Wyclif’s Latin works

De ecclesia, chapter 15, part 7

The pope’s binding and loosing, and the bishop of Rochester

Loserth pp. 352.17–356.16

¶1352.17–354.19

352Sed quantum ad iurisdiccionem istam cesaream vel primatum, patet, cum regnum nostrum sit exemptum a iurisdiccione cesarea, quod nec iurisdiccio coactiva sui episcopi astringit nos nisi de quanto est fundabilis ex sacra scriptura. Sed volvat et revolvat adversarius fidem scripture et non inveniet iurisdiccionem talem. Sed quicunque sacerdos expressius docuerit legem Christi, Christo est in illo obediendum devocius, cum talis primatus introductus est ex ritu cesareo, sic quod, sive prepositus fuerit ydoneus sive non, populus fidelis Christo obediat. Si ergo nos Anglici gratis tantum obedimus papa nostro Urbano VIº, tamquam humili servo Christi, sicut scismatici obediunt Clementi propter dominium et potenciam secularem, quis dubitat quin ut sic habemus racionem meriti amplioris? Et possibilitatem omnium istorum quinque in Gregorio XI et suis complicibus oculata fide poterimus conspexisse. Dicitur enim quod ipse cum suis pseudocardinalibus dampnavit quatuor veritates 353catholicas et approbavit quatuor hereses cardinales, sicut vidi notatum in quadam epistola maledicta ab homine, sed a nemine reprobata. Nec horreamus malediccionem huiusmodi, cum veritas ipsa est maledicta pendens in cruce (ut notat Apostolus Gall. III°, et exponit Ambrosius epistola XXXVIIIᵛᵃ). Nam a multis dicitur catholicum per eum quod eo ipso quo ipse vel alius papa Romanus pretendit se quovismodo solvere vel ligare, eo ipso sic solvit vel ligat, cum eius oppositum tamquam sceleratissimum sit dampnatum. Et audeo dicere quod a tempore prime fundacionis Romane ecclesie non fuit tam manifesta antichristiana heresis tam publice proclamata; nam nedum scriptura sacra sed leges papales testantur quod Petrus et omnes successores sui errare poterant, tam in execucione clavium quam eciam in via morum, quod si dictus Gregorius non potest, ipse blaspheme extollitur super omne quod dicitur Deus. Nec video ad quid foret illud tamquam novus articulus fidei divulgandum nisi propter fastum et questum episcopo Scarioth adquirendum. Nam dato illo articulo ipse posset eciam invito Deo liberare omnes animas tam de purgatorio quam inferno, cum in tantam vesaniam posset incidere quod pretendat se ista facere, sicut loquuntur illi qui dicunt quod est Deus in terris. Et quantum ad questum, patet quod isto articulo catholicato posset faciliter perquirere omnia regna mundi, quia (da oppositum de regno Anglie) contra, si pretendit se ligare regem nostrum et regnum in partem salutaris penitencie, ut det perpetuo totum fructum regni nostri tenendo episcopo Romano in capite tamquam supremo domino seculari, tunc eo ipso sic ligantur; sed sic potest pretendere se ligare: ergo virtute illius potestatis clavium potest faciliter 354acquirere regnum nostrum. Et idem est iudicium de omnibus aliis regnis mundi. Et possibilitas minoris patet tripliciter: Primo ex hoc quod taliter ligatus est rex Johannes cum regno (ut dicitur) quoad mille marcas, et idem iudicium est de toto. Secundo per hoc quod multi credunt papam debere dominari seculariter et capitaliter toti mundo, nec verti debet in dubium quin rex et regnum possent obligare se ad tantam elemosinam perpetuam. Sed cui si non pape qui potest absolucionem et dispensacionem super isto soli Romano pontifici reservare? Sic enim dicit se posse restringere potestates clavium de plenitudine potestatis. Tercio confirmatur per hoc quod ipse habet potestatem incomprehensibilem, cui non licet fines ponere, quia tunc formidandus esset, si excedit limites potestatis, et titubaret fides de potestate clavium, et manifeste sequeretur oppositum articuli noviter catholicati, scilicet quod non eo ipso quo pretendit se quovismodo solvere vel ligare, eo ipso sic solvit vel ligat.

But as to this caesarean jurisdiction or primacy, it is clear, since our kingdomregnum: kingdom is exempt from caesarean jurisdiction, that not even the coactivecoactivus; cohercere, cohersitivus: coactive; coerce, coercive jurisdiction of his bishop binds us,1 except in so far as it can be founded on holy scripture. But let the adversary turn and turn again the faith of scripture, and he will not find such jurisdiction. But whatever priest has more expressly taught the law of Christlex dei / lex Christi / lex evangelica: God's law / the law of Christ / the gospel law, Christ is to be obeyed in him more devoutly, since such primacy was introduced from caesarean riteritus: rite, so that, whether the superiorprepositi: superiors be fit or not, the faithful people obey Christ. If therefore we English obey our popepapa: pope Urban VI freely, only as a humble servant of Christ, while the schismatics obey Clement for the sake of lordshipdominium: lordship and secular power, who doubts that as such we have the ground of greater merit?2 And we could have seen with our own eyes the possibility of all these five in Gregory XI and his accomplices.3 For it is said that he with his pseudo-cardinals condemned four 353catholic truths and approved four cardinal heresies, as I saw noted in a certain letter, cursed by a man but reproved by no one.4 Nor let us shudder at a curse of this kind, since the truth itself was cursed, hanging on the cross (as the Apostle notes, Galatians 3, and Ambrose expounds in letter 38).5 For by many it is said to be catholic, on his authority, that by the very fact that he or another Roman pope claims in any way to loose or bind, by that very fact he so looses or binds, since its opposite has been condemned as most wicked.6 And I dare say that from the time of the first foundation of the Roman churchecclesia: church there has not been so manifest an antichristian heresy so publicly proclaimed; for not only holy scripture but the papal laws testify that Peter and all his successors could err, both in the exercise of the keys and also in the way of morals; and if the said Gregory cannot, he is blasphemously lifted up above all that is called God.7 Nor do I see to what end that should be published as a new article of faitharticulus fidei: article of faith, except to acquire pomp and gain for the bishop Iscariot.8 For, given that article, he could free all souls, even against God’s will, both from purgatory and from hell, since he could fall into such madness as to claim to do these things, as those speak who say that he is God on earth. And as to gain, it is clear that, with this article declared catholiccatholicare / hereticare: to declare catholic / to pronounce heretical, he could easily acquire all the kingdoms of the world, because (suppose the opposite, in the case of the kingdom of England) against [it]: if he claims to bind our king and kingdom, as part of salutary penance, to give in perpetuity the whole fruit of our kingdom, holding of the Roman bishop in chiefin capite (tenure): in chief as supreme secular lorddominus; dominari: lord; to exercise lordship / to lord it, then by that very fact they are so bound; now he can claim so to bind; therefore by virtue of that power of the keys he can easily 354acquire our kingdom.9 And the same judgment holds of all the other kingdoms of the world. And the possibility of the minor is clear in three ways. First, from the fact that King John was so bound with his kingdom (as it is said) to the amount of a thousand marks; and the same judgment holds of the whole.10 Second, from the fact that many believe that the pope ought to exercise lordship secularly and as headcapitaliter: as head (as chief lord) over the whole world; nor should it be called in doubt that king and kingdom could oblige themselves to so great a perpetual alms. But to whom, if not to the pope, who can reserve absolution and dispensation in this matter to the Roman pontiff alone? For so he says he can restrict the powers of the keys from plenitude of powerplenitudo potestatis: plenitude of power. Third, it is confirmed by the fact that he has an incomprehensible power, on which it is not lawful to set bounds; because then there would be cause to fear that he exceeds the limitslimitare; limites: to assign (an office); limits of his power,11 and faith about the power of the keys would waver, and the opposite of the newly declared catholic article would manifestly follow, namely that it is not by the very fact that he claims in any way to loose or bind that by that very fact he so looses or binds.

¶2354.20–356.16

354In tales insanias inducuntur ignari episcopi et doctores facientes ydiotam credere quod potest tantum facere in ecclesia sicut Christus. Unde episcopus Roffensis dixit mihi in publico parlamento stomachante spiritu quod conclusiones mee sunt dampnate, sicut testificatum est sibi de curia per instrumentum notarii. Et visum est multis quod fuit assercio indiscreta, primo quia vergebat ad curie Romane defamacionem, secundo quia implicabat regis nostri et regni scandalizacionem, et tercio quia ostendebat sui et fratrum suorum consentaneam suspicionem. Non enim tam signanter mitterent fratres eius sibi dictam dampnacionem, nisi applaudendo de facto cuius utraque pars foret auctor vel fautor, nec dubium quin stante iusticia dicte dampnacionis cum facto 355regis et iure quod vendicat, rex et regnum forent expresse heretici, et sic iuxta leges ecclesie nedum exheredandi, sed a toto christianismo funditus destruendi. Nam hoc est hereticatum ut dampnatissimum quod aliqui domini temporales possunt auferre temporalia ab ecclesia delinquente. Unde videtur zelantes pro dampnacione ista intendere quod papa debet super regno nostro imperatorie civiliter dominari (ut sepe tetigi), primo quia procurarunt quod inconsulto rege vel suo consilio virtute bullarum papalium legius homo regis ubicunque in Anglia non convictus super pravitate heretica arrestetur et papali carceri mancipetur, et (ut videtur prudentibus) non posset esse evidencius signum capitalis civilis dominii pape super Angliam. Secundo quia dampnavit ex procuracione quorundam qui videntur esse de nostris quod alique carte humanitus adinvente sunt impossibiles, et per consequens catholicavit oppositum, et cum impossibile et necessarium dicantur condicionaliter et simpliciter (ut patet XXIII, q. IVª, Due sunt) necessitates, sequitur cum veris quod catholicavit omnes cartas cleri Anglie de elemosina perpetua, et per consequens non foret necesse ad regem recurrere pro ratificacione cartarum huiusmodi, cum sint per superiorem dominum nedum confirmate sed catholicate. Et tercio potissime, quia vendicat quod non liceat regi punire clerum suum legium quantumcunque in regnum deliquerit nec subtrahere elemosinas cleri quantumcunque contempserit nisi petita ab eo licencia et obtenta, et cum hoc non habet ex lege Christi (sicut patet scrutanti), ab omnibus eius fautoribus relinquitur quod hoc habet a cesare. Unde vellem quod rex faceret diligenter inquiri a clero suo legio istas quatuor questiones: primo si 356rex licite potest auferre temporalia a clero suo legio pro contemptu; secundo si rex dominatur capitaliter super regno Anglie et papa sic civiliter subdominans vel econtra; tercio si forme dampnacionum et factorum Romani pontificis hic recitate sint iuri divino consone, et si clericus regis qui vel expresse vel mutescendo consenserit videtur in contemptum regis et regni incidere; quarto autem queritur a plano parliamento regis, cum propter maiorem contemptum sit contemptor gravius puniendus, utrum defendens ista expresse vel tacite contra regem et regnum debeat cum hoc participare elemosinis regni nostri. Videtur enim quod, si susurrones huiusmodi non expectant nisi subdole premittendo preambulam horam illis congruam, quando expulsis secularibus dominis possint dominari ex integro toti regno.

Into such madnesses ignorant bishops and doctors are led, making the unlettered manydiota: unlettered man believe that he can do as much in the church as Christ. Hence the bishop of Rochester said to me in open parliament, with an angry spirit, that my conclusions are condemned, as had been attested to him from the curia by a notary’s instrument.12 And it seemed to many that it was an indiscreet assertion: first because it tended to the defamation of the Roman curiacuria romana: the Roman curia; second because it implicated our king and kingdom in scandal; and third because it showed a suspicion of collusion on his part and his brothers'frater: friar (of the mendicants) / brother. For his brothers would not so pointedly send him the said condemnation unless applauding a deed of which each party would be author or abettor; nor is there doubt that, if the justice of the said condemnation stands together with the deed 355of the king and the right that he claims, king and kingdom would be expressly heretics,13 and so, according to the laws of the church, not only to be disinherited but to be utterly destroyed from all Christendom. For this has been pronounced hereticalcatholicare / hereticare: to declare catholic / to pronounce heretical as most damnable: that some temporal lordstemporales domini: temporal lords can take away temporal goodstemporalia: temporal goods from a delinquent church.14 Hence those zealous for that condemnation seem to maintainintendere (a thesis): maintain that the pope ought to exercise lordship over our kingdom imperially and civilly (as I have often touched on): first, because they procured that, without consulting the king or his council, by virtue of papal bulls a liegelegii: lieges man of the king, anywhere in England, not convicted of heretical depravityheretica pravitas: heretical depravity, be arrested and committed to the papal prison; and (as it seems to prudent men) there could not be a more evident sign of the pope’s chief civil lordship over England.15 Second, because, at the procurement of certain men who seem to be of our own, he condemned [the proposition] that some charters humanly devised are impossible, and consequently [declared] the opposite catholic;16 and since "impossible" and "necessary" are said, as necessities, conditionally and without qualificationsimpliciter / secundum quid: without qualification / in a certain respect (as is clear in Cause 23, question 4, Due sunt),17 it follows, with true [premisses], that he declared catholic all the charters of the clergy of England concerning perpetual alms, and consequently it would not be necessary to have recourse to the king for the ratification of such charters, since they are by a superior lord not only confirmed but declared catholic.18 And third, and most of all, because he claims that it is not lawful for the king to punish his liege clergy however much they offend against the kingdom, nor to withdraw the almselemosina: alms of the clergy however much it has shown contempt, unless leave has been asked of him and obtained; and since he does not have this from the law of Christ (as is clear to one who examines it), it is left to all his supporters [to say] that he has it from Caesar. Hence I would wish the king to have diligent inquiry made of his liege clergy on these four questions: first, whether 356the king can lawfully take away temporal goods from his liege clergy for contempt; second, whether the king exercises lordship as head over the kingdom of England, and the pope thus civilly holding lordship undersubdominans: holding lordship under [him], or conversely; third, whether the forms of the condemnations and of the deeds of the Roman pontiff recited here are consonant with divine lawius: right / law, and whether the king’s cleric who has consented, either expressly or by keeping silent, seems to fall into contempt of the king and kingdom; and fourth, it is asked of the king’s full parliament, since by reason of greater contempt the contemner is to be punished more gravely, whether one who defends these things expressly or tacitly against king and kingdom ought, with this, to share in the alms of our kingdom. For it seems that whisperers of this kind are waiting only for an hour suited to them, which they cunningly arrange beforehand as a preamble,19 when, the secular lords being expelled, they could exercise lordship entirely over the whole kingdom.20

Notes

  1. 1 Sui episcopi, "his bishop": most likely Caesar’s, the Roman bishop whose primacy Wyclif has just derived from Caesar’s decree (Constantinus, 352.16); the alternative is the realm’s own bishop.
  2. 2 Urban VI was elected in April 1378, Clement VII in September 1378; England held to Urban.
  3. 3 "These five" are the five reasons of 351.31–352.16. T. At 352.32–33 B reads istorum et in Gregorio; the print is translated.
  4. 4 The condemnation is Gregory XI’s of Wyclif’s conclusions (bulls of May 1377); the "four truths" and "four heresies", and the letter, are not identified; the article "newly catholicized" (353.25–27) is the contrary of Wyclif’s condemned conclusion that the pope does not bind or loose merely by claiming to (Fasciculi zizaniorum, p. 252). C. Epistola maledicta ab homine: the letter is "cursed by a man" (the pope’s curse) and yet refuted by no one.
  5. 5 Gal. 3:13 (DR "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree"). Ambrose, "letter 38": Loserth gives no reference. Ep. 38 in the Maurist numbering (PL 16, to Simplicianus) does not treat Gal. 3:13; the letter that expounds it of the cross is Ep. 46 (to Sabinus) §13, Ille maledictum in cruce factus est, ut tu benedictus esses in Dei regno (PL 16:1149C); cf. the sermon appended to Ep. 21 (PL 16:1015A). Wyclif’s number has not been matched.
  6. 6 Per eum: the proposition is declared catholic "on his authority", i.e. by Gregory’s condemnation of its opposite. R. The opposite is Wyclif’s own conclusion condemned in 1377: Non est possibile, de potentia Dei absoluta, quod si papa vel alius praetendat se quovismodo solvere vel ligare, eo ipso solvit vel ligat (Walsingham, Hist. Angl. I, 355, no. 14; Fasc. ziz. 252).
  7. 7 2 Thess. 2:4 (DR "is lifted up above all that is called God"); Wyclif has super for the Vulgate’s supra. The "papal laws" are not specified; those Wyclif quotes from the gloss at 04-e (n. 10) are D. 19 c. 9 (Anastasius) and D. 40 c. 6 (Si papa, nisi deprehendatur a fide devius), and for Peter, C. 2 q. 7 c. 33 (Paulus Petrum reprehendit).
  8. 8 Episcopo Scarioth: Judas’s surname set against the pope as an epithet.
  9. 9 Da oppositum … contra: the disputant’s "grant the opposite" (that the pope could not so acquire England), followed by the counter-argument, a syllogism whose minor (sed sic potest pretendere) is then proved "in three ways".
  10. 10 King John’s surrender of England to Innocent III (1213), with an annual render of a thousand marks.
  11. 11 Tunc formidandus esset, si excedit: impersonal, "it would be a thing to fear, whether he exceeds"; the doubt is the misgiving (formido) that would unsettle faith in the keys.
  12. 12 The bishop of Rochester was Thomas Brinton (1373–1389), a Benedictine; his "brothers" are then his fellow monks. The parliament is not identified (perhaps that of October 1377 or of Gloucester, 1378). T. A A₁ read stomachando, to the same sense.
  13. 13 Stante iusticia … cum facto regis et iure quod vendicat: if the condemnation is just and the king’s deed and claim stand, the king falls under it. The "deed" is not named here; the conclusion it falls under is no. 6 (n14).
  14. 14 One of Wyclif’s conclusions condemned in 1377: Si Deus est, domini temporales possunt legitime ac meritorie auferre bona fortunae ab ecclesia delinquente (Walsingham, Hist. Angl. I, 354, no. 6; Fasc. ziz. 248).
  15. 15 Gregory XI’s bulls of 1377 ordering Wyclif’s arrest and custody(the bull to Oxford, Fasciculi zizaniorum, pp. 242–4).
  16. 16 Another condemned conclusion: Chartae humanitus adinventae de haereditate civili perpetua sunt impossibiles (Walsingham, Hist. Angl. I, 354, no. 3).
  17. 17 Cause 23, question 4, Due sunt: not a canon but Gratian’s dictum after c. 23 (Friedberg), Augustinus: Duae sunt necessitates, simplex una … altera conditionis; the words are Boethius’s (Cons. V pr. 6), not Augustine’s. Loserth gives no reference. C. Cum impossibile et necessarium dicantur condicionaliter et simpliciter … necessitates: the two modal terms are each said of necessity on supposition and of necessity without qualification, so that the condemnation of "impossible" makes the opposite necessary without qualification.
  18. 18 Sequitur cum veris: "it follows, together with true [premisses]", the logician’s "with other truths added".
  19. 19 Subdole premittendo preambulam horam illis congruam: literally "cunningly sending ahead a preamble hour suited to them"; construed as preparing the moment beforehand.
  20. 20 The print reads Videtur enim quod, si susurrones …, which leaves the si-clause without an apodosis; B omits si (356.13), and B’s reading is translated. Print: "For it seems that, if whisperers of this kind are waiting …".
How the Latin of this chapter was established
  • Plate readings; page · reading · note):
    • 353: partem (30 is the line number)
    • 354: regno
    • 354: mille
    • 354: et (V is the margin alinea letter) [NW]
    • 355: consilio [NW]
    • 355: alique
    • 355: IVª
    • 355: legium [NW]
    • 355: contempserit (178c is the folio mark)
    • 353: catholicas (178a folio mark glued)
    • 355: regis (178b folio mark glued)
    • 353: XXXVIIIᵛᵃ). (superscript va) [-MARK]
    • 353: III°, (line-final; next line starts et, no verse) [-VERSE]