The repressor of over much blaming of the clergy.

THE FOURTH PART. Here bigynneth the iiij ^e. parti.

THE FIRST CHAPITRE.

THE iiij^e. principal gouernaunce or point to be tretid in this iiij^e. principal partie, for which gouernaunce summe of the lay peple vniustli and vnworthili blamen and vndirnymen the clergie, is this: In the clergie ben dyuerse statis and degrees of ouerte and netherte; as that aboue manye preestis soortid to gidere in to oon cuntre or diocise is oon bischop forto ouer se and attende that alle tho preestis lyue and do as it longith to hem bi her preesthode, and forto iuge querelis and pleintis and causis and stryues, if eny such rise among summe of tho preestis, and forto redresse the wrongis whiche preestis doon to her parischenys or ministris, if thei eny such doon; and aboue manie bischopis of a larger cuntre or of a prouynce is oon archibishop for to in lijk maner ouer se and attende that tho bischopis lyue and do as it longith to hem bi her bischophode, and for to iuge querelis and pleintis and debatis, if eny suche arise among tho bischopis, and forto redresse the wrongis whiche tho bischopis doon to her preestis, if thei eny such doon; and in lijk maner aboue manye archibischopis is oon patriark forto ouer se and reule and amende the gouernancis of tho archibischopis; and aboue manie and alle patriarkis is oon pope forto ouerse and reule and amende the goueruauncis of patri|arkis, and forto redresse wrongis doon to eny persoon in the clergie bi eny other persoon in the clergie, if ther upon to him be mad compleint that the netherer iugis wolen not do to him riȝt. Al this now re|hercid gouernaunce and policie in the clergie summe

of the lay peple deemen and seien to be nauȝt, and that it is brouȝt yn bi the deuel and anticrist; so that thei wolen alle preestis to be in oon degre, and noon of hem be aboue other of hem, and thei wolen that vndir preestis be dekenys, and no mo ordris, statis, or degrees in the clergie at al. [Wiclif is the fountain-head of this opinion: "Unum audacter as|sero, quod in primitiva ecclesia vel tempore Pauli suffecerunt duo or|dines clericorum, scilicet sacerdos atque diaconus. Similiter dico quod tempore Pauli fuit idem pres|byter atque episcopus . . . . . Tunc enim adinventa non fuit dis|tinctio papæ et cardinalium, patri|archarum et archiepiscoporum, epi|scoporum," &c. Dial. lib. iv. c. 15.] And bi cause that suche bifore rehercid statis and degrees aboue preestis ben in the clergie, thei bacbiten and detracten the clergie, cleping the hiȝe pope anticrist and cleping alle the othere louȝer rehercid statis aboue preestis the anticristis lymes or membris. [Thus Oldcastle, according to Capgrave, (Chron. p. 306,) said. "The pope is antechrist; bischoppis be his membris, and freres be his tayl."]

But that this bering an hond upon the clergie and that this blamyng doon to the clergie is vniust and vntrewe, y schal proue in this present iiij^e. parti bi fyue conclusiouns, of which the first is this: Holi Scripture weerneth not and lettith not the now re|hercid iiij^e. principal gouernaunce. That this conclu|sioun is trewe y proue thus: If eny text of Scripture schulde lette and weerne the seid iiij^e. principal go|uernaunce, it schulde be oon of these textis whiche schulen now suyngli be tretid in this present chapiter. But so it is, that noon of hem so werneth and lettith, as anoon suyngli schal be schewid. Wherfore Holi Scripture lettith not and werneth not the seid iiij^e. principal gouernaunce.

Aȝens the seid iiij^e. gouernaunce mai be argued bi textis of Holi Scripture in the Newe Testament, whiche sownen sumwhat (thouȝ litle) aȝens the seid iiij^e. go|uernaunce,

of whiche textis tweyne ben these. It is writun, Math. xxiij^e. capitulum., thus: Nile ȝe be clepid maister, for oon is ȝoure maystir, and alle ȝe ben britheren; and nyle ȝe clepe to ȝou a fader on erthe, for oon is ȝoure Fader in heuens. Also Iames, iij^e. capitulum.: Nile ȝe manye be mad maistris, witing that ȝe taken the more doom, for alle we offenden in manye thingis: if eny man not offendith in word, this is a perfit man. Wher of semeth folewe this, that it is for|bodun bi these textis eny man wilne or suffre him silf be clepid maister. But open it is, that noman can take upon him to be in eny state or degre of the seid politik iiij^e. gouernaunce, but if he theryn and therbi take upon him a thing wherbi he is verili and trewli maister to hise netherers; and therfore mai verili, truli, and iustli be clepid maister of hem. Wherfore it is not leeful eny such state, dignite, or degree be in the clergie, sithen it is not leeful eny man be clepid maister.

Answere herto is this: Certis if the arguyng fourmed vpon these ij. now rehercid textis were worth, therbi wolde folewe that it were not leeful eny preesthode to be. Forwhi ech preest is ouer and aboue a deken, as it is open, Acts vj^e. capitulum.; and ech deken is ouer and aboue a lay persoon, euen as a bischop is aboue a preest and an archibischop aboue an other bischop, as it is here aftir open in the next chapiter by Dynys in his epistle to the monk Demophil. [Domophil, MS. See below, p. 425.] Wherfore ech man, whanne he takith preesthode, takith a ground and a foundement wherbi he is verili and iustli a maister, and mai therbi, if he wole, be clepid verili and iustli a maister, sithen ech man mai iustli take and vse his riȝt or that that bifallith to him bi riȝt. And so if it be not leeful a man be clepid maister, it

is vnleeful eny man be preest; which is aȝens Scrip|ture plein ynouȝ bi textis alleggid aftir in the [ij^e.] [A space left in the MS. for the number.] chapiter of this iiij^e. partie. And therfore this arguyng now maad is nauȝt, proceding vpon the mys vndir|stonding of tho ij. textis.

If the first of tho ij. textis were so streiteli to be vndirstonde, that it were vnleeful eny man be clepid maister, thanne for the ij^e. parti of thilk same hool text sownyng in lijk wise it schulde be vnleeful eny man to [to is interlineated by a later hand.] be clepid fadir, sithen in the ij^e. party of the same text it is writun, Math. xxiij^e. capitulum., thus: Nile ȝe calle to ȝou fadris vpon erthe, for oon is ȝoure Fader which is in heuen. And ȝit theraȝens meetith the wordis of Crist in an other place, Mark, x^e. capitulum., where he seith thus: Worschipe thou thi fader and thi modir; and Effecies, vj^e. capitulum., Poul seith thus: Honoure thou thi fadir and thi modir. How euer wolden Crist and Poul calle persoones fadir and modir to me, but if tho persoones weren verrili fader and modir to me, and but if it were also leeful to me forto calle hem fadir and modir to me, as thei ben verili fadir and modir to me? And so open it is herbi, that the firste parti of the first text, which i^e. parti is this, Nile ȝe be clepid maistris, is not to be vnder|stonde so streitly as he sowneth, no more [nomore, MS. (accidentally?).] than the ij^e. partie of the same first text, Nile ȝe calle to ȝou fadris vpon erthe, is to be take and vndirstonde so stritli [Perhaps a clerical error for streitli.] as he sowneth. And sithen the iij^e. parti of the hool rehercid text declarith how the ij^e. partie is to be vndirstonde, that is to seie thus: "Nile ȝe calle to ȝou ȝoure principal fadir upon erthe;" (for whi so meeneth the iij^e. partie of the same text, whanne it

is seid thus: Oon is ȝoure Fader in heuen, that is to seie, oon is ȝoure principal fader in heuen; and ellis thilk seiyng were fals, for as miche as Crist him silf meeneth that we han fadir and moder on erthe in that that he biddith us worschipe fadir and moder on erthe,) therfore so is the first parti of the same hool text to be ariȝt vndirstonde thus: "Nile ȝe be callid principal maistris, for oon is ȝoure principal maister in heuen." And herwith al it mai ful weel stonde that we mowen haue othere maistris in this world vndir thilk principal maistir. Forwhi aftir the wordis of Seint Poul, Rom. xiij^e. capitulum., in the bigynnyng, ["Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, for there is no power but of God." Rom. xiii. 1. The actual word lords, which Pecock's argument almost requires, does not occur either in the original or in Wiclif's version.] we mowen and ouȝten haue lordis to us in this world vndir God principal Lord aboue; and therfore miche rather we mowen and ouȝten haue to us maistris vnder God the principal mayster aboue. And that we mowen and ouȝten haue lordis aboue us witnessith Seint Peter, i^e. Peter ij^e. capitulum., thus: Honoure ȝe the king: seruauntis, be ȝe suget in al drede to lordis, not oonli to gode and to milde, but also to tirantis. And Poul witnessith the same, Effes. vj^e. capitulum., seiyng thus: Seruauntis, obeische ȝe to fleischli lordis with drede and trembling in symplenes of ȝoure herte as to Crist, not seruyng at the iȝe as plesing to men, but as seruauntis of Crist doing the will of God by dis|crecioun, with good wil seruyng as to the Lord, and not as to men. And in lijk maner Poul witnessith, i^e. Thim. vj^e. capitulum., thus: What euer seruauntis ben vndir ȝok, deeme thei her lordis worthi al honour. Also hem that made hem silf seme wijse forto condempne mennis lawe mad and forto iustifie that to such lawe

it were not to obeie, Poul reproueth, i^e. Thim. i^e. capitulum., bi a fair processe. And thus miche is ynouȝ for the dew vndirstonding of the first text takun into ob|ieccion.

The dew vnderstonding of the ij^e. text takun into the same obieccioun, whanne it is seid, Nile ȝe manye be mad maistris, is this: Iames seiyng and knowing weel that it is hard forto execute perfitli and dewli eny office or state or degre of ouerte, and therfore perilose it is to ful manye that eny of hem be take into such office, state, or degre, (namelich sithen Scrip|ture ther upon, Sapience vj^e. capitulum., seith ful gastfulli thus: Men of power schulen myȝtili suffre tormentis; and sithen also "ech of us alle offenden in ful manye thingis" of lasse hardnes to performe than ben the deedis dew to suche statis or officis, in so myche that no man kan kepe him fro yuel speche and "reule his owne tunge," as Iames seith, and experience it schew|ith, and therfore miche hardir it schulde be [be is interlineated in a later hand. Perhaps to should be added.] him to reule othere mennys tungis and othere mennys membris and deedis to gidere and his owne,) therfore Seint Iame was moued for to counseile not to ech man but to manye of alle men, that thei take not vpon hem to be maistris, that is to seie, state and dignite and degre of ouerte; so that he leeueth to ech mannys owne doom and conscience, whether he be of thilk ouer freel manye or of thilk ouer freel multitude or no. And therfore it is to be markid weel how Iames spek|ith in hise wordis as in sentence thus: Manie ȝe, nyle be callid maistris; as thouȝ he seide thus, "O manye of ȝou, awaite ȝe that ȝe be not mad maistris." [St. James' words are: ….] And the perel anoon forthwith aftir he settith ther|to thus: Witing that ȝe taken the more doom; for

alle [It deserves notice that the ori|ginal reading was all, (a form hardly occurring elsewhere in the MS.), but the change into alle seems due to the original scribe.] we offenden in manye thingis. If eny man not offendith in word, this is a perfit man. And ferther|more Iames schewith there in processe next folewing how hard it is a man to reule his tunge, that he not therbi synne. And bi this setting forth of this pro|cesse, conteynyng the cause and the perel for which he seide, Nile ȝe manye be clepid maistris, is schewid weel that Iames meeneth ther yn as he is now expowned to meene. And this meenyng of Iames is in no thing aȝens the seid iiij^e. politik gouernaunce had and vsid in the clergie of the chirche.

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.

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.

iiij. CHAPITER.

THE iiij^e. principal conclusioun concernyng and bi|holding the seid iiij^e. principal gouernaunce is this: Holi Scripture bothe in the Oold Testament and in the Newe allowith [allowith and approueth, MS. first hand).] the seid iiij^e. principal gouernaunce. That this conclusioun is trewe, y may proue bi ij. principal argumentis, of which oon is this: In the Oold Testament God ordeyned oon bischop to be aboue in reule and iurisdiccion to alle the preestis and dekenis, and so to alle the clergie in Goddis chirche being thanne; euen as the pope is now oon persoon aboue in reule and [and is interlineated in a later hand.] in iurisdiccioun to alle preestis and dekenys and to al the clergie in the chirche of God being now, as it is open. And so, thouȝ bicause al the cuntre in which the Iewis in tho daies dwelliden was not but litil, (for it was not so large as is the rewme of pure Englond,) and preestis and dekenis weren fewe thanne in noumbre, it was no nede that manie bischopis schulden be thanne upon dyuerse multitudis of preestis, and that manie archibischopis schulden be thanne upon dyuerse multitudis of bischopis; and nede askith now among Cristen men forto so be, bi cause that Cristen men occupien now manie rewmes and biȝende grete sees and a this side grete sees, and therfore as ther

yn the now seid dyuersitie of thilk [tho thilk, MS.] oold politik go|uernaunce werneth not neither contrarieth this newe politik gouernaunce;—ȝit the politik gouernaunce being thanne in the oold clergie and the politik [the oold politik, MS.] gouer|naunce being now in the newe clergie accorden in this, that aboue preestis and dekenys be a bischop, and aboue the al hool clergie be oon heed, being oon persoon and hiȝest of al the clergie; and so thilk oold politik gouernaunce ordeyned bi God him silf allowith and approueth and helpith to conferme this newe iiij^e. politik gouernaunce vsid and had in the clergie of the chirche now being. Certis no text or processe of the old lawe can be founde forto in eny worth sowne aȝens this bifore rehercid politik gouernaunce of ouerte and netherte in the clergie of the Cristen chirche; and if eny such text or processe be pretendid to so sowne, lete him come forth and schewe him silf, that to him be maad answere.

That Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament allowith [allowith and approueth, MS. (first hand).] this same now seid gouernaunce, y mai proue thus: Holi Writt of the Newe Testament makith mensioun, Iohun firste chapiter, that Crist seide to Symount Petir thus: Thou art Symount the sone of Iohanna, thou shalt be clepid Cephas, or heed; and thanne Iohun settith to this, "which is interpretid, Petir;" and i^e. Cor. ix^e. capitulum. in the bigynnyng, and i^e. Cor. xv^e. [xj ^e., MS.] capitulum. in the bigynnyng, and Galat. ij^e. capitulum. toward the myddis, Poul clepid Peter Cephas; and as Ierom witnessith, [Pecock's blunders are really unpardonable: what St. Jerome does say is this:—"In evangelio et in aliis Pauli epistolis et in hac quoque ipsa (ad Galatas) modo Cephas, modo Petrus scribitur. Non quod aliud significet Petrus, aliud Cephas: sed quod quam nos Latine et Græce petram vocemus, hanc Hebræi et Syri propter linguæ inter se viciniam Cephan nuncupent." S. Hieron. in Ep. ad Gal. lib. i. c. 2. (Op. tom. vii. p. 409. Ed. Vall.)]

Cephas is no word of Hebrew, but it is a word of Grew, in which langage it [it is interlineated in a later hand.] is as myche to seie as heed; and it is also a word of Sire tunge, in which it is as miche to seie as fundament, or ground, or stable. Thanne her vpon y argue thus: Peter was heed, in the maner in which noon of the othere Apos|tlis was heed: for ellis cause hadde be noon good, whi Crist schulde haue seid so singulerli to him and not to othere thus: Thou schalt be callid heed; and herwith it is trewe, that no thing is an heed but of sum certeyn bodi; wherfore of sum bodi Petir was heed, of which bodi noon of the othere apostlis was heed. And ferther thus: This bodi was not other than peple; wherfore of peple Peter was heed, in maner in which noon other Apostle was heed. And sithen ech Apostle was heed of oon certeyn parcel of peple, or ellis of alle the lay peple of the world iointli with hise felawis, it folewith nedis that Petir was heed of al the clergie, and so of alle preestis and of al the lay partie; for in noon other wise it can be ȝouun that he was heed in a dyuers and different maner fro ech other Apostle, and in which maner noon other Apostle was heed.

Which thing thus concludid and proued had and grauntid, it is to be argued ferther therof thus: Peter was heed of the chirche of God in erthe, for ellis the bifore sett wordis of Crist seid to Peter, Iohun i^e. capitulum., hadden not be trewe. Wherfore Peter was thus heed, whilis Crist lyued here in erthe; or ellis aftir Cristis ascencioun, whilis Petir in his owne persoon lyued; or ellis he was thus heed in hise successouris, after that Peter was deed. If thou graunte the firste, that Peter was heed of the Apostlis and of the chirche, whilis Crist lyued, thanne thou grauntist that Crist him silf and bi him silf ordeyned and made

Peter to be so heed. And skile was ther noon, whi Peter in his owne persoon was so mad to be heed in his lijf, but that lijk good skile or more nede was, that aftir his deeth he schulde haue summe succes|souris in to the same cure and office. Wherfore it is also therbi to be grauntid. If thou graunte not the firste, but the ij^e. or the iij^e., that Peter was maad to be so heed aftir Cristis ascencioun, and that bi the eleccioun and ordinaunce of the Apostlis and of the clergie; or ellis that al the while Petir him silf was bischop of Rome, he was not thus [thus is added in the margin by a later hand.] heed ouer al the chirche of God, but that the successouris of Petir in the chirche of Rome weren heedis to al the chirche of God, and that bi eleccioun [the eleccioun, MS. (first hand).] and ordinaunce of men:—ȝit certis thou maist not seie nay, but this was doon bi Goddis puruyaunce and prouydence, and bi Goddis welwilling that it [it is interlineated in a later hand; and similarly to below.] schulde be doon; in as myche as he denouncid bifore and bihiȝte bifore in maner of laud to Peter that it schulde be doon, whanne he seide to Peter, Iohun i^e. capitulum., Thou shalt be clepid heed; and ellis also Poul wolde not as in remem|bring of this promys maad to [it is interlineated in a later hand; and similarly to below.] Peter have clepid him so ofte "heed." And so folewith that this, that oon persoon successour to Petir was bi processe of tyme heed of al the chirche, as the pope is now heed, was of the wil and prouydence of God: and thus it may not be ascapid, but that Scripture of Cristis bifore denouncing and of Cristis bifore biheting groundith that popehode [the popehode, MS. (first hand).] is of the wil of Crist to be had in sum persoon to be chose as the successour of Petir.

And thanne ferther thus: If Crist wolde Petir or hise successouris to stonde in heedhode of al the chirche in erthe, that is to seie, in popehode of al the

chirche in erthe, (and this Crist wolde not ordeyne or purueie to be ordeyned saue for sum skile and resoun,) it folewith that in the same now seid weelwilling of Crist is includid and vndirstonde, that he wolde in the same or in lijk weelwilling that as the chirche of God encrecid in erthe in noumbre and multitude of persoones, so othere louȝer heedis vndir nethe Petir or his successour schuden be in the chirche in erthe, mo or fewer, aftir that the noumbre of hem schulde suffice into the good reule of the chirche. And so folewith that in this, that Crist seide to [to is interlineated in a later and.] Peter, Thou shalt be clepid heed, is includid not oonli this, that Peter and hise successouris schulden be heed of al the chirche in erthe or that hise successouris schulden so be, but also that vndirnethe the hiȝest heed schulden be louȝer heedis, as patriarkis, primatis, archibischopis, and bischopis, seruyng and laboring into lijk eende for which Peter or hise successouris weren ordeyned for to be the heed, that is to seie, the hiȝest reuler in the chirche of God in erthe.

The ij^e. argument into the proof of this present iiij^e. principal conclusioun is this: Math. xvj^e. capitulum., whanne Peter hadde seid to Crist thus: Thou art the Sone of lyuyng God, Crist seide to Peter thus: Blessid art thou, Symount Bariona, for fleisch and blood schewid not this to thee, but my Fader which is in heuene. And y seie to thee, for thou art Petir, and upon this stoon y schal bilde my chirche, and the ȝatis of helle schulen not haue the maistrie aȝens hir. And to thee y schal ȝeue the keies of the kingdom of heuene; and what euer thing thou schalt binde vpon erthe schal be bounde in heuene, and what eni [Written on an erasurc, and ap|parently a clerical error for euer, which occurs in both forms of Wiclif's version; but Pecock has here deviated from it more than he commonly does.] thing thou

schalt louce vpon erthe schal be lousid in heuene. And thouȝ summe men vndirstonden in this processe bi this stoon the persoon of Crist and not the persoon of [of is interlineated in a later hand.] Petir, ["Super hanc, inquit, petram quam confessus es, ædificabo eccle|siam meam." S. August. in Joh. Tract. 124. "Super hanc petram, id est, super me ædificabo ecclesiam meam." S. Anselm. in loco.] whanne it is seid thus: And y seie to thee, thou art Petir, and vpon this stoon y schal bilde my chirche, and the gatis of helle, et cætera; and summe othere vndirstonden bi this stoon the feith which Peter thanne knoulechid to Crist, ["…." S. Chrysost. in loco. For more information re|specting the patristic interpretations of this text, see Barrow, On the Pope's Suprem., pp. 59, 60, Lond. 1687, from whom these passages are taken.] certis it is miche [miche is interlineated in a later hand.] more likeli that bi the stoon the persoon of Peter schulde be vndirstonde, rather than the persoon of Crist or eny other thing than the persoon of Peter. Forwhi in the clausul going next bifore the hool clausul, in which it is spokun of the stoon, Crist spak to Petir and of Petir, seiyng thus, And y seie to thee, for thou art Petir; also in the tweyne clausulis, next folewing the hool clausul conteyning the speche of the stoon, Crist spake to Peter and of Petir, seiyng thus, And to thee y schal ȝeue the keies of the king|dom of heuene; and eftsoone next thus, And what euer thing thou schalt binde, et cætera. Wherfore it is at moost [the moost, MS. (first hand).] likeli to be trewe, that the myddil clausul, closid bitwixe these now rehercid clausulis, was seid to Petir and of Petris persoon; ȝhe, and ȝit miche the more herfore, for ellis this clausul, And y seie to thee, for thou art Peter, hadde be seid in waast and in veyn to Petir and of Petris persoon, and hadde be seid vnpertynently and vnhangingli fro the materis of the

clausulis folewing and afore going, and as a thing seid not to purpos, but if the clausulis ioyned therto weren also seid of Petiris persoon. And so therfore the hool clausul, in which is mensioun of the stoon, was seid of Petiris persoon.

Confirmacioun into this same is this: If y were to seie to my felawe, that y wolde do eny thing to myn owne persoon; (as that y wolde drinke or ete or slepe), wherto schulde y seie next bifore to him thus: "Thou art in this place, or thou art there, or thou art Iohun or William, y schal do this thing or that thing, as that y schal dyne or drinke or slepe?" Certis it schulde not bicome me or eny man, having ful smal witt and discrecioun, forto so in|pertynentli [So written at length in the MS.] speke, and forto sette to gidere in speche maters not hanging to gidere. Wherfore sithen miche rathir we ouȝten not bere an honde that Crist spake inpertinentli, and in such maner which bisemeth not eny man other than a fool forto speke, (namelich, withoute eny nede of the better therto dryuyng or more sownyng than to the contrarie,) it muste needis folewe that the seid hool myddil clausul (speking of the stoon) Crist spak to Peter and of Petiris persoon, and not of his owne persoon or of eny othir thing dyuers fro Petiris persoon; euen as in the clausul next bifore going and in the ij. clausulis next folewing aftir the seid hool clausul Crist spake of Petris persoon.

Vpon which thing thus concludid and proued y argue ferther in lijk maner, as y haue argued bifore in the next bifore going principal argument thus: If Crist bihiȝte that he wolde upon Peter bilde his chirche, y aske whether Crist meened that he wolde bilde his chirche upon the persoon of Peter, whilis that Crist lyued here, or aftir Cristis ascencioun; or ellis that

Crist wolde bilde his chirche not upon the persoon of Peter, but upon hise successouris? Oon of these thre thou muste needis graunte; and which euer of these iij. thou wolte graunte, therof folewith weel that it is the wil of God, that upon tho, whiche ben chose in the chirche to be the successouris of Peter, Crist bildid his chirche in erthe. And therof folewith, as it is in lijk maner dryue and concludid in the next bifore going argument, that it is and was the wil of Crist and his prouydence and puruyaunce, that with this hiȝest heed of the chirche schulden be louȝer heedis oon aboue an other, and in the multitude which the good reule of the chirche bi resoun wolde aske. And bi these now bifore mad argumentis the iiij^e. principal conclusioun of this iiij^e. partie is sufficientli proued.

The iij^e. argument into the same iiij^e. principal con|clusioun is this: Holi Writt of the Newe Testament wole that in the lay partie of Cristen peple be ouerers and netherers fro the louȝest ordre into the hiȝest aboue the comoun peple, as is open i^e. Pet. ij^e. capitulum., where Peter seith thus: Be ȝe suget to ech creature for God, either to the king, as to him that is hiȝer in state; either to dukis, as to thilk that ben sent of him to the vengeaunce of mys doers and to the preising of gode men; for so it is the wille of God, et cætera. And in like maner it is writun, Rom. xiij^e. capitulum., where Poul seith thus: Euery soule be suget to the hiȝer powers, for ther is no power but of God, et cætera. Therfore he that aȝenstondith power aȝenstondith the ordinaunce of God, et cætera. For princis ben not to the drede [to drede, MS. (first hand).] of good werk, but of yuel, et cætera, for he is the mynystre of God, et cætera. And Crist him silf accordauntli therto in the Gospel, Math. xxij^e. capitulum., seith thus: Ȝelde ȝe tho thingis whiche ben of Cesar to Cesar, and whiche ben of God to God; and in an

other place, Iohun xix^e. capitulum., Crist seide to Pilat thus: Thou schuldist not haue power into me, but if it were ȝouun to thee from aboue, that is to seie, fro God; accordingli to it that Poul seith, Rom. xiij^e. capitulum., thus: Ther is no power, but of God, et cætera. But so it is, that Holi Writt wole not such ouerte and netherte in dyuerse statis be so as is now rehercid, saue for sum special cause and nede founde in the lay peple, and asking that thilk ouerte and netherte be; and thilk same or lijk miche cause and nede forto lijk wise aske is founde in the clergie, which or how miche is founde in the layfe, as schal. be schewid anoon aftir in the next chapiter. Wherfore folewith that ther yn and in that, that Holi Scripture wole openli such dyuersite of statis and degrees be in the lay parti, and for a cause aftir in the next chapiter to be rehercid, he wole lijk weel priueili lijk dyuersite of statis and degrees be in the clergie for lijk cause there founde, namelich sithen who euer biddith openli ouȝwhere eny thing to be doon for a cause or nede wole priueli and menyngli in the same bidding lijk thing be [to be, MS. (first hand).] doon in othere placis of his reuling, where is the same cause and nede or lijk cause and nede. These iij. argumentis sufficen for prouyng of this pre|sent iiij^e. principal conclusioun.

Othere argumentis myȝten be mad in to the prou|yng of the same iiij^e. conclusioun; but bi cause thei mowen esili and liȝtli be assoilid bi riȝt likely colour, therfore y sette not miche bi hem. Neuertheles y schal sette forth hem heere, that men mowen se how tho argumentis mowen colorabili ynouȝ be assoilid. The Apostilis of Crist maden suche preestis, whiche schulden vnder hem make othere preestis vpon the lay peple. Forwhi Thymothe, a disciple of Poul, was mad a preest of Poul, as it is open i^e. Thim. iiij^e. capitulum., where it

is seid to him thus: Nile thou litil charge the grace which is in thee, that is ȝouun to thee bi prophecie with putting on of the hondis of a preest; and also ij^e. Thim. i^e. capitulum., Poul seide to Thymothie thus: I moneste thee, that thou reise aȝen the grace of God that is in thee bi the setting of myn hondis. And Tite, an other disciple of Poul, was maad preest, as it is open Tite i^e. capitulum., where Poul seide to Tite thus: For cause of this thing y lefte thee at Crete, that thou amende tho thingis that failen, and that thou ordeyne preestis bi citees, as also y disposid to [to is interlineated in a later hand.] thee. Certis, sithen Tite had power forto make preestis, he was at the leest a preest him silf. Neuertheless ferther thus: Sithen Tite was such a preest, that Poul bade him for to make and ordeyne othere preestis and forto cor|recte defautis as weel as forto moneste, as is open bi the now alleggid text, and noon persoon hath power to comaunde or correcte an other being in euen and in like state and degre with him, (forwhi whi schulde he thanne more correcte the other, than he schulde be correctid of the other?) it folewith that Tite was such a preest, that he was aboue othere preestis vndir him. And sithen ech preest being bi his preesthode aboue othere preestis is a bischop, it folewith that Tite was a bischop aboue othere louȝer preestis being vndir him, and that bi the entent and purpos of Seint Poul there. And sithen which oon in preesthode Tite was, such oon Tymothie was, for as [for as as, MS.] miche as Thymothie was as reuerent a persoon as was Tite, and as myche conuersaunt with Poul as was Tite, and was myche comendid of Poul, and to whom Poul wrote more in quantite and more solempneli and oftir than to Tite; it folewith that also Thymothie was a bischop aboue hise preestis being vndir him. And ferther, sithen as

Poul dide and ordeyned and bade to Tite [bade Tite, MS. (first hand).] and to Thymothie, in lijk maner the othere Apostilis diden, ordeyneden, and baden to othere persoones in her side and in her cuntre, it folewith that not oonli Seint Poul but also the othere Apostilis entendiden, meen|eden, ordeyneden, and baden that bischopis schulden be making to hem and vndir hem louȝer preestis.

Also this, that Tite and Thymothie weren bischopis aboue othere louȝer to hem preestis, is open ynouȝ bi the epistle which Dynys writith to Tite, and bi his book Of the Chirchis Ierarchie which he writith to Thymothie. Forwhi in the v^e. chapiter of the now seid book Dynys declarith openli a bischop to be aboue othere louȝer preestis; ["…." Pseudo|Dionys. Areop. De Eccl. Hierarch. c. 5., (Op. tom. 1. p. 360. Ed. Cord.), where is much more to the same purpose.] and ferthermore in the same book, the firste chapiter in the eende, [Id. c. 1. pp. 235, 236.] and in othere of hise bookis also he clepith and seith Thymo|thie to be such a bischop as is now seid to be aboue othere preestis. And ȝit ferthermore in his epistle to Tite ["…." Pseudo-Dionys. Areop. Ep. ad Tit. (Op. tom. ii. p. 141).] he wole that Tyte receyue of Thymothie certein doctrine writun, which [in which, MS. (first hand).] Dynys in his book Of the Chirchis Ierarchie ["…." Id. Eccl. Hier. c. l. p. 236.] wole [he wole, MS.] be leerned and knowun in hise daies of bischopis oonli, and be priuey to hem oonli; and therfore ther yn he muste needis meene that Tite was such a bischop as was Thymothie.

Certis, to al this hool argument, with alle hise en|forcingis, it may be seid with sufficient colour and likelihode, that al what this argument concludith and

proueth was doon in the tyme of the Apostlis, aftir that the cisme, of which it is spokun, i^e. Cor. i^e. and iij^e. chapitris in the bigynnyngis, bifille; for remediyng of which cisme, as Ierom conceyueth, ["Diligenter Apostoli verba at|tendamus dicentis: Ut constituas per civitates presbyteros . . . postea intulit, Oportet enim episcopum sine crimine esse. . . . Idem est ergo presbyter qui et episcopus, et antequam diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent et diceretur in populis: Ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autem Cephæ, communi presby|terorum consilio ecclesiæ guberna|bantur. Postquam vero unusquis|que eos quos baptizaverat suos pu|tabat, non Christi, in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de presbyteris electus superponeretur cæteris, ad quem omnis ecclesiæ cura perti|neret et schismatum semina tolle|rentur. . . . . Sicut ergo presbyteri sciunt se ex ecclesiæ consuetudine ei, qui sibi præpositus fuerit, esse subjectos; ita episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine, quam disposi|tionis Dominicæ veritate presbyteris esse majores, et in commune debere ecclesiam regere, &c. S. Hieron. in Ep. ad Tit. c. 1. (Op. tom. vii. pp. 694-696. Ed. Vall.)] bischophode was founde and ordeyned to be aboue preesthode; and bi lijk skile othere statis of ouerte aboue bischophode, and not eer neithir bi Cristis owne deede; neuertheles bi Cristis weelwilling, as it is bifore schewid in this present chapiter.

Thanne ferther it myȝte be argued, that aboue these now seid bischopis, wilned and ordeyned by the Apostlis to be, the Apostlis willeden and meen|eden an othir degree and state in preesthode to be aboue bischopis; ȝhe, and that thei maden [maiden, MS. (first hand).] and ordeyneden a persoon into thilk same degree and state, bifore the cisme had i^e. Cor. ij^e. and iij^e. chapitris, y proue thus: The Apostlis helden and meeneden hem silf being of the noumbre of xij. to haue state and degree in preesthode aboue tho othere now seid bischopis, which thei made aftirward out of the noumbre of xij., as therto sowneth miche the pro|cesse, Acts i^e. capitulum., bi manie therto markable wordis. And also wherto ellis wolden the xj. Apostlis in thilk

tyme chese oon and make oon syngulerli with hem oonli and no mo, (that is to seie, Mathie,) but if thei hadden feelid and meened that thei xij. hadden a syn|guler prerogatijf and dignite, state, and degree, and ouerte, more than othere persoones schulden haue, whiche thei wolden aftirward chese and assigne into preesthode? And also whi ellis wolden thei make this choise of Mathie into the noumbre of xij. with so greet solempnite and bi preier going afore and with lott and token askid of God, but if thei hadden holde and meened, as now is seid that thei helden and meen|eden? And in this meenyng and holding the Apostlis chosen Mathie forto be euene to hem in the dignite, degree, and state of the xij. Wherfore folewith that the Apostlis feleden hem silf to haue state and degree in preesthode aboue othere bischopis, whiche thei aftir|ward maden and ordeyneden bisidis the noumbre of xij.; and also thei maden and ordeyned such a persoon lijk to hem forto be aboue the othere bischopis aftir comyng. And so folewith that the Apostlis helden and meeneden hem silf to be as archibischopis.

To this argument it mai be answerid colorabli and likeli ynouȝ, that Peter, Acts, i^e. capitulum., whanne he fille into deuocioun forto haue a special and a singuler successour to Iudas, was not moued therto bi nede of resoun or of feith, but bi a deuocioun which was honest and ȝit myȝt be lackid; and that he entendid forto chese Mathie into this, that he myȝte make the same hool noumbre of homeli and experimental wit|nessers of Cristis deedis, and not into this that Mathie schulde be chose therwith in to eny hiȝer state than into preesthode: and to this deuocioun of Peter, for that it was honest, God condescendid, as he dooth ful ofte in performyng the desiris of hise louers, though thei ben not needis necessarie. And thus the ij^e. argu|ment next bifore mad is bi sufficient likelihode assoilid. And therfore y stonde to the iij. firste to gidere going

argumentis in this present chapiter forto proue this present iiij^e. principal conclusioun.

Also this present iiij^e. conclusioun may 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. Se he there the argument, who hath [who that hath, MS. (first hand).] desijr forto it se; namelich for that the argu|ment there mad proueth this iiij^e. principal gouer|naunce vnsoilabili. [See Part 1. c. xix.]

v. CHAPITER.

THE v^e. principal conclusion concernyng and bihold|ing the seid [seid is added in the margin by a later hand.] iiij^e. principal gouernaunce is this: Doom of cleerli in kinde disposid resoun iugith, allowith, and approueth the iiij^e. principal gouernaunce sett bifore in the bigynnyng of this present iiij^e. partie. That this conclusioun is trewe, y proue thus: Resoun in his cleer doom iugith, allowith, and approueth that ouer a certein multitude [of multitude, MS. (first hand).] of the louȝest peple in the layfe be oon certein lord or iuge or officer forto iuge her causis; and that ouer a certein noumbre of suche now seid lordis or officers be oon hiȝer officer forto iuge the causis rising bitwixe tho now seid louȝer lordis or officers and forto heere the compleintis of her vndirlyngis, if thei be wrongid of the now seid louȝer lordis or officers; and in lijk maner, that ouer and aboue manye to gidere of these laste seid hiȝer lordis and officers be oon other to ouer waite hem and her reule and gouernaunce; and so forth, til we come vnto oon highest emperour, bi whos hiȝest oonheed schal reste and pees be mad thoruȝ alle peple hiȝer

and louȝer lyuyng vnder him, whanne thei wolen compleyne to him. And ellis, but if such an ordre of degrees and statis were sette in the layfe, and that oon were hiȝest in auctorite and power aboue alle other, resoun seeth openli that ther were no sure wey forto haue pees and reste and riȝtwisnesse kept by twixe persoon and persoon, and bitwixe cuntre and cuntre, rewme and rewme: and that for the natural freelte, which bi surest experience is knowun to be in al mankinde. But so it is, that thouȝ of the al hool noumbre of Adamys children summe ben ordeyned to be preestis, and summe to be dekenys, and summe ben ordeyned to be craftiose [crastiose, MS.] men and marchaundis, and summe to be othere laborers; ȝit alle thei, bothe preestis and dekenis and alle othere lay persoonys, ben mad of oon lumpe of mater descending from Adam; and preestis ben born vndir coniuncciouns and constellacciouns stiring and moving into as greet freel|nes and badde maners as othere lay men ben born, and also preestis ben of as badde kindeli complexiouns moving into badde and scharpe passiouns as ben lay men; and so al freelnes, which is naturali and strongli and fersly in lay men, ben ljik miche in preestis. Wherfore, sithen for this freelnes thus founde in the lay peple resoun iugith and deemth that such now seid dyuersite of statis and degrees in ouerte and netherte ben to be had in the lay parti of Goddis peple, and lijk euen and lijk myche freelte is founde naturali in the prestial parti of Goddis peple; it muste needis folewe that resoun ouȝte lijk weel deeme, that lijk dyuersite of statis and degrees in ouerte and ne|therte ben to be had and vsid among preestis and othere clerkis in the chirche of God, as among lay persoones of the world. If preestis and bischopis

mowen be exempt that thei be not the children of Adam, thei mowen be excusid that thei han noon ouerer ouer hem; and if thei mowen not be ther of exemptid, sotheli thei musten needis haue ouer hem reulers. More of this mater is pleinli seid and tauȝt in The book of preesthode, and therfore the lasse is sett here.

The vj^e. principal conclusioun concernyng and bi|holding the iiij^e. seid principal gouernaunce is this: The iiij^e. bifore spokun principal gouernaunce is leeful in proprist maner forto speke of leefulnes. That this conclusioun is trewe, y proue thus: What euer gouer|naunce Holi Scripture and doom of cleerli disposid resoun allowen and approuen is leeful in proprist maner of speche forto speke of leefulnes. But so it is, that [that bothe, MS. (first hand.)] Holi Scripture and cleer doom of resoun al|lowen and approuen the iiij^e. bifore spokun principal gouernaunce, as the next bifore going iiij^e. and v^e. principal conclusiouns schewen and prouen. Wherfore the same seid iiij^e. principal gouernaunce is in proprist maner of leeffulnes leeful.

The vij^e. principal conclusioun concernyng and bi|holding the seid iiij^e. principal gouernaunce is this: The iiij^e. principal gouernaunce sett bifore in the bi|gynnyng of this present iiij^e. partie is a gouernaunce of Goddis lawe. That this conclusioun is trewe, y proue thus: What euer gouernaunce Holi Scripture and doom of kindeli weel disposid resoun allowen and approuen is a gouernaunce of Goddis lawe, as y haue ofte tauȝt and proued in my writingis, namelich in the firste parti of the book clepid The iust apprisyng of Holi Scripture. But so it is, that Holi Scripture and doom of kindeli weel disposid resoun allowen and approuen the iiij^e. seid principal gouernaunce, as the

next bifore going iiij^e. and v^e. principal conclusiouns schewen and prouen. Wherfore the same seid iiij^e. principal gouernaunce is a gouernaunce of Goddis lawe.

The viij^e. principal conclusion concernyng and bi|holding the seid iiij^e. principal gouernaunce is this: It is not synne as in that and for that a man forto exaumple bi hise dedis to othere men the seid iiij^e. principal gouernaunce. That this conclusioun is trewe, y proue thus: It is not synne a man forto ensaumple bi hise deedis to othere men eny deede or gouer|naunce, which is the lawe of God. But so it is, that the iiij^e. seid principal gouernaunce is a gouernaunce of the lawe of God. Wherfore it is not synne as in that and for that a man forto ensaumple bi hise deedis to othere men the seid iiij^e. principal gouernaunce. And in this y eende the mater of the ofte spokun iiij^e. principal gouernaunce.

vj. [The vj., MS.] CHAPITER.

THE v^e. principal gouernaunce to be tretid in this present iiij^e. partie, for which gouernaunce summe of the lay peple vndirnemen and blamen vniustli and vntreuli the clergie, is this: The pope and other louȝer bischopis maken lawis of statutis and ordi|nauncis in greet noumbre and multitude, and chargen the louȝer persoones of the clergie and the lay per|soones forto kepe tho statutis and ordinauncis; and ferthermore these vndirnymers and blamers beren an hond to the clergie, that summe of tho now seid statutis, ordynauncis, and lawis ben aȝens the lawe and comaundement of God.

Aȝens this now rehercid blamyng and vndirnemyng y may procede thus: If these blamers in so blamyng meenen, that no lawe of mannys ordinaunce ouȝte be sett to and with the comoun Cristen lawe of God maad of lawe of kinde and of sacramentis, as manye suche blamers ben, aȝens her blamyng and chaleng|ing so mad proceden and goon forth in grettist strengthe and in openest euydence alle tho conclu|siouns of Scripture and of resoun, whiche bifore in this present iiij^e. partie ben mad upon bischophode and othere statis aboue preesthode and othere ordris binethe preesthode fro the bigynnyng of this present iiij^e. partie hidir to; and also alle tho conclusiouns of Scripture and of resoun, which aftir in the v^e. parti of this book prouen that religiosite of mannys ordinaunce is leeful, and may weel be sett to the comoun lawe of God mad of lawe of kinde and of sacramentis. For whi ech such seid ordre or dignite and ech such seid religiosite mad bi man is a law and ordinaunce mad bi man and sett to and with the seid comoun lawe of God; and therfore how weel such bischophode or religiose mannys lawis mowen be mad and sett to and with the lawe of God, so weel bi al resoun othere politik mennys lawis mowen be mad and sett to and with the same lawe of God; sithen bothe bischophode and archibischophode, deken|hode and religiose mannys lawis, and othere politik mennys lawis ben noon othere than mennys ordi|nauncis and mennys tradiciouns reuling men forto do this or that, to which as bi Goddis pleyn lawe tho men weren not bifore bounde. And therfore if it be leeful and profitable statis or ordris in the chirche aboue preesthode and binethe preesthode and religiouns be maad bi men and be sett to Goddis comoun lawe, as it is proued bifore in this iiij^e. partie and aftir proued in the v^e. party of this book; certis no man may thanne avoide, but that it is leeful ynouȝ and

speedful the clergie for to make othere politik lawis and ordinauncis, and forto sette hem to the comoun pleyn lawe of God maad of lawe of kinde and of hise posityue sacramentis.

Also it is leeful to princis with hir comounalte forto make politik and cyuyl lawis and ordinauncis for the better reule of the peple in temporal and cyuyl gouer|nauncis, longing into worldli pees and prosperite and worldli welthe, to be the better therbi kept and con|tynued. Forwhi ful weel this purpos witnessith open resoun and experience, and therto ful weel consentith Poul, i^e. Thim. i^e. capitulum., where he blameth men whiche maden hem curiose forto holde that suche lawis mad bi worldli princis schulde not be leeful; and the same he muste needis meene, as ofte as he weel approueth and wole in dyuerse placis of hise epistlis that boonde men schulden obeie to her temporal lordis, sithen boundage cometh yn bi mennys ordynauncis. Wher|fore, bi lijk skile, it is leeful and expedient to the greet congregacioun of preestis and clerkis in the other side of the layfe lyuyng, that to the preestis and clerkis be mad bi her ouerers and with the consent of the netherers summe politik ordinauncis and lawis, for to pointe in the better and in the clerer maner to hem what and how and whanne thei schulen do this or that thing or deede; and forto pointe and lymyte and thretene peynes, but if tho deedis in the as|signed maner, place, and tyme, and persoones be doon; and forto ordeyne that tho peynes be [ben, MS. (first hand).] ȝouun to the trespacers. And therfore vtterli it is plein ynouȝ bi strengthe of al the processe going aȝens the blamyng of the iiij^e. gouernaunce sett bifore in this present iiij^e. partie and bi al the processe mad for iustifiyng of the vj^e. principal gouernaunce aftir in the v^e. prin|cipal partie, that no man may iustli blame mennys

ordinauncis and statutis and tradiciouns to be maad of the clergie and to be had and vsid as for this, that thei ben mennys lawis and mennys ordynanncis sett to the comoun lawe of God, as thouȝ it were vnleeful eny mennys ordynauncis to be mad and to be sett to and with the comoun lawe of God.

And if these blamers wolen pretende that thei not blamen for cause now rehercid the seid lawis had and vsid in the clergie, but for this cause that tho lawis conteynen in hem contrarite to the comoun lawe of God, certes thanne these blamers musten expresseli marke, assigne, telle out, and bringe forth whiche lawis mad bi the pope or othere bischopis and the clergie ben aȝens eny comaundid lawe of God. And what euere lawe of the clergie thei kun|nen into this purpos point, allegge forth, and assigne, y trowe that riȝt liȝtli thilk lawe mai of such dif|fame and defaut be excusid and be defendid. Forwhi al that is aftir seid in the v^e. parti of this present book, the [x^e.] [A space left in the MS. for the number.] chapiter, to be priueli vndirstonde in making of eny religioun founde of man is in lijk maner thoruȝ out to be vndirstonde in ech positijf lawe mad bi the pope or eny other bischop or bi eny worldli prince; ȝhe, and in ech vow or ooth maad bi eny man; and therfore her chaleng and blamyng, mad in fourme and for cause rehercid in the bigyn|nyng of this present chapiter, muste needis be had as for vniust and vntrewe.

vij. CHAPITER.

IF to suche bifore spokun blamers this processe now mad fro the bigynnyng of the next bifore going chapiter hidir to be not sufficientli acceptid, but that

thei desiren to heere and haue [to haue, MS. (first hand).] argumentis mad in fourme aȝens the blamyng of this v^e. gouernaunce, as argumentis ben maad bifore in fourme aȝens the blamyngis of the i^e., ij^e., iij^e., and iiij^e. gouernauncis; lo, (thouȝ for causis in the next chapiter bifore ex|pressid that alle the principal conclusiouns bifore going in this present iiij^e. partie and alle the con|clusiouns principal aftir comyng in the v^e. partie of this book maken in her fourmes for iustifiyng of the v^e. principal conclusioun; [Probably we should read go|uernaunce.] ȝit) argumentis in sum fourme schulen therto be mad alredi thus: Ech go|uernaunce, which Holi Scripture werneth not and for|bedith not, doom of cleer and weel disposid natural resoun weerneth not and forbedith not, mannys lawe werneth not and forbedith not, is leeful and not worthi be vndirnome and blamed. But so it is, that forto haue lawis and tradiciouns of mennys ordi|nauncis is a gouernaunce, which Holi Scripture wern|eth not and forbedith not, doom of weel disposid resoun werneth not and forbedith not, mannys lawe weerneth not and forbedith not. Wherfore thilk go|uernaunce is leeful and not worthi be blamed and be reproued.

The firste premysse of this argument is sumwhat clerid in the iij^e. partie of this present book the xj^e. [xij ^e., MS.] chapiter, but miche better in this present iiij^e. partie of this same present book the iij^e. chapiter; and ther|fore no thing for proof of him here.

For proof of the ij^e. premysse, that neither Holi Scripture, neither doom of cleer resoun werneth or forbedith [for bedith, MS. (without hy|phen).] the now [The words seem to be disar|ranged. Probably we should read: the now bifore spokun v ^e., &c.] v^e. principal bifore spokun gouer|naunce,

y proue thus: What euer thing weerneth or forbedith eny gouernaunce, he weerneth and forbedith [fobedith, MS.] in that ech other gouernaunce being of lijk condicioun and of lijk state or nature, namelich whanne the thing weernyng or forbeding weerneth not and forbedith not in mannys moral conuersacioun aftir pure uolunte, but aftir the meryt of the gouernancis which he fyndith to be weerned and forbodun. But so it is, that neither Holi Scripture, neither doom of cleer resoun weerneth and forbedith eny gouernaunce, which thei forbeden, for and bi eny other cause than for the state and the merit and the condicioun of the gouernaunce bi hem forbodun. Wherfore it folewith that if Holi Scripture or cleer resoun forbedun the now spokun v^e. principal gouernaunce of mennys lawis to be maad and be vsid in the clergie and layfe, Holi Scripture and doom of cleer resoun schulden forbede lijk weel and lijk myche and lijk soone the iiij^e. principal go|uernaunce bifore spoken in this present iiij^e. partie, [and] the vj^e. principal gouernaunce spokun aftir in the v^e. partie of this book; sithen thilk iiij^e. and vj^e. and this v^e. gouernauncis ben of lijk condicioun, state, cause, and merit for to be forbodun and weerned, if eny of hem schulde bi Holi Writt or resoun be weerned, as bifore in the next chapiter of this iiij^e. partie it is schewid. But so it is, that neither Holi Scripture neither cleer resoun weerneth or forbedith the iiij^e. seid principal gouernaunce, as it is openli proued bifore fro the bigynnyng of this present iiij^e. partie hidirto in this present book; neither forbedith the vj^e. gouernaunce, as it is open after thoruȝ the v^e. parti of this book. Wherfore nedis folewith, that neither Holi Scripture, neither doom of cleer resoun weerneth or forbedith this v^e. principal gouernaunce to be had and be vsid.

An other argument to be maad in fourme for this present purpos, that [that bothe, MS. (first hand).] Holy Scripture and doom of cleer resoun allowen and approuen and witnessen the now seid v^e. principal gouernaunce, mai be this: What euer thing allowith and approueth eny gouernaunce, he in that same allowing and approuyng allowith and approueth ech other gouernaunce being of lijk condi|cioun, state, and nature; if the thing so approuyng and allowing approue and allowe not in mannys moral conuersacioun aftir pure wantown volunte, but aftir that the merit of [the] thing to be allowid and approued askith. Wherfore, sithen [sithen bothe, MS. (first hand) twice.] Holi Scripture and doom of cleer resoun approuen and allowen not eny gouernaunce in mannys moral lyuyng, other wise than thilk gouernaunce is worthi bi his state and his con|dicioun to be approued and allowid, and the iiij^e. and the vj^e. seid principal governauncis ben of lijk state, condicioun, nature, and merit with this present v^e. prin|cipal gouernaunce for to be approued or reproued, (for as myche as noon of hem is more worth than mannys ordinauncis ben, for ech of hem is mannys ordynaunce;)—it folewith needis, (sithen [sithen bothe, MS. (first hand) twice.] Holi Scripture and doom of cleer resoun approuen and allowen the iiij^e. and vj^e. seid principal gouernauncis,) that theryn and therbi priueli Holi Scripture and doom of cleer resoun ap|prouen and allowen the v^e. seid principal gouernaunce.

Of mannys lawe, what it doith upon the firste, ij^e., iij^e., iiij^e., v^e., and vj^e. principal gouernauncis, it is no neede make [to make, MS. (first hand).] eny mensioun; for open ynow it is, [is seid, MS. (first hand).] that mannys lawe hem alle fauorith at the fulle.

Also this present v^e. principal gouernaunce mai be proued bi a processe of iij. supposiciouns and of an argument formed vpon hem toward the eende of the

i^e. parti in this present book; which argument y wolde reders in this place forto thidir turne and it se, by cause thilk argument is vnsoilable. [See Part 1. c. xix.]

Also into the same purpos y may argue thus: What euer gouernaunce was brouȝt into the chirche the Apostlis therto consenting, or at the leest the Apostlis it witing and aȝens it not reclaymyng, is leeful and worthi be had and vsid. But so it is, that the iiij^e. and the v^e. and the vj^e. principal gouernauncis of this book entriden into the chirche the Apostlis therto consenting, or at the leest the Apostlis it witing and it not weernyng and not for|beding. Wherfore the iiij^e., v^e., and vj^e. seid gouer|nauncis be leeful and worthi to be had and vsid.

The firste premysse of this argument is openli ynouȝ trewe; and as for treuthe of the ij^e. premysse y make this proof: Neither Seint Dynys neither eny other worthi bischop and reuler, which was maad in the chirche of God bi eny Apostle, wolde haue mad or ordeyned, whilis the Apostlis lyueden, eny gouer|naunce to be had in the chirche of God, but if the Apostlis hadden therto consentid; neither aftir the deeth of the Apostlis, but if thilk makers and ordyners hadden bifore knowe that the Apostlis consentiden it in tyme aftir to be mad and ordeyned, [ordeynedē, MS., the stroke above being in a later (?) hand. The parti|ciple is manifestly required.] or that the Apostlis ȝauun sum wey or ground wherbi tho makers myȝten weel knowe and knewen, that forto so make and ordeyne it accordid weel [weel is added in the margin by a later hand.] with the Apostlis witt and wil. But so it is, that Dynys in his book of The Chirchis Ierarchie, [ierachie, MS.] the vj^e. [v ^e., MS.] chapiter, makith mensioun that the grete dukis of the chirche, whiche lyueden with the Apostlis, maden and ordeyneden the

religioun of monkehode to be had and vsid in the chirche; ["…." Pseudo-Dionys. Areop. De Eccl. Hierach. c. 6. (Op. tom. 1. p. 386. Ed. Cord.)] which religioun is of the vj^e. to be seid prin|cipal gouernaunce. And also Dynys in the same book thoruȝout weelnyȝ ech chapiter of the book makith mensioun of ful manye posytyue lawis mad bi the same now seid dukis and reulers of the chirche, whiche lyuyden in the tyme of the Apostlis; of which now seid mannys lawis and tradiciouns manye ben how and in which maners baptym schal be don aboute and upon him which is to be baptiside; [Id. c. 2.] and manye othere suche mennys lawis ben how the sa|crament of the auter schulde be mad, and how the masse schal be seid, and how the mynystris schulen be araied, and what officis thei schulen do; [Id. c. 3.] and manye othere suche lawis ther ben tauȝt what and how manie thingis schulen be doon aboute a man, whanne he schal be mad bischop; [Id. c. 5.] what and how manie thingis schulen be doon aboute a man, whanne he schal be mad preest; [Id. c. 5.] what and how manye thingis schulen be doon aboute him if he be mad deken; [Id. c. 5.] what and how manie thingis schulen be doon aboute a man, if he be mad a monk; [Id. c. 6.] and that to a bischop ben reserued these powers, that is to seie, for to halewe creme, for to halewe chirchis and au|teris, and for to ȝeue orderis of preesthode and of dekenhode; [Id. c. 5.] and so forth of othere posytyue lawis maad bi tho now seid worthi men ouerlong to be here rehercid. Wherfore folewith that the religioun of monkehode, which is of the vj^e. principal gouer|naunce,

and also these now rehercid mennys lawis and tradiciouns, whiche ben of the v^e. now seid gouer|naunce, weren mad bi consent of the Apostlis ȝouun therto, or at the leest bi sum ground bi which the makers knewen sufficientli that forto so make and ordeyne it accordid with the witt and the wil of the Apostlis.

But ȝit ouer al what in this [this is interlineated by a later hand.] wise goith bifore, y sette therto this now to be fourmed argument into stable confirmacioun of al it which is now bifore argued bi Scripture into this present purpos: Holi Scripture, i^e. Cor. xj^e. capitulum., makith open mensioun that Poul made an ordynaunce to the men of Corinthe, that thei schulde not take her hosil, (that is to seie, the holi eukarist,) at nyȝt tyme aftir her soper, (or in sum other special maner thanne vsid, not now sureli knowen,) forto therbi contirfete Cristis doing at his soper and forto remembre therbi his soper, not withstonding thei hadden vsid thilk maner bi long tyme afore. Ferthermore in the eende of the same xj^e. chapiter Poul warneth hem, that ouer this, which he so ordeyneth and stabilith to hem in the fourme of lawe now rehercid and bi him silf maad, he wole ordeyne mo gouernauncis to hem, and so make mo suche lawis to hem, in the next tyme whanne he schulde come to hem. And so herbi it is cleer bi Holi Scripture in the now alleggid place, i^e. Cor. xj^e. capitulum., that it is leeful lawis be mad bi man and be sett for to be in vce with the comoun Cristen lawe ȝouun and mad immediatli bi God. Forwhi ellis Seint Poul hadde do amys, which made this now re|hercid lawe and settide it to be had in vce with the comoun lawe of God thanne had and bifore vsid. Also Poul made bi hise owne power this lawe, as

it is open i^e. Thim. iij^e. capitulum., and Tite i^e. capitulum., that no man schulde be a bischop neither deken, (and ther|fore in the same he meened therwith, that neither he schulde be preest,) if he hadde be twies weddid; that is to seie, if he hadde had oon wijf and sche hadde be deed and he hadde eftsoone take an other wijf, he schulde not be mad a bischop neither a preest neiȝthir [Perhaps a clerical error for neithir.] a deken louȝer than a preest, for cause which schal in other place of my writing be tauȝt. And this ordynaunse so mad bi Poul was a mannys ordi|naunce, for it was his ordinaunce mad bi his witt and his wil and power; and ellis ther myȝte no dispensacioun be mad bi man, that eny man tweies weddid schulde be a preest; not withstonding that the pope takith upon him forto mowe so dispense, and resoun weerneth him not. Wherfore bi Holi Writt it is open and cleer, that mannys lawis mowen be maad and be sett into vse for to renne with Goddis lawe.

And so fynali and eendli y mai conclude as weel proued, that religiouns and mannys lawis and tradi|ciouns to be mad and be vsid and be set to the comoun lawe of Crist, which is mad of lawe of kinde and of hise sacramentis, is not blameable and reprou|able as for this oonli that thei ben religiouns or mennys lawis and mennys tradiciouns. Also aȝens this pretencioun to be mad aȝens religiouns, it is seid sufficientli aftir thoruȝout the v^e. parti of this book. And aȝens lijk pretencioun mad aȝens othere lawis of men schal be seid anoon next aftir in answeris to be mad to apparent and semyng skilis aȝens the now seid v^e. principal gouernaunce. If eny man can seie that eny of hem is blameable and reprouable, not for that thilk religioun is a religioun of mannys making,

neither for that thilk lawe is a lawe of mannys mak|ing, but for that he is aȝens sum commaundement of Cristis lawe, (that is to seie, aȝens sum point of lawe of kinde or of Cristis sacramentis,) he must allegge forth which thilk religioun or thilk mannys lawe is; and ther upon he schal be herd and his pretensioun schal be examyned. And if he can proue what he pretendith, he schal be suffrid to reioice his opinioun, and othere men schulen ther yn holde with him. But forto crie and diffame and bacbite in this wise; "The pope makith lawis contrarie to Cristis lawis, and therfore he makith lawis of anticrist;" and ȝit this diffamer can not assigne and bringe forth eny of thilk lawis which he is, and whi he is aȝens Goddis lawe, is a beestly gouernaunce, and such a gouernaunce as y dar weel avowe [a vowe, MS.] is aȝens the lawe of God. And therfore to suche ypocritis, pretending hem to loue the lawe of God, y seie thus: Take out the beem which is in thin owne iȝe, et cætera, Math. vij^e. [viij ^e., MS.] capitulum.

viij. CHAPITER.

FOR to semyngli iustifie the blamyng and the re|proving of the v^e. principal gouernaunce rehercid and sett bifore in the vj^e. chapiter of this present iiij^e. partie summe semyng skilis mowen be mad, of which the firste takun bi textis of Holi Scripture is this: What euer gouernaunce God in his Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament blameth and reproueth is not worthi be had and vsid rennyngli with his comon Cristen lawe. But so it is, that God in his Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament blameth and reprou|eth generali withoute eny excepcioun mennys lawis

and mennys comaundementis and mennys tradiciouns. Wherfore, generali to speke and withoute eny excep|cioun, thei ben vnleeful and not to be vsid concur|rentli with his comoun lawe of Cristenhode. And so this argument gooth not oonli aȝens politik lawis maad bi men, but also aȝens statis aboue preesthode and aȝens religiose lawis maad bi men.

The firste premisse of this argument is sure ynouȝ, and that the ij^e. premysse is trewe y argue thus: It is writun Math. xv^e. capitulum., in the bigynnyng thus: Thanne the [the is wrongly cancelled by a later hand, which perhaps intended to cancel it before Pharisees, where it is wanting in some MSS. (but not in Forshall and Madden's text) of Wiclif's later version, from which this citation is taken.] scribis and the Pharisees camen to him fro Ierusalem and seiden, Whi breken thi discipulis the tradiciouns of eldre men, for thei waischen not her hondis whanne thei eten breed? He answerid and seide to hem, Whi breken ȝe the comaunde|ment of God for ȝoure tradicioun? For God seide, 'Honoure thou thi fadir and thi modir,' and, 'He 'that cursith fadir or modir die he bi deeth;' but ȝe seien, 'Who euer seith to fadir or modir, What 'euer ȝift is of me, it schal profite to thee,' and he hath not worschipid his fadir or his modir;—and ȝe han mad the comaundement of God voide for ȝoure tradicioun. Ipocritis, Isaie the prophet pro|phecied weel of ȝou and seide, 'This peple honourith 'me with lippis, but her herte is fer fro me; and 'thei worschipen me with oute cause, teching the 'doctrinys and maundementis of men.' And whanne the peplis weren clepid to gidre to him, he seide to hem, Heere ȝe and vndirstonde ȝe; that thing that entrith into the mouth defoulith not a man, but that thing that cometh out of the mouth defoulith a man. And sumwhat after there thus: Vnderstonde ȝe not

that al thing that entrith into the mouth gooth into the wombe, and is sent out into going awey; but tho thingis that comen forth fro the mouth goon out of the [the is added in a later hand; it occurs in Wiclif's version.] herte, and tho thingis defoulen a man? for of the herte goon out yuel thouȝtis, mansleyngis, avoutries, fornicaciouns, theftis, false witnessyngis, blasphemyes: these thingis it ben that defoulen a man, but to ete with hondis not wayschen defoulith not a man. Lijk sentence of this same storie and mater is write Mark vij^e. capitulum., thus: And the Pharisees and summe of the scribis camen fro Ierusalem togidere to him, and whanne thei hadden seen summe of hise disciplis ete breed with vnwaischen hondis, thei blameden; [for] [This word, though absent from most (but not all) MSS. of Wiclif's later version, is quite necessary to complete the sense.] the Pharisees and alle the Iewis eten not, but if thei waischen ofte her hondis, hold|ing the tradicions of eldre men; and whanne thei turnen aȝen fro cheping, thei eten not, but thei ben waischen: and manye othere thingis ben that ben take to hem to kepe, waischingis of cuppis and of water vessels and of vessels of bras and of beddis. And Pharisees [The article seems also to be ab|sent from all the MSS. of Wiclif's later version: a little below Pecock's text omits it before Pharisees, (p. 473.)] and scribis askiden him and seiden, Whi goon not thi disciplis aftir the tradicioun of eldre men, but with vnwaischen hondis thei eten breed? And he answerid and seide to hem, Isaie prophecied weel of ȝou ypocritis, as it is writun, 'This peple 'worschipith me with lippis, but her herte is fer 'fro me; and in vein thei worschipen me, teching 'the doctrines and the heestis of men:' for ȝe leuen the maundementis of God and holden the tradiciouns of men, waischingis of water vessels and of cuppis,

and manye othere thingis lijk to these ȝe doon. And he seide to hem, Wel ȝe han maad the maundement of God voide to kepe ȝoure tradicioun: for Moyses seide, 'Worschipe thi fadir and thi modir,' and, 'He 'that cursith fadir or modir, die he bi deeth;' but ȝe seien, 'If a man seie to fadir or modir, Corban,' that is to seie, 'What euer ȝifte is of me, it schal 'profite to thee;'—and ouer ȝe suffren not him do [to do, MS. (first hand). No MS. of Wiclif's later version, collated by Forshall and Madden, has to.] eny thing to fader or modir; and ȝe breken the word of God by ȝoure tradicioun, that ȝe han ȝouun; and ȝe doon manie suche thingis. And he eftsoone clepid the peple and seide to hem: Ȝe alle heere me and vndirstonde; no thing that is withouten a man that entrith into him may defoule him, but tho thingis that comen forth of a man, tho it ben that defoulen a man; if eny man haue eeris of heering, heere he. And sumwhat aftir there he spekith more of this goostli defouling in the maner which is bifore spokun in Matheu the xv^e. chapiter. Bi these ij. longe processis now rehercid, oon writun Math. xv^e. capitulum., and the other writun Mark vij^e. capitulum., it semeth to manye of the comoun peple that Crist blamed there the tradiciouns of whiche he spekith there, for that thei weren tradiciouns of men; so that sufficient cause were forto blame hem, that thei weren mennis tra|diciouns sett to the comoun lawe of God. And ther|bi thei wolen conclude folewingli, that alle mennys tradiciouns ben nauȝt, and noon such ouȝten be; [This and the four preceding words are written in the margin in a later hand.] but Goddis tradiciouns oonli ouȝten be; which is aȝens the Apostle, i^e. Cor. xj^e. capitulum., as it is schewid bifore in this present iiij^e. partie, the vij^e. chapiter. And thus, as thei weenen, the ij^e. premysse of the argument

mad in the bigynnyng of this present chapiter is proued.

The secunde semyng skile into the same purpos is this: Thilk thing or gouernaunce not being necessarie into oure saluacioun, as for that it is the comaunde|ment of God, what euer he be, is to be kutt awey and to be leid aside and to be not had and vsid, of which miche goostli harme and synne comen; for that that he is the occasioun that thilk goostly harme [and synne] comen; forwhi into the meenyng of this now rehercid proposicioun or sentence the Gospel seith thus: If thi riȝt iȝe or thi riȝt hond [riȝthond, MS. (conjunctim), ac|cidentally?] or thi riȝt foot sclaundre thee, pulle him out or kutte him awey and caste him fro thee: [See Matt. v. 29; Mark ix. 45.] but so it is, that of ech of the now spokun mannys lawis had and vsid myche goostli harm and synne comen, so that ech of hem is the occasioun wherbi and wherfro the goostli harme and synne comen: wherfore folewith that ech of the now spokun religiouns ouȝte be pullid out of the chirche and ouȝte be kutte awey and be not had and vsid.

The iij^e. semyng skile is this: If suche now spo|kun lawis and tradiciouns ben gode and profitable to Cristen men, as it is pretendid hem to be, whi or|deyned not Crist tho same lawis and tradiciouns to be had and vsid; sithen he couthe haue ordeyned tho lawis and tradiciouns, as weel as men couthen fynde hem and deuise hem; and sithen he loueth us and wilneth oure goostli profit more than we us silf willen, forwhi for oure goostli good and profite he sore laborid, suffrid, and died? Wher upon it myȝt be argued in forme thus: Crist, which was oure grettist louer and oure beest prower, ordeyned al that was best for us to haue and al that is notabili better to be had than to not be had, for ellis he hadde not be anentis us

to gidere wijsist purueier and tendirist louer. But so it is, that Crist not ordeyned these spokun mennys lawis and tradiciouns; forwhi it is open ynouȝ that men founden hem and devisiden hem, and that now late sum and manye of hem. Wherfore thei be not necessarie, neither thei ben in no notable degree better to be had than to be not had.

ix. CHAPITER.

FOR answere to the first semyng skile mad bifore in the bigynnyng of the next chapiter aȝens the v^e. [iiij ^e., MS.] principal gouernaunce, the ij^e. premysse in the first argument mad there is to be denyed; and thanne next, whanne ij. longe processis, (oon of Math. xv^e. capitulum. and an other of Mark vij^e. capitulum.,) ben alleggid forth forto proue the same ij^e. premysse, it is to be seid that bi tho ij. longe processis mai not be had more as to this present purpos than these iiij. pointis.

Oon is: That Crist blamed ij. tradicions of the Iewis there rehercid; oon bi which it was ordeyned, that a man schulde rather offre vp his money in the temple, than he schulde with the same money releeue his fadir or modir hauyng nede to be releeued therbi, and whiche myȝten not be releeued saue therbi: an other tradicioun was, bi which it was ordeyned that no man schulde take mete, but that he anoon bifore waischid him, and as soone as eny man were come and turned hoom fro the market or the cheping, that he waische him silf; wherby it is open that the opi|nioun of the Iewis was this, that the bodili waisching with water schulde clense the soule fro moral vnclen|nessis drawun and takun in biyng and silling. Forwhi it nedith not neither folewith, that bi biyng and sil|ling

eny bodili vnclennes bifalle to the bier and siller; and, bi lijk skile, [The sense and construction re|quire either it folewith that to be inserted; or that in the clause fol|lowing to be cancelled; yet it is possible that Pecock may have left the text as the scribe first wrote it] bodili waisching schulde clense the soule fro alle [othere is added after alle in the margin by a later hand, but wrongly, as it seems.] maners of moral vnclennessis, aftir her opinioun; and that moral vnclennessis comen yn into the soule bi outward vnclennessis of vessels or of eny other outward vncleene thing.

The ij^e. point is: That Crist blamed there the firste now rehercid tradicioun, for that he was euen aȝens the commaundement of God, which is the comaunde|ment of lawe of kinde; and he blamed there the ij^e. now rehercid tradicioun, for that he was vein and waast and conteyned an vntrouthe of opinioun, thouȝ he were not contrarie to eny comaundement of God.

The iij^e. point is this: That of and bi thilk ij. long processis of Matheu and of Mark kunne not be had that Crist blamed alle the tradiciouns which Iewis [the Iewis, MS. (first hand).] maden; forwhi in special he blamed no mo there than these ij. tradiciouns now rehercid, and as in general he blamed [blaned, MS.] no mo neither othere tradiciouns than tho whiche weren contrarie and aȝens the co|maundement of God.

The iiij^e. point is this: That Crist blamed not tho ij. tradiciouns now rehercid for that [forthat, MS. (accidentally?)] thei weren mennis tradiciouns, but for that thei weren yuel; so that this was not the caus of the blamyng, for that men made tho tradiciouns; but this was al the cause and ground of the blamyng, for that thei weren yuel and badde: and therbi folewith not, that alle othere mennys tra|diciouns not being yuel schulden be worthi be blamed.

Now ferther for answere in special to be mad it is to be seid thus: If Crist hadde there blamed alle tra|diciouns

of Iewis mad bi hem, or if he hadde blamed the seid ij. tradiciouns for that that thei weren mennys tradiciouns, sotheli thilk ij. long processis, (oon of Ma|theu, an other of Mark) hadden proued weel the ij^e. premysse of the principal argument sett bifore in the bigynnyng of the next chapiter. But for as miche as it can not be had bi the ij. processis of Matheu and of Mark, that Crist blamed there alle tradiciouns mad bi the Iewis, saue oonli tho tradiciouns whiche weren aȝens Goddis comaundement or in eny other wise yuel, neither that he blamed there the ij. there spokun tradiciouns, for that thei weren mennys tradiciouns oonli, saue for that thei weren badde tradiciouns, (as it is open ynouȝ, if the wordis of Mark be weel markid and set forto expowne the wordis of Matheu upon the firste there spokun tradicioun)—therfore it is open ynow, that tho ij. long processis of Matheu and of Mark prouen not it what that thei ben brouȝt forth to proue, that is, the seid ij^e. premysse. And therfore the seid argument hath not wherbi he mai haue his entent proued. Ferthermore, alle Cristen peple (name|lich, al tho lay persoonys which wolen nedis entermete with reding in the Newe Testament) y biseche for to attende into these thingis or notabilitees, [natabilitees, MS.] whiche y schal now reherce as into thingis ful miche profitable to hem, and whos vnattendaunce hath causid ful myche yuel, namelich in tho lay persoones whiche entermeten miche with reding in the Newe Testament.

The firste ys: That ful ofte oure Lord Iesus for|bedith or weerneth certeyn gouernauncis, and ȝit he expressith tho gouernauncis not oonli in the maners and circumstauncis in whiche he hem forbedith and weerneth and in which thei ben forbedable or weern|able, but he expressith hem in a forme comoun to the maners and circumstauncis in whiche thei ben

weernable and to the maners and circumstauncis in whiche thei ben not weernable; and therfore tho deedis so in comoun or in general and large fourme bi him expressid ben to be vnderstonde and ben to be specified [specied, MS. (first hand).] and ben to be restreyned into the maners and circumstauncis in which oonli thei ben weernable or worthi be werned [or worthi to be werned is added in the margin by a later hand; a still later corrector having erased to.] bi resoun, and ben of him weerned, and thei ben not to be vndirstonde in the general forme in which thei ben expressid. En|saumple herof is this: Crist weerneth men to clepe to hem a fader upon erthe in sum certeyn maner and forme oonli which is worthi to be [be is interlineated in a later hand. Perhaps we should read worthi be weerned.] weerned, and ȝit this thing so as now is seid weerned Crist expressith and outrith in a larger and generaler fourme comoun to the maner and circumstauncis in which it is weern|able and to the maner and circumstauncis in which it is not worthi be weerned. For whi he seith in this large and general fourme, Nile ȝe clepe to ȝou a fadir on erthe; [Matt. xxiii. 9.] and therfore this thing so weerned as in general maner of the wordis is to be specified and to be restreyned [and] to be narowid and to be vndirstonde and drawe as it accordith oonli with the maner and circumstauncis in which it is worthi the same thing bi resoun to be forbodun or weerned. And so this that vndir so large and so general a fourme is weerned, Nile ȝe clepe to ȝou a fadir on erthe, is to be take and vndirstonde in this wise: "Nile ȝe clepe to ȝou a principal or a cheef fadir on erthe, for thilk cheef fadir is in heuen."

And that this notabilite is trewe, it mai be proued thus: For ellis God schulde weerne in oure doable conuersacioun other thing or other wise than resoun

wolde it schulde be weerned, and so God ther yn were vnresonable; which is not to be grauntid, sithen he comaundith us to be resonable and to be not vnresonable thoruȝ al oure moral conuersacioun. [Perhaps Pecock may have Rom. xii. 1-2 in his eye.] For if it myȝte be allowid us to bere us vnresonabili, y woot not what lawe schulde lette us fro eny synne. Also but if this notabilite were trewe, ellis God were contrarie to him silf. Forwhi in other place of Scrip|ture, as Mark [vij^e. capitulum.], [A space left in the MS. for the number. Pecock may either refer to Mark vii. 9-13, or to Mark x. 17-19.] he wole that we be aknowe us to haue fadir and modir on erthe, in that that he there biddith us worschipe oure fadir and modir on erthe. And therfore this notabilite is trewe. And bi this notabilite is a wey ȝouun forto vndirstonde in riȝt and iust maner this, that Crist in so general fourme vttrith and expressith, Nile ȝe swere alwise; [Matth. v. 34.] and so forth of manye othere forbodis and weernyngis doon toward us vpon oure moral conuersacioun, whiche alle schulen be drawe to be vndirstonde as doom of resoun iugith hem to be vnderstonde, as herof ful rial processis and proofs ben mad in the book clepid Iust apprising of Holi Scripture in ther of the firste partie, and in the firste party of Cristen religioun, the iiij^e. trety, bi dyuerse chapitres.

The ij^e. notabilite is this: That in lijk maner Crist ofte blameth and rehercith as blamable certeyn gouer|nauncis, and ȝit he expressith tho gouernauncis not oonli in the maners and circumstauncis in whiche thei ben worthi be blamed, but he expressith hem in a fourme comoun to the maners and circumstancis in which thei ben blame worthi and to the maners and circumstauncis in whiche thei ben not blame worthi; and therfore tho deedis or gouernancis so in general

or in a comoun and large fourme bi him expressid ben to be vndirstonde and ben to be specified and to be drawe into the maners and circumstauncis in which oonli thei ben bi doom of resoun worthi be blamed. In this maner Crist blamed Pharisees vndir this forme, that thei "louen forto walke in stolis, and forto be clepid of men maistris, and forto haue the firste seetis in feestis;" [Mark xii. 38, 39.] and so forth of manye othere deedis like into this purpos, whiche deedis as so re|hercid of Crist in thilk generalte mowen be leeful and gode and desirid of scribis and of Pharisees and of othere men; but for as myche as vndir summe maners and circumstauncis thei mowen be morali yuel bi dom of resoun, therfore it is to vndirstonde [to be vndirstonde, MS. (first hand).] that Crist in his blamyng of hem blamed in [Probably in should be cancelled, or hem inserted after blamed.] the maner and cir|cumstauncis vndir whiche thei ben bi doom of resoun morali yuel. And that it ouȝte so be vndirstonde, the skile is now bifore seid in mater of Cristis weernyngis.

And ȝit ferther the iij^e. notabilite is this: That in lijk maner it is that Crist biddith and counseilith ofte certein deedis and gouernauncis, and ȝit he expressith tho deedis and gouernauncis in maners and circum|stauncis oonli in whiche tho deedis and gouernauncis ben comoun and general to be gode and to be badde morali; and therfore tho deedis and gouernauncis ben to be vndirstonde, that Crist biddith or counseilith or willith hem to be doon in the maners and circum|stauncis in which thei ben bi doom of resoun gode oonli. In this maner Crist bade, counseilid, or willed, Luk xij^e. capitulum. thus: Sille ȝe the thingis whiche ȝe han in possessioun, and ȝeue ȝe almes. Whether not this is trewe, that summan ouȝte bi doom of resoun and bi the wil of God for to not sille enything which he

hath in possessioun, that he ther with do almes? And ȝit Crist biddith there generali withoute excepcioun. And therfore it is seen to be trewe, what y haue now seid to be the iij^e. notabilite.

Sotheli and withoute doute these iij. notabilitees weel considerid and attendid of thilke persoones, name|lich of the lay party whiche wolen needis entirmete with the Newe Testament, is worth to hem a buyschel ful of gold; and that bothe forto purge hem of wrong opiniouns gaderid to hem bi occasioun of textis in the Newe Testament, and also for to preserue hem that thei falle not into suche vntrewe opiniouns takun bi occasioun of textis in the Newe Testament. And verili and sotheli to seie, the vnconsideracioun and the vnknowing and the [the is wrongly (?) cancelled by a later hand.] vnremembraunce of these thre now bifore sett notabilitees hath be a ful greet cause or occasioun of ful greet presumptuose iuge|mentis in summe of the lay partie, and of greet cisme and of greet horrour and of abhominacioun born anentis the clergie bi summe of the lay partie; of whiche thei wolden be schamed, if thei consideriden weel these thre bifore sett notabilitees, namelich if ther with thei wolden ouer reede the first parti of the book clepid The iust apprising of Holi Scripture.

Neuertheles, not withstonding al what fro the bi|gynnyng of the vj^e. chapiter in this present iiij^e. partie hidir [to] is seid for to iustifie the v^e. seid prin|cipal gouernance, ȝit y holde this, that ouer greet mul|titude of mennys posityue lawis ouȝten not be mad; but prelatis and princis ouȝten be weel waar that ouer manye posytyue lawis be not [not is interlineated in a later (?) hand.] ȝouun to her peplis. For sotheli ther of cometh causeli nedis ful myche yuel, more than y se men considere it so to come. Of

whiche yuelis y desire in myn herte for to haue leiser and space to write my conseite; (which God graunte to be don!) but certis forto holde that it is vnleeful or vnexpedient eny suche posytyue lawis be maad and be ȝouun to peple [the peple, MS. (first hand), per|haps rightly.] is fer fro my witt and my resoun.

To the ij^e. semyng skile and to [to is interlineated in a later hand.] the iij^e. semyng skile bifore sett in the next chapiter it is to be answerid euen lijk as it is answerid to the v^e. and vj^e. semyng skilis sett aftir in the v^e. parti of this book the iiij^e. chapiter, whos answeris ben sett in the same v^e. partie in the vj^e. and seuenthe chapitres; and therfore it is no nede forto fourme answeris in lengthe of the newe here. [And in this y eende here this fourthe partie of this book.]