Monarchia (III, vi, 1-7)

(1) De lictera vero primi libri Regum assummunt etiam creationem et depositionem Saulis, et dicunt quod Saul rex intronizatus fuit et de trono depositus per Samuelem, qui vice Dei de precepto fungebatur, ut in Lictera patet. (1) Then from the text of the first book of Kings they take the creation and deposition of Saul, and they say that King Saul was placed on the throne and removed from it by Samuel, who was acting as God's vicar by his command, as we read in the Biblical account.
(2) Et ex hoc arguunt quod, quemadmodum ille Dei vicarius auctoritatem habuit dandi et tollendi regimen temporale et in alium transferendi, sic et nunc Dei vicarius, Ecclesie universalis antistes, auctoritatem habet dandi et tollendi et etiam transferendi sceptrum regiminis temporalis; ex quo sine dubio sequeretur quod auctoritas Imperii dependeret ut dicunt. (2) And from this they argue that just as he, as God's vicar, had the authority to give and take away temporal power and transfer it to someone else, so now too God's vicar, the head of the universal church, has the authority to give and to take away and even to transfer the sceptre of temporal power; from which it would undoubtedly follow that imperial authority would be dependent in the way they claim.
(3) Et ad hoc dicendum per interemptionem eius quod dicunt Samuelem Dei vicarium, quia non ut vicarius sed ut legatus spetialis ad hoc, sive nuntius portans mandatum Domini expressum, hoc fecit: quod patet quia quicquid Deus dixit, hoc fecit solum et hoc retulit. (3) This argument too must be answered by denying their claim that Samuel was God's vicar, because he acted on that occasion not as vicar but as a special emissary for a particular purpose, that is to say as a messenger bearing God's express command: this is clear because he did and reported only what God told him to.
(4) Unde sciendum quod aliud est esse vicarium, aliud est esse nuntium sive ministrum: sicut aliud est esse doctorem, aliud est esse interpretem. (4) For it must be borne in mind that it is one thing to be a vicar, and quite another to be a messenger or minister; just as it is one thing to be a writer and another to be an interpreter.
(5) Nam vicarius est cui iurisdictio cum lege vel cum arbitrio commissa est; et ideo intra terminos iurisdictionis commisse de lege vel de arbitrio potest agere circa aliquid, quod dominus omnino ignorat. Nuntius autem non potest in quantum nuntius; sed quemadmodum malleus in sola virtute fabri operatur, sic et nuntius in solo arbitrio eius qui mictit illum. (5) For a vicar is a person to whom jurisdiction is entrusted within the terms of the law or at his own discretion; and thus within the limits of the jurisdiction entrusted to him he can take action by applying the law or using his own discretion in matters of which his lord knows nothing. But a messenger qua messenger cannot do this; for just as a hammer functions only by virtue of the craftsman using it, so a messenger too is entirely dependent on the will of the person who sends him.
(6) Non igitur sequitur, si Deus per nuntium Samuelem fecit hoc, quod vicarius Dei hoc facere possit. Multa enim Deus per angelos fecit et facit et facturus est que vicarius Dei, Petri successor, facere non posset. (6) It does not follow, then, that if God did that using Samuel as his messenger, the vicar of God may do it. For God has done, does and will do many things through his angels which the vicar of God, Peter's successor, could not do.
(7) Unde argumentum istorum est 'a toto ad partem', construendo sic: 'homo potest videre et audire: ergo oculus potest videre et audire'. Et hoc non tenet; teneret autem 'destructive' sic: 'homo non potest volare: ergo nec brachia hominis possunt volare'. Et similiter sic: 'Deus per nuntium facere non potest genita non esse genita, iuxta sententiam Agathonis: ergo nec vicarius eius facere potest'. (7) Hence their argument is "from the whole to the part", in affirmative form like this: "man can see and hear; therefore the eye can see and hear". And this is not valid; it would be valid if put into negative form like this: "man cannot fly; therefore man's arms cannot fly". And in the same way we would have: "God cannot through a messenger make undone things that have once been done, as Agathon observed: therefore his vicar cannot do so either".