v. 1. A man can give dominion to his natural or adopted son, whether that dominion be temporal or eternal, ministerially only. This is plain from hence, that every man ought to acknowledge himself in all his works an humble minister of God, as is evident from Scripture: Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ. Nay, Christ himself so ministered, and taugbt his principal apostles so to minister. But in their own country the saints will give to their brethren the dominion of goods, as is plain from their acting in the body, or their disposal of inferior good things by nature, according to that of Luke vi.: Good measure, pressed down and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom.
This article, and the preceding, relate to an obscure topic, and they are not much elucidated by the sort of explanation attached to them. The doctrine to which they refer is that of “dominion founded in grace,” of which mention is made in a preceding portion of this work.
v. 1. If God is, temporal lords may lawfully and meritoriously take away the goods of fortune from a delinquent church. That conclusion is correlative with the first article of the Creed, I believe in God, the Father Almighty. 1 understand the word may as the Scriptures do, which grant that God may of stones raise up children unto Abraham; for otherwise all Christian princes should be heretics. For the first conclusion the argument is thus formed. If God is, he is Almighty; and if so, he may prescribe to temporal lords to take away the goods of fortune from a delinquent church; and if he does thus. prescribe. to them, they may lawfully so take them away. Ergo, from whence, in virtue of that principle, have Christian princes put in
[Life and Opinions of Wycliffe, i. 381—888.]
xliv FACTS AND OBSERVATIONS practice that opinion. But God forbid that from thence it should be believed, that it was my meaning that secular lords may lawfully take them away when and howsoever they please, or by their bare autho rity; but that they may only do it by the authority of the church in cases and form limited by law.
Concerning the doctrine of Wycliffe on the subject to which this article refers, it is necessary to look to the sixth, the sixteenth, and the seventeenth articles together. In these articles, taken collectively, he is accused of teaching, that all church endowments are left conditionally; that if the clergy fail to apply their wealth to the end which it was designed to promote, it must devolve on the magistrate to enforce such an application of it; and that, in every such case, the civil power is not only authorised so to do, but, if needful to the reformation of the order, to deprive churchmen of their possessions entirely, and this notwithstanding any censures from the church which might be fulminated against them. Such is the doctrine which Wycliffe is described as holding with regard to the enormous wealth of the clergy and of the religious orders; and in his paper, given to the papal delegates, this doctrine, instead of being denied, evaded, or soft ened down, is fully avowed as a part of his creed. With the prelacy of England as his judges, and the papal power as their ally, he does not fear to add, that if there be any difference between the obligations of the magistrate to secure the just application of civil or ecclesiastical endowments, his duty to that end in the latter case is even more binding than in the former, inasmuch as the mischiefs consequent on any mal-administration in the matter of ecclesiastical endowments are the more momentous. In the theory of Wycliffe, the last appeal in respect to all such questions was to the crown, and not to the mitre. The temporal power of the pope was denied, not merely in respect to the property of the state, but in respect to the property of the church. In his view, the pontiff who claimed such powers aimed at usurpation; and the clergy who in any way ceded such power to the papacy, did so at the risk of a just allegiance to their sovereign and their country. It was natural, we repeat, that injunction should have been given against the publication of such doctrines ’ in schools or pulpits.”
CONCERNING THE LIFE OF WYCLIFFE. xlv The next article in the pope’s schedule is here omitted, and lo. VIII. follows, which is here numbered the Seventh. VIL We know that it is not possible that the vicar of Christ, merely f his bulls, or by them together with his own will and consent, and that of his Mlege of cardinals, can qualify or disable any man. This is plain from the atholic faith; since it behoves our Lord in every vicarious operation » maintain the primacy. Therefore, as in every qualifying of a sub- «ct, it is first required that the subject to be qualified, be meet and rorthy; so in every disqualification there is first required a deserving om some demerit of the person thus disqualified, and, by consequence, ach qualifying or disqualifying is not made purely by the ministry of he vicar of Christ, but from above, from elsewhere, or from some ther This article, and the seven articles following, relate to one ubject—the spiritual power of the clergy. VIII Jt is not possible that a man should be excommunicated to his amage, unless he be excommunicated first and principally by himself. This plain; since such an excommunication must be originally founded n the sin of the party damaged. From whence Augustine, in his went- first sermon on the words of the Lord: Do thou, says he, not ususe thyself, and man shall not get the better of thee. And to this day 1e faith of the church sings, No adversity shall do us any hurt, if Hquity does not prevail. Notwithstanding, all excommunication is to e dreaded on many accounts, even although the excommunication of 1e church be, to the humble excommunicate, not damnable but wholeome. IX. Nobody ought, except in the cause of God, to excommunicate, spend, or interdict any one, or to proceed according to any ecclesiastical mesure by way of revenge. This appears from hence, that every just suse is the cause of God, to which chiefly respect ought to be had. lay, a love for the excommunicate ought to exceed a zeal or desire of avenge, and an affection for any temporal things; since, otherwise, ven he that excommunicates injures himself. To this ninth conclusion ‘e add, that it is agreeable to it, that a prelate should excommunicate 1 human causes, but principally on this account, because an injury is one to his God. 18. 9. c. inter querelas. X. Cursing or excommunication does not bind, finally, only as far as is used against an adversary of the law of Christ. This is plain, since is God that binds absolutely every one that is bound, who cannat