De ecclesia, chapter 15, part 2

A doctor’s three conclusions would make the kings of England heretics

Loserth pp. 332.20–336.16

¶1332.20–334.3

332In ista materia est quidam doctor qui sui gracia misit mihi in scriptis tres conclusiones huic materie pertinentes. Prima, describendo heresim, dicit quod posicio sive assercio heretica est error periculosus, pertinaciter defensatus, directe repugnans catholice veritati. Secunda, non est possibile reges Anglie 333legitime posse auferre simpliciter temporalia cleri sui. Tercia. Tercia, ii domini reges temporalia a clero suo nunquam legitime abstulerunt, sicut nec ceteris paribus poterunt in futurum. In ista materia suppono quod loquatur de clero communiter, ut includit quemcunque habentem caracterem sacerdotalis ordinis. Si autem loquatur laxius, tantum placet. Ex quo patet quod omnes sacerdotes conversantes in Anglia sub proteccione regis, sive seculares sive religiosi, possessionati vel exproprietarii, sunt clerus legius regis Anglie, sic enim loquuntur multa decreta, nunc de clerico re et nomine, nunc autem de clerico nudo nomine, ut XLª d. sub auctoritate Chrisostomi dicit Canon: Multi sunt sacerdotes et pauci sunt sacerdotes, multi in nomine, pauci in opere, quia non locus vel cathedra facit sanctum sacerdotem sed econtra. Abiecta itaque ista signacione difficile foret scire quis esset clericus vel sacerdos. Secundo suppono quod clericus tam in Anglia quam alibi posset quantumcunque enormiter peccare quocunque genere peccatorum; patet de episcopo Scarioth, de religioso Sergio et multis aliis sacerdotibus, de quibus scriptura sacra et cronice faciunt mencionem, ymmo cotidiana experiencia idem docet. Non enim habet clericus (in quantum huiusmodi) titulum sue confirmacionis a domino, sed ex testimonio sanctorum doctorum habemus quod racione dignitatis ordinis et dyabolice temptacionis plus aspere peccant communiter gravius quam vulgares, sicut oculata fide conspicimus 334de pseudopapa et suis pseudocardinalibus qui ex cupidine fastus et questus, non autem ex cupidine meritorii profectus conturbant sanctam matrem ecclesiam.

On this matter there is a certain doctor who of his kindness sent me in writing three conclusions pertaining to this matter. The first, defining heresy, says that a heretical position or assertion is a dangerous error, pertinaciously defended, directly repugnant to catholic truth. The second: it is not possible that the kings of England 333can lawfully take away the temporal goods of their clergy without qualification. The third: those lord kings never lawfully took away temporal goods from their clergy, as neither, other things being equal, will they be able to in the future.¹ In this matter I suppose that he speaks of the clergy in the common sense, as it includes whoever has the character of priestly order. But if he speaks more loosely, that pleases me as well. From this it is clear that all priests living in England under the king’s protection, whether seculars or religious, possessioners or propertyless, are the liege clergy of the king of England. For so many decrees speak, now of a cleric in fact and in name, and now of a cleric in bare name, as the Canon says in dist. 40 under the authority of Chrysostom: "Many are priests and few are priests: many in name, few in deed; for it is not the place or the chair that makes the holy priest, but the reverse."² So, if this signification were thrown out, it would be hard to know who was a cleric or a priest.³ Second, I suppose that a cleric, in England as elsewhere, could sin however enormously, in any kind of sin; this is clear from the bishop Iscariot,⁴ from the religious Sergius⁵ and from many other priests of whom holy scripture and the chronicles make mention; indeed, daily experience teaches the same. For a cleric (as such) does not have from the Lord a title to his confirmation [in grace];⁶ but we have from the testimony of the holy doctors that, by reason of the dignity of order and of the devil’s temptation, they commonly sin more harshly, more gravely than the common people, as we see by the faith of our eyes 334in the pseudo-pope and his pseudo-cardinals,⁷ who out of desire for pomp and gain, but not out of desire for meritorious progress, throw holy mother church into confusion.

¶2334.4–334.11

334Tercio suppono facta regum Anglie superius memorata et perseveranciam regis et regni ad defendendum hanc potestatem tamquam legitimam et regis Anglie precipuam regaliam. Ex quo sequitur quod ipsi supponunt hoc regis privilegium non esse catholice veritati dissonum sed consonum, cum (ut dicunt) sit fundabile in scriptura in qua omnis veritas et non nisi veritas catholica est contenta.

Third, I suppose the deeds of the kings of England recalled above, and the perseverance of the king and kingdom in defending this power as lawful and as the chief regality of the king of England. From this it follows that they suppose this privilege of the king to be not discordant with catholic truth but concordant, since (as they say) it can be founded in scripture, in which all truth, and nothing but catholic truth, is contained.

¶3334.12–335.22

334Ex istis sic arguo: Reges Anglie sepe abstulerunt temporalia simpliciter a clero suo, ut patet ex supposicione tercia, et nec unquam abstulerunt sic legitime, nec potuerunt legitime sic auferre, ut patet ex secunda conclusione et tercia doctoris. Ergo in hoc fecerunt qualiter non potuerunt legitime facere. Ex quo sequitur ultra quod in hoc fecerunt qualiter non potuerunt meritorie vel de lege Dei facere, et cum omne opus humanum ex deliberacione sua precedens sit legitimum vel illegitimum, meritorium vel demeritorium, sequitur quod illegitime et demeritorie sic fecerunt, et ultra sequitur quod inciderunt ut sic in errorem periculosum, quia tam corporis quam anime dampnabiliter perditivum. Et supposito errore isto in facto, patet quod est pertinaciter defensatus, quia rex et regnum constanter defendunt hanc potestatem tamquam legitimam eciam usque ad mortem cum gladio si oportet. Et quod error iste sit directe contrarius catholice veritati, patet tripliciter ex datis. Primo, quia rex sic faciendo fecit quod non licuit nec licere potuit, ut sequitur ex datis. Secundo, quia iniuste 335abstulit aliena contra mandata secunde tabule, et tercio, quia fecit ista non in caritate contra veritatem catholicam Apostoli, I°, Cor. XVI°, 14: Omnia vestra in caritate fiant. Totum antecedens est ab adversario concedendum. Ex quibus ultra colligitur quod reges Anglie in sic faciendo sunt heretici, et cum illud usque ad mortem defenderant, sequitur quod decesserunt heretici et dampnati; et revera religiosus possessionatus qui credit hec omnia vel remisse vel nullo modo oraret pro dictis regibus iam defunctis et cum ex titulo sic orandi tenet a rege suas elemosinas temporales. Nec valet dicere quod nunquam simpliciter abstulit rex temporalia clericorum, quia certum est quod abstulit ab eis tam mobilia quam immobilia sine hoc quod unquam eis restituit et talem ablacionem vocant scriptura et communitas ablacionem simpliciter, vel si vocetur ablacio solum secundum quid, quia solum a parte ecclesie, non contendo sed scripturam et mundum in testes invoco quod tanta confiscacio qualis memoratur facta per reges Anglie fuit notabilis ablacio temporalium.

From these I argue thus.⁸ The kings of England have often taken away temporal goods from their clergy without qualification, as is clear from the third supposition; and they never took them away so lawfully, nor could they lawfully so take them away, as is clear from the doctor’s second and third conclusions. Therefore in this they acted as they could not lawfully act. From this it follows further that in this they acted as they could not act meritoriously or according to God’s law; and since every human work that proceeds from its deliberation is lawful or unlawful, meritorious or demeritorious, it follows that they acted so unlawfully and demeritoriously; and further it follows that they fell, as such, into a dangerous error, because one damnably ruinous of body as well as soul. And given this error in the deed, it is clear that it is pertinaciously defended, because king and kingdom steadily defend this power as lawful, even to death with the sword if need be. And that this error is directly contrary to catholic truth is clear in three ways from what has been granted. First, because the king in so doing did what was not permitted and could not be permitted, as follows from what has been granted. Second, because he unjustly 335took away what belonged to others, against the commandments of the second table; and third, because he did these things not in charity, against the catholic truth of the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 16:14: "Let all your things be done in charity." The whole antecedent is to be granted by the opponent. From this it is further gathered that the kings of England in so doing are heretics; and since they defended it to death, it follows that they died heretics and damned; and truly a possessioner religious who believes all this would pray for the said kings, now dead, either slackly or not at all, and that although he holds his alms in temporal goods from the king on the title of so praying.⁹ Nor is it any use to say that the king never took away the clerics’ temporal goods without qualification, because it is certain that he took from them movables as well as immovables without ever restoring them to them, and scripture and the community call such a taking-away a taking-away without qualification; or, if it is called a taking-away only in a certain respect, because only from a part of the church, I do not contend, but I invoke scripture and the world as witnesses that so great a confiscation as is recorded to have been made by the kings of England was a notable taking-away of temporal goods.

¶4335.23–335.31

335Nec valet sompniare quod post ablacionem perceperunt fructum eorum ex titulo caritatis, qua omnia sunt iustis communia, quia multi amaro animo et cum murmure ferunt ablacionem huiusmodi, nec sunt in capitulo cum illis quibus ait Apostolus quod rapinam bonorum suorum cum gaudio susceperunt, ymmo quomodocunque dicatur, sequitur contra secundam conclusionem doctoris quod reges Anglie possunt in casu auferre simpliciter temporalia cleri sui.

Nor is it any use to dream that after the taking-away they received the fruit of them by the title of charity, by which all things are common to the just;¹⁰ because many bear such a taking-away with a bitter mind and with murmuring, and are not of one chapter with those of whom the Apostle says that they "took with joy the being stripped of their own goods";¹¹ indeed, however it is put, it follows, against the doctor’s second conclusion, that the kings of England can in a given case take away the temporal goods of their clergy without qualification.

¶5336.1–336.16

336Nec valet dicere quod merendo talem ablacionem homo desinit esse clerus, tum quia hoc est contra primam supposicionem, cum caracter ordinis sit indelebilis, tum quia sic pauci vel nulli clerici possessionati docerent legitime quod gauderent privilegio vel possessione ex titulo clericatus, quod nimis preiudicaret ordini nostro. Nec est mihi verisimile quod doctor stabit in isto, cum conclusio sua tercia dicit quod nulli reges Anglie temporalia a clero suo unquam legitime abstulerunt, et cum aliquis ex dubio fuit pro aliquo tempore fidelis clericus regis et tamen postea decidens a clericatu meritorio et fidelitate regis meruit post ut per regem sua temporalia auferantur. Sic enim fuit de Scarioth quoad Christum et sic notum est quosdam clericos alienigenas promotos in Anglia coniunctos cum hostibus post regem Anglie defidasse.

Nor is it any use to say that by deserving such a taking-away a man ceases to be clergy: both because this is against the first supposition, since the character of order is indelible, and because in that way few or no possessioner clerics could lawfully show that they enjoyed a privilege or possession on the title of the clerical state, which would greatly prejudice our order.¹² Nor does it seem likely to me that the doctor will stand by this, since his third conclusion says that no kings of England ever lawfully took away temporal goods from their clergy; and since someone has doubtless been for some time a faithful cleric of the king, and yet afterwards, falling away from the meritorious clerical state and from fidelity to the king, deserved afterwards that his temporal goods be taken away by the king.¹³ For so it was with Iscariot with regard to Christ; and so it is known that certain foreign clerics promoted in England, having joined with enemies, afterwards defied the king of England.¹⁴

Notes

1 333.2: the established Latin reads Tercia. Tercia, ii domini reges; the print (on the plate) has Tercia once, at the head of the page, and it is translated once. Ii is the demonstrative, "those". A in the margin at 332.20: Tres conclusiones.
2 Decretum D. 40 c. 12, which Loserth gives as under the authority of the author of the Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, hom. 43 (form ours). The canon reads multi nomine and ends facit sacerdotem sed sacerdos cathedram, "makes the priest, but the priest the chair"; Wyclif’s sanctum … sed econtra compresses it.
3 Signacione: the "signification" of clerus just set out (in fact and name, or in name only); it could also be the "marking" of the sacramental character (333.6–7). Communiter (333.5) is "in the common sense", against laxius.
4 Judas as "bishop": Acts 1:20, "his bishopric let another take."
5 Sergius: the renegade monk of medieval legend who instructed Muhammad (Higden, Polychronicon V.14; Wyclif cites Vincent and Higden for it at De ver. s. script. I, 250–51). A₁ in the margin adds "and John, pope XXIII, who was condemned at Constance as a heretic and the devil incarnate", a later reader’s addition (1415).
6 Titulum sue confirmacionis a domino: confirmation in grace, which would make him unable to sin; domino is taken as the Lord. Plus aspere … gravius: the print doubles the comparative, and both are kept.
7 The pseudo-pope is Clement VII (cf. 352.15–17, 15-g), elected in 1378 against Urban VI.
8 Loserth compares Hus, De ablacione bonorum temporalium a clericis (Opera, Nuremberg 1558, I, fol. 122ᵛ). A in the margin: Prima racio. The three marks of heresy that follow answer the doctor’s first conclusion point by point.
9 Et cum … tenet: taken as concessive, "and that although". Elemosinas temporales here are alms consisting of temporal goods, held on the title of prayer, not the "temporary alms" of elemosina temporalis; rendered "alms in temporal goods".
10 Perceperunt fructum eorum: the subject is the deprived clergy, said still to enjoy the goods’ fruit under charity’s title, by which all things belong to the just. A in the margin: Ficcio.
11 Heb. 10:34, "took with joy the being stripped of your own goods"; Wyclif turns the second person into the third (suorum … susceperunt). In capitulo: "of one chapter", as of a religious house; it may simply mean "in one class".
12 Docerent legitime: "could lawfully show", that is, prove their title in law. A in the margin: Ficcio.
13 Ex dubio (so on the plate): taken as "doubtless", like absque dubio; it could mean "conceivably". The second cum clause gives a case the doctor’s third conclusion cannot cover.
14 Defidasse: diffidare, to renounce fealty, "defy" in the feudal sense.

How the Latin of this chapter was established

Plate readings; page · reading · note):
- 332: gracia (2 and D are margin numeral and alinea letter)
- 333: futurum
- 334: profectus (print: torii profectus conturbant)
- 334: ∅ (to is the English side-note (contrary to))
- 335: abstulit (175d folio mark and E alinea letter are not text)
- 335: tercio (3 is the margin argument numeral)
- 335: I° (capital I with degree sign: I°, Cor.)
- 336: dubio (print: ex dubio; 10 after it is the line number) [NW]
- 334: pseudopapa