Wyclif’s Latin works

De ecclesia, chapter 16, part 2

The second and third arguments: merit, venial sin and the temporal lords

Loserth pp. 363.13–365.6

¶1363.13–364.6

363Secundo sic arguitur: Quidquid fuerit meritorium beato Silvestro, nullo modo fuit sibi demeritorium, cum iste denominaciones ex opposito distinguuntur, sed fuit meritorium beato Silvestro recipere temporalia distribuenda pauperibus in perpetuum, hoc idem nullo modo fuit sibi demeritorium. Hic dicitur quod theologus logicus ponit calumpniam in maiori, cum idem opus successive est prius meritorium, et post demeritorium vel econtra; et sic conversacio beati Silvestri que ante baptizacionem vel conversionem fuit sibi demeritoria postea fuit sibi meritoria. Sic enim dicimus motum difformem quoad tempus vel subiectum, licet maior pars eius quantitativa fuerit uniformis. Minor autem non probatur, sed sub verbis illis capit calumpniam, quia nimis onerosum foret tali sancto recipere tale perpetuum officium, sive in se sive in suis ministris; nec probatur minor ista per hoc quod relevare pauperes indigentes est simpliciter meritorium cuicunque, tum quia multi sunt quibus hoc non convenit, tum secundo quia multis infidelibus et ypocritis in hoc demerentibus hoc convenit, tum tercio quia hoc dato non exhinc sequitur quod meritorium fuerat beato Silvestro recipere elemosinas 364distribuendas pauperibus in perpetuum. Sed finaliter, dato quod hoc fuit meritorium, sic quod nullo modo demeritorium beato Silvestro, non exhinc sequitur quod beatus Silvester nullo modo peccavit sic faciendo. Homo enim peccat venialiter merendo continue et non demerendo sed remissius promerendo.

Second, it is argued thus: whatever was meritorious for blessed Silvester was in no way demeritorious for him, since these denominations are distinguished as opposites; now it was meritorious for blessed Silvester to receive temporal goodstemporalia: temporal goods to be distributed to the poor in perpetuity; [therefore] this same thing was in no way demeritorious for him.1 To this the answer isdicitur multipliciter: is said in many ways that the theologian who is a logician lays a challenge against the major, since the same work is successively first meritorious and afterwards demeritorious, or conversely; and so the manner of lifeconversacio: manner of life of blessed Silvester, which before his baptism or conversion was demeritorious for him, was afterwards meritorious for him.2 For so we call a motion difform with respect to time or subject, although the greater quantitative part of it was uniform.3 Now the minor is not proved, but under those words it is open to challenge, because it would be too burdensome for such a saint to receive such a perpetual office, whether in himself or in his ministers; nor is this minor proved by the fact that to relieve the needy poor is meritorious without qualificationsimpliciter / secundum quid: without qualification / in a certain respect for anyone, both because there are many to whom this is not fitting, and secondly because it is fitting for many unbelieversinfidelis: unbeliever; with a dative, faithless (to) and hypocrites who demerit in it, and thirdly because, granting this, it does not followsequitur: it follows from it that it had been meritorious for blessed Silvester to receive almselemosina: alms 364to be distributed to the poor in perpetuity. But finally, granted that this was meritorious, so that it was in no way demeritorious for blessed Silvester, it does not follow from this that blessed Silvester in no way sinned in so doing. For a man sins venially while meriting continually, not by demeriting but by meriting more remissly.4

¶2364.7–365.6

364Tercio sic arguitur: Quicquid potuit Silvester papa licite et absque peccato in usum suum recipere, potuit sic recipere in usus aliorum; sic enim absque peccato recipiunt domini temporales predia, redditus et huiusmodi, tam sibi quam aliis, sed licite et absque peccato eciam veniali recepit Silvester temporalia privilegia pro se ipso; ergo sic fecit vel potuit pro aliis. Hic respondeo concedendo asumptum et conclusionem illatam, sed non credo aliquos sanctos asserere dominos temporales absque peccato recipere redditus temporales, cum vivens activam vitam peccat continue mortaliter vel venialiter; et sic non credo quod absque peccato veniali recepit Silvester temporalia privilegia pro se ipso. Credo tamen quod potuit taliter recepisse, cum potuit fuisse in puro statu innocencie cum toto suo genere, et sic iure status innocencie recepisse immediate a domino usum et dominium temporalium. Sed ulterius pro materia argumenti concedo, primo quod omnis predestinatus habet titulum et dominium super omnia temporalia privilegia cuiuscunque, cum pro tempore suo constituitur super omnia bona Dei; hoc tamen est impertinens doctori, cum post hanc vitam immediate a Deo ad usum poli recipitur tale dominium. Secundo notandum quod domini temporales recipiunt licite et meritorie pro se et heredibus suis in perpetuum civili titulo redditus et proventus, tam propriorum dominorum quam filiorum 365nobilium subditorum quorum custodia est in manus dominorum capitalium devoluta, sed sicut non vivunt hanc vitam sine peccato, sic non exercent actus tales civiles sine veniali, illud tamen quod foret in domino seculari licitum et meritorium foret in sacerdote Christi dampnabile.

Third, it is argued thus: whatever Pope Silvester could lawfully and without sin receive for his own use, he could so receive for the uses of others; for so the temporal lordstemporales domini: temporal lords receive estates, revenuesreditus: revenue(s) and the like without sin, as much for themselves as for others; now Silvester received temporal privilegesprivilegium / privilegiare / privilegiacio: privilege / to privilege / privileging for himself lawfully and without even venial sin; therefore he did so, or could do so, for others.5 To this I reply by granting the assumptionassumptum: the assumption and the conclusion inferred; but I do not believe that any saints assert that temporal lords receive temporal revenues without sin, since one living the active life sins continually, mortally or venially; and so I do not believe that Silvester received temporal privileges for himself without venial sin. Yet I believe that he could have received them in such a way, since he could have been in the pure state of innocence with his whole kind, and so, by right of the state of innocence, have received immediately from the Lord the use and lordshipdominium: lordship of temporal goods.6 But further, for the matter of the argument, I grant, first, that every predestinate personpredestinatus, -i: the predestinate (sg. "a predestinate [person]") has titletitulus: title and lordship over all the temporal privileges of anyone whatever, since for his time he is set over all the goods of God; yet this is beside the point for the doctor, since such lordship is received immediately from God, after this life, for the use of heaven.7 Second, it is to be noted that temporal lords receive lawfully and meritoriously, for themselves and their heirs in perpetuity, by civil title, revenues and profits, both their own as lords and those of noble sons, 365their subjects, whose wardship has devolved into the hands of the chief lordscapitalis dominus; tenere de: chief lord; to hold of; but as they do not live this life without sin, so they do not perform such civil acts without venial [sin]; yet what would be lawful and meritorious in a secular lord would be damnable in a priestsacerdos / presbiter: priest / presbyter of Christ.8

Notes

  1. 1 The print has no ergo before hoc idem (363.17), though the clause is the argument’s conclusion; "[therefore]" is supplied, and a word may have been lost. R. A in the margin at 363.13: Secunda racio; at 363.18: Responsio.
  2. 2 Theologus logicus: one person, the theologian trained in logic, not two. Ponit calumpniam in maiori: "lays a challenge against the major", the disputant’s formal objection to a premiss; capit calumpniam below, "is open to challenge". Denominaciones are the names "meritorious" and "demeritorious" given to the act.
  3. 3 Motus difformis: a motion not uniform in speed, a term of the natural philosophers. The point: a whole is called difform from a part of it, so the same act can bear opposite names at different times.
  4. 4 Remissius promerendo: meriting with less intensity, remissio being the opposite of intensio. The venial sin lies in the slackening, not in a demerit.
  5. 5 A in the margin at 364.7: Tercia racio. Domini temporales continue vivunt vitam non sine peccato; at 364.15: Responsio. C. Redditus is the print’s spelling of reditus.
  6. 6 Potuit taliter recepisse: "could have received them in such a way", that is, without venial sin. Ius here is "right" (the right of the state of innocence), not "law".
  7. 7 Constituitur super omnia bona Dei echoes Matthew 24:47 (Vulgate super omnia bona sua constituet eum; DR "he shall place him over all his goods"). C. Doctori: the doctor who raised the argument. Ad usum poli: the use of heaven, cf. ius poli, "the law of heaven".
  8. 8 Tam propriorum dominorum quam filiorum nobilium subditorum: taken as the lords’ own revenues and those of noble minors under wardship; propriorum dominorum could also be "of their own lordships", reading dominorum loosely. Custodia is wardship, which falls to the chief lord in feudal tenure.
How the Latin of this chapter was established
  • Plate readings; page · reading · note):
    • 364: papa (E is the alinea letter)
    • 364: licite
    • 365: licitum
    • 365: Christi