May the king correct the clergy? the second and third objections

Secondly it is objected, by appeal toobicitur per: it is objected, by appeal to this: that the parts of the churchecclesia: church must have their own jurisdiction and order unmixed; now the clergyclerus; clericus: the clergy; cleric is superior to the secular part; therefore, supposing an offence, it ought to be corrected by itself. This is confirmed by the fact that so it is in the celestial hierarchy, on which every office of the ecclesiastical hierarchy must be modelled. 349To that I have often said that a falsehood is assumed; for each arm of the body of the church must help the other, nor is there confusion in this, but, according to the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 12, a connexion in charitycaritas: charity.¹ Further, it has often been said that, just as the clergy standing in its order is superior to the secular [part], so a cleric in name onlynominetenus clerici: clerics in name only who degenerates is the most abject among all wayfarersviator: wayfarer. Hence (as I have often said) while we stand in our order we ought not to be contemptibly subject to princes; hence in the ordinary glossglosa: gloss on distinction 96 it is said that the bishop is above the emperor,² yet not if he acts against religion, for in that case he could be refutedredarguere: to refute by anyone, as is clear in distinction 40, Si papa, or also if he should make a schism, Cause 23, question 5, De Liguribus.³ And there are many cases in which lay people have jurisdiction over clericsclerus; clericus: the clergy; cleric, as I have said; so says Cause 23, question 5, Principes.⁴

Hence I wonder how some rely on the example of the celestial hierarchy, thinking that clerics ought not to be corrected by lay people; for, once the order of the militant hierarchy is established as it is in the celestial hierarchy, the argument from likeness would proceed that clerics would not be subject to lay people; but if the powervirtus: power (faculty) / virtue (moral habit) of illuminating and purging fails in them,⁵ so that they are blinder and more criminal than lay people, how would the example of the celestial hierarchy hold in those who disturb the order of the church? Therefore, in their failure, it holds that the order of the ecclesiastical hierarchy is perverted: the order, I say, not without qualificationsimpliciter / secundum quid: without qualification / in a certain respect, but the individual order that would be in them. For it is not right for a believer to believe that a given clergy will keep the superior order in the church however much it has sinned, since the first angel with his accomplices was thrown down from his order for apostasy 350from the church triumphant (as is noted in Isaiah 14).⁶ Therefore a wayfarer outside his order ought to have help from a brother of a lower order, since the foot helps the eye, each also preserving the integrity of the body. And so it seems to [the bishop of] Lincoln that an angel of a higher order is illuminated by an angel of a lower order,⁷ since all the blessed spirits help one another reciprocally; indeed (as I have said elsewhere) Michael and all the angels of the lower order, confirmed [in grace], fought against the dragon Lucifer and against his apostate accomplices:⁸ why then should it not be so, proportionally, in the ecclesiastical hierarchy?

But elsewhere I raised the objection,⁹ by appeal to this: that no civil punitive power extends further than the power of exercising lordshipdominus; dominari: lord; to exercise lordship / to lord it civilly; now it is not lawful for a civil lorddominus; dominari: lord; to exercise lordship / to lord it to exercise lordship civilly over a cleric, since a cleric for whom it were lawful to serve civilly could with more colourcolor (non est color): colour (a plausible ground) exercise civil lordship.¹⁰ But here I have often said that by the law of nature and by the law of the gospel, by which we are bound to fraternal correction, the king of England ought to correct his clergy; nor do I see why it is not consistent that a cleric serve civilly, because to exercise lordship civilly implies pride. But to serve civilly can be without sin. Nor need a man serve civilly in such a way that he is a civil serf, since every lord of England under the king serves him civilly, being his servant holding ofcapitalis dominus; tenere de: chief lord; to hold of the king in chiefin capite (tenure): in chief by the servicesservicium: service owed and customary to his lord. Now a civil serf is wholly without civil liberty; and so the clerics who hold of him in chief serve the king freely; and so it seems to me that our king has over his liegelegii: lieges clergy, as to the goods of nature and the goods of fortune, in a certain respectsimpliciter / secundum quid: without qualification / in a certain respect 351civil lordshipdominium civile / naturale / evangelicum: civil / natural / evangelical lordship.¹¹ But if they lived a wholly propertylessexproprietarii / exproprietarie: the propertyless / without property life, as Christ and the Baptist lived, they would not be so subject; and so, by reason of the goods of fortune and the goods of nature, in a case where notable abuse or contempt occurs in them, it is lawful for the king to coercecoactivus; cohercere, cohersitivus: coactive; coerce, coercive them civilly, not inasmuch as they are priests, but inasmuch as they are the king’s almsmenelemosinarius: almsman or his liege men who hold him in contempt. And so they are subject to their king in body and goods in many ways. But conversely, the king ought to be subject to them in the things that pertain to God, so that there is thus a mutual connexion of charity and of order on both sides. Thirdly it is argued by appeal toarguitur per: it is argued by appeal to this: that the clergy ought never to be chastised by a layman except in default of the spiritual superiorprepositi: superiors, and consequently never before the popepapa: pope has failed; therefore the subject must be corrected [first] by the diocesan, secondly by the metropolitan, and, if they have failed, then by the pope. And it is not to be presumed that at these three stages the church of Christ will fail.¹²

To this the answer isdicitur multipliciter: is said in many ways that the assumptionassumptum: the assumption is true, because (as I have often said) a cleric ought never to be chastised by a layman except by the authority of the church, in default of the spiritual superior, and in case the cleric has strayed from the faith. Hence, supposing as possible that all the bishops of our kingdomregnum: kingdom fail in their corrections, after or before, by reason of which failure sin grows strong to the peril of the kingdom, it is then for kings, under grave peril, to correct their clergy as to the body or substance of the clergy, in which it is subject to the royal power;¹³ and if the clergy has come to such a depth of malice, the spiritual superior is in every way the cause.¹⁴ Nor is it the part of a prudent man to assert that the king should wait for the correction of the clergy until the pope 352has decreed on it, for many reasons. First, because it may be that in the curia redemption is for sale,¹⁵ so that a traitor, with the treasures of the kingdom, may there defend his sin against God, king and kingdom.¹⁶ Second, because it may be that the pope and his cardinals are respecters of persons, joined to the enemies of our kingdom. Third, because it may be that they are ignorant of the law of scripture and blinded by the traditions of men for gain. Fourth, because it may be that the length and dangers of the journey are so great that neither would the persons of our kingdom have safe access there, nor would king and kingdom wait so long, because of the peril of the kingdom. Fifth, because the Roman pontiff does not have that jurisdiction in England except either from the law of Christlex dei / lex Christi / lex evangelica: God's law / the law of Christ / the gospel law, which is limitedlimitare; limites: to assign (an office); limits by how far he tells them the law of Christ more humbly and more holily,¹⁷ or from the decree of Caesar, as is noted in distinction 96, Constantinus.¹⁸