De ecclesia, chapter 15, part 3

The condition of the first endowment: alms may be withdrawn for contempt

Loserth pp. 336.17–340.16

¶1336.17–338.11

336Ex istis secundo arguitur quod nedum potuit sed decuit eum sic dotasse ecclesiam, ut licite posset subtrahere elemosinas suas in casu quo earum abusus vergat ad detrimentum regni et subtraccionem evangelii; et scimus pro tempore antequam Britones et Saxones dotarunt ecclesiam vel enim fuit ecclesia nostra dotata, et interim tempore Saxonum ante adventum Augustini fuit fides Christi infideliter pretermissa, tunc isti principes primo dotantes ecclesiam nostram non erant moti nisi titulo misericordie donare plus vel minus nostre ecclesie ut nec cesar. Potuerunt ergo dedisse clero nostro quantum decreverint, adiciendo quamcunque condicionem honestam voluerint, sed potuerant cum donacione sua primeva adiecisse condicionem honestam quod elemosinarii non contempnant 337insurgentes in regem ad sui populi detrimentum. Omnia ista suppono ex cronicis et tamquam proxima per se notis. Non enim tenebantur reges sub pena excommunicacionis dotare suam ecclesiam dotacione perpetua plus vel minus, ut patet ex dictis; tunc enim tenerentur sub pena dampnacionis dedisse clero suum totale dominium, cuius oppositum suppono. Et ex istis sic arguitur: Si secundum istam formam dotassent nostram ecclesiam, licite potuissent pro contemptu regis suam elemosinam subtraxisse, sed cum ista condicione potuerunt dotasse nostram ecclesiam, ergo potuerunt pro contemptu cleri datam elemosinam licite subtraxisse. Cum ergo illa condicio fuisset licita et honesta, consuetudoque regis et regni docent in facto condicionem illam fuisse adiectam, videtur nimis presumptuosa assercio quod principes nostri non potuerunt ab eis auferre temporalia quantumcunque deliquerint; ymmo cum absolute necessario potuerunt talem condicionem adicere, et iterum absolute necessario elemosinarii possent tantum delinquere, patet (ut sepe dixi) quod principes nostri absolute necessario potuerunt suas elemosinas subtrahere, periculo possibili imminente. Et per idem sequitur quod potuerunt cum possibilibus paribus subtrahere in futurum, quod sonat directe contra terciam conclusionem doctoris que dicit quod reges Anglie temporalia a clero suo nunquam legitime abstulerunt, sicut nec datis paribus legitime potuerunt in futurum. Et notate verba si, inquam, nec datis paribus potuerunt auferre legitime, tunc nec datis aliquibus paribus potuerunt auferre legitime, et per consequens in quantumcunque magnam 338prodicionem regni nostri clerus possessionatus conspiraverit vel quantumcunque magna necessitas regno nostro contigerit, non liceret regi ad defensionem regni bona appropriata clero suo accipere; nec dubitat vel cecus logicus quin si liceret regi bona cleri in tali casu possibili qui tam sepe contigit, tunc poterit cum paribus sic auferre. Sed supponendo istam potenciam tamquam absolute necessariam, accedendoque ad licenciam et debitum, probo primo racionabilitatem condicionis superius recitate: Nam rex Anglie dotans ecclesiam suam nec debuit nec potuit ipsam dotare

From these it is argued, second, that it was not only possible for him but fitting that he should have so endowed the church that he could lawfully withdraw his alms in the case where their abuse tends to the detriment of the kingdom and the withdrawal of the gospel.¹ And we know, for the time before the Britons and Saxons endowed the church, for our church was either endowed, and in the meantime, in the time of the Saxons before the coming of Augustine, the faith of Christ was faithlessly let drop; then those princes who first endowed our church were moved by no title but that of mercy to give more or less to our church, as neither was Caesar.² They could therefore have given our clergy as much as they decided, adding whatever honest condition they wished; now they could have added, with their first donation, the honest condition that the almsmen should not show contempt 337by rising against the king to the detriment of his people.³ All these things I suppose from the chronicles, and as next to things known of themselves. For the kings were not bound under pain of excommunication to endow their church with a perpetual endowment, more or less, as is clear from what has been said; for then they would be bound under pain of damnation to have given the clergy their whole lordship, the opposite of which I suppose. And from these it is argued thus: if they had endowed our church according to this form, they could lawfully have withdrawn their alms for contempt of the king; now they could have endowed our church with this condition; therefore they could lawfully have withdrawn the alms given, for the clergy’s contempt. Since, therefore, that condition would have been lawful and honest, and the custom of the king and kingdom shows that in fact that condition was added, the assertion seems too presumptuous that our princes could not take away the temporal goods from them however much they had offended. Indeed, since with absolute necessity they could add such a condition, and again with absolute necessity the almsmen could offend so much, it is clear (as I have often said) that our princes with absolute necessity could withdraw their alms, if a possible danger were imminent.⁴ And by the same token it follows that they could, possible circumstances being equal, withdraw them in the future; which sounds directly against the doctor’s third conclusion, which says that the kings of England never lawfully took away temporal goods from their clergy, as neither, given equal circumstances, could they lawfully in the future. And mark the words: if, I say, given equal circumstances they could not lawfully take away, then given any equal circumstances whatever they could not lawfully take away; and consequently, into however great a 338treason against our kingdom the possessioner clergy should conspire, or however great a necessity should befall our kingdom, it would not be lawful for the king, for the defence of the kingdom, to take the goods appropriated to his clergy.⁵ And not even a blind logician doubts that, if it were lawful for the king [to take] the goods of the clergy in such a possible case, which has so often happened, then he will be able, circumstances being equal, so to take them away.⁶ But, supposing this power as absolutely necessary, and proceeding to what is permitted and what is owed, I prove first the reasonableness of the condition recited above.⁷ For the king of England, in endowing his church, neither ought nor could endow it

¶2338.12–340.16

338ad enervacionem vel deterioracionem regni sui. Cum omnis potestas sit a Deo qui non potest dare potenciam ad hunc finem, sed sic contingeret supposito quod rex absolute dotasset suam ecclesiam non subintelligendo condicionem illam, ergo oportuit condicionem illam subintelligi et per consequens, quando contemptus cleri accidit, rex capiendo temporalia in manus suas non facit clero illi iniuriam, cum condicio ex defectu cleri dissolvitur. Minor autem argumenti sic ostenditur: Si omnia illa bona quibus dotatur nostra ecclesia immediate et directe pertinerent ad papam, sic quod rex non habeat interesse in possessionibus vel personis, cum plus quam quarta pars regni sit devoluta ad manum mortuam, sequitur quod rex noster non sit rex tocius Anglie, cum plus quam quarta pars in manu mortua est decisa. Stat enim aliquid esse in 339regno et non de illo, sed quomodo contingeret hoc planius quam quod omnia temporalia cleri Anglie non forent sub regis regimine sed pape, cum enim dicunt quod papa dominatur civiliter, nec est possibile quod due tam disparate persone dominentur ex equo simul civiliter super eodem, relinquitur eis dicere quod rex noster sit quoad omnia mortificata in regno nostro vel exclusus simpliciter vel pape subdominans. Sibi enim non licet (ut inquiunt) interponere de clero vel possessionibus suis quantumcunque deliquerint, nec regi licet subtrahere temporalia eorum, quantumcunque abusus vergat ad regni periculum, quia (ut inquiunt) exempti sunt a iurisdiccione regis, tam in corpore quam in bonis, et inmediate subiecti pape vel suis ballivis, collectoribus vel ministris. In cuius signum papa habet post mortes multorum prelatorum et abbatum in Anglia primos fructus secundum nephandum abusum infundabiliter presumptum et a regibus culpabiliter toleratum. Unde (ut alias dixi) quicunque pertinaciter dogmatizaverint istam sentenciam nituntur proditorie subvertere regnum nostrum. Oportet ergo de integritate regalie regis nostri quod habet potestatem ad confiscandum suas elemosinas pro contemptu, quia, cum religiosi possessionati non sunt confirmati sed peccabiles sicut vulgus, patet, cum plus elongatur a rege punire eos tam in personis quam in temporalibus, si rex non posset punire eos in temporalibus, cessaret quoad eos omnis regalis cohercio, et tunc sicut angeli non sunt subiecti seculariter regi Anglie nec boni nec mali, sic nec illi. Nam persona vel populus existens in regno et non subiecta legibus regis et regni, non dicitur esse de illo regno, ut patet de comitivis depopulatricibus 340regnorum et de dominiis alienorum regum infra alia regna contentis. Sed ut meminerunt recencius iuris regis, optentum est privilegio laudabili regni nostri quod in mortibus multorum sacerdotum qui de rege tenent in feodo temporalia cedant regi. Unde ex iure patronatus confert beneficia interim vacancia, et licenciato capitulo ad novam eleccionem presentato sibi electo approbat vel reprobat sicut placet. Unde cum rex preter istas regalias aufert sepe temporalia a capitulis eciam invitis, vel oportet dicere quod omnia ista licet sibi facere vel si non potest tunc cum facto foret hereticus, et per consequens illi ex vecordi taciturnitate et redempcione temporalium que capitaliter tenerent, de tanto heretici forent heresis sue participes. Cur ergo ex fundamento scripture sacre vel iuris canonici hoc non docent?

to the enervation or deterioration of his kingdom. Since all power is from God, who cannot give power for this end,⁸ now so it would come about, supposing that the king had endowed his church absolutely, without that condition being understood as implied: therefore that condition had to be understood as implied; and consequently, when contempt on the clergy’s part occurs, the king, in taking the temporal goods into his hands, does that clergy no wrong, since the condition is dissolved by the clergy’s default. Now the minor of the argument is shown thus.⁹ If all those goods with which our church is endowed belonged immediately and directly to the pope, so that the king had no interest in the possessions or the persons, then, since more than a fourth part of the kingdom has devolved to the dead hand, it follows that our king is not king of all England, since more than a fourth part is cut off in the dead hand.¹⁰ For it can be that something is in a 339kingdom and not of it; but how could this come about more plainly than if all the temporal goods of the clergy of England were not under the king’s rule but the pope’s? For since they say that the pope exercises civil lordship, and it is not possible that two persons so disparate should exercise civil lordship over the same thing equally and at once, it remains for them to say that our king, with regard to everything amortized in our kingdom, is either excluded without qualification or holds lordship under the pope.¹¹ For it is not lawful for him (as they say) to intervene concerning the clergy or their possessions, however much they have offended, nor is it lawful for the king to withdraw their temporal goods, however much the abuse tends to the kingdom’s peril, because (as they say) they are exempt from the king’s jurisdiction, in body as well as in goods, and immediately subject to the pope or to his bailiffs, collectors or ministers. In sign of which the pope has, after the deaths of many prelates and abbots in England, the first fruits, according to an abominable abuse presumed without foundation and culpably tolerated by the kings.¹² Hence (as I have said elsewhere) whoever pertinaciously dogmatize this teaching strive treasonably to subvert our kingdom.¹³ It must therefore belong to the integrity of our king’s regality that he has power to confiscate his alms for contempt; because, since the possessioner religious are not confirmed [in grace] but capable of sinning like the common people, it is clear (since to punish them in their persons is further removed from the king than in their temporal goods) that if the king could not punish them in their temporal goods, all royal coercion would cease with regard to them; and then, as the angels, neither the good nor the bad, are not subject in a secular way to the king of England, so neither would they be.¹⁴ For a person or a people existing in a kingdom and not subject to the laws of the king and kingdom is not said to be of that kingdom, as is clear of the companies that lay waste 340kingdoms, and of the lordships of foreign kings contained within other kingdoms.¹⁵ But, as those who more freshly remember the king’s right [recall], it has been obtained by a laudable privilege of our kingdom that at the deaths of many priests who hold of the king in fee the temporal goods pass to the king. Hence by right of patronage he confers the benefices vacant in the meantime; and when the chapter has been licensed to a new election and the one elected has been presented to him, he approves or rejects him as he pleases.¹⁶ Hence, since the king, besides these regalities, often takes temporal goods away from chapters even against their will, either one must say that all these things are lawful for him to do, or, if he cannot [lawfully do them], then with the deed he would be a heretic; and consequently those [chapters], by their faint-hearted silence and by the redemption of the temporal goods which they would hold [of him] as chief lord, would to that extent be heretics, partakers of his heresy.¹⁷ Why then do they not teach this from a foundation in holy scripture or canon law?

Notes

1 A in the margin at 336.17: Secunda racio. Loserth compares Hus, De ablacione bonorum temporalium, fol. 121ʳ. Eum is the king of 335–336; subtraccionem evangelii is the withdrawal of the gospel’s preaching.
2 The period does not construe as printed. Scimus is Loserth’s correction (the manuscripts read simus, 336.21); vel enim fuit ecclesia nostra dotata (336.21–22) has no second member to vel, and tunc begins a new clause without a main verb for scimus. The side-note gives the sense intended: there was no endowment before Augustine’s mission, and the first endowers gave out of mercy only. A word such as nec (nec enim fuit, "for our church was not endowed") may have been lost; the print is translated as it stands. Ut nec cesar: "as neither was Caesar [moved by any other title]", Constantine as the first endower.
3 Contempnant has no object; taken absolutely, with insurgentes giving the form the contempt takes. Sed brings the minor premiss. The apparatus notes that A omits voluerint … honestam (336.29), an eye-skip.
4 Absolute necessario potuerunt: "it is absolutely necessary that they could", a necessary possibility, not a necessity of acting; Wyclif’s point is that no hypothesis about the clergy can remove the power. A in the margin at 337.28: Conclusio falsa, the doctor’s conclusion.
5 Datis paribus: the doctor’s wording (15-b had ceteris paribus); Wyclif presses it to "given any equal circumstances whatever", so that no case, however grave, would permit a taking-away. Quantumcunque magnam: A A₁ quantamcunque; the manuscripts read in quantum (337.31).
6 Liceret regi bona cleri: the infinitive is understood from accipere in the preceding clause and is supplied in brackets.
7 Licenciam et debitum: Wyclif moves from power (potencia) to what is permitted and what is owed. A in the margin at 338.10: Racio. Loserth prints Hus’s reuse: Item rex Boemie dotans ecclesiam suam nec debuit ….
8 Cf. Rom. 13:1, "there is no power but from God"; a paraphrase, not a quotation.
9 Minor: the premiss sic contingeret supposito … above, that an unconditional endowment would weaken the kingdom.
10 Hus repeats the argument of Bohemia: sequitur quod rex noster non sit rex tocius Boemie, cum plus quam quarta pars pro clericis in manu mortua est decisa (Loserth, Hus und Wiclif, pp. 199–208; Evans’s translation pp. 225–235). B reads est vel decisa (338.28).
11 Subdominans: "holding lordship under", the king as the pope’s sub-lord. Disparate: B desparate (339.5).
12 Primos fructus: the first year’s revenues of a benefice reserved to the papacy (annates), claimed in England in the fourteenth century and complained of in the Good Parliament, 1376 (Rot. Parl. II, 338–39).
13 Sentenciam: CONTEXTUAL; here the position taught, "teaching", not a judicial sentence.
14 Cum plus elongatur … tam in personis quam in temporalibus: taken as a comparison, punishment in the person being further from the king’s reach than punishment in goods; tam … quam may instead mean "in persons as much as in goods". B reads sicut Angli for sicut angeli (339.29). A in the margin at 339.19: Conclusio.
15 Comitivis depopulatricibus: the free companies of mercenaries; Loserth compares Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, I, 302.
16 The king’s right to the temporalities of vacant sees and abbeys, his presentation to benefices falling vacant meanwhile, and his licence to elect and assent to the one elected (cf. Constitutions of Clarendon, c. 12). B reads licento (340.7).
17 Redempcione temporalium: the chapters’ buying back of their seized goods, taken as complicity. Capitaliter tenerent: hold of the king in chief. Si non potest: the infinitive is understood ("cannot [lawfully]"). B reads de tanto heretico (340.14).

How the Latin of this chapter was established

Plate readings; page · reading · note):
- 336: et (176a folio mark follows)
- 337: regis
- 337: imminente
- 338: bona (5 after it is the line number)
- 338: sui
- 338: ∅ (of is the English side-note (possessions of); print: illa bona)
- 338: cum
- 339: Anglie
- 339: forent
- 339: Oportet
- 339: cohercio [NW]
- 339: regno (176b folio mark glued)
- 338: ∅ (fragment of subintelligi; JOIN 116 subi + 117 n + 118 te + 119 lli + 120 gi -> subintelligi) [DELX]
- 338: subintelligi (print: subintelligi (agent 13); scan cut it in five)
- 338: ∅ (joined at 116)
- 338: ∅ (joined at 116)
- 338: ∅ (joined at 116)
- 338: ∅ (joined at 116)