Treatise which I now publish require me to descend lower and demonstrate that even in latter Ages it was the commonly received Opinion of the Church that Scripture is the Rule of Faith. And this alone will as evidently overthrow the Plea of Tradition as if the Consent of all Ages herein were demonstrated For since Tradition is the perpetual Succession of any Doctrine conveyed down in the Church by word of mouth from the Apostles to this present time if this Succession were in any Age whatsoever interrupted it can no more claim the Title of Tradition than if it had never been believed So that if it can be proved the Doctrine of Tradition being the Rule of Faith was in any Age of the Church disbelieved not only the proof of this Article from Tradition will fail but even the Article it self will appear to be evidently false For it is not possible that Tradition should be the Rule of Faith if that very Article that Tradition is the Rule of Faith were not delivered down by an uninterrupted succession of Belief for then it would not be the Rule of that very Article Besides it is absurd that the Church of any Age should have power of declaring what the Tradition of Faith is and consequently of fixing the Rule of Faith and yet be so far from being conscious of any such power inherent in her that she disbelieved it Not to say that if at any time Tradition was not believed by the Church to be the Rule of Faith and yet at the same time divers Articles of Faith were defined by the Church Tradition must necessarily ever since have ceased to be the Rule of Faith since otherwise all Definitions of the Church must indifferently be admitted made by her both when she followed and when she deviated from the Rule of Faith and consequently the Faith of all private Christians must be subjected to infinite uncertainty Now to prove that the Tradition of this Article was in any Age of the Church interrupted and discontinued it is not necessary that all members of the Church should then agree in the disbelief of it that no Doctors should believe Tradition to be the Rule of Faith or none maintain the Insufficiency of Scripture It is sufficient that some Divines of great name who lived and died in the Communion of the Church were ever held in great esteem both for Piety and Learning and never censured by the Church for any erroneous Opinions much less for Hereticks that some such I say disbelieved this Article and maintained Scripture to be the Rule of Faith. For if any such were then the contrary Opinion could not be the belief of the universal Church much less an Article of Faith. That there were such Doctors I shall immediately prove by producing their own Words and thereby demonstrate my intended purpose And not only so but farther shall therewith render it highly probable that it was the generally received Opinion of the Church at that time that Scripture not Tradition is the Rule of Faith by all those Arguments which a question of this Nature will admit I mean by the authority of the most eminent Writers and publick practice of the Church in Councils For it cannot be imagined that so many Learned Persons esteemed as it were the Oracles of their Times and Pillars of the Church should either be ignorant of the Doctrine of the Church touching the Fundamental Principle of Faith or if willfully opposing it should obtain or conserve to themselves so great a Reputation or that the General Councils of that time should in their Sessions and Disputations permit the Sufficiency of Scripture to be laid down as an uncontroverted Principle without giving some check to so grand an Error That the Church therefore in the fifteenth Age did generally believe the Scripture to be the Rule of Faith and contain all things necessary to Salvation may be evidently demonstrated from this Treatise which I now publish The Author of which was far the most Eminent and Learned Bishop of the Church of England in his time a person who as himself assures us had spent more than twenty years in writing Controversial Books against the Lollards when he composed this Treatise and who every where giveth manifest proof of his great Learning So eminent a person cannot be supposed to have been ignorant of the general Belief of the Church in his time concerning the Rule of Faith nor will his apparent zeal for the Interest of the Church permit us to believe that he wilfully opposed the Doctrine of the Church in whose Service he employed the greatest part of his life or that when he so zealously pleaded the Cause of the Church against the Lollards he should himself depart from the Church in her principal Article and therein become a Lollard Since therefore he plainly asserts and teacheth that Scripture is the Rule of Faith this undeniably proves that the belief of this Proposition was not in the time of our Author accounted any part of Lollardism or supposed Heresie but rather esteemed an Article of Catholick Belief at least an Article which might be freely disputed without violating the Definitions or dissenting from the universal Belief of the Church And indeed our Author in the beginning of this Discourse assureth us that the Doctors of his time disagreed in determining whether the Church or Scripture were chiefly to be respected in the resolution of Faith. One thing may be objected against the Authority of our Author That he was forced by the ruling Clergy to recant several Opinions and Doctrines taught by him as erroneous and consequently that he cannot be esteemed a Doctor of the Church But here not to say that the sentence of two or three partial Bishops for no more condemned him is not to be accounted the Judgment of the Church of England this very Recantation addeth no small strength to our Argument For when the malice of his Enemies obliged him to recant all those Doctrines which they esteemed to be erroneous they took no notice of his having asserted Scripture to be the only Rule of Faith nor obliged him to recant that Proposition a manifest Argument that it was not then accounted either heretical or erroneous or contrary to the received Doctrine of the Church since otherwise they would not have failed to place it in the front of his Recantation as an Error of an higher degree and greater contagion than any of those for which he stood condemned which in truth were so far from being Heresies that they were all at that time maintained by many eminent Divines who never were censured by the Church and some of them so far true that no Learned Man of the Church of Rome will at this day deny them And this also fully clears our Author from any suspicion of Lollardism or secret inclination to it That he was not singular herein defended no Paradox nor opposed any Doctrine of the Church I come next to prove The
this being once granted viz. That it may be evidently deduced from the proper Principles of Faith that is from the Holy Scriptures This manner of Disputation in defending the Article then in question sufficiently manifests that the pretence of Oral Tradition however entertained by some private Men had yet gained no general applause in the Western Church From Councils I return to private Writers but those of so great Repute and Authority that their Opinion can be esteemed no other than the general Doctrine of the Church at that time Of these I shall produce only two more Cardinal Panormitan and Antoninus Archbishop of Florence the first accounted by all the greatest Canonist of his Age and by many the greatest of all Ages and which is more considerable who had been to the Council of Basil what Gerson was to that of Constance an Oracle and Dictator the second a person of so great Authority in the Church that in the Judgment of Pope Nicolas he deserved to be Sainted whilst alive and was really Sainted when dead Panormitan therefore proposeth his Opinion in these words In Matters pertaining to Faith a Council is above the Pope Yet I suppose that if the Pope were induced with better Reasons and Authorities than the Council that his Determination were rather to be embraced For a Council also can err as it hath sometimes erred For in matters relating to Faith even the opinion of one private Man were to be preferred to the Determination of the Pope if he were induced with better Reasons of the Old and New Testament than the Pope Here Panormitan not only asserteth the Old and New Testament to be the Rule of Faith but also allows to every private Man a power of interpreting that Rule and even of rejecting the Definitions of Popes and Councils if he thinks them not consonant to it Antoninus hath transcribed those words into his Summ of Divinity and proposeth them as his own Opinion And not only so but also in another place declareth his Judgment no less plainly in these words God speaketh in the Scriptures and so fully as S. Gregory explaineth in the twenty second Book of his Morals upon Job that it is not necessary God should any other way reveal any thing necessary to us since all things necessary may be had there After so many and so great Authorities it cannot reasonably be doubted what was the general Belief of the Church in that Age touching the Rule of Faith I mean not that then the Sufficiency of the Scripture was asserted by all and denied by none but only that it was maintained by the greater and more considerable part of the Church as the Practice of General Councils and Positions of the most famous Writers of that Age do manifestly evince Many indeed had for some Ages before asserted the existence of some necessary Articles not contained in Scripture but conveyed down to us by Tradition only but they equalled not the Followers of the former Opinion either in number or Reputation And therefore Occam in the preceding Age representing the Arguments and Reasons of both Opinions proposeth that of the Sufficiency of Scripture in the first place as the most common and more generally received Opinion and Ioannes de Neapoli a Dominican and Doctor of the Sorbon disputing of the Science of Faith doth all along suppose that whole Science to be contained in Scripture and lest we should doubt of his Opinion doth in more than one place positively assert it Not to say that Nicolas de Lyra in his Glosses upon the whole Bible doth every where suppose it and in his general Preface most expresly maintain it And of what Repute his Gloss was formerly in the Church of Rome may appear from that vast number of Manuscript Copies of them which may be found in our ancient Libraries But I will not any longer insist upon the Writers of this Age having intended to confine my Discourse to the fifteenth Age the general Belief of which concerning the Rule of Faith I have already manifested It remains that I say somewhat more particular of the Treatise here published and of the Author of it He was born in Wales and bred in Oriel College in Oxford where he was created Doctor of Divinity and obtained a great esteem for his rare Eloquence and extraordinary Learning He was soon taken notice of by that great Patron and Protector of Learning and Virtue Humphrey Duke of Glocester at that time Protector of the Kingdom by whose Favour he was promoted to the Bishoprick of S. Asaph in the year 1444 translated to Chichester in the year 1450. His singular Learning appears not only from this Discourse which if put into modern English would appear to the meanest Reader both rational and elegant but also from many other plain and manifest Indications He had read the Works of the Fathers with no small care and diligence and as it should seem from what he says upon the Article of Christ's Descent into Hell had made Critical Observations on them far beyond the Genius and vulgar Learning of that Age. He was not unacquainted with the Genuine Epistles of Ignatius and in the first Part of that Work whereof this Treatise makes the second citeth the Acts of his Martyrdom writ by his contemporary Philo and published in this Age by the Learned Bishop Vsher. As his Learning enabled him so his Zeal prompted him to write divers Books of Controversie in defence of the Church against the supposed Hereticks of that time the Lollards whom he endeavoured by all means possible to reduce into the Communion of his Church to which Work as it should seem from divers Passages in the first part he had dedicated his whole Life He mentions many of them in this Work which are these The just apprising of holi Scripture The just apprising of Doctours Of faith in Latyn Of Presthode The Donet The folower to the Donet The Represser The forcrier The book of Cristen Religion The provoker The book of signis in the Church clepid also the boke of Worschiping The boke of Leernyng The boke of filling the IV. Tablis This present book of Feith Of the Churche in Latyn Beside these already mentioned Bale reckons up The Defender The Follower of it The Declaratory Of the Creed To Godharde the Franciscan Of Divine Offices A Manual Of the Providence of God. Of the Liberty of the Gospel Of the Power of Seculars Against Constantines Donation Of the equality of Ministers Of the Laws and Doctrines of Men. Of Communion under both kinds Against unlawful Begging An Account of his own Recantation The greatest part of these Books are lost being studiously suppressed by his Enemies and also burnt at his Recantation However I have seen his Represser in a fair Manuscript in the publick Library of the University of Cambridge in Quarto It is intituled The Repressour of over much blaming the Clergy wherein he passeth through
all points in Controversie between the Church of Rome and the Lollards and largely endeavours to confute the latter But as his zeal induced him to plead the Cause of the Church so copiously so his Learning enabled him to discover the Follies and gross Superstitions practised in that Age which when once discovered his Piety inforced him to detest Religion had now passed through so many ignorant and barbarous Ages the means of greaterknowledge had been so studiously hidden from the People and the ignorance of the Laity was so advantageous to the interest of the Clergy that the true Spirit of Christianity seemed to be wholly lost and had degenerated into Shews and Ceremonies many of which were unlawful but almost all unuseful And not only this fatal stupidity and idle Superstition had generally possessed the minds of Men but all Remedies were detested and all Artifices made use of to continue the Disease Many good and Learned Men endeavoured the Reformation of these Abuses without departing from the Communion of the Church but were attended herein with the usual Fate of the Opposers of inveterate Evils who seldom escape the Persecution but never the hatred of those who are engaged both by zeal and interest in the continuance of those Evils Our Learned Bishop was of the number of those brave and generous persons who while he earnestly invited the Lollards into the Communion of his Church no less vehemently opposed the Superstitions of his own Party Some Footsteps and Marks of this Disposition may be found in this Treatise which prove his Integrity to have been equal to his Zeal and neither inferior to his Learning The Authority of the Church and Infallibility of her Definitions had of late been set up as the most successful Engine against the prevailing growth of supposed Hereticks To refute the Arguments of Wicleff and convince his Followers with solid Reasons neither the Ignorance of the Clergy nor the Badness of their Cause did then permit It was accounted too great a Condescension in the Governors of the Church to confute the Mistakes and inform the Judgments of their seduced People Yet somewhat at least was necessary to dazle the eyes of the unthinking multitude and at once convict all their Adversaries of the Charge of Heresie Nothing could be more effectual to this end than the pretence of Infallibility which alone might satisfie the Scruples and command the assent of credulous persons For this reason ever since Heresie began to be punished with death it was thought sufficient to oppose the Infallibility of the Church to the Arguments and Reasons of condemned Hereticks and the maintenance of this pretence was esteemed the great Bulwark of the Church However our Bishop easily discovered the vanity of these pretences and in this followed the Opinion of the most Learned Writers of his Age that the Representative Church or General Councils were not only fallible but had sometimes actually erred that the Decrees and Definitions of the Church ought to be submitted to the Examination of every private person that no Article of Faith was to be received which was repugnant to the Principles of Reason and that not the Belief and Acceptation of the Church caused any Doctrin to be accounted true and an Article of Faith but the presupposed Truth of the Doctrine rendred the Belief of it rational and justifiable Indeed the Doctrine of the Churches Infallibility had by some Men in this Age been advanced so far that nothing less than a fatal credulity or no less fatal ignorance could excuse the admission of it Our Author assureth us in the first part of this Book of Faith that many Divines in his time argued from those words of S. Paul If we or an Angel from Heaven should teach any other Dâ—ctrine than that which ye have received let him be anathema that if it should happen that the Church militant and the Church triumphant disagreed in an Article of Faith the Determination of the Church militant were rather to be followed Such crude Positions might raise the admiration of fools but deserved the indignation of wiser Men. Our Author chose to do justice unto Truth in owning and asserting the Fallibility of Church and Councils and yet not to quit the specious pretence of the Churches authority in pleading her Cause and confuting the Lollards This therefore he proposed in a more plausible way confessed the Church might err and that even in matters of the greatest moment however that it would be most safe and rational for ignorant Laymen intirely to submit their judgment to the Direction of the Clergy that by this submission indeed they might possibly be led into Error and mortal Heresie but that this would be no disadvantage to them since in that case God would reward their submission and docility although to them the occasion of most grievous Errors no less than if they believed the Christian Faith intire and incorrupted and would even bestow upon them the Crown of Martyrdom if they laid down their lives in testimony of their Errors And since in that Age the Laity were generally very ignorant of the true Principles of Religion and devoid of all sort of Learning he included them all in the number of those whose duty and interest it was to pay an implicit submission to the direction of the Clergy But not only did he disown the Infallibility of the Church but also disallowed and condemned her practice of burning Hereticks He desired rather to win them to her obedience by gentle methods and thought it more noble to convince them by Reasons and Arguments than by Racks and Fires This moderation could not but displease his Fellow Bishops who chose rather at that time to satisfie their Malice by the punishment than serve the Church by the conviction of supposed Hereticks But our Author was acted with more noble and generous Principles he endeavoured to remove their Errors but refused to practise upon their Lives and which perhaps was no small part of his Crime neglected to thunder out his Curses against them and scorned to treat them with opprobrious Titles Rather in the first part of this Work he giveth to them an honourable Character and confesseth them to have been generally persons of good Lives and exemplary Conversations The incredible Fables of Legends and incurable itch of Lying for the Honor of their Saints and Patrons which then reigned among all the Monastick Orders and was fondly received by the credulous multitude were one of the greatest scandals and most pernicious abuses in the Church at that time The greater and more necessary Articles of Faith and all genuine and rational knowledge of Religion had generally given place to fabulous Legends and Romantick Stories Fables which in this respect only differed from those of the ancient Heathen Poets that they were more incredible and less elegant These our Learned Bishop feared not to oppose and disesteem arraigns them of Error Heresie and Superstition proclaims their falseness and
derides their folly This denial of Infallibility moderation towards the Lollards and disesteem of Legends drew upon him the envy and hatred of the Clergy to which may be added his favour with and faithful adherence to his Patron Duke Humphrey who had always manifested a moderation towards the dissenting Lollards and aversion from the superstitious practices of the Clergy No sooner was the Duke oppressed by a contrary State Faction but his Client the Bishop was attempted and his ruin designed Several Passages were taken out of his Writings which his Enemies accused of Heresie at least of Error Hereupon in the year 1457. he was cited to appear at a Synod held at Lambeth by Thomas Bourchier Archbishop of Canterbury attended with the Bishops of Winchester Lincoln and Rochester and 24 Divines by whom after a short hearing he was condemned of Heresie and injoyned to recant his heretical and erroneous Opinions publickly at S. Paul's Cross. The Recantation he performed on the fourth day of December when his Books were also publickly burnt His Fortunes after that time are very uncertain Some relate him to have been made away in prison others to have been kept prisoner in his own Episcopal Palace until his natural death and lastly some that he had a small pension assigned to him out of the Revenues of the Bishoprick and retired into a Monastery where he ended his days in a short time The Opinions which he was forced to recant as they are represented by Bale Bishop Godwin and Fox are these I. That it is the Office of a Christian Bishop before all other things to preach the Word of God. II. That human Reason is not to be preferred to the Holy Scripture III. That the modern use of the Sacraments as attended with so many superstitious Ceremonies and Customs was lâ—ss advantageous than the use of the Law of Nature IV. That Bishops buying their Admissions of the Bishop of Rome do sin V. That no man is bound to believe and obey the Determination of the Church of Rome VI. That the Revenues of Bishops are by Inheritance the Goods of the Poor VII That the Apostles composed not the vulgar Creed VIII That the Article of Christ's Descent into Hell was not formerly in the Creed IX That no other sense is to be attributed to Holy Scripture but the first and genuine sense X. That it is not necessary to Salvation to believe the Body of Christ is materially in the Sacrament XI That the Universal Church in a General Council may err even in Matters of Faith. XII That it is not necessary to believe in the Holy Catholick Church XIII That it is not necessary to believe the Communion of Saints XIV That the voluntary begging of the Mendicant Friars was unprofitable and no ways meritorious It must not be imagined that these Articles were generally at that time accounted erroneous and heretical in the Church For if we examine them we shall find that many of them were taught and believed by the greatest Divines of the Church at that time some at this day allowed to be literally true by the Learned Writers of the Church of Rome and in fine that our Author knew the Doctrine of the Church far better than his Judges and although condemned by them was no less Orthodox than they As for the twelfth and thirteenth Articles which seem to be most odious they are meer Calumnies as appears from this very Treatise For towards the end of it he acknowledgeth it to be necessary to believe the existence of the Holy Catholick Church and of the Communion of Saints but yet unnecessary to believe on them that is as himself explains it to give a blind assent to all their Determinations The seventh and eighth Articles are known to be literally true by all Learned Men. For no proof can be brought that the Apostles composed this Form of Creed which we now use and it is most certain that the Article of Christ's Descent into Hell was found in none of the Ancient Creeds for the first 400. years except in that of the Church of Aquileia The first second sixth and ninth Articles if candidly interpreted cannot be denied to be true by any sober Romanist and whosoever considers the gross Ignorance and Superstition of those times will not deny the third The fourth Article may be justified by the Opinion of many great Canonists who define all such payments to be Symony and the Church of France hath all along decried and disapproved them The fourteenth was defended by Richard Archbishop of Arniagh Gulielmus de S. Amore and many other great Divines of the Church of Rome The eleventh and consequently the fifth Articles were believed and maintained by Occant Peter de Alliaco Cardinal of Cambray Thomas Waldensis Panormitan Antoninus Cardinal Cusanus Clemangis and many others in this Age. Lastly the tenth Article may be defended from Peter Lombard Peter de Alliaco Scotus Tonstal Bishop of Durham and others who believed indeed the Truth of the Article but denied it to be necessary to be believed That Treatise which I here publish and which gave occasion to the present Discourse was by me transcribed out of a Manuscript extant in Trinity College in Cambridge which seemeth to have been written with Bishop Peacock's own hand as may be conjectured from the frequent Emendations and Additions inserted in the Margin and bottom of the Pages by the same hand The whole Work was intituled by the Author A Treatise of Faith however in the Front of it this Title is affixed by a later hand Reginald Peacock Bishop of Chichester 's Sermons in English whereas the whole Treatise is a Dialogue between the Father and the Son divided into two Books whereof the first proposeth to treat of the most probable means of reducing the Lollards to the Church which he assigns to be an intire submission of Judgment to the Decrees of the Church although supposed fallible The second treateth of the Rule of Faith. The first Part is chiefly taken up with a long Digression proving that Faith is only probable not sciential or that the Truth of the Christian Religion cannot be proved by demonstrative but only by probable Arguments This Dispute is managed in a Scholastick Way full of Subtleties and Niceties of Philosophy and School Divinity and very obscure which therefore I thought not worthy either my transcribing or the Readers perusal However I transcribed some considerable Fragments or Excerpta which seemed to me more remarkable and worthy of notice which I here present to the Reader The second Book or Treatise of the Rule of Faith I have published intire as far as the Manuscript Copy permitted me For which is much to be lamented some few Leaves were wanting in the end Besides what I have already mentioned many things may be here found worthy a particular Observation as with how great ardor he impugns the refusal of
for to understonde what he redith in the newe Testament though he not leerne the same Feith bi eny general Counseil or eny multitude of Clerkis tokider to be gaderid thoug peraventure he schal have nede at some while and in some textis of the seid Scripture seche to have expositioun hadde bi the eldist party of the Churche joyned to the Apostlis and lyvyng in tyme of the Apostlis as soschal be taugt in the book of Feith in Latyn and in the book of the Chirche Verily as y may trowe thoroug al the tyme of werre during these XL. yeer bitwixe Ynglond and Fraunce wiste y not scant III. or IV. men whiche wolden accorde thorug our in telling hou a toun or a castel was wonne in Fraunce or hou a batel was doon the though thilk men were holden rigt feithful men and trewe and thoug ech of them wolde habe swore that it was trewe what he tolde and that he was present and sawe it Wherfore bi all resoun in-lyk maner it wolde have be and was in dede of the report of the dedis and wordis of Christ eer thei were writen bi the Evangelistis And that in dede it was so therynne witnessith Luk in the prolog of his Gospel and seith that therfore he was movid for to write the Gospel which he wrote And so bi lyk skile for the same cause the othere Evangelistes gave them to writing Hou ever therfore mygte it have be wel and trewe of oure Feith if it schulde have come to us bi reporte of heering and bi mouth speking without therof the writing Also what that ever eny counseil of Clergie or eny Clergie without gadering into counseil techith as Feith even the Clergie referrith his so maad teching of Feith into holi Scripture And therfore needis the holi Scripture is more worthi ground for oure Feith than is the Clergie of the hool chirche on erthe And if thou wolt wite of what Scripture y meene â—ertis it is the writing of the oold Testament and of the newe Testament For it witnessith al the Feith or ellis at the lest wel nigh al the Feith which Crist sechith of us Yhe and the writing of the newe Testament confeermeth al the oold Testament in that that the writyng of the newe Testament referrith us oft into the writyng of the oold Testament as Matt. XXVI ch Mark XII and Mark XIV Johne I. Luke XXIV Johne V. XVII.XIX and XX. and in manye placis of the Epistlis of the newe Testament Ferthemore sone not oonli the writyng of the al hool Feith in the Gospels is so necessarie to the peple being a this side the Apostlis but also the same writyng maad and writen of the Apostlis were rigt necessarie as bi wey of kinde and of resoun to the same Apostlis that bi the writyng of the Apostlis whiche thei wroten thei himsilf migten holde in mynde the multitude of tho trouthis there writen And that bi recurse to be maad of them into the seid writyng left that therof the perfigt mynde schulde bi kinde falle away from them whilis thei were so moche in dyverse troublis occupied And so therfore ful opene it is that the writyng of oure Feith is more necessarie ground to us for oure Feith than is eny congregacioun of Clerkis biganne sithen the deeth of the Apostlis For answer to the Textis bifore alleggid of the oold Testament in the first argument it is to be seid that thoug bi tho Textis it is had fadris schulden teche bi mouth ther sones and ther sones sones the lawis of God and the benefits of God. Yitt bi tho Textis it is not hadde that thilk to be doone bi mouthe schulde have be sufficient teching to tho sones and sones sones without writing and therfore tho textis maken not into the entent into which the first argument them alleggith Namelich sithen in the processis of the same Textis it is had among that it is bede with al this that the fadris schulden teche ther sones bi mouthe it is had in the last of tho Textis that is to seie Deutron XI that tho same fadris and alle the peple schulde have Goddis lawis and Goddis benefeits in writing For whi it is seid there that thei schulden have tho lawis and benefits bifore ther igen And this is ynoug for answere to tho Textis More thing according to this answer and confeermyng it thou maist see soone in the booke of leernyng in thi vulgar tunge But thanne fadir if it was so necessarie writyng to be had upon Christen Feith whi was writyng of oure Feith so long tyme deferrid eer it was maad by the Apostlis as that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the VII peer aftir Cristis ascencioun and Mark wrote in the X. yere aftir Cristis ascencioun as may be had bi croniclis of Martyn and Luk wrote aftir othere writers of the Gospelis as he seith him silf in the prolog of his Gospel And Jon wrote aftir alle the othere as manye men trowen Also whi wrote not ech Apostle as wel as summe Also whi wroten not thei to ech Cuntre Sone answer to thi first questioun may be this Our Lord is wisist and he is for to lede us into oure kunnyng to be had in profitabilist maner alwey rediest And for as myche as peple to know bi experience hou necessarie it was to them for to have their Feith writen was to them more profitable than for to knowe it without experience therfore God so schope that the Feith schulde bi a notable time be prechid oonli bi word to the peple that thei mygten therbi take experience that preching of the al hool Feith bi word oonli were not sufficient without therof the writyng and thanne that therfore the peple schulde desire to have the Feith writen and the Apostlis schulden se the same treuthe bi experience and schulden consente for to write to the peple the same Feith which bifore bi parcellis thei prechiden bi word An othere cause mygte have be this A preciouse thing whanne it is ligtli and soone gotten without long bifore goyng desrie to have it schal be the lesse sette bi whanne it is receyved For as myche as the writyng conteyning oure al hool Feith is preciose and ougte not be sette litil bi neither be feyntli and unworthili receyved therfore God so schope that it was long of the peple desirid eer thei it receyveden as for lyk skile God differreth ful holi mennys boonys for that bither long desiring and priyng and abiding aftir it thei schulden the more joie have and the more thanke God whanne thei it receyveden An othere cause rennyng herwith mygte be that the Apostlis hadden not grettist leisers for persecuciouns that thei mygten anoon in the bigynnyng have writen and peraventure longe tyme in the biginnyng the Apostlis prechiden not neither mynystriden to the peple but a fewe articles of Feith as were these of Crists
flood of Noe there was writing of Feith perteyning to God and to mannys governyng and eending than that there was no on such in tho daies anoon aftir the flood of Noe. Also long bifore the flood of Noe Ennok founde lettris and wrote book is as the Maistir of stories seith And this Ennok was a passing holy man as the Bible witnessith And he lyved in the daies of Adam Wherfore sithen it is so that such as a man is such is his leernyng studying and writing it is more likli that he wrote holi wondirful thingis of the Feith And namelich sithen he lyved in the daies of Adam which coude ful myche teche Ennok what he schulde write in such mater than that he wrote eny othere worldli thing oonli And sithen Noe was a ful holi man it is likeli that he hadde and kept sum and myche of this writing with him saaf in his schippe whilis the flood durid namelich sithen he prechid an hundrid wintre to the peple eer the flood came that thei schulde leeve ther synne And certis suche preching coude not have be doon without greet kunnyng of ful goostli thingis And also it muste be bi alle liklihood that Ennok delyvered to his owne Sone Mathussale the same goostli writing which Ennok wrote And this Mathussale the Sone of Ennok lyvede with Noe six hundrid wintre and therfore it is to be seid that Noe hadde ful myche and hige kunnyng of Feith and of his writing For so good a man as Noe was wolde not leeve unaspied so profitable a writing And what he had so profitabili in writing he kept saal in his schipp and delyvered aftir to hise Sones Sem Cam and Japheth which Sem clepid otherwise Melchisedeck lyved in the daies of Abraham Wherfore Abraham bi dilygence of his holynesse schapide him to receyve the same writing of Sem. And bi liklihode Abraham bitooke it to Ysaac Ysaac to Jacob and Jacob to hise Sones and hou likli it is that Ennok wrote what he leerned of Adam perteyning to God and to Men so likli is it that Noe or sum othere wrote what he leernyd of Matussale that felle in the daies of Ennok and of Matussale and Sem or sum othere in the daies of Sem wrote what he leernyd of Noe that felle in the daies of Noe. And Abraham or othere in hise daies wrote what he herd of Sem that felle in the daies of Sem which was clepid Melchisedeck For whi even liklihode was of ech of these casis as was in eny oon of them And so at the laste Moises gaderid al this togider and maad a book therof which is clepid Genesis And certis this is more likli bi storie bifore allegid and bi resoun togidere than forto sei that Moyses had bi inspiracioun without eny manys bifore govun to him informacioun Namelich sithen we owen for to not feyne forge allegge but the trowe nor holde eny myracle to be doon save whanne nebe compellith us therto that is to seie that we mowe not save the caase otherwise bi liklihode of resoun for to seie that Moyses hadde sufficient informacioun bifore of writings thoug he schulde make the book of Genesis than is liklihode to this that he had noon such now seid informacioun Therfore in this case it is not to renne into myracle thoug divers doctouris in this case and in special Gregory upon Ezechiel without myche avisement and soon moved bi devocioun so doon Also of sum thing doon bifore the flood of Noe wherof no mensioun is maad in the writing of Moyses we have knowing in stories as of this that Lameth was an hunter and dymme of sigt and that he was lad bi a yong man in hunting and that he schotte Cayn bi dressing of the seid leder Of this thing so untaugt in Moyses writing we mygte not have had knowing if there had not be eny writing bifore Noes flood of thingis which bifelle bifore the same flood Wherfore such writing of stories was bifore Noes flood And thanne ferthe if such storying of worldli chauncis was writen bifore Noes flood moche rather storying of worthi goostli thingis was writen bifore the same flood And if this be trewe thanne suche writen stories weren kept saaf bi Noe in his schippe for skile bifore maad and so thei came aftirwarde into the knowing of Moyses as is bifore argued and Moyses compiled the book Genesis out of them and whanne the bokis of Moyses were hadde the othere bokis fallen out of use as it is likli to bifall for so it fallith in othere lyk casis O Fadir me thenketh ye holden a ful reasonable wey in this mater and such a wey which hath more likli evydencis for it than hath the contrari party Therfore youre wey ougte bi lawe of kinde and undir perel of vice and of synne be holden till gretter evydence be founden to the contrarie thanne ben the evydencis making for this party But certis out of this folowith as semeth to me that we schulde holde this party that Esdras renewid not the oold Testament in writing bi gift of inspiracioun as is comounli holde but that he renewid the oold Testament in this wise that he maad be writen and multiplied manye bookis of the oold Testament manye mo than there were bifore and that for zele which that he hadde to this that Goddis Lawe schulde be wel knowe thoug of ech kinde of tho Bookis sum Copie was bifore For whi like evydencis ben that Esdras hadde Copies of the oold Lawe as ben evydencis that Moyses hadde Copies for to write or compile bi them the Book of Genesis Yhe gretter evydencis to holde this now seid affirmative party thanne ben evydencis for to holde the contrarie negative party Sone y holde wel with thi conceyt in this mater and the evidencis therto ben these Hou ever yvel the Peple of Iewis at eny tyme was yitt thei were never without summe holi lovers and keepers of the same among them Forwhi whanne grettist ydolatrie was usid in Jewri in the daies of King Achab so fer forth that the Prophete Hely weved and seid to God That of alle the Jewis there was noon but he al oon left alyve which lovyd and kept the Lawe The Lord answerid to Hely and seid that it was not so for he kept to him he seide More than five hundrid in Israel whiche never bowid ther knees to Baal That is to seie to the fals God which in tho daies was worschipid openli thorug al Israel And if this was trewe in tho daies of grettist ydolatrie that there was manye privey lovers and kepers of the Lawe bi like skile it schulde be trowid that in ech othere tyme there weren suche lovers and kepers of the Lawe And in lyk it was in ech tyme whanne Jerusalem was in traldom bi enemyes withoutforth and whanne the Jewis weren translatid into Babilonye and
whilis thei dwelliden there But so it is that no man lettrid wolde caste him to be urri knower of the Lawe and therfore an urri keper therof but that he wolde caste him to have the same lawe in writing Wherfore in alle tymes of the Jewis both whilis thei were in the lond of Israel and whilis thei were in the lond of Babilonye there were among summe of them bokis writen of the lawe and usid of them thoug the lawe writen in summe bokis was brent in the brennyng of the Temple Also Jeremye lyvede and abode in Jerusalem whilis the last and grettist captivite of the citee was maad and whilis the Jewis weren laste translatid and the temple was distroied and herof he proficied and wrote his Prophecie a litil before eer this grettist and last captivite was doon And aftir that this captivite was doon he abiding in Jerusalem with the releef and rescail of the Jewis wrote his book clepid the Trenys But al this was not likeli to be if Jeremye schulde not have had with him the Book of the Lawe into the keping of which lawe he so often preachid and stirid the peple Wherfore it is to be trowid that Jeremye had with him alwey writen a book of the lawe thoug sum book conteyning the same lawe was brent in the temple And for lyk skile it is to be trowid that Ezechiel hadde also the lawe writen which Ezechiel lyved in tyme of this grettist and last thraldom and was caried into Babylonye fro Jerusalem with the greet route And in Babilonie the fifth yere of this thraldom he bigan to prophecie there in Babilonie Also sumwhat bifore the thraldoms of Jerusalem the King of Joas maad the book of of the lawe be knowun and be publischid ful myche which long bifore was unknown as to the Prestis and to the more multitude of the peple Wherfore it is lyk that in this Kingis daies there were writen in greet noumbre manye bokis of the lawe Nameli sithen the peple were thanne brougt into a greet devocioun anentis the lawe as it is open Also in ech tyme of Jewis there weren summe Prophetis as may be takun bi the prologgis of Jerom into the bokis of Prophetis and also bi the text and to them it longid to not be unknowers of the lawe in as moche as God comaundid his lawe to be of his peple knowun And without writing such so long a law mygte not be knowun Wherfore at alle daies of the Jewis both in Israel and in Babilonie there were bokis al redi of the same writen And herto wolde serve ful openli the storie of Thobie and the story of Susanne Daniel 13. ch ne were that thei ben Apocrisis Also Daniel Esdras Neomyas Zorobabel Mardoche Hester and othere were kepers of the lawe whilis thei weren freeli in Babylonie inhabiting as the storie of the Bible makith mencioun Wherfore it is like that thei hadden the lawe writen namelich sithen thei mygten sende and have messages to and fro Jerusalem and Babylonie And if al this be trewe certis it is likli ynoug that whanne Esdras and Zorobabel came fro Babylonie into Jerusalem for to bilde agen the citee and the temple thei hadden bokis al redi writen of the lawe and thanne hereof folowingli this that Esdras renewid the five bokis of Moyses and alle the stories into hise daies is to be undirstonde thus that he wrote or provokid or ordeynyde to be writen and multiplied manye bokis of the same lawe in great noumbre wherof was not but fewe bifore And if this be trewe as it hath more likeli evidencis to be trowid for trewe than hath his contrarie party it folewith that for to seie this whiche summe Doctouris comounli holden with the Maistir of stories that Esdras bi inspiracioun wrote without eny copi alle the five Bokis of Moyses and alle the oâ—here Bokis of Stories and of Prophecies in to hise daies is not but a feynyd thing For it is seid without sufficient therto servyng evydencis And therfore this seid opinioun of Esdras his writing bi privey miraclus inspiracioun is worthi to be leid a side Namelich sithen to privey myraclis we schulde not renne for to defend oure opinioun or oure answere bi them without that sufficient evydence therto serveth For ellis there mygte noon opinioun be overcome bi strengthe of argument hou false so ever the opinioun were so that he included no repugnance such as God mygte not do bi myracle CAP. IV. FAdir aftir alle this what is seid for answere to the first principal argument and what is sunken in bi occasioun of the same answere it is now tyme the ye biginne answere to the second principal argument Sone thou seist sooth and therfore as for answere to the second and third principal argumentis togidere the second premysse in ever ech of them is to be denyed Forwhi sithen bi answer maad to the first principal argument it is declarid that the Apostlis mygten not without writing teche sufficientli oure al hool ful feith wherof nowe is the newe Testament writen it folewith that thei taugten not without writing sufficientli the same seid al hool ful feith whiche is agens and contrarie to the second premysse of the second principal argument Neither thei taugten without writing principali the same al hool ful feith which is agens and contrarie to the second premysse of the third principal argument And that for as myche as what the Aposilis mygten not do sufficientli or principali thei diden not sufficientli neither principali And so as now y bifore seid the bothe second premysses in the second and third principal argumentis ben to be denyed Ferthemore thoug Christ bede as thou allegist Matt. and Mark the last chapitris hise Aposilis to preche al the hool Gospel and so al the hool feith to ech creature by parcel mel in word speking of dyvers tymes and thoug thei fulfillid this Comaundement yitt herof folowith not that Crist has herynne bade them preche the Gospel and the al hool feith as sufficientli or principali to be doon For Crist wolde that a good preching not sufficient neither principal schulde go bifore the teching ful and sufficient and principal which principal and sufficient teching aftirward schulde be doon bi writing oonli or ellis bi word and writing togidere For as the Philosophie seith Kind in his worcking beginneth fro imperfit prâ—ceding and growing into perfit and man dooth in the same wise in hise werkis of craft And thoug God the Auctor and maker of kinde do in same wise in hise Werkis as it is not to be wondrid but it is to be wel prisid Forwhi in that his worching accordith wel with oure resoun And so the two premysses in thin bothe argumentis maad for proving of the two principal premyssis in the second and third principal argumentis be not groundid upon the textis of Mathew
and Mark in ther last Chapitris and ben to be denied And this wise sufficient answere is maad to the second and to the third principal argumentis togidere For answere to the fourth principal argument thou schalt undirstonde that Paul seith ad Ephes. ch IV. thus Oon is the Lord oon feith and oon Baptim And yitt the baptim of this man here in Ynglond is not the same baptym in being and in kinde which is the baptym of anothere man in Fraunce For ech man as he is dyvers in being fro ech othere man so his baptim and his sacramental waisching is dyvers in being fro ech othere mannys baptim and waisching in water Nevertheles this baptim of this man in Ynglond is oon in significacioun and in representacioun with ech othere mannys baptim in Fraunce Forwhi alle the baptims and sacramenten are oon thing which is this as Poul seith Rom. c. That ech man owith be deed and biried to alle synnys and rise into a new lyf in clennes of vertu Also in lyk maner the Chirche of Ynglond is oon Chirche with the Chirche of Fraunce but hou certis not in being in kinde and in substaunce Forwhi the peple being here is not the peple being there But thei ben oon in reputacioun of auctorite of feith of power and of jurisdictioun That is to seie for the oon of these Chirchis hath lyk power and juresdictioun to the othere goven to them fro God. And in lyk maner it is to be undirstonde whanne it is seid that the Chirche whiche now is is the same Chirche which was this same tyme a thousind wintre or which was in the daies of the Apostlis or that the Chirche of God is alwei oon not in being or in kinde or substaunce Forwhi the peple is not now and thanne oon neither alwey oon but oon in reputacioun And not in al maner reputacioun but in reputacioun of lyk feith and of lyk power and of lyk jurisdiâ—â—ioun goven fro God. But certis open it is to ech mannys resoun that thoug the Chirche nowe lyvyng be in this seid maner of reputacioun the same Chirche whiche the Apostlis weren yitt it nedith not to folowe that this Chirche nowe lyvyng hath like moche kunnyng and power for to witnes oure feith as hadde the Chirche which the Apostlis weren Neither it folowith that this Chirche now lyvyng hath more kunning and power forto witnesse than hath the writing of the newe testament forto so witnesse thoug it were so that the Chirche of the Apostlis hadde kunnyng and power forto so more witnesse And al herfore For this Chirche is not the same Chirche in kinde in being and in substaunce with the othere seid Chirch rigt as these pesoonys be not tho persoonys And thilk Chirche had informacioun of the feith bi heering the Apostlis and the Evaungelistis whiche the Chirche now being hath not but so sechith aftir forto have bi reding in the writing of the Apostlis and Evangelistis And so Sone if thou woldist this argument if it were maad to thee this Chirche now lyvyng and the Chirche of the Apostlis weren oon in the seid reputacioun Therefore as the Apostlis weren in this degree of holi lyvyng and mygten do myraclis sâ—eke with dyvers tungis and write a new testament and witnesse that thei sawe Crist do and suffre and herd him teche so this Chirche now being is lyk holi and may do lyk greet myraclis may speke with dyverse tungis and write a newe testament and witnesse that he sige Crist do and suffre and herde him teche Even so in lyk maner thou schalt be moved forto deme thin owne fourth principal argument that it make no folowing which argument is this The present Chirche is alwey oon and the same with the Chirche of the Apostlis Wherfore as the Chirche of the Apostlis groundid the feith more than Scripture it groundith therfore the Chirche which now is groundith more our feith than Scripture it groundith Hou ever it be of the conclusioun or of the consequent of the argument which conclusioun or consequent whether it be trewe or no schal be tretid in the boke of the Chirche in Latin. And ferthemore Sone thoug thou woldist putte a successive aggregate of alle the Apostlis and of alle Cristen Men whiche ever weren ben and schulen be to be the Chirche of Crist and therfore that there is alwey thoroug al tymes oon and the same Chirche in aggregate being kinde and substaunce yitt herof folowith not that hou ever kunnyng holi mygti and worthi this aggregat was in eny time bifore in hise parties passid so kunnyng holi mygti and worthi this aggregat is now in hise parties now being no more than folowith if the successive aggregate mygte as he was thanne in hise parties passid do myraclis that the same aggregat may do now as he is in hise parties now being no more than it folowith if Ynglond sumtyme mygte make such a conquest therfore he schal be ever a power forto make lyke greet conquest And therfore Sone if thi fourth argument be maad in this wise the hool successive aggregat of Clerkis is now which was in the tyme of the Apostlis but in thilk this aggregat was a worthier witnesser of oure feith than was Scripture therfore so is this aggregat now Certis this argument is not worth For he concludith and makith no folowing Nevertheles Sone for to putte and holde such a successive aggregate in kinde in propirte without figurative speche is agens good Philosophie and therfore agens good resoun and agens trouthe as ful wel mygte be provyd if this place were according to trete such mater But whilis the putting and the holding therof hurtith not my present entent y wole here lete the treting therof passe undir suffraunce For answere to thi fifth principal argument thou schalt undirstonde that scripture of the newe testament is not thorug ech party of him lyk in auctorite in worthines and in dignite For whi summe parties of Scripture techen to us feith summe techen to us lawe of kinde and of natural resoun as the text in it silf wel schewith and Austyn witnessith the same Nevertheles this that Crist taugt thilk lawe of kinde and of resoun wherof it is writen in holi writte that Crist them taugte is feith For whi this that he so taugt them cannot be leerned and found bi mannys resoun without therof a teller and a denouncer Summe parties of the seid scripture techen to us positive ordinauncis of Crist as ben the sacramentis and sum partie therof techen to us ordinauncis of sum Apostle as the lawe of bigamie and that a woman vowe not chasâ—ite bifore the sixtieth yeer of hir age Now Sone thoug the Clergie that now is and thoug the Pope that now is may dispense with it that the Scripture techith us the ordinaunre of an Apostle and may revoke it as he