The repressor of over much blaming of the clergy.

viij. CHAPITER.

THE iiij^e. principal conclusioun is this: It is not the office longing to moral lawe of kinde for to grounde eny article of feith groundid by Holi Scripture. For whi al that the now seid moral lawe of kinde or moral philsophie groundith is groundid bi doom of mannis resoun, and therfore is such a treuthe and a conclusioun that into his fynding, leernyng, and know|ing mannis witt mai bi it silf aloone or bi natural helpis withoute reuelacioun fro God rise and suffice. But so it is that noon article of feith mai be groundid

in doom of resoun sufficientli; neither into his finding, leerning, and knowing mannis resoun bi it silf and bi natural help may rise and suffice, withoute therto maad reuelacioun or affirmyng fro God. Forwhi thanne feith were no feith, as it is tauȝt in The folwer to the donet and in the book Of feith and of sacramentis in Latyn. Wherfore moral lawe of kinde, (which is not ellis than moral philsophie writen depe in mannis soule, there ligging with the prent and the ymage of God,) mai not grounde eny article or treuthe or conclu|sioun of feith: but into the grounding of feith serueth Holi Scripture, as it is bi the iij^e. conclusioun proued. And so this present iiij^e. conclusioun muste needis be a trouthe.

The v^e. principal conclusioun is this: Thouȝ neither the seide moral lawe of kinde neither outward bokis therof writen mowe grounde eny trouthe or con|clusioun of verry feith, ȝit tho outward bokis (as Cristene men hem maken) mowe weel ynow reherce and witnesse trouthis and conclusiouns of feith groundid bifore in Holi Scripture; and so thei doon. Forwhi it is no more repugnant that bokis of moral philsophie reherce trouthis and conclusiouns propre to the ground|ing of Holy Scripture, than that bokis of Holi Scrip|ture reherce trouthis and conclusiouns propre to the grounding of moral philsophie, and that bokis of grammer reherce treuthis and conclusiouns propre to the grounding of Holi Scripture. But so it is that bokis of Holi Scripture rehercen treuthis longing to the grounding of moral philsophie, as it is bifore schewid in proof of the secunde conclusion; wherfore it is not repugnant that bokis of moral philsophie, namelich tho whiche Cristen men maken, reherce treuthis of feith longing to the grounding of Holi Scripture. And that thei so doon it is open bi the book of Cristen reli|gioun and hise parties mad in the comoun peplis langage.

The vj^e. principal conclusioun is this: The hool office and werk into which ben ordeyned the bokis of moral philsophie (writen and mad bi Cristen men in the maner now bifore spoken in the v^e. conclusioun) is forto expresse outwardli bi writing of penne and ynke the treuthis and conclusiouns, whiche the inward book of lawe of kinde, biried in mannis soule and herte, groundith; and forto reherce summe treuthis and conclusiouns of feith longing to the grounding of Holi Scripture, that the reders be the more and the oftir remembrid and stirid and exortid bi thilk rehercing into tho treuthis of feith so rehercid. Of whiche summe ben positijf lawis, as ben oonli the treuthis aboute the newe sacramentis of Crist and aboute the vsis of hem: and summe ben not lawis, as that thre persoones ben oon God, and that the ij^e. of hem was mad man, and that he died and roos fro deeth, and so forth. This conclusioun is so open bi miche what is seid bifore, that weelnyȝ he needith no newe proof to be sette to him. Neuertheless into his prouyng mai be seid thus: The seid bokis of moral philsophie doon these ij. now seid officis and werkis, as it is open by the v^e. conclusioun; and thei doon noon othir or noon more notable office or werk than oon of these ij.: wherfore these ij. officis maken the hool al werk into which tho bokis ben principali or notabli entendid to be maad.

The vij^e. principal conclusioun is this: The more deel and party of Goddis hool lawe to man in erthe, and that bi an huge gret [gret is interlineated in a later hand.] quantite ouer the remanent parti of the same lawe, is groundid sufficiently out of Holi Scripture in the inward book of lawe of kinde and of moral philosphie, [philsophie, so the MS. originally, but a later hand, contrary to the usage of the MS., has corrected it to philosophie.] and not in the book of Holi Scrip|ture

clepid the Oold Testament and the Newe. That this conclusioun is trewe y proue thus: Alle tho gouer|nauncis, trouthis, and vertues, into whos fynding, leern|yng, and knowing mannys resoun bi him silf or with natural helpis withoute supernatural reuelacioun ther upon mad fro God mai rise and come, ben groundid at fulle out of Holi Scripture of the Oold Testament and of the Newe in the inward book ligging in mannis soule, which is there the writing of lawe of kinde and of doom of resoun and moral philsophie; and thei taken noon newe prouyng in eny point by the seid Holi Scripture, as it is open bi the first conclu|sioun and hise profis. And so it is, that these same now seid gouernauncis, treuthis, and vertues thus not groundid in Holi Scripture ben the more deel and the more parti bi an huge greet quantite ouer the re|manent of the al hool Goddis lawe bitaken to man in erthe forto therbi serue God, as anoon aftir her schal be proued. Wherfore folewith that the miche more deel of Goddis hool lawe to man in erthe is groundid sufficientli out of Holi Scripture in doom of resoun and in moral philsophie, and not in Holi Scripture of the Oold Testament and of the Newe.

The first premisse of this present argument is openli proued bi the first principal conclusioun and bi the argumentis and euydencis prouying him, and ther|fore the firste premisse of this present argument is to be holde for trewe.

That the ij^e. premisse of this present argument [argumet, MS.] is also trewe is schewid bi a ful solempne and rial processe in the firste parti of the book clepid The iust apprising of Holi Scripture, the [Space left in the MS. for the number.] capitulum., which processe were ouer long to be aȝen rehercid here.

Neuertheles that the same ij^e. premisse of this present argument is trewe sure experience may schewe at the ful. Forwhi lete a man renne thoruȝ alle the xxxi^ti. pointis of the iiij. tablis of Goddis lawe to man in erthe whiche ben sett in the first parti of The donet into Cristen religion, and also in the firste parti of Cristen religioun, and lete him marke hem weel and alle her spicis with inne [It is not quite clear whether this is meant to be written conjunctim or divisim in the MS.] hem and vnder hem, and let him also renne thoruȝ al Holi Scripture fro the bigynyng into the eende forto marke al that he can marke there to be rehercid for gouernauncis, trouthis, and vertues of Goddis lawe to man in erthe, and he schal fynde bi opene experience and open assaie surely ynouȝ, that in huge quantite many mo of hem ben fyndeable and knoweable bi mannis resoun withoute help of Holi Scripture, than ben tho of hem whiche ben not fyndeable and knoweable bi mannis resoun without Holi Scripture. Namelich if he haue leerned bifore this that mannis resoun withoute Holi Scripture may fynde and knowe that oon God is, and that he is maker of alle creaturis out of nouȝt, (whether therwith be holde that creaturis weren euer so mad and so brouȝt forth bi God bifore now, or that thei biganne to be brouȝt forth bi God in a certein bigynnyng of tyme;) and that man is maad into an eende, which eend is forto be couplid and ooned to God bi knowing and louyng and seruyng: and so of many mo pointis and trouthis of which it is spoken in the firste parti of Cristen religioun. In to whos fynding and leernyng certein it is that mannis resoun bi him silf and with natural helpis withoute Holi Scripture mai rise and come bi so probable and so likeli evidencis, that the leernyng

and kunnyng geten therbi mai and schal be suffi|cient forto reule and dresse and move mannis wille into choicis withinforth and into comaundis and outward deedis answering to thilk same so getun leernyng and kunnyng, thouȝ thilk kunnyng be not demonstratijf, that is to seie more sure than is pro|bable and likeli kunnyng. Forwhi thilk kunnyng is so probable and likeli that into the contrarie parti is not had nouȝwhere nyȝ so probable and so likeli euydencis, and therfore thilk kunnyng so geten is strong ynouȝ forto make the hauers of it lyue and lede her conuersacion ther aftir and forto serue God therbi in keping lawe of kinde: for certis bi other strengthe than bi probabilite and likelihode no feith had bi Holi Scripture mai reule oure lyuyng and conuersacioun to God, as it is sumwhat tauȝt in the firste parti of Cristen religioun and in The folwer to the donet, and more schal be tauȝt in the book Of feith and of sacramentis in Latyn.

But forto turne aȝen into the fynysching of the proof bifore sett for the vij^e. conclusioun y argue thus: The argument maad into the proof of the vij^e. con|clusioun is formal, as mai be iugid bi hem whiche in logik knowen the reulis longing to a formal argument, and the bothe premissis of the same argument ben trewe, as it is now bifore openli schewid. Wherfore needis it mustebe [So the MS.] that the conclusioun concludid and dryuen out and forth fro hem bi strengthe of hem is trewe: and thilk same conclusioun of hem is the vij^e. principal conclusioun. Wherfore the vij^e. principal conclusioun is trewe.