The repressor of over much blaming of the clergy.

THE FIRST PART.

THE FIRST CHAPITER.

THRE trowingis or opiniouns ben causis and groundis of manie and of weel nyȝ alle the errouris whiche manie of the lay partie holden, and bi which hold|ing thei vniustly and ouermyche wijten and blamen the clergie and alle her othere neiȝbouris of the lay side, which not holden tho same errouris accordingly with hem, and therfore it is miche nede forto first ȝeue bisynes to vnroote and ouerturne tho thre trow|ingis, holdingis, or opiniouns, bifore the improuyng of othere; sithen if tho thre be sufficiently improued, that is to seie, if it be sufficientli proued that tho thre ben nouȝt and vntrewe and badde, alle the othere vntrewe opiniouns and holdingis bildid vpon hem or upon eny of hem muste needis therbi take her fal, and lacke it wherbi thei miȝten in eny colour or semyng be mentened, holde, and supportid.

The firste of these thre trowingis, holdingis, or opiniouns is this: That no gouernaunce is to be holde of Cristen men the seruice or the lawe of God, saue it which is groundid in Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament, as summe of the bifore seid men holden; or namelich, saue it which is groundid in the Newe Testament or in the Oold, and is not bi the Newe Testament reuokid, as summe othere of hem holden. In this trowing and holding thei ben so kete and so smert and so wantoun, that whanne euer eny

clerk affermeth to hem eny gouernaunce being con|trarie to her witt or plesaunce, thouȝ it ligge ful open and ful sureli in doom of resoun, and ther fore sureli in moral lawe of kinde, which is lawe of God, forto be doon; ȝit thei anoon asken "Where groundist thou it in the Newe Testament?" or "Where groundist thou it in Holi Scripture in such place which is not bi the Newe Testament re|uokid?" And if thei heere not where so in Holi Scripture it is witnessid, thei it dispisen and not re|ceyuen as a gouernaunce of Goddis seruice and of Goddis moral lawe. This opinioun thei weenen to be groundid, Mat. xxij^e. capitulum., where Crist seide to the Sa|duceis thus: Ȝe erren, not knowing Scripturis, nei|ther the vertu or strengthe of God. In the resur|rectioun forsothe thei schulen not wedde neither be weddid, but thei schulen be as aungelis of God in heuen. Han not ȝe rad of the resurrectioun of dede men, that it is seid to us of God, I am God of Abraham, God of Ysaac, God of Iacob, et cætera. Also thei weenen this opinioun be groundid, Iohun v^e. capitulum., where Crist seide to the Iewis thus: Serche ȝe Scripturis, for ȝe trowen ȝou forto haue euerlasting lijf in hem, and thei ben whiche beren witnes of me.

The secunde trowing or opinyoun is this: That what euer Cristen man or womman be meke in spirit and willi forto vndirstonde treuli and dewli Holi Scripture, schal without fail and defaut fynde the trewe vndir|stonding of Holi Scripture in what euer place he or sche schal rede and studie, thouȝ it be in the Apo|calips or ouȝwhere ellis: and the more meke he or sche be, the sooner he or sche schal come into the verry trewe and dew vndirstonding of it, which in Holi Scripture he or sche redith and studieth. This ij^e. opinioun thei wenen to be groundid in Holi Scripture, Ysaie lxvj^e. capitulum. in the bigynnyng, where God seith thus: To whom schal y biholde but to a litle pore man,

broken in herte, and trembling at mi wordis? And also Iames the iiij^e. capitulum., and i^e. Petre v^e. capitulum., where it is seid thus: God aȝenstondith proude men, and he ȝeueth grace to meke men. Also Ysaie lvij^e. capitulum. where it is seid, that God dwelling in euerlastingte dwellith with a meke and a contrite spirit, that he quykee the spirit of meke men and that he quykee the herte of contrite men. And in othere dyuerise placis of Scrip|ture mensioun is mad that God ȝeueth goode thingis to meke men more thanne if thei were not so meke.

The iij^e. trowing or opinioun is this: Whanne euere a persoon hath founde the vndirstonding of Holi Scrip|ture into which he schal come bi the wey now bifore seid of the ij^e. opinioun, he or sche ouȝte bowe awey her heering, her reeding, and her vndirstonding fro al resonyng and fro al arguyng or prouyng which eny clerk can or wole or mai make bi eny maner euydence of resoun or of Scripture, and namelich of resoun into the contrarie, thouȝ the mater be such that it passith not the boondis neither the capacite of resoun forto entermete therwith and forto iuge and ȝeue kunnyng ther upon; which trowing and opi|nioun to holde and fulfille thei wenen hem be bede bi Poul, Colocens. ij^e. capitulum., where he seith thus: Y seie to ȝou these thingis, that no man bigile ȝou in heiȝte of spechis. And soone after there, Poul seith thus: Se ȝe that no man bigile ȝou bi philsophi and veyn falsnes aftir the tradiciouns of men and after the elementis of the world, and not aftir Crist. Also i^e. Cor. i^e. capitulum., weelnyȝ thoruȝ al the chapiter, Poul meeneth that Cristen bileeuers ouȝten not recche of wisdom such as wise worldli men vsen and setten miche therbi.

ij. CHAPITER.

FORTO meete aȝens the firste bifore spoken opinioun, and forto vnroote and updrawe it, y schal sette forth first xiij. principal conclusiouns. But for as miche as this vnrooting of the first opinioun and the proofis of tho xiij. conclusiouns mowen not be doon and made withoute strengthe of argumentis, therfore that y be the better and the cleerer vndirstonde of the lay peple in summe wordis to be aftir spoken in this present book, y sette nowe bifore to hem this doc|trine taken schortli out of the faculte of logik. An argument if he be ful and foormal, which is clepid a sillogisme, is mad of twey proposiciouns dryuyng out of hem and bi strengthe of hem the thridde proposi|cioun. Of the whiche thre proposiciouns the ij. first ben clepid premissis, and the iij^e. folewing out of hem is clepid the conclusioun of hem. And the firste of tho ij. premissis is clepid the first premisse, and the ij^e. of hem is clepid the ij^e. premisse. And ech such argu|ment is of this kinde, that if the bothe premissis ben trewe, the conclusioun concludid out and bi hem is also trewe; and but if euereither of tho premissis be trewe, the conclusioun is not trewe. Ensaumple her of is this. "Ech man is at Rome, the Pope is a man, eke the Pope is at Rome." Lo here ben sett forth ij. proposicions, which ben these, "Ech man is at Rome;" and "The Pope is a man;" and these ben the ij. pre|myssis in this argument, and thei dryuen out the iij^e. proposicioun, which is this, "The Pope is at Rome," and it is the conclusioun of the ij. premissis. Wher|fore certis if eny man can be sikir for eny tyme that these ij. premyssis be trewe, he mai be sikir that the conclusioun is trewe; thouȝ alle the aungelis in heuen wolden seie and holde that thilk conclusioun were not trewe. And this is a general reule, in euery good and formal and ful argument, that if his premissis be knowe for trewe, the conclusioun ouȝte be avowid for trewe, what euer creature wole seie the contrarie.

What propirtees and condiciouns ben requirid to an argument, that he be ful and formal and good, is tauȝt in logik bi ful faire and sure reulis, and may not be tauȝt of me here in this present book. But wolde God it were leerned of al the comon peple in her modiris langage, for thanne thei schulden therbi be putt fro myche ruydnes and boistosenes which thei han now in resonyng; and thanne thei schulden soone knowe and perceue whanne a skile [askile, MS.; but the words are divided by a later hand. See p. I, note.] and an argument bindith and whanne he not byndith, that is to seie, whanne he concludith and proueth his conclusioun and whanne he not so dooth; and thanne thei schulden kepe hem silf the better fro falling into errouris, and thei myȝten the sooner come out of errouris bi heering of argumentis maad to hem, if thei into eny errouris weren falle; and thanne thei schulden not be so blunt and so ruyde and vnformal and boistose in resonyng, and that bothe in her arguying and in her answering, as thei now ben; and thanne schulden thei not be so obstinat aȝens clerkis and aȝens her prelatis, as summe of hem now ben, for defaut of perceuyng whanne an argument procedith into his conclusioun needis and whanne he not so dooth but semeth oonli so do. And miche good wolde come forth if a schort compendiose logik were deuysid for al the comoun peple in her modiris langage; and certis to men of court, leernyng the Kingis lawe of Ynglond in these daies, thilk now seid schort compendiose logik were ful preciose. Into whos making, if God wole graunte leue and leyser, y purpose sumtyme aftir myn othere bisynessis forto assaie.

But as for now thus miche in this wise ther of here talkid, that y be the better vndirstonde in al what y schal argue thoruȝ this present book, y wole come doun into the xiij. conclusiouns, of whiche the

firste is this: It longith not to Holi Scripture, neither it is his office into which God hath him ordeyned, neither it is his part forto grounde eny gouernaunce or deede or seruice of God, or eny lawe of God, or eny trouthe which mannis resoun bi nature may fynde, leerne, and knowe.

That this conclusioun is trewe, y proue thus: What|euer thing is ordeyned (and namelich bi God) for to be ground and fundament of eny vertu or of eny gouer|naunce or deede or treuth, thilk same thing muste so teche and declare and seie out and ȝeue forth al the kunnyng vpon the same vertu or gouernance or trouthe, wher with and wherbi thilk same vertu, gouernaunce, or trouthe is sufficientli knowen, that withoute thilk same thing the same kunnyng of thilk same vertu, gouer|naunce, or trouthe may not be sufficientli knowen, so that thilk same vertu, gouernance, or trouthe, in al the kunnyng withoute which he may not at fulle be leerned and knowen, muste nedis growe forth and come forth out and fro oonli thilk thing which is seid and holden to be ther of the ground and the fundament, as anoon aftir schal be proued: but so it is, that of no vertu, gouernaunce, or treuthe of Goddis moral lawe and seruice, into whos fynding, leerning, and knowing mannis witt may by his natural strengthe and natural helpis come, Holi Scripture al oon ȝeueth the sufficient kunnyng; neither fro and out of Holi Scripture al oon, whether he be take for the Newe Testament al oon, or for the Newe Testament and the Oold to gidere, as anoon after schal be proued, growith forth and cometh forth al the knowing which is nedeful to be had upon it: wherfore nedis folewith, that of no vertu or go|uernaunce or trouthe into which the doom of mannis resoun may sufficientli ascende and come to, for to it fynde, leerne, and knowe withoute reuelacioun fro God mad ther vpon, is groundid in Holi Scripture.

The firste premisse of this argument muste needis be grauntid. Forwhi, if the sufficient leernyng and

kunnyng of eny gouernaunce or eny trouthe schulde as miche or more come fro an other thing, as or than fro this thing which is seid to be his ground, thanne thilk other thing schulde be lijk miche or more and rather the ground of thilk gouernaunce than this thing schulde so be; and also thilk gouernaunce or trouthe schulde haue ij. diuerse groundis and schulde be bildid vpon ij. fundamentis, of which the oon is dyuers atwyn fro the other, which forto seie and holde is not takeable of mannis witt. Wherfore the first premisse of the argument is trewe. Ensaumple her of is this: But if myn hous stode so in this place of erthe that he not stode so in an othir place of erthe ellis, this place of the erthe were not the ground of myn hous; and if eny other place of the erthe bare myn hous, certis myn hous were not groundid in this place of the erthe: and in lijk maner, if this treuthe or go|uernaunce, that ech man schulde kepe mekenes, were knowe bi sum other thing than bi Holi Scripture, and as weel and as sufficiently as bi Holi Scripture, thilk gouernaunce or trouth were not groundid in Holi Scripture. Forwhi he stood not oonli ther on; and therfore the first premisse is trewe. Also thus: Ther mai no thing be fundament and ground of a wal, or of a tree, or of an hous, saue it upon which the al hool substaunce of the wal, or of the tree, or of the hous stondith, and out of which oonly the wal, tree, or hous cometh. Wherfore bi lijk skile, no thing is ground and fundament of eny treuthe or conclusioun, gouernaunce or deede, saue it upon which aloon al the gouernaunce, trouthe, or vertu stondith, and out of which aloon al the same treuthe or gouernance cometh.

That also the ij^e. premisse is trewe, y proue thus: What euer deede or thing doom of resoun dooth as fulli and as perfitli as Holi Scripture it dooth, Holi Scripture it not dooth oonli or al oon; but so it is, that what euer leernyng and kunnyng Holi Scripture ȝeueth upon eny of the now seid gouernauncis, trouthes, and vertues, (that is to seie, upon eny gouernaunce, trouthe,

and vertu of Goddis lawe to man, in to whos fynding, leernyng, and knowing mannis resoun may bi him silf aloon, or with natural helpis, rise and come,) mannis resoun may and can ȝeue the same leerning and know|ing, as experience ther upon to be take anoon wole schewe; for thou canst not fynde oon such gouer|naunce tauȝt in Holi Scripture to be doon, but that resoun techith it lijk weel and lijk fulli to be doon; and if thou wolt not trowe this, assigne thou summe suche and assaie. Wherfore folewith that of noon suche now seid gouernauncis the leernyng and knowing is had and tauȝt bi Holi Scripture oonli or aloone; and therfore the ij^e. premisse of the firste principal argument muste needis be trewe.

And thanne ferther, thus: Sithen the bothe premissis of the first principal argument ben trewe, and the argument is formal, nedis muste the conclusioun con|cludid bi hem in the same arguyng be trewe, which is the bifore set first principal conclusioun.

iij. CHAPITER.

THE ij^e. principal argument into the first bifore sett and spoken conclusioun or trouthe is this: Thilk thing is the ground of a gouernaunce, or vertu, or trouthe, out of which al the sufficient leernyng and knowing of the same gouernaunce, trouthe, and vertu cometh, procedith, and growith, and may be had, thouȝ al other thing pretendid to be ground ther of be awey or were not in being; but so it is, that al the leernyng and knowing, which Holi Scripture ȝeueth vpon eny bifore seid gouernaunce, deede, or trouthe of Goddis moral lawe, mai be had bi doom of natural resoun; ȝhe, thouȝ Holi Writt had not spoke ther of, or thouȝ he schulde neuere fro hens forthward speke ther of, as anoon aftir schal be proued; and ouer it al the forther kunnyng which Holi Writt ȝeueth not upon eny seid gouernaunce or deede or treuthe of Goddis lawe and

seruice, and is necessarie to be had vpon the same gouernaunce, trouthe, or vertu, mai be had bi labour in doom of natural resoun, as anoon aftir schal be proued. Wherfore doom of natural resoun, (which is clepid "moral lawe of kinde" in the book Of iust apprising Holi Scripture,) and not Holi Scripture, is the ground of alle the seid gouernauncis, deedis, vertues, and trouthis.

The firste premisse of this ij^e. principal argument is proued bifore bi proof of the first premisse in the first principal argument; and the secunde premisse in this principal argument mai be proued thus: Ech of these gouernauncis, trouthis, and vertues, now to be rehercid, mowe be knowen bi doom of resoun as sufficientli as Holi Scripture techith hem to be don, thouȝ Holi Scripture had left al his teching which he makith vpon eny of hem; that is to seie, that God is moost to be loued of man; and that a man schulde loue him silf and his neiȝbore as him silf, thouȝ not so miche as him silf; that a man schulde be trewe to God in paiyng hise iust promissis, if he hath eny suche maad to God; that he be meke to God in not amys tempting God aȝens reson; that he reuerence God, and that he take bisynes for to leerne what plesith God, that he it do to God or for God; that a man ouȝte be temperat in eting and drinking, and not be glotenose; and that he ouȝte be contynent or holding mesure in deedis of gendring; and that he ouȝte be meke to othere men and not proud; and that he ouȝte be trewe and iust to othere men; and that he ouȝte be mylde in speche and answere; and that he ouȝte be pacient and sobre in tribulaciouns; and that he ouȝte be douȝty and strong into gode werkis; and so of ful manye mo gouernauncis and vertues of Goddis lawe, in to which mannis witt mai suffice to come forto hem fynde, leerne, and kunne. Certis of alle these and of alle to hem lijk mannis witt can teche and schewe that ech of hem ouȝte be doon of man, as ferforth

as Holi Scripture techith of eny of hem that he ouȝte be don of man, as experience soone can ther of make proof. And also hethen philsophiris bi her studie in natural witt founden and grauntiden alle hem to be doon; and that these philsophiris so founden and grauntiden bi her naturall witt, it is to be holde. Forwhi thei hem silf knewe of noon reuelacioun mad to hem bi God ther upon; and if eny such reuelacioun hadde be maad to hem, thei schulden bifore othere men haue knowe it so to be mad to hem. Neither othere men euere knewen that to tho philsophiris was maad such reuelacioun. Forwhi, if eny men wolen so holde, thei kunnen not schewe therto eny proof forto saue her seiyng and holding fro feynyng; no more than if it had likid to hem forto haue holde that an aungel spake to tho philsophiris fro heuene, as an aungel spake to Abraham and to Moises; and sithen to neuerneither thei han sufficient euy|dence, it folewith that forto eny of hem bothe holde is not but feyned waar; forwhi it is waar which lackith his ground, proof, and fundament. Ferther|more, with this now seid and ouer this now seid of the bifore spoken gouernauncis, trouthis, and vertues knowable and fyndeable sufficientli bi doom of reson, this is trewe, that of ech and vpon ech of hem, and of ech othir, and upon ech othir lijk to hem, mannis resoun can ȝeue miche more leernyng and kunnyng than is therof ȝouen in Holi Scripture, as experience ther upon openli schewith; ȝhe, ther is noon such now seid gouernaunce or vertu or trouthe of Goddis moral lawe tauȝt bi Scripture to be had and vsid: but that six sithis [sixsithis, MS.; but the words are divided by a later hand.] more leernyng and knowing muste be had upon him, eer he schal be sufficientli leerned and knowun, than is al the leernyng and know ing which is writun upon him in Holi Scripture, as it mai weel be seen to ech reeder in the book

clepid Cristen religioun and in the bookis perteynyng therto. Wherfore the ij^e. premisse of the ij^e. principal argument is trewe thoruȝ hise bothe parties: ȝhe, upon sum trouthe or gouernaunce of Goddis lawe lenger writing muste be had, eer it be sufficientli knowe, than is al the writing of Mathewis Gospel; and ȝit of thilk vertu or gouernaunce scantli is writen in al Holi Writt ten lynes, as it is open to ech reeder and vnderstonder in the seid bokis. Wherfore folewith that the ij^e. premisse of the ij^e. principal argument for his ij^e. partie is trewe.

I preie thee, Sir, seie to me where in Holi Scrip|ture is ȝouen the hundrid parti of the teching upon matrimonie which y teche in a book mad upon Matrimonie, and in the firste partie of Cristen religioun: and ȝit rede who so wole thilk book Of matrimonie, and he schal fynde al the hool teching of thilk book litil ynouȝ or ouer litle forto teche al what is necessarie to be leerned and kunnen vpon matrimonie. Hast thou eny more teching in Holi Scripture upon matrimonie than a fewe lynes writen, Mat. v^e. capitulum. and Mat. xix^e. capitulum., Mark x^e. capitulum., and Luk xvj^e. [xviij ^e., MS. See Luke xvi. 18.] capitulum., and Genesis i^e. and ij^e. capitulum.? And ȝit alle thilk vj. places speken not saue tweyne pointis of matrimonie, which ben vndepartabilnes and fleischli vce of bodies into childe bigeting. What therfore a grounde ouȝte eny man seie that Holi Scripture is to matrimonie, sithen al Holi Scripture techith not but these ij. pointis of matrimonie? For thouȝ Poul bidde ofte that a man schulde loue his wijf, and that the wijf schulde obeie to hir husbonde, ȝit what is this to kunnyng of matrimonye in it silf, and into the propirtees of it, and into the circumstauncis of it, withoute which matrimonie is not vertuose? And so forth of manie purtenauncis and longingis to matrimonye.

Seie to me also where in Holi Scripture is ȝouen the hundrid parti of the teching which is ȝouen upon vsure in the thridde parti of the book yclepid The filling of the iiij. tablis: and ȝit al thilk hool teching ȝouen upon vsure in the now named book is litil ynouȝ or ouer litle forto leerne, knowe, and haue sufficientli into mannis bihoue and into Goddis trewe seruice and lawe keping what is to be leerned and kunnen aboute vsure, as to reeders and studiers ther yn it muste needis be open.

Is ther eny more writen of vsure in al the Newe Testament saue this, Luk vj^e. capitulum., Ȝeue ȝe loone, hoping no thing ther of? and al that is of vsure writen in the Oold Testament fauorith rather vsure than it re|proueth. How euere, therfore, schulde eny man seie that the sufficient leernyng and kunnyng of vsure or of the vertu contrarie to vsure is groundid in Holi Scripture? How euere schal thilk litil now rehercid clausul, Luk vj^e. capitulum., be sufficient forto answere and assoile alle the harde scrupulose doutis and questiouns which al dai han neede to be assoilid in mennis bar|genyngis and cheffaringis to gidere? Ech man having to do with suche questiouns mai soone se that Holi Writt ȝeueth litil or noon liȝt therto at al. For|whi al that Holi Writt seith ther to is that he for|bedith vsure, and therfore al that mai be take therbi is this, that vsure is vnleeful; but thouȝ y bileeue herbi that vsure is vnleeful, how schal y wite herbi what vsure is, that y be waar forto not do it, and whanne in a bargeyn is vsure thouȝ to summen seemeth noon, and how in a bargeyn is noon vsure thouȝ to summen ther semeth to be? And also thouȝ Holi Scripture bidde that we tempte not God amys and aȝens resoun, certis resoun techith the same. But ȝit where ellis than in doom of resoun schule [schulde, MS. (first hand).] we fynde what tempting is, and which tempting of God

is leeful and which is not? Certis not in al Holi Scripture. Also, thouȝ Holi Scripture bidde that a man be iust to his neiȝbour, and resoun techith as fulli the same, ȝit what riȝtwisnes is and whiche ben hise spicis, muste be founden in doom of resoun and not in Holi Scripture; and whanne eny plee is bi|twix man and man, and euereither party trowith to haue riȝt, the iugement muste be had in the doom of resoun in the court bi the iuge, and not bi Holi Scripture. And so forth y myȝte make induccioun of ech gouernaunce longing to Goddis lawe weelnyȝ. Wherfore the secunde premisse of the ij^e. principal argument for his ij^e. party is trewe.

Confirmacioun to this ij^e. principal argument is this: Euery thing groundid hangeth and is dependent of his ground, so that he mai not be withoute his ground; but so it is, that al the leernyng and kunnyng which Holi Scripture ȝeueth upon eny of the scid gouer|nauncis, vertues, deedis, or treuthis, and al the other deel of kunnyng upon hem which Scripture ȝeueth not, hangeth not of Holi Scripture, neither requirith and askith Holi Scripture forto so ȝeue. Forwhi al this kunnyng myȝte be had bi labour in doom of resoun, thouȝ no biholding therto were maad into Holi Scripture, or thouȝ Scripture were distroied and brent, as summen ["If this be trewe . . . . . . it folewith that forto seie this whiche summe doctouris com|ounli holden with the Maistir of Stories (i.e. Petrus Comestor), that Esdras by inspiracioun wrote without eny copi alle the fiue bokis of Moyses and alle the othere bokis of stories and of prophecies in to hise daies, is not but a feynyd thing." Pecock's Book of Faith, p. xxiii. (Wharton); but the notion is as old as Tertul|lian (de Cult. Fæm., lib. I. c. 3): "Perinde potuit abolefactam eam violentia cataclysmi in spiritu rursus reformare; quemadmodum et Hierosolymis Babylonia ex|pugnatione deletis, omne instru|mentum Judaicæ litteraturæ per Esdram constat restauratam."] trowen that it so was, with al the writing of the Oold Testament in the tyme of trans|migracioun into Babilony, as it is now bifore schewid;

wherfore needis folewith that Scripture is not ground to eny oon such seid vertu, gouernaunce, deede, or trouthe, of which the firste conclusioun spekith, but oonli doom of natural resoun, which is moral lawe of kinde and moral lawe of God, writun in the book of lawe of kinde in mennis soulis, prentid into the ymage of God, is ground to ech such vertu, gouernaunce, deede, and trouthe.

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.

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.

vj. CHAPITER.

AFTIR that y haue thus argued now bifore bi resoun into proof of the firste principal conclusioun y schal argue now in to the same by ensaumplis thus:

Seie to me, good Sire, and answere herto, whanne men of the cuntre vplond bringen into Londoun in Myd|somer eue braunchis of trees fro Bischopis wode and flouris fro the feeld, and bitaken tho to citeseins of Londoun forto therwith araie her housis, schulen men of Londoun receyuyng and taking tho braunchis, and flouris, seie and holde that tho braunchis grewen out of the cartis whiche brouȝten hem to Londoun, and that tho cartis or the hondis of the bringers weren groundis and fundamentis of tho braunchis and flouris? Goddis forbode so litil witt be in her hedis. Certis, thouȝ Crist and his Apostlis weren now lyuyng at Londoun, and wolden bringe so as is now seid braunchis fro Bischopis wode and flouris fro the feeld into [to Londoun, MS.; but in is interlineated in an ink of the same colour.] Londoun, and wolden delyuere to men that thei make there with her housis gay, into remembraunce of Seint Iohun Baptist, and of this that it was prophecied of him that manye schulden ioie in his birthe, ȝit tho men of Londoun receyuyng so tho braunchis and flouris ouȝten not seie and feele that tho braunchis and flouris grewen out of Cristis hondis, and out of the Apostlis hondis. Forwhi in this dede Crist and the Apostlis diden noon other wise than as othere men miȝten and couthen do. But the seid receyuers ouȝten seie and holde that tho braunchis grewen out of the bowis vpon whiche thei in Bischopis wode stoden, and tho bowis grewen out of stockis or tronchons, and the tronchons or schaftis grewen out of the roote, and the roote out of the nexte erthe therto upon which and in which the roote is buried, so that neither the cart, neither the hondis of the bringers, neither tho bringers ben the groundis or fundamentis of the braunchis; and in lijk maner the feld is the fundament of tho flouris, and not the

hondis of the gaderers, neither tho bringers. Certis, but if ech man wole thus feele in this mater, he is duller than eny man ouȝte to be. And sithen in lijk maner it is that the maters and conclusiouns and trouthis of lawe of kinde, (of which lawe myche is spoken in the first parti of the book clepid The iust apprising of Holi Scripture, and which lawe is welnyȝ al the lawe of God to Cristen men, for in sum maner forto speke of lawe of kinde it is al the lawe of God to Cristen men, except the making and the vsing of Cristis sacramentis,) and of it what folewith ther of and is necessarili longing therto leggith ful fair abrood sprad growing in his owne space, the feeld of mannys soule, and there oon treuthe cometh out of an other treuthe, and he of the iij^e., and the iij^e. out of the iiij^e., and into tyme it bicome vnto openest treuthis of alle othere in thilk faculte of moral philsophie, and to the principlis and groundis of alle othere trouthis in the same faculte, (euen as the sprai cometh out of the braunche, the braunche out of the bouȝ, the bouȝ out of the schaft, and the schaft out of the roote:) and thus it was weelnyȝ with al this lawe of kinde eer eny Scripture of the Oold Testament or of the Newe were, and schulde haue so be, thouȝ alle tho Scripturis weren brend,—needis every wijs man muste graunte and consent that noon of the now seid treuthis and conclusiouns of lawe of kinde is ground in Holi Scripture of the Bible, but thei ben groundid in thilk forest of lawe of kinde which God plauntith in mannis soule whanne he makith him to his ymage and likenes. And out of this forest of treuthis mowe be take treuthis and conclusiouns, and be sett into open knowing of the fynder and of othere men, thouȝ not withoute labour and studie thoruȝ manie ȝeeris. And herto seruen clerkis of moral philsophie whiche now ben clepid Dyuynes riȝt as forresters and othere men seruen for to hewe doun braunchis for hem silf, and

for to delyuere hem to citeseins in Londoun that her housis be maad the more honest ther with and therbi.

Go we ferther now thus: What if Crist and hise Apostlis wolden fische with bootis in the see, and wolden aftirward carie tho fischis in paniers vpon horsis to London, schulde men seie for reuerence or loue to Crist and hise Apostlis that tho fischis grewen out of the panyeris or dossers, or out of the hondis of Crist and of hise Apostlis, and that the ground and fundament of the fischis substauncis and beingis were the houndis [Probably we should read hondis.] of Crist and of hise Apostlis whilis thei toke tho fischis, or whilis thei carieden tho fischis? Goddis forbode that for eny loue or reuerence which men wolden do to Crist and to hise Apostlis that thei schulden make so greet a lesing aȝens treuthe. And thanne ferther thus: Certis treuthis of lawe of kind which Crist and hise Apostlis schewiden forth to peple were bifore in the grete see of lawe of kinde in mannis soule eer Crist or his hise Apostlis were born into this lijf, as it is ofte bifore proued; and ther fore it may noon other wise be seid and holde, but that out of the seid see thei toke as bi fysching tho treuthis of lawe of kinde whiche thei tauȝten and prechiden to the peple, and therfore for no reuerence or loue to be ȝouen to God or to hise Apostlis, or to her writingis, it is to be seid and feelid that tho now seid treuthis weren or ben foundid and groundid in the seiyngis or writingis of Crist and of hise Apostlis.

Also in caas a greet clerk wolde go into a librarie and ouer studie there a long proces of feith writun in the Bible, and wolde aftirward reporte and reherce the sentence of the same proces to the peple at Poulis Cros in a sermoun, or wolde write it in a pistle or lettre to hise freendis vnder entent of reporting the sentence of the seid proces, schulde the heerers [heeres, MS.] of thilk

reportyng and remembring seie that thilk sentence were foundid and groundid in the seid reporter or in his preching or in his pistle writen? Goddis forbode; for open it is that thei ouȝten seie and feele rathir [rathir is added by a later hand.] that thilk sentence is groundid in the seid book ligging in the librarie. And in caas that this clerk reporting the seid sentence or proces spake or wrote in othere wordis thilk sentence than ben the wordis vnder which thilk sentence is writen in the seid book, thei ouȝten seie and feele that hise wordis and hise writingis ouȝten be glosid and be expowned and be brouȝt in to accordaunce with the seid book in the librarie, and the seid book in thilk proces ouȝte not be expowned and be brouȝt and wrestid into accordaunce with the seid clerkis wordis [wordris, MS.] and writingis: ȝhe, thouȝ Crist and hise Apostlis wolden entende and do the same as this clerk dooth, the peple ouȝte in noon other wise than which is now seid bere hem anentis Crist and hise Apostlis in this case, as it is opene ynouȝ. And sithen it is so, that alle the trouthis of lawe of kinde whiche Crist and hise Apostlis tauȝten and wroten weren bifore her teching and writing, and weren writen bifore in thilk solempnest inward book or inward writing of resounis doom passing alle outward bookis in pro|fite to men for to serue God, of which inward book or inward writing miche thing is seid in the book clepid The iust apprising of Holi Scripture and of which Ieremye spekith in his xxxj^e. capitulum. and Poul in his epistle Hebr. viij^e. capitulum., it muste needis folewe that noon of the seid treuthis is groundid in the wordis or writingis of Crist or of the Apostlis, but in the seid inward preciose book and writing buried in mannis soule, out of which inward book and writing mowe be taken bi labour and studiyng of clerkis mo con|clusiouns

and treuthis and gouernauncis of lawe of kinde and of Goddis moral lawe and seruice than myȝten be writen in so manie bokis whiche schulden fille the greet chirche of Seint Poul in Londoun.

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.

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.

ix. CHAPITER.

THE viij^e. principal conclusioun is this: No man mai leerne and kunne the hool lawe of God to which Cristen men ben bounde, but if he can of moral phil|sophi; and the more that he can in moral philsophie, bi so miche the more he can of Goddis lawe and seruice. This conclusioun folewith out of the vij^e. conclusion openly ynouȝ. Forwhi lawe of kinde and moral philsophie ben oon, and the more parti of Goddis lawe bi which man is bounde for to serue to [to is interlineated, apparently by the same hand.] God is moral lawe of kinde, as it is proued bifore in the vij^e. conclusioun.

The ix^e. conclusioun is this: No man schal perfitli, sureli, and sufficienti vndirstonde Holi Scripture in alle tho placis where yn he rehercith moral vertues not being positijf lawe of feith, but being such as mannys resoun may fynde, leerne, and knowe, but if he be bifore weel and perfitli, suerli, and sufficiently leerned in moral philsophie; and the more perfitli, sureli, and sufficientli he is leerned in moral philso|phie the more able as bi that he schal be forto per|fitli, sureli, and sufficientli vndirstonde Holi Scripture in alle tho placis wheryn he spekith of eny moral lawe of God being not positijf lawe of feith. This conclusioun folewith out of the vij^e. and the viij^e. con|clusions: wherfore he is to be holde trewe.

The x^e. principal conclusioun is this: The leernyng and kunnyng of the seid lawe of kinde and of the seid moral philsophie is so necessarie to Cristen men, that it mai not he lackid of hem if thei schulen thriftili serue to God and kepe his lawe bitake to hem in erthe. This conclusioun mai be proued thus. Thilk leernyng and kunnyng is so necessarie that it

mai not be lackid of Cristen men which leernyng and kunnyng is the leernyng and kunnyng of the more deel of Goddis law bitake to hem in erthe; but so it is that the leernyng and kunnyng of the seid lawe of kinde and of the seid moral philsophie is the leernyng and kunnyng of the more parti and deel of Goddis lawe, bi which man ouȝte serue to God in erthe, as it is proued bi the vij^e. and viij^e. principal conclusiouns to gidere. Wherfore nedis folewith that the leernyng and kunnyng of the bifore seid lawe of kinde and of the seid moral philsophie is so necessarie to Cristen men, that thei mowe not lacke it forto serue God bi eny thrift. The firste premisse of this argument is open ynouȝ that ech man wole him graunte. The ij^e. premisse is proued bi the vij^e. bifore sett principal conclusioun: and this present argument is formal and gode. Wherfore his conclusioun in him now proued is trewe, which is not ellis than the x. principal conclusioun.

Also thus: Thilk leernyng and kunnyng is neces|sarie and vnlackeable to Cristen men without which thei mowe not sufficientli and sureli vnderstonde Holi Scripture in alle placis where he spekith of Goddis lawis to man not being positijf lawis of feith. For|whi tho placis ben manye, as open assay in reding Scripture wole suerly schewe; but so it is that, with|out the leernyng and kunnyng of the seid lawe of kinde and of doom of resoun, Holi Scripture mai not be sufficientli and dewli vndirstonde and expowned in no place where he spekith of lawe of God not being positijf lawe of feith, as it is bifore schewid bi the ix^e. principal conclusioun. Wherfore this present x^e. conclusioun is trewe.

Also thus: The leernyng and kunnyng of it is ne|cessarie and vnlackeable to mankinde, in which alle the gouernauncis, treuthis, and vertues of Goddis lawe being the lasse deel and beyng the remanent to the

other more deel and parti bifore seid in the vij^e. conclusioun of Goddis lawe ben more foundid and groundid than in Holi Scripture, that is to sey positijf lawis of Crist whiche ben the makingis and the vsingis of Cristis sacramentis longing to the Newe Testament: but so it is, that in the seid lawe of kinde and doom of resoun or moral philsophie, alle the gouernauncis, treuthis, and vertues of Goddis lawe whiche ben the lasse deel and ben the remanent to the more deel bifore seid of Goddis lawe in the vij^e. conclusioun ben more groundid and foundid than in Holi Scripture; and that alle thei and ech of hem whiche biholden the making and the vsing of the seid newe sacramentis ben more groundid bi doom of re|soun than bi Holi Scripture, for as miche as ech of hem into his grounding nedith euydencis of bothe to gidere, that is to seie of resoun and of Holi Scripture to gidere, and ellis he mai not be sufficientli groundid. And here with it is trewe that in this grounding doon to hem bi doom of resoun and by Holi Scrip|ture to gidere, [It is not quite clear whether to gidere is intended to be written con|junctim or disjunctim: it is usually written disjunctim in the MS.] the euidencis which doom of reson ȝeueth into the seid grounding of hem alle and of ech of hem ben more in strengthe and in substance and in noumbre into the seid grounding of hem, than ben the euidencis whiche Holi Scripture ȝeueth into the grounding of eny of hem which ben the makingis and vsingis of the newe sacramentis and tho whiche fo|lewen of hem bi formal argument, as n The fo lewer to the donet and in The book of feith ioyned therto, othire of my writingis, it is sufficiently tauȝt; whiche processe were ouer long and sumwhat ouer hard to be eftsoone sett here.

Ȝhe, and ȝit with al this that is now seid treuth is also that the makingis and the vsingis of the seid

newe sacramentis mowe not be groundid bi Holi Scripture to be oure gouernauncis now lyuyng in erthe withoute help of resonys doom, and withoute that lawe of kinde and moral philsophi and Holi Scripture grounde hem to gidere; and that into the grounding of hem the euydencis or premyssis which Holi Scripture bringith ben not more substancial and strenger into the grounding, than ben the euy|dencis and premissis which doom of resoun therto bringeth, as in the now alleggid bookis it is openli declarid. Wherfore folewith the treuth of this present x^e. conclusioun, that the leernyng and kunnyng of lawe of kinde and moral philsophie in doom of resoun is so necessarie to Cristen men, that it is vnlackeable to hem forto be in eny worth seruauntis to God and kepers of his lawe in erthe.

Out of these bifore sett vij^e. viij^e. ix^e. and x^e. conclu|siouns and trouthis cometh forth ful openli and sureli this xj^e. conclusioun and trouthe. Ful weel ouȝten alle persoones of the lay parti not miche leerned in moral philsophi and lawe of kinde forto make miche of clerkis weel leerned in moral philsophi, that tho clerkis schulden helpe tho lay persoones forto ariȝt vndir|stonde Holi Scripture in alle tho placis in which Holi Scripture rehercith the bifore spoken conclusiouns and treuthis of moral philsophi, that is to seie of lawe of kinde. Forwhi withoute tho clerkis so leerned in moral philsophi and with oute her direccioun the now seid lay persoones schulen not esili, liȝtli, and anoon haue the dew vndirstonding of Holi Scripture in the now seid placis, as is bifore proued in the ix^e. con|clusioun.

Also out of the same bifore sett vij^e. viij^e. ix^e. and x^e. conclusions and trouthis and out of the assay and experience which mai be had in the ouer reding and studiyng the bokis anoon aftir to be rehercid folewith this xij^e. conclusioun and trouthe. Ful weel ouȝten

alle persoones of the lay parti not leerned ouȝwhere ellis bi the now seid clerkis or bi othere bokis of moral philsophie forto make miche of bokis maad to hem in her modiris langage whiche ben clepid thus: The donet into Cristen religioun: The folwer to the donet: The book of Cristen religioun, (namelich the first parti fro the bigynnyng of the iij^e. treti forth|ward): The book filling the iiij. tablis: The book of worschiping: The book clepid The iust apprising of Holi Scripture: The book clepid The prouoker of Cristen men: The book of Counceilis, and othere mo pertenyng to the now seid Book of Cristen religioun. Forwhi in these now spoken bokis thei schulen leerne and kunne (in a ful notable quantite and mesure and in a fair fourme) the now bifore seid moral philsophie being so necessarie forto be vndirstonde, and being in it silf the more parti of al her moral lawe and seruice to God, as it is open bi the vij^e. conclusioun; and being so necessarie forto expowne or interprete or glose dewli and treuly Holi Scripture in alle placis where he spekith of Goddis lawe and seruice, except thilk fewe placis where yn he spekith of the making and vsing of the fewe newe sacramentis of Crist, as it is open bi the ix^e. bifore sett conclusioun. Wher|fore miche ouȝten lay persoones forto make and apprise and loue the now spoken bokis. And ferther|more ouer this now seid the now spoken bokis techen ful clereli and bihouefulli the treuthis and gouernauncis of Goddis lawe whiche ben groundid in Holi Scripture, and also othere treuthis of feith whiche ben not lawis and ben groundid in Holi Scripture; and also thei treten ful nobili the positijf lawis of Criste aboute the newe sacramentis, and therfore ful miche good (as y hope) schal come bi the reeding, leernyng, and vsing of the now spoken bokis.

Of this same mater it is quikli and smertli spoken in a litil book therto and therfore maad, which y

clepe The prouoker of Cristen peple, and ther fore no more ther of here now but this: that wolde God men wolden not be bi so miche the blinder that liȝt is to hem thus schewid, and that thei wolden not be bi so miche the frowarder and the more presumptuose that goodnes is to hem thus profrid: but wolde God that thei wolden assaie perfitli what tho now seid bokis ben and wolden weel kunne hem, and thanne if thei schulden haue euy cause forto blame or commende tho bokis that thanne first thei wolden blame or com|mende: for bi good resounys doom and bi the oolde wijs prouerbe, A man schulde blame or commende as he fyndeth, and so aftir that he hath founde cause to blame or comende he myȝte blame or comende; and not bifore eer he eny suche causis fyndeth, and eer he aftir eny suche causis sechith. And certis the con|trarie doing of this wijs prouerbe dooth miche sorow among simple lay peple, yuel lad forth bifore and wors confermed bi a wickid scole of heretikis, which is not ȝit al quenchid.

x. CHAPITER.

THE xiij^e. principal conclusioun or trouthe is this: Thei that wolen aske and seie, thus, "Where fyndist thou it groundid in Holi Scripture?" as thouȝ ellis it is not worthi to be take for trewe, whanne euere eny gouernance or trouthe sufficientli grondid in lawe of kinde and in moral philsophi is affermed and mynys|trid to hem, (as ben many of tho xj. gouernauncis and treuthis whiche schulen be tretid aftir in this present book: whiche ben setting vp of ymagis in hiȝe placis of the bodili chirche, pilgrimages doon priueli, and pilgrimages doon openli bi lay men and bi preestis and bischopis vnto the memorialis or

mynde placis of seintis, and the endewing of preestis bi rentis and bi vnmoueable possessiouns, and suche othere) asken tho whilis in lijk maner vnresonabili and lijk vnskilfulli and lijk reprouabili, as if thei wolden aske and seie thus,—"Where findist thou it grondid in Holi Scripture?" whanne a treuth and a conclusioun of grammer is affermed and seid to hem: or ellis thus, "Where findist thou it groundid in tailour craft?" whanne that a point or a treuthe and a con|clusioun of sadeler craft is affermed, seid, and mynistrid to hem: or ellis thus, "Where fyndist thou it groundid in bocheri?" whanne a point or a treuthe and conclu|sioun of masonrie is affermed and seid and mynystrid to hem.

This present xiij^e. conclusioun mai be proued thus: Euen as grammer and dyuynyte ben ij. dyuerse facul|tees and kunnyngis, and therfore ben vnmedlid, and ech of hem hath his propre to him boundis and markis, how fer and no ferther he schal strecche him|silf vpon maters, treuthis, and conclusions, and not to [to inserted, perhaps wrongly, by a later hand.] entirmete neither entermeene with eny other facultees boundis; and euen as sadelarie and talarie ben ij. dyuerse facultees and kunnyngis, and therfore ben vnmedlid, and ech of hem hath his propre to him boundis and markis, how fer and no ferther he schal strecche him silf forth vpon maters, treuthis, and con|clusions, and not entircomune with eny other craft or faculte in conclusiouns and treuthis: so it is that the faculte of the seid moral philsophie and the faculte of pure dyvynite or the Holi Scripture ben ij. dyuerse facultees, ech of hem hauyng his propre to him boundis and markis, and ech of hem having his propre to him treuthis and conclusiouns to be groundid in him, as the bifore sett six firste conclusiouns schewen.

Wherfore folewith that he vnresonabili and reprouabili askith, which askith where a treuthe of moral phil|sophi is groundid in pure divynyte or in Holi Scrip|ture, and wole not ellis trowe it to be trewe; lijk as he schulde vnresonabili and reprouabili aske, if he askid of a treuthe in masonry, where it is groundid in carpentrie; and wolde not ellis trowe it be trewe, but if it were groundid in carpentrie.

No man obiecte here aȝens me [The MS. originally had to me, but the to is scraped out.] to be aboute forto falsifie this present xiij^e. conclusioun; and that, foras|miche as sporiers in Londoun gilden her sporis whiche thei maken, and cutelers in Londoun gilden her knyfis whiche thei maken, as thouȝ therfore sporiorie and cutellerie entermeeneden and enterfereden with gold|smyth craft, and that these craftis kepten not to hem silf her propre and seuerel to hem silf boundis and markis. For certis thouȝ the sporier and the cuteler be leerned in thilk point of goldsmyth craft which is gilding, and therefore thei vsen thilk point and deede and trouthe of goldsmyth craft, ȝit thilk point of gilding is not of her craft, but oonli of goldsmyth craft: and so the craftis ben vnmedlid, thouȝ oon werkman be leerned in hem bothe and vse hem bothe, riȝt as if oon man had lernid [lernid interlineated in a later (?) hand.] the al hool craft of goldsmythi and the al hool craft of cutleri, and wolde holde schoppis of bothe, and wirche sumwhile the oon craft and sumwhile the other craft. Ȝit herfore tho craftis in thilk man ben not the lasse dyuerse, ne neuer the lasse kepen her seueralte in boundis and markis as in hem silf, thouȝ oon man be leerned in hem bothe and can wirche hem bothe and hath hem bothe. Ȝit it is impossible the oon of tho craftis forto entre and entermete with the trouthis of the othere, thouȝ oon man can wirche in hem bothe: for

thanne tho ij. craftis weren not ij. dyuerse craftis not subordynat. And thus ouȝte be avoidid this obiec|cioun, riȝt as thouȝ a man were a knyȝt and a preest; ȝit knyȝthode in thilk man is as fer a twynne fro preesthode in the same man, (as bi her bothe naturis and beingis, thouȝ not yn place or persoon,) as ben knyȝthode in oon persoon and preesthode in an other persoon.

In this wise bi these xiij. bifore going conclusions is vnrootid and uppluckid, and sufficientli rebukid and proued for vntrewe, the firste of the iij. opiniouns spoken and sett forth in the bigynnyng of this present book in the first chapiter. And also bi these same xiij. conclusiouns and her proofis ben weel adauntid the wanton and vnkunnyng bering of hem whiche wolen not allowe eny gouernaunce to be the lawe and seruice of God, inlasse than it be grondid in Holi Scripture; as thouȝ thei schulden preise and worschipe ther yn God the more and plese God the more, that thei apprisen so miche Holi Scripture. For wite thei weel with oute eny doute that God is neither preisid, neither worschipid, neither plesid bi vntrouthe or bi lesing. If eny man make of Holi Scripture and apprise it, euen as treuthe is and no more than truthe is, God is ther yn plesid; and if eny man wole make of Holi Scripture or of eny creature in heuene or in erthe more than treuthe is that he be maad of and be apprisid, God is ther yn displesid.

And ferther thus: If eny man be feerd lest he trespace to God if he make ouer litle of Holi Scrip|ture, which is the outward writing of the Oold Testa|ment and of the Newe, y aske whi is he not afeerd lest he make ouer litle and apprise ouer litle the inward Scripture of the bifore spoken lawe of kinde writen bi God [bigod, MS.] him silf in mannis soule, whanne he

made mannis soule to his ymage and liknes? Of which inward Scripture Poul spekith, Romans ij^e. capitulum., and Ieremye in his xxxj^e. chapiter; and Poul takith the same processe, Hebr. viij^e. capitulum. For certis this in|ward book or Scripture of lawe of kinde is more necessarie to Cristen men, and is more worthi than is the outward Bible and the kunnyng ther of, as fer as thei bothe treten of the more parti of Goddis lawe to man, as mai be taken bi the vij^e. conclusioun and his proof, and bi the x^e. conclusion and his proof.

And more proof therto ech man may se at ful, if he wole rede and studie in the book clepid The iust apprising of Holi Scripture, which book if eny man wole wijsli reede and perfitli vndirstonde with this proces now afore going fro the bigynnyng of this book hidir to, y wole leie myn arme to be smyte of, but that he schal consente in his witt withinforth, wole he nyle he, amagrey his heed, that alle these now bifore going xiij. conclusiouns ben trewe, and that the firste of the iij. opinions sett bifore in the bigynnyng of this book is vntrewe.

The textis bifore alleggid in the firste chapiter of this book, Mat. xxij^e. capitulum. and Iohun v^e. capitulum., which the holders of the now seid first opinioun weenen grounden thilk same opinioun, goon not therto. For|whi, if the processis forth and afore tho textis ligging be weel and diligentli considerid, it schal be open to ech such reeder and considerer, that tho ij. textis seruen and remytten or senden into othere Scripturis of prophecie whiche grounden feith: the oon of hem remittith or sendith into Scripture of prophecie, which schulde grounde feith of the laste resurreccioun; and the other sendith into Scripture of prophecie, which schulde grounde feith of Cristis incarnacioun. And sithen neuer neither of hem remyttith or sendith into other Scripture, whiche schulde speke of maters being in lawe of kinde and in moral philsophie

to be groundid ther yn, therfore neuer neither of tho ij. textis, the oon Mat. xxij^e. capitulum. and the other Iohun v^e. capitulum. alleggid bifore in the firste chapiter, where the firste opinioun is sett, serueth neither forto grounde neither forto verrifie the seid firste opinioun. And thouȝ the lay peple wolden holde that eche treuthe and conclusioun and article of catholik feith is groundid in Holi Scripture, so that ellis he is not to be take for catholik feith, y wolde not make me miche bisi forto seie ther aȝens.

xj. CHAPITER.

FERTHERMORE, for as miche as holders of the first opinioun glorien miche in these textis now to be rehercid, it is ful good with this that is seid forto sette forth also dewe vndirstondingis of tho textis.

The firste of tho textis is writen i. Cor. xiiij^e. capitulum. in the eende thus: Sotheli if eny man vnknowith, he schal be vnknowun. Bi this text thei taken that if eny man knowith not or putte not in what he mai his bisynes forto leerne the writing of the Bible, as it lijth in text, namelich the writing of the Newe Testa|ment, he schal be vnknowen of God forto be eny of hise. And for this, that thei bisien hem silf forto leerne and knowe the Bible, namelich the Newe Tes|tament, in the forme as it is writun word bi word in the Bible, thei ȝeuen a name propre to hem silf and clepen hem silf "knowun men," as thouȝ alle othere than hem ben vnknowun; and whanne oon of hem talkith with an other of hem of sum other iij^e. man. the heerer wole aske thus: "Is he a knowen man?" and if it answerid to him thus: "Ȝhe, he is a knowen man," al is saaf, perel is not forto dele with him; and if it be answerid to him thus: "He is no knowen man," thanne perel is castid forto miche homeli dele with him.

The ij^e. text is writun ij^e. Cor. iiij^e. capitulum. in the bi|gynnyng where Poul seith thus: That and if oure Euangelie is couered, it is couered to hem whiche spillen; in which God of this world hath blindid the myndis or wittis of vnfeithful men, that the liȝting or cleering of the Euangelie of the glorie of Crist, which is the ymage of God, schine [schineth, MS.; but the th is scratched out.] not. Of which now rehercid text thei taken that who euer is a persoon of saluacioun schal soone vndirstonde the trewe meenyng of Holi Scripture, namelich of al the Newe Testament, as weel of the Apocalips as of the othere deel, if he attende therto. And the now seid trewe and dewe vndirstonding of Holi Scripture schal not be hid to sechers aftir it, saue to hem whiche schulen perische and be not saued. And ferthirmore alle hem whiche ben bifore clepid knowen men thei holden forto be children of saluacioun or nyȝe to saluacioun, and alle othere men and wommen thei holden as erring scheep in perel of perisching; and al for that thei taken of the ij^e. text that to the bifore seid men callid knowen men the Euangelie is not couered, and to alle othere men the Euangelie is couered; not withstonding that in trouthe to seie of tho men clepid of him silf knowen men the verri lawe of kinde and of feith, (as it is pureli in itsilf, and so the substancial lawe of God to man in erthe,) is wors knowen than of manye othere, whiche it not leernen in wordis of the Bible but in wordis writun in othere bokis, as here upon y durste leie a waiour of lesing myn arme, and that for the experience which y haue therin upon the kunnyngis of men in euer either of the ij. now spoken sortis.

The iij^e. text is writun Apocalips [Opoc., MS.] laste chapiter in the eende where it is seid thus: I witnesse to ech

heerer the wordis of the prophecie of this book. If eny man schal putte to hem, putte God upon him the veniauncis writun in this book. And if eny man schal take awey fro the wordis of the book of this prophecie, God take awey his part fro the book of lijf, and fro the holi citee, and fro tho thingis whiche ben writun in this book. Bi this book of prophecie which is spoken of in this iij^e. text thei vndirstonden [vndirstodē, MS.] the hool Bible or the Newe Testament, and of this iij^e. text thei taken this, that to Holi Writt men schulde not sett eny exposiciouns, declara|cions, or glosis, no more than that men ouȝten take awei fro Holi Writt eny proces or parti writen in Holi Writt; and if eny man sette such now seid exposiciouns, whiche ben not open bi sum text in Holi Writt, he is cursid.

That the now bifore seid vndirstonding, whiche thei ȝeuen to the firste of the iij. textis, is vntrewe and vndew to him, y proue thus: Whanne Poule wroot thilk first texte i. Cor. xiiij^e. chapiter: Sotheli if eny man knowith not, he schal be vnknowen, he spake of a thing to be knowun, which thing than was presentli. Forwhi he seith not thus: Who euere schal vnknowe, he schal not be knowe, but he seith thus: Who euer vnknowith, he schal not be knowun. But so it is that the al hool Bible was not thanne. Forwhi the al hool writyng of Newe Testament was not thanne. Wherfore Poul meened not and vndirstode not in thilke wordis forto speke of the writing of the al hool Bible, or of the writing of the Newe Testament, of whiche neuer neither thanne was, that whoeuer knowith not thilk writing he schal be vnknowun of God. That in thilk tyme, whanne Poul wrote tho wordis, the al hool writing of the Newe Testament

was not, y proue thus. In thilk tyme he wrote his Firste Epistle to the Corintheis. Wherfore in thilk tyme this parti of Holi Writt and of the Newe Tes|tament was not, which is now the ij^e. Epistle to the Corintheis. Also, whanne Poul wrote the firste text, the Apocalips was not writen; forwhi Iohun wrote the Apocalips whanne he was in exile in Pathmos, as he seith him silf the [first] [A space left in the MS. for the number.] chapiter of the Apocalips; and in thilk exile he was not bifore the laste ȝeer of Domician, Emperour of Rome. But Poul was slain bifore the tyme of this exile bi almost xxx^ti. ȝeer: for Poul was slain of the Emperour Nero, in the last ȝeer of Nero. Wherfore folewith needis that not al the hool writing of the Newe Testament neither of the al hool Bible was, whanne Poul wrote the first bifore sett text i. Cor. xiiij^e. capitulum.

Also Poul wrote hise bothe Epistlis to Corinthies eer he came to Rome, and eer he was prisoned there. Forwhi Poul wrote his Firste Epistle to the Corintheis whanne he was at Ephesie, and whanne he was in purpos for to come aftirward into Corinthe, as it is open bi the last chapiter of the same First Epistle to Corintheis. Also he wrote his ij^e. Epistle to the Co|rintheis whanne he was at Troade, as it is open bi the ij^e. chapiter of the same ij^e. Epistle to the Corin|theis, and whanne he was in hope forto come aftir|ward to Corinthe, as it is open bi the firste and ij^e. and last chapiter of the same ij^e. Epistle to Corintheis. And herwith open it is that Poul came neuer to Effesi, neither to Troade, neither purposid forto come to Corinthe after he was prisoned in Rome, and after he lay in boundis at Rome; for he was not delyuered fro tho bondis into his deeth, as it is open bi the ij^e. Epistle to Thimothie, the [fourth] [A space left in the MS. for the number.] chapiter. Wher|fore

nedis it is trewe that Poul wrote hise bothe Epistlis to Corintheis eer he was bounden by prison|yng in Rome; but his Epistle to the Effesies and his Epistle to the Philipensis and his Epistle to Colocencis he wrote whanne he was in prisoun at Rome, as it mai be tak bi the same epistlis, and as Ierom ther|fore witnessith in the prologis [These prologues (whoever may be their author) are prefixed to the Epistles in the Vulgate: they do not, however, in every case bear out Pecock's assertion. The pro|logue to the Epist. ad Col. says: Scribit Apostolus eis ab Epheso.] of the same epistlis. And also his Secunde Epistle to Thimothie Poul wrote whanne he was in prisoun at Rome litle bifore his deeth, as it is open bi what Poul seith in the same epistle, that tyme of his resolucioun (that is to seie of the departing bitwixe his bodi and his soule) was than neiȝe. [thā-neiȝe, MS.] Wherfore needis folewith that not al the writing of the hool Bible (forwhi not al the writing of the hool Newe Testament) was, whanne Poul wrote the first bifore sett text i. Cor. xiiij^e. capitulum. And if this be trewe, he wolde not seie whanne he wrote the seid first text, that who vnknowith the al hool writing which we now han of the Newe Testament, he schal not be saued; and so folewith that tho whiche in the seid first text vndirstonden thilk text forto meene of the hool writing, which we now han of the Newe Testament, vndirstonden thilk text amys.

Also thus: Thilk wordis of the first text which Poul writith i. Cor. xiiij^e. capitulum. were trewe bifore Poul was conuertid to feith, and bifore eny writing of the Newe Testament was bigunne. Forwhi eer Matheu, or Mark, or Luk, or Iohun wroten, and eer Poul or Petir or Iame or Iudas wrote, it was trewe that who euer bi his owne necligence and bi his owne fre wil vnknowith the lawe, which he is bounden to knowe, schal be vnknowen of God, but if he amende thilk

defaut: and more than this can not be take bi the seid first text of Poul, whanne he seith thus: Who euer vnknowith, he schal be vnknowen. Wherfore fol|ewith that the other vndirstonding, bi which summen streynen [str^eynen, MS., the e being in a later hand.] thilk text forto speke of the writing which we han now of the Newe Testament, is not dewe to him, namelich sithen in thilk text no mensioun is maad of eny writing. And therfore whi schulde it be seid that needis thilk text is to be vnderstonde of the writing which we now han of the Newe Testament? And thus it is now opened, bi this laste now mad argument, which is the trewe and dewe vndirstonding of the same text.

Wherfore sithen ech Cristen man and womman, thouȝ thei neuere rede oon word in the Bible, or thouȝ thei neuere lerne bi oon daies labour ther yn, mowe leerne and kepe as miche lawe of kinde as God chargith hem forto leerne and kepe, and as miche lawe of feith as God chargith hem forto leerne and kepe, and mowe leerne as miche feith not being lawe to hem how miche God chargith hem forto leerne and knowe; and therfore al that Cristen men and wom|men ouȝten leerne, thei mowe leerne out of the Bible, and bi bokis treuli drawen out of lawe of kinde and out of the Bible:—ȝhe, and sithen al this thei mowe leerne and kunne more pleinli and more fulli and sooner than thei mowe it leerne in the Bible, (as it folewith out and fro the vj^e. and vij^e. and x^e. bifore sett conclusiouns, and as experience wole nedis proue to eche asaier for to lerne The donet and his Folewer in to Cristen religioun, The book of Cristen religioun, The filling of the iiij. tablis, with othere bookis an|nexid and knyt to The book of Cristen religioun) it muste needis folewe that al the kunnyng, whos igno|raunce

is so perilose as Poul spekith of in the firste bifore seid text, may be had better out of the Bible by reding and studiyng and leernyng in the othere seid writingis, than bi reding and studiyng and leern|yng in the Bible oonli. And if this be trewe (as it is proued at ful now to be trewe), y mai seie to ech of these men whiche so glorien for her kunnyng and leernyng in the Bible oonli or in the Newe Testament oonli, and enhaunsen hem silf in her owne myndes therbi aboue othere men not so in the Bible reding studiyng, and leernyng, what Seint Poul, Romans [third] [A space left for the number in the MS.] capitulum., seith in sumwhat lijk caas to the conuersis of the Iewis, forthat thei enhaunciden hem silf aboue the conuersis of the hethen men, bi cause the conuersis of the Iewis had red bifore and studied and leerned the Oold Testament, and so hadden not leerned the conuersis of the hethen men. Where he seith thus: Where is thi gloriyng? He is excludid. Bi what lawe is he excludid? Certis bi the lawe of kinde and of feith, which mowe be leerned of tho lay peple and also of clerkis, thouȝ thei not rede and studie in the Bible oonly forto it leerne: ȝhe, and mowe be leerned [lererned, MS.] of hem sooner, clerelier, and fuller, than bi reeding and studiyng in the Bible oonli, and that bi reding and studiyng in the othere seid bokis. And therfore thi "gloriyng is excludid."

xij. CHAPITER.

THAT the vnderstonding which thei assignen to the secunde bifore sett text, writen ij^e. Cor. iiij^e. capitulum., forto seie that ther yn thilk text bi the Euangely Poul

vndirstode and meened the writing of the Newe Tes|tament, is not dewe ther to vndirstonding, y proue thus: Whanne Poul wroot thilk ij^e. text to the Co|rinthies, seiyng thus, If oure Euangelie be couered or be hid, it is couered to hem that perischen, the Euangelie of which he spekith in thilk text was had thanne presentli. Forwhi the text speking of thilk Euangelie spekith of it presentli, and not as of a thing aftir thanne to come. But the hool writing of the Newe Testament was not thanne had, as it is schewid now bifore in arguyng aȝens the mis vndir|stonding of the firste text. Wherfore by thilk Euan|gelie, of which Poul spekith in the seid ij^e. text, he vnderstode not the hool writing which is now had of the Newe Testament.

Also thus: Bifore and eer than eny word was writen of the Newe Testament, the Euangelie of God was, which to alle men ouȝte be denouncid, and whiche alle men ouȝten receyue, whanne it schulde be to hem denouncid. Wherfore the Euangelie of God is not the writing of the Newe Testament, for thanne the same thing had be bifore him silf, and eer than he was him silf, which includith repugnaunce. That the Euangeli of God was, bifore and eer than eny word was writen of the Newe Testament, y proue thus: The Euangelie of God which was to be denouncid to alle peple was in the dai in which Crist stied up into heuen: forwhi he seide thanne to hise disciplis: Go ȝe, and preche ȝe the Euangelie to ech creature. And open it is that he thanne bade not to hem forto preche any Euangelie which thanne was not and which thei thanne not knewen, but which thanne was and which thei thanne knewen; and as thanne no word was writen of the Newe Testament, as it is open ynouȝ. Wherfore folew|ith needis that the Euangelie which alle men schulden aftirward receyue into her saluacioun was, eer eny word was writun of the Newe Testament.

Also thus: Whanne euere the Apostilis prechiden the Euangelie of God, thanne thilk Euangelie was. For whi no thing was prechid, eer than it was: but so it is that the Euangelie of God was prechid bi the Apostlis soone aftir the Pentecost day, whanne thei hadden receyued the Holi Goost and kunnyng of langage, and whanne thei continueden so in preching bi manye ȝeeris eer they wroten. Wher fore the Euangelie of God (which Poul and othere Apostilis prechiden) was, eer any word was writen of the Newe Testament. And if this be trewe, thanne sithen the ij^e. seid text of Poul spekith of noon other Euangelie than of the Euangelie of God, for neither he neither eny creature ouȝte seie him to haue a propre Euangelie bisidis the Euangelie of God, it folewith nedis that Poul in his ij^e. text bifore alleggid, ij. Cor. xiiij^e. [Written on erasure. Read iiij^e] capitulum., meeneth and vnderstondith of this Euangelie of God, which was bifore and eer than the Newe Testament was writen, and eer than this writing which we now han of the Newe Testament was, and so not as forto signifie this writing of the Newe Testament the ij^e. text ouȝte take his dew vnderstonding. [vnderstondinging, MS.] Certis stories maken mension that Matheu wrote what he wrote of the Gospel in the xl^e. ȝeer of Crist, and Mark wrote what he wrote of the Gospel in the xliij^e. ȝeer of Crist, and Luk, (as it is open bi his owne prolog into what he wrote of the Gospel,) he wrote aftir othere writers, and (as summe stori seith) Iohun wrote what he wrote of the Gospel aboute the eende of his lijf aftir his comyng fro exile after the lxxx^e. ȝeer of Crist. Wherto sowneth sumwhat the epistle which Dionyse wrote to Iohun being in exile, as thouȝ Dionise schulde in thilk epistle haue prophecied Iohun to be delyuered fro exile and forto write of the Gospel of

God. [Dionys. Areop. Ep. x. (Op., tom. ii., p. 179. Ed. Cord.) It is almost needless to say that this is a spurious production.] And ȝit in al this while the Euangelie of God was, and the Gospel of God was; and it was not "couered, but to hem that perischiden." Wherfore the sentence and what is vnderstonde bi the seid ij^e. text of Poul was, eer Poul wroot thilk text, and eer any writing of the Newe Testament was in erthe. And therfore the verri dew sentence and propre vndir|stonding of thilk ij^e. text is not needis to be of the writing of the Newe Testament. Forwhi the sentence of thilk text is of the Euangeli of God prechid bi Poul, which Euangelie was prechid eer Poul was con|uertid and eer eny writing of the Newe Testament was.

Certis this Euangelie (which includith lawe of kinde and lawe of feith ȝouen bi Crist, and includith also other feith tauȝt bi Crist which is not lawe to man) is not couered, that is to sei, is not so derk that it be not bileeued and receyued and performed; saue in tho men whiche schulen not bileeue to it and re|ceyue it, whanne it is denouncid to hem, and therfore whiche schulen perische, for that thei not receyuen and bileeuen what is bi the Euangelie of God to be bileeued and receyued: and this was trewe eer the writing of the Newe Testament was. And this is the trewe and dew vnderstonding of the seid ij^e. text ij. Cor. iiij^e. capitulum. where it is seid thus: If oure Euan|gelie be couered, it is couered to hem whiche spillen: and that this is the verri trewe and dew vndirstond|ing of the same text the processe next without meene therto folewing schewith openli ynouȝ, which processe is bifore with the same text in the bigynnyng of this present chapiter rehercid.

Excludid therfore is thi gloriyng, which thou tookist into thee bi this that thou leernedist and studiedist

in the wordis and letter of the al hool Bible, or of the Newe Testament aloone, and bi the mys vndir|stonding of this ij^e. bifore rehercid text of Poul; and therbi enhauncidist thi silf aboue thi Cristen bri|theren and sistren not so in wordis and letter of the Bible leerned. Excludid certis is thi gloriyng therbi taken, and verrili it is excludid bi this that thin vn|trewe vnderstonding of thilk ij^e. text, (ȝhe, and thin vntrewe vndirstonding of also the first text) ben in|proued here, and the trewe and dewe vndirstondingis ben to hem here sett and assigned. Be waar ther|fore frohens forthward that noon of ȝou, so as ȝe han bifore this, glorie and enhaunce ȝou silf aboue alle othere Cristen not so leerned in the text of the Bible as ȝe ben, lest that y (which haue experience of ȝoure conuersacioun not according with the comaundementis of the Bible) seie to ech of ȝou what Poul seide in sumwhat lijk caas to the conuersis of Iewis, Romans ij^e. capitulum. fro the bigynnyng of the same chapiter into weel toward the eende, where Poul in the bigynning seith thus: Wherfore thou art vnexcusable, ech man that deemest: for in what thing thou demest the other man thou condempnest thi silf, for thou doost the same thingis whiche thou deemest, et cetera. And after there thus: Accepcioun of persoones is not anentis God: for who euere han synned withoute the lawe schulen perische with oute the lawe. And who euere han syn|ned in the lawe thei schulen be deemed bi the lawe: for the heerers of the lawe ben not iust anentis God, but the doers of the lawe schulen be mad iust. For whanne hethen men, whiche han not lawe, doon kindeli tho thingis whiche ben of the lawe, thanne thei not hauyng such lawe ben lawe to hem silf, that schewen the werk of the lawe writen in her hertis. For the conscience of hem ȝeldith to hem a witnessing bitwixe hem silf of thouȝtis, whiche ben accusing or defending, in the dai whanne God schal deeme the priuy thingis

of men aftir mi Gospel bi Iesu [ihū, MS.] Crist. But if thou art a named Iew, (or ellis for this present purpos for to seie thus: but if thou art a named knowun man,) and restist in the lawe, and hast glorie in God, and hast knowen his wil, and thou leerid in the lawe prouest the more profitable thingis, and trustist thi silf to be a leder of blynd men, the liȝt of hem that ben in derknessis, and techer of vnwise men, a maister of ȝong children, that hast the foorme of kunnyng and of trouthe in the lawe: what thanne. [There is no stop in the MS. What = why (τι).] techist thou another, and techist not thi silf? Thou that prechist me schal not stele, stelist? Thou that techist me schal do noon aduoutrie, doost avoutrie? Thou that wlatist mawmetrie, doost sacrilegie? Thou that hast glorie in the lawe, vnworschipist God bi breking of the lawe? Thus miche there and ful miche lijk to this present purpos.

That the vndirstonding which this bifore seid peple ȝeueth to the iij^e. bifore allegid text, Apocalips laste chapiter, in the eende, is not dew vndirstonding, y proue thus: The curs of whiche the iij^e. text spekith is not ȝouen but to hem that amys treten the Apocalips, as it is open bi the same iij^e. text. Wherfore bi thilk text it is not seid that eny curs is ȝouen to eny men amys treting eny other parti of the Newe Testament. Also thus: Oonli he, that makith the text of a book lenger than he is, settith to the wordis of thilk book; and oonli he, which makith the text of a book be schorter than he is, takith fro the wordis of thilk book. But so it is, that if a man makith a exposicioun or a declara|cioun to the text of a book, he makith not the book neither eny text of the book to be therbi the lenger or the schorter. Wherfore he in that settith not or put|tith not to the book or to the wordis of the book,

neither takith therfro; and therfore thouȝ a man ex|powne the Apocalips or eny other book or processe or text of the Newe Testament, he is not therfore in the curs of which it is spoken in the seid iij^e. text. And so open it is that the bifore seid persoons vndirstonden amys the same seid iij^e. text. But the trewe and verry vndirstonding ther of is this: That no man vndir peyne [vndirpeyne, MS.] of the seid curs schulde encrece or decrece the text or proces of the same book clepid the Apoca|lips, as perauenture, if this thretenyng hadde not be ȝouen, summen wolden haue do in encrecing or de|crecing; bicause that the Apocalips is morre wondirful than othere writingis of the Newe Testament ben. Also treuthe is that tho bifore seid men wolen ex|powne the Apocalips and othere placis of the Newe Testament, whanne euere eny of tho processis ben alleggid aȝens hem and aȝens her opiniouns. Wher|fore bi her vnderstonding which thei taken of the seid iij^e. text, that alle expowners and glose ȝeuers to Holi Scripture ben cursid, [acursid, MS. (first hand).] thei muste needis graunte hem silf to be cursid.

Now, Sires, whiche schulen rede this book, thouȝ thoruȝ out this present xij^e. chapiter y have taried upon thing which is as of in it silf litle worthi or not worthi to be spoken or writun, bi cause this present chapiter is reprouyng a thing which berith openli ynouȝ with him his owne reproof, ȝit bi cause that the persoones bifore seid glorien ful veinli and ful childli and lewdeli in tho iij. textis bifore in this chapiter tretid, and that aboue her gloriyng bi whiche in manie othere thei glorien, ech reder of this present chapiter haue pacience in his reding and haue me excusid of therof so long writing.

xiij. CHAPITER.

A GREET cause whi thei of the lay parti which han vsid the hool Bible or oonli the Newe Testament in her modris langage han holde the seid first opinioun was this, that the reeding in the Bible, namelich in the historial parties of the Oold Testament and of the Newe, is miche delectable and sweete, and drawith the reders into a deuocioun and a loue to God and fro loue and deinte of the world; as y haue had her of experience upon [vupon, MS. The word is written vpon and upon elsewhere.] suche reders and upon her now seid disposicioun. And thanne bi cause that the seid reed|ing was to hem so graceful, and so delectable, and into the seid eende so profitable, it fil into her con|ceit forto trowe ful soone, enformyng and tising ther to vnsufficientli leerned clerkis, that God had mad or purueied the Bible to mennis bihoue after as it were or bi the vtterist degre of his power and kun|nyng for to so ordeyne, and therfore al the hoole Bible (or, as summen trowiden, the Newe Testament) schulde conteyne al that is to be doon in the lawe and seruice to God bi Cristen men, withoute nede to haue ther with eny doctrine. Ȝhe, and if y schal seie what hath be seid to myn owne heering, sotheli it hath be seid to me thus, "that neuere man errid bi reding or studiyng in the Bible, neither eny man myȝte erre bi reeding in the Bible, and that for such cause as is now seid:" notwithstonding that ther is no book writen in the world bi which a man schal rather take an occasioun forto erre, and that for ful gode and open trewe causis, whiche ben spoken and expressid in the ij^e. parti of the book clepid The iust apprising of Holi Scripture. But certis thei

tooken her mark amys: for thei puttiden al her mo|tyue in her affeccioun or wil forto so trowe; and not in her intelleccioun or resoun; and in lijk maner doon wommen, for thei reulen hem silf as it were in alle her gouernauncis aftir her affeccioun [It is not very clear whether the MS. has affectioun or affeccioun.] and not aftir resoun, or more aftir affeccioun than after doom of re|soun; bi cause that affeccioun in hem is ful strong and resoun in hem is litle, as for the more parti of wommen.

And therfore euen riȝt as a man iugid amys and were foule bigilid and took his mark amys, if he schulde trowe that in hony were al the cheer, al the coumfort, al the thrift which is in al other mete, bi cause that hony is swettist to him of alle othere metis; so he is begilid and takith his mark amys, if he therfore trowe that in Holi Scripture is al the doctrine necessarie to man for to serue God and forto kepe his lawe; bi cause that Holi Scripture is so miche delectable, and for that bi thilk delectacioun he bringith yn myche cheer and coumfort and strengthith the wil forto the more do and suffre for God. And so me thinkith to suche men good counseil were for|to seie to hem, that thei be waar of childrenys perel, which is that bi cause children louen sweete meetis and drinkis ful miche, therfore whanne thei comen to feestis thei feeden hem with sweete stonding potagis and with sweete bake metis, and leuen othere sub|stancial and necessarie metis; trowing that bi so miche tho sweete meetis ben the more holsum, how miche more thei ben swetter than othere metis: and therfore at the laste thei geten to hem therbi bothe losse of dewe nurisching and also sumtyme vilonie. Certis in lijk maner y haue wiste suche men, that han so ouer miche ȝeuen hem to reding in the Bible aloone, haue gete to hem losse of sufficient and profitable leernyng

which in other wheris thei miȝten haue gete, and also vilonie forto avowe and warante that thei couthen the trewe sentence and trewe vnderstonding of the Bible, whanne and where thei not couthen so vnder|stonde, neither couthen mentene what thei ther ynne vnderstoden, and also forto avowe and warante that in the Bible were miche more and profitabiler and of other soort kunnyng than [that, MS.; altered by a later hand into than.] can ther yn be founde. And therfore to alle suche men mai be seid what is seid Prouerbs XXV^e. capitulum. in sentence thus: Thou hast founde hony, ete therof what is ynouȝ and no more; lest thou ouer fillid caste it vp out aȝen, and thanne is it to thee vilonie: and what is writen aftir in the same chapiter there in sentence thus: Forto ete miche of hony is not good to the eter. So that whanne euere thou takist upon thee forto vnderstonde ferther in the Bible than thi wit may or can therto suffice with|oute help of a substancial clerk, thanne etist thou of hony more than ynouȝ, and doost aȝens the bidding of Seint Poul, Romans xij^e. capitulum. soone after the bigynnyng. And whanne thou attendist forto leerne Holi Scrip|ture, and attendist not ther with forto haue eny other leernyng of philsophie or of diuynite, bi thin owne studie in bookis ther of maad or bi teching and infor|macioun of sum sad clerk ȝouun to thee, thanne thou etist hony aloon and feedist thee with hony oonli. And this feding schal turne into thin vnhoolsumnes, riȝt as if thou schuldist ete in bodili maner noon other mete than hony it schulde not be to thee hoolsum.

To ȝou therfore, whiche fauoren the firste seid opi|nion, I seie the wordis of Seint Iame writen in his [first] [A space left for the number in the MS.] capitulum. thus: Take ȝe or receyue ȝe this graffid word, which may saue ȝoure soulis. Receue ȝe the loore of this present firste parti of this book and the iij.

parties of The iust apprising of Holi Scripture, and receue ȝe it as a graffid word, that is to seie receue ȝe it as a doctrine groundid and foundid in such autorite, which muste needis menteyne the same doc|trine, that no man schal mowe putte it doun. For if he weel considere out of what ground it growith and to what fundament it leeneth, y doute not but that ȝe schulen consente that it is a sureli graffid word, which mai saue ȝoure soulis fro manye perilouse errouris and heresies, if into eny suche ȝe ben come; and mai pre|serue ȝou that ȝe falle into noon, into which ȝe ellis schulden come. And if ȝe bithenke ȝou weel how it is in werk of this present first parti bitwixe me and ȝou, certis it is in lijk maner as it was bitwixe Poul and the Cristen whiche at Rome were conuertid fro Iewry into Cristenhode. Forwhi in the daies of Seint Poul Iewis and tho that weren conuertid fro Iewis lawe into Cristenhode magnifieden ouermiche the Oold Testament; for thouȝ the oold lawe was good to the kepers therof, ȝit it was not so good as thei maden therof, namelich in thilk degre in which thei con|ceueden it to be good; and Poul witing this repressid her ouer miche dignifiyng of the oold lawe, and de|clarid the dignifiyng and the laude of the oold lawe, as he is in treuthe, withynne his propre and seueral boundis and markis. For of this mensioun is maad Romans [the second and third chapters]. [A space left in the MS. for the reference.] And euen lijk maner is bitwix ȝou and me in these daies. For|whi many of the lay parti dignifien ouer miche the writing of the Newe Testament, and many other digni|fien ouermiche the writing of al the hool Bible, ween|yng that of the now seid writing is verified the bifore rehercid firste opinioun: and y, bi what y can, am aboute fro the bigynnyng of this present book hidir to, and thoruȝ out al the book clepid The iust ap|prising

of Holi Scripture, for to improue and reproue the seid firste opinioun, and for to therbi represse the seid ouermiche dignifiyng of the Newe Testament and of the al hool Bible, and forto putte his trewe and dew dignifiyng withynne his propre to him seueral and dewe markis and boundis, in the maner bifore spokun bi the iij^e. principal conclusioun. God therfore grante that as the Romayns obeieden to the open re|soun and proof which Seint Poul made and wrote aȝens hem, that so ȝe obeie to the open proof which y make and write aȝens ȝou, thouȝ y desire not that ȝe obeie to me.

And whanne al is doon, what euer wil a man hath forto do reuerence to Holi Scripture, ȝit sithen treuthe is to be had in al a mannys gouernauncis, the best gouernaunce in this mater is this: forto suffre Holi Scripture abide withinne his owne termys and boundis, aud not entre into the boundis and the riȝt of lawe of kinde: that is to seie, that he not vsurpe eny grounding which longith to the faculte of lawe of kinde or of moral philsophi, and so that he not wrongee the [A stroke is drawn through the by a later hand, but the corrector seems to have tried to wash it out; the article seems to be right.] lawe of kinde. And aȝenward, that the seid lawe of kinde kepe him withinne hise owne teermys and boundis, and not entre into boundis and riȝt of Holi Scripture: that is to seie, that he not vsurpe eny grounding which longith to Holi Scrip|ture, neither therbi wrongee Holi Scripture; but that euereither of hem neiȝbourly dwelle bisidis the other of hem, and not entermete as in grounding with the other of hem. And this beste gouernaunce schal be performed, if (aftir sentence of the vj. firste conclu|siouns) it be holde [biholde, MS.] that Holi Scripture schal grounde the conclusiouns and treuthis of Cristen feith, and not eny oon conclusioun or treuthe into whos fynding and

grounding doom of mannys resoun may suffice, with concours of the grace which God bi his comoun vni|uersal lawe is woned and is redi alwey ȝeue; and aȝenward, that doom of mannys resoun or lawe of kinde schal founde and grounde the conclusiouns and treuthis of Cristen lawe into whos fynding resoun in the now seid maner may suffice, and that he not grounde eny oon conclusioun or treuth of feith; and but if this gouernaunce be kept, pees, riȝt, and trouthe is not bitwixe hem kept.

Perauenture here summan of the lay party, hold|ing the seid first opinioun and therfore hoolding aȝens the first bifore sett conclusioun, wole renne aȝens me with summe writingis of oolde and holy Doctouris sownyng into the firste opinioun and aȝens the firste conclusioun: not for that he admyttith, receueth, and allowith the writingis of tho Doctouris, for thanne he schulde smyte him silf with his owne stroke; but for that he knowith me admytte and allowe the writingis of Doctouris, therfore he makith aȝens me this assaut, in pretending as thouȝ he wole do to me as Dauid dide to Golie in smyting of of Golie's heed with his owne swerd. Neuertheles sufficient bokeler aȝens this assailing schal be to me a book which y haue bigunne to [to in a later hand.] write in Latyn, clepid The iust apprising of Doc|touris. For in hiȝer maner than as thilk book schal teche the writingis of Doctouris to be take in to cre|dence, (whether thei ben of oold or of newe, of holi or of not holi Doctouris), thei ouȝten not be take, as there schal in clerist maner be opened and proued: but bi cause noon of hem, aȝens whom y write this present book, wole so allegge aȝens me for eny zele or credence which he him silf hath to what he schal so allegge, therfore it is no nede me forto as here in this booke encerche the writingis of Doctouris sown|yng aȝens mi present entent, and forto expowne and

cleree her wordis. Perauentur summe of tho writingis vnderstonden of grounding takun vnpropirli and largeli and not propirly, of which maner of taking this word ground or grounding y haue spoken bifore in this book in the eende of the [fifth] [A space left in the MS. for the number.] chapiter. And summe of tho writingis ben to be vnderstonde in figure of yperbole or in summe other figuratijf speche, for whanne vpon eny thing spechis or writingis ben maad bi wey of commendacioun or bi wey of vitupe|racioun, tho spechis ben [be, MS. (first hand.)] woned be myche fauorid bi figuris excusing what ellis in hem schulde be vntrewe and defauti; and a greet licence han writers and spek|ers in these now seid causis forto write and speke more wijldeli, than thei schulden be suffrid forto write and speke of the same thing out of these now seid causis. And therfore, brother, be not ouerboold vpon wordis and writingis in suche maters where yn resoun hath to deeme; but truste ther yn to cleer doom of resoun, and thenke what an oolde Doctour Hillary seith (and sooth it is) that the wordis of a speker ben to be referrid into the entent wherto he hem spekith. [Intelligentia dictorum ex causis est assumenda dicendi, quia non sermoni res sed rei est sermo sub|jectus. S. Hilar., de Trin., lib. iv. (p. 835. Ed. Bened.) Dicti ratio ex sensu erit intelligenda dicendi (dicentis, some MSS.) Id., lib. ii. (p. 803. Ed. Bened.) To one or both of these passages Pecock here alludes.] For therbi ful ofte and ellis not schal be cauȝt [The MS. probably originally had tauȝt, but an erasure has altered it into cauȝt.] of tho wordis the trewe and dew vndir|stonding. But forto seie in oon word what mai be seid in manie, who euer wole for eni Doctouris writ|ing fauore the firste opinioun and countre aȝens the firste conclusioun, assoile he ther with alle the euy|dencis or argumentis bifore sett into proof of the firste conclusioun. And no more bi me of this vnto other place and tyme.

xiiij. CHAPITER. [This chapter is misnumbered xiii. in the MS. (the two preceding chapters having been originally numbered xii.), and the error ex|tends throughout the remainder of the First Part. A later hand has corrected the running title in part; in this edition, it need hardly be added, the error is corrected throughout.]

BUT certis more scharpeli here risen ij. obiecciouns, whiche the holders of the firste opinioun miȝten make aȝens me bi resoun thus: Mannys resoun is a thing whiche in hise doomys and iugementis ofte failith, as experience ofte schewith. Wherfore it myȝte seme that God wolde not him to be oure reule in deedis of oure seruice to God. Forwhi this, that God schulde make vs forto leene to a thing deceyuyng and failing forto performe his seruice, bisittith [The MS. has been corrected from bisittith into bisettith. ] not his wisdom as it wolde seme. The ij^e. obiectioun is this: Holi Scrip|ture is a reuerend thing and a worthi, sythen that bi it and fro it al the Cristen Chirche of God takith her feith. Wherfore it miȝte seme that God wolde not subdewe or submitte and remytte and sende him to resoun, for to be interpretid and be expowned and dressid into trewe and dewe sense and vndirstonding; and that bothe for resoun is a reule failing in his doom, and al so for that Holi Scriptures affermyng vpon a mater is more worthi than is the doom of mannis resoun. And therfore sithen, as it semeth, God not so reulith him in hise gouernauncis, that he ȝeueth a reule which is not sufficient forto reule, or that he puttith the worthier thing vndir reule of the vnworthier thing, it miȝte seme miche of al what y haue bifore tauȝt in this present book be vntrewe.

To the firste of these ij. obiecciouns y answere thus: It is ful profitable to mankinde that he haue of seable treuthis sure knowing, and that bi siȝt of iȝen; and ȝit what othere iȝen or seing power hath God ȝouen to mankinde forto therwith se, than which at sumtyme wolen faile and erre? It is also ful profitable to mankinde that he haue sure knowing of heereable treuthis, and that bi heering of eeris; and ȝit what othere eeris or power of heering hath God ȝoue to man, than which at sumtyme schulen faile and erre in deemyng? Is it not profitable to man|kinde forto move fro oon place into an other place redili and riȝtli and sureli with leggis and feet? And ȝit what othere feet or leggis hath God ȝoue to man, than whiche schulen at sumtyme slide and at sumtyme stumble fro the riȝt going and moving? And if this be trewe, certis thouȝ it be ful profitable to mankinde forto knowe with and bi the power of resoun resonable trouthis, (that is to seie suche as mowe not be knowe bi seing or heering or eny out|ward sensitijf wit,) and also tho [the, MS. (first hand).] same treuthis whiche outward sensityue wittis knowen, it is not merveil, thouȝ God ȝeue noon other power of resoun to man forto bi it knowe these treuthis, than whiche power of resoun schal [schat, MS.] at sumtyme and ofte faile in his re|sonyng and iuging. And, namelich, herfore it is the lasse merveil. For bi cause that God hath ȝouen to vs noon othere iȝen and power of seing than whiche wolen at sumtime erre, and noon other power of heer|ing than whiche wolen at sumtime erre, and noon othere feet than whiche wolen ofte slide and stumble; therfore if we do oure diligence and bisynes forto kepe as weel as we mowen and kunnen oure power of seing that he erre not, oure power of heering that

he erre not, oure feet that thei slide not and stumble not, God wole holde us excusid, thouȝ oure power of seing erre, and thouȝ oure power of heering erre, and thouȝ oure feet stumble; and it schal be allowid to us as miche of God as if it be seen ariȝt, herd ariȝt, and walkid ariȝt. And euen so, bi cause that God hath ȝouen to vs noon other power of resonyng than which may faile and erre, he wole holde us excusid, thouȝ we folewe an erroneose doom of resoun, whilis we ben not necligent but diligent bothe in oure owne avising and bi counseil taking of othere forto haue a riȝt doom in oure resoun; and he wole allowe, rewarde, accepte, and take oure deede which we doon bi such an erroneose doom, as ferforth as it were doon bi a riȝt doom; al the while that thilk errour in oure resounys doom is had aȝens oure wil, and not bi oure consent and willing or necligence. And so, if this be trewe, (as it is proued be trewe in othere placis of my writingis,) noon inconuenience is, if God ordeyne the power of resoun for to be oure reule in his seruice doing, thouȝ thilk power of reson be such that he schal sumtime (ȝhe, and ofte tyme) erre, but if the gretter laboure be mad theraȝens bi avisingis and bi counseil taking and bi leernyng long tyme in scolis.

Neuertheles it may be answerid to the firste obiec|cioun in other wise thus: That the power of resoun in him silf is not ordeyned of God to be oure next and best and surest reuler or reule anentis alle resonable treuthis, but the doom of reson is ordeyned to so be; and ȝit not ech doom of resoun, but thilk doom of resoun which is a formal complete argument clepid a sillogisme in resoun, whos bothe premissis ben sureli or likeli knowen for trewe, and that bi hem silf or bi sume othere bifore had lijk sillogisme or sillogismes prouyng the premisse hauyng nede to be proued, into tyme it bicome into premissis openest in suerte or openest in probabilite or likelihode. And

certis this doom of resoun (in this wise had) failith neuere, neither may in eny tyme erre. For if y be sikir aud suer in my resoun that no man is in the chirche of Seint Poul at Londoun, and that the bischop of London is a man, y mai be sekir and sure that the bischop of London is out of the chirche of Seint Poul at London, thouȝ alle aungels in heuen wolde seie the contrarie. And cause of this suerte is that the doom of resoun is had bi such a formal sillogisme as is now seid. And in lijk maner suerte of knowing is had bi ech other of the xix. maners or chaungis of sillogismes tauȝt in logik bi opene reulis. Lete ther|fore ech man abide in his resonyng in what euer mater of resonyng he hath to do, in to tyme he be sure that he hath suche seid sillogismes; and he schal neuere be deceyued. So that al the cause whi men ben deceyued in resonyng is her hastynes, that thei wole iuge bi schorte argumentis, eer tho argumentis ben reducid into formes of sillogismes; or ellis for that thei trusten and trowen the premisse be trewe, eer that thei seen the premisses sufficientli proued bi sillogizing, into tyme it be come up into premissis so open in sure trouthe or ellis so open in proba|bilite, that noon nede is that eny other premisse be take forto proue hem; or ellis for that thei knowen not bi reulis ȝouen therto whanne an argument is a formal sillogisme, and whanne he so is not. Sotheli, if a man wole reule him thus, he schal neuere be bigiled aboute maters of resoning; forwhi ther is noon con|clusioun or trouthe in the world, (except tho which ben open bi experience of sensitijf witt or at fulle pleyn in resoun, whiche ben clepid groundis and foun|damentis to alle the othere treuthis and conclusiouns in philsophie, and aboute which no man schal erre, bi cause thei ben so openli trewe), but that into proof of it mai be had a sillogisme weel reulid. And thanne if the bothe premissis be knowen at fulle for sure

trouthis, the conclusioun is to be take for sure trouthe; and if the bothe premyssis be knowun not for sure trouthis, but for suche that for the more parti thei ben trewe and seeldem fallith the contrarie that thei ben vntrewe, or if oon of the premissis be such as is now seid and the other is sure trouthe, thanne the conclusioun is knowen as probabili or likeli trewe.

And this difference here now touchid is the differ|ence bitwix a demonstratijf sillogisme and a probable sillogisme, that is to seie bitwixe a sillogisme which ȝeueth sure and vndoutable kunnyng and a sillogisme which ȝeueth probable kunnyng oonli, that is to seie kunnyng of likelihode and of opinioun but not of cer|teinte. And so no treuthe is a this side the openest fundamental treuthis, but that into proof of him mai be had a sillogisme weel reulid forto proue him sureli trewe, or forto proue him likeli to be trewe; ȝhe, and so likeli to be trewe that he is rather to be holde for trewe than for vntrewe, and that he is to be holde trewe into tyme [The word into seems required before his.] his contrarie parti be had strenger and euydenter premissis than ben the premyssis whiche ben had into him now. And euen as a pre|misse, whos suer knowing is lokid aftir and souȝt after, is to be resolued bi arguyng of sillogismes in the maner now seid, into tyme it be come into pre|missis of openest suerte; so whanne eny premysse is such that his suer trouthe is not lokid aftir neither souȝt after, but his probabilite or likelihode of trouthe is lokid aftir and souȝt aftir, he is to be resolued upward bi sillogismes, into tyme it be come vp into premyssis of whiche euere either is openest in likeli|hode thouȝ not in suerte, or ellis into premyssis of which oon [ooon, MS.] is openest in suerte of trouthe and the other is openest in suerte of likelihode or of proba|bilite

a this side suerte. So that as ther ben principlis openest in suerte to treuthis whos suer kunnying is souȝt aftir to be had, so ther ben principlis openest in probabilite or likelihode to treuthis whos likeli kun|nyng or probable kunnyng is souȝt aftir to be had, and whos suer kunnyng is not souȝt aftir to be had.

If ensaumplis weren sett to al this doctrine, weel y woot the doctrine wolde be vndirstonde the bettir. But certeinli it were ouerlong for this book for to sette out al the ful doctrine which is now here attained of sillogizing for sure kunnyng, and of sillogizing for probable or likeli kunnyng; and forto sett therto sufficient ensaumplis were ouer it miche lenger. And therfore y must here therof abstene and forber. But ȝit thouȝ y schal not be vnderstonde sufficientli of the lay reders in this bifore going proces (namelich at the first), and not with oute studie and labour in her partie, me thinkith y muste needis seie so miche ther of as y haue now seid; for ellis thei wolden weene that a good clerk couthe not assoile the firste obiec|cioun, which y am sikir thei wolden make. And y haue leefir forto seie sumwhat of the trewe substancial answere longing therto, thouȝ y schulde not be suffi|cientli ther yn vnderstonde of hem, than forto seie not of such sufficient answere bi cause of her insufficience of vndirstonding, and therbi forto suffre vntrewe dif|fame falle to the clergie, and hem forto rise into pre|sumpcioun of trowing that thei han kunnyng more than thei han, and that thei han noon or litle nede to groundli clerkis. Wherfore who mai not or cannot vnderstonde this ij^e. answere to the firste obieccioun, take he him to the firste now bifore seid answere to the same obieccioun; for bothe ben gode ynouȝ, and bothe (thouȝ in her dyuerse maners) ben trewe, sithen the doom of resoun may not be oure next reule in doing Goddis seruice, but if resoun were the romber reule to vs into the same doing of Goddis seruice, bi

cause that the doom of resoun cometh out and fro the resoun, as the liȝt of the sunne comith fro the sunne.

Aftir that y haue schewid thus: That noon incon|uenient is, thouȝ God assigne for oure reule into his seruice the power of resoun in oon maner of reuling, as a power of deedis hath forto reule; and also aftir that y haue schewid thus: That the doom of resoun miȝte be a surer reule to us into Goddis moral ser|uice than is the power of reson,—now y schal schewe that euereither of hem is needis to be seid oure reule into the moral seruice of God to be doon. And firste thus: Of al the moral seruice of God, which is moral lawe of kinde, Holi Scripture is not the reule. Forwhi than therof Holi Scripture were the ground, which is proued bifore to be vntrewe: Also of al the now seid moral seruice of God, Holi Scripture is oonli a witnesser and a rehercer, and takith it out and fro moral lawe of kinde and out of moral philsophie, as it is bifore proued. Wherfore Holi Scripture is not neither may be reuler of thilk moral lawe and seruice to God. And thanne thus: Of thilk now seid moral lawe and seruice to God Holi Scripture muste be reuler, or sumwhat ellis bisidis Holi Scripture muste be ther of the reuler; but now and bifore it is proued that Holi Scripture may not be ther of the reuler, bi cause he is not therof the grounder, and he is ther of oonli the rehercer and witnesser, and taker of it fro an other which is grounder. And herwith it is also open that noon othir thing bisidis Scripture can be assigned forto be ther of the reule or reuler, but if it were the seid doom of resoun mad in forme of sillogisme as the next and best reule, and the power of resoun as for the romber and ferther reule; in as miche as fro the power of resoun cometh forth the now seid doom of resoun. Wherfore needis it muste be grantid, no man may it avoide, that bothe resoun which is the power of resonyng and of deemyng, and

the seid sillogistik doom of resoun ben in her bothe dyuerse maners reulis of al oure moral seruice to God, whiche is moral lawe of kinde, and of al oure lawe to God noon except, whether thei ben lawis of feith or not of feith; for noon of hem can be knowen of us withoute a sillogisme. And thus miche is ynouȝ for answere to the firste obieccioun.

xv. CHAPITER.

FOR answere to the ij^e. obieccioun: Sithen it is so that Holi Scripture hath not to do in him silf forto reule eny trouthe or gouernaunce of natural philsophi or of moral philsophi and of moral lawe of kinde, which he rehercith, witnessith, or tretith, and as of hem he rehersith, witnessith, and tretith, (for this is ofte bifore schewid and proued,) and for that he is reule oonli of feithis whiche he tretith and techith, bi cause that oonli of hem he is founder and grounder; and therfore of tho treuthis and conclusiouns of moral lawe of kinde as thei ben witnessid in Holi Scripture sum thing muste be reule, riȝt as of hem sum thing muste be ground, and noon such thing can be avisid to be bisidis Holi Scripture forto be to hem reule and ground, saue the seid sillogistik doom of resoun in oon maner, and the power of resoun out of which thilk doom cometh and that in an other maner: (wherfore needis it muste be grauntid that bothe resoun which is the power of resonyng, and resoun which is the seid doom and sillogistik deede of resonyng ben in her ij. dyuerse maners reulis to Holi Scripture in alle the pointis of mannis moral seruice to God, noon except; and that for cause now late bifore sett and seid which is broddir declarid in The folwer to the donet, and is proued openli in the first parti of The book of

feith and of sacramentis:) and ferthermore, sithen the seid sillogistik doom of resoun is a sure reule and vnfailing, and thouȝ the other reule which is resoun be failing at sum while, ȝit God wole haue a man ther yn excusid, and wole allowe thilke failingis whanne man bi his wil is not cause of thilk failing, noon inconuenient is thouȝ God ordeyned the seid resoun, and also his seid doom to be reulers of Holi Writ in alle now seid treuthis and conclusiouns tauȝt bi Holi Writ, thouȝ thilk resoun be at sum tyme failing.

And ferthermore for answere to it that the ij^e. ob|ieccioun alleggith Holi Scripture to be worthier than is the doom of resoun, and that therfore the [that the, MS. (first hand).] doom of resoun ouȝte not reule Holi Writt, it is to be seid thus: That Holi Writt mai be take for the outward lettris writun and schapun vnder dyuerse figuris in parchemyn or in velim, and forto speke of Holi Writt in this maner is not according to this purpos. For Holi Writt in this wise takun, is not holier neither better than eny other writing is [A later hand has joined writing is, so as to make writingis, but wrongly.] which hath lijk good ynke, and is lijk craftili figurid. In an other maner, accordingli to this present purpos, Holi Writt is takun for the kunnyng wherbi the thing is kunne which is signified and bitokened bi the now seid out|ward Holi Writt writun in parchemyn or velym, or ellis mai be take for the outward writing, as it signifieth hise trouthis bitokened bi it, and as it is ioyned and couplid with the kunnyng of tho treuthis signified bi the outward writing. Also it is to vndir|stonde that doom of resoun mai be take in ij. wisis pertinentli, and accordingli to this present purpos. In oon maner doom of resoun is the deede of resonyng in mannis resoun, bi which the power of resoun (or

the man bi the power of resoun) resoneth, making proposiciouns of simple wordis and termys knyt to gi|dere, and making sillogismys of proposiciouns knyȝt to gidere bi teching of certein reulis: and in this maner oonli it is to be vnderstonde, as ofte as we han spoke ther of fro the bigynnyng of the xj^e. chapiter bifore hidir to. In another maner doom of resoun is take for the kunnyng of the conclusioun which is con|cludid in a sillogisme mad bi doom of resoun takun in the firste maner, and in this ij^e. maner it is spokun bifore fro the bigynnyng of the ij^e. chapiter vnto the eende of the x^e. chapiter, weelniȝ alwey, whanne it is there spokun of doom of resoun, or ellis namelich whanne euere there doom of resoun is clepid lawe of kinde or moral philsophie, and comparisoun is mad there bitwixe lawe of kinde or doom of resoun and Holi Scripture. Now, Sir, if we now in the ij^e. obieccion bifore sett take Holi Scripture in the ij^e. maner, and doom of resoun in the ij^e. maner, sotheli Holi Writt in alle the now seid trouthis, conclusiouns, and gouernauncis, whiche he rehercith, denouncith, and techith of moral lawe of kinde, is vnworthier than is the moral lawe of kinde; and therfore is vnworthier than is sum doom of resoun takun in the ij^e. maner. Forwhi alle tho trouthis and conclusions [conclusions of, MS. (first hand).] Holi Writt takith and borewith out of moral lawe of kinde, and [We seem to require thei after and.] ben not hise as bi grounding, and founding, and prouyng, but oonli bi rehercing, witnessing, and denouncing; and open ynow it is that the grounder and prouer of treuthis is in hem worthier than the rehercer of hem; as the lord of money is worthier in the money than he that hath it [it is interlineated by a later (?) hand.] bi mustring it and schewing it oonli; and therefore, thouȝ Holi Writt, as anentis alle the treuthis and conclusiouns whiche ben of moral phil|sophie

or of natural philsophi or of methaphisik rehercid bi him, be reulid bi resoun and his [in his, MS. (first hand).] doom (takun in the ij^e. maner) in alle tho now seid trouthis, conclusiouns, and gouernauncis, ther of fol|ewith not that the worthier in that that he is wor|thier is subdewid vndir reule of the vnworthier as he is the vnworthier. Certis, if Holi Scripture be wor|thier in eny of hise treuthis and conclusiouns than is doom of resoun takun in the ij^e. maner, and as he comprehendith natural philsophie and metaphisik and moral philsophie, he is so worthier in hise treuthis of feith whiche ben not lawis to man, whiche Holi Scrip|ture groundith, and the seid doom of resoun may not hem grounde, as that God is iij. persones, and that the secunde persoone of hem was mad man, and that he suffrid and died, and that we schulen rise in fleisch aftir oure deeth, and so forth of othere suche feithis being no lawis to man; and ȝit whether Holi Scrip|ture be worthier or profitabiler to man than is the now seid doom of resoun taken in the ij^e. maner, forto serue God and deserue meede in hevene, schal not be disputid and determyned here in this book, but per|auenture it schal be determyned in my writingis to heerers of hiȝer vndirstonding.

Neuertheles with this y wolde it were not forȝete what y haue tauȝt bifore bi the [seventh] [A space left in the MS. for the number. The seventh rather than the tenth conclusion seems to be intended; but neither of them is exactly designed to prove what is here affirmed to be proved. See pp. 39, 43.] principal conclusioun, that al the positijf lawe of feith which Scripture groundith or techith, that is to seie, al the feith being positijf lawe to man, which Scripture groundith or techith, is not so worthi in it silf, nei|ther so necessarie and profitable to man, for to serue God and deserue meede in heuen, as is the seid doom of resoun being moral lawe of kinde; and therfore

Holi Scripture as in the positijf lawis of feith to man is not so worthi in him silf, neither so profitable and necessarie to man as is the seid doom of resoun, which is lawe of kinde.

And ferthermore, sithen al what mai be clepid in eny maner largeli lawe of feith, being not positijf lawe of feith, is propirli lawe of kinde and not oonli lawe of feith, (as it is tauȝt bifore in proof of the x^e. con|clusioun bi remyssion into the book Of iust apprising of Holi Scripture,) it folewith that if we speke of lawe of feith in this maner, al the lawe of feith which Holi Scripture techith is not so worthi and so profit|able to man as is lawe of kinde tauȝt out of Holi Scripture bi doom of resoun, with oute godli reuelacioun. Forwhi thus [thus is by a later hand, the original reading having been erased; this word may have been propirli, which the sense seems to require.] forto speke of lawe of feith ther is no lawe of feith, saue it which is positijf lawe of feith; and al positijf lawe of feith is oonli lawe aboute the newe sacramentis; and the vsis of tho (as for and bi hem silf) ben vnworthier and lasse profitable to man than is lawe of kinde, as it is bifore proued. If Holi Writt be take in the ij^e. maner and doom of resoun in the firste maner, certis y holde thanne that doom of resoun in sum maner is worthier and perfiter than is Holi Writt thoruȝ out al the Bible. Forwhi the seid doom of resoun in this firste wise taken is cause of the Holi Writt takun in the ij^e. wise. Forwhi doom of resoun takun in the firste wise is cause of al kun|nyng in the vndirstonding or intellect of man, and that whether thilk kunnying be feith or no feith; and Holi Scripture in the ij_e. maner takun is not ellis than a certein kunnyng causid bi doom of resoun takun in the firste maner, by occasioun of Holi Writt takun in the first maner; and therfore Holi Writt in this ij^e. maner takun is vnworthier than is doom of resoun takun in the first maner, and that as weel where Holi

Writt techith articlis of feith as ellis where. And here y make an eende of my answeris ȝouun to the ij. bifore rehercid obiecciouns.

xvj. CHAPITER.

IN whiche answeris thouȝ y haue write or seid more than wole anoon accorde with the capacite of the Bible men, to whom and aȝens whom this book is principaly maad, ȝit y haue leefir so do than forto seie and write lasse; lest therbi schulde seeme to hem, that sufficient answere couthe not be ȝouun to her seid ij. obiec|ciouns; and lest that ellis thei myȝten trowe, that bi her powring in the Bible aloon thei miȝten leerne for to assoile sufficientli alle obiecciouns biholding the Bible, thouȝ thei hadden no counseil of substancial clerkis weel leerned in logik and in moral philsophie. And ther fore of oon thing y warne al the world, which is this. If substanciali leerned clerkis in logik and in moral philsophie and in dyvynyte, and ripeli exer|cisid ther yn, weren not and schulden not be forto wiseli and dewli ȝeue trewe vndirstondingis and ex|posiciouns to textis of Holi Scripture: or ellis, thouȝ suche clerkis ben, and the lay parti wolen not attende to the doctrine, whiche tho clerkis mowe and wolen (bi proof of sufficient and open euydence) mynystre to the lay parti; but the lay parti wolen attende and truste to her owne wittis, and wolen lene to textis of the Bible oonli, y dare weel seie so many dyuerse opinions schulden [schulde, MS. (first hand).] rise in lay mennys wittis bi oc|casioun of textis in Holy Scripture aboute mennys moral conuersacioun, that al the world schulde be cumbrid therwith, and men schulden accorde to gi|dere in keping her seruice to God, as doggis doon

in a market, whanne ech of hem terith otheris coot. For whi oon man wolde vnderstonde a text in this maner, and an other man wolde vnderstonde it in an other dyvers maner, and the iij^e. man in the iij^e. maner; namelich for that weelniȝ in ech place where Holi Writ spekith of eny point of moral lawe of kinde, it is so spoken that it nedith forto haue a redressing of it into accordaunce with lawe of kinde and with doom of reson; and than if no iuge schulde be had forto deeme bitwixe hem so diuersely holding, eende schulde ther neuere be of her strijf, into tyme that thei schulden falle into fiȝting and into werre and bateil; and thanne schulde al thrift and grace passe awey, and noon of her holdingis schulde in eny point be therbi strengthid or confermed.

Certis in this wise and in this now seid maner and bi this now seid cause bifille the rewful and wepeable destruccioun of the worthi citee and vni|uersite of Prage, and of the hool rewme of Beeme, as y haue had ther of enformacioun ynouȝ. And now, aftir the destruccioun of the rewme, the peple ben glad for to resorte and turne aȝen into the catholik and general feith and loore of the chirche, and in her pouerte bildith up aȝen what was brent and throwun doun, and noon of her holdingis can thriue. But for that Crist in his propheciyng muste needis be trewe, that ech kingdom deuidid in hem silf schal be destruyed, therfore to hem bifille the now seid wrecchid mys chaunce. God for his merci and pitee kepe Ynglond, that he come not into lijk daunce. But forto turne here fro aȝen vnto oure Bible men, y preie ȝe seie ȝe to me, whanne among ȝou is rise a strijf in holdingis and opiniouns, (bi cause that ech of you trustith to his owne studie in the Bible aloon, and wole haue alle treuthis of mennys moral conuersacioun there groundid,) what iuge mai therto be assigned in erthe, saue resoun and the bi|fore seid doom of resoun? For thouȝ men schulden be

iugis, ȝit so muste thei be bi vce of the seid resoun and doom of resoun; and if this be trewe, who schulde thanne better or so weel vse, demene, and execute this resoun and the seid doom, as schulde tho men whiche han spende so miche labour aboute thilk craft? And these ben tho now bifore seid clerkis. And ther|fore, ȝe Bible men, bi this here now seid which ȝe muste needis graunte, for experience which ȝe han of the disturblaunce in Beeme, and also of the distur|blaunce and dyuerse feelingis had among ȝou silf now in Ynglond, so that summe of ȝou ben clepid Doctour|mongers, and summe ben clepid Opinioun-holders, and summe ben Neutralis, that of so presumptuose a cisme abhominacioun to othere men and schame to ȝou it is to heere; rebuke now ȝou silf, for as miche as ȝe wolden not bifore this tyme allowe, that resoun and his doom schulde haue such and so greet interesse in the lawe of God and in expownyng of Holi Scripture, as y haue seid and proued hem to haue.

And also herbi take ȝe a sufficient mark, that ȝe haue nede forto haue ȝoure recours and conseil with suche now biforeseid clerkis, thouȝ ȝe wolden la|bore, and powre, and dote alle the daies of ȝoure lijf in the Bible aloon. And drede ȝe of the effect which bifille to Bohemers for lijk cause, and mys gouernaunce in holding the first seid opinioun; and bi so miche the more drede ȝe thilk effect, bi how miche bi Crist it is pronouncid forto falle, where euer cysme and dyvisyoun is contynued; for he seith [Matth. xij.] [A space left in the MS. for the reference.] capitulum., that euery kingdom or comounte dyvidid in him silf schal be destruyed. But thanne aȝenward ȝe must [ȝe must interlineated in a later (?) hand.] be waar her of, that euen as oon sterre is different from an other sterre in cleernes, so

oon clerk is different from an other in kunnyng. And ther fore, brother, take heede to doom of cleer resoun in this mater, which also is remembrid to vs bi the wise man, Ecclesiastici vj^e. capitulum., thus: Manie be to thee pesible, but of a thousind oon be thi counseiler. And in special be waar that thou not accepte, chese, and take a clerk forto be sufficient to thee into the now seid purpos bi this aloon, that he mai were a pilioun on his heed; neither bi this, that he is a famose and a plesaunt precher to peple in a pulpit; neither bi this, that he is a greet and thikke rateler out of textis of Holi Scripture or of Doctouris in feestis or in othere cumpanyingis: for certis experience hath ofte tauȝt and mai here teche surely ynouȝ, that summe werers of piliouns in scole of dyuynyte han scantli be worthi for to be in the same scole a good scoler; and ful manye of the ij^e. and iij^e. soortis appeering ful gloriose [gli̛ ose, MS.] to the heering of the lay parti, and also summe of othere maner of clerkis, whanne thei schul|den come forto dispute and examyne and trie and iuge in harde [her harde, MS.; but her is can|celled by a later (?) hand.] doutis of Goddis lawe, were not worthi forto therto vnnethis opene her mouth. I detecte here no man in special; who euer can proue him silf to be noon such as y haue here now spoken of, he therbi schewith weel him to be noon of hem.

Weel y wote, that thouȝ the office of preching is ful profitable into the eende of exortacioun and of re|membrauncing, certis it is not so into the eende of best teching. Forwhi it is not so into the eende of formal and groundli disputing, arguing, and prouyng, withoute which no sure trial mai be maad upon eny hard and doutable questioun of mannis conuersacioun; and ȝit if such maner of arguyng and groundli prou|yng schulde be sett in sermonyng, the sermon schulde

be ful vnsauory; and if the maner of outring which is sauory in a sermonyng schulde be sett and vsid in the office of scole prouyng and determynyng, al the werk ther of schulde be the vnsaueryer and the vn|spedier. And therfore [Possibly of should be inserted after therfore.] the office and werk, (wherof y have spoke bifore to be so necessari as is said to al the world,) into repressing of errouris and into grounding of al Goddis lawe, the teching muste be take bi othir testimonie and witnessing than bi wer|ing of pilleoun, or bi greet kunnyng of preching and bi sauory vttring therof, or bi greet plenteuose out hilding of textis writen in the Bible or in Doctouris. For manye, whiche neuere leerned ferther in scolis than her grammer, kunnen suche textis bi herte and bi mouth, and kunnen bi textis and by narraciouns and parabolis and lijknessis preche ful gloriosely into plesaunce of the peple and into profite of the peple, and semen therfore and therbi ful wise. And if thei were weel apposid in eny of tho textis and parabolis and othere precheable processis, thei couthe not de|fende and meyntene eny oon of hem, neither couthen putte out sufficientli the very and ful dewist vndir|stonding of eny oon of hem.

This is now seid of me, (God y take therto into witnes,) for harme which y haue knowen come bi de|faut and the vnhauying and the vnknowing of this now seid consideracioun, and for perel that suche harmes schulde the oftir in tyme here aftir come, if of this consideracioun no mensioun and waarnyng were bi me or bi sum other in writing bifore mad. For, as sikir as the sunne schineth in somerys dai, the vnconsideracion of this, whereof y haue ȝouen now warnyng, hath be a greet cause of the wickidli enfectid scole of heresie among the lay peple in Ynglond, which is not ȝit conquerid. And therfore

into plesaunce bi which y wolde plese God and serue to God, and do sumwhat into goostli profite of myn euene Cristen, and for drede of God, (lest so pro|fitabli to be spoken a thing y schulde spare, speke, and write for fere of bacbitingis,) y write and outre what y now haue outrid. And if any man iuge me in eny other wise, be waar he thanne of him which schal ther upon iuge vs bothe.

But wolde God that the king of Ynglond wolde sette so myche bisynes forto conquere and reforme his lond of Ynglond fro this seid wickid scole, and fro othere defautis, as miche as he dooth aboute the conquest of his lond of Normandi and of Fraunce, and perauenture he schulde thanne haue more thanke and reward at his laste comyng hoom to the King of blisse, and more noble flauour of digne fame among alle the princis of the world and the worthi peeris of heuen, than he schal haue bi miche of his labour and cost doon aboute the worldli conquest of Fraunce.

Verili to seie vndir perel of my soule, (and no man conceyue me in contrarie wise to feele,) y wolde grees of scolis to be take and not to be left, whanne euer the persoone desiring the gree is able therto in scolis bi kunnyng longing to the same gree, and ellis not, thouȝ he be able into othere deedis profitabili to be doon. I wolde also that the office of preching had his dew honour and fauour and his dew wiseli to be don exercise and execucioun, and God forbede that y schulde in contrarie wise feele or meene. But certis her withal y wolde that profound and groundli scoling in logik, philsophi, and dyuynyte, and lawe were not left bihinde, but that he were to euereither of these ij. now seid thingis preferrid; for without him grees goon [gōon, MS.] on out of gree, and prechingis rennen arere, as herof experience is ouer ofte in my daies at

Poulis Crosse takun. And without him the sad forth leding and reuling and the firme stabiling of al the chirche, both in the clergie and in the layfe, [layfe, MS. (first hand): but a stroke is added in a darker ink, changing the word into layfe. The correction layte is tempting: but see Glossary.] may not be had and doon, for al the preching which without him into the worldis eende mai be mad and doon.

Also y wolde that, bi cause he flotereth not so ofte aboute the eeris of the lay peple as dooth the feet of preching, that the lay peple schulden not therfore trowe noon such so preciose and vnlackeable occupa|cioun to be had and laborid among hem that in scolis waken, studien, and disputen, thouȝ thei not into preching attenden; neither that therfore the lay peple schulden lacke wil and purpos forto bisette notable costis vpon hem, whiche so in scolis laboren; neither that the lay peple holden hem silf theryn deceyued, if therto thei han eny expensis bifore leid out and mynystrid. Certis ofte han men and wom|men come to me, and seid: "Thus hath a doctour seid in this mater: and thus hath a doctour seid in thilk mater: and thus hath this famose precher prechid: and thus hath thilk famose precher prechid:" and y haue answerid aȝen thus: "Thouȝ he and he and he and he han so tauȝt and prechid, ȝit [it] is not therfore and therbi euer the rather trewe, but it is vntrewe, and needis muste be vntrewe, and mai be schewid and proued undoutabili to be vntrewe." No man conceyue bi my wordis here that y meene and lete as thouȝ y neuere failid, or that y am sikir that y schal neuere faile in myn answeris; but for the experience which y haue had vpon the failing of othere doctouris and prechers, that y myȝte the suerlier therby warne peple vpon the failing of clerkis, ther fore y haue seid what is now seid: and y haue lefir forto mekeli

knouleche that y and thei han failid and mowe her aftir faile, and that y haue had ther of suer expe|rience, than that the peple schulde trowe stidfastli that neither y neither thei han failid neithir schulen faile, and that for wering of oure pilleons or for prech|ing in pulpitis of oure sermons. And how schulde eny doctouris and prechers be wrooth for this what y haue of hem seid, whilis y seie and knouleche the same of mi silf which y haue seid and knoulechid of hem.

Neuertheles, whanne the comoun lay peple doon as weel and as diligentli as thei kunnen forto chese to hem a wijs and a sufficient clerk into her coun|seiler, thei ben excusid anentis God in trowing to his counseil and in folewing it, thouȝ his counseiling be vntrewe, vnto tyme thei mowe aspie the defaut of the same counseil, as schal be proued in the firste parti of The book of feith and of sacramentis in Latyn. And if eny man wole obserue and kepe the gouernauncis which y teche and counseile in the ij^e. parti of Cristen religioun, the [Spaces left in the MS. for the numbers.] treti the [Spaces left in the MS. for the numbers.] chapiter, to be kept, whanne euer oon man requirith and sechith and askith an other mannys counseil in eny mater, y wote weel that he schal therbi take greet waarnes that he be not bi vnsufficient and vnwijs counseil bigilid.

xvij. CHAPITER.

THAT the ij^e. opinioun sett and spoken bifore in the firste chapiter [See page 6.] of this present book is vntrewe, y mai proue bothe bi experiencis and bi resoun. Bi ex|perience

thus: Among hem that holden the seid ij^e. opinioun many ben whiche han vndirstonde certein processis of Holi Scripture in oon certein maner of vnderstonding, whanne thei helden hem silf meeke and in good wil forto receyue and haue the trewe and dew vndirstonding therof; and ȝit aftirward, whanne thei were not more meke neither more willi to the same, thei han chaungid and varied fro the firste had vndirstonding into an other maner of vndirstonding the same processis, as y here of haue had sufficient knowing. Wherfore thei hem silf, whiche holden the seid ij^e. opinioun, ouȝten bi her owne experience takun vpon her owne deedis proue the same ij^e. opinioun to be vntrewe.

Also thus: Of the same noumbre which holden the seid ij^e. opinioun manye vndirstonden a processe of Holi Scripture in oon maner and wolen needis so vn|dirstonde it, and manye othere of the same noumbre wolen needis vndirstonde the same processe in an other maner not according therto: and in this tho ij. soortis of men stryuen, and ȝit ech soort of hem holdeth him [holden hem MS. (first hand).] silf so meke and so disposid, that he ouȝte haue the trewe vndirstonding of thilk same processe. And thilk same processe mai not haue bothe ij. vndirstondingis to gidere, (as it is proued in othere places of my writing,) and namelich not tho ij. vn|dirstondingis, for thei mowe not stonde to gidere. Wherfore bi open experience had among the holders of the ij^e. opinioun mai be openli knowe, that the same ij^e. opinioun is vntrewe.

Also thus: Open experience schewith that a viciose man is as kunnyng a clerk for to finde, leerne, and vndirstonde which is the trewe and dew sentence of Holi Scripture, how soone a vertuose clerk is kunnyng therto: and into the same vnderstondingis thei to

gidere accordingli fallen. Wherfore experience con|uicteth the ij^e. opinioun to be vntrewe.

Now forto proue the same ij^e. opinioun to be vntrewe bi resoun, y procede thus: Forto fynde the verri and iust vndirstonding of processis in Holi Writt is a labour of the witt or of the intellect, or of resoun in bihold|ing aboute the circumstauncis of the proces and in resonyng ther upon; and forto be good and holi is a labour of the wil or of the affecte or of the appe|tite: but so it is, that a badde man and a ful yuel disposid man in wil and in affect mai haue so cleer and so weel disposid witt and reson into alle thingis to be founde bi witt, as hath a good man weel dis|posid in maners of his affect and wil: wherfore folew|ith bi resoun, that as soone may a viciose man come to and fynde the dew vndirstonding of Holi Scripture, how soone mai a vertuose man finde, so that thei ben lijk witti in nature, or so that the viciose man haue a cleerer witt than the vertuose man hath.

If eny man wole seie here, that this now mad ar|gument proueth weel that, as bi nature and kinde, so soone schulde a witti viciose man fynde and come to the verri trewe vndirstonding of Holi Scripture, as schulde a vertuose euen witti or lasse witti man; neuertheles so it is, that God ȝeueth not hise ȝiftis to a viciose man lijk plenteuoseli as he ȝeueth to a ver|tuose man.

Aȝens this answere y mai meete thus: We han noon other knowing in experience but that men fynden and comen (as for the miche more parti) to the kun|nyng of Scripture and of alle othere divyne and godli trouthis rathir or latir, as thei ben disposid kindeli in her resoun and witt. And what euer ex|perience techith we ouȝte holde, but if resoun or Scripture or sure reuelacioun schewe other. Wher|fore we ouȝten noon other holde, but if resoun or Scripture or other sure reuelacioun schulde enforme vs that we schulde other holde. For ellis the holding

were feyned, and lackid euydence and ground. But so it is, that neithir sufficient resoun, neither Scripture, neither other sure revelacioun schewith to us forto holde other wise ther yn than experience schewith. Wherfore as experience schewith, so ther yn it is to be holde: and that is what is now bifore seid, that men comen into the dew vndirstonding of Scripture rathir or latir, as thei therto ben kindeli disposid. And ferthermore, thouȝ God schulde not and wolde not suffre eny man to haue the dew vndirstonding of Holi Scripture saue bi his ȝifte, ȝit we mowe haue that hise ȝiftis and gracis of wit he ȝeue as plenteuoseli to a bad man as to a good man, and sumtyme more plenteuoseli to the lasse good man than to [Probably the should be inserted after to.] better man. Forwhi ellis what euere men were prophetis, or what euere men hadden reuelaciouns, were holier than eny othere men whiche hadden noon reuelaciouns and visiouns; and the holier that eny man or womman is, the more he or sche hath prophecie and reuelacioun than an othir lasse holi; which is knowun as vntrewe bi open experience. Wherfore folewith that thouȝ God wolde not suffre eny man to haue the dew vnderstonding of Holi Scripture bi his natural witt, but bi ȝifte of God, ȝit herwith stondith weel that a bad man haue as plen|teuosely thilk ȝifte as a good man, and that sum bad man haue thilk ȝifte more plenteuoseli than sum good man, riȝt as sum bad man or sum lasse good man hath ȝiftis of helth and of miraclis doing more plen|teuoseli ȝouen to him than a good man or than a more good man, as it is open in the Gospel [A space left in the MS. for the reference. Pecock seems to have in his eye Mark ix. 38, sqq. (Cf. Luke ix. 49); although Matth. vii. 22, would be in fact more to his pur|pose.] that a man not folewing the trewe and dew wey of Crist dide miraclis bi ȝifte of God, as the very and

trewe Apostlis diden. Wherfore folewith needis that the seid ij^e. opinioun is vntrewe.

Tho textis of Holi Scripture, whiche ben alleggid bifore in the firste chapiter for grounding of the ij^e. opinioun, doon no thing therto. Forwhi, thouȝ it mai be had bi tho textis that God schal ȝeue and do singulerli and notabili to meke men for her mekenes, certis ȝit bi noon of thilk textis is had, that God schal ȝeue or do into the wit or vndirstonding of ech meke man eny ȝifte aboue the ȝifte which he wole ȝeue into the resoun or vndirstonding of vnmeke men. And therfore thilke textis speken in so general maner of the visiting to be doon bi God to meke men, that thei mowe be verrified in manye othere wisis and for manye othere visitingis, than ben the visitingis and the ȝiftis of kunnyng. And verili to seie in myn ex|perience, ful manye passyng meke men y haue knowe, whiche han be ful lewid in the knowing of moral vertu and han be ful of doutis, ȝhe, and han be the lewedir bi so miche that thei laborid euere in meke|nes forto haue it in greet mesure, whilis thei myȝten [myȝte, MS. (first hand).] haue laborid forto haue had kunnyng of moral ver|tuosenes. And thus miche is ynouȝ for improuyng and reprouyng of the ij^e. opinioun.

The iij^e. opinioun put bifore in the first chapiter [See p. 7.] of this present book muste needis be vntrewe, for he is aȝens Holi Scripture and also aȝens resoun.

He is aȝens Holi Scripture; forwhi i. Petri iij^e. capitulum. it is writun in sentence thus: That ech Cristen man schulde be redi forto answere and ȝeue satisfac|cioun to ech asker of him resoun (that is to seie, argument) vpon his feith and his hope; and so wole not the iij^e. opinioun graunte or suffre. Also Iohun vj^e. capitulum. it is had, that mennis goode werkis ben not oonli the werkis of her affect and wil and the out|ward

werkis comaundid bi the wil to be doon, but also mennis werkis ben inward werkis of his intellect or vndirstonding, and therfore ben hise opiniouns and sciencis upon treuthis in lawe of kinde: and also thei ben hise feithis had upon treuthis being not fyndeable and knoweable bi lawe of kinde, whanne thei folewen choicis and deedis of the wil, as it is tauȝt in The folewer to the donet, and as it is open by Cristis wordis, Iohun the vj^e. capitulum. Forwhi whanne the Iewis ask|iden of him thus: What schulen we do that we worche the werkis of God? Iesus [Ihs, MS.] answeride and seide to hem thus: This is the werk of God that ȝe bileeue in to him which he sende. And sithen herby it is open that mennis feithis ben her werkis, it folewith that tho men whiche reulen hem bi the iij^e. opinioun and wolen not bringe forth and schewe her feithis at liȝt (that is to seie, at argumentacioun) ben of thilk soort of peple which God reproueth, Iohun the iij^e. capitulum., where Crist seide thus: This is the iugement, for liȝt came in to the world, and men loued more derknes than liȝt, sotheli her werkis weren yuel. Forsothe [for sothe, MS., apparently; but elsewhere conjunctim.] ech that doith yuel hatith liȝt, and he comith not to liȝt, that hise werkis ben not vndernome. He that doith treuthe cometh to liȝt, that hise werkis be [The MS. had originally ben, but the last letter is scraped out.] mad open, for that thei ben doon in God. Thus miche there. Se now therbi how openli men of the iij^e. opinioun ben reproued of Crist, and therfore the iij^e. opinion is aȝens Holi Writt.

Certis withoute argument can no trouthe be knowe neither leerned in the intellect of man, and that whe|ther thilk trouthe be of lawe of kinde or of feith, except thilk treuthis in lawe of kinde which ben openest of alle othere treuthis, and han noon opener treuthis than thei ben bi whiche thei mowe be proued,

as y haue openli schewid in othere places of mi writingis. And therfore ful weel and ful treuli ouȝte arguyng and disputing be clepid liȝt.

That the iij^e. opinioun is also aȝens reson, y mai schewe thus: Euen as thilk opinioun or conclusioun of lawe of kinde is not worthi be holde trewe, but if he mai be susteyned bi hise propre to him groundis and evidencis, withynne the boundis of lawe of kinde, perteynyng to the grounding of suche conclusions; and but if sufficient aunswere can be mad to al arguyng, which may ther aȝens be maad, bi skilis in lawe of kinde: riȝt so thilk feith or conclusioun of bileeue is not worthi to be holde trewe, but if he may be susteyned bi hise propre to him groundis and evi|dencis perteynyng to the grounding of feith; and but if sufficient answere can be ȝeue to al arguyng, which mai be mad ther aȝens. Goddis forbode that eny man schulde so trowe and feele that eny conclusioun of feith ouȝte be holde for trewe and for feith, and ȝit couthe be proued bi eny argument to be vntrewe and fals; and that eny argument couthe be mad aȝens eny conclusioun of trewe feith, to which argument it couthe not cleerli at fulle be answerid. For whi ther is no treuthe knowun for a treuthe (whether it be a treuthe of lawe of kinde or of lawe of feith), but that if he be knowe perfitli and fulli bi hise euydencis and groundis, as it mai bi good labour of arguyng be knowe, he schal be proued trewe aȝens alle aȝenseiers whiche euere thei ben, Cristen or hethen, and thei mowe bi strengthe of argument be constreyned in her reson for to consente therto, wole thei nile thei, if thei ȝeue sufficient attendaunce to the arguyng; and also sufficient cleer at fulle answere mai be ȝeuun to al arguyng mad aȝens the same conclusioun of feith.

Al this is open bi what y haue write of feith in The folewer to the donet, and in the first parti of Cristen religioun, and in the firste parti of The book of feith and of sacramentis, and in the book clepid The prouyng of Cristen feith. And ferthermore the more eny treuthe, whether he be of feith or of no feith, be brouȝt in to examinacioun of arguyng, the more trewe and the more cleerli trewe he schal be seen; and if he be not trewe, but seme trewe eer he come into triyng of argumentis, the lenger he abidith the ex|amynacioun of arguyng, the more vntrewe and the more cleerli vntrewe he schal be seen; riȝt as good trewe gold, the more it suffrith the fier, the more cleerli he is seen to be trewe gold; and if he be not but countirfeet goold, certis the lenger he abi|dith the examynacioun of fier, the more cleerli it schal be seen that he is fals and not trewe gold. And therfore Goddis forbode that any Cristen man schulde thinke and trowe to be a trewe and a good gouernance forto kepe hise feithis and his othere opiniouns priuey, and lete hem not come into what euer examynacioun of argumentis whiche mowe be mad ther upon; namelich whanne and where the holder of tho feithis and of hise othere opinions mai be sikir forto come and go and speke and argue and answere withoute eny bodili harme, and with out eny losse of his ricches or of his fame. Certis if eny man dare not in the now seid casis suffre his feith and hise othere opiniouns be brouȝt into liȝt and into fier of argumentis to be at uttrist examyned, he ouȝte be trowid that in that he hath vntrewe chaffar and vntrewe gold, which mai not abide liȝt and fier.

Also that this iij^e. opinioun is aȝens resoun it is euydent herbi: He is lijk to the lawe of Macomet and of Sarezenis in thilk point in which her lawe is moost vnresonable. Forwhi the lawe of Macomet biddith, vndir greet peyne of horrible deeth suffring, that no

man aftir he hath receyued the feith of thilk lawe dispute or argue with eny other man upon eny point, article, or conclusioun of thilk lawe: and bi this wrecchid and cursid maundement the peple of thilk secte ben so miche lockid up vndir boond, that manie mo of hem myȝten be conuertid into trewe feith than ȝit ben, if thilk so vnresonable maundement of the same lawe ne were. And if any Cristen men wolen locke hem silf so up in her feithis and othere opiniouns of Cristis lawe fro arguyng and disputing ther upon with othere men, as y haue knowe bi reporting of ful trewe persoones that thei so doon, certis ther in thei doon foul vilonie to Cristis lawe of feith and of lawe of kinde, making as thouȝ Cristis seid lawe were so feble chaffare and so countirfetid and so vntrewe, that it durst not saue his worschip if he were thriftili examyned. And thei doon also ful periloseli to hem silf for to make hem so sikir in a feith, eer it be sufficientli tried and proued forto be holde worthi a trewe feith or no. And therfore the thridde bifore sett opinioun in the first chapiter of this book is vnresonable.

Now forto answere to tho textis, whiche ben there bifore alleggid for grounding or ellis witnessing or prouyng of the iij^e. opinioun, it is liȝt forto an|swere. Forwhi to ech diligent considerer vpon the processis forth and aftir, bifore and behinde, where thilke textis ben writun, it schal be riȝt liȝtli and soone seen, that the first text there alleggid, Coloc. ij^e. capitulum., wole that in mater of Cristis Incarnacion, which is a mater of pure feith, no man schulde be bigilid bi philsophi; that is to seie, no man schulde be moved aȝens the feith ther of bi evidencis and bi argumentis mad oonli vpon evidencis of lawe of kinde and of pure resoun without evidencis takun vpon Goddis affermyng or Goddis reveling. Forwhi tho ben argumentis of pure philsophie, and thei ben

veyn fallacis as to schewe treuthe of feith; for thei han no place in mater of feith; and argumentis takun vpon evidencis of Goddis assercioun, or [or of, MS., but of is scraped out.] Goddis affermyng or reveling that the thing is trewe, ben the oonli argumentis which han propre place forto proue and grounde articles, treuthis, and conclusiouns of feith; but certis thei (that is to seie, argumentis of philsophie) and noon othere argumentis han place forto groundli and fundamentali schewe and proue maters of lawe of kinde not being of feith; and suche maters ben maters of Goddis lawe and seruice, as weel as ben maters of feith. And therfore the first text alleggid gooth not into the proof of the iij^e. opinioun.

And in lijk maner it is to be seid that Poul meened in the ij^e. place, alleggid bifore to be i. Cor. i. capitulum., that in mater of feith Poul vsid not hiȝnes of wisdom and of pure resoun oonli, thouȝ not al maner of arguyng may be excludid fro the fynding, the leernyng, the knowing, and the prouyng of feith, as it is proued weel in the book clepid The book of feith and of sacramentis, and as it is tauȝt in The folewer to the donet and in the i^e. partie of Cristen religioun; bicause that no treuthe (except tho which ben at vttrist degre pleyn and open treuthis) mai be leerned, kunne, and proued without argument, as it is in my writingis sumwhere ellis sufficientli schewid; and ech argument muste needis be maad bi werk and deede of the resoun. And thus it is answerid to the textis whiche in the first chapiter of this book ben brouȝt into proving of the iij^e. opinioun.

xviij. CHAPITER.

AFTIR y had herd and had writun thus as is now passid of these iij. opiniouns, ther came into my know|ing that among the peple bifore spokun is holde this iiij^e. now to be rehercid opinioun. And for as myche as he is ful perilose and worthi it is forto him aȝen|stonde and him forto proue be vntrewe, therfore y thouȝte forto plaunte into this book the writing of him here next to the othere thre opiniouns, and forto sette my bisynes forto bringe him into nouȝt. The opinioun in him silf is this. If eny man be not oonli meke, but if ther with al he kepe and fulfille al the lawe of God so miche and in the maner as it is long|ing to him forto it kepe and fulfille, he schal haue the trewe vndirstonding of Holi Scripture, thouȝ no man ellis teche him saue God. And tho men whiche ben not trewe lyuers in the lawe of God schulen not falle vpon the trewe and dewe vndirstonding of Holi Scripture, thouȝ thei putte therto al her natural power and diligence, with the help and counseil of othere suche persoones like to hem. And thanne here by for as miche as to her seming the bischopis and archidenes, [Probably we should read archidekenes.] doctouris, and othere clerkis lyuen alle out of Goddis lawe, therfore thei wenen that noo bischop or archideken or doctour or eny other such persoon of the clergie cometh into the trewe and dew vndirstonding of Holi Scripture; and therfore thei trowen that ech bischop and ech such other clerk bileeueth amys and techith amys, and thei wolen not trowe to his teching, but thei trowen to the doctrine which thei fynden among hem silf bi studiyng in the Bible oonli. For hem silf oonli thei

holden trewe feithful lyuers according with the lawe of God.

This iiij^e. opinioun, as y weene, thei trowen be groundid in the textis now to be rehercid. The firste is writun Iohun viij^e. capitulum. thus: Iesus seid to hem of the Iewis, whiche bileeueden to him: If ȝe schulen dwelle in my word ȝe schulen be my very disciplis, and ȝe schulen knowe trouthe, and trouthe schal delyuere ȝou. The ij^e. text is writun Iohun xiiij^e. capitulum. thus: He that loueth me schal be loued of my Fadir, and y schal loue him, and y schal schewe my silf to him. The iij^e. text is writen Iohun xv^e. capitulum. thus: I schal not now clepe ȝou seruauntis or bond men, for the seruaunt woot not what his lord schal do; but y haue clepid ȝou freendis, for alle thingis what euer y herde of my Fadir y mad knowun to ȝou.

This iiij^e. opinioun may ful liȝtli be improued. For|whi aȝens him is had the grettist certeinte which mai be had in oure knowing, and it is clepid expe|rience: ȝhe, such experience is aȝens him had, that the holders of him kunnen not and mowe not aȝens thilk experience seie nay, and therfore needis fro this iiij^e. opinioun thei musten falle. As for the seid experience had aȝens the seid iiij^e. opinioun, sotheli y haue mad inquisicioun therto sufficient and diligent, and y am certified at fulle that among the holders of this same iiij^e. opinioun summe ben founde and knowun openli among hem silf and of othere neiȝboris to be greet lecchouris, summe to be avoutreris in greet haunt and contynuaunce, summe to be theefis, euen aȝens her owne leernyng and aȝens her owne holding and doctrine. Ȝhe, thei that han be and ben riȝt grete in auctorite of teching among hem han be and ben suche, and in other wise miche viciose per|soones, so that thei mowe not here aȝens seie nay, for y can make it vndoutabili be proued. And alle men witen that these ben grete synnes and miche

aȝens the keping of Goddis moral lawe; and thei hem silf knoulechen that these dedis ben grete synnes and aȝens Goddis lawe. And ȝit thei weenen and holden hem silf for to haue the trewe and dewe vndir|stonding of Holi Scripture; ȝhe, that no men han bettir the trewe vndirstonding ther of than thei han. Wherfore needis folewith that thei hem silf muste holde the seid iiij^e. opinioun to be vntrewe, and that for open knowing of experience which is had among hem silf of these now bifore rehercid vicis, and of many othere vicis. And therfore fro this dai forth ward y hope noon holder of the iiij^e. opinioun schal mowe for schame holde the same iiij^e. opinioun, but rather he schal be schamed that he hath it bifore so vngroundabili holde, and withoute suficient evidence therto bifore had he hath so faste therto cleued and lened. Ferthermore y dare weel seie, if alle the evi|dencis whiche ben late bifore writun in the next chapiter, aȝens the ij^e. opinioun be weel considerid thei schulen suffice forto vnprove this iiij^e. opinioun here, as thei vnproven the ij^e. opinioun there. And therfore more than this no nede is forto write now and here aȝens the seid iiij^e. opinioun.

Tho iij. textis of Holi Scripture, whiche bifore in this present chapiter ben alleggid into the grounding of this iiij^e. opinioun, availen not therto. Forwhi, lijk wise as bifore (in the eende of the ix^e. chapiter in this present i^e. partie) to ij. textis of Holi Scripture brouȝt forth into helping of the firste opinioun y haue answerid there, that tho ij. textis speken of leernyng and kunnyng which is feith, and not which is had bi doom of resoun in lawe of kinde; so y answere now to these iij. textis brouȝt forth in this present chapiter for grounding of the iiij^e. opinioun, that ech of these iij. textis spekith of leernyng and knowing which is feith, namelich vpon Cristis Persoon and upon his Incarnacioun, and not of leernyng and

knowing which is lawe of kinde geten bi labour in doom of mannis resoun oonli, as it is open if a man weie weel the wordis of tho textis. And therfore these iij. textis ben not for the purpos for to grounde the iiij^e. opinioun.

As to this, that the holders of the iiij^e. opinioun deemen prelatis of the chirche forto be mys lyuers and trespacers aȝens Goddis lawe, weel y wote that in summe thingis prelatis synnen and amys [mys, MS. (first hand).] doon. For, thouȝ thei ben prelatis in the chirche, thei ben men and not pure aungels, and therfore thei ben suche, and muste needis be suche, that han the natural temptatyue wrecchidnessis whiche other men han. And weel y wote herwith, that in summe thingis thei ben iugid to be more gilti than thei ben, and also in summe thingis thei ben iugid to be gilti whanne thei not gilti ben, as tho same iugers schulden weel wite, if thei were homeli with the same prelatis, and weren priuey to the same gouernauncis and to alle the causis and motyues and circumstauncis of the same gouernauncis whiche thei blamen.

Wolde God that men, eer thei wolden [wolde, MS. (first hand).] blame eny mannys gouernaunce, wolden weel leerne and wolden be remembrid weel vpon the same leerning wher of a deede or a gouernaunce takith his moral godenes and his moral badnes, and that a gouernaunce is not moraly [moral, MS. (first hand).] good for and bi his owne substaunce, but for and bi his causis, hise motyues, and hise circumstauncis, as it [as is, MS. (first hand).] is tauȝt in othere placis of my writingis, name|lich in The folewer to the donet: ȝhe, and that moral gouernaunces of mennis conuersacioun, namelich suche that ben politik (that is to seie, suche wherbi prelatis of the chirche or othere ouerers gouerne othere men vndir hem bi spiritual policie or worldli policie)

stonden neuere thoruȝ long tymes vndir oon reule, neither vndir oon maner to be doon, neither stonden in alle placis like wise or vndir lijk reule to be doon. And also that in the causis [in causis, MS. (first hand).] of God and aboute the helthe of Cristen soulis the more good is rather to be doon than the lasse gode, and the lasse good is rather to be left vndoon than the more good; thouȝ into the lasse good certyn pointing is maad bi reulis and is writun, and not into the more good. Sotheli thanne schulden not tho men iuge and deem so vnwijsly and so vntreuli of prelatis and of her gouernauncis, as y heere summen so do. Weel y woot as for my [formy, MS.] part, that how men han iugid me and my gouernaunce anentis my diocise, hath come to myn eeris; and ȝit y knowe the wittis and the disposiciouns of the same iugers, that if alle the causis and motyues and en|tentis, meenis, helpis, and lettis, and manie othere circumstauncis of the same gouernaunce whiche thei blamen were opened to hem, and if thei were made therto priuei, thei wolden be of the firste whiche schulden counseile me to kepe and fulfille the same gouernaunce.

Of mi parti y speke in special more than of the parties of othere [the othere, MS. (first hand).] prelatis: for the vniustnes of iuging which is ȝouun upon me y knowe better than the vniustnes of iugingis doon vpon othere. And as it is of me in this caas, so it is lijk to be with manie othere prelatis to be wrongli deemed of men, whiche not knowen in special al that ouȝte be considerid aboute a gouernaunce, eer than thilk gouernaunce ouȝte of hem be iugid morali good or bad.

How suche now seid politik gouernauncis of prelatis anentis her peple was doon and vnder what reule in the eeldir daies, it is writun in lawis and in holi

mennys doctrines and in holi mennys exortaciouns, semyngli as that tho gouernauncis schulden alwey be contynued vndir lijk reule. Thanne comen forth men sumwhat lettrid as in grammer oonli or litle ferther, and not instructid in the kunnyng of moral philsophie and of lawe of kinde, neither considering or remem|bring that the godenes of a gouernaunce hangith upon hise circumstauncis; and that, if transmutacioun and chaunge be of the circumstauncis, so that thei not abiden vndir oon and the same reule, the gouernaunce ouȝte not abide and be contynued vndir oon and the same reule forto be good; and not considering that in lengthe of tyme ful greet transmutacioun and chaunge is alwey maad in and aboute the circum|stauncis of politik gouernauncis, ȝhe, and of monastik gouernauncis (that is to seie, of gouernauncis bi whiche oon man gouerneth him silf aloon); and thei reden these writingis so writen in eeldir daies, and anoon thei iugen that vndir lijk reule and maner thilke gouernauncis ouȝte be contynued now and alwey with oute excepcioun and without dyuersite, namelich for|that tho eeldir writingis were writingis of holi men. But, lo, how foule thei ben bigilid; for thei not con|sideren ferther in the writingis than is expressid in the same writingis, neither thei consideren that no man euere wrote in suche gouernauncis alle the excepciouns and alle the priuey condiciouns whiche ben priueily and impliedli includid in the same writingis; but who euere wrote or schal write in suche maters of moral gouernauncis, he muste needis comitte and bitake to the doom of resoun manie excepciouns and condi|ciouns, and myche more thing vnwritun of hem con|cernyng the same maters than is al what he ther of writith expresseli; and that bi cause of the seid trans|mutacioun which is alwey in the world; and therwith bicause that a gouernaunce is not good but bi hise circumstauncis, whiche ben thus changeable and trans|mutable.

For certis ellis it wolde needis folewe that tho writers, how euere holi thei were, wroten and tauȝten aȝens trewe philsophie and aȝens trewe diui|nyte and aȝens trewe doom of resoun, which as for thilk euidence is not to be grauntid.

And therfore wolde God that men wolden bithenke weel, that no man may vndir oon reule and oon maner kepe his gouernaunce toward him silf, toward his meynee, and toward hise othere peple, in wynter and in somer, in a ȝeer of derth and in a ȝeer of greet cheep, in tyme of wete and in tyme of drouȝth; and if in oon ȝeer such transmutacioun and chaunge of wether muste make a man chaunge his moral gouer|naunce anentis him silf and anentis his peple, whi not bi lijk skile if thoruȝ hundridis of ȝeeris ben falle manye transmutaciouns in the circumstauncis of the seid politik gouernaunce, and manie lettis and manye vnhelpis and manye lackis of helpis, whiche in the eeldir daies weren not in the circumstauncis of the same gouernaunce? The prelate muste make thilk gouernaunce to be doon in an other maner and in an other reule, as resoun for the tyme wole deeme, and not vndir the same forme and reule in which it was doon bifore in eeldir daies, and in which thouȝ it be writun that in thilk reule that it was doon in eeldir daies bifore; ȝhe, and if such transmutacioun and greet dyuersyte be in oon diocise, miche more and miche other wise than in an other diocise, whi schal not the gouernaunce in thilk [thik, MS.] diocise be doon bi doom of resoun myche other wise than the same kinde of gouernaunce ouȝte be doon in an other [a other, MS.] diocise?

If therfore reders in lawis and writingis of eeldir daies were ferther and better instructid than in her grammer in such doctrine as is now sumwhat here schortli seid and touchid, thei wolden not ȝeue such

vnwise and vntrewe doomes upon prelatis of the chirche and vpon religiose persoones for chaunging of gouernauncis bifore doon and led and writen to be so doon, as y heere that thei doon; but thei wolden [wolde, MS. (first hand).] thinke that manye thingis musten be considerid mo than oon in iuging of a gouernaunce, and thei wol|den [wolde, MS. (first hand).] thenke that thei knewen not al that ouȝte be considerid aboute thilk gouernaunce or thilk gouer|naunce, as causes, motyues, ententis, helpis, lettis, lackis of meenis, chaungis of the better good which may not be differrid, neither mai be doon of othere men for the lasse good, and manye suche othere; and thanne thei wolden thenke and seie, that thei hadden not suf|ficient ground forto deeme and ȝeue iugement, whether thilk gouernaunce be good or bad.

And ferthermore, to seie redili as no man woot, how hard it is to clymbe vpon a tree or forto come doun of a tree, saue thilk that assaieth it; and no man loking vpon an other man so clymbing vp or comyng doun can iuge so weel that he gouerneth him weel or yuel in so ascending or descending as he him silf which so ascendith or descendith, neither he woot so weel as if he him silf were sett into lijk werke of clymbing or of doun comyng, and ful liȝtli ech such biholder schal deeme amys the clymber, if he make soone eny iugement ther upon without priuey counseil|ing with the clymber, to wite of him whi he is moved forto sette his foot rather there than here, and so of other [otherer, MS.] dyuersitees: euen so it is in oure now present purpos. And therfore not for nouȝt God seid in the Gospel, [Golpel, MS.] Matheu vij^e. capitulum.: Nile ȝe deeme and ȝe schulen not be deemed: in what euer doom ȝe schulen deeme ȝe schulen be deemed. Vpon which sentence it were good that men hem bithouȝte, and of which sentence it

were good that men were afeerd. Forwhi tho wordis ben the wordis and the thretenyngis of God, namelich if men myȝten not be reulid fro mys deemyng bi wisdom sumwhat now schortli bifore tauȝt of moral philsophie. And ȝit ferther, if suche hasti demers bi her vnwise and vntrewe deemyng diffame the prelatis which thei so demen, than is al the mater in her side the wors. Forwhi, thanne thei ben bounde forto make a sufficient amendis to the fame of the same prelate so hurtid bi hem, euen as thei ben bounden into a suffi|cient amendis to his worldli hauour, if thei take ther of eny thing vntreuli fro him; and ellis thei kunnen not haue of thilk trespas forȝeuenes of God. And sithen restitucioun of fame to be doon to a man aȝens diffame is ful hard, and myche hardir than is resti|tucioun of worldli good, it folewith that a perilose thing is it forto [for inserted in MS. by a later (?) hand.] appeire vntreuly a mannys name, and namelich a prelatis name, thoruȝ suche now seid vnwijs and hasti deemyng.

xix. CHAPITER.

THOUȝ, fro the bigynnyng of the firste chapiter in this book hidir to, y haue thus laborid forto distroie it which schulde and wolde ellis ful miche lette my purpos and entent forto turne many of the comoun peple fro mys holding aȝens xj. gouernauncis, whiche aftir in this present book schulen be proued for leeful and gode and profitable to Cristen men; ȝit, eer y schal come doun into the special profis of tho xj. gouernauncis, y schal proue hem alle to gidere vnder general profis, and that bi setting [bisetting, MS.] forth of iij. suppo|siciouns

or iij. reulis, and with taking out of hem iiij. conclusiouns. And thanne, aftir it is so doon, y schal descende into special profis of tho xj. gouernauncis, of whiche gouernauncis the oon is the hauyng and vsing of ymagis in chirchis; an othir is pilgrimage in going into memorialis or into mynde placis of Seintis.

The i^e. supposicioun or reule is this: Who euere (whether he be God, man, aungel, or Scripture) bid|dith bi word or bi ensampling of deede expresseli eny gouernaunce to be doun, he theryn [yn, MS. (first hand).] and therbi biddith includingli or closingli al it to be doon, which folewith in formal argument of resoun out of thilk gouernaunce bedun. And also theryn and therbi he biddith al it to be doon, withoute which the seid gouernaunce may not be sufficientli doon into the entent of the biddir; and also if into the same gouernaunce to be doon ben manye dyuerse weies and meenis, of which ech bi him silf is a good and a speedful wey and meene into the seid gouernaunce to be doon, he in the bidding of the seid gouernaunce to be doon, allowith ech of thilke weies vndir fre choice of the taker to be take and doon, and also he allowith thilk wey and meene rather and more to be chose, take, and doon, bi which the seid gouernaunce schal be the more or the better doon. And also in the same bidding of the seid gouernaunce he counseilith and willith thilk gouernaunce to be doun in the better maner, rather than to be doon in the lasse good maner.

The ij^e. supposicioun or reule is this: Who euer (God, aungel, man, or Scripture) counseilith and willith with oute comaundement bi word or bi ensampling of deede expresseli eny gouernaunce to be doun, he ther yn and therbi counseilith and willith includingli or closingli al it to be doon, which folewith in formal argument of reson out of thilk same gouernaunce

counseilid and willid; and also ther yn and therbi he counseilith al it to be doon, withoute which the same said counseilid gouernaunce mai not be doon as it is so counseilid to be doon. And also, if into the same gouernance to be doon ben manye dyuerse weies and meenis of which ech is a good speedful wey and meene into the said gouernaunce to be doon, he in the counseiling and willing of the seid gouernaunce to be doon allowith which euer of thilk weies and meenis be take and doon into the doing of the seid gouer|nance. And also he allowith thilk wey and meene to be chose, take, and doon, rather and more, bi which the seid gouernaunce schal be the better doon into the entent of the counseiler or willer. And also in the same counseiling of the seid gouernaunce he coun|seilith and willith thilk same gouernance to be doon in the better maner, rather than to be doon in the lasse good maner.

The iij^e. supposicioun or reule is this: Who euer (God, aungel, man, or Scripture) rehercith, witnessith, or denouncith bi such bidding as is bifore seid in the firste reule, or bi such counseiling as is bifore seid in the ij^e. reule, or bi eny other maner eny gouernaunce to be doon, he ther yn and therbi rehercith, witnes|sith, or denouncith includingli or closingli al it which folewith out of thilk gouernaunce and is includid for|mali in thilk gouernaunce, and al it with out which thilk gouernaunce mai not be doon; and so forth in alle the othere pointis and degrees rehercid now bi|fore in the firste and ij^e. reulis.

These iij. supposiciouns or reulis ben so openli trewe, that no man hauying eny quantite of resoun mai deneie hem. Forwhi, if y, being at Londoun in the Collage of Whitington, bidde or counseile or wit|nesse to my seruaunt there being with me, that he go to Poulis Cros forto heere there attentifli a sermon to be prechid, it muste nedis be grauntid, that y in

so bidding, counseiling, or witnessing, bidde, counseile, or witnesse, that he leerne or remembre sumwhat bi the same sermoun, and that sum maner of newe dispo|sicioun (lasse or more) he take into his affeccion vpon sum thing of thilk sermoun. Forwhi al this folewith out of the attentif heering of the sermoun. Also it muste needis be grauntid, that y (in so bidding, coun|seiling, or witnessing) bidde, counseile, or witnesse, that he go forth out at the collegis gate. Forwhi, inlasse than he go forth fro me at the gate, he mai not come to Poulis Cros forto heere the sermoun. Also, sithen fro the seid college ben manye weies to Poulis Crosse, and of whiche ech is speedful and good ynow forto lede to Poulis Crosse, it muste needis be grauntid that in so bidding, counseiling, or witnessing, y witnesse that, which euere of thilke weies he take, y it allowe; and if cause be founde in eny of tho weies that bi doom of resoun thilk weie ouȝte be left (as if per|auenture in oon of thilk weies a man liggith in wait for to sle my seid [seid is added by a later hand.] seruaunt) certis thilk wey is not, as for thanne, oon of the speedful weies for him into Poulis Crosse. And also it muste be grauntid that in so bidding, counseiling, or witnessing, y wole and al|lowe rather that he go and chese the better of tho weies than the lasse good of tho weies, and that he in bettir maner heere the sermon than that he in lasse good maner heere the same sermoun. Wherfore, sithen in lijk maner it is to be holde and seid in alle lijk casis, it folewith that the iij. bifore sett suppo|siciouns or reulis ben trewe and ben to be grantid.

Aftir these iij. so openli trewe reulis y putte forth iiij. conclusiouns, whiche muste needis be trewe, if these iij. reulis be trewe.

The firste of tho [the, MS. (first hand).] iiij. conclusiouns is this: For this that Holi Scripture wole a man to loue God

and drede God with al his herte, soul, and strengthe, it muste needis be grauntid that ther yn Holi Scripture wole a man to loue al what God wole him loue, and hate al what God wole him hate, and that Holi Scripture ther yn wole a man forto do Goddis seruicis whiche God biddith him to do, and forto do and suffre for God in his seruice. Forwhi al this folewith in formal argument fro this, that a man loueth God with al his herte, soul, and strengthe. Also it muste needis be grauntid, that ther yn and therbi Holi Scripture wole that a man bithinke and remembre upon these vij. maters, that is to seie, what God is in hise dignitees, nobilitees, and perfecciouns; whiche ben hise benefetis ȝouen and bihiȝt to man in this lijf and in the lijf to come; whiche ben hise pun|yschingis ȝouun and to be ȝouun in this lijf and in the lijf to come; whiche ben pointis and articlis of his lawe and his seruice; that man ther yn serue to him; whiche ben mannys natural freelnessis and yuel dispo|siciouns and redinessis into synne and lothinessis into good; whiche ben mannys synnes doon aȝens the lawe of God; and which ben remedies aȝens the now seid freelnessis and aȝens the now seid synnes. Forwhi the remembraunce and mynde taking upon these vij. maters is so necessarie a meene into the loue and drede of God, that withoute meditacioun and mynde vpon hem or upon summe of hem no man schal loue God and drede God in eny while with al his herte, soule, and strengthe. And ferthermore, sithen this mynde, remembraunce, and meditacioun mai not be had upon these seid maters withoute summe of these weies or meenes, that is to seie, reding or heering of Holi Scripture and of othere writingis, heering of sermons prechid, biholding upon picturis or purtraturis or graued werk or coruun werk, visiting and going into the placis in whiche holi men han lyued, or in whiche holi men dwellen, or in whiche the relifis or the re|likis of hem abiden; as bi whiche meenis alle or

summe of the seid vij. maters mowen be representid, signified, and be brouȝt into mynde, meditacioun, and remembraunce, and ech of these weies and meenis is profitable and speedful into the seid remembraunce making upon the seuen seid maters, as sure experience and assaye ther upon had it witnessith:—it muste needis be grauntid that in this that Holi Scripture wole a man forto loue and drede God with al his herte, soul, and wil, Holi Scripture allowith weel that a man take in to vse ech of these now bifore rehercid meenis (now oon of hem, now an other of hem) at his liberte, as him likith forto so take. This firste conclusioun folewith openli out of the iij. seid suppo|siciouns and reulis, and out of the ensaumpling bifore upon hem. Wherfore, if thei be trewe, this firste conclusioun muste nedis be trewe.

The ij^e. conclusioun is this: Thilk xj. gouernauncis whiche y schal susteyne, meyntene, iustifie, and de|fende aftir in this present book, ben bede or counseilid or witnessid bi Holi Scripture to be doon. This conclusioun y proue thus. Ech gouernaunce which is expresseli bede, counseilid, or witnessid bi Holi Scrip|ture to be doon, or is includingli or closingli in eny of the now biforeseid maners bede, counseilid, or witnessid bi Holi Scripture to be doon, is bede or counseilid or witnessid [by] Holi Scripture to be doon; but so it is that ech of thilk now spokun xj. gouer|nauncis, which after in this present book y schal defende and susteyne, is a gouernaunce expresseli bede or counseilid or witnessid bi Holi Scripture to be doon, or is includingli or closingli bede, counseilid, or witnessid in summe of the maners now bifore seid in a gouernaunce bede, counseilid, or witnessid expresseli bi Holi Scripture to be doon, as schal be openli at ful proued after in this book. Wherfore ech of thilk xj. gouernauncis is bede or counseilid or witnessid of Holi Scripture to be doon.

The iij^e. conclusioun is this: In thilk maner of vnpropre and large speche, in which it may thouȝ vnpropirli be seid that what is bede or counseilid or witnessid bi Holi Scripture in eny of the now bifore seid maners of bidding, counseiling, or witnessing is therfore and therbi groundid in Holi Scripture, it is trewe that ech of the xj. gouernauncis, which y schal aftir in the ij^e., iij^e., iv^e., and v^e. [Some erasures and corrections have been made in the numbers; the same remark is to be made just below in two instances; also at p. 4, l. 23. The numbers are written in Roman character by the first hand, in Arabic by the second.] parties of this book menteyne and defende is groundid in Holi Scripture largeli and vnpropirli forto speke of grounding, as it is ther of seid bifore in the [fifth] [A space left in the MS. for the number.] chapiter of this present firste parti of this book. This iij^e. conclusioun folewith pleinli at the ful out of the ij^e. now bifore going conclusioun. Wherfore, if the ij^e. conclusioun is trewe, this iij^e. conclusioun is needis trewe.

The iiij^e. conclusioun is this: If the bidding or counseiling or witnessing of Holi Scripture in eny of the bifore seid maners upon a mater or a conclusioun or a trouthe of moral lawe of kinde were a gronding in Scripture, forto speke propirli and verili and dewli of a ground and of grounding to a thing, in the maner which is bifore spokun in the ij^e. and iij^e. chapi|tris of this present first parti, certis thanne ech of the xj. gouernancis (whiche aftir in the ij^e., iij^e., iv^e., and v^e. parties of this present book y schal defende and menteyne) were groundid in Holi Scripture bi grounding in propre maner vndirstondun and takun. This iiij^e. conclusioun folewith openli out of the ij^e. and iij^e. conclusiouns. Wherfore, if thei be trewe, he is trewe.

xx. CHAPITER.

CONFIRMACIOUN to the i^e. and ij^e. of these iiij. now putt conclusiouns is this. Who euer for deuocioun and loue which he hath to Holi Scripture wole holde that ech gouernaunce of Goddis moral lawe and ser|uice is groundid in the Newe Testament, (as summen holden,) or in the hool Bible, (as summe othere hol|dun,) and ellis it is not to be take for a point and deede or gouernaunce of Goddis lawe and of Goddis seruice, ȝit he mai not holde and seie that needis ech gouernaunce of Goddis seid lawe and seruise muste be groundid expresseli in Holi Scripture, as anoon aftir schal be proued. Wherfore he muste needis graunte and holde, that if eny deede or gouernaunce be groun|did or witnessid includingli or closingli in eny of the bifore spokun maners bi the thre reulis, it is ynowȝ forto seie and holde that thilk deede or gouernaunce is groundid or witnessid in Holi Scripture. And if he muste so graunte, certis thanne if it be schewid to him that ech of the xj. gouernauncis whiche y schal aftir in the ij^e., iij^e., iv^e., and v^e. parties of this book defende and iustifie, (of which oon is setting up of ymagis in chirchis, and an othir is pilgrymage vnto the memorialis or mynde placis of Seintis,) is in|cludingli or closingli groundid or witnessid in Holi Scripture bi eny of the maners bifore seid in the iij. reulis, (as aftir in the ij^e. parti of this book it schal be schewid,) he muste needis lijk weel graunte that ech of tho xj. gouernauncis is groundid or witnessid in Holi Scripture.

That thou maist not seie and holde ech gouernaunce and deede of Goddis lawe and seruice to be expressid in Holi Scripture, and that ellis it is not Goddis ser|uice

and a deede of Goddis lawe, lo thou maist se herbi. In al Holi Scripture it is not expressid bi bidding, counseiling, or witnessing, or bi eni [eni is added by a later (?) hand.] ensaum|pling of persoon, that a lay man not preest schulde were a breche, or that he schulde were a cloke, or that he schulde were a gowne, or that he schulde die wollen clooth into other colour than is the colour of scheep, or that men schulden [schulde, MS. (first hand).] bake eny fleisch or fisch in an ovyn, or that men schulde make and vse clockis forto knowe the houris of the dai and nyȝt; for thouȝ in eeldist daies, and thouȝ in Scripture mensioun is maad of orologis, schewing the houris of the dai bi schadew maad bi the sunne in a cercle, certis neuere saue in late daies was eny clok telling the houris of the dai and nyȝt bi peise and bi stroke, and open it is that nouȝwhere in Holi Scripture is expresse mensioun mad of eny suche. Also nouȝwhere in Holi Scripture is mensioun mad or eny ensaumpling doon, that a womman schulde were upon her heer and heed eny couerchief of lynnen threde or of [of is added by a later hand.] silk. Forwhi the coueryng with which a wommannys heed ouȝte be couered, wherof Holi Scripture spekith in the pistlis of Poul, [See 1 Cor. xi. 3-10. It need hardly be added that Pecock has committed an error in this sentence, the … of v. 10 being certainly a veil. Veils are also several times mentioned in the Old Testament. See Kitto, Cycl. Bibl. Lit., s. v. Veil.] was only the heer of wommennys heed vnschorn, and of noon other coueryng to wommennys heedis spekith Holi Scripture. And here aȝens Holi Scripture wole that men schulden lacke the coueryng which wommen schulden haue, and thei schulden so lacke bi that that the heeris of her heedis schul|den be schorne, and schulde not growe in lengthe doun as wommanys heer schulde growe. Perauen|ture,

as wijs as thou makist thee in the Bible forto reproue pilgrimage and setting up of ymagis and worschiping doon bifore ymagis, thou couthist not aspie this laste seid point of wommannis coueryng: therfore how thou canst fynde it bi Holi Scripture, lete se; and if thou canst not it fynde, it may be founde and proued so bi Holi Scripture that thou schalt not kunne seie nay; and ȝit it is holde for a dede alloweable and vertuose that wommen were couerchefis, and that men and wommen were gownys and clokis, not withstonding that more synne cometh bi wering of wommennys couercheefis and bi wom|mennys gownis than by vce of ymagis and bi pilgrim|agis, as al the world may wite, if the mater be weel and thriftili examyned, bi what schal be seid and proued of ymagis and of pilgrimagis in the ij^e. partie of this present book, and bi what is al redi therof clereli seid and proued in The book of worschiping.

Also thou schalt not fynde expresseli in Holi Scrip|ture that the Newe Testament schulde be write in Englisch tunge to lay men, or in Latyn tunge to clerkis; neither that the Oold Testament schulde be write in Englisch tunge to lay men, or in Latyn tunge to clerkis: and ȝit ech of these gouernauncis thou wolte holde to be leeful, and to be a meritorie vertuose moral deede forto therbi deserue grace and glorie, and to be the seruice of God, and therfore to be the lawe of God; sithen bi no deede a man hath merit, saue bi a deede which is the seruice and the lawe of God; and ech moral vertu is the lawe of God, as it is proued weel in othere place [Probably we should read placis.] of my writingis.

Also thus: Where it is [Perhaps we should read, Where is it, &c.; if not, we must under|stand from above, [Thou shalt not find] where, &c.] groundid expresseli in Scrip|ture, that men mowe lete schaue her berdis. And how

dare thei so lete, sithen it cannot be founde expresseli in Scripture [Holi is inserted in the MS. be|fore Scripture, but cancelled by a later(?) hand.] that thei ouȝten so lete, and namelich sithen it is founde in Holi Scripture that men leten her berdis growe withoute schering or schauyng, and also sithen it was the oolde vsage thoruȝ al the world in Christendom? Where is it in Holi Scripture groundid bi wey of comendyng or of allowaunce that men schulden or miȝten lauȝwe? For to the contrarie is euydence in Holi Scripture, Mat. v^e. capitulum., where it is seid thus: Blessid ben thei that moornen or weilen, for thei schulen be coumfortid; and also, Gen. [xviij^e.] [A space left in the MS. for the number.] c., Sara the wijf of Abraham was punyschid, for that sche lauȝed bihinde the dore of the tabernacle. Where is it also grondid in Holi Scripture that men myȝten alloweabili or schulden pleie in word bi bourding, or in deede by rennyng or leping or schuting, or bi sitting at the merels, or bi casting of coitis? And ȝit ech of these deedis mowe be doon and ben doon vertuoseli and merytorili.

Also where in Holi Scripture is it grondid that men myȝten or schulden singe, saue oonli where yn thei preisiden God, as aungelis diden in erthe whanne Crist was born? And so for esement of a man him silf, and for esement of his neiȝbour, it is not expressid in Holi Scripture that a man schulde singe. And ȝit Goddis forbode, but that into esement of him silf and also of his neiȝbour, a man mai singe, pleie, and lauȝe ver|tuoseli, and therfore merytorili; and if he mai do it merytorili, certis thanne thilk deede is Goddis seruice; and if it be Goddis seruice, it is needis a deede of Goddis lawe.

Where is it expressid bi word or bi eny persoonys ensaumpling in Holi Scripture that men schulden make

ale or beer, of whiche so myche horrible synne cometh, myche more than of setting up of ymagis, or of pil|grymagis; and the defautis doon aboute ymagis and pilgrimagis ben myche liȝter and esier to be amendid, than the defautis comyng bi making of ale and of beer. And also here with it is trewe that without ale and bere, and without sidir and wijn and meeth, men and wommen myȝte lyue ful long, and lenger than thei doon now, and in lasse iolite and cherte of herte forto bringe hem into horrible grete synnes. And ȝit thou wolte seie that forto make ale and beer and forto drinke hem is the seruice of God, and is merytorie, and therfore is the lawe of God: for bi no deede a man schal plese God and haue merit and meede, saue bi deede of his seruice; and ech deede which is his seruice is a deede of his lawe.

That in Holi Scripture is noon of these now rehercid gouernauncis groundid or witnessid or ensaumplid bi eny persoon expresseli, lo, y proue thus: No thing is expresseli spoken of in Scripture, which is not there in special openli named; but so it is, [is is interlineated in a later hand, which has also made some erasures.] that neither breche of lay man, neither gown, neither cloke, neither wommanis lynnen or silken couercheef, neither clock, neither Englisch tunge or langage, [After this follows, neither Latyn tunge or langage, but a later (?) hand has drawn a pen through it; rightly. See Luke xxiii. 38. But very possibly Pecock wrote it, since he was capable of making such a blunder as to say that a cloak is not mentioned in Scripture.] neither ale, neither bere is spokun of there in special and bi name. Wher|fore the vce of these thingis, as to be doon bi tho thingis, is not there expressid. Also thus: No gouer|naunce or treuthe is expresseli groundid or witnessid in Holi Scripture, which mai not be knowen [knowe, MS. (first hand).] bi the Scripture aloone, without more sett therto of propo|cisiouns

in the resoun of him which redith and vndir|stondith there the Scripture. Forwhi in this case thilk gouernaunce schulde be grondid or witnessid sumwhat and in parcel bi tho proposiciouns caste to Scripture, as it is groundid and witnessid sumwhat and in parcel bi the Scripture; but so it is, that noon of these now bifore spokun and rehercid gouernauncis may be knowe to be trewe, iust, and riȝtful bi eny text or processe in Scripture aloone, whilis no more at al in resoun is sett to the same Scripture, for to conclude the seid gouernance bi the Scripture and bi resoun to gidere. Wherfore noon of alle these seid gouernauncis is groundid or witnessid expresseli in Holi Scripture.

Confirmacioun herto is this: No thing is expressid or expresseli witnessid or groundid in Holi Scripture, which is not rehercid in Holi Scripture; but so it is, that noon of these gouernauncis is rehercid in Holi Scripture: wherfore noon of hem is expressid in Holi Scripture. And if noon of hem is there expressid, certis noon of hem is there expresseli groundid, wit|nessid, or denouncid, or tauȝt. Also thus: Oonli it is expressid or expresseli toold and tauȝt in Holi Scripture, which is knowun for trewe or to be doon, thouȝ no thing ellis in [in is interlineated by a later (?) hand, and doom written on an erasure.] doom of resoun be sett ther to; but so is not of eny of the bifore rehercid gouer|nauncis: wherfore noon of hem is expressid or expres|seli toold, or tauȝt, witnessid, rehercid, or groundid in Holi Scripture.

Now, Sir, to thee thus: In caas that y wolde holde aȝens thee, and seie that it is not to be do, that ale and beer be mad and drunke; or that wommen weere couerchefis of lynnen or of silk, of whiche so miche synne cometh; or if y wolde holde that it were not Goddis seruice forto at sum while lauȝe or make

feeste or pleie; and namelich if y wolde seie to thee thus: "Where ben these bifore rehercid gouernauncis groundid in Holi Scripture, namelich in the Newe Testament?" loke how thou woldist in this case answere to me forto defende bi doom of resoun the making and vsing of ale, or the wering of womman|nys couercheefis to be a moral, vertuose deede of Goddis lawe; and how thou woldist grounde or bi witnessing fynde eny of hem in Holy Scripture bi eny of the maners bifore spoken in the thre reulis, or in eny other maner; and in the same or euen lijk wise y schal defende bi resoun ech of the xj. gouernauncis aftir to be iustified in the ij^e., iij^e., iiij^e., and v_e. parties of this book, as there aftir schal be seen. And in the same or euen lijk wise y schal grounde or fynde bi witnessing ech of hem in Holi Scripture, as also thou schalt openli after in the ij^e. parti of this book se. Wolde God thilk men and wommen, (and namelich thilk wommen whiche maken hem silf so wise bi the Bible, that thei no deede wol|len allowe to be vertuose and to be doon in mannis vertuose conuersacioun, saue what thei kunnen fynde expresseli in the Bible, and ben ful coppid of speche anentis clerkis, and avaunten and profren hem silf whanne thei ben in her iolite and in her owne housis forto argue and dispute aȝens clerkis,) schulden not were couercheefis into tyme thei couthen [couthe, MS. (first hand).] schewe bi her Bible where it is expresseli bede, conseilid, or witnessid in her Bible to be doon; neither schulde sette hem silf for to sitte at priuey; neither schulden rise ther|fro, whanne thei were so set or sitting, into tyme thei hadden groundid expresseli in Holi Scripture that thei ouȝten alle tho deedis do, but if thei wolen leue her vnwijs and proud folie. And ȝit ech of tho deedis, whanne he is doon aftir doom of resoun and for God,

is seruice of God, and lawe of God; for ech of hem is a moral vertuose deede; and also forto leue eny of hem were a vice and a synne to God. And therfore ech of tho deedis, whanne thei ben [be, MS. (first hand).] doon bi resoun and for God, is a seruice and a lawe to God, name|lich sithen ech deede, which eny Cristen man schulde wirche and do bi avisement and in which he schulde bi avisement be occupied, ouȝte be a lawe to God. Forwhi eche such dede ouȝte be a seruice to God, sithen Poul seith i^e. Cor. x^e. capitulum. thus: Whether ȝe ete or drinke or eny other thing doon, alle do ȝe into the glorie of God.

Also y wolde that no suche wommen schulden anointe, waische, or bathe hem silf into tyme thei cou|then alle tho deedis grounde expressely in the Bible to be doon. Certis wommen mowe not so grounde the wering of her silken or lynnen couerchefis bi it what is writen ie. Thimothe, ij^e. capitulum., that wommen schulden haue couenable habit, where Poul seith thus: Also wommen in couenable habit with schamefastnes and sobirnes araiyng hem silf, not in writhen heris, or in gold, or in peerlis, or preciose clooth; but that that bicometh wommen biheting pite, bi gode werkis. Forwhi in tho daies of Poul summe wommen weriden couenable habit, and ȝit noone wommen we|riden thanne eny lynnen or silken keuercheefis, but weriden her open heer, as sumwhat therto sownith this same now rehercid processe of Poul, and bettir it mai be proued bi processe of Poul [A space left in the MS. for the reference. Pecock may probably have misunderstood 1 Cor. xi. 15: that veils were in that age some|times worn by women needs no proof, and is affirmed by St. Paul himself, 1 Cor. xi. 10. See Smith's Dict. Gr. and Rom. Ant., s. v. Ve|lum.] if thilk processe be weel discussid. Wherfore bi this that Poul seith, "Wommen to haue couenable habit,"

mai not be so groundid that thei schulden [The twenty-three following lines are added in the margin, being partly written on an erasure. The hand is very similar to that of the general text, but a little smaller; some additions and erasures how|ever being made by a later, though early, corrector. Some considerable erasures occur also in the preceding paragraph.] haue lyn|nen or silken keuerchefis.

Also thus: Whanne Poul seith that wommen schul|den haue couenable habit, he pointith not to hem which habit is couenable to hem and which is not couenable to hem; neither he pointith more speciali that for to were lynnen or silken couercheefis is co|uenable; or that it is not couenable. Wherfore forto haue al this pointid he remittith and sendith us sum|where ellis, and wole that we seche and fynde sum where ellis than in Holi Scripture which habit is couenable, and which is not couenable; but so it is, that into nowhere ellis he remittith us or sendith us or ouȝte sende us for this purpos, saue in to doom of resoun and into lawe of kinde and moral philso|phie. Forwhi nowhere in Holi Scripture this mater is pointid and tauȝt expresseli. Wherfore it was the entent of Poul in the seid proces, i^e. Thim. ij^e. capitulum., that forto fynde, know, and iuge expresseli which habit is couenable, and whether forto were lynnen or silken couercheefis is couenable, we schulden go to doom of resoun and lawe of kinde. And, if this be trewe, thanne doom of resoun and lawe of kinde and not Holi Scripture muste expresseli grounde this, that wommen mowe weel were lynnen and silken couer|cheefis, if it be in eny wise groundable and leeful. Forwhi whanne Holi Scripture remittith from him or leueth to an other thing or sendith into an other thing eny certeyn kunnyng or knowing to be had, Holi Scripture not groundith, namelich not expresseli, thilk kunnyng and knowing; but the thing, into

which Holi Scripture so remyttith, it so groundith. Wherfore needis if it be leeful wommen forto were lynnen and silken couercheefis, doom of resoun muste expresseli grounde thilk wering; and Holi Scripture not so it groundith. Ensaumple for this purpos is this: If the king sende his epistle to alle peintouris, that thei peinte alle crucifixis with couenable colouris; certis it mai not be seid as here that thilk epistle groundith this, that whijt colour schal be leid in oon certein parti of the crucifix and reed in an other parti, and so forth of othere colouris; but the craft of peinting muste it grounde; and as for the grounding therof, the king in his epistle leueth hem to her owne craft. In lijk maner it were if the king bi his epistle wolde comaunde to goldsmythis, that whanne euer thei schulden enamele eny cuppe or other iewel, thei schulden enamele it couenabili; certis herbi the king schulde not grounde to hem, that there in such a place of the iewel thei schulden leie rather blew ena|meling than reed or whijt, and that in this place thei schulden [schulde, MS. (first hand).] leie whijt or greene enameling rather than blew; but al this he leueth to be groundid bi her craft. Wherfore lijk wise it is to be seid in this present purpos.

Ferthermore forto iustifie her bathing, waisching, and anointing wommen mowe not allegge the storie of Sussanne, Daniel xiij^e. capitulum.; for thilk processe and storie is not Holi Writt, but Apocrif; and the verri book of Daniel (as miche as is Holi Writt) is eendid with the xij^e. chapiter of the same book, as Ierom ["Hæc idcirco, ut difficultatem vobis Danielis ostenderem: qui apud Hebræos nec Susannæ habet historiam, nec hymnum trium puero|rum, nec Belis draconisque fabulas: quas nos, quia in toto orbe dis|persæ sunt, veru anteposito, easque jugulante, subjecimus, ne videremur apud imperitos magnam partem voluminis detruncasse." S. Hieron. Præfat. in Dan. Proph. (Op. t. ix. pp. 1361, 1362. Ed. Vall. 1738.)]

the translatour witnessith; and ȝit in thilk story is no mension maad of alle the wommennys deedis now rehercid, saue oonli of bathing and of waisching with oyl and swope, and ȝit not of these bi wey of com|ending or bi wey of ensaumpling that othere per|soones schulde do the same.

Thouȝ the thre reulis or supposiciouns, whiche y haue sett bifore in the xix^e. chapiter, ben sufficient into the purpos of the iiij. conclusiouns there drawen out of hem, and into the purpos of a general proof there mad upon [upon is inserted by a later (?) hand.] the xj. bifore spokun gouernauncis, (and therfore y there settid no mo reulis than was nedeful to myn there purposid entent,) ȝit lest that summe reders wolden conceyue and trowe ther bi that in tho iij. reulis or supposiciouns y weene and vnderstonde to be alle maners bi whiche eny trouthe, gouernaunce, or conclusiouns is bede, counseilid, or witnessid in|cludingli or impliedli in Holi Scripture; therfore into oon other maner bi which a gouernaunce or treuthe is bede, counseilid, or witnessid bi Holi Scripture, y remytte and send ech man desiring forto it leerne or knowe into the firste parti of the book clepid Iust apprising of Holi Scripture. For there in the [Spaces left in the MS. for the numbers.] chapiter in prouyng of the [Spaces left in the MS. for the numbers.] trouthe schal be schewid this other maner of gronding, bidding, counseiling, or witnessing bi Holi Scripture, which is left here vnseid and vntauȝt.

Aftir that (fro the bigynnyng of this present chapi|ter hidir to) y haue thus confermed the firste and [and the, MS. (first hand).] ij^e. conclusiouns, put and proued in the next bifore going chapiter, y putte now here the v^e. conclusioun as for an eende of this present first parti, which v^e. conclu|sioun is this. For to conuicte and ouercome tho erring

persoones of the lay peple whiche ben clepid Lollardis, and forto make hem leue her errouris is a ful nota|ble, ȝhe, and an excellent remedie, the writing in her modiris langage of this present firste parti, and of the book clepid The iust apprising of Holi Scripture, and tho bookis of whiche mensioun is mad in these bokis, and the bitaking of these bookis and of tho bokis into her vce of reding and studiyng.

That this conclusioun is trewe y proue thus: For|to conuicte and ouercome tho seid erring persoones of the lay peple, and for to make hem leue her errouris, an excellent remedie is the dryuyng of hem into sure knowing or into weenyng or opinioun, that thei neden miche more to leerne and knowe into the profit and sure leernyng and knowing of Goddis lawe and seruice, than what thei mowe leerne and knowe bi her reed|ing and studiyng in the Bible oonli; but so it is, that forto dryue hem into the now seid knowing, trowing, or opinioun seruen at ful in an excellent maner the writing of this present firste parti in her modris lan|gage, with lijk writing of the book clepid Iust ap|prising of Holi Scripture; and bi so miche the better, if therto be sett the othere bokis named in these ij. And without the writing of this present first parti and of The iust apprising, or with out sum other writing lijk to hem, tho persoones wolen in no wise be so conuictid and ouercome, as assay therto mad bifore this present day thoruȝ this sixti wyntris by his ther yn vneffectual speding makith open experimental wit|nessing. Wherfore for to conuicte the seid persoones and forto make hem leue her errouris is an excellent remedie, (ȝhe, and as it were an vnlackeable remedie,) the seid writing of the now spoken bokis and the bitaking of tho seid bokis into the reeding and studi|yng of the same persoones.

The firste premisse of this proof and argument is trewe. Forwhi, if tho persoones were dryue into sure

knowing or into trowing, that thei neden leerne and knowe miche more into the profit and ful leerning and knowing of Goddis lawe than what is in the Bible, or what thei mowe leerne and knowe bi the Bible, certis thei schulden be maad seme to hem silf verry foolis; and thei schulden se and knowe weel hem silf to be fonnys and foolis, as anentis ful manye of the thingis whiche ben necessarili to be leerned and kunne of hem bisidis the Bible, ȝhe, and in the Bible; and thei schulden se that thei han miche nede to clerkis, and thei schulden [schulde, MS. (first hand.)] be aschamed of her bifore had hiȝe bering and presumpcioun and of her wyncing in witt, and of her hopping bisidis witt, as her of ful sure experience is had, blessid be God, and sure expe|rience may be had, how ofte euer eny of tho persoones talken in long leiser eernestli upon eny point of Goddis lawe and seruice with a sad and weel leerned clerk in moral philsophie and dyuynyte. For sotheli ful soone schulen tho persoones thanne stonde at her wittis eende, and ful rude be where yn the clerk schal sprede him silf abrode in large cleernes: Verrili the thing which we knowen we now speken, and the thing which we han seen we witnessen: [See John iii. 11.] where now aȝenward, (bi cause it seemeth to hem that thei neden nothing into the scole of Goddis lawe and seruice saue Holi Scripture aloone, and that therto Holi Scripture sufficith, and thei weenen hem silf forto kunne at ful and substanciali and piththeli Holi Scripture, for that thei kunnen bi herte the textis of Holi Scripture and kunnen lussche hem out thikke at feest, and at ale drinking, and vpon her hiȝe benchis sitting,) thei ben obstinat aȝens her owne goostli thrift and aȝens her soulis sauyng. And therfore the seid first premisse is redili trewe.

And that the ij^e. premysse of the same proof and argument is trewe in his firste parti, it schal be openli knowen to ech diligent of tho bokis the ouerreder and attentijf studier. Forwhi this firste parti of this pre|sent book and The iust apprising of Holi Scripture as in generalte schewen vndoutabli and vnaȝenseiabily, that myche moral philsophie and miche lawe of kinde is algatis necessarie to be leerned, as weel as the Bible; and that withoute the leerning of the seid moral philsophie and lawe of kinde the Bible may not be ariȝt vndirstonde; and that the seid philsophie and lawe of kinde is the more parti of Goddis lawe and seruice; and the othere bokis, whiche ben named in these now seid ij. bokis, schewen the same in spe|cialte: and therfore the reders and studiers in these bookis muste nedis be dryue herto, that thei han nede to the help and counseil and direccioun of clerkis, and han nede to miche other thing than to the Bible aloon. And therfore the ij^e. premisse of the principal argument is trewe as for his first parti, whos also secunde parti is confermed bifore bi experience and assay spoken bifore, where the same secunde parti is sett forth in the principal argument.

And so, (sithen the bothe premissis of the prouyng argument ben trewe, and the argument is formali maad,) it muste needis be that the conclusioun of tho premissis is trewe, which is not ellis than this pre|sent v^e. conclusioun. And therfore this present v^e. conclusioun is nedis to be holde for trewe. For making and writing of whiche now bifore spokun and rehercid bokis; to the hiȝe aloon God, louyngist Lord a thousind sithis gramerci. [Here eendith the firste party of the book clepid THE REPRESSER OF OVER MOCHE WIJTYNG THE CLERGIE.]