The repressor of over much blaming of the clergy.

iij. CHAPITER.

THE ij^e. principal conclusion concernyng and bihold|ing the seid iiij^e. principal gouernaunce is this: Doom of cleerli disposid resoun in kinde weerneth not and lettith not the seid iiij^e. principal gouernaunce sett bifore in the bigynnyng of this present iiij^e. partie. That this conclusioun is trewe, y proue thus: If eny doom of kindeli cleer resoun schulde weerne and lette

the seid iiij^e. gouernaunce, thilk doom of resoun schulde be oon of these ij. whiche now next suyngli schulen be here rehercid. But so it is, that noon of these ij. doomes of resoun weerneth and lettith. Wher|fore no doom of cleer resoun it lettith and warneth.

Moche synne and harme cometh into the clergie and into the layfe fro and bi the seid iiij^e. politik gouernaunce had and vsid in the clergie: wherfore it is not worthi neither leeful it to be had and vsid. Certis this skile and argument is not worth, as ech man mai soone wite, but if he take withinne him and meene openli or priueli that ech gouernaunce and al thing, fro and bi whiche greet synne and harme comen, is [See p. 337, note.] vnleeful and not worthi be had and vsid: for out of this now rehercid sentence or proposicioun the argument muste take his strengthe and proof, if he eny such strengthe schulde haue. But so it is, that this now last rehercid sentence or proposicioun is not trewe. Wherfore the now mad skile and argu|ment is not worth. Forwhi if the argument were worth, thanne bi lijk argument and skile ech gouer|naunce and ech thing fro which and bi which synne and harme comen weren vnleeful and vnworthi to be had and vsid; and so therbi wolde folewe, that forto haue dekenes ouer the lay peple and forto haue preestis ouere dekenys and ouer the lay peple were vnleeful and not worthi be had and vsid; sithen open ynouȝ it is, that in the maner in which synne and yuel cometh fro and bi bischophode and popehode synne and yuel cometh fro and bi bischophode and dekenhode, as pride and extorcioun [synne . . . extorcioun are added in the margin by a later hand, which has made erasures in the text.] and coueitise and ambicioun and symonie and suche othere. And ȝit, who euere wole or nyle, Holi Scripture wole that preesthode and

dekenhode be had and vsid; and therfore the skile assigned for riȝt doom of resoun, that bischophode and archibischopode and popehode schulden not be, is not riȝt doom of resoun.

Also if thilk doom were a riȝt doom of resoun and thilk assigned argument were good, certis bi like skile and bi lijk doom it wolde folewe that it is vnleeful princehode and duchehode and othere statis vndir hem to be, sithen ful myche synne of pride of coueitise, of ravein, of manslauȝter, of leccherie, of glotenie, of periurie, and manie suche othere synnes comen therbi and therfro, in the maner in which this seid skile and doom takith synne and harme come [came, MS.] bi and fro the seid iiij^e. principal politik gouernaunce had and vsid in the clergie. And ȝit, who euer wole the contrarie, Holi Scripture approueth weel princehode and duche|hode and othere officis vndir hem to be ouer and aboue the comoun peple, as it is open bi what is bifore alleggid in the i^e. chapiter of this present iiij^e. partie. Wherfore needis it is open, that the seid pre|tendid skile and doom of resoun is no [not, MS. (first hand).] riȝt doom of resoun.

Also of and out and bi this, that God made Lucifer so fair an aungel; and of this, that God ȝaue to him knouwing of his owne fairnes, came ful miche synne and other harme of greet peyne and losse of good in the now supposid maner of speche; also fro and bi this, that God ordeynede Adam and Eue to not ete of a certein tre in Paradise, came in like maner of speche ful myche synne and othir yuel of peyne and losse of good. And of this, that God ȝaue a lawe to the [the is interlineated by a later (?) hand.] Iewis, came myche synne, as Poul witnessith, Rom. v^e. capitulum., seiyng thus: The lawe entrid that gilt schulde

be plenteuose; and more pleinli her of Poul spekith, Rom. vij^e. capitulum., bi long processe, that bi occasioun of the oold lawe myche synne came forth, not withstonding that the lawe in it silf was holi and good, as Poul seith there. And of this, that Crist chase Iudas to be his disciple came miche synne. And if alle thes deedis and ordinauncis of God weren therfore vnleeful and vnworthi to be doon, God schulde ther yn be accusid of ful greet defaut, ȝhe, of [ȝhe and of, MS. (first hand).] ful greet wickidnes. Wherfore the bifore pretendid skile for to distroie the seid iiij^e. principal politik gouernaunce in the clergie is no [not, MS. (first hand).] riȝt doom of resoun.

What thing or deede is ther in this world tretid and vsid bi men, but that ther of mai come, ȝhe, and cometh synne and yuel? Certis noon, as experience schewith and as Scripture witnessith, Sapience xiiij^e. capitulum., where it is seid thus: Creaturis of God be made into haterede and into temptacioun to the soule of men, and into a trappe [into trappe, MS. (first hand).] to the feet of vnwise men. And therfore God forbede that ech dede and ech gouernaunce schulde be holde nauȝt and badde, if therof and therfro bi mannis freelnes, (forto seie the sothe,) and not bi the thing synne and yuel comen. And thus miche is ynowȝ for vnprouyng of the seid skile pretendid to be good and riȝt doom of resoun.

Neuertheles here it is vndirstonde, that out and fro and bi a thing or a gouernaunce yuel mai come in ij. wisis. In oon wise, that thilk thing or gouernaunce be cause of the yuel, for as miche as thilk thing or gouernaunce wirchith bi his kinde into the seid yuel: and thanne the yuel cometh out, fro, and bi the seid thing as bi a cause of the same yuel. In an othir wise out, fro, and bi a thing or a gouernaunce yuel mai come, not so that the thing or gouernaunce [the gouernaunce, MS. (first hand.)]

wirchith or makith bi his kinde eny strecching into the yuel, but that sum othir thing, as the freelnes of a mannys wil vsing and entirmeting with the seid gouernaunce, is the wircher and causer of the yuel whilis he entirmetith with the seid gouernaunce. And for as miche as the mannys freel wil schulde not cause the seid yuel, saue whilis and but if he enter|metith with the seid gouernaunce, therfore, thouȝ the seid gouernaunce be not cause of the seid yuel, ȝit he is clepid the occasioun of the seid yuel. And al herfore, for the thing which is the cause of the verry yuel schulde not cause thilk yuel, saue whanne and but if he entermete with the seid gouernaunce. So that the cause of a thing is it that wirchith into the thing, that the thing be mad or doon; and the occa|sioun of a thing is a thing withoute which the cause of the thing wirchith not into the thing, thouȝ it in it silf wirchith not into the same thing.

Thanne ferther thus: Thouȝ in the ij. now bifore seid dyuerse wisis out, fro, and bi euereither of hem, that is to seie, cause and occasioun, yuel mai be seid come; ȝit verili and in propirist and in trewist maner of speking forto speke in this mater, which maner is the first maner now rehercid, the synne and the yuel cometh not fro and bi the seid politik iiij^e. gouer|naunce had and vsid in the clergie, but fro and bi mannys natural passiouns and freelnessis and fre wil, aȝens which is not mad sufficient fiȝt and bateil: and fro and bi this as cause, that men for like passiouns and freelnessis not dewli aȝenstondun setten into the state of preesthode, of bischophode, of archibischophode, and of popehode, suche persoones whiche ben not weel proued to be worthi therto, and setten suche persoones as ben vnkunnyng and vnvsid in vertues and suche as ben ouer ȝonge, and that for fleischli loue born toward suche persoones and for worldli mede ȝouun for the avauncing of suche persoones. Certis out of

these now seid pointis and bi strengthe of hem comen the bifore rehercid synnes in the first maner, and not out of and bi [out and bi of, MS.] the seid politik iiij^e. gouernance sta|bilid bi Scripture and bi reson. And therfore thes now rehercid pointis and causis, out of whiche wallen the seid yuelis, ben bi riȝt doom of resoun vnleeful and not worthi to be had and vsid. And so miche proueth resoun.

Also thus: If eny man is aboute forto proue a certein gouernaunce to be vnleeful and not to be had and vsid, by cause that therof in the ij^e. maner cometh synne and other harme, he muste therwith se whether of and bi the same gouernaunce cometh in the first or ij^e. maner eny vertuose good and other good or no; and whethir al thilk good so comyng fro and bi the seid gouernaunce be more or lasse than is al the yuel comyng bi the same gouernaunce: and but if he can schewe sureli or miche likeli, that al the now seid good so comyng fro and bi the seid gouernaunce, is lasse than is al the now seid yuel comyng oonli in the ij^e. maner fro and bi the same gouernaunce, ellis his proof can haue no colur. [Probably a clerical error for colour.] But so it is, that out, fro, and bi the bifore seid politik gouernaunce of ouerte and netherte had and vsid in the clergie cometh in the firste maner and also in the ij^e. maner miche good of vertu, of pees, and of grace, and of blisse, and myche forbarring of synnes, which ellis wolde come forth; as it is open ynow to ech mannys resoun: and no man can make him sure and siker, that fro and bi the seid politik gouernaunce cometh oonli in the ij^e. maner more yuel than is the good comyng bi the same gouernaunce, and than is the yuel which schulde come fro and bi the noun hauyng of the same seid gouernaunce. Wherfore no

man mai by this ouer baarli taken meene proue that the seid iiij^e. gouernaunce is vnleeful bi this cause oonli, that fro and bi it cometh yuel in the ij^e. seid maner oonli.

Not withstonding that aftir the trewe speche which in proprist wise ouȝte be here in this mater spokun, that is to seie, in the firste maner, no synne or yuel cometh fro and bi the seid politik iiij^e. gouernaunce, but fro and bi mennys freelnessis, as is now bifore sumwhat declarid; and ful myche good cometh fro and bi the seid politik gouernaunce in trewist and proprist maner of speche bi these wordis "comyng fro and bi:" certis if out, fro, and bi eny gouernaunce cometh nedis synne in the firste maner, that is to seie, if thilk gouernaunce schal needis be cause of synne whanne he is had and vsid, sotheli y can not se but that thilk gouernaunce is vnleeful and not to be had and vsid, how euer miche goostli or worldli good schal come in the first or ij^e. maner bi the same gouernaunce. Forwhi more is ech synne to be fled that it bi his verry cause be not doon, than eny good goostli or worldli is to be souȝt aftir that it bi his cause or occasioun [accasioun, MS.] be doon or bifalle, [bi falle MS., (without hyphen).] as it is in othere placis of my writingis cleerli schewid. More declaracioun longing to this mater is sett bifore in the iij^e. partie of this present book, the vij^e. chapiter.

An other doom of reson is, bi which myȝte to manie seme that the seid iiij^e. principal gouernaunce ouȝte not be had in the clergie. Forwhi, if the seid iiij^e. principal gouernaunce hade [This word is written in a later hand on an erasure: hadde is the usual orthography of the MS.] be profitable to the clergie and to al the hool chirche of God, Crist him silf bi his owne persoon immediatli and at the next hadde putt in hise daies this iiij^e. gouernaunce into the clergie,

or hadde bede expresseli to men that thei schulden rere vp the seid iiij^e. gouernaunce into the clergie and into the chirche; namelich sithen Crist loued the clergie and the chirche more than eny othere men euere loueden the clergie, for which loue thei reriden up the seid iiij^e. principal gouernaunce in the chirche. But so it is, that we mowen not seie and holde that Crist in his owne persoon and in hise daies in this world immediatli puttid into the chirche the seid iiij^e. principal gouernaunce, neither that he expresseli bade it to be putt into the chirche. Forwhi neuerneither of these ij. thingis ben writun in the Newe Testament. Wherfore the seid iiij^e. principal gouernaunce is not to be had in the chirche.

Answere herto ful good and sufficient is sett bifore in the iij^e. partie of this book, the ix^e. [vij ^e., MS. (twice). See p. 331, seq.] chapiter, thoruȝ|out al it what is seid there for answere to the ij^e. semyng skile bifore sett there in the same ix^e. [vij ^e., MS. (twice). See p. 331, seq.] chapiter. Neuertheles another answere mai be sett to this ij^e. semyng doom of resoun here now bifore formed, which answere is this: That Crist willid the seid iiij^e. gouer|naunce to be rerid up bi prudence of men in the chirche aftir his passing fro this world, and that he allowith and approueth the seid rering up and setting up of the iiij^e. gouernaunce bi mennys prudence into the clergie and into the chirche, as if he had so do it immediatli bi his owne persoon. And herto suffi|cient euidence expresseli is had in the Newe Testament, Iohun the first chapiter, whanne Crist seide to Peter that "he schulde be clepid Cephas," or heed, [Pecock imagines that Cephas is connected with … see below.] and Math. xvj^e. capitulum., whanne Crist seid to Petir thus: And y seie to thee thou art Peter, and upon this stoon y schal bilde my chirche; as who euere wole se that these textis prouen and grounden this ij^e. answere, go

he into the iiij^e. chapiter of this present iiij^e. partie; for there this is openli schewid, wherbi it is open that the ij^e. premysse in this now mad ij^e. argument is vntrewe and is to be denyed. And thus myche as here for answere and assoiling to the ij^e. semyng doom of resoun aȝens the iiij^e. principal gouernaunce.

The iij^e. principal conclusioun concernyng and bi|holding the seid iiij^e. principal gouernaunce is this: The seid iiij^e. principal gouernaunce spokun in the bigynnyng of this present iiij^e. parti is leeful. That this present conclusioun is trewe y proue this: Ech gouernaunce or conuersacioun or policie, which Holi Scripture werneth not and forbedith not, doom of cleer and weel disposid natural resoun weerneth not and forbedith not, mannys lawe weerneth not and forbedith not, is leeful and not worthi be vndirnome and blamed. But so it is, that the now bifore rehercid iiij^e. gouernaunce, conuersacioun, and policie vsid in the clergie is not weerned and forbodun bi Holi Scrip|ture, neither bi doom of resoun, neither bi mannys lawe. Wherfore needis folewith, that the now bifore rehercid iiij^e. politik gouernaunce had and vsid in the clergie of Goddis chirche in erthe is leeful ynouȝ, and is not worthi be vndirnome and blamed. The firste premysse of this argument muste needis be grauntid. Forwhi al forbodun thing is forbodun bi Holy Scrip|ture, or by doom of resoun, or bi mannys lawe; for as myche as we kunnen fynde no mo autentik forbeders. But so it is, that al vnleeful thing is forbodun. Wherfore al vnleeful thing is forbodun bi Holi Scrip|ture, or bi doom of resoun, or bi mannys lawe. And thanne ferther thus, al vnleeful thing is forbodun of Holi Scripture, or bi doom of resoun, or by mannys lawe. Wherfore al not forbodun bi Holi Scripture, bi resoun, or bi mannis lawe, is not vnleeful. And so the firste premysse of the principal argument is weel and sufficientli proued. That the ij^e. premysse of the

same principal argument is trewe, it is open bi al what is bifore going in this present iiij^e. partie for proofis of the first and ij^e. principal conclusions con|cernyng and biholding the iiij^e. seid gouernaunce. Wherfore this present iij^e. principal conclusioun thus folewing out and bi these ij. premyssis is needis trewe.