Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A53931
|
A treatise proving Scripture to be the rule of faith writ by Reginald Peacock ... before the Reformation, about the year MCDL.
|
Pecock, Reginald, 1395?-1460?; Wharton, Henry, 1664-1695.
|
1688
(1688)
|
Wing P1043; ESTC R1772
|
67,273
|
88
|
Treatise which I now publish require me to descend lower and demonstrate that even in latter Ages it was the commonly received Opinion of the Church that Scripture is the Rule of Faith. And this alone will as evidently overthrow the Plea of Tradition as if the Consent of all Ages herein were demonstrated For since Tradition is the perpetual Succession of any Doctrine conveyed down in the Church by word of mouth from the Apostles to this present time if this Succession were in any Age whatsoever interrupted it can no more claim the Title of Tradition than if it had never been believed So that if it can be proved the Doctrine of Tradition being the Rule of Faith was in any Age of the Church disbelieved not only the proof of this Article from Tradition will fail but even the Article it self will appear to be evidently false For it is not possible that Tradition should be the Rule of Faith if that very Article that Tradition is the Rule of Faith were not delivered down by an uninterrupted succession of Belief for then it would not be the Rule of that very Article Besides it is absurd that the Church of any Age should have power of declaring what the Tradition of Faith is and consequently of fixing the Rule of Faith and yet be so far from being conscious of any such power inherent in her that she disbelieved it Not to say that if at any time Tradition was not believed by the Church to be the Rule of Faith and yet at the same time divers Articles of Faith were defined by the Church Tradition must necessarily ever since have ceased to be the Rule of Faith since otherwise all Definitions of the Church must indifferently be admitted made by her both when she followed and when she deviated from the Rule of Faith and consequently the Faith of all private Christians must be subjected to infinite uncertainty Now to prove that the Tradition of this Article was in any Age of the Church interrupted and discontinued it is not necessary that all members of the Church should then agree in the disbelief of it that no Doctors should believe Tradition to be the Rule of Faith or none maintain the Insufficiency of Scripture It is sufficient that some Divines of great name who lived and died in the Communion of the Church were ever held in great esteem both for Piety and Learning and never censured by the Church for any erroneous Opinions much less for Hereticks that some such I say disbelieved this Article and maintained Scripture to be the Rule of Faith. For if any such were then the contrary Opinion could not be the belief of the universal Church much less an Article of Faith. That there were such Doctors I shall immediately prove by producing their own Words and thereby demonstrate my intended purpose And not only so but farther shall therewith render it highly probable that it was the generally received Opinion of the Church at that time that Scripture not Tradition is the Rule of Faith by all those Arguments which a question of this Nature will admit I mean by the authority of the most eminent Writers and publick practice of the Church in Councils For it cannot be imagined that so many Learned Persons esteemed as it were the Oracles of their Times and Pillars of the Church should either be ignorant of the Doctrine of the Church touching the Fundamental Principle of Faith or if willfully opposing it should obtain or conserve to themselves so great a Reputation or that the General Councils of that time should in their Sessions and Disputations permit the Sufficiency of Scripture to be laid down as an uncontroverted Principle without giving some check to so grand an Error That the Church therefore in the fifteenth Age did generally believe the Scripture to be the Rule of Faith and contain all things necessary to Salvation may be evidently demonstrated from this Treatise which I now publish The Author of which was far the most Eminent and Learned Bishop of the Church of England in his time a person who as himself assures us had spent more than twenty years in writing Controversial Books against the Lollards when he composed this Treatise and who every where giveth manifest proof of his great Learning So eminent a person cannot be supposed to have been ignorant of the general Belief of the Church in his time concerning the Rule of Faith nor will his apparent zeal for the Interest of the Church permit us to believe that he wilfully opposed the Doctrine of the Church in whose Service he employed the greatest part of his life or that when he so zealously pleaded the Cause of the Church against the Lollards he should himself depart from the Church in her principal Article and therein become a Lollard Since therefore he plainly asserts and teacheth that Scripture is the Rule of Faith this undeniably proves that the belief of this Proposition was not in the time of our Author accounted any part of Lollardism or supposed Heresie but rather esteemed an Article of Catholick Belief at least an Article which might be freely disputed without violating the Definitions or dissenting from the universal Belief of the Church And indeed our Author in the beginning of this Discourse assureth us that the Doctors of his time disagreed in determining whether the Church or Scripture were chiefly to be respected in the resolution of Faith. One thing may be objected against the Authority of our Author That he was forced by the ruling Clergy to recant several Opinions and Doctrines taught by him as erroneous and consequently that he cannot be esteemed a Doctor of the Church But here not to say that the sentence of two or three partial Bishops for no more condemned him is not to be accounted the Judgment of the Church of England this very Recantation addeth no small strength to our Argument For when the malice of his Enemies obliged him to recant all those Doctrines which they esteemed to be erroneous they took no notice of his having asserted Scripture to be the only Rule of Faith nor obliged him to recant that Proposition a manifest Argument that it was not then accounted either heretical or erroneous or contrary to the received Doctrine of the Church since otherwise they would not have failed to place it in the front of his Recantation as an Error of an higher degree and greater contagion than any of those for which he stood condemned which in truth were so far from being Heresies that they were all at that time maintained by many eminent Divines who never were censured by the Church and some of them so far true that no Learned Man of the Church of Rome will at this day deny them And this also fully clears our Author from any suspicion of Lollardism or secret inclination to it That he was not singular herein defended no Paradox nor opposed any Doctrine of the Church I come next to prove The
true Church If the first way then it must first be known what are the true and genuine Doctrines of Christianity the stedfast belief of which causeth this Society to become the true Church But if the true Church be known only from some external Notes these Notes are either taught by Scripture or found out by the light of Reason If taught by Scripture then the knowledge of the Divine Authority of Scripture is antecedent to the knowledge of the true Church and consequently independent on it For otherwise Scripture will be believed for the Authority of the Church and the Church for the Authority of Scripture which is a manifest Circle Besides in this case that grand Article of Belief in the Holy Catholick Church will be received not from Tradition but from the Scripture and consequently Scripture not Tradition will be the primary Rule of Faith. Lastly if the Notes of the Church may be found out by Natural Reason then to pass by the infinite Contradictions which would arise from such a Proposition these Notes can be no other than Antiquity Universality Perpetuity and such like every one of which doth some way or other presuppose the knowledge of the true Doctrines of Christianity as well as those of the present Church For the end of these Notes is to compare the former with the latter and consequently both of them must be first known Lastly It can never be proved that Tradition was assigned by God as a Rule of Faith. For this proof must be taken either from the Scriptures or from Tradition Not from the first for not to say that Scripture is wholly silent in this matter such a supposition would destroy it self and involves a manifest Contradiction For if it be a Point of Faith that Tradition is the Rule of Faith and this Article is deduced and received only from Scripture then Scripture is the immediate Rule of one Article of Faith and the mediate Rule of all other Articles and consequently Tradition cannot be the Rule of Faith. No less absurd is it to imagine any Proof of this Article can be drawn from Tradition For we can never be assured the Tradition of this very Article is of Divine Authority and consequently infallible until we be first satisfied that God by assigning Tradition for a Rule of Faith conferred Divine Authority upon it which is the matter now in question Thus have I briefly pointed out some Arguments which prove that Tradition neither is nor can be the Rule of Faith. And indeed all Ages of Christianity have been so far satisfied of the truth of this that in all Controversies the Catholicks no less constantly appealed to Scripture than the Hereticks recurred to Tradition The pretence of Tradition is so easie and impossible to be refuted by the meaner Christians that no wonder if Hereticks always took this more compendious way when to pretend the Authority of Scripture would have been too palpable and too gross an impudence The Standard of written Truths continued always the same and could not be universally corrupted Whereas Tradition might securely be adapted to the most absurd and contrary Opinions since to effect that Design no more was required than the confidence or mistake of Hereticks pretending to have received their own Dreams and Errors as necessary Articles of Faith from their Forefathers Thus all the Hereticks of the three first Centuries when the true and genuine Tradition of the Church might much more easily be known than it can be at this day proposed their Heresies under the venerable name of Apostolick Traditions which pretence they carried on so far that they published the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Traditions of almost every Apostle and Apostolick Man wherein they committed to Writing those revealed Truths which they believed the Apostles to have preached and have left unwritten In vain should the Fathers and Writers of the Church have recurred to the true and genuine Tradition of unwritten Revelations since they could never demonstrate that this true Tradition was rather to be found among them than among those Hereticks For many of these Heretical Sects were contemporary with or began immediately after the Apostles were vastly numerous and scattered through the whole Church and consequently could put in so fair a claim for Tradition that no human wit could ever have determined the Question if the Scripture had not been called in and opposed to such unreasonable pretensions Accordingly Scripture was ever pleaded by the Catholicks and the pretence of unwritten Revelations derived down by oral Tradition was then esteemed as a Characteristick Note of Hereticks Thus S. Augustin and before him Clemens Alexandrinus complain of the Hereticks of their times Tertullian assures us it was the usual evasion of Hereticks to decline the Scriptures and flee to Tradition pretending that the Apostles published not the Gospel to all People nor committed all revealed Truths to Writing but delivered many Articles of Faith secretly to approved Men which Articles were no other than their own Heresies In the same manner the Hereticks opposed by S. Irenaeus were wont when urged with the Authority of Scripture and their perfect silence as to those Articles which they obtruded upon the World to plead the Imperfection of the Holy Scriptures that they were not intended by God as a Rule of Faith Because the Truth could not be learned from them by those who were ignorant of Tradition For that the Christian Faith was not delivered by Writing but by Word of Mouth or by Oral Tradition To produce but one Example more Eunomius the Heretick in his Apology extant in Manuscript in S. Martin's Library every where pleadeth the Tradition of precedent Ages and professeth to follow that as his only Rule of Faith. It is necessary saith he for those who treat of matters of Faith setting before them the holy Tradition which hath all along obtained from the times of the Fathers as a Rule and Canon to make use of this accurate Rule to judge of those things which shall be said Afterwards proposing his blasphemous Opinion about the Holy Ghost he introduceth it with this Preface Exactly following the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers and receiving it from them we believe c. This then was the Artifice and Practice of the ancient Hereticks What the Practice of the Catholick Fathers was in opposing these Hereticks or establishing any necessary Article of Faith that they accounted Scripture to be the only adequate Rule of Faith and to contain in express and plain words all things necessary to be believed that they rejected all Articles which could not be thence deduced as spurious and false or at least uncertain and unnecessary and always asserted the Sufficiency of Scripture I will not here insist to prove since that Point hath been so often handled and cleared by the Writers of our Church more particularly by Bishop Taylor to whom I remit the Reader My Design and the Age of that