[In the following essay, Brown describes the Pearl author as an ecclesiastic who, two hundred years prior to the Protestant Reformation, created a three-hundred-line argument equating the grace received in heaven by a baptized infant with that received by a lifelong active Christian.]

Among the English poets of the fourteenth century the one who deserves the seat next to Chaucer is the anonymous author of the four poems: Sir Gawayne and the Green Knight, The Pearl, Cleanness, and Patience. The singular beauty of these poems has long stimulated scholars to the most diligent efforts to discover their author.

The first attempt to identify the unknown poet was made in 1838 by Dr. Edwin Guest [History of English Rhythms, 1882] who confidently assigned these poems to Huchown, the mysterious Scotch poet mentioned by the chronicler Wyntoun. At one time or another, almost every piece of fourteenth century verse which shows a northerly dialect has been ascribed to Huchown; this identification of our author was therefore natural, if not inevitable. In the following year Sir Frederic Madden, in his edition of Sir Gawayne [1839] accepted Dr. Guest's opinion that Huchown was its author. At the same time he recognized the fact that the poem in its present form is not in the Scotch dialect, and suggested as an explanation that it had been rewritten "by a scribe of the Midland counties." With this recognition that Sir Gawayne as we have it is in the Midland rather than the Scottish dialect, there was manifestly slender reason for continuing to suppose that Huchown was the author. At length, in 1864, Dr. Richard Morris dealt a decisive blow to the Huchown hypothesis by showing that "the uniformity and consistency of the grammatical forms is so entire that there is indeed no internal evidence of subsequent transcription into any other dialect than that in which they were originally written" [Early English Alliterative Poems.] Dr. Morris's conclusion that the language of these poems can be relied on as fixing the author's home in the West Midland district, has been accepted by later philologists. Nevertheless, in the face of the unanimous decision of the philologists that these poems are not the work of a Scottish poet, certain Scotch writers continue to ascribe them to Huchown. Their arguments, however, have not succeeded in carrying conviction.

A fresh attempt to find a name for the author of the Gawayne poetry was made in 1891 by Mr. I. Gollancz. In his edition of The Pearl, Mr. Gollancz brought forward the theory that these poems were written by Ralph Strode, but, with a candor which is rare in the advocates of a new theory, he admits that his identification is conjectural. "Though it be possible," he concludes, "to make a plausible surmise, one must acknowledge that the question still remains unanswered."

Here the matter rests at the present time. Nearly seventy years after the attention of scholars was first drawn to these poems, the question as to who wrote them is still an enigma. Some lucky chance may yet reveal the secret, but the probability is that, like the larger part of the literature of that age, they will continue to be unsigned documents. After all, the bare name of the author, if we had it, would not tell us much. It is his personality which we wish most to discover—his outlook on life, his attitude toward the social and religious institutions of his time. Though we lack the author's name, it is still possible through a study of the poems themselves to learn something of his character.

In the present paper, inquiry will be directed to one side of our author's character hitherto almost wholly overlooked: namely, his keen interest in matters of theology.

To begin with, one finds evidence of theological training in the intimate acquaintance with the Bible which the author of The Pearl everywhere displays, as well as in the frankly homiletical tone of his lesser poems, Cleanness and Patience.

In The Pearl, besides a paraphrase of the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard (vv. 500-71), there is a lengthy description of the New Jerusalem (vv. 834-1143), which even in its details closely follows the vision in the Apocalypse. Moreover, in addition to these blocks of Biblical material, there are scattered throughout the poem many quotations of texts and phrases of Scripture, which, perhaps best of all, testify to the fact that the author's mind was saturated with Biblical knowledge.

In the other poems, Cleanness and Patience, the use of Scriptural material is even greater. In fact these poems are made up for the most part of paraphrases of Biblical stories, which serve the writer's homiletic purpose. Thus Patience teaches a lesson of God's long-suffering and readiness to forgive by the story of the Book of Jonah. The poem is introduced by an exposition of the Beatitudes, definitely cited as occurring in the Gospel of Matthew. Cleanness affords still better evidence of the wide range of the author's acquaintance with Biblical material. The whole poem consists of a series of Biblical exempla, held together, like so many beads on a string, by the thread of the author's purpose, which is to illustrate God's hatred of impurity, and the disasters which have followed uncleanness and sensuality. After relating the parables of the Marriage Feast and the Man without the Wedding Garment, the author turns to the Old Testament for examples of God's punishment of those who lived in impurity. The rest of the poem is taken up with the stories of the Fall of the Angels, the Flood, the Overthrow of Sodom, the Destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, the Degradation of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar's Feast, and the Capture of Babylon by Darius.

To be sure it is common enough to find compilations of Scriptural stories in the metrical homilies of the fourteenth century. But in several respects these poems are strikingly different from the metrical versions of the ordinary type.

In the first place, one notes the author's intelligent selection and combination of his Biblical material. An excellent example of this occurs in his treatment of the parable of the Marriage Feast [in Cleanness]. Here there is a skilful weaving together of the versions of the parable found in Matthew and in Luke. For the most part, the account in Cleanness follows Matthew, but the Statement of the various excuses offered by the guests is taken from Luke. Clearly, the author was familiar with both versions. Again the story of the Destruction of Jerusalem, though depending in general on Jeremiah (52: 1-26), contains details derived from other portions of the Scriptures.

Furthermore, it should be noticed that our author handles his scriptural material with an accuracy of detail which is not to be met with in any of the other metrical versions. Two or three illustrations will suffice.

Compare, for instance, his version of God's announcement to Noah with the original text:

Þe ende of alle-kyneƷ flesch þat on vrthe
  meueƷ,
Is fallen forþ wyth my face & forþer hit I
  þenk,
With her vn-worþelych werk me wlateƷ withinne,
Þe gore þer-of me hatƷ greued & þe glette
  nwyed;
I schal strenkle my distresse & strye al
  togeder,
Boþe ledeƷ & londe & alle þat lyf habbeƷ

"The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth."

(Gen. 6:13)

In Genesis and Exodus, God's speech to Noah is omitted altogether, while in Cursor Mundi (vv. 1633-1660) the rendering is so free that it does not correspond at all to the Biblical phraseology. Again, in Cleanness (vv. 314-340) the directions for building the ark follow carefully the text of Genesis (6:14-21). In Genesis and Exodus, on the other hand, there is only a brief statement in five lines of the dimensions of the ark. The author of Cursor Mundi (vv. 1664-1686), curiously enough, appears to have regarded the dimensions of the ark as given in the Bible as extravagant, and accordingly he cuts down the length, breadth and height by an even half.

To take still another instance, compare the passage in Cleanness in which the Lord determines to tell Abraham his intention of destroying Sodom, with the Biblical text:

How myƷt I hyde myn herte fro Habraham þe
  trwe,
Þat I ne dyscouered to his corse my counsayle
  so dere.
Syþen he is chosen to be chef chyldryn fader,
Þat so folk shal falle fro, to flete alle þe
  worlde,
& vche blod in þat burne blessed shal worþe.

"And the Lord said, Shall I hide from Abraham that which I do; seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?"

(Gen. 18:17-18)

There is nothing corresponding to this either in Genesis and Exodus or Cursor Mundi. One might easily cite a score of other passages in which our author follows the Scriptural narrative more closely than other paraphrasts. Taken together, they assure us that he was dealing with the Biblical text at first hand.

Finally, in Cleanness and Patience there is an almost complete absence of the legendary and apocryphal material which is so common in other homiletic literature of the time. The following are the only traces of such material which I have been able to discover:

1. The description of the Fall of the Angels. It is a question whether this legend should be classed as apocryphal, inasmuch as it established itself in the church at an early date and was a direct outgrowth of certain passages in the Scriptures themselves. Indeed, in the present case, the author seems to have derived his account of Lucifer's pride and its punishment from Isaiah 14:12 ff. This theme has been frequently treated by homilists, theologians and poets, in Latin, French and Anglo-Saxon. None of the mediæval versions which I have consulted, however, appears to be a direct source of the passage in Cleanness.
2. The injunction of Lot to his wife to use no salt in preparing the meal for the angel guests. Her disobedience of this command is one of the reasons why she was later turned into a pillar of salt. I have been unable to find the source of this detail of the story. It does not occur in Peter Comestor, Cursor Mundi, or Genesis and Exodus.
3. The account of the wonderful properties of the Dead Sea, and of the apples of Sodom. These marvels are mentioned in the numerous itineraries of the Holy Land current in the Middle Ages, and were widely copied into the homilies and cyclopedias. It is interesting to note that our author's description depends directly upon the pseudonymous Book of Sir John Mandeville.
4. In describing the birth of Jesus, it is stated in Cleanness that angels comforted the Madonna with music of organs and pipes, and that the ox and ass worshipped the child. Such details as these were, of course, universal in the stories of Holy Night, and through their very familiarity had ceased to be thought of as legendary.
5. There seems to be a reflection of some apocryphal account in the statement that Christ in cutting bread did not need to make use of a knife but broke it with his hands so that it was cut smoother than it could have been carved by all the "tools of Toulouse."

That one finds no more legendary material in these poems is certainly surprising. In the Cursor Mundi, or almost any of the metrical homilies of the mediæval period, the Biblical stories are freely interspersed with material drawn from the apocryphal books or from saints' lives. The contrast in this respect only serves to emphasize again the author's unusual fidelity in dealing with his Biblical material.

From this survey of the Biblical material in The Pearl, Cleanness and Patience, it seems moderately clear that the writer was an ecclesiastic. The extensive and unusually accurate knowledge of the Bible displayed in these poems points strongly in this direction. Moreover, two of them, Cleanness and Patience, are undisguisedly homiletic, both in purpose and method. It is difficult, therefore, to understand on what ground Mr. Gollancz denies the author's ecclesiastical character. He admits "the intensely religious spirit of these poems" and "the knowledge they everywhere display of Holy Writ," explaining this, however, by supposing that the poet "was at first destined for the service of the church," but that after receiving the first tonsure he went no further in holy orders. "The author of Pearl" he declares, "was certainly no priest." No reason for this assumption is given, however; and I cannot help suspecting that in coming to this conclusion Mr. Gollancz had his eye on his conjectural Ralph Strode rather than on the poems themselves. The only one of the four poems which does not at first suggest the clerical character of its author is Sir Gawayne. Yet even in Sir Gawayne a careful reading discloses the author's moral and religious nature. The delicacy with which Gawayne's temptations at the castle of Bernlak are related reveals the same love of purity which one finds again in the homily on Cleanness. Nor has the poet been able, even in his romance, to banish wholly his Scriptural allusions. On being informed of the net which had been spread for him, Gawayne is ready with a list of Old Testament worthies who had been beguiled by women.

The opinion that the author of the Pearl was an ecclesiastic is confirmed by the fact that he shows a keen interest in the discussion of the theological questions of his day. For evidence of this interest in theology we must depend chiefly on The Pearl. Cleanness and Patience, being wholly homiletical in purpose, raise no questions of doctrine. In The Pearl, however, one finds a passage of some three hundred lines (vv. 421-719) which is nothing more or less than a sustained theological argument. This passage is noteworthy in many respects, and affords a basis for judging of the attitude taken by the author in the controversies in which the theologians of his time were engaged.

Before entering upon a consideration of this passage in The Pearl, however, it will be necessary to understand in a general way what were the controversies which agitated the theological world of that time. During the first half of the fourteenth century the interest of the theologians centred in two questions: (1) the dispute over predestination and free will, (2) the relative importance of grace and merit in the scheme of salvation. As to the question of predestination, one recalls Chaucer's testimony to the zeal with which it was debated in his time:—

Witnesse on him that any perfit clerk is,
That in scole is gret altercacioun
In this matere, and greet disputisoun,
And hath ben of an hundred thousand men.

These two questions were not entirely distinct, but were after all merely two phases of the controversy between the Augustinian party and those who inclined toward Pelagianism. Under the schoolmen of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries there had been a steady tendency toward Pelagian opinions. Emphasis was laid more and more upon man's free-will and consequently upon the positive merit obtainable by right conduct, while the doctrine of Augustine, that salvation was entirely a matter of predestination and divine grace, was pushed into the background.

In the first half of the fourteenth century there was a reaction against the Semi-Pelagianism of the schoolmen. The first English theologian who undertook to stem this tide of Pelagian tendency was Thomas Bradwardine—the same whom Chaucer mentions as able to "bulte to the bren" the question of predestination. When Bradwardine sat down to write his learned treatise, De Causa Dei contra Pelagium, he compared himself to the prophet Elijah who opposed single-handed the eight hundred and fifty prophets of Baal: "Ita et hodie in hac causa; quot, Domine, hodie cum Pelagio, pro Libero Arbitrio, contra gratuitam gratiam tuam, pugnant, et contra Paulum pugilem gratiae spiritualem? … Totus etenim paene mundus post Pelagium abiit in errorem." In another passage he refers to the almost universal prevalence of Pelagian opinions at Oxford when he was a student of theology there. The fundamental doctrine in Bradwardine's theology is that salvation is bestowed through the free grace of God, instead of being achieved by any merits. No less than eight chapters of his treatise are devoted to the defence of this doctrine. It is clear, then, that this doctrine of grace must have been a warmly debated question in fourteenth-century theology, and not merely a doctrinal commonplace.

Turning now to the passage in The Pearl, we find that the author takes the side of Bradwardine in exalting the grace of God as the sole ground of salvation. There are no finer or more fervent lines in the poem than the five stanzas that close with the refrain,—

For þe grace of god is gret inoghe.

Indeed, as I shall attempt to show, the author of The Pearl goes beyond Bradwardine in the boldness with which he pushes the doctrine of free grace to its logical conclusion.

Let us first summarize briefly the argument of these three hundred lines of The Pearl:—

The "father," beholding in the dream his lost Pearl, and being told by her that she is a crowned queen in the heavenly kingdom, is filled with perplexity. "Is not Mary the queen of heaven?" he asks. In reply the maiden assures him that Mary indeed holds her empire over all that are in heaven, but that the court of the living God has this special property, that each one who arrives there is king or queen of all the realm. Each of the saints is pleased with the honor enjoyed by the others, so that jealousy and strife are unknown among them.

But the father is still unpersuaded that his Pearl can be a queen in the heavenly kingdom. When she died she was a child scarcely two years of age; she had done nothing in her brief life to please God—she did not even know pater noster or creed. With what justice, then, could God advance her to such honor? She might perhaps be a countess or some lady of lower degree, but a queen—that was too high a reward.

The maiden then replies to her father's objections by expounding the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard. Some of those who were hired by the lord of the vineyard toiled through the heat and burden of the day; others came into the vineyard at the eleventh hour. But all were rewarded equally. She applies this parable to herself: it was eventide when she came to the vineyard, but she received the same reward with those who had toiled for years in the service of the Lord. Even by this parable the father is unconvinced. He tells his Pearl that her tale is unreasonable. God's justice is surely more discriminating than this, or Holy Writ is but a fable. Is it not written in the Psalter: "Thou rewardest every one according to his deserts?" Therefore, those who labor longer ought to receive greater reward.

To this the maiden replies by an exposition of the plan of salvation which extends from verse 600 to verse 743. These lines are the real climax of the poem. It is here that the emotion of the writer reaches its greatest intensity. In the kingdom of God, the maiden declares, there is no question of less and greater. All are paid equally, for upon all is poured the overflowing grace of God. As for the babes who died in infancy, they have been cleansed, at the moment of their birth, by baptism. Why should not the lord of the vineyard allow them their full reward? Paradise was lost through Adam's sin, but Christ paid the penalty and through baptism mankind is restored. There are, indeed, two kinds of persons whom God saves, one is the righteous man, the other is the innocent. But it is better to be saved by innocence than by righteousness. When Jesus walked upon earth he took the children in his arms and blessed them, saying "Of such is the kingdom of heaven."

It is evident, I think, that in this passage the author of The Pearl is consciously carrying on a theological discussion. His very earnestness shows that he is engaging in real debate and not merely repeating commonplaces. Furthermore, the objections which he puts into the mouth of the maiden's father appear to represent the arguments of real opponents.

Let us see now what is the main point in this theological argument. The author is laboring to prove that, since salvation is not at all a matter of merit but of grace, even a baptized child dying in infancy will receive in the heavenly kingdom a reward equal to that of the Christian who has lived a life of righteousness and holy works. For all the blessed shall be rewarded equally.

Þe court of þe kyndom of god alyue,
HatƷ a property in hyt self beyng;
Alle þat may ther-inne aryue
Of alle þe reme is quene oþer kyng,
& neuer oþer Ʒet schal depryue,
Bot vchon fayn of opereƷ hafyng,
& wolde her corouneƷ wern worþe po fyue,
If possyble were her mendyng.
Bot my lady of quom Iesu con spryng,
Ho haldeƷ þe empyre ouer vus ful hyƷe,
& þat dyspleseƷ none of oure gyng,
For ho is quene of cortaysye.

"Of more & lasse in godeƷ ryche,"
Þat gentyl sayde "lys no Ioparde,
For þer is vch mon payed in-liche,
Wheþer lyttel oþer much be hys rewarde,
For þe gentyl cheuentayn is no chyche,
Queþer-so-euer he dele nesch oþer harde,
He laueƷ hys gysteƷ as water of dyche,
Oþer goteƷ of golf þat neuer charde;
Hys fraunchyse is large; þat euer dard,
To hym þat matƷ in synne rescoghe
No blysse betƷ fro hem reparde,
For þe grace of god is gret Inoghe;

Bot innoghe of grace hatƷ innocent,
As sone as þay arn borne bylyne
In þe water of baptem þay dyssente,
Þen arne þay boroƷt in-to þe vyne,
Anon þe day with derk endente,
Þe myƷt of deth dotƷ to enclyne
Þat wroƷt neuer wrang er þenne þay wente;
Þe gentyle lord þenne payeƷ hys hyne,
Þay dyden hys heste, þay wern þere-ine,
Why schulde he not her labour alow,
Ʒyrd & pay hym at þe fyrst fyne
For þe grace of god is grete innoghe?"

This is not the first time that the case of the baptized child dying in infancy has been made the subject of theological speculation. Augustine himself had used it most effectively in his controversies with Pelagius. And from Augustine to the fourteenth century the "baptized infant" played an important rôle in the treatises of the theologians. The author of The Pearl, then, is dealing with a familiar case.

It is all the more surprising, therefore, to find that his assertion that the baptized infant will receive equal reward with the adult is directly opposed to the established conclusion of the theologians. Turn, for example, to Bradwardine's treatise. As we have already seen, Bradwardine laid new stress upon the doctrine of grace; yet he never ventured to carry it to the extent of affirming the equality of the heavenly rewards. On the other hand, Bradwardine repeatedly uses this very notion of an infant receiving a reward equal to that of an adult as a convincing reductio ad absurdam. Thus, in one passage, he supposes for the sake of argument the case of two sons equal in grace and in all other respects except that one of them has committed some sin which makes him liable to a certain amount of temporal punishment. Now, let both sons, he continues, perform equal works of grace until the one who has sinned is wholly absolved from punishment. The other, then, in addition to absolution from punishment, either will or will not merit a certain reward in the future life:—

"Non nihil omnino, quia tune posset contingere quod adultus baptizatus, diligens actualiter Deum summe, et in Sanctis operibus actualiter se exercens magno tempore vitae suae, etiam martyrium sustinens pro Christo, et lege ipsius, aequaliter praemiaretur in vita futura cum uno parvulo baptizato, qui nunquam aliquid boni fecit. Hoc enim consequitur evidenter, si haec omnia jungantur in poenitentiam congruam peccatori, aut si haec omnia aeque sufficiant pro satisfactione peccati seu peccatorum suroum; ubi est ergo quod utrumque testamentum creberrime repromittit, quod Deus unicuique secundum opera sua reddet?"

Or take another passage in which the same reductio ad absurdam is used to clinch the argument. What quantity of grace, Bradwardine asks, does the sinner immediately merit through his contrition? If you say that it will be large or small in proportion to the degree of his contrition, it would be possible, then, for one through a certain contrition, which we may call A, immediately to merit grace of the grade B, which must be either less than, equal to, or greater than baptismal grace, C:—

"Non minor, quia tune adultus qui per seipsum actualiter meruit, in casu decederet cum minore gratia, et transiret ad minorem gloriam quam parvulus tantummodo baptizatus. Quomodo ergo Deus unicuique secundum opera sua reddet, sicut utrumque Testamentum saepe testatur? … Si autem dicatur quod B est aequalis C, consequens est quod in casu, adultus qui per seipsum actualiter meruit, aequaliter praemietur cum parvulo tantummodo baptizato, qui numquam aliquid meruit: Quomodo ergo Deus unum quemque secundum opera sua et merita praemiabit?"

Still other passages of the same tenor are to be found in Bradwardine's treatise.

Now let us place beside these passages from Bradwardine the arguments which the author of The Pearl has put into the mouth of the objecting father in his debate with the maiden:

"Þy self in heuen ouer hyƷ þou heue,
To make þe quen þat watƷ so Ʒonge,
What more-hond moƷte he a-cheue
þat hade endured in worlde stronge,
& lyued in penance hys lynez longe,
With bodyly bale hym blysse to byye?
What more worschyp moƷt ho fonge,
Þen corounde be kyng by cortayse?

Þat cortayse is to fre of dede,
Ʒyf hyt be soth þat þou coneƷ saye,
 Þou lyfed not two Ʒer in oure þedep
Þou cowþeƷ neuer god nauþer plese ne pray,
Ne neuer nauþer pater ne crede,
& quen mad on þe fyrst day.
I may not traw, so god me spede,
Þat god wolde wryþe so wrange away."

Then more I meled & sayde apert,
"Me thynk þy tale vnresounable,
GoddeƷ ryƷt is redy & euer more ert,
Oþer holy wryt is bot a fable;
In sauter is sayd a verce ouerte
Þat spekeƷ a poynt determynable,
'Þou quyte vchon as hys desserte,
Þou hyƷe kyng ay pretermynable,'
Now he þat stod þe long day stable,
& þou to payment com hym byfore,
Þenne þe lasse in werke to take more able,
& euer þe lenger þe lasse þe more."

It will be observed that the objections raised by the father to the notion that a baptized child will receive equal reward with an adult entirely coincide with the views of Bradwardine—in both, even the very same verse of Scripture is appealed to. It is evident, then, that the author of The Pearl is representing real theological opponents in the statements which he puts into the mouth of the father.

But it is not to Bradwardine alone that the author stands opposed in his assertion that the rewards of the heavenly kingdom are equal. From the beginning of the fifth century, the existence of distinct grades of blessedness in the heavenly kingdom has been the established doctrine of the church. One of the chief grounds on which Jerome († 420 A.D.) attacked the heretic Jovinian, was that he affirmed an equality of rewards among the saints. In the writings of Augustine and Gregory the doctrine of grades of reward in heaven is repeatedly affirmed; and in the hands of the schoolmen it was expanded with rabbinical detail. Nor was this doctrine confined to the Latin treatises on theology; it found its way also into the more popular statements of doctrine which were written in the vernacular. Thus, we read in the Poema Morale:—

Ne mai non vuel ne non wane beon inne
 godes riche
Ðeh þer beð wunienges fele elc oþer vn-liche.
Sume þer habbet lasse murhðe and sume
  habbed more
After þan þe hi dude her, after þan þe hi
  swonke sore.

On the other hand, I have been unable to find a single orthodox theologian or poet, from the time of Jerome until the appearance of The Pearl, who asserts the equality of the heavenly rewards.

Now, can we suppose that the author of The Pearl, in his argument for the equality of the rewards of the blessed, was unaware that he was opposing the traditional doctrine of the theologians? On the face of it, such a supposition is difficult. For, as I have already pointed out, the whole tone of the passage in The Pearl suggests that the author was consciously arguing against persons who held an opposite opinion. The possibility that the author's variation from traditional theology was accidental is still further weakened, if not altogether destroyed, when we examine the theological history of the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard, upon which he relies to establish his position.

It must not be imagined that the author of The Pearl was the first to perceive the bearing of this parable on the question of the rewards of the heavenly kingdom. It was this very parable to which the heretical Jovinian had appealed in support of his opinion that the heavenly rewards were equal. And, from Jerome to Duns Scotus, every theologian who discussed the question felt obliged to explain away the apparent inconsistency of this parable with the accepted doctrine of grades of blessedness.

In Augustine, for example, one finds the following:—

"Objectio de denario omnibus reddendo, contra diversitatem praemiorum.

Quid sibi ergo vult, inquiunt, ille denarius, qui opere vineae terminato aequaliter omnibus redditur; sive iis qui ex prima hora, sive iis qui una hora operati sunt? Quid utique, nisi aliquid significat, quod omnes communiter habebunt, sicuti est ipsa vita aeterna, ipsum regnum coelorum, ubi erunt omnes quos Deus praedestinavit, vocavit, justificavit, glorificavit? Oportet enim corruptibile hoe induere incorruptionem, et mortale hoe induere immortalitatem: hic est ille denarius, merces omnium.

Stella tamen ab stella differt in gloria: sic et resurrectio mortuorum: haec sunt merita diversa sanctorum.…

Ita quia ipsa vita aeterna pariter erit omnibus Sanctis, aequalis denarius omnibus attributus est; quia vero in ipsa vita aeterna distincte fulgebunt lumina meritorum, multae mansiones sunt apud Patrem: ac per hoc in denario quidem non impari, non vivit alius alio prolixius; in multis autem mansionibus honoratur alius alio clarius."

In this way Augustine explains away the obvious meaning of the parable by making the penny paid to all alike represent the equal duration of the heavenly reward, but denying that it means an equal share in the blessedness of the heavenly kingdom.

The celebrated "Master of the Sentences," Peter Lombard († 1164 A.D.), gave a slightly different interpretation to the parable, but arrived at the same conclusion:—

"Nomine denarii aliquid omnibus electis commune intelligitur, scillicet, vita aeternae, Deus ipse, quo omnes fruentur, sed impariter. Nam sicut erit differens clarificatio corporum, ita differens gloria erit animarum.… Dos ergo est una, id est, denarius est unus; sed diversitas est ibi mansionum, id est, differentia claritatis," etc.

In the thirteenth century, Bonaventura discusses at length the question whether all the elect will enjoy equal blessedness:—

"Et quaeritur, utrum omnes habeant aequalem beatitudinem; et quod sic, videtur ex textu ubi dicitur quod omnes acceperunt singulos denarios, et quod Dominus tantum dedit novissimo quantum primo. Et Glossa dicit super illud; Stella differt a Stella. Eundem denarium paterfamilias dedit omnibus, qui operati sunt in vinea, quo utique non aliud significatur, quam id quod omnes communiter habebunt, sed illud non est nisi beatitudo: ergo, etc."

Bonaventura, however, is far from assenting to this interpretation of the parable:—

"Contra: In domo patris mei mansiones multae sunt. Augustinus; Multae mansiones in una vita erunt, quia variae praemiorum dignitates.

Item Apostolus: Stella differt a stella in claritate. Sic ergo claritas cognitionis generat gaudium, et delectationem, et gaudium.

Item ratione videtur, quia praemium respondet merito: sed constat aliquos esse majoris meriti: ergo et praemii."

He concludes, therefore, that although all will have the same blessedness, considered objectively, yet there will be a difference in the "quantity of joy."

Finally, in the treatises of Thomas Aquinas and of Duns Scotus one finds the parable of the Laborers discussed repeatedly, but in every case the obvious meaning of the parable is distorted to fit the theological doctrine of grades of reward among the blessed.

Clearly, then, the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard was a stock passage in theological literature. Our author could scarcely have found a single discussion of the question of the heavenly rewards in which it was not quoted—and explained away. What is left for us but to conclude that the author of The Pearl, in introducing this parable into his argument, deliberately chose to give it an interpretation which he knew to be fundamentally opposed to that of the theologians? In support of his opinions he cites no patristic authority—it is doubtful if he could have found any—but appeals directly to the Scriptures; and, relying on his own interpretation of the biblical text, he ventures to reject the casuistries of scholastic theology.

Let no one suppose, however, that I am seeking to stamp the author of The Pearl as a schismatic. Nothing was further from his intention or desire than to separate himself from the great historic Church. Not only was he unswerving in his loyalty to the cardinal doctrines of Christianity, but he also gave his endorsement to some doctrines which to-day are peculiar to the Roman Church. It will be remembered that, according to his view, Mary was still the high empress of the heavenly kingdom. Also, in Cleanness, he insists upon the benefits of confession and shrift.

Yet, on the whole, it is evident that our author's attitude toward religious matters was evangelical rather than ecclesiastical.

1. Holy Church is not once mentioned, nor the benefits to be gained from the prayers and merits of the saints— a favorite topic with religious writers in the Middle Ages.
2. Again, even in the picture of the New Jerusalem, hierarchichal dignitaries have no place, but, instead, a truly democratic equality among the elect is represented.
3. Still more significant is our author's disregard of patristic authority and tradition. We miss the familiar "as seynt Austen saith," or "thus writes the holy Gregory," which is so common in writers of the time. Instead, the author of The Pearl appeals directly to the authority of the Scriptures.
4. Finally, one feels, in all four of the poems which he has left us, a deep ethical fervor. At the foundation of his theological system is his strong love of righteousness. His intuitive sense of justice leads him to make short work of doctrinal subtleties:

Hit is a dom þat neuer god gaue,
Þat euer þe gyltleƷ schulde be schente.

Cleanness is from first to last a sermon against unrighteousness and impurity. Nor does the author hesitate to administer a stinging rebuke to the unworthy conduct of the dissolute clergy who were the scandal of the religious orders:

For wonder wroth is þe wyƷ þat wroƷt alle
  þinge,
Wyth þe freke þat in fylþe folƷes hym after,
As renkeƷ of relygioun þat reden & singen,
& aprochen to hys presens & prestes arn
  called;
They teen vnto his temmple & temen to hym
  seluen,
Reken with reuerence þay rechen his auter,
Þay hondel þer his anne body & usen hit
  boþe.

In this protest against the vices of the religious orders, he is, of course, in entire accord with the author of Piers Plowman, with John Wyclif, and with many other of his contemporaries, who were heartily tired of the abuses and scandals connected with the monastic and mendicant orders.

Indeed, these tendencies which I have designated by the term "evangelical," probably represented not alone an individual development on the part of our author, but also the slowly gathering sentiment among the most intelligent and truly religious people of his time. As early as the first half of the fourteenth century had begun the reaction against scholasticism. Even the theologians found the accumulating burden of "authorities" irksome, and appealed to commonsense. Thus Robert Holcot (