|Henry Craik, ed. English Prose. 1916.|
Vol. I. Fourteenth to Sixteenth Century
|Divinity and Moral Philosophy|
|By Reginald Pecock (c. 13951460)|
From Repressour, Part I.
EVEN as grammar and divinity be two diverse faculties and cunnings, and therefore be unmeddled, and each of them hath his proper to him bounds and marks, how far and no farther he shall stretch himself upon matters, truths, and conclusions, and not to entermete, 1 neither entermeene, 2 with any other facultys bounds; and even as saddlery and tailory be two diverse faculties and cunnings, and therefore be unmeddled, and each of them hath his proper to him bounds and marks, how far and no farther he shall stretch himself forth upon matters, truths, and conclusions, and not intercommune with any other craft or faculty in conclusions and truths: so it is that the faculty of the said moral philosophy and the faculty of pure divinity, or the Holy Scripture, be two diverse faculties, each of them having his proper to him bounds and marks, and each of them having his proper to him truths and conclusions to be grounded in him, as the before-set six first conclusions shew.
| Wherefore followeth that he unreasonably and reprovably asketh, which asketh where a truth of moral philosophy is grounded in pure divinity or in Holy Scripture, and will not else trow it to be true; like as he should unreasonably and reprovably ask, if he asked of a truth in masonry, where it is grounded in carpentery; and would not else trow it be true, but if it were grounded in carpentery.|| 2|
| No man object here against me to be about for to falsify this present thirteenth conclusion; and that, forasmuch as spurriers in London gild their spurs which they make, and cutlers in London gild their knives which they make, as though therefore spurrery and cutlery entermeened and interfered with goldsmith craft, and that these crafts kept not to themselves their proper and several to themselves bounds and marks. For certes though the spurrier and the cutler be learned in thilk point of goldsmith craft which is gilding, and therefore they use thilk point and deed and truth of goldsmith craft, yet thilk point of gilding is not of their craft but only of goldsmith craft; and so the crafts be unmeddled though one workman be learned in them both, and use them both, right as if one man had learned the all whole craft of goldsmithy and the all whole craft of cutlery, and would hold shops of both, and work somewhile the one craft and somewhile the other craft. Yet therefore those crafts in thilk man be not the less diverse, nor never the less keep their severalty in bounds and marks as in themselves, though one man be learned in them both, and can work them both, and hath them both. Yet it is impossible the one of those crafts for to enter and entermete with the truths of the other, though one man can work in them both: for then those two crafts were not two diverse crafts, not subordinate. And thus ought be avoided this objection, right as though a man were a knight and a priest; yet knighthood in thilk man is as far atwin from priesthood in the same man (as by their both natures and beings, though not in place or person), as be knighthood in one person and priesthood in an other person.|| 3|