{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019331347236014564, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005230056272757365, 'mean_word_length': 4.706837929731772, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reginald Pecock, Vernacular, and a Vision of Humanism

In this article, a historical approach to appreciate Reginald Pecock’s vernacular works has been made in three ways. First, Pecock was fully aware of the function of literacy, especially vernacular in transmitting ideas and elevating lay piety. In an age when the use of English is severly restricted by the authorities as hazardous to the unity of society, Pecock believed that, through vernacular literacy, the church authorities and the laity could be mutually communicated for a social discourse to restore society. This conviction made him write his own vernacular theological works with a clear purpose to instruct the laity sound doctrines. Secondly, in progressing the ideas, Pecock adopted scholastic syllogism, but his new philosophical attempt to use ‘reason’ as a crucial tool in understanding the truth is noteworthy. Pecock’s reasoning led to the conclusions similar to the modern higher criticism. He questioned over the historicity of the Donation of Constantine, the Apostles’ Creed, and the biblical tradition. Pecock believes that the church was subject to change toward perfection. The ideal church, for Pecock, was not something to be embodied by returning to the apostolic church, but something to be brought about by continually changing. This is his understanding of tradition that can make the church a dynamic organic body which takes shape in its present progressive form in consequence. Thirdly, what is most striking in Pecock’s ideas is in his new understanding of human ability, especially of the laity. This is clearly demonstrated in his claim that the laity can be participants of intercourse in

English literature in Pecock's age. Pecock's works provide rich potentialities that can be rightly clarified as pre-humanist thoughts, even though the Scholastic syllogism was still employed to put forward his ideas. Here, Pecock's contributions will be considered in three different ways: first, Pecock's grasp of vernacular literature; second, historical criticism and a new understanding of tradition; and third, his discovery of human ability. Finally, a brief comparison of Pecock' thoughts with the Renaissance humanism will be followed in the conclusion.

I. PECOCK AND VERNACULAR LITERATURE
The church authorities in late medieval England played a positive role in the religious practices of the laity by providing pastoral handbooks for the parish priest to educate their parishioners in the Catholic faith and practices. Apart from such official instruction for the parishioners, lay popular devotion also seems to have been encouraged by the church. Nicholas Watson remarks that "in terms not only of quantity but of innovation the period 1340-1410 has as much right to be considered a 'golden age' of religious as it is of secular writing" (Watson 823). Texts were increasingly making their way out of Latin into the vernacular languages then current in England(von Nolcken 177). that religious instruction could move outside the church. In this regard, Lollardy was an unwelcome force in English church and society, challenging traditional religious values and culture, causing social unrest and appealing to the laity. The issue of the English language became a crucial issue in the history of Lollardy.
Margaret Aston argues, "It was as a vernacular literate movement that Lollardy had gathered momentum and it was as a vernacular literate movement that it was suspected and persecuted" (Aston 207). Anne Hudson also characterizes Lollardy as an English language heresy, suggesting that the association of vernacular scriptures and heresy was made early, as early as the later 1380s. 2) Following the emergence of Lollardy, the church authorities' support for lay piety and encouragement of circulating vernacular literature became more cautious, and strict restrictions began to be introduced in regulating lay religion, culminating in the publication of the Constitutions in 1407 and 1409 by Archbishop Arundel. 3) The Constitutions limit on the discussion of theological questions in the schools and forbid anybody to make any written translation of a text of Scripture into English or even to own a copy of any such translation made since Wyclif's time without diocesan permission.
Appreciations about Pecock from a historical, theological, and political views have been severely divided, but there is an unanimous agreement with his contribution to the English literature. Aside from the contents of his vernacular works, the fact that he actively engaged himself in the vernacular writings with a clear intention to offer a counter narrative against Lollardy at a time when the use of English in expressing one's idea was heavily restricted must first be 2) Anne Hudson, "Lollardy: The English Heresy?," first published in Studies in Church History 18 (1982), 261-83, reprinted as chap. 9 of her Lollards and Their Books (London, 1985). 3) On the impact of the Constitutions on fifteenth-century English theology, see Watson,"Censorship and Cultural Change,  One notable phenomenon in the fifteenth century is a concern for a social discourse between the church authorities and the laity through vernacular literacy, a common code for mutual communication . Pecock observed that only communicating with and instructing the laity through their own language would succeed in restoring the damaged prestige of the clergy.
For him, the use of the vernacular implies something more than a means of communication. His possible remedy for heresy is to encourage the reading of his various English works. Pecock explains clearly in the Reule why he uses the vernacular in his writings: If eny man wole aske and wite whi þis present book and þe bookis to hym pertenynyng y make in þe commoun peplis langage, herto y answere þat þis present book and alle oþere bookis to him longing maad in þe comoun peplis langage, ben so maad principali forto adaunte, rebuke, drive doun and conuerte þe fonnednes and þe presumpcioun of ij soortis of peple. Oon is of hem whiche holden hem silf so stiffly and so singularly, foolili and oonli to þe vce of þe bible in her modiris langage and namely to þerof þe newe testament, þat þei trowen, seien and holden boþe pryueli and as fer openly as þey daren, alle oþere bookis writun or in latyn or in þe comoun peplis langage to be writun into waast and not oonly into waste but into marryng and cumbring of cristen mennes wittis fro þe sufficient and necessarie leernyng which þei my ten and ou ten haue bi studie alone in þe bible or oonly in þerof þe new testament; and so all bisynes which men don forto haunte scolis and forto leerne or to teche bi writing, in eny oþer maner þan bi redyng and studying in þe bible, þei holden remelyng aside fro þe ri t wey and a deceit into which men ben led bi þe feend. Pecock, as long as it was used for good (Pecock,The Book of Faith,. He identified a lack of books among the lay people as one cause of error and the proposals he made were directed at relieving this poverty in ways which would overcome the circulation and perpetuation of error (Scase 265).
Pecock also stressed the merit of books as being less likely to be misinterpreted than sermons (Reule, 99). Hence he adopted the distribution of profitable literature to the laity, especially his own books which he believed to be the most effective for this purpose as a crucial way of both preserving them from the influence of heresy and of educating the laity to understand the orthodox faith (Book of Faith, 113-16).
Here, Pecock held a similar view to that of the Lollards regarding the position of the vernacular in religious discourses, discarding "the binarism of Latin vernacular," which was, argues Rita Copeland, "the principal theme devolving from the governing categories of clerici and laici" .
This vernacular project of Pecock could be mistakenly regarded as that of a was not something to be embodied by returning to the apostolic church, but something to be brought about by continually changing according to the accumulation of activities which were accepted and practised by the masses, ratified by the church authorities and finally recognized as tradition. 7) This is the part of the process of 'tradition', and would prevent the church from being led astray. Pecock understands that the church is a dynamic organic body which takes shape in its present progressive form in consequence. 8) 7) In Book of Faith, Pecock implies the indefectability of the church in arguing "y dare wel this seie and avowe and this reverence y eve to the chirche in erthe, that whanne ever the chirche of God in erthe holdith eny article as feith, or hath determinedthilk article to be feith, every singuler persoone of the same chirche, how wise ever he be and hou digne and worthi ever he be, is bounden, undir peyne of dampnacioun, for tobileeve thilk same article as feith and so therynne forto obeie to the chirche; he, thou3 the chirche therynne bileeved or determined falsely or amys, but if he can, evydentli and openly without eny doute, schewe, teche and declare that the chirche bileeveth, or hath determined thilk article wrongly and untreuli, or ellis that the chirche hath no sufficient ground for to so bileeve or determine" (181). 8) This is illustrated in the Repressor while he advocates the hierarchical order of the church which is itself a "greet transmutacioun and chaunge maad in and aboute the doctrine was no longer something to be kept back without a proper explanation; rather it was something to be explained to the laity to get proper respect.
Without proper knowledge of theology, he argues, one cannot fully understand the truth of scripture (Repressor, 43).
Lay education was widespread, but normally there was a clear distinction between theologians and lay people in the teaching program. However, the spread of lay literacy in the late Middle Ages called upon a new relationship between the laity and the clergy, challenging the clergy's traditional monopoly on literacy.
The elevation of the status of the laity to be partners to the clergy in Pecock's mind means that the differences between two groups did not originate from their hierarchical inequality, but from their different duties. It was perhaps inevitable that communication between the two groups, though not made on a completely equal footing, should occur in an eclectic manner by downgrading the clerical myths and upgrading the ability of the laity. At a certain stage of Pecock's thinking, the difference between the clergy and the laity appears to be reduced to matters of their duty, not to that of level. The truth could not be confined within the clerical group and the laity must not be differentiated from them, since they also had the ability and the right to access the truth. The And for as mych, sone, as þou art movid into opynyoun, bicause þou hast radde oþire mennys writingis þerto according, certis, y seie to þee þus: If in euery mater which may be iugid bi resoun, þou schalt eue þi cleeuyng consent to þe oon parti more þan to þe oþir and oonli for as mych as þou redist so to be writun eer þan þou resolue and brynge þilk writing into his open ground of resoun whervpon he is euydentli founded. . . (Folewer,33) Given the usefulness of the vernacular, why did the church strictly supervise its use among the laity? It was a radical point for Pecock to argue that the reason for prohibiting the vernacular in religious writings was not that it was naturally inferior to Latin for delivering the truth, but because the church authorities of the church wanted to keep the truth in their own hands without distributing it to the laity (Taylor 145). Pecock points out four possible reasons why people rejected the writing of theology in English: [F]Or as myche as in þe iije nexte bifore goyng chapiters y haue writun and deluyerid to þe lay peple certeyn maters and poyntis or conclusiouns which y cleepe þere þe xiiije trouþe and þe xv and þe xvj wiþ alle oþer trouþis or maters into þe eende of þe x chapiter, A ens which delyueraunce so to be maad to þe lay peple y herde oon man oonys seie þat it were not so to be doon, it is now to be examined wheþer he feeliþ weel or no. ffor soþe if þilk man so feelid he muste haue sum cause whervpon he grounded his opynyoun and feeling and ellis he is not in þilk feeling to be herd, neiþer his feeling in þis mater is to be charged, but it is to be acountid as voluntarie wil ful vngroundid and feyned and þerfore it is to be leid aside. and y wote not why he was movid to so seie but if it were for oon of þese iiije causis: þat is to seie as for þe first cause to be assigned, it seemed to hym peraventure þat alle þe bifore noumbrid trouþis ben of þe hi est and sutillist and hardist treuþis whiche divynys treten in scolis and in bookis vpon maters of þe trynte and þerfore hym þou te þei ou ten not to be delyuerid to lay men; Or ellis for þe secunde cause to be assigned, it semed to hym þat þo bifore nounbrid trouþis were so harde to þe vndirstonding of þe lay peple in þat þe lay peple my te not conceive hem neiþer se cleer proofis of hem and so þe delyueraunce of þo trouþis to þe lay peple in her modir langage schulde be veyn and ydil; Or ellis as for þe þridde cause, it seemed to hym þat perel folewid þerupon, as perauenture þat þe lay peple wold sutele ferþer in her owne resonyng vpon þe leernyng and þe knowing of þo seid trouþis and go fer þat þei schulden erre and falle into summe fals opynyouns aboute matier of god and of þe trynyte; Or ellis as for þe iiije cause, It seemed to hym it is no need þat þe lay peple haue so myche and so hi e and sutil knowing of god in trynyte of persoonys. Neuerþeles if þer be noon oþer cause þan oon or eny of þese iiije now assigned to lette þe bifore noumbrid trouþis, we schulen do wel ynou3, ffor noon of þese iiije causis may justly lette þe seid delyueraunce to be maad to þe lay peple, as y wole schewe openly to be seen of ech man hauyng eny notable quantite of resoun. (Reule,(87)(88) This reasoning seems to be based on the inferiority of the lay people to the clergy in understanding religious matters, on the one hand, and on the other, representing the exclusivism of the clerical group over the lay people in order that they might control them. This attitude could well have resulted in the outbreak of Lollard heresy among the laity, so Pecock took the position of dealing with the laity on a higher level, trying to teach and educate them in sophisticated matters which had not hitherto been thought appropriate for them, due to their lack of knowledge.
Besides the emphasis on the role of English in educating the laity, it should be noted that Pecock proposed a considerably different purpose in his educational program, which the existing scheme for educating the laity had not considered.
This was to infuse sophisticated theological thought into lay people. One of the consistent assertions on lay education presented in Pecock's writings is the provision of a conceptual basis for the value of teaching theology to the laity.