Wyclif’s Latin works

De ecclesia, chapter 14, part 6

Objections from rites, from the endowment, and from Nicholas Putanensis

Loserth pp. 318.27–322.4

¶1318.27–320.27

318Si autem arguitur per locum a simili quod ritus nostri non valent, cum non sint fundabiles in scriptura, dico quod docto hoc de quocunque ritu est conclusio concedenda, quia tunc non sonaret ritus talis pietatem vel religionem Christi. Unde pro illis que non expresse docentur in scriptura sacra, si quadam evidencia topica suadentur, non debemus 319multum contendere sed conclusiones expressas ipsius scripture omnibus modis defendere. Et error huius sentencie fecit divinam theologiam contempni et leges exteras exaltari; de quo conqueritur dominus per prophetam Osee VIII°, 12: Scribam, inquit, ei multiplices leges meas que velut aliene computate sunt. Et revera rex et lex sua sese in dileccione et odio consequuntur. Et hec est causa tocius confusionis ecclesie, quod claudicat plus intendens legi humanitus superaddite quam divine. Et si queratur ubi in scriptura fundatur lex supradicta fundans dotacionem ecclesie, dicitur quod fundacio proporcionaliter ad eius necessitatem fundatur implicite in illo Luce XVI°, 9: Facite vobis amicos de mammona iniquitatis, et in illo Ia Tim. VI°, 17: Divitibus huius seculi precipe non sublime sapere, nec sperare in merito diviciarum, sed facile tribuere, et in illo Luce X°, 5, 7: In quamcunque domum intraveritis ibi manete edentes et bibentes que aput illos sunt: dignus est enim operarius mercede sua. Nunquam autem fundari potest in scriptura quod sacerdocio Christi conveniat dominacio civilis et sicut non est contendendum circa sequelam tante dotacionis ex scripturis cum merito clericorum, sic non est contendendum circa ablacionem eius si eveniat, nisi forte de quanto docetur ex scriptura quod auferens excedit regulam caritatis vel quod occupacio illorum bonorum per clerum foret sancte ecclesie utilior. Tercio arguitur per hoc quod dominacio civilis est perfecta tam a Christo quam a philosophis approbata; perfecciori ergo parti ecclesie debet potestas illa infundi per Christum a quo est omnis potestas. 320Sicut ergo beatus Silvester non accepit illam partem imperii a Constantino, sic nec aliquis sacerdos cuiusquam terreni principis accepit ab eo dominacionem huiusmodi secularem sed immediate a Christo; prius enim tempore vel natura fuit beatus Silvester dignus habere dominacionem illam imperii quam cesar sibi diviserat, et per consequens prius fuit data a Deo, quam cesar ipsam sibi resignaverat, et cum eque digni fuerunt prius alii Christi vicarii, videtur quod eciam illis infuit potestas taliter dominandi. Et ista videtur sentencia cuiusdam Nicolai Putanensis super epistolam ad Romanos, qui vocat episcopos ex hinc miseros, quod volunt se subicere in onere tributi et aliis serviciis exactis a brachio seculari. Et fundat se super dicto Apostoli Hebreis VII°: Omnimodo maior est ille qui benedicit, quam ille cui benedicitur, et per hoc probat Apostolus quod Melchisedech rex Salem qui gessit typum Christi fuit maior quam Abraham cui benedixit (ut legitur Gen. XIV°). Sicut ergo sacerdocium est dignius imperio, sic oportet Romanum pontificem esse digniorem imperatore accipiente imperium ab illo pontifice, et per consequens, oportet conferentem habere illud imperium, et non esse subiectum suo elemosinario, quia tunc non foret papa omnimode ipso maior, sed secundum eandem racionem qua benedicit et confert sibi spirituale imperium foret ipso subieccior.

But if it is argued by appeal to the topic from likenesslocus a simili: the topic from likeness that our rites are not valid, since they cannot be founded in scripture, I say that, once this has been shown of any rite whatever, the conclusionconclusio: conclusion is to be granted, for then such a rite would not sound of the pietypietas / pie: piety / piously or religion of Christ.1 Hence for those things which are not expressly taught in holy scripture, if they are recommended by some topical evidenceevidencia: evidence, we ought not to 319contend much, but to defend in every way the express conclusions of scripture itself. And error over this teachingsentencia: CONTEXTUAL: teaching / sentence has caused divine theology to be despised and foreign laws to be exalted;2 of which the Lord complains through the prophet, Hosea 8:12: "I shall write to him," he says, "my manifold laws, which have been accounted as foreign." And truly a king and his law follow upon each other in love and in hatred. And this is the cause of the whole confusion of the church, that it limps, attending more to the law added on by men than to the divine. And if it is asked where in scripture the law mentioned above, which founds the endowmentdotacio: endowment of the church, is founded, the answer is that the foundation, in proportion to its necessity, is founded implicitly in that of Luke 16:9: "Make unto you friends of the mammon of iniquity"; and in that of 1 Timothy 6:17: "Charge the rich of this world not to be highminded, nor to trust in the merit of riches, but to give easily";3 and in that of Luke 10:5, 7: "Into whatever house you enter, there remain, eating and drinking such things as they have: for the labourer is worthy of his hire."4 But it can never be founded in scripture that civil exercise of lordshipdominacio: exercise of lordship befits the priesthood of Christ; and just as one must not contend over so great an endowment as what followssequela: what follows from the scriptures together with the merit of the clergy, so one must not contend over its removal if it happens, unless perhaps in so far as it is taught from scripture that the one removing it exceeds the rule of charitycaritas: charity, or that the occupation of those goods by the clergy would be more useful to holy church.5 Thirdly, it is argued by appeal toarguitur per: it is argued by appeal to this, that civil exercise of lordship is perfect, approved both by Christ and by the philosophers; therefore that power ought to be infused into the more perfect part of the church by Christ, from whom is all power.6 320Just as, therefore, blessed Silvester did not receive that part of the empire from Constantine, so no priestsacerdos / presbiter: priest / presbyter of any earthly prince has received from him secular exercise of lordship of this kind, but immediately from Christ;7 for blessed Silvester was worthy, earlier in time or in nature, to have that exercise of lordship over the empire which Caesar had divided off to him, and consequently it was given by God earlier than Caesar had resigned it to him; and since other vicars of Christvicarius Christi: vicar of Christ before [him] were equally worthy, it seems that the power of exercising lordship in this way was in them also.8 And this seems to be the teaching of a certain Nicholas Putanensis on the Epistle to the Romans, who for this reason calls bishopsepiscopus; dominus episcopus: bishop; the lord bishop wretched, that they are willing to subject themselves in the burden of tribute and other servicesservicium: service exacted by the secular armbrachium seculare: the secular arm.9 And he bases himself on the saying of the Apostle, Hebrews 7: "In every way greater is he who blesses than he who is blessed"; and by this the Apostle proves that Melchisedech, king of Salem, who bore the type of Christ, was greater than Abraham, whom he blessed (as we read in Genesis 14).10 Just as, therefore, the priesthood is worthier than the empire, so the Roman pontiff must be worthier than the emperor who receives the empire from that pontiff; and consequently the one conferring must have that empire and not be subject to his almsmanelemosinarius: almsman; for then the popepapa: pope would not be in every way greater than he, but by the same reckoning by which he blesses him and confers on him a spiritual empire he would be more subject than he.11

¶2320.28–322.4

320In isto puncto sunt nimis multi maniaci, putantes nedum maiores sacerdotes sed minores singulos debere 321super omnes reges et principes seculariter dominari, in tantum quod iste Nicolaus dicit quod reges debent esse advocati sacerdotum, quia si ipsi eque immediate haberent potestatem illam cum sacerdotibus, ecclesia non servaret monadem, eo quod forent duo capita eque primo. Et in istam blasphemiam ex defectu intellectus scripture incidunt multi iuriste facientes suos prepositos insanire. Conceditur ergo quod dominacio civilis sit quodammodo perfecta et necessaria perfecte supposito ad dominandum tam clericos quam laycos insolentes. Sapit tamen (in quantum talis) veniale peccatum; ideo non potuit Christo competere, nec auctorizatur in Christo et evangelio expresse sed innuitive, et ideo inferiori parti ecclesie quam Apostolus Ia Cor. VI°, 4, vocat contemptibilem debet competere. Illa ergo dominacio non pure capit complecionem suam a Christo, sicut spiritualis dominacio vel potestas, sed completur ut sic per ritus humanos. Unde pro tali complecione et legum aggregacione dicit Augustinus super Joh., Omelia VIª (ut recitavi superius) quod non iure Dei sed imperatoris dicimus quod hec villa vel domus est mea, non quod ius Dei sit omnino alienum a constitucione civilis dominii, cum oportet legem Dei dare graciam que est civilis dominii fundamentum, sed non secundum illam culpam quam contrahit est a Deo. Et sic intelligo Augustinum in Epistola XXXVIIª ad Macedonium sic dicentem: Inter mundanos quedam iura constituuntur que appellantur civilia, non quod hinc fiat ut bene utentes sint, sed ut male utentes minus molesti sint. Quando autem hec iura consonant legi Dei que est per se iusta, tunc 322evenit quod sunt iusta, et quando deficiunt ab eius regulacione sunt iniusta. Ideo dicit veritas Matthei V°, 20: Nisi habundaverit iusticia vestra plus quam scribarum et phariseorum, non intrabitis in regnum celorum.

On this point there are far too many madmen, who think that not only the greater priests but every one of the lesser ought 321to lord itdominus; dominari: lord; to exercise lordship / to lord it in secular fashion over all kings and princes, so much so that this Nicholas says that kings ought to be the advocates of priests, because if they had that power as immediately as the priests, the churchecclesia: church would not keep its monad, in that there would be two headscaput: head equally first.12 And into this blasphemy many jurists fall through a defect of understanding of scripture, making their superiorsprepositi: superiors go mad. It is granted, therefore, that civil exercise of lordship is in a way perfect, and necessary to one perfectly placed for lording it over insolent clerics as well as laymen.13 Yet (as such) it savours of venial sin: therefore it could not befit Christ, and it is not authorized in Christ and the gospel expressly but by hint; and therefore it ought to belong to the inferior part of the church, which the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 6:4, calls contemptible.14 That exercise of lordship, therefore, does not take its completion purely from Christ, as spiritual lordship or power does, but is completed, as such, through human rites. Hence, regarding such completion and gathering of laws, Augustine says on John, Homily 6 (as I recited above), that it is not by the lawius: right / law of God but by that of the emperor that we say "this villa or house is mine";15 not that the law of God is wholly foreign to the constitution of civil lordshipdominium civile / naturale / evangelicum: civil / natural / evangelical lordship, since the law of God must give grace, which is the foundation of civil lordship; but in respect of the fault that it contracts, it is not from God. And so I understand Augustine in Epistle 37 to Macedonius, saying thus: "Among worldly men certain laws are established which are called civil, not that by them it comes about that [men] are good users, but that bad users may be less troublesome."16 And when these laws accord with the law of God, which is just of itself, then 322it comes about that they are just, and when they fall short of its regulation they are unjust. Therefore the Truth says, Matthew 5:20: "Unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdomregnum: kingdom of heaven."17

Notes

  1. 1 B reads tunc sonaret, without the negative (318.30); the print’s non is needed for the argument and is kept. Docto hoc: once it has been shown that the rite cannot be founded in scripture.
  2. 2 Sentencia (CONTEXTUAL): the position taught, here the rule just stated, that the express conclusions of scripture are to be defended before topical arguments. Error huius sentencie is error over (against) this teaching.
  3. 3 1 Tim. 6:17–18, joined: the Vulgate has in incerto divitiarum, "in the uncertainty of riches"; Wyclif’s in merito is translated.
  4. 4 Luke 10:5 and 10:7, joined: the Vulgate has primum dicite: Pax huic domui and In eadem autem domo manete; Wyclif’s ibi manete is translated.
  5. 5 B reads concedendum for contendendum in both members (319.23, 25: "one must not grant ..."). The print is kept.
  6. 6 The third objection (A’s margin, 319.30: Tercia obieccio): civil lordship is perfect, so it belongs to the more perfect part of the church, the clergy. The answer begins at 320.28.
  7. 7 Sacerdos cuiusquam terreni principis is taken as "a priest of any earthly prince" (a priest under any prince), with ab eo referring to that prince. It may be that a preposition (a cuiusquam) has dropped.
  8. 8 B reads sibi dimiserat, "had let go to him", for diviserat (320.6–7); A and A₁ omit ipsam (320.8). The print construes and is kept.
  9. 9 "Nicholas Putanensis" on Romans: A’s margin names him (320.11); the editor does not identify him or the commentary.
  10. 10 Heb. 7:7, paraphrased; the Vulgate (the editor, 320.15 foot) has Sine ulla autem contradictione, quod minus est, a meliore benedicitur, which Wyclif quotes at 324.17. Gen. 14:18–20.
  11. 11 Suo elemosinario: the emperor, who on Nicholas’s view receives the empire from the pope as alms.
  12. 12 Monas: the church’s unity under one head; the editor glosses it unitate at 325.7.
  13. 13 All the manuscripts read ad domandum, "for taming" (321.10 foot); dominandum is the editor’s emendation. The print construes and is kept, though domandum suits insolentes well. Perfecte supposito is taken as a dative ("to one perfectly placed"); it may be an ablative absolute, "on a perfect supposition". B reads perfecta et intra.
  14. 14 A and A₁ read Christo in evangelio, "in Christ in the gospel" (321.13).
  15. 15 Augustine, In Iohannis evangelium tractatus 6.25–26; the editor refers back to p. 301 (321.21 foot). Ius here is law (the body of law), against the subjective right. B reads sed iure imperatoris.
  16. 16 Augustine’s Epistle 37 in Wyclif’s numbering is Ep. 153 to Macedonius in the modern editions (cf. 311.4 foot); the passage is presumably 153.26 (PL 33, 665).
  17. 17 B omits from sunt iniusta to ideo dicit veritas (322.2); A reads vestra quam plus (322.3).
How the Latin of this chapter was established
  • Plate readings; page · reading · note):
    • 318: ∅ ('in' is the English side-note (grounded in); main already has nostri at 198)
    • 319: Christo
    • 319: perfecciori (print perfecciori; ff ligature) [NW]
    • 319: infundi
    • 320: subieccior [NW]
    • 321: super (173d folio mark)
    • 321: laycos (print has y; 174a folio mark)
    • 321: VIª
    • 321: sint
    • 322: evenit
    • 319: multum (173c folio mark glued)