8/10/2019 Boehner-Ockham's Political Ideas
1/27
Ockham's Political IdeasAuthor(s): Philotheus BoehnerSource: The Review of Politics, Vol. 5, No. 4 (Oct., 1943), pp. 462-487Published by: Cambridge University Pressfor the University of Notre Dame du lac on behalf ofReview of PoliticsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1404000.
Accessed: 18/11/2014 11:45
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Cambridge University Pressand University of Notre Dame du lac on behalf of Review of Politicsare
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Review of Politics.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 158.251.6.77 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:45:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=notredamepoliticshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=notredamepoliticshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1404000?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1404000?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=notredamepoliticshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=notredamepoliticshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup8/10/2019 Boehner-Ockham's Political Ideas
2/27
Ockham's
Political
Ideas
*
By
Philotheus
oehner,
O.F.M.
W
ILLIAM
OCKHAM,
the
Venerabilis
nceptor
nd
theDoctor
plus quam
subtilis,
tartedhis
academic
career
simply
as
a
theologian
nd
philosopher
who
did
not
have,
or at
least
did
not
evince,
he
slightest
nterestn
political uestions. y
1324
or
at
least
by 1327,he had composed ll his purely heological r philosophical
works
f
whichwe
have
any knowledge.'
In
all
these
writings
here s
no
trace
of
any
political
dea
worth
mentioning.
Even
the
struggle
about
the
Franciscan
deal
of
poverty
ad
left
no
impression
n
the
lineswritten
y
Ockham
prior
o
1327.
While
he was in
England
he
was either oo remote
rom
he theatre
f war
or
(and
this seems
to
be
more
ikely)
he
was too much
engrossed
n
the
construction
f
his
conceptualisticystem f philosophynd theology. In any case, we
know
rom isown
words
hat
he
did
not
take
part
n
the
truggle
bout
poverty--not
ven to the extent f
reading
he
pertinent
ocuments-
before
r
during
his
enforced
tay
at
Avignon
until
the
beginning
f
1328.
After
1328, however,
ckham
did
enter nto
the
field
f
polemical
and
politicalwriting,
nd
so
radical
was
this
change
that
henceforth
hewas
solely
polemical
nd
political
heologian.
So
completely
ere
his
energies
bsorbed
n
thisnew
task that
he
no
longer
ound
ime o
complete
ome
of his
more
philosophical
nd
theological
works.
This
sudden
change
n his
lifeoccurred
when,
t the
request
f
his
superior,
r.
Michael de
Cesena,
the
General
of the Franciscan
rder,
*
The
author
wishes
to
express
his indebtedness
to Fr. Sebastian
Day,
O.F.M.
for
his
assistance
in
preparing
the
manuscript
for
publication.
1
These are:
Reportatio
(quaestiones
in
2m-3m
librum
Sententiarum),
Ordinatio
(quaestiones
in Ini
I.
Sententiarum),
the
Commentaries
on
Porphyry's
Isagoge,
Aristotle's
Categories, Perihermenias,
De
Sophisticis
Elenchis
and on the
Physics,
Summulae
in
libros
Physicorum
and Summa
Logicae;
Ockham
had
composed
most
probably
at
this
time
Quodlibeta
VII,
Quaestiones
in libros
Physicorum,
his
two treatises on the
Holy
Eucharist
and
some
Quaestiones
disputatae.
Of these
works Exposito
in libros
Physi-
corum,Summulae
in
libros
Physicorum
and
Reportatio
are unfinished.Ockham
did
not
fulfill
his
promise
to write
on Aristotle's
Metaphysics
and other
works.
462
This content downloaded from 158.251.6.77 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:45:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Boehner-Ockham's Political Ideas
3/27
OCKHAM'S POLITICAL
IDEAS
463
he
studied the
bitterly
ebated
problem
f the Franciscan deal
of
poverty.
Because of
this
question
Michael
was
held
under arrest t
thepapal court n AvignonfromDecember, 327 and Ockham,who
had
been
held at the same
court ince
1324
because
of an
impending
trial
oncerning
uspicious
octrines
n
theology,
ead
and studied
hen
for
the
first
ime
he
decretals
f
Pope
John
XXII. He soon became
convinced
hat there
were
contradictions
etween
hese
decretals nd
thoseof
former
opes,
especially
hoseof
Popes
Nicholas
III;
and
he
found
n
these contradictions
n excuse
to renounce bedience
o a
Pope whomhe considered eretical.2With hissuperiornd two other
friars,
ckham
escaped
from
Avignon
on
May
26,
1328.
He
took
refuge
with
he
Pope's enemy,
ouis
the Bavarian. This
event
marks
the
beginning
f
Ockham's
bitter
nd
relentless
ight
gainst
Pope
John
XXII and
his successors
nd,
at
the same
time,
marks
he
begin-
ning
of
his
career
s a
polemical
nd
political
writer.
At
first, owever,
he
purely
political questionsconcerning
he
relation etween he secularand ecclesiastical
ower
did not
occupy
Ockham's
nterest.
During
the
years
328-1335
is
pen
was,
s
it
seems,
mainly
evoted
o the
interests
f
his Order
in matters
f Franciscan
poverty.
In
this,
of
course,
he
gave
at
least
indirect
upport
o the
German
Emperor,
ouis
the
Bavarian,who,
for
his
own
cause
and
because
of his own
purely
olitical
truggle
gainst
he
Pope, exploited
the
opposition
f the
friars
gainst
he
Supreme
Pontiff.
However,
t
was
only
naturalthatOckham,
fighting
or the cause of Franciscan
poverty,
hould
favour
he
side
of the German
Emperor
gainst
the
common
nemy.
Nevertheless,
here
eems
o be a
deeper
reason
why
Ockham
finally ave
direct
upport
o the
Emperor's
ause. Louis
the
2
Noveritis
itaque
et
cuncti
noverint
Christiani, quod
fere
quatuor
annis
integris
n
Avinione
mansi,
antequam
cognoscerem
praesidentem
ibidem
pravitatem
haereticam
incurrisse,
quia
nolens
leviter
credere,
quod
persona
in tanto officio
constituta
haereses
definiretesse
tenendas,
constitutiones
haereticales
ipsius
nec
legere
nec habere
curavi.
Post
modum
vero,
ex occasione data,
superiore
mandante, tres constitutiones eu potius
destitutiones
haereticales....
legi
et
studui
diligenter
...
L.
Baudry,
La
Lettre
de
Cuillaume
d'Occam
au
Chapitre
d'Assise,
in
Revue
d'Histoire
Franciscaine
III
(1926)
p.
207.
Cf.
also
pp.
207
and 213
where
Ockham
states
that this
was
the reason
for
his
escape
from
Avignon.
It
does
not
seem
likely
that
Ockham
escaped
for
fear of
an
imminent ondemnation
in
his
trial;
for
this
assumption
meets
with
the
objection
that
Ockham
was
never
condemned
by
the
Pope
because
of
"suspicious
doctrines"
which
were
examined
by
the
Pope's
commission,
hough
t would
have
been
an effective
weapon
in
the
hands
of the
Pope.
This content downloaded from 158.251.6.77 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:45:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Boehner-Ockham's Political Ideas
4/27
464
THE REVIEW
OF
POLITICS
Bavarian
fought
or the
independence
f
secular
power
and
of the
Roman
Empire
n
particular)
gainst any
interference
by
the
Pope.3
He had been electedby a majority f Germanprinces; minority,
however,
isputed
heelection. In sucha
case,
the
Pope
(JohnXXII)
claimed
he
right
o
decidewho was to be the awful
Roman
Emperor.
The
struggle,
herefore,
f
the FranciscanOrder and
the
struggle
f
the
Emperor
gainst
the
Pope
was
one
struggle
or
nviolable
ights,
as Ockham
aw them.
The
Franciscans
fought
or
right uaranteed
by
Holy Scripture
nd
by
declarations
f
previousPopes,4
and the
Emperorfoughtfor a rightguaranteed y divineand natural aw.
Hence,
to
Ockham's
way
of
thinking,
oth cases
were
but one as to
theirfundamental
ssue;
for
both were
one in their
opposition
o an
unjust
laim
of
the
supreme
cclesiastical
ower,
which
was
prejudicial
to lawful
rights.
Thus,
the essential
problem
f the
entire
truggle
became
the
question
f the limits f
papal
authority,
nd
from bout
1335
Ockham focused
his main
interest n
this
problem.
This
is
evident rom ven very ursoryeading fhispoliticalwritings.hese
begin,
roughly
peaking,
with his monumental nd
unfinished
ork,
the
Dialogus,
on
which
Ockham
probably
orked
rom 334.
A
correct
nterpretation,
herefore,
f
these
so-called
political
writings,
here
the
problem
of
evangelical
nd
Franciscan
poverty
plays
only
subordinate
ole,
must
never ose
sight
f this
entral
dea.
The crucialproblem
was
not
simply
hat of the relation
between
Church
nd
State
or between
he
Pope
and
the
Emperor;
t
was
rather
this
ame
problem
ut with definite
ualification.
Ockham's
problem
was
the actual
extent
f the
Pope's
power;
still more
correctly
nd
precisely,
t was
the
actual
limits f
the
papal
power.
This was
the
problem
hich
nspired
ckham
o write
ll his
political
works,
nd
even
the
problem
f the
right
nd
extent
f
secular
power
nd
jurisdiction
3 It should be noted that wherever Ockham refers to the "Roman empire," he
understands
by
this
term
the
Ancient
Roman
empire
and
its
continuation,
the
so-called
"Holy
Roman
Empire."
4
Ockham
with
the friars-and
not
only
with the so-called
Spirituals--was
con-
vinced
that the
ideal
of Franciscan
poverty,
expressed
in the Franciscan
rule,
confirmed
by
the
Bull
of Honorius
III and
the decretal
of
Nicholas
III,
was revealed
by
the
life
of
Christ.
There
can be
no doubt
that
Pope
Nicholas
III believed
it,
too,
although
in
a
strict
heological
sense,
he had
not defined
t
ex
cathedra.
Since
Pope John
XXII
denied
it,
there
existed
for Ockham
a contradiction between
two definitions
f
Popes.
This content downloaded from 158.251.6.77 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:45:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Boehner-Ockham's Political Ideas
5/27
OCKHAM'S
POLITICAL DEAS
465
was
subordinated
o it.
For,
ontrary
o some
cholars,
ckham id
not
write
or
hebenefitf
the
Emperor,
r,
t
least,
hat
was
not
his
main oncern. hescholarso whom e refer ave ttachedoomuch
significance
o the much
uoted
words
which
werenever
poken y
Ockham t all:
"O
Emperor,
efend
me
with
he
word nd
I
shall
defend
ou
by
the
word".
Ockhamwas nota courtier hohad
sold
himself
o
a secular
rince
nd
who
now
arned
is
ife
nd
protection
by
such
ervility.
n
denying
he bsolute ulness
f the
papalpower
he
denied
he
bsolute
ulness
f the
Emperor'sower
s
well;
nd
he
alwaysmaintainedhe utonomyndhigherignityfthePope. For
Ockham
was
a
theologian
ho,
or
he
benefit
f
theChurch
nd
for
the
ove
of
peace
between hurch
nd
State,
ried
o definehe
proper
authority
f
the
Church nd ts
urisdiction
ide
by
sidewith hose
f
the
tate.
Though
xcommunicated
y
he
ope
and
expelled
rom
he
Order,
e did
not
renounce
heChurch r hisOrder. Neither id
he
deny
he
upremacy
f the
Pope
or
any
defined
ogma
f the
Church
-exceptthose efinedyPopeJohn XII andhissuccessor,ecause
he
thought
hem eretical.
Cf.
note 9 forOckham'sttitude
owards
the
nfallibility
f
the
Pope.)
It
is
apparent,
herefore,
hat he
only
ogical
nd
psychological
starting-point,
ven f a
short utline f
Ockham's
olitical
deas,
re
Ockham's otions
oncerning
he imits
f the
papal
power.
Conse-
quently,obaseOckham'soliticaldeas n,ortodevelophem rom,
his
so-called
Metaphysics,
s has
been
done
by
Al.
Dempf,5
ppears
to us more
s
an
adventure
nd
certainly
s
a
construction
f
the
writer.
We
do
not
deny
hat here re
nner
onnections.
hese
connections,
however,
an
be
seen
only
f the
philosophical
nd
theological
ystem
of
Ockham
s
correctly
nterpreted.
eldom
asthis
een
one
hitherto,
and
certainly
ot
by
Al.
Dempf,
ho
resents
rather
ague
nd
partly
veryncorrectnterpretation
fOckham's
etaphysics.ne should e
on his
guard
gainst
ll
suchconstructionsf
Hegelian
oinage
e-
cause
venBartholomaeus
e
Lucca,
he
onfessorf St.
Thomas nd
probable
ontinuator
f
his De
regimine rincipum,
nd
likewise
Aegidius
omanus,
nother
isciple
f
St. Thomas
nd
eading
homist
5
Cf.
Al.
Dempf,
acrum
mperium.
Miinchen
nd Berlin
1929),
esp. pp.
504-510.
This content downloaded from 158.251.6.77 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:45:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Boehner-Ockham's Political Ideas
6/27
466
THE
REVIEW
OF
POLITICS
of the 13th
entury,
rrivedt
a
very
nsound
olitical
heory
f an
unrestricted
bsolutism
f
the
Pope,
n
spite
f
their
homistic
eta-
physicalrinciples.ckham'soliticaldeas ntheirreatutlinesould
havebeen
developed,
o
far
s we
can
see,
from
ny
of
the
classical
metaphysics
f the 13th
entury;
or,
s
willbe
shown,
hey
oincide
with
sound
Catholic
olitical
heory.
Our
starting-point,
herefore,
illbe
Ockham's
tarting-point:
is
very ersonal roblem
f
the
imits
f the
Pope's
power.
His
dis-
obedience
o
the
Pope
cannot e
justified;t is,however,nderstand-
able
f
we take nto ccount
he onfusion
hich
revailed
t his
time
concerning
he
ctual
ower
f
the
Pope.
Ockham
uffered
rom his
confusion
o
which
he
riendsf
the
Pope
contributed
t least s
much
as
the
nemies
f
the
Pope.
Ockham,herefore,
aw
his
ask,
irstnd
above
ll,
s the
efinitionnd
determinationf
the
ight
nd
authority
of
the
uccessors
f
Peter.
In
natural
onsequence
f
and
in
depend-
ence
on this irst
ask,
e
had
to
deal
with
ecular
ower
nd also
its
rights
nd
limits.6
In
order
o find
ut
Ockham's
ersonal
iews,
ne must tart
with
works
n which he
Venerdbilis
nceptor xpresses
is
own
opinions
because
his
main
work,
he
Dialogus
composed
etween
334
and
1339)
and also the
Octo
quaestiones
e
potestate apae (probably
written
etween
340 nd
1342)
were oth
written
n the
tyle
f
mere
discussionsf theproblem ithoutevealinghepersonalpinion f
the author.
His
own
opinions
re
expressed
n less-knownorks
f
which
we
shall
use
the
Breviloquium
e
Potestate
apae
(composed
about
1340),
An
Princeps
composed
etween
338-1339),
nd
the
Consultatio
e
causa
matrimoniali
composed
bout
1341).
After
6
That the
imits
f the
papal
power
were Ockham's
chief
concern
inds
remark-
able
expression
n
Breviloquium
e
potestate
apae:
Porro,
i secundum
stos
tenendum
est, uod papa nonhabetpraedictamlenitudinemotestatis Christo, icatur rgoquam
potestatem
abet
Christo
t
quam
non
habet,
uod
tamen nullo
mpliantium
otestatem
papae
adhuc
est dictum.
t utinam
liquis
orum
oc
expressis
erbis icere
non
formidet
Ex
hoc
enim
xcogitata
or
exagitata?
Cf.
Consultatio
e
causa
matrimoniali,
d.
infra
cit.
p.
282,
lin.
18)
veritas
larius
lucescet.
ib.
1,
c.
13;
ed.
infra
it.
p.
42 f.
We
gladly
acknowledge
hat
N.
Abbagnano,
Cuglielmo
i
Ockham,
Lanziano
n.d.), p.
309
if
and
S.
Tornay,
Ockham,
tudies
and
Selections,
La
Salle,
Ill.
1938)
p.
79f
sub-
stantially
ome
to the
same
conclusion.
As to the
latter,
however,
is introduction
o
"Ockham's
political
philosophy,"
.
77,
contains
many
errors
oncerning iographical
data.
This content downloaded from 158.251.6.77 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:45:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Boehner-Ockham's Political Ideas
7/27
OCKHAM'S POLITICAL
DEAS
467
Ockham's
pinion
as
been
ufficiently
scertained
n thebasis
f
these
three
orks,
ne
may
e
permitted
o
dentify
is
opinions
s
expressed
in the ther ritings. s to theOctoquaestiones,generallyalid ule
would
eem
o
be
this:
That
opinion
which,
n
comparison
ith
he
others,
s
disproportionately
ore
developed
nd
provedrepresents
Ockham'swn
pinion.7
1.
The Nature
nd
Actual
Extent
f
Papal
Power.
In
order
o
give
faithfulistorical
ccount
f
Ockham's
olitical
ideas,
we
must ot
only
ee
the
problem
obe solved
s Ockham
aw
it,
but
we
must
lso
see with
ckham's
yes
he
historical
actswhich
stimulated
is
nquiry
nto
he
imits
f
papal power.
In
Pope
John
XXII's
claimof
the
right
o
interfere
n matters
ertaining
o
the
empire,
he
Venerabilis
nceptorertainly
aw
a
usurpation
funlawful
rights.
he
very
itle f
one
of Ockham's
main
works,
hich
xpresses
his own
personalpinions,
s
really ignificant
nd
speaks
or
tself:
Breviloquium
n the
tyrannical
ower
ver
hings
ivine nd
human,
especially,
owever,
ver
the
empire
nd
over
the
subjects
f
the
empire,
surped
y
certain
eople
alled
highest
ontiffs.8
ckham
was
convinced
f thehistoricalact
f
a
tyrannical
ower
surped y
certain
opes.
We,
however,
hall
dismiss
ere
he
quaestio
acti
s irrelevant
o
ourpurpose,ndshall implyakeOckham's
ontention
s our
tarting-
point.
Then,
we
must sk:
What s
meant
yusurped
nd
tyrannical
power
of
the
Pope?
Ockham
defined
his
in each one
of
his
political
ritings,
nd
never ired
f
coming
ack
o
it and
refuting
t
vehemently.
What
he
called
usurped
nd
tyrannical
ower
was
in
reality
n
absolutistic
nd
universal
upremacy
f
the
Pope
which,
n
its
fantastic
xaggerations,
ad
been
developed
by
the
so-called
7 We usedthefollowingditions:Dialogus (Lyons 1494); Breviloquium e poles-
tare
Papae,
ed.
L.
Baudry
(Etudes
de
Philosophie
M&dievale,
dir. Et. Gilson,
t.
24),
(Paris,
Vrin,
1937);
Octo
quaestiones
e
polestate
apae (ed.
J.
G.
Sikes),
An
Prin-
ceps
pro
suo
succursu,
cilicef
guerrae,possit
recipere
bona
ecclesiarum,
fiam
invito
Papa
(ed.
H.
S.
Offler
nd
R.
H.
Snape),
Consultatio
e causa
mairimoniali
ed.
H.
S.
Offler)
n
Guillelmi
de
Ockham
Opera
Politica accuravit
J.
G. Sikes
etc. Vol.
I
(Manchester
1940).
8
Baudry
has
changed
his
hallenging
itle
nto
the
very
nnocent
ne:
Breviloquium
de
potesiale
Papae,
for
typographical
easons.
This content downloaded from 158.251.6.77 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:45:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Boehner-Ockham's Political Ideas
8/27
468
THE
REVIEWOF POLITICS
Curialists,
uch s
Bartholomaeus
or Tolomaeus)
e
Lucca,
Aegidius
Romanus,
ugustinus
riumphus,
nd
others.9
This
development,
moreover,adnotcome boutwithoutt least heeffectivenfluence
of
Popes
nnocent
V
and
Boniface
III. Ockhams
well ware
hat
there ere
ifferences
nd nuances
n
their
ositions.
n
any
ase,
he
opinion
xisted
hat he
Pope
had full
that
s,
absolute)
ower
ver
all
things,
piritual
nd
temporal,
r
over
heChurch nd
the
State.
That
this
power
was
absolutemeant
hat
t was not
imited
y
any
human
aw
or
institution
r
treaty,
r
by
a
human
romise,
ow
or
oath. The only estrictionfthepowerf thePopewas mposedy
the
divine
aw
and
the
mmutablend
indispensable
aturalaw. In
other
words,
hings
which
were
directly
orbidden
y
God and
the
natural
aw
to
all human
eings
without
xception,
ecause
hey
re
illicit
n
themselves,
ouldnotbe
commanded
y
the
Pope,
but
outside
of this
ingle
estriction,
ll
human
eings
were
ubjects
f the
Pope
and he
may
ommand
hem
o
do
whatever
e
wills.
If he
commanded
withinhe imits f theaforesaidestriction,isorderswerebinding
in
conscience,
ven
hough
he
Pope
n so
commanding
hould
ommit
a sin.
0
Ockham
onsidered
uch
an idea
of
the
Pope's
absolute
ower
regarding
emporal
nd even
piritual
hings
s
false,
angerous
or
society,
nd
heretical.
n
thename
f
the
iberty
f
the
Holy
Gospel
heprotestedgainstuch usurpationfabsoluteower.Forhim he
new
aw
of
the
Holy
Gospel
s
a
lawof
freemen n
Christ,
nd
by
ts
very
ature
t
does
not
dmit
f
any
ervitude hich
ven
quals,
et
alone
surpasses,
he
yoke
mposed pon
the
Jews
y
the
Old Law.
It
is a
flagrant
ontradiction
f
the
Holy Gospel
to make
ll men
slaves
servi)
of
the
Popes
and
thus
reate
most
horrid tate
of
bondage.
Besides his
heologicaleasoning,
t
is
easy
o
imagine
ll
thedangerousonsequenceshich ould ollowfsuch powerwere
placed
n the
hands
f one
human
eing.
For
such
man
ould
urn
the
whole
f
society
pside
own;
he
could
take
way ustly-owned
9
For
introductory
nformationn this
regard
f. Al.
Dempf,
op.
cit.
p.
441-468.
0o
An
princeps,
.
I.;
p.
232. Cf.
Breviloquium,
ib.
2,
c.
I;
p.
17
and c.
13;
p.
42;
Octo
quaestiones,.
I,
c.
2;
p.
15;
Dialogus,
pars
III,
lib.
1,
c.
I tfs;
fol.
81va;
Consultatio,
.
284
f.
This content downloaded from 158.251.6.77 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:45:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Boehner-Ockham's Political Ideas
9/27
OCKHAM'S
POLITICAL
IDEAS
469
property
rom
everyone
nd
could
give
it
to
his
favorites;
e
could
depose
kings
nd
prelates
t
will
and could
appoint
riminalss
rulers,
without iolating nyright."
But in
advocating
he
divine
ight
f
the
liberty
f
the
Holy
Gospel,
Ockham
by
no
means makes
a
plea
for ibertinism.
He
cautionshis
readers hat
"liberty
f
the
Holy
Gospel"
can be
understood
n a
correct
nd
in a
false sense.
It
is
correctly
nderstood
f it
is taken
as the
denial
of an
absolute
ower
f the
Pope;
but
it
is
falsely
nder-
stood
f t
is taken
s the
denial
of
any
power
f the
Pope
whatsoever.
Consequently,
t must be rather
negatively
nderstood,
n the sense
that
the
evangelical
aw
does
not
admit
grave
yoke
or that
anybody
is
made
by
it
the
slave
of another.12 This
presupposes
hat
the
Pope
has
a
supreme
power,
although
Ockham
is
usually
not
too
much
concerned
with
he
actual content f the
supreme
cclesiastical
ower.
Yet,
since
to
limit
something
mplies
hat here s
something
hich an
be
limited,
he actual
content f the
Pope's power
s more
or
less
clearly
eeninOckham's riticismfthe
exaggerated
laims.
At
least
once he
expressed
is own
opinion
f the
actualextent
f
papal
authority,
n
his
treatise n
princeps.
owever,
ince he
ssential
elements
f
his
explanations
re
more
systematically
rranged
n
the
Dialogus,
we shall
follow
his
determinations
n the
latter
work,
with
references
o
the
former.
Ockham's
discussions
f
the
power
of
the
Pope
in
the
Dialogus,
are
likewise
overned y
the dea of a
limitation
of the
supreme
cclesiastical
power
to its
just
limits.
After
having
stated
that
the
Pope's
power
is not
absolute
(plenissima
potestas),
he nevertheless
dmits
that
t
is
grand,
ingular
nd
very
great.
He
then
xplains
he actual
extension
f
it
in the
following teps:
(1)
Christhas
constitutedeter
as
the
head,
the
prince,
nd
the
prelate
of the other
Apostles
and
of
all the
faithful. Hence
Peter
11 Breviloquium, lib. 2, c. 3; if. To the references to the other works on p.
20,
note
2,
add
also
Consultatio,
p.
234
ff.
12
Iterum,
quia
legem evangelicam
esse
legem
perfectae
libertatis
x
quo patet papam
non
habere
talem
plenitudinem
potestatis, potest
bene
et
male
intelligi,
est
advertendum
quod
legem evangelicam
esse
legem perfectae
libertatis
ncn
debet
intelligi,
ut
omnem
servitudinem
tollat
et
nullam
patiatur
etiam
christianis....,
sed
debet
magis intelligi
negative,
quia
scilicet
per
legem evangelicam
nullatenus
iugum grave
inducitur et nullus
per ipsam
fit servus
alterius,
nec
tantum
onus
quoad
exteriorem
cultum
divinum
per
ipsam
imponitur
hristianis
quanto Judaei passi
sunt.
Breviloquium,
lib.
2,
c.
4;
p.
21.
This content downloaded from 158.251.6.77 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:45:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Boehner-Ockham's Political Ideas
10/27
470
THE
REVIEW OF POLITICS
was not
elected
by
the
Apostles
or
by
others
nd
instituted
y
this
election n
his
right. Every
uccessor f Peter
possesses
he same
right
and privileges Peter.'"
(2)
The
Pope,
as
successor f
Peter,
has
the
regular
upreme
power
n
all
spiritual
matters,
hat
s,
in matterswhich
pertain
o the
evangelical
aw
and
which
re
proper
o
it,
and
which
do not
belong
to
another
aw,
at
least
not to anotherhuman aw. The
Pope
has,
therefore,
he
regular upreme ower
s
regards
he
dispensation
f the
Sacraments,
he
ordination
f
priests,
nd
the institutionf
clerics
r
the
promotion
f
those
who
have
to
govern
nd
teach
the
Christian
peoples.
In
brief,
he
Pope
has the
regular
upreme
ower
s
regards
faith
including
morals)
and
the
divine
ult
and
as
regards
ll those
things
without
which
he
Church
annot
conveniently
e
ruled.'14
(3)
Within
the frame f this
regular
upreme ower,
he
Pope
has,
however,
o absolute
power;
his
power
s
limited
o
those
things
which renecessaryo be doneoromitted.Hence hispowerdoes not
regard
works
f
supererogation.
or
instance,
he
Pope
has
no
right
to
oblige anybody
o
the observation
f
the
evangelical
ounsels
or
to works
without
which
neither
aith
nor
good
moralswould
be en-
dangered.
He
can,
however,
n case
of
necessity
r of
greatutility,
prescribe
uch
works.'5
(4)
Moreover,
he
Pope
has
regular
oercive
ower;
hat
s,
he
has
not
only
jurisdiction
s
regards
he onfessionalr theforumnternum
concerning
he
remission
f
sins,
but
he has
also the
right
o
enforce
13
Dialogus, pars
III,
tract.
I,
lib.
1,
c.
17;
fol.
88vb.
In
An
princeps
this truth
s
more
presupposed
as basis
than
formally expressed;
for instance:
Tertium
notabile,
quod
ex
praedictis
habetur
est,
quod
a Deo non solum instituta
st
potestas
papalis....
c.
4;
p.
243;
Amplius,
Christus
constituens
eatum
Petrum
caput
et
praelatum
cunctorum
fidelium....
I.c.c. 2;
p.
236
and elsewhere.
14
Dialogus,
I.c.
Cf.
An
princeps,
c.
4;
p.
244.
Cf.
also
p.
253
about the
Pope
as
delegate
of Christ
and
especially
p.
255:
Licet
potestas
papae,
quae spiritualia
respicit,
sit nobilior et dignior potestate saeculari, quemadmodum spiritualia sunt temporalibus
digniora,
et
papa
quoad
quaedam
spiritualia
habeat
etiam
potestatem
uper
illos
qui
sunt
in
sublimitate
aeculari
constituti,
amen
non habet
super
ipsos
talem
plenitudinem
potes-
tatis,
icet
sub
bono intellectu
posset
concedi,
quod,
quemadmodum
asserunt
sancti
patres,
papa
habet
plenitudinem
potestatis,
uia
quoad
omnia
spiritualia
quae
sunt
de
necessitate
facienda
et
super
quae
expedit
caput
fidelium
potestatem
habere,
ipse
regulariter
plenitudinem
obtinet
potestatis.
1,5
Dialogus,
I.c.
This restriction
s
contained
in the
liberty
of the
Holy Gospel.
Cf.
also
An
princeps,
c.
4;
p.
244,
and
Breviloquium,
lib.
2,
c.
17;
p.
52
f.
This content downloaded from 158.251.6.77 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:45:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Boehner-Ockham's Political Ideas
11/27
OCKHAM'S
POLITICAL
IDEAS
471
his
orders
by
punishment.
This coercive
power,
however,
must
be
(regularly,
t
least)
restricted
o
ecclesiasticalrimes
which re
directly
committedgainst heChristianaw as suchand which, herefore,re
not
considered
s
crimes
y
any
other aw.
As
regards
urely
ecular
crimes,
e
has no
regular
power
over
them,
nd has
to
leave
their
punishment
o the secular aw.
However,
n the
case
of
sinners
nd
criminals
who are
already udged by
a civil
court,
he
may
inflict n
them
dditional
unishments
n
order
o
bring
hem o
true
repentance.
In
any
case,
his
vindictive
ower
must
not
extend
o
a
violation
f the
lawfulrightsfothers, ormust t be exceedinglyevere nd incontra-
diction
o the
spirit
f the
Holy Gospel.16
(5)
Every
Pope
who
s
lawfully
lected s
ipso
facto
free
nd
not
subject
o
any
ecular
ower
r to
any
ecular
urisdiction.
f, therefore,
a
Pope
before
his
election
had been
a slave or
subject
o
any
secular
ruler,
y
the
fact
that
he is instituted
he
Supreme
Pontiff e
is
free
and notsubject o a secularurisdiction.This admits, owever,f
an
exception.
Though
the
Pope
is
regularly
ot
subject
to a
secular
power,
he
may
ose
his
liberty
nd
sovereignty
hrough
is own
fault,
because
of
heresy
r a crime hat
ndangers
ublic
ecurity."
(6)
The
Pope,
like
the
Church,
as the
right
o ask the
faithful
for all
necessary emporal
oods
without
which
fruitful
overnment
of
theChurch
annot e establishednd realized.
This,
of
course,
oes
not mean thatthePope can expropriatenyChristian, ut it means
that
he
has
the
right
o
get
the
necessary
upport
s to
temporal
hings
for
his divine
work.Is
16
Dialogus,
.c.
It
is
surprising
hat
Al
Dempf,
op.
cit.,
p.
518 denies
that,
ccord-
ing
to
Ockham,
the
Pope
has
coactive
power.
He
probably
failed
to
make
necessary
distinctions.
ckham
denies
the coactive
power
of
the
Pope
as
regards
urely
ecular
crimes
nd
"in
foro
contentioso,"
hich
pparently,
ere,
refers
nly
to
temporal
ontests
or
disputes.
f. An
princeps,
.
4;
p.
244
and
Octo
quaestiones,.
3,
c.
3;
p.
104 f.
17 Dialogus, .c. This privilegef thePope is not tated nAn princeps.t is,how-
ever,
xpressed
n Octo
quaestiones,
.
3,
c.
3;
p.
105,
where n
the
following
hapters,
which
certainly epresent
ckham's
opinion,
t is
proved
hat uch
an
exemption
s not
repugnant
o the
best
form
f
government.
18
Dialogus,
.c.
Cf.
An
princeps,
.
4;
p.
243.
Though
the Franciscan ormulation
of
this
privilege
s
striking,
evertheless
ckham
certainly
dmits
hat he
Pope
and
the
Churchown
those
temporal
oods
whichwere donated
by
the Christian
eople;
the
Pope
and
the
Churchown
them,
owever,
ot
by
divine,
but
by
human aw.
Cf.
An
princeps,
.
8;
p.
258
ff.
This content downloaded from 158.251.6.77 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:45:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Boehner-Ockham's Political Ideas
12/27
472
THE
REVIEW
OF
POLITICS
This
s,
according
o
Ockham,
he
regular
ower
f
the
Pope,
s
it
can
be established
y
the
eaching
f the
Holy
Gospel,
f theFathers
of theChurch,nd of saintlyheologians-especiallyt. Bernard,
whom
Ockham,
t
seems,
ollows
losely. Though
hisdemarcation
of
the
Pope's power
s
definite
n
its
general
utlines,
ckham
s,
nevertheless,
ware hat
not
every
ituations
covered
y
t.
Should
any
doubt risewhetherertain
hings elong
o
the
Pope'spower
r
not,
he
problem
as
to
be
decided
irst
y
going
ack o two nfallible
guides,namely,
oly
Scripture
nd
right
eason.
Everyone
ho
understandsolyScripturena soundway notmerelyn tsmystical
sense,
which
annot
e used
s a
strict
roof),
nd
whobaseshimself
on an infallible
eason,
as
the
right
nd
the
duty
o
explain
nd
to
declare
y
a true nd faithfultatement
hether
certain ase
falls
under
he
Pope'spower
r not.
For t s
obvious
hat
othing
hichs
against
oly
Scripture
r
right
eason an
belong
o
the
papal
uris-
diction.
Furthermore,
t s the ask f a General ouncil
nd also
of
thePope (if he is ableto understandhetruthorrectly)o make
authenticecisions
nd determinations
s
regards
he
Pope's power.
Such
determinations
ind
all
Christians
n conscience
nd
do
not
allow hem
o
teach,
xplain
r determinen
opinion
ontrary
o
the
definition
f the General
Council
or the
Pope.
If,
however,
he
Pope's
definition
s
against
ruth,
hen
obody
as to believe im
nder
any
circumstance.
n such
case,
nyone
who
by
Holy
Scripture
r
by necessaryeason nowshat hePope s in error as theduty ot
to
believe
he
Pope,
nd
he
has even he
duty
o refute
is errors
n
order
hathe
may
not
ppear
o assent o
them;
ut
uch one
must
observe
he
ppropriateness
nd
propriety
f
place,
ime,
nd all
other
circumstances.
By
these
eterminations
ckham
onstitutedhe
papalpower
n
its
own
i.e.,
n
ts
piritual)
ealm,
here
t
s
supreme
nd
a
full
ower,
19
An
princeps,
.
5;
p.
254.
This,
of
course,
s
Ockham's
Apologia pro
vita
sua,
also.
In
any
case,
Ockham
does not
believe n
the
nfallibility
f
the
Pope,
which,
t
this
ime,
was
not
yet
a
defined
ogma;
nor
does he seem
to
believe n the
nfallibility
of
a
general
ouncil,
but
only
of
the
Church,
hough
is discussions n this
opic
n
the
Dialogus
shouldbe more
autiously
sed
than
s
commonly
one.
In
any
case,
Ockham
did
not
make the
necessary
istinction
etween
definition
x
cathedra
nd other
tate-
ments f the
Popes.
Hence
the unfortunatenstances
f
erroneous tatementsf
Pope
John
XXII about
beatific
ision
prevented
im from
elieving
n
the
nfallibility
f the
Pope.
This content downloaded from 158.251.6.77 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:45:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Boehner-Ockham's Political Ideas
13/27
OCKHAM'S
POLITICAL
IDEAS 473
though
y
no
means
n
absolute
power.
Every
Christians
subject
o
the
Pope
as
to
his
lawful
piritual
uperior,
ccording
o
divine
nstitu-
tion-and the Emperor s no exception. But according o the same
divine
nstitution,
he
Pope
is not
a
lord
or
ruler
n the
secular
ense,
nor s
he
a
tyrant.
He
may
be
truly
alled
"Lord",
but
only
because
of his
dignity.
For,
n
truth,
he
Pope
is
the servant f all
Christians.
This
idea
of
the
ministeriumf
the
Pope,
and
not of
a
Dominium,
equally
emphasized
y
Dante,
probably
as
its
source n St.
Bernard's
De
Consideratione
d
Eugenium
Papam.
Impressed
by
this
idea,
OckhamremindshePope: "Let himknowthat,bythegeneral ega-
tion,
t
is not
conceded
o
him
by
any
meansto
command
imperare)
by austerity
nd
force;
et
him
know, herefore,
hat not the
Lordship
(dominium)
but the
ministry
ministerium)
s
given;
let
him know
that
he
is a
prelate
ver
ll
not for
himself
ut for
he
benefit
f
others,
because
it
was
not
provided
principally
or
him
but
for
the
others;
let
him know
that he received
he
power
n
the
Lord
for
edification,
not fordestructionnd perturbation,nd to diminish he rights f
others."
0
The
papal
power,
herefore,
s not
withoutimits
which re
imposed
upon
it
by
God.
These
limits
re
defined
y
the
actual
and
positive
content
of
the
ecclesiastical
uthority,
nd
also
by
the
God-given
rights
ossessed
y
others
which
s
only
the reverse f
it).
The
next
task
of
Ockham,
herefore,
as to
prove
the existence
f suchdivine
rights
utside
heecclesiastical
ealm,
nd
consequently
ot
dependent
on the
Pope.
In
fulfilling
his
task,
Ockham
had to
develop
what
could
be called
a
political
hilosophy.
2.
Man's Natural
Right
of
Property
nd
Dominion
Ockham
begins
withthe
premise
hat man has the natural
right,
granted o himbynatural nd divine aw, to acquirepropertynd to
set
up
a ruler
r a
government
ndowedwith
urisdiction.
This
right
is
independent
f
man's
belief
or
unbelief,
ince
God does not
cease
to
give
ife nd
health,
material
nd
spiritual oods
to all
men,
regard-
less
of
their
reed.
Hence,
they
re
capable
of
possessing
hem
nd
20
An
princeps,
.
6;
p.
254.
This content downloaded from 158.251.6.77 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:45:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Boehner-Ockham's Political Ideas
14/27
474
THE
REVIEW OF
POLITICS
of
ruling
ver
them;
r
in other
words,
hey
have the
right
f
acquiring
property
nd of
setting
p
a
government.Nobody,
therefore,
as the
right o deprive nyoneof these naturalprerogatives ithout just
reason.2
While
this
right
o
acquire
property
as
givenby
God
to man as
regards
emporal
hings,
his
property
s either
ommon
o
all
men.
or
is
private
roperty.
The common
property
f
temporal
hings
was
granted
o
Adam and his
wife,
not
only
for
themselves
ut
also
for
all their
escendants. This
ownershipdominium)gave
man the
right
to
dispose
of
temporal
hings
nd
to
use
them
or
his
personal
enefit.
It
did
not,
Ockham
continues,
nclude he
right
f
private roperty
n
any
form ecause
t
was the
will
of
God
that all
men shouldown
all
temporal
hings
n
common,
s
befitted
man in
his
original
nnocence.
Sin, however,
made
it
necessary
o
grant
to man the
right
f
private
property,
nd
for
his eason he
right
f
private
roperty
as
introduced
by
God
intothe
right
f common
property.
The
Franciscan nfluence n
this
dea
is worth
oting.22
Ockham
here follows
losely
nd
almost
iterally
uns Scotus.
The
right
o
acquire
private
roperty,
e
argues,
s
not
a
sign
of
perfection.
For
in
perfect
man,
uch s Adam
and
Eve
were
n their
riginal
nnocence,
there
s no avarice
nor
any greediness
o
acquire
r to use
any temporal
thing
against
the dictates
f
right
reason.
Consequently,
here
was
no necessityorevenutilityn possessingnytemporalhing o long
as
man remained
n
his
original
nnocence.
Sin,
however,
hanged
his
happy
tate.
After
man's sin there
rose
and
grew
n
him
varice nd
greediness
o
possess
nd
to use
temporal hings
n an
improper
anner.
In
order
o
restrain his
mmoderate
esire
o
possess
emporal hings,
and,
at
the ame
time,
o
prevent
man
from
eglecting
he
due
manage-
ment
nd
procurement
f
temporal hings
for
common
hings
which
belongto all men areusuallyneglected ybad men), it was necessary
21
Breviloquium,
lib.
3,
c.
6;
p.
84.
22
Cf.
the
same
(traditional)
idea
of
only
the
right
of
common
property
before sin
in
St.
Bonaventure,entent.,
I,
d.
44,
a
2,
q.
2,
ad
4;
ed.
Quaracchi
t.
2,
p.
1009.
The connection
with Franciscan
poverty
is
seen in
De
perfectione
evangelica,
II,
a.
1;
t.
V;
p.
129.
Cf.
Alexander
Halensis
(to
be exact William of
Melitona),
Summa
Theologica,
allae,
n. 521
f.;
(ed.
Quaracchi)
t.
3;
p.
777 ff.
cotus,
Oxoniense,
V,
d.
15,
q.
2,
n.
3-4;
ed.
Vives
.
18,
p.
256
f.
This content downloaded from 158.251.6.77 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:45:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Boehner-Ockham's Political Ideas
15/27
OCKHAM'S POLITICAL
IDEAS
475
that
ll
temporal hings
hould
not
be common
roperty
ut that
ome
of
them
hould
be
acquired
s
private
roperty.
This
is
thereason
why,
after hesin ofAdam and Eve, therightpotestas) to acquireprivate
property
as
introduced
y
divine aw. The
right
f
private roperty,
therefore,
s
a
restrictionf the ommon
ossession
f
all
temporal
hings,
a
restriction
n those
hings
which
re
necesssary
nd
useful or
good
and honest
ife
not
only
for
man as an
individual
ut
also
for
man
as
a citizen n
a
perfect
ociety.
Hence actual
society
annot
be
like the
Republic
f
Plato,
where ll
things
re
in
common,
nd
Aristotlewas
rightwhen he rejectedPlato's conception. Aristotle onsidered he
actual
tate
f
manand
knew hat
he
average
man s
inclined
o evil.23
But
ust
as
the
right
o
acquireprivate
roperty
as
given
o
man
as
an
adjustment
f
his actual
state,
so
for the
same
reason God
has
given
man the
right
o set
up
rulers ndowed
with
emporal
urisdiction.
This
implies
hat
temporalurisdiction
eserved
o
a
ruling
person
or
personswas foreigno theoriginal tateofman,butbecamenecessary
for
man's
actual
tate
n which
t is
necessary
nd
useful
o
set
up
rulers
for
a
good
social
life.
Furthermore,
e
says,
the
right
o institute
jurisdiction
as
immediately
iven
by
God,
and
not
by
any
human
intermediary
r
cooperation.24
These assertions
f
Ockham
do
not
mply
hat
emporalurisdiction
or
the state s
bad
in itself.
Though
the
need
of
forming
state
and
of
instituting
ruling
body
is one of the effectsf the first in,the
institution
f a
government
s
not n effect f
sin,
but s
only
occasioned
by
sin,
that
s,
as a
natural
remedy
or
the effectsf sin. From
this
it follows
hat
temporal
urisdiction
utside
the Churchand
outside
any
religious
uthorization
by
the
Pope,
for
instance)
is valid
and
good."5
23 Cf. Breviloquiium, ib. 3, c. 7; p. 85 ff.Cf. Scotus l.c. Ockham develops these
ideas
in
extenso
in his
Opus
nonaginta
dierum which
was
not used
here.
24
Potestas
ergo appropriandi
res
temporales
personae
et
personis
aut
collegio
data
est
a Deo
humano
generi.
Et.
propter
rationem
consimilem
data est
a
Deo,
absque
ministerio
et
cooperatione
humana,
potestas
instituendi
rectores
habentes
iurisdictionem
temporalem,
quia
iurisdictio
temporalis
est de
numero
illorum
quae
sunt
necessaria et
utilia
ad bene
et
politice
vivere....
Breviloquium,
lib.
3,
c.
7;
p.
87.
25
The other
view
found its
significant
xpression
in
the
formula: Extra
ecclesiam
This content downloaded from 158.251.6.77 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:45:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Boehner-Ockham's Political Ideas
16/27
476
THE
REVIEW OF
POLITICS
This
twofold
ight
o
acquireprivate
property
nd
to
institute
government
s
immediatelyranted
y
God
to
all
men,
believers
nd
unbelieverslike. It contains n affirmativerecept, nd, as such,
belongs
to
man's
moral and
natural
duties.
As
every
man,
believer
and
unbeliever,
s
obliged
by
a
precept
f
God
to honor his
parents
and
to
assisthis
neighbor,
o
every
man
s
obliged,
s soon as a
corres-
ponding
ituation s
given,
o
acquire
private
roperty
nd
to
set
up
a
ruler n
secular
matters.26
He is
obliged
o
do
so, however,
nly
f
a
corresponding
ituation
xists
because,
since this is an
affirmative
precept,t obliges lwaysbut not foreverymomentsemper ed non
pro semper).
The
corresponding
ituation
where
he
precept
bliges
s
the
case
of
necessity.
n other
words,
man s not
obliged
o
appropriate
property
r to
institute
government
o
long
as his
well-being
nd
a
sound
social
life are not
in
danger.
If
his
well-being
nd
a sound
social
ife
re
not
n
danger,
e can
use
his
right,
ut
he
is not
obliged
to
use
it.
Consequently
e can
renounce his
right,
s
he
does,
for
instance,ythevow ofpovertyr obedience.27
Fromthis
right
o
acquireprivate roperty
nd
to institute ruler
endowed
with
jurisdiction,
e must
distinguish
he
actual
appropria-
tionof
temporal hings
nd
the
actual
setting
p
of a
government.
he
right
omes
mmediately
rom
God
by
natural
aw;
the
ctual
appropria-
tion
and
setting
p
of
a
government
s
usually
he act
of man
and
of
human
law.
Man,
therefore,
sing
his
divine
right,
wns certain
temporal hings
s
private
property y
the act of
appropriation
n
a
lawful
way.
That means
hat
ccording
o
human
rdination
ertain
things
elong
to
one
and
others
o
another.
God
has
left he
division
of
temporal
hings
rdinarily
o
man,
though
n
exceptional
ases
He
has
given
certain
hings
o certain
ersons
r
nations.
In
this atter
case,
of
course,
he
person
or
persons
wn
temporal hings
by
divine
right
nd
not
by
human
right.28
omnia aedificant
ad
gehennam,
et
ideo
extra
ecclesiam
nulla est ordinata
potestas
sed
ibi
est solummodo
potestas
permissa
et
non concessa.
Breviloquium,
lib.
3,
c.
I
p.
68.
Ockham's
purpose
is to
refute
this
opinion
(based
on Rom. 14,
23),
which
implies
that
at least
the
Roman
Empire,
if
it does
not
"build
up
towards
hell,"
is from the
Pope.
26
Breviloquium,
lib.
3,
c.
8;
p.
87 f.
27
Breviloquium, I.c.
p.
88.
28
As to human
ordination
or
human
right,
cf.:
Ius
proprietatis
et
dominii
primo
introductum
uit
iure
humano
et
civili,
appellando
ius
civile omne
ius
quod
non est
ius
This content downloaded from 158.251.6.77 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:45:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Boehner-Ockham's Political Ideas
17/27
OCKHAM'S POLITICAL
IDEAS
477
The
ctual
ettingp
of
lawful
urisdiction
rof
rulerndowed
with
urisdiction
ccording
o
this
xplanation,
s at least
artlyy
humanrdinationndhumanaw. Theres,however,ne xception
to be
mentioned.
he
urisdiction
f the
husband
ver is
wife,
nd
likewise
he
urisdiction
f
he
atherver
is
hildren,
s not
y
human
institutionut
y
divinenstitution
nd
right,
r
by
natural
aw.
The
jurisdiction
f
rulers,
hats to
say,
f
udges
n
cities r
of
kings
n
their
ingdoms,
tc.,
s
not
ctually
et
up
by
naturalr
divine
aw,
at
east
ot
rdinarily;
t
s
ordinarily
et
up
by
humanctionnd
by
humanaws-fornstance,y lectionrheredityrthe ike.29
3.
TheDivine
ight
f
Secular
ower
It
is
clear
hat
ccording
o
Ockham
rue
ominion
ver
emporal
things
nd
rue
urisdiction
ver
ersons
as
nstituted
ot
nly
y
n
act
of
God,
but lso
and
mainlyy
acts f
human
eings.
f
we
leave side he
xceptional
aseswhere od has
given
ertainands
to ertain
eople
r
rulers,
r
where
od
has
nstituted
udges
r
Kings,
we have
o
ask:
By
what
ight
oes secular
ower
ossess
hat
s
given
o t
by
n
act
f he
eople?
n this
ase
oes
secular
ower
possess
ts
urisdiction
nd
ts
ominionver
ands
nd ther
roperties
by
human
ight
r
by
ivine
ight?
ckham
nswershat
uch
secular
power ossesses
ts
powery
divine
nd
not
y
human
ight,lthoughit s instituted
y
nactoracts f human
eings.
n other
ords,
such
secular
ower
as
ts
dominion
nd ts
urisdiction
ut
not
ts
institution
mmediately
rom
od.
What
does
"to
have
power
mmediately
rom
od" mean? It
can
be
understood
n three
ifferent
enses.
Thata
power
e
im-
mediately
rom
od
can
mean,
n
a first
ense,
hat
his
ower
s
immediatelyivenyGod ndwithouthehelpnd o-jurisdictionf
any
reature.
n
this
way,
Moses
had
his
uthority
s
leader
f
the
divinum
ec naturale.
ostea
autem
uaedam
dominia ntroducta
uerunture
divino,
uia
ex
speciali
consecratione
ivina;
quaedam
autem ntroducta uerunt
ure humano
uod
non
erat
us
regum
ed
populi
vel
aliorum
minoris
ignitatis
uam
sint
reges; quaedam
introducta
uerunt
ure
regum.
reviloquium,
ib.
3,
c.
15;
p.
98.
29
I.c.
This content downloaded from 158.251.6.77 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:45:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Boehner-Ockham's Political Ideas
18/27
478
THE
REVIEW
OF POLITICS
Israelites
mmediately
rom
God
and
in
no
way
from
he
people.30
In
a
second
ense,
power
an be
immediately
rom
od,
because
t
isgiven nly yGod,not,however,ithouthehelpof creatures.n
this
way,
or
nstance,
very
ope
after
eterhas
his
power
nd
his
pontificate
mmediately
rom
God,
not,
however,
ithout
uman
cooperation;
or
he
Pope
has
to be
elected.
But the
electors
f the
Pope
do
not
give
him
ny
power,
ust
s
the
performer
f
the
baptismal
ritedoes
not confer
race;
the
power,
ike
the
grace
n
Baptism,
s
immediately
onferred
y
God
alone.31
In a third ense
and
this s the most
mportant
ne forour
purpose)
power
an
be
understood
o
be
immediately
rom
od
or
from
God
alone,
f
somebody
ad
the
power
nd
the
dominion
irst
(i.e.,
when
he
was
instituted)
ecause
f
a concession
r
a
donation
or
the
resignation
f another
nd is
nevertheless
fter hese
cts
de-
pendent
nly
n
God
forhis
power
nd
dominion,
o
that
nly
God
is
his
superior
n these
matters.32
There
cannot
e
the
slightest
oubt
hat
Ockham
was
convinced
that
nly
n this
hird
ense id
every
ecular
ower
ome
mmediately
from
God
alone,
unless
n
a
particular
aseit couldbe
proved
y
a
special
ivine evelation
hat t was from
od
in thefirst
r
second
sense.
In
any
case,
the Roman
Empire,
ike almost
ll the
other
kingdoms
nd
empires,
eceived
ts
power
nd dominion
n
the
third
sensemmediatelyrom od alone.
It
is
important
ow
to
explain
what s
meant
y saying
hat
secular
ower
as
the
upremeower
y
divine
ight,
et
s
instituted
by
the
people.
It
means,
irst,
hat
supreme
ecular
nd
sovereign
power
as
ts
power y
the rdination
f
the
people,
o that
he
people
at
the
beginning
ave
transferred
r
given
he
supreme
ower
o the
ruler.
n
other
words,
he
people
id
not
simply
onsent
r acknowl-
edge
hat heruler adand
actually
xercisedhe
upremeower,
ut
the
people
really
nd
truly
onferred
his
power.
The
electors
r
30
Cf.
Octo
quaestiones,
.
2;
c.
3;
p.
74. The same
distinctions found
n
Brev-i-
loquium,
ib.
4,
c.
5;
p.
109,
though
ere n
specification
s to
jurisdiction.
31
Octo
quaestiones,
.c.
Cf.
Breviloquium,
.c.
The instance
f
the
Pope
is here
introduced
ith:
Isto
modo
videtur
liquibus....
32
Oclo
quaestiones,
.c.
Cf.
Breviloquium,
.c.;
p.
110.
This content downloaded from 158.251.6.77 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:45:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Boehner-Ockham's Political Ideas
19/27
OCKHAM'S POLITICAL IDEAS
479
those
who
perform
he coronation
ceremonymay
simply
ndicate
or
confirm
he
fact
that
somebody
as
the
supreme ower,
without
iving
himpower;thepeople'selection,however,onferredhepoweron a
ruler
nd transferred
t
to him
from hemselves.
This
power
ncludes
that over
temporal
oods
and
jurisdiction.
To
say
that secular
ower
has
the
supreme
ower,
et
s
instituted
by
the
people
means,
econdly,
hat
the
people
did
not transfer
his
power
o
a
private
erson
nd
for he
personal
enefit f an
individual,
but to a personor persons or the common enefit.Or, as Ockham
says,
they
onferred
t
not
on
a
person
but on
a
dignity.
Hence a
ruler
cannot use
his
power
for
personal
purposes,
ut
only
for the
common
ood.
If he
uses,
for
nstance,
emporal hings
which
belong
to his
dignity,
ot to his
person,
or
his
personal
enefit,
e is
obliged
to
restitution.
This
statement
means,
thirdly,
hat a
rulerto whom the
people
transferredhe
supreme ower
possesses
his
power
not as the
people's
power
but as a
divine
power,
r
not
by
the
right
f the
people
but
by
divine
right.
In one
word,
fter
he
transfer as been
accomplished
the rulerhas
no other
superior
ut
God,
and
is
regularly
ependent
on no one but
God.
In certain
ases,however,
hen
the
ruler
roves
to
be
unfit,
e
is
subject
to the
people
or to another
person-for
instance,
o
the
Pope-and
he can
be
deposed.33
From
this
t
follows hat sincethe
awfulruler
possesses
his
power
in
dependence
n
God
alone,
although
t
was
given
to him
by
the
people,
he
power
annotbe taken
away
from
im
without
just
cause.
Some
might
hink hat
he
cause of
the
constitutionf
a
lawful
overn-
ment s also
the
legitimate
ause of its
dissolution.
According
o
this
since
the
will
of the
governed
as
constitutedhe
government,
o the
willof thegovernedanlawfully, ithoutany ustcause sola voluntate
et
dissensu),
dissolve
the
government.
Ockham, however,
bjects
violentlygainst
his
reasoning:
ed
hoc habetminime
eritatem.
For
when
someone
ubmits imself
reely
o the dominion f
another,
e
33
Octo
quaesliones,
.
2,
c.
6;
p.
78
ff.
Breviloquium,
.c.;
p.
111.
As to the
deposition
f
an
emperor
f.
Breviloquium,
ib.
5,
c.
2;
p.
157 f.
This content downloaded from 158.251.6.77 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:45:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Boehner-Ockham's Political Ideas
20/27
480
THE
REVIEW
OF POLITICS
cannot,
ithout
he
other's
onsent,
etract
his ubmission
ithout
guilt.34
4. The
Just
onstitution
f
Commonwealth
Ockham's
nterests a
political
heoretician
as
focused
n the
relation
etween he
Roman
Empire
nd
the
Papacy.
After
having
established
he fact
that true ecular
power
n its
dominion
nd
juris-
diction
xists ithout
eing
uthorized
y
the
Pope
and
that
he
supreme ower, fterhavingbeen constituted,ossesses ts right n
immediate
ependence
n
God
alone,
he
goes
on
to show
how a
lawful
empire
an
be
constituted
ithout
cclesiastical
nterference.
e bases
his
discussions
n
the
pecial
ase of
theRoman
Empire.
He
enumerates
three
ways
n
which lawful
mpire
an
be
constituted.
The
third,
however,
may
be
disregarded
ere,
since
it
envisages
direct
divine
intervention.Of
the
remaining
wo
ways,
the
first
s
by
consent,
thesecondbyforce.
The
first
way
is
simply
y
consent.
All who
are
born
free
have
the
right
romGod
to
submit
hemselves
o a
higher
uthority,
o
long
as
they
re
not
subject
o another
uthority,35
s
was
already
xplained.
Hence
a
nation
an
submit
tselfn
toto
to
another
uthority
nd
thus
become
n
integral
art
of
a
larger
ommonwealth.
n
this
way,
all
the
people
who
belonged
o
the Roman
Empire
ould,
t thesame
time
or at
different
imes,
ave become
parts
f the Roman
Empire.
The
other
awful
way
is
by
force-that
s to
say,
by
a
just
war.
A
war
could
be
just
either
ecause
othernations
eclared
war
and
were
then
ubjected
n
Top Related