Chapter 93
Wilkam of Ockham false. For if all things belonged to the just in respect of lordship, others would not have just lordship in them, which is false, Augustine therefore did not mean that by divine law alf things belong to the just in respect of lordship, but he meant that by divine law all things belong to the just in respect of worthiness to have: that is, the just are worthy of all things, the wicked are not worthy of anything, though they have true and just lordship of many things, a just lordship of which, however, they are unworthy.
Chapter 93 [John XXH] Second, it is asked whether Christ had lordship of any temporal thing, and what kind of lordship. 'That he did have lordship of temporal things sacred Scripture, both in the Old Testament and in the New, testifies in many places. For instance, many prophets prophesied that he would be the king of the Israelite people, and consequently would have lordship of a kingdom. {saias, for instance, prophesied of him in Isaias
33([:22] thus: "See, the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our King: he will come and will save us."
Also, God spoke thus through the mouth of the prophet Jeremias, in Jeremias 23[:5, 6], "I will raise to David a just shoot, and a king will reign, and he will be wise... And this is the name they will call him, The Lord our Just One." For he is
"the stome cut out of the mountain without hands," tc whom "the God of heaven" gave "a kingdom that will forever not be scattered," as we read in Danie! 2[:44-5]. Also, in Zacharias g[:9} he is spoken of thus: "Rejoice greatly, daughter of Sion, shout for joy, daughter of Jerusalem; behold, your king will come to you, just and a savior; he is poor, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass." Concerning this
David prophesied in many places. Thus in one place he spoke in his person thus: Behold, "I am made king by him over Sion," etc. [Psalm 2:6], and in many other places he prophesied that he would be a king. Thus in the whole of the psalm
Eructaott [Psalm 44] he speaks of that king and his spouse, namely the Church, and many other psalms speak clearly enough of such a king. Concerning this also Solomon, in Canticles 3{:11], spoke thus: "Go forth, daughters of Sion, and see King Solomon," etc. Of this man, even before he was conceived, the archangel Gabriel said, as we read in Luke
The Work ofNinety Days r[:32], "The Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will reign," etc. Also, when he was born the angel said to the shepherds, in Luke 2[:18], "This day is born fo you a savior, who is Christ the Lord," that is, king and lord. When he was born the three wise men of the Gospel,
Matthew 2/:2], also bore witness to this, saying, "Where is he who has been born king of the Jews?" Also, Nathaniel, the true "Israelite in whom there was no guile," said to him, in John 1[:49], "You are the son of God, you are the king of Israel." Pilate, also, in a notice above the cross, wrote, "Jesus of Nazareth, king of the Jews." He made this notice indeed not without divine inspiration: when the Jews urged that he should not write "King of the jews" but "He said 'I am king of the Jews,'" he would not listen to them, but answered,
"What I have written, | have written." This our Savior alsa confessed, in John 18[:36—7].
For when Pilate asked him whether he was the king of the Jews, he answered him, "My kingdom is not of this world." Making an inference from this,
Pilate said, "You are a king, then?" and Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not from hence." He did not say, "It is not here," but "It is not from hence," as if to say, "I do not have my kingdom from the world" ~ as indeed he did not have it, but rather from God, as the angel had foretold to his mother, when he said in Luke 1, "The Lord God wilt give him the throne of David," etc, And blessed Peter explicitly testifies to this in Acts 2[:36], when he says, "Let ihe whole house of Israel know most certainly, that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." In these words
Peter clearly enough implies two things about Jesus our Lord, namely [a] that he did not have his kingdom from the world, but from God, since he says that the Lord made Jesus "Christ," that is, "king": for by "Christ" we understand "king," because
"Christ" is translated "the anointed," and since it was the custom to anoint kings, by "Christ" we understand "king."
Thus Rabanus in the same place says, "Clearly, Peter shows from this psalm that Christ's kingdom is not earthly but heavenly." Also, [b} Peter implies by the words above that Christ was made ford and king as man subsisting in a divine subject: for it is certain that he was not crucified as God, but as man; and therefore, since he was made king and lord as crucified, and was crucified as man, it follows that God granted him both kingship and lordship also as man. The angel also supposes this
Wilham of Ockham in speaking to the shepherds when he was born: "This day is bem to you a savior, who is Christ the Lord," that is, king and lord. We should notice here that what the angel Gabriel had said in the future tense when Christ was not yet born, when he said to Mary, "The Lord wiff give him the throne of his father David," etc., the angel said to the shepherds when he was born in words of present tense, ""T'oday is born to you a savior, who és Christ the Lord." Augustine explicitly testifies to this in his book The Harmony of the Gospels, in the preface, "The Lord Jesus Christ is a true king and a true priest," and shortly afterwards he says, "As man, indeed, Christ was made both king and priest, to whom 'God gave the throne of David his father, and his reign will have no end.'" Also, it seems that the Savior was lord of all temporal things. For it is said of him im Isaias 16[:1], "Send forth, O Lord, the Lamb, the dominator of the earth," etc. Also, in Micheas 5{:2] it is said of him, "And you, Bethlehem Ephrata, are by no means the least among the princes of Juda. For from you will go forth he who will be the dominator in Israel, and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity." And Malachias 3[:£] speaks of him thus: "Immediately the Dominator, whom you seek, and the Angel of the Testament, whom you desire, will come to his holy temple." Also, in John 13J]:13]
Truth himself says, "You call me Master, and Lord, and you say the truth, for so F am." Also, in Matthew 21[:2-3] he said to the disciples, "Go into the village in front of you, and immediately you will find an ass tied up, and its foal with her; untie thern and bring them to me; and if anyone says anything to you, say that the Lord has need of them, and immediately he will [et them go." This aiso blessed John testifies, in Apocalypse
19[:16}: "He has written on his garment, 'King of kings and lord of lords." Moreover the apostles confess this in their creed: "And in Jesus Christ, his only son, our Lord." This also the holy fathers expressly confess in the creed sung at mass, at "And in one lord Jesus Christ the only-begotren son of the Lord." Bur the foregoing, namely kingship and universal lordship, Jesus had as God from eternity, by virtue of the fact that God the Father begot him, and as man from a time, namely from the moment of his conception, by God's gift, as is clear from the above.
[Ockham] After discussing in the preceding part the law by which lordship of things was introduced, here he approaches the main
The Work ofNinety Days question, asking whether Christ and his apostles had lordship of any temporal thing. It is divided into two parts: first he treats of this matter concerning Christ, and second concerning the apostles, at "But now we must see concerning the apostles" [chapter 97].
The first is divided into two: first he shows that Christ as man had kingship and universal lordship of temporal things; second he shows how, despite this, Christ was a poor man. The second begins at "But this heretic says" [chapter 96]. The first is divided into three: first he shows that from the moment of his conception Christ had kingship and universal lordship of all temporal things by God's vift. Second, he shows that, not from the moment ef his conception, but afterwards, he acquired lordship of certain other things by other means. Third, he shows that Christ never renounced kingship and universal lordship. The second begins at "'And likewise he had lordship" [chapter 94], the third at "And if he wants to say"
[chapter 95]. The first could be divided into three parts: first he shows by fifteen texts that Christ as man was a king in temporai matters; second, he shows by eight texts that Christ as man was lord of all temporal things, at "Also, it seems that the Savior was iord of all'; third he determines when Christ had kingship and lordship of all things, at "But the foregoing".
And first he asks a question; second he decides it, showing that Christ had lordship of all temporal things because he was a king, which he shows by fifteen texts. But the attackers say that two manifest heresies are contained here: the first of them is that Christ as wayfaring man was a king in temporal matters; the second is that Christ as wayfaring man was lord of all temporal things from the instant ef his conception. To convict [him of] these heresies more plainly they proceed thus: [1] first they wy to make clear the equivocations of the words "king" and "lord"; [z] second they explain what they regard as the truth concerning the above matters;
{3] third they try to prove that the two assertions stated above smack of manifest heresy.
[1] Concerning the first, they say that since the word "king"
[rex] derives from "ruling" [regendo], someone can be called "king" in various ways, according to the various modes of rule [regimen}.
Thus — not to mention divine rule over the angels, and also rule such as is found among irrational things - among men is found, besides others, three kinds of rule.
William of Ockham One is that by which one person rules others temporally, ic., in respect of temporal things and actions known to relate to temporal things; and in this way, taking the word "king" in the broadest sense, emperors, kings, dukes, counts and barons, and heads of households could be called kings; and thus sometimes it is commonly said that every head of household is a king in his own home. However, according to a common way of speaking, those alone are called kings from this way of ruling who are known to hold the supreme mode of such ruling (in which, however, there can be degrees), and thus kings are distinguished from dukes, counts, barons, and other secular powers.
Another is spiritual rule, by which someone rules others concerning spiritual things. And in this way the pope and any prelate can be called a king. For if (as will be explained afterwards) anyone who rules his movements and sensual passions by reason can be called a king, much more can one who rules others concerning spiritual matters hold the name of king.
The other is the rule by which someone rules himself and his moverments and his acts by right reason, and from that rule anyone at all who lives reasonably can be called a king. And thus for this reason blessed Remy asserts that all Christ's elect are kings.
Explaining the words of Apocalypse 1[:6], "He has made us a kingdom and priests to God and to his Father," he says: "By this statement all are shown to be priests who have above been called kings. For because the head, the Son of God, is king and priest, appropriately the members of the head are also called kings and priests. It is said to them by Peter, "You are an elect people, a kingly priesthood.' For they are kings, they are also priests and sacrifice and altar; for they rein in as kings the revolts of carnal pleasures rising up against them, and they offer up to God a sacrifice of praise and mortification and mortify their body from the desires of the present world, so as to beceme living sacrifices.
Therefore the only-begotten Son of the Father, king and priest, makes us his elect kings and priests, whom he has appointed as kings of the earth and shown to be priests by that work." It is clearly shown by these words that someone can be called king from ruling his own desires and sensual movements. And thus in the written sources the word "king" is taken in various ways.
The Work ofNinety Days Second, they say that che word "lord"
Is taken in the written sources equivocally. For in one way someone is called a lord on account of some power recognizcd in him, and this way is divided into many, which were spoken about above in chapter 2. In another way someone is called "lord" because of a prerogative of holiness, virtue, or wisdom, or riches or some other superiority. For just as rich and powerful men and great lords often call priests and religious and many others "lords" because of a prerogative of holiness, region, order, wisdom or some other superiority that they observe in them or regard as preeminent in them, so also many rich men call some persons "lord" to whom they nevertheless do not believe themselves to be subject. And this way of speaking is found not only in common speech but also in the divine Scriptures. For as we read in 3 Kings 78:13], Abdias said to Elias the prophet, "Has it been told you, my lord, what I did?" Here Abdias called Elias his iord because of the prerogative of prophecy and holiness which he knew in him. Thus the Sunamite woman who had made a guestroom for Elias called him "lord" because of his prerogative of holiness, as we read in 4 Kings 4[:16], "Do not, I beseech, my lord, man of God, de not lie to your handmaid," and afterwards [4 Kings 4:28], "Did I ask my lord for a son?" And so this woman called Elias "lord," to whom, however, she was not temporally subject.
{z] Second (principally),'? the attackers explain what they regard as the truth about the poverty of Christ, saying that Christ as God was king of all, just as the Father is king of all, and by the same rile as that by which the Father rules all things. Second, they say that as mortal man Christ was not a king fas the name is taken] from ruling temporally and according as someone is called king because of a supreme mode of ruling others temporally (though he was a king temporally because in some way he ruled the apostles temporally, who lived with him practically all the time). Third, they sav that Christ was king from ruling spiritually, because "for this he came into the world," namely to direct [gebernare] the faithful who believe in him in respect of spiritual matters. Fourth, they say
"That is, second in the main series of sections, which are numbered in the translatian.
Wilkam of Ockham that Christ as God was lord of all, just as Ciod rhe Farher is lord of all. Fifth, they say that Christ as mortal man was not lord of all temporal things by a lordship exclusive to himself, though he was lord of all by the common terdship that according to many was given by God to the whole human race (if it is not permissible for anyone te renounce such lordship). Sixth, they say that, although
Christ as mortal man did not have of any thing that lordship which in the written sources is calted ownership, nevertheless he could be called antonomastically'* "lord" because of the prerogative of the union of human nature in him with the divine, and of holiness and other graces. From these points they say that it is clear that the attacked, deceived by the equivecation of words, falis into the heresies stated above.
[3] Third (principally), therefore, they try to prove that the two assertions stated above smack of manifest heresy. To make this evident they first explain what the attacked meant, saying that he meant not only that Christ as mortal man was a king because of his spiritual rule, and not because of [just] any way of ruling temporally, but [precisely] because of power to rule in the supreme mode of ruling temporally: so that not oniy as Gad, but as mortal man, it belonged to him, by the office committed to him, to judge concerning temporal matters, to divide inheritances, to establish secular laws, to subject murderers, robbers, and other wrongdoers to due punishment, to provide temporal help to the pilgrim, orphan, and widow when oppressed by the powerful, and to perform other things that belong to the duty of secular kings. And also he did not mean only that Christ was ford of all in the way in which anyone at all is in some way lord of all if the whole human race has common lordship of all, but he also meant that all things were
Christ's as mortal man in the same way, or more truly, as cities and castles are some king's: in such a way that he had particular fordship, and not only lordship in common.
Now that we have seen this, they fi] first prove that Christ as mortal man was not a king in temporal matters [as the name is taken] from the supreme mode of ruling temporally;
[ti] second, * When a term stands precisely for the individual it fits most of all, as in 'the Apostle {meaning Paul] says chis,' 'the Philosopher [meaning Aristotle] denies this,' and the like"; Ockham, Suerma logivae, p. 237. Thus Jesus is called "the Lord" because, although there are many other lords, the term fits him most of all.
The Work ofNinety Days va they show that he was not lord, in that way, of all temporal things.
The first point they show [a] first by authoritative texts, and [b] second by arguments.
[ia] The first authority by which they show that Christ was not king in that way is that of Christ himself, when he said in John
18[:36], "My kingdom is not of this world"; by these words it is established that the kingdom of Christ as man was not a temporal kingdom.
But the attacked answers this. He says that Christ did net mean to deny that his kingdom was temporal and worldly but meant to say that he did not have his kingdom from the world but from God, because the world did not give him the kingdom and did not choose him as king, but God did. Thus, as is clear above, the attacked brings this text in support of his own assertion, proving by it that Christ was a king, though he did not have a kingdom from the world but from God. Thus, and fer this reason (he says),
Christ said, "My kingdom is not from hence," and did not say "Tt is not here," giving us to understand from this that he did not have the kingdom from the world, but from God.
But they say that here "he interprets divine Scripture in another way than the sense of the Holy Spirit demands," [Jerome], dragging the divine Scripture — most clearly resisting - to his own sense.
For it is quite clear from the relevant words of the Gospel that Christ meant to assert by the above words that he did not have a temporal kingdom or one such as worldly people try to acquire.
For, as is certain from the Gospel text, the chief accusation the Jews put forward before Pilate against Christ, by which they wished especially to provoke Pilate against Christ — indeed, by which they finally in a way compelled Pilate to pass sentence against Christ was conceming Christ's kingship: they said that Christ asserted that he was the king of the Jews. Thus in Luke 23[:2] it is written concerning the Jews: "And they began to accuse him, saving: 'We have found this man subverting our nation, and forbidding tribute to be given to Caesar, and saying that he is Christ the king.' "
And in John 19/:12] we read thus: "Pilate sought to ler him go.
But the Jews cried out, saying: 'If you let this man go, you will not be Caesar's friend; for everyone who makes himself a king speaks against Caesar.' And later [ohn 19:3 5}: "Pilate says to them: 'Wil! I crucify your king?" The chief priests answered: "We
; Wilham af Ockham have no king but Caesar.' Then therefore he handed him over to them to be crucified." From these words we gather evidently that the main accusation of the Jews against Christ was that he made himself king - speaking of a temporal king, such a king as Caesar was not willing to tolerate unless he would acknowledge his kingship as being from him. For this reason they said, "Everyone who makes himself a king speaks against Caesar." And by this accusation they finally in a way compelled Pilate against his will to pass sentence of death against Christ, as is clear from the words quoted above.
But Christ did not deny that he was a king, indeed he asserted it; and nevertheless he adequately excluded the accusation of the Jews before Pilate, who did not want to tolerate a king of the Jews besides Caesar, in that way of using the word "king" in which the Jews accusing Christ spoke of a king. 'Therefore, it is manifestly clear that Christ declared before Pilate that he was a king in another way than the Jews were speaking of a king, and that he was not a king in the way in which the Jews were speaking of a king. Since therefore they were referring to a temporal king reigning temporally, or wishing to reign termporally, it follows that when
Christ said, "My kingdom is not of this world," he showed that he was not a king temporally, and not one having an earthly kingdom.
Here it is necessary to prove three points. The first is that the Jews accusing Christ were referring to a king reigning temporally, or wishing to reign temporally. The second is that Pilate did not want there to be any king of the Jews besides Caesar, in the Jews' sense of "king". The third is that Christ satisfied Pilate by atlequately excluding the accusation of the Jews. From these it is plainly inferred that Christ was speaking of king and kingdom in another way than the Jews were, and consequently did not assert that he was a king in temporal matters, but in another way.
The first point is clear enough, for otherwise they would never have provoked Pilate against Christ by that accusation. For the Romans and their agents seem at that time to have cared little about things pertaining to the iaw of the Jews, and they did not judge anyone worthy of death on account of a transgression of the law. Thus, as we read in Acts 23]:29], when the tribune Lysias sent blessed Pau! to the governor Felix he wrote, "Whom," namely
Paul, "I found to he accused concerning questions of their law, The Work ofNinety Days but having nothing charged deserving death or bonds." And, as we read in chapter 25, Portius Fesmis speaking of Paul said:
"Concerning whom, when the accusers stood up, they made no accusation of matters concerning which I suspected evil. But they had against him certain questions concerning their own superstition, and concerning a certain Jesus, deceased, whom Paul affirmed was alive" [Acts 25:18]; and later: "But I have found that he has done nothing deserving death" [Acts 25:25]; and in chapter 26 we read:
"And the king arose, and the governor, and Bernice, and their assessors. And when they had drawn apart they spoke to one another, saying, "This man has not dene anything deserving death or bonds'" [Acts 26:30]. From these words we gather evidently that at that time the Romans regarded no one as deserving of death or bonds on account of diverse and conflicting assertions of Jewish law, even if some should say that some man was God, as Paul confessed that Christ himself was God. Therefore, however much the Jews accused Christ to Pilate of saying that he was God, or a king in another way than temporally and not to the prejudice of Caesar's temporal kingdom, they would never have provoked
Pilate against Christ, but Pilate would have regarded their accusation as frivolous; for he would not have regarded him as being against Caesar or against the temporal public peace. Therefore the Jews were speaking of a temporal king.
The second point also, namely that Pilate did not want there to be any temporal king of the Jews besides Caesar, is manifest. For he knew that Caesar claimed for himself the lordship of all kingdoms and thus did not want anyone to be king of the Jews unless he would acknowledge the kingdom as being from him.
The third, namely that Christ satisfied Pilate by excluding the said accusation of the Jews adequately and plainly, is shown clearly by the Gospel text. For after the said accusation of the Jews and Christ's answer, in which he had conceded that he was a king and had expressed the way in which he was king, Pilate said, as we read in John 18[:38], "J find no case against him," and in John
19 Pilate said, "Behold I bring him forth, that you may know that I find no case against him"; and afterwards: "You take him and crucify him; 1 do not find any case against him." From these words it is clear and plain that Pilate regarded the accusation of the Jews as adequately excluded by Christ's answer. For since the Jews had
William of Ockham accused Christ before Pilate of saying that he was the king of the Jews (and without doubt they meant this of a king ruling, or wishing to rule, temporally, for otherwise it would have been in no way prejudicial to Caesar — which, however, they most manifestly claimed, saying, "Everyone who makes himself a king speaks against Caesar"); and since by his answer Christ had most manifestly conveyed that he did not mean to claim for himself a temporal kingdom that would be "of this world," but the other, spiritual, one spoken of before, and thus had very clearly shown Pilate the multiplicity [of senses] and the equivocation of the word "king," and consequently that he had called himself king in a far different way than the Jews had meant in their accusation; and since Pilate had seen that the Jews were not able to prove that Christ had called himself king to Caesar's prejudice: Pilate himself regarded their accusation as frivolous. For as he testifies in Matthew 27[:18],
"He knew that they had handed him over out of envy," and for this reason, as we read in the same place [Matthew 27:24}, "Taking water, he washed his hands in front of the people, saying, 'I am innocent of the blood of this just man'"; and in Mark 15f:9] we read that Pilate said, "''Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews? for he knew that they had handed him over out of envy." From these words we gather plainly that Pilate clearly understood that the Jews accusing Christ of saying that he was king of the Jews, and Christ conceding that he was king of the Jews, were taking the word "king" equivocally. For if Christ had said he was king in the way the Jews accusing him took the word,
Pilate would have regarded him as quite deserving of death, as having confessed in court a crime most deserving of death, namely usurping a temporal kingdom without Caesar's will.
But someone will ask, How did Pilate perceive that Christ meant that he was king in another way than the Jews meant in accusing him? It must be said that he perceived this from Christ's words when he said, "My kingdom is not of this world. For if my kingdom were of this world my servants would certainly fight so that | would not be handed over to the Jews. But as it is my kingdom is nor from hence" [John 18:36}. By these words he indicated that he did not have a kingdom of the kind of which the Jews made accusation, for if he had had such a kingdom his servants would have fought for him so that he would not be handed over to the The Work ofNinety Days Jews. But still by these words Pilate does not seem to have understood plainly whether Christ was confessing that he was king here or elsewhere, nor what sort of kingdom he had. And therefore, as if in wonder, he drew the inference, "You are a king, then?" as if to say, "Then you concede that you are a king, although not such a king as the Jews speak of. Where therefore is your kingdom, and what sort of kingdom do you have?" And Christ answered these questions that Pilate in some way seemed to have in mind, explaining where his kingdom was and what sort it was. He said:
"You say that I am a king. For this | was born, and for this I came into the world, to bear testimony to the truth, and everyone who is of the truth hears my voice" [John 18:37]. Here Christ first confesses that he is a king, saying, "I am a king." Second, he shows where his kingdom is, namely here, when he says, "For this I was born, and for this I came into the world," as if to say,
"I was bom to reign in this world." Third, he shows of what kind his kingdom was and in what way he had come to reign, saying,
"To bear testimony to the truth," as if to say, "I came to reign, but I did not come to reign temporally, but spiritually, by bearing testimony to the truth." Fourth, he shows who belongs to his kingdom, namely those who believe in him; and therefore he says,
"Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice," as if to say, "All those who believe the truth belong to my kingdom." And thus by these words Pilate was fully informed that, although Christ regarded himself as a king here, he nevertheless did not regard himself as a temporal king; and therefore Pilate did not regard Christ as being in any way opposed to Caesar, who sought temporal kingdoms. He therefore regarded him as innocent, and as meaning that he was a king in another way than the Jews meant.
And this truth explained thus by means of the words of the Gospel, namely that Christ was a king in another way than the Jews accusing him meant, is confirmed by authoritative texts of the saints. Thus Augustine says upon John: The Christian faithful are
"his kingdom which is now gathered, indeed is purchased, by Christ's blood"; therefore in Pilate's time only Christians belonged to Christ's kingdom. But if Christ had been king in the way the Jews spoke of a king in accusing Christ, not only Christians but ali the Jews living in the kingdom ofJudaea would have belonged to Christ's kingdom: which is false, according to Augustine. Therefore
Wilham of Ockham according to Augustine Christ was a king in another way than the Jews meant.
Chrysostom also testifies to the same effect, commenting upon the text, "My kingdom is not from hence." He says, "He does not deprive the world of its providence and rule, but shows that his kingdom is not human or corruptible." By these words it is plainly established that Christe did not have a kingdom of the same kind as a worldly and human kingdom, and thus he was not king in the way the Jews meant.
And Augustine clearly teaches this, commenting upon John 19:
"Hear, Jews and gentiles; hear, circurncised, hear, uncircumcised; hear, all kingdoms of the earth. I do not hinder your lordship in this world, because 'My kingdom is not of this world.' Do not fear that most vain fear that Herod the Elder felt and killed so many infants, too cruel through fear more than anger. 'My kingdom,' he says, 'is not of this world.' What more do you want'? Come to the kingdom that is not of this world, Come through faith, and do not rage through fear. He says indeed in prophecy of God the Father:
'And I am appointed by him king over Zion, his holy mountain, preaching his commandment'; but Zion and that mountain are not of this world. For what is his kingdom except the believers, to whom he says, 'You are not of this world, just as 1 am not of this world': although he wished them to be in the world, and for this reason he said of them to the Father, '1 do not ask you to take them from the world, but t preserve them from evil.' And thus he did not say here, 'My kingdom is not in this world," but 'Ir is not of this world.' When he proves this — saying: 'If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would indeed fight so that I would not be handed over to the Jews. But now, my kingdom is not from hence' — he does not say, 'It is not here,' but 'It is not from hence.' For his kingdom is here until the end of the world, having tares mixed in with it until the harvest. For the harvest is the end of the world, and then the reapers will come, that is, the angels, and 'they will gather out of his kingdom alf scandals.' This would indeed not happen if his kingdom were not here. But, nevertheless, it is not from hence, because it is on pilgrimage in the world."
From these words we cleariy gather three things. The first is that the manner of Christ's rule in no way impeded earthly domination and domination by earthly men: from this it follows that Christ did not come to reign in a temporal or secular way, but only
The Work ofNinety Days spiritually; for if he had involved himself in secular rule he would have impeded the demination of secular [rulers] and would have provoked them to the utmost. The second is that one does not arrive at Christ's kingdom through secular subjection, but through faith, because by believing; and consequently Christ's kingdom is not secular, governed in a secular way, but spiritual, governed spirituaily. The third is that believers are Christ's kingdom, for the Church is the kingdom of Christ; thus, just as Christ is the king and bridegroom, sa the Church is the kingdom and his bride. And for this reason the Church of Christ present in this world is in the Gospel often called the kingdom of heaven, as Gregory testifies; in his homily Of the Common of Virgins he says, "We must know that in sacred language the Church of the present time is often called the kingdom of heaven. The Lord in another place says about it, 'The Sen of Man will send his angels, and they will gather all scandals out of his kingdom.' " The kingdom, therefore, of which Christ said, "My kingdom is not of this world," is his Church, including believers, good and bad; and thus that kingdom is often called the kingdom of heaven.
From the foregoing it is quite clear that Christ's kingdom was not Judaea, inasmuch as Judaea included all Jews living there, as the Jews meant whe accused Christ of saying that he was king of the Jews. Rather the kingdom of Christ was Christ's Church, including only believers in Christ; and thus Christ's kingdom was not a secular kingdom but a spiritua! kingdom — that is, it was the Church of Christians, to be governed by him spiritually.
The second main text that proves that Christ was not a king in secular matters is taken from Luke i[:32-3]. where the angel, describing his kingdom and way of reigning, says, "The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign in the house of Jacob eternally, and of his kingdom there will be no end." By these words we are given to understand that Christ would be king in the way in which he would reign in the house of Jacob and in no other way. Buc Christ as man, as long as he was yet to live in this mortal life, was not going to reign im a secular way, but only spiritually; therefore he was not going to be king in respect of secular matters, but in respect of spiritual matters only,
Here it seems it should be proved that Christ as mortal man did not reign in a secular way, but only spiritually. But this does not need to be proved. For Christ never intervened in secular rule,
Wiliam of Ockham especially in the supreme secular rule from which someone is called a king, as we are now speaking of a king in temporal matters. For he neither held parliaments and courts nor judged concerning temporal matters nor did justice to malefactors nor did battle with enemies nor paid out military stipends, and he did not in any way perform other things pertaining to secular rule, Christ's kingdom, therefore, was not secular, but spiritual. This the gloss on the words given above clearly testifies. it says, " 'The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David' - that is, the Israelite people, to whom David and his sons provided the government of the temporal kingdom. The spiritual kingship of this has been given to Christ, when it was determined by God that he should become flesh of the seed of David, to cail that nation his kingdom perpetually. And 'He will reign' not only in that people of the Jews but 'm the house of Jacob eternally' — that is, in the whole Church, which through the faith and confession of Christ belongs to the line of the patriarchs, whether in those that are born from the Ime of the patriarchs, or in these that have been cut out of the wild olive and grafted into the good olive." It is quite clear from these words that Christ's kingdom was not a temporal but a spiritual one, to which only believers belonged, whether from among the Jews or from among the gentiles.
Also, Bede testifies that the kingdom of Christ was not earthly, secular, or worldly, in a passage included in the gloss on the text of Mark 12[(:10}, "Blessed be the kingdom that comes of our father David." He says: "According to John, when the crowds wanted to seize Christ and make him king, he fled, and did not want a kingdom while he had time yet to live. But now, on the point of suffering, he does not shrink from saying that he is a king. He does not restrain hymns worthy of the Son of God and a king, does not restrain those who sing of the restoration of David's kingdom in him and of the gifts of the ancient blessing; because, of course, he was the king of an empire not temporal and earthly, but eternal and in heaven, to which he would come through contempt of death, the glory of resurrection, and the triumph of ascension. Thus he said to the disciples after his resurrection, 'All power is given to me in heaven and on earth. "
From these words it is clear that the kingdom of Christ was not earthly and temporal.
The Work ofNinety Days Pope [Leo agrees with this, in a sermon about the Epiphany: "But Herod, hearing that the prince of the Jews had been born, suspected a successor, and was much afraid... O blind wickedness of stupid envy, that you should think that the divine plan would be disturbed by your fury. The lord of the world does not seek a temporal kingdom, but offers one that is eternal." From these words we gather that Christ as man did not have a temporal kingdom,
Also, Saint Fulgentius in a sermon about the Epiphany says, "The gift of gold shows that our Lord Jesus Christ was a true king: not at all the kind of king who takes his image on coins, but one who seeks his image in men themselves." These words plainly establish that Christ was not a king of the kind who seek their images on coins, and thus he was not to be regarded as a king in temporal matters.
Rabanus testifies to this same fassertion], as he [John] quotes him, as will appear in the comments upon the letter.
[ib] It remains now to show the same assertion by means of arguments fortified by sacred authorities. The first argument is as follows. Anyone who is not a judge of secular litigation or a divider of inheritances and properties is not a king in temporal matters, for those things are known to pertain to the office of a king; but Christ was not a judge of litigation or a divider of inheritances and earthly properties; therefore Christ was not a king in temporal or secular and earthly matters. The major [premise] is known, the minor is manifestly proved by the authority of Christ and of blessed Ambrose. For, as we read in Luke 12{:13], when someone from the crowd said to Christ, "Master, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me,"
Christ answered, "Man, who has appointed me judge or divider over you?" — as if to say, "No one": therefore Christ was not a judge of litigation or a divider of inheritances. Blessed Ambrose, commenting on the same passage, asserts this manifestly: "Well, therefore, does he avoid earthly things, who had come down for the sake of divine; neither does he deign to be a judge of litigation and an arbiter of property, being judge of the living and dead and arbiter of merits... Thus the brother who wished to occupy with corruptible things the dispenser of heavenly things is here deservedly repulsed." It could not be said more clearly than this that Christ was by no means a judge of secular litigation or arbiter of earthly property, and consequently he was not to be regarded as a king in secular matters.
Wilham of Ockham The second argument for the same assertion is this. No one who teaches us by word and example to despise temporai kingdoms should be thought to be a king in temporal matters. But by word and example
Christ taught that temporal kingdoms should be despised. That by word he taught that rulerships and temporal kingships should be despised is quite clear from the text of Matthew 20f:2—6], '"But Jesus called them to him and said, 'You know that the rulers of the peoples lord it over them, and the great men exercise power over them; it will not be so among you. But whoever wishes to be the greater among you, !et him be your servant,' etc. From these words it is plainly inferred that by word Christ taught that rulerships and temporal power over others - and consequently temporal kingdoms — should be despised. That he also taught by example that temporal kingdoms should be despised is clearly apparent from the text of John 6[:15], "When Jesus, therefore, knew that they would come ta seize him and make him king, he fled again to the mountain."
Commenting on this text Chrysostom says: "He," i.e., Christ, "was already a prophet among them, and they wished to enthrone him as king," because of greed, namely because he had fed them. "But Christ fled, teaching us to despise earthly offices,' and consequently he instructed us by example to despise worldly kingdoms. Therefore
Christ was by no means a king in temporal matters, for otherwise he would have been in conflict with himself in both words and deeds, teaching one thing by word and example and doing another.
The third argument is this. Anyone who undertakes to govern a kingdom but docs not in any way involve himself in its government, though he could do so, deserves blame for malice, wickedness, or negligence; for such a person wishes to have the name of king but not at all to perform the duty and functions of a king, and this must be attributed altogether to malice or negligence. But Christ in no way involved himself in the secular government of any kingdom whatever; therefore either he did not undertake to govern a kingdom, and consequently was not a king, or he deserved blame for malice or negligence. But neither malice nor negligence should be attributed to him; therefore it must be held that, as mortal man, he did not undertake to rule any kingdom, and consequently did not possess either the reality or the name of secular king.
The Work ofNinety Days The fourth argument is this. There cannot be in the same secular kingdom several true kings, not holding the kingdom jointly, none of whom acknowledges the kingdom as being from another.
But in Christ's time the Emperor of the Romans was true king of Judaea, though he was king of other kingdoms; and it is certain that Christ and the emperor did not hold the kingdom of Judaea jointly, and neither did Christ acknowledge the kingdom ofJudaea as being from the emperot, nor the emperor from Christ. Therefore
Christ was not true secular king of Judaea; and consequently, by like reasoning, he was not a secular king of any other kingdom whatever.
Here three things seem to require proof. The first is chat Caesar or the emperor was king of Judaca. This is drawn evidently from the Gospel, where Christ says, "Give to Caesar the things that are
Caesar's": from these words we gather that the things that Caesar claimed in Judaea were truly his. But Caesar claimed tribute as being king of Judaea and lord; therefore tribute was truly his as being king and lord; therefore he was truly king. The second thing to be proved here is that Caesar did not acknowledge the kingdom as being from Christ and was not obliged te acknowledge it. For before Christ's birth Caesar was true king; but by Christ's birth
Caesar's kingship was in no respect diminished or changed or brought imto any subjection; therefore, just as before Christ's birth he was not obliged ta acknowledge any kingdom whatever as being from any man, so after Christ's birth he was not obliged to acknow!edge the kingdom as being from any man, as man; and so he was not obliged to acknowledge the kingdom as being from Christ as man, The third thing that seems to require proof is that Christ did not acknowledge the kingdom as being from Caesar, But this needs no proof, since he never claimed any kingdom, but refused to be made king and fled so as not to be made king, as is clear in John 6.
The fifth argument is this. If Christ was king of any temporal kingdom, and there is na more reason why he was king of one temporal kingdom more than another, unless one says that because he was the son of David he was king particularly of Judaea, then it follows that he was king of all kingdoms, or particularly ofJudaea.
But neither can be said. For, whether he had been king of all .
8g William of Ockham kingdoms or particularly of Judaea, all the Jews, at least those Jiving in Judaea, would have belonged to his kingdom; but it is not the case that all Jews living in Judaea belonged to his kingdom; therefore he was not temporal king of Judaea; and consequently, a fartiort, he was not temporal king of another kingdom.
Here it must be proved that not all the Jews, even those living in Judaea, belonged to Christ's kingdom insofar as he was a mortal man, though all belong to his kingdom insofar as he is God. This is clearly proved by the gloss on the text of John ig, "Jesus of Nazareth, king of the Jews," which says, "In the heart, not in the flesh." By these words it is established that Christ was king only of those Jews who were jews in heart, such as the faithful were, and not only in the flesh, such as the unfaithful were; therefore
Jews who did not believe in Christ did not belong to Christ's kingdom insofar as he was a man. This is also clear because Christ's kingdom was the Church of Christ, since according to Gregory, as quoted above, "the kingdom of heaven," which is the kingdom of Christ, is "the Church of the present time." But the Jews who did not believe in Christ did not belong to the Church of Christ; therefore they also did not belong to the kingdom of Christ. This is also clear, third, because just as the same Christ was, and is, bridegroom, king and shepherd, so the same congregation was Christ's bride, kingdom and flock. But the Jews who did not and would not believe in Christ did not belong to Christ's flock, as Christ himself testifies when he says in John ro[:r4], "I am the good shepherd, and I know mine, and mine know me."
From these words we gather that all Christ's sheep recognized Christ by faith. Therefore the Jews who did not believe were not Christ's sheep, and consequently did not belong to Christ's flock; from this it follows that they did not belong to Christ's kingdom.
This is also quite clear from the many texts quoted above that assert that the believers were the kingdom of Christ. And thus
Christ was not king in secular matters.
The sixth argument is this. The kingdom of Christ was the kingdom about which the prophets prophesied. But the prophets prophesying Christ's future kingdom did not prophesy concerning any temporal kingdom; and therefore no temporal kingdom was the kingdom of Christ. The major [premise] is clear; the minor is proved. For the kingdom of Christ concerning which the prophets go The Work ofNinety Days prophesied was to be renewed and restored by Christ, on the testimony of Isaias, who in chapter g[:6-7] says: "For a child is born te us, and a son is given 10 us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name will be called, Wonderful, God, Mighty,
Father of the world to came, Prince of Peace. His empire shall be multiplied, and of peace there shall be no end; he will sit upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to confirm and strengthen it in judgment and justice, from now and for ever."
From these words we gather clearly that the kingdom of Christ concerning which Isaias prophesied was to be confirmed and strengthened by him, and consequently renewed and restored. Similarly in Jeremias 23[:5-6] Jeremias prophesied concerning Christ, saying: "Behold the days come, says the Lord, and I will raise to David a just shoot, and a king will reign, and he will be wise, and he will execute judgment and justice upon the earth. In those days
Juda will be saved, and Israel will dwel! confidently; and this is the name they will call him: The Lord our Just One." From these words we gather that those who were to be of Christ's kingdom were to be saved and would dwell confidently; therefore the kingdom of heaven concerning which Jeremias prophesied in the foregoing words was to be renewed by Christ. But the tempora! kingdom of Judaea was not renewed by Christ, neither was it restored by him, but rather jt was scattered, sincc because of the sins they committed against Christ it was destroyed. And thus, as we read in Luke
19{:¢1-4], he foretold the overthrow of Jerusalem, which was the metropolis of the kingdom of Judaea: "When he drew near, seeing the city he wept over it, saying: 'If you also had known, and that in this your day, the things that are for your peace; but now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days shall come upon you, and your enemies will carry a trench around you, and compass you round, and hem you in on every side; and they will throw you down to the ground, and your children within you, and they will not feave in you a stone upon a stone because you did not know the time of your visitation.'"" From these words we gather evidently that the kingdom ofJudaea was not renewed temporally by Christ, but afterwards, because it did not know the time of its spiritual visitation but persecuted Christ to death, it was scattered. The kingdom of Christ about which the prophets made predictions was therefore not a temporal kingdom, and the prosperity the prophets gI William of Ockham ther prophesied would come should not be understoed as temporal, but as spiritual, because of the abundance of graces and spiritual gifts with which Christ most richly honored, affirmed, strengthened, and saved those who believed in him — who were his kingdom — and made them confident and secure amid the adversities of the world.
The seventh argument is as follows.
Without distinguishing berween the one office enrusted to him and another, Christ appointed blessed Peter as his vicar, saying, "Feed my sheep"; therefore Christ appointed blessed Peter as his vicar regarding his subjects in respect of every office that he had as man. But blessed
Peter was not Christ's vicar in respect of the office of temporal king. Therefore Christ also did not have the office of temporal king, and consequently the kingdom of Christ was not temporal, but spiritual. Such a kingdom he entrusted to blessed Peter when he said, "Feed my sheep," and had previously promised to him when he said, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven."
Here it is necessary to prove that blessed Peter was not Christ's vicar in respect of the office of temporal king, nor even in any temporal matters whatever. This is proved first as follows. If blessed
Peter had been Christ's vicar in respect of the office of temporal king in any temporal kingdom, blessed Peter would have had power to judge all, and concerning all, who lived in the kingdom subjected to him, not only believers but also non-believers. But blessed Peter did not at all have power to judge concerning unbelievers who had never accepted the faith of Christ, as the Apostle testifies. In r Corinthians s[:12] he said, in the person of all the prelates of the Church, "What business is it of mine to judge thase who are outside?" Therefore it did not permin to blessed Peter to judge concerning those who were "outside" in any kingdom whatever; and thus he was not Christ's vicar in any temporal kingdom whatever.
Second, as foltows. One who in any kingdom is general vicar of any temporal king who does not have a superior has temporal jurisdiction over all those living in the kingdom who have never been exempted by the king. But in appointing blessed Peter as his vicar, Christ exempted no one from blessed Peter's jurisdiction; therefore blessed Peter had temporal jurisdiction over everyone living in the kingdom; and so, since the kingdom of Christ was not one [kingdom] rather than another, it follows that blessed Peter had temporal jurisdiction over the [Roman] emperor and all other g2 The Work ofNinety Days kings. From this it follows that, since the Roman pontiff is blessed
Peter's successor, equal to him in the power granted to him by Christ, each and every Roman pontiff has had temporal jurisdiction over the Roman emperor and ail other kings in the world: which plainly conflicts with the sacred canons. For Pope Nichelas, as we read in dist. 96, c. Cum ad verum, says: "Since [the world} has come to the truth, no longer has the emperor seized for himself the rights of the pontificate, nor has the pontiff usurped the name of emperor. For the same mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, distinguished the duties of both powers by their own acts and distinct offices." By these words we are given to understand that the Reman bishop does not have from succession to blessed Peter temporal jurisdiction over the emperor. That the pope also does not have jurisdiction over other kings Innocent II seems to testify. As we read in Extra, De indicts, c. Novit, he says,
"Let no one think that we mean to disturb or lessen the jurisdiction of the illustrious king of the French," etc.; therefore the pope does not held temporal jurisdiction over the king of France. Also, if the pope had by succession from blessed Peter temporal jurisdiction over kings, much more would he have by the same succession temporal jurisdiction over their possessions and over those of others.
Bernard plainly asserts the contrary, Writing to Eugenius, On Consideration, Book 1, chapter 5, he says: "Therefore your power 3s in criminal matters, not over possessions; because it is on account of the former, not the latter, that you have received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to shut out sinners and not possessors — "That you may know' (he says) 'that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins' [Matthew 9:6}... Which seems to you the greater dignity and power, to forgive sins or to divide estates? These lowest and earthly things have their own judges, the kings and rulers of the earth. Why do you invade the territory of others? Why do you put your scythe into another's crop?" From these words it is clear that by the power given him by Christ the pope does not hold temporal jurisdiction over possessions, From these and a great many other [authorities] it is clear that blessed Peter did not have tempora! jurisdiction over the emperor and kings, and thus was not Christ's vicar in any temporal kingdom.
But perhaps someone will object to the foregoing. First, by a text of Pope Nicholas, included in dist. 22, c. i, where we read:
"He alone founded it, and erected it on the rock of a faith soon Wilham ofOckham arising, who gave blessed Peter, the bearer of the keys of cternal life, the rights of both earthly and heavenly empire." From these words it is clear that blessed Peter held the rights of the earthly empire and consequently held jurisdiction over the earthly emperor.
That blessed Peter's successors also had jurisdiction over emperors and kings is proved: First, because the pope deposes emperers and kings, as is clear in 15, q. 6, c. Adtus. Also, he transfers the Roman
Empire, Extra, De electione, c. Venerabilem, therefore he is known ta have jurisdiction over the Empire. Also, the emperor takes an oath of fidelity to him, and is therefore subject to him in temporal matters.
Also, we see with our eyes that the Roman pope has temporal jurisdiction; but the pope does not have more authority than blessed Peter had; therefore blessed Peter also had temporal jurisdiction. But he did not have a temporal jurisdiction that was limited; therefore kings and others were subject to hin temporally.
To the first of these arguments some of the attackers say that by "earthly and heavenly empire" Pope Nicholas means good and bad people in the Church militant; and thus by "earthly empire" he does not mean an earthly imperial office. They explain this as follows. By "heavenly empire" Pope Nicholas cannot mean anything but good people in the Church militant, because by "heavenly empire" he cannot mean good people who are in the Church triumphant, since over them Peter had no jurisdiction. Therefore, similarly, by "earthly empire" Nicholas means bad people in the Church militant. And thus it cannot be inferred from the above text that blessed Peter had temporal junsdiction over the emperor, bue that he had spiritual jurisdiction over good and bad people ia the Church militant.
To the second argument they reply in two ways. In one way, that the Christian emperor is subject to the pope by reason of crime, and they say the same of other kings; and so, by reason of crime, the pope has spiritual jurisdiction over emperors and kings, not temporal. In another way, they say that although the pope does not have temporal jurisdiction over the emperor and other kings, nevertheless to have such temporal jurisdiction is not repugnant to him. And therefere a people, both the Roman people and another, ean transfer to the person of the pope the jurisdiction they are known to have on occasion both over the emperor and over a king without any person superior to him, and then the pope can depose
The Work ofNinety Days the emperor or king by the authority of the people. And in this way we read in 15, q. 6, c. Afius that he deposed a king of France; on the word "deposed" the gloss there says, "He is said to have deposed because he consented with those who deposed," that is, by the authority of the people, who thought the king should be deposed, he deposed that king. And in that way an archbishop or bishop could depose some king, not by reason of their spiritual office, but by the authority of the people who conferred such power on them.
To the third some say that the pope transfers the Roman Empire not as the successor of blessed Peter, but by the authority of the Romans, who granted him such power.
To the fourth some say that the emperor who first swore an oath to the pope swore it to him out of devotion or humility, or by an ordinance of the Romans; and therefore his predecessors, who did not swear to the pope, did not in any way withhold anything due to him because of his succession from blessed Peter, because they were not at all obliged to swear to him.
To the fifth they say that the Roman pope does not have the temporal jurisdiction he is known to have by succession from blessed Peter, because then he would not have greater temporal jurisdiction in one region than in another, just as blessed Peter did not: yet this is known to be false. The pope therefore has temporal jurisdiction in various regions, not by reason of succession, but by grant of the faithful. This is Bernard's opinion, as is said elsewhere, And when it is said that the pope does not have more power than blessed Peter had, they say that in respect of spiritual things the pope does not have more power than blessed Peter had, bur in respect of temporal things he has more power, just as he is richer than blessed Peter was.
From the above it is gathered that blessed Peter did not receive from Christ any temporal kingdom. Therefore neither did Christ have any temporal kingdom.
The eighth argument for the above assertion is as follows. Christ was the model and exemplar of all Christian perfection; therefore, whatever belongs to perfection and was advantageous to the faithful,
Christ practiced. But it belongs to perfection to abandon a temporal kingdom, just as it belongs to perfection to avoid ecclesiastical offices; for to seek secular or ecclesiastical offices is known to Wilham of Ockham belong to imperfection. Now it was advantageous to the faithful that Christ should despise every secular office. Therefore Christ did not have any secular office, either royal or other; therefore Christ was not a king in temporal matters.
But perhaps someone will object against the foregoing argument that Christ did not practice all the things thar belong to perfection.
For (as has been mentioned) to avoid ecclesiastical offices is known to belong to the perfection of humility to this extent, that only those who avoid ecclesiastical offices are regarded as worthy of those very ecclesiastical offices, as blessed Gregory testifies. As we read in 8, q. 1, ¢. /n senipiuris, he says, "Just as a position of rule should be denied to those who desire it, so it should be offered to thesc who avoid it." And yet Christ did not refuse a position of rule; therefore Christ did not practice all the things that belong to perfection, Therefore from the premise that it belongs to perfection to abandon temporal kingdoms it cannot be inferred that Christ was not a secular king, or a king in secular matters.
But this objection is excluded, since in the second premise it is added, "and was advantageous to the faithful." For Christ did do the things that belong to perfection and advantage that he taught to others. But for Christ to abandon a position of spiritual rule was of no advantage, but would have harmed the faithful, and for Christ to keep a position of spiritual rule was of great advantage.
And for Christ to have a temporal kingdom but in no way involve himself in the temporal kingdom would have been of no advantage.
It was therefore fitting that Christ should keep a position of spiritual rule and not have a temporal kingdom; and thus it is clear that Christ did not have a temporal kingdom. ii] However, since a difference is found between ruling and being lord (or having lordship and ownership) of temporal things, now that it has been shown that Christ was not a king in temporal matters in the sense that someone is called "king" from the supreme mode of ruling temporally, the attackers try, secondly, to show that Christ as mortal man was not a lord having lordship and ownership of all temporal things, {a} first by authoritative texts and [b] second by arguments. lia) First, therefore, they show this by the authority of Christ himself, who says in Matthew 8[:20}, "Foxes have heles, and the . birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to gb The Work ofNinety Days lay his head." From these words we gather evidently that Christ did not have his own lodging, and consequently did not have ownership and lordship of ail things.
But perhaps someone will say that it cannot be inferred from the above words that Christ did not have a lodging in respect of lordship and ownership. This is shown as follows. Christ uses "have" in the same way when he says affirmatively, "Foxes have holes," etc., and when he says negatively, "But the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head": otherwise Christ would be using the same word in the same sentence equivocally. Bue when he says, "The foxes have holes," "have" is not used for the mode of having in respect of ownership and tordship, but for the mode of having in respect of a custom of staying or remaining or resting.
Therefore, when he says, "The Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head," "have" is not used for having in respect of lordship or ownership, but in respect of a custom of remaining or resting; that is, "The Son of Man does not have a lodging in which he customarily dwells, as foxes have holes in which they customarily dwell."
But this objection does not succeed, according to them. For according to the tradition of the saints, and especially of Saint Clement, as we read in dist. 23, c. Relatum, divine Scripture must be understood as it is expounded by the holy Fathers. But according to the exposition of the saints, when Christ said, "Bure the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head," he was speaking of the mode of having in respect af lordship or ownership, as the gloss attests.
It says there, in the person of Christ, "I am so poor that ] do not have even a lodging, and I do not use my own shelter." From these words we gather clearly that it was because of poverty that he did not have a lodging. But not to have a lodging in respect of the custom of living there does not necessarily result from poverty, just as rich men traveling do not while they travel have a lodging in respect of the custom of living therc, since they move around, and yet they have great riches, Since, therefore, Christ said the above words by reason of poverty, it follows that he meant thaz he did not have a lodging in respect of lordship or ownership.
Again, although a king who customarily travels around his kingdom, going from place to place, could say that he did not have a lodging in respect of a custom of living there, he nevertheless could not say that he used another's shelter. But according to the William af Ockham gloss, Christ used another's shelter; therefore the shelter Christ used was not his in respect of lordship or ownership.
And when it is said chat then in the same sentence Christ would have used the same word equivocally, they say that Scripture often does this, as Innocent IE proves, Exira, De summa Trinitate et fide catholica, c. Dampnamus, by these two texts: "I wish that they should be one in us, just as we are one," and "Be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect." In the first of these "one" used twice is taken equivocally, and in the second the word "perfect" used twice is taken in the first and second occurrences in different meanings.
The second text by which the same assertion is proved is taken from the prophet Zacharias. In chapter 9[:9], speaking of Christ, he says, "Rejoice greatly, daughter of Sion, shout for joy, daughter of Jerusalem. Bchold, your king will come to you, just and a savior; he is poor, and riding upon an ass, and upona colt, the foal of an ass." These werds establish that although Christ was a king
(not indeed in temporal matters but in spiritual), yet he was poor, and consequently he did not have lordship and ownership of all temporal things; for if he had had particular lordship and ownership of all temporal things he would have been a richer man than ever existed.
Fhe third text is taken from the second Ictter of blessed Paul to the Corinthians, chapter 8 [2 Corinthians 8:9—-10]. He writes to them thus: "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, whereas he was rich, he became needy for your sakes, that through his poverty you might be rich. And in this I give some advice," etc. These words clearly establish that for our sakes Christ became poor and needy. But someone wha is lord of all temporal things by right of particular ownership is not poor and needy; therefore Christ was not lord of all temporal things. Augustine also manifestly asserts this, commenting on the Apostle's text; he says,
'He was made needy, he says, to this extent, that he did not have what foxes have." And Bernard, treating of the above words in his
"Letter to the Brothers of the Mount of God," says, "Whereas he was rich, he became a poor man for our sakes, and he who gave the commandment of voluntary poverty condescended to demonstrate the model in himself." From these words it is clear that Christ demonstrated in himself the model of that voluntary poverty of which he gave the commandment. But he gave a commandment
The Work ofNinety Days of voluntary poverty through lack of lordship and ownership; therefore he demonstrated in himself the model of voluntary poverty through lack of lordship and ownership. From this it follows evidently that he was not lord of all temporal things by right of ownership, The fourth text is taken from the Psalmist, who says [Psalm
39:18] in the person of Christ, "But | am a beggar, and a poor man," The gloss here says, "Christ says this of himself in the form of a servant, so that no ene will arrogate to himself the glory of that rejoicing." Therefore Christ as man was a poor man, and consequently did not have universal lordship of temporal things.
The fifth text is taken from Lamentations 3{:1], where Jeremias says in the person of Christ, "J am a man seeing my own poverty."
From these words it is clear that Christ was a poor man, and consequently he did not have universal lordship of things. And that Jeremias did say these words in the person of Christ is clear from the gloss in that place, which says: "Although it seems to befir all, nevertheless it is understood more excellently of Christ, in whom, just as all things excel, so also that seeing... Just as the poverty of Christ is more glorious, so this seeing of poverty is more profound." Jeremias therefore said the above words in the person of Christ, showing his very great poverty.
The sixth text is taken from a decision of the Church, included in the decretal Exit, in which the pope writes by way of definition:
"We say that such renunciation of ownership of all things, both individually and also in common, for God's sake, is meritorious and holy; Christ, also, showing the way of perfection, taught it by word and confirmed it by example." By these words it is most clearly asserted that Christ confirmed by example the renunciation of ownership of all things, and thus he renounced ownership of ail things; and consequently he did not have universal lordship of all things. And from these [words] the attackers infer (as was touched on above, chapter g) that either he [John] is a heretic or Nicholas IIT is a heretic. And if he is a heretic he is not a true pope; and if Nicholas IIE was a heretic, he [John] was never a true pope; and consequently, whether he is a heretic or a Catholic, he js not now a true pope.
The seventh text is taken from a letter of blessed Jerome to Nepotian. He says, "It is disgraceful for the lictors of consuls and soldiers to keep watch before the doors of a priest of the crucified
William of Ockham and poor Lord, who ate others' bread." From these words it is quite clear that Christ was a poor man and ate others' bread, and consequently he did not have universal lordship of ali temporal things.
The eighth is also from Jerome, writing to Heliodorus. He says, "He who is poor with Christ is rich enough"; therefore Christ was a poor man.
The ninth is from Gregory Nazienzen, who says, "I will foliow the footsteps of him who for our sakes became poor, whereas he was rich': therefore Christ, since he was a poor man, did not have universal lordship of temporal things.
The tenth is from Chrysostom, who says, commenting on the epistle to the Hebrews: "Let no one argue about poverty as the cause of many evils or make reproaches of Christ, who called it a perfection ~ 'If you wish to be perfect' etc. For this he himself said in words, showed in deeds, and taught through his disciples,"
Therefore, according to him, Christ was a poor man.
The eleventh is also from Chrysostom, in the place cited above.
He says: "Do you wish to hear the praises of poverty? Christ professed it and said, 'The Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.'" From these words it is clear that Christ did not have lordship of all things.
The twelfth is also from Chrysostom. Commenting on Christ's words in Matthew 8, "The Son of Man has nowhere," etc., he says: "See how the Lord demonstrated in deeds the poverty he had taught. He did not have table, candlestick, house, or any other thing of that kind." From these words it is clear that Christ was so poor that he did not have table or candlestick or house, etc.
From this it follows evidently that he did not have universal lordship of all temporal] things.
The thirteenth is from Bernard, commenting on the text of Luke (2:42], "When Jesus was twelve years old." He says, "Se that you would conform, O Lord, to our poverty in every way, you begged alms from door to door, like one of the crowd of paupers." Christ therefore begged alms from door to door, out of voluntary poverty, and consequently he did not have universal lordship of all things.
The fourteenth is from Anselm, On the Sarramenis. He says, "Christ was so poor that when he came into the world he was born not in his own but in another's house, and when born was roo The Work ofNinety Days put, because of the poverty of the place, into the brute animals' manger, and living in the world had nowhere to lay his head, and dying had nothing to cover his nakedness, and dead had no winding sheet and no tomb or place wherc his dead body might be laid."
These Jwords] establish evidently that Christ did not have lordship and ownership of alt temporal things, for if he had had such lordship, he would have been born in his own home, and living in the world he would have had as his own many lodgings — indeed ail lodgings ~ where he could have laid his head, and dying he would have had something of his own to cover his nakedness, and when he was dead his body would have been laid nowhere else than in a sepulcher and place of Christ's own.
By these texts, therefore, and by others almost beyond counting, which for brevity's sake I omit, it is shown evidently that Christ as mortal man did not have from the instant of his conception universal lordship of all the things of this werld.
[ii.b] Second this same assertion is plainly proved by arguments based on the divine Scriptures and authoritative texts of the holy fathers. The first argument is as follows. All things relating to perfection and to the advantage of the faithful chat Christ taught,
"he himself did. But to renounce lordship and ownership of tempora! riches pertains to perfection and te the advantage of the faithful, and Christ taught this renunciation; therefore he himself observed this renunciation; and consequently he did not have lordship and ownership of all riches. The major [premise] is proved in many ways. First by the authority of Luke in Acts 1[:1]. He says, "The first discourse 1 made, O Theophilus, concerning all things that Jesus began to do and to teach"; therefore Christ did the things he taught. Also, in Matthew 5{:19] Christ himself says, "Therefore anyone who has weakened one of the least of these commandments, and has taught men to do so, will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." But Christ was not the least in the kingdom of heaven but the greatest; therefore he did not weaken the things he taught.
Also, Christ did not do anything for which he reproached others; otherwise it would have been fitting to apply to him the text of the wise man that says, "It is shameful to a teacher when his fault contradicts him." But Christ reproached the Pharisees because they did not do the things they taught; he says, to their reproach, "For they say, and do not do" [Matthew 23:3]. Therefore Christ did
FOI William of Ockham the things he taught. Also, Chrysestom clearly asserts in the tenth and twelfth texts quoted above that Christ did in particular the things he taught about poverty. Bernard also testifies to this same point, as is clear above in the sequel to the third text. Thus, therefore, the major fpremise] is proved.
The minor includes three parts. The first is that to renounce jordship and ownership of riches pertains to perfection; the second is that it was advantageous to the faithful that Christ should renounce ownership and lordship of riches; the third is that Christ taught such renunciation of riches.
The first part is clear. First, because Christ said, "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell all you have, and give to the poor" [Marthew,
19:21}; therefore to renounce lordship of riches for God's sake pertains to perfection.
Also, because every one of the essential vows of perfect religious orders pertains to perfection; therefore the vow of poverty pertains to perfection; and consequently to renounce lordship of riches for God's sake pertains to perfection.
The second part, namely that it was advantageous to the faithful that Christ should renounce lerdship and ownership of riches, is quite clear. For by this means he gave an effective example to the faithful of contempt for temporal things, and the faithful would have gained no spiritual advantage from his retaining of riches; therefore it was advantageous and exemplary to the faithful that Christ should renounce the lordship of riches. And by this the objection is resolved, if someone should object that Christ did not renounce or avoid prelacy and the highest priesthood, and yet the avoidance of ecclesiastical offices, even the papacy, pertains to perfection, and Christ taught that one should avoid such offices when he said, in Matthew 18[:3], "Unless you are converted and become like little children, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven," and in Matthew 23[:12], "Whoever humbles himself will be exalted"; therefore Christ did not do all that he taught that pertains to perfection - this objection,
| say, is easily answered: for just as Christ came for the sake of our salvation, so he did those things that were advantageous for our salvation; but it was advantageous for our salvation that Christ should renounce lordship of all riches, and it was not advantageous that he should renounce every prelacy and the highest priesthood; and therefore he did the one and not the other.
The Work ofNinety Days The third part, namely that Christ taught abdication of lordship and ownership of riches, is quite clear, when Christ said to a young man, Matthew rg[:21], "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell all you have, and give to the poor, and come, and follow me."
From these words we gather evidently that Christ taught us to seil riches and give to the poor. But when riches are sold and given to the poor they are renounced in respect of ownership and lordship; therefore Christ taught renunciation of the lordship of riches. Also, in the same place Christ said to the apostles, "Amen, I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man will sit on the throne of his majesty, you who have left all things and followed me will also sit," etc. There, by approving and praising the apostles' mode of abandoning everything, Christ explicitly taught that sarne mode of abandoning everything. But the apostles abandoned the things they abandoned in respect of lordship and ownership, therefore Christ taught renunciation of the ownership and lordship of temporal things. Also, in Matthew 1o[:9] Christ said to the apostles,
'Do not possess gold or silver," etc. there he expressly taught renunciation of lordship of gold and silver, and of money. Also, in Matthew 6{:19] Christ said to his disciples, "Do not lay up treasure for yourselves on earth"; there he taught renunciation of the lordship of treasures. In many other places also Christ taught contempt of the world and renunciation of the lordship of riches.
Therefore, even if (which, however, is not true) Christ had not taught renunciation of the lordship, both particular and common, of all temporal things, nevertheless it is certain that he taught renunciation of the lordship of treasures, of gold and silver, and of great riches. From this and [the premise] taken as the major it follows evidently that Christ renounced the lordship and ownership of at least great riches, and consequently did not have universal lordship of all temporal things.
The second argument for the same assertion is this. The poverty of religious is not greater or higher or more perfect than the poverty of Christ. But religious renounce ownership and jordship of riches, at least particular lordship; therefore Christ also renounced at least particular lordship of riches. And it is certain that no one other than Christ had a lordship of aii temporal things in common with Christ; therefore Christ did not have either particular or common universal lordship of temporal things. The William of Ockham major [premise] is manifest: for alf religious imitate Christ in poverty; therefore no religious are poorer than Christ. And the minor premise needs no proof.
The third argument is this. In appointing blessed Peter as his vicar, when he said, "Feed my sheep," Christ entrusted to blessed
Peter all things pertaining to Christ that were necessary for feeding the sheep. Therefore since temporai things are useful for feeding the sheep, if Christ had lordship and ownership of all temporal things, it follows that Christ cntrusted all temporal things to the control and ordering of blessed Peter; from this it follows that all temporal things belonged to blessed Peter's control and ordering: which is absurd. For then all temporal things would belong to the Roman pontiff, blessed Peter's successor, which is known to be false.
Here it remains to prove two things. The first is that not ail temporal things belonged to the control or ordering of blessed
Peter, the second is that not all temporal things belong to the control or ordering of blessed Peter's successors. The first is clearly proved, first, by the text of Ambrose in his book De Offictis, "He who sent the apostles withour gold, gathered the churches without gold." By this we are given to understand that gold did not at all belong to those who with the assistance of divine power first gathered the churches; and consequently gold did not belong to blessed Peter, who was the principal gatherer of the churches.
Peter himself testifies to this, saying, "Silver and gold have I none"; these words plainly imply that the control of all things did not at all belong to him. Also, if by Christ's commission all temporal things had belonged to blessed Peter, and (according to him [John]} after the conversion of the Jews related in Acts 2 the apostles shared all they had with the Jewish converts, and vice versa, and thus al] things became common: therefore blessed Peter shared ali temporal things with the Jews and others; and consequently all temporal things, cven those of the unbelievers, were then common to them: which is absurd. Again, if all temporal things were entrusted by Christ to Peter, therefore Peter was either, as to temporal matters, superior to Caesar and other kings and rulers and also to anyone else at all who had property, or he was inferior, or he was equal. If he was superior in temporal matters, therefore all who did not acknowledge their temporal things as being from The Work ofNinety Days blessed Peter were unjust detainers of temporal things, and thus
Caesar and all men in the world who had property and did not acknowledge their temporal things [as being} from blessed Peter would have been unjust detainers: which is absurd, especially in reference to the faithful, who were subject to blessed Peter in spiritual matters and yet did not acknowledge their temporal things
[as being] from blessed Peter. Nor can it be said that blessed Peter was inferior in temporal matters to all who had property, because then either Christ would have been inferior to all in temporal matters or he would have subjected blessed Peter in temporal matters to all those who had property: each of which is absurd.
Nor can it be said that blessed Peter was equal in temporal matters to all who had property, because then no one would have had a licit power to sell and alienate his things without the explicit consent of blessed Peter, and vice versa, because if two have some kind of right in some thing, one does nat licitly sell the thing witheut the other's consent, It is clear, thereforc, that temporal things did not by any means all pertain to the contro) or management of blessed Peter.
The second, namely that temporal things do not by any means all pertain to the control or management of blessed Peter's successors ~ that is, insofar as they are blessed Peter's successors — is proved. For blessed Bernard expressly testifies to this effect in his book On Consideration, to Pope Eugenius, He says: "What else did the holy Apostle bequeath to you? 'What I have, that I give to you.' What is that? I know one ching: it is not gold or silver, since he himself says, 'Gold and silver have I none' [Acts 3:6].
. You may perhaps claim these things on some other grounds, but not by apostolic right.' These words clearly establish that the pope does not have control of gold, silver and other riches by apostolic right, that is, insofar as he is blessed Peter's successor.
Whom the pope had abundant riches from, Bernard explains in the same book. He says: "This is Peter, who is not known ever to have appeared bedecked with jewels or silks, or covered with gold, or riding a white horse, or attended by a knight, or hedged round by shouting servants. Yet he thought it quite possible without these things to fulfill the salutary command, 'If you love me, feed my sheep' (John 21:15]. For in these things you are the successor not of Peter but of Constantine." From these words we gather
William of Ockham that in abundance of riches the pope has succeeded, not blessed Peter, but Constantine. This implies that the pope is not Christ's vicar in any temporal matters whatever. For no temporal matters can be found in which he can more be called Christ's vicar than in others, and thus he is Christ's vicar either in all temporal matters er in none: but he is nat Christ's vicar in all temporal matters, as has been shown; therefore he is Christ's vicar in no temporal matters. From this it follows that Christ, as man, did not have ownership and lordship of all temporal things. And let these arguments for the above assertion suffice at present, because afterwards it will be shown that Christ as man did not have lordship and ownership of any temporal thing.
[On the letter] It remains, therefore, to ran through the letter and answer each of the texts quoted in favor of the contrary assertion.
That he did have lordship of temporal things: Here he takes "lordship" for the lordship that is ownership, the ownership introduced after the sin of our first parents; for he does not take
"lordship" for the lordship conferred on the human race, because then Christ would not have been lord of all temporal things in another way than anyone besides Christ — which he means to deny.
Testifies in many places: Rather, it does so in na place. For instance, many prophets prophesied that he mould be the king of the fsraelite people. It is true that many prophesied that he would be king, not only of the Israelite people according to the flesh but also of all peoples who would believe in him. And thus David said, "Say to the peoples, that the Lord has reigned." Thus they say that it must be known that Christ was king of all, both of the good and of the bad, according to his divinity, but according to his humanity he was king of the believers, whether these believers were Jews according to the flesh or gentiles: all of these believers, however, and they alone, were Jews according to the spirit. And consequently would have lordship of a kingdom: They prophesied that he would have lordship of a kingdom in some way, namely in a spiritual, not a secular or temporal way.
"See, the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lamgiver, the Lord is our king: he will come and will save us": This text is against him
(Jahn], because it cannot be understood of a secular or temporal judge, or of a secular or temporal lawgiver, or of temporal salvation; therefore, similarly, it should not be understood of a temporal
The Work ofNinety Days kingdom. That it cannot be understood of a temporal or secular judge when it says, "The Lord is our judge," has been clearly proved above by the text of Luke 12[:14], when Christ said, "Who appointed me judge or divider over you?" For we nowhere read that Christ judged concerning tempora! matters; therefore he was not a judge in tempora! matters. Also, when Isaias said, "The Lord is our lawgiver," it cannot be understood of a temporal lawgiver, for we nowhere read that he enacted laws concerning any temporal matters whatever: unless perhaps you say that he enacted a law concerning temporal matters when he taught that such things should be altogether despised; but such a law should be regarded not as temporal but as spiritual, Also, when it is said, '"He will come and will save us," this cannot be understood of temporal saivation, since he said to his followers, as we read in Matthew 24[:9], "They will hand you over to tribulation and will kill you." Christ therefore did not come to save the Jews, whether believers or non-believers, temporally: not the believers, since believers underwent "every tribulation," and many underwent temporal death with him, and not the non-believers, since because of sins committed against him they were destroyed by the Romans. Since, therefore, the text of Isaias cannot be understood either of a temporal judge or of a temporal lawgiver or of temporal salvation, it can in no way be shown through it that Isaias prophesied that Christ would be a temporal king; but, just as Christ was a judge spiritually, and a lawgiver spiritually, and will save believers spiritually, so also spiritually he was king over those who believed in him.
"And a king will reign": These words of Jeremias also should not be understood of a temporal king, just as Jeremias also did not mean that Christ would reign temporally when he said, "will reign." For no reason is apparent why Jeremias, in saying "a king will reign," any more meant that Christ would be a temporal king than that he would reign temporally, "And this is the name they will call kim, The Lord our Just One": Here "lord" is taken, speaking of Christ insofar as he was a mortal man, not for a lord of temporal things, but for a lord on account of the prerogative of the union of his human nature to a divine subject, and of spiritual authority, sanctity, and other graces. To whom "'the God of heaven" gave "a kingdom that will forever not be scattered". These words of Daniel cannot be understood of a temporal kingdom, because every such
Wilham of Ockham kingdom will be scattered; but they should be understood of a spiritual kingdom — that is, of the Church of Christ, which will never be scattered, but, with all harmful influences excluded, will be perfected, confirmed, strengthened, and established at the end of the world. "Behold, your king will come fo you, just," etc; Here
Zacharias speaks of a king spiritually. He shows this when he adds, "He is poor," etc., from which it is quite clear that he was not a king in temporal matters, because a temporal kingdom cannot be well ruled without riches. "f am made king by him': David spoke this in the person of Christ, speaking of a king spiritually. He shows this well, making clear the mode of ruling, when he adds,
"Preaching his commandment."
Christ reigned, therefore, by preaching and teaching and establishing sacraments, not temporally: and thus he was a king spiritually, not in temporal matters. dn the whole of the psalm "Eructavit" he speaks of that king: It is certain that that psalm cannot be understood literally of Christ insofar as he was a man. For when it says, "Gird your sword upon your thigh, O most mighty one. Set out, go forward prosperously, and reign... your arrows are sharp, under you peopies will fall...
Your throne, QO God, is for ever and ever... God, your God, has anointed you... with myrrh and aloes and cassia, your garments, from the ivory houses, out of which the daughters of kings have delighted you in your honor. The queen has stood at your right hand, in gilded clothing... In place of your fathers, sons are born to you; you will appoint them rulers over all the earth," etc. [Psalm
44] — this cannot be expounded literally, so that the foregoing words should be understood of a material sword, temporal prosperity and a temporal mode of reigning, of material arrows, a material throne, a bodily anointing, material garments, of flesh-and-blood daughters of kings, a flesh-and-blood queen and flesh-and-blood sens, and temporal princes; and consequently that psalm does not speak of a temporal king. And when the psalm speaks of his bride, the Church, it does not speak of a flesh-and-blood bride of Christ but of a spiritual; therefore similarly, it speaks of a spiritual king, not a temporal one, Also, here he [John] says that the Church is the bride of which the foregoing psalm speaks, but that bride is a queen, but is not a queen temporally; therefore she is queen only spiritually; therefore, the king of which it speaks must also be regarded as king, not temporally, but spiritually.
The Work ofNinety Days And many other psalms speak... of such a king: Just as other psalms speak of Christ the king, sa they speak of bis rule, saying that he reigns. But the other psalms cdo not speak of a temporal rule of Christ but of a spiritual, and they do not say that he reigns temporally but spiritualiy; therefore from those psalms it cannot be inferred that Christ was a temporal king. This could be shown by running through the psalms that speak of Christ the king. But he concedes that Christ did not reign temporally except over very few; this will be discussed below, and therefore nothing will be said of it at present.
"See King Solemon," etc.: Those words as applied te Christ should be understood of a king spiricually, just as the words that follow -— when there is reference to "the diadem with which his mother crowned him on the day of his betrothal, and in the day of his heart's joy" — should not be understood of a material diadem, a material coronation, a carnal betrothal, or a worldly joy. "The Lord God mill give him the throne of David his father, and he will reign," etc.: Just as these words are not understood of a material throne, because Christ never sat on the material throne of David, so they should not be understood of a temporal kingdom or of a temporal mode of reigning. Thus they say that it follows from the interpretation given by the attacked of the foregoing words that some temporal kingdom will last in perpetuity, since it says there explicitly, "He will reign in Jacob's house forever, and his kingdom will have no end": if, therefore, Christ's kingdom was temporal, and his kingdom will have no end, therefore some temporal kingdom will have no end, and consequently there will never be a general resurrection of the dead. The foregoing words should therefore be understood of a spiritual kingdom, which is the Church, which will never have an end but will be crowned on the day of judgment and will continue happily in perpetuity.
"This day is born to you a savior, wha is Christ the Lord," thai is, hing and lord: This is conceded of a king spiritually understood, and of 2 lord on account of his very great prerogatives, not on account of temporal lordship. 'Here is he whe has been born king of the Jews?": Although the three wisc men, not having been, as it were, instructed fully and explicitly concerning Christ's manner of reigning, may have meant a temporal king, nevertheless those words should be understood, according to the truth of the matter,
William of Ockham of a spiritual king. "You are the son of God, you are the king of Istae?": The first clause is understood of Christ according to his divinity, and the second can also be understood of Christ according to his divinity; and equally it can bc understood of him according to his humanity, but then it is said of a king understood spiritually, not temporally, "Fesus afNazareth, king of the Jews': Just as these words, inasmuch as they have truth, should be understood of those whe were Jews not carntally but spiritually (according to the gloss), so they should be understood of a spiritual, nor a temporal king. This our Savter alsa confessed, in Fohn 18: They say that the Savior did not confess absolutely that he was king but with a certain qualification, namely: not in the way the Jews meant but in another way. Therefore
Christ, answering Pilate, said, "You say that ] am a king. For this I was born, and for this 1 came into the world, to bear testimony to the truth": there he declared that he was a king in another way than the accusers meant. They prove this by a text of Augustine, who seems plainly to assert the above opinion in commenting on the text of John, "You say that I am a king." He says, "Not that he was afraid to confess that he was a king, bur it is balanced in such a way that he neither denies that he is a king nor confesses that he is a king of such a kind that his kingdom is thought te be of this world."
"My kingdom is not ofthis world': According to them these words should be understood in the same way as Christ's words in John
15[:1g9], when he said to the apostles, ''You are not of this world, but I have chosen you from the world," and in chapter 17 [John
17:16] he says of them, "They are not of the world": these words should not be interpreted as if the apostles were not begotten by men of this world; but just as the apostles are said to be not of the world because they are not worldly, living in a wortdly way, so Christ's kingdom was not of this world, that is, was not worldly, to be ruled in a worldly way. Making an inference from this, Pilate said, "You are a king, then?': They say that Pilate did not infer this from "My kingdom is not of this world," as will be seen below. And Jesus answered, "My kingdom 15 not from hence": They say that here he reports the Evangelist's words falsely. For Jesus did not, because of Pilate's conclusion stated above ("You are a king, then?"), answer, "My kingdom is not from hence"; rather,
The Work ofNinety Days he answered, "You say that I am a king; for this I was born," etc.
Thus, so that it may be known that he reports the Evangelist's words falsely, they quote the words of the text, as follows: " "What have you done?' Jesus answered, 'My kingdom is not of this world.
For if my kingdom were of this world my servants would certainly fight so that [ would not be handed over to the Jews. But as it is my kingdom is not from hence.' Pilate therefore said to him 'You are a king, then?' Jesus answered, 'You say that I am a king. For this I was born,' " etc. it is clear, then, that from the words, "My kingdom is not from hence," Pilate drew the conclusion, "You are a king, then?" And therefore, by the words "My kingdom is not of this world, my kingdom is not from hence," Pilate was not fully satisfied concerning the accusation of the Jews who said that Christ made himself a king to Caesar's injury; as Augustine says (in the same place): "It was said, 'You say...,' as if to say: 'Being carnal, you speak carnally.'" Accordingly, after Pilate said, drawing his conclusion, "You are a king, then?" understanding carnally, Christ informed Pilate more fully how he was not a king to Cacsar's injury, saying: "You say," understanding carnally, "that | am a king. For this I was born," etc., as if to say: "It is trac that I am a king, but not carnally, as you carnally understand; because I am not a king temporally to Caesar's injury, as the Jews falsely impose on me, but / am a king spiritually, because for this
I was born and for this I have come into the world, to bear testimony to the truth" - as if to say, "I have not come to reign temporally, but | have come to bear testimony to the truth, teaching men to turn to the truth." Qn account of this answer of Christ,
Pilate, asking "What is truth?? and not waiting for Christ's answer, "went out to the Jews, and said to them, 'I find no case against him,'" as if to say (questioning and diligently examining him}: "He denies that he is a king temporally to Caesar's injury, but he says that he is a king in another way; and you cannot prove that he has made himself a temporal king to Caesar's injury. Therefore I say to you that I find no case against him."
"My kingdom is not from hence': That is, "My kingdom does not relate to worldly persons." He did not say, "It is net here": This is true, because physically his kingdom was here, but in the mind it was in the heavens. As if to say, "J do not have my kingdom from the world' — as indeed he did not have tt, but rather from Gad: That Ili William of Ockham seems to have been Pilate's understanding, which he had from the foregoing words, "My kingdom is not of this world, my kingdom is not from hence"; and therefore he still doubted whether Christ had made himself king te Caesar's injury. For if Christ had made himself a temporal king, even if he had said that he had his kingdom from God, Pilate would have thought no less — imdeed perhaps more strongly — that Christ had injured Caesar than if he had said that he had a temporal kingdom from the world; and therefore, wishing to be informed more fully of whar Christ intended, he drew the conclusion, "You are a king, then?" as if to say, "What does it matter to me from whom you say you had the kingdom? Teil me whether you think that you have a temparal kingdom to Caesar's prejudice (whether from God, or from another}; because, if you confess that you are a king temporally and that you have a temporal kingdom (whether from God or from anyone else at all}, since you do not have a kingdom from Caesar,
I will condemn you as being Caesar's enemy." Accordingly, Christ said, explaining more fully in what way he was a king, "For this was I born," ete.; and frem that moment Pilate did not interpret those words im that way. The meaning, therefore, that he [the attacked] devises for Christ's words is not, they say, the meaning of Christ's words; that is what was stated before.
"(4s the angel had foretold to his mother': Here also, they say, he interprets wrongly the angel's words to the mother of Christ, as has been explained before. "God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus": Peter calls him Lord on account of the prerogative of union, holiness, and spiritual authority and other graces; and he calls him "Christ" on account of a spiritual, not a bodily, anointing.
That he did not have his kingdom from the world, but from Ged: This is true — of a spiritual kingdom, not of a temporal one. God made
Jesus "Christ", that is, "king": This can be conceded of a king understoed spiritually and not temporally. Fer by "christ" we understand "king": By "christ" in Scripture we understand not only a temporal king, but also a king spiritually, and also priests; thus, when the Psalmist says, in the person of God, "Do not touch my christs" [Psalm 1o4:15], by "christs" is meant there not only temporal kings but also other saints of God. Since it was the custom to anoint kings: It is true that it was the custom to anoint temporal kings bodily; and therefore, since Christ was not anointed bodily,
The Work ofNinety Days it cannot be inferred from the premise that he is called "anointed" that he was a temporal king, It was the custom also to anoint priests and prophets. We read of the anointing of priests in many places in the divine Scriptures; we read of the anointing of prophets in 3 Kings 19[:16], where the Lord says to Elias, "And you will anoint Eliseus, the son of Saphat, of Abelmeula, to be prophet in your place." From the fact, therefore, that it was the custom to anoint kings, and that Jesus was anointed, it cannot be inferred that he was a temporal king.
"Shows... that Christ's kingdom ts not earthly but heavenly": Here Rabanus calls a heavenly kingdom those who believe in Christ believers in heavenly things. Also, Peter implies by the words above that Christ was made lord and king as man subsisting in a divine subject: This can be conceded, understanding that he is lord on account of the prerogative of graces, and a king spiritually, not temporally. Since he was made king and lord as crucified: Here he is inconsistent with himself For afterwards he will say that Christ had kingdom and universal iordship from the instant of his conception, but here he says that he was made king and lord as crucified; these two plainly conflict. For if he was made king and lord as crucified, therefore before he was crucified he was not king and lord; just as it follows, "Christ was made man as incarnate, therefore before incarnation he was not man"; so also it follows, "Peter as man was made rational, therefore before he was a man he was not rational." God granted him both kingship and lordship also as man. This ean be conceded, understanding kingdom spiritually and lordship on account of the prerogative of graces. "Christ the Lord," that is, king and Jord: Although it can be conceded in accordance with a correct interpretation that Christ was king and lord, nevertheless it cannot be inferred from the premise that anyone is ''christ" [anointed] that he is a king, especially a temporal king, because many have been "christs" who were not kings: this does not need proof because it is evident. Whar the archangel Gabriel had said, etc.: The whole of this can be conceded if it is correctly understood, namely of a spiritual kingdom. "The Lord Jesus Christ is a irue king and a true priest": Augustine meant this statement speaking spiritually of a king. "As man, indeed, Christ was made both king and priest, to whom 'God gave the throne ofDavid his father, and his reign will have no end': Just as the angel does not speak here of a material
William af Ockham throne of David and does not mean that some temporal kingdom will have no end, so he does not refer to a temporal king. Also, it seems that the Savior was lord of all temporal things: This can be conceded, taking it according to his divinity and not according to his humanity, as he [the attacked] takes it. "Send forth, O Lard, the Lamb, the dominator of the earth': These words of Isaias cannot be understood of Christ according to his humanity according as "dominator" is said from dominating temporally. For just as God is not called creator before he created, so no one is called dominator before he dominates. But it is manifest - and he {the attacked] concedes it, as will appear later - that Christ according to his humanity did not dominate the earth; therefore he was not dominator of the earth, though, according to him [John], he did behave as a lord in a certain few matters. These words must therefore be understood of Christ according to his divinity. "For from you will go forth ke who will be the dominator in IsraeP': These words of Micheas must be understood of Christ according to his divinity, just as the words that follow, when it is said, "And his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity," cannot be understood of Christ except according to his divinity. "The Dom:nator, wham you seek": These words must also be understood of Christ according to the form of divinity. "You call me Masier, and Lord': He is called Lord not only according to his divinity, but also according to his humanity: net on account of a lordship of temporal things before the passion, but on account of a prerogative of very many graces. So also knights and others often call the Friars Minor iords on account of the prerogative of religion, though they do not have lordship of any temporal thing. "The Lord has need of them": Here he is called "lord" according to his divinity.
Hence the gloss on this text: "Lord simply of all things, whom the creature should serve." He can also be called "ford" according to his humanity on account of the prerogative of graces. "King of kings and lord of lords": These words can be understood of Christ according to his divinity; or according to some, they are understood of Christ according to his humanity after the resurrection, when
"all power was given" to him "in heaven and on earth" [Matthew 28:18], as they show by means of the words of the text. "And in Fesus Christ, his only son, our Lord": These words are understood of Christ according to his divinity; or they are understood according
The Wark ofNinety Days to his humaniey on account of the prerogative of graces. The same thing is said of the words of the creed sung at mass. But the foregoing, namely kingship and untversal lordship, Jesus had as God from eternity. These words are erroneous, since from them it follows that Christ as God would have been king and lord from eternity, and so the world would have existed from eternity, which is heretical. It must be said, therefore, that, just as God the Father did not have a slave from eternity, so he was not lord or, also, king from eternity, but, from a time, without mutability on his part, he became king and lord through the creation of things; so also Jesus as God did not have kingship and universal lordship from eternity, but from a time, on account of his being one in substance with the Father.
And as man from a tire, namely from the moment of his conception, by God's gift: This was disproved above.
11S A Dialogue, Part lt, Tract i, on the Power of the Pope and Clergy A Dialogue, Part m1, Tract 1, On the Power of the Pope and Clergy Book 2. Is it beneficial for the whole community of the faithful to be subject to and to be under one faithful head, leader, and prelate under Christ? What sort ofperson should a single ruler ofthe Church be? Is it beneficial for the community ofthe faithful to have the power to change an aristocratic regime into a regime similar to a royal regime and vice versa?
1 Ten arguments for the assertion that it is beneficial for the whole congregation of the faithful to be under one faithful head under Christ
2 Four arguments for the assertion that it is not beneficial for the community of the faithful to be under one head under Christ [27 3 An explanation of terms used by Aristotle in his Politics and &thses: the household
6 The kinds of tempered and right constitution descnbed by Aristotle: royal monarchy Constitution or timocracy g Further argument for the assertion that it is more beneficial for the whole community of the faithful to be ruled by one than by many
A Dialogue, Part wt, Tract 3 10 A final argument for the same conclusion tt What sort of person should a single ruler of the Church be?
~—-148 1z An argument against the assertion that someone may be elected highest pontiff, whatever kind of person he may be
13. Two further arguments to prove that no one should rule over all the faithful unless he surpasses them all in wisdom and virtue
14 An argument to prove that, even if no one among the whole Christian people surpassed all the others in virtue and wisdom, it would be better for the Christian people to be ruled by one than by many
15 Reply to the first argument in chapter 2 16 Reply to the argumencs in chapter 12 Reply to the arguments in chapter £3
18 Advantages making it more beneficial for the community of the faithful to be ruled by one rather than many 1g Reply to the third and fourth arguments in chapter 2
20 Ten arguments for the assertion that itis beneficial for the community of the faithful to have the power to change aristocratic government imo the rule ofone highest pontiff and vice versa, according as necessity and the quality ofthe time demand and require one regime or the other
Seven arguments proving that the Church does not have power to change the highest pontificate into an aristocratic regime or into any other whatever
22 Reply to the first argument in chapter 21 Objections to the premise that it is permissible to contravene the words of a commandment of God and of Christ, though not the purpose or intention of the giver of the commandment
24 Replies to the objections in chapter 23 25 Reply to the second argument in chapter 21 26 Replies to the remaining arguments in chapter 21
Replies to the arguments in chapter 20 28 Two arguments for the assertion that it would be permissible in some cases to appoint several primates or patriarchs having no superior, none of whom should be regarded as an apostolic
29 Reply to the second argument in chapter 2 30 Replies to the arguments in chapter 1 IIg ae ees nt RAPAnetghs RRR RAE OEE! BR ERT a TS "a William of Ockham Book 3. To what writings are we bound to give credence, of necessity for salvation?
8 Replies to two arguments that a general council cannot err against the faith g Replies to four further arguments that a general council cannot err against the faith ro Two distinctions by which reply can be made te a further argument that a general council cannot err against the faith
1r Application of the distinctions made in chapter ro Book 4. Did Christ in fact appoint blessed Peter leader and prelate of the other apostles and of all the faithful?
8 Reply t the argument that when Christ commanded Peter, "Feed my sheep," he entrusted to him fonly] the people of Israei g Reply to the argument that Paul was equal to Peter
10 Reply to the argument that Christ committed no authority to Peter but only commanded him to feed others with words and examples and by physical support
11 Reply to the argument that Christ's commission to Peter was indefinite and hence can be understood as not including the apostles
22 Anargument that Peter was superior to the other apostles