De ecclesia, chapter 17, part 1

The first argument answered: the church before the incarnation

Loserth pp. 388.2–390.11

¶1388.2–388.6

388Pro ulteriori declaracione christiane fidei de quiditate ac unitate sancte matris ecclesie discurrendum est per illas decem raciunculas quas feci superius in fine Vⁱ capituli de ista materia, et recitabo responsiones cuiusdam doctoris, ut veritas fidei concertacione scolastica magis appareat.

For the further declaration of the Christian faith on the quiddity and unity of holy mother church, we must run through those ten little arguments which I made above, at the end of the fifth chapter, on this matter; and I will recite the replies of a certain doctor, so that the truth of the faith may appear the more by scholastic disputation.¹

¶2388.7–388.10

388Assumpsi autem in primo argumento quod, si ante incarnacionem Christi non fuit ecclesia et extra ecclesiam catholicam non est salus, tunc nullus patrum veteris testamenti salvabitur.

Now in the first argument I assumed that, if before the incarnation of Christ there was no church, and outside the catholic church there is no salvation, then none of the fathers of the old testament will be saved.²

¶3388.11–390.11

388Hic negatur consequencia, cum antecedens sit verum et consequens falsum, vel, inquit, ante incarnacionem erat ecclesia catholica. Hic insto primo contra falsitatem impositam consequenti, et quia est argumentum ad hominem, suppono primo quod nihil est quod fuit ante hoc instans quod est presens, et erit post illud nisi quod est in illo eodem instanti. Patet supposicio scole dicenti quod nichil est nisi quod est in hoc instanti temporis quod est presens, et tunc arguo sic contra concessum, scilicet quod aliquis patrum veteris testamenti salvabitur. Si sic, tunc vel qui est aliquis patrum veteris testamenti salvabitur, vel qui erit aliquis patrum veteris testamenti salvabitur; consequens falsum secundum istam scolam, quia nec est nec erit aliquis patrum veteris testamenti, cum non sit vetus testamentum nec reincipiet in die iudicii vel ante. Nec est verisimile quod vetus testamentum sit novum testamentum de quo scriptura facit distinccionem cum lege veteri, quia tunc non foret distinccio inter vetus testamentum et novum 389per descripciones eorum congruas exprimenda, sed omnia cerimonialia et legalia veteris testamenti essent pro tempore legis gracie ab ecclesia observanda, consequens contra sanctos doctores tractantes de cessacione legalium. Et quantum ad conclusionem ex fundacione Augustini, scilicet quod ecclesia fuit antequam fuit ecclesia, patet quod iste sanctus horruit sic sophisticari in fide de sancta ecclesia, nec sequitur ex textu suo, III, De Doctrina Christiana VI°, supradicta sentencia. Nam iste est textus Augustini: Qui crediderunt ex quibus facta est prima ecclesia Jerosolimitana, satis ostenderunt quanta utilitas fuerit eo modo sub pedagogo custodiri. Modo non sequitur, ex illis facta est prima ecclesia Jerosolimitana, ergo nec ante illos nec ante incarnacionem fuit ecclesia Jerosolimitana, et multo magis non sequitur quod ante illos non fuit ecclesia. Unde logice dicitur quod ex illis facta est particulariter ecclesia catholica que fuit a principio mundi et fuit continue per generacionem membrorum suorum usque ad finem mundi, et facta est in magno anno mundi. Sed pertinencius sensui huius sancti dicitur quod intendit ex illis factam primam Jerosolimitanam particularem ecclesiam sub nomine Jerosolimitane ecclesie, quamvis ante fuerit ecclesia tam pro tempore legis veteris quam nove. Iste autem sanctus fuit mirabiliter subtilis logicus, relinquens nobis ex verbis suis diversa puncta logicalia capienda. Unde utramque istarum responsionum approbo, cum inutile est scole dare responsionem que non valet. Et conformiter dicitur ad illud Augustini, I Retraccionum cap. XIII°, 390ubi sic loquitur: quod dixi, ea est nostris temporibus christiana religio quam cognoscere ac sequi securissima ac certissima salus est; secundum hoc nomen dictum est, non secundum ipsam rem cuius hoc nomen est. Nam res ipsa que nunc christiana religio nuncupatur, erat et aput antiquos nec defuit ab inicio generis humani, quousque ipse Christus veniret in carne. Unde vera religio que iam erat cepit appellari christiana. Et sequitur exposicio: Hec est nostris temporibus religio christiana, non quia prioribus temporibus non fuit, sed quia posterioribus hoc nomen accepit.

Here the inference is denied, since the antecedent is true and the consequent false; or else, he says, before the incarnation there was a catholic church.³ Here I object first against the falsity imposed on the consequent; and since it is an argument ad hominem, I suppose first that nothing is, of what was before this instant which is present and will be after it, except what is in that same instant. The supposition is clear for the school which says that nothing is except what is in this instant of time which is present; and then I argue thus against what was granted, namely that some one of the fathers of the old testament will be saved. If so, then either one who is some one of the fathers of the old testament will be saved, or one who will be some one of the fathers of the old testament will be saved: a consequent false according to that school, since there neither is nor will be any of the fathers of the old testament, since the old testament is not, nor will it begin again on the day of judgment or before.⁴ Nor is it likely that the old testament is the new testament, which scripture distinguishes from the old law; for then there would be no distinction between the old testament and the new 389to be expressed by their fitting definitions, but all the ceremonial and legal [precepts] of the old testament would have to be observed by the church for the time of the law of grace: a consequent against the holy doctors who treat of the cessation of the legal [precepts].⁵ And as to the conclusion drawn from Augustine’s foundation, namely that the church was before it was the church, it is clear that this saint shrank from playing the sophist thus in the faith concerning holy church; nor does the aforesaid teaching follow from his text, De doctrina christiana III, 6. For this is Augustine’s text: "Those who believed, of whom the first church of Jerusalem was made, showed well enough how great a benefit it was to be kept in that way under a pedagogue."⁶ Now it does not follow: "Of them the first church of Jerusalem was made; therefore neither before them nor before the incarnation was there a church of Jerusalem"; and much more it does not follow that before them there was no church. Hence it is said logically that of them was made, in part, the catholic church, which was from the beginning of the world and was continuously, through the generation of its members, up to the end of the world, and was made in the great year of the world.⁷ But more pertinently to the sense of this saint it is said that he means that of them was made the first particular church of Jerusalem, under the name of the church of Jerusalem, although before that there was a church, as much for the time of the old law as of the new. And this saint was a wonderfully subtle logician, leaving us in his words diverse logical points to be grasped. Hence I approve both of these replies, since it is useless for the school to give a reply which is not valid. And in the same way the answer is given to that [passage] of Augustine, Retractations I, chapter 13, 390where he speaks thus: "What I said, 'This is in our times the Christian religion, which to know and follow is the most secure and most certain salvation', was said according to this name, not according to the thing itself whose name this is. For the very thing which is now called the Christian religion was also among the ancients, nor was it lacking from the beginning of the human race until Christ himself came in the flesh; whence the true religion, which already was, began to be called Christian." And the explanation follows: "This is in our times the Christian religion, not because it was not in earlier times, but because in later times it received this name."⁸

Notes

1 At 388.4 Loserth prints Vⁱ (the fifth chapter) where the manuscripts have XV; his correction is translated. At 388.6 A and A₁ read contricacione for concertacione. S. The ten arguments: Loserth compares p. 112.18. C. Cuiusdam doctoris: the opponent is not named.
2 At 388.7 B omits autem.
3 A in the margin at 388.11: Prima responsio; at 388.18: Ante Christi incarnacionem fuit ecclesia; hoc probatur continue. C. The doctor’s reply is double: deny the inference (true antecedent, false consequent), or deny the antecedent, since there was a catholic church before the incarnation. Falsitatem impositam consequenti: his claim that the consequent is false, that is, that some of the fathers will be saved.
4 Argumentum ad hominem: an argument from the opponent’s own premisses, here the school’s teaching that only what is in the present instant exists (Loserth’s side-note: "his own nominalist theories"). On that teaching the fathers neither are nor will be, so neither disjunct of qui est ... vel qui erit holds. T. At 388.19 B reads quod est prius.
5 The escape that the old testament simply is the new is refused, since then the ceremonial and legal precepts of the old law would bind the church still. Legalia: the precepts of the Mosaic law.
6 Augustine, De doctrina christiana 3.6.10 (PL 34, 68–69; Loserth: Opp. III.1, p. 48); Wyclif quotes it exactly but for Qui for Sed qui; the pedagogue is Galatians 3:24. T. At 389.5–6 B reads ex fundamento. At 389.12 the manuscripts read inutilitas, which Loserth corrected to utilitas from Augustine’s text; his correction is translated. R. Loserth’s side-note: "Augustine did not say that the Church existed before it was the Church".
7 Particulariter: "in part", the church of Jerusalem being a part of the catholic church. Fuit continue ... usque ad finem mundi: the past tense (read on the plate) though the span runs to the end of the world. Magnus annus mundi: the whole course of the world’s time. T. At 389.22 A and A₁ read huiusmodi sancti.
8 Augustine, Retractationes 1.13.3 (PL 32, 603–604; Loserth: Opp. I, p. 19), on his De vera religione 10.19. T. At 389.31 A reads II in the text, corrected to I in its margin, and the manuscripts give cap. XII, which Loserth corrected to XIII; his reference is translated. R. B in the margin: Christiana religio est securissima. C. Dicitur ad illud: the objection drawn from this passage is answered as the last was, by the name and the thing.

How the Latin of this chapter was established

Plate readings; page · reading · note):
- 388: CAP. XVII.
- 388: ∅ (go is the English side-note (We must go))
- 388: doctoris (clear ri) [NW]
- 389: per (alinea A and 183a folio mark glued)
- 389: ∅ (inserted run is p.388 text; p.389 begins per descripciones)
- 389: fuit
- 389: fuit
- 389: Jerosolimitanam (capital J as printed)
- 388: ∅ (duplicate: capituli already at 26) [DELX]
- 388: Vⁱ (print: in fine Vⁱ capituli (agent 13))
- 388: ∅ (scan split; capituli at 27)
- 388: capituli (print: capituli)