First: that they jointly agree to implement what they have agreed upon. Second: that they cease exercising authority over matters concerning which they disagree. If they later agree after having disagreed, the matter must be examined. If their agreement results from both arriving at the view that an opinion is correct after having differed over it, then it falls within their jurisdiction, and its implementation by them both is valid, since their prior disagreement does not preclude the permissibility of subsequent agreement. But if it results from one of them following the other while both remain committed to the opinion over which they had differed, then the matter lies outside their jurisdiction, because a minister may not implement something that he does not consider correct.
If, instead of assigning them joint oversight, he assigns each of them a separate function in which his jurisdiction is broad but the function itself is limited—for example, assigning one of them responsibility for the eastern lands and the other responsibility for the western lands—or if he assigns each of them broad functional authority with limited oversight, such as appointing one as minister of war and the other as minister of the land tax, then their appointments are valid in either arrangement. However, they are not ministers of delegation; rather, they are governors over two distinct functions. The ministry of delegation is one in which the minister’s authority is broad and his commands take effect in every function and every matter of oversight, whereas each of these ministers’ appointments is restricted to the specific area assigned to him. Neither may challenge the other in his area of oversight or function.