He promises to defend eleven ordinances of the clergy which are unjustly condemned by the common people. 1. The use of images. 2. The going on pilgrimage. 3. The holding of landed possessions by the clergy. 4. The various ranks of the hierarchy. 5. The framing of ecclesiastical laws by papal and episcopal authority. 6. The institution of religious orders. 7. The invocation of saints and priestly intercession. 8. The costliness of ecclesiastical decorations. 9. The ceremonies of the mass and the sacraments generally. 10. The taking of oaths. 11. The maintaining war and capital punishment to be lawful. The first six only are treated. For the last five, Pecock refers his readers to other works of his, either already published or to be published. The first part of the work is taken up with showing that the Lollard question, "Where groundist thou it in Holi Scripture?" is unfair when used to test the legitimacy of an ordinance; 2. That it is a mistake to imagine that every humble Christian needs must arrive at the true sense of Scripture; 3. That it is a mistake to think that when once the natural sense of Scripture has been arrived at, all human arguments which oppose that sense are to be discarded.

In order not to misunderstand Pecock's position, we must recollect that there is no sort of dispute between him and his opponents, whether Catholic or Lollard, as to the office of Scripture at least to ground all articles of faith. The common doctrine amongst Catholics was that the Church could find authority for all her articles of faith in Scripture, whilst the individual inquirer could not. If Pecock differed at all on this point from his fellow-Catholics, it was in attributing a narrower office to Scripture than they did.

He begins by earnestly inviting the Lollards to the use of the syllogism "mad of twey proposicions dryvyng out of hem the thridde proposicion." He suggests that if they will so practise, "thanne thei schulden not be so blunt and so ruyde and unformal and boistose in resonyng, and that bothe in her arguyng and in her answering as thei now ben; and thanne schulden thei not be so obstinat azens clerkis and azens her prelatis as summe of hem now ben, for defaut of percevyng whanne an argument procedith into his conclusion needis, and whanne he not so dooth but semeth oonli so do."

He proceeds to show that the greatest and most important part of God's law to man is grounded (i. e. originally delivered) in the natural reason and conscience, and not in revelation (p. 35). "The hool office and werk unto which God ordeyned Holi Scripture is forto grounde articlis of feith, and forto reherce and witnesse moral trouthis of law of kind groundid

in doom of resoun," which last indeed is God's word also, "writen depe in that solempnest inward book of mannis soul" lying there (p. 31) "with the prent and image of God." It prevailed before Holy Scripture was written, and "passes all outwarde bookis in profite to men to serve God." He curiously applies to his purpose the text, Matt. iv. 4, "Not in bread alone shall man live," not only by that bread of the Scripture, with the sweetness whereof he does not marvel that the Lollards are so ravished, "but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God." He bids them "wite weel that God is neither preised, neither worschiped, neither plesid by untrouthe or by lesing. If any man make of Holi Scripture and apprise it as treuth, and no more than truthe is, God is therein plesid; and if any man wole make of Holi Scripture. or of eny creature in hevene or in erthe more than treuthe is that he be maad of and be apprizid, God is therein displesid." He supports his thesis as to the respective positions of Scripture and reason by the following arguments. 1. No truth of God's moral law is fully taught by Scripture only, which presupposes always a knowledge of moral truth, though (p. 231) "Alle truthis and ordinances of the moral law peraventure ben witnessed afer and in general bi Holi Scripture." 2. Before Abraham, men lived without the light of Holy Scripture, yet were they bound to observe the same moral precepts that we are. He urges, as well may you say that Christ and His apostles created the fish which they drew from the Lake of Gennezareth, as that Scripture grounds the truths of the natural law to which it appeals. And again (p. 28), "Seie to me, good sire, and answere hereto, whanne men of the cuntre uplond bringen into Londoun in mydsomer eve (into remembraunce of Seint Johun Baptist, and of this that it was prophecied that manye schulden joie in his birthe) braunchis of trees fro Bischopis wode and flouris fro the field, and bitaken tho to citiseins of Londoun forto therewith arraie her housis, schulen men of Londoun receiving and taking tho branchis and flouris, seie and holde that tho braunchis grewen out of the cartis, which broughten hem to Londoun, and that tho cartis or the hondis of the bringers weren groundis and fundamentis of tho braunchis and flouris, Goddis forbode so litil witt be in her hedis" (p. 25). "If eny seming descorde be betwene the wordis writen in the outward book of Holi Scripture, and the doom of resoun writen in mannis soule and herte, the wordis so written withoutforth ouzten be expowned, and be interpretid and brouzt forto accorde with the doom of resoun in thilk mater; and the doom of resoun ouzt not forto be expowned glosed, interpreted and brouzte forto accorde with the seid outward writing in

Holi Scripture of the Bible, or ouzwhere ellis out of the Bible."

This notion of bringing Scripture into accord with reason excited the liveliest indignation amongst Catholics as well as Lollards. But after all Pecock would seem to be merely contending for the necessity of theological interpretation. He demands that the clergy should be theologians, and that the laity should admit the necessity of theology; but theology is nothing less than the subjection of the letter of Scripture to the doom of reason. He feels that we are nothing if not reasonable (p. 472): "For if it mighte be allowid us to bere us unresonable, y woot not what lawe shulde lette us fro eny synne."

Henry of Ghent, one of the most celebrated of the early scholastics (Sum. Theol., art. x. qu. 2, fol. 74) vindicates the supremacy of the doom of reason over the letter of Scripture in language quite consonant with that of Pecock; "which (reason) if the letter of Scripture seem to gainsay, this is only because it is not rightly understood, and then we must trust rather to the natural reason than to the authority of Scripture as regards that sense which the letter pretendeth contrary to reason, and we must look for some other sense until one be found which agrees with reason."

Pecock exhorts his readers (p. 88) to attend to theological expounders rather than to popular preachers; not to pin their faith upon "men with piliouns on their hedes,* and greet and thikke ratelers out of textis."

Whilst insisting that "mekeness" or moral virtue is not sufficient, without theological training, for the understanding of Scripture, he takes the opportunity of speaking of the unkind judgment passed upon himself and the other prelates, and compares those who appeal to ancient practice against modern usage to critics on the ground who should venture to instruct a climber where to plant his feet. He thus denounces the obstinate refusal of the Lollards to submit their interpretations to argument (99), "Certis if eny man dare not in the now seid casis suffre his feith and his othere opiniouns to be brought into lizt and fier of argumentis to be at uttrist examyned, he ouzte be trowid that in that he hath untrewe chaffar and untrewe gold, which may not abide lizt and fier." This Lollard practice, he says, "is lijk to the lawe of Macomet and of Saracenis in thilk point in which her lawe is moost unresonable."

The eleven matters objected to, he says, are anyhow pre

* Doctors' caps, the universities were full of Lollardy.

scribed in Scripture in the sense that they are the best means for attaining to the end prescribed by Scripture. He slily asks where in Scripture the Lollards get their express authorization for drinking beer and reading the Bible in English.

The Second Part is taken up with a vindication of images and pilgrimages, and follows the ordinary form of Catholic controversy, explaining the Scripture texts which present a prima facie difficulty, and insisting that the utility of the practice more than counterbalances its occasional abuse. He thus sharply and characteristically disposes of the charge that to attribute miraculous effects to an image is idolatrous (p. 153): "A godli vertu (i.e. a miracle) is such a vertu which is causid of God into a creature above the worching of kinde, and in manner not woned miche to be doon coursli." To attribute this action to one creature, an image, is no more idolatrous than to attribute it to another creature, an apostle (p. 155). Even though there be a certain accretion of innocent superstition, i.e. such as does not make a man the worse morally, image-worship is not therefore to be discountenanced. As examples of innocent superstition, he mentions opinioun that a man which stale sum tyme a birthan of thornis was sett into the moone, there forto abide for evere, and this opinioun that Seint Michaelis bonys resten in the Mount Michael; and this opinioun that iii sistres (which ben spiritis) comen to the cradilis of infantis, forto sett to the babe what schal befalle to him, and such other manye."

"this

He enters at great length into a defence of the adoration of the cross, and the language of the "Vexilla Regis" and other parts of the Holy Week service. It is the legitimate expression, he says, of the fervid imagination of the men of "eelde daies," who saw Christ in His image whilst they "trowid " He was not there. He regrets that while "this devout practik of creping and kissing the cross abidith yet in al the West Chirche a this side Greek Lond . . . the inward ymaginatiif deed . . . abidith litil or nouzt.'" ""

To the Lollard objection that anyhow images are superfluous, since God is far more nobly represented by an actual man than by an image, he answers by asking how the Crucifixion can be brought home to us except by an image (p. 221): "Except whanne a quyk man is sett in a pley to be hangid nakid on a cros, and to be in semyng woundid and scourgid, and this bifalleth ful seelde and in few placis and cuntris."

When the Lollards try to argue from the common language of the faithful that they really hold the images to be what they represent, Pecock thus takes them up: "Whanne y come to thee in thi parisch chirche thou wolt peraventure seie to me

thus: Lo here lieth my fadir, and there lieth my grauntfadir, and in the other side lieth my wyf; and zit thei liggen not there, but oonli her boonys liggen there. If y come to thee into thin halle or chaumbir thou wolt peraventure seie to me in descryvyng the storie peinted or wouen in thin halle or chaumbir, 'Here ridith King Arthir, and here fiztith Julius Cesar, and here Hector of Troie throwith down a knyt,' and so forth. For thouz thou thus seie, thou wolte not holde thee for to seie amys. Schal I therfore bere thee hoond that thou trowist thi fadir, and thi grauntfadir, and thi wyf for to lyve and dwelle in her sepulchris, or schal I bere thee an hond that thou trowist Artur and Julius Cesar and Hector to be quyk in thi clooth, or that thou were double in thin so reuling of speche ?"

When Lollards fell back upon the position, "Images are a mistake, for the word of God in a sermon is so much better," he answers, It may be that the word of God is better, but people must be enabled and attracted to feed their own devotion (219). "For even as a nurisch or a modir is not bounde forto alwey and forevere fede her children and putte meete in her mouthis, but sche must teche hem that thei fede hemself (and in lijk maner doun foulis to her briddis), so a curat mai not ouzte forto alwey rynge at the eeris of his suggettis, but he mai so begynne, and afterward he ouzte teche hem that thei leerne bi hemself, and practize meenis into leernynge of good lyvyng bi hemself, and ellis we schal make hem to be ever truauntis in the scole of God, and litil good forto perfitli kunne and litil good for to perfitli wirche."

To blame the Church because she does not confine her energies to what is abstractedly the highest work, is as foolish as to blame a "huswijfe" who "now doith oon werk, now an othir werk, as thei comen to hond; and now sche brewith, and now sche bakith, now sche sethith, now sche roostith, now sche weeschith disches, now sche berith aisches out, now sche strewith risches in the halle; and thouz these werkis be not like gode and like worthi into the service of hir husbonde, zit sche ouzte do the oon with the othir as thei comen forth to be doon in dyverse whilis, and ellis if sche schuld seie to hirself, 'I wole not do this, peraventure y schal fynde a better work,' sche schulde make bad huswijfschip."

The Third Part is a vindication of the holding of church lands. The most notable point in it is whimsically enough a critical refutation of the Donation of Constantine. This enters into Pecock's scheme, inasmuch as he wishes to throw complete discredit upon the common story that when Constantine dowered the Church, the voice of an angel was heard crying, "In this dai venom is hild out into the Chirche." After sug