The repressor of over much blaming of the clergy.

xiiij. CHAPITER.

To the v^e. semyng skile it is to be seid, that thilk stiward, of which it is spoken in the v^e. skile, iugith not in the bischopis name or stide, or in the abbotis name or stide; thouȝ the avauntage and the forfete iustli comyng bi thilk iugement be ȝouun to thilk bischop or to thilk abbot; but the seid [seid is added by a later hand.] stiward iug|ith in the kingis name and in the kingis stide, which comyttith to thilk stiward power forto sitte and knowe and iuge in thilk cause and mater of deeth. And so the king iugith to deeth and executith into

deeth, and this stiward vndir the king, and othere officers and executers vndir the stiward; and alle thei doon in the name and in auctorite and power and stide of the king, so comytting to the stiward, and that the stiward comytte ferther to othere. For whiche treuthe now seid the better to be vndirstonde, it is to wite that al iuging into deeth and al exe|cuting of thilk iugement cometh fro the king and fro his auctorite and power, and not but from him and bi him; so that it is not leeful that eny man iuge into deeth or slee, but he aloon, or thilk persoon to whom he commyttith. And for as miche as it were ouer cumberose to his persoon and not moost profit|able to the comounte, that the king schulde sitte and iuge in ech cause of deeth and in ech other cause of wrong, therfore he committith his power and auc|torite to temporal lordis vndir him forto execute it upon certein noumbris of peplis assigned to hem, and ȝeueth power to tho lordis hem for to comytte fer|thir to stiwardis vndir hem; and he ȝeueth the avauntagis, (as forfetis, eschetis, and mercimentis, and fynys,) to tho lordis for her labour. But whanne it is so, that the king ȝeueth to a bischop or to an abbot into almes or into sum other good deede therbi to be doon the now seid avauntage, which may come honestli and iustli to the king, he comittith not to the same bischop or abbot power forto sitte and knowe and iuge in the court whos avauntage the king ȝeueth to the bischop or abbot; but the king comyttith the power forto sitte, knowe, and iuge to a stiward which in the kingis name schal sitte and iuge and condempne into deeth and execute the sentence or commytte ferther thilk execucioun to othere vndir him in the kingis name; thouȝ the king graunte and or|deyne that the stiward bringe to the bisschop or abbot al the avauntage of the court, which the same stiward schulde iustli bringe to the king him silf, if the king

hadde not ȝeuen it to the bischop or abbot. And so, forto speke in veri trewe propir speche, this stiward is not the bischopis or the abbotis stiward, but he is the kingis stiward; neither this court is the bischopis court, namelich in tho pointis and iugementis to which [whichich, MS.] deeth longith; but it is ther yn the kingis court; thouȝ in comoun speche vnpropirli takun it is woned be seid that thilk stiward is the bischopis stiward or abbotis stiward, and that he holdith the bischopis court or the abbotis court; lijk as it is woned bi vnpropre speche, whanne a parisch chirche is aproprid to an abbey of nunnys, forto seie that the abbas is persoun of thilk chirche, or the conuent or the abbey is persoun of thilk chirch, and the vikir sett in thilk chirche is vikir of the abbas or vikir of the abbey; which speche is no more trewe in propre maner of vndirstonding than were forto seie that the brigge of Londoun were persoun of a parisch chirch, and that the vikir sett in thilk chirch were vikir of the brigge, if alle the fruytis of thilk chirche were assigned and ȝouun into almes forto meyntene and repare [to repare, MS. (first hand).] the brigge of Londoun, so that a sufficient porcioun of the same fruytis were left to a preest forto bere sufficientli the cure. But verrili and propirli to speke the seid womman or wommen be not persouns and prelatis to men, (for it were aȝens the teching of Poul,) and the vikir sett in thilk chirche is vikir of the bischop or vikir of the persoun which was there bifore the appropriacioun, or of the persoun which schulde be there, if thilk appropriacioun not were: so that he is not the viker of the abbas or abbey, thouȝ the abbas or abbey be mad patroun for to chese him and presente him to the bischop, as it is grauntid to hem that thei mowe chese and presente men to the

bischop forto be persouns in othere not approprid chirchis, euen as lay men mowe presente. In lijk maner, thouȝ the king graunte that the bischop or abbot haue the labour forto aspie and gete a man which can and wole iustli occupie the office of a stiward in the seid court, namelich in causis of deeth; ȝit what euer man the bischop or abbot so chesith, the king ther with and ther yn committith his power to the same person so chosun, and he ouȝte not but in an vnpropre maner of speche be clepid (namelich in maters of deeth) to be stiward of the bischop or of the abbot, but of the king.

And sithen it is so, that as leeful and as honest it is the bischop or the abbot for to receyue the seid avauntage fro the seid stiwardis hondis, as forto abide into tyme the king had receyued it of the stiward, and thanne to receyue it of the kingis hondis, and more ese it is and lasse cost to receyue it of the stiward at next than of the king at next: therfore it is not to be blamed bischopis and abbotis forto holde and haue avauntagis of courtis and of causis [and of causis is added by a later hand.] strecching into deeth, which the v^e. semyng skile is aboute forto proue be vniust. For as it is iust ynouȝ and honest the king forto receyue suche eschetis and forfetis comyng bi iust deeth of a malefactour, so it is iust and honest ynouȝ bischopis or abbotis to haue the same bi ȝifte to hem mad therof bi the king. And thus miche is ynouȝ for answere to the v^e. semyng skile.

Now at the laste eende of al this afore going defense mad for the iij^e. principal gouernaunce, that knyȝtis and squyeris, gentil men, and othere louȝer comuneris han no caus forto grucche and be displesid, that the clergie (religiose and not religiose) ben so richeli

endewid as thei ben, namelich in the rewme of Ynglond, me thinkith this, that y schal now seie, schulde miche [miche is interlineated by a later hand.] move hem. The treuthe is, that the tenementis and alle the possessiouns with her purte|nauncis, which the clergie (religiose or not religiose) holden and hauen, is better meintened and susteyned and reparid and kept fro falling into nouȝt and into wildirnes, than if tho same tenementis and posses|siouns with her purtenauncis weren in the hondis of grete lordis or of knyȝtis or of squyeris; as experience it [it is interlineated by a later hand.] wel schewith, namelich in the rewme of Ynglond, for othere rewmes y haue not seen; and also resoun confermeth the same, sithen what is rewlid and carid for of manye to gidere muste be better reulid than it which is reulid and carid fore oonli of oon.

Ferthermore the tenauntis, occupiyng tho tenementis and possessiouns with purtenauncis vndir the clergie, ben esilier tretid, lasse disesid, and not greeued bi extorcioun, as thei schulden be, if thei helden the same tenementis and possessiouns of temporal lordis or of knyȝtis and squyers, as also experience weel schewith.

And thanne ferther the clergie, namelich religiose, [the religiose, MS. (first hand).] beren not into her graues with hem the rentis whiche thei so endewid receyuen of her possessiouns, neither thei spenden therof more than with ese and withoute curiose and coostiose faar gooth into her bodies, and than wher with thei ben poorli ynouȝ clothid and couered for al the labour which thei maken bi nyȝtis and bi daies in preiyng and preising and in keping the wey of her religioun: and the ouerplus being herto and to the costis of her reparaciouns is spend upon worthi gentil men leerned in lawe for mente|naunces

of her riȝtis, and upon knyȝtis and squyers and othere louȝer [louȝe, MS. (first hand).] comuneris into her honest chering and weel fare and into nurisching of frendschip and of loue, and miche therof gooth into almes of poor men. Where aȝenward, if all this same receit schulde come into the hondis of grete lordis or of knyȝtis, it schulde not be so weel spend; but it schulde be spend in werre or fiȝting or in reueling, as sopers in nyȝtis at tauernes, and in costiose horsis, and in wantowne and nyse disgisingis of araies, (and so forth of manye othere staryng [staryng is added by a later hand.] gouernauncis, semyng summe wijlde woode,) as othere men therto taking heed mowen weel ynouȝ aspie. Wherfore ech weel avisid man, consider|ing bi lenger consideracioun what is now here in this schort rehercel spokun, schulde and ouȝte bi resoun take riȝt weel aworth and be plesid, (whether he be knyȝt, squyer, gentilman, ȝoman, or louȝer,) that the clergie (bothe religiose and othere not religiose) reioice her seid endewing vnmouable, rather than the seid endewing were had in the lay mennys hondis, and bi proces of tyme schulde come into the hondis of tem|poral lordis. And here yn y eende the proof of the ij^e. principal conclusioun of this present iij^e. partie.

The iij^e. principal conclusioun of this present iij^e. partie is this: The iij^e. principal gouernaunce sett in the first chapiter of this present iij^e. partie is leeful. That this conclusioun is trewe, y proue thus: Ech persoonis gouernaunce, which Holi Scripture forbedith not, doom of resoun forbedith not, mannis lawe for|bedith not, is leeful and not worthi be vndirnome and blamed. But so it is, that neither Holi Scripture, neither doom of resoun, neither mannis lawe forbedith preestis of the Newe Testament forto haue in her pro|pre lordschip and in comoun lordschip to gidere with

othere persoones [of] housis and feeldis, namelich vttirli so ferforth that neither lasse neither more preestis haue eny such lordschip. Wherfore folewith, that preestis to [to is interlineated in a later hand.] haue lordschip of housis and feeldis, name|lich in sum mesure and quantite, is leeful ynouȝ.

The firste premysse or membre of this argument muste nedis be grauntid. Forwhi ech gouernaunce is leeful which is not forbode, sithen ech yuel gouer|naunce is forbode, and no forbode is mad saue bi lawe of Scripture, lawe of kinde, (which is doom of resoun,) and lawe of man: and therfore ech gouernaunce of eny men, which is not forbodun bi Holi Scripture, or bi doom of resoun, or bi mannis lawe is needisli leeful. The ij^e. premisse of this same argument is suffi|cientli proued to be trewe bi the hool processe bigunne bifore in this iij. partie soone aftir the bigynnyng of the first chapiter, and streiȝt along hidir to. Wher|fore the conclusioun of this argument muste needis be trewe.

Forwhi the kinde of euery good argument of ij. pre|missis or ij. proposiciouns dryuyng out from hem and concluding fro hem the iij^e. proposicioun, is this; that if euereither of the ij. premissis ben trewe, the iij^e. proposicioun concludid bi hem and out of hem muste needis be trewe. Ensaumplis herof ben these. For that this argument is good and formal: "Ech man is now at the chirche; mi fader is a man; eke thanne mi fader is now at the chirche:"—therfore if the first premysse or proposicioun of this argument be trewe, which is this, that "ech man is now at the chirche," and if therwith also the ij^e. premysse be trewe, that "mi fadir is a man," sotheli needis cost, who wole or wole [who wole, MS. (first hand).] not, the conclusioun of the same argument

muste needis be trewe, which is this, "my fader is now at the chirche." And in lijk maner it is of euery formal argument mad of ij. proposiciouns or ij. resouns concluding out of hem the iij^e. proposicioun or resoun, [resoun is interlineated in a later hand.] as thus: "Ech man is a synner; y am a man; eke thanne y am a synner:" "No man is without a bodi; the king is a man; eke thanne the king is not without a bodi;" and so forth lijk it is in alle wel and formali [formal, MS.] mad argumentis mad of ij. proposiciouns concluding and driving out of hem the iij^e. [This sentence runs very clum|sily. Perhaps we should place a full stop after so forth, and cancel all the rest of the sentence, which is a mere repetition of what has just preceded.] And fer|thermore it is to wite, that in ech such now seid argu|ment the ij. proposiciouns or spechis or resouns, so as is now seid concluding and dryving out of hem the iij^e. proposicion, speche, or resoun, ben clepid ij. pre|missis, or the firste and ij^e. premysse of the argument; and the iij^e. proposicioun, speche, or resoun driuen out and concludid forth bi hem and fro hem is clepid the conclusioun of the argument.

And ferther, euen as whanne a formali mad argument is mad of ij. premyssis concluding a conclusioun, if bothe premyssis ben trewe, the conclusioun needis is trewe; so whanne an argument is mad schortli, so that the oon premisse is expressid in which the gretter strengthe of the argument lithe, and the other pre|mysse is stille vnspokun for schortnes; ȝit, if thilk oon premysse expressid be trewe, needis muste the con|clusioun be trewe. Forwhi out of a treuthe folewith not a falshede, but out of treuthe folewith neuer eny thing saue treuthe; for ellis ther were no wey to proue bi it eny thing be trewe, if a falshede myȝte be con|cludid in a formal argument fro a treuthe, as weel as

a treuthe may be concludid in a formal argument fro a treuthe. And therfore sithen this schort argument is formal: "Robyn rode without stiropis, eke thanne his legge lollid," it muste nedis be that, if the premysse be trewe, that the conclusioun be trewe. And for that this argument is formal: "This thing is miche briȝte and ful white, eke thanne he mai be seen;" ther fore if the premysse be trewe, the conclusioun is ther with trewe. And for that this argument is formal: "Noman lackith a bodi, eke thanne noman is without a place long and brood:" ther fore if the premysse be grantid of eny man, he ouȝte nedis graunte the conclusioun.

Certis thouȝ no more were for to [to is interlineated in a later(?) hand.] iustifie the iij^e. seid principal gouernaunce than the profis of the thre next bifore going principal conclusiouns fro the bigynnyng of this present iij^e. parti hidir to, thei were sufficient forto iustifie the same seid iij^e. principal gouernaunce. Forwhi what schulde lette eny gouer|nance to be doon, if neither Holi Scripture, neither doom of cleer resoun, neither mennys lawis letten it to be don? Neuerthelatir sumwhat more into the [the is interlineated in a later hand.] iustifying of the same iij^e. principal gouernaunce schal be set therto bi the iij. [Pecock has in fact added five.] next conclusiouns now aftir comying.