¹ Alföldi, Andreas, “Die Ausgestaltung des monarchischen Zeremoniells am römischen Kaiserhofe,” and “Insignien und Tracht der römischen Kaiser,” Römische Mitteilungen, XLIX (1934), 1–118Google Scholar; L (1935), 1–171.

² Klauser, Theodor, Der Ursprung der bischöflichen Insignien und Ehrenrechte (Bonner akademische Reden, I: Krefeld, 1949Google Scholar).

³ Schramm, Percy Ernst, “Sacerdotium und Regnum im Austausch ihrer Vorrechte,” Studi Gregoriani, II (1947), 403–457Google Scholar.

⁴ See Tierney, Brian, “The Canonists and the Mediaeval State,” Review of Politics, XV (1953), 378–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵ This has been pointed out repeatedly by Gaines Post; see especially his study on “A Romano-Canonical Maxim, ‘Quod omnes tangit,’ in Bracton,” Traditio, IV (1946), 197–251Google Scholar, and his paper read before the Riccobono Seminar on “The Theory of Public Law and the State in the Thirteenth Century,” Seminar, VI (1948), 42–59Google Scholar; also his latest study on “The Two Laws and the Statute of York,” Speculum, XXIX (1954), 417–432Google Scholar.

⁶ The expression, much discussed in Germany in the early 1930s, has become more popular in this country, unless I am mistaken, through a study by LaPiana, George, “Political Theology,” The Interpretation of History (Princeton, 1943)Google Scholar.

⁷ Maitland, F. W., “Moral Personality and Legal Personality,” in his Selected Essays (Cambridge, 1936), 230Google Scholar.

⁸ For the case of Dr. John Cowell, see McIlwain, Charles H., The Political Works of James I (Cambridge, Mass., 1918), pp. lxxxviiffGoogle Scholar, and, more recently, Chrimes, Stanley B., “Dr. John Cowell,” English Historical Review, LXIV (1949), 461–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who prints in the Appendix the relevant passages from Cowell's Interpreter or Book Containing the Signification of Words, first published in Cambridge, 1607. Cowell quotes many French authors, and it may have been derived from one of those sources that he points at the king's “benignity” (s.v. “Parliament”). His contemporary Charles Loyseau, for example, when discussing the validity of the provincial Coutumiers and the legislative power of the provincial assemblies, says also that “sa [the king's] bonté permette au peuple des Provinces coustumières de choisir certaines Coustumes, selon lesquelles ils désire vivre.” Loyseau's Traité des Seigneuries was first printed in 1608; but Loyseau was probably not the first to use the phrase; see William Farr Church, Constitutional Thought in Sixteenth-Century France (Harvard Hist. Stud., XLVII; Cambridge, 1941), 325, n. 57.

⁹ See Taswell-Langmead, Thomas P., English Constitutional History, 8th ed. by Coleman Philippson (London, 1919), 488Google Scholar, note (y), where the better part of the proclamation is printed; cf. Chrimes, op. cit., 472f. See also Parliamentary Debates in 1610, ed. by Gardiner, S. R. (Camden Society, 81; London, 1862), 22ffGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ McIlwain, Polit. Works, 332 f., for King James’ Speech in the Star Chamber, of 1616. It should be noted, however, that the king says also: “For though the Common Law be a mystery and skill best knowen vnto your selues …” Here the word “mystery” certainly has the meaning of handicraft or trade — in the sense of “arts and mysteries,” which perhaps would allow the suggestion that “mysteries of state” are the handicraft or trade of kings.

¹¹ See Parliamentary History of England (London, 1806), I, 1326 fGoogle Scholar. where the “mystery” is the Spanish marriage of Prince Charles; see also McIlwain, Constitutionalism Ancient and Modern (rev. ed., Ithaca, N.Y., 1947), 112, cf. 125. To “meddle” turns up time and time again; it is the equivalent of Latin se intromittere; see, e.g., Matthaeus de Afflictis (below, n. 22), I, fol. 45, on Liber aug., I, 4: “Ut nullus se intromittat de factis et consiliis regis.”

¹² Tacitus, Annales, II, 36. The expression, of course, was known; see, e.g., Parliamentary Debates in 1610, p. 52, where the Lords are said to “sitt neerer the Sterne of government, and therefore are made acquainted first with those things that are Arcana imperil etc.” For the interrelations between arcana and mysteria, see Perler, Othmar, Art. “Arkandisziplin,” Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, I (1950), 667–676Google Scholar, with full literature.

¹³ Codex Theodos., 1, 6, 9 = C.9, 29, 2: “Disputari de principali iudicio non oportet: sacrilegii enim instar est dubitare, an is dignus sit, quem elegerit imperator.”

¹⁴ For the connections between arcana-mysteria and silentium, see Casel, Odo, De philosophorum graecorum silentio mystico (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten, XVI:2; Giessen, 1919)Google Scholar. The silentium belonged also to the court ritual of the Roman emperors; see Alföldi, “Zeremoniell” (above, n. 1), 38 f. Treitinger, O., Die oströmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee nach ihrer Gestaltung im höfischen Zeremoniell (Jena, 1938), 52 f.Google Scholar; and, for its representation in early Christian art, the important remarks of André Grabar, , “Une fresque visigothique et l'iconographie du silence,” Cahiers archéologiques, I (1945), 126 ffGoogle Scholar. The silentium, however, was just as strictly imposed by Frederick II on the parties appearing in the law courts; see Liber augustalis, I, 32: “Cultus iustitiae silentium reputatur.” The words derive from Isaiah, 32, 17; but the law itself is framed on Gratian's Decretum, II, C. V, qu. 4, c. 3, ed. Friedberg, Emil, Corpus iuris canonici (Leipzig, 1879), I, 548 f.Google Scholar, a passage taken from the acts of the 11th Council of Toledo (675 A.D.), which had passed through various canonical collections, including that of Pseudo-Isidorus, before it was received by Gratian and, probably through him, by Frederick II. For his law in the Liber augustalis, see Constitutionum regni Siciliarum libri tres (Sumptibus Antonii Cervonii, Naples, 1773), 82. I am quoting the law book of Frederick II throughout according to this edition (abbreviated Liber aug. [with book and title], ed. Cervone [with page]) because it contains the glosses of Marinus de Caramanico and Andreas of Isernia; the edition of C. Carcani (Naples, 1786), though in some respects superior because it contains also the Greek text, lacks the gloss; and the “chronological” edition of Huillard-Bréholles, J. L. A., Historia diplomatica Friderici Secundi (Paris, 1852–1861), IV, 1 ff.Google Scholar, though it may have some better readings, is practically useless for the legal historian because it breaks up the unity of books and titles.

¹⁵ See the so-called Vatican Assizes, I, 17 (published probably in 1140, at Ariano in Apulia), ed. Brandileone, Francesco, II diritto Romano nelle leggi Normanne e Sveve del regno di Sicilia (Turin, 1884), 103Google Scholar. The text matches that of the Codex (above, n. 13), but after the word iudicio there is added: consiliis, institutionibus, factis. The same text is repeated by Frederick II, Liber aug., I, 4, ed. Cervone, 15.

¹⁶ Bracton, De legibus et consuetudinibus Angliae, fol. 34, ed. by G. E. Woodbine (New Haven, 1915–1942), II, 109: “De cartis vero regiis et factis regum non debent nee possunt iustitiarii nee privatae personae disputare, nee etiam, si in illis dubitatio oriatur, possunt earn interpretari.” It is difficult to follow the arguments on this passage advanced by Schulz, Fritz, “Bracton on Kingship,” Engl. Hist. Rev., LX (1945), 173CrossRefGoogle Scholar, admirable though his discussion is in so many other respects. Schulz claims that “here the words et factis regum must be interpolated.” These words, however, are well attested in this connection by the two Sicilian Law Codes (above, n. 15) ; there is no reason to assume an interpolation, but much reason to wonder where the de factis came from. Schulz claims also that the plural regum instead of regis “is conspicuous.” I do not think so: the plural slipped in because C. 9, 29, 2, which Schulz did not take into consideration, has the heading “Idem AAA. (= Augusti) ad Symmachum praefectum Urbi,” for the law was issued by the three emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius; and the plural first slipped, not into Bracton's treatise, but into Liber aug., I, 4, the title of which reads: “Ut nullus se intromittat (see above, n. 11) de factis seu consiliis regum” — a significant slip because the Byzantine plurality of emperors influenced the South-Italian scriptoria and chanceries not at all rarely; see Ladner, G. B., “The ‘Portraits' of Emperors in Southern Italian Exultet Rolls and the Liturgical Commemoration of the Emperor,” Speculum, XVII (1942), 189 ff.Google Scholar, who convincingly interprets those plurals in South-Italian liturgical texts. How to explain the similarity of Bracton's wording with that of the Sicilian law-book is a different matter; but when Bracton wrote his treatise (probably between 1250 and 1259), England was “swamped” by Sicilians; see Kantorowicz, E., “Petrus de Vinea in England,” Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Instituts für Geschichtsforschung, LI (1937–38), esp. 74 ff.Google Scholar, 81 ff.

¹⁷ McIlwain, Political Works of James I, 333 f.; see also Parliamentary Debates in 1610, p. 23, § 3.

¹⁸ The law of the three emperors penetrated also Canon Law; see the gloss on Decretum, II, C.XVII, qu. 4, c. 4. And, as Professor Gaines Post kindly pointed out to me, the law was transferred also to the pope; see Hostiensis, Summa aurea (Venice, 1586), col. 1610, De crimine sacrilegii, n. 2: “Similiter de iudicio summi Pontificis disputare non licet.” See also Oldradus de Ponte, Consilia, LXII, n. i (Lyon, 1550), fol. 21^rb: “De potestate vestra dubitare sacrilegium esset. arg. C. de cri. sacri. 1. II (C. 9, 29, 2).”

¹⁹ The religio iuris is usually discussed by the glossators in connection with Justinian's Institutes, Prooem.: “… et fiat [princeps Romanus] tarn iuris religiosissimus quam victis hostibus triumphator.” Cf. Placentinus, , Summa Institutionum, ed. Fitting, H., Juristische Schriften des früheren Mittelalters (Halle, 1876), 222Google Scholar, 21; Azo, Summa Institutionum, ed. Maitland, F. W., Select Passages from the Works of Bracton and Azo (Selden Society, VIII: London, 1895), 6Google Scholar. The Glossa ordinaria (gl. on “religiosissimus”) parallels, like Azo and others did before, the notions iuris religio and triumphus. See also Andreas of Isernia, on Liber aug., I, 99, ed. Cervone, 168: “Iustitia habet multas partes inter quas est religio et sacramentum … Nam sacramentum est religio: unde dicitur iurisiurandi religio.” Iurisiurandi religio remained a technical term of Jurisprudence, and it is significant that a 16th-century French jurist, when referring to Philo, De specialibus legibus, II: De iureiurando religioneque, quoted Philo, Liber de iurisiurandi religione; see Pierre Grégoire, De Republica, VI, c. 3, n. 2 (Lyon, 1609), 137, in marg.

²⁰ Petrus de Vinea, Epistolae, III, 69, ed. by Simon Schard (Basel, 1566), 512: “vendere precio iusticiae mysterium,” a school letter distorting the imperial laws. Venal justice, of course, compared with simony; see Philipp of Leyden (below, n. 67), Casus LX, n. 33, p. 253 f.; Lucas de Penna, on C. 12, 45, i, n. 61, p. 915: “gravius crimen est vendere iustitiam quam praebendam; legimus enim Christum esse iustitiam [see Decretum, C. XI, q. 3, c. 84, ed. Friedberg, I, 666], non legitur autem esse praebendam.”

²¹ Liber aug., I, 63, ed. Cervone, 124.

²² For the interchangeable use of ministerium and mysterium, see Blatt, F., “Ministerium-Mysterium,” Archivum latinitatis medii aevi, IV (1923), 80 f.Google Scholar; one might add Diehl, E., Inscriptiones latinae christianae veteres (Berlin, 1924), I, 4Google Scholar, No. 14 (“ministeriis adque tnysteriis religiose celebrandis”); also The Book of Armagh, ed. by John Gwynn (Dublin, 1913), p. ccxxi (quotation of Romans, 11, 25). Matthaeus de Afflictis, In utriusque Siciliae … Constitutiones (Venice, 1562), I, fol. 216”, on Liber aug., I, 63 [60], nos. 4–5, finds the chief difference between the two notions finally in the fact that “mysterium non potest fieri in privatis domibus …, sed ministerium iustitiae potest fieri etiam in privatis domibus,” a somewhat disappointing result of a promising effort. See also Souter, A., A Glossary of Later Latin (Oxford, 1949)Google Scholar, s.v. “ministerium.”

²³ There is a considerable lack of clarity with regard to the rex et sacerdos ideal. Without trying to solve a complicated problem in a footnote, a few remarks may not be out of order. In the early Christian centuries, the rex et sacerdos ideal had nothing to do with consecrations: it was chiefly a survival of the imperial title Pontifex Maximus, though also an adaptation of that title to Christian thought by way of the biblical model of Melchizedek. The introduction of royal anointments. in the 7th and 8th centuries produced the liturgical note: the new coronation anointing of Old-Testament pattern was fused with the baptismal anointing of New-Testament pattern “ut intelligat baptizatus regale ac sacerdotale ministerium accepisse” (see, among a score of similar phrasings, Amalar of Trier's response to the questionnaire of Charlemagne on baptism, Patr. lat., XCIX, 898D): the king, like the neo-baptized, was rex et sacerdos, though in a special sense, and his priesthood was esoteric only, and not clerical. After the introduction of head-anointings at the bishops’ consecration, the king's coronation was strongly assimilated to the ordination of a bishop: the royal office was “clericalized” and the ruler considered non omnino laicus. Roman and Canon Laws finally produced a new, neither esoteric nor liturgico-clerical, but legalistic-clerical interpretation of the old rex et sacerdos ideal, though without inactivating the earlier layers completely.

²⁴ Digest, 1, 1, 1: “(Ulpianus) Cuius merito quis nos sacerdotes appellet: iustitiam namque colimus …” Who he (quis) was that called the judges and jurists priests is not said; see, however, Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae, XIV, 4: “… iudicem, qui Iustitiae antistes est”; also Quintilian, Inst. orat., XI, 1, 69: “iuris antistes” See further the inscription CIL., VI, 2250: sacerdos iustitiae, with Mommsen's quotation of D. 1, 1, 1; also Symmachus, Ep. X, 3, 13, Mon. Germ. Hist., Auct. ant., VI, 282, 28, addressing the emperors Iustitiae sacerdotes. For the passage itself, see von Lübtow, Ulrich, “De iustitia et iure,” Savigny Zeitschrift für Rechtsgeschichte, rom. Abt., LXVI (1948), 458 ff.Google Scholar, esp. 524, 559 ff., 563.

²⁵ Brandileone, Diritto Romano (above, n. 15), 94 f.: “In qua oblatione regni officium quoddam sibi sacerdotii vendicat privilegium; unde quidam sapiens legisque peritus iuris interpretes iuris sacerdotes appellat.” Compare Dignum et necessarium est with the Preface of the Mass: Vere dignum et iustum est; and the relative junction In qua oblatione with Quam oblationem before the Consecration. Neither the similarities nor the slight variations are meaningless: one wanted the assonance with the Mass, but refrained as yet from profanation.

²⁶ Glossa ordinaria, on D. 1, 1, 1, gl. ‘sacerdotes”: “quia ut sacerdotes sacra ministrant et conficiunt, ita et nos, cum leges sunt sanctissimae … Ut ius suum cuique tribuit sacerdos in danda poenitentia, sic et nos in iudicando.” A long commentary on the subject is found in Guillaume Budé, Annotationes in XXIIII Pandectarum libros (Lyon, 1551), 28 ff.

²⁷ John of Viterbo, De regimine civitatum, c.25, ed. Salvemini, Gaetano, in: Bibliotheca iuridica medii aevi (Bologna, 1901), III, 226Google Scholar: “… nam iudex alias sacerdos dicitur quia sacra dat …; et alias dicitur: ‘Iudex dei presentia consecratur’ …; dicitur etiam, immo creditur, esse deus in omnibus pro hominibus …” The places referred to are D.1, 1, 1; C. 3, 1, 14; C. 2, 59, 2, 8.

²⁸ Guillelmus Durandus, Rationale divinorum officiorum, 11, 8, 6 (Lyon, 1565), fol. 55^v: “Quidam etiam dicunt … (D. 1, 8, 9, 3) quod [imperator] fit presbyter iuxta illud: ‘Cuius merito quis nos sacerdotes appellat’.”

²⁹ Durandus, loc.cit.: “Imperator etiam pontifex dictus est.” Cf. Rationale, II, ii: “Unde et Romani Imperatores pontifices dicebantur.” This is simply the customary quotation from Gratian, Decretum, I, Dist.XXI,c.i,§8, ed. Friedberg, 1,68. The passage in the Decretum is taken from Isidore of Seville, Etym.,VII, 12. The civilians rarely failed to allege that place of the Decretum when they came to discuss the pontifical and sacerdotal qualities of the Prince in connection with Justinian, Instit., 11, 1, 8 (“per pontifices deo consecrata sunt”), or with D. 1, 8, 9, 1 (“cum princeps eum [locum sacrum] dedicavit”). Later Budé, op. cit. (above, n.26), 30, blames Accursius — and, for that matter, the whole old school of glossators — quod ad nostros pontifices retulit; that is, for having equated the ancient pontifex with the modern Christian bishop. This does honor to Budé's strongly developed historical understanding. By that time, however, the damage was done and the king had become “pontifical.”

³⁰ See Koeniger, Albert Michael, “Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur,” Beiträge zur Geschichte des christlichen Altertums und der byzantinischen Literatur: Festgabe Albert Ehrhard (Bonn und Leipzig, 1922), 273–300Google Scholar; see, for Boniface VIII, also Konrad Burdach, Rienzo und die geistige Wandlung seiner Zeit (Vom Mittelalter zur Reformation, II, 1: Berlin, 1913–28), 538 ff. See the angry 16th-century diatribe against the papal maxim by de Belloy, Pierre, Moyens d'abus, entreprises et nullitez du rescrit et bulle du Pape Sixte V^e (Paris, 1586), 61 ffGoogle Scholar.

³¹ Baldus, on Digest, Prooem., n.23 (Venice, 1586), I, fol.2^v.

³² Matthaeus de Afflictis, In Sicil. Const., praeludia, qu.XXI, n.3, fol. 18: “quia imperator aliis imperat, sed sibi a nemine imperatur, ut dicit Baldus in prin.ff. veteris.in ii.col.” (see above, n.31).

³³ For the kings as “gods” (dii), see my paper “Deus per naturam, Deus per gratiam,” Harvard Theological Review, XLV (1952), 233–277Google Scholar, where I have indicated (e.g.,274, n.72) the connections with absolutist theories, though without penetrating the matter and without recognizing to what extent that notion was actually pivotal in the theories of English and French absolutists. See, e.g., above, n.g.

³⁴ James I's Speech to the Lords and Commons, March 21, 1609; see McIlwain, Political Works, 307 f.

³⁵ Salmasius, Defensio regia pro Carolo I., c.VI (Paris, 1650 [first published in 1649]), 169: “Rex a nemine iudicari potest nisi a Deo”; and 170: “… illum proprium [regem esse], qui iudicat de omnibus et a nemine iudicatur.”

³⁶ See Burdach, Rienzo (above, n.30), 211 f., 269 f., and passim (Index, s.v. “Übermensch”), on the idea of the “superman” and its connection with the homo spiritualis. The genealogy of “superman” is, however, very complicated, though a connection with St. Paul and the Epistle to the Corinthians cannot easily be denied. See Gregory the Great, Moralia, XVIII,c.54 (§ 92), on Job, 27, 20–21; Patr. lat., LXXVI, 95A. Gregory comments on 1, Cor.2,10, and says about St. Paul: “More suo [Paulus] ‘homines’ vocans omnes humana sapientes, quia qui divina sapiunt, videlicet supra homines sunt. Videbimus igitur Deum, si per coelestem conversationem suprahomines esse mereamur.” The notion of suprahomims thus coincides largely with that of dii (see above, n.33). See Cochrane, Charles Norris, Christianity and Classical Culture (Oxford, 1940), 113Google Scholar, 11.1; Maritain, J., Theonas, Conversations of a Sage (London and New York, 1933), 189Google Scholar; see also Reitzenstein, R., Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen (3rd ed., Berlin, 1927), 368 ff.Google Scholar, for St. Paul, and further Holl, Karl, Luther (Tübingen, 1932), 222Google Scholar, 533. There is, however, yet another strand. Nikephoras Gregoras, writing in the 14th century, still styles the Byzantine emperor “divine and man above men” (θεῖος καὶ ὺπὲρ ἀνθρώπων ἅνθρωπος); cf. Rodolphe Guilland, “Le droit divin à Byzance,” Eos, XLII (1947), 153. This strand, of course, leads to the very broad problem of the theios anēr, which cannot be broached here. Cf. L. Bieler, ΘΕΙΟΣ ΑΝΙΡ: Bild des, Das “göttlichen Menschen” in Spätantike und Frühchristentum (Vienna, 1935)Google Scholar.

³⁷ Godefroy, Th., Le ceremonial de France (Paris, 1619), 348Google Scholar, for the coronation of 1547, and, p. 661, for the more detailed rubrics of 1594: ‘ANNEAU ROYAL: Parce qu'au jour du Sacre le Roy espousa solemnellement son Royaume, et fut comme par le doux, gracieux, et amiable lien de mariage inseparablement uny avec ses subjects, pour mutuellement s'entr[e]aimer ainsi que sont les espoux, luy fut par le dit Evesque de Chartres presenté un anneau, pour marque de ceste reciproque conjonction.” The rubric after the ceremony says that the same bishop “mit le dit anneau, duquel le Roy espousoit son Royaume, au quatriesme doigt de sa main dextre, dont procede certaine veine attouchant au coeur.” See, for the last remark concerning the ring finger, Gratian, Decretum, II, C. XXX, qu.5, c.7, ed.Friedberg; I, 1106. In his edict of 1607, concerning the reunion to the Crown of his private patrimony of Navarre, Henry IV quite obviously alludes to those rubrics, when he says about his predecessor kings that “ils ont contracté avec leur couronne une espèce de manage communément appellé saint et politique”; cf. Recueil, général des anciens lois françaises, ed. by Isambert, , Taillandier et Decrusy, vol. XV (Paris, 1829), 328Google Scholar, No.191; see also Hartung (below, n.40), 33 f.; and, for the sponsus metaphor in general, Burdach, Rienzo, 41–61.

³⁸ See, e.g., King James I's Speech to his First Parliament, in 1603; Parliamentary History, 1,930: “‘What God hath conjoined then, let no man separate.’ I am the husband, and all the whole island is my lawful wife; I am the head, and it is my body; I am the shepherd, and it is my flock.”

³⁹ Charles de Grassaille, Regalium Franciae libri duo, I, ius xx (Paris, 1545), 217: “Rex dicitur maritus reipublicae … Et dicitur esse matrimonium morale et politicum: sicut inter ecclesiam et Praelatum matrimonium spirituale contrahitur… Et sicut vir est caput uxoris, uxor vero corpus viri …, ita Rex est caput reipublicae et respublica eius corpus.” See above, n.38, and below, nos.48, 56.

⁴⁰ René Choppin, De Domanio Franciae, Lib.II, tit.1, n.2 (Paris, 1605), p. 203: “Sicuti enim Lege Julia, dos est a marito inalienabilis: ita Regium Coronae patrimonium, individua Reipublicae dos”; also Lib.III, tit.5, n.6, p.449: “Rex, curator Reipublicae ac mysticus … ipsius coniunx.” See, for the French version, Choppin, Les oeuvres (Paris, 1635)Google Scholar, II,117 and 259. See also the very useful study of Fritz Hartung, Die Krone als Symbol der monarchischen Herrschaft im ausgehenden Mittelalter (Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie, 1940, Nr.13; Berlin, 1941), 33 f.

⁴¹ François Hotman, Francogallia, c. IX, n. 5 (first published in 1576; the early editions do not contain Chapter IX, and the later editions were not accessible to me); cf. Lemaire, André, Les lois fondamentales de la monarchie française (Paris, 1907), 93Google Scholar, n.2, for the editions (also 99, n.2), and, p.100, for the marriage metaphor, used also by Grégoire, Pierre, De Republica, IX, I, II (Lyon, 1609Google Scholar; first published in 1578), P.267A: the Prince as sponsus reipublicae and the fisc as the dos pro oneribus danda.

⁴² See Vassalli, Filippo E., “Concetto e natura del fisco,” Studi Senesi, XXV (1908), 198Google Scholar, nos. 3–4, and 201, for the metaphor. The problem of inalienability of the fisc or demesne in France is one of the leading subjects in the excellent study of William F. Church, Constitutional Thought in Sixteenth-Century France (above, n. 8).

⁴³ Above, n.40; also Church, Const. Thought, 82.

⁴⁴ See Hartung, Krone als Symbol, 33.

⁴⁵ See Ullmann, Walter, The Medieval Idea of Law as represented by Lucas de Penna (London, 1946), 14Google Scholar, n.2, for the editions. Ullmann reasonably restricts himself to a “few obvious examples” of French jurists who referred to Lucas de Penna (Tiraqueau, Jean de Montaigne, Pierre Rebuffi, Bodin) ; their number, however, is legion. Grassaille copies verbatim and actually cites Lucas’ commentary on C.11,58, 7, in the passage quoted above (n.39).

⁴⁶ Lucas de Penna, Commentaria in Tres Libros Codicis, on C. 11, 58, 7, n. 8 ff. (Lyons, 1582), 563 f., a place which Ullmann does not seem to have discussed, though (p. 176, n.1) he quotes another marriage metaphor of Lucas. See below, n.49, for the biblical and ritual background.

⁴⁷ “Item princeps si verum dicere vel agnoscere volumus, … est maritus reipublicae iuxta illud Lucani … [Pharsalia, 11,388].” The history of the Roman title pater (parens) patriae has been admirably discussed by Alföldi, A., “Die Geburt der kaiserlichen Bildsymbolik: 3. Parens patriae,” Museum Helveticum, IX (1952), 204–243Google Scholar, and X (1953), 103–124. The title urbi maritus is not quite rare either, since it is found in Priscian, Servius, and others, as every well commented edition of Lucan may show.

⁴⁸ Lucas de Penna, loc.cit.: “… inter principem et rempublicam matrimonium morale contrahitur et politicum. Item, sicut inter ecclesiam et praelatum matrimonium spirituale contrahitur et divinum …, ita inter principem et rempublicam matrimonium temporale contrahitur et terrenum; et sicut ecclesia est in praelato et praelatus in ecclesia …, ita princeps in republica et respublica in principe.” Lucas de Penna may have been guided by Andreas of Isernia, a Neapolitan like himself, who on I feud., 3 (“Qui successores teneantur”), n. 16, In usus feudorum (Naples, 1571), 21^v, wrote: “Est princeps in republica sicut caput, et respublica in eo sicut in capite, ut dicitur de praelato in ecclesia, et ecclesia in praelato” (see also below, n. 53).

⁴⁹ The basis is, of course, Ephes.,5, 25 (“sicut et Christus dilexit ecclesiam”), which is also basic for the nuptial mass; the early Christian marriage rings, therefore, displayed in the bezel the marriage of Christ to the Church; see Dalton, O.M., Catalogue of Early Christian Antiquities and Objects from the Christian East … of the British Museum (London, 1901), 130Google Scholar and 131; a particularly beautiful specimen is in the Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. The marriage of a bishop to his see is a very common image to which, e.g., Pope Clement II, who refused to divorce himself from his bishopric Bamberg, alluded in most telling words; see Clement II, Ep.,VIII, Patr.lat., CXLII, 588B; and, above all, the decretal X, 1, 7, 2 (Innocent III), ed. Friedberg, II, 97.

⁵⁰ The argument was used especially on the part of the French legists in the trial against the memory of Pope Boniface VIII; cf. Dupuy, P., Histoire du différend d'entre le Pape Boniface VIII et Philippe le Bel (Paris, 1655), 453 ff.Google Scholar, and passim; Burdach, Rienzo, 52 f.

⁵¹ Gratian, Decretum, II, C.VII,qu.1, c.7, ed. Friedberg, 1, 568 f.

⁵² Cyprian, Ep., 66, c.8, ed. W. Hartel (CSEL., 111:2, 1871), 11, 733, 5. It would be rewarding to investigate the history of Cyprian's image of reciprocity. See, e.g., Athanasius, Oratio III contra Arianos, c.5, PGr.,XXVI, 332A, quoted by G.Ladner, “The Concept of the Image in the Greek Fathers,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, VII (1953), 8, n.31 (“The image might well say: ‘I [the image] and the emperor are one, I am in him and he is in me’”). Or, for a much later period, Petrus Damiani, Disceptatio synodalis, in: Mon.Germ.Hist., Libelli de lite, 1, 93, 36 f.: “ut … rex in Romano pontifice et Romanus pontifex inveniatur in rege” (a place to which Professor Theodor E. Mommsen kindly called my attention). The ultimate source, of course, is in all those cases John 14, 10, whose own model is difficult to determine. See, however, Eduard Norden, Agnostos Theos (Berlin, 10, 23), 305; Wilfred L. Knox, Some Hellenistic Elements in Primitive Christianity (Schweich Lectures, 1942: London, 1944), 78, n.3, believes that the Johannine saying “goes back to the pantheistic tradition of Stoicism influenced perhaps by the religion of Egypt,” and quotes (p.73, n.2, at the very end of the note) as “the nearest parallel to the Johannine language” a phrase found several times in the magical papyri: σὺ γὰρ εῖ έγὼ καὶ ἐγὼ σύ see K. Preisendanz, Papyri graecae magicae (Leipzig and Berlin, 1931), II, 47 (P. VIII, 37 ff., 49 ff.) and 123 (P. XIII, 795, with some literature in the footnote). The parallel, however, does not contain the word in ἐν, which in fact reflects two different “spaces” and which is essential for the development from John 14, 10, to St. Cyprian and thence to the corporational doctrines of early modern times. See also next note.

⁵³ Andreas of Isernia, Prooemium super Constitutionibus, ed. Cervone (above, n.14), p.xxvi, while discussing the fisc (“fiscus et respublica Romanorum idem sunt”), concludes: “Rex ergo et respublica regni sui idem sunt …, qui est in regno sicut caput, respublica in eo sicut in capite.” The basis is clearly John 10, 30, and 14, 10 (as in the case of Athanasius, quoted above, n.52), but the juristic allegation quoted by Andreas is the place of the Decretum (above, n.51). Matthaeus de Afflictis, on Const.,II,3, n.62, fol. ii^v, refers to Lucas de Penna: “Princeps est in republica et respublica in principe.”

⁵⁴ The corporational interpretation of that passage in a mystical sense was certainly very old within the Church, though it was not juristically rationalized before the 12th or 13th century. For Lucas de Penna, see below, nos. 56 f.

⁵⁵ Plowden, Edmund, Commentaries or Reports (London, 1816)Google Scholar, 233a (Willion v. Berkley), one of a score of similar utterances; see Bacon, , “Post-nati,” in: Works of Sir Francis Bacon, ed. by Spedding, and Heath, (London, 1892), VII, 667Google Scholar, who actually quotes Plowden, Reports, 213 (Case of the Duchy of Lancaster).

⁵⁶ Lucas de Penna, loc. cit.: “… item, sicut vir est caput uxoris, uxor vero corpus viri …, ita princeps caput reipublicae, et respublica eius corpus.” The quotation is Ephes. 5, 23 and 28; that is, it belongs to that apostolic writing which (above, n.49) predominantly referred to both marriage rite and corporational doctrines in their early setting. See also next note, and above, n.38, for James I, who quoted those passages.

⁵⁷ “Item, sicut membra coniunguntur in humano corpore carnaliter, et homines spirituali corpori spiritualiter coniunguntur cui corpori Christus est caput …, sic moraliter et politice homines coniunguntur reipublicae quae corpus est, cuius caput est princeps.”

⁵⁸ See “Pro patria mori,” American Historical Review, LVI (1951) 486 f.Google Scholar, 490 f., for additional examples. See also Huguccio of Pisa (d. 1210), who sets over against the body of Christ that of the Devil (“… ita infideles sunt unum corpus, cuius caput est diabolus”); cf. Onory, Fonti canonistiche (below, n.84), 175, n.2, who adds similar places.

⁵⁹ For the connection of morale (“ethical” in the Aristotelean sense) and politicum it will suffice here to quote Thomas Aquinas’ Prooemium, c.6, of his Expositio in libros Politicorum Aristotelis, ed. by Raymundus M. Spiazzi (Turin and Rome, 1951), p.2: “… et huiusmodi quae ad moralem scientiam pertinent: manifestum est politicam scientiam … contineri … sub activis [scientiis] quae sunt scientiae morales.” The expression corpus politicum et mysticum is found frequently in England and France as a predication of the state; see, e.g., Chrimes, S.B., English Constitutional Ideas in the Fifteenth Century (Cambridge, 1936), 180Google Scholar, 185 (“the mistik or politike body”); for France, Church, Constitutional Thought, 29, n.20; 34, n.36; 278, n.16 (“le corps politique et mystique”). See also above, n.37 (“saint et politique”).

⁶⁰ Lucas de Penna, loc.cit.: “Amplius, sicut Christus alienigenam, id est, gentilem ecclesiam sibi copulavit uxorem, 35.q.l. § hac itaque, sic et princeps rempublicam, quae quantum ad dominium sua non est, cum ad principatum assumitur, sponsam sibi coniungit …” The reference is to Gratian's Decretum, II,C.XXXV,q.1, §1 (Gratian's commentary on Augustine, De civitate Dei, XV, c.16), ed. Friedberg, 1, 1263.

⁶¹ Lucas de Penna, op. cit.: “Nam aequiparantur quantum ad hoc etiam iuramentum super his praestitum de alienatione facta 〈non〉 revocando episcopus et rex. Ita et principi alienatio rerum fiscalium, quae in patrimonio imperii et reipublicae sunt et separate consistunt a privato patrimonio suo, iuste noscitur interdicta.” There follows the comparison of the fisc with the dos which the respublica entrusts to the Prince at her marriage. See above, n.41. Naturally, the patrimonium Petri figures as the dos of the papal sponsa, Rome; see, e.g., Oldradus de Ponte, Consilia, LXXXV, n.1 (Lyon, 1550), fol.28^v, who admonishes the pope “ut sanctitas vestra revertatur ad sponsam … et reparet suum patrimonium et suam dotem, quae multipliciter est collapsa.” The doctrine finally traveled its full circular course in the 17th century, when the Roman pontiff appeared as the maritus of a respublica temporalis (the States of the Church) iure principatus and ex sola ratione dominii publici, though as a bishop he was also married to the Roman Church (tanquam vir Ecclesiae); De Luca, Theatrum I de feudis, disc. 61, n. 6, quoted by Vassalli, “Fisco,” 209 (above, n. 42).

⁶² See my study on “Inalienability: Canon Law and the English Coronation Oaths of the Thirteenth Century,” Speculum, XXIX (1954), 488–502Google Scholar.

⁶³ Without then knowing either the origin or later history of that comparison, I have briefly discussed the problem in “Christus-Fiscus,” Synopsis: Festgabe für Alfred Weber (Heidelberg, 1949), 225–235Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ Plucknett, T.F.T., “The Lancastrian Constitution,” Tudor Studies Presented to A.F. Pollard (London, 1924), 168Google Scholar, n.10.

⁶⁵ Andrea Alciati, Emblemata (Lyon, 1551; first edition 1522), p.158, No.CXLVII. The motto is not found in the editio princeps of 1522, but in that of 1531; see Green, Henry, Andrea Alciati and the Books of Emblems (London, 1872), 324Google Scholar, who indicates (p.viii) that in the wake of Alciati's publication some thirteen hundred authors published more than 3000 Emblem Books, while Alciati's original was translated into all European languages. I am indebted to Mrs. Caterina Olschki for having called my attention to the Alciati emblem.

⁶⁶ See, e.g., Wander, K. F. W., Deutsches Sprichwörterlexikon (Leipzig, 1867)Google Scholar, 1.538, Nos.54, 56, 57; V, 1102, No.95, cf. Nos. 103, 104; Seyboldus, Johannes Georgius, Selectiora Adagia latino-germanica (Nürnberg, 1683), 306Google Scholar; Strafforello, Gustavo, La sapienza del mondo ovvero dizionario universale dei proverbi di tutti popoli (Turin, 1883), II, 86Google Scholar, s.v. “Fisco.”

⁶⁷ Philippus de Leyden, De cura rei publicae et sorte principantis, 1, 9, ed. by Fruin, R. and Molhuysen, P.C. (The Hague, 1915), 13Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ The phrase “fiscus et ecclesia aequiparantur” is found time and time again; cf.Baldus, on C.10, 1, 3, n.2 (Venice, 1586), fol.236^r. Especially in connection with Justinian's Novel 7, 2, those equiparations would be found; e.g., Bartolus, Super Authenticis (Venice, 1567), fol. 13^v. Matthaeus de Afflictis quotes the proverb at least twice; see In Constit. Sicil., praeludia, qu.XV, n.3 (fol. 14^v), and on Const., 1, 7 (‘de decimis’), fol. 53^v. Bracton, fol.14, ed. Woodbine, 11,57 f.: “… sed tantum in bonis Dei vel bonis fisci.”

⁶⁹ Decretum, II,C.XVI, qu.7, c.8, ed.Friedberg, 1, 802. The passage was taken from [Pseudo-]Augustinus, Sermones supposititii, 86, 3, Patr.lat., XXXIX, col. 1912.

⁷⁰ Augustine, Enarrationes in PsaImos, CXLVI, 17, Patr. lat., XXXVII, col. 1911. The whole passage is quoted and interpreted, e.g., by Lucas de Penna, op. cit., on C.10, 1, 1, n.7, p. 5.

⁷¹ The decisive passages are Decretum, II,C.XII, q.1, c.12 (“Quare habuit [Christus] loculos cui angeli ministrabant, nisi quia ecclesia ipsius loculos habitura erat?”) and c.17 (“Habebat Dominus loculos, a fidelibus oblata conservans … “) ; both passages are taken from Augustine, In Johannem, 12, 6 (“loculos habens”), and they are referred to by Pope John XXII in his decretals against the Spirituals; cf. Extravagantes Ioannis XXII, tit.XIV, c.5, ed. Friedberg, 11, 1230 ff., esp. 1233. The word loculus, meaning “purse,” then could be taken to mean “fisc”; see Matthaeus de Afflictis, op.cit., prael.,XV, nos.7–9, who elaborates on the question whether or not Christ had a fisc in the proper sense of the word. The whole problem will be discussed separately.

⁷² Baldus, Consilia, 1,271, n.3 (Venice, 1575), fol.81^v: “respublica et fiscus sint quid eternum et perpetuum quantum ad essentiam, licet dispositiones saepe mutentur: fiscus enim nunquam moritur.”

⁷³ The principle Nullum tempus currit contra regem was commonly acknowledged in the thirteenth century at the latest; see.e.g., Bracton, fols. 14, 56, 103, ed.Woodbine, 11, 58, 167, 293, and passim.

⁷⁴ See Justinian's Institutes, 2, 1, 7; also D.1, 8, 1, and C.7, 38, 2. As late as the fifth century do we find that ius publicum and ius templorum are treated on equal footing; see Arthur Steinwenter, “Über einige Bedeutungen von ius in den nachklassischen Quellen,” Iura, IV (1953), 138 f., who shows also that terminologically ius ecclesiae simply took the place of ius templorum, although with the edict of Licinius, of 313 (at least in the form transmitted by Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, 48), the new notion of corpus Christianorum was connected with Church property; cf. Arnold Ehrhardt, “Das corpus Christi und die Korporationen im spätrömischen Recht,” Zeitschrift für Rechtsgeschichte, rom.Abt., LXXI (1953). 299 ff., and LXXII (1954).

⁷⁵ Bracton, fol. 14, ed. Woodbine, 11,57 f.; cf. fol. 407, Woodbine, III, 266, and passim.

⁷⁶ Lucas de Penna, on C.10, 1, n.2 (Lyon, 1582), p.5, with reference to C.7, 37, 2: sacratissimus fiscus and sacratissimum aerarium. Those expressions are found also, time and time again, in the works of the French jurists of the sixteenth century, though not without an intention to claim imperial rights for the king; e.g., Choppin (above, n. 40), II, tit. 1, n.2, p. 203: “Sacrum enim existimatur, ut Imperiale, sic Regale Patrimonium, quod ideo a re privata ipsorum Principum separari solet.” This is one of the numerous adaptations of imperial prerogatives to royal claims in the wake of the rex imperator in regno suo theory (see below, n.84).

⁷⁷ Baldus, Consilia, I, 271, n.2, fol.81^v: “Et, ut ita loquar, est [fiscus] ipsius Reipublicae anima et sustentamentum.” This does not prevent him, of course, to say on another occasion correctly: “Fiscus per se est quoddam corpus inanimatum”; see Consilia, I, 363, n.2, fol. 118^r. Popular also was the comparison with the stomach (Lucas de Penna, on C.11, 58, 7, n.10, p.564) which is found as early as Corippus, In laudem Iustini, II, 249 f. (Mon. Germ. Hist., Auctores antiquissimi, 111, 2, p.133): “… cognoscite fiscum / Ventris habere locum, per quem omnia membra cibantur,” which in its turn goes back to the parable of Menenius Agrippa which itself has a long history; see Wilhelm Nestle, “Die Fabel des Menenius Agrippa,” Klio, XXI (1926–27), 358 f., also in his Griechische Studien (1948), 502 ff.; Gombel, Friedrich, Die Fabel ‘Vom Magen den Gliedern’ in der Weltliteratur (Beih.z.Zeitschr.f. roman. Philol., LXXX: Halle, 1934)Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ Glossa ordinaria, on C.7, 37, 1, v. ‘Continuum.’

⁷⁹ Marinus de Caramanico, on Liber aug., 111, 39, ed. Cervone (above, n. 14), p. 399a: “… et sic non loquitur de fisco qui semper est praesens.” See also Matthaeus de Afflictis, on the same law, n.3, vol.II, fol. 186: “… nee requiritur probare de praesentia fisci, quia fiscus semper est praesens.”

⁸⁰ See, e.g., Justinian, Instit., 11, 6, rubr.: “… inter praesentes decennio, inter absentes viginti annis usucapiantur.” Presence or absence of the owner makes legally some difference, but the fisc is legally always present.

⁸¹ Baldus, on C.7, 37, 1, fol. 37^r. We should not forget that the Church also has ubiquity; see Peregrinus, Marcus Antonius, De iure fisci libri octo (Venice, 1611)Google Scholar, 1, 2, n.22: “… quia sicut Romana Ecdesia ubique est, sic fiscum Ecclesiae Romanae ubique existere oportet.” See, on the emperor's ubiquity, my paper “Invocatio nominis imperatoris,” Bollettino del Centro di studi filologici e linguistici siciliani, 111 (1955).

⁸² See above. n.72.

⁸³ Baldus, on X, 2, 24, 33, n.5. In Decretalium volumen commentaria (Venice, 1580), fol. 261^v: “Unde imperator … non obligatur homini, sed Deo et dignitati suae, quae perpetua est.”

⁸⁴ The basis is a decretal of Alexander III: X, 1, 20, 14, ed. Friedberg, 11, 162; see for the development of the theory, von Gierke, O., Das deutsche Genossenschaftsrecht (Berlin, 1881)Google Scholar, 111, 271, n.73. For the secular dignitaries, see Baldus, Consilia, III, 159, n.3, fol.45^v; and, ibid., n.4, for the perpetuity of the regal dignity if the king non cognoscit superiorem. For the origins of the doctrine of kings not recognizing a superior, see the excellent study of the late Sergio Mochi Onory, Fonti canonistiche dell'idea moderna dello stato (Pubblicazioni dell'università cattolica del Sacro Cuore, N.S., XXXVIII: Milan. 1951).

⁸⁵ Matthaeus de Afflictis, on Liber aug., II, 35, n.23, vol. 11, fol.77: “Quae dignitas regia nunquam moritur.”

⁸⁶ Baldus, on X, 1, 2, 7, n.78, In Decretales, fol.18: “Nam regia maiestas non moritur.”

⁸⁷ Baldus, Consilia, 111, 217, n.3, fol.63^v: “… [persona] personalis quae est anima in substantia hominis, et non persona idealis quae est dignitas.”

⁸⁸ Grassaille, Regalium Franciae libri duo, I, ius xx (Paris, 1545), 210: “Item, Rex Franciae duos habet bonos angelos custodes: unum ratione suae privatae personae, alterum ratione dignitatis regalis.”

⁸⁹ The slogan turns up quite frequently in the arguments of English jurists in the middle of the 16th century; see, e.g., Plowden, Reports, 233a: “for as to this Body [his body politic] the King never dies.” In France, it is certainly found by the end of the century, though it should not be confused with the funerary cries Le roi est mort! Vive le toi! which have a quite different and non-juristic origin.

⁹⁰ The comparison, to my knowledge, is first found in the Glossa ordinaria of Bernard of Parma on the Gregorian Decretals; see gl. “substitutum,” on X, 1, 29, 14. See further Andreae, Johannes, In Decretalium libros Novella (Venice, 1612)Google Scholar, fol. 206^v–207, on X, 1,29, 14, nos. 30–31, gl. “Phenix,” Baldus, on the same decretal, n.3, In Decretales, fol.107, who draws philosophically the right conclusion: “Est autem avis unica singularissima, in qua totum genus servatur in individuo.” The comparison is far more striking than can be intimated here; see Hubaux, Jean and Leroy, Maxime, Le mythe du Phénix (Liège and Paris, 1939)Google Scholar, and the important remarks on that study by Festugière, A.-J., “Le symbole du Phénix et le mysticism hermétique,” Monuments Piot, XXXVIII (1941), 147–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar, with which one should compare Jean de Terre Rouge, Tractatus de iure futuri successoris legitimi in regiis hereditatibus, esp. I, art.2, in the appendix of Hotman, F., Consilia (Arras, 1586), 35 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁹¹ Maitland, Selected Essays, 73–127, and passim.

⁹² The subject has been treated very thoroughly by Tschipke, Theophil, Die Menschheit Christi als Heilsorgan der Gottheit unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Lehre des Heiligen Thomas von Aquino (Freiburger Theologische Studien, LV: Freiburg, 1940)Google Scholar; see also Grabmann, M., “Die Lehre des Erzbischofs und Augustinertheologen Jakob von Viterbo († 1307/8) vom Episkopat und Primat und ihre Beziehung zum Heiligen Thomas von Aquino,” Episcopus: Studien über das Bischofsamt … Kardinal von Faulhaber … dargebracht (Regensburg, 1949), 190Google Scholar, n.10, for further literature.

⁹³ Baldus, Consilia, 111, 121, n.6, fol.34: “Ibi attendimus dignitatem tanquam principalem et personam tanquam instrumentalem. Unde fundamentum actus est ipsa dignitas quae est perpetua.” In the same paragraph he also makes the distinction “quod persona sit causa immediata, dignitas autem sit causa remota,” whereby we should recall that God is often said to act (e.g. at elections) as the causa remota.

⁹⁴ Baldus, Consilia, 111, 159, n.6, fol.45^v: “… loco duarum personarum Rex fungitur … Et persona regis est organum et instrumentum illius personae intellectualis et publicae. Et ilia persona intellectualis et publica est ilia, quae principaliter fundat actus: quia magis attenditur actus, seu virtus principalis, quam virtus organica.” Compare, e.g., Aquinas, Summa theologiae, IIIa, qu.LXII,a.5 resp.: “Principalis autem causa efficiens gratiae est ipse Deus, ad quem comparatur humanitas Christi sicut instrumentum coniunctum”; or IIIa,qu.VII,a.1, ad 3: “Quod humanitas Christi est instrumentum divinitatis … tanquam instrumentum animatum anima rationali.” The transition to the juristic application of this doctrine may perhaps be found in Aquinas himself when he writes (IIIa, qu.VIII, a.2): “In quantum vero anima est motor corporis, corpus instrumentaliter servit animae.”

⁹⁵ Plowden, Reports, 261; Maitland, Selected Essays, 110, n.2.

⁹⁶ Coke, in Calvin's Case (Reports, VII, 10a), distinguishes theologically, or even christologically, when he says that the king, though he has “two bodies” (and “two capacities”), has “but one person.” Maitland, op.cit., 110, n.4.

⁹⁷ See, in addition to Lubac (next note), Ladner, G.B., “Aspects of Mediaeval Thought on Church and State,” Review of Politics, IX (1947), 403 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp.414 f.

⁹⁸ Simon of Tournai, quoted by de Lubac, Henri, Corpus mysticum (Paris, 1949), 122Google Scholar, n.29: “Duo sunt corpora Christi: Unum materiale, quod sumpsit de virgine, et spirituale collegium, collegium ecclesiasticum.” See also, ibid., n.30.

⁹⁹ Gregory of Bergamo, De veritate corporis Christi, c.18, ed. Hurter, H., Sanctorum patrum opuscula selecta (Innsbruck, 1879), vol. XXXIX, 75 f.Google Scholar: “Aliud esse novimus Christi corpus, quod videlicet ipse est, aliud corpus, cuius ipse caput est.” Cf. Lubac, op.cit., 185 (with n.155), also 123 f., and passim, for many more examples of the duplex corpus Christi.

¹⁰⁰ Plowden, Reports, 233a, quoted also by Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1, p.249.