De ecclesia, chapter 15, part 5

Correction as the king’s spiritual alms, and the objection of defamation

Loserth pp. 342.13–348.23

¶1342.13–348.23

342Secundo confirmatur ex hoc quod rex (in quantum huiusmodi) habet privilegium concessum a Deo et acceptum a populo ad regnandum; si ergo abutitur sua potestate in desidia correccionis, que maxime spectaret ad regis officium, quis dubitat quin secundum legem premissam rex teneretur amittere regnum suum? Unde inter alia peccata regum videtur quod omissio correccionis et auctorizacio curati inhabilis sit peccatum periculosissimum a regibus absconditum, cum ut sic sunt reges socii defensorum. Et ad illud potest adduci illud dictum Christi Matthei XXI°, 43: Auferetur a vobis regnum et dabitur genti facienti fructus eius. Non enim posset esse maior contemptus domini quam de suo patrimonio contra ipsum defendere hostem suum. Et ad hoc sunt multe concordancie legum (ut dixi in materia De Symonia); taliter enim meretur tam rex quam symoniacus ut ab eis tamquam ab hereticis dominus auferatur, ut loquitur propheta Osee V°, 6, sacerdotibus et regibus: In armentis suis vadent ad querendum dominum et non invenient: ablatus est ab eis. Talis ergo thesauri ablacio depauperaret regnum ad sui maximum detrimentum. 343Unde solebam dicere quod ablacio quedam est utrimque bona, ut Marci II°, 20, dicit Christus quod auferetur a discipulis suis sponsus, quandoque tantum alterutrum bona (ut Osee V°), quandoque vero utrimque mala, ut quando criminosi spoliant sese reciproce, semper autem est ablacio passiva bona ablatario permanente in caritativa paciencia. Tercio confirmatur ex lege debiti elemosine spiritualis. Nam rex tenetur tam ex iure Dei quam iure regni servare quantum sufficit legiis suis iusticiam et debitum opus spiritualis misericordie (ut patet superius tractatu De Privilegiis), sed precipuum opus talis misericordie regi pertinens foret castigacio coactiva ad continuandum suas elemosinas; ergo illud debet impendere. Unde qui offenduntur maxime ad verbum de ablacione temporalium vendicant quod seculares defendant elemosinas suorum progenitorum in suo robore permanentes, quod non fit (iuxta dicta XIII° cap.) nisi dum ecclesia habet profectum ex modo elemosinandi, sic quod collata remaneant in racione privilegii vel elemosine, quod extinguitur dum elemosinarii collatis elemosinis abutuntur; quamvis enim remaneat pie donantis voluntas, cum donum corporale perdit racionem elemosine per abusum, et fuisset meritum donatoris extensius, supposito quod sui elemosinarii proficerent magis ecclesie, quia in ipsis elemosinantes magis proficerent. Sic enim secundum beatum Bernardum peccatum Petri Abellardi est adhuc incertum, antequam noscatur quod homines ex sua heresi seducentur. Unde solet dici communiter quod elemosina habet perfeccionem essencialem que attenditur penes fervorem 344caritatis, secundum quam elemosinans miseretur, et perfeccionem accidentalem que capitur penes quantitatem fructus ex illa occasionata posterius. Ego autem credo quod aliud est genus elemosinandi in predestinatis et aliud in prescitis. Nam tota elemosina quam facit predestinatus limitat sibi gradum beatitudinis ad quem parcialiter proficiunt singule partes eius. Elemosina autem totalis presciti concurrit secundum se totam ad mitigandum penam perpetuam. Si domini temporales (ut elemosinati vendicant) tenentur continuare elemosinas patrum quorum sunt heredes, tunc tenentur ad omne inde sequens formaliter, quia aliter contra possibilitatem obligacionis divine forent ad contradictoria obligati, scilicet ad faciendum ipsas esse elemosinas et ad defendendum earum abusum in discolis, secundum quam racionem carent forma elemosine. Ergo cum reges Anglie tenentur servare elemosinas suorum progenitorum in sua perpetuitate, tenentur insuper ex lege spiritualis elemosine suos legios castigare, tenentur tercio ex obligacione qua tenentur facere legiis suis iusticiam et extinguere iniurias que vergunt periculosissime ad sui populi detrimentum; patet quod tenentur in casu bona sua ecclesie sancte restituere et a comtemptoribus Dei sui et regni auferre. Hoc enim fuit pactum dotacionis primeve. Ideo audenter assero, si cum istis paribus rex noster non habet potestatem ad faciendum in clero suo opus misericorditer castigandi, non habet sufficienciam super totali regno nostro politice dominandi, ymmo si bene attendimus ad scripturam sacram et dicta de privilegiis ecclesie, et sonat in privilegium regis quod habeat potenciam taliter clericos cohercendi, et clerici habent 345privilegium eo quod habent talem prepositum cui sic meritorie possunt subdi. Illi ergo qui dicunt quod rex habet potestatem incomprehensibilem castigando leones et faciendo corporales sanaciones cum aliis que vocant miracula, laxarent porcionem sue potencie ad regulandum regnum suum in clero, cum hoc et eius actus foret excellencius et plus fundabile ex scriptura. Nonne foret excellencius castigare freneticos, peccatores et discolos scole Christi quam domare feras que non tantum nocent ecclesie? Nonne iterum foret opus maioris virtutis gignere virtutes in mente disciplinabili occasione castigacionis salubris, qua ablata ab ecclesia virtutes ab indomito subtrahuntur, quam inducere virtualiter corpoream sanitatem? Utrobique namque est rex nudum instrumentum Dei qui dans regi virtutem subautenticam principaliter operatur. Et sic (ut sepe dixi) rex nedum faceret opus maioris virtutis in castigando subditos quam faciendo quoscunque actus mirabiles corporales, sed eciam quam accumulando quotlibet temporalia cleri Christi, nam tales virtutes faciendi sanitates corporeas possunt inesse bestiis, terre nascentibus atque lapidibus sed non virtus correccionis salubris. Et iterum adieccio temporalium communiter non est ita propinqua ultime necessitati salvacionis presentis corporee, sicut subtraccio abusi est propinqua ultime necessitati salvacionis perpetue tam corporis quam anime. Sicut enim est opus maioris misericordie auferre gladium a frenetico volente se ipsum occidere quam dare gladium persecuto ad defendendum se a volente eum occidere, quia peius foret hominem occidi sic a se ipso quam occidi ab alio, quia primum est dampnabile et secundum semper meritorium sive 346iustum; et ad hoc sunt multe leges ecclesie, ut allegavi superius XI° cap. huius ex dictis Augustini positis XXIIIª, q. IVª, Nimium, et Ipsa pietas, et Quid faciet; et illud patet Vᵗᵃ, q. Vᵗᵃ, ubi sub auctoritate Augustini scribitur: Non vos iudicetis malivolos esse, quando crimen alterius indicatis; magis quippe nocentes non indicando crimen estis, quam si fratres vestros quos indicando corrigere potestis tacendo crimen perire permittitis. Si enim frater tuus habet vulnus in corpore quod velit occultari, dum timet secari, nonne crudeliter a te siletur et misericorditer indicatur? Quanto ergo pocius debes manifestare ne deterius putrescat in corde? Et sequitur: Non omnis qui parcit amicus est, nec omnis qui verberat inimicus; meliora enim sunt vulnera amici quam fraudulenta oscula inimici; melius est cum severitate diligere quam cum lenitate decipere. Et sequitur ad propositum: Utilius esurienti panis tollitur, si de cibo securus negligat iusticiam, quam esurienti panis frangitur, ut iniusticie seductus acquiescat. Et qui freneticum ligat et qui litargicum excitat ambobus molestus ambos amat. Quis non potest amplius amare quam Deus, et tamen nos non solum docere suaviter, verum eciam salubriter terrere non cessat, ut docet Apostolus Hebreorum XII°. Fomentis lenibus quibus Deus omnes consolatur, sepe eciam mordacissimum medicamentum tribulaminis adiungit, exercet fame patriarchas, pios et religiosos, populum autem contumacem penis gravioribus agitat, non aufert ab apostolo stimulum carnis, tercio rogatus ut virtutem in infirmitate perficiat. Ex quotquot 347dictis sanctorum exponencium fidem scripture patet quod de lege caritatis et spiritualis elemosine sub pena dampnabilis consensus tenetur prepositus subiectos corripere. Unde inter omnia peccata de quibus magis timeo in superioribus regni nostri, sunt ceca pietas, falsa misericordia et consentanea omissio, sive ex negligencia sive (quod maxime horrendum est), quando venditur consensus criminis et iniuste ac proditorie per patrimonium Christi defenditur eius hostis. Unde Augustinus epistola XXXVIIª ad Macedonium: Misericordius opem nostram talibus subtrahimus quam impendimus. Non enim opem fert qui ad peccandum iuvat ac non pocius subvertit et opprimit. Sed contra dicta primo obicitur per hoc quod nemo debet defamare proximum et specialiter christos Dei. Illi autem qui illud obiciunt parum considerant quomodo mendax (in quantum huiusmodi) defamat se ipsum, et iterum quomodo ex verbis istis generalibus legis domini se putans defamatum indicat ut sic se esse legis Dei adversarium, et iterum parum considerat quomodo prophete veteris testamenti, Christus et leges ecclesie acutissime instant contra solum nomine sacerdotes; et racio est, quia in eorum subversione imminet maius periculum matri ecclesie. Et illud meminit decretum, LXXXIIIª dist., ubi sic scribitur: Nemo quippe in ecclesia amplius nocet quam qui perverse agens nomen vel ordinem sanctitatis vel sacerdotis habet. Delinquentem namque hunc redarguere nullus presumit, et in exemplum culpa 348vehementer extenditur, quando peccator pro reverencia ordinis honoratur. Episcopus itaque qui talium crimina non corrigit magis dicendus est canis impudicus quam episcopus. Ista, inquam, iura sanctorum ideo incorporata sunt in canone, non ut palea perpetuo taceantur, sed ut ad laudem bonorum cum modestia detegantur. Et dico cum modestia, quia contingit hominem in dicendo veritatem modum excedere, ut notatur in decretis Vª, q. Vª, Qui ambulat, ubi solvendo apparenciam repugnancie in ista materia sic scribitur: Aliud est ex caritate aliorum crimina deferre, ut quos secreta ammonicione corrigere non possumus, convictos iudicis sentencia corripiat, atque aliud est insidiando falsa obicere vel insultando vera facile exprobare. Illud vero caritatis, hoc autem est impietatis officium. Unde Proverb. XII, 6, dicitur: Verba impiorum insidiantur sanguini, os iustorum liberat eos. Et infra: Qui quod novit loquitur iudex iusticie est, qui autem mentitur testis est fraudulentus. Oportet ergo accusatorem servare integritatem veritatis et rectitudinem intencionis. Ego autem preservo me a descensu ad singularia quiescens more philosophorum in communi sentencia.

Second, it is confirmed from this, that the king (as such) has a privilege to reign, granted by God and accepted by the people; if, therefore, he abuses his power in sloth of correction, which would belong most of all to the king’s office, who doubts that according to the law set out before, the king would be bound to lose his kingdom?¹ Hence among the other sins of kings it seems that the omission of correction and the authorizing of an unqualified curate is a most dangerous sin hidden from kings, since as such kings are partners of those defended.² And to this can be brought that saying of Christ, Matthew 21:43: "The kingdom shall be taken from you and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof."³ For there could be no greater contempt of the Lord than to defend his enemy against him out of his own patrimony. And to this there are many concordances of the laws (as I said in the matter On Simony);⁴ for in such a way the king as well as the simoniac deserves that the Lord be taken away from them as from heretics, as the prophet Hosea 5:6 says to priests and kings: "With their herds they shall go to seek the Lord, and shall not find him: he is withdrawn from them."⁵ Such a taking-away of treasure, therefore, would impoverish the kingdom to its greatest detriment. 343Hence I used to say that one kind of taking-away is good on both sides, as Christ says in Mark 2:20 that the bridegroom shall be taken away from his disciples; sometimes it is good on one side only (as in Hosea 5); but sometimes bad on both sides, as when criminals despoil one another; but passive taking-away is always good when the one from whom it is taken remains in charitable patience.⁶ Third, it is confirmed from the law of the duty of spiritual alms. For the king is bound, by the law of God as well as by the law of the kingdom, to keep for his lieges, so far as suffices, justice and the due work of spiritual mercy (as is clear above in the treatise On Privileges);⁷ now the chief work of such mercy belonging to the king would be coactive chastisement for the continuing of his alms; therefore he ought to bestow it.⁸ Hence those who are most offended at talk of the taking-away of temporal goods claim that seculars should defend the alms of their forebears as remaining in their force; which does not happen (according to what was said in chapter 13) except while the church has profit from the manner of almsgiving, so that the things conferred remain in the character of a privilege or of alms; and this is extinguished when the almsmen abuse the alms conferred. For although the will of the one who piously gives remains, when the bodily gift loses the character of alms through abuse; and the giver’s merit would have been more extensive, supposing his almsmen profited the church more, because in them the almsgivers would profit more.⁹ For so, according to blessed Bernard, the sin of Peter Abelard is as yet uncertain, before it is known that men will be led astray by his heresy.¹⁰ Hence it is commonly said that alms has an essential perfection, which is reckoned by the fervour of 344charity according to which the almsgiver has mercy, and an accidental perfection, which is taken by the quantity of fruit afterwards occasioned by it.¹¹ But I believe that the kind of almsgiving in the predestinate is one thing and in the foreknown another. For the whole alms that a predestinate [person] gives assigns him a degree of blessedness, toward which each of its parts contributes in part. But the total alms of a foreknown [person] concurs as a whole to mitigating the perpetual punishment.¹² If temporal lords (as the almsmen claim) are bound to continue the alms of the fathers whose heirs they are, then they are bound to everything that follows from that formally; because otherwise, against the possibility of divine obligation, they would be obliged to contradictories, namely to making them be alms and to defending their abuse in the froward, in which respect they lack the form of alms.¹³ Therefore, since the kings of England are bound to keep the alms of their forebears in their perpetuity, are bound further by the law of spiritual alms to chastise their lieges, and are bound, third, by the obligation by which they are bound to do justice to their lieges and to extinguish wrongs which tend most dangerously to the detriment of their people, it is clear that they are bound in a given case to restore their goods to holy church and to take them away from those who hold their God and the kingdom in contempt. For this was the compact of the first endowment. Therefore I boldly assert: if, these things being equal, our king does not have power to do in his clergy the work of mercifully chastising, he does not have sufficiency to exercise lordship politically over our whole kingdom.¹⁴ Indeed, if we attend well to holy scripture and to what has been said of the privileges of the church, it both makes for the privilege of the king that he has power so to coerce clerics, and the clerics have 345a privilege in that they have such a superior to whom they can thus meritoriously be subject. Those, therefore, who say that the king has an incomprehensible power in chastising lions and in performing bodily healings, with other things which they call miracles, should grant a portion of his power for regulating his kingdom in the clergy, since this and its act would be more excellent and more founded in scripture.¹⁵ Would it not be more excellent to chastise the frenzied, the sinners and the froward of Christ’s school than to tame wild beasts, which do not harm the church so much? Again, would it not be a work of greater power to beget virtues in a teachable mind by occasion of wholesome chastisement (for when that is taken away from the church, the virtues are withdrawn from the untamed) than to induce bodily health by power?¹⁶ For in both cases the king is the bare instrument of God, who, giving the king a sub-authentic power, works as the principal [agent]. And so (as I have often said) the king would do a work of greater power in chastising his subjects not only than in doing any wondrous bodily acts whatever, but also than in heaping up any number of temporal goods for the clergy of Christ; for such powers of producing bodily healings can be in beasts, in things growing from the earth and in stones, but not the power of wholesome correction. And again, the addition of temporal goods is commonly not so near to the ultimate necessity of present bodily salvation as the withdrawal of what is abused is near to the ultimate necessity of perpetual salvation, of body as well as soul.¹⁷ For just as it is a work of greater mercy to take away a sword from a frenzied man who wants to kill himself than to give a sword to a man pursued, to defend himself from one who wants to kill him, because it would be worse for a man to be killed thus by himself than to be killed by another, since the first is damnable and the second always meritorious or 346just;¹⁸ and to this there are many laws of the church, as I alleged above in chapter 11 of this [work] from the sayings of Augustine placed in [C.] 23 q. 4, Nimium, Ipsa pietas and Quid faciet.¹⁹ And this is clear in [C.] 5 q. 5, where it is written under the authority of Augustine: "Do not judge yourselves to be malevolent when you point out another’s crime; for you are rather guilty in not pointing out the crime than if you let your brothers, whom you could correct by pointing it out, perish by keeping silent about the crime. For if your brother has a wound in his body which he wants hidden while he fears the knife, is it not cruelly kept silent by you and mercifully pointed out? How much more, then, ought you to make it known, lest it fester worse in the heart?"²⁰ And it continues: "Not everyone who spares is a friend, nor everyone who strikes an enemy; for better are the wounds of a friend than the deceitful kisses of an enemy; it is better to love with severity than to deceive with gentleness."²¹ And it continues, to the purpose: "It is more useful for bread to be taken from a hungry man, if, secure of his food, he neglects justice, than for bread to be broken for a hungry man so that, led astray, he acquiesces in injustice. And he who binds the frenzied man and he who rouses the lethargic man is troublesome to both and loves both. Who can love [us] more than God? And yet he does not cease not only to teach us gently but also to terrify us wholesomely," as the Apostle teaches, Hebrews 12.²² "To the gentle poultices with which God consoles all he often adds also the most biting medicine of tribulation; he exercises with famine the patriarchs, pious and religious men, but harries the contumacious people with heavier punishments; he does not take away from the Apostle the sting of the flesh, though asked a third time, so that he may perfect power in infirmity."²³ From any number of 347sayings of the saints expounding the faith of scripture it is clear that, by the law of charity and of spiritual alms, under pain of damnable consent, a superior is bound to rebuke his subjects. Hence among all the sins which I fear most in the superiors of our kingdom are blind piety, false mercy and consenting omission, whether from negligence or (what is most horrible) when consent to crime is sold, and Christ’s enemy is unjustly and treasonably defended by means of Christ’s patrimony. Hence Augustine, letter 37 to Macedonius: "We more mercifully withdraw our help from such men than bestow it. For he does not bring help who assists toward sinning, and does not rather overturn and suppress."²⁴ But against what has been said it is objected, by appeal to this, first: that no one ought to defame his neighbour, and especially the anointed of God.²⁵ But those who object this consider too little how a liar (as such) defames himself; and again how he who, from these general words of the Lord’s law, thinks himself defamed shows himself, as such, to be an adversary of God’s law; and again he considers too little how the prophets of the old testament, Christ and the laws of the church press most sharply against those who are priests in name only; and the reason is that in their subversion a greater danger threatens mother church.²⁶ And the decree mentions this, dist. 83, where it is written thus: "For no one in the church does more harm than he who, acting perversely, has the name or the order of holiness or of priest. For no one presumes to refute him when he offends, and the fault 348is vehemently extended as an example when the sinner is honoured out of reverence for his order. So a bishop who does not correct the crimes of such men is rather to be called a shameless dog than a bishop."²⁷ These laws of the saints, I say, have been incorporated in the canon for this reason: not that they should be kept silent forever like chaff, but that they should be exposed with moderation to the praise of the good.²⁸ And I say "with moderation", because it happens that a man, in speaking the truth, exceeds measure, as is noted in the decrees, [C.] 5 q. 5, Qui ambulat, where, in resolving an apparent contradiction in this matter, it is written thus: "It is one thing out of charity to report the crimes of others, so that those whom we cannot correct by secret admonition the judge’s sentence may rebuke when convicted; and another thing by lying in wait to object falsehoods, or by insulting to reproach readily with truths. The former is the office of charity, the latter of impiety."²⁹ Hence it is said in Proverbs 12:6: "The words of the wicked lie in wait for blood: the mouth of the just delivereth them." And below: "He that speaketh that which he knoweth is a judge of justice: but he that lieth, is a deceitful witness."³⁰ An accuser, therefore, must keep integrity of truth and rightness of intention. But I keep myself from descending to particulars, resting, after the manner of the philosophers, in a general teaching.³¹

Notes

1 Secundum legem premissam: the canon Privilegium of 341 (C. 11 q. 3), applied to the king’s own privilege of rule.
2 Socii defensorum: taken from defensus, "partners of those [they] defend", the unworthy curates; it could be from defensor, "fellows of the defenders". Auctorizacio: the king’s approving of a curate presented to him.
3 Matt. 21:43; the Vulgate reads regnum Dei, "the kingdom of God", and Wyclif’s regnum lets it bear on the king’s kingdom.
4 Wyclif’s treatment of simony: perhaps ch. 13 above (295–96), simony as heresy from C.1 q.1; his De simonia is dated after this treatise by its editors.
5 Hos. 5:6; the Vulgate begins In gregibus suis et in armentis suis, "With their flocks and with their herds". Hos. 5:1 addresses the priests and the house of the king. Ablatus est, Douay–Rheims "withdrawn", is the same verb as auferatur and ablacio, on which the following lines turn.
6 Mark 2:20, paraphrased. Ablatario: the one from whom something is taken. Alterutrum: good on one side only, as in Hosea, where the loss is the sinner’s and the Lord’s withdrawal just.
7 Tractatu De Privilegiis: the discussion of privilege in chapters 8–11 of this work; the king’s duty of justice to his lieges is at 218 (10-d), correction as the greater work of mercy at 237 (11-b). Lure regni is read iure.
8 Ad continuandum suas elemosinas: chastisement is the means by which the king’s alms continue to be alms (as the next sentences explain), not a duty to keep paying them.
9 The period has no main clause: quamvis … remaneat is followed by a cum clause and an et clause, and no apodosis comes. The sense is that the giver’s will and merit survive though the gift ceases to be alms. Voluntas is lacking in A and B and added in A₁’s margin (343.23); Loserth prints it, and it is translated. B reads tum donum. Chapter 13: A in the text XXII, corrected in the margin (343.18).
10 The idea that a heresiarch’s sin grows with those it misleads, attributed to Bernard, but not found in his writings against Abelard; the same idea is told of Arius and credited to Augustine at 496.13–15. B reads est adhuc meritum (343.28).
11 A and B in the margin at 343.30: Nota de duplici perfeccione. Loserth compares Hus, l. c.. The distinction is called common, not attributed.
12 Limitat: "assigns", fixes for him a degree of blessedness. Concurrit: B concurribilis (344.8).
13 Secundum quam racionem: "in which respect", that is, as abused, they lack the form of alms. Formaliter: Hus reads formari (344.12).
14 Politice: Loserth’s correction; the manuscripts read polelice (344.29). Cum istis paribus: "these things being equal", as at 337.
15 The powers popularly ascribed to the English king: healing by touch (the king’s evil) and the taming of lions (cf. M. Bloch, Les rois thaumaturges, 1924; for the lions, pp. 256–8). Loserth compares Hus, l. c. (345.3).
16 Virtus is both "power" and "virtue"; Wyclif plays on the two (opus maioris virtutis gignere virtutes). "Power" is used for the faculty, "virtues" for the moral habits. Virtualiter: by power, not by bodily means.
17 Salvacio: the same word for bodily safety and eternal salvation, kept as "salvation" in both to keep the pairing. B omits presentis … salvacionis (345.25). B in the margin at 345.30: Nota non intelligo, "Note: I do not understand"; it stands near this comparison and the next. Loserth compares Hus, fol. 133 (345.24).
18 The sicut clause has no answering sic; the period runs on into et ad hoc. Secundum semper meritorium: to be killed by another (as the persecuted man may be) is always meritorious or just, against the damnable self-killing.
19 Decretum C. 23 q. 4 c. 37 Nimium, c. 24 Ipsa pietas and c. 23 Quid faciet; chapter 11 above. B reads superius XX cap. (346.2).
20 Decretum C. 5 q. 5 c. 1 (Loserth: Decreti sec. pars, causa V, q. V, c. I et II; form ours), from Augustine’s Regula (Ep. 211). The Decretum reads malivolos, quoniam crimen. Magis quippe nocentes … quam si: the comparison does not close as printed; Augustine’s text reads magis quippe innocentes non estis, si, "for you are not the more innocent if"; Gratian’s manuscripts read nocentes estis and the Roman edition innocentes non estis. Wyclif’s sentence conflates the two. The print is translated.
21 Decretum C. 5 q. 5 c. 2, from Augustine, Ep. 93 to Vincentius, quoting Prov. 27:6 (Vulgate vulnera diligentis … odientis; Douay–Rheims "of a friend … of an enemy", which Augustine’s wording matches). B reads cum securitate diligere (346.16–17).
22 Quis non potest amplius amare quam Deus (346.22, so on the plate): as printed, "who cannot love more than God?", which does not fit the argument or the following nos. We read nos for non (our emendation), the reading of the source: Augustine Ep. 93 and Decretum C. 5 q. 5 c. 2 both have Quis nos potest amplius amare quam Deus. The print shows non with no apparatus, so the slip is the manuscripts’ or Wyclif’s; the emendation was approved. Heb. 12:6, "whom the Lord loveth he chastiseth", is the Apostle’s teaching meant.
23 Tribulaminis: the Decretum reads tribulacionis (346.27). In infirmitate: the manuscripts in firmitate, corrected by Loserth from the Decretum (346.31). S. 2 Cor. 12:7–9, "power is made perfect in infirmity". A in the margin at 346.24: De correccione per ablacionem nota bene.
24 Non enim opem fert: the manuscripts Num enim, corrected by Loserth from Augustine (347.12). S. Augustine, letter to Macedonius (Loserth: Aug. Opp. tom. II, p. 532), which Wyclif numbers 37; Ep. 153 in the modern numbering (PL 33: misericordius opem nostram … subtrahimus). Loserth compares Hus at 347.4–11.
25 Christos Dei: cf. Ps. 104:15, "Touch ye not my anointed". A in the margin at 347.17: Obieccio; at 347.18: Responsio.
26 Mendax … defamat se ipsum: the one who calls true words defamation defames himself. Se putans: B se reputans (347.20). The verb shifts from considerant to considerat in the print; both are kept. A in the margin: 83 dist.
27 Decretum D. 83 c. 2 (Loserth: Dec. I pars, dist. LXXXIII, c. II; form ours). The Decretum reads quoniam peccator (348.1). B reads Episcopus in quantum (348.2), and in the margin: Episcopus omittens subditos corrigere dicendus est canis impudicus. A in the margin: Nota decretum quantum nocet malus episcopus, papa etc.
28 Palea: "chaff", perhaps with a play on the paleae, the later additions to the Decretum, though the canon just quoted (D. 83 c. 2) is not one. Iura: "laws", the body of law, not rights. A and B read Ista itaque iura (348.4).
29 Decretum C. 5 q. 5 c. 5, Qui ambulat (Loserth: Dec. II pars, causa V, q. V, c. V; form ours). C. Sentencia: CONTEXTUAL; here the judge’s sentence. A in the margin at 348.9: Accusator quomodo debet se habere.
30 Prov. 12:6, where the Vulgate has the future liberabit, "shall deliver"; Wyclif’s present is translated. Prov. 12:17: the Vulgate has index iustitiae, Douay–Rheims "sheweth forth justice"; Wyclif’s iudex, "judge", is translated.
31 In communi sentencia: CONTEXTUAL; a teaching stated in general terms, against singularia, particular cases. A₁ adds nomina after singularia (348.22), "particular names"; A₁ alone, not adopted.

How the Latin of this chapter was established

Plate readings; page · reading · note):
- 342: regnandum
- 342: 43 (print: Matthei XXI°, 43: Auferetur; voted Auferetur twice at 172-173)
- 342: detrimentum (print detri- / mentum; main token holds the whole word)
- 343: est (1 is the margin argument numeral)
- 343: II°
- 343: lege
- 343: legiis [NW]
- 344: capitur (p clear)
- 344: legiis [NW]
- 345: Illi (M is the alinea letter)
- 346: XXIIIª
- 346: IVª
- 346: Vᵗᵃ
- 346: Vᵗᵃ
- 347: dictis (177b folio mark and N alinea letter are not text)
- 347: legis
- 347: LXXXIIIª
- 348: Vª
- 348: Vª
- 344: posterius (clear ri in print) [NW]
- 346: et
- 346: perficiat
- 346.22: non in Quis non potest confirmed on the plate (n0383); translated as nos (note 22).