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
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
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
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
comyng and of his incarnacioun and of the cause whi he came And longe tyme minethis mygte suffice for to bringe the peple into consent and bileeve of these fewe Feithis Also scolers in ech kinde of scole schulden not be oppressid in the bigynnyng of ther scole with overmanye maters to be mynistrid to them at oonys or suddenli or oversoone And therfore a good while bi yeeris scolers in the scole of cristendoom herden peces mele the Feith prechid eer the hool summe and birden therof was delyvered to them bi writing And thus myche for answer to thi first questioun If it be trewe that Joon the Evangelist wrote his Gospel eer than it is seid that he wrote and so that he wrote his Gospel bifore his comyng from exile as therto may be hadde greet motyve bi the writyng is of Seynt Denis Areopagite bi cause Joon hadde writen his Gospels eer Denys wrote hise bookis Thanne answere to the secunde questioun may be this Right as what is necessarie to a comonute is to be purveid fore so what is waast and comberose and chargeose to a comonute is to be left of and to be avoidid And for as much as whanne Mathew Mark Luk and Joon haden writen the othere Apostlis sithen these writingis and sithen these writingis were sufficient to expresse the comyng of Crist the birth of Crist the lyvyng of Crist the teching of Crist and therfore the othere Apostlis wolden not as for the same maters combre the peplis wittis with eny more writingis therupon And that what oon Apostle or a Disciple wrote alle the othere Apostlis and Disciplis knewen We mowe take mark bi this that Petir in his Epistil the laste knowlechith that he wiste of Poulis writing and bi a greet liklihode he knewe what the othere writers wroten and bi as myche greet liklihood Poul wist what Petir wrote and what ech othere writer wrote and therfore he himsilf wrote noon Gospel but helde him content with the Gospels writen of othere Namelich siithen Luk was felowe to Poul in mych of alle Poulis labouris and therfore to Poul mygte not be straunge and unwist the writing of Luk. And also that it was not to Poul unknown it seemeth wel herbi For in the first Epistle to Corinthies the XI ch Poul rehercith the processe of Luk the XXII ch wel nyg word bi word And thus myche Sone for answere to thi II. questioun To thi III. questioun y answere thus The Apostlis knewe wee l as thei mygten wel knowe bi resoun that the writyng of oure general Feith wole serve like wele to peple of each cuntre as to peple of oon cuntre and thei wisten that the oon same writyng mygte and schulde renne from oon cuntre into anothere cuntre like as Poul in his Epistle to the Colociens biddith that thilk same Epistle schulde be radde to the peple which ben callid Laodocenses And therfore it was no nede to make to dyverse cuntrees dyverse writingis in this wise dyvers that thei schulden conceyve dyverse maters thoug the writing of oon and the same mater mygte be writen or translatid into dyverse langagis And thus is the III. questioun assoiliâ— Fadir y perceyve wel hou ye hav declarid ful wel that what was taken to prove the seid II. premysse in the first principal argument is untrewe and therfore it is to be denyed But ye hav not answerid to the argumentis for the prof of it what was so taken in to the prof of the same seid II. premysse Therfore Fadir answere ye to them Sone the first argument bifore maad for prof of it what was taken to prove the seid II. premysse goith upon processis and textis of the oold Testament whiche prove no thing the entent whitherto thou bringist them in thine argument For whi tho textis wole no more than this that God wolde the oold Lawe and the oold Feith be leerned bi heering of word But certis herof folowith not that God wolde or meened it to be leerned so and in lyk maner sufficientli And therfore the textis hurten not myn entent neither thei proven the entent wherfore thou brougtist them forth into thin argument Also the contrarie that is to seie that God meened thilk leernyng bi word herd was not sufficient to the Clergie therynne and to the peple thanne apperith wel bi this that God bede the oold Lawe to be writen and forto so bidde had be yvel and in veyn if the teching and the leernyng of the same Lawe bi word oonli hadde be sufficient To the II. argument maad into the same entent y answere thus Thoug a fewe usagis and customes in monestaries mowe be born in mynde without writing hou schulde therof folowe that so long a tale as is the storie of the IV. Gospels mygte be born in mynde bi leerning of word without therof eny writing That this schulde folowe hath no colour and therfore thilk argument is ligt to be in this now seid maner answered and assioiled CAP. III. FAdir agens you metith this that the Feith which was in the beginning of the world and was contynued forth into the daies of Moyses was not writen For whi Moyses which was aftir the beginnyng of the world bi XX. hundrid yeeris wrote the book of Genesis and it is seid comounli he wrote it bi inspiracioun and bi such propheci wherbi thingis passid ben knowen above power to knowe them bi kinde and yitt thilke Feith was a long tale and a long storie as is opene be the book of Genesis with rehercels ful hard to mynde upon generaciouns of persoonys and upon the names of persoonys Wherfore it seemeth that as wel the stories of the Gospels mygte have be sufficientli taugt of the Apostlis and have be leerned of the othere Clergie and of the peple without writing Sone if thou or eny othere man ellis were sikir or hadde eny greet liklihood herto and gretter than to the contrarie that there was no writing of the Feith in the eldist tyme fro the bigynnyng of the world into the flood of Noe and fro thennes into the writing of Moyses thin argument were stronge But certis noon such sikirnes neither eny such liklihood to the contrarie is had For whi soon aftir the flood of Noe there was leernyng of the VII Sciencis and writing therof maad in II. pilers oon of brass and another of erthe and also in the same tyme there was leernyng and writing of Whicchecraft or of Nycromancie as the Maistir of Stories writith in the Chapiter of the Toure of Babel And if worldli men in that tyme were so bisi in worldli leernyng and writing it is not to be trowid but lyk bisi were summe of manye goostli men in leernyng and writing of goostli maters perteyning to the Feith and the servyce of God and to the eend wherto man was maad Wherfore it is more likli that in tho dais soone aftir the
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
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