The repressor of over much blaming of the clergy.

THE THIRD PART. And here bigynneth the iij ^e. parti of THE REPRESSER.

i. CHAPITER.

THE iij^e. principal gouernaunce, for which many of the laife blamen vniustli the clergie, is this: Persoones of the clergie receyuen, holden, and occupien lordschip of housis and feeldis, not oonli in which thei hem silf dwellen and which thei hem silf tilien, but also which thei hem silf setten forth to be fermed of othere occupiers, and receyuen rente therfore of the same occupiers. Certis summe persoones of the lay peple beren an hond this now seid iij^e. principal gouernaunce to be aȝens the lawe of God, how euer litle or fewe tho vnmouable godis ben; and therfore thei beren an hond that alle tho persoones of the clergie whiche willingli contynuen the now seid iij^e. principal gouernaunce ben thoruȝ al thilk while in state of dampnacioun, what euere gode deedis thei doon.

That this bering an hond is vntrewe, (and that for that the seid iij_e. principal gouernaunce is not aȝens the lawe of God,) y schal proue bi vj. [vj ^e., MS.] conclusiouns; of whiche the firste is this: The seid iij^e. principal gouernaunce is not aȝens Holi Scripture of the Oold Testament neither of the Newe Testament.

That this conclusioun is trewe for his first parti, y proue thus: If Holi Scripture of the Oold Testament schulde forbede the seid gouernaunce, it schulde so for|bede bi summe of these processis now here anoon aftir to be rehercid; of which oon is writun, Numeri xviij^e. capitulum., where it is seid thus: And the Lord seid to Aaron,

Ȝe schulen [schulde, MS. (first hand), appa|rently, twice] not weelde eny thing in the lond of hem, neither ȝe schulen haue part among hem; I am thi part and heritage in the myddis of the sones of Israel. Forsothe y ȝaf to the sones of Leuy alle [alle is added in the margin by a later (?) hand, the same which rubricated the MS. apparently: it occurs in Wiclif's version.] the tithis of Israel into possessioun for the seruice, bi which thei seruen me in the tabernacle of boond of pees, that the sones of Israel neiȝe no more to the tabernacle of boond of pees, neither do deedli synne. To the sones aloon of Leuy, seruyng me in the taber|nacle and bering the synnes of the peple, it schal be a lawful thing euerlasting in ȝoure genera|ciouns. Thei schulen [schulde, MS. (first hand), appa|rently, t] weelde noon othir thing, and thei schulen be apaied with the offring of tithis, whiche y departid into vsis and necessaries of hem.

An other processe is writun, Deut. x^e. capitulum., where Moyses seide thus: In that tyme y departid the lyn|age of Leuy, that it schulde bere the arke [ark, MS. (first hand).] of boond of pees of the Lord, and schulde stonde bifore him in seruice, and schulde blesse in his name til into present dai; for which thing Leuy hadde not part neither possessioun with hise britheren, for the Lord him silf is his possessioun, as thi Lord God bihiȝte to him.

The iij^e. processe is writun Deut. xviij^e. capitulum. in the bigynnyng, where Moyses seide thus: Preestis and dekenes and alle men that ben of the same lynage schulen not haue part and heritage with the othere peple of Israel, for thei schulen ete the sacrificis of the Lord and the offringis of him. And thei schulen not take eny other thing of the possessioun of her britheren, for the Lord him silf is the [the is interlineated by a later hand.] heritage of hem, as he spak to hem.

The iiij^e. processe is writun Iosue xiij^e. capitulum. in the eende, where it is seid thus: Forsothe Iosue [Pecock should have written Moyses. Wiclif's version has he ȝaf not, &c.; where however there is a various reading Moises, which is expressed in the Hebrew and in the authorized version.] ȝaf not possessioun to the lynage of Leuy, for the Lord God him silf of Israel is the possessioun of Leuy, as the Lord spak to him.

The v^e. processe is writun Ezek. xliiij^e. capitulum., where God in discryuyng the lijf which preestis of the oold lawe schulde lede, seide thus: Forsothe noon heritage schal be to hem: y am the heritage of hem. And ȝe schulen not ȝeue to hem possessioun in Israel; for y am the possessioun of hem.

The vj^e. processe is writun Ecclesiastici xlv^e. capitulum., where of Aaron and of hise sones Scripture seith there thus: Thei schulen ete the sacrificis of the Lord, which he ȝaf to him and to his seed; but in the lond of his folk he schal not haue heritage, and no part is to him among the folk; forwhi God is the part and heritage of him.

But so it is, that these now rehercid textis and processis meenen not ferther than that the preestis and dekenes of the Oold Testament schulden not haue part and lott in the firste parting of the lond of Iewry to the children and kinredis comyng out of Iacob, as it is open ynouȝ to ech man diligentli reding the placis out of whiche the now alleggid textis ben drawe. And also ellis God schulde haue be contrarie to him silf in hise owne ordinauncis, as schal be open aftir in this present chapiter, (bi the iij^e. argument,) and bi [bi is interlineated by a later (?) hand.] the iiij^e. chapiter. Wherfore no strengthe of the seid textis gooth not so fer as forto forbede to preestis and dekenys of tho daies forto haue lordschip of immouable godis bi othere weies,

cleymes, and riȝtis dyuers fro the firste departing, soorting, and lotting of the al hool lond. For her of the pleyner vndirstonding it is to wite that Iacob hadde xij. sones, out of which xij. sones camen xij. large kinredis of peplis; of whiche xij. sones the names were these: Ruben, Symeon, Leuy, Iudas, Isa|char, Zabulon, Ioseph, Beniamyn, Dan, Neptalim, Gad, and Aser; and the oon of these xij. sones and the kinrede which came out of him, (that is to seie, Leuy and hise children or kinrede,) God chase to be preestis and dekenis as for the tyme of the Oold Testament. And for the reuerence which God wolde be ȝouun to Ioseph, being oon of the xij. seid sones, God wolde that hise children and kinrede comyng out of him schulde be rekened and be takun for ij. kinredis vnder the names of hise ij. sones, whiche weren clepid Effraym and Manasses; and so God wolde that xij. kinredis of Iacobis children schulde be bisidis the kinrede of Leuy, which God chase into his clergie for thilk tyme of the Oold Testament, not withstonding that Iacob had not but xj. sones bisidis his seid sone Leuy. To whiche now seid xij. kinredis God bade that al the lond, (which was afterward clepid lond of Iewis, and into which thei schulden entre bi con|quest for special graunte mad ther upon to hem fro God,) schulde be departid bi lott, whanne thei schulde firste entre into it after her comyng out of Egipt; and the kinrede of Leuy, which God chase in to his clergie, schulde haue no part in this firste departing and lotting; for God wole purueie in othere wisis for hem, as sumwhat is open bi the textis bifore alleggid, and sumwhat more ther of schal anoon aftir here be seid. And into ferther purpos than in to this purpos now here seid strecchith not eny of the textis now bifore alleggid, as is open ynouȝ to ech diligent reder of the processis in whiche tho textis ben sett. Wher|fore nedis folewith, that bi textis of the Oold Testa|ment

can not be founde that the seid iij^e. principal gouernaunce was forbode to the clergie of the Oold Testament.

The ij^e. argument to the same purpos is this: Thouȝ God forbade that the kinrede of Leuy, being as for thanne his clergie, schulde haue part in the seid firste departing and lotting of the al hool lond, as is open bi the textis bifore sett in this i^e. chapiter, ȝit God purueied for hem in other wise; and bade, Numeri xxxv^e. capitulum., to al the hool multitude of the seid xij. kinredis receyuyng the al hool lond bi the seid departing and lotting, that after the seid depart|ing and lotting mad to hem of al the hool lond, they schulden ȝeue to the kinrede of Leuy, being the clergie of preestis and dekenis, certein citees bi lott of her al hool receit with the suburbis of pasturis ligging to the same citees, that in tho citees the peple of clerkis myȝten sufficientli ynouȝ dwelle, and that in the seid pasturis of suburbis the same clerkis myȝte sufficientli pasture her beestis. And in the performyng and exe|cuting of this now rehercid comaundement of God xlviij. citees with her suburbis weren ȝouun to the preestis and dekenes, as it is open, Iosue xxj^e. capitulum. And so, if good rekenyng in this mater be mad, it schal be founde that the kinrede of Leuy hadde mo citees ȝouun to hem than hadde eny oon other of the seid xij. kinredis, except the kinrede of Iuda; name|lich sithen summe of the seid kinredis hadde not mo than ten citees in his part and lott of the firste departing and lotting, as it is open, Iosue xvj^e. capitulum. Wherfore needis folewith, that the Holi Scripture in the Oold Testament grauntid and licencid preestis and dekenys of thilk tyme forto haue in lordschip and in possessioun vnmouable godis, as citees, housis, and pasturis; namelich so manye as thei hem silf, withoute into ferme to othere men leting, hadden nede or profit for to haue, holde, and occupie.

That al this which is take in this ij^e. argument forto proue and conclude his conclusioun is trewe, lo what is writun Numeri xxxv^e. capitulum. in the bigyn|ning thus: And the Lord spak these thingis to Moyses in the feeldi placis of Moab aboue Iordan aȝens Ierico: Comaunde thou to the sones of Israel that thei ȝeue to dekenes of her possessiouns citees to dwelle and the subarbis of tho bi cumpas, that thei dwelle in the citees; and the subarbis be to beestis and werk beestis: whiche subarbis schulen be strecchid forth fro the wallis of citees without forth bi cumpas in the space of a thousind pacis; aȝens the eest schulen be ij. thousind cubitis, and aȝens the south in lijk maner schulen be ij. thousind cu|bitis, and at the see that biholdith to the west schal be the same mesure, and the north schal be eendid by euen terme. And the citees schulen be in the myddis, and the subarbis withoute forth. Thus myche there. Ferthermore, that this comaundement of God was executid, performed, and fulfillid, it is openli expressid, Iosue xxj^e. capitulum., where mensioun is maad that to the dekenis were ȝouun xlviij. citees with her subarbis in the maner now bifore comaundid bi God, and the names of tho citees ben there in the same chapiter rehercid. Wherfore what is seid and take into making and formyng of this present ij^e. argument is trewe.

The iij^e. argument is this: [this is added in the margin by a later (?) hand.] Ouer and biȝonde alle the xlviij. citees with her seid suburbis, which God ordeyned to be ȝouun to the clergie of the oold lawe, God licencid to ech persoon of the lay party forto ȝeue bi vow to the preestis and dekenis of the seid clergi his feeld and his hous, whether he hadde hem bi heritage or bi purchase; and if he for deuocioun wolde not bigge aȝen hem so ȝouun to the clerkis,

but wolde hem abide for euer so ȝouun to the clerkis, tho [So the MS., perhaps by some clerical error: thilk would be the most natural reading.] hous and feeld schulden be the hous and feeld of the preestis and dekenys for euermore, as it is open ynouȝ, Leuiticus the laste chapiter. Wherfore folewith that Holi Scripture of the oold lawe licencid and not forbade preestis and dekenis of thilk tyme forto haue in her lordschip immovable godis, (as ben housis and feeldis,) ȝouun to hem thanne bi deuocioun of the lay peple, ouer and biȝonde the xlviij. citees and the suburbis of pasturis, ȝouun to hem soone aftir the firste departing of the al hool [Perhaps it deserves notice that the scribe had written al the hool lond, but afterwards placed over the words the marks of transposi|tion.] lond to the xij. kin|redis.

ij. CHAPITER.

To the ij^e. bifore going argument mowe be ȝouun ij. answeris, of whiche the firste is this: That tho xlviij. citees, of whiche speken the textis of the ij^e. argument, weren not ȝouun into the propre hauour and lordschip of the preestis and dekenys, but into her vce oonli; so that the lordschip and propirte of tho citees abode in the lay persoones, whiche ȝauen the perpetuel vse of tho same citees to the preestis and dekenys.

And into this answere thei wolen take ij. colouris, of the which oon is bi the text of Numeri xxxv^e. capitulum., alleggid bifore in the ij^e. argument, for as miche as God seide there thus: Comaunde thou to the sones of Israel, that thei ȝeue to the dekenis of her pos|sessiouns citees forto dwelle in hem, and the sub|urbis of tho citees in cumpas; that thei dwelle in

tho townes, and the suburbis be to beestis and help|ing beestis: whiche suburbis schulen strecche withoute forth fro the wallis of the citees bi space of [of is interlineated by a later (?) hand.] a thou|sind pacis, that is to seie, a myle. Thanne, sithen it is seid that tho citees weren ȝouun for to in hem dwelle, summen wolen thenke to folewe ther of and ther bi, that in this word "forto in hem dwelle" is expressid al the riȝt which the preestis and Leuytis hadden in tho citees; and if this be trewe, that al her riȝt had into tho citees was for to in hem [inhem, MS.] dwelle, folewith nedis that al her riȝt had into tho citees was the riȝt to vse tho citees, sithen in|dwelling [in dwelling, MS., and so also on p. 283 and p. 288.] is no more than an vsing; and so folewith ferther, that bi thilk ȝift mad to hem thei hadden no riȝt of lordschip, sithen riȝt of vce is dyuers and departable fro the riȝt of lordschip.

The ij^e. colour forto grounde and strengthe the seid answere mai be this: That Ebron was oon of the seid xlviij. citees ȝouun to preestis and dekenes, as it is open, Iosue xx^e. capitulum.; and ȝit this same Ebron was [was is interlineated by a later (?) hand.] ȝouun into the propre lordschip of Caleph, as is open, Iosue xv^e. capitulum. But so it is, that thilk citee was not in propirte of lordschip to gidere and at oonis to Caleph, (which was a lay man,) and to the clergi of preestis and dekenis: and herwith open it is, that thilk cite was not in vce of Caleph; for it was in the vce of preestis or Leuitis, as it is open, Iosue xxj^e. capitulum. Wherfore thei wolen seie to folewe nedis, that the seid citee was of Caleph as in propirte and in lordschip, and was of the clergie as for her vce without theryn had lordschip. [lorschip, MS. The same cleri|cal (?) error occurs at p. 287.]

Certis the seid answere may not be strengthid bi the i^e. now rehercid colour or evidence. Forwhi whanne a persoon makith a ȝifte, and to gidere therwith the ȝeuer expressith his entent or eende into which and for which he makith his ȝifte, thilk expressioun of his intent and of the eende entendid to be had bi the ȝift lettith not the ȝift to be a ȝift, but suffrith it to be a ȝifte as ferforth as thouȝ he had mad the ȝift withoute the expressioun or the open pronouncing of the same en|tent or eende: as if a man wolde seie; "Y ȝeue to thee a [a is interlineated by a later (?) hand.] peny forto spende it at the wijn;" the ex|pressioun of his entent lettith not but that he ȝeueth the peny, and makith the receyuer of the peny to be lord of the peny. But so it is, that whanne God seide that the laife of Israel schulde ȝeue of her pos|sessiouns to the clergie of Israel citees to dwelle in hem; here in these wordis is expressid the ȝifte, and therwith is expressid the eende which the ȝeuer wolde be had bi the same ȝifte. Wherfore bi these wordis is not lett maad, that this same ȝifte into the now seid eende be a verri ȝifte; as it schulde haue be, thouȝ the eende of indwelling hadde not be expressid, but hadde oonli be entendid and hopid withoute expressioun. And so it is vntrewe, that [that seems to be superfluous and unmeaning; probably it should be cancelled.] whanne it is seid that in these wordis "forto dwelle in tho citees" is expressid al the riȝt whiche preestis and dekenis hadden into tho citees; for more riȝt than so is expressid in these wordis, Ȝeue to the dekenys citees. And the ful hool riȝt is expressid in these to gidere wordis, Ȝeue to the dekenis citees forto dwelle in hem; for in the firste parti of these wordis is expressid the substaunce of the ȝifte, and in the ij^e. parti of tho wordis is

expressid a circumstaunce of the same ȝifte; which circumstance is the eende for which the ȝifte is maad. And open to ech man it is, that the expressioun of a ȝifte is an expressioun of more riȝt than is the expressioun of a circumstaunce longing to the same ȝifte; thouȝ it be the cheef and principal circumstaunce, worthier than eny othir circumstaunce of the same deede of ȝifte, as is now this present circumstaunce of eende. Wherfore herbi open it is, that the seid answere mai not be holpe bi the firste colour; and that for this that sufficient answere assoiling is now ȝouun to the same firste colour.

Confirmacion to this answere, now maad aȝens the same firste colour and the former answere groundid ther upon, mai be bi these ensaumplis. If a man ȝeue to me a gowne that y were it, certis herof folewith that he ȝeueth to me thilk gowne; and thilk gown is myn in lordschip as verrili as, if he ȝeue to me a pijnt of wijn forto drinke it, thilk wijn is mad myn in verri lordschip; and as, if a man ȝeue to me a peny to spende at the wijn, certis he ȝeueth to me the peny, and the peny is myn in verri lordschip of it. Forwhi, if he wolde that y haue the vce of a thing with outen lordschip of the same thing, he wolde seie thus: "Y delyuere or y bitake to thee this gowne for to were it; y delyuere to [to is interlineated, perhaps by a later hand.] thee this hous forto dwelle in it; y delyuere to thee this feeld forto tile it:" euen as an oosteler seith to his gist; "Sir, y take this chaumbir to ȝou forto ligge in it; y take this bed to ȝou forto slepe in it;" and as oon scoler seith to an other scoler thus: "Y take this book to thee, that thou leerne in it." And the oosteler seith not to his gist; "Y ȝeue to thee this chambir, that thou reste in it; y ȝeue to thee this bed, that

thou slepe in it," neither the scoler seith to his felow thus: "Y ȝeue to thee this book, that thou leerne in it;" for certis, if he so seide, the receyuer myȝte cleyme the book for his in lordschip, as bi vertu and strengthe and forme of tho wordis. And therfore, sithen God seid that the lay parti of Israel "schulde ȝeue to the dekenys citees forto in hem dwelle," and seith not thus, "that the lay parti schulde take or delyuere to the dekenis citees forto in hem dwelle," it folewith openli ynouȝ bi likenes of these now bifore rehercid ensaumplis, that it is to be vndir|stonde and deemed that God wolde the dekenis to be verri lordis of tho citees, whiche thei schulde receyue bi ȝifte of the lay parti mad ther upon to hem. And this is ynouȝ aȝens the answere and his i^e. colour.

That the ij^e. colour bifore sett for to fortofie and strengthe the same badde answere [answere is inserted by a later (?) hand, which has erased and re-written the two lines preceding.] availith not, lo y mai schewe bi this ensaumple. If the king of Englond ȝeue to me a citee with manye villagis theraboute in cumpas ligging, and sone aftir this ȝift y ȝeue the same citee with hise suburbis to an other man Robert, reseruyng to my silf the seid villagis, what schal herof folewe? Schal it be seid that Robert is not lord of this citee, aftir y haue ȝouun this citee to him; and that, bi cause that bifore y was lord of the same citee bi ȝifte ther of maad to me bi the king? Alle men mowe wite that it is not so to be holde and seid. Wherfore bi lijk skile, thouȝ in the firste soorting and lotting of the al hool lond of Iewis the cite of Ebron fille bi lott to Caleph, (and therbi Caleph was very lord of it, as it is open therof, Iosue xv^e. capitulum.) ȝit her of folew|ith not neither colour is worth forto seie, that ther|fore

afterward—whanne the secunde lotting was mad for the xlviij. citees to be ȝouun to the dekenes, and this ij^e. lott fill upon Ebron, as forto be oon of tho xlviij. citees, as it is open, Iosue xxj^e. capitulum.—this Ebron herwith myȝte not be in the lordschip of the dekenis, bi cause the same Ebron was ȝouun bifore into the lordschip of Calepf. And so open it is herbi, that the ij^e. bifore sett colour helpith not the bifore seid mad bad answere.

Ferthermore thouȝ the seid answere myȝte lette the ij^e. bifore going argument, as treuthe is that he may not lette; (for the worse plite, in which the seid proces, Numeri xxxv^e. capitulum., mai be take aȝens this iij^e. principal gouernaunce, is such that thilk proces is indifferent [in different, MS.] to bothe sidis, that is to seie, to the iij^e. principal gouernaunce and to his contrarie,) ȝit thilk answere mai not lette the iij^e. bifore going argument fro his proof. Forwhi as it is open, Le|uiticus the laste chapiter, tho housis and tho feeldis, [feeeldis, MS.] whiche weren ȝouun to the preestis and dekenis bi deuoute vowis of the comoun peple, fillen into lord|schip of the preestis and dekenis; thouȝ it be seid there sumwhilis, that thei weren ȝouun to God and weren halewid to God. Forwhi of a feeld so ȝouun bi vow in a certeyn caas it is seid there thus: Whanne the dai of iubile schal come, the feeld schal be halewid to the Lord, and the halewid possessioun perteyneth or longith to the riȝt of the preestis. Lo, how in the wordis of God these tweine stoden weel to gidere and weren trewe to gidere, that an hous or a feeld or a citee was ȝouun to God, and ȝit was also therwith ȝouun to preestis into her lordschip; riȝt euen as in the same laste chapiter of Leuitik it is seid, that mouable godis (as money) weren ȝouun to God and

halewid to God, and ȝit thei weren maad therbi the preestis and the dekenis godis in lordschip. Forwhi the preestis and dekenis myȝten turne thilk money into the lordschip of the lay parti, whanne euere dekenis hadden nede forto bigge ther with wijn or corn or breed or othere to hem necessarie thingis.

Also thus: No persoon mai in his owne name sille eny good, which is not his in lordschip; but so it was, that preestis and dekenis myȝten sille to lay folk the housis and feeldis, which lai folk ȝaue to God and to hem bi deuoute vowis, as is open ynouȝ, Leuiticus the laste chapiter. Wherfore nedis folew|ith, that tho housis and feeldis weren of the prestis and dekenis in lordschip and not in vce oonli. And if the preestis and dekenis hadden verri cyuyl lord|schip vpon the housis and feeldis, which came to hem bi ȝift [ȝist, MS., but without doubt accidentally.] of the comoun peple aftir her first endewing in the xlviij. citees; certis, bi lijk skile, it is not to be denied but that thei hadden veri cyuyl lordschip vpon the xlviij. citees receyued of hem in her firste endewyng,—namelich sithen noon skile of dyuersite is seen, whi the preestis and dekenys ouȝten not haue lordschip [lorschip, MS.] upon tho xlviij. citees, as weel as upon the othere immouable godis.

iij. CHAPITRE.

THE ij^e. answere which may be mad to the ij^e. bifore going argument sett in the firste chapiter of this iij^e. parti mai be this: Thouȝ bi the bidding of God the preestis and dekenys hadden in her verri lordschip

tho xlviij. citees with the suburbis of the same citees; ȝit herbi rose not this, that thei hadden eny more of immouable godis in her lordschip and possessioun than was nedeful hem to vse and occupie in her owne de|menyng. And therto sownen tho wordis, Numeri xxxv^e. capitulum., whiche ben bifore rehercid in the firste colour to the firste answere, whanne God seid thus, Ȝeue ȝe to the dekenis citees forto dwelle in hem: wherbi it wolde seme folewe ferther, that mo citees or othere citees than in whiche the preestis and de|kenys hadde nede to dwelle yn, was not Goddis wil that schulden be ȝoue to hem; and thanne folewith ferther, that it was not leeful thanne preestis and dekenys forto haue so manye housis and feeldis, that thei myȝten sette hem out to ferme and receyue ȝeerli rentis for hem.

To this answere muste be seid thus: This answere seith sooth in this, that it is likeli to be trewe that, in the firste endewing of the preestis and dekenys bi the xlviij. citees with her suburbis, thei receyueden no more of immouable godis than was necessarie hem silf to occupie in her owne demenyng; but whanne it is concludid forto folewe herof, that it was Goddis wil that the same preestis and dekenys schulden neuer aftirward receyue and haue into her lordschip eny immouable godis, whiche thei hadden no nede bi hem silf occupie bi her owne indwelling or tiling: certis it is to be seid, that this folewith not in fourme of gode argument. And also the contrarie ther of folewith of it which was ordeyned of God him silf to be doon, Leuyticus the laste chapiter. Forwhi it was ordeyned of God him silf, that if a lay persoon wolde offre and ȝeue an hous or a feeld to the clergie in the next ȝeer bifore the iubile ȝeer, (ȝhe, thouȝ it were so nyȝ to the iubile ȝeer, that it were not but iiij. or v. daies bifore the iubile ȝeer,) the clergye myȝte sille this hous or

feeld to an other persoon than to him which ȝaue it to hem. And thanne anoon aftir, as soone as the iubile ȝeer were come, the same hous or feeld schulde turne aȝen into the lordschip of the clergie for euer|more, as it is open, Leuytik the last chapiter. And as oon lay man myȝte in this maner offre an hous or a feeld to the clergie, so ij. lay men or iij. lay men or xx. or an hundrid myȝten so do, that ech of hem schulde offre and ȝeue to the clergie an hous or a feeld; ȝhe, and oon man myȝte offre and ȝeue ij. or iij. housis and ij. or iij. feeldis, as is open ynouȝ to folewe of the proces there, which ȝeueth such licence in general withoute eny restreynyng.

Here upon y argue thus: In the next ȝeer going bifore the iubile ȝeer, (ȝhe, in the iiij^e. day bifore the iubile ȝeer,) whanne the clergie was endewid with immouable godis sufficientli forto exclude al nede to haue more of immouable godis, the clergie miȝte receyue an hous or a feeld ȝouun to hem of the laife; (and bi lijk skile iiij. housis and iiij. feeldis ȝouun to hem of the layfe;) and the clergie myȝte thanne anoon forth with sille hem to lay persoonis othere and dyuerse fro the ȝeuers. And thouȝ in the next ȝeer folewing, which is iubile ȝeer, the clergie schulde as litle be nedi to haue tho housis and feeldis as thei were in the iiij^e. dai bifore the iubile ȝeer, ȝit tho housis and feeldis schulden needis bi the lawe of God turne into the lordschip and possessioun of the clergie, as is open, Leuyticus the laste chapiter. Wherfore it accordid with the lawe of God and with his ordinance, that the clergie myȝte receyue [recey, MS., but a hyphen follows at the end of the line.] and haue mo housis and feeldis than thei hadden nede to occupie in her owne demenys; and thanne folewith herof, that thei myȝten putte tho same housis and

feeldis into ferme and rente; for [or, MS. (first hand).] ellis tho housis and feeldis schulden [schulde, MS. (first hand).] not be to hem availing.

If eny man wolde seie here, that in tho daies no lay persoon ouȝte ȝeue eny hous or feeld [or feeld is added by a later (?) hand.] to the clergie of thilk tyme, saue whanne the clergie had nede to occupie bi her owne vce thilk same or summe othere like hous or feeld, certis this seiyng may be at fulle putt abak and be rebukid. Forwhi if this seiyng were trewe, thanne the clergie schulde not and ouȝte not sille anoon forth with eny hous or feeld, which the lay peple hadde ȝeue to hem; and ȝit pleinli in the laste chapiter of Leuitik it is licencid to preestis and dekenis for to sille the hous or feeld which a lay persoon schal ȝeue to hem; ȝhe, forto sille it anoon aftir the ȝifte maad to hem; ȝhe, and forto sille anoon forthwith to hem that ȝauen the hous and the feeld or to othere per|soones whiche ȝauen [ȝaue, MS. (first hand).] hem not. And so bi al this processe now bifore going (fro the bigynnyng of the firste argument markid in the firste chapiter of this present iij^e. parti hiderto) it is weel proued, that to preestis and to othere clerkis of the Oold Testament it was not forbodun bi the lawe of God forto haue lordschip and in possessioun immouable godis; but it was licencid and grauntid to hem bi the lawe of God for to haue in lordschip and in possessioun citees, housis, and feeldis, and pasturis,—not oonli tho whiche thei helden in her owne demenys, but also mo othere [Perhaps we should read othere mo.] whiche thei myȝten sette forth to ferme and rente. And therfore Holi Scripture of the Oold Testament forbedith not to preestis and clerkis of the Newe Testament forto haue in lijk maner like immouable goodis.

And ȝit wherto schal y make me so bisy forto defende the firste [Both here and below Pecock should have written thridde instead of firste.] principal gouernaunce aȝens eny forbode which schulde be pretendid to be ther aȝens in the lawe of Iewis? Forwhi, ben not alle the lawis of the Iewis reuokid bi Crist ech oon, except what is lawe of kinde, that is to seie, what doom of cleer resoun wole haue to be do or to be left vndo; as alle Cristen men bileeuen, and as it is open bi Poul in his Epistle to the Romayns and in his First Epistle to Corinthies and in his Epistle to Galathies and Acts xv^e. capitulum.? And therfore, thouȝ it hadde be trewe, (as it is not trewe,) that vnmouable endewing in propirte of lordschip hadde be [An erasure of a letter (n?) has been made at the end of be.] forboden to preestis and clerkis of the Iewis, what is it forto forbede to preestis of Cristen men, but if Cristen preestis weren Iewen preestis; or but if the lawis of Iewis weren not ceesid; or but if doom of cleer resoun wolde nedis dryue and proue that Cristen preestis ouȝten not haue eny vnmouable endewing? Which thing doom of cleer resoun can not proue, (as in the ij^e. principal conclusioun of this iij^e. present parti it schal be proued,) but y can proue the contrarie, as schal be seen aftir in this present iij^e. partie in the v^e. prin|cipal conclusioun. Wherfore, forto answere to eny colour taken bi Iewes lawes aȝens the seid firste prin|cipal gouernaunce had and vsid in the clergie of Cristis chirche is more than is nede forto take upon me.

Also thus: If eny oon forbode maad in Iewis lawe to preestis schulde binde also Cristen preestis, bi lijk skile ech other forbode maad in Iewis lawe to preestis schulde [schulden, MS. twice (first hand).] also binde Cristen preestis. And so wolde folewe this, that if this forbode mad to Iewen preestis, that thei schulden not haue vnmouable endewing,

schulde strecche to Cristen preestis; bi lijk skile this forbode mad to Iewen preestis, that thei schulden drinke no wijn, neither sidir, neither eny drinke, which myȝte make the drinker drunke, thoruȝ al the tyme whilis he schulde offre sacrificis in her cours, (which forbode is writun Leuiticus x^e. capitulum.) schulde also binde Cristen preestis, that al the while thei were wekeli occupied in offring the sacrifice of the auter, thei schulden drinke no wijn, neither ale ne bere, neither sider, neither eny drinke which mai make drunke. But this thing wole not be so hard forto leie upon Cristen preestis, that thei ben bounde therto bi strengthe of a lijk forbode mad to Iewen preestis. Wherfore folewith, that neithir eny man mai make him so streit to Cristen preestis forto pretende, that bi strengthe of eny [iny, MS.] forbode in Iewis lawe Cristen preestis ouȝten not be endewid bi vnmouable pos|sessiouns. And thus miche fro the bigynnyng of this chapiter in this present iij^e. partie hidir to is ynouȝ for proof of the firste conclusioun for his firste partie, that Holi Scripture forbedith not neither weerneth in eny place of the Oold Testament the seid firste principal conclusioun.

iiij. CHAPITER.

Now that the same firste conclusioun is trewe for his ij^e. party, (which is this, that Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament forbedith not the seid gouer|naunce, which is that preestis and clerkis in the Newe Testament haue in her lordschip and possessioun immouable goodis,) y procede thus: Ech party of Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament is oon of these iij. soortis, [sorortis, MS. (partly written on an erasure).] or ellis therto longing; for it is pure

historial oonli as is this, that Gabriel was sent to Marie; and seide to hir thus; and that sche answerid thus; and that sche childide hir Sone in Bethleem; and that he aftirward dide this miracle, and thilk mi|racle: or it is doctrinal oonli, that is to seie, loor of moral conuersacioun how a man schal gouerne him in his lyuyng immediatli anentis God, anentis him silf, and anentis hise neiȝboris, as is this, Thou schalt loue God of al thin herte and thi neiȝbour as thi silf; and so of othere like: or it is historial ensam|pial of the now bifore seid moral conuersacion, as is this, that Crist or eny of hise Apostlis in his moral lyuyng anentis God or him silf or his neiȝbour lyued thus or thus.

Here upon y argue thus: If Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament schulde forbede the seid gouernaunce, he muste nedis so do bi sum party of the ij^e. or the iij^e. seid soort; for the firste seid soort longith not to bidde or forbede eny vertu or eny vice, as is open ynouȝ, for he is historial oonli withoute doctrine of moral conuersacioun. But so it is, that no Scripture of the ij^e. or of the iij^e. soort in the Newe Testament so forbedith. Wherfore folewith, that no parti of the Newe Testament so forbedith.

That no parti of the ij^e. seid soort so forbedith, y proue thus: If eny such party of the ij^e. seid soort schulde forbede the seid thridde gouernaunce, it schulde bi [Perhaps a clerical error for be.] this processe writun Math. xix^e. capitulum., where it is seid thus: Lo, oon came and seid to Iesus, Good maister, what good schal [what schal, MS. (first hand).] y do, that y haue euerlasting lijf? Which seide to him, What askist thou me of good thing? Ther is oon good God. But if thou wolte entre to lijf, kepe the comaundementis. He seith to him, Whiche? Iesus seide, Thou schalt [schal, MS.; but schalt is the reading of Wiclif's (later) version, whence this is quoted.]

not do mansleing, Thou schalt not do avoutrie, Thou schalt not do thefte, Thou schalt not seie fals wit|nessing, Worschipe thi fadir and thi modir, and, Thou schalt loue thi neiȝbour as thi silf. The ȝong man seith to him, Y haue kepte alle these thingis fro my ȝongthe, what ȝit failith to me? Iesus seith to him, If thou wolte be perfit, go and sille alle thingis that thou hast and ȝeue to poor men, and thou schalt haue tresour in heuen; and come and sue me. And whanne the ȝong man had herd these wordis, he wente awey soruful; for he hadde manye possessiouns. And Iesus seide to hise disciplis, I seie to ȝou treuthe, a riche man of hard schal entre into the kingdom of heuens. And eftsoone y seie to ȝou, it is liȝter a camel to passe thoruȝ a needlis iȝe, than a riche man to entre into the kingdom of heuenes. Whanne these thingis weren herd, the dis|ciplis wondriden greetli and seiden, Who thanne may be saaf? Iesus biheld and seide to hem, Anentis men this thing is impossible, but anentis God alle thingis ben possible. Thus miche there. Lijk processe thoruȝ al is had and writun Luk xviij^e. capitulum. In this processe ben ij. seiyngis, whiche myȝten seme forto lette the seid iij^e. principal gouernance. Oon is this, that Crist seide to the ȝong man comyng to him: "Go and sille alle thingis that thou hast and ȝeue to poor men, and come and sue me." The other seiyng is this: "It is liȝter a camel to passe throuȝ a needelis iȝe, than a riche man to entre into the kingdom of heuenes."

That the first seiyng helpith not in this wey, y mai proue. Forwhi, Mark the x^e. capitulum., where this same storie is writun with lijk proces, it is meened that this ȝong man (which in the now seid maner came to Crist) was so vndisposid anentis hise richessis, that he hadde trust in hem. Forwhi there, Mark x^e. capitulum., in the same speche and proces longing to the same ȝong man, Crist seid thus, How hard is it for men that trusten

in ricchessis to entre into the kingdom of God. So that therbi it may be take and vndirstonde, that therfore Crist seide and counseilid or bade to him for|to forsake and sille hise ricchessis, bi cause that he was, as it were, vnable forto haue to do with tho ricchessis; and that for his natural indisposicioun and ouer soor inclinacioun of loue anentis hem, and for his ouer greet trust which in his witt he bisettid upon hem. Wherof folewith not, that Crist schulde wilne and bidde in lijk maner to eny other man, (preest or no preest,) which is not so vndisposid anentis ricchessis as this ȝong man was; and therfore al this what Crist seide to the seid ȝong man groundith not, that nedisly ech preest owith to lacke and forsake alle immouable possessiouns; no more than folewith, thouȝ the riche man, of whom it is writun Luk xij^e. capitulum., was vndisposid and vnable to haue and reule and dispense ricchesis, that therfore Zache and Abraham and Iosep of Armathie and king Dauith were vnable and vnworthi and vndisposid [vnworthi disposid, MS. (first hand).] forto haue and reule and demene ricchessis.

Also this present processe sowneth and berith ful greet euydence, that Crist here clepid this ȝong man into apostilhode [apostil hode, MS. (no hyphen following apostil at the end of the line; but apostilhode and disciple|hode distinctly just below).] or into disciplehode; and her with open trouthe it is, that the state and condicioun of tho daies weren such, that it accordid not with resoun eny man forto holde to gidere apostilhode or discipil|hode and possessioun of immouable godis or holding houshold and reuling of meyne and of movable godis, as it is schewid in The book of counseilis; thouȝ now adaies it may weel ynowȝ accorde with resoun, as soone aftir here schal be schewid. Forwhi ech man thanne stonding in apostilhode or discipilhode hadde

nede forto ech dai make him redi to die bi martirdoom of tirantis, and therfore hadde nede more forto ȝeue awey good than forto gadere, reule, gouerne, or kepe; and also ech such man was to traueile into straunge cuntrees forto preche the feith; and also he muste nedis leeue hise godis, if he eny [eny is added in the margin by a later (?) hand.] hadde, into his ene|myes hondis. And so neither wisdom neither profit were to hem so circumstancid with tho daies, placis, and maners of the peple for to holde eny movable or vnmouable godis, but if it were sumwhat of money oonli. Wherfore folewith nedis, that bi strengthe of the firste seiyng of Crist may not be proued that the iij^e. principal bifore seid gouernaunce of this book is aȝens Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament.

That the ij^e. seiyng of Crist lettith not the seid iij^e. principal gouernaunce, y proue thus: The riche man, of which Crist spekith in thilk ij^e. seiyng, is he which not oonli hath ricchessis, but which therwithal tristith ouer myche in hise ricchessis, and therfore folewingli loueth ouer miche hise ricchessis; as the text of Mark x^e. capitulum., writing the same storie, declarith openli in this that Crist seide thus: How hard it is for men that trusten in richessis to entre in to the kingdom of God! Wherfore this ij^e. seiyng of Crist touchith not suche riche men, whiche han ricchessis and not ouer myche trusten in hem, neither ouer myche louen hem. And so folewith, that if eny man be so disposid that he can forbere ouermyche trust and ouer myche loue to ricchessis, he mai weel ynouȝ holde prelacie and ricchessis to gidere for eny lett which this ij^e. seiyng of Crist makith ther aȝens.

Also Crist seide here in this present proces, that "at God" it is possible a riche man to entre into the kingdom of heuen; that is to seie, with grace

which God profrith and ȝeueth to a riche man he mai entre into the kingdom of heuen; thouȝ he abide stille riche, and thouȝ withoute such grace it is ouer hard to him being riche for to entre. Wherfore folewith herof openli, that it is not forbodun of God eny man to be riche; for thanne noon such man schulde euere entre heuen, bi cause he schulde thanne entre aȝens Goddis forbode. And if it be not for|bode eny man to be riche, certis thanne it is leeful ynouȝ ech man to be riche; in lasse than he vowe the contrarie, or that he knowith bi assay and expe|rience him silf so miche indisposid anentis ricchessis, that he schal not mowe rewle him silf ariȝt anentis tho ricchessis: for in thilk caas he is bonde to holde him silf in pouerte, accordingli to this that Crist seith in the Gospel, Math. v^e. capitulum., If thi riȝt iȝe or thi riȝt hond sclaundre thee, kutte him of and caste him fro thee. And here bi it is euydent ynouȝ, that the ij^e. seiyng of Crist gooth not aȝens the iij^e. bifore principal seid gouernaunce.

The ij^e. principal processe of Holi Scripture in the Newe Testament, which myȝte seme forto lette the seid iij^e. principal gouernaunce, it is which is write, Luk xiiij^e. capitulum., thus: So therfore ech of ȝou, that for|sakith not alle thingis that he hath, may not be my disciple. But certis, the hool chapiter in which this text is sett schewith well ynouȝ, that this text was seid as weel to al the comoun peple folewing Crist in thilk tyme, as it was seid to hise Apostlis and disciplis; and therfore it reulith no more prelatis into pouerte than ech lay persoon into pouerte. Wher|fore it is to be seid, that in this now alleggid text Crist meened of forsaking of ouer myche trust and of ouer myche loue to ricchessis, (in the maner now late bifore declarid upon the first principal processe,) and not that he meened a forsaking of ricchessis vttirli. Forwhi ellis ech lay man ouȝte needis be

poor vttirly, sithen this text was seid to hem as weel as to the Apostlis and disciplis.

Also, in the same chapiter of Luk, Crist seid to the same peple of hise Apostlis and of the othere comoun peple thus: If eny man cometh to me, and hatith not his fadir and moder and wijf and sones and britheren and sistren and ȝit his owne lijf, he mai not be my disciple. Who may seie other wise, but that Crist in this now laste alleggid text meened oonli thus, that ech man ouȝte forbere ouer myche loue to his fadir and modir, wijf and sones, britheren and sistris, and to his owne lijf; and not that he ouȝte forbere [for bere, MS. (without hyphen).] his al loue fro hem: namelich sithen Crist comaundid a man to worschipe his fadir and moder, and that he schulde loue ech neiȝbore as him silf, and so loue bothe his neiȝbour and him silf? Wherfore bi lijk skile the other alleggid text in the same xiiij^e. capitulum. of Luk mai resonabili and co|lorabili ynouȝ be vndirstonde, that Crist meened in it the forbering of ouer myche trust and loue to ricchessis. And if this be trewe that thilk text, Luk xiiij^e. capitulum., mai be so vndirstonde colorabili ynouȝ, it folewith needis that bi thilk text mai no ground be take aȝens the seid iij^e. principal gouernaunce of pre|latis endewing.

The iij^e. principal processe of the Newe Testament which seeme [Probably we should read myȝte seeme.] to meete aȝens the seid gouernaunce of prelatis endewing is write, Math. xx^e. capitulum., where Crist seid to hise Apostlis thus: Ȝe witen that princis of hethen men ben lordis of hem, and thei that ben gretter vsen power on hem; it schal not be so among ȝou; but who euer wole be mad gretter among ȝou, be he ȝoure mynystre; and who euer among ȝou wole be the firste, he schal be ȝoure servaunt: as

Mannis Sone came not to be serued but to serue, and to ȝeue his lijf redempcioun for manye. Lijk processe thoruȝ out is write Mark the x^e. capitulum. Out of this processe semeth to folewe, that preestis ouȝten not haue ouerte among hem silf, oon of hem vpon an other of hem; neither eny preest ouȝte haue ouerte upon eny lay persoon of hise neiȝboris. And if this be trewe, than schulde no preest haue immou|able godis in lordschip. Forwhi thanne he muste nedis comaunde and regne upon hise tenauntis, and thei muste needis obeie and do sewtis and seruicis to him. But certis if this processe be weel in seen and thoruȝ seen, he gothe [This and the six words pre|ceding are written on an erasure, in seen being added in the margin, in a later hand. The orthography is against the common usage of this MS.; though occurring in others. See Maundevile's Travels, p. 111. (Lond. 1839).] not for this purpos. For|whi in two maners ouerers mowen holde and vse her ouerte vpon her vndirlingis.

Oon maner is bi tiranrie, which is forto in alle deedis of ouerte awaite and performe her owne profit oonli, and not the profit of her vndirlingis; and in this maner kingis and princis of hethen folk helden her ouerte in the daies of Crist. And of this ouerte spekith Crist in the now bifore alleggid processe, which maner of ouerte Crist wolde not to be bitwixe preestis and her vndirlingis, neithir bitwixe oon per|soon of hem and another of hem. And more than this can not be proued and schewid the seid processe to [to is added in the margin by a later (?) hand.] bere in him; and therfore this processe makith not sufficientli aȝens the seid iij^e. gouernaunce of preestis endewing. And that this is trewe, lo, the processe, which Luk writith in his xxij^e. chapiter, sumwhat declarith. Forwhi Luk there [there is interlineated by a later (?) hand.] storieth Crist to haue seid thus: Kingis of hethen men ben lordis of hem,

and thei that han power of hem ben clepid gode doers; but ȝe not so; but he that is grettist among ȝou be mad as ȝonger, and he that is bifore goer as a seruaunt. For who is gretter, he that sittith at the mete or he that mynystrith? whether not he that sit|tith at the mete? And y am in the myddil of ȝou as he that mynystrith. Certis in this that Crist seide, Thei that han power of hem ben clepid gode doers, but ȝe not so, Crist meened not of hem whiche ben verrili gode doers to her vndirlingis, but whiche ben not gode doeris, and ȝit for flatery and plesaunce, (lest gretter tirantrie be doon,) ben clepid gode doeris of her vndirlingis.

An other maner of ouerte bering and vsing is for to (in alle deedis of thilk ouerte vsing and executing) awaite and performe the profit of the vndirlingis in hem weel reuling bi doom of resoun, and of hem not more or other asking than as resoun or feith wole; which maner of ouerte holding and vsing mai be clepid therfore seruice to the vndirlingis, bi cause it is into the profit of the vndirlingis; thouȝ it be ther with an ouerte beryng and hauyng and holding. And of this ouerte spekith Crist in the place now bifore alleggid, Luk xxij^e capitulum., Who is gretter, he that sittith at the mete, or he that mynystrith? whether not he that sittith at the mete? And y am in the myddil [myddis, MS. (first hand). myd|dil is the reading of most MSS. in the later form of Wiclif's version, from which this quotation is made, and is written more than once by the first hand in this MS. just below.] of ȝou as he that mynystrith. Lo, how Crist pleinli and openli was aknowe that he took upon him to be the gretter, in that that he settid him silf in the myddil; and seith that therfore he sate in the myddil, forto schewe that he bare him as her gretter and worthier. And ȝit therwith, in that that in so sit|ting

in the myddil he was the redier and the abler forto waite into al her good and profit, (for to be seen of hem alle, and forto be herd of hem alle, and alle hem forto receyue mete of him the bettir,) he seith that his sitting in the myddil and his ther yn ouerte bering is as seruice to hem alle. Certis this ij^e. maner of ouerte bering, holding, and vsing Crist weerned not hise Apostlis forto haue and holde in the alleggid processe, Math. xx^e. capitulum., and Mark the x^e. capitulum., and Luk xxij^e. capitulum.: for thanne Crist hadde weerned to hem the same gouernaunce which he ensaumplid him silf to hem and bifore hem at his soper. And also the same bifore allegid processe, Math. xx^e. capitulum., Mark x^e. capitulum., and Luk xxij^e. capitulum., wolen proue sufficientli ynouȝ, that Crist ther yn ȝaue ground and teching that thei schulden haue, holde, and vse the ouerte of the ij^e. maner. Forwhi how euere schulde Crist teche and bidde to hem thus: He that is grettist among ȝou be maad as ȝonger, and he that is a bifore goer be mad as seruaunt [as aseruaunt, MS. (first hand).] ; but if [btuf, MS.] ther yn he schulde meene that among hem schulde oon be gretter than an other, and that oon schulde go bifore an other and ȝit ther with in sum maner [summaner, MS. (perhaps not accidentally. Cf. summan).] serue to the same othere bifore whom he gooth, and to whom he holdith him as gretter? Certis, but if Crist schulde meene thus, ellis he schulde teche such doctryne which includith repug|nance and contrariete. [contrarite, MS. (first hand).] Forwhi ellis he schulde meene that among hem schulde sum be gretter than othere and bifore goers to othere, and ȝit noon schulde be ouerer to othere neither gretter in degree than othere. And therfore needis cost it muste be grauntid, that Crist wolde among preestis be ouerte, and bitwixe hem

and othere persoonis be ouerte, in the ij^e. seid maner, al into the avail of the vndirlingis; and not in the firste seid maner, by tyranrie into the avail oonli of the ouerers.

In lijk maner, Ecclesiastici iij^e. capitulum., it is writen thus, In how miche thou art greet, louȝe thou thee in alle thingis; and thou schalt fynde grace bifore God. If eny man wolde seie, that the wise man in this text entendid to teche that no man schulde bere him as an ouerer to othere, certis he ther yn accusid the wijs man amys: for as miche as the same wijs man approueth weel such ouerte in the same book, the x^e. capitulum., in the bigynnyng; and also for as miche as in this same now alleggid text he impli|eth, includith, and meeneth, that he which is ouerer, and whilis he is ouerer, and berith him silf as ouerer, schulde louȝe him silf in sum other maner; as, whilis that he berith him as ouerer in outward countenaunce, he schulde louȝe him silf in inward feeling of herte. And ellis these wordis myȝten not stonde to gidere forto make a treuthe; that he which is greet, and how euer greet he is, he ouȝte louȝe him, that he fynde grace bifore God. And also ellis the wijse man schulde seie in waast, that the greet man schulde louȝe him, but if eny greet man were aboue other men. Wherfore in lijk maner whanne Crist seide, Luk xxij^e. capitulum., He that is grettist among ȝou be mad as ȝonger; he muste nedis meene that he allowith oon to be grettist among hem, and that he in sum other maner louȝe him as a ȝonger. Wherto ful miche accordith and helpith this maner of seiyng and writing, "be he maad as ȝonger and as a seruant;" that is to seie, "be he maad lijk to a ȝongir, and be he maad lijk to a seruaunt." [END OF VOL. I.]

v. CHAPITER.

THE iiij^e. principal processe of the Newe Testament, bi which myȝte seeme endewing of prestis to be vnleeful, is writun i^e. Thimoth. vj^e. capitulum., where Poul blamed sum men "whiche deemeden wynnyng to be pite," and there he seith to Thimothie bischop thus: A greet wynnyng is pitee with sufficience, for we brouȝten yn no thing into this world, and no dout that we mowe not bere awey eny thing; but we hauyng foodis and with what thingis we schulen be hilid, be we content or paied with these thingis. For thei that wolen be maad riche fallen in to temptacioun, and into snare of the deuel, and into manye vnprofitable desiris and noiose, which drenchen men into deeth and perdicioun. For the roote of alle yuelis is coueitise, et cætera. But thou, man of God, fle these thingis; but sue thou riȝtwisnesse, pitee, feith, charite, pacience, myldenes. This processe lettith not the seid gouernaunce of endewing. Forwhi, if this processe schulde so streitli be vndirstonde, that a bischop schulde not haue more than mete and drinke, hous and clooth, certis thanne it muste be seid that Poul wolde no bischop haue eny stoor of bokis, neither money forto bie or lete make therwith eny bokis, which is aȝens Poulis owne meenyng, ij^e. Thimothie, iiij^e. [iij ^e., MS.] capitulum. toward the eende. And also a bischop schulde not haue an hors forto on him ride, (if the bischop were oold or sike,) neither a staffe forto go by in his eelde for sijkenes. Wherfore bi "foode and couering" Poul vnderstondith al that is necessarie into good cure

keping and mynystring, euen as ofte tymes in Holi Scripture [See Deut. viii. 3.; Matth. iv. 4.] bi "breed" is vndirstonde al maner of foode. And if this be trewe, certis sithen the hauour and possessioun of immouable godis helpith and fortherith a bischop into the bettir bering and vsing his cure vpon hise vndirlingis, (as schal be schewid aftirward,) it folewith that vnder these ij. thingis schortli expressid of Poul here to Bischop Tymothie, "foode and couer|yng," is conteyned possessioun of vnmouable godis, in the maner and mesure and vce as thei helpen the bischop forto make the better cure vpon hise vndir|lingis. Also it is to be markid weel that Poul seith: A greet wynnyng is pitee with sufficience. Lo, how Poul allowith weel al that makith a sufficience into eny purpos or effect which muste be doon; and sithen into sum degre of good cure bering availith moche plente of vnmouable ricchessis had and receyued withoute labour of it wynnyng and geting, it folewith that it stondith weel with the proces of Poul in this present processe, that bischopis haue endewing of vnmouable possessiouns.

Ferthermore, whanne Poul seith thus: Thei that wolen be maad riche fallen into temptacioun, and into snare of the feend, et cætera; it is to be vnderstonde that not oon but dyuers it is forto seche and wille be mad riche bi [mad bi, MS. (first hand).] wynnynge of tho ricchessis thoruȝ craftis or marchaundisis or other meenys of bisynessis, and dyuers it is forto receyue ricchessis mouable or vn|mouable redy whanne thei ben profrid. Certis, thouȝ the firste maner may not be doon withoute the perels which Seint Poul spekith of here, the ij^e. maner may weel ynouȝ be doon withoute such perels. Ȝhe, perauenture more perel schal befalle [be falle, MS.] in ouer greet pouerte than in ouer grete ricchessis so freli profrid and receyued; but if it be in a fewe persoones in|disposid forto entirmete with ricchessis, whiche ouȝte forbere for the while the prelacie, into which suche

ricchessis ben ȝouun, rather than appeire hem silf in receyuyng tho ricchessis, or apperre her successouris aftir hem in removing awey tho richessis; sithen not alle men ben in lijk maner thoruȝ out disposid naturali and gracioseli. Forwhi, ij^e. Tessal. iij^e. capitulum. and ij^e. Cor. xj^e. capitulum., mensioun is mad, that in Poulis daies, bi cause endewing was not maad to prechouris other than it wher of Poul spekith i^e. Cor. iij^e. [Probably we should read ix^e. See 1 Cor. ix. 3-14.] capitulum., therfore prechers ȝauen hem to flaterie and to plesaunce forto the more likingli fille her wombis and her pursis so myche and so thikke, that for to putte hem awey out of the peplis fauour Seint Poul suffrid labour and peyne in this, that he laborid for his owne lijflode and for the lijflode of hise mynystris, not withstond|ing that he myȝte bi riȝt haue askid his lijflode and fynding of hem to whom he prechid. And therfore bi experience sufficientli take in tho daies greet pouerte and lak of stable endewing and forto stonde to deuocioun of the peple in ȝeuing and offring, (with mannys natural freelnes to suffre peyne of bodi, whanne he schal lacke hise necessarie esis,) is as peri|lose or more perilose in prelatis than is habundaunce of ricchessis (mouable or vnmouable) freeli profrid and withoute greet seching in the prelatis sides receyued.

To which now seid sentence sowneth it what Sala|mon writith, Prouerb. xxx^e. capitulum. toward the bigynnyng, whanne he preied to God thus: I preied to thee twey thingis, denye thou not to me bifore that y die. Make thou fer fro me vanite and wordis of leesing; ȝeue thou not to me begrie and ricchessis; ȝeue thou oonli necessaries to mi lijflode; lest perauenture y be fillid, and be drawe to denye and seie, Who is the Lord? and lest y compellid bi nedynes stele, and forswere the name of my God. Lo, how that, thouȝ Salamon sauȝe perel in ricchessis and perel in beggerie, ȝit he

expressith the gretter perel of synne to come bi begrie than to come bi ricchessis. And if herto be cast that noon persoon, noon comounte can be en|dewed into his oonli sufficience and forto abide in thilk sufficience thoruȝ manye ȝeeris in successioun, but if the endewing be mad in the bigynnyng forto be ouer the sufficience as for thanne being, (as her of is miche experience had in Englond, Fraunce, and othere londis, and cause her of is this, that euer more the world decrecith in peple,) the seid sentence wole seme the trewer.

The v^e. principal processe of the Newe Testament is writun to Thimothie Bischop, ij^e. Thimothie ij^e. capitulum., where Poul seith to him thus: Noman holding knyȝt|hode to God wlappith him silf with wordli nedis, that he plese to him to whom he hath preued him silf. For he that fiȝteth in a bateil schal not be crowned, but if he fiȝte lawfulli. Certis this processe dooth not aȝens the seid gouernaunce; forwhi grete lordis han lasse nede forto wlappe hem silf in worldli nedis aboute her londis than lasse lordis han, for as miche as greet lordis mowe avorthi to haue and fynde with her costis officers vndir hem forto attende sufficientli to alle the wordly nedis of her londis, and ȝit thei mowe haue ynouȝ bisidis. In so miche that expe|rience hath ȝouun bifore these daies, that grete lordis and ladies being worthi householders and ful grete forȝeuers of dettis to her tenauntis, ȝhe, and gretter and habundanter forȝeuers than othere, couthen [couthe, MS. (first hand).] not rekene a summe into an hundrid schilingis; and han had her londis and householdis in best maner reulid bi othere officers weel thryuyng vndir hem; and the lordis han had therbi ful riche and preciose leisers forto haue serued God in hiȝer and deuouter weies, if thei wolden; and in lijk maner it myȝte fare with

bischopis and louȝer persoones of the chirche richeli endewid, ȝhe, and bi such greet riche endewing thei schulen haue lasse thouȝt and lasse kark and clayng lest her godis be lost and spilled, than thei schulden haue if thei were not endewid ouer what were to hem oonli sufficient. Forwhi thei mowe wite weel and wolen considere weel that thouȝ thei lese miche, ȝit thei schulen haue ynouȝ bisidis into her nede and into her sufficience; and therfore, thouȝ thei ouȝten not be ouer myche recheles in lesing her godis, ȝit thei mowe at sumtyme ful vertuouseli and wijsly lete sum passe into lost, lest that better attendaunce to goostli deedis be therbi lost. And perauenture this cause moued deuoute temperal [It would have been better to have read temporal (there is a contraction in the MS.) here ... and elsewhere.] lordis in the oold daies forto so richeli endewe bischopis and othere statis of the chirche; and therfore noman may argue and proue that, as bi strengthe of her riche endewing, that [The repetition of that is need|less and awkward, and seems at first sight to be a mere clerical error; yet the very same redun|dancy occurs in the third sentence of the following paragraph.] the statis of the chirche ouȝten or schulden be lad into wors plijte than thei schulde be, if thei were porelier endewid; or if thei were not endewid with immou|able godis at al. Wold God the bischop writer of this book hadde so sure knowing of his saluacioun as he hath experience vpon the trouthe of this now of him affermed sentence.

The vj^e. processe of Holi Scripture in the Newe Tes|tament, which myȝte seeme meete aȝens the seid endewing of prelatis in the preesthode, is writun Math. v^e. capitulum. thus: If thi riȝt iȝe sclaundre thee, pulle him out and caste fro thee; for it spedith to thee that oon of thi membris perische, than that al thi bodi go into helle: and if thi riȝt hond sclaun|dre thee, kutte him awey and caste fro thee; for it spedith to thee that oon of thi membris perische, than that al thi bodi go into helle. Lijk processe with

more ther of is write Math. xviij^e. capitulum. and Mark ix^e. capitulum. Certis of this proces folewith not that, if myn iȝe or myn hond sclaundre me not, that y schal caste him awey fro me. And ther fore bi this processe folewith not that tho persoones, whiche han natural disposi|cioun and grace forto weel vse and dispose ricchessis, (and for to not ouer miche truste vpon hem, and not ouer miche loue hem, and not ouer miche be thouȝtful and troublid aboute hem,) ouȝten forsake hem and not receyue hem, if thei be to hem profrid. And if eny man be in contrarie wise vndisposid vnscapabili, lete him abstene and forbere that he come not into prelacie endewid; and not that for his vndisposicioun he schulde prouoke, procure, and make that manye hundridis of hise successouris schulden lacke the greet help and fortheraunce into gode deedis, whiche thei myȝten haue bi riche endewing. For the philsophir feelid bettir than so, seiyng that ricchessis ben instru|mentis of vertu, thouȝ in indisposid persoones bi her vndisposicioun oonli thei ben instrumentis and occa|siouns of vicis. [Pecock without doubt has Aris|totle in his eye. The following passage from the Ethics, among others more or less similar, will elucidate his allusion: "…." Eth. Nic., lib. iv. c. i.]

Thus miche, fro the bigynnyng of the iiij^e. chapiter hidir to, is ynouȝ forto schewe that Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament in his parti, which is of the ij^e. there seid sort, (that is to seie, which is pure doc|trinal,) lettith not the endewing of preestis bi im|movable possessiouns. For if it be weel answerid to these vj. now bifore going processis of doctrinal Scrip|ture, sownyng sumwhat aȝens the seid endewing, (as it is now bifore at ful [the ful, MS. (first hand).] to hem answerid,) certis ful

esy and liȝt it schal be therbi forto answere to alle othere doctrinal textis and processis of Holi Scripture in the Newe Testament, if eny of hem be sownyng aȝens the seid endewing.

vj. CHAPITER.

THAT no parti of Holi Scripture in the Newe Tes|tament being of the iij^e. there seid soort that is seid, being historial ensaumplal, lettith the seid endewing of preestis, is now to be proued thus: If eny ensaum|pling schulde lette the seid endewing, it schulde be the ensaumpling of Crist or of sum Apostle or of the multitude of Cristen men, of which it is rad, Acts ij^e. capitulum. in the eende, thus: Alle that bileeueden weren to gidere and hadden alle thingis comoun; thei seelden possessiouns [possessioun, MS. (first hand). The plural occurs in Wiclif's (later) version, from which this citation is made.] and catel, and departiden tho thingis to alle men, as it was nede to ech; and Acts iiij^e. capitulum. in the eende thus: How manye euere weren possessouris of feeldis either of housis, thei soolden and brouȝten the pricis of tho thingis that thei selden, and leiden bifore the feet of the Apostlis; and it was departid to ech, as it was nede to ech: or ellis it schulde be the ensaumpling of hem of which Poul spekith, Hebr. xj^e. capitulum., that thei wenten aboute in brocke skynnes and in skynnes of geet, nedi, angwischid, turmentid; to whiche the world was not worthi. But so it is, that noon of these ensaumplingis it lettith. Wherfore noon ensaumpling in Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament it lettith.

That the ensaumpling of Crist lettith it not, lo, y proue thus: Thouȝ alle Cristen men ben bounde forto

folewe summe ensaumplingis of Crist and in sum maner for this that it is writun Iohun xiij^e. capitulum., I haue ȝouun an ensaumple to ȝou, that ȝe do as y haue doon; and for this [this is interlineated by a later(?) hand, which has also inserted to after for, just below.] that is writun i^e. Iohun ij^e. capitulum., He that dwellith in him (that is to seie in Crist) he owith for to walke as he walkid; and so of othere textis ther to alleggid in the book clepid The iust apprising of Holi Scripture, the first parti, the [A space left in the MS. for the number.] chapiter: and thouȝ herwith it is writun ij^e. Cor. viij^e. capitulum. that whanne Crist was riche, he was maad for us poor, that we bi his pouerte schulden be riche: ȝhe, and thouȝ it be writun, Luk ix^e. capitulum. in the eende, that Crist was so poor, (namelich fro the hauyng of vn|movable godis,) that he hadde not an hous into which he myȝte bowe his heed: ȝit it is not cleer, open, and certeyn bi these textis now alleggid neither bi eny othere textis in Scripture, whether Crist ensaumplid his now seid so greet pouerte to alle Cristene or to preestis vndir comaundement or vndir counseil oonli. And if he ensamplid it vndir counseil oonli and not vnder comaundement, no man to whom it is so coun|seilid and profrid is bounde forto take it [it is interlineated by a later hand.] and per|forme it, as ech man may soone wite. And therfore sithen no thing lettith but that Crist myȝte haue ensaumplid it vndir counseil oonli and [not] vnder comaundement, as ech man muste needis graunte, we musten haue sum other thing than is Holi Scripture forto iuge whether Crist in this now seid ensaumpling ensaumplid to us vnder counseil and profre and pro|uoking oonly, as he ensaumplid chastite to alle Cristen that myȝten take it, Math. xix^e. capitulum.: or ellis that he ensaumplid this seid pouerte to preestis or to hem

and to othere men vndir comaundement. And thanne ferther, sithen no thing ellis out and bisidis Holi Scripture can be founde a sure iuge forto this iuge, but if it be mannys weel disposid natural resoun or ellis sum sure special reuelacioun mad fro God out and bisidis Holi Scripture of the Bible; it folewith needis, that we ouȝten not take this now seid ensaumpling of Crist as doon to vs vndir comaundement, but if cleer weel disposid natural resoun it deme to be ȝouun to us vndir comaundement. But so it is, that no cleer natural weel disposid resoun wole deeme that Crist ensaumplid the now seid greet pouerte vndir comaunde|ment to eny persoon. Wherfore no persoon (preest ne other) is boundun for to it take and fulfille.

That no cleer resoun wole deme the seid ensaum|pling to be haue doon vndir comaundement, y proue thus: No cleer resoun can deeme that Crist ensamplid thilk greet pouerte vndir comaundement, but if the same cleer resoun can deeme that thilk same greet pouerte is a comaundement, thouȝ Crist hadde it not ensaumplid. Forwhi bi this that Crist dide and vsid and ensaumplid thilk pouerte, resoun can take noon evidence that ther yn Crist comaundid it; sithen thanne bi lijk skile ech deede, which Crist dide and ensaumplid, he ensaumplid vndir comaundement, and he ther yn and therbi it comaundid; which is not trewe: for as miche as he him silf witnessith, Math. xix^e. capitulum., that oonli vndir counseil he profrid chastite to alle men that myȝten it take; and also resoun deemeth sufficientli ynouȝ, that no thing may lette him that is God for to ensaumple vndir comaunde|ment or vndir counseil at his fre liberte what euer good dede him lustith to ensaumple. Wherfor this is needis trewe, that resoun can not and mai not deeme that thilk seid greet pouerte was ensaumplid by Crist vndir comaundement, but if resoun can deeme that thilk same pouerte was and is a comaundement of

God and schulde so haue be, thouȝ Crist hadde not it ensaumplid. And thanne ferther therwith thus: And so it is, that neither bi eny sifficient [So the MS., but perhaps only by a clerical error.] euydence of lawe of kinde, (as soone aftir schal be proued in the next chapiter folewing,) neither bi eny sufficient euydence of Holi Scripture or of other special and peculiar sure weel tried reuelacioun, neither bi eny other wey assignable, cleer and weel disposid resoun can deme and iuge that this seid pouerte was and is and hadde be a comandement to alle Cristene or to preestis oonli, if Crist hadde not it ensaumplid. Wherfore no cleer and weel disposid resoun ouȝte deeme it to be a comaundement to alle Cristene or to preestis for this that Crist it ensaumplid.

What euer skile of resoun can be mad that the seid pouerte is and hadde be a comaundement to preestis or lay men, thouȝ Crist had not it ensaum|plid, riȝt weel may to it be mad cleer answere; what euer text of Holi Scripture therto sowne, (other than thei to whom bifore in this iij^e. partie answer is mad,) riȝt soone and esili mai to it be mad suffi|cient answere: and what euer extrauagaunt reuela|cioun be pretendid to be had therto, riȝt soone and liȝtli may be schewid that thilk reuelacioun is not autentik and at fulle [the fulle, MS. (first hand).] tried, that he be for a sure and stable trouthe approued. And thus it may be seen, that the ensaumpling of Cristis greet pouerte in abstenyng fro temperal vnmovable possessiouns lettith not preestis forto hem take, receyue, holde, and weel demene into gode vsis.

And ferther, forto seie more in this mater of Cristis ensaumpling, thouȝ it were so that Crist en|saumplid vndir comaundement his seid pouerte to alle preestis; ȝit ech preest, which schulde folewe thilk

ensaumpling thoruȝ the al fulnes and likenes of it, muste se bifore whiche ben the circumstauncis vndir whiche or with which or bi which Crist so ensamplid the seid pouerte to preestis, and withoute which he wolde not so haue ensaumplid it to preestis; so that if eny of tho circumstauncis hadden not be had of Crist, he wolde not haue ensamplid it to preestis. And eer that these circumstauncis be knowe whiche thei ben, and eer than the preest (which wolde folewe ther yn Crist) knowe that tho same circumstauncis ben in him lijk myche as thei were in Crist, ellis he ouȝte not folewe Crist in the same euen miche pouerte neither bi comaundement neither bi counseil, more than now eny preest ouȝte folewe in euen like|nes the crucifiyng of Crist or the fasting of Crist as comaundement or as counseil; and that bi cause he knowith not him silf to be vndir thilk state, con|diciouns, and circumstauncis vnder whiche Crist was, and for whiche and bi whiche Crist wolde be so crucified. Forwhi ellis this preest toke upon him a deede, which were not morali vertuose to him; bi cause thilk deede hath not with him hise circum|stauncis, whiche ben to him dewe in doom of resoun. Therfore thilk deede of the preest of in-folewing Crist in the seid pouerte and also in the seid crucifiyng were to this preest viciose; and ȝit Petir writith in his i^e. Epistle, the ij^e. chapiter, to alle Cristen thus: Crist suffride for us, leving to ȝou an ensaumple, that ȝe folewe the stappis of him. And sithen it is so, that preestis in these daies, (thouȝ thei be prelatis, prechers, and successouris to the Apostlis and to Crist,) ben not in lijk state, condicioun, plite, and circumstauncis, neither in lijk neede in which Crist and hise Apostlis weren [were, MS. (first hand).] forto forbere and forsake

vnmovable possessiouns, (as it is touchid and schewid resonabili weel bifore in this thridde partie the iiij^e. chapiter, and as more ther of is schewid in The book of counseilis,) therfore it is not comaundement neither counseil to eny preest in these daies forto folowe Crist in his so greet seid pouerte, neither to folewe the Apostlis in her lijk so greet pouerte: namelich as bi and for strengthe of her ensaumpling; bi cause tho circumstauncis, for which thei so ensampliden, ben not now had in us. Neuertheles, if for eny other special cause and circumstaunce now had in eny preest, (as perauenture for experience had upon his freelte forto ouer miche loue ricches,) he wole take to him sum greet pouerte, as maundement of lawe of kinde, or as counseil of lawe of kinde, it is vertuose ynouȝ to him; thouȝ it be not vertuose to an other, which is not naturali so gleymed with loue to ricchessis. And this abstenyng, which this freel man makith, is good and vertuose morali bi groundis of the lawe [of lawe, MS. (first hand).] of kinde and bi his reulis.

Who euer wole se more how the ensaumpling of Crist and of hise Apostlis biholden preestis and alle Cristene, he mai fynde fair teching ther of in the book clepid The iust apprising of Holi Scripture, in ther of the firste partie, the [A space left in the MS. for the number.] chapiter. And bi what is seid here and ther upon the ensaumpling of Crist and the ensaumpling of hise Apostlis, (for oon reule is of her alle ensaumplingis,) mai liȝtli to ech witti man be seen, that neither the ensampling of Crist him silf neither the ensaumpling of hise Apostlis (in the seid greet pouerte of abstenyng fro alle im|movable possessiouns) was ensaumpling bi wey of maundement forto hem ther yn folewe, neither bi wei of counseil to alle preestis: sithen not lijk circum|stauncis

longing to the taking of thilk pouerte ben in alle preestis now, whiche weren thanne in hem.

Noman may kunnyngli allegge this, that Crist forsoke forto be chose king, whanne the peple wolde haue chose and mad him king upon hem, as that ther yn Crist ȝaue an ensaumple to preestis or to eny other persoon forto not receyue eny temperal posses|siouns or eny temperal dignite. Forwhi, as mai be take out of dyuerse placis of the Newe Testament, thilk peple were (as for thilk tyme) leefulli vndir the Emperour of Rome, bi her owne graunt and couenaunt mad betwixe hem and the Emperour of Rome; and therfore iustli and riȝtli thei were sugettis to the Emperour of Rome; and he was her hiȝest king and emperour; and he made Heroud king vnder him forto regne upon the same peple of Iewis; and bisidis this, Pilat also bare an office there vndir the Emperour of Rome. And so thilk peple myȝte not iustli (as for thanne) haue chose Iesus or eny other persoon forto be her king; for thanne in that thei hadden be trai|touris to the Emperour and to Heroude, and thei hadden do wrong to him aȝens doom of resoun: which doom of resoun Crist him silf allowid; for he seide, (Math. xxij^e. capitulum., Mark xij^e. [xv ^e., MS.] capitulum., and Luk xx^e. capitulum.,) Ȝelde ȝe to Cesar tho thingis that ben of Cesar, and to God tho thingis that ben of God. And so, if Crist wolde haue consentid to the peple willing forto chese him her king, he had in that consentid to her wrongful doing. And therfore al the ensaumpling which Crist schewid, as in that, was no more than this: that ech man schulde fle, that he consente not to eny wrong|ful eleccioun or chesing mad vpon him. And this en|saumpling is fer fro the ensaumpling that no preest schulde haue eny vnmouable possessioun.

vij. CHAPITER.

THE ensaumpling of the pouerte chosun bi hem, of whom it is writen Acts ij^e. capitulum. in the eende and Acts iiij^e. capitulum. in the eende, was an ensaumpling of counseil and not of comaundement; and it was doon bi the multitude of the lay peple, as weel as of clerkis; and therfore her deede ensaumplith to lay peple now being, as weel as to clerkis. And so open it is, that if thilk ensaumpling schulde be comaunde|ment to hem to whom it was ensaumplid, thanne comaundement were that alle lay folkis schulden [schulde, MS. (first hand).] lyue in the same pouerte in which thei lyueden, and and no layman vndir peyne of dampnable synne schulde haue eny good in propre lordschip, and that whether thilk good were movable or vnmouable. And therfore thilk ensaumpling was vndir counseil oonli; and to al the lay peple, as weel as to clerkis; and so thilk ensaumpling gooth no thing forto weerne bi maundement the seid endewing of preestis; neither bi counceil, but if the preestis were now in lijk caas and condicioun and alle circumstancis, in whiche thei at thilk tyme and in thilk place weren. [wer, MS. (first hand) appa|rently.]

For the more cleering that the ensampling of thilk Cristen multitude in the tyme of the Apostlis at Ierusalem, of which multitude it is spokun bifore in the bigynnyng of the vj^e. chapiter, makith no boond or comaundement that preestis or clerkis of the newe lawe lyue withoute endewing of vnmovable posses|siouns, y procede thus: Thilk seid Cristen multitude lyuede thanne so in her pouerte as bi comaundement

of Goddis lawe therto hem comaunding and binding, or ellis thei lyueden thanne so in her pouerte bi her fre wil forto so lyue or not so lyue.

If thou seie that thei lyueden so, for that Goddis lawe therto hem bonde bi comaundement, and ȝit thei weren [were, MS. (first hand), and so below, p. 318. l. 1.] lay persoones; thanne, sithen oon and the same was and is the lawe of God to hem and alle othere lay men and wommen, it folewith that alle othere lay men of Corinthe, of Philippis, of Thessalo|nie, and of ech citee and cuntre, whom Poul had conuertid, were bounden aftir her conuersioun forto lyue in lijk pouerte, as weel as the seid Cristen mul|titude in Ierusalem lyued. Which openli is vntrewe. Forwhi Poul suffride alle hem whiche he conuertid forto haue alle her godis aftir her conuersioun, whiche thei hadden bifore her conuersioun; and he askid of hem, that thei schulden of her ricchessis and of her habundaunce in godis sende sum almes to poor men in Ierusalem, as it is open ofte in hise epistlis. Wher|fore vntrewe it is, that the seid Cristen multitude in Ierusalem lyueden in her seid pouerte bi comaunde|ment of Goddis lawe.

And aȝenward, if thou wolde seie that thei so lyueden bi fre wil forto so lyue or not so lyue with|out comaundement of Goddis lawe; thanne folewith ther of, that to the same or lijk maner of lyuyng noon othere Cristen men weren thanne or ben now bounde; no more than thei weren thanne to thilk poor maner of lyuyng bounde. And so the seid ensaumpling of thilk Cristen multitude in Ierusalem bindith no man.

Also thilk multitude weren lay persoones. Wher|fore if her gouernaunce in lyuyng poorli schulde binde bi ensaumpling, it schulde binde lay men and lay

wommen, as thei weren. Which is now bifore proued to be untrewe.

Also anoon aftir that thilk seid Cristen multitude biganne in Ierusalem, so greet persecucioun was maad vpon hem and upon the dekenes and the Apostilis, that alle the Cristen persoones whiche weren in Ieru|salem fledden out of Ierusalem, and weren disperclid abrode into othere dyuerse coostis and cuntrees, excepte oonli the Apostilis; as herof open storie is had, Acts viij^e. capitulum. in the bigynnyng. And sithen this or such othere lijk persecucioun thilk multitude awaitid and abode aftir forto to hem and upon hem come, and lijk troubelose tyme was in Ierusalem al the while Peter and Poul lyueden; it muste nedis ligge in open doom of resoun that folie hadde be to al thilk Cristen mul|titude, (thoruȝ al such tyme lyuyng in Ierusalem,) forto haue storid and tresourid to hem eny grete pos|sessiouns to be holde of hem in lordschip, and to be take to othere into ferme, and forto receyue ther of rent; bisidis the oonli housis and gardeyns, whiche weren necessarie for hem silf and her meyne forto in hem dwelle bi daies and nyȝtis. And therfore, thouȝ it hadde be folie to hem forto so kepe with hem gretter possessiouns than tho now seid, and that for the circumstaunce of thilk thanne being troubelose and perilose tyme; ȝit ther of folewith not bi ensaum|pling [bi eny ensaumpling, MS. (first hand).] therof, that it schulde be folie or that it was folie to othere Cristen multitudis, (dwelling in othere cuntrees out of so troubelose persecuciouns,) forto holde gretter possessiouns than tho in which thei in her owne persoones with her children and necessarie meyne dwellen or dwelliden. And so the ensaumpling of the seide Cristen multitude in Ierusalem bindith noon other Cristen into lijk maner of poor lyuyng; neither

counseilith eny other Cristen into lijk maner of lyuyng, whiche othere Cristen be not in lijk circum|staunce of perilose persecucioun, in which the seid Cristen multitude in Ierusalem thanne in the tyme of Apostlis weren.

Ferthermore, tho persoones of whiche Poul spekith, Hebr. xj^e. capitulum., (and of which the processe is alleggid bifore in the vj^e. chapiter of this present iij^e. partie,) were religiose men, forsaking miche of worldlihode and of fleischlihode [fleischli hode, MS. (without hy|phen, but with one a little below).] ; as weren [were, MS. (first hand).] the sones of Ionadab the sone of Recab, whiche "dranken no wijn, neithir bildiden housis, neither sewen sedis, neither plaun|tiden vynes, neither hadden vynes, but dwelliden in tabernacles thoruȝ alle her daies;" [See Jerem. xxxv. 6, 7.] whom and whos conuersacion God comendith, Ieremye xxxv^e. capitulum., where he seith to hem thus: For that ȝe obeieden to the comaundement of Ionadab ȝoure fader, and kepten alle hise comaundementis, and diden alle thingis whiche he comaundid to ȝou, a man of the genera|cioun of Ionadab sone of Recab schal not faile stond|ing in my siȝt in alle daies. And sithen these men weren Iewis in the tyme of the old lawe, and weren lay men and not preestis neither dekenys of the lawe, it is open that her ensaumpling was no comaundement. Forwhi, if it hadde be comaundement, it schulde haue be comaundement to lay persoones, as thei hem silf were; and thanne it wolde folewe, that it hadde not be leeful eny Iew forto haue had eny vnmouable possessioun, which is pleinli aȝens Goddis owne allow|aunce thoruȝ the v. bokis of Moyses, and in the book of Iosue in manye chapitris. And therfore needis the ensaumpling of thilk folk in al her abstinence, as weel fro myche fleischlihode as weel as fro myche

worldlihode, was oonli vndir counseil; and ȝit to alle tho oonli whiche were nedid, or ellis weel disposid for|to lyue in thilk maner. And so thilk ensaumpling of tho persoones weerneth not the endewing of preestis in these daies doon and had bi vnmouable godis. And here y make an eende of Scripture storial en|saumpling, which is the iij^e. soort of Scripture in the particioun of Scripture bifore sett in the iiij^e. chapiter.

That mannys lawe forbedith not and weerneth not the seid endewing nedith not to proue; for open it is ynouȝ to ech leerned man, that mannys lawe graunt|ith and meynteneth suche endewingis at fulle. And therfore no more of this membre for to sette it in this book.

Writingis of Doctouris in greet plente and noumbre myȝten be brouȝt into witnessing of this present purpos, and greet multitude of her writingis myȝten be brouȝte sownyng into the contrarie [into contrarie, MS. (first hand).] ; but for as miche as her feelingis and her writingis neither binden neither vnbinden in eny mater more or ferther or other wise than thei taken [Probably we should read ben taken.] out of lawe of kinde or of Holi Scripture or of mannis lawe, neither to hem it is to trowe ferther or more than thei kunne hem grounde in eny of these now spoken groundis or fun|damentis, (as is proued in the book clepid Iust ap|prising of Doctouris;) therfore forto bringe forth here the writingis of Doctouris for this present purpos or aȝens it, y forbere. Ech of hem seide and wroot, as he trowid for the tyme to be trewe; thouȝ ful ofte thei seemen among hem to discorde, and ful ofte re|dili thei discorden. Thus miche, fro the bigynnyng of the iiij^e. chapiter in this present iij^e. partie hidir to, is ynouȝ for proof of the firste principal conclu|sioun

in his ij_e. partie, that Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament lettith not the iij^e. principal gouer|naunce rehercid bifore in the firste chapiter of this present iij^e. partie.

viij. CHAPITER.

THE ij^e. principal conclusioun is this: Doom of cleerli in kinde disposid resoun werneth not and let|tith not the seid thridde principal gouernaunce sett in the bigynnyng of the firste chapiter of this present iij^e. partie. That this conclusion is trewe y proue thus: If eny such now seid doom of resoun schulde weerne and lette the seid iij^e. principal gouernaunce, thilk doom of resoun schulde be oon of these domes now suyngli to be rehercid. But so it is, that noon of hem so weerneth and lettith; but ech of hem is as semyng colour oonli and not a very prouyng doom, as in processe suyng schal be schewid. Wherfore doom of cleerli disposid resoun in kinde weerneth not and lettith not the seid iij^e. principal gouernaunce.

The ij^e. premisse of this argument schal be proued bi long processe thus. The firste semyng colour in doom of resoun is this: Aftir the sentence of Crist, (Math. vij^e. capitulum. and Luk vj^e. capitulum.,) Such is the tre, which is the fruyt of the same tree; [This is not an exact quotation. See Matth. vii. 20; Luke vi. 44.] so that bi the fruyt of the tree the same tree is knowun, whether he be good or bad. But so it is, that the fruyt of the chirchis riche endewing is synne of pride, of glotenye, of sy|monye, and so forth of manye othere. Wherfore the tree of hem is nauȝt, which is the seid riche endewing.

The ij^e. semyng [colour] is this: If riche endewing hadde be profitable to the clergie and to al the hool chirche of God, Crist him silf bi his owne persoon

hadde endewid richeli the clergie of the chirche in hise daies, and hadde bede that aftir his passing out of this lijf men schulden make suche endewingis. But Christ not so endewid his chirche in hise daies, nei|ther bede the clergie aftir hise daies in this lijf forto be richeli endewid. Forwhi therof is no mensioun in al the Newe Testament. Wherfore such riche en|dewing of the clergie is not profitable to the clergie, neither to the other partie of the chirche.

The first premisse of this argument muste needis be grauntid, as it wolde seeme. Forwhi [Perhaps sithen should be in|serted.] Crist loued his chirche and the clergie therof more than eny creature of this world can loue the chirche and the clergie; and the proof of loue is execucioun of werk and of deede; it seemeth folewe, that sithen othere persoones for loue which thei hadden to the clergie endewiden the clergie, miche rather Crist for loue wolde haue endewid the clergie, or wolde haue mad special ordinaunce therfore bi deede, or at the leest bi word, if he hadde knowe that such riche endew|ing hadde be to his clergie necessarie or profitable. And so the firste premysse of this ij^e. argument semeth to be trewe. The ij^e. premysse of the argu|ment is also openli trewe. Wherfore the conclusioun concludid bi tho ij. premyssis in the same argument is also trewe.

The iij^e. is this: Seint Ierom in writing the lijf of Malk the monk seith, that sithen the chirche wexid in dignitees, he decrecid in vertues. ["Scribere disposui . . . . . ab adventu Salvatoris usque ad nos|tram ætatem, id est, ab apostolis usque ad nostri temporis fæcem, quomodo et per quos Christi ecclesia nata sit et adulta, persecutionibus creverit, et martyriis coronata sit; et postquam ad Christianos principes venerit, potentia quidem et divitiis major sed virtutibus minor facta sit." S. Hieron. Vit. Malch. Mon. (Op. tom. ii. p. 41. Ed. Vallars.)] And an other cronicler seith in sentence thus: Eer the clergie of the

chirche was endewid with vnmouable possessiouns the clerkis weren holi and deuoute and goostli, and bi ensaumpling of so holi conuersacioun turneden miche of the world into trewe feith and vertuose conuersa|cioun; and thanne also the clerkis weren redi forto putte her lijfis for witnessing of trouthe and for the goostli helthe of her neiȝboris. And aȝenward aftir in tyme that the clergie of the chirche was endewid with vnmovable godis, the clergie decrecid in holi lyuyng and in alle necessarie gouernauncis to the helthe of the chirche, which bi fore the seid endew|ing thei hadden; and vicis grewen into the clergie miche thickir than bifore, as pride, ambicioun, veir glorie, glotenie, leccherie, coueitise, and speciali sy|monie; and suche othere. [The following passage of Nico|laus de Clamengiis (written about A.D. 1414) agrees substantially with this extract, yet it can hardly be the place intended to be quoted:— "Nemo est, ut opinor, qui non satis audierit et mente teneat, quantum Christi ecclesiæ minis|tri, viri utique probata virtute clarissimi omnique tempore laude merito celebrandi, terrenam opu|lentiam contempserint. . . . Ubi vero, ut fere assolet, paululum ex divitiis rerumque secundarum af|fluentia luxus et insolentia in ecclesiam subiere, tepescere sen|sim cœpit religio, virtus hebes|cere, solvi disciplina. . . . Sed ut pompis et luxui res subesset, avaritia crebrescere," &c. De cor|rupt. Eccl. stat. in Brown. Fasc. Append. pp. 555, 556. He goes on to enlarge on the "simoniaca pravi|tas" a little afterwards, see p. 559.] Wherfore it seemeth that thilk endewing was yuel doon.

The iiij^e. is this: It is fablid to be trewe, that whanne greet Constantyne the Emperour was baptisid of Siluester Pope, and hadde endewid Siluester Pope with greet plente of londis of the empire, a voice of an aungel was herd in the eir seiyng thus: "In this dai venom is hildid into the chirche of God." ["Anno III^e.XV. Constantinus baptizatur a Sancto Silvestro, et tunc ditavit ecclesiam Romanam libertatibus, prædiis, et possessioni|bus, et dedit sedem suam imperialem Sancto Petro et suis successoribus. Et illo tempore Diabolus in aere volando clamavit, Hodie venenum ecclesiis Dei infusum est." Sprot. Chron. p. 43. (Ed. Hearne.) "Nar|rant chronica quod in dotatione ecclesiæ, vox audita est in aere angelica tunc temporis, sic dicen|tis, Hodie effusum est venenum in ecclesia sancta Dei." Wicl. Dial. lib. iv. c. 18. "The angel said full sothe, when the church was dowed, that this day is venym shed into the church." Id. Of clerks pos|sess., MS. cited in Lewis' Life of Wicl. p. 122. See also The vision of Piers Plowman, v. 10,659, sqq. vol. 2. p. 325. (Wright's Ed.), where it is said, that—

"An aungel men herdenAn heigh at Rome crye,Dos ecclesiæ this dayHath ydronke venym."

]

Wherfore the seid endewing bi immovable godis to the clergie is vnvertuose and yuel.

The v^e. semyng skile is this: It is not semeli, honeste, conuenient, and according, that bischopis and abbotis (whiche schulden be grete sterers to the lay partie into deedis of pitee, and schulde be bridelis or refreynyng meenys to the lay parti fro deedis of cruelte and of vnpitee, and that bi deede in ensaum|pling and bi word in preching, counceiling, and ex|orting) schulden do and vse deedis strecching and disposing and abling into the grettist vnpitee and grettist cruelnes that mai be; but so doon summe bischopis and abbotis bi sum of her temperal vnmou|able endewing. Forwhi bi summe of her endewingis summe bischopis and abbotis han and holden courtis, in whiche iugementis ben ȝouun in her name, aucto|rite, and power into hangement and into deeth. And forto do, ȝeue, or assigne thilk deeth vsuali and customabili is oon of the grettist dedis of vnpitee and cruelnes that is, and disposith also into gretter vnpitee and cruelnes, and lettith a man forto haue and kepe with him pitee and mercifulnes. Wherfore at the leest, if not al riche vnmouable endewing, ȝit thilk maner of endewing is not to be mad to bischopis and abbotis.

If eny man wole be aboute forto excuse the bi|schop or abbot fro the inconuenience which this ar|gument is aboute forto bringe into him, and that bi this that he not iugith into deeth, but an other man

vndir him and in his absence; certis this excuse is no [not, MS. (first hand).] sufficient excuse. Forwhi what euer is doon in an othir mannis name, power, stide, and auctorite, (him it witing and not weerning) is doon of him; and he therof is the doer, as into this point, that he therbi be iust or vniust, riȝtful or vnriȝtful, preisable or dispreisable, doing honestli or doing vnhonestli. And therfore if iugementis of deeth be doon in the seid courtis in name and auctorite of the bischop or abbot, al is oon (into the now rehercid effectis) as thouȝ tho bischopis or abbotis diden it in her owne persoones. For ellis Pilat hadde be excusable of Cristis deeth, bi cause he lefte him to the hondis of othere men doing amys in his name. Also ellis it schulde be seid that the king iugith no man into deeth, neither sleeth eny man, neither executith iuge|ment of deeth; bi cause he so euermore dooth bi hise officers doing in his name: which is fals and vntrewe. For no iugement of deeth may come iustli saue fro him and bi him, for he is the mynystre of God or|deyned therto bi God, as Poul seith, Rom. xiij^e. capitulum. And therfore this afore sett answere is not worth.

For answere and assoiling to these semyng skilis and colouris, and first for answere to the first of hem y graunte weel that "such is the tree which is the fruyt of the tree;" that is to seie, if the fruyt of a tree be badde, the tree is badde; and if the fruyt of a tree is good, the tree is good. Forwhi the tree is not oonli an occasioun of the fruyt, but he is the cause [is cause, MS. (first hand).] of his fruyt making and wirching into the fruyt that it be brouȝt forth. But certis so is it not bitwixe ricchessis and the synnes whiche comen fro out and bi tho ricchessis. For tho ricchessis ben not causis of tho synnes, but ben oonli occasiouns of tho synnes; and that oonli to the freel and culpable wil

of men, which is the verri cause wirching tho synnes. And therfore, bitwixe the hauyng, bi which a tree hath him silf anentis his fruyt, and the hauyng, bi which ricches hath him silf anentis the synnes com|yng fro, out, and bi him, [bihim, MS.] is a greet dyuersite. Cer|tis, if the synnes comyng forth fro and bi ricches weren causid of the ricches, and the ricches were cause of tho synnes and made tho synnes, as the tree makith the fruyt, the now first mad skile and argument schulde procede weel, and schulde proue sufficientli his entent. But sithen it is so, that ricchessis ben not causis of the vicis whiche comen fro and bi hem, but the freel wil of the man which vsith tho ricchessis is the making cause of tho synnes, and the ricches is not more than an occasioun of hem oonli, therfore the firste argument and skile is not worth. What difference is bitwixe a cause of a thing and an occasioun of the same thing schal be tauȝt aftir in the iiij^e. parti of this present book the iij^e. chapiter, where more is seid perteynyng to this present answere.

That ricches is not cause of eny synne mai be proued thus: Thou canst not seie whi and wherfore ricches schulde be cause of synne, saue for that fro, out, and bi ricches synne cometh. Weel [Weel is added (by a later hand?) in the margin.] thanne, y therto seie aȝen [aȝens, MS. (first hand).] thus: Fro, out, and bi ricches comen ful manye and ful grete vertuose deedis, as ful grete and huge almesful and piteful deedis, summe perpe|tuel, summe for a tyme to dure; wherfore thou ouȝtist graunte that ricches is cause of vertu and of good, as it is cause of synne and of yuel. And so ricches schulde in lijk and euen maner be [bi, MS.] cause of ij. contrarie effectis, which is not to be grauntid,

saue of a causer bi liberte and fredom, as is free wil; and such is not ricches. Wherfore he is not cause of synne, but an occasioun of synne oonli.

And thanne ferther: If this were to be holde trewe, that for this that ricches is occasioun of al the synne which out, fro, and bi him cometh, ricches were badde and ouȝte not be had; but that the hauying of it were viciose and vnleeful, and that for this that yuel cometh ther fro and ther bi:—certis thanne for lijk skile, sithen fro and bi the greet ricches in which the aungel Lucifer was sett and putt, came his synne and the synne of manie othere aungelis and her per|petuel dampnacioun, it wolde folewe that thilk riching of the aungel was vicioseli doon of God; and so God ther yn was viciose. And sithen this folewith not, as ech man muste needis graunte, it folewith that ech man muste also lijk weel graunte, that thouȝ out and fro and bi temperal ricches (as out, fro, and bi an oc|casioun oonli) cometh myche synne and other yuel, therof folewith not neithir is concludid and proued the hauying of the same ricches to be yuel.

Also thus: Other wise cometh not yuel and good out, fro, and bi ricchessis which preestis and other men holden and vsen, than as out, fro, and bi her tungis comen forth bothe yuel spechis and gode spechis, preisingis to God and dispreisingis to God, profitable teching to the vnkunnyng and vnprofitable speche to the vnkunnyng, and so forth of manye miche neces|sarie deedis doable bi mennys tungis and of manye ful wickid and ful miche noiose deedis comyng forth bi mennys tungis. Forwhi tungis be not but the in|strumentis of the fre wil, bi and with which the free wil of man wirchith sumwhile good sumwhile yuel; and so richessis ben not but instrumentis of and to the fre [to fre, MS. (first hand).] wil, bi which the free wil of the vsers

wirchith in sumtyme good and in sumtyme yuel. And so bothe the tungis of preestis and ricchessis of preestis ben instrumentis and occasiouns of ful miche good and of ful miche yuel.

What schal therfore be doon to her tungis? Schulen thei be kutt of, for that thei ben founde occasions of yuel? Certis, nay; for thanne bi thilk kutting of schulde also ther with be kutt of alle the godis, whiche bi tho tungis mowe also be doon and had. Wherfore, bi lijk resoun and skile, neither ben ricchessis to be kutt awey fro preestis, for that of the ricchessis com|eth yuel; sithen in thilk kutting awey schulden be kutt awey alle the goodis, whiche schulden come and whiche mowen come bi vce of the same ricchessis. What thanne is to be doon anentis the vicis of the tunge? Certis the freelnes of the wil is to be kutt awei and to be leid aside with greet bateil, greet scole, and greet craft; and the tungis ben to be lete stonde stille. And if this be trewe, certis so bi lijk forme and for lijk skile anentis the vicis comyng forth among preestis bi her ricchessis, the freel wil is to be curid and to be leid aside, and the ricchessis ben to be holden [holde, MS. (first hand).] ; namelich for, thouȝ oon of hem vse tho ricchessis vicioseli, summe succes|souris to him schulen vse hem vertuoseli. And God forbede that the vice of this preest now lyuyng schulde hindre the vertues of gode men after him in tyme comyng!

To this same sentence ful weel accordith Seint Austyn in a long proces so cleerli, so sweeteli, and so resonabili, that noman may berke or bite theraȝens; which proces is writun in the iij^e. parti of hise ser|mouns, the xxxiij^e. sermoun, and is this in wordis now folewing. Scripture preisith him which myȝte haue trespacid and not trespacid, which "wente not after

gold," Ecclesiastici xxxj ^e. capitulum. The gold schulde go aftir thee, not thou aftir the gold. Sotheli no thing that is mad of God is yuel. Be not thou yuel, for for|sothe the gold is good. Lo, y proue thus: Lete me putte gold bitwixe a good man and an yuel man. Lete the yuel man take it; anoon poor and louȝe men ben oppressid, iugis ben corruptid, lawis ben peruertid, gouernauncis and policies ben disturblid. But whi is this? What is the verri cause of this? Certis, for that an yuel man toke the gold. Lete a good man take the gold; anoon poor men ben fed, nakid men ben clothid, oppressid men ben delyuered, prisoneris ben out bouȝt. Lo hou grete godis comen of the gold which a good man takith; and how grete yuelis of the gold [of gold, MS. (first hand).] which an yuel man takith. Wherto therfore ȝe at sumwhilis brouȝt into wraththe seien, "O wolde God thilk gold were not had"? Be thou not yuel; loue thou not the gold. If thou art yuel, thou goost aftir the gold; if thou art good, the goold goith aftir thee. What is this, that the gold goith after thee? Certis, thou ledist and art not led; for thou hast the possessioun and art not had in possessioun. ["Ipsum laudavit Scriptura, Qui potuit transgredi, et non est transgressus; qui post aurum non abiit. (Eccli. xxxi. 8). Post te debet ire aurum, non tu post aurum. Nam bonum est aurum. Non enim aliquid mali creavit Deus. Tu noli esse malus; et bonum est aurum. Ecce aurum pono inter bonum hominem et malum. Tollat malus; inopes opprimuntur, judices cor|rumpuntur, leges pervertuntur, res humanæ perturbantur. Quare hoc? Quia aurum tulit malus. Tollat bonus; pauperes pascuntur, nudi vestiuntur, oppressi liberantur, cap|tivi redimuntur. Quanta bona de auro, quod habet bonus! quanta mala de auro, quod habet malus! Ut quid dicitis aliquando stoma|chati, O si non esset ipsum aurum? Tu noli amare aurum. Si malus es, is post aurum: si bonus es, it post te. Quid est, it post te? Tu ducis, non duceris; quia possides, non possideris." S. August. Serm. cccxi. c. 9. (Op. tom. v. pp. 873, 874. Ed. Benedict. Antv. 1700).] Thus seith Austin there. And ferthermore sumwhat aftir there Austyn seith thus: No thingis maken and

ben causis of gode maners and of gode vertues, saue gode loues. Lete not gold be take awey fro mennys hauyng; but lete the gold abide and be had, that thou proue mennys hauyng. Whi? Lete mennys tungis be kutt awey, for that bi hem summen blasphemen God; and where schulen we thanne haue preisers of God? What dooth a tunge, he that singith weel or spekith weel knowith weel; and a ful good instrument he is. Ȝeue thou a good wil to the good tunge, and thanne gode thingis ben spokun; men being in discord ben brouȝt into accord, men discoumfortid ben coumfortid, leccherose men ben chid and blamed, wrathful men ben re|freyned, God is preisid, Crist is commendid, the wil is heet and inflamyd into loue, but into godli loue not into manli loue, spiritual loue not fleischli loue. These goodis dooth the tunge, but whi and bi what wirching cause? For good is the wil which vsith the tunge. Ȝeue thou an yuel man to the tunge, and thanne schulen be blasphemers, chiders, chalengers, and [informers]. [A space left vacant in the MS.] Alle these yuelis comen fro the tunge, for that the yuel man vsith the tunge. Be not therfore takun awey thingis fro thingis, but be at and be sett to good vce to thingis. ["Non faciunt bonos mores, nisi boni amores. Tollatur aurum de rebus humanis; immo adsit aurum, ut probet res humanas. Præci|datur lingua humana propter Dei blasphematores, et unde erunt Dei laudatores? Quid tibi fecit lingua? Sit qui bene cantet, et bonum est organum. Da mentem bonam ad linguam: bona dicuntur, discordes concordantur, lugentes consolantur, luxuriosi corripiuntur, iracundi re|frænantur, Deus laudatur, Christus commendatur, mens ad amorem inflammatur; sed divinum, non hu|manum; spiritalem, non carnalem. Hæc bona facit lingua. Quare? Quia bona est mens quæ utitur lingua. Da malum hominem ad linguam: erunt blasphematores, li|tigatores, calumniatores, delatores. Omnia mala de lingua, quia malus est, qui utitur lingua. Non tol|lantur res de rebus humanis: sint res et adsit usus rerum bonarum." S. August. u.s. c. 11.] Thus seith Austyn there.

Lete oonli good men and weel proued men in vertues be takun in to preesthode and into pre|lacie, wherynne ben riche possessiouns; and without dout miche more good schal come bi the hauyng of tho riche possessiouns, than schulde come if thei were not had. But alle the cause, whi yuel cometh fro and bi tho riche possessiouns had in prelacie, is for that vertuose men and weel proued men in leernyng and in lyuyng ben not chosun and takun into prelacies; but sumwhile children, sumwhile men wantounli brouȝt up in court, sumwhile vnleerned men for her greet blood and her hiȝe birthe; ȝhe, into the dampnacioun of hem whiche so chesen and takun, as it is ful miche to drede. Lete therfore this that is verry cause of the yuel be take awey, and lete it abie which is gilti: lete not it be take awey, which profrith him silf redi into good and of which schal come good, whanne it schal come into gode mennys hondis: lete not it abie which trespacith not. And thanne is [The six following words are added in the margin by a later hand.] doon, what ouȝte here ynne be doon; and ellis it is doon, which ouȝte not be doon. And thus myche is ynouȝ for answere to the i^e. semyng skile.

ix. CHAPITER.

FOR answere to the ij^e. semyng skile, the first pre|mysse is to be denied, which is this: "If riche en|dewing had be profitable to the clergie and to al the hool chirche of God, Crist him silf bi his owne persoon hadde endewid richeli the clergie of the chirche in hise daies," et cætera. Forwhi if this premysse now denyed were trewe, certis, bi lijk skile

Crist in his owne persoon hadde ordeyned dekenes to be in his clergie; sithen it was profitable dekenes to be in the clergie of his chirche, as it is open, Acts vj^e. capitulum. at the bigynnyng. And ȝit Crist bi him silf not so ordeyned, but the Apostlis and the peple to gidere hem chosen and ordeyneden, as it is open there, Acts vj^e. capitulum. And therfore the now rehercid firste premysse of the ij^e. semyng skile is to be denyed.

Also into this same purpos thus: The rehercid firste premisse myȝte not be trewe, but if he schulde meene and vndirstonde that Crist ouȝte and wolde haue ordeyned bi him silf and in his owne persoon al that is nedeful to his clergie of his chirche, as is open ynow. But this meenyng is vntrewe. Forwhi breed and wijn and ale and housing and clothing and manie othere thingis maad bi mennys craftis ben necessarie to be had in persoones of his clergie, and ȝit Crist in his owne persoon and bi him silf ordeyned not and ȝeueth not to eny man breed or wyin or gowne or hood or hous; but he ȝeueth bi him silf and in his persoon maters of which breed and wijn and housis and clothis ben to be mad, and therwith he ȝeueth to men hondis and feet and membris of the bodi and inward and outward sensityue wittis and resoun and wil and moving powers, bi whiche alle applied to gidere men mowen make breed, wijn, housis, and clothis. And in lijk maner Crist ȝaf to the Apostlis witt of resoun for to knowe that dekenhode was pro|fitable to his clergie, and Crist ȝaf to hise Apostlis wil for to chese tho dekenes; and so in that Crist ȝaue to hem dekenes mediatli, that is to seie, bi meenis bifore ȝouun to the Apostlis. And if this be trewe, whi not in lijk maner, for lijk skile, it is to be seid, that Crist ȝaf mediatli, (that is to seie, bi meene ȝiftis to his clergie,) the endewing of immouable godis, which the clergie now hath: for as miche as Crist ȝaue to the clergie witt and wisdom forto knowe

thilk endewing be profitable to the clergie, and also wil forto aske and receyue the same endewing; thouȝ Crist ȝaue not to his clergie thilk same endewing bi him silf immediatli, (that is to seie, withoute eny bi|fore ȝouun meenys,) riȝt euen as he ȝaue dekenhode to his clergie mediatli, thouȝ he ȝaue not the same dekenhode to his clergie immediatli? And so open it is herbi, that the firste premisse of the ij^e. semyng skile is to be denied.

And whanne it is argued ferther, that thilk first premisse muste be trewe, for ellis God loued not so miche his clergie as men endewing his clergie loueden his clergie, certis this folewith not. Forwhi at sum while it mai so be, that the ȝeuer or benefeter forto ȝeue mediatli, (that is to seie bi a meene to the re|ceyuer,) schal be more profitable to the receyuer than schulde be, if the ȝeuer schulde ȝeue the same ȝifte or benefet immediatli bi him silf to the same receyuer. Also at sumwhile it mai be so, that more good and more honeste or more preising and worschip schal come, (alle thingis considerid and biholdun,) to the ȝeuer, if the ȝeuer ȝeue mediatly his ȝifte or benefete, than schulde come if he ȝaf the same ȝifte or benefet immediatli bi him silf. And so it mai be ful weel, that not for defaut of loue had to the receyuer, neither for the lasse loue as in that and for that born anentis the receyuer, the ȝeuer ȝeueth his ȝifte or benefet to the receyuer, but for the more loue had and born bi the ȝeuer anentis the receyuer.

Also it mai be ful ofte, that for the more good to be doon al abouȝte, (thouȝ not al to the receyuer,) it bisemeth and it is sitting, and therfore it is to be doon, that the ȝeuer ȝeue his ȝifte and benefet medi|atli and not immediatli: and ȝit this doing is not so

maad for the lasse loue to the receyuer, than schulde be if he ȝaf it immediatli. Wherfore sithen we ben sure that God loueth his chirche as his spouse, and dooth no thing to it for defaut of [of is interlineated by a later hand.] loue, (and name|lich not for that he loueth his chirche lasse than eny man loueth it, as it is open Isaie xlix^e. capitulum., where God seide to his oolde chirche thus; Whethir a womman mai forȝete her ȝong child, that sche haue not merci on the sone of hir wombe? Thouȝ sche forȝetith, y schal not forȝete thee:) it is to be feelid therof folew|ingli, that this doing of God bi which he dooth to his chirche hise ȝiftis, puruiauncis, and benefetis medi|atli is so maad of him for oon of the [these, MS. (first hand).] ij. causis now rehercid, or for sum other lijk resonabili to be allowid cause, and therfore not for that he loueth his chirche lasse than eny creaturris louen or loueden or schulen loue it. And herbi it is to be feelid and seid, that in this wirching of Crist, bi which he wrouȝt medi|atli into the endewing of his clergie, was as greet or gretter schewyng of his loue toward his clergie, thanne was the schewing of loue which peple mad to his clergie bi that that thei wrouȝten immediatli into the same endewing. And this is answere good ynouȝ at this tyme to the secunde semyng skile.

x. CHAPITER.

To the iij^e. semyng skile y answere thus: I graunte that Ierom seide tho wordis, Sithen the chirche wexid in dignitees or in possessiouns, he decrecid in ver|tues: as thouȝ his meenyng had be this, "Euer and alwey sithen the chirche wexid in possessiouns, he decrecid in vertues." But what here of, thouȝ he

so seide? Certis his tunge was not the key of heuen or of erthe, neither had power to make eny thing to be trewe or fals, or other wise to be than he couthe fynde bifore it to be trewe or fals in doom of resoun or in Holi Scripture. Whi therfore schulen we ouer miche weie and apprise his seiyng? First y schal schewe ful likeli that hise wordis were not trewe; and thanne next y schal schewe vnsoilabili that, thouȝ tho wordis weren trewe, ȝit out of hem folewith not that the endewing of the clergie with riche pos|sessiouns is yuel and vnleeful.

First that tho wordis weren not trewe, it semeth herbi. How euer kunnyng and weel leerned preestis and prelatis a this [athis, MS.] side of the Apostlis weren to gidere in [in is interlineated, perhaps by a later hand.] eny tyme in the clergie of [So the original scribe, rightly: but a later hand has made an erasure and changed of into or.] the chirche bifore his endewing in riche possessiouns, so kunnyng and weel leerned preestis and prelatis han ben to gidere sithen and aftir that the chirche was endewid bi vnmouable possessions; ȝhe, and myche kun|nynger and better leerned; and also therwith mo suche han be [ben, MS. (first hand).] sithen. For, who euer can schewe that bifore the daies of Hillari, Ambrose, Ierom, and Aus|tyn, and Gregori weren in the Latyn chirche so worthi techers with holi lyuyng to gidere as thei weren and as her successouris weren, y schal ȝeue to him myn arme.

Ferthermore, how euer goostli almysful preestis and prelatis in preching and in writing profitable bokis weren to gidere in eny tyme bifore the seid endew|ing, so almysful in the seid goostli almes han ben to gidere sithen [sithen is interlineated in a later (?) hand.] ; ȝhe, and miche more almysful, bi

cause thei weren kunnynger and better leerned; and therwith many mo such han be sithen.

Also hou euer in bodili maner almesful preestis and prelatis han be in eny tyme to gidere bifore the seid endewing, so almesful in bodili almes han be to gidere preestis and prelatis sithen; ȝhe, and miche more so almesful, as is open ynouȝ; for thei hadden possessiouns, wher of thei myȝten miche more avorthi into almes, than thei that hadden litil and as it were nouȝt.

Ferthermore, as holi confessouris and as manie in the same lengthe of tyme han be of preestis and pre|latis sithen the seid endewing, as were bifore the seid endewing a this [athis, MS., and similarly a little below.] side the Apostlis; and as holi and as manye and mo of martiris bi deeth, (and other wise troublid bi exile and bi prisonyng,) hanbe [hanben, MS. (first hand). The conjunction of the words is probably not accidental.] of preestis and of prelatis sithen the seid endewyng in tyme to gidere, than were bifore in eny tyme of lijk quantite to gidere. And thouȝ in tho [Probably we should read the.] daies of Em|perouris Nero and of Traian and of Domician and of Dioclician and othere suche manie mo martiris weren made than in tyme [intyme, MS.] of lijk quantite sithen tho daies, certis, ȝit the multitude of tho martiris were lay men and not preestis or bischopis. Forwhi alle the bischopis and othere preestis, that weren in tho daies thoruȝ manie ȝeeris to gidere, weren ful fewe. And also thouȝ it hadde be so, that mo bischopis and preestis hadden be martiris in the daies of tho princis than in the daies of princis a this side the Emperour Con|stantyn, ȝit it was oonli for this, that persecucioun of tirantis was redier in tho daies than was sithen in the daies of Constantyn and aftir hise daies; and it

was not for defaut of good wil in the preestis and bischopis lyuyng forto suffre martirdom, if it hadde be profrid to hem and if God hadde purveied so for hem. For y dare weel seie that Ierom, Ambrose, Austin, and Gregori weren as redi in wil forto haue suffrid marterdom, if it hadde be putt to hem, as euer was eny othir preest or bischop which bifore the endewing of the chirche was martirid a this side [seide, MS. (first hand).] the Apostlis: wherfore the holynes was as greet [agreet, MS. (first hand).] in thes persoones not martirid as was in hem, namelich sithen these haboundiden in greet doctrine and in cure mynistring miche aboue hem. Wherfore folewith that tho wordis writun In vitas Patrum, bi whiche it is meened thus, "that alwey and euer, sithen the clergie of the chirche [of the chirche is added in the margin by a later (?) hand.] encrecid in possessiouns, he decrecid in vertues," is [The construction requires are; yet perhaps the scribe is guilt|less.] vntrewe. For in the bigynnyng of the seid endewing and bi long tyme aftir, al the while that weel leerned men and weel proued men in lyuyng were takun into prelacie, the chirche grewe vpward bothe in kunnyng and in lyuyng, as therto ful miche the seid riche endewing helpid; and ther|fore this, that the chirche or the clergie sithen the seid endewing hath decrecid in vertues, came bi an other thing yn and bi an other wey than bi the seid riche endewing; which other thing and wey, if it were kutt awey, the riche endewing schulde do ful miche good and lette miche yuel. And so wolde God that thilk now meened thing and wey were so kutt awey!

Now next aftir this, thouȝ tho wordis writun In vitas Patrum and vndirstondun in the seid menyng were trewe, ȝit that therof [ȝit therof, MS. (first hand).] folewith not the purpos of the argument, which is that the seid riche endewing

schulde be yuel, y proue thus: These wordis which y schal now seie ben trewe. Alwey and euer, sithen the brigge of Londoun was endewid with temperal rentis, the same brigge hath be febler and febler, and euer schal so be into tyme he be at his laste cast. What folewith here of? Schulen men seie her of to folewe, that thilk temperal endewing so ȝouun into the mentenance of the brigge is harmeful or yuel to the brigge? Alle men witen weel that it not so folewith. But thanne whi folewith it not? Certis for [Probably we should read for that.] the brigge and ech hous is of such nature and kinde, that aftir a certein of ȝeeris next to his first making he biganne to appeire, and he euer sithen appeirith, and schal appeire needis: euen [euen is added in the margin by a later hand.] as a man aftir a cer|tein of hise ȝeeris spend schal appeire, how euer miche cost be sett into the mentenaunce of his bodili weel|fare. In lijk maner al the hool chirche of God is of such kinde that, namelich after a certeyn tyme of his age, he appeirid, and schal appeire contynueli; as Crist ther of prophecied, Math. xxiiij^e. capitulum., and Mark xiij^e. capitulum., and Poul, first Thim. iiij^e. capitulum., and ij^e. Thym. iij^e. capitulum. Weel thanne, sithen this is the cause whi out of the briggis contynuel appeiring sithen he was en|dewid folewith not thilk endewing forto be to him yuel, bi the same or lijk skile, thouȝ the chirche bothe in the laife and in the clergie kepe his nature of contynuel appeiring aftir the tyme in which riche en|dewing was ȝeuun therto into his supporting, therof folewith not that the endewing mad to the clergie is vnprofitable to the chirche and is synful and vnleeful; no more than that the endewing ȝouun to the brigge of Londoun into the supporting of his contynuel ap|peiring is to the same brigge harmeful. The seid Fadir In vitas Patrum schulde therfore haue seid more

than he seide in the bifore rehercid wordis, if bi hise wordis he wolde haue meened that the endewing of the clergie hadde be yuel doon. For he muste haue seid thus miche: "Alwey and euer sithen the chirche wexid in possessiouns he decrecid in vertues, and thilk wexing in possessiouns was cause or occasioun of thilk decrecing in vertues; therefore this endew|ing of the chirche in possessiouns was yuel doon." And if thou bere him an hond that he meened so myche bi hise bifore rehercid wordis, thouȝ he not alle hem out spake, certis ȝit y schal proue that of al this meenyng, thus largeli born an hond to him, folewith not the seid endewing to be yuel doon and to be vnleeful. Forwhi, if he meened that the seid endewing was cause of the seid chirchis decrecing in vertues, he seide not ther yn trewe; sithen it is proued bifore in the viij^e. [vij ^e., MS.] chapiter, and schal more be proued aftir in the [A space left in the MS. for the number. See Part iv. ch. iii.] chapiter, that such endewing is not cause but occasioun oonli of moral yuel. And if this Fader meened that the seid endewing was oc|casioun oonli of the seid chirchis decrecing, ȝit therof folewith not the seid endewing to be yuel doon and to be vnleeful, as is proued bifore ful pleinli in the vij^e. chapiter of this present iij^e. partie. Forwhi than God hadde yuel do in endewing Lucifer with so greet fairnes, and in endewing men with her tungis; and so in no wise bi, fro, and out of this seid Fadris wordis, thouȝ thei weren trewe, folewith the seid riche endewing of the clergie to be vnleeful or to be yuel doon.

xj. CHAPITER.

FERTHERMORE for to trete upon this Fadris seiyng, thouȝ this what is now seid and proued, (that the

seid endewing to be oonli an occasioun of yuel, and not to be cause of yuel,) is ynouȝ forto lette of the oold Fadris seid wordis folewe the riche endewing of the clergie be yuel doon; ȝit more than this mai be sett therto into the same purpos, and in this maner; that, thouȝ a gouernance be an occasioun of yuel, it is to be considerid ferther of how miche good the same gouernaunce is occasioun and of how myche yuelis letting and forbaring the same gouernaunce is an occasioun, with this, that the same gouernaunce is an occasioun of sum yuel, thouȝ not of riȝt myche yuel. And if of al the yuel, which cometh bi the gouernaunce, the same gouernaunce is not but an oc|casioun and not cause; and therwith the same gouer|naunce is occasion of myche good, and is occasioun of letting miche yuel; and herwith it is not knowun whethir the yuel comyng bi the seid gouernaunce is more than the yuel which is lettid bi the same gouernaunce;—certis no man ouȝte thilk while iuge that thilk gouernaunce ouȝte be leid awey. But so it is in this present purpos, that thouȝ the riche endew|ing of the clergie be an occasioun of myche yuel, ȝit it is an occasioun of myche good; and it is also occasioun of aȝen putting miche synful yuel, which ellis schulde falle; and no man can iuge pleinli and sureli, that the yuel which cometh bi the seid riche endewing is gretter than is the yuel which is lettid to be bi the same endewyng; as y commytte to the discrecioun of wise men for to it ouerse and iuge. And her with it is trewe, that the seid riche endew|ing is not cause of the yuelis which comen occa|sionarili oonli bi it, as it is bifore proued in the [viij^e.] [A space left in the MS. for the number.] chapiter of this present iij^e. partie. Wherfore no wise man neither eny other man without ouer greet booldnes of presumpcioun ouȝte iuge and seie,

that the seid riche endewing ouȝte be kutt awey for the yuel of which the same endewing is occasioun.

Ȝit ferther, not withstonding al this, it mai seme bothe bi reson and bi Holi Scripture, that the yuel which is lettid bi the seid riche endewing is gretter than the yuel which is comyng out ther of and ther bi. And forto proue this first bi resoun y procede in this wise: It is miche harder forto suffre peyne of fleisch in this lijf than it is forto forgo and forbere lustis of fleisch in this lijf, as ech man may soone aspie in experience: and also bi resoun, for bi suffring of peyne bodili deeth cometh miche sooner than bi forbering of delectaciouns oonli. And if this be trewe, thanne it is more perel to a man for to bere him weel in suffring of peyne, than is forto bere him weel in forbering of delectaciouns and lustis. But so it is, that al the perel which is in hauyng of grete ricch|essis is, lest a man bere him not weel in forbering lustis; and the perel which is in lacking richessis is, lest a man bere him not weel and strongli in suffring of peyne. Wherfore nedis folewith, that more perel is to a man, [a man, MS. (first hand, a cor|rector having wrongly erased the article).] whanne he is sett in to suffring of peyn, than whanne he is sett into forbering of lustis. And thanne ferther thus: But so it is, that whanne a man is sett forto reioice grete ricchessis, he is sett forto forbere lustis strongli and manli; and whanne he [is] sette forto lacke tho ricchessis, he is sett forto suffre peynes strongli and manli. Wherfore folewith needis, that gretter perel is in lacking of ricchessis than in the hauyng of hem; and gretter perel nouȝwhere is, [is is interlineated by a later (?) hand.] saue where grettir yuel is likeli to come: wherefore gretter yuel were likeli to come in the clergie, if thei hadden lak of plenteuose ricchessis, than if thei hadden plenteuose ricchessis.

For to proue the same bi Holi Scripture y procede thus: Frowhens schule we trowe this came, that so manye pseudo or false Apostlis preching for lucre weren in the chirche in tyme of the Apostlis, as of such spekith Poul and Peter and Iohun and Iudas in her Epistilis, than fro this now to be seid? Aftir that thei weren assigned bi the veri Apostlis forto preche, thei hadden no finding assigned and lymytid to hem in propre neither in comoun; bi cause the clergie in thilk daies was not endewid with vnmouable possessiouns; neither was eny posytyue lawe mad, wherbi the prechouris myȝten cleyme eny certeinte of porcioun to be ȝouun to hem of the lay peple to whom thei prechiden; but thei eten freeli ȝouun mete and drinke of hem to whom thei freli prechiden; neither thei weren so stronge in pacience and in douȝtynes that thei wolden laboure for her lijflode and contynue her preching, whanne the peple wexe vnkinde and vndeuout forto sufficiently hem fynde in necessaries, (as Poul for lijk caus and in lijk caas wrouȝte with hise hondis forto haue his lijflode to preche:) and therfore thei weren temptid and stirid and brouȝt into consent and into deede and werk for to preche bi gileful meenis, wherbi thei myȝten the more redili receyue of the peple ȝiftis in to her eese and habun|daunt fare; and therfore thei prechiden newe thingis and vntrewe thingis forto plese the peple the more; and at the laste, (for as miche as ther fore bitwixe the Apostlis and hem wexid distaunce and contrauersie, as needis muste wexe,) tho pseudo Apostilis wrouȝten persecucioun bothe priueili and openli aȝens the trewe Apostlis, and peruertiden ofte tymes myche what the trewe Apostilis hadden weel groundid, and thei turn|eden the peple ful ofte and myche forto lothee and hate the Apostilis, and forto not bileeue to [to is interlineated by a later hand.] the verry

trewe Apostilis, as mai be had of the firste and ij^e. Epistilis of Poul to the Corynthies. And whether this yuel comyng into the chirche in this now seid maner, and that for defaute of riches, was not a greet myscheef; ȝhe, and gretter than schulde haue be likeli to falle, if alle the clergie in tho daies hadde be endewid bi vnmouable godis richeli, deme ȝe. For what [forwhat, MS.] so greet myscheef schulde bi likelihode haue come bi habundaunce of ricches in tho pseudo, as came bi her pouerte in hem, whanne thei diffameden the trewe Apostlis and peruertiden the Corinthies and the Thessalonicenses [Tessalonicenses, MS.] fro the wey in which Poul and Apollos [Appollo, MS.] hadden hem foundid and groundid? And therfore to alle freel persoones and not disposid to greet perfitnes of pacience and of douȝtines, as Poul was, the lak of sufficience is of more perel than habundance ouer and aboue sufficience.

Also forto proue this same purpos more euidentli bi Holi Scripture, y procede also thus: It is writun, Prouerb. xxx^e. capitulum. thus: Ȝeue thou not to me beggerie neither richessis; ȝeue thou oonli necessaries to my lijflode; lest perauenture y be fillid and be drawen to denye, and seie, Who is the Lord? and leste y compellid bi nedines stele, and forswere [for swere, MS.] the name of my God. Lo how Salamon is aknowe to God that bothe greet ricches and lak of sufficience ben occasiouns of yuel; and therfore for feer he desirid the meene, which is sufficience, withoute hauyng of nede and withoute hauyng of more richesse than is necessarie into sufficience, as weel for thanne as for tyme to come. Neuertheles into my present purpos he weel witnessith, that gretter perel is [is is added by a later hand.] in lak of sufficience than is in habundaunce of grete ricchessis;

sithen he openli knoulechith that the yuel, of which lak of sufficience is occasioun, is gretter yuel than is the yuel, of which habundaunce of ricches is occasion. Forwhi, as he seith, the yuel, of which the lak of sufficience is occasioun, is to stele and forsake God bi ooth and so bi avisement; and the yuel, of which habundaunce of ricches is occasioun, is forto forsake [sake, MS. (first hand).] God in a liȝtnes and in a rechelesnes. And alle men witen that the former of these ij. defautis is gretter than is the secunde. Wherfore more yuel cometh of lak of ricches than of habundaunce of ricches.

For more pleyner vndirstonding to be had upon the now bifore rehercid wordis of Salamon, Prouerb. xxx^e. capitulum., and forto wite what Salamon meened in hem, and forto therbi se how it is trewe that greeter yuel cometh bi lak of ricches than bi the hauyng of ricches, it is to vndirstonde and to holde that Salamon in the now seid text meened bi "sufficience" not oonli the hauour which fillith or remedieth al his lak and nede now had, but which is ther with so abiding that it schal not lasse; or ellis not so myche lasse, but that it schal alwey aftir [aftir is added in a later hand, which has made erasures in the text.] be able to fille and remedie al his lak and nede, which is for eny tyme likeli to falle. And that Salamon vndirstode thus bi the seid sufficience spokun in his text, it is open herbi; forwhi al hauour, that is lasse than is this now seid sufficience, is "beggeri" as for now or as for tyme to come, as schal appere and be open anoon [anoon is interlineated by a later hand.] aftir whanne it schal be declarid what beggeri is. Wherfore sithen Salamon preied that "beggerie schulde not falle to him," and ȝit that "he schulde haue sufficience," he muste needis vndirstonde bi suf|ficience such a thing which ledith not into beggerie,

but which aȝenstondith beggerie. And that is the sufficience now declarid.

Forthermore bi "beggerie" Salamon vndirstondith in the same text al lak [al-lak, MS.] of the now seid sufficience, or the lak of the now seid sufficient hauour. For|whi whanne euere eny man lackith his seid sufficient hauour, and is not in nyȝe power forto gete or haue it bi his owne wynnyng or bi eny other wey than bi asking it of othere, that it be ȝouun to him, sotheli than he is excusid forto begge; and his plite, in which he thanne is, which is not ellis than lak of sufficience into what he hath for than to do, mai and ouȝte be clepid to him beggerie.

The "ricches" of which he spekith in the same text is hauour of so miche ricches, that thouȝ it lassee and abbate, as myche as it is likeli it abate bi condicioun of the world, ȝit it schal not be so litil, but that it schal be to a man ouer and aboue the seid sufficience, [the seid sufficience is added in the margin by a later hand.] al the while that he hath to do with thilk ricches. And that he vndirstode thus bi thilk ricches, y proue thus: If he hadde vndirstonde eny ricches lasse than this now seid, sithen ech ricches lasse than this now seid wole make bi proces of tyme to his possessour state or plite of sufficience, it wolde folewe that Salamon in the seid text, whanne he preied that ricches schulde not be ȝouun to him, he preied ther yn that sufficience schulde not be ȝouun to him. Wherfore he meened bi ricchesse as it is now expowned.

And so folewith herof, that vndir the meenyng of Salamon in his now rehercid preier to God it is includid that he wolde this: If eny couent or comounte or eny oon persoon schulde be endewid into such sufficience

that he schulde not falle into beggerie, he muste be endewid with lijflode which schal neuere appeire; and therwith hise costis muste be suche, that thei schulen neuere encrece; or ellis, for as miche as these ij. now rehercid pointis mowe not be had abiding in eeny co|mounte or persoon, therfore in the seid preier of Sala|mon muste needis be includid this,—that ech couent or comounte or persoon to be endewid in to his suf|ficience muste needis be endewid with so miche good that, (thouȝ it appeire as myche as it is to appeire bi his natural condicion and bi the [the is interlineated, perhaps by a later hand.] rennyng condi|cioun of the world,) ȝit it schal neuere so miche abate, but that al the nede of thilk same couent, [couet, MS., the stroke over the o being apparently by the same hand.] comounte, or persoon schal ther bi be releeued and remedied: and ellis thilk couent, comounte, or persoon is not foundid and endewid into his sufficience, as Salamon takith here sufficience. Forwhi he is not foundid and endewid fro this, that he is out of the fal into beggerie bi proces of tyme. And so herbi founders of collegis and of couentis and of persoones and of statis mowen [mowe, MS. (first hand).] take [take is added by a later hand.] good remembraunce, if thei founde eny such, that thei founde and endewe miche aboue the sufficience which is into the reme|diyng of nede had in the dai of fundacioun: and ellis, certis, bi proces of tyme her werk, otherwise than so foundid and endewid, schal come into beg|gerie, which y woot weel thei wolen not desire but avoide, what thei mowe.

For sureli to seie y haue take heede, and in al my daies and long bifore y wiste neuere ȝit college or cumpanie endewid, (thouȝ thei weren endewid ouer and more than the nede of hem askid in the dai of

her fundacioun,) but that aftirward her endewing so myche schranke and her costis so miche grewe more than couthe be bifore seen, that it was aftirward ouer litle to supporte her necessaries. And therfore foun|ders and endewers of eny persoones or comountees, if thei endewiden so richeli, that it was more than bi streit mesure was to her nede ynouȝ in the dai of her fundacioun, thei weren [were, MS. (first hand) twice.] not ther yn to be blamed; but thei weren [were, MS. (first hand) twice.] ther yn to be preisid, bi cause that thilk lijflode wolde continueli schrinke, and the costis wolde contynueli growe and encrece. Forwhi if a fadir for loue to his sone wolde ordeine to him a peire of schoon, and the lethir wher of the schoon schulde [sculde, MS.] be maad were of such kinde that it wolde daili schrinke whilis it were vsid in weryng, certis this fadir were not to be blamed, if he wolde ordeyne that these schoon be notabli widdir than the meetenes of hem wolde aske, as for the firste dai in which thei schulden be [be is interlineated by a later hand.] worne, but he were to be preisid, if he wolde so ordeyne to his loued sone; ȝhe, the fadir were worthi be blamed, if he wolde ordeyne these schoon to be no wijdir than euen meete to hise sones feet in the dai of his [her, MS. (first hand) apparently, which is perhaps better.] firste wering. Forwhi therof wolde needis folowe that with inne proces of daies the schoon schulden be so narowe, that thei schulden needis wringe his sones feet into greet peyne of his sone. And therfore bi lijk skile the endewers of reli|gioses hauing possessioun and of cathedral chirchis and of collegis weren not to be blamed in that, that thei so richeli endewid her foundid cumpenies aboue the [the is interlineated by a later hand (twice).] streit or euen meet of the nede had in the dai of fundacioun, but thei weren ther yn to be preisid, if thei so diden, for the [the is interlineated by a later hand (twice).] cause now seid; thouȝ the

persoones so foundid ben miche to be blamed, but [Perhaps we should read but if.] thei in the meene tyme wijsly and weel kepe thilk ricchessis and wijsly and weel hem expende, as suffi|cient resoun wole deme.

But of al this, (thouȝ founderis and endeweris of couentis, of collegis, of statis, and of persoones in state ouȝten for to in this maner endewe, whilis thei en|tenden forto warde and wilne that her werk come not into beggerie; and thouȝ Salamon preied to God that he schulde not haue lasse than the seid suffi|cience declarid now bifore to be of his meenyng, and that he schulde not falle into the [the is interlineated by a later hand.] beggerie also now bifore declarid to be of his meenyng,) schal it be seid therfore of this to folewe, that it is a perfiter lijf forto lyue in such a now seid sufficience or in the seid richessis, than forto lyue in the seid beggerie? Nai certis, this folewith not. For thouȝ Salamon so preied for more suerte to his freelnes, and for that he was not so perfit that he couthe bere beggerie at ful [the ful, MS. (first hand).] withoute sclaundre, bi cause, as Scripture witnessith weel, he was a ful freel man; and ther|fore he hadde more nede forto seke aftir the surer to him weies, than aftir the hardir and the bateil|fuller weies and therfore the perfiter to him weies; and thouȝ founders and endeweris of collegis and of couentis and of persoones in state founden and endewen into more suerte, bi cause that in multitude of persoones fewe schulden be founde disposid to hiȝe perfitnes, (in reward of hem whiche schulen be dis|posid to meenes [Probably we should read meener.] and louȝer degre of lyuyng than is perfitnes:)—ther of folewith not, that ech other maner of lyuyng, dyuers fro this which Salamon askid, and dyuers fro this whiche the seid endewers entenden in her seid fundacioun and endewing, is not so holi and

so perfit as these ben; neither it is to be seid that Holi Writt approueth the seid sufficience to be of more holynes than the seid beggerie or the seid riche endewing, bi cause that Holi Writt makith mensioun that Salamon chase and askid rathir the seid suf|ficience than the seid beggerie or the seid ricchessis. For of this, that Holi Writt makith this now seid mensioun, folewith no more, but that Holi Writt groundith this [this is interlineated by a later (?) hand.] or witnessith this;—that Salamon chaas the seid sufficience bifore the seid beggerie and bifore the seid ricchessis. But the argument is nauȝt, "Holi Writt seith that Salamon chaas this bifore that; therfore Holi Writt seith that this is bettir than that;" but if therwith this were knowen for trewe, that Salamon chas this afore that, bi cause that this was bettir and perfiter than that, and that he weel knewe this to be better than that. But this Holi Writt seith not, and also this is not trewe, as may be proued: and therfore it is to be seid, as is now bifore seid, that Salamon,—as a freel [man], and as he which ofte and miche synned, and as he which knewe [miche knewe, MS. (first hand).] his vnperfitnes, and was feerd forto aske and assaie and take upon him the hardir, hiȝer, and per|fiter wey,—askid mekeli and discreetli the imperfiter [ī pfit̛, MS. Very likely the scribe, (who often disjoins prepo|sitions in composition from their nouns and verbs,) intended the text to be in perfiter.] wey, as it which was to him surer and meeter than was the perfiter wey. And more than this can not bi the rehercid text of Salamon be had bi maistrie, if eny man be aboute forto seie ther aȝens nay, in the maner now mynistrid.

Neuertheles alwey thoruȝ al what is seid euer this apperith to be trewe, that forto be endewid in to a sufficience aȝens beggerie, which ellis now schulde be, and aȝens beggerie, which ellis in tyme com|yng

schulde come and be, is not vnleeful and synful; but it is according with doom of resoun, and is ther|fore leeful: ȝhe, and to [into, MS. (first hand).] men being not disposid to grettist perfitnes, and of which it is not like to be turned into such disposicioun, it is discreetist and best.

xij. CHAPITER.

To the iiij^e. semyng skile, which groundith him silf vpon a storie of a voice herd in the eir seiyng thus, In this dai venom is hild out into the chirche, it is to be seid, that thilk ground is not sure trouthe, nei|ther he is likeli to be trewe: and ther fore neither eny sure trouthe [neither eny sure trouthe is added in the margin by a later hand.] neither eny likeli to be trowid trouthe may be proued or knowun or trowid therbi. And so cesith al the strengthe of this iiij^e. semyng skile.

That thilk storie, which the iiij^e. semyng skile takith for his ground and fundament, is not worthi to be trowid, y proue bi iiij. resouns; of whiche the firste is this: If no storier or cronycler hadde writun of thilk voice to be spokun in the eir, noman now ouȝte bileeue [to beleeue, MS. (first hand).] or trowe that thilk voice was so spokun: so that al wherbi we ouȝte trowe [to trowe, MS. (first hand).] eny thing of thilk voice is this, for that so or so or so (and in noon other wise) it is writun in storie or cronicle of thilk voice spokun. [writun, MS. We must either make this correction, or cancel the first or second writun.] But so it is, that in noon storier or cronicler it is writun that eny good aungel seide thilk voice in the eir; but in ech storie or cronicle speking therof it is seid and writun that the feend spake thilk voice. Forwhi noon fundamen|tal

cronicler or storier writith therof, saue Girald in his book clepid Cosmographia Hiberniæ; and othere storiers and croniclers aftir him taking oonli of him. And he seith that "the oold enemy made thilk voice in the eir." [There is an edited work of Gi|raldus Cambrensis, entitled Topo|graphia Hiberniæ, in which this passage does not occur: there is, however, another treatise of his extant in MS., called Descriptio Mundi, in which it may possibly be found. See Cave's Hist. Lit. s. v. It will be observed that Sprott's account, quoted above, agrees with that of Giraldus, from whom it is no doubt copied.] Wherfore ech man, which wole trowe that thilk voice was seid in the eir, ouȝte answeringli trowe that thilk voice was spokun bi the feend, and not by a [an, MS. (accidentally?).] good aungel. And if this be trewe, whi and wherto schulden we bileeue his seiyng to be trewe; sithen he is oure enemy and oure bigiler, as Scripture witnessith, i^e. Pet. v^e. capitulum.; and sithen he is a lier and the fader of lesing, as Crist him silf wit|nessith, Iohun viij^e. capitulum.?

The ij^e. resoun into the same purpos is this: If it were seid or witnessid of me that y seid certein wordis in a certeyn place, or that y seide hem after that y hadde do a certeyn deede; if it kouthe be knowe sureli or bi sufficient likelihode that y neuere was in thilk place, or that y neuere dide thilk deede, thilk witnessing so mad upon me were not to be bileeued, neither were worthi to be trowid trewe. Wherfore, bi lijk skile, sithen it is so that ech fundamental storie speking of this seid voice seith and storieth, that it was mad in the eir, aftir that the first Con|stantyn Emperour was baptisid at Rome of Siluester Pope, and aftir that he hadde endewid the Pope Sil|uester and the chirche of Rome, as it is open in the now bifore fundamental cronicle or storie of Girald, (and no man storieth therof saue he, and thei that sithen hise daies taken the same of him,) it folewith

that if it can be sureli or in sufficient likelihode proued, that the seid first Constantyn Emperour was neuere baptised of Siluester Pope neither at Rome, al the storiyng, cronicling, and witnessing of thilk same seid voice is not to be trowid for trewe. And thanne ferther forto proue that the seid firste Constantyn Emperour was not baptisid of Pope Siluester neither in Rome, y procede thus: Noman except Constantyn him silf schulde wite better whanne and where Con|stantyn was baptisid, than he which was lyuyng and conuersaunt with the same Constantyn, and was as priuey with Constantyn in the counceilis of his herte and of his conscience, as a confessour is now priuey with a prince to which he is confessour; as mai be take bi the storie clepid The thre departid storie in the firste book the iiij^e. chapiter, and in the ij^e. book the xiij^e. chapiter and the xvj^e. chapiter. But so it is, that this ful famose and worthi clerk and bischop Eusebi Cesarience, (ful miche preisid and bileeued of Seint Ierom, [The various testimonies in his favour from St. Jerome may be seen in Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vol. 1. pp. lv.-lviii. (Burton's Ed.) The passages from the Historia tripartita of Cassiodorus, to which Pecock here refers, are not much to the purpose.] and of whos worthines greet testimonie is had in the ij^e. book of The thre departid storie in the viij^e. chapiter and in the x^e. and xj^e. chapitris, bisidis the othere now bifore alleggid chapitris into the same purpos, and which wroot the moost famose and moost credible storie had among Cristen men next to the storie of the Bible, clepid The Chirchis storie, and which wroot the moost credible Cronicle of alle othere had among Cristen men, to which Ierom couplid the Cronicle which he wroot,) was moost homeli of alle othere with the seid Constantyn, and was so priuey and so homeli with the seid greet Emperour Constantyn, that bi the same Eusebi came out into

knowing of alle othere men the appering which was mad to Constantyn of the crosse in the eir, and which appering Constantyn toold in greet secreetnes to the same Eusebi and to no mo, as it is open bi the iiij^e. chapiter in the firste book of The iij. departid storie. And this Eusebi, (so credible and, as a princi|pal fadir in tho daies of the chirche, as moost and best knowing the lijf, conuersacioun, and holines of the same Constantyn,) took up on him for to write and storie the hool lijf and the deeth of the same Constantyn: and herwith he witnessith in the same Book of Constantynys lijf, [Euseb. de Vit. Constant. lib. iv. c. 62, 63.] that the seid Constantyn was baptisid first in the laste daies of his lijf in Greek cuntre in the citee clepid Nichomedia and of the bischop clepid [Eusebi]. [A space left for the name in the MS. Eusebius does not give it, but only says, (c. 61), when "…, (the bishops present) …:" after which (c. 63) he received baptism. Cave (Hist. Lit. s. v. Constantinus) observes: "Obiit . . . impetrato prius ab adstantibus episcopis bap|tismo, manu ut videtur Eusebii Nicomediensis, utpote loci illius episcopi; licet id nec Eusebius, nec Socrates, Sozomenus, vel The|odoritus referant." Several late writers, however, affirm it. See Brown. Fasc. Rer. pp. 158, 161. Marian. Scot. Chron. A.D. 336.] And this was doon aftir that Siluester was deed; for in the daies of Iulie Pope successour to Siluester, (as may liȝtli be had in cronicles,) that Siluester died, bifore that Constantyn died.

Wherfore this now seid thing which Eusebi so storieth in The book of Constantynys lijf is more to be bileeued or trowid than what into the contrarie is founde in eny legende of Siluester, (which noman can telle who wroot it, neither whens it came, or whidir it wole,) or than the storie of Damasus Pope writun to Ierom of deedis of Popis, or than eny storier or cronicler taking of the seid legend of Siluester or

taking of the seid Damesis storiyng writun by [in, MS. (first hand).] Da|masus long sithen Constantyn died, or than the long epistle which is pretendid to be the epistle of Con|stantyn and is sett in the book clepid The decrees of Hiȝest Bischopis, of which now seid long epistle a greet porcioun Graciaun puttith in his Summe, Dist. xcvj^e., chapiter [xiv^e.] Constantinus: namelich sithen in legendis ben founde manie ful vntrewe fablis, as in a book therof to be mad schal appeere, and sithen aȝens the seid epistle putt to Constantyn special sus|picioun mai be had; for in othere epistlis of Constan|tyn, which he wroot whanne he was in his moost rialte, is not such a stile of him as is in this now seid epistle, (as ech man may se which wole biholde in the i^e. and ij^e. bookis of The iij. departid storie;) and sithen in the seid storie of Damase Pope is founde vntrouthe, which Ierom weel aspied, and fro which [the which, MS. (first hand).] Ierom gooth, and whos contrarie Ierom affer|meth in his writing in his book De viris illustribus, [Hieron. de Vir. ill. c. 15. (Op. tom. ii. p. 839. Ed. Vallars.) Pseudo|Damasus says of Clement that he wrote two epistles "quæ canonicæ nominantur;" Jerome, on the con|trary, says, "secunda epistola . . . a veteribus reprobatur." (See Coleti, Concil. tom 1. pp. 75, 119.) This appears to be the discrepancy to which Pecock alludes.] capitulum. Clemens, [After Clemens, the MS. has "and also in lijk maner of the same mater in his Cronicle which he made to be ioyned to the Cronicle of Eusebie:" but a corrector has written vacat against the lines.] not withstonding that to Ierom was write and seid the same Damasis storiyng. [The Acta Silvestri, in part per|haps the work of Isidorus Mercator, about 820 A.D. (see Coleti, Concil. tom. 1. p. 1573); the Liber pon|tificalis or Gesta pontificalia of Damasus, and his Epistle to Jerome, a medley of old things and new, (see Cave, Hist. Lit. s.v. Damasus); the Edictum Constantini, printed with notes in Coleti, Concil. tom. 1. pp. 1564-1576, and forming a part of the Acta Silvestri, and quoted by many authors from Isidore down|wards (see Coleti, l.c. p. 1573), are now known to be spurious. The Vita Silvestri by Pseudo-Damasus is printed with notes in Coleti, Concil. tom. 1. pp. 1431-1444. The remark of Binius, "Hoc edictum de Constantini donatione ex actis Silvestri Papæ, sub Eusebii Cæsare|ensis nomine falso Græce scriptis, primum edidit Theodorus Balsa|mon," about 1180 A.D., is true only as respects its Greek translation.]

Also into the same purpos thus: Ambrose and Ierom helden so trewe it what Eusebi seid in the now rehercid maner of Constantyns baptising, that thei bileeueden it and witnessen it; [Ambros. de Ob. Theodos. Or. c. 40. (Op. tom. ii. p. 1209, Ed. Benedict). Hieron. ap. Vincent. Bell. Hist. lib. xxiv. in fine. See Brown. Fasc. Rer. p. 158. The index to St. Jerome's works does not indicate the passage.] not withstonding Pope Damasis wroot the contrarie to Ierom: But so thei wolden not haue trowid and witnessid in her writing aȝens the legend of Siluester and aȝens the storiyng of Damase Pope, [See Coleti, Concil. tom, i. pp. 1431, 1567.] but if thei hadden had sufficient euydence for to cleue in thilk mater to Eusebi and not to Damase, neither to the legend of Siluester. Wherfore the storiyng of Eusebi in this mater of Con|stantynys baptising is to be trowid bifore al other storie affermyng the contrarie.

Also thus: Theodoritus, [Theodoricus, MS., and Thedori|cus below.] Socrates, and Sozomenus weren the moost famose storiers in the daies of Theo|dosie the ij^e. Emperour; of which iij. so famose storiers a worthi lettrid man and senatour of Rome clepid Cas|siodor lete make and compile the ful famose and cre|dible storie clepid The iij. departid storie, moost cre|dible next to the storie of Eusebie clepid The chirchis storie, and was mad and compilid for thilk entent that it schulde be contynued in progresse and in processe to The chirchis storie: and ij. of these iij. seid storiers (that is to seie, Sozomenus and Theodoritus) witnessen accordingli with Eusebi Cesarience that the seid Con|stantyn was baptisid oonli in hise laste daies litle bifore his deeth, whanne he wiste he schulde die, in the xxxj^e. ȝeer of his empire, and euen so long aftir he was conuertid into Cristen feith and Cristen holi

lyuyng, and in the same place which Eusebi spekith of. [Hist. Trip. lib. iii. c. 12.] Wherfore, if the reule of Crist in the Gospel be good and to be kept, which he techith there to be kept, that "in the mouth of ij. or thre schal ech word of witnessing stonde," [See Matth. xviii. 16.] it folewith that this parti is miche more credible than is the contrarie partie; ȝhe, and that the contrarie parti is an apocrif. And so fynali it is proued that the storie affermyng the seid voice to be mad in the eir seijng, This dai venom is hilde into the chirche, is not credible.

The iij^e. resoun is this: The storiyng which the seid Girald makith of this voice is this in wordis, It is rad that the oold enemy pronouncid openli in the eir thus, This dai venom is hildid into the chirche. Wherfore folewith that if it be not writun in eny storie bifore the seid storiyng of Girald, that the oold enemy made such a voice thanne in the eir, al the storiyng which Girald makith of the same voice is not to be bileeued. But so it is, that noon eldir storie or cronicle can be founde writun bifore the seid stori|yng of Girald, in which eeldir storie is mensioun mad of thilk voice. Wherfore this that Girald writith of this voice is ful sengil to be bileued.

Confirmacioun to this resoun is this: Sithen the storiyng which Girald makith of this voice is this, It is rad that such voice was in the eir, et cætera, Girald ȝildith him silf in so storiyng that he is not the fundamental storier ther of, but that ther of is an other storie bifore him, fro which he takith his storiyng of the same voice: wherfore [The sense seems to require ther|fore.] if noon other storie be founde eeldir than the storie of Girald, in which eeldir storie mensioun is maad of this same voice, (as in trouthe no such storie or writing can as

ȝit be founde,) it folewith that at the leest vnto thilk eeldir storiyng be founde, the storiyng of Girald in mater of this voice is not to be bileeued; but it is to be bileeued that Girald was bigilid, (as manie othere writers bi liȝtnes and vnavisidnes han be,) that whilis and whanne thei herden in fame [a fame, MS. (first hand).] that a thing or a deede was doon, thei trowiden that ther of was sum writing and storiyng: and thei maden hem silf ouer bold in thilk trowing forto write in her writingis, that of thilk deede it is writun and storied; not withstonding that no storiyng or writing is had ther upon. And so finali, forto conclude, it is proued that the iiij^e. semyng skile lackith al strengthe forto proue his entent.

xiij. CHAPITER.

THE iiij^e. resoun is this: If suche as is bifore seid a voice was spokun in the eir, whanne Constantyn had maad at Rome the endewing which he made, thilk voice was so maad and spoken in the eir for this, that thanne first endewing by immovable pos|sessiouns entride into the chirche; or ellis for this, that thanne first greet habundaunt endewing bi im|movable possessiouns entride into the chirche.

Thou maist not seie that for the firste of these twei causis: For whi in the daies of First Vrban Pope, goostli fadir and techer of Seint Cecilie Virgyn, which was mad pope bi an hundrid ȝeeris bifore the popehode of Siluestre and the regnyng of Con|stantyn Empereour, the chirche of Rome was endewid with immovable possessiouns, as croniclis openli wit|nessen, and as it is open bi the writing of the same Vrban in the greet book clepid The decrees of Hiȝest

Bischopis in the firste and ij^e. chapitris of his decree; [See Coleti, Concil. tom. l. pp. 636, 637. This Epistle is spurious, being one of the forgeries of Isidorus Mercator. The Chronicles, such as that of Martinus Polonus (Supp. A.D. 226), who says, "Hujus tem|pore cœpit primum Romana ecclesia prædia possidere," are probably de|rived from it.] and also by manye mo ȝeeris bifore the daies of Pope Siluester and of Constantyn Emperour in the daies of Pope Eleutheri and of Luci, king of Britouns, the hool al chirche of Englond was endewid with temporal immovable possessiouns large and greete, forwhi with the same large and grete possessiouns with whiche bifore the hethen bischopis and hethen chirchis in Ynglond weren endewid, as stories wit|nessen [Geoffrey of Monmouth (De Gest. Brit. lib. v. c. l.) seems to be the original authority for this state|ment. How far it is "worthy and credible" the reader may judge from Fuller's Ch. Hist. of Brit. book l. cent. ii., and Collier's Eccl. Hist. of Brit. book l. cent. ii.] ; as of these bothe endewingis oold stories and cronicles [croniclees, MS. (first hand).] (being famose and worthi and credible and not being apocrifis) maken mension. And ther|fore not for the firste now bifore seid cause thilk voice was maad and spokun in the eir.

Thou maist not seie that for the ij^e. cause now bifore seid thilk voice was maad in the eir: Forwhi, as anoon her aftir it schal be proued, the seid Em|perour Constantyn endewid not the [not pope, MS. (first hand).] Pope Siluester neither eny chirche in Rome with eny greet ha|bundaunt immouable possessiouns, but oonli with possessiouns competentli and mesurabily, with suf|ficience seruying for the fynding of the preestis and mynystris of the chirchis whiche he endewid; except oon chirche clepid [clepid is added in the margin by a later hand.] Constantynyana, into which chirche he ȝaf a certein of possessioun for fynding of liȝtis and for fynding of bawme into brennyng of laumpis, ouer the competent vnmouable endewing

which he made into the same chirche for fynding of the preestis and mynystris seruying in the same chirche; [See Coleti, Concil. tom. l. p. 1433.] but al the habundaunt and riche endewing of the pope and his see chirche in Rome, came bi othere persoones longe aftir Constantyn, as by Pipyn king of France, and by Charles king of Fraunce and emperour, and bi Lodowic king of Fraunce and em|perour, and bi Matilde a greet ladi which ȝaf the greet and riche and rial marchionat of Anchon to the pope to gidere at oonis, and bicame ther bi to be the douȝtir of Seint Peter, as in cronicles and stories it is open forto se, [See Mart. Polon. Chron. (inter alios) for all the principal facts here mentioned in their proper places. The authorities, giving an account of Matilda's life and acts, are fully set down by Mosheim, Eccl. Hist. pt. II. c. II. § 11. (vol. 2. pp. 339, 340. Lond. 1841.)] and sumwhat therof is sett in the Summe of Gracian, Dist. lxiij^e., chapiter [xxx^e.] Ego Lodowicus; and in like maner diden manie othere persoones mo than of whom it is writun. Wherfore the seid voice was not maad in the eir for the ij^e. now bifore sett cause. And so fynali folewith that for no cause thilk voice was maad, and therefore no such voice at al was in the eir than mad, thouȝ bi sum corrupcioun of leesing the fame of thilk voice hath long tyme be had and contynued.

That this is trewe what is now bifore seid, that the First Constantyn Emperour endewid not Pope Siluester neither eny oon chirche in Rome with eny greetly habundant and riche vnmouable possessiouns, y mai proue bi manie euydencis; of whiche oon is this: If the seid Constantyn had mad such greet habundaunt riche endewing to Siluester and to the chirche in which Siluester sate, Damasus Pope had mad mensioun of thilk same endewing in the storie which he writith to Ierom, and that for dyuerse

skilis now anoon aftir to be rehercid; but not with|stonding this the seid Damasus makith no mensioun of the seid greet endewing born an hond to Con|stantin, that he schulde it make to Siluester Pope. Wherfore treuthe is, that thilk greet endewing so born an hond was not maad.

The skilis ben these: Damasus was preied of Ierom, that Damasus schulde write to Ierom as miche as Damasus couthe fynde in Rome what was doon fro Petir into the dai of Damasus Pope; as the epistle of Ierom sent to Damasus and the epistle of Damasus to Ierom beren witnes. And Damasus writith aȝen to Ierom the now seid storie, and seith that al what he couthe and myȝte wite, encerche, fynde, and knowe what was doon fro Seint Petris daies into hise owne daies thanne lyuyng he hadde write in the now seid storie, which he sende to Ierom. Wherfore sithen it is not likeli that such a notable deede of endewing, if it hadde be doon bi Constantyn, schulde haue be vnknowe to Damasus succeding to Siluester withinne an hundrid of ȝeeris, more than othere smale endew|ingis doon bi Constantyn to diuerse chirchis of which Damasus makith mensioun alredi, it folewith that if thilk greet endewing of the Pope hadde be doon bi Constantyn, Damasus wolde haue write of it, as weel as of othere smaler and lasse endewingis mad to [to the, MS. (first hand).] chirchis in Rome bi Constantyn.

An other skile is: If thilk greet endewing hadde be mad to Siluester, Damasus schulde haue be in posses|sioun of the same endewing in the same tyme in which he wroot to Ierom; and of no thing Damasus myȝte bettir knowe than of the same thing which he helde in possessioun. Wherfore more sureli than of eny other thing, which Damasus wroot to Ierom in

the seid story, he wolde haue write of thilk greet; endewing, if eny such greet endewing hadde thanne be: and sithen Damasus not so wroot, it folewith that noon such greet endewing was bi Constantyn doon.

The iij^e. principal euydence is this: If eny such now seid endewing was mad bi Constantyn, sum mensioun schulde haue be mad therof in sum funda|mental and credible stori or cronicle. But so it is, that of thilk endewing no stori or cronicle makith mensioun, saue the legende or storie of Siluestris gestis and the oon bifore seid epistle putt and ascryued vn|likeli to Constantyn, and tho stories and cronicles which taken of it and folewen it; and neither thilk storiyng of Siluestris gestis neither the seid epistle is not credible neithir worthi be allowid, as it is schewid bifore in the next chapiter, and as schal better be cleer aftir in this present chapiter. Wherfore it is not to be takun and to be trowid as a trouthe, that Constantyn made eny such seid so [so is interlineated in a later hand.] greet endewing.

The iiij^e. principal euidence is this: The worthi and famose and credible stori clepid Thre departid storie (mad of thre moost famose and credible storiers in Greek lond in the daies of Theodosie not long after Constantyn) makith mensioun in the laste chapiter of the iij^e. book, and in the iiij^e. chapiter and vj^e. [The last reference is wrong; perhaps c. 35 is the place intended.] chapiter of the iiij^e. book, and bi manye othere chapitris in the hool book, that the greet Constantyn in hise laste daies, whanne he trowid be nyȝe his deeth, made his testament and departid his hool empire into thre par|ties, and tho thre parties he biquathe to hise thre sones, Constantinus, Constancius, and Constans; and in special he assigned and biquathe the lordschip of the west parti, which was Rome, with al the cuntrey

aboute out of Greek lond, to his eeldist sone Constan|tyn, which sone reioiced the same parti so to hem deuysid and that thoruȝ al his lijf, and his brother Constans next aftir him reioiced the same west parti of the hool empire, (not withstonding that Constans was ȝonger than Constancius,) and his brother Con|stancius after the deeth of hem bothe al the hool empire of Eest and West. But this schulde not haue be trewe, if the first grete Constantyn had maad the seid greet habundaunt upon him born an hond endew|ing. Forwhi thanne the sones of the same Constantyn myȝten not haue regned vpon Romayns and upon peple of al the cuntre ligging west fro Greek cuntre. Wherfore thilk seid greet endewing born upon the First Constantyn was neuere doon: and therfore the seid epistle ascriued to Costantyn, [So the MS., perhaps by a clerical error, but?] and also the storie of Siluestris gestis ben not but vntrewe apocrifis.

The v^e. principal euydence is this: After the deeth of Siluester Pope bi ccl. ȝeer, Boneface the iiij^e. and Pope of Rome, willing forto halewe the hous in Rome clepid Panteon, and forto make it [it is interlineated by a later hand.] a temple of alle martris, askide of Focas, being emperour bothe of the Eest and of the West, (that is to seie, of Greke lond and of the cuntrey ligging in west fro Greek lond,) leue forto so do; and he askid of Focas, that Focas schulde ȝeue to him thilk hous Panteon, that he myȝte ther of make a temple of alle martris, which was bifore a temple of alle ydolis. [Bed. Eccl. Hist. lib. ii. c. 4.] But so it is, that this licence and this ȝifte the Pope Boneface wolde not haue askid of the Emperour Focas, namelich into so holi a purpos to be therbi sped, if Bonefas hadde be [be is added by later hand.] ful lord of al Rome and of alle cuntrees ligging aboute bi ȝifte of the Firste Constantyn, and if Focas

hadde not be lord therof. Wherfore the seid large endewing born upon Constantyn to be mad to Sil|uester Pope was neuere doon. An so eftsoone it is open that the seid epistle ascryued to Constantyn and the storie of Siluestris gestis ben not but vntrewe apocrifes.

The vj^e. principal evidence is this: In alle the daies fro the deeth of the Firste Constantyn in to the daies of the Firste Charlis (being king of Fraunce and em|perour of Rome to gidere bi v. C. ȝeer aftir the deeth of Siluester) regniden in successioun euermore oon em|perour after an other pesibili to gidere and at oonys upon the eest cuntrey of Greek lond, and upon the west cuntre of Rome, and bi west Rome, as is open ynouȝ in cronicles; and how and whi fro thens [frothens, MS., and similarly below, p. 366.] weren ij. emperouris oon in the West vpon Germanie and an other upon the Eest in Greek lond the cro|nicles declaren pleinli. In whiche daies, as it is miche likeli, came yn the lordschip which popis han had vpon Rome and the cuntrees aboute ligging, and that bi graunt of the First Charles, maad bi the pope emperour of Germanie, and bi graunt of Lodowic em|perour aftir the same Charles. But this myȝte not haue be trewe, if the seid greet endewing born upon Constantyn hadde be doon. Wherfore truthe is that it was neuere doon.

Neuertheles aȝens thilk endewing which the seid Damasus Pope spekith in his storie writun to Ierom, and which endewing Damasus berith upon the First Constantyn to be mad to chirchis in Rome and to mynystrie in hem, y wole not replie, neither argue, neither holde and trowe, bi cause that forto ther aȝens holde y haue noon euydence: but certis thilk endewing maad bi Constantyn in vnmouable godis to dyuerse chirchis in Rome, of which endewing so spekith

Damasus, was not but litle and mesurable ynouȝ to tho chirchis and the mynystris, and was fer dyuers and othir and myche lasse than the greet endewing which in comoun fame is born upon the Firste Con|stantyn, and of which spekith the storie of Siluestris gestis and the epistle of which it is bifore spokun in the next chapiter; of which epistle Gracian takith a large porcioun in his Summe, Dist. xcvj., chapiter [xiv^e.] Constantinus. And therfore thilk storie of Siluestris gestis and the seid epistle ben needis vntrewe apocrifis.

The vij^e. principal evidence in to the same purpos is this: Bi manye hundrid ȝeeris after the deeth of Pope Siluester the eleccioun of the pope mad at Rome was sende into Greke lond, where the emperour was oftir [aftir, MS.] and lenger to gidere than at Rome, forto be confermed or admittid of the emperour; as can be proued bi sufficient credible cronicles and stories, and in special forto seie in the cronicle of Martyn, where he spekith of Pope Vitilian. ["Hic (Vitalianus) nuncios suos direxit ad imperatorem juxta con|suetudinem significans de sua ordi|natione. Qui nuncii postquam reverenter fuissent recepti, reno|vatis Romanæ ecclesiæ privilegiis, redierunt." Mart. Polon. Chron. A.D. 657.] This y seie not for this, that it so doon was weel doon; but herfore y seie it, that it hadde not be so doon, if the emperour of Greek lond hadde not be thanne in tho daies as ful lord and emperour of Rome and of alle cuntrees lig|ging ther aboute, but the pope had be ful al lord of Rome and of alle the cuntrees ligging aboute, as the seid born an hond endewing pretendith, and as the storie of Siluestris gestis witnessith. Wherfore folewith that no such large endewing was maad bi Constantyn, and folewith that the seid stori of Siluestris gestis and the seid epistle ben vntrewe apocrifis

If eny man wole be aboute forto defende the seid legend or writing of Siluestris gestis bi it what therof Pope Gelasie writith in his epistle, of which epistle a greet part Gracian rehercith in his Summe, Dist. xv^e., chapiter [iii^e.] Sancta Romana, y seie to him aȝenward thus: Loke thou bettir upon the processe of Gelasie in the now alleggid place, and thou schalt fynde that he neither approueth, neither reproueth, neither conferm|eth, neither infermeth [A later hand needlessly alters into infirmeth.] the seid writingis of Siluestris gestis, but he makith mensioun of hem, and seith how men doon aboute hem; and thanne leeueth hem, as he fonde hem withoute eny deede of auctorite bisett upon hem. ["Item actus B. Silvestri Apos|tolicæ sedis Præsulis, licet ejus qui conscripsit nomen ignoremus a multis tamen in urbe Roma Ca|tholicis legi cognovimus et pro an|tiquo usu multæ hoc imitantur ec|clesiæ." Decret. Gelas. ap. Grat. Decret. l. c. But this production itself, first quoted in the ninth cen|tury, is a forgery, from the anvil of Isidore, as it appears. See Cave Hist. Lit. s. v. Gelasius.] And therfore he dooth no thing there aȝens me.

The viij^e. principal euydence into the same purpos is this: In the seid epistle putt to grete Constantyn it is conteyned, that anoon withinne iiij. daies after that Constantyn was baptisid of Siluester Pope, Con|stantyn schulde seie that he wolde translate his em|pire fro the empire of Seint Petris successour, and Constantyn seide that therfore he wolde go into the Greek cuntre, and wolde bilde a newe citee for his empire at Bizancium in Greke lond; [See Coleti, Concil. tom. i. p. 1572.] but this is vn|trewe. For her aȝens witnessith and writith The thre departid storie in the ij^e. book the xviij^e. chapiter, where is plein storie aȝens this. For Constantyn pur|posid forto haue bildid his citee in an othir place ["Veniens ad campum ante Ilium positum juxta Hellespontum super Ajacis tumulum . . . . . civitatem designavit, portasque fecit quæ hac|tenus videntur à navigantibus. Hæc agente per noctem Deus apparuit," &c. Hist. Trip. lib. ii. c. 18.]

thanne at Bizans, and he biganne in so ferforth that touris weren there seen bi many ȝeeris aftir: but bi warnyng in his sleep he turned his purpos and bi|ganne of the newe his citee at Bizant, which newe citee he clepid sumwhat aftir his own name Con|stantynopil, and wolde that it schulde be as a newe Rome. And herfore the seid epistle is an vntrewe apocrife, namelich sithen historiers, dwelling in thilk same cuntre and soone after the deede doon, kouthen knowe better the treuthe of the deede than othere men dwelling ferther fro thens in rombe.

Thus miche is ynouȝ (as here) for answere to the iiij^e. semyng skile, sett bifore in the viij^e. chapiter of this present iij^e. partie. What is seid ouer schortli here for answere to the seid iiij^e. semyng skile mai be seen in more lengthe to be trewe, if the reder of this wole encerche famose stories and cronicles diligentli. [This paragraph follows the end of the next but one preceding (after the words aȝens me) in the MS. Pecock, no doubt, wrote his eighth argument after he had finished the chapter, and forgot to make the necessary transposition.]

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.

xv. CHAPITER.

THE iiij^e. principal conclusioun of this present iij^e. partie is this: Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament allowith [allowith and approueth, MS. (first hand).] the iij^e. ofte seid principal gouernaunce, that is to seie, preestis forto haue vnmouable posses|siouns

and that in greete plente. That this conclu|sioun is trewe, y proue thus: What euer deede eny Apostle or his writing allowith to be in a preestis moral conuersacioun, thilk same deede is not aȝens resoun to be in the same preestis moral conuersacioun; for ellis the Apostle and his writing schulde reule aȝens resoun, which is not to be grauntid. But so it is, that this deede, a preest and ech other Cristen man forto frely receyue, take, and vce alle maners of metis and alle maners of drinkis into his sufficience with thankingis to God Holi Writt weel allowith, as it is open i^e. Thim. iiij^e. capitulum., and of the ouer plus make doole to othere hauying therto nede, as it is writun [Luk xj^e. capitulum.]: [A space left in the MS. for the reference. Wiclif's (later) version of Luke xi. 41, substantially agrees: Netheles that that is ouer plus ȝyue ȝe almes.] The ouer plus ȝeue ȝe into almes.

Also this deede, a preest forto freli take and chese of alle maidens to him a wijf, so that he wedde not of the newe eftsoone, if his first wijf die him lyuyng, and forto bigete children, and forto haue meyne and holde house, and forto nurische and bringe up hise children, and forto reule his wijf, meyne, and children, and forto purveie for hem was allowid of Poul, and bi lijk skile of the othere Apostlis, as is open of Poul bi what is writun i^e. Cor. vij^e. capitulum. in the bigynnyng, where he spekith generali to alle Cristen persoones of Corinthi, and therfore to preestis as to other, i^e. Thim. iij^e. capitulum. and Tite i^e. capitulum., in the vnderstonding which ther|upon was had in Poulis daies and fro [This and the three preceding words are added in a later hand.] Poulis daies into this dai thoruȝ al Grece, as the deede proueth weel; and also in the vndirstonding which the West Chirche hadde and took upon the same wordis fro the daies of Petir and Poul into the daies of Austyn, as the deedis of preestis in the West Chirche into the

daies of Austyn beren mensioun, [The truth of this assertion ap|pears very evidently from a contem|porary of Augustine: "Quasi non hodie quoque plurimi sacerdotes habeant matrimonia." S. Hieron. adv. Jovin. lib. i. c. 23. (tom. ii. p. 273. Ed. Vall.)] with The threfold stori [See Hist. Tripart. lib. ii. c. xiv. for an account of the proceedings of Paphnutius in that council.] speking of the counseil of Nice, and with it that the seid Austin spekith of preestis weddid in hise daies; [See Cod. Eccl. Afric. can. xxv., where Augustine mentions the "uxores" of bishops, priests, and deacons. It is hard to say what particular passage Pecock may have referred to.] thouȝ it be trewe with al this that Poul, i^e. Thim. v^e. capitulum., counseilid to Thimothe, that he schulde kepe him silf chaast.

Also this deede, a preest forto haue in possessioun movable godis how miche euer he mai honestli and riȝtli come to, (so that he be not gleymed with ouer myche loue to it,) and forto therof take ynouȝ, and of the ouer plus make disposicioun into almes is allowid bi Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament. Forwhi how ellis schulde Bischop Thimothie haue performed what Poul wolde him to performe i^e. Thim. v^e. capitulum., that Thimothie schulde worschipe, (that is to seie, finde and nurische,) tho wommen of lx^ti. winter age, whiche aftir hir husbondis deethis wolden for deuocioun lyue chaast? And sithen Poul and his felawschip and disciplis being conuersaunt with him lyueden bi the ȝiftis and sondis, which dyuerse chirchis ȝauen and senden to him where that he were, as he witnessith him silf in hise epistlis, except that in summe cuntrees (as in Achaia) he forbare forto so receyue, that he wolde therbi confounde tho prechers, whiche weren glad forto into coueitouse maner receiue;—how ellis miȝte this be vsid of dyuerse chirchis and comountees forto sende to Poul, and that Poul schulde receyue the sondis of hem, but if it hadde be so ful ofte that tho chirchis and comountees senden ful ofte, and Poul

receyued bi her sondis ful ofte more than was neces|sarie to him and to hise felaschip and hise disciplis, so that thei hadden ful ofte so miche of movable godis, that thei hadden cause forto ther with do almes to poor and nedy persoones? Wherfore alle these iij. kindis of deedis ben allowid [approued and allowid, MS. (first hand).] of Holi Scripture, ȝhe, and ben resonable and not aȝens resoun to be in preestis moral gouernaunce.

And thanne ferther thus: Al the cause assignable whi it schulde be aȝens Scripture or aȝens resoun a preest forto haue eny vnmovable godis, if it were aȝens Scripture or resoun, is this: That bi the hauyng of thilk godis he schulde be maad ouer thouȝtful and ouer carkful and ouermyche louyng toward hem, and ther bi he schulde be mad ouer myche necligent forto attende to goostli thingis, and forto loue God and goostli thingis. And noon other cause is therfore assignable saue this. But so it is, that this cause, (that is to seie, this seid thouȝt, this seid cark, and caring, and attendaunce,) is miche more in a man for that that he hath wijf [a wijf, MS. (first hand).] and children and household needis ȝeerli and daili to be costioseli founde, and for that he hath not but mouable godis oonli without the suerte of contynuaunce, (which suerte myȝte be had bi vnmouable godis, if thei weren had,) than thilk cark is in a man which hath vnmouable godis in so greet plente, that he mai avorthi to haue discrete officers at fulle vndir him, and that he mai avorthi forto lese ynouȝ and haue ynouȝ, rather than for to be ouer bisi and ouer thouȝtful forto kepe and saue al, and therwith is chaast, and lackith wijf and children, and al the gleyme, loue, and delectacions whiche violentli comen anentis his wijf and hise children. Wherfore if it be with the alleggid Scripture or resoun, that a

preest mai haue a wijf, children, and household with|out vnmouable possessioun, miche rather it is with the same now alleggid Scripture and resoun, that a preest mai haue vnmovable possessiouns in greet plente (and rather in greet plente than in scant suf|ficience), with chastite, and so withoute wijf and children, and folewingli withoute the greet cark falling to him for hem.

Also this present iiij^e. conclusion mai be proued bi a processe of iij. supposiciouns, and of an argument formed vpon hem toward the eende of the first parti in this present book; [See Part I. c. xix.] and for as miche as it is not fer fro this present place, therfore y wole not thilk processe here aȝen of the newe reherce.

The v^e. principal conclusioun in this iij^e. principal parti is this: Doom of cleerli disposid resoun in kinde allowith and approueth the iij^e. principal gouernaunce sett in the bigynnyng of this present iij^e. partie. That this conclusioun is trewe mai be proued bi alle tho same argumentis bi which the next iiij^e. principal conclusioun is proued. For thouȝ tho argumentis goon upon the witnessing of Holi Scripture, ȝit in al it Holi Scripture dooth not ellis than witnesse what doom of resoun iugith in allowing and approuyng; and therfore alle tho same seid [seid is added in the margin by a later hand.] argumentis seruen lijk weel for proof of the iiij^e. conclusioun and for proof of the v^e. conclusioun.

The vj^e. conclusioun is this: The seid iij^e. princi|pal gouernaunce is leeful in proprist maner of leeful|nes. That this conclusioun is trewe, y proue thus: Ech gouernaunce, which Holi Scripture or doom of cleer reson allowith and approueth, is leeful in proprist maner of leefulnes. But so it is, that Holi Scripture and also doom of cleer resoun allowen and approuen

the iij^e. seid principal gouernaunce. Wherfore folewith needis, that the seid iij^e. principal gouernaunce is in proprist maner leeful.

The vij^e. conclusioun is this: The iij^e. seid principal gouernaunce is a gouernannce of Goddis lawe. This conclusioun schal be proued thus: Ech gouernance, which is leeful and allowid and approued bi Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament and bi doom of cleer resoun, is a gouernaunce of Goddis lawe and of the Newe Testament, as it is vndoutabili proued in manye placis of my writingis, namelich in The iust apprising of Holi Scripture. But so it is, that the iij^e. seid principal gouernaunce is leeful bi the next bifore going iij^e. principal conclusioun, and he is al|lowid and approued by Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament and bi doom of cleer resoun, as prouen weel the next bifore going iiij^e. and v^e. principal con|clusiouns. Wherfore thilk iij^e. gouernaunce is a gouer|naunce of Goddis lawe and of the Newe Testament.

The viij^e. principal conclusioun is this: It is not synne a man forto ensaumple bi deede to othere men the iij^e. seid principal gouernaunce. That this con|clusioun is trewe, y proue thus: It is not synne a man forto ensaumple bi his deede to othere men [to othere men is added by a later hand in the margin, after which a different hand (exceedingly similar to that of the original scribe, if not identical with it,) has written a deede; the whole being marked with a red line, probably by the same hand that illuminated the MS. This tends to show that the cor|rections of the MS. are (in part at least) scarcely later than the original text.] a deede and a gouernaunce of Goddis lawe and of the Newe Testament. But so it is, that the iij^e. seid prin|cipal gouernaunce is a gouernaunce of Goddis lawe and of the Newe Testament, as proueth weel the next bifore going vj^e. principal conclusioun. Wherfore it is not synne a man forto ensaumple bi his deede to othere men the iij^e. seid principal gouernaunce.

xvj. CHAPITER.

FOR as myche as fro the bigynnyng of this present iij^e. partie hidir to it is procedid that sufficient proof is mad this to be trewe, that preestis and othere clerkis mowen be endewid with temporal vnmouable possessiouns without eny ther of wernyng founde in Holi Scripture or in resoun, ȝhe, and with therto consenting Scripture and resoun; and so weel and so firmeli and stabili and openli it is proued and so weel to the euydencis of the contrarie partie it is answerid, and so cleerli the euydencis ben assoilid, that noman al the bifore going processe reding and vndirstonding may opene his mouth forto holde the errour, which bifore in the bigynnyng of the firste chapiter in this present iij^e. partie is rehercid, and is bi al the bifore going processe hidir to vnaȝenseiabili vnproued and theryn worthili reproued;—therfore summen perceyuyng al this consenten weel and graunten, that preestis and othere clerkis mowen weel withoute weernyng of Holi Scripture and of resoun, ȝhe, and bi Scripture and bi resoun, be endewid with temporal and vnmou|able godis forto do and vse and execute the better her goostli officis; but thei holden herwith this con|clusioun, that if bischopis or other preestis or othere louȝer clerkis so endewid lyuen not vertuoseli, as thei schulden lyue, with thilk seid temporal godis, but amys vsen tho godis [tho temporal godis, MS. (first hand).] vicioseli, tho same godis mowen iustli be take awey fro hem, so that preestis and othere clerkis mowen iustli be vnpossessyd, (that is to seie, mowen iustli be putt out of possessioun of the same godis,) with this that thei abide stille in her statis and officis of bischophode or louȝer preesthode or louȝer clerkhode, in which thei weren bifore,

whanne thei weren in possessioun of tho same vn|movable possessiouns.

And ferthermore thei holden this ij^e. conclusioun, that if eny bischop, preest, or clerk do not dewli the werkis of his office anentis his peple ouer whom he is sett and putt, the same peple mowe iustli with|drawe [w ^t drawe, MS. (without hyphen).] and aȝenholde the tithis and offringis and alle othere paymentis of rentis and dewtees, with whiche the same seid bischopis, preestis, and othere louȝer clerkis ben for hem and her successouris endewid.

Wherfore it is now next to be encerchid whether this holding be trewe or not trewe. Into which eende, entent, and purpos y schal here sett forth xj. open trouthis, bi whiche it schal be knowe sureli, whethir the now rehercid conclusions and opinions ben trewe or no.

The firste trouthe is this: Noman ouȝte be iuge in his owne cause which he hath anentis his neiȝbour, neither eny man ouȝte be redresser of the wrong which his neiȝbour dooth to him, but if he him silf be the hiȝest iuge of alle othere, and hath no iuge in erthe aboue him, bi whom his cause or wrong mai be iugid and redressid. Forwhi, if eny man or if many men schulden be iugis in her owne causis had bitwixe hem and othere men, God wolde not haue ordeyned in the temporal parti kingis and princis and dukis and othere powers vndir hem to be for to heere and iuge causis and redresse wrongis, of whom Poul spekith, Rom. xiij^e. capitulum., and i^e. Cor. vj^e. capitulum., and i^e. Thim. ij^e. [i ^e., MS.] capitulum., and Peter spekith, i^e. Pet. ij^e. capitulum. Nei|ther God wolde haue ordeyned in the clergie to be bischopis aboue the louȝer preestis, and archebischopis aboue bischopis, and the pope to be aboue alle the othere, as it is proued aftir in the iiij^e. parti of this

book that God so ordeyned, or at the leest he wolde it so be ordeyned, and as it is proued that in the tyme of the Apostlis it was so sett forth in vce and executing. Forwhi if eny man schulde haue had power forto be iuge in his owne cause anentis his neiȝbour, it hadde be waast forto haue mad bothe in the clergie and in the layfe suche now seid iugis; and alle men witen weel that neither God neither the Apostlis wolden ordeyne eny waast ordinaunce, or consente to eny waast ordinaunce bi othere to be mad. Also surist experience schewith bi this that bifallith weel nyȝ in ech day bifore iugis bitwixe parties pleding, how myche and how manye and grete innumerable wrongis schulden be doon, holden, and menteyned for riȝtis and vnwrongingis, and how many therbi folewingli perpetual strifis and debatis and fiȝtingis and othere passing grete myschefis schulden be multiplied, if men schulden be iugis in her owne causis and querelis, whiche fallen bitwixe hem and her neiȝboris. And therfore thei ouȝten not so be in eny wise. And so for a ful greet good and nede God willid to be ordeyned bothe in the clergijs side and in the lay parties side iugis louȝer and hiȝer up into the hiȝest, that if the louȝer iuge procede not riȝtli, that the parti iugid amys of him mai com|pleyne to the hiȝer iuge; and so eftsoone fro the hiȝer, if nede be, into tyme to come to the hiȝest; and if he there at the presence of the hiȝest iuge suffre wrong, take he it aworth in pacience as a thing irremediable bi man, and God schal therfore him quyte.

The ij^e. trouthe is this: Among temporal godis, whiche men ben woned for to paie to othere men, summe ben to be paied as fynding or helping to the receyuers, that the receyuers, foundun and holpun bi the temporal godis of hem receyued, do and wirche and execute summe certein officis or summe certein deedis, to come into whiche thei ben sett and ordeyned,

and whiche thei han take vpon hem forto do, wirche, and execute; as it is whanne money is take and paied to a messanger forto ride or go into a fer cuntre, that he fynde to him silf and his hors the costis and expensis whiche he muste make in thilk iorney, and withoute which money he mai not make thilk iorney weel, or ellis withoute which so to be bifore paied he schal make his iorney the wors; and as it is whanne money is paied to a man forto go and fynde him silf and his hors, that he be an hayward or an ouerseer thoruȝ al an haruest cesoun vpon repe men, that thei repe bisili and clenli. And summe othere temporal godis ben to be paied as meede and reward to the receyuers for the doing, wirching, or executing passid of sum office or deede, in to which thei weren sett and ordeyned, and which thei token vpon hem for to do, wirche, and execute; as it is whanne money is paied to the bifore seid messanger for his traueil, which he made in the same seid iorney; and as it is whanne money is paied to a repe man for his dai labour in the haruest feeld, or to a laborer in a vyne gardein for his day labour in the same vyne gardein. This trouthe is so open that he nedith not be proued.

The iij^e. trouthe is this: Mouable and vnmouable temporal godis mowen be ȝouun not oonli to oon persoon in the firste maner of the ij^e. trouthe, and forto not descende ferther bi the same ȝeuyng into the successouris of the same persoon; but also mou|able and vnmouable temporal godis mowen be ȝouun in the first maner of the ij^e. trouthe to a man and to hise successouris perpetueli, that not oonli he but that he and alle his successouris be foundun and holpun therbi forto do, wirche, and execute sum office or deede, as withoute which thei myȝten not do, wirche, or execute the same dede, or at the leest not so weel do, wirche, or execute the same deede. This treuthe

is also so open that he nedith no proof, but if it be this: Ech gouernaunce is doable ynouȝ aȝens which is no lett founde, neither bi resoun, neither bi Holi Scripture, neither bi eny other allowable wey.

The iiij^e. trouthe is this: Whanne money or other temporal good mouable or vnmovable is to be paied in the ij^e. maner of the ij^e. trouthe, it may iustli be restreyned and aȝen holde fro paiyng, in caas that the deede be not do for whos performyng the same money is to be paied and ȝouun. Forwhi thilk monei is to be paied as reward and meede to the receyuer for the doing or laboring aboute the same deede, and a reward or meede folewith aftir the deede for which he is reward or meede.

The v^e. trouthe is this: Whanne eny such temporal good movable or vnmouable is ȝouun in the first maner of the ij^e. trouthe to eny oon persoon and not to hise successouris, and is to be paied in the same first maner to the same oon persoon as bi vertu and strengthe of the same now seid ȝeuyng maad in the first maner of the ij^e. trouthe, thilk good mai not iustli be restreyned and be aȝen holde fro payment to the same persoon, thouȝ the deede schal not be doon and performed into which deede to be doon the same good was to the same persoon so in the first maner of the ij^e. trouthe ȝouun; namelich if it be not vttirli certein that the receyuer schal not performe the same seid deede. Forwhi the ȝifte of the good to the receyuer gooth bifore the deede, into which deede the receyuer is therbi bounde; and in lijk maner the payment of the same good to the receyuer ouȝte go bifore the same seid deede therbi to be doon, bi as myche as thilk payment is the fynding and the help|ing in expensis and in othere necessaries geting to the receyuer into the same deede therbi folewingli to be doon or the better to be doon. And therfore, if the receyuer wole knouleche that he wole and schal per|forme

the deede into which he is thus bounde bi the ȝifte bifore maad and the paiement to be paied bifore to him as into his fynding into the same seid deede, thouȝ it be knowe that the receyuer schal not per|forme the deede, ther is no iust wey forto therfore withdrawe and withholde thilk payment fro him. Also open ynowȝ it is, that for [Perhaps for should be cancelled.] the vndoing of a deede, which in dew ordre and processe ouȝte folewe a payment and be doon bi vertu and strengthe of the same payment, mai not be a cause wherbi the same payment schulde not be paied but be restreyned fro payment; namelich if he, to whom it schulde be paied, wole not knouleche that he wole leue the same deede vndoon. Forwhi ellis colour myȝte be take for|to lette and restreyne and wronge euery payment in the world which is to be doon in the first maner of the ij^e. trouthe, or in caas of the ij^e. parti of the vij^e. trouthe after folewing. Forwhi ech paier myȝte bere an hond to the receyuer, that the receyuer wolde not performe iustly the deede into which the payment schulde serue. And so her of and herbi schulden in|numerable grete debatis and strijfis, wrongis, and mys|chefis rise and continue. Wherfore this v^e. trouthe is to be holde as firme [as for firme, MS. (first hand).] and stable.

The vj^e. trouthe is this: If mouable or vnmouable godis ȝouun and dew to be paied to eny oon persoon withoute successouris in the first maner of the ij^e. trouthe, (that is to seie, bifore the deede into which he is bounde bi strengthe of the bifore mad to him ȝift and payment,) mai not iustli be take fro and be aȝenholde fro the seid man, thouȝ the seid deede be of him left vndoon, (as it is now bifore schewid in the v^e. trouthe,) miche rather this is trewe,—whanne movable or vnmovable godis ben ȝouun and dew to be paied

to a persoon and to hise successouris perpetuali, that ech of hem therbi and ther with performe a certein assignable deede,—that, thouȝ this man which now lyueth performe not the deede for his while, this movable good, (as cuppe or chalice, mytir, bacul,) or vnmovable good, (as hous, feeld, wode,) mai not iustli be takun fro him and hise successouris. Forwhi not oonli he him silf mai it lette bi the reclaime now in the v^e. trouthe sett which he mai make for him silf, but also he mai it lette bi lijk reclayme which he mai and ouȝte make for hise successouris and in the name and stide of alle and of ech of hise successouris. Also sithen hise successouris ben not ȝit founde in wijte or defaute, wrong were doon to hem if this good schulde be take so awey fro this man that therwith to gidere and at oonis it were take awey from hem. But so it is, that this man mai not oonis or at eny tyme be putt out of riȝt and of pos|sessioun of thilk seid mouable or vnmouable good, him abiding in the same dignite, state, or office, but that bothe he and alle hise successouris ben theryn, therwith, and therbi excludid for euer, in lasse thanne the same good be ȝouun aȝen to hem of the newe. Wherfore this man mai not iustli be vnriȝtid and vnpossessid, that is to seie, be putt out of riȝt and out of possessioun of the seid mouable or vn|mouable good; thouȝ he not performe the dede into which thilk good is [Probably is should be cancelled.] so ȝouun, and so to be paied is an helping meene or a fynding.

xvij. CHAPITRE.

THE vij^e. trouthe is this: Alle bischopis and othere preestis and louȝer clerkis endewid for hem and her successouris bi mouable godis, (as chalicis, vestimentis, bokis,) and bi vnmouable godis, (as housis, feeldis, and free rentis going out of feeldis or of housis) and bi riȝtis to aske and haue tithis and offringis, grauntid and ȝouun to hem and to her successouris, stonden not in caas of the ij^e. partie of the ij^e. trouthe; but thei stonden in caas of the first parti of the ij^e. trouthe, and in caas of the vj^e. trouthe. Forwhi the blisse of heuen and the thank of God and his rewarding is al that is to be abide aftir and to be awaitid after in wey of reward and meede of ech bischop, preest, and clerk for ech werk and deede of his dignite, ordre, or office doing and executing; and ther fore no good mouable or vnmouable is ȝouun or paied to hem as for reward and meede of her officis doing and performyng. In knouleching of which thing, whanne a persoon is mad first clerk and takith his firste corown for to be therbi oon of the clergie, he seith and protestith openli thus: "The Lord is the part of myn heritage and of my labour and traueil into which y entre. Thou, Lord, art he which schalt ȝelde myn heritage to me," ["Modus faciendi tonsuras vel coronas primas et ordinandi clericos genuflectentes coram episcopo hoc modo. Sit nomen Domini benedic|tum, &c." (Then follows a prayer and a psalm). "Hic quilibet ordi|nandus per se dicat: Dominus pars hæreditatis meæ et calicis mei: tu es, qui restitues hæredi|tatem meam mihi." Maskell's Mon. Rit. Eccl. Anglic., vol. 3. pp. 147-149.] that is to seie, as for reward of my labour into which y now entre; and so the first party of this vij^e. trouthe is sufficientli opened for trewe. The ij^e. party of this vij^e. trouthe is wit|nessid bi Poul i^e. Cor. ix^e. capitulum. bi long processe and

bi an ensaumple of oxen threisching or treding out corn of the strawe and chaaf in a floor, and bi Poul i^e. Thim. v^e. capitulum.

Neuertheles thouȝ this present vij^e. trouthe muste needis be holden [beholden, MS.] for open resoun which myȝte be brouȝt therto and for textis of Scripture, (summe now bifore alleggid, and summe after soone in this present chapiter to be rehercid,) ȝit it myȝte seme that aȝens this present vij^e. trouthe Crist him silf spekith and meeneth, Luk x^e. capitulum., where he seide to hise disciplis thus: Go ȝe: lo, y sende ȝou as lambren among wolues; therfore nile ȝe bere a sachel neither scrippe neither schoon, and grete ȝe no man bi the wey. Into what hous that ȝe entren, first seie ȝe, Pees to this hous; and if a sone of pees be there, ȝoure pees schal reste on him; but if noon, it schal turne aȝen to ȝou: and dwelle ȝe in the same hous, eting and drinking tho thingis whiche ben at hem; for a werkman [Perhaps werk man, MS. (here and below), but?] is worthi his hire. Lo hou in these wordis, "a werkman is worthi his meede," Crist clepid it which prechouris and prelatis schulde take into her fynding to be meede or reward of her preching, which is a deede of cure doing. And in lijk maner, i^e. Thim. v^e. capitulum., bi like and the same wordis Poul clepith the fynding of prechouris her mede or reward. Wherfore it wolde seme that the ij^e. partie of this present vij^e. trouthe is not to be holde as for trewe; but it wolde seme that the ȝifte of temporal godis mad to preestis is in the ij^e. parti of the firste trouthe sett bifore in the xvj^e. chapiter; and therfore tho temporal godis mowen be withdrawe, if preestis performe not sufficientli the deedis of her cure. But ȝit notwithstonding these ij. now laste rehercid textis, (oon of Crist, Luk x^e. capitulum.,

and the other of Poul, i^e. Thim. v^e. capitulum.,) the vij^e. trouthe is to be holde thoruȝ hise bothe bifore seid parties. And for dew vnderstonding of Crist and of Poul in the ij. now laste rehercid textis it is to wite that this word meede or reward mai be take propirli in his dewist and verriest maner of significacioun and bitokenyng, and he may be take vnpropirly out of his dewist and veriest maner of signifiyng and bitoken|yng, as ful manye othere wordis in Holi Scripture, and eke out of Holi Scripture, ben woned to be take.

Thanne ferther, if this word meede or reward be take in his dewist and propir maner of signifiyng, certis he bitokeneth a thing which is to be ȝouun or paid for a werk bifore doon, and is thanne first dew to be ȝouun or paied whanne the werk is doon and eendid, for which the same thing is to be ȝouun or paied, and in this maner Holi Scripture spekith of meede, Math. xx^e. capitulum., where the lord of the vyner in the eende of the day and of the werk doon in his vyner, seide to his procutour thus, Clepe thou the werkmen, and ȝeelde to hem her meede, et cætera; not withstonding that perauenture bifore in the dai thei hadden her sufficient fynding, as in mete and drinke, forto so wirche into the eende of the day. And also in this maner God spake of meede and reward to Abraham, Gen. xv^e. capitulum., thus: I am thi defender and thi meede or reward, which is hugeli greet: Also in this maner it is writun, Sapience, v^e. capitulum.: Forsothe riȝtful men schulen lyue for euer and her meede or reward [rewaward, MS.] is at the Lord. Also, Apocalips xxij^e. capitulum., God seith thus: Lo y come soone, and my reward or meede is with me forto ȝelde to ech after hise werkis, et cætera. Certis in these iiij. now bifore going textis and in manye mo than othere xl. conteyned in Holi Scripture,

(as a man mai se bi The Concordaunce [Several concordances were made from the Vulgate before Pecock's time, the most ancient being that of Antonio of Padua, composed in the early part of the thirteenth century. Cardinal Hugo's perform|ance, written about the middle of the same century, may probably be the work here intended by Pecock.] in this word merces in Latyn, meede in Englisch,) this word meede is take forto signifie and bitokene a thing ȝouun in the maner and for cause now seid; and this maner taking this word meede is his [his is added by a later hand.] propre and dew maner of taking, as al experience and famose vce ac|cording with so manye placis of Holi Scripture wolen conferme the same.

In an other maner this word meede or reward is takun vnpropirli and out of his dewist signifiying and bitokenyng; and this word meede or reward thus takun signifieth al oon with this word fynding, forto speke of such fynding as is mynystring of costis and expensis and othere necessarie or profitable thingis into that a certeyn deede be doon and executid. And sotheli in this vnpropre maner of taking reward or meede it is not spokun, as y weene, in al Scripture saue in the ij. textis bifore sett in the obieccioun, of whiche textis oon is of Crist, Luk x^e. capitulum., and the other is of Poul, i^e. Thim. v^e. capitulum. In whiche bothe textis meede or reward is takun not propirli, as it is of meede spokun in the ij^e. partie of the ij^e. trouth bi|fore in the xvj^e. chapiter of this present iij^e. partie, but vnpropirli for fynding, of which it is spokun bifore in the first partie of the secunde trouthe in the xvj^e. chapiter of this present iij^e. partie.

And that this answere is not feyned, but that he is trewe in this now laste partie may be proued. Forwhi ellis both Crist and Poul hadden meened aȝens open resoun; for open it is, that it, wherof thei speken in tho textis, is fynding to the precher into the deede of preching to be doon aftir the receyuyng of the

same finding. Also ellis Crist in the alleggid x^e. chapiter of Luk schulde haue meened aȝens him silf in the other now alleggid placis, that he with his blis schal be the reward and meede of ech good vertuose deede; and Poul also in his alleggid text, i^e. Thim. [Cor., MS. (twice).] v^e. capitulum. schulde ellis haue meened aȝens the now other seid spechis of God and of Crist; and also euer either of hem bothe schulden ellis haue meened in thilk ij. placis aȝens mo than l. othere placis of Holi Scripture, and aȝens the famose speche and meenyng of al the world fro the bigynning of the world hider to. And therfore myn answere now mad forto thus, as now is seid, ȝeue dew meenyng to the text of Crist, Luk x^e. capitulum., and to the text of Poul, i^e. Thim. [Cor., MS. (twice).] v^e. capitulum., is not feyned and lacking his sufficient colour and ground, but is euydentli ynouȝ trewe.

The viij^e. trouthe is this: If the lay peple ȝaue at eny tyme to her curatis and to the successouris of her curatis perpetuali this riȝt forto clayme, aske, and haue ȝeerli certein offringis to be doon and tithis going out fro her wynnyngis and renewyngis, as fyndingis of the same curatis and successouris into deedis of her cure to be doon, thilk riȝt so ȝouun to the seid curatis and her successouris is lijk to the riȝt which myȝte be ȝouun to the same curatis or to othere curatis and her successouris forto cleyme, aske, and haue ȝeerly a free rente of money going out fro certeyn housis or londis, as a fynding to the same curatis forto do the deedis of her cure. And that the paraschens so, as is now bifore seid, ȝaue, it myȝte seme weel herbi. For ellis it wolde folewe that per|souns and vikers, lyuyng oonli bi tithis and offringis, hadden no benefice; sithen a benefice is no thing ellis than a riȝt forto cleyme, aske, and haue certein fruytis or sum othir avail into his sufficient fynding forto do the deedis of his cure; for the benefice mai

not be seid to be the hous, neither the bodili chirche, neither the peple, neither the wijde cuntre of the parisch; for ech of these soortis now rehercid, except the laste, ben chaungid happili euery ȝeer; and the laste soort schulde rather be the benefice to the peple of the parisch than to him. And therfore a benefice is no thing ellis than what is now seid to be, that is to seie, a riȝt forto aske, receyue, and haue certeyn fruytis or sum othir avail into his fynding forto do summe deedis of sum certein office. Wherof folewith this present viij^e. trouthe to be firme and stable for a trouthe.

Also thus: It is to be seid that summe temporal goodis weren ȝouun to preestis being curatis into her lijflode in the first maner of the ij^e. trouthe, and that bi cause of Cristis speche, Luk x^e. capitulum., in long proces, wheryn he seith, The werkman is worthi his fynd|ing, and bi cause of Poulis speche, i^e. Thim. v^e. capitulum. and i^e. Cor. ix^e. capitulum., bi long proces. And ferthermore, sithen it was doon so aftir ward, that the maner of vncerteyn ȝeuyng at mennys deuocioun and plesaunce to preestis was chaungid into a certeinte of tithis and of offring in certein tymes, as open deede therupon schewith, and as y haue proued in The spreding of the iiij. tablis, and that for avoiding of perel and yuel, which ellis myȝte and wolde haue falle, if paraschens schulde haue be left in her owne fredom for to haue ȝouun or not ȝouun eny thing to her curat, or how miche or how litle to hem it schulde haue likid; it muste be trowid that for avoiding of lijk perel and lijk yuel it was doon, that the curat schulde be stabili endewid bi the seid tithis and offringis, so that it schulde be a ful riȝt ȝouun to him forto hem aske rere haue tho tithis and offringis and othere like paymentis, like to the riȝt of a free rente or a lyuerey going out of an abbey or citee or an other comunalte. Which perel and yuel wolde be this, that ellis, if such stable and fix endewing were not maad to the curat, hise

paraschenys myȝten and wolden him trouble with querelis, and theryn withdrawe his fynding, as ofte as he wolde bi doing of his dew cure offende hem. And certis in such aventure it were rather to truste to the conscience and discrecion of him which is in state of a reuler, than to the conscience of hem whiche ben in the state of hem that ben to be reulid. And therfore nedis cost it was doon, that the curat was stabili endewid bi suche tithis and offringis and othere suche lijk paymentis; or it ouȝte haue be so doon, if good reule hadde be seen; and therfore it is to be take now in fulfilling what was thanne left, as thouȝ it had be thanne so doon.

Also hou ellis schulde eny man be bold forto leue a craft to gete therbi his lijflode, and bicome a curat to othere; in lasse than he hadde a stable riȝt forto aske and haue his lijflode of his paraschens, and that his lijflode schulde not hange upon her plesaunce oonli; namelich sithen persoones, whiche ben nedis to be reulid of reulers, ouȝten not to be so miche trustid in so greet a cause forto not erre, neither for to be not other wise than weel avisid, that thei wolen not withdrawe vndewli what thei ouȝten paie, if thei be greued? And also how ellis myȝte bi eny discrecioun haue be ordeyned or haue be admittid of the laife suche statis in the chirch to be in subordinacioun of vndrers and ouerers, (as ben persoones of paraschens, and bischopis aboue hem, and archibischopis aboue hem, and patriarkis ouer hem, and thanne the pope hiȝest,) but if the louȝest degre, in which ben per|soones, curatis, upon which alle these othere statis ben bildid, schulden haue a stable fix endewing of lijflode, and but [Perhaps we should read but if, but see Glossary.] ech of these othere statis schulde haue her stable endewing [endewewing, MS.] in lijk maner? And therfore it was

so doon, or ouȝte haue be so doon. And so for con|tinuaunce of it what was doon, or for continuaunce of it which hath be so weel suffrid and allowid, as thouȝ it had be so ordeyned and doon, and ouȝte be now so ordeyned to be doon, (ne were that alle wijse men taken it as for doon, or as thouȝ it had be doon,) it is to be holde that the louȝer curatis, as persouns and vikers of paraschenis, ben stabili endewid in her riȝt forto aske and haue tithis and offringis and othere paymentis, how stabili a perpetual chauntry preest is endewid; so that his riȝt and benefice of lijflode hangith not upon the beneuolence of his paraschens.

And certis ferther forto seie, it were neuere wijs policie and reule, that the reulers lijflode schulde hange upon her wittis and willis, whiche schulden be bi him reulid or conceilid or detectid; and that bothe for it is to presume, that for the more parti her wittis and willis schulden be infirmer than ben hise, and also for freelnes thei wolden grucche ofter than thei schulden aȝens hise correpciouns and reulingis, as experience ofte in suche maters schewith. And therfore this present viij^e. trouthe and it what he presupposith is to be holde for trewe, and namelich to be vsid as for trewe; thouȝ special writingis of eldist ordinauncis of men in the Newe Testament kun not be founde, that so it was in eny tyme doon.

The ix^e. trouthe is this: Alle the peple of the lay parti, whiche wolden compleyne or holde hem wrongid of preestis or othere clerkis for the deedis not doon bi tho preestis or clerkis, into whiche deedis to be doon tho preestis and clerkis receyueden her fynding of the same peple in lay party, stoonden in caas of the firste trouthe, as it is open ynouȝ to se; and therfore thei mowe not eny punysching or eny re|streyne sette to preestis or clerkis for the vndoing of

the deedis of cure, but the lay peple ouȝten com|pleyne hem to the iugis of the preestis and clerkis so trespacing and wronging, and proue her complaint to be trewe, and the other parti ouȝte be callid into answere forto wite whether thei kunnen excuse hem or no; and if the preestis and clerkis ben founde in the defaut, than first tho iugis ouȝten do therto dew and iust remedie. Forwhi, but if remedie of this wronging schulde be do in this wey, ellis no wey were forto make remedie to this wronging; sithen thilk remediyng muste outhir be doon bi hem that ben wrongid, which is aȝens the firste trouthe, or bi othere persoones ordeyned for to be ther yn iugis; and but if the bothe parties schulden be herd at fulle leysers, oon for to accuse, the other forto defende, ellis vnsufferable myscheuys of hasty domes wolde ofte falle. And therfore this ix^e. trouthe is algatis to be holde.

The x^e. trouthe is this: The remedie which is iust and dew to be sett upon preestis and clerkis, tres|pacing and wronging the lay peple in caas of the ix^e. trouthe, muste needis be othere punyschingis than putting tho preestis and clerkis out of her possessioun had upon her endewingis and fyndingis, [and fyndingis is added in the margin by a later hand, which has made erasures in the text.] bifore seid in the vj^e., vij^e., and viij^e. trouthis, hem abiding stille in her afore had dignitees or officis. For whi, if these preestis and clerkis thus trespacing schulden or myȝten iustli be punischid bi the seid putting out of riȝt and possessioun, hem abiding stille in her dignitees or officis, this deede and processe of punysching schulde be mad and doon aȝens the bifore going here v^e. and vj^e. trouthis, as folewith weel bi strengthe of the vj^e. trouthe; and wrong schulde be doon in thilk pun|ysching to the successouris of tho preestis and clerkis

now lyuyng, [lylyuing, MS.] whiche successouris not ȝit han so tres|pacid, that thei schulden be punyschid or vnpossessid in her procutour or attorney occupiyng now tho godis and the possessioun of tho godis in his and her names to gidere.

And therfore folewith her of the xj^e. trouthe: That the iugis of these now seid preestis and clerkis, thus trespacing and wronging, ouȝte punysche tho preestis and clerkis bi payment of money, or bi open schame and peyne, or bi remouyng hem fro her had dignitees and officis, so that othere persoones worthi therto be putt yn forto succede to hem and forto continue the riȝt and the possessioun in her owne names and in her successouris names, that the successouris be not oonys vnpossessid for the perel and the wrong bifore sett in the vj^e. trouthe; which perel and wrong schulde ellis bifalle to the seid successouris. And so bi al the processe bigunne bifore at the xvj^e. chapiter of this iij^e. partie and continued hidir to it is open that tho ij. opiniouns, conclusiouns, and holdingis there in the bigynnyng of the xvj^e. chapiter rehercid, ben errouris and vntreuthis, if it what is presupposid to the vj^e. trouthe be trewe.

xviij. CHAPITER.

FERTHERMORE, thouȝ this processe bifore mad fro the bigynnyng of the xvj^e. chapiter hidir to be sufficient forto schewe the ij. opiniouns there rehercid to be vntrewe, ȝit into the same purpos more mai be seid thus: In iiij. maners a man mai ȝeue to an othir man aloone, or to the othir man and to hise successouris,

or to a couent or comounte and her successouris, movable and vnmovable godis.

The first maner is, if a man ȝeueth to me oonli, or to me and my successouris, [sussessouris, MS. (by clerical error?).] or to me and mi felawis and oure successouris, freli and vttirli, that is to seie, withoute eny hope or loking after that eny thing be aȝen ȝouun, or eny other deede as therfore be doon, as bi boond and withoute eny reconuencioun or coue|naunt of bond expressid or priueli vndirstonde forto ȝeue aȝen or for to do therfore eny deede and with oute eny condicioun. Certis in this firste maner fadris and modris ben woned ȝeue to her next children oonli, and sumtyme to her next children and to the succes|souris bi blood of her next children; and this ȝift pro|cedith of pure free loue which the ȝeuer hath to the receyuer; or ellis, thouȝ vndir hope, trust, and entent, ȝit withoute meenyng that [that is interlineated by a later hand.] the receyuer be bounde to fulfille and performe thilk hope, trust, and entent.

The ij^e. maner is: If a man ȝeueth [ȝeue, MS. (first hand).] to me aloone, or to me and my successouris, or to me and to my felawis and oure successouris, eny movable or vn|mouable thing, with hope and trust or entent that y aloone, (if it be ȝouun to me aloone,) or that y and mi successouris, (if it be ȝouun to me and my succes|souris,) or that y and my felawis and oure successouris, (if it be ȝouun to me and hem and oure succes|souris,) schulen ȝeue aȝen or do sum deede as ther fore or as ther with or ther bi to be don as bi boond. And in this caas of ȝifte, if y take not upon me and consente not for me and my successouris in my name and heris forto fulfille and performe thilk trust, entent, and hope born toward me and my successouris, as for that y am absent fro the ȝeuer, whanne he so

ȝeueth; or if y theraȝens reclame or proteste for me and hem, that y for me and for hem wole be fre with|oute boond or couenaunt for to it fulfille and performe, as whanne that y am at the ȝeuer present in tyme of his ȝift making or in tyme of the ȝifte to me de|nouncing, and ȝit the ȝeuer reuokith not the forme of his now seid ȝift, y and my successouris mowen reioice the seid thing so to us ȝouun, and we ben not bounde for to fulfille his trust born vp on or to|ward us.

But aȝenward as for the iij^e. maner of ȝeuyng, if in the caas of the ij^e. ȝeuyng, as doon in the ȝeuers side, y in my name and in the name of my succes|souris bihete or proteste or consente openli bi word or bi other signe, or priueli bi interpretacioun and presumpcioun to be in this mater take bi that, that y, being present and heering the forme of this ȝifte to me and to mi successouris thus vndir trust and entent mad or to me denouncid, am stille in not re|claymyng aȝens the trust neither aȝens the ȝifte, am certis with my successouris bounde not for the putting of such trust upon us oonli, but as bi couplid to gidere couenaunt forto fulfille the seid put upon us trust and entent, if we wolen reioice the ȝift. Of which couenaunt the oon parti is in the ȝeuers side; that we schulen haue the seid thing; and the other partie is in oure side, that we schulen therfore or therbi or therwith do and performe his upon us bisett trust. For couenaunt is a double graunt or a double ȝeuyng couplid to gidere of ij. persoones or parties, graunting or ȝeuyng to gidere in the maner now ex|pressid.

In caas of this iij^e. maner ben tho that ben feffid in othere mennys londis iointli oonli, or ioyntli and deyiseli vndir expressid trust, that thei do sum what therwith. Also in caas of this iij^e. maner ben execu|touris of a testatour, as comoun formes of testamentis

beren open record and witnes, whanne the seid feffers and executouris expresseli or priueli bi presumpcioun of the lawe graunten and consenten as bi couenaunt making, that thei schulen performe the seid trust and entent.

The iiij^e. maner of ȝeuyng is whanne in the forme of ȝeuyng and in the expressioun of the ȝeuyng is sett expresseli a condicioun as a parti of the ȝift or ȝeuyng, bisidis alle condiciouns, whiche ben nedis cost to be priueli vnderstonde in ech ȝift, in ech couenaunt, in ech vow, and ooth, of whiche condiciouns mensioun is made in the ij^e. parti of the book Filling the iiij. tablis. And whanne in this maner ȝift is maad to me and to my successouris, and y or eny of hem fulfille not the condicioun, certis as soone as the condicioun is brokun the ȝift is voide; and the thing so ȝouun vnder condicioun fallith out of his possessioun, which brekith the condicioun; and therwith the thing fallith out of the possessioun of alle hise successouris, bi as miche as the ȝift is oonys voide and come into nouȝt, and therfore mai not come aȝen withoute a new deede of ȝeuyng.

Neuertheles the seide man mai not be put aȝens his wil out of the possessioun of the thing, eer than bi iugement of the iuge he be therto condempned, and sufficient compleint and proof is mad that the ȝift was so [so is interlineated by a later hand.] as is now seid maad vndir condicioun to him and to hise successouris, and proof therwith is mad that he hath brokun witingli and wilfulli the same condicioun; thouȝ as bi strengthe of cleer con|science, as soone as he brekith the condicioun, he fallith fro al riȝt to holde and haue eny lenger the seid thing to him and hise successouris so ȝouun. And therfore vndir ful miche perel of soule ech such

man and ech of hise successouris ouȝten be waar that he breke not the condicioun of the ȝift to him and to [to is interlineated by a later hand.] hise successouris mad, lest he bi thilk breking bringe yn greet losse to hise successouris withoute her deseruyng.

Aftir the descryuyng of thes iiij. maners of ȝeuyngis it is to be considerid, that, (thouȝ the riȝt and lawe forto cleyme, aske, and haue tithis and offringis and othere suche smale paymentis was mad or ȝouun to bischopis and to othere preestis and clerkis in the first maner of the ij^e. trouthe, declarid bifore in the xvj^e. chapitre, as mai be take herbi: It is to be seid that summe temporal godis were ȝouun to hem in thilk maner, bi cause of Cristis speche, Luk x^e. capitulum., where he seith, The werkman is worthi his fynding, and bi cause of Poulis lijk speche, i^e. Thim. v^e. capitulum., and i^e. Cor. ix^e. capitulum.; and noon othere godis kunnen be founde forto be ȝouun to bischopis and to othere preestis and clerkis in thilk first maner of the ij^e. trouthe, saue tithis and offringis and suche othere smale par|cellingis of paymentis; and therfore it is to be take that the riȝt forto aske and haue suche tithis and offringis and suche othere smale godis was ȝouun to bischopis and to othere preestis and clerkis in the firste maner of the ij^e. trouthe, ȝhe, and therfor in hardir maner than is bifore tauȝt, proued, and concludid in the x^e. and xj^e. trouthis the lay peple mowen not iustli procede aȝens bischopis and othere preestis and clerkis, as forto make hem lese tho tithis and offringis,) —ȝit it is to be vndirstonde and to be take that the grete maners, castellis, and court placis, and the grete lordschipis of barunries and othere suche like, whiche weren ȝouun summe to bischopis, summe to archide|kenes, summe to deenys, summe to collegis, weren

ȝouun in the firste of these iiij. maners now in this present xviij^e. chapiter descriued: except oonli tho of whos ȝeuyng it is expressid in the chartour of the ȝeuyng, that thei were ȝouun in the ij^e. maner, or in the iij^e. maner, or in the iiij^e. maner. Forwhi, no man in eny thing receyuyng into ȝifte ouȝte holde him silf and hise successouris ther yn to be more bounde than he knowith him and hise successouris to be ther yn bounde, and that bothe for eschewing of lesing and of vntrouthe, and for eschewing of grete perelis and disturblauncis and debatis, whiche ellis aȝens conscience schulden bifalle, and for that iuge|ment is euere to be ȝouun for fredomys parti, saue into how myche can be schewid sufficientli for bond|age; and so it is, that neither bi witnessing in word of hem that herden the forme of the now seid ȝiftis, neither bi the [the is interlineated by a later (?) hand.] cartis or chartouris writun ther upon to bischopis and to othere seid persoones can be had eny sufficient euydence, that tho now laste seid grete and riche castellis and maners weren ȝouun vndir the iiij^e. maner, or vndir the iij^e. maner, but if it be fewe, and that in late daies, as to collegis vnder hope, trust, and entent, that the maister and the felawis kepe the statutis of the collegis, and as to summe abbeies or monasterijs forto kepe ȝeerli solemp|nytees of certeyn obitis. Wherfore it is to be take, that alle these seid endewingis to bischopis and to othere worthi statis in the chirche weren ȝeue to hem and to her successouris in the firste of the seid iiij. maners oonli in this present chapiter bifore discriued, excepte tho endewingis which now ben seid to be ex|ceptid bi cartis or othere writingis, witnessing other forme of her ȝeuyng.

Confirmacioun to this now concludid trouthe and conclusioun is this, that in the cartis or chartouris, conteynyng the formes of ȝeuyng the seid greet endewing [bi] vnmovable godis (except oonli tho whiche ben now bifore seid to be exceptid) is noon other forme of ȝeuyng expressid, than that this man or thilk man or thilk womman ȝeueth this castel with the purtenauncis, thilk maner with hise feeldis, (and so forth of othere like,) to thilk bischop and hise successouris, or to thilk abbot and couent and to her successouris for euere, into pure and free and perpetual almes. And if this be trewe, (as it wole be founde trewe, if the seid cartis be schewid,) certis thanne folewith needis, that alle tho vnmouable godis so ȝouun weren ȝouun oonli in the first of the iiij. [iiij ^e., MS.] now here rehercid maners. Forwhi if y ȝeue a noble to a poor man and seie to him thus: "I ȝeue to thee this into very and pure almes," y meene not in tho wordis, that he schulde do ther with myn almes or his owne almes; but y meene, that y in so ȝeuyng to him do myn almes, and that y make thilk deede of ȝeuyng myn [of myn, MS. (first hand).] owne almes, and that y comytte to his wil forto do therwith what him likith. Not with stonding y hope that he wole vertuoseli ful weel spende it. Wherfore bi lijk skile, if lordis or ladies seiden and wroten in this wise: "Y ȝeue to this bischop or abbot and hise successouris this town or thilk town or this maner or thilk maner into pure and perpetual almes," thei meeneden not that the bischop and hise successouris or abbot and couent and her successouris schulden do therwith the very and pure perpetual almes of the ȝeuers, neither his owne pure and perpetual almes, but that tho lordis and ladies maden thilk her seid ȝeuyng to be as her pure

and perpetual almes, so that the bischop or the abbot and her successouris receyuyng the seid good vndir this forme of ȝeuyng is free to do therwith what thei wolen, as for eny bound growun to hem bi the ȝifte so mad to hem; thouȝ it were so, that the seid lordis and ladies so ȝeuyng hadden so good opinioun upon bischopis and abbotis in tho daies, that thei trowiden algatis that bischopis and abbotis wolden not spende tho ȝiftis other wise than vertuoseli and weel. But ȝit what is al this for to make eny bond to the abbot or bischop and her successouris forto spende weel tho ȝiftis, more than if the same abbot or bischop and her successouris hadden the same ȝiftis bi heritage or bi biyng or bi wynnyng in waiouring or bi sum other fre maner of geting and receyuyng? And so thus miche more as is conteyned in this present xviij^e. chapiter hidir to y caste to ouer what is seid bifore in the xvj^e. and xvij^e. chapitris forto schewe the ij. opiniouns to be vntrewe, whiche ben bifore rehercid in the bigynnyng of the xvj^e. chapiter.

Forthermore, for more declaracioun to be had in this mater, it is to vndirstonde that a ȝift mad in the iiij^e. maner now bifore spokun muste needis be dyuers and othir than is the ȝifte mad in the ij^e. or iij^e. maner. Forwhi, whanne a ȝifte is mad in the iiij^e. maner, how euer soone the condicioun is not fulfillid, the ȝifte is voide and cesith, bi cause the condicioun is a parti of the forme of ȝeuyng; but whanne a ȝifte is maad vndir entent or hope, thilk entent or hope is not a condicion and a parti of the ȝeuyng, but it is a circumstaunce of the ȝeuyng, which is clepid eende or purpos of the ȝeuer. For|whi, sithen euery vertuose ȝift is doon for sum eende, (for no man mai eny deede do avisidli withoute sum eende and entent and purpos therto take, as y haue proued in othere placis,) it wolde ellis folewe needis, that euery ȝifte maad bi delyberacioun were a ȝifte

vndir condicioun, [a condicioun, MS. (first hand.] bi cause euery ȝifte mad vndir de|liberacioun is mad into an eende, purpos, [or] entent, hopid and trustid to be doon; and therfore needis it muste be trewe, that a ȝift vnder trust and entent mad is not a ȝifte vnder condicioun maad; and so a ȝifte vndir the iiij^e. maner mad is dyuers needis fro ȝifte [Probably we should read a ȝifte.] in the firste or ij^e. or iij^e. maner mad.

Also the iij^e. maner of ȝift, which is a couenaunt, is a double ȝifte of the principal ȝeuer and of the re|ceyuer. Forwhi the principal ȝeuer ȝeueth a thing or a dede, and the receyuer ȝeueth aȝenward, as therto or therfore coupling an other thing or deede; and open it is, that the iiij^e. maner of ȝifte is not but oon symple ȝifte; and therfore the iiij^e. maner and the iij^e. maner needis ben dyuerse, and not oon and the same. And for as miche as the iij^e. maner of ȝeuyng is not oon symple ȝifte but ij. ȝiftis, of which oon passith fro the principal ȝeuer into the principal receyuer, and the other passith fro the seid principal receyuer into the seid principal ȝeuer; therfore in caas of the iij^e. ȝeuyng, aftir that the principal ȝeuer hath mad exe|cucioun and delyuerance of the thing or deede ȝouun to the principal receyuer, eer than the receyuer make execucion or delyueraunce of the thing or deede bi him ȝouun or namelich bihiȝt to or for the principal ȝeuer, if the seid principal receyuer in eny tyme wole not performe what he so bihiȝte, ȝit he fallith not therbi fro the riȝt which he hath bi the ȝifte of the principal ȝeuer mad to him, neithir in that and therbi the ȝifte mad to the receyuer is voide. For whi the ȝifte so mad to him passid into him fulli and hoolli with al the substaunce and alle the parties of the same ȝifte, and therfore it muste needis abide, thouȝ the ȝifte which the receyuer made or bihiȝte forto

make be not performed and executid; sithen this ij^e. ȝifte is not substaunce neither parti of the firste ȝifte, as it is open; for ellis thei weren not ij. ȝiftis, but oon ȝifte, thouȝ thei be ij. ȝiftis couplid and cheyned to gidere. But certis up on this receyuer compleint mai be mad, and he mai be callid into iugement, and whanne it is proued that he hath not performed what he ouȝte haue performed bi strengthe of the seid iij^e. maner, he mai be therfore punischid; but he mai not of what he hath receyued be depriued, al the while he wole amende and continue what he promisid. Neuertheles if he openli knoulechith, that he wole not performe the biheest mad to the principal ȝeuer; or ellis, that he ofte and miche failith, after that ofte and miche he hath be iugid and comandid for to amende, [amende is added in the margin, in a later hand.] —so the discrecioun of the iuge is that the seid receyuer can not frutefulli and conuenientli be punyschid other wise than bi the depriuyng of the ȝifte mad to him,—certis thanne bi sentence of the iuge he may be mad lese the thing so to him ȝouun, and not erst, neither other wise. And this remedie now sett here is al what mai be do aȝens the vn|trouthe of the receiuer in caas of the iij^e. ȝeuyng. And skile whi al this is trewe may be perceyued weel ynowȝ of a diligent considerer, waiting weel to ech word which is now bifore here seid.

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.]