Wyclif’s Latin works

De ecclesia, chapter 15, part 4

The third argument: the king must take abused alms and restore them to the church

Loserth pp. 340.17–342.12

¶1340.17–342.12

340Tercio principaliter arguitur de lege Dei atque ecclesie quod rex debet in casu subtrahere suas elemosinas a nominetenus clericis et restituere eas sancte matri ecclesie. Nam hoc foret complementum iusticie, prodessens altrinsecus omniquaque; cum ergo ad regem maxime pertinet facere iusticiam in rebus subiectis suo dominio, sequitur quod ad regem pertinentissime spectat complementum talis iusticie. Antecedens patet ex hoc quod omnis sic pertinaciter abutens bonis ecclesie est hereticus (ut patet in fine XIIIⁱ cap.). Sed cum omnis hereticus iniuste occupans bona regni nostri est spoliandus, et bona restituenda veris dominis, videtur quod bona illa quibus rex tam principaliter dominatur, sunt per regem confiscanda et veris dominis restituenda, specialiter in tam pertinaci desidia spiritualis prepositi. Nec valet dicere quod ad regem non pertinet cognoscere super heretica pravitate; quia 341ad regem pertinet cognoscere quod elemosinarius suus vivat clericaliter, tum quia sub illa condicione sunt elemosine sibi date, tum eciam quia degenerando ab ista vita foret monstrum maxime proditorie faciens ad destruccionem regni, et per consequens incurrens contemptum regis gravissimum. Ideo idem foret cecare regem et regnum per istum fucum sophisticum et dicere illis quod non pertinet eis cognoscere quid foret saluti anime eorum et gubernacioni regni necessarium. Et revera quicunque hoc imposuerit regi nostro, imponit sibi implicite quod non sit habilis ad regnandum. Rex ergo tenetur scire per se vel suum executivum consilium quid vergeret ad sui ac regni maius periculum, quod indubie foret omissio corrigendi quia secundum beatum Gregorium et leges quotlibet: Qui emendare potest et negligit absque dubio participem delicti se ipsum constituit. Consideret ergo de cleri crimine rex vel suum consilium secundum racionem qua est ipsius regni cuius rex accepit gubernacula destructivum, sicut docet beatus Gregorius in Registro lib. XI°, cap. XXIX° (ut superius allegavi). Confirmatur tripliciter, primo per hoc quod iuxta decretum beati Gregorii positum XIª, q. IIIª, Privilegium: Privilegium omnino debet amittere qui sibi permissa abutitur potestate. Sed omnis clericus abutens elemosinis regis sibi permissa abutitur potestate, cum ergo illa dotacio sit privilegium, sequitur quod illud omnino debet amittere. Sed per quem nisi per regem privilegiantem? Illius enim est privilegium interpretari et defendere cuius est condere. Confirmatur ex illo Matthei, XIII° 12: Omni habenti dabitur et habundabit, 342ab eo autem qui non habet et quod videtur habere auferetur ab eo. Cum ergo rex tenetur sic habundare ex titulo iusticie, videtur quod ab eo debet causari ablacio sui elemosinarii, supposito quod contingat eum videri habere elemosinas quas non habet; et propter talem abusum habitualem dixi dominos temporales posse auferre bona sua a clericis micius quam loquitur beatus Gregorius cum canone, quia ipsi dicunt confuse quod privilegium omnino debet amittere propter abusum. Ego autem specifico abusum pertinacem qui inducit pravitatem hereticam, et tunc nulli dubium debet elemosinator subtrahere patrimonium Crucifixi.

Third, it is argued principally from the law of God and of the churchecclesia: church that the king ought, in a given case, to withdraw his almselemosina: alms from those who are clerics in name only and restore them to holy mother church.1 For this would be the fulfilment of justice, profiting on both sides in every way;2 since, therefore, it belongs most of all to the king to do justice in things subject to his lordshipdominium: lordship, it followssequitur: it follows that the fulfilment of such justice belongs most properly to the king. The antecedentconsequens / antecedens: consequent / antecedent is clear from this, that everyone who so pertinaciously abuses the goods of the church is a heretic (as is clear at the end of chapter 13).3 Now since every heretic unjustly occupying the goods of our kingdomregnum: kingdom is to be despoiled, and the goods are to be restored to their true lords, it seems that those goods over which the king so principally exercises lordshipdominus; dominari: lord; to exercise lordship / to lord it are to be confiscated by the king and restored to their true lords, especially in so pertinacious a sloth of the spiritual superiorprepositi: superiors. Nor is it any use to say that it does not belong to the king to take cognizance of heretical depravityheretica pravitas: heretical depravity; because 341it belongs to the king to take cognizance that his almsmanelemosinarius: almsman lives as a cleric, both because the alms were given to him under that condition, and also because, degenerating from that life, he would be a monster acting most treasonably toward the destruction of the kingdom, and consequently falling into the gravest contempt of the king.4 Therefore it would be the same thing to blind the king and kingdom with this sophistical disguise and to tell them that it does not belong to them to know what would be necessary for the salvation of their soul and for the government of the kingdom. And truly, whoever lays this on our king lays implicitly to his charge that he is not fit to reign. The king, therefore, is bound to know, by himself or through his executive council, what would tend to the greater danger of himself and the kingdom; and that without doubt would be the omission to correct, because according to blessed Gregory and any number of laws: "Whoever can amend and neglects to, without doubt makes himself a partaker of the offence."5 Let the king, then, or his council consider the crime of the clergy according to the respect in which it is destructive of the very kingdom whose government the king has received, as blessed Gregory teaches in the Register, book 11, chapter 29 (as I allegedallegare / allegacio: allege / allegation above).6 This is confirmed in three ways. First by this, that according to the decree of blessed Gregory placed in [C.] 11 q. 3, Privilegium: "He ought to lose his privilegeprivilegium / privilegiare / privilegiacio: privilege / to privilege / privileging altogether who abuses the power permitted to him."7 Now every cleric who abuses the king’s alms abuses the power permitted to him; since, therefore, that endowmentdotacio: endowment is a privilege, it follows that he ought to lose it altogether. But through whom, if not through the privilegingprivilegium / privilegiare / privilegiacio: privilege / to privilege / privileging king? For it belongs to him whose it is to make a privilege to interpret and defend it.8 It is confirmed from that of Matthew 13:12: "To every one that hath shall be given, and he shall abound: 342but from him that hath not, that also which he seemeth to have shall be taken away."9 Since, therefore, the king is bound so to abound by title of justice, it seems that the taking-awayablacio: taking-away from his almsman ought to be caused by him, supposing it happens that the almsman seems to have alms which he does not have; and on account of such habitual abuse I have said that temporal lordstemporales domini: temporal lords can take away their goods from clerics, more mildly than blessed Gregory speaks with the canon, because they say indistinctlyconfuse / confusus (fides, noticia): indistinct(ly) that a man ought to lose his privilege altogether for abuse.10 But I specify pertinacious abuse, which brings in heretical depravity; and then it is doubtful to no one [that] the almsgiverelemosinator: almsgiver ought to withdraw the patrimony of the Crucified.

Notes

  1. 1 A in the margin at 340.19: Tercia racio. Nominetenus clericis: clerics "in name only", the clericus nudo nomine of 333.
  2. 2 Prodessens (340.21) is not a classical form; taken as a participle of prodesse, "profiting". B reads omniquam for omniquaque.
  3. 3 "Chapter 13": A reads XXII, corrected to XIII; A₁ XXII (340.26). The reference is to the close of chapter 13.
  4. 4 Contemptum regis gravissimum: the gravest contempt toward the king, the forfeiting condition of 337. B reads detraccionem for destruccionem (341.5). A in the margin at 340.32: Ficcio, of the objection.
  5. 5 No reference at the page foot. Gregory to Brunhild, qui emendare potest et negligit, participem se procul dubio delicti constituit (PL 77, Registrum lib. XI; Ivo cites it as lib. IX ep. 64). Decretum D. 86 c. 3, Facientis proculdubio culpam habet, is only a loose parallel, and it is John VIII’s. B in the margin: Nota quomodo rex secundum Gregorium habet interesse ad defectus clericorum corrigendos; A: Rex peccat, si non corrigit clericum elemosinis abutentem. Loserth compares Hus, fol. 123.
  6. 6 Gregory, Registrum XI.29 in Wyclif’s numbering, cited earlier in the treatise; the letter to Brunhild of n5 (PL 77, Reg. XI.69, 1170–71: ne paucorum facinus multorum possit esse perditio; nam causa sunt ruinae populi sacerdotes mali); PL’s XI.29 is to Queen Bertha. Ut superius allegavi refers to n5’s quotation. Racionem: "the respect in which", not the technical "aspect" against substancia.
  7. 7 Decretum C. 11 q. 3 c. 63 (form ours), which reads privilegium omnino meretur amittere, "deserves to lose"; Wyclif has debet, "ought". The first Privilegium is the canon’s incipit. A in the margin at 341.28: Triplex confirmacio.
  8. 8 The legal maxim eius est interpretari cuius est condere. The brocard itself is not in the Corpus iuris; its roots are Codex 1.14.12.5 (tam conditor quam interpres legum solus imperator) and Gratian’s dictum at C. 25 q. 1 §2, ipsi namque soli canones valent interpretari qui ius condendi eos habent.
  9. 9 Wyclif cites Matt. 13:12 but quotes Matt. 25:29 (Vulgate ei autem qui non habet; Wyclif ab eo autem), whose Douay–Rheims wording is given.
  10. 10 Ablacio sui elemosinarii: the taking-away from his almsman, an objective genitive of the one deprived. Micius quam … Gregorius cum canone: Wyclif’s rule is milder, since he requires pertinacious abuse where the canon says omnino without distinction. B reads clerum abusum (342.6).
How the Latin of this chapter was established
  • Plate readings; page · reading · note):
    • 341: ad (176c is the folio mark, I the alinea letter)
    • 341: foret
    • 341: lib (print: Registro lib. XI°) [NW]
    • 342: elemosinarii
    • 342: videri
    • 342: propter (5 after it is the line number)
    • 341: XIª, q. IIIª, (output XI^, covers XIª, q. IIIª, (pos 170 absent); box on q. IIIª,) [-MARK]