But now þei clepen good, yvel, and harm, profit, and bond|age, fredom; but þanne shulden þei wel witen how al þat helpiþ to hevene is good, and al þat shulde be by Goddis lawe were free and helpli [helpiþ, E.] to þis eende.
And þus þe lord preisiþ his baili, for he forȝaf to his tenaunte fifty barels of oile. And so þis ȝifte was riȝtful, siþ þis lord is God himsilf; and þis tenaunte is kynde of clerkis, for þei shulden ȝeve devocioun, and be paied of litil corn [Does this mean,—the clergy should be content to retain for themselves 'litil corn,' or temporal riches, just as the debtor in the parable retained only twenty for his own profit out of the hundred mea|sures of wheat that he had to render to his lord, but they should rejoice in being permitted to keep an abun|dant measure (fifty out of a hundred barrels) of 'oile,' or devotion? See Serm. LXXXV.] . For, as Poul techiþ, þei shulden holde hem paied wiþ bodili fode and hileyng. And þus shulden preestis preche to lordis, to holde hem paied of worldli goodis, and sette her wille in hevenli goodis, which wille shulde make hem liȝt to hevene. But þe fend haþ stranglid þese houndis wiþ talwe [talow, E.] , þat þei mai not berke. And þus siþ seculer men shulden be moo þan prestis shulden be, and prestis shulden have, by titil of almesse, her sustenance of þe peple, wiþ|drawing of her service aȝen shulde move to wiþdraw þes goodis. And whoever aȝenstondiþ þis sentence is unlawful aȝens God.
And so men shulden graunte in dede to obeishe to þe pope, as þe peple obeishide to Petre, and as Goddis lawe wole axe; but it were to myche to pass þis, for þanne men obeishiden to þe fend, siþ Goddis lawe shulde be reule, and teche how God wole þat men obeishe. And siþ þe freris accusen þe court, in matter of þe sacrid oost, and saien þat it techiþ þat þis oost is not Goddis bodi, but accident wiþouten suget þat alle men knowen not, men shulden axe þis treuþe of þis court wiþ good grounding [The general drift of this re|markable passage seems to be as follows. The friars,—after the synod of 1382, which had been promoted, and indeed ordered, by 'the Court,' or, as we should say now, by the Government,—and after the sending down of letters patent into all the counties (see Lewis, p. 106), ap|pointing inquisitors, who would be in many or most instances friars, to search out heretical writings and their fautors,—might well say that the Court taught their doctrine con|cerning the Eucharist, and condemned that of Wyclif. This is called by the writer, accusing the Court of teaching the said doctrine; because, as he goes on to say, Christ and many of the saints unmistakably taught his doctrine. He proceeds to suggest, apparently in the hope of setting himself right with the Court by appealing to its self-interest, that the existing hierarchy was terribly burdensome both to Court and na|tion, and that to 'stoppe first fruytis,' and other ecclesiastical exactions, would be greatly to the advantage of the state. The advice was not acted upon till the year 1534.] . And ȝif þis court faile in þis, þei failen in
