The repressor of over much blaming of the clergy.

iiij. CHAPITRE.

THE iij^e. principal argument into the same firste and principal conclusioun is this: Bifore that eny positijf lawe of God, that is to seie, eny voluntaire or wilful assignement of God, was ȝouen to the Iewis fro the long tyme of Adamys comyng out of Paradijs into the tyme of circumcisioun in the daies of Abraham, and into the positijf lawe ȝouen bi Moyses, the peple lyueden and seruiden God and weren bounde weelniȝ bi alle tho moral vertues and moral gouernauncis and treuthis whiche bi doom of her natural resoun thei founden and leerneden and camen to, and so thei weren bounde [boūdē, MS.; but the stroke over the e has been erased. Just above, the strokes over camē and werē seem to be a later hand. Just below, boūden is written by the first hand, and has not been altered. In many other places of the MS. it is difficult to be sure whether the stroke above is by the first hand or not; sometimes the original stroke has only been made darker by a later hand, and both inks are clearly traceable. See fol. 9 b, col. 1, l. 2, werē (p. 21, l. 30 of this edition).] weelnyȝ to alle moral gouernauncis and moral trouthis into whiche Cristen men ben bounden now in tyme of the Newe Testament. Aftirward, whanne tyme of Iewis came and the positijf lawe of the cerymonyes, iudicialis, and sacramentalis weren ȝouen to the Iewis, the othere now bifore seid lawis of resoun weren not reuokid, but thei contynueden into charge of the Iewis with the lawis of cerymonies,

iudicialis, and sacramentis, so that the Iewis weren chargid with alle the lawis of resoun with whiche the peple fro Adam thidir to weren chargid and also ouer that with the positijf lawis of God thanne ȝouen. Forwhi it is not rad that the lawis of resoun weren thanne reuokid, and also needis alle men musten graunte that summe of hem abode charging the Iewis, and skile is ther noon whi summe of hem so abode and not alle; wherfore it is to be holde that alle tho lawis of resoun with whiche the peple were chargid bifore the tyme of Iewis aboden, stille charging also the Iewis into the tyme of Cristis passioun.

And thanne ferther, thus: Whanne Crist prechid and suffrid, alle the peple of Iewis were chargid with the hool lawe of kinde and of resoun and with al the positijf lawe of cerimonies iudicialis and oold sacramentis, but so it is that to Cristen men succed|ing next after the Iewis weren not reuokid eny lawis bi Crist and his newe lawe saue the positijf lawis of cerymonies iudicialis and oolde sacramentis: wherfore in to the charge of Cristen men abidith ȝit the hool birthen which was to the Iewis, excepte the birthen of cerymonies iudicialis and oold sacramentis, so that in to the charge of Cristen men abidith the al hool birthen of lawe of kinde which is not ellis than moral philsophie, which was birthen and charge bothe to the Iewis and to alle peplis bifore the Iewis fro Adamys comyng out of Paradijs. And sithen it is not founde in the Newe Testament that Crist made eny positijf lawe bisidis the oolde law of kinde and of resoun which euere was bifore, except oonli his positijf lawe of hise newe sacramentis with whiche he chargid the peple of Cristen, instide of [of the, MS.; but the is cancelled by a later (?) hand.] cerymonies iudicialis and oold sacramentis with whiche the Iewis weren chargid,

it folewith that Cristen peple abiden ȝit hidir to chargid with the seid ful al hool moral lawe of kinde, and with the positijf lawis of Cristis newe sacramentis, so that welnyȝ or weel toward the al hool lawe with which Cristen men ben chargid is mad of lawe of kinde, which is doom of resoun and moral philsophie as of the oon partie, and of lawe of the newe sacramentis, which is lawe of newe feith, as of the other partie. And if this be trewe, as it is openli and cleerli ynouȝ lad forth to be trewe, it muste nedis folewe that welnyȝ or weel toward al the hool lawe of God in tyme of the Newe Testament, except a fewe positijf lawis of Cristis fewe newe sacramentis, is not ellis than the same lawe of kinde which was long bifore the tyme of Abraham and of Iewis.

And thanne ferther ther of y argue thus: But so it is that al thilk now seid lawe of kinde which was bifore the tyme of Iewis, not withstonding it is the more partie of Cristen lawe now bi ful greet quantite, is not foundid in Holi Scripture of the Newe Testa|ment, neither in Holi Scripture of the Oold Testament, neither in hem bothe to gidere. Forwhi this lawe was whanne neither of the Newe neither of the Oold Tes|tament writing was, and that fro the tyme of Adam into Abraham, wherfore folewith that thilk lawe ȝit abiding to Cristen men is not groundid in Holi Scrip|ture, but in the book of lawe of kinde writen in mennis soulis with the finger of God as it was so groundid and writen bifore the daies of Abraham and of Iewis. Whi in this iij^e. principal argument y haue seid these wordis welnyȝ or weel toward schal appere and be seen bi what schal be seid aftir in proofis of the vij^e. and x^e. conclusiouns, and more openli by the place there alleggid in the book clepid The iust apprising of Holi Scripture.

The iiij^e. principal argument is this, What euer

thing oonli remembrith, stirith, and exortith, or bid|dith or counseilith men forto kepe certein gouer|nauncis, vertues, and treuthis groundith not as in that tho gouernauncis, vertues, and treuthis. Forwhi as in that he presupposith tho gouernauncis, vertues, and trouthis to be bifore knowen of tho same men, and ellis in waast he schulde so speke to tho men of hem not bifore knowen; and ther fore as in that he not hem groundith. But so it is that Holi Scripture dooth not ellis aboute the moral vertues and gouer|nauncis and treuthis of Goddis moral lawe and seruice bifore seid in the firste conclusioun, saue oonli this, that he remembrith, or exortith, or biddith, or counseilith men upon tho vertues and gouernauncis and forto vse hem, and forto flee the contrarie vicis of hem, as ech man mai se bi reding where euere he wole where men|sioun is mad of eny moral vertu in the Oold Testa|ment or of the Newe. For he biddith a man to be meke, and he techith not bifore what mekenes is. He biddith a man to be pacient, and ȝit he not bifore techith what pacience is. And so forth of ech vertu of Goddis lawe. Wherfore no such seid gouernaunce or vertu or trouthe is to be seid groundid in Holi Scrip|ture, no more than it ouȝte be seid if a bischop wolde sende a pistle or a lettre to peple of his diocise, and ther yn wolde remembre hem, exorte hem, and stire hem, and bidde hem or counseile hem forto kepe cer|teyn moral vertues of lawe of kinde, that therfore tho moral vertues and pointis of lawe of kinde writen in thilk epistle weren groundid in thilk epistle of the bischope; for noon other wise vpon such seid vertues Poul wrote in hise epistlis, neither Petir, neither Iame, neither Iohun, neither Iudas wroten in her epistlis and writingis.

Confirmacioun to this argument mai be this: If the King of Ynglond dwellid in Gascony, and wolde sende a noble longe letter or epistle into Englond,

bothe to iugis and to othere men, that ech of hem schulde kepe the pointis of the lawe of Englond, and thouȝ he wolde reherce tho pointis and gouer|nauncis, vertues, [and vertues, MS.; but and is cancelled.] and trouthis of the lawe forto re|membre the iugis and the peple ther upon, and thouȝ he schulde stire and prouoke, and exorte, bidde, or counseile hem therto, ȝit it ouȝte not be seid that thilk epistle [pistle, MS.; e added above in a different hand.] groundid eny of tho lawis or gouernauncis of Englond, for her ground is had to hem bifore thilk epistle of the King, and that bi acte and decre of the hool Parliament of Englond which is verry ground to alle the lawis of Englond, thouȝ thilk epistle of the King or of the Duke had not be writun; and at the leest he in thilk bidding presupposith tho deedis to be knowen bifore of hem to whom he biddith tho deedis to be kept as lawis. Wherfore bi lijk skile, thouȝ Crist and thouȝ Poul and othere Apostlis wroten to peple epistlis or lettris or othere writingis, ȝit sithen tho truthis which thei so wroten weren groundid bifore tho writingis and hengen upon the doom of resoun which is lawe of kinde and moral philsophie and schulden bi dewte haue be kept of men thouȝ tho writingis hadden not be maad, it folewith that tho spoken gouernauncis ouȝten not be trowid groundid in the now seid writingis of Crist or of the Apostlis. Who euer mai seie that eny thing was bifore his ground, and ouȝte be thouȝ his ground were not, and thouȝ his ground had not be? Wherfore needis folewith that the firste bifore sett and principal conclusioun is trewe.