^{page 220 note 1} M. McKisack, The Fourteenth Century, 1959, 512; cf. C. H. McIlwain, The Growth of Political Thought in the West, 1932, 315, ‘the pivot on which his whole philosophic system turns.’

^{page 220 note 2} For Gregory XI’s bulls of 22 May 1377, which condemn eighteen articles, see Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, ed. H. T. Riley, 1863,1, 345-6. The twenty-four conclusions deemed either heretical or erroneous in 1382 are listed in Fasciculi Zizaniorum, ed. W. W. Shirley, 1858, 277-82. These were augmented at Paris by a further twentyone articles, and used by the German masters at Prague, to form the forty-five eventually condemned at Constance in the eighth session of the council on 4 May 1415: von der Hardt, H., Magnumo ecumenicum Constantiense concilium, Frankfurt-Leipzig 1697-1700, iv, 153-4Google Scholar; also in Palacky, F., Documenta Mag. Johannis Hus, Prague 1869, 329-31Google Scholar; cf.Hefele-Leclercq, , Histoire des conciles, Paris 1907-38, vii, pt 1, 223-6Google Scholar. Another 260 articles were condemned in the following session.

^{page 221 note 1} Poole, R. L., Illustrations of the History of Medieval Thought and Learning, 2nd ed. London 1920 Google Scholar, repr. New York 1960, 267, 261. It is also characterised as impracticable and ‘devoid of all worldly wisdom’ by Stacey, J., ‘The Character of John Wyclif,’ London Quarterly and Holborn Review, cxxxxiv (1959), 133-6Google Scholar at 135.

^{page 221 note 2} Workman, H. B., John Wyclif, 1926, 1, 259 Google Scholar; 11, 13-15. Earlier, Workman had referred to ‘the weakest point of Wyclif’s system. This was the doctrine of dominion founded on grace, the assertion that office, whether civil or spiritual, lapsed with mortal sin’: see his edition of The Letters of John Hus, 1904, 70. Cf. K. B. McFarlane, John Wycliffe and the Beginnings of English Nonconformity, 1952,92: its practical bearing is far from clear but gives his thought ‘a destructive, almost an anarchistic, tendency.’

^{page 221 note 3} E.g. , R.W. and Carlyle, A. J., History of Mediaeval Political Theory in the West, VI (1950,), 62 Google Scholar, ‘his conception of dominion had little real significance, at least in political theory’; E. Lewis, Medieval Political Ideas, 1954, 106. Manning, B. L., ‘Wyclif,’ Cambridge Medieval History, vii, 498 Google Scholar, remarked on the ‘irritating refusal to adjust theories to practice.’

^{page 221 note 4} G. M. Trevelyan, England in the Age of Wycliffe, 4th ed. 1909, 199-200.

^{page 221 note 5} E.g. M. Deanesly, The Lollard Bible, 1920, 226-8, who maintains that this logically led to the need for a vernacular Bible.

^{page 221 note 6} R. R. Berts, ‘Richard FitzRalph, Archbishop of Armagh, and the Doctrine of Dominion,’ Essays in British and Irish History in honour of J. E. Todd, ed. H. A. Cronne, T. W. Moody, D. B. Quinn, 1949, 46-60 at 46-8.

^{page 221 note 7} Dahmus, J. H., The Prosecution of John Wyclif, New Haven 1952, 24, 53 Google Scholar; cf.Hurley, M., ‘Scriptura Sola: Wyclif and his Critics,’ Traditio, xvi (1960), 275–352 CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 286-7, ‘That this was theological dynamite, capable of blowing up the whole fabric of society, lay and ecclesiastical, needs no elaboration.’

^{page 222 note 1} Kaminsky, H., ‘Wyclifism as Ideology of Revolution,’ Church History, XXXII (1963), 57–74 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 222 note 2} De Ecclesia, ed. J. Loserth, 1886,2,37; 3, 58-9. For his distinction between the two Ecclesiae or bodies of damned and elect: 3, 60-1; 4, 70; 5, 102-3,112. John of Salisbury, Policraticus, VIII, 17 Google Scholar, ed. C. C. J. Webb, 1909, 11, 348-9, had written of a respublica impiorum which was to be contrasted with the respublica of the just: V, 2 (1, 282-98); also V, 17; VI, proem.; VI, 19.

^{page 222 note 3} E.g. De civili dominio, I, ed. R. L. Poole, 1885,11, 76, ‘quilibet innocens vel iustus dominatur toti mundo sensibili et beati regnant tamquam veri reges super omnia bona Dei.’

^{page 222 note 4} De civili dominio, 1, 1, 1-2, ‘Intendo itaque pro dicendis ostendere duas veritates quibus utar tamquam principiis ad dicenda: prima, quod nemo ut est in peccato mortali habet iustitiam simpliciter ad donum Dei; secunda, quod quilibet existens in gratia gratificante finaliter nedum habet ius sed in re habet omnia bona Dei . . . Omne ius humanum praesupponit causaliter ius divinum . . . ergo omne dominium iustum ad homines praesupponit iustum dominium quoad Deum. Sed quilibet existens in peccato mortali caret, ut sic, iusto dominio quoad Deum, ergo et simpliciter iusto dominio.’ This is elaborated in chs. 1-14 passim.

^{page 223 note 1} God does not necessarily confirm the acts of a priest by a grant of power to those actions: ‘illi quorum potestas a Deo suspenditur per peccatum vel ex inhabilitate numquam acceperant potestatem,’ De potestate papae, ed. J. Loserth, 1907, 9, 203-5; cf. 2, 34-5.

^{page 223 note 2} E.g. De civili dominio, 1, 1, 7-8.

^{page 223 note 3} W. A. Dunning, History of Political Theories, Ancient and Medieval, 1905, 264; cf. Carlyle, op. cit. vi, 61-2; McIlwain, op. cit. 315-16.

^{page 223 note 4} See further A. Gwynn, The English Austin Friars in the Time of Wyclif, 1940, 59-73, 234-6; also Knowles, D., The Religious Orders in England, 1948-59, 11, 61-8Google Scholar.

^{page 223 note 5} Lewis, op. cit. 105-6.

^{page 223 note 6} Gwynn, op. cit. 68; McFarlane, op. cit. 60-1.

^{page 224 note 1} De civili dominio, 1, 2, 11-12; De Ecclesia, 4, 71-2, ‘Ecclesia mixta’; also 4, 89; s 104; 9, 201-2; 17, 408-9; cf. Ecclus. xlvii, 23. As Wyclif states, this was adopted from Augustine’s commentary on the rules of Tychonius: see the De doctrina Christiana, III, 31, 44 (PL, xxxiv, 82); and for discussion and further literature, S. J. Grabowski, The Church: An Introduction to the Theology of St Augustine, St Louis 1957, 551-64, also 620-1, 627-9.

^{page 224 note 2} De Ecclesia, 3, 64, ‘de tali finali inhaerentia est nobis dubium.’ God alone knows who is to be saved, ‘caeteris autem est illud incognitum qui sunt columbae et qui corvi’ (an allusion to Gen. viii, 6f.); 9,202, ‘Et rationes omnium istorum sunt nobis absconditae ... Nam secretum divinae ordinationis dies nostrae morris et dies finalis divisionis ideo sunt a mortalibus occultati.’

^{page 224 note 3} De Ecclesia, 6, 141, ‘quia rune esset tanta vel maior ambiguitas de praelatis utrum sint membra Ecclesiae . . . quia suspicionem probabilem habemus de mortali ... et periret obedientia praelatis, cum non sic debemus honorare membra diaboli ... et sic contra testimonia sanctorum nimis perturbaretur Ecclesia.’ In any case the committing of mortal sin was no certain guide, since the predestined could commit such a sin and yet be saved.

^{page 224 note 4} De civili dominio, I, 39, 288.

^{page 224 note 5} De civili dominio, I, 2, 12, ‘quod peccator, licet videatur in facie Ecclesiae errantis habere dona Domini, non tarnen vere est dotarius, sed ex permissione divina iniuste occupat haec ad tempus’; cf. I, 3, 22, ‘quod Deus non approbat sed permittit.’

^{page 224 note 6} ‘non contentionc tumultuosa scandalisando’: see De civili dominio, I, 6, 42-6.

^{page 225 note 1} De Ecclesia, 1, 5, 18; 4, 84-5.

^{page 225 note 2} De statu innocentiae, ed. J. Loserth and F. D. Matthew, 1922, 8, 514, ‘cum Deus non potest, ut tenetur communiter, revelare nomini suam dampnationem, quia tunc daret occasionem, ymmo Deus necessitaret hominem, ad desperandum, et abiectis virtutibus in servitio diaboli conversandum . . . Hic videtur mihi quod omnis homo, sive praescitus sive praedestinatus, debet sperare suam beatitudinem, cum Deus non potest dampnare hominem nisi suum demeritum sit in causa.’ See also De Ecclesia, 1, 25; 4, 90-1. It is interesting to notice that Hus used this argument to defend Wyclif: it was not known for certain whether Wyclif was a heretic, and in default of revelation it was proper to hope that a man was saved, and therefore it was to be presumed that he was not heretical. See his reply to the charges made in the archiepiscopal court at Prague in August, 1408: Palacký, Documenta, 153-5; also his Replica contra Ioannem Stokes in Historia et monumenta J. Hus et Hieron. Pragensis, Nuremberg 1715, I, 108; and Super IV Sententiarum libros, IV, xx, 3, ed. Flajšhans, V., Sebrané spisy, Prague 1903-8, 11, 621 Google Scholar.

^{page 225 note 3} De Ecclesia, 9, 185, ‘Talis itaque finalis praeponderantia saecularis privilegii est signum infallibile membri diaboli’; De civili dominio, III, ed. J. Loserth, 1903-4, 25, 595-6, ‘Et ita sicut nemo seit, nisi cui revelatum est distincte, utrum sit praedestinatus vel praescitus,. . . sed spem debet habere et signum firmans spem talem; signum est si post soporem temptationis redeat penitentia fructuosa, vigil reminiscentia de hora mortis et die iudicii, et tertio si habet zelum iustitiae et processus prosperi domus Dei; ... Et ne quis praesumat ex scintilla istorum signorum peccare audacius, posuit Deus probabilitatem in hiis signis et non absolutam veritatem connexionis’; De officio regis, ed. A. W. Pollard and C. Sayle, 1887, 11, 255, ‘Unde data sunt quaedam signa et manifesta salutis iudicia per quae indubitabile sit eum esse de numero salvandorum, in quo haec signa permanserunt. Maxime autem signum confidentiae electorum est illud verbum Domini, Ioh., viii, [47], Qui ex Deo est, verba Dei audit.’

^{page 226 note 1} De potestate papae, 6, 131, ‘cum manet eius dignitas cum peccato.’

^{page 226 note 2} De civili dominio. I, 3, 23-4, ‘Ad tertium dicitur quod argumentum est verum sicut conclusio, scilicet quod donum caracteris, donum prophetandi, et potestas utendi clavibus cum peccato mortali stat.. . Sed est notandum quod licet exercens potestatem ordinis vel iurisdictionis peccet mortaliter, tamen Deus, in cuius nomine ministrat, supplet quod capacibus proficiat ac si iustus uteretur debite potestate, excepto quod in abutente meritum personale subtrahitur . . . quod si in culpa facit bonum opus de genere, contingit, ut supradictum est, quod sibi proderit et alii mereantur.’ Hus was to make exactly the same distinctions: see his reply to article 4 of the Wycliffite propositions in the Defensio articulorum of July 1412, and at Constance; also the Postil of 1413, as cited by Spinka, M., John Hus and the Czech Reform, Chicago 1941, 55, 58-9Google Scholar.

^{page 226 note 3} E.g. De Ecclesia, 19, 448, ‘Videtur autem mihi quod praescitus etiam in mortali peccato attuali ministrat fidelibus, licet sibi dampnabiliter, tamen subiectis utiliter sacramenta.’ His powers had an indelible character until the Day of Judgement, whereas the praedestinatus had this indelible character without qualification (p. 444). Cf. De civili dominio, I, 40, 301, ‘persona praescita auctoritate Ecclesiae excommunicat.’ This may be compared with orthodox hierocratic theory: e.g. Triumphus, Augustinus, Summa de potestate ecclesiastica, Rome 1584, xxix, 3 and 3 Google Scholar ad 1,177, ‘Papa in dando indulgentiam habet se in ratione instrumenti quo relaxatio poena sit, non in ratione subiecti cui gratia sacramantalis tribuatur . . . Sed sicut papa existens in mortali [peccato] potest gratiam sacramentalem conferre administrando officium . . . Papa existens in mortali [peccato] non habet gratiam indulgentiae ad propriam salutem, sed habet earn ad ministerium salutis aliorum.’

^{page 226 note 4} De officio regis, 1, 17, ‘tales non remanerent reges nisi aequivoce, licet habeant potestatem regalem abusam; et sic realiter habent potestatem et dignitatem consequentem secundum quam regunt, licet demeritorie. Et sic tyrranni, etiam praesciti, qui solum nominetenus sunt reges vel domini, habent potestatem informent ad regendum et dominandum, sed illa potestas non est dominium. Statum ergo potestatis regalis habent et multas rationes bonorum gratuitorum secundum quas remanent vicarie honorandi.’ Similarly Hus replied in answer to article 15 of the Wycliffite propositions that ‘no man is a civil lord, a bishop or prelate, whilst he is in mortal sin,’ that this was true quoad meritum but not quoad officium: the sinner officially retained his function and possessions in the sight of men, although not entitled to them by merit before God.

^{page 227 note 1} Having made the point that a pope is not automatically caput Ecclesiae when he may in fact be damned, Wyclif adds that he may still keep his power and possessions because his wickedness is suspended as regards punishment in this life: ‘Et si quaeratur quid meretur praescitus existens in gratia secundum praesentem iustitiam, dicitur quod apud rectiloquos et non aequivocantes numquam meretur beatitudinem ... sed meretur perpetuara mitigationem poenae aeternae cum aliis bonis temporalibus . . . malitia per temporalem gratiam est suspensa. Et sic praesciti, sive saeculares sive clerici, quantum- cunque iuste videantur praefici bonis Dei, hoc est, dumtaxat secundum quid dum sunt in gratia temporali. . .’ In reply to article 8 of the Wycliffite propositions (that a pope foreknown to be a member of the Devil had no power over the faithful), Hus denied that he ever held it, and affirmed that ‘even the worst pope has the power by virtue of his office, through which God acts’: cf. Spinka, op. cit. 60-3.

^{page 227 note 2} The weakness of the current view that Hus was basically independent of Wyclif, and thus more orthodox, seems to rest upon a facile acceptance of Wyclif’s radicalism: cf. now Vooght, P. de, L’Hérésie de Jean Hus and Hussiana, Louvain 1960 Google Scholar. This standpoint is adopted by Spinka, although he recognises that the Wycliffite articles did not necessarily represent Wyclif’s true position (56). This point had been made by the Czech masters, including Hus, in 1403.

^{page 227 note 3} De Ecclesia, 19, 465, ‘Obediendum est tarnen tali praetenso praeposito, salva semper obedientia legi Christi.’ Even if the cardinals found that they had elected an apostaticus, and not an apostolicus, he was to be accepted unless he contravened the law of God: ‘Non enim licet humanitus reprobare ut ex fide supponitur, nisi ut Deus ex sua lege docuerit reprobandum,’ De potestate papae, 9, 214. Similarly Hus accepted that no one should obey a lord or prelate who issued commands contrary to the faith: Workman, , Letters, no. 8, 46-7Google Scholar. In this way both Wyclif and Hus were able to remain within the limits of the old argument that a pope could only be deposed for heresy: e.g. Triumphus, Augustinus, Summa, XXIX, 3,177 Google Scholar, ‘sed papa pro culpa mortali non amittit potestatem iurisdictionis nisi talis culpa haeresim haberet annexam . . .’; V, 8, 55, ‘Nam potestas praelationis est donum gratiae gratis datae, non donum gratiae gratis facientis. Sed tale donum gratiae gratis datae non tollitur in papa per aliquod peccatum, nisi solum per unum, puta pro crimine haeresis . . . per tale enim peccatum solum papa desinit esse papa.’

^{page 228 note 1} Thus Wyclif’s elaborate insistence that only God, and not the human electors, can create a true pope (De potestate papae, chs.8-9) is concluded with the decision that men must accept the elected candidate for lack of proof that he was not chosen by God. Only if the pope subsequently proved himself fallible could the communitas fidelium proceed to his deposition on the plea that it was now realised that God had not elected him after all. In both cases the human decision holds good, in spite of Wyclif’s constant harping upon the essentially divine nature of the choice. FitzRalph had argued that human ordinances were to be accepted precisely because they were of dubious validity: one could never be sure that God had not approved of them, De pauperie Salvatoris, ed. R. L. Poole [Bks. 1-4] as an appendix to Wyclif, De dominio divino, 1890, IV, 1, 436.

^{page 229 note 1} Cf. the studies of G. Leff, Bradwardine and the Pelagians, 1957, and Gregory of Rimini, 1961.

^{page 229 note 2} Men should never be afraid to act now by law for their own convenience through fear that the subsequent divine judgement might be otherwise: ‘Melius ergo est pro ordine universi quod peccantes puniantur secundum leges hominum iam statutas, et dampnentur plurimi finaliter delinquentes, quam quod maneat Ecclesia militans ab offensis adextra exercitantibus inquieta,’ De dominio divino, III, 2, 215-6. In 1412 Hus told Stephen of Dokin that he was entitled to condemn Wyclif ‘s words now, but that he had no right to condemn Wyclif’s soul, a decision which must await the future judgement of God: Workman, , Letters, no. 14, 76-7Google Scholar.

^{page 229 note 3} The same effect was achieved by the idea that a final choice of salvation was vouchsafed to man immediately before death: D. Knowles, The Historian and Character, 1963, 143-4. This principle may be found in Wyclif, De dominio divinis, IV, 4, 235, but note his refusal to give an opinion in the celebrated case of Trajan, De mandatis divinis, 23, ed. J. Loserth and F. D. Matthew, 1922, 321, on the grounds that Trajan was already predestined to salvation.

^{page 229 note 4} ‘Scio enim quod ista sententia deridebitur a politicis et mundanis’: see the De dominio divino, III, 6, 255-7.

^{page 230 note 1} It could also be used to deny the validity of non-Christian governments: e.g. Romanus, Aegidius, De ecclesiastica potestate, III, 11 Google Scholar, ed. R. Scholz, Weimar 1929, 201, ‘Immo apud infideles non solum non sunt regna neque imperia, cum apud eos regna et imperia sint latrocinia, immo etiam apud eos non sunt aliqua iusta dominia, ut non sit aliquis infidelis iustus dominus sive iustus possessor domus suae vel agri sui vel vineae suae vel cuiuscumque rei suae; quia ... qui non vult subesse Domino suo, dignum est quod nihil subsit sub dominio suo.’ Similarly Augustinus Triumphus said that rulers who were not appointed by the sacerdotium had no just title to lordship, but only ‘dominium usurpatum et tyrannicum,’ Summa, XXXVI, 1, 212 Google Scholar; and for Thomas of Strassburg on this, see Gwynn, op. cit. 73. In this connection it is important not to take out of its context the well-known passage in FitzRalph, , Summa in quaestionibus Armenorum, X, 4, Paris 1511, f. 75 ^va Google Scholar:

FitzRalph was discussing the case of a kingdom seized by conquest, and argued that there could be no natural right of government there—as expressed in the free consent of the people to the new ruler—since natural rights had been lost by sin in the Garden of Eden (if. 75^rb-^va ), which is the position developed at length in the Depauperie Salvatoris. Men could confer nothing on an elected prince because they had nothing to give. What power a prince rightly possessed must come from God, either in the form of direct divine authority, or by ecclesiastical recognition, or by the prince showing the fidelity and repentance of a true Christian where he was accepted by the free will of the populus. Either way he must be a christianus and fidelis, obedient to God.

The mortal sin in the first passage cited here refers specifically to the sin of unbelief: ‘quia potest unusquisque princeps talis esse, seil, peccator et infidelis, etiam si gratuitus consensus populi approbet possessionem illius quod detinet; ideo superius adieci “si aliud malum etc.” ’ This enabled FitzRalph to argue that, if all true rulers were to be fideles, then they must also be subject to the pope.

^{page 230 note 2} Triumphus, Augustinus, Summa, XL, 3, 231 Google Scholar, ‘derivantur enim dona spiritualia ab eo [scil, papa] tamquam a fonte in imperatorem et in omnes filios Ecclesiae.’

^{page 231 note 1} Note the use of Jn. i, 16 and Eph. iv, 7 in favour of the pope by Triumphus, Augustinus, Summa, XIX, 2, 118 Google Scholar; LXXI, 2, 372; LXXVII, 3 ad 1 and 3, 398.

^{page 231 note 2} Triumphus, Augustinus, Summa, CI, 7, 499 Google Scholar, ‘plánum est papam vice Christi dominium et usum rerum habere non solum clericorum immo omnium laicorum. Est enim ipse Christus dominus Ecclesiae et omnium illorum quibus Ecclesia piena est.’

^{page 231 note 3} In the stylised phraseology of papal theory a man owes ‘omne quod habet’ to the pope as persona Ecclesiae: e.g. Triumphus, Augustinus, Summa, 1, 1, 5 Google Scholar; Romanus, Aegidius, De ecclesiastica potestate, II, 4,51 Google Scholar. The phrase derives from Josh, vii, 24 where it relates to the idea of collective punishment.

^{page 231 note 4} See further my Problem of Sovereignty, 1963, especially 174-83; also Studia Patristica, Berlin 1962, vi, 533-42.

^{page 231 note 5} Cf. W. A. Pantin, The English Church in the Fourteenth Century, 1955, 130. For another example of this practice with Wyclif see my ‘The Apostolicus and the Bishop of Rome,’ JTS, xiii-xiv, 1962-3.

^{page 232 note 1} De civilt dominio, I, 14, 103, ‘corpus Christi mysticum habet omnia bona mundi’; I, 43, 360, ‘Illud autem unum est corpus Christi misticum ex omnibus praedestinatis aggregátum’; De dominio divino, III, 3, 223, ‘omnis creatura beata per manus Mediatoris Dei et hominum habebit omnia, Deum supra se ut dominum, concives ut socios, et omnia alia possidebit tamquam subservitores cedentes eis ad gloriam; et sic omnes et singuli erunt reges, haeredes Dei et cohaeredes Christi, habentes omnia in communi’; De Ecclesia, 1, 20-1, ‘Nam sancti doctores dicunt concorditer quod omnes electi a principio mundi usque ad diem iudicii sunt una persona, quae est mater Ecclesia,’ quoting in support the statement of Gregory I ‘quod Christum et Ecclesiam unam personam credimus, hoc etiam unius personae actibus significan videamus’; also 9, 187; 14, 303. The elect are the ‘membra Christi mistici’ (17, 391), united ‘per incorporationem in corpus Christi misticum’ (6,138), who form the Ecclesia considered ‘secundum se totum in patria’ (6,117). Similarly in the De mandatis divinis, 7, 60, the ‘tota generado iustorum sit unus Dei Patri Filius’ who together form ‘regni coelorum dominus.’

^{page 232 note 2} Wyclif was careful to state at the beginning that this had to be understood simpliciler or finaliter: De civili dominio, I, 1, 1; I, 2, 8-9; cf. De Ecclesia, 14, 313, ‘Quando enim triumphantes vitam aeternam possidebunt, Deus eos constituit super omnia bona sua.’

^{page 232 note 3} De dominio divino, I, prologue, 1, ‘ideo ut caecitas hominum sit melius ad sensum scripturae professoribus huius scientiae declarara, consonum videtur a dominio inchoandum. limitar autem in ordine procedendi rationibus et sensui scripturae, cui ex religione et speciali obedientia sum professus. Scio enim ipsam in modo loquendi ...’ FitzRalph, too, had made the point that he was using special theological terminology, De pauperie Salvatoris, II, 1, 335; II, 4, 339-40. But this may also be found in Ockham.

^{page 232 note 4} Hus, De Ecclesia, 18, ed. Thomson, S. H., Boulder, Colorado and Cambridge, England 1956, 170-1Google Scholar, Augustine, citing, Enarratio in Psal., CXXI, 9 Google Scholar (PL, XXXVII, 1626), ‘Qui sunt isti nisi iusti ? Qui sunt coeli nisi iusti? Qui coelum ipsi coeli ? Quia quae Ecclesia ipsi Ecclesia; sic sunt multa ut una sit, sic ergo et iusti; ita sunt iusti coelum, ut coeli sint. In ipsis autem sedet Deus.’ Wyclif himself pointed out, De civili dominio, I, 14, 103, that the outline of the theory, with appropriate Biblical quotations, is in Augustine, , Ep. CLXXX, 9, 35-7Google Scholar (PL, XXXIII, 808-9), and that the passage concludes with the christiani imperatores despoiling the goods of the Donatisi churches; also Augustine, , Ep. CLIII, 26 Google Scholar (PL, XXXIII, 665), cited Wyclif, , De civili dominio, I, i, 5–6 Google Scholar. Wyclif also follows Augustine in equating the just with the poor, since their ownership is a heavenly possessing only: ‘membra[Ecclesiae] sunt pauperes saturati, quia deserti sunt in hoc saeculo,’ Augustine, , Enarratio in Psal., CXXXI, 23 Google Scholar (PL, XXXVII, 1726) = Wyclif, , De Ecclesia, 1, 6 Google Scholar; cf.FitzRalph, , De pauperie Salvatoris, III, 27,419-20Google Scholar. See also Studia Patristica, vi, 537.

^{page 232 note 5} De civili dominio, 1,43, 365; also 359, ‘aggregatio honorum’; and see De Ecclesia, 6, 123: Christ is the ‘caput aggregatum Ecclesiae,’ comprising all the predestined.

^{page 232 note 6} De civili dominio, II, 10, 104. The use of the expression Ecclesia praedestinatorum is of course quite innocuous if understood in this heavenly sense, and had been used by the Augustinian theologians earlier in the fourteenth century.

^{page 233 note 1} The unjust act against Christ because they steal from his body: ‘Nam eo ipso quod quis iniuste, invito vel ignorante Domino, capit bona aliena, furtum committit vel latrocinia: cum ergo omnis iniustus iniuste capit bona corporis sui.. . quae omnia sunt cuiuscunque iusti . . .,’ De civili dominio, I, 5, 34.

^{page 233 note 2} De civili dominio, I, 12, 80-1: the praedestinati are the ‘dives in Deum’; cf. I, 19, 134, ‘omnia sint bona Domini.’ See also De mandatis divinis, 21,275, where the kingdom of heaven is described as the souls of the saints, as a thesaurus, and, since he possesses all, as the ruler, God or Christ, himself.

^{page 233 note 3} De Ecclesia, 14,311, ‘nam iusti sunt omnia iure poli [i.e. iure divino]... omnia bona Ecclesiae, sive in laicos sive in clero, sunt de patrimonio crucifixi; ipse enim est haeres habens in capite omnia bona mundi’; cf. 15, 342, 347; De mandatis divinis, 30, 459-60; and for thesaurus: De civili dominio, I, 13, 96.

^{page 233 note 4} ‘Dominus simpliciter,’ De Ecclesia, 13, 280: therefore only Christ can make perpetual grants of property.

^{page 233 note 5} Cf. Kaminsky, art. cit. 62.

^{page 233 note 6} De civili dominio, I, 19, 134; III, 25, 596; De Ecclesia, 12, 254; Depotestate papae, 12, 378; De officio regis, 1, 4-5; 3, 54-5; 6, 121; cf. 1, 17, ‘imago Trinitatis.’

^{page 233 note 7} De officio regis, 3, 56, ‘Et per idem sic est de quolibet eius [scil. Dei] vicario, qui non solum ex persona propria sed ex vi communitatis totius regni sui mandat ut sic legaliter procedatur’; cf. 5, 91, ‘Totum regnum cum rege est una persona, ut hic supponitur, cuius caput vel cor est rex influens criminis conservationem sensum et motum’; 6, 131, ‘et quod rex praedestinatus et sui unam personam constituunt quae agit opera sua tam clericalia quam laicalia auctoritate regia’; De civili dominio, 1,26,187, ‘ergo communitatis vel personae est peccatum tale corrigere.’

^{page 233 note 8} De civili dominio, I, 19, 132, ‘quia officium civiliter dominantis est custodia possessorum a capitali terreno domino [scil. Deo] vel communitate secundum formam adinventionis humanae recipere, res possessas ad utilitatem reipublicae custodire, et secundum regulas civilis iustitiae, ut communitati expedit, distribuere’; II, 3, 24, ‘et cum iusti sunt omnia bona mundi, patet quod tune domini temporales meritorie distribuerent bona ex sua parte occupantium.’ These are the ‘goods of the poor’ which the king administers on behalf of Christ: II, 4, 30-1; De officio regis, 7, 180-1, 184.

^{page 234 note 1} The clergy are to remain ‘contenti de stipendiis a communi aerano saecularie ministratis,’ De civili dominio, II, 3, 21; cf. ‘corporale regni sui suffragium,’ De officio regis, 5, 104; 6, 119, which may be compared with the ‘spirituale suffragium’ (7, 181) administered by the king to the extent that he is responsible for appointing good priests, although he himself does not have sacramental power as such (8, 196-7; cf. De chili dominio, II, 5, 46). For a similar theory applied to the French king in the contemporary Somnium viridarii see Wilks, Problem of Sovereignty, 430.

^{page 234 note 2} De dominio divino, III, 6, 255, ‘Unde expediret dominos temporales recognoscere quod non sunt nisi ministri vel ballivi Domini, ut sic omnia quaecunque fecerint, in nomine Domini Dei sui faciant.’ In the same way Dante had maintained (Monarchia, II, 12; III, 10; III, 13) that the patrimonium of the poor of Christ was administered by the emperor, who duly made grants from it to the clergy. Thus the clergy did not have true dominium, but only a delegated duty of guardianship.

^{page 234 note 3} E.g. De civili dominio, III, 21, 430, ‘Unde ius civile est ius particulare ... ad stabiliendum proprietatem possessionibus humanitus constitutus.’

^{page 234 note 4} De civili dominio, II, 8, 81, ‘Inconsonum est Christianum temporalia possidere et legibus regum non subici.’

^{page 234 note 5} De potestate papae, 5, 89, ‘Notandum tarnen quod temporalia non occasione ab eis data sed male accepta venenant ecclesiam. Si enim totus clerus diceret effectualiter quod omnia temporalia quae habemus ut clerici forent purae elemosynae saecularium et bona communia pauperum . . . possemus proprietate usus et ministerii occupare licite omnia temporalia quae habemus.’

^{page 234 note 6} Hence his attacks on the notion of free use of one’s possessions without corresponding obligations: e.g. De civili dominio, I, 19, 136-7, 143.

^{page 234 note 7} De potestate papae, 12, 347, ‘Quoad secundum patet quod oportet esse unum caput ad beneficia ecclesiastica partiendiim, nam lex Christi est ad illud sufficiens, et persona populi, cui praeficeretur talis praepositus, foret optimus iudex ad discernendum talem praepositum episcopo praesentandum. Sic enim fuit in primitiva Ecclesia, nec cessat ratio quare non sic foret hodie. Nam illa persona tenerrime provideret de mediis ad salutem animae necessariis cuiusmodi est pastor discretus; si enim providet de mediis corporis nutritivis, fides necessitat quod infinitum plus provideat de medus animae nutritivis’; cf. De civili dominio, II, 12, 142-3. That the populus referred to here should be understood in the sense of the abstract community is indicated by corresponding passages: e.g. De officio regis, 11, 258, ‘Cum autem corpus misticum Christi dici poterit ipse Christus . . . multitudo populi dici poterit Christus, quia eius Ecclesia’; De civili dominio, II, 11, 120, ‘Ecclesia enim, in cuius nomine [imperator] fit correptiofnem papae], est quacunque persona infinite superior’; cf. II, 8, 69-70, 75.

^{page 235 note 1} E.g. De officio regis, 7, 152: ecclesiastical legislation ‘pertinet ad regem, qui debet esse sacerdos et pontifex regni sui . . . quia lex Dei, et per consequens lex ecclesiae, est lex regis,’ although he makes it clear that ‘principes saeculi sunt pontifices’ in the sense of having episcopal jurisdiction, not potestas ordinis (6,147, 149); cf. De potestate papae, 12, 373-4, ‘saecularis dominus ac superior clericus.’

^{page 235 note 2} E.g. De potestate papae, 12, 377-8, ‘Et ex istis primo patet quod rex Angliae primo et principaliter daret operam ad regulandum clerum suum et specialiter episcopos ut vivant similius legi Christi; totum enim regnum est unum corpus quod tueri atque mederi spectat ad regis officium . . . Secundo patet quod sive Romanus pontifex sive quicumque alius ex praesumptione infundabili impedierit hoc sacrum regis officium, habet rationem haeretici et pessimi Antichristi. Patet ex hoc quod talis est capitalis in haeresi talis regis, . . . ideo hoc temptans contra reges, qui sunt Dei vicarii, temptat sacrilege contra sanctam Ecclesiam et per consequens contra Deum.’

^{page 235 note 3} Offences against the royal law, and so against the king’s majesty, are offences against both the respublica and God. Accordingly crime and sin may be equated, and rebellion classified as heresy: see De chili dominio, I, 4, 30-1; II, 5, 42-3; II, 17, 248.

^{page 235 note 4} E.g. De civili dominio, I, 19, 134, ‘Nec est possibile quemquam dominari civiliter nisi fuerit custos, balivus vel villicus super bonis domini dominorum’; I, 36, 159, ‘Similiter omnis homo est pure praestarius, accomodarius et balivus Dei sui’: as applied to bishops, III, 12, 211. Cf. De mandatis divinis, 30, 459-60.

^{page 236 note 1} E.g. De civili dominio, I, 30, 212, ‘Et patet ex sententia Aristotelis, tertium Politicorum, capitulo xxviii [III, 17] recitata, quod virtus superexcellens in rege est praecipua causa regnandi civiliter. Ipsa enim per se sufficit ad regnandum evangelice, et est sufficiens cum approbatione populi ad regnandum civiliter.’ Cf. De potestate papae, 8, 177, on the need for the ‘approbatio subditorum’ even if only a consenting function ‘praeter electionem instituentium.’ He concludes, ‘Sic enim populus eligit dominum quando effectualiter acceptat quod ille sit dominus suus, et spondei fideliter se esse sibi ut domino serviturum. Unde quando successione haereditaria vadit dominium, adhuc est alia electio subditorum.’ But he still refers frequently to the divine appointment of the ruler by God: e.g. De civili dominio, I, 18, 130; De officio regis, 4, 78.