So great a mass of examples show clearly that the salvation of a man's soul is at stake when he does not observe complete loyalty, kingly worship, and a right obedience; for kingly rule is created by God's command, and not after man's ordinance, and no man obtains kingly rule except by divine dispensation. A king would not be more powerful or mightier than others if God had not set him higher than others in His services; for in his kingly rule he serves God, and not himself. Now, inasmuch as duty binds him to answer to God himself, and to render an account of His protection and care of Holy Church, according to the Cause already quoted; and as duty binds a minister of Holy Church to be obedient to the King, to afford him hearty worship and a guileless loyalty; therefore we cannot understand with what reason our clergy wish to remove the King from the oversight that he should have in Holy Church, and for which God requires him to answer, when we certainly know that men of inferior rank to the King have to exercise power in Holy Church. For knights and guardsmen, and even yeomen, have oversight in Holy Church if they are patrons of churches. There are three cases in church a man comes to have such oversight in Holy Church-the first, if he inherits an estate after his father or mother, or other kinsmen, and the upholding of the Church goes with the inheritance; the second is when a man buys an estate, and the upholding of the Church goes with the lands which he buys; the third is when a man builds a church at his own pains and cost, and endows it with lands for it future upholding. It must now be made clear, so that all may fully understand, what oversight it is which those whom we have just mentioned lawfully exercise in Holy Church, according as it is said in XVI. Causa and ultimaquestione ejusdem cause, and found in other places in the writings fo the Apostles [Popes] themselves: “Filiis, neptibus, ac homestioribus propinquis, qui contructerient vel ditaverint ecclesiam, licitum sit hanc habere sollerciam, ut, si sacerdotem aliquid de collatis rebus defraudare præviderint, aut honesta convencione compescant aut Episcopo vel judici corrigenda denuncient. Si Episcopus talia agree contempnat, meptropolitano suo hoc insinuare procutent. Si vero Metropolitanus talia great, Regis hoc auribus intimare non different.”⁵⁷ Which signifies in our tongue: “This oversight in Holy Church has to be exercised by the sons, grandsons, or other fit heirs of the man who built the church or has been its upholder. Those who are rightful heirs shall have a care that no one through deceit or transference remove any things which are the upholders of the Church gave to it at the outset. That which was set apart for the maintenance of the priest at the beginning shall so remain; and that which was set apart at the beginning for tar, for lights, and for vestments in the church, shall so remain. And if the priest makes any change in what was thus set apart at the beginning, so that the church is injured thereby, then shall the patrons whom I have just named make the matter known to the Bishop, and ask him to devise a remedy, if they themselves are unable to devise one; and if the Bishop will not devise a remedy, then the patrons of the church make the matter known to the Archbishop, and ask him to devise a remedy. If the Archbishop will not devise a remedy, or he himself does such things as those I have mentioned, then shall the patrons lay the matter before the King and cause him to rectify it by the authority which God has placed in his hands.” Now this bears witness that the King is set above all other dignitaries, for the King has here to direct the Bishop or the Arch bishop to do justice, if they themselves will pay no heed to it. This, be it said, relates to the direction and guardianship of Holy church, and not to those other violations of law which might occur in secular matters. How great is the King's power in secular matters may thus be seen, since he sits even in the highest set of judgment in matters relating to Holy Church, which would have been thought, if men had not heard this quotation, to lie under the direction of the Bishop.

But there is more that relates to the oversight exercised by the many patrons of churches, for the Decretum, says, in xii. Causa, quoestione tercia, in the end of the chapter containing the wordsL íSi autem [episcopus] convictus fuerit construxisse monasterium de ecclesiaticis, redditibus, tradat idem ecclesie ipsum monasterium.”⁵⁸ Which signifies in our tongue: “If a bishop is found building any cloister out of church poperty without the advice and consent of the patrons of the church, then the church becomes the owner of the cloister, and the cloister of the church.” Should the patrons of a church be willing that it be given to a cloister, and the cloister is raised out of the property or possessions of the church; or should a man bestow his estates to found a cloister with permission of his heirs, their rights are shown in xvii.causa, questionae secunda, in the chapter where Pope Pelagius thus speaks: “Abbatem in moasterio illum volumes ordinare, quem sibi de sua congregacione et monacorum election et pssessionis dominus et quod magis obeservandum, est, ordo vite et meritum poscant ordinary.”⁵⁹ Which signifies in our tongue: “We wish the abbot of a cloister to be one who is chosen with discretion and consent of all the brothers, and assent of him who is lord of the property by which the cloister was built; one who is specially marked out by his moral conduct and the merit of a holy life, according to the rule which it is his duty to observe. And the Decretum thus speaks concerning the patrons of a church in xvi. Causa, questione septima, in the chapter where, according to the decision of the General Council of Bishops held in the city called Toletum, it is said: “Decernimus ut quandiu fundatores exxlesiarum in had vita superstites fuerint, pro eisdem locus euram habeant solicitam atque rectores ydoneos in eisdem basilicas idem episcopo ipsi efferent ordinarandos. Quod si spretis eisdem fundatoribus, rectores ididem alios episcopus presumserit ordinare, ordinacionem suam noverit irritam et ad verecundiam suam alios ordinet is eodem loco, quos isi fundatores elegerint ordinary.”⁶⁰ Which signifies in our tongue in our tongue: “We establish clearly that as long as there are survivors of the family that founded any church the patronage of which lawfully belongs to the successors of the founders, they shall always possess the right to visit the church and have the guardianship thereof, to see that nothing that belongs to the upholding of it is removed, to elect a priest for it suitable and honourable, or else some other fit clerk whom the Bishop may institute to the church at their request. And if the Bishop will not institute whom they present, but prefers of his own motion to institute another to the church, against the wish of the patrons, than shall the Bishop see that he is condemned by this decision; and though he may think it a shame and disgrace to remove the man whom he instituted, yet shall he remove him, and set in his place him whom the patrons the church desire, if it s seen that he is equally well fitted by good sense and learning.” And again, the same Cause: “Recionis ordo non patitur ut monasterium contra voluntatem fundatorum ab eorundem disposicione ad arbitrium suum quisdebeat venidcare.”⁶¹ Which signifies in our tongue: “Reasonable order does not suffer that a man of his own purpose may withdraw a cloister or a church form the management of the patrons against their will.” And Gracianus, who arranged the Decretum, speaks with a final judgment as it were,a nd uses these words: “ Hic distinguendum est quid juris fundatores ecclesiarum in eis habeant, vel quid non habeant, just consulendi et providendi et sacredotem invniendi, set non habent just vendendi vel donandi vel utendi tamquam proriis.”⁶² Which signifies in our tongue: “We must here now rightly distinguish what power patrons in Holy Church are able to exercise: they have the right of management and oversight, and of finding a priest; but not the right to give, or sell, or use as their own property.”

The contention of the King against the bishops and priests having arisen and grown, wise men may now see who are in the right, and who are to blame, if Christianity has been profaned in our land. They bring these charges against the King, that they, who in themselves are inferior to the king, may deprive him of rule in matters which holy books declare to be under his management. They proclaim to men that Christianity has been profaned, and assert that the King wishes to make all the land heathen, because he desires to maintain and preserve what God Himself bids him, and kingly rule; and if he neglects God's command he must answer for it. It may be seen by what has been said, that they have seductive falsehoods in their mouth, and proclaim that to be wrong which is right, and that right which is wrong. We have often heard they men say, and put forward as their excuse, that king has renounced authority which was his, and made it over to them. But all in whose breast God has placed understanding may perceive that if the King were willing to renounce his authority to them, they would not accept the gift in such a way as to be bound to answer for it before God, according to what has been expounded already; because of all those matters which God has placed under kingly rule He will require and account from the King, and of all that He has placed under Episcopal rule He will require an account from the Bishop. Two men may not exchange duties, either by giving or accepting, for this is contrary to what God has ordained and commanded. And if Kings have been so ignorant as not to know these written commands, and have through ignorance consented to give that which they could not give, those who asked of them what is contrary to God's ordinance would none the less have committed sin and wickedness knowing beforehand the invalidity of their request, as well as of a gift and a consent contrary to God's ordinance and holy law. But we know it to be certain that kings never have consented to what they could not consent. We know for certain that bold assertions of kings' consent, have been made, which go beyond what has been given, although kings have given so much that their gift need not be asserted to be greater than it was. We are well informed touching the custom existing of old times in this land, when kings appointed to churches of their own whomsoever they thought good to appoint. So also in choosing bishops and abbots they chose whomsoever they thought fit, and appointed them to what dioceses they would, without any guidance from the clergy. At that time, in most of the bishops' sees there was no great body of clergy and canons to afford such guidance, and kings appointed, therefore, whom they would. This custom existed from the introduction of Christianity. It existed in the days of King Olaf the Saint, and ever afterwards to the time of Eystein, Sigurd, and Ingi sons of Harald. But when the pallium came to Norway through the agency of the kings just mentioned, and the Archbishopric was established in Norway , prebends were founded in the bishops' see and canons appointed. The kings were then requested to allow Church appointments and selection bishops to be made in the way most consonant with holy writings. There was a special reason for the request, inasmuch as there were at that time three kings in the land, and it was not unlikely that dissension might arise among them as indeed afterwards happened. Wise men thought that there was danger, if a bishopric fell vacant, that each of the kings might appoint his own clerk to be bishop of the see; there would then be three heads chosen to one Church establishment, each eagerly supported, if there was disagreement between the kings. Such was experienced afterwards, and an example of it was afforded in Bergen , when Eystein chose his chaplain Pal to be Bishop after the death of Bishop Sigurd. But Ingi drove Pal from the see and chose Nikolas Petrs-son of Sogn. Now, possible, the kings, being all at the same time kings and yet not agreed, did give some consent, though to a less extent than was requested, that the wise men among the clergy should be consulted in appointments. But nothing was then requested contrary to the holy writings or to justice, though the assertions of our clergy would imply it. And there is a proof that the kings relinquished none of their power in matters on which they were agreed; for when Archbishop Jon died at Nidaros, Ingi, who survived his brothers, chose Eystein, his chaplain and treasurer, to the Archbishop's see, consulting none of the clergy in Throndham, not even the canons. At this time he drove Bishop Pal from the see in Bergen , and set in his place Nikolas Petrs-son.

Now, this even happened so short a time ago that many can remember it, and no confirmation of it is needed other than what is furnished by the memory of people now alive. The bishops and clergy, therefore utter idle prattle and vain speech, of no worth, when with falsehood and treachery they say things that produce general unrest; and it is perfectly evident that they wish to be both bishops and kings, as such an abundance of examples is to be found, opposed to them and their bidding. We have also heard them say and maintain that kings have confirmed their concessions; they claim also to have Papal privilegia in confirmation of the same. But we certainly regard these statements as falsely put forward. If they have any evidence of them, let them produce it before us all, that we may see and examine of what king it is. If the documents are found to be duly obtained, rationally expressed, and if they conform to what is expounded in Decretis and in sacris legibus, then it is right that the king sin succession should be bound by what has been reasonable ordained and rightly requested. But if requests have been made with deceitful cunning or hurtful ambition, then it is right that moderation and truth should overthrow both deceit and encroachment. For the actual rule and ordinance of holy law thus says: “ Recripta que contra jus fuerint impetrate, nisi talia fuerint quæ illis quibus data sunt prosint, et nullo obsint, nullius momenti esse censentur.”⁶³ Which signifies in our tongue: “Rescripts which are deceitfully acquired against holy and lawful order are of no worth, unless they have been so acquired as to inflict no injury or loss on any, and yet are of advantage to him who obtains them.” And Pope Gregory thus expresses himself in his Registrum, as it is said in xxv. Causa, questione secunda, in the chapter containing the words: “Imperali constitucione sancitum est aperte ut ea quæ contraleges fiunt non solum intilia sed etiam pro infectis habeantur.”⁶⁴ Which signifies in our tongue: It is openly confirmed in the holy statues form the hand of the Emperor, that things procured contrary to holy rules shall not only be useless to those who procure them, but even be deemed to fall to the ground as if they had never been procured.” And again he says in the came Cause: “ Nec dampnose fisco nec juri contraria postulari oportet.”⁶⁵ Which signifies in our tongue: “Confirmation shall not be requested for those things which are either injurious to the royal treasury or opposed to legal order.” Pope Simplicius in lxxiiij. Causa [distinctione] (and there many other places in in decretis to the same effect) thus speaks, using these words: “Privilegium meretur omnino amittere, qui sibi permissa abutitur potestate.”⁶⁶ Which may be interpreted in our tongue: “Whosoever uses with force and contention that which has been bestowed on him with mercy and grace, deserves altogether to lose his privilegium. ” And the Emperor Constantine, to whom of earthly kings most power has been given in Holy Church, says in the same Cause: “ Rescripta contra just licita [elicita] ab omnibus judicibus præcipimus refutari, nisi forte sit aliquid quod no lædat [alium] et prosit petenti.”⁶⁷ Which signifies in our tongue: “We command all chiefs to condemn all rescripts which have been obtained contrary to lawful rules, except they be of such a kind that no man suffers hurt or injury from them, and yet they are a gain to him who has procured them.” And thus says the rule of ordinance law: “ Ea que sub recepcione [subreptione] vel falsis precibus forsitan impetrantur nullum supplicationibus [supplicantibus] possunt ferre remedium.”⁶⁸ Which signifies in our tongue: “All those things which have been procured by deceitful or treacherous request can bring no advantage to those who have procured them.” And in the same Cause the holy statute says again: “ Rescripta sive sint annotataciones sive pragmatice sanctiones, expressam debent habere in se condicionem si precum vertantur [si preces veritate nituntur]. Mendax enim precatur hoc debet career impetrates et quibus scripta diriguntur sunt puniendi, si precum mendacia venerint [vetuerint] argui.”⁶⁹ Which signifies in our tongue: “All recripts or other confirmations must have authentic marks showing that they have been procured by request and thruthful entreaties; for a deceitful or lying petitioner must lose that which he has procured by deceit and craft. They also are certainly worthy of punishment to whom the rescripts obtained by deceit are sent, if they will not punish the deceitful lie.” And the emperor Constantine again says in the same Cause: “ Puniri jubemus decem librarum [aura mulcta] judices, qui metuerint [vetuerint] precum argui falsitatem.”⁷⁰ Which signifies in our tongue: “Though a fraudulent petitioner has obtained rescripts and confirmations which appear to be lawful, et shall he lose them altogether if they have been procured with deceit; and if his dishonesty has caused much injury, let him be subject to the sever sentence of the punisher.” And the emperor Constantine says, on the same subject: “ Si qua beneficia sine die et consule fuerint deprehensa auctoritate careant.”⁷¹ Which signifies in our tongue: although they are rescripts rightly procured, yet if they lack authentic note of the day when they were procured, they shall be of no worth.” And Pope Silvius [Silverius] in xxv. Causa, questione secunda, speaks on the same subject, and uses the words: “Sic decet fidem sanctorum partum in ecclesia servari catholica, ut quod habet amittat, qui inprobabili temeritate quod bib accepit asynserit.”⁷² Which signifies in our tongue: “It becomes us so to defend the justice of the Holy Fathers in Holy Church , that whosoever has received any confirmation whereby he reaps advantage, and cannot boldly and manfully show its authenticity, let him lose what he has.”

These passages from the holy statues, and the Decreta themselves (of which we have given the meaning), are all written in a book, with many others which bear witness to them and expressly confirm them but are not written here. They are written here and fully translated into our tongue, that those who understood them not while they stood in the learned language may understand them now that they are read aloud in our tongue. Clergy and laymen many alike understand, and every one may now decide in his own mind with truth, and not with surmise, whence comes that unrest now in our land, supposing our clergy, who are the cause of the unrest, attribute to the King the wish to destroy Christianity. All the passages have been translated according to their correct sense, though some of the translations contain other words in their phrasing than appear in translating the Latin word by word. If any one says that we have not given the right sense of these passages, let him inquire of us, if he will, and allow himself to be convinced if we able to answer him with reason. In doing thus, we do not mean to contend with any one, but we have been compelled to translate more concisely than the full sense demands when thoroughly examined. It may now be seen whether the King is to blame, and claims their rights to rob them of their dignity, or they quarrel with the king's honour and wish to deprive him of it and render him honourless. And if this unrest turns into heresy, as seems too likely, heresy and the profanation of Christianity will be seen to proceed form the a source whence they have aforetime proceeded. We know few instances where kings have overthrown them when bishops have originated them. You may now hear the names of those who in various ways have been heretics.

The greatest and most important heresy was that of the High priests Annas and Caiaphas in Judea , who condemned God Himself, and incited the mob and the multitude to have Him slain. Although they saw from day to day the miracles which He did, how He gave sight to the blind, cleansed the lepers, called the dead to life, and performed other manifold miracles, yet they regarded these as evil works in Him, not good. King Herod of Galilee and the Governor Pilate in Jerusalem declared Him innocent, and said that they found no charge against Him for which He lawfully deserved death. The Chief Priests collected together a crowd and an ignorant mob, and declared before the people that their law and ordinances would be set a naught in Christ were not put to death. The people believed them, their teachers, and did not regard them as deceivers; and their command was carried out. So, too, afterwards, when the Apostles of God had preached Christianity through all the world, and Christianity increased in strength and was established, bishops became heretics, and at this day lands are heathen where bishops destroyed Christianity by their heresy. Arius, Bishop of Alexandria, turned all the people from Christianity to heresy, and his bishopric is to-day heathen; and his heresy would have compassed the whole world if the Emperor Constantine, and those bishops who wished to guard the true faith, had not turned against him and condemned him. There was Macedonicus in Constantinople , who perverted all the people to heresy, until the Empreror Theodosius turned against him, and he was condemned. There was Nestorius also, Bishop of Constantinople, who led all the people astray, until Theodosius the Younger, with a great number of orthodox bishops, turned against him, and he was condemned. There was also Eodex [Eutches], Abbot in Constantinople , who led people into heresy, until Marcian, a famous man and great chief, turned against him, and his heresy was then crushed. Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, supported the cause of the Abbot and said that the proclaimed right doctrine, and both ere condemned under the chief. There was Macarius, Bishop of Antioch, who led all the people into heresy, until the Emperor Justinian called together the righteous bishops, and his heresy was crushed. There were many other heretic bishops that profaned Christianity whom we will briefly mention by name as Focianus, Bishop of Gall-Græcia, and Donatus, Bishop of Numidia, who led into heresy will-nigh a third of the world, and through his teaching almost all the whole of that part is to-day heathen. There was Priscianus [Priscillian] in Spain , who led people into heresy, and Nonacus, a Cardinal in Rome , who was a heretic. Bishop Apollinarius was a heretic, and Luciferus. Tertullian the Provost was a heretic, and of all heretics he had the most treacherous tongue. Pelagius the Monk was a heretic; also the Bishops Theodosius and Gaianus, who were both consecrated bishop in one day; and afterwards became heretics.

Though we have mentioned all these, there are yet many whom we have not mentioned who were heretics and caused much harm by their heresy. The very worst, the cause of the most harm, was called Nicholas Advena, a disciple of the Lord Himself. He was afterwards Bishop in Serkland,⁷³ and is now known at Mahomet. The heresy which he taught in his bishopric is so important that almost half the world believes in him and claims that he is God. We have reckoned up far too many clergy who have been the authors of heresy, yet we know more. But we have written so far, that men may perceive and know that heresy has had its origin among bishops oftener than among kings. Not many kings will be found who have originated heresy, for kings ever talk of their realm, of their kingly rule, and the defence of their lands. Bishops are appointed to proclaim truth and Christianity, and whether they preach in church or at Assemblies, they declare before people that all they preach must be followed; to fail in carrying out all they command is wrong, they say, and opposed to Christianity. Sometimes heretics are found among them who have not always put forth only what is right in their preaching, and of these we have named several. Let all know that their heresies have not been all one and the same; heresies have been as numerous as the heretics themselves; the heresy into which one man fell another escaped. Always, though, heresy has been quelled by the strength of rule of great men whenever it has grown to be powerful. Now we have not put together these statements form the contents of holy books or the ordinances of holy statutes, that the clergy may be put to shame thereby, or Holy Church suffer any weakness of loss; rather have we written them and put them forth in our own tongue, that unlearned men who have been led astray hitherto in such matters may fully understand and truly know how these matters are ordered among men in the holy writings, and how they should stand. Let these encroachments now cease which for a time have found place among men, and be just to one another. When both parties observe what stands in the holy writings, there is freedom for both; but when they wish to transgress what is written they practice unrighteousness, and will be rejected by God, by good men, and by equity, Let all these things remain in memory which we have written and reach out touching the concessions which the clergy claim to have been given to them, or other special privileges in various matters which they claim; and let men understand how concessions and privileges are to be procured so as not to be void. For wise rulers have determined not to permit that a man should appropriate to himself such kingly rule as he cane seize with deceitful device, and then possess it as if he had lawfully acquired it; kingly rule would soon be in the hands of other man than the King himself if that were permitted. So too of the other matters which we have expounded before you, patronage in the Church, obedience to the King, wrongful ban and excommunication; let them be pondered with a good understanding. Ban and excommunication we may dread because of our sins, or of the shame to which they put us before other folk, who learn of the dishonour which our clergy inflict on us. But we have no fear that we shall be condemned by God, for He pronounces no judgment other than just; and the more a man is oppressed by the injustice of men, the nearer to him is help from the justice of God.