Question — Decretum of Gratian
Question III
GRATIAN. Therefore, since, as has been shown by reason and example, the bishop was not guilty of perjury, the customary obedience ought not to have been denied him by the archdeacon, since even if it were established that he was criminal, nevertheless, before a definitive sentence, as was shown above, it would be lawful for none of his clerics to withdraw from him. It is therefore established that what the archdeacon confirmed by oath is unlawful. Hence it is rightly asked whether it ought to be observed or not.
GRATIANUS. Cum ergo, ut ratione et exemplo monstratum est, episcopus reus periurii non esset, consueta obedientia ab archidiacono sibi denegari non debuit, cum etiamsi criminosum illum esse constaret ante diffinitiuam tamen sententiam, ut supra monstratum est, nulli suorum clericorum ab eo liceret discedere. Constat ergo illicitum esse quod archidiaconus iuramento firmauit. Unde merito queritur, an debeat seruari, uel non?
Friedberg, col. 875/876