The University of Michigan Library provides access to these materials in furtherance of its educational and research mission. This work has been identified as being in the public domain, free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights. You may copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. If you have questions about the collection, please contact Digital Content and Collections (mec-info@umich.edu). If you have concerns about the inclusion of an item in this collection, please contact Library Information Technology (LibraryIT-info@umich.edu).
Header created with script mrcb2teiutf.xsl on 2006-02-22.
This electronic text file was created by Optical Character Recognition (OCR). No corrections have been made to the OCR-ed text and no editing has been done to the content of the original document. Encoding has been done using the recommendations for Level 1 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines. Digital page images are linked to the text file.
EDITED BY CHURCHILL BABINGTON, B.D., FELLOW OF ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.
PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE LORDS COMMISSIONERS OF HER MAJESTY'S TREASURY, UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS.
VOL. I.
LONDON: LONGMAN, GREEN, LONGMAN, AND ROBERTS. 1860.
EDITED BY CHURCHILL BABINGTON, B.D., FELLOW OF ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.
PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE LORDS COMMISSIONERS OF HER MAJESTY'S TREASURY, UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS.
VOL. II.
LONDON: LONGMAN, GREEN, LONGMAN, AND ROBERTS. 1860.
Vndirnyme thou, biseche thou, and blame thou, in al pacience and doctrine.
THOUȝ these wordis weren writenwerē writē, MS.; but the stroke above is in a later hand, and so elsewhere often, but not always.abischop, MS.; and so elsewhere very often, but not constantly: here the indefinite article is always printed as a word by itself.e. ad Thessalonic. iije. c. and Math. xviije. c., and as resoun also it weelweel it, MS. (first hand).it longith, MS.; but it is can|celled by a later hand.y now, MS.; but elsewhere con|junctim; similarly y clepid, &c. elsewhere, but not constantly; in such cases here printed uniformly conjunctim.
And for as miche as after it what is write, Rom. Xe. c., manie han zeel of good wille, but not aftir kunnyng, and han ther with take upon hem forto vndirnyme and blame openli and scherpli bothe in speche andbothe in speche and added in the margin by a different hand.indefautis, MS.Vndirnyme thou, biseche thou, and blame thou, in al pacience and doc|trine: as thouȝ y schulde seie thus: If thou cannest teche, schewe, and proue that the deede of which thou vndirnymest and blamest the persoon or persoones is a defaute and a trespace, and thanne that he is gilti ther of; vndirnyme thou and blame thou in thilk kunnyng or doctrine and in pacience: and if thou canst not so schewe, teche, and proue, thou ouȝtist be stille, and not so vndirnyme and blame.
For ellis Seint Poul schulde not haue seid thus, Vndirnyme thou, blame thou, in al pacience and doctrine: ȝhe, and ellis thou ouȝtist vndirnyme and blame first thi silf of this defaute, that thou vndir|nymest and blamest not hauyng the doctrine which thou ouȝtist haue, eer than thou take vpon thee forto vndirnyme and blame: and so to ech such ouer hasti and vnwijs blamer myȝte be seid what is writun, Luk iiije. c., thus: O leche, heele thi silf. Ȝhe, pera|uenture to summe suche blamers and for sumwhilis myȝte be seid what is writen, Luk the vje. c., thus: Ypocrite, take first the beem out of thine owne iȝe, and thanne thou schalt se forto take the mote out of thin neiȝboris iȝe. And ferthermore sithen it is so, that suche vnwise, vndiscrete, and ouerhasti vndirnymers letten the effect of her wijs and discrete and weel avisid vndirnymyngis, whiche thei in othere tymes maken or mowe make to the clergie; and so ȝeuen occasioun that bothe thei hem silf and her iust vndir|nymyngis ben despisid and ben not seet bi, and so maken therbi hem silf to be letters of miche good and causers of miche yuel, it is riȝt greet nede, that alle tho, whiche taken upon hem to be vndirnymers
Vndirnyme thou, biseche thou, blame thou, in al paciencepaciencien, MS.and doctrine.
Now that God for his godenes and charite ceese the sooner in the comoun peple such vnwijs, vntrewe, and ouerhasti vndirnymyng and blamyng maad upon the clergie, and that for the harmes and yuelis therbi comyng now seid, y schal do therto sumwhat of mi part in this, that y schal iustifie xj. gouernauncis of the clergie, whiche summe of the comoun peple vn|wijsly and vntreuli iugen and condempnen to be yuele; of whiche xj. gouernauncis oon is the having and vsing of ymagis in chirchis; and an othir is pil|grimage in going to the memorialis or the mynde placis of Seintis, and that pilgrimagis and offringis mowe be doon weel, not oonli priuely, but also openli; and not oonli so of lay men, but rather of preestis and of bischopis. And this y schalschal y, MS. (first hand).The repressing of ouer miche wijting the clergie: and he schal haue v. principal parties. In the firste of whiche parties schal be mad in general maner the seid repressing, and in general maner proof to the xj. seid gouer|nauncis. And in the ije. iije. iiije. and ve. principal parties schal be maad in special maner the seid re|pressing; and in special maner the proof to the same xj. gouernauncis; thouȝ alle othere gouernauncis of the clergie, for whiche the clergy is worthi toto is inserted by a later hand, perhaps wrongly.
THRE trowingis or opiniouns ben causis and groundis of manie and of weel nyȝ alle the errouris whiche manie of the lay partie holden, and bi which hold|ing thei vniustly and ouermyche wijten and blamen the clergie and alle her othere neiȝbouris of the lay side, which not holden tho same errouris accordingly with hem, and therfore it is miche nede forto first ȝeue bisynes to vnroote and ouerturne tho thre trow|ingis, holdingis, or opiniouns, bifore the improuyng of othere; sithen if tho thre be sufficiently improued, that is to seie, if it be sufficientli proued that tho thre ben nouȝt and vntrewe and badde, alle the othere vntrewe opiniouns and holdingis bildid vpon hem or upon eny of hem muste needis therbi take her fal, and lacke it wherbi thei miȝten in eny colour or semyng be mentened, holde, and supportid.
The firste of these thre trowingis, holdingis, or opiniouns is this: That no gouernaunce is to be holde of Cristen men the seruice or the lawe of God, saue it which is groundid in Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament, as summe of the bifore seid men holden; or namelich, saue it which is groundid in the Newe Testament or in the Oold, and is not bi the Newe Testament reuokid, as summe othere of hem holden. In this trowing and holding thei ben so kete and so smert and so wantoun, that whanne euer eny
e. c., where Crist seide to the Sa|duceis thus: Ȝe erren, not knowing Scripturis, nei|ther the vertu or strengthe of God. In the resur|rectioun forsothe thei schulen not wedde neither be weddid, but thei schulen be as aungelis of God in heuen. Han not ȝe rad of the resurrectioun of dede men, that it is seid to us of God, I am God of Abraham, God of Ysaac, God of Iacob, et cætera. Also thei weenen this opinioun be groundid, Iohun ve. c., where Crist seide to the Iewis thus: Serche ȝe Scripturis, for ȝe trowen ȝou forto haue euerlasting lijf in hem, and thei ben whiche beren witnes of me.
The secunde trowing or opinyoun is this: That what euer Cristen man or womman be meke in spirit and willi forto vndirstonde treuli and dewli Holi Scripture, schal without fail and defaut fynde the trewe vndir|stonding of Holi Scripture in what euer place he or sche schal rede and studie, thouȝ it be in the Apo|calips or ouȝwhere ellis: and the more meke he or sche be, the sooner he or sche schal come into the verry trewe and dew vndirstonding of it, which in Holi Scripture he or sche redith and studieth. This ije. opinioun thei wenen to be groundid in Holi Scripture, Ysaie lxvje. c. in the bigynnyng, where God seith thus: To whom schal y biholde but to a litle pore man,
broken in herte, and trembling at mi wordis? And also Iames the iiije. c., and ie. Petre ve. c., where it is seid thus: God aȝenstondith proude men, and he ȝeueth grace to meke men. Also Ysaie lvije. c. where it is seid, that God dwelling in euerlastingte dwellith with a meke and a contrite spirit, that he quykee the spirit of meke men and that he quykee the herte of contrite men. And in othere dyuerise placis of Scrip|ture mensioun is mad that God ȝeueth goode thingis to meke men more thanne if thei were not so meke.
The iije. trowing or opinioun is this: Whanne euere a persoon hath founde the vndirstonding of Holi Scrip|ture into which he schal come bi the wey now bifore seid of the ije. opinioun, he or sche ouȝte bowe awey her heering, her reeding, and her vndirstonding fro al resonyng and fro al arguyng or prouyng which eny clerk can or wole or mai make bi eny maner euydence of resoun or of Scripture, and namelich of resoun into the contrarie, thouȝ the mater be such that it passith not the boondis neither the capacite of resoun forto entermete therwith and forto iuge and ȝeue kunnyng ther upon; which trowing and opi|nioun to holde and fulfille thei wenen hem be bede bi Poul, Colocens. ije. c., where he seith thus: Y seie to ȝou these thingis, that no man bigile ȝou in heiȝte of spechis. And soone after there, Poul seith thus: Se ȝe that no man bigile ȝou bi philsophi and veyn falsnes aftir the tradiciouns of men and after the elementis of the world, and not aftir Crist. Also ie. Cor. ie. c., weelnyȝ thoruȝ al the chapiter, Poul meeneth that Cristen bileeuers ouȝten not recche of wisdom such as wise worldli men vsen and setten miche therbi.
FORTO meete aȝens the firste bifore spoken opinioun, and forto vnroote and updrawe it, y schal sette forth first xiij. principal conclusiouns. But for as miche as this vnrooting of the first opinioun and the proofis of tho xiij. conclusiouns mowen not be doon and made withoute strengthe of argumentis, therfore that y be the better and the cleerer vndirstonde of the lay peple in summe wordis to be aftir spoken in this present book, y sette nowe bifore to hem this doc|trine taken schortli out of the faculte of logik. An argument if he be ful and foormal, which is clepid a sillogisme, is mad of twey proposiciouns dryuyng out of hem and bi strengthe of hem the thridde proposi|cioun. Of the whiche thre proposiciouns the ij. first ben clepid premissis, and the iije. folewing out of hem is clepid the conclusioun of hem. And the firste of tho ij. premissis is clepid the first premisse, and the ije. of hem is clepid the ije. premisse. And ech such argu|ment is of this kinde, that if the bothe premissis ben trewe, the conclusioun concludid out and bi hem is also trewe; and but if euereither of tho premissis be trewe, the conclusioun is not trewe. Ensaumple her of is this. "Ech man is at Rome, the Pope is a man, eke the Pope is at Rome." Lo here ben sett forth ij. proposicions, which ben these, "Ech man is at Rome;" and "The Pope is a man;" and these ben the ij. pre|myssis in this argument, and thei dryuen out the iije. proposicioun, which is this, "The Pope is at Rome," and it is the conclusioun of the ij. premissis. Wher|fore certis if eny man can be sikir for eny tyme that these ij. premyssis be trewe, he mai be sikir that the conclusioun is trewe; thouȝ alle the aungelis in heuen wolden seie and holde that thilk conclusioun were not trewe. And this is a general reule, in euery good and formal and ful argument, that if his premissis be knowe for trewe, the conclusioun ouȝte be avowid for trewe, what euer creature wole seie the contrarie.
What propirtees and condiciouns ben requirid to an argument, that he be ful and formal and good, is tauȝt in logik bi ful faire and sure reulis, and may not be tauȝt of me here in this present book. But wolde God it were leerned of al the comon peple in her modiris langage, for thanne thei schulden therbi be putt fro myche ruydnes and boistosenes which thei han now in resonyng; and thanne thei schulden soone knowe and perceue whanne a skileaskile, MS.; but the words are divided by a later hand. See p. I, note.
But as for now thus miche in this wise ther of here talkid, that y be the better vndirstonde in al what y schal argue thoruȝ this present book, y wole come doun into the xiij. conclusiouns, of whiche the
That this conclusioun is trewe, y proue thus: What|euer thing is ordeyned (and namelich bi God) for to be ground and fundament of eny vertu or of eny gouer|naunce or deede or treuth, thilk same thing muste so teche and declare and seie out and ȝeue forth al the kunnyng vpon the same vertu or gouernance or trouthe, wher with and wherbi thilk same vertu, gouernaunce, or trouthe is sufficientli knowen, that withoute thilk same thing the same kunnyng of thilk same vertu, gouer|naunce, or trouthe may not be sufficientli knowen, so that thilk same vertu, gouernance, or trouthe, in al the kunnyng withoute which he may not at fulle be leerned and knowen, muste nedis growe forth and come forth out and fro oonli thilk thing which is seid and holden to be ther of the ground and the fundament, as anoon aftir schal be proued: but so it is, that of no vertu, gouernaunce, or treuthe of Goddis moral lawe and seruice, into whos fynding, leerning, and knowing mannis witt may by his natural strengthe and natural helpis come, Holi Scripture al oon ȝeueth the sufficient kunnyng; neither fro and out of Holi Scripture al oon, whether he be take for the Newe Testament al oon, or for the Newe Testament and the Oold to gidere, as anoon after schal be proued, growith forth and cometh forth al the knowing which is nedeful to be had upon it: wherfore nedis folewith, that of no vertu or go|uernaunce or trouthe into which the doom of mannis resoun may sufficientli ascende and come to, for to it fynde, leerne, and knowe withoute reuelacioun fro God mad ther vpon, is groundid in Holi Scripture.
The firste premisse of this argument muste needis be grauntid. Forwhi, if the sufficient leernyng and
That also the ije. premisse is trewe, y proue thus: What euer deede or thing doom of resoun dooth as fulli and as perfitli as Holi Scripture it dooth, Holi Scripture it not dooth oonli or al oon; but so it is, that what euer leernyng and kunnyng Holi Scripture ȝeueth upon eny of the now seid gouernauncis, trouthes, and vertues, (that is to seie, upon eny gouernaunce, trouthe,
e. premisse of the firste principal argument muste needis be trewe.
And thanne ferther, thus: Sithen the bothe premissis of the first principal argument ben trewe, and the argument is formal, nedis muste the conclusioun con|cludid bi hem in the same arguyng be trewe, which is the bifore set first principal conclusioun.
THE ije. principal argument into the first bifore sett and spoken conclusioun or trouthe is this: Thilk thing is the ground of a gouernaunce, or vertu, or trouthe, out of which al the sufficient leernyng and knowing of the same gouernaunce, trouthe, and vertu cometh, procedith, and growith, and may be had, thouȝ al other thing pretendid to be ground ther of be awey or were not in being; but so it is, that al the leernyng and knowing, which Holi Scripture ȝeueth vpon eny bifore seid gouernaunce, deede, or trouthe of Goddis moral lawe, mai be had bi doom of natural resoun; ȝhe, thouȝ Holi Writt had not spoke ther of, or thouȝ he schulde neuere fro hens forthward speke ther of, as anoon aftir schal be proued; and ouer it al the forther kunnyng which Holi Writt ȝeueth not upon eny seid gouernaunce or deede or treuthe of Goddis lawe and
Of iust apprising Holi Scripture,) and not Holi Scripture, is the ground of alle the seid gouernauncis, deedis, vertues, and trouthis.
The firste premisse of this ije. principal argument is proued bifore bi proof of the first premisse in the first principal argument; and the secunde premisse in this principal argument mai be proued thus: Ech of these gouernauncis, trouthis, and vertues, now to be rehercid, mowe be knowen bi doom of resoun as sufficientli as Holi Scripture techith hem to be don, thouȝ Holi Scripture had left al his teching which he makith vpon eny of hem; that is to seie, that God is moost to be loued of man; and that a man schulde loue him silf and his neiȝbore as him silf, thouȝ not so miche as him silf; that a man schulde be trewe to God in paiyng hise iust promissis, if he hath eny suche maad to God; that he be meke to God in not amys tempting God aȝens reson; that he reuerence God, and that he take bisynes for to leerne what plesith God, that he it do to God or for God; that a man ouȝte be temperat in eting and drinking, and not be glotenose; and that he ouȝte be contynent or holding mesure in deedis of gendring; and that he ouȝte be meke to othere men and not proud; and that he ouȝte be trewe and iust to othere men; and that he ouȝte be mylde in speche and answere; and that he ouȝte be pacient and sobre in tribulaciouns; and that he ouȝte be douȝty and strong into gode werkis; and so of ful manye mo gouernauncis and vertues of Goddis lawe, in to which mannis witt mai suffice to come forto hem fynde, leerne, and kunne. Certis of alle these and of alle to hem lijk mannis witt can teche and schewe that ech of hem ouȝte be doon of man, as ferforth
sixsithis, MS.; but the words are divided by a later hand.Cristen religioun and in the bookis perteynyng therto. Wherfore the ije. premisse of the ije. principal argument is trewe thoruȝ hise bothe parties: ȝhe, upon sum trouthe or gouernaunce of Goddis lawe lenger writing muste be had, eer it be sufficientli knowe, than is al the writing of Mathewis Gospel; and ȝit of thilk vertu or gouernaunce scantli is writen in al Holi Writt ten lynes, as it is open to ech reeder and vnderstonder in the seid bokis. Wherfore folewith that the ije. premisse of the ije. principal argument for his ije. partie is trewe.
I preie thee, Sir, seie to me where in Holi Scrip|ture is ȝouen the hundrid parti of the teching upon matrimonie which y teche in a book mad upon Matrimonie, and in the firste partie of Cristen religioun: and ȝit rede who so wole thilk book Of matrimonie, and he schal fynde al the hool teching of thilk book litil ynouȝ or ouer litle forto teche al what is necessarie to be leerned and kunnen vpon matrimonie. Hast thou eny more teching in Holi Scripture upon matrimonie than a fewe lynes writen, Mat. ve. c. and Mat. xixe. c., Mark xe. c., and Luk xvje.xviije., MS. See Luke xvi. 18.e. and ije. c.? And ȝit alle thilk vj. places speken not saue tweyne pointis of matrimonie, which ben vndepartabilnes and fleischli vce of bodies into childe bigeting. What therfore a grounde ouȝte eny man seie that Holi Scripture is to matrimonie, sithen al Holi Scripture techith not but these ij. pointis of matrimonie? For thouȝ Poul bidde ofte that a man schulde loue his wijf, and that the wijf schulde obeie to hir husbonde, ȝit what is this to kunnyng of matrimonye in it silf, and into the propirtees of it, and into the circumstauncis of it, withoute which matrimonie is not vertuose? And so forth of manie purtenauncis and longingis to matrimonye.
Seie to me also where in Holi Scripture is ȝouen the hundrid parti of the teching which is ȝouen upon vsure in the thridde parti of the book yclepid The filling of the iiij. tablis: and ȝit al thilk hool teching ȝouen upon vsure in the now named book is litil ynouȝ or ouer litle forto leerne, knowe, and haue sufficientli into mannis bihoue and into Goddis trewe seruice and lawe keping what is to be leerned and kunnen aboute vsure, as to reeders and studiers ther yn it muste needis be open.
Is ther eny more writen of vsure in al the Newe Testament saue this, Luk vje. c., Ȝeue ȝe loone, hoping no thing ther of? and al that is of vsure writen in the Oold Testament fauorith rather vsure than it re|proueth. How euere, therfore, schulde eny man seie that the sufficient leernyng and kunnyng of vsure or of the vertu contrarie to vsure is groundid in Holi Scripture? How euere schal thilk litil now rehercid clausul, Luk vje. c., be sufficient forto answere and assoile alle the harde scrupulose doutis and questiouns which al dai han neede to be assoilid in mennis bar|genyngis and cheffaringis to gidere? Ech man having to do with suche questiouns mai soone se that Holi Writt ȝeueth litil or noon liȝt therto at al. For|whi al that Holi Writt seith ther to is that he for|bedith vsure, and therfore al that mai be take therbi is this, that vsure is vnleeful; but thouȝ y bileeue herbi that vsure is vnleeful, how schal y wite herbi what vsure is, that y be waar forto not do it, and whanne in a bargeyn is vsure thouȝ to summen seemeth noon, and how in a bargeyn is noon vsure thouȝ to summen ther semeth to be? And also thouȝ Holi Scripture bidde that we tempte not God amys and aȝens resoun, certis resoun techith the same. But ȝit where ellis than in doom of resoun schuleschulde, MS. (first hand).e. principal argument for his ije. party is trewe.
Confirmacioun to this ije. principal argument is this: Euery thing groundid hangeth and is dependent of his ground, so that he mai not be withoute his ground; but so it is, that al the leernyng and kunnyng which Holi Scripture ȝeueth upon eny of the scid gouer|nauncis, vertues, deedis, or treuthis, and al the other deel of kunnyng upon hem which Scripture ȝeueth not, hangeth not of Holi Scripture, neither requirith and askith Holi Scripture forto so ȝeue. Forwhi al this kunnyng myȝte be had bi labour in doom of resoun, thouȝ no biholding therto were maad into Holi Scripture, or thouȝ Scripture were distroied and brent, as summeni.e. Petrus Comestor), that Esdras by inspiracioun wrote without eny copi alle the fiue bokis of Moyses and alle the othere bokis of stories and of prophecies in to hise daies, is not but a feynyd thing." Pecock's Book of Faith, p. xxiii. (Wharton); but the notion is as old as Tertul|lian (de Cult. Fæm., lib. I. c. 3): "Perinde potuit abolefactam eam violentia cataclysmi in spiritu rursus reformare; quemadmodum et Hierosolymis Babylonia ex|pugnatione deletis, omne instru|mentum Judaicæ litteraturæ per Esdram constat restauratam."
THE iije. principal argument into the same firste and principal conclusioun is this: Bifore that eny positijf lawe of God, that is to seie, eny voluntaire or wilful assignement of God, was ȝouen to the Iewis fro the long tyme of Adamys comyng out of Paradijs into the tyme of circumcisioun in the daies of Abraham, and into the positijf lawe ȝouen bi Moyses, the peple lyueden and seruiden God and weren bounde weelniȝ bi alle tho moral vertues and moral gouernauncis and treuthis whiche bi doom of her natural resoun thei founden and leerneden and camen to, and so thei weren boundeboūdē, MS.; but the stroke over the e has been erased. Just above, the strokes over camē and werē seem to be a later hand. Just below, boūden is written by the first hand, and has not been altered. In many other places of the MS. it is difficult to be sure whether the stroke above is by the first hand or not; sometimes the original stroke has only been made darker by a later hand, and both inks are clearly traceable. See fol. 9 b, col. 1, l. 2, werē (p. 21, l. 30 of this edition).
And thanne ferther, thus: Whanne Crist prechid and suffrid, alle the peple of Iewis were chargid with the hool lawe of kinde and of resoun and with al the positijf lawe of cerimonies iudicialis and oold sacramentis, but so it is that to Cristen men succed|ing next after the Iewis weren not reuokid eny lawis bi Crist and his newe lawe saue the positijf lawis of cerymonies iudicialis and oolde sacramentis: wherfore in to the charge of Cristen men abidith ȝit the hool birthen which was to the Iewis, excepte the birthen of cerymonies iudicialis and oold sacramentis, so that in to the charge of Cristen men abidith the al hool birthen of lawe of kinde which is not ellis than moral philsophie, which was birthen and charge bothe to the Iewis and to alle peplis bifore the Iewis fro Adamys comyng out of Paradijs. And sithen it is not founde in the Newe Testament that Crist made eny positijf lawe bisidis the oolde law of kinde and of resoun which euere was bifore, except oonli his positijf lawe of hise newe sacramentis with whiche he chargid the peple of Cristen, instide ofof the, MS.; but the is cancelled by a later (?) hand.
And thanne ferther ther of y argue thus: But so it is that al thilk now seid lawe of kinde which was bifore the tyme of Iewis, not withstonding it is the more partie of Cristen lawe now bi ful greet quantite, is not foundid in Holi Scripture of the Newe Testa|ment, neither in Holi Scripture of the Oold Testament, neither in hem bothe to gidere. Forwhi this lawe was whanne neither of the Newe neither of the Oold Tes|tament writing was, and that fro the tyme of Adam into Abraham, wherfore folewith that thilk lawe ȝit abiding to Cristen men is not groundid in Holi Scrip|ture, but in the book of lawe of kinde writen in mennis soulis with the finger of God as it was so groundid and writen bifore the daies of Abraham and of Iewis. Whi in this iije. principal argument y haue seid these wordis welnyȝ or weel toward schal appere and be seen bi what schal be seid aftir in proofis of the vije. and xe. conclusiouns, and more openli by the place there alleggid in the book clepid The iust apprising of Holi Scripture.
The iiije. principal argument is this, What euer
Confirmacioun to this argument mai be this: If the King of Ynglond dwellid in Gascony, and wolde sende a noble longe letter or epistle into Englond,
and vertues, MS.; but and is cancelled.pistle, MS.; e added above in a different hand.
The ve. principal argument into the same firste and principal conclusioun is this: Who euer in his speche bi which he spekith of a gouernaunce or treuthe presupposith the same gouernaunce to be knowen bifore his same speche and to be knowen eerheer, MS.; but the first letter is in paler ink, and eer is no doubt the reading intended by the corrector.e. argument. And also in thilk speche thei speken of the gouer|naunce not as of a thing which thei thanne first maken, but as of thing
The vje. principal argument into the same firste and principal conclusioun is this: No sufficient cause hast thou forto seie and holde that Holi Scripture groundith eny of the gouernauncis, trouthis, and vertues bifore seid in the firste conclusioun saue this, that in Holi Scripture mensioun is maad that thei ben treuthis; but this is not sufficient cause forto ther bi thus seie and holde. Wherfore noon sufficient cause hast thou forto seie and holde that Holi Scripture groundith eny of the gouernauncis, trouthis, and vertues spoken of in the firste principal conclusion.
The ije. premisse of this vje. argument may be proued thus: If thilk now seid cause were sufficient forto so holde, thanne, sithen Holi Scripture makith mensioun Mt. xvie. c. of treuthis longing to natural philsophi and approueth hem there weel to be treuthis, it wolde folewe that Holi Scripture groundith treuthis of na|tural philsophie; which no wijs man wole graunte: wherfore the ije. premysse of this vje. argument is trewe. Schal y seie for this that Crist rehercith Math. xvje. c., how that whanne heuen is rody in the euentid a cleer dai schal be the morewe, and whanne in the morntide heuene schineth heuyli in thilk dai schal be tempest, that in Holi Scripture this treuthe of natural philsophie now rehercid bi Crist or the leernyng and kunnyng ther of is groundid in tho wordis of Crist and is groundid in the Gospel? Alle men witen nay. Forwhi the kunnyng ther of was had eer Crist there and thanne tho wordis spake, and no thing is bifore his owne ground, and the kunnyng of thilk mater is largir in his ground which is natural philsophi than is many hool chapitris to gidere ligging in Matheu. And ȝit bi lijk skile it schulde be holde and seid that the now rehercid pointis of natural philsophie were groundid there, if eny oon point of the seid moral philsophie were groundid in Holi Scripture; wherfore sithen thilk
Of whiche first principal conclusioun thus proued folewith ferther this corelarie, that whanne euere and where euere in Holi Scripture or out of Holi Scrip|ture be writen eny point or eny gouernaunce of the seide lawe of kinde it is more verrili writen in the book of mannis soule than in the outward book of parchemyn or of velym; and if eny semyng dis|corde be bitwixe the wordis writen in the outward book of Holi Scripture and the doom of resoun, write in mannis soule and herte, the wordis so writen withoutforth ouȝten be expowned and be interpretid
to be, MS.; to is cancelled by a later hand.
More, for proof of the firste principal conclusioun and of al what is seid fro the bigynnyng of the same first principal conclusion hidir to, is sette and writen in the book clepid The iust apprising of Holi Scripture, which book if he be rad and be weel vnderstonde thoruȝout, hise iij. parties schal conferme vndoutabli al what is seid here fro the bigynnyng of the firste principal conclusioun hider to.
Weel y woot that not withstonding no verri and trewe grounding (propirli forto speke of ground|ing) is saue such as is now spoken of in the firste and ije. argumentis to the firste conclusioun, ȝit whanne a mater or a trouthe is witnessid or affermed or denouncid or mad be remembrid to per|soones, and that bi a reuerend and worthi witnesser or denouncer or remembrer (as is God, an Apostil, or a Doctour), thanne thilk witnessing or denouncing or remembraunce making is woned be clepid a grounding of the same mater or trouthe so witnessid,
bicause is meant to be written conjunctim or disjunctim in the MS. It is written both ways elsewhere.
AFTIR that y haue thus argued now bifore bi resoun into proof of the firste principal conclusioun y schal argue now in to the same by ensaumplis thus:
to Londoun, MS.; but in is interlineated in an ink of the same colour.The iust apprising of Holi Scripture, and which lawe is welnyȝ al the lawe of God to Cristen men, for in sum maner forto speke of lawe of kinde it is al the lawe of God to Cristen men, except the making and the vsing of Cristis sacramentis,) and of it what folewith ther of and is necessarili longing therto leggith ful fair abrood sprad growing in his owne space, the feeld of mannys soule, and there oon treuthe cometh out of an other treuthe, and he of the iije., and the iije. out of the iiije., and into tyme it bicome vnto openest treuthis of alle othere in thilk faculte of moral philsophie, and to the principlis and groundis of alle othere trouthis in the same faculte, (euen as the sprai cometh out of the braunche, the braunche out of the bouȝ, the bouȝ out of the schaft, and the schaft out of the roote:) and thus it was weelnyȝ with al this lawe of kinde eer eny Scripture of the Oold Testament or of the Newe were, and schulde haue so be, thouȝ alle tho Scripturis weren brend,—needis every wijs man muste graunte and consent that noon of the now seid treuthis and conclusiouns of lawe of kinde is ground in Holi Scripture of the Bible, but thei ben groundid in thilk forest of lawe of kinde which God plauntith in mannis soule whanne he makith him to his ymage and likenes. And out of this forest of treuthis mowe be take treuthis and conclusiouns, and be sett into open knowing of the fynder and of othere men, thouȝ not withoute labour and studie thoruȝ manie ȝeeris. And herto seruen clerkis of moral philsophie whiche now ben clepid Dyuynes riȝt as forresters and othere men seruen for to hewe doun braunchis for hem silf, and
Go we ferther now thus: What if Crist and hise Apostlis wolden fische with bootis in the see, and wolden aftirward carie tho fischis in paniers vpon horsis to London, schulde men seie for reuerence or loue to Crist and hise Apostlis that tho fischis grewen out of the panyeris or dossers, or out of the hondis of Crist and of hise Apostlis, and that the ground and fundament of the fischis substauncis and beingis were the houndishondis.
Also in caas a greet clerk wolde go into a librarie and ouer studie there a long proces of feith writun in the Bible, and wolde aftirward reporte and reherce the sentence of the same proces to the peple at Poulis Cros in a sermoun, or wolde write it in a pistle or lettre to hise freendis vnder entent of reporting the sentence of the seid proces, schulde the heerersheeres, MS.rathir is added by a later hand.wordris, MS.The iust apprising of Holi Scripture and of which Ieremye spekith in his xxxje. c. and Poul in his epistle Hebr. viije. c., it muste needis folewe that noon of the seid treuthis is groundid in the wordis or writingis of Crist or of the Apostlis, but in the seid inward preciose book and writing buried in mannis soule, out of which inward book and writing mowe be taken bi labour and studiyng of clerkis mo con|clusiouns
THE secunde principal conclusioun and trouthe is this: Thouȝ it perteyne not to Holi Scripture forto grounde eny natural or moral gouernaunce or trouthe into whos fynding, leernyng, and knowing mannis reson may bi him silf and bi natural help come, as it is open now bifore bi proofis of the firste principal conclusioun, ȝit it mai perteyne weel ynouȝ to Holi Scripture that he reherce suche now seid gouernauncis and treuthis, and that he witnesse hem as groundid sumwhere ellis in the lawe of kinde or doom of mannis resoun. And so he dooth (as to ech reder ther yn it mai be opene) that bi thilk rehercing and witnessyng so doon bi Holi Scripture to men tho men schulden be bothe remembrid, stirid, prouokid, and exortid forto the rather performe and fulfille tho same so rehercid and witnessid gouernancis and trouthis.
This conclusioun mai sone be proued. Forwhi we seen that not withstonding bookis and writingis of grammer han noon riȝt neither power forto grounde eny governaunce or trouthe of dyuynyte, bi cause that grammer and dyuynyte ben ij. facultees atwin and asondirsondir, MS. (first hand).Catholicon, which is a book of gramer, in the word of . . . .i. e. about forty words may pro|bably be missing.
Also thouȝ the faculte of Canon Lawe and the faculte of dyuynyte be ij. departid atwynne facultees, and ther fore thouȝ ech of hem hath his propre to him lymytid boundis and markis for grounding, riȝt as ij. maners and lordschipis ligging in a cuntree han, and ech of hem hath his propre to him conclusiouns and trouthis to be groundid bi him, (as that Canon Lawe groundith constituciouns and ordinancis of general counseilis and of popis and prouyncial and synodal constituciouns as hise propre to him trouthis and con|clusiouns; and dyuynyte, in verri maner forto speke of diuinite, groundith articles of feith, that is to seie, trouthis and conclusions reuelid and affermed bi God to be trewe, as propre to him trouthis and con|clusiouns, into whos fynding, leerning, and knowing mannis resoun mai not sufficientli with oute reue|lacioun ascende and come to;) and, ther fore, Canoun Lawe ouȝte not and mai not grounde eny trouthe or conclusioun which is propre to the grounding of divynyte, neither diuinite mai grounde eny trouthe or conclusioun which is propre to the grounding of Canoun Lawe: ȝit bokis of Canoun Lawe bisidis her treting of the chirche lawis and constituciouns rehercen manie trouthis and conclusiouns whiche ben propre to the grounding in diuynite, and aȝenward bokis of diuinite bisidis her treting of articles of feith reuelid fro God rehercen manye treuthis and conclusiouns whiche ben propre to the grounding in Lawe of Canoun, ȝhe, and rehercen manye trouthis and conclusiouns of whiche summe ben propre to methaphisik, summe ben propre to natural philsophi, and summe ben propre to moral philsophi. And ȝit it may not be seid herfore
The iije. principal conclusioun is this: The hool office and werk into which God ordeyned Holy Scripture is forto grounde articlis of feith and forto reherce and witnesse moral trouthis of lawe of kinde groundid in moral philsophie, that is to seie in doom of resoun, that the reders be remembrid, stirid, and exortid bi so miche the better and the more and the sooner forto fulfille hem. Of whiche articlis of feith summe ben not lawis as these: that God made heuen and erthe in the bigynnyng of tyme, and that Adam was the firste man and Eue was the first womman, and that Moises ladde the peple of Israel out of Egipt, and that Zacharie was fadir and Elizabeth was modir of Iohun Baptist, and that Crist fastid xl. daies; and so forth of many like. And summe othere ben lawis, as that ech man ouȝte be baptisid in water, if he may come therto; and that ech man ouȝte be hosilid, if he mai come ther to.
This conclusioun may be proued thus. Sithen it is so that Holi Scripture muste founde and grounde sum to him propre trouthis and conclusiouns, (for ellis he were not vnlackeabli necessarie to Cristen men,) he muste needis grounde treuthis and conclusiouns suche as mennis resoun bi it silf or with natural helpis may fynde, leerne, and knowe, or ellis suche as mannis resoun bi it silf and bi the seid helpis mai not fynde, leerne, and knowe. But so it is that Holi Scripture groundith not the treuthis of the firste maner now rehercid, that is to seie trouthis and con|clusiouns into which manys witt mai in the seid maner
e. maner now seid, that is to seie, treuthis and conclusiouns into whiche mannis witt mai not bi it silf and bi natural help without reuelacioun mad therto fro God upriseThe folwer to the donet; and so the firste partie of this iije. conclusioun is schewid to be trewe.
Also that Holi Scripture makith rehercel of many treuthis and conclusiouns groundid in moral philsophi for the entent here in this iije. conclusioun seid, it is schewid bifore in proof of the ije. conclusioun. Wher|fore the ije. parti of this iije. principal conclusioun is needis to be holde for trewe.
Also that tho feithis whiche now here ben rehercid as for no lawis to Cristen men ben not lawis to hem, and that tho feithis whiche now here ben rehercid as for lawis to Cristen men ben lawis to hem; it is schewid in the firste parti of the book clepid The iust apprising of Holi Scripture; and ther yn the reder mai it leerne, if he wole. But y wolde se that oure Bible men whiche holden hem so wise bi the Bible aloone, ȝhe, bi the Newe Testament aloon, cou|then bi her Bible aloon knowe which feith is a lawe to man and which feith is not a lawe to man, and thanne he dide a maistrie passing his power. Wherbi and bi many othere pointis of Goddis lawe and ser|uice to man, whiche mowe not be knowen bi oonli the Bible but by doom of resoun and moral philsophi, (as it is weel open thoruȝ manye treticis in the book of Cristen religioun and in the Filling of the iiij. tablis and other mo,) tho Bible men mowe take good
e. parti of this present iije. principal conclusioun is trewe.
This what y haue now seid of and to Bible men y have not seid vndir this entent and meenyng, as that y schulde feele to be vnleeful laymen forto reede in the Bible and forto studie and leerne ther yn, with help and counseil of wise and weel leerned clerkis and with licence of her gouernour the bischop; but forto rebuke and adaunte the presumpcioun of thothe into tho by a later (?) hand.
THE iiije. principal conclusioun is this: It is not the office longing to moral lawe of kinde for to grounde eny article of feith groundid by Holi Scripture. For whi al that the now seid moral lawe of kinde or moral philsophie groundith is groundid bi doom of mannis resoun, and therfore is such a treuthe and a conclusioun that into his fynding, leernyng, and know|ing mannis witt mai bi it silf aloone or bi natural helpis withoute reuelacioun fro God rise and suffice. But so it is that noon article of feith mai be groundid
The folwer to the donet and in the book Of feith and of sacramentis in Latyn. Wherfore moral lawe of kinde, (which is not ellis than moral philsophie writen depe in mannis soule, there ligging with the prent and the ymage of God,) mai not grounde eny article or treuthe or conclu|sioun of feith: but into the grounding of feith serueth Holi Scripture, as it is bi the iije. conclusioun proued. And so this present iiije. conclusioun muste needis be a trouthe.
The ve. principal conclusioun is this: Thouȝ neither the seide moral lawe of kinde neither outward bokis therof writen mowe grounde eny trouthe or con|clusioun of verry feith, ȝit tho outward bokis (as Cristene men hem maken) mowe weel ynow reherce and witnesse trouthis and conclusiouns of feith groundid bifore in Holi Scripture; and so thei doon. Forwhi it is no more repugnant that bokis of moral philsophie reherce trouthis and conclusiouns propre to the ground|ing of Holy Scripture, than that bokis of Holi Scrip|ture reherce trouthis and conclusiouns propre to the grounding of moral philsophie, and that bokis of grammer reherce treuthis and conclusiouns propre to the grounding of Holi Scripture. But so it is that bokis of Holi Scripture rehercen treuthis longing to the grounding of moral philsophie, as it is bifore schewid in proof of the secunde conclusion; wherfore it is not repugnant that bokis of moral philsophie, namelich tho whiche Cristen men maken, reherce treuthis of feith longing to the grounding of Holi Scripture. And that thei so doon it is open bi the book of Cristen reli|gioun and hise parties mad in the comoun peplis langage.
The vje. principal conclusioun is this: The hool office and werk into which ben ordeyned the bokis of moral philsophie (writen and mad bi Cristen men in the maner now bifore spoken in the ve. conclusioun) is forto expresse outwardli bi writing of penne and ynke the treuthis and conclusiouns, whiche the inward book of lawe of kinde, biried in mannis soule and herte, groundith; and forto reherce summe treuthis and conclusiouns of feith longing to the grounding of Holi Scripture, that the reders be the more and the oftir remembrid and stirid and exortid bi thilk rehercing into tho treuthis of feith so rehercid. Of whiche summe ben positijf lawis, as ben oonli the treuthis aboute the newe sacramentis of Crist and aboute the vsis of hem: and summe ben not lawis, as that thre persoones ben oon God, and that the ije. of hem was mad man, and that he died and roos fro deeth, and so forth. This conclusioun is so open bi miche what is seid bifore, that weelnyȝ he needith no newe proof to be sette to him. Neuertheless into his prouyng mai be seid thus: The seid bokis of moral philsophie doon these ij. now seid officis and werkis, as it is open by the ve. conclusioun; and thei doon noon othir or noon more notable office or werk than oon of these ij.: wherfore these ij. officis maken the hool al werk into which tho bokis ben principali or notabli entendid to be maad.
The vije. principal conclusioun is this: The more deel and party of Goddis hool lawe to man in erthe, and that bi an huge gretgret is interlineated in a later hand.philsophie, so the MS. originally, but a later hand, contrary to the usage of the MS., has corrected it to philosophie.
The first premisse of this present argument is openli proued bi the first principal conclusioun and bi the argumentis and euydencis prouying him, and ther|fore the firste premisse of this present argument is to be holde for trewe.
That the ije. premisse of this present argumentargumet, MS.The iust apprising of Holi Scripture, the e. premisse of this present argument is trewe sure experience may schewe at the ful. Forwhi lete a man renne thoruȝ alle the xxxiti. pointis of the iiij. tablis of Goddis lawe to man in erthe whiche ben sett in the first parti of The donet into Cristen religion, and also in the firste parti of Cristen religioun, and lete him marke hem weel and alle her spicis with inneCristen religioun. In to whos fynding and leernyng certein it is that mannis resoun bi him silf and with natural helpis withoute Holi Scripture mai rise and come bi so probable and so likeli evidencis, that the leernyng
Cristen religioun and in The folwer to the donet, and more schal be tauȝt in the book Of feith and of sacramentis in Latyn.
But forto turne aȝen into the fynysching of the proof bifore sett for the vije. conclusioun y argue thus: The argument maad into the proof of the vije. con|clusioun is formal, as mai be iugid bi hem whiche in logik knowen the reulis longing to a formal argument, and the bothe premissis of the same argument ben trewe, as it is now bifore openli schewid. Wherfore needis it mustebee. principal conclusioun. Wherfore the vije. principal conclusioun is trewe.
THE viije. principal conclusioun is this: No man mai leerne and kunne the hool lawe of God to which Cristen men ben bounde, but if he can of moral phil|sophi; and the more that he can in moral philsophie, bi so miche the more he can of Goddis lawe and seruice. This conclusioun folewith out of the vije. conclusion openly ynouȝ. Forwhi lawe of kinde and moral philsophie ben oon, and the more parti of Goddis lawe bi which man is bounde for to serue toto is interlineated, apparently by the same hand.e. conclusioun.
The ixe. conclusioun is this: No man schal perfitli, sureli, and sufficienti vndirstonde Holi Scripture in alle tho placis where yn he rehercith moral vertues not being positijf lawe of feith, but being such as mannys resoun may fynde, leerne, and knowe, but if he be bifore weel and perfitli, suerli, and sufficiently leerned in moral philsophie; and the more perfitli, sureli, and sufficientli he is leerned in moral philso|phie the more able as bi that he schal be forto per|fitli, sureli, and sufficientli vndirstonde Holi Scripture in alle tho placis wheryn he spekith of eny moral lawe of God being not positijf lawe of feith. This conclusioun folewith out of the vije. and the viije. con|clusions: wherfore he is to be holde trewe.
The xe. principal conclusioun is this: The leernyng and kunnyng of the seid lawe of kinde and of the seid moral philsophie is so necessarie to Cristen men, that it mai not he lackid of hem if thei schulen thriftili serue to God and kepe his lawe bitake to hem in erthe. This conclusioun mai be proued thus. Thilk leernyng and kunnyng is so necessarie that it
e. and viije. principal conclusiouns to gidere. Wherfore nedis folewith that the leernyng and kunnyng of the bifore seid lawe of kinde and of the seid moral philsophie is so necessarie to Cristen men, that thei mowe not lacke it forto serue God bi eny thrift. The firste premisse of this argument is open ynouȝ that ech man wole him graunte. The ije. premisse is proued bi the vije. bifore sett principal conclusioun: and this present argument is formal and gode. Wherfore his conclusioun in him now proued is trewe, which is not ellis than the x. principal conclusioun.
Also thus: Thilk leernyng and kunnyng is neces|sarie and vnlackeable to Cristen men without which thei mowe not sufficientli and sureli vnderstonde Holi Scripture in alle placis where he spekith of Goddis lawis to man not being positijf lawis of feith. For|whi tho placis ben manye, as open assay in reding Scripture wole suerly schewe; but so it is that, with|out the leernyng and kunnyng of the seid lawe of kinde and of doom of resoun, Holi Scripture mai not be sufficientli and dewli vndirstonde and expowned in no place where he spekith of lawe of God not being positijf lawe of feith, as it is bifore schewid bi the ixe. principal conclusioun. Wherfore this present xe. conclusioun is trewe.
Also thus: The leernyng and kunnyng of it is ne|cessarie and vnlackeable to mankinde, in which alle the gouernauncis, treuthis, and vertues of Goddis lawe being the lasse deel and beyng the remanent to the
e. conclusioun of Goddis lawe ben more foundid and groundid than in Holi Scripture, that is to sey positijf lawis of Crist whiche ben the makingis and the vsingis of Cristis sacramentis longing to the Newe Testament: but so it is, that in the seid lawe of kinde and doom of resoun or moral philsophie, alle the gouernauncis, treuthis, and vertues of Goddis lawe whiche ben the lasse deel and ben the remanent to the more deel bifore seid of Goddis lawe in the vije. conclusioun ben more groundid and foundid than in Holi Scripture; and that alle thei and ech of hem whiche biholden the making and the vsing of the seid newe sacramentis ben more groundid bi doom of re|soun than bi Holi Scripture, for as miche as ech of hem into his grounding nedith euydencis of bothe to gidere, that is to seie of resoun and of Holi Scripture to gidere, and ellis he mai not be sufficientli groundid. And here with it is trewe that in this grounding doon to hem bi doom of resoun and by Holi Scrip|ture to gidere,to gidere is intended to be written con|junctim or disjunctim: it is usually written disjunctim in the MS.The fo lewer to the donet and in The book of feith ioyned therto, othire of my writingis, it is sufficiently tauȝt; whiche processe were ouer long and sumwhat ouer hard to be eftsoone sett here.
Ȝhe, and ȝit with al this that is now seid treuth is also that the makingis and the vsingis of the seid
e. conclusioun, that the leernyng and kunnyng of lawe of kinde and moral philsophie in doom of resoun is so necessarie to Cristen men, that it is vnlackeable to hem forto be in eny worth seruauntis to God and kepers of his lawe in erthe.
Out of these bifore sett vije. viije. ixe. and xe. conclu|siouns and trouthis cometh forth ful openli and sureli this xje. conclusioun and trouthe. Ful weel ouȝten alle persoones of the lay parti not miche leerned in moral philsophi and lawe of kinde forto make miche of clerkis weel leerned in moral philsophi, that tho clerkis schulden helpe tho lay persoones forto ariȝt vndir|stonde Holi Scripture in alle tho placis in which Holi Scripture rehercith the bifore spoken conclusiouns and treuthis of moral philsophi, that is to seie of lawe of kinde. Forwhi withoute tho clerkis so leerned in moral philsophi and with oute her direccioun the now seid lay persoones schulen not esili, liȝtli, and anoon haue the dew vndirstonding of Holi Scripture in the now seid placis, as is bifore proued in the ixe. con|clusioun.
Also out of the same bifore sett vije. viije. ixe. and xe. conclusions and trouthis and out of the assay and experience which mai be had in the ouer reding and studiyng the bokis anoon aftir to be rehercid folewith this xije. conclusioun and trouthe. Ful weel ouȝten
The donet into Cristen religioun: The folwer to the donet: The book of Cristen religioun, (namelich the first parti fro the bigynnyng of the iije. treti forth|ward): The book filling the iiij. tablis: The book of worschiping: The book clepid The iust apprising of Holi Scripture: The book clepid The prouoker of Cristen men: The book of Counceilis, and othere mo pertenyng to the now seid Book of Cristen religioun. Forwhi in these now spoken bokis thei schulen leerne and kunne (in a ful notable quantite and mesure and in a fair fourme) the now bifore seid moral philsophie being so necessarie forto be vndirstonde, and being in it silf the more parti of al her moral lawe and seruice to God, as it is open bi the vije. conclusioun; and being so necessarie forto expowne or interprete or glose dewli and treuly Holi Scripture in alle placis where he spekith of Goddis lawe and seruice, except thilk fewe placis where yn he spekith of the making and vsing of the fewe newe sacramentis of Crist, as it is open bi the ixe. bifore sett conclusioun. Wher|fore miche ouȝten lay persoones forto make and apprise and loue the now spoken bokis. And ferther|more ouer this now seid the now spoken bokis techen ful clereli and bihouefulli the treuthis and gouernauncis of Goddis lawe whiche ben groundid in Holi Scripture, and also othere treuthis of feith whiche ben not lawis and ben groundid in Holi Scripture; and also thei treten ful nobili the positijf lawis of Criste aboute the newe sacramentis, and therfore ful miche good (as y hope) schal come bi the reeding, leernyng, and vsing of the now spoken bokis.
Of this same mater it is quikli and smertli spoken in a litil book therto and therfore maad, which y
The prouoker of Cristen peple, and ther fore no more ther of here now but this: that wolde God men wolden not be bi so miche the blinder that liȝt is to hem thus schewid, and that thei wolden not be bi so miche the frowarder and the more presumptuose that goodnes is to hem thus profrid: but wolde God that thei wolden assaie perfitli what tho now seid bokis ben and wolden weel kunne hem, and thanne if thei schulden haue euy cause forto blame or commende tho bokis that thanne first thei wolden blame or com|mende: for bi good resounys doom and bi the oolde wijs prouerbe, A man schulde blame or commende as he fyndeth, and so aftir that he hath founde cause to blame or comende he myȝte blame or comende; and not bifore eer he eny suche causis fyndeth, and eer he aftir eny suche causis sechith. And certis the con|trarie doing of this wijs prouerbe dooth miche sorow among simple lay peple, yuel lad forth bifore and wors confermed bi a wickid scole of heretikis, which is not ȝit al quenchid.
THE xiije. principal conclusioun or trouthe is this: Thei that wolen aske and seie, thus, "Where fyndist thou it groundid in Holi Scripture?" as thouȝ ellis it is not worthi to be take for trewe, whanne euere eny gouernance or trouthe sufficientli grondid in lawe of kinde and in moral philsophi is affermed and mynys|trid to hem, (as ben many of tho xj. gouernauncis and treuthis whiche schulen be tretid aftir in this present book: whiche ben setting vp of ymagis in hiȝe placis of the bodili chirche, pilgrimages doon priueli, and pilgrimages doon openli bi lay men and bi preestis and bischopis vnto the memorialis or
This present xiije. conclusioun mai be proued thus: Euen as grammer and dyuynyte ben ij. dyuerse facul|tees and kunnyngis, and therfore ben vnmedlid, and ech of hem hath his propre to him boundis and markis, how fer and no ferther he schal strecche him|silf vpon maters, treuthis, and conclusions, and not toto inserted, perhaps wrongly, by a later hand.
No man obiecte here aȝens meto me, but the to is scraped out.e. conclusioun; and that, foras|miche as sporiers in Londoun gilden her sporis whiche thei maken, and cutelers in Londoun gilden her knyfis whiche thei maken, as thouȝ therfore sporiorie and cutellerie entermeeneden and enterfereden with gold|smyth craft, and that these craftis kepten not to hem silf her propre and seuerel to hem silf boundis and markis. For certis thouȝ the sporier and the cuteler be leerned in thilk point of goldsmyth craft which is gilding, and therefore thei vsen thilk point and deede and trouthe of goldsmyth craft, ȝit thilk point of gilding is not of her craft, but oonli of goldsmyth craft: and so the craftis ben vnmedlid, thouȝ oon werkman be leerned in hem bothe and vse hem bothe, riȝt as if oon man had lernidlernid interlineated in a later (?) hand.
In this wise bi these xiij. bifore going conclusions is vnrootid and uppluckid, and sufficientli rebukid and proued for vntrewe, the firste of the iij. opiniouns spoken and sett forth in the bigynnyng of this present book in the first chapiter. And also bi these same xiij. conclusiouns and her proofis ben weel adauntid the wanton and vnkunnyng bering of hem whiche wolen not allowe eny gouernaunce to be the lawe and seruice of God, inlasse than it be grondid in Holi Scripture; as thouȝ thei schulden preise and worschipe ther yn God the more and plese God the more, that thei apprisen so miche Holi Scripture. For wite thei weel with oute eny doute that God is neither preisid, neither worschipid, neither plesid bi vntrouthe or bi lesing. If eny man make of Holi Scripture and apprise it, euen as treuthe is and no more than truthe is, God is ther yn plesid; and if eny man wole make of Holi Scripture or of eny creature in heuene or in erthe more than treuthe is that he be maad of and be apprisid, God is ther yn displesid.
And ferther thus: If eny man be feerd lest he trespace to God if he make ouer litle of Holi Scrip|ture, which is the outward writing of the Oold Testa|ment and of the Newe, y aske whi is he not afeerd lest he make ouer litle and apprise ouer litle the inward Scripture of the bifore spoken lawe of kinde writen bi Godbigod, MS.e. c., and Ieremye in his xxxje. chapiter; and Poul takith the same processe, Hebr. viije. c. For certis this in|ward book or Scripture of lawe of kinde is more necessarie to Cristen men, and is more worthi than is the outward Bible and the kunnyng ther of, as fer as thei bothe treten of the more parti of Goddis lawe to man, as mai be taken bi the vije. conclusioun and his proof, and bi the xe. conclusion and his proof.
And more proof therto ech man may se at ful, if he wole rede and studie in the book clepid The iust apprising of Holi Scripture, which book if eny man wole wijsli reede and perfitli vndirstonde with this proces now afore going fro the bigynnyng of this book hidir to, y wole leie myn arme to be smyte of, but that he schal consente in his witt withinforth, wole he nyle he, amagrey his heed, that alle these now bifore going xiij. conclusiouns ben trewe, and that the firste of the iij. opinions sett bifore in the bigynnyng of this book is vntrewe.
The textis bifore alleggid in the firste chapiter of this book, Mat. xxije. c. and Iohun ve. c., which the holders of the now seid first opinioun weenen grounden thilk same opinioun, goon not therto. For|whi, if the processis forth and afore tho textis ligging be weel and diligentli considerid, it schal be open to ech such reeder and considerer, that tho ij. textis seruen and remytten or senden into othere Scripturis of prophecie whiche grounden feith: the oon of hem remittith or sendith into Scripture of prophecie, which schulde grounde feith of the laste resurreccioun; and the other sendith into Scripture of prophecie, which schulde grounde feith of Cristis incarnacioun. And sithen neuer neither of hem remyttith or sendith into other Scripture, whiche schulde speke of maters being in lawe of kinde and in moral philsophie
e. c. and the other Iohun ve. c. alleggid bifore in the firste chapiter, where the firste opinioun is sett, serueth neither forto grounde neither forto verrifie the seid firste opinioun. And thouȝ the lay peple wolden holde that eche treuthe and conclusioun and article of catholik feith is groundid in Holi Scripture, so that ellis he is not to be take for catholik feith, y wolde not make me miche bisi forto seie ther aȝens.
FERTHERMORE, for as miche as holders of the first opinioun glorien miche in these textis now to be rehercid, it is ful good with this that is seid forto sette forth also dewe vndirstondingis of tho textis.
The firste of tho textis is writen i. Cor. xiiije. c. in the eende thus: Sotheli if eny man vnknowith, he schal be vnknowun. Bi this text thei taken that if eny man knowith not or putte not in what he mai his bisynes forto leerne the writing of the Bible, as it lijth in text, namelich the writing of the Newe Testa|ment, he schal be vnknowen of God forto be eny of hise. And for this, that thei bisien hem silf forto leerne and knowe the Bible, namelich the Newe Tes|tament, in the forme as it is writun word bi word in the Bible, thei ȝeuen a name propre to hem silf and clepen hem silf "knowun men," as thouȝ alle othere than hem ben vnknowun; and whanne oon of hem talkith with an other of hem of sum other iije. man. the heerer wole aske thus: "Is he a knowen man?" and if it answerid to him thus: "Ȝhe, he is a knowen man," al is saaf, perel is not forto dele with him; and if it be answerid to him thus: "He is no knowen man," thanne perel is castid forto miche homeli dele with him.
The ije. text is writun ije. Cor. iiije. c. in the bi|gynnyng where Poul seith thus: That and if oure Euangelie is couered, it is couered to hem whiche spillen; in which God of this world hath blindid the myndis or wittis of vnfeithful men, that the liȝting or cleering of the Euangelie of the glorie of Crist, which is the ymage of God, schineschineth, MS.; but the th is scratched out.not. Of which now rehercid text thei taken that who euer is a persoon of saluacioun schal soone vndirstonde the trewe meenyng of Holi Scripture, namelich of al the Newe Testament, as weel of the Apocalips as of the othere deel, if he attende therto. And the now seid trewe and dewe vndirstonding of Holi Scripture schal not be hid to sechers aftir it, saue to hem whiche schulen perische and be not saued. And ferthirmore alle hem whiche ben bifore clepid knowen men thei holden forto be children of saluacioun or nyȝe to saluacioun, and alle othere men and wommen thei holden as erring scheep in perel of perisching; and al for that thei taken of the ije. text that to the bifore seid men callid knowen men the Euangelie is not couered, and to alle othere men the Euangelie is couered; not withstonding that in trouthe to seie of tho men clepid of him silf knowen men the verri lawe of kinde and of feith, (as it is pureli in itsilf, and so the substancial lawe of God to man in erthe,) is wors knowen than of manye othere, whiche it not leernen in wordis of the Bible but in wordis writun in othere bokis, as here upon y durste leie a waiour of lesing myn arme, and that for the experience which y haue therin upon the kunnyngis of men in euer either of the ij. now spoken sortis.
The iije. text is writun ApocalipsOpoc., MS.I witnesse to ech
heerer the wordis of the prophecie of this book. If eny man schal putte to hem, putte God upon him the veniauncis writun in this book. And if eny man schal take awey fro the wordis of the book of this prophecie, God take awey his part fro the book of lijf, and fro the holi citee, and fro tho thingis whiche ben writun in this book. Bi this book of prophecie which is spoken of in this iije. text thei vndirstondenvndirstodē, MS.e. text thei taken this, that to Holi Writt men schulde not sett eny exposiciouns, declara|cions, or glosis, no more than that men ouȝten take awei fro Holi Writt eny proces or parti writen in Holi Writt; and if eny man sette such now seid exposiciouns, whiche ben not open bi sum text in Holi Writt, he is cursid.
That the now bifore seid vndirstonding, whiche thei ȝeuen to the firste of the iij. textis, is vntrewe and vndew to him, y proue thus: Whanne Poule wroot thilk first texte i. Cor. xiiije. chapiter: Sotheli if eny man knowith not, he schal be vnknowen, he spake of a thing to be knowun, which thing than was presentli. Forwhi he seith not thus: Who euere schal vnknowe, he schal not be knowe, but he seith thus: Who euer vnknowith, he schal not be knowun. But so it is that the al hool Bible was not thanne. Forwhi the al hool writyng of Newe Testament was not thanne. Wherfore Poul meened not and vndirstode not in thilke wordis forto speke of the writing of the al hool Bible, or of the writing of the Newe Testament, of whiche neuer neither thanne was, that whoeuer knowith not thilk writing he schal be vnknowun of God. That in thilk tyme, whanne Poul wrote tho wordis, the al hool writing of the Newe Testament
e. Epistle to the Corintheis. Also, whanne Poul wrote the firste text, the Apocalips was not writen; forwhi Iohun wrote the Apocalips whanne he was in exile in Pathmos, as he seith him silf the [first]ti. ȝeer: for Poul was slain of the Emperour Nero, in the last ȝeer of Nero. Wherfore folewith needis that not al the hool writing of the Newe Testament neither of the al hool Bible was, whanne Poul wrote the first bifore sett text i. Cor. xiiije. c.
Also Poul wrote hise bothe Epistlis to Corinthies eer he came to Rome, and eer he was prisoned there. Forwhi Poul wrote his Firste Epistle to the Corintheis whanne he was at Ephesie, and whanne he was in purpos for to come aftirward into Corinthe, as it is open bi the last chapiter of the same First Epistle to Corintheis. Also he wrote his ije. Epistle to the Co|rintheis whanne he was at Troade, as it is open bi the ije. chapiter of the same ije. Epistle to the Corin|theis, and whanne he was in hope forto come aftir|ward to Corinthe, as it is open bi the firste and ije. and last chapiter of the same ije. Epistle to Corintheis. And herwith open it is that Poul came neuer to Effesi, neither to Troade, neither purposid forto come to Corinthe after he was prisoned in Rome, and after he lay in boundis at Rome; for he was not delyuered fro tho bondis into his deeth, as it is open bi the ije. Epistle to Thimothie, the [fourth]Epist. ad Col. says: Scribit Apostolus eis ab Epheso.tyme of his resolucioun (that is to seie of the departing bitwixe his bodi and his soule) was than neiȝe.thā-neiȝe, MS.e. c. And if this be trewe, he wolde not seie whanne he wrote the seid first text, that who vnknowith the al hool writing which we now han of the Newe Testament, he schal not be saued; and so folewith that tho whiche in the seid first text vndirstonden thilk text forto meene of the hool writing, which we now han of the Newe Testament, vndirstonden thilk text amys.
Also thus: Thilk wordis of the first text which Poul writith i. Cor. xiiije. c. were trewe bifore Poul was conuertid to feith, and bifore eny writing of the Newe Testament was bigunne. Forwhi eer Matheu, or Mark, or Luk, or Iohun wroten, and eer Poul or Petir or Iame or Iudas wrote, it was trewe that who euer bi his owne necligence and bi his owne fre wil vnknowith the lawe, which he is bounden to knowe, schal be vnknowen of God, but if he amende thilk
Who euer vnknowith, he schal be vnknowen. Wherfore fol|ewith that the other vndirstonding, bi which summen streyneneynen, MS., the e being in a later hand.
Wherfore sithen ech Cristen man and womman, thouȝ thei neuere rede oon word in the Bible, or thouȝ thei neuere lerne bi oon daies labour ther yn, mowe leerne and kepe as miche lawe of kinde as God chargith hem forto leerne and kepe, and as miche lawe of feith as God chargith hem forto leerne and kepe, and mowe leerne as miche feith not being lawe to hem how miche God chargith hem forto leerne and knowe; and therfore al that Cristen men and wom|men ouȝten leerne, thei mowe leerne out of the Bible, and bi bokis treuli drawen out of lawe of kinde and out of the Bible:—ȝhe, and sithen al this thei mowe leerne and kunne more pleinli and more fulli and sooner than thei mowe it leerne in the Bible, (as it folewith out and fro the vje. and vije. and xe. bifore sett conclusiouns, and as experience wole nedis proue to eche asaier for to lerne The donet and his Folewer in to Cristen religioun, The book of Cristen religioun, The filling of the iiij. tablis, with othere bookis an|nexid and knyt to The book of Cristen religioun) it muste needis folewe that al the kunnyng, whos igno|raunce
Where is thi gloriyng? He is excludid. Bi what lawe is he excludid? Certis bi the lawe of kinde and of feith, which mowe be leerned of tho lay peple and also of clerkis, thouȝ thei not rede and studie in the Bible oonly forto it leerne: ȝhe, and mowe be leernedlererned, MS.
THAT the vnderstonding which thei assignen to the secunde bifore sett text, writen ije. Cor. iiije. c., forto seie that ther yn thilk text bi the Euangely Poul
e. text to the Co|rinthies, seiyng thus, If oure Euangelie be couered or be hid, it is couered to hem that perischen, the Euangelie of which he spekith in thilk text was had thanne presentli. Forwhi the text speking of thilk Euangelie spekith of it presentli, and not as of a thing aftir thanne to come. But the hool writing of the Newe Testament was not thanne had, as it is schewid now bifore in arguyng aȝens the mis vndir|stonding of the firste text. Wherfore by thilk Euan|gelie, of which Poul spekith in the seid ije. text, he vnderstode not the hool writing which is now had of the Newe Testament.
Also thus: Bifore and eer than eny word was writen of the Newe Testament, the Euangelie of God was, which to alle men ouȝte be denouncid, and whiche alle men ouȝten receyue, whanne it schulde be to hem denouncid. Wherfore the Euangelie of God is not the writing of the Newe Testament, for thanne the same thing had be bifore him silf, and eer than he was him silf, which includith repugnaunce. That the Euangeli of God was, bifore and eer than eny word was writen of the Newe Testament, y proue thus: The Euangelie of God which was to be denouncid to alle peple was in the dai in which Crist stied up into heuen: forwhi he seide thanne to hise disciplis: Go ȝe, and preche ȝe the Euangelie to ech creature. And open it is that he thanne bade not to hem forto preche any Euangelie which thanne was not and which thei thanne not knewen, but which thanne was and which thei thanne knewen; and as thanne no word was writen of the Newe Testament, as it is open ynouȝ. Wherfore folew|ith needis that the Euangelie which alle men schulden aftirward receyue into her saluacioun was, eer eny word was writun of the Newe Testament.
Also thus: Whanne euere the Apostilis prechiden the Euangelie of God, thanne thilk Euangelie was. For whi no thing was prechid, eer than it was: but so it is that the Euangelie of God was prechid bi the Apostlis soone aftir the Pentecost day, whanne thei hadden receyued the Holi Goost and kunnyng of langage, and whanne thei continueden so in preching bi manye ȝeeris eer they wroten. Wher fore the Euangelie of God (which Poul and othere Apostilis prechiden) was, eer any word was writen of the Newe Testament. And if this be trewe, thanne sithen the ije. seid text of Poul spekith of noon other Euangelie than of the Euangelie of God, for neither he neither eny creature ouȝte seie him to haue a propre Euangelie bisidis the Euangelie of God, it folewith nedis that Poul in his ije. text bifore alleggid, ij. Cor. xiiije.Written on erasure. Read iiijee. text ouȝte take his dew vnderstonding.vnderstondinging, MS.e. ȝeer of Crist, and Mark wrote what he wrote of the Gospel in the xliije. ȝeer of Crist, and Luk, (as it is open bi his owne prolog into what he wrote of the Gospel,) he wrote aftir othere writers, and (as summe stori seith) Iohun wrote what he wrote of the Gospel aboute the eende of his lijf aftir his comyng fro exile after the lxxxe. ȝeer of Crist. Wherto sowneth sumwhat the epistle which Dionyse wrote to Iohun being in exile, as thouȝ Dionise schulde in thilk epistle haue prophecied Iohun to be delyuered fro exile and forto write of the Gospel of
e. text of Poul was, eer Poul wroot thilk text, and eer any writing of the Newe Testament was in erthe. And therfore the verri dew sentence and propre vndir|stonding of thilk ije. text is not needis to be of the writing of the Newe Testament. Forwhi the sentence of thilk text is of the Euangeli of God prechid bi Poul, which Euangelie was prechid eer Poul was con|uertid and eer eny writing of the Newe Testament was.
Certis this Euangelie (which includith lawe of kinde and lawe of feith ȝouen bi Crist, and includith also other feith tauȝt bi Crist which is not lawe to man) is not couered, that is to sei, is not so derk that it be not bileeued and receyued and performed; saue in tho men whiche schulen not bileeue to it and re|ceyue it, whanne it is denouncid to hem, and therfore whiche schulen perische, for that thei not receyuen and bileeuen what is bi the Euangelie of God to be bileeued and receyued: and this was trewe eer the writing of the Newe Testament was. And this is the trewe and dew vnderstonding of the seid ije. text ij. Cor. iiije. c. where it is seid thus: If oure Euan|gelie be couered, it is couered to hem whiche spillen: and that this is the verri trewe and dew vndirstond|ing of the same text the processe next without meene therto folewing schewith openli ynouȝ, which processe is bifore with the same text in the bigynnyng of this present chapiter rehercid.
Excludid therfore is thi gloriyng, which thou tookist into thee bi this that thou leernedist and studiedist
e. bifore rehercid text of Poul; and therbi enhauncidist thi silf aboue thi Cristen bri|theren and sistren not so in wordis and letter of the Bible leerned. Excludid certis is thi gloriyng therbi taken, and verrili it is excludid bi this that thin vn|trewe vnderstonding of thilk ije. text, (ȝhe, and thin vntrewe vndirstonding of also the first text) ben in|proued here, and the trewe and dewe vndirstondingis ben to hem here sett and assigned. Be waar ther|fore frohens forthward that noon of ȝou, so as ȝe han bifore this, glorie and enhaunce ȝou silf aboue alle othere Cristen not so leerned in the text of the Bible as ȝe ben, lest that y (which haue experience of ȝoure conuersacioun not according with the comaundementis of the Bible) seie to ech of ȝou what Poul seide in sumwhat lijk caas to the conuersis of Iewis, Romans ije. c. fro the bigynnyng of the same chapiter into weel toward the eende, where Poul in the bigynning seith thus: Wherfore thou art vnexcusable, ech man that deemest: for in what thing thou demest the other man thou condempnest thi silf, for thou doost the same thingis whiche thou deemest, et cetera. And after there thus: Accepcioun of persoones is not anentis God: for who euere han synned withoute the lawe schulen perische with oute the lawe. And who euere han syn|ned in the lawe thei schulen be deemed bi the lawe: for the heerers of the lawe ben not iust anentis God, but the doers of the lawe schulen be mad iust. For whanne hethen men, whiche han not lawe, doon kindeli tho thingis whiche ben of the lawe, thanne thei not hauyng such lawe ben lawe to hem silf, that schewen the werk of the lawe writen in her hertis. For the conscience of hem ȝeldith to hem a witnessing bitwixe hem silf of thouȝtis, whiche ben accusing or defending, in the dai whanne God schal deeme the priuy thingis
of men aftir mi Gospel bi Iesuihū, MS.Crist. But if thou art a named Iew, (or ellis for this present purpos for to seie thus: but if thou art a named knowun man,) and restist in the lawe, and hast glorie in God, and hast knowen his wil, and thou leerid in the lawe prouest the more profitable thingis, and trustist thi silf to be a leder of blynd men, the liȝt of hem that ben in derknessis, and techer of vnwise men, a maister of ȝong children, that hast the foorme of kunnyng and of trouthe in the lawe: what thanne.What = why (τι).techist thou another, and techist not thi silf? Thou that prechist me schal not stele, stelist? Thou that techist me schal do noon aduoutrie, doost avoutrie? Thou that wlatist mawmetrie, doost sacrilegie? Thou that hast glorie in the lawe, vnworschipist God bi breking of the lawe? Thus miche there and ful miche lijk to this present purpos.
That the vndirstonding which this bifore seid peple ȝeueth to the iije. bifore allegid text, Apocalips laste chapiter, in the eende, is not dew vndirstonding, y proue thus: The curs of whiche the iije. text spekith is not ȝouen but to hem that amys treten the Apocalips, as it is open bi the same iije. text. Wherfore bi thilk text it is not seid that eny curs is ȝouen to eny men amys treting eny other parti of the Newe Testament. Also thus: Oonli he, that makith the text of a book lenger than he is, settith to the wordis of thilk book; and oonli he, which makith the text of a book be schorter than he is, takith fro the wordis of thilk book. But so it is, that if a man makith a exposicioun or a declara|cioun to the text of a book, he makith not the book neither eny text of the book to be therbi the lenger or the schorter. Wherfore he in that settith not or put|tith not to the book or to the wordis of the book,
e. text. And so open it is that the bifore seid persoons vndirstonden amys the same seid iije. text. But the trewe and verry vndirstonding ther of is this: That no man vndir peynevndirpeyne, MS.e. text, that alle expowners and glose ȝeuers to Holi Scripture ben cursid,acursid, MS. (first hand).
Now, Sires, whiche schulen rede this book, thouȝ thoruȝ out this present xije. chapiter y have taried upon thing which is as of in it silf litle worthi or not worthi to be spoken or writun, bi cause this present chapiter is reprouyng a thing which berith openli ynouȝ with him his owne reproof, ȝit bi cause that the persoones bifore seid glorien ful veinli and ful childli and lewdeli in tho iij. textis bifore in this chapiter tretid, and that aboue her gloriyng bi whiche in manie othere thei glorien, ech reder of this present chapiter haue pacience in his reding and haue me excusid of therof so long writing.
A GREET cause whi thei of the lay parti which han vsid the hool Bible or oonli the Newe Testament in her modris langage han holde the seid first opinioun was this, that the reeding in the Bible, namelich in the historial parties of the Oold Testament and of the Newe, is miche delectable and sweete, and drawith the reders into a deuocioun and a loue to God and fro loue and deinte of the world; as y haue had her of experience uponvupon, MS. The word is written vpon and upon elsewhere.e. parti of the book clepid The iust apprising of Holi Scripture. But certis thei
affectioun or affeccioun.
And therfore euen riȝt as a man iugid amys and were foule bigilid and took his mark amys, if he schulde trowe that in hony were al the cheer, al the coumfort, al the thrift which is in al other mete, bi cause that hony is swettist to him of alle othere metis; so he is begilid and takith his mark amys, if he therfore trowe that in Holi Scripture is al the doctrine necessarie to man for to serue God and forto kepe his lawe; bi cause that Holi Scripture is so miche delectable, and for that bi thilk delectacioun he bringith yn myche cheer and coumfort and strengthith the wil forto the more do and suffre for God. And so me thinkith to suche men good counseil were for|to seie to hem, that thei be waar of childrenys perel, which is that bi cause children louen sweete meetis and drinkis ful miche, therfore whanne thei comen to feestis thei feeden hem with sweete stonding potagis and with sweete bake metis, and leuen othere sub|stancial and necessarie metis; trowing that bi so miche tho sweete meetis ben the more holsum, how miche more thei ben swetter than othere metis: and therfore at the laste thei geten to hem therbi bothe losse of dewe nurisching and also sumtyme vilonie. Certis in lijk maner y haue wiste suche men, that han so ouer miche ȝeuen hem to reding in the Bible aloone, haue gete to hem losse of sufficient and profitable leernyng
that, MS.; altered by a later hand into than.e. c. in sentence thus: Thou hast founde hony, ete therof what is ynouȝ and no more; lest thou ouer fillid caste it vp out aȝen, and thanne is it to thee vilonie: and what is writen aftir in the same chapiter there in sentence thus: Forto ete miche of hony is not good to the eter. So that whanne euere thou takist upon thee forto vnderstonde ferther in the Bible than thi wit may or can therto suffice with|oute help of a substancial clerk, thanne etist thou of hony more than ynouȝ, and doost aȝens the bidding of Seint Poul, Romans xije. c. soone after the bigynnyng. And whanne thou attendist forto leerne Holi Scrip|ture, and attendist not ther with forto haue eny other leernyng of philsophie or of diuynite, bi thin owne studie in bookis ther of maad or bi teching and infor|macioun of sum sad clerk ȝouun to thee, thanne thou etist hony aloon and feedist thee with hony oonli. And this feding schal turne into thin vnhoolsumnes, riȝt as if thou schuldist ete in bodili maner noon other mete than hony it schulde not be to thee hoolsum.
To ȝou therfore, whiche fauoren the firste seid opi|nion, I seie the wordis of Seint Iame writen in his [first]Take ȝe or receyue ȝe this graffid word, which may saue ȝoure soulis. Receue ȝe the loore of this present firste parti of this book and the iij.
The iust apprising of Holi Scripture, and receue ȝe it as a graffid word, that is to seie receue ȝe it as a doctrine groundid and foundid in such autorite, which muste needis menteyne the same doc|trine, that no man schal mowe putte it doun. For if he weel considere out of what ground it growith and to what fundament it leeneth, y doute not but that ȝe schulen consente that it is a sureli graffid word, which mai saue ȝoure soulis fro manye perilouse errouris and heresies, if into eny suche ȝe ben come; and mai pre|serue ȝou that ȝe falle into noon, into which ȝe ellis schulden come. And if ȝe bithenke ȝou weel how it is in werk of this present first parti bitwixe me and ȝou, certis it is in lijk maner as it was bitwixe Poul and the Cristen whiche at Rome were conuertid fro Iewry into Cristenhode. Forwhi in the daies of Seint Poul Iewis and tho that weren conuertid fro Iewis lawe into Cristenhode magnifieden ouermiche the Oold Testament; for thouȝ the oold lawe was good to the kepers therof, ȝit it was not so good as thei maden therof, namelich in thilk degre in which thei con|ceueden it to be good; and Poul witing this repressid her ouer miche dignifiyng of the oold lawe, and de|clarid the dignifiyng and the laude of the oold lawe, as he is in treuthe, withynne his propre and seueral boundis and markis. For of this mensioun is maad Romans [the second and third chapters].The iust ap|prising
of Holi Scripture, for to improue and reproue the seid firste opinioun, and for to therbi represse the seid ouermiche dignifiyng of the Newe Testament and of the al hool Bible, and forto putte his trewe and dew dignifiyng withynne his propre to him seueral and dewe markis and boundis, in the maner bifore spokun bi the iije. principal conclusioun. God therfore grante that as the Romayns obeieden to the open re|soun and proof which Seint Poul made and wrote aȝens hem, that so ȝe obeie to the open proof which y make and write aȝens ȝou, thouȝ y desire not that ȝe obeie to me.
And whanne al is doon, what euer wil a man hath forto do reuerence to Holi Scripture, ȝit sithen treuthe is to be had in al a mannys gouernauncis, the best gouernaunce in this mater is this: forto suffre Holi Scripture abide withinne his owne termys and boundis, aud not entre into the boundis and the riȝt of lawe of kinde: that is to seie, that he not vsurpe eny grounding which longith to the faculte of lawe of kinde or of moral philsophi, and so that he not wrongee thethe by a later hand, but the corrector seems to have tried to wash it out; the article seems to be right.biholde, MS.
Perauenture here summan of the lay party, hold|ing the seid first opinioun and therfore hoolding aȝens the first bifore sett conclusioun, wole renne aȝens me with summe writingis of oolde and holy Doctouris sownyng into the firste opinioun and aȝens the firste conclusioun: not for that he admyttith, receueth, and allowith the writingis of tho Doctouris, for thanne he schulde smyte him silf with his owne stroke; but for that he knowith me admytte and allowe the writingis of Doctouris, therfore he makith aȝens me this assaut, in pretending as thouȝ he wole do to me as Dauid dide to Golie in smyting of of Golie's heed with his owne swerd. Neuertheles sufficient bokeler aȝens this assailing schal be to me a book which y haue bigunne toto in a later hand.The iust apprising of Doc|touris. For in hiȝer maner than as thilk book schal teche the writingis of Doctouris to be take in to cre|dence, (whether thei ben of oold or of newe, of holi or of not holi Doctouris), thei ouȝten not be take, as there schal in clerist maner be opened and proued: but bi cause noon of hem, aȝens whom y write this present book, wole so allegge aȝens me for eny zele or credence which he him silf hath to what he schal so allegge, therfore it is no nede me forto as here in this booke encerche the writingis of Doctouris sown|yng aȝens mi present entent, and forto expowne and
ground or grounding y haue spoken bifore in this book in the eende of the [fifth]be, MS. (first hand.)the wordis of a speker ben to be referrid into the entent wherto he hem spekith.de Trin., lib. iv. (p. 835. Ed. Bened.) Dicti ratio ex sensu erit intelligenda dicendi (dicentis, some MSS.) Id., lib. ii. (p. 803. Ed. Bened.) To one or both of these passages Pecock here alludes.tauȝt, but an erasure has altered it into cauȝt.
BUT certis more scharpeli here risen ij. obiecciouns, whiche the holders of the firste opinioun miȝten make aȝens me bi resoun thus: Mannys resoun is a thing whiche in hise doomys and iugementis ofte failith, as experience ofte schewith. Wherfore it myȝte seme that God wolde not him to be oure reule in deedis of oure seruice to God. Forwhi this, that God schulde make vs forto leene to a thing deceyuyng and failing forto performe his seruice, bisittithbisittith into bisettith. e. obiectioun is this: Holi Scrip|ture is a reuerend thing and a worthi, sythen that bi it and fro it al the Cristen Chirche of God takith her feith. Wherfore it miȝte seme that God wolde not subdewe or submitte and remytte and sende him to resoun, for to be interpretid and be expowned and dressid into trewe and dewe sense and vndirstonding; and that bothe for resoun is a reule failing in his doom, and al so for that Holi Scriptures affermyng vpon a mater is more worthi than is the doom of mannis resoun. And therfore sithen, as it semeth, God not so reulith him in hise gouernauncis, that he ȝeueth a reule which is not sufficient forto reule, or that he puttith the worthier thing vndir reule of the vnworthier thing, it miȝte seme miche of al what y haue bifore tauȝt in this present book be vntrewe.
To the firste of these ij. obiecciouns y answere thus: It is ful profitable to mankinde that he haue of seable treuthis sure knowing, and that bi siȝt of iȝen; and ȝit what othere iȝen or seing power hath God ȝouen to mankinde forto therwith se, than which at sumtyme wolen faile and erre? It is also ful profitable to mankinde that he haue sure knowing of heereable treuthis, and that bi heering of eeris; and ȝit what othere eeris or power of heering hath God ȝoue to man, than which at sumtyme schulen faile and erre in deemyng? Is it not profitable to man|kinde forto move fro oon place into an other place redili and riȝtli and sureli with leggis and feet? And ȝit what othere feet or leggis hath God ȝoue to man, than whiche schulen at sumtyme slide and at sumtyme stumble fro the riȝt going and moving? And if this be trewe, certis thouȝ it be ful profitable to mankinde forto knowe with and bi the power of resoun resonable trouthis, (that is to seie suche as mowe not be knowe bi seing or heering or eny out|ward sensitijf wit,) and also thothe, MS. (first hand).schat, MS.
Neuertheles it may be answerid to the firste obiec|cioun in other wise thus: That the power of resoun in him silf is not ordeyned of God to be oure next and best and surest reuler or reule anentis alle resonable treuthis, but the doom of reson is ordeyned to so be; and ȝit not ech doom of resoun, but thilk doom of resoun which is a formal complete argument clepid a sillogisme in resoun, whos bothe premissis ben sureli or likeli knowen for trewe, and that bi hem silf or bi sume othere bifore had lijk sillogisme or sillogismes prouyng the premisse hauyng nede to be proued, into tyme it bicome into premissis openest in suerte or openest in probabilite or likelihode. And
And this difference here now touchid is the differ|ence bitwix a demonstratijf sillogisme and a probable sillogisme, that is to seie bitwixe a sillogisme which ȝeueth sure and vndoutable kunnyng and a sillogisme which ȝeueth probable kunnyng oonli, that is to seie kunnyng of likelihode and of opinioun but not of cer|teinte. And so no treuthe is a this side the openest fundamental treuthis, but that into proof of him mai be had a sillogisme weel reulid forto proue him sureli trewe, or forto proue him likeli to be trewe; ȝhe, and so likeli to be trewe that he is rather to be holde for trewe than for vntrewe, and that he is to be holde trewe into tymeinto seems required before his.ooon, MS.
If ensaumplis weren sett to al this doctrine, weel y woot the doctrine wolde be vndirstonde the bettir. But certeinli it were ouerlong for this book for to sette out al the ful doctrine which is now here attained of sillogizing for sure kunnyng, and of sillogizing for probable or likeli kunnyng; and forto sett therto sufficient ensaumplis were ouer it miche lenger. And therfore y must here therof abstene and forber. But ȝit thouȝ y schal not be vnderstonde sufficientli of the lay reders in this bifore going proces (namelich at the first), and not with oute studie and labour in her partie, me thinkith y muste needis seie so miche ther of as y haue now seid; for ellis thei wolden weene that a good clerk couthe not assoile the firste obiec|cioun, which y am sikir thei wolden make. And y haue leefir forto seie sumwhat of the trewe substancial answere longing therto, thouȝ y schulde not be suffi|cientli ther yn vnderstonde of hem, than forto seie not of such sufficient answere bi cause of her insufficience of vndirstonding, and therbi forto suffre vntrewe dif|fame falle to the clergie, and hem forto rise into pre|sumpcioun of trowing that thei han kunnyng more than thei han, and that thei han noon or litle nede to groundli clerkis. Wherfore who mai not or cannot vnderstonde this ije. answere to the firste obieccioun, take he him to the firste now bifore seid answere to the same obieccioun; for bothe ben gode ynouȝ, and bothe (thouȝ in her dyuerse maners) ben trewe, sithen the doom of resoun may not be oure next reule in doing Goddis seruice, but if resoun were the romber reule to vs into the same doing of Goddis seruice, bi
Aftir that y haue schewid thus: That noon incon|uenient is, thouȝ God assigne for oure reule into his seruice the power of resoun in oon maner of reuling, as a power of deedis hath forto reule; and also aftir that y haue schewid thus: That the doom of resoun miȝte be a surer reule to us into Goddis moral ser|uice than is the power of reson,—now y schal schewe that euereither of hem is needis to be seid oure reule into the moral seruice of God to be doon. And firste thus: Of al the moral seruice of God, which is moral lawe of kinde, Holi Scripture is not the reule. Forwhi than therof Holi Scripture were the ground, which is proued bifore to be vntrewe: Also of al the now seid moral seruice of God, Holi Scripture is oonli a witnesser and a rehercer, and takith it out and fro moral lawe of kinde and out of moral philsophie, as it is bifore proued. Wherfore Holi Scripture is not neither may be reuler of thilk moral lawe and seruice to God. And thanne thus: Of thilk now seid moral lawe and seruice to God Holi Scripture muste be reuler, or sumwhat ellis bisidis Holi Scripture muste be ther of the reuler; but now and bifore it is proued that Holi Scripture may not be ther of the reuler, bi cause he is not therof the grounder, and he is ther of oonli the rehercer and witnesser, and taker of it fro an other which is grounder. And herwith it is also open that noon othir thing bisidis Scripture can be assigned forto be ther of the reule or reuler, but if it were the seid doom of resoun mad in forme of sillogisme as the next and best reule, and the power of resoun as for the romber and ferther reule; in as miche as fro the power of resoun cometh forth the now seid doom of resoun. Wherfore needis it muste be grantid, no man may it avoide, that bothe resoun which is the power of resonyng and of deemyng, and
FOR answere to the ije. obieccioun: Sithen it is so that Holi Scripture hath not to do in him silf forto reule eny trouthe or gouernaunce of natural philsophi or of moral philsophi and of moral lawe of kinde, which he rehercith, witnessith, or tretith, and as of hem he rehersith, witnessith, and tretith, (for this is ofte bifore schewid and proued,) and for that he is reule oonli of feithis whiche he tretith and techith, bi cause that oonli of hem he is founder and grounder; and therfore of tho treuthis and conclusiouns of moral lawe of kinde as thei ben witnessid in Holi Scripture sum thing muste be reule, riȝt as of hem sum thing muste be ground, and noon such thing can be avisid to be bisidis Holi Scripture forto be to hem reule and ground, saue the seid sillogistik doom of resoun in oon maner, and the power of resoun out of which thilk doom cometh and that in an other maner: (wherfore needis it muste be grauntid that bothe resoun which is the power of resonyng, and resoun which is the seid doom and sillogistik deede of resonyng ben in her ij. dyuerse maners reulis to Holi Scripture in alle the pointis of mannis moral seruice to God, noon except; and that for cause now late bifore sett and seid which is broddir declarid in The folwer to the donet, and is proued openli in the first parti of The book of
feith and of sacramentis:) and ferthermore, sithen the seid sillogistik doom of resoun is a sure reule and vnfailing, and thouȝ the other reule which is resoun be failing at sum while, ȝit God wole haue a man ther yn excusid, and wole allowe thilke failingis whanne man bi his wil is not cause of thilk failing, noon inconuenient is thouȝ God ordeyned the seid resoun, and also his seid doom to be reulers of Holi Writ in alle now seid treuthis and conclusiouns tauȝt bi Holi Writ, thouȝ thilk resoun be at sum tyme failing.
And ferthermore for answere to it that the ije. ob|ieccioun alleggith Holi Scripture to be worthier than is the doom of resoun, and that therfore thethat the, MS. (first hand).writing is, so as to make writingis, but wrongly.e. chapiter bifore hidir to. In another maner doom of resoun is take for the kunnyng of the conclusioun which is con|cludid in a sillogisme mad bi doom of resoun takun in the firste maner, and in this ije. maner it is spokun bifore fro the bigynnyng of the ije. chapiter vnto the eende of the xe. chapiter, weelniȝ alwey, whanne it is there spokun of doom of resoun, or ellis namelich whanne euere there doom of resoun is clepid lawe of kinde or moral philsophie, and comparisoun is mad there bitwixe lawe of kinde or doom of resoun and Holi Scripture. Now, Sir, if we now in the ije. obieccion bifore sett take Holi Scripture in the ije. maner, and doom of resoun in the ije. maner, sotheli Holi Writt in alle the now seid trouthis, conclusiouns, and gouernauncis, whiche he rehercith, denouncith, and techith of moral lawe of kinde, is vnworthier than is the moral lawe of kinde; and therfore is vnworthier than is sum doom of resoun takun in the ije. maner. Forwhi alle tho trouthis and conclusionsconclusions of, MS. (first hand).thei after and.it is interlineated by a later (?) hand.in his, MS. (first hand).e. maner) in alle tho now seid trouthis, conclusiouns, and gouernauncis, ther of fol|ewith not that the worthier in that that he is wor|thier is subdewid vndir reule of the vnworthier as he is the vnworthier. Certis, if Holi Scripture be wor|thier in eny of hise treuthis and conclusiouns than is doom of resoun takun in the ije. maner, and as he comprehendith natural philsophie and metaphisik and moral philsophie, he is so worthier in hise treuthis of feith whiche ben not lawis to man, whiche Holi Scrip|ture groundith, and the seid doom of resoun may not hem grounde, as that God is iij. persones, and that the secunde persoone of hem was mad man, and that he suffrid and died, and that we schulen rise in fleisch aftir oure deeth, and so forth of othere suche feithis being no lawis to man; and ȝit whether Holi Scrip|ture be worthier or profitabiler to man than is the now seid doom of resoun taken in the ije. maner, forto serue God and deserue meede in hevene, schal not be disputid and determyned here in this book, but per|auenture it schal be determyned in my writingis to heerers of hiȝer vndirstonding.
Neuertheles with this y wolde it were not forȝete what y haue tauȝt bifore bi the [seventh]
And ferthermore, sithen al what mai be clepid in eny maner largeli lawe of feith, being not positijf lawe of feith, is propirli lawe of kinde and not oonli lawe of feith, (as it is tauȝt bifore in proof of the xe. con|clusioun bi remyssion into the book Of iust apprising of Holi Scripture,) it folewith that if we speke of lawe of feith in this maner, al the lawe of feith which Holi Scripture techith is not so worthi and so profit|able to man as is lawe of kinde tauȝt out of Holi Scripture bi doom of resoun, with oute godli reuelacioun. Forwhi thusthus is by a later hand, the original reading having been erased; this word may have been propirli, which the sense seems to require.e. maner and doom of resoun in the firste maner, certis y holde thanne that doom of resoun in sum maner is worthier and perfiter than is Holi Writt thoruȝ out al the Bible. Forwhi the seid doom of resoun in this firste wise taken is cause of the Holi Writt takun in the ije. wise. Forwhi doom of resoun takun in the firste wise is cause of al kun|nyng in the vndirstonding or intellect of man, and that whether thilk kunnying be feith or no feith; and Holi Scripture in the ije. maner takun is not ellis than a certein kunnyng causid bi doom of resoun takun in the firste maner, by occasioun of Holi Writt takun in the first maner; and therfore Holi Writt in this ije. maner takun is vnworthier than is doom of resoun takun in the first maner, and that as weel where Holi
IN whiche answeris thouȝ y haue write or seid more than wole anoon accorde with the capacite of the Bible men, to whom and aȝens whom this book is principaly maad, ȝit y haue leefir so do than forto seie and write lasse; lest therbi schulde seeme to hem, that sufficient answere couthe not be ȝouun to her seid ij. obiec|ciouns; and lest that ellis thei myȝten trowe, that bi her powring in the Bible aloon thei miȝten leerne for to assoile sufficientli alle obiecciouns biholding the Bible, thouȝ thei hadden no counseil of substancial clerkis weel leerned in logik and in moral philsophie. And ther fore of oon thing y warne al the world, which is this. If substanciali leerned clerkis in logik and in moral philsophie and in dyvynyte, and ripeli exer|cisid ther yn, weren not and schulden not be forto wiseli and dewli ȝeue trewe vndirstondingis and ex|posiciouns to textis of Holi Scripture: or ellis, thouȝ suche clerkis ben, and the lay parti wolen not attende to the doctrine, whiche tho clerkis mowe and wolen (bi proof of sufficient and open euydence) mynystre to the lay parti; but the lay parti wolen attende and truste to her owne wittis, and wolen lene to textis of the Bible oonli, y dare weel seie so many dyuerse opinions schuldenschulde, MS. (first hand).e. man in the iije. maner; namelich for that weelniȝ in ech place where Holi Writ spekith of eny point of moral lawe of kinde, it is so spoken that it nedith forto haue a redressing of it into accordaunce with lawe of kinde and with doom of reson; and than if no iuge schulde be had forto deeme bitwixe hem so diuersely holding, eende schulde ther neuere be of her strijf, into tyme that thei schulden falle into fiȝting and into werre and bateil; and thanne schulde al thrift and grace passe awey, and noon of her holdingis schulde in eny point be therbi strengthid or confermed.
Certis in this wise and in this now seid maner and bi this now seid cause bifille the rewful and wepeable destruccioun of the worthi citee and vni|uersite of Prage, and of the hool rewme of Beeme, as y haue had ther of enformacioun ynouȝ. And now, aftir the destruccioun of the rewme, the peple ben glad for to resorte and turne aȝen into the catholik and general feith and loore of the chirche, and in her pouerte bildith up aȝen what was brent and throwun doun, and noon of her holdingis can thriue. But for that Crist in his propheciyng muste needis be trewe, that ech kingdom deuidid in hem silf schal be destruyed, therfore to hem bifille the now seid wrecchid mys chaunce. God for his merci and pitee kepe Ynglond, that he come not into lijk daunce. But forto turne here fro aȝen vnto oure Bible men, y preie ȝe seie ȝe to me, whanne among ȝou is rise a strijf in holdingis and opiniouns, (bi cause that ech of you trustith to his owne studie in the Bible aloon, and wole haue alle treuthis of mennys moral conuersacioun there groundid,) what iuge mai therto be assigned in erthe, saue resoun and the bi|fore seid doom of resoun? For thouȝ men schulden be
Doctour|mongers, and summe ben clepid Opinioun-holders, and summe ben Neutralis, that of so presumptuose a cisme abhominacioun to othere men and schame to ȝou it is to heere; rebuke now ȝou silf, for as miche as ȝe wolden not bifore this tyme allowe, that resoun and his doom schulde haue such and so greet interesse in the lawe of God and in expownyng of Holi Scripture, as y haue seid and proued hem to haue.
And also herbi take ȝe a sufficient mark, that ȝe haue nede forto haue ȝoure recours and conseil with suche now biforeseid clerkis, thouȝ ȝe wolden la|bore, and powre, and dote alle the daies of ȝoure lijf in the Bible aloon. And drede ȝe of the effect which bifille to Bohemers for lijk cause, and mys gouernaunce in holding the first seid opinioun; and bi so miche the more drede ȝe thilk effect, bi how miche bi Crist it is pronouncid forto falle, where euer cysme and dyvisyoun is contynued; for he seith [Matth. xij.]that euery kingdom or comounte dyvidid in him silf schal be destruyed. But thanne aȝenward ȝe mustȝe must interlineated in a later (?) hand.e. c., thus: Manie be to thee pesible, but of a thousind oon be thi counseiler. And in special be waar that thou not accepte, chese, and take a clerk forto be sufficient to thee into the now seid purpos bi this aloon, that he mai were a pilioun on his heed; neither bi this, that he is a famose and a plesaunt precher to peple in a pulpit; neither bi this, that he is a greet and thikke rateler out of textis of Holi Scripture or of Doctouris in feestis or in othere cumpanyingis: for certis experience hath ofte tauȝt and mai here teche surely ynouȝ, that summe werers of piliouns in scole of dyuynyte han scantli be worthi for to be in the same scole a good scoler; and ful manye of the ije. and iije. soortis appeering ful gloriosegli̛ ose, MS.her harde, MS.; but her is can|celled by a later (?) hand.
Weel y wote, that thouȝ the office of preching is ful profitable into the eende of exortacioun and of re|membrauncing, certis it is not so into the eende of best teching. Forwhi it is not so into the eende of formal and groundli disputing, arguing, and prouyng, withoute which no sure trial mai be maad upon eny hard and doutable questioun of mannis conuersacioun; and ȝit if such maner of arguyng and groundli prou|yng schulde be sett in sermonyng, the sermon schulde
of should be inserted after therfore.
This is now seid of me, (God y take therto into witnes,) for harme which y haue knowen come bi de|faut and the vnhauying and the vnknowing of this now seid consideracioun, and for perel that suche harmes schulde the oftir in tyme here aftir come, if of this consideracioun no mensioun and waarnyng were bi me or bi sum other in writing bifore mad. For, as sikir as the sunne schineth in somerys dai, the vnconsideracion of this, whereof y haue ȝouen now warnyng, hath be a greet cause of the wickidli enfectid scole of heresie among the lay peple in Ynglond, which is not ȝit conquerid. And therfore
But wolde God that the king of Ynglond wolde sette so myche bisynes forto conquere and reforme his lond of Ynglond fro this seid wickid scole, and fro othere defautis, as miche as he dooth aboute the conquest of his lond of Normandi and of Fraunce, and perauenture he schulde thanne haue more thanke and reward at his laste comyng hoom to the King of blisse, and more noble flauour of digne fame among alle the princis of the world and the worthi peeris of heuen, than he schal haue bi miche of his labour and cost doon aboute the worldli conquest of Fraunce.
Verili to seie vndir perel of my soule, (and no man conceyue me in contrarie wise to feele,) y wolde grees of scolis to be take and not to be left, whanne euer the persoone desiring the gree is able therto in scolis bi kunnyng longing to the same gree, and ellis not, thouȝ he be able into othere deedis profitabili to be doon. I wolde also that the office of preching had his dew honour and fauour and his dew wiseli to be don exercise and execucioun, and God forbede that y schulde in contrarie wise feele or meene. But certis her withal y wolde that profound and groundli scoling in logik, philsophi, and dyuynyte, and lawe were not left bihinde, but that he were to euereither of these ij. now seid thingis preferrid; for without him grees goongōon, MS.layfe, MS. (first hand): but a stroke is added in a darker ink, changing the word into layfe. The correction layte is tempting: but see Glossary.
Also y wolde that, bi cause he flotereth not so ofte aboute the eeris of the lay peple as dooth the feet of preching, that the lay peple schulden not therfore trowe noon such so preciose and vnlackeable occupa|cioun to be had and laborid among hem that in scolis waken, studien, and disputen, thouȝ thei not into preching attenden; neither that therfore the lay peple schulden lacke wil and purpos forto bisette notable costis vpon hem, whiche so in scolis laboren; neither that the lay peple holden hem silf theryn deceyued, if therto thei han eny expensis bifore leid out and mynystrid. Certis ofte han men and wom|men come to me, and seid: "Thus hath a doctour seid in this mater: and thus hath a doctour seid in thilk mater: and thus hath this famose precher prechid: and thus hath thilk famose precher prechid:" and y haue answerid aȝen thus: "Thouȝ he and he and he and he han so tauȝt and prechid, ȝit [it] is not therfore and therbi euer the rather trewe, but it is vntrewe, and needis muste be vntrewe, and mai be schewid and proued undoutabili to be vntrewe." No man conceyue bi my wordis here that y meene and lete as thouȝ y neuere failid, or that y am sikir that y schal neuere faile in myn answeris; but for the experience which y haue had vpon the failing of othere doctouris and prechers, that y myȝte the suerlier therby warne peple vpon the failing of clerkis, ther fore y haue seid what is now seid: and y haue lefir forto mekeli
Neuertheles, whanne the comoun lay peple doon as weel and as diligentli as thei kunnen forto chese to hem a wijs and a sufficient clerk into her coun|seiler, thei ben excusid anentis God in trowing to his counseil and in folewing it, thouȝ his counseiling be vntrewe, vnto tyme thei mowe aspie the defaut of the same counseil, as schal be proued in the firste parti of The book of feith and of sacramentis in Latyn. And if eny man wole obserue and kepe the gouernauncis which y teche and counseile in the ije. parti of Cristen religioun, the
THAT the ije. opinioun sett and spoken bifore in the firste chapitere. opinioun many ben whiche han vndirstonde certein processis of Holi Scripture in oon certein maner of vnderstonding, whanne thei helden hem silf meeke and in good wil forto receyue and haue the trewe and dew vndirstonding therof; and ȝit aftirward, whanne thei were not more meke neither more willi to the same, thei han chaungid and varied fro the firste had vndirstonding into an other maner of vndirstonding the same processis, as y here of haue had sufficient knowing. Wherfore thei hem silf, whiche holden the seid ije. opinioun, ouȝten bi her owne experience takun vpon her owne deedis proue the same ije. opinioun to be vntrewe.
Also thus: Of the same noumbre which holden the seid ije. opinioun manye vndirstonden a processe of Holi Scripture in oon maner and wolen needis so vn|dirstonde it, and manye othere of the same noumbre wolen needis vndirstonde the same processe in an other maner not according therto: and in this tho ij. soortis of men stryuen, and ȝit ech soort of hem holdeth himholden hem MS. (first hand).e. opinioun mai be openli knowe, that the same ije. opinioun is vntrewe.
Also thus: Open experience schewith that a viciose man is as kunnyng a clerk for to finde, leerne, and vndirstonde which is the trewe and dew sentence of Holi Scripture, how soone a vertuose clerk is kunnyng therto: and into the same vnderstondingis thei to
e. opinioun to be vntrewe.
Now forto proue the same ije. opinioun to be vntrewe bi resoun, y procede thus: Forto fynde the verri and iust vndirstonding of processis in Holi Writt is a labour of the witt or of the intellect, or of resoun in bihold|ing aboute the circumstauncis of the proces and in resonyng ther upon; and forto be good and holi is a labour of the wil or of the affecte or of the appe|tite: but so it is, that a badde man and a ful yuel disposid man in wil and in affect mai haue so cleer and so weel disposid witt and reson into alle thingis to be founde bi witt, as hath a good man weel dis|posid in maners of his affect and wil: wherfore folew|ith bi resoun, that as soone may a viciose man come to and fynde the dew vndirstonding of Holi Scripture, how soone mai a vertuose man finde, so that thei ben lijk witti in nature, or so that the viciose man haue a cleerer witt than the vertuose man hath.
If eny man wole seie here, that this now mad ar|gument proueth weel that, as bi nature and kinde, so soone schulde a witti viciose man fynde and come to the verri trewe vndirstonding of Holi Scripture, as schulde a vertuose euen witti or lasse witti man; neuertheles so it is, that God ȝeueth not hise ȝiftis to a viciose man lijk plenteuoseli as he ȝeueth to a ver|tuose man.
Aȝens this answere y mai meete thus: We han noon other knowing in experience but that men fynden and comen (as for the miche more parti) to the kun|nyng of Scripture and of alle othere divyne and godli trouthis rathir or latir, as thei ben disposid kindeli in her resoun and witt. And what euer ex|perience techith we ouȝte holde, but if resoun or Scripture or sure reuelacioun schewe other. Wher|fore we ouȝten noon other holde, but if resoun or Scripture or other sure reuelacioun schulde enforme vs that we schulde other holde. For ellis the holding
the should be inserted after to.e. opinioun is vntrewe.
Tho textis of Holi Scripture, whiche ben alleggid bifore in the firste chapiter for grounding of the ije. opinioun, doon no thing therto. Forwhi, thouȝ it mai be had bi tho textis that God schal ȝeue and do singulerli and notabili to meke men for her mekenes, certis ȝit bi noon of thilk textis is had, that God schal ȝeue or do into the wit or vndirstonding of ech meke man eny ȝifte aboue the ȝifte which he wole ȝeue into the resoun or vndirstonding of vnmeke men. And therfore thilke textis speken in so general maner of the visiting to be doon bi God to meke men, that thei mowe be verrified in manye othere wisis and for manye othere visitingis, than ben the visitingis and the ȝiftis of kunnyng. And verili to seie in myn ex|perience, ful manye passyng meke men y haue knowe, whiche han be ful lewid in the knowing of moral vertu and han be ful of doutis, ȝhe, and han be the lewedir bi so miche that thei laborid euere in meke|nes forto haue it in greet mesure, whilis thei myȝtenmyȝte, MS. (first hand).e. opinioun.
The iije. opinioun put bifore in the first chapiter
He is aȝens Holi Scripture; forwhi i. Petri iije. c. it is writun in sentence thus: That ech Cristen man schulde be redi forto answere and ȝeue satisfac|cioun to ech asker of him resoun (that is to seie, argument) vpon his feith and his hope; and so wole not the iije. opinioun graunte or suffre. Also Iohun vje. c. it is had, that mennis goode werkis ben not oonli the werkis of her affect and wil and the out|ward
The folewer to the donet, and as it is open by Cristis wordis, Iohun the vje. c. Forwhi whanne the Iewis ask|iden of him thus: What schulen we do that we worche the werkis of God? IesusIhs, MS.This is the werk of God that ȝe bileeue in to him which he sende. And sithen herby it is open that mennis feithis ben her werkis, it folewith that tho men whiche reulen hem bi the iije. opinioun and wolen not bringe forth and schewe her feithis at liȝt (that is to seie, at argumentacioun) ben of thilk soort of peple which God reproueth, Iohun the iije. c., where Crist seide thus: This is the iugement, for liȝt came in to the world, and men loued more derknes than liȝt, sotheli her werkis weren yuel. Forsothefor sothe, MS., apparently; but elsewhere conjunctim.ech that doith yuel hatith liȝt, and he comith not to liȝt, that hise werkis ben not vndernome. He that doith treuthe cometh to liȝt, that hise werkis beben, but the last letter is scraped out.mad open, for that thei ben doon in God. Thus miche there. Se now therbi how openli men of the iije. opinioun ben reproued of Crist, and therfore the iije. opinion is aȝens Holi Writt.
Certis withoute argument can no trouthe be knowe neither leerned in the intellect of man, and that whe|ther thilk trouthe be of lawe of kinde or of feith, except thilk treuthis in lawe of kinde which ben openest of alle othere treuthis, and han noon opener treuthis than thei ben bi whiche thei mowe be proued,
That the iije. opinioun is also aȝens reson, y mai schewe thus: Euen as thilk opinioun or conclusioun of lawe of kinde is not worthi be holde trewe, but if he mai be susteyned bi hise propre to him groundis and evidencis, withynne the boundis of lawe of kinde, perteynyng to the grounding of suche conclusions; and but if sufficient aunswere can be mad to al arguyng, which may ther aȝens be maad, bi skilis in lawe of kinde: riȝt so thilk feith or conclusioun of bileeue is not worthi to be holde trewe, but if he may be susteyned bi hise propre to him groundis and evi|dencis perteynyng to the grounding of feith; and but if sufficient answere can be ȝeue to al arguyng, which mai be mad ther aȝens. Goddis forbode that eny man schulde so trowe and feele that eny conclusioun of feith ouȝte be holde for trewe and for feith, and ȝit couthe be proued bi eny argument to be vntrewe and fals; and that eny argument couthe be mad aȝens eny conclusioun of trewe feith, to which argument it couthe not cleerli at fulle be answerid. For whi ther is no treuthe knowun for a treuthe (whether it be a treuthe of lawe of kinde or of lawe of feith), but that if he be knowe perfitli and fulli bi hise euydencis and groundis, as it mai bi good labour of arguyng be knowe, he schal be proued trewe aȝens alle aȝenseiers whiche euere thei ben, Cristen or hethen, and thei mowe bi strengthe of argument be constreyned in her reson for to consente therto, wole thei nile thei, if thei ȝeue sufficient attendaunce to the arguyng; and also sufficient cleer at fulle answere mai be ȝeuun to al arguyng mad aȝens the same conclusioun of feith.
The folewer to the donet, and in the first parti of Cristen religioun, and in the firste parti of The book of feith and of sacramentis, and in the book clepid The prouyng of Cristen feith. And ferthermore the more eny treuthe, whether he be of feith or of no feith, be brouȝt in to examinacioun of arguyng, the more trewe and the more cleerli trewe he schal be seen; and if he be not trewe, but seme trewe eer he come into triyng of argumentis, the lenger he abidith the ex|amynacioun of arguyng, the more vntrewe and the more cleerli vntrewe he schal be seen; riȝt as good trewe gold, the more it suffrith the fier, the more cleerli he is seen to be trewe gold; and if he be not but countirfeet goold, certis the lenger he abi|dith the examynacioun of fier, the more cleerli it schal be seen that he is fals and not trewe gold. And therfore Goddis forbode that any Cristen man schulde thinke and trowe to be a trewe and a good gouernance forto kepe hise feithis and his othere opiniouns priuey, and lete hem not come into what euer examynacioun of argumentis whiche mowe be mad ther upon; namelich whanne and where the holder of tho feithis and of hise othere opinions mai be sikir forto come and go and speke and argue and answere withoute eny bodili harme, and with out eny losse of his ricches or of his fame. Certis if eny man dare not in the now seid casis suffre his feith and hise othere opiniouns be brouȝt into liȝt and into fier of argumentis to be at uttrist examyned, he ouȝte be trowid that in that he hath vntrewe chaffar and vntrewe gold, which mai not abide liȝt and fier.
Also that this iije. opinioun is aȝens resoun it is euydent herbi: He is lijk to the lawe of Macomet and of Sarezenis in thilk point in which her lawe is moost vnresonable. Forwhi the lawe of Macomet biddith, vndir greet peyne of horrible deeth suffring, that no
Now forto answere to tho textis, whiche ben there bifore alleggid for grounding or ellis witnessing or prouyng of the iije. opinioun, it is liȝt forto an|swere. Forwhi to ech diligent considerer vpon the processis forth and aftir, bifore and behinde, where thilke textis ben writun, it schal be riȝt liȝtli and soone seen, that the first text there alleggid, Coloc. ije. c., wole that in mater of Cristis Incarnacion, which is a mater of pure feith, no man schulde be bigilid bi philsophi; that is to seie, no man schulde be moved aȝens the feith ther of bi evidencis and bi argumentis mad oonli vpon evidencis of lawe of kinde and of pure resoun without evidencis takun vpon Goddis affermyng or Goddis reveling. Forwhi tho ben argumentis of pure philsophie, and thei ben
or of, MS., but of is scraped out.e. opinioun.
And in lijk maner it is to be seid that Poul meened in the ije. place, alleggid bifore to be i. Cor. i. c., that in mater of feith Poul vsid not hiȝnes of wisdom and of pure resoun oonli, thouȝ not al maner of arguyng may be excludid fro the fynding, the leernyng, the knowing, and the prouyng of feith, as it is proued weel in the book clepid The book of feith and of sacramentis, and as it is tauȝt in The folewer to the donet and in the ie. partie of Cristen religioun; bicause that no treuthe (except tho which ben at vttrist degre pleyn and open treuthis) mai be leerned, kunne, and proued without argument, as it is in my writingis sumwhere ellis sufficientli schewid; and ech argument muste needis be maad bi werk and deede of the resoun. And thus it is answerid to the textis whiche in the first chapiter of this book ben brouȝt into proving of the iije. opinioun.
AFTIR y had herd and had writun thus as is now passid of these iij. opiniouns, ther came into my know|ing that among the peple bifore spokun is holde this iiije. now to be rehercid opinioun. And for as myche as he is ful perilose and worthi it is forto him aȝen|stonde and him forto proue be vntrewe, therfore y thouȝte forto plaunte into this book the writing of him here next to the othere thre opiniouns, and forto sette my bisynes forto bringe him into nouȝt. The opinioun in him silf is this. If eny man be not oonli meke, but if ther with al he kepe and fulfille al the lawe of God so miche and in the maner as it is long|ing to him forto it kepe and fulfille, he schal haue the trewe vndirstonding of Holi Scripture, thouȝ no man ellis teche him saue God. And tho men whiche ben not trewe lyuers in the lawe of God schulen not falle vpon the trewe and dewe vndirstonding of Holi Scripture, thouȝ thei putte therto al her natural power and diligence, with the help and counseil of othere suche persoones like to hem. And thanne here by for as miche as to her seming the bischopis and archidenes,archidekenes.
This iiije. opinioun, as y weene, thei trowen be groundid in the textis now to be rehercid. The firste is writun Iohun viije. c. thus: Iesus seid to hem of the Iewis, whiche bileeueden to him: If ȝe schulen dwelle in my word ȝe schulen be my very disciplis, and ȝe schulen knowe trouthe, and trouthe schal delyuere ȝou. The ije. text is writun Iohun xiiije. c. thus: He that loueth me schal be loued of my Fadir, and y schal loue him, and y schal schewe my silf to him. The iije. text is writen Iohun xve. c. thus: I schal not now clepe ȝou seruauntis or bond men, for the seruaunt woot not what his lord schal do; but y haue clepid ȝou freendis, for alle thingis what euer y herde of my Fadir y mad knowun to ȝou.
This iiije. opinioun may ful liȝtli be improued. For|whi aȝens him is had the grettist certeinte which mai be had in oure knowing, and it is clepid expe|rience: ȝhe, such experience is aȝens him had, that the holders of him kunnen not and mowe not aȝens thilk experience seie nay, and therfore needis fro this iiije. opinioun thei musten falle. As for the seid experience had aȝens the seid iiije. opinioun, sotheli y haue mad inquisicioun therto sufficient and diligent, and y am certified at fulle that among the holders of this same iiije. opinioun summe ben founde and knowun openli among hem silf and of othere neiȝboris to be greet lecchouris, summe to be avoutreris in greet haunt and contynuaunce, summe to be theefis, euen aȝens her owne leernyng and aȝens her owne holding and doctrine. Ȝhe, thei that han be and ben riȝt grete in auctorite of teching among hem han be and ben suche, and in other wise miche viciose per|soones, so that thei mowe not here aȝens seie nay, for y can make it vndoutabili be proued. And alle men witen that these ben grete synnes and miche
e. opinioun to be vntrewe, and that for open knowing of experience which is had among hem silf of these now bifore rehercid vicis, and of many othere vicis. And therfore fro this dai forth ward y hope noon holder of the iiije. opinioun schal mowe for schame holde the same iiije. opinioun, but rather he schal be schamed that he hath it bifore so vngroundabili holde, and withoute suficient evidence therto bifore had he hath so faste therto cleued and lened. Ferthermore y dare weel seie, if alle the evi|dencis whiche ben late bifore writun in the next chapiter, aȝens the ije. opinioun be weel considerid thei schulen suffice forto vnprove this iiije. opinioun here, as thei vnproven the ije. opinioun there. And therfore more than this no nede is forto write now and here aȝens the seid iiije. opinioun.
Tho iij. textis of Holi Scripture, whiche bifore in this present chapiter ben alleggid into the grounding of this iiije. opinioun, availen not therto. Forwhi, lijk wise as bifore (in the eende of the ixe. chapiter in this present ie. partie) to ij. textis of Holi Scripture brouȝt forth into helping of the firste opinioun y haue answerid there, that tho ij. textis speken of leernyng and kunnyng which is feith, and not which is had bi doom of resoun in lawe of kinde; so y answere now to these iij. textis brouȝt forth in this present chapiter for grounding of the iiije. opinioun, that ech of these iij. textis spekith of leernyng and knowing which is feith, namelich vpon Cristis Persoon and upon his Incarnacioun, and not of leernyng and
e. opinioun.
As to this, that the holders of the iiije. opinioun deemen prelatis of the chirche forto be mys lyuers and trespacers aȝens Goddis lawe, weel y wote that in summe thingis prelatis synnen and amysmys, MS. (first hand).
Wolde God that men, eer thei woldenwolde, MS. (first hand).moral, MS. (first hand).as is, MS. (first hand).The folewer to the donet: ȝhe, and that moral gouernaunces of mennis conuersacioun, namelich suche that ben politik (that is to seie, suche wherbi prelatis of the chirche or othere ouerers gouerne othere men vndir hem bi spiritual policie or worldli policie)
in causis, MS. (first hand).formy, MS.
Of mi parti y speke in special more than of the parties of otherethe othere, MS. (first hand).
How suche now seid politik gouernauncis of prelatis anentis her peple was doon and vnder what reule in the eeldir daies, it is writun in lawis and in holi
And therfore wolde God that men wolden bithenke weel, that no man may vndir oon reule and oon maner kepe his gouernaunce toward him silf, toward his meynee, and toward hise othere peple, in wynter and in somer, in a ȝeer of derth and in a ȝeer of greet cheep, in tyme of wete and in tyme of drouȝth; and if in oon ȝeer such transmutacioun and chaunge of wether muste make a man chaunge his moral gouer|naunce anentis him silf and anentis his peple, whi not bi lijk skile if thoruȝ hundridis of ȝeeris ben falle manye transmutaciouns in the circumstauncis of the seid politik gouernaunce, and manie lettis and manye vnhelpis and manye lackis of helpis, whiche in the eeldir daies weren not in the circumstauncis of the same gouernaunce? The prelate muste make thilk gouernaunce to be doon in an other maner and in an other reule, as resoun for the tyme wole deeme, and not vndir the same forme and reule in which it was doon bifore in eeldir daies, and in which thouȝ it be writun that in thilk reule that it was doon in eeldir daies bifore; ȝhe, and if such transmutacioun and greet dyuersyte be in oon diocise, miche more and miche other wise than in an other diocise, whi schal not the gouernaunce in thilkthik, MS.a other, MS.
If therfore reders in lawis and writingis of eeldir daies were ferther and better instructid than in her grammer in such doctrine as is now sumwhat here schortli seid and touchid, thei wolden not ȝeue such
wolde, MS. (first hand).wolde, MS. (first hand).
And ferthermore, to seie redili as no man woot, how hard it is to clymbe vpon a tree or forto come doun of a tree, saue thilk that assaieth it; and no man loking vpon an other man so clymbing vp or comyng doun can iuge so weel that he gouerneth him weel or yuel in so ascending or descending as he him silf which so ascendith or descendith, neither he woot so weel as if he him silf were sett into lijk werke of clymbing or of doun comyng, and ful liȝtli ech such biholder schal deeme amys the clymber, if he make soone eny iugement ther upon without priuey counseil|ing with the clymber, to wite of him whi he is moved forto sette his foot rather there than here, and so of otherotherer, MS.Golpel, MS.e. c.: Nile ȝe deeme and ȝe schulen not be deemed: in what euer doom ȝe schulen deeme ȝe schulen be deemed. Vpon which sentence it were good that men hem bithouȝte, and of which sentence it
for inserted in MS. by a later (?) hand.
THOUȝ, fro the bigynnyng of the firste chapiter in this book hidir to, y haue thus laborid forto distroie it which schulde and wolde ellis ful miche lette my purpos and entent forto turne many of the comoun peple fro mys holding aȝens xj. gouernauncis, whiche aftir in this present book schulen be proued for leeful and gode and profitable to Cristen men; ȝit, eer y schal come doun into the special profis of tho xj. gouernauncis, y schal proue hem alle to gidere vnder general profis, and that bi settingbisetting, MS.
The ie. supposicioun or reule is this: Who euere (whether he be God, man, aungel, or Scripture) bid|dith bi word or bi ensampling of deede expresseli eny gouernaunce to be doun, he therynyn, MS. (first hand).
The ije. supposicioun or reule is this: Who euer (God, aungel, man, or Scripture) counseilith and willith with oute comaundement bi word or bi ensampling of deede expresseli eny gouernaunce to be doun, he ther yn and therbi counseilith and willith includingli or closingli al it to be doon, which folewith in formal argument of reson out of thilk same gouernaunce
The iije. supposicioun or reule is this: Who euer (God, aungel, man, or Scripture) rehercith, witnessith, or denouncith bi such bidding as is bifore seid in the firste reule, or bi such counseiling as is bifore seid in the ije. reule, or bi eny other maner eny gouernaunce to be doon, he ther yn and therbi rehercith, witnes|sith, or denouncith includingli or closingli al it which folewith out of thilk gouernaunce and is includid for|mali in thilk gouernaunce, and al it with out which thilk gouernaunce mai not be doon; and so forth in alle the othere pointis and degrees rehercid now bi|fore in the firste and ije. reulis.
These iij. supposiciouns or reulis ben so openli trewe, that no man hauying eny quantite of resoun mai deneie hem. Forwhi, if y, being at Londoun in the Collage of Whitington, bidde or counseile or wit|nesse to my seruaunt there being with me, that he go to Poulis Cros forto heere there attentifli a sermon to be prechid, it muste nedis be grauntid, that y in
seid is added by a later hand.
Aftir these iij. so openli trewe reulis y putte forth iiij. conclusiouns, whiche muste needis be trewe, if these iij. reulis be trewe.
The firste of thothe, MS. (first hand).
The ije. conclusioun is this: Thilk xj. gouernauncis whiche y schal susteyne, meyntene, iustifie, and de|fende aftir in this present book, ben bede or counseilid or witnessid bi Holi Scripture to be doon. This conclusioun y proue thus. Ech gouernaunce which is expresseli bede, counseilid, or witnessid bi Holi Scrip|ture to be doon, or is includingli or closingli in eny of the now biforeseid maners bede, counseilid, or witnessid bi Holi Scripture to be doon, is bede or counseilid or witnessid [by] Holi Scripture to be doon; but so it is that ech of thilk now spokun xj. gouer|nauncis, which after in this present book y schal defende and susteyne, is a gouernaunce expresseli bede or counseilid or witnessid bi Holi Scripture to be doon, or is includingli or closingli bede, counseilid, or witnessid in summe of the maners now bifore seid in a gouernaunce bede, counseilid, or witnessid expresseli bi Holi Scripture to be doon, as schal be openli at ful proued after in this book. Wherfore ech of thilk xj. gouernauncis is bede or counseilid or witnessid of Holi Scripture to be doon.
The iije. conclusioun is this: In thilk maner of vnpropre and large speche, in which it may thouȝ vnpropirli be seid that what is bede or counseilid or witnessid bi Holi Scripture in eny of the now bifore seid maners of bidding, counseiling, or witnessing is therfore and therbi groundid in Holi Scripture, it is trewe that ech of the xj. gouernauncis, which y schal aftir in the ije., iije., ive., and ve.e. conclusioun folewith pleinli at the ful out of the ije. now bifore going conclusioun. Wherfore, if the ije. conclusioun is trewe, this iije. conclusioun is needis trewe.
The iiije. conclusioun is this: If the bidding or counseiling or witnessing of Holi Scripture in eny of the bifore seid maners upon a mater or a conclusioun or a trouthe of moral lawe of kinde were a gronding in Scripture, forto speke propirli and verili and dewli of a ground and of grounding to a thing, in the maner which is bifore spokun in the ije. and iije. chapi|tris of this present first parti, certis thanne ech of the xj. gouernancis (whiche aftir in the ije., iije., ive., and ve. parties of this present book y schal defende and menteyne) were groundid in Holi Scripture bi grounding in propre maner vndirstondun and takun. This iiije. conclusioun folewith openli out of the ije. and iije. conclusiouns. Wherfore, if thei be trewe, he is trewe.
CONFIRMACIOUN to the ie. and ije. of these iiij. now putt conclusiouns is this. Who euer for deuocioun and loue which he hath to Holi Scripture wole holde that ech gouernaunce of Goddis moral lawe and ser|uice is groundid in the Newe Testament, (as summen holden,) or in the hool Bible, (as summe othere hol|dun,) and ellis it is not to be take for a point and deede or gouernaunce of Goddis lawe and of Goddis seruice, ȝit he mai not holde and seie that needis ech gouernaunce of Goddis seid lawe and seruise muste be groundid expresseli in Holi Scripture, as anoon aftir schal be proued. Wherfore he muste needis graunte and holde, that if eny deede or gouernaunce be groun|did or witnessid includingli or closingli in eny of the bifore spokun maners bi the thre reulis, it is ynowȝ forto seie and holde that thilk deede or gouernaunce is groundid or witnessid in Holi Scripture. And if he muste so graunte, certis thanne if it be schewid to him that ech of the xj. gouernauncis whiche y schal aftir in the ije., iije., ive., and ve. parties of this book defende and iustifie, (of which oon is setting up of ymagis in chirchis, and an othir is pilgrymage vnto the memorialis or mynde placis of Seintis,) is in|cludingli or closingli groundid or witnessid in Holi Scripture bi eny of the maners bifore seid in the iij. reulis, (as aftir in the ije. parti of this book it schal be schewid,) he muste needis lijk weel graunte that ech of tho xj. gouernauncis is groundid or witnessid in Holi Scripture.
That thou maist not seie and holde ech gouernaunce and deede of Goddis lawe and seruice to be expressid in Holi Scripture, and that ellis it is not Goddis ser|uice
eni is added by a later (?) hand.schulde, MS. (first hand).of is added by a later hand.a veil. Veils are also several times mentioned in the Old Testament. See Kitto, Cycl. Bibl. Lit., s. v. Veil.e. partie of this present book, and bi what is al redi therof clereli seid and proued in The book of worschiping.
Also thou schalt not fynde expresseli in Holi Scrip|ture that the Newe Testament schulde be write in Englisch tunge to lay men, or in Latyn tunge to clerkis; neither that the Oold Testament schulde be write in Englisch tunge to lay men, or in Latyn tunge to clerkis: and ȝit ech of these gouernauncis thou wolte holde to be leeful, and to be a meritorie vertuose moral deede forto therbi deserue grace and glorie, and to be the seruice of God, and therfore to be the lawe of God; sithen bi no deede a man hath merit, saue bi a deede which is the seruice and the lawe of God; and ech moral vertu is the lawe of God, as it is proued weel in othere placeplacis.
Also thus: Where it isWhere is it, &c.; if not, we must under|stand from above, [Thou shalt not find] where, &c.Holi is inserted in the MS. be|fore Scripture, but cancelled by a later(?) hand.e. c., where it is seid thus: Blessid ben thei that moornen or weilen, for thei schulen be coumfortid; and also, Gen. [xviije.]
Also where in Holi Scripture is it grondid that men myȝten or schulden singe, saue oonli where yn thei preisiden God, as aungelis diden in erthe whanne Crist was born? And so for esement of a man him silf, and for esement of his neiȝbour, it is not expressid in Holi Scripture that a man schulde singe. And ȝit Goddis forbode, but that into esement of him silf and also of his neiȝbour, a man mai singe, pleie, and lauȝe ver|tuoseli, and therfore merytorili; and if he mai do it merytorili, certis thanne thilk deede is Goddis seruice; and if it be Goddis seruice, it is needis a deede of Goddis lawe.
Where is it expressid bi word or bi eny persoonys ensaumpling in Holi Scripture that men schulden make
That in Holi Scripture is noon of these now rehercid gouernauncis groundid or witnessid or ensaumplid bi eny persoon expresseli, lo, y proue thus: No thing is expresseli spoken of in Scripture, which is not there in special openli named; but so it is,is is interlineated in a later hand, which has also made some erasures.neither Latyn tunge or langage, but a later (?) hand has drawn a pen through it; rightly. See Luke xxiii. 38. But very possibly Pecock wrote it, since he was capable of making such a blunder as to say that a cloak is not mentioned in Scripture.knowe, MS. (first hand).
Confirmacioun herto is this: No thing is expressid or expresseli witnessid or groundid in Holi Scripture, which is not rehercid in Holi Scripture; but so it is, that noon of these gouernauncis is rehercid in Holi Scripture: wherfore noon of hem is expressid in Holi Scripture. And if noon of hem is there expressid, certis noon of hem is there expresseli groundid, wit|nessid, or denouncid, or tauȝt. Also thus: Oonli it is expressid or expresseli toold and tauȝt in Holi Scripture, which is knowun for trewe or to be doon, thouȝ no thing ellis inin is interlineated by a later (?) hand, and doom written on an erasure.
Now, Sir, to thee thus: In caas that y wolde holde aȝens thee, and seie that it is not to be do, that ale and beer be mad and drunke; or that wommen weere couerchefis of lynnen or of silk, of whiche so miche synne cometh; or if y wolde holde that it were not Goddis seruice forto at sum while lauȝe or make
e., iije., iiije., and ve. parties of this book, as there aftir schal be seen. And in the same or euen lijk wise y schal grounde or fynde bi witnessing ech of hem in Holi Scripture, as also thou schalt openli after in the ije. parti of this book se. Wolde God thilk men and wommen, (and namelich thilk wommen whiche maken hem silf so wise bi the Bible, that thei no deede wol|len allowe to be vertuose and to be doon in mannis vertuose conuersacioun, saue what thei kunnen fynde expresseli in the Bible, and ben ful coppid of speche anentis clerkis, and avaunten and profren hem silf whanne thei ben in her iolite and in her owne housis forto argue and dispute aȝens clerkis,) schulden not were couercheefis into tyme thei couthencouthe, MS. (first hand).be, MS. (first hand).e. Cor. xe. c. thus: Whether ȝe ete or drinke or eny other thing doon, alle do ȝe into the glorie of God.
Also y wolde that no suche wommen schulden anointe, waische, or bathe hem silf into tyme thei cou|then alle tho deedis grounde expressely in the Bible to be doon. Certis wommen mowe not so grounde the wering of her silken or lynnen couerchefis bi it what is writen ie. Thimothe, ije. c., that wommen schulden haue couenable habit, where Poul seith thus: Also wommen in couenable habit with schamefastnes and sobirnes araiyng hem silf, not in writhen heris, or in gold, or in peerlis, or preciose clooth; but that that bicometh wommen biheting pite, bi gode werkis. Forwhi in tho daies of Poul summe wommen weriden couenable habit, and ȝit noone wommen we|riden thanne eny lynnen or silken keuercheefis, but weriden her open heer, as sumwhat therto sownith this same now rehercid processe of Poul, and bettir it mai be proued bi processe of Poul Dict. Gr. and Rom. Ant., s. v. Ve|lum.
Also thus: Whanne Poul seith that wommen schul|den haue couenable habit, he pointith not to hem which habit is couenable to hem and which is not couenable to hem; neither he pointith more speciali that for to were lynnen or silken couercheefis is co|uenable; or that it is not couenable. Wherfore forto haue al this pointid he remittith and sendith us sum|where ellis, and wole that we seche and fynde sum where ellis than in Holi Scripture which habit is couenable, and which is not couenable; but so it is, that into nowhere ellis he remittith us or sendith us or ouȝte sende us for this purpos, saue in to doom of resoun and into lawe of kinde and moral philso|phie. Forwhi nowhere in Holi Scripture this mater is pointid and tauȝt expresseli. Wherfore it was the entent of Poul in the seid proces, ie. Thim. ije. c., that forto fynde, know, and iuge expresseli which habit is couenable, and whether forto were lynnen or silken couercheefis is couenable, we schulden go to doom of resoun and lawe of kinde. And, if this be trewe, thanne doom of resoun and lawe of kinde and not Holi Scripture muste expresseli grounde this, that wommen mowe weel were lynnen and silken couer|cheefis, if it be in eny wise groundable and leeful. Forwhi whanne Holi Scripture remittith from him or leueth to an other thing or sendith into an other thing eny certeyn kunnyng or knowing to be had, Holi Scripture not groundith, namelich not expresseli, thilk kunnyng and knowing; but the thing, into
schulde, MS. (first hand).
Ferthermore forto iustifie her bathing, waisching, and anointing wommen mowe not allegge the storie of Sussanne, Daniel xiije. c.; for thilk processe and storie is not Holi Writt, but Apocrif; and the verri book of Daniel (as miche as is Holi Writt) is eendid with the xije. chapiter of the same book, as IeromPræfat. in Dan. Proph. (Op. t. ix. pp. 1361, 1362. Ed. Vall. 1738.)
Thouȝ the thre reulis or supposiciouns, whiche y haue sett bifore in the xixe. chapiter, ben sufficient into the purpos of the iiij. conclusiouns there drawen out of hem, and into the purpos of a general proof there mad uponupon is inserted by a later (?) hand.Iust apprising of Holi Scripture. For there in the
Aftir that (fro the bigynnyng of this present chapi|ter hidir to) y haue thus confermed the firste andand the, MS. (first hand).e. conclusiouns, put and proued in the next bifore going chapiter, y putte now here the ve. conclusioun as for an eende of this present first parti, which ve. conclu|sioun is this. For to conuicte and ouercome tho erring
The iust apprising of Holi Scripture, and tho bookis of whiche mensioun is mad in these bokis, and the bitaking of these bookis and of tho bokis into her vce of reding and studiyng.
That this conclusioun is trewe y proue thus: For|to conuicte and ouercome tho seid erring persoones of the lay peple, and for to make hem leue her errouris, an excellent remedie is the dryuyng of hem into sure knowing or into weenyng or opinioun, that thei neden miche more to leerne and knowe into the profit and sure leernyng and knowing of Goddis lawe and seruice, than what thei mowe leerne and knowe bi her reed|ing and studiyng in the Bible oonli; but so it is, that forto dryue hem into the now seid knowing, trowing, or opinioun seruen at ful in an excellent maner the writing of this present firste parti in her modris lan|gage, with lijk writing of the book clepid Iust ap|prising of Holi Scripture; and bi so miche the better, if therto be sett the othere bokis named in these ij. And without the writing of this present first parti and of The iust apprising, or with out sum other writing lijk to hem, tho persoones wolen in no wise be so conuictid and ouercome, as assay therto mad bifore this present day thoruȝ this sixti wyntris by his ther yn vneffectual speding makith open experimental wit|nessing. Wherfore for to conuicte the seid persoones and forto make hem leue her errouris is an excellent remedie, (ȝhe, and as it were an vnlackeable remedie,) the seid writing of the now spoken bokis and the bitaking of tho seid bokis into the reeding and studi|yng of the same persoones.
The firste premisse of this proof and argument is trewe. Forwhi, if tho persoones were dryue into sure
schulde, MS. (first hand.)Verrili the thing which we knowen we now speken, and the thing which we han seen we witnessen:
And that the ije. premysse of the same proof and argument is trewe in his firste parti, it schal be openli knowen to ech diligent of tho bokis the ouerreder and attentijf studier. Forwhi this firste parti of this pre|sent book and The iust apprising of Holi Scripture as in generalte schewen vndoutabli and vnaȝenseiabily, that myche moral philsophie and miche lawe of kinde is algatis necessarie to be leerned, as weel as the Bible; and that withoute the leerning of the seid moral philsophie and lawe of kinde the Bible may not be ariȝt vndirstonde; and that the seid philsophie and lawe of kinde is the more parti of Goddis lawe and seruice; and the othere bokis, whiche ben named in these now seid ij. bokis, schewen the same in spe|cialte: and therfore the reders and studiers in these bookis muste nedis be dryue herto, that thei han nede to the help and counseil and direccioun of clerkis, and han nede to miche other thing than to the Bible aloon. And therfore the ije. premisse of the principal argument is trewe as for his first parti, whos also secunde parti is confermed bifore bi experience and assay spoken bifore, where the same secunde parti is sett forth in the principal argument.
And so, (sithen the bothe premissis of the prouyng argument ben trewe, and the argument is formali maad,) it muste needis be that the conclusioun of tho premissis is trewe, which is not ellis than this pre|sent ve. conclusioun. And therfore this present ve. conclusioun is nedis to be holde for trewe. For making and writing of whiche now bifore spokun and rehercid bokis; to the hiȝe aloon God, louyngist Lord a thousind sithis gramerci.Here eendith the firste party of the book clepid THE REPRESSER OF OVER MOCHE WIJTYNG THE CLERGIE.
EER than y schal come doun so speciali into the ije. iije. iiije. and v. parties of this present book forto reherce, proue, and iustifie the xi. gouernauncis, for whiche manye of the lay peple blamen ouermiche the clergie, y schal sende and putte bifore certeyn sup|posiciouns or reulis opene ynouȝ to be grauntid of ech man, and whiche schulen helpe and availe into the prouyng and iustifiyng of ech of tho xj. gouernauncis. Neuertheles, who euer schal thenke that thei ben ouer hard or not nedeful to be of him ouerrad and leerned, y wole vouche saaf that he ouerlepe hem and go at the firste into the ije. chapiter of this same ije. partie, vnto tyme his witt be growen hiȝer.
Of whiche supposiciouns or reulis the firste is this: Ech treuthe which is knowen in mannys vndirstonding is knowen bi doom of resoun rennyng vpon the mater of thilk trouthe, and upon hise causis and circum|stauncis and purtenauncis; or ellisellis in a later hand.the in a later hand.
The ije. reule or supposicioun is this: Al the kun|nyng or knowing gete and had in the firste of these ij. maners now seid is clepid Philsophie, bi cause it is had bi labour of kindeli witt without telling or witnessing fro aboue kinde; and al the kunnyng or knowing gete and had in the ije. now seid maner is credencecrdence, MS.Pure Divynite or Pure Theologie, forto speke propirli of divynite and theologie as it is dyuerse fro philsophie. This reule is open bi what y haue write in the book clepid TheThe in a later hand.iust apprising of Doctouris, and mai be proued thus. Sum kunnyng gete bi mannys resoning, with|out certifiyng ther of fro aboue kinde, is to be clepid Philsophie; and skile is noon whi eny oon such kunning or knowing schulde be seid Philsophie, more than ech other such kunnyng or knowing schulde be clepid Philsophie. Wherfore ech kunnyng or knowing, getun and had bi labour of mannis kindeli resoun without the seid affermyng and certifiyng mad ther upon fro God aboue, is to be clepid Philsophie. And if this be trewe, thanne, (sithen ech kunnyng or knowing of mannis vndirstonding is gete and had in this now seid maner, or ellis in certifiyng and assercioun maad fro God as the firste reule seid,) it muste nedis folewe that if eny kunnyng or knowing is to be clepid propirli divynyte (as he is dyuers fro philsophie), he must be oonli the kunnyng or knowing gete and had in the ije. now seid maner, that is to seie, bi assercioun and certificacioun and reuelacioun mad fro God to man. And so it is open that the ije. reule is trewe.
The iije. reule or supposicioun is this: If a treuthe be knowen bi doom of resoun, thanne it is knowen or sureli and sikirli; or it is knowen oonli probabili
The iiije. reule is this: If a treuthe be knowe sureli and sikirli, thanne thilk kunnyng or knowing is woned be clepid intellect, science, craft, or prudence. And if a treuthe be knowun oonli bi probabilnes and likelihode and not sureli, thanne thilk kunnyng or knowing is woned be clepid opinioun vpon the mater of science, craft, or prudence; for vndirstonding of which now spokun names recours is to be had into The folewer to the donet, the
The ve. reule or supposicioun is this: If a treuthe which we mowe not knowe in the now bifore seid maner bi doom of resoun, withoute assercioun of an other trewe persoon, be knowen in mannys vndir|stonding bi the seid assercioun or witnessing of a trewe persoon, which assercioun is the ground of feith; thanne it is knowe bi assercioun or witnessing of God doon bi his Holi Scripture, or bi eeldist and lengist vce of bileeuyng in the Chirche, or bi godli myracle doon into witnessing of it, or bi speche of God doon bi him silf, or bi his suer messanger with|oute writing; and in ech of these caasis the knowing is holi feith or goostli feith. Or ellis it is knowe bi assercioun or witnessing of man or aungel not as messanger of God; and that, or bi his writing in storiyng or cronycleing, or bi spech of him silf, or of his messanger without writing: and in ech of these caasis is credence or worldli feith and not goostli feith, sich as is in the next maner now bifore seid. Al this is so open to be grauntid, that who euer
The vje. supposicioun or reul is this: What euer thing is knowe in mannys vndirstonding to be vn|trewe is knowe to be vntrewe bi the same ij. kindis of groundis bifore rehercid, bi which treuthe is knowun, as ben the doom of resoun and the asser|cioun of a trewe persoon; and so forth descending into membrisinto the membris, MS.; but the is cancelled by a later hand.e. reule hem dividith and departith. This reule is openli trewe. Forwhi what other ground than eny of these now rehercid couthe be assigned, forto bi it knowe a thing to be vntrewe, no man can seie. Also, whan euer a thing is knowun to be vntrewe, than al it which is ther inusual division in this MS.e. reule schewen. Wherfore nedis this, that this is vn|trewe, is knowe bi the same kindis of groundis oonli. And therfore this vje. reule is nedis to be grauntid as for trewe.
This vije. reule is this: Ech treuthe knowun in mannis vnderstonding is a treuthe considerable or spe|culable or biholdable oonli, that is to seie, such as where vpon neither mannis doing in moral conuersa|cioun, neither mannis making in craft fallith; as is this, that aungelis ben vnbodili substauncis; and this, that the planetis moven fro eest into west, and suche othere; or it is a treuthe doable or makeable, that
by added by a later hand.
The viije. reule is this: Ech thing, which is doon of man in his moral conuersacioun, is such that doom of resoun or the bifore seid ground of feith it ap|proueth; as is, that God is to be loued, and oure neiȝbour is to be loued; and as is, that we loke to be baptisid; and so of othere: or is such that doom of resoun or the bifore seid ground of feith it re|proueth; as is this, that a man take his neiȝboris wijf into fleischli comunyng; and this,thus, MS.
The ixe. reule or supposicioun is this: Ech doable thing longing to moral conuersacioun, which thing doom of resoun or ground of feith approueth, is lee|ful; and it is leeful in propre maner forto clepe a thing leeful, for that it is approued bi doom of resoun or bi ground of feith: and ech doable thing don in moral conuersacioun, which thing doom of resoun or ground of feith reproueth, is vnleeful; and it is vn|leeful in contrarie maner to the now seid maner of
The xe. reule or supposicioun is this: Al doable thing which in propre maner now bifore sett is nei|ther leeful neither vnleeful, and namelich if it be not vnleeful, mai and is woned conuenientli ynouȝ as in a larger speche to be seid and clepid leeful; and that for as miche as ech doable thing, for whos doing the doer is not to be blamed and to be punyschid, mai be clepid leeful: and so al such thing is woned to be clepid leeful, thouȝ not so propirli as it is leeful which doom of resoun or ground of feith approueth.
I wote not that it is worth forto talke inin is interlineated by a later (?) hand, which has also altered the preceding word by an erasure.
AFTIR whiche x. reulis or supposiciouns y procede thus. The firste gouernaunce for which the lay peple ouermyche and vntreuly wijten the clergie is the hauyng and vsing of ymagis.
Vpon which gouernaunce y sette forth this firste conclusioun. The hauing and the setting vp of yma|gis in chirchis and the vsing of hem as rememoratijf
e. c. thus: Thou schalt not make to thee eny graued thing; and the same text word bi word in processe bifore and aftir is writun Deu|tron. ve. c. in the bigynnyng; but so it is, that neither this text neither eny of the othere aftir to be rehercid textis of Holi Scripture reproueth or lettith ymagis to be had and to be vsid in the maner now spokun in this present firste conclusioun. Wherfore this present ie. conclusioun is trewe.
That this now spokun text writun Exodi xxe. c. and Deut. ve. c. reproueth not the bifore sett first gouernaunce aboute ymagis hauyng and vsing, y proue bi vj.v. MS.; but the chapter contains six 'principal arguments.'Thou schalt not make to thee eny graued thing, ȝit he bade hem make two ymagis of cherubyn of gold, to be sett at the eendis of the cheest of witnes in the ynner partie of the tabernacle; as it is open Exodi xxve. c.; but so it is, that God was not con|trairie to him silf in his comaundis and biddingis: Wherfore bi tho wordis, Thou schalt not make to thee eny graued thing, God vndirstode not forto weerne hem and for to forbede hem make eny graued ymagis, namelich into the entent and vce bifore seid; for ellis God had ben contrarie to him silf in hise biddingis.
The ije. argument is this: Numeri xxje. c. it is writun, that God bade the peple of Israel forto make a brasen ymage of a serpent as for a signe, and forto sette him up an hiȝe in the eend of a long pole for to be biholde of alle the peple: Wher|fore it mai not be that God, bi tho wordis seide to the same peple, Thou schalt not make to thee eny graued thing, that is to seie, not eny graued ymage, that bi tho wordis he vndirstode noon graued ymage to be mad. Forwhi thanne God had be contrarie to him silf; but if thou woldist seie that God wole now weel allowe the clergie forto haue and vse ymagis yȝutte of gold and siluer and bras and of othere me|tallis, and noone ymagis graued of tre or of stoon: which seiyng is not but a feyned trifle. Forwhi in kinde of ymagis no difference the grauyng makith fro the ȝutting, or the ȝutting fro the grauyng, neither the peinting fro the grauyng; and also this seiyng lettith not what the lay partie is aboute forto lette in the clergie, that noon ymagis of God or of Seintis be in chirchis: and therfore this seiyng is to be cast aside as a iaperi.
Also iije. Regum vje. c. it is writun, that Salomon made in the temple ij. ymagis of cherubyn of tree. Therfore open it is that thei were graued, and hem he couered and clothid al-aboutealaboute, MS.out boocing, MS.stories, MS. Sec 1 Kings vii. 24, where Wiclif's version has stories.e. Reg. vije. c. Also in the veil which heng bifore the dore of the temple Salomon made weue ymagis of cherubin, as it is writun ije. Paralipo. iije. c. And for alle these dedis he was weel allowid of God, as it is open ynouȝ iije. Reg. ixe. c. and ije. Paralipo. vije. c. And this myȝte not stonde, if God hadde forbode alle graued ymagis to be had and vsid. Wherfore the dew vndirstonding of thilk text Exodi xxe. c. and Deut. ve. c., Thou schalt not make to thee eny graued thing, that is to seie, eny graued ymage, is not to be vndirstonde so that he weerned eny graued ymagis to be had; and sithen no thingis ben to be had with oute vce of hem, (for thanne thei were had in veyn,) it folewith that thilk same text weerneth not graued ymagis to be vsid.
And ferthermore, if to the peple of Israel it was leeful forto make and rere up an hiȝe a brasen ymage of a serpent, forto biholde it; wondir it were but that it were leeful to Cristen men forto make and rere up an yȝe an ymage of Crist crucified, forto biholde into it; and if it was leeful to the seid oold peple forto haue xij. ymagis of oxen bering vp the brasen see, forto biholde hem, wonder it were whi it schulde be vnleeful to Cristen peple forto haue xij. ymagis of the xij. Apostiles, and forto biholde hem in remembring that the Apostilis were bede go and baptise al the world in water. And therfore the aȝenseiers her of ben to be reiatid and rebukid as nyce, fonned, wilful, wantoun, scisme sowers and dis|turblers of the peple, in mater which thei mowe neuer her entent bringe aboute.
The iije. argument is this: It is writun in the Newe Testament, Matheu xxije. c., whanne the Iewis askiden of Crist "whether it was leeful or no forto
Schewe ȝe to me the koyne of the money, and thei offriden to him a denarie. Thanne Crist askide: Whos is this ymage and the aboute|writing?aboute writing, MS.; but aboutewriting just below.It is the ymage and the aboute-writing of Cesar, the Emperour. Thanne seid Crist: Ȝelde ȝe therfore to the Emperour that that is his, and ȝelde ȝe to God what is Goddis. Lo how Crist approued weel hem forto ȝelde to the Emperour the denarie, in which the ymage of the Emperour was graued; and alle men witen weel that thei myȝten not ȝelde to the Emperour such money so koyned, but if thei schulden haue and vse the ymage of the Emperour graued in thilk money. Wherfore nedis folewith that Crist approued weel hem forto haue and vce a graued ymage of the Emperour, as of her souereyn lord in erthe. An whi not thanne Crist schulde allowe and approue men forto haue and vse a grauen ymage of the Emperour in heuene, as of her Souereyn Lord in heuene? And at the leest herbi folewith needis, that bi the seid text Exodi xxe. c. and Deutron. ve. c., Thou schalt not make to thee eny graued ymage, is not forbode alle graued ymagis to be had and vsid; for thanne God hadde be contrarie to him silf.
The iiije. principal argument is this: If in sum other place of Holi Scripture than in the bifore alleg|gid text Exodi xxe. c. and Deut. ve. c. it is founde that bi this word "graued thing" is signified no thing ellis than a graued God or a mawmet, certis no man mai cleyme and avowe and stonde bi vttirli, that in the bifore rehercid text Exodi xxe. c. and Deut. ve. c. this word "graued thing" schulde needis bitokene a graued ymage dyuers fro a mawmet and fro a graued feyned God. Forwhi no skile he can fynde whi this word "graued thing" in eny othere placis of Scripture
of inserted in MS. by a later hand; the same expression occurs more than once below, where it is written at length by the first hand.e. c. and Deut. ve. c.; but so it is that in manye othere placis of Holi Scripture than Exodi xxe. c. and Deut. ve. c. this word "graued thing" bito|keneth no thing ellis than a graued God and a mawmet graued, takun as a God and for a God, as now anoon aftir schal be proued. Wherfore this text bifore alleggid Exodi xxe. c. and Deut. ve. c. lettith in no point graued ymagis to be had and to be vsid.
Lo y rede Abacuk ije. c. thus: Lo, what profitith the graued thing, for his maker graued it; a wellid thing to gidere and a fals ymage, for the maker therof hopid in making, that he made doumbe symy|lacris? Wo to him that seith to a tre, Wake thou; Rise thou, [toa stoon, being stille. Whether he schal mowe teche? Lo, this is couered with gold and sil|uer, and no spirit is in the entrailis. Forsothe the Lord is in his holi temple; al erthe be stille fro his face. Thus miche there what man mai seie, which is not mad or wood, but that in this now rehercid pro|ces of Abacuk, this word "graued thing" bitokeneth needis cost a fals and a feyned graued God? Forwhi this word "graued thing" bitokeneth the thing into which men hopiden, and to which men spaken and seiden, Rise thou, and which men weeneden to haue be quyk; and therfore nedis "graued thing" in this place is take not for an ymage of God, but for an ymage pretendid to be God. And therfore, thouȝ in noon other place of Holi Scripture than in this oon place, dyuers fro the xxe. c. of Exodi and the ve. c. of Deut. this word "graued thing" muste nedis bito|kene oonli a graued God, it were ynouȝ forto schewe that the text Exodi xxe. c. and Deut. ve. c. bifore
Thou shalt not make to thee a graued thing, constreyneth not that this word "graued thing" in thilk text bitokeneth an ymage of God not pretendid to be a God. But ȝit ouer this, in mo than in a dosen placis of Holi Scripture, this word "graued thing" is take in lijk maner as it is take in the now rehercid processe of Abacuk ije. c. for a graued God. For whiit must be so understood in' to have been ac|cidentally omitted, or else that the sentence is wholly ungrammatical.e.Read xxvjee. c. soone aftir the bigynnyng, ije. Reg. ve. c. aboute the myddis, ije. Paralip. xxxiije. c. soone aftir the bigyn|nyng, Isaie xxxe. c. in the middis, and in the xle. c. aftir the myddis, and in the xlije. c. soone after the bigynnyng and also in the myddis, and in the xliiije. c. aftir the bigynnyng and eftsoone aboute the myddis, also notabili Ieremye the xe. c. aboute the myddis, and Daniel the xje. c. after the bigynnyng, and notabili Michee in the ve. c. aftir the myddis, and in the Sauter in psalmis, as in the psalme which bigynneth thus: In exitu Israel de Ægypto, et cætera, and in the psalme which bigynneth thus: Laudate nomen Domini, laudate serui Domini, et cætera. Wherfore if it like to eny man for to holde, that in lijk maner this word "graued thing" in the text al|leggid Exodi xxe. c. and Deut. ve. c. bitokeneth a graued fals pretendid God, certis no man mai dryue him ther fro; and therfore folewith that this text Exodi xxe. c. and Deut. ve. c. soone after the bigyn|nyng weerneth not neither reproueth alle graued ymagis to be had and vsid; neither eni man may seie for vndoutable sooth, that in the seid text Exodi xxe. c. and Deut. ve. c. is groundid that noon graued ymagis ouȝte be had and be vsid. Who therfore may make him so boold for to reproue alle
e. c. and bi lijk text Deut. ve. c., saue he which hath not therwith seen the othere now alleggid placis of Holi Scripture, (in which is conteyned also this word "graued thing,") and is therfore ouerhasti iuger and sentence ȝeuer, eer he haue seen al that ouȝte be seen bifore sentence bi the text Exodi xxe. c. to be ȝouun? And alle such ouerhasti iugers and wijters God amende, for miche harme han thei doon. God lete hem do no more! Wolde God, that bi the schame which thei ben worthie in this partie for evidences now mad, thei wolden be waar of like defautis in othere maters forto iuge, eer thei ben ful leerned ther yn. Ferther|more, othere evidencis for myn entent in this mater and for confermyng of these here maad argumentis into the proof of the firste conclusioun y haue sett in the ije. partie of The donet into Cristen religioun, the
The ve. principal argument is this: If this word "graued thing" muste needis in the text of Exodi xxe. c. and Deut. ve. c. bitokene no thing ellis than a graued God, thilk text weerneth not graued ymagis to be had and to be vsid not as Goddis. This ech man wole sone graunte; but so it is that thilk word "graued thing" in the seid text Exodi xxe. c. and Deut. ve. c. muste nedis signifie and bitokene no thing ellis than a graued fals God, as now anoon after schal be proued. Wherfore nedis it muste be holde, (it may be noon otherwise,) that the seid text of Exodi xxe. c. and Deut. ve. c. weerneth not and reproueth not vtterli ymagis of God and of Seintis to be had and to be vsid. That the ije. premisse of this argument is trewe y proue thus: This word "graued thing" in
e. c. and Deut. ve. c. muste nedis bitokene al maner graued ymage indifferentli, so that therbi al grauedgraue, MS.; the d is added above by a later (?) hand.e. c. and Deut. ve. c. this word "graued thing" bitokeneth in the firste of these now spokun ij. maners. Forwhi ther aȝens meeten the iij. principal argumentis bifore goyng prouing vnsoilabili that thanne God were con|trarie to him silf. Wherfore nedis folewith that in the seid text of Exodi xxe. c. and Deut. ve. c. this word "graued thing" muste nedis bitokene in the ije. now spokun maner, that is to seie, that he bitokene and signifie oonli a graued God; and so the ije. premisse of this ve. principal argument is openly at the fulle proued: and therbi the ve. argument proueth vnsoilabli his entent. And thus myche fro the bi|gynnyng of the ie. principal argument in to the eende of this present ve. argument is ynouȝ for schewing, that the seid text Exodi xxe. c. and Deut. ve. c., Thou schalt not make to thee eny graued thing, reproueth not and lettith not graued ymagis of very God and of Seintis to be had and to [be] be must be inserted, or to must be cancelled.
The vje. principal argument for the firste conclu|sioun is this: Alle othereothere is interlineated by a later (?) but early hand.e. c., Ysaie xliiije. c., and Baruk the vje. c., whiche ben ouer long to be rehercid word bi word here;
the, MS. (first hand).
Also the place of Holi Writt iije. Reg. xje. c., where into rebuke of Salomon it is rehercid that he, fonned and bidotid with hise wijfis, made ydolis false Goddis and worschipid hem, is not forto reproue alle maners of ymagis had and vsid in the chirche. Forwhi he was so miche fonned, masid, and dotid, that he wor|schipid tho ydolis as Goddis, for so seith Holi Scrip|ture there; but so no persoon dooth in these daies aboute the ymagis had and vsid in the chirche. Wherfore men now hauyng and vsing ymagis in the chirche ben not in the caas in which Salomon was, and therfore thilk proces so writun and speking of Salomon iije. Reg. xje. c. weerneth not grauedgrauēd, MS.e. c. toward the eende, which Poul seide thus: God that made the world and alle thingis that ben in it, this, for he is Lord of heuen and ofof is added by a later hand.erthe, dwellith not in templis mad with hond, neither is worschipid with mannys hondis, neither hath nede of eny thing; for he ȝeueth lijf to alle men and brething and alle thingis, and made of oon alle the kinde of men forto enhabite on al the face of the erthe, deter|mynyng tymes ordeyned and termes of the dwelling of hem, to seke God, if perauenture thei feelen himhim is interlineated by a later hand, but the sign of omission is by the first hand, apparently.or fynden; thouȝ he be not fer fro ech of ȝou, for in him we lyuen, moven, and ben, weerneth not neither forbedith alle graued ymagis to be had and vsid in the chirche. Forwhi Poul dooth no more in thilk processe, than that he makith this skile: "God is such oon, that he nedith not to haue housis ouer him for to couere him fro reyne and fro othir sturne wedris, neither he nedith housis to be lockid, leste men steele awey him or his godis; and these ydolis or symylacris, whiche ȝe worschipen here in this hous, neden these thingis; and therfore ȝe maken to hem these thingis. Wherfore noon of these ydolis whiche ȝe worschipen in these housis, (whether thilk ydol be Saturne or Iupiter or Mars or thilk ydol which ȝe clepen Vnknowen God,) is verri God." Certis the proces there had weel seen schewith weel, that more than this Poul dooth not there in thilk processe; and therfore thilk processe hath no strengthe forto weerne ymagis of God to be had and vsid in the chirche, so that thei be not worschipid as for very God him silf. Also the proces writun iiije. Reg. xvijeRead xviijee. c., weerneth not ymagis to be mad and had and vsid in the chirche. Forwhi how schulde or myȝte thilk ymage haue be broke, but if he had bifore be? And therfore thilk proces rather confermeth ymagis to mowe law|fulli be, than that thei alle to be is vnleeful. Al that this proces wole or may dryue to is this: That ymagis mowe leeffulli be broke, whanne thei ben vsid in ydolatrie irremediabili, for so it was in the caas of the brasen serpent in the tyme of Ezechie, as the storie schewith; or at the leeste, that ymagis mowe leefulli be brokun, whanne more harme irreme|diabili cometh bi the hauyng and vsing of hem, than is al the good which cometh bi the hauynghauyng of hem, MS. (first hand).the, MS. (first hand).e. Reg. xviije. c. And therfore thilk proces is ouerfeble forto weerne ymagis to be had and vsid, whanne thei ben had and vsid withoute ydolatrie, or with ydolatrie remediable, or with other harme remediable, namelich lasse than is the good comyng bi the vce of tho ymagis.
Finali, therfore, y mai conclude bi al what is seid fro the bigynnyng of the ije. chapiter in this present secunde partie hidir to, that Holi Scripture weerneth not neither reproueth ymagis to be had and be vsid. And sithen her with it is open, that neither long customed vce of bileeuyng in the chirche weerneth and reproueth hem, neither eny myracle doon bi God into her reprouyng reproueth or weerneth hem, it folewith that noon sufficient ground of feith reproueth and weerneth hem. And so is the firste conclusioun bifore sett sufficientli proued.
THE ije. principal conclusioun is this: Doom of naturali weel disposid resoun weerneth not and re|proueth not ymagis to be had and to be vsid as rememoratijf and mynding signes. That this con|clusioun is trewe y proue thus: If eny doom of re|soun schulde weerne and reproue ymagis to be thus had and vsid, thilk doom of resoun schulde be oon of these iij. doomys, of whiche the firste is this: That peple doon ydolatrie bi and with tho ymagis. The ije. is this: That the peple trowen or bileeuen summe wrong and vntrewe opiniouns bi occasioun of ymagis, as that sum godli vertu is in tho ymagis, or that tho ymagis doon myraclis, or that thei ben quyk and seen, heeren,and heere, MS. (first hand).e. doom is: That ymagis ben occasiouns of summe moral vicis in the peple, as of overmyche worschipingworchiping, MS. (first hand).
The ije. premysse of this now maad argument, as anentis the firste doom, schal be openli proued thus: Peple in hauyng and vsing ymagis sett vp in the chirche doon noon ydolatrie by hem. Forwhi ydolatrie is neuere doon,dooū or dooū, MS.
The strengthe of this argument stondith vpon the very knowing what ydolatrie is. And sithen ydolatrie is no thing ellis than what is now seid to be, the argu|ment now maad muste needis haue his entent. Ful ofte haue y herd men and wommen vnwiseli iuge and dif|fame ful scherpli weelnyȝ alle Cristene to be ydolatrers, and al for the hauyng and vsing of ymagis. And ȝit whanne it hadde be askid of hem what ydolatrie is, forsothe thei couthe not seie neither feele what it is in his trouthe, thouȝ thei schulden haue wonne therbi al the worldis blis or the blis of heuen. And whether this was not an horrible abhomynacioun and a vile stinking presumpcioun hem forto so sturdili bi manye ȝeeris iuge and diffame bothe the clergi and weelnyȝ al the lay party of Goddis chirche in so greet a cryme, which thei couthen neither myȝten proue to be doon, (for whi thei wisten not what thing thilk cryme is, and therfore thei myȝten not knowe whether it was doon
couthe, MS. (first hand).
Perauenture thei wolen seie thus: Manye hundridis of men clepiden this ymage the Trinyte, and thei clepen this ymage Crist, and this ymage the Holi Goost, and this ymage Marie, and this ymage Seint Petir, and this ymage Seint Poul, and so forth of othere; and thei wolden not so clepe, but if thei feel|iden and bileeueden withinneforth as thei clepen with|outeforth; for ellis thei weren double. Wherfore alle tho hundridis bileeuen amys aboute tho ymagis. Her|to it is ful liȝt forto answere. Whanne y come to thee in thi parisch chirche thou wolt perauenture seie to me thus: Lo here lieth my fadir and there lieth my graunt fadir, and in the other side lieth my wijf; and ȝit thei liggen not there, but oonli her boonys liggen there. If y come to thee into thin halle or chaumbir thou wolt perauenture seie to me in de|scryuyng the storie peintid or wouun in thin halle or chaumbre: "Here ridith King Arthir, and there fiȝtith Iulius Cesar, and here Hector of Troie throwith doun a knyt," and so forth. For thouȝ thou thus seie thou wolte not holde thee forto seie ther yn amys. Schal y therfore bere thee hoond that thou trowist thi
clepe, MS. (first hand).of thing, MS. (first hand).that is interlineated by a later (?) hand.
That Holi Writt confermeth weel and allowith weel this answere, that the ymagis of thingis mowe weel be clepid bi the names of the thingis of whiche thei ben ymagis, lo, Sir, it is writun Exod. xxve. c. that God bade to Moyses thus: Thou schalt make on euer|either side of Goddis answering place ij. cherubims of gold and beten out with hamer; oon cherub in the oon side, and an other cherub in the other side of Goddis answering place. Now y aske of thee, whe|ther God bade Moyses make ij. quyke aungelis of cherubym, or ellis ij. ymagis of cherubyim?cherubym.e. c., the ymagis of cherubim ben clepid cherubim, but also in lijk maner bi mo than half a dosen othere placis of Scripture the ymagis of cherubim ben clepid cherubim, as Exodi xxxvje. c., ie. Reg. iiije. c., ije. Reg. vje. c., iije. Reg. vje. c., iije. Reg. vije. c., iije. Reg. viije. c., ie. Paralip. xxviije. c., ije. Paralip. iije. c., ije. Paralip. ve. c., whos textis or processis weren ouerlong to be here writun and rehercid. Also in the c. and xiije. Psalme, where it is spokun of ydolis, that is to seie of graued
Thei han mouth and thei schulen not speke, thei han iȝen and thei schulen not se, thei han eeris and thei schulen not heere, thei han feet and thei schulen not walke. And ȝit ech man wote weel that these ydolis as thei in hem silf weren not but ymagis, so thei hadden not but the ymagis of mouth and the ymagis of iȝen and of eeris and of feet. Wherfore here in this Psalme Holy Writt clepid the ymagis of membris vndir the name of verri membris; and so herbi my bifore sette answere is confermed, whanne y seide that the comoun speche of the peple, calling the ymagis of God bi the name of God (or of the Trinyte), of Iesus, of the Holi Goost, makith not that the callirs ben ydolatreris; neither that therfore doom of resoun schulde schewe ymagis to be not had and vsid, as that bicause that ydolatrie is doon bi hem.
Thou maist not seie that hauers and vsers of ymagis ben ydolatrers; and that for thei trowen sum godli vertu to be in thilk ymage. Forwhi y aske of thee what vertu clepist thou a godli vertu? If thou clepist oonli thilk vertu to be a godli vertu which mai not be but oonli in God, certis thanne is this trewe that no Cristen man holdith or trowith eny godli vertu to be in eny ymage. Forwhi no Cristen man trowith eny ymage to be God him silf; and herwith ech Cristen man knowith openli, that no thing may haue such as now is seid a godli vertu, saue God him silf. Wherfore no Cristen man trowith eny ymage to haue such now seid godli vertu; and therfore thou canst not herbi proue, that eny Cristen man hauing and vsing ymagis is an ydolatrer. If thou clepist a godli vertu such a vertu which is causid of God into a creature aboue the worching of kinde, and in maner not woned miche to be doon coursli, forsothe thanne is this trewe, that thouȝ Cristen men trowen that ymagis han such vertu, ȝit tho men
which is added in the MS. by a later (?) hand.
And ferthermore, thouȝ a Cristen man worschipe an ymage more than dewli, so that he worschip not it as God and with worschip of herte withyn forth dew to God oonli, ȝhe, and thouȝ he take occasioun bi ymagis to do synne of pride or of coueitise or othere moral synnes, ȝit fer is al this fro ydolatrie. Forwhi in noon of these casis the man takith and makith eny creature to be his God; and therfore the firste bifore spokun doom of resoun, which is bering an hond Cristen men vsing ymagis to be gilti of ydolatrie, is not sufficient forto reproue and weerne ymagis to be had and vsid of Cristen men as rememoratijf or mynding signes or tokenes. Forwhi thilk doom of resoun and thilk bering an hond and putting upon men, that thei ben ther fore and ther yn ydolatrers, is schewid now bifore to be vntrewe.
THE ije. bifore sett and spoken doom of resoun, wijting hauers and vsers of ymagis to be gilti of vntrewe feith or vntrewe opinioun had upon tho ymagis, is not sufficient for to reproue and weerne the hauyng and the vsing of hem as for mynding signes. Forwhi thilk doom and thilk wijting and bering an hond is vntrewe.
And that y schal proue, so that y sette bifore a reule or supposicioun which is this. Sum vntrewe opinioun of men is such that for it her conuersa|cioun is the worse morali, for it is leding into deedis whiche ben grete moral vicis; as this opinioun, that fleischli comunyng bitwixe a syngil man and a syngil womman doon bi her fre consent is no synne; and this opinioun, ech man forto take as myche as hym lustith and may holde withoute clayme and victorie of hise neiȝboris worldli good is no synne; and this opinioun, a man for to smyte and bete his neiȝbour a this side deeth for wraththe or trespace is no synne; and suche othere opiniouns. Sum other vntrewe opinioun of men is such that for it her conuersacioun schal not be maad the worse moralli, or ellis not aȝens notable, good, vertuose moralte; as is this opinioun, that a man which stale sumtyme a birthan of thornis was sett in to the moone, there forto abide for euere; and this opinioun, that Seint Michaelis bonys resten in the Mount Michael; and this opinioun, that iij. sistris (whiche ben spiritis) comen to the cradilis of infantis, forto sette to the babe what schal bifalle to him; and suche othere manye. Forwhi more than the dotage or deceit or folynes or the bigiling of the persoones so trowing,
Thanne upon this reule or supposicioun y argue thus: For noon such fonnys opinioun, of which it is now last spokun in the ije. parti of this reule or sup|posicioun, is eny long bifore stabilid gouernaunce to be left and to be leid aside, which is in him silf resonable, honest, and expedient, namelich if thilk fonnysch opinioun may soone bi wise men be schewid to the holder to be vntrewe. But so it is that these opiniouns, bi whiche symple men trowen at sumtyme that an ymage hath withinne him vertu, such as God mai putte into a creature; or that the ymage dooth miraclis, or spekith at sumtyme, or heerith alwey, or swetith at sum tyme, ben opi|niouns of the ije. now seid soort; that for hem discrete men mowe oonli lauȝe at suche folies of men, as thei doon at her othere folies, of whiche no moral harme cometh. Wherfore for noon such opinioun the hauyng, and the vpsetting of ymagis, whilis therbi myche moral good cometh, (as schal be proued aftir and as is proued al redi in The book of worschiping,) ouȝte be left and leid aside; namelich, sithen these now seid folisch opiniouns mowe liȝtli be schewid to her holders forto be vntrewe.
Confirmacioun herto is this: Whanne Seint Bernard lyued he dide manye myraclis bi his lijf, and whanne Seint Nicholas lyued, and whanne Seint Martyn lyued, thei diden many myraclis bi her lijf; and therfore manye men (as it is likeli) trowiden in tho daies, that these nownow is interlineated in a later (?) hand.take is interlineated in a later (?) hand.
Also thouȝ men trowen that my precious stoonys, whiche y haue, han vertues whiche in trouthe thei han not, schal y therfore breke hem or caste hem awey, that suche lewid men haue no such wrong opinioun vpon hem? Also if men trowe that sum aldirman in Londoun is miche riccher than in trouthe he is, schal therfore thilk aldirman be slayn or be banyschid out of the citee, that men haue no such folisch vntrewe opinioun upon his ricches? God forbede. Wherfore lijk wise it is to be holde in this present purpos, that the having and vsingthe vsing, MS. (first hand).e. bifore spokun soort vpon tho ymagis and vpon the vsis of hem.
And ȝit ferthermore, that men mowe haue withoute blame and withoute folie this opinioun that summe ymagis at sumwhile sweten, and that bi hem speche is mad, and that at sumwhile thei ben moued fro oon place to an other place withoute mannys therto doing, and suche othere like opiniouns, schal be schewid after in the ije. principal gouernaunce, whanne y schal trete of pilgrimage. And thus myche is ynouȝ, that the ije. bifore spokun doom of resoun is not sufficient forto lette ymagis to be had and vsid.
That the iije. bifore spokun and sett doom of re|soun, which is that ymagis ouȝtenouȝte, MS. (first hand).'vicis,' we should add 'is not suffi|cient forto reproue the hauyng of ymagis vttirly,' or something to that effect.e. bifore seid and sett doom of resoun is not sufficient for to lette the having and the vsing of ymagis, but if he schulde lette the hauyng and the vsing of alle maners of craftis, and the hauing and vsing of Holi Scripture among the lay persoones, ȝhe, and but if he schulde lette the being of alle preestis and of alle prechouris, namelich sithen the worschiping, bi which perauenture manye persoones worschipen ymagis more than resoun wole, is not a greet vice; so that thilk worschiping be such, that thei not worschipen tho ymagis as God: and bifore it is schewid, that no persoones taken eny ymage for verri God.
Confirmacioun to this argument is this: Summen wolen knele deppir and louȝer to a knyȝt, than summe othere men wolen; ȝhe, and thei wolen sixe sithis more preise and worschipe him in word and dide, than summe othere men wolen;wolen is interlineated by a later hand.bi is interlineated by a later (?) hand.
Another confirmacioun into this present purpos may be this: If y haue a fruyteful tre, which in oon or in summe of hise braunchis hath a canker, schal y therfore hewe doun al my tre? Goddis forbode y schulde be so lewid; but y ouȝt rather pare awey the canker, and sette medicyn therto, and lete the tre stonde forto bringe forth good fruyt. Also in caas that this tree in summe of his bowis bringith forth soure applis and in summe othere bowȝes sweete hap|plis and gode, as y haue knowe so to be trewe in a tre which hath come of dyuerse graffis in oon stok, or if perauenture many of tho applis roten upon the tre, eer it be tyme to schake the tree, schal y therfore hewe doun the tree? Nay, nai, y ouȝte cast awei what is badde, ȝhe, and helpe cure what is badde, and kepe what is good. Wherfore bi like skile in oure present purpos a badde husbondriehusbondie, MS. (first hand).for is interlineated in a later hand.e. bifore spokun and sett doom of resoun is not sufficient forto weerne and lette the hauyng and vsing of ymagis into rememoratijf or mynding signes.
And so fynaly it is lad thus fer forth fro the bi|gynnyng of the iije. chapiter hidir to, that no doom of resoun werneth and lettith ymagis as now is seid to be had and to be vsid. And here yn eendith the proof of the ije. principal conclusioun.
THE iije. principal conclusion is this: It is not vn|leeful ymagis to be had and vsid as rememoratijf signes. This conclusioun y proue thus: What euer gouernaunce neither Holi Scripture, neither doom of resoun, neither mennys iust positijf lawe weerneth, is not vnleeful; but so it is, that for to haue and vse ymagis as mynding signes is not weerned bi Holi Scripture, as is open bi the firste principal conclusioun; neither it is weerned bi doom of resoun, as it is open bi the ije. principal conclusioun; neither it is weerned bi eny mennys iust positijf lawe, as it is open ynow to alle men. Wherfore this iije. principal conclusioun is needis trewe, that it is not vnleeful ymagis to be had and vsid as rememoratijf signes of God, and of his benefetis of Seintis, and of her conuersacioun.
The iiije. principal conclusion is this: It is leeful, in the maner of leefulnes spokun bifore in the firste chapiter of this ije. partie in the xe. reule or sup|posicioun, that ymagis be had and vsid as reme|moratijf signes in the maner now last bifore spokun. That this conclusioun is trewe, y proue thus: What euer gouernaunce is not vnleeful, is leeful in this maner of leefulnes, as it is open bi the now seid xe. reule or supposicioun: but so it is, that the now seid hauyng and vsing of ymagis is not vnleeful, as it is open ynouȝ bi the iije. next bifore going prin|cipal conclusioun. Wherfore needis folewith that this present iiije. conclusioun is trewe.
The ve. principal conclusioun is this: Holi Scripture bothe in the Oold Testament and in the Newe al|lowithallowith and approueth, MS. (first hand).e. chapiter in the iij. firste principal argumentis to the first principal conclusioun. Wherfore this ve. principal conclusioun is to be holde for trewe.
Also, Matheu xxvje. c., Crist allowid and approued the deede of Marie Magdalen, in that that sche vsid the oynement as a seable and a smelleable rememo|ratijf signe, and in that that sche vsid the dedethe dede is interlineated by an early but later hand.an oynting, MS.What ben ȝe greuose to this womman? Sche hath wrouȝt a good werk into me. Where euer this gospel schal be prechid in al the world, it schal be seid that sche dide it into mynde of him."dicetur et quod hæc fecit in memo|riam ejus," (αὐτῆς [Matth.26:13]), Vulg., occurs in both forms of Wiclif's version, from which this citation is mostly taken.certis is added by a later hand.allowid and approved, MS. (first hand).
Also anin other, MS. (first hand).e. principal conclusioun is sett bifore in the firste parti of this
e.]bisetting, MS.e. principal conclusioun is vn|doutabili proued bi this meene; that whanne euere Holi Scripture biddith, counseilith, or allowith eny eende, he ther yn and ther bi biddith, counseilith, or allowith, or approueth ech meene profitable into the same eende. Se there who so wole the proof mad there in his lengthe and forme.
Also nomanThe book of Sacramentis and in The bookisbook, MS. (first hand).of Baptim and of Eukarist. Wherfore Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament witnessith thus miche in this purpos, that forto haue and vse seable rememoratijf signes is leeful, expedient, and profitable; for ellis the sacramentis of Crist weren vnleeful, vnexpedient, and vnprofitable. And thanne her of ferther thus: If and whanne it is leeful and expe|dient forto haue and vse eny seable rememoratijf signes being lasse lijk to the thingis signified, it is leeful and expedient forto make, haue, and vse signes being more like to the same thingis signified. Forwhi the likenes of a signe to his significat, (that is to seie, to the thing signified bi him,) wole helpe the signe forto signifie and forto make remembraunce the bettir upon the thing signified; but so it is, that ymagis graued, coruun, or ȝut ben more lijk to Crist and to his passioun, than ben the sacramentis whiche Crist ordeyned; thouȝ Crist hem ordeyned, (being so vnlike
e. conclusioun, that Holy Scripture weleallowith and approueth, MS. (first hand).
Confirmacioun herto is this: Who euer counseilith, allowith, or approueth the lasse doing meene into an eende; in that he counseilith, allowith, or approueth the more doing meene into the same eende, et cætera.
The vje. principal conclusioun is this: Sufficient doom of weel disposid resoun allowith and approueth to haue and vse ymagis as rememoratijf signes in the maner after bifore seid. That this conclusioun is trewe y proue bi these folewing argumentis, of whiche the firste is this. Sufficient doom of resoun allowith and approueth us forto make and haue for us silf and for othere men ymagis of men and wommen, that tho men and wommen be therbi the oftir thouȝt upon, and therfore be therbi the more loued and the better serued, and that the more be doon and suffrid of us and of othere biholders, for as miche as we bithenken
Also thus: Whanne euer it is so, that we han in greet charge to performe and do eny dede or gouer|naunce, and we ben freel and redi to forȝete and to lete slippe out of mynde thilk deede or gouernaunce, it lijth in the doom of resoun ful weel that we take to us sum seable rememoratijf or mynding signes and tokenes forto therbi remembre us silf upon the deede or gouernaunce being to vs of so greet charge. For whi thus bi doom of resoun men doon anentis worldli deedis of charge, wher ynne lijth oonli worldli wynnyng or ascaping of worldli punysching; but so it is, that ech man hath in ful greet charge to loue God and drede God, that he mai therbi be hertid and strengthid in wil forto serue God; and he hath nede forto ofte thinke vpon tho thingis and meenis, whiche schulden stire him forto loue God and drede God, and forto haue wil to serue God and forto thenke vpon tho pointis in whiche he schulde serue to God. And ȝit forto so ofte remembre we ben ful freel and forȝeteful. Wherfore resoun wole weel iuge, allowe, and approue forto take, haue, and vse alle maners of suche deedis and thingis, whiche schulden remembre us myche upon the dignitees, benefetis, and punyschingis of God, and upon the pointis of his lawe. And among alle tho maners of thingis and deedis ben seable re|memoratijf thingis and deedis, as ben ymagis and the seid vsis of hem. Wherfore it folewith that doom of
and added by a later hand.
Confirmacioun herto is this: If a marchant or eny other man haue myche nede forto bithenke upon a certeine erand, it is weel allowid and approued in resoun that he take and vse sum seable rememoratijf signe and tokene forto mynde and remembre him upon the same erand; and it is weel allowid and approued bi resoun that he make a ring of a rische and putte it on his fynger, or that he write sum seable cros or markmk, MS.e. principal conclusioun.
Who euer wole se more proof for this present vje. principal conclusioun, rede he in The book of worschip|ing in the first parti, the vije. and viije. chapiters; and there he schal fynde profis for this present vje. con|clusioun, whiche profis he schal not, (as y weene,) assoile.
The vije. principal conclusioun is this: It is leeful in properist maner of speking and taking leeful, (as it is take bifore in the ixe. reule or supposicioun sett bifore
e. principal bifore goyng conclusioun, and is al|lowid and approued bi doom of clenli disposid resoun in kinde, as it is open bi the vje. principal bifore going conclusioun. Wherfore this present vije. prin|cipal conclusioun is trewe, that it is leeful in propre maner taking leefulnes, (wherof it is spokun bifore in the first chapiter of this ije. partie, in the ixe. reule,) that ymagis be had and vsid as rememoratijf signes of God, and of hise benefetis, and of his holi lijf and passioun, and of Seintis and of her holi conuersacioun.
The viije. principal conclusioun schal be this: It is a point of Goddis moral lawe and of his plesaunt seruice for to haue and vse and sette up ymagis of God and of Seintis into vce of remembring therbi the better God, his passioun, and his othere benefetis, holi Seintis, and her holy lyues, and her suffringis. That this conclusioun is trewe y wole proue thus: What euer gouernaunce doom of kindly weel disposid resoun biddith to be doon, or counseilith to be doon, or al|lowith and approueth to be doon, (namelich if Holi Scripture it not weerneth and lettith, and if Holi Scripture it allowith and approueth,) God biddith the same to be doon, or counseilith the same to be doon, or allowith and approueth the same to be doon as a point of his moral lawe and seruice, as it is suffici|ently bifore proued in the firste parti of this present
The iust apprising of Holi Scripture; but so it is, that resoun biddith or counseilith or allowith and approueth ymagis to be had and to be vsid in the maner oft bifore seid, as it is open by the vij. next bifore going principal conclusiouns; ȝhe, and Holi Scripture the same allowith,allowith and approueth, MS. (first hand).e. next bifore going conclusion. Wherfore to haue and vse ymagis in the maner now seid is approued and al|lowid of God as for a point of his moral lawe and of his plesaunt seruice.
The ixe. principal conclusioun is this: It is not synne a man bi hise werkis forto ensaumple to othere men, that thei haue and vse ymagis in the maner bifore tauȝt; and that thei do as he dooth, if he do in the maner bifore tauȝt; but it is a merytorie and a weel doon dede for to itit is interlineated, perhaps by a later hand.e. conclusioun is to be holde trewe.
PERAUENTURE summe men wolen seie and knouleche here, as so nedis thei musten do, that it is leeful ynouȝ and expedient that ymagis be had and vsid in the chirche; but it is not leeful and expedient that men knele bifore hem, or preie bifore hem, or cense bifore hem, or sette liȝtis or laumpis bifore hem, or holde or bere eny suche rememoratijf signes bifore hem.
Aȝens which now rehercid holding y mai argue thus: It is leeful and expedient to do these now re|hercid deedis to God and to Seintis bifore a bare wal in a chirche, or in a corner of a chirche or of an other hous, or in the feeld. Forwhi into al this proceden bifore proued the vij. principal conclusiouns; but so it is, that what euer vertuose gouernaunce mai be do to God or to a Seint bifore a bare wal, mai be do to God or to a Seint bifore a wal peintid with the passioun of God or with the passioun of a Seint; and if this be trewe, bi lijk maner it mai be do to God or to a Seint, if the grauedgraue, MS. (first hand).
Also into this same purpos y argue thus: It is lee|ful and expedient a man knele to God or to a Seint, (ȝhe, and ligge prostrate to God or to a Seint,) bifore an auter; and it is leeful him forto preie to God or to a Seint bifore an auter; wherfore it is bi lijk skil leeful to bere a liȝt in presence of God bifore the auter, and forto encense to God or to a Seint bifore an auter. And if this be trewe, what schal weerne to
Book of Mysteries and in his Book of Sacramentis, and holi Dionyse, the disciple of Poul, in his Book of the Chirchis Ierarchie.De Myst., c. 8. (Op. tom. II., p. 336. Ed. Benedict.) De Sacram., lib. iv. c. 2 (id. p. 366). "Quid est enim altare, nisi forma corporis Christi?" id. lib. v. c. 2. (id. p. 374). "De Eccles. Hierarch., c. iv. § 12. (Op. tom. I., p. 340. Ed. Cord.) Each of these works is doubtful or spurious.and expedient, by a later (?) hand in the margin.good, MS.
Also ferther thus: It is leeful ynouȝ a man to offre to God or to a Seint bifore an ymage of God or of a Seint, so that he offre not to the ymage but bifore the ymage. Wherfore bi lijk skile it is leeful ynouȝ forto knele and preie and bere liȝt and sette up can|delis bifore an ymage, whilis these deedis ben not doon to the ymage but to God or to a Seint. And if thou aske: "Wherto or in to what effect schulenschulde, MS. (first hand).
Perauenture summen wolen in other wise seie, knouleche, and holde that al what is proued bi the firste vij. bifore going principal conclusiouns is trewe, but thei wolen seie thus, "What is it to us, that a thing is trewe in doom of reson? We wolen holde and knouleche and performe oonli it what Holi Scripture withnessith or groundith, and ther bi and ther fore what the lawe of God is. And we wole not attende to it what resoun iugith to be doon." Thus thei wolen seie sturdili and folili, as thouȝ the lawe of God were not ellis saue what is writun in the Bible, namelich in the Newe Testament.
But here aȝens y meete thus: The moral lawe of God is mad of ij. parties, of whiche the oon partie is lawe of kinde, (that is to seie, doom of resoun, and writun in the tablis of mennys weel disposid hertis,) and the other partie is lawe of feith vpon tho treuthis oonli, into whos fynding, leernyng, and kunnyng mannis resoun mai not suffice to arise and come withoute reuelacioun and assercioun ther of made bi God immediatli or mediatli, as bi sum aungel or apostil. And for to delyuere to us this now seid ije. partie of Goddis lawe serueth Holi Scripture, and not forto grounde to us the ie. now seid partie of Goddis lawe, which is lawe of kinde or doom of natural resoun, as it is sufficientli schewid and proued weel nyȝ thoruȝ al the firste partie of this present book.
e. partie, (which is lawe of feith,) as it is open ynouȝ bi the firste partie of this present book. And therfore who euer wole seie and holde that forto haue and vse ymagis into the ofte bifore seid vce is not a point of Goddis lawe, and that bi cause it hangith in resoun and is not, as thou seist, expressid in the Bible, may se his owne confusioun and schame bi reding in the firste parti of this present book fro the bigynnyng of the firste parti into the eende of the
Also it is schewid bifore in this present ije. partie, the ije. chapiter, bi the firste and ije. principal argu|mentis into proof of the firste principal conclusioun, that Holi Writt weel allowithallowith and approueth, MS. (first hand), twice.allowith and approueth, MS. (first hand), twice.
Also thus: Iudic. xvije. and xviije. c. is writun a long storie, how a womman vowid that of a summe
e. c. hise Goddis. This Michas made oon of hise sones to be a preest in officiyng to God bifore these ymagis, and aftirward he made a straunge deken comyng to his hous forto be a preest in his hous into the seid officiyng to God bifore the seid first mad princi|pal ymage and the othere aftir maad ymagis. Aftir al this, the sones of Dan tooken awey bi strengthe these same ymagis and the seid preest which was bifore a deken oonli, and vsiden tho same ymagis, and ordeyneden that the same preest schulde office to God bifore tho ymagis in her tribu or kinred as he dide bifore in the hous of Miche. And in this officicingofficiyng.e. c. Now, Sir, to thee thus: Neither Miche, neither his modir, neither aftirward the tribu or kinred of Dan, was holde eny ydolatrers, neither it was holde as for reprouable gouernaunce here now bifore spokun gouernaunce in having and vsing ymagis of God and in officiyng to God bifore tho ymagis; but it was take for a deuout and a preiseable gouernaunce.
And as it was thanne there, that thilk riche and worthi man hadde in his hous such a chapel and such officiyng bifore ymagis of God, (which therfore
it is interlineated in a later hand, which has made considerable erasures.e. c. of Iudicum mensioun is mad of an othir deken dwelling in the hil of Effreym, and also in the xvije. c. it is seid that a straunge deken came fro an othir place into the hous of Miche; and it is not to be trowid that dekenes officicieden,officieden.the is added by a later hand.
And in lijk maner as Miche dide in this principal purpos, Laban the vncle of Iacob dide, in that that he hadde in his hous ymagis of God, whiche ymagis his owne douȝter Rachel, the wijf of Iacob, took awey with hir priueli, whanne sche departid from her fadris hous, and schulde iorney with hir husbond Iacob into the lond of Chanaan, as it is open Gen. xxxje. c. And ȝit for al this that Laban hadde suche ymagis, and for al this that he clepid hem hise Goddis, he was not holden an ydolatrer, neither his gouernaunce was blamed theryn;theryn is added by a later hand.ti. wyntir, if the hous of Laban hadde be wemmed so cursidli as with the synne of ydolatrie.
Wher fore folewith that Holi Writt wel allowithallowith and approueth, MS. (first hand).inlasse conjunctim or disjunctim.e. c. and Deut. ve. c. Thou schalte not make to thee eny grauen thing, et cætera? If thou go fro oon such pro|ces of the Oold Testament writun thanne for a point and a gouernance of Goddis lawe, go thou fro alle other like; and thanne thou infirmyst and feblist bi a greet deel the euydencis whiche thou hast and holdist aȝens the hauyng and the vsing of ymagis. And ȝit, the sothe to seie, what Laban dide aboute the ymagis was bifore the lawe of Iewis; and therfore if the gouernaunce of Laban was good and alloweable, it was not reuokid, as was the gouernaunce and lawe of the Iewis.
THE secunde principal gouernaunce to be tretid in this present secunde partie, of which gouernaunce manye of the layfe ouer myche wijten the clergie, is this: That pilgrimagis to dyuerse bodies and bonys of Seintis be mad, and also ben mad to ymagis of Crist crucified and of Marie and of othere Seintis; and namelich for that pilgrimagis ben mad into summe placis more in which ben ymagis of the crucifix and of Marie and of Seintis, than into summe othere placis in whiche ben like ymagis of the crucifix and of Marie and of the same othere Seintis.
Into iustifiyng of this ije. principal gouernaunce y procede bi certein conclusiouns, of whiche the firste is this: Holi Scripture weerneth not and lettith not neither reproueth suche now seid pilgrymagis to be don. This conclusioun y proue thus: If eny place of Holy Scripture schulde so weerne, thilk place were this ie. Petri iiije. c. where it is writun thus: Moost dere britheren, nile ȝe go in pilgrimage in feruour which is maad to ȝou to temptacioun:
The ije. premisse of this argument mai be proued thus: The now rehercid proces of Petri (ie. Petri iiije. c.) spekith not of pilgrimage which is a bodili going or a bodili remouyng fro oon place into an other, but he spekith of a variaunce and of a chaunging within|forthwith inforth, MS., the hyphen at the end of the line being (acci|dentally?) omitted. It is distinctly written conjunctim just below.
That this vnderstonding now bi me ȝouun is the verry and dew litteral vndirstonding of the text ie. Petri iiij. c. it is open ynouȝ to alle hem, whiche wolen biholde al the hool proces fro thens into the eende of the chapiter. Forwhi euene immediatli at next to the now bifore alleggid text of Peter this proces folewith; as if eny newe thing bifalle to ȝou; but comune ȝe with the passiouns of Crist and haue ȝe ioie, that also ȝe be glad and haue ioie in the reuelacioun of his glorie. If ȝe ben dispisid for the name of Crist, ȝe schulen be blessid, forthat that is of the honour and of the glorie and of the vertu of God; and the Spirit that is his schal reste on ȝou. But no man of ȝou suffre as a mansleer, or a theef, or curser, or desirer of othere mennys goodis; but if as a Cristen man, schame he not; but glorifie he God in this name, et cætera. Lo hou open it is, (if these wordis of Peter be ioyned to the former wordis of Peter,) that Petirthat Petir is interlineated by an early, but later hand.the keping, MS. (first hand).
And therfore myn vndirstonding ȝouun bifore to the former text of Petir is not feyned, but according to the hool al processe which Petir in the mater
muste, MS. (first hand).de Genes. ad litt., lib. viii. c. i. § 4. (tom. iii. p. 170. Ed. Bene|dict., Ant., 1700.)
Also thus: But if the seid vndirstonding were the trewe and dew litteral vndirstonding to the seid text, and if thilk text schulde weerne alle bodili pilgrimages, thanne thilk text were aȝens the doctrine of the Gospel and aȝens the doctrine of Crist. Forwhi it is writun pleinli Matheu xxviije. c., and Mark xxije. c., and Luk the xxiiije. c., and Iohun the xxe. c. that deuoute and holi wommen, as weren thanne certein Maries, camen to the sepulcre of Crist for to visite his sepulcre and his deed bodi, and forto do office of remembrauncing bi the signe of oynement, lijk as Crist bifore spake and prophecied ther of, Matheu xxvje. c., that it schulde be so doon to his bodi, whanne he seid thus: This womman sending this oynement into my bodi dide to birie me. Treuly y seie to ȝou, where euere this gospel schal be prechid in al the world, it schal be seid that sche dide this into the mynde of him. And no man mai seie nay, but that tho wommen in so going forto visite the sepulcre of Crist and his deed
were, MS. (first hand).
The ije. principal conclusioun is this: Doom of kindeli weel disposid resoun weerneth not and lettith not bodili pilgrymagis to be doon in the maner now bifore seid. This conclusioun y may proue thus: If eny doom of resoun schulde so weerne and lette, cer|tis thilk doom of resoun muste be oon of the iij. domes bifore spoken in the iije. and iiije. chapitris of this present ije. partie, there brouȝt forth in treting of the ije. principal conclusioun mad for iustifiyng of ymagis. Or ellis it muste be oon of the domes whiche schulen be rehercid soone aftir in the ixe. c. in argu|yng aȝens the firste and the ije. seyde principal gouer|naunces. But so it is, that noon of the iij. bifore sett out doomys of resoun may weerne and lette the seid pilgrimagis. Forwhi to ech of tho iij. kindis of domes it is bifore sufficientli answerid bothe for ymagis and for pilgrimagis to gidere, neither eny of the domes soone after in argumentis to be brouȝt forth in the ixe. chapiter weerneth and lettith. Forwhi to ech of hem anoon aftir in the xe. xje. xije. xiije. xiiije. and xve. chapitris it schal be sufficientli answerid. Wherfore no doom of weel disposid resoun in kinde schal lette and weerne or reproue the bifore seid pil|grimage,
e. principal conclusioun is to be holde for trewe.
The iije. principal conclusioun is this: It is not vn|leeful pilgrimagis to be doon. That this conclusion is trewe, y proue thus: What euer gouernaunce neither Holi Scripture, neither doom of weel disposid resoun, neither mannis positijf lawe weerneth or reproueth, is not vnleeful. But so it is, that Holi Scripture weer|neth not and reproueth not pilgrimagis, as it is open bi the firste now next bifore going principal con|clusioun; neither doom of resoun it weerneth or reproueth, as it is open bi the ije. next bifore sett principal conclusioun. Wherfore folewith that suche pilgrimagis ben not vnleeful. And so this principal iije. conclusioun is trewe.
The iiije. principal conclusion is this: It is leeful, in maner of the bifore set xe. reule or supposicioun, that pilgrimagis be doon. This conclusioun y proue thus: What euer gouernaunce is not vnleeful is lee|ful; for so schewith the bifore sett xe. reul in the firste chapiter of this present ije. partie. But so it is, that pilgrimagis to be doon is not vnleeful, as it is open bi the next bifore going conclusioun. Wherfore that pilgrimagis be doon, it is leeful. And so this present iiije. conclusioun is proued to be trewe.
The ve. principal conclusioun is this: Holi Scripture allowithallowith and approueth, MS. (first hand).e. partie, of the holi deuoute wommen, whiche wenten in pilgrimage to Cristis se|pulcre and to his deed bodi forto be the more re|membrid of him; and bi this that Crist prophecied that Marie Magdalen schulde so do; and he approued
e. c., whanne he seide, "that sche dide a good werk into him; and that where euer in the world schulde be prechid thilk gospel, it schulde be seid that sche dide it into the mynde of him, and that sche dide it into the biriyng of him," and so forth, as y haue write herof more pleinly in dyuerse placis. Wherfore this ve. conclusioun is trewe.
Also this present ve. conclusioun is proued vnsoila|bili bi a proof mad bifore in the firste parti of this present book, the [xixe.]bitaking, MS.
THE vje. conclusioun is this: Doom of weel disposid resoun allowith and approueth that pilgrimagis be doon. This conclusioun y schal proue bi setting and sending bifore of open reulis and supposiciouns, and bi from hem falling doun into special proof of this present conclusioun.
The firste reule or supposicioun is this: The holi lijf and passioun of Iesus Crist was to alle Cristen a passing greet benefet: the ȝiftis of gracis, the glo|ries of heuen bihiȝt ben to alle Cristene passyng greete benefetis: the holi lijf and conuersacioun of ech Seint is to alle Cristen a greet benefet of God ȝouun to hem. The dignite and worthines of God, his loue, and his riȝtwisnes ben ful worthi and re|uerend, gode, and preciose. And alle these now bifore
The ije. reule or supposicioun is this: It were ful vnprofitable and damageful to alle Cristene, but if these now bifore seid benefetis and these seid dignitees of God were of al Cristen remembrid. Forwhi, if thei be not remembrid, thei schulen not be reckidrechd, MS. (first hand).
The iije. reule or supposicioun is this: It is ful re|sonable and ful worthi that rememoratijf visible signes be had of alle these now spokun thingis in the firste and ije. reulis or supposicions. Forwhi withoute reme|moratijf signes of a thing or of thingis the rememo|racioun or the remembraunce of thilk thing or thingis muste needis be the febler, as experience sufficientli witnessith; and therfore, sithen the bodi or the bonis or othere relikis of eny persoon is a ful nyȝ rememo|ratijf signe of the same persoon, it is ful resonable and ful worthi that where the bodi or bonis or eny releef or relik of a Seint mai be had, that it be sett up in a comoun pláce to which peple may haue her deuout neiȝing and accesse, forto haue her deuout biholding ther upon forto make the seid therbi re|membraunce. And ferther, sithen it is not resonable and conuenient that suche bodies or bonis or relikis be left withoute in the baar feeld, (and that bothe for it were aȝens the eese of the peple whiche schulde
e. reule: and it is ful reson|able and worthi that ther ouer be bildid chapel or chirche, and that auters and queris be maad therbi, for causis now next bifore spokun. And sithen of Crist crucified and of Marie his modir we han not the bodies or bonis, neithir in ech cuntre is eny relik had of hem, therfore it muste needis be more reson|able and more worthi that in dyuerse placis of cun|trees be maad ymagis of Crist crucified and of his modir Marie with purtenauncis therto longing, and that thei be housid and doon to as it is now bifore writun of the ymagis of othere Seintis. This reule or supposicioun hath withinne him sett forth suffi|cient euydencis for his proof, and therfore he is to be holde for trewe.
The iiije. reule or supposicioun is this: If bi the ymagis of which itit is interlineated by a later hand.e. bifore going reulis, thei mowe not be multiplied so wijde
The ve. reule or supposicioun is this: If God take upon him forto pointe and chese tho placis in whiche schulen be the noumbre of the seid ymagis in oon lond or cuntre, it is more according that we stonde to his pointing and chesing and assignyng, than that men bi her wittis oonli therto studie and devise forto make eny such pointing, chesing,or chesing, MS. (first hand).seint, MS.in lasse, MS.; see note in preceding page.e. reule or supposicion is trewe.
The vje. reule or supposicioun is this: Whanne God chesith oon ymage bifore an other ymage into the office now bifore seid and spokun in the iiije. and ve. supposiciouns or reulis, it is not inconuenient that God make thilk ymage of stoon or of tre forto swete, and that the ymage be mooued fro oon place vnto an othir place withoute mannis bering and with|oute other mannis herto sett bisynes, and that the yȝen of the ymage be turned hidirward and thidir|ward verrili or semyngly as thouȝ the ymage sie, and that the ymage (in such maner as God made the asse of Balaam) speke.
Forwhi, whanne it likith to God forto chese oon ymage bifore an other ymage into the office bifore sett in the iiije. and ve. reulis or supposiciouns, it is not inconuenient but it is conuenient that God wirche sum myracle in and bi thilk ymage, that therbi God notifie and witnesse and denounce to vs that he chesith thilk ymage into the seid office, as it is open bi the ve. reule. And sithen noon oon kinde of miracle to be doon of God in and bi the ymage is
e. and ve. reulis,) it is not inconuenient but it is conuenient ynowȝ that God at sumwhile make thilk ymage swete, and that the ymage be moued from oon place into an other place with oute mannys labour, and that the iȝen of the ymage be turned hidirward and thidirward, and that the ymage semyngli speke, that is to seie, that speche and soun be mad in the ymage bi an aungel of God, as it was doon in the asse of Balaam, Numer. xxije. c. And ferthermore herof, if it be not inconuenient these thingis to be doon in ymagis bi God, it is not inconuenient the seers and the next heerers of these thingis so doon forto knowe and wite and witnesse that thei ben so doon; and it is not inconuenient othere men trowe vndoutabili the same thingis as doon, whanne thei heeren credible seers and next heerers reporte and telle what thei presentli sien and herden so doon.
The vije. reule or supposicioun is this: Whi and wherfore God chesith this place more than an other certein place, and wole do miraclis in oon such place and bifore sum such seid ymage more than in an other place and than bifore another lijk ymage, is not of men to be enquerid. Forwhi, that God chesith oon place more than an other and oon ymage more than
e. reule or supposicioun is trewe.
Aftir these vij. reulis or supposiciouns y argue thus: Resoun wole and allowith and approueth nedis that men visite and haunte for the seide eende of solempne remembrauncing tho placis and tho ymagis, which it is sure God to chese into the seid eende and bi the seid euydencis of myraculis doing: forwhi ellis we conformeden not us to it wherto God vs callith and prouokith, wherof we ouȝten be waar. But so it is, that such seid visiting and haunting into the seid eende is not ellis than pilgrimage. Wherfore resoun wele iugith, allowith, and approueth pilgrimagis to be doon; and in this wise, fro the bigynnyng of the firste reule and supposicioun in this present chapiter hider to, is proued this present vje. conclusioun, that doom of weel disposid resoun allowith and approueth pilgrimage to be doon.
Who euer wole se more proof for this present vje. principal conclusioun, rede he in The book of wor|schiping, nameliche there in the ije. partie; and he
e. partie, fynde herto proof ynouȝ.
The vije. principal conclusioun is this: It is leeful, in proprist maner of leefulnes, that pilgrimagis be doon. This conclusioun may be proued thus: What euer gouernaunce is allowid and approued bi Holi Scripture and bi doom of weel disposid resoun is in proprist maner leeful, as it is open bi the ixe. reule or supposicioun sett in the first chapiter of this pre|sent ije. parti. But so it is, that pilgrimagis to be doon is allowid and approued bi Holi Scripture, as it isas is, MS. (first hand).e. principal conclusioun; and it is allowid and approued bi doom of weel disposid resoun, as it is open bi the next bifore going vje. principal conclusioun. Wherfore fol|ewith that pilgrymagis to be doon is leeful in pro|prist maner of leefulnes. And so this present vije. conclusioun is trewe.
The viije. principal conclusioun is this: Pilgrimagis doing is a point of Goddis moral lawe and of his plesaunt seruice, thouȝ it be not alwey vnder co|maundement of his lawe. That this conclusioun is trewe, y proue thus: What euer gouernaunce doom of weel disposid resoun biddith, God biddith; and what euer gouernaunce doom of weel disposid resoun coun|seilith, allowith, or approueth, God the same gouer|nance counseilith, allowith, or approueth, as it is openli bifore schewid in mentenyng the firste principal go|uernaunce bi therto mad and sett forth the viije. conclusioun and bi the processe next therto there aftir going. But so it is, that pilgrimagis to be doon doom of weel disposid resoun counseilith, allowith, and approueth, as it is open bi proof of the next bifore going vje. conclusioun. Wherfore pilgrimagis to
Also thus: What euer gouernaunce Holi Scripture allowithallowith and approueth, MS. (first hand).e. conclusioun. Wherfore this pre|sent viije. conclusioun is trewe.
The ixe. principal conclusioun is this: It is not synne a man bi hise werkis forto ensaumple to othere men, that thei make pilgrimagis in the maner bifore tauȝt; and that thei do as he doith, if he do in the maner bifore tauȝt: but it is a merytorie and a weel doon deede for to it ensaumple. That this conclusioun is trewe, y proue thus: It is no synne a man bi hise werkis forto ensaumple to othere men, that thei do a deede and a point of Goddis moral lawe and of his plesaunt seruice; but it is a mery|torie deede forto itit is interlineated by a later (?) hand.e. conclu|sioun is to be holde trewe.
AFTIR al this what is tretid upon the firste and ije. principal gouernauncis fro the bigynnyng of this ije. parti hidirto, (and that bi ix. conclusiouns seruyng to the firste gouernaunce, and bi othere ix. conclusiouns seruyng to the ije. gouernaunce,) y schal next now sette forth the argumentis and the obiecciouns, whiche the lay peple (being ouer myche wijters of the clergie) maken aȝens the seid firste and ije. gouernauncis.
Of whiche argumentis the firste is this: No cause can be assigned whi ymagis schulden be had and vsid and whi pilgrimagis schulden be doon saue this, that bi hem remembraunce and mynde schulde be maad vpon tho thingis whiche ben seid and rehercid bifore, (in the viije. chapiter of this ije. partie in the firste and ije. reulis or supposicions,) that is to seie, the benefetis of God, his punyschingis, his holi lijf and passioun, the holi lyues of Seintis, and hiȝe dig|nitees and worthinessis of God, and suche othere thingis, (certis if ymagis and pilgrimagis schulden not serue to suche now seid remembrauncis bi hem to be had, and folewingli to therbi the deuouter preiers to be had, ymagis and pilgrimagis weren in vein;) but so it is, that into suche now seid remembrauncis and myndingis to be gendrid and had, and folewingli therbi into ful deuout preiers to be had, mai and wole serue at fulat the ful, MS. (first hand).blilsis, MS.
Confirmacioun herof mai be this: Whanne euer eny thing is not good saue for a certein fruyt and good which schulde come therbi, thanne if thilk same fruyt and good mai be gete and had lijk wel or better bi an other meene than bi this thing, the hauing and vsing of this thing is not necessarie, (that is to seie, is not needisly to be had,) but mai riȝt weel be for|born. But so it is in this present purpos, that the hauing and vsing of ymagis and thethe is interlineated by a later hand.
And if eny man wole be aboute forto answere herto and seie, that not alle men and wommen mowe come into this, that thei schulen kunne rede writingis in bokis; and therfore for suche vnlettrid men and wommen ymagis musten be had as bokis to hem, and of hem pilgrimagis musten be doon, and ellis the seid remembrauncis myȝte not of hem be had: thanne the seid arguers wolen sette to and for|tofie her partie thus: It myȝte be ordeyned that alle men and wommen in her ȝongthe schulden leerne forto rede writingis in the langage in which thei schulden lyue and dwelle; and thanne therbi schulde come forth not oonli this seid good of remembrauncing, but myche othir good also ther with. And therfore thei setten litil bi the answere now maad.
The ije. argument is this: If bischopis, preestis, and clerkis foundun and endewid therto bi the lay
or is interlineated by a later hand.
The iije. argument is this: Vein and waastful occu|pacioun it is forto make myche labour and cost forto haue and vse the sympler and vnperfiter and lasse representing ymage of a thing, whanne with lasse labour and cost mai be had the perfiter and fuller and better representing ymage of the same thing. But so it is, that ech lyuyng man is verier and per|fiter and fuller and better representing ymage of Crist and of ech Seint, than is eny vnquyk stok or stoon graued and ourned with gold and othere gay peinturis.The Apology for the Lol|lards, ascribed to Wiclif, p. 88.
The iiije. argument is this: God is lijk presentli euery where, and therfore he is lijk redi for to ȝeue hise gracis and ȝiftis euery where, where euer a man
other, MS. (first hand).is is interlineated by a later hand.
The ve. argument is this: The feendis wijlis and deceitis ben forto be waarli considerid and forto be smertli fled, as Peter techith, (ie. Petri ve. c. in the eende): but so it is that the feend hath deceyued sliȝli and wijlily men and wommen whiche han wor|schipid ymagis and han come to ymagis in pilgrimage, as itit is added by a later hand.Act. Apost. Apocr., p. 243, sqq., Lips. 1851.schulde, MS. (first hand).
The vje. argument is this: Poul techith alle Cristen men (ie. Tessalonic. ve. c.) thus: Absteyne ȝou from al yuel spice; but so it is, that the seid hauyng and vsing of ymagis and pilgrimagis doing ben occasiouns of myche synne and of other yuel. Wherfore thei ben to be forborn.
The vije.seuenthe, MS.; but written on an erasure: the first hand almost always uses Roman numbers.
The viije. argument is this: It is sure and sikir and greet discrecioun Cristen men forto holde hem to tho gouernauncis which Holy Scripture of the Newe Testament techith hem, and forto caste aside alle othere gouernauncis or reulis whiche ben not tauȝt in the Newe Testament; ȝhe, thou tho gouernauncis and reulis beben, MS. (first hand).e. c., thus: Se ȝe that no man disceyue ȝou bi philsophie and vein fallace aftir the tradi|cioun of men, aftir the elementis of the world, and not aftir Crist; for in him dwellith bodilich al the fulnes of the Godhede. But so it is, that Holi Scripture in the Newe Testament techith not the seidseid is interlineated by a later hand.and vsing of pilgrimagis mahing, MS. (first hand).
The ixe. argument is this: Iohun iiije. c., whanne Crist saat at the welle of Iacob and talkid with the womman Samaritan, he excludid the vce of ymagis and the vce of pilgrimage.pilgrimagis, MS. (first hand).The tyme is come and now it is, whanne trewe worschipers schulen worschipe the Fadir in spirit and trouthe; for also the Fadir sechith such that worschipen him. God is a spirit, and it bihoueth hem that worschipen him to wor|schipe in spirit and trouthe. Thus myche Crist seide there: wherbi is excludid and wilned of Crist to be removed, that eny man schulde worschipe God bi eny outward ymagis; in as miche as he wolde ech man aftir him comyng forto be so perfit that he wor|schipe God in spirit and in trouthe of Goddis being, and not in an ymage feyned to be in Goddis stide. Also Crist in the same chapiter, speking with the same womman removed pilgrimagis. Forwhi whanne the womman had seid to him thus: I se that thou art a prophet. Oure fadris worschipiden in this hil, (that is to seie, the hil clepid Garizim,) and ȝe, (that is to seie, Iewis,) seien that at Ierusalemierl̛m, MS., and similarly else|where.is a place where it bihoueth to worschipe: Iesus seide to hir thus: Womman, bileeue thou to me, for the hour schal come, whanne neither in this hishis, so the MS.; but the word should probably be expunged. It is not found in either form of Wiclif's version, from which the citation is made.hil neither in Ierusalem ȝe schulen worschipe the Fader. Ȝe, (that is to seie, Samaritanis or dwellers in the cuntre of Samarie,) worschipen what ȝe knowen not; we,
worschipen what we knowen: for helthe is of the Iewis. Thus miche there. Of which proces folewith that Crist excludid pilgrimage, whanne he seid that peple schulde frothens after wor|schipe neither in Ierusalem neither in the now seid hil; for the worschiping, which the peple made in tho ij. placis, was bi pilgrimage going into tho placis. And so Cristis entent was, that neither vce of ymagis neither doing of pilgrimagis schuldeschulden, MS. (second hand); but the original reading is manifestly right.
The xe. argument is this: If a man wole go in pilgrimage into sum memorial of God or of a Seint, what skile is therto that he go thidir in pilgrimage openli, (sithen he mai go thider priueli forto make his deuout remembrauncis and hise deuoute preiers,) but if he desire laude and preising of the peple seiyng that he goith in thilk pilgrimage? Also what skile is therto, that he bere openli bi stretis an ymage of wex oror is interlineated by a later hand.or is added by a later hand.
The xje. argument is this: Iosue xxiiije. c. the duke Iosue seid to the peple of Israel thus: Do ȝe awey fro the myddis of ȝou alienalien is added by a later (?) hand. It is found in Wiclif's version.Goddis, and bowe ȝe
ȝoure hertis to the Lord God of Israel. Wherfore bi lijk skile and lijk weel it myȝte be seid to Cristen men: "Do ȝe awey fro the myddis of ȝou alien Goddis, that is to seie, ȝoure ymagis whiche ȝe worschipen and holden as ȝoure Goddis."
The xije. argument is this: The peple of Iewis weren not so vnwise and so lewid as ben Cristen children now of x. ȝeer age, neither as ben foolis now among Cristen men. Forwhi her werkis in con|questis making and her bateilis disposing and her lotting of cuntrees and her beldingis and her othere craftiose doingis whiche thei diden schewen weel the contrarie. Also the hethen men which weren in the daies of Iewis weren ful wise, and thei weren not so vndiscrete as ben now Cristen children of x. ȝeer age, neither as ben folis among Cristen men. Forwhi the fynding of kunnyngis, (as of comoun natural phil|sophie, of medicinal philsophie, of methaphisik, of astronomye, and of geometrie, and othere particuler sciencis, and of moral philsophie, and of ful discrete policie, and of sutil craftis doon bi hem) schewith ful miche the contrarie. But not with stonding al this, the Iewis werenwere, MS. (first hand).e. c., and ofte in othere tymes thei worschipiden ymagis of stoonys or of stockis as for her Goddis, as it is open ynouȝ in ful manye placis of the Book of Kingis in Holi Writt. And also hethen men, how euere greet clerkis thei weren and how euer politik wise men thei weren, ȝit thei also worschipiden ymagis of tre and of stoon for her Goddis, as the Sauter seith therof in the cxiije. psalme thus: The symylacris of hethen men ben siluer and gold, the werkis of mennys hondis;
tho han mouth and schulen not speke, et cætera. Thei that maken hem be maad lijk to hem, and alle that trusten in hem. The hous of Israel hopid in the Lord, he is the helper of hem and the defender of hem. Wherfore as weel or miche rather Cristen men ouȝten be waar forto entirmete with like ymagis, lest that thei falle into lijk defaut; for wher yn oon myȝti man stumblith, there an other myȝti man ouȝte dredeouȝte to drede, MS. (first hand).breking of Goddis lawe, MS. (first hand).
THE xiije. argument is this: To what euer thing men preien deuoutli that it saue hem, or to do hem what thei knowen weel no persoon may do to hem saue God, the same thing thei taken for her God. But so it is, that to the crosse, which is a creature, men (both preestis and othere lay men) preien de|uoutli, that he schulde saue hem and kepe hem and make Crist plesid with hem which henge in him, and forto do what mannis power sufficith not forto do to hem. Wherfore alle tho men in thilk while taken a creature to be her God.
The ije. premisse of this argument is open bi what is red and sungun in the ympne Vexilla Regis pro|deunt
O cros, the oon hope in this tyme of passioun, encrece thou riȝtwisnes to piteful men and ȝeue forȝeuenes to gilti men.
These are the concluding words of the hymn beginning "Vexilla Regis prodeunt," which is still retained in the Roman Breviary for the Eve of Passion Sunday. The Salisbury Breviary, (Lond. 1555), which Pe|cock follows, badly reads:
e. pre|misse in this principal xiije. argument is trewe.
Also in the Feest of the Crossis Fynding at the first euensong, whanne this response: O crux, viride lignum, et cætera, is sungun, aftir that manye spechis ben mad to the cros being a creature, (and whiche spechis mowe not be verified but as seide to a pure creature,) it is seid in the prose forth with therto fol|ewing thus: Thou, which barist the Lord, make the patroun (that is to seie, Crist) forto be to vs inclin|able or boweable or redi to heere us: and thou stok, which wereweren, MS. (first hand).worthi to berebe, MS.the price of the world, ȝeue and graunte to this peple of Crist the beneficie of the crosse.
which ends thus:
e. premysse in this present principal xiije. argument is trewe.
Also in the anteme: O crux splendidior, et cætera, sungun at the ije. euensong in the same feeste, it is seid thus: O sweete stok, bering sweete nailis and
sweete birthens, saue this present cumpanie gaderid to gidere now this dai in to thi preisingis.e. premisse in the xiije. argu|ment is trewe.
Also in the anteme Crux fidelis et cætera, which is sungun at the ije. euensong in the Feeste of the Crossis Hiȝing, it is seid in lijk wise thus: O sweete stok, bering sweete nailis and bering sweete birthens, (that is to seie, the bodi of Crist and hise parties,) be thou to us a ward aȝens the dartis of the enemy:Lat. Hymn., vol. i. p. 131. It begins thus:
In another hymn, however, be|ginning "O lignum venerabile," (Mone, l. c. p. 138,) we have:
e. premysse is schewid to be trewe.
Also in the prose clepid a sequence,O Cristen medicyn, saue thou hool men, and hele thou sike men! And what mannis myȝte mai not, be it doon
in thi name.
Missal. ad consuet. Eccl. Saresb., Sept. xiv. (Ed. Paris. 1513.)O signe of victorie, noon such among stockis, et cætera,)
O Cristen medicyn, he spekith to the same pure creature. And so the seid ije. premysse of the xiije. argument is trewe. And so it what the xiije. argument concludith finali muste needis be trewe.
The xiiije. argument is this: Anentis what euer thing men beren hem silf and gouerne hem silf as thei wolden bere hem and gouerne hem, if thilk thing were God hem silf, and namelich whilis anentis God him silf (if he were there visibili present) thei couthen not do or make meker or louȝer or deuouter submis|sion, saluting, and seruice than thei doon to thilk thing,—thanne and for thilk while thei maken or holden and taken thilk thing as for her verri God. But so it is, that bifore these daies and in these daies men beren and gouerne hem silf anentis a crosse in this now seid maner, as now anoon aftir schal be schewid. Wherfore tho whilis men maken thilk crosse her God.
That the ij "Finito evangelio, tres clerici de secunda forma exeuntes ex eadem processione, habitu non mutato, con|versi ad populum, stantes ante mag|nam crucem ex parte occidentali, simul cantent hunc versum hoc modo. "En rex venit mansuetus tibi, Sion filia mystica, humilis sedens super animalia, quem venturum jam prædixit lectio prophetica." Various rubrics are prefixed to the remaining parts of the anthem, which proceeds thus: "Hic est qui de Edom venit tinctis Bosra vestibus, in stola sua formo|sus, gradiens virtutibus, non in equis bellicosis, nec in altis curribus. "Hic est ille qui ut agnus insons morti traditur, mors mortis, inferni morsus, morte donans vivere, ut quondam beati vates prompserunt prophetice. Processionale Sarisb., fol. lv. lvi. The parts here printed as prose may have been meant for a kind of barbarous verse, which is perhaps a little corrupted.e. premisse of this xiiije. argument is trewe mai be argued thus: In eeldir daies, whanne processioun was mad in the Palme-Sundai bifore masse, the eukarist was not brouȝt forth, that the processioun of the clerkis and of the lay peple schulde
crucifero et ceroferariis, in medio stans, legat Evangelium S. Matth. xxi.: 'In illo tempore, cum appropinquasset,' &c." The adora|tion of the Host occurs later in the service.O Sion mysti douȝter, lo, the King mylde and meke sitting vpon beestis cometh to thee; whom the lesson of prophetis hath bifore spokun: This is he which cometh fro Edom, in clothis died with blood, ful comeli in his garnement, passing forth in vertues, and not in horsis of bateil, neither in hiȝe touris.turribus.This is he which as an innocent lomb is bitraied to
the deeth, which is deeth to deeth, and a bitte to helle, ȝeuyng power to lyue bi his deeth, as blessid pro|phetis sumtyme sungun in prophecie.
this is added by a later hand.Heil thou, whom the peple of Hebrees meeting witnessith to be Iesus, and crien to thee wordis of helth! Heil liȝt of the world, King of kingis, glorie of heuen, to whom abidith or longith empire, preising, and worschip, here and for euere! Heil oure helthe, very pees, redempcioun, and vertu, which with thi fre wil hast goon vndir for us the lawis of deeth.e. premysse of this present xiiije. argument is trewe.
Also in an othir place of the same processioun, in the daies and placis whanne and where the eukarist came not forth into processioun, children whiche weren "Finito regressu (cruciferi, presbyteri, &c.) pueri in altum seu ostium ecclesiæ canant versum: Chorus cum genuflexione dicat: Pueri: Chorus: Pueri: Chorus: Pueri: Chorus: Missal. ad usum Eccl. Ebor. (Domi|nic. in ram. Palm.) Paris, 1533. The Host had been a little before carried into the church; whether it was afterward borne in the procession does not appear from the rubrics.were, MS. (first hand).Glorie, preising, and honour be to thee, King Crist! Aȝenbier! to whom children|nys worschiping songe Osanna, the myilde song. An other vers thus: Thou art King of Israel and the noble child of Dauid! Blessid King, which camest in the name of the Lord! An other vers thus: Alle the cumpenye in hiȝe placis preiseth thee, ech deedli man and alle creaturis. An other vers thus: The peple of Hebrees came with palmes meeting to thee, and lo we ben at thee with preier, good wil, and ympne! Aftir eche of these versis the queer of preestis and of clerkis stonding in processioun binethe bi the crosse singen the firste verse: Glorie, preising, and honor, et cætera.
"Gloria, laus, et honor tibi sit."
"Gloria, laus."
"Gloria, laus."
"Gloria, laus, et honor."
e. premysse in the xiiije. argument is trewe.
Also in an other place of the same processioun it was and is ȝit kept and vsid in manye chirchis, that the principal crucifix of the chirche schal be disco|uered and schewid baar and nakid to al the peple of thepeple of the is added in the margin by a later (?) hand.Heil oure King, the sone of Dauid! Aȝenbier of the world! Whom prophetis bifore spaken Sauiour to come to the hous of Israel! Sotheli thee into an hoolsum sacrifice the Fadir sende into the world, whom alle holi men fro the bigynnyng of the world aboden! And now, Osanna to the sone of Dauid! Blessid be he which cometh in the name of the Lord! Osanna in hiȝe thingis!e. argu|ment is trewe.
The xve. argument is this: To what euer thing men offren in louȝist wise, comyng toward it bi creping, and whos feet thei kissen in deuoutist maner thei kunnen, thilk thing thei taken for her soue|reynest and hiȝest Lord. Forwhi ellis it wolde folewe that ther yn thei diden vnaccordingli and vnsemeli, and so therfore reprouabili and in such wise that it were worthi be forbodun. But so it is, that to the crosse in Good Fridai men comen in louȝest wise creping on alle her knees, and to this crosse in so lowȝe and deuout maner thei offren, and the feet of thilk crosse thei in deuoutist maner kissen. Wher|fore theithei should be can|celled.
Miche neede is forto assoile these thre laste prin|cipal argumentis, that is to seie, the xiije.,thrittenthe, MS. (later hand, and on an erasure).e., and xve., for upon the deedis and gouernauncis of whiche these thre laste principal argumentis maken mensioun alle the seid wijters han greet abhomina|cioun; and thei ben out of eese, whanne thai seen tho dedis and gouernauncis doon; and whanne thei musten nedis for drede do tho deedis and gover|nauncis,
THESE xv. ben the argumentis which the repungners aȝens the firste and ije. afore tretid gouernauncis maken aȝens the clergie holding with the same gover|nauncis. And if these argumentis mowe be cleerli assoilid, sotheli alle tho repugners ben openli ouer|throwe: and if these xv. argumentis mowe not be cleerli assoilid, thanne thei letten thethe is interlineated by a later(?) hand.e. principal conclusiouns bifore sett of ymagis, and the firste and ije. conclusiouns bifore sett of pilgrymagis. But that these xv. argumentis mowe cleerli be assoilid, y schal now next here aftir withoute eny doute make open.
And firste, as for answere and assoiling to the firste argument, y procede thus. The firste argument and his strengthe hangith here vpon, that Holi Scripture and othere deuoute writingis red and herd schuldenschulde, MS. (first hand).whiche is added by a later(?) hand.
Perauenture summen wolen answere here and seie that soso is interlineated by a later(?) hand.schulde, MS. (first hand).
Also thus: Bi this that Crist wolde us vse seable rememoratijf signes, we mowe holde that the vce of seable rememoratijf signes is leeful and expedient; and herewith Crist restreyned not us fro vce of eny othere seable rememoratijf signes. Forwhi nowhere it can be founde, that he seide we schuldenschulde, MS. (first hand), appa|rently.
Confirmacioun herto is this: Therfore it is in oure fre liberte forto vse othere heereable signes allowe|able bi resoun into oure remembraunce making thanne the writingis of the Bible, bi cause that it is not founde ouȝwhere in Holi Scripture neither in doom of resoun, that it is forbodun to us forto vse the othere writingis dyuerse fro Holi Scripture which Crist pro|uidid to us. Wherfore, bi lijk skile, by cause it is not founde ouȝwhere in Holi Scripture neither in doom of reson, that it is to us forbode vse othere seable signes into oure remembring than benbe, MS. (first hand).e. principal conclusiouns of ymagis bifore sett in the ije., iije., and iiije. chapitris of this present ije. partie,) it folewith that it is leeful to us forto vse othere seable signes into oure remem|braunce than tho sacramentis ben.
Also thus: What euer is not forbodun to be vsid is leeful ynouȝ to be vsid: but so it is, that forto vse othere seable signes than the sacramentis is not more forbodun than forto vse othere heereable signes than Holi Scripture; ȝhe, and nouȝwhere it is forbodun such seid seable signes dyuerse fro Cristis sacramentis be vsid, as it is proued bifore bi the now spokun firste and ije. principal conclusiouns of ymagis. Wher|fore needis folewith that we ben fre with oute synne for to vse hem.
Also thus: Thouȝ heereable signes availen to Cristen men into manye pointis and godis of remembrauncing into whiche seable signes not so myche availen, ȝit aȝenward seable signes availen to Cristen men (whether thei ben lettrid or not lettrid) into manye greet availis of remembrauncing, into whiche not availen or not so soone and so myche and so weel availen heereable signes, that is to seie writingis upon the same maters, as anoon aftir schal be proued. Wherfore folewith that thouȝ writingis availen bi sum|wey more into remembrauncing than ymagis and pilgrimagis availen, ȝit the vsis of ymagis and of pilgrimagis ouȝten to be not leid aside or awey, but ouȝten be take in to vce with the vce of writingis, that the hool profite of remembring which mai come bi hem both to gidere be not lost and vnhad, but that bothe to gidere profitis be had.
That riȝt synguler avauntagis of remembring comen bi ymagis and pilgrimagis which not comen or not so weel and so soone comen bi writingis, I proue thus: If a man wolde be remembrid on the passioun of Seint Petir or of Seint Poul or of the holi lijf of Seint Nicholas, certis thouȝ he couthe rede in a book the storie therof, ȝit he schulde rede vj. or vij. or mo leevis in the book, eer he schulde bringe into knowing or into remembraunce so myche as he may knowe and remembre ther of in a litil and myche lasse while bi siȝt of the iȝe in biholding an ymage coruen with purtenancis sett aboute him, or in bi|holding a storie openli ther of purtreied or peintid in the wal or in a clooth. As that this is trewe y comytte me to the doom of experience and of assay, and to the experience of this point,—that the iȝe siȝt schewith and bringith into the ymaginacioun and into the mynde withynne in the heed of a man myche mater and long mater sooner, and with lasse labour and traueil and peine, than the heering of the eere
Also, in biholding bi siȝt of iȝe upon manye dyuerse stories or ymagis in the chirche a man schal in a litil while be remembrid now upon the passioun of Seint Laurence, and now anoon aftir upon the passioun of Seint Steuen, now anoon aftir vpon the passioun of Petir, and so forth of manye chaungis. And if in thilk while in the chirche were not ymagis and picturis, he schulde not bi reding in a book in xxti. sithis lenger tyme come into so miche remembraunce, and namelich of so manye dyuerse passiouns to be rad; namelich sithen the reder schal not fynde writingis of alle tho passiouns saue in dyuerse bokis, or at the leste in dyuerse placis of oon book; and eer oon of tho writingis schulde be ouer rad perfitli, a gretter tyme schulde be spend than in the perfit ouer seing of alle tho seid passiouns.
Also ful ofte, whanne a man cometh to chirchethe chirche, MS. (first hand).the book, MS. (first hand).ymage, MS. (first hand).to be, MS. (first hand).
Also here with al into the open siȝt of ymagis in open chirchis alle peple (men and wommen and children) mowe come whanne euere thei wolen in ech tyme of the day, but so mowe thei not come in to the vce of bokis to be delyuered to hem neither to be red bifore hem; and therfore as forto soone and ofte cometo come, MS.; but the to has been erased.
Confirmacioun into this purpos mai be this: Whanne the dai of Seint Kateryn schal be come,schal come, MS. (first hand, which however has inserted the sign of omission).
Another confirmacioun into this same purpos is this: In Londoun sumtyme was a bischop whos name was Gravyseende,Sein Poulis, MS. (first hand).De profundis for his soul. Now, thouȝ it so had be that this bischop hadde not intendid this to be doon for him into this eende, that his greet benefeting whiche he dide to London schulde be had and con|tynued in mynde of the citezeins; but that he en|tendid oonli this, that preiers ther bi schulden ȝeerli be mad the sikirer for his soul, (as dout is to me, whether he entendid these bothe effectes or the oon of hem oonli:) ȝit treuthe is, that if the seid bischop wolde haue ordeyned xx. thousand bokis to be writun of his seid benefeting, and wolde haue ordeyned hem beto be, MS. (first hand).
FOR answere to the ije. argument it is to wite that bischopis and othere preestis and clerkis ben not bounde more or ferther for to preche or in other wise teche her peple vndir hem, than that therwith tho same bischopis and othere clerkis attende to hem silf
to attende, MS. (first hand).
Wherto accordith weel what Poul seith ie. Thi. iiije. c., Attende to thi silf and to doctrine, as thouȝ he schulde meene that for the attendaunce which Bischop Thimothi schulde make to his peple he schulde not leeue the dew attendaunce bifore to be maad to him silf. And that Poul meened so as y haue now seid, it is open by Poul him silf there. Forwhi, whanne Poul had seid to Bischop Tymothi thus: Take tent to thi silf and to doctrine, (that is to seie of othere persoones,) he seith forwithforthwith.Be bisie in hem (that is to seie, in tent to him silf and in doctrine to othere), for thou doing these thingis, (that is to seie, tente to thi silf and doctrine to othere,) schalt make this silf saaf and hem that heeren thee. Lo, Sir, bi this it is open Poul for to haue meened that ech man ouȝte more
doube, MS. (first hand).
And certis the vnknowing of this now tauȝt causith ouer myche vnwijs hasti iugement and ouer myche vnwijs bacbiting in the lay peple anentis cu|ratis. And so whanne al the attendaunce is doon which resoun or eny other lawe of God or of man bindith a curat forto do anentis his sugetis bisidis the attendaunce which the same curat is bounde forto make aboute him silf, thilk attendaunce which he is bounde to make aboute hise sugetis is ouer litil into the ful attendaunce which muste be maad aboute the same sugetis, thouȝ thei were as fewe as fourti or twenti; so that forto make the ful attendance tho sugetis musten helpe in her side, and musten the lenger parti of attendaunce make aboute hem silf, as bi reding in her bokis at her owne housis, or bi heering suche bookis red of her neiȝboris, (as y haue proued in the book clepid The Bifore-crier,) and also
the vse, MS. (first hand).e. argument for his substance and strengthe is vntrewe, that if bischopis and othere curatis diden her dew diligence in teching her peple, thilk peple schulde haue no nede or profit forto haue and vce ymagis and make pil|grimagis. And therfore the same ije. argument not proueth neither procedith. For euen as a nurisch or a modir is not bounde forto alwey and for euere fede her children and putte meete in her mouthis, but sche muste teche hem that thei fede hem silf, (and in lijk maner doon foulis to her briddis,) so a curat mai not neither ouȝte forto alwey rynge at the eeris of hise suggettis; but he may so bigynne, and after|ward he ouȝte teche hem that thei leerne bi hem silf and practize meenis into leernyng of good lyuyng bi hem silf; and ellis he schal make hem to be euere truauntis in the scole of God, and litil good forto perfitli kunne and litle good forto perfitli wirche.
Answere to the iije. argument schal be this: The ije. premisse of the iije. argument in which it is seid thus, "that ech Cristen man is a perfiter and a fuller and a spedier ymage of Crist than is eny stok or stoon graued," is vntrewe; and therfore the iije. ar|gument bildid ther upon lackith strengthe for to proue his entent. That this now rehercid ije. premysse is vntrewe, y schewe thus: Thre condiciouns muste be had in a thing, that he be a perfit and a ful and a spedy ymage or representer or remembrer of another thing bi wey of ymage being of the same other thing.
Oon condicioun is, that he be lijk myche or sum|what to the othir thing, and the more lijk he be to
The ije. condicioun is, that he be deputid or assigned forto represente and bringe into mynde the other thing. This condicioun dooth ful myche that a thing be ymage of an other thing. Forwhi whanne a thing is ful litil lijk to another thing, as the visible eukarist to the persoon of Crist, and the water of baptim to the sepulcre of Crist; ȝit the deputacioun and the assignyng bi which the visible eukarist is ordeyned and assigned forto represente the bodi of Crist and forto remembre vs upon the persoon of Crist and hise benefetis, (as it is open Luk xxije. c. and ie. Cor. xje. c.) and the deputacioun or ordinaunce bi which the water of baptim is assigned for to represente to us the deeth and the sepulcre of Crist, (as Poul seith and meeneth Rom. vje. c. toward the bigynnyng,) maken hem to be ymagis of Cristis persoon and of his sepulcre; and if tho deputaciouns or assignaciouns weren not, tho seid sensible signes were litil able or not able forto represente to us these othere now seid thingis. And therfore this ije. condicioun is a spedi condicioun and a myȝti forto helpe that a thing be a perfit and ful ymage of an othir thing.
The iije. condicioun is, that the thing so deputid forto represente to us the othir thing, haue not (at leest for thilk while) eny plites or officis or deputaciouns or disposiciouns, wherbi we muste haue manyeeny.or, MS.
Now, Sir, herbi it is open that no thing is so verrili an ymage of an other thing if he haue not these iij. condiciouns, as he schulde be if he haue these iij. now seid condiciouns. And thanne ferther thus: But so it is, that no Cristen man now lyuyng hath these iij. condicions anentis the persoon of Crist in his manhode, as hath a stok or a stoon graued into the likenes of Crist hanging on a cros nakid and woundid, with othere therto purtenauncis, (as it is open ynouȝ to euery man therto weel biholding and assaiyng thoruȝ alle these iij. condiciouns to gidere;) except whanne a quyk man is sett in a pley to be hangid nakid on a cros and to be in semyng woundid and scourgid. And this bifallith ful seelde and in fewe placis and cuntrees. Wherfore no man lyuyng and walking in erthe and occupiyng him silf and occupied of othere men, as othere men lyuen and walken and occupien and ben occupied, is so perfit and so ful an ymage of Crist crucified or of Crist doing this miracle or that myracle, as graued stok or stoon therto schapun is. And her bi it is open that the iije. argument hath no quyk foot for to go. Fy! fy! fy! therfore vpon presumpcioun and obstynacie in the lay party, of whiche y herde summe seie with a strong herte, (as thouȝ he hadde be ful of kunnyng, whanne he was therof ful empti,) that a greet heresie it is for to
e. argument,) litil wist he what longith to a thing, that he be a perfit ymage of an other thing.
THE iiije. argument leeneth here to, that bi cause God is lijk weel in his substaunce and being euery where, ther fore God schulde be lijk redi forto ȝeue his gracis to askers and sechers euerywhere; and that also therfore no place in erthe is holier than an other place, and noon ymage of a thing is holier than an other ymage of the same thing. But certis al this is vntrewe and to be denyed. And cause whi God wole ȝeue hise gracis rather in oon place to sechers aftir hise gracis than in an other place, is this: God chesith therto, that is to seie, forto ȝeue hise gracis oon place bifore an other place, as it is bifore proued in the viije. chapiter of this present ije. partie. And if this be trewe, certis therof folewith that bi cause God chesith oon place bifore an other forto therinne wirche holi deedis of myraclis and of gracis more than in an othira othir, MS.is is interlineated by a later(?) hand.e. chapiter of this ije. partie and in therof the iiije., ve., and vje. reulis or supposiciouns, whiche wolden be rehercid to ech man which wole obiecte bi the seid iiije. argument. And herbi the strengthe of the iiije. argument is leid aside.
The conceit of the comoun peple which thei hadden, that no place is holier than an other place is, and in lijk maner that noon ymage is holier than an othir ymage is, and that God chesith not more oon place than an othir, neither oon ymage more than an othir, forto helpe mannis needis the rather, hath be a ful greet lett to the comoun peplepeple is added by a later hand.e. argument) thei schulen no lenger so erre, aftir this answere schal be cleerli opened to hem.
For the more cleering of this present answere, it is to wite that a thing is holi in three maners. In oon maner (which is propir maner of speking) a thing is holi, for that it doith good moral deedis; and in this maner God is holi, and aungel is holi, and mannys soul and man is holi, if and whanne he doith eny good moral deedis. And in this maner of holines no thing is holi saue it which worchith holili, that is to seie, which wirchith bi fre choise what resoun deemeth to be doon for God: and that is to wirche morali weel. And so in this maner no place is holi, neither eny ymage is holi, neither eny other thing than which
e. c.I am holi, which make ȝou holi. Also Leuit. the xje. c. God seide: Be ȝe holi, for y am holi. Also Exodi xxije. c. God seide thus: Ȝe schulen be holi men to me.
In an other maner a thing is holi, for it is chosun that in it or bi it or with it or bifore it a persoon wirche such seid holi deedis; and that whethir the wircher be God, aungel, or man: for skile is ther noon that a man bi suche gode deedis schulde make a place to be holi, but that God and aungel bi her moraly vertuose wirching of miraclis schulde in lijk maner make a place to be holi. And in this maner oon place is holier than an other place is, and oon ymage is holier than an other ymage is, bi cause in oon place more grace and more other benefet into mannis profite is doon than in an other place, and bi oon ymage more grace and more other benefet into mannis profit is ȝouun than bi an othir ymage or than biforebi, MS. (first hand).e. c., where it is seid, that whanne Iacob wente forto seche to him a wijf, he came after the sunnys going doun into a place in which he leide him doun forto there slepe and reste in the nyȝt folewing; and he in thilk reste hadde suche visiouns maad to him bi God, as it is seid there, that whanne he woke he seide these wordis: Sotheli the Lord is in this place and y knewe not! And he dreding seide: Hou gastful is this place! here is noon other thing no but the hous of God, and the ȝate of heuen!
Also Exodi iije. c., whanne Moyses kepte the schep of Ietro preest of Madian, he came with his scheep to the Mount of Oreb. And God apperid to him in the flamme of fier fro the myddis of a busch, and he siȝ that the busch brent, and ȝit was not therbi waastid. Therfore Moises seide: I schal go and y schal se this greet siȝt, whi the busch is not wastid. Sotheli the Lord sie that Moyses ȝede to se, and he clepid Moyses fro the myddis of the busch, and seide: Neiȝe thou not hidir, but vndo the scho of thi feet; for the place in which thou stondist is holi lond, et cætera. Certis no man may seie that this holines of place came yn bi sum cerimonie of Iewis lawe, for euereither of these stories were doon eer eny lawe was ȝouun to the Iewis: and therfore this holynes of the ije. maner was neuere reuokid bi Cristis passioun.
In the iije. maner a thing is holi, (thouȝ also in an vnpropir maner, in reward of the first maner;) whannewhanne euere, MS. (first hand).Of the Chirchis Ierarchiede Eccl. Hierarch. c. 2. (Op. tom. 1. p. 255. Ed. Cord.) Pecock, however, does not so much seem to have any par|ticular passage in his eye, as to note the fact that Pseudo-Dionysius applies such epithets as ἱερὁς ϕεῖος ἅγιος to the chrism, the altar, the eucharistic elements, &c. See pp. 294, 295, 339, &c.e. argument.
That the ve. argument goith not forth y schewe thus: If the ve. argument were good, thanne this argument were good. The feendis wilis and hise deceitis ben fer awey to be fled; but so it is, that it hath ofte be knowun that feendis han spoke in men and wommen, as witness herof is had in the Gospelis in dyuerse placis, and Acts xvje. c. of a ȝong womman, which gate myche money to her maistris bi answeris which the feend ȝaue and spake in hir and bi hir. And alle men mowe soone vndirstonde, that not but forto deceyue men the feend wolde take such an occupa|cioun vpon him, sithen he is euere oure enemy and not oure freende as Peter witnessith ie. Petri ve. c. Wherfore no man speke or entermete or haue to do with eny other man or womman, or bileeue and truste to eny man or womman; bi cause that it is founde that the feend hath spoke bi men and wom|men, euen as he hath spoke bi ymagis. Certis this argument is lijk to the ve. argument, as ech man mai soone se; and this argument is nauȝt and hath no strengthe. Wherfore neither the ve. argument hath strengthe.
This therfore is the consideracioun and the obser|uaunce, awaite, and diligence which is to be had in such mater. It is diligentli to be awaitid whether the feend entermetith him with eny thing, (as ymage
to be, MS. (first hand).myȝte. MS. (first hand).attende, MS. (first hand).e. argument.
To the vje. argument it is answerid sufficientli bi|fore in the firste.]that is added in the margin.schulden, MS. (first hand, appa|rently).e. argument, thouȝ miche more therto perteynyng is seid bifore toward the eende of the first parti, and aftir in the iije. parti of this book, the [viije.] chapiter. And as to the text of Seint Poul ie. Tessalonic. ve. c. whanne he seith thus: Abstene ȝou from al yuel spice; the dewe vnderstonding is this: that we abstene us fro ech spice of moral yuel. And open it is to ech leerned man, that ech spice of moral yuel is moral yuel, and is a morali yuel spice: and Goddis forbode, but that ech man schulde be aboute forto abstene him fro ech such spice; forwhi suche spicis ben glo|tenie, leccherie, pride, envie, and suche othere. But this makith not that a man absteneabstene him, MS. (first hand).e. argument.
FOR answere to the vije. argument y schal sette forth iij. open reulis, of whiche the firste is this: Whanne euere it is so, that ij. dyuerse werkis of Goddis lawe and seruicis ben euen like present in oon and the same while after her alle dewe circumstauncis to a man forto be doon and wrouȝt of him in the same while, and oon of hem is myche better than the other; certis thanne if the man, to whom these werkis in lijk wise so profren hem silf to be doon, chese not to do the better werk bifore the lasse good werk, he is not to be ther yn preisid, as y haue schewid bi ensaumple of Holi Writt and bi ensaumple out of Holi Writt in The CrierThe Before-crier mentioned above, p. 218.
The ije. reule is this: Whanne ij. werkis of Goddis lawe and seruice thoruȝ out alle her dewe to hem circumstauncis ben not lijk present to the doer, but the lasse good werk is so present to the doer and the better good werk is not so present; certis than, if the man to whom this lasse good work is so present chese not and take not the lasse good werk for the while, he is not to be preisid. Forwhi ellis, as for thilk while, he schal lese the bothe seid godis, that is to seie, the bettir and the lasse good.
The iije. reule is this: It is not in eny mannys power forto haue for ech while the better werkis of Goddis lawe to him present, whilis lasse good werkis of Goddis lawe ben present to him and profren hem silf to be doon of him.
The iiije. reule folewing of these iij. bifore going reulis is this: That if a man, whanne he is to wirche
e. argument: not with|stonding that herto y haue answerid sufficientli othir wise in The book of worschiping, the grete.e. argument here.
For answere to the viije. argument, the firste pre|mysse, upon whiche hangith the strengthe of the viije. argument, is to be denied for vntrewe. Forwhi bifore in the [vje.]e. partie it is seid, (ȝhe, and bifore in the first partie of this book fro the bigynnyng bi xiij. conclusiouns it is proued, and the same is proued in the firste partie of the book clepid The iust apprising of Holi Scripture,) that more than xxti. partie of Cristis moral lawe and seruice stondith in deedis and gouernauncis knoweable and groundable in doom of resoun, and whiche ben not groundid in Holi Scripture; thouȝ summe of hem or alle perauenture ben witnessid afer and in general bi Holi Scripture. And therfore, needis the seid firste premysse is vntrewe. And trewe it is, that what euere resoun deemeth, coun|seilith, allowith, or approueth to be doon is moral lawe of God and his plesaunt seruice, thouȝ in caas it can not be founde speciali witnessid bi Holi Scrip|ture. And therfore, sithen the vce of ymagis and the doing of pilgrimagis ben sufficientli groundid in doom of weel disposid resoun, thei ben to be take as deedis of Goddis moral lawe and of his plesaunt ser|uice, thouȝ thei weren neither in general neither in special touchid bi Holi Scripture. Neuertheles in the
e.]e.]e. partie it is opened that thei ben expresseli witnessid bi Holi Scripture; and therfore needis the viije. argument in no wise proueth his entent.
And as for the text ofof should be cancelled or Poul added.e. c., as thouȝ he schulde helpe, thouȝ that he in no thing helpith, it is to be seid thus: That in thilk text Poul wole that men leene not to eny philsophie which is aȝens feith, namelich aȝens the feith which is of Christis persoon and of his incarnacioun. And thouȝ men ouȝten not forto attende, trust, lene, and bileue to philsophie in mater of feith; hereof folewith not that thei ouȝtenoute, MS. (first hand).Thouȝ y be absent in bodi, ȝit bi spirit y am with ȝou, ioiyng and seyng ȝoure ordre and the sadnes of ȝoure bileeue which is in Crist. Therfore as ȝe han take Iesus Crist oure Lord, walke ȝeȝe is interlineated by a later hand.in him; and be ȝe rootid and bildid aboue in him, and confermed in the bileeue as ȝe han leerned, abounding in him in doinge of thankingis. Thus miche there. And thanne next after Poul settith herto the text alleggid bifore in the viije. argument thus: Se ȝe that no man deceyue ȝou bi philsophievein philsophie, MS. (first hand).and vein fallace,
after the tradicioun of men, after the elementis of the world, and not after Crist. Whiche ij. textis, if thei ben considered as thei liggen to gidere in rewe, it schal be seen that if the ije. text be knyt to the former text, as it is likeli that he so is, it must nedis be that the ije. text spekith of philsophie which is aȝens the feith of the incarnacioun of Crist, of which feith spekith the former of tho ij. textis. And herto is ful good confirmacioun bi these wordis in the ije. text, whanne it is seid thus, and not aftir Crist. So that not ech philsophie neithir ech doc|trine which is aftir elementis of this world is to be fled, but the philsophie and doctryne after elementisthe elementis, MS. (first hand).e. argument.
FOR answere to the ixe. argument, it is to be seid, that Samaritanys or peple of Samarie, which oon was the womman with which Crist talkid, Iohun iiije. c., at the welle of Iacob, weren not perfite and ful Iewis, neither thei were perfite and ful hethen; for thei helden not al the hool lawe of Iewis, neither thei leften al the hool lawe of Iewis, as othere hethen men diden, but thei tooken and helden summe of the Iewis lawis. Neuertheles thei weren ydolatreris and worschipiden vntrewe visible goddis. Al this weel groundid clerkis in diuinite knowen weel ynouȝ. Thanne thus, whanne Crist seide to the womman:
The tyme is come and now it is, whanne trewe worschipers schulen worschipe the Fadir in spirit and trouthe, et cætera; Crist meened therbi, that thate. parti of this book. Therfore the first proces, which the ixe. argument alleggith, Iohun iiije. c., lettith no thing the hauyng and the vsing bifore seid of ymagis.
Ferthermore, that the ije. processe of Iohun iiije. c. alleggid in the ixe. argument lettith not pilgrimage to be doon, y proue thus: The wordis therto allegged ben these: Womman, bileue thou to me for the hour schal come, whanne neither in this hil, (that is to seie, of Garizim,) neither in Ierusalem ȝe schulen worschipe the Fadir, et cætera. Thanne thus: Bi these wordis can not be more or other had, than that Crist prophecied the seid hil and Ierusalem to be distruyed; and so myche to be distroied, that ther schulde not be eny preier mad or eny pilgrimage maad in the seid hil or in the temple of Ierusalem. And this distruc|cioun was maad bi Vaspacian and Tite, Emperouris of Rome, the xlije. ȝeer aftir Cristis passion; but open it is, that herof may not be take that Crist therbi schulde seie or teche pilgrimage to be vnleeful, no more than if he had seid, that the hour schal come in
e. processe of Ioon the iiije. c. in the ixe, argument can not be had in eny wise, that Crist schulde therbi reproue pilgrimagis, that thei be not leefulli to be doon. And this is ynouȝ for answere to the ixe. argument.
For answere to the xe. argument it is to wite, that vndir thre ententis and purposis a man mai go in pilgrimage; and ech of tho iij. ententis is leeful, honest, and expedient. The firste is forto be quykli and deuoutli remembrid in the place of pilgrimage upon Goddis worthinessis, hise benefetis, and punysch|ingis, his holi lijf and passioun, or upon summe Seintis holi conuersacioun, or forto haue quietnes and sool|nes to preie to God or to a Seint; and al this forto do there, bi cause that bothe he schal be there fer fro his owne hous, (and therfore fer fro thouȝtis whiche wolde come into him, if he were in his owne hous and with his owne meyne,) and also for that God hath chose thilk place in which he wole do and wirche and ȝeue singulerli bifore that he wole do ȝeue and wirche in manie othere placis; as it is bifore schewid, that he wole in summe placis bifore othere placis so do. And if a man go in pilgrimage to a place for this entent oonli, which is for his owne edi|ficacioun oonli, he mai go priueli thider as weel as openli, and aboute mydnyȝt as wel as about myddai; for he entendith not to ensaumple his deede of vertu to eny othir persoon.
But ferthermore, for as miche as we han teching of Crist, Mat. ve. c., that we mowe leefulli and merytorili do oure vertuose deedis openli bifore othere men, vndir this entent that thei be moued forto do in lijk maner vertuoseli, therfore vndir an other entent, which
e. entent, a man mai vertuoseli, honestli, and expedientli go in pilgrimage in such maner that ther|bi he ensaumple his dede of pilgrimage to be folewid of othere men, that thei go in pilgrimage thanne or in sum other leiser which thei wolenwole, MS. (first hand).e. entent, he muste do it openli and not priueli; and ellis he failith in his pil|grimage. Forwhi ellis his deede answerith not to his entent, as it is open ynouȝ.
In the iije. maner a man mai go in pilgrimage vndir entent forto supporte and menteyne that the mynde of the Seint and the mynde of his lyuyng and the mynde of the benefet, which God hath ȝouun to us, bi that thilk Seint lyued so weel; or ellis for|to supporte and menteyne the mynde herof, that God hath chose thilk place and thilk memorial, (whether it be an ymage or a relik,) that thilk mynde die not and falle not into forȝeting. For thouȝ it be suffi|cientli in Goddis power forto menteyne the fame of thilk place and of the ymage and of the seid chesing and of her holynes, ȝit men ouȝten do her part bi kindenes and gentilnes for to bi her power menteyne the same, and that bi word and bi deede of haunting and comyng thidir. And this supporting and meyn|tenaunce of this fame of the place of the ymage and of the Seint and of the seid chesing, which God hath maad there to be doon bi pilgrimage, cannot be do anentis othere folk, but if the pilgrimage be don openli, as it is open ynouȝ to ech mannys resoun.
And sithen it isis is interlineated by a later hand.e.
e. maner, tho clerkis whiche seen and knowen oonli the firste maner of doing pilgrimage and not seen and knowen the ije. and iije. maners, ben ouer hasti, eer thei be ful leerned, forto blame eny man for this, that he doith his pil|grimage miche openli vndir the ije. or iije. seid ententis or maners of pilgrimage doing.
And thanne ferther in this mater thus: Sithen it is leeful, honest, and expedient a man forto do his pilgrimage in the ije. and iije. now bifore seid maners and ententis forto denounce to the peple dwelling or to be mett in the wey of the pilgrimage, that he goith into such or such a place in pilgrimage, for to prouoke hem into pilgrymage or forto quykee in hem the mynde and remembraunce of the bifore seid thingis, (and open it is that this denouncing to othere seers and biholders may not be mad so effectuali to hem bi the oonli open going of the pilgrimof pilgrimage, MS. (first hand).of, MS. (first hand).ther|fore.e. or iije. bifore weel approued entent, that he bere openli an ymage of wex or of tree or of metal or of stoon in his hond, that
pilgrimage, MS. (first hand).e. argument spekith of, which is the vein glorie of the berer.
And ȝit ferther in this mater thus: If thilk ymage be offrid up in the place into which the pilgrimage is mad, and be hangid up into open siȝt forto there abide, vndir this entent that who euer schal aftirward come into the same place he schal weel se bi thilk ymage that sum man, (as the offrer of thilk ymage,) hadde deuocioun forto visite thilk place bi pilgrimage, and mai therbi be stirid forto do pilgrimage into the same place, (and the mo suche ymagis up offrid hange there, the more ech comer thidir and biholder of hem mai be stirid forto visite thilk place bi pilgrimage); and if a notable ymage be offrid up there,up there in the MS.e. argument makith mension,) and therfore alle tho persoones whiche blamen pilgrimes, (and namelich notable per|soones,
mowe, MS. (first hand).seid is interlineated by a later hand.e. argument.
To the xje. argument y answere by likenes thus: It is writun, Ysaie ie. c., that God seid to the peple thus: Do ȝe awey the yuel of ȝoure thouȝtis fro the myddis of ȝou, euen as, Iosue xxiiije. c.,as Iosue seide, MS. (first hand).Do ȝe awey alien Goddis fro the myddis of ȝou: but certis open it is, that it folewith not bi vertu and strengthe of the seid text, Ysaieof Ysaie, MS. (first hand).e. c., that therfore men ouȝten do awey fro hem good thouȝtis. Wher|fore of the text bifore alleggid in the xje. argument, Iosue xxiiije. c., whanne it is seid thus: Do ȝe awey alien Goddis fro the myddis of ȝou, folewith not therof or therbi, that men ouȝten do a wey fro the myddis of hem ymagis, whiche ben not alien Goddis. And thus it is liȝt and esy forto answere to the xje. argument.
FOR answere to the xije. argument y graunte the ie. premisse of the argument, and y denye the ije. pre|mysse of it; which ije. premisse is this: That bothe Iewis and hethen men worschipiden ymagis for Goddis, whiche thei wisten beben, MS. (first hand).Trimegistus, MS., and so also below.e. Psalme thus: Alle goddis of hethen men ben feendis, forsothe God made heuenes. But so it is, that noon ymagis maad bi mennys hondis ben feendis or weren euere feendis. Wherfore no Goddis of hethen men ben or weren oonli ymagis mad bi mennys hondis. Certis this argument is so formal a sillogisme that no man may denye his forme in proceding: and the firste premysse is witnessid pleinli bi Holi Scripture in lxxxxve. Psalme, and the ije. premysse is open and sure ynouȝ in ech mannis resoun. Wherfore the con|clusioun of the same argument is also needis to be trewe.
Also Hermes Trismegistus in his book, (as Austyn rehercid, [Lib.] viij. De Civ. Dei, c. xxiij. and c. xxiiij.De Civ. Dei, lib. viii. c. 23., where much more may be seen to the same purpose. The work referred to by S. Augus|tine is the Asclepius, or Λόγος τέλειος, a Neo-Platonic production, which may be assigned to the third century after Christ, being probably the earliest of the works attributed to Hermes Trismegistus.
Bi resoun also y mai proue this same present pur|pos thus: Hethen men and also Iewis werenwere, MS. (first hand).schewith, MS. (first hand).were, MS. (first hand).e. argu|ment. And sithen it is so, that no child neither eny other fonnysch man now lyuyng wole knouleche and bileeue, that a carpenter or a masoun schal or mai make a thing better than him silf, and such a thing that schal helpe men and do weel to hem, and to whiche thei mowe weel preie for help in her nedis; it folewith that the grete naciouns of hethen men and of Iewis with solempne kingis and emperouris and othere lordis and grete clerkis neuer so myche dotiden and erriden forto worschipe and take eny ymage maad bi man, that it withoute more therto had schulde be to hem her Souereyn Lord and her God.
What thanne was the hool thing which thei wor|schipiden for eny God, good it were forto here leerne and knowe. And forto here the treuthe herof this muste be seid in this mater. Soone aftir the bigyn|nyng of the world, bisidis hem that lyueden in doom of resoun and therwith recuyueden bileeue fro God and aungelis, summe othere and manye lyueden in doom of resoun oonli and receyueden not such now seid bileeue delyuered to the world bi God and bi aungelis. And of these men summe in her resonyng couthen not fynde that ther was or is eny other sub|staunce being saue bodili substaunce, as the iiij. ele|mentis binethe, with alle the mengid bodies maad of hem in the eir, in the see, and in the erthe, summe lyuyng summe not lyuyng, and as the vij. planetis of heuen with her orbis and whelis, and as the fix sterris with her orbe or whele. And ferthermore these men, bi cause thei fonden that in the planetis and sterris and her seid orbis and whelis weren noon contrarieteescontraritees, MS. (first hand).
Summe othere and manye weren quycker in natural witt and waxiden betterbetter added in the margin in a later(?) hand.were, MS. (first hand).wolde, MS. (first hand).that alle Goddis of hethen men ben feendis; and also in the cxxxiiije. Psalme, that the Goddis of hethen men ben gold and siluer, the werkis of mennis hondis; euen as Cristen men wolen graunte these ij. thingis stonde to gidere and be to gidere trewe; that God is a Spirit vnbodili; and the same God is a man, and a bodi bigete of a womman, and nurischid of hir, and which was slein, and was mad deede. Thus miche is ynouȝ, as for now and here, forto knowe how ydolatrie came vp.
And that this conceit of ydolatrie is not feyned, it is open. Forwhi ellis Holi Scripture herto bifore alleggid mai not conuenientli and likely be saued, nei|ther the testimonye of Hermes mai ellis weel stonde, neither resoun mai consent how ydolatrie in so wise persoones schulde in other wise bigynne and be doon. Ferthermore, for as myche as the seide hethen men trowiden the seid ymagis to haue be quyke continueli with the seid spiritis whom thei trowiden to haue be Goddis, therfore tho hethen men trowiden tho ymagis to haue alwey herd what men spaken to hem and haue seen what was doon to hem; thouȝ for hiȝ dig|nite thei wolden not at alle tymes ȝeue answeris, nei|ther at alle tymes schewe that thei herden and sawen and myȝten move hem silf, into tyme thei weren myche preied and weel serued and plesid of men. And ȝit al this was vntrewe; for feendis, whiche ben bad spiritis and enemyes to men, entriden at summe whilis tho ymagis, not making tho ymagis to be quyke, neither forto heere or se or speke, neither making oon persoon of the ymage and of the feend
e. c., Ysaie xliiije. c., and in the Sauter, the cxiije. and the cxxxiiije. psalmes, and in manye othere placis,) were treuly ȝouun to tho ydolatrers in this sen|tence and vndirstonding, that in tho ymagis, whiche ydolatrers taken with more therto sett for her Goddis, weren noon othere spiritis thanne feendis, and that in manye tymes whanne tho ydolatrers worschipiden tho ymagis as hauyng in hem summe othere thingis, tho ymagis hadden in hem noon othere thingis than gold and siluer and the werkis of mennys hondis. And if Holi Scripture in the placis of Scripture now spokun be vndirstonde in this now bi me formed sentence, certis alle tho reprouyng and upbreiding pro|cessis vpon ydolatrers ben trewe, and alle her vpbreid|ingis mad ben iust; and that whether tho idolatrers weren hethen men or Iewis.
FORTO make bi al this proces an answere to the xije. argument it is to be seid thus: The hethen men, of which it is now seid that thei worschipiden ymagis for her Goddis, diden so and camen into thilk greet synne of ydolatrie, bi cause thei neuer receyueden the feith which othere men (not being ydolatrers) in tho same daies receyueden: but tho hethen men trustiden as into al her reule to the doom of resoun, and wolden not seche aftir forto attende to the euydencis whiche thei myȝten bi doom of re|soun
Manye also of the Iewis, whiche werenwere, MS. (first hand).
But now sumwhat bifore the birthe of Crist alle Iewis camen into so greet attendaunce to the euydencis of verry feith teching oon God to be, and also aftir the passioun of Crist hider to in thisinthis, MS.e. argument.
If eny man wole obiecte aȝens my conceit now bifore sett vpon the bigynnyng and cause of idolatrie, and wole allegge aȝens me what is writen in Sa|pience xiiije. c. of the bigynnyng and the cause of ydolatrie thus: Forsothe idolis werenwere, MS. (first hand).not at the bigynnyng, neither tho schulen be withoute ende. Forwhi the voidnessis of men founden these ydolis into the world, and therfore the eend of tho is founden schort. Forwhi the fadir making sorowe with bitter moorning, made soone to him an ymage of the sone which was rauischid, and biganne to worschipe him now as God, which was deed thanne as man; and he ordeyned holi things and sacrificis among hise seruauntis. Aftirward in the tyme comyng bitwixe, whanne the wickid custom was strong, this errour was kept as a lawe, and ymagis
weren worschipid bi lordschip of tyrannys, et cætera: —certis herto y answere thus: If this processe writun Sapience xiiije. c. meene that thilk maner, which is there sett and seid, ydolatrie biganne in the world, as it semeth that thilk processe schulde it meene, thanne y seie and holde that thilk proces, Sapience xiiije. c., is vntrewe. And forto so holde, whilis y haue strong euydence bi Holi Scripture and bi resoun and bi witnes of him which was a greet clerk among idolatrers, y may be bold ynowȝ. For the Book of Sapience is not a book of Holi Scripture, and the nakid affermyng of the writer and maker of thilk book of Sapience, whos name was Philo,Prologue to Wisdom in the Vulgate, which is also prefixed to the book in Wiclif's translation, from which (in its later form) he has cited the above passage. See Wicl. Bibl. vol. 3, p. 85. The prologue runs thus: "Liber Sapientiæ apud Hebræos nusquam est. Unde et ipse stylus Græcam magis eloquen|tiam redolet. Hunc Judæi Philonis esse affirmant."to is added by a later hand.e. chapiter of Sapience spekith, and that as miche and as ful as thei han be a this side the deies of thilk fadir. And no mannman, MS. (first hand).muste, MS. (first hand).e. chapiter of Sapience, as in that.
If symple men wolen wondre here whi that thilk book of Sapience is so famoseli sett in Biblis now adaies, ȝhe, and lijk solempneli as othere bokis of Holi Scripture ben sett in the Bible, herto y mai answere thus: That in the bigynnyng of the chirche, soone aftir Cristis passioun, writingis dressing men into holynes weren scant and fewe in reward that thei han ben sithen and aftir in tyme, and Cristen menmen is added by a later hand.hadde, MS. (first hand).in libros Salom. juxt. LXX. (Op. tom. x. p. 436., Ed. 1740.)
Perauenture, whanne al this what y haue write of the ije. and iije. principal gouernauncis in the firste and in the ije. and iije. parties of this book hiderto schal be weel ouer red and schal be weel vndir|stonde, the men whiche were bifore impugners of the seid first and ije. gouernauncis, that is to seie, of having and vsing ymagis and of doing pilgrimagis, wolen agree and accorde to al what is entendid fro the bigynnyng of the ije. parti of this book hidir to, (or perauenture fro the bigynnyng of the first parti of this book hidir to,) but thanne thei wolen seie thus: "Thouȝ it be leeful and expedient to manie folk for to haue the seid vce of ymagis and for to do pilgrimagis, ȝit we seen so manye viciose gouer|nauncis mengid ther with or comyng forth therfro, that we wolen be free forto speke aȝens tho syn|ful gouernauncis. And also, thouȝ it be leeful and expedient to manye folkis forto vce in the seid maner ymagis and forto haunte pilgrimagis, ȝit sithen it is not to alle folk lijk expedient and profitable, and it is not to eny persoon comaundid bi doom of resoun or bi Holi Scripture, we wolen not holde us bounde as bi eny precept of lawe of kinde or of God forto vce ymagis and do pilgrim|agis; but we wolen stonde in oure liberte forto be remembrid upon God and hise benefetis and the othere fer bifore rehercid thingis bi suche ymagis and pilgrymagis, or by redingis and heringis of Holi Scripture, or by inward meditaciouns, or bi talking to gidere of oure neibouris or with oure curat hauyng cure of oure soulis."
Sotheli if the men, whiche weren sumtyme impug|ners aȝens ymagis and pilgrimagis, wolen in this now rehercid maner seie and holde, y wole seie to hem aȝenward as for her firste seiyng thus: Be ȝe weel avisid what is vicioseli doon and vsid aboute ymagis and pilgrimagis, and be ȝe siker of the treuthe, bifore
e. seiyng y haue not herde ȝit into this day, that eny prelat hath compellid ȝou for to vce ymagis or forto make pilgrimagis: but sithen it is a trouthe of Goddis lawe that ymagis mowen be vcid profitabili and a trouthe it is of Goddis lawe that pilgrimagis mowen be doon fruytefulli, therfore prelatis of the chirche mowenmowe, MS. (first hand), and perhaps so also in the two instances preceding.biholding, MS.be, MS. (first hand).The book of worschiping,) sotheli y schal neuere birewe ȝou, thouȝ ȝe be therto dryue bi peynes, and thouȝ ȝe for so greet and so perilose obstinacie be soor punyschid.
And oon thing truste ȝe weel, that thouȝ ȝe wolde wyncy and repugne aȝens the clergie and aȝens alle tho whiche wolen deuoutli and profitabli vce ymagis and pilgrimagis, ȝe schulen neuer haue the maistrie. Forwhi Leo the Thridde Emperour, whanne he was emperour of the hool Eest and Weest Cristendom, impungned ymagis with al his power, and he brake ymagis, and punyschid men soor whiche wolde vse hem; and myche of the Eest cuntre helde with him: but ȝit, ther upon was mad a greet counceil of all the Eest and Weest clergie bi Gregori the ije. Pope of Rome; and it was so stabilid ymagis to be had in chirchis aȝens the Emperouris entent, and the de|uocioun of al the peple in the West partie was therto so greet, that tho which wolden haue had ymagis to be leid doun myȝten not haue her entent.
Also Constantyn the ve. (sone of the seid Leo and emperour next aftir his fadir,) attemptid the same which his fadir bifore attemptid; but ȝit Stevyn the ije. Pope aȝenstode him, and aftirward a greet coun|ceil was mad bi Pope Adrian Audrian, MS.Constantyn, MS.
And certis in lijk maner it wole fare, who euer attempte aȝens the seid vce of ymagis. And ther fore, sithen ymagis and pilgrimagis ben leeful and mowe be profitabili vsid, (as it is sufficientli bi me proued here and in The book of worschiping,) and peple ben so sett that thilk vce thei wolen not lacke and leue, it is a greet folie forto theraȝens repugne; and a greet folie it is forto counceile men into the contrarie, but if a man wole make myche yuel come whanne noon is had, and but if he wole of a litil
Who euer wole se more for iustifiyng of the seid first and ije. principal gouernauncis now bifore tretid thoruȝout this present ije. partie of this book, rede he ouer weel The book of worschiping thoruȝ hise bothe parties, and there of this mater he schal se more toward the fulnes.
FOR to make a cleer soiling answere to the xiije. argument y putte bifore these vj. reulis or supposi|ciouns. Oon is this: Fro eeldist daies contynueli hidir to men werenwere, MS. (first hand).
The ije. reule or supposicioun is this: Among suche now seid colouris and figuris of spechis and of writingis, summe ben these ij. now to be rehercid. Whane a man doith a deede bi a partie of him, (as bi his hond or his foot,) we vsen for to seie that his hond or his foot dooth thilk deede: not withstonding that in the speche of verri pure trouthe to be take withoute colour and figure, it is to be seid that the hond doith not the deede neither the foot dooth the deede, but the ful hool man doith the deede bi his hond or foot, as bi a parti of him seruyng to thilk deede; and ȝit bi cause the hool man doith the deede bi his hond or foot as a parti therto seruyng we vsen forto seie that his hond or foot dooth thilk deede. In lijk maner, whanne a man dooth a deede bi an other thing being an instrument forto therbi do the deede, (as is a spere forto ouerthrowe anotheriniowsting, MS.e. reule; ȝhe, and not oonli these colouris and figuris han ben vsid in spechis and writingis out of Holi Writ, but also Holi Writt vsith ful manye dyuerse colouris and figuris for cause seid bifore in the firste reule. And among al other Holi Writt vsith these ij. bifore ensaumplid colouris. Forwhi as to the firste colour ensaumpling therof is writun Iob xvije. c. in the bigynnyng thus: Lord, delyuere thou me, and sette thou me bisidis thee; and the hond of ech fiȝte aȝens me,e. colour ensaumpling therof is writun, ie. Regum ije. c., thus: The bowe of strong men is ouercome, and infirme or feble men ben gird with strengthe. Lo, it is seid that the hond of ech schulde fiȝte aȝens him, and ȝit open it is that the hond of a man fiȝtith not, but the hool man fiȝtith and not his hond; but he aloone fiȝtith bi his hond, as bi a parti seruyng in to thilk fiȝting. And in lijk maner it is seid that the bowe of strong men ben ouercome, thouȝ in verri trouthe of propre speche the bowe is not ouercome; forwhi the bowe fiȝtith not, but the strong man is ouercome in and bi his bowe as his instrument. And thus it is open that Holi Writt witnessith this ije. reule to be trewe.
The iije. reule or supposicioun is this: Whanne oon thing is lijk to an othir thing in substaunce or being or in gouernaunce or in worching, thilk thing is woned be clepid vndir namethe name, MS. (first hand).transsumpcioun, Crist seid that he was a vyne, and hise disciplis weren braunchis, and his Fadir was an erthe tilier, and Iohun the Baptiste was Helie.3 And al for this, that he was lijk in wirching to a vyne, and hise disciplis weren lijke to braunchis of a vyne, and his Fadir was lijk to an erthe tilier, and Iohun Baptist was lijk to Helie.
The iiije. reule is this: Whanne oon thing is or|deyned and deputid forto represente and signifie and bringe into mynde or consideracioun an other thing, thilk thing is woned be clepid vndir the name of the other thing so signified or representid. Forwhi in this maner of colourid speche we seien: "This ymage is Seint Peter; and this ymage is Seint Marie; and here stondith Seint Iame; and a laumpe hangith bi|fore Seint Kateryn; and in this steyned clooth ridith Hector of Troie; and here in this steyned clooth King Herri leieth a sege to Harflew; in this dai, which we now in this ȝeer halewen, Crist was born; in this dai, which now is at Mydsomer, Iohun Bap|tist was born." And al for this, that this ymage re|presentith Seint Peter or Seint Marie or Seint Iame or Seint Kateryn, and this ymage representith Hector or King Herry, and this dai in this ȝeer is deputid forto represente and signifie the same dai in which Crist was born, and this other day in this same ȝeer is deputid forto represente the same dai in which Iohun Baptist was born. And not oonli the spechis of this iiije. reule ben vsid out of Holi Scripture, but also in Holi Scrip|ture. Forwhi in Holi Scripture, Genes. xlie. c., vponThe vij. faire kijn and the vij. ful eeris of corn ben vij. ȝeeris of plente; and the vij. kijn thynne and leene, whiche stieden up after tho, and the vij. thinne eeris of corn and smyten with brennyng wijnd ben vij. ȝeeris of hungir to comyng. Also, ie. Cor. xe. c., it is seid thus: Crist was the stoon which ȝaue water in desert, Numeri the xxe. chapiter. And also, Ephes. ije. c., it is seid that Crist was the corner stoon, ioynyng the ij. wallis to gidere in Salamonis temple, of which it is writun in the cxvije. Psalme. And al for that the stoon in desert signified and representid Crist, and also the other corner stoon in the temple of Salamon signified and representid Crist, and the vij. fatte kijn and the vij. ful eerisȝeeris, MS. (first hand).
The ve. reule or supposicioun is this: Ech spech or writing so colourid and figurid as the ie., ije., iije. and iiije. reulis techen, ouȝten be reducid and brouȝt into the meenyng and vndirstonding of a speche or writ|ing, which in him silf is trewe with out such colour and figure. Forwhi no vntrewe speche, as and for that he is vntrewe, is alloweable and vsable; but ech such speche, as in that, is reprouable: for al vntreuthe, as such, is viciose, and ther fore ech such speche is alloweable and vseable in that, and for that, that he is mad trewe bi bringing and reducing him into the meenyng and vndirstonding of a speche, which is trewe withoute such colour and figure. And ther|fore the dewe menyng or vnderstonding of this speche or writing; "Thi riȝt hand dide this dede," is to be seid thus: "Thou bi thi riȝt hond, as bi thi partie therto seruyng, didist this deede." And the dew meenyng or vndirstonding of this speche or writing;
Iohun Baptist, MS. (first hand).
The vje. reule is this: Euen as it is alloweable me for to seie that the instrument dooth the deede, for that the man dooth thilk deede bi the instrument; so bi lijk skile it is alloweable me forto seie thus: I "preie the instrument to do the same deede," for that y preie the man to do thilk deede bi the same instrument. That this reule is trewe y proue thus: It is alloweable me to seie to the spere of this man thus: "Thou threwist doun the other man;" for that the dew meenyng and vndirstonding of this speche is this: "Thou, man, bi thi spere threwist doun the other man," (as it is open bi the ve. reule, and this meenyng and vnderstonding is alloweable as conue|nient:) but so it is, that as weel and as dewely the dew vnderstonding of this speche; "Y preie thee, O spere, throwe thou doun the othir man," is this: "Y preie thee, O man, throwe thou doun bi this spere the other man," as it is open bi the same ve. reule; and this meenyng and vndirstonding is alloweable and conuenient, as it is open bi the same ve. reule. Wherfore as weel and as alloweabili y mai seie this speche: "Y preie thee, spere, throwe doun this man," how weel and alloweabili y mai seie this speche: "I seie to thee, spere, that thou threwist
e. reule muste nedis be trewc, that it is alloweable and conuenient speche forto seie, 'That y preie thee, spere, that thou ouer|throwe the othir man.' "
Certis these vj. reulis or supposiciouns ȝeuen suffi|cient and cleer iustifiyng to manye spechis and writ|ingis seid to crossis and of crossis. Forwhi if it be seid or writun to the same crosse in which Crist henge: "Thou, crosse, aȝenbouȝtist man," the dewe meenyng and vndirstonding ther of is this: "Sum persoon aȝenbouȝte man bi thee, crosse, in that that thou were an instrument forto aȝenbie man." And if it be seid or writun of the same crosse thus: "The crosse of Crist saued the world and clensid the world," the dewe vndirstonding ther of is this: "Crist bi his crosse as bi therto a seru|yng instrument saued the world and clensid the world." And if it be seid or writun to an other crosse sett vp in a chirche: "In thee the Sauiour of the world henge," the dew vndirstonding ther of is this: "In oon thing lijk to thee (or in oon thing, which thou representist,) the Sauiour of the world henge." And if to the same crosse in which Crist died it be preied thus: "O crosse of Crist, y preie thee helpe me and defende me and iustifie me," the dew vndirstonding her of mai be this: "O Crist, y preie thee helpe me and iustifie me bi thi crosse as therto the helping instrument." And herbi it is open that the dew vndirstonding of thilk preier bifore rehercid in the xiije. argument and conteyned in this ympne, Vexilla Regis prodeunt, et cætera,
seid there thus, MS. (first hand, but the whole written on an erasure).O cros, the oon hope in this tyme of passioun, encrese thou riȝtwisnes to piteful men, and ȝeue forȝeuenes to gilti men, may be this, if the speche be maad to a crosse in oure chirche: "O God, encrece riȝtwisnes to men hauyng pitee, and ȝeue forȝeuenes to gilti men bi the cros, which representith and signifieth the instrument of oure oon hope in this tyme representing the tyme of passioun." And in lijk maner dew vnderstonding of the preier, which is conteyned in the prose of the response, O crux viride lignum, et cætera, whanne it is preied there thus: Thou, which barist the Lord, make the patroun (that is to seie, Crist) forto be to us redi or boweable; and thou, stok, which were worthi to bere the price of the world, ȝeue and graunte to this peple the benefice of the crosse, mai be this, if the preier be mad to eny crosse now being in oure chirche: "O God make the patroun (that is to seie, Crist) be to us inclynable bi this cros signi|fiyng the instrument or the crosse which bare the Lord: and, O Lord, ȝeue and graunte to this peple of Crist the benefet of the crosse, bi the stok which signifieth the stok that deserued bere the price of the world." And eftsoone in lijk maner the dew vndirstonding of the preier conteyned in the anteme O crux splendidior, et cætera, if it be preied ther totherto, MS.O sweete stok, bering sweete nailis and sweete birthens, saue thou this present cumpany gaderid into thi preising, may be this: "O God, this present cumpany gaderid into the preising of thee to be doon bi the crosse saue thou bi this stok, signifiyng the sweete crosse instrument bering sweete nailis and sweete birthens." And in lijk maner dew vndirstondingis mowen be ȝouun to
e. argument in the [xe.]e. partie.
NEUERTHELES, thouȝ bi these vj. reulis these preiers, whiche mowen be seid as mad to the cros, mowen be saued fro inconueniencein conuenience, MS., and so just below, where in (at the end of the line) has no hyphen.e. and viije. reulis or supposiciouns whiche now schulen be put forth.
The vije. reule or supposicioun myche lijk to the ije. reule is this: Whanne a man doith or suffrith a deede bi eny thing which is a meene prouoking or stiring notabili the doer or suffrer for to it do or suffre, or which is in eny other wise a notable meene therto, it is woned be seid that thilk meene dooth the deede; in this vnderstonding, that thilk meene helpith and fortherith in meenyng that the deede be don of his veri doer: as, if Iohun be a prouoking meene that the King ȝeueȝeueth, MS. (first hand).ti. pound of ȝeerli fee, whilis Iohun preieth the King that he so do, it mai be seid and is woned be seid that Iohun dooth and ȝeueth to me thilk fee, and his preier doith and ȝeueth to me the same fee; in this vndirstonding, that Iohun meeneth or helpith, and fortherith in meenyng that the ȝeuyng be doon, and his preier doith in meenyng
e. reule is ensaumplid and vsid. Forwhi, Iames the ve. chapiter, it is seid thus: If eny of ȝou is sijk, lede he in preestis of the chirche, and preie thei for him, and anointe thei in the name of the Lord: and the preier of feith schal saue the sijk man. Lo how Holi Writt seith that the preier schal saue the sijk man, not withstonding that in very trouthe of propre speche neither the preier neither he that preieth dooth thilk deede of sauyng, but God aloone doithdoith is interlineated in a later (?) hand.e. reule is witnessid bi Holi Scripture to be trewe.
And if this reule be trewe, certis thanne folewith ther of that the viije. reule or supposicioun is trewe, which is this: It is allowable that y seie thus: "I preie Iohun forto ȝeue to me the seid fee;" and it is allowable that y seie thus: "I preie the seid preier of Iohun to be maad to the King, that thilk preier ȝeue to me the same fee of xxti. pound." For whi, if this speche is alloweable: "Iohun ȝeuythȝeuyth and ȝeuith (as well as prouid below) are not forms used in the body of the MS.: they occur in the midst of words written on erasures, which are very extensive throughout this paragraph, two|thirds of which have been re-written in a very similar style, but not by the same hand as the rest. The y, which the original scribe dots, is here undotted.ti. pound;" and if this speche be alloweable: "The seid preier of Iohun ȝeuithȝeuyth and ȝeuith (as well as prouid below) are not forms used in the body of the MS.: they occur in the midst of words written on erasures, which are very extensive throughout this paragraph, two|thirds of which have been re-written in a very similar style, but not by the same hand as the rest. The y, which the original scribe dots, is here undotted.ti, pound;" certis thanne it is alloweable that I seie thus: "I preie bothe to
ti. pound." But so it is, that euer|either of the ij. former seid spechis is alloweable. Wherfore euereither of thethese, MS. (first corrector).e. reule and his proof. And that the ije. premisse is trewe, it may be prouid thus: To this speche, "Iohun ȝeueth to me this seid fee "of xxti. pound," and to this speche, "His preier ȝeueth to me the same xxti. pound," the dewe vn|dirstondingis ben these: "Iohun is meene that the seied fee be ȝouun to me, and his preier is also meene that the same seid fee is ȝouun to me," as schewith the vije. reule. And open it is bi the ve. rewle that this vndirstonding is allowable and con|venient ynouȝ. Wherfore the ije. premysse is trewe. And so nedis the conclusioun of the bothe premyssis is trewe, namelich sithen in lijk maner lijk verrili the dewe vndirstonding of this speche: "Y preie Iohun that he ȝeue to me the seid fee, and y preie his preier forto ȝeue to me the same fee," is this: "I preie Iohun that he be meene into the ȝeuyng of the seid fee, and y preie Iohun that he make the preier of him to be also meene into the same ȝeuing of the same fee," as it is open bi the vje. and bi the vije. reulis. And this vndirstonding is allowable and conuenient ynouȝ. Wherfore nedis folewith that the seid conclusioun is trewe.
And thus these vije. and viije. rewlis schewen openli ynouȝ and sureli ynouȝ, that ech of the preiers whiche semen to be mad to the crosse (and rehercid bifore in the xiije. argument) is alloweable and con|uenient ynouȝ. Forwhi the vije. and viije. reulis schewen that the dewe vndirstonding of the firste
Vexilla Regis prodeunt, is this: "O thou God, bi whomwhom and the are traces of another letter, in the hand of the corrector, either p or possibly the Saxon th, having a trace of some contraction above, or perhaps a mark intended to cancel it. Pos|sibly we should read this the cros, but more probably the text, as edited, is correct. Much of this paragraph is re-written on an era|sure.
And euen as it is now answerid bi the vije. and viije. rewlis for iustifiyng of the first there rehercid preier maad (as in voice thouȝ not in the vnder|stonding)
e. and viije. reulis into the iustifiyng of alle othere preiers there maad (as in voice thouȝ not in the vnderstonding) to the cros, whiche ben rehercid bi fore in the xiije. argument. And for that this is open ynouȝ, therfore more speche therof y ouer passe. In other wise into iustifiyng of the seid preiers mad to the cros, I haue answerid in The book of worschiping, the ije. parti, the iiije. chapiter. Chese the seers which of tho answers to hem lijkith; for these answers here mad and the answer ther mad ben vndoutabli and at fullethe fulle, MS. (first corrector). The whole of this paragraph is re-written on an erasure.
FOR answere to the xiiije. and xve. argumentis to gidere vndir oon, y sende bifore these iij. reulis or supposicions.
Oon is: That a man schal haue more feruentli hise affecciouns and loues anentis his loued freend, whanne and whilis thilk freend is at sumwhile present per|sonali with him and bisidis him, than he schal haue, if the freend be absent alwey and not personali pre|sent with him. This reule is openli trewe bi expe|rience. Forwhi, (not withstonding a man talke and speke of his freend at the mete table or in sum other place, and haue as good affeccioun as he can haue upon the same freend in such absence,) ȝit if in the meene while the freend come into him personali and sitte doun with him, he schal haue miche gretter af|feccioun vpon the seid freend than he hadde in the freendis absence. Wherfore this firste reule is trewe.
The ije. reule is this: If a man wole encrese his gode affecciouns anentis his absent freend, whilis he mai not haue the same freend visibili present, it is profitable to him that he ymagine thilk freend to be with him present bodili. This is euydentli trewe bi assay of experience to alle hem whiche ȝeuen hem wijsly to the bisynes of contemplacioun, namelich in the bigynnyng of her contemplatijf lijf. Wherfore this reule is trewe.
Also thus: If the freend were bodili visibili pre|sent, thilk presence were best forto gendre the seid affeccioun. Wherfore the other next present being of his freend, which is next aftir his bodili present visible being, is the next grettist meene aftir his bodili visible presence into the gendring of the seid affeccioun. And thanne ferther thus: But so it is, that thilk present beyng of the freend, grettist aftir his bodili visible presence, is his presence in ymagi|nacioun. Wherfore this present ije. reule is trewe: That it is ful profitable into gendring of affecciouns upon the absent freend, that the desirer of the affec|cioun haue ymaginacioun that thilk freend is inin (occurring at the end of the line in the MS.) is joined by a hyphen to its sub|stantive, thus showing that in|stances of apparent junction of prepositions to their substantives are not purely accidental.
The iije. reule is this: It is esier forto ymagyne a thing absent to be present in an other thing lijk therto, than withoute eny other thing lijk therto. Forwhi euery thing lijk to an othir thing bringith into ymaginacioun and into mynde better and liȝtir and esier the thing to him lijk, than the thing to him lasse lijk or vnlijk. And herfore it is that miche esier men schulen ymagine the dai of Cristis birthe to be present in the dai as lijk therto markid in the
Now after these thre reulis and vpon hem y pro|cede thus: Ech man hath nede forto haue gode affec|ciouns anentis Crist, as upon his best freend; and this freend ȝeueth not to us his presence visibili; wherfore it is profitable to ech man for to ymagine this freend be present to us bodili and in a maner visibili. And sithen herto serueth ful weel and ful myche the ymage of Crist crucified, whilis and if the biholder ymagineth Crist to be streiȝt abrode bodili thoruȝ the bodi of the same ymage, heed to heed, hond to hond, breste to breste, foot to foot,—therfore the oolde practik of deuoute Cristen men was forto so ymagyne; thouȝ thei knewen and bileeueden weel ynouȝ, that it was not so in deede as thei deuoutli ymagineden. In this ymaginacioun thei helden hem silf forto meete bodili and presentli with Crist in Palme-Sunday, in which dai ȝeerli thei ymagineden the same firste dai be in which Crist came visibli riding into Ierusalem and was mett of the Iewis singing to him: Osanna to the sone of Dauith. And so al what in suche proces|siouns was seid and sungun toward the crosse in eelde daies of the chirche in Palme-Sundai was seid of Crist and to Crist ymagined to be bodili present with and in the crucifix or crosse, which the peple in proces|sioun bihelden.
And herbi ȝit into ferther encrecing of deuocioun and good affeccioun to be gendrid upon Crist, thei crepiden to ward and to such an ymage of the crucifix in Good Fridai; not as thouȝ thei crepiden thanne and there to noon other thing saue to the ymage, but that thei aftir her ymaginacioun crepiden to the persoon of Crist, which bi her ymaginacioun was
athis, MS. See note on p. 268.e. and xve. argu|mentis to gidere.
Who euer schal cleerli and perfitli vndirstonde the answere which is now bifore maad to the xiiije. and xve. argumentis, he schal therbi take sufficient ground forto excuse fro blame and fro vnfruytful and lewid gouernaunce alle tho whiche wolen touche with her hondis the feet and othere parties and the clothis of ymagis, and wolen thanne aftir sette to her visage and to her iȝen and to her mouthis her tho hondis, with whiche in the now seid maner thei touchiden the ymagis or the clothingis of the ymagis. Certis,—sithen it is openli knowe for sooth, that thou woldist be riȝt weel plesid and thou woldist myche make
And so, therfore, the leest degree of ooning or ioynyng of a man to Goddis persoon or to a Seintis persoon is a meene forto gendre loue anentis God or the Seint, and forto continue and encrece the loue bifore gendrid; and that more or lasse aftir that thilk ioynyng or coupling to Goddis persoon or to the Seintis persoon is more or lasse nyȝer or romber. Seen we not that, if a man loue a child, he wole sette his cheke to the cheke of the child, his iȝe to the childis iȝe, his forhede to the childis forhede, his nose to the childis nose, and therbi the more loue is gendrid anentis the child? Whi not in lijk maner the more loue and good affeccioun mai be gendrid anentis God or a Seint bi such touche to be maad bi the bifore sett ymaginacioun to God or the Seint? Whethir not oon man schal loue bi so miche the more a lord, if he mai be admyttid for to come so nyȝ that he lie with the lord in oon bed? And if he mai not be admyttid into so greet nyȝnes, ȝit if he mai be ad|mittid for to ligge in the same chambir with the lord, certis therbi schal good loue and affeccioun be gen|drid. And therfore such good symple bisynessis bifore spokun, whiche lay persoones doon aboute ymagis, ouȝten not be scorned neither be rebukid, but if the scorners or rebukers ther yn schewe that thei knowenknowe, MS. (first hand).
In an other maner to such creping toward an ymage crucified and to such kissing doon to the ymagis feet, and (bi lijk skile) to the now seid handling y haue answerid in The book of worschiping, the ije. parti, the iiije. chapiter. Of whiche answeris euer either is good ynouȝ and trewe ynowȝ, and neuerneither of hem is contrarie to other of hem; and therfore chese the reder of this place and of thilk place whether this or thilk or bothe he wole holde.
I haue bisett the lenger bisynes forto answere suf|ficientli and cleerli to the xiije. and xiiije. and xve. argumentis, bi cause that in tho deedis of Palme-Sun|day and Good Fridai, where upon the xiije. and xiiije. [and] xve. argumentis rennen, the aduersaries holden to be greet and cursid wickidnes. Not withstonding that if the conceitis ben had in vce, whiche the biforebifore seid.
Neuertheles this y wolde that ech man knewe, (and herto y wolde that ech man toke hede,) thouȝ the excercise and vce of suche now seid visible signes, doon in deuocioun and with vndirstonding of tho signes what thei bitokenen, is good and profitable to be had at certein whilis, namelich of hem whiche kunnen not rede or moun not here the word of God red or prechid to hem,—ȝit y wole not that men schuldenschulde not, MS. (first hand).
The experience had in this mater is so sure, that therfore y am bold forto it knouleche; in so miche that it is weel aspied bi assai whiwhich, MS. (first hand).Here eendith the ije. parti of THE REPRESSER.
THE iije. principal gouernaunce, for which many of the laife blamen vniustli the clergie, is this: Persoones of the clergie receyuen, holden, and occupien lordschip of housis and feeldis, not oonli in which thei hem silf dwellen and which thei hem silf tilien, but also which thei hem silf setten forth to be fermed of othere occupiers, and receyuen rente therfore of the same occupiers. Certis summe persoones of the lay peple beren an hond this now seid iije. principal gouernaunce to be aȝens the lawe of God, how euer litle or fewe tho vnmouable godis ben; and therfore thei beren an hond that alle tho persoones of the clergie whiche willingli contynuen the now seid iije. principal gouernaunce ben thoruȝ al thilk while in state of dampnacioun, what euere gode deedis thei doon.
That this bering an hond is vntrewe, (and that for that the seid iije. principal gouernaunce is not aȝens the lawe of God,) y schal proue bi vj.vje., MS.e. principal gouernaunce is not aȝens Holi Scripture of the Oold Testament neither of the Newe Testament.
That this conclusioun is trewe for his first parti, y proue thus: If Holi Scripture of the Oold Testament schulde forbede the seid gouernaunce, it schulde so for|bede bi summe of these processis now here anoon aftir to be rehercid; of which oon is writun, Numeri xviije. c., where it is seid thus: And the Lord seid to Aaron,
Ȝe schulenschulde, MS. (first hand), appa|rently, twicenot weelde eny thing in the lond of hem, neither ȝe schulen haue part among hem; I am thi part and heritage in the myddis of the sones of Israel. Forsothe y ȝaf to the sones of Leuy allealle is added in the margin by a later (?) hand, the same which rubricated the MS. apparently: it occurs in Wiclif's version.the tithis of Israel into possessioun for the seruice, bi which thei seruen me in the tabernacle of boond of pees, that the sones of Israel neiȝe no more to the tabernacle of boond of pees, neither do deedli synne. To the sones aloon of Leuy, seruyng me in the taber|nacle and bering the synnes of the peple, it schal be a lawful thing euerlasting in ȝoure genera|ciouns. Thei schulenschulde, MS. (first hand), appa|rently, tweelde noon othir thing, and thei schulen be apaied with the offring of tithis, whiche y departid into vsis and necessaries of hem.
An other processe is writun, Deut. xe. c., where Moyses seide thus: In that tyme y departid the lyn|age of Leuy, that it schulde bere the arkeark, MS. (first hand).of boond of pees of the Lord, and schulde stonde bifore him in seruice, and schulde blesse in his name til into present dai; for which thing Leuy hadde not part neither possessioun with hise britheren, for the Lord him silf is his possessioun, as thi Lord God bihiȝte to him.
The iije. processe is writun Deut. xviije. c. in the bigynnyng, where Moyses seide thus: Preestis and dekenes and alle men that ben of the same lynage schulen not haue part and heritage with the othere peple of Israel, for thei schulen ete the sacrificis of the Lord and the offringis of him. And thei schulen not take eny other thing of the possessioun of her britheren, for the Lord him silf is thethe is interlineated by a later hand.heritage of hem, as he spak to hem.
The iiije. processe is writun Iosue xiije. c. in the eende, where it is seid thus: Forsothe IosueMoyses. Wiclif's version has he ȝaf not, &c.; where however there is a various reading Moises, which is expressed in the Hebrew and in the authorized version.ȝaf not possessioun to the lynage of Leuy, for the Lord God him silf of Israel is the possessioun of Leuy, as the Lord spak to him.
The ve. processe is writun Ezek. xliiije. c., where God in discryuyng the lijf which preestis of the oold lawe schulde lede, seide thus: Forsothe noon heritage schal be to hem: y am the heritage of hem. And ȝe schulen not ȝeue to hem possessioun in Israel; for y am the possessioun of hem.
The vje. processe is writun Ecclesiastici xlve. c., where of Aaron and of hise sones Scripture seith there thus: Thei schulen ete the sacrificis of the Lord, which he ȝaf to him and to his seed; but in the lond of his folk he schal not haue heritage, and no part is to him among the folk; forwhi God is the part and heritage of him.
But so it is, that these now rehercid textis and processis meenen not ferther than that the preestis and dekenes of the Oold Testament schulden not haue part and lott in the firste parting of the lond of Iewry to the children and kinredis comyng out of Iacob, as it is open ynouȝ to ech man diligentli reding the placis out of whiche the now alleggid textis ben drawe. And also ellis God schulde haue be contrarie to him silf in hise owne ordinauncis, as schal be open aftir in this present chapiter, (bi the iije. argument,) and bibi is interlineated by a later (?) hand.e. chapiter. Wherfore no strengthe of the seid textis gooth not so fer as forto forbede to preestis and dekenys of tho daies forto haue lordschip of immouable godis bi othere weies,
e. principal gouernaunce was forbode to the clergie of the Oold Testament.
The ije. argument to the same purpos is this: Thouȝ God forbade that the kinrede of Leuy, being as for thanne his clergie, schulde haue part in the seid firste departing and lotting of the al hool lond, as is open bi the textis bifore sett in this ie. chapiter, ȝit God purueied for hem in other wise; and bade, Numeri xxxve. c., to al the hool multitude of the seid xij. kinredis receyuyng the al hool lond bi the seid departing and lotting, that after the seid depart|ing and lotting mad to hem of al the hool lond, they schulden ȝeue to the kinrede of Leuy, being the clergie of preestis and dekenis, certein citees bi lott of her al hool receit with the suburbis of pasturis ligging to the same citees, that in tho citees the peple of clerkis myȝten sufficientli ynouȝ dwelle, and that in the seid pasturis of suburbis the same clerkis myȝte sufficientli pasture her beestis. And in the performyng and exe|cuting of this now rehercid comaundement of God xlviij. citees with her suburbis weren ȝouun to the preestis and dekenes, as it is open, Iosue xxje. c. And so, if good rekenyng in this mater be mad, it schal be founde that the kinrede of Leuy hadde mo citees ȝouun to hem than hadde eny oon other of the seid xij. kinredis, except the kinrede of Iuda; name|lich sithen summe of the seid kinredis hadde not mo than ten citees in his part and lott of the firste departing and lotting, as it is open, Iosue xvje. c. Wherfore needis folewith, that the Holi Scripture in the Oold Testament grauntid and licencid preestis and dekenys of thilk tyme forto haue in lordschip and in possessioun vnmouable godis, as citees, housis, and pasturis; namelich so manye as thei hem silf, withoute into ferme to othere men leting, hadden nede or profit for to haue, holde, and occupie.
That al this which is take in this ije. argument forto proue and conclude his conclusioun is trewe, lo what is writun Numeri xxxve. c. in the bigyn|ning thus: And the Lord spak these thingis to Moyses in the feeldi placis of Moab aboue Iordan aȝens Ierico: Comaunde thou to the sones of Israel that thei ȝeue to dekenes of her possessiouns citees to dwelle and the subarbis of tho bi cumpas, that thei dwelle in the citees; and the subarbis be to beestis and werk beestis: whiche subarbis schulen be strecchid forth fro the wallis of citees without forth bi cumpas in the space of a thousind pacis; aȝens the eest schulen be ij. thousind cubitis, and aȝens the south in lijk maner schulen be ij. thousind cu|bitis, and at the see that biholdith to the west schal be the same mesure, and the north schal be eendid by euen terme. And the citees schulen be in the myddis, and the subarbis withoute forth. Thus myche there. Ferthermore, that this comaundement of God was executid, performed, and fulfillid, it is openli expressid, Iosue xxje. c., where mensioun is maad that to the dekenis were ȝouun xlviij. citees with her subarbis in the maner now bifore comaundid bi God, and the names of tho citees ben there in the same chapiter rehercid. Wherfore what is seid and take into making and formyng of this present ije. argument is trewe.
The iije. argument is this:this is added in the margin by a later (?) hand.thilk would be the most natural reading.al the hool lond, but afterwards placed over the words the marks of transposi|tion.
To the ije. bifore going argument mowe be ȝouun ij. answeris, of whiche the firste is this: That tho xlviij. citees, of whiche speken the textis of the ije. argument, weren not ȝouun into the propre hauour and lordschip of the preestis and dekenys, but into her vce oonli; so that the lordschip and propirte of tho citees abode in the lay persoones, whiche ȝauen the perpetuel vse of tho same citees to the preestis and dekenys.
And into this answere thei wolen take ij. colouris, of the which oon is bi the text of Numeri xxxve. c., alleggid bifore in the ije. argument, for as miche as God seide there thus: Comaunde thou to the sones of Israel, that thei ȝeue to the dekenis of her pos|sessiouns citees forto dwelle in hem, and the sub|urbis of tho citees in cumpas; that thei dwelle in
tho townes, and the suburbis be to beestis and help|ing beestis: whiche suburbis schulen strecche withoute forth fro the wallis of the citees bi space ofof is interlineated by a later (?) hand.a thou|sind pacis, that is to seie, a myle. Thanne, sithen it is seid that tho citees weren ȝouun for to in hem dwelle, summen wolen thenke to folewe ther of and ther bi, that in this word "forto in hem dwelle" is expressid al the riȝt which the preestis and Leuytis hadden in tho citees; and if this be trewe, that al her riȝt had into tho citees was for to in heminhem, MS.in dwelling, MS., and so also on p. 283 and p. 288.
The ije. colour forto grounde and strengthe the seid answere mai be this: That Ebron was oon of the seid xlviij. citees ȝouun to preestis and dekenes, as it is open, Iosue xxe. c.; and ȝit this same Ebron waswas is interlineated by a later (?) hand.e. c. But so it is, that thilk citee was not in propirte of lordschip to gidere and at oonis to Caleph, (which was a lay man,) and to the clergi of preestis and dekenis: and herwith open it is, that thilk cite was not in vce of Caleph; for it was in the vce of preestis or Leuitis, as it is open, Iosue xxje. c. Wherfore thei wolen seie to folewe nedis, that the seid citee was of Caleph as in propirte and in lordschip, and was of the clergie as for her vce without theryn had lordschip.lorschip, MS. The same cleri|cal (?) error occurs at p. 287.
Certis the seid answere may not be strengthid bi the ie. now rehercid colour or evidence. Forwhi whanne a persoon makith a ȝifte, and to gidere therwith the ȝeuer expressith his entent or eende into which and for which he makith his ȝifte, thilk expressioun of his intent and of the eende entendid to be had bi the ȝift lettith not the ȝift to be a ȝift, but suffrith it to be a ȝifte as ferforth as thouȝ he had mad the ȝift withoute the expressioun or the open pronouncing of the same en|tent or eende: as if a man wolde seie; "Y ȝeue to thee aa is interlineated by a later (?) hand.that seems to be superfluous and unmeaning; probably it should be cancelled.Ȝeue to the dekenys citees. And the ful hool riȝt is expressid in these to gidere wordis, Ȝeue to the dekenis citees forto dwelle in hem; for in the firste parti of these wordis is expressid the substaunce of the ȝifte, and in the ije. parti of tho wordis is
Confirmacion to this answere, now maad aȝens the same firste colour and the former answere groundid ther upon, mai be bi these ensaumplis. If a man ȝeue to me a gowne that y were it, certis herof folewith that he ȝeueth to me thilk gowne; and thilk gown is myn in lordschip as verrili as, if he ȝeue to me a pijnt of wijn forto drinke it, thilk wijn is mad myn in verri lordschip; and as, if a man ȝeue to me a peny to spende at the wijn, certis he ȝeueth to me the peny, and the peny is myn in verri lordschip of it. Forwhi, if he wolde that y haue the vce of a thing with outen lordschip of the same thing, he wolde seie thus: "Y delyuere or y bitake to thee this gowne for to were it; y delyuere toto is interlineated, perhaps by a later hand.e. colour.
That the ije. colour bifore sett for to fortofie and strengthe the same badde answereanswere is inserted by a later (?) hand, which has erased and re-written the two lines preceding.e. c.) ȝit her of folew|ith not neither colour is worth forto seie, that ther|fore
e. lott fill upon Ebron, as forto be oon of tho xlviij. citees, as it is open, Iosue xxje. c.—this Ebron herwith myȝte not be in the lordschip of the dekenis, bi cause the same Ebron was ȝouun bifore into the lordschip of Calepf. And so open it is herbi, that the ije. bifore sett colour helpith not the bifore seid mad bad answere.
Ferthermore thouȝ the seid answere myȝte lette the ije. bifore going argument, as treuthe is that he may not lette; (for the worse plite, in which the seid proces, Numeri xxxve. c., mai be take aȝens this iije. principal gouernaunce, is such that thilk proces is indifferentin different, MS.e. principal gouernaunce and to his contrarie,) ȝit thilk answere mai not lette the iije. bifore going argument fro his proof. Forwhi as it is open, Le|uiticus the laste chapiter, tho housis and tho feeldis,feeeldis, MS.Whanne the dai of iubile schal come, the feeld schal be halewid to the Lord, and the halewid possessioun perteyneth or longith to the riȝt of the preestis. Lo, how in the wordis of God these tweine stoden weel to gidere and weren trewe to gidere, that an hous or a feeld or a citee was ȝouun to God, and ȝit was also therwith ȝouun to preestis into her lordschip; riȝt euen as in the same laste chapiter of Leuitik it is seid, that mouable godis (as money) weren ȝouun to God and
Also thus: No persoon mai in his owne name sille eny good, which is not his in lordschip; but so it was, that preestis and dekenis myȝten sille to lay folk the housis and feeldis, which lai folk ȝaue to God and to hem bi deuoute vowis, as is open ynouȝ, Leuiticus the laste chapiter. Wherfore nedis folew|ith, that tho housis and feeldis weren of the prestis and dekenis in lordschip and not in vce oonli. And if the preestis and dekenis hadden verri cyuyl lord|schip vpon the housis and feeldis, which came to hem bi ȝiftȝist, MS., but without doubt accidentally.lorschip, MS.
THE ije. answere which may be mad to the ije. bifore going argument sett in the firste chapiter of this iije. parti mai be this: Thouȝ bi the bidding of God the preestis and dekenys hadden in her verri lordschip
e. c., whiche ben bifore rehercid in the firste colour to the firste answere, whanne God seid thus, Ȝeue ȝe to the dekenis citees forto dwelle in hem: wherbi it wolde seme folewe ferther, that mo citees or othere citees than in whiche the preestis and de|kenys hadde nede to dwelle yn, was not Goddis wil that schulden be ȝoue to hem; and thanne folewith ferther, that it was not leeful thanne preestis and dekenys forto haue so manye housis and feeldis, that thei myȝten sette hem out to ferme and receyue ȝeerli rentis for hem.
To this answere muste be seid thus: This answere seith sooth in this, that it is likeli to be trewe that, in the firste endewing of the preestis and dekenys bi the xlviij. citees with her suburbis, thei receyueden no more of immouable godis than was necessarie hem silf to occupie in her owne demenyng; but whanne it is concludid forto folewe herof, that it was Goddis wil that the same preestis and dekenys schulden neuer aftirward receyue and haue into her lordschip eny immouable godis, whiche thei hadden no nede bi hem silf occupie bi her owne indwelling or tiling: certis it is to be seid, that this folewith not in fourme of gode argument. And also the contrarie ther of folewith of it which was ordeyned of God him silf to be doon, Leuyticus the laste chapiter. Forwhi it was ordeyned of God him silf, that if a lay persoon wolde offre and ȝeue an hous or a feeld to the clergie in the next ȝeer bifore the iubile ȝeer, (ȝhe, thouȝ it were so nyȝ to the iubile ȝeer, that it were not but iiij. or v. daies bifore the iubile ȝeer,) the clergye myȝte sille this hous or
Here upon y argue thus: In the next ȝeer going bifore the iubile ȝeer, (ȝhe, in the iiije. day bifore the iubile ȝeer,) whanne the clergie was endewid with immouable godis sufficientli forto exclude al nede to haue more of immouable godis, the clergie miȝte receyue an hous or a feeld ȝouun to hem of the laife; (and bi lijk skile iiij. housis and iiij. feeldis ȝouun to hem of the layfe;) and the clergie myȝte thanne anoon forth with sille hem to lay persoonis othere and dyuerse fro the ȝeuers. And thouȝ in the next ȝeer folewing, which is iubile ȝeer, the clergie schulde as litle be nedi to haue tho housis and feeldis as thei were in the iiije. dai bifore the iubile ȝeer, ȝit tho housis and feeldis schulden needis bi the lawe of God turne into the lordschip and possessioun of the clergie, as is open, Leuyticus the laste chapiter. Wherfore it accordid with the lawe of God and with his ordinance, that the clergie myȝte receyuerecey, MS., but a hyphen follows at the end of the line.or, MS. (first hand).schulde, MS. (first hand).
If eny man wolde seie here, that in tho daies no lay persoon ouȝte ȝeue eny hous or feeldor feeld is added by a later (?) hand.ȝaue, MS. (first hand).e. parti hiderto) it is weel proued, that to preestis and to othere clerkis of the Oold Testament it was not forbodun bi the lawe of God forto haue lordschip and in possessioun immouable godis; but it was licencid and grauntid to hem bi the lawe of God for to haue in lordschip and in possessioun citees, housis, and feeldis, and pasturis,—not oonli tho whiche thei helden in her owne demenys, but also mo othereothere mo.
And ȝit wherto schal y make me so bisy forto defende the firstethridde instead of firste.e. c.? And therfore, thouȝ it hadde be trewe, (as it is not trewe,) that vnmouable endewing in propirte of lordschip hadde ben?) has been made at the end of be.e. principal conclusioun of this iije. present parti it schal be proued,) but y can proue the contrarie, as schal be seen aftir in this present iije. partie in the ve. prin|cipal conclusioun. Wherfore, forto answere to eny colour taken bi Iewes lawes aȝens the seid firste prin|cipal gouernaunce had and vsid in the clergie of Cristis chirche is more than is nede forto take upon me.
Also thus: If eny oon forbode maad in Iewis lawe to preestis schulde binde also Cristen preestis, bi lijk skile ech other forbode maad in Iewis lawe to preestis schuldeschulden, MS. twice (first hand).e. c.) schulde also binde Cristen preestis, that al the while thei were wekeli occupied in offring the sacrifice of the auter, thei schulden drinke no wijn, neither ale ne bere, neither sider, neither eny drinke which mai make drunke. But this thing wole not be so hard forto leie upon Cristen preestis, that thei ben bounde therto bi strengthe of a lijk forbode mad to Iewen preestis. Wherfore folewith, that neithir eny man mai make him so streit to Cristen preestis forto pretende, that bi strengthe of enyiny, MS.e. partie hidir to is ynouȝ for proof of the firste conclusioun for his firste partie, that Holi Scripture forbedith not neither weerneth in eny place of the Oold Testament the seid firste principal conclusioun.
Now that the same firste conclusioun is trewe for his ije. party, (which is this, that Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament forbedith not the seid gouer|naunce, which is that preestis and clerkis in the Newe Testament haue in her lordschip and possessioun immouable goodis,) y procede thus: Ech party of Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament is oon of these iij. soortis,sorortis, MS. (partly written on an erasure).Thou schalt loue God of al thin herte and thi neiȝbour as thi silf; and so of othere like: or it is historial ensam|pial of the now bifore seid moral conuersacion, as is this, that Crist or eny of hise Apostlis in his moral lyuyng anentis God or him silf or his neiȝbour lyued thus or thus.
Here upon y argue thus: If Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament schulde forbede the seid gouernaunce, he muste nedis so do bi sum party of the ije. or the iije. seid soort; for the firste seid soort longith not to bidde or forbede eny vertu or eny vice, as is open ynouȝ, for he is historial oonli withoute doctrine of moral conuersacioun. But so it is, that no Scripture of the ije. or of the iije. soort in the Newe Testament so forbedith. Wherfore folewith, that no parti of the Newe Testament so forbedith.
That no parti of the ije. seid soort so forbedith, y proue thus: If eny such party of the ije. seid soort schulde forbede the seid thridde gouernaunce, it schulde bibe.e. c., where it is seid thus: Lo, oon came and seid to Iesus, Good maister, what good schalwhat schal, MS. (first hand).y do, that y haue euerlasting lijf? Which seide to him, What askist thou me of good thing? Ther is oon good God. But if thou wolte entre to lijf, kepe the comaundementis. He seith to him, Whiche? Iesus seide, Thou schaltschal, MS.; but schalt is the reading of Wiclif's (later) version, whence this is quoted.not do mansleing, Thou schalt not do avoutrie, Thou schalt not do thefte, Thou schalt not seie fals wit|nessing, Worschipe thi fadir and thi modir, and, Thou schalt loue thi neiȝbour as thi silf. The ȝong man seith to him, Y haue kepte alle these thingis fro my ȝongthe, what ȝit failith to me? Iesus seith to him, If thou wolte be perfit, go and sille alle thingis that thou hast and ȝeue to poor men, and thou schalt haue tresour in heuen; and come and sue me. And whanne the ȝong man had herd these wordis, he wente awey soruful; for he hadde manye possessiouns. And Iesus seide to hise disciplis, I seie to ȝou treuthe, a riche man of hard schal entre into the kingdom of heuens. And eftsoone y seie to ȝou, it is liȝter a camel to passe thoruȝ a needlis iȝe, than a riche man to entre into the kingdom of heuenes. Whanne these thingis weren herd, the dis|ciplis wondriden greetli and seiden, Who thanne may be saaf? Iesus biheld and seide to hem, Anentis men this thing is impossible, but anentis God alle thingis ben possible. Thus miche there. Lijk processe thoruȝ al is had and writun Luk xviije. c. In this processe ben ij. seiyngis, whiche myȝten seme forto lette the seid iije. principal gouernance. Oon is this, that Crist seide to the ȝong man comyng to him: "Go and sille alle thingis that thou hast and ȝeue to poor men, and come and sue me." The other seiyng is this: "It is liȝter a camel to passe throuȝ a needelis iȝe, than a riche man to entre into the kingdom of heuenes."
That the first seiyng helpith not in this wey, y mai proue. Forwhi, Mark the xe. c., where this same storie is writun with lijk proces, it is meened that this ȝong man (which in the now seid maner came to Crist) was so vndisposid anentis hise richessis, that he hadde trust in hem. Forwhi there, Mark xe. c., in the same speche and proces longing to the same ȝong man, Crist seid thus, How hard is it for men that trusten
in ricchessis to entre into the kingdom of God. So that therbi it may be take and vndirstonde, that therfore Crist seide and counseilid or bade to him for|to forsake and sille hise ricchessis, bi cause that he was, as it were, vnable forto haue to do with tho ricchessis; and that for his natural indisposicioun and ouer soor inclinacioun of loue anentis hem, and for his ouer greet trust which in his witt he bisettid upon hem. Wherof folewith not, that Crist schulde wilne and bidde in lijk maner to eny other man, (preest or no preest,) which is not so vndisposid anentis ricchessis as this ȝong man was; and therfore al this what Crist seide to the seid ȝong man groundith not, that nedisly ech preest owith to lacke and forsake alle immouable possessiouns; no more than folewith, thouȝ the riche man, of whom it is writun Luk xije. c., was vndisposid and vnable to haue and reule and dispense ricchesis, that therfore Zache and Abraham and Iosep of Armathie and king Dauith were vnable and vnworthi and vndisposidvnworthi disposid, MS. (first hand).
Also this present processe sowneth and berith ful greet euydence, that Crist here clepid this ȝong man into apostilhodeapostil hode, MS. (no hyphen following apostil at the end of the line; but apostilhode and disciple|hode distinctly just below).The book of counseilis; thouȝ now adaies it may weel ynowȝ accorde with resoun, as soone aftir here schal be schewid. Forwhi ech man thanne stonding in apostilhode or discipilhode hadde
eny is added in the margin by a later (?) hand.e. principal bifore seid gouernaunce of this book is aȝens Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament.
That the ije. seiyng of Crist lettith not the seid iije. principal gouernaunce, y proue thus: The riche man, of which Crist spekith in thilk ije. seiyng, is he which not oonli hath ricchessis, but which therwithal tristith ouer myche in hise ricchessis, and therfore folewingli loueth ouer miche hise ricchessis; as the text of Mark xe. c., writing the same storie, declarith openli in this that Crist seide thus: How hard it is for men that trusten in richessis to entre in to the kingdom of God! Wherfore this ije. seiyng of Crist touchith not suche riche men, whiche han ricchessis and not ouer myche trusten in hem, neither ouer myche louen hem. And so folewith, that if eny man be so disposid that he can forbere ouermyche trust and ouer myche loue to ricchessis, he mai weel ynouȝ holde prelacie and ricchessis to gidere for eny lett which this ije. seiyng of Crist makith ther aȝens.
Also Crist seide here in this present proces, that "at God" it is possible a riche man to entre into the kingdom of heuen; that is to seie, with grace
e. c., If thi riȝt iȝe or thi riȝt hond sclaundre thee, kutte him of and caste him fro thee. And here bi it is euydent ynouȝ, that the ije. seiyng of Crist gooth not aȝens the iije. bifore principal seid gouernaunce.
The ije. principal processe of Holi Scripture in the Newe Testament, which myȝte seme forto lette the seid iije. principal gouernaunce, it is which is write, Luk xiiije. c., thus: So therfore ech of ȝou, that for|sakith not alle thingis that he hath, may not be my disciple. But certis, the hool chapiter in which this text is sett schewith well ynouȝ, that this text was seid as weel to al the comoun peple folewing Crist in thilk tyme, as it was seid to hise Apostlis and disciplis; and therfore it reulith no more prelatis into pouerte than ech lay persoon into pouerte. Wher|fore it is to be seid, that in this now alleggid text Crist meened of forsaking of ouer myche trust and of ouer myche loue to ricchessis, (in the maner now late bifore declarid upon the first principal processe,) and not that he meened a forsaking of ricchessis vttirli. Forwhi ellis ech lay man ouȝte needis be
Also, in the same chapiter of Luk, Crist seid to the same peple of hise Apostlis and of the othere comoun peple thus: If eny man cometh to me, and hatith not his fadir and moder and wijf and sones and britheren and sistren and ȝit his owne lijf, he mai not be my disciple. Who may seie other wise, but that Crist in this now laste alleggid text meened oonli thus, that ech man ouȝte forbere ouer myche loue to his fadir and modir, wijf and sones, britheren and sistris, and to his owne lijf; and not that he ouȝte forberefor bere, MS. (without hyphen).e. c. of Luk mai resonabili and co|lorabili ynouȝ be vndirstonde, that Crist meened in it the forbering of ouer myche trust and loue to ricchessis. And if this be trewe that thilk text, Luk xiiije. c., mai be so vndirstonde colorabili ynouȝ, it folewith needis that bi thilk text mai no ground be take aȝens the seid iije. principal gouernaunce of pre|latis endewing.
The iije. principal processe of the Newe Testament which seememyȝte seeme.e. c., where Crist seid to hise Apostlis 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 among ȝou, be he ȝoure mynystre; and who euer among ȝou wole be the firste, he schal be ȝoure servaunt: as
Mannis Sone came not to be serued but to serue, and to ȝeue his lijf redempcioun for manye. Lijk processe thoruȝ out is write Mark the xe. c. 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 upon eny lay persoon of hise neiȝboris. And if this be trewe, than schulde no preest haue immou|able godis in lordschip. Forwhi thanne he muste nedis comaunde and regne upon hise tenauntis, and thei muste needis obeie and do sewtis and seruicis to him. But certis if this processe be weel in seen and thoruȝ seen, he gothein seen being added in the margin, in a later hand. The orthography is against the common usage of this MS.; though occurring in others. See Maundevile's Travels, p. 111. (Lond. 1839).
Oon maner is bi tiranrie, which is forto in alle deedis of ouerte awaite and performe her owne profit oonli, and not the profit of her vndirlingis; and in this maner kingis and princis of hethen folk helden her ouerte in the daies of Crist. And of this ouerte spekith Crist in the now bifore alleggid processe, which maner of ouerte Crist wolde not to be bitwixe preestis and her vndirlingis, neithir bitwixe oon per|soon of hem and another of hem. And more than this can not be proued and schewid the seid processe toto is added in the margin by a later (?) hand.e. gouernaunce of preestis endewing. And that this is trewe, lo, the processe, which Luk writith in his xxije. chapiter, sumwhat declarith. Forwhi Luk therethere is interlineated by a later (?) hand.Kingis of hethen men ben lordis of hem,
and thei that han power of hem ben clepid gode doers; but ȝe not so; but he that is grettist among ȝou be mad as ȝonger, and he that is bifore goer as a seruaunt. For who is gretter, he that sittith at the mete or he that mynystrith? whether not he that sit|tith at the mete? And y am in the myddil of ȝou as he that mynystrith. Certis in this that Crist seide, Thei that han power of hem ben clepid gode doers, but ȝe not so, Crist meened not of hem whiche ben verrili gode doers to her vndirlingis, but whiche ben not gode doeris, and ȝit for flatery and plesaunce, (lest gretter tirantrie be doon,) ben clepid gode doeris of her vndirlingis.
An other maner of ouerte bering and vsing is for to (in alle deedis of thilk ouerte vsing and executing) awaite and performe the profit of the vndirlingis in hem weel reuling bi doom of resoun, and of hem not more or other asking than as resoun or feith wole; which maner of ouerte holding and vsing mai be clepid therfore seruice to the vndirlingis, bi cause it is into the profit of the vndirlingis; thouȝ it be ther with an ouerte beryng and hauyng and holding. And of this ouerte spekith Crist in the place now bifore alleggid, Luk xxije c., Who is gretter, he that sittith at the mete, or he that mynystrith? whether not he that sittith at the mete? And y am in the myddilmyddis, MS. (first hand). myd|dil is the reading of most MSS. in the later form of Wiclif's version, from which this quotation is made, and is written more than once by the first hand in this MS. just below.of ȝou as he that mynystrith. Lo, how Crist pleinli and openli was aknowe that he took upon him to be the gretter, in that that he settid him silf in the myddil; and seith that therfore he sate in the myddil, forto schewe that he bare him as her gretter and worthier. And ȝit therwith, in that that in so sit|ting
e. maner of ouerte bering, holding, and vsing Crist weerned not hise Apostlis forto haue and holde in the alleggid processe, Math. xxe. c., and Mark the xe. c., and Luk xxije. c.: for thanne Crist hadde weerned to hem the same gouernaunce which he ensaumplid him silf to hem and bifore hem at his soper. And also the same bifore allegid processe, Math. xxe. c., Mark xe. c., and Luk xxije. c., wolen proue sufficientli ynouȝ, that Crist ther yn ȝaue ground and teching that thei schulden haue, holde, and vse the ouerte of the ije. maner. Forwhi how euere schulde Crist teche and bidde to hem thus: He that is grettist among ȝou be maad as ȝonger, and he that is a bifore goer be mad as seruauntas aseruaunt, MS. (first hand).btuf, MS.summaner, MS. (perhaps not accidentally. Cf. summan).contrarite, MS. (first hand).e. seid maner, al into the avail of the vndirlingis; and not in the firste seid maner, by tyranrie into the avail oonli of the ouerers.
In lijk maner, Ecclesiastici iije. c., it is writen thus, In how miche thou art greet, louȝe thou thee in alle thingis; and thou schalt fynde grace bifore God. If eny man wolde seie, that the wise man in this text entendid to teche that no man schulde bere him as an ouerer to othere, certis he ther yn accusid the wijs man amys: for as miche as the same wijs man approueth weel such ouerte in the same book, the xe. c., in the bigynnyng; and also for as miche as in this same now alleggid text he impli|eth, includith, and meeneth, that he which is ouerer, and whilis he is ouerer, and berith him silf as ouerer, schulde louȝe him silf in sum other maner; as, whilis that he berith him as ouerer in outward countenaunce, he schulde louȝe him silf in inward feeling of herte. And ellis these wordis myȝten not stonde to gidere forto make a treuthe; that he which is greet, and how euer greet he is, he ouȝte louȝe him, that he fynde grace bifore God. And also ellis the wijse man schulde seie in waast, that the greet man schulde louȝe him, but if eny greet man were aboue other men. Wherfore in lijk maner whanne Crist seide, Luk xxije. c., He that is grettist among ȝou be mad as ȝonger; he muste nedis meene that he allowith oon to be grettist among hem, and that he in sum other maner louȝe him as a ȝonger. Wherto ful miche accordith and helpith this maner of seiyng and writing, "be he maad as ȝonger and as a seruant;" that is to seie, "be he maad lijk to a ȝongir, and be he maad lijk to a seruaunt."
THE iiije. principal processe of the Newe Testament, bi which myȝte seeme endewing of prestis to be vnleeful, is writun ie. Thimoth. vje. c., where Poul blamed sum men "whiche deemeden wynnyng to be pite," and there he seith to Thimothie bischop thus: A greet wynnyng is pitee with sufficience, for we brouȝten yn no thing into this world, and no dout that we mowe not bere awey eny thing; but we hauyng foodis and with what thingis we schulen be hilid, be we content or paied with these thingis. For thei that wolen be maad riche fallen in to temptacioun, and into snare of the deuel, and into manye vnprofitable desiris and noiose, which drenchen men into deeth and perdicioun. For the roote of alle yuelis is coueitise, et cætera. But thou, man of God, fle these thingis; but sue thou riȝtwisnesse, pitee, feith, charite, pacience, myldenes. This processe lettith not the seid gouernaunce of endewing. Forwhi, if this processe schulde so streitli be vndirstonde, that a bischop schulde not haue more than mete and drinke, hous and clooth, certis thanne it muste be seid that Poul wolde no bischop haue eny stoor of bokis, neither money forto bie or lete make therwith eny bokis, which is aȝens Poulis owne meenyng, ije. Thimothie, iiije.iije., MS.A greet wynnyng is pitee with sufficience. Lo, how Poul allowith weel al that makith a sufficience into eny purpos or effect which muste be doon; and sithen into sum degre of good cure bering availith moche plente of vnmouable ricchessis had and receyued withoute labour of it wynnyng and geting, it folewith that it stondith weel with the proces of Poul in this present processe, that bischopis haue endewing of vnmouable possessiouns.
Ferthermore, whanne Poul seith thus: Thei that wolen be maad riche fallen into temptacioun, and into snare of the feend, et cætera; it is to be vnderstonde that not oon but dyuers it is forto seche and wille be mad riche bimad bi, MS. (first hand).e. maner may weel ynouȝ be doon withoute such perels. Ȝhe, perauenture more perel schal befallebe falle, MS.e. Tessal. iije. c. and ije. Cor. xje. c., mensioun is mad, that in Poulis daies, bi cause endewing was not maad to prechouris other than it wher of Poul spekith ie. Cor. iije.e. See 1 Cor. ix. 3-14.
To which now seid sentence sowneth it what Sala|mon writith, Prouerb. xxxe. c. toward the bigynnyng, whanne he preied to God thus: I preied to thee twey thingis, denye thou not to me bifore that y die. Make thou fer fro me vanite and wordis of leesing; ȝeue thou not to me begrie and ricchessis; ȝeue thou oonli necessaries to mi lijflode; lest perauenture y be fillid, and be drawe to denye and seie, Who is the Lord? and lest y compellid bi nedynes stele, and forswere the name of my God. Lo, how that, thouȝ Salamon sauȝe perel in ricchessis and perel in beggerie, ȝit he
The ve. principal processe of the Newe Testament is writun to Thimothie Bischop, ije. Thimothie ije. c., where Poul seith to him thus: Noman holding knyȝt|hode to God wlappith him silf with wordli nedis, that he plese to him to whom he hath preued him silf. For he that fiȝteth in a bateil schal not be crowned, but if he fiȝte lawfulli. Certis this processe dooth not aȝens the seid gouernaunce; forwhi grete lordis han lasse nede forto wlappe hem silf in worldli nedis aboute her londis than lasse lordis han, for as miche as greet lordis mowe avorthi to haue and fynde with her costis officers vndir hem forto attende sufficientli to alle the wordly nedis of her londis, and ȝit thei mowe haue ynouȝ bisidis. In so miche that expe|rience hath ȝouun bifore these daies, that grete lordis and ladies being worthi householders and ful grete forȝeuers of dettis to her tenauntis, ȝhe, and gretter and habundanter forȝeuers than othere, couthencouthe, MS. (first hand).temporal (there is a contraction in the MS.) here ... and elsewhere.that is need|less and awkward, and seems at first sight to be a mere clerical error; yet the very same redun|dancy occurs in the third sentence of the following paragraph.
The vje. processe of Holi Scripture in the Newe Tes|tament, which myȝte seeme meete aȝens the seid endewing of prelatis in the preesthode, is writun Math. ve. c. thus: If thi riȝt iȝe sclaundre thee, pulle him out and caste fro thee; for it spedith to thee that oon of thi membris perische, than that al thi bodi go into helle: and if thi riȝt hond sclaun|dre thee, kutte him awey and caste fro thee; for it spedith to thee that oon of thi membris perische, than that al thi bodi go into helle. Lijk processe with
e. c. and Mark ixe. c. Certis of this proces folewith not that, if myn iȝe or myn hond sclaundre me not, that y schal caste him awey fro me. And ther fore bi this processe folewith not that tho persoones, whiche han natural disposi|cioun and grace forto weel vse and dispose ricchessis, (and for to not ouer miche truste vpon hem, and not ouer miche loue hem, and not ouer miche be thouȝtful and troublid aboute hem,) ouȝten forsake hem and not receyue hem, if thei be to hem profrid. And if eny man be in contrarie wise vndisposid vnscapabili, lete him abstene and forbere that he come not into prelacie endewid; and not that for his vndisposicioun he schulde prouoke, procure, and make that manye hundridis of hise successouris schulden lacke the greet help and fortheraunce into gode deedis, whiche thei myȝten haue bi riche endewing. For the philsophir feelid bettir than so, seiyng that ricchessis ben instru|mentis of vertu, thouȝ in indisposid persoones bi her vndisposicioun oonli thei ben instrumentis and occa|siouns of vicis.Ethics, among others more or less similar, will elucidate his allusion: "Eth. Nic., lib. iv. c. i.
Thus miche, fro the bigynnyng of the iiije. chapiter hidir to, is ynouȝ forto schewe that Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament in his parti, which is of the ije. there seid sort, (that is to seie, which is pure doc|trinal,) lettith not the endewing of preestis bi im|movable possessiouns. For if it be weel answerid to these vj. now bifore going processis of doctrinal Scrip|ture, sownyng sumwhat aȝens the seid endewing, (as it is now bifore at fulthe ful, MS. (first hand).
THAT no parti of Holi Scripture in the Newe Tes|tament being of the iije. there seid soort that is seid, being historial ensaumplal, lettith the seid endewing of preestis, is now to be proued thus: If eny ensaum|pling schulde lette the seid endewing, it schulde be the ensaumpling of Crist or of sum Apostle or of the multitude of Cristen men, of which it is rad, Acts ije. c. in the eende, thus: Alle that bileeueden weren to gidere and hadden alle thingis comoun; thei seelden possessiounspossessioun, MS. (first hand). The plural occurs in Wiclif's (later) version, from which this citation is made.and catel, and departiden tho thingis to alle men, as it was nede to ech; and Acts iiije. c. in the eende thus: How manye euere weren possessouris of feeldis either of housis, thei soolden and brouȝten the pricis of tho thingis that thei selden, and leiden bifore the feet of the Apostlis; and it was departid to ech, as it was nede to ech: or ellis it schulde be the ensaumpling of hem of which Poul spekith, Hebr. xje. c., that thei wenten aboute in brocke skynnes and in skynnes of geet, nedi, angwischid, turmentid; to whiche the world was not worthi. But so it is, that noon of these ensaumplingis it lettith. Wherfore noon ensaumpling in Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament it lettith.
That the ensaumpling of Crist lettith it not, lo, y proue thus: Thouȝ alle Cristen men ben bounde forto
e. c., I haue ȝouun an ensaumple to ȝou, that ȝe do as y haue doon; and for thisthis is interlineated by a later(?) hand, which has also inserted to after for, just below.e. Iohun ije. c., He that dwellith in him (that is to seie in Crist) he owith for to walke as he walkid; and so of othere textis ther to alleggid in the book clepid The iust apprising of Holi Scripture, the first parti, the e. Cor. viije. c. that whanne Crist was riche, he was maad for us poor, that we bi his pouerte schulden be riche: ȝhe, and thouȝ it be writun, Luk ixe. c. in the eende, that Crist was so poor, (namelich fro the hauyng of vn|movable godis,) that he hadde not an hous into which he myȝte bowe his heed: ȝit it is not cleer, open, and certeyn bi these textis now alleggid neither bi eny othere textis in Scripture, whether Crist ensaumplid his now seid so greet pouerte to alle Cristene or to preestis vndir comaundement or vndir counseil oonli. And if he ensamplid it vndir counseil oonli and not vnder comaundement, no man to whom it is so coun|seilid and profrid is bounde forto take itit is interlineated by a later hand.e. c.: or ellis that he ensaumplid this seid pouerte to preestis or to hem
That no cleer resoun wole deme the seid ensaum|pling to be haue doon vndir comaundement, y proue thus: No cleer resoun can deeme that Crist ensamplid thilk greet pouerte vndir comaundement, but if the same cleer resoun can deeme that thilk same greet pouerte is a comaundement, thouȝ Crist hadde it not ensaumplid. Forwhi bi this that Crist dide and vsid and ensaumplid thilk pouerte, resoun can take noon evidence that ther yn Crist comaundid it; sithen thanne bi lijk skile ech deede, which Crist dide and ensaumplid, he ensaumplid vndir comaundement, and he ther yn and therbi it comaundid; which is not trewe: for as miche as he him silf witnessith, Math. xixe. c., that oonli vndir counseil he profrid chastite to alle men that myȝten it take; and also resoun deemeth sufficientli ynouȝ, that no thing may lette him that is God for to ensaumple vndir comaunde|ment or vndir counseil at his fre liberte what euer good dede him lustith to ensaumple. Wherfor this is needis trewe, that resoun can not and mai not deeme that thilk seid greet pouerte was ensaumplid by Crist vndir comaundement, but if resoun can deeme that thilk same pouerte was and is a comaundement of
What euer skile of resoun can be mad that the seid pouerte is and hadde be a comaundement to preestis or lay men, thouȝ Crist had not it ensaum|plid, riȝt weel may to it be mad cleer answere; what euer text of Holi Scripture therto sowne, (other than thei to whom bifore in this iije. partie answer is mad,) riȝt soone and esili mai to it be mad suffi|cient answere: and what euer extrauagaunt reuela|cioun be pretendid to be had therto, riȝt soone and liȝtli may be schewid that thilk reuelacioun is not autentik and at fullethe fulle, MS. (first hand).
And ferther, forto seie more in this mater of Cristis ensaumpling, thouȝ it were so that Crist en|saumplid vndir comaundement his seid pouerte to alle preestis; ȝit ech preest, which schulde folewe thilk
e. Epistle, the ije. chapiter, to alle Cristen thus: Crist suffride for us, leving to ȝou an ensaumple, that ȝe folewe the stappis of him. And sithen it is so, that preestis in these daies, (thouȝ thei be prelatis, prechers, and successouris to the Apostlis and to Crist,) ben not in lijk state, condicioun, plite, and circumstauncis, neither in lijk neede in which Crist and hise Apostlis werenwere, MS. (first hand).e. chapiter, and as more ther of is schewid in The book of counseilis,) therfore it is not comaundement neither counseil to eny preest in these daies forto folowe Crist in his so greet seid pouerte, neither to folewe the Apostlis in her lijk so greet pouerte: namelich as bi and for strengthe of her ensaumpling; bi cause tho circumstauncis, for which thei so ensampliden, ben not now had in us. Neuertheles, if for eny other special cause and circumstaunce now had in eny preest, (as perauenture for experience had upon his freelte forto ouer miche loue ricches,) he wole take to him sum greet pouerte, as maundement of lawe of kinde, or as counseil of lawe of kinde, it is vertuose ynouȝ to him; thouȝ it be not vertuose to an other, which is not naturali so gleymed with loue to ricchessis. And this abstenyng, which this freel man makith, is good and vertuose morali bi groundis of the laweof lawe, MS. (first hand).
Who euer wole se more how the ensaumpling of Crist and of hise Apostlis biholden preestis and alle Cristene, he mai fynde fair teching ther of in the book clepid The iust apprising of Holi Scripture, in ther of the firste partie, the
Noman may kunnyngli allegge this, that Crist forsoke forto be chose king, whanne the peple wolde haue chose and mad him king upon hem, as that ther yn Crist ȝaue an ensaumple to preestis or to eny other persoon forto not receyue eny temperal posses|siouns or eny temperal dignite. Forwhi, as mai be take out of dyuerse placis of the Newe Testament, thilk peple were (as for thilk tyme) leefulli vndir the Emperour of Rome, bi her owne graunt and couenaunt mad betwixe hem and the Emperour of Rome; and therfore iustli and riȝtli thei were sugettis to the Emperour of Rome; and he was her hiȝest king and emperour; and he made Heroud king vnder him forto regne upon the same peple of Iewis; and bisidis this, Pilat also bare an office there vndir the Emperour of Rome. And so thilk peple myȝte not iustli (as for thanne) haue chose Iesus or eny other persoon forto be her king; for thanne in that thei hadden be trai|touris to the Emperour and to Heroude, and thei hadden do wrong to him aȝens doom of resoun: which doom of resoun Crist him silf allowid; for he seide, (Math. xxije. c., Mark xije.xve., MS.e. c.,) Ȝelde ȝe to Cesar tho thingis that ben of Cesar, and to God tho thingis that ben of God. And so, if Crist wolde haue consentid to the peple willing forto chese him her king, he had in that consentid to her wrongful doing. And therfore al the ensaumpling which Crist schewid, as in that, was no more than this: that ech man schulde fle, that he consente not to eny wrong|ful eleccioun or chesing mad vpon him. And this en|saumpling is fer fro the ensaumpling that no preest schulde haue eny vnmouable possessioun.
THE ensaumpling of the pouerte chosun bi hem, of whom it is writen Acts ije. c. in the eende and Acts iiije. c. in the eende, was an ensaumpling of counseil and not of comaundement; and it was doon bi the multitude of the lay peple, as weel as of clerkis; and therfore her deede ensaumplith to lay peple now being, as weel as to clerkis. And so open it is, that if thilk ensaumpling schulde be comaunde|ment to hem to whom it was ensaumplid, thanne comaundement were that alle lay folkis schuldenschulde, MS. (first hand).wer, MS. (first hand) appa|rently.
For the more cleering that the ensampling of thilk Cristen multitude in the tyme of the Apostlis at Ierusalem, of which multitude it is spokun bifore in the bigynnyng of the vje. chapiter, makith no boond or comaundement that preestis or clerkis of the newe lawe lyue withoute endewing of vnmovable posses|siouns, y procede thus: Thilk seid Cristen multitude lyuede thanne so in her pouerte as bi comaundement
If thou seie that thei lyueden so, for that Goddis lawe therto hem bonde bi comaundement, and ȝit thei werenwere, MS. (first hand), and so below, p. 318. l. 1.
And aȝenward, if thou wolde seie that thei so lyueden bi fre wil forto so lyue or not so lyue with|out comaundement of Goddis lawe; thanne folewith ther of, that to the same or lijk maner of lyuyng noon othere Cristen men weren thanne or ben now bounde; no more than thei weren thanne to thilk poor maner of lyuyng bounde. And so the seid ensaumpling of thilk Cristen multitude in Ierusalem bindith no man.
Also thilk multitude weren lay persoones. Wher|fore if her gouernaunce in lyuyng poorli schulde binde bi ensaumpling, it schulde binde lay men and lay
Also anoon aftir that thilk seid Cristen multitude biganne in Ierusalem, so greet persecucioun was maad vpon hem and upon the dekenes and the Apostilis, that alle the Cristen persoones whiche weren in Ieru|salem fledden out of Ierusalem, and weren disperclid abrode into othere dyuerse coostis and cuntrees, excepte oonli the Apostilis; as herof open storie is had, Acts viije. c. in the bigynnyng. And sithen this or such othere lijk persecucioun thilk multitude awaitid and abode aftir forto to hem and upon hem come, and lijk troubelose tyme was in Ierusalem al the while Peter and Poul lyueden; it muste nedis ligge in open doom of resoun that folie hadde be to al thilk Cristen mul|titude, (thoruȝ al such tyme lyuyng in Ierusalem,) forto haue storid and tresourid to hem eny grete pos|sessiouns to be holde of hem in lordschip, and to be take to othere into ferme, and forto receyue ther of rent; bisidis the oonli housis and gardeyns, whiche weren necessarie for hem silf and her meyne forto in hem dwelle bi daies and nyȝtis. And therfore, thouȝ it hadde be folie to hem forto so kepe with hem gretter possessiouns than tho now seid, and that for the circumstaunce of thilk thanne being troubelose and perilose tyme; ȝit ther of folewith not bi ensaum|plingbi eny ensaumpling, MS. (first hand).
Ferthermore, tho persoones of whiche Poul spekith, Hebr. xje. c., (and of which the processe is alleggid bifore in the vje. chapiter of this present iije. partie,) were religiose men, forsaking miche of worldlihode and of fleischlihodefleischli hode, MS. (without hy|phen, but with one a little below).were, MS. (first hand).e. c., where he seith to hem thus: For that ȝe obeieden to the comaundement of Ionadab ȝoure fader, and kepten alle hise comaundementis, and diden alle thingis whiche he comaundid to ȝou, a man of the genera|cioun of Ionadab sone of Recab schal not faile stond|ing in my siȝt in alle daies. And sithen these men weren Iewis in the tyme of the old lawe, and weren lay men and not preestis neither dekenys of the lawe, it is open that her ensaumpling was no comaundement. Forwhi, if it hadde be comaundement, it schulde haue be comaundement to lay persoones, as thei hem silf were; and thanne it wolde folewe, that it hadde not be leeful eny Iew forto haue had eny vnmouable possessioun, which is pleinli aȝens Goddis owne allow|aunce thoruȝ the v. bokis of Moyses, and in the book of Iosue in manye chapitris. And therfore needis the ensaumpling of thilk folk in al her abstinence, as weel fro myche fleischlihode as weel as fro myche
e. soort of Scripture in the particioun of Scripture bifore sett in the iiije. chapiter.
That mannys lawe forbedith not and weerneth not the seid endewing nedith not to proue; for open it is ynouȝ to ech leerned man, that mannys lawe graunt|ith and meynteneth suche endewingis at fulle. And therfore no more of this membre for to sette it in this book.
Writingis of Doctouris in greet plente and noumbre myȝten be brouȝt into witnessing of this present purpos, and greet multitude of her writingis myȝten be brouȝte sownyng into the contrarieinto contrarie, MS. (first hand).ben taken.Iust ap|prising of Doctouris;) therfore forto bringe forth here the writingis of Doctouris for this present purpos or aȝens it, y forbere. Ech of hem seide and wroot, as he trowid for the tyme to be trewe; thouȝ ful ofte thei seemen among hem to discorde, and ful ofte re|dili thei discorden. Thus miche, fro the bigynnyng of the iiije. chapiter in this present iije. partie hidir to, is ynouȝ for proof of the firste principal conclu|sioun
e. partie, that Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament lettith not the iije. principal gouer|naunce rehercid bifore in the firste chapiter of this present iije. partie.
THE ije. principal conclusioun is this: Doom of cleerli in kinde disposid resoun werneth not and let|tith not the seid thridde principal gouernaunce sett in the bigynnyng of the firste chapiter of this present iije. partie. That this conclusion is trewe y proue thus: If eny such now seid doom of resoun schulde weerne and lette the seid iije. principal gouernaunce, thilk doom of resoun schulde be oon of these domes now suyngli to be rehercid. But so it is, that noon of hem so weerneth and lettith; but ech of hem is as semyng colour oonli and not a very prouyng doom, as in processe suyng schal be schewid. Wherfore doom of cleerli disposid resoun in kinde weerneth not and lettith not the seid iije. principal gouernaunce.
The ije. premisse of this argument schal be proued bi long processe thus. The firste semyng colour in doom of resoun is this: Aftir the sentence of Crist, (Math. vije. c. and Luk vje. c.,) Such is the tre, which is the fruyt of the same tree;
The ije. semyng [colour] is this: If riche endewing hadde be profitable to the clergie and to al the hool chirche of God, Crist him silf bi his owne persoon
The first premisse of this argument muste needis be grauntid, as it wolde seeme. Forwhisithen should be in|serted.e. argument semeth to be trewe. The ije. premysse of the argu|ment is also openli trewe. Wherfore the conclusioun concludid bi tho ij. premyssis in the same argument is also trewe.
The iije. is this: Seint Ierom in writing the lijf of Malk the monk seith, that sithen the chirche wexid in dignitees, he decrecid in vertues.Vit. Malch. Mon. (Op. tom. ii. p. 41. Ed. Vallars.)Eer the clergie of the
chirche was endewid with vnmouable possessiouns the clerkis weren holi and deuoute and goostli, and bi ensaumpling of so holi conuersacioun turneden miche of the world into trewe feith and vertuose conuersa|cioun; and thanne also the clerkis weren redi forto putte her lijfis for witnessing of trouthe and for the goostli helthe of her neiȝboris. And aȝenward aftir in tyme that the clergie of the chirche was endewid with vnmovable godis, the clergie decrecid in holi lyuyng and in alle necessarie gouernauncis to the helthe of the chirche, which bi fore the seid endew|ing thei hadden; and vicis grewen into the clergie miche thickir than bifore, as pride, ambicioun, veir glorie, glotenie, leccherie, coueitise, and speciali sy|monie; and suche othere.De cor|rupt. Eccl. stat. in Brown. Fasc. Append. pp. 555, 556. He goes on to enlarge on the "simoniaca pravi|tas" a little afterwards, see p. 559.
The iiije. is this: It is fablid to be trewe, that whanne greet Constantyne the Emperour was baptisid of Siluester Pope, and hadde endewid Siluester Pope with greet plente of londis of the empire, a voice of an aungel was herd in the eir seiyng thus: "In this dai venom is hildid into the chirche of God."e.XV. Constantinus baptizatur a Sancto Silvestro, et tunc ditavit ecclesiam Romanam libertatibus, prædiis, et possessioni|bus, et dedit sedem suam imperialem Sancto Petro et suis successoribus. Et illo tempore Diabolus in aere volando clamavit, Hodie venenum ecclesiis Dei infusum est." Sprot. Chron. p. 43. (Ed. Hearne.) "Nar|rant chronica quod in dotatione ecclesiæ, vox audita est in aere angelica tunc temporis, sic dicen|tis, Hodie effusum est venenum in ecclesia sancta Dei." Wicl. Dial. lib. iv. c. 18. "The angel said full sothe, when the church was dowed, that this day is venym shed into the church." Id. Of clerks pos|sess., MS. cited in Lewis' Life of Wicl. p. 122. See also The vision of Piers Plowman, v. 10,659, sqq. vol. 2. p. 325. (Wright's Ed.), where it is said, that—
The ve. semyng skile is this: It is not semeli, honeste, conuenient, and according, that bischopis and abbotis (whiche schulden be grete sterers to the lay partie into deedis of pitee, and schulde be bridelis or refreynyng meenys to the lay parti fro deedis of cruelte and of vnpitee, and that bi deede in ensaum|pling and bi word in preching, counceiling, and ex|orting) schulden do and vse deedis strecching and disposing and abling into the grettist vnpitee and grettist cruelnes that mai be; but so doon summe bischopis and abbotis bi sum of her temperal vnmou|able endewing. Forwhi bi summe of her endewingis summe bischopis and abbotis han and holden courtis, in whiche iugementis ben ȝouun in her name, aucto|rite, and power into hangement and into deeth. And forto do, ȝeue, or assigne thilk deeth vsuali and customabili is oon of the grettist dedis of vnpitee and cruelnes that is, and disposith also into gretter vnpitee and cruelnes, and lettith a man forto haue and kepe with him pitee and mercifulnes. Wherfore at the leest, if not al riche vnmouable endewing, ȝit thilk maner of endewing is not to be mad to bischopis and abbotis.
If eny man wole be aboute forto excuse the bi|schop or abbot fro the inconuenience which this ar|gument is aboute forto bringe into him, and that bi this that he not iugith into deeth, but an other man
not, MS. (first hand).e. c. And therfore this afore sett answere is not worth.
For answere and assoiling to these semyng skilis and colouris, and first for answere to the first of hem y graunte weel that "such is the tree which is the fruyt of the tree;" that is to seie, if the fruyt of a tree be badde, the tree is badde; and if the fruyt of a tree is good, the tree is good. Forwhi the tree is not oonli an occasioun of the fruyt, but he is the causeis cause, MS. (first hand).bihim, MS.e. parti of this present book the iije. chapiter, where more is seid perteynyng to this present answere.
That ricches is not cause of eny synne mai be proued thus: Thou canst not seie whi and wherfore ricches schulde be cause of synne, saue for that fro, out, and bi ricches synne cometh. WeelWeel is added (by a later hand?) in the margin.aȝens, MS. (first hand).bi, MS.
And thanne ferther: If this were to be holde trewe, that for this that ricches is occasioun of al the synne which out, fro, and bi him cometh, ricches were badde and ouȝte not be had; but that the hauying of it were viciose and vnleeful, and that for this that yuel cometh ther fro and ther bi:—certis thanne for lijk skile, sithen fro and bi the greet ricches in which the aungel Lucifer was sett and putt, came his synne and the synne of manie othere aungelis and her per|petuel dampnacioun, it wolde folewe that thilk riching of the aungel was vicioseli doon of God; and so God ther yn was viciose. And sithen this folewith not, as ech man muste needis graunte, it folewith that ech man muste also lijk weel graunte, that thouȝ out and fro and bi temperal ricches (as out, fro, and bi an oc|casioun oonli) cometh myche synne and other yuel, therof folewith not neithir is concludid and proued the hauying of the same ricches to be yuel.
Also thus: Other wise cometh not yuel and good out, fro, and bi ricchessis which preestis and other men holden and vsen, than as out, fro, and bi her tungis comen forth bothe yuel spechis and gode spechis, preisingis to God and dispreisingis to God, profitable teching to the vnkunnyng and vnprofitable speche to the vnkunnyng, and so forth of manye miche neces|sarie deedis doable bi mennys tungis and of manye ful wickid and ful miche noiose deedis comyng forth bi mennys tungis. Forwhi tungis be not but the in|strumentis of the fre wil, bi and with which the free wil of man wirchith sumwhile good sumwhile yuel; and so richessis ben not but instrumentis of and to the freto fre, MS. (first hand).
What schal therfore be doon to her tungis? Schulen thei be kutt of, for that thei ben founde occasions of yuel? Certis, nay; for thanne bi thilk kutting of schulde also ther with be kutt of alle the godis, whiche bi tho tungis mowe also be doon and had. Wherfore, bi lijk resoun and skile, neither ben ricchessis to be kutt awey fro preestis, for that of the ricchessis com|eth yuel; sithen in thilk kutting awey schulden be kutt awey alle the goodis, whiche schulden come and whiche mowen come bi vce of the same ricchessis. What thanne is to be doon anentis the vicis of the tunge? Certis the freelnes of the wil is to be kutt awei and to be leid aside with greet bateil, greet scole, and greet craft; and the tungis ben to be lete stonde stille. And if this be trewe, certis so bi lijk forme and for lijk skile anentis the vicis comyng forth among preestis bi her ricchessis, the freel wil is to be curid and to be leid aside, and the ricchessis ben to be holdenholde, MS. (first hand).
To this same sentence ful weel accordith Seint Austyn in a long proces so cleerli, so sweeteli, and so resonabili, that noman may berke or bite theraȝens; which proces is writun in the iije. parti of hise ser|mouns, the xxxiije. sermoun, and is this in wordis now folewing. Scripture preisith him which myȝte haue trespacid and not trespacid, which "wente not after
gold," Ecclesiastici xxxje. c. The gold schulde go aftir thee, not thou aftir the gold. Sotheli no thing that is mad of God is yuel. Be not thou yuel, for for|sothe the gold is good. Lo, y proue thus: Lete me putte gold bitwixe a good man and an yuel man. Lete the yuel man take it; anoon poor and louȝe men ben oppressid, iugis ben corruptid, lawis ben peruertid, gouernauncis and policies ben disturblid. But whi is this? What is the verri cause of this? Certis, for that an yuel man toke the gold. Lete a good man take the gold; anoon poor men ben fed, nakid men ben clothid, oppressid men ben delyuered, prisoneris ben out bouȝt. Lo hou grete godis comen of the gold which a good man takith; and how grete yuelis of the goldof gold, MS. (first hand).which an yuel man takith. Wherto therfore ȝe at sumwhilis brouȝt into wraththe seien, "O wolde God thilk gold were not had"? Be thou not yuel; loue thou not the gold. If thou art yuel, thou goost aftir the gold; if thou art good, the goold goith aftir thee. What is this, that the gold goith after thee? Certis, thou ledist and art not led; for thou hast the possessioun and art not had in possessioun.Qui potuit transgredi, et non est transgressus; qui post aurum non abiit. (Eccli. xxxi. 8). Post te debet ire aurum, non tu post aurum. Nam bonum est aurum. Non enim aliquid mali creavit Deus. Tu noli esse malus; et bonum est aurum. Ecce aurum pono inter bonum hominem et malum. Tollat malus; inopes opprimuntur, judices cor|rumpuntur, leges pervertuntur, res humanæ perturbantur. Quare hoc? Quia aurum tulit malus. Tollat bonus; pauperes pascuntur, nudi vestiuntur, oppressi liberantur, cap|tivi redimuntur. Quanta bona de auro, quod habet bonus! quanta mala de auro, quod habet malus! Ut quid dicitis aliquando stoma|chati, O si non esset ipsum aurum? Tu noli amare aurum. Si malus es, is post aurum: si bonus es, it post te. Quid est, it post te? Tu ducis, non duceris; quia possides, non possideris." S. August. Serm. cccxi. c. 9. (Op. tom. v. pp. 873, 874. Ed. Benedict. Antv. 1700).No thingis maken and
ben causis of gode maners and of gode vertues, saue gode loues. Lete not gold be take awey fro mennys hauyng; but lete the gold abide and be had, that thou proue mennys hauyng. Whi? Lete mennys tungis be kutt awey, for that bi hem summen blasphemen God; and where schulen we thanne haue preisers of God? What dooth a tunge, he that singith weel or spekith weel knowith weel; and a ful good instrument he is. Ȝeue thou a good wil to the good tunge, and thanne gode thingis ben spokun; men being in discord ben brouȝt into accord, men discoumfortid ben coumfortid, leccherose men ben chid and blamed, wrathful men ben re|freyned, God is preisid, Crist is commendid, the wil is heet and inflamyd into loue, but into godli loue not into manli loue, spiritual loue not fleischli loue. These goodis dooth the tunge, but whi and bi what wirching cause? For good is the wil which vsith the tunge. Ȝeue thou an yuel man to the tunge, and thanne schulen be blasphemers, chiders, chalengers, and [informers].Alle these yuelis comen fro the tunge, for that the yuel man vsith the tunge. Be not therfore takun awey thingis fro thingis, but be at and be sett to good vce to thingis.
Lete oonli good men and weel proued men in vertues be takun in to preesthode and into pre|lacie, wherynne ben riche possessiouns; and without dout miche more good schal come bi the hauyng of tho riche possessiouns, than schulde come if thei were not had. But alle the cause, whi yuel cometh fro and bi tho riche possessiouns had in prelacie, is for that vertuose men and weel proued men in leernyng and in lyuyng ben not chosun and takun into prelacies; but sumwhile children, sumwhile men wantounli brouȝt up in court, sumwhile vnleerned men for her greet blood and her hiȝe birthe; ȝhe, into the dampnacioun of hem whiche so chesen and takun, as it is ful miche to drede. Lete therfore this that is verry cause of the yuel be take awey, and lete it abie which is gilti: lete not it be take awey, which profrith him silf redi into good and of which schal come good, whanne it schal come into gode mennys hondis: lete not it abie which trespacith not. And thanne ise. semyng skile.
FOR answere to the ije. semyng skile, the first pre|mysse is to be denied, which is this: "If riche en|dewing had be profitable to the clergie and to al the hool chirche of God, Crist him silf bi his owne persoon hadde endewid richeli the clergie of the chirche in hise daies," et cætera. Forwhi if this premysse now denyed were trewe, certis, bi lijk skile
e. c. at the bigynnyng. And ȝit Crist bi him silf not so ordeyned, but the Apostlis and the peple to gidere hem chosen and ordeyneden, as it is open there, Acts vje. c. And therfore the now rehercid firste premysse of the ije. semyng skile is to be denyed.
Also into this same purpos thus: The rehercid firste premisse myȝte not be trewe, but if he schulde meene and vndirstonde that Crist ouȝte and wolde haue ordeyned bi him silf and in his owne persoon al that is nedeful to his clergie of his chirche, as is open ynow. But this meenyng is vntrewe. Forwhi breed and wijn and ale and housing and clothing and manie othere thingis maad bi mennys craftis ben necessarie to be had in persoones of his clergie, and ȝit Crist in his owne persoon and bi him silf ordeyned not and ȝeueth not to eny man breed or wyin or gowne or hood or hous; but he ȝeueth bi him silf and in his persoon maters of which breed and wijn and housis and clothis ben to be mad, and therwith he ȝeueth to men hondis and feet and membris of the bodi and inward and outward sensityue wittis and resoun and wil and moving powers, bi whiche alle applied to gidere men mowen make breed, wijn, housis, and clothis. And in lijk maner Crist ȝaf to the Apostlis witt of resoun for to knowe that dekenhode was pro|fitable to his clergie, and Crist ȝaf to hise Apostlis wil for to chese tho dekenes; and so in that Crist ȝaue to hem dekenes mediatli, that is to seie, bi meenis bifore ȝouun to the Apostlis. And if this be trewe, whi not in lijk maner, for lijk skile, it is to be seid, that Crist ȝaf mediatli, (that is to seie, bi meene ȝiftis to his clergie,) the endewing of immouable godis, which the clergie now hath: for as miche as Crist ȝaue to the clergie witt and wisdom forto knowe
e. semyng skile is to be denied.
And whanne it is argued ferther, that thilk first premisse muste be trewe, for ellis God loued not so miche his clergie as men endewing his clergie loueden his clergie, certis this folewith not. Forwhi at sum while it mai so be, that the ȝeuer or benefeter forto ȝeue mediatli, (that is to seie bi a meene to the re|ceyuer,) schal be more profitable to the receyuer than schulde be, if the ȝeuer schulde ȝeue the same ȝifte or benefet immediatli bi him silf to the same receyuer. Also at sumwhile it mai be so, that more good and more honeste or more preising and worschip schal come, (alle thingis considerid and biholdun,) to the ȝeuer, if the ȝeuer ȝeue mediatly his ȝifte or benefete, than schulde come if he ȝaf the same ȝifte or benefet immediatli bi him silf. And so it mai be ful weel, that not for defaut of loue had to the receyuer, neither for the lasse loue as in that and for that born anentis the receyuer, the ȝeuer ȝeueth his ȝifte or benefet to the receyuer, but for the more loue had and born bi the ȝeuer anentis the receyuer.
Also it mai be ful ofte, that for the more good to be doon al abouȝte, (thouȝ not al to the receyuer,) it bisemeth and it is sitting, and therfore it is to be doon, that the ȝeuer ȝeue his ȝifte and benefet medi|atli and not immediatli: and ȝit this doing is not so
of is interlineated by a later hand.e. c., where God seide to his oolde chirche thus; Whethir a womman mai forȝete her ȝong child, that sche haue not merci on the sone of hir wombe? Thouȝ sche forȝetith, y schal not forȝete thee:) it is to be feelid therof folew|ingli, that this doing of God bi which he dooth to his chirche hise ȝiftis, puruiauncis, and benefetis medi|atli is so maad of him for oon of thethese, MS. (first hand).
To the iije. semyng skile y answere thus: I graunte that Ierom seide tho wordis, Sithen the chirche wexid in dignitees or in possessiouns, he decrecid in ver|tues: as thouȝ his meenyng had be this, "Euer and alwey sithen the chirche wexid in possessiouns, he decrecid in vertues." But what here of, thouȝ he
First that tho wordis weren not trewe, it semeth herbi. How euer kunnyng and weel leerned preestis and prelatis a thisathis, MS.in is interlineated, perhaps by a later hand.of into or.ben, MS. (first hand).
Ferthermore, how euer goostli almysful preestis and prelatis in preching and in writing profitable bokis weren to gidere in eny tyme bifore the seid endew|ing, so almysful in the seid goostli almes han ben to gidere sithensithen is interlineated in a later (?) hand.
Also hou euer in bodili maner almesful preestis and prelatis han be in eny tyme to gidere bifore the seid endewing, so almesful in bodili almes han be to gidere preestis and prelatis sithen; ȝhe, and miche more so almesful, as is open ynouȝ; for thei hadden possessiouns, wher of thei myȝten miche more avorthi into almes, than thei that hadden litil and as it were nouȝt.
Ferthermore, as holi confessouris and as manie in the same lengthe of tyme han be of preestis and pre|latis sithen the seid endewing, as were bifore the seid endewing a thisathis, MS., and similarly a little below.hanben, MS. (first hand). The conjunction of the words is probably not accidental.the.intyme, MS.seide, MS. (first hand).agreet, MS. (first hand).In vitas Patrum, bi whiche it is meened thus, "that alwey and euer, sithen the clergie of the chircheof the chirche is added in the margin by a later (?) hand.are; yet perhaps the scribe is guilt|less.
Now next aftir this, thouȝ tho wordis writun In vitas Patrum and vndirstondun in the seid menyng were trewe, ȝit that therofȝit therof, MS. (first hand).for that.euen is added in the margin by a later hand.e. c., and Mark xiije. c., and Poul, first Thim. iiije. c., and ije. Thym. iije. c. Weel thanne, sithen this is the cause whi out of the briggis contynuel appeiring sithen he was en|dewid folewith not thilk endewing forto be to him yuel, bi the same or lijk skile, thouȝ the chirche bothe in the laife and in the clergie kepe his nature of contynuel appeiring aftir the tyme in which riche en|dewing was ȝeuun therto into his supporting, therof folewith not that the endewing mad to the clergie is vnprofitable to the chirche and is synful and vnleeful; no more than that the endewing ȝouun to the brigge of Londoun into the supporting of his contynuel ap|peiring is to the same brigge harmeful. The seid Fadir In vitas Patrum schulde therfore haue seid more
e.vije., MS.e. chapiter of this present iije. partie. Forwhi than God hadde yuel do in endewing Lucifer with so greet fairnes, and in endewing men with her tungis; and so in no wise bi, fro, and out of this seid Fadris wordis, thouȝ thei weren trewe, folewith the seid riche endewing of the clergie to be vnleeful or to be yuel doon.
FERTHERMORE for to trete upon this Fadris seiyng, thouȝ this what is now seid and proued, (that the
e.]e. partie. Wherfore no wise man neither eny other man without ouer greet booldnes of presumpcioun ouȝte iuge and seie,
Ȝit ferther, not withstonding al this, it mai seme bothe bi reson and bi Holi Scripture, that the yuel which is lettid bi the seid riche endewing is gretter than the yuel which is comyng out ther of and ther bi. And forto proue this first bi resoun y procede in this wise: It is miche harder forto suffre peyne of fleisch in this lijf than it is forto forgo and forbere lustis of fleisch in this lijf, as ech man may soone aspie in experience: and also bi resoun, for bi suffring of peyne bodili deeth cometh miche sooner than bi forbering of delectaciouns oonli. And if this be trewe, thanne it is more perel to a man for to bere him weel in suffring of peyne, than is forto bere him weel in forbering of delectaciouns and lustis. But so it is, that al the perel which is in hauyng of grete ricch|essis is, lest a man bere him not weel in forbering lustis; and the perel which is in lacking richessis is, lest a man bere him not weel and strongli in suffring of peyne. Wherfore nedis folewith, that more perel is to a man,a man, MS. (first hand, a cor|rector having wrongly erased the article).is is interlineated by a later (?) hand.
For to proue the same bi Holi Scripture y procede thus: Frowhens schule we trowe this came, that so manye pseudo or false Apostlis preching for lucre weren in the chirche in tyme of the Apostlis, as of such spekith Poul and Peter and Iohun and Iudas in her Epistilis, than fro this now to be seid? Aftir that thei weren assigned bi the veri Apostlis forto preche, thei hadden no finding assigned and lymytid to hem in propre neither in comoun; bi cause the clergie in thilk daies was not endewid with vnmouable possessiouns; neither was eny posytyue lawe mad, wherbi the prechouris myȝten cleyme eny certeinte of porcioun to be ȝouun to hem of the lay peple to whom thei prechiden; but thei eten freeli ȝouun mete and drinke of hem to whom thei freli prechiden; neither thei weren so stronge in pacience and in douȝtynes that thei wolden laboure for her lijflode and contynue her preching, whanne the peple wexe vnkinde and vndeuout forto sufficiently hem fynde in necessaries, (as Poul for lijk caus and in lijk caas wrouȝte with hise hondis forto haue his lijflode to preche:) and therfore thei weren temptid and stirid and brouȝt into consent and into deede and werk for to preche bi gileful meenis, wherbi thei myȝten the more redili receyue of the peple ȝiftis in to her eese and habun|daunt fare; and therfore thei prechiden newe thingis and vntrewe thingis forto plese the peple the more; and at the laste, (for as miche as ther fore bitwixe the Apostlis and hem wexid distaunce and contrauersie, as needis muste wexe,) tho pseudo Apostilis wrouȝten persecucioun bothe priueili and openli aȝens the trewe Apostlis, and peruertiden ofte tymes myche what the trewe Apostilis hadden weel groundid, and thei turn|eden the peple ful ofte and myche forto lothee and hate the Apostilis, and forto not bileeue toto is interlineated by a later hand.e. Epistilis of Poul to the Corynthies. And whether this yuel comyng into the chirche in this now seid maner, and that for defaute of riches, was not a greet myscheef; ȝhe, and gretter than schulde haue be likeli to falle, if alle the clergie in tho daies hadde be endewid bi vnmouable godis richeli, deme ȝe. For whatforwhat, MS.Tessalonicenses, MS.Appollo, MS.
Also forto proue this same purpos more euidentli bi Holi Scripture, y procede also thus: It is writun, Prouerb. xxxe. c. thus: Ȝeue thou not to me beggerie neither richessis; ȝeue thou oonli necessaries to my lijflode; lest perauenture y be fillid and be drawen to denye, and seie, Who is the Lord? and leste y compellid bi nedines stele, and forswerefor swere, MS.the name of my God. Lo how Salamon is aknowe to God that bothe greet ricches and lak of sufficience ben occasiouns of yuel; and therfore for feer he desirid the meene, which is sufficience, withoute hauyng of nede and withoute hauyng of more richesse than is necessarie into sufficience, as weel for thanne as for tyme to come. Neuertheles into my present purpos he weel witnessith, that gretter perel isis is added by a later hand.sake, MS. (first hand).
For more pleyner vndirstonding to be had upon the now bifore rehercid wordis of Salamon, Prouerb. xxxe. c., and forto wite what Salamon meened in hem, and forto therbi se how it is trewe that greeter yuel cometh bi lak of ricches than bi the hauyng of ricches, it is to vndirstonde and to holde that Salamon in the now seid text meened bi "sufficience" not oonli the hauour which fillith or remedieth al his lak and nede now had, but which is ther with so abiding that it schal not lasse; or ellis not so myche lasse, but that it schal alwey aftiraftir is added in a later hand, which has made erasures in the text.anoon is interlineated by a later hand.
Forthermore bi "beggerie" Salamon vndirstondith in the same text al lakal-lak, MS.
The "ricches" of which he spekith in the same text is hauour of so miche ricches, that thouȝ it lassee and abbate, as myche as it is likeli it abate bi condicioun of the world, ȝit it schal not be so litil, but that it schal be to a man ouer and aboue the seid sufficience,the seid sufficience is added in the margin by a later hand.
And so folewith herof, that vndir the meenyng of Salamon in his now rehercid preier to God it is includid that he wolde this: If eny couent or comounte or eny oon persoon schulde be endewid into such sufficience
the is interlineated, perhaps by a later hand.couet, MS., the stroke over the o being apparently by the same hand.mowe, MS. (first hand).take is added by a later hand.
For sureli to seie y haue take heede, and in al my daies and long bifore y wiste neuere ȝit college or cumpanie endewid, (thouȝ thei weren endewid ouer and more than the nede of hem askid in the dai of
were, MS. (first hand) twice.were, MS. (first hand) twice.sculde, MS.be is interlineated by a later hand.her, MS. (first hand) apparently, which is perhaps better.the is interlineated by a later hand (twice).the is interlineated by a later hand (twice).but if.
But of al this, (thouȝ founderis and endeweris of couentis, of collegis, of statis, and of persoones in state ouȝten for to in this maner endewe, whilis thei en|tenden forto warde and wilne that her werk come not into beggerie; and thouȝ Salamon preied to God that he schulde not haue lasse than the seid suffi|cience declarid now bifore to be of his meenyng, and that he schulde not falle into thethe is interlineated by a later hand.the ful, MS. (first hand).meener.this is interlineated by a later (?) hand.miche knewe, MS. (first hand).ī pfit̛, MS. Very likely the scribe, (who often disjoins prepo|sitions in composition from their nouns and verbs,) intended the text to be in perfiter.
Neuertheles alwey thoruȝ al what is seid euer this apperith to be trewe, that forto be endewid in to a sufficience aȝens beggerie, which ellis now schulde be, and aȝens beggerie, which ellis in tyme com|yng
into, MS. (first hand).
To the iiije. semyng skile, which groundith him silf vpon a storie of a voice herd in the eir seiyng thus, In this dai venom is hild out into the chirche, it is to be seid, that thilk ground is not sure trouthe, nei|ther he is likeli to be trewe: and ther fore neither eny sure troutheneither eny sure trouthe is added in the margin by a later hand.e. semyng skile.
That thilk storie, which the iiije. semyng skile takith for his ground and fundament, is not worthi to be trowid, y proue bi iiij. resouns; of whiche the firste is this: If no storier or cronycler hadde writun of thilk voice to be spokun in the eir, noman now ouȝte bileeueto beleeue, MS. (first hand).to trowe, MS. (first hand).writun, MS. We must either make this correction, or cancel the first or second writun.Cosmographia Hiberniæ; and othere storiers and croniclers aftir him taking oonli of him. And he seith that "the oold enemy made thilk voice in the eir."Topo|graphia Hiberniæ, in which this passage does not occur: there is, however, another treatise of his extant in MS., called Descriptio Mundi, in which it may possibly be found. See Cave's Hist. Lit. s. v. It will be observed that Sprott's account, quoted above, agrees with that of Giraldus, from whom it is no doubt copied.an, MS. (accidentally?).e. Pet. ve. c.; and sithen he is a lier and the fader of lesing, as Crist him silf wit|nessith, Iohun viije. c.?
The ije. resoun into the same purpos is this: If it were seid or witnessid of me that y seid certein wordis in a certeyn place, or that y seide hem after that y hadde do a certeyn deede; if it kouthe be knowe sureli or bi sufficient likelihode that y neuere was in thilk place, or that y neuere dide thilk deede, thilk witnessing so mad upon me were not to be bileeued, neither were worthi to be trowid trewe. Wherfore, bi lijk skile, sithen it is so that ech fundamental storie speking of this seid voice seith and storieth, that it was mad in the eir, aftir that the first Con|stantyn Emperour was baptisid at Rome of Siluester Pope, and aftir that he hadde endewid the Pope Sil|uester and the chirche of Rome, as it is open in the now bifore fundamental cronicle or storie of Girald, (and no man storieth therof saue he, and thei that sithen hise daies taken the same of him,) it folewith
The thre departid storie in the firste book the iiije. chapiter, and in the ije. book the xiije. chapiter and the xvje. chapiter. But so it is, that this ful famose and worthi clerk and bischop Eusebi Cesarience, (ful miche preisid and bileeued of Seint Ierom,Hist. Eccl. vol. 1. pp. lv.-lviii. (Burton's Ed.) The passages from the Historia tripartita of Cassiodorus, to which Pecock here refers, are not much to the purpose.e. book of The thre departid storie in the viije. chapiter and in the xe. and xje. chapitris, bisidis the othere now bifore alleggid chapitris into the same purpos, and which wroot the moost famose and moost credible storie had among Cristen men next to the storie of the Bible, clepid The Chirchis storie, and which wroot the moost credible Cronicle of alle othere had among Cristen men, to which Ierom couplid the Cronicle which he wroot,) was moost homeli of alle othere with the seid Constantyn, and was so priuey and so homeli with the seid greet Emperour Constantyn, that bi the same Eusebi came out into
e. chapiter in the firste book of The iij. departid storie. And this Eusebi, (so credible and, as a princi|pal fadir in tho daies of the chirche, as moost and best knowing the lijf, conuersacioun, and holines of the same Constantyn,) took up on him for to write and storie the hool lijf and the deeth of the same Constantyn: and herwith he witnessith in the same Book of Constantynys lijf,de Vit. Constant. lib. iv. c. 62, 63.Hist. Lit. s. v. Constantinus) observes: "Obiit . . . impetrato prius ab adstantibus episcopis bap|tismo, manu ut videtur Eusebii Nicomediensis, utpote loci illius episcopi; licet id nec Eusebius, nec Socrates, Sozomenus, vel The|odoritus referant." Several late writers, however, affirm it. See Brown. Fasc. Rer. pp. 158, 161. Marian. Scot. Chron. A.D. 336.
Wherfore this now seid thing which Eusebi so storieth in The book of Constantynys lijf is more to be bileeued or trowid than what into the contrarie is founde in eny legende of Siluester, (which noman can telle who wroot it, neither whens it came, or whidir it wole,) or than the storie of Damasus Pope writun to Ierom of deedis of Popis, or than eny storier or cronicler taking of the seid legend of Siluester or
in, MS. (first hand).The decrees of Hiȝest Bischopis, of which now seid long epistle a greet porcioun Graciaun puttith in his Summe, Dist. xcvje., chapiter [xive.] Constantinus: namelich sithen in legendis ben founde manie ful vntrewe fablis, as in a book therof to be mad schal appeere, and sithen aȝens the seid epistle putt to Constantyn special sus|picioun mai be had; for in othere epistlis of Constan|tyn, which he wroot whanne he was in his moost rialte, is not such a stile of him as is in this now seid epistle, (as ech man may se which wole biholde in the ie. and ije. bookis of The iij. departid storie;) and sithen in the seid storie of Damase Pope is founde vntrouthe, which Ierom weel aspied, and fro whichthe which, MS. (first hand).De viris illustribus,de Vir. ill. c. 15. (Op. tom. ii. p. 839. Ed. Vallars.) Pseudo|Damasus says of Clement that he wrote two epistles "quæ canonicæ nominantur;" Jerome, on the con|trary, says, "secunda epistola . . . a veteribus reprobatur." (See Coleti, Concil. tom 1. pp. 75, 119.) This appears to be the discrepancy to which Pecock alludes.Clemens,Clemens, the MS. has "and also in lijk maner of the same mater in his Cronicle which he made to be ioyned to the Cronicle of Eusebie:" but a corrector has written vacat against the lines.Acta Silvestri, in part per|haps the work of Isidorus Mercator, about 820 A.D. (see Coleti, Concil. tom. 1. p. 1573); the Liber pon|tificalis or Gesta pontificalia of Damasus, and his Epistle to Jerome, a medley of old things and new, (see Cave, Hist. Lit. s.v. Damasus); the Edictum Constantini, printed with notes in Coleti, Concil. tom. 1. pp. 1564-1576, and forming a part of the Acta Silvestri, and quoted by many authors from Isidore down|wards (see Coleti, l.c. p. 1573), are now known to be spurious. The Vita Silvestri by Pseudo-Damasus is printed with notes in Coleti, Concil. tom. 1. pp. 1431-1444. The remark of Binius, "Hoc edictum de Constantini donatione ex actis Silvestri Papæ, sub Eusebii Cæsare|ensis nomine falso Græce scriptis, primum edidit Theodorus Balsa|mon," about 1180 A.D., is true only as respects its Greek translation.
Also into the same purpos thus: Ambrose and Ierom helden so trewe it what Eusebi seid in the now rehercid maner of Constantyns baptising, that thei bileeueden it and witnessen it;de Ob. Theodos. Or. c. 40. (Op. tom. ii. p. 1209, Ed. Benedict). Hieron. ap. Vincent. Bell. Hist. lib. xxiv. in fine. See Brown. Fasc. Rer. p. 158. The index to St. Jerome's works does not indicate the passage.Concil. tom, i. pp. 1431, 1567.
Also thus: Theodoritus,Theodoricus, MS., and Thedori|cus below.e. Emperour; of which iij. so famose storiers a worthi lettrid man and senatour of Rome clepid Cas|siodor lete make and compile the ful famose and cre|dible storie clepid The iij. departid storie, moost cre|dible next to the storie of Eusebie clepid The chirchis storie, and was mad and compilid for thilk entent that it schulde be contynued in progresse and in processe to The chirchis storie: and ij. of these iij. seid storiers (that is to seie, Sozomenus and Theodoritus) witnessen accordingli with Eusebi Cesarience that the seid Con|stantyn was baptisid oonli in hise laste daies litle bifore his deeth, whanne he wiste he schulde die, in the xxxje. ȝeer of his empire, and euen so long aftir he was conuertid into Cristen feith and Cristen holi
Hist. Trip. lib. iii. c. 12.This dai venom is hilde into the chirche, is not credible.
The iije. resoun is this: The storiyng which the seid Girald makith of this voice is this in wordis, It is rad that the oold enemy pronouncid openli in the eir thus, This dai venom is hildid into the chirche. Wherfore folewith that if it be not writun in eny storie bifore the seid storiyng of Girald, that the oold enemy made such a voice thanne in the eir, al the storiyng which Girald makith of the same voice is not to be bileeued. But so it is, that noon eldir storie or cronicle can be founde writun bifore the seid stori|yng of Girald, in which eeldir storie is mensioun mad of thilk voice. Wherfore this that Girald writith of this voice is ful sengil to be bileued.
Confirmacioun to this resoun is this: Sithen the storiyng which Girald makith of this voice is this, It is rad that such voice was in the eir, et cætera, Girald ȝildith him silf in so storiyng that he is not the fundamental storier ther of, but that ther of is an other storie bifore him, fro which he takith his storiyng of the same voice: wherforether|fore.a fame, MS. (first hand).e. semyng skile lackith al strengthe forto proue his entent.
THE iiije. resoun is this: If suche as is bifore seid a voice was spokun in the eir, whanne Constantyn had maad at Rome the endewing which he made, thilk voice was so maad and spoken in the eir for this, that thanne first endewing by immovable pos|sessiouns entride into the chirche; or ellis for this, that thanne first greet habundaunt endewing bi im|movable possessiouns entride into the chirche.
Thou maist not seie that for the firste of these twei causis: For whi in the daies of First Vrban Pope, goostli fadir and techer of Seint Cecilie Virgyn, which was mad pope bi an hundrid ȝeeris bifore the popehode of Siluestre and the regnyng of Con|stantyn Empereour, the chirche of Rome was endewid with immovable possessiouns, as croniclis openli wit|nessen, and as it is open bi the writing of the same Vrban in the greet book clepid The decrees of Hiȝest
Bischopis in the firste and ije. chapitris of his decree;Concil. tom. l. pp. 636, 637. This Epistle is spurious, being one of the forgeries of Isidorus Mercator. The Chronicles, such as that of Martinus Polonus (Supp. A.D. 226), who says, "Hujus tem|pore cœpit primum Romana ecclesia prædia possidere," are probably de|rived from it.De Gest. Brit. lib. v. c. l.) seems to be the original authority for this state|ment. How far it is "worthy and credible" the reader may judge from Fuller's Ch. Hist. of Brit. book l. cent. ii., and Collier's Eccl. Hist. of Brit. book l. cent. ii.croniclees, MS. (first hand).
Thou maist not seie that for the ije. cause now bifore seid thilk voice was maad in the eir: Forwhi, as anoon her aftir it schal be proued, the seid Em|perour Constantyn endewid not the not pope, MS. (first hand).clepid is added in the margin by a later hand.Concil. tom. l. p. 1433.Chron. (inter alios) for all the principal facts here mentioned in their proper places. The authorities, giving an account of Matilda's life and acts, are fully set down by Mosheim, Eccl. Hist. pt. II. c. II. § 11. (vol. 2. pp. 339, 340. Lond. 1841.)Summe of Gracian, Dist. lxiije., chapiter [xxxe.] Ego Lodowicus; and in like maner diden manie othere persoones mo than of whom it is writun. Wherfore the seid voice was not maad in the eir for the ije. now bifore sett cause. And so fynali folewith that for no cause thilk voice was maad, and therefore no such voice at al was in the eir than mad, thouȝ bi sum corrupcioun of leesing the fame of thilk voice hath long tyme be had and contynued.
That this is trewe what is now bifore seid, that the First Constantyn Emperour endewid not Pope Siluester neither eny oon chirche in Rome with eny greetly habundant and riche vnmouable possessiouns, y mai proue bi manie euydencis; of whiche oon is this: If the seid Constantyn had mad such greet habundaunt riche endewing to Siluester and to the chirche in which Siluester sate, Damasus Pope had mad mensioun of thilk same endewing in the storie which he writith to Ierom, and that for dyuerse
The skilis ben these: Damasus was preied of Ierom, that Damasus schulde write to Ierom as miche as Damasus couthe fynde in Rome what was doon fro Petir into the dai of Damasus Pope; as the epistle of Ierom sent to Damasus and the epistle of Damasus to Ierom beren witnes. And Damasus writith aȝen to Ierom the now seid storie, and seith that al what he couthe and myȝte wite, encerche, fynde, and knowe what was doon fro Seint Petris daies into hise owne daies thanne lyuyng he hadde write in the now seid storie, which he sende to Ierom. Wherfore sithen it is not likeli that such a notable deede of endewing, if it hadde be doon bi Constantyn, schulde haue be vnknowe to Damasus succeding to Siluester withinne an hundrid of ȝeeris, more than othere smale endew|ingis doon bi Constantyn to diuerse chirchis of which Damasus makith mensioun alredi, it folewith that if thilk greet endewing of the Pope hadde be doon bi Constantyn, Damasus wolde haue write of it, as weel as of othere smaler and lasse endewingis mad toto the, MS. (first hand).
An other skile is: If thilk greet endewing hadde be mad to Siluester, Damasus schulde haue be in posses|sioun of the same endewing in the same tyme in which he wroot to Ierom; and of no thing Damasus myȝte bettir knowe than of the same thing which he helde in possessioun. Wherfore more sureli than of eny other thing, which Damasus wroot to Ierom in
The iije. principal euydence is this: If eny such now seid endewing was mad bi Constantyn, sum mensioun schulde haue be mad therof in sum funda|mental and credible stori or cronicle. But so it is, that of thilk endewing no stori or cronicle makith mensioun, saue the legende or storie of Siluestris gestis and the oon bifore seid epistle putt and ascryued vn|likeli to Constantyn, and tho stories and cronicles which taken of it and folewen it; and neither thilk storiyng of Siluestris gestis neither the seid epistle is not credible neithir worthi be allowid, as it is schewid bifore in the next chapiter, and as schal better be cleer aftir in this present chapiter. Wherfore it is not to be takun and to be trowid as a trouthe, that Constantyn made eny such seid soso is interlineated in a later hand.
The iiije. principal euidence is this: The worthi and famose and credible stori clepid Thre departid storie (mad of thre moost famose and credible storiers in Greek lond in the daies of Theodosie not long after Constantyn) makith mensioun in the laste chapiter of the iije. book, and in the iiije. chapiter and vje.e. book, and bi manye othere chapitris in the hool book, that the greet Constantyn in hise laste daies, whanne he trowid be nyȝe his deeth, made his testament and departid his hool empire into thre par|ties, and tho thre parties he biquathe to hise thre sones, Constantinus, Constancius, and Constans; and in special he assigned and biquathe the lordschip of the west parti, which was Rome, with al the cuntrey
The ve. principal euydence is this: After the deeth of Siluester Pope bi ccl. ȝeer, Boneface the iiije. and Pope of Rome, willing forto halewe the hous in Rome clepid Panteon, and forto make itit is interlineated by a later hand.Eccl. Hist. lib. ii. c. 4.be is added by later hand.
The vje. principal evidence is this: In alle the daies fro the deeth of the Firste Constantyn in to the daies of the Firste Charlis (being king of Fraunce and em|perour of Rome to gidere bi v. C. ȝeer aftir the deeth of Siluester) regniden in successioun euermore oon em|perour after an other pesibili to gidere and at oonys upon the eest cuntrey of Greek lond, and upon the west cuntre of Rome, and bi west Rome, as is open ynouȝ in cronicles; and how and whi fro thensfrothens, MS., and similarly below, p. 366.
Neuertheles aȝens thilk endewing which the seid Damasus Pope spekith in his storie writun to Ierom, and which endewing Damasus berith upon the First Constantyn to be mad to chirchis in Rome and to mynystrie in hem, y wole not replie, neither argue, neither holde and trowe, bi cause that forto ther aȝens holde y haue noon euydence: but certis thilk endewing maad bi Constantyn in vnmouable godis to dyuerse chirchis in Rome, of which endewing so spekith
Summe, Dist. xcvj., chapiter [xive.] Constantinus. And therfore thilk storie of Siluestris gestis and the seid epistle ben needis vntrewe apocrifis.
The vije. principal evidence in to the same purpos is this: Bi manye hundrid ȝeeris after the deeth of Pope Siluester the eleccioun of the pope mad at Rome was sende into Greke lond, where the emperour was oftiraftir, MS.Chron. A.D. 657.
If eny man wole be aboute forto defende the seid legend or writing of Siluestris gestis bi it what therof Pope Gelasie writith in his epistle, of which epistle a greet part Gracian rehercith in his Summe, Dist. xve., chapiter [iiie.] Sancta Romana, y seie to him aȝenward thus: Loke thou bettir upon the processe of Gelasie in the now alleggid place, and thou schalt fynde that he neither approueth, neither reproueth, neither conferm|eth, neither infermethinfirmeth.Decret. l. c. But this production itself, first quoted in the ninth cen|tury, is a forgery, from the anvil of Isidore, as it appears. See Cave Hist. Lit. s. v. Gelasius.
The viije. principal euydence into the same purpos is this: In the seid epistle putt to grete Constantyn it is conteyned, that anoon withinne iiij. daies after that Constantyn was baptisid of Siluester Pope, Con|stantyn schulde seie that he wolde translate his em|pire fro the empire of Seint Petris successour, and Constantyn seide that therfore he wolde go into the Greek cuntre, and wolde bilde a newe citee for his empire at Bizancium in Greke lond;Concil. tom. i. p. 1572.The thre departid storie in the ije. book the xviije. chapiter, where is plein storie aȝens this. For Constantyn pur|posid forto haue bildid his citee in an othir placeHist. Trip. lib. ii. c. 18.
Thus miche is ynouȝ (as here) for answere to the iiije. semyng skile, sett bifore in the viije. chapiter of this present iije. partie. What is seid ouer schortli here for answere to the seid iiije. semyng skile mai be seen in more lengthe to be trewe, if the reder of this wole encerche famose stories and cronicles diligentli.aȝens me) in the MS. Pecock, no doubt, wrote his eighth argument after he had finished the chapter, and forgot to make the necessary transposition.
To the ve. semyng skile it is to be seid, that thilk stiward, of which it is spoken in the ve. skile, iugith not in the bischopis name or stide, or in the abbotis name or stide; thouȝ the avauntage and the forfete iustli comyng bi thilk iugement be ȝouun to thilk bischop or to thilk abbot; but the seid seid is added by a later hand.whichich, MS.to repare, MS. (first hand).
And sithen it is so, that as leeful and as honest it is the bischop or the abbot for to receyue the seid avauntage fro the seid stiwardis hondis, as forto abide into tyme the king had receyued it of the stiward, and thanne to receyue it of the kingis hondis, and more ese it is and lasse cost to receyue it of the stiward at next than of the king at next: therfore it is not to be blamed bischopis and abbotis forto holde and haue avauntagis of courtis and of causisand of causis is added by a later hand.e. semyng skile is aboute forto proue be vniust. For as it is iust ynouȝ and honest the king forto receyue suche eschetis and forfetis comyng bi iust deeth of a malefactour, so it is iust and honest ynouȝ bischopis or abbotis to haue the same bi ȝifte to hem mad therof bi the king. And thus miche is ynouȝ for answere to the ve. semyng skile.
Now at the laste eende of al this afore going defense mad for the iije. principal gouernaunce, that knyȝtis and squyeris, gentil men, and othere louȝer comuneris han no caus forto grucche and be displesid, that the clergie (religiose and not religiose) ben so richeli
miche is interlineated by a later hand.it is interlineated by a later hand.
Ferthermore the tenauntis, occupiyng tho tenementis and possessiouns with purtenauncis vndir the clergie, ben esilier tretid, lasse disesid, and not greeued bi extorcioun, as thei schulden be, if thei helden the same tenementis and possessiouns of temporal lordis or of knyȝtis and squyers, as also experience weel schewith.
And thanne ferther the clergie, namelich religiose,the religiose, MS. (first hand).louȝe, MS. (first hand).staryng is added by a later hand.e. principal conclusioun of this present iije. partie.
The iije. principal conclusioun of this present iije. partie is this: The iije. principal gouernaunce sett in the first chapiter of this present iije. partie is leeful. That this conclusioun is trewe, y proue thus: Ech persoonis gouernaunce, which Holi Scripture forbedith not, doom of resoun forbedith not, mannis lawe for|bedith not, is leeful and not worthi be vndirnome and blamed. But so it is, that neither Holi Scripture, neither doom of resoun, neither mannis lawe forbedith preestis of the Newe Testament forto haue in her pro|pre lordschip and in comoun lordschip to gidere with
to is interlineated in a later hand.
The firste premysse or membre of this argument muste nedis be grauntid. Forwhi ech gouernaunce is leeful which is not forbode, sithen ech yuel gouer|naunce is forbode, and no forbode is mad saue bi lawe of Scripture, lawe of kinde, (which is doom of resoun,) and lawe of man: and therfore ech gouernaunce of eny men, which is not forbodun bi Holi Scripture, or bi doom of resoun, or bi mannis lawe is needisli leeful. The ije. premisse of this same argument is suffi|cientli proued to be trewe bi the hool processe bigunne bifore in this iij. partie soone aftir the bigynnyng of the first chapiter, and streiȝt along hidir to. Wher|fore the conclusioun of this argument muste needis be trewe.
Forwhi the kinde of euery good argument of ij. pre|missis or ij. proposiciouns dryuyng out from hem and concluding fro hem the iije. proposicioun, is this; that if euereither of the ij. premissis ben trewe, the iije. proposicioun concludid bi hem and out of hem muste needis be trewe. Ensaumplis herof ben these. For that this argument is good and formal: "Ech man is now at the chirche; mi fader is a man; eke thanne mi fader is now at the chirche:"—therfore if the first premysse or proposicioun of this argument be trewe, which is this, that "ech man is now at the chirche," and if therwith also the ije. premysse be trewe, that "mi fadir is a man," sotheli needis cost, who wole or wolewho wole, MS. (first hand).e. proposicioun or resoun,resoun is interlineated in a later hand.formal, MS.e.so forth, and cancel all the rest of the sentence, which is a mere repetition of what has just preceded.e. proposicion, speche, or resoun, ben clepid ij. pre|missis, or the firste and ije. premysse of the argument; and the iije. proposicioun, speche, or resoun driuen out and concludid forth bi hem and fro hem is clepid the conclusioun of the argument.
And ferther, euen as whanne a formali mad argument is mad of ij. premyssis concluding a conclusioun, if bothe premyssis ben trewe, the conclusioun needis is trewe; so whanne an argument is mad schortli, so that the oon premisse is expressid in which the gretter strengthe of the argument lithe, and the other pre|mysse is stille vnspokun for schortnes; ȝit, if thilk oon premysse expressid be trewe, needis muste the con|clusioun be trewe. Forwhi out of a treuthe folewith not a falshede, but out of treuthe folewith neuer eny thing saue treuthe; for ellis ther were no wey to proue bi it eny thing be trewe, if a falshede myȝte be con|cludid in a formal argument fro a treuthe, as weel as
Certis thouȝ no more were for toto is interlineated in a later(?) hand.e. seid principal gouernaunce than the profis of the thre next bifore going principal conclusiouns fro the bigynnyng of this present iije. parti hidir to, thei were sufficient forto iustifie the same seid iije. principal gouernaunce. Forwhi what schulde lette eny gouer|nance to be doon, if neither Holi Scripture, neither doom of cleer resoun, neither mennys lawis letten it to be don? Neuerthelatir sumwhat more into thethe is interlineated in a later hand.e. principal gouernaunce schal be set therto bi the iij.five.
THE iiije. principal conclusioun of this present iije. partie is this: Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament allowithallowith and approueth, MS. (first hand).e. ofte seid principal gouernaunce, that is to seie, preestis forto haue vnmouable posses|siouns
e. Thim. iiije. c., and of the ouer plus make doole to othere hauying therto nede, as it is writun [Luk xje. c.]:Netheles that that is ouer plus ȝyue ȝe almes.The ouer plus ȝeue ȝe into almes.
Also this deede, a preest forto freli take and chese of alle maidens to him a wijf, so that he wedde not of the newe eftsoone, if his first wijf die him lyuyng, and forto bigete children, and forto haue meyne and holde house, and forto nurische and bringe up hise children, and forto reule his wijf, meyne, and children, and forto purveie for hem was allowid of Poul, and bi lijk skile of the othere Apostlis, as is open of Poul bi what is writun ie. Cor. vije. c. in the bigynnyng, where he spekith generali to alle Cristen persoones of Corinthi, and therfore to preestis as to other, ie. Thim. iije. c. and Tite ie. c., in the vnderstonding which ther|upon was had in Poulis daies and froadv. Jovin. lib. i. c. 23. (tom. ii. p. 273. Ed. Vall.)The threfold storiHist. Tripart. lib. ii. c. xiv. for an account of the proceedings of Paphnutius in that council.Cod. Eccl. Afric. can. xxv., where Augustine mentions the "uxores" of bishops, priests, and deacons. It is hard to say what particular passage Pecock may have referred to.e. Thim. ve. c., counseilid to Thimothe, that he schulde kepe him silf chaast.
Also this deede, a preest forto haue in possessioun movable godis how miche euer he mai honestli and riȝtli come to, (so that he be not gleymed with ouer myche loue to it,) and forto therof take ynouȝ, and of the ouer plus make disposicioun into almes is allowid bi Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament. Forwhi how ellis schulde Bischop Thimothie haue performed what Poul wolde him to performe ie. Thim. ve. c., that Thimothie schulde worschipe, (that is to seie, finde and nurische,) tho wommen of lxti. winter age, whiche aftir hir husbondis deethis wolden for deuocioun lyue chaast? And sithen Poul and his felawschip and disciplis being conuersaunt with him lyueden bi the ȝiftis and sondis, which dyuerse chirchis ȝauen and senden to him where that he were, as he witnessith him silf in hise epistlis, except that in summe cuntrees (as in Achaia) he forbare forto so receyue, that he wolde therbi confounde tho prechers, whiche weren glad forto into coueitouse maner receiue;—how ellis miȝte this be vsid of dyuerse chirchis and comountees forto sende to Poul, and that Poul schulde receyue the sondis of hem, but if it hadde be so ful ofte that tho chirchis and comountees senden ful ofte, and Poul
approued and allowid, MS. (first hand).
And thanne ferther thus: Al the cause assignable whi it schulde be aȝens Scripture or aȝens resoun a preest forto haue eny vnmovable godis, if it were aȝens Scripture or resoun, is this: That bi the hauyng of thilk godis he schulde be maad ouer thouȝtful and ouer carkful and ouermyche louyng toward hem, and ther bi he schulde be mad ouer myche necligent forto attende to goostli thingis, and forto loue God and goostli thingis. And noon other cause is therfore assignable saue this. But so it is, that this cause, (that is to seie, this seid thouȝt, this seid cark, and caring, and attendaunce,) is miche more in a man for that that he hath wijfa wijf, MS. (first hand).
Also this present iiije. conclusion mai 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;
The ve. principal conclusioun in this iije. principal parti is this: Doom of cleerli disposid resoun in kinde allowith and approueth the iije. principal gouernaunce sett in the bigynnyng of this present iije. partie. That this conclusioun is trewe mai be proued bi alle tho same argumentis bi which the next iiije. principal conclusioun is proued. For thouȝ tho argumentis goon upon the witnessing of Holi Scripture, ȝit in al it Holi Scripture dooth not ellis than witnesse what doom of resoun iugith in allowing and approuyng; and therfore alle tho same seidseid is added in the margin by a later hand.e. conclusioun and for proof of the ve. conclusioun.
The vje. conclusioun is this: The seid iije. princi|pal gouernaunce is leeful in proprist maner of leeful|nes. That this conclusioun is trewe, y proue thus: Ech gouernaunce, which Holi Scripture or doom of cleer reson allowith and approueth, is leeful in proprist maner of leefulnes. But so it is, that Holi Scripture and also doom of cleer resoun allowen and approuen
e. seid principal gouernaunce. Wherfore folewith needis, that the seid iije. principal gouernaunce is in proprist maner leeful.
The vije. conclusioun is this: The iije. seid principal gouernaunce is a gouernannce of Goddis lawe. This conclusioun schal be proued thus: Ech gouernance, which is leeful and allowid and approued bi Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament and bi doom of cleer resoun, is a gouernaunce of Goddis lawe and of the Newe Testament, as it is vndoutabili proued in manye placis of my writingis, namelich in The iust apprising of Holi Scripture. But so it is, that the iije. seid principal gouernaunce is leeful bi the next bifore going iije. principal conclusioun, and he is al|lowid and approued by Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament and bi doom of cleer resoun, as prouen weel the next bifore going iiije. and ve. principal con|clusiouns. Wherfore thilk iije. gouernaunce is a gouer|naunce of Goddis lawe and of the Newe Testament.
The viije. principal conclusioun is this: It is not synne a man forto ensaumple bi deede to othere men the iije. seid principal gouernaunce. That this con|clusioun is trewe, y proue thus: It is not synne a man forto ensaumple bi his deede to othere mento othere men is added by a later hand in the margin, after which a different hand (exceedingly similar to that of the original scribe, if not identical with it,) has written a deede; the whole being marked with a red line, probably by the same hand that illuminated the MS. This tends to show that the cor|rections of the MS. are (in part at least) scarcely later than the original text.e. seid prin|cipal gouernaunce is a gouernaunce of Goddis lawe and of the Newe Testament, as proueth weel the next bifore going vje. principal conclusioun. Wherfore it is not synne a man forto ensaumple bi his deede to othere men the iije. seid principal gouernaunce.
FOR as myche as fro the bigynnyng of this present iije. partie hidir to it is procedid that sufficient proof is mad this to be trewe, that preestis and othere clerkis mowen be endewid with temporal vnmouable possessiouns without eny ther of wernyng founde in Holi Scripture or in resoun, ȝhe, and with therto consenting Scripture and resoun; and so weel and so firmeli and stabili and openli it is proued and so weel to the euydencis of the contrarie partie it is answerid, and so cleerli the euydencis ben assoilid, that noman al the bifore going processe reding and vndirstonding may opene his mouth forto holde the errour, which bifore in the bigynnyng of the firste chapiter in this present iije. partie is rehercid, and is bi al the bifore going processe hidir to vnaȝenseiabili vnproued and theryn worthili reproued;—therfore summen perceyuyng al this consenten weel and graunten, that preestis and othere clerkis mowen weel withoute weernyng of Holi Scripture and of resoun, ȝhe, and bi Scripture and bi resoun, be endewid with temporal and vnmou|able godis forto do and vse and execute the better her goostli officis; but thei holden herwith this con|clusioun, that if bischopis or other preestis or othere louȝer clerkis so endewid lyuen not vertuoseli, as thei schulden lyue, with thilk seid temporal godis, but amys vsen tho godistho temporal godis, MS. (first hand).
And ferthermore thei holden this ije. conclusioun, that if eny bischop, preest, or clerk do not dewli the werkis of his office anentis his peple ouer whom he is sett and putt, the same peple mowe iustli with|drawewt drawe, MS. (without hyphen).
Wherfore it is now next to be encerchid whether this holding be trewe or not trewe. Into which eende, entent, and purpos y schal here sett forth xj. open trouthis, bi whiche it schal be knowe sureli, whethir the now rehercid conclusions and opinions ben trewe or no.
The firste trouthe is this: Noman ouȝte be iuge in his owne cause which he hath anentis his neiȝbour, neither eny man ouȝte be redresser of the wrong which his neiȝbour dooth to him, but if he him silf be the hiȝest iuge of alle othere, and hath no iuge in erthe aboue him, bi whom his cause or wrong mai be iugid and redressid. Forwhi, if eny man or if many men schulden be iugis in her owne causis had bitwixe hem and othere men, God wolde not haue ordeyned in the temporal parti kingis and princis and dukis and othere powers vndir hem to be for to heere and iuge causis and redresse wrongis, of whom Poul spekith, Rom. xiije. c., and ie. Cor. vje. c., and ie. Thim. ije.ie., MS.e. Pet. ije. c. Nei|ther God wolde haue ordeyned in the clergie to be bischopis aboue the louȝer preestis, and archebischopis aboue bischopis, and the pope to be aboue alle the othere, as it is proued aftir in the iiije. parti of this
The ije. trouthe is this: Among temporal godis, whiche men ben woned for to paie to othere men, summe ben to be paied as fynding or helping to the receyuers, that the receyuers, foundun and holpun bi the temporal godis of hem receyued, do and wirche and execute summe certein officis or summe certein deedis, to come into whiche thei ben sett and ordeyned,
The iije. trouthe is this: Mouable and vnmouable temporal godis mowen be ȝouun not oonli to oon persoon in the firste maner of the ije. trouthe, and forto not descende ferther bi the same ȝeuyng into the successouris of the same persoon; but also mou|able and vnmouable temporal godis mowen be ȝouun in the first maner of the ije. trouthe to a man and to hise successouris perpetueli, that not oonli he but that he and alle his successouris be foundun and holpun therbi forto do, wirche, and execute sum office or deede, as withoute which thei myȝten not do, wirche, or execute the same dede, or at the leest not so weel do, wirche, or execute the same deede. This treuthe
The iiije. trouthe is this: Whanne money or other temporal good mouable or vnmovable is to be paied in the ije. maner of the ije. trouthe, it may iustli be restreyned and aȝen holde fro paiyng, in caas that the deede be not do for whos performyng the same money is to be paied and ȝouun. Forwhi thilk monei is to be paied as reward and meede to the receyuer for the doing or laboring aboute the same deede, and a reward or meede folewith aftir the deede for which he is reward or meede.
The ve. trouthe is this: Whanne eny such temporal good movable or vnmouable is ȝouun in the first maner of the ije. trouthe to eny oon persoon and not to hise successouris, and is to be paied in the same first maner to the same oon persoon as bi vertu and strengthe of the same now seid ȝeuyng maad in the first maner of the ije. trouthe, thilk good mai not iustli be restreyned and be aȝen holde fro payment to the same persoon, thouȝ the deede schal not be doon and performed into which deede to be doon the same good was to the same persoon so in the first maner of the ije. trouthe ȝouun; namelich if it be not vttirli certein that the receyuer schal not performe the same seid deede. Forwhi the ȝifte of the good to the receyuer gooth bifore the deede, into which deede the receyuer is therbi bounde; and in lijk maner the payment of the same good to the receyuer ouȝte go bifore the same seid deede therbi to be doon, bi as myche as thilk payment is the fynding and the help|ing in expensis and in othere necessaries geting to the receyuer into the same deede therbi folewingli to be doon or the better to be doon. And therfore, if the receyuer wole knouleche that he wole and schal per|forme
for should be cancelled.e. trouthe, or in caas of the ije. parti of the vije. trouthe after folewing. Forwhi ech paier myȝte bere an hond to the receyuer, that the receyuer wolde not performe iustly the deede into which the payment schulde serue. And so her of and herbi schulden in|numerable grete debatis and strijfis, wrongis, and mys|chefis rise and continue. Wherfore this ve. trouthe is to be holde as firmeas for firme, MS. (first hand).
The vje. trouthe is this: If mouable or vnmouable godis ȝouun and dew to be paied to eny oon persoon withoute successouris in the first maner of the ije. trouthe, (that is to seie, bifore the deede into which he is bounde bi strengthe of the bifore mad to him ȝift and payment,) mai not iustli be take fro and be aȝenholde fro the seid man, thouȝ the seid deede be of him left vndoon, (as it is now bifore schewid in the ve. trouthe,) miche rather this is trewe,—whanne movable or vnmovable godis ben ȝouun and dew to be paied
e. trouthe sett which he mai make for him silf, but also he mai it lette bi lijk reclayme which he mai and ouȝte make for hise successouris and in the name and stide of alle and of ech of hise successouris. Also sithen hise successouris ben not ȝit founde in wijte or defaute, wrong were doon to hem if this good schulde be take so awey fro this man that therwith to gidere and at oonis it were take awey from hem. But so it is, that this man mai not oonis or at eny tyme be putt out of riȝt and of pos|sessioun of thilk seid mouable or vnmouable good, him abiding in the same dignite, state, or office, but that bothe he and alle hise successouris ben theryn, therwith, and therbi excludid for euer, in lasse thanne the same good be ȝouun aȝen to hem of the newe. Wherfore this man mai not iustli be vnriȝtid and vnpossessid, that is to seie, be putt out of riȝt and out of possessioun of the seid mouable or vn|mouable good; thouȝ he not performe the dede into which thilk good isis should be cancelled.
THE vije. trouthe is this: Alle bischopis and othere preestis and louȝer clerkis endewid for hem and her successouris bi mouable godis, (as chalicis, vestimentis, bokis,) and bi vnmouable godis, (as housis, feeldis, and free rentis going out of feeldis or of housis) and bi riȝtis to aske and haue tithis and offringis, grauntid and ȝouun to hem and to her successouris, stonden not in caas of the ije. partie of the ije. trouthe; but thei stonden in caas of the first parti of the ije. trouthe, and in caas of the vje. trouthe. Forwhi the blisse of heuen and the thank of God and his rewarding is al that is to be abide aftir and to be awaitid after in wey of reward and meede of ech bischop, preest, and clerk for ech werk and deede of his dignite, ordre, or office doing and executing; and ther fore no good mouable or vnmouable is ȝouun or paied to hem as for reward and meede of her officis doing and performyng. In knouleching of which thing, whanne a persoon is mad first clerk and takith his firste corown for to be therbi oon of the clergie, he seith and protestith openli thus: "The Lord is the part of myn heritage and of my labour and traueil into which y entre. Thou, Lord, art he which schalt ȝelde myn heritage to me,"Modus faciendi tonsuras vel coronas primas et ordinandi clericos genuflectentes coram episcopo hoc modo. Sit nomen Domini benedic|tum, &c." (Then follows a prayer and a psalm). "Hic quilibet ordi|nandus per se dicat: Dominus pars hæreditatis meæ et calicis mei: tu es, qui restitues hæredi|tatem meam mihi." Maskell's Mon. Rit. Eccl. Anglic., vol. 3. pp. 147-149.e. trouthe is sufficientli opened for trewe. The ije. party of this vije. trouthe is wit|nessid bi Poul ie. Cor. ixe. c. bi long processe and
e. Thim. ve. c.
Neuertheles thouȝ this present vije. trouthe muste needis be holdenbeholden, MS.e. trouthe Crist him silf spekith and meeneth, Luk xe. c., where he seide to hise disciplis thus: Go ȝe: lo, y sende ȝou as lambren among wolues; therfore nile ȝe bere a sachel neither scrippe neither schoon, and grete ȝe no man bi the wey. Into what hous that ȝe entren, first seie ȝe, Pees to this hous; and if a sone of pees be there, ȝoure pees schal reste on him; but if noon, it schal turne aȝen to ȝou: and dwelle ȝe in the same hous, eting and drinking tho thingis whiche ben at hem; for a werkmanwerk man, MS. (here and below), but?is worthi his hire. Lo hou in these wordis, "a werkman is worthi his meede," Crist clepid it which prechouris and prelatis schulde take into her fynding to be meede or reward of her preching, which is a deede of cure doing. And in lijk maner, ie. Thim. ve. c., bi like and the same wordis Poul clepith the fynding of prechouris her mede or reward. Wherfore it wolde seme that the ije. partie of this present vije. trouthe is not to be holde as for trewe; but it wolde seme that the ȝifte of temporal godis mad to preestis is in the ije. parti of the firste trouthe sett bifore in the xvje. chapiter; and therfore tho temporal godis mowen be withdrawe, if preestis performe not sufficientli the deedis of her cure. But ȝit notwithstonding these ij. now laste rehercid textis, (oon of Crist, Luk xe. c.,
e. Thim. ve. c.,) the vije. trouthe is to be holde thoruȝ hise bothe bifore seid parties. And for dew vnderstonding of Crist and of Poul in the ij. now laste rehercid textis it is to wite that this word meede or reward mai be take propirli in his dewist and verriest maner of significacioun and bitokenyng, and he may be take vnpropirly out of his dewist and veriest maner of signifiyng and bitoken|yng, as ful manye othere wordis in Holi Scripture, and eke out of Holi Scripture, ben woned to be take.
Thanne ferther, if this word meede or reward be take in his dewist and propir maner of signifiyng, certis he bitokeneth a thing which is to be ȝouun or paid for a werk bifore doon, and is thanne first dew to be ȝouun or paied whanne the werk is doon and eendid, for which the same thing is to be ȝouun or paied, and in this maner Holi Scripture spekith of meede, Math. xxe. c., where the lord of the vyner in the eende of the day and of the werk doon in his vyner, seide to his procutour thus, Clepe thou the werkmen, and ȝeelde to hem her meede, et cætera; not withstonding that perauenture bifore in the dai thei hadden her sufficient fynding, as in mete and drinke, forto so wirche into the eende of the day. And also in this maner God spake of meede and reward to Abraham, Gen. xve. c., thus: I am thi defender and thi meede or reward, which is hugeli greet: Also in this maner it is writun, Sapience, ve. c.: Forsothe riȝtful men schulen lyue for euer and her meede or rewardrewaward, MS.is at the Lord. Also, Apocalips xxije. c., God seith thus: Lo y come soone, and my reward or meede is with me forto ȝelde to ech after hise werkis, et cætera. Certis in these iiij. now bifore going textis and in manye mo than othere xl. conteyned in Holi Scripture,
The Concordauncemerces in Latyn, meede in Englisch,) this word meede is take forto signifie and bitokene a thing ȝouun in the maner and for cause now seid; and this maner taking this word meede is hishis is added by a later hand.
In an other maner this word meede or reward is takun vnpropirli and out of his dewist signifiying and bitokenyng; and this word meede or reward thus takun signifieth al oon with this word fynding, forto speke of such fynding as is mynystring of costis and expensis and othere necessarie or profitable thingis into that a certeyn deede be doon and executid. And sotheli in this vnpropre maner of taking reward or meede it is not spokun, as y weene, in al Scripture saue in the ij. textis bifore sett in the obieccioun, of whiche textis oon is of Crist, Luk xe. c., and the other is of Poul, ie. Thim. ve. c. In whiche bothe textis meede or reward is takun not propirli, as it is of meede spokun in the ije. partie of the ije. trouth bi|fore in the xvje. chapiter of this present iije. partie, but vnpropirli for fynding, of which it is spokun bifore in the first partie of the secunde trouthe in the xvje. chapiter of this present iije. partie.
And that this answere is not feyned, but that he is trewe in this now laste partie may be proued. Forwhi ellis both Crist and Poul hadden meened aȝens open resoun; for open it is, that it, wherof thei speken in tho textis, is fynding to the precher into the deede of preching to be doon aftir the receyuyng of the
e. chapiter of Luk schulde haue meened aȝens him silf in the other now alleggid placis, that he with his blis schal be the reward and meede of ech good vertuose deede; and Poul also in his alleggid text, ie. Thim.Cor., MS. (twice).e. c. schulde ellis haue meened aȝens the now other seid spechis of God and of Crist; and also euer either of hem bothe schulden ellis haue meened in thilk ij. placis aȝens mo than l. othere placis of Holi Scripture, and aȝens the famose speche and meenyng of al the world fro the bigynning of the world hider to. And therfore myn answere now mad forto thus, as now is seid, ȝeue dew meenyng to the text of Crist, Luk xe. c., and to the text of Poul, ie. Thim.Cor., MS. (twice).e. c., is not feyned and lacking his sufficient colour and ground, but is euydentli ynouȝ trewe.
The viije. trouthe is this: If the lay peple ȝaue at eny tyme to her curatis and to the successouris of her curatis perpetuali this riȝt forto clayme, aske, and haue ȝeerli certein offringis to be doon and tithis going out fro her wynnyngis and renewyngis, as fyndingis of the same curatis and successouris into deedis of her cure to be doon, thilk riȝt so ȝouun to the seid curatis and her successouris is lijk to the riȝt which myȝte be ȝouun to the same curatis or to othere curatis and her successouris forto cleyme, aske, and haue ȝeerly a free rente of money going out fro certeyn housis or londis, as a fynding to the same curatis forto do the deedis of her cure. And that the paraschens so, as is now bifore seid, ȝaue, it myȝte seme weel herbi. For ellis it wolde folewe that per|souns and vikers, lyuyng oonli bi tithis and offringis, hadden no benefice; sithen a benefice is no thing ellis than a riȝt forto cleyme, aske, and haue certein fruytis or sum othir avail into his sufficient fynding forto do the deedis of his cure; for the benefice mai
e. trouthe to be firme and stable for a trouthe.
Also thus: It is to be seid that summe temporal goodis weren ȝouun to preestis being curatis into her lijflode in the first maner of the ije. trouthe, and that bi cause of Cristis speche, Luk xe. c., in long proces, wheryn he seith, The werkman is worthi his fynd|ing, and bi cause of Poulis speche, ie. Thim. ve. c. and ie. Cor. ixe. c., bi long proces. And ferthermore, sithen it was doon so aftir ward, that the maner of vncerteyn ȝeuyng at mennys deuocioun and plesaunce to preestis was chaungid into a certeinte of tithis and of offring in certein tymes, as open deede therupon schewith, and as y haue proued in The spreding of the iiij. tablis, and that for avoiding of perel and yuel, which ellis myȝte and wolde haue falle, if paraschens schulde haue be left in her owne fredom for to haue ȝouun or not ȝouun eny thing to her curat, or how miche or how litle to hem it schulde haue likid; it muste be trowid that for avoiding of lijk perel and lijk yuel it was doon, that the curat schulde be stabili endewid bi the seid tithis and offringis, so that it schulde be a ful riȝt ȝouun to him forto hem aske rere haue tho tithis and offringis and othere like paymentis, like to the riȝt of a free rente or a lyuerey going out of an abbey or citee or an other comunalte. Which perel and yuel wolde be this, that ellis, if such stable and fix endewing were not maad to the curat, hise
Also hou ellis schulde eny man be bold forto leue a craft to gete therbi his lijflode, and bicome a curat to othere; in lasse than he hadde a stable riȝt forto aske and haue his lijflode of his paraschens, and that his lijflode schulde not hange upon her plesaunce oonli; namelich sithen persoones, whiche ben nedis to be reulid of reulers, ouȝten not to be so miche trustid in so greet a cause forto not erre, neither for to be not other wise than weel avisid, that thei wolen not withdrawe vndewli what thei ouȝten paie, if thei be greued? And also how ellis myȝte bi eny discrecioun haue be ordeyned or haue be admittid of the laife suche statis in the chirch to be in subordinacioun of vndrers and ouerers, (as ben persoones of paraschens, and bischopis aboue hem, and archibischopis aboue hem, and patriarkis ouer hem, and thanne the pope hiȝest,) but if the louȝest degre, in which ben per|soones, curatis, upon which alle these othere statis ben bildid, schulden haue a stable fix endewing of lijflode, and butbut if, but see Glossary.endewewing, MS.
And certis ferther forto seie, it were neuere wijs policie and reule, that the reulers lijflode schulde hange upon her wittis and willis, whiche schulden be bi him reulid or conceilid or detectid; and that bothe for it is to presume, that for the more parti her wittis and willis schulden be infirmer than ben hise, and also for freelnes thei wolden grucche ofter than thei schulden aȝens hise correpciouns and reulingis, as experience ofte in suche maters schewith. And therfore this present viije. trouthe and it what he presupposith is to be holde for trewe, and namelich to be vsid as for trewe; thouȝ special writingis of eldist ordinauncis of men in the Newe Testament kun not be founde, that so it was in eny tyme doon.
The ixe. trouthe is this: Alle the peple of the lay parti, whiche wolden compleyne or holde hem wrongid of preestis or othere clerkis for the deedis not doon bi tho preestis or clerkis, into whiche deedis to be doon tho preestis and clerkis receyueden her fynding of the same peple in lay party, stoonden in caas of the firste trouthe, as it is open ynouȝ to se; and therfore thei mowe not eny punysching or eny re|streyne sette to preestis or clerkis for the vndoing of
e. trouthe is algatis to be holde.
The xe. trouthe is this: The remedie which is iust and dew to be sett upon preestis and clerkis, tres|pacing and wronging the lay peple in caas of the ixe. trouthe, muste needis be othere punyschingis than putting tho preestis and clerkis out of her possessioun had upon her endewingis and fyndingis,and fyndingis is added in the margin by a later hand, which has made erasures in the text.e., vije., and viije. trouthis, hem abiding stille in her afore had dignitees or officis. For whi, if these preestis and clerkis thus trespacing schulden or myȝten iustli be punischid bi the seid putting out of riȝt and possessioun, hem abiding stille in her dignitees or officis, this deede and processe of punysching schulde be mad and doon aȝens the bifore going here ve. and vje. trouthis, as folewith weel bi strengthe of the vje. trouthe; and wrong schulde be doon in thilk pun|ysching to the successouris of tho preestis and clerkis
lylyuing, MS.
And therfore folewith her of the xje. trouthe: That the iugis of these now seid preestis and clerkis, thus trespacing and wronging, ouȝte punysche tho preestis and clerkis bi payment of money, or bi open schame and peyne, or bi remouyng hem fro her had dignitees and officis, so that othere persoones worthi therto be putt yn forto succede to hem and forto continue the riȝt and the possessioun in her owne names and in her successouris names, that the successouris be not oonys vnpossessid for the perel and the wrong bifore sett in the vje. trouthe; which perel and wrong schulde ellis bifalle to the seid successouris. And so bi al the processe bigunne bifore at the xvje. chapiter of this iije. partie and continued hidir to it is open that tho ij. opiniouns, conclusiouns, and holdingis there in the bigynnyng of the xvje. chapiter rehercid, ben errouris and vntreuthis, if it what is presupposid to the vje. trouthe be trewe.
FERTHERMORE, thouȝ this processe bifore mad fro the bigynnyng of the xvje. chapiter hidir to be sufficient forto schewe the ij. opiniouns there rehercid to be vntrewe, ȝit into the same purpos more mai be seid thus: In iiij. maners a man mai ȝeue to an othir man aloone, or to the othir man and to hise successouris,
The first maner is, if a man ȝeueth to me oonli, or to me and my successouris,sussessouris, MS. (by clerical error?).that is interlineated by a later hand.
The ije. maner is: If a man ȝeuethȝeue, MS. (first hand).
But aȝenward as for the iije. maner of ȝeuyng, if in the caas of the ije. ȝeuyng, as doon in the ȝeuers side, y in my name and in the name of my succes|souris bihete or proteste or consente openli bi word or bi other signe, or priueli bi interpretacioun and presumpcioun to be in this mater take bi that, that y, being present and heering the forme of this ȝifte to me and to mi successouris thus vndir trust and entent mad or to me denouncid, am stille in not re|claymyng aȝens the trust neither aȝens the ȝifte, am certis with my successouris bounde not for the putting of such trust upon us oonli, but as bi couplid to gidere couenaunt forto fulfille the seid put upon us trust and entent, if we wolen reioice the ȝift. Of which couenaunt the oon parti is in the ȝeuers side; that we schulen haue the seid thing; and the other partie is in oure side, that we schulen therfore or therbi or therwith do and performe his upon us bisett trust. For couenaunt is a double graunt or a double ȝeuyng couplid to gidere of ij. persoones or parties, graunting or ȝeuyng to gidere in the maner now ex|pressid.
In caas of this iije. maner ben tho that ben feffid in othere mennys londis iointli oonli, or ioyntli and deyiseli vndir expressid trust, that thei do sum what therwith. Also in caas of this iije. maner ben execu|touris of a testatour, as comoun formes of testamentis
The iiije. maner of ȝeuyng is whanne in the forme of ȝeuyng and in the expressioun of the ȝeuyng is sett expresseli a condicioun as a parti of the ȝift or ȝeuyng, bisidis alle condiciouns, whiche ben nedis cost to be priueli vnderstonde in ech ȝift, in ech couenaunt, in ech vow, and ooth, of whiche condiciouns mensioun is made in the ije. parti of the book Filling the iiij. tablis. And whanne in this maner ȝift is maad to me and to my successouris, and y or eny of hem fulfille not the condicioun, certis as soone as the condicioun is brokun the ȝift is voide; and the thing so ȝouun vnder condicioun fallith out of his possessioun, which brekith the condicioun; and therwith the thing fallith out of the possessioun of alle hise successouris, bi as miche as the ȝift is oonys voide and come into nouȝt, and therfore mai not come aȝen withoute a new deede of ȝeuyng.
Neuertheles the seide man mai not be put aȝens his wil out of the possessioun of the thing, eer than bi iugement of the iuge he be therto condempned, and sufficient compleint and proof is mad that the ȝift was soso is interlineated by a later hand.to is interlineated by a later hand.
Aftir the descryuyng of thes iiij. maners of ȝeuyngis it is to be considerid, that, (thouȝ the riȝt and lawe forto cleyme, aske, and haue tithis and offringis and othere suche smale paymentis was mad or ȝouun to bischopis and to othere preestis and clerkis in the first maner of the ije. trouthe, declarid bifore in the xvje. chapitre, as mai be take herbi: It is to be seid that summe temporal godis were ȝouun to hem in thilk maner, bi cause of Cristis speche, Luk xe. c., where he seith, The werkman is worthi his fynding, and bi cause of Poulis lijk speche, ie. Thim. ve. c., and ie. Cor. ixe. c.; and noon othere godis kunnen be founde forto be ȝouun to bischopis and to othere preestis and clerkis in thilk first maner of the ije. trouthe, saue tithis and offringis and suche othere smale par|cellingis of paymentis; and therfore it is to be take that the riȝt forto aske and haue suche tithis and offringis and suche othere smale godis was ȝouun to bischopis and to othere preestis and clerkis in the firste maner of the ije. trouthe, ȝhe, and therfor in hardir maner than is bifore tauȝt, proued, and concludid in the xe. and xje. trouthis the lay peple mowen not iustli procede aȝens bischopis and othere preestis and clerkis, as forto make hem lese tho tithis and offringis,) —ȝit it is to be vndirstonde and to be take that the grete maners, castellis, and court placis, and the grete lordschipis of barunries and othere suche like, whiche weren ȝouun summe to bischopis, summe to archide|kenes, summe to deenys, summe to collegis, weren
e. chapiter descriued: except oonli tho of whos ȝeuyng it is expressid in the chartour of the ȝeuyng, that thei were ȝouun in the ije. maner, or in the iije. maner, or in the iiije. maner. Forwhi, no man in eny thing receyuyng into ȝifte ouȝte holde him silf and hise successouris ther yn to be more bounde than he knowith him and hise successouris to be ther yn bounde, and that bothe for eschewing of lesing and of vntrouthe, and for eschewing of grete perelis and disturblauncis and debatis, whiche ellis aȝens conscience schulden bifalle, and for that iuge|ment is euere to be ȝouun for fredomys parti, saue into how myche can be schewid sufficientli for bond|age; and so it is, that neither bi witnessing in word of hem that herden the forme of the now seid ȝiftis, neither bi thethe is interlineated by a later (?) hand.e. maner, or vndir the iije. maner, but if it be fewe, and that in late daies, as to collegis vnder hope, trust, and entent, that the maister and the felawis kepe the statutis of the collegis, and as to summe abbeies or monasterijs forto kepe ȝeerli solemp|nytees of certeyn obitis. Wherfore it is to be take, that alle these seid endewingis to bischopis and to othere worthi statis in the chirche weren ȝeue to hem and to her successouris in the firste of the seid iiij. maners oonli in this present chapiter bifore discriued, excepte tho endewingis which now ben seid to be ex|ceptid bi cartis or othere writingis, witnessing other forme of her ȝeuyng.
Confirmacioun to this now concludid trouthe and conclusioun is this, that in the cartis or chartouris, conteynyng the formes of ȝeuyng the seid greet endewing [bi] vnmovable godis (except oonli tho whiche ben now bifore seid to be exceptid) is noon other forme of ȝeuyng expressid, than that this man or thilk man or thilk womman ȝeueth this castel with the purtenauncis, thilk maner with hise feeldis, (and so forth of othere like,) to thilk bischop and hise successouris, or to thilk abbot and couent and to her successouris for euere, into pure and free and perpetual almes. And if this be trewe, (as it wole be founde trewe, if the seid cartis be schewid,) certis thanne folewith needis, that alle tho vnmouable godis so ȝouun weren ȝouun oonli in the first of the iiij.iiije., MS.of myn, MS. (first hand).e. chapiter hidir to y caste to ouer what is seid bifore in the xvje. and xvije. chapitris forto schewe the ij. opiniouns to be vntrewe, whiche ben bifore rehercid in the bigynnyng of the xvje. chapiter.
Forthermore, for more declaracioun to be had in this mater, it is to vndirstonde that a ȝift mad in the iiije. maner now bifore spokun muste needis be dyuers and othir than is the ȝifte mad in the ije. or iije. maner. Forwhi, whanne a ȝifte is mad in the iiije. maner, how euer soone the condicioun is not fulfillid, the ȝifte is voide and cesith, bi cause the condicioun is a parti of the forme of ȝeuyng; but whanne a ȝifte is maad vndir entent or hope, thilk entent or hope is not a condicion and a parti of the ȝeuyng, but it is a circumstaunce of the ȝeuyng, which is clepid eende or purpos of the ȝeuer. For|whi, sithen euery vertuose ȝift is doon for sum eende, (for no man mai eny deede do avisidli withoute sum eende and entent and purpos therto take, as y haue proued in othere placis,) it wolde ellis folewe needis, that euery ȝifte maad bi delyberacioun were a ȝifte
a condicioun, MS. (first hand.e. maner mad is dyuers needis fro ȝiftea ȝifte.e. or iije. maner mad.
Also the iije. maner of ȝift, which is a couenaunt, is a double ȝifte of the principal ȝeuer and of the re|ceyuer. Forwhi the principal ȝeuer ȝeueth a thing or a dede, and the receyuer ȝeueth aȝenward, as therto or therfore coupling an other thing or deede; and open it is, that the iiije. maner of ȝifte is not but oon symple ȝifte; and therfore the iiije. maner and the iije. maner needis ben dyuerse, and not oon and the same. And for as miche as the iije. maner of ȝeuyng is not oon symple ȝifte but ij. ȝiftis, of which oon passith fro the principal ȝeuer into the principal receyuer, and the other passith fro the seid principal receyuer into the seid principal ȝeuer; therfore in caas of the iije. ȝeuyng, aftir that the principal ȝeuer hath mad exe|cucioun and delyuerance of the thing or deede ȝouun to the principal receyuer, eer than the receyuer make execucion or delyueraunce of the thing or deede bi him ȝouun or namelich bihiȝt to or for the principal ȝeuer, if the seid principal receyuer in eny tyme wole not performe what he so bihiȝte, ȝit he fallith not therbi fro the riȝt which he hath bi the ȝifte of the principal ȝeuer mad to him, neithir in that and therbi the ȝifte mad to the receyuer is voide. For whi the ȝifte so mad to him passid into him fulli and hoolli with al the substaunce and alle the parties of the same ȝifte, and therfore it muste needis abide, thouȝ the ȝifte which the receyuer made or bihiȝte forto
e. ȝifte is not substaunce neither parti of the firste ȝifte, as it is open; for ellis thei weren not ij. ȝiftis, but oon ȝifte, thouȝ thei be ij. ȝiftis couplid and cheyned to gidere. But certis up on this receyuer compleint mai be mad, and he mai be callid into iugement, and whanne it is proued that he hath not performed what he ouȝte haue performed bi strengthe of the seid iije. maner, he mai be therfore punischid; but he mai not of what he hath receyued be depriued, al the while he wole amende and continue what he promisid. Neuertheles if he openli knoulechith, that he wole not performe the biheest mad to the principal ȝeuer; or ellis, that he ofte and miche failith, after that ofte and miche he hath be iugid and comandid for to amende,amende is added in the margin, in a later hand.e. ȝeuyng. And skile whi al this is trewe may be perceyued weel ynowȝ of a diligent considerer, waiting weel to ech word which is now bifore here seid.
ALSO in this mater of the clergies endewing bi vnmovable godis it is to wite, that in sum tymesumtyme, MS.bi ouer siȝt, MS. (first hand).e. schulde be bisett vpon reparacion and sustentacion of the bodili chirche and of liȝtis and ournamentis and of suche othere thingis; and the iiije. partie schulde be delid to poor men into almes;
and is interlineated in a later hand.Antiq. Chr. Ch., book v. c. 6.
Ferthermore, in othere tymes and in othere cuntrees, or in the same now bifore spokun cuntrees, but in tyme succeding to the now bifore spokun tyme, suche chirchis thus endewid, (that is to seie, considering that tho godis weren ȝouun to hem in the firste or ije. maner bifore seid in the xvje. chapiter, and not in the iije. or iiije. maner there spokun, and therfore thei myȝten bi her comoun asent aliene these same godis fro hem silf, and myȝten make hem to be verrili the propre godis of this man or of thilk man,) tooken avise to gidere and departiden these godis, and ȝauen oon parti to the bischop forto be as in propre his good and hise successouris with oute eny other ther yn partyners; and in lijk maner thei ȝauen an othir parti to the deen and hise successouris in pro|pirte of lordschip; and an other parti to the archi|deken and hise successouris in propirte of lordschip; and so forth to othere. And thus tho godis, which weren bifore comoun, weren mad propre bi hem which hadden therto sufficient auctorite and power; thouȝ after in othere tymes summe lordis ȝauen certein possessiouns to the bischop and to hise successouris oonli, and sum othere ȝauen to the clerkis and preestis of the queer and to her successouris oonli, as the writingis of tho ȝeuyngis beren open witnes. Certis this consideracioun now seid in this present chapiter schal do greet eese to reders in the Summe of Gra|cian, or in the oold book maad of popis Decretalis, and of decrees mad in general counceilis and in prouincial
Summe and in The book of Decretalis, (of whiche chapitres summe speken that "clerkis schulden not make testament of her chirchis godis," and summe speken that "thei mowen make testament of the chirches godis,") ben to be vndirstonde aftir the tymes and cuntrees, in whiche and for whiche thei weren made; and thei alle ben not to be take for ech tyme and ech cuntre. And, if this be considerid, tho chapi|tres schulen be seen forto not repugne bitwixe hem silf. And therfore, riȝt as whanne and where it was ordeyned that clerkis schulden not make testament of the chirchis godis, thanne and there it was not leeful hem forto make eny such testament; so whanne and where the contrarie was ordeyned, or the other now seid ordinaunce was reuokid, or bi eny iust wey he ceesid, clerkis myȝten weel ynouȝ saafli in conscience make testament of her chirchis godis, whiche camen to hem bi riȝt of her tyme.Decret. pars. ii. caus. x. and caus. xii. throughout; also Greg. Decretal. lib. iii. tit. xxvi.
Ferthermore it is to wite, that in ij. maners of vndirstonding it mai be seid that godis ben of man;
e. now seid maner, these godis of myne being so ouer plus mowen be seid the godis of poor men, eer thei be ȝouun to poor men, and eer thei be mad verili and propirli to speke the godis of poor men in the firste maner now here bifore sett and seid. And so in this secunde maner of vnpropre speking is the long processe of Seint Bernard to be vndirstonde, which is sett in The iiije. book of flouris, the iiije. chapiter in the eende, and in the ve. chapiter there in the bigyn|nyng, where he seith thus: What euer thing comyng to thee bi riȝt of the auctir thou takist ouer thi necessarie feding and thi symple clothing, it is not thin, it is raueyn, it is sacrilegi,Epist. 2. (Op. tom. 1. p. 120. Ed. Par. 1839.)For to not ȝeue to poor men the godis of poor men is euen synne with sacrilegie. Certeinli the ricchessis of chirchis ben patrimonyes of poor men, and therfore what euer thing the mynystris ther of, (whiche ben despensatours ther of, and not lordis or possessouris ther of,) taken to hem silf ouer lijflode and clothing, thei taken fro poor men with
a sacrilegiose cruelte.Declam. ex Bernard. (inter S. Bernard. Op. tom. ii. p. 612.) The Flores Ber|nardi, to which Pecock refers, are merely collections of extracts from his works, genuine and spurious, first made apparently by William of Tournay. See the Benedictine editor's remarks.
Also manye processis of holi men, whiche thei writun in this mater, ben to be take thus, that thei so wroten in wey of counseiling and in wey of exorting, as thei wolden that it were and as thei wolden that men wolde do, and not that thei wroten in wey of diffynyng that it ouȝte needis be so doon. And ther|fore riȝt weel waar ouȝte reders be, whanne thei reden in oold mennys writingis, that thei cleue not ouer soone therto, into tyme thei han reducid, resolued, and brouȝt the conclusiouns whiche thei there reden, in to the propre principlis and groundis of tho conclusiouns, of whiche and bi whiche principlis and groundis tho same conclusiouns muste take her trouthis, if tho con|clusiouns eny trouthe haue in hem. For certis noon of the conclusions, whiche euer holi men wroten, takith his trouthe herbi and herfore, for that thei wroten thilk conclusioun; but ech conclusioun takith his trouthe of and fro and bi his ground and prin|cipil, fro and out of which he descendith in formal argument, thouȝ no writer in the world hadde euer ther of write eny word, or schulde in tyme to come
The iust apprising of Doc|touris, and sum what in the book clepid The iust apprising of Holi Scripture. And if thilk doctor Henric, which is clepid "The Solempne Doctor,"Hist. Lit. s. v.felowis (?), MS. (first hand).Aur. Quodl. (n. vii.) p. 441. Ed. Venet. 1613.
Neuertheles thouȝ y feele thus, that the clergie hath very lordschip upon the vnmovable godis ȝouun to hem, and also upon the offringis and tithis ȝouun to hem, so ferforth that as with thingis being verili heris thei mowen ther with do what thei wolen, as for eny lak or defaut of power and of lordschip hauyng ther upon, as ferforth as thei myȝten if thei hadden wonne the same godis with labour of hond or with craft, or had|den had tho godis bi successioun of heritage; (forwhi in euer either caas thei ben like very lordis of the godis;) ȝit y feele not thus, that the clerkis ben free therbi forto expende tho godis in eny point aȝens riȝt doom of resoun in pride or in glotenye or in leccherie or in waast, and ben not worthi blame of God; forwhi no temporal lord or louȝer man, hauyng more plente of good than is necessarie to the nede of him silf and of hise, is so fre; sithen al, what euer is doon aȝens resoun, is moremore should be cancelled.
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.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.mi.
If thou seie the now rehercid opynyoun of the seid clerk to be groundid here on [this,] that sufficient mark and euydence may be take, that al my successouris schulen be viciose mys vsers of tho godis, bi cause that y and so manye of my predecessouris han be in habit and in custom mys vsers of the same godis, certis this ground is vntrewe. Forwhi a man forto take such a mark or evidence were him forto iuge of thingis pureli and vttirli to come, and so forto take upon him the iugement which oonli longith to God, after sen|tence of Crist rehercid, Acts ie. c., where it is writun that Crist seide, It is not of ȝou forto wite tymes and momentis, which the Fadir hath putt in his power; and so such a iuger schulde iuge ouer presumptuoseli, sithen he stieth so hiȝ that he takith upon him the iugement which is according oonli to God, and in that he makith him as God, which mai not be withoute synne and vice. And therfore this grounding is nauȝt, for it is aȝens resoun now formed.
It is also aȝens the witnes of Holi Scripture. For|whi not withstonding that King Saul was a wickid customable synner, ȝit God prouidid that Dauid a iust king succedid next to him; and not withstonding that fro King Roboam in Israel bi long successioun into Ezechie ech king was habituali an ydolatrer and mys vsing habituali the godis of his state and degre and office, ȝit a ful noble and holi king Ezechie and an other good king Iosie succediden. And therfore bi lijk skile, thouȝ y bischop and many of my prede|cessouris weren habituali and customabili mys vsing godis of the chirche, no sufficient mark and euydence
Also aȝens the seid opinioun may be argued thus: If the seid opinioun be trewe, thanne sithen the en|dewing of princis is mad to hem for that thei schulden weel vse hem in spending hem vertuoseli aboute the good temporal reuling of her peplis, (namelich where that princis ben endewid bi the comounte,) it wolde folewe, if princis weren customabili mys vsers of tho godis, that the comoun peple schulden take fro hem tho godis hem abiding in her statis of princehode. And if this schulde be doon, manye myscheefis wolden therof folewe. Wherfore the seid opinioun is not to be holde no more for the seid habituacioun and cus|tom, than if the mys vce be withoute the seid habi|tuacioun or custom; for in euer either caas lijk wrong schulde be doon to the successouris. And open it is, that of what euer gouernaunce or deede folewith and cometh bi his strengthe vnriȝt or wrong, thilk deede or gouernaunce in him silf is vnriȝt and wrong; and so thilk opinioun taken upon the seid habituacioun was take childeli and lewidli.Thus y make an eende of the iije. parti of this present book.
THE iiije. principal gouernaunce or point to be tretid in this iiije. 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
Dial. lib. iv. c. 15.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 iiije. parti bi fyue conclusiouns, of which the first is this: Holi Scripture weerneth not and lettith not the now re|hercid iiije. principal gouernaunce. That this conclu|sioun is trewe y proue thus: If eny text of Scripture schulde lette and weerne the seid iiije. 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 iiije. principal gouernaunce.
Aȝens the seid iiije. gouernaunce mai be argued bi textis of Holi Scripture in the Newe Testament, whiche sownen sumwhat (thouȝ litle) aȝens the seid iiije. go|uernaunce,
e. c., 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, iije. c.: 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 iiije. 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 vje. c.; 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.e.]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 ije. parti of thilk same hool text sownyng in lijk wise it schulde be vnleeful eny man toto is interlineated by a later hand.e. party of the same text it is writun, Math. xxiije. c., 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, xe. c., where he seith thus: Worschipe thou thi fader and thi modir; and Effecies, vje. c., 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 ie. parti is this, Nile ȝe be clepid maistris, is not to be vnder|stonde so streitly as he sowneth, no morenomore, MS. (accidentally?).e. partie of the same first text, Nile ȝe calle to ȝou fadris vpon erthe, is to be take and vndirstonde so stritlistreitli.e. parti of the hool rehercid text declarith how the ije. 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 iije. partie of the same text, whanne it
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. xiije. c., in the bigynnyng,lords, which Pecock's argument almost requires, does not occur either in the original or in Wiclif's version.e. Peter ije. c., 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. vje. c., 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, ie. Thim. vje. c., 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
e. Thim. ie. c., 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 ije. 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 vje. c., 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 bebe is interlineated in a later hand. Perhaps to should be added.Manie ȝe, nyle be callid maistris; as thouȝ he seide thus, "O manye of ȝou, awaite ȝe that ȝe be not mad maistris."Witing that ȝe taken the more doom; for
alleall, (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 iiije. politik gouernaunce had and vsid in the clergie of the chirche.
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 ie. Pet. ve. c., 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 ije. text is writun ie. Cor. iije. c., 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|nistristhe 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 willewilled, MS. (first hand), appa|rently.
The iije. text is writun, Math. xxe. c., 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 amangamong.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 xe. c. 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 inpliethe. principal politik gouernaunce as in this, that a bischop be to preestis,
and.
Aȝens this answere mai be argued sufficientli thus: Sithen a bischop, in thatin that that.ouere, MS. (but words have been erased and transposed).the is interlineated by a later hand: a might seem a more probable correction.punyhid, MS.Domophil, MS. (twice).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;Epist. viii. (ad Demoph. Mon. Op. tom. ii. p. 113. Ed. Cord.)ben, MS. (first hand).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.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.it is interlineated by a later hand.e. Pet. ve. c., is the vndirstonding which is ȝouun bifore in the iije. parti of this book, the iiije. chapiter, vpon the iije. principal processe,e. principal politik gouernaunce vsid in the clergie of the chirche.
To the ije. text, which is of Poul, ie. Cor. iije. c., 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
babtisid, MS.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 iije. text is sufficientli maad and sett bifore in the iije. partie of this present book, the iiije. 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.e. partie.
THE ije. principal conclusion concernyng and bihold|ing the seid iiije. principal gouernaunce is this: Doom of cleerli disposid resoun in kinde weerneth not and lettith not the seid iiije. principal gouernaunce sett bifore in the bigynnyng of this present iiije. partie. That this conclusioun is trewe, y proue thus: If eny doom of kindeli cleer resoun schulde weerne and lette
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 iiije. 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, issynne . . . extorcioun are added in the margin by a later hand, which has made erasures in the text.
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 comecame, MS.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 ie. chapiter of this present iiije. partie. Wherfore needis it is open, that the seid pre|tendid skile and doom of resoun is nonot, MS. (first hand).
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 thethe is interlineated by a later (?) hand.e. c., seiyng thus: The lawe entrid that gilt schulde
be plenteuose; and more pleinli her of Poul spekith, Rom. vije. c., 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, ofȝhe and of, MS. (first hand).e. principal politik gouernaunce in the clergie is nonot, MS. (first hand).
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 xiiije. c., where it is seid thus: Creaturis of God be made into haterede and into temptacioun to the soule of men, and into a trappeinto 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 gouernauncethe gouernaunce, MS. (first hand.)
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 iiije. 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
out and bi of, MS.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 ije. maner cometh synne and other harme, he muste therwith se whether of and bi the same gouernaunce cometh in the first or ije. 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 ije. maner fro and bi the same gouernaunce, ellis his proof can haue no colur.colour.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 ije. 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
e. gouernaunce is vnleeful bi this cause oonli, that fro and bi it cometh yuel in the ije. 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 iiije. 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 ije. 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 occasiounaccasioun, MS.bi falle MS., (without hyphen).e. partie of this present book, the vije. chapiter.
An other doom of reson is, bi which myȝte to manie seme that the seid iiije. principal gouernaunce ouȝte not be had in the clergie. Forwhi, if the seid iiije. principal gouernaunce hadehadde is the usual orthography of the MS.e. gouernaunce into the clergie,
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 iiije. 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 iiije. 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 iiije. principal gouernaunce is not to be had in the chirche.
Answere herto ful good and sufficient is sett bifore in the iije. partie of this book, the ixe.vije., MS. (twice). See p. 331, seq.e. semyng skile bifore sett there in the same ixe.vije., MS. (twice). See p. 331, seq.e. semyng doom of resoun here now bifore formed, which answere is this: That Crist willid the seid iiije. 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 iiije. 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,e. c., 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 ije. answere, go
e. chapiter of this present iiije. partie; for there this is openli schewid, wherbi it is open that the ije. premysse in this now mad ije. argument is vntrewe and is to be denyed. And thus myche as here for answere and assoiling to the ije. semyng doom of resoun aȝens the iiije. principal gouernaunce.
The iije. principal conclusioun concernyng and bi|holding the seid iiije. principal gouernaunce is this: The seid iiije. principal gouernaunce spokun in the bigynnyng of this present iiije. 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 iiije. 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 iiije. 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 ije. premysse of the
e. partie for proofis of the first and ije. principal conclusions con|cernyng and biholding the iiije. seid gouernaunce. Wherfore this present iije. principal conclusioun thus folewing out and bi these ij. premyssis is needis trewe.
THE iiije. principal conclusioun concernyng and bi|holding the seid iiije. principal gouernaunce is this: Holi Scripture bothe in the Oold Testament and in the Newe allowithallowith and approueth, MS. first hand).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 andand is interlineated in a later hand.tho thilk, MS.the oold politik, MS.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 allowithallowith and approueth, MS. (first hand).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 ie. Cor. ixe. c. in the bigynnyng, and ie. Cor. xve.xje., MS.e. c. toward the myddis, Poul clepid Peter Cephas; and as Ierom witnessith,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.)it is interlineated in a later hand.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 ie. c., 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
e. or the iije., 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 thusthus is added in the margin by a later hand.the eleccioun, MS. (first hand).it is interlineated in a later hand; and similarly to below.e. c., Thou shalt be clepid heed; and ellis also Poul wolde not as in remem|bring of this promys maad toit is interlineated in a later hand; and similarly to below.the popehode, MS. (first hand).
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
to is interlineated in a later and.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 ije. argument into the proof of this present iiije. principal conclusioun is this: Math. xvje. c., 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 enieuer, 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 ofof is interlineated in a later hand.Tract. 124. "Super hanc petram, id est, super me ædificabo ecclesiam meam." S. Anselm. in loco.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,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.miche is interlineated in a later hand.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 moostthe moost, MS. (first hand).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
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
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
e. principal conclusioun of this iiije. partie is sufficientli proued.
The iije. argument into the same iiije. 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 ie. Pet. ije. c., 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. xiije. c., 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 dredeto 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. xxije. c., seith thus: Ȝelde ȝe tho thingis whiche ben of Cesar to Cesar, and whiche ben of God to God; and in an
e. c., 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. xiije. c., 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 beto be, MS. (first hand).e. principal conclusioun.
Othere argumentis myȝten be mad in to the prou|yng of the same iiije. 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 ie. Thim. iiije. c., where it
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 ije. Thim. ie. c., 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 ie. c., 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 toto 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 asfor as as, MS.bade Tite, MS. (first hand).
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 ve. chapiter of the now seid book Dynys declarith openli a bischop to be aboue othere louȝer preestis;De Eccl. Hierarch. c. 5., (Op. tom. 1. p. 360. Ed. Cord.), where is much more to the same purpose.Ep. ad Tit. (Op. tom. ii. p. 141).in which, MS. (first hand).Of the Chirchis IerarchieEccl. Hier. c. l. p. 236.he wole, MS.
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
e. Cor. ie. and iije. chapitris in the bigynnyngis, bifille; for remediyng of which cisme, as Ierom conceyueth,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.)
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 madenmaiden, MS. (first hand).e. Cor. ije. and iije. 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 ie. c., bi manie therto markable wordis. And also wherto ellis wolden the xj. Apostlis in thilk
To this argument it mai be answerid colorabli and likeli ynouȝ, that Peter, Acts, ie. c., 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 ije. argu|ment next bifore mad is bi sufficient likelihode assoilid. And therfore y stonde to the iij. firste to gidere going
e. principal conclusioun.
Also this present iiije. 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 hathwho that hath, MS. (first hand).e. principal gouer|naunce vnsoilabili.
THE ve. principal conclusion concernyng and bihold|ing the seidseid is added in the margin by a later hand.e. principal gouernaunce is this: Doom of cleerli in kinde disposid resoun iugith, allowith, and approueth the iiije. principal gouernaunce sett bifore in the bigynnyng of this present iiije. partie. That this conclusioun is trewe, y proue thus: Resoun in his cleer doom iugith, allowith, and approueth that ouer a certein multitudeof multitude, MS. (first hand).crastiose, MS.The book of preesthode, and therfore the lasse is sett here.
The vje. principal conclusioun concernyng and bi|holding the iiije. seid principal gouernaunce is this: The iiije. 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, thatthat bothe, MS. (first hand.)e. bifore spokun principal gouernaunce, as the next bifore going iiije. and ve. principal conclusiouns schewen and prouen. Wherfore the same seid iiije. principal gouernaunce is in proprist maner of leeffulnes leeful.
The vije. principal conclusioun concernyng and bi|holding the seid iiije. principal gouernaunce is this: The iiije. principal gouernaunce sett bifore in the bi|gynnyng of this present iiije. 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 iiije. seid principal gouernaunce, as the
e. and ve. principal conclusiouns schewen and prouen. Wherfore the same seid iiije. principal gouernaunce is a gouernaunce of Goddis lawe.
The viije. principal conclusion concernyng and bi|holding the seid iiije. 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 iiije. 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 iiije. 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 iiije. principal gouernaunce. And in this y eende the mater of the ofte spokun iiije. principal gouernaunce.
THE ve. principal gouernaunce to be tretid in this present iiije. 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 iiije. partie ben mad upon bischophode and othere statis aboue preesthode and othere ordris binethe preesthode fro the bigynnyng of this present iiije. partie hidir to; and also alle tho conclusiouns of Scripture and of resoun, which aftir in the ve. 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 iiije. partie and aftir proued in the ve. party of this book; certis no man may thanne avoide, but that it is leeful ynouȝ and
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, ie. Thim. ie. c., 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 beben, MS. (first hand).e. gouernaunce sett bifore in this present iiije. partie and bi al the processe mad for iustifiyng of the vje. principal gouernaunce aftir in the ve. prin|cipal partie, that no man may iustli blame mennys
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 ve. parti of this present book, the [xe.]
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
to haue, MS. (first hand).e. gouernaunce, as argumentis ben maad bifore in fourme aȝens the blamyngis of the ie., ije., iije., and iiije. gouernauncis; lo, (thouȝ for causis in the next chapiter bifore ex|pressid that alle the principal conclusiouns bifore going in this present iiije. partie and alle the con|clusiouns principal aftir comyng in the ve. partie of this book maken in her fourmes for iustifiyng of the ve. principal conclusioun;go|uernaunce.
The firste premysse of this argument is sumwhat clerid in the iije. partie of this present book the xje.xije., MS.e. partie of this same present book the iije. chapiter; and ther|fore no thing for proof of him here.
For proof of the ije. premysse, that neither Holi Scripture, neither doom of cleer resoun werneth or forbedithfor bedith, MS. (without hy|phen).the now bifore spokun ve., &c.e. principal bifore spokun gouer|naunce,
fobedith, MS.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 iiije. principal go|uernaunce bifore spoken in this present iiije. partie, [and] the vje. principal gouernaunce spokun aftir in the ve. partie of this book; sithen thilk iiije. and vje. and this ve. 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 iiije. partie it is schewid. But so it is, that neither Holi Scripture neither cleer resoun weerneth or forbedith the iiije. seid principal gouernaunce, as it is openli proued bifore fro the bigynnyng of this present iiije. partie hidirto in this present book; neither forbedith the vje. gouernaunce, as it is open after thoruȝ the ve. parti of this book. Wherfore nedis folewith, that neither Holi Scripture, neither doom of cleer resoun weerneth or forbedith this ve. principal gouernaunce to be had and be vsid.
An other argument to be maad in fourme for this present purpos, thatthat bothe, MS. (first hand).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, sithensithen bothe, MS. (first hand) twice.e. and the vje. seid principal governauncis ben of lijk state, condicioun, nature, and merit with this present ve. 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, (sithensithen bothe, MS. (first hand) twice.e. and vje. seid principal gouernauncis,) that theryn and therbi priueli Holi Scripture and doom of cleer resoun ap|prouen and allowen the ve. seid principal gouernaunce.
Of mannys lawe, what it doith upon the firste, ije., iije., iiije., ve., and vje. principal gouernauncis, it is no neede maketo make, MS. (first hand).is seid, MS. (first hand).
Also this present ve. principal gouernaunce mai be proued bi a processe of iij. supposiciouns and of an argument formed vpon hem toward the eende of the
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.
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 iiije. and the ve. and the vje. 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 iiije., ve., and vje. 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 ije. 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.weel is added in the margin by a later hand.The Chirchis Ierarchie,ierachie, MS.e.ve., MS.De Eccl. Hierach. c. 6. (Op. tom. 1. p. 386. Ed. Cord.)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;e. principal gouer|naunce,
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 thisthis is interlineated by a later hand.e. Cor. xje. c., 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 xje. 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, ie. Cor. xje. c., 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
e. Thim. iije. c., and Tite ie. c., 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 neiȝthirneithir.
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 ve. 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 ve. 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,
a vowe, MS.Take out the beem which is in thin owne iȝe, et cætera, Math. vije.viije., MS.
FOR to semyngli iustifie the blamyng and the re|proving of the ve. principal gouernaunce rehercid and sett bifore in the vje. chapiter of this present iiije. 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
The firste premisse of this argument is sure ynouȝ, and that the ije. premysse is trewe y argue thus: It is writun Math. xve. c., in the bigynnyng thus: Thanne thethe 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 thethe 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 vije. c., 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]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 PhariseesPharisees, (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 doto 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 xve. chapiter. Bi these ij. longe processis now rehercid, oon writun Math. xve. c., and the other writun Mark vije. c., 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;e. Cor. xje. c., as it is schewid bifore in this present iiije. partie, the vije. chapiter. And thus, as thei weenen, the ije. premysse of the argument
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 hondriȝthond, MS. (conjunctim), ac|cidentally?or thi riȝt foot sclaundre thee, pulle him out or kutte him awey and caste him fro thee:
The iije. 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
FOR answere to the first semyng skile mad bifore in the bigynnyng of the next chapiter aȝens the ve.iiije., MS.e. premysse in the first argument mad there is to be denyed; and thanne next, whanne ij. longe processis, (oon of Math. xve. c. and an other of Mark vije. c.,) ben alleggid forth forto proue the same ije. 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
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 itothere is added after alle in the margin by a later hand, but wrongly, as it seems.
The ije. 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 ije. 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 iije. 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 Iewisthe Iewis, MS. (first hand).blaned, MS.
The iiije. point is this: That Crist blamed not tho ij. tradiciouns now rehercid for thatforthat, MS. (accidentally?)
Now ferther for answere in special to be mad it is to be seid thus: If Crist hadde there blamed alle tra|diciouns
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 ije. 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.
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
specied, MS. (first hand).or worthi to be werned is added in the margin by a later hand; a still later corrector having erased to.be is interlineated in a later hand. Perhaps we should read worthi be weerned.Nile ȝe clepe to ȝou a fadir on erthe;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
e. c.],Nile ȝe swere alwise;Iust apprising of Holi Scripture in ther of the firste partie, and in the firste party of Cristen religioun, the iiije. trety, bi dyuerse chapitres.
The ije. 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
to be vndirstonde, MS. (first hand).in should be cancelled, or hem inserted after blamed.
And ȝit ferther the iije. 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 xije. c. 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
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 thethe is wrongly (?) cancelled by a later hand.The iust apprising of Holi Scripture.
Neuertheles, not withstonding al what fro the bi|gynnyng of the vje. chapiter in this present iiije. partie hidir [to] is seid for to iustifie the ve. 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 notnot is interlineated in a later (?) hand.the peple, MS. (first hand), per|haps rightly.
To the ije. semyng skile and toto is interlineated in a later hand.e. semyng skile bifore sett in the next chapiter it is to be answerid euen lijk as it is answerid to the ve. and vje. semyng skilis sett aftir in the ve. parti of this book the iiije. chapiter, whos answeris ben sett in the same ve. partie in the vje. 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.
THE vje. principal gouernaunce or point to be tretid in this present ve. partie, for which gouernaunce summe of the lay peple blamen and vndirnymen vniustli and vnworthili the clergie is this: That bothe of preestis and of lay persoones ben sectis clepid religiouns, maad to men and also to wommen forto be streiȝter to hem in eting and drinking, in speking, in wering, in going, in sleping, and in aboute walking, and in othere deedis of worldlihode and fleischlihode, than is the fredom of lawe of kinde with the settingis to of Cristis sacramentis. Al this summe of the lay peple blamen bothe for the dyuersite and nouelte so takun to be in other wise than is the comoun maner of othere men and wommen; and also thei beren an honde that the religiouns, whiche now ben had and vsid, han summe statutis and ordynauncis being aȝens charite, and therfore aȝens the lawe of God. And ferthermore, these blamers not oonli maken hem blamers, but also diffamers; for thei ascriuen and ȝeuen the fynding and the mentenaunce of alle such sectis or relegiouns to the feend and anticrist, and thei callen it to be werk of the feend; and manye mo reproues thei ȝeuen to religiouns and to therof the religiose persoones, which schame is for to reherce.
That this now rehercid blamyng and vndirnymyng is vniust and bering an hond vntreuli, for that the now rehercid vje. principal gouernaunce is leeful and iust, good and expedient, y schal proue bi v. principal conclusiouns, of whiche the firste is this: Holi Scrip|ture weerneth not and lettith not the now rehercid vje. principal gouernaunce to be take and vsid with
e. principal gouernaunce, thilk text or proces schulde be oon of these whiche schulen be spoken in the iiij. argumentis now next aftir to be mad. But so it is that noon of tho lettith and weerneth the seid vje. principal gouernaunce, as it schal be open bi the answeris to thilk same iiij. argumentis. Wherfore folewith that Holi Scripture weerneth not and lettith not the seid vje. principal gouernaunce.
The firste of these iiij. argumentis is this: It is writun, Iames the ie. c., thus: A cleene religioun and an vnwemmed anentis God and the Fadir is this; to visite fadirles and modirlees children and widowis in her tribulacioun, and to kepe him silf vndefilid fro this world. Out of this text a man may argue in twei maners. In oon maner thus: Iames assigneth this gouernaunce now rehercid in his text to be a cleene religioun and an vnwemmed anentis God and the Fadir; wherfore noon other gouernaunce saue this same, as bi the entent and meenyng of Iames in his now rehercid text, is a cleene religioun and vnwemmed anentis God and the Fadir; and so the religiouns now hadhad is added in a later hand.to be, MS. (first hand).
The ije. argument is take of the wordis and textis of Seint Poul, Coloc. ije. c., ie. Thim. iiije. c., ije. Thim. iije. c., Tite ie. c., and of the wordis and text of Peter, ije. Pet. ije. c., and in manye othere placis, whiche textis y schal reherce here next bi and bi. First, ije. Pet. ije. c. in the bigynnyng, Petir writith thus: False prophetis weren in the peple, as in ȝou schulen be maistris liers, that schulen bringe yn sectis of perdicioun, and thei denyen thilk Lord that bouȝte hem, and bringen on hem silf hasti per|dicioun; and manye schulen sue her leccheries, bi which the wey of treuthe schal be blasphemed: and thei schulen make marchaundie of ȝou in coueitise bi feyned wordis, to whiche doom now awhile ago cesith not, and the perdicioun of hem nappith not. Also ie. Thim. iiije. c. in the bigynnyng, Poul seith to Bischop Thimothie thus: The Spirit seith openli, that in the laste tymes summen schulen departe fro the feith, ȝeuyng tent to spiritis of errour and to techingis of deuelis, that speken leesing in ypocrisie, and han her conscience corrupt, forbeding to be weddid, to abstene fro metis whiche God made to take with doing of thankingis to feithful men and hem that han knowe the treuthe: (for ech crea|ture
of God is good, and no thing is to be cast awey, which is taken with doing of thankingis, for it is halowid bi the word of God and bi preier;) thou, putting forth these thingis to britheren, schalt be a good mynystre of Iesus Crist, nurischid with wordis of feith and of good doctrine, which thou hast gete; but eschewe thou vncouenable fablis and eeld wom|menys fablis. Also ije. Thim. iije. c., in the bigyn|nyng, Poul seith to Bischop Thimothie thus: Wite thou this thing, that in the laste daies perilose tymes schulen neiȝe, and men schulen be louyng hem silf, coueitose, hiȝe of bering, proude, blasphemers, not obedient to fader and modir, vnkinde, cursid, with|oute affeccioun, withoute pees, false blamers, vn|contynent, vnmylde, withoute benignite, traitouris, ouerthwert, bollun with proude thouȝtis, bliynde louers of lustis more than of God, hauyng the liknes, of pitee, but denying the vertu of it; and eschewe thou these men. Of these thei ben that persen housis and leden wommen caitifis chargid with synnes, whiche ben led with dyuerse desiris, euermore leern|yng and neuermore perfitli comynge to the science of treuthe. And as Iannes and MambresMambres is the Vulgate reading, whence the early English translations were made.aȝenstoden Moyses, so these aȝenstonden treuthe, men corruptid in vndirstonding, reproued aboute the feith; but fer|ther thei schulen not profite, for the vnwisdom of hem schal be knowe to alle men, as hern was. But thou hast geten my teching, et cætera. Also Tite ie. c., in the myddil, Poul seith to Thimothie Bischop of Crete thus: Ther ben manye vnobedient and vein spekeris and desseyueris, moost thei that ben of circumcisioun, which it bihoueth to be reproued, whiche subuerten alle housis, teching whiche thingis it bihoueth not, and that for the loue of foul wynnyng. And oon
of hem her propre profete seide, 'Men of Crete ben 'euermore lieris, yuel beestis, of slowe wombe:' this witnessing is trewe. For what cause blame hem sore, that thei be hool in feith, not ȝeuyng tent to fablis of Iewis and to maundementis of men, which turnen awey hem fro truthe.e. Pet. iije. c., soone aftir the bigynnyng, Peter seith thus: First wite ȝe this thing, that in the laste daies disseyueris schulen come, in disseit going after her owne coueitingis, seiyng, 'Where is the biheest or the 'comyng of him? for sithen the fadris dieden, alle 'thingis lasten fro the bigynnyng of creature.' But it is hid fro hem willing this thing, that heuens weren bifore, et cætera. Also Iude ije.Wo to hem that wenten the wey of Cayn, and that ben sched out by errour of Balaam for mede, and perischiden in the aȝenseiyng of Chore! These ben in her metis feesting to gidere to filthe, withoute drede feding hem silf; these ben cloudis withoute watir, that ben born aboute of the wyindis, heruest trees with oute fruyt, tweies deede, drawen up bi the roote, wawis of the wood see fomyng out her con|fusiouns, erring sterris, to whiche the tempest of derknesses is kept withoute eende. These ben grucch|ers, ful of pleintis, wandring aftir her desiris; and the mouth of hem spekith pride, worschiping per|soones bi cause of wynnyng. And ȝe, moost dere britheren, be myndeful of these wordis, whiche ben bifore seid of Apostlis of oure Lord Iesus Crist, whiche seiden to ȝou that in the laste tymes ther schulen come gilouris, wandring after her owne de|siris,
not in pitee. These ben whiche departen hem silf, beestli men, not hauyng spi[rit]; but ȝe, moost dere brither[en], aboue bilde you silf on ȝoure moost holy feith, and preie ȝe in the Holi Goost, and kepe ȝou silf in the loue of God, and abide ȝe the merci of oure Lord Iesus Crist into lijf euerlasting. And repreue ȝe these men that ben deemed, but saue ȝe hem, and take ȝe hem fro the fier. Also Coloc. ije. c., Poul writith thus: Se ȝe that no man disseyue ȝou bi philsophie and vein fallace, aftir the tradicioun of men, aftir the elementis of the world, and not aftir Crist. And sumwhat aftir there thus: Therfore no man iuge ȝou in mete or in drinke or in part of feest dai or of neomenye or of Sabbatis, whiche ben schadewis of thingis to comyng; for the bodi is of Crist. Noman disseyue ȝou, willing to teche in mekenes and religioun of aungelis tho thingis whiche he hath not seen, walking veinli, bolned with witt of his fleisch, and not holding the heed, of which al the bodi bi bondis of ioinyng to gidere vndir my|nystrid and mad wexith into encresing of God. For if ȝe ben dede with Crist fro the elementis of this world, what ȝit as men lyuing to the world deemen ȝe that ȝe touche not, neither taaste, neither trete with hondis tho thingis whiche allealle is added in the margin by a later (?) hand.ben into deeth bi the ilk vce, after the comaundementis and the techingis of men? Whiche han a resoun of wijsdom in vein religioun and mekenesse, and not to spare the bodi; not in honour to the ful filling of the fleisch.
Also, Math. xxiiije. c., Crist in maner of prophecie spake of vntrewe techeris, which schulden come in the daies of the Apostlis bifore the destruccioun of Ierusalem, and seide to hise disciplis thus: Men
schulen bitake ȝou into tribulacioun and schulen slee ȝou, and ȝe schulen be in hate to al folk for mi name. And thanne manie schulen be sclaundrid and bitraie ech othere, and thei schulen hate ech othere; and manie false prophetis schulen rise and disseyue manye. Like sentence of the same vntrewe techeris is writun Mark xiije. c., thus: Loke ȝe that no man disseyue ȝou. For manye schulen come in my name seiyng, that y am, and thei schulen disseyue manie; and whanne ȝe heere bateilis and opiniouns of bateilis drede ȝe not, for it bihoueth these thingis to be doon, but not ȝit anoon is the eende. Also Math. xxiiije. c., Crist in maner of prophecie spake of vntrewe techeris, whiche schulden come nyȝ to the dai of doom and the eende of the world, and seide ther of to hise disciplis thus: Thanne schal be greet tribulacioun, what maner was not fro the bigynnyng of the world to now, neither schal be maad; and but if tho daies hadden be abbreggid, ech fleisch schulde not be mad saaf; but tho daies schulen be mad schort for the chosen men. Thanne if eny man seie to ȝou, 'Lo, here is Crist or there!' nyle ȝe bileeue; for false Cristis and false prophetis schulen rise, and thei schulen ȝeue grete tokenes and wondris, so that also the chosun be led into errour, if it mai be doon. Lo, y haue bifore seid to ȝou. Therfore if thei seie to ȝou, 'Lo, he is in desert!' nile ȝe go out; 'Lo, in priuy placis!' nyle ȝe trowe. For as leit gooth out of the eest and apperith into the west, so schal be also the comyng of Mannys Sone. Wher euer the bodi schal be, also the eglis schulen be gaderid thider. And anoon after the tribulacioun of tho daies the sunne schal be mad derk, and the mone schal not ȝeue liȝt, et cætera. Like sentence touching the same now seid vntrewe techeris is writun Mark xiije. c., thus: Thilk daies of tribulacioun schulen be suche, whiche maner weren not fro the
bigynnyng of creature whiche God hath made til now, neither schulen be; and but the Lord hadde abreggid tho daies al fleisch hadde not be saaf; but for the chosen, whiche he cheese, the Lord hath mad schort tho daies. And than if eny man seie to ȝou 'Lo, here is Crist! lo, there!' bileeue ȝe not. For false Cristis and false prophetis schulen rise, and schulen ȝeue tokenes and wondris to disseyue, if it mai be doon, ȝhe, hem that ben chosen. Therfore take ȝe kepe; lo y haue bifore seide to ȝou alle thingis. But in tho daies aftir thilk tribulacioun the sunne schal be maad derk, and the moone schal not ȝeue hir liȝt, et cætera.
The iije. argument is thoruȝ weel nyȝ ech word the same and oon with the firste semyng skile sett bifore in the iiije. party of this book, the viije. chapiter. Which argument gooth up [on] ij. longe processis in Holi Scripture, of whiche the oon is writun Math. xve. c., and the other is writun Mark vije.xe., MS.e. argument, as he mai be mad aȝens the vje. principal gouernaunce, turne he thidir and he schal it there se.
The iiije. argument into the iustifiyng is this: The holi maide and religiose nunne Seint Hildegart, visitid with the spirit of prophecie, wroot manie prophecies whiche weren examyned and approued in a general counceil holdun at Treuer undir Pope Eugeny the [Thridde],Concil. tom. 12, p. 1675, s. ann. 1148 A.D., and Al|beric. Chron. ad ann. 1141, (cited by Fabric. Bibl. Lat. Med. et Inf. Æt. vol. 3, p. 771).schulden is added in the margin by a later hand.flateres, MS.be is interlineated in a later hand.Prophet. cited by Fabric. Bibl. Lat. Med. et Inf. Æt. vol. 3, pp. 774-776. q. v.
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
e.]e.]aȝen.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 verryverry is interlineated in a later hand.
Of religioun takun in the firste maner, as anentis statutis and ordinauncis maad bi God himsilf, Holi Writt spekith, Exodi xije. c. and xxixe. c., and as anentis ordinauncis maad bi man, Acts xxvje. c., as it is bifore rehercid in the follows. Part v. c. viii.follows. Part v. c. viii.e. maner spekith Holi Writt, Acts xe. c., 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 ie. c. in the myddil.
In the iije. maner religioun is take for religioun of the firste maner and religioun of the ije. 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 ije. 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 ije. 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 ije. maner, and a man forto forbere fals sweryng and idil swering is an other parti of the same hool religioun takun in the ije. maner; and lijk maner ech moral vertu is a parti of the same religioun takun in the ije. 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 ije. 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
to be, MS. (first hand).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).
For answere to thethi, MS.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, ije. Pet. ije. c., 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|ciosevnviciose.e. Pet. ije. c. 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
e. premysse of this argument, and eer than he proue thilk ije. 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
Neuertheles for as myche as the blamers and re|prouers of the vje. principal gouernance ben aboute forto proue that the ije. text of the bifore sett noum|bre, which text is of Poul, ie. Thim. iiije. c., 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 ie. Thim. iiije. c. 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, ie. Thim. iiije. c.; but also the religiouns of the same persoones ben theryn and therbi also
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, thothat tho, MS.forbedindis, MS.
Answere to this arguyng schal be this: Poul in the ije. text of the seid noumbre, ie. Thim. iiije. c., 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
these same, MS. (first hand).e. seid text, which is ie. Thim. iiije. c. And but if Poul meened in the seid ije. 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, ie. Thim. ve. c., he for|bedith widowis to be weddid afterafter that, MS. (first hand).
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 ije. he spekith in his Epistle to Galathies.
e. c. and ie. Thim. ie. c., and Petir in his firste Epistle the ije. c. Ferther|more the herisies of HymeneusHermyneus, MS.e. Thim. ie. c. in the eende. Also Ioon the Euangeliste in his ije. Epistle meeneth that in hise daies weren heretikis going aboute to disseyue trewe bileeuers. Also Coloc. ije. c. 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;Lib. de Hæres. c. 47 and c. 25. Op. tom. viii. pp. 13 and 7. (Ed. Antv. 1700).forȝeues, MS.how miche, MS. (first hand).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 ije. argument.
Answere to the iije. argument schal be the same answere which is sett bifore in the iiije. parti of this book the ixe. chapiter, and is ȝouun there for answere to the firste semyng skile sett in the viije. chapiter of the same iiije. partie. Therfore who so wole se the seid answere, turn he thider; for there he mai it se.
To the iiije. 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.
FERTHERMORE for as myche as y haue wist this, that summe of the lay peple, whanne thei han rad or han herd red summe of the bifore alleggid textis in the [ie.]e.]veri, MS.these or thes.ther|fore; but see Glossary.e. Pet. ije. c., and the wordis of Poul, ie. Thim. iiije. c. and ije. Thim. iije. c., weren verified of manye sectis and persoones, eer eny of these religiose sectis weren whiche ben in the chirche.
Certis in the daies of the Apostlis in Cristen men was the sect of Menandrianis, whiche helden that the world was mad not of God but of aungelis.Lib. de Hær. c. 2.
Also the sect of Basilidianis, whiche helden that Crist suffrid not verili his passioun and his deeth, but apparentli and seemyngli oonli.
Also the sect of Nycholaitis, which helden that weddid men myȝten chaunge to gidere her wyues.
Also the sect of Carpocracianys, which helden that Crist was not God, but man oonli, and was bigetun bitwixe man and womman deling to gidere fleischli.
Also the sect of Chirencianys,Ce|rinthians.resurrectioun; but more probably resurreccioun is intended. The analogy of the orthography favours the latter, and c and t are often almost identical in form.
Aftir the daies of the Apostlis roosen also manye vntrewe sectis of Cristen men, as the sect of Valen|tynyanys, whiche helden that Crist took no thing of Maries bodi, but passid forth thoruȝ hir as thoruȝ a pipe or a canal.
Also the sect of Apostelynys, whiche helden as dampnable that eny man hadde in his propirte eny worldli good.
Also the sect of Cerdyonystis and of Marcionystis, whiche helden that ij. Goddis ben, oon good, and an other yuel; and the oon is maker of riȝt and of good thingis, and the other is maker of vnriȝt and of badde thingis.
Also the sect of Seuerianys, whiche helden as vnleful for to drinke wijn, and helden not with the Oold Testament, neither that the general resurreccioun schulde come.
Also the sect of Tacianys, which helden that fleisch schulde not be ete.
Also the sect of Cathafrigis, whiche helden that the Holi Goost came not into the Apostlis, but into hem that weren of the Cathafrigis oonli.
Also the sect of Cathartitis, whiche helden to be vnleeful that eny widowe be weddid, and that, aftir a man hath synned in eny greet synne, he schal neuer haue ther of forȝeuenes, how euer greet repentaunce and amendis he do.
Also the sect of Paulianys, which helden that Crist was not bifore Marie, but took his bigynnyng of Marie.
Also the sect of Antropomorfitis, whiche helden that God in his godhede hath hondis and feet and othere suche membris.
Also the sect of Eraclisis, whiche helden that alle men ouȝten lyue chast, and that wedlok is vnleeful, and that children diyng bifore her ȝeeris of discrecioun schulen not come to heuen.
Also the sect of Nouacianys, whiche helden that if eny man falle oonys fro the feith, that he schal neuere haue ther of forȝeunes, and that a man oonys baptisid hath nede in sum caas for to be aȝen baptisid.Orig. lib. viii. c. 5.
Also the sect of Ebionytis, which helden Crist to be a pure man oonli, and these helden the riȝtis and obseruauncisob'seaūcis, MS.
Also the sect of Fotyanys,Fontianys, MS. (first hand).
Also the sect of Acyanys and of Ennomynyanys, which helden that al the while a man holdith him silf in the feith he is not dampnable for eny other synne which he doith, thouȝ he schal be therfore punyschid for awhile.
Also the sect of Sabellianys, which helden that of the Fadir, Sone, and Holi Goost is not but oon persoon.
Also the sect of Arrianys, which helden that the Fadir and Sone ben not oon substaunce.
Also the sect of Macedonyanys, whiche helden that the Holi Goost was not God.
Also the sect of Appollynaristis, which helden that Crist in his incarnacioun took a bodi but not a soul.
Also the sect of Antymaritis, whiche helden that Marie was fleischli knowen of Ioseph aftir that Crist was of hir born.
Also the sect of Donatistis, whiche helden that the Sone is lasse than the Fader, and the Holi Goost lasse than the Sone, and that a man baptiside of an heretik hath nede to be baptisid aȝen.
Also the sect of Bonosianys,Boitosianys, MS.
Also the sect of Iouyanystis, whiche helden that forto lyue in maidenhode and forto lyue in wedlok in bigeting children ben of oon meryt, and that forto ete and for to faste ben of oon merit afore God.
Also the sect of Elvidianys, whiche helden that Marie conceyued and bare sones and douȝtris after that sche conceyued and bare Crist.
Also the sect of Paternyanys, which helden that the louȝer parties of a mannys bodi weren maad of the feend.
Also the sect of Arrabianys, whiche helden that a mannys soul dieth with the bodi and schal rise aȝen with the bodi in the laste dai.
Also the sect of Pelagianys, whiche helden that a man bi his fre wil mai deserue heuen withoute grace.
Also the sect of Nestorianys, whiche helden that Marie was not the modir of God but modir of a man oonli, to which man aftir he was born of Marie God couplid him silf; as ther weren in him ij. naturis, oon of God, and an other of man.
Also the sect of Euticianys, whiche helden that in Crist aftir his incarnacioun weren not ij. kindis or naturis, but oon nature; for that the manhode passid bi turnyng into the Godhede.
Also the sect of Tritoycis, whiche helden that as thre persoones ben in Trynyte, so thre Goddis ben in Trinite.
Also the sect of Waldensis.i.e., space for about fifty words, are left blank in the MS.
Also the sect of Wiclifistis,Wiclififtis, MS.
Of manye mo heretik sectis than of these here now rehercid a man may here, if he wole rede Ysidor in the viije. book of hise Ethymologies and Austyn in his book Of heresies; but ȝit if a man wole knowe the heresies of hem in lengthe, he muste rede the book which therof made Epiphanius the Greke, and the book which therof made Philaster the Latyn writer. Neuertheles bi this rehercel here now maad of heretik sectistho, MS.e. Petri ije. c. and the wordis of Poul, ie. Thim. iiije. c. and ije. Thim. iije. c., and the other textis bifore in the [firste]
THE ije. principal conclusioun biholding the vje. principal gouernaunce is this: Doom of clerili in kinde disposid resoun lettith not and weerneth not the seid vje. principal gouernaunce. That this conclusioun is trewe y proue thus: If eny doom of such resoun schulde lette and weerne the seid vje. principal gouer|naunce, it schulde be oon of these doomes which ben conteyned in the iiij. semyng skilis now next to be maad and fourmed; but so it is, that noon of tho doomes lettith and weerneth the seid vje. principal gouernaunce. Wherfore no doom of such seid resoun lettith and weerneth the seid vje. principal gouernaunce.
The firste of these iiij. now spokun semyng skilis is this: Ech religioun is vnleeful and not worthi be had and vsid, which lettith and afore barrith, ȝhe, and weerneth the comaundement of God in his lawe of kinde to be doon; but so it is, that ech of the bifore spoken religions now had and vsid in the chirche and conteyning vow of wilful expropriat pouerte and obedience to certein reulis and statutis lettith and afore barrith, ȝhe, and weerneth hise re|ligiose persoon for to do and fulfille sum comaunde|ment of God. Forwhi ech of tho religiouns lettith and forbarrith and weerneth hise persones for to do bodili almes deedis to the pore and nedi, and also forto worschipe his fadir and modir in the effect of
e.]That that is ouer plus ȝeue ȝe almes; and also Math. xxve. c. it is open that for vndoing or for the leuyng of such bodili almes vndoon men schulen be dampned. Wherfore forto do such almes is the comaundement of God. And also that ech man thus worschipe his fadir and modir is the comaundement of God, it is open, Mark [vije.]e.]
The ije. semyng skile is this: Thilk thing or gouer|naunce, not being necessarie into oure saluacioun for that it is the comaundement 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 myche goostli harme and synne comen, for that that he is the occasioun that thilk goostli harme and synne comen. Forwhi into the meenyng of this now rehercid proposicioun or sentence the Gospel is alleggid bifore in the [ve.]e.this ve., MS. See p. 307.If thi riȝt iȝe or thi riȝt hond or thi riȝt foot sclaundre thee, pulle him out or kutte him awey, and caste him fro thee; but so it is, that of ech of the now spokun religiouns had and vsid in the chirche miche goostli harme and synne comen; so that ech of them 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 kutt awey, and be not had and vsid.
The iije. semyng skile is this: If suche now spokun religiouns ben so gode and so profitable to Cristen men as is now bifore pretendid hem to be, whi or|deyned
e.]e.]
The iiije. semyng skile is this: If for to haue reli|gioun and religiosite set to the comoun lawe of God maad of lawe of kinde and of sacramentis is leeful, good, and profitable, whi mai not this good and profit sufficientli be performed and fillid bi oon or ij. or a fewe of suche religions had and vsidhad and vsid is added by a later hand.
FOR answere to the firste semyng skile, the ije. premysse of the argument there maad is to be denied, which ije. premysse is this: That ech religioun now had in which is vow of expropriacioun lettith, forbar|rith, and weerneth sum comaundement of God to be doon. And whanne ferther into thethe is interlineated in a later hand.
For ferther cleering and declaring of this maad an|swere it is to wite, that ther ben ij. maners of Goddis
Thou schalt not do avoutrie; Thou schalt not bere fals witnes; Vnworschipe thou not thi fadir and modir, and suche othere; and these bynden to alwey, and to whom euere eny of these comaundementis is oonys a comaundement, to him thilk same comaundement is euermore perpetueli a comaundement. Summe othere comaundementis ben affirmatyue comaundementis, that is to seie, biddingis that certein deedis be doon, as ben these: Worschipe and releeue thi fadir and modir; Ȝeue thou almes to the poor; Teche thou the vnkunnyng, and suche othere: and these comaundementis binden not toto is interlineated in a later hand.a comaundement, MS. (first hand, apparently).
And that a man now hauyng ricchessis in greet plente mai with his good wil iustli and leefulli make him silf lacke tho same ricchessis, ȝhe, and the power forto wynne, gete, or haue ther aftir eny suche ricch|essis, y proue in this wise: I putte caas here, were a man which hath myche ricches, wherwith he mai weel releeue the pouerte of his fadir and modir and of hise othere neiȝboris, if thei in eny pouerte now weren; and this man hath a bodili sijknes, (or ellis dredith for greet liklihode forto falle into a bodili sijknes,) bi which he schal lyue in huge vnberable peine or be deed; ther is a lecche which wole vndir|take to make him hool, or to preserue him fro the fal into thilk sijknes; but al the ricches of this seid man is litil ynouȝ forto spende aboute the medicyns longing to thilk cure or preseruacioun. This man
by comyng, MS.to is interlineated in a later hand.
And thouȝ y schulde seie no more than this now seid, certis it were ynouȝ for answere to the first semyng skile. Neuertheles thus myche more y schal therto sette: The comoun peple and perauenture summe of the clerkis ben her yn bigilid, that thei weenen this comaundement of God, Honoure thou thi fadir and modir, to be a seueral comaundement bi him silf departid fro this comaundement of God, Loue thou thi neiȝbore as thi silf, and to be a streitir comaunde|ment and more to be kept than is this comaundement, Loue thou thi neiȝbore as thi silf; but certis this is not trewe. Forwhi therof wolde folewe that a mannys fadir and modir be not to him hise neiȝboris; and it is fals: for thei ben to him summe of hise principal|ist neiȝboris. Also it wolde therof folewe that the deedis of reuerencing and the deedis of releeuying, which a man dooth to his fadir and modir, weren not deedis of loue; which also is vntrewe. And therfore, sithen a mannys fader and modir ben to him nedis hise neiȝboris, and not more to him than neiȝboris, thouȝ thei ben hise principal neiȝboris, and the reuer|encing and the releeuying, (whethir thei ben goostli or bodili,) ben deedis of loue, and ben noon better neither more than deedis of loue, it folewith needis that in this comaundement, Worschipe thou (in affect and effect bi reuerencing and releving)and bi releving is added in the margin by a later hand; bi having been afterwards erased.thi fadir and modir, whanne and as and if resoun deemeth it to be doon, is no thing comaundid streiter than is comaun|did and conteyned in this comaundement, Loue thou (in affect and effect) ech of thi neiȝboris as thi silf.
Worschipe thou thi fadir and thi modir. And ȝit her of and herfro folewith not, neither may enyin eny, MS. (first hand), perhaps rightly.Loue thou thi neiȝbore as thi silf. For this comaundement, Worschipe thou thi fadir and modir, is not but a special and a parti of this general and hool comaunde|ment, Loue (in affect and effect) thi neiȝbore as thi silf, but as moche as resoun wole. And certis the vnconsideracion [and] the vnkunnyng of this now de|clarid notabilite and the opinioun that this comaunde|ment spokun bi Goddis owne mouth, Worschipe thou thi fadir and modir, was off grettir charge than is now declarid, and was in streiter wise to be vnder|stonde than is now declarid, hath be a cause in summe of the comoun peple forto ouer vnwijsly and ouer bitterli berke and clatere,chatere, MS. (first hand).
FOR answere to the ije. semyng skile may serue sufficientli al what is bifore seid and writun in the [ive. parti the iije. chapiter]e.ije., MS.If eny wole pretende that riȝt doom of resoun, et cætera, into the eende of the same chapi|ter there.e. c.]e.]e.]e. c.];e. maner oonli. Ferthermore, whanne euer the sclaundre (that is to seie, the synne,) cometh into a persoon out, fro, and bi a gouernaunce in the firste maner, it is alwey trewe that to the persoon sclaundrid (that is to seie, prouokid and putt into synne) the sclaundre (that is to seie, the synne) is ȝouun, and is not oonli of him and bi his side acceptid and takun withoute ȝeuyng. And whanne euer out, fro, and bi eny gouernaunce sclaundre (that is to seie, synne) cometh in the ije. maner, than it is trewe that the sclandre (that is to seie, the synne) is not ȝouun to the persoon, but it is of him takun and acceptid withoute therof to him maad eny ȝeuyng. And sithen it is so, that al the greet and notable synne, that cometh fro, out, and bi religiouns now had and vsid in the chirche, cometh fro hem into the persoones of hem in the secunde now seid maner oonli and not in the firste, therfore the sentence of the Gospel of [Math. ve. c.]
Neuertheles, thouȝ this be trewe what is now bifore seid, that whanne sclaundre (that is to seie, synne) cometh into a persoon bi a gouernance aftir the ije. maner oonli, thilk gouernaunce hath no wijt or deser|uyng or riȝt forto be leid awey, but the freelnes of the persoon ouȝte bi riȝt be fouȝt aȝens and be leid awey, ȝit in this maner wolde be had this special consideracioun and therupon folewingli this now to be ȝouun tempering moderacioun. Whanne synne cometh into a persoon bi a gouernaunce and in the ije. maner oonli, and this person so ofte fallith into thilk synne, whanne he holdith thilk gouernaunce, that the synne is as it were vnscapeable and vnavoidable of him; and herwith it is so, that the same gouernaunce is not to him comaundid of God and bi his lawe, and therfore is not necessarie for his saluacioun, certis thanne it is to be aspied weel bothe bi resoun and bi sure assay and experience, whether it be esier and surer and lasse peyne and bateil for to fiȝte aȝens his freelnes and hise lustis and ouercome it with the holding of the seid gouernaunce, or ellis aȝenward it is esier, surer, and lasse peyne and lasse bateil forto forgofor go, MS.e. now seid disposicioun, sotheli thanne, thouȝ this gouernaunce deserueth not bi his wijt to be kut awey, ȝit alloweable reule it were forto kutte awey thilk seide gouernaunce, thouȝ he be ful profit|able in goostli maner in othere sides into good not being of comaundement, and so that bi the kuttyng awey of thilk gouernaunce cometh not in the ije. maner more synne to the persoon than cometh in [the] ije. maner bi the holding of the same gouernaunce, and ellis not. Forwhi a litil synne is more to be eschewideschewewid, MS.euermore, MS.
And thus myche her of as now; for more of sclaun|dris is tauȝt in The book of Cristen religion the
For to turne now aȝen into the mater of reli|giouns; thouȝ it be sufficientli now bifore answerid to the ije. semyng skile mad aȝens tho religiouns, ȝit into gretterthe gretter, MS. (first hand).e. seid maner oonli; and therfore thei deseruen not to be kutt awey, namelich sithen thei ben meenis into greet goostly goodis:)—ȝit more therto forto ex|cuse mai be sett thus: that gretter synne wolde come fro, bi, and out of the kuttingis awey of tho reli|giouns than cometh now fro, bi, and out of the hau|yngis and holdingis of the same religiouns, and gretter synne is lettid bi the being and holding of tho reli|giouns than is al the synne bi hem comyng; and therfore thei ouȝten miche rather be menteyned than be leid asyde. That this is trewe, what is now seid, y proue thus:That is trewe what y proue thus. MS. (first hand).alle religiose, MS. (first hand).ti. ȝeeris hath be contynuel greet werre bi|twixe Englond and Fraunce; and lete se what schulde haue worthe of the men in these ȝeeris, if thei had|den not be mad religiose. Lete se how thei schulden haue lyued, and what maner men thei schulden haue be. Whether not thei schulden haue be, as weelnyȝ alle othere men ben and han be in this xxxiiije. wyn|ter in Englond; and therfore thei schulden haue be or gileful artificers, or vnpiteful questmongers and for|sworen iurers, or sowdiers wagid into Fraunce forto make miche morther of blood, ȝhe, and of soulis, bothe in her owne side and in the Frensch side? Who can seie nay herto, but that riȝt likeli and as it were vnscapabili these yuelis and many mo schulden haue bifalle to tho persoones, if thei hadden not be religiose? And noman can fynde aȝenward that tho persoones, whilis thei han lyued in religioun, han be gilti of so miche synne, how miche synne is now re|hercid; and of which thei schulden haue be gilti, if
ben, MS. (first hand).e. maner of comyng oonli. And no more as now and herenow here, MS. (first hand), per|haps rightly.e. semyng skile.
Here myȝte be askid what ouȝte be doon bi religiose prelatis and bi bischopis and the pope to and aboute religiose persoones, whiche in a symplenes camen into religioun and aftirward han growen into greet notabil abilnes forto stonde into miche gretter stide of al the chirche and of al the lawe of God than forto be tied to close and cloistrose obseruauncis of summe maners of religiouns, and what ouȝte be desirid and askid bi tho same religiose persoones to be doon to and aboute hem silf? That is to seie, whether thei schulden stire and pursue forto be lousid of such en|closing
The book of Cristen religioun, the firste parti, the The book of lessouns to be rad perauenture in the chaier of scolis.
ANSWERE to the iije. semyng skile schal be this: Whanne thou askist of me thus, "Why made not and ordeyned not Crist tho religions to be had and be vsid, sithen thei ben so profitable to us?" I aske of thee in lijk wise, "Whi ordeyned not and made not Crist to us who schal be meyr in London in the next ȝeer, and who schal be bischop of London aftir the deceesse of the bischop of Londoun now
e. semyng skile: That therfore Crist not ordeined, made, dide, and ȝaf bi him silf thes seid religiouns, for he ȝaue to men inward sensityue wittis and outward sensityue wittis, resoun, and wil, and moving power to speke, and othere deedis do, by whiche men myȝten knowe suche religiouns be worthi be had and vsid, and with whiche men myȝten make and ordeyne and do bi hem silf suche religiouns to hem silf, as that it was not nede to Crist that he him silf schulde make, do, ordeyne, and ȝeue hem to men. So that it is the maner of Crist, that tho thingis and deedis, whiche men hem silf bi ȝiftis of God bifore ȝouun to hem mowenmowe, MS. (first hand) apparently, twice.mowe, MS. (first hand) apparently, twice.mowe, MS. (first hand) apparently.e. semyng skile and to the argument there maad in forme; forwhi the firste premysse of the argument is to be denyed; and whi he is to be denyed, it is open bi this processe in this answere now maad.
And ȝit, (if y schulde ferther seie,) y woot riȝt weel, that if thou ȝauest to thi man hors and sadil, armour and spere, and schuldist bidde him ride into a certeyn feelde, and take to him a prisoner worthi in raunsum of an hundrid pound; and if her with thou myȝtist and schuldist like verili ȝeue to him his boldenes, his strengthe, his inward and outward wittis, and his resoun and wil forto reule him in the taking of this prisoner, thou woldist seie that thou ȝauest to him this prisoner; for this that thou ȝauest to him alle the meenys bi which and with whiche he schulde take this prisoner, not withstonding that he him silf withoute thee takith this prisoner bi and with the meenys and helpis whiche bi caas thou hast ȝouun to him:—wherfore, sithen God ȝeueth to men inward and outward sensytyue wittis and resoun and wil and moving power to make speking and othere bodili movingis and alle othere meenys, wherbi and wherwith men mowen bi hem silf suf|ficientli knowe that suche religiouns ben profitable to hem, and make and ordeyne religiouns now had
In ij. therfore maners God dooth dedisdedis is added by a later hand.
Answere to the iiije. semyng skile schal be this: Whanne thou askist of me, "Whi ben ther so manye dyuerse religiouns in the chirche, and whi not bi fewer religiouns mai be performed al the good which cometh forth bi so manye religiouns had and vsid in the chirche?" I aske of thee, "Whi in a town which is a thoruȝ faar toward Londoun ben so manye ostries clepid innes forto logge gistis, thouȝ in fewer of hem alle gestis myȝten be loggid? Is not this the cause, for that bi the mo dyuersitees whiche schulen be had in the more multitude of ynnes the peple schal be the more prouokid and stirid for to logge hem in tho ynnes, than if ther were fewer ynnes?" Thou muste nedis seie, ȝhis. Forwhi what point in chaumbring, stabiling, gardeins, beddis, seruicis of the ostiler, (and so in othere thingis)
the is added by a later hand.e.]e. parti, it folew|ith that it is profitable such multitude and diversite of religiouns to be, and so that God wolde haue men in the more noumbre and in the more affect be stirid toward religioun forto logge hem ther ynne, sithen it is bifore proued religiouns to be good. Therfore he ordeyned and purveied into thilk entent so manye dyuerse religiouns in the chirche. And ȝit herwith weelnyȝ of ech religioun he ordeyned or purueied to be manye dyuerse housis and placis, as thouȝ thei weren dyuerse ostries or herbouris forto logge the more multitude at her liking and plesaunt choise ther yn; and so, thouȝ the good of iij. principal vowis be lijke and oon in ech and alle religiouns, ȝit the othere plesauntisple|sauncis.
And thouȝ summe harme and yuel cometh thoruȝ the hauyng of such now seid multitude, ȝit not so greet harme and yuel as is excludid bi the hauyng of so greet multitude; for not so greet harme and yuel as schulde come of this, that so greet multitude of persoones schulde not entre into tho religiouns, neither so myche harme as is the myche good whichgood myche cometh, MS. (first hand); which being added in the margin and the marks of trans|position inserted by a later hand. Perhaps we should read the good whiche.e. semyng skile bifore mad in the [ive.]e. parti.
The iije. principal conclusion of this present ve. partie is this: The vje. seid principal gouernaunce sett in the bigynnyng of this present ve. partie is leeful. That this conclusioun is trewe, y proue thus: Ech gouernaunce or maner of conuersacioun which Holi Scripture weerneth not and forbedith not, doom of cleer and weel disposid natural resoun weerneth not and forbedith not, mannes lawe weerneth not and forbedith not, is leeful and not worthi be vndirnome and blamed. But so it is, that sectis and religiouns to be mad with inne the comoun Cristen religioun to men and to wommen forto be streitir to hem in moral conuersacioun, than is the fredom of the comoun Cristen religioun maad of preceptis of lawe of kinde and of feith reuelid bi holi autentik Scripture, is not weerned and forboden bi Holi Scripture, neither bi doom of weel disposid cleer natural resoun, neither bi mannys lawe. Wherfore needis folewith that forto haue summe suche religiosereligioses, MS. (first hand), which deserves attention: religiosis persoones occurs a little above.e.]e.]e. gouernaunce: and the ije. premysse of this same argu|ment is proued bi the firste and ije. principal conclu|siouns of this fifthe parti fro the bigynnyng of the firste chapiter hidir to. Wherfore this present iije. principal conclusioun thus concludid and proued bi these ij. premyssis is needis trewe.
THE iiije. principal conclusioun of this present ve. partie is this: Holi Scripture allowithallowith and approueth, MS. (first hand), thrice.e. principal gouernaunce sett in the bigynnyng of this present ve. parti. That this conclusioun is trewe, y proue this: Religioun (as the name in Latyn therof schewith) is not ellis than an holding aȝen or a bynding aȝen or a tiyng up of a mannys wil bi ordi|nauncis therto chosun and takun, that he vse not his fredom in moral conuersacioun so largeli as he myȝte withoute forbode of resoun and of God. Certis other thing than such now seid is not religioun, and ful weel religioun mai be likened to the binding aȝen or the holding up bi which a man holdith vp with the bridil the heed of his ambuler, lest ifif is added in the margin by a much (?) later hand: it would most naturally be placed after perauen|ture.allowid and approued, MS. (first hand).allowith and approueth, MS. (first hand), thrice.allowith and approueth, MS. (first hand), thrice.allowid and approued, MS. (first hand).
That Holi Writt affermeth and witnessith God haue do and maad such now seid religiosite, y proue thus: Holi Writt of the Oold Testament witnessith God to haue putt and sett Adam and Eue to such religiosite, Genes. ije.ie., MS.e.]e.]
And also whanne God ordeyned the cerymonyalis and the iudicialis so manye to the Iewis as the bookis of Exodi and of NumeriNume|rorum; or else Exodus above.
Confirmacioun in strengist maner to this argument may be this: That Holi Writt of the Oold Testament clepith expressely the oold lawe, (which was mad bi God of cerymonyes, and was sette to the lawe of kinde and of feith thanne rennyng,) a religioun, may be proued. Forwhi God, speking of the Pascal lomb and of the obseruaunce in eting him, seide to the Iewis, Exod. xije. c. thus: Whanne ȝoure sones schulen seie to ȝou, 'What is this religioun?' ȝe schulen seie to hem, 'It is the sacrifice of the passyng of the 'Lord, whanne he passid ouer the housis of the sones 'of Israel in Egipt, and smote Egipcianes, and dely|'uerede oure housis.' And also sumwhat aftir in the same chapiter it is seid of the same obseruaunce thus; This is the religioun of Phase; ech alien schal not ete therof, et cætera. Also Exodi xxixe. c. God seide to Moyses thus, Thou schalt presente hise sones, (that is to seie, the sones of Aaron,) and thou schalt clothe with lynnun cootis, and thou schalt girde Aaron and hise sones with a girdil, and thou schalt sette mytris on hem, and thei schulen be my preestis bi euerlasting religioun. Also, Leuytici vije. c. toward the eende, the maner of sacrificing vsid among Iewis in tho daies (in sleyng beestis and in offring up the fleisch of the beestis) God clepith "an euerlasting religioun in her generaciouns." Also Leuit. xvje. c. almoost at the eende, the obseruance of expiacioun or of clensyng doon ȝeerli of the Iewis in the xe. dai of the vije. monthe with the fasting and penance long|ing therto God clepid "an euerlasting religioun." Also Numeri xixe. c. the sacrifice there tauȝt in sleing a cow in a certein maner God clepith "a re|ligioun."
Also in the tyme of Iewis Ionadab a Iew, the sone of Recab, bade that the sones comyng from him for euermore schulden not drinke wijn, neither bilde housis, neither tile lond neither vyneȝerdis, but that
e. c. What ellis was this than a religioun cast to the lawe of kinde and Goddis lawe ȝouun to Iewis mad of the cerymonies and iudicialis, as it is open bi the discriuyng of religioun bifore sett in this present chapiter; and bi this that it is now proued bifore, that the lawe of Iewis sett to the comoun lawe of kinde and of othere feith thanne bifore had was a religioun; and bi this that God preisid the sones of Ionadab for the perfit keping of this now seid religioun, as it is open Ieremye xxxve. c.? Wherfore folewith needis, that Holi Writt of the Oold Testament allowith, witnessith, and confermeth religioun to be sett of the newe to the comoun lawe of God bifore had and vsid, and that whether thilk comoun lawe bifore had and bifore vsid was lawe of kinde oonli, or ellis mad of lawe of kinde and of sum other feith bifore had, or ellis mad of lawe of kinde and of such now seid feith and of sum reli|gioun bifore had and vsid.
That Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament ground|ith and confermeth (or at the leest allowithallouith and approueth, MS. (first hand).e. c. where he clepith it a religioun, seiyng thus: Bi the moost certein sect y lyued a Pharisee. And this religioun was not reproued of Crist in eny place of the GospelsGolpels, MS.e. c.; but he wolde haue blamed thilk sect, and ȝit he not so doith. Wherfore it folewith as likeli, that Crist allowid weel the religioun of the Pharisees sett to the comoun lawe of Iewis thanne rennyng, thouȝ Crist blamed the persoones of the same religioun. And thanne the wordis seid of Crist, Math. xve. c.: Al plaunting, which my heuenli Fader hath not plauntid, schal be drawe up bi the roote: (whiche wordis many men vndirstonden Crist to haue seid and meened of the sect of Pharisees,) mowen and schulen conuenientli ynouȝ be vnderstonde of the yuel doctrine of thilk yuel tradiciouns and othere tradiciouns to hem lijk, which Crist blameth there in the same chapiter, Math. xve. c., and not of the sect of Pharisees. And if al this be trewe, thanne Holi Writt of the Newe Testament groundith and confermethconfermeth and approueth, MS. (first hand).
What was the sect or the religioun of the Pharisees in her religiose werkis and dedis and vsis, it is seid by the Maister of the Stories in The storie of the
Gospels, the [xxxje.]not is interlineated in a later hand.Hist. Evang. c, 31. fol. 191. Ed. Ludg. 1543. The Historia Evangelica is a section of the His|toria Scholastica. See Fabric. Bibl. Lat. Med. et Inf. Æt. vol. i. p. 1135. It appears that Comestor was some|times called Master of the Histories. See Nouv. Biogr. Génér. tom. xi. p. 332. Paris, 1855.
ALSO thus: Whanne Crist bifore his passioun, whilis he prechid, hadde reuokid the religioun of the ceri|monies and iudicialis sett to the lawe of kinde, and vsid of the Iewis, (and it was leeful and sufficient ynouȝ to ech Iew and to ech other man being bifore hethen forto thanne lyue after the lawe of kinde oonli withoute the seid religiosite bifore vsid of the Iewis;) ȝit Crist afterward in tyme, that is to seie, after his resurreccioun, settid the lawe of hise sacramentis to the seid lawe of kinde; for whi thanne he ordeyned and bade in comaundement baptym to be receyued, as it is open, Matheu the laste chapiter, and Mark the laste chapiter. And sithen these sacramentis, whiche Crist settid so to the lawe of kinde and ordeynede hem to be vsid of Cristen men, is a religioun, as mai
e.]e. partie, and also mai be proued bi this that the sacramentis, which God made and ȝaue ouer the lawe of kinde to the Iewis, was aa is interlineated in a later hand.folewe, MS. (first hand), the correction being incomplete.the religiosite, MS. (first hand).with al, MS. (first hand).De Div. nom. c. 3. Op. tom, i. p. 537.Of Goddis names, the iije. chapiter,silf is added in the margin by a late hand.De Eccl. Hier. passim. Op. tom. i. pp. 387, 363, &c.
Ferthermore that Holi Scripture of the Newe Tes|tament witnessith and allowithallowith and approueth, MS. (first hand) twice.allowith and approueth, MS. (first hand) twice.e. c.].allowith and approueth, MS. (first hand).to not, MS.
If eny man wolde be so nyce forto seie and holde, that it is leeful to haue and vse in the clergie and laife the deedis and gouernaunce of religioun with oute bond, (vndir fredom to leue hem whanne euere a man wole,) and it is not leeful forto haue hem and vse hem in boond; certis thanne muste ech such man seie and holde, that it is not leeful eny man or womman forto vowe eny deede to which he is not bifore bound; for if it be leeful forto so vowe oon such deede, bi lijk skile it is leeful for to vowe ij. or iij., iiij. or v., and so forth; and ȝit that it is leeful a widowe for toto is interlineated in a later hand.e. Thim. ve. c, And therfore this cavillacioun now rehercid is not worth.
AND thus herbi it is open, that noon of the reli|giouns now vsid among Cristen men with the comoun hool lawe of Cristente eny man mai reproue or blame to be as for this, that thei ben religiouns founde bi men and sett to the hool religiose lawe which Crist assigned to Cristen men. Wherfore if eny men wolen be aboute forto reproue and blame eny of these now seid and vsid religions to be, certis he muste take to him other cause and ground than this, that thei ben religiouns founden bi men and sett bi men to the seid hool lawe of Crist. And therfore he muste take to him this cause and ground, that summe statutis and ordinauncis of these religiouns ben aȝens the seid hool lawe of Crist; and sithen thilk lawe of Crist is not maad but of lawe of kinde and of Cristis sacramentis, he muste pretende and take for cause of his reprouyng and blaming that summe of these seid statutis and ordinauncis ben aȝens lawe of kinde or aȝens the lawe of Cristis sacramentis; and ellis he maie neuere in eny thing worth be aboute to reproue and blame eny of these seid religions to be. And certis forto proue and menteyne this pretencioun is ouer hard to eny man on lyue. Forwhi the iij. principal vowis, whiche ben oon and the same in ech religioun now vsid in the chirche, ben not aȝens the comaundementis of lawe of kinde neither aȝens the ordinaunce of Cristis sacramentis. And of ech other statute or obseruaunce kept and vsid in eny of the seid religiouns it is so, that noon of hem is mad to be takun into vse saue with this vndirstonding and condicioun, if and as he accordith with the comaunde|mentis of lawe of kinde and of Cristis sacramentis. And therfore if it can be schewid and proued sureli
the is added by a later hand.
Neuertheles al wisdom, al discrecioun wole, and therfore the ful hool wil of God wole, that not for ech pretensioun liȝtli maad neither for eny pretensioun maad, that the religiose man ouȝte bi strengthe and comaundement of Goddis lawe lyue out of his cloister forto do this deede or that deede, [he schulde] be licencid for to so and therto go out of his couent and cloistre, into tyme it be proued sureli and openli that forto so go out and forto do thilk deede bi his owne persoon he is bounde bi comaundement of Cristis lawe. For certis, if at ech colorable argument which myȝte be maad into such purpos for to iustifie religiose mennys out going for a long while or for alwey, religiose persoones schulden be licencid forto so go out or schulde be putt and sett in hope that bi strong sewte thei myȝten so go out, there schulden be maad so
And aȝenward, if such proof be had, Goddis forbode be it, but that such a persoon be licencid to go; for the entent of the fundacioun of thilk religioun is not theraȝens but therwith, as is now bifore seid; for as miche as al what euer is founde and foundid and maad bi man ouȝte obeie to it what is founde and foundid bi God him silf, and that is doom of riȝt resoun and vce of hise sacramentis. And in this maner and for such pretendid and weel proued causis religiose persoones ben licencid forto leue perpetuali her pro|fessid religiouns; as that nunnys han be takun out of her cloistris, and han be weddid to princis; and monkis han be take out of her cloistris, and han be weddid and mad kingis;and mad kingis is interlineated in a later hand.
And so, if alle thingis ben aboute wel considerid longing to the religiouns now vsid in the chirche, noon of hem alle is chalengeable and blameable to be, for that eny point of his fundacioun is meened to be aȝens the comaundement of lawe of kinde or of Cristis sacramentis, how euer it be with the badde dis|posiciouns and the badde lyuyng of summe persoones in tho religiouns; whos badde lyuyngis is no cause forto therbi proue the religiouns to be badde. For no wey is forto proue that eny of tho religiouns is badde, saue these ij. now bifore tretid; that is to seie, oon, that noon religioun ouȝte be founde bi man forto be sett to the lawe divisid and ordeyned and assigned bi Crist; and the other is, that thouȝ it be leeful religioun to be founde and sett to the lawe of Crist, ȝit sum statute, rite, or obseruaunce of these religiouns ben aȝens the comaundement of Cristis lawe maad of lawe of kinde and of sacramentis. And sithen noon of these ij. weies mowe sufficientli be founde in eny of the religiouns now had and vsid, as is now openli and sureli proued, it folewith needis that noon of these religiouns mowe worthili be reproued and blamed to be, that is to seie, as an vnleeful thing.
Neuertheles this is open ynow, that not in alle religiouns the occupaciouns assigned and foundid bi the religioun ben like fruyteful with the occupaciouns of sum other religioun; and also in ech religioun now vsid the occupaciouns foundid and devisid bi the re|ligioun bisidis the thre principal vowis, (that is to seie, of chastite, of wilful and expropriat pouerte, and of obedience to the prelat, whanne he comaundith comaundementis of the religioun,) myȝte be myche amendid, bothe the occupaciouns of her preiyng and officiyng and of her contemplacioun, and also the occu|paciouns
Also this present iiije. conclusioun may be proued vnsoilabili bi a processe of thre supposiciouns [and] of an argument formed upon hem toward the eende of the firste partie in this present book; which argument there maad is vnsoileable, if therto be sett the argu|ment of experience which is sett aftir in this present ve. partie for proof of the ve. principal conclusioun.e. principal con|clusioun.
THE ve. principal conclusioun of this present ve. partie is this: Doom of clenli and cleerli disposid resoun in kinde allowith and approueth the seid vje. principal gouernaunce to be take withinne the bondis of the comoun lawe of kinde and of comoun feith to gidere. That this conclusioun is trewe, y proue thus: It is bettir to a man forto entre sureli into lijf with oon yȝe, oon hond, oon foot, et cætera. Loke bifore in the eende of the [ixe.]e. partie where these now sett wordis ben write, and rede
e. and the ve. principal conclusiouns, and therfore it is no nede forto write the same proof of resoun eftsoone here.
Also in to proof of this present ve. principal con|clusioun y mai argue bi resoun and experience to gidere thus: Thilk gouernance is worthi be allowid and approued of resoun, which gouernaunce makith manye mo men in Cristendom to be morali vertuose and gode, or forto be myche lasse morali viciose and yuel, than thei schulden be, if thilk gouernaunce were not. But so it is, that religioun is thilk gouernaunce, bi which many hundrid thousind of soulis han lyued ful vertuoseli, which ellis wolden have lyued ful vicioseli; and also bi religioun manye hundrid thousindis han lyued miche lasse vicioseli in religioun, than thei schulden haue lyued, if religion hadde not be. Wher|fore that such religioun be, is alloweable and ap|prouable of ech cleerli in kinde disposid resoun.
The ije. premysse of this argument mai be proued thus: Take thou into mynde alle tho men, whiche han be in religioun sithen religioun biganne, and marke thou weel thanne how these men schulden haue lyued, if thei hadden not lyued in religioun; and certis thou schalt not fynde, as weel nyȝ for hem alle, that thei schulden haue lyued other wise than as now or than lyuen or lyueden gileful crafti men, or iurouris and questmongers, or pleders for mony, (thouȝ the causis of plee be wrong,) or as sowdiers forto fiȝte and slee for spoile and money; ȝhe, schortli to seie, or forto lyue as we now seen weel nyȝ alle worldli peple lyue bothe fleischli and coueitosli and
e. premysse of this present argument is trewe. And thouȝ it be so, that in religioun manye men han lyued louceli fro vertu, ȝit tho han be fewe in reward of the othere, which han ther yn lyued vertuoseli; ȝhe, and thei han lyued in religioun more ver|tuoseli or lasse vicioseli, than if thei had lyued out of religioun. And thouȝ tho badde lyuers in religioun han lyued ther yn so vicioseli, ȝit myche more vi|cioseli thei wolden haue lyued, if thei hadden lyued out of religioun. And therfore, if it be weel and wijsly and treuli aboute considerid, it wole be seen that religioun is a ful noble hegge forto close yn him men and wommen, that tho whiche ben weel disposid schulen be kept from yuel, into which withoute thilk hegge thei schulden falle; and tho whiche ben yuel disposid schulen be kept that thei schulen falle not into so myche yuel, as thei schulden falle, if thei weren withoute hegge. This bifallith ofte and miche and for the more parti in noumbre of hem that lyuen in religioun, thouȝ y seie not that it so farith bi alle hem which lyuen in religioun. And herbi it is suf|ficientli proued, that religioun is bi doom of resoun allowable and approuable. And ȝit therwith stondith what y haue seid in the extract or outdrauȝt of The Donet, that summe men ben so disposid that thei schulen lyue better out of religioun than in religioun, so that to suche summe persoones religioun schulde be an occasioun of her more goostli harme and hurt. And this is ynouȝ for proof of this present ve. prin|cipal conclusioun.
Certis if this present argument be take into perfit and ful avise and into depe leiserful consideracioun, it wole be seen that he proueth myȝtili this present ve. conclusioun, and schal be to euery considerer
a is added in a later hand.
The vje. principal conclusioun of this present ve. parti is this: The seid vje. principal gouernaunce sett in the bigynnyng of this present ve. partie is leeful in proprist maner of leefulnes. Forwhi, what euer gouernaunce is allowid and approued bi Holi Scrip|ture and bi doom of cleerli disposid resoun in kinde, is leeful in proprist maner of leefulnes, as it is open be the supposicioun or reul sett bifore in the [ie.]e. partie in this book. But so it is, that the seid vje. principal gouernaunce is allowid and approued bibothe bi, MS. (first hand).e. and ve. principal conclusions. Wherfore needis folewith that the seid vje. principal gouernaunce is in proprist maner leeful.
The vije. principal conclusioun of this present fifthe partie is this: The seid vje. principal gouernaunce is a gouernaunce of Goddis lawe. Forwhi what euer gouernaunce is allowid and approued bi Holi Scrip|ture and bi doom of cleer and weel disposid resoun, is a gouernaunce of Goddis lawe. But so it is, that the seid vje. principal gouernaunce is allowid and ap|proued bi Holi Scripture and bi such seid doom of resoun, as the next bifore going ive. and ve. principal conclusiouns wel schewen. Wherfore the seid vje. prin|cipal gouernaunce is a gouernaunce of Goddis lawe.
The viije. principal conclusioun of this present ve. partie is this: A man in ensaumpling bi hise deedis to othere men the seid vje. principal gouernaunce
e. principal gouernaunce is Goddis lawe, as the next bifore going principal con|clusioun weel schewith and proueth. Wherfore in ensaumpling bi deede the seid vje. principal gouer|naunce to othere men, noman synneth as in that and for that, if othere causis of synnyng ben awey; but he ther yn deserueth weel.
FERTHERMORE it is to wite, that summe of the lay peple not oonli holden aȝens the substaunce of the seid religiouns now had and vsid in the chirche; but also thei holden aȝens the habitis, whiche bi tho religiouns ben assigned to be worn of the religiose persoones. And thei seien that no good skile is, whi tho religiose persoones schulden were so straunge and dyuerse formes of habitis fro her othere Cristen britheren.
Also summe of the lay partie blamen and holden aȝens this, that religiose monasteries (namelich of the begging religiouns) han withinne her gatis and cloocis grete, large, wijde, hiȝe, and stateli mansiouns for lordis and ladies ther yn to reste, abide, and dwelle; and this, that thei han large and wijde chirchis like sumwhat to cathedral or modir chirchis of diocisis.
Also summe of the lay peple blamen and scornen and holden aȝens this, that bi the religioun of Seint Fraunces the religiose persoones of thilk religion schulen not handle and touche with her hond neither bere aboute hem eny money, that is to seye, eny
And therfore aftir that fro the bigynnyng of the [ixe.]e. parti hidir to it is proued and stabilid, that it is leeful ynouȝ suche religiouns to be and to renne in vce with the comoun Cristen religioun, y schal now iustifie these here now rehercid thre gouernauncis so vniustli of the lay peple blamed; for y schal expresse and open how that ech of these thre now spokun gouernauncis mai be don and vsid vnder resonable and gode causis. And first into iustifiyng of the firste of these now rehercid gouernauncis, I procede bi iij. principal causis, of which the firste cause is this: Sithen it is sufficientli biforebifore is added in the margin by a later hand.al the, MS. (first hand), the marks of transposition being pro|bably in another hand; but the correction is sanctioned by the analogy of other passages.
Confirmacioun herto may be this: Not withstonding that wommen mowen be knowe sumwhat fro men bi her natural visagis, ȝit it is resonable and profitable that thei be knowe asunder bi her outward habitis. Wherfore miche rather it is resonable, that a religiose persoon be knowe bi outward habit fro othere per|soones not religiose, sithen bi her natural bodies thei mowen not soso is added in a later hand.good, resonable, is added in the margin by a later hand.e. parti sufficientli proued.
The secunde cause into the iustifiyng of this same firste gouernaunce is this: Sithen it is so, that suche religiouns ben alloweable, (as it is bifore sufficientli proued),proued) occur twice over in the MS.; the first attempt being full of mistakes is cancelled.remembratijf, MS. originally, but the correction may have been made by the original scribe. As the form occurs twice below unaltered it has been retained in the text, but it is exceedingly suspicious.
Also the outward habitis of religiose persoones mowen be remembratijf signes to the lay peple not religiose forto remembre hem silf therbi thus: Lo, these persoones thus clothid han forsake the greet en|termeting with the world and the greet felicite and prosperite of the world for the greet ioie, reward, and mede, which thei therfore abiden to haue in heuen; it is good therfore to us forto do in the same wise, or in sum other wise lijkor in sum other wise lijk is added in a later hand, and partly written on an erasure.
The iije. cause into iustifiyng of this same firste gouernance is this: Sithen suche religiouns ben al|loweable to be, (as it is bifore sufficientli proued,) and alle men bi her natural freelnes ben redi and prompte into gaynes of aray and into dyuerse fynd|ingis of schap in aray for vein glorie and for othere not gode causis, it is resonable, alloweable, and pro|fitable,
INTO the iustifiyng of the ije. gouernaunce y pro|cede bi iiij. causis, of whiche the firste is this: It is alloweable, profitable, and procurable bi therto strecching meenis, that lordis and ladies, whanne thei schulen come to citees, be loggid out fro the myche entermeting of the world in suche placis where the world schal be myche holde out of her siȝt and out of her cumpenying, that he ȝeue not to hem occa|siouns of yuel; and where thei mowen haue redi at siȝt and speche cumpenying with religiose persoones forto aske of hem counseil and exortacioun into good and perfit lyuyng; and where thei mowen heere
The ije. cause into the iustifiyng of the ije. gouer|naunce is this: It is alloweable, resonable, and pro|fitable that religiose persoones, of what euer religioun thei ben, haue freendis and menteyners and defenders; namelich to haue lordis and ladies into her main|teyners and defenders aȝens wrongers and diffamers of the synful and wickid world, for that lordis and ladies ben myȝtier forto so menteyne and defende than othere louȝer persoones ben. But so it is, that bi this that lordis and ladies dwellen withinne the monasteries of religiose persoones, tho lordis and ladies wolen and musten needis bi kindenes and bi resoun be moued forto be bi so myche the more and the better menteyners [and] defenderis to the same religiose persoones and to the freendis of the same religiose persoones. Wherfore for this ije. cause of frendschip geting and holding to religiose persoones, it is resonable, alloweable, and profitable, if man|siouns for lordis and ladies be bildid withinne the cloosis and gatis of religiose monasteries, of what euer religioun tho monasteries be, but if the reule of thilk religioun it weerne; which excepcioun y vndirstonde
e. gouer|naunce.
The iije. cause is this: If lordis and ladies and othere reuerend persoones dwelle nyȝ to religiose per|soones, tho persoones wolen be bi so miche the more waar and ferd fortofoto, MS.
The iiije. cause into the iustifiyng of this ije. gouer|naunce is this: If religiose persoones of the begging ordris receyue myche and grete almessis of lordis and ladies, tho persoones han the lasse neede for to spende tyme in going aboute forto begge of the poorer peple; and so as ther yn schal ese come bothe to the nedi religiose personespersones is interlineated in a later hand. So also gatis and tho below.e. cause of aliȝting the poor men it is alloweable and profitable, that lordis and ladies haue mansiouns with inne the cloocis gatispersones is interlineated in a later hand. So also gatis and tho below.persones is interlineated in a later hand. So also gatis and tho below.
If eny man wole knouleche weel here, that such now seid mansiouns or dwelling placis mowen ver|tuoseli
this is interlineated by a later hand.
An other obieccioun miȝte be mad in this mater thus: Whanne the lordis or ladies or eny of the comoun peple ȝeueth eny almes to religiose couentiscōuētis, MS., but it is hardly likely that a writer should have used different forms of the same word in a sentence constructed as this is.
Answere to this obieccioun is forto denye euereither parti of the ije. premysse sett in the argument orof.e. premysse is not trewe.
Also the ije. parti of the same ije. premysse is not trewe. Forwhi the ije. and iije. causis, brouȝt in bi|fore in the ije. chapiter into the iustifiyng of the ije. gouernaunce, ben ful myche strecching into forther|aunce of religiouns; and therfore, thouȝ religiose per|soones expende the godis ȝouun into religion aboute the bilding and reparing of the seid lordli mansiouns, thilk expensis ben mad as necessarie and profitable to the religioun; for thei ben maad into mentenaunce of the religioun and in refreynyng of the religiose per|soones bi drede from yuel. And so open it is, that alsoal so, MS. (without hyphen, probably accidentally, but?).e. parti of the same ije. premysse is vn|trewe. And thus bi this answere the argument or obieccioun now bifore mad is not strong forto proue his entent.
As for iustifiyng of the large and wijde chirchis, whiche religiose persoones (namelich of the begging religiouns) maken, so that ther yn be not ouer greet curiosite, gaynes, preciosite, or costiosenes, sufficith and is ynouȝ this: that ther bi the moremore is interlineated in a later hand; and similarly the below.more is interlineated in a later hand; and similarly the below.forto, MS. (first hand).e. gouernaunce spokun in the next bifore going chapiter of this ve. partie.
And thouȝ summe men wolden seie that yuel cometh bi occasioun of suche seid lordli bildingis oc|cupied with inne the gatis of religiose monasteries, certis therto mai treuli be seid that not eny yuel, which mai not eesili be remedied, stonding al the good which bifore is rehercid to come bi the same bildingis and her occupiyngis; and not gretter yuel, than is the yuel which is excludid and lettid bi oc|casioun of the seid bildingis and of her occupiyngis; and therfore this obieccioun hath no strengthe.
THE iustifiyng of the iije. gouernaunce spokun bi|fore in the [xije.]e. partie schal be in ij. causis, of whiche the firste is this: Whanne euer eny deede or thing is to be forborn or left,lest, MS.to contynue, MS. (first hand), rightly; but a corrector has can|celled to.
The secunde cause is this: Whanne euer eny man is bounde to eny deede or gouernaunce, it is profit|able him to haue sum thing forto ofte and miche remembre him into the fulfilling of thilk deede into whiche he is so bounde. But so it is, that freris of Seint Frauncessis religion ben bounde bi the reli|gioun forto forbere the ouer miche loueloue is interlineated in a later hand.for bering, MS. (without hy|phen).for beren, MS. (without hyphen).
Perauenture aȝens the iustifiyng now mad for the iije. gouernaunce summe men wolen obiecte and chalenge thus: If freris of Frauncessis religioun for|bering handling and bering of money, for that this handeling and bering ben neiȝingis and homeli en|termetingis with money, and for that thilk forbering schal make in hem a remembraunce that thei ouȝten not loue money ouer myche; whi forberen not thei telling of money with a stikkis eende, sithen this telling is a nyȝ and a ful homely entermeting with the same money, and the forbering of such telling myȝte make in hem lijk remembrance as the forber|ing of handling schulde make? Also sithen iewelis of gold and of silver and of preciose stoonys and knyfis and girdelis harneisid with gold and siluer and suche othere araies ouȝten not be loued of hem ouer myche, whi forberen not thei to touche in handling and the bering upon hem of suche now seid iewelis and knyfis harneisid with siluer and gold?
To the firste of thes now mad obiecciouns and chalengis y may answere thus: For to handle or bere money is a more homely entermeting with the same money, than is forto telle it with a stik; and therfore the more homelynes is forborn, and the lasse homelynes is suffrid. To the ije. obieccioun and chalenge y mai answere thus: Iewelis ben not in so manye kindis so redy and so niȝe to the vce in which the hauer mai delite him synfulli, as is money. Forwhi the hauer of iewelis may not delite him silf with iewelis fleischli neither worldli except veinglorioseli,vein glorioseli, MS.to be, MS. (first hand).preisable.
Confirmaciouns to this answere mowen be mad ful weel bi ensaumplis thus: If a man wole for a iust cause faste ech Friday in the ȝeer as bi boond and not as bi fre deuocioun oonli, were this a iust chalenge theraȝens for to seie thus, "Whi fastith not he ther with also bi boond the Saturday or the Wednesday?" And if he wolde forbere fisch and mylky mete in ech Friday in the Lente, were this a iust chalenge ther aȝens for to seie thus, "Whi for|berith he not ther with fisch and mylki mete also in ech Wednesday of the Lente?" Open ynow it is, that these chalengis weren not resonable. For bettir it is forto do oon good of the tweyne, into of whiche neuer neither he is bounde, than forto leue of hem the euereither vndoon. Ferthermore if eny man wolde chalenge a frere of Seint Frauncessis ordre, and seie to him thus, "Frere, thou louest money as myche as othere menmen is added in the margin by a later hand.if is added in the margin by a later hand.the fulle, MS. (first hand).
And ferthermore forto seie fynali as here in this mater: What euer eny man chalenge or obiecte aȝens this now seid forbering of moneyes touching, this wole euer be founde trewe, that it is peyne lasse or more to ech man so forberingbering, MS. (first hand).forgoddis, MS. (perhaps by mere accident; but?).sūday (conjunctim).sūday (conjunctim).sūday (conjunctim).sūday (conjunctim).
THE vije. principal gouernance aȝens which summe of the lay peple erren is this: That the preestis and othere clerkis preien to God and to Seintis, and thei so preien bothe for hem silf and for her neiȝboris; and thei graunten to summe othere persoones forto be partyners in sum kinde of her preiers, and of her abstinencis, of her wacchis, and of her othere gode deedis and suffrauncis. This now seid gouernaunce summe of the lay peple blamen vnwijsly, seiyng and holding that it is waast and vein forto preie to God, whilis he knowith ech mannys hertis desijr and ech mannys nede; also that it is waast and veyn forto preie to eny Seint, whilis God loueth us more than eny Seint loueth us. And, as it myȝte seme, thei holden that no man may take an other man so into his nyȝ frendschip, that therbi the other man schal fare the better bi this mannys fasting, waking, and hise othere gode deedis; but ech man schal fare weel goostli oonli bi hise owne gode deedis. Aȝens which
The book filling the iiij. tablis in ther of the firste parti; and also aȝens sum therof it is notabili procedid in the firste partie of Cristen religioun, the secunde treti, the
The viije. principal gouernaunce, for whichforwhich, MS.
Aȝens this now rehercid chalenging, vndirnemyng, and blamying, that he isis is interlineated in a later hand.The book of worschip|ing in large lengthe, as nede of the mater so askith; and therfore who wole se how this here rehercid blamyng and chalenging is defauti and vniust, and how treuthe hath him silf in the mater of signes vsid, not being the grete sacramentis, go he into The (now named) book of worschiping, (for he is ouer greet for to be ingraffid here,) and go he in to the firste parti of Cristen religioun, the treti, the chapiter, and into the treti, the
The ixe. principal gouernaunce for which summe of the lay peple vnwijsly and vnreuerentli blamen the clergie is this: That in the chirche ben had grete signes and sacramentis, and her vsis; as ben baptem, confermyng, hosil of Cristis bodi and blood, and othere mo; whiche sacramentis and her vsis summe of the lay peple holden to be pointis of wicche craft and blindingis, brouȝt into Cristen men bi the feend and the anticrist and hise lymes. And in special thei abhorren aboue alle othere the hiȝest and wor|thiest signe and sacrament of alle othere, the sacra|ment of the auter, the preciose bodi and blood of Crist for us hangid in the cros and for us out sched; in so miche that thei not oonli scornen it, but thei haaten it, mys callen it bi foule names, and wolen not come her thankis into the bodili chirche, whilis thilk sacrament is halewid, tretid, and vsid in the masse.
Aȝens this now rehercid mys bering of tho men and aȝens this her foul faring with hem silf and her vniust bering an hond is maad a book bi him silf clepid The book of feith and an other Of sacramentis; and also ij. othere bokis, of whiche oon is clepid The book of baptym, the other The book of eukarist, in which book sufficientli and cleerli al this now re|hercid foule and mys bering and vniust chalenging and blamyng is reproued and vnproued. And ther|fore, sithen so long a werk is seid and doon there, it is no nede forto seie ther of eny thing vnperfitli and vnfully and therfore vnsauorili here; lest perauenture for the lak and the noun hauyng at hond here of al that ouȝte be seid to gidere for strengthing of the treuthe, enemyes myȝten and wolden take colour that her parti is not so miche confoundid as it is, and that the contrarie partie to hem is not so weel proued as it is.
The xe. principal gouernaunce aȝens which summe of the comoun peple erren is this: That the clergie in certein causis and maters swerith and makith othere persoones forto swere, and allowith weel that princis and her officers being vndir hem bothe swere and make othere men of the layfe forto swere. Certis summe of the lay peple holden this gouernaunce to be vnleeful, and aȝens the comaundement of God; and that it is vttirli vnleeful eny man forto swere. Neuertheles for as miche as this vnwijs holding is sufficientli proued to be vntrewe in The book filling the iiij. tablis, in the secunde parti, bi manye chapi|tris, therfore no thing therof here.
The xje. principal gouernaunce, aȝens which summe of the lay peple erren, is vsid in the lay partie and not in the clergie and is this: That men for her trespacis ben doon into her deeth. For summe of the lay partie holden that no man schulde be slein of eny other man for eny trespace, cause, or
e. principal gouernaunce it is procedid in othere placis of my writingis, as in the book clepid The filling of the iiij. tablis, in therof the iiije. partie, therfore it is no neede for to make this book here therbi eny ouer greet bolk more than nede is.
And thus y eende this present book clepid The represser of ouer myche blamyng the clergie. For whichForwhich, MS.