The repressor of over much blaming of the clergy.

ij. CHAPITER.

AN other obieccioun mai be mad, thouȝ with no greet colour, bi iij. othere textis of the Newe Testa|ment. Of which thre oon is writun i^e. Pet. v^e. capitulum., thus, where Peter spekith to suche preestis as he was him silf, seiyng to hem thus: Feede ȝe the flok of God that is among ȝou, et cætera, not as hauyng lordschip in the clergie, but that ȝe be mad ensaumple of the flok of wil.

The ij^e. text is writun i^e. Cor. iij_e. capitulum., thus: Summe of ȝou seith, 'I am of Poul,' an other seith, 'But I 'am of Apollos.' [Appollo, MS. (twice).] Whether ȝe ben not men? What therfore is Apollos, [Appollo, MS. (twice).] and what Poul? Thei ben mi|nistris [the ministris, MS. (first hand).] to him, to whom ȝe han bileeued.

By these ij. textis, oon of Peter, the other of Poul, it myȝte seme euereither of hem wille [willed, MS. (first hand), appa|rently.] that no preest

schulde holde him silf to be eny ouerer to the lay peple bi his preesthode which he berith to ward hem; but schulde rather in that be a mynystre to the peple, as he is in that a mynystre of God.

The iij^e. text is writun, Math. xx^e. capitulum., where Crist seide to hise disciplis 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 amang [Perhaps a clerical error for among.] you, be he ȝoure mynystre, and who euer wole among ȝou be the firste, he schal be ȝoure seruaunt; as Mannys Sone came not to be serued but to serue, and forto ȝeue his lijf redempcioun for manie. Lijk processe thoruȝ out is wrytun, Mark 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 vpon eny lay persoon of hise neiȝboris.

To this obieccioun it mai by summe men be seid, that he procedith not aȝens the present purpos. For|whi tho textis sownen oonli into this, that no preest in that and for that, that he is preest to the lay peple, ouȝte be to hem an ouerer, but rather to hem a mynystre, as in that he is a mynystre of God: and neuerneither of tho textis lettith preestis to be to the lay peple, but rather euereither of hem inplieth [So written at full length in the MS.] in him silf that preestis ouȝten be to the peple. And if this be trewe, certis thanne bi lijk skile neuer|neither of tho ij. textis lettith eny bischop be to preestis, or eny archibischop be to bischopis, or eny pope be to alle archibischopis. Wherfore these ij. textis proceden not aȝens the seid iiij^e. principal politik gouernaunce as in this, that a bischop be to preestis,

and an archibischop be to bischopis, neither [The construction requires and.] a pope be to archibischopis; but oonli aȝens the seid politik gouernaunce in this, that a preest be ouerer to the lay peple, and a bischop be ouerer to preestis, and an archibischop be ouerer to bischopis, and the pope be ouerer to archibischopis.

Aȝens this answere mai be argued sufficientli thus: Sithen a bischop, in that [Probably we should read in that that.] he is bischop to a preest, is not euen with the preest; (forwhi thanne the preest were a very bischop to the bischop, as he is bischop to the preest; and the bischop, in that that he is bischop to a preest, is not ouerer [ouere, MS. (but words have been erased and transposed).] to the preest, as now it is supposid these ij. textis so wole;) it muste needis folewe bi the seid answere the meenyng of these ij. textis to be this, that a bischop in that that he is bischop and the [the is interlineated by a later hand: a might seem a more probable correction.] preest in that that he is preest to the lay peple ben the netherers to hem; and sithen these textis weernen not bischopis be to preestis, and archibischopis be to bischopis, folewith bi lijk skile these ij. textis forto wilne that if bischopis be, thei as in that ouȝten be netherers to preestis, and archibischopis, if thei be, ouȝten be netherers to bischopis. But this is vntrewe, forwhi Poul bare him silf so anentis the Corinthies, that he punyschid hem; and also in an other tyme he comaundid hem to be punyschild [punyhid, MS.] of othere; and in an othir tyme he thret|ened hem that he wolde come to hem in ȝerde, that is to seie, in peyne. And so it is, that these deedis ben not deedis of a netherer to his ouerer. Wherfore Poul bi his preesthode or bischophode bering to the lay peple vsid in that ouerte upon hem, and not

netherte as being vndir hem. Also Dynys, which, as he witnessith him silf [See the remarks of Corderius in the note below.] , siȝe the conuersacioun and gouernaunce of Poul and of Iohun Euangelist and of othere Apostlis, seith in his epistle to the monk Demophil [Domophil, MS. (twice).] thus: Dekenys ben ouerers to the monk Demophil, [Domophil, MS. (twice).] and preestis ben ouerers to dekenys, and bischopis ben ouerers to preestis, and the apostilis and her successouris ben ouerers to bischopis; ["…." Pseudo|Dionys. Areop. Epist. viii. (ad Demoph. Mon. Op. tom. ii. p. 113. Ed. Cord.)] and, as he wole in the other place alleggid, Petir and his successour be [ben, MS. (first hand).] ouerers to archibischopis, ["…." Id. De Divin. Nomin. c. 2. (Op. tom. i. pp. 538, 539.) There is no doubt that this is the place intended by Pecock; how far it answers his purpose the reader must judge. Corderius quite similarly argues: "Nota hinc firmissimum a S. Dio|nysii auctoritate argumentum pro primatu Petri, et consequenter pon|tificum Romanorum ejusdem succes|sorum. Describit autem hic, quo|modo apostoli cum aliis discipulis, inter quos ipse erat cum Hierotheo, interfuerint exequiis B. Virginis Mariæ." Id. p. 542.] and that forto punysche bi peyne and correcte hem to whom thei ben ouerers, as is open bi the processe of the now alleggid epistle of Dynys. Wherfore or Dynys muste be a wrong vndirstondir of Poulis conuersacioun and of Petris conuersacioun and a wrong vndirstonder of her writingis, but if thei meeneden hem in that that thei weren preestis forto be ouerers to hem to whom thei weren preestis. And so herbi open it is, that the now bifore ȝouun answere to the textis of the ij^e. obieccioun is not trewe.

It is therfore to be seid to tho textis in these maners. To the firste text of hem iij., [ij., MS.] which is of

Petir, it [it is interlineated by a later hand.] is to be seid that sithen bi the same text folewith that preesthode is to be had, as is open ynouȝ bi the letter in the processe there, and sithen the same text weerneth not bischophode and archibischophode and popehode to be had, as is now bifore schewid, and sithen it is now bifore proued that preesthode and bischophode, in that that thei ben preesthode and bischophode, ben ouertees to hem for which thei ben had and vsid, it muste folewe needis that the dew vndirstonding of this text, i^e. Pet. v^e. capitulum., is the vndirstonding which is ȝouun bifore in the iij^e. parti of this book, the iiij^e. chapiter, vpon the iij^e. principal processe, [See p. 300.] which vndirstonding is this: that thouȝ bischopis and archibischopis han ouerte vpon her nethereris, ȝit thei schulden vse her ouerte not at her owne plesaunce oonli or not at her owne glorie or her owne avauntage oonli or principali, but in to the profit and avail of her netherers, as fer forth as the lawe seruying to thilk ouerte wole; and in that thei be not holding lordschip in the clergie, that is to seie, not such lordschip as worldli princis and worldli vndir hem dukis and othere statis ben woned to holde and vse bi tyranry vpon her netherers. And sithen this muste needis be the meenyng of Peter there, it is seid ynouȝ here for dew vndirstonding ther of, that it gooth not aȝens the seid iiij^e. principal politik gouernaunce vsid in the clergie of the chirche.

To the ij^e. text, which is of Poul, i^e. Cor. iij^e. capitulum., it is to be seid that his dew vndirstonding is this: that noman baptisid or cathezized, that is to seie, tauȝt the feith and the lawe of Crist, ouȝte holde him the holier for that he is baptisid or is so tauȝt and leerid of an holi man, than if he had be so

baptisid [babtisid, MS.] or tauȝt of an vnholi man; neither he ouȝte holde him the better or holier for that he is so bap|tisid or tauȝt of the holier man, than if he hadde be so baptisid and tauȝt of the lasse holi man; and that bi cause that in these deedis God is the cheef and principal and veri worcher of the principal effect, and the baptiser and cathezizer is a mynystre oonli vndir God forto sette water on the persoon and forto per|forme a certein entent: (but how and in which wise the preest is mynystre schal be tauȝte more in The book of baptym in Latyn and in The book of penaunce in Latyn and in The book of preesthode;) and more than this can not be had of the proces of Poul there. Wherfore thilk processe of Poul there gooth not aȝens the present purpos had here.

Answere to the iij^e. text is sufficientli maad and sett bifore in the iij^e. partie of this present book, the iiij^e. chapiter, and is lijk to the answere now bifore mad to the firste text in this present chapiter; and therfore who so wole se thilk answere in lengthe, turne he thider. [See pp. 298-302.] And thus miche now for proof of the firste principal conclusioun in this present iiij^e. partie.