The repressor of over much blaming of the clergy.

v. CHAPITER.

The v^e. principal argument into the same firste and principal conclusioun is this: Who euer in his speche bi which he spekith of a gouernaunce or treuthe presupposith the same gouernaunce to be knowen bifore his same speche and to be knowen eer [heer, MS.; but the first letter is in paler ink, and eer is no doubt the reading intended by the corrector.] he so ther of spekith or spak, he as in thilk speche groundith not thilk gouernaunce or trouthe; for thanne the thing groundid schulde be bifore his ground. But so it is, that whanne euere Holi Scripture or Crist or Apostle spekith or spak of eny of the seid gouernauncis or moral trouthis thei in the same speche presupposen the same gouernaunce to be bifore her speking ther of. Forwhi in thilke spechis thei bidden or counseilen or exorten or remembren to men tho deedis to be doon of hem; and who euer so dooth presupposith the same deedis to be bifore knowen of hem to whom tho deedis ben so beden, counseilid, exortid, or remembrid to be doon, as it is bifore seid in the iiij^e. argument. And also in thilk speche thei speken of the gouer|naunce not as of a thing which thei thanne first maken, but as of thing [The indefinite article should probably be inserted.] bifore being eer eny lawe was ȝouen to the Iewis, as it is riȝt euydent that Crist and hise Apostlis it weel knowen and in to whos performyng thei remembren men and stiren and prouoken. Wherfore needis folewith that noon such seid gouernaunce is groundid in eny speche of Holi Scripture or of Crist or of Apostle.

The vj^e. principal argument into the same firste and principal conclusioun is this: No sufficient cause hast thou forto seie and holde that Holi Scripture groundith eny of the gouernauncis, trouthis, and vertues bifore seid in the firste conclusioun saue this, that in Holi Scripture mensioun is maad that thei ben treuthis; but this is not sufficient cause forto ther bi thus seie and holde. Wherfore noon sufficient cause hast thou forto seie and holde that Holi Scripture groundith eny of the gouernauncis, trouthis, and vertues spoken of in the firste principal conclusion.

The ij^e. premisse of this vj^e. argument may be proued thus: If thilk now seid cause were sufficient forto so holde, thanne, sithen Holi Scripture makith mensioun M^t. xvi^e. capitulum. of treuthis longing to natural philsophi and approueth hem there weel to be treuthis, it wolde folewe that Holi Scripture groundith treuthis of na|tural philsophie; which no wijs man wole graunte: wherfore the ij^e. premysse of this vj^e. argument is trewe. Schal y seie for this that Crist rehercith Math. xvj^e. capitulum., how that whanne heuen is rody in the euentid a cleer dai schal be the morewe, and whanne in the morntide heuene schineth heuyli in thilk dai schal be tempest, that in Holi Scripture this treuthe of natural philsophie now rehercid bi Crist or the leernyng and kunnyng ther of is groundid in tho wordis of Crist and is groundid in the Gospel? Alle men witen nay. Forwhi the kunnyng ther of was had eer Crist there and thanne tho wordis spake, and no thing is bifore his owne ground, and the kunnyng of thilk mater is largir in his ground which is natural philsophi than is many hool chapitris to gidere ligging in Matheu. And ȝit bi lijk skile it schulde be holde and seid that the now rehercid pointis of natural philsophie were groundid there, if eny oon point of the seid moral philsophie were groundid in Holi Scripture; wherfore sithen thilk

kunnyng of cleernes and of derknes in the dai is not groundid in the Gospel thouȝ the Gospel make a schort rehercel ther of, it folewith bi lijk skile that of no moral vertuose gouernauncis the sufficient kunnyng is groundid in Holi Writt, sithen al Holi Writt techith not forth the ful and sufficient and necessarie kun|nyng of eny oon moral vertu in Goddis lawe or Goddis seruice, thouȝ of many of hem Holi Scrip|ture makith schort remembrauncis to us that we schulde hem kepe and not aȝens hem do. And it is welnyȝ al that Holi Writt dooth or namelich en|tendith forto teche aboute eny moral vertu or point of Goddis moral lawe: and Goddis forbode that this litle were sufficient ground of the ful hool leernyng neces|sarie to be had upon eny oon such seid point of Goddis lawe and seruice, for thanne not oon such seid point of Goddis lawe and seruice schulde or myȝte be sufficientli leerned and kunne. Schal y seie that an hous hauyng an hundrid feet in brede is groundid upon lond in which he takith not but oon foot? Goddis forbode y schulde be so lewde forto so seie. Forwhi miche rather y ouȝte seie that this hous takith his grounding upon thilk lond in which ben alle the feetis mesuris of the same hous, and therfore nedis ech witti man muste graunte that the first principal con|clusioun bifore sett is trewe.

Of whiche first principal conclusioun thus proued folewith ferther this corelarie, that whanne euere and where euere in Holi Scripture or out of Holi Scrip|ture be writen eny point or eny gouernaunce of the seide lawe of kinde it is more verrili writen in the book of mannis soule than in the outward book of parchemyn or of velym; and if eny semyng dis|corde be bitwixe the wordis writen in the outward book of Holi Scripture and the doom of resoun, write in mannis soule and herte, the wordis so writen withoutforth ouȝten be expowned and be interpretid

and brouȝt forto accorde with the doom of resoun in thilk mater; and the doom of resoun ouȝte not forto be expowned, glosid, interpretid, and brouȝte for to accorde with the seid outward writing in Holi Scripture of the Bible or ouȝwhere ellis out of the Bible. Forwhi whanne euer eny mater is tretid bi it which is his ground and bi it which is not his ground, it is more to truste to the treting which is mad ther of bi the ground than bi the treting ther of bi it which is not ther of the ground; and if thilke ij. tretingis ouȝten not discorde, it folewith that the treting doon bi it which is not the ground ouȝte be [to be, MS.; to is cancelled by a later hand.] mad for to accord with the treting which is maad bi the ground. And therfore this corelarie conclusioun muste nedis be trewe.

More, for proof of the firste principal conclusioun and of al what is seid fro the bigynnyng of the same first principal conclusion hidir to, is sette and writen in the book clepid The iust apprising of Holi Scripture, which book if he be rad and be weel vnderstonde thoruȝout, hise iij. parties schal conferme vndoutabli al what is seid here fro the bigynnyng of the firste principal conclusioun hider to.

Weel y woot that not withstonding no verri and trewe grounding (propirli forto speke of ground|ing) is saue such as is now spoken of in the firste and ij^e. argumentis to the firste conclusioun, ȝit whanne a mater or a trouthe is witnessid or affermed or denouncid or mad be remembrid to per|soones, and that bi a reuerend and worthi witnesser or denouncer or remembrer (as is God, an Apostil, or a Doctour), thanne thilk witnessing or denouncing or remembraunce making is woned be clepid a grounding of the same mater or trouthe so witnessid,

rehercid, or into remembraunce callid, not withstonding thilk rehercer and witnesser dooth not ellis in that than takith it what is groundid ellis where, and spekith it or publischith it to othere men. But certis this rehercing and publisching is not a grounding saue bi vnpropre maner of speche and bi figure and like|nes; and to this maner of vnpropre speche y con|forme me in othere wheris of my writingis, bi cause that (as the philsophir seith) it is profitable and speed|ful ofte tymes a man forto speke as many vsen forto speke, thouȝ he not feele as the manie but as the fewe feelen; and ther fore where euer in mi writingis y speke of grounding and calle grounding which is not verri grounding y wole that y be vnderstonde there forto speke of grounding in figuratijf maner, bi likenes as othere men ben woned so forto speke and forto kepe ther with in the same mater my trewe feeling. For thouȝ y wolde write thus, "Mi fadir lithe in this chirche and my fadris fadir lithe in thilk chirche," bi figuratijf speche, for that her bodies or bones liggen in thilke chirchis, and that bicause [It is not clear whether bicause is meant to be written conjunctim or disjunctim in the MS. It is written both ways elsewhere.] such speche is famose in vce, ȝit y wole be vndirstonde that my feeling in thilk mater is other wise than the speche sowneth, and is hool and propre and trewe. And in lijk maner y speke and feele in this present purpos of grounding and of the vnpropir speking vsid ther upon.