May the king take away the clergy’s temporal goods? the duty to warn, and the precedents

The second doubt is whether the king of England can lawfully take away from his liege clergyclerus; clericus: the clergy; cleric the temporal goodstemporalia: temporal goods given to the churchecclesia: church, 329for his clergy’s abuse of the almselemosina: alms or for contempt.¹ And this doubt is most necessary to treat, because to many great men of our kingdomregnum: kingdom it seems that the affirmative side of the conclusionconclusio: conclusion is catholic enough, but to others, the king’s fatter almsmenelemosinarius: almsman, it seems that the conclusion is altogether heretical. And I assert without doubt that, if this conclusion is heretical, given the royal deed of the kings of England, either the whole kingdom or the greater part of it is thereby infected with heretical depravityheretica pravitas: heretical depravity; and since the priestssacerdos / presbiter: priest / presbyter, and especially the bishopsepiscopus; dominus episcopus: bishop; the lord bishop and the schoolmen of our kingdom, are bound to foretell its danger to the king and his kingdom, it is clear that they especially, and the kingdom generally, are bound to know the truth on this point. For the king and kingdom are not so hardened that, once it had been taught that that doctrine was heretical, they would not cease to put it into practicepractizare: to put into practice, but would quickly revoke it at the voice of the multitude of their clergy. For so at the preaching of Jonah the Ninevites did penance to their salvation (as is clear in Jonah 3 and Matthew 12); so too Nebuchadnezzar was converted from unbeliefinfidelitas: heathenism, unbelief and finally saved by the power of God and the prudence of Daniel (as is clear in the canon C. 23 q. 4 Nabuchodonosor, from the history of the prophet and the testimony of Augustine);² and truly there seems to be a greater disposition in our kingdom and its princes than there was in that unbelieving people. How then would he be faithful, or love his king in charitycaritas: charity, who saw him through ignorance on the brink of the abyss, ready for the everlasting plunge, and, though knowledge of how to call him back was at hand in the hedge of conversion,³ through negligent sloth allowed so weighty a people to perish forever in body and soul, especially if he is richly rewarded for watching over and foretelling the dangers of king and kingdom? Does not God say to the prophet, 330Ezekiel 33:7–8: "So thou, O son of man, I have made thee a watchmanspeculator: watchman to the house of Israel: therefore thou shalt hear the word from my mouth, and shalt tell it them from me. When I say to the wicked: O wicked man, thou shalt surely die: if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked man from his way: that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at thy hand." And much more in the time of the law of gracelex gracie: the law of grace, when we ought, from the law of Christlex dei / lex Christi / lex evangelica: God's law / the law of Christ / the gospel law, to have fuller knowledge and love, and moreover have from the king a temporal reward beyond what Ezekiel or any other prophet of the old testament had. Damnable, therefore, would be our sloth.

Nor does this threefold infamous objectioninstancia; objectum: objection hold. The first is the one in which it is said that the king and kingdom would thereby be provoked to take away the temporal goods we have. For this objection accuses [us] and shows that we love our temporal goods more than the giver,⁴ since we irreligiously fear the loss of our temporal goods more than the perpetual loss of the body and soul of our king. The second objection says that this matter has been aired and decided in the Roman curiacuria romana: the Roman curia before the popepapa: pope. Truly, I do not believe it; but, supposing that it were so, those to whom it is known are open to accusation as traitors, who thus conceal this danger. For there is infinitely more danger in it than if any number of bodily enemies, with the knowledge of the one who conceals it, invaded and utterly destroyed our kingdom; and moreover, since such as condemn this matter are dead or divided,⁵ it would be foolish to await the publication of their decision in so great a danger. The third objection says that both the king and the kingdom

prospered when our clergy refrained from treating such a matter.⁶ This fictionficticia: fiction 331was destroyed above, in chapter 12; and in the present case it infects itself. How, I say, would there be prosperity in our kingdom when so great an iniquity was defended by the king and his chief men, prelates as well as lords? For an error that is not resisted is approved; now one or the other of these is not only an error but a heresy, for which it would be fitting that the king and all his priesthood be destroyed.⁷ Therefore without doubt the king and the secular lords, but especially the prelatesprelatus: prelate of the kingdom, should cause the truth to be diligently inquired into in this, and should rouse and defend the theologians who treat it, since it falls to them to discuss such errors and to forewarn the king and the inhabitants of the kingdom of the danger. And truly great danger follows from either side of the contradiction, in that, whether it is heretical or not heretical, given the deed, a great part of our kingdom is infected with heretical depravity through adherence, through defence, or through omission.

I intend, therefore, to proceed in this way: first, to narrate the deed of the kings of England in this regard; second, to recite the opinionsopinio: opinion of doctors on the matter; and third, to object against them. As to the first, it is clear to anyone who reads the chronicles of our kingdom how William the Conqueror permanently altered many alms of the Saxon kings (abbeys, bishoprics and other endowmentsdotacio: endowment under the name of perpetual alms), now withdrawing them, now transferring them, and now bringing in foreigners in place of the former clergy. Nor is it any use to feign dreams that he had licence from the pope for these things any more than for the conquest of the kingdom owed him by right.⁸ And so with the dream in which it is feigned that he afterwards restored all the clerics whose goods had been taken away, any more than he restored the heirs of the Saxons who rebelled; and truly, to pronounce him hereticalcatholicare / hereticare: to declare catholic / to pronounce heretical at the last, since the whole right of the kingdom has been derived from him through all the intervening kings by hereditary succession down to today, would be an all too infectious presumption.⁹ Infectious, I say, because it would pronounce heretical the kings, clergy and people who have succeeded in the meantime; 332but, leaving aside the destructions of the Templars and the private takings-away that occurred in the meantime, let us recall such takings-away as were made in our own days by the illustrious king Edward III. For the temporal goods of the lord William Bateman of Norwich were taken into the king’s hands and held for twelve continuous years for contempt.¹⁰ And the same happened with the lord John Grandisson of Exeter, with brother Thomas de Lisle, bishop of Ely, and so with many takings-away which we have known in our days.¹¹ Indeed, Richard II our king, like his grandfather, puts this into practice every year upon the possessionerpossessionati: the possessioners religiousreligiosi: the religious of France; nor do they consult the Roman curia on this, because, as they steadily maintain, this power belongs directly to the crown.¹² Nor do I recall that they restore movable temporal goods once taken away, since the contempt or forfeiture of the king’s almsmen requires that they be punished more heavily, except in so far as the king regards them mercifully, just as he mercifully brought them into possession of the alms of his kingdom.