[Tractatus plurimi iuris]

a single delegate. See the title On the Office of the Delegate, "Pastoral," as noted there by Innocent. But if he wishes to maliciously exonerate himself, then he cannot appeal the sub-delegate to receive the cause if it is evident of malice, as noted there. And it can be done even in the presence of the sub-delegate, see the same title, "On Questions." And the sub-delegate of a delegate having jurisdiction also has coercion, otherwise his jurisdiction would seem illusory, same title, "Ex litteris." However, a delegate is not held to admit the sub-delegate to collect, about which see chapter Decenzam, same title. It is said in the form, "We commit plenary power until, or until the thing, etc." In this there is a great diversity. Because if the sub-delegate is simply [appointed], then he is considered delegated in whole. If that sub-delegate has begun to use the jurisdiction, he cannot be revoked by the delegate. Also, if there is to be an appeal from the sub-delegate, then if he is given not in whole, the appeal is made to the delegate given with the cause, see Appel. Re. refers to the Appellationes section of canon law, not to the Pope, as in chapter Cum te, same title. And the same if he reserved only the execution of the sentence to himself, as in chapter Si subdelegatus, at the end, On the Office of the Delegate, Book 6. But it fails in two cases in which one appeals not to the delegate, but to the Pope, about which see chapter Si is cui and chapter Si a subdelegato, same title, Book 6. And since there is a single delegate, he can sub-delegate to many as noted in chapter Cum te alleged. It is also said in the form, "We command, etc.," because the delegate can well compel the sub-delegate to undertake the cause, unless it is evident that he wishes to exonerate himself maliciously, as I have already said. Also, it is said, "In testimony of which," for the sub-delegation is proved by the letters of the delegate sealed with his seal alone.

The Form of Citation of the Ordinary, and the declaration of the same

The Office of the Episcopal Court of Mainz, or to the parish priest or rector of such-and-such church, Greetings in the Lord. To you, in virtue of holy obedience, firmly

and strictly commanding, we mandate that you approach, where it shall have been necessary to approach, and take care to cite such-and-such man to our presence: whom we cite peremptorily by these presents, that he appear on such-and-such day in judgment lawfully before us, to respond finally to the complaints of such-and-such. Given, etc. Such a form is brief because his jurisdiction is already founded and rooted by law. Since he is the ordinary judge, he is proper and natural to the one to be cited. Before this, it is not necessary to express in the citation the cause from which the jurisdiction belongs to him or why he has jurisdiction over him, just as the delegate does provided he receives the apostolic rescript, etc., as in the form. Also, such a citation is directed to the parish priest, in whose parish the one to be cited lives and has a domicile, and the citation to be made is committed to him. It could, however, be directed to the one to be cited and sent to him. But because it is safer for the citation to be done by another who may testify to this, lest it be hidden by the one cited, about which in the Speculum, "On Citation," § "Now concerning citation," verse 1. And note "On Vows and Contumacy," the last chapter. It is therefore committed to others so that they may cite, so that by their report it may be evident regarding the citation, as is noted there. Also, in the form of the citation, the word "peremptorily" is posited. It is called "peremptory" because it puts an end to the debate, so the law wills, 3rd, Digest, On Judgments, and it puts an end to the debate, that is, it does not suffer the adversary to tergiversate further. About which see Jo. Andreae in the additions to the Speculum, "On Citation," § "Seen." It is to be noted that in the first citation, a peremptory one is not to be sent, as in law "Presentanei," Code, "How and when a judge," in the authentic "Who once." Unless it were done for cause, as in law "Contumacy," Digest, "On Judgments." The defendant ought, therefore, to be cited by three edicts, and then the third edict is peremptory even if it is not expressed, as noted in 5, question 2, in the summary. But because for a cause the defendant can be called by a single peremptory edict, namely because of the distance of the roads or the swiftness of the fire/emergency.