Wyclif’s Latin works

De ecclesia, chapter 14, part 2

Christ could not hold civil lordship, and did not die to win it for his clergy

Loserth pp. 302.3–306.14

¶1302.3–305.28

302Ideo (ut sepe diffuse exposui) Christus non potuit dominari civiliter, quomodo ergo doceret servos imitatores precipuos taliter dominari? Nonne dicit Apostolus, IIª Corinthiorum, VIII°, 9, quod pro nobis inops et egenus factus est? — Nonne recitat apostolus Thymotheo suo coepiscopo I, Tim. VI°, 8: Habentes, inquit, alimenta et quibus tegamur hiis contenti simus? Si ergo sit blasphemia imponere Christo quod sibi non potest conpetere, et (ut sepe ostendit dominus Ardmacanus) non potest competere Christo dominacio civilis, cum trahit secum de natura rei peccatum veniale, qua fronte presumeret fidelis imponere redemptori suo istam blasphemiam, specialiter cum nec ex scriptura veteris testamenti nec novi sit fundabilis talis dominacio cleri Christi? Si enim sit fundabilis dicas ubi? Et cum non sit contradiccio in scriptura sacra, oportet tollere leges veteris testamenti et novi que sonant in oppositum, ut patet de illis legibus allegatis hic et proximo capitulo. Ymmo cum leges ut plus necessarie sunt in scriptura sacra clarius expressate (ut patet IV°, De Doctrina Christiana), magnum defectum imponeret sic opinans auctori scripture quod nullibi exprimit dominacionem illam tam necessariam sue ecclesie. Item, Christus non potuit dominari civiliter secundum deitatem nec secundum humanitatem, ergo non potuit dominari civiliter quoad deitatem. Non est dubium fideli, cum secundum illam non potest esse activus viator proprietarius vel pars populi nec secundum suam humanitatem, sive solus fuerit homo, sive in puro statu innocencie cum toto suo genere, sive post lapsum ipso posito capite ecclesie ut est modo, duobus modis prioribus non foret civilitas, nec tercio modo foret ipse tam proprietarius. Pro cuius 303declaracione suppono dictum beati Gregorii, XXXIII° Moralium, cap° primo, super illo Job XIX°, 25: Scio quod redemptor meus vivit. Sciendum, inquit, est quod redemptor unam personam se cum sua ecclesia quam assumpsit exibuit; de ipso enim dicitur: Qui est caput Christus. Rursumque de eius ecclesia scriptum est: Et corpus Christi quod est ecclesia. Et sequitur quod Christum et ecclesiam unam personam credimus, hoc eciam unius persone actibus signari videamus. Ista fide supposita arguo sic: Non est possibile quod Christus, sponsus ecclesie, faciat vel habeat quicquam humanitus nisi secundum communicacionem tocius sue ecclesie, quia aliter esset sponsus ingratus sponse sue, cum sit personaliter sibi ydemptificatus, sed quelibet tanta communicacio excludet proprietatem civilem; ergo non est possibile quod Christus sponsus ecclesie vivat secundum proprietatem civilem. Et hec est racio quare Christus amavit bona communia et Apostolus tantum reprobat eos qui querunt que sua sunt. Unde Christus nunquam comedit, dormivit vel quomodolibet se habuit humanitus, nisi prius intendendo profectum tocius ecclesie militantis, dormientis et triumphantis, eciam plus quam profectum proprium sue humanitatis. Sed quis diceret personam hominis ut sic proprietarium civilem? Et istum articulum fidei ignorarunt primo apostoli, quando dixerunt: Magister manduca, et ille: Ego cibum habeo manducare quem vos nescitis, Johannis IV°, 31, 32. Et super ista racione fundata est primeva apostolorum religio, vivendo exproprietarie, postposita vita et occupacione seculari vel civili. Item, supposita veritate opinionis predicte, sequitur cum veris quod Constantinus post dotacionem ecclesie remansit hereticus sicut et omnes succedentes domini seculares; quod repugnat approbacioni ecclesie. Et 304consequencia probatur, supponendo tamquam datum falsigraphi quod de iure debetur pape, Christi vicario et clero suo tota civilis dominacio huius mundi. Et arguo sic: Ad hoc quod debitor vel iniuste aliena detinens sit absolutus quoad Deum, oportet quod plene satisfaciat, sed sic non fecit Constantinus, cum medietatem imperii sibi retinuit. Cum ergo illa medietas fuit tantum debita sicut medietas occidua restituta, videtur quod remansit in debito sicut prius, nam secundum Augustinum, Epistola XXXVIIª, non dimittitur peccatum nisi restituatur ablatum. Unde (sicut dixi in materia De Privilegiis) Deus non potest remittere vel licenciare debitorem, ne satisfaciat, et hinc dixi periculosum esse quod quis auctorizet vel foveat sufficientem fugitivum, ne solvat creditori debitum corporale, dicente Augustino in supradicta epistola ad Macedonium: Illud, inquit, fidentissime dixerim, eum qui pro homine ad hoc intervenit, ne mala oblata restituat, et qui ad se fugientem, quantum honeste potest, ad restituendum non compellit, socium esse fraudis et criminis. Numquid credimus prepositum loci refugii posse honeste compellere fugitivum sufficientem, ut vel exeat locum tamquam eius violator, vel quod satisfaciat secundum quantitatem apportati vel sufficienciam fugitivi? Illa enim foret honestas legi Dei consona, sed applausus movens ad detencionem iniustam, et specialiter gracia participii foret diabolica facesia. Ideo (ut sepe dixi) vel oportet negare fidem scripture, racionem et sanctos doctores, vel dicere quod talis defensio sapit hereticam pravitatem. Et idem videtur supposita opinione predicta de dominio cleri Christi; cum enim taciturnitas 305huius sit consensus, consensus autem talis est cum facilitate eque dampnabilis, videtur quod sic opinantes, ex hoc quod sic tacent dicere ius suum et iniuriam in qua dampnabiliter indurantur domini temporales, peccant mortaliter. Nec valet eis fingere quod beatus Silvester remisit Constantino residuum, quia (ut ista secta credit tamquam principium) non licet Christi vicario vel clero suo vel alienare vel cedere iuri patrimonii crucifixi, sic videlicet quod tam illud quam sibi equivalens sit simpliciter extra possessionem civilem cleri Christi. Item, nec est privilegium nec dos nec possessio adquisita Christi vicario nisi pro qua caput Christus fuerat crucifixus, sed Christus non fuit tanta passus pro dotacione civili vel seculari sue ecclesie clericorum, ergo talis dotacio vel dominacio civilis non est pure clero Christi conveniens. Assumptum patet ex hoc quod Christus meruit humano generi totam graciam et omnia ad ipsam consequencia que haberet, sed iuxta alibi dicta sine gracia et caritate non est simpliciter iusta possessio; ergo nec dos nec privilegium inest clero Christi, nisi quod Christus sibi meruit paciendo; nec credo fidelem contradicere huic sentencie: nam omnes patres veteris testamenti, omnes gentiles post et ante qui vel erant iustificati vel salvati, hoc obtinuerant merito fidei et passionis Christi, cum aliter fuissent dampnati nec unquam ab originali peccato purgati et per consequens nunquam iustificati moraliter.

Therefore (as I have often set out at length) Christ could not exercise civil lordshipdominus; dominari: lord; to exercise lordship / to lord it; how then would he teach his servants, his chief imitators, to exercise lordship in that way? Does not the Apostle say, 2 Corinthians 8:9, that for us he was made needy and poor?1 Does not the apostle rehearse it to Timothy his fellow bishop, 1 Timothy 6:8: "Having," he says, "food and wherewith to be covered, with these we are content"?2 If therefore it is blasphemy to impute to Christ what cannot befit him, and (as the lord of Armagh often shows)3 civil exercise of lordshipdominacio: exercise of lordship cannot befit Christ, since by the nature of the thing it brings venial sin with it, with what face would a believer presume to impute this blasphemy to his redeemer, especially since such an exercise of lordship by the clergyclerus; clericus: the clergy; cleric of Christ cannot be founded on the scripture either of the old testament or of the new? For if it can be founded, tell me where. And since there is no contradiction in holy scripture, one would have to set aside the laws of the old testament and of the new which sound to the opposite, as is clear of the laws allegedallegare / allegacio: allege / allegation here and in the preceding chapter. Indeed, since laws, as being more necessary, are more clearly expressed in holy scripture (as is clear from book 4 of On Christian Doctrine),4 whoever held this opinion would impute a great defect to the author of scripture, that he nowhere expresses that exercise of lordship, so necessary to his churchecclesia: church. Again, Christ could not exercise civil lordship according to his Godheaddeitas / divinitas: the Godhead / divinity nor according to his humanity; therefore he could not exercise civil lordship as to the Godhead. There is no doubt for a believer,5 since according to it he cannot be an active wayfarerviator: wayfarer, a proprietor, or part of a people; nor according to his humanity, whether he had been man alone, or in the pure state of innocence with his whole race, or after the fall, he himself being set as headcaput: head of the church as he is now: in the two former ways there would be no civil condition, nor in the third way would he be a proprietor as such.6 For the 303declaration of this I suppose the saying of blessed Gregory, Moralia 33, chapter 1, on that text of Job 19:25, "I know that my Redeemer liveth":7 "It must be known," he says, "that the Redeemer showed himself one person with his church, which he assumed; for of him it is said, 'Who is the head, Christ'; and again of his church it is written, 'And the body of Christ, which is the church.'"8 And it goes on: as we believe Christ and the church one person, so we may see this signified also by the actions of one person.9 With this faith supposed, I argue thus: it is not possible that Christ, the bridegroomsponsa / sponsus: bride / bridegroom of the church, should do or have anything humanly except in sharing with his whole church, because otherwise he would be a bridegroom displeasingingratus: displeasing (to God) to his bride, since he is personally identified with her;10 now any sharing so great will exclude civil property; therefore it is not possible that Christ, the bridegroom of the church, should live according to civil property. And this is the reason why Christ loved common goods, and the Apostle so greatly reproves those who seek the things that are their own. Hence Christ never ate, slept, or bore himself humanly in any way, without first intending the profit of the whole church militant, sleeping and triumphant,11 even more than the proper profit of his own humanity. But who would call the person of a man, as such, a civil proprietor? And the apostles at first were ignorant ofignorare: to be ignorant of this article of faitharticulus fidei: article of faith, when they said, "Master, eat," and he: "I have meat to eat which you know not," John 4:31–32.12 And on this reason the primitive religion of the apostles was founded, living without propertyexproprietarii / exproprietarie: the propertyless / without property, secular or civil life and occupation set aside. Again, supposing the truth of the aforesaid opinionopinio: opinion, it followssequitur: it follows, with truths, that Constantine after the endowmentdotacio: endowment of the church remained a heretic, as did all the secular lords succeeding him; which is repugnant to the church’s approval.13 And 304the inferenceconsequencia: inference is proved, supposing as the false writer’sfalsigraphus: false writer given that by right the whole civil exercise of lordship of this world is owed to the popepapa: pope, the vicar of Christvicarius Christi: vicar of Christ, and to his clergy. And I argue thus: for a debtor, or one who unjustly withholds what is another’s, to be absolved as regards God, he must make full satisfaction; now Constantine did not do so, since he kept half of the empire for himself. Since therefore that half was as much owed as the western half that was restored,14 it seems that he remained in debt as before; for according to Augustine, Epistle 37, the sin is not forgiven unless what was taken away is restored.15 Hence (as I said in the matter On Privileges)16 God cannot release or license a debtor not to make satisfaction; and hence I said it is dangerous that anyone should authorize or shelter a fugitive who has the means, so that he does not pay his creditor a bodily debt, as Augustine says in the aforesaid letter to Macedonius: "This," he says, "I would say most confidently: that he who intervenes for a man to this end, that he may not restore what was wrongly taken, and who does not compel one fleeing to him to restore, as far as he honourably can, is a partner in the fraud and the crime."17 Do we suppose that the superiorprepositi: superiors of a place of refuge can honourably compel a fugitive who has the means either to leave the place as its violator or to make satisfaction according to the amount brought in or the means of the fugitive?18 For that would be honourableness in accord with God’s law; but favour that moves to unjust detention, and especially for the sake of participationparticipium: participation, would be devilish trickery.19 Therefore (as I have often said) one must either deny the faith of scripture, reason and the holy doctors, or say that such a defence savours of heretical depravityheretica pravitas: heretical depravity. And the same seems [to follow] when the aforesaid opinion on the lordshipdominium: lordship of Christ’s clergy is supposed; for since silence 305about this is consent, and such consent, when speaking is easy, is equally damnable, it seems that those who hold this opinion, from the fact that they are thus silent about stating their rightius: right / law and the wrong in which the temporal lordstemporales domini: temporal lords are damnably hardened, sin mortally.20 Nor does it avail them to pretend that blessed Silvester remitted the remainder to Constantine, because (as this sectreligio privata; secta: private religion; sect believes as a principle) it is not lawful for Christ’s vicar or his clergy either to alienate or to give up the right of the patrimony of the crucified, namely in such a way that both it and its equivalent should be without qualificationsimpliciter / secundum quid: without qualification / in a certain respect outside the civil possession of Christ’s clergy. Again, there is neither privilegeprivilegium / privilegiare / privilegiacio: privilege / to privilege / privileging nor dowry nor possession acquired for Christ’s vicar except that for which Christ the head had been crucified; now Christ did not suffer such things for the civil or secular endowment of his church of clerics;21 therefore such endowment or civil exercise of lordship is not purely befitting Christ’s clergy. The assumptionassumptum: the assumption is clear from this, that Christ merited for the human race all the grace, and everything that follows upon it, that it would have; now according to what is said elsewhere, without grace and charitycaritas: charity there is no just possession without qualification; therefore neither dowry nor privilege belongs to Christ’s clergy except what Christ merited for it by suffering. Nor do I believe that a believer contradicts this teachingsentencia: CONTEXTUAL: teaching / sentence;22 for all the fathers of the old testament, all the gentiles after and before who were either justified or saved, had obtained this by the merit of faith and of the passion of Christ, since otherwise they would have been damned and never cleansed of original sin, and consequently never justified morally.

¶2305.29–306.14

305Nec dubium theologo qui noscit quomodo homo intendit, meretur vel emit aliqua principaliter et aliqua secundarie, accessorie vel confuse, quin Christus, sicut passus est pro redempcione tocius ecclesie, sic et pro redempcione cuiuslibet membri sui et pro quolibet bono sibi utili ad hunc finem. Si enim dicimus 306quod iustus amat omnia, quod sacerdos rite excommunicat pro decimis et quod homo emendo equum emat quamlibet partem eius emibilem, Christus ergo omnisciens emendo a patre totum genus humanum emit accessorie omne bonum sibi utile vel privilegium citra Christum. Sic enim dicit Apostolus, Romanorum VIII°, 32, quod proprio filio Deus non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit illum: quomodo ergo non cum ipso omnia nobis donavit? Ideo audenter assero quod vel dominacio cleri moderni est illicita, vel non licet excommunicare pro decimis, vel Christus crucifixus est pro dominacione illa sue ecclesie adquirenda; nec aliter est presumibile quod sponsa Christi vocaret dotem cesaream patrimonium crucifixi.

Nor is there doubt for a theologian who knows how a man intends, merits or buys some things principally and some secondarily, accessorily or indistinctlyconfuse / confusus (fides, noticia): indistinct(ly), that Christ, as he suffered for the redemption of the whole church, so also [suffered] for the redemption of each of his membersmembrum: member and for every good useful to it to this end. For if we say 306that the just man loves all things, that a priestsacerdos / presbiter: priest / presbyter duly excommunicates for tithesdecime; pars decima: tithes; the tenth part, and that a man in buying a horse buys every purchasable part of it, then Christ, all-knowing, in buying the whole human race from the Father, bought accessorily every good useful to it, or privilege short of Christcitra Christum: short of Christ.23 For so the Apostle says, Romans 8:32, that God spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all: "how then hath he not, with him, given us all things?"24 Therefore I boldly assert that either the exercise of lordship of the modern clergy is unlawful, or it is not lawful to excommunicate for tithes, or Christ was crucified to acquire that exercise of lordship for his church; nor otherwise is it to be presumed that the bridesponsa / sponsus: bride / bridegroom of Christ would call the caesarean dowry the patrimony of the crucified.

Notes

  1. 1 2 Cor. 8:9 reads propter vos egenus factus est (DR "he became poor, for your sakes"); inops et egenus is Wyclif’s own wording, perhaps coloured by the psalter’s inops et pauper (Ps. 85:1).
  2. 2 1 Tim. 6:8 (DR); Wyclif omits the Vulgate’s autem. Coepiscopo: Timothy as fellow bishop, Paul being counted a bishop.
  3. 3 Dominus Ardmacanus: Richard FitzRalph, archbishop of Armagh (d. 1360), whose De pauperie Salvatoris argues that Christ held no civil lordship (bk VI cc. 18–23, capitula in Poole’s ed. of De dominio divino, 1890; civil lordship and venial sin, bk IV c. 10, p. 395).
  4. 4 Augustine, De doctrina christiana IV, as Wyclif cites it; the passage is not identified by the editor or by us; cf. II.9.14 and III.26.37, on what is plainly set down in Scripture. Ut plus necessarie may instead mean "the more necessary they are, the more clearly they are expressed".
  5. 5 The print puts the full stop after quoad deitatem, so the conclusion reads "as to the Godhead" and the next sentence stands without a subject. The sense, and Loserth’s side-note ("not as to his godhead, which cannot be involved in active life"), ask for ergo non potuit dominari civiliter. Quoad deitatem non est dubium fideli. The English follows the print’s stops; read it in that sense.
  6. 6 Civilitas, "civil condition", the state of a member of a civil order. Tam proprietarius is rendered "a proprietor as such"; it may mean "so far a proprietor" (i.e. not even then a proprietor in the civil sense).
  7. 7 Gregory, Moralia, as Wyclif cites it ("book 33, chapter 1"); the editor gives no reference. The words are Moralia XXIII.1.2 (PL 76, 251), on Christ and the church as one person; the print’s XXXIII is a slip.
  8. 8 Eph. 4:15 (qui est caput Christus, DR "who is the head, even Christ") and Col. 1:24 (pro corpore eius quod est ecclesia, DR "for his body, which is the church"), as Gregory quotes them.
  9. 9 Et sequitur quod … credimus … videamus: the quod reads as Gregory’s "as/since we believe"; it could also introduce the whole sentence ("and it follows that, [as] we believe …").
  10. 10 Ingratus with a person’s dative could also be "ungrateful to his bride"; the point is that a bridegroom who kept his goods from his bride would not be pleasing to her. Communicacio, "sharing", in the sense of holding in common.
  11. 11 The church militant, sleeping (the souls in purgatory) and triumphant: Wyclif’s threefold church.
  12. 12 John 4:31–32, with Magister for the Vulgate’s Rabbi (DR "Rabbi, eat").
  13. 13 Sequitur cum veris: "it follows, true premisses being added". The opinion is that the clergy are owed civil lordship by right (304.1–3).
  14. 14 A and A₁ omit fuit … medietas (304.8), an eye-skip from medietas to medietas; the print’s fuller text is translated.
  15. 15 Augustine, Ep. 153 (old numbering cited by Wyclif as 37) to Macedonius, 153.20 (PL 33, 662): non remittetur peccatum, nisi restituatur ablatum; Wyclif has dimittitur. The editor’s reference (304.10 foot): "Epistola (CLIII) ad Macedonium, Opp. tom. II, p. 532".
  16. 16 Wyclif’s earlier treatment of the Westminster privilege, De ecclesia chs. 7–11: God cannot license a man to keep another’s due unsatisfied, 148.25–149 (07-c) and 213 (10-c).
  17. 17 The print reads mala oblata (304.19), "evil things offered". A’s marginal note at this place, Tenentur male ablata restitui, and Augustine’s text read male ablata, "things wrongly taken"; that is translated (our emendation). Augustine, Ep. 153.21 (PL 33, 663), the same letter as note 15.
  18. 18 The question of sanctuary for debtors; Wyclif refers back to his treatment of Westminster’s privilege (212.21–213, 10-c), written after the affair of August 1378; the Gloucester parliament that autumn legislated against debtors in sanctuary (2 Ric. II st. 2 c. 3).
  19. 19 Applausus, "favour", the sanctuary’s countenance of the fugitive; gracia participii, for the sake of a share in what he brought. Facesia (A facessia) = facetia, a trick.
  20. 20 Cum facilitate: "when it would be easy [to speak]", which makes silence culpable. Dicere ius suum et iniuriam depends on tacent: they keep silent about stating their right and the lords’ wrong.
  21. 21 Sue ecclesie clericorum: "of his church of clerics", i.e. of the clerical part of his church.
  22. 22 Sentencia: the position taught (CONTEXTUAL; here "teaching", not a judicial sentence).
  23. 23 The three examples are analogies for buying "accessorily": what is wanted principally carries its parts and appurtenances with it. Sibi refers to the human race bought.
  24. 24 Rom. 8:32; Wyclif adds ergo and omits etiam (DR "how hath he not also, with him, given us all things?").
How the Latin of this chapter was established
  • Plate readings; page · reading · note):
    • 302: civiliter
    • 302: IIª
    • 302: Thymotheo (Thy-/motheo; main token holds whole word; print has y)
    • 303: Scio (italic Scio; side-note text follows)
    • 303: quam (5 is the line number)
    • 304: ∅ (only is the English side-note) [NW]
    • 305: huius sit (main token covers 171d huius sit; folio mark dropped)
    • 305: accessorie [NW]
    • 306: ∅ (print ex-/communicat; main already holds excommunicat whole at pos 7)
    • 306: accessorie [NW]
    • 306: Deus
    • 306: cleri
    • 306: illicita
    • 303: ecclesie
    • 303: XIX°, 25: (print has verse 25 followed by colon) [-VERSE]