Chapter 26
A Dialogue, Part im, Tract 3 oneness we should hold firmly and defend, especially we bishops who preside in the Church of God, to show that the episcopate itself also is one and undivided." From these words we gather that, according to blessed Cyprian, not only the apostolate but also the episcopate should be one and undivided, and yet, as was proved above, in the same bishopric there can be for necessity or utility several hishops at the same time: and, consequently, in the apostolic office there can be several apostolics, for otherwise less provision would have been made in necessities for the apostolic office than for the episcopate. Therefore, just as there can be several bishops in the same bishopric, so there can be several apostolics in the apostolic office, and yet both the episcopate and the apostolic office will remain one and undivided because of the oneness of wills and the other things the Apostle enumerates (just as, because of the oneness of the wills of the many ruling aristocratically in the same city, the city remains one, its oneness being sometimes better preserved by many than if one ruled alone); though if nothing particular stood in the way, it would be better ruled by one.
Chapter 26 Student Turn to the other arguments brought forward above in chapter 21 and relate briefly how they are answered.
Master To the argument [3] based on the premise that there is no true rulership in the Church except the apostolic, such as government by several presiding over the orthodox would not be, it is answered that even if there were several ruling over Catholics because of necessity or utility, their government would nevertheless be apostolic and each of them would truly be a successor of blessed
Peter and a vicar of Christ, just as, if there were several emperors, each of these would be a true emperor. So even if there were several apostolics at the same time, if several of one mind, for the coramon utility, and by willing concord of the faithful, occupied the Apostolic See at the same time, the Church would truly be based on the apostolic root, and the regime would be the apostolic regime truly continued through the successions of bishops without any division: just as the empire of the Romans was one and the same continued through successions of emperors both when there were several emperors at the same time and when there was one
William of Ockham alone, Thus alse there have sometimes been in various kingdoms several kings at the same time, namely father and son, and yet the kingdom was the same and was continued through successions of kings.
Student If, however, there were several apostolics at the same time, they would rule the totality of the faithful aristocratically, and their government would have to be regarded as aristocratic. But the apostolic regime is not aristocratic but royal, according to the text of : Peter 2[:9], "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood," and in Apocalypse [1:6] blessed John says that he has made us a priestly kingdom. Therefore, if there were several apostolics the . royal regime would have been changed to aristocratic and consequently would not be apostolic.
Master [t is answered that the apostolic regime would not have been changed into another, because there would not be in the regime any variation of power but merely a plurality of rulers, not by a necessity of the rulership but because of another utility or necessity. But aristocratic government differs from reyal government more through different power than through the unity and plurality of ruler and rulers, because aristocratic government differs from royal government at least in this respect, that one of those ruling aristocratically cannot perform the things that pertain to aristocratic government without special commission from another;' this is nat so in royal government, and would not be so in government by several apostolics, if there were several at the same time.
Student Say how [4] the next argument is answered.
Master It is answered in many ways. In one way that the pope does not have power to appoint another to be highest pontiff because the highest pontiff ought to be appointed by the faithful; and the pope therefore does not have complete fullness of power.
In another way it is said that the pope does not have as a rule, but [would have} on occasion, power to appoint anothcr to be highest pontiff, namely when he saw some danger threatening the faithful or the faith if another were not appointed, or saw some singular utility if another were appointed, and he could not conveniently seek the consent of the faithful and there were danger
™That is, the other members of the regime have fo commission one to act on their behalf.
A Dialogue, Part 1, Tract 1 in delay. But when it is said that the pope cannot dispense aguinst the general state of the Church, it is answered that regularly the pope cannot dispense against things explicitly or implicitly contained in the sacred Scriptures, and also not against things that pertain to the rights of others; on occasion, however, and for a just and reasonable cause, he can bring in novelties that de not conflict with the faith. And therefore, far reasonable cause, he could appoint another as highest pontiff, in the same way as biessed Peter, according to some, made another man highest pontiff while he himself was still alive; as a rule, however, the pope cannot do this, and if he does so it does not hold good.
[5] To the next argument it is said that in appointing for a reason several highest pontiffs the faithful would by no means fall into heretical wickedness, because they would not take from the Roman Church a privilege given it by Christ: because it would remain the same Roman Church, with power to appoint for itself and for the totality of the faithful one highest pontiff - and also, when beneficial, several.
16] To the next it is said that there can be two bishops in one bishopric, as happened in the time of blessed Jerome concerning
; Augustine and Valerius, who were at the same time bishops of the Church ef Hippo, as was shown above.
Student The gloss on that chapter (7, q.
1, Ne aufem) seems to say that Valerius and Augustine did net rule the same bishopric at the same time.
Master It is said that if such a gloss existed it would manifestly corrupt the text. The text says explicitly that "While Valerius, bishop of the Church of Hippo, was in good health, Augustine was made co-bishop"; but if Valerius had resigned, Augustine would not have been made co-bishop; therefore they ruled the same bishopric at the same time. The gloss does not assert the comtrary but speaks as raising a doubt, saying that "perhaps"
Valerius resigned the administration to Augustine.
To Jerome it is said that he meant that as a rule and without some just reason there should not be several bishops in the same
'bishopric: for a reason, however, there can be.
[7] To the last, it is answered that if the faithful, for a sufficiently moving and persuasive necessity or utility, appointed several highest pontiffs, they would not worsen the condition of the Church in EQ? veesurentnampumnimiiimesman mrvuimemmeneck es set ESTK