De ecclesia, chapter 16, part 8

The fictions that shield the clergy’s alms from withdrawal

Loserth pp. 384.34–387.31

¶1384.34–385.5

384Nec cadit excusacio quod nemo luet defectum alterius, quia oppositum est fides catholica, specialiter 385quando unus omissione vel commissione participat peccato alterius; si enim prepositus spiritualis exercitus vel capit stipendium pro militibus quos non habet vel pro indignis quos debet corrigere, quomodo non est dignum elemosinam proporcionalem ab illo subtrahere?

Nor does the excuse hold that no one will pay for another’s defect, for the opposite is the catholic faith, especially 385when one shares by omission or commission in another’s sin; for if the superior of the spiritual army takes a wage either for soldiers whom he does not have, or for unworthy ones whom he ought to correct, how is it not fitting to withdraw a proportional alms from him?¹

¶2385.7–386.14

385Nec valet infidelis ficcio qua dicitur quod absque condicione fuit facta collacio, quomodocunque religiosus voluerit donatum expendere, quia hoc accusaret patronos ex blasphemia et extingueret spem de suo spirituali suffragio; ideo non minus propter mortuorum suffragium quam vivorum subsidium debet fieri diligens inquisicio in hac parte; tunc enim haberemus pauciores milites, sed potenciores contra dyabolum. Nec valet infundabilis ficcio qua dicitur quod nemo aufert quicquam simpliciter ab alio nisi auferat a quolibet sibi simili in natura, quia tunc nemo posset quicquam auferre ab alio, cum omne ablatum ab impio tribuitur iusto. Sic enim iusti tulerunt spolia impiorum et omni habenti dabitur, ab eo autem qui non habet et quod videtur habere auferetur; et sic de modis loquendi scripture, sanctorum doctorum et legis ecclesie. Nam XXXVIIª epistola Augustini ad Macedonium dicitur quod non dimittitur peccatum nisi restituatur ablatum, et idem ponitur in canone, XIVª, q. VI. Si res. Ista tria nesciverunt sompniare quod non est ablacio nisi iusta, nec quod est iusta ablacio nisi fuerit auctorizata a pontifice Romano. Nam omnem ablacionem vel collacionem sicut et omnem 386operacionem quoad eius substanciam oportet auctorizari a Deo; et cum omnis talis operacio non est sic secundum quid sed operacio simpliciter, eo quod aliter nulla creatura foret simpliciter activa, sicut Commentator recitat quosdam dicere, quos dicit non habere cerebrum dispositum ad philosophandum, sequitur cum veris quod stat esse ablacionem simpliciter cum hoc quod non a papa fuerit approbata. Si ergo ablacio vel alia talis iniusta operacio non dependet ex approbacione divina quoad mores quin sit simpliciter ablacio et alterius generis operacio, quomodo blasphematur quod nulla est ablacio simpliciter nisi papa decreverit? Sic enim extolleretur super omne quod dicitur Deus.

Nor is the faithless fiction valid by which it is said that the conferral was made without condition, in whatever way the religious might wish to spend what was given; for this would charge the patrons with blasphemy and would extinguish hope of their spiritual suffrage. Therefore, no less for the sake of the suffrage of the dead than for the support of the living, diligent inquiry ought to be made in this matter; for then we should have fewer soldiers, but more powerful against the devil.² Nor is the groundless fiction valid by which it is said that no one takes anything away from another without qualification unless he takes it away from every one like him in nature; for then no one could take anything away from another, since everything taken away from the impious is bestowed on the just. For so "the just took the spoils of the wicked", and "to every one that hath shall be given ... but from him that hath not, that also which he seemeth to have shall be taken away"; and so with the manners of speaking of scripture, of the holy doctors and of the law of the church.³ For in the thirty-seventh letter of Augustine, to Macedonius, it is said that the sin is not forgiven unless what was taken away is restored; and the same is laid down in the canon, [Causa] 14, q. 6, Si res. These three did not know how to dream that there is no taking-away except a just one, nor that there is a just taking-away unless it has been authorized by the Roman pontiff.⁴ For every taking-away or conferral, as also every 386operation, must as to its substance be authorized by God; and since every such operation is not thus [an operation] in a certain respect but an operation without qualification (because otherwise no creature would be active without qualification, as the Commentator reports certain men to say, who, he says, do not have a brain disposed to philosophizing), it follows, together with truths [already granted], that there can be a taking-away without qualification although it has not been approved by the pope.⁵ If, then, a taking-away or another such unjust operation does not depend on divine approval as to morals for its being without qualification a taking-away and an operation of another kind, how is it blasphemously said that there is no taking-away without qualification unless the pope has decreed it? For so he would be exalted above all that is called God.⁶

¶3386.15–386.33

386Nec minus blasphemum est dicere quod nulla est iusta ablacio, collacio vel alia operacio ecclesie nisi auctorizetur ab ipso, quia antequam ipse habuerit primatum huiusmodi erant multe operaciones ecclesie satis iuste, sicut operacio sua est iusta ex pura acceptacione divina. Ymmo pro tempore mortis sue, sicut et ipso superstite ignorante sunt multe ablaciones, collaciones et operaciones elemosinarie satis iuste, sicut patet de dotacione ecclesie Anglicane, que non emanavit ex eius auctoritate, sicut nec percepcio elemosine cesaree vel elemosina Anglie cesari non subiecte. Aliter enim non faceret Anglicus elemosinam clero suo nisi ostensa ad hoc auctoritate papali singularissima; quod non est fingendum, cum tempus et infinite alie circumstancie variarent operacionem elemosine. Et sic cum auctorizacio generalis non sufficit, frustraretur ex defectu auctoritatis papalis et ignorancia revocacionis licencie prioris omnis elemosina facienda egenis.

Nor is it less blasphemous to say that there is no just taking-away, conferral or other operation of the church unless it is authorized by him; for before he had such primacy there were many operations of the church quite just, just as his own operation is just from God’s pure acceptance. Indeed, for the time of his death, as also while he survives without his knowing, there are many takings-away, conferrals and almsgiving operations quite just, as is clear of the endowment of the English church, which did not issue from his authority, as neither did the receiving of the caesarean alms, or the alms of England, which is not subject to Caesar.⁷ For otherwise an Englishman would not give alms to his clergy unless a most singular papal authority were shown for it; which is not to be feigned, since the time and infinite other circumstances would vary the work of alms. And so, since a general authorization does not suffice, every alms to be given to the needy would be frustrated for lack of papal authority and through ignorance of the revocation of a prior licence.

¶4386.34–387.31

386Ex istis demum colligitur quod ficticia subdola recentissima qua maior pars nostrorum sacerdotum 387dotatorum fingit infideliter quod, cum papa dominatur civiliter et capitaliter super singulos reges terre, non licet eis auferre quicquam a clero, iudicare de cleri conversacione vel cleri officio, nec ipsum corripere vel iuvare nisi ex eius auctoritate previe requisita. Sic enim extolleretur super Petrum et omnem Christi vicarium, cum Petro ignorante et non approbante nisi forte confuse, sicut benevolus approbat omne bonum, Paulus nuda auctoritate Christi fecit magnum profectum ecclesie (sicut patet Act. IX° et infra). Secundo fingens hoc dogma nephandum daret occasionem populo laicali subtrahere beneficienciam suam egenis, tam clericis quam laicis, eo quod non expresse docetur satis singularis papalis auctoritas vel interim revocacio auctoritatis ostense, ut tangitur in destruccione proxime ficcionis. Tercio tolleretur omnis regalia et primatus secularis principum terrenorum, cum non liceret seculari iudicare de nequicia clerici sibi iniuriantis quantumcunque notorie nec exterrere clerum freneticum ab attemptato facinore, et multo magis non liceret seculari domino amerciare clericum vel eius familiam insolentem nisi prius consulto papa ad hoc licenciante, quia aliter liceret auferre a clero per viam multacionis temporalia sua mobilia et in foro civili iniuste occupata, papa qui est capitalis dominus inconsulto. Talia deliramenta nedum ex scriptura sacra infundabilia sed sibi contraria que hodie plus solito sunt emuncta dabunt finem, si Deus voluerit, ne post istum virum sterilem succedat alius tyrannice sic blasphemans, sed Danielis IX°, 27, dicitur quod abhominacio desolacionis perseverabit usque in finem.

From these things, finally, it is gathered that the most recent crafty fiction, by which the greater part of our 387endowed priests faithlessly feign that, since the pope exercises lordship civilly and as head over every king of the earth, it is not lawful for them to take anything away from the clergy, to judge of the clergy’s manner of life or the clergy’s office, nor to rebuke or help it except with his authority first sought, [is groundless].⁸ For so he would be exalted above Peter and every vicar of Christ, since, with Peter ignorant and not approving (unless perhaps indistinctly, as a well-wisher approves every good), Paul by the bare authority of Christ made great progress for the church (as is clear in Acts 9 and following).⁹ Second, one who feigns this abominable dogma would give occasion to the lay people to withdraw their beneficence from the needy, clerics as well as lay, because a sufficiently singular papal authority is not expressly taught, or a revocation in the meantime of the authority shown, as is touched on in the demolition of the last fiction.¹⁰ Third, all the regality and secular primacy of earthly princes would be taken away, since it would not be lawful for a secular to judge of the wickedness of a cleric injuring him, however notoriously, nor to frighten a frenzied clergy off from a misdeed attempted; and much more it would not be lawful for a secular lord to amerce a cleric or his insolent household unless the pope had first been consulted and licensed it, because otherwise it would be lawful, without consulting the pope, who is chief lord, to take away from the clergy by way of fine its movable temporal goods, and those unjustly occupied, in the civil court.¹¹ Such ravings, not only groundless in holy scripture but contrary to it, which today are put about more than usual, will make an end, if God wills, so that after this barren man another may not succeed blaspheming thus tyrannically; but in Daniel 9:27 it is said that "the abomination of desolation shall continue even to the end".¹²

Notes

1 Nemo luet defectum alterius: cf. Ezekiel 18:20. G. Prepositus, "superior", is the head of the clerical army in the figure of 384; milites, "soldiers", as there (glossary: milicia; milites, the Pauline figure).
2 A and B in the margin at 385.7: Tercia ficcio. T. At 385.8 Loserth reports quandocunque ("whenever") in the manuscripts; his quomodocunque is translated. C. Collacio: the conferral of the gift by the founder. Accusaret patronos ex blasphemia: the patrons gave for the suffrages, and the fiction makes them give for nothing. Mortuorum suffragium: the suffrage owed to dead founders.
3 A and B in the margin at 385.15: Quarta ficcio; A: Nota ficticias pro dominacione cleri. C. Auferat quolibet sibi simili in natura: on the fiction, a true taking-away removes the thing from every one of the same nature as the loser, so that what passes to another man is not taken away at all; Wyclif’s reply turns on that. S. Wisdom 10:19; Matthew 25:29 (DR), where Wyclif omits et abundabit and ab eo.
4 Augustine’s letter to Macedonius, numbered 37 by Wyclif, is Ep. 153.6.20 in the modern numbering, identified by content (non remittitur peccatum, nisi restituatur ablatum); Wyclif’s number, which he uses throughout, matches no known numbering, and Gratian has LIV; Loserth refers back to his p. 304. The canon is Decretum C.14 q.6 c.1 (Si res aliena); Loserth’s form is "Decr. II pars, causa XIV, q. VI, cap. I", the modern form ours. R. A in the margin at 385.23: Augustinus; B: Nota Augustinum quod non dimittitur peccatum nisi restituatur etc. C. Ista tria: scripture, the holy doctors and the law of the church.
5 Commentator: Averroes, reporting those who deny that creatures act, In Metaph. IX comm. 7 (qui recipiunt huiusmodi, non habent cerebrum habile naturaliter ad bonum); Wyclif paraphrases. C. Sequitur cum veris: "it follows, together with truths [already granted]". Stat esse ... cum hoc quod non: "there can be ... although not". R. A in the margin at 385.29: Stat esse ablacionem iustam preter hoc quod papa ipsam approbaret.
6 2 Thessalonians 2:4, where the Vulgate has extollitur supra omne (DR "is lifted up above all that is called God"); Wyclif’s conditional is translated. C. Quin sit: injustice does not keep a taking-away from being one. Blasphematur quod: an impersonal passive, "how is it blasphemously said that".
7 A and B in the margin at 386.15: Quinta ficcio. T. At 386.17 B omits ipse ... operacio sua. C. Pro tempore mortis sue: the vacancy after a pope’s death; ipso superstite ignorante: while he lives but knows nothing of the act. Elemosina cesarea: Constantine’s endowment, received without papal authority; elemosina Anglie cesari non subiecte: England was never under the emperor, so its alms owe nothing to Caesar’s.
8 The print gives ficticia no verb: after the long quod clause the period passes to Sic enim. "[is groundless]" is supplied from the closing infundabilia (our supplement); a word may be lost, or the period is broken off. R. A in the margin at 386.34: Nota; A and B: Sexta ficcio.
9 Acts 9:19–30, Paul’s preaching after his conversion. C. Confuse: Peter approved, if at all, only as anyone approves all good in general, without knowledge of the act.
10 At 387.15 A and A₁ omit ostense. C. Proxime ficcionis: the fifth fiction (386.15–33), where the want of a singular authority and the unknown revocation of a licence were argued. Docetur: is taught, i.e. made known to the giver.
11 Amerciare: to amerce, fine at the court’s mercy; multacio, "fine". Temporalia sua mobilia et ... iniuste occupata is taken as two objects, the clergy’s movables and what it holds unjustly, with in foro civili naming the court; "goods unjustly occupied in the civil court" is also possible.
12 Daniel 9:27, where the Vulgate has et usque ad consummationem et finem perseverabit desolatio (DR "and the desolation shall continue even to the consummation, and to the end"); Wyclif’s words are translated. C. Emuncta: literally "wiped, blown out"; "put about" is a guess at the sense. Dabunt finem: the ravings, by their excess, will bring the matter to an end. Istum virum sterilem is not named.

How the Latin of this chapter was established

Plate readings; page · reading · note):
- 385: quando (alinea X and 182c folio mark glued)
- 385: XXXVIIª
- 385: XIVª
- 387: occasionem populo (print: daret occa-/sionem populo laicali; main token occaH and line 11 starts laicah, so sionem populo has no main token; whole word plus populo given here)
- 387: laicali
- 387: auctoritatis (15 is the line number) [NW]
- 387: proxime (3 is a margin argument numeral)
- 386: ∅ (duplicate: iusta already at 107) [DELX]