De ecclesia, chapter 23, part 10

The laity could indulge their prelates; the form of indulgences implies falsehood; the pious fraud rejected

Loserth pp. 576.3–580.9

¶1576.3–580.9

576nunquam incepisset ecclesia habere talem licenciam; similiter quilibet habens licenciam absolvendi habet licenciam commutandi penam temporalem pro pena perpetua quam confitens aliter supportaret, sed cum hoc sit indulgere, videtur quod quilibet sacerdos habet infinitam potenciam indulgendi. Non enim videtur racio quin in foro penitencie abscondito fiunt indulgencie, sicut fiunt extra in foro arbitrii per bullas publice proclamate. Nec est racio quin tantum valeant, cum fiunt utrimque devocius, humilius et legi Christi conformius; absolvens ergo preest ecclesie, et ad utilitatem ecclesie intendit efficaciter quod certa persona habeat remissionem grandis debiti pro parva satisfaccione. Sic enim potest diaconus, vel legatus secundum potestatem iurisdiccionis que est inferior potestate ordinis subditis indulgere. Et ex istis tercio videtur quod quilibet de populo potest indulgere suo prelato, quia debita largissima sibi dimittere, et hoc est secundum modum loquendi scripture indulgere. Nam sicut apostolus dicit Rom. I, 14, quod Grecis vel Latinis est debitor, ita videtur quod dominus papa sit debitor ad serviendum et spiritualiter proficiendum cuilibet christiano, et illud debitum videtur eo maius quod Deus ad hoc obligat sub pena gravissima, et illud quod debetur foret preciosius debito corporali. Si igitur ille potest in debito isto deficere, et Christus docet Matthei VI, 12: Dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris, videtur quod subditi possunt eciam pape copiosius indulgere. Ymmo videtur quod prelati maxime indigent indulgenciis laycorum, nec est indulgencia tantum sacramentum, quin laicis possit competere, 577quomodocunque fundabiliter terminus sit descriptus, quod laici possunt eis relaxare debitum spiritualiter ad utilitatem ecclesie, racione cuius relaxacionis Deus graciose coassistet, dimittendo peccatum et pene debitum, quod contingit Deum facere ad instanciam layci efficacius quam ad instanciam istius prelati qui blaspheme aut sacrilege vendicat aut vendit vel saltem pretendit se facere quod Deo non potest competere. Nam danti pecunias vel eis equivalens datur indulgencia quantumcunque laxa sive pro vivis sive pro mortuis quantumcunque incapacibus, sed egeno vel pauperi evangelice non dant indulgencias pro opere virtuoso, cum tamen quelibet virtus vel meritum sit infinitum prestancius quam totus thesaurus huius mundi et plus dignificat hominem ad habendum indulgencias quoad Deum, quia illa per se et alia solum per accidens. Item, videtur quod vel forma indulgenciarum est falsa vel indulgenti ambigua; nam indulgencie indifferenter conceduntur vivis et mortuis, sed sepe contingit quod non valeant illis vel non tantum valeant, eo quod sunt inhabiles quoad Deum. Ergo forma indulgenciarum sepe implicat falsum; et idem patet de impetrante indulgencias eciam plus quam centum millia annorum, quam largicionem vel oportet esse falsam vel diem iudicii adeo prorogari vel indulgencias valere in inferno post diem iudicii. Sed due posteriores partes sunt inopinabiles, ideo relinquitur prima pars, videlicet quod forma indulgenciarum sepe sit inutilis et falsa. Nec valet dicere quod subintelligende sunt condiciones capacitatis personarum quoad Deum pro quibus indultum est, quia talem promissionem posset quilibet de vulgo secure facere cuicunque, ut certum est quod omnis dampnatus habebit plenam remissionem 578si dignus fuerit et habilis ad tantam veniam quoad Deum, et aliter indubie propter concessionem Petri vicarii non habebit indulgencie plus vel minus. Ymmo videtur quod talis arroganter presumens dare tales indulgencias non sit procurator idoneus, ut ad sui peticionem Deus sit debitori magis propicius, quia in re concedit servus Dei, sepe sibi odibilis ex peccato quod Deus indulgebit suo affecto remittendo culpam et relaxando penam. Sed quomodo faceret Deus misericordiam ad tam luciferinam et tam infundabilem concessionem unius servi tam indigni? Revera melius foret quod vel doceret in hoc vicariam potestatem vel teneret se in limitibus sancti Petri. De Petro autem non plus sequitur: Quodcunque ligaveris super terram erit ligatum et in celo, ergo Petrus habuit potestatem ad taliter relaxandum penas tam in vivis quam mortuis in purgatorio vel dampnatis, quam sequitur: Christus dedit Petro illam potestatem ligandi et solvendi, ergo si Petrus voluisset insurgere contra Christum et membra sua, excommunicando eos et plene indulgendo membris dyaboli, ergo oportuit fuisse in celo apud Deum taliter diffinitum. Unde omnes fideles concedunt quod omnis potestas concessa Petro vel eius vicario limitata est quod humiliter et conformiter pareat Deo; ex cuius conformitate capit de tanto virtutem et ex eius deformitate capit tam prepositus quam subiectus seduccionem. Et hec racio quare Petrus et alii divinitus inspirati non magnificarunt potestatem suam ultra limites quos Deus instituit, sed precise ad tantum solverunt et ligarunt ad quantum docti sunt Deum solvere vel ligare. In ambiguis vero vel tacuerunt vel condicionem secundum quam oportet Deum principaliter 579solvere expresserunt. Unde sanctus Thomas conclusione secunda articuli tercii, d. XX, quarti libri movet dubium, utrum indulgencie tantum valent quantum pronunciantur, et arguendo ad partes recitat opinionem quadruplicem. Quarum prima dicit quod indulgencie non tantum valent quantum pronunciantur, sed ecclesia ad hoc ita pronunciat, ut quadam pia fraude homines ad beneficienciam et honorificenciam alliciat, sicut mater promittens false filio pomum vel aliud delectabile ad ambulandum provocat. Sed (ut dicit) periculosum est sic dicere, primo quia scola ista est patris mendacii, sed Job XIII°, 7 dicitur: Numquid Deus indiget mendacio vestro, ut pro eo loquamini? Item, sic dicens peccaret in se mortaliter et daret occasionem diffidendi de quocunque dicto vel facto prelati ecclesie. Nam Iª Corinth. XV°, 14 dicit Apostolus: Si inanis est predicacio nostra, inanis est et fides nostra. Talis autem falsum predicans dampnabiliter evacuat a se fidem. Et pro secunda parte beatus Augustinus epistola decima nona probat beato Jeronymo quod, si in scriptura sacra deprehenderetur aliquid falsitatis, robur auctoritatis scripture periret. Item, cum promittens donum spirituale magis obligatur ex promissione quam promissione corporalis pecunie, sequitur quod episcopus literatorie sic false promittens indulgencias obligat se ad solvendum thesaurum Deo. Caveat ergo episcopus de indiscreta et presumptuosa obligacione ad dandum thesaurum domini, quia hoc videtur magis dampnabile quam talentum Dei abscondere, 580quia sic false promittens superbe mentitur de Christo, cum Corinthiis dicit Apostolus: Si quid donavi in persona Christi. Quilibet ergo episcopus dicit in literis suarum indulgenciarum implicite quod Christus de thesauro domini tantum donat. Et patet ex dictis de mendacio quod non maior posset esse prelatorum defamacio vel ecclesie scandalizacio quam dicere quod in causa Dei ad seduccionem fidei populi prelati tam alti tam patule menciuntur.

[because then] the church would never have begun to have such a licence.¹ Likewise, anyone who has licence to absolve has licence to exchange a temporal punishment for the perpetual punishment that the one confessing would otherwise bear; now since this is to indulge, it seems that any priest has an infinite power of indulging. For there seems no reason why indulgences should not be made in the hidden court of penance, as they are made outside, in the court of discretion, publicly proclaimed through bulls.² Nor is there a reason why they should not be worth as much, since on both sides they are made more devoutly, more humbly and more conformably to the law of Christ; the one absolving, therefore, is set over the church, and for the profit of the church he effectually intends that a certain person have remission of a great debt for a small satisfaction. For in this way a deacon, or a legate, can indulge his subjects by the power of jurisdiction, which is lower than the power of order.³ And from these, thirdly, it seems that anyone of the people can indulge his prelate, because [he can] remit to him the most ample debts; and this, according to scripture’s manner of speaking, is to indulge.⁴ For as the Apostle says, Romans 1:14, that he is a debtor to Greeks or Latins, so it seems that the lord pope is a debtor to serve and to profit spiritually every Christian; and that debt seems the greater in that God binds [him] to it under the gravest penalty, and what is owed would be more precious than a bodily debt.⁵ If, therefore, he can fail in that debt, and Christ teaches, Matthew 6:12, "Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors", it seems that subjects can even indulge the pope more copiously. Indeed it seems that prelates most of all need the indulgences of lay people; nor is indulgence so great a sacrament that it could not belong to lay people, 577however groundedly the term be defined, in that lay people can spiritually relax a debt to them for the profit of the church;⁶ by reason of which relaxation God will graciously assist alongside, remitting the sin and the debt of punishment. And it may happen that God does this at the urging of a layman more effectually than at the urging of that prelate who blasphemously or sacrilegiously claims or sells, or at least pretends that he does, what cannot befit God.⁷ For to one who gives money, or its equivalent, an indulgence however lax is given, whether for the living or for the dead, however incapable they are; but to the needy man, or to one poor after the gospel’s pattern, they give no indulgences for a virtuous work; although any virtue or merit is infinitely more excellent than the whole treasure of this world, and dignifies a man more for having indulgences as regards God; for the one does so of itself, and the other only by accident.⁸ Again, it seems that the form of indulgences is either false or ambiguous for the one who indulges; for indulgences are granted indifferently to the living and the dead; now it often happens that they are of no worth to them, or not of so much worth, because they are unqualified as regards God. Therefore the form of indulgences often implies a falsehood; and the same is clear of one who obtains indulgences even of more than a hundred thousand years: that bestowal must either be false, or the day of judgement be put off so far, or indulgences avail in hell after the day of judgement. Now the two latter parts are unthinkable; so the first part remains, namely that the form of indulgences is often useless and false.⁹ Nor does it avail to say that conditions of capacity, as regards God, in the persons for whom the indulgence is granted are to be understood as implied; for anyone of the common people could safely make such a promise to anyone: as it is certain that every damned man will have full remission 578if he be worthy and qualified for so great a forgiveness as regards God; and otherwise, beyond doubt, he will have no more and no less of indulgence on account of the grant of Peter’s vicar.¹⁰ Indeed it seems that such a one, arrogantly presuming to give such indulgences, is not a fit proctor, such that at his petition God should be more favourable to the debtor; for in fact a servant of God, often hateful to him from sin, grants that God will indulge his favourite by remitting the guilt and relaxing the punishment.¹¹ But how would God show mercy at so luciferian and so groundless a grant by one servant so unworthy? Truly it would be better that he either showed his vicarial power in this, or kept himself within the limits of St Peter. And of Peter it no more follows, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven", therefore Peter had power so to relax punishments, both in the living and in the dead, in purgatory or the damned, than it follows: Christ gave Peter that power of binding and loosing; therefore if Peter had wished to rise up against Christ and his members, excommunicating them and fully indulging the members of the devil, then it must have been so defined in heaven before God.¹² Hence all the faithful grant that every power granted to Peter or to his vicar is limited [to this]: that it humbly and conformably obey God; from conformity with whom it takes power in that measure, and from its deformity both superior and subject take seduction. And this is the reason why Peter and others divinely inspired did not magnify their power beyond the limits that God instituted, but loosed and bound precisely so far as they were taught that God looses or binds. In doubtful cases, however, they either kept silent or expressed the condition according to which God must principally 579loose.¹³ Hence St Thomas, in the second conclusion of the third article of distinction 20 of the fourth book, raises the doubt whether indulgences are worth as much as they are proclaimed [to be], and, arguing on both parts, recites a fourfold opinion.¹⁴ The first of these says that indulgences are not worth as much as they are proclaimed, but that the church proclaims them so to this end, that by a kind of pious fraud it may entice men to beneficence and to doing honour, as a mother, falsely promising her son an apple or some other delightful thing, provokes him to walk. But (as he says) it is dangerous to say this: first, because that school is of the father of lies; now in Job 13:7 it is said, "Hath God any need of your lie, that you should speak for him?"¹⁵ Again, one who said so would sin mortally in himself and would give occasion for distrusting any word or deed of a prelate of the church. For in 1 Corinthians 15:14 the Apostle says, "If our preaching is vain, our faith is also vain." Now such a one, preaching what is false, damnably empties faith out of himself. And for the second part, blessed Augustine, in the nineteenth letter, proves to blessed Jerome that if anything of falsity were detected in holy scripture, the strength of scripture’s authority would perish.¹⁶ Again, since one who promises a spiritual gift is more bound by the promise than by a promise of bodily money, it follows that a bishop who thus falsely promises indulgences by letter binds himself to pay the treasure to God.¹⁷ Let the bishop beware, therefore, of an indiscreet and presumptuous obligation to give the Lord’s treasure; for this seems more damnable than to hide God’s talent, 580since one who promises falsely in this way lies proudly about Christ, as the Apostle says to the Corinthians: "If I have pardoned any thing, in the person of Christ."¹⁸ Every bishop, therefore, says implicitly in the letters of his indulgences that Christ gives so much from the Lord’s treasure. And it is clear from what has been said about lying that there could be no greater defaming of prelates or scandalising of the church than to say that in God’s cause, to the seducing of the people’s faith, prelates so high lie so openly.¹⁹

Notes

1 The sentence begins in the previous part (576.1–2): "It does not follow, then: the church has not decreed to such a curate a licence to indulge, therefore he does not have a licence; because then the church would never have begun to have such a licence." The bracketed words repeat the end of that part (our supply). Confitens: the penitent. Commutandi penam temporalem pro pena perpetua: to exchange the temporal punishment of purgatory or penance for the eternal punishment the sin deserves, which absolution does. T. B ecclesiam (576.3), which does not construe.
2 In foro arbitrii: in the outward court, where a prelate grants at his own discretion (arbitrium), set against the hidden court of penance (row forum penitencie). Proclamate agrees with indulgencie, not with bullas: the indulgences are proclaimed through bulls.
3 Utrimque: on both sides, that is, by confessor and penitent alike; "in both courts" is possible. Absolvens ergo preest ecclesie: the confessor meets the conditions required for an indulgence, authority over the church and the church’s profit. Potestas iurisdiccionis: the power of jurisdiction, held by appointment, set against the power of order given in ordination; a deacon or a legate may have the first without the priestly order. T. B iurediccionis (576.17), a spelling.
4 Quia debita largissima sibi dimittere has no finite verb; "[he can]" is our supply, for a probable lost potest. C. Indulgere in scripture’s manner of speaking is to forgive a debt. R. Side-note 576.19.
5 Romans 1:14. The Vulgate reads Graecis ac barbaris, "To the Greeks and to the barbarians" (DR); Wyclif’s Grecis vel Latinis is his own, and Loserth gives the Vulgate. C. Eo maius quod: the greater in that.
6 Nec est indulgencia tantum sacramentum, quin laicis possit competere: indulgence is not so great a sacrament that it cannot belong to the laity. The quod clause (quod laici possunt) is taken as stating the ground ("in that"); it may instead give what belongs to the laity ("that lay people can …"). Descriptus: "defined", from describere (cf. row descripcio). T. The apparatus to 576.34 gives totum sacramentum (siglum lost in the OCR), "a whole sacrament", against the print’s tantum.
7 Ad instanciam: at the urging of (row instancia, the sense of urgency, not "objection"). C. Quod Deo non potest competere: what cannot befit God, that is, an act (selling remission) which God himself could not rightly do. R. Side-note 577.5 ("at the instance of a layman").
8 Laxa: "lax", the adjective of laxare (row "loose"): an indulgence of any breadth. Pauperi evangelice: one poor after the gospel’s pattern. Illa per se et alia solum per accidens: virtue fits a man for indulgence of itself, money only by accident. T. The apparatus to 577.1 seems to give plus significat (siglum lost in the OCR) for plus dignificat.
9 Indulgenti ambigua: ambiguous for the one who indulges, who cannot know whether it holds; "ambiguous in the indulging" is possible. Plus quam centum millia annorum: a remission longer than the time left before judgement, so that either the grant is false, or judgement is postponed, or indulgences avail in hell. Inopinabiles: unthinkable. T. A reads forma falsa vel at 577.18–19 (the OCR’d apparatus is garbled).
10 Subintelligende: to be understood as implied (row). The tacit condition empties the promise: any commoner could promise a damned man full remission "if he be worthy". Petri vicarii: the pope as Peter’s vicar (row, kept apart from vicarius Christi). R. Side-note 577.31.
11 Procurator idoneus: a fit proctor (row) to plead for the debtor. Sibi odibilis: hateful to God. Suo affecto: his favourite. Suo refers to the subject, the granting servant, so the one he favours is meant; affectus is taken as a noun, "one held in affection".
12 Matthew 16:19 (DR; the Vulgate reads in caelis). C. Two parallel inferences: the first (from the text to a power over the dead) is no better than the second (from the gift of the keys to a ratification in heaven of Peter’s rebellion). In the second, the repeated ergo opens the consequent of the conditional ("then"). Diffinitum: defined, determined (cf. row diffinicio). R. Loserth compares Hus, Adversus indulgencias papales, Opp. I, fol. 186b. Side-note 578.13.
13 Limitata est quod: limited to this condition (row limitare, the restricting sense). Ex cuius conformitate: cuius is God. Capit de tanto virtutem: takes power in that measure. Prepositus: the superior (cf. row prepositi). T. B et eius for ex eius (578.26). The manuscripts read solverant; Loserth prints solverunt (578.30). R. Side-note 578.28.
14 Thomas Aquinas, In IV Sent. d. 20, q. 1, a. 3, qc. 2, the source of Summa theologiae Suppl. q. 25, a. 2, Utrum indulgentiae tantum valeant quantum praedicantur. Loserth cites the Supplement as "questio XXVII" (Opp. VI, p. 76), which does not match the modern numbering. Wyclif’s conclusione stands for Thomas’s subquestion. Arguendo ad partes: arguing on both sides of the question. R. Side-note 579.1.
15 The pious fraud and the mother’s promised apple are Thomas’s first opinion in that article, In IV Sent. d. 20 q. 1 a. 3 qc. 2 co. (= Suppl. q. 25 a. 2); Job 13:7 and 1 Cor. 15:14 are his two sed contra. Patris mendacii: the devil, John 8:44. Job 13:7: the Vulgate ends loquamini dolos (DR "speak deceitfully for him"); Wyclif omits dolos. C. Sed Job … dicitur: the step bringing the premiss ("now"). R. Side-notes 579.5, 579.12.
16 1 Corinthians 15:14. The Vulgate reads Si autem Christus non resurrexit, inanis est ergo praedicatio nostra, inanis est et fides vestra ("then is our preaching vain: and your faith is also vain", DR); Wyclif shortens it and reads fides nostra. Augustine, Ep. 82 (formerly 19) to Jerome, §§21–22 on the officious lie (Loserth’s reference); the closest wording, that one admitted lie would leave no part of scripture’s authority standing, is Ep. 28.3 (PL 33). T. A and B read Cor. XV without the number of the epistle (579.17). The manuscripts give epistola nona; decima nona is Loserth’s correction (579.21). C. Pro secunda parte: for the second reason, the occasion of distrust.
17 Literatorie: by letter, in letters of indulgence. Ad solvendum thesaurum Deo: to pay to God the treasure he has promised. T. A and A₁ read thesaurum domini (579.28), as in the next sentence.
18 Talentum Dei abscondere: the servant who hid his talent, Matthew 25:25. 2 Corinthians 2:10: the Vulgate reads si quid donavi, propter vos in persona Christi ("if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ", DR); Wyclif omits propter vos, as Loserth notes.
19 At Quilibet (580.1) A reads quilt. and A₁ qualiter. C. Tam alti tam patule: so high, so openly; the chapter’s charge is that the form of indulgences makes the prelates liars.

How the Latin of this chapter was established

Plate readings; page · reading · note):
- 576: populo (Q is a margin letter)
- 576: possit competere, (main token covers two printed words; com- / petere, (top of p. 577, leaf zoom))
- 577: instanciam (English side-note "at" glued)
- 578: Quodcunque
- 578: solverunt (30 is the line number)
- 579: Iª
- 579: literatorie [NW]