Chapter 1
Book z Chapter 1 Student Since this fifth assertion, taking a middle way among the other four, agrees with each of the others in some respects and is understood to disagree in others, I propose to discuss it carefully iu some of its parts and to treat of others to some extent.' Let us therefore make some inquiry about it, beginning with ies first part: namely, whether Christ made blessed Peter the head, leader, and prelate of the other apostles and of all the faithful. For a fuller understanding of this, let us first of all examine by discussion whether it is beneficial for the whole community of the faithful to be subject to and to be under one faithful head, leader, and prelate under Christ. Try to argue first for the affirmative side.
Master That it is beneficial for the whole congregation of the faithful to be under one faithful head under Christ seems provable in many ways.
For [1] it is beneficial for one bady to have one head, because a body without a head is, obviously, imperfect, since it has been
' The five positions discussed in Book 1 are: (1) (hat in both spiritual and temporal matters the pope has by Christ's ordinance such fullness of power that he can de, regularly and in every case, everything not expressly forbidden by divine or natural law; (2) that he bas such fullness of power in spiritual matters but net in temporal; (3) that he has such fuilness of power partly by Christ's ordinance and party by human Jaw; (4) that he does not have such fullness of power, either regularly or occasionally; (5) that he does not have such fullness of power regularly but has it on occasion by divine iaw. In chapter 16 the positive part of the fifth opinion is stated thus: "Christ made blessed Peter the head (caput), leader (prenceps), and prelate (praciatis) of the other apostles and of all the faithful, giving him — regularly, in spiritual matters, in respect of everything that must of necessin, be done or omitted for the sake of ruling the cummunity of the faithful in respect of good morals and all spiritual necessities whatever of the faithful - all power, in those things that would be entrusted to one man without danger but prudently and ta the common advantage, and liberty and jurisdiction, even coercive ~ without any detriment and notable and enormous cost to the temporal rights of emperors, kings, princes, and other laypersons or clerics whomseever that belonged to them by natural law, the law of nations, or civil law, before or after the establishment of the gospel Jaw. And in cemporal matters he gave him regularly only the right of asking for temporal things for his sustenance and for the performance of his office. And this power, whether in spiritual matters or in temporal, the successors of blessed Peter, namely the Roman pontiffs, now have regularly by divine law.
And every power which the supreme pontifis regularh had or have beyond this they held or hold from human ordinance, concession, spotitancous submission, or by express or tacit consent, or because of the weakness, negligence, or wickedness of other men, or from custom, or in some way from human law."
[21 William of Ockham deprived of its principal member, whereas a body with two or more heads seems monstrous. And all the faithful are one body, as the Apostle testifies in Romans 12[:5}: "So we, being many, are, I say, one body in Christ." It is therefore beneficial for all the faithful to be under one head. That head should aot, however, be an unbeliever, because he would wy to infect all the other members, especially in matters relating to the salvation of the soul; he should therefore be a believer, Student That argument seems to fail, since it does not prove that the head should be "under Christ." Indeed it seems to show that all the faithful should ef be under one head under Christ. For Christ is the head of the whole Church, as the Apostle says in Ephesians 1[:22] and manifestly asserts in many other places.
It follows fram this that, since a body with two or more heads should be regarded as monstrous (as the above argument suggests), the whole congregation of the faithful should not be under one head under Christ, but must vcnerate Christ alone as its head.
Master It appears to some that this objection can easily be excluded.
Although Christ is the head of the Church, there must be under Christ another head of the same Church to take care of iv under Christ, since the Church should have a delegate to direct it, someone physically present to it, visibly ruling it and physically accessible to the faithful, when necessary, for various necessities.
Christ does not rule the Church in that way, since {except sometimes on occasion) he rules it only invisibly. Therefore, although
Christ is the head, a mortal faithful man should be the head, though under the head. Yet neither should the body be thought for this reason monstrous, for it is certain that a bishop is the head of his subjects and a king is the head of his subjects, and yet they all have one head, God; therefore, although a natural body would be monstrous if it had two or more physical heads, because one is not the head of the other, nevertheless one mystical body can have many spiritual heads, one under another: and this is not monstrous, but natural, and in many respects beneficial and fitting.
Student Bring forward other arguments for the same conclusion.
Master The same [conclusion] is proved thus. [2] It is beneficial for one fold ta be ruled and fed by one shepherd. The Savior himself seems to suggest this when he says (as we read in John ro|:r6]), "There wilt be one fold and one shepherd." But the A Dialogue, Part ur, Tract 1 whole congregation of the faithful is one fold, as the supreme shepherd himself testifies. In the same place he says, "I have other sheep who are not of this fold; I must bring them in, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one fold," etc.' Therefore it is beneficial for the whole congregation of the faithful to be under one shepherd: not only Christ, who feeds the Church invisibly, but also a believer (not an unbeliever, because he would be a wolf and a thief, scattering, afflicting, and destroying Christ's sheep) who would feed and govern all the faithful perceptibly to the senses.
[3] Further, it is beneficial for every people to be under one rector, as Solomon testifies. In Proverbs 11[:14} he says, "Where there is no governor the people will be ruined." In saying "Where there is no governor," not "Where there are no governors," he seems also to suggest plainly that where there is not one governor the people will be ruined. But the whole congregation of the faithful is one people (though it includes many particular peoples), as John testifies. In the Apocalypse 21:{3] he says, "Behold the dwelling of God with men; he will dwell with them, and they will be his people." Therefore it is beneficial for the whole body of the faithful to be under one head and guvernor.
[4] Again, it is beneficial for a community that cannot be best ruled without a multitude of judges, who can vary among themselves concerning cases and proceedings and also disagree to the peril of the whole community, to be under one supreme rector and head, who can make known to all the truth of judgment. God himself seems to have ordained this among his own people. As we read in Deuteronomy 17[:8], He commanded: "If you perceive that there is among you a difficult and doubtful judgment, between blood and blood, case and case, leprosy and non-leprosy, and you see that the words of the judges within your gates vary, arise, go up to the place that the Lord your God will choose, and you will come to the priests of the levitical race and to the judge who is
[in office] at that time, and you will ask of them, and they will make known to you the truth of judgment." But the community of the faithful, also, with respect to matters peculiar to the Christian religion, which do not at all pertain to unbelieving judges and rectors, cannot suitably be ruled without a multitude of judges,
Wiltam of Ockham since different judges and teachers must be appointed in various provinces, dioceses, and cities, and they can disagree about such cases and proceedings to the peril of the community. It is therefore beneficial for the whole community of the faithful that for such cases it should be under one believing head and rector ~ and not an unbeliever, who would in such cases quite overturn judgment and by no means make known the truth of judgment.
Student The text quoted in that argument seems to militate against the opinion. We gather from it that in such a case recourse must not be had to one head or judge but to many, since it says explicitly,
"You will come to the priests of the levitical race and to the judge": therefore in the Old Law recourse was to be had in such a case to many. This seems to be proved by the words thar follow, when it says, "And you will do whatever they say who preside in the place the Lord will choose... But anyone who is proud and refuses to obey the command of the priest who ministers at that time to your Lord and the decree of the judge, that man will die? By these words we are given to understand, it seems, that in such a case the final decision of the case pertained to many.
Master You arc answered that by Gad's commandment there should have been among the Jewish people one supreme judge, head of all and rector, whether a priest or some other; however, he was obliged to decide major cases with the advice of the priests.
And thus at that time recourse was to be had to one as head and supreme judge and to many as counselors of the head and judge.
Student Bring forward still other arguments for the same conclusion, Master Another possible argument is as follows. [5] It is beneficial for those obliged to agree in one faith and in certain identical rites and observances to have one head who (saving the right of others) may compel, or at least lead, transgressors to such truth; for without such a head they would easily divide into diverse sects and heresies and impermissible observances and rites. But the whole community of Christians is obliged to agree in one faith and in certain identical rites and observances, since, as the Apostle testifies, Ephesians 4[:s], there is "One faith, one baptism." Therefore it is beneficial for the whole community of the faithful to have one believing
A Dialogue, Part im, Tract t head -— not an unbeliever, who would lead all the faithful to a contrary faith and impermissible observances and rites.
[6] Besides, it is beneficial for those who are under different judges capable of erring about major cases to have one head to whom those major cases may be referred, by whom they may be judged justly and properly. Moses seems to have done this wisely among the people entrusted to him, on the advice of his kinsman
Jethro, who was moved by right reason, We read about this in Exodus 18[:24-6]: "Having heard all this, Moses did everything that he," namely Jethro, "had suggested; choosing able men out of all Israel he appointed them rulers of the people, over thousands, over hundreds, over fifties, and over tens, and they judged the people at all times; more serious cases they referred to him, and they judged the easier cases only." As we read in Deuteronomy i[:t7} he also said to the inferior judges, "If something seems difficult to you, refer it te me and I will hear it." But in matters pertaining to the Christian religion the faithful scattered over the breadth of the earth are under various judges and prelates, many of whom often do not have enough skill in major cases.
It is therefore beneficial for the community of the faithful to have one head to whom such major cases may be referred.
Student A twofold answer can be made to those two arguments' together: first, that both for compelling transgressors or the unwilling to the unity of faith and of observances and ecclesiastical rites, and for major cases, recourse must be had to a general council, not to some one person; second, that recourse should be had to the supreme secular judge, who must judge concerning both spiritual and temporal matters.
Master Some attack the first of these answers as follows. Since the faithful are divided throughout the breadth of many provinces, it is difficult and takes a long time and very heavy labor and expense to assemble a general council; therefore, since such cases can occur even many times every year, it is not beneficial for the community of the faithful that a general council should be assembled for every such case. Therefore, so as to forestall dangers in such cases more easily, it is beneficial for the community of the faithful to have one head and prelate with power in such matters,
+ That is, arguments 5 and 6.
Wiliam of Ockham to whom recourse may be had to punish the excesses of the highest prelates and settle other major cases for which the skill and powers of one man are encugh. The second answer is repulsed as follows.
Before Christ's ascension and for some time afterwards, there was no secular, lay believer with secular power or jurisdiction, and this could happen again; yet it would be beneficial for the community of the faithful that such cases should be provided for. It is therefore beneficial for the community of the faithful to have, besides lay powers and judges, one head with power in such cases. For the emperor or king or other secular ruler does not have such power aver the faithful by virtue of his office, since the emperor and all kings and secular rulers were once unbelievers, and they couid be again, Otherwise an unbeliever could have power over the faithful in such matters and would in all such matters judge wrongly.
Student Bring forward still other arguments.
Master Another possible argument is as follows.
[7] It is not beneficial for the community of the faithful that many among them, and especially many with power over others, should be able to do wrong insolently without any fear of correction and temporal punishment, because as we read in 6, q.
1, Ex merito, "When the head becomes weak the other members become corrupt." Therefore, since the prelates of the faithful, like everyone else, are inclined to evil -— because, as the Council of Toledo says (as we read in 12, q.
1, c. 1), "Every age from adolescence is inclined to evil" — it is highly beneficial for the faithful that prelates "whom divine fear does not call back from evil, tempera] punishment, at least, should restrain from sin," Exira, De vita et henestate clericorum, c. Ut clericorum. Therefore it is beneficial for the congregation of the faithful to have one head able to correct all prelates if they do wrong to the peril of the Christian religion. Nor does it avail to say that (as it seems to some) such correction pertains to a lay judge, because, as was mentioned earlier, before the Lord's ascension there was no lay believer who had any jurisdiction over anyone, and it would still be possible for all lay believers to be subjected to the power of unbelievers. Therefore it is beneficial that there should be, besides the tay judge, some believing prelate with power in such matters over other prelates.
[8] Also, the same thing is beneficial to the whele and to the part, in little matters and great, just as the same right exists in the