. . . . .The question, proposed by the son in the missing pages, seems to have referred to the relation of faith to evidence and the natural processes of reason. -ny evydencis had or hopid to be had into the contrarie, and if suche evydencis be had in the resoun, the resoun muste bi hem be constreyned to consente, and to bileeve the article bi hem, and sithen no evydencis mowe so move without argu|ment—forwhi out of oon proposicioun, bi strengthe of himsilf, no thing folowith, and so nedis twey proposiciouns muste prove the iiie, and ii pro|posiciounsproposiouns in MS. so coupled to the iiie, mowe not prove the iiie. but if thei be disposid in foorme of a sillogisme—, and ferther, sithen God, of his gentilnes and of his resonablenesse, puttith not us to a governance whiche we mowe not do, neither which is aȝens oure kinde, but he helpith forth oure kinde, and perfitith the wirching of oure kinde, bi his grace sette to oure kinde, it folowith that God arteth us not to eny bileeue, neither we mowe have eny other bileeue, saue it to which we have suche sufficient evydencis as ben bifore seid. And so, sone, as folowyng of the same y seie thus; it is never worthi to be clepid a feith or a bileeve, what ever it be, which is not ground|able and provable by suche evydencis in resoun, and bi suche argumentis in resoun, as ben bifore seid.

Fadir, if al this be trewe, thanne herof folowith ferther thus, that no persoone of the laife, neither of the clergie, neither the clergie in hem silf, neither the hool chirche in him silf, ouȝte take upon him forto enfoorme and teche eny other persoone a bileeve and a feith of any certeyn article, but if he be of power in kunnyng, forto ȝeve of the same article suche evydencis as ben now bifore seid, bi which he schal constreyne the resoun of the heerer and of the leerner, to bileeve the same article, riȝt as bi the same evydencis he constreyneth his owne resoun to bileeve the same article.

Sone, al this now bi thee drive and concludid folowith so openli out of this that is heere bifore seid, and out of it what schal aftir be seid in the ve c. of the iie party of this book, that it is no nede to make eny more proof therof, if teching be take more propirli than for a publisching or a nakid uttraunce, telling, or denouncing.

Fadir, it semeth to my resoun out of this to folowe, that if the Cristen clergie were wel avisid of the evydencis whiche myȝten prove her bileeve of ech article, and if the seid Cristen clergie wolden gadere tho evydencis togidere, ordynatli and formabli, in forme of silogismes, forto have redili and currauntli at honde and at mouthe, whanne ever nede were to make bi hem eny profis, and if herwith the Iewis and the Sarracenes wolden ȝeve audience, for to heere the now seid evydencis to be mynystrid to hem in the seid foorme, and bi sufficient leiser at dyvers tymes, the Cristen clergie schulde convicte, and in maner constreyne, or ellis nede the undirstonding, bothe of alle Iewis and of alle Sarracenes, to bileeve aftir Cristen feith, and to be convertid therto, where thei wolden or nolden; so that thei wolden ȝeve dewe audience and sufficient attendaunce, to heere and undirstonde the seid evydencis, in the seid maner to be to hem mynystrid, sithen it is seid bifore, that mannys undirstonding and resoun is in maner constreynable or ellis nedeable, to iuge, deeme, and consente bi the evydencis whiche ben mynystrid to him, riȝt as the bodili iȝe is in maner constreynable or nedeable, to iuge, deeme, and consent bi the mynystringis which ben maad to him; that is to seie, riȝt as the iȝe may not at his owne lust, iuge and witnesse whether it be whiȝtnes or no, so the resoun may not at his owne lust iuge and deme a thing to be trewe, or not trewe, but he muste nedis iuge aftir that tho evydencis to him mynystrid moven him to deeme; that is to seie, the resoun muste nedis consente to thilke party whiche notabli hath strengist evydence.

Sone, al this bi thee now concludid y muste nedis graunte, and so muste nedis ech other considerer graunte. But aȝenward, alas, the Cristen clergie laboren not as ȝitt forto considere clerli what feith is in his owne kinde, and whiche ben the evydencis wherbi it schulde be proved, and forto dispose tho evydencis in cleer formal maner of silogisme, and to have hem redi at mynde; and in the other side, the feende hath brouȝte in so greet a sleiȝte in the secte of the Sarrasenes, that thei ben ful wondirful violentli lettid, forto ȝeve audience to eny proof making for Cristen feith or making aȝens Sarrasene secte. Forwhi, thilk wickid man Mahumet, which brouȝt in her sect, or sum prelate aftir him, made as for a poynt of his lawe, that no persoone of his sect schulde heere eny declaracioun or evydence of Cristen sect, or eny evydence aȝens his sect, and that undir peyne of passing cruel deeth. But O thou Lord Iesu, God and man, heed of thi Cristen chirche and techer of Cristen bileeve, y biseche thi mercy, thi pitee, and thi charite, fer be this seid perel fro thi Cristen chirche and fro ech persoon therynne conteyned, and schilde thou that this venom be never brouȝte into thi chirche; and if thou suffre it to be bi eny while brouȝt in, y biseche that it be soone aȝen out spet. But suffre thou ordeyne and do, that the lawe and the feith, which thi chirche at eny tyme kepith, be receyved and admittid to falle undir this examin|acioun, whether it be the same verri feith which thou and thi apostlis tauȝten, or no, and that it be receyved into examinacioun, whether it have suffi|cient evydencis for it to be verry feith, or no; and ellis it myȝte be holde, ȝhe and it were a ful suspect thing to alle hem that schulde be convertid therto. And also, ellis it were a ful schameful thing to the Cristen chirche, forto holde such a feith for a substaunce of her salvacioun, and ȝitt dursten not suffre it to be examined, whether it is worthi to be allowid for trewe faith or no. And it were a vilonye putting to Crist, that he schulde ȝeve such a feith to his peple, and into which feith he wolde his peple turne alle othere peple, and ȝitt he wolde not allowe his feith to be at the ful tried, and that he durste not be aknowe his feith to be so pure and so fyne fro al falsheede, that it myȝte not bi strengthe of eny evydence be overcomen. And therfore, Lord Almiȝti, thou forbede that eny such prisonyng of thi feith be maad in thi chirche. For certis, wel groundid cleerkis of thi Cristen chirche mowe kunne gadere suche evydencis, and in suche foorme sette hem, that no persoone in erthe may bi resoun aȝen|stonde hem, but that he muste nedis cleeve to thi feith bifore, and rather than to eny other pretense feith, or to eny other secte under hevene; ȝhe, and to cleeve therto nedis for eny thing appering and seemyng to the contrarie, or hopid to appere to the contrarie. Thus good cleerkis mowe kunne do into greet ioie and counfort of hem silf, and into greet gladnes which thei myȝten helde out into ech persoone of the Cristen chirche, as schal be open bi a book which y hope to make in latyn and to be clepid The proof of Cristen Feith. Nevertheles, sone, thou muste undir|stonde that whanne an article of feith is to be examyned, whether it be trewe as feith or no, as is the article that God is iii persoonys and oon substaunce, or this that the iie persoone of the Trinite bicome man, or this that he died and roos to lijf the iiie day, or eny such other article or con|clusioun or poynt of feith, thouȝ y knowleche wel that the seid examynacioun of thilk article ouȝte to be maad bi labour of arguyng in oure natural resoun, for as myche as we han noon other power forto examyne eny thing, whether it be trewe or no, or whether it be feith or no, than oure natural sensitive wittis, and oure natural resoun and her natural worchingis, ȝitt this labour and arguyng and examynacioun, so maad in oure natural resoun, ouȝte not be maad go and falle upon the natural meenys, witnessing the treuthe of thilk article to be trewe, and that thilk article ouȝte be bileeved as feith, as ben natural causis of thilk article, or the natural effectis of the same article, or natural signys or natural circumstauncis of the same article, which naturali stonden aboute the same article; but this seid labour and arguyng, for examinacioun of the seid article of feith, owith to be maad go and renne upon tho meenys whiche witnessen so likli God to have schewid, or have affermed thilk article to be trewe, that no meenes ben had or likeli ben hopid to be had forto schewe so likli the contrarie; which contrarie is this, that God the seid article schewid not or affeermed not. And thanne, bicause God may not lie, that therfore thilk article is trewe, and to be bileeved for the infailable and unbigiling treuthe of the affermer, which is God. Of this maner of arguyng, and examynyng, and provyng, is to be undirstonde what is bifore seid, and what is aftir to be seid, that ech article of feith may and ouȝte be examyned, whether it ouȝte be bileeved as feith or no. And ellis but ech article myȝte bi this kynde of examynacioun be examined, ellis alle the bifore inconvenientis wolden nedis folowe. And this is ynouȝ for eni creature on lyve, forto be moved forto cleve and consent to Cristen feith, and also this is worschip ynouȝ for Cristen feith, that it may withoute feere be avowed, and publischid, and be profred to be examyned bi eny witt undir hevene, in such maner of examynacioun now bifore seid, as bi which ech pretense feith ouȝte be examyned, whether it be trewe feith or no. And ȝitt ferthermore to this now seid, may evydence be this, that ellis Crist wolde neverSupplied from the margin. have gove suche a lawe to be hadde, and to be con|tynued in his name, of which lawe sum of oure feith is a party, ne were that it myȝte abide the fier of triel and of examinacioun of ech creaturis resoun, so the examinacioun be such as ouȝte be takun and usid, forto examine and prove whether a feith pretense be trewe feith or no, as fer forth as eny goldsmyth wole avowe to warante his gold, which he delyvereth to be tried and examyned bi al maner fier of this worldli brennyng. In this kunnyng of examinacioun, and of provyng oure feith, that it is so provable to be trewe, the apostle Petir wolde Cristen men to be namelich clerkis, I Pet. iiie cr, where he seith thus: Parati semper ad satisfaccionem reddendam omni poscenti vos racionem, de ea que in vobis est spe et fide. That is to seie in Englisch thus: Be ye redi forto ȝilde a satisfiyng to ech man asking ȝou resoun or skile of hope or of feith which is in ȝou. In this kunnyng of examinacioun, and of provyng oure feith that it is so provable to be trewe, was Petir Alfons of His|payn, a ful wise and kunnyng Iewe in al the lawe of Iewis. Forwhi, aftir that he was excellentli leerned in the lawe of Iewis, his wisdom drove him to this that he wolde examyne at the fulle the secte of Sarracenye, also the secte of Cristen men thoruȝ alle her evydencis, whiche myȝten be gete, and so he dide. And bicause that aftir he had examyned alle thre sectis he founde Cristen secte passe alle the othere in evydencis, therfore he forsoke alle the othere and bicame a Cristen man, and maad a book of disputaciounMS. disputson. betwixe Cristen lawe and Iewis lawe, in which booke he know|lechith of him silf what y now have rehercid of him. Nevertheles, y wole not neither meene if aȝens an article of oure feith, as aȝens this that iii persoonys ben in oon Godhede, or aȝens this that the iie persoone bicame man, or aȝens this that a maide bare the sone of God in his manhode, eny argument be maad, bi meene being out of the boundis longing to the kindis of feith, as if the argument be maad bi meenys of philsophie, not leenyng to the revelacioun of God anentis the same article, that answere be maad therto for defense of thilke article. Forwhi, the argument gooth not in the wey in which he schulde go, forto be aboute to prove the seid article be not feith. And aȝeinward, if aȝens eny suche article argument be maad by meene according to the kinde wherbi feith is to be proved or unproved, as peraventure bi a meene sownyng into this, that God never revelid thilk article, God forbede but that thilk argument schulde be herde of clerkis, and be assoilid, and ellis thilk article is not worthi to be an article of oure Cristen feith, ȝhe and but if thilk article can be proved bi suche meenys or meene, he is not worthi to be holde an article of oure Cristen universal feith. Wolde God, sad clerkis in divinite wolden weie this wel. Certis, if lay men wolen holde hem content forto bileeve articlis whiche ben famed to be of feith, and bileeve, thouȝ thei kunnen not thus prove and defende tho articlis, it is no vilonye to hem; it is sufficient and allowable to hem. But if clerkis, namelich accountid sad divinis, kunnen not, or wolen not go eny ferther than so aboute articlis of oure feith, thei ben not therynne preisable, neither saven her worschip, neither kepen her dewte forto save oure feith fro perel of his over throwing and distroiyng. Forwhi, if clerkis take not hede, hou and wherbi the articlis of oure Cristen feith owen to be groundid and proved and defendid, such tyme may come, in which adversaries schulen fynde the postis and the pilers of oure feith so unleernyd and nakid, forto meyntene and defende oure feith, that tho adversaries, bi her greet evydencis to be maad withynne the boondis of the kinde perteyn|yng to feith, schulen perverte myche multitude from feith, and scorn oure feith, and peraventure so it schal be in the tyme of Anticrist to come, for defaute of sad and wel leerned divinis, whiche schulde thanne be and ȝitt schulen not thanne be. And that for the clergie schal more labour aboute worldli kunnyng of lawe, and of wynnyng, and aboute beneficis and worschipis, than aboute the kunnyng of substancial scole of dyvynite, other than myche such as serveth for sermouns in pulpit, which lay men trowen al to be substancial divinitie. Whether such preparaciouns growe now thidirward in clerkis y wole not deeme, but y wole suffre other men to deme. In my side y wole drede and preie. And ferthermore, y wole clerkis to have in consideracioun, that not for a thing is famed to be an article of feith, therfore it is an article of feith, but aȝenward for that it is an article of feith, and proved sufficientli to be such, therfore it is to be bileeved bi feith. So that an article to be bileeved bi feith is dependent of this, that it is bifore proved sufficientli to be feith. And an article to be an article of feith is not dependent of this, for that it is bileevid as an article of feith. No more of this here and now, but lete al the clergie of divinite bese hem silf wiseli in this mater, and kepe her charge and enteresse, leste her necligence schal accuse hem in tyme to come, that bi her neccligence trewe feith was overthrowe, and men fro it pervertid, and that trewe feith was not sufficientli proved and meyntened bi hem, and bi meenys whiche thei leeven in writyng aftir hem, for to bi cleer witt drawe men into consente of trewe feith otherwise than bi fier and swerd or hangement; thouȝ y wole not seie but that the bothe now seid meenys ben good, so that the former meene be parfitli excercisid, eer it schal be come into the iie.

FADIR, if al this be trewe which ȝe han tauȝt sithen y spake bifore last to ȝou, it seemeth therof to folowe that the mo and the strenger evydencis accordyng to gendre eny certeyn opinial feith upon eny certeyn article a man have, the bettir is thilke feith, and the more perfit is thilk feith, and the strenger is thilk feith, and the more perfit is thilk feith in his kinde of feith. Forwhi, the strenger the substancial causis of eny effect ben, the strenger the same effect is, and sithen the likli evydencis, schewing that an article is affermed bi God, ben causis of the opinial feith to be had upon the same article or conclusioun, it folowith nedis, that the mo and the more likli tho evydencis ben had for an opinial feith, the more is thilk opinial feith, and the perfiter, and the strenger in his kinde of opinial feith. And bi lijk skile, sithen the cleer sure expert evydencis, schewing that an article is affermed of God, ben causis of the sciencial feith to be had upon the same article, it folowith nedis in lijk skile that the mo, and the more cleer, sure, and expert evydencis ben had for a sciencial feith, the more is thilke sciencial feith, and the perfiter and the strenger in his kinde of sciencial feith. Of whiche now spokun ii spicis of feith, that is to seie, opinial feith and sciencial feith, y have maad declaracioun, groundMS. gorund. and proof in the first party of The folower to the Donet, the ch., and in the first party of The book of feith in latyn.There is an erasure in the MS. with the title substituted on the margin, but half pared away.

Forsothe, sone, y can not seie nay, ne y trowe no man alyve, to this that thou hast now dryve and proved, and that for so opene proof which thou hast therto now maad. Nevertheles, therto in wey of confeermyng these to be rehercid evydencis.The sentence terminates so in the MS. Opinial feith is not but a certeyn spice of general opinioun, and sciencial feith is not but a spice of general science, as is open bi what is tauȝt in the places now alleggid. Wherfore, sithen every opinioun which is not feith, is maad the strenger and the perfiter in his kinde, bi that that the mo, and the perfiter, and the strenger evydencis perteynyng to his kinde ben had, as no wys clerk wole seie nay, it folowith bi lijk skile that every opinioun which is feith, is maad the strenger and the perfiter in his kinde, bi that the mo and the perfiter and strenger evydencis, perteynyng forto gendre an opinial feith, ben. In lijk maner, sithen sciencial feith is not but a spice of general science, it foloweth that as every science which is not feith is maad the strenger, and the perfiter in his kinde, bi that that the mo, and the perfiter, and the strenger evydencis perteynyng to his kinde ben had, as no wise clerk wole seie nay; so every science which is feith, is maad the strenger and the perfiter in his kinde, bi that that the mo, and the perfiter, and the strenger evydencis perteyning to gendre a sciencial feith ben had. And so, sone, bothe for the evydencis which thou thi silf brouȝtist forth, and for the evydencis which y have now brouȝt forth, y graunte al that thou hast now last concludid.

Fadir, if this be trewe which is of ȝou grauntid, thanne foloweth ferther this, that the geting and the havyng of the mo, and of the more evydencis bi which opinial feith is gendreable, lettith not the merit of a man to have thilk opinial feith, but encresith the merit of thilk man, and in lijk maner the geting and the having of the mo and of the more evydencis, bi which sciencial feith is gendreable, lettith not the merit of the man to have thilk sciencial feith, but encreesith it. For|whi, for eny feith, in that that it is feith chosen bi the wil, a man hath merit and in this undirstonding feith is meritorie, as at the ferthest it is able to be acceptid of God, wherfore what ever thing is helpen to cause eny maner of feith in his kinde of feith, and strengthen thilk maner of feith in kynde of feith, thei letten not the merit to be had for thilk feith, neither the merit of thilk feith; but thei encresen the merit of the man and of thilk feith, folowingli upon that that thei encreesen thilk feith. Forwhi, what ever things founden, gendren, and encresen the grounde, encreesen what thing growith out of the same ground, bi strengthe and vertu of the same ground. But so it is that evydencis, longing to gendre opinial feith, causen, gendren, and holden, and encresen opinial feith, and encresen the willing to have thilk opinial feith. And evydencis longing to gendre sciencial feith, causen, gendren, holden, and encreesen sciencial feith, and encresen the willing to have thilk sciencial feith, wherfore the same evydencis causen, gendren, holden, and encresen the merit of the same willing, and of the same feith which willing and feith thei so causen, gendren, and encreesen.

Sone, y may not seie nay herto, neither y wote who may seie nay therto bi his avisid resoun, and therfore y graunte wel al that thou hast now proved and concludid.

Fadir, thanne ferther thus. If the mo and the more evydencis a man hath, making for an opinial feith, the more is his mede, and a man schulde rather desire and seche aftir to have the more mede than the lasse mede, so that he lese not therbi so myche or more in an other party of his conversacioun, it folowith herof that a man schulde labore aftir to have manye evydencis to eche article of the feith, rather than to stoond to oon or tweyne evydencis oonli: so that he therbi be not lettid fro an other more good, to be gete and doon in the meene while, and so that he holde himsilf redi to bileeve the same article, as soone as he hath eny oon evydence, sufficient to putte him into feith, thouȝ he schulde have no mo. For ellis y can not wite but that he laborid in obstinacie, and also in presumpcioun, as dide Thomas the apostle in the day of Cristis resurrecioun, unto tyme that Crist had weel re|dressid his obstynacie and his presumpcioun, into sobirnes and sadnes.

Sone, al this now bi thee rehercid and concludid y graunte, and y allowe and confeerme, as thouȝ y hadde seid it to thee bi myn owne mouth. But ȝitt withal, this, what is seid of thee and of me, thou schalt undirstonde accordingli to it what thou maist fynde in The folower to the Donet, that no dede of feith, or of opinioun, or of kunnyng, or eny other dede dyvers fro dede of the fre wil, is morali vertuose or viciose, meritori or demeritori, but for as moche as the dede of the wil, which commandeth the other seid dede to be had, is morali vertuose or viciose, meritorie or demeritorie, so that the moral goodnes or baddenes, merite or demerite in the dede of the wil, makith the othere dede to be morali good or bad, meritorie or demeritorie, and the goodnes and the merite of the dede in the wil, descendith into the other dede, and ȝitt the dede of the wil is not meritorie of blisse in hevene, withoute a grace which is callid accepting grace.

Wel, fadir, sithen ȝe conforten me so wel bothe bi ȝoure so cleer teching, and bi ȝoure so gentil commending, forto cacche witt unto me upon the maters which han betwixe us be mynystrid, y wole argue aȝens what in this present chapiter ȝe han allowid, approvyd, confeermed and seid. And for as myche as al that ȝe han seid, and al that ȝe han allowid and confeermed, of the vertu of feith, bothe in this booke, and in the othere bokis bifore alleggid, is so kunnyngli and so openli led forth and tretid, that y wote not hou eny man myȝte be mouyd to speke theraȝens, by eny resoun and cleernes of witt, therfore y schal move and argue aȝens ȝoure so sad seiyng bi a holi mannis writing, and in this wise. Gregorie seith, in his iiie Omelie, in the beginnyng: Feith hath no merit, to which mannys resoun ȝeueth other sure proof or experience, and if othere ex|perience puttith awey al merit fro feith, bi cause open experience is grettist evydence, it seemeth that alle other lasse evydence than is experience, schulde bi so moche the more diminisse, and the more lasse the merite of feith, bi hou myche thilke evydence the more neiȝeth to the grettist evydence, which is experience; and bi so myche al evydence schulde the more and the better suffre the merite of feith to be, bi hou myche the ferther it is fro the hiȝest and grettist evydence, which is experience.

Sone, if al were trewe that is of holy men writen, thin argument were the more to be drad. But certis, as thou maist wite in tyme to come, bi that that thou schal wexe into gretter and into depperSo in MS. certeynte of feeling, namelich bi reding in the eend of the first parti of Iust apprising of Holi Scripture, and in the book clepid The iust apprising of doctouris, holi men, and ful kunnyng men, at sumtyme fillen upon the treuthe and founden it, and at sum|tyme thei faileden from it, whanne thei wene|den that thei hadden founde it. And therfore, if her writingis kunne be evydentli unproved, her writingis ben to be left. And tho writingis of hem whiche kunne not be inproved, and unto tyme thei mowe or kunne be inproved, mowe wel, and ouȝte to be holde and be folowid. But, forto come doun in special to examine the now seid alleggid wordis of Gregorie, se thou, sone, how in the same wordis mowe be founde dyverse defautis, forwhi, the said wordis of Gregorie implien and supposen, in her owne vewe, that sum feith ther is, that is had and gendrid bi open experience, and that is aȝens the same doctouris feeling and writing expresseli, in his iiie Omelie, upon these wordis of the gospel: For that thou hast seen me, O Thomas, thou hast bileeved, et cetera; where pleynli this doctour wole, feelith, and techith, that a man hath not feith of thilk thing which is of him openli and sureli knowun to be trewe. Wherfore, hise wordis bifore first rehercid, and hise wordis now last rehercid, mowen not stonde togider, and this may not be withoute a defaute. If eny man wole so expowne, glose, and interprete the first bifore alleggid wordis of Gregorie, that the meenyng which Gregorie had in hem was this, that thilk knowing which is gendrid, and had bi sure ex|perience, is neither feith, neither of it is merit, ȝitt ther aȝens is the open pretencioun of the same wordis, whiche callith a knowing, to whom mannys resoun ȝeveth experience, to be a feith, and that therfore thilk knowing, to whom mannes resoun ȝeveth experience to be a feith and that therfore thilk knowing is a feith,The sentence is very involved and is certainly mistaken. The scribe seems to have been confused here (he repeats himself in the MS.), and to have confused the sense. I suggest 'and that therfore thilk knowing, to whom mannes resoun ȝeveth experience, is a feith,' omitting 'to be a feith and that therfore thilk knowing.' and ellis it wolde folowe that he spake hem unkun|nyngli, or unavisidli, and unwarli, which is another defaute. Also that sum knowing, whanne it is gendrid bi sure certeyn experience, is feith and credence, is proved openli in The book of feith in latyn, and y doute not that to ech diligent considerer what is seid therof in the first parti of The folower to the Donet, it schal be riȝt esili to prove wel the same. Also, forto seie that a knowing, had and gendrid upon a treuthe bi sure experience, hath no merit, is the iiie defaute. Forwhi, forto not consent, and therfore forto not knowe and knowleche a treuthe, whanne it is knowe bi sure experience, and for that it is so knowun bi sure experience, is un|resonable, and therfore viciose, and so thanne demeritori and synful. Wherfore aȝenward, forto consent, and to knowe, and knowleche the same treuthe, whanne it is knowen bi sure experience, and for that it is so knowen bi sure experience, is resonable, and if resonable, thanne vertuose, and so thanne meritorie, and rewardable; for as myche as to every vice the contrarie is a vertu, and to ech vertu the contrarie is a vice. And so nedis in the first seid wordis of Gregorie is founden the seid iiie defaute. ȝhe, sone, in other placis where God wole that it be tauȝt in latyn, thou schalt openli se, and so thou maist sumwhat now se, if thou wolt, that a man ouȝte not have merit for his bileeve, but if he have therto sum evydence forto so bileeve. For ellis, he wote not whi he schulde bileeve it more than the contrarie of it, or more than ech other spekeable thing. And also, forto so bileeve withoute evydence is unreson|able, and therfore unvertuose, and so demeritorie; ȝhe, and it is unpossible,So in MS. as is bifore proved in The book of feith in latyn, and in The folower to the Donet, and if this be trewe, certis bi lijk skile, so forto bileeve a thing for therto is sufficient evydence that it is so to be bileevyd, is resonable, and therfore vertuose and so meri|torie; and if this be trewe, certis therof folowith sureli, that riȝt as grettist vice and grettist demerit in such case, and for such case, is forto bileeve where noon evydence is forto so bileeve, so grettist vertu and merit, as in suche case, and for suche case, is forto bileeve where grettist evydence is forto so bileeve. And thanne of this folowith ferther, that proporcion|abili as the evydencis ben lasse and more neiȝyng to nonne evydence, bi so myche the bileve bi hem taken is the lasse of merit. And as the evidencis ben gretter, and more neiȝing to the grettist and hiȝest evydence of alle, bi so myche the bileeve takun bi hem is the more of merit. And so nedis, upon the first alleggid wordis of Gregorie fallith the iiie rehercid defaute. If eny man wole seie that Gregori, in thilke first wordis, menede thus, that thilk knowing, which is gendrid and had bi experience, is feith not meritori, anoon is founde this iiiie defaute, that the first parti of this meenyng now govun is contrarie to the iie wordis of Gregori, bifore alleggid in his iiie Omelie; and upon the iie parti of this now govun meenyng, fallith lijk defaute to it, which now bifore is namyde; for the iiie defaute, and the resounis now bifore maad forto prove the iiie defaute, prove also this now last defaute, rising upon the iie parti of this last govun meenyng. And so y wote not how y myȝt save the first seid wordis of Gregorie from inconvenient and defaute; but if, for affeccioun to the persoone hem seiyng, y schulde close and sequestre the iust doom of resoun, which were a vice and a synne. And therfore y wote not, sone, hou eny man myȝte worthili ground eny argument forto therbi obiecte aȝens eny, of me or of eny other man, ȝovun and tauȝt doctrine. And herbi, sone, take thou a marke til thou heere more in othere tymes, that it is not al trewe that bi holi men is in parchimyn ynkid, neither al is profecie that is of good men in pulpit prechid. Nevertheles, al what is writen or seid of hem, it is wel doon forto take, receyve, and bileeve, unto tyme a man can sureli, with|oute eny doute, inprove it, and fynde defaute in it, for which it ouȝte not forto be bileeved.

FADIR, y dar not argue ferther aȝens ȝoure doctrine bi eny doctouris writing, sithen ȝe han smyte so soore a strooke aȝens the bifore alleggid writyng of Gregorie. For weel y wote, what ever doctouris writing y allegge, if it be aȝens ȝoure bifore maad doctrine, ȝe wolen answer that he, or sum man for him, prove his seiyng, going aȝens ȝoure doctrine, as cleerli and as evydentli as ȝe proven ȝoure doctrine, and that he assoile the evydencis whiche ȝe maken for ȝoure doctrine; and ellis ȝe ouȝten not to his writing, so aȝens ȝoure doctrine meting, forto assente. This y fele wel, that ȝe wolden seie bi it what ȝe seien ȝou have in The iust apprising of Holi Scripture, and in The iust apprising of doctouris. And therfore y wole not in waast, in thilke kinde of argumentis, ȝou attempte. Nevertheles, this lettith me not forto argue aȝens ȝoure doctrine bi the wordis of Crist, and bi the wordis of Seynt Poul; and therfore y bringe forth what Crist seid to Thomas, Jon. 20 cr. thus: For that thou hast seen me, O Thomas, thou hast bileeved. Blessid ben thei that han not seen and han bileeved. Lo, fadir, hou Crist blamed Thomas, as it seemith, for this that Thomas souȝte aftir more evydence to bileeve Cristis resurrecioun than his felowis, the othere apostlis, souȝten, in that that Thomas seide: But if y schal se in the hondis of Crist the stiking of the nailis, and y schal putte my finger into the place of the nailis, and y schal put myn hond into his side, y schal not bileeve. Also Crist preferrid in preising, and therfore in thanke, and so folowingli in merite, the othere apostlis bifore Thomas, and this was as it semeth, bicause that the othere apostlis helden hem content, and souȝten not aftir so greet evydencis for her bileeve upon Cristis resurrexioun, as Thomas dide. Wherfore it semeth that forto seche aftir the gretter evydence, to prove and confeerme a bileeve, where that lasse grete evydence wole suffice, is not preiseable, but blameworth. And if this be so, thanne forto so seche aftir tho greter evydencis lassith the merit of the same bileve. Also, Luk. I cr, Zacharie the fadir of John Baptist was punyschid bi doumbenes, for that he hilde him not content with the evydencis, which he had bi the aungel Gabriel, that his wyf schulde bere a childe whos name schulde be Johnne. And so, fadir, the seching aftir evydencis, as it semith, taken awey, or at the lest abateth the vaile and the merite of feith.

Sone, take good hede to the same processis which thou hast now forth spokun; and marke you weel therwith this what y schal seie, and thanne thin obiecciouns schulen be assoilid. First, considere thou that these iii casis ben dyvers, and not oon; that is to seie, a man forto not holde him content with evydencis sufficient to gendre in him a feith, but forto seche aftir othere and grettir evydencis, and ellis forto not bileeve in the seid feith; and a man forto be content with evydencis sufficient to gendre a feith, forto bileeve in the same feith, and ȝitt to seche aftir grettir and mo evydencis, into confirmacioun of the same feith; and a man forto holde him content and paied with sufficient evydencis unto a feith, and to not seche eny ferther for evydencis, gretter or mo, into the con|firmacioun of the same feith. Certis, sone, the first case is openli reprovable, the iie and the iiie ben allowable and preiseable. In the first case weren the Iewis anentis Crist, whiche wolden not bileeve into Crist for sufficient evydencis, which Crist ȝave to hem forto so bileeve, but thei souȝten aftir grettir, and mo evydencis, eer thei wolden bileeve as it is open, Mt. xiie chapr. and xvie cr.; Mr. viiie cr.; Luk. xie cr.; Johnne vie chap. And in lijk case was Thomas, in the day of Cristis resurrexioun. Forwhi, not withstonding that he hadde sufficient evydencis forto bileeve Cristis resurrexioun, ȝitt he wolde not bileeve bi hem, but he souȝte aftir gretter evydencis, and seide as is bifore rehercid in this present chapiter thus; But if y schal se in the hondis of him the stiking of the nailis, et cetera. And therfore Crist blamyd him, not as for that he souȝt aftir grettir evydencis oonli, but for that he helde him not content with other sufficient evydencis, to bileeve Christis resurrexioun, but he souȝt aftir gretter evydencis, eer than he wolde bileeve; and therfore he was worthi be blamed, as he was blamed, whanne Crist said thus; For that thou hast seen me, O Thomas, thou hast bileeved, as thouȝ Crist hadde seide thus: Not withstonding thou haddist bifore sufficient evydencis to bileeve, thou woldist not bileeve, but for that thou hast seen me thou hast bileeved. That Thomas had sufficient evydencis bifore forto bileeve Cristis resurrexioun, eer Crist schewid to him hise hondis and hise feet, y may prove thus. We now lyvyng han sufficient evydence forto bileeve Cristis resurreccioun bi this, that the apostlis han denouncid to us that Crist roos fro deeth; and we mowe have sufficient evydencis that the apostlis weren trewe and trusty men, and not liers. But Thomas hadde thanne these same evydencis in as good maner, or in better, than we han now for us. Forwhi he herde the apostlis denounce Cristis resurrexioun to him, bi her owne mouthe, there that thei denouncen the same to us bi her writing; and also he knewe bi experience the treuthe, and the sadnes, and the unbigilefulnes of hise felowis, where that we knowen it bi likelihode oonli, thouȝ so likeli that to the contrarie we have noon evydence so likeli. Wherfore, if we ben bounden now forto bileeve Cristis resurrexioun, as for therupon sufficient evydence to us had, even so moche, or more, Thomas was bounde, eer Crist apperid to him, forto bileeve Cristis resurrexioun, for sufficient evydence therupon to him mynystrid bi his trewe britheren, whom he ful likeli knewe to be no liers. And so folowith that Thomas was in the first case, and worthi to be blamed, as he was blamed of Crist. In the first case also was Zacharie, Luk. ie cr., and therfore he was punyschid. Certis, if thei hadden be in the secunde case, or in the iiie, thei hadden not be blamed. The x apostlis weren in the iiie case, and therfore thei weren not blamed, but thei weren commendid of Crist, whanne he seid thus: Blessid be thei, that is to seie, thi felowis, the othere x apostlis whiche han not seen, that is to seie in thilk maner as thou hastMS. haast. seen, or namelich in thilk maner as thou desiridist to se, and ȝitt thei han bileeved, holding hem content, for that without thilke now seid siȝt thei hadden sufficient evydence forto bileeve my resurreccioun. Ferthermore, sone, as manye riȝt wise men trowen, the seyng, of which it is spokun in this processe, was the touching in whiche Thomas touchid Cristis side. And that, for as myche as undir name of siȝt or seyng may be comprehendid and undirstonde the dede of ech other outward witt, bi cause that the siȝt is the principal outward wit, and therfore his name may be transumed in to the name of ech othere outward witt. And bi so moche the bettir is holpen al myn now maad answer, that Thomas souȝt over miche evydence, eer he wolde bileeve; notwith|stonding that, without this last seiyng, my seide answere is sufficient. Now, sone, forto come neer to thin argumentis, in thin argument, thou pretendist as thouȝ Thomas hadde be in the secunde case, and therfore Crist hadde blamed him, for ellis thin argument schulde not go aȝens my doctrine. And certis, y denye that Crist blamed Thomas therfore; but y seie, as y now bifore seid, that Thomas was in this first case, and for it Crist blamed him, and this is no thing aȝens me. Thanne ferthermore, whanne thou seidist in thin argument that Crist preferrid the othere apostlis, in preising, and in allowing bifore Thomas, y graunte weel this. Nevertheles, thou assignyst not the al hool cause whi Crist so preferrid; for whi, the hool cause of this preferring was that the othere apostlis helden hem content forto bileeve, withoute seching aftir eny mo evydencis, eer thei wolden bileeve; but Thomas helde him not content with the same evydence which hise felowis tolden to him, but souȝt aftir grettir, and ellis he wolde not bileeve, and herof thou makist no mensioun in thin argument, and in thin assignyng, as for the blame of Thomas. And therfore y denye it forto be the hool cause of preferring, which thou assignyst to be therof the hool cause. And what is to be seid of Zacharies blame is open in lijk maner now bifore. Ferthermore, sone, thou schalt undirstonde that the article which Thomas, first bifore he sawe the woundis, wolde not bileeve, and which, aftirward he hadde seen tho woundis, he bileeved, was not this, that this man was rise fro deeth into lijf; for therof he had in maner experience, but it was this that Crist, that is to seie God being man, was risen fro deeth in his man|hode, into lijf in his manhode, into which bileve of thilk article helpid wel, as therto a meene, the experience had bi Thomas of the woundis, which Thomas sawe in thilke manys persoone and quik bodi; and that this is trewe may be take weel here of, that Thomas aftir that he had seen, and was profrid to him for to touche the woundis, seid thus: O my Lord and O my God. And so al is assoilid, what thou hast bi thi gospel aȝens me obiectid.

Fadir, ȝe seiden bifore in the secundeFrom the margin. cr., that whoever have sufficient meenys to gendre a feith upon eny certeyn article, he muste nedis, wil he, nyle he, bileeve thilk article. Forwhi, ȝe seide that his undirstonding schal be nedid to so bileeve, bi strengthe of tho evydencis. And now ȝe seien here that Thomas and Zacharie hadden sufficient meenys forto bileeve bi hem, and ȝitt thei not so bileeveden bi hem; wherfore, fadir, it wolde seme that oon of youre doctrinys is contrarie to the other.

Sone, thouȝ it seme so, it schal not be founde so. Forwhi, thou schalt wite that there ben dyvers maners of having a thing, as Aristotil spekith in his book of Predicamentis. Never|theles ii maners ther ben of havyng, pertenyng to this present purpos. It is seid of a good scoler that he hath his lessoun in his herte, and in his undirstonding, and in his consideracioun. It is seid commounli of a badde scoler, that he hath his lessoun writen in his book, thouȝ he have it not in his herte, and in his consid|eracioun of undirstonding. Lo, sone, ii maners of having, and therfore, sone, whanne y seide bifore in the secondeFrom the margin. cr. as in sentence thus: Who ever have sufficient meenes to gendre a feith upon eny article, he must nedis bileeve thilk article bi the same meenes, it is to be undirstonde of such maner havyng, wherynne a man hath the seid meenys in consideracioun of his resoun, and in weiyng hem weel, hou and hou myche thei ben able to move into feith and credence, and not of such a maner of havyng, wherynne a man hath hem oonli in heering mynystrid to him, without the taking hem into deepe consideracioun of resoun. But Thomas hadde not, and toke not the evydence of Cristis resurrexioun, but in the ii inperfit seid maner, eer than Crist apperid to Thomas, and schewid his side to Thomas. And if Thomas hadde take in the bigynnyng the evydence into deep consideracioun of his resoun, to se and fele hou myche thilk evydence schulde move into feith, no doute but that Thomas, stonding in thilk receyte of evydence, muste nedis have bileeved. And so, sone, thin obieccioun is asoilid, and the worschip of my doctrine is saved. And ferthermore, thou maist se that a man may weerne, bi dedis of his wil, sufficient evydencis for feith, mynystrid to hise eeris, or to hise iȝen forto come so nyȝ into his resoun, that thei move myche the resoun. And in this maner it is to be undir|stonde, what that holi Austyn seid as in sentence thus: Thou maist be drawen to the fonte aȝens thi wil; thou maist be baptisid aȝens thi wil; thou maist speke these wordis, y bileeve, et cetera, aȝens thi wil. But bileeve maist thou never, but with thi wil. But not|withstonding all this, ȝitt if a man bi his wil suffre sufficient evydencis of feith forto entre sufficientli into resoun, and if he bi his wil suffre hem move the resoun as myche as thei ben able to move, certis, he schal not, ne may not, aȝenstonde but that he schal consente to hem in his resoun, and bileeve bi hem in his resoun, wil he, nyle he: and thus myche is ynouȝ for answere to thin obieccioun.

Fadir, what seie ȝe thanne to the wordis of Poul, Hebr. xie cr., where he seith thus: Feith is the substaunce of thingis to be hopid, and an argument of thingis not appering. Wherof y argue thus. If feith be of thingis not appering, it folowith that feith is not of thingis cleerli seen, and sureli knowun.

Sone, y seid bifore that ther ben ii maners of feith. Oon is opinial feith, and this is he which we and alle Cristen han, bi the comoun lawe of God, whilis we lyven in this lijf; as Poul therto accordith in an other place, i Cor. xiiie, seiyng thus: Now we seen in a myrrour in uncerteynte; thanne, forsothe, that is to seie in hevene, we schal se face to face. Another feith is sciencial feith, and thouȝ this feith may be had bi specialte in this lijf, ȝitt it is not comounli had in this lijf, but it is had in the blisse of hevene.

Sone, Poul in the place bi thee alleggid, Hebr. xie cr., spake of the first maner of feith, which is opinial; for so it was moost convenient him forto speke, in as myche as it, and not the other, is to us necessarie in this lijf, and he meened not of sciencial feith, and so thin obieccioun gooth not aȝens myn entent.

FADIR, y undirstonde wel what maner of kun|nyng, or of knowing, ȝe han clepid feith, and that bothe in the first party of The folewer to the Donet (or keye), the xiie chr., and also in this present book, in the first iie chapitris. Nevertheles it were good to wite what evydence, and hou grete evydence, ȝe have forto so clepe and holde. And whether feith muste nedis be suche a kynde of knowing as ȝe holden it to be, or no.

Certis, sone, that feith is such a knowing as y have tauȝt feith to be, in the first chapiter of this boke, and in the place bifore alleggid, in The folewer to the Donet, these mowe be the evydencis. Feith may not be seid to be other than sum kinde of kunnyng, or of knowing, as ech man wel feelith, but so it is that alle kindis of knowingis ben noumbrid, and sette forth in the divisioun or particioun of knowing, into hise parties of kindis, in the first parti of The folower to the Donet, the xe c.; wherfore feith muste nedis be oon of tho membris, or of tho kindis there sette and noum|brid, and noon of tho membris, parties, or kindis of kunnyng, kunnen be convenientli clepid feithis, save tho whiche there and here ben clepid feithis, as soone may to ech witt appere and be clere. Wherfore, myn holding and my teching of feith, what feith is, is trewe: and not oonli trewe, but it muste nedis be so, and in noon other contrariose or dyvers wise. Also thus, thilke kindis of kunnyng which y have assigned to be clepid feith, owen to be clepid undir summe names of kunnyng, propirli, and dyverseli, and severalli fro alle othere kindis of kunnyng; and certis ther ben noon names to hem so according or nameli, no more according than to be clepid opinial feith, and kunnyngal or sciencial feith; wherfore thilke kindis of knowing owen forto be so clepid. Also thus the seid kindis of knowing which y have clepid feith, mowe, accordingli and convenientli ynouȝ, be clepid feithis, as no man kan seie no cause whi not so thei mowe convenientli be clepid. And ferther|more, forto putte more convenientli, or so con|venientli, eny othere feithis than thei ben is no nede, neither forto eny othere feithis putte is eny grounde in resoun or in Scripture, and al that is not groundeable in resoun or in Scripture, is not as for this purpos evydent to be holde, as it may be open bi what is often seid bifore in this present book, and in the first party of The folower to the Donet. Wherfore, not oonli it is allowable and sufficient forto so putte and holde as y have putte and holde, but it is better and more convenient forto so putte and holde, than forto putte and holde in eny contrarie maner. Namelich for thei that holden the contrarie maner, ben dryven herto bi her resoun forto seie that feith is a knowing of a thing, not bi strengthe of evidence in the undirstonding forto so bileeve requirid, but bi assignement of the wil; so that the wil of a man schulde bidde him bileeve, and therfore knowe an article, and cleve therto more stideli, than he cleeveth to eny thing which he knowith bi grettist evydence and surest argument in his resoun, and aftir that the wil is strenger or febler in so assignyng or comaunding to cleve, so the feith and the knowing is the strenger or febler; which forto so seie and holde is abhominable; ȝhe, and forto holde it aȝens a good arguer it is impossible, as is touchid bifore in this book, and in the first parti of The folower to the Donet. Never|theles, sumwhat more schal be seide here thus. We seen that stidefastnes of clevyng is oft tyme as greet to a fals article as to a trewe, as we seen in obstinat heretikis, which cleven as stifli to her fals heretik articlis, as othere men cleven to her trewe articlis, whiche God tauȝt to be bileved. Wherfore folewith that stidefastnes of clevyng is neither kinde or spice of certeynte, or of know|ing, neither it is eny condicioun propre to feith, or making that a knowing be feith, sithen this stablenes of cleeving is as wel to falshede'Fashede' in MS. as to trouthe, and therfore it is not to the purpos of trewe feith forto speke of it. Also nedis cost this is trewe, that to thilk thing we more stidefastli cleven, fro which thing we bi gretter hardenes us departen; but so it is that bi gretter hardenes we departen us fro kunnyng of the thing of whiche we have science and kunnyng bi certeynte, than fro feith of the thing which we oonli bileeven in this lijf. Forwhi, fro such feith we seen men al day hem departe, and fro science or fro certeyn kunnyng of the thing which thei certeynli kunnen, thei mowen not hem departe. Wherfore, this is false that gretter stiddefastnes and stablenes of to cleevyng is in feith than in science. Also, that the wil schulde assigne what schulde be a trewe knowing, and which is not a trewe knowing, is fer bisidis the power and the wirching of the wil, as to ech good philsophir it is liȝt forto se, and is open bi The folewer to the Donet; wherfore the seid holding of the seid doctouris is not therynne to be folowid. Also, summe of hem fantasien that as liȝt of the sunne, hild abrode upon a colour and the iȝe, makith the iȝe to se the colour, and is the formal cause whi the colour is knowun, so God him silf, which is first trouthe, hildith him silf abrood as a liȝt upon the article to be bileeved, and upon the undirstonding and the wil of him which schulde bileeve, and therbi the undirstonding and the wil hath suerte of the trouthe bileeved, thouȝ not cleerte of the trouthe bileeved. O God of mercy,MS. O God mercy. wherfore schulde this fantasie serve better in his forging, if it schulde be trewe, thanne forto make that ech article bileeved bi feith schulde be more cleerli seen than eny bodili iȝe seeth cleerli eny colour, and more cleerli knowen of the undir|stonding for the excellence of the liȝt, even as the article is more stidefastli knowen for excellence of the same liȝt. Also, thei seien that bi feith a man more sadlier cleeveth to an article than he dooth to eny treuthe, wherof he hath surest demonstrative proof; and ȝitt he hath lasse evydence to so bileeve than to so kunne the othere open treuthe; and ȝitt also herwith, that the Godhede hilded out upon the article and the inward iȝe is the liȝt wherbi is the clevyng of the undirstonding to the article so stronge, and ȝitt therwith the knowing is so litil and so derk; which alle now seid thingis, if thei ben wel considerid, schewen hem silf not oonli to be childeli fantasies, and ungroundable fyndingis, but also including falsehedis and repugnauncis.MS. repūgnaūcis. And what is all this, save a witnessing that thei couthe not seie, neither teche verrili, what feith was or is; but thei gropiden afer after forto wite what feith is, and thei not it wisten. Manye othere con|clusiouns thei holden, that feith and cleer kunnyng of oon and the same article mowe not stonde togider in oon mannys undirstonding. Thei seien also that verri opinial feith may not be in the blisse of hevene; whiche seiyngis ben inproved as cleerli as it nedith eny seiyngis be inproved.

Fadir, sithen ȝe han tauȝt, in The book of Priesthode, in the beginnyng, what the chirche of God is, and also ȝe han tauȝt in the first parti of The folower to the Donet, or the key of Cristen religioun, and in this present book, what feith is, y wolde leerne what ordre is to be putte bitwixe feith and the chirche; that is to seie, whether the chirche is bifore feith, or that feith is bifore the chirche.

Sotheli, sone, forto answere to this questioun, philsophie wole serve ful wel, and that bi these ensaumplys. Stones and morter in hem silf, with|out more, ben not a walle, forwhi tho stones and morter myȝten be, whanne thei ben scaterid abrood, and thanne thei were no walle; neither the ioynyng, neither the schap of the stoones and of the morter togider is the wal. Forwhi, thilk ioynyng and oonyng and schap is not hard, neither neische, neither eny dede may do, wherto a wal is ordeynyd. Wherfore the wal is, or maad of bothe stones and morter as of his material cause, and of the ioynyng and comyng togidere of hem with her schap as of his formal cause; or ellis the wal is the stoones and the morter, whilis, whanne, and as thei ben ioyned togidere into a certeyn forme and schap. And in lijk maner, stones, morter, and tymbir ben notMS. no. in hem silf an hous, for thei myȝten be and schulden be, thouȝ thei weren scaterid abrood; neither the schap and the ioynyng togidere of hem in a certeyn maner is the house. Forwhi, thilk schap schulde ful yvel kepe out theeves, or eny other effect wirche, which forto wirche the house was ordeyned, if ne were therto stoones, mortir, and tymber. Wherfore the house is maad of stoones, morter, and tymber, as of his material cause, and of the coupling, and ioynyng, and schaping of hem togider in a certeyn maner, as of his formal cause; or ellis, certis, the house is the stoones, morter, and tymber, whilis, whane, hou and as thei ben in the seid certeyn maner togider ioyned. In lijk maner it is that the peple in hem silf, withoute more, is not the chirche of God. Forwhi, the same peple myȝten be, and schulden be, thouȝ thei were hethen, or Iewis, or in eny orrible maner heretikis, contrarie to the oonyng into God. Neither feith in it silf is the chirche of God. Forwhi, feith can neither do, ne suffre, ne wirche what forto do and suffre the chirche of God is ordeyned. Wherfore the chirche of God is maad, of the peple as of his materal cause, and of feith as of his formal cause; or, at the leest, the chirche is the seid peple, not as the seid peple is in hem silf, but as, and hou, and while, and whanne, and where, the peple is ioyned and coupled togider in oon feith tauȝt from God.The following inset is written on the lower margin of the MS.: 'Nevertheles in the maner of undirstondyng al this which is goven in the other boke of feith in latyn in the partye, the c.'

Now, sone, out of al this y argue ferther thus. Every cause is bifore the thing causid of him, and every thing making an other thing, is in ordre and processe, thouȝ not alwey in tyme, bifore the other thing maad. But so it is that feith is cause of the chirche, and makith the chirche to be so, namelich that without feith the chirche is not, in so myche that without feith the peple is no chirche, and the chirche may not make such feith, as is schewid aftir in the ve cr. in the iie party of this book. Wherfore the feith is in ordre and processe bifore the chirche, as a cause is bifore his effect. And thanne ferther thus. The chirche is not in being of a chirche but if he have feith, and he hath not feith, but for that he hath receyved thilk feith fro God in the maner bifore tauȝt, in the first chapiter; wherfore the chirche is not a chirche, but bi this, that he hath receyved, in the bifore tauȝt maner, feith fro God. Thanne ferther thus. The chirche is not the chirche, in lasse than he receyve his feith in the seid maner fro God, and the chirche knowith him silf to be the chirche, wherfore folowith that the chirche knowith him silf have receyved his feith in the seid maner fro God. And folowith ferther, that the chirche knowith not him silf to be a chirche, in lasse than he knowe him silf to have receyved his feith in the seid maner fro God. But so it is, that he knowith not him silf, ne ouȝt knowe himsilf forto teche autentikli feith to eny persoone, but in as myche as he is a chirche; wherfore he knowith not him silf, neither ouȝte knowe him silf forto teche autentikli, or bi autorite of maistrie to eny persoone, in lasse than he knowe him silf to have receyved the same feith fro God, in maner of arguyng bifore seid, bi oon of these meenes of which oon is this, Holi Scripture witnessith and denouncith this conclu|sioun, notwithstonding that it is above the natural power of resoun aloone forto fynde it and knowe it. An other is this:—a myracle is doon in to witnessing of it. Another is this:—holi chirche this hath bileeved for feith in tyme of the apostlis, and fro thens contynueli hiderto. That tho seid evydencis mowen prove likeli an article to have be receyved of God, or of the apostlis, y may argue thus, and upon the first evydence y make this argument. What ever article, or conclusioun, being above the fynding of oure resoun, without therof a teller, and a witnesser or denouncer, God tellith and denounceth, is to be take as feith; but so it is that what ever such now seid article or conclusioun Holi Scripture tellith and denouncith, God tellith and denounceth; wherfore ech such now seid article, or conclusioun, or trouthe, is now to be take for verri feith. Upon the iie evydence, y foorme this argument. What ever such now bifore seid article or conclusioun is witnessid bi God, is to be take for feith. But so it is that what ever such now seid article or conclusioun is witnessid bi myracle, moche semyng to be Goddis miracle, and aȝens which no man kan notabili repugne that it is not myracle doon bi God, is to be take as for witnessid bi God, for perel of the contrarie taking. Wherfore ech now seid article or conclusioun, witnessid and affermed to us bi such now seid myracle, is to be take for good verri feith. Upon the iiie evydence may be maad this argu|ment. What ever such now seid article was tauȝt of Crist, or of the apostlis for feith, is now to be taken as feith, but every article which the chirche in tyme of the apostlis helde for feith, was tauȝt of Crist, or of the apostlis for feith; wherfore the seid article is now to be taken for feith. Lo, sone, this argument is a good sillogisme, and the first premysse nedis is to be grauntid, and the iie premysse is moche probable, and likli, for his notabili greet evydence, and no man kan gretter evydence bringe into the con|trarie. Wherfore, unto tyme that the contrarie of this iie premysse can openli be inprovid, or ellis unto tyme to the contrarie be gete more likeli evydence, than is the seid iie premysse in him silf, the conclusioun of this argument is nedis to be holde for trewe, that the seid article is feith.

FADIR, ȝe han seid bifore in this present book, that oure natural resoun'Reson' in MS. with his sillogising hath so greet interesse in mater of feith, that without dome of oure natural resoun, and without a sillogisme, wel reulid and necessarili concluding, and provyng this or that to be trowid as feith, we mowe not have of this, or of that witnessid bi God, or bi a sureli trewe creature, eny feith. Also, in the first party of the Represser, and in the first parti of Iust apprising Holi Scripture, ȝe han seid that resoun, which is a sillogisme wel reulid aftir the craft tauȝt in logik, and havyng ii premyssis, openli trewe and to be grauntid, is so stronge and so myȝti in al kindis of maters, that thouȝ al the aungels of hevene wolden seie that his conclusioun were not trewe, ȝitt we schulde leeve the aungels seiyng, and we schulden truste more to the proof of thilk sillogisme, than to the contrarie seiyng of alle the aungels in hevene, for that alle Goddis creaturis musten nedis obeie to doom of resoun, and such a sillogisme is not ellis than doom of resoun.

Sone, al this y seid, and al this ech wel avisid man muste nedis seie. Forwhi, ellis creaturis of God myȝten verrifie contradiccioun, and thilke power is not grauntid creaturis to have, for thilk power is not to be grauntid God to have.

Fadir, thanne thus:—if alle aungels in hevene musten nedis obeie to such a sillogisme, and we schulen rather trowe to suche a sillogisme, than to alle the aungels in hevene, if bi case that alle the aungels in hevene schulden seie aȝens it, what such a sillogisme concludith, and proveth, and Goddis chirche in hevene is more stable and lasse bigilable than is Goddis chirche in erthe, it semeth folowe herof that bi like skile, or ellis moche rather and bi strenger skile, if the chirche in erthe determine aȝens it, what such a sillogisme concludith, we schulen rather trowe and holde us to thilk sillogisme, than to the determynacioun of the chirche in erthe. Forwhi, what ever is strenger than the strenger, is strenger than the febler to thilke lasse stronge. Riȝt as what ever sufficith to overcome the overcomer, sufficith to overcome the overcomen of the same overcomer.

Sone, y graunte al that thou hast concludid and dryven forth, and so muste nedis every wel avisid man graunte in his undirstonding, withynne forth, wil he, nyle he. Forwhi, the proof therto is so stronge. Nevertheles, sone, of this that y now have grauntid to thee, folowith not that the chirche in erthe errith, or may erre in mater of feith, no more than folowith of my graunt, that the chirche now in hevene errith or may erre in feith.

Fadir, y have herde sum menMS. sūmen. bere upon Poul, that he meeneth the determynacioun of the chirche in erthe to be preferrid, and to be more bileved than the determynacioun, or the according consent of the chirche in hevene, in case if these ii chirchis schulden dyverse and varie bitwixe hem silf. Forwhi Poul seith, Galat. ie cr., thus: But thouȝ we or aungel of hevene preche to ȝou, bisidis that that we han prechid to ȝou, be he acursid. As y have seid bifore, and now eftsoone y seie, if eny preche to you bisidis that that ȝe han undirfongen, be he acursid. Lo, fadir, it wole seme bi these wordis of Poul, that he preferrith what the chirche in tho daies tauȝt for feith, bifore that that the chirche of aungels schulden teche, in case that the chirche of aungels were contrarie to the chirche in erthe, in the same teching. Forsothe, fadir, this can not be weel born in the laife; but redili, whanne this is affermed bi summe clerkis, it doith harme, and nedis muste bi liklihode do riȝt moche harme, if it schulde be oft and openli avowid. Therfore, fadir, forto avoide the comyng of suche harmes to the clergie, and to the chirche of God, y preie ȝou seie ȝoure avise.

Sone, it ouȝte not be taken bi the seid wordis of Poul, that he preferrid the holding or the determinacioun of the chirche in erthe, bifore the holding or the determynacioun of the chirche in hevene. Forwhi, the chirche in hevene is not oon aungel, but it is manye thousind of thousind aungels, and Poul in the seid wordis spekith not of manye aungels togider, but singulerli of oon aungel. Wherfore it folowith that Poul makith no menciun here of the hole chirche being in heven; and if Poul makith here no mensioun of the chirche in hevene, it folowith that he preferrith no thing here to the chirche in hevene. Also, in the seid first chapiter to Galathies, Poul spekith of his owne persoone, and of the gospel which he in his owne singuler persoone receyved, bi revelacioun of Iesus Crist, and not bi man, and therfore not receyved bi the chirche in erthe, as is open in the same chapiter. But so it is, that Poul, in his owne persoone, was not the chirche in erthe, for the chirche in tho daies hadde alle the apostlis, and manye othere worthi clerkis, and holy men convertid into the feith; wherfore, of thilk first chapiter to Galathies may not be taken that Poul makith mensioun of the chirche in erthe, and therfore it may not be taken, that there Poul preferrith the chirche in erthe to the chirche in hevene. That Poul spekith of his owne singuler persoone, and not of the hool chirche in erthe, lo hou he seith thus: Britheren, y make knowe to ȝou the evangelie which was prechid of me, for it is not bi man, ne y took it of man, ne leernyd, but bi revelacioun of Iesus Crist. Lo, sone, sithen the gospel which Poul receyved, not of man, but bi revelacioun of Iesus Crist, and therfore which he receyved not of the chirche in erthe, neither of the chirche in hevene, he preferrith above what eny oon aungel, and what eny oon man in erthe schulde preche in to the contrarie, hou may it be take herof that Poul preferrith in credence the chirche in erthe, bifore the chirche in hevene? Certis, if eny wole holde nedis that Poul meeneth, or makith mensioun here, of the chirche in erthe, and of the chirche in hevene, it wole folowe thanne of Poulis wordis, that the gospel which Poul receyved not of man, but bi revelacioun of Iesus Crist, and therfore not of the chirche in erthe, neither of the chirche in hevene, he preferrith bifore bothe the chirche in erthe, and the chirche in hevene, if so it myȝte be that the chirche in erthe, or the chirche in hevene wolde teche contrarie to the seid gospel, which Poul receyved bi revela|cioun of Iesus Crist. And so if Poulis processe in the seid firste chapiter to GalathiesMS. gathies. be wel considerid, it dooth no thing for preferring in credence of the chirche in erthe above the chirche in hevene; but it dooth rather that Poul preferrith the seid sillogisme, had in certeynte, above the determynacioun of bothe seid chirchis. Forwhi, in that that Poul hadde the gospel revelyd to him bi Crist, Poul hadde this sillogisme in his resoun:— what ever God affeermeth to be trewe is nedis trewe, and so trewe, that it is to be preferrid in credence above what the chirche in erthe, and the chirche in hevene may determyne into the contrarie. But so it is that this gospel, which y preche, God affermed to me in revelacioun; wherfore it is trewe, and so trewe that it is to be preferrid bifore al the determynacioun of the chirche in hevene, and bifore al the deter|mynacioun of the chirche in erthe, if eny such determynacioun schulde be into the contrarie. The first premisse of this sillogisme is openli trewe to ech man, and of the iie premysse, Poul hadde sure experience, and ful certeynte. And therfore, as it is bifore tauȝt, in the secunde chapiter of this book, he must nedis, bi strengthe of the sillogisme, have so greet certeinte upon the conclusioun of the sillogisme, that alle the creaturis in erthe and in hevene schulden not mowe move him out of thilk certeinte, which he had upon the same conclusioun; and more or other than this now seid, may not be had of Poulis wordis there. And certis, herbi it is wel confeermed what is seid bifore in the secunde chapiter.

NEVERTHELES, y dare wel this seie, and avowe, and this reverence y ȝeve to the chirche in erthe, that whanne ever the chirche of God in erthe holdith eny article as feith, or hath determyned thilk article to be feith, every singuler persoone of the same chirche, hou wise ever he be, and hou digne and worthi ever he be, is bounden, undir peyne of dampnacioun, for to bileeve thilk same article as feith, and so therynne forto obeie to the chirche; ȝhe, thouȝ the chirche therynne bileeved or determyned falseli or amys, but if he can, evy|dentli and openli without eny doute, schewe, teche, and declare that the chirche bileeveth, or hath determyned thilk article wrongli and untreuli, or ellis that the chirche hath no sufficient ground for to so bileeve or determyne. ȝhe, and thouȝ the chirche schulde bileve or determyne amys, ȝitt therof schulde not this persoone be blamed of God, but schulde be ful excusid, ȝhe, he schulde be rewardid and medid in hevene. That this is trewe, y prove thus. If the apostlis were now lyvyng, and weren heedis of the cleergi, as thei weren in the biginnyng of Cristen chirche, the lay peple were bounden, undir perel and peyne of dampnacioun, forto obeie to the teching and to the determynyng of the apostlis upon feith; but so it is that, bi cause the apostlis myȝten not bi kinde alwey in this world lyve, forto teche feith and meyntene the doctrine of feith, and ȝitt con|tynuaunce of teching the feith, and bidding that feith be leernyd, had, and kept, may not be lackid and unhadde, in eny tyme of the world, therfore successouris weren ordeyned to the apostlis; that is to seie, bischopis and preestis weren ordeynyd forto succede to the apostlis, and forto occupie the stide of the apostlis, in teching feith, and in meyntenyng the teching of feith. Wherfore folowith that, as the lay peple now lyvyng weren bounde forto in mater of feith obeie to the apostlis, if the apostlis now lyveden, so the lay peple, now lyvyng, ben bounde forto obeie in mater of feith to the bischopis and preestis, now to the apostlis, and aftir the apostlis succeding, and the placis of the apostlis occupiyng, in lasse than the people now lyvyng kouthen obiect aȝens the bischopis and preestis now lyvyng, sureli and without eny dout, that thei erren in bileeve, and techen and bidden amys about bileeve. This argument takith his strenthe herof, that in waast schulden eny per|soones be ordeynyd successouris to othere former persoones, as in waast schulde a king now lyvyng succede to his fadir, in making the lawe of the lond be kept, but if the peple now lyvyng were bounde forto obeie to him in hise comaundis aboute the lawe keping, as thei were bounde forto obeie to his fadir in his comaundis aboute the lawe keping, thouȝ the fadir of this king were moche holier man than this is; in lasse than the now bifore excepcioun kouthe be maad undoutabili. And in waast schulde oon abbot succede to an other abbot in a monasterie of monkis, but if the monkis ouȝten obeie to the successoure aboute the rewle keping, thouȝ the predecessoure were an holier man than is his successoure, in lasse than the monkis couthen allegge for hem, sureli and undoutabili, that the successoure errid in his teching and bidding maad to hem. In lijk maner it is bitwix the citeseyns of Londoun and the meirs of Londoun.

This same now bifore maad argument may be maad in cleerer foorme thus. Whanne ever eny successouris ben ordeynyd, leefulli and expedientli, forto in eny cause or mater succede to certeyn predecessouris, tho persoonys upon whiche these predecessourisMS. predessouris. and successouris ben so ordeyned, ben bounde forto, in thilk cause and mater, obeie to the successouris, as thei weren bounde forto obeie to the predecessouris, in lasse than the personys, whiche ben requirid forto obeie, kunnen make and allegge for hem, and prove undoutabili for hem, the bifore seid excepcioun. Forwhi, ellis in waast and in veyn tho successouris schulden be ordeynyd, forto succede to the seid predecessourisMS. predessouris. upon the seid peple. But so it is, that the apostlis weren predecessoris to the bischopis, and preestis now lyvyng, upon the lay peple in cause and mater of feith teching, and of comaunding feith to be leernyd, kunne, and kept, as no man wole denye, for Crist it seide, Acts ie cr., that the apostlis schulden be witnessers to him in al the lond of Iewri, and in al the lond of Samarie, and unto the ferthest coostis of the erthe; and also ground therto is hadde open, Mt. the last chapiter, in the eend, and Mr., the last chapiter in the eend. And herwith it is trewe, that bischopis and preestis weren ordeynyd forto be successouris to the apostlis, bi doom of resoun, and bi the wil of God, in the causis and maters in which the apostlis weren predecessouris, as it is proved openli in The book of the Preest hood, the cr., and in the iiie parti of the book clepid the Represser. Wher|fore nedis folewith, that the peple now lyvyng undir bischopis and preestis, in the cause and mater now seid, ben bounde bi doom of resoun, and therfore bi the lawe of God, and bi also the wil of God, forto obeie to the bischopis and preestis now lyvyng, in the seid maner succeding, in the cause and mater now seid, in lasse thanne thei kunne make the bifore spokun excepcioun. Also into this same purpos y argue thus. God made not the chirche of aungels in hevene without a disposicioun,MS. disposioun, here and in following instances of the word. and a reule, and an ordre, hadde bitwixe hem, and not without this, that the netherer and louȝer aungels, in thilk disposicioun and ordre, schulden take her leernyng and infor|macioun of the othere aungels overer to hem in thilk disposicioun, as Seynt Denyce, the disciple of Seynt Poul, and ful greet clerk, openli techith in his book of the Hevenli Ierarchie, and also in his book of the Chirchis Ierarchie in erthe, the last chapiter. Wherfore myche rather, forwhi for myche more nede, God made not his chirche in erthe forto contynue withoute a disposicioun, and an ordre to be hadde bitwixe parties and persoones of the same, so that the lower per|soones, in thilk disposicioun and ordre, ouȝten receyve her leernyng and her informacioun of the overer persoonys to hem, and ouȝten obeie therynne to thilk overer persoonys to hem. Also thus; sithen Poul seith, Hebr. viie c., thus, Whanne preesthode is translatid, it is nede that the lawe be translatid, et cetera, no man may seie nay, but that Poul meened preesthode to be in the new law, bi the wil and purpos of God, and that the preesthode of the newe lawe succedith to the preesthode of the oolde lawe, as the newe lawe succedith to the oold lawe, and ellis these translaciouns, of which Poul spekith, were not doon. Also, thou mayste not seie nay, but that prestis in the oold lawe weren able forto faile and erre thanne in the teching and determynyng feith and pointis of the lawe, if preestis of the newe lawe ben able forto faile and erre now in teching and determynyng feith, and pointis of the lawe now being. And if this be trewe of these two trans|laciouns and successiouns, no man may seie nay, but that the lay peple of the newe lawe ouȝte receyve her leernyng of feith, and the expownyng and the declaring of the feith, fro the preestis of the newe lawe, and forto obeie to the preestis therynne, if the lay peple of the oolde lawe ouȝtiden receyve her leernyng of feith, and the expownyng, and the declaring therof fro preestis of the oolde lawe. Forwhi, forto teche the lay peple the feith, and al the lawe of God for the tyme being, wasSo in MS. the preestis in evereither tyme of tho lawis ordeynyd bi God. As for the preestis of the oold lawe, it schal anoon aftir be schewid, and as for the preestis of the newe lawe, it is open, Mathew the laste chapiter, and Mark the last chapiter, in the eendis of hem, and in the epistlis to Thimothe, and to Tite, in dyvers chapiters.

And thanne ferther with this thus. But so it is that the lay peple, in tyme of the oolde lawe, weren bounde, undir perel of greet synne, for to receyve her feith, and al the leernyng of Goddis lawe than being, in ech doute or hard poynt of the same feith and lawe, of and fro the preestis of the oolde lawe, and forto therynne obeie to the preestis, as anoon schal be schewid. Wherfore folewith, that eke the lay peple of the newe lawe is bounde, undir perel of greet synne, forto receyve her feith and al the leernyng of Goddis lawe, now beyng, in ech doutable and strivable poynt therof, fro and of the preestis of the newe lawe, and forto obeie to hem therynne, in lasse thanne the case of the seid excepcioun kan be executid, which excepcioun was also bi doom of sufficient resoun undirstonde bitwixe the lay peple, and the preestis in tyme of the oolde lawe. That in tyme of the oolde lawe, the lay people was bounden forto obeie to the preestis, in the maner now bifore seid, may be proved bi a faire processe writen, Deut. 17 cr., which is this: If thou perceyvyst that hard and doutable doom is as bitwixe blood and blood, cause and cause, lepre and not lepre, and thou seest that the wordis of IewisCorrected on the margin to 'iugis.' withynne thi ȝatis ben dyverse, rise thou and stie to the place which thi Lord God hath chose. And thou schalt come to the preestis of the kyn of Levy, and to the iuge which is in that tyme, and thou schalt aske of hem; which schulen schewe to thee the treuthe of doom. And thou schalt do what ever thing thei seien, that ben sovereyns in the place which the Lord chese, and techen thee bi the lawe of the Lord. Thou schalt sue the sentence of hem; thou shalt not bowe to the riȝt side, either to the lift side. Forsothe thilk man schal deie, which is proud and nyl obeie to the comaundementis of the preest that mynystrith in that tyme to thi Lord God, and to the sentence of the iuge; and thou schalt do awey yvel fro the myddis of Israel. And alle the peple schal here and drede; that no man fro thennes forth bolne with pride. Thus moche there. This same conclusioun now bifore proved, Denyce witnessith in his owne foorme, as in party and into thilk entent he made his book of the Chirchis Ierarchie in erthe. Confirmacioun ful strong and unbrekeable to this present argumentis, and into this same conclusioun, is the teching of Poul, Ro. 13e chap., fro the bigynnyng forth bi a notable processe, in which processe he seith that ech soule ouȝte obeie and be sugget to the potestatis sette over him, and that ther is noon such ordeynyng but of God; and therfore, who ever aȝenstondith and not obeieth to such potestatis, he aȝenstondith and unobeieth to God. Lo, hou substanciali Poul spekith into this present purpos. Certis, thouȝ the wordis of Poul, in the place now alleggid, were not sufficient forto confeerme the bifore maad argumentis, and this present principal purpos, ȝitt the bifore going argumentis in hem silf proven sufficientli the purpos.

And thanne, aftir alle these thus bifore going argumentis, y argue ferther thus. Sithen who ever bi ful avisement aȝenstondith God, and his ordynaunce, puttith him into dampnable synne, and perel of dampnacioun, it folowith that who ever avisidli aȝenstondith, and unobeieth the prelatis of the chirche, in cause and mater of feith teching, and leernyng, and fulfilling, without the seid excepcioun, he therynne synnyth deedli and dampnabili. Wolde God that lay peple hadden in her modir tunge the epistlis of Seynt Ignace, the blissid and holi martir, and disciple of Seint Johnne evangelist, and whom Denyce hath in comendacioun bi writing in his book of Goddis Namyngis. For certis, red y never in no mannys writingis, so tendirli charchid, the obeischaunce to bischopis and to preestis as is there in his writing ofte chargid. How holi a man he was, and hou greet a doer in the chirche, in tho daies, and bischop, ȝhe, patriarke of the greet Antioche, may be rad in a storie ioyned to hise epistlis, which storie was writen in tho same daies bi a persoone which knewe sureli, as he there knowlechith, al the persecucioun of Ignacis martirdom. Ech man and womanMS. wōmā. therfore be ware, and bise himsilf hou he stondith in the point of this present purpos. For feithfulli forto seie, manye which holden hem silf ful cleene from dampnable synne, and ful perfit lovers and kepers of Goddis lawe, ben, in as myche as y can deme, in the now tretid and spokun dampnable synne, so that, for al her glorie of her conscience, thei stonden in case of the gospel, that a litil sowrdouȝ in her soule corruptith al the lumpe of her conversacioun and servyce to God. And therfore, to alle hem in vertu of Fadir and Sone and Holi Goost, y seie the wordis of the apostle writen, i. Cor. ve cr., thus: Witen ȝe not that a litil sowredouȝ corruptith al the gobet. Clense ȝe out therfore the oolde sowrdouȝ, that ȝe be newe springing togidere. And forto seie ferther, manye persoonys han suffrid deeth bi greet devocioun and zele to God, and his lawe in her maner, but ȝitt in the now seid unobedience aȝens the prelatis of the chirche, the more sorewe and deel is, whom y couthe not excuse, and defende fro wey of dampnacioun, thouȝ y schulde deie, but if y couthe excuse hem therfro, and that for the skilis now bifore maad. Thouȝ ful manye undiscreet and unwise persoones, for unconsideracioun of the now maad skilis, holden tho sufferers of deeth to be holi martiris. Alas upon this, and alle othere such blindenes. Can eny man trowe otherwise than that Arri, and Sabelli, and Novat, and Donat, and Pellagi, and alle the othere oolde heretikis, hadden greet zeel and devocioun to God and his lawe in her maner, in that that thei helden her heresies. Certis nay, forwhi it myȝt not ellis be trowid that so greet leernyd men, and so holi men in othere gover|nauncis, as the abbot Pelagi, and the abbot Eutices, and the bischop and patriarke Nestorie, helden her opiniouns of heresie bi witing that tho opiniouns were aȝens the felyng of the general chirche, without this that thei couthen prove undoutabili her parti aȝens the general chirche, and that undir peyne of deeth, and that thei in so witing wolden abide and suffre her condempnacioun of general counseils, but if thei hadden such seid greet zele and devocioun. And therfore no doute is but that thei, with greet zele and devocioun, helden her opiniouns with strong unobedience to her prelatis, whanne thei couthen not allegge for hem the bifore spokun excepcioun aȝens her prelatis.

And ȝitt y wote weel that thou man,As Pecock kindles to his argument, he inclines to forget the dialogue with its didactic tone, and substitutes an argu|mentative monologue. which holdist the now late brenned men in Ynglond to be martiris, wolte seie that the othere now named oold heretikis weren in dampnable synne, notwith|stonding al her holines in other sidis, and her devocioun, which thei hadden in holding and mayntenyng of her synguler opiniouns, aȝens the teching of the chirche. Wherfore, bi and for strengthe of even lijk skile, thou ouȝtist nedis cost holde al tho, whiche thou hast herd be brend in Ynglond, in unobedience aȝens her prelatis, to passe and deie in dampnable synne, as bi the comoun lawe of God, notwithstonding al her holi lyvyng in other sides, and notwithstonding al her devocioun had to her opiniouns, and forto suffre deeth for hem; ȝhe, more forto seie, thouȝ it hadde be so that her seid opiniouns hadden be trewe. For verrili and in trouthe, to seie wherof y am sure, noon of hem couthe prove undoutabili the bifore seid excepcioun for his defense aȝens his prelatis, for noon of hem couthe prove that his opinioun, for whiche he aȝenstode his prelatis, was trewe, as y wote wel undir greet perel of my soul forto so seie. Certis, but if it schulde be trewe that alle suche unobeiers to the prelatis, and ierarchis of the chirche, schulden synne dampnabli, ellis in waast eny ierarchiingSo in MS. schulde be ordeynyd, or be purveied bi God to be in his chirche. Forwhi, ech yvel disposid man, hou ever yvel he were disposid forto holde opiniouns, or forto use governauncis, myȝt rebelle aȝens the ierarchis in the chirche, and disturble the ierarchiing of the chirche; that is to seie, the ordre holding in the chirche bitwixe persoonys in overte and netherte, and ȝitt therynne be holde gilteles, for pretencioun and for stryvyng that he holdith the treuthe and kepith vertuose governaunce, thouȝ he couthe not prove and schewe it to his prelatis. And what were this but an abhominable filthehede in the chirche, and a wey forto make ech man to be obstinat to his prelatis, in what ever cause him schulde like, and forto be excusable fro punysching and redressing; ȝhe, and forto make it fals, which holi and wys and passing clerk Denyce, the disciple of Poul, and wel acqueyntid with Seynt Ion the evangelist, seith in his book of the Chirchis Ierarchie, that in hevene bitwixe aungels is manye foold ordre of overte and netherte, and obedience of the netherers to the overers, and so Crist wold that his chirche schulde be so ierarchied in erthe, bothe forto be like to the chirche of hevene above, and also for nede of good reule, which ellis myȝte not be in the chirche in erthe, and that Crist bigunne this ierarchiyng, in making the apostlis, and wolde that thei schulden make it ferther, bi good resoun and discrecioun. And therfore, as y seid bifore, allas and out upon so greet blindnes in hem, which pretenden hem to be of more kunnyng than other in Goddis lawe, and clepen hem silf therfore knowing men. Verili to seie, this pride and presumpcioun stynkith bifore God; ȝhe, and peraventure more than the synnys of othere men, whiche thei in her hertis bittirli condempnen. And if y schulde seie my feling, peraventure the unobedience of Adam and Eve was not so myche gilti, neither the pride of Lucifer; but whether this be trewe or no, y remitte it to God; but herof y muste holde me sikir, that if Lucifer and Adam were in dampnable synne for her pride, and presumpsioun, and unobedience, forsothe as forto iuge bi the comoun lawe of God, ȝoven to alle Cristen men, alle the now bifore spokun aȝenstonders to prelatis of the chirche ben, for thilke aȝenstonding, in damp|nable synne, and ellis the seid comoun lawe of God were not trewe.

PERAVENTURE sum man of this now spokun soort of peple wole seie thus: Al this is trewe, what is now concludid in the next bifore goyng chapiter, if the chirche errid not in mater of the feith in which y contrarieThe MS. has 'not' faintly marked for excision. the chirche. And therfore y wole al redi obeie, consent, and bileeve, as the al hool clergie of the chirche bileveth, thouȝ thilk al hool clergie myȝt faile in the same mater, in which we accorden and consenten to hem; so nevertheles that thei therynne in dede now not failen, and ellis y wole not consent and accorde with hem in bileeve of thilk mater. Thanne to ech of hem which so wolen seie, y speke now, and resoun thus. If the chirche erride not in tho maters of feith, in which thou variest fro the chirche, which maters ever thei be, thou were bounde, undir peyne of dampnacioun, forto therynne obeie the chirche, as thou thi silf nowe grauntist. And so it is that if thou knowe not that the chirche errith in tho maters, thou maist not seie and holde that the chirche errith in tho maters, wherfore folewith nedis, that if thou knowe not that the chirche errith in tho maters, thou art bound, undir peyne of dampnacioun, forto therynne obeie the chirche, and confeerme thee to the chirche. The first premysse of this argu|ment thou thi silf hast now grauntid, and it is al redi bifore proved. And that the secunde premysse of this argument is trewe, y prove thus. If thou kan not prove, cleerli and un|doutabili, by eny of the weyis expressid in the ii partye of this boke, that the chirche errith in the seid maters, thou knowist not that the chirche errith in tho maters; but so it is that thou, what lay man ever thou be of the seid soort, canst not prove that the chirche errith in the seid maters, thanne folewith nedis that thou knowist not that the chirche errith in the seid maters, and so the secunde premysse which was to be proved, is now proved. If thou seie that thou canst prove, cleerli and undoutabili, that the chirche errith in the seid maters, y ask of thee, to whom canst thou it prove; whether to thi silf oonli, or to othere men. If thou seie, to thi silf al oon, thanne makist thou thi silf iuge in thin owne cause, and forto so do it is over myche perilose in maters of lasse charge than these ben. And y trowe that thou woldist not counseil eny man forto trust his owne witt al oon, in eny other mater lasse than this mater is; wherfore thou maist not, without greet indiscrecioun, holde that thou canst make this now seid proof, for that thou trowist thee to kunne make it to thi silf al oon.

Also, aȝens thi seiyng, y aske whether thou art wittier and kunnynger in these maters than eny other man is, or ellis, whether summe othere men ben therinne as witti and as kunnyng as thou art, or wittier and kunnynger than thou art. If thou be wittier and kunnynger than eny othere men ben in tho maters, and thus witty and kunnyng in tho maters thou art not, neither maist be, but for gretter and strenger evydencis which thou hast in tho maters than eny othere men han, folewith that it schal be in thi power, bi strengthe of tho evydencis, forto teche, cleerli and undoutabili, thi parti to summe othere men, as bi tho evydencis thou tauȝtist so undoutabili thi silf, and brouȝtist thi silf fro the parti of the chirche, into the parti which thou now holdist aȝens the chirche. Also folewith that the evydencis, bi whiche thou art moved and holdist thi parti in tho maters, ben strenger and gretter than ben the evydencis whiche eny othere men, or the chirche, hath forto holde his parti in thilke same maters. And if this be trewe, bringe thou forth thilke evydencis bi mouthe speking, if thou dare appere, or ellis bi writing if thou dare not appere in speking; and thanne muste nedis come therof, bi like skile, as tho evydences for her so greet strengthe nediden thee, and maden thee forto consente to thi parti in the seid maters, whether thou woldist or no, theiNot in MS. schulen and musten nedis and make the seid othere men, and the chirche forto consente to the same party, and forto forsake the contrarie parti, whiche thei now holden, in the same seid maters. Forwhi, thin intellect, or resonable power of the soule, is of the same nature and kinde of which othere mennes in|tellect or resonable power is. And thilk power whether it be in thee, or in eny other man, is of such nature and kinde, that he is not fre forto consent or discent, stonding the evydencis movyng him; but he muste nedis consent to thilk parti, into which the strenger evydencis moven him, as is bifore tauȝt in the secunde chapiter of this book, and moche clerer in the first parti of The folower to the Donet. And so, if thou hast suche evydencis, wherbi thou canst prove to thi silf undoutabili that thi parti, which thou holdist in the seid maters, is trewe, thanne in bringing forth into open tho evydencis, thei schulen so move othere men, as thei moven thee; wherfore folewith aȝenward, that if tho evydencis mowe not so moche move othere men, neither the chirche, thou hast not at thi silf such evydencis, bi which thou canst prove at thi silf, and to thi silf, undoutabili and cleerli, thi parti to be trewe which thou holdist contrarie to the chirche, and that the chirche errith in tho maters. If thou knowleche that thou passist not alle othere men in the kunnyng of these maters, but othere men ben therynne as witti and as kunnyng as thou art, or kunnynger, whi schalt thou thanne truste to thin owne witt in tho maters, more than to her witt in the same maters? Thou maist not it clayme. For|whi, whanne ii spectaclis ben like cleer, what thing may be wel seen bi the oon, may be like weel seen bi and thorouȝ the othere. Also, whether thou passe alle othere men, or summe othere men passen thee, thin evydencis if thei be of such strengthe in thee as thou pretendist, thei musten be of such strengthe in othere men as thei ben in thee, whether tho men ben wittier and kunnynger than thou art, or like witti and kunnyng with thee, or lasse witti and lasse kunnyng than thou art, and that for the skile, and proof, and argument, which is now here bifore goyng.

Thus moche is argued aȝens thee, if thou seie that thou canst prove cleerli and undout|abili, to thi silf oonli and al oon, thi parti aȝens the chirche. If thou seie that thou canst prove cleerli and undoutabliMS. error, 'unabedientli'; 'undoutabli' from the margin. thi parti to othere men, certis thanne if tho men ben not wiser and wittier than thou art, and canst not so prove to men wiser and wittier than thou art, thi pretendid proof is litil to be trustid to, or nouȝt. But forto seie larger thus: whether tho men ben wiser than thou art, or like wise, or lasse wise, sithen thou canst not so prove without evydencis whiche musten nedis move men into consent and graunt, folowith that with tho evydencis thou schalt so nede alle the seid othere men, that, wil thei, nyle thei, if thei heere and attende to thin evydencis bi sufficient evydences'bi sufficient evydences'; marked for excision, but not finally corrected. bi sufficient leiser, and bi settyng awey of lettingis to perceyve hem, thei schulen consent and graunt thi parti. And aȝenward, if tho evydencis schulen not so moche move and nede othere men thus avisidli attending, folewith that bi tho evydencis thou canst not prove cleerli and undoutabili thi parti and opinioun to the same othere men. And thanne ferther, if this be trewe that thou hast such so stronge and cleer evydencis as thou pretendist and knowlechist thee to have, and bringist hem not forth into open, bi word or bi writing, and therfore overcomest not othere men, and the chirche therbi forto consent and graunte thi party, and forto forsake her errour, thou art in dampnable sinne and schalt be dampned. Forwhi, Holi Scripture seieth: He that seeth his brother suffre, and closith hise entrelis from him, hou is there charite of God in him; whiche wordis if thei meenenMS. meenyng. lak of charite to be in such a case anentis a brother suffring bodili nede, moche rather thei meenen lak of charite to be anentis a brother in goostli nede. And so it is proved, bi this processe now here bifore rennyng, that if thou canst not prove cleerli and undoutabili the chirche erre aȝens thi parti, thou art in dampnacioun forto holde aȝens the chirche; and aȝenward, if thou canst prove it cleerli and undoutabili, thou art in dampnacioun, for that thou conquerist not othere men and the chirche. Sithen it is proved that thou maist so do, if it be trewe that thou canst prove cleerli and undoutabili what thou pretendist and knowlechist thee kunne so prove.

Now if y schal sette to al this what y have in experience, I seie thus. I have spoke oft tyme, and bi long leiser, with the wittiest and kunnyngist men of thilk seid soort, contrarie to the chirche, and which han be holde as dukis amonge hem, and which han loved me for that y wolde pacientli heere her evydencis, and her motyves, without exprobracioun. And verrili noon of hem couthe make eny motyve for her parti so stronge as y my silf couthe have made therto. And noon of hem couthe make eny motive which schulde meve a thrifti clerk nedis into concent, but ech thrifti sad clerk in logik, philsophie, and divinite, schulde soone schewe her motive to be over feble to be a cleer and undoutable proof. And if y may not herynne be bileeved of hem, write thei her evydencis and motyves in which thei trusten, and thei schulen se bi writyng aȝen, that thei kunne riȝt litil maistrie do for her party, ȝhe, moche lasse than good clerkis kunnen for her party do. Ceese thei therfore, and leve thei werk, for y wote weel thei hewen above her heedis, and weenen that thei han more and clerer siȝt in kunnyng, thanne thei han, or mowe have, without clergie or greet helpe of clerkis.

If thou seie here for thee and thi felawschip thus: We musten nedis be excusid that we turnen not ȝou clerkis and the chirche, riȝt as ȝe holden excused that ȝe turnen not hethen men, ȝhe, and that ȝe not turnen us. Nay sir, not so, and good cause y schal seie whi. We mowe not turne hethen men, neither ȝou for this, that thouȝ we wolden write cleerli oure evydencis and profis to hem and to ȝou, neither thei, neither ȝe wolden rede hem, or attende sufficientli forto examine hem, and weie hem, as thei ouȝten be weel weied and attendid, if thei schulden sufficientli move. But thei and ȝe wolden refreyne hem silf and ȝou silf fro al such studie aboute tho evydencis, as it is openli knowe, thouȝ ȝe peraventure wolden a superficial and an over rennyng reding ȝeve therto, which may not in such a case suffice. Forsothe, in contrarie maner, it is with clerkis and with the chirche, that what ever evydencis or motyves hethen men, or ȝe, or eny heretikis han write, or schulen write aȝens clerkis and the chirche, thei wolen take tho motyves into as greet diligence of studie and of examynacioun and of weiyng, as thei wolen eny othere motives which thei han for her parti; ȝhe, thei hem silf wolen be aboute forto fynde and make motives aȝens her party with ȝoure party, and with the parti of hethene men, and with the parti of heretikis, as fer, and as moche as al her kunnyng and power, which thei han, mowe strecche. In this wise hath the clergie, and the chirche of Cristen men be disposid ever, as scole writingis in divinite schewen at ful; and in such disposicioun thei wolen be, y dout not, while this world schal dure. Forwhi, ellis thei couthe not make excercise in scole of divinite, as thei musten nedis make, and also ellis thei musten leeve up the scole of divinite in universitees. But so doon not hethen men, neither ȝe. For, among hethene men, it is so that who ever makith eny motyve or argument aȝens what is holden of hem, he schal be crueli doon into deeth. Among ȝou, it is so that ȝe holden a foli forto stodi in eny motives, writen or spoken aȝens ȝoure opiniouns. And therfore a greet skile of dyversite is whi we ben excusid, if we turnen not hethen men, neither ȝou. And ȝe ben not excusid, if ȝe turnen not us and the chirche, whilis ȝe pretenden and knowlechen that ȝe han kunnyng ynouȝ forto turne us, and we ben benevole ynouȝ forto receyve, heere, and rede ȝoure motyves, and forto examyne hem; ȝhe, and forto fortifie hem and strengthe hem better thanMS. that. ȝe ȝou silf kunnen.

If ȝe asken who y am, which makith him so bisi here aȝens ȝou, forsothe, he is the man which hath more laborid and doon into ȝoure goostli availe, as of trewe kunnyng to be had of ȝou, and errour to be removed fro ȝou, than ȝe ȝou silf ben of kunnyng, and of power, forto so do to ȝou silf. In more special forto seie, he is the man which for ȝou, and for alle lay men, hath write in lay mennys langage these bokis; The Forcrier, The Donet into the book of Cristen Religioun, The folower to the same Donet, The boke of Cristen Religioun, The Provoker, The Represser, The book of signis in the chirche, which y clepe The boke of worschiping, The boke of leernyng, The booke of filling the iii tablis, this present Book of Feith, The book of Preesthode, with summe othere mo, whiche bokis, if ȝe wolen rede diligentli, and attende therto studioseli, and be wel acqueyntid with hem, and not forto take an hasti smel or smatche in hem, and soone leie hem aside, ȝe schulen fynde in hem so greet witt, and leernyng of Cristen religioun, that ȝe schulen holde ȝou bigilid in the trust which ȝe had bifore in ȝoure othere studies, and laboris for leernyng. And ȝe schulen se that so fer the wittis and kunnyng of clerkis passen ȝoure wittis and ȝoure leernyng in maters of Cristen religioun, that ȝe schulen not truste so moche to ȝoure kunnyng as ȝe now doon; and ȝe schulen truste more to the kunnyng of clerkis, and seche bisili to have her helpe and counseiling in tho maters, than ȝe have bifore this doon, and ȝe schulen chastise ȝou silf ful wel, and ful vertuoseli, fro pride and presumpcioun bifore had, in setting and in apprising ȝoure leernyng and kunnyng in maters of Cristen religioun, bifore the leernyng and kunnyng of clerkis, and of the chirche, as ȝe bifore this han doon. And ȝe schulen kepe ȝou heraftir, that ȝe stert not up into such pride and presumpcioun, but ȝe schulen love clerkis of the chirche, and seche aftir her comunyng, and love hem, and thei schulen love ȝou, and teche ȝou in tho bokis, and moche ese and ioie and good lyf schal come therbi, and moche vice, which cometh ynne for defaute of such goostli occupacioun, schal be eschewid; and therfore, into leernyng of the seid bokis, God Almyȝti bringe ȝou. Amen. Forsothe, summe of the kunnyngist men of ȝoure soorte, aftir that thei han red of summe of these spokun bokis, and han take, bi notable tyme, assaie and acqueyntance in hem, han hungrid and thirstid, forto have hadde the copie and the contynuel uce of tho bokis to hem, as moche as ever thei hungriden and thirstiden aftir mete and drinke. Thouȝ peraventure, at the first blusch of reding of hem, tho bokis apperiden not to be such, for in sodeyn chaungis from oon mete to an other mete, and from oon drinke into an othere drinke, beyng moche dyverse, ȝhe, from eny oon custom longe bifore contynued into an other custom moche dyverse, men ouȝten not truste to her first into hem comyng semyngis; but thei musten abide and contynue bi counsel of resoun, til a newe semyng be brouȝt forth.

Also, ferther in this arguyng and pleding bigunne, y may procede thus. If it so be that the chirche errith in the maters, into whiche he is so bisi forto knowe ariȝt, and that bi manye yeeris, and bi manye helpis of persoonys, and bi so greet meenys leding into kunnyng, above al that lay men mowe strecche to, the chirche muste nedis be excusid of God. Forwhi, the chirche dooth al that he can do therynne, and al that he may do therynne. Forwhi he seeth not, neither can se where and hou he schulde seche ferther or better, forto come into the trewe kunnyng than he now seeth, and wittingli and willingli he takith not to him eny lette, which he knowith to forbarre the wey into sufficientli to be hadde trewe kunnyng. And alle men musten nedis knowleche that God askith no more of eny man of witt than what he can and may; wherfore no man may seie but that the chirche, so longe tyme and ever laboring, and avising forto come into treuthe, is excusid or were excusid, thouȝ it were so that the chirche, bi ignoraunce, and bi such unpower as is to nowe be spokun of, erre; ȝhe, and not oonli the chirche is excusid, but over it the chirche plesith, and serveth, and deserveth mede anentis God bi thilk feith, thouȝ it were untrewe, as fer forth as thouȝ it were trewe; forwhi it must be so that the chirche, bi thilk feith, offendith God or plesith God, trespacith to God or serveth to God, sithen ech dede, doon bi choice of wil, folowing avisement bifore had in resoun, is or good or badde, as is open bi moral philsophie, and is tauȝt in The folower to the Donet, and is not suffrid of God to be doon in waast, and therfore is servyce to God, or is aȝens his servyce, and so or is meritorie and deserving mede, or is deservyng punysching.

And thanne ferther thus. It may not be seid that the chirche therynne offendith and trespasith to God. Forwhi, it is now schewid that the chirche is therynne excusid; wherfore folowith that the chirche therynne plesith God. And for ech dede, in which the chirche plesith to God, and serveth to God, to the chirche is assigned a reward and mede in hevene, and noon lasse than if thilk feith were trewe. Forwhi, alle causis of deservyng ben in the chircheMS. chrche. oon and the same, whether the thing without forth bileeved be trewe, or untrewe, and also, bi open ensaumple, it may be schewid al day doon bitwixe ech resonable temperal lord and his servaunt to him servyng, and as doctour callid Holcot proveth it ful wel. Therfore nedis the chirche plesith and serveth to God, and deserveth mede in hevene in this case, thouȝ it were so that the chirche errid. Now herupon y argue ferther thus. The chirche is excusid and deserveth mede in hevene, thouȝ he erre, stonding these circum|staunces of ignoraunce, and stonding this diligence maad forto lacke al ignoraunce to be lackid.So in MS. And ȝe kunnen no better in the mater do, forto have the riȝt kunnyng, than the chirche can do, and doith. Forwhi, ȝe kunne not take and have the meenys, and the helpis into geting of kunnyng, which the chirche can take and have, as is sureli knowen at ech wise mannys taking hede therto; neither ȝe kunnen prove undoutabili the chirche to be in ignoraunce, anentis the seid maters, as is schewid here bifore. Therfore nedis folowith, if ȝe bileeven and holden in tho maters as the chirche bileeveth and holdith, ȝe ben excusid; and not oonli excusid, but ȝe serven to God, and plesen God, and deserven mede in hevene. Who may avoide or aȝenstonde this proof? And thanne ferther, who ever witith that he stondith in a sikir case and wei fro synne, and in wey of servyng and of plesing to God, he synnyth deedli, and is worthi dampnacioun if he bowe therfro, and sette him silf, witingli and willingli, into perel of the contrarie; wherfore folowith, if ȝe not conforme ȝou thus, as is now seid, to the chirche but disseveren ȝou silf, and putten ȝou into contrarie, ȝe putten ȝousilf fro it of which ȝe be sure and sikir, and into a perel of the contrarie. Wherfore it muste nedis be that therynne ȝe synnen deedli, and be worthi dampnacioun. Ensaumple into confirmacioun herof may be this. If a man were in a schip in the see, in which he knowith wel he myȝte be saaf bi othere mennys rowing, and ȝitt, stonding this knowing, he wole go out of the schip, and wole be aboute forto swymme to the lond, whilis the othere men in the schip schulen have as myche to do as thei mowe, forto come to the lond, with the schip, and in the schip, bi craft of rowing or of seiling, whi schulde not this man synne deedli, and be worthi dampnacioun for the wilful putting him silf into perel of his deeth without nede or good cause, whilis he witith wel that in the schip he myȝte be saaf fro deeth. And sotheli, in like maner it is in this present purpos, as anentis gootli erring fro treuthe of feith, which is a goostli deeth, whanne a man him silf is therof cause. Wherfore of al such madnes, ȝhe truli to seie wodnes, God delyvere alle cristen peple. Amen. Wondir it were but that y, which am a clerk, schulde se ferther for a mannes defense, in such a case, than a lay man kan se. And ȝitt truli, and in conscience to seie, if y wolde holde aȝens the chirche as thei doon, and kouthe not prove sufficientli, undoutabili, and cleerli my parti, and that the chirche errith, as y wote wel thei kunnen not so prove her parti, and the erring of the chirche, y couthe not defende me, neither excuse me from deedli synne and fro dampnacioun, bi eny witt or leernyng or wile which y can bithenke or devyse. God therfore helpe out of the seid diche and myir alle tho that ben therynne.

Now forto procede ferther in this same mater, y aske of thee, which art of the now bifore spokun obstinat and unobedient noumbre, whether thou wolt bileeve and folowe thi silf, in maters which thou hast to do. And in like wise, y aske of thilke same obstinat and unobedient noumbre, whether thei wole bileeve and folowe hem silf, in manye maters which thei han to do. Wel y wote thou wolte seie ȝhe, and that thou doist so in ful manye maters, and thilke multitude wole also seie ȝhe, and that thei so doon ful oft, and ful myche in ech day. Thanne, sithen it is so that in tho maters thou maist faile, and in tho othere maters it is possible that ȝe faile; and ȝitt therynne thou wolt folowe thi silf, and in the othere maters ȝe wolen folowe ȝou silf, and forto so folowe ȝe holden noon inconvenient, whi schulde ȝe thanne be so tikil and so squaymose, and holde for an incon|venient, in mater of clergie, forto folowe the clergie, which in clergie be wiser than ȝe ben, thouȝ it were so that it is possible clergie therynne to faile? Verili, if this be to thee and ȝou a good cause forto not trowe to the clergie of the chirche, and to not folowe hem in mater of feith, like good cause were to thee forto not folowe thi silf, in eny mater which thou haste to do; and like good cause were to ȝou forto not folowe ȝou silf, in eny mater which ȝe have to do. Also, to ech persoon of the now seid multitude, y speke and talke in this wise: Sir, y aske of thee whether God hath ordeyned and assigned thee forto obeie to the doom of resoun, and to the chesing of fre wil, or no. If thou seie nay; certis therof folewith that God hath not ordeynyd thee forto wirche moral vertues, and so forto be not morali vertuose, and so forto not do his servyce, neither forto lyve in a lijf which is above beestis lijf, in dignite and worthynes; sithen morali vertuose werkis ben not ellis thanne dedis doon bi choice of fre will, and bi the doom of resoun, as it is openli schewid in the first parti of The folewer to the Donet; and oonli suche werkis ben dedis of Goddis lawe and his servycis, as it is open in the seid Folewer to the Donet; and oonli such werkis ben tho, bi which a man lyveth above beestis, manli, and not oonli beestli as beestis doon. If thou graunte that God hath ordeyned and assigned thee forto obeie to the doom of resoun, and to free wil, and forto be reulid and wirche aftir hem, thanne sithen it is so that God hath not goven to thee, or to eny othere man, eny other resoun and wil than which mowe, in her demyng and cheesing, erre and faile, it folewith that God ordeynyd and assigned thee forto obeie to thingis which mowe erre and faile, and forto be reulid bi hem, notwithstonding thei ben such that mowe erre and faile, while that thou canst not sufficientli knowe and prove that thei failen. And if this be trewe, it is not inconvenient thee forto graunte that like wel God hath ordeyned and assigned thee forto obeie in bileevyng to the clergie, and forto fecche thi feith at hem, thouȝ thou knowe that thei mowe, in teching feith, erre and faile, while thou kanst not knowe and prove sufficientli that thei erren and failen. ȝhe more scharpeli forto conclude thus; sithen it is bifore proved undoutabili, in the viie and viiie chapiters of this present first party of this book, that God hath ordeynyd and assignyd thee forto so obeie to the clergie, and thou grauntist that the clergie, in teching and deter|mynyng feith, may faile and erre, it folowith that thou muste nedis graunte that God hath ordeynyd thee forto obeie and be reulid in thi bileeve leernyng, and taking, and holding, bi hem which mowe therynne faile and erre. Ferthermore y aske of thee thus: Hath God ordeynyd that thou schuldist truste to thi feet, as in thi walking and goyng in his servyce, and to thin hondis in laboring, holding, and clymbyng in his servyce? Thou maist not herto seie nay; it is so openli trewe. Thanne thus: God hath so ordeynyd and assigned thee as now is rehercid, and ȝitt herwith it is so that neither thou, neither eny othere man, hath eny othere feet than whiche may slide, and spurne, and make falle, whilis it were to walke or stonde without falle in Goddis servyce; or eny othere hondis than whiche mowen faile in smyting, in cacching, and in holding in Goddis servyce whiche is to be doon, as is open ynouȝ. Wherfore folewith that thou muste nedis graunte that God hath ordeyned thee forto truste, in his servyce doyng, to thingis whiche mowe, in tho whilis, faile and bigile thee. And this is not semyng lasse inconvenient than that God schulde ordeyne and assigne thee to men, forto obeie and be reulid bi hem, in his servyce doing, thouȝ tho men mowe, in reuling thee into the seid servyce of God, faile, erre, and be bigiled. But ȝitt y schal go neer to thee thus. Sithen what y have now concludid and proved aȝens thee is trewe, and thou maist not avoide it, y aske of thee hou wolt thou reule the anentis thi resoun and wil, in the servyce of God, bi hem and of hem taking, sithen and whilis thou knowist that thei mowe erre and faile; and hou thou wolte bere thee, and have thee anentis thi feete and hondis, in doing and taking bi hem and of hem the servyce of God, sithen thou knowist that thei mowe faile and disceyve. I am sikir thou wolte be riȝt wel paied, forto be enfoormed that thou seie and fele thus. Thou wolte do thi diligence and attendaunce that thi resoun not erre in his resonyng and demyng; and that thi wil not faile in hise choicis and comaundis, and whilis thou so doist, and aftir that thou hast so do, and whilis thou so doist, if in the same while, whanne thou woldist do bi hem or take of hem the servyce of God, resoun errith and wil failith thee, it not knowing neither witing, thou wolte seie, holde, and fele, that God hath thee therynne excusid, and not oonli excusid, but that thou art bounde forto it do. And also that God hath thi werk acceptid and allowid, into plesaunce and rewarde, as thouȝ the werk were doon in it silf without erring and failing. Forwhi, thou hast do what in thee was, and what in thi power was; and al that cometh forth amys in this servyce doing, cometh out of thi power, and aȝens thi power, forto it lette and weerne. And in lijk maner, thou wolte seie and fele that thou wolt do thi bisynes and sufficient attendaunce, that thin hondis and feet not faile, whilis thou art clymbyng or walking in Goddis servyce; and in caas that, notwithstonding thi diligence and attendaunce, thei faile, thou wolte holde thi failing to be excusid of God: ȝhe, and not oonli so; but thou wolte holde thi dede to be rewardid of God, and thou wolte seie and fele that thou were bounde forto so sette thee to werke bi thin hondis, and bi thi feet, if thou not knewist, neither willidist, that thei in the while schulden faile. Now, sir, if thou wolt seie and fele in this mater thus, whi not as wel and in lijk maner thou ouȝtist fele in the other mater, which is the principal present purpos, that thou ouȝtist do thi diligence and attendaunce as myche as longith to the, that the clergie faile not, and erre not, in teching and determyng feith. And aftir that thou hast this doon, and whilis thou doist this, if the clergie faile and erre in teching thee, or deter|mynyng to thee feith, whilis thou not knowist, neither willest the clergie so to erre and faile; thou ouȝtist holde and fele that thi bileevyng, which thou takist of the clergie, and the werk therof folowing, is not witable to thee, ȝhe, and that thou art therto bounde forto it do, and that thou art rewardable for it, as thouȝ it were without erring and failing ȝoven to thee, and doon of thee. Sotheli, it folewith openli ynouȝ, and therfore thou maist not denye that it so folowith. And thus myche is ynouȝ to the purpos for whiche y stonde fro the biginnyng of the viie chapiter hidirto.

Therfore, if it like to oure Lord God that he submitte and undirputte alle Cristen persoonys to resoun and fre wil, as that it is trewe it is bifore proved openli ynouȝ in The Donet, and in his Folewer, and that thouȝ therwith resoun and fre wil ben suche reulis whiche mowe erre and faile, what is this to thee? What hast thou theraȝen to grucche, that it likith God so forto ordeyne and do? What querel maist thou make theraȝens to God, or what cause hast thou forto therof compleyne and chalenge make? Sithen, whanne resoun and wil not failen, and thou bi hem doist riȝtli, thou art medid and rewardid, and whanne resoun and wil failen, whilis thou it not causist, neither it knowist, or desirist, thou art not oonli excused, in the dedis comyng therbi, but also thou art for hem medid and rewardid, as thouȝ resoun and wil in tho dedis not faileden. What cause hast thou thanne forto compleyne? Certis, thou hast greet cause forto thanke and oft thanke; wherfore, in lijk maner, if it like to God forto so ordeyne, and submitte, and undirputte the lay man to the clergie in his hool universal chirche, for to leerne and kunne thi feith, and al that perteyneth to thi Cristen religioun, as that this is trewe it is bifore in the viie chapiter hiderto undoutabili proved, and more is therof tauȝt and seid in The book of Preesthood, thouȝ the clergie may faile and erre in his teching, and determynyng; what moveth thee forto aȝens this to repugne, and forto to Goddis ordynaunce not obeie, sithen it is here bifore undoutabili proved that bi thin obedience to the clergie, in case of the clergies erring, whilis thou it not knowist, neither desirist, neither makist, noon hurte schal come, but the same good whiche schulde to thee therbi come, if the clergie in the teching not errid? Is not this ynouȝ to thee? What maist thou loke aftir eny more, but if thou woldist nedis that God schulde do thee to wite whi he ordeynyd that thou schuldist be reulid bi suche thingis, and persoonys, whiche in theMS. thee. rewling mowe faile? And if thou desirist this to wite, and but if thou it wite, thou wolte not obeie and performe the ordynaunce whiche thou maist openli, fro the beginnyng of the viie chapiter hidirto, knowe God to have maad, verrili thou art so proud that art worthi be felowschipid with Lucifer in helle. Arere, therfore, and turne into thi dewe obedience, and bithenke that forto knowe more of Goddis privetees, being above the fynding and myȝte of oure natural resoun, than he wole vouche saaf forto reveele and denounce to us, is a foul stinking presumcioun, namelich if we wolen not ellis fulfille what we knowen, or mowe knowe if we wolen, God have ordeyned us to do. Whanne al is of thee in this mater musid, peraventure God thus ordeynyd this, that thou schuldist be reulid bi thingis and persoonys whiche myȝten faile, bi cause thou schuldist, bi so moche, se, and feele, and knowe, and knowe|leche his gentilnes, his goodnes, that he wole bothe excuse thee, and reward thee in thi worch|ingis and servycis, whanne thou failist bi the faile of thi rewlers; and that thou schuldist, bi so moche, have cause and a motive forto the hertilier and the ofter thanke him, and the ofter and the bettir, bi good servycis, quite him aȝen. Lo, sir, if this be cause whi God maad his seid ordynaunce, certis it is ful fair and honest cause, and profitable cause to thee; ȝhe, such a cause that therbi thou ouȝtist take stiring and motive, forto chese rather to obeie prelatis of the clergie, in thi feith, and alle othere pointis of Cristen religioun leernyng and keping, than hem therynne not obeie. I seie therfore to alle such persoonys, what is writen in the iiiie Psalme thus: O ȝe sones of men, hou longe ben ȝe of hevy herte; whi loven ȝe vanite and seken ȝe lesing. Be ȝe sones aȝen turnyng, as God spekith, Jeremye Ȝe cr.; that ȝe be sones of obedience, as Petir wole, i. Petri ie cr.; leste that the clergie have nede forto compleyne upon ȝou to God, seiyng as it is write, the xvii Psalme thus: Alien sones lieden to me; alien sones wexiden oold,Vulgate, inveterati. and crokiden fro thi pathis. For, sotheli, hou othere manye wolen not be sones of obedience, thei ben in that, sones of Belial. Forwhi, sones of Belial is as moche to seie as sones without ȝocke, as it is seid, Iudicum the xixe cr. Wirche ȝe werkis of liȝt whilis ȝe han liȝt; thus isNot in MS. but it seems necessary. schewid to ȝou that ȝe be the sones of liȝt, lest peraventure, if ȝe dispise this liȝt so freeli profrid to ȝou, this liȝt be take fro ȝou, and be ȝoven to othere which schulen wirche with it, and bring forth fruit, and ȝe be putte into uttrist derkenessis, whilis the nyȝt schal be maad come to ȝou, in which no man may wirche. And with al this y biseche ȝou, attende ȝe to what is seid bifore fro the biginnyng of the viie chapiter hidirto, and name|lich to this, that Crist seide to hise apostlis, and in hem to alle her successouris, Luc. 10 cr., He that heerith ȝou, heerith me, and he that dispisith ȝou, dispisith me.

ȝIT lete us go ferther in this same mater, in hope forto spede therbi the bettir. I putte case, thou have in a mater, which thou hast to do, an erroneose conscience, of which thou art not, bi thin owne wil, neither bi thin neccligence, the cause. Alle men woten that in this case, stonding thi conscience so erroneose, thou art bounde forto folowe it, and truste to it, and obeie to it. Forwhi, as bi the sentence of the apostle, ad Rom. xiv cr.,The more formal Latin title comes from the small correcting hand on the margin, which may possibly be Pecock's own. who ever doith aȝens his conscience bildith to helle, and therfore he therynne deedli synneth. And thouȝ it be thi part forto leie doun, or do awey thilk erroneose conscience, as soone as thou maist have therto witing, power, and grace, ȝitt al the while thilk conscience dureth, thou muste and ouȝtist confoorme thee to it. This is proved of greet clerkis bi good divinite undoutabili. Wel, sir, if this be trewe, as it is unaȝenseiabili trewe, and thou maist not, for schame of thi silf, putte thi conscience bifore the consciencis of al the hool clergie, or ellis of the more party, and of the kunnynger parti therof, namelich sithen to thilk clergie were as looth to erre in conscience as is looth to thee, and also forto defende hem fro errour, namelich in mater of Cristen feith, thei kunnen better than thou kanst forto defende thee; folowith nedis, thou were wood to seie nay that bi like skile, ȝhe and bi greter cause and skile, stonding the clergie, or the more and kunnynger party, in conscience of a mater consernyng thee, as in Cristen religioun, thou art bounde forto obeie and folowe thilke con|science of the clergie; ȝhe, thouȝ it were so that thilk conscience of the clergie were for the while erroneose. And if thou have conscience into the contrarie, thou art bounde forto leye doun thilk thi conscience, as erroneose, and so forto not folewe it, but forto holde it a con|science erroneose, not worthi to be folowid, in lasse than thou have forto make iustili the excep|cioun aȝens the clergie, which excepcioun is seid bifore in the vii cr.

Also thus y putte case:—in a large, wyde parisch, up lond, be an oold symple widowe, or an oold symple husbonde man, to whom a greet famed kunnyng mayster of divinite is curat, and parsoun, and viker. This husbond man is enfoormed, and tauȝt of the seid his famose curat forto bileeve as feith a certeyn article, which in trouthe is an heresie. This man hath no motive, neither can fynde cause, whi he schulde not trowe to his seid curat, and whi he schulde walke wyde forto examine whether his curat techith him riȝtli, or no. And therfore this man cleveth to the seid doctrine of his curat, as stiffeli as he doith to eny other article, which he hath leernyd of the same curat to be feith. In this case, it is holde of ful good clerkis, bi greet skilis, that this man is excusid in his now seid errour, and not oonli he is excusid, but he plesith God, and deserveth mede and blisse bi this errour, lijk as he is excusid and serveth and plesith God, and deserveth mede and blisse, for bileeve of othere articlis, which he bileeveth bi doctrine takun of his curat, for oon skile is, as in his side, of oon and of ech of these articlis whiche he is tauȝt of the seid curat; and therfore, as bi oon of hem he plesith God and deserveth blisse, so bi ech othere of hem; ȝhe, and not oonli is this trewe, but also, stonding this case, this man were a martir, if he died for knowleching, and avowing, and defending of thilke same seid article, which in trouthe is erroneose, and he is bounde forto so bileve thilk article, stonding this seid case and hise seid circumstauncis. And if this be trewe, thanne, sithen the hool clergie of the chirche, or the more and kunnynger parti therof, is as fer above thee, and ech of ȝou, and is as myche to be bileeved, in mater of feith, of ȝou as this oon curat is above the seid oon of his parisch, and is to be bileeved of the same seid oon man of his parisch, folewith nedis for lijk skile and like cause, that in lijk maner it is to be trewe bitwixe ech of ȝou, ȝhe and betwixe alle ȝou, and the al hool clergie of the chirche, or of the more and kunnynger partie of the same clergie, in mater of feith and in hard maters of Cristen conversacioun in Cristen religioun. A ful greet favour and ese and suerte ech of ȝou is aboute forto putte awey from him silf, and forto sette him silf in perel, ȝhe and into synne, whilis ech of ȝou wole nedis truste to him silf in such seide mater, and wole not truste to the clergie, which God hath provydid to be above the laife in his chirche, and to reule the layfe of his chirche, namelich in mater of feith, as ech of ȝou may se, openli tauȝt and schewid in The book of Preesthode, maad to ȝou in ȝoure owne lay tunge. And if there were noon other cause than avoidaunce of this greet folie, and taking of this greet ese and suerte, sotheli this were cause greet ynouȝ, thee forto in the seid maters obeie to the clergie of the chirche in maner bifore seid, if thou be eny thing wise. Take ensaumple, y preie thee, how lewid he were which, being no maryner, wole not truste to the mariners, forto be caried in the schip with hem, bi her rowing or seiling, but wole stirte out of the schippe, and wole take upon him forto swymme and rowe him silf to the porte, with hise owne armes and leggis. Bithenke also hou manye men, as ȝe han herd, han be cause of her owne spilling, and of othere mennys spilling with hem, bi cause thei wolden nedis the schippe schulde be governed aftir hem, and not aftir the mariners, which bi al resoun schulden be kunnynger in thilk mater than thei schulde have trowid hem silf have be. And for the love and reverence and sake of Almiȝti God, lete this chastise ȝou fro the seid presumpcioun, and fro the seid inobedience.

If thou seie to me thus: I have leernyd that Holi Writte is so worthi a ground and foundement for oure feith, that noon othere ground, or foundement passith it, or is surer to be cleven to than is it; wherfore, sir, it wolde seme that if y cleve to Holi Scripture to take of it my feith, y am not to be blamed, but y am therynne thanke worthi, for as myche as y confoorme me to thilke reule which God hath purveied, forto be oure reule in mater of feith, and whom noon other reule in erthe passith: sir, that this is trewe y graunte weel, namelich as anentis al the feith which Holi Writt techith, for that this be trewe schal be schewid wel in The book of feith in latyn, or ellis in The book of the chirche in latyn, as God wole graunte. Nevertheles, thanne y aske of the aȝenward thus. If thou wolte thus folowe Holi Scripture, whether wolte thou folowe it in his riȝt and dewe litteral undirstonding, or ellis in his unriȝt, and undewe litteral undirstonding? Thou wolte not seie but that in his riȝt and dewe litteral undirstonding. And if thou be so sette, certis thanne thou schuldist rather seche forto have this riȝt and dewe undirstonding of hem, whiche, as bi al liklihode, kunnen suerli enforme thee of thilke riȝt and dewe undirstonding, than of thi silf, or of him, or of hem, that is to seie of thee, or of the seid othere multitude of lay peple, which, bi al liklihode of resoun, not so wel kunnen teche which is thilk riȝt and dewe undirstonding.

And thanne ferther thus; sithen it is so that the hool chirche of the clergie, or the more or the kunnynger partie therof, as bi al liklihode of resoun, schulden kunne myche more skile, forto opene and teche to thee thilk riȝt or dewe undirstonding of Holi Scripture than thou kanst, or than the seid multitude of lay peple can, and that for manye skilis, whiche now here anoon aftir schal be seid, folewith nedis that forto have the riȝt and dewe undirstonding of Holi Scripture, so that thou myȝtist folowe the same Holi Scripture as a cheef delyverer to thee of feith, thou schuldist leerne of the seid clergie, whiche were thilk riȝt and dewe undirstonding, rather than of thi silf, or of the seid lay multitude. That the seid clergie, or the more or wiser seid parti therof, can better schewe and opene which is the riȝt and dewe undirstonding of Holi Scripture than thou, or the seid lay multitude kan, lo y schal declare bi ensaumplis thus. If thou have chartris, or endenturis, bi which thou cleymest forto have lond, which is holde from thee, to whom schalt thou more trust forto have the riȝt and dew undirstonding of thilk chartris? Schalt thou sette thi witte therto, or the wit of lay men unleerned in the kingis lawe, bifore the witte of iustices, or of seriauntis, or of famose kunnyng apprentises in the kingis lawe? Thou maist not seie that thou so schuldist. Thou maist al day se that over myche losse schulden men have, if thei so schulden truste to her wittis anentis suche writingis. In lijk maner, if thou have to do with a statute of the king in Ynglond, of whom schalt thou leerne the riȝt and dewe undirstonding of it? Schalt not thou leerne it of hem, whiche ben scolid bi manye ȝeeris of labour in the kingis lawe of Ynglond? Certis, if thou knewist hou myche labour is maad in ynnes of court in Londoun, bi tymes of vacacioun, aboute the reding and declaring of the kingis statutis, thou woldist seie that fer were her siȝtis, and her kunnyngis therynne, above thin and above alle othere mennys kunnyngis, not so excercisid bi greet labour therynne as her wittis ben. If thou haddist a schip to be maad, and woldist not trust to the wittis of the carpenters, more than to thin, or more than to the wittis of men not lerned in such carpentrie, thou schuldist have such unberable hurt, as thou maist bithenke thee othere men have take, bi her such pre|sumpcioun. If thou haddist a dout hou a text, or a processe, writen withynne the bookis of philsophie, schulde be riȝtli undirstonde, of whom schuldist thou rather leerne this riȝt undirstonding, than of hem which han be longe scolid therynne, which, certis, kunnen turne thee hidir and thider, forto now trowe this, now trowe the reverse, like as a man kan with a strawe turne a katte, now hidir, now thidir. And if al this be trewe, as thou muste nedis knowleche to be trewe, seie to me at whom schuldist thou fecche thee riȝte and dewe undir|stonding of the hiȝe and hard writing of oure bileeve in the Bible, than at hem which bi long bifore goyng scole in logik, and in philsophie, and aftirward bi lijk long labour in divinite, han exercisid hem theraboute, rather than at thi silf, or than at othere lay persoonys of the seid multitude, which han slepid fro such studie, and laboure, and fro alle the sleiȝtis forto helpe hem therynne.

And if thou wolte pretende thi natural resoun forto be so cleer in his nature, into the fynding of the riȝt and dew undirstonding of Holi Scripture, that thi natural witt schal do as myche as alle the natural resouns of al the clergie of the chirche, into the fynding of the riȝt and dewe undirstond|ing of Holi Scripture, which thing is ful unlikli, that noon in al the multitude of clergie is now, or hath be so cleer in such witt as thou art, or as ȝe fewe in reward of so moche gretter multitude ben, ȝitt y seie thus. If thou, or if ȝe han such witt, into the fynding of the riȝt and dewe undirstond|ing of Holi Scripture, thanne nedis it muste be that in ȝoure power it is forto nedis make the wittis of clerkis to se the seid cleernes of ȝoure witt, and forto make her wittis accorde to ȝoure wittis, in the seid mater; and moche rather this folowith, if ȝe seie that ȝoure natural wittis ben better, anentis the seid mater, than the natural wittis of alle clerkis. Abide ȝe, thanne, into thilk tyme that ȝe have opened ȝoure seid excellent wittis to the seid greet multitude of clerkis, and so abide ȝe into tyme ȝe have wonne tho clerkis into ȝoure side, as ȝe musten nedis so wynne him, if ȝoure wittis be suche, and if tho clerkis wolen ȝeve to ȝou audience, as y am ful sikir thei wolen be glad forto here ȝou, if thei perceyve such witt in ȝou, and that ȝe kunnen uttre it to hem, and redeli thanne schal be first tyme to ȝou forto folowe ȝoure owne witte in mater of feith, and forto preferre ȝoure witt bifore the wittis of the clergie. And if ȝe preferre ȝoure wittis above the clergies witt, in mater of feith bifore this doon, myn bifore argumentis, maad fro the biginyng of the viie chapiter hidirto, convicten ȝou, not oonli of greet foli, but of greet perel; ȝhe, and of greet synne of pride, of presumpcioun, of unobedience, to hem whom Crist hath putte to be overe ȝou, to reule ȝou, as y schewe in The book of preesthode, ȝhe, and of dampnacioun into helle. He that wole se more of this mater, loke he aftir The book of the chirche, to be maad in latyn.

Now fynali forto ech man of the seid un|obedient peple y seie thus. If thou have in feith, or in opinioun, that the chirche may not erre in mater of feith, thou muste nedis fele that thou ouȝtist obeie to the chirche in mater of feith. Aȝenward, if thou have, in feith or in opinioun, that the chirche may erre in mater of feith, ȝitt unto tyme thou can sufficientli and aȝenunseiabili prove that the chirche failith, in the mater of feith in which thou variest fro the chirche, thou ouȝtist obeie to the feith of the chirche, for skilis maad fro the biginnyng of the viie chapiter; and more than this the chirche wole not aske of thee, as for thin obedience to feith. But thanne be ware wel herof. If it seme to thee that thou hast sufficient proof aȝens the chirche, truste thou not to thin owne seemyng oonli, neither to thin owne, and to the semyng of hem whiche ben like wise affectid with thee, and holden at first with thee; but uttre thi mociouns to thin adversaries, and lete thin evydencis or mociouns be disputed, and pledid bitwixe men of thi counseil, and men of the adversarie counseil at ful, eer thou trust thee to have sufficient proof aȝens thi adversaries; and ellis holde thee not sikir for thi parti. Remembre thee wel, and se whi it is that so greet plee is in the world aboute lond, and othere goodis, and for trespacis pretendid to be doon. Is not this for that the party suer studieth and considerith the evydencis of his side with his counseil, and the evydencis of the contrarie side ben not considerid of him, neither he heerith hou the contrarie partie can answere to hise evydencis, and therfore, whanne the mater is brouȝte into plee and disputing in the court, he is overthrowe, and is declarid to be in the wors side, notwithstond|ing he trowid bifore that al the world schulde not have go biȝonde his evydencis? Verrili thus it fallith in unnoumbrable sithis in Ynglond. And redili cause whi is ther noon, but that in lijk maner it may, and is likeli to be with ech of ȝou. Wherfore, into tyme ȝoure motives be examined, togidere with the motives of the chirche, in arguyng and pleding at greet leiser, holde ȝe never ȝou to have better evydence for ȝoure side, than the chirche hath for his side; and holde ȝe not ȝoure silf to be out of state of dampnacioun. If ȝe wisten hou myche riȝt substancial and witti cleerkis han be oft bigilid, for defaute of this prudence nowe mynystrid to ȝou, ȝe wolden be ware of the foli, of which ȝe ben now warned, as ȝe wolden be ware of deeth. And thus y eend here the first party of this present book.

SONE, thi seid viii argumentis ben riȝt welcome to me, for me thenkith the answer and the assoiling of hem with Goddis grace schal do good. The iie premysse of the same first principal argument, whanne it is seid thus: without Holi Scripture, oure now had feith myȝte have be to us sufficientli groundid, is fals, forto speke of kindeli myȝte in oure side, and in oure soulis, without greet singuler myracle of God, above kind, to have be doon in oure resouns, and mynde, and so it is moost convenient in this purpos to speke. And whanne, for proof of this iie premysse, it is argued thus: thouȝ the apostlis hadden not write eny word, ȝitt thei myȝten have tauȝt to othere clerkis and layfolk the al hool ful feith sufficientli, sotheli this is fals. Forwhi, a feith is not tauȝt to a peple sufficientli, but if it be tauȝt so that bi thilk teching thei mowe cleerli undirstonde al it, and esili reporte al it, and remembre al it, and kunne al it, perfitli and currauntli, and kunne reherce it, and talke it in a stable foorme of wordis, without variaunce maad in wordis and processis, whanne it is at dyverse tymes rehercid, and but if thei mowe have recours therto, and to ech poynt therof redeli, whanne ever hede schal aske. And sotheli, forto speke of al the hool ful feith writen in the gospels and epistlis, it may not in this seid wise be tauȝt, without that it be write, and but if the writing therof be delyvered to the clergie. Wherfore, oure al hool feith which is now bitakun to us in Scripture, myȝte never bi kinde have be tauȝt sufficientli to eny peple, without therof the scripture; and thouȝ ful manye a processe withynne the boondis of the gospels ben lawe of resoun and of kinde, ȝitt this that Crist tauȝt it, and rehercid it, is feith, and so the al hool feith writen in the gospels is over long a tale forto be sufficientli leerned, without therof the writyng. And therfore, sithen neither the apostlis, neither eny othere clerkis, myȝten have tauȝt sufficientli the seid feith without scripture, and the peple myȝte not, bi studiyng in the scripture, have leerned without techers, it folowith nedis that Holi Scripture is more worthi ground of oure feith than is eny congregacioun of the clergie. O my sone, if thou woldist take hede, hou a tale or a tiding, bi the tyme that it hath runne thorouȝ iiii or v mennys mouthis, takith pacchis and cloutis, and is chaungid in dyvers parties, and turned into lesingis, and al for defaute of therof the writing; and hou that langagis, whos reulis ben not writen, as ben Englisch, Freensch, and manye othere, ben chaungid withynne ȝeeris and cuntrees, that oon man of the oon cuntre, and of the oon tyme, myȝte not, or schulde not kunne undirstonde a man of the othere kuntre, and of the othere tyme; and al for this, that the seid langagis ben not stabili and foundamentali writen, thou schuldist ful soone, and ful sikirli deeme, and so schulde ech wel avisid man deeme, that the long tale of the gospels myȝte never, bi eny long tyme, be treuli and aftir oon maner toolde, and reportid, and remembrid of dyvers folk, without therof the writing; but manye a cloute schulde therto be sette, and manye a good pece therof be takun awey, and moche strijf schulde ther be aboute the trewe rehercel therof, as which were trewe rehercel therof, and whiche were not so, but if the same long tale of the gospels were write. And therfore ther may no teching of the clergie ground, weel and sufficientli to us, oure seid feith. And ȝitt the writyng maad and purveied bi God, and bi the apostlis, and bi the apostlis heerers, of thilk same longe tale, may grounde sufficientli the same feith, in ech clerk or lay man notabili resoned forto undirstonde what he redith in the Newe Testament, thouȝ he not leerne the same feith bi eny general counseil, or eny multitude of clerkis togidere to be gaderid, thouȝ peraventure he schal have nede at sumwhile, and in summe textis of the seid scripture, seche to have exposicioun hadde bi the eldist party of the chirche, ioyned to the apostlis, and lyvyng in tyme of the apostlis, as so schal be tauȝt in The book of feith in latyn, and in The book of the chirche.

Verili, as y may trowe, thorouȝ al the tyme of werre during these xl ȝeer bitwixe Ynglond and Fraunce, wist y not scant iii or iiii men, whiche wolden accorde thorouȝ out, in telling how a toun or a castel was wonne in Fraunce, or hou a batel was doon there, thouȝ thilk men were holden riȝt feithful men and trewe, and thouȝ ech of hem wolde have swore that it was trewe what he tolde, and that he was present and sawe it. Wherfore, bi al resoun, in lijk maner it wolde have be, and was in dede, of the reporte of the dedis and wordis of Crist, eer thei were writen bi the evangelistis. And that in dede it was so, therynne witnessith Luk, in the prolog of his gospel, and seith that therfore he was movid forto write the gospel which he wrote, and so bi lijk skile for the same cause the othere evangelistis gaven hem to writing. Hou ever therfore myȝte it have be wel and trewe of oure feith, if it schulde have come to us bi reporte of heering, and bi mouth speking, without therof the writing. Also, what that ever eny counseil of clergie, or eny clergie withoute gadering into counseil, techith as feith, ever the clergie referrith his so maad teching of feith into Holi Scripture. And therfore nedis the Holi Scripture is more worthi ground for oure feith, than is the clergie of the hool chirche in erthe. And if thou wolte wite of what scripture y meene, certis it is the writing of the Oold Testament, and of the Newe Testament, for it witnessith al the feith, or ellis, at the lest, wel nyȝ al the feith which Crist sechith of us. ȝhe, and the writing of the Newe Testament confeermeth al the Oold Testament, in that that the writyng of the Newe Testament referrith us oft into the writing of the Oold Testament, as Mt. 26 c.; Mr. xii c., and Mr. 14e c., and 15e c. And Luk 24e c.; Johnne ve cr., and 17e cr., and 19e cr., and 20e cr.; and in manye placis of the epistlis in the Newe Testament.

Ferthermore, sone, not oonli the writing of the al hool feith in the gospels is so necessarie to the peple, being a this side the apostlis; but also the same writing, maad and writen of the apostlis, were riȝt necessarie, as bi wey of kinde and of resoun to the same apostlis, that bi the writing of the apostlis, whiche thei wroten, thei hemsilf myȝten holde in mynde the multitude of tho trouthis there writen. And that bi recurse to be maad of hem into the seid writing, leste that therof the perfiȝt mynde schulde, bi kinde, falle awey from hem, whilis thei were so moche in dyverse troublis y-occupied, and so therfore ful opene it is, that the writing of our feith is more necessarie ground to us for oure feith, than is eny congregacioun of clerkis, bigunne sithen the deeth of the apostlis.

For answer to the textis bifore alleggid of the Oold Testament, in the first argument, it is to be seid that thouȝ bi tho textis it is had that fadris schulden teche by mouthe her sones, and her sones sones, the lawis of God, and the benefetis of God, ȝitt bi tho textis it is not hadde that thilk teching, to be doon bi mouthe, schulde have be sufficient teching to tho sones, and sones sones, without writing; and therfore tho textis maken not into the entent into which the first argument hem alleggith; namelich, sithen in the processis of the same textis it is hadde among that it was bede with al this, that the fadris schulden teche her sones bi mouthe; it is had in the last of tho textis, that is to seie, which is alleggid, Deutron. xie cr., that tho same fadris, and alle the peple, schulde have Goddis lawis, and Goddis benefetis in writing. Forwhi, it is seid there that thei schulden have tho lawis and benefetis bifore her iȝen. And this is ynouȝ for answere to tho textis. More thing according to this answere and con|feermyng it thou maist se sone in The book of leernyng, in thi vulgar tunge.

But thanne, fadir, if it was so necessarie writing to be hadde upon Cristen feith, whi was this writyng of our feith so long tyme deferrid, eer it was maad bi the apostlis, as that Mathew wrote his gospel in the viie ȝere aftir Cristis ascencioun, and Mark wrote in the xe ȝere aftir Cristis ascencioun, as may be had bi croniclis of Martyn, and Luk wrote aftir other writers of the gospels, as he seith him silf in the prolog of his gospel, and Ion wrote aftir alle the othere, as manye men trowen? Also whi wrote not ech apostle as wel as summe? And also whi wroten not thei to ech countre?

Sone, answere to thi first questioun may be this. Our Lord is wisist, and he is, forto lede us into our kunnyng to be had in profitabilist maner, alwey rediest. And for as myche as peple, to knowe bi experience hou necessarie it was to hem forto have her feith writen, was to hem more profitable, than forto it knowe without experience, therfore God so schope that the feith schulde bi a notable tyme be preched oonli bi word to the peple, that thei myȝten therbi take experience that preching of the al hole feith bi word oonli, were not sufficient without therof the writing; and thanne that therfore the peple schulde desire to have the feith writen; and the apostlis schulden se the same treuthe bi experience, and schulden consente forto write to the peple the same feith, which bifore bi parcellis thei prechiden bi word. An other cause myȝte have be this: a preciose thing, whanne it is liȝtli and soone ȝovun, without long bifore goyng desire to have it, schal be the lasse sett bi, whanne it is receyved; and for as myche as the writyng, conteynyng oure al hool feith, is preciose and ouȝte not be sette litil bi, neither be feyntli and unworthili receyved, therfore God so schope that it was longe of the peple desirid, eer thei it receyveden, as for lijk skile God differreth ful holy mennys boonys, for that bi her longe desiring, and preiyng, and abiding aftir it, thei schulden the more ioie have, and the more thanke God whanne thei it receyveden. Another cause rennyng herwith myȝte be, that the apostlis hadden not grettist leisers, for persecuciouns, that thei myȝten anoon in the bigynnyng have writen, and peraventure longe tyme in the biginnyng the apostlis prechiden not, neither mynystriden to the peple but a fewe articlis of feith, as were these:—of Cristis comyng, and of his Incarnacioun, and of the cause whi he came; and longe tyme unnethis myȝte suffice forto bringe the peple into consente and bileeve of these fewe feithis. Also, scolers in ech kinde of scole schulden not be oppressid, in the bigynnyng of her scole, with over manye maters to be mynystrid to hem at oonys, or sudenli, or over soone. And therfore, a good while bi ȝeeris, scolers in the scole of Cristendoom herden parcelmele the feith prechid, eer the hool summe and birthen therof was delyvered to hem bi writing. And thus myche for answer to thi first questioun.

If it be trewe, that Ioon the evangelist wrote his gospel eer than it is seid that he wrote, and so that he wrote his gospel bifore his comyng from exile, as therto may be hadde greet motyve bi the writyngis of Seynt Denys Ariopagite, bi cause Ioon hadde writen his gospel eer Dynys wrote hise bokis, thanne answere to thi secunde questioun may be this. Riȝt as what is necessarie to a comounte is to be purveied fore, so what is waast, or comberose, and chargeose to a comounte is to be left of and to be avoidid; and for as moche as whanne Mathew, Mark, Luk, and Joon hadden write, the othere apostlis siȝen these writingis, and siȝen that these writingis were sufficient to expresse the comyng of Crist, the birthe of Crist, the lyvyng of Crist, the teching of Crist, and therfore the othere apostlis wolden not, as for the same maters, combre the peplis wittis with eny more writingis therupon; and that what oon apostle or a disciple wrote alle the othere apostlis, and disciplis knewen, we mowe take marke bi this, that Petir, in his iie epistil, the last cr., knowlechith that he wiste of Poulis writing, and bi a greet liklihode he knewe what the othere writers wroten, and, bi as myche greet liklihood, Poul wist what Petir wrote, and what ech other writer wrote; and therfore he himsilf wrote noon gospel, but hilde him content with the gospels writen of othere, nameliche sithen Luk was felowe to Poul in myche of alle Poulis labouris, and therfore to Poul myȝte not be straunge and unwist the writing of Luk. And also, that it was not to Poul unknowun, it seemeth wel her bi. For in the first epistle to Corinthies the xie c., Poul rehercith the processe of Luk, the xxii chapiter, wel nyȝ word bi word. And thus myche, sone, for answere to thi iie questioun.

To thi iiie questioun y answere thus. The apostlis knewen weel, as thei myȝten wel knowe, bi resoun, that the writyng of oure general feith, wole serve like wele to peple of ech cuntre, as to peple of oon cuntre; and thei wisten that the oon same writing myȝte, and schulde renne from oon cuntre into an othere cuntre, like as Poul in his epistle to the Colocen. the last cr.,A later contracted reference from the MS. margin. biddith that thilk same epistle schulde be radde to the peple which ben callid Laodocenses, and therfore it was no nede to make to dyverse cuntrees dyvers writingis, in this wise dyverse that thei schulden conceyve dyverse maters, thouȝ the writing of oon and of the same mater myȝte be writen or translatid into dyverse langagis; and so is the iii questioun assoilid.

Fadir, y perceyve wel hou ȝe han declarid ful wel that it, what was taken to prove the seid ii premysse, in the first principal argument, is untrewe, and therfore it is to be denyed; but ȝe han not answerid to the argumentis for the proof of it what was so taken into the proof of the same seid iie premysse; therfore, fadir, answere ȝe to hem.

Sone, the first argument bifore maad for proof of it what was taken to prove the seid iie pre|mysse, goith upon processis and textis of the Oold Testament, whiche proven no thing the entent wherto thou bringist hem in thine argu|ment. Forwhi, tho textis wole no more than this, that God wolde the oold lawe, and the oold feith be leerned bi heering of word; but, certis, herof folewith not that God wolde, or meened it to be leerned so, and in lijk maner sufficientli. And therfore the textis hurten not myn entent, neither thei proven the entent, wher|fore thou brouȝtist hem forth into thin argument. Also the contrarie, that is to seie that God meened thilk leernyng, bi word herd, was not sufficient to the clergie thanne, and to the peple thanne, apperith wel bi this, that God bede the oold lawe to be writen, and forto so bidde had be yvel and in veyn, if the teching and the leernyng of the same lawe, bi word oonli, hadde be sufficient.

To the iie argument maad into the same entent, y answere thus. Thouȝ a fewe usagis and customes in monestaries mowe be born in mynde without writing, hou schulde therof folowe that so longe a tale, as is the storie of the iiii gospels, myȝte be born in mynde bi leernyng of word without therof eny writing? That this schulde folowe hath no colour, and therfore thilk argument is liȝt to be in this now seid maner answerid and assoilid.

FADIR, aȝens ȝou metith this, that the feith which was in the biginnyng of the world, and was contynued forth into the daies of Moyses, was not writen. Forwhi, Moyses, which was aftir the biginnyng of the world bi xx hundrid ȝeeris, wrote the book of Genesis, and as it is seid comounli, he wrote it bi inspiracioun, and bi such prophecie as wherbi thingis passid ben knowen above power to knowe hem bi kinde, and ȝitt thilk feith was a longe tale, and a longe storie, as is opene bi the book of Genesis, with rehercels ful hard to mynde, upon generaciouns of persoonys, and upon the names of persoonys; wherfore it semeth that as wel the storie of the gospels myȝte have be sufficientli tauȝt of the apostlis, and have be leerned of the other clergi and of the peple withoute writing.

Sone, if thou, or eny other man ellis, were sikir or hadde eny greet liklihood herto, and gretter than to the contrarie, that ther was no writing of the feith in the eldist tyme, fro the bigynnyng of the world into the flood of Noe, and fro thennes into the writing of Moyses, thin argument were stronge. But certis, noon sikirnes, neither eny such liklihood is hadde, but ful strong liklihood to the contrarie is had. Forwhi, soone aftir the flood of Noe, ther was leernyng of the vii sciencis, and writing maad in ii pilers, oon of bras, and another of erthe, and also in the same tyme ther was leernyng and writyng of wicchecraft, or of nycromancie, as the Maistir of Stories writith, in the chapiter of the toure of Babel. And if worldli men in that tyme were so bisi in worldli leernyng and writing, it is not to be trowid but lijk bisi were summe of manye goostli men, in leernyng and writing of gostli maters, perteyning to the feith, and the servyce of God, and to the eend wherto man was maad. Wherfore, it is more likli that in tho daies soone aftir the flood of Noe ther was writing of feith, perteynyng to God, and to mannys governyng and eending, than that ther was noon such in tho daies anoon aftir the flood of Noe. Also, longe bifore the flood of Noe, Ennok foonde lettris, and wrote bookis as the Maistir of Stories seith. And this Ennok was a passing holy man, as the Bible witnessith; and he lyved in the daies of Adam. Wherfore, sithen it is so that, such as a man is, such is his leernyng, studying, and writing, it is more likli that he wrote holi wondirful thingis of the feith, and namelich sithen he lyved in the daies of Adam, which couthe ful myche teche Ennok what he schulde write in such mater, than that he wrote eny other worldli thing oonli. And sithen Noe was a ful holi man, it is likli that he hadde, and kept sum and myche of this writing with him, saaf in his schippe, whilis the flood durid, namelich sithen he prechide an hundrid wyntre to the peple eer the flood came, that thei schulde leeve her synne; and certis suche preching couthe not have be doon without greet kunnyng of ful goostli thingis. And also it muste be bi al liklihood that Ennok delyvered to his owne sone Mathus|sale the same goostli writing, which Ennok wrote, and this Matussale, the sone of Ennok, lyvede with Noe sixe hundrid wintre, and ther|fore it is to be seid that Noe hadde ful myche and hiȝe kunnyng of feith, and of this writyng; for so good a man as Noe was wolde not leeve unaspied so profitable a writing. And what he had so profitabili in writing, he kept saaf in his schip, and delyverdSo in MS. aftir to hise sones Sem, Cam, and Iapheth; which Sem, clepid otherwise Mel|chisedech, lyved into the daies of Abraham. Wherefore Abraham bi dilyigence of his holynes, schapide him to receyve the same writing of Sem, and bi liklihode Abraham bitook it to Ysaac, and Ysaac to Jacob, and Jacob to hise sones; and hou likli it is that Ennok wrote what he leerned of Adam, perteynyng to God and to men, so likli it is that Noe, or sum othere, wrote what he leernyd of Matussale, that felle in the daies of Ennok, and of Matussale; and Sem, or sum othere in the daies of Seem, wrote what he leernyd of Noe, that felle in the daies of Noe. And Abraham, or sum othere in his daies, wrote what he herd of Seem, that fel in the daies of Sem, which was clepid Melchisedech. Forwhi, even liklihode was of ech of these casis, as was in eny oon of hem. And so at the laste, Moises gaderide al this togider, and made a book therof which is clepid Genesis; and certis this is more likli, bi storie bifore alleggid, and bi resoun togidere, than forto seie that Moyses had bi inspiracioun without eny manys bifore ȝovun to him infor|macioun, namelich sithen we owen forto not feyne, forge, allegge, putte, trowe, or holde eny myracle to be doon, save whanne nede compellith us therto, that is to seie, that we mowe not save the caase otherwise bi liklihood of resoun. And certis, sithen in this case ther is more likli|hode of resoun, forto seie that Moyses hadde sufficient informacioun bifore of writingis, hou he schulde make the boke of Genesis, than there is liklihode to this, that he had noon such now seid informacioun, therfore in this case it is not to renne into myracle, thouȝ dyvers doctouris in this case, and in special Gregory upon Ezechiel, without myche avisement, and soone moved bi devocioun, soMS. 'soo,' an imperfect erasure of soon. doon. Also, of sum thing doon bifore the flood of Noe, whereof no mensioun is maad in the writing of Moyses, we have knowing in storie as of this, that Lameth was an hunter, and dymme of siȝt, and that he was lad bi a ȝong man in hunting, and that he schotte Caym bi dressing of the seid leder, and thanne he with his bowe slowe the same leder; of this thing, so untauȝt in Moyses writing, we myȝte not have had knowing, if there had not be eny writing bifore Noes flood of thingis which bifelle bifore the same flood. Wher|fore, such writing of stories was bifore Noes flood. And thanne ferther, if such storiyng of worldli chauncis was writen bifore Noes flood, moche rather storiyng of worthi goostli thingis was writen bifore the same flood. And if this be trewe, thanne suche writen stories weren kept saaf bi Noe in his schippe, for skile bifore maad, and so thei came aftirward into the knowing of Moyses, as is bifore argued, and Moyses com|piled the book Genesis out of hem, and whanne the bokis of Moyses weren hadde, the othere bokis fillen out of use, as it is likli to bifalle, for so it fallith in other lijk casis.

O fadir, me thenketh ȝe holden a ful resonable wey in this mater, and such a wey which hath more likli evidencis for it than hath the contrarie party; and therfore ȝoure wey ouȝte, bi lawe of kinde, and undir perel of vice and of synne, be holden til gretter evydence be founden to the contrarie, thanne ben the evydencis making for this party. But certis, out of this folowith, as semeth to me, that we schulde holde this party, that Esdras renewid not the Oold Testament in writing bi ȝift of inspiracioun, as is comounli holde; but that he renewid the Oold Testament in this wise, that he maad be writen and multiplied manye bokis of the oold testament, manye mo than there were bifore, and that for ȝele which that he hadde to this, that Goddis lawe schulde be wel knowe, thouȝ of ech kinde of tho bokis sum copie was bifore. Forwhi, like evydencis ben that Esdras hadde copies of the oold lawe, as ben evydencis that Moyses hadde copies, forto write or compile bi hem the book of Genesis; ȝhe, gretter evydencis to holde this now seid affirmative parti, thanne ben the evidencis for to holde the contrarie negative party.

Sone, y hold wel with thi conceyte in this mater, and the evydencis therto ben these. Hou ever yvel the peple of Iewis at eny tyme was, ȝitt thei were never without summe holi lovers and kepers of the lawe among hem. Forwhi, whanne grettist ydolatrie was usid in Iewri, in the daies of King Achab, 3 Ks. 19,A contracted reference from the margin. so fer forth that the prophete Hely wened and seide to God that, of alle the Iewis, ther was noon but he aloon left alyve which lovyd and kepte the lawe; the Lord answerid to Hely, and seide that it was not so, for he kepte to him, he seide, more than v hundrid in Israel, which never bowid her knees to Baal, that is to seie to the fals god, which in tho daies was worschipid openli thoruȝ al Israel. And if this was trewe in tho daies of grettist ydolatrie, that ther was manye privey lovers and kepers of the lawe; bi like skile it schulde be trowid that, in ech other tyme, there weren suche lovers and kepers of the lawe; and in lijk it was in ech tyme, whanne Ierusalem was in thraldom bi enemyes without forth, and whanne the Iewis weren translatid into Babilonye, and whilis thei dwelliden there, but so it is that no man lettrid wolde caste him to be verri knower of the lawe, and therfore a verri keper therof, but if he wolde caste him to have the same lawe in writing. Wherfore, in alle tymes of the Iewis, bothe whilis thei were in the lond of Israel, and whilis thei were in the lond of Babilonye, there were among summe of hem bokis writen of the lawe, and usid of hem, thouȝ the lawe writen in summe bokis was brent in the brennyng of the temple. Also, Jeremye lyvede and abode in Ierusalem whilis the laste and grettist captivite of the citee was maad, and whilis the Iewis weren laste translatid, and the temple was distroied; and herof he proficied and wrote his prophecie, a litil bifore eer this grettist and last captivite was doon. And aftir that this captivite was doon, he abiding in Ierusalem with the releef, and the rescaile of the Iewis, wrote his book cleepid the Trenys, but al this was not likli to have be, if Ieremye schulde not have had with him the book of the lawe, into the keping of which lawe he so ofte prechid and stirid the peple; wherfore it is to be trowid that Ieremye had with him writen alwey a book of the lawe, thouȝ sum book conteynyng the same lawe was brent in the temple. And for lijk skile it is to be trowid that Ezechiel hadde also the lawe writen, which Ezechiel lyved in tyme of this grettist and last thraldom, and was caried into Babilonye fro Ierusalem with the grete route, and in Babiloine, the ve ȝere of this thraldom, he bigan to prophecie there in Babiloine. Also, sumwhat bifore the thraldoms of Ierusalem, the King Ioas maad the book of the lawe be knowun and be puplischidSo in MS. ful myche, which longe bifore was unknowun as to the preestis, and to the more multitude of the peple; wherfore it is lijk that in this kingis daies there were writen in grete noumbre manye bokis of the lawe, nameli sithen the peple were thanne brouȝt into a greet devocioun anentis the lawe, as it is open. Also, in ech tyme of Iewis there weren summe prophetis, as may be takun bi the prologgis of Ierom in to the bookis of prophetis, and also bi the text, and to hem it longid to not be unknowers of the lawe, in as moche as God comaundid his lawe to be of his peple knowun, and without writing such so longe a lawe myȝte not be knowun, wherfore at alle daies of the Iewis, bothe in Israel, and in Babilonye, there were bokis al redi of the lawe writen. And herto wolde serve ful openli the storie of Thobie, and the storie of Susanne, Daniel 13o cr, ne were that thei ben apocrifis. Also Daniel, Esdras, Neomyas, Zozobabel, Mardoche, Hester, and othere were kepers of the lawe, whilis thei weren freeli in Babiloine inhabiting, as the storie of the Bible makith mencioun. Wherfore it is like that thei hadden the lawe writen, namelich sithen thei myȝten sende and have messages, to and fro Ierusalem and Babiloine. And if al this be trewe, certis it is likli ynouȝ that whanne Esdras and Zozobabel came fro Babiloine into Ierusalem, for to bilde aȝen the citee and the temple, thei hadden bokis al redi writen of the lawe, and thanne herof folowingli this, that Esdras renewid the v bokis of Moyses, and alle the stories into his daies, is to be undirstonde thus, that he wrote, or provokid and ordeynyde to be writen and multiplied, manye bokis of the same lawe, in greet noumbre, wherof was not but fewe bifore. And if this be trewe, as it hath more likli evydencis to be trowid for trewe, than hath his contrarie partie, it folewith that forto seie this, whiche summe doctouris comounli holden with the Maistir of Stories, that Esdras bi inspiracioun wrote, withoute eny copi, alle the v bokis of Moyses, and alle the othere bokis of stories and of prophecies into hise daies, is not but a feynyd thing; for it is seid without sufficient therto servyng evydencis, and therfore this seid opinioun of Esdras, is writing bi privey myraclus inspiracioun, is worthi to be leid aside, nameliche sithen to privey myraclis we schulden not renne, forto defende oure opinioun or oure answere bi hem, without that sufficient evydence therto serveth. For ellis there myȝte noon opinioun be overcome bi strengthe of argument, hou false ever the opinioun were, so that he includid no repug|naunce, such as God myȝte not do bi myracle.

FADIR, aftir al this, what is seid for answere to the first principal argument, and what is sunken in bi occasioun of the same answere, it is now tyme that ȝe biginne answere to the iie principal argument.

Sone, thou seiest sooth, and therfore, as for answere to the iie and iiie principal argumentis togidere, the ii premysse in ever either of hem is to be denied. Forwhi, sithen bi answer maad to the first principal argument it is declarid that the apostlis myȝten not, without writing, teche suf|ficientli oure al hool ful feith, wherof now is the Newe Testament writen, it folewith that thei tauȝten not, without writing, sufficientli the same seid al hool ful feith; which is aȝens and contrarie to the iie premysse, in the iie principal argument; neither thei tauȝten without writing principali the same al hool ful feith, which is aȝens and contrarie to the iie premysse, in the iiie principal argument. And that, for as myche as what the apostlis myȝten not do sufficientli or principali, thei diden not sufficientli, neither principali. And so, as y now bifore seid, the bothe ii premyssis, in the iie and iiie principal argumentis, ben to be denyed. Ferther|more, thouȝ Crist bede as thou alleggist, Mt. and Mr. the laste chapitris, hise apostlis to preche al the hool gospel, and so al the hool feith to ech creature, bi parcel mel, in word speking at dyverse tymes, and thouȝ thei fulfillid this comaundement, ȝitt herof folowith not that Crist as herynne bade hem preche the gospel, and the al hool feith, as sufficientli or principali to be doon; for Crist wolde that a good preching, not sufficient neither principal, schulde go bifore the teching, ful and sufficient and principal, which principal and suf|ficientMS. suffient. teching aftirward schulde be doon bi writ|ing oonli, or ellis bi word and writing togidere; for, as the philsophir seith, kinde in his worching biginneth fro inperfit, proceding and growing into perfit. And man doith in the same wise in hise werkis of craft. And thouȝ God, the auctor and maker of kinde, do in the same wise in hise werkis, it is not to be wondrid, but it is to be wel preisid; forwhi, in that his worching accordith wel with oure resoun. And so the ii premyssis in thin bothe argumentis, maad for provyng of the ii principal premyssis, in the iie and iiie principal argumentis, ben not groundid upon the textis of Mathew and of Mark in her last chapitris, and ben to be denied. And this wise, sufficient answere is maad to the iie and to the iiie principal argumentis togidere.

For answere to the iiiie principal argument, thou schalt undirstonde that Poul seith, ad Ephes. iiiie cr., thus: Oon is the Lord, oon feith, and oon baptim. And ȝitt the baptim of this man, here in Ynglond, is not the same baptym in being, and in kinde, which is the baptym of another man in Fraunce; for ech man, as he is dyvers in being fro ech other man, so his baptim, and his sacramental waisching is dyvers in being fro ech other mannys baptim and waisching in water. Nevertheles, this baptim of this man in Ynglond is oon in significacioun, and in representacioun, with ech othere mannys baptim in Fraunse. Forwhi alle tho baptymes signifien, representenIn the MS. there originally stood (now erased) 'representen with ech other mannys baptim.' The corrected reading is from the MS. margin. and sacramenten oon thing, which is this, as Poul seith, Ro. vie cr. that ech man owith be deed and biried to all synnys, and rise into a newe lyf in clennes of vertu. Also in lijk maner, the chirche of Ynglond is oon chirche with the chirche of Fraunce, but hou? Certis not in being, in kinde, and in substaunce; fforwhi the peple being here is not the peple being there; but thei ben oon in reputacioun of auctorite, of feith, of power, and of iures|diccioun; that is to seie, for the oon of these chirchis hath lijk power and iuresdiccioun to the othere ȝoven to hem fro God. And in lijk maner it is to be undirstonde, whanne it is seid that the chirche, whiche now is, is the same chirche which was, this same tyme a thousind winter, or which was in the daies of the apostlis, or that the chirche of God is alwei oon, not in being, or in kinde, or substaunce. Forwhi, the peple is not now and thanne oon, neither alwey oon, but oon in reputa|cioun; and ȝitt not in al maner reputacioun, but in reputacioun of lijk feith, and of lijk power, and of lijk iuresdiccioun, ȝovun fro God. But certis, open it is to ech mannys resoun, that thouȝ the chirche now lyvyng be, in this seid maner of reputacioun, the same chirche whiche the apostlis weren, ȝitt it nedith not to folowe that this chirche, now lyvyng, hath like moche kunnyng and power forto witnes oure feith, as hadde the chirche which the apostlis weren, neither it folowith that this chirche, now lyvyng, hath more kunnyng and power forto witnesse, than hath the writing of the Newe Testament forto so witnesse, thouȝ it were so that the chirche of the apostlis hadde kunnyng and power forto so more wittnesse. And al herfore, for this chirche is not the same chirche in kinde, in being, and in substaunce, with the othere seid chirche, riȝt as these persoonys ben not tho persoonys. And thilk chirche hadde informacioun of the feith, bi heering the apostlis, and the evangelistis, which the chirche now being hath not, but so sechith aftir forto have, bi reding in the writing of the apostlis and evangelistis. And so, sone, if thou woldist denie this argument, if it were maad to thee,—this chirche now lyvyng and the chirche of the apostlis weren oon, in the seid reputacioun, therfore as the apostlis weren in this degree of holi lyvyng, and myȝten do myraclis, speke with dyvers tungis, and write a Newe Testament, and witnesse that thei sawe Crist do and suffre, and herd him teche, so this chirche now being is lijk holi, and may do lijk greet myraclis, may speke with dyverse tungis, and write a Newe Testament, and witnesse that he siȝe Crist do and suffre and herde him teche,—even so, in lijk maner thou schalt be moved forto denie thin owne iiiie principal argument, that it make no folowing. Which argument is this: the present chirche is alwey oon and the same with the chirche of the apostlis, wherfore, as the chirche of the apostlis groundid the feith more than scripture it groundith, therfore the chirche which now is, groundith more oure feith than scripture it groundith, hou ever it be of the conclusioun, or of the consequent of the argument; which conclusioun or consequent, whether it be trewe or no, schal be tretid in The book of the chirche in latyn.

And ferthermore, sone, thouȝ thou woldist putte a successive aggregate of alle the apostlis, and of alle Cristen men, whiche ever weren, ben, and schulen be, to be the chirche of Crist, and therfore that ther is alwey, thorouȝ al tymes, oon and the same chirche in aggregat, being, kinde, and substance; ȝitt herof folowith not that hou ever kunnyng, holi, myȝti, and worthi this aggregat was in eny tyme before, in his parties passid, so kunnyng, holi, myȝti, and worthi this aggregat is now in hise parties now being; no more than folowith, if the successyve aggregate myȝte, as he was thanne in hise parties passid, do myraclis, that the same aggregat may do now as he is in hise parties now being; no more thanne it folowith if Ynglond sumtyme myȝte make such a conquest, therfore he schal be ever a power forto make lijk greet conquest. And therfore, sone, if thi iiiie argument be maad in this wise:—the hool successive aggregat of clerkis is now, which was in the tyme of the apostlis, but in thilk tyme this aggregat was a worthier witnesser of our feith than was Scripture, therfore so is this aggregat now—certis this argument is not worth, for he concludith and makith no folowing. Nevertheles, sone, forto putte and holde such a successive aggregat, in kinde, in propirte, without figurative speche, is aȝens good philsophie, and therfore aȝens resoun and aȝens trouthe, as ful wel myȝte be provyd if this place were according to trete such mater. But whilis the putting and the holding therof hurtith not my present entent, y wole here lete the treting therof passe undir suffraunce.

For answer to thi ve principal argument, thou schal undirstonde that Scripture of the Newe Testament is not, thoruȝ ech parti of him, lijk in auctorite, in worthines, and in dignite. Forwhi, summe parties of Scripture techen to us feith, summe techen to us lawe of kinde, and of natural resoun, as the text in it silf wel schewith, and Austyn witnessith the same. Nevertheles this, that Crist tauȝt thilk lawe of kinde and of resoun, wherof it is writen in Holi Writte that Crist hem tauȝte, is feith. Forwhi, this, that he so tauȝt hem, can not be leerned and founde bi mannys resoun, without therof a teller and a denouncer. Summe parties of the seid Scripture techen to us positive ordinauncis of Crist, as ben the sacramentis, and sum partie therof techen to us ordinauncis of sum apostle, as the lawe of bigamie, and that a wommanSo in MS. vowe not chastite bifore the lxe ȝeer of hir age. Now, sone, thouȝ the clergie, that now is, and thouȝ the pope that now is, may dispense with it that Scripture techith us the ordinaunce of an apostle, and may revoke it, as he may dispense with this, that Poul ordeynyd a bigam to not be deken or preest, ie Thi. iiie cr.; and with this, that Poul ordeynede a widowe to not take perpetual widewite, undir boond, eer she ben of lxe winter, and but if sche hadde be wijf of oon man, ie Thi. ve cap.; ȝhe and revoke these ii pointis, bicause that the pope is of lijk auctorite and of iuresdiccioun with ech or with the grettist of the apostlis; ȝitt herof folewith not that the clergie now lyvyng, or the pope now lyvyng, may dispense with this that Scripture techith as the positive ordynaunce of Crist, or that he may revoke eny of tho ordynauncis. Forwhi, so revoke or dispense myȝte noon of the apostlis. And so, thouȝ the chirche now lyvyng be evene in autorite and power with sum parti of Scripture, as with ful few parties of Scripture, as in this, forto make positive ordynauncis lijk as Holi Scripture bi power of the apostle maad, and forto revoke thilk positive ordynaunce of Holi Scripture, maad bi the apostle, ȝitt he is not evene in auctorite and power with al the Scripture of the Newe Testament, neither with manye othere parties therof.

To thi vie argument y answere, graunting the first premysse, that the chirche now lyvyng hath power forto expowne, and interprete, and declare, the trewe undirstonding of Holi Scripture. And y denye the iie premysse, that even peer hath no power into his even peer. Forwhi, the sugget hath sum power upon his sovereyn, as for to loke upon him, forto speke to him, and forto warne him of hise harmes, and forto defende him, and suche othere. And so the chirche now being, ȝhe, and ech thrifty wel sped studient in divinite, hath power forto declare and expowne Holi Scripture, ȝhe, and ech good gramarien hath power to construe Scripture, so that as the verri dewe, litteral undirstonding we schulden aske and leerne of a greet leerned sad divine, rather than of another ȝonger and lasse leernyd divine; so we schulde aske and leerne it of the universal or general hool clergie, rather than of eny particuler persoone or persoonys, save in the excepcioun spokun oft, in the first parti of this book, in the viie cr., and in othere chapiters aftir there folowing. And therfore, as it folowith not herof that ech thrifti divine, and ech gramarien, is more worthi forto grounde feith than is Holi Scripture, so it folewith not that the chirche now lyvyng, or the clergie now lyvyng, is more worthi forto grounde feith than is Holi Scripture. Sone, manye kindis of powers ther ben, the even peer hath no power of constreynyng upon his even peer, that is to seie forto make his even peer to do what he wole not do in thilke kinde of werk, in which thei ben evene peers; and ȝitt oon evene peer may revoke and relese that, that the othere evene peere ordeyneth, or biddith to be do, or doith in dede; as we seen that oon executour revokith and relesith what the othere ioined to him executour ordeyneth, biddith, or doith, namelich bi the lawe of Ynglond; and in this case is ech pope with ech of the apostlis.

As for answer to the viie principal argument, y seie that power forto interprete, expowne, and declare which is the riȝt sense of Scripture, is not but a ful litil power upon Scripture, as power forto construe Scripture aftir rewlis of gramer is a ful litil power upon Scripture, but ȝitt moche lasse than the othere power now spokun. Forwhi, so bi these powers no thing is takun awey fro Scripture, what he had bifore, neither eny thing is sette of the newe to Scripture, what Scrip|ture hadde not bifore, neither eny thing is comaundid to be, or to not be, aȝens the co|maunding, or the nylling of scripture. And that, bicause this seid power of interpreting, expown|yng, declaring, and construyng, is not but a power of kunnyng oonli, forto schewe and make open the thing of Scripture, which is in Scripture al redi bifore, thouȝ priveli and hid; riȝt as the preest in lent tyme drawith the lent veile, and therbi makith open to the peple what was bifore in the auter al redi, thouȝ not seen of the peple. Wherfore the first premysse in thi viie principal argument is untrewe, and to be denyed, whanne it is seid thus; what ever thing nedith to have upon him an interpreter, an expowner, or a declarer, nedith to have the same thing as his overer and worthier. And whi this is untrewe, it is now seid; forwhi, ellis a dekene, ȝhe the parisch clerk, were worthier than the preest stonding at the auter, whanne the clerk drawith aside the lent veile. And also if the seid first premysse were trewe, thanne Scripture were worthier than sche her silf is, and sche were overer to her silf, which is repugnaunce. Forwhi, Scripture ful oft expowneth hir silf, bi as moche as bi the reding of Scripture in oon parti, a man schal leerne which is the trewe undirstonding of Scripture in an other parti, wherynne he doutid or unknewe bifore. Also, sone, the iugis which the king makith in his rewme, forto iuge alle cause after the lawe which he and his parlament maken, ben not so worthi forto grounde riȝt|wisnes in causis, as the seid lawe is. Forwhi, al that thei han to iuge riȝtwisnes in causis, thei han of thilk lawe, and ȝitt the same seid iugis han power bi her greet kunnyng, forto declare what is the trewe entent of the lawe writen, or not writen, whanne other not so kunnyng persoones in the lawe as thei ben, douten therynne, or not so fer seen therynne. And therfore bi lijk maner, in this present purpos, it is that thouȝ the clergie, or sum of the clergie, bi her greet leernyng have power or kunnyng forto declare to sympler folk which is the verri sense and undirstonding of Scripture, ȝitt herof folowith not that the clergie, or thilk persoone of the clergie so declaring, is worthier in weie of grounding what Scripture was ordeyned to grounde, bi his dew undirstonding of treuthe, than is the same Scripture in him silf forto so grounde. For certis, it may be that sum oon symple persoone as in fame, or in state, is wiser forto knowe, iuge, and declare what is the trewe sense of a certeyn porcioun of Scripture, and what is the treuthe of sum article, and that for his longe studiyng, laboring, and avising ther|upon, than is a greet general conceil. Forwhi, ful oft it is seen that oon persoone in a general counceil redressith al the counseil fro that that thei wolden ordeyne; as y have rad, if oon symple persoone had not aȝenstonde bi his resounis, a general counceil wolde have ordeynyd that preestis schulde have be weddid to wijves if thei wolden; and also y have rad, in the Thre departid Storie, that if PafnuciusSo a note on the margin. hadde not reclaimed in the greet counceil of Nice, there hadde be ordeynyd that tho preestis, which thanne hadde wijves, schulden have left her wijves, and schulden have be devorcid fro hem.

For answer to thi viiie argument, thou schalt undirstonde that it is not oon and the same, forto trowe a thing to be, and forto trowe to the same thing. Forwhi, y may trowe the sowdan of Babi|lonye to be, and ȝitt it nedith not therfore that y trowe to him. And in lijk maner, it is not oon and the same, forto bileeve a thing to be, and forto bileeve to thilk thing. Forwhi, y may and ouȝte bileeve the feend to be, and ȝitt y ouȝte not therbi forto bileeve to the feende; wherfore it is not oon and the same, forto bileeve oon universal chirche of God in erthe to be, and forto bileeve to thilk oon universal chirche. And sithen it is so that bi thilk article, putte into the comoun vulgar crede, y bileeve the holi universal chirche, we ben not tauȝt as bi strengthe of thilk wordis forto bileeve other than this, that oon holi universal chirche is, and what folowith therof; evene as bi lijk articlis in the same comoun crede, bi lijk tenour of wordis, we ben tauȝte to bileeve oon baptyme to be, forȝevenes of synnys to be, ever|lasting lyf to be; and not bi tho articlis forto bileeve to oon baptim, and forto bileve to for|ȝevenes of synnys, and forto bileeve to everlasting lyf, as schal be schewid better her aftir in this same iie parti, the viie cr.,An important hint of what the missing chapters of this book contained. wherfore folowith that bi the tenour of thilk article in the comoun crede, in which, and bi which we ben tauȝt forto bileeve oon holi universal chirch to be, we ben not tauȝt forto bileeve to the holi universal chirche, that is to seie, forto bileeve that the holi universal chirche seith and techith trouthe; so that, if we be bounde forto bileeve to the holi universal chirche in this now seid undirstonding, it muste rise bi sum othere fundament than bi thilk article in the comoun vulgar crede, which in thin viiie argument thou alleggist. Whi the article to be bileeved, that oon universal chirche of God is, was putte into the comoun crede, schal be sumwhat tretid here aftir in this same iie parti the viie cr,An important hint of what the missing chapters of this book contained. and more sumwhere ellis in latyn. Nevertheles schortli to seie here; soon aftir the apostlis, rosen heretikis, and summe of hem helden that ther were dyverse chirchis of God in erthe, and that thei were a chirche of God bi hem silf. And for as myche as the grete fadris in the chirche hadden abhomynacioun herof, thei puttiden into the comoun crede forto bileeve oon hool universal chirche to be, with hise parties not discording oon fro othere in feith of God. And this is fer fro this, forto bileve nedis to thilk universal chirche in alle casis. This is ynow, O my sone, here for answere to thin viiie principal argument.

Also it is to be undirstonde that 'catholik' is as myche to seie as general, and therfore catholik feith is as myche to seie as general, and universal feith, and catholik chirche is as myche to seie as general, or universal chirche. This wole good and trewe gramer, and this wolen oold doctouris of divinite, as Ysider and Bede in her writingis. And all witti men knowen that tho propir significaciouns of wordis in latyn, ouȝten be take of grammer. Also, orthodoxe is as myche to seie as riȝt glorie, or the thing which is worthi riȝt glorie, and therfore al trewe feith, thouȝ it be particuler, ouȝte be clepid orthodoxe feith, thouȝ not ech feith ouȝte be clepid catholik feith, and ech trewe feithful particuler chirche ouȝte be clepid orthodoxe chirche, thouȝ not ech such particuler feithful chirche ouȝte be clepid catholik chirche, that is to seie, universal or general chirche. And ȝitt men now late, not so weel leerned in latin and in gramer as good were that thei weren, and as the oold scole of gramer brouȝte forth men leerned, han brouȝte into a viciose use now late bi ignoraunce of trewe grammer, forto calle a thing catholik, for that it is orthodoxe, even as, for defaute of sufficient leernyng in gramer, men bigynnen forto bringe into use forto seie in latyn alioquin schort, where, if thei were wel leernyd in gramer, thei wolden seie alioquin long. Loke alle men wherei.e. whether. the electuari, which Nicholas the phisisien in his Antitodari callith catholicon, is callid so for that it is orthodoxe, or for that it is universal. And loke also alle men, whether the book of Januense in gramer upon the iiii parties of gramer, is called catholicon, for that it is orthodoxe, or for that it is universal, and thanne lete alle hem be schamed, or at the leest lete hem amende her ignoraunce, whiche clepen the chirche or feith catholik, for that it is orthodoxe or trewe, and not for that it is universal or general.

FADIR, may the clergie, or al the hool chirche in erthe, make of the newe eny article to be feith, which was not bifore feith in it silf.

Sone, y wolde thou forȝatist not what is tauȝt in the first parti of The folower to the Donet, the xie cr., hou that feith is takun in ii maners. In ooSo in MS. maner, the knowing, bi which we knowen the trewe article, is clepid feith, and this maner of taking feith is propre. In an other maner, the same trewe article, in it silf knowen bi feith now seid in the first maner, is clepid also feith; but this secunde maner of cleeping, thouȝ it be ofte usid, it is an unpropir maner of cleping. Ensaumple herof is this. The knowing, with which y knowe that Marie conseived Crist in her maydenhode, is feith in the first maner of speche; and the same treuthe or article now rehercid and bileeved, which is this, Marie con|ceyved Crist in her maydenhode, is feith in the iie maner of speche. And inAlmost completely pared off from the margin where it is set as a correction. lijk maner, ech other article bileeved is woned to be clepid feith. Thane ferther thus. Ever either of these seid maners may be departid in twey other maners. Forwhi as it apperith bi the chapiter in the first parti of The folewer to the Donet, the know|ing wherynne y consent in myn undirstonding to a treuthe, beyng above oure capacite to knowe, save bi therof Goddis affermyng or reveling, is feith. And also the knowing, wherynne y con|sente in myn undirstonding to a treuthe, not bi my resouns fynding, but bi this, that a creature, which for good evydencis y trowe not therynne to lie, it affeermede, is feith. And so the comoun speche usith to seie; y ȝave credence to him; he is a credible man; and so forth of othere spechis lijk. Wherfore it folowith bi strengthe of the first particioun now bifore seid, that answer|ingli to these now last seid membris, the article or the treuthe knowun bi the first membre of this laste particioun, is feith, and the article or treuthe knowun bi the iie membre of this particioun is also seid feith.

Fadir, the particiouns or departingis of feith y conceyve wel, and y take, and comprehende hem sufficientli in my witt, and in my mynde.

Wel, sone, thanne ferther thus. Take thou thilk feith which is a knowing, wherynne we consenten in oure undirstonding to a treuthe, being above our capacite to fynde and knowe, and therfore we knowen it bi this, that God it affeermyd, and take thou the feith, which is the article or the treuthe in this now seid maner knowun; and certis never neither of these ii feithis the clergie, or the hool chirche, may make of the newe, at his owne wil. Forwhi, it is not in the power of the clergie, neither in the power of the hool chirche, forto make such an article to be trewe, or to be untrewe; as it is not in the chirchis power forto make this to be trewe or to be untrewe, that Marie conceyvyd a child in her maydenhode, or this, that Crist was deed, and roos aȝen into lijf, and so forth of othere articlis of feith in this seid maner and kinde. And therfore it that al the clergie, or the hool chirche, may do her aboute, is denouncing, and declaring, and deter|mynyng to the sympler party of the chirche what is in ever either of these now last seid maners, and that this is to be take for such feith, and that this other is to be take for such seid feith, and so forth of other lijk; but alle wise men mowe soone se that fer is this fro power to make eny thing be such seid feith. And, that the chirche makith not a thing to be such feith in this, that he decreeth, de|cerneth, iugith, determyneth, and witnessith, and publischith a thing to be such a feith, resoun wole that the wiser parti of al the hool multi|tude of Cristen men take upon hem, forto teche and enfoorme auctoritativeli the simpler parti which thing ouȝte be take for feith, and which not, and that into greet aliȝting and esiyng and suring to the simpler parti, and so doith the clergie to the lay parti. And of more strengthe than this is, y se not that the deter|mynacioun of the chirche is. But, aȝenward, take thou feith which is the knowyng, wherynne we consenten in oure undirstonding to a treuthe which we fynden not in oure resonyng, otherwise than for a creature, which, for sufficient evydencis, we trowen not therynne to lie, it affeermyde; and take thou the same treuthe so of us trowid and bileeved, which also is feith, and ever either of these feithis may be maad of newe of the clergie. Forwhi, the clergie may make now first a fastyng day, and an hali day, which never weren bifore. And of this making, and ordi|naunce, risen up these ii trouthis, which never were bifore: this daie is to be fastid, and this day is to be halowid. Now manye of the symple peple mowe leerne these ii trouthis of the clergie, that is to seie, thei mowe leerne, and knowe that this day is to be fastid, and this day is to be halowid; whilis thei witen not whi, save for this, that the clergie seien so and affeermen so to hem, and therfore it is in the power of the clergie to make into hem such feith as is now seid.

Fadir, this maner of feith whiche the chirche may make, is of noon other kinde but as is the credence or feith which ech hous|holder may make to hise ȝonge children, and to hise rude and symple hynes, and to hise hond|maydens, and boond men not myche witti to resone; and therfore these feithis whiche the clergie may make, ben fer from the hiȝnes and worthines of feithis, which God to us makith. And therfore, fadir, lete us speke her aftir, as we han spoken bifore, of tho feithis whiche we han bi affermyng of God, for suche ben algatis necessarie to oure helpe.

Sone, y assente wel that we schulen so speke, and therfore aske therof what thou wolte.

Fadir, y aske this. Owith the clergie, or the chirche bileeve as feith eny article which is not expressid in the litteral sense or undirstonding of Holi Scripture, and which is not folowing out of eny article in Holi Scripture, but if he have forto it bileeve and trowe bi this argument:— what ever God affeermed or schewid or revelid is trewe; this article God affeermyd, or revelid; wherfore this article is trewe? And but if he have sufficient evydence for treuthe of the iie premysse, as bi such an argument:—what ever the apostlis or othere undoutabili trewe heerers of God, or sum undoutable myracle, or sum undouȝtable inspiracioun, or sum undoutable ap|pering withoute forth, or withynne forth, to eny persoone, or sum longe uce of bileevyng in the chirche without eny bigynnyng, knewen therof witnessid God it affermed, revelid or schewid,The MS. seems confused here, reading 'God to have affeermyd or revelid or schewid,' and adding the clause 'God it affermed revelid or schewid' on the margin without erasing the erroneous words. so it is that the apostlis, or sum other un|doutable credible heerer of God, or sum undout|able myracle, or sum undoutable inspiracioun, or sum undoutable appering withynne forth, or without forth, or sum such seid longe uce of bileevyng in the chirche witnessid that God affeermyd, or revelid this article, wherfore treuthe is that God affeermyd thilk same article. And ȝitt ferther, upon the iie now seid premysse, he muste have notabili likli evy|dencis in argument, and so likli, that to the contrarie is not hadde, neither hopid to be hadde, eny evydence so likli. And sotheli, sone, as may ful openli be deducid, if al what is seid of feith in the first parti of The folewer to the Donet, and in this present book, be weel takun, undirstonden, and comprehendid, what ever article the clergie, or the hool chirche bileeveth as feith, and hath not, upon the same article, this now seid processe of evydence, and of proof, he in so bileevyng is over hasti, and usurpith, and presumeth ferther than he schulde. And upon what ever article the clergie can have the seid processe of proof, it the clergie may bileeve as feith without perel; and if the clergie have such a preef, as now is ensaumplid, upon sum article not writen openli in Holi Scripture, neither folowingli out of eny article so writen, the chirche so hath upon these trouthis, that this holi lyver after his deeth is acceptid into salvacioun, and to be reverencid, and wor|schipid, and folowid as for a savyd soule, and moche lovyd and worschipid of God, and so of manye martiris, confessouris, and virginis, othere and dyverse fro the persoonys of the apostlis, the chirche hath the now seid proof, and that bi helpe of myraclis, wel tried and examyned bi sufficient trewe witnessing, or bi open at fulle schewing. Thouȝ the chirche nedith not seche such helpe of myraclis for the apostilis to be doon, and that bicause Crist seid to hem thus, Luk. cr. 10: Ioie and be ȝe glad, for ȝoure names ben write in hevenes. And thanne therof folowith this to be take for an article of feith—Thomas of Cantilbiri is a seint; Joon of Bridlington is a seint, in the seid dew undirstonding of this word seynt, and so forth of othere, whos lyvyng, and for whom the myraclis doon ben weel examyned, and tried bi witnessis sworne; notwithstonding that pretense myraclis, and pretense inspiraciouns, and pretense appeeringis of God, or of aungels, withynne forth, and without forth, and legendis or lyves of seyntis, and othere stories whiche ben writen and hadde in fame, ben ful slider and unsure groundis, forto grounde upon hem feith, that is to seie a treuthe passing nature and revelid bi God, without passing greet trial of hem. Forwhi, certis among hem a diligent wise ensercher schal fynde, sumtyme supersti|ciouns, sumtyme errouris aȝens sure knowen trouthe, sumtyme heresies aȝens the feith, and sumtyme contrariete bitwieSo in MS. hem silf, as forto putte out in special where and hou oft, it were over longe here. And therfore, thouȝ the chirche suffre manye suche to renne forth, and be redde, and be takun as wise men wole iuge and fele of hem, the chirche is not so hasty forto determyne autoritativeli hem to be trewe. Nevertheles, al tho which the chirche takith into greet and perfiȝt examinacioun, and theraftir iugith, and decreeth, and determyneth autentikli to be trewe, ben nedis to be take for trewe, in lasse than sufficient proof be made into the contrarie, and unto tyme thilk proof be maad and knowe, as y seid bifore in the viie cr. of the first parti of this book.

But ȝitt, that the apostlis bitoken not, out and bisidis Holi Scripture, eny articlis unwriten to be bileeved for necessarie feithis, thouȝ summe men so comounli holden, y may argue bi riȝt notable evydencis, of whiche the firste is this. The apostlis bitoken not to Cristen men eny articlis to be bileeved as such seid feith, bi eny such wey whiche the apostlis knewen to be no spedeful and sufficient wey, forto in it bitake eny articlis to be bileeved as so greet feith; but so it is that the apostlis knewen wel, that to bitake to the heering and mynde of the peple oonli, without writing, eny such articlis forto be of hem bileeved, was no spedeful and sufficient wey; wherfore the apostlis not so bitoken. The iie premysse of this argument may in this wise be proved. Thilke wey was wel knowun, considerid, and aspied to be insufficient and unspedful, which was bi the apostlis remedied, and left, and leid aside; but so it was, that this seid wey forto delyvere eny articlis as such feith to the peple, bi heering and mynde oonli, without writing, was left, and leid aside, and remedied bi this, that thei wroten the gospells and epistlis to the peple. Forwhi, ellis thei hadden no sufficient cause for to so write, and Luk in his prolog into hise gospel meneth the same; wherfore it folowith that the seid wey was weel knowun, and considerid, and aspied, to be insufficient for the seid entent to be sufficientli sped. Also the seid iie premysse may be proved thus. The apostlis, made so wise bi the Holi Goost forto overse and knowe scripturis of the Oold Testament, myȝte soone knowe and remembre hou that manye trouthis Adam seide and tauȝte to hise sones and his ofspring, over it that is writen in the Bible, wherof no man in the tyme of apostlis couthe eny thing seie, and in lijk maner it was knowun of the apostlis to be trewe that Noe and Abraham seiden and tauȝten manye trouthis to her herers, not writen, whiche no man couthe reherce in tyme of the apostlis, and al for that thei were not writen. And in lijk maner it was trewe of David, and of Salomon, anentis her heerers, so that noon of her wordis ben knowun thanOn margin, 'thanne.' tho that ben writen. And if we wolen come neer hoom, Joon the evangelist seith, in the last cr. of his gospel, that mo myraclis Crist dide than ben writen in this book, which, if thei weren writen, al the world, thouȝ it were turned into bokis, schulde not take and comprehende; and ȝitt of alle tho myraclis not writen in the gospels, not oon is of us now knowun. Wherfore it folowith that so wys men as weren the apostlis in goostli necessarie maters, and so fulfillid with the Holi Goost, and also wel putte into good avisis bi ful witti clerkis convertid into Cristen feith, knewen wel that this weie forto delyvere necessarie feith to peplis, bi word, and heering, and mynde oonly, without therof the writing, was insufficient to the peple. The iie evydence is this. If the apostlis hadden lete renne eny articlis undir necessarie feith to be bileeved, without therof the scripture, this entent and dede of the apostlis schulde have be better knowen and holden of the chirche, which was in tyme of greet Constantyne the emperour, than of eny chirche being aftir tho seid daies. But so it was that the chirche in the daies of Constantyne helde not, trowid not, and considerid not, that the apostlis so left without writing eny articlis to be takun as necessarie feith, wherfore no chirche aftir the daies of Constantyne owith so holde. The iie premysse y may prove thus. In the daies of the greet and first Constantyne, emperour, ther was maad an universal counceil of al Cristen in Nice of Bityne, in which universal counceil weren gaderid the Latyn clerkis, and the Greek cleerkis togider, for this entent principali, to declare the trewe feith in the article upon which Arri erride, and folowingli forto putte out, in an expresse crede, the substancial pointis and articlis of our feith, as is open in the stories clepid Ecclesiastik Storie, and Tripartid Stori, or ellis thus, the chirchis stori, and the iii departid storie, whiche stories ben the worthiest and moost credible of eny other, save the Bible. And therfore, so thei dide, and made a crede which in the seid ii bokis is writen, but so it muste nedis have be that, if the chirche in tho daies hadde knowun, or trowid that the apostlis hadde delyvered to the peple eny articlis, undir heering and mynde oonli, the chirche in thilk seid general counseil, gaderid forto point and articleeSo in MS. maters of our feith, wolden rather have sette forth, in writing of the crede thanne maad, tho seid articlis which the apostlis left out of writing, than tho of whom expresse mensioun is maad in the writing of the apostlis. And that for as myche as to the more nede, remedie is rather to be ȝovun, than to the lasse nede. And the nede to putte tho articlis undir writing was ful greet, as schal soone aftir appere. Wherfore, the chirche than gaderid hadde no conceite that the apostlis leften eny suche articlis of necessarie feith, whiche the apostlis not wroten. And, in liik maner, as it was in the first seid general counseil of Nice that thei pointiden out of articlis of bileeve to alle Cristen peple into a foorme of a crede, so dide another greet general counceil aftir, at Constantynopil, and manye othere provincial counceilis, as apperith in the book clepid Decrees of counceils, rehercen the ii now seid credis, and in noon of hem, so making and pointing articlis of oure feith in her credis, is mensioun maad of eny article tauȝt bi the apostlis out of Scripture. The iiie evydence is this. If eny articlis schulde be lefte to peple fro the apostlis, undir heering and mynde, to be holde and bileeved of the peple greet as feith, these pointis and articlis schulde be tho rather than othere, or as soone as othere:— that is to seie, we schulen preie toward the eest; we schulen blesse us with a cros; preestis schulen make thre foold crossis upon the breed and wijne offride in the auter, bifore the consecracioun; the font of baptym schal be blessid with oile, and baptisid persoonys schulen be anointid with oil. But so it is that ech of these seid governauncis takun her bigynnyng and ordynaunce of our fadris oonli, not the apostlis, bi a chapiter of holi Basile, in the Summe of Gracian, d. xie c. Ecclesiasti|carum. And in the same wise it is to be demed of holi water, whom Alisaunder the first and Pope ordeynyd, and of holi breed, and of the moost party of observauncis in the masse, and of the fast in lent, and of manye othere suche observauncis, whom alle holi fadris sithen the apostlis ordey|neden, as it appeerith bi open witnessing of writingis; wherfore it is not to be holde that eny other observauncis or articlis, dyvers fro these now rehercid, the apostlis bitoke withoute writing, to be kept and to be bileevyd as such seid greet feith. Also holi Basile, in the now bifore alleggid cr. in the Summe of Gracian, d. xie c. Ecclesiasti|carum, departith tho thingis which alle Cristen owen to holde and to bileeve, into thre membris, that is to seie, into tho thingis, pointis, or articlis, whiche to us leeveth and bitakith apostolik ordynaunce, that is to seie, ordinaunce of a pope or of popis, and whiche to us bitakith Holi Scripture, and whiche to us bitakith devoute uce, chosen of the more part of the peple. Wherfore, holi Basil conceyvyd no mo membris than these iii to be nedisli takun and kept of Cristen peple. And thanne folowith that he conceyvyd not suche a fourthe membre to be takun and kept of the peple, that is to seie, whiche the apostlis tauȝten, and leften, and bitoken for substancial feith, without writing. And that, bi the first now rehercid membre, Basil undirstode popis ordy|nauncis, it is likli herfore. Forwhi, the ordinauncis of popis ben ful famose, and more famose, and of more reverence, and more attendaunce in the comoun peple, than is the custom and usage of the comoun peple, or, at the leest, of and even so myche; wherfore it is likli that Basil left not popis ordynauncis unspokun of, in his particioun bifore seid, but open it is that he speke not of popis ordynauncis, but if he spake therof in the first membre of the seid particioun, wherfore it is trewe that he so spak.

And so, fynali forto seie into the principal entent of this present chapiter, y am not ware that the chirche techith or delyvereth eny thing to be such seid catholik feith, as a treuthe doon or tauȝt in the tyme of Crist, or of the apostlis, except it which is conteynyd expresseli in the writing of the Newe Testament, or folowing thereof in formalMS. 'informal.' argument. If eny other man kan remembre him of othere or of mo, wel be it; but ȝitt thingis doon or tauȝt longe aftir tyme of the apostlis, the chirche may determyne for such seid feith, thouȝ not as a treuthe doon, or tauȝt, and revelid bi God in the tyme of Crist or of the apostlis, but latir aftir the tyme of Crist, and of the apostlis. Amonge whiche thingis declarid bi the chirche for feith, not conteynyd expresseli or inpresseli in Holi Scripture, if eny such be, y remembre me now of noon, save of it what is here bifore seid in this present cr., longing to the cananysing of seintis. And that if eny such be, which condicioun y seie for peraventure,The punctuation here may be mistaken. The sentence is one of Pecock's characteristically involved periods, and I have found difficulty in hitting his precise sense. it may be holde and undirstonde weel that the chirche entendith not forto decree, and determyne, and publisch this to be an article of such seid feith: Thomas of Cantilibiri is a seynt; Johnne of Bridlington is a seynt; Ambrose is a seynt, and so of other lijk dyverse fro Marie and fro the apostlis in the newe testament: but that the chirche admyttith and allowith hem to be holde, and worschipid, and folowid for seintis, in al or in myche thing tauȝt or doon bi hem, and ellis peple schulde not courseli so do, as the chirche decreeth not, or determyneth not, neither publischith the writingis of Ambrose, of Jerom, of Austyn, to be trewe; but admittith hem to be take in uce of studiyng, and of reding, and heering, with fredom to feele of hem as evydencis mowe resonabili and sufficientli move in tyme comyng, whiche writingis schulden not ellis boldeli and courseli be take into suche studiyng, reding, and heering, as thei now ben take, ne were the seid admissioun doon upon hem bi the chirche. Even as the chirche repellith and weerneth the writingis of sum othere writers to be take into uce of reding and heering courseli. Of which bothe dedis doon bi pope Gelasi, mensioun is maad in the Summe of Gracian, d. xve cr. Sancta Romana. And therfore, thouȝ y wole not exclude fro sumwhat helping into the grounding of feith, myraclis, and revelaciounis, and long uce of bileevyng in the chirche, namelich which may be in long use of undirstonding, thus or thus, Holi Scripture as for his litteral sense, ȝitt thei ben ech ful feble in himsilf forto founde the seid feith, but if he be sufficientli proved and tried. And ferthermore, it semeth that the apostlis entendiden not forto ȝeve eny catholik feith, necessarie to Cristen mennys savacioun, bi word oonli to be kept in uce, without writing and remembraunce.

And so, bi al that is writen fro the bigynnyng of this present chapiter hidirto, it semeth that the clergie ouȝte not induce, or constreyne the othere peplein to bileeve and feith of other pointis and articlis, as upon the feith of whom is hanging oure salvacioun, than ben expressid in the litteral sense of Holi Scripture, or folowing of hem so expressid.

O fadir, y am myche delitid in ȝoure so wise and depe forth leeding of the seid now bifore goyng profis. Nevertheles, y truste so moche in ȝoure to me good fadirhood, that ȝe wole suffre me make aȝens ȝoure doctrine this now to folowe obieccioun. Oon of the best clerkis and wisist divinis, and clepid therfore the Doctour Sutel, seith in his writing, that this article—Crist in his deeth of bodi discendid into hellisSo in MS.—is an article of necessarie feith; and that, for as myche as it is putte in the comoun crede, which crede is ascrivid to have be made of the apostlis; and ȝitt this same article, as he seith, is not groundid in Holi Scripture. Wherfore ȝoure doctryne stondith not, if this doctour was not in his now seid sentence bigilid.

O sone, he berith him ful wel which is never bigilid, namelich if he write myche or teche myche; for as holi scripture seith:No reference given.

In myche speche defaute is not absent. But that the seid doctour was in his conceit bigilid, lo y may schewe thus. In the tyme of Austyn, and of othere holi clerkis aboute Austyns tyme, the comune crede hadde not withynne him this seid article—Crist in his deeth of bodi descendid to hellis, as y prove in The book of feith in latyn. And no man may seie that the apostlis settiden thilk article in the comoun crede, a this side the daies of AustynA marginal correction of 'apostlis' in the text.; wherfore, nedis it is trewe that neither bifore, neither aftir Austyns daies, the apostlis settiden thilk article into the comoun crede. And so the ground, foundement, and cause, whi the seid doctour helde the seid article to be a feith, is not trewe, that is to seie, that the apostlis puttiden thilk article into the comoun crede. And that the chirche may make noon such article of feith, is bifore schewid in of this present chapiter, the forheed. That in the tyme of Austyn, and of othere holi fadris aboute Austyns tyme, the comoun crede hadde not this seid article, it is open bi dyverse and manye omelies and exposiciouns, which Austyn and the othere seid fadris maden, expownyng the comoun crede, in her daies rennyng, and that fro article to article, bi and bi, fro the first unto the last, and thei leeven unspokun of the now seid article; and also thei overleepen this article.At this point the MS. ends. We know from an earlier reference that there were at least two chapters more, concerned with the creed; and there seems some justification for Babington's conjecture (Represser, p. xliii.) that 'the great English creed,' to which Gascoigne refers, formed the conclusion of the book.