schal seie and speke aftir sure fundamental encerche, and not be recheles forto faile bi moving of greet deuocioun with oute sufficient bifore had groundly consideracioun, as manye deuoute writers ben founde to do.
Ferthermore it is to wite, that oon clerk, (but verili to seie oon heretik,) tempereth the firste opinioun re|hercid bifore in the bigynnyng of the xvje. chapiter, and seith in this maner, that if the clergie mys vse habituali or customabili his vnmovable endewing, the clergie may leefulli and ouȝte be dispoilid of thilk endewing bi the temporal lordis, and ellis not. [Pecock here refers to Wiclif, who affirms that in "many caas suiets may lefully withstond tithes by God's law and man's also:" (Of Clerks possessioners, MS. c. 25): and that "the curates ben more cursed of God for withdrawing of teeching in word and deed in good ensam|ple, than the suiets or people in withdrawing tithes and offerings, when they don not well their gostly office." (Of the Office of Curates, MS. c. 5.) Both these citations are taken from Lewis' Life of Wicliffe, p. 121.] But that this seiyng is vnskilful may be schewid thus: How euer habituali or customabili y trespace aȝens the king, what schal this hurte myn heir which no thing trespacith to the king, but is a ful louyng and a trewe servaunt to the king? Or how euer habi|tuali or customabili I trespace now to the king or to God bi myn vnmovable or movable godis, whi schulen mi children not ȝit bigeten suffre therbi eny losse of good to hem dew, whiche not ȝit trespacen neither habituali neither actuali? Or in caas that certeyn godis be ȝouen to me and to othere iiij. [Perhaps an error of the copyist for mi.] felawis in comoun, if y trespace to the king or to God habituali or customabili, what resoun were it that thei not ȝit so trespacing schulden be dispoilid of thilk hool same good? Wherfore if y be a bischop and mys vse ha|bituali or customabili myn vnmovable possessiouns,
