Wyclif’s Latin works

De ecclesia, chapter 7, part 1

The Westminster sanctuary case: it is lawful to take the fugitives out

Loserth pp. 142.3–146.28

¶1142.3–143.30

142Convenimus ex mandato domini regis ad dicendum secundum videre nostrum veritatem in casu nobis exposito ad honorem Dei, ad profectum ecclesie et ad stabilimentum prosperum regni nostri, et hec tria in tractatu nostro se invicem consequuntur. Casus autem nobis expositus in compendio fuit iste: Duo viri armorum, homines legii regis nostri fuerunt inobedientes regi et legibus suis, et per consequens regno, in redempcione unius captivi Hyspaniensis, filii comitis de Dene in cuius custodia et redempcione rex noster secundum leges suas debuit habere precipuum interesse. Unde quia noluerunt reddere regi nostro captivi custodiam per quem captivum regnum redimeret multos milites suos in Hispania captivatos, mandati sunt per regem et regnum tuciori regis carcere mancipari. Sed secundo superaddentes inobediencie priori exierunt contra mandatum regis violente de carcere et prostrato custode carceris intrarunt septa Westmonasterii, in quibus vendicarunt omnino eximi a subieccione regis ex illius ecclesie libertate. Et tercio, 143minando quod exirent de terra nostra coniuncti nostris capitalibus inimicis, dicuntur arma sibi parasse, literas salvi conductus ab hostibus procurasse et consilium domini nostri regis tamquam falsum publice difidasse. Istis suppositis cum multis aliis que nunc esset nimis longum disserere, queritur utrum licet regi et regno suo in casu isto facere ut dicti captivi de Westmonasterio extrahantur. Et dicunt canoniste et civiliste tam regni nostri quam imperii quod, supposita veritate casus, non obstante quocunque privilegio Westmonasterii licet eos extrahere. Theologi autem dicunt concorditer quod, supposita veritate casus expositi, licet eos extrahere, servando tamen eos in vita et membris incolumes. In isto autem articulo intendo condicionaliter ex supposicione veritatis casus narrati procedere, et nec invasionem occisi nec suam occisionem propter ignoranciam occulte circumstancie comprobare. Quibus suppositis conclusio theologorum suadetur tripliciter. Pro primo argumento suppono primo legem domini Exodi XXI° capitulo, 14, datam Moysi: Si quis de industria occiderit proximum suum et per insidias, ab altari meo evellas eum, ut occidatur, ubi notatur primo ex natura condicionalis quod lex ista debet esse perpetua. Secundo notatur quod mora talis in sanctuario non debet esse ex aliquo privilegio perpetuo constipata, ideo dicit evellas eum. Tercio notatur quod summus gradus sanctitatis loci non debet aliquem talem in immunitate ecclesiastica conservare, cum ab altari qui est locus dignissimus ecclesie talis homicida evelli debeat.

We have come together at the command of our lorddominus; dominari: lord; to exercise lordship / to lord it the king to speak the truth, as we see it, on the case set before us, to the honour of God, to the profit of the churchecclesia: church and to the prosperous establishment of our kingdomregnum: kingdom; and these three follow one another in our treatise.1 And the case set before us was, in brief, this: two men-at-arms, liege men of our king, were disobedient to the king and to his laws, and consequently to the kingdom, in the ransom of a Spanish captive, the son of the count of Dene, in whose custody and ransom our king, according to his laws, ought to have had the chief interest. Hence, because they would not render to our king the custody of the captive, through which captive the kingdom might ransom many of its knightsmilicia; milites: knighthood; knights taken captive in Spain, they were ordered by the king and the kingdom to be committed to the king’s safer prison. But, secondly, adding to their former disobedience, they went out of prison violently, against the king’s command, and, having struck down the keeper of the prison, entered the precincts of Westminster, in which they claimed to be wholly exempt from subjection to the king by the liberty of that church.2 And thirdly, 143threatening that they would leave our land, joined to our chief enemies, they are said to have prepared arms for themselves, to have procured letters of safe-conduct from the enemy, and publicly to have defied the council of our lord the king as false. These things supposed, with many others which it would now be too long to discuss, it is asked whether it is lawful for the king and his kingdom, in this case, to cause the said captives to be taken out of Westminster.3 And the canonists and civilians, both of our kingdom and of the empire, say that, the truth of the case being supposed, notwithstanding any privilege of Westminster, it is lawful to take them out. But the theologians say with one accord that, the truth of the case set forth being supposed, it is lawful to take them out, yet keeping them unharmed in life and limb.4 And in this article I intend to proceed conditionally, on suppositionnecessitas supposicionis / ex supposicione: necessity of supposition / necessity on supposition of the truth of the case narrated, and, from ignorance of a hidden circumstance, to approve neither the assault on the man who was killed nor his killing.5 These things supposed, the conclusionconclusio: conclusion of the theologians is argued for in three ways. For the first argument I suppose, first, the law of the Lord given to Moses, Exodus 21:14: "If a man kill his neighbour on set purpose and by lying in wait, take him away from my altar, that he may be killed"; where it is noted, first, from the nature of the conditional, that this law ought to be perpetual. Secondly, it is noted that such a stay in sanctuary ought not to be made fast by any perpetual privilege; hence it says "take him away". Thirdly, it is noted that the highest degree of the holiness of a place ought not to keep any such man in ecclesiastical immunity, since such a homicide must be taken away from the altar, which is the worthiest place of the church.6

¶2143.31–144.22

143Secundo supponatur factum sapientis regis Salomonis III° Regum 2° cap., ubi fecit occidi Joab ad cornu 144altaris in tabernaculo domini, non obstante quod in exercitu patris sui David plus aliis militibus laboravit. Cuius occisionis doctores triplicem causam eliciunt ex scriptura. Primo, quia occidit Abner et Amasan tempore pacis ex vulpina industria, et tunc non gauderet immunitate ecclesie ex lege iam proximo allegata. Secundo, quia conspiravit cum Adonia et Abiathar contra regem. Et tercio precipue, quia rex timuit sibi quod Joab superstes in regno pacem populi perturbaret. Ideo subditur: David autem et semini eius et domui et trono eius sit pax in eternum a domino. Ex istis tercio sic arguitur ex lege Dei quam non est fas homini inpugnare, licet nedum de altari Dei propter timorem perturbacionis regni fugitivum ad occidendum extrahere, sed ibidem eum occidere, ut patet ex dictis; sed infinitum minus esset fugitivum salvum in vita et membris extrahere; ergo, posita vehementi suspicione regis et sui consilii de prodicione vel perturbacione regni per tales fugitivos futura, licet eos secundum formam predictam extrahere et in tuta custodia conservare.

Secondly, let the deed of the wise king Solomon be supposed, 3 Kings 2, where he had Joab killed at the horn 144of the altar in the tabernacle of the Lord, notwithstanding that in the army of his father David he had laboured more than the other knights.7 Of this killing the doctors draw a threefold cause from scripture. First, because he killed Abner and Amasa in time of peace with a fox’s cunning, and so would not enjoy the immunity of the church, by the law just cited. Secondly, because he conspired with Adonias and Abiathar against the king. And thirdly and chiefly, because the king feared for himself that Joab, surviving in the kingdom, would disturb the peace of the people. Hence it is added: "But to David and his seed, and his house, and to his throne, be peace for ever from the Lord."8 From these, thirdly, it is argued thus, from the law of God, which it is not right for man to impugn: it is lawful not only to drag a fugitive from God’s altar to be killed, for fear of disturbance of the kingdom, but to kill him there, as is clear from what has been said; now it would be infinitely less to take a fugitive out safe in life and limb; therefore, granted a vehement suspicion on the part of the king and his council of treason or disturbance of the kingdom to come through such fugitives, it is lawful to take them out in the aforesaid form and to keep them in safe custody.9

¶3144.23–145.18

144Nec valet dicere quod lex antiqua non obligat homines legis nove, tum quia super ista lege veteri fundant leges ecclesie iura sua, ut patet de quattuor qui non gaudebunt immunitate ecclesie, non licet ergo destruere principia legis ecclesie, tum quia arguitur ex legis divine iusticia per locum a maiori facti nostri iusticia, tum eciam quia tunc non remaneret nobis ecclesiasticis titulus decimas vendicandi, cum non ex lege nova sed veteri autorizatur nobis solucio decimarum. 145Nec valet secundo quod Joab commisit peccata gravia, que plus movebant quam suspicio de perturbacione futura, tum quia sic est in casu nostro de superba eorum inobediencia, tum eciam quia certum videtur ex textu quod timor perturbacionis regni Salomonis fuit causa occidendi Joab precipua, quia ignoravit si priora crimina sint dimissa; ideo punicio quattuor personarum de quibus ibi fit mentio fuit precipue ad pacificandum in posterum regnum suum. Nec valet tercio dicere quod expectaretur quousque probata fuerit regni perturbacio sive prodicio, quia illa probacio foret nimis diutina contra prudenciam precavendi regno pericula; sed hoc videtur probabile quod non inferretur eis lesio corporalis, antequam culpa eorum fuerit notoria vel secundum leges patrie probata legitime. Aliud enim est dampnare hominem de reatu et aliud ad tutelam regni servare ipsum vehementer suspectum in salva custodia.

Nor does it avail to say that the old law does not bind men of the new law: both because the laws of the church found their rightsius: right / law on this old law, as is clear of the four who shall not enjoy the immunity of the church (it is not lawful, therefore, to destroy the principles of the church’s law); and because the justice of our deed is argued from the justice of the divine law by the topic from the greater; and also because then there would not remain to us churchmenecclesiastici: CONTEXTUAL: clergy / those who belong to the church a titletitulus: title for claiming tithesdecime; pars decima: tithes; the tenth part, since the payment of tithes is authorizedautorizare: authorize to us not by the new law but by the old.10 145Nor does it avail, secondly, [to say] that Joab committed grave sins, which moved [Solomon] more than the suspicion of future disturbance: both because it is so in our case with their proud disobedience, and also because it seems certain from the text that fear of the disturbance of Solomon’s kingdom was the chief cause of killing Joab, since he did not know whether the earlier crimes had been forgiven; hence the punishment of the four persons of whom mention is made there was chiefly to pacify his kingdom for the future.11 Nor does it avail, thirdly, to say that one should wait until the disturbance of the kingdom or the treason has been proved, for that proof would be too protracted, against the prudence of guarding the kingdom from dangers beforehand; but this seems probable, that bodily harm should not be inflicted on them before their guilt is notorious or legitimately proved according to the laws of the homelandvia / patria: the way / the homeland. For it is one thing to condemn a man for his guilt, and another to keep him, vehemently suspected, in safe custody for the protection of the kingdom.12

¶4145.19–146.28

145Quarta ficticia qua dicitur Salomonem in proposito illicite iudicasse non habet colorem, cum sic diceretur de opere legitimo aliorum quos sequimur ex auctoritate scripture. Cum enim scriptura tantum commendat sapienciam suam et non reprobat sed multiplici municione approbat illud factum, videtur ex sufficiencia scripture quod fuit factum legitimum. Sic enim supponunt leges humane bonitatem persone quousque probetur contrarium; immo omnes leges humane approbant iudicis inferioris iudicium quousque eius iniusticia convincatur. Secundo principaliter arguitur sic ad idem: Videtur quod quilibet legius homo regis Anglie tenetur tantum 146vel plus obedire sibi, sicut monachus abbati in quibuscunque que non sunt contraria legi Dei, sed monachus tenetur virtute obediencie et sub pena carceris obedire abbati in hiis que non sunt contraria legi Dei: ergo multo magis ad tantam obedienciam tenetur quilibet Anglicus suo regi specialiter in necessariis regimini regni sui. Ex quo sequitur quod servientes regis de sua privata familia tenentur parere sibi et suo sapienti consilio in huiusmodi licitis et honestis; sed mandatum est per regem et dictum consilium (sicut narratur) ut ad pacificandum regnum extrahant a Westmonasterio inobedienciarios predictos; ergo cum mandatum hoc vergit ad necessitatem regiminis regni sui, non obvians sed consonans legi Dei, sequitur quod dicti subditi tenentur in hoc parere monitis regis sui. Assumptum patet ex hoc quod obligacio regi est maior, cura regiminis regni est necessarior et pena delinquencium in regem est ex scriptura fundabilior. Nam beatus Petrus precipit christianis quod sint subiecti regibus Iª Petri II°, 13, et Apostolus precipit Rom. XIII°, 1 et Heb. XIII°, 17, Christi discipulis obedire prepositis, immo in veteri lege, quia Semei egressus est extra Jerusalem contra monita regis sui, ideo ex precepto sapientis Salomonis iustissime est occisus. Patet historia III° Reg. II° cap. Non autem inveniuntur tante evidencie ex scriptura quod monachus sub tanta pena parere debet abbati in monitis preter fidem.

The fourth fiction, by which it is said that Solomon judged unlawfully in the matter in hand, has no colourcolor (non est color): colour (a plausible ground), since so it would be said of the lawful work of others whom we follow on the authority of scripture. For since scripture so commends his wisdom, and does not reprove but approves that deed with manifold defence, it seems from the sufficiency of scripture that it was a lawful deed. For so human laws presume the goodness of a person until the contrary is proved; indeed, all human laws approve the judgment of a lower judge until his injustice is proved against him.13 Secondly and principally, it is argued thus to the same [end]: it seems that any liege man of the king of England is bound to obey him as much 146or more than a monk his abbot, in whatever things are not contrary to God’s lawlex dei / lex Christi / lex evangelica: God's law / the law of Christ / the gospel law; now a monk is bound, by virtue of obedience and under pain of prison, to obey his abbot in those things that are not contrary to God’s law: therefore much more is every Englishman bound to such obedience to his king, especially in things necessary to the government of his kingdom.14 From which it followssequitur: it follows that the king’s servants of his private householdfamilia: household are bound to obey him and his wise council in lawful and honest things of this kind; now it was commanded by the king and the said council (as is narrated) that, to pacify the kingdom, they should take the aforesaid disobedient men out of Westminster; therefore, since this command tends to the necessity of the government of his kingdom, not opposing but agreeing with God’s law, it follows that the said subjects are bound in this to obey the admonitionsmonita: admonitions of their king.15 The assumptionassumptum: the assumption is clear from this, that the obligation to the king is greater, the care of governing the kingdom is more necessary, and the punishment of offenders against the king is better grounded in scripture. For blessed Peter commands Christians to be subject to kings, 1 Peter 2:13, and the Apostle commands the disciples of Christ, Romans 13:1 and Hebrews 13:17, to obey superiorsprepositi: superiors; indeed, in the old law, because Semei went out of Jerusalem against the admonitions of his king, therefore by the command of the wise Solomon he was most justly killed. The story is clear, 3 Kings 2. But such great evidenceevidencia: evidence is not found in scripture that a monk must obey his abbot under so great a penalty in admonitions outside the faith.16

Notes

  1. 1 Chapter 7 opens with Wyclif’s determination on the Westminster sanctuary case of 1378, given "at the command of our lord the king"; the occasion was the violation of the abbey’s sanctuary on 11 August 1378, and Wyclif’s opinion was given at the parliament held at Gloucester (20 October–16 November 1378) (Loserth, Introduction, pp. ix–x, xxv). For this chapter Loserth also collates D (Dublin, TCD C.1.23). B ad dicendam (142.2); D et stabilimentum (142.4). In tractatu nostro: in our treatment [of the case].
  2. 2 A margin Casus (142.6); B fuerint (142.9). Loserth’s foot-note (p. 142) quotes the continuation of the Eulogium historiarum: the two would not produce their prisoner at the king’s mandate, were sent to the Tower, struck down their keeper and fled to Westminster, where the constable of the Tower came to take them back and "Johannes Haule", resisting, was killed, while "Ricardus Shakille" went with him (names as Loserth prints them; usually given as Robert Hauley and John Shakell); he also cites the Rolls of Parliament III. Filii comitis de Dene: the son of the count of Denia, taken at Nájera in 1367; the son was held as hostage for his father’s ransom (Loserth, Introduction, p. ix). Tuciori regis carcere: the Tower, by the Eulogium. A A₁ B exui a (142.21–22); Loserth prints eximi a, translated. Vendicarunt: claimed.
  3. 3 A A₁ convicti for coniuncti (143.1). A margins Utrum licet in casu infra posito invadere monasterium (143.4), Questio (143.6). Difidasse: defied, renounced as an enemy (the feudal diffidatio). Captivi: Wyclif now calls the two men-at-arms "captives", that is, prisoners.
  4. 4 A margins Responsio legistarum (143.8), Responsio theologorum (143.11). A A₁ B lack casus (143.15). Civiliste: the civilians, doctors of the civil (Roman) law. Theologi autem: adversative, since the theologians add the condition.
  5. 5 Nec invasionem occisi nec suam occisionem: we take occisi as the man killed in the sanctuary (Haule, by Loserth’s note) and suam as his; "the assault made by the slain man" is grammatically possible; doubtful. Wyclif withholds judgment on both.
  6. 6 Exod. 21:14, Vulgate Si quis per industriam … evelles eum, ut moriatur, DR "If a man kill his neighbour on set purpose, and by lying in wait for him: thou shalt take him away from my altar that he may die"; Wyclif’s de industria … evellas … ut occidatur translated. A margin Duplex supposicio (143.22). D natura condicionali (143.23); the print ex natura condicionalis, "from the nature of the conditional [proposition]", is translated: a conditional law holds whenever its condition is met. Constipata: made fast, secured.
  7. 7 B lacks Salomonis — in thabernaculo (143.31). 3 Kings 2:28–34: Joab flees to the tabernacle and takes hold of the horn of the altar, and Solomon has him killed there (cited, not quoted).
  8. 8 D Prima (144.4). Abner and Amasa: 3 Kings 2:5, 32; Adonias and Abiathar: 2:22, 28 (cited). 3 Kings 2:33 as DR (Loserth 144.10); Wyclif has trono eius and in eternum for the Vulgate’s throno illius and usque in æternum.
  9. 9 The stray of before Ex istis (144.13) is the English side-note, not translated. D Ex istis tribus (144.13); A margin Prima responsio (144.13); B margin iubet occidere (144.16). Sed infinitum minus …: the minor premiss ("now"). Secundum formam predictam: unharmed in life and limb, as the theologians said.
  10. 10 A margin Ficticia (144.23); A so marks each answered pretext (145.1, 145.10, 145.19). D qui nunc gaudebunt (144.26); B distrahere principia (144.26–27); B facti ut nostri (144.28); D ecclesiasticus (144.29–30). Quattuor qui non gaudebunt: the canon law’s classes excluded from sanctuary: the public highwayman and the nocturnal despoiler of fields (X 3.49.6) and those who kill or maim in church (3.49.10); no text counts four (the ordinary gloss on 3.49.10 and Hostiensis both say Inter alia excepts only two); four results if those who kill and those who maim in church are counted apart. Per locum a maiori: by the topic from the greater: if the divine law permits killing at the altar, the lesser act is just (the glossary). Nobis ecclesiasticis: Wyclif counts himself among the clergy (glossary: ecclesiastici, CONTEXTUAL).
  11. 11 A B superbia (145.4); B margin, later hand, Absque completa investigacione suspicionis est occidendus (145.6); B Ideo punicior (145.7–8). Quattuor personarum: Adonias, Abiathar, Joab and Semei (3 Kings 2:25, 27, 34, 46; cited). Ignoravit: Solomon did not know.
  12. 12 D illa paracio (145.11–12) and diutina que excluderet prudenciam (145.12). The manuscripts read inferreretur; Loserth prints inferretur (145.17). Leges patrie: "the laws of the homeland" (glossary: patria, earthly sense), that is, the laws of the land.
  13. 13 A B tante commendat (145.22); D bonitates persone quousque probatur (145.26). Ficticia: a fiction, a feigned ground (the glossary). Colorem: colour, a plausible ground (the glossary), not "pretext". Municione: defence, support. The presumption of goodness until the contrary is proved is a maxim of the laws, not traced to a single text; cf. X 2.19.7, where the ordinary’s letters stand donec probetur contrarium. Convincatur: is proved against him.
  14. 14 B Tercio principaliter (145.30); A margin Secunda responsio (145.30). Legius homo: liege man. Sed monachus …: the minor premiss. D lacks specialiter (146.6); A margin Nota de obediencia ad regem continue infra (146.6).
  15. 15 D supradictos (146.12) and mandatum huiusmodi (146.13). Inobedienciarios: the disobedient men, the negative of the glossary obedienciarius (the glossary).
  16. 16 D egressus fuit (146.23). 1 Pet. 2:13, Rom. 13:1 and Heb. 13:17 are cited, not quoted; DR’s "Obey your prelates" (Heb. 13:17) renders the Vulgate præpositis, here "superiors" (the glossary). Semei: 3 Kings 2:36–46. Assumptum: the minor premiss of the second argument. Fundabilior: better grounded. Preter fidem: outside matters of faith.
How the Latin of this chapter was established
  • Plate readings; page · reading · note):
    • 142: CAP. VII.
    • 143: minando (148b folio mark, A alinea)
    • 143: condicionaliter (condicio-/naliter hyphenated; main token holds whole word)
    • 143: primo (print: suppono primo legem)
    • 143: Regum
    • 143: 2° (arabic 2 with degree sign)
    • 144: semini (10 is the line number)
    • 144: lege (30 is the line number)
    • 145: gravia
    • 146: Iª
    • 146: II°
    • 146: 13
    • 146: III°
    • 146: II°
    • 145: Nec (148c folio mark glued)
  • Not Wyclif’s text, not translated: p. 144.13 of (before Ex istis), a word of the English side-note left in the Latin. OCR scars, translated as corrected: p. 143.17 ventatis (read veritatis); p. 143.31 111° (read III°); p. 145.1 peccata. (stray point). Doubts: p. 143.18 invasionem occisi.