Middle English Literature

Folewer to the Donet.]
Certis, withoute argument can no trouthe be knowe neither leerned in the
intellect of man and that whether thilk trouthe be of lawe of kinde or of feith,
except thilk treuthis in lawe of kinde which ben openest of alle othere treuthis
Enarratio
257

---

258
Textualities
and han noon opener treuthis than thei ben bi whiche thei mowe be proved,
as y have openli scheweid in othere places of mi writingis. And therfore ful
weel and ful treuli oughte arguyng and disputing be clepid light.
That the third opinioun is also agens reson, y mai schewe thus: even as
thilk opinioun or conclusioun of lawe of kinde is not worthi be holde trewe
but if he mai be susteyned bi hise propre to him groundis and evidencis,
withynne the boundis of lawe of kinde perteynyng to the grounding of
suche conclusions and but if sufficient aunswere can be mad to al arguyng,
which may ther agens be maad bi skilis in lawe of kinde, right so thilk feith
or conclusiouns of bileeve is not worthi to be holde trewe but if he may be
susteyned bi hise propre to him groundis and evidencis perteynyng to the
grounding of feith and but if sufficient answere can be geve to al arguyng,
which mai be mad ther agens. Goddis forbode that eny man schulde so
trowe and feele that eny conclusioun of feith oughte be holde for trewe and
for feith, and yit couthe be proved bi eny argument to be untrewe and fals,
and that eny argument couthe be mad agens eny conclusioun of trewe feith,
to which argument it couthe not cleerli at fulle be answerid. For whi ther is
no treuthe knowun for a treuthe (whether it be a treuthe of lawe of kinde
or of lawe of feith) but that, if he be knowe perfitli and fulli bi hise
evydencis and groundis (as it mai bi good labour of arguyng be knowe), he
schal be proved trewe agens alle agenseiers whiche evere thei ben, Cristen
or hethen, and thei mowe bi strengthe of argument be constreyned in her
reson for to consente therto, wole thei nile thei, if thei geve sufficient
attendaunce to the arguyng, and also sufficient cleer at fulle answere mai be
gevun to al arguyng mad agens the same conclusioun of feith . . . And,
ferthermore, the more eny treuthe, whether he be of feith or of no feith, be
brought in to examinacioun of arguyng, the more trewe and the more
cleerli trewe he schal be seen and, if he be not trewe but seme trewe eer he
come into triyng of argumentis, the lenger he abidith the examynacioun of
arguyng, the more untrewe and the more cleerli untrewe he schal be
seen . . . And therfore Goddis forbod that any Cristen man schulde thinke
and trowe to be a trewe and a good governance forto kepe hise feithis
and his othere opiniouns privey and lete hem not come into what ever
examynacioun of argumentis whiche mowe be mad ther upon, namelich,
whanne and where the holder of tho feithis and of hise othere opinions mai
be sikir forto come and go and speke and argue and answere withoute eny
bodili harme and with out eny losse of his ricches or of his fame . . .
Also that this third opinioun is agens resoun it is evydent herbi: he is lik
to the lawe of Macomet and of Sarezenis in thilk point in which her lawe
is moost unresonable. Forwhi, the lawe of Macomet biddith, undir greet

---

peyne of horrible deeth suffring, that no man, aftir he hath receyved the
feith of thilk lawe, dispute or argue with eny other man upon eny point,
article, or conclusioun of thilk lawe and, bi this wrecchid and cursid
maundement, the peple of thilk secte ben so miche lockid up undir boond
that manie mo of hem myghten be convertid into trewe feith than yit ben if
thilk so unresonable maundement of the same lawe ne were. And if any
Cristen men wolen locke hem silf so up in her feithis and othere opiniouns
of Cristis lawe fro arguyng and disputing ther upon with othere men, as y
have knowe bi reporting of ful trewe persoones that thei so doon, certis ther
in thei doon foul vilonie to Cristis lawe of feith and of lawe of kinde, mak-
ing as though Cristis seid lawe were so feble chaffare
7
and so countirfetid and
so untrewe that it durst not save his worschip if he were thriftili examyned.
And thei doon also ful periloseli to hem silf for to make hem so sikir in a
feith eer it be sufficientli tried and proved forto be holde worthi a trewe
feith or no. And therfore the thridde bifore sett opinioun in the first chapiter
of this book is unresonable.