Wyclif’s Latin works

De ecclesia, chapter 23, part 11

Thomas’s measure of indulgences tested; the first six conclusions

Loserth pp. 580.10–584.22

¶1580.10–584.22

580Ideo tres alie opiniones vere dicunt quod omnes indulgencie tantum valent quantum sunt rite promulgate. Sed una dicit quod valor earum attenditur penes fidem et devocionem indulti. Alia vero dicit quod valor indulgenciarum attenditur penes iustam estimacionem valoris rei date. Tercia autem dicit quod bonitas indulgencie cum predictis respicit causam pro qua datur indulgencia. Sed doctor dicit quod attenditur penes quantitatem meritorum ecclesie, que applicantur ad indulgenciam faciendum. Et sic oportet quod ex parte dantis sit auctoritas, ex parte recipientis caritas, et ex parte cause pietas, penes que omnia simul attenditur indulgencie quantitas, quia omnia ista respiciunt honorem Dei et utilitatem ecclesie. Et penes utrumque istorum attenditur valor indulgencie, et sic (ut dicit) nec per tales indulgencias peccatum remittitur nec pena remittitur, sed unius pena alteri commutatur. Sed contra ista dicta videtur primo quod non generaliter excusantur litere indulgenciarum a mendacio, quia sepe in causa et devocione omnino consimili, quantumcunque dispariter conceduntur indulgencie, ergo vel oportet concedere quod absolute valent indulgencie proporcionaliter ad intencionem concedentis, et sic mentiri 581non posset in istis ut Deus, vel aliter valor indulgenciarum non simul attenditur penes omnia ista tria, ymmo sepe, ubi causa est minus pia caritasque magis remissa, maior indulgencia est concessa; ut unus papa concedere posset indulgencias exercitantibus se in torneamentis, ubi alius papa prius excommunicavit omnes artem huiusmodi exercitantes. Nec oportet quod immineat sic varie necessitas ecclesiam Christi defendendi per gladium; patet factum in Extravagante Johannis XXIIⁱ Quia in futurorum eventibus. Item, videtur istam posicionem restringere potestatem pape in donando indulgencias, cum dacio dependet ex pietate cause et caritate persone cui sunt indulgencie conferende. Sed papa non regulariter rectificat istas causas sicut nec potest, ergo nec iustificat omnes suas indulgencias, et per consequens, ex timore excessus prodigi non foret tam laxus indulgencias concedendo. Non enim videtur racio quare Romanus pontifex posset concedere in generalibus indulgenciis centum millibus cuilibet septem annos, quin per idem uni persone tantum temporis simul, quia si noticia dignitatis requiritur, nunquam procederet talis indulgencia generalis. Ymmo videtur, cum merita triumphantis ecclesie sint connexa, quod omnia simul applicarentur ad penam tollendam, et specialiter meritum Christi in cuius virtute oportet alia operari; quod cum sit agens naturale, agit secundum ultimum sue potencie infinite; videtur quod tolleret generaliter omnem penam. Si dicitur quod Deus regulat, tunc stat quod papa indulgens non applicat, sed quod Deus ad rogatum unius laici egeni copiose penam dimittat. Item, si non dimittitur pena, sed commutatur (ut dicit sanctus doctor), tunc omnis pena que ante indulgencias 582foret debita est futura, quia data pena que non videtur, quod illa pena virtute indulgencie est dimissa. Ad istum enim sensum Deus dimittit penam, et per consequens, per indulgencias nec relaxatur pena nec alleviatur ille cui fit indulgencia. Nam si aliqua pena caret quam aliter haberet, tunc sibi dimitteretur illa pena, et cum pena individuatur a tempore et consistit in successione, videtur quod non est commutacio pene pro pena, tum quia quod non est non commutatur; pena autem pro qua fit indulgencia nec fuit nec est nec erit, et pena beati non est modo, nec potest subiectari in eo cui fit indulgencia. Videtur insuper, cum pena et peccatum sese inseparabiliter consequuntur, qui dimittit vel relaxat unum relaxat et reliquum, ut qui extinguit risibilitatem extinguit humanitatem; cum ergo papa extinguit penam extinguit et peccatum, quia aliter remaneret peccatum ineque punitum vel penitus inpunitum, vel aliter dans indulgenciam supplet satisfaccionem, quod non faceret nisi secundum racionem meriti, et sic oporteret omnem indulgentem esse in gracia, sicut oportet omnem cui facta est indulgencia quod leges impugnant. Alie autem sunt consideraciones de irracionabilitate legum multiplicatarum in ista materia, ut centum episcopi in dyocesi Petri non sufficiunt concedere Paulo de dyoecesi Petri nisi eosdem quadraginta dies quos Petrus diocesanus concedit, quia aliter (ut inquiunt) forent iurisdicciones permixte, et quilibet episcopus haberet potestatem super totalem ecclesiam sicut papa; sed Paulo vagante per illos centum episcopatus et deteriorato continue apud Deum accrescerent sibi de quadraginta diebus cum suis ratificacionibus quatuor millia dierum. 583Sed que racio (rogo) huius? vel que diversitas quod episcopus Nullatensis non sufficit concedere alicui indulgenciam quantumcunque digno apud Deum, episcopus autem dotatus sufficit concedere parem indulgenciam quantumcunque dispariter indispositis de sua dyocesi? Numquid talia dicta sonant quod indulgencia est pure ex arbitrio prepositi post dotacionem ecclesie adinventa et irracionabiliter ac fallaciter ad illusionem ecclesie sepe ficta? Et revera qui videntur defendere libertates, privilegia, honores ecclesie, ut amici, sunt ex adulacionis oleo inficiente mendacio et defensione fallaci in peccato diu abscondito eiusdem ecclesie nequissimi domestici inimici. Ideo premissa humili protestacione de ecclesie veneracione, de humili subieccione et de suarum libertatum constanti defensione dico primo quod nemo est capax indulgencie, nisi fuerit et de quanto fuerit dignus vel dispositus per graciam apud Deum. Patet ex hoc quod nemo si non Deus dat tales indulgencias qui non dat nisi caris suis quos sic prius habilitat. Dico secundo quod omnis recipiens tales indulgencias de tanto copiosius eas recipit, de quanto fuerit habilior quoad Deum. Patet ex hoc quod precise de tanto Deus dat sibi copiosius tales indulgencias, sed ipse facit quicquid facit ad regulam. Dico tercio quod nullius episcopi indulgencia prodest homini, nisi de quanto prius se disposuit apud Deum. Patet ex hoc quod Deus non dat sibi talem indulgenciam nisi ad tantum ex proposicione proxima, sed precise de tanto cuiuscunque episcopi indulgencia prodest. 584Dico quarto quod episcopi indulgencia de tanto recipienti proderit, de quanto episcopus eum in fide Christi instruxerit, in devocionem et amorem Dei accenderit vel quomodocunque habilem ad indulgenciam Dei fecerit. Patet totum ex dictis. Dico quinto quod sacerdotes Christi non habent potestatem donandi indulgencias secundum quantitatem temporis, nisi eis specialiter fuerit revelatum. Patet ex illo morali Judith VIII°, 13: Posuistis vos tempus miseracionis domini, et in arbitrium vestrum diem constituistis ei. Ille ergo cui non fit ad hoc revelacio, qui spondet indigno apud Deum ex sibi dubio quod infra tantum tempus Deus miserebitur eius, donando sibi plenam remissionem, stulte pangit, cum non habet evidenciam quod Deus illud concesserit. Dico sexto quod ex fide scripture in qua est omnis veritas non fundabitur quod licet vicario Christi cui non fit ad hoc specialis revelacio, ut donet diurnas indulgencias vel annales. Patet ex hoc quod ex scriptura que non obviat sibi ipsi foret talis indulgencia temptacio Dei et seduccio populi.

Therefore the three other opinions say truly that all indulgencesindulgencie: indulgences are worth as much as they are duly promulgated. But one says that their worth is reckoned by the faith and devotion of the one indulged. Another says that the worth of indulgences is reckoned by a just estimate of the worth of the thing given. And the third says that the goodness of an indulgence, together with the aforesaid, regards the cause for which the indulgence is given.1 But the doctor says that it is reckoned by the quantity of the merits of the churchecclesia: church that are applied to making the indulgence. And so there must be authority on the part of the giver, charitycaritas: charity on the part of the recipient, and pietypietas / pie: piety / piously on the part of the cause, by all of which together the quantity of the indulgence is reckoned, because all these regard the honour of God and the profit of the church.2 And the worth of an indulgence is reckoned by each of these; and so (as he says) through such indulgences neither is sin remittedremissio; remittere: remission; to remit nor is punishment remitted, but the punishment of one is exchangedcommutacio; commutare: exchange; to exchange for another.3 But against these sayings it seems, first, that letters of indulgences are not in general excused from lying; for often, in a cause and devotion wholly alike, indulgences are granted however unequally; therefore either one must grant that indulgences are worth absolutely in proportion to the intention of the grantor, and so 581he could not lie in these, as God cannot; or else the worth of indulgences is not reckoned by all these three together. Indeed, often, where the cause is less pious and charity more slack, a greater indulgence is granted: as one popepapa: pope could grant indulgences to those who exercise themselves in tournaments, where another pope had earlier excommunicated all who exercised that art. Nor need the necessity of defending Christ’s church by the sword press so changeably; the fact is clear in the Extravagant of John XXII, Quia in futurorum eventibus.4 Again, this position seems to restrict the pope’s power in giving indulgences, since the giving depends on the piety of the cause and the charity of the person on whom the indulgences are to be conferred. Now the pope does not as a rule set these causes right, as neither can he; therefore neither does he justify all his indulgences; and consequently, for fear of prodigal excess, he would not be so lax in granting indulgences.5 For there seems no reason why the Roman pontiffRomanus pontifex: Roman pontiff could grant, in general indulgences, seven years to each of a hundred thousand, and not by the same token as much time at once to one person; for if knowledge of worthiness is required, such a general indulgence would never go forth. Indeed it seems, since the merits of the church triumphant are connected, that all would be applied together to taking away punishment, and especially the merit of Christ, in whose power the others must work; and since it is a natural agent, it acts according to the utmost of its infinite power; it seems that it would take away all punishment universally.6 If it is said that God regulates [it], then it may stand that the pope who indulges does not apply [the merits], but that God, at the request of one needy layman, copiously remits the punishment. Again, if punishment is not remitted but exchanged (as the holy doctor says), then all the punishment that before the indulgences 582would have been owed is still to come; for, granted the punishment, it does not seem that that punishment was remitted by virtue of the indulgence.7 For it is in this sense that God remits punishment; and consequently through indulgences neither is punishment relaxedrelaxare; relaxacio: to relax; relaxation nor is he lightened to whom the indulgence is made. For if he lacks some punishment that he would otherwise have, then that punishment would be remitted to him; and since a punishment is individuated by time and consists in succession, it seems that there is no exchange of punishment for punishment: both because what is not is not exchanged, now the punishment for which the indulgence is made neither was nor is nor will be; and [because] the punishment of the blessed one is not now, nor can it have its subject in him to whom the indulgence is made.8 It seems, moreover, since punishment and sin follow each other inseparably, that whoever remits or relaxes the one relaxes the other too, as whoever extinguishes risibility extinguishes humanity. Since, therefore, the pope extinguishes punishment, he extinguishes sin too; for otherwise sin would remain unequally punished or wholly unpunished; or else the one giving the indulgence supplies the satisfactionsatisfaccio; satisfacere: satisfaction; to make satisfaction, which he would not do except by way of merit; and so everyone who indulges would have to be in grace, as must everyone to whom an indulgence has been made: which the laws attack.9 And there are other considerations about the irrationality of the laws multiplied in this matter: as that a hundred bishopsepiscopus; dominus episcopus: bishop; the lord bishop in Peter’s diocese do not suffice to grant to Paul, of Peter’s diocese, more than the same forty days that Peter the diocesan grants; because otherwise (as they say) jurisdictions would be mixed together, and any bishop would have power over the whole church as the pope does; but if Paul wandered through those hundred bishoprics, growing continually worse before God, four thousand days would accrue to him from the forty days with their ratifications.10 583But what reason (I ask) is there for this? Or what difference, that a bishop "of Nowhere"episcopus Nullatensis: a bishop "of Nowhere" does not suffice to grant an indulgence to anyone, however worthy before God, but an endowed bishop suffices to grant an equal indulgence to those of his diocese, however unequally unfitindispositus; (se) indisponere: unfit; to make (oneself) unfit they are? Do not such sayings sound as if indulgence were purely from the will of a superiorprepositi: superiors, devised after the endowmentdotacio: endowment of the church, and often feigned irrationally and fallaciously to the mockery of the church?11 And truly those who seem, as friends, to defend the liberties, privilegesprivilegium / privilegiare / privilegiacio: privilege / to privilege / privileging and honours of the church are, by the oil of flattery, by infecting falsehood and by fallacious defence in a sin long hidden, that same church’s most wicked enemies of its own household.12 Therefore, having first made a humble declarationprotestacio; protestari: declaration; to declare solemnly of veneration for the church, of humble subjection and of constant defence of its liberties, I say first that no one is capable of indulgence unless, and in so far as, he is worthy or disposed by grace before God. This is clear from this: that no one but God gives such indulgences, and he gives only to his dear ones, whom he thus first qualifies.13 I say second that everyone who receives such indulgences receives them the more copiously the more qualifiedhabilis / habilitas: qualified / qualification he is as regards God. This is clear from this: that precisely in that measure God gives him such indulgences more copiously; now he does whatever he does by rule. I say third that no bishop’s indulgence profits a man except in so far as he has first disposed himself before God. This is clear from this: that God gives him such an indulgence only so far, by the last proposition; now precisely so far does any bishop’s indulgence profit.14 584I say fourth that a bishop’s indulgence will profit the recipient in so far as the bishop has instructed him in the faith of Christ, kindled him to devotion and the love of God, or in any way made him qualified for God’s indulgence. The whole is clear from what has been said. I say fifth that the priestssacerdos / presbiter: priest / presbyter of Christ do not have power to give indulgences according to a quantity of time, unless it has been specially revealed to them. This is clear from that moral [lesson] of Judith 8:13: "You have set a time for the mercy of the Lord, and you have appointed him a day, according to your pleasure." He, then, to whom no revelation is made for this, who pledges to one unworthy before God, on a ground doubtful to himself, that within such a time God will have mercy on him, giving him full remission, makes a foolish compact, since he has no evidenceevidencia: evidence that God has granted it.15 I say sixth that it will not be grounded from the faithex fide: as faith teaches; with a genitive, from the faith of [scripture] of scripture, in which is all truth, that it is lawful for a vicar of Christvicarius Christi: vicar of Christ to whom no special revelation is made for this to give indulgences of days or of years. This is clear from this: that, from scripture, which does not contradict itself, such an indulgence would be a tempting of God and a seducing of the people.16

Notes

  1. 1 Thomas’s three other opinions, which he takes before his own (In IV Sent. d. 20, q. 1, a. 3, qc. 2; Summa theol. Suppl. q. 25, a. 2): worth measured by the recipient’s faith, by the value of what is given, by the cause. C. Vere dicunt: they say truly, against the first opinion’s pious fraud. Attenditur penes: is reckoned by. T. For penes B has pu' (580.21). R. Side-note 580.10.
  2. 2 Doctor: Thomas. Ad indulgenciam faciendum: the gerund stands where the gerundive faciendam is expected. Auctoritas … caritas … pietas: Thomas’s three conditions, in the giver, the receiver and the cause. R. Side-note 580.18.
  3. 3 Utrumque istorum: each of the two ends just named, God’s honour and the church’s profit. Unius pena alteri commutatur: literally "the punishment of one is exchanged to another"; it may mean that one person’s satisfaction is transferred to another’s account. Wyclif reads it below (582.3) as an exchange of punishment for punishment, and the English follows him.
  4. 4 Ut Deus: as God, whose intention alone makes a grant true, cannot lie. Sic varie: so changeably, from one pope to the next. S. Extrav. Jo. XXII 9 un., Quia in futurorum eventibus (De torneamentis), which lifted the earlier ban on tournaments; the form of the reference is ours. The earlier pope is Clement V, whose ban with excommunication John XXII here revokes. T. The manuscripts read Equidem in futurorum eventibus; Quia is Loserth’s correction (581.10). R. Side-note 580.28.
  5. 5 Non regulariter rectificat istas causas: does not as a rule examine and set right the causes and the recipients’ charity, nor could he. Ergo nec iustificat: so he cannot show all his indulgences to be just. Ex timore excessus prodigi: the position, if true, should make the pope sparing.
  6. 6 Centum millibus cuilibet septem annos: seven years to each of a hundred thousand, that is, 700,000 years in all, which could as well be given to one. Noticia dignitatis: knowledge of the recipients’ worthiness. Connexa: bound together, so that all merits act as one. Agens naturale: an agent acting by nature, to the utmost of its power, not by choice. The second videtur resumes the sentence after the quod cum clause. T. B ecclesie connexa (581.24). R. Side-note 581.18.
  7. 7 Stat quod: it is consistent that. Sanctus doctor: Thomas. T. B Si dicatur (581.29). At 582.1 the print reads quia data pena que non videtur, quod, which does not construe; Loserth’s note marks que as superfluous and gives the right reading as quia data pena non videtur quod, translated here. R. Side-note 582.1.
  8. 8 Individuatur a tempore: a punishment is this punishment by its time. Tum quia … et: the second reason follows et without a second tum. Pena beati: the punishment endured by a saint whose merits are applied; being past, it neither exists now nor can inhere in the one indulged. Subiectari: to have its subject in. T. A and A₁ read quamalter, with A in the margin aliter (582.6).
  9. 9 Risibility, the capacity to laugh, is the property proper to man: remove the property and the nature goes. Ineque: unequally. Supplet satisfaccionem: makes up the satisfaction from his own merit. Quod leges impugnant: the canons deny that the granter of an indulgence must himself be in grace. T. Loserth’s note to 582.10 reads risibilitatem; racionabilitatem (?) ita codd., the print’s risibilitatem is Loserth’s text, the manuscripts reading (with his query) racionabilitatem. The English follows the print. R. Side-note 582.16.
  10. 10 Peter and Paul are stock names for any bishop and any man of his diocese. The canons limit a bishop’s indulgence to forty days and to his own subjects, so that a hundred bishops in one diocese give no more than its own bishop; yet a man who tours the hundred dioceses collects 100 × 40 days. Paulo vagante … et deteriorato: an ablative absolute, "while Paul wanders … and grows worse". S. The canons meant are X 5.38.14 Cum ex eo (Lateran IV: forty days) and X 5.38.4 Quod autem, which makes grants profit only those whose own judges grant them. T. B iurediccione (582.28). R. Side-note 582.23.
  11. 11 Episcopus Nullatensis: a bishop "of Nowhere", in Loserth’s note a bishop who has no episcopal see (a titular bishop). Dotatus: endowed with a see and its revenues. Numquid … ? expects assent here. T. B rogo hoc (583.1).
  12. 12 Domestici inimici: "And a man’s enemies shall be they of his own household" (Matthew 10:36). T. B amici sint (583.11).
  13. 13 Protestacio: Wyclif’s declaration of submission (row), made before the conclusions; not a defiance. C. Nisi fuerit et de quanto fuerit: unless, and to the degree that, he is. Habilitat: makes qualified (cf. row habilis). R. Loserth compares Hus, Adversus indulgencias papales, Opp. I, fol. 185b ff.. Side-notes 583.14, 583.17.
  14. 14 Sed ipse facit … ad regulam and sed precise de tanto: each sed brings the premiss that closes the proof ("now"). Ex proposicione proxima: by the second conclusion. T. A and A₁ lack se (583.28). R. Side-notes 583.22, 583.27, 584.1.
  15. 15 Judith 8:13 (DR). The manuscripts read in arbitrio vestro; Loserth corrected it to in arbitrium vestrum from the Vulgate (584.10). C. Ex illo morali: from that moral lesson. Ex sibi dubio: on a ground doubtful to himself. Stulte pangit: makes a foolish compact. R. Side-note 584.6.
  16. 16 Diurnas indulgencias vel annales: indulgences reckoned in days or in years. Que non obviat sibi ipsi: which does not contradict itself. Temptacio Dei: the tempting of God that scripture forbids (Deuteronomy 6:16). R. Side-note 584.17.
How the Latin of this chapter was established
  • Plate readings; page · reading · note):
    • 580: ∅ (ihree is the English side-note (The other three); Ideo already at pos 66)
    • 580: omnes (T is a margin letter)
    • 580: ∅ (to is the English side-note (merit applied to); oportet already at pos 136)
    • 581: XXIIⁱ
    • 581: racio [NW]
    • 582: dyocesi [NW]
    • 582: diocesanus [NW]
    • 583: dyocesi? [NW]
    • 584: proderit,
    • 584: fide (207c is the glued folio mark)
    • 584: veritas
    • 584: vicario
    • 584: ∅ (English side note (Christ’s vicar)) [DELX]