ecclesia, quod sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia fas de omnibus habeat iudicandi, neque cuiquam liceat de eius iudicare iudicio. Siquidem ad illam de qualibet mundi parte appellandum est, ab illa autem nemo est appellare permissus». — Item, idem episcopis per Dardaniam constitutis, ibidem: «Cuncta Ecclesia per mundum novit, quoniam quorumlibet sententiis ligata pontificum Sedes beati Petri ius habeat rescindendi, utpote quae de omni Ecclesia fas habeat iudicandi». — Ex his igitur manifeste colligitur, quod summi Pontificis est ceteros iudicare et a nemine iudicari, ac per hoc ei debeat ab omnibus obediri.

13. Item, cuius est *decreta statuere ab omnibus observanda*, ei debet ab omnibus obediri; sed hic est summus Pontifex: ergo ei ab omnibus est obtemperandum. *Maior* per se patet; *minor* vero probatur multipliciter. Primo, decima nona distinctione[^p191-2] Agatho Papa sic: «Omnes apostolicae Sedis sanctiones accipiendae sunt tanquam ipsius beati Petri Apostoli divina voce firmatae». — Item, eadem distinctione Stephanus quintus: «Enimvero, quia in speculum et exemplum sancta Romana Ecclesia, cui nos Christus praeesse voluit, posita est omnibus, quidquid statuerit, quidquid ordinaverit, perpetuo et irrefragabiliter observandum est». — Item, Gregorius Papa, in eadem: «Nulli fas est vel velle, vel posse transgredi apostolicae Sedis praecepta». Et post: «Sit ergo ruinae suae dolore prostratus, quisquis voluerit apostolicae Sedis contraire decretis; quoniam iam damnatus a sancta Synodo et apostolica Ecclesia sua de inobedientia atque praesumtione a quoquam esse non dubitatur». — Item, vigesima distinctione Nicolaus Papa: «Si decreta Romanorum Pontificum non habetis, de neglectu atque incuria estis arguendi; si habetis et non observatis, de temeritate estis corripiendi». — Item, Causa vigesima quinta, quaestione prima Hilarius Papa: «Nulli fas sit sine status sui periculo divinas constitutiones, vel apostolicae Sedis decreta temerare». — Item, eadem Adrianus Papa: «Generali decreto constituimus, ut exsecrandum anathema fiat et velut praevaricator fidei catholicae semper apud Deum reus existat, quicumque regum seu episcoporum vel potentium deinceps Romanorum Pontificum decretorum censuram in quoquam crediderit vel permiserit violandam». — Ex his omnibus manifeste ostenditur, quod summi Pontificis est decreta statuere ab omnibus observanda, et ex hoc ei ab omnibus obedientia exhibenda.

14. Item, illi, *sine cuius obedientia non potest unitas Ecclesiae conservari*, debet ab omnibus obediri; sed talis est unus, scilicet summus Pontifex: ergo etc. *Maior* est per se nota; *minor* vero probatur. Cyprianus, Causa vigesima quarta, quaestione prima[^p191-3]: «Ut unitatem manifestaret, unitatis Ecclesiae originem ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit». — Item, idem, eadem quaestione: «Alienus est, profanus est, hostis est; habere non potest Deum patrem qui universalis Ecclesiae non tenet unitatem». — Item, Hieronymus, in eadem quaestione[^p191-4]: «Cum successore piscatoris et discipulo Christi loquor. Ego nullum praemium nisi Christum sequens, beatitudini vestrae, id est Cathedrae Petri, communione consocior; supra illam *petram* fundatam Ecclesiam scio. Quicumque extra hanc domum agnum comederit, profanus est; si quis in Noe arca non fuerit, peribit, regnante diluvio». Et post: «*Quicumque tecum non colligit, spargit,* hoc est, qui Christi non est antichristi est». — Item, Beda, supra Matthaeum, in eadem quaestione[^p191-5]: «Quicumque ab unitate fidei, vel societatis Petri Apostoli quolibet modo semetipsos segregant, tales nec vinculis peccatorum absolvi nec ianuam possunt ingredi regni caelestis». — Item, nonagesima tertia distinctione[^p191-6] Cyprianus dicit: «Qui Cathedram Petri, supra quam fundata est Ecclesia, deserit in Ecclesia se esse non confidat». — Non potest ergo intra unitatem ecclesiasticam esse qui ab obedientia recedit illius qui sedet in Cathedra Petri.

Item, hoc idem ostenditur per *evidentiam rationum.*
<!-- page 192 -->

15. Ecclesia Dei est unum corpus, in quo est diversitas membrorum[^p192-1]; sed sic est in corpore *materiali*, quod omnia membra subiiciuntur et obtemperant uni membro principali, scilicet capiti: ergo sic erit in corpore *spirituali*, quod omnia membra spiritualia uni debent subiici tanquam capiti principali. Hoc autem fit per obedientiam: ergo etc.

16. Item, Ecclesia habet ordinem secundum *ministeria*, sicut etiam secundum *charismata et gratiarum dona*[^p192-2]; sed influentia *charismatum et gratiarum* est ab uno capite, scilicet Christo: ergo et derivatio *ministeriorum et iurisdictionum* debet esse ab uno capite, scilicet Pontifice summo. Hoc autem non potest esse sine obedientia omnium respectu unius: ergo etc.

17. Item, Ecclesia est una hierarchia: ergo debet habere unum praecipuum et summum hierarcham[^p192-3], cum ab unitate principis descendere debeat unitas principatus; sed uni et summo hierarchae ab omnibus obediendum est: ergo etc.

18. Item, Ecclesia conformatur supernae hierarchiae[^p192-4]; sed omnes spiritus ministrant et obtemperant uni summo Spiritui: ergo et omnes homines in Ecclesia obtemperare debent uni homini. Hic autem est summus Pontifex: ergo etc.

19. Item, maior est unio in *esse* gratiae quam in *esse* naturae[^p192-5]; sed omnes homines habent unum patrem corporalem: ergo debent habere unum patrem spiritualem. Sed patri ab omnibus filiis obediendum est: ergo etc.

20. Item, in *minori mundo* sic est, quod omnes vires inferiores obtemperare debent uni, scilicet rationi seu libero arbitrio[^p192-6]: ergo et in ordine ecclesiastico omnes obtemperare debent uni homini; hic autem est summus Pontifex: ergo etc.

21. Item, in *maiori mundo* videmus quod omnia mobilia et omnes motores regulantur secundum primum motorem et primum mobile[^p192-7]: ergo similiter in ordine ecclesiastico regulari debent omnes principatus et potestates secundum aliquem unum et solum principalem motorem; hoc autem fit obtemperando Pontifici summo: ergo etc.

22. Item, Ecclesia est una sponsa, ergo debet habere unum sponsum; sed omnes particulares Ecclesiae reducuntur ad Ecclesiam unam: ergo omnes sponsi loco Christi constituti, scilicet episcopi[^p192-8], ad unum debent reduci, qui principaliter tenet locum Christi. Sed non haberet unum sponsum, nisi uni ab omnibus esset obtemperandum: ergo etc.

23. Item, omnis controversia temporalis habet terminari per unum iudicem temporalem; sed si essent duo vel plures, quibus aequaliter esset obediendum, non possent iudicia terminari: ergo necesse est, ad iudiciorum terminationem in Ecclesia unum esse, cui ab omnibus debeatur obedientia.

24. Item, «in quolibet genere est unum primum, per quod mensurantur et ad quod reducuntur omnia, quae sunt in illo genere[^p192-9]»: ergo in genere potestatum humanarum est ponere unam summam et principalem potestatem, secundum quam omnes aliae potestates mensurentur et regulentur; hoc autem fit illi obediendo et obtemperando: ergo etc.

Sᴇᴅ ᴄᴏɴᴛʀᴀ: 1. Matthaei vigesimo[^p192-10]: *Quicumque voluerit inter vos maior fieri, sit vester minister; et qui voluerit inter vos primus esse, erit vester servus*: ergo primi et maioris est magis servire quam imperare: ergo magis debet obedire omnibus, quam omnes sibi, secundum dictamen et imperium evangelicae legis.

2. Item, Matthaei vigesimo tertio[^p192-11]: *Patrem nolite vocare vobis super terram*; constat, quod non intelligit de patre carnali, intelligit ergo de patre spirituali: ergo contra dictamen evangelicae legis est, quod unus vocetur *pater* ab omnibus, et quod ceteri tanquam patri obediant ei.

3. Item, ad Galatas secundo[^p192-12]: *In faciem ei restiti*; Glossa: «tanquam par». «Hoc enim non auderet facere, nisi se sciret non imparem esse»: ergo Paulus fuit par Petro; pari ratione et alii Apostoli: ergo et successores Apostolorum pares sunt successori Petri secundum institutionem dominicae legis: non ergo est christianae religionis, quod omnes obediant uni.

4. Item, Cyprianus dicit, et habetur Causa vigesima quarta, quaestione prima[^p192-13]: «Hoc erunt ceteri Apostoli, quod Petrus fuit, pari consortio praediti et honoris et potestatis»: si ergo omnes Apostoli sunt pares, ergo et omnes successores Apostolorum: ergo
<!-- page 193 -->
non magis tenetur unus obedire alteri, quam e converso: non est ergo de iure divino, quod omnes sint sub capite uno.

5. Item, illud idem, quod dicitur Petro Matthaei decimo sexto[^p193-1]: *Tibi dabo claves; et quaecumque ligaveris super terram* etc., dicitur et ceteris Apostolis Matthaei decimo octavo: *Amen dico vobis, quaecumque ligaveritis super terram, erunt ligata et in caelo, et quaecumque solveritis super terram* etc.: ergo videtur, quod par potestas fuerit Petri et ceterorum Apostolorum: non ergo secundum dictamen legis evangelicae necesse est, omnes reduci ad caput unum, cui obedire teneantur.

6. Item, super illud Matthaei decimo sexto[^p193-2]: *Quodcumque ligaveris* etc.; Glossa «Habent quidem eandem iudiciariam potestatem ceteri Apostoli, quibus post resurrectionem ait: *Accipite Spiritum sanctum; quorum remiseritis*» etc.: si ergo in ceteris Apostolis eadem est potestas iudiciaria, non ergo videtur, quod principaliter resideat penes unam personam.

7. Item, nonagesima tertia distinctione[^p193-3], Hieronymus ad Evangelum presbyterum: «Si auctoritas quaeritur, orbis maior est urbe. Ubicumque fuerit episcopus, sive Eugubii, sive Romae, eiusdem meriti est et sacerdotii»: ergo omnes episcopi secundum Hieronymum paris sunt dignitatis: ergo non est necesse secundum dictamen legis Dei, quod omnes obtemperent uni.

8. Item, regimen ecclesiasticae hierarchiae dividitur in potestatem regalem et sacerdotalem; sed non est necessarium ad salutem, quod omnes reges obtemperent uni regi: ergo pari ratione videtur, quod non sit necessarium, quod omnes uni obtemperent sacerdoti.

9. Item, qui habet potestatem ordinariam et iurisdictionem totaliter[^p193-4] potest eam alteri committere; sed cum Pontifex summus statuit episcopos, posse ordinarium eis tribuit per orbem terrarum: ergo iam videtur, quod iurisdictionem in alios transtulerit: ergo non videtur, quod necesse sit ei amplius obediri.

10. Item, omnes sacerdotes pares sunt in potestate conficiendi, ergo pari ratione et in potestate ligandi atque solvendi: non ergo videtur, quod omnes subiaceant uni.

11. Item, post Petrum potestas universalis esse non potest in aliquo nisi per electionem concorditer factam a multis: ergo immediatius potestas Petri devoluta est ad collegium quam ad unam personam: non ergo videtur, quod secundum illius potestatis derivationem omnes oporteat subiici uni.

12. Item, aut primus pastor Ecclesiae Petrus *habuit* in se plenitudinem auctoritatis et potestatis, aut *non.* Si *habuit* plene, ergo superflue scribit summus Pontifex, se agere quod agit auctoritate *Apostolorum Petri et Pauli*, cum in solo Petro fuerit plenitudo auctoritatis; si vero in Petro *non fuit*, multo minus nec in successoribus suis.

13. Item, si omnes debent obedire uni, ergo unus debet providere omnibus; sed providere omnibus non est in potestate humana, sed in sola potestate divina: si ergo omnibus providere est solius Dei, omnes non debent obedire uni nisi Domino soli.

14. Item, si omnes debent obedire uni, aut sicut praelato *immediato*, aut sicut *mediato.* Si sicut *immediato*: ergo superfluunt alii; si sicut *mediato*; sed in omni genere *immediatum* est potentius et excellentius *mediato*[^p193-5]: ergo secundum hoc minima vel nulla erit auctoritas in illo uno, et minime astringuntur alii ad obtemperandum sibi.

15. Item, si omnes tenentur obedire uni tanquam praelato, ergo ille videtur esse tanquam praelatus communis, ergo et universalis; sed universalis causa non potest in effectum nisi mediante particulari, sicut sol non potest in productionem hominis nisi per hominem[^p193-6]: ergo secundum hoc, si unus est Pontifex summus, videtur, quod nihil possit nisi per alios: ergo videtur, quod minime astringantur alii ad hoc, quod subiaceant uni.

16. Item, hierarchia caelestis non habet aliquem unum, cui subiaceat per obedientiam, nisi solum Deum: ergo videtur, quod nec terrestris sive ecclesiastica habere debeat aliquem unum nisi solum *mediatorem Dei et hominum Iesum Christum*[^p193-7].

CONCLUSIO.

> *Licet diversi homines pluribus ligaminibus ad subiectionem obedientiae diversis sint astricti, secundum diversitatem graduum, officiorum et potestatum; tamen haec varietas ad unum reduci debet summum et primum Antistitem, in quo principaliter residet universalis omnium principatus; et non solum ad ipsum Christum, sed etiam iure divino ad eius Vicarium; et hoc quidem congruentissime, cum istud requirat ordo universalis iustitiae, unitas Ecclesiae et stabilitas in utroque.*

Rᴇsᴘᴏɴᴅᴇᴏ: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod licet diversi diversis, pluribus
<!-- page 194 -->
ligaminibus ad subiectionem obedientiae sint astricti, secundum id quod dicit Apostolus: *Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit*, ad Romanos decimo tertio[^p194-1], et hoc secundum diversitatem graduum, officiorum et potestatum; omnis tamen haec varietas ad unum habet reduci summum et primum, in quo principaliter residet universalis omnium principatus; non solum ad ipsum Deum et *Christum, mediatorem Dei et hominum*, verum etiam ad eius Vicarium; et hoc non per statutum humanum, sed per statutum divinum, quo Christus Petrum statuit principem Apostolorum, quos *constituit principes super orbem terrarum*[^p194-2]. Fecit autem hoc Christus congruentissime, quia hoc requirebat *ordo universalis iustitiae, unitas Ecclesiae* et *stabilitas in utroque.*

Requirebat enim hoc *ordo universalis iustitiae* et quantum ad iustitiam *naturalem* et quantum ad *civilem* et quantum ad *caelestem* sive spiritualem. — *Naturalis* namque iustitia, per quam ordinantur *elementa mundi* et tota machina universi, requirit, quod inter corpora *locantia* unum sit primum corpus locans, inter *mobilia* unum primum mobile, inter *lucentia* unum principaliter irradians, inter *motores* unus primus motor, et universaliter «in *quolibet genere* sit unum primum, per quod mensurentur omnia, quae in illo genere continentur[^p194-3]». — *Naturalis* etiam iustitia in *minori mundo* requirit, quod unum sit *membrum* principale, a quo cetera recipiant influentiam secundum *veritatem*, ut cor, secundum *evidentiam*, ut caput[^p194-4]; quod una etiam sit *virtus* principaliter omnium virium animae et totius hominis regitiva, scilicet liberum arbitrium.

*Civilis* etiam *iustitia* requirit, quod unus sit principalis *iudex*, a quo fiat causarum finalis decisio; unus etiam principalis *dux* et rector, a quo fiat iuris latio, ne pro divisione capitum schisma et divisio in corpore reipublicae oriatur, et paribus contradicentibus iudicibus, si nullus sit iudex supremus, nunquam litigium terminetur.

*Caelestis* etiam *ordo* hoc habet, quod omnes spiritus sub obedientia unius supremi Spiritus[^p194-5], quem praesentialiter intuentur, ordinatissime disponuntur.

Quoniam igitur haec inferior hierarchia et ordini *naturali* consonat et *morali* et *caelesti*, quia naturam perficit et mores ornat et a superna Ierusalem emanat; hinc est, quod ipsa reduci habet secundum rationem obedientiae ad unum primum et summum. Sicut enim non est ordo *prioritatis et posterioritatis* nisi per reductionem ad *primum*[^p194-6], sic non est ordo completus secundum *sub et supra* nisi per reductionem ad *summum.* Unde ibi solum est ordo *perfectissimus*, ubi est reductio perfecta ad summum, quod est *summum simpliciter*, cuiusmodi est Deus[^p194-7]; et hoc est in Ierusalem superna, ubi est plena iustitia. — Ubi vero est reductio ad *summum in genere* hominum, cuiusmodi est Christi Vicarius, Pontifex summus; ibi est ordo *perfectus*, quantum competit perfectioni praesentis Ecclesiae, qui formatus est ad instar supernae Ierusalem. — Unde Bernardus, tertio ad Eugenium[^p194-8]: «Nec vilem reputes formam hanc, quae in terris est; formam habet in caelo. Viderat hoc qui dicebat: *Vidi civitatem sanctam descendentem de caelo, a Deo paratam.* Ego enim propter similitudinem dictum reor, quod, sicut illic Cherubim et Seraphim ceterique usque ad Archangelos et Angelos ordinantur sub uno capite Deo; ita hic quoque sub uno summo Pontifice primates vel patriarchae, archiepiscopi, episcopi, presbyteri vel abbates et reliqui in hunc modum. Non est parvipendendum quod et Deum habet auctorem et de caelo ducit originem». — Sic ergo unus debet esse, ad quem reducatur universalis subiectio; et hoc, quia, sicut ostensum est, sic exigebat *universalis iustitiae ordo.*

Requirit etiam hoc *unitas ipsius Ecclesiae.* Cum enim ipsa Ecclesia una sit *hierarchia*, unum *corpus* et una *sponsa*; necesse est, quod unum habeat *hierarcham* praecipuum, unum *caput* et unum *sponsum*; et quoniam huiusmodi unitas non tantum est in Ecclesia secundum *interiorem influentiam* charismatum, verum etiam secundum *exteriorem dispensationem* ministeriorum: hinc est, quod ipsius Ecclesiae non tantum est hierarcha praecipuus, caput et sponsus ipse Iesus Christus, qui *interius* ipsam Ecclesiam regit, vivificat et fecundat[^p194-9]; verum etiam *exterius* unus debet esse minister praecipuus, tenens locum *hierarchae* primi, *capitis* et *sponsi*, ut Ecclesia non tantum *interius*, verum etiam *exterius* in unitate habeat conservari. — Et hoc est quod dicit Cyprianus, et habetur Causa vigesima quarta, quaestione prima[^p194-10]: «Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum: *Ego tibi dico, quia tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram* etc. Super unum aedificat Ecclesiam, et ab unitate exordium proficiscitur, ut Ecclesia Christi una monstretur; episcopatus unus est, cuius singularis in solidum pars tenetur; et Ecclesia una est, quae
<!-- page 195 -->
in multitudine latius incrementa fecunditatis extendit. Quomodo multi radii sunt, sed unum lumen, et rami arboris multi sunt, sed robur unum tenaci radice fundatum; et quomodo de fonte uno rivi plurimi defluunt, et numerositas licet diffusa videatur exundantis copiae largitate, unitas tamen servatur integra in origine: sic et Ecclesia Dei luce perfusa per totum orbem radios suos porrigit; unum tamen est, quod ubique diffunditur, nec unitas corporis separatur». Vult igitur Cyprianus, quod Ecclesia[^p195-1] quia una est columba, unus episcopatus, unum corpus; super unum pastorem praecipuum fundari debuit, scilicet Petrum, tanquam super unum episcopum et caput et sponsum.

Requirit etiam hoc *soliditas utriusque.* Nam, sicut dicit Philosophus[^p195-2], «virtus, quanto est magis unita, tanto plus est infinita»; quod quidem verum est et quantum ad *permanentiam* et quantum ad *influentiam* et quantum ad *praeeminentiam.* — Quantum ad *permanentiam*: quia, sicut divisio parit interitum[^p195-3], sic maior unitio dat firmitatem et robur, unde et tota firmitas ipsius Ecclesiae principaliter manat a soliditate unius Petrae et unius Petri, qui est Vicarius Petrae; in cuius rei signum dictum est Petro[^p195-4]: *Et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam*; dictum est etiam ei: *Ego pro te rogavi, Petre, ut non deficiat fides tua*; nec fuit haec oratio cassa. Unde Hieronymus, et habetur Causa vigesima quarta, quaestione prima[^p195-5]: «Sancta Romana Ecclesia, quae semper immaculata permansit, Domino providente, et beato Petro Apostolo opem ferente, in futuro manebit sine ulla haereticorum insultatione, et firma et immobilis omni tempore persistet». Facit ergo haec unitas Pontificis summi ad ipsius Ecclesiae soliditatem quantum ad *permanentiam.* — Quantum etiam ad *influentiam*: quia virtus magis unita magis est potens; et quanto potentior est in efficacia, tanto eius influentia potior in effectum: unde plenitudo potestatis in solo uno Pontifice debuit collocari. Unde Leo Papa, distinctione decima nona[^p195-6]: «Huius muneris sacramentum ita Dominus ad omnium Apostolorum officium pertinere voluit, ut in beatissimo Petro, Apostolorum omnium summo principe, principaliter collocaret, ut ab ipso, quasi a quodam capite, dona sua velut in omne corpus diffunderet, ut exsortem se intelligeret divini mysterii qui ausus fuerit a Petri soliditate recedere». — Postremo, etiam quantum ad *praeeminentiam* facit: quia virtus magis unita minus est alii obnoxia, ac per hoc magis est libera; quia etiam magis unita magis tenet rationem primi et summi, sicut arca fuit in cubito consummata[^p195-7]: unde unitas summi Pontificis sola est, quae confert totali Ecclesiae praeeminentiam dignitatis. Ac per hoc, sicut in capite ad totius corporis ornamentum collectio fit sensuum universorum; sic in ipso summo Pontifice debet esse universarum collectio dignitatum. Et hoc est quod dicit Bernardus ad Eugenium[^p195-8]: «Indagemus, age, indagemus adhuc diligentius, quis sis, quam geras videlicet pro tempore personam in Ecclesia Dei. Quis es? Sacerdos magnus, summus Pontifex; tu princeps episcoporum, tu heres Apostolorum, tu primatu Abel, gubernatu Noe, patriarchatu Abraham, ordine Melchisedech, dignitate Aaron, auctoritate Moyses, iudicatu Samuel, potestate Petrus, unctione Christus».

Ex his igitur aperte colligitur, quod unitas summi Pontificis manat ex lege Dei, exigente hoc *ordine universalis iustitiae,* tam *naturalis* quam *civilis* quam etiam *caelestis*; exigente etiam hoc *unitate Ecclesiae* tanquam unius *hierarchiae*, unius *corporis* et unius *sponsae*; exigente etiam hoc *stabilitate et sublimitate utriusque*, tam in *permanentia durationis* quam *influentia virtutis* et *praeeminentia dignitatis.* Unde licet illud manaverit ex *lege gratiae*, quae est lex Iesu Christi, consonat tamen *legi naturae* et *legi scriptae*, *iuri pontificio* et *iuri canonico*; consonat *visibilibus*, consonat *invisibilibus*; consonat etiam *pietati* cunctorum fidelium et *intelligentiae* rectae omnium animorum; sicut et rationes supra positae ostendunt, unde et concedendae sunt.

1. Ad illud vero quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod qui voluerit esse maior debet esse servus; dicendum, quod *servus* dicitur dupliciter: vel *subiectione obligatoria*, vel *humilitate perfecta.* Primum repugnat *summae* auctoritati, et non potest aliquis simul aliis teneri ad subiectionem et praeesse ad regimen. Secundum autem non repugnat, sed maxime consonat; et de hoc loquitur Dominus, quia docet aliis summe praepositum praecipue imitari Christum, qui aliis reliquit humilitatis
<!-- page 196 -->
exemplum praecipue imitandum; in cuius etiam rei signum summus Pontifex scribit se *servum servorum Dei.* Unde Bernardus, in secundo libro ad Eugenium[^p196-1], loquens de humilitate: «Nulla splendidior gemma in omni praecipue ornamento summi Pontificis; quo enim celsior ceteris, eo apparet illustrior et se ipso».

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non debemus *patrem* vocare super terram; dicendum, quod *pater* dicitur communicator naturae, *magister* dicitur communicator scientiae; et quoniam solus Deus est, qui principaliter naturam tribuit et scientiam infundit; ideo sibi tanquam principio principali et scientiae et naturae utrumque nomen, ut *auctoritatem principalem* insinuat, debet attribui, et non alii, *patris* scilicet et *magistri*[^p196-2]. Sed quia Deus in iis etiam forinsecus operatur per ministerium humanum, ideo nomen utrumque, ut dicit *ministerium*, potest communicari homini, non sicut principali actori, sed sicut dispensatori.

3. 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Paulo, quod par fuit Petro; dicendum, quod auctoritas apostolatus duplicem habet comparationem, scilicet ad eum, a quo traditur, et ad eos, super quos traditur; quia *apostolus* dicitur missus ab aliquo et ad aliquos. Secundum *primam* comparationem dicit Glossa[^p196-3], Paulum parificari Petro, quia uterque immediate missus erat a Christo. Unde et Paulus dicit, se esse *Apostolum, non ab homine nec per hominem, sed per Iesum Christum.* Secundum autem comparationem *secundam* non parificatur ei; nam Petrus dicitur *princeps Apostolorum* quod nunquam dicitur de Paulo, quia secundum hanc comparationem erat inferior Petro. Unde et Glossa dicit ibi[^p196-4]: «Ipse Petrus exemplum posteris praebuit, quo non dedignarentur maiores, sicubi forte recti tramitem reliquissent, etiam a posterioribus corripi». — Et per hoc patet sequens, quod obiicit de auctoritate Cypriani.

5. 6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod illud verbum dictum fuit Apostolis, quod prius dictum fuerat Petro; dicendum, quod longe aliter dictum fuit eis et Petro. Nam Petro *divisim et singulariter* dictum fuit, quia in eo potestatis plenitudo erat principaliter et singulariter collocanda; aliis vero dictum fuit *simul*: *Quaecumque ligaveritis* etc., quia vocati erant «in partem sollicitudinis[^p196-5]». Unde licet *consimilem* haberent potestatem, non tamen habebant *aequalem*; et ideo illud verbum dici debuit Apostolis et Petro; non tamen simul nec sub eodem contextu, sed alio et alio modo. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad sequens de Glossa; quia dicuntur Apostoli habere eandem iudiciariam potestatem, id est *consimilem*; sed ex hoc non sequitur, quod *aequalem*, sed est *figura dictionis* ex mutatione praedicati, quia similitudo in *qualitate*, aequalitas autem in *quantitate* consistit[^p196-6].

7. Ad illud quod obiicitur de auctoritate Hieronymi, quod episcopus, ubicumque sit, eiusdem est sacerdotii; dicendum, quod Hieronymus loquitur, quod magnitudo divitiarum et multitudo hominum subiectorum non facit, quod propter hoc homo sit excellentior praelatus[^p196-7]; nec Papa propter hoc dicitur excellentior aliis, quia sit episcopus Urbis, quae est maximae populositatis; sed quia est successor Petri, cui collata est plenitudo potestatis, non ex statuto hominis, sed Dei et Christi.

8. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non est necesse, omnes reges obtemperare uni; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia non sic ex statuto legis Evangelii procedit sceptrum regis, sicut clavis Pontificis. Lex enim evangelica spiritualis est, unde et Christus lator illius legis, ad spirituale pontificium, non ad carnale imperium oculos mentis suae direxit[^p196-8]. — Posset tamen dici, quod secundum veritatem utraque potestas in summo Pontifice concurrit in unam personam. Cum enim ipse sit summus *sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchisedech*, qui fuit *rex Salem et sacerdos Dei altissimi*[^p196-9], et Christus utrumque habuerit; Vicarius Christi in terris utramque a Christo potestatem accepit; unde et sibi uterque gladius competit. Unde Bernardus, quarto ad Eugenium[^p196-10]: «Uterque est Ecclesiae, et spiritualis scilicet gladius et materialis, sed is quidem *pro* Ecclesia, ille vero *ab* Ecclesia exserendus; ille sacerdotis, is militis manu, sed sane ad nutum sacerdotis et ad iussum imperatoris». Ex quo aperte colligitur, quod utraque potestas ad ipsum reducitur sicut ad unum hierarcham primum et summum.
<!-- page 197 -->

9. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod qui habet potestatem ordinariam potest eam alteri committere; dicendum, quod iurisdictio est in triplici differentia: quaedam *semiplena* et *totaliter aliunde descendens*, et haec non potest committi pro sui imperfectione; quaedam autem e contrario *plenissima*, et haec, quia summa est, non potest esse nisi in uno simul et semel; et ideo non potest committi alteri, unde Papa non potest facere alios Papas; quaedam autem est *media*, quae *ordinaria* est, nec tamen est *summa*; et haec quidem, quia quodam modo perfecta est et multiplicabilis, committi potest alteri; nec tamen amittitur, cum etiam datur, in quantum est *spiritualis potestas*: quia in hoc differunt *spiritualia* a *corporalibus*, quod *corporalia*, cum dantur, minus integre possidentur; *spiritualia* vero, cum distribuuntur, tunc plenius possidentur, sicut etiam in dono scientiae manifeste videtur. Unde licet summus Pontifex communicet aliis iurisdictionem, non tamen ex hoc patitur aliquod detrimentum, quia nunquam sic committit nec committere potest, quod aliquem a sua eximat potestate.

10. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omnes sacerdotes pares sunt in potestate conficiendi; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia potestas conficiendi est *essentialis* characteri, et ideo, sicut character non recipitur in diversis magis nec minus, sic nec illa potestas. Non sic est de potestate absolvendi, quia ista consequitur characterem sacerdotalem tanquam sibi *annexa*[^p197-1]. — Ratio autem huius est, quia prima potestas est potestas *absoluta*, haec autem est *relata ad alterum*, videlicet ad personas subiectorum; et ideo diversificari habet secundum diversitatem potestatum et graduum facientium ordinem in ecclesiastico principatu.

11. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod plenitudo potestatis a Petro immediate manavit in collegium; dicendum, quod potestas dupliciter dicitur esse in aliquo: vel sicut in subiecto *sustinente*, vel sicut in *deferente*[^p197-2]. Primo modo plenitudo potestatis nunquam est nec fuit nisi in uno, primo quidem in Christo, secundo in Petro, deinceps in successore ipsius, scilicet Pontifice Romano. Sed quia subiectum illius potestatis est persona mortalis; ideo sic ordinavit Christus et Spiritus eius, quod ab uno deferretur potestas haec ad unum, non per viam carnis, sed spiritus, quae quidem est electio, in qua in conformitate animorum operari debet Spiritus sanctus ad constituendum unum. Et quia principaliter residet in uno, ideo principaliter obedientia universorum refertur ad unum, citra quem nec statum habet nec complementum.

12. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod si summus Pontifex plenitudinem habet auctoritatis a Petro, non debet simul iungere auctoritatem Petri et Pauli; dicendum, quod plenitudo auctoritatis principaliter fuit in Petro et singulariter. Sed quoniam Paulus plenitudine suae sapientiae et litteraturae efficacissimus fuit in[^p197-3] infidelium conversione et prudentissimus in ipsius Ecclesiae gubernatione, ita quod quasi in aliquibus videbatur Apostolis ceteris esse praecelsior; ne contentio surgeret inter successores, Spiritu sancto dictante, hoc factum est, ut uterque in unam deveniret civitatem, in qua et simul morientes unius pontificatum Ecclesiae in urbe Romana fundarent, ut ex hoc scrupulus omnis controversiae cessaret. Unde Paulus nihil addidit summo Pontifici quantum ad *plenitudinem potestatis*, quae fuit in Petro, sed quantum ad *evidentiam*, ut *obstruatur os loquentium iniqua*[^p197-4], et maxime Graecorum, qui de pari contendere volebant cum Ecclesia Romana. Propter quod et iusto Dei iudicio, minus bene sentientes de unitate capitis et male servantes unitatem Ecclesiae, excaecati sunt, ut minus bene sentiant de unitate Spiritus sancti, qui tanquam amor Patris et Filii ab utroque procedit. Unde Paulus, veniens Romam, ut viveret sub alis Petri usque ad mortem, nihil aliud fecit quam commonefacere, Graecorum Ecclesiam subesse Romanae Ecclesiae usque in finem, ne sancti Spiritus perderet unitatem. Quia ergo summus Pontifex exprimere debet in suis litteris potestatis plenitudinem, non tantum universaliter[^p197-5], verum etiam evidenter, non tantum sufficienter, verum etiam abundanter; ideo auctoritatem exprimit utriusque.

13. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod si omnes debent obedire uni, quod unus debet providere omnibus; dicendum, quod etsi omnes debeant *uni* obedire, non tamen *uni soli*, quia nec unus ubique potest esse, nec unus ubique potest singulis providere. Ideo providit divina providentia, plures esse intermedios praepositos et distinctos, per quos virtus provisiva a summo descenderet usque ad ima. Unde Bernardus, ad Eugenium libro tertio[^p197-6]: «Non sola tua potestas a Domino; sunt et mediocres, sunt et inferiores; et quomodo *quos Deus coniunxit* non sunt separandi, sic nec quos *subiunxit* sunt comparandi». Propter quod, sicut particularium praelatorum est curae particulari intendere, sic et ipsius summi Pontificis super statum Ecclesiae generalem. Unde Bernardus subiungit ibidem: «Superest, ut
<!-- page 198 -->
generaliter super omnem Ecclesiae statum intendat consideratio tua».

14. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod si omnes debent obedire uni, aut hoc est sicut praelato mediato, aut immediato; dicendum, quod *immediatus praelatus* dicitur dupliciter: vel secundum *gradum*, vel secundum *virtutem*[^p198-1]. Dicendum est igitur, quod Pontifex unus et summus, licet ab infimis membris maxime distet secundum *gradum*, quia multi sunt gradus intermedii inter ipsum et infimam plebem; secundum *influentiam* tamen virtutis immediatissimus est. Non enim obeditur sibi propter auctoritates aliorum, sed aliis propter auctoritatem suam; sicut non obeditur regi propter ballivum, sed ballivo potius propter regem. Unde ipsius auctoritas est sicut causa proxima et immediata, quae movere debet omnes et singulos ad obedientiam suis praepositis exhibendam.

15. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod si omnes obedire tenentur uni, quod tunc ille est praelatus communis; dicendum, quod causa *universalis* est duplex: quaedam, quae est omnino *alterius generis et virtutis* quam particularis, sicut sol alterius generis quam homo; et haec non potest in effectum proprium, nisi per propriam[^p198-2] causam. Alia est causa *universalis*, quae habet in se *omnem virtutem*, quam habet *particularis*; et hoc modo Deus potest dici causa universalis rerum, et de tali causa universali non valet quod obiicit; summus autem Pontifex non assimilatur universali causae *primo* modo, sed *secundo*, quia locum Christi tenet in terris; unde etsi ipse solus esset, et omnia essent destructa in Ecclesia, reparare posset universa: et ideo non concludit ratio illa.

16. Ad illud quod obiicitur de hierarchia illius supernae Ierusalem; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia illi tanquam Beati habent semper Deum praesentem, unde *semper vident faciem veri Salomonis.* Nos autem in statu viae tanquam *parvuli*, quia nec Deum videmus nec ad ipsum immediate in causis humanis recurrere possumus, indigemus manuductione et regimine hominis viatoris, qui nos tanquam pastor deducat et reducat ad *ovile* summi Pastoris[^p198-3].[^p198-nota]

english:
<!-- page 189 -->

### Article III. *On the obedience owed to the Supreme Pontiff.*

Lastly it is asked whether it belongs to the Christian religion that all obey one[^p189-2]. And that it does so seems to be shown both through *the old testament* and through *the new* and through *canon right* and through *the evidence of reasons.*

First, then, it is shown through the *old* testament thus.

1. Deuteronomy, chapter 17[^p189-3]: *If thou perceive that there be among you a hard and doubtful matter in judgment, and thou see that the words of the judges vary; arise and go up to the place which the Lord thy God shall choose. But he that will be proud, refusing to obey the commandment of the priest, that man shall die*; there the Gloss: «Here he grants the faculty of appealing». From this text and from the Gloss it is gathered that in the old law there was one supreme Pontiff, to whom recourse was to be had in judgments, and whom all were to obey. If, therefore, this was so in the law of the figure, much more does it seem that it ought to be so in the law of grace. And this for a threefold reason: first, because unity is greater now than then: therefore much more ought there to be one Pontiff. — Likewise, the pontificate is worthier and higher: therefore much more ought men now to be subjected to one Pontiff than in the time of the law of Moses. — Lastly, because here there ought to be greater obedience and a better-ordered hierarchy. From all which it is gathered that, if one supreme Pontiff was to be complied with in the time of the law of Moses, much more in the time of the law of Christ.

2. Likewise, the Psalm[^p189-4]: *He hath appointed princes over all the earth*; it is settled that this was said of the Apostles: therefore all the earth is under the princedom of the Apostles; but that princedom is a stable princedom, according to that of the Psalm: *Their princedom is exceedingly strengthened*; but it is not stable unless it be united, because *every kingdom divided against itself shall be brought to desolation*; nor is it united unless it have one principal prince: therefore, according to the prophetic testimony, all the earth ought to lie under one, who is the prince of all.

3. Likewise, to the confirming of this makes what Bernard says in the third book to Eugenius[^p189-5]: «He must go out of the world who has perchance willed to explore what does not pertain to thy care. Thy forebears were destined, not to subdue some regions, but the world itself; and indeed *their sound hath gone forth into all the earth*» etc. And afterwards: «*Their princedom is exceedingly strengthened; they are appointed princes over all the earth.* Thou hast succeeded to his inheritance, so that thou art heir, and the world is thy inheritance». From this, therefore, it appears that according to the prophetic testimony the universal obedience of all is owed to one.

Likewise, this same thing is shown through the *new* testament.

4. Matthew, chapter 16[^p189-6]: *Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church* etc., as far as: *it shall be loosed also in heaven*; but it is settled that he who can loose and bind all ought to be obeyed by all: therefore God so instituted the Church
<!-- page 190 -->
that all should obey one. But the Church is to be ruled and governed as it was instituted by the Lord: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, John, last chapter[^p190-1]: *Feed my sheep*, was said to Peter; but the sheep of Christ are all who walk by the way of salvation: therefore Peter is set over all such: one, therefore, was the pastor of all Christ's sheep according to the Church's foundation: therefore also according to its progress and consummation one is to be obeyed by all.

6. Likewise, Bernard, treating the foregoing words, in the second book to Eugenius[^p190-2] speaks thus: «Thou art he to whom the keys were handed over, to whom the sheep were entrusted. There are indeed other doorkeepers of heaven and pastors of flocks; but thou hast inherited both names before the rest, the more gloriously as also the more distinctively. They have flocks assigned to them, each his own; to thee all are entrusted, to one man one flock. Not of the sheep only, but also of the pastors art thou alone the pastor of all. Whence do I prove it, thou askest? From the word of the Lord: *If thou love me, Peter, feed my sheep.* Which? The peoples of this or that city, or region, or kingdom? *My sheep*, he says. To whom is it not plain that he designated not *some*, but assigned *all*? Nothing is excepted where nothing is distinguished». And afterwards[^p190-3]: «Thy privilege stands unshaken for thee, both in the keys and in the sheep committed to thee, namely the sign of the singular pontificate of Peter, by which he took up for governing, not one ship, as each of the rest his own, but the world itself; so that, while each of the rest has his own, to thee alone has been committed the greatest ship of all, made out of all, the universal Church herself, spread through the whole world». — From this it is manifestly had that, according to the divine institution, one, namely the Supreme Pontiff, ought to be obeyed by all.

7. Likewise, Augustine, to Optatus[^p190-4]: «In the Roman Church the princedom of the apostolic Chair has always flourished»; but this is not said by reason of that city alone, since so it could be said of other places and other bishops; therefore it is said in respect of the whole world: therefore according to this the whole world ought to obey the Roman Pontiff as the prince of the world and the universal prince.

8. Likewise, Jerome, to Pope Damasus[^p190-5]: «We desire to be corrected by thee, who holdest both the See of Peter and his faith; but if this our confession is approved by the judgment of thy apostolate, whoever shall wish to blame me will prove himself unskilled, or ill-willed, or even not catholic but heretical»: therefore the judgment and the correction of one supreme Pontiff is, according to Jerome, to be stood by by all, for no other cause than that he holds the See of Peter and the authority which the Lord gave him.

9. Likewise, Gelasius, distinction 21[^p190-6]: «Although the catholic Churches established throughout the world are one bridal chamber of Christ, yet the holy Roman Church has been set before the others by no synodical enactments, but obtained the primacy by the evangelical voice of our Lord and Saviour: *Thou art*, says the Lord, *Peter, and upon this rock*» etc.

10. Likewise, Nicholas, distinction 22[^p190-7]: «The Roman Church has instituted the dignities of every order, but she herself was founded by him alone, and raised upon the rock of the faith then newly born, who committed to the blessed key-bearer of eternal life the rights of the earthly and at once of the heavenly empire. Not any earthly sentence, therefore, but that Word by which heaven and earth were framed, through which at length all the elements were created, founded the Roman Church; assuredly she enjoys his privilege, she is upheld by his authority; and whoever tries to take this away slips beyond doubt into heresy. *And below*: Hence also S. Ambrose himself professes that he follows in all things the holy Roman Church as his mistress».

11. Likewise, Anacletus, in the same place[^p190-8]: «The most holy Roman Church obtained the primacy not from the Apostles, but from our Lord and Saviour himself, as he said to the blessed Apostle Peter: *Thou art Peter*». And a little after: «Among the blessed Apostles there was a certain distinction of power; and although all were Apostles, yet it was granted to Peter by the Lord — and they themselves willed the same among themselves — that he should be set over all the rest of the Apostles; and they handed down the same form to be held by their successors and by the rest of the bishops; and this was not only in the new testament, but was also in the old». — From these things it is manifestly gathered that, according to the testimony of *both* testaments, one is to be complied with by all.

Likewise, this same thing is shown through *canon right*:

12. Because *whose office it is to judge the rest and to be judged by none, he ought to be obeyed by all*; but such is some one man, namely the supreme Pontiff: therefore he is to be complied with by all. The *major* is manifest of itself; the *minor* is proved through manifold rights.
<!-- page 191 -->
Cause 9, question 3[^p191-1], Pope Nicholas says: «It is plain indeed that the judgment of the apostolic See, than whose authority there is none greater, is to be retracted by none, nor may it be lawful for anyone to judge concerning its judgment». — Likewise, Pope Innocent, in the same place: «No one shall judge the first apostolic See, which desires to temper justice; for neither by Augustus nor by all the clergy nor by the people shall the judge be judged». — Likewise, Pope Anterus, in the same place: «The deeds of subjects are judged by us, but ours are judged by the Lord» — Likewise, Pope Gelasius to all Bishops, in the same place: «The whole Church throughout the world knows that the most holy Roman Church has the right of judging concerning all, nor may it be lawful for anyone to judge concerning her judgment. For to her appeal is to be made from any part of the world, but from her no one is permitted to appeal». — Likewise, the same to the bishops appointed throughout Dardania, in the same place: «The whole Church throughout the world knows that the See of blessed Peter has the right of rescinding what has been bound by the sentences of whatsoever pontiffs, inasmuch as she has the right of judging concerning the whole Church». — From these things, therefore, it is manifestly gathered that it belongs to the supreme Pontiff to judge the rest and to be judged by none, and through this that he ought to be obeyed by all.

13. Likewise, whose office it is *to establish decrees to be observed by all*, he ought to be obeyed by all; but such is the supreme Pontiff: therefore he is to be complied with by all. The *major* is plain of itself; the *minor* is proved in many ways. First, in distinction 19[^p191-2] Pope Agatho thus: «All the sanctions of the apostolic See are to be received as though confirmed by the divine voice of the blessed Apostle Peter himself». — Likewise, in the same distinction Stephen the Fifth: «For indeed, since the holy Roman Church, over which Christ has willed us to preside, is set for a mirror and an example to all, whatever she shall have established, whatever she shall have ordained, is to be observed perpetually and irrefragably». — Likewise, Pope Gregory, in the same: «It is lawful for none either to will or to be able to transgress the precepts of the apostolic See». And afterwards: «Let him therefore be laid low with the grief of his own ruin, whoever shall have willed to go against the decrees of the apostolic See; since it is not doubted that he is already condemned by the holy Synod and by the apostolic Church for his own disobedience and presumption before anyone at all». — Likewise, in distinction 20 Pope Nicholas: «If you do not possess the decrees of the Roman Pontiffs, you are to be charged with neglect and carelessness; if you possess them and do not observe them, you are to be rebuked for rashness». — Likewise, Cause 25, question 1, Pope Hilary: «Let it be lawful for none, without peril to his own state, to violate the divine constitutions or the decrees of the apostolic See». — Likewise, in the same, Pope Adrian: «By a general decree we establish that an execrable anathema be made, and that he stand guilty before God for ever as a prevaricator of the catholic faith, whoever of kings or of bishops or of the powerful shall henceforth have believed or permitted that the censure of the decrees of the Roman Pontiffs be violated in any man». — From all these things it is manifestly shown that it belongs to the supreme Pontiff to establish decrees to be observed by all, and that from this obedience is to be exhibited to him by all.

14. Likewise, he *without whose obedience the unity of the Church cannot be preserved* ought to be obeyed by all; but such is one man, namely the supreme Pontiff: therefore etc. The *major* is known of itself; the *minor* is proved. Cyprian, Cause 24, question 1[^p191-3]: «That he might manifest unity, he disposed by his own authority the origin of the unity of the Church, beginning from one». — Likewise, the same, in the same question: «He is an alien, he is profane, he is an enemy; he cannot have God for his father who does not hold the unity of the universal Church». — Likewise, Jerome, in the same question[^p191-4]: «I speak with the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of Christ. I, following no reward save Christ, am joined in communion with your beatitude, that is, with the Chair of Peter; upon that *rock* I know the Church to be founded. Whoever shall eat the lamb outside this house is profane; if any man shall not have been in the ark of Noe, he shall perish when the flood reigns». And afterwards: «*Whosoever gathereth not with thee scattereth*, that is, he who is not of Christ is of antichrist». — Likewise, Bede, on Matthew, in the same question[^p191-5]: «Whoever in any manner whatsoever separate themselves from the unity of the faith or of the fellowship of Peter the Apostle, such can neither be absolved from the bonds of their sins nor enter the gate of the heavenly kingdom». — Likewise, in distinction 93[^p191-6] Cyprian says: «Let him who deserts the Chair of Peter, upon which the Church is founded, not be confident that he is in the Church». — He cannot therefore be within ecclesiastical unity who withdraws from the obedience of him who sits in the Chair of Peter.

Likewise, this same thing is shown through *the evidence of reasons.*
<!-- page 192 -->

15. The Church of God is one body, in which there is a diversity of members[^p192-1]; but so it is in the *material* body, that all the members are subjected and comply with one principal member, namely the head: therefore so will it be in the *spiritual* body, that all the spiritual members ought to be subjected to one as to the principal head. But this comes about through obedience: therefore etc.

16. Likewise, the Church has order according to *ministries*, as also according to *charisms and gifts of graces*[^p192-2]; but the inflowing of *charisms and of graces* is from one head, namely Christ: therefore also the derivation of *ministries and jurisdictions* ought to be from one head, namely the supreme Pontiff. But this cannot be without the obedience of all in respect of one: therefore etc.

17. Likewise, the Church is one hierarchy: therefore it ought to have one chief and supreme hierarch[^p192-3], since from the unity of the prince the unity of the princedom ought to descend; but the one and supreme hierarch is to be obeyed by all: therefore etc.

18. Likewise, the Church is conformed to the supernal hierarchy[^p192-4]; but all the spirits minister to and comply with one supreme Spirit: therefore also all men in the Church ought to comply with one man. But this is the supreme Pontiff: therefore etc.

19. Likewise, the union in the *being* of grace is greater than in the *being* of nature[^p192-5]; but all men have one bodily father: therefore they ought to have one spiritual father. But a father is to be obeyed by all his sons: therefore etc.

20. Likewise, in the *lesser world* it is so, that all the lower powers ought to comply with one, namely with reason or with free choice[^p192-6]: therefore also in the ecclesiastical order all ought to comply with one man; but this is the supreme Pontiff: therefore etc.

21. Likewise, in the *greater world* we see that all movables and all movers are regulated according to the first mover and the first movable[^p192-7]: therefore likewise in the ecclesiastical order all princedoms and powers ought to be regulated according to some one and sole principal mover; but this comes about by complying with the supreme Pontiff: therefore etc.

22. Likewise, the Church is one bride, therefore she ought to have one bridegroom; but all particular Churches are reduced to one Church: therefore all the bridegrooms constituted in the place of Christ, namely the bishops[^p192-8], ought to be reduced to one, who principally holds the place of Christ. But she would not have one bridegroom unless one were to be complied with by all: therefore etc.

23. Likewise, every temporal controversy has to be terminated through one temporal judge; but if there were two or several who were to be equally obeyed, judgments could not be terminated: therefore it is necessary, for the terminating of judgments in the Church, that there be one to whom obedience is owed by all.

24. Likewise, «in any genus there is one first, by which all things that are in that genus are measured and to which they are reduced[^p192-9]»: therefore in the genus of human powers one supreme and principal power is to be posited, according to which all other powers may be measured and regulated; but this comes about by obeying and complying with him: therefore etc.

Sᴇᴅ ᴄᴏɴᴛʀᴀ: 1. Matthew, chapter 20[^p192-10]: *Whosoever will be the greater among you, let him be your minister; and he that will be first among you, shall be your servant*: therefore it belongs to the first and the greater rather to serve than to command: therefore he ought rather to obey all than all him, according to the dictate and the command of the evangelical law.

2. Likewise, Matthew, chapter 23[^p192-11]: *Call none your father upon earth*; it is settled that he does not understand this of a carnal father, therefore he understands it of a spiritual father: therefore it is against the dictate of the evangelical law that one be called *father* by all, and that the rest obey him as a father.

3. Likewise, to the Galatians, chapter 2[^p192-12]: *I withstood him to the face*; the Gloss: «as an equal». «For he would not have dared to do this unless he knew himself to be not unequal»: therefore Paul was Peter's equal; by parity of reason the other Apostles also: therefore the successors of the Apostles too are equals of the successor of Peter according to the institution of the Lord's law: it does not therefore belong to the Christian religion that all obey one.

4. Likewise, Cyprian says, and it is had in Cause 24, question 1[^p192-13]: «The other Apostles will be what Peter was, endowed with an equal share both of honour and of power»: if therefore all the Apostles are equals, therefore also all the successors of the Apostles: therefore
<!-- page 193 -->
one is not more bound to obey another than the other way about: it is not, therefore, of divine right that all be under one head.

5. Likewise, that same thing which is said to Peter in Matthew, chapter 16[^p193-1]: *I will give thee the keys; and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth* etc., is said also to the other Apostles in Matthew, chapter 18: *Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth* etc.: therefore it seems that the power of Peter and of the other Apostles was equal: therefore, according to the dictate of the evangelical law, it is not necessary that all be reduced to one head whom they are bound to obey.

6. Likewise, on that text of Matthew, chapter 16[^p193-2]: *Whatsoever thou shalt bind* etc.; the Gloss «The other Apostles indeed have the same judiciary power, to whom after the resurrection he said: *Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive*» etc.: if therefore in the other Apostles the judiciary power is the same, it does not therefore seem that it resides principally with one person.

7. Likewise, in distinction 93[^p193-3], Jerome to Evangelus the presbyter: «If authority is sought, the world is greater than the city. Wherever a bishop shall be, whether at Eugubium or at Rome, he is of the same merit and of the same priesthood»: therefore all bishops, according to Jerome, are of equal dignity: therefore it is not necessary, according to the dictate of the law of God, that all comply with one.

8. Likewise, the government of the ecclesiastical hierarchy is divided into royal and priestly power; but it is not necessary for salvation that all kings comply with one king: therefore by parity of reason it seems that it is not necessary that all comply with one priest.

9. Likewise, he who has ordinary power and jurisdiction wholly[^p193-4] can commit it to another; but when the supreme Pontiff appoints bishops, he bestows ordinary authority upon them throughout the world: therefore it now seems that he has transferred jurisdiction to others: therefore it does not seem that it is necessary to obey him any further.

10. Likewise, all priests are equals in the power of confecting, therefore by parity of reason also in the power of binding and loosing: it does not therefore seem that all lie under one.

11. Likewise, after Peter universal power cannot be in anyone save through an election made concordantly by many: therefore the power of Peter has devolved more immediately upon the college than upon one person: it does not therefore seem that, according to the derivation of that power, all must be subjected to one.

12. Likewise, either Peter, the first pastor of the Church, *had* in himself the fullness of authority and of power, or *not.* If he *had* it fully, then the supreme Pontiff writes superfluously that he does what he does by the authority of *the Apostles Peter and Paul*, since in Peter alone was the fullness of authority; but if it *was not* in Peter, much less is it in his successors.

13. Likewise, if all ought to obey one, then one ought to provide for all; but to provide for all is not in human power, but in the divine power alone: if therefore to provide for all belongs to God alone, all ought not to obey one save the Lord alone.

14. Likewise, if all ought to obey one, it is either as an *immediate* prelate or as a *mediate* one. If as an *immediate* one, then the others are superfluous; if as a *mediate* one — but in every genus the *immediate* is more potent and more excellent than the *mediate*[^p193-5]: therefore according to this there will be least or no authority in that one, and the others are least of all bound to comply with him.

15. Likewise, if all are bound to obey one as to a prelate, then he seems to be as it were a common prelate, and therefore a universal one; but a universal cause cannot act upon an effect save by the mediation of a particular one, as the sun cannot act upon the production of a man save through a man[^p193-6]: therefore according to this, if there is one supreme Pontiff, it seems that he can do nothing save through others: therefore it seems that the others are least of all bound to this, that they lie under one.

16. Likewise, the heavenly hierarchy has no one under whom it lies through obedience save God alone: therefore it seems that neither ought the earthly or ecclesiastical hierarchy to have any one save only *the mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ*[^p193-7].

CONCLUSIO.

> *Although diverse men are bound by several bonds to the subjection of obedience to diverse men, according to the diversity of grades, offices and powers; yet this variety must be reduced to one supreme and first Prelate, in whom the universal princedom of all principally resides; and not only to Christ himself, but also, by divine right, to his Vicar; and this indeed most fittingly, since the order of universal justice, the unity of the Church and stability in both require it.*

Rᴇsᴘᴏɴᴅᴇᴏ: For the understanding of what has been said it is to be noted that, although diverse men are bound to diverse men by several
<!-- page 194 -->
bonds unto the subjection of obedience, according to that which the Apostle says: *Let every soul be subject to higher powers*, to the Romans, chapter 13[^p194-1], and this according to the diversity of grades, offices and powers; yet all this variety has to be reduced to one supreme and first, in whom the universal princedom of all principally resides; not only to God himself and to *Christ, the mediator of God and men*, but also to his Vicar; and this not by a human statute, but by a divine statute, by which Christ appointed Peter prince of the Apostles, whom he *appointed princes over the whole earth*[^p194-2]. And Christ did this most fittingly, because the *order of universal justice, the unity of the Church* and *stability in both* required it.

For the *order of universal justice* required this both as to *natural* justice and as to *civil* and as to *heavenly* or spiritual justice. — For *natural* justice, by which *the elements of the world* and the whole machine of the universe are ordered, requires that among *locating* bodies there be one first locating body, among *movables* one first movable, among *shining* things one principally irradiating, among *movers* one first mover, and universally that «in *any genus* there be one first, by which all things contained in that genus are measured[^p194-3]». — *Natural* justice also requires in the *lesser world* that there be one principal *member*, from which the rest receive inflowing according to *truth*, as the heart, and according to *evidence*, as the head[^p194-4]; and that there be one *power* principally ruling all the powers of the soul and the whole man, namely free choice.

*Civil* *justice* also requires that there be one principal *judge*, from whom the final decision of causes proceeds; and one principal *leader* and ruler, from whom the bearing of right proceeds, lest through a division of heads a schism and division arise in the body of the commonwealth, and lest, when the judges contradict one another on even terms, if there be no supreme judge, the litigation be never terminated.

The *heavenly* *order* also has this, that all the spirits, under the obedience of one supreme Spirit[^p194-5] whom they behold in his presence, are most orderly disposed.

Since, therefore, this lower hierarchy is consonant both with the *natural* order and with the *moral* and with the *heavenly*, because it perfects nature and adorns morals and emanates from the supernal Jerusalem; hence it is that it has to be reduced, according to the account of obedience, to one first and supreme. For just as there is no order of *priority and posteriority* save through a reduction to a *first*[^p194-6], so there is no complete order according to *under and above* save through a reduction to a *supreme.* Whence there alone is the *most perfect* order, where there is a perfect reduction to a supreme which is *supreme simply*, of which kind God is[^p194-7]; and this is in the supernal Jerusalem, where there is full justice. — But where there is a reduction to *a supreme in the genus* of men, of which kind is the Vicar of Christ, the supreme Pontiff, there is a *perfect* order, so far as it befits the perfection of the present Church, which is formed after the likeness of the supernal Jerusalem. — Whence Bernard, in the third book to Eugenius[^p194-8]: «Do not reckon cheap this form which is on earth; it has its form in heaven. He had seen this who said: *I saw the holy city coming down out of heaven, prepared by God.* For I reckon that it was said by reason of the likeness, that, as there the Cherubim and Seraphim and the rest down to the Archangels and Angels are ordered under one head, God; so here too, under one supreme Pontiff, primates or patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, presbyters or abbots and the rest in this manner. That is not to be lightly esteemed which has both God for its author and draws its origin from heaven». — Thus, therefore, there ought to be one to whom the universal subjection is reduced; and this because, as has been shown, so *the order of universal justice* demanded.

The *unity of the Church herself* also requires this. For since the Church herself is one *hierarchy*, one *body* and one *bride*, it is necessary that she have one chief *hierarch*, one *head* and one *bridegroom*; and since a unity of this kind is not only in the Church according to the *interior inflowing* of charisms, but also according to the *exterior dispensation* of ministries: hence it is that not only is Jesus Christ himself the chief hierarch, head and bridegroom of the Church, who *inwardly* rules, vivifies and makes her fruitful[^p194-9], but also *outwardly* there ought to be one chief minister, holding the place of the first *hierarch*, of the *head* and of the *bridegroom*, so that the Church may be preserved in unity not only *inwardly* but also *outwardly.* — And this is what Cyprian says, and it is had in Cause 24, question 1[^p194-10]: «The Lord speaks to Peter: *I say to thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock* etc. Upon one he builds the Church, and the beginning proceeds from unity, that the Church of Christ may be shown to be one; the episcopate is one, of which a share is held severally in solidarity; and the Church is one, which
<!-- page 195 -->
spreads abroad more widely the increases of fruitfulness in a multitude. As there are many rays but one lumen[^tr-lumen], and the branches of a tree are many but there is one trunk founded upon a tenacious root; and as from one fount many streams flow, and although the multiplicity may seem to be diffused by the largess of the overflowing plenty, yet unity is preserved entire in the source: so also the Church of God, suffused with light, stretches out her rays through the whole world; yet that which is everywhere diffused is one, nor is the unity of the body separated». Cyprian therefore means that the Church[^p195-1] — since she is one dove, one episcopate, one body — had to be founded upon one chief pastor, namely upon Peter, as upon one bishop and head and bridegroom.

The *solidity of both* also requires this. For, as the Philosopher says[^p195-2], «a power, the more it is united, the more it is infinite»; which indeed is true both as to *permanence* and as to *inflowing* and as to *preeminence.* — As to *permanence*: because, as division begets destruction[^p195-3], so a greater uniting gives firmness and strength, whence also the whole firmness of the Church herself flows principally from the solidity of one Rock and of one Peter, who is the Vicar of the Rock; in sign of which thing it was said to Peter[^p195-4]: *And upon this rock I will build my Church*; and it was also said to him: *I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not*; nor was this prayer empty. Whence Jerome, and it is had in Cause 24, question 1[^p195-5]: «The holy Roman Church, which has always remained unstained, by the Lord's providing and by the help of the blessed Apostle Peter, shall in time to come remain without any insulting of heretics, and shall persist firm and immovable for all time». This unity of the supreme Pontiff, therefore, makes for the solidity of the Church herself as to *permanence.* — As also to *inflowing*: because a power more united is more potent; and the more potent it is in efficacy, the more powerful is its inflowing upon the effect: whence the fullness of power had to be placed in one Pontiff alone. Whence Pope Leo, distinction 19[^p195-6]: «The Lord so willed the sacrament of this office to pertain to the office of all the Apostles, that he should place it principally in the most blessed Peter, the supreme prince of all the Apostles, so that from him, as from a certain head, he might pour out his gifts as it were into the whole body, so that he should understand himself to have no share in the divine mystery who shall have dared to withdraw from the solidity of Peter». — Lastly, it makes also as to *preeminence*: because a power more united is less liable to another, and through this is more free; and because also, being more united, it holds more the account of the first and the supreme, as the ark was finished in a cubit[^p195-7]: whence the unity of the supreme Pontiff alone is that which confers upon the whole Church the preeminence of dignity. And through this, just as in the head there comes about, for the adornment of the whole body, a gathering of all the senses; so in the supreme Pontiff himself there ought to be a gathering of all the dignities. And this is what Bernard says to Eugenius[^p195-8]: «Come, let us search out, let us search out yet more diligently who thou art, that is, what person thou bearest for the time in the Church of God. Who art thou? The great priest, the supreme Pontiff; thou art the prince of bishops, thou art the heir of the Apostles, thou art Abel in primacy, Noe in governing, Abraham in patriarchate, Melchisedech in order, Aaron in dignity, Moses in authority, Samuel in judging, Peter in power, Christ in anointing».

From these things, therefore, it is openly gathered that the unity of the supreme Pontiff flows from the law of God, since the *order of universal justice* demands it, both *natural* and *civil* and also *heavenly*; since the *unity of the Church*, as of one *hierarchy*, of one *body* and of one *bride*, also demands it; since the *stability and sublimity of both*, both in the *permanence of duration* and in the *inflowing of power* and in the *preeminence of dignity*, also demands it. Whence, although it has flowed from the *law of grace*, which is the law of Jesus Christ, yet it is consonant with *the law of nature* and *the written law*, with *pontifical right* and *canon right*; it is consonant with things *visible*, it is consonant with things *invisible*; it is consonant also with the *piety* of all the faithful and with the right *intelligence* of all minds; as also the reasons set down above show, whence they are to be conceded.

1. To that which is objected first to the contrary, that he who would be the greater ought to be the servant; it must be said that *servant* is said in two ways: either by an *obligatory subjection*, or by a *perfect humility.* The first is repugnant to *supreme* authority, and one cannot at the same time be bound to others in subjection and be set over them for governing. But the second is not repugnant, but most consonant; and of this the Lord speaks, because he teaches that he who is supremely set over others should chiefly imitate Christ, who left to others the example of humility
<!-- page 196 -->
chiefly to be imitated; in sign of which thing also the supreme Pontiff writes himself *the servant of the servants of God.* Whence Bernard, in the second book to Eugenius[^p196-1], speaking of humility: «No jewel is more splendid in the whole chief adornment of the supreme Pontiff; for the loftier he is than the rest, the more illustrious he appears, even than himself».

2. To that which is objected, that we ought not to call anyone *father* upon earth; it must be said that a *father* is so called as the communicator of nature, a *master* is so called as the communicator of knowledge; and since God alone it is who principally bestows nature and infuses knowledge, therefore to him, as to the principal principle both of knowledge and of nature, each name, inasmuch as it intimates *principal authority*, ought to be attributed, and to no other, namely the name of *father* and of *master*[^p196-2]. But since God works in these things also outwardly through human ministry, therefore each name, inasmuch as it says *ministry*, can be communicated to a man, not as to the principal agent, but as to a dispenser.

3. 4. To that which is objected concerning Paul, that he was Peter's equal; it must be said that the authority of apostolate has a twofold comparison, namely to him from whom it is handed over, and to those over whom it is handed over; because an *apostle* is called one sent by someone and to some. According to the *first* comparison the Gloss says[^p196-3] that Paul is made equal to Peter, because each was sent immediately by Christ. Whence also Paul says that he is an *Apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ.* But according to the *second* comparison he is not made equal to him; for Peter is called *prince of the Apostles*, which is never said of Paul, because according to this comparison he was inferior to Peter. Whence also the Gloss says there[^p196-4]: «Peter himself gave an example to posterity, whereby their superiors should not disdain, if perchance they had anywhere left the path of rectitude, to be corrected even by their inferiors». — And through this the following objection is plain, which objects from the authority of Cyprian.

5. 6. To that which is objected, that that word was said to the Apostles which had first been said to Peter; it must be said that it was said to them and to Peter in very different ways. For to Peter it was said *severally and singularly*, because in him the fullness of power was to be placed principally and singularly; but to the others it was said *together*: *Whatsoever you shall bind* etc., because they had been called «into a share of the solicitude[^p196-5]». Whence, although they had a *like* power, yet they did not have an *equal* one; and therefore that word had to be said both to the Apostles and to Peter, yet not together nor under the same context, but in one manner and in another. — And through this the reply to the following objection from the Gloss is plain; because the Apostles are said to have the same judiciary power, that is a *like* one; but from this it does not follow that they have an *equal* one, but this is a *figure of diction* arising from a change of predicate, since likeness consists in *quality*, but equality in *quantity*[^p196-6].

7. To that which is objected from the authority of Jerome, that a bishop, wherever he be, is of the same priesthood; it must be said that Jerome is speaking to the effect that the greatness of riches and the multitude of men subject do not make a man on that account a more excellent prelate[^p196-7]; nor is the Pope said to be more excellent than others on this account, that he is the bishop of the City, which is of the greatest populousness; but because he is the successor of Peter, upon whom the fullness of power was conferred, not by the statute of man, but of God and of Christ.

8. To that which is objected, that it is not necessary that all kings comply with one; it must be said that the case is not alike: because the sceptre of a king does not proceed from the statute of the law of the Gospel as the key of the Pontiff does. For the evangelical law is spiritual, whence Christ also, the bearer of that law, directed the eyes of his mind to a spiritual pontificate, not to a carnal empire[^p196-8]. — Yet it could be said that according to truth both powers meet in one person in the supreme Pontiff. For since he himself is the supreme *priest according to the order of Melchisedech*, who was *king of Salem and priest of the most high God*[^p196-9], and Christ had both; the Vicar of Christ on earth received both powers from Christ; whence both swords also belong to him. Whence Bernard, in the fourth book to Eugenius[^p196-10]: «Both belong to the Church, both the spiritual sword, namely, and the material; but the one indeed is to be drawn *for* the Church, the other *by* the Church; the one by the hand of the priest, the other by the hand of the soldier, but certainly at the nod of the priest and at the bidding of the emperor». From which it is openly gathered that both powers are reduced to him as to one first and supreme hierarch.
<!-- page 197 -->

9. To that which is objected, that he who has ordinary power can commit it to another; it must be said that jurisdiction is in a threefold difference: one is *half-full* and *wholly descending from elsewhere*, and this cannot be committed on account of its own imperfection; another, on the contrary, is *most full*, and this, because it is supreme, cannot be save in one man at one and the same time; and therefore it cannot be committed to another, whence the Pope cannot make other Popes; and another is *middle*, which is *ordinary*, and yet is not *supreme*; and this indeed, because it is in a certain manner perfect and multipliable, can be committed to another; nor yet is it lost when it is given, inasmuch as it is a *spiritual power*: because in this *spiritual* things differ from *bodily* ones, that *bodily* things, when they are given, are possessed less entirely; but *spiritual* things, when they are distributed, are then possessed more fully, as is manifestly seen also in the gift of knowledge. Whence, although the supreme Pontiff communicate jurisdiction to others, yet he does not on this account suffer any loss, because he never so commits it, nor can so commit it, that he should exempt anyone from his own power.

10. To that which is objected, that all priests are equals in the power of confecting; it must be said that the case is not alike: because the power of confecting is *essential* to the character, and therefore, just as the character is not received in different men more or less, so neither is that power. It is not so with the power of absolving, because this follows upon the priestly character as *annexed* to it[^p197-1]. — But the reason of this is that the first power is an *absolute* power, whereas this is *related to another*, namely to the persons of the subjects; and therefore it has to be diversified according to the diversity of powers and grades which make the order in the ecclesiastical princedom.

11. To that which is objected, that the fullness of power flowed from Peter immediately into the college; it must be said that a power is said to be in something in two ways: either as in a *sustaining* subject, or as in a *bearer*[^p197-2]. In the first way the fullness of power never is nor was save in one, first indeed in Christ, secondly in Peter, thereafter in his successor, namely the Roman Pontiff. But since the subject of that power is a mortal person, therefore Christ and his Spirit so ordained that this power should be borne from one to one, not by the way of flesh but of spirit, which is election, in which the Holy Spirit ought to work in a conformity of minds unto the constituting of one. And because it resides principally in one, therefore the obedience of all is principally referred to one, short of whom it has neither standing nor completion.

12. To that which is objected, that if the supreme Pontiff has the fullness of authority from Peter, he ought not to join together the authority of Peter and of Paul; it must be said that the fullness of authority was principally and singularly in Peter. But since Paul, by the fullness of his wisdom and of his letters, was most efficacious in[^p197-3] the conversion of unbelievers and most prudent in the governance of the Church herself, so that in some things he seemed to be as it were more excellent than the other Apostles; lest contention should arise among their successors, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit it came about that both should come to one city, in which, dying together, they should found the pontificate of the one Church in the city of Rome, so that from this every scruple of controversy should cease. Whence Paul added nothing to the supreme Pontiff as to the *fullness of power*, which was in Peter, but as to *evidence*, that *the mouth of them that speak wicked things may be stopped*[^p197-4], and chiefly of the Greeks, who wished to contend on even terms with the Roman Church. On which account also, by the just judgment of God, thinking less rightly of the unity of the head and keeping ill the unity of the Church, they have been blinded, so that they think less rightly of the unity of the Holy Spirit, who as the love of the Father and of the Son proceeds from both. Whence Paul, coming to Rome that he might live under the wings of Peter unto death, did nothing else than admonish that the Church of the Greeks is subject to the Roman Church unto the end, lest it should lose the unity of the Holy Spirit. Since, therefore, the supreme Pontiff ought to express in his letters the fullness of power, not only universally[^p197-5], but also evidently, not only sufficiently, but also abundantly; therefore he expresses the authority of both.

13. To that which is objected, that if all ought to obey one, then one ought to provide for all; it must be said that, although all ought to obey *one*, yet not *one alone*, because neither can one man be everywhere, nor can one man provide everywhere for individuals. Therefore divine providence has provided that there be several intermediate and distinct superiors, through whom the providing power should descend from the supreme even to the lowest. Whence Bernard, to Eugenius, in the third book[^p197-6]: «Not thy power alone is from the Lord; there are also middling ones, there are also lower ones; and as *those whom God hath joined together* are not to be separated, so neither are those whom he has *subjoined* to be compared». On which account, just as it belongs to particular prelates to attend to a particular care, so it belongs to the supreme Pontiff himself to attend to the general state of the Church. Whence Bernard subjoins in the same place: «It remains that
<!-- page 198 -->
thy consideration attend generally to the whole state of the Church».

14. To that which is objected, that if all ought to obey one, this is either as to a mediate prelate or to an immediate one; it must be said that an *immediate prelate* is so called in two ways: either according to *grade*, or according to *power*[^p198-1]. It must be said, therefore, that the one and supreme Pontiff, although he is furthest distant from the lowest members according to *grade*, because there are many intermediate grades between him and the lowest common people, is nevertheless most immediate according to the *inflowing* of power. For he is not obeyed on account of the authorities of others, but the others are obeyed on account of his authority; just as a king is not obeyed on account of the bailiff, but the bailiff rather on account of the king. Whence his authority is as it were the proximate and immediate cause which ought to move all and each to exhibiting obedience to their own superiors.

15. To that which is objected, that if all are bound to obey one, then he is a common prelate; it must be said that a *universal* cause is twofold: one which is altogether *of another genus and power* than the particular, as the sun is of another genus than a man; and this cannot act upon its proper effect save through its proper[^p198-2] cause. The other is a *universal* cause which has in itself *all the power* which the *particular* one has; and in this way God can be called the universal cause of things, and against such a universal cause what is objected does not hold; but the supreme Pontiff is not likened to a universal cause in the *first* way, but in the *second*, because he holds the place of Christ on earth; whence, even if he alone remained and all things were destroyed in the Church, he could repair the whole: and therefore that reason does not conclude.

16. To that which is objected concerning the hierarchy of that supernal Jerusalem; it must be said that the case is not alike: because they, as Blessed, have God always present, whence *they always see the face of the true Solomon.* But we in the state of the way, as *little ones*, since we neither see God nor can have recourse to him immediately in human affairs, need the leading by the hand and the government of a man who is a wayfarer, who as a pastor may lead us forth and lead us back to the *sheepfold* of the supreme Pastor[^p198-3].[^p198-nota]

la: Hic articulus exhibetur a codd. D E.

en: This article is exhibited by codices D and E.

la: Vers. 8. et 12. Vulgata plura interserit. — Glossa est interlinearis apud Lyranum in hunc loc.

en: Verses 8 and 12. The Vulgate inserts more. — The Gloss is the interlinear one in Lyra on this passage.

la: Psalm. 44, 17: *Constitues eos* etc.; secundus locus est Ps. 138, 17; tertius Luc. 11, 17. (Vulgata *in se ipsum*).

en: Psalm 44:17: *Thou shalt make them* etc.; the second passage is Ps. 138:17; the third Luke 11:17 (the Vulgate *against itself*).

la: Sive de Consideral. III. c. 1. n. 1. Pro *forte voluit* originale *forte volet.* Post *orbem* originale prosequitur: «*Ite in orbem universum* [Marc. 16, 15.], dictum est illis». Pluribus deinde additis, ponuntur verba: *Et quidem in omnem terram* etc. [Ps. 18, 5.], et, interiectis aliis, seq. locus, ubi citantur Ps. 138, 17. et 44, 17.

en: Or *de Consideratione* III, c. 1, n. 1. For *forte voluit* the original has *forte volet.* After *orbem* the original continues: «*Go ye into the whole world* [Mark 16:15], was said to them». Then, several things being added, the words are set down: *And indeed into all the earth* etc. [Ps. 18:5], and, other things being interposed, the following passage, where Ps. 138:17 and 44:17 are cited.

en: Verses 18, 19.

la: Vers. 17.

en: Verse 17.

la: Cap. 8. n. 15. Edit. Maurina (cuius ope paucos errores manifestos codicum correximus) omittit *uni* ante *universi crediti*, subiungit plura post *Ex verbo Domini* [Ioan. 21, 17.], et addit *certi* (alias *certe*) ante *regni.*

en: Chapter 8, n. 15. The Maurist edition (by whose help we have corrected a few manifest errors of the codices) omits *uni* before *universi crediti*, subjoins more after *Ex verbo Domini* [John 21:17], and adds *certi* (elsewhere *certe*) before *regni.*

la: Ibid. n. 16. Originale addit *datis* ante *clavibus*, pluresque propositiones post *commendatis*, et post *gubernandum.* Codd. corrupte legunt: *nempe si non singularis Pontificis Petri est, quod non navem unam* etc.

en: Ibid., n. 16. The original adds *datis* before *clavibus*, and several clauses after *commendatis*, and after *gubernandum.* The codices read corruptly: *nempe si non singularis Pontificis Petri est, quod non navem unam* etc.

la: Epist. 43. (alias 162.) c. 3. n. 7. Epistola haec non est ad Optatum, sed ad Glorium, Eleusium etc. directa.

en: Epistle 43 (elsewhere 162), c. 3, n. 7. This epistle is not addressed to Optatus, but to Glorius, Eleusius and others.

la: Explanatio Symboli, in fine (inter opera Hieron.); ubi pro *si autem* in textu originali ponitur *sin autem*, et pro *me culpare* habetur *me maculare*, et *non me haereticum* pro *sed haereticum.*

en: *Explanatio Symboli*, at the end (among the works of Jerome); where for *si autem* the original text has *sin autem*, and for *me culpare* it has *me maculare*, and *non me haereticum* for *sed haereticum.*

la: Can. *Quamvis universae per orbem* (3.). Codd. perperam *Pelagius* pro *Gelasius*; textus originalis post *Romana* prosequitur *catholica et apostolica Ecclesia nullis synodicis constitutis ceteris Ecclesiis praelata est* etc. In fine citatur Matth. 16, 18.

en: Canon *Quamvis universae per orbem* (3). The codices wrongly have *Pelagius* for *Gelasius*; the original text after *Romana* continues *catholica et apostolica Ecclesia nullis synodicis constitutis ceteris Ecclesiis praelata est* etc. At the end Matth. 16:18 is cited.

la: Can. *Omnes sive Patriarchae* (1); aliqua tamen a codd. omissa vel mutata sunt.

en: Canon *Omnes sive Patriarchae* (1); some things, however, have been omitted or changed by the codices.

la: Can. *Sacrosancta Romana* (2. et § 5.). Tam in primo quam in secundo loco textus originalis quaedam interserit.

en: Canon *Sacrosancta Romana* (2 and § 5). Both in the first and in the second place the original text inserts certain things.

la: Can. 10. (Cfr. supra pag. 153, nota 3.). Seq. locus est C. *Nemo iudicabit primam Sedem* [ipsum Concilium prosequitur: *quoniam omnes Sedes a prima Sede iustitiam desiderant temperari*] (13.); tertius C. *Facta subditorum* (15.); quartus C. *Cuncta per mundum* (17.); quintus C. *Cuncta per mundum novit Ecclesia* (18.), ubi textus originalis *resolvendi* pro *rescindendi.*

en: Canon 10 (compare above, p. 153, note 3). The following passage is canon *Nemo iudicabit primam Sedem* [the Council itself continues: *since all Sees desire that justice be tempered by the first See*] (13); the third, canon *Facta subditorum* (15); the fourth, canon *Cuncta per mundum* (17); the fifth, canon *Cuncta per mundum novit Ecclesia* (18), where the original text has *resolvendi* for *rescindendi.*

la: Can. *Sic omnes apostolicae* (2.), ubi textus originalis *divina* pro *divinae*; cap. huius C. *Enimvero quia* (4.); tertius C. *Nulli fas est* (5.) et ibid. § 1. (ubi post *decretis* plura adduntur, et in fine legitur: *damnatus a sancta et apostolica Ecclesia ac auctoritate sua de inobedientia* etc.); quartus (Nicolai) C. *Si decreta* (2.); quintus (Hilarii) C. *Nulli fas* (4.); codd. falso omittunt *temerare*; sextus (Adriani) C. *Generali decreto* (11.). Pro *anathema fiat* can. *anathema sit*; in nota adiecta exhibetur etiam lectio nostra.

en: Canon *Sic omnes apostolicae* (2), where the original text has *divina* for *divinae*; the chapter of this canon *Enimvero quia* (4); the third, canon *Nulli fas est* (5) and ibid. § 1 (where after *decretis* more is added, and at the end is read: *damnatus a sancta et apostolica Ecclesia ac auctoritate sua de inobedientia* etc.); the fourth (of Nicholas), canon *Si decreta* (2); the fifth (of Hilary), canon *Nulli fas* (4); the codices falsely omit *temerare*; the sixth (of Adrian), canon *Generali decreto* (11). For *anathema fiat* the canon has *anathema sit*; in the added note our reading is also exhibited.

la: Can. *Loquitur Dominus* (18.). Eiusdem Cypriani est seq. locus C. *Alienus est* (19.), sed ibi in fine legitur: «*qui Ecclesiam non habet matrem*». In nota adiecta refertur ex Anselmo lectio nostra.

en: Canon *Loquitur Dominus* (18). Of the same Cyprian is the following passage, canon *Alienus est* (19), but there at the end is read: «*who does not have the Church for his mother*». In the added note our reading is reported from Anselm.

la: Can. *Quoniam vetusto* (25, post medium), ex Hieron. Epist. 15. [alias 57.] n. 2, ubi pro *discipulo Christi*, quod, ut in nota adiecta dicitur, etiam Anselmus habet, originale *discipulo crucis*, et *tuae* pro *vestrae*, ac *aedificatam* pro *fundatam.* Respicitur Exod. 12, 3. seqq. et Gen. 7, 17. seqq. — Seq. locus, in quo respicitur Luc. 11, 23, est ibid. paulo inferius.

en: Canon *Quoniam vetusto* (25, after the middle), from Jerome, Epistle 15 [elsewhere 57], n. 2, where for *discipulo Christi*, which, as is said in the added note, Anselm also has, the original has *discipulo crucis*, and *tuae* for *vestrae*, and *aedificatam* for *fundatam.* Exod. 12:3 ff. and Gen. 7:17 ff. are alluded to. — The following passage, in which Luke 11:23 is alluded to, is in the same place a little below.

la: Can. *Quicumque ab unitate* (27.).

en: Canon *Quicumque ab unitate* (27).

la: Can. *Qui Cathedram* (3.).

en: Canon *Qui Cathedram* (3).

la: Cfr. I. Cor. 12, 12. seqq.

en: Compare I Cor. 12:12 ff.

la: Cfr. I. Cor. 12, 4. seqq.

en: Compare I Cor. 12:4 ff.

la: Codd. male transponunt *hierarcham* post *principatus.* De hierarcha praecipuo cfr. supra Quaest. de Paupert. pag. 155, in fine replicationis, et Dionys., de Ecclesiast. Hierarch. c. 1. § 3.

en: The codices wrongly transpose *hierarcham* after *principatus.* On the chief hierarch compare above, the Question on Poverty, p. 155, at the end of the *replicatio*, and Dionysius, *On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*, c. 1, § 3.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 180, nota 3.

en: Compare above, p. 180, note 3.

la: Cfr. Aristot., I. Ethic. c. 13. et I. Polit. c. 3. (c. 2.).

en: Compare Aristotle, *Ethics* I, c. 13, and *Politics* I, c. 3 (c. 2).

la: In consecratione episcopi secundum Pontificale Romanum consecrator, immittens anulum in digitum anularem dextrae manus consecrati, dicit: *Accipe anulum, fidei scilicet signaculum, quatenus sponsam Dei, sanctam videlicet Ecclesiam, intemerata fide ornatus, illibate custodias.* Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 25. a. 1. q. 1. in fine corp. quaest. — Inferius post *Christi* in D omittitur *Sed non haberet unum sponsum, nisi uni ab omnibus esset obtemperandum.*

en: In the consecration of a bishop, according to the Roman Pontifical, the consecrator, placing the ring upon the ring-finger of the right hand of the man consecrated, says: *Receive the ring, the seal of faith namely, that, adorned with unstained faith, thou mayest guard inviolate the bride of God, that is, the holy Church.* Compare IV *Sent.* d. 25, a. 1, q. 1, at the end of the body of the question. — Below, after *Christi*, D omits *Sed non haberet unum sponsum, nisi uni ab omnibus esset obtemperandum.*

la: De hoc axiomate, quod Averroes ex Aristot. dictis formavit, cfr. tom. II. pag. 94, nota 4. — Inferius verba *et ac potestatem* desiderantur in D.

en: On this axiom, which Averroes formed from the sayings of Aristotle, compare tome II, p. 94, note 4. — Below, the words *et ac potestatem* are wanting in D.

en: Verses 26, 27.

la: Vers. 9.

en: Verse 9.

la: Vers. 11. Glossa ibi est interlinearis apud Lyranum. Petr. Lombard. in hunc loc.: «*tanquam pari*». Seq. est Glossa ordinaria apud Strabum, sumta ex Comment. olim Ambrosio tributo.

en: Verse 11. The Gloss there is the interlinear one in Lyra. Peter Lombard on this passage: «*tanquam pari*». The following is the ordinary Gloss in Strabo, taken from the Commentary once attributed to Ambrose.

la: Can. *Loquitur Dominus* (18.).

en: Canon *Loquitur Dominus* (18).

la: Vers. 19: *Tibi dabo claves regni caelorum, et quodcumque* etc.; alter locus est ibid. 18, 18, ubi codd. bis pro *quaecumque* habent *quodcumque*; Vulgata porro *alligaveritis* pro *ligaveritis.*

en: Verse 19: *I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever* etc.; the other passage is ibid. 18:18, where the codices twice have *quodcumque* for *quaecumque*; the Vulgate moreover has *alligaveritis* for *ligaveritis.*

la: Vers. 19. Glossa, Hieronymo tributa [vide tom. IV. pag. 497, nota 4. et pag. 503, nota 4.], est ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum; locus Scripturae ibi allegatus est Ioan. 20, 22.

en: Verse 19. The Gloss, attributed to Jerome [see tome IV, p. 497, note 4, and p. 503, note 4], is the ordinary one in Strabo and Lyra; the passage of Scripture there adduced is John 20:22.

la: Can. *Legimus in Isaia* (24. § 1.), ex Hieron. Epist. 146. (alias 85.). n. 1. Pro *Evangelum* Gratianus *Evagrium.*

en: Canon *Legimus in Isaia* (24, § 1), from Jerome, Epistle 146 (elsewhere 85), n. 1. For *Evangelum* Gratian has *Evagrium.*

la: E omittit *totaliter.*

en: E omits *totaliter.*

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. 12. q. 3. ad 1. Vide etiam Lib. de Causis, propos. 1.

en: Compare I *Sent.* d. 12, q. 3, ad 1. See also the *Book of Causes*, proposition 1.

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. 40. dub. 7. et d. 45. a. 2. q. 2. in corp. — Respicitur illud Aristot., II. Phys. text. 26. (c. 2.): *Homo enim hominem generat et sol.* Cfr. XII. Metaph. text. 26. (XI. c. 5.).

en: Compare I *Sent.* d. 40, dubium 7, and d. 45, a. 2, q. 2, in the body. — That saying of Aristotle is alluded to, *Physics* II, text 26 (c. 2): *For man begets man, and the sun.* Compare *Metaphysics* XII, text 26 (XI, c. 5).

la: Respicitur I. Tim. 2, 5: *Unus enim Deus, unus et mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus.*

en: I Tim. 2:5 is alluded to: *For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus.*

la: Vers. 1.

en: Verse 1.

la: Respicitur Ps. 44, 17: *Constitues eos principes super omnem terram.*

en: Ps. 44:17 is alluded to: *Thou shalt make them princes over all the earth.*

la: Vide pag. 192, nota 9.

en: See p. 192, note 9.

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 13. a. 2. q. 3. ad 1.

en: Compare III *Sent.* d. 13, a. 2, q. 3, ad 1.

la: In E deest *Spiritus.*

en: In E *Spiritus* is wanting.

la: Vide supra pag. 47, nota 6.

en: See above, p. 47, note 6.

la: Cfr. Aristot., XII. Metaph. text. 52. seqq. (XI. c. 10.). Cfr. supra pag. 61, nota 5.

en: Compare Aristotle, *Metaphysics* XII, text 52 ff. (XI, c. 10). Compare above, p. 61, note 5.

la: Cap. 4. n. 17. 18. Originale post *formam hanc* prosequitur: *quia in terris est, exempla habet e caelo… Viderat* etc. Locus Scripturae est Apoc. 21, 2: *Vidi sanctam civitatem Ierusalem novam descendentem* etc.

en: Chapter 4, nn. 17, 18. The original after *formam hanc* continues: *quia in terris est, exempla habet e caelo… Viderat* etc. The passage of Scripture is Apoc. 21:2: *I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down* etc.

la: Vide III. Sent. d. 13. a. 2. q. 1. seqq.

en: See III *Sent.* d. 13, a. 2, q. 1 ff.

la: Can. *Loquitur Dominus* (18.), ubi allegatur Matth. 16, 18. — Textus originalis praecipue circa initium multa addit, inter quae est illud Cant. 6, 8: *Una est columba mea* etc.; pro *cuius singularis* habet *cuius a singulis*, et pro *multitudine latius incrementa fecunditatis extendit* substituit *multitudinem latius incremento fecunditatis extenditur.*

en: Canon *Loquitur Dominus* (18), where Matth. 16:18 is adduced. — The original text adds much, especially about the beginning, among which is that of Cant. 6:8: *One is my dove* etc.; for *cuius singularis* it has *cuius a singulis*, and for *multitudine latius incrementa fecunditatis extendit* it substitutes *multitudinem latius incremento fecunditatis extenditur.*

la: Supplevimus *quod Ecclesia.*

en: We have supplied *quod Ecclesia.*

la: Scil. auctor libri de Causis, propos. 17. — Infra pro *praeeminentiam*, quod praebere videtur E, D *praesentiam*, tamen infra semel habet recte *praeeminentiam dignitatis.*

en: Namely the author of the *Book of Causes*, proposition 17. — Below, for *praeeminentiam*, which E seems to offer, D has *praesentiam*, yet below it once has rightly *praeeminentiam dignitatis.*

la: Cfr. August., II. de Ordine, c. 18. n. 48; Boeth., III. de Consol. prosa 11, et Damasc., I. de Fide orthod. c. 4, ex quo attulimus verba tom. II. pag. 464, nota 4. — Subinde D *emanat* pro *manat.*

en: Compare Augustine, *On Order* II, c. 18, n. 48; Boethius, *On Consolation* III, prose 11, and Damascene, *On the Orthodox Faith* I, c. 4, from which we have adduced the words in tome II, p. 464, note 4. — Thereafter D has *emanat* for *manat.*

la: Matth. 16, 18; seq. locus est Luc. 22, 32. — August., Serm. 270. n. 2: *Ego dico tibi: Tu es Petrus, quia ego Petra, tu Petrus; neque enim a Petro Petra, sed a Petra Petrus… Et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, non supra Petrum, quod tu es, sed supra Petram, quam confessus es* etc.

en: Matth. 16:18; the following passage is Luke 22:32. — Augustine, Sermon 270, n. 2: *I say to thee: Thou art Peter, since I am the Rock, thou art Peter; for the Rock is not from Peter, but Peter from the Rock… And upon this rock I will build my Church, not upon Peter, which thou art, but upon the Rock which thou hast confessed* etc.

la: Can. *Haec est fides* (14.) § 1. Auctor sententiae non est Hieron. (prima pars huius canonis sumta est ex Expositione symboli ad Damasum, quae est inter opera Hieron.), sed Marcus Papa in epist. ad Athanasium.

en: Canon *Haec est fides* (14), § 1. The author of the sentence is not Jerome (the first part of this canon is taken from the *Exposition of the symbol to Damasus*, which is among the works of Jerome), but Pope Mark in his epistle to Athanasius.

la: Can. *Ita Dominus* (7.). In fine pro *fuerit* can. *fuisset.* — Infra E *Postremo, in quantum.*

en: Canon *Ita Dominus* (7). At the end, for *fuerit* the canon has *fuisset.* — Below, E has *Postremo, in quantum.*

la: Ita E, at D perperam *conservata.* Gen. 6, 16. dicitur de arca facienda: *Et in cubito consummabis summitatem eius.* Glossa ordinaria in hunc loc. apud Strabum: *Sic Ecclesia in unitate collecta sublimatur atque perficitur* etc. Cfr. Ambros., de Noe et arca, c. 7. n. 17. seqq., ubi haec verba adaptantur capiti humano, quod est decus hominis, et ex quo omnes sensus ad ceteras partes corporis transfunduntur.

en: So E, but D wrongly *conservata.* Gen. 6:16 says of the ark to be made: *And in a cubit thou shalt finish the top of it.* The ordinary Gloss on this passage in Strabo: *Thus the Church, gathered into unity, is exalted and perfected* etc. Compare Ambrose, *On Noe and the ark*, c. 7, nn. 17 ff., where these words are applied to the human head, which is the ornament of man, and from which all the senses are poured out to the other parts of the body.

la: Sive de Considerat. II. c. 8. n. 15: *Age, indagemus adhuc* etc.

en: Or *de Consideratione* II, c. 8, n. 15: *Age, indagemus adhuc* etc.

la: Cap. 6. n. 13: *Nulla… ceteris, eo humilitate apparet* etc.

en: Chapter 6, n. 13: *Nulla… ceteris, eo humilitate apparet* etc.

la: Matth. 23, 9. seq. In quem locum ait Hieron. distinguens: *Aliud esse natura patrem vel magistrum, aliud indulgentia. Nos si hominem patrem vocamus, honorem aetati deferimus, non auctorem nostrae ostendimus vitae. Magister quoque dicitur ex consortio veri Magistri* etc.

en: Matth. 23:9 f. On which passage Jerome says, distinguishing: *It is one thing to be a father or a master by nature, another by indulgence. If we call a man father, we defer honour to his age, we do not show him to be the author of our life. So too a man is called master from a fellowship with the true Master* etc.

la: Vide supra 3. ad oppos. Paulo inferius respicitur Gal. 1, 1.

en: See above, the third argument to the opposite. A little below Gal. 1:1 is alluded to.

la: Gal. 2, 14. — Glossa est ordinaria apud Petrum Lombard. et Lyranum, sumta ex August., Epist. 82. (alias 19.) c. 2. n. 22. Post *praebuit* textus originalis Glossae nonnulla addit, et in fine pro *corripi* substituit *corrigi.*

en: Gal. 2:14. — The Gloss is the ordinary one in Peter Lombard and Lyra, taken from Augustine, Epistle 82 (elsewhere 19), c. 2, n. 22. After *praebuit* the original text of the Gloss adds several things, and at the end substitutes *corrigi* for *corripi.*

la: Bernard., II. de Considerat. c. 8. n. 16: *Ergo iuxta canones tuos, alii in partem sollicitudinis, tu in plenitudinem potestatis vocatus es.* Cfr. Innocent. III, Serm. 21. de Sanctis et 2. de Diversis, ubi etiam verbum Domini eodem modo explicatur.

en: Bernard, *On Consideration* II, c. 8, n. 16: *Therefore according to thy own canons, the others have been called into a share of the solicitude, thou into the fullness of power.* Compare Innocent III, Sermon 21 *On the Saints* and Sermon 2 *On Various Matters*, where the word of the Lord is also explained in the same way.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 7, nota 11. De *figura dictionis* vide supra pag. 76, nota 3.

en: Compare above, p. 7, note 11. On the *figure of diction* see above, p. 76, note 3.

la: Respiciuntur verba eiusdem can.: *Potentia divitiarum et paupertatis humilitas vel sublimiorem, vel inferiorem episcopum non facit.* — Paulo superius codd., verbis male transpositis, *propter hoc quod.* Inferius pro *excellentior aliis* E *excelsior aliis*, et *magnae* pro *maximae.*

en: The words of the same canon are alluded to: *The power of riches and the lowliness of poverty make a bishop neither higher nor lower.* — A little above, the codices, with the words wrongly transposed, have *propter hoc quod.* Below, for *excellentior aliis* E has *excelsior aliis*, and *magnae* for *maximae.*

la: Matth. 16, 19: *Tibi dabo claves regni caelorum.* Cfr. Ioan. 18, 36: *Regnum meum non est de hoc mundo.* — Pro *carnale* E *corporale.*

en: Matth. 16:19: *I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.* Compare John 18:36: *My kingdom is not of this world.* — For *carnale* E has *corporale.*

la: Psalm. 109, 4; Gen. 14, 18; Hebr. 7, 1. et 21. — De utroque gladio cfr. Luc. 22, 38.

en: Psalm 109:4; Gen. 14:18; Hebr. 7:1 and 21. — On both swords compare Luke 22:38.

la: Cap. 3. n. 7; cfr. eiusdem Epist. 256. ad Eugenium, n. 1. Vide IV. Sent. d. 37. dub. 4.

en: Chapter 3, n. 7; compare the same author's Epistle 256 to Eugenius, n. 1. See IV *Sent.* d. 37, dubium 4.

la: Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 19. a. 2. q. 2. — Codd. perperam *annexam.*

en: Compare IV *Sent.* d. 19, a. 2, q. 2. — The codices wrongly have *annexam.*

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 13. a. 3. q. 2. in fine corp. et quaest.

en: Compare II *Sent.* d. 13, a. 3, q. 2, at the end of the body and of the question.

la: Supplevimus *in*; E scribit *fuit in fidelium*, D *fuit infidelium.*

en: We have supplied *in*; E writes *fuit in fidelium*, D *fuit infidelium.*

la: Respicitur Ps. 62, 12. Cfr. C. *Quamvis universae* (3.), Dist. 21. et C. *Sacrosancta romana* (2.), Dist. 22. § 1. — De errore Graecorum cfr. I. Sent. d. 11. q. 1. — Inferius post *Propter quod* E omittit *et.*

en: Ps. 62:12 is alluded to. Compare canon *Quamvis universae* (3), Distinction 21, and canon *Sacrosancta romana* (2), Distinction 22, § 1. — On the error of the Greeks compare I *Sent.* d. 11, q. 1. — Below, after *Propter quod*, E omits *et.*

la: Ita legi potest in D, vel etiam *naturaliter*; E habet lacunam.

en: So it can be read in D, or also *naturaliter*; E has a lacuna.

la: Cap. 4. n. 17: *Non ergo tua sola* etc. Respicitur Matth. 19, 6. Seq. locus ibid. c. 5. n. 19, ubi in textu originali *universum* pro *omnem.*

en: Chapter 4, n. 17: *Non ergo tua sola* etc. Matth. 19:6 is alluded to. The following passage is ibid., c. 5, n. 19, where the original text has *universum* for *omnem.*

la: De hac distinctione cfr. I. Sent. d. 8. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. ad 4. et d. 45. a. 2. q. 2. cum scholio.

en: On this distinction compare I *Sent.* d. 8, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, ad 4, and d. 45, a. 2, q. 2, with the scholion.

la: D *primam*; sed *propriam* hic idem esse videtur quod *particularem.* Cfr. I. Sent. d. 35. q. 2. ad 3. Inferius D omittit *rerum.*

en: D has *primam*; but *propriam* seems here to be the same as *particularem.* Compare I *Sent.* d. 35, q. 2, ad 3. Below, D omits *rerum.*

la: Respicitur Ioan. 10, 16, et superius Matth. 18, 10, una cum Cant. 3, 11.

en: John 10:16 is alluded to, and above Matth. 18:10, together with Cant. 3:11.

la: De primatu Romani Pontificis et de infallibili eiusdem magisterio S. Doctor saepissime, oblata occasione, in aliis suis libris loquitur, breviter quidem, sed sanctae Sedis dignitatem, praerogativas et iura magnificis verbis extollens. Cfr. inter alia supra de Perfectione evangelica q. 2. a. 2. ad 19. (pag. 147) et ibid. in fine (pag. 155); infra Breviloquium p. VI. c. 10. et c. 12; I. Sent. d. 11. q. 1. in corp. circa finem; II. Sent. d. 44. dub. 2; IV. Sent. d. 18. p. II. q. 3. in corp.; d. 19. a. 3. q. 1. in corp. et dub. 6; d. 20. p. II. q. 3. in corp. et q. 6. fundam. 3; d. 25. a. 1. q. 2. ad 4; Apologia pauperum praecipue resp. I. c. 1. in principio, resp. III. c. 2. in fine; Opusculum, Quare fratres Minores praedicent (in principio); Expositio in Lucam, c. 9, 20; Sermones in Hexaëmeron, sermo 22. ante med.; Expositio in regulam, in Prologo et in c. 3. et 9. — Praeclara autem de primatu summi Pontificis doctrina, quae locis citt. sparsim in medium profertur, in hac quaestione disputata consulto et copiose probatur et defenditur. Est autem eadem eo maioris pretii, quia ab aliis et praecipuis Scholasticis saeculi XIII. de primatu summi Pontificis in scholis vix data opera, sed tantum obiter tractabatur, cum eiusdem plenitudo potestatis in occidente propalam, publice, et omnibus Christianis consentientibus, exerceretur. Sed a saeculo XIV, praesertim post funestum illud schisma occidentale, et saeculis subsequentibus etiam a doctoribus catholicis vera de praerogativis summi Pontificis doctrina falsis opinionibus passim impugnata est. Hinc necessarium fuit, ut nostra aetate Pius IX, Concilio Vaticano approbante, per constitutionem dogmaticam *Pastor aeternus* catholicum dogma antiquum definiret et plures contrarios errores reprobaret. Manifestum autem est, doctrinam nostri Doctoris ita perfecte convenire cum decretis Vaticanis, ut ipse quasi praeoccupasse videatur ea quae a Concilio illo docentur de apostolici primatus *institutione* (c. 1.), *perpetuitate* (c. 2.), *vi et ratione* (c. 3; de quo cfr. praesertim supra solutiones ad 9. 11. 13. 14. 15.) atque *infallibili magisterio* (c. 4.). Licet autem haec ultima quaestio hic non proponatur eisdem verborum formulis expressa, tamen ipsa doctrina clare proponitur. Nam obedientia illa, quae inculcatur, comprehendit etiam *obedientiam fidei* (cfr. Rom. 1, 5.), omniaque iudicia a Summo doctore et pastore omnibus proposita ut penitus irrefragabilia praedicantur (cfr. fundam. 12. 13. 14. 23. et imprimis in corp. ratio 3). Observatione etiam digna sunt verba (in solut. ad 1.), quod alienae potestati subiectum esse «repugnat *summae* auctoritati, et non potest aliquis simul aliis teneri ad subiectionem et praeesse ad regimen». — In fine saec. XIII. etiam famosus Petrus Ioannis Olivi Ord. Min. scripsit pro privilegiis s. Sedis quaestionem disputatam, sed minoris hac Bonaventuriana pretii. Hanc transcriptam apud nos habemus ita inscriptam: «An Romano Pontifici in fide et moribus sit ab omnibus tanquam regulae inerrabili obediendum».

en: On the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and on his infallible magisterium the holy Doctor speaks very often, as occasion is offered, in his other books — briefly indeed, yet extolling in magnificent words the dignity, the prerogatives and the rights of the holy See. Compare, among others, above in the *On Evangelical Perfection* q. 2, a. 2, ad 19 (p. 147) and ibid. at the end (p. 155); below, the *Breviloquium* p. VI, c. 10 and c. 12; I *Sent.* d. 11, q. 1, in the body near the end; II *Sent.* d. 44, dubium 2; IV *Sent.* d. 18, p. II, q. 3, in the body; d. 19, a. 3, q. 1, in the body and dubium 6; d. 20, p. II, q. 3, in the body, and q. 6, *fundamentum* 3; d. 25, a. 1, q. 2, ad 4; the *Apologia pauperum*, chiefly response I, c. 1, at the beginning, response III, c. 2, at the end; the opuscule *Why the Friars Minor preach* (at the beginning); the *Exposition on Luke*, c. 9, 20; the *Sermons on the Hexaëmeron*, sermon 22, before the middle; the *Exposition on the Rule*, in the Prologue and in cc. 3 and 9. — But the excellent doctrine on the primacy of the supreme Pontiff, which in the passages cited is brought forward here and there, is in this disputed question deliberately and copiously proved and defended. And that same doctrine is of the greater value for this reason, that by the other and chief Scholastics of the thirteenth century the primacy of the supreme Pontiff was scarcely treated of set purpose in the schools, but only in passing, since his fullness of power was exercised in the west openly, publicly, and with all Christians consenting. But from the fourteenth century on, especially after that disastrous western schism, and in the centuries following, the true doctrine concerning the prerogatives of the supreme Pontiff was everywhere assailed with false opinions, even by catholic doctors. Hence it was necessary that in our own age Pius IX, with the Vatican Council approving, should by the dogmatic constitution *Pastor aeternus* define the ancient catholic dogma and reprobate many contrary errors. And it is manifest that the doctrine of our Doctor so perfectly agrees with the Vatican decrees, that he himself seems as it were to have anticipated those things which are taught by that Council concerning the *institution* of the apostolic primacy (c. 1), its *perpetuity* (c. 2), its *force and account* (c. 3; on which compare especially above the replies to 9, 11, 13, 14, 15) and the *infallible magisterium* (c. 4). And although this last question is not here set forth expressed in the same formulas of words, yet the doctrine itself is clearly set forth. For that obedience which is inculcated comprehends also the *obedience of faith* (compare Rom. 1:5), and all judgments proposed to all by the Supreme teacher and pastor are declared to be utterly irrefragable (compare *fundamenta* 12, 13, 14, 23, and above all in the body, reason 3). Worthy of observation also are the words (in the reply to 1), that to be subject to another's power «is repugnant to *supreme* authority, and one cannot at the same time be bound to others in subjection and be set over them for governing». — At the end of the thirteenth century the famous Peter John Olivi, of the Order of Minors, also wrote a disputed question in favour of the privileges of the holy See, but of less value than this Bonaventuran one. We have a transcript of it in our possession, entitled thus: «Whether the Roman Pontiff is to be obeyed by all, in faith and morals, as an unerring rule».

en: Translator’s note: this one quotation holds both Latin words, and the pair is why the translation keeps them apart. *Lumen* is light as given off and received, which is precisely what Cyprian needs when he says the rays are many but the *lumen* is one — rays are lumen going out. *Lux* is light at its source, and a few lines later the Church of God is *luce perfusa*, suffused with a light poured into her from beyond herself. Render both "light" and the figure flattens to many rays, one light, suffused with light, and Cyprian’s argument — one thing diffused everywhere without the unity being divided — loses the distinction it is built on. So *lumen* is left as it stands and *lux* is "light", here and throughout. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi plates (`raw/vision/vol5/p-189..198.png`, 2571×3823) against the IA djvu OCR (`raw/doctorisseraphic05bona_djvu.txt`, **raw L37199–L38635**), with every heading, italic, apparatus anchor, marginale and digit checked on the plate. **pp. 198 and 199 were read FIRST**, alone, to close the work positively before any of the span was pulled; p. 189 was on disk from `q4-a2`, pp. 190–197 extracted afterwards. Body raw usable on pp. 189, 190, 192, 193, 194, 195; **pp. 191, 196 and 197 are heavily degraded** (`iudicJibit`, `smmplena`, `TrJiiieiuris-dictio`) and were set from the plate line by line; footers usable everywhere but digit- and italic-blind. **Apparatus read from the footer bands only**, every entry paired with its body anchor. Fresh literal English translation. One agent, the standard cadence, small incremental appends throughout (no content-filter kill).

**Structure.** p. 189 (below Art. II's reply 20): `ARTICULUS III.` full measure, italic subtitle *De obedientia summo Pontifici debita.* — **UNANCHORED** — and a two-column opener *Ultimo quaeritur, utrum christianae religionis sit, quod omnes obediant uni*² — **ANCHORED**, n. 2 being the article's textual note (*Hic articulus exhibetur a codd. D E.*). The opener declares **four heads** and the body delivers all four in order: *per* ***vetus*** *testamentum* (fundamenta 1–3, pp. 189–190, marginale `Per vetus testamentum.`), *per* ***novum*** (4–11, pp. 189–190), *per* ***ius canonicum*** (12–14, pp. 190–191), *per* ***evidentiam rationum*** (15–24, p. 192). **Twenty-four fundamenta** (marginale `Fundamenta.` beside fund. 1). **`Sᴇᴅ ᴄᴏɴᴛʀᴀ: 1.`** in letter-spaced small caps in-column on p. 192 (marginale `Ad oppositum.`) — **sixteen arguments**, pp. 192–193. `CONCLUSIO.` letter-spaced full measure in p. 193's right column over the indented italic conclusion (rendered `> *…*`). **`Rᴇsᴘᴏɴᴅᴇᴏ:`** (so printed) pp. 193–195, in **three declared rationes** — `Ratio 1. ex triplici ordine universalis iustitiae.` (natural in the greater and the lesser world, civil, heavenly, closing on Bernard's *formam habet in caelo*), `Ratio 2. ex unitate Ecclesiae.` (the Church as one hierarchy, body and bride, closing on Cyprian's *Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum*), `Ratio 3. ex triplici stabilitate in utroque.` (permanence, inflowing, preeminence) — then an `Epilogus.` gathering the three and conceding the fundamenta (*sicut et rationes supra positae ostendunt, unde et concedendae sunt*), and **sixteen replies in fourteen paragraphs** (3 and 4 printed combined, 5 and 6 combined), pp. 195–198.

**⭐ THE WORK ENDS HERE, AND THE END WAS RE-VERIFIED ON THE PLATE BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE WAS BUILT.** p. 198's body closes with reply 16 at ~⅓ of the leaf; the footer register follows to ~68 %; beneath it stands an **ornamental squiggle rule**, and the rest of the leaf is white. **There is NO colophon** — no `EXPLICIUNT`, no `DEO GRATIAS`, nothing. **p. 199 is the Breviloquium half-title** (`SERAPHICI DOCTORIS / SANCTI BONAVENTURAE / BREVILOQUIUM`, foot `S. Bonav. — Tom. V.`, gathering signature `26`), exactly as the mini-pilot fixed it. The end is therefore fixed **positively, from p. 199's half-title**, not from the white space — the frozen rule observed at the one place in the work where breaking it would have been irrecoverable.

**⭐ WHICH SERIES THE REPLIES ANSWER — MEASURED ON THE LEMMATA: the `Sᴇᴅ ᴄᴏɴᴛʀᴀ`.** Here the count test is DECISIVE (24 fundamenta against 16 *sed contra*, and there are sixteen replies) and the lemmata agree with it. Every lemma checked, one by one: 1 *qui voluerit esse maior debet esse servus* (SC 1) · 2 *non debemus patrem vocare super terram* (SC 2) · 3. 4. *de Paulo, quod par fuit Petro* (SC 3) with *Et per hoc patet sequens, quod obiicit de auctoritate Cypriani* (SC 4) · 5. 6. *illud verbum dictum fuit Apostolis* (SC 5) with *responsio ad sequens de Glossa* (SC 6) · 7 *de auctoritate Hieronymi* (SC 7) · 8 *non est necesse, omnes reges obtemperare uni* (SC 8) · 9 *qui habet potestatem ordinariam* (SC 9) · 10 *omnes sacerdotes pares sunt in potestate conficiendi* (SC 10) · 11 *plenitudo potestatis a Petro immediate manavit in collegium* (SC 11) · 12 *si summus Pontifex plenitudinem habet auctoritatis a Petro* (SC 12) · 13 *unus debet providere omnibus* (SC 13) · 14 *praelato mediato aut immediato* (SC 14) · 15 *ille est praelatus communis* (SC 15) · 16 *de hierarchia illius supernae Ierusalem* (SC 16). The twenty-four fundamenta are conceded in the Epilogus, not answered. **Final score for the work: `q1` Contra, `q2-a1` Sed contra, `q2-a2`/`a3` opening, `q3-a1` Contra, `q3-a2`/`a3` Sed contra, `q4-a1` Sed contra, `q4-a2` opening, `q4-a3` Sed contra — ten chunks, no pattern, and the work closes without one.**

**⚠ THE RUN-HEAD MARGINALIA SWAP BACK, exactly as `q4-a2` warned.** `Fundamenta.` stands beside the OPENING series here and `Ad oppositum.` beside the `Sᴇᴅ ᴄᴏɴᴛʀᴀ` — the mirror of `q4-a2` and the same arrangement as `q4-a1`. **Three consecutive articuli of one quaestio, and the labels alternate.** The marginale names the series' role, never which series the replies answer.

**⭐ THE FORECAST CHECK (the `q2-a2` *replicatio* precedent) PAID AND CAME BACK EMPTY — and this is the last chance the work had to hide a unit.** Every forward-pointing note in the chunk was read: p. 189 n. 2 records only which codices carry the article; p. 192 n. 3's *supra Quaest. de Paupert. pag. 155, in fine replicationis* points BACKWARD, at `q2-a2`'s own *replicatio*; p. 198's unnumbered closing note points outward to other works. **No note forecasts a unit after the replies, and the plate shows nothing between reply 16 and the ornamental rule.** ▶ A negative measurement is a finding worth writing: it is what licenses the work-close gate to treat the corpus as complete at p. 198.

### ▶ SPAN AND BOUNDARIES — FIXED POSITIVELY ON THE PLATE

**Boundary 9 (p. 189) re-derived: SHARED LEAF, split 1/5, as `q4-a2` measured — right in every particular.** Anchors verified on the plate: Art. II's *gubernantis*¹ (reply 18, LEFT); Art. III's opener *obediant uni*² (LEFT), *septimo*³ (fund. 1, Deut. 17, LEFT), *Psalmus*⁴ (fund. 2, RIGHT), *Eugenium*⁵ (fund. 3, Bernard, RIGHT), *sexto*⁶ (fund. 4, Matt. 16, RIGHT). Footer: left block nn. 1–2, right block nn. 3–6; **n. 2 closes complete in the left block, so nothing crosses that leaf's gutter**, and the register opens INDENTED at n. 1. The subtitle was read UNANCHORED at 5×; the opener's ² stands after *uni* and before the period.

**⛔ THE WORK'S CLOSE (p. 198 → p. 199) IS NOT A BOUNDARY BUT A TERMINUS, AND IT WAS MEASURED AS ONE.** `raw/vision/vol5/p-198.png` and `p-199.png` were read before pp. 190–197 were extracted. p. 198's numeral prints `198`; its running head is the short form `QUAEST. DISP. DE PERFECT. EVANG. Q. IV. A. III.` — **a fifth variant of the head, shorter than the `DE PERFECTIONE EVANGELICA QUAEST. IV. ART. III.` used on pp. 189, 191, 193, 195, 197**, and set so because the last leaf's measure had to carry it; as printed, not normalised.

### ▶ RULINGS MET — STATED POSITIVELY

- **Ruling 5 (in the apparatus, `fundam. N` is RETAINED): MET TWICE, and both renderings are quoted.** Both sites are in p. 198's unnumbered closing note: `IV. Sent. d. 20. p. II. q. 3. in corp. et q. 6. fundam. 3` → "d. 20, p. II, q. 3, in the body, and q. 6, ***fundamentum* 3**" (EXTERNAL), and `cfr. fundam. 12. 13. 14. 23.` → "compare ***fundamenta* 12, 13, 14, 23**" (INTERNAL, pointing at this article's own fundamenta). ⭐ The internal one is a free control: fundamenta 12, 13, 14 are the three *ius canonicum* arguments and 23 is the *iudicium temporale* one, which is exactly what a note on irrefragable judgments would cite.
- **Ruling 2 (*lux*/*lumen* held apart): MET, ON BOTH SIDES, ONCE EACH, AND IN ONE SENTENCE.** p. 195's Cyprian quotation sets *multi radii sunt, sed unum* ***lumen*** against *Ecclesia Dei* ***luce*** *perfusa* six lines later. Rendered "many rays but one **lumen**" and "the Church of God, suffused with **light**." Ps. 4:7 and Jas. 1:17 do not occur, so neither scripture site of the work's census is reached. **Record it, or a later reader finds one bare "lumen" in ten printed pages and takes it for a lapse.**
- **Ruling 1: *intellectus* does not occur at all on the span** (stem census over the raw band and the plate: zero `intellect-`). *Intelligentia* occurs twice — p. 193's *Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum* → "For the understanding of what has been said", the ordinary idiom, per the `bon-qsc-q1`/`q2` precedent and NOT a departure; and p. 195's *intelligentiae rectae omnium animorum* → "the right **intelligence** of all minds", the faculty, on the rule. **Zero bare "intellect" in the English**, which here is mechanical.
- ***vacare*: ZERO sites.** A stem census on `vaca` over the whole band returns nothing, as do `quie` and `otium`. **No translator's note written in this chunk**, and none owed. ⚠ The twelve occurrences of English "rest" all render *ceteri/reliqui*, never a `vaca-` word.
- ***pietas*: met once** (p. 195's Epilogus, *consonat etiam pietati cunctorum fidelium*) → "**piety**", on the *septem donis* ruling.
- **Numeral edition-sigla (the `q2-a2` class): none met.** The sigla here are the codices **A, D, E** only (p. 189 n. 2 *codd. D E*; p. 193 n. 4 *E omittit totaliter*; p. 195 n. 7 *Ita E, at D perperam conservata*; p. 197 n. 3 *E scribit fuit in fidelium, D fuit infidelium*). ⭐ **From p. 189 the text rests on D and E, and the apparatus says so on the article's first line** — the `bon-qmt-q6-a2` shape (a one-witness text announced by a note) in a second work, though here with two witnesses, not one.

### ⭐ REGISTER — Q. IV ART. III's FAMILY, AND THE ONE FORCED SITE

- **The adopted register held throughout:** *obedientia* obedience / *obedire* obey / *obtemperare* comply · *summus Pontifex* Supreme Pontiff · *praelatus* prelate · *subditus* subject · *praeeminentia* preeminence · *plenitudo potestatis* fullness of power · *hierarcha* hierarch / *hierarchia* hierarchy (the Itinerarium register) · *minor* / *maior mundus* → "the lesser world" / "the greater world" (the Itinerarium register again) · *character* character · *conficere* to confect · *iurisdictio* jurisdiction · *soliditas* solidity / *stabilitas* stability · *influentia* inflowing · *manuductio* "the leading by the hand" · *ballivus* bailiff · *figura dictionis* "figure of diction" · *sanctiones* sanctions / *decreta* decrees / *constitutiones* constitutions / *statutum* statute.
- ⭐⭐ **FORCED — *ius canonicum* → "canon right", not "canon law", and the Epilogus is why.** `q4-a1` ruled *ius* → "right" against *lex* → "law", and here the two words are **interleaved inside one four-member chain**: p. 195's Epilogus has *consonat tamen* ***legi naturae*** *et* ***legi scriptae***, ***iuri pontificio*** *et* ***iuri canonico***. Rendering *ius canonicum* "canon law" would flatten that figure at the one place in the work where it is built deliberately; so the whole article keeps *ius* → "right" (*ius habeat rescindendi* "has the right of rescinding"; *terreni... imperii iura* "the rights of the earthly... empire"; *multiplicia iura* "manifold rights"; *iuris latio* "the bearing of right"; *de iure divino* "of divine right"). ⚠ **The cost is real and is conspicuous**: "canon right" is not the English name of the thing, and it stands in the opener, in the transition on p. 190 and in the Epilogus. **For the WORK-CLOSE gate, with `q4-a1`'s *ius*/*lex* item.**
- ⚠ **STRAINED — *Antistes* → "Prelate".** The Conclusio's *ad unum reduci debet summum et primum Antistitem* has no English word left: *Pontifex* is Pontiff, *sacerdos* priest, *episcopus* bishop, *hierarcha* hierarch, *primates* primates. Rendered **"one supreme and first Prelate"**, capitalised as a title; *praelatus* keeps lower-case "prelate" everywhere else and **does not occur in the Conclusio**, so the collision is invisible at the one site. **For the gate.**
- ***dominium* does not occur in this chunk**, so `q4-a1`'s strained *dominium potentiae* site gains no witness anywhere in Quaestio IV; *proprietas* does not occur either. Kept apart where the neighbouring words do occur: *potestas* power, *auctoritas* authority, *principatus* princedom, *imperium* empire/command, *regimen* government, *gubernatio* governance, *praeesse* / *subesse* to be set over / to be under, *subiectio* subjection.
- **Also kept apart, new here:** *semiplena* / *plenissima* / *media* iurisdictio → half-full / most full / middle · *absoluta* / *relata ad alterum* potestas → absolute / related to another · *subiectum sustinens* / *deferens* → a sustaining subject / a bearer · *locantia* / *mobilia* / *lucentia* / *motores* → locating / movables / shining things / movers · *interitus* destruction · *exsecrandum anathema* "an execrable anathema" · *scrupulus controversiae* "scruple of controversy" · *litteratura* letters · *populositas* populousness · *clavis* key vs *sceptrum* sceptre vs *gladius* sword · *thalamus* bridal chamber · *clavigero* key-bearer.
- **Scripture in Douay shape:** Deut. 17:8, 12 · Ps. 44:17 · Ps. 138:17 · Luke 11:17 · Ps. 18:5 · Matt. 16:18–19 · John 21:17 · Matt. 18:18 · John 20:22 · Luke 11:23 · I Cor. 12:4, 12 · Rom. 8:35 · Gal. 3:28 · Matt. 20:26–27 · Matt. 23:9 · Gal. 2:11, 14 · Gal. 1:1 · I Tim. 2:5 · Rom. 13:1 · Apoc. 21:2 · Cant. 6:8 · Luke 22:32 · Gen. 6:16 · Ps. 109:4 · Gen. 14:18 · Hebr. 7:1, 21 · Luke 22:38 · John 18:36 · Ps. 62:12 · Matt. 19:6 · John 10:16 · Matt. 18:10 · Cant. 3:11 · Rom. 1:5.

### ⭐⭐ p. 198's CLOSING NOTE — AN UNNUMBERED 1890s EDITORIAL DISSERTATION, AND IT IS **NOT** n. 3

⛔ **THE MINI-PILOT RECORDED IT AS "p. 198 n. 3" AND THAT IS WRONG IN ONE PARTICULAR.** p. 198's **n. 3 is three lines long** — *Respicitur Ioan. 10, 16, et superius Matth. 18, 10, una cum Cant. 3, 11.* — and answers reply 16's *ad ovile summi Pastoris*³. The dissertation begins **below it, as a fresh indented paragraph carrying NO superscript numeral** (read at 4× against n. 3's clear ³), runs the rest of the left block, continues at the head of the right block and closes there at the foot of the leaf, on Petrus Ioannis Olivi. **It is therefore the `bon-sent-II-proem` class: an unnumbered editorial note standing last in its unit**, and it is rendered under Wilson's frozen 2026-08-20 rule under the non-numeric closing-note label **`p198-nota`, anchored after the final word of the body in BOTH languages**, so that the reader sees a marker reading *nota* and is never shown a footnote number the page does not print. ▶ **The anchor is the edition's silence, not its ink.** ⭐ The transferable correction: **a planning note that names an entry by its NUMBER has not measured the number.** The pilot's characterisation of the *content* was exact; its label was inferred from the leaf's last numeral, and the leaf's last numeral is not what carries it.

**It is rendered literally and in full, as Quaracchi's text of its date, in both languages, with no summary, no abridgement and no editorial framing.** It is a document of 1891 Roman theology: it gathers Bonaventure's other loci on the primacy (fourteen of them, across the *Breviloquium*, all four books of the *Sentences*, the *Apologia pauperum*, the *Expositio in Lucam*, the *Hexaëmeron* and the *Expositio in regulam*), argues that thirteenth-century scholastics treated the primacy only *obiter* because it was not contested, dates the assault on it from the western schism, and then claims that Bonaventure *quasi praeoccupasse videatur* the four chapters of **Pastor aeternus** (Vatican I, 1870) — institution, perpetuity, force and account, infallible magisterium — mapping each onto this article's own replies and fundamenta. It closes by naming Peter John Olivi's parallel *quaestio disputata* on the privileges of the holy See, *sed minoris hac Bonaventuriana pretii*, from a transcript the editors held. ⚠ **Nothing in it is our judgment and nothing in it is softened**; it is the edition's text, and it is the last thing Quaracchi printed in this work.

### ⭐ RAW-VS-PLATE CORRECTIONS AND AS-PRINTED ITEMS

- **Digits settled on the plate against the raw:** p. 191 n. 1 `pag. 153` (raw `1S3`) · p. 191 n. 2 `C. Generali decreto (11.)` (raw `(II.)`) · p. 191 n. 4 `Can. Quoniam vetusto (25, post medium)` (raw garbage; settled at 12× against n. 6's true `(3.)` on the same leaf — the upper stroke is a broken horizontal, not an arc) and `Hieron. Epist. 15. [alias 57.]` (raw `Episl. 13.`) and `Luc. 11, 23` (raw `li, 23`) · p. 193 n. 2 `tom. IV. pag. 497` (raw `i97`) · p. 193 n. 3 `Can. Legimus in Isaia (24. § 1.)` (raw `2t.`) and `Epist. 146. (alias 85.)` (raw `liii. (alias 8o.)`) · p. 193 n. 6 `d. 45. a. 2. q. 2.` (raw **`d. 43`** — the 3/5 class) · p. 195 n. 5 **`Can. Haec est fides`** (raw `fidei`; settled at 8×) · p. 195 n. 8 `de Considerat. II. c. 8. n. 15` (raw `n. 13` — the 3/5 class again) · p. 196 n. 4 `Gal. 2, 14` (settled at 10× against the bare upright `1` four characters earlier — the 1/4 class, and it is a REAL 4, distinct from p. 192 n. 12's true `Vers. 11.` for the same epistle) · p. 197 n. 6 `Cap. 4. n. 17` · p. 198 n. 1 `d. 8. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. ad 4. et d. 45.` (raw `q. i. ad i. et d. i'i.`; the `q. 1` and the `ad 4` are four words apart on adjacent lines and answer OPPOSITE ways at 12×) · p. 198 n. 2 `I. Sent. d. 35. q. 2. ad 3.` (raw `d. 3t)`) · p. 198's closing note `ad 9. 11. 13. 14. 15.` and `d. 25. a. 1. q. 2. ad 4` (raw `ad i`).
- **As printed, not normalised:** p. 189's opener prints *et per* ***novum*** with **no comma** after it, against the raw · p. 189's Bernard reads **«Orbe *ei* exeundum»**, not *et* (settled at 6×) · p. 191's Anterus canon ends **«…a Domino iudicantur»** with no point before the following em-dash · p. 196's Gloss in reply 5.6 is introduced **«Glossa «Habent quidem…»** with no colon after *Glossa*, where every other Gloss on the span has one · p. 197's last marginale prints **`Notandum`** without its final point, alone among the span's sixty-three · p. 198's running head is the short form (above). ⚠ **Only *vetus* is italic in *per* vetus *testamentum*, and only *novum* in *per* novum *testamentum*, while the opener italicises *vetus testamentum* whole** — three settings of one phrase on one leaf, all as printed.
- **Fundamentum 2 prints *Constituit principes super omnem terram*** where p. 194's note gives Ps. 44:17 as *Constitues eos*; **both as printed**, and the note is Quaracchi's own flag on it.

### ⭐ CITATIONS — INBOUND LINES READ, AND THIS CHUNK'S RESOLVER ARTEFACTS

**Inbound: THREE records changed, ALL THREE ARE RIGHT, and all three moved from `forward` to `chunk`** — that is, their target did not exist until this chunk landed, and now it does. All three cite **p. 195 n. 7**, the ark-in-a-cubit note. (1) `bon-brev-p5-c5` p. 258 n. 2 *Respicitur Gen. 6, 15. et 16… Vide supra pag. 195, nota 7* — right; p. 195 n. 7 is precisely the *in cubito consummabis* note. (2) `bon-brev-p6-c12` p. 278 n. 3 *Cfr. supra pag. 225, nota 6. et pag. 195, nota 7* — right, on the Church *in unitate collecta sublimatur atque perficitur.* (3) ⭐ `bon-hex-c22` p. 438 n. 3 *Cfr. supra collat. I. n. 19. et pag. 195, nota 7.* ***in fine*** — **decisive, because the citing note names the END of the target**, and the end of p. 195 n. 7 is Ambrose applying the ark's summit to the human head, *quod est decus hominis, et ex quo omnes sensus ad ceteras partes corporis transfunduntur*, which is exactly what a note on Aristotle's *De partibus animalium* wants. ▶ **Building a chunk changes what other chunks' citations resolve to, and at a work's LAST chunk the change is all in one direction: `forward` records fall in.**

**Own records: 89 new ledger lines — 51 scripture (50 verse, 1 chapter), 38 crossref (36 `chunk`, 2 `page-multi`), ZERO dangling, ZERO unresolvable, ZERO ambiguous, ZERO QA flags attributable to this chunk. Corpus QA total 201, unchanged. Build 2113 (was 2112).** ⭐ The two `page-multi` lines (`tom. IV. pag. 497, nota 4`, `tom. II. pag. 464, nota 4`) are right-page/owner-unpicked, not wrong. ⭐ **p. 198's unnumbered closing note is itself a citation source and eight of its loci resolve** — `pag. 147`/`pag. 155` into `bon-qpe-q2-a2`, and five into Vols I, II and IV.

**Resolver artefacts for the WORK-CLOSE gate (not edits):**
- **Cross-note `ibid.` anaphora, twice, and both wrong.** p. 191 n. 2's *tertius C. Nulli fas est (5.) et* ***ibid.*** *§ 1.* means "in the same canon", and is bound instead to p. 191 n. 1's `pag. 153` → `bon-qpe-q2-a2`. p. 193 n. 1's *alter locus est* ***ibid.*** *18, 18* is a SCRIPTURE ibid. (Matthew) and is bound to p. 192 n. 9's `tom. II. pag. 94` → `bon-sent-II-d3-p1-a1-q2`. The work's fifth and sixth sites of this class.
- **A named-work reference to a chunk we hold is NOT parsed.** p. 198's closing note says *infra* ***Breviloquium p. VI. c. 10. et c. 12*** and *Sermones in* ***Hexaëmeron, sermo 22***; `bon-brev-p6-c10`, `bon-brev-p6-c12` and `bon-hex-c22` are all built and deployed, and none of the three produces a record. ⚠ **This is the only class in the work where the resolver is silent about a target that certainly exists and is certainly named** — `Apologia pauperum`, `Expositio in Lucam` and `Expositio in regulam` in the same sentence are legitimately unparsed (not in the corpus), which is exactly what makes the three that ARE ours easy to miss.
- ⭐ **Negative result worth recording: Gratian's `Dist. 21.` and `Dist. 22.` (p. 197 n. 4) are NOT taken as Sentences distinctiones**, nor are the sixteen `C. <incipit> (N.)` canons taken as anything. The one place where this work's canon-law density could have manufactured false crossrefs, it did not.

### ▶ GUTTERS

189 **1162** over Art. III's body (carried from `q4-a2` and re-derived) · 190 **1345** (band 1314–1376, rule island 1344–1347 peak 978; default 1345, confirmed) · 191 **1170** (band 1139–1201, island 1168–1170; default 1169) · 192 **1347** (band 1319–1376, island 1343–1351; default 1347 on a 55 px run — escalated under the 60 px floor and CONFIRMED) · 193 **1106** (band 1076–1134, island 1097–1110 peak only 109; default 1106 on 55 px — escalated and CONFIRMED) · 194 **1410** (band 1380–1440, island 1408–1413 peak **1337**, the heaviest on the span) · 195 **1152** — ⚠ **the span's loud failure: `colcrop`'s default was 1137 on a 13 px run**, sitting on the LEFT sub-band alone (1125–1145) of a heavily inked rule (island 1146–1156, peak 696); the true band is 1125–1179 and its midpoint **1152**, so the default was **15 px out** · 196 **1410** — ⚠ **the span's SKEW leaf**: the gutter walks **17 px** down the page (slices 1371–1432 at the head, 1388–1451 at the foot), the whole-body default 1418 is the FOOT's value, and one split suffices (max left 1388 < min right 1432) · 197 **1165** (band 1135–1195, island 1162–1168 peak 1335) · 198 **1350** (band 1321–1379, island 1347–1353). **The centre rule was present on every leaf of the span.**

### ▶ RUNOVERS AND THE INCOMING REGISTERS

**Seven runovers, ALL gutter-crossing, ZERO page-crossing.** **p. 190 n. 5** (*…inter opera Hieron.); ubi* / *pro si autem in textu originali…*) · **p. 191 n. 2** (*…sextus (Adriani) C. Generali decreto* / *(11.). Pro anathema fiat…*) · **p. 192 n. 8** (*…illibate custodias. Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 25.* / *a. 1. q. 1. in fine corp. quaest. …*) · **p. 194 n. 8** (*…Originale post formam hanc prose-* / *quitur: quia in terris est…*) · **p. 195 n. 5** (*…Auctor sententiae non est* / *Hieron. (prima pars huius canonis…*) · **p. 197 n. 4** (*…Dist. 22. § 1. — De* / *errore Graecorum cfr. I. Sent. d. 11. q. 1…*) · **p. 198's unnumbered closing note**, which fills the rest of the left block and continues at the head of the right (*…omnibus Christianis con-* / *sentientibus, exerceretur…*) — logged as `p.198 nota:gutter`, the first ledger line in Vol V to carry a non-numeric label. ⚠ **p. 196 does NOT forward**, against the first reading of its blocks: its left block closes complete at n. 5's *…eodem modo explicatur.* The head of every incoming register was read before its first numeral — pp. 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197 and 198 all open INDENTED and NUMBERED at n. 1 — so **nothing runs over a page boundary into this chunk or out of it**, and the work ends with no dangling half-note. Ledger line appended; census re-derived (**273 runovers across 162 chunks**).

### ▶ MARGINALIA, IN BODY ORDER (63)

**p. 189** — `Per vetus te-stamentum.` · `Fundamenta.` · `Triplex ratio.` · `Concluditur.` · `Per novum testamen-tum.`
**p. 190** — `Concluditur.` · `Per ius ca-nonicum.`
**p. 191** — `Concluditur.` · `Concluditur.` · `Per eviden-tiam ratio-num.`
**p. 192** — `Ad opposi-tum.`
**p. 193** — `Conclusio 1.`
**p. 194** — `Conclusio 2.` · `Conclusio 3.` · `Conclusio 4.` · `Conclusio 5.` · `Ratio 1. ex triplici ordi-ne universa-lis iustitiae.` · `Ordo natu-ralis iustitiae duplex.` · `In maiore mundo.` · `In minore mundo.` · `Ordo civilis iustitiae.` · `Ordo caele-stis iustitiae.` · `De ordine perfectissi-mo.` · `De ordine perfecto.` · `Confirmatur.` · `Concluditur.` · `Ratio 2. ex unitate Ec-clesiae.` · `Confirmatur.`
**p. 195** — `Ratio 3. ex triplici stabi-litate in utro-que.` · `Quoad per-manentiam.` · `Confirmatur.` · `Quoad in-fluentiam.` · `Confirmatur.` · `Quoad prae-eminentiam.` · `Confirmatur.` · `Epilogus.` · `Solutio op-positorum.` · `Duplex ser-vitus.` · `Notandum.`
**p. 196** — `Notandum.` · `Duplex com-paratio au-ctoritatis.` · `Notandum.` · `Notandum.` · `Notandum.` · `Alia solutio.` · `De utroque gladio.`
**p. 197** — `Triplex iuris-dictio.` · `Notandum.` · `Notandum.` · `Notandum.` · `Duplex po-testas sacer-dotii.` · `Ratio notan-da.` · `Duplex sub-iectum.` · `Notandum.` · `Duplex ple-nitudo.` · `Notandum.` · `De Graecis schismaticis.` · `Notandum`
**p. 198** — `Duplici-ter dicitur immediatus praelatus.` · `Notanda do-ctrina.` · `Duplex cau-sa univer-salis.` · `Quo sensu Deus causa universalis.` · `Notandum.`

⭐ **The solution-heavy split holds a tenth time, and on this span it is at its most extreme:** pp. 189–193 carry **twenty-four fundamenta and sixteen *sed contra* — forty arguments — and eleven marginalia**, of which five are the mere structural signposts of the four heads; pp. 194–198 carry the *Respondeo*, the Epilogus and the sixteen replies and hold **fifty-two.** ⭐ **p. 192's left margin is wholly empty** (fundamenta 15–19, five arguments, no gloss) — the work's last empty margin.

### LEDGER

**77 entries, pp. 189–198**: p. 189 **5** (nn. 2–6 of 6; n. 1 is Art. II's) · p. 190 **8** · p. 191 **6** · p. 192 **13** · p. 193 **7** · p. 194 **10** · p. 195 **8** · p. 196 **10** · p. 197 **6** · p. 198 **4** (nn. 1–3 plus the unnumbered closing note). Zero `[?]`. `KNOWN_TOTALS` additions: 190 = 8, 191 = 6, 192 = 13, 193 = 7, 194 = 10, 195 = 8, 196 = 10, 197 = 6, **198 = 3** (the unnumbered note is deliberately NOT counted there, since it owns no numeral and the ownership scan keys on numerals); p. 189's comment updated (nn. 2–6 now landed).

### CHUNK TOTALS

**77 apparatus entries over pp. 189–198 — 76 numbered plus p. 198's unnumbered editorial closing note. Zero `[?]` flags. Seven runovers, all gutter-crossing, zero page-crossing. 63 marginalia. No translator's note** (no *vacare* site, no *quies* site, no *otium* site). Ruling 5 met twice (both quoted); ruling 2 met once on each side in one sentence; ruling 1 unreachable (*intellectus* absent). **Replies answer the `Sᴇᴅ ᴄᴏɴᴛʀᴀ`, 16 for 16**, count test and lemmata agreeing. One forced register choice for the work-close gate (*ius canonicum* → "canon right") and one strained (*Antistes* → "Prelate"). **THE *DE PERFECTIONE EVANGELICA* IS COMPLETE at p. 198.**