Perpetual alms, and the clergy as almoners

Truth. Again, I suppose that the clergyclerus; clericus: the clergy; cleric, out of desire for these temporal goodstemporalia: temporal goods, should be willing to give up the endowmentdotacio: endowment and to receive these goods under the form of perpetual almselemosina: alms, and so the same thing returns to the clericsclerus; clericus: the clergy; cleric as regards the fruits. But this is not evident to many, since then [the clergy] would fall from the titletitulus: title that Silvester accepted from Caesar;¹ nor would the truth of perpetual alms be preserved in England, since [the clergy] could not maintain that it had not often fallen from the title of alms because of the many and great sins it had committed, since it is not alms to nourish apostates in such a way.² Indeed, it is not taught or evidently shown that such a donation was ever alms conformed to the divine will; how then would they pretend that it is pure and perpetual alms? Do we believe that it is in the power of these men to perpetuate 64such alms of their clergy, as if they said against Christ, "I will that it be alms however they have lived and have been contrary to your law"; or, "I will that it live profitably to the edification of Christ's churchecclesia: church, because undoubtedly God so wills; therefore my volition is fulfilled"? Stephen indeed, in Acts 7 [:51], denied this inferenceconsequencia: inference, when he said that the Jews, especially the religiousreligiosi: the religious and the bishopsepiscopus; dominus episcopus: bishop; the lord bishop, often resisted the divine will. What colour, then, [is there for saying] that those who so enrichedditare: to enrich the church had done well, since they had such a will?³ For God, notwithstanding a blameless will of this kind, takes away what was conferred on these clerics when they so offend; why then ought not the lordsdominus; dominari: lord; to exercise lordship / to lord it to [do] so, conforming themselves to God's good pleasure,⁴ since in this lies no evident danger but conformity to God's lawlex dei / lex Christi / lex evangelica: God's law / the law of Christ / the gospel law? For there is no doubt that the clergy, in the apostles and Christ's disciples, lived more securely and more perfectly, lacking such lasting alms, than our clergy lives or has lived. What spiritual fruit, then, or miraculous life would give evidenceevidencia: evidence for continuing such alms begun in this way? And the defect of the following quibbleargucie; argucia: stratagems, quibbles; a quibble is clear, when it is argued that perpetual alms granted by forebears could be kept up in this way through the generation that succeeds by God's ordinanceordinacio; ordinancia: ordinance; of the sacrament, ordination. For it is not taught that these are perpetual alms founded by the forebears, nor that they are thereby exempt from perpetual damnation, nor that it would be meritorious for their generation to keep the said alms for a little while in this form; nor do I see evidence by this, except that these lords in this exceed and turn aside from the rule of the Lord Jesus Christ. Since, then, in such matters the safer side is to be held, it seems that it would be safer to restrain such a [clergy] to gospel poverty and not to exceed the limitslimitare; limites: to assign (an office); limits of Jesus Christ.⁵ And it could be granted that secularsecularis (noun): a secular lords should keep and gather for the uses of the clergy all these revenuesreditus: revenue(s) or fruits, and 65spend the rest of their own revenues on this servile collecting. But it does not followsequitur: it follows that then [all is] well, because such servitude is not exemplified for these clerics in the Lord's law, and the clerics themselves, for the zeal they have for secular exercise of lordshipdominacio: exercise of lordship, would not accept such serviceservicium: service from seculars. But it is evidently inferredconcludere: to infer that bishops, or those who faithfully preach the gospel, would assignlimitare; limites: to assign (an office); limits deacons to minister moderate alms. But what has this to do with perpetuation or lordshipdominium: lordship, since according to the Lord's law insecurity in such alms is meritorious, and leads [a man] to trust not in temporal goods but in the life and hope that lead to blessedness? Do we believe that such men, by their Caim's castles, can overturn God's law and make an abiding city here, and worldly prosperity the reward of labour and the final wage of the wayfarerviator: wayfarer?⁶ But it is argued that this office belongs to the priestsacerdos / presbiter: priest / presbyter, because in Matthew 6 and 8 it is read how Christ made his apostles minister to the people from the loaves and fishes that he had miraculously multiplied; therefore it is lawful for our bishops to have beyond the necessaries of life for sharing out to the poor.⁷ But here the conclusion must be granted, since bishops ought to be given to hospitality, according to the apostle [1 Tim. 3:2]. But this topic from likenesslocus a simili: the topic from likeness seems rather to infer that they ought in their own person to minister to the needy the king's alms given to them.⁸ But from this it does not follow that they ought to treasure up or waste the king's alms that are to be shared out to the poor. Nor does it follow from this that they may keep so many of the lord's alms for a day or a week, and much less for a hundred years.⁹ And it is plain in fact that they neither minister these goods faithfully to the needy with their own hands, nor have them faithfully ministered through servants; for God knows whether it is contrary to his eternal will that it be done so. So this quibble is like the one by which it is inferred that bishops ought to let Christ or the popepapa: pope wash their feet, because the apostles did so with the Lord. 66For [if] they ought so to do, then either the pope sins by not coming to do this ministry so, or the bishops sin by not coming to him that this due ministry may be fulfilled.¹⁰ And so it must be granted that it holds that the lordship be kept in the hand of the principal secular lord and that the priestly kind receive the bare fruits for any reasonable length of time whatever, because this would be made true by their receiving fruits however small, or for an hour. But that they ought to receive the fruits for so many years, as they now in fact receive them, is not asinine evidence.¹¹ And so the conclusion drawn further must be granted, namely that bishops may live continually in gospel poverty and faithfully distribute to the poor what is left over from the alms given them; because in all probability the apostles, who were bishops, did so, and many other bishops in that century in which they lived as the propertylessexproprietarii: the propertyless before the endowment of the church.¹² But what has this conclusion to do with justifying the endowment or alms of the clergy running on continually from the time of Silvester?

But because certain men who seem to be something [Gal. 2:6] weigh this evidence heavily, as often hinting at what is true, some are therefore compelled to dissolve it piece by piece, in order.¹³ It is assumedassumptum: the assumption, then, in the evidence: since clerics could live continually in gospel poverty and faithfully distribute to the poor what is left over from the alms given them, why is it not lawful for lords to give their alms in this way, unburdening themselves and their posterity, and, on the other side, lawful for clerics prudently to distribute these alms, as the apostles and deacons carried it out, as is clear from Acts 6 [:1–6]? Here it is said that this is so because the clergy ought to take away the occasion of sinning, and give others evidence for fleeing worldly sins, and altogether take example from Christ and his apostles for imitating them in life and manners and poverty. For that was the end for which Christ lived so poor 67and hard a life; according to this faith, 1 Peter 2 [:21]: "Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example that we should follow his steps."¹⁴ If, then, evidence so plain and wholesome makes it evident to the clergy that it should follow the steps of antichrist, it may desert Christ and imitate the steps of this devil.¹⁵ Indeed, by this folly a clergy that has vowed virginity may sleep daily with a woman and with this be preserved from incontinence by God's grace; why then is it not lawful for the clergy to do so, to increase its merit? Further, it is said that the higher clerics ought not to be continually occupied with distributions of this kind, as is clear from the choosing by the apostles, who, leaving this office, chose seven deacons, Acts 6 [:2–5]. And Stephen left the office because of its imperfection.¹⁶ What religion of antichrist, then, would bind the pope, bishops and higher men of the church to share out such bodily alms, since a spiritual alms infinitely better, namely the preaching of the gospel, is exemplified by Christ and his apostles?¹⁷ Lords, then, abounding in riches, may through the faithful ministration of those who serve them lighten the revenues of their poor tenants,¹⁸ or assign other faithful laymen to this office, provided they do not burden priests with this abject office, since fairly certain experience makes it clear that the priests themselves would within a fairly short time minister sinfully and unfaithfully. What bishop, then, or monk, or other endowed cleric would stand in this office, with his pride, covetousness or gluttonous lust, for the mere reward of ministering to the poor? And so our clerics have undoubtedly refused the form of the deacons, fairly like it in this respect.¹⁹ Nor does it belong to the higher priests to do this so abject office, and in such a way to wed themselves and their posterity to it. And as to the following quibble, that the apostles gathered the fragments, as is said in Matthew 14 [:20] and 15 [:37], "why then is it not lawful for our 68bishops to do so?", this evidence is full of guile; because this deed of the apostles does not argue that the pope or bishops ought to lorddominus; dominari: lord; to exercise lordship / to lord it it in such a way, but that they may, in a praiseworthy deed, humbly gather fragments to feed the poor. Nor can I teach from the gospel that the apostles distributed these fragments to the poor; but they could, if Christ willed, after this collecting, have assigned [them] to the needy for them to carry off, and the apostles meanwhile attended to a worthier ministry. Secular lords, then, ought to relieve the clerics of this vile office and assign them to the gospel, to prayer, or to some other more wholesome exercise according to the form of the gospel; and let them lighten, as was said above, the revenues among their poor through servants, and not so extort money from their needy tenants in order thus to enrich the convent of the devil. The lapse, then, of a faithless clergy in this ministry would give Christian lords occasion to confiscate these revenues. Since a king of England, against the clergy's resistance, is said to have confiscated the goods of a bishop, because that bishop would not, according to the form of the gospel, give up his office of the king, being a curatecuratus: curate, and reside in his church.²⁰ And in truth it seems to many that this faint-heartedvecors; vecorditer; vecordia: faint-hearted; faint-heartedly; faint-heartedness silence, to such peril of the king and kingdomregnum: kingdom, would be sufficient cause for confiscating all the revenues of clerics of this kind. But the king ought, as a lord, according to the form of the gospel, to put into practice the imitation of the Lord; and the endowed clergy may, as far as it knows how, attack this work of the king from reason or the gospel. Let the faithful theologian see to it, then, that the covetous clergy does not fall short in arguments to be fashioned from the form of the gospel,²¹ and let him ground himself in the complete likeness, taking as of faith that Christ, from the instant of his conception to the hour of his death, was a most poor man, to exemplify poverty for his sheep; and this exemplifying ought to be more precious than the decrees of all the popes, even of John XXII, unless they are founded in the faith of the gospel.²² And poverty in 69the apostolic life is more to be heeded by the faithful than all the lives of rich bishops or of other clergy, although they have been dreamed now to dwell in blessedness: for faith teaches that the poor apostles are blessed, but it does not teach that of these rich men; but rather it teaches in practice that the canonizationscanonizare: canonize of these men were dearly bought for money. For Judas, whom Christ calls the son of perdition [John 17:12], still at the end of his life cast down the pieces of silver [Matt. 27:5], and so, although he despaired, went off poor enough; but the friarsfrater: friar (of the mendicants) / brother seem to surpass Iscariot, in that they inhabit an abiding city, as if they despaired of the heavenly Jerusalem; and the alms so called they at once make impossible to help the poor, or to be recalled by those who gave themelemosinare; elemosinatus: to give alms to; almsman, however far the friars have forsaken [their rule],²³ since beyond the example of Christ they make themselves sumptuous basilicas and hypocritically contrive that the greater lords and ladies be buried in their basilica, so that at least in this way the perpetuation of their place's dwelling on earth may be defended by the progeny of those buried.²⁴ Nor is there doubt that it would be better for these dead to be buried in the field among the beasts.