•••
=
-
-
=
-
-
•
-
-
*
)
*
*
-
-
*
-
=
។
-
A 1,136,392
_
b
a
r t
:::::::::::
:
:::::::
:::
:::
:
::;;;;;;:::::::
::
::::::::
•
•
cnn,
HERE:
មា
៣៥
ឯររង
givindinis
ខ្ញុំ
Elatែរ,
…
.
.
។
.

.
-
.
in the
2/475 (1456) Perock. Freitt
Ester
E
.
VA.2249
M18
.
4
CullG
.
THE BOOK OF FAITH
BY REGINALD PECOCK
BISHOP OF CHICHESTER
I
PUBLISHED BY
JAMES MACLEHOSE AND SONS, GLASGOW,
Pnblishers to the anibersity.
MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD., LONDON.
New York, · · The Macmillan Co.
Toronto, · · · The Macmillan Co. of Canada.
London, · · · Simpkin, Hamilton and Co.
Cambridge, · · Bowes and Bowes.
Edinburgh, · Douglas and Foulis.
Sydney, .. • Angus and Robertson.
MCMIX.
REGINALD PECOCK'S
BOOK OF FAITH
A Fifteenth Century Theological Tractate
EDITED FROM THE MS.
IN THE LIBRARY OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
WITH AN INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
BY
J. L. MORISON, M.A.
PROFESSOR OF HISTORY IN QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY, KINGSTON, CANADA
GLASGOW
JAMES MACLEHOSE AND SONS
PUBLISHERS TO THE UNIVERSITY
1909
.
GLASGOW: PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
BY ROBERT MACLEHOSE AND CO. LTD.
ΤΟ
A. C. BRADLEY
CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFACE
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
PAGE
9
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF
FIFTEENTH CENTURY OPINION
I. The Ecclesiastical Point of View -
II. Personal Facts - - - - -
III. Pecock's Contribution to English Thought
21
38
67
UMMARY OF
NTENTS -
SUMMARY OF CONTENTS - - -
TEXT OF BOOK OF FAITH
-
-
-
-
GLOSSARY
INDEX OF AUTHORS QUOTED BY PECOCK -
-
310
GENERAL INDEX
-
-
-
-
-
-
313
PREFACE
Pecock's Book of Faith exists in a unique, im-
1
Cambridge (B. 14. 45). Along with several
other English religious works of the fifteenth
century, it was included in Whitgift's benefactions
to the college library; and it bears his arms
on the binding. According to Dr. James, it is
written in a hand of the early fifteenth century,
and contains many marginal notes, some of them
almost as early as the manuscript itself. It
consists of 127 ff., very clearly written, although
the scribe has been by no means perfect in his
transcription. Two folios in the second octave
are missing, and many at the end—we know
that at least two chapters are gone. Imperfect
as it is, sufficient still remains to make it, along
i Gatalogue of the Western MSS. in the Library of Trinity
College, Cambridge (1900). By M. R. James, i. 452-3.
10 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
with the Represser, the most important contribu-
tion to English theological thought between
Wycliffe and the Tudor writers; and even had
this not been so, the book has had a history
interesting enough to justify publication.
There can be little doubt that it was Pecock's
last completed work. In his prologue, the author
mentions the Represser as of six years' standing,
and in exact accordance with this time, as Water-
land was the first to notice, 'speaking of the
same war between England and France, he sets
it at forty years in this book, as he had in
the Represser at thirty-four.'! It is true, as
Babington has noted, that there are two refer-
ences to the Book of Faith in the Represser; a fact
which, under ordinary circumstances, would seem
to make it at least as early as the other work.
But a knowledge of Pecock's literary methods
makes this inference unnecessary. Babington
explains the cross reference by pointing to the
author's habit of working at several volumes
coincidently : 'Pecock seems to have had several
works half finished at the same time, which after-
wards came out at different times; and thus one
1 Waterland's Works, (ed. Oxford, 1823), vol. x. p. 214.
2 The Represser (Rolls Series), p. xxxiii.
PREFACE
II
book may be referred to in another book, which
itself came out earlier than the book to which it
refers.'? But I should go further, and claim that
the actual references in the Represser are the surest
evidence of a very late date for the Book of Faith.
Both references are on erasures in the Cambridge
manuscript of the Represser. Now, that manu-
script was the copy used at Pecock's examination,
and was revised, along with other volumes, by
its author, late in 1457. It is not extravagant
to believe that the numerous erasures and correc-
tions, in two of which the Book of Faith is men-
tioned, were made when Pecock was bringing his
volume up to date for the trial. So it would
happen that he could refer precisely to a volume
only recently completed, and which had previously
existed, if at all, only in idea. No doubt Pecock,
in the same passage in which he speaks of the
Represser as six years old, also says that it is
not zitt into this present day utterly into uce
delyvered ;'3 but in the author's sense, the
Represser remains to-day in that condition—it is
an unfinished argument. I take it that the Book
1 The Represser, p. xxxiii.
? Gascoigne, in Loci e Libro Veritatum (ed. Rogers), p. 211.
8 The Book of Faith, the Prologue.
Se
12 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
of Faith is, by a full six years, later than the
Represser, and if we accept Babington's date of
1449, or at latest 1450, for the latter, the Book
of Faith may be placed somewhere about 1456.
This date accords well with the earliest history
of the book. Gascoigne makes it plain that the
treatise de Fide figured prominently in the days
of Pecock's trial, and so long as the case held
public attention. It is hardly rash to say that his
references suggest the excitement created by the
recent publication of unsound views. In 1457 it
was recent enough to be still unread by him ; he
has heard of its teachings; he takes other men's
word for its contents. Still, whether through
actual acquaintance, or through rumour, the
treatise bulks more largely in Gascoigne's mind
than any of Pecock's other works. He states its
propositions with fulness and accuracy, and in his
latest reference gives chapter and verse : "the
aforesaid bishop Pecok, in his book de Fide, part
the second, chapter five, says that the Subtle
Doctor was deceived when he declared Christ's
: descent into hell to be an article of faith.'2 The
peculiar prominence held by the book in Gas-
1 Loci e Libro Veritatum, pp. 99, 100.
2 Ibid. p. 210.
PREFACE
13
coigne's mind is the result, on the one side, it
seems to me, of its recent appearance; on the
other, of the great importance of the doctrines
it contains. In spite of the greater mass of detail
in the Represser, and its value as a historical
document, that book held no superiority of
interest until Babington's edition, in the Rolls
Series, made it Pecock's representative work. It
may be of interest to trace first-hand knowledge
of the Book of Faith, and use made of it, down
to the nineteenth century.
Bale must have seen it, for in his catalogue of
Pecock's works he quotes (with a slight error)
its opening words : ‘Filii mei perditi, etc.'1 Of
Foxe, we can only say that his knowledge of our
author seems to have been acquired from external
sources, such as Gascoigne; but the later six-
teenth century is represented by Whitgift, who
was interested sufficiently in the manuscript to
possess it, and present it to Trinity College ; and
it is possible that one of the titles, scribbled on
the first pages of the manuscript, was from the
hand of Stowe. When Henry Wharton desired,
at the end of the seventeenth century, to demon-
strate that even in later ages it was the commonly
1 Bale, Index Britanniae Scriptorum (ed. Poole), p. 338.
14 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
1
received opinion of the Church that Scripture is
the Rule of Faith,' he turned to the Trinity
College manuscript, and his partial transcript,
carelessly rendered, and used for purposes which
the author would hardly have approved, is the
first modern contribution to our knowledge of
Pecock's opinions. A little later, Waterland and
Lewis made ample use of the same manuscript.
Lewis, indeed, probably did not handle it, although
he seems to have read Wharton's extracts ;? but
Waterland, who gave him most of his first-hand
material for his Life,' transcribed considerable
portions, and enabled him to quote the manuscript
as one of his main authorities.3 Tanner mentions
it in his Bibliotheca Britannico-Hibernica, 4 referring
to the Trinity manuscript and Wharton's tran-
script, although his language hardly suggests that
he had seen the former. And, to pass at a leap
to the nineteenth century, Babington's work on
| 1A treatise proving scripture to be the rule of faith, writ by
R. Peacock about the year 1458 [with a preface by Henry
Wharton], London, 1688. There are copies of Wharton's
book in Trinity College Library, Cambridge, and in the
Bodleian.
2 Lewis, The Life of the Learned and Right Reverend Reynold
Pecock, S.T.P. (1744).
3 Waterland's Works, vol. x. passim.
4 p. 584
3
PREFACE
15
the Represser reveals a knowledge of the present
treatise almost as complete as that possessed of
the text he was editing. When one remembers
that all this knowledge and interest depended on
a single imperfect manuscript, the inherent im-
portance of the book becomes more obvious. It
is strange that an editor has not appeared at an
earlier date ; the more so since prospective editors
have a cordial assurance of their author's good
will, and some share in a blessing bestowed four
hundred and fifty years ago : Wel were the
man,' says Pecock of the multiplication of his
books by others, which hadde rieches and
wolde spende it into this so greet goostli
almes, which passith ful myche the delyng abrood
of clothes to greet multitude of pore persoonys,
notwithstanding that bothe kyndis of almes ben
good.'
The aim and methods of the present edition
demand some explanation. The work was origin-
ally undertaken as part of a more ambitious
scheme, dealing with opinion in England prior to
the Elizabethan Renaissance ; and I have never
ceased to regard my work as part of that larger
whole. It seemed desirable to set in print a book
so important in the development of English theo-
ON II
16 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
logical opinion. The first object, therefore, was a
complete text. The spelling of the manuscript,
with all its variations, has been retained, except in
cases of obvious absurdity, and with this modifica-
tion that 'þ' used by the scribe without any
special significance, has been changed into the
modern symbol. The punctuation is entirely my
own, and may not escape criticism ; but the
author's style is so involved and his sentences
and paragraphs so interminable, that some attempt
at exegesis through punctuation seemed to be
called for. As a matter of fact, this is the only
form of annotation which I have attempted, apart
from some few bare textual explanations. The
nature of the subject-matter must render notes an
irritant to the mind closely engaged in following
the author's argument; and such historical or
philosophical information as may be necessary can
be better supplied in other ways. A table of
authorities quoted in the treatise has been com-
piled; and an elementary glossary, for those who
may stumble, here and there, at a strange word
or form. I am very conscious that the introduc-
tory essay may be regarded as unnecessarily
general, but, as has been explained above, this
general relation of Pecock to the development of
III
PREFACE
17
English thought seems the most solid reason for
the publication of the treatise, and the point of
view least emphasised in the work of earlier
students of the man. I wish, therefore, the
text and the essay to appear as an introductory
chapter to the history of the earlier English
Renaissance.
It gives me pleasure to mention those who,
through their kindness, have made this work
possible. I have to thank the Council of Trinity
College for their generosity in granting me per-
mission to publish the manuscript, and to use the
resources of their noble library. To the Reverend
Dr. Sinker and to Mr. W. W. Greg, the Librarians
during the period of my work, I owe a special
debt of gratitude. Dr. Sinker received me with
a courtesy which meant very much to my work,
and I shall not readily forget his suggestions and
his encouragement during my visits to Cambridge.
To all the officials in the Library I wish to com-
municate my thanks.
Equally with these, I am indebted to my
T
1
To the authorities upon Pecock's writings should now
be added the long discussion in Dr. Gairdner's important
work, Lollardy and the Reformation in England (1908), vol. i.
pp. 202-242.
18 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
friends, Mr. Kenneth Leys, of Glasgow Uni-
versity, Mr. James MacLehose, and Mr. F. M.
Powicke, of Manchester University, for services
which have made publication easy and pleasant to
one who will be distant some thousands of miles
from his printers during the later stages of his
work.
J. L. MORISON.
1
INNELLAN, ARGYLLSHIRE, August, 1908.
REGINALD PECOCK :
AN ESSAY ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF
FIFTEENTH CENTURY OPINION
REGINALD PECOCK :
AN ESSAY ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF
FIFTEENTH CENTURY OPINION
I
THE ECCLESIASTICAL POINT OF VIEW
In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, and
Sonn, and Holy Ghost, T Raynold Peacock,
bishopp of Chycester unworthy, of mine own
pure and free will, without any man's cohertion
or dread, confess and acknowledge, that I here
before time presuming of mine own natural witt,
and preferring the judgment of naturall reason
before the New and Old Testaments, and the
authority and determination of our moder holy
church, have holden, felyd, written, and taught
otherwise, then the holy Romane and universal
church teacheth, preacheth, and observeth. ...
And on this to declaration of my commission,
and repentance, I here openly assent, that my
said books, works, and writings, for consideration
and cause above rehearsed, be deputed unto the
22 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
D
Tin
fire, and openly be burnt, into the example and
terror of all other.'1 In the words of this
recantation the career of the only great English
theologian of the fifteenth century ended. The
shame which naturally attaches to a surrender,
the industry of very bitter personal enemies, and
a fate ironically adverse, have too long obscured
from view the extraordinary interest attaching
to the career of Reginald Pecock, doctor of the
University of Oxford, bishop of Chichester, and
the author of volumes, once offering a fair system
of rational divinity, now existing in some few
scattered manuscripts, a little gleaning from the
fires which their author barely escaped. It is
true that handbooks make correct references to
the trial which extinguished him, and that his
Represser has furnished rich spoil to the
philologist, but of the moderns, Lewis and
Babington 2 alone have given an adequate account
1 Wilkins' Concilia, vol. iii. p. 576.
2 The Life of the Learned and Right Reverend Reynold
Pecock, S.T.P., etc., by John Lewis, Minister of Mergate,
collected and written in 1725, and now reviewed. London,
1744. The Repressor. Edited by Churchill Babington.
London, 1860. I shall spell the title of this book after
Pecock's own fashion, and write it Represser throughout
this essay. Vol. ii. of the Cambridge History of English
Literature contains an interesting estimate of Pecock's literary
work by Miss Greenwood.
2
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY 23
WTT
of his personality, and there is still room for a
reconstruction of the character, which each new
slander of his enemies, or complacent self-
appreciation in his own pages, sets before us
with singular vividness.
It was Pecock's misfortune that he lived at
a time, and in a country, dead to the interests
he had peculiarly at heart, for he was the
Renaissance man in a land still content with its
ancient ways and thoughts. It is customary to
trace a growing inclination towards learning
through the century in England, and to claim
as signs of renascent intellect a few gifts of
books to college libraries, the founding of some
schools or colleges, and the wandering of a few
English scholars into Italy to learn Greek. As
- if the schoolboy earnestness of a few excellent
pedants, or the benefactions of a dilettante,
could cause a national movement. It took the
discovery of a new world, the menace of a
national destruction, the creation of a brilliant
court, and the evolution of a new experimental
morality to awaken England to her intellectual
destiny. For England is not easily moved.
There is a temper most fitly described as
Anglican, which from before the Conquest, had
set England, a little continent by herself, in
opposition even to the papal and imperial ideals
24 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
.
in their attempts to dominate nationality, and
which, among the minor consequences of its
operation in the fifteenth century, foiled Pecock
through the long labours of some decades, and
finally overwhelmed his rash attempt to erect
mind into a position which only Italy was then
prepared to grant it. There is a familiar tragic
picture in literature of the hero wrestling with
that vague monster, the Spirit of the Age, and
being overcome; but never has the tragedy been
so complete as when the fifteenth century church
rose, in the strength of its dull wrath, and
destroyed even the memory of Pecock's career.
England, then as now, was a land which
acknowledged the fact more than the ideal.
statesmen and thinkers could vaguely see some
form of progress, they were disinclined to move
quickly or often. Fact had to adjust itself to
fact; repeated small experiments must first justify
change in detail, before any measure could
advance, and stolidity was the natural English
virtue. Precedent, too, had to play its part.
Whether in church or state, Pecock's contem-
poraries abode by the status quo, and argued
from it. The mere fact that ideas and institutions
existed sufficed, and no practical politician or
ecclesiastic dreamt of advance made otherwise
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
25
than by light reflected from the past. Parliament,
under the Lancastrians, set the fashion of legal
conservatism, which ruled unchecked, save by the
need of occasionally readjusting means to end ;
and the reformer, who loves advances in great
sweeping moves, found the case prejudiced against
him by this association of wisdom with sober
immobility. Still more obstructive of intellectual
advances was the modified feudalism, which made
English life rural rather than civic, and which,
being the abrogation of self-consciousness in social
relations, told everywhere against keen play of
mind. But the peculiar intellectual notes of
Lancastrian England are best revealed in such
concrete examples as Fortescue's writings afford;
with their sound apprehension of average English
merits, their shrewd judgment on alien fact, based
on the assumption that the Anglican standard
must be the true criterion; their refusal to
intrude individual idea into a fabric of thought
and usage, sanctified by centuries of unthinking
progress, and the exhibition of that Anglican piety
which resorts to innovation only when the happy
self-sufficiency of national conceit has been
offended by alien church authorities. It is the
spirit of a land given over to agriculture, with
intervals of trade and war, but little inclined to
foster the soul or the intellect. The student of
DO
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
fifteenth century England must not allow himself
to be misled by the stability and the national
health, which underlay all its surface defects and
strifes, and to forget its extreme insignificance in
the history of intellectual development in Europe.
Truth of proportion comes only when we set
beside England and its sturdy, stupid standards,
the intellectual illumination of contemporary
Florence, with some man of action like
Machiavelli to serve as prophet and summarize
a century's gains and losses. The Italian, basing
his sceptical generalisations on a national practice
which had been maturing for well-nigh a century,
formulated a political philosophy to suit a land
of cities; where communities governed them-
selves by consciously and suddenly developed
constitutions, and where government overcame
government by sheer force of mind. He spoke
to men who were accustomed to judge things
by that most intellectual of tests, their own
enlightened self-interest; he was approved by
rulers whose tyranny usually clothed itself in
aesthetic and learned refinement, and by courtiers
who forgot the loss of independence in the new
joy of reviving letters, the pursuit of the arts, and
1 In spite of Machiavelli's later date I choose him here for
comparative purposes, because his practice and theory were
both founded on fifteenth century facts.
n
.
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY 27
the elaboration of a life where the senses, by their
free play, gave new sharpness to the mind, and the
mind by its consciousness of self-improvement,
exaggerated the power of the senses. The
Lancastrian Englishman, true to the national
principle that God works while the farmer sleeps,
preferred to leave to providence ideas wherein no
surface cleverness could, in his eyes, atone for
possible error, and was satisfied to know that
means and end were adjusted for the next day's
work, without looking for ulterior ideal justifica-
tion. His land knew nothing of the life lived
intellectually for the mere sake of intellect; his
rulers were warriors of antique mould, local
potentates, immersed in hunting and parochial
self-assertion ; his religion was a solid physical
necessity of life, so entirely expressed in institu-
tions, charities, churches and traditional usages,
that only to those outside the pale of social or
intellectual respectability did it suggest itself as
a possible subject for intellectual criticism ; his
educational system sought mainly to train a
numerous clergy, and to educate men through
those useful exercises which engage, without
developing the mind, and that form of inquiry
which never demands the appearance of a new
fact, or feels the need of a temporary scepticism.
Pecock had to face this temper in its most
28 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
stubborn form. He was an ecclesiastic, and in
England the world of ecclesiastical orthodoxy has
ever been the last refuge for impossible antiquities.
In the fifteenth century, English orthodoxy pre-
sented a picture of troubled quiescence, for the
Anglican church was attempting a curious task.
It had, on the whole, succeeded in defeating the
great effort which Wycliffe had made, to attain
progress by rational means. In spite of the
almost purely national character of Wycliffe's
primary doctrines, ecclesiastical conservatism had
refused to alter one iota of its teachings. Theories
of dominion, which flattered Anglican pride and
played to suit the mood of Anglican feudalism,
had done little more than attract a few dis-
credited English land-owners; criticism of material
mysteries which could be grasped in part by the
crowd, had won disciples, whose vigorous, coarse
onslaughts on the sacrament of the altar left the
educated, and even the main body of the people,
little troubled ;1 an honest appeal to Englishmen
to study their religion in their own language had
been too strenuously opposed from above to
permit the growth of an independent mind in
the lower classes. National religion was suffering
from the most depressing of all disasters, the
1 See Fasciculi Zizaniorum, passim, for the unphilosophic
framework of the Lollard views.
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY 29
1
.
extinction of intellectual progress and moral
enthusiasm; for the universities had made uncon-
ditional surrender to the church, and the possible
leaders of religious advance had, one after another,
chosen security at the expense of truth.?
But while the one logical attack on the Papacy
had been promptly checked, English churchmen
could not afford to ignore papal exactions and
misdeeds, nor were leaders like Hallam of
Salisbury, or Beaufort of Winchester, willing to
let England take any low place in the great
councils which were attempting to heal the papal
schism, unite the church in an orthodox faith, and
abolish the more clamant of her abuses. On its
more complaisant side, the English church, while
it maintained the ancient splendours of its national
tradition, sought to recover within its bounds the
untainted purity of doctrine which had been its
boast from the days when the Pelagian evil had
been banished, down to the dawn of the Wycliffite
heresies. It took its stand as the church
orthodox, Roman, splendid in social stability,
asserting a right to rank with the highest feudal
potentate in that unquestioned unreflective custo-
mo
1 This inability of the chief Lollards to maintain their views
to the end is one of the most definite conclusions suggested by
Mr. G. M. Trevelyan in his admirable England in the Age of
Wycliffe.
30 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
mary sway, the loss of which would mean
derogation even from its spiritual correctness.
But on another side it showed a vigorous element
of protest. All agreed in excluding heresy, but
some were resolute for reform. The higher
dignitaries might acquiesce in Papal corruptions
which left them with a share of the spoils, but,
apart altogether from Parliaments which had a
disinclination to provide for Italian pluralists,
there seems to have been a goodly number of
the school of Grosseteste, who cried to Rome
to cease its injustice, and to cleanse the courts
of the church. It was unfortunate for these
reformers that their orthodoxy, unstained, had set
them in the forefront of the attack on Wycliffite
opinion, for there can be little doubt that the
very evils which they attacked, were in part
had sustained at their own hands.
The English church, then, to whose episcopate
Pecock belonged, had this unwonted double aspect
of stately orthodoxy and vigorous reform ; yet on
either side there was an unquestioning agreement
to defend the purity of doctrine. It was Pecock's
singular misfortune that, throughout his career,
he came into hostile contact with both parties in
the church, and that while he offended the higher
powers, he simultaneously provoked against him
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY 31
the moral vigour of the purists, who represented
the soundest traditions of English ecclesiastical
and religious constitutionalism. In the last fight,
which, as we shall see, brought his career to
its shameful close, it was Reginald Pecock contra
mundum, from the king and archbishop down to
the very London mob; but through a piece of
great good fortune there exist two detailed and
vehement condemnations of the man, which display
not merely his objective errors, but those two
great currents of English opinion which he tried
to stem, social caste acting as the regulator of
religion, and righteous (perhaps self-righteous)
orthodoxy.
One of these (if the envenomed account of
Pecock's end contained in the St. Alban's Register
be really the work of the Abbot Whethamstede)
speaks of his exploits, from the standpoint of
the great ecclesiastic, lashing them with a fury
which cannot contain itself, and which breaks into
scandalous and doggerel verse over the peacock
deplumatus' and 'spoliatus.'1 It is the voice
of the abbey potentate, the possessor of broad
acres, the inheritor of an ancient and peerless
tradition; the constitutional churchman accustomed
1 Registrum Abbatiae Johannis Whethanistede, Abbatis Monasterii
Sancti Albani, edited by H. T. Riley, M.A. (Rolls Series),
nyei
32
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
to say to one man Go,' and to another Come,'
and ignorant of the sound of dissent. What had
so stable, so soundly unprogressive a force to do
with clever reasonings on the faith? Christianity
for the Abbot of St. Albans had come to mean
the stable ordering of lands and moneys, the
regular performance at stated hours of a noble
ritual, the social distinction which attached to the
heads of a great church organisation. Ideas in
such a world were obviously misplaced, innovation
was a sort of spiritual lèse-majesté, and the very
suspicion of heresy set the suspected, not in any
class of brilliant heresiarchs, but among those
discreditable souls for whom is reserved the
blackness of social darkness. In a land where
bishops were mighty, nobles, judging all things
from the standpoint of aristocratic arrogance and
immobility, and where mitred abbots were fellows
rather of the patriarchs than of the apostles, a
renaissance in intellectual dogma was an impos-
sibility, for it required imagination, mental agility,
and some smack of letters, qualities on whose
front contemporary English opinion set the brand
of Cain.
If this massive property-owning Christianity
stood in the way of movement, no less so did
the religion of the universities. Once on a time
it had been possible to speculate at Oxford,
IS
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY 33
and among the most daring schoolmen English
scholars had not been wanting. But the days
of Occam and Wycliffe were over. Oxford at
least had become the home of a cause, triumphant
but lost. After a gallant fight and an utter defeat,
her leaders had set their faces towards strict
orthodoxy, and progressive thought had gone.
The highest point that could now be reached
was only a kind of acidulated righteousness
which had coupled the law and the prophets
with the college statutes, and had contrived to
give the gospel exhortations something of the
dry rigour which the regulations of a university
carry with them. One may still trace in the
letters of Millington, first provost of King's
College, Cambridge, and a valiant confuter of
Pecock, the formal dyspeptic correctness which
destroys thought even more effectually than sloth;
and the pages of that Pharisaic prophet, Thomas
Gascoigne, reveal as nothing else does, the
peculiarly exceilent qualities which must have
1
1 See an article on William Millington, by the Rev. G.
Williams, B.D., in the Cambridge Antiquarian Society Com-
munications, vol. i. pp. 287 seq.
2 I use throughout, Loci e libro veritatum (Oxford, 1881),
being a selection of passages from Gascoigne’s Theological
Dictionary, edited by J. E. Thorold Rogers. And in addition
one finds significant references to Gascoigne in the Oxford
34 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
1
here and there adorned the fifteenth century
English church, and the equally strong capacity,
inherent in these very qualities, for preventing
any broad uprising of the national religious spirit.
To Gascoigne, religion and the church meant
something infinitely more self-conscious and
spiritual than it did either to Whethamstede or
to Beaufort. He had no temptation to confuse
religion with social position or domestic admini-
stration. Born of good family, educated at
Oxford and honoured by her, he exhibited in
pleasant combination the ways of a gentleman,
a scholar, and a Christian. Duty he followed
with a loyalty almost fanatic, and the standards
which guided his own conduct he applied as
faithfully in his criticism of his fellow churchmen
and their practice. It was a high sense of moral
responsibility which led him to attack his fellow
churchmen and Rome for serious delinquencies. 1
Rectors and bishops were abandoning their charges
for pleasanter duties at court and town; religious
Historical Society's volumes of fifteenth century Oxford letters.
The Gladius Salomonis of Bury might also be used to reveal
contemporary opposition to Pecock; but I have preferred
Gascoigne because he mingles criticism with so much valuable
personal detail-valuable not the less because it is abusive.
1 Loci e libro veritatum, passim.
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
35
man
foundations were gathering to themselves the
revenues of parish churches regardless of the
spiritual welfare of the people ; sinners were
finding easy ways to repentance and to acqui-
escence in their sins, through pardons and
indulgences; at the root of all, the Roman
curia, greedy for gold, shameless, insincere,
deceiving even the Pope himself, was ruining
the English church by its reservations and
provisions and simoniac practices. It was hard
for loyal churchmen to speak out, but they
were not deaf to the call of duty, and Gascoigne
spoke as hard words of Rome as ever Luther
did. The college puritan, then, could exhibit
a high spirit, an inflamed conscientiousness, and
an outspoken courage on proper occasion. But
if Gascoigne was at all typical, he was also a
precisian, whose puritanism had little evangelic
constructiveness in it. One may note in the
querulous repetitions of his attack on Pecock,
a bitterness which suggests petty lack of charity;
and his pessimism revealed the weakness of a
righteousness, whose only policy in the face of
evil was to complain again. This college ortho-
doxy was afraid of spiritual liberty, and had little
sympathy with a faith that faced the worst. Long
acquaintance with the routine of academic life had
given college rules and college precision too great
36
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
TY
a place in the doctor's mind; it is disappointing
to find, in the midst of most righteous criticism,
the carping questionings of a man who will have
all things done decently and in order, even when
virtue calls for haste, and to whom speculation
is a temptation of the evil one. Virtue it is,
but academic virtue, and the ways of the universe
seldom conform to the regulations of the
quadrangle.
I have tried to suggest features in that system
of ecclesiastical thought and feeling which formed
in its completeness a strong fabric of Anglican
constitutionalism. From Beaufort, baron, general,
diplomatist and churchman, at its head, down to
the pettiest doctor who served his church by
scholastic quibbles at some obscure college, there
was firmness, some soundness, a vast capacity for
resisting movement, and an overwhelming desire
to extirpate whatever was novel in thought, word,
or policy. Beside this engine of conservatism, in
anxious attitude of defence, stood the state, equally
resolute to maintain contact with the past, and
regarding innovation in the church as treason
against the king—a strong secular arm, bound
not in spirit only but by law, to strike a blow
for the ancient faith. And more generally, but
still with enormous influence, there operated the
unorganised chaos of fifteenth century English
1
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
37
opinion and temper; uninspired, sluggish, and
utterly unheroic. It was a world in which a
martyr, with a great gospel and an undaunted
courage, might have provoked a crisis, but it
was hardly one in which new speculative culture
could easily grow. The enthusiast, the crusader,
the bold adventurer, each might have fought his
way to power and influence, but mind, unassisted
yet aspiring, could only look for failure. It was
the intention of Reginald Pecock to give his
church a new intellectual standpoint, to convince
the people of error through their minds; in short,
to do for England, and in an English way, what
the greater Italians were attempting with success
in their own land. One must turn to his writings
for the methods and doctrines of the new illumi-
nation; to his life for the result.
1
US
Personal FACTS
It would be futile to reconstruct with any
elaboration the details of a biography which Lewis
and, more particularly, Babington have so com-
pletely investigated. But some attempt at a
general outline must be made, for Pecock's
writings are much more than the formulation of
a revised religion ; they are the expression of a
highly individualised character. Apart altogether
from the great interest of two or three events in
his life, the personal revelations of one who was
a hero among egoists ought to be brought to bear
more definitely than they have yet been, upon the
colder facts of history and the precise terms of a
1 I have here utilised the ordinary materials of biography,
helped very greatly by Lewis and Babington (op. cit.), but here
and there I have tried to group facts in new ways, guided by
the many personal references in the Pecock MSS. and the
Represser. It seems to me that sufficient use has not been
made, in this way, of the Folewer to the Donet (Brit. Mus.,
Bibl. Reg. 17 D. ix.) or of the Book of Faith.
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
39
logical philosophy, in both of which personality
is really the unifying principle.
That he was of Welsh origin, the spite of
Gascoigne's Saxon contempt for an episcopus
Wallicus ' leaves little doubt ;1 besides, some such
racial fact is useful in explaining the shifty
brilliance, the absence of calculation, and the re-
fusal to ballast mind with something more grossly
material, which characterise Pecock's every action.
He was born somewhere about the end of the
fourteenth century, and, whatever the nature of
his schooling, his subsequent career conformed
sufficiently to fifteenth century English ways to
give him a commanding position among English
churchmen. He was of the same Oxford College,
Oriel, as his great enemy, Gascoigne, and had
been for a time a Fellow, but he cannot have
shared the opinions of his academic colleagues, for
when he did proceed to a doctor's degree, it was,
as Gascoigne sadly mourns, by dispensation, and
without the fit and proper academic offices. The
truth seems to be that Pecock's intellect moved
more rapidly and more ingeniously than did those
of his solider rivals, and that Humphrey of
1 There is of course, in addition, Leland's phrase, “relicta
Cambria, patrio solo' (De Script. Brit.), and Babington has set
the point practically beyond possibility of doubt.
2 Loci e libro veritatum, p. 215.
40
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
Gloucester, keenly interested in the literary life,
but more concerned with grace and novelty than
with painful scholarship, and finding Pecock a
man after his own heart, adopted him as one of
his literary retainers, and so the Welsh scholar
came to figure in a court circle. It is quite
impossible to understand Pecock's career without
a recognition of this relation of his to the court
and a small court party of churchmen. At least
from 1431, when he found prosperity and work
in London, his attitude was that of a man owning
allegiance to a clique, and with enemies, some of
them hostile to himself, but many enraged at the
abuses connived at and shared in by a few court
favourites. Gascoigne has made it plain that
Henry VI., pious and scholarly as his inclinations
were, was not a wholesome influence in the
Church. Other monarchs had been content to
choose their chaplains from a rank lower than
that of bishop-his great father had taken Thomas
Netter of Walden, a simple theological doctor, as
his spiritual adviser-but Henry of Windsor, for
1 Leland, De Script. Brit. “Accersitus ille, aulae et principi
sic subserviebat, etc.
2 The best evidence for this is found, in the first place, in
Gascoigne's reiterated statements ; secondly and more con-
clusively, in Pecock's own statements and his whole attitude in
the sermon at St. Paul's Cross.
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
41
one reason or another, preferred to draw bishops
from their diocesan duties, at the very time when
the common people were beginning to criticise
the ways of English bishops. Round him he
gathered, at one time or another, court divines like
Stafford the archbishop, Moleyns of Chichester,
Le Hert of Norwich, Bothe of Lichfield, and
Pecock himself. How much Gloucester's initiative
had to do with this work is uncertain, but it is
significant that Pecock should have been regarded
as one of his protégés,1 and that Moleyns, like
Humphrey, whose reputation for eloquence was
European, not only had Italian correspondents,
but had actually received congratulations on his
style from no less a person than Aeneas Sylvius.
One can see through the lamentations of Gas-
coigne the picture of a little circle of literary
churchmen, who preferred rather to enjoy the
pleasures and comfort of the court than the bleak
rectitude of a round of duties faithfully performed
in their own dioceses ; men probably possessed
of broader views than the puritanic scholars or
the feudal bishops who envied or criticised their
mode of life, but, consciously or unconsciously,
contributing by lax discipline and too obtrusive
selfishness to multiply the ecclesiastical evils of a
decadent age. For these men the way to high
1 Lewis (p. 4) on the authority of Leland.
42
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
position lay widely open, nor did the courtly
influence confine itself to ecclesiastical appoint-
ments. The universities themselves had to
pay tribute, for along with Pecock, whose
doctorate must have been won by ducal if
not royal solicitations, we hear of Master
Vincent Clement, another of the circle, obtain-
ing his degree minis et promissis,' and thrusting
aside academic opposition by royal letters and
writs. The entire meaning of Pecock's notorious
sermon, shortly to be examined, depends on his
connection with this group, and his defence
of them.
But Pecock, while he found court favour
pleasant, was by no means an idler. Indeed,
through all his works may be discerned that note
of bustling self-importance, by which a busy
literary man seeks to impress an ignorant public
with the austerity of his labours. He may
perhaps have seemed a little busier than he was,
but the catalogue of his volumes in itself refutes
any accusation of sloth. According to Gascoigne,
writing at the time of his trial, Pecock had spent
. 1 Loci e libro veritatum, p. 28, Vincencio Clement, doctori
insolenti, qui Oxoniae in theologia incepit in ordine diaconatus
existens, gradu suo optento minis et promissis, et diversis
litteris regiis et brevibus regiis missis contra eos qui in magna
congregatione regencium et non regencium in Oxonia graciam
suam petitam ex sua consciencia negaverunt.'
O
mea
S
1
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
43
twenty years in constant literary labours, and from
his first arrival in London he was perhaps the
most prolific writer in England. He was lucky
in the moment of his advent to Whittington
College and London, for he came at a time when
Lollardism had been driven under cover, but
when the middle and lower classes were every-
where voicing the criticisms, if not the doctrines
of Wycliffe's disciples; and being a man of ab-
normal intellectual pugnacity and overweening
intellectual self-confidence, he threw himself heart
and soul into the work of refutation and apolo-
getic. It is a curious fact that the Lollard views
which he expounded so fully in the Represser bear
the stamp rather of experimental and personal
communication than of bookish dogma ; and the
most interesting page in the treatise now printed
reveals not merely his methods with the Lollards,
but even what must have been his way of life for
many years in London. 'I have spoke oft tyme,'
he writes, 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
44 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
therto.' Like other keen reasoners he required
an opponent to develop the highest powers of his
mind, and so the contact of a London audience
stimulated him into producing a series of volumes
which, had he lived in freedom, would sooner or
later have embraced every region of ecclesiastical
doctrine and discipline. His more potent
volumes naturally came last, but before them
he had discussed in literary form the rudiments
of the moral law and of Christian psychology, the
value of the fathers, the nature of the sacraments
(on matrimony, at least, he considered that he
had said the last word), and the limits of the
creeds. It is very improbable that he ever took
in hand a new translation of the Bible, but
tradition paid tribute to the memory of his labours
in reports of such a scheme. In any case, this
court doctor and corrupt bishop succeeded,
through sheer hard work, in winning for himself
a reputation second to that of no contemporary
theologian.
Nor was the work carelessly performed. In
mere scholarship the author of the Represser was
at least equal to the most learned of his English
1 Book of Faith, f. 606; below p. 202.
2 Babington's bibliography, like everything else in his ad-
mirable edition of the Represser, is a triumph of patient and
accurate scholarship.
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
45
even
contemporaries. He may have lacked the reality
and solidity of Wycliffe's reading, but, even
after all deductions have been made, his list of
authorities is striking. Two volumes or collections
he knew through and through, the Bible and his
own works. It is difficult to exaggerate the care
with which he must have studied the former,
whether in the recent English version or in the
Vulgate. His biblical reading was no eclectic or
dilettante matter, but embraced every book of
scripture, even the most obscure ; and while he
frequently violates, as did all his contemporaries,
modern laws of exegesis, he exhibits an extra-
ordinary capacity for broad historic insight into its
narrative, and shrewd rational explanation. Of
his own works, one need only say here that they
formed the study of his maturer years, and the
touchstone in method and substance, by which he
tried all his own later efforts, and criticised the
feebleness of his opponents. For the rest, what
there was in Latin of the fathers, he knew with
such knowledge as an unscientific and unenthu-
siastic age might be expected to possess; the
11a
1 In compiling this brief account of Pecock's scholarship I
have depended solely on the references in his books (I do not
give detailed annotations). The most acute difficulty is that
, of distinguishing between what he had read for himself and
what he used at third or fourth hand.
46 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
principal works of Augustine, Jerome, more par-
ticularly in connection with scripture, Ambrose,
Gregory, and the authorities down to St. Bernard.
His knowledge of ecclesiastical and imperial
history, uncritical in our eyes, was at least
respectable, and embraced the Christian era from
the time of the apostles down to the great councils
of his own time, with a competent understanding
of Gratian and the canon law. He had, of course,
been trained in the mediaeval schoolmen, and,
while his reading in Wycliffe's own works seems
to have been slight, presumably from lack of
material in England, he knew the Wycliffite
theories of dominion, and spoke, as with informa-
must have known little more than the alphabet,
if so much. At least three mistakes, impossible
even to a beginner, reveal the tenuity of his
information; for he fancies that Peter's Aramaic
name is connected with kepalń, he explains ortho-
doxy etymologically as “right glory,' and in a
delightful combination of Chaucerian mediaevalism
and pretentious error, he speaks of the 'ioustis
and othere turnementis and maistries' celebrated
at the hil Olympe.'? Aristotle, in spite of the
occasional mention of definite titles, he seems to
i The Represser, p. 501.
2 The Folewer to the Donet, f. 360.
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
47
have known very vaguely indeed, being by no
means as learned as his greater predecessors, and
suggesting by his vagueness that his quotations
were obtained, not even from a mediaeval hand-
book of the philosopher, but from references in
other men's writings. Of modern works, and
general unedifying reading, it 18 dangerous to
speak. He seems to have read Geoffrey of
Monmouth; he may have known in part Giraldus
Cambrensis, and, together with Wycliffe's theories,
he was familiar with much of the serious writing
of his own and the preceding century. Un-
certainty increases as the world of lighter literature
is reached. Apart from the character of his
writings, so little likely to afford light here, one
speedily becomes aware that Pecock was a man
fortified against humour, and therefore slow to
feel the seductions of the imagination. He read
and despised the legends of the saints (by a stroke
of irony they were to form more than half the
intellectual food permitted in his final confine-
ment); he certainly knew the tales in which poor
folk and children delighted, for he has a sneer
against all fairy fancies, such as the opinion that
three sisters (which were spirits) come to the
cradilis of infantis forto sette to the babe what
schal bifalle to him’; and a very rash biographer
might imagine that when Pecock illustrates the
48 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
2
power of pictorial representation by citing King
Arthur, Julius Caesar, and Hector of Troie, he
was drawing from the stock of Geoffrey Chaucer,
and his fellow-poets.
To learning so considerable, Pecock added a
capacity for taking pains. Gascoigne, who is often
the unconscious witness of his opponent's merits,
bears personal evidence to his painful correction
and restatement. I have learned,' he says, 'that
this bishop Reginald used through many years to
write much, and that he afterwards cancelled with
his own hand all that he had written, saying that
his first efforts had been false and inept.' Theo-
logians are not popularly supposed to be very
open to conviction; and even among scientists,
a willingness to correct mistakes is rare enough
still to demand special praise.
Pecock, the controversialist, was certain to pro-
voke opposition, the bitterer because the field of
battle lay in the realm of letters. More particularly
after his fellow-courtiers succeeded in gaining for
him the bishopric of St. Asaph, he found hostile
forces gathering against him. He was a successful
man, and those who did not despise the means of
his promotion, hated the success of a new man;
he was ingenious in his apologetic labours, and
to dull minds ingenuity is the worst of heresies;
he was conceited, and men who had had their
mewn
tu
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY 49
longest-cherished opinions confuted, did not find
their defeat softened by any modesty in their
opponent. In his extant volumes Pecock every-
where exhibits the characteristics of a man who
knew that he had bitter enemies, and that every
word he wrote would be discussed in the narrowest
spirit of criticism. Hostility is responsible to
some extent for his most irritatingly sophistic
habits of mind, and in almost all his writings
he betrays a soreness, as of one over-conscious
that injustice has been done to him. “No man,'
he concludes, in the Folewer to the Donet, 'wite
me though y speke and write so oft for my
defensis; the malice of summe clerkis as y heere
seie and sumwhat have felid, is so great azens
me, that this and much more is litil ynouz forto
azenstonde it and forto assaie to make hem leve
and ceese from it. I wolde thei took upon hem
forto fynde and trace out a quarter of so hard
a purpos as y do 'in myn Englisch and in myn
Latyn writings; and thanne it schulde ful soon
be seen that thei schulde have neid into supportyng
and favoryng not oonli anentis her wordis and
maner of speking, but also anentis the sentence
which thei myzten not denye to be of hem
entendid and meenyd.
Up to this point, Pecock had been a courtly
17. to the D. f. 100.
50 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
divine of some force and ingenuity, given to
great intellectual activity, but hardly a national
figure. Then came the excitement of a sermon at
Paul's Cross in 1447, which won for him the
uncomfortable fame of hatred ; and thereafter,
ten years of constant hard intellectual labour, of
unceasing and ever increasing attack by embittered
opponents, the publication of at least two great
treatises, something like national notoriety, and a
sudden and utter ruin. The sermon which first
made Pecock's name notorious was a subtle
defence of his clique, unsought on their part,
because extremely undesirable. The honester part
of the nation had become irritable on questions of
church favouritism, non-residence and simoniac
practices; and the disastrous weakness of the
government was steadily involving all connected
with it, and especially its court favourites, in
disfavour. Men like Gascoigne, from puritanic
motives, others from a desire to strike at
Lancastrian prestige, were everywhere inveighing
against the courtly bishops whose bargains with
the king and with Rome were a national byword,
and whose absence from duty had long been the
subject of strong protests. To Pecock, if his are
the arguments attached to the Latin summaryl of
1 The Represser (Rolls Series), p. 615. Abbreviatio Reginaldi
Pecok, being a vindication of his sermon at Paul's Cross.
е
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
51.
his sermon, the situation was evil for many
reasons. The public character of the bishops was
steadily depreciating under the storm of criticism
levelled at their supposed deficiencies, and the
laity, honey-combed already with Lollardy, were
ceasing to retain any reverence for the episcopal
office. Pecock, had he had in him a particle of
humour, might have known that silence was
infinitely the safest cure for the trouble. But he
had none, and he had yet to learn the limits of
the intellect in political and ecclesiastical warfare.
So he justified the bishops in seven startling
paradoxes, which brought down national indigna-
tion on his own head, and kindled fresh wrath
against the objects of his solicitude. His justifica-
tion of simony is too gratuitously extravagant
to be regarded as anything but a Celtic
exhibition of mental gymnastics ; but the main
position lay in a subtle sophism such as the man
loved. Bishops, argued their defender, were men
confronted by great and difficult duties; and
preaching in the ordinary acceptation of the term,
and as abused by those clamatores in pulpitis'
whom he despised, was the lowest energy of
the spiritual understanding, a kind of moral
buffoonery played to a degraded gallery. Yet
this, and not the sound exposition of Scripture
which Pecock himself admired, was what the
52 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
ev
MOTO
reas
ns
crowd demanded. He was objecting, not so
much to preaching, as to popular preaching. But
even if popular taste had been more enlightened,
there were, nevertheless, many reasons for
excusing bishops from pulpit duties. As states-
men, they had weighty political questions to
solve; as scholars they had to administer, not
merely to laymen, but also to their lower clergy,
of the mysteries of the heavenly kingdom ; as
holders of the episcopal office they were stewards
of an estate where legal, administrative, and
spiritual duties combined to burden those whom
Apostolic unction left still mere men.1 With
a statement of the problem so reasonably con-
ceived, Pecock expected that questions of non-
residence, laxity of formal law, and unwillingness
to preach, would sink into nothingness before
the admiration excited by his picture of strenuous
episcopacy. Of his good faith there can be no
doubt whatever ; for Gascoigne, who seems to
have gained his information in part from no less
a person than Pecock's private chaplain, concedes
that Pecock's real attack was directed against the
1
1 For the sermon, see the Abbreviatio, Gascoigne passim in
the Pecock tirades, and Pecock himself, especially in the
Folewer (see below). Lewis deals fully with the adventure.
2 Loci e libro veritatum, p. 35, “ut michi dixit suus Capellanus
Magister Johannes Orle.'
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
53
popular and sensational preaching of the day, not
against the sound exposition of Scripture and
church doctrine, of which he was himself a master.
Unfortunately the nation failed to respond except
in new and more heated remonstrance.
One fancies that Pecock's unwilling protégés
must have cursed their defender roundly; at any
rate the doctors and the crowd combined to
declare themselves with plainness. In page after
page of eloquent querulosities, that fifteenth
century Jeremiah, Gascoigne, bewails with tearful
menace the sinfulness of the new bishop's
message. This, more than aught else, must have
stimulated the ferocious disdain of Whethamstede;
and of the popular feeling on the matter we have,
luckily enough, an account from Pecock himself.
Illustrating some question in casuistry dealt with
in his Folewer to the Donet, he cites the case of a
preacher, too obviously himself, and from his
words we can understand something of the fury
with which the populace heard him. 'Fadir,'
says the son in the dialogue, 'y wiste whanne
a precher, thenkyng that need was forto reprove
mysberyng prechers, warnede summe of his
felawschip that he wolde preche into the now seid
entent and otherwise than he ever prechid bifore;
and also, for his purpos for the tyme of him
entended was other than eny purpos into which he
54 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
IC
prechid bifore, and for that he wolde be the bettir
conceyvyd and undirstonde of the heerers in his
spekyng and demenyng anentis his entent and
purpos, he made a long antetheme undir declara-
cioun of these wordis of Poul to bisshop
Timothie, “ Argue, obsecra, increpa, emenda in
omni paciencia et doctrina,” forto justify that a
precher may blame, undirneme and rebuke. ...
But what for al this so preciose and so deliciose
bifore seid in the antitheme, whanne he procedid
to the bodi and substaunce and cors of his sermoun,
under this theme, “Amici mei et proximi mei
adversum me appropinquaverunt et steterunt,"
in undirneming and blaming certain prechers, and
that for as mych as he wolde that his werk
schulde take effect, he did it scharpli and not
without profis therto brouzt, the peple, for what
causis both god and wys men knowen wel ynouz,
bure hem anentis the seid precher as wylde
unresonable beestis in many kyndis crueli, un-
manli, uncurteisli and untrewli, with contynuance
of long tyme.'? There is something pathetic in
the sight of so much cleverness and intentions so
very good, thus misapplied ; but conceit com-
plicated by lack of humour contrived not only to
plunge Pecock into a discreditable controversy
from which he never recovered, but blinded him
1 Folewer to the Donet, f. 47.
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
55
so that to the end he thought the laurels still
remained with him. In 1449 he was reviving
popular and academic ire by fresh statements of
his position ; and six years after the Paul's Cross
sermon, he boasted, in a sober volume, that the
conclusions which he had drawn up after the first
encounter had never been refuted. If wisdom
is justified of her children, argument, blind
herself, leads her devotees through peril to ruin.
The pity of it is that the details of his once fierce
dispute should seem so incredibly trivial, for it
marked one of the great crises in Pecock's history,
It was of immense moment both to the preacher
and to his foes; to Pecock himself it was, had he
only known it, the last hour of stable elevation in
his life. In the ten years which lay between this
first baiting of the crowd and their final vengeance,
many victories were to be won by spirited dialectic,
and there were fresh steps of promotion, but it
was all a vain show. Whether as reward for his
paradoxes, or merely in recognition of his abilities,
the Court faction secured another step in pro-
motion for the bishop of St. Asaph. As both
1 Folewer to the Donet, f. 49, “And y wolde wite what clerk
wole take upon him forto answere to the proofis of hem.
For no clerk zit hidirto into this present day, bi more than
vi zeer passid aftir the bigynnyng of the stryf durste take
upon him forto answere to the proofis of hem.'
56
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
Whethamstede and Gascoigne inform us, he
became bishop of Chichester in 1450, backed by
at least one member of the old clique, Le Hert of
Norwich, and by the unhappy Duke of Suffolk.
Gloucester now supported by de la Pole, the man
to whom all partizans of Humphrey attributed his
death. But, apart from certain political opinions
which he and Suffolk must have shared, Pecock,
in practical life, was probably one of those
obsequious men of genius, who win the favour
of busy men by flattering worldly force at the
expense of their own intellect; and besides there
was the common ground of king and court. Be
that as it may, Gloucester's death in 1447 had no
appreciable effect on Pecock's triumphant career.
But everywhere events were assuming ominous
form. The very bishopric he gained had been
the see of his old friend Moleyns, and Moleyns
had fallen victim to a popular fury which Pecock
himself may have done something to aggravate
by his paradoxes. Suffolk, his patron, had only
a brief summer of prosperity before him, with
a terrible ending ; the king was hopeless, the
national prestige had fallen to zero, government
was, over broad stretches of the realm, in abeyance,
and the Yorkists, men new to Pecock and almost
i Loci e libro veritatum, p. 174.
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY 57
n
inevitably hostile, were coming into prominence,
and even power. Yet whatever his inmost
thoughts were, Pecock's energies in these years
betray no shade of hesitation Between 1449
and 1456 he crowned the now extensive edifice
of his writings with their logical completion.
The Donet and the Folewer to the Donet (the
latter written six years after his great sermon)
established his formal system of morality ; the
Represser perfected his polemic against the Lol-
lards by setting out the authority through which
he overturned their arguments, and some time
probably within the year 1456, the Book of Faith
practically completed his system. He had still one
section of his work unfinished, the Theory of
the Sacraments, but apart from that nothing
remained for him but detailed supplement and
revision. By his own account, he was extremely
busy in ecclesiastical affairs (busy enough to fail
to read the signs of the times). Also it is just
possible that, as a friend of Suffolk, he may
have taken part in advocating a steady peace
policy in foreign affairs; for there are passages
in the Represser which strike a distinctly anti-
military note, and Gascoigne's story of a political
i The Represser, p. 516. There is also a reference in the
Book of Faith (below, p. 276), to English conquests, which a keen
patriot would hardly have cared to make.
58
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
letter sent in 1456 to the Mayor of London,
if true, shows that his energies were sometimes
expressed otherwise than in theological terms.
If Pecock did indeed meddle with politics, it is
strange that he did not see how the wind was
changing. In the mere matter of new appoint-
ments, the signs were all against him. The old
complacent days were gone, when he might sneer
at hostile doctors in the very presence of the
archbishop. Bourchier, a churchman favoured of
the Yorkists, was now metropolitan ; other
appointments, like that of George Nevile to
Exeter, were ominous to a former friend of
Suffolk and the court; while imprudent utter-
ances on Pecock's part were almost certainly
being used to wreck his reputation among the
lay lords. His old enemies, the University
doctors, had waited long for their prey,
cherishing every possible charge that could be
raised against him, from the careful statements
of his books to the heated or disgusted ex-
pletives of his conversation. What precipitated
the attack cannot with certainty be ascertained,
but we know that in or about 1456 appeared
the Book of Faith, the complement to the system
suggested in the Represser, and the most daring
of Pecock's treatises. In the same year he sent
the letter already mentioned to the Mayor, with
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
59
statements in it unguarded enough to take on a
disloyal colour ;7 and the opportunity of a long
breathing space in the civil strife enabled his
academic opponents to enlist secular aid.
The trial, condemnation, and recantation which
followed, afford the most notable incident in
fifteenth century Anglican church history; but
the details, rescued from the obscurity of con-
fused chroniclers by Lewis and Babington, need
here be dealt with only as they bear on the
character of the victim. Of the man's actual
heresies it will be time to speak when his
system is examined. His indictment was one of
those so-called plain statements in which pro-
babilities combine with malicious misrepresen-
tation to satisfy a public craving for conciseness.
His metropolitan selected four main lines of
attack : the creed, with special reference to
Christ's descent into hell, the authority of the
Catholic church, the power of councils, and
the understanding and interpretation of Holy
Scripture. The recantation, when it came, dealt
in addition with details of the creed, and with
that spirit of individualistic reason, which formed
i Loci e libro veritatum, p. 212.
2 Registrum Abbatiae Johannis Whethamstede (Rolls Series),
vol. i. p. 281.
60 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
the basis of Pecock's thought." In the vaguer
regions outside these documents his enemies raged
against his rude criticism of the fathers, his old
offence at Paul's Cross, and the peculiar enormity
of his desire to lay spiritual mysteries before
plain men in their mother tongue. The process
began at a great council, in October 1457,
at which king and nobles were present; it ended
with a pitiful scene of humiliation on December
4th. Between these dates there was enacted a
spiritual and intellectual tragedy. Pecock had
already faced official attack, for Gascoigne, with
his usual vividness, tells how Pecock had once
braved the University doctors before Archbishop
Stafford, brushing their remonstrances aside with
an impatient «Tush' and answering their defence
of the fathers with a sneer: 'Why cite ye not
yourselves, for ye are doctors, as Jerome and
Augustine were.'? Even now, at the outset,
there was little appearance of surrender. At the
very council from which lay and clerical fury
caused him to be expelled, he demanded, with
a mental scrupulosity which bordered on the
heroic, that he might be judged only by the
books completed within the last three years, and
1 For the confession and abjuration, see Whethamstede,
pp. 285-7.
2 L. e lib. ver. p. 217.
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
61
that he might have time to revise his copies.
Either there or at his next appearance, he had
spirit and self-sufficiency enough to insult doctors
and bishops alike by claiming as his judges, men
more sympathetic to intellect and the ideal than
narrow Oxford doctors or heavy feudal bishops.
But the strain soon told. From November lith
for more than a fortnight the battle raged, one
thing becoming ever more obvious, that it was
to be fought à outrance. The laymen had given
the victim over, the admirers of Pecock's teach-
ing, who thought him the greatest of doctors,
seem to have kept discreet silence at the crisis,
and the infuriated doctors and insulted prelates
offered only the alternatives of recantation or
the stake. Pecock had already discussed, with
perfect self-complacency, the theory of such a
position. Might a man, he had asked in his
Folewer to the Donet, forswear himself under
compulsion, even if forswearing should take so
aggravated a form as idolatry? And he had
answered that the prohibition must come in-
directly or, in his own phrase, laterali : as if
therbi othere symple Cristen men schulden be
sclaundrid, that is to seie for her symplete
S
1 A study of the Cambridge MS. of the Represser is in-
structive as to Pecock's minuteness of re-examination. It was,
of course, the copy used in the trial.
62
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
OV
schulden be made lizt forto falle into verri
ydolatrie, for that y am so notable a persoon,
and therewith thei ben not enformyd upon my
privey seid hidyng of myne ententis.' But even
on these sophistical terms, he could not have
justified any bowing down in the house of
Rimmon on his own part. He had, through
twenty years of patient thought, elaborated his
own position; mistakes had been pruned away,
and every position had been consciously accepted
and re-accepted. If he had written or spoken
what other men called heresy, he had done so
in absolute consciousness of his meaning, and he
believed it to be the truth of God. Recantation
had an obvious meaning to himself and the
nation. It could be no temporary retreat, but
only the surrender of intellectual gains, gathered
through a long lifetime—in short, suicide. There
are some men to whom the fire of a perilous
decision lights up new realms of truth, so that their
best gift to the world is their doctrine, illuminated
and made real by the pains of martyrdom. But
Pecock had, as we shall see, staked all on the
pure intellect. Sentiment, enthusiasm, the appeals
and illustrations of the senses and the natural man,
had obtained no recognition in his gospel, and
crude nature had her revenge when, in the
1 Folewer to the Donet, 626.
nses
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
63
dilemma between intellectual truth, established
firmly through his own death, and a life whose
continuance meant a refutation deeper than ever
logic could contrive, he chose the ignoble course.
Only his enemies remain to report the successive
steps of his ruin, but truth gleams through. He
had accepted tamely the insults of Nevile of
Exeter on a subject where he had the learning
of years to oppose to the aristocratic ignorance
of an illegally appointed youth. "My Lord of
Chichester,' the boy had sneered, "God in just
judgment wishes you to suffer these same great
insults, because you denied the truth of the
words written by the blessed Jerome, and St.
Augustine, and the holy doctor and Pope
Gregory, and in the writings of other holy
men.' And Pecock had had no answer but a
lame apology: 'It grieves me that I wrote so,
for I was imperfectly learned in these matters.' 1
If Whethamstede does not belie him, he made
final choice of surrender with the consequences
of his action fully in his mind. There is a
suggestion of brutal untruth in the phrase as
given in the Abbey register, 2 "If I should defend
my propositions, death is before me, and the pains
of burning. But if I do not, there is the scandal
1 Loci e lib. ver. p. 213.
2 Registrum Abbatiae Johannis Whethamstede, p. 284.
64
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
among men and their reproach.' Whether he
ever expressed his feelings in set terms or no,
these were the actual alternatives, and the shame
of his retreat could hardly have been increased
by more explicit confession. In any case, between
November 28th and December 4th, he passed
through every stage of self-abasement which the
vicious hate of all-powerful enemies could suggest,
and the last clear vision of him granted to us, is
that of the consummation of December 4th. Ten
years earlier, he had preached his famous sermon
at Paul's Cross, listened to by favouring prelates,
conscious of a distinguished past, and confident
of a great future ; a man who might despise the
murmurings of the crowd, and the ill-natured
criticisms of the college pedants. Now he faced
the same crowd, but it was that he might kneel
before prelates, who feared his ability and hated
his presumption; it was that he might retract
every opinion he had ever cared to hold, and
subscribe to errors, the very statement of which
must have excited his intellectual contempt; and
the mob, which faced him wherever he turned
his head, was there to see the last indignity
inflicted on one whom they hated.
It is not necessary to follow him into the
vagueness of the few years that remained to him
of life. He had sufficient independence left to
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
65
attempt an appeal to Rome; but when England
had made up her mind Papal decisions were mere
empty noise, and the attempt at rescue was
promptly checked. After confinement or at least
constrained residence at Canterbury and Maid-
stone, he passed finally to Thorney, where, if he
had ever cared for the mountains of his native
land, he might eat out his heart in the marshy
flats of the Fen country, and where books and
writing material, the only means of recreation
he ever cared for, were either denied him or so
restrained as to render them useless. Gascoigne,
with the petty malice of a soured academic
mind, has inserted in his manuscript an insulting
incident, which cries lie on every line of it; how,
in the days of his shame at Canterbury, Pecock
made willing sport for the Philistines, and reached
a depth beyond that which even his persecutors
desired, as he repeated in doggerel confession :
Wyt hath wundur that reson kan not tel ;
How a moder is mayd and God is man,
Leve reson, beleve ye wonder;
Beleve hath mastry and reson is under.'1
We do not know the year of his death ; no stone
marks the place of his burial ; and so completely
has historic record neglected the man himself that
of his physical being we have only this in
i Loci e lib. ver. p. 217.
66 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
certainty, that he was what Gascoigne calls “dis-
positus ad lepram corporis,' as were also others
of his family. But after all, his significance is
intellectual, and from the few volumes which have
escaped the fires of 1457 it is still possible to
construct something like a consistent body of
thought, and to relate it to a living personal force.
Together these seem to me to combine into an
intellectual individuality second only to that of
Wycliffe in the history of the English Renaissance.
III.
PEcock's CONTRIBUTION TO ENGLISH THOUGHT
It may savour of paradox to claim Pecock as a
representative of Renaissance thought, for the
notes which distinguish that revolution of the
intellect are not at first sight conspicuous in his
history and his pages. The full-blooded Renais-
sance man was one inspired by the very breath of
innovation. By accident he had had predecessors
in the pursuits which composed his life, but their
wisdom was as nothing beside the fierceness of
onset with which he followed his end for himself.
He was a man appreciative of facts in their full
concreteness, knowing that the mere capacity for
seeing an object with open face was the first of
mental qualities. Attempting to see truth in
detail, he was prepared also to let fact force its
own philosophy upon him ; a priori notions were
outside his province. A born investigator, a fear-
less theoriser, he carried everywhere to his work
the zest of romance, and a dash which, although
it left him feeble as a philosopher, carried him to
the heights of literature. To the perfect Renais-
C
68
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
UL
sance adventurer like Machiavelli, the whole pre-
existing world of politics, morality, and religion
was non-existent as a support to authority ; its
contents were merely facts to be included in the
final synthesis. So truth, in the end, often
appeared with the brilliance and doubtfulness of
a paradox, and in the luminous outline in which
each object of Renaissance worship stood out,
there was the constant risk of some exciting but
misleading failure in proportion. Italy, from
Pecock's days onward, must always stand as the
true example of the nation renascent, for there
alone did the spirit of adventuring intellect gain
control, and make the land a portent in the eyes
of all who went to learn from her, whether they
were poisoners or metaphysicians.
It must be confessed that, placed in juxta-
position with the fifteenth or sixteenth century
Florentine, the figure of Pecock strikes the eye
tamely, and with a suggestion of rusty age. He
was the man of a depressing time and country.
Round him dull poets were chanting, in broken
notes, of hopeless subjects; churchmen, when they
were not knaves and fools, were losing all sense
of the ideal in petty domestic administration and
unoriginal plodding; heavy-minded thinkers were
stumbling, in their repetition of scholastic truisms,
over the work of earlier and more vigorous minds.
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
69
Like almost every other intellectual leader of the
north, Erasmus alone excepted, Pecock stands
convicted of a subjection, at least partial, to older
methods. His work was to be that of the
scientist in divinity, but his weapons were often
of most ancient type. Mediaeval logic was his
two-handed sword, and he ever spoke of the
syllogism with a reverence which he was not pre-
pared to concede to God himself. “A sillogism
wel reuled,' he was fond of asserting, after the
craft tauzt in logik, and havyng ii premyssis
openli trewe and to be grauntid is so stronge and
so myzti in al kindis of maters, that thouz al the
aungels of hevene wolden seie that his conclusioun
were not trewe, zitt we schulde leeve the aungels
seiyng and we schulden truste more to the proof
of thilk sillogisme than to the contrarie seiyng of
all the aungels in hevene.' So completely was
his mind in subjection to this formal process,
that he came to attribute to it practically magical
powers of investigation, a capacity for revealing
the truth which dispensed with the need for new
facts. It was in large part his syllogistic training
which led him on to become at times the most
flagrant sophist of his age. Everywhere, on the
face of his work, or lurking in corners, one comes
upon ingenious falsehoods, where the man has
1 Book of Faith, below, p. 174, f. 432.
were
•
V
70 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
lost all sense of reality and is simply giving a
display of syllogistic gymnastics. The central
position of the Book of Faith, that we owen to
bileeve to sum seier which may fail while it is not
knowe that thilk seier therynne failith,' assumes
in its creator's hands the sprightliness of paradox;
and the ingenuity with regard to preaching," which
must have cost him so much labour, was nothing
more than a tricky quibble on the meaning of the
word 'preaching. But how far love of school
logic could mislead him may be comprehended
only when one watches his zest for defence carry-
ing him on to uphold, not the essence of the
Church, but the corruptions hanging loosely round
it. In the dialogues where parent instructs child,
he perpetually allows the son to pose the father,
in order that he may free himself from difficulty
by some miraculous sleight of mind. His defence
of the Franciscan habits of counting money with a
stick, and the substitution of jewels for coins,
both of them brazen evasions of the spirit which
inspired the rules of St. Francis, remains the
finest absurdity ever perpetrated by a first-rate
mind. With what an air of probability does he
bring the facts of human nature to bear on the
case, and how soothingly moral is his contention
1 See the second section of the Introduction.
2 The Represser, pt. v. chap. xiv.
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
71
10u
that the distinction between counting money with
the hand, and telling it by stick, marks just that
cleavage which exists between luxury accepted
without qualms, and a firm Puritanism. Pecock,
had he attained the honour of a school title, might
have borrowed from a great predecessor the
epithet of the doctor subtle.'
But his love of old methods led him even
further from the light of science, for he used his
power of logical and formal construction to grind
out long heavy systems in religion and morals to
take the place of old law, and the night of formal
unreality closes early upon the dull attempt.
Pecock may have despised positive law, but he
must have spent much of his time in reconstruct-
ing fresh formulae, whose only novelty was that
they had not previously existed. The two
volumes in which Pecock discussed moral law,
the Donet, and the Folewer to the Donet, are full of
bold, frank assertion, but what they actually
accomplish in the end is simply a new school
framework for morality. It was well to rail at
'such loose gibettis as ben the teching of the
seven deedly sins,' and even the ten command-
ments reveal flaws to modern investigation ; but
Pecock was more mediaeval than the monks
themselves when he built up those four tables of
"eendal' and meenal' virtues, the number of
72
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
which in detail he allowed to vary between
twenty-seven and thirty, and the first table of
which included these viii pointis of meenal
virtue, that is to seie, forto governe us leernyngly,
preisyngly, dispreisyngly, preiyngly, thankingly,
worschipingly, disworschipingly, and sacrament-
ingly. If ever the student of Pecock feels in-
clined to dismiss his author to some limbo of the
dark ages, it is when he expounds, through pages
of the Donet, these new-named uncomfortable
virtues, and when, in the second part of his
Folewer, he falls down in logical admiration before
his new moral fetish. Whatever claim is made
for Pecock, it must be modified to allow for this
ingrained habit of logical sophistication, which has
dulled so many of his pages, which has forced him
into a style radically clumsy, because everywhere
based on the logical setting of his thought, and
which, at its best, merely enlivens some few pages
at the expense of the author's reputation for sanity
and humour.
But when this criticism has been made, the
worst word against his intellect has been spoken.
He was like some explorer setting out to perils
and new discoveries, armed with a blunderbuss
and directed by some ancient compass—the aim
1 He constructs the tables in the Donet, and in the Folewer
provides his own commentary.
PS
ns
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
73
modern and great, the means a little out of date.
Nor were all his means so obsolete. The very
adoration of the syllogism which at times misled
him, was on its other side a sign of his belief
in reason, and his resolution to know even God
only through his intellect. From the outset, he
resolved to have as little as possible to do with
tradition. He stands in history a comically
heroic figure, somewhat rampant, spurning the
great names of the past, and gaining by his bold-
ness. Whether it be Gascoigne who tells some
story of him, or merely later report hinting at his
misdeeds, or the man himself shining through his
own pages, the impression remains one and the
same ; a doctor despising all other earlier doctors,
with vocal «Tushes' or 'Bahs,' or contemptuous
waves of the hand. Aristotle had been great, and
Christians were wont to take him as their intellec-
tual saint, but Pecock had unmasked the rogue.
If thou wilt have strenger witnessis to this
purpos than is the witnesse of Aristotil,' he says
on some point of ethics in the Folewer, ‘loke into
a sermoun which y made in Latyn to the clergie';
and in the same treatise he paid his tribute to the
Greek philosopher, and made his final estimate of
him in a sentence : 'What was Aristotil other
than a lover of truth, and therfore a laborer bisi
forto fynde the knowyng of trouth bothe for him-
sa
SON
74 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
self and for othere. ... It likith not to me
forto reverence and folewe Aristotil azens treuth.
For wel y wote, it was nevyr Aristotilis wil that
eny man schulde so do.'1 What mediaeval tradi-
tion could not win from him towards Aristotle,
he was little likely to yield to the fathers. He
did indeed call Augustine 'one of the cheef
dukis of hooli doctouris,' and everywhere he
proved himself a careful student of their works ;
but his usual attitude was one of very critical
appreciation. Certis,' he said in the Represser
of Jerome, "his tunge was not the key of heven
or of erthe. He despised the habit of mind
which he saw around him, where feeble intellect
and spiritual sloth found an easy solution for
all difficulties, in the pages of men whom they
failed to understand. Authority of diverse sorts
had too long hampered inquiry, and his great
aim was, in his own words, to appeal to that
power of reason which was 'the largist book of
autorite that ever God made.' It is the foremost
note of Pecock's intellectual distinction that he
cleared the ground in this drastic fashion for the
free play of reason. He was neither the first nor
the greatest of English rationalists, but he was
the only man within reach of the sixteenth
1 The Folewer to the Donet, f. 68.
2 The Folewer, f. 30.
se
1
US
or
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY 75
century entitled to the name, and he yields to
no subsequent thinker in the vehemence of his
rational message. Reason he never strictly
defined, but, in the Represser he makes it plain
that, for him, it was that human energy which
had to do with mental and spiritual things, as
the senses and the limbs were related to the
merely sensuous and material world. It was for
him a thing given, and the only key designed
by God to open the secrets of the world unseen.
He knew the austerity of the mental life, but
he was filled with loathing at the subterfuges in
which men took refuge to escape the intellectual
struggle for existence. In the most exalted
moment of his writing, he prayed God that his
truth might be freely given to rational inquiry
and thus rationally held : Othou Lord Jesu,
God and man, heed of the Cristen chirche, and
techer of Cristen bileeve . . . suffre thou ordeyne
and do that the lawe and the feith, which the
chirche at any tyme kepith, be receyvid and
admittid to falle undir this examinacioun, whether
it be the same verri feith which thou and thi
apostlis tauzten or no, and that it be receyved
into examinacioun whether it have sufficient
eyydencis for it to be verry feith.'1 "And it
were a vilonye,' he continues with vehemence,
1 Book of Faith, below, p. 131.
were
o
76 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
ne
'putting to Crist, that he schulde geve such a
feith to his peple, and into which feith he wolde
his peple turne alle othere peple, and zitt 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 falsehede, that it myzte
not bi strengthe of eny evydence be overcomen.'
Like a greater man, he hated fugitive and
cloistered faith and virtue, and if, in the hard in-
dividualism of his mind, he sought too little help
from his betters, he may be pardoned in an age
when his sin of over-independence was unique.
But Pecock's love of reason was something
richer than reliance on cool unmodified mental
processes. In its refinements, it revealed itself in
a historic sense, unequalled in England for more
than a century, and a capacity for the scientific
standpoint, at times startlingly modern. No
doubt Pecock shared with his time its character-
istic confusion of the classic and the mediaeval,
but in that he sins in company with the greatest
of Italian painters, if not indeed with all sixteenth-
century England. His power of seeing move-
ments and arguments in historic perspective has
never been adequately acknowledged. The Bible,
except in moments of sophistical madness, he
read with the historic understanding of a modern,
at least with regard to its continuity and the
1
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY 77
interrelation of its parts. By a wild but extra-
ordinarily ingenious flight of fancy, he was able
to set down a general statement of Moses' debt
to his predecessors curiously similar to that of
modern higher criticism. It is true that the long
line of literary succession which he traced out
from Enoch to Moses, was framed in the true
spirit of his age, but the idea behind it all is
modern. In historic exegesis, too, he was so far
above his Lollard opponents that he could justly
taunt the self-styled Biblemen with ignorance of
their own divine authority. In more purely
historical questions, such as that of Constantine's
donation, his sense of the value of authorities is
of the slightest ; yet, as a page of critical reason-
ing, the chapter discussing the point has obvious
merits, and the brilliant passage in his Book of
Faith, wherein he estimates the value of tradi-
tionary and oral information, reveals a knowledge
of the very central principles of evidence. "O
my son,' he says, 'if thou woldist take hede
hou a tale or a tiding, bi the time that it hath
runne thorough inii or v mennys mouthis,
takith pacchis and cloutis, and is chaungid in
dyvers parties, and turned into lesingis, and all
for defaute of therof the writing ... thou
1 The Book of Faith, ff. 100 seq.; below, p. 261.
2 The Represser, pt. iii. chap. xii.
78
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
schuldist ful soone and ful sikirli deeme, and
so schulde ech wel avisid man deeme, that the
long tale of the gospels myste never bi eny
long time be treuli and aftir oon maner toolde,
and reportid, and remembrid of dyvers folk
without therof the writing.'1 Once again it
is the environment and detail which hampers
the inquirer; the method employed is almost
modern. No ignorance of classical detail, or
confusion of authority, can conceal Pecock's firm
grasp of the principles of historic development.
At root, this is because, wherever his mind
worked free from contemporary confusions, it
instinctively chose the method we now call
scientific. If science has taught anything, it has
made clear the value and nature of fact, and the
true use of evidence, and both features Pecock
appreciated as no contemporary Englishman did.
It is strange, in the midst of dreary mediaeval
wanderings on psychology, and discussions as to
the exact position, within the head, of the cell
phantastic, to come on a frank recognition of
mind in animals : 'I se not as zit eny inconveni-
ence which wole lette forto holde that beestis
mowe and kunnen forme proposiciouns, argue,
and prove, and gete knowyng to hem, bi argument
of verri silogisme and of induccioun, about tho
1 The Book of Faith, f. 93%; below, pp. 250-1.
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
79
thingis which thei nowe bi her outward and
inward wittis perceyve';i and his clear cut
separation of the temporary from the permanent
in the fourth commandment, redeems some pages
of his Donet from tedium. But the scientific or
Renaissance temper of his mind is best revealed
in his capacity for weighing evidence. I do not
mean that he had the detailed information which
enables even dull-witted modern inquirers to
expose falsehood, for wherever the past fell to
be examined Pecock had most inferior equipment
for his work. But in that nice sense of fitness,
that capacity for balancing observed facts, that
knowledge of what reason by its very nature
allows and disallows in argument, which we
demand from modern investigation, he has had
few superiors. Faith, as will be explained below,
was his term for one considerable section of
knowledge, or rather, by his own strict ruling,
the means whereby that knowledge came; and
faith was simply a matter of evidence. In his
estimates of knowledge and authority, then, he
had constant reference to evidence, and every-
where his attitude was faultless. His age offered
one great obstacle to scientific method, the use
of miracle, and there Pecock made a determined
stand. Truth, he held, was revealed to the
1 The Folewer to the Donet, f. 17.
80 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
reason, in every case by rational sanctions, but
miracle came as an ill-timed challenge to his
intellectual god. As he read the Old Testament,
he found record of revelations whose chief support
lay in the wonders accompanying their declara-
tion, and he instinctively protested. Often the
ground was dangerous, and his silence was
excusable, but wherever he might, he massed
the forces of his reason against the foe. Moses,
as we have seen, he believed in, simply as the
magic worker ; Esdras reconstructed the law by
means purely natural. Towards New Testament
miracles he remained silent, but silence is not
always consent; and he dismissed the whole
world of ecclesiastical miracle in terms whose
modifications and reservations must not be allowed
to conceal the essential daring of his attitude.
Two foes he saw in the pilgrim's road to truth;
tradition, with its coward's reluctance to face the
labour of individual inquiry, and the miraculous
sanction which knaves and dullards sought for their
worthless revelations. In the heat of his defence
of the Church he had committed himself to several
compromising positions, among others to the
acceptance of ecclesiastical miracles of the baser
sort; 1 but the temptation was great to one who,
i See, for example, the Represser, pt. ii. ch. xiii.
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
81
like Pecock, was sometimes prouder of his intellect
than of Truth, and who, having chosen his cause,
was resolute to defend even its weakest positions.
A thinker must be judged by his latest utterances
(more especially when he continually revised his
thought, as Pecock did), and the challenge of
the Book of Faith to miracle-mongers and to the
very church itself, might have pleased the leaders
of modern agnosticism. “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 myzte
noon opinioun bi overcome bi strengthe of argu-
ment, hou false ever the opinioun were.'1 And,
in bold estimate of the church's claims to establish
its own truths by means not rational : 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 myracles 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 lives of seyntis, and othere stories whiche ben
writen and had in fame, ben ful slider and unsure
groundis forto grounde upon hem feith, that is to
1 The Book of Faith, f. 1066 ; below, p. 270.
82
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
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 supersticiouns, sumtyme errouris azens
sure knowen treuthe, sumtyme heresies azens the
feith, and sumtyme contrariete bitwie hem silf.' 1
Such was the nature of the weapon with which
Pecock attempted to vanquish falsehood—rational
and entirely natural, borrowing no magic power
from higher sources, relying for victory on the
humanity which seemed so much more potent
than any possible divine assistance. With more
consistency than one usually finds in rationalists,
Pecock remained still rational in those trying
moments when force seems the most satisfactory,
and certainly the briefest of solutions, and when
vague fears of defeat lead the most rational
to distrust the mere weapon of the spirit. In
honourable distinction from all his fellows, his
genuinely humane spirit loathed the thought of
conversion by compulsion, as, in another sphere,
it loathed the circumstance of war. The axe and
the stake were for him barbarous expedients, to be
resorted to only in extreme cases; and almost the
most definite charge made against him by his
opponents was that of arguing rationally with the
heretics in their own mother tongue. One of
1 The Book of Faith, f. 121'; below, p. 294.
Moi
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY 83
11
the most notable passages in the Book of Faith, the
Introduction, must provoke unstinted praise for
its rational spirit and the far-sighted scheme
suggested there, for the extension of truth through
a wide dispersion of apologetic writings in English.
Learned in the ways of the Wycliffites, Pecock
knew how deeply and broadly their doctrines had
been sown by Wycliffe's democratic tactics, and he
was confident in the expectation that, in the open
field, the gospel which he had to defend, would not
be worsted. It was his habit to reason freely with
them, and the habit of rational reinterpretation of
his own faith which his polemic against Lollardy
induced, led him straight to the restatement, in
his own rational terms, of the Christian faith.
While it would be false to say that Pecock
wrote all his treatises with an eye on the foe, he
certainly developed his views from a wonderfully
self-critical standpoint, and everywhere stated
them as if combat were sooner or later certain;
steadily developing them from a central strong-
hold, and relating each section to every other with
the skill of an intellectual strategist. Truth for
him had two sources, of unequal magnitude,
reason and faith, and reason was the first essential.
Man, he believed, had received from God a means
of discovering all that might concern him. With
the senses he felt his way into the secrets of
84
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
external nature; with his reason he was enabled
to learn the moral law. Reason was self-sufficient,
and that moral law of kind which it revealed
asked for no Scriptures or inspired authority to
interpret it. Long before either Bible or Church
had come into existence, the moral law had been
known to man; and even after the Christian
revelation it had remained the chief guide of life.
All the inspired teachings of all God's vicegerents
might be swept away, without affecting man's real
knowledge of himself, and his capacity to guide
himself in time and through eternity. Certis,'
says Pecock in the Represser, “this inward book
or Scripture of lawe of kinde is more necessarie to
Cristen men and is more worthi than is the
outward Bible and the kunnyng therof, as fer as
thei bothe treten of the more parti of Goddis
lawe to man.'1 Had Pecock lived three centuries
later, he might have headed the rationalistic
Deists, for like them he found special manifesta-
tions of the supernatural unnecessary, and like
them he saw his way to a well-ordered universe
ruled by a rational and complacent Deity. But
Deism was, of course, an impossibility, even in
secret thought, and Pecock's life work in divinity
lay in relating this firm and certain domain of
1 The Represser, p. 52. Cf. Hooker's statement of the same
relation, Eccles. Polity, Bk. i. c. 12.
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
reason to the mysteries of Faith, and in appor-
tioning to each of the conflicting lords of Faith
his proper dignity and station. Reason and moral
philosophy left him at peace in his own mind,
for within his mind lay the grounds of rational
certitude and satisfaction. But as a churchman
he had to acknowledge the presence of astounding
verities, of which his reason told him nothing,
however much it might assent to them when
given. These were articles of Faith, and of faith
Pecock's most definite conception was that it is a
knowyng wherbi we assenten to eny thing as to
trouth, for as mych as we have sure evydencis
gretter than to the contrarie that it is toold and
affermid to us to be trewe, bi him of whom we
have sure evydencis, or notable likli evydencis,
gretter than to the contrarie, that therinne he not
lied.?? It is a chilling definition of that by which
most hope to win their spiritual rest, but it is
characteristic. Pecock, as we have seen, had an
unconquerable aversion to all that interfered with
reason, and yet everywhere he found this extra-
natural faith asserting its supremacy. In answer,
he set himself to a kind of spiritual diplomacy,
establishing a border-line for faith, but really
filching for reason everything which could colour-
ably be appropriated to it. Confronted with the
1 The Folewer to the Donet, f. 28.
TY
86
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
PTE
Apostles' creed, he knew that it was not granted
to human reason to understand the mysteries at
first hand; but he limited the presumption of the
claims of faith by proving them mere matters of
evidence, reaching from the lowest regions
of probability, opinial' faith, to that heavenly
insight, by which we know even as we are known.
Nor was this humiliation sufficient. The first
part of his Folewer, and the whole of the Book
of Faith are spent in a long contention, that
whatever revelations faith may make, it must in
the long run come to the court of reason to
receive official confirmation; and, in answer to
St. Gregory's famous Faith hath no merit,
to which man's reason giveth proof,' he asserted
the right of reason to have cognisance even of
the mysteries of faith, and flung back the phrase
with a contemptuous hint at the mistakes of holy
men. In truth, faith with him was a little island
in the ocean of reason, and he watched with
delight the waves, as they sapped the cliffs, and
slowly but surely reduced its poor circumference
Still, he was a Christian prelate, and faith,
whatever it was, and before whatever tribune it
had to justify itself, was a real and concrete
thing. It was a matter of evidence; but who
were the witnesses and with what authority did
they speak? Here was the crucial question for
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY 87
himself. In the world of his own mind reason
reigned in tranquillity, but he was something
more than a philosopher. He was a busy prelate,
contradicting and contradicted by opponents, he
was a strenuous defender of the faith against
heresy; he was a member of that political
organisation, the Church, and found the work
of ecclesiastical diplomacy exciting, if not always
edifying. So his latest and maturest books, the
Represser, the Folewer to the Donet, and the Book
of Faith, deal with this most essential of topics,
the seat of authority. In the Represser he had
given Scripture its place. Its highest power lay
in the revelation of those most mysterious of
truths, the Trinity, the Virgin birth of Christ,
and the history of the Incarnation. To these
wonders, reason could add not a word. But
besides the Gospel, there were the law and the
prophets, speaking in oracles, stumbling and
often inauthoritative, and there were many things,
even in the Ten Commandments, which seemed
mere positive ordinances, to be abrogated when
some authority or other had discerned a better
way. From the Donet, the Represser, and the
Book of Faith, it is very evident that Pecock
could never own the entire Bible as an infallible
guide, but in the same books he makes it plain
that there was an inexpugnable fortress of faith,
88
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
centring round the ordinary articles of the creed
and those parts of the New Testament on which
they were based. For the New Testament was
the unique source of doctrine definitely Christian,
and the creeds were convenient summaries of the
essence of Christianity. It was the perception of
the strategic value, for faith, of the creeds, which
led Pecock to spend all his strength on their articles,
so that the errors confessed in his recantation had
all some reference to credal statements. Particu-
larly in the Donet and the Book of Faith the articles
of the creed were examined, and it seems extremely
probable, as Babington has suggested, that the
missing pages of the latteri contained that 'new
great and long creed written in English' which
Gascoigne and Pecock's judges selected for special
condemnation. Apart altogether from the articles
relating to Christ's descent into hell, the hostile
churchman had a suspicion, not altogether un-
justifiable, that Pecock's statement of the creed
had something too individualistic in its terms,
and that so very conscious an understanding of
it bordered on serious doubt of its substantiality.
But, whatever his motives, Pecock's last definitive
statement with regard to Scripture was that in it
were to be found the few unshaken and seemingly
impregnable mysteries of faith; so he gave its
1 At least two chapters are lacking in the Cambridge MS.
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
89
pages an unwilling homage as equal to reason
in value, but not in range. There still re-
mained for settlement the claims of the Church,
a dangerous subject for a man of questionably
orthodox reputation. He may have known that,
even before his trial, he had found a furious
opponent of his rationalistic criticism in the
Augustinian, Bury. If Scripture found so zealous
a defender, it was not unlikely that depreciation
of the Church would rouse hosts of irritated
apologists, and banish the critic to the wilderness
of all those lost souls who, like Marsilius, or
Occam, or Wycliffe, had bartered their ecclesiastical
heritage for a mess of reason. It speaks well
for the man's boldness that he gave his verdict
without hesitation. First, with its all-embracing
scope stood reason and the moral law; equal in
glory but not in substance, the Holy Scriptures;
last and the servant of both, the Church. Faith,
we have seen, was a kind of evidence and might
loosely comprehend both the process of believing
the evidence, and the truth witnessed. Now in
this sphere of witnessing Pecock held that the
1I am aware that, especially in the first part of the Book
of Faith, Pecock gives tremendous weight to the authority
of the Church. But that authority is not of the Church
against reason, or against Scripture, but of the Church against
unskilled laymen.
90 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
Bible stood first without rival, as that which not
only reinforced with broad reminders the moral
law, but also testified to the nature of the God-
head, the life of Christ, and the words which He
left for our instruction. Compared with this
contribution to human enlightenment, the Church
could make but a few meagre pretensions. No
office of interpretation, no possession of ancient
tradition, or supposed power of alteration, could
set the Church on earth beside the lofty witness
of Holy Scripture. As the spiritual world in
which the fathers and all holy wisdom had dwelt,
as the collective exponent, at any given time, of
the knowledge given by God to men, she must
control opinion and have vast corrective, admini-
strative, and intellectually critical powers. Assisted
by supernatural manifestations, she might erect
small shrines of worship to the memory of her
greater sons, and create a world of petty ordinance
and sacred celebration. But in the high realm
of faith only one authority disputed with reason
the allegiance of men's minds; and the Book of
Faith, summing up, as it does, the theological
position of its author within a year of his trial,
shattered, at least for Pecock, the real potency
of the Church in matters of faith, and proclaimed
a truth which many had known before, but which
few in Pecock's position had cared to state, and
1
19
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY 91
none of his age, in England, were competent
to appreciate.
But why set so appreciative a student of the
Bible apart for praise in pure thought, and why
relate him to a pagan movement like the Renais-
sance when the title of Reformer lies to hand ?
Would it not be wiser, with his foes, to set him
down as a successor to Wycliffe ; and, with Whar-
ton and Lewis, as a forerunner of the sixteenth-
century revival ? The answer is simple. In all
the qualities which distinguish the religious re-
former, Pecock was singularly wanting. Even in
those bleak days which followed Wycliffe's death,
religionists of the reforming sort lived and thought
in ways strange to the author of the Book of Faith.
For the true reformer, religion was a thing of
feelings and enthusiasm, the adoration of a Christ
very human in his divine love; and Pecock speaks
of Christ and God as cold impersonal expressions
of ultimate truth. To the biblemen, and to
Wycliffe himself, the volume of Holy Scripture
was not some utilitarian or rational medium
through which partial truth was conveyed. It
was not only the authentic record of Christ's life
and agony, but a complete and sufficient rule for
all human action. Again and again, in his treatise
De Veritate Sacrae Scripturae, Wycliffe sets his
great authority beyond all earthly and profane
wa
92
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
sources in scriptura sacra est omnis veritas,'--
and the interpretation of its pages is no theme
for sophistic argument, but an act more solemn
than the very sacrament of the altar itself.1 Above
all, the reformer believed that round him there
abode an unseen but real presence, where God's
spirit met the feeble love and imperfect faith of the
humblest, so that there remained need of neither
priest to regulate the movements of his soul,
nor doctor to explain the mysteries of Holy Writ.
Pecock spent his best energies in explaining how
little conduct had to do with spiritual knowledge;
Wycliffe believed that it was above all things
necessary that the scholar of Holy Writ should
pray that he might understand, and he believed
in the revelation made to the humble and the
contrite in heart. Whether for praise or blame,
we may not set Pecock among those sincere,
warm, irrational, and unacademic followers of
Wycliffe, who found in a Bible and a private
religion the kindliest retreat from a sordid middle
or lower-class existence, and whose false emphasis
in attack and crudely materialistic shattering of
Catholic mysteries met with the superior correc-
tion and disdain of the man of letters. His was a
1 Wycliffe, De Veritate Sacrae Scripturae (Wycl. Soc.), vol. ii.
p. 156.
2 Op. cit., vol. i. p. 202.
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY 93
is no
world where cool reason passed beyond the turbid
realms of the emotions, and where the end was no
enthusiastic salvation but a steadfast gaze into the
face of Truth. He had no philanthropic inten-
tions beyond freeing men from error, and he
erected his theological system with something of
that same disregard for convention and the feelings
of ordinary men, which has made Machiavelli's
name, in another sphere, a byeword for coldly
tellectual force, with a character as strong as his
mind, and with a country hostile, it might be, but
competent to appreciate, Pecock might easily have
left his name in English philosophy as that of the
originator of modern rationalism, the thinker who
first took from his countrymen their household
gods and left them in the bright desolation of
their own reason. He had few of the external
marks of greatness. Dull in his most systematic
work, sophistic in arguments where sophism seems
to spell inadequacy, everywhere leaving loopholes
of escape from his most daring conclusions, and
at the end losing the world, and with it his own
soul, Reginald Pecock makes a sordid fellow to
the more dazzling figures of Renaissance Italy.
But such as he is, he is not simply the best that
fifteenth-century England has to offer ; he is the
one man of the country who may be classed with
11
94 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
the Italians. Sir John Fortescue is a belated
patriarch, who grasped such truth as is vouchsafed
to patriotic Englishmen of sound but heavy
understanding; Humphrey of Gloucester has
highest accomplishment was attained in eloquence,
charmingly reinforced for Italian panegyrists by the
rank and presumed wealth of its author; the dusty
scholars who found their way to Florence and Rome
for the most part returned to England merely to
add one more imperfectly apprehended study to the
usual monkish or academic course; even the great
men who adorned Tudor England by their worth
and abilities were but imperfect heroes of renais-
sance thought, and the noblest of them, finding
character suffering at the expense of mind, chose
the Kingdom of Heaven when the new road to
truth seemed to lead elsewhere. Of all these men
Pecock alone maintained the persistent search for
truth in the light of reason while day and freedom
lasted. The tragedy of his life lies not merely in
the intellectual suicide with which it closed, but in
the temporal penalties of oblivion and neglect, which
buried his name and destroyed his books. To the
well-disposed it may appear a small piety to fulfil,
for the latest of his books, that desire of his to have
his volumes multiplied and distributed to those
who care for truth or who feel the pangs of error.
SUMMARY OF THE CONTENTS.
PART I.
THE PROLOGUE.
The Church in England is in straits, through the pre-
valence of disobedience and of heresy among the laity;
nor can the arguments of the clergy, based on the
assumption of their own inerrancy, prevail at all. The
author enters with a new plan. He will set aside the
argument from infallibility as suspect, and will substitute
the plea, “ that we ought to believe a teacher, who may
fail, in so far as it is not known that he has failed.”
He desires also to bring the new argument directly
before the heretics, by the multiplication, and distri-
bution among them, of his apologetic works in English.
At the same time he deprecates hasty criticism, more
especially from those who think the argument of the
book too ambitious. It is well to convince the laity,
by weight of learning, of their incompetence in these
matters. As a defence of the church against heresy, the
book is complementary to the Represser.
CHAPTER I.
In the dialogue, which here begins, the son desires of
the father further information on faith than he has
96
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
received in earlier books. In answer, faith is defined as
that kind of knowledge which a man gains “from
another person which may not lie, or who is God.” It
differs from other knowledge, in that it comes not “by
natural wit”, but through the authoritative statement of
another; it varies in importance, from cardinal doctrines
down to belief in “old storial deeds and gests.” Faith
has its relation to normal truth ; since the confidence
of the believer in his authority involves some other
truth opener and surer” than the new article of faith.
And this relation, strictly defined, appears to be proof
by means of the syllogism.
CHAPTER II.
A flaw in the MS. affects the beginning of the chapter.
The question follows out of the first chapter-the
relation of faith to natural rational processes. Faith,
says the father, is always “groundable and provable by
evidences in reason”; so that it may always be stated
rationally enough to convince even infidels. Unbelievers,
indeed, may oppose this conviction by force; but
Christian believers may not use such means. They must
be ready to give a reason for the faith that is in them.
Nevertheless faith differs from ordinary intellectual pro-
cesses; its articles are to be believed “for the infallible
truth of the affirmer which is God.” Critical examina-
tion comes as a preliminary, to test whether any article
“ought to be believed as faith, or no”; and here it is that
clerks must labour, “to draw men into consent of true
faith by clear wit,” rather than to produce conviction by
irrational force.
SUMMARY OF THE CONTENTS 97
CHAPTER III.
The question raised is, whether faith gains or loses,
according as the evidences for it grow clearer and more
perfect. In answer : faith, opinial or sciential, is a
variety of opinion or science; and as opinion or science
gains by evidence, so also faith. It is clear, therefore,
that the believer's merit is increased, not diminished, by
“the getting and the having of more and more
evidences." St. Gregory, indeed, has said: “Faith hath
no merit, to which man's reason giveth other sure proof.”
But holy men may err, and Gregory contradicts himself.
So, as it is greatest demerit to believe where no evidence
exists to make us believe, greatest merit comes from
belief based on the soundest evidence.
CHAPTER IV.
The son raises objections to the doctrine that faith
depends on evidence. Was not Thomas blamed for
seeking further proof from Christ, and Zacharias simi-
larly? The father discriminates between disbelief in
spite of adequate evidence ; acceptance of partial evidence,
with a zeal to seek for more ; and perſect contentment
with the evidence in hand. Thomas was blameworthy,
for he refused belief on evidence satisfactory to his fellows,
and stronger than that possessed by us.
The son raises two minor points ; one as to the
constraining power of evidence, to which the father
replies that evidence must constrain, but not in spite of
the will; the other, a consequence of the eleventh
chapter of Hebrews, “that faith is not of things clearly
98 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
seen, and surely known,” is answered by a discrimination
between opinial or imperfect faith, and sciential faith,
by which we see with open face.
CHAPTER V.
The definition of faith is developed by opposing to it
rival theories. Some hold that faith is “a knowing of a
thing, not by strength of evidence, but by assignment
of the will.” But, in the first place, steadfastness of the
will in cleaving to a proposition is, in itself, no guarantee
of truth; and, in the second place, faith high as it is
never breeds the same degree of true steadfastness, as
does “science or certain kunning." Others have mystic
doctrines, by which God the First Truth gives, through
divine illumination, a faith “whereby understanding and
will have surety, but not clear perception of the truth
believed,”_mere childish fantasies.
Towards the close, the son “would learn what order is
to be put between faith and the church.” The church
is made of the people as its material cause, and of faith
as its formal cause ; or rather the church is the people,
not in themselves, but as they are joined together in
one faith. This faith is the essence of the church, and
the true church must be conscious that it has received
its faith from God.
CHAPTER VI.
Two minor crises in the theory of faith are faced.
In the first instance, is it right to say that neither the
church in heaven, nor the church on earth is to be
believed, if it say contrary to “a syllogism, well ruled
SUMMARY OF THE CONTENTS 99
1
after the craft taught in logic, and with two premises
openly true ?" To which the answer is that it is right,
“nevertheless it followeth not that the churches in
heaven or on earth, err or may err, in matter of faith."
In the second instance, where Paul is held to set the
earthly church above the heavenly, by his words,
“Though we, or an angel from heaven preach another
gospel,” etc., he merely declares that the gospel, revealed
to him by Christ himself, must prevail against anything
in earth or heaven. Paul is no more the church on earth
than his supposititious angel is the church in heaven.
CHAPTER VII.
A modification of the argument, in favour of the
church, must be made. This reverence must be paid to
the church on earth, that what it holds as faith, “every
singular person is bound, under pain of damnation, to
believe.” For the church holds its authority by descent
from the apostles ; there is scriptural warrant for implicit
obedience to them, and therefore to their successors.
Nor can possible error weaken this authority. Nay
more. No zeal for the faith, as he holds it, may justify
a heretic in his opposition to the church. Of all heretics
from the first, many of whom were zealous for their
beliefs, down to the Lollards, it is true “that if Lucifer
and Adam were in damnable sin, so all gainsayers to
the prelates of the church are in like damnable sin.”
CHAPTER VIII.
Granting the claims of the church to obedience in
normal cases, is it not right to oppose it where it errs ?
100
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
In answer : it has been conceded that obedience is due,
where the church errs not, or where it is not seen to
err. But let error be assumed. To whom will the
critics prove it? Assuredly the jury must not come
from among themselves. If the truth contrary to
the church be clear, it must be clear to the church.
Heretics, to justify their heresy, and escape damnation,
must be able to convert the church. The church itself
is unable to convert Lollards and heathen to itself ; but
it escapes a similar penalty, because the heathen use
violence to prevent conversion from their ranks, and the
Lollards refuse to consider the views of their opponents.
If the Lollards ask who reasons thus, it is one who knows
their views better than they do themselves; who has
written for their conversion ; and who will persistently
contend that if they do not absolutely prove their case,
they must incur the penalty of deadly sin, damnation.
CHAPTER IX.
The argument is continued. It has been proved that
God himself ordained the clergy of his church to be
obeyed. It is now evident that this obedience is in spite
of the church's fallibility. God has ordained that we
trust hands and feet, will and reason, although all may
fail and err; and so with the church. We ought to see
to it, where we may, that the clergy fail not; but if they
do fail, we are still bound to obedience, and to be
rewarded for obedience, as though no error entered.
Christ said to his apostles, and in them to all their
successors, “He that heareth you, heareth me, and he
that despiseth you, despiseth me.”
SUMMARY OF THE CONTENTS 101
CHAPTER X.
The argument is continued. The gainsayer to the
church finds his conscience oppose obedience to an erring
church. But the clergy too are loath to err, and their
common conscience is more enlightened than that of the
individual. The church has the superior position here,
and opposition is mere folly and presumption. But may
not Scripture give the critic support, external to the
church? It may, “anent all the faith which Holy Writ
teacheth.” But the church is the only learned and
special interpreter of Scripture, as lawyers are of law;
and distrust of expert findings is as foolish in one case
as in the other. To summarise : if we believe the
church infallible, we must obey it. If we hold it
fallible, obedience is still required, so long as we cannot
“sufficiently and irrefutably prove that the church does
fail.” And this proof must be made in public disputation;
until which time, “hold ye never yourselves to have
better evidence for your side than the church hath for
his, and hold ye not yourselves to be out of state of
damnation.”
PART II.
CHAPTER I.
In Part I., Chapter V., church and Scripture have been
connected; the problem is “In what relation ?” The
son raises eight arguments in favour of the supremacy of
the church.
i. Our faith may be grounded in tradition and oral
succession, apart from writing. The Scripture is not
necessarily the chief ground of our faith.
ii. The apostles taught apart from Scripture; “they
preached by word of mouth the whole faith sufficiently."
iii. The clergy, successors, in this vocation, to the
apostles, were and are the principal ground of faith.
iv. The apostles, more than Scripture, founded the
faith of Christ. They were, in their time, the church.
The church is one and unchangeable in power and attri-
butes; therefore the church still holds the supremacy
over Scripture, possessed by the apostles.
v. The church, which may “dispense” with Scrip-
ture, is greater in authority than Scripture.
vi. and vii. The church interprets Scripture, and there-
fore is above Scripture.
viii. The apostles' creed is authoritative. It bids men
« believe to the general holy church on earth”; so all
Christians must believe determinations of the church,
although it determine against Scripture.
SUMMARY OF THE CONTENTS 103
CHAPTER II.
The father begins his reply to the eight arguments.
Firstly, concerning oral tradition, and teaching apart
from writing, no faith is sufficient which neglects its
own fulness, precision, and consistency. But, as recent
parallels prove, it would have been impossible to hand.
on “the long tale of the gospels, without thereof the
writing." The apostles themselves wrote, to keep in
mind the multitude of gospel truths. And if the lateness
of their writing be quoted, many circumstances--the
nature of the gospel, the need for gradual instruction,
persecutions-explain the interregnum. Texts, quoted
both from the Old and New Testament in favour of
oral communication of God's law, simply mean that God
wills men so to learn by spoken word, but neither chiefly,
nor sufficiently.
S
CHAPTER III.
The problem of Chapter II. is raised afresh, by the
tradition that no scripture existed until Moses by
inspiration wrote Genesis. The challenge is met by a
counter-challenge. How can one tell that no scripture
existed before Moses? Records exist of early writing-
Enoch founded letters ; and natural reason traces the
literary connection from Adam to Moses. “Moses
compiled Genesis out of written stories, not by miracle."
Similarly, Esdras renewed not the Old Testament by
inspiration, but merely multiplied copies of the books of
scripture. For, as with Moses, so with Esdras. We
can trace a continuous use of God's written law through
the captivities. From both cases, it is plain “that to
(0
104
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
privy miracles we should not run to defend our opinions,
without sufficient evidence thereto serving."
CHAPTER IV.
Answer is given to the seven remaining arguments.
ii. and iii. Although Christ bade his apostles to preach,
and although they did preach, neither he nor they meant
it for “principal and sufficient teaching.”
iv. One Lord, one faith and one baptism there are, and
the church now, is the church of the apostles. But the
church is no longer endowed with gifts such as they had,
who knew Christ, and founded his kingdom. Apostolic
succession may be granted without these consequences.
v. Scripture varies in importance. There are positive
ordinances such as the church still makes ; and over these
the church has power. But it “is not even in authority
with all the scripture of the New Testament, nor with
other parts,” if by equality is meant capacity to change.
vi. The church expounds; but power of exposition
gives it no more supremacy over scripture, than power of
construing scripture gives to the grammarian.
vii. In continuation : “exposition is merely a power of
knowing,” and gives just such authority as a judge has
“to declare the true intent of the law written.”
viii. “To believe to a thing,” and “ to believe a thing
to be" are separate facts. The history of the creed
proves that it requires merely acknowledgment of the
church's existence—“one universal church to be, with
its parts not discording one from another in the faith of
God.” The chapter closes with a definition of the word
« catholic."
SUMMARY OF THE CONTENTS 105
CHAPTER V.
The question is proposed: “May the clergy, or the
church, make anew any article to be faith, which was
not faith before ?” Whether faith be taken as the article
of belief, or the process of believing, the clergy may not
add, in the higher regions, but only teach thereof to the
“simpler party of the church.” Lower down it may
create saints and appoint holy days. Yet since even these
minor articles of faith depend on miraculous witnessing,
they must be accepted with caution. As for the greater
matters, the history of the apostles and of the great
councils proves that no articles, but such as came from
Holy Scripture, were entrusted to be revealed by the
church. The apostles intended not to give any articles
of faith, necessary to salvation, apart from writing. If
the article of Christ's descent into hell be cited as an
exception, the answer is that “neither before, neither
after Austin's day did the apostles set that article into the
common creed.”
Here the manuscript breaks off.
TEXT
27475 (01456) Pecoek Faith (Thin-C)
THE BOOK OF FAITH
PROLOGUE
FACTI sunt filii mei perditi, quia invaluit inimicus : 19
that is to seie in Englisch thus : My sones ben
Treno. je c. Who that wole walke amonge the
peple now lyving in Ynglond fer and neer, and 2
wole attende, herkene, heere and se hou dyversely
dyverse persoonys ben in her conceitis sette, he
schal, amonge alle tho dyversitees, heere and
knowe that manye of the lay peple whiche cleven
and attenden over unreulili to the Bible, azens
the discrecioun tauzt in the first party of the
Represser, and in the first and iie partys of The
iust apprising Holy: Scripture, protesten and know-
lechen that thei wolen not fecche and leerne her
feith at the clergie of Goddis hool chirche
'in erthe; neither thei as for leernyng and
kunnyng of her feith wolen obeie to the clergie
i There is no heading in the MS.
2 A correction on the margin.
3. Ho' is erased in the MS.
110 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
or to the chirche ; but thei wolen fecche and
leerne her feith at the Bible of Holy Scripture,
in the maner as it schal happe hem to undir-
stonde it. And that, bicause thei seien hem knowe
16 wel that the clergie may faile and erre as weel as
thei, teching the feith, namelich sithen, as thei
seien, the clergie is not worthi be visited bi eny
special inspiracioun or revelacioun fro God more
than thei hem silf ben worthi, and that for the
vices whiche thei seien hem se in the clergie.
Hou perilose to the same lay persoonys this
unobedience is, it is ful cleerli schewid in this
present book, the viie, viii, and ixe chapiters.
For whiche so bireweable and wepeable perel
whiche the clergie may se in the lay party, which
ouzte be sugget and obeie to the clergie, as it is
in the now alleggid placis wel proved, the clergie
bi compassioun therupon havyng may seie the
wordis of Jeremye bifore written thus, My
sones ben maad lost for the enemy hath had the
maistrie. Certis the feend, which is enemye
for to bigile alle cristen persoonys, as Petir
witnessith,
hath had the maistrie
in his going aboute as a roring Iyoun, and
therfore and therbi my sones ben maad lost.
And thus my sones ben maad lost for the
29 enemye hath had the maistrie.
1 A gap left in the MS. for the exact reference (1 Pet. v. 8).
'
n
dra
PROLOGUE
III
And ferthermore, if in this bifore spokun
attendaunce, herkenyng, and heering, in con-
versacioun taking with peple of dyverse stidis,
lenger leiser be lad forth, and mo daies in tyme
be spende, it schal be aspied and seen that forto
bringe alle the lay peple, as thei ben now wittid
and disposid, into obeischaunce forto bileeue as the
clergie bileeveth, this is no meene to be pre-
supposid that the clergie or the chirche of the
clergie may not erre in mater of feith, in so myche
that summe clerkis attempten and assaien forto
calle azen suche seid unobeiers into the seid dew
obedience to the clergie and by this seide meene.
And whilis tho clerkis laboren and ben aboute for
to iustifie thilke meene, that the clergie, namelich
gaderid togidere in a general counseil, may not
erre and faile azens eny article of feith, neither
may determyne amys azens trewe feith, tho clerkis
tho whilis laboren in veyn, as into the effect of
the seid lay menys turnyng ; zhe, and peraventure
thei in that doon harme and no good, and thei 2b
schenden what thei ben aboute forto amende.
Forwhi, theiben lauzed into scoorn of the lay
personys whiche schulden bi labour of tho clerkis
be convertid ; and that, bothe for this conclusioun
is so unlikeli to be trewe as the witte and conceite
of rizt greet wittid lay men being of greet repu-
tacioun, and also for that thei han colour of
.
IT
S
COOL
II 112 2
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
doctouris writing, sownyng into her therynne
partie.
And over this, it semeth to the lay persoonys that
tho clerkis ben over favorable in mater longing to
her favour and worschip, and ben not iugis indiffe-
rent, and stonding for the parti which hath the
treuthe, whiche ever thilk party be. And for this
semyng, the seid lay men han the lasse wille forto
truste to the iugement of clerkis in alle othere
maters. Certis, ech iust and indifferent iuge ouzte
seie and holde azens himsilf in trouthe, as wel as
azens othere persoonys in trouthe, and as with him
silf or othere persoonys in trouthe. And bicause
that it semeth to the lay persoonys that clerkis,
za namelich holding as now is seid, holden not so
indifferentli in the mater longing to her honour
and favour, therfore forto allegge the seid meene
into eеris of the seid lay men, is not expedient into
her conversioun. In so myche that tho clerkis
mowe not oonly seie what is writun thus: In al the
nyzt we laboring han take no thing; but also ech of
hem may seie what Poul rehersith, Rom. xe ch.
in the eende thus: Al day y streizte out myn hond to a
peple that bileeved not, but azen seiden me. Wherto
therfore schulde the clergie leene oonly to thilke
meene anentis lay men, whiche lay men wole not
admitte. Bettir it were to seche aftir 1 another
Marginal correction for.
PROLOGUE
113
meene. Wherfore y, unworthiest and zongist
and louzest of prelatis, aspiyng this mischeef azens
which y have not knowe eny remedie zitt hiderto
therazens writen, and desiring forto wynne the lay
children of the chirche into obedience, whiche, undir
greet perel of her soulis, thei owen paie and holde
to the clergie, entende and purpos in this present
book forto mete azens such unobediencers bi an 36
other wey, and in another maner, and bi meene
which the lay persoonys wole admitte and graunte;
which meene is this, that we owen to bileeve and
stonde to sum seier or techer which may faile,
while it is not knowe that thilk seier or techer
theryne failith. And so forto move and convicte
hem into obedience, never the lasse and never the
latter, to the clergie in leernyng her feith ; thouz it
were so that the clergie may erre and faile azens
feith, and thouz the clergie myzte solempnely
determyne azens trewe feith; so that, by the grace
of God, withynne processe of zeeris it schal be
verified forto seie to the clergie what Ysaie
propheciede, lx. c. thus: Thi sones schulen come to thee
fro longe and thi douztris schulen rise azen to thee fro
brood : that as Ysaie meened that the children of the
Cristen chirche schulden come and rise azen fro
lengthe and breed of cuntrees, so y hope bi
processe of tyme, aftir that this and other bokis
schulen be publischid, and be abrood multiplied to
H
114 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
comm
CUM
4a tho persoonys, and after that bi word and speche
at dyverse leisers communicacioun schal be with
tho persoonys had, it schal be trewe forto seie to
the clergie of Goddis hole chirche, that fro lengthe
and breed of erring, and of untrewe wyde wan-
dring, thi sones and douztris schulen come to thee.
Which thing He graunte that forto have the same
thing doon, cam forto schede his preciose blood.
Amen.
Over these causis here now bifore expressid, into
the iustifiyng that my now last seid entent, to be
perfoormyd in this present book, is to be allowid
and acceptid, y may sette therto more thus. If
twey thingis ben the principal causis of heresie in
the lay peple whiche ben clepid lollardis, zhe and
if thei ben causis, as it were, of alle her erringis
generaly, sotheli, forto remove and take awey fro
hem tho twey causis muste nedis be the grettist
remedie doyng azens her erringis, which may be do
therto. But so it is that these ii thingis, of whiche
46 the first is this, over myche leenyng to Scripture,
and in such maner wise as it longith not to Holi
Scripture forto receyve; and the iie is this, setting
not bi forto folowe the determynaciouns and the
holdingis of the chirche in mater of feith ; and that
for as myche as thei presupposen as what may be
sufficiently provid 1 and wherto thei alleggen wit-
1 A corrupt passage, difficult to set right. Indeed Pecock's
composition rather breaks down here.
ver
ns
PROLOGUE
115
ne
nessing of Seynt Austyn in his book of Baptym
azens Donatistis, that the chirche may erre in deter-
mynyng articlis for feith; wherfore foloweth
that the labour, wherby these ii thingis schulden
be amovyd and takun awey fro the seid peple
erring in heresie, schulde be the profitablist labour
whiche myzte be doon anentis hem forto make hem
forsake, as it were generaly, alle her errouris of
heresie. Wherfore folowingli herof, sithen it is so
that it is wel acceptid and allowid of hize prelatis,
and of louzer clerkis, what y have write and
laborid in the first party of the Represser, and in
the book callid Tust apprising of Holy Scripture,
forto remove and take awey the first now seid sa
thing from the multitude of lay peple now erring
in heresie ; so bi lijk skile this ouzte be wel
acceptid and allowid, what y write in this present
book, forto remove and take awey the ije now
seid thing from the multitude of lay peple
now erring. Which twey thingis y dare wel seie
wole not be take awey from hem, but bi such
labour às y make in the first party of the Represser,
and in the book callid Iust apprising of Holy Scrip-
ture, into the distroiyng of the first seid thing; and
bi the labour of myn here take intent, to be per-
foormed in suche maner as it schal bi performyd in
this present book, into distroiyng of the ije seid
thing. And ferthermore, into tyme these twey
116
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
seid thingis be take so cleerly awey from hem that
thei kunnen not seie therto nay, thei schulen never
be convertid. But forsothe, that these writyngis
now spokun, and othere mo maad in the lay peplis
langage, take her effectis, into reformyng of the lay
peple now erryng, it is not ynouz that the seid
56 bokis be writen and made and leid up or rest in the
hondis of clerkis, thouz fame and noise be made
greet to the seid lay peple of suche bokis, and that
tho bokis schulde opene to hem that thei erren ;
but tho bokis musten be distributid and delid
abrood to manye, where that nede is trowid that
thei be delid : and that the seid erring persoonys
take longe leiser, forto sadli and oft overrede tho
bokis, unto tyme thei schulen be wel aqueyntid
with tho bokis, and with the skilis and motivis
therynne writen, and not forto have in oon tyme,
or ii tymes, a lizt superficial overreding or heering
oonly. Forwhi, the stronge confeermyd oold
custom which thei han, rootid bi longe tyme into
the contrarie, wole make that these bokis at first
schulen be unsavery, thouz aftirward thei schulen
be ful delectable, as experience hath be had of this
trouthe in dyverse persoonys of thilk multitude.
And sithen thilk longe uce and custom wole lette
6a hem, as wel forto seche aftir the now seid
hokis, and forto do cost into the writyng and
making and multipliyng of tho bokis, eer thei
PROLOGUE
117
Vun
knowe tho bookis, thouz ful moche tiring and
provoking be maad to thilk peple that thei take
tho bokis into such seid sad and long studi-
ing, and that thei spende her money into
so profitable a thing to them, therfore if prelatis
and othere myzty men of good have greet zele and
devocioun into the hasty turnyng of the seid
erring peple, forsothe thei musten, at her owne cost,
do tho now seid bokis to be writun in greet
multitude, and to be wel correctid, and thanne aftir
to be sende, and to be govun or lende abrood
amonge the seid lay persoonys, where nede
is trowid to be. Wel were the man which
hadde ricches, and wolde' spende it into this
so greet goostli almes, which passith ful myche
the delyng abrood of clothis to greet multi-
tude of pore persoonys, notwithstonding that
bothe kyndis of almes ben good. Seynt Jame, in
his epistle in the eend, seith thus: O my britheren, if 66
eny of 30u schal erre fro trouthe and oon schal converte
and turne him, knowe he wel that for he schal make the
synner be turnyd fro errour of his wey, hel schal save
his soul from deeth, and covereth the multitude of hise
synnys. Now forto turne azen into what y spake
of bifore, for the worschipe and reverence of God,
and for charite, no man over hastily and over soone
iuge and deme, in dispising or blamyng the entent
1 Not in MS.
118 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
and the labour doon in this present book; lete
him abide and take longe deliberacioun, hou ever it
schal seme to him nauzt at first. Abide he, unto
tyme he have over studied wel bothe the firste and
the secunde parties of this book in to the eend, and
herkene he aftir, what y write in othere bokis of
latyn. And this y seie herfore, that y drede hasti
iugementis. Happily summe men whiche han not
laborid so moche as wolde be a thrifty labour
thoruz oon day, for conversion of the seid erring
lay peple, wolen sette her wittis anoon bifore the
7a wittis of hem, which han dyvysid and laborid ther
aboute by manye zeris. Suche defautis y fynde in
othere causis than this is, and therfore suche
defaute y may drede to bifalle in this. Never-
theles, God is myzti ynouz forto protecte and
defende this, and so do he for his charite and
his goodnes. Amen.
Ferthermore, thouz in writyng this present book
y teche and sette forth mo maters and trouthis
of feith than ben nedis necessarie to this now
bifore spokun entent and purpos, zitt therwith no
clerk ouzte be displesid, sithen good schal come
therbi, and as y hope no greet harme. Forwhi,
therbi the seid lay persoonys schulen wel wite and
knowe that larger, hizer, and profitabler leernyng
and kunning of feith is zovun and mynystrid to
hem bi this present book, than thei couthen or
PROLOGUE
119
.
myzten come forto leerne and fynde bi her owne
studiyng in her wittis, or in her owne bokis,
whiche thei han in grete noumbre, or in the Bible,
wherynne thei pretenden forto fynde al thing.
Also, therbi thei schulen se how fer the wittis of 76
substancial clerkis passen her wittis in mater of
feith, and in ech other mater longing to the lawe
of God, or to Cristen religioun. Also, therbi thei
schulen fele hou necessarie and nedeful it is to
hem, that substancial clerkis be in scole of logik,
philsophie, and dyvynyte, and that thei have
frendschip and aqueyntaunce with substancial
clerkis, to be enfoormed and directid bi tho clerkis,
and that ellis thei schulen ful ofte and myche
wandre a side fro the eeven rizt wey of trouthe.
Therfore it is wel doon that sumwhat more and
hizer treting be maad to the seid lay persoonys,
than is even nedeful to the bifore writen purpos,
and that for those other causis now last giyun, as
wel as for the fuller leernyng of tho lay persoonys
to be hadde. Ferthermore, for as myche as, soone
after that y hadde write the book clepid the
Represser, which is not zitt into this present day
utterly into uce delyvered, fillen to me manye
occupaciouns by sixe zeere next thanne folowing,
1 Not in MS. Apparently the last word has been pared
off the whole clause from “writen purpos' being a correction
on the margin.
120 T
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
2.0
that leiser was not to me, neither zitt is forto write
8a in special azens the articlis whiche ben spokun in
the eend of the Represser, and left there untretid,
therfore y wole that this present book be take
forth, forto in this maner mete azens alle tho lay
men which holden tho articlis rehercid there, and
namelich the article there rehercid of the Eukarist,
into the tyme leiser schal be to me forto write the
book of the Eukarist.
PART I
CHAPTER I
forto leerne of zou more of feith, than y have
leernyd of zou in the first party of The folower
to the Donet, the 1
ch., and in the first
partye of Cristen Religioun, the tretythe chap.
If therfore it be zoure leiser and joure liking,
y wolde that ze answerid to sume questiouns
which y schal, if it plese 3ou, aske upon feith
or bileeve.
Sone, y vouche saaf that thou so aske and
leerne, and y schal answer and seie thoruz al this
boke, under protestaciouns bi me made, in pro-86
loggis of myn othere bokis, and that maad also
wel for this book, and alle myn othere bokis
writen and to be writen as for hem. Wel y wote
it is not in my power to kunne al, but while ever
y schal lyve, y schal have nede to leerne, and in
1 Where blanks are left the MS. has omitted to give the
detailed reference, although space is always left for it.
LU
122
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
suche mater wherynne y se not hou and what.
And while y schal lyve, y schal have nede to have
helpe of felawis in my faculte. And also it schal
not ligge in my power forto bisette my wordis in
mater which y can, so that theil be not colour-
abili impugned, and also be chalengid to meene
other wise than y meene. And thus it hath be
with Austin, and with ech writer before me.
Therfore as Austyn in the first chàpiter of his
111e book of the Trinite, bi a long processe, desirith
of alle reders and heerers of hise bokis, so y
desire for charite and for Goddis cause of alle
tho, whiche schulen rede or heere rad the symple
bokis which y have write, and schal write in lay
ga tunge and in latyn. Also, sithen y have chose,
forto make summe of my bokis in foorme of
a dialog, bi togider talking bitwixe the sone and
the fadir, y wole loke aftir that tho bokis have
the favour which such dialogazacioun or togider
talking and clatering ouzte have and may have;
which favour, peraventure, sum hasty uncon-
siderers ? schulen not aspie, and schulen therfore
peraventure the soner impugne.
But, sone, y wole that thou bere wele in
mynde what of feith is seid in the places bi thee
1 Thei, originally a correction on the margin. Pared off in
process of binding.
2 Unconsideres in MS.
PART I. CHAPTER I
123
now alleggid, that feith, of which we speken
now, into which we ben bounde, and which is oon
of the foundementis of Cristen religioun, is thilke
kinde or spice of knowyng, which a man gendrith
and getith into his undirstonding, principali bi the
telling or denouncing of another persoone, which
may not lie, or which is God. Thouz othere
feithis, of which is not the greet charge, mowe
be geten bi telling or denouncing of an othere
persoone, which may not lie, or of which it is not
likeli that he in so telling or denouncing lieth.
As if y leerne and knowe this, which y not bifore gb
knewe, that a mayde bare a childe ; bicause that
God, bi him silf immediatly, or bi an aungel, or
bi oon of the apostlis of God hath tolde it, or
in sum other wise denouncid it to be trewe, as bi
writing, or bi miracle therforê doyng, or bi eny
other signe occupiyng sufficiently the stide of
word ; thanne this knowyng which y leerne and
gete to me thus upon this conclusioun, that
a mayde bare a child, is suche seid grettist feith.
Also, if y leerne and knowe this, which y not
bifore knew, that thilk child which Marie the
maide bare, was and is zitt man and God, and that
for as myche as God himsilf immediatly, or bi
an aungel or an apostle of God, hath affeermyd bi
word or bi writing it to be trewe, or hath in sum
maner denouncid and enformed, bi helpe of
3
124 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
myracle, or in sum other maner, it to be trewe,
thanne thilke leernyng and knowing, which y so
gete to me upon this conclusioun, that thilk
10a maydes child is God, is to me such seid grettist
feith ; and in lijk maner it is of ech treuthe, in
to whos leernyng and knowing, after that y it not
knewe, y come bi the auctorite of a teller or of a
denouncer oonli which is so trewe that he may not
lie, and namelich, if the same treuthe be such that
y may not bi natural witte suffice forto come into
the leernyng, fynding, and knowyng of it, that of
ech such trouthe the seid maner of leernyng and
knowing is feith ; and bi this maner of his geting
and gendring, feith is dyvers from other kindis
and spicis of kunnyngis, which a man gendrith
and getith into his understonding bibisynes
and labour of his natural resoun, bi biholding
upon the causis or effectis or circumstauncis in
nature of the conclusioun or trouthe, and withoute
eny attendaunce maad to eny sure teller or
denouncer, that thilk conclusioun is a treuthe.
And so, if y leerne and knowe tidingis, oold gestis,
and governaunces which myn oolde fadris diden,
106 and that bi the telling of such a man, which y
knowe bi sufficient likelihood to be a trew teller or
a trewe writer, this knowing of these tydingis,
or of these cold storial dedis and gestis, is to
me credence and feith; thouz it be not in the
PART 1. CHAPTER I
125
kinde of the bifore spokun grettist and worthiest
feith.
Ferthermore, sone, y wole that thou considere this,
that ech treuthe which a man leerneth and knowith,
aftir that bifore this treuthe he not knewe for
hardnes or derkenes, muste nedis be of thilk man
leerned and knowe bi sum other treuthe, opener,
and clerer, and sikerer, than the seid trouthe is.
For whi, ellis can no cause or skile be seie, whi the
man schulde in eny tyme aftir leerne and knowe
thilk trouthe, and not as wel bifore, save for this,
that now he considerith the other treuthe which is
open and cleer to him, and which ledith into the
man the knowing of this treuthe, which was bifore
derke and unknowen to him. And thanne thus.
Sithen thilk cleerli knowun trouthe may not
gendre the knowing of this derke or unknowun ia
trouthe, in the mannes resoun or undirstonding, in
lasse than thilke cleer treuthe be coupled and
applied in the undirstonding of the man to the
derke trouthe, and stonde not arummel fro this
derke trouthe to bi leerned ; and this now seid
coupling and appliyng may not be maad without
two proposiciouns goyng bifore, in teermes and
wordis of the bothe treuthis, forto conclude and
drive out of hem the iiie proposicioun, which is the
larumme. This spelling differs from that in the Represser
where the word is arombe.
OY
126 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
derke trouthe to be leernyd and not erst knowe,
as y have sumwhat tauzt and seid in the biginnyng
of the Represser, and in the first party of Iust
apprising Holi Scripture, the chap.; and the
coupling togidere of suche proposiciouns in the
now seid maner is an argument, which is clepid
a sillogisme; therfore nedis this foloweth out of
what is now bifore seid, that ech treuthe which a
man leerneth and knoweth, aftir that bifore he
thilk treuthe not knewe for hardnes and derkenes,
must nedis be of thilk man leerned and knowe bi
11b an argument, which is clepid a sillogisme. And
therfore, sithen ech treuthe of feith is a treuthe
which a man leerneth and knowith, aftir that
bifore he it not knewe for hardnes and derknes
therof, it folowith that the leernyng and knowing
of ech treuthe and conclusioun of feith muste
nedis be hadde and gete bi argument, which is
a sillogisme ; or bi sum other reducible into a
sillogisme, and may not be gete and had, without
such seid argument being in the undirstonding of
the leerner, whilis he it leerneth. Wherfore,
sithen the ground and meene, bi which feith is
gendrid, is the telling or denouncing of a sure and
a trewe witnesser, as it is bifore here seid, and
the argument, proceding into the provyng and
concluding and schewing of a trouthe, muste go,
and procede, and be maad upon the grounde and
PART I. CHAPTER I
127
meene of the leernyng, therfore the argument
which serveth propirli into gendring and geting of
al feith is this, with suche othere lijke : what ever
thing he tellith or denouncith or
i Here two folios are missing, in which the first chapter
ended.
CHAPTER II
142 -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 iïiº, and ii pro-
posiciouns? so coupled to the iiie, mowe not prove
the iiie. but if thei be disposid in foorme of a
sillogismem, 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 azens oure kinde, but he helpith forth
oure kinde, and perfitith the wirching of oure
1 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.
2 proposiouns in MS.
PART I. CHAPTER II
129
We
mo
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 146
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, ouzte
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 zeve 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, rizt 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 15a
nede to make eny more proof therof, if teching
130
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
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 ayisid
of the evydencis whiche myzten 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 lewis and the Sarracenes wolden zeve
156 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 lewis and of
alle Sarracenes, to bileeve aftir Cristen feith, and to
be convertid therto, where thei wolden or nolden;
so that thei wolden zeve 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, rizt as
the bodili ize is in maner constreynable or nedeable,
to iuge, deeme, and consent bi the mynystringis
which ben maad to him ; that is to seie, rizt as the
PART 1. CHAPTER II
131
whether it be whiztnes 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 16a
graunte, and so muste nedis ech other considerer
graunte. But azenward, alas, the Cristen clergie
laboren not as zitt 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 brouzte in so greet a sleizte in the secte
of the Sarrasenes, that thei ben ful wondirful
violentli lettid, forto zeve audience to eny proof
making for Cristen feith or making agens Sarrasene
secte. Forwhi, thilk wickid man Mahumet, which
brouzt 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 azens his
sect, and that undir peyne of passing cruel deeth.
But O thou Lord Iesu, God and man, heed of
132 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
1
ne
166 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 brouzte into thi chirche;
and if thou suffre it to be bi eny while brouzt in,
y biseche that it be soone azen 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 tauzten, 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 myzte be holde, she 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 zitt
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
17a zeve such a feith to his peple, and into which feith
he wolde his peple turne alle othere peple, and zitt
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 myzte not bi strengthe of eny evydence be
PART 1. CHAPTER II
133
overcomen. And therfore, Lord Almizti, 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 azen-
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 ; zhe,
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 myzten
helde out into ech persoone of the Cristen
chirche, as schal be open bi a book which y hope 176
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, thouz y knowleche
wel that the seid examynacioun of thilk article
ouzte to be maad bi labour of arguyng in oure
natural resoun, for as myche as we han noon
134 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
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, zitt this labour
and arguyng and examynacioun, so maad in oure
natural resoun, ouzte not be maad go and falle
upon the natural meenys, witnessing the treuthe of
180 thilk article to be trewe, and that thilk article
ouzte 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 thọ
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
186 is aftir to be seid, that ech article of feith may and
ouzte be examyned, whether it ouzte be bileeved as
m
PART 1. CHAPTER II
135
feith or no. And ellis but ech article myzte bi
this kynde of examynacioun be examined, ellis alle
the bifore inconvenientis wolden nedis folowe.
And this is ynouz for eni creature on lyve, forto be
moved forto cleve and consent to Cristen feith,
and also this is worschip ynouz for Cristen feith,
that it may withoute feere be ayowed, 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
ouzte be examyned, whether it be trewe feith or
no. And zitt ferthermore to this now seid, may
evydence be this, that ellis Crist wolde never 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 myzte abide the
fier of triel and of examinacioun of ech creaturis
resoun, so the examinacioun be such as ouzte be
takun and usid, forto examine and prove whether a 19a
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 c", where he seith thus: Parati semper
1 Supplied from the margin.
136
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
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 zilde a
satisfiyng to ech man asking 30u resoun or skile of hope
or of feith which is in 30u. 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 lewe in al the lawe
of lewis. Forwhi, aftir that he was excellentli
leerned in the lawe of lewis, his wisdom drove him
to this that he wolde examyne at the fulle the
196 secte of Sarracenye, also the secte of Cristen men
thoruz alle her evydencis, whiche myzten 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 disputacioun betwixe Cristen
lawe and lewis lawe, in which booke he know-
lechith of him silf what y now have rehercid of
him. Nevertheles, y wole not neither meene if
azens an article of oure feith, as azens this that iii
persoonys ben in oon Godhede, or azens this that
the iie persoone bicame man, or ajens 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
1 MS. disputson.
PART 1. CHAPTER II
137
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 204
gooth not in the wey in which he schulde go, forto
be aboute to prove the seid article be not feith.
And azeinward, if azens 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, zhe 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, thouz
thei kunnen not thus prove and defende tho
articlis, it is no vilonye to hem ; it is sufficient 206
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.
138 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
wer
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
212 schulde thanne be and zitt 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 azenward for that it is
an article of feith, and proved sufficientli to be
such, therfore it is to be bileeved bi feith. So that
me
PART I. CHAPTER II
139
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 216
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; thouz 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.
CHAPTER III
Fadir, if al this be trewe which ze han tauzt
sithen y spake bifore last to 30u, it seemeth
therof to folowe that the mo and the strenger
22a 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,
PART I. CHAPTER III
141
more
1
sure, and expert evydencis ben had for a sciencial 22b
feith, the more is thilke sciencial feith, and the
perfiter and the strenger in his kinde of sciencial
feith. Of whiche now spokun îi spicis of feith,
that is to seie, opinial feith and sciencial feith, y
have maad declaracioun, ground 1 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.2
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.
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 tauzt
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 23a
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
1 MS. gorund.
2 There is an erasure in the MS. with the title substituted on
the margin, but half pared away.
13 The sentence terminates so in the MS.
142 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
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
brouztist forth, and for the evydencis which y have
now brouzt forth, y graunte al that thou hast
now last concludid.
Fadir, if this be trewe which is of zou 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
236 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
mal
PART I. CHAPTER III
143
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
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 24a
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.
Sóne, 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
Sa
144
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
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
246 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, thouz 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 thouz
y hadde seid it to thee bi myn owne mouth.
But zitt 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,
PART I. CHAPTER III 145
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 252
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 zitt the dede
of the wil is not meritorie of blisse in hevene,
withoute a grace which is callid accepting grace.
Wel, fadir, sithen ze conforten me so wel bothe
bi joure so cleer teching, and bi zoure so gentil
commending, forto cacche witt unto me upon the
maters which han betwixe us be mynystrid, y
wole argue azens what in this present chapiter
ze han allowid, approvyd, confeermed and seid.
And for as myche as al that ze han seid, and
al that ze han allowid and confeermed, of the
lle
S
othere bokis bifore alleggid, is so kunnyngli and
so openli led forth and tretid, that y wote not
hou eny man myzte be mouyd to speke therazens,
by eny resoun and cleernes of witt, therfore
y schal move and argue azens zoure so sad seiyng 256
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 zeueth
K
146
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
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 neizeth 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 hizest 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 depper 1 certeynte of feeling, namelich bi
26a reding in the eend of the first parti of lust
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
1 So in MS.
PART 1. CHAPTER III
147
SU
tyme thei mowe or kunne be inproved, mowe
wel, and ouzte 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 azens 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 ; 26b
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,
zitt ther azens is the open pretencioun of the
same wordis, whiche callith a knowing, to whom
mannys resoun zeveth experience, to be a feith,
and that therfore thilk knowing, to whom mannes
148
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
resoun zeveth experience to be a feith and that
27a therfore thilk knowing is a feith, 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 rizt 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 azenward, 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
1 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 zeveth experience, is a feith,' omitting to be a feith
and that therfore thilk knowing.'
PART I. CHAPTER III 149
1
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 276
vice. And so nedis in the first seid wordis of
Gregorie is founden the seid iiie defaute. zhe,
sone, in other placis where God wole that it
be tauzt in latyn, thou schalt openli se, and
so thou maist sumwhat now se, if thou wolt,
that a man ouzte 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;
zhe, and it is unpossible, 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 rizt as grettist vice and grettist demerit
in such case, and for such case, is forto bileeve 28a
where noon evydence is forto so bileeve, so
grettist vertu and merit, as in suche case,
1 So in MS.
150 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
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 neizyng
to nonne evydence, bi so myche the bileve bi
hem taken is the lasse of merit. And as the
evidencis ben gretter, and more neizing to
the grettist and hizest 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 iïe 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 111° defaute, prove also this now last
defaute, rising upon the iie parti of this last
286 govun meenyng. And so y wote not how y
myzt 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
PART I. CHAPTER III
151
a vice and a synne. And therfore y wote not,
sone, hou eny man myzte worthili ground eny
argument forto therbi obiecte azens eny, of me
or of eny other man, 30vun and tauzt 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 ouzte not forto be bileeved.
CHAPTER IV
FADIR, y dar not argue ferther azens zoure
doctrine bi eny doctouris writing, sithen ze han
smyte so soore a strooke azens the bifore alleggid
29a writyng of Gregorie. For weel y wote, what
ever doctouris writing y allegge, if it be azens
zoure bifore maad doctrine, ze wolen answer that
he, or sum man for him, prove his seiyng, going
azens zoure doctrine, as cleerli and as evydentli as
ze proven zoure doctrine, and that he assoile the
evydencis whiche ze maken for 3oure doctrine; and
ellis ze ouzten not to his writing, so azens zoure
doctrine meting, forto assente. This y fele wel,
that ze wolden seie bi it what ze seien zou 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, 30u
attempte. Nevertheles, this lettith me not forto
argue azens zoure doctrine bi the wordis of Crist,
and bi the wordis of Seynt Poul; and therfore y
bringe forth what Crist seid to Thomas, Joa. 20 c".
thus : For that thou hast seen me, O Thomas, thou hast
PART I. CHAPTER IV 153
bileeved. Blessid ben thei that han not seen and han
bileeved. Lo, fadir, hou Crist blamed Thomas, as
it seemith, for this that Thomas souzte aftir more
evydence to bileeve Cristis resurrecioun than his 296
felowis, the othere apostlis, souzten, 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 souzten
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 c, 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 30a
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 yaile and the merite of feith.
154
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
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
zitt 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-
300 firmacioun of the same feith. Certis, sone, the first
case is openli reprovable, the iie and the iïie ben
allowable and preiseable. In the first case weren
the lewis anentis Crist, whiche wolden not bileeve
into Crist for sufficient evydencis, which Crist
zave to hem forto so bileeve, but thei souzten aftir
grettir, and mo evydencis, eer thei wolden bileeve
as it is open, Mt. xiie chap". and xvie c.; Mr. viiie
c. ; Luk. xie c.; 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, zitt
PART 1. CHAPTER IV
155
LIT
he wolde not bileeve bi hem, but he souzte 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
souzt aftir grettir evydencis oonli, but for that he
helde him not content with other sufficient
evydencis, to bileeve Christis resurrexioun, but he 312
souzt 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
thouz Crist hadde seide thus: Not withstonding thou
haddist bifore suficient 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
eyydencis 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
156
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
es
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, thouz 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
c., and therfore he was punyschid. Certis, if thei
hadden be in the secunde case, or in the iiie,
322 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 hasti seen, or namelich
in thilk maner as thou desiridist to se, and zitt thei han
bileeved, holding hem content, for that without thilke
now seid sist thei hadden sufficient evydence forto
bileeve my resurreccioun. Ferthermore, sone, as
1 MS. haast.
ero
PART I. CHAPTER IV 157
manye rizt 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 sizt or seyng may
be comprehendid and undirstonde the dede of ech
other outward witt, bi cause that the sizt 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 souzt over
miche evydence, eer he wolde bileeve; notwith- 326
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 thoug Thomas hadde be in the
secunde case, and therfore Crist hadde blamed
him, for ellis thin argument schulde not go azens
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 azens
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,
158 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
las
withoute seching aftir eny mo evydencis, eer thei
wolden bileeve; but Thomas helde him not
33a content with the same evydence which hise felowis
tolden to him, but souzt 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
330 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 azens me
obiectid.
Tas
lan.
PART I. CHAPTER IV
159
eme
Fadir, ze seiden bifore in the secunde 1 c., that
whoever have sufficient meenys to gendre a feith
upon eny certeyn article, he muste nedis, wil
he, nyle he, bileeve thilk article. Forwhi, ze seide
that his undirstonding schal be nedid to so bileeve,
bi strengthe of tho evydencis. And now ze seien
here that Thomas and Zacharie hadden sufficient
meenys forto bileeve bi hem, and zitt thei not
so bileeveden bi hem; wherfore, fadir, it wolde
seme that oon of youre doctrinys is contrarie to
the other.
Sone, thouz 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 34a
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, thouz
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 seconde 2 c". as in sentence thus : Who
ever have sufficient meenes to gendre a feith upon
eny article, he must nedis bileeve thilk article bi the
1 From the margin. 2 From the margin.
aners
160
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
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.
346 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 izen forto
come so ny3 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 azens thi wil;
thou maist be baptisid azens thi wil; thou maist speke
these wordis, y bileeve, et cetera, azens thi wil. But
PART 1. CHAPTER IV
161
bileeve maist thou never, but with thi wil. But not- 35a
withstonding all this, zitt 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, azenstonde 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 ynouz for answere to thin
obieccioun.
Fadir, what seie ze thanne to the wordis of
Poul, Hebr. xie c., 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 356
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
this feith may be had bi specialte in this
lijf, zitt it is not comounli had in this lijf, but it is
had in the blisse of hevene.
162 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
Sone, Poul in the place bi thee alleggid,
Hebr. xie c., 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 azens myn entent.
CHAPTER V
FADIR, y undirstonde wel what maner of kun-
nyng, or of knowing, ze han clepid feith, and
that bothe in the first party of the folewer to the
Donet (or keye), the xiie ch., and also in this
present book, in the first iie chapitris. Nevertheles
it were good to wite what evydence, and hou
grete evydence, ze have forto so clepe and holde.
And whether feith muste nedis be suche a kynde 36a
of knowing as ze holden it to be, or no.
Certis, sone, that feith is such a knowing as y
have tauzt 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-
164
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
sa
100n
na
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
366 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 ynouz, 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
378 open bi what is often seid bifore in this present
m
1ora
PART I. CHAPTER V
165
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 ; zhe,
and forto holde it azens a good arguer it is
impossible, as is touchid bifore in this book, and in 376
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 tauzt to be bileved.
166
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
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 1 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
38a 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 lizt 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 list of the
16 Fashede' in MS.
PART I. CHAPTER V
167
sunne, hild abrode upon a colour and the ize,
makith the ize 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
lizt 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, thouz not 386
cleerte of the trouthe bileeved. O God of 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 ize seeth cleerli eny
colour, and more cleerli knowen of the undir-
stonding for the excellence of the lizt, even as
the article is more stidefastli knowen for excellence
of the same lizt. 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 zitt he hath lasse
evydence to so bileeve than to so kunne the
othere open treuthe; and zitt also herwith, that
the Godhede hilded out upon the article and the
inward ize is the lizt wherbi is the clevyng of the
undirstonding to the article so stronge, and zitt
therwith the knowing is so litil and so derk;
which alle now seid thingis, if theiben wel 392
1 MS. O God mercy.
168
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
considerid, schewen hem silf not oonli to be
childeli fantasies, and ungroundable fyndingis, but
also including falsehedis and repugnauncis. 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 ze han tauzt, in The book of
Priesthode, in the beginnyng, what the chirche
of God is, and also ze han tauzt 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
398 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 myzten be, whanne thei ben scaterid
1 MS. repūgnaūcis.
PART 1. CHAPTER V
169
TT
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 not? in
hem silf an hous, for thei myzten be and schulden
be, thouz thei weren scaterid abrood; neither the 400
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
1 MS. no.
170
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
it is that the peple in hem silf, withoute more, is
not the chirche of God. Forwhi, the same peple
myzten be, and schulden be, thouz thei were
hethen, or lewis, 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
400 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 tauzt from God.1
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, thouz 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
1 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 co'
PART 1. CHAPTER V
171
aftir in the ve cf. 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 41a
feith, but for that he hath receyved thilk feith fro
God in the maner bifore tauzt, in the first chapiter;
wherfore the chirche is not a chirche, but bi this,
that he hath receyved, in the bifore tauzt 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 ouzt knowe himsilf forto teche autentikli
feith to eny persoone, but in as myche as he is
a chirche; wherfore he knowith not him silf, 416
neither ouzte 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-
-
172 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
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
429 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
azens 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,
PART I. CHAPTER V 173
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
tauzt 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 426
feith, was tauzt 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 ije 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 fie 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.
CHAPTER VI
FADIR, ze han seid bifore in this present book, that
oure natural resoun? with his sillogising hath so
greet interesse in mater of feith, that without dome
of oure natural resoun, and without a sillogisme,
432 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 lust
apprising Holi Scripture, ze han seid that resoun,
which is a sillogisme wel reulid aftir the craft tauzt
in logik, and havyng ii premyssis, openli trewe
and to be grauntid, is so stronge and so mysti in
al kindis of maters, that thouz al the aungels of
hevene wolden seie that his conclusioun were not
trewe, zitt 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,
16 Reson' in MS.
PART 1. CHAPTER VI 175
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 mysten verrifie contradiccioun, and thilke 436
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 azens 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
azens 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. Rist as what ever sufficith to
overcome the overcomer, sufficith to overcome the 440
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,
176 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
now
De
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 men? 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 bitwise hem silf.
Forwhi Poul seith, Galat. ie c*., thus : But thouz we
446 or aungel of hevene preche to zôu, bisidis that that we
han prechid to 30u, be he acursid. As y have seid
bifore, and now eftsoone y seie, if eny preche to you
bisidis that that ze han undirfongen, be he acursid.
Lo, fadir, it wole seme bi these wordis of Poul, that
he preferrith what the chirche in tho daies tauzt
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 rizt moche harme, if it schulde be oft
and openli avowid. Therfore, fadir, forto avoide
1 MS. sūmen.
PART I. CHAPTER VI 177
the comyng of suche harmes to the clergie,
and to the chirche of God, y preie 30u seie
zoure avise..
Sone; it ouzte 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 45a
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
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, 45%
of thilk first chapiter to Galathies may not be
taken that Poul makith mensioun of the chirche in
M
178
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
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 zou 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 lesus 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
462 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 myzte 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
PART I. CHAPTER VI 179
in the seid firste chapiter to Galathies? 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:- 466
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 ije premysse, Poul hadde
sure experience, and ful certeynte. And therfore,
as it is bifore tauzt, 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
1 MS. gathies.
180 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
certeinte, which he had upon the same conclusioun;
and more or other than this now seid, may not be
47a had of Poulis wordis there. And certis, herbi it is
wel confeermed what is seid bifore in the secunde
chapiter.
CHAPTER VII
NEVERTHELES, y dare wel this seie, and avowe,
and this reverence y zeve 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; zhe, thouz 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. zhe, and thouz the
chirche schulde bileve or determyne amys, zitt
therof schulde not this persoone be blamed of
God, but schulde be ful excusid, zhe, he schulde
be rewardid and medid in heyene. That this is 476
trewe, y prove thus. If the apostlis were now
182 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
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 myzten not bi
kinde alwey in this world lyve, forto teche feith
and meyntene the doctrine of feith, and zitt 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,
48a 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 peple now
lyvyng kouthen obiect azens 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-
PART I. CHAPTER VII
183
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, thouz the fadir of this king were moche
holier man than this is ; in lasse than the now 486
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 ouzten obeie to the successoure aboute
the rewle keping, thouz 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 eyer eny
successouris ben ordeynyd, leefulli and expedientli,
forto in eny cause or mater succede to certeyn
predecessouris, tho persoonys upon whiche these
predecessouris? and successouris ben so ordeyned,
ben bounde forto, in thilk cause and mater, obeie
1 MS. predessouris.
184
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
we
n1
to the successouris, as thei weren bounde forto
obeie to the predecessouris, in lasse than the
49a 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 predecessouris 1
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 c"., 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 M., 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
496 weren predecessouris, as it is proved openli in The
book of the Preest hood, the c., 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
1 MS. predessouris.
PART I. CHAPTER VII 185
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,' and a reule, and an ordre, hadde
bitwise hem, and not without this, that the
netherer and louzer 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 500
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, ouzten
receyve her leernyng and her informacioun of
the overer persoonys to hem, and ouzten obeie
therynne to thilk overer persoonys to hem. Also
1 MS. disposioun, here and in following instances of the
word.
SOO
186 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
el
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
506 lawe succedith to the cold 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 ouzte
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 colde lawe
ouztiden receyve her leernyng of feith, and the
expownyng, and the declaring therof fro preestis
of the colde lawe. Forwhi, forto teche the lay
peple the feith, and al the lawe of God for the
tyme being, was? the preestis in evereither tyme of
1 So in MS.
e
PART I. CHAPTER VII 187
ano0
tho lawis ordeynyd bi God. As for the preestis of
the cold lawe, it schal anoon aftir be schewid, 510
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 colde 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 colde 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 510
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 c.,
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 Iewis? withynne thi zatis 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
520 shalt not bowe to the rizt 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. 13° chap., fro the bigynnyng forth bi a
notable processe, in which processe he seith that
ech soule ouzte obeie and be sugget to the
1 Corrected on the margin to “iugis.'
PART I. CHAPTER VII
189
eye
potestatis sette over him, and that ther is noon
such ordeynyng but of God; and therfore, who
ever azenstondith and not obeieth to such potestatis,
he azenstondith and unobeieth to God. Lo, hou 526
substanciali Poul spekith into this present purpos.
Certis, thouz the wordis of Poul, in the place now
alleggid, were not sufficient forto confeerme the
bifore maad argumentis, and this present principal
purpos, zitt 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 azenstondith God, and his
ordynaunce, puttith him into dampnable synne,
and perel of dampnacioun, it folowith that who
ever avisidli azenstondith, 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 53a
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
190 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
a doer in the chirche, in tho daies, and bischop,
zhe, 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
woman1 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
536 a litil sowrdouz 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 c., thus: Witen ze not that a litil sowredouz
corruptith al the gobet. Clense 3e out therfore the
oolde sowrdouz, that ze 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 zitt in the now seid
unobedience azens the prelatis of the chirche, the
more sorewe and deel is, whom y couthe not
excuse, and defende fro wey of dampnacioun,
1 MS. womā.
PART 1. CHAPTER VII
191
na
thouz y schulde deie, but if y couthe excuse hem
therfro, and that for the skilis now bifore maad.
Thouz 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 54a
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 myzt 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 azens the felyng of the general chirche,
without this that thei couthen prove undoutabili
her parti azens 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 azens her
prelatis.
192
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
And zitt y wote weel that thou man, which
546 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, azens the
teching of the chirche. Wherfore, bi and for
strengthe of even lijk skile, thou ouztist nedis cost
holde al tho, whiche thou hast herd be brend in
Ynglond, in unobedience azens 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; zhe, more forto seie, thouz
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 azens his prelatis, for noon of hem
55a couthe prove that his opinioun, for whiche he
azenstode 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
1 As Pecock kindles to his argument, he inclines to forget
the dialogue with its didactic tone, and substitutes an argu-
mentativel; monologue.
PART 1. CHAPTER VII
193
1
suche unobeiers to the prelatis, and ierarchis
of the chirche, schulden synne dampnabli, ellis
in waast eny ierarchiing? 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, myzt rebelle azens 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 zitt therynne be holde gilteles, for
pretencioun and for stryvyng that he holdith the
treuthe and kepith vertuose governaunce, thouz
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 558
him schulde like, and forto be excusable fro
punysching and redressing ; zhe, 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
1 So in MS.
194 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
non
chirche of hevene above, and also for nede
of good reule, which ellis myste 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
56a pride and presumpcioun stynkith bifore God;
zhe, 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, 30ven to alle Cristen men, alle the
now bifore spokun azenstonders to prelatis of
the chirche ben, for thilke azenstonding, in damp-
nable synne, and ellis the seid comoun lawe
of God were not trewe.
CHAPTER VIII
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
contrarie 2 the chirche. And therfore y wole al redi 565
obeie, consent, and bileeve, as the al hool clergie of
the chirche bileveth, thouz thilk al hool clergie myzt
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
1 In this chapter the form of the book completely changes,
and a Lollard takes the place of the son, without his privilege
of questioning.
2 The MS. has “not' faintly marked for excision.
196 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
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
57a 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,
PART I. CHAPTER VIII 197
and forto so do it is over myche perilose in
maters of lasse charge than these ben. And y 575
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, azens 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
in thi power, bi strengthe of tho evydencis, forto
teche, cleerli and undoutabili, thi parti to summe
othere men, as bi tho evydencis thou tauztist
so undoutabili thi silf, and brouztist thi silf fro 58a
the parti of the chirche, into the parti which
thou now holdist azens the chirche. Also folewith
that the evydencis, bi whiche thou art moved
and holdist thi parti in tho maters, ben strenger
198
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
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, theil 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
58b 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 tauzt 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
i Not in MS.
res
PART 1. CHAPTER VIII
1)
199
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 azenward, 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 59a
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 thorouz 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
200 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
kunnyng than thou art, and that for the skile,
and proof, and argument, which is now here
bifore goyng.
Thus moche is argued azens thee, if thou
seie that thou canst prove cleerli and undout-
abili, to thi silf oonli and al oon, thi parti azens the
595 chirche. If thou seie that thou canst prove
cleerli and undoutablil 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 nouzt. 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 2 bi sufficient
leiser, and bi settyng awey of lettingis to perceyve
hem, thei schulen consent and graunt thi parti.
And azenward, if tho evydencis schulen not so
moche move and nede othere men thus avisidli
attending, folewith that bi tho evydencis thou
1 MS. error, “unabedientli”; “undoutabli’ from the margin.
26 bi sufficient evydences'; marked for excision, but not
finally corrected.
PART I. CHAPTER VIII
201
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 60a
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 meenen1 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 azens
thi parti, thou art in dampnacioun forto holde
azens the chirche; and azenward, if thou canst
prove it cleerli and undoutabili, thou art in
dampnacioun, for that thou conquerist not othere 60b
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.
1 MS. meenyng.
202
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
1001
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
612 in which thei trusten, and thei schulen se bi
writyng azen, that thei kunne rizt litil maistrie
do for her party, zhe, 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 sizt 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
More
PART 1. CHAPTER VIII
203
not zou clerkis and the chirche, rizt as ze holden
excused that ze turnen not hethen men, zhe, and
that ze not turnen us. Nay sir, not so, and good
cause y schal seie whi. We mowe not turne
hethen men, neither zou for this, that thouz we
wolden write cleerli oure evydencis and profis
to hem and to 30u, neither thei, neither ze wolden
rede hem, or attende sufficientli forto examine
hem, and weie hem, as thei ouzten be weel weied
and attendid, if thei schulden sufficientli move.
But thei and ze wolden refreyne hem silf and 30u
silf fro al such studie aboute tho evydencis, as it 616
is openli knowe, thou3 3e peraventure wolden a
superficial and an over rennyng reding zeve
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 ze, or eny heretikis han
write, or schulen write azens 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; zhe, thei hem silf wolen be
aboute forto fynde and make motives azens her
party with 30ure 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
204 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
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,
62a 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 3e. For, among hethene men, it is so
that who ever makith eny motyve or argument
azens what is holden of hem, he schal be crueli
doon into deeth. Among zou, it is so that ze
holden a foli forto stodi in eny motives, writen or
spoken azens zoure opiniouns. And therfore a
greet skile of dyversite is whi we ben excusid, if
we turnen not hethen men, neither 30u. And ze
ben not excusid, if ze turnen not us and the
chirche, whilis ze pretenden and knowlechen that
ze han kunnyng ynouz forto turne us, and we ben
benevole ynouz forto receyve, heere, and rede
zoure motyves, and forto examyne hem ; zhe, and
forto fortifie hem and strengthe hem better than 1
ze zou silf kunnen.
626 If ze asken who y am, which makith him so bisi
here azens 30u, forsothe, he is the man which hath
more laborid and doon into zoure goostli availe,
as of trewe kunnyng to be had of zou, and
1 MS. that.
PART I. CHAPTER VIII
205
errour to be removed fro 30u, than 3e zou silf
ben of kunnyng, and of power, forto so do to
30u silf. In more special forto seie, he is the man
which for 30u, 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 iiii tablis, this present Book of Feith, The
book of Preesthode, with summe othere mo, whiche
bokis, if ze 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, ze schulen fynde in
hem so greet witt, and leernyng of Cristen religioun, 639
that ze schulen holde zou bigilid in the trust which
ze had bifore in zoure othere studies, and laboris
for leernyng. And ze schulen se that so fer the
wittis and kunnyng of clerkis passen zoure wittis
and joure leernyng in maters of Cristen religioun,
that ze schulen not truste so moche to oure
kunnyng as ze now doon; and ze schulen truste
more to the kunnyng of clerkis, and seche bisili
to have her helpe and counseiling in tho maters,
than ze have bifore this doon, and ze schulen
chastise zou silf ful wel, and ful vertuoseli, fro
206
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
pride and presumpcioun bifore had, in setting and
in apprising zoure leernyng and kunnyng in
maters of Cristen religioun, bifore the leernyng
and kunnyng of clerkis, and of the chirche,
as ze bifore this han doon. And ze schulen kepe
zou heraftir, that ze stert not up into such pride
and presumpcioun, but ze schulen love clerkis of
the chirche, and seche aftir her comunyng, and
635 love hem, and thei schulen love zou, and teche 30u
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 Almyzti bringe 300. Amen.
Forsothe, summe of the kunnyngist men of zoure
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. Thouz 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, zhe, from eny oon
custom longe bifore contynued into an other
custom moche dyverse, men ouzten not truste to
la
PART I. CHAPTER VIII
207
her first into hem comyng semyngis; but thei 640
musten abide and contynue bi counsel of resoun,
til a newe semyng be brouzt 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 arizt, 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 645
chirche, so longe tyme and ever laboring, and
avising forto come into treuthe, is excusid or were
excusid, thouz it were so that the chirche, bi
ignoraunce, and bi such unpower as is to nowe be
spokun of, erre ; zhe, and not oonli the chirche is
excusid, but over it the chirche plesith, and serveth,
and deserveth mede anentis God bi thilk feith,
208 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
thouz it were untrewe, as fer forth as thouz 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 tauzt 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 azens his servyce, and so or is
meritorie and deserving mede, or is deservyng
punysching.
652 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 chirche 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
seryaunt to him servyng, and as doctour callid
Holcot proveth it ful wel. Therfore nedis the
1 MS. chrche.
PART I. CHAPTER VIII
209
chirche plesith and serveth to God, and deserveth
mede in hevene in this case, thouz it were so that
the chirche errid. Now herupon y argue ferther
thus. The chirche is excusid and deserveth mede
in hevene, thouz he erre, stonding these circum-
staunces of ignoraunce, and stonding this diligence 655
maad forto lacke al ignoraunce to be lackid. And
ze kunnen no better in the mater do, forto have the
rizt kunnyng, than the chirche can do, and doith.
Forwhi, ze 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 ze
kunnen prove undoutabili the chirche to be in
ignoraunce, anentis the seid maters, as is schewid
here bifore. Therfore nedis folowith, if ze bileeven
and holden in tho maters as the chirche bileeveth
and holdith, ze ben excusid ; and not oonli
excusid, but ze serven to God, and plesen God, and
deserven mede in hevene. Who may avoide or
azenstonde 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 66a
willingli, into perel of the contrarie ; wherfore
folowith, if ze not conforme zou thus, as is now
1 So in MS.
210
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
seid, to the chirche but disseveren zou silf, and
putten zou into contrarie, ze putten jousilf fro it
of which ze be sure and sikir, and into a perel of
the contrarie. Wherfore it muste nedis be that
therynne ze 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 myzte be saaf
bi othere mennys rowing, and zitt, 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
IC
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
666 cause, whilis he witith wel that in the schip he
myzte 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, zhe 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 zitt
truli, and in conscience to seie, if y wolde holde
PART I. CHAPTER VIII
211
azens 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.
CHAPTER IX
672 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 zhe, and that thou doist so in ful manye
maters, and thilke multitude wole also seie zhe,
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 ze faile; and zitt therynne thou wolt
folowe thi silf, and in the othere maters ze wolen
folowe zou silf, and forto so folowe ze holden
noon inconvenient, whi schulde ze 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 ze ben,
thouz it were so that it is possible clergie therynne
-
yh
PART I. CHAPTER IX
213
to faile? Verili, if this be to thee and zou a good 676
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 you forto not folowe zou silf, in eny
mater which ze 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 68a
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
214
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
Te
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
686 wel God hath ordeyned and assigned thee forto
obeie in bileevyng to the clergie, and forto fecche
thi feith at hem, thouz thou knowe that thei mowe,
in teching feith, erre and faile, while thou kanst
not knowe and prove sufficientli that thei erren
and failen. zhe 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
PART 1. CHAPTER IX
215
laboring, holding, and czymbyng in his servyce ?
Thou maist not herto seie nay; it is so openli
trewe. Thanne thus : God hath so ordeynyd and 69a
assigned thee as now is rehercid, and zitt 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 ynouz. 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, thouz tho men mowe, in
reuling thee into the seid servyce of God, faile,
erre, and be bigiled. But zitt y schal go neer to
thee thus. Sithen what y have now concludid and
proved azens 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, 696
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
216 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
ne e
of hem the servyce of God, sithen thou knowist
that thei mowe faile and disceyve. I am sikir thou
wolte be rizt 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
70a it do. And also that God hath thi werk acceptid
and allowid, into plesaunce and rewarde, as thouz
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 azens 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 : zhe, and
PART I. CHAPTER IX 217
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 706
ouztist fele in the other mater, which is the
principal present purpos, that thou ouztist 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 ouztist holde and fele that thi bileevyng,
which thou takist of the clergie, and the werk
therof folowing, is not witable to thee, zhe, and
that thou art therto bounde forto it do, and that
thou art rewardable for it, as thouz it were without
erring and failing zoven to thee, and doon of thee.
Sotheli, it folewith openli ynous, and therfore thou
maist not denye that it so folowith. And thus
myche is ynouz 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 712
A
218 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
esoW
to resoun and fre wil, as that it is trewe it
is bifore proved openli ynouz in The Donet, and
in his Folewer, and that thouz therwith resoun
and fre wil ben suche reulis whiche mowe erre
and faile, what is this to thee? What hast
thou therazen to grucche, that it likith God so
forto ordeyne and do? What querel maist thou
make therazens 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 riztli, 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 thouz 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,
716 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 chapiterhiderto undoutabili proved,
and more is therof tauzt and seid in The book
of Preesthood, thou3 the clergie may faile and
erre in his teching, and determynyng ; what
ma
PART I. CHAPTER IX
219
moveth thee forto azens 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 ynouz 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 the rewling mowe faile? 72a
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 myzte 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
1 MS. the
we
VY
CE
220 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
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 mygten faile, bi cause thou schuldist, bi
so moche, se, and feele, and knowe, and knowe-
726 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 azen.
Lo, sir, if this because whi God maad his
seid ordynaunce, certis it is ful fair and honest
cause, and profitable cause to thee; zhe, such
a cause that therbi thou ouztist 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 ze sones of men, hou longe ben
ze of hevy herte ; whi loven ze vanite and seken
ze lesing. Be ze sones azen turnyng, as God
spekith, Jeremye 3e c.; that ze be sones of
obedience, as Petir wole, i. Petri iec". ; leste
73a that the clergie have nede forto compleyne upon
zou to God, seiyng as it is write, the xvii Psalme
PART I. CHAPTER IX
221
thus : Alien sones lieden to me; alien sones wexiden
oold, 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
zocke, as it is seid, Iudicum the xixe c. Wirche
ze werkis of lizt whilis ze han lizt; thus isschewid
to zou that ze be the sones of lizt, lest peraventure,
if ze dispise this lizt so freeli profrid to 30u,
this lizt be take fro 30u, and be zoven to othere
which schulen wirche with it, and bring forth
fruit, and ze be putte into uttrist derkenessis, whilis
the nyzt schal be maad come to zou, in which
no man may wirche. And with al this y biseche
30u, attende ze 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 c., He 736
that heerith 30u, heerith me, and he that dispisith
30u, dispisith me.
i Vulgate, inveterati.
2 Not in MS. but it seems necessary.
CHAPTER X
zit 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 c., who ever doith azens
his conscience bildith to helle, and therfore
he therynne deedli synneth. And thouz it be
thi part forto leie doun, or do awey thilk
erroneose conscience, aś soone as thou maist have
therto witing, power, and grace, zitt al the while
thilk conscience dureth, thou muste and ouztist
confoorme thee to it. This is proved of greet
clerkis bi good divinite undoutabili. Wel, sir,
742 if this be trewe, as it is unazenseiabili trewe, and
1 The more formal Latin title comes from the small correcting
hand on the margin, which may possibly be Pecock's own.
PART I. CHAPTER X 223
ner
U
V
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, she 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 ; zhe, thouz 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- 746
science erroneose, not worthi to be folowid, in
lasse than thou have forto make iustili the excep-
cioun azens the clergie, which excepcioun is seid
bifore in the vii c.
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,
n
224
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
and viker. This husbond man is enfoormed, and
tauzt 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 riztli, 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
75a 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 tauzt of the seid curat; and therfore, as bi
oon of hem he plesith God and deserveth blisse,
so bi ech othere of hem; zhe, 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,
1
PART I. CHAPTER X 225
thanne, sithen the hool clergie of the chirche, or
the more and kunnynger parti therof, is as fer
above thee, and ech of 30u, and is as myche to be
bileeved, in mater of feith, of zou as this oon 755
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
30u, zhe and betwixe alle zou, 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 zou is aboute forto putte awey from him
silf, and forto sette him silf in perel, zhe and into
synne, whilis ech of 30u 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 zou
may se, openli tauzt and schewid in The book of
Preesthode, maad to zou in youre owne lay tunge.
And if there were noon other cause than
avoidaunce of this greet folie, and taking of this 76a
greet ese and suerte, sotheli this were cause greet
ynous, 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,
e
ce
226 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
ne
1
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 ze 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
Almizti God, lete this chastise zou fro the seid
766 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
PART I. CHAPTER X 227
of the chirche in latyn, as God wole graunte.
Nevertheles, thanne y aske of the azenward thus.
If thou wolte thus folowe Holi Scripture, whether
wolte thou folowe it in his rizt and dewe litteral
undirstonding, or ellis in his unrizt, and undewe 77a
litteral undirstonding? Thou wolte not seie but
that in his rizt and dewe litteral undirstonding.
And if thou be so sette, certis thanne thou
schuldist rather seche forto have this rizt and dewe
undirstonding of hem, whiche, as bi al liklihode,
kunnen suerli enforme thee of thilke rist 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 rizt
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 rizt 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 rist and dewe 776
undirstonding of Holi Scripture, so that thou
myztist folowe the same Holi Scripture as a cheef
delyverer to thee of feith, thou schuldist leerne of
Ore
200
228 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
r
the seid clergie, whiche were thilk rizt 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 rizt 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 rizt 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
784 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
Schalt not thou leerne it of hem, whiche ben scolid
bi manye zeeris 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 siztis, and her kunnyngis therynne, above
PART I. CHAPTER X
229
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- 786
sumpcioun. If thou haddist a dout hou a text, or
a processe, writen withynne the bookis of philsophie,
schulde be riztli undirstonde, of whom schuldist
thou rather leerne this rizt 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 rizte and dewe undir-
stonding of the hize 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 sleiztis forto helpe hem therynne.
And if thou wolte pretende thi natural resoun 79a
230 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
forto be so cleer in his nature, into the fynding of
the rizt 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 rizt 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 ze
fewe in reward of so moche gretter multitude ben,
zitt y seie thus. If thou, or if ze han such witt,
into the fynding of the rist and dewe undirstond-
ing of Holi Scripture, thanne nedis it muste be
that in zoure power it is forto nedis make the
wittis of clerkis to se the seid cleernes of zoure
witt, and forto make her wittis accorde to 3oure
wittis, in the seid mater; and moche rather this
folowith, if ze seie that zoure natural wittis ben
796 better, anentis the seid mater, than the natural
wittis of alle clerkis. Abide ze, thanne, into thilk
tyme that ze have opened zoure seid excellent
wittis to the seid greet multitude of clerkis, and so
abide ze into tyme ze have wonne tho clerkis into
3oure side, as ze musten nedis so wynne him, if
zoure wittis be suche, and if tho clerkis wolen zeve
to zou audience, as y am ful sikir thei wolen be
glad forto here zou, if thei perceyve such witt in
zou, and that ze kunnen uttre it to hem, and redeli
thanne schal be first tyme to you forto folowe
PART I. CHAPTER X 231
zoure owne witte in mater of feith, and forto
preferre zoure witt bifore the wittis of the
clergie. And if ze preferre zoure 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 zou, not oonli
of greet foli, but of greet perel; zhe, and of greet
synne of pride, of presumpcioun, of unobedience,
to hem whom Crist hath putte to be overe zou, to 809
reule 30u, as y schewe in The book of preesthode,
zhe, 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
ouztist obeie to the chirche in mater of feith.
Azenward, if thou have, in feith or in opinioun,
that the chirche may erre in mater of feith, zitt
unto tyme thou can sufficientli and azenunseiabili
prove that the chirche failith, in the mater of feith
in which thou variest fro the chirche, thou ouztist
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
232 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
Y)
proof azens the chirche, truste thou not to thin
806 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 azens 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 brouzte 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
81a not have go bizonde 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 zou.
Wherfore, into tyme zoure motives be examined,
togidere with the motives of the chirche, in
re
PART I. CHAPTER X 233
arguyng and pleding at greet leiser, holde ze
never zou to have better evydence for youre side,
than the chirche hath for his side ; and holde
ze not zoure silf to be out of state of dampnacioun.
If ze wisten hou myche rizt substancial and witti
cleerkis han be oft bigilid, for defaute of this
prudence nowe mynystrid to 30u, ze wolden be
ware of the foli, of which ze ben now warned, as
ze wolden be ware of deeth. And thus y eend
here the first party of this present book
PART 111
CHAPTER I
816 Fadir, ze han seide in the xº. c. of the first parti of
this present book, to alle tho lay men whiche ben
obstinat to the feith of the chirche, that Holi Writt
is the cheef and principal ground of al the feith,
which is conteyned in Holi Writt. And treuli, fadir,
y can not undirstonde as zitt but that nedis ze
must have so seid to hem, if it myzt be holde for
trewe in eny wise, nameliche sithen ze han seid to
hem, as ze musten nedis seie to hem, and it myste
not be left unseid, that the dewe and rizt litteral
undirstonding of Holi Writt for trewe feith to
be had, lay men musten fecche at the chirche ;
that is to seie, at the al hool clergie of dyvynyte,
829 or of the more and wittier party therof; neverthe-
les, with the excepcioun bifore sett in the first
partie of this boke, in the bigynnyng of the vii cf.
And redili y knowe so moche of her wittis, and of
1 The dialogue form, which, in the first part, Pecock's
zeal for the conversion of his opponents turned into a
hortatory monologue, is here resumed.
PART II. CHAPTER I 235
her counseilis, that ellis if ze hadde not so seid to
hem, ze schulden laboure in veyn as forto bringe
hem into the obedience, into which ze ben aboute
bi writing of this present book. Also resoun therto
moveth thus. The chirche, or the clergie, in
delyveryng to peple feith which is in Holy Writt,
alleggith for thilke delyveraunce Holi Writt, and
expowneth Holi Writt into thilk feith so delyvered.
Wherfore, the chirche in that biknowith that he
hath thilk feith of Holi Writte, and so not of him
silf principali ; forwhi not of him silf originali or
groundeli, but of the seid Holi Writt eer and
bifore, and therfore of Holi Writt originali and
groundeli. And so as anentis al feith conteynyd
in Holi Scripture, the same Scripture schulde be 826
principal bifore the chirche. Confirmacioun to
the same may be this. If the chirche hadde of
him silf principali, groundli, and fundamentali, al
the feith which is conteynyd in Holi Writt, the
chirche wolde not, and ouzte not forto leene to
Holi Writt, as for grounding and foundamental
teching of thilk feith, neither wolde sende eny
askers into Holi Writt, or wolde labore forto
expowne Holi Writt to hem into thilk feith. But
the chirche wolde and ouzte seie to suche askers
of rizt feith: Bileve ze to me for that y seie this to
be rizi bileeve. And the chirche wolde not fecche
to suche askers autorite of a thing louzer, and of
236
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
lasse auctorite to the purpos, than the chirche is.
Wherfore the chirche, as it seemeth, bi his owne
pretencioun or interesse to expowne Holi Writt into
teching which is trewe feith, must nedis knowleche
that he takith Holi Scripture for his better,
worthier, hizer, and groundier foundament of the
83a feith, which feith the chirche techith bi Holi Writt,
and bi the exposicioun of the same Holi Writt.
And therfore opene it is that 3e have not seïd
amys, in this joure now spokun seiyng to lay men.
Into the othere contrarie side, fadir, manye
skilis mowe be maad, that the chirche is princi-
palier and cheefer than is Holi Writt, anentis eny
feith tauzt bi Holi Writt, and that for viii argu-
mentis, which y can make therto. Wherfore, y
doute not but that trouble and discencioun schulen
be bittwixe? lay men and clerkis, zhe and bitwixe
summe clerkis and othere clerkis, upon this,
whether Holi Writt or the chirche is chefir, and
of more power havyng anentis feithis conteynyd
in Holi Writt ; in lasse thanne ze, fadir, answer
to thilke viii argumentis, and so y can not se, but
that the mater of this discencioun muste nedis be
brouzt forth into utteraunce and comunicacioun.?
1 So in MS.
2 Wharton reads "conicacioun, but the natural reading
seems to me that of the text, the scribe having written
cõicacioũ' in carelessness.
PART II. CHAPTER I
237
Sone, y am redi to heere thi viii argumentis,
and forto answere to hem if y can ; peraventure, in
the answering to hem schal growe in sum thing, 836
wherbi schal be clerid what comparisoun is to be
hadde bitwixe Holi Writt and the chirche, anentis
al feith conteynyd in Holi Writt. And bi so
noche y am the leefir forto heere thin argumentis,
and forto answere to hem, bi hou moche thou hast
now seid, and trouthe is that the treuthe, which is
occasioun of the now seid comparisoun making
bitwixe Holi Writte and the chirche, myzte not be
left unseid, and untoold to the lay peple, neither
to clerkis. And that for cause now bifore bi
thee alleggid.
Fadir, azens this, which ze han allowid bifore in
the xe chapiter to be trewe, that Holi Writt is such
a ground and foundement of oure Cristen general
feith, that noon gretter, or bettir, or surer to us,
ground or foundament is for our Cristen general
feith writen in Holi Writt, y may argue bi viii
principal argumentis, of which this is the first.
No thing is to be seid ground to us of oure feith,
without which thing oure feith myzte have be 840
sufficientli groundid and witnessid. But without
Holi Scripture oure now had feith myzte have
be to us sufficientli groundid, wherfore Holi
Scripture is not to be seid grounde of oure
feith. The first premysse is to be proved
238 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
herbi. No thing is ground of another thing,
without which the othere thing may be. And
the ii premysse is to be proved thus. Thouz
the apostlis hadde not write eny word, zitt
thei myzten have tauzt to othere clerkis and lay
folke the al ful hool feith, sufficientli to the bihove
of the peple, as to her therof the leernyng, re-
porting, and remembring, whiche cleerkis and lay
folk, so tauzt of the apostlis, and overlyvyng to
the apostlis, myzten have tauzt othere clerkis and
lay folk the same al hool feith sufficientli; which,
surviving and overlyvyng her techers, myzten have
tauzt othere folk, bothe of the clergie and of the
layfe, the same hool feith sufficientli ; whiche folke
so tauzt, also surviving, and overlyvyng her
846 techers, myzten have taust the same al hool feith
sufficientli to othere, and so forth into this present
dai, without eny writing maad and delyvered to
folk upon the same feith so tauzt. And if this had
be doon, thanne the feith of ech leerners 1 hadde
be sufficiently ynou3 groundid in her techers, and
in no scripture therupon maad. Wherfore it
folowith that scripture is not, ne was not the
ground of feith to eny persoonys bileevyng.
That this is trewe, which is bifore takun in
the proof of the iie premysse, that thouz the
apostlis hadde not writen eny word, thei myzten
1 So in MS.
TT
1
V
V
PART II. CHAPTER I
239
Yn
have tauzt the al hool ful feith to peple sufficientli,
y may argue thus. In tyme of the oold lawe,
it was so that al the bileve conteynyd in thilk
lawe was tauzt bi mouth, and was leerned bi
mouth. Forwhi, Exodi. the xiiie chap., whanne
it is seid of the paske day, that it schulde be
kept zeerli, bi the lawe thanne rennyng, it
is seid ferther anoon aftir, thus : And thou
schalt telle to thi sone in that day, and schalt 859
seie :--this is it what the Lord did to me, whanne
y zede out of Egipt, and it schal be as a signe
in thin honde, and as a memorial bifore thin izen,
and that the lawe of God be ever in thi mouth,
for in a stronge hond the Lord ledde thee out of
Egipt, et cetera. Also soone aftir there, whanne
it is bede that the peple of lewis schulde halowe
to God ech first gendrid thing, that openeth the
wombe among the sones of Israel, as wel of
men as of beestis, thanne it is seid anoon aftir
thus : And whanne thi sone schal aske of thee to
morewe and seie, What is this? thou schalt answere
to him, In a strong honde the Lord ledde us out of Egipt
of the house of servage. For whanne Pharao was
maad hard, and wolde not delyvere us, the Lord
killid al the first gendrid thing in the lond of Egipt,
fro the first gendrid of man til to the first gendrid of
beestis. Therfore y offre to the Lord al thing of mawle
kinde that openeth the wombe, and y azenbie alle
240 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
856 the first gendrid thingis of my sones. Therfore it
schal be as a signe in thin hond, and as a thing
hanged for mynde bifore thin izen. For in a stronge
hond he ledde us out of Egipt. Also lijk sentence
to this is writen, Deutron. vie c., of the paske
daie keping, and Josue 4 cm., of the xii stoones
taken out of the water of Iordan, and sette on
drie land, into perpetual remembraunce that Iordan
was dried ; also, Deutron. 4° c'., it was seid thus :
Forzete thou not the wordis which thin izen sizen, and
falle thol not doun fro thin herte in alle the daies of thi
lijf. Thou schalt teche tho to thi sones, and thi sones
sones. Telle thou the day in which thou stodist bifore
thi Lord God in Oreb, whanne the Lord spake to me,
and seid, et cetera. Also, Deutron. xie chap., it
was seid thus : Putte ze these wordis in zoure hertis
and soulis, and hange 3e the wordis for a signe in
hondis, and sette ze bitwixe zoure izen ; teche zoure
sones that thei thenké in the wordis, whanne thou sittist
86a in thin house, and goist in the wey, and liggist doun
and risist. Thou schalt write the wordis on the
postis and satis of thin house, that the daies of thee
and of thi sones be multiplied in the lond which, et
cetera. Wherfore, bi like skile, in tyme of the
newe lawe, the al hool feith myzte have be tauzt
bi word of mouthe fro oon to an other, into
this present day sufficientli. Ferthermore, into
i So in MS.
2 MS. assigne.
PART II. CHAPTER I 241
proof or into confirmacioun of the same seid iie
premysse availith this, that we seen in summe
monesteries the kunnyng, and the fulfilling of
certeyn usagis and customes be lad forth in
persoones of the monestarie, and be continued,
bothe in knowing and in fulfilling sufficientli,
fro the first fadris of the monestaries unto this
present day, and that without eny writyng maad
upon the same usagis, but bi discente of word
oonli fro persoone into persoone. Wherfore,
in lijk maner, the kunnyng and the using of
al oure hool feith myzte have be hadde, and
lad, and contynued sufficientli bi mynde and 866
bi teching of mouth, fro fadris and prelatis into
her children and parischens, without eny writyng
to be maad therupon.
The secunde argument is this. If it had
be doon in dede, as is next above argued that
it myzt so have be doon, that is to seie, if it
had be so doon that the apostlis hadden tauzt
bi word manye clerkis, and manye of the lay
folk, the hool al ful feith sufficientli, and these
clerkis and laifolk, surviving and overlyvyng
to the apostlis, hadden tauzt bi word the same
hool al feith to othere clerkis and lai folk, suc-
ceding aftir the deeth of the apostlis, and that
sufficientli, and so forth into this day, thanne
the feith so tauzt bi word, and so descending
242 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
bi word fro persoonys into persoonys into this
present day sufficientli, had be sufficientli groundid
in the clergie, whilis the clergie so tauzten to
othere; thouz therwith a scripture hadde be maad
and delyvered forth bi the apoostlis upon the
same feith, so bi word tauzt to othere. But
so it was in dede, that the apostlis tauzten
872 othere clerkis the ful al hool feith bi word
sufficientli, and tho clerkis, so tauzt of the apostlis,
sufficientli tauzten othere clerkis, succeding aftir
hem, the same al hool feith, and that bi word
sufficientli, and so forth contynuali into this
present day. Wherfore, the al hool ful feith,
bothe in the tyme of the apostlis, and alwey
ever sithen, was groundid sufficientli in the clergie,
for the tyme beyng and lyvyng, and bi the
maner now seid teching and delyveryng. And
thanne ferther it ifolowith thus. If the clergie
for the tyme being, bi her such now seid teching
and delyveryng, was and is sufficient ground for
our feith for altyme, sithen the daies of the
apostlis, it folowith at the leest that forto loke
aftir, or sette eny other thing, as is Scripture,
or eny other thing, to be ground of the same
feith aftir Cristis teching bi word, and sithen
the teching of the apostlis bi word, is no nede.
The first premysse of this secunde principal argu-
ment is open ynouz to be trewe; and the ije
PART II. CHAPTER I
243
premysse of the same argument schal be proved 876
thus. Crist bade to hise apostlis, Mathew, the
last chapiter, thus : Go 3e therfore and teche ze alle
folkis, baptising hem in the name of the Fadir, and
of the Sone, and of the Holi Goost, teching hem to
kepe alle thingis, what ever thingis y have co-
maundid to 30u; and also, Mark the last c., Crist
bede to hise apostlis thus : Go ze into al the world
and preche ze the gospel to every creature. And anoon
aftir, it is seid there thus : Thei, forsothe, goyng
forth prechiden every where. But so it is that
the apostlis hadden not fulfillid this now seid
comaundement, maad to hem bi Crist, in lasse
than thei hadden prechid, bi word of mouthe
sufficientli, al the hool feith necessarie to be had
of the peple ; forwhi, al the hool feith necessarie
to be had, is includid in the gospel of God,
that is to seie, in the message of God, which
message God sent into the world. Wherfore,
sothe it is that the apostlis prechiden bi word of
mouthe, to othere clerkis and folkis, al the hool 88a
ful feith sufficientli; and so the secunde bifore
maad principal premysse to be proved is trewe.
The iiie principal argument is this. If the
apostlis hadden tauzt manye clerkis, and manye of
the laifolk, the hool al ful feith bi word of mouthe
principali, and these clerkis and layfolk, survyvyng
and over-lyvyng to the apostlis, hadden tauzt, bi
As
244
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
word principali, the same hool feith to othere
clerkis, and to othere folk after the deeth of the
apostlis, and so forth into this day, thanne the al
hool feith so tauzt bi word of mouth principali,
and so descending bi word principali, fro persoonys
into persoonys, unto this present day, hadde be
principali groundid in the clergie, whilis the clergie
so tauzt othere, thouz therwith had be a scripture
maad, and delyvered forth bi the apostlis to othere,
upon the same feith. But so it was in dede, that
the apostlis tauzten othere clerkis the hool ful
feith, bi word principali, and tho clerkis so tauzt of
886 the apostlis bi word principali, tauzten othere
clerkis succeding to hem the same al hool feith,
and that bi word principali, and so forth contynueli
into this present day. Wherfore, the al hool feith,
bothe in the tyme of the apostlis, and alwey sithen,
was groundid principali in the clergie for the tyme
beyng and lyvyng, and bi maner now seid teching
and delyveryng. And thanne ferther it folowith
thus : if the clergie for the tyme beyng, bi her
now seid such teching and delyvering, was and is
the principal ground for oure feith, for al tyme
aftir the daies of the apostlis, it folowith at the
fulle that forto loke aftir, or seche aftir, or seie
Scripture to be the principal ground of our feith,
or that Scripture schulde be a principal ground
therof, and more necessarie and better grounding
PART II. CHAPTER I 245
of the same feith than is the clergie or the chirche,
aftir the daies of the apostlis, is waast, ydil, vanite
and untrewe. The first premysse of this iii
principal argument is pleyn ynouz to be trewe. 89a
And for proof of the ije premisse of this iiie
principal argument, may be maad the same
argument which bifore is maad for proof of the iie
premysse, in the jie principal argument, and that bi
the there rehercid textis, of Mathew the last
chapiter, and of Mark the last chapiter.
The ille principal argument is this. The chirche
of Crist, which he foundid in erthe, and of which
he is the heed, is alwey and al tymes oon and the
same, as Seynt Poul witnessith, ad Eph. Ve c.,'
where he seith that oon? man to have bi the
lawe oon wyf undepartabili, signifieth Crist
to have oon chirche for his spouse. And
the same witnessith the clergie, bi the profis or
sequencis, whiche he singith in the masse of
dedicacioun feest day, and in the viiie day of the
same feest. And this same is comounli allegoriesed
upon thilk text, Cant. việc.: Oon is my culum.
But so it was, that in the tyme of the apostlis, the
chirche of Crist in erthe, bi his principal party,
which was the clergie, was of so greet worthines, 896
and auctorite, and dignite, that he thanne more
1 The reference is from the margin. -
2 MS. 00.
246
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
groundid the feith of Crist, than scripture groundid
feith of Crist thanne. Forwhi the apostlis, thanne
being the clergie of Cristis chirche, groundiden
more Cristis feith than her writyng, maad and
writen bi hem, groundid as thanne the same feith;
in as moche as the effect of a cause doith not so
moche into another effect, as doith the cause of the
same effect into the same other effecte, aftir good
philsophie. Wherfore it seemeth folowe that the
chirche of Crist, now being, and at al tyme a this
side the apostlis for the tyme being, is and was of
lijk greet worthines, auctorite, and dignite, that he
now more groundith the feith of Crist than
Scripture groundith now the same feith. Sithen
oon and the same chirche is now and thanne, and
therfore, bi like skile, the same clergie of the
chirche is now, which was thanne.
90a The ve principal argument is this. The clergie
of the chirche dispensith with the thing which Holi
Scripture forbedith. Forwhi, the pope zeveth
leeve to a bigam, that is to seie, to a man that hath
be twies weddid, forto be a dekene and a preest,
notwithstonding that Holi Scripture forbedith it,
ie Thie., 3° c. But so it is that the lasse worthi
refreyneth not the worthier, neither lowseth the
bindingis of the worthier ; wherfore the clergie of
holi chirche is worthier, myztier, and of gretter
auctorite, than is Holi Scripture, or at the leest the
PART II. CHAPTER I
247
re
clergie is of evene worthines, even power, and
myzte, and of auctorite with Holi Scripture of the
Newe Testament.
The vie principal argument is this. The chirche
of Crist, bi his cheef party the clergie, now and al
tymes, hath power to expowne, declare, and inter-
prete Holi Scripture, hou Holi Scripture oweth to
be undirstonde, in the sense and undirstonding
of God. But so it is that even peer hath not
power into his event peer, aftir the comoun wel gob
allowid proverbe, neither the lasse worthi hath
power over his worthier, as may be takun of Poul,
Hebr. viiº capitulo, 2 where he seith that the lasse
worthi is blessid of the more worthi. Wherfore
it seemeth that the clergie, and the chirche bi his
parti which is the clergie, is more worthi than is
Holi Scripture.
The viie principal argument is this. What
ever thing nedith to have upon him silf an inter-
preter, or a declarer, nedith to have the same thing
as his overer and worthier, but so it is that Holi
Scripture nedith to have of him silf an interpreter
and a declarer, which is the clergie in erthe, as
forto schewe which is the dewe undirstonding of
Holi Scripture; wherfore Holi Scripture nedith
to have the clergie, as to be to Holi Scripture an
overer, and to him as a worthier.
1 MS. eeve.
2 MS. a later addition.
248 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
HI
The viiie argument is this. What ever thing
the apostlis settiden in the comune crede, is to be
bileeved and to be holden and usid of alle Cristen,
gia but the apostlis settiden in the comune crede this
article, that it is forto bileeve to the general holi
chirche in erthe; wherfore nedis it is to bileeve to
the universal, or general holi chirche in erthe.
And we mowe in noon other wise bileeve to holi
chirche in erthe, than we bileeven to the clergie of
the general chirche in erthe, for as myche as the
clergie is the principale parti of holi chirche in
erthe. Wherfore it folowith that nedis we muste
bileve to the clergie of the general chirche in erthe.
And if the clergie ouzten in eny dede be bileeved,
he ouzte be bileeved in his dede, whanne he
determyneth eny article to be taken as feith ; for
as myche as this dede is oon of the grettist
aviseable dedis which the clergie dooth. Wherfore
alle Cristen owen forto bileeve to the deter-
mynacioun of the clergie, thouz he determyne
azens Holi Scripture.
Lo, fadir, these viii argumentis y have gaderid
togidere forto be assoilid bi joure hize wisdom.
CHAPTER II
oure n
Sone, thi seid viii argumentis ben rizt welcome to
me, for me thenkith the answer and the assoiling of 926
hem with Goddis grace schal do good. The ije
premysse of the same first principal argument,
whanne it is seid thus : without Holi Scripture,
oure now had feith myzte have be to us sufficientli
groundid, is fals, forto speke of kindeli myzte 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 : thouz the apostlis hadden not write eny
word, zitt thei myzten have tauzt to othere clerkis
and layfolk the al hool ful feith sufficientli,
sotheli this is fals. Forwhi, a feith is not tauzt to
a peple sufficientli, but if it be tauzt 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, 932
250 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
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 tauzt, 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, myste never bi kinde have
be tauzt sufficientli to eny peple, without therof
the scripture; and thouz ful manye a processe
withynne the boondis of the gospels ben lawe of
resoun and of kinde, zitt this that Crist tauzt 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, myzten have tauzt sufficientli the
936 seid feith without scripture, and the peple myzte
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 thorouz illi or v
mennys mouthis, takith pacchis and cloutis, and is
chaungid in dyvers parties, and turned into lesingis,
res
1
PART II. CHAPTER II 251
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 zeeris and cuntrees, that oon man
of the oon cuntre, and of the oon tyme, myste 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 myzte 94a
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 zitt 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, thouz he not
leerne the same feith bi eny general counseil, or eny
11
i
252 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
multitude of clerkis togidere to be gaderid, thouz
946 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 tauzt in The book of
feith in latyn, and in The book of the chirche.
Verili, as y may trowe, thorouz al the tyme of
werre during these xl zeer bitwixe Ynglond and
Fraunce, wist y not scant iii or illi men, whiche
wolden accorde thorouz out, in telling how a toun
or a castel was wonne in Fraunce, or hou a batel
was doon there, thouz thilk men were holden rizt
feithful men and trewe, and thouz 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
952 which he wrote, and so bi lijk skile for the same
cause the othere evangelistis gaven hem to writing.
Hou ever therfore myzte 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.
PART II. CHAPTER II 253
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 ny3 al the feith which Crist sechith of
us. zhe, 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. ; 956
M". xii C., and Mr. 14° C., and 15€ c. And Luk
24° C.; Johnne ve c., and 170 cp., and 19° c., and
20€ cm. ; 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 rizt necessarie, as bi wey of kinde and of
resoun to the same apostlis, that bi the writing of
ie, as bi What bi the w hemsilf
myzten 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
254 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
therof the perfizt mynde schulde, bi kinde, falle
awey from hem, whilisthei 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.
96a For answer to the textis bifore alleggid of the
Oold Testament, in the first argument, it is to be
seid that thouz 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, zitt 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 ch., 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
966 izen. And this is ynouz for answere to tho textis.
More thing according to this answere and con-
PART II. CHAPTER II 255
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 zere aftir Cristis ascencioun, and
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 97a
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 myzten 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
256
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
1
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 myzte have be this: a preciose
thing, whanne it is liztli and soone zovun, 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 ouzte not be sette litil bi,
976 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
thanķe God whanne thei it receyveden. Another
cause rennyng herwith myzte be, that the apostlis
hadden not grettist leisers, for persecuciouns,
that thei myzten 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 myste 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,
PART II. CHAPTER II
257
with over manye maters to be mynystrid to hem
at oonys, or sudenli, or over soone. And therfore, 98a
a good while bi zeeris, 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 loon 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
loon hadde writen his gospel eer Dynys wrote hise
bokis, thanne answere to thi secunde questioun
may be this. Rizt 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 sizen these
writingis, and sizen 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, 986
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
258
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
•
marke bi this, that Petir, in his iie epistil, the last c.,
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 myzte 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 ny3 word bi word. And thus myche, sone,
99a for/answere to thi iie questioun.
To thi iiie questioun y answere thus. The
apostlis knewen weel, as thei myzten 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 mygte, and schulde renne
from oon cuntre into an othere cuntre, like as
Poul in his epistle to the Colocen. the last
c.,1 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
1 A later contracted reference from the MS. margin.
Me
2.
W
D
PART II. CHAPTER II 259
cuntrees dyvers writingis, in this wise dyverse
that thei schulden conceyve dyverse maters,
thouz the writing of oon and of the same mater
myzte be writen or translatid into dyverse
langagis ; and so is the iii questioun assoilid.
Fadir, y perceyve wel hou ze 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 ze han not answerid to the argumentis for 993
the proof of it what was so taken into the
proof of the same seid iïe premysse ; therfore,
fadir, answere ze 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 cold 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 brouztist hem forth into thin argument.
Also the contrarie, that is to seie that God
meened thilk leernyng, bi word herd, was not
260
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
same
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
1000 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. Thouz 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, myzte be born in mynde bi leernyng
of word without therof eny writing? That
this schulde folowe hath no colour, and therfore
thilk argument is list to be in this now seid
maner answerid and assoilid.
CHAPTER III
19
was
Fadir, azens zou 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
zeeris, 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, 100b
and zitt 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 myste have be sufficientli tauzt 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
262
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
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,
101a 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. Wherforė, 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 ;
1016 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
TOO
10
.
more
PART II. CHAPTER III 263
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 102a
and hize 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 delyverd 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,
1 So in MS.
1020
264
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
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
102b 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 30vun 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
PART II. CHAPTER III 265
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, thouz dyvers
doctouris in this case, and in special Gregory
upon Ezechiel, without myche avisement, and 103a
soone moved bi devocioun, sol 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 sizt, and that
he was lad bi a zong 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 untauzt in Moyses writing,
we myzte 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 1036
of Moyses, as is bifore argued, and Moyses com-
1 MS. 6s00,' an imperfect erasure of soon.
in
Y Y II
S
266 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
Sl
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 ze 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 zoure wey ouzte, 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 Cold Testament in
writing bi zift 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 zele which that he hadde
1049 to this, that Goddis lawe schulde be wel knowe,
thouz of ech kinde of tho bokis sum copie was
bifore. Forwhi, like evydencis ben that Esdras
hadde copies of the cold lawe, as ben evydencis
that Moyses hadde copies, forto write or compile
bi hem the book of Genesis ; ghe, gretter
evydencis to holde this now seid affirmative parti,
thanne ben the evidencis for to holde the contrarie
negative party.
PART II. CHAPTER III 267
Sone, y hold wel with thi conceyte in this mater,
and the evydencis therto ben these. Hou ever
yvel the peple of lewis at eny tyme was, zitt 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," so fer forth that the prophete
Hely wened and seide to God that, of alle the lewis,
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 1046
the fals god, which in tho daies was worschipid
openli thoruz 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 lewis
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.
1 A contracted reference from the margin.
© was
268
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
Wherfore, in alle tymes of the lewis, 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, thouz the lawe writen in summe bokis was
brent in the brennyng of the temple. Also,
Jeremye lyvede and abode in Ierusalem whilis the
105a laste and grettist captivite of the citee was maad,
and whilis the Jewis 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, thouz 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 zere of
this thraldom, he bigan to prophecie there in
1056 Babiloine. Also, sumwhat bifore the thraldoms
PART II. CHAPTER III 269
were
of Ierusalem, the King Ioas maad the book of the
lawe be knowun and be puplischidi 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 brouzt into a greet
devocioun anentis the lawe, as it is open. Also, in
ech tyme of lewis 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 myzte not be knowun, wherfore at alle daies
of the lewis, 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 1063
the storie of Susanne, Daniel 13° c', ne were that
thei ben apocrifis. Also Daniel, Esdras, Neomyas,
Zozobabel, Mardoche, Hester, and othere were
kepers of the law, 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
myzten sende and have messages, to and fro
Ierusalem and Babiloine. And if al this be trewe,
1 So in MS.
па
270
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
certis it is likli ynouz that whanne Esdras and
Zozobabel came fro Babiloine into Ierusalem, for
to bilde azen 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
1066 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 myste noon opinioun be
overcome bi strengthe of argument, hou false ever
the opinioun were, so that he includid no repug-
naunce, such as God myzte not do bi myracle.
CHAPTER IV
Fadir, aftir al this, what is seid for answere to the
first principal argument, and what is sunken in bi 1072
occasioun of the same answere, it is now tyme that
ze biginne answere to the fie 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 myzten not, without writing, teche suf-
ficientli oure al hool ful feith, wherof now is the
Newe Testament writen, it folewith that thei
tauzten not, without writing, sufficientli the same
seid al hool ful feith ; which is azens and contrarie
to the iie premysse, in the iie principal argument;
neither thei tauzten without writing principali the
same al hool ful feith, which is azens and contrarie
to the jie premysse, in the iiie principal argument.
And that, for as myche as what the apostlis myzten
not do sufficientli or principali, thei diden not
sufficientli, neither principali. And so, as y now 1076
(
272 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
bifore seid, the bothe ii premyssis, in the iiº and iiie
principal argumentis, ben to be denyed. Ferther-
more, thouz Crist bede as thou alleggist, Mt. and
M'. 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 thouz thei fulfillid this comaundement,
3itt 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-
ficienti 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
108a werkis of craft. And thouz 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
1 MS. suffient.
d
PART II. CHAPTER IV 273
ben to be denied. And this wise, sufficient
answere is maad to the iie and to the iïie principal
argumentis togidere.
For answere to the iiiie principal argument, thou
schalt undirstonde that Poul seith, ad Ephes. iiiie
c., thus : Oon is the Lord, oon feith, and oon baptim.
And zitt 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 1085
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, representen and sacramenten oon thing,
which is this, as Poul seith, Ro. vie c. 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
1 In the MS. there originally stood (now erased) 'representen
with ech other mannys baptim. The corrected reading is
from the MS. margin.
S
274 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
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 zoven to hem fro God. And in lijk maner
10ga 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 zitt not in al maner reputacioun, but in
reputacioun of lijk feith, and of lijk power, and of
lijk iuresdiccioun, zovun fro God. But certis,
open it is to ech mannys resoun, that thouz the
chirche now lyvyng be, in this seid maner of
reputacioun, the same chirche whiche the apostlis
weren, zitt 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, thouz it were so
1090 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
no
er
PART II. CHAPTER IV
275
Yi
seid chirche, rizt 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 myzten 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 1101
size 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
1
276
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
S
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, thouz 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, thorouz al tymes, oon
and the same chirche in aggregat, being, kinde,
and substance; zitt herof folowith not that
1106 hou ever kunnyng, holi, myzti, and worthi this
aggregat was in eny tyme before, in his parties
passid, so kunnyng, holi, myzti, and worthi this
aggregat is now in hise parties now being; no
more than folowith, if the successyve aggregate
myzte, 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 myzte 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,
PART II. CHAPTER IV 277
SW
sone, forto putte and holde such a successive
aggregat, in kinde, in propirte, without figurative
speche, is azens good philsophie, and therfore
azens resoun and azens trouthe, as ful wel myzte
be provyd if this place were according to trete rila
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, thoruz 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 tauzt thilk lawe of kinde and of resoun,
wherof it is writen in Holi Writte that Crist hem
tauzte, is feith. Forwhi, this, that he so tauzt 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 womman1 vowe not chastite bifore the
1 So in MS.
278
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
1xe zeer of hir age.
Now, sone, thouz the clergie,
dispense with it that Scripture techith us the
IIIb 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 c". ; 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. ; 3he 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 ; zitt 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 myzte noon of the apostlis.
And so, thouz 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
112a revoke thilk positive ordynaunce of Holi Scripture,
maad bi the apostle, zitt he is not evene in
auctorite and power with al the Scripture of the
Newe Testament, neither with manye othere parties
therof.
PART II. CHAPTER IV 279
wa
er
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,
zhe, and ech thrifty wel sped studient in divinite,
hath power forto declare and expowne Holi
Scripture, zhe, 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 zonger and lasse leernyd divine ; so we 1126
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 cf., 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
TTT
280 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
answ
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 zitt 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
113a 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 rizt 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 zitt 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, azens 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
PART II. CHAPTER IV
281
the thing of Scripture, which is in Scripture al redi
bifore, thouz priveli and hid ; rizt as the preest 1135
in lent tyme drawith the lent veile, and therbi
makith open to the peple what was bifore in the auter
al redi, thouz 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, zhe 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 1142
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 rizt-
wisnes in causis, as the seid lawe is. Forwhi, al
that thei han to iuge riztwisnes in causis, thei han
of thilk lawe, and zitt the same seid iugis han
140
.
282
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
Or SU
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 thouz 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, zitt 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
1146 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 azenstonde 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
PART II. CHAPTER IV 283
if Pafnucius? 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 1154
trowe a thing to be, and forto trowe to the same
thing. Forwhi, y may trowe the sowdan of Babi-
lonye to be, and zitt 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
ouzte bileeve the feend to be, and zitt y ouzte 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 tauzt 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 tauzte to bileeve oon
baptyme to be, forzevenes of synnys to be, ever-
lasting lyf to be; and not bi tho articlis forto 1156
1 So a note on the margin.
ume
284 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
bileeve to oon baptim, and forto bileve to for-
zeyenes of synnys, and forto bileeve to everlasting
lyf, as schal be schewid better her aftir in this
same iie parti, the viie c., wherfore folowith that
bi the tenour of thilk article in the comoun crede,
in which, and bi which we ben tauzt forto bileeve
oon holi universal chirch to be, we ben not tauzt
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
116a parti the viie ct, 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
1 An important hint of what the missing chapters of
this book contained.
PART II. CHAPTER IV 285
ns
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 1166
witti men knowen that tho propir significaciouns
of wordis in latyn, ouzten be take of grammer.
Also, orthodoxe is as myche to seie as rizt glorie,
or the thing which is worthi rizt glorie, and
therfore al trewe feith, thouz it be particuler,
ouzte be clepid orthodoxe feith, thouz not
ech feith ouzte be clepid catholik feith, and ech
trewe feithful particuler chirche ouzte be clepid
orthodoxe chirche, thouz not ech such particuler
feithful chirche ouzte be clepid catholik chirche,
that is to seie, universal or general chirche. And
zitt 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 brouzte forth men leerned, han
brouzte into a viciose use now late bi ignoraunce
of trewe grammer, forto calle a thing catholik, for
286
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
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,
1172 where, if thei were wel leernyd in gramer, thei
wolden seie alioquin long. Loke alle men where?
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.
11.e. whether.
CHAPTER V
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 forzatist not what is tauzt
in the first parti of The folower to the Donet,
the xie c., hou that feith is takun in ii maners.
In 001 maner, the knowing, bi which we knowen 1176
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, thouz 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
1 So in MS.
an
288
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
iie maner of speche. And in' lijk maner, ech other
article bileeyed 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
118a 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 gave 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.
1 Almost completely pared off from the margin where it is set
as a correction.
PART II. CHAPTER V
289
Wel, sone, thanne ferther thus. Take thou
thilk feith which is a knowing, wherynne we 1186
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 roosazen 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 1199
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
290 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
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 ouzte be take for feith, and
which not, and that into greet alizting 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, azenward,
take thou feith which is the knowyng, wherynne
1196 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,
PART II. CHAPTER V
291
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 120a
is the credence or feith which ech hous-
holder may make to hise zonge 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 hiznes 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:-
292 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
what ever God affeermed or schewid or revelid
1206 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
undouztable 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,1
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 zitt ferther, upon the iie now
1212 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
i 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.
PART II. CHAPTER V 293
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- 1216
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. Thouz the chirche nedith not seche such
helpe of myraclis for the apostilis to be doon, and
or
1
294 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
.
that bicause Crist seid to hem thus, Luk. c. 10:
Ioie and be ze glad, for youre 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
1 222 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 azens sure knowen
trouthe, sumtyme heresies azens the feith, and-
sumtyme contrariete bitwie i hem silf, as forto
putte out in special where and hou oft, it were
over longe here. And therfore, thouz 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
1 So in MS.
PART II. CHAPTER V 295
autoritativeli hem to be trewe. Nevertheles, al
tho which the chirche takith into greet and 1226
perfiät 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 cf. of the first parti
of this book.
But zitt, that the apostlis bitoken not, out and
bisidis Holi Scripture, eny articlis unwriten to be
bileeved for necessarie feithis, thouz summe men so
comounli holden, y may argue bi rizt 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 123a
writing, eny such articlis forto be of hem bileeved,
was no spedeful and sufficient wey; wherfore the
apostlis not so bitoken. The ije 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
296 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
TATT
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
1236 ije premysse may be proved thus. The apostlis,
made so wise bi the Holi Goost forto overse and
knowe scripturis of the Cold Testament, myste
soone knowe and remembre hou. that manye
trouthis Adam seide and tauzte 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 tauzten 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 thantho that ben
writen. And if we wolen come neer hoom, Joon
124a the evangelist seith, in the last c", of his gospel,
1 On margin, “thanne.'
PART II. CHAPTER V 297
eren
that mo myraclis Crist dide than ben writen in
this book, which, if thei weren writen, al the
world, thouz it were turned into bokis, schulde
not take and comprehende ; and zitt 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 ije 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 1246
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
11º 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
eco
11
298 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
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
1252 the worthiest and moost credible of eny other, save
the Bible. And therfore, so thei dide, and made
a crede which in the seid i 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
articlee? 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 zovun, 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
1 So in MS.
PART II. CHAPTER V 299
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 1253
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 tauzt 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. 1262
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
ncis
300 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
Va
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 obseryauncis 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
c. 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,
1266 that is to seie, into tho thingis, pointis, or articlis,
whiche tous 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 conceyyyd 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 tauzten,
and leften, and bitoken for substancial feith,
without writing. And that, bi the first now
rehercid membre, Basil undirstode popis ordy-
mo
HOW
PART II. CHAPTER V 301
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 1270
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 tauzt 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 formal
argument. If eny other man kan remembre him
of othere or of mo, wel be it; but zitt thingis
doon or tauzt longe aftir tyme of the apostlis, the
chirche may determyne for such seid feith, thouz
not as a treuthe doon, or tauzt, and revelid bi God
in the tyme of Crist or of the apostlis, but latir 1276
aftir the tyme of Crist, and of the apostlis.
Amonge whiche thingis declarid bi the chirche for
feith, not conteynyd expresseli or inpresseli in
1 MS. “informal.'
302 PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
rse
Holi Scripture, if eny such be, y remembre me now
of noon, save of it what is here bifore seid in this
present c., longing to the cananysing of seintis.
And that if eny such be, which condicioun y seie
for peraventure, 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 tauzt
or doon bi hem, and ellis peple schulde not
courseli so do, as the chirche decreeth not, or
determyneth not, neither publischith the writingis
1 28a 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
1 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.
PART II. CHAPTER V
303
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 c'. Sancta
Romana. And therfore, thouz 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, zitt thei ben ech 1286
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 zeve 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 ouzte 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 3oure so wise and
depe forth leeding of the seid now bifore goyng
profis. Nevertheles, y truste so moche in 30ure
to me good fadirhood, that ze wole suffre me
re
a 1495
.
(61456)
مامامي
304
PECOCK'S BOOK OF FAITH
make azens zoure doctrine this now to folowe
129a 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 hellis —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 zitt this
same article, as he seith, is not groundid in Holi
Scripture. Wherfore youre 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 :
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.
1296 And no man may seie that the apostlis settiden
thilk article in the comoun crede, a this side the
daies of Austyn 3 ; wherfore, nedis it is trewe
that neither bifore, neither aftir Austyns daies,
1 So in MS.
2No reference given.
8 A marginal correction of apostlis’ in the text.
Pacock Faith Twin C
PART II. CHAPTER V
305
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.
Se
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.
GLOSSARY
vvd, stirred. set in action. | culum, dove.
anentis, concerning.
antitodari (i.e. antidotary), title
Deel, grief.
of medical treatise describing
delid, dealt.
antidotes.
demeritorie, unworthy.
apprising, appreciation.
denounce, proclaim.
dialogazacioun, disputation.
arere, rouse.
arumme, far from.
digne, worthy.
assaie (used as noun).
Donet, grammar, primer.
autentikli, authentically.
dressing, guidance.
avisid, advised.
dukis, leaders.
azen bie, redeem.
Evereither, both.
azenstonde, withstand.
expowner, expositor.
Baptim or baptym, baptism.
Fantasien, wildly imagine.
bese, to concern oneself with.
fillen, fell.
bigam, one guilty of bigamy.
foundement, foundation.
bireweable, to be regretted.
bitakun, entrusted.
Gendring, creating, causing.
breed, bread.
glose, gloss.
brennyng, burning.
goostli, spiritual.
govun, given.
Cacche, catch.
gropiden, groped.
cananysing, canonising.
groundeli, fundamentally.
clepid, called.
comberose, cumbersome. Hild, shed, incline towards.
contrarie, to oppose.
hool, whole.
coostis, coasts.
hynes, servants.
courseli, in due course.
couthen, knew.
Ierarchiing, ruling (of ecclesias-
crokiden, erred from the way. I tical rule).
U 2

***
.
.
.
!
1127
:
:
"$
23
09.
12
2
ul
308
GLOSSARY
inconvenient, obstacle.
izen, eyes.
Kindeli, by nature.
knowlechen, acknowledge.
kunnyng, knowledge.
kunnyngal, having to do with
knowledge.
Pacches, patches.
parcelmele, by sections.
parchimyn, parchment.
paske, passover.
predicamentis, categories.
preef, proof.
preise, praise.
puplischid, published.
Rad, read.
reclaimed, opposed.
roos, rose.
Laife, lay fee; the laity.
lauzed, laughed.
leefir, rather.
leefulli, lawfully.
lesingis, lies.
ligge, lie.
lijk, like.
louzest, lowest.
Mawle, male.
medid, rewarded.
meene, instrument, medium.
meirs, mayors.
mowe, to be able.
myir, mire.
Namelich, especially.
nedeable, able to be compelled.
nedisli, of necessity.
neische, soft.
neizeth, approaches.
netherte, inferiority.
nycromancie, necromancy.
nyle, will not.
Sad, sober.
schap, schope ; make, made.
schenden, put to shame.
sciential, connected with true
or full knowledge.
seie, say.
seriauntis, sergeants at law.
siker, sure.
sithis, occasions.
skilis, reasons.
sleizte, cunning.
slider, slippery, uncertain.
smatche, taste.
sotheli, truly.
sownyng, connected with, tend-
ing to.
sowrdouz, leaven.
spice, kind, variety.
squaymose, delicate.
stideli, steadily.
stidis, places, varieties.
stie, ascend.
stirte, start.
storial, historic.
streizte, stretched.
suer, pursuer.
Obeischaunce, reverence.
omelie, homely.
oon, oonyng; one, union.
ordynatli, in order.
overte, superiority.
owen, ought.
GLOSSARY
309
viciose, vicious.
Tikil (like squaymose), delicate
or difficult.
transumed (?), a doubtful word,
probably from a scribal error.
Trenys, Lamentations (Book of).
tretythe, thirtieth.
Waast, waste.
waisching, washing.
weerne, prevent, forbid.
weiyng, weighing.
wepeable, to be lamented.
wexiden, waxed.
widewite, widowhood.
wijne, wine.
wirching, working.
wite, wote; know, knew.
Unazenseiabili, unanswerably,
unbigiling, undeceiving.
undepartabili, inseparably.
undirfongen, received.
undisputte, set under.
unhadde, not possessed.
unnethis, in spite of.
unobeiers, disobeyers.
unproved, disproved.
unwist, unknown.
Ynou3, enough.
yvel, evil.
Vaile, value.
verri, actual.
zede, went.
zeeris, years.
3ocke, yoke.
INDEX OF AUTHORS QUOTED IN
“THE BOOK OF FAITH'
Ambrose, St., 302.
Aristotle, de Praedicamentis, 159.
Augustine, St., 160, 302.
de Baptismo, 115.
de Trinitate, 122.
Balbus, Joannes (" Januensis '), Summa quae vocatur Catholicon, 286.
Basil, St., 299, 300, 301, see Gratian.
Bede, 285.
Bible, references to :
Genesis, 261, 264.
Exodus, 239.
Deuteronomy, 187-8, 240, 254.
Joshua, 240.
Judges, 221.
ii Kings, 267.
Ezra, 266.
Psalms, 220.
Proverbs, 304.
Canticles, 245.
Isaiah, 113.
Jeremiah, 220, 221.
Lamentations, 109, 268.
Ezekiel, 268.
Daniel, 269.
St. Matthew, 154, 184, 187, 243, 245, 253, 255, 257, 272.
St. Mark, 154, 184, 187, 243, 245, 253, 255, 257, 272.
St. Luke, 153, 154, 156, 221, 252, 253, 255, 257, 293.
St. John, 147, 152 seq., 154, 156, 253, 255, 257, 296.
Acts, 184.
INDEX OF AUTHORS QUOTED 311
Bible :
St. Paul's Epistles :
To the Romans, 112, 188, 222, 293.
To the Corinthians, i, 161, 190, 254.
To the Galatians, 176, 179.
To the Ephesians, 245, 273.
To the Colossians, 258.
To Timothy, 187, 246, 278.
To Titus, 187.
The Epistle to the Hebrews, 161-2, 186.
The Epistles of St. Peter, 110, 135-6, 220, 258.
The Epistle of St. James, 117.
Cassiodorus, Historia ecclesiastica tripartita (“Tripartid Storie'),
283, 298.
Dionysius, Pseudo-Areopagita, 257.
de divinis nominibus, 189.
de coelesti hierarchia, 185.
de ecclesiastica hierarchia, 185, 188, 193.
Ecclesiastik Storie,' see Eusebius.
Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, 298.
Gratian, Decr., 299, 300, 303.
Homiliae xl. in lectiones Evangelii, 145 seq.
Holcot, Robert ( doctor callid H.'), 208.
Ignatius, St., Epistolae, 189.
Isidore, St., 285.
Januensis, see Balbus.
Jerome, St., 302.
prologi in prophetas, 269.
Martinus Oppariensis, alias Polonus, Chronicon pontificum et
imperatorum, 255.
Nicholas of Salerno, Antidotarium, 286. [This work, which
was printed in 1479, etc., in Opera Joannis Mesuae
(Yuhanna ibn Masawaih), is extant in several Oxford
MSS., 2.g. New College MSS., 166, 168, 171.]
Pecock, Reginald :
The book of the chirche, in latyn (unwritten), 223, 231,
252, 276.
The book of Cristen Religion, 121, 205.
The book of the Eukarist (unwritten), 120.
312 INDEX OF AUTHORS QUOTED
Pecock, Reginald :
The book of feith, in latyn, 144, 148, 149, n. 170, 226,
252, 304.
The book of filling the iiii tables, 205.
The book of leernyng, 205, 255.
The book of priesthode, 168, 184, 205, 218, 225, 231.
The book of signis in the chirche (which I clepe the book
of worschiping'), 205.
The Donet into the book of Cristen Religion, 205, 218.
The Folewer to the Doneţ, 121, 141, 144, 148, 149, 163,
165, 166, 168, 198, 205, 208, 213, 218, 287, 288, 293.
The Forcrier, 205.
The Just Apprising of doctouris, 146.
The Just Apprising of Holy Scripture, 109, 115, 126, 146.
The Proof of Cristen Feith (unwritten), 133.
The Provoker, 205.
The Represser, 109, 115, 119, 126, 174, 184, 205.
Petrus Alphonsus (Sephardi), 136. His dialogues were printed
at Cologne in 1536, Dialogi in quibus impiae Judaeorum
opiniones confutuntur.
Petrus Comestor, Historia Scholastica (“The Master of Stories '),
262, 270.
Scotus, Duns, (the Doctor Sutel'), 304.
* Tripartid Storie,' see Cassiodorus.
GENERAL INDEX
Clement, Vincent, 42.
Clergy ; defence of faith by,
111, 130; obedience to, 113,
222 seq.; and scripture, 234,
282.
Constantine, 297.
Constantinople, council of, 299.
Creed, 283-4, 287 seq., 304 seq.
Donatus, 191.
Abraham, 263.
Alexander I., pope, 300.
Apostles, 238,243 seq.; authority
of, 181 seq. ; use of writing
by, 271 seq.
Apostles' creed, 85, 88.
Aristotle, 47, 73 seq.
Arius, 191, 298.
Augustine, St., 46, 60, 63, 74,
122, 304, 305.
Babington, C., edition of the
Represser, 10, 13, 14, 22, 38,
n. 44, 59, 305.
Bale, Index Brit. Scr., 13.
Baptism, 273.
Belief, 283.
Bible, vide Scripture.
Bothe, bp., 41.
Bourchier, archb., 58.
Bury, John, 283.
Electuary, 286.
England ; temper of: in the
fifteenth century, 24 seq., 36,
68; church in, 28 seq. ; law
of, 280, 281.
Enoch, founds letters, 262.
Eutiches, 191.
Evidence, 128 seq.; and faith,
140 seq., 152 seq.
Ezra : renews the O.T., 266
seq., 270.
re.
Catholic, meaning of word, 285.
Church, the catholic, 88, 89, 90;
c. in heaven and on earth,
176 seq.; authority of c. on
earth, 181 seq.; error in, 195
seq., 212 seq.; unity of, 273;
and scripture, 276, 278; and
New Testament, 301; in the
creed, 283 seq.
Faith: Pecock's definition, 79,
85, 86, 89, 123 seq., 163
seq., 287 ; trial of, 131-3,
137-9; opinial f., 140 seq.,
161 ; sciential f., 140 seq.,
161; the church and f., 168,
289; articles of f., vide Creed.
Fortescue, Sir J., 25, 93.
314
GENERAL INDEX
Foxe, Book of Martyrs, 13. | Millington, W., 33.
France, war with England, 252. | Miracles, Pecock on, 79-82,293,
Franciscans, 70.
294.
Moleyns, bp., 41, 56.
Gascoigne : on "The Book of Monasteries, 241.
Faith,' 12 seq. ; Theological Moses, 261, 264, 265.
Dictionary, 33, 41 ; character Mysticism, criticised, 166 seq.
of, 34; on Pecock, 39, 40,
48, 52, 56, 60.
Nestorius, 191.
Geoffrey of Monmouth, 47. Netter, T., 40.
Giraldus Cambrensis, 47. Nevile, bp., 58, 63.
Gloucester, Humphrey of, 40, New Testament, vide Scripture.
41, 56, 93.
Nicæa, council of, 283, 298.
Gregory, St., 47, 86.
Noah, 263.
Novatus, 191.
Henry VI., 40.
Hert, Le, bp., 41, 56. Orthodox, meaning of, 285.
Oxford, 32, 33.
Jerome, St., 46, 60, 63, 74.
Jews, 130, 136, 170.
Paphnutius, 283.
Joash, king, 269.
Pecock, Reginald : methods of
John of Bridlington, 81, 294, work, 10; biographical de-
302.
tails, 39, 40, 43, 65; writ-
Judges, 281.
ings, 42, 44, 57 ; Donet, 57,
71, 72, 87, 88; Folewer to
Laity, 111, 116, 118.
the D., n. 38, 49, 53, 57, 61,
Law, the king's, 228.
71, 72, 77, 78, 79, 85, 86,
Lewis, Life of Pecock, 14, 22, 87 ; Represser, 10, 43, 57,
38, 59, 91.
84, 87; Book of Faith, 9 seq.,
Lollards, 43, 77, 114 ; belief on 43, 44, 57, 58, 70, 81, 82,
scripture, 109 seq. ; lately 86, 87, 88, n. 89 ; learning
burned, 192; the church and, of, 45-48; sermon at Paul's
195 seq. ; Pecock and, 202 Cross, 50 seq. ; trial, 59 seq.;
seq.
recantation, 21, 59, 64 ; love
London, 183.
of syllogism, 69; rationalism
of, 75, 83 seq. ; historical
Machiavelli, 26, 68, 93.
sense, 76; humanity, 82 ;
Mahomet, 131.
general estimate of, 90 seq.;
Melchizedek, 263.
intention and the B.of F., 113.
Methuselah, 263.
| Pelagius, 191.
GENERAL INDEX
315
Pope, the, 278, 280; ordinances | Suffolk, W., duke of, 56, 57.
of, 301.
Syllogism, 126, 174.
Renaissance, 23, 67 seq. Tanner, Bibl. Brit.-Hib., 14.
Thomas, St., the apostle, 144,
Sabellius, 191.
152 seq.
St. Albans, register, 31.
Thomas, St., of Canterbury, 81,
Saracens, 130, 136.
294, 302.
Scripture, Holy, 45, 76, 80, 87,
88, 89 ; interpretation of, Waterland, quoted, 10, 14.
227 seq. ; the church and, | Wharton, H., 13, 91,
234 seq. ; sufficiency of, 249 Whethamstede, in criticism of
seq. ; writing of, not miracu Pecock, 31 seq., 53, 56, 63.
lous, 261 seq. ; the New Whitgift, and B. of F., 9, 13.
Testament, 274 seq. ; 277 Whittington College, 43.
seq.; exposition of, 279, 280; Wycliffe, 45, 46, 83 ; compared
articles of faith apart from, with Pecock, 91 seq.
291. Vide Bible' in Index I.
Stafford, archb., 41, 60. Zacharias, father of John the
Stowe, J., 13.
Baptist, 153, 156.
GLASGOW : PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS BY ROBERT MACLEHOSE AND CO. LTD.

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
IT
3 9015 08462 7481

.
**
*
Հ
*
•։ (er
ը
*
**
•
ԱՐԱՅԱՆԱ ԱՐԵՒՄՈՒՏնաեւ նրախանյանի կին
*
:
,* :::: :
:::::-
է:
:
:
.
.
.
Սը
ծ