Middle English Literature

Enarratio
251

---

252
Textualities
or vertu, or trouthe, out of which al the sufficient leernyng and knowing of
the same governaunce, trouthe, and vertu cometh, procedith, and growith,
and may be had though al other thing pretendid to be ground ther of be
awey or were not in being, but so it is that al the leernyng and knowing,
which Holi Scripture geveth upon eny bifore seid governaunce, deede, or
trouthe of Goddis moral lawe, mai be had bi doom of natural resoun. Yhe,
though Holi Writt had not spoke ther of or though he schulde nevere fro
hens forthward speke ther of (as anoon aftir schal be proved) and over it al
the forther kunnyng which Holi Writt geveth not upon eny seid governaunce
or deede or treuthe of Goddis lawe and service and is necessarie to be had
upon the same governaunce, trouthe, or vertu, mai be had bi labour in
doom of natural resoun (as anoon aftir schal be proved). Wherfore, doom
of natural resoun (which is clepid “moral lawe of kinde” in the book Of just
apprising Holi Scripture)
5
and not Holi Scripture is the ground of alle the
seid governauncis, deedis, vertues, and trouthis . . .
The third principal argument into the same firste and principal conclusioun
is this: Bifore that eny positif lawe of God, that is to seie, eny voluntarie or
wilful assignement of God, was goven to the Jewis fro the long tyme of
Adamys comyng out of Paradis into the tyme of circumcisioun in the daies
of Abraham, and into the positif lawe goven bi Moyses, the peple lyveden
and serviden God, and weren bounde weelnigh bi alle tho moral vertues
and moral governauncis and treuthis whiche bi doom of her natural resoun
thei founden and leerneden and camen to, and so thei weren bounde
weelnygh to alle moral governauncis and moral trouthis into whiche Cristen
men ben bounden now in tyme of the Newe Testament. Aftirward, whanne
tyme of Jewis came and the positif lawe of the cerymonyes, judicialis, and
sacramentalis weren goven to the Jewis, the othere now bifore seid lawis of
resoun weren not revokid, but thei contynueden into charge of the Jewis
with the lawis of cerymonies, judicialis, and sacramentis so that the Jewis
weren chargid with alle the lawis of resoun with whiche the peple fro Adam
thidir to weren chargid and also over that with the positif lawis of God
thanne goven. Forwhi, it is not rad that the lawis of resoun weren thanne
revokid, and also needis alle men musten graunte that summe of hem abode
charging the Jewis, and skile is ther noon whi summe of hem so abode and
not alle; wherfore, it is to be holde that alle tho lawis of resoun with whiche
the peple were chargid bifore the tyme of Jewis aboden, stille charging also
the Jewis into the tyme of Cristis passioun . . .
5
This work and the others below are Pecock’s books and treatises.

---

Of whiche first principal conclusioun thus proved folewith ferther this
corelarie, that whanne evere and where evere in Holi Scripture or out of
Holi Scripture be writen eny point or eny governaunce of the seide lawe of
kinde, it is more verrili writen in the book of mannis soule than in the
outward book of parchemyn or of velym, and if eny semyng discorde be
bitwixe the wordis writen in the outward book of Holi Scripture and the
doom of resoun, write in mannis soule and herte, the wordis so writen
withoutforth oughten be expowned and be interpretid and brought forto
accorde with the doom of resoun in thilk mater, and the doom of resoun
oughte not forto be expowned, glosid, interpretid, and broughte for to
accorde with the seid outward writing in Holi Scripture of the Bible or
oughwhere ellis out of the Bible. Forwhi, whanne ever eny mater is tretid bi
it which is his ground and bi it which is not his ground, it is more to truste
to the treting which is mad ther of bi the ground than bi the treting ther of
bi it which is not ther of the ground and, if thilke two tretingis oughten not
discorde, it folewith that the treting doon bi it which is not the ground
oughte to be mad for to accord with the treting which is maad bi the
ground. And therfore this corelarie conclusioun muste nedis be trewe . . .
The secunde principal conclusioun and trouthe is this: Though it perteyne
not to Holi Scripture forto grounde eny natural or moral governaunce or
trouthe into whos fynding, leernyng, and knowing mannis reson may bi him
silf and bi natural help come, as it is open now bifore bi proofis of the firste
principal conclusioun, yit it mai perteyne weel ynough to Holi Scripture that
he reherce suche now seid governauncis and treuthis, and that he witnesse hem
as groundid sumwhere ellis in the lawe of kinde or doom of mannis resoun.
And so he dooth (as to ech reder ther yn it mai be opene) that bi thilk reherc-
ing and witnessyng so doon bi Holi Scripture to men, tho men schulden be
bothe remembrid, stirid, provokid, and exortid forto the rather performe
and fulfille tho same so rehercid and witnessid governancis and trouthis . . .
The third principal conclusioun is this: The hool office and werk into
which God ordeyned Holy Scripture is forto grounde articlis of feith and
forto reherce and witnesse moral trouthis of lawe of kinde groundid in
moral philsophie, that is to seie in doom of resoun, that the reders be
remembrid, stirid, and exortid by so miche the better and the more and the
sooner forto fulfille hem . . .
The fourth principal conclusioun is this: It is not the office longing to
moral lawe of kinde for to grounde eny article of feith groundid by Holi
Scripture. For whi al that the now seid moral lawe of kinde or moral
philsophie groundith is groundid bi doom of mannis resoun, and therfore is
such a treuthe and a conclusioun that into his fynding, leernyng, and knowing