ContentsPreface xiAcknowledgments xiiAbbreviations xv1 Introduction 1The Foulechat Controversy 10The Monteson Controversy 18The Factors Affecting the Facultys Jurisdiction 27Medieval Concepts of Jurisdiction 27Corporate Theory and the Faculty of Theology 33The Role of the Bachelors in the Faculty 39Conclusion 412 The Early History of the Faculty of Theology: Evidence for the Model ofBishop and Chapter in the Faculty 42The Office of the Chancellor 42The Office of the Dean 56The Chancellor and the Masters: Their Relations 61Conclusion 763 The Corporate Development of the Faculty of Theology 80The Conflict of 1219-1228 80The Right to Make Statutes 85The Model and the Secular-Mendicant Controversy 95Conclusion 1004 Jurisdiction and the Cathedral Chapter: Gratian and the Decretists 103The Model of Shared Jurisdiction: The Contribution of Gratian 103The Model of Shared Jurisdiction: The Contribution of the Decretists 108Conclusion 1265 Jurisdiction of the Cathedral Chapter: Episcopus Nullius andIrrefragabili 129The Contributions of Johannes Teutonicus, Vincentius Hispanus, andDamasus 129The Contribution of Goffredus de Trano 137The Contribution of Innocent IV 138Bernard of Parma and the Ordinary Gloss 141The Contribution of Hostiensis 143The Contribution of Johannes Andreae 147The Contribution of Baldus de Ubaldis 148The Distribution of Jurisdiction within the Chapter 152The Crime of Heresy and the Jurisdiction of the Chapter 157Conclusion 1636 Jurisdiction, Procedure, and the Censure of Academic Heresy in theFaculty of Theology 165Jean Gerson and the Censure of Heresy 166The Canon Law of Heresy and the Jurisdiction of the Faculty ofTheology 174The Roles of the Dean and the Chancellor in the Censure of AcademicHeresy 177The Role of Outside Agents in the Censure of Academic Heresy 187The Investigative Process in Faculty and Chapter 192Conclusion 1997 The Debate over the Jurisdiction of the Faculty of Theology 201John of Monteson and the Theological Faculty's Jurisdiction 201The Tractatus, or Apologia, of Pierre d'Ailly 203Analysis of the Tractatus, or, Apologia 205The Arguments from Papal Privilege and Human Law 213The Argument from Divine Law 216The Argument from Custom 216The Role of Custom in the Legal System 221The Territorial Scope of the Faculty's Jurisdiction 222D'Ailly's Response to Monteson 228Evaluation of d'Ailly's Argument 230The Chronological Development of the Faculty's Jurisdiction 231Conclusion 2368 Judas, Monteson, and Fraternal Correction at Paris 237Fraternal Correction and the Parisian Faculty of Theology 241The Sources of Fraternal Correction 245Fraternal Correction in the Process of Censure at Paris 250Judas, Fraternal Correction, and the Parisian Faculty of Theology 253The Treatment of Judas by Christ at the Last Supper 256The Rule of Augustine and Fraternal Correction 274Conclusion 2809 Fraternal Correction and Its Role in Academic Censure at the Universityof Paris 282The Duty to Render Fraternal Correction and Its Possible Omission 282The Contribution of Augustine 283Judicial Correction and the Omission of Fraternal Correction 290The Issue of Proof 291The Revocatio Conditionalis and the Oath to Report Suspect Teaching 293Suspect Teaching and the Definition of a Secret Sin 307The Contribution of John Baconthorpe 312The Issue of Incorrigibility 319Public Correction and the Presence of Scandal 321The Contributions of Humbert of Romans, OP, and Nicholas of Gorran,OP 327Conclusion 330Conclusion 338Appendix A 345Select Bibliography 347Index of Legal Citations 363Index of Biblical Citations 366Index of Names and Subjects 367.