De ecclesia, chapter 21, part 1

The opponent’s "without qualification", and prayer for a damned patron

Loserth pp. 491.2–494.12

¶1491.2–492.10

491Fortuna non tantum arridet mihi ut valeam facere aliquod argumentum quod visum est in oculis doctoris valere in materia de rectificacione elemosine occupate a clero per dominos temporales, sed breviter quodcunque argumentum quod feceram dicit generaliter deficere tam in materia quam in forma. Sed revera sic dicere non est solvere, quia sic pica posset solvere quelibet argumenta. Quesivi autem si rex Anglie potest auferre licite atque legitime temporalia a clero suo legio delinquente, et dimissa forma illius questionis vecorditer insoluta, convertit more matrone respondentis querenti quantum distat Lincolnia quod sacculum plenum prunis. Rex (inquit) non potest auferre simpliciter aliqua temporalia a clero suo legio delinquente, et quia sensus quem habet de signo isto simpliciter est multis incognitus, ideo specificat eius sensum. Solum (inquit) aufert simpliciter qui auctoritate propria aufert; et quia oportet dicere quod rex habet auctoritatem propriam ad hoc datam sibi a Romano pontifice vel a Deo, ideo oportet ipsum dicere quod solum ille auctoritate propria facit qui non capit illam ab alio. Auctoritas enim que subiectatur appropriate in rege est auctoritas propria, quia aliter nihil sufficeret facere auctoritate propria. Sic (inquit) ille aufert simpliciter bona ab ecclesia qui aufert ab ea omnia bona sua. Rogo videamus primo quam remote dimittitur questio insoluta et videamus secundo quam infundabiliter et extranee fingitur signacio huic signo simpliciter. Nam iuxta hunc sensum nichil potest facere quicquam simpliciter nisi Deus, sed solum secundum quid. Sed cum non sequitur: Creatura facit opus solum secundum quid, ergo facit illud, sed 492sequitur evidenter oppositum propter fallaciam secundum quid, et simpliciter videtur quod non est possibile creaturam facere quicquam bonum vel malum, et per consequens, nullus dominus temporalis dedit ecclesie dominium temporale, et per idem non habet quodvis dominium, quia solum daretur sibi, ut haberet illud secundum quid. Nec valet fingere quod iste terminus simpliciter habet sensum predictum, ubi doctor limitaverit, et alibi habet sensum alium, quia non valeret significacio huiusmodi solum fundabilis ex tali auctore.

Fortune does not smile on me so far that I can make any argument that has seemed in the doctor’s eyes to be valid in the matter of the rectifying, by the temporal lords, of alms occupied by the clergy; but, in short, whatever argument I had made he says fails in general, in matter as much as in form.¹ But in truth to speak so is not to resolve [it], for so a magpie could resolve any arguments. And I asked whether the king of England can lawfully and legitimately take away temporal goods from his liege clergy when it transgresses; and, leaving the form of that question faint-heartedly unresolved, he turned aside in the manner of the matron who answers someone asking how far off Lincoln is that [it is] a sack full of plums.² "The king," he says, "cannot take away without qualification any temporal goods from his liege clergy when it transgresses"; and since the sense he has for this sign "without qualification" is unknown to many, he therefore specifies its sense. "He alone," he says, "takes away without qualification who takes away by his own authority"; and since one must say that the king has his own authority for this, given to him by the Roman pontiff or by God, he must therefore say that he alone acts by his own authority who does not take it from another. For the authority that inheres properly in the king is his own authority, since otherwise nothing would suffice to act by its own authority.³ "So," he says, "he takes away goods without qualification from the church who takes away from it all its goods." I ask that we see, first, how remotely the question is left unresolved, and see, second, how groundlessly and strangely a signification is feigned for this sign "without qualification". For according to this sense nothing can do anything without qualification except God, but only in a certain respect. Now since it does not follow, "A creature does a work only in a certain respect, therefore it does it," but 492the opposite evidently follows, because of the fallacy of "in a certain respect", it also seems that without qualification it is not possible for a creature to do anything good or bad;⁴ and in consequence no temporal lord gave the church temporal lordship, and by the same token it does not have any lordship whatever, since it would be given to it only so that it should have it in a certain respect. Nor does it avail to feign that this term "without qualification" has the aforesaid sense where the doctor has assigned [it], and elsewhere has another sense; for a signification of this kind, groundable only from such an author, would not avail.⁵

¶2492.11–494.12

492Item, iuxta fidem scripture ante ascensionem fuit verum quod auferetur ab apostolis Christus qui est sponsus ecclesie (ut patet Marci II°, 20); ex quo oportet consequenter concedere quod Deus pater abstulit simpliciter ab apostolis Christum suum, quia auctoritate propria. Quod videtur nimis extraneum, cum solum ad tempus abstulit eis Christum et solum secundum humanitatem vel partes eius, cum mansit cum apostolis perpetuo non ablatus secundum divinitatem que est tota personalitas sua; ideo secundum modos loquendi philosophorum talis foret ablacio secundum quid, licet fuit vera ablacio. Item, iuxta, istam descripcionem nec homo nec Deus posset auferre simpliciter aliquod bonum ab homine; homo non, quia tunc auctoritate propria et non auctoritate Dei sic faceret, quod esse non potest, sicut nemo potest habere auctoritatem ad peccandum. Deus autem si auferret ab homine omnia bona sua, tunc illa ablacione annichilaret ablatarium, quia remanente eo oporteret remanere aliquod bonum suum. Quomodo ergo bonitatem essencialem posset Deus auferre a bono? Per illam Deus ergo non posset auferre bona ab ecclesia 493vel alia creatura; et revera fingere talem significacionem infundabilem ad cecandum regem et regnum quod non possunt quicquam auferre a subditis, foret nimis supina stulticia, nam ignorancia est percepta. Sic enim dicerent domini quod non auferunt simpliciter sed secundum quid, proporcionaliter ut dederunt, nec foret alicubi periculum, quia illa bona non fuerunt sua sed solum secundum quid. Melius ergo fuisset descripsisse veritatem catholicam et defensionem pertinacem, ut declaretur si poterit quod non verificatur de rege et regno descripcio predicta de heresi, sed ad tedium scole fugitur per ambages. Melius tamen foret studere logicam et dicere quomodo debet intelligi iste articulus fidei catholice ecclesiam sanctam catholicam, tunc enim non dicerentur tot sentencie heretice et sibi ipsis contrarie, ut puta, quod ecclesia que ante mortem Christi fuit synagoga cepit post mortem Christi. Ista enim non est logica huius mundi quod ante mortem Christi non fuit ecclesia et sic de multis aliis erroribus. O quam gloriosa foret conclusio quod nemo potest quicquam auferre a clerico nisi iuste, nemo enim potest quicquam auferre a clerico nisi auferat illud simpliciter, sed nemo potest quidquam auferre simpliciter nisi iuste, ergo conclusio. Si enim quis aufert aliquid auctoritate propria, cum nemo potest habere auctoritatem ad peccandum, sequitur quod nemo potest auferre quidquam auctoritate propria nisi iuste. Sed ulterius multiplicando inconveniencia dicitur quod clericus sciens patronum suum esse dampnatum debet orare pro eo, ut mitiget eius penam, et allegantur ad hoc dicta doctorum Prepositivi, Altissidorensis, 494Hostiensis in Summa, et specialiter doctoris Bonaventure super IV° Sentenciarum, et ita (ut prius dogmatizatum est) quod privilegia et possessiones ecclesie debent in casu defendi per mendacia, ita modo dicitur quod debet eorum possessio continuari per suffragia dyabolica. Constat quidem ex fide evangelii quod Iudas est dyabolus, et per idem quilibet perpetuo dampnatus. Sicut ergo suffragia specialiter facta pro mortuis sunt suffragia mortuorum, sic suffragia facta specialiter pro dyabolis sunt suffragia dyabolorum. Unde percipiatis quomodo mendax allegacio induxit ad interpellandum pro dyabolo dampnato speciali suffragio.

Again, according to the faith of scripture, it was true before the ascension that Christ, who is the bridegroom of the church, would be taken away from the apostles (as is clear from Mark 2:20); from which one must consequently grant that God the Father took his Christ away from the apostles without qualification, since [he did so] by his own authority. Which seems too strange, since he took Christ away from them only for a time and only according to the humanity or its parts, since he remained with the apostles perpetually, not taken away, according to the divinity, which is his whole personality; therefore according to the philosophers’ ways of speaking such a taking-away would be in a certain respect, although it was a true taking-away.⁶ Again, according to this definition neither man nor God could take away any good from a man without qualification: not man, since then he would do so by his own authority and not by the authority of God, which cannot be, just as no one can have authority to sin. And God, if he took away from a man all his goods, would by that taking-away annihilate the one from whom it is taken, since while he remained some good of his would have to remain. How then could God take away essential goodness from a good [being]? By that [definition], then, God could not take away goods from the church 493or another creature; and in truth to feign such a groundless signification so as to blind the king and the kingdom, [into thinking] that they cannot take anything away from their subjects, would be too supine a folly, for the ignorance has been perceived.⁷ For so the lords would say that they do not take away without qualification but in a certain respect, proportionally as they gave; nor would there be danger anywhere, since those goods were not theirs except in a certain respect. It would therefore have been better to have defined catholic truth and pertinacious defence, so that it might be shown, if it can be, that the aforesaid definition of heresy is not verified of the king and the kingdom; but to the weariness of the school he flees by circumlocutions. Yet it would be better to study logic and to say how this article of the catholic faith, "the holy catholic church", ought to be understood; for then there would not be uttered so many heretical teachings, contrary to themselves, as, for instance, that the church which before Christ’s death was the synagogue began after Christ’s death. For it is not the logic of this world that before Christ’s death there was no church; and so of many other errors.⁸ O how glorious would be the conclusion that no one can take anything away from a cleric except justly! For no one can take anything away from a cleric unless he takes it away without qualification; now no one can take anything away without qualification except justly; therefore the conclusion. For if anyone takes away something by his own authority, since no one can have authority to sin, it follows that no one can take away anything by his own authority except justly.⁹ But, multiplying absurdities further, it is said that a cleric who knows his patron to be damned ought to pray for him, to mitigate his punishment; and the sayings of the doctors Prepositivus, [William of] Auxerre, 494Hostiensis in the Summa, and especially of the doctor Bonaventure on the fourth [book] of the Sentences, are alleged for this;¹⁰ and so, as it was dogmatized before that the privileges and possessions of the church ought in a given case to be defended by lies, so now it is said that the possession of them ought to be continued by diabolical suffrages.¹¹ It is evident indeed from the faith of the gospel that Judas is a devil, and by the same token everyone perpetually damned. As, then, suffrages made especially for the dead are suffrages of the dead, so suffrages made especially for devils are suffrages of devils. Hence you may perceive how a lying allegation has led to interceding with a special suffrage for a damned devil.¹²

Notes

1 Doctor: Wyclif’s opponent, unnamed here and throughout the chapter (side-note 491.2, "my opponent"). Rectificacione elemosine occupate a clero: the temporal lords’ correcting of the alms the clergy hold, that is, taking them back (A in the margin at 491.21: De ablacione temporalium). R. Side-note 491.2.
2 Legio: "liege", the clergy as the king’s liegemen. Convertit: he turned [the question] aside. The matron’s answer, "a sack full of plums" to "how far is it to Lincoln?", is a tale Wyclif tells more fully in De veritate sacrae scripturae c. 13 (ed. Buddensieg, I, 288–289): a deaf old woman carrying plums, asked how many miles to the next city, answers that she carries a sack full of plums. Vecorditer: the glossary’s medieval sense, "faint-heartedly". T. The apparatus at 491.14–15 gives a variant plenum pravis without a legible siglum; the print’s plenum prunis is translated.
3 Signum: the logicians’ word for a term such as simpliciter; the glossary’s "without qualification" is kept for it throughout, because the argument turns on its opposition to secundum quid. The opponent glosses it twice: by one’s own authority, and taking away everything (side-notes 491.13, 491.25). Oportet ipsum dicere: Wyclif draws out what the opponent must say, given that the king’s authority is received from pope or God. Auctoritas enim … is taken as Wyclif’s rejoinder: authority that has the king as its proper subject (subiectatur) is the king’s own even though it was given him, or no creature (nihil) could act by its own authority. It may instead be read as part of the opponent’s account. T. AA₁ qui auferret (491.26); B tens oportet (491.21), not clear.
4 Fallaciam secundum quid: the fallacy secundum quid et simpliciter, passing from "in a certain respect" to "without qualification". Et simpliciter videtur: simpliciter is taken with the infinitive (a creature cannot do anything without qualification); it may instead strengthen videtur, "it seems outright". T. AA₁ sed bonum secundum (491.31–32); the apparatus does not make clear which words this replaces. R. Side-notes 491.28, 492.2.
5 Nec valet fingere … non valeret: impersonal, "it avails", in both places; the opponent’s reply takes valet personally, "I am able" (499.21–24, chunk 21-c). Limitaverit: the glossary’s "to assign", the sense the doctor fixed for the term. T. B vel haberet (492.6); B valeret signacio for significacio (492.9–10); A ex tali ex auctore and (the apparatus prints "A" twice) ex tali exactore (492.10).
6 Mark 2:20, in Wyclif’s own words (Vulgate cum auferetur ab eis sponsus, DR "when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them"). C. Personalitas: the divinity is the whole of Christ’s person; in the logicians’ terms (secundum modos loquendi philosophorum) the removal is secundum quid, though true. T. B secundum deitatem (492.19–20). R. Side-note 492.11; A in the margin at 492.11 and 492.16: De ablacione temporalium; De illa diccione simpliciter quomodo debet intelligi.
7 Descripcio: the opponent’s definition of taking away without qualification (taking everything). Per illam: by that [definition]. Bonitatem essencialem: the goodness a creature has by being, which cannot be taken without annihilating it. Nam ignorancia est percepta is short and odd; it is taken as "the ignorance has been seen through". Supina: as in the canonists’ ignorancia supina, culpable ignorance. T. B signacionem (493.1). R. Side-notes 492.23, 493.4.
8 Veritatem catholicam et defensionem pertinacem: the terms of the definition of heresy (pertinacious defence of what is contrary to catholic truth), which the opponent had applied to king and kingdom; Wyclif asks him to define them, so that the charge can be tested. Ecclesiam sanctam catholicam: the article of the Creed, in its accusative ("[I believe] the holy catholic church"). The opponent’s thesis that the church began after Christ’s death returns at 499.15–17 (chunk 21-c). Non est logica huius mundi: not even worldly logic says that there was no church before Christ’s death.
9 A mock syllogism: the major uses the opponent’s sense (taking without qualification is taking by one’s own authority), the minor follows from "no one can have authority to sin". T. AA₁ lack quis (493.24). R. Side-note 493.19.
10 Inconveniencia: CONTEXTUAL; here the absurdities of argument. S. Prepositivus: Praepositinus of Cremona, chancellor of Paris, as Loserth identifies him (493.31, "Praepositivus … anno 1207"). Altissidorensis: Loserth notes only that several decretists and theologians bore the name; William of Auxerre, author of the Summa aurea, is meant: at 498.19 Wyclif gives his opinion as Thomas reports it, In IV Sent. d. 45 q. 2 a. 2 qc. 1 (suffragia prosunt damnatis … per confortationem patientis; sicut si homo portaret grave onus). Hostiensis: Henry of Segusio, Summa aurea V, De poenitentiis et remissionibus, § Quibus mortuis suffragia. Bonaventure, In IV Sent. d. 46. T. The codices spell Altisiodorensis (493.31). R. Side-note 493.28.
11 Et ita (ut prius dogmatizatum est) quod … ita modo dicitur: the first ita is taken as "as", answering the second. The earlier dogma, that the church’s privileges may be defended by lies, is the opponent’s, set out in chapter 8 (159, 08-a: multo magis debuerunt mentiri pro illis privilegiis conservandis). Continuari: the patron’s possession is kept up by prayers for his soul.
12 Judas a devil: John 6:70–71. C. Suffragia dyabolorum: on the pattern of suffragia mortuorum, the suffrages for the dead. R. Side-note 494.5; A in the margin at 494.11: Suffragia pro mortuis si et quomodo prosunt.

How the Latin of this chapter was established

Plate readings; page · reading · note):
- 491: CAP. XXI.
- 491: habet
- 491: signo
- 491: specificat
- 491: fingitur
- 492: evidenter
- 492: oppositum
- 492: secundum (print secun-|dum; main token holds the whole word (no separate dum token))
- 492: ∅)
- 492: facere
- 492: habet (5 is the line number)
- 492: sic (print: sic faceret; main has no sic token)
- 492: faceret
- 492: quid, (quid split qui|d (agent 11))