Prescription, charters and custom

It remains, finally, to draw this whole teachingsentencia: teaching together under a kind of epilogue, so that it may be clearer, to the honour of God and the benefit of the clergyclerus; clericus: the clergy; cleric, and consequently of the whole church militantecclesia militans / triumphans / dormiens: the church militant / triumphant / sleeping. For we maintainintendere (a thesis): maintain that this churchecclesia: church, and especially the clergy, be ruled in honest poverty according to the Lord’s leading, to which it is bound according to the providence of the ordinanceordinacio; ordinancia: ordinance; of the sacrament, ordination of the law of Christlex dei / lex Christi / lex evangelica: God's law / the law of Christ / the gospel law.¹ That it should finally renounce secular lordshipdominium: lordship is clear from the twofold testimony and from Christ’s interpretation, as much by life as by word; and that interpretation can neither directly deceive nor be deceived.² But the quibblesargucie; argucia: stratagems, quibbles; a quibble made to the contrary would not be worth remembering, were it not for the unbelievinginfidelis: unbeliever; with a dative, faithless (to) ignorance of the blinded. For it is commonly argued that the temporal lordstemporales domini: temporal lords granted the clergy ample temporal revenuesreditus: revenue(s), for their own merit and honour and their forebears’, and the clergy has been in possession for the time within which prescriptionprescripcio: prescription runs.³ [No one] therefore would dissolve, or scheme to dissolve, that gift, except one who would diminish salvation for souls both living and dead, and also the prosperity and peace of kingdomsregnum: kingdom.⁴ But who intends this, unless he be antichrist? As to this quibble it has often been said that it fights directly for the catholic truth stated above, since reason drawn from faith testifies that an error contrary to God’s lawlex dei / lex Christi / lex evangelica: God's law / the law of Christ / the gospel law, attempted by the forebears and defended by the survivors, profits neither party to salvation, but harms by aggravating the sin, and especially as regards the salvation 87of the soul in the blessedness to be possessed. And as regards worldly prosperity and peace, it is clear that it disposes to that, in so far as the survivors reasonably † the sin contrary to God’s law, since no one would desire them except in so far as they are dispositions leading on to the prosperity and peace of the homelandvia / patria: the way / the homeland.⁵ Yet we know that the devil, by natural power and inborn malice, can, in punishment of a prior sin, counterfeitsophisticare (transitive): to counterfeit the peace and prosperity of the world, which are harmful to the soul’s salvation, and consequently to the man himself as regards attaining blessedness.⁶ And it is likely that the devil would attempt this perceptiblesensibilis: perceptible prosperity and peace as far as suffices, and would destroy it among wayfarersviator: wayfarer, to the end of hindering the faithful from carrying out and fulfilling the law of the divine ordinance;⁷ for so we know from the gospel that the devil troubled Pilate’s wife through a dream, fearing that Christ’s death would turn to the salvation of the faithful.⁸ But the faithful man, and especially one attempting this gospel work, ought to be grounded, above the opinionopinio: opinion and wilescautela: wile of the devil, in the solidity of the faith of the scriptures; and then he ought not to cease on account of such devilish outcomes, for otherwise they would overcome the solidity of faith, and so they would prove beyond doubt a defect of faith in the faint-heartedvecors; vecorditer; vecordia: faint-hearted; faint-heartedly; faint-heartedness man who so leaves off. And it is clear that, as this foolish endowmentdotacio: endowment cannot be meritorious for those past or present, although it does much good, but not so much as †, so no effective and wholesome prescription can run before God.⁹ For as they say of the privileges of the king of England, that he is always able, according to his age, to set right an injury done before, so by antonomasiaautonomatice / antonomastice: by antonomasia (pre-eminently) it is with God, since, as faith teachesex fide: as faith teaches; with a genitive, from the faith of [scripture], God has granted men freedom, as long as they remain here as survivors, that in whatever they have sinned they can make satisfaction to God and be amended for the crime, unless they have been finally hardened in that sin.¹⁰ The devil, arguing thus, implies that the nobles of our kingdom are, like the clericsclerus; clericus: the clergy; cleric, and especially the higher prelatesprelatus: prelate, devilishly hardened in this crime. But let us heartily shake off 88these fraudulent sophistries of the devil, and act manfully for the defence of the law and the restoration of the ordinance of the Lord Jesus Christ; for, as faith teaches, wayfarers cannot show him more love here, and according to the apostle he incurs anathema who has not loved the Lord Jesus Christ.¹¹ And the solution to the form and matter of the argument is clear to the student.

88Secondly it is argued thus: what has passed into the past cannot be undone, since according to the philosophers God is deprived of this: to make the past not past.¹² Now, as man and the charters of kings and secular lordsdominus; dominari: lord; to exercise lordship / to lord it testify, it has long since passed into the past that the church had been so endowed. Who then, or [even] God, can undo that past? For by the same token charters would not be proof concerning human revenues, [and so] secular lords would be left desolate by the ruin of their lordship.¹³ And one who says that it is not lawful for secular lords to grant this implies that they are not full lords of the goods they possess. It is confirmed in three ways: first by this, that the king’s great charter testifies that the king, with the unanimous consent of his kingdom, granted his clergy a privilege, to whose defence the king is specially sworn at the beginning of his coronation; and excommunications are fulminated, both beyond the sea and on this side of it, against all who infringe this privilege.¹⁴ Secondly it is confirmed by this, that many saints, canonized too by the church, died in defence of this privilege.¹⁵ Therefore, then, to destroy that privilege would be to subvert the whole church. Thirdly it is confirmed by this, that the popepapa: pope, who is head of the universal church, both by deed and by writing confirms this deed in many ways.

88To this it has been said elsewhere that this principal argument pronouncessentenciare: to pronounce that no one can make satisfaction for his fault once he has sinned; whereas, just as a man can cease from an error he has begun [and] make satisfaction for the offence he had committed, so in the case before us kings and temporal lords can. In 89confirmation of this the wise king Solomon, for the pacification of his kingdom, deposed the high priest and licitly instituted another, as is clear from the faith of scripture, 3 Kings 3.¹⁶ Therefore these things that are written there "were written for our learning" (Rom. 15:4). We do not ask that God or the king make that error not to have been past, but that for the future he correct it, lest it continue any further to the harm of the church, against God. And as to charters, the faithful say that kings know that they cannot, by them or otherwise, grant anything licitly unless they have had leave for it from God, who is chief lordcapitalis dominus; tenere de: chief lord; to hold of.¹⁷ And this is exemplified in human laws; but it can be demonstrated most certainly, as faith teaches, that a catholic must maintain this of God. Therefore no sufficient excuse remains for the clergy in this matter, unless it shows the leave of this chief lord for it. For otherwise it would not be [consistent that] an earthly king should prosecute such blasphemies under his law, and [that we] deny this of God, in whom there is cause of livelier faith.¹⁸ Now we are certain, as faith teaches, that the person of the Word, who is God and does not change, cannot grant such leave, since he cannot be contrary to himself or give leave to sin. And as to this final quibble as well, [argued] by the topic from likenesslocus a simili: the topic from likeness, it is evident that the lawius: right / law of heaven in giving almselemosina: alms is one thing, and the law of the soil in granting an earthly inheritance is another.¹⁹ And although secular lords are not fully confirmed in such inheritances, yet they can have evidenceevidencia: evidence beyond doubt that they hold such inheritances for themselves and their heirs, especially while they rule them in conformity with God’s law and faithfully render God the serviceservicium: service due, which consists chiefly in the defence and service of his law. And as to fullness of lordship, it is certain by faith that they cannot attain to the fullness of divine lordship, nor does God will to grant them such lordship except under the condition, tacit or express, that they serve him faithfully and by that same service become worthy. As to the first confirmation, it is said 90that this great charter must be understood soundly. And although we neither intend nor are able to defend this charter in its entirety as faith, since we take one thing as faith teaches, that it is not valid, nor ought to be kept, except in so far as it accords with God’s law,

90otherwise it would be contrary to faith, which every faithful man ought to shudder at. But because it is not ours to suppose that, therefore we can put a sound understanding under this charter and turn it back to our purpose. For we do not suppose that in the aforesaid charter those things are called privileges of the clergy of England which are to its detriment, contrary to the law of Christ, since in that case they would be privileges to be abolished. Since therefore Christ and his apostles had from God these privileges, that they should live a poor and humble life, with others urging men on to this life, far be it from us to suppose in this solemn charter that God, its mover, willed privileges contrary to these to be understood in this charter.²⁰ And since the king and the kingdom are sworn to the catholic sense of this charter, it seems that by force of their oath they are bound to defend its said catholic sense; and so this evidence comes back to the catholic sense which we maintain from the faith of scripture. For Caiaphas, saying "that it is expedient that one man should die for the people", unknowingly prophesied a wholesome teaching (John 11:50–51).²¹ And so it seems to some that, if that charter were faithfully followed, by its faithful teaching the clergy of England would be restored to the state which Christ instituted. Nor does it seem that the king and his nobles, with their bishopsepiscopus; dominus episcopus: bishop; the lord bishop, could otherwise escape perjury in this matter. And in conformity with this it is said that the excommunications in that matter are to be understood. It would indeed be a thing of unbelief to turn the meanings of the terms in this charter against the truth of scripture’s sense, calling depraved laws privileges, which deprive the clergy of grace and lead it into the greatest servitude.²² As to the second confirmation, it has been said very often that one who argues thus is like a fool despairing of his cause, lapping troubled water, running in the marshes, 91where he could more easily drink clear water from the living fountain, in the way the prophet speaks pertinently to this purpose.²³ Now the customconsuetudo: custom of Christ is unbreakable, of the highest ease and authority, and after him the custom of the apostles, running in clear rivulets from this fountain. But this fool who argues so leaves them and takes remote customs, like stagnant waters infected with the mud and heat of earthly things. And such a man, according to the prophet’s doctrinedoctrina: doctrine, is exceedingly foolish, negligent in the things that concern the soul’s salvation. Who then doubts that such a man sins not moderately, who leaves a custom supremely authentic and wholesome and leans on a custom of a corrupt, contrary condition, while he could take the prior custom more easily, more safely and better? And those who argue thus are in that folly, for while they argue by a topicalargumentum topicum: topical argument or probable argument, they do not know whether they are taking the custom of this devil as their example.²⁴ For as the sacrifice in the old law, from the time of Moses up to Caiaphas and Annas, who had killed Christ, was continually worsening, so the sacrifice in the law of gracelex gracie: the law of grace, from Christ and his apostles, has continually grown weaker through the greed of worldly men, so that today priestssacerdos / presbiter: priest / presbyter can say more evidently that they descended from the head of the stock, Iscariot, who sold the truth for thirty pieces of silver, than that they descend from the poor Lord Jesus Christ, since the greater likeness shows this to be true.²⁵ But we western Mahomets, who are few among the faithful of the church, believe that the whole world is ruled by our judgment and trembles at it, although there are more wise Greeks, or far more faithful Indians, who hold a custom opposed to ours in this matter.²⁶ Therefore custom or opinion proves or implies nothing except in so far as it has been founded in the custom of the Saviour. Since therefore our westerners, however great they may have been in wisdom or raised high in holiness, do not in this attain to the faith of scripture, or scarcely attain a topical argument, [namely] that they had been wise or holy.²⁷ Since therefore in every genus there is 92one [member of the] categorypredicamentum: category which is the measure of all the others, let us attend faithfully to this category: "This the Lord says", or [this is] from his law, "therefore this is to be observed unbreakably".²⁸ Now because customs fall short in this, therefore they are to be weighed by the faithful as nothing or little. Let the western maniac therefore blush at this quibble: "Such a custom, contracted in our [church] without the Lord’s approval, has been confirmed; therefore it is to be observed catholicly."²⁹ And by this the reply is clear to the third quibble, made concerning the pope, by supposing as faith that he can sin and err like other wayfarers. For so Christ ordained that Peter should have sinned in this way, before the sending of the Holy Spirit and after it.³⁰ And I believe that no one, for shame, will dare to say that Peter, after so holy a life, was more capable of sin than the pope is. If therefore the stock of the clergy goes backward into worse until the coming of antichrist, it is evident to many that he is a recent and most complete antichrist.³¹ Who then would fear this quibble: "He asserts or excommunicates thus without reason or foundation in scripture; therefore his teaching is to be adhered to by all the faithful", since it is a topical argument in which the contrary is reasonably inferredconcludere: to infer? The faithful nearer to him, therefore, perceive this teaching the more; and it is clear that a falsehood is assumed, that the pope is head of the universal church, or Peter’s vicar, or vicar of Jesus Christ; rather, among all mortals he is the farthest removed from them. Therefore in this, as in the other, earlier arguments, the adversary either assumes a falsehood, or fails in what followssequela: what follows, or silently implies that our teaching is true. For, as Averroes asserts, truth bears witness to itself in many ways; and according to faithful doctors, the more truth is rubbed, the more fragrant it grows to the faithful.³²