The repressor of over much blaming of the clergy.

vij. CHAPITER.

THE secunde principal conclusioun and trouthe is this: Thouȝ it perteyne not to Holi Scripture forto grounde eny natural or moral gouernaunce or trouthe into whos fynding, leernyng, and knowing mannis reson may bi him silf and bi natural help come, as it is open now bifore bi proofis of the firste principal conclusioun, ȝit it mai perteyne weel ynouȝ to Holi Scripture that he reherce suche now seid gouernauncis and treuthis, and that he witnesse hem as groundid sumwhere ellis in the lawe of kinde or doom of mannis resoun. And so he dooth (as to ech reder ther yn it mai be opene) that bi thilk rehercing and witnessyng so doon bi Holi Scripture to men tho men schulden be bothe remembrid, stirid, prouokid, and exortid forto the rather performe and fulfille tho same so rehercid and witnessid gouernancis and trouthis.

This conclusioun mai sone be proued. Forwhi we seen that not withstonding bookis and writingis of grammer han noon riȝt neither power forto grounde eny governaunce or trouthe of dyuynyte, bi cause that grammer and dyuynyte ben ij. facultees atwin and asondir [sondir, MS. (first hand).] departid, and therfore thei han her propre to hem boundis and markis that noon of hem entre into the other as bi office of grounding, and han her propre to hem officis of grounding and to hem her propre trouthis, ȝit the bokis of grammer rehercen with inne hem and witnessen summe treuthis of dy|uynyte

as in Catholicon, which is a book of gramer, in the word of . . . . [Six lines of the MS. are left blank, i. e. about forty words may pro|bably be missing.]

Also thouȝ the faculte of Canon Lawe and the faculte of dyuynyte be ij. departid atwynne facultees, and ther fore thouȝ ech of hem hath his propre to him lymytid boundis and markis for grounding, riȝt as ij. maners and lordschipis ligging in a cuntree han, and ech of hem hath his propre to him conclusiouns and trouthis to be groundid bi him, (as that Canon Lawe groundith constituciouns and ordinancis of general counseilis and of popis and prouyncial and synodal constituciouns as hise propre to him trouthis and con|clusiouns; and dyuynyte, in verri maner forto speke of diuinite, groundith articles of feith, that is to seie, trouthis and conclusions reuelid and affermed bi God to be trewe, as propre to him trouthis and con|clusiouns, into whos fynding, leerning, and knowing mannis resoun mai not sufficientli with oute reue|lacioun ascende and come to;) and, ther fore, Canoun Lawe ouȝte not and mai not grounde eny trouthe or conclusioun which is propre to the grounding of divynyte, neither diuinite mai grounde eny trouthe or conclusioun which is propre to the grounding of Canoun Lawe: ȝit bokis of Canoun Lawe bisidis her treting of the chirche lawis and constituciouns rehercen manie trouthis and conclusiouns whiche ben propre to the grounding in diuynite, and aȝenward bokis of diuinite bisidis her treting of articles of feith reuelid fro God rehercen manye treuthis and conclusiouns whiche ben propre to the grounding in Lawe of Canoun, ȝhe, and rehercen manye trouthis and conclusiouns of whiche summe ben propre to methaphisik, summe ben propre to natural philsophi, and summe ben propre to moral philsophi. And ȝit it may not be seid herfore

that Lawe of Canon groundith eny article of feith reuelid fro God, or that divynite groundith eny con|stitucioun or lawe maad bi the chirche or bi the pope, or that he groundith eny trouthe or conclusioun of methaphisik or of natural philosophi or of moral philsophie. Forwhi thanne these facultees were not separat and departid atwynne facultees hauyng her propre boundis and markis, which is inconuenient to holde. And also the trouthis of diuynite were eer the faculte of Canoun Lawe biganne, and the trouthis of methaphisik and of natural philsophie and of moral philsophie myȝten be thouȝ no dyuynyte were (forto speke pureli and mereli of dyuynyte as it tretith articles of feith), and open it is that no thing groundid may be whanne his ground is not. Wherfore bi lijk skile, thouȝ it may not longe and perteyne to Holi Scripture forto grounde eny treuthe or gouernaunce of moral philsophie, into whos fynding and knowing natural resoun with natural helpis mai suffice, as it is proued bifore in the proof of the firste conclusioun, ȝit herwith mai weel stonde that Holi Scripture reherce trouthis and gouernauncis whiche ben propre to moral lawe of kinde, that is to seie, propre to moral doom of resoun, which is not ellis than moral philsophie. And that Holi Scripture so doth it is open; forwhi he rehercith to us that we schulden be meke and not proude, and that we schulden be temperat in eting and drinking and not glotenose, and that we schulden be continent or mesurable in deedis of gendring, and that we schulden be mylde in answering, and that we schulden be pacient in aduersitees; and so forth of manie othere gouernancis, whiche alle ben tauȝt in the lawe of kinde bi doom of resoun more fulli than thei ben rehercid in Holi Scripture bi tenfold and more. And so al that Crist dide in teching eny of these was not ellis than that what he siȝe to be

trewe bifore in doom of resoun and lawe of kinde he toold out to hise herers. And whanne Poul and eny Apostle in her epistlis wroten of eny of these now seid vertues, thei diden not ellis as there for tho vertues but this, that thei token what ther of thei founden in doom of resoun and in lawe of kinde to be trewe, and thei wroten it in her epistlis.

The iij^e. principal conclusioun is this: The hool office and werk into which God ordeyned Holy Scripture is forto grounde articlis of feith and forto reherce and witnesse moral trouthis of lawe of kinde groundid in moral philsophie, that is to seie in doom of resoun, that the reders be remembrid, stirid, and exortid bi so miche the better and the more and the sooner forto fulfille hem. Of whiche articlis of feith summe ben not lawis as these: that God made heuen and erthe in the bigynnyng of tyme, and that Adam was the firste man and Eue was the first womman, and that Moises ladde the peple of Israel out of Egipt, and that Zacharie was fadir and Elizabeth was modir of Iohun Baptist, and that Crist fastid xl. daies; and so forth of many like. And summe othere ben lawis, as that ech man ouȝte be baptisid in water, if he may come therto; and that ech man ouȝte be hosilid, if he mai come ther to.

This conclusioun may be proued thus. Sithen it is so that Holi Scripture muste founde and grounde sum to him propre trouthis and conclusiouns, (for ellis he were not vnlackeabli necessarie to Cristen men,) he muste needis grounde treuthis and conclusiouns suche as mennis resoun bi it silf or with natural helpis may fynde, leerne, and knowe, or ellis suche as mannis resoun bi it silf and bi the seid helpis mai not fynde, leerne, and knowe. But so it is that Holi Scripture groundith not the treuthis of the firste maner now rehercid, that is to seie trouthis and con|clusiouns into which manys witt mai in the seid maner

rise, as it is proued bi the firste principal conclusioun. Wherfore he muste needis grounde treuthis and con|clusions of the ij^e. maner now seid, that is to seie, treuthis and conclusiouns into whiche mannis witt mai not bi it silf and bi natural help without reuelacioun mad therto fro God uprise [Perhaps meant to be written divisim in the MS.] and come to, forto hem kunne and knowe. And these ben articlis of feith as it is schewid in The folwer to the donet; and so the firste partie of this iij^e. conclusioun is schewid to be trewe.

Also that Holi Scripture makith rehercel of many treuthis and conclusiouns groundid in moral philsophi for the entent here in this iij^e. conclusioun seid, it is schewid bifore in proof of the ij^e. conclusioun. Wher|fore the ij^e. parti of this iij^e. principal conclusioun is needis to be holde for trewe.

Also that tho feithis whiche now here ben rehercid as for no lawis to Cristen men ben not lawis to hem, and that tho feithis whiche now here ben rehercid as for lawis to Cristen men ben lawis to hem; it is schewid in the firste parti of the book clepid The iust apprising of Holi Scripture; and ther yn the reder mai it leerne, if he wole. But y wolde se that oure Bible men whiche holden hem so wise bi the Bible aloone, ȝhe, bi the Newe Testament aloon, cou|then bi her Bible aloon knowe which feith is a lawe to man and which feith is not a lawe to man, and thanne he dide a maistrie passing his power. Wherbi and bi many othere pointis of Goddis lawe and ser|uice to man, whiche mowe not be knowen bi oonli the Bible but by doom of resoun and moral philsophi, (as it is weel open thoruȝ manye treticis in the book of Cristen religioun and in the Filling of the iiij. tablis and other mo,) tho Bible men mowe take good

marke that myche nede schulen alle tho haue to the help of weel leerned clerkis. And, forto seie sumwhat here and now of lawis, it is to feele and vndirstonde that oonli thilk trouthe is a lawe to man which is doable and not oonli knoweable and biholdeable of the same man. Wherfore the iij^e. parti of this present iij^e. principal conclusioun is trewe.

This what y haue now seid of and to Bible men y have not seid vndir this entent and meenyng, as that y schulde feele to be vnleeful laymen forto reede in the Bible and forto studie and leerne ther yn, with help and counseil of wise and weel leerned clerkis and with licence of her gouernour the bischop; but forto rebuke and adaunte the presumpcioun of tho [The MS. altered from the into tho by a later (?) hand.] lay persoones, whiche weenen bi her inreding in the Bible forto come into more kunnyng than thei or alle the men in erthe—clerkis and othere—mowe come to, bi the Bible oonli withoute moral philsophie and lawe of kinde in doom of weel disposid resoun, y haue seid of and to Bible men what is now seid.