Item 1

Respondebo exprobrantibus michi verbum (psalmus cxviii v42). Beatissime pater cum verbo domini celi firmati sunt et spiritu oris eius omnis virtus eorum (psalmus xxxii). Ego Adam et cetera servitor humilis vestre beatissime sanctitatis et devotus, illustris domina Birgitte confidens in virtute et sapientiae huius verbi quod in principio erat verbum et tandem pro reparacione humani generic et salute, hoc verbum caro factum est et verbum erat apud deum et habitavit in nobis plenum gracie et veritatis (Iohannis primo). Ac claro intuitu mentis cernens exprobrantes predictam dominam verbo suo penes sanctissimum dominum predecessorem vestre beatitudinis, et vestram eciam sanctitatem ne vita eius aut dicta seu pocius verbum dei in aliquot approbentur de quibus ipsa domina conqueritur per Psalmistam, verbum iniquum constituerunt adversum me; numquid qui dormit non adiciat ut resurgat. Net anta lux veritatis sub modio abscondatur seu fama famule Iehsu Christi per nequiciam obscuretur. A voce exprobrantis et obloquentis a facie inimici et presequentis (ps xl vs. xvii). In persona domine antedicte ad calumpniancium vituperium et horrorem “Respondebo exprobrantibus michi verbum.” Primo enim exprobratur domina antedicta super contentis in prologo regula suarum monialium devotarum. Secundo super grosso et rudi stilo et ita defectuoso regule antedicte quod sine supplecione non deberet a sede apostolica approbari. Tercio exprobrat regulum domine prius dicte quia point ut adversaries male capit patrem in divinis esse de corpore virginis incarnatum. Quarto obicit de regula prius dicta quod Christus non dictavit eam proprio ore suo nec per mulierem eciam fecerat eam publicari et sic vadit per lections et orations plurima combinando et magnam partem per articulos depravando.

(Psalm 118 v 42) “My words shall answer them that reproach me” Most blessed father. With “the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth” (Psalm 32 v6) I Adam, the humble and devout servant of your most Blessed Holiness: The illustrious Lady Brigit confiding in the virtue and wisdom of the words that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John Chapter 1 v1) and in the end for the resurrection of man and his salvation this “Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us full of grace and truth” (John Chapter 1 v14). Some have approached both you and your predecessor lest her life and her words, or even the words of God, should be approved in some way; of which this Lady complains with the writer of the psalms “They determined against me with an iniquitous word. Shall he that sleeps rise no more” (Psalms 40 v9). Lest such light of truth be hidden under a bushel (literally a “peck” a Roman measure) or lest the fame of Jesus Christ should be hidden through wickedness “from the voice of him that reproacheth and blasphemeth; by reason of the enemy and avenger” (Psalm 43 v17). On behalf of the aforesaid Lady and against the accusation of her deprecators “my word shall answer them that reproach me” (Psalm 118 v42). Firstly the lady aforesaid is reproached because of the content of the prologue to her Rule for Nuns. Secondly that the style of the Rule aforesaid is too coarse and crude and defective so that unless amended, it ought not to be approved by the Apostolic Seat. Thirdly the adversary reproaches the Rule of the lady aforesaid, because it states, as the adversary erroneously understands, that the Father in heaven was incarnate of the body of the Virgin. Fourthly he objects to the aforesaid Rule, stating that Christ did not dictate it with his own mouth nor would he have given it to any woman; and so he goes through the lessons and prayers corrupting the majority of them with his articles (against them).

Item 2

Articulus xl adversarii erat iste. Item quod supra Christum scripto confusionis titulo Iudei deridebant. Pro declaratione veritatis huius articuli notandi quod scribitur ad Galathas iii: maledictus omnis qui pependit in ligno quod est scriptum Deutronomii xxi capitulo. Nam ipse Christus factus est pro nobis maledictus, id est sutinens pro nobis penam mortis sensibiliter sed non culpam que mors ferebatur maledictus videlicet per suspensoinem in ligno et hoc erat per Iudeos Christi confusio ordinata quam pro nobis voluit sustinere.

 Et propterea de Ihesu dicit apostolus (fo 184r) ad Hebreos xii capitulo: qui proposito sibi gaudio sustinuit crucem confusione contempta. Sic etiam titulus inpositus super crucem denotans causam mortis fuit titulus confusionis oprobrii temporalis; quia mortem maxime confusibilem voluntarie sustinebat. Magna etenim confusio sibi fuit quod rex debuit crucifigi et sic fuit a populo reputam. Ex quibus patet veritas articuli declarata.

 Per hoc igitur respondetur ad argumentum oppositum cum arguit adversarius per hunc modum: hic inplicat unum falsum quod scilicet supra Christum fuerit scriptus titulus confusionis, quod non est verum. Ymmo titulis honoris scilicet: Ihesu Nazarenus rex Iudeorum. Propter quod in titulus multoum Psalmorum dicitur: ne corrumpas vel disperdas dicendum id est Christum in tituli inscriptione. Voluerent enim Iudei scripto titulo illo super Christum in cruce quod Pilatus illum destrueret dicentes: noli scribere rex iudeorum sed quia regem se fecerit Iodeorum. Ideo premittitur in titulis multorum Psalmorum ut dictum est: ne corrumpas vel disperdas tu Pilate dicendum id Christum in tituli inscriptione. Hoc est: ne destruas titulum scriptum qui est titulis honoris et non confusionis.

 Hic breviter respondetur quod articulus non implicat aliquid erroneum neque falsam. Et ad argumentum in oppositum responditur quod confusio dupliciter potest sumi vel quo ad alios vel quo ad Christum. Et utroque modum titulus confusionis congrue potest dici. Quia si fuit verus rex iudeorum magna confusio fuit crucifixoribus et conssencientibus ad hanc mortem quod sic in mortem tradiderant regem suum et sic titulus confusionis et oprobrii quoad eos. Et ideo dicitur de eisdem: et percussit inimicos suos in posteriora oprobrium sempiternum dedit eis Pslamus lxxvii.

Secundo potest dici confusionis titulis ad seiprum. Quia morte maxime confusibili mortuus erat Christus et secundum doctores confusio mortis Christi ex quatuor apparebat. Primo ex loco quia in civitate celebri. Secundo ex tempore quia passus est in festo Paschatis quando omnes  de terra conveniebant in Ierusalem. Tercio ratione societatis quia inter latrones passus est. Quarto ratione precedentis honoris qui ei exhibitus fuit in die palmarum. Et sic apostolus dixerat ad hebreos xii sicut fuit superius allegatum.

 Et sic licet fuit titulus honoris quod fuit rex Iudeorum non tamen fuit titulus honoris sed confusionis quod taliter debet mori. Unde prophetice fuit dictum: morte turpissima condempnemus eum Sapientie ii capitulo. Verumptamen propter salvacionem generic humani talem mortem confusibilem voluit sustinere.

 Et illud quod allegat de titulus Psalmorum male allegat. Sed dicitur per hunc modum: ne corrumpas in finem. Ut patet per Augustinus in tituli Psalmorum et per Hebraicam veritatem quia hoc adeo prophetice fuit dictum quod Pilatus nunquam permittetur titulum immutare qui dictavit quod Ihesus Nazarenus rex fuerat Iudeorum. Et Psalmus lviii. Unde in titulo omnia ista dicit et ibi declaret Augustinus quod Christus fuit rex Iudeorum et quod Regis sui dominationem nunquam evertere potuerunt. Ex quibus patet veritas articuli declarata et confusio adversarii contra devotam dominam obloquentis.

The 40^th article of the adversary’s was this, that the humiliating inscription written above Christ, the title of Jew, was an insult to him. To declare the truth of this article it is noted that it was written in Galatians chapter 3 “cursed is every one that hangs on a tree” and this is also written in Deuteronomy chapter 21.  Yet Christ himself came for our curses, that is going through the pain of death, but there was no shame which a cursed death might infer, namely hanging from a tree, and if this was ordained by the Jews to the shame of Christ, it was however something he wished to undergo for us anyway.

And because of this the apostle says of Jesus in Hebrews chapter 12 “he who set joy before him, endured the cross despising shame.” Thus the title placed on the cross denotes the cause of death, was a temporary title of shame and opprobrium for he voluntarily went through the most shameful of deaths. Indeed the greatest shame was that this King was crucified, for so he was seen by his people. Out of this the truth of the article is clear.

It is therefore argued in opposition to the argument of the adversary in the following way: This involves a lie, namely that the title written above Christ was shameful, that is not true. On the contrary it was a title of honour namely, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.

Because of this, in the title of many of the Psalms it is said “ do not corrupt or destroy” that is (as if to say do not corrupt or destroy) Christ by the title of the inscription. The Jews wanted Pilate to destroy the words used in the title placed above Christ on the cross saying “do not write King of the Jews because he made himself King of the Jews. That is why the preface to the title of many of the Psalms is “do not corrupt or destroy”, it was said to Pilate above all (do not corrupt or destroy) Christ by the title of the inscription. That is, don’t destroy a written title that is a title of honour not of shame.

Here (i.e. in the text of the adversary), briefly it is answered that the article does not contain any error or lie. And in opposition to that argument it is answered that shame can be taken in two ways either to others or to Christ. And in either manner the title can be suitably said to be shameful. For if he was truly the King of the Jews the great shame was of the crucifiers and those who assented to this (form of) death, for they delivered their King to death and thus the title of shame and disgrace was upon them. And so it is said “and he smote his oppressors on their hinds and gave to them everlasting disgrace” Psalm 77.

Secondly the title can be said to be shameful to himself (i.e. Christ). Because Christ’s death was so very shameful, according to the doctors (of the law) the shame of Christ’s death came from four sources (this may well be a deliberate construction, Adam having four reasons to match the four traditional “doctors of the Church”, Ambrose, Gregory, Jerome and Augustine). The first reason is from the place of his death in a renowned city. The second from the time of his passing in the festival of the Passover when all the people of the land gathered in Jerusalem. The third reason was from his companionship with thieves at the time of his passing. The fourth is by reason of the honour that was shown to him before on the day of the palms. And so the apostle says in Hebrews 12 that he was brought forth as above.

And thus although the title was honourable, that is King of the Jews, however it was not a title with honour because of the shame that he had to die in this way. Hence the words of the prophet “Let us condemn him to a disgraceful death,” The Book of Wisdom Chapter II. And yet for the salvation of human kind he wished to suffer a shameful death.

And that which is allegedregarding the title of Psalms is badly alleged (by the adversary). But it was said in this way “Do not corrupt to the end”. As is well known from Augustine re the title of the Psalms and as per the true Hebrew that this prophet had said that Pilate was never allowed to alter the title which said Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews. And Psalm 58. Hence in this title all say this and Augustine declares that Christ was King of the Jews and that they cannot deprive that King of his lordship.

From this the truth of the article is clear, the only “shame” is that of the adversary speaking against the devout lady (i.e. Brigit)

From British Library Harley 612 (Editors note - the Latin text I have once again compared to the text transcribed by James Schmidtke from Bodleian Hamilton 7 and found them to be identical)