|
Medieval Sourcebook:
Marsilius of Padua:
from Defensor Pacis, 1324
The conclusions of the
entire book are also online.
Now we declare according to the truth and on the authority
of Aristotle that the law-making power or the first and real effective
source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing
part of the people according to its election or its will expressed
in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something
be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty
or temporal punishment; by the prevailing part of the people I
mean that part of the community by whom the law is made, whether
the whole body of citizens or the main part do this or commit
it to some person or persons to be done; these last are not nor
can be the real law-making power, but can only act according to
instructions as to subject-matter and time, and by the authority
of the primal law-making power.
On the authority of Aristotle by a citizen I mean him who has
a part in the civil community, either in the government, or the
council, or the judiciary, according to his position. By this
definition boys, slaves, foreigners, and women are excluded, though
according to different limitations. Having thus defined citizen
and the prevailing section of the citizens, let us return to the
object proposed, namely to demonstrate that the human authority
of making laws belongs only to the whole body of citizens as the
prevailing part of it. . . . .
For the primal human authority of making laws belongs to that
body by whom the best laws can be made. This, however, is the
whole body of citizens or its better part which represents the
whole. I now prove the second proposition, namely that the best
law will result from the deliberation and decision of the whole
body. . . .That this can be done best by the citizens as a whole
or the better part of them, I demonstrate thus, since the truth
of anything will be judged more accurately, and its common advantage
be studied more diligently, if the whole body of citizens discuss
it with intelligence and feeling. . . .So the reality of a general
law will be best attended to by the whole people, because no one
consciously injures himself.
On the other side we desire to adduce in witness the truths of
the holy Scripture, teaching and counselling expressly, both in
the literal sense and in the mystical according to the interpretation
of the saints and the exposition of other authorized teachers
of the Christian faith, that neither the Roman bishop, called
the pope, nor any other bishop, presbyter, or deacon, ought to
have the ruling or judgment or coercive jurisdiction of any priest,
prince, community, society or single person of any rank whatsoever.
. . .For the present purposes, it suffices to show, and I will
first show, that Christ Himself did not come into the world to
rule men, or to judge them by civil judgment, nor to govern in
a temporal sense, but rather to subject Himself to the state and
condition of this world; that indeed from such judgment and rule
He wished to exclude and did exclude Himself and His apostles
and disciples, and that He excluded their successors, the bishops
and presbyters, by His example, and word and counsel and command
from all governing and worldly, that is, coercive rule. I will
also show that the apostles were true imitators of Christ in this,
and that they taught their successors to be so. I will further
demonstrate that Christ and His apostles desired to be subject
and were subject continually to the coercive jurisdiction of the
princes of the world in reality and in person, and that they taught
and commanded all others to whom they gave the law of truth by
word or letter, to do the same thing, under penalty of eternal
condemnation. Then I will give a section to considering the power
or authority of the keys, given by Christ to the apostles and
to their successors in offices, the bishops and presbyters, in
order that we may see the real character of that power, both of
the Roman bishop and of the others. . . .
We wish, therefore, first to demonstrate that Christ wished to
exclude and did exclude both Himself and His apostles from the
office of ruler. This appears in John, 18. For when Christ was
accused before Pontius Pilate, vicar of the Roman emperor in Judea,
for saying that he was king of the Jews, and Pilate asked Him
if He had said that, or if He had called Himself a king, He replied
to the question of Pilate: "My kingdom is not of this world;"
that is, I am come not to reign by temporal rule and dominion,
as the kings of the world reign. It remains to show that Christ
not only refused the rule of this world and coercive jurisdiction
on earth, whereby He gave an example for action to His apostles
and disciples and their successors, but that He also taught by
word and showed by example that all, whether priests or not, should
be subject in reality and in person to the coercive judgment of
the princes of this world. By His word and example Christ demonstrated
this first in physical things, in the incident contained in Matthew
22, when to the Jews asking Him: "Tell us, therefore, what
thinkest Thou; is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or not
?" looking at the penny and its superscription, he replied:
"Render, therefore, unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's,
and unto God the things which are God's.". . .
Further not only in physical things did Christ show that He was
subject to the coercive jurisdiction of a prince of the world,
but He showed it also in Himself. . . . . for it plainly appears
that He permitted Himself to be taken and led to the court of
Pilate, vicar of the Roman emperor, and endured that He be condemned
and handed over by the same judge to the extreme punishment.
Following upon this, it remains to demonstrate what power, authority
and judgment Christ wished to give to the apostles and their successors,
and did in fact give according to the words of the holy Scripture.
Among other things which seem to have direct reference to this
are the words which Christ spoke to Peter, Math. 16: "I will
give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven;" also those
spoken by Him to all the apostles, when He said: "Whatsoever
ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever
ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." On these
words especially is based the claim and title to the plenitude
of power, which the Roman bishop ascribes to himself. . . .
By the sacrament of baptism, which Christ commanded to be administered
by the apostles, He caused them to understand also the administration
of the other sacraments instituted for the eternal salvation of
mankind; one of these is the sacrament of repentance by which
the actual guilt of the human soul, both mortal and venial, is
destroyed, and the soul, corrupt in itself through guilt, is restored
by the grace of God, without any human effort, God ordaining that
meritorious works should not win eternal life. Hence it is written
in Romans VI: "The gift of God is eternal life." The
ministers of this sacrament, as of the others, are the priests
and presbyters, as successors of the apostles of Christ, to all
of whom it is shown by the aforesaid words of Scripture the power
of the keys was given, that is, the power of conferring the sacrament
of repentance, in other words, the power of loosing and binding
men in regard to their sins. . . . It will appear later how it
is possible for priests to receive into or exclude from the kingdom;
and from this also the character and extent of the power of those
keys, given by Christ to Peter and the other apostles. . . . .
By his guilt the sinner is under the bond of eternal condemnation
for the future life, and if he persists in his guilt, he is cast
off from the association of the faithful in this world, by a kind
of punishment resting with the believers of Christ, called excommunication.
. . .And on the other hand we should notice that the sinner receives
a three-fold benefit through his sorrow for sin and open confession
to the priests, to which acts, both singly and taken together,
the name repentance is given. The first benefit is that he is
cleansed from his inner guilt and restored to himself by the grace
of God; the second, that he is freed from the bond of eternal
damnation, to which he was bound by his guilt; and the third,
that he is reconciled to the church, that is, he is reunited or
ought to be reunited to the body of believers. . . .
From these words of the saints . . . it clearly appears that God
alone remits to the truly penitent sinner his guilt and his debt
of eternal condemnation, and that without any office of the priest
preceding or intervening, as has been demonstrated above. . .
For it is God alone who cannot err as to whose sin should be remitted
or retained. For He alone is not moved by unfair feeling nor judges
unjustly. Not of such character is the church or the priest whoever
he may bc, even the Roman bishop. . .The anathema of the church
inflicts upon those who are justly expelled, this punishment:
that the grace and protection of God is withdrawn from them and
is abandoned by them themselves, so that they are free to rush
into the destruction of sin, and greater power of destroying them
is given to the devil. . . . .
[St.] Ambrose says that "the word of God remits sins; the
priest performs his service but has no right of authority. But
we may say that the priest is as it were the turnkey of the heavenly
judge, so that he frees the sinner in the same sense that the
turnkey of an earthly judge frees a prisoner. For just as the
guilty man is condemned to or released from guilt and civil penalty
by the word or sentence of a judge of this world, so by the divine
word anyone is either to be freed from or condemned to guilt and
the debt of damnation and the punishment of the future life. And
just as no one is freed from guilt and penalty or condemned by
the action of the turnkey of a worldly judge, and yet by his action
in closing or opening the prison the guilty one is shown to be
freed or condemned, so no one is freed from or bound to guilt
and the debt of eternal condemnation by the action of the priest,
but it is demonstrated before the eyes of the church who is held
bound or freed by God, when he receives the benediction of the
priest, or is admitted to the communion of the sacraments."
. . . . Therefore just as the turnkey of an earthly judge fulfills
his office in opening and closing the prison, but exercises no
right of judicial authority of condemning or pardoning, since
even if he actually opened the prison for a criminal not pardoned
by the judge and announced to the people with his own voice that
the man was free, the guilty man would not on this account be
freed from his guilt and the civil penalty, or on the other hand
if he refused to open the prison and declared with his own words
that he whom the judge had freed by his sentence was not pardoned
but condemned, that man would not on this account be held subject
to the guilt and penalty; so likewise the priest, the turnkey
of the heavenly judge, performs his duty by the verbal pronunciation
of the absolution or malediction. But if those who ought to be
condemned by the divine judge or are already condemned, the priest
should pronounce as not worthy to be condemned or as not condemned,
or vice versa, through ignorance or deceit or both, not on this
account would the former be dissolved or the latter damned, because
the priest had not handled the key or keys with discretion according
to the merits of the accused.
Proceeding from what has been demonstrated, we will show here
first that no one of the apostles was given pre-eminence over
the other in essential dignity by Christ. . . For Christ, giving
to the apostles the authority over the sacrament of the eucharist,
said to them: "This is My Body which is given for you, this
do in remembrance of Me." . . . And he did not say these
words more to Peter than to the others. For Christ did not say:
"Do thou this, and give the right of doing it to the other
apostles," but He said, "Do" in the plural, and
to all without distinction. And later Christ said to the apostles:
"As My Father has sent Me, even so send I you. He breathed
on them and saith unto them, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost,
whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosoever
sins ye retain, they are retained." Now Christ said: "I
send you as My Father sent Me;" He did not say to Peter or
to any other apostle in the singular, "I send thee as the
Father, etc., do thou send the others." Nor again did Christ
breathe upon him, but upon them, not upon one through another.
Nor did Christ say to Peter: 'Receive the Holy Ghost, and afterwards
give it to the others," but he said, "Receive,"
in the plural and speaking to all indifferently. . . .
It likewise appears that neither St. Peter nor any one of the
apostles had pre-eminence over the others in the right of distributing
the temporal offerings of the primitive church; whence it is written
in Acts IV: "For as many as were possessors of lands or houses
sold them, and laid them at the apostles' feet, and distribution
was made unto every man according as he had need." Behold,
the distribution of the temporal offerings of the church was made
by the apostles in general, not by Peter alone; for it is not
said: they laid them at the feet of Peter, but of the apostles.
Nor it is said that "Peter distributed them," but that
"distribution was made." . . .
But if Peter has been called the prince of the apostles by some
of the saints, the term is used broadly and by a misuse of the
word prince, otherwise it would be plainly opposed to the opinion
and oracle of Christ, where He said: "The princes of the
Gentiles exercise dominion over them, but it shall not be so among
you." And it must be said that the saints spoke thus not
because of any power given to him by Christ over the other apostles,
but because perchance he was older than the others: or because
he was the first to confess that Christ was the true consubstantial
Son of God, or perhaps because he was more fervent and constant
in faith, or because he was intimate with Christ and was more
frequently called by Him into His counsel and secrets. . . .
Moreover he did not have coercive jurisdiction over the rest of
the apostles more than they over him, neither consequently have
his successors. For Christ forbade this to them directly, as in
Matt. 20, Luke 22: "And there was also a strife among them,
which of them should be counted the greatest. And He said unto
them: The kings and princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion
over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them,
but it shall not be so among you;" Christ could not have
denied this more plainly. Why then should anyone in regard to
this believe more in human tradition, than in the most evident
word of Christ? . . . .
Further, the Roman bishop is not nor should he be called the successor
of St. Peter by the laying on of hands, for there has been a Roman
bishop upon whom St. Peter has not laid his hand either directly
or indirectly; nor again because of the seat or the determination
of the place, first because no one of the apostles was appointed
to any people or any place by divine law; for he said to all:
"Go ye therefore and teach all nations;" and in the
second place, St. Peter is said to have been at Antioch before
he was at Rome.
The aforesaid plenitude of power the bishops of Rome have used
continually up to the present and are now using for the worse,
especially against the Roman prince and principality. For they
are able to exercise against him this their wickedness, that is,
the subjection of the empire to themselves, because of the division
among the inhabitants of the empire, and are able by their so-called
pastors and most holy fathers to stir up and nourish the discord
already incited. For they further believe that, the empire once
subdued, the way lies open for them to subject the rest of the
kingdoms, although they are especially and peculiarly under obligation
to the emperor and empire of the Romans, by reason of benefits
received, as is known to all. But, to speak only of what is known
to everyone and needs no word from us, smitten with cupidity and
avarice, with pride and ambition, made even worse by ingratitude,
they are seeking in every way to prevent the creation of a Roman
emperor, and are striving either to break up the empire, or to
transfer it in another form to their own control, lest the excesses
which they have committed should be corrected by the power of
the aforesaid princes and they should be subject to well-merited
discipline. But although with the purpose which we have mentioned
they are placing obstructions in the way of the prince on every
side, yet craftily hiding their object they say they are doing
this to defend the rights of the spouse of Christ, that is the
church, though such pious sophistry is ridiculous. For temporal
power and greed, and lust of authority and rule is not the spouse
of Christ, nor has He wedded such a spirit, but has expressly
repudiated it, as has been shown from the divine Scriptures. .
. . . Nor is this the heritage of the apostles which they left
to their true, not fictitious, successors. . .
And so by their striving for worldly things, the spouse of Christ
is not truly defended. The recent Roman popes do not defend her
who is the spouse of Christ, that is, the Catholic faith and the
multitude of the believers, but offend her; they do not preserve
her beauty, that is, the unity of the faith, but defile it. since
by sowing tares and schisms they are tearing her limb from limb,
and since they do not receive the true companions of Christ, poverty
and humility, but shut them out entirely, they show themselves
not servants but enemies of the husband.
Source:
From: Oliver J. Thatcher, ed., The Library of Original Sources (Milwaukee: University Research Extension Co., 1907), Vol. V:
The Early Medieval World, pp. 423-430.
Scanned by Jerome S. Arkenberg, Cal. State Fullerton
This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book.
The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted
texts related to medieval and Byzantine history.
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the
document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying,
distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal
use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source.
No permission is granted for commercial use.
© Paul Halsall May 1998
halsall@murray.fordham.edu
The Internet History Sourcebooks Project is located at the History Department of Fordham University, New York. The Internet
Medieval Sourcebook, and other medieval components of the project, are located at
the Fordham University Center
for Medieval Studies.The IHSP recognizes the contribution of Fordham University, the
Fordham University History Department, and the Fordham Center for Medieval Studies in
providing web space and server support for the project. The IHSP is a project independent of Fordham University. Although the IHSP seeks to follow all applicable copyright law, Fordham University is not
the institutional owner, and is not liable as the result of any legal action.
© Site Concept and Design: Paul Halsall created 26 Jan 1996: latest revision 15 November 2024 [CV]
|
