School Divinity was at that time universally received in the Church of Rome taught in all Universities and Schools and by long use become in great measure the Doctrine of the Church The most famous and celebrated Author of this Divinity was S. Thomas Aquinas whose Writings were then in all Mens hands universally applauded and religiously embraced Some few Divines indeed dissented from him and followed the System of Scotus but this Disagreement respected not the Rule of Faith nor indeed any material point of Divinity but only some abstracted Notions and Scholastick Niceties of Divinity The Doctrine therefore of Aquinas is to be esteemed the general opinion of the Divines and Writers of those times It cannot be here objected against the force of our Argument that the same Divinity is yet retained and taught in most Popish Countries although the Doctrine of the Scriptures Sufficiency be rejected The Method of Reasoning and Disputing is now infinitely altered among the Writers of the Roman Church from what it was before the Reformation Before that time they made no difficulty to acknowledge and even urge the necessity of Reformation whereas now the Honour of their Church obligeth them to declare it both unnecessary and unlawful While Scripture was yet looked up in an unknown Tongue and removed from the knowledge of the Laity who were then generally very ignorant they were not ashamed to make confident Appeals for the Truth of their Doctrine to the Holy Scriptures When that Veil was removed the Scriptures translated and the World become more intelligent and inquisitive some other Artifice was to be found out which might preserve the Credit of antient Errors and defend them from the silence and opposition of Scripture To this end no stratagem could conduce more than the constant Artifice of all Innovators in Religion the Plea of Tradition Before that lesser Artifices could hide the Deformity of their Errors and while ignorant Christians could be securely misled with false and sometimes foolish Interpretations of Scripture while Ecce duos gladios was thought sufficient to evince the coercive Power of the Pope over temporal Princes and Arabant boves juxta comedebant asini could effectually perswade the Laity intirely to resign up their Judgments to the Direction of the Clergy there was no need of any desperate Remedy but when persons became so far inquisitive as to inquire into Reasons of Things and demand some better Authority for the belief of Articles imposed on them nothing less than the arrogant pretence of an infallible Tradition could secure and palliate the contradiction of impossible Propositions To prove therefore Aquinas his Doctrine concerning the Rule of Faith to have been intirely agreeable to that of our Author I will go no farther than his Sum of Divinity the most famous and best known of all his Works In the beginning of it laying down the Principles upon which Divinity and the proofs of Religion ought to proceed he saith That this Holy Doctrine useth the Authority of Philosophers as extraneous and only probable but the Authorities of Holy Scripture as properly belonging to her and concluding necessarily or infallibly but the Authorities of other Doctors of the Church as properly indeed belonging to her but concluding only probably For our Faith is founded upon the Revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets who wrote the Canonical Books of Scripture and not upon any Revelation made to other Doctors if any such there be Whence S. Augustin saith in his Epistle to S. Hierom To the Books of Scripture only which are called Canonical have I learned to pay this honour that I should most firmly believe none of their Authors to have erred in any thing in composing them In the two next Articles it is inquired whether Holy Scripture may use Metaphors and contain diverse senses under one and the same Letter In both places the Objections are thus formed These Qualities would be incongruous to a Rule of Faith but the Scripture is the Rule of Faith. This last Proposition is no where reinforced in the Objections but laid down as an uncontroverted Principle Aquinas in answering them no where denies Scripture to be the Rule of Faith but endeavours to take off the incongruity of a metaphorical and ambiguous Style to the Rule of Faith and in answer to both Objections hath these words Although Metaphors and Allegories be found in Scripture yet doth Holy Scripture suffer no detriment or imperfection thereby For nothing necessary to Faith is contained under the hidden sense which Scripture doth not somewhere manifestly deliver in the literal sense Afterwards being about to dispute of God and the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation he proposeth this as a most certain and undoubted Principle That we ought to affirm nothing of God which is not found in Holy Scripture either in words or in sense conformably to what the Master of Sentences and Founder of the School Divinity had before taught who inquiring what Method is to be observed in treating of the Trinity answers That it must in the first place be demonstrated according to the Authorities of Holy Scripture whether the Christian Faith teacheth it or not and in what manner But to return to Aquinas he asserteth Scripture to be the Rule of Faith in many other places of his Summ. Thus disputing of the nature and properties of the New Law or Covenant he inquires whether it be a written Law. in resolving of this Question he opposeth not the written Law to Tradition but to the Law written in the Hearts of Men by the virtue and operation of the Holy Ghost and at last concludeth thus The New Law is principally that very Grace of the Holy Ghost which is written in the Hearts of the Faithful but secondarily it is the written Law in as much as those things are delivered in it which either dispose to Grace or respect the use of that Grace Here the very nature of this Question and comparison of the Written with the New Law supposeth that the whole System of revealed Truths is contained in the written Law and lest we should doubt of this supposition the latter part of the Passage now cited plainly determines it But to proceed Aquinas often reneweth this supposition and at last comparing the Old with the New Testament he determines thus All things which are plainly and explicitely delivered to be believed in the New Testament are delivered also to be believed in the Old Testament but implicitely and obscurely And in this respect also as to matters of Belief the new Law is contained in the old But if all matters of Belief in the new Law be contained in the Old Testament and whatsoever is contained in the Old Testament is plainly and explicitly taught in the New Testament then the New Testament doth not only contain all matters of Belief in the New Law but also which is more considerable proposeth them clearly and explicitly He intimates
submitting the Decrees and Doctrine of the Church to the examination of every private man how strongly he contends that God can reveal nothing contrary to our reason or oblige us to the belief of it that he rejecteth the authority of Tobit and Susanna as being Apocryphal Books that a Divorce and Separation of the Clergy from their Wives after Marriage once contracted in unlawful that the Council of Nice condemned that Separation and consequently prohibited not to the Clergy the use of Marriage in the third Canon that the Church hath no more authority of interpreting Scripture and proposing it to the faithful than hath every private Housholder of proposing it to his Family every Divine to his Hearers every Learned Man to ignorant persons or no more than a Judge hath of expounding the Laws or a Grammarian the Rules of Grammar I will not so far presume upon the Judgment of the Reader as to make an Apology for the old and obsolete stile of our Author If it wanteth the Elegance and Beauties of our modern Language that must be imputed to the fault of the Age not any deficience of the Author I had once intended to represent his Arguments in our modern Language and publish both together in distinct Columns but the fear of inlarging these Papers too much deterred me from pursuing that design However I have drawn up an Alphabetical Catalogue of the more obsolete and unusual words and affixed their significations to them which the Reader will find at the end of the Book and may consult upon occasion A Treatise of REGINALD PEACOCK Bishop of CHICHESTER before the Reformation In the Year 1450. proving that Scripture is the only Rule of Faith. CAP. I. I. DEsiring for to wynne the Lay Children of the Churche into Obedience whiche undir greet perel of ther Soulis thei owen paie and holde to the Clergie y entende and propose in this present Booke for to mete agens suche unobediencers bi an open wey and in a nother manner and bi meene which the lay persoonys wole admitte and graunte which meene is this That we owen to bileeve and stonde to sum Saier or Techer which may feile while it is not knowne that thilk Seier or Techer thereyne failis And so for to move and convicte them into obedience never the lesse and never the latter to the Clergie in leernyng their feith thoug it were so that the Clergie mygte solempnely determyne agens trew feith II. Twey thingis be the principal causis of Heresie in the lay yeple Overmyche leenyng to Scripture and in such manner wise as it longith not to holi Scripture for to receyve And the seconde is this Setting not bi for to followe the Determynatiouns and the Holdingis of the Churche in mater of Feith III. The Feende hath broughte in so greet a sleigte in the Secte of the Sarrasenes that thei ben ful wondirful violenti settid for to geve audience to eny proofe making for Christen Feith or making agens Sarrasene Secte For whi thilk wickid Man Mahumet whiche brought in their Secte or sum Prelate after him made as for a poâ—nt of his Law that no persoone of his Secte schulde heere eny Declaracioun or evydence agens his Sect and that under peyne of passing cruel deep But O thou Lord Iesu God and Man heed of thi Christen Churche and Techer of Christen Bileeve y beseeâ—he thi mercy thi pitee and thi charite fer be this seid perel fro the Christen Churche and fro ech persoon thereyne conteyned and schilde thou that this Venom be never brougte into thi Churche and if thou suffre it to by eny while brougte in y beseche that it be soon agen out spet but suffre thou ordeyne and do that the Law and the Feith whiche thi Churche at eny tyme kepith be receyved and admitted to fall under this examinacioun whether it be the same verri Feith which thou and thi Apostlis taugten or no and that it be receyved into examinacioun whether it hath sufficient evydencis for it to be verry feith or no and ellis it mygte be holde aghe and it were a full suspect thing to alle them that schulde be convertid therto and ellis also it were a ful schameful thing to the Christen Churche for to holde such a feith for a substaunce of her salvacioun and yitt dursten not suffre it to be examined whether it is worthi to be allowid for trew feith or no. And it were a vilonye putting to Crist that he schulde geve such a feith to his peple and into which feith he wolde his peple turne alle other peple and yitt he wolde not allowe his feith to be at the ful tried and that he durste not be aknowe his feith to be so pure and so fyne fro al falsehede that it mygte not by strenghe of eny evydence be overcomen And therefore Lord Almygti thou forbid that eny such prisonyng of thi feith be maad in thi Churche And also this is worschip ynoug for Cristen Feith that it may withoute feere be avowed and be publischid and be profred to be examyned bi eny wit under Heuene in such maner of examynacioun now bifore seid as vi which ech pretense feith ougte to be examyned whether it be trew feith or no. And yitt ferthemore to this now seid may evydence be this that ellis Crist wolde have gove such a Lawe to be hadde and to be contynued in his name of whiche Law sum of our feith is a party ne were that it mygte abide the fier of triel and of examynacioun of ech creaturis resoun so the examynacioun be such as ougte to be taken and usid for to examine and prove whether a feith pretense be trewe feith or no as ferforth as eny Goldsmyth wole avowe and warante his Gold which he desyneth to be tried and examyned by all manner of fier of this wordli brennyng IV. And ferthemore y wole Clerkis to have in consideracioun that not for a thing is famed to be an Article of Feith therefore it is an Article of Feith but agenward for that it is an Article of Feith and proved sufficiently to be such therefore it is to be bileeved bi feith So that an Article to be bileeved bi feith is dependant on this that it is bifore proved sufficiently to be feith And an Article to be an Article of Feith is not dependent of this for that it is bileeved as an Article of Feith V. The Clergy shall be condemned at the last day if by cleer witt they drawe not Men into consent of trew feith otherwise than by fier and sword or hangement Although I will not deny these second means to be lawfull provided the former be first used VI. Thomas had thanne these same evydences of Christis Resurrection in as good maner or in better than we hau now for us For whi he herde the Apostlis denounce Christis Resurreccioun to him bi ther owne mouthe the that denouncen the same to us bi their
Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus A Treatise of Reginald Peacock c. Guil. Needham R. R. in Christo P. ac D. D. Wilhelm Archiep. Ã Sac. Dom. c. Ian. 12 1687. A TREATISE PROVING SCRIPTURE To be the Rule of Faith. WRIT BY REGINALD PEACOCK Bishop of CHICHESTER before the REFORMATION About the Year MCDL LONDON Printed for Iames Adamson at the Angel and Crown in S. Paul's Church-Yard 1688. PREFACE IF in any part of the Christian Religion an undoubted Certainty and most firm Assurance may justly be required if a scrupulous Examination and curious Enquiry may ever be allowed in Matters of Religion certainly an exact Knowledge of the Rule of Faith will deserve as our first so our chief Consideration For since the Articles of Christianity are not in themselves self-evident nor can be found out by the sole principles of Reason since all revealed Religions are no farther credible than as they can demonstrate their Revelation to have been true and real some Rule was necessary which might propose to Mankind those Articles of Faith which Reason could not suggest and propose them also with such evidence as that the denial of assent should in all become irrational What this determinate Rule is hath been the great Controversie of this and all preceding Ages However all parties agree in affixing some certain properties to it whereby it may be distinguished and indeed without which it can never supply the Office or serve the ends of a true Rule These may be reduced to four Heads That it be able safely and inviolably to convey down all revealed necessary Truths That it be fitted to propose them clearly and invariably to all Mankind That it be independent on all other revealed Articles And lastly that it be assigned as a Rule by God the Author of all revealed Religion If either of the two first Conditions be deficient the Rule will be unuseful if either of the latter uncertain and without authority The Scripture enjoys all these properties in so eminent a manner that no reasonable Doubt can be made of the Truth of it For if we consider that whatsoever is revealed may be pronounced whatsoever is pronounced may be written down and whatsoever is committed to Writing may be preserved safe while those Writings are preserved unaltered we must conclude that any revealed Religion may be intirely and without danger of mistake proposed from written Books to the universal Belief of Mankind since these will afford a standing Rule both to Pastors of teaching of their People and to the People of examining the Doctrine of their Pastors in case of Diffidence The independence of Scripture from all other revealed Articles is no less evident For that these Books were indeed written by those persons whose names they bear and these persons highly credible is known by the same evidences whereby the Authors and Credibility of any other Books are known I mean by the concurrent testimony and consent of all succeeding Ages considered not as a Collection of Men professing the Christian Faith but as persons devoid neither of common sense nor integrity as they must have been if they had mistaken themselves or deluded us in believing and then testifying a matter of fact so easie to be known and more easie to be remembred Being thus assured of the Credibility of Scripture that it was written by such Historians who really either performed or saw those Miracles which they do attest we cannot but believe these Miracles and consequently that the Authors and Founders of the Christian Religion acted by a Divine Commission and may reasonably command our assent to their Revelations Being thus assured of the Divine Authority of the Scriptures we may probably conclude from the nature and end of them but most certainly from their own Testimony that they contain all things necessary to Salvation and are the only Rule of Faith and all this although we did not yet believe any other Article of the Christian Religion On the other side Tradition wants every one of those Conditions which are necessarily required to a Rule of Faith. For first we can never be assured that any Articles were invariably and intirely without any addition or diminution conveyed down to us by Tradition since it hath been in all Times and Ages observed that Matters of Fact much more of Belief not immediately committed to Writing presently degenerated into Fables and were corrupted by the capricious Malice or Ignorance of Men. Nothing can exempt the Tradition of the Christian Religion from this Fate at least from our reasonable suspicions of it but the Infallibility of that Society of Men which conveys down this Tradition But the latter can never be known till this certainty of Tradition be first cleared and presupposed since the Belief of this supposed Infallibility must at last be resolved into the sole truth and certainty of Tradition In the next place Tradition cannot certainly and invariably propose the Belief of Christianity to all private persons For from whence shall this Tradition be received from a Pope or a Council or both or from none of these but only the Universal Church In every one of these Cases infinite difficulties will occur which will singly appear insuperable As who is a true Pope what his intentions in defining were whether he acted Canonically in what sense he hath defined What Councils whether Oecumenical Patriarchal or Provincial may be securely trusted What are the necessary Conditions and Qualifications of a General Council Whether all these Conditions were ever observed in any Council What these Councils are what they have defined what is the true sense and intention of their Definitions From whom must we learn the Belief of the Universal Church if Popes and Councils be rejected From all Christians or only from the Clergy If from the later whether the assent of every member of the Clergy be required If not how great a part may safely dissent from the rest From whom the opinion of the major part is to be received Whether from the Writings of Doctors or the teaching of living Pastors If from the latter whether it be sufficient to hear one or a few Parish Priests or all or at least the major number are personally to be consulted All these Difficulties may be branched out into many more and others no less insuperable be found out which will render the Proposal of Religion by way of Tradition if not utterly impracticable at least infinitely unsafe Thirdly Tradition is so far from being independent on other Articles of the Christian Faith that the Belief of all other Articles must be presupposed to it For since all Sects propose different Traditions and the truth of none of them is self-evident it must first be known which is the true Church before it can be determined which is the true Tradition Now the knowledge of the true Church can be obtained only two ways either from the Truth of her Doctrines or from the external Notes of a
the least and the Authority of the Church it self as to the Ground and Foundation of it is chiefly deduced from the Gospel Nay the very Institution Power and Edification of the Church can no way so expresly and certainly be known as from the Gospel But as I imagin it can by no method be so certainly determined whether the Church or the Gospel be of greater Authority as by supposing this Case when the Church defineth any thing contrary to the Gospel I know indeed that this cannot be This is to be understood of the Belief and received Doctrine of the Universal Church not of the Decrees of the Representative Church Otherwise Clemangis will most foolishly contradict himself However that we may the better find out the truth let us put this Case Do you imagin that in that case S. Augustin would have rejected the Doctrine of the Gospel and adhered to the Definition of the Church No surely Where he proceeds at large to urge this Argument and thereby to assert the Superiority of the Scriptures Authority to that of the Church Before the middle of this Century flourished Thomas Waldensis Provincial of the Carmelites and Confessor to two Kings of England Henry V. and Henry VI. successively generally accounted the most Learned English Man of his Age and the great Champion of the Papal Cause against the Lollards and other supposed Hereticks of his time against whom he writ a large and elaborate Work which was in a particular manner confirmed and approved by a special Bull of Pope Martin V. Therein proposing an intire System of Divinity he layeth down the Sufficiency of Scripture as a most certain Principle in three whole Chapters out of which I will produce some few Passages Disputing therefore of all Articles necessary to be believed and the complete System of Christian Faith he useth these words They who yet believe the Canon of Scripture to be imperfect and that it may yet be augmented by the Authority of the Church do yet with the Iews expect the fulness of time perhaps under a Iewish Messias He then takes notice of that famous Passage of S. Augustin I would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Catholick Church perswaded me And giveth this Answer to it I do not approve the arrogance of some Writers who upon occasion of this place maintain the Decrees of Bishops in the Church to be of greater Weight Authority and Dignity than is the Authority of the Scriptures Which indeed seemeth not so foolish as mad unless such an one would say Philip were greater than Christ when he induced Nathanael to believe that Christ was he of whom Moses writ in the Law and the Prophets although without his Authority or Admonition he would not have at that time perceived it All Ecclesiastical Authority since it serveth only to bear testimony of Christ and of his Laws is of less Dignity than the Laws of Christ and must necessarily submit to the Holy Scriptures Well therefore did S. Thomas Aquinas allegorize when he introduced the Samaritan Woman to represent the universal Church which Woman when the Citizens of Samaria heard preaching Christ they were induced to believe on him c. This Passage clearly represents to us the Opinion of Waldensis to have been that by the attestation of the Church the Divine Authority of the Scripture is known which being once known all matters of Belief and Articles of Faith are to be learned from the Scripture just as Philip induced Nathanael and the Samaritan Woman her Neighbours to believe Christ to be a Divine Person of the truth of which when once satisfied they learned not the Rules of Life or Articles of Faith from Philip or the Woman but received both from Christ himself And therefore Waldensis subjoyns That the Authority of the Scripture is far superior to the Authority of all Doctors even of the whole Catholick Church and that although the Catholick Church should attest and confirm their Authority that the Authority of all latter Men following the Apostles and Churches ought to be submitted to the Authority of the holy Canon even to its Footstool That the former is subjected to the latter as a Witness to a Iudge and a testimony to the truth as a promulgation to a Law and as an Herald to a King. As a testimony therefore is no farther to be regarded than as it is true a promulgation invalid when it either increaseth or mutilates the Law and an Herald not to be obeyed when he exceeds the Commission of the King so the Decrees Definitions and Doctrines of the Church are no longer to be respected than as they are exactly conformable to the Scripture and deduced from it Upon this account Waldensis teacheth in the next Chapter That the Church cannot superadd any new Articles of Faith to the Scripture and that the Faith from the times of John the Evangelist who writ the last Book of Scripture receiveth no increase And therefore applieth to the Books of Canonical Scripture the measure of the new City of God made by the Angel in the XXI Chapter of the Revelations That as the circuit of that City consisted of so many miles neither more nor less so the whole System of Christian Faith and Divine Revelations is completed and contained in so many Books of Scripture and can receive no farther Addition Lastly shewing how many ways the Knowledge of the Catholick Truth may be attained he saith It may be obtained best of all and most certainly from the Canonical Scripture He proceeds to prove this from the Authority of S. Augustin and then concludes See four ways of coming to the undoubted Truth but more or less certain of which the first and most certain is by the Holy Scriptures the rest begetting only an Historical and uncertain knowledge of the Articles of Religion However these Doctors already mentioned were of great authority and sufficiently declare the common Doctrine of the Church in their time yet the practice and judgment of General Councils will give us greater assurance of it Two General Councils were held at the same time in this Age the one at Basil the other at Florence In both together the whole Western Church was present by its Representatives and in that of Florence the Eastern also These two Councils indeed thundered out Excommunications one against the other yet both agreed in using Scripture as the Rule of their Definitions and in all Disputations laid that down as a common uncontroverted Principle I begin with the Council of Basil wherein Iohannes de Ragusio a Learned Dominican by the appointment of the Bishops disputed publickly in the year 1433. against the Bohemians about Communion under both kinds Here magnifying the Authority of the Church he urgeth this Argument chiefly that without the Attestation of the Church the Divine Authority of the Scripture cannot be known and consequently that the Authority of the Church is antecedent to the knowledge even
of the Rule of Faith and therefore the first Principle of the Christian Religion For thus he argues But that the aforesaid Article the existence of one holy Catholick Church is the first of all others into which all others are resolved is manifest For if any doubt arise concerning any other Articles recourse is immediately made by common consent to the Holy Scripture as to a most certain and invariable Rule and according to the Testimony of Scripture the Truth is cleared and all Doubts removed For unless the Existence of the Church be known Scripture hath no Authority Whether this Argument be valid and conclusive concerns not my present purpose It is sufficient that he assumes this Proposition Scripture is the Rule of Faith as an undoubted Principle common to both Parties However if by a Church in this place he meant no more than a Society of credible Persons whose unanimous attestation of a matter of Fact ought to be received the Argument will be good and valid And that he meant no more I am induced to believe because immediately after disputing of the Authority of a Church properly so called he acknowledgeth the proof of this Article is to be taken from Holy Scripture However these words cannot infer the Doctrine at this day received in the Church of Rome since they expresly assert the Scripture to be the Rule and Judge of all Articles of Faith saving this one of the Existence of the Church and attribute to the Church no more than the power of bringing us to the knowledge of the Scripture which thenceforward is to be used as our only Rule and Guide He proceeds to lay down several Suppositions as Foundations and Postulates of his subsequent Determinations Of these the sixth is conceived in these words Faith and all things necessary to Salvation as well Matters of Belief as of Practice are founded in the literal sense of Holy Scripture and from thence only may Arguments be drawn to prove those things which are of Faith and of necessity to Salvation The seventh Supposition is this Holy Scripture in the literal sense well and soundly understood is the infallible and most sufficient Rule of Faith. This he doth not only suppose but also proveth with divers Arguments of which the second is this If Holy Scripture were not a sufficient Rule of Faith it would follow that the Holy Ghost who is the Author of it had insufficiently delivered it which is by no means to be thought of God all whose works are perfect Besides if Holy Scripture were deficient in some things necessary to Salvation then those things which are wanting might lawfully and meritoriously be superadded from some other Principle or if any things were superfluous in it they might lawfully be diminished But this is forbidden by S. John the Evangelist in the last of the Revelations where he saith If any one add to this Book c. From which words of John the Evangelist it is clearly proved that nothing is deficient or superfluous in Holy Scripture which is also consentaneous to the Author of it who is the Holy Ghost as was before said to whose Omnipotence it agreeth that he give us a System of Wisdom neither deficient nor superfluous and that he should deliver it in a method agreeable to our necessity of Salvation In the Council of Florence however the Greeks and Latins differed in all other things till the former were forced into a complyance by the Commands and Threats of their Emperor yet in this they agreed in laying down Scripture to be the only Rule and Principle of Faith although they dissented in determining how far it might be explained by the Church The Controversie was occasioned by the addition of FILIOQVE to the Nicene Creed this the Greeks maintained to be unlawful because the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is not in express Terms taught in Scripture which they held to be the only Rule of Faith. The Latins denyed not this but only asserted that it was sufficient this procession was taught in the Scripture in implicit Terms the Church having authority by explanation of those obscure Passages to constitute Articles necessary to be believed and add them to the Creed although but implicitly contained in Holy Scripture the Rule of Faith and consequently that to insert FILIOQVE in the Creed was no addition to the Faith since that Article is implicitly contained in Holy Scripture The Opinion of the Greeks is thus represented by Bessarion Archbishop of Nice who was chosen by the Greeks to manage and defend their Cause We derive and receive all Articles of Faith from the Fountains of Holy Scriptures which are the Principles and Foundations of our Faith. Nothing was ever added to them accounted necessary to be believed which is not contained in them nor may any thing ever be added to them neither by us while we are our selves nor by any other Christians And when the Latins recurred to their wonted refuge of Explanation or Declaration made by the Church of what is implicitly contained in Scripture Bessarion replyed That it is undeniable that although any thing were added by way of Declaration it was still an addition which seemeth to be forbidden and consequently the addition of this word FILIOQVE is forbidden But whereas ye alledge the Actions of the Fathers in Councils wherein some things seem to be thus explained this reacheth not our Question For that any thing should be added to the Faith it never was nor ever will be lawful The Bishop of Friuli was chosen by the Latins to answer the Arguments of Bessarion and defend the addition of the word FILIOQVE This he doth not by denying Scripture to be the Rule of Faith but endeavouring to prove that the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son might be deduced from the Principles of Faith viz. from the Holy Scriptures Ye grant saith he that Articles of Faith are taken from the fountain of Scriptures which are the Principles of Faith. From this Proposition we infer that a Declaration Expression and Explication which is made concerning an Article of Faith or of the Creed by the Writings of the Gospel the Epistles of Paul and the Booke of the Old and New Testament is by no means to be accounted extraneous or a Doctrine of another kind since it is the Doctrine of God and of the Church For then only is a proof to be accounted extraneous when it is made not by the proper Principles of that Doctrine but by the Principles of some other kind of Science As if a Physical Conclusion should be proved by a Mathematical Principle But according to you the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the Principles of Faith. Therefore a Proof and Declaration which is made by these Scriptures is plainly made by the proper Principles of Faith and intrinsecal Principles of our Religion Yea this ought not properly to be called an addition
may dispense with this that Poul ordeynyd a bigam to not be Deken or Prest 1 Thim III. ch and with this that Poul ordeynyd a widowe to not take perpetual videwite undir boond eer sche be of LX. Winter and but if sche hadde be wyf of oon man 1. Thim IV. ch yhe and revoke these two pointis bicause that the Pope is of lyk auctorite and of juresdictioun with ech or with the grettist of the Apostlis yitt herof folowith not that the Clergie now lyvyng or the Pope now lyvyng may dispense with this that Scripture techith as the positive ordinaunce of Crist and that he may revoke eny of tho ordinauncis Forwhi so revoke and dispense mygte noon of the Apostlis And so thoug the Chirche now lyvyng be evene in auctorite and power with sum parti of Scripture as with ful few parties of Scripture as in this forto make positive ordinaunces lyk as holi Scripture bi power of the Apostle maad and for to revoke thilk positive ordinaunce of holi Scripture maad by the Apostle yitt he is not evene in auctorite and power with al the Scripture of the Newe Testament neither with manye othere parties therof To thi sixth argument y answere graunting the first premysse that the Chirche now lyvyng hath power forto expowne and interprete and declare the trewe undirstonding of holi Scripture And y deny the second premysse that even peer hath no power into his even peer Forwhi the sugget hath some power upon his Sovereyn as for to loke upon him forto speke to him and forto warne him of hise harms and forto defend him and such othere And so the Chirche now being yhe and ech thrifty wel sped studient in Divinite hath power forto declare and expowne holi Scripture yhe and ech good Grammarien hath power to construe Scripture so that as the urri dewe literal undirstonding we schulden aske and leerne of a greet leerned sad Divine rather than of anothir youngir and lasse leernyd Divine so we schulde aske and leerne it of the universal or general hool Clergie rather than of eny perticuler persoone or persoonys save in the execeptioun spokun of in the first parti of this book in the seventh ch and in othere chap. aftir there folowing And therfore as it folowith not herof that ech thrifti Divine and ech Gramarien is more worthi for to grounde Feith than is holi Scripture so it folewith not that the Chirche now lyvyng or the Clergie now lyvyg are more worthi forto grounde feith than is holi Scripture Sone manye kindis of Powers ther ben The even Peer hath no power of constreynyng upon his even Peer that is to seie forto make his even peer to do what he wold not do in thilk kind of werk in which thei ben evene peers and yitt oon evene Peer may revoke and relese that the othere evene Peer ordeynyth or biddith to be do or doith indede as we seen that oon executour revokith and relesith what the othere ioined to him executour ordeyneth biddith or doith namelich bi the Lawe of Ynglond and in this case is ech Pope with ech of the Apostlis As for answere to thi VII principal Argument y seie that power forto interprete expoune and declare which is the rigt sense of Scripture is not but a ful litil power upon Scripture as power forto construe Scripture aftir rulis of gramer is a ful litil power upon Scripture but yitt moche lasse than the othere power now spokun Forwhi so bi these powers no thing is takun awey fro Scripture what he had bifore neither eny thing is sette of the newe to Scripture what Scripture hadde not bifore neither eny thing is commaundid to be or not to be agens the comaunding the or nylling of Scripture And that bicause this seid power of interpreting expownyng declaring and construyng is not but a power of kunnyng oonli for to schewe and make open the thing of Scripture which is in Scripture al redi bifore thoug priveli and hid rigt as the Prest in Lent tyme drawith the Lent veil and therbi makith open to the peple what was bifore in the Auter alredi thoug not seen of the peple Wherfore the first Premysse in thi VII principal Argument is untrewe and to be denyed whanne it is seid thus Whatever thing nedith to have upon him an Interpreter or Expowner or a Declarer nedith to have the same thing as his overer and worthier And whi this is untrewe it is now seid Forwhi ellis a Deltene yhe the Perisch Clerk were worthier than the Prest stonding at the auter whanne the Clerk drawith aside the Lent veil And also if the seid first Premysse were trewe thanne Scripture were worthier than sche her silf is and sche were overer to hir silf which is repugnaunce For whi Scripture ful oft expowneth hir silf bi as moche as bi the reding of Scripture in oon parti a man schal leerne which is the trewe undirstonding of Scripture in al othere parti wherynne he doutid or unknewe bifore Also Sone the Iugis which the King makith in his rewine for to juge alle cause aftir the Lawe which he and his Parlament malten ben not so worthi forto grounde rigt wisnes in causis as the seid Lawe is Forwhi al that thei han to juge rigt wisnes in causis thei han of thilk Lawe and yitt the same seid Iugis han power bi ther greet kunnyng for to declare what is the trewe entent of the Lawe writen or not writen whanne othere not so kunnyng persoonys in the Lawe as thei ben dougten therynne or not so fer seen therynne And therfore bi lyk maner in this present purpos it is that thoug the Clergie or sum of the Clergie bi ther greet leernyng have power or kunnyng forto declare to simpler folk which is the urri sense and undirstonding of Scripture yitt herof folowith not the Clergie or thilk persoone of the Clergie so declaring is worthier in wei of grounding what Scripture was ordeyned to grounde bi his dewe undirstonding of treuthe than is the same Scripture in him silf for so to grounde For certis it may be that sum oon simple persoon as in Fame or in State is wiser forto knowe juge and declare what is the trewe sense of a certeyn portioun of Scripture and what is the treuthe of sum Article and that for his long studying laboring and avising therupon than is a greet general Conceil For whi ful of it is seen that oon persoon in a general Conceil redressith al the Conceil fro that that thei wolden ordeyne as y have rad If oon symple persoone had not agenstonde bi hise resounis a general Counceil wolde have ordeyned that Prestis schulde have be weddid to Wyves if thei wolden And also y have rad in the tre departid storie that if Finucius hadde not recleimed in the greet Counceil of Nice there hadde be ordeynyde that
bi witnessis sworne notwithstonding that pretense Myraclis and pretense Inspiraciouns and pretense Appeeringis of God or of Aungels withynne forth and without forth and legendis or lyves of Seyntis and othere stories whiche ben writen and hadde in â—ame ben ful slider and unsure groundis forto grounde upon them Feith that is to seie a treuthe passing nature and revelid bi God without passing greet trial of them For certis among them a diligent wise ensercher schal fynde sumtyme Supersticiouns sumtymes Errouris agens sure knowen Treuthe sumtyme Heresies agens the Feith and sumtyme contrariete bitwix hem silf as forto putte out in special where and hou oft it were â—ver longe here And therfore thoug the Chirche suffre manye suche to renne forth and be redde and be takin as wise men wole juge and fele of them the Chirche is not so hasty forto determyne autoritativeli them to be trewe Nevertheles alle tho whiche the Chirche takith into greet and perfigt examinacioun and ther aftir jugith and â—erreeth and determyneth autentikli to be trewe ben nedis to be take for trewe in lasse than sufficient prof be made into the contrarie and unto tyme thilk prof be maad and knowe as y seid bifore in the Ch. of the first parti of this Book But yitt that the Apostlis bitoken not out and bisidis holi Scripture eny Articlis unwriten to be bileeved for necessarie Feithis thoug summe men so comounli holden y may argue bi rigt notable evydencis of whiche the first is this The Apostlis bitoken not to cristen men eny Articlis to be bileeved as such seid Feith bi eny such wey which the Apostlis knowen to be no spedeful and sufficient wey forto in it bitake eny Articlis to be bileeved as so greet Feith But so it is that the Apostlis knewen wel that to bitake to the heering and mynde of the peple oonli without writing eny such Articlis forto be of them bileeved was no spedeful and sufficient wey Wherfore the. Apostlis not so bitoken The II. Premysse of this Argument may in this wise be proved Thilk wey was wel knowen considered and aspied to be insufficient and unspedful which was bi the Apostlis remedied and left and leid aside But so it was that this seid wey for to belyvere eny Articlis as such feith to the peple bi heering and mynde oonli without writing was left and leid aside and remedied bi this that thei wroten the Gospels and Epistlis to the peple Forwhi ellis thei hadden no sufficient cause for to so write And Luk in his prolog unto hise Gospel meneth the same Wherfore it folowith that the seid wey was wee l knowin and considered and aspied to be insufficient for the seid entent to be sufficientli sped Also the seid second premysse mygte be proved thus The Apostlis maad so wise bi the holi Goost forto overse and knowe Scripturis of the oold testament mygte soon knowe and remembre hou that manye trouthis Adam seide and taugte to hise sones and hise ofspring over it that is writen in the Bible Wherof no man in the tyme of the Apostlis coude eny thing seie and thilk maner it was knowun of the Apostlis to be trewe that Noe and Abraham seiden and taugten manye treuthis to ther here 's not writen whiche no man coude reherce in tyme of the Apostlis and al for that thei were not writen And in lyk maner it was trewe of David and of Solomon auentis ther heerers so that noon of ther wordis be knowun than tho ben writen And if we wolen come neer hoom Joon the Evangelist seithen the last ch of his Gospel that mo myraclis Crist dide than be writen in this Book which if thei weren writen al the world thoug it were turned into bokis schulde not take and comprehendo And that of al tho myraclis not writen in the Gospels not â—on is of us now knowun Wherfore it folowith that so wyse men as weren the Apostlis in goostli necessarie maters and so fulfilled with the holi goost and also wel putte into good aviâ—is bi ful witti Clerkis convertid into Cristen Feith knewn well that this wey forto delyver necessarie feith to peplis bi word and heering and mynde oonli without that of the writing was insufficient to the peple The second evydence is this If the Apostlis hadden lete renne eny Articlis undir necessarie feith to be bileeved without prof of the Scripture this entent and dede of the Apostlis schulde have be better knowen and holden of the Chirche which was in tyme of grete Constantyn the Emperor than of eny Chirche being aftir tho seid daies For so it was the Chirche in the daies of Constantyn holde not trowid not and considerid not that the Apostlis so left without writing eny Articlis to be takun as necessarie feith Wherfore no Chirche aftir the daies of Constantyn owith so holde The second premysse y may prove thus In the daies of the greet and first Constantyn Emperour there was maad an universal Counceil of all Cristen in Nice of Bityne in which universal Counceil was gaderid the Latyn Clerkis and the Greek Clerkis togider for this entent principali to declare the trewe feith in the article upon which Ari errid and folowingli forto putte out in an expresse Crede the substauncial pointis and articlis of oure feith as is opene in the stories clepid ecclisiastick storie and tripartid storie or ellis thus The Churchis storie and the third departid storie which stories ben the worthiest and moste credible of eny othere save the Bible And therfore so thei dide and maad a Crede which in the seid second book is writen But so it muste nedis have be that if the Chirche in tho daies hadde knowen or trowid that the Apostlis had delyvered to the peple eny articlis undir heering and mynde oonli the Chirche in thilk seid general Counseil gaderid for to point and articlee maters of our feith wolden rather have sette forth in writing of the Crede than maad tho seid articlis which the Apostlis left out of writing than tho of whom expresse mencioun is maad in the writing of the Apostlis And that fer as myche as to the mo nâ—de remedie is rather to be goven than to the lasse nede And the nede to putte tho Articlis undir writing was ful greet as soone aftir appere Wherfore the Chirche then gaderid hadde no conceite that the Apostlis leften eny suche Articlis of necessarie feith which the Apostlis not wroten And in lyk maner as it was in the first seid general Counseil of Nice that thei pointiden out Articlis of bileeve to alle Cristen peple into a foorm of a Crede so dide anothere greet general Counseil aftir at Constantynopil and manye othere provincial Counseils as apperith in the book clepid Decrees of Counseils rehercen the II. now seid Credis and in noon of them so making and pointing
Articlis of oure feith in ther credis is mensioun maad of eny articlis taugt bi the Apostlis out of Scripture The III. evydence is this If eny Article schulde be left to peple fro the Apostlis undir heering and mynde to be holde and bileeved of the peple greet as feith these pointis and articlis schulde be tho rather than othere or as soon as othere that is to seie we schulen prie toward the Eest we schulen blesse us with a cros Prestis schulen make tre foold crossis upon the brede and wyne offride in the aâ—ter bifore the consecracioun the font of baptim schal be blessid with oile and baptisid persoonys schulen be anointed with oile But so it is that ech of the seid governauncis takun ther bigynnyng and ordinaunce of oure Fadirs oonli not the Apostlis bi a chapiter of holi Baâ—ile in the summe of Gracian Dist. XI c. Ecclesiasticorum And in the same wise it is to be demed of holi water whom Alisaundir the first and Pope ordeynyd And of holi brede and of the moost parti of observaciouns in the Masse and of the fasting Lent and of manye othere suche observaciouns whom alle holi Fadirs sithen the Apostlis ordeynyd and as it appereth by opene witnessing of writings Wherfore it is not to be holde that eny othere observaciouns or articlis dyvers fro these now rehercid the Apostlis bitoke without writing to be kept and to be bileeved as such seid greet feith Also holi Basile the now bifore alleggid c. in the summe of Gracian c. XI Ecclesiasticorum departith tho thingis whiche alle Cristen owen to holde and to bileeve into III. membris that is to seie into thingis pointis or articlis which to us levith and bitakith apostolik ordinaunce that is to seie ordinaunce of a Pope or of Popes which to us bitaketh holi Scripture and which to us bitaketh devoute uce chosen of the mo part of the peple Wherfore holi Basile conceyved no mo membris than these III. to be nedis takun and kept of Cristen peple and thanne folowith that he conceyvyd not such a fourth membre to be takun and kept of the peple that is to seie whiche the Apostlis taugten and leften and bitoken for substauncial feith without writing And that bi the first nowe rehercid membre Basile undirstood Popis ordinauncis it is likli therfore Forwhi the ordinauncis of Popis ben ful famose and more famose and more reverente attendaunce in the comoun peple than is the custom and usage of the comoun peple or at the leest of and even so myche Wherfore it is likli that Basile left not Popis ordinauncis unspokun of in his particioun bifore seid But othere it is that he speke not of Popis ordinauncis but if he speak therof in the first membre of the seiâ— particioun Wherfore it is trewe that he so speke And so fynally forto seie into the principal entent of this present chapiter y am not ware that the Chirche techis or delyverith eny thing to be suche seid catholick feith as a treuthe doon or taught in tym of Crist or of the Apostlis exceptid which is conteynyd expressely in the writing of the newe testament or following prof in former argument If eny othere man kan remembre him of othere or of 〈◊〉 wel be it But yitt thingis doon or taugt longe aftir tyme of the Apostlis the Chirch may determyn for such seid feith thoug not as a treuthe doon or taugt or revealid bi God in the tyme of Crist or of the Apostlis but lâ—tir aftir the tyme of Crist and of the Apostlis among whiche thingis declarid bi the Chirch for feith not conteynyd expresseâ—t or impresselâ— in holi Scripture if eny such be y remembre me nowe of noon save of it what is bifore seid in this seid chapiter loâ—gen to the câ—nonyâ—â—ng of Seintis And that if eny such be which condicioun y seie for peraventure it may be hold and undirstâ—nd wee l that the Chirch â—ntendith not forto decree and determyn and publisch this to be an article of such seid feith Thomas of Cantirbiri is a seynt John of Bridlington is a seynt Ambrose is a seynt and so of othere lyk divers fro Marie and fro the Apostlis in the newe testament but the Chirch admyttith and allowith them to be holde and morschiped and foâ—â—wid for seintis in al or in myche thing taugt or doon bi them ellis peple schulde not courtesi so do as the Chirch 〈◊〉 not or determyneth neyther publiscâ—â—th the writings of Ambros of Jerom of Austyn to be trewe but admittis them to be take in 〈◊〉 of stydiyng and of reading and heering with fredom to feele of them evydencys nowe reasonaâ—li and sufficientli more in tyme comyng whiche writing is schulden not ellis boldely and â—oâ—â—seli be take into suche studiyng reading and heering as thei now ben take ne were the seid admissioun doon upon them bi the Chirch even as the Chirch repellith and weâ—â—neth the writingis of sinn othere writers to be take into uce of reeding and heering courseli of which both dedis doon bi Pope Gelasi mensioun is maad in the summe of Gracian Dist. XV c. Sancta Romana and therfore thoug y wole not exclude fro sum what helping into the grounding myraclis and revelaciouns and longe uce of bileeving in the Chirch namelich which may be in longe uce of understaunding thus or thus holi Scripture as for his litteral sence yitt thei ben ech ful feble in him silf for to found the seid feith but he be sufficienth proved and tried And ferthemore it seimeth that the Apostlis entendiden not for to give eny catholick feith necessarie to Cristen Mennys savacioun bi word oonli to be kept without writing and remembraunce and so bi al that is writen fro the biginnen of this present chapiter hiderto it semeth that the Clergie ougte not induce or constreyne the othere peple into bilieve and feith of othere pointis and articlis as upon the feith of whom is hangen oure salvacioun than ben expressid in the litteral sense of holi Scripture or following them so expressed O Fadir y am mych delitid in your so wise and depe forth leeding of the seid now bifore goyng proâ—â—s Nevertheless y truste so moche in youre to me good Fadirhood that ye wole suffre me make agens your doctrine this now to folowe objectioun Oon of the best Clerkis and wisist Divins and clepid therfore the Doctour Sutel Scotus seith in his writing that this article Crist in his deith of bodi discerdid into hellis is an article of necessarie feith And that for as myche as it is putte in the comoun crede whiche eâ—ede is ascribid to have be maad of the Apostlis and yitt this â—ame article as he seith is not groundid in holi Scripture Wherfore youre doctryne stondith not if this Doctour was not in this his newe seide sentence bigilid O Sone he berith him ful