Chapter 2
A Dialogue, Part i, Tract i whole and in the part, in little matters and great, Extra, De Appellationibus, c. De appetlationibus; Extra, De praebendis a dignitatibus, c. Maionbus? and 14, q. ult, c. ult. But it is beneficial for each and every part of the faithful people to have one bishop as head of all in spiritual matters and not many: 7, q. 1, /# apibus, where
Jerome says, "Single are the bishops of churches, single the archpriests, single the archdeacons; and every ecclesiastical order rests upon its rectors." Therefore it is beneficial for the whole community of the faithful to have one head.
[9] Moreover, it is beneficial for the community of the faithful to be governed in matters relating to the Christian religion under the form of government that most resembles the best secular constitution. But the best secular constitution is kingship, as Aristotle testifies. In Erkics, Book vir* he says: "There are three kinds of constitutions and the same number of perversions, i.¢., corruptions of these. The constitutions are kingship and aristocracy, thirdly that which is based on wealth, which it seems appropriate to cali timecracy, though many are accustomed to call it 'constitution.'
The best of these is kingship." Afterwards, speaking of tyranny, he says, "It is clearer in this case that it is the worst, and the worst is the opposite of the best." These words plainly establish that of all the constitutions kingship is the best, But one kingdom has one king, who is over all. Therefore it is also beneficial for the whole multitude of the faithful that one should be over all.
[ro] Further, no less unity of head is required in the whole community of the faithful than in the whole totality of mortals; but it is beneficial for the whole totality of mortals that one should rule all; therefore it is also beneficial for the whole community of the faithful to have one head to be over the totality of the faithful.
Chapter 2 Student From that argument'
| infer that 1] can easily work out how this question can be argued on both sides from what I will 5 See gloss to the decretals, col, ro28, v. fn minimis, "An argument that the same right exists in small matters as in great matters, 14, q. ult. c. ult; supra De appelt. c. De appellationibus... Also, it is an argument that the same right exists in the part as in the whole, argued 1, q. t, S7 gntt episeapus."
* That is, argument ro.
William of Ockham be able to find in the first book of the second tract of this third part of our dialogue, which discusses whether it is beneficial for the whole world to be under one secular ruler, since all those arguments,® or many of them, can be applied to this matter. So do not argue further for the above assertion, but bestir yourself and pass quickly to the opposite assertion, and bring on a few arguments, short ones, in its favor.
Master That it is not beneficial for the community of the faithful fo be under one head under Christ seems provable as follows.
Jr} Nothing unjust is beneficial to the community of the faithful.
But for one man to be head and to rule all the faithful is unjust.
For many among the faithful are equal, or are not known to be unequal, in prudence and virtue and all conditions requisite to a good head and ruler; but it is unjust for someone to rule his similars and equals. Aristotle seems to testify to this in Podttcs,
Book i, chapter 15,' where he says: "Those who are by nature similars must have by nature the same right and the same rank.
If, therefore, it is indeed harmful to their bodies for unequais to have equal food or clothing, so it is also with anything relating to offices, and similarly for equals to have what is unequal; and therefore [for equals it is] by no means just to mie rather than be subject." From these words we gather that it is unjust for someone to rule his similars and equals, since anyone who has the same virtue and capacity should have equal office and rank, just as in natural things those who do not have an equal digestive power should not receive equal food. Therefore it is not beneficial that one person should be the head of the whole community of the faithful.
[z] Further, nothing useless is beneficial to the congregation of the faithful; but for one head to be over the congregation of the faithful is useless. A head who cannot perform his due function must be regarded as useless; but the due function of a head who rules the other members is to attack iniquites by coercing the wrongdoer with fitting punishments; therefore anyone who cannot coerce the wicked rules uselessly. The wise man in E-cclesiasticus
7[:6] seems to suggest this when he says, "Do not seek To be * That is, in Tract 1, Book 1; wanslated below, pp. 231
* Chapter 16, 1287 ara.
A Dialogue, Part tt, Tract 1 made a judge, unless you have the strength to attack iniquities, lest perhaps you fear the person of the powerful and jay a stumblingblock for your integrity." But no one who was over the congregation of the faithful would have power to inflict due punishment on wrongdoers, since such punishment, especially of a multitude and of the powerful, cannot be carried out without temporal power, which is usually not had without ample riches. Thus a king, whose business it is to repress crimes {according to the testimony of blessed Cyprian, as we read in 23, q. 5, c. Rev debet}, should abound in power and riches, as Aristotle testifies: in Ethics, Book vu, chapter ro,'" he says, "For a man is not a king unless he is by himself sufficient and excels in all good things; and such 2 man needs nothing." But no one who was over the congregation of the faithful would on that account abound in riches: First, because in the time of the apostles, when the congregation of the faithful was governed best, no believer placed over the others abounded in riches. Also, because Christ ordered no riches for any prelate of the faithful, but rather seems to have advised the leaders among the faithful to be content with food and clothing; thus the Apostle, in 1 Timothy 6{:8], says, for himseif and for others who were over the faithful, "Having food and clothing, with these we are content."
Also, because if the head of the faithful abounded in riches, since emperors and kings and secular rulers abound in riches, dissensions and very dangerous wars could easily arise between them and the head of the faithful, since they communicate with one another in many matters and live together; for among rich men who dwell together disputes and quarrels are easily begotten, from which follow fights and wars. We find an example of this in Genesis
13[:6ff}, where a quarrel came about between the herdsmen of Abraham and Lot because of riches, and Abraham feared that if they remained together dangerous dissension would arise between himself and Lot, though they were holy and kin, because of the abundance of their wealth.
In that place we read: "For their property was great, and they could not dwell together. And thus a quarrel arose between the herdsmen of Abraham and Lot...
Therefore Abraham said to Lot, 'Let there be no quarrei, I beseech you, between me and you and between my herdsmen and your
William of Ockham herdsmen, for we are brothers. Behold, the whole iand is before you: go away from me, ! pray you.'
Between rich men, therefore, discords easily arise. And thus some believe that all the dissensions, wars, fights, and baztles and the destructions and devastations of cities and regions and the countless other evils which have occurred in Italy for many years past, and still do not cease, have resulted from the riches of the Roman Church; it would have been beneficial fer the whole Church of God if the Roman Church had in fact and deed imitated the apostles' poverty and their way of Living, putting at a distance all display in respect of vessels, clothes and furnishings generally, guards and every other kind of servant, and all sorts of other things.
It is, therefore, as it seems to some, in no way beneficial for the community of the faithful to have one head.
[3] Again, it is beneficial for the community of the faithful to be ruled by many; therefore it is not beneficial for it to be under one head and prelate. The premise seems provable by means of arguments like those which Aristotle brings forward in Politic, Book
Il, to show that it is better for a city to be ruled by the best Jaws than by the best men, and by many best rather than by the one best man. Some of these arguments can be applied to the present matter as follows.
It is beneficial that the whole congregation of the faithful should be ruled by him (or those) whose judgment is more certain and better in judging and deciding what should be sought as useful to the whole community of the faithful and what should be altogether rejected as useless and harmful, and by him
(or those) who can weigh carefully and see many such things. For without certain skill concerning all such things no community can be governed properly, because, as the Savior himself testifies in Matthew rs[:14], "If the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit." But many judge and discern better and more certainly in such matters, and weigh carefully and see more such things, than one alone. And thus, in the Politics, Book m, chapter 13,'' Aristorle says: "Meeting together, they discuss and consult and judge, and all these judgments are about particular cases. Compared individuaily, therefore, each may perhaps be worse, but a state is made up of many, just as a feast to which the guests contribute is finer than
Chapter 15, 1286 427.
A Dialogue, Part it, Tract 1 a single and simple one; for this reason also a crowd judges many matters better than one person, whoever he may be." And in chapter 14' he says: "It will perhaps seem especially strange if a person sensed better with nwo eyes and nwo ears and acted better with two feet and hands than many with many." For it is strange to say that one senses better or more things with two eyes and two ears than many with many eycs and many ears; similarly it is strange that one would do better and more things with two feet and two hands than many with many feet and many hands. Many, therefore, see more certainly, and see more things, than one. Thus also in Acts 15[:f] we read that "The apestles and elders met to see about this doctrine," namely about the question concerning the observance of circumcision that was controverted between Paul and Barnabas and certain other Christians. The apostle Paul also, as he himself testifies in Galatians [2:2], consulted with the other apostles about the Gospel, lest perhaps he should be running, or had run, in vain. From these passages we gather that many see more things and more certainly than one, even the best, as Pope
Innocent testifies. As we read in dist.
20, c. De quibus, he says, "What is sought by many elders is found more easily," and by the same reason more certainly. Thus it is that a general council is assembled for more difficult and important ecclesiastical cases, when they are pending.
It is beneficial, therefore, for the whole congregation of the faithful to be ruled by many, rather than by one.
[4] Further, it is beneficial for the community of the faithful to be ruled by one (or several} whose appetite or will is Jess corruptible and pervertible by evil desires, wishes, and wicked passions; for a ruler must be virtuous and good, and not a follower of his passions.
The wicked and those who follow wicked feelings and wishes are not in any way worthy to rule, as Solomon testifies. In Proverbs
28[:12] he says, "When the wicked reign, men are ruined," and in chapter 29:2] he says, "When the wicked take over government, the people will groan." Thus that wise man Jethro, assenting to right reason, advised Moses that he should set over the people only good men; he says, "And provide out of all the people able men who fear God, in whom there is truth, who hate avarice, and 4 Chapter 16, 1287 b26.
Wilkam of Ockham appoint from them rulers," etc.'? And Aristotle in Politic, Book If, chapter 2'* says, "The equitable," i.e., the virtuous, "should tule." But the many are less pervertible and corruptible by evil desires, wishes, and wicked feelings than is one man. Therefore it is more beneficial for the community of the faithful to be ruled by many than by one. The major premise of this argument could also be shown by countless authoritative texts of both philosophers and believers, but it seems so well-known that it is not necessary to prove it further. The minor premise seems provable in many ways. For in Politis, Book im, chapter 8'° Aristotle says: "It is, however, possible that, when they meet together, the many, each of whom is not an educated man, may be better than those," i.e., better than the few, and consequently much better than one, "not individually but all together - just as a feast to which the guests contribute is better than feasts provided from one purse; for when there are many, each one may have a part of virtuc and wisdom, and when gathered together they may become as it were one man having a multitude of many feet and many hands and many senses; and it is thus with things concerning character and understanding."
From these words we gather that it is better for the whole muititude to rule than for a few, even if they are virtuous; from this it follows that it is better for many to rule then for one alone. Also, in chapter iq4'° he asks whether one leader can be perverted and corrupted with more difficulty than many, even good men. He says:
"If the many arc good men and citizens, is the one a more incorruptible ruler?" And he answers: "Or rather the many in number, and good men." By these words we are given to understand that the many are less corruptible and pervertible by wicked passions than one. And thus he seems to conclude that it is better for a city to be ruled by many than by one. He says, "Is it not clear that it is the many?" [ibid.] - ie., that the many rule better than one. Thus, also, in the same place,!' Aristotle seems to conclude that aristocracy, which is government by many good men, is more choice-worthy and better than kingship, which is government by * Exedus 18:21.
' Chapter 10, 1281 ajo.
S Chapter 11, 1281 aqt.
Chapter 15, 1286 238.