The repressor of over much blaming of the clergy.

ij. CHAPITER.

FOR answere to the firste argument it is to vndir|stonde, that religioun mai be take in ij. maners: In oon maner religioun is such a binding vp or a bynd|ing aȝen of a mannys fre wil with certein ordinauncis, maad bi God or bi man or with vowis or oothis, that he go not so wijde and so brode in hise choicis and refusis, neither in the executing of hise choicis or of

hise refusis with inne the boundis of lawe of kinde, how brode ellis withoute forbeding of lawe of kinde go he myȝte. And religioun in this maner takun is religioun propirli takun, and is descryued in lijk sen|tence bifore in the [vj^e.] [Spaces are left in the MS. for the numbers.] chapiter of the [iv^e.] [Spaces are left in the MS. for the numbers.] parti of this present book. In an other maner religioun is a binding up or a binding aȝens [Perhaps a clerical error for aȝen.] of a mannys fre wil with the lawis of kinde, (that is to seie, with the doomes of cleer and weel disposid resoun,) that he chese not or refuse not neither execute hise choisis or refusis aȝens the now seid lawe of kinde. And so with religioun in this ij^e. maner takun, which is a large and an vnpropre maner of taking and of vndir|stonding religioun, mannys wil is not refreyned saue bi lawe of kinde oonli. And bi religioun takun in the firste now bifore seid maner, which is the verry [verry is interlineated in a later hand.] propre maner of taking religioun, mannys fre wil is refreyned with more than with lawe of kinde; for he is also refreyned with othere statutis or ordinauncis maad bi God or man or with othere vowis or oothis.

Of religioun takun in the firste maner, as anentis statutis and ordinauncis maad bi God himsilf, Holi Writt spekith, Exodi xij^e. capitulum. and xxix^e. capitulum., and as anentis ordinauncis maad bi man, Acts xxvj^e. capitulum., as it is bifore rehercid in the [Spaces left in the MS. for the numbers. Pecock seems to be thinking of what follows. Part v. c. viii.] chapiter of the [Spaces left in the MS. for the numbers. Pecock seems to be thinking of what follows. Part v. c. viii.] parti of this present book. Of religioun takun in the ij^e. maner spekith Holi Writt, Acts x^e. capitulum., where Cornely, than being an hethen man not cristned, is clepid "a religiose man and dreding God;" and that for the weel keping and filling the lawe of kinde, that is to seie, the lawe of resoun. Also of this religioun it is writun Ecclesiastici i^e. capitulum. in the myddil.

In the iij^e. maner religioun is take for religioun of the firste maner and religioun of the ij^e. maner to gidere seet; and in this maner y toke and vndirstode this name "religioun," whanne to a certein book which y haue mad y puttid this name, The reule of Cristen religioun.

Iames in his text alleggid bifore in the firste sem|yng skile meened not of religioun takun in the now seid firste maner, but of religioun taken in the ij^e. now seid maner; and ȝit bi thilk same text Iames meened not, that a man forto visite fadirles and mo|dirles children and widowis in her tribulacioun, and a man forto kepe him vnwemmed fro this world schulde be al an hool religioun takun in the ij^e. maner; but that these deedis bi him there expressid schulden be summe parties of an hool religioun takun in the secunde maner. Forwhi a man forto worschipe and releeue his fadir and modir is a parti of the same al hool religioun takun in the ij^e. maner, and a man forto forbere fals sweryng and idil swering is an other parti of the same hool religioun takun in the ij^e. maner; and lijk maner ech moral vertu is a parti of the same religioun takun in the ij^e. maner. And therfore bi this, that now is thus declarid, it is open ynowȝ that the firste maner of arguyng rehercid bifore upon the seid text of Iames is not worth, whanne it is argued thus: A man to visite fadirles and modirles children and widewis is a religioun; for it is a parti of the now seid greet religioun; therfore noon other vertu than this visiting is a religioun.

For answere to the ij^e. maner of arguyng maad upon the same text of Iames it is to be seid, that the firste premisse is vntrewe, which is there takun and fourmed thus: What euer religioun lettith, bifore bar|rith, ȝhe, and forbedith an othir religioun to be had or doon, which is a cleene and an vnwemmed reli|gioun at God and the Fadir, is vnleeful and not

worthi he had and vsid. Forwhi it is impossible ij. religiouns be; [to be, MS. (first hand).] but that the oon of hem had in a persoon lettith and bifore barrith, ȝhe, and forbedith the other religioun to be for the while in the same persoon, sithen oon and the same man may not be to gidere in ij. religions. And therfore the seid firste premysse of the ij^e. argument maad up on the text of Iames is vntrewe and to be denyed, and so ceessith the strengthe of thilk argument fro geting of his en|tent. Also if thilk premysse were trewe, certis thanne weelnyȝ ech moral vertu of Goddis lawe were vnleeful and not to be had and vsid. Forwhi what euer moral vertu a man wole take and vse, al the while that he is is werking thilk vertu he is therbi lettid, forbarrid, and weerned forto wirche an other moral vertu of Goddis lawe; as, whilis a man is weddid and wole bigete children, he is therbi lettid and weerned to be chaast, and whilis a man wole do almes deedes in Ynglond he is lettid and weerned therbi for to do almesdeedis in Fraunce, and whilis a man rideth in a iorney for a good cause he is therbi lettid and weerned for to heere a preching; ȝhe, and if the wirching of thilk vertu first takun schulde stonde stille perpetuely, he schulde lette and weerne perpetuely the wirching of the other vertu which myȝte ellis be taken; and so, if the seid premysse were trewe, the vertu which is first takun of a man is euermore vn|leeful. And also ech office in a kingis hous schulde be needis displesaunt to the king, forwhi ech office in his hous lettith, forbarrith, [for barrith, MS., (without hyphen).] and weerneth the occupier fro an office in the same hous, which office the king loueth weel to be doon. And so, open it is, that the seid firste premisse is to be denyed; and thanne is thilk argument lettid fro his purpos.

For answere to the [thi, MS.] ij^e. bifore mad argument going upon there rehercid textis it is to be markid wel, that among alle tho textis oonli the firste text aloone, ij^e. Pet. ij^e. capitulum., spekith of viciose sectis whiche schulden rise aftir the daies of Peter, and alle other textis of thilk noumbre speken oonli of viciose persoones tech|ing vntreuly and lyuyng vicioseli and not of eny vi|ciose [A later hand has wrongly al|tered this into vnviciose.] sect. Wherfore noon of alle these textis berith in him silf eny colour forto smyte or reproue or blame eny sect or religion now had and vsid in the chirche, saue oonli the firste text ij^e. Pet. ij^e. capitulum. And sithen the sectis of which Peter there prophecied he in tho wordis prophecied, that "sectis of perdicion schulden be denying the Lord which bouȝte hem," no man mai in eny colour afferme that thilk wordis of pro|phecie of Peter fallith vpon the sectis or religiouns now had and vsid in the chirche, but if he afore proue and schewe that these now had and vsid religiouns in the chirche ben sectis of perdicioun and denyen him which bouȝte hem. And therfore proue he firste and bifore that these now seid religiouns ben sectis of perdicioun, and that thei ben denying Crist, and bi|leeuen not into Crist; and thanne lete him haue the maistrie, that Petir in the wordis of his bifore allegid text prophecied or spake of the religiouns now had and vsid in the chirche. And certis open ynouȝ it is, that ellis he mai not haue euydence as bi thilk text that Peter meened or thouȝte on hem. Forwhi this folewith not in eny good argument: Petir seide that sectis of perdicioun denying Crist schulden come, therfore these now had religiouns ben tho sectis. A lewder and febler skile or argument can noman make; forwhi bi this argument, if he were auȝt, schulde be proued that ech sect or religioun mad, or which

myȝte be mad, were or schulde be vnleeful and a sect of perdicioun, how euer good and profitable and leeful he were or schulde be mad; and so the same secte schulde be good and badde, leeful and vnleeful, which is repungnaunce. And therto to this bad argument muste be sett more, if he schulde eny thing proue and conclude, as is forto seie and argue thus: Petir seide that sectis of perdicioun denying Crist schulden come; and so it is, that these religiouns now had and · vsid in the chirche ben sectis of perdicioun denying Crist; therfore of hem spake or meened Petir. Or ellis thus: Of hem is the prophecie of Peter verified and vpon hem fallith thilk prophecie of Petir; and but if the arguer can proue the ij^e. premysse of this argument, and eer than he proue thilk ij^e. premysse of this ar|gument, that is to seie, that these now had and vsid religiouns in the chirche ben sectis of perdicioun deny|ing Crist, certis he may not waite aftir that the con|clusioun of this argument be proued or be trewe, that is to seie, that the seid prophecie of Petir fille upon the religiouns now had and vsid in the chirche. And thanne ferther, forto proue that these religiouns ben sectis of perdicioun, he muste take his euydencis and hise motyues in othir place out and fro the seid text of Peter; forwhi it muste be proued that the now had religiouns ben sectis of perdicioun, eer and bifore we wite what and of whom the seid text of Peter meeneth. And thus it is open ynouȝ that, as bi the firste text in the bifore sett noumbre of textis, may noon hurte bifalle to the now had and vsid religions.

And thanne ferthermore thus: Alle the othere textis in the same now seid noumbre speken of persoones tech|ing vntreuli and lyuying viciosely, whether thei lyue in eny religiose sect or out of religiose sect; for of alle suche viciose persoones, whether thei lyuen in sect of religioun or out of sect of religioun, tho textis mowen be verified riȝt weel, as is open ynouȝ bi the general

and large speking of the textis in her wordis. But so it is, that thouȝ persoones in a religioun techen amys and lyuen amys, for that thei techen and lyuen other wise than her religioun wolde that thei schulde teche and lyue, ȝit therbi cometh noon hurte to the reli|gioun, as that therfore the religioun were the wors or were badde and vnleeful; but if it schulde be seid and holde therto answeringli and folewingly that the sect of Cristis Apostlis were badde and vnleeful, for that Iudas lyued theryn amys; and but if it schulde be seid that Crist blamed and reproued the state of preesthode and the state of bischophode in the oolde lawe as badde and vnleeful, bicause he blamed and reproued the persoones of tho statis; whiche noman ouȝte holde, for God him silf made tho statis, and he made no badde and vnleeful thing. Wherfore folew|ith needis that as bi alle tho textis of the bifore spokun noumbre, comyng in processe aftir the firste text of hem, is no strok ȝouun to eny sect or eny religioun forto therbi seie that eny sect or religioun is badde or vnleeful. Also open it is, that tho textis strecchen hem to viciose persoones being out of reli|gioun, as weel as to viciose persoones in religioun. How schulden thanne tho textis serue in special forto distroie eny religiouns more than forto distroie eny state, ȝhe, ech state which is not religioun, as the state of dekenhode, the state of preesthode, and othere; if in suche statis ben persoones vicioseli lyuyng? Certis no witti man can herto seie nay. And thanne ferther, sithen tho now seid textis speken of viciose persoones teching amys, bileeuyng amys, and lyuyng amys, whether thei ben in sect of religioun or in other state out of religioun, if eny man wole take vpon him forto proue that tho textis or summe of hem ben verified of persoones now lyuyng in religioun or in preesthode out of religioun, make he first ther of his proof; and whanne he hath maad ther of his proof

bi euydencis being withoute tho textis, (as he muste needis for cause now late bifore in this present chapi|ter tauȝt,) Goddis forbode that he be weerned forto afferme, holde, and seie, that tho textis speken of per|soones, and lete him holde and seie tho persoones for to be reproued of Holi Writt and of the Apostlis; and noman schal him therfro weerne. And it is al that he mai haue toward his purpos bi the same seid noumbre of textis. But whanne he hath al this at his lust, what hath he therbi forto reproue and blame eny sect or religioun? Certis riȝt nouȝt, as it is openli schewid in this processe of answering. Wherfore noon of alle tho textis sewyng in rewe aftir the first text ȝeuen eny strook to eny religioun now had and vsid in the chirche.

Neuertheles for as myche as the blamers and re|prouers of the vj^e. principal gouernance ben aboute forto proue that the ij^e. text of the bifore sett noum|bre, which text is of Poul, i^e. Thim. iiij^e. capitulum., spekith of sectis and religiouns, namelich now being, and not oonli of persoones being in religioun, therfore now next after al this going bifore her euydencis ben to be rehercid, that answere and solucioun be to hem paied. Thei arguen thus: Tho persoones of whom Poul spekith in the seid secunde text which is writun i^e. Thim. iiij^e. capitulum. ben alle tho persoones whiche for|beden to be weddid, and also tho that bidden ab|steyne fro metis whiche God made to take with doing of thankingis, as it is open ynow bi wordis of the text; but so doon the persoones being in the reli|giouns now had and vsid in the chirche, and that not as bi her owne witt, wil, and entent oonli, but as bi strengthe and entent and reule of her religioun; wher|fore not oonli the persoones of these now had and vsid religiouns ben blamed and reproued bi the seid text of Poul, i^e. Thim. iiij^e. capitulum.; but also the religiouns of the same persoones ben theryn and therbi also

blamed and reproued, sithen tho persoones ben blamed bi the seid text in that and for that, that thei techen and doon as her sect and religioun wole that thei teche and do.

And that tho persoones by strengthe and entent of her sectis and her religiouns forbeden to be weddid and forto abstene of metis whiche God made to take, thei ben aboute forto proue thus: Tho religiose men bi strengthe and entent of her religiouns dressyng hem therto bidden to her vndirlingis and her felawis and britheren being in the religiouns forto lyue chaast for euer; wherfore in so bidding thei musten needis forbede to the same vnderlingis and felawis forto be weddid; also summe of the same religiosis bi strengthe and reulis of her religiouns forbeden to her vndirlingis and felawis of religioun forto ete fleisch for euere, and summe bi strengthe of her religioun forbeden the eting of fleisch for sum cesoun and tyme of a monthe and of summe certeyn daies; wherfore, as it semeth to hem, tho [that tho, MS.] religiosis maken bi strengthe of her reli|giouns the same forbodis which Poul in his seide text blameth, that is to seie, forbeden to ete metis whiche God ordeynede to take. And if this be trewe, therof muste folewe that as Poul bi and in his seid text reproueth her now spokun forbedingis, [forbedindis, MS.] so bi and in his same text he reproueth her religiouns reuling tho persoones forto so forbede.

Answere to this arguyng schal be this: Poul in the ij^e. text of the seid noumbre, i^e. Thim. iiij^e. capitulum., meeneth of suche forbeders whiche wolden forbede wedding and forbede eting of certein metis as deedis vnleeful in hem silf, or as being alwey contrarie to Goddis lawe; but so forbeden not oure religiose prelatis bi strengthe and entent of her religioun to her britheren in the

same religiouns, but these [these same, MS. (first hand).] religiose prelatis forbeden wedding and fre eting of alle metis to her religiose britheren, bi cause tho britheren han bounde hem silf to God into the contrarie, that is forto neuere be weddid and forto absteyne fro certein metis; and also neither tho prelatis forbeden neither tho sug|getis vowiden to forbere wedlok and the vce of fleisch in certein whilis as vnleeful deedis and as deedis contrarie to Goddis lawe, but as deedis whos for|beringis schulden make hem the more sureli kepen hem fro breking of Goddis lawe; and therfore the forbeders now in religioun ben not in the caace and in the deedis of whiche Poul spekith in the ij^e. seid text, which is i^e. Thim. iiij^e. capitulum. And but if Poul meened in the seid ij^e. text as it is now seid that he meened, and but if it were leeful to forbede as oure religiose prelatis now forbeden, certis ellis he were contrarie to him silf; forwhi, i^e. Thim. v^e. capitulum., he for|bedith widowis to be weddid after [after that, MS. (first hand).] thei han bounde hem silf to chastite.

Certis in the daies of the Apostlis weren men clepid pseudo or false Apostlis, whiche wenten aboute cun|trees in the daies of the Apostlis, and peruertiden peplis fro the teching into which Poul had sette hem, as the Corinthies and the Galathies. Of whiche pseudo or false Apostlis summe tauȝten that it was not leeful that men ete fleisch which was offrid to idols, neither bigge thilk fleisch whanne it were brouȝt into market after tyme of offring forto be solde; summe other of these pseudo tauȝten and helden that Cristen peple musten needis take the circumcision and the birthens of the oold lawe with the newe, as of euereither of these Poul spekith in his Epistle to Corinthies; and of the ij^e. he spekith in his Epistle to Galathies.

Ferther more summe othere of hem tauȝten that men schulden not be boundun bi mennys lawis, and ther|fore thei schulden not obeie to princis and dukis, whom Poul reproueth, Rom. xiij^e. capitulum. and i^e. Thim. i^e. capitulum., and Petir in his firste Epistle the ij^e. capitulum. Ferther|more the herisies of Hymeneus [Hermyneus, MS.] and of Alisaundre weren in the daies of the Apostlis, whom Poul curside for her heresie, as it is open i^e. Thim. i^e. capitulum. in the eende. Also Ioon the Euangeliste in his ij^e. Epistle meeneth that in hise daies weren heretikis going aboute to disseyue trewe bileeuers. Also Coloc. ij^e. capitulum. is men|sioun mad of heretikis whiche weren aboute to bringe yn in tho daies vnresonable religiouns aȝens trewe feith, and that bi colour that reuelacioun was maad to hem ther upon. And so open it is, that dyuerse sectis of heretikis rosen and regneden in tyme of the Apostlis, and diden miche care and lett and perse|cuciouns to the verry Apostlis, and therfore of hem myȝte be meened myche of this that is seid in the bifore alleggid textis.

Ferthermore, longe aftir the daies of the Apostlis heretikis weren, whiche helden that vttirly it is synne eny man or womman be weddid, and eny man haue to do in fleischli deling with a womman, as helde the sect of Eraclitis; [This appears to be a blunder or clerical error for Hieracitis. See for them and Tatian's disciples, August. Lib. de Hæres. c. 47 and c. 25. Op. tom. viii. pp. 13 and 7. (Ed. Antv. 1700).] which also therwith helden that oonli chast persoones schulen come into heuen, and that children diyng bifore her ȝeeris of discrecioun schulen neuere come to heuen. And summe othere heretikis with her foleweris making to gidere her sect han be, whiche helden that vttirli it is synne forto ete fleisch, as helde the sect of Tacianys. Summe othere sect of heretikis hath be, which weel allowid

wedlok, but thei helden dampnable if eny widowe were weddid; and herwith thei helden, if eny persoon hadde do oonys eny notable greet synne, that he neuer schulde haue therof forȝeuenes, [forȝeues, MS.] how euer miche [how miche, MS. (first hand).] repentaunce and penaunce he dide for it. And so oonli these heretikis and othere to hem like weren in the case of forbeding of which Seint Poul spekith in the ij^e. text; and not the othere religiose forbeders of this present tyme, whiche forbeden wedding and eting of fleisch bi cause of vow or boond therto bifore maad of hem to whom the forbedingis [are] maad, and whiche neither forsaken neither forbeden wedding and eting of fleisch as deedis vnleeful and contrarie to Goddis lawe. And thus myche is ynouȝ for answere to the ij^e. argument.

Answere to the iij^e. argument schal be the same answere which is sett bifore in the iiij^e. parti of this book the ix^e. chapiter, and is ȝouun there for answere to the firste semyng skile sett in the viij^e. chapiter of the same iiij^e. partie. Therfore who so wole se the seid answere, turn he thider; for there he mai it se.

To the iiij^e. bifore maad argument, proceding vpon the reuelacioun and prophecie ȝouun to Seinte Hilde|gard, it is to be seid thus: Whether it be trewe or no what sche seide and wroot of the persoones hold|ing the iiij. ordris of beggeris and of her ordre, this y dare seie, that among the reuelaciouns and pro|phecies, whiche ben ascriued to hir, is conteyned vntrouthe contrarie to the trewe feith; and for to it proue y durst leie in plegge my lijf, how euer it be that her prophecies and reuelacions weren approued.