The repressor of over much blaming of the clergy.

iiij. CHAPITER.

THE iiij^e. principal conclusioun concernyng and bi|holding the seid iiij^e. principal gouernaunce is this: Holi Scripture bothe in the Oold Testament and in the Newe allowith the seid iiij^e. principal gouernaunce. That this conclusioun is trewe, y may proue bi ij. principal argumentis, of which oon is this: In the Oold Testament God ordeyned oon bischop to be aboue in reule and iurisdiccion to alle the preestis and dekenis, and so to alle the clergie in Goddis chirche being thanne; euen as the pope is now oon persoon aboue in reule and in iurisdiccioun to alle preestis and dekenys and to al the clergie in the chirche of God being now, as it is open. And so, thouȝ bicause al the cuntre in which the Iewis in tho daies dwelliden was not but litil, (for it was not so large as is the rewme of pure Englond,) and preestis and dekenis weren fewe thanne in noumbre, it was no nede that manie bischopis schulden be thanne upon dyuerse multitudis of preestis, and that manie archibischopis schulden be thanne upon dyuerse multitudis of bischopis; and nede askith now among Cristen men forto so be, bi cause that Cristen men occupien now manie rewmes and biȝende grete sees and a this side grete sees, and therfore as ther

yn the now seid dyuersitie of thilk oold politik go|uernaunce werneth not neither contrarieth this newe politik gouernaunce;—ȝit the politik gouernaunce being thanne in the oold clergie and the politik gouer|naunce being now in the newe clergie accorden in this, that aboue preestis and dekenys be a bischop, and aboue the al hool clergie be oon heed, being oon persoon and hiȝest of al the clergie; and so thilk oold politik gouernaunce ordeyned bi God him silf allowith and approueth and helpith to conferme this newe iiij^e. politik gouernaunce vsid and had in the clergie of the chirche now being. Certis no text or processe of the old lawe can be founde forto in eny worth sowne aȝens this bifore rehercid politik gouernaunce of ouerte and netherte in the clergie of the Cristen chirche; and if eny such text or processe be pretendid to so sowne, lete him come forth and schewe him silf, that to him be maad answere.

That Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament allowith this same now seid gouernaunce, y mai proue thus: Holi Writt of the Newe Testament makith mensioun, Iohun firste chapiter, that Crist seide to Symount Petir thus: Thou art Symount the sone of Iohanna, thou shalt be clepid Cephas, or heed; and thanne Iohun settith to this, "which is interpretid, Petir;" and i^e. Cor. ix^e. capitulum. in the bigynnyng, and i^e. Cor. xv^e. capitulum. in the bigynnyng, and Galat. ij^e. capitulum. toward the myddis, Poul clepid Peter Cephas; and as Ierom witnessith,

Cephas is no word of Hebrew, but it is a word of Grew, in which langage it is as myche to seie as heed; and it is also a word of Sire tunge, in which it is as miche to seie as fundament, or ground, or stable. Thanne her vpon y argue thus: Peter was heed, in the maner in which noon of the othere Apos|tlis was heed: for ellis cause hadde be noon good, whi Crist schulde haue seid so singulerli to him and not to othere thus: Thou schalt be callid heed; and herwith it is trewe, that no thing is an heed but of sum certeyn bodi; wherfore of sum bodi Petir was heed, of which bodi noon of the othere apostlis was heed. And ferther thus: This bodi was not other than peple; wherfore of peple Peter was heed, in maner in which noon other Apostle was heed. And sithen ech Apostle was heed of oon certeyn parcel of peple, or ellis of alle the lay peple of the world iointli with hise felawis, it folewith nedis that Petir was heed of al the clergie, and so of alle preestis and of al the lay partie; for in noon other wise it can be ȝouun that he was heed in a dyuers and different maner fro ech other Apostle, and in which maner noon other Apostle was heed.

Which thing thus concludid and proued had and grauntid, it is to be argued ferther therof thus: Peter was heed of the chirche of God in erthe, for ellis the bifore sett wordis of Crist seid to Peter, Iohun i^e. capitulum., hadden not be trewe. Wherfore Peter was thus heed, whilis Crist lyued here in erthe; or ellis aftir Cristis ascencioun, whilis Petir in his owne persoon lyued; or ellis he was thus heed in hise successouris, after that Peter was deed. If thou graunte the firste, that Peter was heed of the Apostlis and of the chirche, whilis Crist lyued, thanne thou grauntist that Crist him silf and bi him silf ordeyned and made

Peter to be so heed. And skile was ther noon, whi Peter in his owne persoon was so mad to be heed in his lijf, but that lijk good skile or more nede was, that aftir his deeth he schulde haue summe succes|souris in to the same cure and office. Wherfore it is also therbi to be grauntid. If thou graunte not the firste, but the ij^e. or the iij^e., that Peter was maad to be so heed aftir Cristis ascencioun, and that bi the eleccioun and ordinaunce of the Apostlis and of the clergie; or ellis that al the while Petir him silf was bischop of Rome, he was not thus heed ouer al the chirche of God, but that the successouris of Petir in the chirche of Rome weren heedis to al the chirche of God, and that bi eleccioun and ordinaunce of men:—ȝit certis thou maist not seie nay, but this was doon bi Goddis puruyaunce and prouydence, and bi Goddis welwilling that it schulde be doon; in as myche as he denouncid bifore and bihiȝte bifore in maner of laud to Peter that it schulde be doon, whanne he seide to Peter, Iohun i^e. capitulum., Thou shalt be clepid heed; and ellis also Poul wolde not as in remem|bring of this promys maad to Peter have clepid him so ofte "heed." And so folewith that this, that oon persoon successour to Petir was bi processe of tyme heed of al the chirche, as the pope is now heed, was of the wil and prouydence of God: and thus it may not be ascapid, but that Scripture of Cristis bifore denouncing and of Cristis bifore biheting groundith that popehode is of the wil of Crist to be had in sum persoon to be chose as the successour of Petir.

And thanne ferther thus: If Crist wolde Petir or hise successouris to stonde in heedhode of al the chirche in erthe, that is to seie, in popehode of al the

chirche in erthe, (and this Crist wolde not ordeyne or purueie to be ordeyned saue for sum skile and resoun,) it folewith that in the same now seid weelwilling of Crist is includid and vndirstonde, that he wolde in the same or in lijk weelwilling that as the chirche of God encrecid in erthe in noumbre and multitude of persoones, so othere louȝer heedis vndir nethe Petir or his successour schuden be in the chirche in erthe, mo or fewer, aftir that the noumbre of hem schulde suffice into the good reule of the chirche. And so folewith that in this, that Crist seide to Peter, Thou shalt be clepid heed, is includid not oonli this, that Peter and hise successouris schulden be heed of al the chirche in erthe or that hise successouris schulden so be, but also that vndirnethe the hiȝest heed schulden be louȝer heedis, as patriarkis, primatis, archibischopis, and bischopis, seruyng and laboring into lijk eende for which Peter or hise successouris weren ordeyned for to be the heed, that is to seie, the hiȝest reuler in the chirche of God in erthe.

The ij^e. argument into the proof of this present iiij^e. principal conclusioun is this: Math. xvj^e. capitulum., whanne Peter hadde seid to Crist thus: Thou art the Sone of lyuyng God, Crist seide to Peter thus: Blessid art thou, Symount Bariona, for fleisch and blood schewid not this to thee, but my Fader which is in heuene. And y seie to thee, for thou art Petir, and upon this stoon y schal bilde my chirche, and the ȝatis of helle schulen not haue the maistrie aȝens hir. And to thee y schal ȝeue the keies of the kingdom of heuene; and what euer thing thou schalt binde vpon erthe schal be bounde in heuene, and what eni thing thou

schalt louce vpon erthe schal be lousid in heuene. And thouȝ summe men vndirstonden in this processe bi this stoon the persoon of Crist and not the persoon of Petir, whanne it is seid thus: And y seie to thee, thou art Petir, and vpon this stoon y schal bilde my chirche, and the gatis of helle, et cætera; and summe othere vndirstonden bi this stoon the feith which Peter thanne knoulechid to Crist, certis it is miche more likeli that bi the stoon the persoon of Peter schulde be vndirstonde, rather than the persoon of Crist or eny other thing than the persoon of Peter. Forwhi in the clausul going next bifore the hool clausul, in which it is spokun of the stoon, Crist spak to Petir and of Petir, seiyng thus, And y seie to thee, for thou art Petir; also in the tweyne clausulis, next folewing the hool clausul conteyning the speche of the stoon, Crist spake to Peter and of Petir, seiyng thus, And to thee y schal ȝeue the keies of the king|dom of heuene; and eftsoone next thus, And what euer thing thou schalt binde, et cætera. Wherfore it is at moost likeli to be trewe, that the myddil clausul, closid bitwixe these now rehercid clausulis, was seid to Petir and of Petris persoon; ȝhe, and ȝit miche the more herfore, for ellis this clausul, And y seie to thee, for thou art Peter, hadde be seid in waast and in veyn to Petir and of Petris persoon, and hadde be seid vnpertynently and vnhangingli fro the materis of the

clausulis folewing and afore going, and as a thing seid not to purpos, but if the clausulis ioyned therto weren also seid of Petiris persoon. And so therfore the hool clausul, in which is mensioun of the stoon, was seid of Petiris persoon.

Confirmacioun into this same is this: If y were to seie to my felawe, that y wolde do eny thing to myn owne persoon; (as that y wolde drinke or ete or slepe), wherto schulde y seie next bifore to him thus: "Thou art in this place, or thou art there, or thou art Iohun or William, y schal do this thing or that thing, as that y schal dyne or drinke or slepe?" Certis it schulde not bicome me or eny man, having ful smal witt and discrecioun, forto so in|pertynentli speke, and forto sette to gidere in speche maters not hanging to gidere. Wherfore sithen miche rathir we ouȝten not bere an honde that Crist spake inpertinentli, and in such maner which bisemeth not eny man other than a fool forto speke, (namelich, withoute eny nede of the better therto dryuyng or more sownyng than to the contrarie,) it muste needis folewe that the seid hool myddil clausul (speking of the stoon) Crist spak to Peter and of Petiris persoon, and not of his owne persoon or of eny othir thing dyuers fro Petiris persoon; euen as in the clausul next bifore going and in the ij. clausulis next folewing aftir the seid hool clausul Crist spake of Petris persoon.

Vpon which thing thus concludid and proued y argue ferther in lijk maner, as y haue argued bifore in the next bifore going principal argument thus: If Crist bihiȝte that he wolde upon Peter bilde his chirche, y aske whether Crist meened that he wolde bilde his chirche upon the persoon of Peter, whilis that Crist lyued here, or aftir Cristis ascencioun; or ellis that

Crist wolde bilde his chirche not upon the persoon of Peter, but upon hise successouris? Oon of these thre thou muste needis graunte; and which euer of these iij. thou wolte graunte, therof folewith weel that it is the wil of God, that upon tho, whiche ben chose in the chirche to be the successouris of Peter, Crist bildid his chirche in erthe. And therof folewith, as it is in lijk maner dryue and concludid in the next bifore going argument, that it is and was the wil of Crist and his prouydence and puruyaunce, that with this hiȝest heed of the chirche schulden be louȝer heedis oon aboue an other, and in the multitude which the good reule of the chirche bi resoun wolde aske. And bi these now bifore mad argumentis the iiij^e. principal conclusioun of this iiij^e. partie is sufficientli proued.

The iij^e. argument into the same iiij^e. principal con|clusioun is this: Holi Writt of the Newe Testament wole that in the lay partie of Cristen peple be ouerers and netherers fro the louȝest ordre into the hiȝest aboue the comoun peple, as is open i^e. Pet. ij^e. capitulum., where Peter seith thus: Be ȝe suget to ech creature for God, either to the king, as to him that is hiȝer in state; either to dukis, as to thilk that ben sent of him to the vengeaunce of mys doers and to the preising of gode men; for so it is the wille of God, et cætera. And in like maner it is writun, Rom. xiij^e. capitulum., where Poul seith thus: Euery soule be suget to the hiȝer powers, for ther is no power but of God, et cætera. Therfore he that aȝenstondith power aȝenstondith the ordinaunce of God, et cætera. For princis ben not to the drede of good werk, but of yuel, et cætera, for he is the mynystre of God, et cætera. And Crist him silf accordauntli therto in the Gospel, Math. xxij^e. capitulum., seith thus: Ȝelde ȝe tho thingis whiche ben of Cesar to Cesar, and whiche ben of God to God; and in an

other place, Iohun xix^e. capitulum., Crist seide to Pilat thus: Thou schuldist not haue power into me, but if it were ȝouun to thee from aboue, that is to seie, fro God; accordingli to it that Poul seith, Rom. xiij^e. capitulum., thus: Ther is no power, but of God, et cætera. But so it is, that Holi Writt wole not such ouerte and netherte in dyuerse statis be so as is now rehercid, saue for sum special cause and nede founde in the lay peple, and asking that thilk ouerte and netherte be; and thilk same or lijk miche cause and nede forto lijk wise aske is founde in the clergie, which or how miche is founde in the layfe, as schal. be schewid anoon aftir in the next chapiter. Wherfore folewith that ther yn and in that, that Holi Scripture wole openli such dyuersite of statis and degrees be in the lay parti, and for a cause aftir in the next chapiter to be rehercid, he wole lijk weel priueili lijk dyuersite of statis and degrees be in the clergie for lijk cause there founde, namelich sithen who euer biddith openli ouȝwhere eny thing to be doon for a cause or nede wole priueli and menyngli in the same bidding lijk thing be doon in othere placis of his reuling, where is the same cause and nede or lijk cause and nede. These iij. argumentis sufficen for prouyng of this pre|sent iiij^e. principal conclusioun.

Othere argumentis myȝten be mad in to the prou|yng of the same iiij^e. conclusioun; but bi cause thei mowen esili and liȝtli be assoilid bi riȝt likely colour, therfore y sette not miche bi hem. Neuertheles y schal sette forth hem heere, that men mowen se how tho argumentis mowen colorabili ynouȝ be assoilid. The Apostilis of Crist maden suche preestis, whiche schulden vnder hem make othere preestis vpon the lay peple. Forwhi Thymothe, a disciple of Poul, was mad a preest of Poul, as it is open i^e. Thim. iiij^e. capitulum., where it

is seid to him thus: Nile thou litil charge the grace which is in thee, that is ȝouun to thee bi prophecie with putting on of the hondis of a preest; and also ij^e. Thim. i^e. capitulum., Poul seide to Thymothie thus: I moneste thee, that thou reise aȝen the grace of God that is in thee bi the setting of myn hondis. And Tite, an other disciple of Poul, was maad preest, as it is open Tite i^e. capitulum., where Poul seide to Tite thus: For cause of this thing y lefte thee at Crete, that thou amende tho thingis that failen, and that thou ordeyne preestis bi citees, as also y disposid to thee. Certis, sithen Tite had power forto make preestis, he was at the leest a preest him silf. Neuertheless ferther thus: Sithen Tite was such a preest, that Poul bade him for to make and ordeyne othere preestis and forto cor|recte defautis as weel as forto moneste, as is open bi the now alleggid text, and noon persoon hath power to comaunde or correcte an other being in euen and in like state and degre with him, (forwhi whi schulde he thanne more correcte the other, than he schulde be correctid of the other?) it folewith that Tite was such a preest, that he was aboue othere preestis vndir him. And sithen ech preest being bi his preesthode aboue othere preestis is a bischop, it folewith that Tite was a bischop aboue othere louȝer preestis being vndir him, and that bi the entent and purpos of Seint Poul there. And sithen which oon in preesthode Tite was, such oon Tymothie was, for as miche as Thymothie was as reuerent a persoon as was Tite, and as myche conuersaunt with Poul as was Tite, and was myche comendid of Poul, and to whom Poul wrote more in quantite and more solempneli and oftir than to Tite; it folewith that also Thymothie was a bischop aboue hise preestis being vndir him. And ferther, sithen as

Poul dide and ordeyned and bade to Tite and to Thymothie, in lijk maner the othere Apostilis diden, ordeyneden, and baden to othere persoones in her side and in her cuntre, it folewith that not oonli Seint Poul but also the othere Apostilis entendiden, meen|eden, ordeyneden, and baden that bischopis schulden be making to hem and vndir hem louȝer preestis.

Also this, that Tite and Thymothie weren bischopis aboue othere louȝer to hem preestis, is open ynouȝ bi the epistle which Dynys writith to Tite, and bi his book Of the Chirchis Ierarchie which he writith to Thymothie. Forwhi in the v^e. chapiter of the now seid book Dynys declarith openli a bischop to be aboue othere louȝer preestis; and ferthermore in the same book, the firste chapiter in the eende, and in othere of hise bookis also he clepith and seith Thymo|thie to be such a bischop as is now seid to be aboue othere preestis. And ȝit ferthermore in his epistle to Tite he wole that Tyte receyue of Thymothie certein doctrine writun, which Dynys in his book Of the Chirchis Ierarchie wole be leerned and knowun in hise daies of bischopis oonli, and be priuey to hem oonli; and therfore ther yn he muste needis meene that Tite was such a bischop as was Thymothie.

Certis, to al this hool argument, with alle hise en|forcingis, it may be seid with sufficient colour and likelihode, that al what this argument concludith and

proueth was doon in the tyme of the Apostlis, aftir that the cisme, of which it is spokun, i^e. Cor. i^e. and iij^e. chapitris in the bigynnyngis, bifille; for remediyng of which cisme, as Ierom conceyueth, bischophode was founde and ordeyned to be aboue preesthode; and bi lijk skile othere statis of ouerte aboue bischophode, and not eer neithir bi Cristis owne deede; neuertheles bi Cristis weelwilling, as it is bifore schewid in this present chapiter.

Thanne ferther it myȝte be argued, that aboue these now seid bischopis, wilned and ordeyned by the Apostlis to be, the Apostlis willeden and meen|eden an othir degree and state in preesthode to be aboue bischopis; ȝhe, and that thei maden and ordeyneden a persoon into thilk same degree and state, bifore the cisme had i^e. Cor. ij^e. and iij^e. chapitris, y proue thus: The Apostlis helden and meeneden hem silf being of the noumbre of xij. to haue state and degree in preesthode aboue tho othere now seid bischopis, which thei made aftirward out of the noumbre of xij., as therto sowneth miche the pro|cesse, Acts i^e. capitulum., bi manie therto markable wordis. And also wherto ellis wolden the xj. Apostlis in thilk

tyme chese oon and make oon syngulerli with hem oonli and no mo, (that is to seie, Mathie,) but if thei hadden feelid and meened that thei xij. hadden a syn|guler prerogatijf and dignite, state, and degree, and ouerte, more than othere persoones schulden haue, whiche thei wolden aftirward chese and assigne into preesthode? And also whi ellis wolden thei make this choise of Mathie into the noumbre of xij. with so greet solempnite and bi preier going afore and with lott and token askid of God, but if thei hadden holde and meened, as now is seid that thei helden and meen|eden? And in this meenyng and holding the Apostlis chosen Mathie forto be euene to hem in the dignite, degree, and state of the xij. Wherfore folewith that the Apostlis feleden hem silf to haue state and degree in preesthode aboue othere bischopis, whiche thei aftir|ward maden and ordeyneden bisidis the noumbre of xij.; and also thei maden and ordeyned such a persoon lijk to hem forto be aboue the othere bischopis aftir comyng. And so folewith that the Apostlis helden and meeneden hem silf to be as archibischopis.

To this argument it mai be answerid colorabli and likeli ynouȝ, that Peter, Acts, i^e. capitulum., whanne he fille into deuocioun forto haue a special and a singuler successour to Iudas, was not moued therto bi nede of resoun or of feith, but bi a deuocioun which was honest and ȝit myȝt be lackid; and that he entendid forto chese Mathie into this, that he myȝte make the same hool noumbre of homeli and experimental wit|nessers of Cristis deedis, and not into this that Mathie schulde be chose therwith in to eny hiȝer state than into preesthode: and to this deuocioun of Peter, for that it was honest, God condescendid, as he dooth ful ofte in performyng the desiris of hise louers, though thei ben not needis necessarie. And thus the ij^e. argu|ment next bifore mad is bi sufficient likelihode assoilid. And therfore y stonde to the iij. firste to gidere going

argumentis in this present chapiter forto proue this present iiij^e. principal conclusioun.

Also this present iiij^e. conclusioun may be proued bi a processe of iij. supposiciouns and of an argument formed vpon hem toward the eende of the first parti in this present book. Se he there the argument, who hath desijr forto it se; namelich for that the argu|ment there mad proueth this iiij^e. principal gouer|naunce vnsoilabili.

Notes

• allowith and approueth, MS. first hand).
• and is interlineated in a later hand.
• tho thilk, MS.
• the oold politik, MS.
• allowith and approueth, MS. (first hand).
• xj ^e., MS.
• Pecock's blunders are really unpardonable: what St. Jerome does say is this:—"In evangelio et in aliis Pauli epistolis et in hac quoque ipsa (ad Galatas) modo Cephas, modo Petrus scribitur. Non quod aliud significet Petrus, aliud Cephas: sed quod quam nos Latine et Græce petram vocemus, hanc Hebræi et Syri propter linguæ inter se viciniam Cephan nuncupent." S. Hieron. in Ep. ad Gal. lib. i. c. 2. (Op. tom. vii. p. 409. Ed. Vall.)
• it is interlineated in a later hand.
• thus is added in the margin by a later hand.
• the eleccioun, MS. (first hand).
• it is interlineated in a later hand; and similarly to below.
• it is interlineated in a later hand; and similarly to below.
• the popehode, MS. (first hand).
• to is interlineated in a later and.
• Written on an erasurc, and ap|parently a clerical error for euer, which occurs in both forms of Wiclif's version; but Pecock has here deviated from it more than he commonly does.
• of is interlineated in a later hand.
• "Super hanc, inquit, petram quam confessus es, ædificabo eccle|siam meam." S. August. in Joh. Tract. 124. "Super hanc petram, id est, super me ædificabo ecclesiam meam." S. Anselm. in loco.
• "…." S. Chrysost. in loco. For more information re|specting the patristic interpretations of this text, see Barrow, On the Pope's Suprem., pp. 59, 60, Lond. 1687, from whom these passages are taken.
• miche is interlineated in a later hand.
• the moost, MS. (first hand).
• So written at length in the MS.
• to drede, MS. (first hand).
• to be, MS. (first hand).
• to is interlineated in a later hand.
• for as as, MS.
• bade Tite, MS. (first hand).
• "…." Pseudo|Dionys. Areop. De Eccl. Hierarch. c. 5., (Op. tom. 1. p. 360. Ed. Cord.), where is much more to the same purpose.
• Id. c. 1. pp. 235, 236.
• "…." Pseudo-Dionys. Areop. Ep. ad Tit. (Op. tom. ii. p. 141).
• in which, MS. (first hand).
• "…." Id. Eccl. Hier. c. l. p. 236.
• he wole, MS.
• "Diligenter Apostoli verba at|tendamus dicentis: Ut constituas per civitates presbyteros . . . postea intulit, Oportet enim episcopum sine crimine esse. . . . Idem est ergo presbyter qui et episcopus, et antequam diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent et diceretur in populis: Ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autem Cephæ, communi presby|terorum consilio ecclesiæ guberna|bantur. Postquam vero unusquis|que eos quos baptizaverat suos pu|tabat, non Christi, in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de presbyteris electus superponeretur cæteris, ad quem omnis ecclesiæ cura perti|neret et schismatum semina tolle|rentur. . . . . Sicut ergo presbyteri sciunt se ex ecclesiæ consuetudine ei, qui sibi præpositus fuerit, esse subjectos; ita episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine, quam disposi|tionis Dominicæ veritate presbyteris esse majores, et in commune debere ecclesiam regere, &c. S. Hieron. in Ep. ad Tit. c. 1. (Op. tom. vii. pp. 694-696. Ed. Vall.)
• maiden, MS. (first hand).
• who that hath, MS. (first hand).
• See Part 1. c. xix.