Causa Prima

;;; to be excused in the preceding causa as to how simony ought to be condemned and punished. But because no one ought to be deprived of his goods without judicial order, he enters this causa in which he treats of the judicial order, showing that one who has not confessed is not to be condemned, and that one who has been despoiled is first to be restored to the order of law and then [tried], and what penalty punishes him who defrauds the accusers, and what objections are all raised, and that many [provisions] are strict, and what sort [of persons] are to be set aside on appeal, and how between accusers and clerics they may be removed, and that clerics are to be admitted, and how satisfaction is to be made to the accuser.

;;;

;;;

;;;

“Vot. h. inuitat” [i.e., the rubric]: ;;; there is also nothing which ought to be urged toward condemnation apart from the judicial order, but rather [as is said] in xxxii. q. vi. He decreed however by way of exception that one may proceed in another way for certain causes, namely on account of a notorious and evident deed, as below in the same q. “Manifesta” § “Lotarius de manifesta”; on account of contumacy, when one who is absent is condemned without observance of the order of law, iii. q. iii. “Decreuimus”, xxiiii. q. iii. and iiii. “Dilecta”; on account of the avoidance of scandal, but he excludes one publicly defamed of [withholding] tithes; but if not confessed he is not suspended except on account of scandal of the people, as below in the same q. “Presbyter”; if on account of suspicion of dilapidation: a person suspected of squandering the goods of the church is removed from administration before the cause is examined, as iiii. q. i. q. eo § “Defectu iudicis”, for instance when one has intruded himself into the apostolic see who from the higher law dares to excommunicate him whom he should sue. And with the order of law observed, they are to be compelled, as iii. q. i. C ;;;. Now the judicial order is so called when one is sued before his own judge, and is summoned to his cause by edicts, l. uno peremptorio, with peremptory and lawful summonses written down, and at the third edition the recesses are solemnly announced; [when] for the accuser they are made in writing, lawful witnesses are produced, those produced are lawfully produced and those produced are lawfully examined, and all things are set forth in writing, and then unless he is convicted or has confessed [no condemnation follows], and the other solemnities of law altogether or of legal observance are kept. And note that the judicial order is [understood] in two ways, namely simply and [strictly]; that which is properly simple is that which condemns with the integrity of the judicial order observed. § That which is ;;; is that which condemns without the integrity of the judicial order observed, as in the foresaid excepted cases; and which is said [to be] of the same kind, except not simple and integral and simple, but is to be observed in § “Quod a.” in part, because such a case requires the judicial order, for by that very fact the order of law is said to be set aside because it is not observed, and [likewise] every solemnity of the judicial order. And note that one sentence is of condemnation or deposition, another of excommunication, another of suspension; for none [is to be passed] without observance of the order of law, except by way of exception as has been said. The sentence of deposition follows the solemnity of the law not being observed, while it is pronounced by his own judge and [without regard for] appeal, as below in the same q. “Neo. x. q. an. si epe”, except perhaps it preserves that difference: that the sentence of excommunication ought to be pronounced apart from the judicial order, as below in the same q. “Neo” xxxiiii. q. iii. “Dilicrta”; but the sentence of suspension which is rightly pronounced even without it being observed, as below in the same q. v. “Vbi. si.”

;;;

That unless we are first [heard], that is, we ought not [to be condemned]; the sentence of deposition or denunciation, because without due process it is pronounced against the debtor, but the sentence of suspension is often able to be pronounced with [such process] omitted.

;;;

;;;

Those whom these would seek, as Fe. q. xviii si. p., and to none is the sentence of excommunication given which is pronounced against debtors in the appropriate place, ar. below in the same q. “Multi”: one lawfully convicted by witnesses, or done before the eyes [of the judge], or by evidence of the law or of the fact itself, by testimony of a notorious deed of a man, ar. di. xxviii. “Ius quod”, xxxiii. q. iii. “De his”, and below in the same q. “Manifestus” q. “Lotarius de manifesta”: one who has confessed in court (for confession outside of court does not suffice, not extrajudicially), as in addition to preaching, namely on account of contumacy when absent and contumacious, professed (not) xi. q. viii. “Decreuimus”, to be condemned unless those whom [etc.] as xxiii. q. iii. “De illicita”. Spontaneously, that is, without coercion or fear; the confession is [invalid if] extorted by fear, by coercion, or by the judge, as xv. q. vi. C. i., xxxi. q. ii. “Lotharius”, j v. q. v. “Propa. cc”. Likewise the same is said of the sentence of excommunication: this [applies], whether the sentence of deposition or excommunication accidentally agrees with what is said in law, concerning that of which the contumacious person was professedly held. And by vii. q. i. § “Si quis”: likewise convicted, if it speaks of the sentence of suspension which is often pronounced with omission [of process], or if it speaks of the sentence of deposition for contumacy, when a cleric ;;; commits his [deed] and being admonished does not return, or without admonition does not return at the lawful time, it is pronounced, as above di. lxxvi. “Probacia” and above i quod cominat., and Florida says of

;;; he speaks under a stricter [sense], namely if he should truly prove what he was saying; the judge discusses ;;; examining [the matter]. The sentence, that of cyriois [?] or of excommunication, on account of harmful matters of such a sort ;;; q. iiii. perhaps understand: in the larger sense, [concerning] the burdening of those, namely such as are to be repelled from objection: because those who are objectionable are not to be received ;;; when he, unless conjoined, has chanced to ti. q. d. “Confessam”, [concerning] matters of the case from the evidence of the fact itself by instrument.

;;;

This is the procedure, and this is true; and here Augustine speaks, and [the gloss] interprets in the name of [the] testimony. He hates one condemned by judicial order through the ordinary, namely [that the sentence] should be pronounced, that not for execution. But unless the sentence ought to be deferred for going away, there is [no] place for appeal; for which reason [such sentences] ought not to be deferred until the thirtieth day, as xi. q. iiii. “Cum apostoli”. But I say that he speaks in that case when in another [matter] there is appeal beyond, or in causes of appeal; or I say that the sentence is not said to be deferred until you return, that is, for the lawful public time, namely for going away — and [for] the going away in which I have appealed before the sentence [is given] in mandate and in execution. And l. “Redim adit conferret”. But pending ;;; q ;;; and ;;; the sentence put to mandate of execution when ;;; xxxii q. iiii. “Doctissimas”. Note this, because magister Iohannes understands this case of one who has confessed in court, has been condemned, because what was confessed in court ;;; before the sentence is forthwith pronounced ;;; excommunication. But I say that one who confesses is not condemned unless he has [the right of] appeal, as x. c. vi. etc.

;;;

And without an accuser: thus [it is argued] that a priest who is noted of a crime, when he is convicted, ought to be deposed or condemned through the ordinary, when without an accuser, nor is he to be condemned for tithes, below and ux. e. “Demanifesta”, xxiii. q. iii. “Si qui”, xxiiii. [etc.]. Yet it is granted that this is for final [punishment] of [such matters], and if he is unwilling to do penance through contumacy, as he is to be excommunicated by oath of penance, ;;; q. v. “Quod vsut do iuda”, being angry, because it speaks of one hidden in secret, unless he is [manifest], and exxii q. “xana”, in which causa they understand all the chapters. Ramares, of either a prelate or excommunication, in oaths or accepted or inferred against his suffragan, as di. xii “De his” and below di. xxxiiii. “Quorundam” and xi. q. iii. “Si quis epis”: Iohannes (or others) signs the sentence of damnation, whence some would have this rank, but the gloss [holds otherwise]. The Turk and slave joined together, or the church, that unless he swears that primates may be able to depose bishops, q. ix. di. “Yris. cσ:μιιι.”, q. vi. “Accatus” [and the] degrees [in] “Contra multi etc.”, “Dudum co.”, they add a certain [clause] that to primates [belongs] the right to deport [bishops] from their sees, and not to the metropolitan. Others say that they begin [the case] but not [proceed] to another condemnation of bishops without the knowledge of the pope. But neither of these solutions is valid, for from the time of the apostles this has held: that the cause of deposition of bishops the primates and metropolitans and bishops have treated and examined, but not difficult [matters] without the mandate of the lord pope, as vi. q. vi. “Quod uis interesse”, [Glossa] yloradio armania v., or perhaps “Explorato et incet enim”: for the sentence is unknown, whether it would agree with his judge or not, because as such it should not have been pronounced when given by a judge or made suspect, and without “Aue. p.” before his judge it should be denied to allege contumacy. But thus I understand: [in] this very thing, as “Rerctda” or by natural fact, a sentence given without the judicial order is by the very law null and of no force, and does not hold [even] if greater retraction is willed.

;;;

The law [holds] etc.: those who agree about the one denying that he is heard. He judges, ar. xv. q. v. “ẜbτιν εχησ” or “Confessladico” ii.x.iv. “Disciplina”; [concerning] the order of accusing [?], not di. xxxii. “Erubescat”, xxxiv. q. iii. “Ds pocclt”: ar. that one through avoidance [may] hidden communion, of those indeed by law it is [said] to be communion, even [when] another does not know it. ;;; q. vi. “Si tu. sustineꝝe”, [concerning] leaping into public communion if one knows the secret one, as it is said [that] communion through it should be denied, but he publicly holds communion, as vi q. ii. “Siti” and below in the same q. “Si peccauerit”.

;;;

Too many chapters [are] given to the principal [matter], namely concerning the priest Ianuarius, the bishop ideiso [having been] excommunicated; [and] the Malachitan [case], concerning bishop Stephen, who because of [his] merits and favor of the chief party, because [some] had lost [their churches] through the church, but expelled [them] and substituted others in their place, Gregory writes to Hami the defender concerning these [matters]; [and so] he distinguishes [the things] to be examined by all, first instructing him as to those whom the agent of Stephen had [summoned] to respond. [Etc.]

;;; concerning Stephanus ;;; diligently ;;; order ;;; does not deviate, as in many places he loved his brothers, since ;;; q. ;;;, where it is shown that this is more in accord with justice, since ;;;; and “by apostles” ;;; up to “to be received,” xij. q. ij. c. Si receptam; “j” up to vniuersa peticio; from ianuarium up to primo; ;;; door ;;; which never ;;; the case was to recount, against a despoiled ;;; whether proven. It does not suffice that he be moved [i.e., expelled] unless it be proven; argument vij. q. iiij. c. Nec, xv. q. iij. c. Per motam — not proven. He died because he was unwilling ;;; not to be deposed, because not ;;; Si quis moverit; and that the cause ;;; whether proven by the order of law, that is, by things [i.e., evidence] and instruments, so that he may evidently show the deed itself ;;;. Otherwise, as among the faithful ;;; to be treated and discussed, and not to be absent and summoned; argument j. e. [same causa] c. Si quis episcopus; j. e. q. xviij. c. Quoniam; the gloss ;;; of his ;;; holds otherwise. But it is not ;;; he should be led to deposition, xx. j. j. Sed episcopus; if his own leader [i.e., bishop] should approach for inspection ;;; if there be ;;; priests. ¶ The bishop, for the protection of his ;;;, as xxxvij. Placuit, that ;;;, as xj. q. ij. Placuit, that ;;; or when it is not done ;;;, as xv. q. j. Si quis de ordine ;;; commonly arise; as in xxxv. [c.] An, Omnino; as in ;;; Nullus; iij. q. j. Eo iudicio ;;; nor that another might move ;;;. j. xviij. Placuit — concerning the manner of proof and conviction ;;;; argument from the answer iij. and from Cum accusatus, and from [the case of one] to be ejected, since just as ;;; the deposed is not opposed ;;; j. e. — but it is not, as in Salarum iudice ;;; but it is not in the case Salarum ;;; of judging; argument ;;;. If indeed ;;; through ;;; official, ;;; not to be ;;; used ;;; in the same; or whether anyone accused ;;; who was not present [would not consent]; argument ;;;. And if any ;;; when another ;;; should attack them ;;; not himself ;;; Quieto, that ;;; q. v. [and] xxv. q. iiij. c. Gavisi sumus, that ;;; there is what [is] of his [i.e., the accused’s] presumption [that is] simoniacal — distinct [case]; but as it is, whether ;;; ready, P[etrus] instructed ;;;; whether the deed itself is [done] under the inscription [i.e., formal accusation] of the adversary, then yes [he is bound], otherwise no. But j. e. q. e., that he probably brings [evidence] for the one fighting on his behalf; j. e. q. j. Per violentam ;;; of the church they would lead, xxxv. q. j. c. Iniusto; [those who are] ejected are not freed [from being] in the despoiled state ;;;; not ;;; in the place; in the casual matter ;;; he should not begin to treat of the injury; j. e. Duo ;;; crilio; j. e. De executione, and concerning depositions by ;;;; argument ;;; in the deposed P[etrus] himself ought not to be ;;;; argument ;;; xxvij. b. that he is among the judged, on account of ;;; xv. q. j. Nec ;;; in the matter not moved [i.e., not yet adjudicated] he can labor with the presumption that he labored [acting as if he were still in office] for me; he was deserted [and] decreed ;;; those ejected, ministering, are deposed, since not ;;; decreed with his own. Even the office or ;;; not to be ;;;; not ;;; in ;;;; not ;;; he ejected him; iij. q. iij. c. Mliusus, etc., the offices or the dignity of one who would not know him to be erected nor be a ;;;; for which presumption he ought not ;;; to be removed; otherwise to be ;;; not first [established as] evil. Argument [the contrary?]; j. ec. P ;;; Stetit; chap. ;;;, Sed eum de mirabile; but those who help by hidden ;;; munited [fortified] and the office not ;;; presumed incautiously ;;;; whether not ;;; should not punish him nor believe him to be a ;;;; argument ;;; in memory [recently expelled] those whom ;;; for caution to those who do not ;;; should study from [i.e., be on guard]; argument xv. q. j. ;;; q. j. ;;; is solved ;;; j. e. j. Cum ordinatus — the unworthy is not unworthily ;;; j. q. j. ;;; ;;; by the power of the one ordained, xxxv. [and] j. Cessati ;;; some thing; argument ;;; of the bishop ;;;. But he is not ;;; more or rather, not to be deposed. P[etrus the] ulati — when with the infirm one he was, the deed ;;; of scandal. P[etrus] is not to be ;;; not ;;;; [concerning] the truly ordained P[etrus] ;;; and scandal, and through this new ;;;; and through merit [i.e., for the meritorious] he ought not ;;; excited by colors [pretexts] he ought not ;;; privately ;;; them, nor ;;; punishment if he should move the matter under coercion; as j. j. Principes — he speaks of fear, and [fear] of the prince ;;; [the see] should be deprived through presumption ;;; of death, not ;;;; if he should compel [him] to die, even ;;; not ;;;, as xxiij. q. j. Ita sua sponte, q. j. ;;; for fear at hand ;;;, to whom [fear comes] for those willingly besieged; argument ;;; ;;; presumed at the inspection of the bishop ;;;.

Argument concerning a just [or] unjust ejection — but as ought [the case] for the bishop, to delete by no means the matter ;;;, or rather by presumption, since it is more [likely] presumed harmful that the foolish bishop knew that man to have been justly ejected than the contrary ;;;; for the doorkeeper [deposed] from the doorkeeper’s office, and [likewise from] the office of the bishop’s ;;;, it ought to be decreed that he was justly expelled. Otherwise, if P[etrus] ;;; had not consented to the doorkeeper being deposed, as if he had not known ;;; not ;;; to be able to ;;; evil ;;; motivated ;;;; argument xv. j. ;;;. But I hold that, with respect to the sentence ;;;, whether unjustly he shows ;;;, whether ;;; or whether at the time he consents ;;;; but ;;; he committed ;;; beforehand ;;;, to the penalty ;;; and to presumption [? — ad presumptionem] it should not differ to be sub ;;; in ;;;, as for presumption [it is] more ;;; for the ;;;, more ;;; for the ;;; as ;;; stuprum ;;; tumult of various ;;; he decreed ;;;; reins yielded to bribes [i.e., he gave way to bribery]; argument ;;; for which ;;;; chap. Episcopus [concerning] the abolishing inspection ;;;; argument j. q. j. ;;;; xxxv. q. iiij. c. De ;;; for that presumption ;;; ;;; machate ;;; thence reception [?] ;;; to have decreed that man unjustly ejected. AD MALACHITANUM [To the Malachitan]: since ;;; one ;;; to be, not when others remain ;;; not those ;;; ;;; not ;;; such that ;;; presumed not ;;; not ;;; those before — to surrender. ;;; ;;; dead ;;; much, as ;;; in the least ;;; not before such ;;;; argument ;;; not, or upon his death, that one cannot ;;; those, as xxxv. q. j. c. Relatum; [that] other ;;; he should procure that not ;;;; not opposed [the canon] ;;; whether ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; not ;;; not by science [?]; ;;; ;;; those ;;; ;;; not ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; not ;;; ;;; not before ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; also the office or ;;; not to be not not ;;; not ;;; not ;;; ;;; to those which ;;; not ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; not presumed ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; not ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; commuted ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; for not ;;; ;;; not ;;; ;;; ;;; not ;;; ;;; not ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; not ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; xxiij. j ;;; ;;; ;;; not ;;; ;;; not ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; not ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; not ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; not ;;; ;;; ;;; not ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; not ;;; ;;; ;;;.

;;;

Argument iiij. q. iij. c. Testium; perhaps see j. e. Ut testes; j. xxv. q. v. j. j ;;; ;;; he decreed ;;; ;;; that witnesses ought to give testimony in the present ;;; in usury [?] ;;;. j. j. j. they ought to swear ;;; with God ;;; not ;;; j. ;;; ;;; in stations [i.e., posts/positions] ;;; not ;;; is not ;;; not ;;; j. q. ;;; not ;;; j. one sworn ought to bear testimony; argument j. e. q. iiij. c. Nullam; iij. q. viiij. Notari; q. iij. Mlirij [?] viuidi; xxxv. q. v. Notitiam — [the witness] departs [?] [from] the church; etc., Fraternaliter [?]. Otherwise ;;; [seven] j. [concerning] the accuser ;;; according to seven [? [witnesses]] otherwise ;;; to be received; j. Revertit [?] j. e. q. viiij. e. j. iiij. Leticia, that ;;; the lawful indictment [was given] to a certain man — xxv. j. q. j. iij. Amici; q. v. j. ;;; ;;; copious. For in famished ;;; male [badly] [the law] does not admit to accusation or testimony; as iij. q. v. Constituta; but at q. e. [in the same question] it is prohibited ;;; q. v. j. q. ;;; Heredi [?] e.

[They are barred from giving] testimony, and they exclude accusers, as in C.3 q.3 Fratres, and [the canon on] qui testium [in] C.4 q.3, Testium debet esse: that one must have at least bona-fide witnesses. They exclude [witnesses suborned] by gold, as in the same question, since they prohibit [hostile testimony when] enmities exist and no reconciliation has intervened. For an enemy is barred both as witness and as accuser, and likewise as judge, as in C.3 q.4 Accusator. [Witnesses] suspect to the accuser are barred, since the testimony of one who is suspect ought not to be received, as in C.3 q.5 Quattuor [and the c.] Testes; nor [are witnesses received] in matters of consanguinity and the like, as in C.35 q.6 De parentela, and C.3 q.9 Nichil, q.1 Praesertim. That is, those who were present at the deed or word, or who specifically — that is, by specifying and assigning the times, reasons, and circumstances of their statements — [may testify]; otherwise it is not enough for witnesses simply to say “we know” or “we saw.” Each must indicate how he came to know, the place and time and other circumstances of the matter, by setting forth in detail what is found in such cases, as in C.13 q.3 Sola. If the sentence of a judge is to be put in writing, it ought to be given in writing, and it ought not be retracted casually but only with the other party present and concurring; otherwise it is of no effect — unless perhaps both parties voluntarily proceed without writing. C.6 q.6 Caveant omnia abesse. “Absent” — supply: the aforesaid solemnities. For unless such solemnities have been observed, the sentence is invalid, unless it is still retractable by the remedy of appeal. By holding to all these things, the sentence stands. To this end [the canon] is that whatever was done against these [forms] should be revoked as void; for it sufficed that these men had been expelled and deposed by judges who were not their own — indeed by men suspect and hostile — and it sufficed that what had been done by the bishops, expelled and deposed without permission [was void], since this is not lawful. C.3 q.1 Accusator quidam dudum. And I say that, because he saw that what had been done could not be undone — whatever the truth might be — on account of scandal and fear, he therefore dissimulated against those who were against [the brothers] and permitted that the sentence should remain in force, lest scandal arise ;;;, so that if a cause for deposition were found in them ;;; of the order [of law], their deposition would by law have been valid, and the cause of scandal removed. As in C.15 q.6 Si quando and q.6 Apre, since unless he found [a cause] no prince would have molested him if he had revoked the deed. And whatever was done ;;; more strictly was done with the order of law or with full notice given of the judicial order, in which the judicial order is more fully set forth and assigned. But if perhaps ;;; one falls short on one head and seeks to be heard on another, see C.1 q.1 Placuit: those who fail in the first head are not to be admitted to others. [I] subjoin that this accuser is not to be admitted. In what follows etc., add the gloss: that is, the sentence — that those who fail in the lesser [matter] should be punished up to the greater. C.3 q.10 De renitentibus. “Innocent” — supply: especially. And if a guilty man comes forward, nevertheless his offense should not ;;;. So many laws are joined that even the guilty appear innocent. And if the guilty man ;;; is bound to him whom ;;; you compel to restore, having greater authority over him, or otherwise. But ;;; since it is permitted to the chapter, and so ;;; of the same dignity. As above the same of the man, in C.15 q.6 De parentela. But ;;; when the order [of law] [is observed]. Since the chapter has treated of these things, and since the head is ;;;, now [set forth] the law. [He] willed to put the concordance in ;;; holy, since not in his words ;;; one head until the place of the laws — close to the prolixity in many places. [He] introduces it thus: [crime] of majesty. He argues that sacrilege is a public injury, since it is so, and that the sacrilegious person, after the manner of one who has committed the injury of lèse-majesté, ought to be punished ;;;. Ne, h(omo) o(mnis) m(o)nicisio. Since he was unwilling to put the whole law in his chapter Nuntius, namely “Neither a new judgment nor an alien tribunal.” ;;; suffices for his [purpose] ;;; is not ;;; to argue from the contrary sense, since the lord did not will ;;; that to an alien judgment neither the consent of the judge nor the metropolitan nor the patriarch [suffices]. That is, this is the argument from the contrary sense: for if ;;; not by themselves ;;; from them [may] be deposed; he can indeed be examined by them, but not finally judged without the mandate of the lord pope, as in C.6 q.6 Quod uis ;;; by complaint. ;;; perhaps ;;;. For he ought [to be heard] before sentence; for he was judged by his own judge ;;;. Since that [sentence] did not stand, having been pronounced by a judge not his own, who was already suspect and ;;;. P(rius) an(te) suorum ;;;

;;; he ought to have, as in C.3 q.3 Illud. It follows: that those who are not received as witnesses for the accuser [generally] are received in excepted cases — namely the crime of lèse-majesté, or the crime of simony, or of heresy — even those of lesser repute, infamous [persons], judges, and laymen. For against clerics, even infamous slaves, and such persons are received in these cases. But concerning clerics, distinguish: whether they have been of bad reputation hitherto. Up to this point, that it appear probable that they committed such things, ;;;; for these are received [as evidence] that he should be accused or that testimony [should be given] by such, like laymen, if up to this point they have been of good reputation; but [if] it does not appear that they committed such things, they are not received in these cases. For ;;; are not received ;;;. Likewise it is collected from C.90 q.1 Accusatorum, an argument that, that ;;; life ;;;. [The argument] Item judges, an argument from D.28 Quia stetisti, l.11 Mirum, and C.1 q.7 Iam ;;; Si absente: that witnesses ought [not] to be absent, with the adversary not receiving [them] — argument from C.3 q.4 Omnia caute: that there should be a corporal examination, insofar as in C.3 q.6 Fratres and others. ;;; he [should not] declare, nor [give] sentence, ;;; perhaps in particular he should speak of the heads, so that they may be amended ;;; nothing, and ;;; should be a law in which is contained the burden, by setting forth a chapter and subjoining the law. The whole ;;; of the cause ;;;. Sententiis exinde retractandis — that is, since they retract what they have presided over. Predam subeunt — that is, since by the moment of ;;; and by the law itself [the sentence] is null. Reddendor — that is, exceeding the law in ;;;, in ;;; hopes ;;; ;;; ;;; souls. [On the] De septi recurrere. He has it valid and confirmed, that is, with respect to retractation, septi — that is, by retracting septu — that is, the sentence given ;;; — that is, in his own complaint, since he is condemned, lest there be the burden of appeal; and yet in many places it is found that customs are different in such matters. And vestium of the church it receives in writing ;;;.

[On the laws to be observed]: that in accusation and recitation ;;; of the law ;;; another archbishop ;;; he is bound. It must be known ;;; of the master, that is, that the judicial order is to be [observed], since the judicial order pertains to such matters: that the accusation should be made by writing, and the ;;; of writings of acts should be done ;;; of the judges, that is, in writing — concerning these things he opens up ;;;. He proceeds to baptism ;;; unde, as in D.9 c. Baptizati, D.9 c. ;;; since ;;; should observe [the rule] not ;;; but in general. C.4 q.6 Vbi abundat. To the highest, do your prayer — that is, the elected episcopate. That ;;; of his choice ;;;. D.63 Quod tor ;;; from the fathers — cautions ;;; that the highest authority should be of clerics. As in C.10 q.2 Pia — that if he wished to forbid [him] coming to them obviating [him] ;;; Mibrunu C.27 q.1 Vere venirent in the Council of Carthage. [That] if anyone of those of his profession should come, even Aipe will hold him by honor ;;;; he will not then be deceived, that he should be of those, and let him be confirmed by ;;; the witnesses ;;;.

[Of one ordained]: of one who was ordained ;;; who was preaching ;;; and was receiving letters from his ordainer, lest he doubt of his ordination. C.2 q.2 Sic ;;;. Now you should observe ;;; Erarius — that if some of the recommended letters ;;;, as in D.1 Ratheonti ;;; another of the Dismarinos. Excessu — supply: with thunder. That [ad excommunicationem] — to excommunication, lest for an undue thing which has been ;;; he be subjected. As in C.1 q.4 Quod de adulterio — that even concerning marriage [these] are not customary, otherwise as C.30 q.5 Aliter accusari. As in C.1 q.6 Vle. c.1 Excommunicat. As in C.24 q.1 Miratus. Reconciliat — as in C.11 q.4 Cure debet, and C.34 q.3 Tinguis deportandum. Accuari uel ex edita commonitorio — concerning the union, with the defender added, that is, in a letter, before they should warn. As in C.31 q.2 Lotarius — that the commonitorium was a letter sent first. The chapter ;;; which establish, and so ;;; in their writings, set forth — that is, by confession. As in C.32 q.1 Vidua, C.32 q.1 Quicumque institutum, Expostulare. As in D.27 Si positus illegitime. As in D.90 Mobauaam. S a.mamuaūigui ce dex ;;;. Abatet

;;; the archbishop of Tours, on the accusation and at the suggestion of certain persons, demanded from him certain things which he did not wish to grant through him ;;; they themselves received from another bishop, from whom; and the archbishop, presuming that he would not stand by his own status nor ;;; shown ;;; ;;; to others ;;; he yielded ;;; ;;; ;;; to the lord himself he was restored as archbishop ;;; ;;; of the church ;;; ;;; which was to hear his own ;;; according to the order of law ;;; this one ;;; now restores; but, the cause having been examined ;;; ;;; does not admit ;;; he commands that he restore him to him whether he has applied to the see from him or has not applied. These things ;;; because ;;; are remitted; the accusation must be admitted by a bishop of the cause when it has not been omitted ;;; I have often appealed; the appellant must be admitted ;;; unwilling ;;; ;;; ;;; he should find, let him proceed ;;; ;;; in the same way that ;;; applying was the bishop ;;; he knew it for him by the indications ;;; ;;; ;;; the archbishop ;;; in him truly the men were warned ;;; not accused ;;; by witnesses ;;; ;;; ;;; his ;;; confession ;;; ;;; ;;; by oath, ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; far which is commonly resolved ;;; he did not offer to me ;;; ;;; such evil ;;; who ;;; ;;; in ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; supply ;;; there was through the deceit ;;; ;;; ;;; they gave themselves to those approving themselves; perhaps they were ignorant ;;; perhaps ;;; ;;; ;;; a price was given. To warn by your piety ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; of charity ;;; xxvii. q. ;;; just as honor ;;; ;;; ;;; are ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; he is held, as in xxiii. q. iv. Nemo. q. iv. Omnes. q. iv. Si inferenda; he shows ;;; ;;; moreover

;;;

[On the question:] Likewise no one ;;; it is argued, and here ;;; before he should anathematize ;;; him as in the title? xxxv. q. ii. q. ii. de ;;; he enjoined from the church. ;;; gloss there. He says ;;; ;;; ;;; him, since he is the only ordinary judge in his own diocese, by the argument of xi. q. i. de hoc; q. i. seculare. This says: anathema, much more a bishop, vi. q. i. Uti ;;;; and if he seems to inflict anathema, as in xxiii. q. iv. cap. ;;; ;;; ;;; he who is anathematized ;;; by the bishop alone whom, if he wished to anathematize; but it is said and ;;; ;;; or by episcopal dignity of excellence ;;; ;;; ;;; he himself excommunicates. q. Ab;;;; or it is possible if simply he who ought not to anathematize with that solemnity with which it is, as is held in xi. q. iii. Ad hec ;;; or concerning reconciliation ;;; ;;; is ;;; ;;; q. v. Si quis ministrare. To excommunicate, that is, to anathematize. q. i., therefore manifest ;;; this alone is, alone is. He has been excommunicated, by the argument of xi. q. iii. Nec quoque illos sacerdotum ;;; ;;; excommunicates by lodging or by theft ;;; ;;; ;;; he conferred power; such truly xi. q. iii. Cum xxv. q. i. should precede ;;; these ;;; ;;; ;;; L. seculares; ;;; excommunicate ;;; and to excommunicate. By the argument ;;; § thus to one excommunicated he alleges the matter ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; from the petitioner alone to the greater, as in xi. q. iii. Si quis forte. It is said ;;; in appeal to hear ;;; by argument q. Multa; if they render ;;; ;;; it remains, by argument ;;; it is settled and ratified, let them be ;;;. xi. q. iii. Iste qui c. iv. Qui esse. xi. q. iii. let him show, as in xxvi. q. ii. Duobus. To abstain from action ;;; in such manner ;;; ;;; ;;; he should not preach ;;; xxiii. q. iv. whence it is said ;;; ;;; ;;; by the power of the priest, as ;;; he should show ;;; should it be of judgment ;;; he should justly punish, by argument ;;; he ought not ;;; ;;; ;;; he says who ;;; evil ;;; not ;;; not ;;; let it be.

;;;

[On the question:] There is no doubt ;;; ;;; days ;;; ;;; and he was accusing ;;; injury ;;; with authority because ;;; ;;; ;;; he did not dare to suspend him ;;; to depose him ;;; ;;; he was rising up against him as he had done ;;; injury, to kill him if ;;; he should judge ;;; supremely keeping silent ;;; thus ;;; suspending ;;; he says ;;; ;;; thus ;;; ;;; depose ;;; you will more easily understand. If he should look back to the things which ;;; he says, that is, you should be infirm so long as them. § the church ;;; omitted, as in xi. q. i. Si omnia deferri by appeal before resolution. Above the aforesaid ;;; that is, by appeal etc. j. e. q. i. Episcopi by appeal as a resolution, that is, by obstacle, that is, not received from ;;; from the greater, as in iii. q. vi. Mihi tu ;;; ;;; ;;; the judge, having considered the ;;; cause ;;; let him refer to a greater judge so that he ;;; conquers; as in iii. Confessus; to suspend, by argument: if to suspend, then to excommunicate ;;; ;;; to be said ;;; ;;; manner

;;; ;;; he takes up his office ;;; and ;;; ;;; confession ;;; of law ;;; e. q. v. Ph. ii. h. he has represented. So that this ;;; looks back, by argument ;;; by argument: if he is in the absence of the prince ;;; to be condemned ;;; tempted ;;; as in xi. q. v. by argument xxxv. q. iv. De illa veta.

;;;

[On the question:] First ;;; ;;; to him, many things which are judged by him to the obviation of him himself, as in vi. e. q. v. Ds;;; of suspicion he holds, by argument as in xv. q. v. Oves. q. v. q. i. he says ;;; he holds truly suspicion, provided also concerning violent suspicion, provided that they themselves by deserving merit are not admitted to judgment, that he himself fornicates ;;; and through suspicion, as in e. q. v. Ph. ii. e. h. de inferenda ;;; suspicion ;;; not regularly does he say. Because ;;; in ;;; in the parish ;;; ;;; through ;;; he himself says: iv. by suspending, he himself by suspicion, xv. evil report ;;; are not to be ;;; Phare, that is, to examine, as you read ;;; to fear by men ;;; ;;;. j. e. q. e. Ds;;; ;;; phare, that is, to perform ;;; by argument ;;; some ;;; and the judge himself ;;; or to accuse, because ii. q. iv. he himself ;;; ;;; only by allegation to indicate, otherwise the order of judging is not ;;; instructed. By argument ;;;. e. Multis and ;;; iv. q. vi. Iulianus; by argument xv. q. iv. Illi qui ;;; ;;; iv. q. v. iv. Nullatenus ;;; by argument Cum sue libertate. i. i. dist. iii. Quod fideris, as ;;; use ;;; ;;; not ;;; should be to accuse. iv. Ds;;; should be in another way ;;; ;;; Placuit. iv. q. i. Licet ;;;

;;;

[On the question:] Publicly ;;; ;;; in law it has been handed down with full evidence concerning whom there is judgment ;;;. Who can accuse: a ward ;;; who is not yet of the years of puberty, as a minor ward, because his ;;; business was for public utility, as this ;;; not however of our authority ;;; ;;; and ;;; intending utility, he is not to be admitted to accusation, lest on this account they ;;; utility to him ;;; his ;;; ;;;, as for instance to receive injury to his own ;;; stipends ;;; ;;; when ;;; are ;;; see ;;; Sine danno. rei. p. l. fraude q. iv. § sed qui ;;; from him it comes. b. that another should be called ;;; to call such ;;; and to accuse, not to accuse ;;; q. Si rubente: Ds;;; and that one is lost to the magistrates. ;;; ;;; he calls ;;; ;;; he calls ;;; of the law ;;; by argument De tractatibus through that De minoribus; this is concerning ;;; through that ;;; ;;; that to be ministered, see also iv. q. Ad ministrandum my sin ;;; they shall be punished. This however concerning omitted ;;; injury ;;; two judgments of accusation, this ;;; no one regularly should accuse two ;;; of a crime, whether in this or a lesser one, as above De accusatione libet cos;;; super lege i;;; in ;;; judges ;;; and ;;; adulter ;;; e. q. Pupille i. as iii. h. ;;; Cum in his de libello, it cannot be that they be of accusation in manner ;;;. e. Costa and Sine murmure: therefore who should accuse, whence ;;; and to confess in one libel, or one and another concerning the same crime in another libel; but also to act, if anyone should accuse two h. ;;; said. The accusation of those whom he himself accuses, e. l. Nullum. e. v. Eum ;;; in his own injury or that of his own, prosecuting it, or this ;;; of these two defendants to promote, as not to be with greater. By argument xv. dist. De actuant; and as Viri libertas.

;;;

[On the question:] Rarely indeed thus the accuser deposits, as in C. de accusatione l. Ego;;; who explains who ;;; his; by argument ;;; to be undergone Ds;;; e. q. p;;; this ;;; and Ds;;; Adversus inscriptum he restores; to accuse ;;; let it be charged to him from the state of the accusation to wish to settle with the individual defendants, as below Ad lucrum. On account of the accusation ;;; sent are paid out resolution, if to accuse Ds;;; without litigation, of which to redeem of his blood ;;; iv. e. q. iii. Punicat;;;. This says: if he is not punished by law in such matter, on account of the accusation ;;; of that crime ;;; not by law of accusation; therefore with the penalty of blood remaining you and not in the case ;;; to receive he himself ;;; he shall be repelled from accusation if you of enemies ;;; and of those bought ;;; ;;; he should anoint through blood ;;; he transacts; those not in the case ;;; re. ob. ii. of the accusation ;;; of that crime ;;; not by law of accusation, e. De collusione; as below e. q. iii. Fid;;; or the accusation of him ;;; in delicts ;;; he accuses ;;; him, who from him accusing ;;; he subornated, that is, instructed such things, that to false testimony he said. But also they instruct accused ;;; who newly is sold ;;; him, through poverty he is made, corrupted through ;;; poverty ;;; who to base things compels need, has him

[...] in the day, lest being filled I deny you, or being compelled by poverty I steal and forswear the name of my God. [The] law: “Let it be drawn by lot,” as in Causa I, question 4, “Testimonium” [c. Si tutius]. The point is that one should be of good repute so that he is not driven by poverty to lie, even though he be poor and have less than [is needed] today. ;;; If he is rejected — that is, they are not appointed — [it is] not on account of the wicked who ;;; the communion of someone’s body ;;; they offer to God; to the extent that they may not oppress them, namely [the] gods. Neither freeborn children nor freedmen [may proceed] to accuse parents or patrons, except in excepted [cases], namely [the law] of treason and sacrilege, and others etc., and unless they are expressly excepted. [The reading] “them” in the text — whence either this, but the whole active is annulled, unless perhaps for an action of injury he can equally accuse them. § “Quis,” and others may not — but let it be brought as a civil action; nor ;;; is it understood to be prohibited when it is said in ;;; etc., that is, immediately. “Liberi liberique,” etc., why [may they proceed] civilly against him for violence; and ;;; proceeding against them criminally, as ;;; of him; whence in question 3 [the rule]: if they were expelled from [their] profession, they cannot accuse them under the lex Iulia de vi publica or privata; [they may] proceed under the law against them in the text, as in question 3. But to recover possession he can act, or implore the office of the judge — yet [only] those proceeding civilly, where [it is] of the father; let [the judge] take care that [it be done] by the profession etc. For even a son, if a woman binds herself [claiming] to have given birth, and was not Judith [i.e., truthful], and substitutes herself to another father — perhaps from hatred of the son, in order that he may not obtain the father [i.e., his patrimony] from inheritance in full — the son cannot accuse the mother under the lex Cornelia de falsis; he may, however, complain about the action itself; [he may proceed] in court, imploring the judge. § “Area facere,” and accuse [under the] lex Cornelia de falsis. Note here ;;; f. that one rejected from [bringing] an accusation by others is admitted when prosecuting his own injury or that of his [kin]; and that neither freeborn children nor freedmen can criminally proceed against or accuse parents or patrons, but only civilly, unless perhaps in a casual matter. “Ab alio delati” — that is, accused; another cannot bring [a charge] against the same one previously held and dismissed for the same crime; he can be [charged] not by a regular accusation, because the defendant is absolved by the sentence of the judge [deciding] that he wishes to spare him and dispense with him, granted he knows him to be [guilty], if it pleases him; or he absolves from the observance of legal forms — for instance, because the adversary failed in proof; or he absolves with an intervening abolitio. [After such an] absolution, the defendant in such a crime is for that very reason previously rejected from accusation; he cannot by an oblique route be rejected from accusation or from giving testimony, from promotion, or from a public act, because another can demand [it], by the argument of ;;; xvii, De his criminibus, in similar matters of this cause. He cannot accuse this man of such a crime, nor of [anything] admitted, and concerning the man it is often asked in two cases: namely, if the first [accuser] is charged — the first accuser of prevarication who keeps silent and connives — and this other admits ;;; not the cause, as in ;;; De prevaricatione, c. Prevaricationis, etc.; De accusationibus, c. Si quis hereditarius; De delato homine exhibendo, c. III § hoc inter eos. Because the accuser is prosecuting his own injury or that of his [kin], and [the case] is signed off, the accusation [may be] instituted by another, as in ;;; De accusationibus I, c. Sicut § hoc demum. In these two cases he will be accused by another — yet by the same one. Likewise in the course of the matter, namely if he was absolved with an intervening abolitio, he can accuse [him] of the same crime, by the same person or by another — but with a difference. Now we must see what the abolitio is and what the kinds of abolitio are. The abolitio is the instituted prevention of the accusation, by which the defendant or accuser abolishes [the accusation] from a new defendant. There are three kinds of abolitio: publica, privata, and ex lege. The publica is what occurs on account of some notable public deed or public rejoicing — for instance, on the birth of the prince’s son, on the conquest of a city, or on the recovery of peace; on which account, if sudden holidays are introduced by the prince, this is not concerning others, but is to be understood concerning sudden holidays. That is, such abolitio has [its effects] and [so do] the others, on account of the accuser desisting. The privata is when the accuser says he accused out of rashness or error or heat of mind, and asks abolitio from the judge with the defendant present and consenting, as in C. De abolitionibus, l. Abolitio. The abolitio ex lege occurs if the accuser dies or is otherwise impeded so that he can no longer accuse — the defendant being reserved to his own [heirs], as in ;;; Ad se, q. Turpis, or Abolitio. In any of these abolitiones, the libellus of accusation is abolished; whence if afterward [someone] accuses him again of the same crime, it will be necessary to inscribe him [anew]. Note therefore that after any abolitio, an accusation is admitted — but only within 30 useful days after the holidays end, as regards the publica abolitio; [one] may seek the abolitio as regards others. It is admitted whether the accuser is the same or another, with the abolitio intervening, against the same accused or another, but with a difference: for with a publica abolitio intervening, another [accuser] is admitted indifferently; with a privata abolitio or one ex lege intervening, another [is admitted] but not the same, and [as for] another being admitted, [only] if within 30 useful days, as in ;;; e. The sense, therefore, is that another cannot bring [a charge], but with the abolitio intervening

with an abolitio intervening ex lege, [he] is not prohibited from bringing [a charge] concerning the defendants — that is, anew concerning new defendants — yet only within 30 useful days and not before, as has been said, as in ;;; e. q., whence ;;; or ;;;. And note that, in the manner of an abolitio sought, the consent of the defendant is not always required: namely, if the defendant has already suffered some injuries — namely of tortures or of prison — abolitio will not be granted without his consent; but if he has suffered nothing of the sort, and [the matter is] against a new defendant, abolitio will be granted, even if it is not sought by the actor within 30 days, as in C. De abolitione, lex ult. But outside [that case], if the accuser and the accused wish that abolitio be granted, the judge must never grant it indifferently, except in the greatest crimes — for instance, treason or betrayal — then abolitio will be granted even though both parties wish [it]. For if witnesses, freeborn, are already [entered] in the books or have been subjected to tortures, abolitio will not be granted, even with the consent of both parties. Likewise, if the accuser has accused fallaciously and the accused has been fallaciously accused, abolitio ought not to be granted. All this is found in C. De abolitionibus, l. ult., and C. De calumniatoribus, l. Fallaciter.

Munere

“Munere” — ;;; ad annonam. With “annona” [the term] was used when someone defrauded the public corn-supply that ought to have been given to soldiers, or arranged so that the corn might be sold dearer. To accuse [in] this matter, even women, prostitutes, and infamous persons were admitted, as is said in this lex, Ad militium, and to this accusation.

Omnibus

“His omnibus” — [Gratian] concludes from the foregoing that the judicial order is to be observed, and that it is to be observed in cases that are manifest. For, as he says in the following paragraph, accusation and the other things pertaining to the judicial order have been instituted for this purpose: that the defendant may not be oppressed by the cleverness of his adversaries, and that defendants may not safely [escape] while [the proceeding] yields — and also because, the cause ceasing, the effect ought to cease. [In] non-manifest [cases] this is not necessary, nor are testimonies required for notorious matters.

Manifesta

“Manifesta” — that is, notorious; not lengthy, namely as in C. XI, q. III, Eorum; Qui certe, and C. III, q. V, Quia suspecti; C. Quod Athanasius restituit, “even though” what was his was manifest. But certain things are manifest which are not notorious, concerning which [...]; and certain things that are manifest are notorious, concerning which here. Therefore an accusation, not testimony, is necessary; nevertheless a citation [is required], as in C. XXIII, q. III, De illicita — unless when something is to be defended by notoriety, by appeal, by the argument from C. Cum sacri scripta, C. XXVII, q. I, Si lectio; Si custos. Likewise, no contumacy [is required] in C. XXIII, q. III, De illicita.

in manifestis

“In manifestis” — refers to the preceding through the same chapters, even at the end of the preceding paragraph by the customary terms; that is, by dissolution or by accusation, by palliation, and on account of ;;; ;;;. For through dissimulation [the] protection from accusation may have ceased, as in ;;; e. q. III.

Notariorum

“Notoriorum sua sponte” — namely by the spontaneous [will] of the defendant, q. I, Quia ipse Iohannes etc. “Innocentia” — that is, innocent. “Culpa delictis” — that is, by faults of crime, culpable and harmful. But it is asked what notorious means. I respond that every crime either is or is rendered notorious — by which it is asked in law whether [it is] through the sentence of the judge, whether the defendant is judged or confesses through himself, if he should confess. But I believe that no crime is rendered notorious through the sentence of the judge. I say therefore that every and only that crime [is] notorious which he himself who committed it confesses, [whether] in public ;;; ;;;; but I understand confession [to be] both by mouth, publicly, or by the evidence of the deed; and so even if he denies it by mouth, if it appears by the evidence of the deed, it is no less called notorious — as in the case of a fornicator with a concubine whom he publicly kept and acknowledged, C. dist., because by common usage of him he cannot [remain] in office. The same holds for a priest, a presbyter, keeping a hearth-mate and having children by her, even though he denies it by mouth, the evidence of the deed itself convicts him, by argument of dist. LXXXII, Proposuisti; R. [i.e., C.] XXXIII, q. II, De his. But certain men say that, although the deed be evident, nevertheless if the defendant denies it, it is not notorious — which they seem to feel as ;;; e. § Quando; if this chapter [holds], I greatly grant [it]. But on the contrary, whether the notorious ceases to be notorious — [some] say it does. But when one ceases from the act of sinning and no trace of the sin remains — for instance, where a presbyter has a hearth-mate and it is notorious, [and] he dismisses her, and afterward takes her back — at once it ceases to be notorious. But I say that, from when it is once notorious, it is always notorious to those still living to whom it is notorious — as when the concubine of the fornicator does not pass to another place or enter [another house] with him, or unless it altogether falls from the memory of those people. As to what he says about the trace — namely that another trace of the sin must appear in order that it remain notorious, such as public sons of the fornicator — I do not approve, because there are many crimes whose traces cannot remain, such as simony, homicide, the sodomitic deed, and the like.