Question I

GRATIAN. PART I. That a cleric is not to be accused before secular judges Pope Caius writes, [letter to Bishop Felix, c. 2], saying:

Let no one ever presume to accuse a bishop or the remaining clerics before a secular judge.

Let none of the judges by himself distrain or presume to condemn a priest, deacon, any cleric, or juniors of the church without the pontiff's permission. But if he has done so, let him be sequestered from the church to which he is known to have inflicted injury until he recognizes and amends his guilt.]

Likewise Pope Marcellinus, [letter II]. Let no one presume to draw a cleric of any order to secular judgment without the permission of his pontiff, nor let a layman be permitted to accuse any cleric.

Likewise from the Council of Nicaea. There ought to be no other judges except those whom the one who is assailed has personally chosen, or those whom this holy see with his consent, or its primates by authority of this holy see, have delegated.

Likewise Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius. By a perpetual law we decree that no bishops or those who serve the necessities of the church be dragged to the judgments either of ordinary or extraordinary judges. They have their own judges, nor do they share anything with these public laws. Likewise: § 1. Constantine, presiding in the holy synod which was assembled at Nicaea, when he perceived that the complaint of certain persons was to be brought before him, said: You can be judged by no one, because you are reserved for the judgment of God alone.

[PALEA.

Likewise from the First Council of Mâcon, c. 8. Let no cleric presume in any way to accuse another cleric before a secular judge or draw him to plead a case; rather, let every matter of clerics be concluded either before his bishop or before priests in the presence of the archdeacon. But if any cleric has delayed fulfilling this, if he is of lower rank, let him receive one less than forty blows; but if he is more honorable, let him be punished with confinement for thirty days.]

[PALEA.

Likewise Marcellinus, letter II to the Eastern Bishops. Whatever contentions have arisen among Christians, let them be carried to the church and terminated by ecclesiastical men. And if they refuse to obey, let them be excluded from the thresholds of the church until they obey.]

Likewise Boniface to the Bishops of Gaul. Let no bishop be brought or presented before any judge, whether civil or military, either for a civil or a criminal case. For a magistrate who has dared to order this will be struck with condemnation by loss of his belt of office.

Likewise Pope Sylvester, [in the Roman Synod, c. 14]. Let no one receive the testimony of a cleric against a layman; let no one presume to examine any cleric in public, but only in the church. [GRATIAN.] In book I of the Code, title On Bishops and Clerics, Emperor Theodosius: Let a bishop be demanded for testimony neither by honor nor by the laws. § 1. Likewise: It is not fitting that a bishop be admitted for giving testimony, for both his person is honored and, when his dignity is excepted, that of a priest is confounded. A new constitution. Let him not be demanded for testimony under oath, but only with the Gospels placed before him. § 1. Likewise: But let the judge send to him some of his ministers, so that, with the sacrosanct Gospels placed before them, they may say what they know, in the manner fitting priests.

The same. If any cleric, accusing a cleric, has entered the court, let him be anathema. GRATIAN. It is to be understood: if he has sought cognizance of public judgments; for it does no harm to request an episcopal judgment from the emperor. Hence it is read in the Eighth Council of Carthage:

It was resolved that whoever seeks cognizance of public judgments from the emperor be deprived of his proper honor. But if he has sought an episcopal judgment from the emperor, let it not harm him. GRATIAN. Thus also the following authorities are to be understood, by which it is commanded that only clerics take cognizance of the cases of clerics. Hence Pope Gelasius writes to Count Zeia:

It ought always to be pleasing to Christians that what is requested from their dignity be furnished, because it is not fitting to deny a benefit to those serving God. Sylvester and Faustinian, who confess that they have been clerics from their cradles, complain that they are oppressed by Theodora through violence: that although they say that they are freeborn and, with God as author, absolved from the bonds of their former condition, they are being consigned again to the lot of the worst servitude; and that by royal authority, contrary to the public laws, although they were long ago bound by the clerical belt, they were summoned through the archdeacon of the city of Grumentum, although it is established that one who assails a soldier of heaven ought to follow only his tribunal. And therefore, beloved, with the expression of the salutation due, I commend the aforesaid clerics to you, so that, if their adversaries despise coming to the judgment of the delegates, they may be fortified by the protection of your highness, lest either deception or violence hostile to the laws impose anything of necessity upon them, because one who flees judgment appears to distrust justice.

The same to Bishops Crispus and Sabinus. Sylvester and Faustinian, clerics of the church of Grumentum, complained to us in a tearful disclosure that the freedom granted to them by the kindness of their master is assailed by the oppression of his heirs, and that they, having served in the office of the clericate almost from their cradles and, even while the manumitter was living, nevertheless having remained established in the same status, are not permitted to devote service to the divine ministries; although, if truth supports their petition, inheritance is taken away by the laws from those opposing the deed of their father and author as unworthy persons, nor are those taking the inheritance permitted to rise up against the judgment of their author. And therefore, dearest brothers, because they also complain that they are oppressed by the archdeacon of the aforesaid church, who, during their absence, promised that they would follow the judgment of a governor, with all things trampled underfoot, and thought his own tribunal was being taken away from those assailed contrary to divine and public laws, let whoever he is who has assailed a cleric come to your judgment, so that the rights of the church, which ancient princes confirmed by continual sanction, may not be denied to the clerics assailed.

Likewise Alexander to all the orthodox serving Christ the Lord throughout the various provinces, [letter I, c. 1]. It has been reported to the summit of this holy and apostolic see, to which the arrangements of the greatest cases and the affairs of all churches were entrusted by the Lord Himself, as to the head, He Himself saying, “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,” that certain rivals of Christ and plotters against His holy church presume to accuse the priests of God before public judges, although the Apostle commands rather that the cases of Christians be brought to the churches and terminated there. Those transgressing in such a manner have transgressed against their God and do not obey His commands.

Likewise Pelagius to Benegestus the Defender. By the present authority we command your Experience that, in cases in which any person holding ecclesiastical office stands as plaintiff and is about to sue any layman, he not fail to present his actions before the judge of his own province.

But in those matters in which a person holding ecclesiastical office is sued, with every obstacle to the suit removed, let him resort without distinction to the examination of the bishop or of the priests established in the place where the question is being litigated.

The same to Sergius the Chancellor. If any cleric, whether of lower or higher rank, stands as plaintiff and directs his actions against a lay person, he shall by every means resort to state his case nowhere other than before the judge of the province. But if any layman has determined that a cleric of any rank is to be sued, let him present before the judgment of the bishops established in that city or territory those actions which he considers himself to possess. That rule which commands the plaintiff always to follow the forum of the one sued makes manifest that this order is demonstrated to be in every respect fitting and consonant with the laws. And the authority of imperial enactments also declares that the forum for clerics who are sued lies in episcopal judgment. Likewise it is read in the Council of Agde, [c. 32]:

Let no one presume to sue a cleric before a secular judge when the bishop does not permit it; but if he has been sued, let him neither answer nor plead, nor dare to present a criminal matter in secular judgment.

Likewise Pope Pius, [letter II]. If any of the priests or remaining clerics has been disobedient to his bishop, or has prepared snares for him, or inflicted insult, calumny, or abuse upon him, and can be convicted, let him immediately be deposed and handed over to the curia, and let him receive what he has unjustly done.

Likewise from the Third Council of Carthage, [c. 38]. We request that you deign to give us confidence whereby, when necessity itself compels, we may be free, in accordance with the statutes of the most glorious princes, to approach the governor of the province against that man who, though admonished even to this day, refuses to relinquish the congregation which he had invaded, as had been established, so that one who has refused to acquiesce in the mild admonition of your holiness and to amend what is illicit may immediately be excluded by judicial authority. Bishop Aurelius said: With the form of discipline preserved, he will not be judged to have been assailed if, after being modestly admonished by your charity, he has refused to withdraw, since through his own contempt and contumacy he has caused himself to be summoned by judicial authority. Bishops Honoratus and Urban said: This therefore pleases all.

Likewise Gregory. This is what we requested from you and now request again: that you send Paulinus, the pseudo-bishop of Aquileia, and that Bishop of Milan to the most merciful prince under suitable custody, so that the former, who can in no way be a bishop because he was made contrary to every canonical custom, may no longer destroy others, and the latter, who presumed to ordain him contrary to ancient custom, may be subjected to the vengeance of the canons.

Likewise in the Council of Chalcedon, [c. 18]. The crime of conjurations and conspiracies, which among the Greeks is called a phratria, is certainly also altogether prohibited by the public laws. Much more is it fitting to banish its occurrence in the holy church of God. But if any clerics or monks are found entering conjurations or conspiracies, or forming phratriae or any factions against their bishops or others, let them by every means fall from their proper rank.

Likewise Pope Callistus, [letter II to the Bishops of Gaul]. We have heard that the crimes of conspiracy flourish in your regions, and it has been reported to us that congregations conspire against their bishops. The cunning of this crime is abominable not only among Christians but also among pagans, and it is prohibited by external laws. Therefore not only ecclesiastical laws but also secular laws condemn those guilty of this crime, and not only the conspirators but also those consenting to them. Moreover, our predecessors, together with a very great multitude of bishops, commanded that any of them who are placed in priestly honor or are clerics be deprived of the honor which they exercise; but they ordered the others to be deprived of communion and made exiles from the church, and they judged all the men of both orders together to be infamous—not only those committing the deeds, but also those consenting to them.

Likewise from the Council of Chalcedon, [c. 18]. If any clerics or monks are found entering conjurations or conspiracies, or laying snares for bishops or clerics, let them be cast entirely from their proper rank.

Likewise from the Council of Toledo. If clerics or monks are found entering conspiracies or contriving calumny against bishops or clerics through a conjuration, let them lose their proper rank.

Likewise from the Council of Orléans, [III, c. 21]. If any of the clerics—as has most manifestly appeared to have been done recently in many places through pride at the devil's instigation—have gathered themselves into one body by rebellious authority through an intervening conspiracy, or if it has become evident that oaths were given among them or a document was drawn up, their presumption shall escape by no excuses; but when the matter has been disclosed and the synod has convened, let it be avenged upon the presumptuous persons, according to the quality of their persons and orders, by the pontiffs who shall then have assembled together, because just as charity, according to the divine precepts, is to be shown from the heart and not by the drafting of a document or by a conspiracy, so those things which are undertaken against the sacred scriptures are to be repressed by pontifical authority and severity.

Likewise Pope Innocent, [to Victricius of Rouen, letter II, c. 3]. If any cases or contentions have arisen between clerics and laymen, of both higher and also lower rank, it was resolved that judgment be terminated in accordance with the Nicene Synod, with all the bishops of the same province assembled. GRATIAN. Since, therefore, by all these authorities it is forbidden that clerics be produced before a civil judge, and since they are not to be presented to the curia unless they have first been deposed or stripped of office, it is evident that clerics are not to be dragged to secular judgments. PART II. § 1. The response to these things is as follows: clerics are subject to the bishop by reason of their office; by reason of possession of estates they are answerable to the emperor. From the bishop they receive anointing, tithes, and first fruits; but from the emperor they obtain possession of estates. Hence Augustine says on John: “By what law do you defend estates? By divine or human law, etc.?” Seek this at the beginning, where the difference between natural law and the law of enactment is designated. Because, therefore, it was brought about by imperial law that estates may be possessed, it is evident that clerics are answerable to the emperor by reason of possession of estates.

If the emperor seeks tribute, we do not deny it: let the fields of the church pay tribute. If the emperor desires the fields, he possesses the power to vindicate them. Let him take them, if it pleases him: I do not give them to the emperor, but I do not deny them.

The same, [in the commentaries on Luke c. 5, book IV, penultimate chapter]. It is indeed a great and spiritual lesson by which Christian men are taught that they ought to be subject to higher powers, lest anyone think that the enactment of an earthly king is to be dissolved. For if the Son of God paid the tax, who are you, so great that you think it is not to be paid? [GRATIAN.] Likewise the Apostle: “Let every soul be subject to the higher powers.” Likewise the apostle Peter writes generally to all the faithful: “Be subject to your lords, whether to the king as preeminent, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers but the praise of the honorable.”

Likewise from the letter of Clement, [I, to James the brother of the Lord]. You indeed ought to live blamelessly and strive with the greatest zeal to cast aside all occupations of this life: do not become a surety, do not become an advocate in lawsuits, nor be found at all entangled in any occupation by occasion of worldly business. For Christ does not wish to ordain you today either as judge or as examiner of secular affairs, lest, suffocated by the present cares of men, you be unable to devote yourself to the word of God. Therefore let laymen who are free for such things furnish one another these works which we have said are less fitting for you, and let no one occupy you away from those pursuits through which salvation is given to men.

Likewise from the same. For just as it is a crime of impiety for you, O Clement, to undertake secular cares while neglecting the pursuits of the word of God, so it is a sin for each of the laity unless they faithfully furnish assistance to one another even in those things which pertain to the use of common life. But let all labor in common to make you free from those things to which you ought not to attend. But if perhaps the laity do not understand this by themselves, they are to be instructed through the deacons, so that they may leave to you the cares of the church alone. GRATIAN. From all these things it is given to be understood that in a civil case a cleric is to be convened before a civil judge. For just as an ecclesiastical judge is the administrator of ecclesiastical laws, so none but a civil judge ought to be the executor of civil laws. For just as he alone possesses the right to interpret the canons who possesses the power to establish them, so he alone ought to be the interpreter of civil laws who imparts their right and authority. But in a criminal case a cleric is to be examined only before a bishop. And this is what was defined above by laws and canons: namely, that in a criminal case no cleric is to be produced before a civil judge, unless perhaps with the consent of his bishop; as when they are found incorrigible, then, after their office has been taken from them, they are to be handed over to the curia. Hence Pope Fabian says, [letter II to the Eastern Bishops]:

We establish that, if any cleric has proved hostile to or a plotter against his bishops, immediately, before judgment has been examined, let him be removed from the clergy and handed over to the curia, which he shall serve for the days of his life, and let him remain infamous without any hope of restoration. GRATIAN. Because, therefore, this man produced a cleric before a civil judge not in a criminal but in a civil case, he is not to be judged a transgressor of the canons, nor is he to be said to have dragged the defendant before a judge who was not his own, because none but a civil judge ought to take cognizance of a civil case. PART III. § 1. On the contrary, those things which were said in defense of the plaintiff indeed appear probable, but lack weight. For by sacred canons and forensic laws a cleric is forbidden to be dragged before a civil judge in both a civil and a criminal case. Hence it is read in the letter of Clement, [I, to James]:

If any of the brothers have disputes among themselves, let them not be judged before secular examiners, but let whatever it is be decided before the priests of the church.

Likewise Pope Sylvester, [in the epilogue of the Roman Council]. Let no cleric, priest, or deacon enter the curia on account of any case whatsoever, nor presume to plead his case before a civil judge.

Likewise Pope Leo, [to Rusticus, letter XC, otherwise XCII, c. 9]. It is one thing to demand back just things that are owed, another to despise one's own things from love of perfection. But one seeking pardon for unlawful things ought also to abstain from many lawful things, as the Apostle says: “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient.” Hence, if any penitent has a case which perhaps he ought not to neglect, let him seek ecclesiastical judgment rather than forensic judgment. GRATIAN. He does not say “on account of a criminal case” only, but generally “on account of any case,” understanding both civil and criminal. Likewise Emperor Theodosius:

Whoever has a lawsuit, whether he is plaintiff at the beginning of the suit or after courses of time have elapsed, whether when the case is being fully pleaded or when sentence has already begun to be pronounced, if he has chosen the judgment of the bishop of the sacrosanct law, immediately, without any doubt, even if the other party objects, let him be directed to the judgment of the bishops together with the declaration of the litigants.

The same. Therefore let all cases which are conducted by praetorian or civil law, once terminated by the sentences of bishops, be confirmed by the right of perpetual stability, nor let it thereafter be permitted to reconsider a matter which the sentence of bishops has decided. Let all judges without doubt accept even testimony furnished by one bishop, and let no other person be heard when the testimony of a bishop has been promised by either party. For let that be held confirmed by the authority of truth, and let that be held incorrupt which has been brought forth by a sacrosanct man from the conscience of an unblemished mind. We confirm this by a salutary edict and judge that it is to be observed by perpetual law. GRATIAN. If anyone contends that these things have become obsolete because they are not found inserted in Justinian's Code, let him recognize that they were renewed by Charlemagne, who says, among other things, in his Capitularies, [book VI, c. 281]:

“We will and command that all subject to our dominion—Romans as well as Franks, Alemanni, Bavarians, Saxons, Thuringians, Frisians, Gauls, Burgundians, Britons, Lombards, Gascons, Beneventans, Goths, Spaniards, and all others subject to us, by whatever bond of law they appear bound or by whatever customary practice connected—shall all hold by perpetual law this sentence from the sixteenth book of Emperor Theodosius, namely chapter eleven, in response to the inquiries of Duke Ablavius, which we sent in writing to them and to all and, with the counsel of all our faithful, placed among our capitularies to be observed as law, that is: Whoever has a lawsuit, whether he is plaintiff, etc., as above.” Likewise Gregory, [book XI, letter 54], in admonishing John the Defender as he went to Spain, says:

Concerning the person of a priest this is to be observed: if anyone has a case against him, he ought not to be detained by another, but his bishop ought to be approached, as the Novel constitution makes manifest, which speaks thus concerning the most holy and God-beloved and most reverend bishops, clerics, and monks: “The Emperor Augustus Justinian to Peter, most glorious praetorian prefect, chapter LIII. If anyone has any action against a cleric or monk, or a deaconess, or a nun, or a female ascetic, let him first inform the most holy bishop to whom each of them is subject. But let him adjudicate the case between them. And if indeed both parties do not acquiesce in the things judged, we command that full execution be entrusted through the judge of the place.” § 1. But lest it be objected that this speaks of a cleric, not of a priest, it is to be known that above, in the same constitution, book L, chapter 1, it is read that priests and deacons are also contained under the appellation of clerics. The words of the law are these: “Priests, deacons, readers, and singers, all of whom we call clerics,” and the rest.

Likewise Gregory, [book IX, letter 32], to Romanus, Defender of Sicily. It has reached us that, if anyone has a case against any clerics, you cause those clerics, with their bishops despised, to be presented at your judgment. If this is so, it is established to be exceedingly incongruous. But by this authority we command you not to presume to do this again; rather, if anyone has a case against any cleric, let him approach that cleric's bishop, so that either the bishop himself may take cognizance of it, or judges may at least be appointed by him, or, if perhaps recourse is to be made to arbiters, an executor appointed by him may compel the parties to choose judges. But if any cleric or layman has a case against a bishop, then you ought to intervene, so that either you yourself may take cognizance between them, or at least, upon your admonition, they may choose judges for themselves. For if his own jurisdiction is not preserved for each bishop, what else is done except that through us, through whom that ecclesiastical order ought to have been preserved, it is confounded? And the rest.

The same to Januarius, Bishop of Cagliari, [book III, letter 26]. We have learned from the report of our brother and fellow bishop Felix and of Abbot Cyriacus that priests are oppressed by lay judges on the island of Sardinia and that your ministers despise your fraternity; and while simplicity alone is pursued by you, as far as we see, discipline is neglected.

Likewise Gregory to Maurice, [the Emperor, book IV, letter 31]. But let our lord not be quickly angered against priests from his earthly power; rather, from excellent consideration for Him whose servants they are, let him so rule over them that he also renders the reverence owed. For in the divine utterances priests are sometimes called gods and sometimes angels. For concerning one who is to be brought to an oath it is said to Moses: “Bring him to the gods,” that is, to the priests. And again it is written: “You shall not disparage the gods,” namely, the priests. And the Prophet says: “The lips of the priest guard knowledge, and they seek the law from his mouth, because he is the angel of the Lord of hosts.” What wonder is it, therefore, if your Piety deigns to honor those to whom God Himself, granting them honor in His own utterance, also calls either angels or gods? § 1. Ecclesiastical history also testifies that, when accusations against bishops had been offered in writing to the prince Constantine of pious memory, he indeed received the documents of accusation; and, summoning the same bishops who had been accused, he burned in their sight the documents which he had received, saying: “Go, and arrange your cases among yourselves, because it is not fitting that we judge gods.” In this sentence he furnished something to himself more from humility than to them from the reverence rendered. For before him there were pagan princes in the commonwealth who, not knowing the true God, worshiped wooden and stone gods, and nevertheless granted the greatest honor to their priests. What wonder is it, therefore, if a Christian emperor honors the priests of the true God, when pagan princes, as we have said, knew how to render honor to their priests, who served wooden and stone gods? § 2. Therefore we assert this not so much specially as generally for all priests, since we do not yet know what sort each person will be in the terrible judgment of God. For Paul, the distinguished preacher, says: “Do not judge before the time, until the Lord comes,” and the rest. For there are many things concerning His judgment which men do not know, because perhaps He reproves the things which you praise, and He will praise the things which you reprove.

Likewise from the Council of Milevis. Unaccustomed presumption has opened an approach to unlawful attempts to such an extent that clerics, abandoning their own pontiff, drag clerics to public judgments. We therefore establish that this not be presumed henceforth. If anyone has presumed to do this, when summoned, let him both lose his case and be made a stranger to communion.

Likewise from the Third Council of Carthage, [c. 9]. It was resolved that if any bishop, priest, deacon, or cleric, when a crime has been charged against him in the church or a civil case has been raised, should abandon ecclesiastical judgment and wish to be cleared in public judgments, even if sentence has been given in his favor, he shall lose his place. And this in a criminal action. But in a civil action, let him lose what he obtained if he prefers to retain his place, since one who, by thinking ill of the whole church, seeks assistance from secular judgment judges wickedly concerning the fellowship of the church in choosing judges, although the Apostle commands that even the cases of private persons be brought to the church and determined there.

Likewise from the same. If anyone among those of the various orders serving the church has fallen into an accusation of crime and has refused ecclesiastical judgment, he ought to be put in peril.

Likewise Constitution LXXIV, c. 1. If anyone has litigation with a cleric, if indeed concerning a pecuniary case, let him first approach the bishop to whose judgment the cleric is subject. But the bishop shall impose a suitable end upon the litigation without expense and without delay. But if the bishop is unwilling to decide the litigation, then let the adjudication of the case reach the civil judges. But where the bishop wishes to decide it, let all things proceed without writing, and let definitive sentence be given by him without writings. § 1. But if litigation has arisen concerning a criminal case, then let the competent persons, once addressed, impose an end upon the case consonant with the laws, yet in such a way that the adjudication of the litigation does not exceed the space of two months, to be reckoned from joinder of issue. [§ 2.] [PALEA. But in criminal cases one ought never to proceed without writing.] A cleric shall not, however, be punished otherwise unless, after being found liable, he has been stripped of the priesthood or the honor of the clericate by his bishop. But if the crime is ecclesiastical, then let examination of the case and punishment proceed according to the canons from his bishop, with other judges possessing no participation in cases of this kind.

Likewise from the Council of Chalcedon, [c. 9]. If a cleric has a dispute against a cleric, let him not abandon his own bishop and have recourse to secular judgments, but let the dispute first be conducted before his own bishop; or at least, if it is the bishop's own dispute, let the dispute be heard before arbiters chosen by each party. But if anyone acts contrary to this, let him lie under the corrections of the canons. § 1. And if a cleric has a case against his own bishop or another, let him complain before the hearing of the provincial synod. § 2. But if a bishop or cleric has a controversy against the metropolitan bishop of that province, let him proceed to the primates of that diocese, or at least to the see of the royal city of Constantinople, so that their dispute may be terminated there.

[PALEA.

Let no one presume to sue a cleric before a secular judge when the bishop does not permit it. But if he has been sued, let him neither answer nor plead, nor dare to present a criminal matter in secular judgment.] GRATIAN. From all these things it is given to be understood that a cleric is not to be produced at public judgments in either a civil or a criminal case, unless perhaps the bishop has refused to decide a civil case or in a criminal case has stripped him of the belt of his honor. § 1. But what was said in the letter of Clement—“God does not wish you to be an examiner of secular affairs”—is to be understood from episcopal anointing. For he is not anointed as bishop so that he may sit as examiner of secular affairs, but so that he may exist as a guardian of souls and distributor of spiritual things. Therefore he is prohibited from being occupied in secular affairs, not from becoming an arbiter for a time. Or “secular judgments” are to be understood not concerning secular things, but as judgments of secular men. Judgments concerning secular things are called secular according to that statement of the Apostle: “Therefore, if you have secular judgments, appoint those who are contemptible in the church.” But judgments of secular men are called secular in the letter of Clement, as is given to be understood from what follows, when it is said: “Let laymen who are free for such things furnish one another these works which we have said are less fitting for you.” Clerics are therefore prohibited from taking cognizance of the affairs of secular men, not of secular cases. For the affairs of clerics, whether criminal or civil, are to be litigated only before an ecclesiastical judge. Hence Pope Hadrian says, [c. 35]:

If a cleric or layman has been assailed by a criminal charge or lawsuit, when summoned let him be heard nowhere other than in his own forum.

The same, [in the same place, c. 40]. In a case of clerics let this form be preserved: that a sentence pronounced against them by one who is not their own judge shall by no means bind them. GRATIAN. But a thing placed in litigation ought not at all to be transferred to any person before the lawful outcome of the cognizance. Hence Pope Gelasius to Bishop Quingesius:

Because a thing placed in litigation can in no way be transferred to any person until, through the outcome of a lawful cognizance, it can be recognized by judicial adjudication to whom it is owed more rightfully, let no one be permitted to exact rents from that same thing; rather, with that same thing placed in the same condition in which, as was said, it appears to have been established before, whoever thinks that anything can belong to him shall bring suit in a legal examination, with all prejudgments concerning it removed.