illi^Hwlnt I
j[JiTiintleiii bu "Vs^vc^p '^trcvAir
(Cirllinu\
yv4999^
lOHANNIS WYCLIFFE
DE DO MI N 10 D I VINO LIBRI TRES
©;cforb
HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY
lOHANNIS WYCLIFFE
DE DOMINIO DIVINO LIBRI TRES
TO WHICH ARE ADDED
THE FIRST FOUR BOOKS OF THE TREATISE
DE PAUPERIE SALVATORIS BY RICHARD FITZRALPH
ARCHBISHOP OF ARMAGH
EDITED BY
REGINALD LANE POOLE, M.A.
DOCTOR IN PHILOSOPHY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG
LONDON
PUBLISHED FOR THE WYCLIF SOCIETY BY TRUBNER & CO. 57 AND 59 LUDGATE HiLL
MDCCCXC
4999 s
CONTENTS.
Preface :
The treatise de Dominio divino : The manuscripts
The present edition . Relation of the mannscripts Title of the work .
Division into books . Fragmentary state of the work Authorship and date Contents ..... Richard FitzRalph's treatise de Pauperie Salvatoris: Origin and date of composition Contents ....
Relation to Wycliffe Conclusion .....
lOHANNIS WYCLIFFE de DOMINIO DIVINO:
Liber I
Liber II
Liber III
Appendix :
RiCARDi FiLii Radulphi de Pauperie Salvatoris Libri I.— IV
Preliminary notice:
The manuscripts ........
Table of contents of the books not here printed .
Liber I. ..,..,.,. .
Liber II
Liber III
Liber IV
Additions and Corrections
Glossary to Wycliffe's treatise de Doniiiiio divino
Index of Authorities cited
Index of Subjects
PAGE
vii
xiv
xvii
xix
XX
xxi xxii xxiv
xxxiv
xxxvii
xlvii
xlviii
I
173 199
257
259 264
27.3 332 379 434
477
479
485
48 8
PREFACE.
Wycliffe's three books de Dominio divino areThetrea-
1 1 SG CiB
preserved in four manuscripts in the imperial hbrary ^^;;„„/^ at Vienna. Of these Cod. 1339 (formerly known as'''^^'"^-
The ma- Cod, theol. 900^, and denoted in the present edition nuscripts.
by the letter a) is an octavo volume written on parch- Cod. a. ment and bound in the original wooden boards. It measures 21-4 x 13-2 centimetres. The page is divided into two columns (here distinguished by A, B, and C, D, for the recto and verso respectively) ; and each column measures about 15-4 x 4-1 centimetres, the interval between the two being about 9 millemetres. The book is all written with great regularity and singular clearness in one beautiful trained hand ; the characters are small with thick down-strokes, and the contrac- tions are comparatively few and rarely present any difficulty to the reader. Throughout the margins are scattered rough headings, catchwords, and glosses, which it has not been thought worth while to re- produce in this edition. The beginnings of chapters are distinguished by coloured initial letters, red and blue, for the most part alternately ; the initial letters which begin the several books are illuminated chiefly in green, mauve-blue, and pink, with a gold framing, and the work is executed not only with skill and
' The designation of this manuscript given by Michael Denis is Cod. theol. ccclxxx. : Codd. MSS. thcol. Biblioth. palat. Vindobon., i (2) i446seq., Vienna 1794 folio.
VIU PREFACE.
delicacy but also with some pretension to artistic design. The date of the manuscript may be assigned to the first years of the fifteenth century, and the corrections altera maim are those of a contemporary bLop6oiTi]s who apparently did nothing more than collate the text with its exemplar. There is no evi- dence to show the country in which it was written. Like the manuscript of the De civili Doininio, though in neither case is it possible to arrive at a certain conclusion, it may well have been written by a Bohemian scribe in England and then transported into Bohemia. On the ground of its early date this is perhaps, on the whole, most likely^. The volume contains : —
1. The three books de Dominio divino, f. i.
2. ' Liber Mandato7'um qui est primus in ordine Summe
sue et presupponit istos tres tractatus de Dominio precedentes,' f. 91.
3. ' Tractatus de Statu Lmocende,' f. 237, ending defectively
on f. 248.
Within the first cover of the binding is the following note : —
' Iste est ordo librorum Summe sue in theologia : Primus, liber IMandatorum, et presupponitur tres libros
de divino Dominio ; Secundus, de Statu Innocencie ; Tercius, quartus, et quintus, de Dominio civili ; Sextus, de Veritate sacre Scripture,'
and so on to the twelfth book de BlaspJicmia. Then
follows : —
' Secundum aliam quotacioncm iste est ordo :
■^ The regular spelling of evangdium and its derivations with a w probably points in the same direction : so too the abbreviation of Lincolniensis as Lincottn. (p. 246 1. 1), and oi Ardinachani,\i\\\Q!n. is often written more like Ardindi, a form which actually occurs, with the i dotted, in the margin of f 42 c.
PREFACE. IX
Primus liber est de divino Dominio ;
Secundus, de Dominio Status Innocencie ;
Tercius, de Dominio Hominis post lapsum.
Hec patent in tractatu Status Innocencie in fine, ubi addendum dicit ad primum librum trac[ta]tum de ]\Iandatis, ad secundum de Dominio Angelorum, ad tercium de Dominio Clericorum.
Hec patent ubi supra alleg[atur].'
Cod. 1294 (formerly known as Cod. theol. 388 ^ and Cod. b. here denoted by the letter b) is a large octavo volume written on parchment and bound in wooden boards, the flyleaves consisting of a Moravian charter of the year 1401. The book measures 24-5 x 16 centimetres. The page is divided into two columns ; and each column measures 18x5-5 centimetres, the interval between the two being about 5 millemetres. The whole work, except the indexes, is written in one very fine delicate hand, from which proceed also some of the marginal catchwords and glosses, the remainder being due to the correctors. The initial letters of the chapters are not filled in, as they were intended to be, in colour. The volume contains : —
1. The treatise de Veriiate sacrae Scripturae, f. i ; with
index in a later hand, f. 120.
2. The treatise de Ecclesia, f. 128; with index in a later
hand, f. 208.
3. The three books de Dominio divino, f. 212, ending
defectively on f. 251 d.
The three sections bear an old separate pagination, and a comparison of the dates given in the margin of the manuscript leads to the conclusion that originally
^ Cod. theol. ccccv. in Denis' catalogue, i (2) 1507-1510. Dr Loserth takes this manuscript (which he calls a) as the basis of his edition of the treatise De Ecclesia published in 1886. He gives a full description of the volume in his introduction, pp. xvii.-xix.
X PREFACE.
the De Dominio divino stood second and the De Ecclesia last in the volume ^ That the scribe was a Bohemian is shown by the fact that not a few marginal notes are written in Czech. These notes further in- form us that he wrote in England, that the correctors were likewise Bohemians, and that their work was completed in 1407, or perhaps more probably 1408. At the end of the treatise de Veritate sacrae ScripUirae is the note ' Correctus graviter A. D. 1407 in vigilia Purificacionis sancte Marie Oxonie per Nicolaum Faulfiss et Georgium de Knyehnicz ' (f. 119 d). Now Faulfisch is the man whom Aeneas Sylvius credited with being the first to introduce Wycliffite books into Bohemia^; and although the statement is so far in- correct that other Bohemians before him had brought home works by Wycliffe with them, yet its substantial accuracy in mentioning the works De hire divino and De Ecclesia among the books which Faulfisch took into Bohemia may induce us to attach more weight than is usually done to the list Aeneas gives of the works carried home by him^.
Other Czech notes scattered through the volume enable us to trace a little more of the scribe's history. Of the De Dominio divino the tenth chapter of book i. was finished on Maundy Thursday^, the eleventh on Easter Eve ^. At the end of the fifth chapter of book iii. there is a note, Braybj'tig psano'^, written at Braybrook, which indicates that the scribe was working
* Loserth, intr. to De Eccl., p. xviii.
^ Hist. Bohem. xxv., 0pp. p. 103, ed. Basle 1571 folio, or with a slight textual variation in the edition of the Hist. Bohem., Helmstadt 1699 quarto, p. 49.
^ Cf. Wycliffe, de civ. Dom., i. pref. pp. viii., ix. For further par- ticulars concerning Faulfisch see Dr Loserth 's introduction, pp. xvii., seq.
* Infra, p. 75, n. 31. * P. 89. n. 29. * P. 249, n. S.
PREFACE. XI
at a village in Northamptonshire, the rector of which, Robert Hoke, was reputed in 1405 to be a heretic, and was tried and made his recantation in 1425^. The manor-house belonged to the Latimers, and its late owner, sir Thomas Latimer, who died in September, 1 40 1, was a well-known Lollard leader^. Braybrook too was on the borders of Leicestershire, which was in a sense the headquarters of Lollardy. It is Henry Knighton, canon of Leicester, who says, speaking of the latter years of the fourteenth cen- tury, ' Secta ilia in maximo honore illis diebus ha- bebatur, et in tantum multiplicata fuit quod vix duos videres in via quin alter eorum discipulus Wyc- lyfife fuerit^;' and he gives several specimens of Lollard activity in the neighbourhood of Leicester which have become commonplaces of Wyclififite history.
Passing on to the De Ecclesia^ which, as we have seen, now stands second in the volume, we find that the second chapter"^ was completed at Kemerton in Gloucestershire, a village lying not many miles from Evesham, the home of the Lollard tailor, John Badby ^, who was burned in 1410, and between the towns of Tewkesbury and Pershore, which furnished armed support to sir John Oldcastle when he was at Malvern preparing for revolt a few years later '^. The fourth
* Wilkins, Cone. Magn. Brit., 3. 437.
- Ivnighton, de Event. Angl. v., Hist. Angl. Scriptt. decern, 2. 2661, ed. R. Twysden, 1652 ; Walsingham, Hist. Anglic. 2. 159, 216, ed. H. T. Riley, 1864: cf. Dugdale's Baronage, 2. 33 b, 1676 ; Bridges' Hist, and Antiqq. of Northamptonshire, 2. 11, 1791.
' De Event. Angl. v., p. 2666.
* De Eccl. , p. 47, n. 5.
* Rymer's Foedera, S. 627, ed. 1709.
* Walsingham, Hi>t. Anglic, 2. 306 seq.
XU PREFACE.
chapter is dated in Latin on the vigil of Whitsunday^. Further on, at the end of f. 163 2, the scribe com- memorates in a Czech couplet the imprisonment of two EngHsh Lollard priests, possibly the cases of William Sawtree and John Purvey in 140 1 ; for there is no need to assume that the verses relate to an absolutely contemporaneous event.
When we observe that the dates given follow one another continuously, — Candlemas, Maundy Thurs- day, Easter Eve, Whitsun Eve, — it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the work of transcribing and of ' correction ' went on side by side, and that all these dates belong to the same year. In other words, our scribe and his friends (or friend, for there is no reason why the scribe himself should not be either Faulfisch or Knyehnicz) finished the De Veritate at Oxford on the 1st February, 1407, went to Braybrook apparently some time after Easter, and then removed to Kemerton shortly before Whitsunday. If, as is on the whole most likely, our Bohemian visitors adopted the Eng- lish reckoning of time, the first date, February i, will fall in 1407-8, Maundy Thursday on April 12, Easter Eve on April 14, and Whitsun Eve on June 2, all in 1408. But the possibility, of course, remains that they adopted the practice of beginning the year at Christ- mas, in which case the dates would all belong to 1407 and the times fixed by Easter would be nineteen days earlier. Cod. c. Cod. 3935 (formerly known as Cod. theol. 886 ^ and
here distinguished as c) is a quarto volume written partly on paper and partly on parchment; the leaves containing the De Dominio divino are of
1 De Eccl., p. 92, n. 5. ' Ibid., p. 250, n. 16.
3 Cod. theol. ccccx. in Denis' catalogue, i (2) 1519-1523.
PREFACE. xiii
paper. It measures 30 x 21-5 centimetres. The page is divided into two columns, each measuring roughly 23 X 7 centimetres, but the writing is very irregular ; the interval between the columns is about i centi- metre. The volume is the work of various scribes of the date of the first quarter of the fifteenth century ; the corrections of the text and the glosses are all added by one hand. The manuscript contains : —
1. Index to the De Dominio divino, lib. i., f. i.
2. De Dominio divino, lib. i., f. 13.
3. „ „ „ lib. ii., f. 37. V
4. „ „ „ lib. iii., f. 40 B.
5. De Aposiasia, f. 49.
6. De Blasphemia, f. 129.
7. A list of WyclifFe's writings [printed by Shirley, Cata-
logue of the original Works of John Wyclif, 63-69, and by Dr Buddensieg, in his introduction to Wy- cliffe's Polemical Works, i., pp. l.xvii.-lxxiii., 1883], f. 223 c.
8. De Statu hmocejitiae^ f. 225.
9. De Trinitate, f. 237.
10, II. FitzRalph's ' propositiones et articuli contra ordines mendicantes,' and sermon before the pope, a.d. 1357, ff. 273, 291.
12. Peter Payne's defence of Wycliffe. Inc.: 'Quia nuper
in regno Bohemie,' f. 309.
13, 14. A letter to a Wyclififite with his reply, ff. 340D-343.
Cod. 3929 (formerly known as Cod. theol. 880^ and Cod. d. here distinguished by the letter d) is a paper manu- script written not long after i4i5- It has been fully described by Dr Buddensieg in his introduc- tion to Wycliffe 's Polemical Works, 1., pp. xxix.- xxxi. ; a briefer account will be found in Lechler's edition of the Trialogiis, pp. '^'>, seq. (Oxford 1869)
^ Cod. theol. ccclxxxv. in Denis, i (2) 1453-1459.
XIV PREFACE.
and in Dr Loserth's of the De Ecclesia, intr., pp. xix.- xxi.^ It contains : —
1. De Ecclesia, f. i.
2. De Dominio divmo, lib. i., f. 114 b.
3. „ „ „ lib. ii., f. 159 A.
4. „ „ „ lib. iii., f. 168 c.
5. Supplementum Trialogi, f. 170 c.
and other works for which reference may be made to Dr Buddensieg's account.
In the De Dominio divino it may be noticed that the title of book iii. is wanting : it follows book ii. without a break, and its beginning is marked only by a large initial letter. The chapters also, excepting book i. 1—4 and book ii. 4, bear no numbers. The scribe has inserted some notes in Czech.
The Shortly after the foundation of the Wyclif Society
present
edition. m 1 882 arrangements were made for the transcription of the text of the De Dominio divino from Codex A, in order to serve as the basis of an edition of the work. The transcript was sent to Dresden to be collated under the direction of Dr Buddensieg with Codex B, which was at that time lent to him for the purpose of his intended edition of the De Veritate sacrae Scripturae. Dr Buddensieg was so kind as to execute almost the whole of the collation with his own hand, and he transmitted his work to me at Ziirich, where I was then resident, in March, 1883. I have gone over the ground again in all doubtful cases, and have peculiar pleasure in saying that this col- lation of a manuscript presenting an unusual number of pitfalls to the reader, for instance, in ambiguous
' The manuscript is variously denoted as 'b ' by Lechler, 'a' by Dr Buddensieg, and ' A; ' by Dr Loserth.
PREFACE. XV
letters and contractions, is — as indeed might have been expected from the special experience and learning of the collator — as near absolute accuracy as any human performance can be. With A, unfor- tunately, the case was very different. The copyist who undertook the work was entirely without palaeo- graphical training, and did not even take the pains to inform himself of the meaning of familiar contractions. Although a classical student, he blundered on from sentence to sentence without a thought whether the words yielded any sense at all ; and to add the last straw to the editor's and the printer's burthen he wrote a handwriting which seemed ingeniously devised with the object of preventing its being read. Portions of letters were separated by a space, whereas separate letters and words were run into one another ; letters liable to confusion were so written as to be most easily confounded ; and the spelling, while professing to be that of the original, was frequently but silently normalised. In reading through the transcript I marked all the places which seemed to me wrong, and noted all those in which A differed from B to be collated with C. These points were verified by Dr Rudolf Beer partly under my direction and with my help in September, 1884, and partly by himself; but so soon as I came to printing, I found that the thorough untrustworthiness of the transcript made it necessary not merely to test it but to collate it afresh throughout. Accordingly in January, 1889, I began a regular collation of A with the printed sheets, a work which Dr Beer continued and finished for me. Meanwhile I devoted myself to the task of settling the various readings of B and C, of course with constant reference to the text of A. Further doubts which arose in the course of the proof-
XVI PREFACE.
reading I submitted to Dr Beer, who verified them, wherever needful, in all the three manuscripts.
The present edition is thus made on the foundation of A : a complete collation of B, omitting only ortho- graphical variants ^, is added ^ ; and C has been collated wherever A and B differ, as well as in a number of cases where the reading both of A and B presented difficulties, but not regularly in the same way as B has been collated. I have often regretted that the tran- script was not at the outset made from B, on account of the peculiar interest attaching to that manuscript and of the fact that it was written in England. On the other hand, A has the appearance of being the earlier manuscript, and it has the further claim upon the Wycliffe editor of forming, like the unique copy of the De civili Dominio, one of a series of manuscripts of the English divine written in the same size and style and comprehending a large proportion of his most considerable works. Moreover, while A is written with the punctilious regularity and precision of a standard book — as a work of one of the fathers would be reproduced, — B is written with an indepen- dence which had no scruple to correct mistakes. Many of these corrections are indeed plainly right, and not a few have been received into the text of the present edition ; but many also give evidence of the scribe's having altered sentences to agree with what he thought was the meaning of the passage, when the passage rightly understood needed no change at all.
* It should be stated that where A has ' ergo ' B uniformly reads * igitur.' This variant has been only noticed, once for all, in the critical note to p. 5, 1. 15.
^ The beginning of each folio and column of this manuscript is entered in the critical notes with the sign || prefixed.
PREFACE. XVll
In other words, A is a mechanical transcript, while B is the work of one who thought for himself.
That A and B are independent copies, and not even Relation of
, . the manu-
copies of the same archetype, may be taken as certam. scripts. They have all the appearance of standing to one another in the relation not of sisters but of cousins. As for C, I have little doubt that it is a direct tran- script of A \ The number of cases in which it agrees with B as against A is very small, and most of these are of the nature of corrections of obvious errata. Had I been persuaded of this at first, I should not have carried out the collation of the manuscript even as far as I have done ; but since the collation was done and in part printed before I had arrived definitely at this conclusion, I thought it best to leave it as it stood. Still, it must always be borne in mind, in considering the evidence for any particular reading, that, unless my judgement is quite wrong, C has no claim to be regarded as an independent witness. With respect to D, Dr Loserth's proof that its text of the De Ecclesia is 'simply a copy of B may be con- fidently extended to that of the De Dominio divino, which I collated in selected passages taken from various parts of the book. The instances in which it conforms with A or C, or both, as against B, are very few, and may for the most part be accounted for as due to misreadings of contractions or ambiguous
* The following example affords nearly convincing evidence of this. In p. 97, U. 20-24 ^ passage is omitted both in a and c. In the former manuscript the omission occurs at the end of a page, and may easily be accounted for by the common mistake of homoeoteleuton as the scribe turned over the leaf. In c on the other hand the error cannot be explained in this way, since it does not occur at the end of a page ; the presumption therefore is that the scribe was copying from A.
b
XVlll PREFACE.
letters ^ in B or as the corrections of manifest blunders. It has therefore seemed needless to make a regular collation of the manuscript, or to record the results of so much collation as I actually made. In two or three cases I have taken a reading from it ^ ; but as a rule I have used it only to substantiate my extension of the extremely contracted forms of words which are characteristic of B, and for this purpose it has proved very serviceable in difficult or doubtful places.
In preparing the text of the present work for publication, I have followed the same general rules as in my edition of the De civili Doniinio, to the preface of which (especially pp. xvi-xviii) I may be allowed to refer. The readings supplied by the correctors of the several manuscripts are distinguished in the critical notes by the numeral ^, as A^, B^, &c. The marginal headings and notes in the manu- scripts, excepting the Czech ones in Codex B, have been omitted altogether. How slight an in- terest they possess may be seen from the parts of B and C printed by Dr Loserth and Dr Bud- densieg, who have scrupulously reproduced them in their footnotes. The book itself I have endeavoured to print without any alteration, except in cases where the alteration is indicated in a note. Roman numerals, however, have been uniformly employed in citations from books, the usage of the manuscripts being various ; and in the case of citations from the Bible, in order to avoid a needless multiplication of foot-
* Thus it has ' generalissimo,' p. 180, 1. 9, with a c as against 'gene- ralissime ' in B.
2 See p. 185, 1. 31 ; 186, 1. 3. In p. 57, 1. 13, the marginal reading ' denotaciones ' maybe worth mentioning. See too p. 217, n. 5. But such specimens of readings supplied by D which are found in none of the other manuscripts are quite exceptional.
PREFACE. XIX
notes, the reference has been supplemented by the number of the verse in the Vulgate. I have also paid no attention to the use of capital letters, punctuation, and division into paragraphs found in the manuscripts. With these exceptions the edition aims at a faithful following of its original, with all its irregularities and monstrosities of spelling ^ ; but I cannot but fear that this aim, in consequence of the exceedingly- bad transcript I had to work upon, has been not quite perfectly carried out. Each new collation dis- covered new and gratuitous blunders, and I am by no means confident that I have succeeded in effacing all the mischievous doing of my transcriber. I be- lieve however that such errors as remain concern only details of spelling, which are apt to elude even the most vigilant collator, and do not affect the sense.
That the De Dominio divino was intended to stand Title of the as an introduction to Wyclifife's Suimna in Theologia, is shown not only by the first note written in the cover of A^, but also by the first of the four early catalogues of Wycliffe's works printed by Dr Buddensieg ^. It has, however, been disputed whether its title, or at least the title of its first book, should not be simply De Dominio. Lechler inferred this, first, from the terms of the prologue, 'Consonum videtur a dominio inchoandum,' and secondly, from the fact that the third catalogue of Wycliffe's works gives the title as
' Perhaps it should be mentioned that utt has been printed for w where the latter stands for two letters, as in ' distingwntur,' ' wit.'
^ Supra, p. viii. The second note, ibid., which makes it the first book of the Summa, is contradicted by the numbers given in the manuscripts to the actual books of the Summa.
' Polemical Works, i., intr., p. Ixvi. So too apparently in the second catalogue, where the title is miswritten ' de dominio domino []),' ibid., p. Ixxii.
XX PREFACE.
De Dominio ^ On the other hand, the language In the prologue is hardly precise enough to fix a title, while two of the other catalogues speak of the work as De Dominio divino. Still, that there was evidently a doubt on the subject is proved by the headings in the manuscripts. Before book i. A and C have De Dominio divino^ but over the last word the corrector of C has added absohito : B and D have simply De Dominio, while the latter manuscript has in the table of contents written within the cover De Dominio in generali. Further, though the second book is so numbered in all the manuscripts, the word secnndtcs has in c the number primus written above it, and the table of contents in D gives this book the specific title of De Dominio divino. Lastly, book iii., as has been noticed ^, bears no title at all in Codex D. Division Wycliffe himself, at least when he wrote the De ' civili Dominio, treated the work as a single book. To show this I give the citations as there made, with the places to which they refer : —
De civ. Dom. \. De Doni. div.
II p. 73, ' in principio tractatus de div. Dom.
cap. iii,' .....
II p. 78, 'de div. Dom. cap. ii.' (apparently) 16 p. Ill, ' de div. Dom. cap. xxiii.' 36 p. 259, ' de Dom. div. cap. — '
It may be conjectured that the treatise was divided into three books for the sake of convenience, whether by Wycliffe himself or a disciple may be left doubtful. Perhaps on the whole it is most likely that Wycliffe
' Polem. Works, i., intr., p. Ixxix. See Lechler, Johann von Wiclif, 2. 560, Leipzig, 1873.
^ Supra, p. xiv.
^ I presume the figure in the citation is miswritten : in any case the reference is plainly to the early part of book i.
= 1-3 = i. 3^
= ii. 3
:= iii. 6
PREFACE. XXI
did not himself make the arrangement, and that we have in the uncertainty of the titles of the several books an indication that the editors were not quite sure of their ground. They found the first chapter of book i. beginning ' In tractando de dominio ' ; and comparing this with the phrase ' a dominio in- choandum ' in the prologue, they headed the book De Dominio. Book ii. begins ' lam secundo restat lacius disserere de dominio divino ' ; and this furnished a natural title about which there could be no doubt. It ought of course to have followed that book iii. should be numbered book ii. : but the parallel between its opening words, ' Redeundo iam tercio ad materiam que directius concernit dominium,' and the words in book ii. just quoted, left the editors no choice but to call it book iii. Afterwards as the work was repeatedly read and transcribed it became clear that De Dominio divino was the real title, as it was the real subject, of the whole treatise ; and this conclusion we find adopted in A as well as in two out of the three catalogues of Wycliffe's works which mention the title ^.
All the three books of the De Dominio divino have Fragment- come down to us in a defective state, and in all the ^^ work, manuscripts they break off at the same point. Nor do the old catalogues give any evidence of more com-
* It is absent from the fourth of these catalogues (Buddensieg, I.e., pp. Ixxx. seqq.), which is in other respects very incomplete. Shirley suggested (Catal. of the orig. Works of J. Wyclif, p. 53, Oxford 1865) that the work de Arte sophistica from which erroneous opinions were ex- cerpted by a committee appointed by the University of Oxford in 1 409 (see H. C. Maxwell Lyte, Hist, of the Univ. of Oxford, p. 283, n. 2, 1886; was really the same with the De Dominio divino ; but only one of these articles, which will be found in Wilkins' Concilia, iii. 346, bears any close resemblance to the latter work, and it is likely that they come from Wycliffe's philosophical treatises. Two of them, however, artt, 169, 170^ refer manifestly to his latest doctrine.
XXU PREFACE.
plete copies being in existence. It is true that one of these, the third, speaks of book i. as containing 29 chapters instead of 19 ; but it gives the number of chapters in books ii. and iii. exactly as we now possess them, and for a reason that will immediately be ad- duced we may take it that 29 is a mistake of the copyist for 19, the figures i and 2 being frequently confounded in transcription. The only evidence for the number of chapters of which any of the books originally consisted is that supplied in the reference given above from the De civili Dominio to chapter xxiii. Since this reference is apparently to be verified in book ii. 3, it results that book i. in its complete form contained twenty chapters ; so that less than two are missing from our existing copies. The original length of books ii. and iii. must at present be left unsettled ; but it is far from improbable that some indication may be discovered in one of the books of the Siimma which await publication.
Authorship That the treatise de Dominio divino is by Wycliffe the treatise, ^s attested^ first, by the titles in the manuscripts; secondly, by its inclusion in three out of the four existing catalogues of Wycliffe's works ^, — its absence from the fourth need raise no difficulty since this list is in many ways defective ; — thirdly, by the reference it contains^ to Wycliffe's book de Incamatione Verbi; fourthly, by the references to it in Wycliffe's De civili Dominio ", the genuineness of which has early testi- mony in the quotations from it in pope Gregory the Eleventh's bulls of 1377 ; fifthly, by the mention of it (in the form De lure divino) by Aeneas Sylvius among the books brought by Nicolas Faulfisch into
* See above, pp. xix.-xxi. ' Lib. i. 8, p. 55. ' See above, p. xx.
PREFACE. XXIU
Bohemia ^. The external evidence, so far as it goes^, is unanimous ; and every argument from the style and method of exposition employed in the work points in the same direction. As for the date at which Wycliffe wrote the treatise, the internal evi- dence is slender. From the terms of the prologue it might seem as though this were Wycliffe's earliest theological production ; but the reference made in it to the De Licarnatione Vei'bi shows that the latter work was at any rate completed before the De Do- inmio divino'^. The position it occupies as the in- troduction to the Siimma in T/ieologia, and the refer- ences to it in the several books of the Sinnma, furnish us with a terminus ad qiiein ; but unfor- tunately the dates of these books have not yet been fixed with any precision. The utmost that can be said with certainty respecting the De civili Dominio is that it was written previously to 1377, while Shirley's date, 1372, is probably not very far from the truth ^. How much earlier the De Dominio divine was composed can at present only be conjectured ;
* See above, p. x. Its title does not occur in the list of books condemned at Prague in 1410; Docum. Mag. loh. Hus, p. 380, ed. r. Palacky, Prague 1 869.
^ I have not noticed any allusion to the work in Woodford's polemic against Wycliffe, printed in Orthuinus Gratius' Fasciculus Rerum ex- petendarum et fugiendarum, pp. 190-265, ed. E. Brown, 1690 folio ; nor in T. Walden's Doctrinale Fidei, for the citation made in the latter work, lib. ii. art. iii. 82, p. 402 b, Venice 1571 folio, as from the De Dom, div., cap. ii., is really taken from the De civ. Dom. i. 2, p. 11.
^ W^here Wycliffe refers to the De civili Dominio (or, as he here styles it, De humano Dominio), it is rather by way of a general allusion to a future work which he had in contemplation. In book iii. 4, p. 224 the particular reference is only apparent; for 'libro tercio ' denotes merely the third book of the Summa. On the other hand, in book iii. 6, p. 255, we have a reference (though apparently a wrong one) to a specified chapter, which may be a later insertion.
* Fasciculi Zizaniorum, intr., pp. xvii, xxi n. 2.
XXIV PREFACE.
but the fact that Wycliffe wrote a Determinatio de Dominio ^ with reference to the parliamentary repudia- tion of the papal tribute in 1366, and in it stated the essential principle of his doctrine of lordship, may naturally lead to the conclusion that in or about that year he was engaged in the composition of the book be- fore us. More closely it would be hazardous to affirm.
Subject of The treatise opens with a short prologue, in which
the work, ttt ,.r/- i i " , . . . r
Book I vVycline declares his mtention of entermg upon a
course of divinity by an exposition of the doctrine
of doininiiun or lordship based upon the proofs of
Ch. I. holy Scripture. LordsJiip may be used in a wider or a narrower sense : it may denote in the most general way the relation of agent to patient ; but for the purpose of Wyclifife's argument it has to be limited to a particular class of superiority. He there- fore describes it as a habit, pertaining only to the rational nature, by virtue of which that nature is said to be set over that which serves it. Lordship and service are thus the two terms of a relation concern- ing which we have at present learned little more than this fact, that it belongs only to rational beings. Incidentally, however, a principle has been stated, namely, that use is not necessarily lordship, which is of historical interest in connexion with the contro- versy of the early part of the fourteenth century between the spiritual Franciscans and pope John the Twenty-second. Wycliffe on this head adopts the Franciscan view, which had been maintained by Marsiglio of Padua and William of Ockham ^.
Ch. II, Wycliffe proceeds to distinguish lordship from
' Printed by Lewis. Life of Wiclif, pp. 349-356, 2nd ed,. Oxford 1820. ' Cf. p. 5, n. 15.
PREFACE. XXV
things with which it might plausibly be identified. It is not, he says, synonymous with right, since a man may have a right to a thing without obtaining lord- ship of it ; but it includes right as the basis upon which the relation proceeds. So again lordship is not poiver. ' No catholic will deny that the power of the keys is committed to the priest, albeit he have none subjected to his power.' Power therefore may exist without lordship ; it may be granted to a man and take effect when lordship is superadded ; but it is always implied in lordship. A further question arises, how lordship came into existence ; for that it is not eternal is clear from the fact of its postu- lating objects to act upon. The answer, that lord- ship originated with creation, is supported by the language of the Book of Genesis, in which the work of creation is attributed to God, and it is not until the heavens and the earth were finished that the name Lord is used ; it was not until there were creatures to serve God that he became Lord. God's lordship therefore is the immediate result of creation ; and he is lord of his creatures because he created them, not because he governs and keeps them. As FitzRalph explains ^, ' God has lordship by reason of his creation of things, possession by reason of his preservation of them, and use by reason of his governance of them.'
Lordship may be divided according to its subject, Ch. in. its foundation or principle, and its object. In the first classification we distinguish the lordship of God, of angels ^, and of men ; in the second, specially in
* De Paup. Salv. i. 5, p. 286.
' FitzRalph, it may be noticed, denies that angels can hold lordship in the strict sense of the word, lib. i. 9. 10. pp. 292 seqq.
XXVI PREFACE.
human lordship, that according to the law of nature, the law of grace, and positive law ; in the third, the lordship over a house, a city or community, and a kingdom or state. Of these classes the first, the lordship of God, calls for consideration before the rest, because it is the measure of all others, and sur- passes them in three respects : in its subject, since God stands in need of no service; in its foundation, since the right by which he holds lordship is in essence God himself; and in its object, since all creatures are compelled by the fact of their creation to do him service. Whatever we do we are tm- projitable servants, for our best works bring God no profit, and are but the gifts of his mere grace ; what- ever merit we have comes through his aid, and abounds only to our own indebtedness to him. His lordship is so vehement that none can escape his service ; even the sinner serves him by suffering his
Ch. IV. due punishment. Yet there are degrees in service, as there are degrees in the capacities of men ; but only in accidentals, sei*vice in essentials remaining in all the same.
Ch. V. In examining more closely into the nature of the
use which God has of lordship, concerning which he dissents in part from FitzRalph's opinion, and into the distinction between that use and possession, Wyclifife takes occasion to dwell upon the greatness of God's lordship, and announces a principle which becomes of the highest importance in the later de- velopment of his theological views : ' God,' he says, ' is lord not mediately, as other kings are, through the rule of subject vassals, since immediately and of himself he makes, maintains, and governs all that which he possesses, and helps it to perform
PREFACE. XXVU
its works according to other uses which he requires \' The significance, however, of this proposition is not further insisted upon in the present work, which resumes at once the metaphysical bearings of its subject.
Lordship, it has been seen, is consequent upon creation: but creation imphes the creation of some- thing, and we have thus to enquire into the nature CH.vr,vn. of being, and the relation of universals to sensible objects. Three questions are put: Is there a neces- sary limitation in the number of created species.? Is God's lordship of the universal prior to his lord- Ch. vm, ship of the particular ? What are the different Ch. ix. stages of being, essentia and esse, posse esse, esse in- telligibile, and esse actuate, and in what relation do they stand one to another ? The ontological problem is approached and discussed very much in the spirit of Scotism. The ideas, the rationes exem- plares, are in God -, and are essentially the same with his Word ^, who is all things in all things ^. ' Every creature in respect of his esse intelligibile is God ^.' There is one ens, the ejis analogum, which includes in itself and comprehends all other entia, — all universals and all the individual parts of the uni- verse ^, The process by which the primary ens is specificated, or by which a higher and more general class passes into sensible existence, is that it receives the addition of substantial form whereby it is ren- dered capable of acquiring qualities and other ac- cidents '^.
Having considered the object of creation, that is, created being, in its various classes, Wycliffe turns
1 P. 33- ' Pp. 59 seq. ' P. 42. « P. 39.
' P. 43. * Pp- 58 seq. ' Pp. 48 seqq.
XXVlll PREFACE.
Ch. X. to creation itself, that is, the manner in which the creative act takes place. Creation may be either out of nothing, as that of the ens analogum ; or out of preexisting material, as the rendering of the esse intelligibile into proper existence, in which the ens analognvi is the material cause of the production of the effect. Q^ii vivit in aeternum, in the words of Ecclesiasticus, creavit omnia siimil: 'all things,' adds Wycliffe, ' in their primordial causes, as genera and species, or else in their material essences, ac- cording to hidden rationes seminales ^ } It is next argued that creation is the only mode by which God can produce, and that he alone is of creative power; the creature therefore can only produce that which God has already created, so that God is strictly the author of every work which the creature performs : Deus immediate illabitnr citilibet, non di- stans lit astj'iim qnod mediante s?to himine effectum efficit snbhtnai'em ; sed postqiiam agcns extrinsecutn cessaverit, Dens adintra continuat^ dans ultimum com- plementtnn ^.
Ch. XI. Three objections follow. The first turns upon the
text of S. Gregory, Fides non Jiabet meritmn cni hnmana ratio praebet experimentiim : enquiry into matters of faith is therefore inexpedient and dan- gerous. Wycliffe replies by arguing in favour of free enquiry, so long as it is conducted in a be- coming spirit of reverence, and confined to the learned. He maintains that all articles of faith are susceptible of demonstration, though not all in the
Ch. XII. same manner. The second objection, in the scho- lastic form of a telling reductio ad absni-dnm, raises the question of the being of God, and leads to an ' P. 66. ■' F. 74.
PREFACE. XXIX
investigation of the relations of the Persons of the holy Trinity. The third objection urges that Wy- Ch. xiii. cliffe's view of creation admits the eternity of the world. The answer, which includes an interesting survey of various opinions on the subject, maintains that the world began, in its entirety, at a given instant of time, and that to suppose it to be an eternal emanation from God would involve its abso- lute necessity and consequently the destruction of free will and merit.
Here the first book might have ended ; but the introduction of the question of necessity and free will in the last chapter, as well as incidentally elsewhere, makes it desirable to pursue the enquiry further ; especially since two of Wyclifife's masters in the Ch. xiv. generation preceding his own, Archbishop FitzRalph and Archbishop Bradwardine, held discordant views on the subject, the former laying the greater stress upon free will, the latter upon necessity. Wycliffe seeks to hold a middle course between them by the help of the Aristotelian distinction between that which is necessary absolutely and that which is necessary on a given supposition. God necessitates man to perform actions which are in themselves neither right nor wrong ; they become right or wrong by man's free agency. He does not will sin, for he only wills that which has being, whereas sin has no being ; what he wills is the punishment for sin. Necessity Ch. xv. is antecedent to man's will : he is necessitated to will, but free to will what he chooses. Wycliffe Ch. xvi. then attempts, by means of an enquiry into the divine attributes of intelligence, knowledge, and vo- lition, and their correlation, to ascertain more closely the relation subsisting between God's will and human
XXX PREFACE.
action. His will, he decides, is determinate, because
he knows beforehand what will come to pass ; it is
not conditional, for this would imply that he was
Ch.xvii uncertain as to the result. Wyclifife now returns to
XVIII. _ ^ •'
Bradwardine's position respecting the inevitability of human action, and urges in answer that a man may be in part the determining cause of God's will, be- cause that will presupposes that a man will act in a particular way. There is an interdependence in the whole scheme. ' As the idea of the effect causes eternally in God volition contingent [upon itj^ so on the other hand God causes eternally every creature adinira in the idea ^' The discussion is not com-
Ch. XIX. pleted when at the beginning of the nineteenth chapter the first book breaks off abruptly.
Book II. The subject of the second book is the relation of '• God's lordship to that of which he is lord, and first to the ens analogiini. Wycliffe resumes and re-states his position as to the order of the different stages ; and much that has been already treated in book i. receives a further investigation. He deals
Ch. II. (i) with the existence of universals, (2) with the priority of the ens analoguni to all other universals, (3) with the priority of God's lordship of the universal to his lordship of the particular^. He replies to the
Ch. III. objection that on his reasoning the object of lordship, the ens, is eternal, and consequently that lordship is eternal, by insisting on the equivocation with which ens is spoken of with respect to God and to other beings. After a disquisition upon the laws
Ch. IV. of perception, it is true, he admits, that the ens ajialognm is common to God and to created beings — this he had denied, doubtfully, in book i. 6 — and
^ P. 165. » Already discussed in book i. 8.
PREFACE. XXXI
that all ens is eternal : nevertheless it is equivocal Ch. v, with respect to God or to the intelHgible being of the creature, and with respect to the creature's actual existence ; in its first or intellectual principle entity- belongs in one and the same sense to all beings, but as touching actual existence it is equivocal. Therefore, since it is actual existence which deter- mines the relation of lordship, the community of ens in the former sense does not involve the eternity of lordship.
Wycliffe has now completed his discussion of the metaphysical basis of his system, in which, so far as his treatment is philosophical, he adds little if any- thing to the stores already accumulated, — pressed down, shaken together, and rnnning over, — in the daily debates of the schools ; and in the fourteenth century the logician was apt to take the chaff for grain. I have run very briefly through the contents of this portion of the De Dominio divino, because they are of a character in which all but professed students of the history of philosophy have long ceased to take an interest. Indeed, so far as I am aware, hardly a single work of this description has passed into print for near three centuries : in order to find its models one has to seek among the black-letter quartos of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. Wycliffe's work is of the spuriously technical type of Holcot or Strode ; it has not the true philosophical spirit which, in spite of all his over-refinement, im- presses one with admiration in Duns Scotus. With his third book Wycliffe quits the ground of theory book III. and passes to the practical bearings of his subject. His method is now that of the theologian. Enume- rating the various acts in which lordship can be
XXXll PREFACE.
exercised, he enquires how far they are apph'cable to God's lordship. Creation, maintenance, and govern- ance have already been considered in book i. ; Wy- cliffe now discusses giving, receiving, and lending. It may be assumed that the other acts were dealt with in the part of the book now lost, and in its absence the corresponding chapters of FitzRalphs work, the treatment of which agrees closely with what remains of Wycliffe s third book, may be consulted with in- terest.
Ch. I. The subject of giving leads to a statement which
is of importance in connexion with Wycliffe's de- veloped doctrine of lordship. When one gives, he says, he does not necessarily part with his lordship of the thing given, and this is in a special sense true of God's giving. Once that the notion of feudal lordship is attributed to God, the other element of feudalism, which consists in the separation of owner- ship from possession, naturally follows. God, we have seen, is the immediate lord of every creature ^ ; whatever lordship therefore the creature possesses must be held subject to due service to the lord in chief, and man is but God's steward or bailiff^. Not merely is lordship not necessarily, it is only impro- perly, proprietary: property was introduced by reason of sin ; our Lord and his apostles held none.
Ch. II. The next proposition is a strictly theological one :
God gives nothing to his servants except he in principle give himself; for the first thing he gives, the esse iittelligibile, is really the divine essence, and so it is with respect to the primal truth, unity, and goodness with which he endows his creatures. In a special sense he gives himself when he com-
* Supra, p. xxvi. ' So too pp. 250, 255.
PREFACE. XXXUl
municates to them the holy Spirit and the gifts con- sequent upon the gift of him, so that in Jiiin zve live and move and have our being. So complete is God's gift to man that, unless he fall into sin, he has the use of all things. We have here the sketch of what Wycliffe afterwards expanded in the early part of his first book de civili Dominio. The correlative of Ch. hi. giving, receiving, is with regard to God but another aspect of the same act, since he never loses that which he gives ; he gives to his own and receives back his own. This reciprocity has its analogy in human relations ; so that among men lordship stands by virtue of ministry, and he is most a lord who is most God's servant ^. Lending in like manner is only Ch. iv. another mode of expressing the way in which God gives, since it has been shown that man is but the steward of that of which God is lord.
From this point what remains of the book is con- cerned with the question of merit and grace If all a man has is lent to him, his merit is not his own ; how can he then deserve any reward ? In an earlier place Wycliffe had asserted, in forgetfulness of the emphatic declaration of Bradwardine to the con- trary-, that 'no one denies that the creature can deserve of congruity as touching grace ^.' He now argues the matter at length. A man can deserve from another man de condigno, the reward due to him for his labour ; but from God he can only
' The doctrine of lordship by virtue of ministry is here but briefly touched ; a fuller treatment will be found in the De civ. Dom. i. lo, 14, &c. But the doctrine is of course a familiar one in theological exposition : see for instance William of Auvergne, de Sacram. Ordinis, X., Opp. p. 513 i^-, ed. Venice 1591, folio.
"^ De Causa Dei, i. 39, pp. 325-364, ed. Sir H. Savile, 1618, folio.
^ P. 170.
C
XXXIV PREFACE.
deserve de congruo, that is, ex condccente lege mag- nijica ac gracioso iiivamine Domiiiantis. Grace is the antecedent condition of such deserving ; but the fact that God's help is necessary does not take away from the merit of him who runs his course aright. The merit is of grace and the reward is of grace ; but none the less man would deserve nothing unless by the exercise of his own power of volition. An
Ch. v. exposition of the doctrine of grace leads to a further enquiry into the relative shares taken by God and man in causing man's merit. It is shown that the operation of God's grace is the principal cause, and that while no one can have merit 'of works' {ex operibiis) he can have merit 'through works' {per
Ch. VI. opera) of God's grace. The discussion of the subject, in reply to objections, is carried on to the end of the book as we now possess it.
Arch- As the De Dominio divino forms an introduction to
Fitz- Wyclifife's Swnvia, so the work of Richard Fitz-
r^^f^ ^ d -^^.Iph, archbishop of Armagh, de Pmiperie Salvatorisy
Pattperie of whicli the first four books are printed in the
Salvatoris. ,. , , , . , ,
appendix to the present volume, may be considered
in many ways as an introduction to Wycliffe's doc- trine of lordship as a whole. I give an account of the manuscripts from which it is edited in a notice prefixed to the text of the work ^ ; here it will be necessary only to explain the circumstances in which the treatise was written, and to give a sketch of its contents.
' Infra, pp. 259-264. I have had the advantage of an exceedingly faithful transcript of the Bodleian manuscript, which was made for me, under the superintendence of Mr George Parker, assistant in the library, by his daughter, Miss A. F. Parker, to whose care and knowledge I am greatly indebted.
PREFACE. XXXV
In 1349 FitzRalph paid a visit to Avignon in con- Date of nexion with the approaching papal jubilee. He waSgJJ^J" commissioned on the part of the English clergy, to lay before Clement the Sixth a number of well-known complaints against the friars. That, however, he was not yet known to be animated by any unfriendly feeling towards the mendicant orders may be inferred from the fact that he was appointed to preach in the Franciscan church on the great festival of the order, the feast of St. Francis \ He executed his commission in an address, which exists in manuscript 2, on the 5th July, 1350. A little before this ^ FitzRalph tells us in his dedication, he was deputed by the pope to make enquiry with two other doctors into certain questions which had long been agitated in the mendicant orders concerning property, lordship, possession, and the right of use. Their deliberations went on for some time, but led to no result, and FitzRalph was urged by some of the cardinals to undertake an independent examination of the subject. He set to work, but, having soon to return to Ireland ^, found himself hin- dered by the charge of his diocese from making rapid progress with his book.
In 1356 he quitted Ireland for the last time, and it was then that he took up a position of declared and
' I have endeavoured to fix the chronology of the archbishop's life with more exactness than had previously been attempted in an article upon him in the Dictionary of National Biography, 19. 194-198, 1889.
^ Proposicio Ricardi archiepiscopi Armachani Hibemie primatis ex parte prelatorum et omnium curatorum tocius ecclesie coram domino nostro papa in pleno consistorio, a.d. 1350, mense lulii die quinta, Bodl. MS. 144, f. 251 (J-255.
3 'Anno octavo,' infra, p. 273. The eighth year of Clement VI. ended on 8 May, 1350.
* He was summoned back by a royal order dated 18 Febniary, 1349- I350» Rymer's Foedera, 3 (i) 192, Record edition.
C 2
XXXVl PREFACE.
public hostility to the friars. He found, he tells us ^, a discussion going on in London super mendicitaie et mejidicatione Christi, and entered actively into it. In the course of the winter he preached a number of sermons at St. Paul's Cross ^, in which he asserted that voluntary poverty was neither of Christ's example nor of present obligation, and that mendicancy had no warrant in Scripture or primitive tradition. The friars were hotly excited by the archbishop's action, and succeeded in procuring his citation to appear and defend his opinions before the pope at Avignon. On the 8th November, 1357^ he preached a famous ser- mon before Innocent VI, which has been frequently published under the title of Dcfensio Curatorwn. FitzRalph's case was at once entrusted by the pope to four cardinals for examination ^, but unfortunately no record of the result is known to exist. It seems most likely that, in view of the weighty interests engaged on either side, the decision was purposely delayed, and that FitzRalph died, probably in November, 1360, before judgement was given. In the end the friars received a confirmation of their privileges. The statement current among English Benedictines was that the friars won in consequence of their more plentiful supplies of money, and it was hinted that had the English clergy contributed more liberally than they did the issue might have been different *. We are here, however, concerned with the circum-
1 Defensio Curatoriim, ad init., Goldast's Monarchia s. Rom. Imper., 2. 1392, Frankfurt 1614, folio (or Brown's Fascic. Rer. expet. et fug., app., p. 466).
^ Four are printed at the end of his Summa in Quaestionibus Ar- menorum, Paris 151 1, quarto. Cf. infra, pp. 261 seq.
3 Bodl. MS. 158, f. 174.
* Chron. Angl. a monach. S. Alban., p. 38, ed. E. M. Thompson, 1874 ; \Val<ingham, Hist. Anglic, i. 285.
PREFACE. XXXVll
Stances of FitzRalph's biography only so far as they bear on the date and composition of the De Pauperie Salvatoris. We have seen that it was begun in 1350, and its dedication to Innocent the Sixth shows that it was finished not earlier than 1353 \ but how much later is not quite certain. I was formerly of opinion that FitzRalph completed his work during the time of his last sojourn at Avignon between 1357 and 1360^ ; but a more careful study of the language of his dedi- cation has convinced me that it was written before he left Ireland in 1356. Like Ockham, he chose the form of a dialogue for his work, a form which lends itself more conveniently than a direct discourse to the raising of objections and the narrowing down of points at issue.
After a dedication recounting the circumstances in Subject of which the work was composed, FitzRalph states the ^^^ j ' problem of which he seeks a solution : The religious ch. i. orders all profess to follow the life and teaching of Christ and his apostles, and yet their rules differ and have received different interpretations from different popes ; the divergence mainly proceeds from the sense they attach to certain terms, ' lordship,' ' property,' 'possession,' and the ' right of using,' and the voluntary surrender of these rights ; it is desirable, therefore, to examine minutely the true meanings and senses of these words. Lordship is first distinguished fromCn. n. property, which it does not necessarily involve, the rigJit of iLsing, which it includes but which does not necessarily include it, and possession, which is the immediate result of lordship. Lordship is not eternal; Ch. hi, iv. God's lordship is dependent upon his creation of the world, and antecedent to his government and main- Ch. v.
' Innocent was elected on the i8th December, 1352. ^ Diet, of Nat. Biogr. 19. 196 b.
XXXVni PREFACE.
tenance of his creatures, which latter acts may be more properly described as his use and his possession
Ch. VII. than as his lordship. God had possession of the whole world from the beginning, and use of it so far
Ch. VIII. as there was any room for its exercise. The formal description of God^s lordship is ' the full right of possessing the world and using it fully and freely with all things therein contained, by means of pos- session solely ; so that right is the genus of lordship, and all else in it is as the specific difference whereby God's lordship is distinguished from all lordship of his creatures.' His lordship cannot be alienated by any grant of his ; it remains entire and universal.
Ch. VI, When he entrusted government to the angels, this was a commission of office, not properly of lordship. The
Ch. XIII. subject of God's possession and right of use is then briefly resumed ; the former, the fruit of lordship, consisting in the safe-keeping and maintenance of the world, the latter being part of the definition of lordship. Use, however, is a general term which covers a variety of particular acts, and it is necessary to en- quire in detail which of these acts are applicable to
Ch. XIV- God's lordship. Can he annihilate (this is denied), consume, change, multiply or increase, give, lend.'^ can he protect and resume his gifts, sell, buy, and receive? (all these acts are affirmed). The main stress of the argument lies in the subject of giving. If God's lordship cannot be alienated, in what sense can he be said to give anything? FitzRalph takes the example of a number of men holding land in common who admit a new member to the enjoyment of their rights. In such a case they transfer or alienate no part of their lordship, nor do they even diminish it in extent. The paradox of the latter
PREFACE. XXXIX
position IS vindicated by the argument that the men have still ex JiypotJiesi enough to live upon, and if they wanted more this would be grasping, in other words, not an act of lordship but an abuse of lordship ; and as it is not supposed that men would admit a co- partner beyond the resources of their land, the diffi- culty which would thus arise is eluded ^. But the community of the lordship is an essential element in the argument, which would not hold good were it a question of holding in severalty [proprietas) ; and so it is in like manner communication which forms the essential fact of God's giving. He gives, and loses nothing by the act. He communicates to all creatures himself and his lordship, albeit they are capable of receiving it but incompletely": he retains not only his lordship over the thing given, but also his possession and right of use of it ^.
From God's lordship FitzRalph proceeds to man's Book li. natural or original lordship, that which he had before ^"- ^• the fall of Adam, a subject which occupies books ii. and iii. This, he argues, is no true lordship, since the true lordship, with the right or authority which it includes, remains with God ; all that man receives is really lent him. Original lordship is ' the mortal right Ch. ii. or original authority of the rational creature of natur- ally possessing the things subjected to him by nature conformably to reason.' The terms of this descrip- Ch. iii-v, tion are explained in detail, and it is inferred from the Ch. vi- fact that lordship was granted to man in a state of innocence in the image and likeness of God, that he was created in justifying grace, which was the antecedent ground of his lordship. Lordship is founded in grace, and without grace there is no lord-
1 pp. 307seciq. - P. 310. '"■ Pp. 313 seq.
|
Ch. |
XV- |
|
XIX. |
|
|
Ch. |
XX- |
|
XXII. |
xl PREFACE.
Ch.ix-xiv. ship. It is then shown how Adam received his lord- ship for himself and his descendants, and how Christ received it as man. Adam by sinning lost all his original lordship, but when he repented and received grace he received it also again, though without the full power of exercising it. Original lordship is dis- tinguished from the lordship acquired by virtue of positive laws by the fact that it cannot be refused when granted, nor abdicated except through sin. Ch. xxiii. Tt cannot be increased or diminished in itself, only Ch. XXIV. limited in act. When one man is preeminent over others, he has not on that account any larger original lordship, because this lordship depends upon nature, not upon extrinsic conditions. His preeminence may diminish the use of lordship among his subjects, but Ch. XXV. not their lordship itself. Positive laws became neces- sary in consequence of sin; but still, even had man never sinned, some laws must have come into existence for Ch. XXVI. the guidance of human life. Nevertheless rule con- ducted under such laws would not be lordship, since the ruler would not thereby be enabled to exercise all the acts of lordship ; would not have the power of giving, selling, &c., his subjects, nor free use of their possessions. Civil lordship by means of kings would never have been necessary in a state of innocence. Ch. XXVII- Varieties in circumstances, natural gifts, and acquire- ^^^^ ' ments would still have led to the preeminence of some men over others ; but the original loirdship of each would have remained equal. Book III. In the third book FitzRalph considers the relation Ch. i-iii. Jj^ which original lordship stands to possession and use and to the objects on which it can operate. After enumerating the different ways in which a man may possess, he shows possession to be not a right but a
PREFACE. xli
title, the outward sign of lordship. All possession in Ch. iv-
the proper sense of the word is righteous. To man
was given at his creation both lordship and possession
of the whole world and of every part of it ; but he has
them in varying degrees according as he has a freer
or less free use of the things subjected to him. TheCn. ix-xv.
question whether property could have come into
existence without sin, is argued at length and finally
decided in the negative. The conditions of natural Ch. xvi,
possession follow upon those of natural lordship, and '
that which has been asserted of the latter, that it is
universal and is lost only through sin, is equally true
of the former. Lordship further involves use, which Ch. xix-
XXII.
is its end and fruit, nobler and more desirable than it ; but use is to be understood only of the reasonable employment of things, any excess being not use but abuse. The various acts in which original lordship Ch. xxiii- may be exercised are next reviewed ; and here, as in ' " book i. the chief interest centres in the act of giving. This, it is explained, does not imply the transfer- ence of the entire right to possess the thing given. As in God's giving, so in the state of innocence, to give is to share possession ; it is also the rule of the apostles and the rule of charity that all things should be had in common. By sharing the gift both giver and receiver derive most benefit from it^. Even when, as under civil laws, a lord grants away one of his lordships, he retains his natural lordship in that which he grants. Indeed, a grant of this sort is not really an act of lordship at all ; the transfer is purely accidental, dependent on the will of the receiver ; whereas lordship is by its very nature independent of will ^. Is then all civil lordship vain ? Not altogether,
' Pp. 417-4^0. -■ Pp. 422 seqq.; cf. pp. 390, 455 scq.
xlii PREFACE.
since, in the present state of sin, it serves as a protection against the attacks of evil doers : but when it is main- tained that no one can really have a thing unless he have it by way of property, this is simply an abuse resulting from the cupidity and self-seeking of wicked men.
The difficulty of adjusting the two titles to posses- sion, that given by original lordship and that authorised by civil law, has been already more than once ap- proached, but from the point of view of the state of innocence, not as a substantial problem confronting man in practical life. For it is clear that the doctrine that the righteous man has original lordship, or the title to possess everything — that is, everything that he needs, — and that civil law ought to support this title, does not go very far towards meeting the actual conditions of wealth and poverty. Moral virtues, as things are, do not, as a matter of fact, bring their possessor all he needs in temporal concerns ; and the practical question which FitzRalph proposed to himself at the outset is not carried nearer to a solution by the postulation of a state of things not known to present experience.
Book IV. Nor even in the fourth book, which treats specifically of property and civil lordship, is there any serious attempt to descend from the ideal atmosphere in
Ch. I. which its predecessors move. Original lordship, it has been said, held by one person does not exclude others from the use of it : if any one is excluded it is not by virtue of that lordship, but by virtue of a posi- tive law ; and the reason why others are excluded is that they cannot know that the possessor has not civil lordship, which would exclude them. In other words, we might all freely enjoy another man's land but for X\\Q possibility of his having a civil title to it, and this title implies property. But this civil condition is no
PREFACE. xliii
real part of lordship, it is merely accidental to it. Before sin came into the world there was no property. Property then is no element in original lordship, nor Ch. ii. clearly is it the same with possession : it is a lord- ship acquired by one or more persons in a civil state of society, which excludes use in others ; but this ex- clusion of use, though an invariable accompaniment of civil possession ^, is nevertheless accidental. This accidental character runs through all the current notions of civil lordship. We speak of the eldest son Ch. hi, iv. as heir to his father's goods, one who will in course become lord in his place, whereas in truth no man is lord except through justifying grace. The argument is complicated by a confusion of two distinct uses of the phrase 'civil lordship.' Ideally it is that only which is conditioned by grace; practically, it is that which is protected by civil law. The former condi- tion, according to FitzRalph, is the essential fact in civil lordship ; the latter is merely accidental. Lord- ship is granted by God on the condition of doing him due service, and so soon as a man falls into mortal sin he forfeits not only his original but his civil lordship. All that the firstborn has in respect of his father's Ch. v. possessions is a title to the obtaining of them, suppos- ing that he fulfil the other implied condition : his primogeniture raises a presumption in his favour ; that is all. It is naturally objected that the law seems toCn. vi. point in a different direction : but FitzRalph replies that no law or legal award confers lordship or right ; it only declares who may hold particular things with- out molestation on the part of legal authority. TheCn. vii- truth of the facts upon which a legal decision is given is assumed as an antecedent condition to its validity ;
* Cf. p. 454 ad init.
X.
xHv PREFACE.
failing such condition the law authorises nothing, and thus it authorises nothing except per accidens. A sinner may have a right or title to the civil acquisition of a thing, but in no case to lordship, which is depen-
Ch. XI, dent upon grace. In the course of the argument it appears that FitzRalph uses the words ' civil posses- sion,' as it has been seen he uses ' civil lordship,' in two different senses : in the one it is definitely righteous, in the other it is, as the case may be, either righteous or unrighteous, human laws not going behind the fact that a man is in possession.
Ch. xiii. In conformity with the arrangement observed in books i. and ii.-iii. FitzRalph proceeds to discuss the acts of civil lordship ; but not in the same regular order, because it at once appears that giving cannot without qualification be attributed as an act to civil lordship. When a man hands over a thing to another, this is not really an act of lordship at all, unless per accidens, since the receiver may not choose to take the civil lordship of the thing given : the only way in which giving can be an act of civil lordship is by com-
Ch. XIV. munication. To this doctrine several objections are urged. Supposing that the law requires the actual conveyance of the thing given, may not the giver on our showing declare that the transaction is complete by the ' communication of civil lordship 'and withhold the thing itself? Will not the law say that gift is incomplete, and that the giver is still the lord of the thing given ? Nothing, it is answered, can excuse a man's retaining that of which he is not lord, and the man in question is not lord of that which he has given. If the law, looking only at the fact of posses- sion, adjudge the thing to him who is not lord, re- course must be had to a higher law. Are then the
PREFACE. xlv
defects of human judicature to be redressed by appeal Ch. xv,
XVI
to the laws of the church ? FitzRalph does not reply directly : he only says that the clergyman ought to work upon the delinquent by refusal of absolution or by spiritual censure. But has the law no right to lay down rules for civil practice, in order that disputes may not arise, and thus to prescribe the mode in which certain transactions of gift, sale, or barter, shall be made ? They can only prescribe in matters which are in themselves good, or else neither good nor bad ; they cannot prescribe an act which is in itself evil, and so they cannot lay down that he who withholds what he has given may remain in posses- sion of it. But, the objector proceeds, civil lordships and rights depend upon the will of the lawgiver, and he has the power to modify them, and to say that lordship shall only pass from one person to another by conveyance or putting in corporal possession. On the contrary, is the reply, the civil law presup- poses civil lordship ; but even assuming that the first establishers of civil law with respect to lordship pre- scribed particular modes of transfer, they could not run counter to the higher law of God or of nature. A judge who is called upon to decide a case of dis- puted possession ' ought not only to enquire of the bodily transfer, — seisin, as they call \t, — but of the form and manner of the gift, barter, or sale ; and to discover the fraud, if any be found ; and to compel the giver, if he be proved by witnesses to have made a simple gift in the manner aforesaid, to restore the thing to the grantee by a just judgement ; and in like manner in cases of barter or sale.' FitzRalph admits that the judge may be acting beyond the law of men, but he ought to be guided by the rule of giving to
X
Ivi PREFACE.
every man his due conformably to the law of God. It is a long discussion, and the primary contradiction between FitzRalph's theory and the existing condi- tions of human society and law does not seem to be brought nearer a reconciliation.
The book concludes with a discussion on property and the right of use in connexion with civil lordship.
Ch. xvii. Property in a thing in its direct sense is nothing else than the civil lordship of that thing, but all civil lord- ship is not property. For instance, the king or a higher lord may demand support for a war from an inferior lord, but they have no power to enjoy his revenues. They are but lords mediate of the baron's lordship, whereas he is lord immediate ; and the lord immediate is he who has property in that which is
Ch. XVIII- subjected to his lordship. Use, on the other hand, may be exercised without any civil, indeed without any natural, lordship. The servant may exercise acts of lordship in his master's goods ; one may use things
Ch. XXII. in which he has but a limited interest : one may re- ceive a gift offered him and at the same time decline to receive any civil lordship in it ; his refusal will not prevent his right of freely using the gift. All these rights of use, however, proceed in some measure from lordship, though it is not necessarily the user's lord- ship. The subject of use leads naturally to the treat- ment of the questions which more immediately concern the controversy touching the manner in which the mendicant orders could enjoy, if they could not hold, property ; and to this point the three following books are more particularly addressed. I have not printed them because their bearing upon Wycliffe's views is less direct ; but the table of their contents will be found below, pp. 264-273.
PREFACE. xlvii
It is no part of the plan of this preface to examine Wydiffe's minutely the relation subsisting between the doctrine pitzRalph. of Wyclifife and that of his predecessor. The con- nexion was indeed noticed very early. Woodford, in his polemic against Wycliffe, discussing the latter's position qtiod ad verum dominmni seculare reqtiiritiir mstitia dominantis, sic qtiod mdhis in peccato mortali est domhms alicinus rei ^, quotes Fitz Ralph, de Pmip. Salv., ii. II, pp. 352 seq., and other places, in support of the condemned doctrine^, and controverts FitzRalph and Wycliffe in a single argument. Walden also seems to allude to the archbishop as a well-known source of Wycliffe's opinions ^. But the close con- nexion subsisting between the two writers is too mani- fest to need proof from outside. Only the first book, however, of the De Paiiperie Salvatoris comes into account with reference to the present treatise of Wy- clifife ; and of this latter it may be safely asserted, that did we possess it entire, the points of connexion would be much more striking than now when we miss (appa- rently) a large part of the exposition of the acts of God's lordship. The De Dominio divino is indeed only in a small part devoted to the immediate subject indicated by its title. Wycliffe seems, as it were, new to the work, and is more anxious to attach his doctrine of lordship — the importance of which probably he had as yet but imperfectly realised — to a well-known and accredited metaphysical groundwork than to develop it independently. He hints at the solution of prob- lems which he is not yet prepared to work out. Fitz-
' Fascic. Rer. expetend. et fugiend., p. 232.
"^ Pp. 237-240, 246. Cf. Mr F. D. Matthew's comments, English Works of Wyclif, intr., p. xxxiv, 1880.
^ ' Auctoris eius in hac schola Richardi,' Doctr. Fid. ii. art. iii. 82, p. 401 b.
xlviu PREFACE.
Ralph, on the other hand, has a fully matured scheme to propound. With a remarkably clear arrangement and with few digressions he deals with lordship, pos- session, and use as they concern God and man in his state of innocence and then in his state of sin. His treatment is as lucid as the nature of the subject allows ; his contradictions lie in the nature of the subject as conceived by him. With Wycliffe's De civili Doniinio the work of FitzRalph presents more direct points of agreement ; and I have no doubt that, when the former's treatise De Statu Innocentiae is printed, it will be found that the same close connexion exists with regard to it. The already published works of Wyclifife gives us a sufficient proof of his indebted- ness to FitzRalph, and what may be published here- after can only add volume to the evidence for a fact which I think may be stated as definitely established, namely, that he has added no essential element to the doctrine which he read in the work of his predecessor. All he has done — this is in the De civili Dominio — -is to carry the inferences logically deducible from that doctrine very much further than the purpose of Fitz- Ralph's treatise required him to pursue them, and very much further than, from all that is known of Fitz- Ralph's character, it is in the least degree likely that he would have pursued them.
It remains to add that in the footnotes of the present volume citations from the fathers are made, unless otherwise stated, from the editions published at Paris by the Benedictines of Saint Maur. References to Migne indicate the Latin series of his Ctirsus completus Patrtim. Aristotle is quoted by pages from the edition of the royal academy of Berlin ; sometimes a reference
PREFACE. xHx
is added to the volume and the folio of the Latin version contained in the edition of Aristotle with the commentaries of Averroes published at Venice 155c- 1552. The italic letters a and b denote the two columns of a page, and the small capital letters added to citations of pages mark the place in the page ; but the letters A, B, and C, D, when referring to manuscripts or books not paginated, indicate respectively the two columns of the recto and verso of a folio. I am indebted to Mr F. D. Matthew and the Rev. H. Rashdall for a number of suggestions and corrections in my edition, to Dr Rudolf Beer and Mr George Parker for help in the collation of the manuscripts at Vienna and in the Bodleian Library, and to Mr Furnivall for the kindness with which he has borne with me during the long delay attending the completion of this book. Nor must I omit to record my obligations to Dr Goldlin von Tiefenau, and Herr Ferdinand Mencik, of the imperial library of Vienna, for their courtesy during my visits to that library, and to the warden and fellows of Merton College for the loan of their manuscript of FitzRalph's treatise which they gener- ously permitted.
Reginald L. Poole.
Oxford,
August 28, 1890.
DE DOMINIO DIVINO LIBRI TRES
d 2
lA INCIPIT
LIBER PRIMUS DE DOMINIO DIVINO.
Cum quilibet Christianus et specialiler theologus mori Prologue. debeat virtuosus, quia (iuxta conclusionem bean Augustini Subject and 5 in De Disciplina Christiana) 7wn pokrii male, mori qui bene feause. vixerit, tempus est mihi per totum residuum vite mee tam speculative quam practice, secundum mensuram quam Deus donaverit, inniti virtutibus, ut sic salubrius discam mori. Et quia de tribus bonorum generibus, scilicet, fortune,
lo nature, et gracie, bonum infimum maxime movet hodie nimis prepostere hominis appetitum ; ideo ut cecitas hominum sit melius ad sensum Scripture professoribus huius sciencie declarata, consonum videtur a dominio inchoandum. Innitar autem in ordine procedendi racionibus et sensui Scripture,
15 cui ex religione et special! obediencia sum professus. Scio enim ipsam in modo loquendi, tam quoad gramaticam quam rethoricam, scripturarum propriissimam ; quoad fa- cilitatem, rectitudinem, et soliditatem logice vel metaphisice subtilissimam ; et quoad veritatis et sensus constanciam,
I. B f. 212 A Incipit liber de dovtinio : C Incipit de dominio diviuo \absoluto secunda manu supra scripto] prologits. 17. Ante rethoricajit A addit gjioad.
/acilitatem B C : fallacitatem A. 18. soliditatem B C : solitudinem K.
4. August, de Disc. Christ, xii. § 13, 0pp. 6. 588 G.
6. Per toiwn residuum vite mee, 8cc. This passage can scnrcely be made to bear the inference which Shirley draws from it, namely, the author's ' intention of dedicating his time henceforth exclusively to theology:' Fasciculi Zizaniorum, intr., p. xxxix., 1858.
9. £>e tribus bonorum generibus, scilicet, fortune, natttre, et gracie. This is the common classification ; the goods of nature are those which are intrinsic to the body ; the goods of fortune are external events which affect it in any way ; while the goods of grace are those which concern man's spiritual nature. Elsewhere VVycliffe has a more minute sub- division distributing the three 'goods' into five classes: De civili Do- minio i. 13 pp. 88 seqq.
B
a DE DOMINIO DIVINO [cAP. I.
utilitatem, et probacionem fecundissimam. Sed ut sensum [lA huius incorrigibilis Scripture sequar, securius innitar ut plurimum duobus ducibus, scilicet, racioni philosophis reve- lale et postillacioni sanctorum doctorum aput ecclesiam approbate. 5
*CAPITULUM I. B
Of Lordship in In tractando de dominio oportet inprimis supponere insum
GENERAL, ^ '^ ^ '^ ^
esse: nam in questione prima, Si est dominium, non discrepant What is lord, scd couveniunt omnes leges. Sed pro questione secunda. Quid
est dominium? declaranda, oportet reducere tercium analogum lo lordsWp ot"'r t'he ^^^ univocacionem proposito pertinentem. Dicitur enim apud patient; philosophos omne agens vel faciens suum passum subici,
de tanto pacienti huiusmodi dominari. Sic enim secundum
naturales omne agens phisicum se habet in dominio ad and lordship may suum passum. Et sccundum sentcuciam Salvatoris peccatum le
be not only posi-
tive but even dominatur supcr subicctum : Omnis, 'mqmt, qui /aa't peccafum servus est peccati (loh. viii. 34). Et quod peccatum econtra relative dominetur homini patet per illud Psalmi cxviii. 133, Non doviinetur viei ovmis iniusticia. Econtra tamen est de
that is, produced jomino privativo et domino positive : nam privative domi- 20
and maintained ^ * ^
subjeaed^to it • '^'^^'^'^i "t mors ct pcccatum, efficitur et conservatur continue a suo servitore, et sic innaturale est quodlibet privacionis dominium ; econtra autem domini positivi est conservare vel regere servitutem, vel saltem aliquod eius positivum, ut post patebit. In hoc tamen habet privacio racionem dominii, 25 quod ipsa subicit interiorem hominem ad ipsum penaliter sufferendum, ut innuit apostolus ad Romanos sexto capitulo : Vetus, inquit, homo nostcr sitmd transfixus est, ut destruatur
•IS sin corpus peccati, et iiltra non serviavius peccato ; et sequitur, Non
ergo regnet peccatum in vestro corpore ; et, paucis interpositis, 30 Peccatum enim in vobis * 7ioti dominabitur. Tales autem c
12. subici BC: A, ut videtiir, subicere. 13. pacienti AC: paciente B.
24. positivum A : positiTt B C. 28. transfixus (tiiffixus) A B : cj-ucifixus
{ccifix7ts) C.
27. Rom. vi. 6. 29. Ver. 12. 31. Ver. 14.
CAP. I.] LIBER PRIMUS.
IC] negative non essent pertinentes proposito nisi peccalum possit non solum dominari sed et regnare super peccatorem. Ipsum enim subicit hominem pessime servituti et ducit eum tanquam captivum de peccato in peccatum contra voluntatem 5 deliberativam (ut loquitur apostolus ad Rom. vii.), et demum ducit eum ad carcerem perpetuum. Nunquam tamen dat occasionem homini ad faciendum sed ad paciendum quod debet. Ideo dicitur tirrannice, improprie, et equivoce dominari.
INIors tamen, que videtur naturalis, non sapit, ut huiusmodi, and death,
lo penam culpe, licet dicat in aliquo supposito culpam precedere. Christus enim passus est mortem simplam non ultra moriturus, ut figuraret ipsam pro nostra duplici morte sufficere et nos debere in mortem anime non ultra incidere. Unde sicut ipse lotus est aqua tribulacionis vel passionis usque ad mortem, et
15 post resurrexit in gloria non ultra moriturus ; ita qidcunqtie baptisati sumus in Christo lesu, in virtnte mortis sue baptisati siimus, resurrecturi ad novitatem vite spiritualis non ulterius peccaturi, ut dicit apostolus, ad Rom. vi. 3, 4. Et hec est una de causis quare baptismus sicut nee mors Christi est iterabilis.
20 Tales enim figure sunt nobis adhuc viantibus et speculariter bona patrie videntibus, effectualiter observande ; licet clarius et proprius videamus quam patres Veteris Testamenti. Patet ergo modus loquendi fundatus de dominio privative. Christus,
D inquit apostolus, * ubi supra, resurgens ex mortuis iani non
25 moritur ; mors illi ultra non dominabitur. Correspondenter mortui in Christo sunt surrecturi ad vitam perpetuam, ut probatur i Cor. xv. : unde postquam dixerit quod novissime inimica destruetur mors, insultat morti pro die iudicii sub hiis verbis, Ubi est, mors, victoria tua ? ubi est, mors, stimulus tuus ?
30 Et est sensus istius locucionis pro intellectu Scripture aput theologum nota dignus. Nam ad Rom. vi. 1 6 scribit apostolus, Nescitis quoniam cui exhibetis vos servos ad obediendum, servi
3. 'iet ducit B f. 212 B. 9. videtur AC: vacatur B. ut huiusmodi A B ;
in A autem ?<^ expunctum est : lutiusntodi C 15. ultra P^: uiterius hC
20. Speculariter : cf. i Cor. xiii. 12. 23. Rom. vi, 9.
27. X Cor. XV. 26. 29. Ver. 55.
B 2
4 DE DOMINIO DIVINO [CAP. I.
estis ems? Unde vocat servos iusticie ve\ peccaio quoscunque qui [il> illis active serviunt,et liber os iusticie peccatores qui exempti sunt ab activa iusticie servitute : et ad conformem sensum dicitur ius- tus liber peccato eo quod est sibi deobligatus, cum tamen sibi ser- vire poterit. Strictius tamen et magis pertinenter menti politici 5 dicitur natura racionalis que preest sibi subdito, eius dominus. 2. Descrij,tion of Unde ad hunc sensum potest dominium sic describi :
Lordship.
Dominium est habitudo nature racionalis secundum quam
It is
a. a habit, dcuominatur sue prefici servienti. Primo, quoad genus
dominii, patet quod sit relacio, et per consequens habitudo : 10 nam dominus et servus (ex Predicamentis et quinto Metiia- phisice) dicuntur ad aliquid, et per consequens illud quo
b. pertaining formalitcr dicuntur huiusmodi est relacio. Et quod solum
only to the
reasonable naturc racionalis (ut Dei, angeli, et hominis) sit ad sensum
nature, ^ ' o ' /
expositum dominari, patet ex hoc quod dominium sic sumptum 15 dicit preminenciam ad regendum actus liberos, quod non est alicuius quod est natura racionali inferius. Unde dominus * a 2A domo dicitur, quia domini est domum gubernare, ut Deus gubernat creata (de qua Baruch iii. 24 dicitur, 0 Israel, qua 711 mag7ia est dotnus Domini) ; vel, ut aliis placet, dominus diciiur 20 ethimologice quasi do minas : et utrobique sonat nature ra- cionali proprie pertinere, sicut et donare, comodare, emere, not to that of the vcndcrc, ct alii liberi actus dominii. Unde non sequiiur irra-
lower animals,
cionabilia ex usu vescibilium habere dominium super ilia: quod videtur textum Genesis primo capitulo nobis ostendere, 25 ubi Deus sic alloquitur primos parentes : Ecce, dedi vobis omnem herbam afferetitem semen super terram, et omnia ligna que habent in semetipsis sementem generis sui, ut sint vobis in escam ; et
13. diaintur KQ : sunt B. 19. creata AC : creatam B. 21. do minas B :
do ininans AC- 26. \\przi/!OS B f. 212c. 2S. ui AC: eiB.
1 1 . Omnia autem quae sunt ad aliquid, ad convertentia dicuntur : ut servus domini servus, et dominus servi dominus esse dicitur : Arist. Praedic. ii. 3, Opp. cum comm. Averr. i. f. 19 A, Venice 1552 (Categ. vii. p. 6 b.). Cf. Metaph. iv. (v.) 15, Opp. 8. f. 60.
17. Cf. Rich. FitzRalph, archbishop of Armagh, de Pauperie Salva- toris iv. 4 : Cum doviimis a domo dicatur, eo quod presit aut preesse debet domui, &c. The passage is cited, De civ. Dom. i. 5 p. 36. 26. Gen. i. 29, 30.
CAP. I.] LIBER PRL US. ^
2A] cmiciis aiiwiantibus krre, onmique volucri cell, et universis que movenlur in terra et in quibus est anima vi'vens, ut haheant ad vescendum. Ubi nota quod Deus dicit, Dedi vobis bestias et terre nascencia, et non dicit, Dedi animantibus terre talia ; 5 ad denotandum quod homo dominatur super talia, et non bestie, ut patet ex titulo doni Dei. Et idem patet per illud Genesis primo Q.2C^\\.v\o,Facia7)iushominem ady7naginem et similiiudinem nostram, ut presit piscihus maris et volatilibus celi, etc. Ecce primo, constitucio hominis in esse secundo ad ymaginem et TO similitudinem Dei, secundum quam est capax dominii ; et se- cundo patet prefeccio dominativa liominis super sublunaria ipso inferiora ; et tercio patet utrobique in Scriptura negacio pre- feccionis dominative nature inferioris homine, quod tamen B Scriptura incorrigibilis non taceret si natura talis * dominium 15 haberet. Non ergo quilibet usus licencia est dominium.
Ulterius supposito quod hec preposicio secunduni connotet^. by virtue of
which any
circumstanciam cause formalis, et prefeccio dicat ordinem creature is set
over that which
superioritatis quoad accidens dominii, et tercio quod serviens ^^"""^^ "• neutraliter intelligatur pro quocunque faciente suo superiori 20 quod debet ; patet tola descripcio. Sic enim quelibet creatura Every creature necessario continue servit Deo, ut sibi canit ecclesia,
Serviunt tibi cuncta que creasti ; quia, Hester xiii. 11, Dominus universorum tu es : in tantum
2. ante terra B aqua inserit ; sed est expunctum. ii. prefeccio B, ut et infra :
pcr/eccio A C. 12. prefeccionis B : per/eccionis A C. 13. tamen A C : tantum B. 15. ergo A C : B igitur, ut passim. post usus in A C legitur vel; sed in A ex-
punctum. 18. a<:c/rf^?ij A^ (in margine) B : actus K^Q.
7. Gen. i. 26.
15. Non ergo qtiilibet, &c. The power of using does not necessarily imply lordship. This was the contention of the spiritual Franciscans, which was resisted by pope John XXII in his bull of December 8, 1322, ' Ad conditorem canonum,' Extravagg. xiv. 3, Corpus luris canonici, 2. 1225 seqq., ed. E. Friedberg, Leipzig 1 881, quarto. Compare the arguments in support of the Franciscan doctrine given by Marsiglio of Padua, Defensor Pacis, ii. 13 (in Goldast's Monarchia s. Romani Imperii, 2. 225 seq., Frankfurt 1614, folio).
22. Serviunt, &c. : Hymn, in laudibus in festo s. Trin. (' O Pater sancte, mitis atque pie'), Breviarium ad Usum Eccl. Sarum. i. p. mliv, ed. F. Procter et C. Wordsworth, Cambridge 1882 ; also in F. J. Mone's Lateinische Hymnen des Mittelalters, i. 20, nr. xii., Freiburg 1853.
serves God,
/
6 DE DOMINIO DIVINO [CAP. I.
quod claudit contradiccionem aliquam creaturam esse propter [2B vehemenciam divini dominii nisi sibi subserviat, vel paciendo quod debet, ut peccatores, vel faciendo quod debet, ut alie crea- ture, singula gradu suo. Unde servus pro sexu masculino non in so far as it dicitur cx cquo Correlative ad dominum; sed quecunque crea- 5
serves another. , . . - . r •
tura servit alten, sive merit sexus femineus sive neutrum, dicitur, ut sic, servus Dei, quia efFectus Deo serviens, et sic ex equo dicitur relative ad dominum. Nee intelligitur servire ita stricte sicut concipiunt grossi poUitici ; nam quandocunque serviens operand©, pausando, vel quomodolibet aliter se ha- 10 bendo, facit quod debet, cuicunque domino suo servit. Et patet secunda questio de quiditate dominii. We have Ncc oportct hic solHcitari circa opiniones hominum in-
dowi"hany!hi°stendencium probare quod non est distinccio dominii ab formally under- absoluto, quia ncmo potest hoc facere : nee est difficile argu- 15 cias ad hoc nitencium statim toUere. Nee exhinc oportet credere * quod dominium huiusmodi sit aliquid quod possit C per se intelligi, vel eciam per se esse, eo quod dominium est according to the Veritas primarie signabilis hoc complexo, Natura racionalis
description . j j • •
above given. domiuatur SUO scrvienti. Scio tamen quod dommium nunc 20 accipitur formaliter, ut patet in descripcione dominii superius declarata ; et nunc causaliter vel materialiter, pro subiecto vel fundamento vel termino ad quem est formale dominium ; ut volgus vocat rem possessam dominiujii, dicens quod predia et cetere possessiones sunt possessori dominium. Sed nostrum 25 est loqui de dominio formaliter intellecto et per illam distinc- cionem tolluntur controversie loquencium de quiditate dominii. Omnes enim loquentes de dominio ponunt ipsum esse gene- raliter aliquod istorum quatuor, videlicet, relacionem, vel sub- iectum dominans, vel ius in quo fundatur dominium, vel 30 possessum : et sic sane intelligentes, licet non verbaliter saltern sentencialiter sunt Concordes.
3. The correia- Et cx hiis patet dcscripcio servicii; quod, quia relativa oppo-
live term service t> i_ --x
is the habit of sicionc dominiocorrespondet,ideo(secundum artemPorphyni)
5 & 8. doininuin A C : doininimn B. 27. controversie A C : coiiiraverste B.
29. 7iidelicet {vi) XC: ?'elB. 30. \ quo fundatur B f . 212 d. 32. senteti'
cialitcr A^ (in margine) B : scnsualiter A'C.
CAP. I.] LIBER PRIMUS. 7
2C] necesse est utrisque uti in racionibus utrorumque. Ser- the creature by
virtue of which
vicium namque est habitude creature secundum quam dicitur >' '^ said to be
^ '■ set under that
formaliter suo subici dominanti. Et ita servicium et servitus, ^'^''^'} '* lord
over It.
sicut servus et servitor vel serviens, distinguuntur. Servus Distinction
between service
5 enim quandoque restringitur ad famulum coactive suo domino ""'^•f'^''^'''"'^''" obligatum: ut loquitur apostolus i Cor. vii. 21, Servus voca/us senuce h appMc-
° ^ ^ _ able to Christ
D es j^ Non sit tibi cure. Et exhinc servitus est condicio * vio- ^"'i '° '^^e
blessed,
lencie peccatum sapiens ; non autem servicium, cum Christo conveniat et beatis. Et patet quod servus sic contractus non 10 opponitur domino relative, sed servus sumptus pro quolibet serviente. Et per idem paupertas, que dicit bonorum fortune carenciam, non relative sed privative opponitur temporali dominio. Unde in signum quod servitus sit condicio pecca- wii'ie senntiuh
is the condition
torum, primo fit mencio nomine servi. Gen. ix. 25, post irre-ofs'""^''*-
15 verenciam paternam factam Noe per Cham: Maledictus, inquit
Scriptura, Chanaan puer ; servus servoru?n eri'i frairibus
suis. Et illud notat beatus Augustinus, xix. de Civitate Dei,
capitulo XV. 5 sub hiis verbis : Deus racionalem spiritum factum
ad ymaginem sicum noluit nisi irracionalibus dofninari; non
20 hoynijiem homini, sed hominem pecori. Inde primi iusti pastores
pecorum niagis quam reges hotninum constituti siait ; ut eciam
sic insinuaret Deus quid postulat or do creaturarum, quid exigat
vieritum peccaiorum. Condicio quippe servituiis iure intelligitur
imposita peccatori. Proinde nusquam scription legimus servum
zt^antequam hoc vocabulo Noe iustus peccatum filii vindicaret.
Scio tamen quod servus in Scriptura accipitur crebrius pro the one is the
condition of a
ministro, ut patet in capitibus epistolarum apostolorum servant through
* ^ ministry,
scribencium postquam fuerant magis liberi a peccato : et isto modo Christus et beati in patria sunt potissimi servi Dei, ut 30 patet posterius. Unde servum sic dictum voco servum a the other
. . . through
mmisteno, et alium servum a servitute, sicut dyabolus et sibi slavery, subditi sunt inter singulos summe servi. Et dominium corre-
18. jrt/. (15"): 13" BC. sj>iriiiiin AC: om. B. 24. scriptian AC: scrip-
tiirarum B (cum August.). 31. ministerio A C : viisterio B (z ex errore pro
i scripto).
13. Cf. de civili Dominio i. 32 p. 229.
17. August, de Civit. Dei, xix. 15, Opp. 7. 559 f, g.
8
DE DOMINIO DIVINO
[cap.
spondens voluntario ministerio ad edificacionem * corporis [3A Christi mistici voco caritativum dominium sive vicarium ; quod habent ecclesiastici, sicut et servicium, eo magis quo sunt in ministerio plus perfecti. Aliud autem est dominium coactivum, quod, quantum ad primam fundacionem attinet, 5 est ecclesiasticis interdictum, ut post diflfusius declaratur. The reasonable Et patet Quod rcDUgnat essc racioualem creaturam nisi sit
creature must be * ^ i <j
both a freeman ^^^^ jjjjgj. qyam servus sub dispari habitudine ad diversa. Nam
and a servant ^ r
di'iierenTt'hin'gs. ^^ ^^^ racionalis crcatura, ad minimum servit Deo ; et si est
racionalis creatura, habet libertatem arbilrii, et sic ad mini- 10 mum respectu actus intrinseci erit liber. Patet ex hoc quod si sit natura racionalis, tunc est volitiva ; et cum nichil potest cogere voluntatem, patet quod exhinc est libera racione po- tencie volitive. Et idem confirmatur ex sentencia Augustini supra dicta : nam si aliqua sit racionalis creatura, tunc est 15 iusta vel iniusta ; si est iusta, tunc servit iusticie et est peccato libera ; si iniusta, tunc est libera iusticie et servit peccato. Non tamen putandum est esse possibile quod peccator sit exemptus ne paciendo serviat iusticie ; sed, quantum ad libera- cionem servitutis attinet, deobligatur ne exhinc sit servus 20 activus iusticie. Illud declaratur posterius in processu.
CAPITULUM II. Distinctions Ex istis patet crror quorundam putancium quod dominium
TOUCHING I- 1 1 XT 1
Lordship. dictum formalitcr sit lus aliquod vel potestas. Mam homo
simply "° potest habere idem ius ad rem possidendam cum privacione 25
a. a right, since ... ,. i,i> i ••
this may exist eius dommu ; quoa ms habebit nacto dommio: cum ergo
without actual . ... ,.
lordship ; dominium * non potest una vice esse dominium et anas non b
lordship presup- essc domiuium, patet quod dominium non est ius illud, sed basis : ipsum presupponens ut fundamentum. Nee est facile
invenire aliud fundamentum dominii, tum cum de natura 3°
9. Prius est A" in marg. additum: om. B C. 14- II confirmatur B f. 213 a.
>}«^«i//«/ A-(in margine): rt;/(7i-A!// A' (expunctum) B C. 19. K-aXe. sed '^ scilicet
addit. 21. Illud AC: IsiudB. ■zi. est AC: esse 'B.
30. tum cum. There is an anacolnthon here. Wycliffe expands his
first reason at such length that he loses sight of the second argument
CAP. II.] LIBER PRIMUS. 9
3B] cuiuscunque relacionis proprie et realis sit habere subiec- tum ut substanciam correlatam, fundamentum ut accidens absolutum, et terminum ad quem principaliter termlna- tur: ut similitudo Petri ad Paulum est subiective in Petro 5 et terminative in Paulo, fundamentaliter autem in qualitate Petri et Pauli secundum quam dicuntur similes. Unde prop- ter defectum talis fundamenti in Deo non dicitur relacio Dei ad aliquid esse realis per se in genere, sed nee relacio unius accidentis ad aliud, sed solum relacio racionis ; et propter
10 defectum extremorum non est relacio ydemptitatis per se in genere relacionis, ut logicus satis novit. Et correspondenter oportet inveniri in qualibet relacione propria per se in genere ista tria, ut alibi discussum est. lus ergo cum sit funda- mentum dominii, licet sapiat relacionem respectu cuius
15 dicitur ius, non tamen est formaliter ipsum dominium ; sicut vis generativa patris non est formaliter ipsa paternitas, sed ad ipsam ut fundamentum pro aliquo tempore requisita.
Et per idem sequitur quod potestas non sit genus dominii : b. nor a power, nam omne dominium dependet a possesso serviente vel servo
20 principium terminante, sed nulla potestas sic dependet, ergo
nullum dominium est potestas. Minor patet ex dictis alibi. The priest has
the power of the
C Nam nuUus catholicus negabit qum potestas clavmm sit tra- keys,
albeit he has no
dita sacerdoti, licet non habeat sue subditos potestati ; et ita man on whom
to exercise the
intelligitur de qualibet alia potestate: ymo, cum dominium power.
25 sit illud quo natura racionalis formaliter dominatur, patet quod nee ius nee potestas sit formaliter ipsum dominium. Unde Deus potest dare homini ius et potestatem, qua pro- ficietur successive sibi servientibus generandis, ubi successive acquiret dominium non acquirendo proporcionaliter potes-
30 tatem : et idem videtur de iure. Relacio ergo posterius
3. terminum A : terjiiini, ut videtur, B C. 8. sed A C : siciit B. 12. in-
veniri AC: invenire H. 15. iamt'n om. 3. 17. nt om. 3. ig. omne^X
om. A C. ierz/(7 (J,Kc) conieci : codd. sua. ■20, principium AQ,: princi-
paliter B. 28. generandis A C : generandum B.
which should have followed with a corresponding ttiin aim or tnni eciam cum.
4. Petrus and Faulus are Wycliffe's regular examples, like the ' Caius ' and ' Balbus ' of the grammarians.
10 DE DOMINIO DIVINO [cAP. II.
acquisita consequens ad possessum, ut causatum ad sui[3C causam, non est ipsa potestas temporaliter antecedens. Ecce probacio huius in particulari : nam Deus concessit Aaron et filiis suis decimas et hostias pro peccato pro suo ministerio, ut patet Num. xviii., ubi notum est quod ex dacione habuerunt 5 titulum et potestatem ad vendicandum talia cum venerint, sine nova potestate danda pro tempore oblacionis, quia aliter prior potestas superflueret. Et idem patet de dominis dantibus in communi de multis acceptibilibus quecunque donatariis voluerint eligere, ubi patet quod est ius et potestas lo acquisita sine dominio illius respectu cuius est ius. Et si foret dominium dominii relativi sine dominio absoluti, ad quod terminaretur, foret processus in infinitum in differenciis nimis superflue. 2. Lordship is Sccundo cx descripcioue patet quod nullum dominium est 15
not eternal :
it is subsequent etcmum simpHcitcr, cum sit effectus incipiens ad incepcionem
to, and depen- '■ ' -^
dent upon crcature subservientis, ipsa creatura posterior natura. Et
creation. ' r r
hoc notatur per doctrinam qua ponitur * quod in dominio D denominatur subiectum suo prefici servienti : si enim dominio, in quantum huiusmodi, subiectum preficitur, sequitur quod 20 dominium, in quantum huiusmodi, fit a preficiente. Unde Deus in creando creaturas consequenter ipsum prefecit eisdem. Go^ In the first Et hiuc dicit Augustinus, quinto de Trinitate, capitulo xxxvi.,
chapter of
Genesis becomes gt Aushelmus, IMouologio xxvii., quod Deus incepit esse
Lorii in the ' o > n r
second. dominus nee mutatus est per acquisicionem illius dominii ; 25
quia sufficit pro acquisicione relacionis mocio alterius ex- tremorum : dominari ergo, sicut et servire, sibi correspondens, dicit suum terminum communem in tempore. Et in figuram huius veritatis Scriptura, Gen. i., non facit mencionem de Domino sed semper sub nomine Dei : dicit enim quod Deus 30
4. 11 ei hostias B f. 213 b. 6. vendicandjittt B : vendendum AC. 12. do-
iitinii B C : dominum A. 15. patet in B post Secutido legitur, in C deest.
18. in cm. B. 23. Trinitate: codd. ciziitate.
18. Vide supra, p. 4 1. 8.
23. August, de Trin. v. 16 § 17, Opp. 8: 841 G-843 a.
24. Anselm. Monolog., perhaps cap. xxv., Opp. 14 a, ed. G. Gerberon, Paris 1721, folio ; where however there is no mention of 'dominium.'
CAP. II.] LIBER PRIMUS. II
3D] creavit ^i fecit hoc et illud. Sed Gen. ii. 4, postquam /^r/^r/z' simt celt et terra, introducit Moyses nomen Domini : Iste, inquit, swit generaciones celt et terre quando create sunt, in die quo fecit Dominus celutn et terrain. Deus enim prius fecit 6 omnia simul antequam servierunt, et non antequam servierunt fuit Deus eorum dominus : ideo non antequam universitas narratur perfecta vocatur Deus dominus. Et quod dominium sit natura posterius creatura ad quam principaliter terminatur, patet ex hoc quod ab ipso termino essencialiter dependet
10 dominium, ut a causa : ergo talis terminus est naturaliter prior dominio. Ex quo patet quod prius est servientis creacio quam est Dei, respectu illius, dominacio: nam ideo Deus dominatur creature, quia est eius creator ; et creatura, quia a Deo creatur, ideo servit Deo : ergo conclusio. Prius enim
15 habet creatura esse a Deo, et per consequens a Deo creatur,
antequam servit Deo. Nee est inconveniens sed racioni
4A consonum quod creatura * causat in Deo quotlibet dominia,
cum quodlibet tale dominium sit accidentaliter Deo inexistens
sine eius mutabilitate, ut dicit Anshelmus, ubi supra. Nichil
2otamen potest facere Deum efficaciter vel finaliter dominum,
preter se ipsum ; nee aliquid subiective vel materialiter causat •
vel facit Deum dominari ad Dei indigenciam, ut patebit posterius in processu.
Tercio videtur probabiliter posse dici quod Dei dominium 3- it is probable
^ >■ that God's lord-
25 est mmediate et per se ex creacione, et nee ex eius ^uberna- ?■?■? ^o'^^^s upon
"his creation, not
cione nee conservacione. Pro quo declarando suppono quod, J^p°" or m?^'''"^"' sicut conservacio creature est eius servacio in esse naturali ^JJ.rf^"^ ''^^ a nichilo, sic eius gubernacio est creature direccio sine Dei mercede sive pro nichilo. Quo supposito, patet sic prima «■ God is lord
, ^^ . . of his creatures
30 particula : (Jmnis creatura, m quantum huiusmodi, habet esse ^s creatures ; subserviens Creatori ; ergo super omnem creaturam, in quan- tum huiusmodi, habet Creator dominium ; et per consequens racione ereacionis est dominus. Confirmatur ex hoe quod
4. Dominus A (in marg.) C Dominus Deus B. prius fecit B C ; fecit prius A, 20. ta>nen A'' B : tajii hS C. 26. || quod sic2ct B f. 113c.
19. V. supra, p. 10 1. 24.
I a DE DOMINIO DIVINO [CAP. 11.
he governs and conservarc vcl gubcmare creaturas ex hoc ad Deum pertinet [4j
keeps them ^
because he is Quod cst doininus carundem ; ero^o prius causaliter est Dei
lord of them, not ^ 3 o r-
vice versa. dominium quam conservacio vel gubernacio creature. Et illud videtur elici ex cantico ludith xvi. capitulo, ubi sic : Tt'di serviat omnis creatura tua, quia tu dixisti et facta sunt. Ecce 5 in faccione Dei in verbo, que indubie est creatura, arguitur servicium creature, et indubie tanquam ex per se causa ; quia ad rerum creacionem per se sequitur earum dominium, etsi nunquam eas preservaret vel eciam gubernaret. Unde Sap. xi. 27 scribitur : Parcis autem omnibus, quoniam tua sunt. 10 Domine. * Ecce quod preservacio creature ex nichilo pro- B cedit ex eius dominio : si enim intellectus creatus sit dominus suorum actuum quos adintra producit, et si ilia non pre- servet ne cadant in nichilum . . . Unde Deut. xxxii. 18 sig- nanter loquitur sanctus Moyses, Oblitus es Donwii creatoris 15 tut. Ecce quod officio creacionis immediate coniungitur nomen domini. Et Hester xiii. 10, Tufecisti celum et terram et universa que celi ambitu continentur : et tunc sequitur su- perius allegatum, Dominus universorum tu es. Ecce prefertur faccio Dei causans dominium. Unde videtur domino Ardm.a- 20
iff cano, qui istam materiam egregie pertractavit, quod Deus
habet dominium propter creacionem, possessionem propter conservacionem, et usum propter gubernacionem.
b. But, it is ob- Sed contra illud tripliciter obicitur. Primo per hoc :
i. ' God's acts of £ Qj.(j3^(,JQ consefvacio, et gubernacio creature a Deo nulla- 21;
creation, main- ' ' D a
go"vTrnm^in^are ' tcuus distiugwuntur, cum HuUum illorum potest a reliquo
can^not'^be'dis^'"^ ' scparari ; ergo, sicut ex gubernacione, sic indifferenter ex
inguis e , ' conservacione et creacione possidet Deus usum. Secundo
II. so too nis ^
s°on^^ndu°se^^' ' P^^ ^^^ quod in Dco nou potest fingi distinccio dominii,
' possessionis, et usus, respectu eiusdem creature. Tercio3o
5. creatura A C : creacio B. 13. ilia . . . cadant A C : illam . . . cadat B.
14. V. not. infra. xxxii. : B 31° A C.
4. Jadith xvi. 17.
14. The apodosis of the sentence is wanting in all our manuscripts, but no sign to indicate the omission appears in them. 18. Esth. xiii. 11 ; v. supra, p. 5 1. 24. 20. R. FitzRalph, de Paup. Salv. i. 5.
CAP. II.] LIBER PRIMUS. 1$
4Bl ' per hoc quod, posita distinccione, videtur quod creature iii- ' and even if
■^ ^ ^ ' ^ ' ^ the distinction
' sustentacio sit prior et per se causa dominii : nam si Deus were good, his
^ ' maintenance of
' etemaliter conservasset naturam creabilem ut luminosum 'he creature
must be the cause
'lumen (sicut credunt philosophi), adhuc fuisset vere eius°^'''^'°''^^^'P' 5 ' dominus, subducta creacione ; igitur prius, inmediacius, et
' per se est conservacio creature causa dominii quam eius
' creacio; quia, si creacio causat dominium, tunc et conservacio, C ' et non econtra, * ut patet de multis dominiis creatis. Com-
'munius ergo, quod potest esse sine minus communi, videtur '.''^'=^"^? i"v°""
O ' T -t^ ' tinues with the
lo * secundum logicos ipso prius, potissime cum oportet causam '^''"s caused.' ' rei esse continue cum eadem : sed creacio, cum sit subita, ' statim relinquit dominium in causando ; conservacio autem ' manet continue cum eodem ; ergo videtur quod conservacio ' sit causa potior.'
15 Pro quo dicitur quod racio non procedit, quia tunc none Answer:
. . i. The distinction
esset distmccio personarum nee accidencium vel passionum is not founded in
the essence of
inseparabilium a subiecto. In istis ergo tribus non est dis- God ;
tinccio penes subiectum nee essencialis, sed distinccio
racionis : ut creatio est productio creature de nichilo, conser-fc"t in the succes- sive stages of his
zovacio est creati servacio ne redeat in nichilum, et sic pre- °p^''^"°" Y'i'h
* respect to his
supponit dupliciter creacionem ; gubernacio autem est con- features : servate direccio in perfeccionem secundam. Et ita, sicut in materia de Trinitate secundum presupponit primum, et tercium presupponit cardinaliter utrumque priorum, sic et hie 25 quodammodo : sed utrumque posterius potest esse suo tern- whose creation is
antecedent to
pore sine primo ; non sic in Deo. Et ista sentencia videtur their mainten- ance and govern-
innui per illud Sap. viii. i : Sapiencia atiingit a fine usque a^ment: finevi for titer, et dispojiit omnia suaviter. Nam ex infinitate sue potencie producit opus ex puro esse intelligibili, ut ex fine 30 remotissimo, ad esse existere creature : quod ex hoc conservat in esse creato, quod est finis secundus infinitum distans a priori : et tercio, actu gubernacionis, suaviter et miseri- corditer conservatum gubernat ; quem actum regiminis Psalmus cxliv. 9 sic expressit : Suavis Donmtus in universis
I. /t'r A C ; f;r B. 8 coimnunius : comicnius A. 16 & 18. distinccio :
distinctio A. 20 'i, creati servacio )i i 213 D. 34. ?« om. B.
J 4 DE DOMINIO DIVINO [cAP. II.
et miseraciones eius super * omnia opera eius. Ecce explanacio [4D suavis gubernacionis universitatis, cum Deus miseranter boni- ficat omnia opera sua,et perconsequens sine retribucione aliqua vel mercede : quod notat apostolus, ad Rom. xi. 35, Quis prior dedit et retribuetur ei ? et subdit pro causa, Quottiam ex ipso, 5 tamquam creatore, per ipsuvi, tamquam conservatorem, et in ipso, tamquam gubernatore, smit oynnia. Non enim obest istam scripturam notare cum misterio Trinitatis sensum expositum : nam in qualibet creatura creacio ex nichilo attestatur infini- tatem potencie que Patri appropriatur ; supportacio a nichilo in 10 forma exemplari attestatur actum vel Verbum Dei ; et tercio in Deo tendendo finaliter benigna et suavis gubernacio attes- tatur Spiritui sancto. Unde ad denotandum quod nullum istorum trium potest esse cum hoc quod non sit reliqum, preposteratur ordo, Deut. xxxii. 6, ubi dicitur, Non7ie ipse esti^ pater ticus qui possedit te, et fecit ie, et creavit te P Nam primo notatur conservacio. Qui enim scit bene conservare res suas, ideo possidet illas; et qui promovet alium ad perfec- cionem secundam dicitur ilium facere ; et notum est quod creacio precedens causaliter ista duo est instantanea in pater- 20 nitate creacionis notata, et finaliter expressa ad denotandum quod creacio sit ultima in intento. Et patet istorum dis- tinccio, sive loquamur de creancia, conservancia, et guber- nancia in deo formaliter, sive de creacione, conservacione, et ii. the same an- frubcrnacione quc inexistunt formaliter creature. Et sic 25
swer applies to
the second objec- interimitur assumptum secundi argumenti, * scilicet, quodSA
tion :
non est distinccio dominii, possessionis, et usus dominii, ut iii. the third post declarabitur. Quoad tercium, negetur quod conservacio
objection is to , . . .
be denied; Dei rcspcctu cmsdcm creaturc causat aommium prmium
respectu eiusdem ; sed bene facit Deum habere dominium 30 creature producte a priori conservata, sicut conservacio par- cium mortuorum facit Deum post resurreccionem habere dominium, cum non potest esse quod aliquid pure creabile sit eternum simpliciter: ideo illo posito, sequitur utraque pars contradiccionis; et patet quod utraque consequencia est 35
5- Ver. 36.
CAP. III.] LIBER PRIMUS. 1$
5A] neganda. Nee obest aliquid esse causam alterius cum hoc co'jrti'nue^wfth""' quod non maneat continue cum eodem ; patet de privacione ^^^ '^'"s caused, quam Aristoteles, primo Phisicorum, ponit generandi princi- pium : sufficit enim ad talem causanciam quod causans sit 5 ad esse alterius pro suo tempore requisitum. Prius ergo requiritur creacio ad Dei dominium quam sustentacio vel gubernacio, ut patet ex dictis. Nee oportet ex hoc quod creacio causat ipsam manere continue cum causato, ut patet pertinenter de vi generativa et actu parentis, que causant lopatemitatem, et tamen manet paternitas ilHs subductis, utasAverroes docet commentator quinto INIethaphisice, commento ii.
CAPITULUIM III. Habitum est ad dicta videre divisiones dominii. Cum Of the Classes
OF Lordship.
autem dominium capit suum esse, et per consequens speciem i. Lordship may 15 et diflferenciam, a subiecto, fundamento, et ab obiecto, patet quod ex quoHbet horum trium capi potest divisio dominii in suas species et partes alias subiectivas. Unde cum tres sint «• according to
subject,
maneries racionalium naturarum, patet quod correspondenter Best dare tres modos dominii: * ut aliquod est dominium di- into those fi) of
,.1 God, (ii) of an-
20 vmum, ahud angelicum, et aliud est humanum. Solum autem geis and (iii) of
men ;
tali nature declaratum est dominium posse inexistere subiective.
Iterum secundum fundamenta dominii variantur sue species, i- according to
its foundation,
specialiter in homine. Nam, sicut aliud est ius naturale, aliud ius evangelicum, aliud ius humanum; correspondenter 25 aliud est dominium naturale, aliud evangelicum (ut est domi- into (i) natural, nium caritatis sive vicarium, quando quis in nomine Christi (ii) evangelical, accipit ab alio ministerium), et aliud est dominium coactivum, and (iii) political; ut supra dictum, quod variatur secundum variacionem legum :
4. \\ ^?iod causans B {. 2n A. 23. aliud AC: aliguod'B. 25. loco utrius-
que aliud B aliquod habet.
3. Arist. Phys. i. 7 p. 191, Opp. 4. f. 19.
II. Averrois comm. in Arist. Metaph. v. (iv.) 2 : Causa autem, quae est potentia, cum fuerit in actu, non remanebit insimul cum suo actu. Domus enim et aediiicator non corrumpuntur insimul : sed alterum corrumpitur, et reliquum manet : Arist. Opp. 8. f. 49 D.
i6
DE DOMINIO DIVINO
[cap. III.
and
c. according to its object, as, in the last class, into those (i) of a house, (ii) of a city, and (iii) of a state.
2. The lordship of God,
which is the measure of all others,
God being supreme lord of all lords,
excels them in three respects.
a. as touching the subject, since God needs no service ;
et iurium ipsum fundancium. Variatur eciam ex termino [5B obiectivo,ut ex principio subiectivo : ut dominii politici aliud est dominium monasticum, aliud civile, et aliud est regale ; monas- ticum respectu unius domus sive familie, civile respectu civitatis vel communitatis amplioris familia, et regale respectu regni 5 sive imperii. Unde Aristoteles, primo Politicorum, iii. ex istis principiis distinguit dominia, et ex istis putat capi ulteriores divisiones dominii.
Sed cum dominium divinum, tamquam metrum et prin- cipium simplicissimum, omnium aliorum obtinet principatum, lo de ipso naturalis ordo exigit principaliter pertractandum. Ipsum autem, quamvis multiplicetur secundum multitudinem serviencium, nee habet distinccionem subiecti a suo funda- mento (cum omne ius quo Deus quidquam possidet sit realiter ipse Deus), nee requiritur communicacio ulterior propter eius 15 complecionem preter dominabile et ipsum dominium, * cum C non possit esse dominabile nisi Deus eo ipso fuerit eius domi- nus. Ex quo sequitur quod dominium Dei mensurat, ut prius et presuppositum, omnia alia assignanda : si enim creatura habet dominium super quidquam, Deus prius habet dominium 20 super idem ; ideo ad quodlibet creature dominium sequitur dominium divinum, et non econtra. Quomodo, queso, posset creatura alteii dominari, nisi ilia creatura serviens crearetur? sed eo ipso quod creatur, Deus habet de ipsa dominium ; ergo eo ipso quod creatura super aliam dominatur, Deus 25 previe dominatur utrique.
Et ex istis colligilur quod ex tribus specialiter capi potest excellencia divini dominii super quodcunque dominium crea- ture ; scilicet, ex subiecto, ex fundamento, et ex obiecto. Ex subiecto, cum ipsum propter sui excellenciam non potest 3'^ ad sui indigenciam, secundum necessitatem servitoris et sui gloriam, nancisci dominium : quelibet autem creatura domi- nans preficitur vel indiget servitore. Et istam racionem
5. rcgni sive^\ regis sui KQ. 9. divinum oxn. B. 27. Et om. B.
29 tertium ex BC: om. A. 30. cum: BC cui, quod vero et in A exstitit,
at in cum correctum est. 31. \ secundum B f. 214 b.
6. Arist. Polit. i. 3; rather, perhaps, ch. i.
CAP. 111.] LIBER PRIMUS. 1 7
5C] prerogative divini doniinii tangii Augustinus, epistola quinia ad Marcellinum, sub hiis verbis : Falbintur autevi qui ex- istimant hec Deum iubere causa sue tiecessilatis vel voluptatis ; el meriio fuoveniur cur Deus ista muiaverit, quasi deleclacione 5 JHUtabili aliud iubens sibi offer ri illo prius tempore, aliud isto. Nan autem ita est : nichil Deus iubct quod sibi prosit, sed illi
D cui iubet. Ideo verus est do minus qui servo non indiget, * et quo servus indiget. Et eadem sentencia patet octavo super Genesim ad litteram, xix. Ista autem Veritas crebrius
lo inseritur in Scriptura, ut Psalmo xv, 2, Dixi Domino, Deus meus es tu, quoniam bonorum meorum non eges. Ecce racio ad confitendum ilium dominum esse Deum, eo quod dominatur sine sui indigencia servitori; homo autem noscitur indigere ad relevamen sue miserie servitore, vel saltern ad sui ministerium,
I J quod supremus dominus exigit perficiendum, sicut et angelus. Unde si homo accumulet habundancius servitores quam iste cause requirunt, sine dubio peccat superflue dominando ; ut patet de superbis sibi providentibus magnam familiam, sump- tuosos apparatus, et onerosas divicias, ut appareant gloriosi
2oCeca superbia, que vere facit taliier inaniter aspirantes ig- nobiles; cum creatura sit eo dominans perfectius et Deo similius, quo finem perfecciorem aut eque perfectum attingit cum paucioribus mediis pro sui indigencia relevanda ; ut si homo posset currere tam virtuose viam presentis vite sine
2- possessione castrorum, familie, vel cuiuscumque proprietatis civilis, ille perfectius et nobilius dominaretur civiliter domi- nante. Ideo talem modum dominii Chrislus sibi elegit, ut post declarabitur loco suo.
A fundamento eciam racionabiliter extollitur dominium b. as touching its
. . ^ foundation,
jodivinum. Nam Deus non habet lus sibi accidental, quod 6_a.] demerendo * posset, stante dominabili, perdere perdendo beTstroyed""°' dominium, sicut contingit de qualibet creatura per iuris de ""mf toln^S
7. ervo'^C, cum Augustino : servo sito K. 10. xv: codd. ig"". 14. iiiiuis-
teriiifn Pi.C : misteriuin B. 18. suinj/tuosas AC: suiiiptiiostj B.
I. Augiist. epist. cxxxviii. 6,0pp. 2. 412 c D.
8. Kiusd.de Gen. ad litteram lib. viii. 26, § 4S, 0pp. 3 'T 240 c-E.
C
i8
DE DOMINIO DIVINO
[cap, hi.
perdicionem dominium deperdente. Deus autem per se iustus [6A puro actu creandi adquirit dominium. Cum ergo creacio sit iiKommunicabilis creature, eo quod solum omnipotens creare poterit, sequitur quod modus divini dominii tantum excellit dominium creature quantum omnipotencia creatam potenciam. 5
obf/ct""*'"^ "^ Tercio ex parte dominabilis cum suo servicio patet idem.
hinerltcom- Nam tam vehemens est dominium divinum quod creatura
service'u) God. Hon potest ommittere servire Deo, serviendo alteri domino et non sibi ; quia si homo servit dyabolo, cum omnis dyabolus sit servus Dei, eo ipso servit Deo. Itaque homo servit Deo, 10 aut faciendo ut debet, sicut servus bonus et fidelis, aut ut servus nequam et sibi ipsi inutilis, paciendo quod debet, Dei gloriam manifestando, et suis utilibus servitoribus proficiendo. Nee omittit Deus eciam tali servo nequam vicissitudinem mutuam supererroganter rependere ; cum omnem servumio factum ex nichilo, ubicunque fuerit, preservat essencialiter et gubernat : et sic creando prevenit conferendo solarium, sustentando comitatur iuvans ad mercedem vel premium, et gubernando consequitur augens beneficium. Sed secus incommensurabiliter est de quolibet creato domino. Nam 20 dominus terrenus, ut plurimum plus indiget servitore quam econtra, et pro men*sura absencie nichil influit. B
Istas veritates, etsi sint patentissime demonstrabiles, prop-
Our best works tcr earum patenciam narrative refero. Sed si queris testi-
do Ciod no . -» . . it.
profit; monmm Veritatis, ecce quam salubriter eum docet Salvator 25
per locum a maiori, Luc. xvii. 7-10. Nam si terrenus dominus conduxisset servum ultra condignitatem servicii racionabiliter iniungendi, non propter complecionem minis- terii haberet graciam servo illi ; multo plus ergo sic de Deo : sic, inquit Salvator, Cum feceritis o?n?iia que precepta sunt 30 vobis, dicite, Servi itiutiles stwius ; quod debuimus facere feci'mus. Ecce tiriaca emperica contra subrepentem super- biam ex prerogaliva dominii Dei sumpta. Nam quantum- cunque viator meruerit implendo omnia Dei mandata se-
14. ||«C7«r?wBf. 214 c. 17. solnyiKiii AC: salnriuiii B. ■zx. plus B:
om. A C. 28. ante minhtcrii B akti in marg. addit. 32. &nlt/eciiitus A
fion habet.
CAP. III.] LIBER PRIMUS. U)
6B] ciindum ultimum sibi possibile, non exinde aliquam utilitatem infert Deo : et ad istum sensum est Deo iniiiilis, cum omnia sui naturalia et gratuita superaddita ad utilitatem accipientis ex mera gracia Dei dantur. Insuper et Deus preveniendo et and all merit we
have comes
5 continuando coadiuvat ad merendum ad puram merentis through his aid utilitatem et indigenciam, sine hoc quod quidquam accrescat boni uiilis Deo suo ; sed totum servicium iure debitum and abounds
J J . , . , . only to our own
redundat in ultenorem obligacionem et comodum sic indebtedness to
him.
merentis : et totum hoc insurgit indubie ex summa perfec- lo clone divini dominii. Unde propter tam disparem excellenciam C huius ad cetera sibi canit ecclesia, * Tu solus Dominiis : iuxta
illud apostoli ad Eph. iv. 5, [/uus Dominus, una fides ; et i Cor.
viii. 6, Nobis imus est Deus pater, ex quo omnia et nos in iUo ;
et unus do fu in us lesus Chris tus, per qzie?n omnia et nos per illiun. 1^ Unde precipui doctores catholic! sumpserunt pro regula,
Quandocumque dominus affirmative et assertive per se po- God therefore is
Lord KaT i^oxrjv
nitur in Scriptura, sumitur pro Domino simpliciter, qui est Deus; ut in Hebreo ponitur, loco domini in Latino, pluribus locis nomen Domini thetragramathon, ut dicit doctor de Lyra
20 et alii. Nee oportet timere instancias sophisticas contra ista ; quia, cum dominus dicatur equivoce, utputa tam dispari racione de Deo et creatura, stat distribucione vel negacionem cadere super terminum secundum unam racionem analogam, omittendo reliquam ; et hoc erit super famosiori, quando
25 terminus per se sumitur. Omnis ergo creatura non habet possessiones nisi ex mutuo, iuxta illud apostoli, 1 ad Thim. vi. I 7, Divitibus huius seculi precipe non sublime sapere ; non sperare ifi iticerto diviciarum, sed in Deo qui prestat nobis habunde omnia ad fruendum. Ecce, quod Deus '^xt%\.2X who gtvetk us aii
, . ., .,.,,, , . . • -1 . things richly to
30 hommibus quidquid habent : et hmc in oraciombus camt enjoy. ecclesia, Presta, quesumus, hoc vel illud. Creatura ergo
19. thetragraitinthoH K: tetragamatJion'^ : tetragamaton Q, 27. non sperare A C : ?iec sapere B. 28. prestat {pstat) B : prat A C.
II. From the Gloria in Excelsis in the Missal.
19. Nic. de Lyra Postill. in Ex. vi., Biblia sacra cum glossa ordinaria, I. 534, Venice 1603, folio. 25. Cf. de civili Dom. i. 20.
C 2
20 DE DOMINIO DIVINO [cAP. III.
proprius accomodaria quam dominans debet dici, nisi forte l6C ad sensum equivocum posterius exponendum. Et patet * quod magnitude dominii non absolute attenditur penes D valenciam servientis, quia tunc dominium Dei et dominium cuiuscunque hominis poterunt coequari ; sed pocius penes 5 usus vel servicii quantitatem. 3. Objections. Contra istud instatur tripliciter : prime per hoc quod, ' si
n. ' Is God's
loicUhip ihen ' dominium Dei sit dominium propriissime dictum, et ipsum ' est per se relacio, ergo est relacio propriissime dicta ; con- ' sequens falsum, cum valde inproprie et per reduccionem 10
No : it is a sub- ' solum sit in genere relacionis.' Ad istud argumentum
stantia, not a
rchitioperse logicum dicitur, concedendo quod Dei dominium propriissime
in genere.
est substancia, sed nullo modo est relacio per se in genere, sicut nee Deus est substancia per se in genere, sed utrimque principium creature per se in genere : unde quando con- 15 cedimus talia, ampliamus terminos generum ad sensum analogum ultra adequatam significacionem generis. Et sic intelligende sunt concordancie doctorum, quorum aliqui ponunt Deum esse substanciam et Dei dominium relacionem, et alii ista negant equivocantes indubie in signis generum. 20 Sic ergo raciones duorum generum nee proprie nee impropiie conveniunt dictis rebus, sed racio alia analoga, virtute cuius sunt dicta genera, ut methaphisici satis noscunt. //. 'If lordship Secundo obicitur per hoc quod 'dominium, si sit relacio,
be: a relation it
is not active, but ' luuc nou cst activum nee cum tanta diligencia appetendum, 2^
a thina' of least ° ^'^ ' "^
entity and thus ' cum sit rcs miuimc cutitatis et per consequens minime
of least good- ' ^
"^^^•' . ' bonitatis.' Ad illud dicitur concedendo nullam relacionem
But a relation
may, though not et pcr conseouens nullum * dominium esse activum, et tamen 7 a
active, be causa- ^ ^ '!*••.
live of good gggg multorum bonorum causativum (ut patet de propor- (as God's grace ciouibus) ct sic cst valdc appctibilc ; sicut gracia Dei vel eius 3° amicicia, quam notum est non esse de genere rerum que poluerunt per se esse, et tamen amicicia huiusmodi est creature racionali melior et ideo eligibilior quam tolum auium mundi vel quevis alia creata substancia. Relacio
2. ^ Et />atct B f. 214 D. 4. I'alenciaiii conieci : volenter AC: ralettter B.
8. ipsu»iV>C. pcr if>suiii Pi.. 14. utriinque'B: utruiiiquc AC. 21. duorum
A C : (iictoruin B.
CAP. lU.] LIHER TRIM US. 21
7A] autem \el alia accidentalis forma non est per se, sed con- comitanter, sic bona ; quia ad illam consequitur quod Deus multum bonificat sic relatum. Idee, sicut relacio est minime it is good by
• . . . . . , . viittie of con-
entitatis, sic eciam niinime vc 1 verius sub non gradu bona in comitance : 5 se, sed solum concomitanter ; quia ad dominium creature consequitur eidem domino dominium dari, et gracia conco- mitancie dominium est sic bonum. Sola quidem substancia est in se bona, sicut est in se ens ; et accidencia concomi- tanter vel inherenter bona, sicut sunt encia. Sed si subtiliter
loattendamus, magis distanter et equivoce dicitur quelibet creatura bona quoad Deum cui adheret, quam accidens quoad subiectum cui inheret : quia sicut accidens non potest habere bonitatem vel essenciam nisi computando bonliatem subiecti cui inhereat ; sic creatura, nisi participando bonitatem
J 5 Dei cui adhereat. Ideo, propter analogiam et equivocacionem bonitatis Dei ad bonitatem creatam, dicit Salvator, Luc. xviii. 19, Nejuo bonus nisi solus Deus. Sicut autem simpliciter and, as for the
,. j^ , . goodness of
B menus est ■" hommem esse, quam ipsum esse iustum ; quia being, it is better
to be simpliciter
mundus plus inperficeretur per ablacionem substancie vel '^''^" '° ^^
ngnteous,
2oessencie humane quam per ablacionem huiusmodi quali- tatis, licet sibi sit utilius esse iustum quam simpliciter nude esse : sic infinitum melius est cjuodcunque creabile habere and better to
have the esse
esse mtelligibile quam existenciam aclualem, Hcet utilius sit ir-t'-'ingibue than
actual existence.
universitati vel alteri creature quod data creatura habeat 25 existenciam creature quam pure esse inlelligibile ; quia oportet existenciam creature presupponere suum esse intelli- gibile, quod est essencialiter idem Deo, et eius participio fore bonam. De isto alibi tractabitur diffusius.
Tercio obicitur per hoc quod ' sequitur ex dictis quemlibef^- 'if a man
^ serves God even
30 ' peccatorem, in quantum peccat vel recedit a Deo, de tanto ^y "'""'"s- s"" '^
' pleasing to God.'
' sibi servire ; et cum omne servicium creature placet Deo, ' sequitur quod peccator, ut sic, placet Deo : tali ergo 'domino foret facilimum deservire, cui quidquid homo fecerit 'vel omiserit complacetur.' Sed hie dicitur quod duplex
4. vtiniine AC: est minime B. 14. faitiiipaiido AC: comJ>a>ti<.iJ>ando'&.
21. II iustum B f. 215 A.
22 L)E DOMINIO DIVINO [t'AP. III.
Anmier: est ct equivocum Dei servicium (ut supra), scilicet, agendo [7B
' Service is of ^
double meaning, y^j pacicndo ; ministcrium autem vel famulatus consistit in
active and pas- >■ '
'^i''^' agendo id quod et qualiter servus debet. Unde videtur mihi
the sinner serves quod Di'lma conclusio cst conccdenda ; cum quante aliquis
God by suffering ^ ^
punishment.' peccat, tantc punitur pena essenciali (ut tercio de libero 5 Arbitiio) ; et quante punitur tante servit Deo, paciendo penam pulcre inflictam. Servire tamen, cum sit idem quod esse servum, non dicit operacionem (ut concipitur aput vulgum, qui errando * concipit servire et ministrare esse idem) ; C ct ita, quia homo peccat, ideo servit Deo quia ideo punitur. lo t^'°'str*^\^"e"r^*' Unde non restat quorsum aliqualiter creatura aufugeret Dei l'^f,'„'i^!^^'f" servicium. Verumtamen peccando recedit ab unitate, et per L^'thGodanS consequens sic a Deo; quod, ubi prius servivit soli Deo, iam servit sibi et peccato : et sic omnis remissibiliter peccans servit Deo et binario maledicto. Quod si tantum Deo et 15 peccato servit, tunc est infamis peccans irremissibiliter, ut primus angelus. Binarius enim secundum arismetricos est infamis propter recessum primum ab unitate. Peccatum itaque videtur multis servire Deo, quia facit quod debet causando penam ; et cum ex se non habeat legem talem, 20 videtur quod a Deo ex lege obligatur sic facere, et per con- sequens servit Deo. IMichi autem videtur quod peccatum dictum formatter, cum non sit creatura, non servit Deo, eo quod tunc ad hoc crearetur a Deo : sed sicut Deus domi- natur sine aliquo ex equo participante nee de possibili super- 25 dominante ; sic et peccatum, quod a Deo maxime distat, non sic quod sit Deus malus, sed pessima privacio, que habet suum dominium atque leges, sicut et Deus suas. Con- cedilur iterum quod facilimum est Deo servire, tanquam domino mansuetissimo ; et difficilimum servire peccato, 30 pessime et tirrannice dominanti. Nee est putandum quod Deus propter variaciorcm quantamcunque mutet conpla-
I. uilicctVi: in KC. 2. 7/t/ prius B: et AC. 5. tercio de lihero
arUtrio. Huic in marg. codicum adscriptum est^7/o'9 24. g. esse h.Q.: iit B.
II. ali/iialiter XQ: ant qiialiter V>. 19. DeoY>: cm. AC. 23 aliquo
AC: alioV). participante ncc K(l: coinparticipante vel'ii.
5. August, de lib. Arbitr. iii. 9, 10, §§ 26-29.
CAP. IV.J I, USER PRTMUS. 23
7C] ccnciani vel aliam passionem ; sed uniformiter gaudet, quid- D quid adveneril, cum sit inmo*bilis, previdens quidquid erit INIagnam tamen vim oportet adicere ad Deo debite minis- trandum.
5 CAPITULUM IV.
CoNSEQUENTER restat incidenter pertractare si servicium Of degreks in
THE SKRVICE OF
Dei magis et minus suscipiat ; sic, videlicet, quod stet (^od.
_ _ Does it admit of
eandem creaturam nunc magis et nunc minus Domino de-'^^^^"ci '"°''^- servire. Et videtur quod non, quia quelibet creatura servit i. Argiaiwnts
against the
10 Deo secundum ultimum sui esse, ergo nullum unum et idevaposihou:
a. God's service
potest vicissim servire tanto domino plus vel minus. As- 's essential to the
creature,
sumptum patet ex hoc quod quelibet creatura essencialiter servit Deo, secundum quidlibet sui ; ergo precise quante est aliqua creatura, tante essencialiter servit Deo : cum ergo esse and essence does
not admit of less
i.=i creature non su^cipit magis et minus, sequitur quod nee and more. Deo servire, quod est idem, vel eius passio ; passio autem vel proprietas non suscipit plus vel minus eciam iuxta logicos.
Item, si creatura posset intendi et remitti in Dei servicio, '^- if service
could be m-
cum idem sit iudicium de quocunque ut de aliquo, videtur ?';«^a^,e4 °^'^'""'^-
^ ^ '■ ished, It might
20 quod creatura posset totaliter exui ne Deo subserviat, et !jf,^'^^her"' " "^ quelibet tante serviret ut aliqua per intensionem et remis- sionem proporcionalem servicii : quod non potest esse ad nudam potenciam Dei et creature, sed ponit unum realiter et absolute distinctum in Deo, quod vanum est credere. Et con-
25 sequencia patet, quia proporcionaliter ut servicium crescit vel decrescit oportet crescere vel decrescere dominium correlatum. Item, si creatura potest minui in Dei servicio, hoc foret Again,
c. if anything
potissime per peccatum, ubi dispersum est servicium creature could diminish
r r r 1 service, sin
in servicium dyaboli et peccati, quod ex integro tenderet in ^'o"'^ ; 8A Deum ; sed non ex'* inde minus servit creatura Deo quod yet this does not, peccat ; ergo nullo modo potest minorari creature servicium. Et per idem sequilur quod non minorabitur per virlutem. and so too virtue
' ^ does not.
2. \\ Jirenicfens B f. 21s B. 13. quante A C : quanta B. _ 19. nt KQ.: igifiir
ut B. 21. se>~!'i>-ct A C : ser-<'ire B. 27. fpssct B : /j" AC.
24 DE DOMINIO DIVINO [cAP. IV.
Minor argument! patet ex hoc quod creatura peccando servit [8A Deo, et tante sufferendo penam quante serviret habendo virtutem correspondentem peccato quod penam inducit : ut si A creatura servit Deo virtuose operand© a non gradu usque ad gradum, ut quatuor, et b creatura per idem tempus de- 5 meretur a gradu, ut quatuor, usque ad non gradum ; tantum servit b paciendo penam demeriti, sicut a operando eque nieritorie in suo genere. Nee videtur racio de servicii dis- persione movere, cum serviendo cuicumque servo Dei servitur et sibi, sicut et quidquid acquiritur servo acquiritur Domino 10 dominorum ; omnis enim servicii est ipse dominus, etc. "^t'hfcontrar^^- '" ^^ oppositum sic : Quclibct creatura servit Deo nedum not^o^niy^sfilf"^ secuudum cius essencialia sed secundum eius omnia acciden- cidentaLfwhich talia positiva ; sed contingit eandem creaturam in numero
nunc plus nunc minus habere de talibus accidentibus positi-15 vis : ergo contingit illam vicissim servire Deo proporcionaliter plus et minus. Confirmatur sic : Nullum peccatum servit Deo (ut dictum est); eigo nullus peccator secundum pecca- tum servit Deo : et per consequens, mutato virtuoso in peccatorem, sic quod, stantibus omnibus aliis positivis preter 20 cambium b peccati pro a virtute cum consequentibus ad eadem, data creatura minus servit Deo peccando quam prius fecit merendo, tantum * quantum virtus talis addit ad servi- B cium et vicium inductum abstrahit ab eodem. Nee aliter videtur qualiter ad sensum Scripture aliquis foret servtis 25 bonus obligacior et fidelis, alius autem servus deobligacior et nequam. Ideo videtur mihi, salva pociori sentencia, quod pars affirmativa dubii est tenenda. Pro quo notandum quod quelibet creata substancia dupliciter ad propositum servit Deo, scilicet, secundum eius essencialia vel per se inexistencia. 30 et secundum eius accidentalia positiva vel privativa que peccatum non sapiunt. Et cum tam dominium quam ser- vicium (ex dictis supcrius) specificatur ab illo ad quod
19. II et ficr B f. 215 c. 26. et nequam A C ; sh'c neqnavi B.
18. \'. supra, p. 22. 25. Servit s homis : Matth. xxv. 23.
33. V. siipia. pp. 10 seq.
CAP. IV.] LIBER PRIMUS. 2j
8B] principaliter terminatur, vocetur primum essenciaJe servicitim et secundum accidentale servichim : tunc dico quod quelibet creatura, quoad essenciale servicium, quoad ultimum sibi possibile servit Deo; sed quoad accidentale servicium pro-
5 portionaliter ad variacionem accidentalium variatur. Prima pars patet ex dictis ; cum quelibet creatura per se servit Deo, et per consequens, sicut essencia creature non suscipit magis et minus, sic nee illud per se servicium quoad Deum. Et secunda pars patet eo quod omne accidens creature est essen-
locialiter eadem, et formaliter vel secundum racionem eius modus; et per consequens omne servicium huiusmodi acci- dentis est servicium sui per se subiecti : ut non servit Deo quod Petrus currit nisi de quanto Petrus, ut huiusmodi, servit Deo ; et ita de aliis accidentibus, ut notum est cui-
C cumque * methaphisico non erranti.
Ex isto secundo sequitur quod de qualibet permanente*. Astheacd-
. . . . dentals of the
creatura Deus habet dommmm successivum, eo quod omnis creature change,
so his service is
talis creatura continue variatur in aliquo accidente crescendo renewed, vel decrescendo : cum igitur Deus dominatur omnis recti
2oservicii, sequitur quod ad innovacionem servicii Dei servicium innovatur. Nee ex isto sequitur quod in dominiis et ser- viciis sit processus reciprocus infinite, quia servicium servicii, et dominium dominii nullatenus distinguuntur, Sicut enim substancia est quantitate distincta quanta, et ilia non acci-
25 dente distincto sed per se quanta, sic Deus est dominus creature absolute distincto dominio, et dominus illius dominii se ipso dominio. Nee valet pro opposito quod dominia dis- tinguuntur penes terminos ad quos principaliter terminantur, quia oporteret probare previe quod dominium dominii ter-
30 minatur ad ipsum dominium, ut suum terminum ; quod
negatur, cum nulla talis relacio terminatur principaliter ad se
ipsam. Maior itaque pars contendencium in ista materia
propter ignoranciam logice nugatorie barbarisant.
Tercio elicitur ex predictis quod Deus tripliciter in genere c. God can ac- quire lordship of
.^.s potest acquirere sibi dominium creature; scilicet, per eius the creature
34. ciiiittir B : eligitur A C.
26
DE DOMINIO DiViNO
[cap
IV,
i. by creation,
ii. by the retnewal of accidentals, and
iii. by the estab- lishment of a mode of service,
thus becoming newly lord of such service,
though without motion on his part in the ac- quisition.
3. A iis'-tvey fo argiiineiits (above nr. i). a. Accidental service may vary
produccionetn, per sui accidenlis innovacionem, et per novi [8C modi serviendi limitacionem. Primuni palet ex dictis ; nam creando universitatem creat Deus sibi eius dominium, et sic de qualibet eius parte : * et secunda pars patet ex eodem et D sentencia proxima : tercia autem pars patet de obligacionibus 5 et dedicacionibus factis Deo, que propter usum, ministerium, vel servicium varium a priori fundant in Deo dispar dominium ; cum Deus noviter sit dominus talis servicii, ministerii, sive usus : sic enim acquirit condnue accidentale dominium. Nee credo mentem cuiusquam ad tantum desipere quod credat 1° divinitatem moveri in acquirendo dominium ; cum stat Petrum ex pacto, per vitam vel mortem patris vel fratris vel cuiuscunque alterius, secundum formam conpaccionis, tarn acquirere quam deperdere dominium, sine motu per talis dominii acquisicionem vel deperdicionem materialiter intro- 15 ducto : ut, posito quod Petrus existens Oxonie sopositus pepigit cum Paulo parente Rome quod post b instans habebit c thezaurum, sicut successione hereditaria habebit immobilia Pauli patris; tunc, Paulo defuncto, pro b instanti acquiret ad tantam distanciam ignoranter dominium, sine hoc quod pro- 20 porcionaliter moveatur. Nulla enim relacio potest esse per se materia talis motus, ex quinto Phisicorum. Et illud potest ex variacione compaccionis quantumlibet variari ; ut quod pepigi me habere a dominabile per vitam filii conviventis vel post mortem decrepiti conpangentis, etc. Multo plus ergo 25 Deus sic poterit, ut dicunt doctores quos supra memini.
Ad primum obiectum, patet ex dictis quod probat nee essenciale dominium nee servicium magis aut minus suscipere, : nee accidentale dominium * nisi per produccionem nove 9A creature : sed sicut essencia potest in accidentibus magis et ,^0 minus suscipere, sic de accidentali servicio. Non ergo precise secundum idem permanens continue innovatur dominium, sed secundum accidens innovatum. Et sic tam dominium quam
1 . et per B ; per A C. 7. fundant B : fundat A C. 9 acquirit :
aqiiirit A. II dominium B f. 215 n. 16. sopositus: sppo'^ A: sopo'-' BC.
24. conrjiventis B C : corivenienlis A.
2. V. supra, p. 10.
22. Aiist. Phys. v. 2 p. 226 a.
CAP. IV.] Lir.r.R PRIMU.S. 2"7
9A] servicium suscipit et magis et minu.s, proporcionallter ad eius materiam, ut similitudo et inequalitas in excessu fundata ; non auteni equalitas, paternitas, et similia, que non respiciunl fun- damentum, qua suscipit plus et minus. 5 Ad secundum, patet quod consequencia non valet, quia^^. Nocrentui-e
can be dispensed
creatura non potest remitti in essenciali servicio. Et ut 'i respect of es- sential service,
logici locuntur, requiritur ut habeat accidentale servicium ;
sed nullum requiritur ipsum habere proporcionallter, ut
sophisticatur de inherentia accidentis : et sic cuiuslibetbut only in acci- dental.
lo creature capacitas finita ad recipiendum quodlibel accidens naturale ponit limitem ad maximum servicium creature, quod alludit tractatui et sentencie de maximo et minimo alibi declarate. Et patet quod racio ulterior, propter omissionem distinccionis dominii supradicte, non obviat ; cum oportet
ijnovitatem dominii habere novitatem in aliqua materia, licet quantumlibet faciliter ad cuiuscumque creature produccionem, sicut cetere relaciones, acquiri poterit.
Ad tercium dicitur quod minor est falsa, cum creatura <■• i- it is not tme
that the sinner
secundum virtutem et secundum gaudium, bonitatem, vel serves God in
° respect of sin but
aomeritum consequens servit Deo: peccator autem non se- '" ''?T®'=' °*^ ''^
'■ '^ punishment.
cundum peccatum sed secundum penam paciendo servit :
et sic triplex est racio in iusto serviendi Deo, et simpla in
peccatore. Et patet quod non est idem, Petrus, in quantum
B =^ vel quia peccat, servit Deo, et, secundum peccatum servit
25 Deo ; quia, iuxta secundum dictum, peccatum serviret Deo ;
quod negatur, cum non sit creatura, nee Deus approbat vel
auctorisat eius servicium, nee facit quod debet; quia tunc
iustum esset quod peccatum obliget peccatorem vel causet
penam, sicut iustum est quod punitur et proficiat exemplariter
30 et feliciter viatoribus quibus prodest. Passionem itaque et
occasionem datam ex vicio insurgente approbat Deus, et non
esse peccati primum vel eius agenciam : ut in assimili passiones
martirum approbat Deus, et tamen agendas tortorum con-
vertibiliter correlatas, tanquam viam iniquitatis, odit plurimnm.
\o. Jiiiita coAi. fi"- . 13. declarate S.Q.\ dcclarafo B. 15. licet K: sed
B C. 22. triplex KC: duplex^. 23. non B: om. AC. 31. iiisiiJ-^cnte
A C : insurgcntcnt B. |! app)-flbat B f. 216 a.
28 DE DOMINIO DIVING [cAP. IV.
ii The service of Sccunda resDonsio, quam alias plurimum explanavi, stat in [9B
the sinning na- r > -i r r ' ■-
itslrhlluw'fssT ^^''^J Q"0^ sicut Deus naturam peccantem amat quoad primum esse nature, et odit quoad secundum esse, vel deficere et non univoce esse sed pocius deesse, maxime distans a prima essencia, cui esse est proprium ; sed approbat ipsum quoad 5
and to its j^f w/- secundum eius esse, quod est occasionaliter proficere : et
<f!/i/r esse so far
only as it profits, quia ad servirc Deo requiritur creacio servi et complacencia
esse primi, ideo nullum peccatum dictum formaliler servit Deo.
iii. Another ar- Tercia rcsponsio quoad primam partem convenit cum
gument which i i i i
holds God's au- secunda: sed, ut omne dominium reducatur ad unum lo
tnonsation oi the
o?sin '^'""'"'" principium, dicit quod peccatum, non secundiun eius esse primum, sed secundum esse eius secundum servit Deo; et illud esse Deus approbat misericorditer ac omnipolenter creat, et per consequens auctorisat : * et omnia in oppositum c
is to be rejected allegauda intclliguntur de esse primo peccati. Sed ista re- 15
because its ad- ... .... ,. . , ,
mission would spousio muiune placet mini, quia non dicit absolute quod
lead to impossible
conclusions. peccatuni est creatura vel servit Deo, quod tamen prin- cipaliter est quesitum. Quod si dicat, oportet dicere quod Deus auctorisat peccatum secundum eius esse primum ; et per consequens, cum peccatum sic dictum sit creaturam 20 peccare et sic viciose ac iniuste agere, Deus approbaret quod creatura sic se haberet, quod est impossibile ; cum tunc non tam instanter preciperet et doceret oppositum, puni- endo iustissime peccatores : ymo, tunc peccatum esset non peccatum, eo quod qualitercunque placet Deo est iustum esse. 25 Si ergo placet Deo quod Deus iniuste agat, tunc iustum est quod iniuste agit ; ymo, debet sic agere sciendo hoc esse de voluntate prime iusticie, que sunt inpossibilia, ut patet alibi. Deus ergo, si approbaret peccatum huiusmodi, ut creaturam suam, approbaret eius naturalem informacionem vel denomi- 30
.Sins are indirect- nacioncm : vidctur ergo mihi primus sensus securior. Unde,
ly under God's
lirdship. sicut aliqua sunt directe in genere et aliqua indirecte, sic
aliqua sunt directe sub Dei dominio, ut singule creature, et aliqua indirecte, ut vicia et peccata ; non quod ipsa serviant
31. piii/iiis AC: /rwr3. 32. ct aliqua hO,: ct al'iaVi. 34. aligita\C'. alia^, I. Cf. de civ Dom. i. i p. 8.
CAP. IV.] LIBER PRIMUS. 29
8C] Deo, sed quod subiecta peccata causancia et ipsis serviencia
principalius serviunt summo Deo. Ac Deus ex peccatis dat
occasionem, non ilia peccata, ut bonum suis ex eis proveniat.
D * Unde Salvator condescendens infirmitati nostre, intelli- No
wan can
J • 1 1 -1 • , . , . . serve two lords
5 gendo simul sub quodam involucro tarn equivoca dommia Dei et peccati, JMatt. vi. 24, dicit, Ne?)io potest diiohus doirmiis se7-vire ; id est, nemo potest duobus dominis capitalibus, quorum neuter subest reliquo nee ambo alicui tercio, independent of
1 1 i_ • • . . ,. , . . -.-^ one another.
snnul debite mmistrare, cuiusmodi domini sunt Deus et
10 peccatum. Unde nemo servit inordinate alteri creature, nisi quia in quantum principalius servit culpe. Nam tolle culpam et servicium erit laudabile. Ymo, cum Jieino leditur nisi principaliter Icdatur a se ipso, patet quod impossibile est hominem servire culpabiliter extero inimico, nisi ex hoc
15 quod prius consenciendo illicite, et per consequens serviendo peccato proprio, servit posterius carni, mundo, sive dyabolo, a quo ex propria vecordia superantur. Peccatum ergo habet esse et leges suas iniustas ad ipsum consequentes a creatura Dei. Et sic prima causa prime culpe est peccabilitas primi
2oangeIi, que indubie est bona creatura Dei, que cum actu inordinato vel omissione debiti peccatum principiat. Aliter autem locuntur fideles, ut in methaphisica varie educantur : ut alii nolentes condescendere modo loquendi Scripture dicunt quod non est possibile peccatum aliquod posse esse; alii, quod
25 non est peccatum aliquod nisi substancia ipsa peccans, et sic
de ceteris. In ista quidem materia relinquo posteris sine
lOA temeraria eleccione indicium elegendi. Videtur * tamen
michi, cum peccatum quoad esse primum non servit Deo,
sicut facit virtus quoad esse utrumque, necnon ad virtutem
30 consequitur essenciale premium pari vel maiori evidencia qua
10, alteri B: alicui AC. 17. \\agiio Bf. 2i6b. 21. omissione AC: omissiveB.
12. A^'emo tedihir, &c. See S.Jo. Chrysostom's A070S oTi tuv tavrbv fifl ddiKovuTa ovSels /xfj ■napa^Ka\pai Svyarat, Opp. 3. 444-464, ed. Montfaucon. Cf. de civili Dom. i. 38 p. 274 ; Libelliis qiiem porrexit Parliamento, viii. (printed in Fascic. Ziz. 250 and in Lewis's Life of Wiclif, 385, ed. iS 26) ; De Diab. et Membr. i, Polcm. Works, 1. 362.
30 DE DOMIXIO DIYINO [cAP. V.
The righteous ad omnc peccatum essencialis pena consequitur, quod iustus, [lOA
man serves God
more than does ut huiusmodi, plus scrvit Deo et multiplicius quam peccator.
the sinner.
Et patet sentencia secundo capitulo supradicta, quod, sicut servus a ministerio in beatitudine maxime servit Deo, sic servus a servitute in dampnacione perpetua minime servit 5 sibi, licet ex recessu ab unitate et dispersione dominii sit iuxta secundam maneriem summe servus.
capitulu:m v.
Of God's Use OF CoNSEQUENTER icstat viderc in quo inmediatc et formaliter
Lordship.
consistit usus divini dominii. Usus enim dominii videtur lo esse pluribus eius fructus, et Dei possessio inter usum eius et I. (t. Richard dominium mediare. Sed ad illud respondet dominus Ard-
FitzRalpk's _ ^
view. macanus in primo de Pauperie Salvatoris, capitulo vii, quod
duplex est fructus divini dominii scilicet intrinsecus et ex- 'i. in God's de- tfiusccus. Intrinsccus est delectatio quam ipse, sicut et alii 15
hght in his work ;
artifices, habet de suo opere ; et ilium indubie habuit in
mundi principio, quando spiritus Domini ferebatur super aquas,
et vidit cuncta que fee er at et erafit valde bo?ia, Gen. i. 2, 31.
'ii. and in his Usus autcm extrinsccus vidctur fuudari in agenda creature.
government of
the creature.' Et ita primum usum dominii habuit Deus in primo instanti 20 mundi ; sed secundum per remocionem de presenti inceperat tunc habere : et sic per instans fuit Deus dominus sine usu extrinseco. Ilium autem usum extrinsecum vocat Dei * guber- B nacionem.
b. Arguments Scd cum cxpcdiat pro scrutinio veritatis quod diversi 25
against t/iis
i/iew. doctores in eadem materia diversimode cum suis evidenciis
senciant opinando, senciendo semper humiliter quod plus ignorancie quam sciencie habeant de quolibet scibili hie pro via; ideo tenendo istam regulam cum debita reverencia
i. God's delight ponam oppositum. Videtur enim inprimis quod omnis 30
is eternal,
delectatio Dei, sicut eius sciencia vel actus intrinsecus, est
and thus not af- fected by his eternus ; sed omnis usus creature est solummodo tempo-
22. iiistiins : B (|) (et passim).
3. Apparently ch. 3 p. 22. 12. R. FitzRali'h, de Paiip. Salv. i. 7 f . 4 o.
CAP. v.] LIIJKR i'KLMUS. 31
lOB] rails; erqo nullus usus divini dominii est eius delectacio. use of the
creature ;
Assumptum patet ex hoc quod, si Deus correspondenter ad bonitatem productam in creatura eliceiet delectacionem, et per consequens displicenciam pro malicia opposita, ipse foret 5 secundum affeciones summe mobilis; consequens impossibile. Ideo Augustinus in quinta Epistola (ubi supra allegatur) proinde negat Deum ex dominie noviter delectari ; et quinto de Trinitate, xxxvii., Deus autem absit ut temporaliter aliqiiem diligat quasi nova dileccione que in ipso antea non erat, aput lo quem pi'eterita non transierunt et futura ia?n facta sunt. Sed et hoc hie supponitur, tanquam diffuse alibi declaratum. Et probatur minor, scilicet, quod omnis usus Dei est temporalis : whereas his use
is temporal :
nam omnis usus presupponit dominium, ut fructus fructiferum; sed omne Dei dominium est solum temporale ; ergo et iSquilibet eius usus. Confirmatur ex hoc quod, si usus est ii. else the thing
used would be
eternus, cum usus, ut huiusmodi, sit illud quo utens for- eternal; maliter utitur assignato, sequitur quod Deus eternaliter C uteretur aliquo ; et per consequens * eternaliter foret usibile. Item, si Deus capit suam delectacionem a creaturis adextra, besides,
iii. God would
20 et in completa eius delectacione constitit eius beatitudo, then be depen- dent on the crea-
Deus caperet suam beatitudinem a creatis, et per consequens ture. maxime indigeret creaturis, ut perficiatur sua felicitas; con- sequens contra dicta de excellencia divini dominii, qui non ad indigenciam acquirit dominium : tunc itaque foret in Deo 25 delectacio essencialis et delectacio sibi accidentalis a creaturis capta, et per consequens aliqua talis in successione consisteret et delectatio a Deo semper efflueret, quod dementis est dicere.
Concedendum est ergo, meo iudicio, quod Deus nullum 2. God's use is
formally in hiin-
usum habet de aliquo quod sibi subserviat, nisi solummodo self, and ma- terially in the
3orelativum, qui est Deum uti creatura; et ille presupponit creature, creaturam et eius dominium. Omnis itaque talis usus, cum
4. opjtosiia AC: apposita B. 10, || et futura E f. 216 c. 17. assignato AC :
assigitando B.
6. August, epist. cxxxviii. ad Marcellinum, 6, 0pp. 2. 412 c, D (cited above, p. i7\
7. .Eiusd. de Trin. v. 16, § 17, 0pp. 8. 843 seq. 23. V. supra, pp. 16 seq.
DE DOMINIO DIVIKO
[cap.
sit uti Dei, est in Deo formaliter, et obiective vel materia'.iter [icc in creatura ex eius gubernacione creata ; et non formaliter gubernacio activa vel passiva, ut patet methaphisico. Usus itaque quern Deus habet de quacunque creatura consistit inmediate et materialiter in eadem essencia et in quacunque 5 eius causancia ordinata ; ut, eo ipso quod creatura facit vel causat quod debet, Deus ipsa utitur. Et cum claudit contra- diccionem, creaturam esse pro primo instanti mundi vel alias, nisi causet quod debet, patet quod non potest esse creatura nisi ipsa Deus * utatur ; quelibet enim particularis creatura D causando perficit universum, et ipsum universum reciproce finaliter causat quamlibet eius partem materialiter recausantem. His lordship is Et patet, iuxta sentenciam supradictam, quod Deus habet
greater than that
of any other maius dominium super quamlibet eius creaturam, quam alius for he has use, domiuus habere poterit. Nam ipse utitur essencia creata in <5
a. of the essence
of the creature, quautuui ipsa naturalitcr dicit Deum esse suum dominum, quod faceret etsi non esset mundus vel aliud eius servicium fundatum in accidentibus. Secundo utitur Deus creatura, ut- puta creata substancia, ex hoc quod ipsa ex potencia vel suflir- ciencia substanciali intrinseca producit adintra actum vel 20 formam ; et secundo ex sufficiencia qua substancia sufficit appetere actualiter suum esse, ac appetitu actuali secundum ultimum sibi possibile procedit finalis quietacio vel conten- tacio in suo esse, et, ut sic, quelibet creatura ostendit natura- litcr Trinitatem. Tercio utitur Deus huiusmodi creatura ut 25 ipsa principiat propriam passionem vel cetera accidencia que- cunque separabilia vel inseparabilia, dum in aliquo directe faciunt in pulcrificacionem universi : nulla autem creatura utitur alia nisi de quanto est sibi utilis secundum aliqua eius accidentalia ; et sic non immediate utitur essencia ut creator, 30 sed tantum accidentibus sub racione qua bonum utile sic utenti. Unde, sicut accidens non est ens nisi quia entis (ex
14. ezKsin B expunctum. 21. secundo (2°) AC: 3° B. 31. || bouum B f. 216 d.
24. Compare below, p. 57, and the analogies collected by Peter Lombard, Sentent. i. 3 pp. 11 seq., Louvain 1568 ; see also dist. ip pp. 35 seq. The general notion is taken from S. Augustin.
b. of his sub stance,
and
c. of his acci
dents.
CAP. v.] LIBER PRIMUS. 33
lOD] septimo Methaphisice), sic nee usus creature nisi quia ab usu llA Domini * exemplatur.
Unde Deus (ut supra) racionabiliter capitalis dominus debet God therefore is
J. . ^ . ,. J . • -TN • , • • rightly called the
Qici. C^ui ergo credit creature dominium posse JJei dominio Lord in chief, 5 coequari, videat primo si subiectum et suum accidens possunt esse in entitate paria, vel si creatura potest facere simpliciter aliquam substancialem essenciam, ut sibi dominetur quoad substanciam ; et constat quod non. Ideo Deus non mediate, holding lordship
not mediately,
per regimen vasallorum subserviencium, ut reges ceteri, but immediately
making, main-
10 dominatur, cum immediate et per se facit, sustentat, et gu- 'fining, and go-
^ ' ' * verning all
bernat omne quod possidet, iuvatque ad perficiendum opera '^'"s^- secundum usus alios quos requirit. Ipse enim utitur qualibet parciali creatura vel ad fabricam vel decenciam magne domus, et ipsa domo utitur ut partes eius recauset finaliter, et ut beati 15 in tanta fabrica delectentur. Unde Baruch iii. 33-36, post declaracionem dominii Dei et sue possessionis, exprimitur eius usus : Qui^ inquit, emittit lucem, et vadit ; vocat earn et audit eum cum tremore. Stelle autem dederunt lumen in cusiodiis suis^ et letate sunt: vacate sunt, et dixeru?it, Ecce 20 assujnus : et luxerunt ei cum iocunditate qui fecit illas. Hie est Deus noster. Ecce primo, quia non est distancia temporis in opere prime lucis, ideo ad denotandum quod inanimata non ociantur a Dei ministerio dicitur, et vadit: nee dedignetur j|^thaphisicus quod agere lucis sit suum vadere, audire cum 25 tremore sit eum metu ad instinctum Dei intendere, lelari sit quietari in suis finibus, prompte dicere sit naturaliter osten- B dere. * In isto itaque naturali ministerio consistit usus perfectis- simus Dei nostri. Talem ergo usum habet Deus de qualibet creatura, non ad sui indigenciam vel utilitatem, sed ex eius 30 mera gracia, qua vult produeere mundum eum eius partibus, ut ipse fructus finaliter et innixus ad creature commodum eollaudetur. Ipse enim est bonum quod omnia appetunt (primo Ethicorum), et finis, gracia cuius omnia agenda,
^. fosse '&(!: cm. A. 10. dominatur H : doiitinantur Pi.Q.. 17. vocat earn
et audit A : vocavit earn et audivit B : vocat et audit C. 23. dicitur et I'adit
om. B. 25. jitctu A : motu B : tneta C. letari A C : locari B. 26. natu-
raliter A C : naturate B.
33. Bonum: Arist. Eth. Nicom. i. 7 p. 1098.
D
34 DE DOMINIO DIVINO [CAP. V.
naturalia vel sensltiva agunt quidquid agunt, et ilium ultimate [iiB intendunt (ex secundo de Anima). 3. God's delight Nec negandum est quin Deus eternaliter delectatur et
IS eternal because
it is an immanent diligit quamlibct crcaturam : sed, cum amor ille vel delect- ancia sit actus inmanens, non potens incipere vel desinere 5 esse, sicut est de dominio et eius usu, negandum est illam delectacionem esse eius dominium, possessionem, vel usum :
his delight in the accidcutale tamen vel contingens est Deo quod delectetur in
existence of the
creature is but existcucia cuiuscunque creature, cum tauter delectan pomt,
accidental.
ultra racionem exemplarem absolute necessariam et eternam, 10 existenciam delectabilis. Unde similis est distinccio de Dei delectacione sicut dictum est de Dei sciencia, quod aliqua est simplicis apprehensionis vel intelligencie terminata ad ydeam, et omnis talis est absolute necessaria ; aliqua autem est delectacio creature in p'roprio genera : prima delectacio Dei 15 respectu creature est ydealis, et secunda contingens effectualis, ut patet de obiectis ad que principaliter terminatur. Et patet divisio * divini dominii, ut aliquis terminatur ad essencialem C creature causanciam, et aliquis ad eius accidentalem cau- sanciam ; et talium sunt tot divisiones quot divisiones acci- 20 dencium. Patet eciam quod de mundo vel de qualibet eius permanente particula habet Deus usum, sicut dominium suc- cessivum ; eo quod in quantum aliqua creatura facit successive ut debet, in ilia successiva faccione fundatur materialiter usus Dei : nulla delectacio vel usus creaturarum est beatitudo divina 25 vel pars eius, cum previe in delectacione quam habet essenci- aliter de se ipsa, que indubie est ipsa divina essencia, consistit divina beatitudo, et non formaliter in racione exemplari, et multo minus in delectacione rerum in proprio genere : nulla ergo delectacio est sic accidentalis Deo quod potest adesse 30 postquam abfuit, vel econtra. Sed si posset, cum non possit fingi relacio distincta a dominio, foret accio ab intrinseco a Deo elicita ; et per consequens Deus esset mobilis, ut natura intellectualis creata, que potest vicissim in affeccionibus variari.
8. esse om. B. 17. \[-ieciis Ji f. 21-; A. 19. et aliquis ad eius acciiientakm
causanciam a : om. AC. 21. vel k.C: et B. 27. i/isa AC: i/so R.
2. Arist. de Anima, ii. 4 p. 415.
CAP. v.] LIBER PRIMUS, SS
lie] Melior enim esset cum foret continue pure letus, quam si
protunc ex aliqua causa fingibili foret tristis. Existencia ergo
creature non facit ad Dei delectacionem augendam; cum,
posita creature non-existencia, tantum volendo negacionem
5 oppositam, eternaliter delectaretur.
Ex istis patet quod possessio divina non est eius susten- God's possession
is not his main-
tacio intrinseca creature, sed ipsam precedens causaliter, 'enanceof the
* creature, but is to
Dsicut gubernacio Dei usum. Posses*sio itaque quandoque^^^^^go^^^- sumitur active pro habitudine possidentis, quandoque passive "*^-
lopro illo quo creatura formaliter possidetur, et quandoque ma- terialiter pro possesso : et ista tercia significacio est famosa; unde Baruch iii. 24, postquam dixerat quod domus cui dominatur est magna, subdit quod sequitur, -E/ ingens locus possessmiis eius. Possidere namque est habere suum domi- Possession is the
natural conse-
isnatum: et sic omnis possessio consequitur dominium quince of lord- tamquam posterius tempore vel natura. Unde possidere dicitur quasi post sedere, quando quis post nactum dominium habet quiete sibi subserviens ad utendum. Et sic est standing midway
between that and
possessio medium inter usum et dominium, ex Dei sup-^se, 2oportancia causata, qua illabitur essencialiter induens quam-
libet creaturam. Nee est putandum quod in Deo aliquod ^"^''^^^'"gS^-^th^ istorum posset per tempus vel instans temporis a reliquo separari ; sed utrumque posteriorum ad prius consequitur, sicut passio ad subiectum. Nee sunt ista a politico respu- 25 enda, quia indubie sunt principia tam essendi quam cogno- scendi dominium, possessionem, et usum, conveniencia crea- turis : nee distinguuntur in Deo penes subiectum vel obiectum cum sit idem penitus in hiis tribus ; sed penes actus Dei, ut creanciam,conservanciam,etgubernanciam,exquibusutfunda- 30 mentis per ordinem sunt causata. Ex quibus patet dominium, possessionem, et usum divini dominii non distingui ; nam sicut dominium dominii est dominium, sic et possessio possessionis, et usus usus. Nee inveniet contenciosus logicus * quod in aliquo istorum sit reciproce vel directe procedere sine fine.
10. possidetur: codd. possi'/iet, sed in B in possidetur correctum. 12. 7tnde
AC: 7tt B. 18. quieted: quiet em hC 23. ad AC: aB. 31. \\ dis-
ti'igtvi B f. 217 B.
D 2
3^ DE DOMINIO DIVINO [cAP. V.
dei^ks^hafoi^d ^^^ P^"" '^''^ respondcri potest duobus argumentis domini [IID emiordshtp'^over Ardmacaiii, libro primo, capitulo xxvii., quibus probare sibil2A the same thing : yi(^g(-m. quo(j Deus non potest de eadem re manente habere a. ' because his yicissim divcrsa dominia : primo ex hoc quod Deus habet de
lordship must be r n
amfdo°eTnot'ld- QU3,libet crcatura dominium plenissimum et sufficientissimum: 5 cum \^\.wx frustra fit per phira quod potest fieri per pauciora^ qiuia frustratorium non potest Deo competere, sequitur quod Deus post tale dominium completissimum non potest superaddendo novum acquirere. Et istud verum con- cluderet nisi servitori adveniret nova creatura, racione cuius 10 acquireretur de subiecto racione sui accidentis novum acci-
but this state- dcntale dominium. Nee habet Deus de qualibet creatura
mit of addition :
ment is not true
with respect of sufificicntissimum et completissimum dominium, sed solum de
each single
creature but only universitatc crcata pro tempore eterno et nulla eius parte ;
of the entire r r- r '
universe. jjjg^ cnim dominacw est in omni generaciotie et generacionevi'^h
que fuit vel erit, ut dicit Psalmus cxliv. 13 : et ita de qualibet creatura permanente habet completissimum eius dominium non adequate pro instanti vel parte sui peryodi, sed primo in tota sui peryodo. Et patet quod quotlibet Dei dominia non possunt desinere de sui potencia absoluta, sed secundum ^-o partem ; non autem secundum totum possunt incipere, ut
(God alone is patet dc tempore. Unde patet triplex racio unde solus Deus
lord of time, ^ ^ f f
potest plene tempori dominari : primo, quia tempus est duracio mundi, que non potest alcius * deservire ; secundo b quia dominium temporis est subiective ubique, et per conse- 25 quens eius usus ; et tercio quia tempus habet extensionem successivam, sicut et eius dominium, quod racione inmensi- tatis eternitatis est Deo proprium. Et hinc Salvator, per hoc quod dixit se simpliciter DoTninmyi sabbati (Math. xii. 8 et Luc. vi. 5), innuebat se esse Deum, et per consequens faciendo in .30 whereof man has sabbato miracula non ipsum solvere. Conceditur tamen
but Imperfect ^
lordship). hominem in parte habere usum temporis, non tamen ut
2. xji-Z'ii. AC: 25 B. 6. y?; B : sit \C. gicod potest fieri KQ,: quo fieri
potest B. II. acquireretur A C : acquiretur B. 23. primo B : prima AC.
24. alcius A C : alterius B.
2. R. FitzRalph, de Paup. Salv. i. 27 f. 12 n, c.
6. Fritstra, &c. : quoted in De civili Dom. i. 44 p. 401, as from
Arist. Phys. i. [4 or 6 ?J.
CAP. v.] LIBER TRIMUS. o^"]
12BJ posset tempus facere, conservare, vendere, abdicare, et sic de aliis accidentibus dominii quos posset circa sublunaria pos- sessa exercere : est ergo homo incomplete et imperfecte dominus temporis. 5 Et ex isto capiunt logici evidenciam suadendi quod quilibet beatus est infinitum magnus dominus, et sic immensus ; eo quod dominium, ut diutumius, sic est maius : sed cuiuslibet beati est dominium suorum actuum sempiternum, sicut et tem- poris dominium ; ergo est infinitum magnum. Et ita arguunt 10 dominium terminatum ad partes quantitativas quanti subiecti permanentis esse mole magnum, sicut dominium rei succes- sive habet magnitudinem successivam : sed neutrum sequitur. Nam sic omne sempiterne diuturnum foret infinitum magnum, ut singule partes cell, nee potest aliquid preter Deum esse 15 infinitum magnum, infinite longum vel diuturnum, ut patet logicis. Unde dominium tocius temporis non est infinitum C maius dominio instantis, cum finita instancia sint, * quia omnia que sunt integrant totum tempus, quorum non est ultimum, licet finis post omnia ilia et singula sit dominus 20 Deus noster. Ipse enim est principium et finis cuiuslibet creature. Et cum omne subiectum dominii sit natura intel- lectualis, et per consequens mole indivisibilis, patet quod nullum est dominium mole magnum.
Secundo arguit idem dominus quod, per multiplicacionem /'. ' Because by
J .. ^ ^ ^ • • r fx 1 1 the multiplication
25 donacionis vel oblacionis lacte Deo de eadem crealura, posset ofgrantstohim
. . ^ . , Crod might ac-
JJeus acquirere mfinita dommia. Sed probato quod mfinite q^ire infinite
lordship,'
creature off'erunt Deo infinicies idem dominabile vel diversum, which case, if it
J 1 • .A • 1 m ■ • admitted of
concedo conclusionem, sicut Augustmus, xv. de Trmitate, 31, proof, might be
conceded.
concedit de replicacione actuum reflexorum. Sed non oportet 30 expectare probacionem talium casuum. Nee oportet, si quotlibet talia dominia Deus habeat, quod habeat omnia ilia simul, cum dominium decidit dominabili decidenLe. Et sic nobis infinita dominia habet Deus de quotlibet permanente tam simul quam eciam successive.
17. shit om. B. 20. II deits B f. 217 c.
28. Apparently August, de Trin. xv. 12 § 21, Opp. F. 982,
3^ DE DOMINIO DIVINO [CAP. VI.
CAPITULUM VI. ^^^°
First pkincipal Contra dicta instatur tripliciter. Videtur enim primo quod
Difficulty. ^ •* ^
Was the first prima creatura de necessitate nature a Deo producitur, ymo
creature pro- '^ r ' j
of nece'^sity'?'^ quod pretcr ipsum analogum non potest esse alia vel multipli- cior creatura ; et per consequens non possunt esse plures vel 5 pauciores species ad maximum in genere creature, quod /(^Iwf is'not""" videtur derogare divine potencie. Primum ex hoc deduci vide- and to°his° ° tur, quod prima creatura est ens communissimum, quod de crea uies. ncccssitate absoluta adintra * producitur secundum aliquam D
eius partem, utputa secundum Verbum et Spiritum sanctum lo ac quotlibet formas vel raciones creabilium exemplares. Ens enim analogum est commune ad creaturam et essenciam increatam, ergo secundum partem adintra produci poterit; et cum nichil potest adintra produci nisi quod de facto ad- intra producitur, sequitur concludendum. In isto probabiliter 15 potest dici quod ens in sua communitate analoga non est commune Deo et creaturis, quia, si propter distanciam in natura sit aliqua equivocacio excludens, racionem generis maxime possibilis evidenter excluderet. Nulla enim est racio in qua deltas et natura creata conveniunt. 20
2. The subject of Et quoad obicctus replicatos, communiter respondetur
inetaphysic is the
c'us cn;tt/</u primo quod methaphisica non esset una sciencia propter
analog2ci>i,
defectum subiecti communicati principiatis et suo principio ; ymo, cum tunc non contingeret creaturam intelligere Deum, et per consequens nee amare nee credere, periret omnis 25 virtus theologica et omnis religio, et falsitas omnis Scripture secundum quamlibet eius partem ; quod est expresse con- tra apostolum, Rom. i. 20, A creatura mundi per ea que facta sunt intelkcta conspichmtur, sempiterna quoque eius virtus et divinitas : si ergo Deus conspici possit ab homine hoc foret 3° potissime actu analogo transcendentis. Hie dicitur quod
6. creature B : create A C. 26. alterum Piiuiis om. B,
2. The discussion of this point fills this and the following chapters ; the second and third principal ojjjections are stated in chapters viii and ix. 22. Una sciencia. Cf. infra, lib. ii. 4 f. 65 B.
CAP. Vl.] LIBER PRIMUS. 39
12D] subiectum methaphisice est ens creatum analogum, et extra illud considerat primus philosophus de principio increato et ceteris entibus extra genus, ut naturalis considerat de 13A natura, de motu, loco, * et vacuo. Pro secundo dicitur quod 5 spiritus creati est naturalissime intelligere et amare Deum suum, sed varie in patria et in via. Nam in via intelligimus Deum cum creaturis quas distincte concipimus, et per hoc sub quodam involucro Creatorem sicut substanciam materialem concipimus sub specie accidentis : et istam noticiam vocat lo apostolus enigmaticam specularem. In patria autem econtra, cum Creator plene fuerit illapsus spiritui et absorptus cura tocius generis creature immediate per ipsum, sine velamine speciei vel simulacri mediantis ipsum intuebimur, nobis summe et inseparabiliter diligendo, noscemus quod omnes raciones 15 exemplares et quod omnes creature in proprio genere non sunt aliquid quoad Deum, pocius quam motus vel aliud accidens est aliquid quoad suum subiectum, ut loquitur apostolus, I Cor. iii. 7, Neque qui plantat neque qui rigat est aliqtiod, set qui incremenlu?fi dat, Dens. Tunc enim cogno- 20 scemus quomodo Christus secundum raciones exemplares est omnia in ovmibus illapsus, ut dicit apostolus, i Cor. xv. 28. Ipse autem est fundamentum essenciale, quod secundum esse vitale adintra est omnia, iuxta illud loh. i. 3, 4, Quod factum est in ipso vita erat ; et omnis creatura in se vel suo genere 25 proprie nichil, iuxta illud Gal. vi. 3, Si quis se existimat aliquid esse, cum nichil sit, ipse se seducii. Quotlibet sunt talia dicta Scripture que sonant quod nulla creatura habet in proprio B * genere nisi incompletum et equivocum dependens esse re- spectu divine essencie quam speramus beatifice intueri. Unde, 30 sicut accidens non habet esse nisi inherere, et sic equivocum quoad substanciam, sic nulla creatura habet esse nisi adherere, quod esse primo plus discrepat, licet hoc non sufficimus nunc intuitive videre. Et secundum istam maneriem videndi lo-
10. |U/ccK/«r«« B f. 217 D. \i. absorpiits AQ: abso}-tal&. 12. /t?>- B : om. AC. 18. est aliqiwd om. B. 32. nunc BC: om. A.
10. I Cor. xiii. 12.
40 DE DOMINIO DIVINO [CAP. VI.
quitur evangelium, loh. i. i8, Deum nemo vidit unquam, supple, [13B nullus pure viator pro viacionis tempore. Et de prima manerie videndi loquitur apostolus, i Cor. xiii. 12, Videmus nutic per speculum in enigmate; tunc autem facie adfaciem. Et patet quid possumus secundum sapienciam methaphisicam vel theo- 5 logicam pro tempore vie noscere Deum nostrum : et ipse est subiectum nostre sciencie, ut sonat terminus. Patet eciam quod, sicut nemo potest sentire accidens substancie nisi de tanto noverit substratam substanciam, sic nemo potest noscere creaturam nisi sic sub aliquo gradu noverit Deum suum, cum 10 omne ens ipsum signat, ut accidens fundamentum. 3. Does the same Difficultas autcm cui involvimuF in disputacione scolastica conceive aMhe Stat iu isto : Utrum idem conceptus vel eadem intencio simul
same time Clod
and his creature ? Deum signat ct cffectum. Et ccrtum. est quod simul tempore ;
quia intencio substanciarum materialium sive immaterialium, 15 sicut et rerum non primo et per se sensibilium, est habitus vel disposicio quiescens in anima inclinans ad actum signa- bilem cognitum, et non res potens * per se existere, sicut nee C ymago habitualis nee simulacrum aut species per se sensibilis in ymaginativa fundata, ut hie supponiiur ex alibi declaratis. 20 Et talis intencio distincta ab actu movet animum ad appre- hendendum simul Creatorem et creaturam, primum enigma- tice et confuse, secundum autem distincte ; et sic licet simul tempore, tamen summe equivoce sine correspondencia nature communis Deo et aliis, cum Deus non potest habere natu- 25 ralem et propriam creatam speciem. Unde signata intencione singularissima talis conposicionis, Hoc est Deus, disposicio que est subiectum signat confuse omne signabile, respicitque ad pronomina vel res secunde imposicionis communiter ; et, si primo ac principaliter sic intelligatur, omnium rerum prin- 3° cipalissima est composicio satis vera. Intencio tamen subiecti est inclinativa ad concipiendum mundum, solem, lunam, vel quamvis aliam partem mundi, quam errans potest credere esse Deum. Nos autem fideles cognoscimus quod nulla
I. i.l codd. 4". 6. est kC: cm. B. ii. signat BC: signi/icat A.
12. scolastkas B : sophistka A C. 31. II -cipalissima B f. 218 a.
CAP. VI.] LIBER PRIMUS. 4^
13C] natura sensibilis, divisibilis, vel quomodolibet aliter causata, est Deus deorum et natura summa. Et sic intencio appro- priate Deum nostrum principaliter signans movet ad quidlibet apprehendendum et per viam negacionis vel preeminencie
5 dicit esse unum ens supra omnia nobis innominabile appro- priate. Et actus vel conceptus ex talibus principaliter aggregatus est Deo proprius, hoc est, ad eum principaliter
D terminatus. * Iste quidem actus non est habitus vel quodvis aliud quiescens in anima, sed cogitacio ex multis elicita, que
lostatim post diversionem mentis ad alia est exstincta; nee potest Deus habere creaturam que ipsum propriissime repre- sentet, sed simul dispariter se et Deum : nee ex tali conceptu quo simul cognosco Deum et creaturam, sequitur quod sit unum communicatum sibi et aliis.
15 Et si queritur quid terminat actum huiusmodi transcenden- 4- wbat ;s the
term of the actus
tern, dicitur quod Deus principaliter terminat omnem actum, '^''^'^f'^"^^'"? cum sit causa faciens ipsum poni in suis limitibus. Quod si ultra queritur, quid terminat obiective, dicitur quod Deus et universitas creata ; quia ad ipsam terminatur intelleccio, et
20 nulla intelleccio terminatur ad aliquid nisi quod est eius obiectum cognitum per eandem. Unde valde aliena sunt hec duo : A actus terminatur ad b obiectum, et b obiectum ter- minat ilium actum. Potest enim aliquid terminare actum huiusmodi vel quomodocunque causaHter vel specialiter
25 obiective ; quod solum est quando terminans apprehenditur tali actu, quod numquam contingit de intencione vel actu in anima, nisi forte vel in confuso vel dum animus reflectit actum secundo elicitum super primum : de istis est alibi declaratum. Quod autem non sit dare genus analogum
30 communicatum ex parte rei deitati et aliis, ex isto creditur :
Ilia communicacio vel est eque primo cum deitate vel ipsa
posterius : non eque primo, cum Deus primus est quam
14A communicatur alii cuicumque et * per consequens prius est
illo communi analog© ; et sic non sub racione essencie sim-
35 pliciter, que est ante racionem prime essencie, vel alii cuivis comparate est Deus, cum prius est antequam sit alii com-
42 DE DOMINIO DIVINO [CAP. VI.
paratus, et per consequens antequam super aliud sit excellens. [14A Et pure sub racione illius prions non est nostrum viancium ipsum concipere, cum non possumus terminum vel conceptum quo possumus ipsum pure sub ilia racione concipere ; et idee dicit Plato in Thimeo quod primum superius est omni nar- 5 racione, et non deficiunt lingue in eius nominacione nisi propter suum excellens esse. Et ad iubilose inprimendum in nobis ilium gradum essendi dicit Dyonisius, de divinis Nominibus, multis locis, quod Deus non est substancia bonitas sed supersubstancia ; et vere concedimus Deum esse sub- 10 stanciam, hoc est essenciam, bonitatem, et sic de aliis de Deo et ceteris multum equivoce predicatis. Ex istis patet responsio ad argumentum factum superius, cum ens transcendentivum non communicatur essencie increate et nature create, licet signa ipsas equivoce significent. 15
Christ is the sub- Et vidctur mihi, iuxta sentenciam Lincolniensis in suo Ex-
ject of theology,
ameron capitulo vii., quod Christus sit subiectum theologie. Pro quo considerandum est quod in Verbo est triplex unitas : prima est unitas essencie cum Patre et Dono, de qua loh. x. 30, I^go et Pater unum sumiis ; secunda est unitas supposi- 20 talis in qua secundum benedictam incarnacionem utraque natura creata, scilicet, corporea est incorporea, est ipsum Verbum ; * tercia est unitas in natura communi qua ipsa et b omnis creatura sunt unum, cum omnis creatura sit corporea vel incorporea ; et sic duplici racione communicatur cuilibet 25 creature, primo secundum raciones ydeales, que omnes, licet distinguantur racione, sunt idem essencialiter Verbo Dei, et quelibet creatura est eciam idem essencialiter cum ydea. Et alias declaravi quod non sequitur, ' Hec ydea est Deus, quia essencialiter, et hec eadem ydea est creatura, quia sibi acci- 30
7. inprhuendiini in nobis B: in nobis reprivicnditm AC. ii. est om. B.
11 de deo B f. 218 b. 15. nature A B mg. C : mille B text.
5. Apparently Plat. Tim. pp. 29, 30 : or see rather Pseudo-Arist. de Causis prop, vi., Arist. 0pp. cum comm. Averr., 7. f. 115 B., where almost the exact words quoted occur.
8. Pseudo-Dion, de div. Nom., i., ii., &c., Migne 122. 1116, 1121, &c.
16. Et videttir mihi. This whole passage is substantially repeated, infra, lib. ii. 5 ff 67 D, 68 A.
CAP. VII.] LIBER PRIMUS. 43
14B] dentaliter ; ergo hec creatura est Deus.' Sed bene sequitur quod quelibet creatura secundum esse intelligibile sit Deus.
Et sic idem est subiectum adequacionis theologie quod a"d ''kewjse of
^ u i metaphysic;
et subiectum dignitatis, et idem subiectum theologie et 5 methaphisice. Sed raciones diversificantur in tribus. Nam but the methods
^ of the two
theologus recte considerat de creatis secundum raciones sciences differ, exemplares quas habent in Verbo, et indirecte secundum existenciam in genere proprio. Ideo non perficietur theo- logia antequam deventum sit ad patriam. Secundo theologus
loadheret fide et auctoritate Scripture cuicumque conclusioni sue sciencie ; ymo, hoc debet explicite, in quantum theo- logus, cognoscere. Tercio theologus humiliter procedit a proprio subiecto maxime, primo, et per se cognito, sed confuse ; minime autem cognito quoad distinctam noticiam
i5quousque ipsum fuerit distincte cognitum in patria. Et ideo ordo theologice non erit reversus in patria, sed devorabit omnes alias sciencias, et deponet preposterum ordinem pro-
C cedendi : econtra autem * de methaphisica. Et patet quod in verbo est sufficiens connexio veritatum, etsi creatura nichil
2osciat nisi dominum lesum Christum et ea que secundum essenciam vel esse intelligible in Filio connectuntur.
CAPITULUM VII. Redeundo igitur ad difficultatem concedunt quidam quod Coutinuatzot!.
I. God cannot
Deus non possit perpetuo continere non producendo aliquam produce another
universe greater
25 creaturam, quia tunc non esset summe communicativus aut ""l '5f than that
^ which now is.
bonus, ut alibi diflfusius disputatur. Sed tenendo multis facilius quod est summa contingencia quoad omne pre- teritum vel futurum, dicitur quod liberrime et contingentissime libertate contradiccionis producit Deus quidquid adextra 30 produxerit, Et cum hoc dicendum est consequenter, quod omnem effectum necesse est fieri necessitate, scilicet, ex
3. theologie quod et sithiectum dignitatis et idem siihiectMH B ." om. A C. 5. diversificaiitnr B : diversijicatas A C. 7. indirecte B : indirecto A C.
1 4 cognito A C : cogtwsco B. 26. JiiuUis B C alt. manu : lacuna in A,
44 DE DOMINIO DIVINO [CAP. VII.
supposicione, et tamen omnis effectus potest contingentissime [14C non fuisse ; ulterius eciam did potest quod, producto mundo, quamlibet partem mundi, sicut quemcunque effectum, necesse est pro suo tempore conproduci, sicut non stat hominem perfectum fieri, nisi concomitanter ad eius complecionem tarn 5 corpus quam anima producatur : sic, inquam, si Deus velit, non potest mundum producere nisi ilium produxerit ex istis partibus ac accidentibus integratum, nedum ad species sed ad individua descendendo. Et cum non potest defectus ex superhabundancia vel peccato in opere primo consistere, cum 10 tunc Deus inpossibiliter oberraret, sequitur quod Deus non potest universitatem aliam, * maiorem vel minorem, producere D cum aliis partibus vel accidentibus quam est aliquod illorum que isto tempore producuntur. 15
Proofs : Quod primo confirmatur de tempore, quo non potest mains
'^- vel aliud esse factum, ut hie supponitur ex alibi declaratis : 6. secundo ex hoc quod non potest esse aliud analogum creatum
c. quod est primum creatum principium huius mundi. Tercio confirmatur ex hoc quod non potest fuisse aliud genus 20 substancie, et per consequens nee genus aliud accidentis : satis namque videtur ad esse huiusmodi generis substancie quod sit creatura huiusmodi de parte potens existere, et
d. differens genus substancie non potest Deus producere. Quarto confirmatur ex hoc quod eadem species fenicis vel alterius 25 imperfecti redit post sui desicionem, cum aliter individuaretur
a tempore vel subiecto, quod est contra racionem universalis : ergo, per locum a sufiicienti similitudine, si Deus anichilaret totum illud genus substancie et iterum recrearet quamcunque substanciam, foret realiter eadem definicio substancie et per 30 consequens idem genus ; et idem videtur de quolibet universali substancie vel accidentis que causat quomodolibet istum
e. mundum. Quinto confirmatur ex sufficiencia generum creature : nam Deus non potest quicquam adextra producere quod nee sit substancia vel accidens, nee substanciam nisi 35 vel corpoream vel incorpoream, nee corpoream nisi vel
6. II sic B f. 21S c. 23. departe AC : dei per se B.
CAP. VII. ] LIBER PRIMUS. 45
14D] animatam vel inanimatam, nee animatam nisi sensibilem vel insensibilem, nee sensibilem nisi racionalem vel irracio- 15A nalem ; * et sic de aliis quibuscunque generibus sive substaneie sive cuiuscunque generis accidentis. Aliter enim genera 5 quecunque essent materiales potencie, vacue a differenciis et speciebus quas possunt causaliter continere ; et possent, sicut accidencia in concrete, vicissim magis et minus suscipere : ut si esset locus qui maiorem naturam corpoream posset suscipere, consequens esset ipsum fore in parte vacuum.
loErgo per idem si genus posset plures formas differenciales vel specificas suscipere, ipsum de tanto esset vacuum, quia formis sibi possibilibus semiplenum. Sexto confirmatur ex f. hoc quod nee plures nee alias species figurarum, numerorum, proporcionum, et similium accidencium potest Deus pro-
isducere quam iam effectualiter producuntur. Cum ergo par sit racio utrobique terminandi divinam potenciam, scilicet, quod facit incorrigibiliter opus suum, sequitur quod in nullo genere alias species potest producere. Et confirmacio illius est conceptus philosophorum ponencium species substanciarum
20 et aliorum generum assimilari numeris mathematicis : sic, videlicet, quod sicut inter unitatem et binarium, ymo inter quoscunque numeros proximos, non potest alius in specie mediare ; sic et in speciebus substaneie. Et patet de racione, admissis diffinicionibus philosophorum quas attribuunt spe-
25 ciebus : unde ad tantam penuriam deducuntur aliqui, quod dicunt nichil esse proprie diffinibile, nee quod est dare ullimam differenciam speciei ; contra quos est alias sufificienter
B replicatum, querendo quid sequitur, data* bonitate difiinicionis specierum et generum secundum sentencias antiquorum.
30 Septimo confirmatur ex consideracione logica de communi- g- tate et significacione terminorum communium. Nam, iuxta opinantes oppositum, omnem hominem quem Deus potest producere signat iste terminus homo, et econtra ; sed, iuxta illos, infinitos homines potest producere ; ergo infinitos iste
35 terminus hojuo significat.
2. n/si AC: a/si-re^B. 23. \[ 7-acione B {. 2180. 35. significat \C: signat B.
46 DE DOMINIO DIVINO [CAP. VII.
2. Could the Ex quo videntur inconveniencia tria sequi : primo quod [15B
world be of in- _ ^ . . . . ■
finite magnitude? infinitum maguus potest esse mundus, quia simul infinitorum equalium non communicancium contentivus. Quotquot enim Deus potest successive producere, tot suscitatos potest simul beatificare ; quo posito, in esse foret mundus infinitus sim- 5 pliciter quaquaversum : quod suppono impossibile simpliciter «• ex alibi declaratis. Si enim tot homines septipedales incom- municantes forent in quarta mundi orientali quot sunt puncta in nostra quarta nunc de facto, et sic de tribus aliis quartis mundi, adhuc tantum forent finiti homines sicut iam sunt 10 tantum finita puncta constituencia molem mundi : ergo, cum hec non sinit primus numerus propter inconveniens implicatum, multo magis non sineret esse tot et tantos
b. homines multitudine infinitos. Secundo confirmatur ex hoc quod, posita hominum multitudine infinita, adhuc non 15 valeret, nisi quilibet eorum posset hominem producere quern actualiter non producit ; et sic possibile esset fore infinicies infinitos, ymo infinicies infinicies infinitos, et sic in infinitum :
c. ymo tercio, cum * non sit dare omnes quos Deus potest C producere, quod esset quod non sit dare omnes quos terminus 20 significat, et per consequens nee communitatem vel gradum inferioritatis aut superioritatis termini cuiuscumque, nee com- municabilitatem maximam speciei, contra alibi determinata. Unde videtur quod sit dare mensuram mediam inter quan- titatem fabe et magnitudinem infinitam, tanquam duo ex- 25 trema improporcionabilia moli mundi, in qua mensura sit optimum mundum poni, et sic de numero individuorum cuiuslibet speciei. Et cum Deus infinite sapiencie disponit omnia in mensura, yiumero, et pottdere, philosophicum videtur ponere quod Deus omnia sic posuit in eff"ectu : sic, videlicet, 30 quod, si superadderet, foret monstrum, et si diminueret, foret fabrica defectiva. •
Ex quibus probabiliter credi potest quod, si Deus mundum produxerit, tunc ipsum mundum et omnia que sunt eius
21. significat AC : signat B. 29. Sap xi. 2\.
CAP. VTI.] LIBER PRIMUS. 47
15C] mensural ad banc regulam. Nee illud obstat infinitati divine potencie sed pocius banc includit ; quia potencia Dei, cum non sit sibi accidens, non mensuratur vel causatur pro- porcionabiHter ad obiectum, sicut quelibet areata potencia
Sdiffinitur in suis Hmitibus ab increata sapiencia, secundum proporcionem quam eternaliter ordinaverit ad aUum. Eadem quidem est in Deo potencia et sapiencia, qua adintra pro- ducitur Verbum et Spiritus sanctus, et adextra produ- citur mundus, conservatur, et sapientissime gubernatur. Et
D per consequens, sicut sapiencia deficeret * in gubernando macbinam infinitam, sic et potencia ad creandum. Potencia ergo creata est eo maior, quo plus est factibile per eandem : non sic potencia infinita ; cum tunc non esset dare maximum gradum divine potencie, sicut (iuxta adversarios) non est dare
iseffectum maximum in quem potest. Sed, ut alias declaravi, tales potencie producunt adintra res simpliciter sibi pares, et creature possunt adextra, cum iuvamine prime potencie, pro- ducere effectus se ipsos in aliquo excedentes. Potencia autem increata ex immensitate sue perfeccionis ad parem sibi eflfectum
20 non potest attingere. Ideo fatuum est credere effectum posse mensurari divinam potenciam. Quoad alios obiectus contra istam sentenciam, suppono esse alibi plerumque expeditum.
Sed bee dicta videntur gravem difficultatem metbapbisicam 3- Could the
world have been
parturire ; videlicet, si mundus iste non possit produci sine produced without
25 lapsu primi angeli et primi bominis, et per consequens sine*^]^^'j?"»*^'^^^^ °^
boc quod vermes et alia animalia venenosa secundum iam
currentem ordinem procreentur. Et videtur dupliciter ex dato
sequi pars affirmativa dubii : primo per boc quod iste mundus
non posset esse sine istis partibus et omnibus istis acciden-
30 tibus positivis ; secundo per hoc quod pereunte quacunque
specie bestiarum foret genus animal, et per consequens omne
genus superius, minus plenum. Sed pro isto videtur quod sic
opinans concederet conclusionem, cum Deus eternaliter ordi-
16A navit suum carcerem cum aliis que secuntur,* ut patet posterius.
6. ad alhan B: ohiectuvi AC. 7. \\ ef sapiencia B f. 219 A. 20. non
potest am. B. 23. hec AC: hie 'B. 30. quacunqiie'B: qnaniumamqjie hQ.
31. animal XC: anirnalis H,
4^ DE DOMINIO DIVINO [CAP. VII.
%.^/*)'!'J"'''=Jfi'^ Verumtamen difficultas non modica stat in distinctione [16A
aist!nctio?i of '-
""^■^- specifica naturarum. Videtur enim multis quod omnis
substancia corporea sit eiusdem speciei specialissime, sicut et omnis creata substancia incorporea convenit specialissime cum quacunque. Nam omnia elementa conveniunt in essencia 5 corporea, et per consequens in corporeitate ; et cum omne adveniens enti in actu sit accidens, videtur quod omnis disposicio adveniens nature corporee, sive qualitas seu vo- cata forma substancialis, ut igneitas et cetera, sit pure accidens. Illud autem confirmari potest eo quod in trans- 10 mutacione elementorum simbolorum manet eadem qualitas, cum aliter non esset transmutacio facilior, contra philosophum, primo de Generacione capitulo — . Et idem videtur de quantitate, continuacione, et aliis multis formis accidentalibus, que manent in utroque generacionis termino, quas notum est 15 presupponere eandem substanciam in numero conmanere. Nee differunt specifice elementorum difterencie, ut loca, levitas, gravitas, cum ceteris que maxime videntur inferre differenciam specificam naturarum. Et de mixtis videtur idem probabile : nam omne mixtum est aggregatum ex 20 dementis, et potest manere idem aggregatum ex dementis secundum aliam maneriem miscendi paululum variatis ad qualemcunque formam superadditam producendum : ex quo videtur quod quelibet natura mixta, sicut potest in aliam transmutari, sic est eiusdem speciei. Aliter enim non foret 25 idem corpus * conversum in formam aliam, ut uxor B Loth in statuam salis (Gen. xix. 26); et meminit Au- gustinus in De Mirabilibus Scripture sacre capitulo — . Unde secundum Augustinum quodlibet corpus converii in
18. post ieiiitas B et inserit. 21. ex om. B. 27. H uxor B f. 219 b.
13. The reference may be to more than one place in Arist. de Gener. et Corrupt i ; Init Wycliffe probably had in his mind the following place from book ii. 4, "Oaa jxiv yap (x^i avfj,l3o\a npijs a\XT]\a. Ta\fia rovTOJV rj (xeialiaais, oca S€ fxr] f ^f PpaSeia, Sia to paov tivai to tv ij Tci TToWd ixfTuBaWdv : p. 331 a. It is curious that av/xPoXov whence Wycliffe makes his adjective seems not to occur in the Latin version of Aristotle.
28. Pseudo-August, de Mirab. s. Script, i. 12, Opp. 3. app. 9 P, C
CAP. vn,] LIBER PRIMUS. 49
16B] quodlibct est satis possibile ; corpus autem converti in spiritum, vel econtra, est impossibile. Quid, queso, novum foret si Deus minucias elementorum secundum alium ordinem conpangeret, ut alie forme superaddite resultarent ? Revera 5 nichil, nisi quod eadem multitudo sit aliter inmutativa sen- suum, quod est qualitas sensibilis : et sic de aliis accidentibus variatis, ut complexione, virtute, etc. Unde illam ean- dem multitudinem esse corpus, quasi habitualiter fundatum ad qualitates huiusmodi et cetera accidencia conservandum,
loponitur forma substancialis superaddita penes philosophos : quod cum accidat corpori potest racionabiliter vocari prima disposicio accidentalis qua movetur corpus ad alia accidencia subiectandum. Et istam reor esse sentenciam antiquorum ponencium latitacionem omnium formarum in chaos con-
15 fuso, ut recitat Aristoteles primo Phisicorum, primo de Generacione, et alibi multis locis. Conveniencius autem videtur sensui Scripture, verbis Aristotelis, atque vulgi, vocare illas primas disposiciones huiusmodi attomorum per quas multitudo conservat quantitatem et qualitatem et cetera
20 genera accidentis, formas substana'ales, que a signo nos-
cuntur specifice variari secundum variacionem accidencium
C sensibilium que ipsas naturaliter consecunlur. Et sic * sunt
multe species animalium et herbarum, ut dicit Scriptura ;
multe eciam elementorum species, sicut et mineralium, lapi-
25 dum, et eciam metallorum, Sensus autem utriusque posicionis videtur philosophicus sane aptus, quia omnes substancie cor- poree, quoad essenciam precedentem genus, quantitatem, vel communem qualitatem, sunt paris condicionis, sicut et omnes substancie incorporee adinvicem conveniunt : sed post ad-
30 venit forma vel disposicio substancialis faciens quid, et sic oportet nos hie plurimum tam formas substanciales quam species ignorare ; quia, cum cognoscimus substancias, ut plurimum, in suis accidentibus, capimus communiter loco
12. qua titflvetiir conieci : codd. qua7it. 17. vocare B : om. AC. 10. formas B - : fortne A B ' C. 27. quantitatcju A C : quiditatcm B. 28. paris A B mg. C : paries B text. 32. ignorare om. B.
15. Arist. Phys. i. 4 p. 187 ; De Gener, et Connpt. i. i p. 314.
E
50 DE DOMINIO DIVINO [cAP. VIII.
essencialis differencie accidens separabile vel passionem, [lec quorum utrumque est subiecto posterius. De aliquibus autem, ut homine et bestiis, discerni potest differencia ; sed inter irracionabilia, mixta, et elementa est discrecio solum topica, sicut et inter angelos. 5
CAPITULUM VIII.
Second Princi- Secundo principaliter obicitur de prioritate divini dominii
PAL Difficulty.
Is God's lordship quoad creaturam universalem super dominio sui singularis.
of the universal '■ i >j
prior to his lord- Vidctur enim econtra quod dominium singularis sit altero
ship of the par- ^ '-'
ticuiar? dominio dato prius ; quia impossibile est dominium rei univer- lo
salis alicui accidere nisi consequenter ad dominium singularis : cum ergo communis causa efficiens sit prius naturaliter sue causato, sequitur quod singularis dominium originans antece-
I. FitzRaiph dit. Et ista est racio conclusionis domini Ardmacani, primo
denies this ;
de Pauperie Salvatoris, xxi. capitulo, asserentis quod species 15 non possunt in*mediate recipere divinum dominium, quiaD non possunt creari, conservari, etc., nisi mediantibus suis but the affirma- suDDOsitis. Sed ad illud patet ex dictis : nam proporci-
tive answer is '^ ^ ^ ^ ^
true in respect ofQj^^iitgj. ^^ universale ad suum singulare se habet in ordine, 20
its formal and " ' ■'^
final meaning, gj^, dominium ad dominium se habebit. Unde, sicut singulare precedit generacione vel secundum genus cause materialis suum communius, cum sit pars subiectiva de qua universale formaliter predicatur ; econtra autem universale, ut forma et finis, causat in alia manerie singulare : correspondenter de 25 dominiis est dicendum. Prius quidem generacione et sub- iecto est dominium singulare, sed prius formaliter et finaliter est commune : et cum causa posterior generacione sit simpli- citer dignior atque prior, vere et signanter dicitur quod Deus primo omnium communissimo dominatur. Et sicut illi 30 dominatur racione dominii particularium, ut causarum ; sic econtra quocunque singulari dominatur racione dominii uni-
3. ei B: cm. AC. 9. si'/tgn/aris BC: singulare A. 10. dato prius A'
h C,: prius dato A^. 13. siiigutaris 3 : singulare AC. 21. || Unde
B f. 219c, 22. generacione AC: generative B.
14. R. FitzRaiph, de Paup. Salv. i. 21 f. 9 d.
CAP. VIII.] LIBER PRIMUS. 5I
l6D]versalis essencialiter hoc causantis. Unde singulare est per accidens et incompleta causa cuiuscumque sui suppositi necessario requisita. Et correspondenter de dominiis est dicendum. Nee est putandum quod dominacio Dei qua 5 universalibus dominatur non sit singularis, cum sit t ilium dominium taliter dominari ; sed est universalis quoad obiectum et servicium correlatum. Et si obicitur quod Deus non utitur re communi, cum actus sunt suppositorum solummodo, dicitur quod Deus maximum usum habet de rebus communi-
10 bus, cum sibi subserviunt ad causandum quccunque sua sup-
i7Aposita et per consequens ad causandum * omnia que sua
supposita consecuntur. Sed non ex hoc sequitur quod res
communis currit, ambulat, vel forma aliqua sui individui in-
formatur, ut Deus causat motum, generacionem, et breviter
15 quamlibet formam creatam ; sicut et quamlibet creaturam, licet non secundum formas huiusmodi informetur. Non enim est precise idem currere et cursum causari, quia tunc curreret obiectum, anima, et quidlibet iuvans animal ad currendum. Universalia ergo, cum faciunt utilissime, efficacissime, et
20 regulatissime illud quod debent, indefectibiliter serviunt Deo suo : et per consequens Deus de eis habet usum uberrimum, sicut superius, constancius, et sibi similius ipsa sustentat, dirigit, et gubernat. Universale namque est in pluribus locis simul, ymo universale substancie, puncti, et corporis, et huiusmodi,
25 quorum singularia sunt insuper universalia, ingenerabilia, et incorruptibilia, et per consequens intransmutabilia et eterna, et sic de multis condicionibus laudabilibus quibus Deo supra supposita simulantur ; utputa quod habent minus racionem substancie, quod sunt magis simplicia, et per consequens plus
30 attingencia unitatem, quod minus habent de causabilitate, et sic de multis condicionibus quas non expedit hie narrare.
Ex quibus sequitur quod solus Deus habet super univer- 2- God alone
^ ^ ^ ^ has full lordship
salia plenum dominium. Creatura namque non potest per- o^^"" *''^ ""'• fectam speciem generare, corrumpere, vel aliter immutare ad
12. ex hoc KC: exhinc^. 13. informal nr : codd. inforinettir.
10. Cf. de civ. Dom. i. 14 p. 97. E 2
52 DE DOMINIO DIVINO [cAP. VIII.
sibi uliliter serviendum. Et hinc mirantur aliqui, quomodo in [17A co*mutacionibus potest universale alicui homini subservire, B ut sit de possessione vel dominio singularis. Videtur enim quod usus universalium a creatura qualibet sit suspensus, cum nee possunt agere nee pati. Sed constat quod communia 5 . naturalia usibilia et artificialia, ut apparatus, utensilia, et moneta, sunt nota cadere sub possessione hominum, et de eis cambium fieri empcione, vendicione, promissione, accepcione, et ceteris actibus dominii posterius recitandis. Sic enim stat hominem emere equum vel aliud artificiale usibile, et soluta 10 pecunia acquirere sibi ius atque dominium ad crementum vel decrementum possessionis vel dominii precedentis, sine hoc quod aliquod singulare ab alterutro commutancium specialiter intendatur. Ubi patet quod, dato iure divino in novacione dominii vel quacunque habitudine pertinenti, dandum est 15 obiectum ad quod principaliter terminatur ; et non superest nisi commune, de quo principaliter fiunt actus huiusmodi commutandi. Cum ergo Deus ordinat species huiusmodi homini subservire, sequitur ex descripcione dominii quod homo speciebus huiusmodi secundum aliquid dominatur. 20 Serviunt quidem in hoc quod sunt supposita que ministrant, et ipsa supposita causant tamquam intrinsece quiditates. 3. u/man's Ex quo patct quod homo, ut dominatur maiori multitudini
lordship cz'er
thbiss coniiiicn. bcstiarum, numismatum, vel cuiuscumque talis usibilis, sic illi communi amplius et multiplicius dominatur. * Ideo C consonat dare speciem quam quis proprius habuit, quia homo potest possidere speciem multis titulis et iuribus uberius sive exilius. Unde idem est sic instare sophistice, ac si sic argue- retur, ' Tu habes bovem, ergo nee potes super hoc recipere, ' nee debeo tibi bovem.' Idem enim in specie potest de 30 essendo esse mihi debitum, et tamen satis multipliciter habitum, sicut constat. Unde dominium quod homo habet de tali specie est singulare secundum subiectum et universale quoad obiectum, ut dictum est de dominio divino ; sed dififerenter, quia Deus non potest esse dominus speciei nisi 35
7. 7!ofa XC: nafa h. 9. |] rt'ow/V/Z/Bf. 219D. 14. di^'iiio A.C: dominio 'Q.
CAP. VIII.] LIBER PRIiNUJS. 53
17C] eo ipso fuerit dominus cuiuscumque eius individui. Homo autem est dominus parcialis unius accidentis vel aggregati per accidens specie striccioris ; ut homo non ex hoc quod dominatur homini dominatur cuilibet individui speciei, sed 5 satis est quod ahcui individuo vel consequenter servo sue dominetur. Credo tamen quod nemo vere dominatur et ewangelice speciei nisi unicuique eius individuo dominetur. Sic enim homo secundum animam sibi ipsi secundum corpus disposite dominatur. Ymo, cum idem spiritus ministrare
lopoterit sibi ipsi, non obest quod sit sibi dominus et servus secundum dispares raciones ; Christus autem secundum hominem assumptum est servus servorum ; et iusti (ut post dicetur) sunt omnia. Dominium ergo iusti super speciem monete, asini, sive equi est dominium super quodcunque eius
15 individuum, cum species sit quodlibet singulare. Et illi do-
D * minio correspondet universale servicium quod communica- cione speciei est servicium cuiuslibet singularis. Et hoc plane testatur apostolus in i Cor. iii. 22, 23, de iustis Dei; Omnia, inquit, vestra sunt: et specificat singularia ; Sive, in-
20 quit, Paulus, sive Apollo, sive Cephas, sive mundiis^ sive vita, sive mors, sive presencia, sivefutura ; omnia enim vestra sunt ; vos autem Christi ; Christus autem Dei. Ex quo textu patet, ex octavo et ultimo singulari, de futuris bonis beatitudinis, quod apostolus sensit omnia preterita vel futura esse tempore
25 suo presencia, iuxta illud Eccles. iii. i, Otnnia tempus habeiit et suis spaciis transeunt universa sub sole. Et idem indubie patet ex quolibet libro Scripture canonice. Aliter enim non diceret apostolus, i ad Thim. vi, 14, 15, Serves mandatum irreprehensihile usque in adventum doinini nostri lesu Christi,
30 que7n suis temporibus ostendet Beatus. Et consimile habetur i ad Thim. ii. 6 cum locis similibus.
Sed redeundo conceditur quod dominium quod habet homo
6. dominetur A C : om. B. 24. || tempore B f. 220 a. 30. ostendet :
ont A C : ostendit B.
12. Iusti . . sunt omnia: so De Civ. Dom. i. 9 p. 6}, cf. cap. 7 passim.
54 DE DOMTNIO DIVINO [cAP. VIII.
4. Of man's lord- dc specic cst dominium quod confuse habet de eius quolibet [17D
ship over the . . • 1 1 1 ...
species. smgulari. Et preter illud commune dommmm oportet dare
singulare dominium secundum utrumque terminum, respectu cuiuscumque individui, proprium et distinctum dominium sin- gulare, et correspondenter servicium. Idem enim dominium 5 speciei manet quocunque individuo desinente : non sic autem dominium ad individuum singularitatis terminatum. Et patet * quod species humani dominii habet duplicem maneriemlSA singularis, scilicet, individuati solum ab altero terminorum dominii, vel communiter ab utroque; et utrumque priorum 10 restringitur citra specificatum quoad extremum individuans, et quoad aliud ampliatur, Sed tercia maneries est simpliciter singularis ; ut, signato dominio specifico per a quo quid- quid dominatur speciei humane, tunc a est dominium Petri, Pauli, et sic de ceteris dominantibus quibuscunque : signato 1 5 vero dominio quo Petrus singulariter dominatur eidem per b, ipsum B non communicatur dominiis aliis in subiecto, sed totidem distinctis dominis quoad obiectum super quo per ilia principaliter dominatur ; ut b est dominium quo Petrus dominatur singulariter super Paulum, et sic de aliis quibus- 20 cunque. Posito ergo quod c sit nomen commune ad quodlibet singulare tercii nudi dominii, patet quod quotcunque sunt quoad obiectum individua a speciei dominii, totidem, quan- tum ad obiectum, sunt b modi ; sed a excedit b multipliciter in subiecto. Et correspondenter dicitur de paternitate, simili- 25 tudine, et aliis consimilibus relacionibus quibuscunque : ut, posito quod Petrus habeat multitudinem filiorum, sicut omnes posteri sunt filii primi Adam, tunc quotquot sunt homines secundi, tot sunt paternitates individue in primo homine ; et preter hoc est una communis paternitas, qua est pater tocius 30 generis succedentis. Aliter enim * non diceret Veritas ludeis, b loh. viii. 37, 6'r/b (inquit) quod filii Abrahe estis ; et beata Virgo, Luc. i. 55, Sicut loaitus est ad patres nostras, Abraha?n et sef?iifii eius. Ymo de filiacione Adam, ecce, I Cor. xv. 2 2 : Sicut in Adam omnes honmies moriuntur, ita et in Christo n
24. post obieitutn B attinet habet.
CAP. IX.] LIBER PRIMUS. 55
18B'\omnes vivificabiinttir . Ipse enim est pater infectus omnium posteiiorum, ut patet 2 Reg. vii. 14, Eccl. iv,, Eccli. xl. i, ubi dicitur quod Occicpacio magna creata est omnibus hominibus, et iugum grave super filios Adatn. Et consimile patet Ozee xi. i, 6 et pluries in Scriptura quam hie expedit recitare. Communis ergo paternitas ad obiectum est quelibet singularis paternitas ipsius Adam ad filium singularem ; et tamen secundum raci- onem distinguitur, sicut universale distinguitur a suo suppo- sito : et correspondenter de habitudinibus domini est dicendum.
10 Est enim una communis adopcio paternalis que est omnis Dei adopcio. Verumtamen tenetur communiter quod tantum una est paternitas Dei, sicut et una filiacio quoad Christum ; cum tantum sit una persona gignens eterna, et tantum una persona genita: verum tamen alia filiacione est filius Vir-
15 ginis et alia loseph patris legittimi putativi. Et sic tribus filiacionibus multum equivocis est Christus filius, quibus propter equivocacionem non est una communis. Et sic cor- respondenter multiplicantur filiaciones quoad patres proximos et remotos, sicut dictum est de paternitatibus correlatis : et
20 de istis patet tractatu de Incarnacione Verbi.
C *CAPITULU]M IX.
Tercio principaliter obicitur per hoc quod essencia videtur Third Prinxipai,
Difficulty.
prior quam esse, sicut multi moderniores doctores consenciunt : is essentia prior
'^ 'to esse ?
ymo, mundus est prius quam genus analogum, quia finis, 25 gracia cuius hoc genus producitur ut pars integrans suum totum. Nee tollitur difficultas per supradicta de ente creato primo analogo, quia in Deo adintra signanda est tanta mulli- tudo racionum exemplarium et longe plurium veritatum quam effectualiter sunt adextra; ergo commune ad hec omnia est
S. post hie A C non addunt. 9. || de B f. 220 b. 27. adinira B : abintra A C.
20. De Incarn. Verbi (printed under the title De benedicta Incam.) ix. pp. 156 seq., ed. Harris.
56
DE DOMINIO DIVINO
[cap. TX.
I. Anszuer : a. Distinction between esse and essentia.
ens summe analogum. Et cum idem sit ydea et ydeatum, [18C videtur quod sit unum commune analogum communicatum cunctis exemplaribus adintra et cunctis adextra effectualiter exemplatis.
Ad primum non occurrit michi adhuc racio quin quodlibet 5 esse sit essencia, et econtra, et tamen in quolibet create esse et essenc'a distingwuntur. Non enim capio quod creata essencia sit quoddam potenciale capiens esse in fluxum posterius tamquam actum, que quidem essencia non sit esse : quia, si ilia essencia pro illo priori habet esse, eo quod esse ^° est commune ad omne esse intelligibile, et esse possibile creature, multo magis ad esse possibile creatum, et certum est quod illud esse, quod habet data essencia pro dicto priori, non distingwitur ab ilia essencia ; ergo aliquod esse est pro quacunque mensura signabili data essencia. Nee 15 oppositum adhuc video. * Si autem intelligatur quod essencia D divina distinguitur ab esse creato, ut fundamentum a suo effectu in se producto, patulum est et nulli perito dubium. Si secundo intelligatur quod omne individuum creature habet priorem communem essenciam communicabilitate 20 distinctam, sensus est patulus sicut prior. Quod si tercio intelligatur quod omnis creatura habet esse creatum analogum quod precedit quodcunque esse creatum in suo genere, est sentencia satis sana ; ut essencia materialis est prius essencia quam est materia, et prius est materia vel potencia ad formam 25 quam est substancialis forma, et per consequens essencia prius est essencia quam ipsum est substancia. Et si queritur quid est pro illo priori, patet quod non est quid, sed ens creatum pro illo priori, non autem aliquid ; sed non potest stare in ilia nuda entitate nisi consequatur pro instanti nature 30 quiditas vel forma substancialis, ut patet alibi. Restringendo ergo abusive esse ad formam vel actum substancialem, colo- rari poterit predicta posicio. Sed esse est communissimum, cum de multis veritatibus predicamus esse, ut negacionibus, privacionibus, pretericionibus, futuricionibus, et possibili- 35
23. esse A C : omne B, 24. essencia bis B C : esse A. 34. || predicamus B f. 220 c.
CAP. IX.J LIBER PRIMUS. S^
18D] tatibus logicis, que non sunt formaliter quevis essencie. Ideo, si alterum istorum foret communius, evidencius caderet super esse. Nunc autem quodlibet esse est vel formaliter vel essencialiter predicando essencia, et econtra ; ut veritates
19A eterne sunt essencialiter prima essencia, licet formaliter * dis- tingwuntur ; privaciones vero sunt essencie per se in genere sic private : solum quidem divina essencia, creata substancia, vel accidens per se in genere est essencia, ut patet alibi.
Ouod si ex isto deducitur quod quelibet creatura habet ^-^'^ esse actuaie
^ . three/old.
lo triplex esse actuale, conceditur conclusio : habet enim esse actuale analogum extra genus, antequam habeat subsisten- ciam in genere, secundum quod esse est ens unum, verum, et bonum, correspondenter passionatum extra genus ad no- taciones increate Trinitatis : unum, a primo principio, Deo
15 patre, sicut unitas est principium quantitatis discrete, que est prima species accidentis ; verum, a Verbo, quod est actus vel forma potencie adequata, et per consequens prima Veritas, et hinc relacio est genus proximum accidentis ; tercio est bonum, ab Amore mutuo vel quietacione ex potencia prime
20 essencie et ex noscencia equaliter precedente. Et sicut in Trinitate increata nichil est natura prius aut posterius, sed omnia hec tria sunt eadem essencia, ac omnia et singula coeterna ; sic in creatura omnia ista tria, unitas, Veritas, et bonitas, sunt eadem essencia vel natura, et per consequens
25 nullum illorum est alteri passio natura prius aut posterius, sed omnia sunt eadem essencia et coeva. Et hinc tercium genus accidentis, scilicet, qualitas, exemplatur. Alia autem sex principia dicunt habitudinem substancie in quantitate, in
B ad aliquid, et qualitate fundatam ; * ut accio et passio pre-
30 supponit qualitatem ; tria alia quantitatem, et habere relacio- nem : ymo, quodlibet predicamentum posterius presupponit naturaliter suum prius. Nee putandum est quod una persona divina potest quidquam facere si reliqua non coagat cum eadem ; cum omnia opera Trinitatis sunt necessario in-
10, triplex A C : duplex B. 13. notaciones B ; iiocos AC.
1