The repressor of over much blaming of the clergy.

xix. CHAPITER.

ALSO in this mater of the clergies endewing bi vnmovable godis it is to wite, that in sum tyme [sumtyme, MS.] and in summe cuntreis, namelich in the eeldist tyme of such now seid endewing, vnmouable godis weren ȝouun to the bischop and his clergie and to her suc|cessouris in comoun to gidere, euen as lijk ȝeuyng hath be mad sithen to an abbot and his couent and her successouris. For in the oold tyme the bischop and hise preestis with hise othere clerkis helden residence in the modir chirche, and alle othere chirchis of the diocise weren chapellis oonli therto; and thanne alle tho godis and alle othere movable godis of thilk chirche or comounte weren reulid and ex|pendid bi the hondis or namelich bi the ouer siȝt [bi ouer siȝt, MS. (first hand).] and wil and disposicioun of the bischop. Neuerthe|les, soone aftir such endewing receyued in this seid maner bi greete plente of ricches, the bischop and his hool chirche of the clergie accordiden to gidere not bi boond but bi freenes of deuocioun forto contynue oonli so long as to hem it schulde like, that her seid so greet and large endewing, whilis it abode in so greet sufficience, schulde be departid into iiij. parties; of which the oon the bischop schulde haue forto supporte his honour and hise chargis of gistis and suche othere; an other parti the preestis and othere clerkis schulden haue for her fynding and sustenta|cioun; and the iij^e. schulde be bisett vpon reparacion and sustentacion of the bodili chirche and of liȝtis and ournamentis and of suche othere thingis; and the iiij^e. partie schulde be delid to poor men into almes;

thouȝ in ech of these parties al schulde go and passe bi disposicioun of the bischop, and thouȝ in summe cuntreis the departing was mad other wise and [and is interlineated in a later hand.] into iij. parties, as a man mai fynde in oold writingis. [For the ancient authorities on this subject, see Bingham's Antiq. Chr. Ch., book v. c. 6.]

Ferthermore, in othere tymes and in othere cuntrees, or in the same now bifore spokun cuntrees, but in tyme succeding to the now bifore spokun tyme, suche chirchis thus endewid, (that is to seie, considering that tho godis weren ȝouun to hem in the firste or ij^e. maner bifore seid in the xvj^e. chapiter, and not in the iij^e. or iiij^e. maner there spokun, and therfore thei myȝten bi her comoun asent aliene these same godis fro hem silf, and myȝten make hem to be verrili the propre godis of this man or of thilk man,) tooken avise to gidere and departiden these godis, and ȝauen oon parti to the bischop forto be as in propre his good and hise successouris with oute eny other ther yn partyners; and in lijk maner thei ȝauen an othir parti to the deen and hise successouris in pro|pirte of lordschip; and an other parti to the archi|deken and hise successouris in propirte of lordschip; and so forth to othere. And thus tho godis, which weren bifore comoun, weren mad propre bi hem which hadden therto sufficient auctorite and power; thouȝ after in othere tymes summe lordis ȝauen certein possessiouns to the bischop and to hise successouris oonli, and sum othere ȝauen to the clerkis and preestis of the queer and to her successouris oonli, as the writingis of tho ȝeuyngis beren open witnes. Certis this consideracioun now seid in this present chapiter schal do greet eese to reders in the Summe of Gra|cian, or in the oold book maad of popis Decretalis, and of decrees mad in general counceilis and in prouincial

counceilis of dyuerse cuntrees. Forwhi summe chapi|tris, whiche a man schal rede in tho bokis, speken of the maner had in oon and for oon of the now bifore discryued tymes; and summe othere chapitrees speken of the maner had in an other and for the same othir of the now bifore discryued tymes; summe speken of the maner had in oon and for oon prouynce or cuntre; and sum speken of the maner had in an other and for the other of the now bifore descriued prouyncis or cuntrees. And therefore tho chapitres ben not betwixe hem silf repugnant, thouȝ thei schulen so seme to be, if this which is now bifore [seid] in this present chapiter be not considerid; riȝt as othere chapitres in Gracianys Summe and in The book of Decretalis, (of whiche chapitres summe speken that "clerkis schulden not make testament of her chirchis godis," and summe speken that "thei mowen make testament of the chirches godis,") ben to be vndirstonde aftir the tymes and cuntrees, in whiche and for whiche thei weren made; and thei alle ben not to be take for ech tyme and ech cuntre. And, if this be considerid, tho chapi|tres schulen be seen forto not repugne bitwixe hem silf. And therfore, riȝt as whanne and where it was ordeyned that clerkis schulden not make testament of the chirchis godis, thanne and there it was not leeful hem forto make eny such testament; so whanne and where the contrarie was ordeyned, or the other now seid ordinaunce was reuokid, or bi eny iust wey he ceesid, clerkis myȝten weel ynouȝ saafli in conscience make testament of her chirchis godis, whiche camen to hem bi riȝt of her tyme. [See Gratian. Decret. pars. ii. caus. x. and caus. xii. throughout; also Greg. Decretal. lib. iii. tit. xxvi.]

Ferthermore it is to wite, that in ij. maners of vndirstonding it mai be seid that godis ben of man;

oon is, for that thei ben hise bi riȝt which he hath in hem, or bi riȝt which he hath into hem; an other is, for that it is semeli and conuenient that the godis be ȝouun to him. Ensaumple of these ij. maners is this: If y be riche and haue wunne more good than is ne|cessarie to me my silf and to myne, al this good is neuer the lasse myn, and no parti of this good is eny other mannys good in the first now seid maner, which is very and propre. Neuertheles, bi cause it is con|uenient and semeli and a counseil or a bidding of God that my good, being ouerplus to the nede of me and of myne, y schulde ȝeue to poor men into almes, therfore in an vnpropre maner of speche, which is the ij^e. now seid maner, these godis of myne being so ouer plus mowen be seid the godis of poor men, eer thei be ȝouun to poor men, and eer thei be mad verili and propirli to speke the godis of poor men in the firste maner now here bifore sett and seid. And so in this secunde maner of vnpropre speking is the long processe of Seint Bernard to be vndirstonde, which is sett in The iiij ^e. book of flouris, the iiij^e. chapiter in the eende, and in the v^e. chapiter there in the bigyn|nyng, where he seith thus: What euer thing comyng to thee bi riȝt of the auctir thou takist ouer thi necessarie feding and thi symple clothing, it is not thin, it is raueyn, it is sacrilegi, ["Denique quicquid præter ne|cessarium victum ac simplicem ves|titum de altario retines, tuum non est; rapina est, sacrilegium est." S. Bernard. Epist. 2. (Op. tom. 1. p. 120. Ed. Par. 1839.)] that is to seie thefte of holi good.—For to not ȝeue to poor men the godis of poor men is euen synne with sacrilegie. Certeinli the ricchessis of chirchis ben patrimonyes of poor men, and therfore what euer thing the mynystris ther of, (whiche ben despensatours ther of, and not lordis or possessouris ther of,) taken to hem silf ouer lijflode and clothing, thei taken fro poor men with

a sacrilegiose cruelte. ["Res pauperum non pauperi|bus dare, par sacrilegio crimen esse dignoscitur. Sane patrimonia sunt pauperum facultates ecclesiarum: et sacrilega eis crudelitate surripitur quicquid sibi ministri et dispensa|tores, non utique domini vel pos|sessores, ultra victum accipiunt et vestitum." Gaufrid. Abb. Declam. ex Bernard. (inter S. Bernard. Op. tom. ii. p. 612.) The Flores Ber|nardi, to which Pecock refers, are merely collections of extracts from his works, genuine and spurious, first made apparently by William of Tournay. See the Benedictine editor's remarks.] Thus miche and more of this mater Bernard seith there. But y seie, Certis if Ber|nard in these wordis there writun be not vndirstonde in this now seid secunde maner or in sum other lijk maner dyuers fro the firste seid maner, which is propre maner of speche in this mater, ellis it is to be seid that Bernard in thilk seiyng failid.

Also manye processis of holi men, whiche thei writun in this mater, ben to be take thus, that thei so wroten in wey of counseiling and in wey of exorting, as thei wolden that it were and as thei wolden that men wolde do, and not that thei wroten in wey of diffynyng that it ouȝte needis be so doon. And ther|fore riȝt weel waar ouȝte reders be, whanne thei reden in oold mennys writingis, that thei cleue not ouer soone therto, into tyme thei han reducid, resolued, and brouȝt the conclusiouns whiche thei there reden, in to the propre principlis and groundis of tho conclusiouns, of whiche and bi whiche principlis and groundis tho same conclusiouns muste take her trouthis, if tho con|clusiouns eny trouthe haue in hem. For certis noon of the conclusions, whiche euer holi men wroten, takith his trouthe herbi and herfore, for that thei wroten thilk conclusioun; but ech conclusioun takith his trouthe of and fro and bi his ground and prin|cipil, fro and out of which he descendith in formal argument, thouȝ no writer in the world hadde euer ther of write eny word, or schulde in tyme to come

write eny word; as that ech conclusioun of holi feith, (that is to seie, into whos fynding and leernyng mannys resoun [mai come] withoute therto mad re|uelacioun or assercioun fro God) be founde groundid in Holi Scripture; and ech conclusioun, in to whos fynding and leernyng mannys resoun withoute the seid reuelacioun and assercioun and withoute assercioun of eny other creature (as oonli therof teller, asserer, or witnesser,) may come to, is to be founde groundid in philsophie, and in therof principlis so open that no resoun mai aȝens hem seie nay. And ferthermore, that it is noon inconuenience forto holde that oolde writers and holi writers and writers clepid "Holi Doctouris" faileden sum while in her writingis, schal be open ynowȝ in the book clepid The iust apprising of Doc|touris, and sum what in the book clepid The iust apprising of Holi Scripture. And if thilk doctor Henric, which is clepid "The Solempne Doctor," [Henricus Goethals taught theo|logy in the Sorbonne, in the latter part of the thirteenth century, "tanta cum laude, ut totius acade|miæ Parisiensis suffragio Doctor Solennis appellari meruit." Cave, Hist. Lit. s. v.] hadde blessid him silf fro this now seid perel, he and hise felowers [felowis (?), MS. (first hand).] hadden not falle into this dotage, forto seie and holde stifly, that prelatis of the chirche in the clergie ben not very lordis of the vnmouable goodis whiche ben ȝouun or bitake to hem, but thei ben fruyte vsers of tho godis hauyng therwith power to dispense in almes al that is ouer it that is to be take into her nede. ["Primo modo habere bona in communi non diminuit de perfec|tionis ratione, quia habentur etiam à ministris ecclesiæ, ut eis debita ratione servitii et ordinis quem ha|bent in ecclesiâ, et hoc quo ad id quod pro horâ convertunt in usum necessarium. Quo ad residuum enim habent ea, ut aliis, qui nul|lum jus habent in eis, dispensanda." Henr. Gandav. Aur. Quodl. (n. vii.) p. 441. Ed. Venet. 1613.] Certis y mai wel seie that this opinioun is a dotage. For y woot not where yn a man schulde be seid more to dote than to holde aȝens the playn

forme of tho charters, bi whiche the possessiouns of the chirche ben ȝouun to prelatis and to clerkis and to her successouris forto be her owne in very lordschip; and so whether thei in so holding doten, or ellis that y in my now ȝouun doctrine erre, lete the writingis and the chartours of the donatouris or of the ȝeuers be iugis, for in this mater noon othere thingis or per|soones mowen be so sure theryn iugis.

Neuertheles thouȝ y feele thus, that the clergie hath very lordschip upon the vnmovable godis ȝouun to hem, and also upon the offringis and tithis ȝouun to hem, so ferforth that as with thingis being verili heris thei mowen ther with do what thei wolen, as for eny lak or defaut of power and of lordschip hauyng ther upon, as ferforth as thei myȝten if thei hadden wonne the same godis with labour of hond or with craft, or had|den had tho godis bi successioun of heritage; (forwhi in euer either caas thei ben like very lordis of the godis;) ȝit y feele not thus, that the clerkis ben free therbi forto expende tho godis in eny point aȝens riȝt doom of resoun in pride or in glotenye or in leccherie or in waast, and ben not worthi blame of God; forwhi no temporal lord or louȝer man, hauyng more plente of good than is necessarie to the nede of him silf and of hise, is so fre; sithen al, what euer is doon aȝens resoun, is more [Probably more should be cancelled.] moral vice and synne; and therfore in caas of such vnresonable expensis doon bi clerkis and bi the laife, y holde and feele that miche more the clerkis synnen in so expending than the lay persoones in lijk maner expending synnen, and that for circumstaunce of the kunnyng in clerkis, and for this circumstance that thei ouȝten be ensaumplers of moral vertues to the lay partie. And this is the hardist point of greet perel, which y can bringe aȝens clerkis spending amys the goodis ȝouun to hem, if y

schal seie and speke aftir sure fundamental encerche, and not be recheles forto faile bi moving of greet deuocioun with oute sufficient bifore had groundly consideracioun, as manye deuoute writers ben founde to do.

Ferthermore it is to wite, that oon clerk, (but verili to seie oon heretik,) tempereth the firste opinioun re|hercid bifore in the bigynnyng of the xvj^e. chapiter, and seith in this maner, that if the clergie mys vse habituali or customabili his vnmovable endewing, the clergie may leefulli and ouȝte be dispoilid of thilk endewing bi the temporal lordis, and ellis not. [Pecock here refers to Wiclif, who affirms that in "many caas suiets may lefully withstond tithes by God's law and man's also:" (Of Clerks possessioners, MS. c. 25): and that "the curates ben more cursed of God for withdrawing of teeching in word and deed in good ensam|ple, than the suiets or people in withdrawing tithes and offerings, when they don not well their gostly office." (Of the Office of Curates, MS. c. 5.) Both these citations are taken from Lewis' Life of Wicliffe, p. 121.] But that this seiyng is vnskilful may be schewid thus: How euer habituali or customabili y trespace aȝens the king, what schal this hurte myn heir which no thing trespacith to the king, but is a ful louyng and a trewe servaunt to the king? Or how euer habi|tuali or customabili I trespace now to the king or to God bi myn vnmovable or movable godis, whi schulen mi children not ȝit bigeten suffre therbi eny losse of good to hem dew, whiche not ȝit trespacen neither habituali neither actuali? Or in caas that certeyn godis be ȝouen to me and to othere iiij. [Perhaps an error of the copyist for mi.] felawis in comoun, if y trespace to the king or to God habituali or customabili, what resoun were it that thei not ȝit so trespacing schulden be dispoilid of thilk hool same good? Wherfore if y be a bischop and mys vse ha|bituali or customabili myn vnmovable possessiouns,

and thouȝ an hundrid of my predecessouris han mys vsid like wise, what riȝt were this that an ynnocent, ȝhe, many innocentis comyng aftir me, to whom these godis ben ȝouun as weel as to me, and whiche schulden weel vse tho same godis, schulden be de|priued of the same godis?

If thou seie the now rehercid opynyoun of the seid clerk to be groundid here on [this,] that sufficient mark and euydence may be take, that al my successouris schulen be viciose mys vsers of tho godis, bi cause that y and so manye of my predecessouris han be in habit and in custom mys vsers of the same godis, certis this ground is vntrewe. Forwhi a man forto take such a mark or evidence were him forto iuge of thingis pureli and vttirli to come, and so forto take upon him the iugement which oonli longith to God, after sen|tence of Crist rehercid, Acts i^e. capitulum., where it is writun that Crist seide, It is not of ȝou forto wite tymes and momentis, which the Fadir hath putt in his power; and so such a iuger schulde iuge ouer presumptuoseli, sithen he stieth so hiȝ that he takith upon him the iugement which is according oonli to God, and in that he makith him as God, which mai not be withoute synne and vice. And therfore this grounding is nauȝt, for it is aȝens resoun now formed.

It is also aȝens the witnes of Holi Scripture. For|whi not withstonding that King Saul was a wickid customable synner, ȝit God prouidid that Dauid a iust king succedid next to him; and not withstonding that fro King Roboam in Israel bi long successioun into Ezechie ech king was habituali an ydolatrer and mys vsing habituali the godis of his state and degre and office, ȝit a ful noble and holi king Ezechie and an other good king Iosie succediden. And therfore bi lijk skile, thouȝ y bischop and many of my prede|cessouris weren habituali and customabili mys vsing godis of the chirche, no sufficient mark and euydence

mai be take therbi that alle my successouris schulen be in lijk maner habituali or customabili mys vsers.

Also aȝens the seid opinioun may be argued thus: If the seid opinioun be trewe, thanne sithen the en|dewing of princis is mad to hem for that thei schulden weel vse hem in spending hem vertuoseli aboute the good temporal reuling of her peplis, (namelich where that princis ben endewid bi the comounte,) it wolde folewe, if princis weren customabili mys vsers of tho godis, that the comoun peple schulden take fro hem tho godis hem abiding in her statis of princehode. And if this schulde be doon, manye myscheefis wolden therof folewe. Wherfore the seid opinioun is not to be holde no more for the seid habituacioun and cus|tom, than if the mys vce be withoute the seid habi|tuacioun or custom; for in euer either caas lijk wrong schulde be doon to the successouris. And open it is, that of what euer gouernaunce or deede folewith and cometh bi his strengthe vnriȝt or wrong, thilk deede or gouernaunce in him silf is vnriȝt and wrong; and so thilk opinioun taken upon the seid habituacioun was take childeli and lewidli. [Thus y make an eende of the iij ^e. parti of this present book.]