Middle English Literature

The folwer to the donet, The book of Cristen religioun (namelich the first parti
fro the bigynnyng of the third treti forthward), The book filling the four
tablis, The book of worschiping, the book clepid The just apprising of Holi
Scripture, the book clepid The provoker of Cristen men, The book of Counceilis,
and othere mo pertenyng to the now seid Book of Cristen religioun. Forwhi,
in these now spoken bokis thei schulen leerne and kunne (in a ful notable
quantite and mesure, and in a fair fourme) the now bifore seid moral
philsophie, being so necessari forto be undirstonde and being in it silf the
more parti of al her moral lawe and service to God, as it is open bi the
seventh conclusioun, and being so necessarie forto expowne or interprete or
glose dewli and treuly Holi Scripture in alle placis where he spekith of
Goddis lawe and service, except thilk fewe placis where yn he spekith of the
Enarratio
255

---

256
Textualities
making and using of the fewe newe sacramentis of Crist, as it is open bi the
ninth bifore sett conclusioun. Wherfore, miche oughten lay persoones forto
make and apprise and love the now spoken bokis. And ferthermore, over
this now seid the now spoken bokis techen ful clereli and bihovefulli
6
the
treuthis and governauncis of Goddis lawe whiche ben groundid in Holi
Scripture and also othere treuthis of feith whiche ben not lawis and ben
groundid in Holi Scripture, and also thei treten ful nobili the positif lawis
of Criste aboute the newe sacramentis, and therefore ful miche good (as y
hope) schal come bi the reeding, leernyng, and using of the now spoken
bokis . . .
[13. To ask of laws and truths affirmed by “lawe of kinde and in moral
philsophi” where they are grounded in scripture, is to be unreasonable. It is
like asking for proofs of grammar in scripture or a truth about masonry in
butchery. Having provided 13 “principal conclusiouns,” Pecock turns to
other proofs, including the following.]
If substanciali leerned clerkis in logik and in moral philsophie and in
dyvynyte, and ripeli exercisid ther yn, weren not and schulden not be forto
wiseli and dewli geve trewe undirstondingis and exposiciouns to textis of
Holi Scripture, or ellis, though suche clerkis ben and the lay parti wolen not
attende to the doctrine whiche tho clerkis mowe and wolen (bi proof of
sufficient and open evydence) mynystre to the lay parti, but the lay parti
wolen attende and truste to her owne wittis and wolen lene to textis of the
Bible oonli, y dare weel seie so many dyverse opinions schulde rise in lay
mennys wittis bi occasioun of textis in Holy Scripture aboute mennys moral
conversacioun that al the world schulde be cumbrid therwith, and men
schulden accorde to gidere in keping her service to God as doggis doon in
a market whanne ech of hem terith otheris coot. For whi oon man wolde
understonde a text in this maner and an other man wolde understonde it in
an other dyvers maner, and the third man in the third maner; namelich, for
that weelnigh in ech place where Holi Writ spekith of eny point of moral
lawe of kinde, it is so spoken that it nedith forto have a redressing of it into
accordaunce with lawe of kinde and with doom of reson, and than if no
juge schulde be had forto deeme bitwixe hem so diversely holding, eende
schulde ther nevere be of her strif into tyme that thei schulden falle into
fighting and into werre and bateil, and thanne schulde al thrift and grace
6
helpfully.

---

passe awey, and noon of her holdingis schulde in eny point be therbi
strengthid or confermed . . .
[Pecock rebukes preachers who interpret for themselves rather than
trusting to learned clerks, and he makes special mention of the Hussites in
Bohemia and heresy in England. He exhorts England’s ruler (Henry VI) to
“conquere and reforme” England rather than fight for land in France and
Normandy, and he expresses his opinion that university degrees be only
given to qualified people and that the people listen more to and pay more
money to properly trained preachers. He acknowledges that the people are
not at fault if they follow the council of a faulty preacher. He then moves
on to his refutation of the second opinion.]
That the second opinioun sett and spoken bifore in the firste chapiter of
this present book is untrewe, y mai prove bothe bi experiencis and bi
resoun. Bi experience thus: among hem that holden the seid second opinioun
many ben whiche han undirstonde certein processis of Holi Scripture in oon
certein maner of understonding whanne thei helden hem silf meeke and in
good wil forto receyve and have the trewe and dew undirstonding therof,
and yit aftirward, whanne thei were not more meke neither more willi to
the same, thei han chaungid and varied fro the firste . . . undirstonding into
an other maner of undirstonding the same processis, as y here of have had
sufficient knowing. Wherfore, thei hem silf, whiche holden the seid second
opinioun oughten, bi her owne experience takun upon her owne deedis,
prove the same second opinioun to be untrewe . . .
[He continues to reason that equal numbers of people can understand
Holy Scripture in opposite ways and that, by both experience and reason, a
bad clerk can arrive at a true meaning as much as a virtuous clerk. Finally,
he argues that the second opinion is false also because, as reason and
experience show, meek people may not gain a better understanding than
any others. Pecock then turns to the third opinion.]
The third opinioun put bifore in the first chapiter of this present book
muste needis be untrewe, for he is agens Holi Scripture and also agens
resoun. [As proof, Pecock quotes and cites the Bible and his own work, The