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
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
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
the same no less manifestly when he teacheth That Man is bound explicitly to believe all the Articles of Faith but implicitly whatsoever is delivered in Holy Scripture Here he manifestly supposeth Scripture not Tradition to be the Rule of all Articles of Faith. Otherwise he was obliged by all the Laws of Reason to conclude that an implicit Belief not of all things delivered by Scripture but of all delivered by Tradition is required But the most considerable Testimony of Aquinas is yet behind For inquiring whether the Articles of Faith be conveniently disposed in the Creed he formeth this Objection against it It should seem that the Articles of Faith are inconveniently disposed in the Creed For Holy Scripture is the Rule of Faith to which it is unlawful either to add or to take away For it is said Deut. IV. Ye shall not add to the word which I speak unto you nor take away from it Therefore it was unlawful to compose another Creed in manner of a Rule of Faith after the Promulgation of the Rule of Faith. Here certainly if ever was a fair occasion presented to deny Scripture to be the Rule of Faith. But Aquinas is so far from doing it that he allows it and endeavours to prove that the Composure of a Creed doth not necessarily include either any Addition to or diminution from Scripture For thus he answers To this Objection it is to be answered that the truth of Faith is diffusively contained in Holy Scriptures and divers ways and in some places obscurely so that to collect the true Faith out of Scripture a long Study and Exercise is required to which all those cannot arrive who are necessarily obliged to believe the truth of Faith since many of them taken up with other business cannot attend to study Therefore it was necessary that somewhat manifest should summarily be collected out of the sentences of Holy Scripture which might be proposed to all to be believed which indeed was not added to Holy Scripture but rather taken out of Holy Scripture I have used the greater diligence in representing the Doctrine of Aquinas because he beareth not a single Testimony but carrieth a numerous train of School Divines along with him I proceed now to the Writers of the fifteenth Age contemporary to our Author premising only the Authority of a Learned and Judicious Canonist of the precedent Age. This was Marsilius Patavinus Professor at Padua and Privy Counsellor to Lewis the Emperor who asserteth That we are bound to believe the Pope and Bishops to have received such a Power and Authority from Christ as we can evince from the Words of Scripture was conferred on them and no other But he more plainly afterwards decides the Question when he layeth down this Proposition To no Speech or Writing are we bound to give certain faith and credence or acknowledge them to be true upon pain of damnation except to those which are called Canonical that is which are contained in the Volume of the Bible In the beginning of the fifteenth Age the Council of Constance was held which as Aeneas Sylvius assureth us founded all their Decrees and Definitions upon the Authority of Holy Scripture The most eminent Divine in that Council and indeed of all Christendom at that time was Iohn Gerson Chancellor of Paris who by the unanimous Delegation of all the Bishops drew up the Decrees of the Council a person of that Eminence and Repute that by reason of the known Conformity between his Opinions and the received Doctrines of the Church he was usually styled The most Christian Doctor and when the Bohemians declined the Authority of the Council Cardinal Zabarella could oppose no Argument to them more plausible than the Reputation and Fame of Gerson To find out therefore the received Opinion of the Church in his time he ought in the first place to be consulted Thus then he delivers his Opinion Holy Scripture is the Rule of Faith against which rightly understood no authority or reason of any Man whatsoever is to be admitted Neither is any Custom Constitution or Observation valid if it be proved to be contrary to Holy Scripture This Rule is a common Foundation both to us and those Hereticks against whom I now dispute He was then disputing against the Bohemians the Followers of Husse and Wicliff whom all know to have asserted Scripture to be the Rule of Faith. In another place he hath these words In examining Doctrines it must be first and principally inquired whether the Doctrine be conformable to Holy Scripture as well in it self as in its circumstances This is manifest from the authority of S. Dionysius who pronounceth thus We must not dare to teach any thing of Divine Matters except what is delivered to us in Holy Scripture Of which the Reason is this because Scripture was delivered to us as a sufficient and infallible Rule for the Government of the whole Body of the Church and the members of it even to the end of the World. Scripture therefore is an Art a Rule and a Copy of that Nature that any other Doctrine not conformable to it is either to be rejected as heretical or suspected or at least to be esteemed no part of Religion nor belonging to it Every Revelation is suspected which the Law and the Prophets with the Gospel do not confirm Otherwise they are rather to be esteemed the Delusions of Devils or rather the Capricio's of Mens Brains than Revelations To such Idiots that saying of Christ may justly be objected Ye err not knowing the Scriptures But some will say From the beginning of the Gospel to this day some wholesom Doctrines are found in the Mouths and Writings of Men which the Holy Scripture doth not contain I answer that Scripture contains them all according to some degrees of Catholick Truths Lastly disputing of those Articles of Faith which are necessary to be believed he determines thus It is maniâ—est that the Canon of the Bible is the whole revealed Law of God whose Literal Assertions are founded upon this one only literal Principle At the same time Nicolas Clemangis Doctor of the Sorbon was held in great repute for his extraordinary Learning and Piety who treating of the Rule of Faith and Authority of General Councils placeth the first in Scripture and denieth the latter to be infallible in these words But although the Authority of the Church Militant be very great which founded upon a firm Rock cannot be shaken and against which the Gates of Hell shall never be able to prevail yet we ought not as it should seem to ascribe to it the Titles of the Church Triumphant as that it is infallible and impeccable which as you know often both doth deceive and is deceived It seemeth indeed very odd that any one should prefer the Authority of the Church Militant to the Authority of the Gospel whenas the Church may err in many things the Gospel cannot in
this being once granted viz. That it may be evidently deduced from the proper Principles of Faith that is from the Holy Scriptures This manner of Disputation in defending the Article then in question sufficiently manifests that the pretence of Oral Tradition however entertained by some private Men had yet gained no general applause in the Western Church From Councils I return to private Writers but those of so great Repute and Authority that their Opinion can be esteemed no other than the general Doctrine of the Church at that time Of these I shall produce only two more Cardinal Panormitan and Antoninus Archbishop of Florence the first accounted by all the greatest Canonist of his Age and by many the greatest of all Ages and which is more considerable who had been to the Council of Basil what Gerson was to that of Constance an Oracle and Dictator the second a person of so great Authority in the Church that in the Judgment of Pope Nicolas he deserved to be Sainted whilst alive and was really Sainted when dead Panormitan therefore proposeth his Opinion in these words In Matters pertaining to Faith a Council is above the Pope Yet I suppose that if the Pope were induced with better Reasons and Authorities than the Council that his Determination were rather to be embraced For a Council also can err as it hath sometimes erred For in matters relating to Faith even the opinion of one private Man were to be preferred to the Determination of the Pope if he were induced with better Reasons of the Old and New Testament than the Pope Here Panormitan not only asserteth the Old and New Testament to be the Rule of Faith but also allows to every private Man a power of interpreting that Rule and even of rejecting the Definitions of Popes and Councils if he thinks them not consonant to it Antoninus hath transcribed those words into his Summ of Divinity and proposeth them as his own Opinion And not only so but also in another place declareth his Judgment no less plainly in these words God speaketh in the Scriptures and so fully as S. Gregory explaineth in the twenty second Book of his Morals upon Job that it is not necessary God should any other way reveal any thing necessary to us since all things necessary may be had there After so many and so great Authorities it cannot reasonably be doubted what was the general Belief of the Church in that Age touching the Rule of Faith I mean not that then the Sufficiency of the Scripture was asserted by all and denied by none but only that it was maintained by the greater and more considerable part of the Church as the Practice of General Councils and Positions of the most famous Writers of that Age do manifestly evince Many indeed had for some Ages before asserted the existence of some necessary Articles not contained in Scripture but conveyed down to us by Tradition only but they equalled not the Followers of the former Opinion either in number or Reputation And therefore Occam in the preceding Age representing the Arguments and Reasons of both Opinions proposeth that of the Sufficiency of Scripture in the first place as the most common and more generally received Opinion and Ioannes de Neapoli a Dominican and Doctor of the Sorbon disputing of the Science of Faith doth all along suppose that whole Science to be contained in Scripture and lest we should doubt of his Opinion doth in more than one place positively assert it Not to say that Nicolas de Lyra in his Glosses upon the whole Bible doth every where suppose it and in his general Preface most expresly maintain it And of what Repute his Gloss was formerly in the Church of Rome may appear from that vast number of Manuscript Copies of them which may be found in our ancient Libraries But I will not any longer insist upon the Writers of this Age having intended to confine my Discourse to the fifteenth Age the general Belief of which concerning the Rule of Faith I have already manifested It remains that I say somewhat more particular of the Treatise here published and of the Author of it He was born in Wales and bred in Oriel College in Oxford where he was created Doctor of Divinity and obtained a great esteem for his rare Eloquence and extraordinary Learning He was soon taken notice of by that great Patron and Protector of Learning and Virtue Humphrey Duke of Glocester at that time Protector of the Kingdom by whose Favour he was promoted to the Bishoprick of S. Asaph in the year 1444 translated to Chichester in the year 1450. His singular Learning appears not only from this Discourse which if put into modern English would appear to the meanest Reader both rational and elegant but also from many other plain and manifest Indications He had read the Works of the Fathers with no small care and diligence and as it should seem from what he says upon the Article of Christ's Descent into Hell had made Critical Observations on them far beyond the Genius and vulgar Learning of that Age. He was not unacquainted with the Genuine Epistles of Ignatius and in the first Part of that Work whereof this Treatise makes the second citeth the Acts of his Martyrdom writ by his contemporary Philo and published in this Age by the Learned Bishop Vsher. As his Learning enabled him so his Zeal prompted him to write divers Books of Controversie in defence of the Church against the supposed Hereticks of that time the Lollards whom he endeavoured by all means possible to reduce into the Communion of his Church to which Work as it should seem from divers Passages in the first part he had dedicated his whole Life He mentions many of them in this Work which are these The just apprising of holi Scripture The just apprising of Doctours Of faith in Latyn Of Presthode The Donet The folower to the Donet The Represser The forcrier The book of Cristen Religion The provoker The book of signis in the Church clepid also the boke of Worschiping The boke of Leernyng The boke of filling the IV. Tablis This present book of Feith Of the Churche in Latyn Beside these already mentioned Bale reckons up The Defender The Follower of it The Declaratory Of the Creed To Godharde the Franciscan Of Divine Offices A Manual Of the Providence of God. Of the Liberty of the Gospel Of the Power of Seculars Against Constantines Donation Of the equality of Ministers Of the Laws and Doctrines of Men. Of Communion under both kinds Against unlawful Begging An Account of his own Recantation The greatest part of these Books are lost being studiously suppressed by his Enemies and also burnt at his Recantation However I have seen his Represser in a fair Manuscript in the publick Library of the University of Cambridge in Quarto It is intituled The Repressour of over much blaming the Clergy wherein he passeth through
derides their folly This denial of Infallibility moderation towards the Lollards and disesteem of Legends drew upon him the envy and hatred of the Clergy to which may be added his favour with and faithful adherence to his Patron Duke Humphrey who had always manifested a moderation towards the dissenting Lollards and aversion from the superstitious practices of the Clergy No sooner was the Duke oppressed by a contrary State Faction but his Client the Bishop was attempted and his ruin designed Several Passages were taken out of his Writings which his Enemies accused of Heresie at least of Error Hereupon in the year 1457. he was cited to appear at a Synod held at Lambeth by Thomas Bourchier Archbishop of Canterbury attended with the Bishops of Winchester Lincoln and Rochester and 24 Divines by whom after a short hearing he was condemned of Heresie and injoyned to recant his heretical and erroneous Opinions publickly at S. Paul's Cross. The Recantation he performed on the fourth day of December when his Books were also publickly burnt His Fortunes after that time are very uncertain Some relate him to have been made away in prison others to have been kept prisoner in his own Episcopal Palace until his natural death and lastly some that he had a small pension assigned to him out of the Revenues of the Bishoprick and retired into a Monastery where he ended his days in a short time The Opinions which he was forced to recant as they are represented by Bale Bishop Godwin and Fox are these I. That it is the Office of a Christian Bishop before all other things to preach the Word of God. II. That human Reason is not to be preferred to the Holy Scripture III. That the modern use of the Sacraments as attended with so many superstitious Ceremonies and Customs was lâ—ss advantageous than the use of the Law of Nature IV. That Bishops buying their Admissions of the Bishop of Rome do sin V. That no man is bound to believe and obey the Determination of the Church of Rome VI. That the Revenues of Bishops are by Inheritance the Goods of the Poor VII That the Apostles composed not the vulgar Creed VIII That the Article of Christ's Descent into Hell was not formerly in the Creed IX That no other sense is to be attributed to Holy Scripture but the first and genuine sense X. That it is not necessary to Salvation to believe the Body of Christ is materially in the Sacrament XI That the Universal Church in a General Council may err even in Matters of Faith. XII That it is not necessary to believe in the Holy Catholick Church XIII That it is not necessary to believe the Communion of Saints XIV That the voluntary begging of the Mendicant Friars was unprofitable and no ways meritorious It must not be imagined that these Articles were generally at that time accounted erroneous and heretical in the Church For if we examine them we shall find that many of them were taught and believed by the greatest Divines of the Church at that time some at this day allowed to be literally true by the Learned Writers of the Church of Rome and in fine that our Author knew the Doctrine of the Church far better than his Judges and although condemned by them was no less Orthodox than they As for the twelfth and thirteenth Articles which seem to be most odious they are meer Calumnies as appears from this very Treatise For towards the end of it he acknowledgeth it to be necessary to believe the existence of the Holy Catholick Church and of the Communion of Saints but yet unnecessary to believe on them that is as himself explains it to give a blind assent to all their Determinations The seventh and eighth Articles are known to be literally true by all Learned Men. For no proof can be brought that the Apostles composed this Form of Creed which we now use and it is most certain that the Article of Christ's Descent into Hell was found in none of the Ancient Creeds for the first 400. years except in that of the Church of Aquileia The first second sixth and ninth Articles if candidly interpreted cannot be denied to be true by any sober Romanist and whosoever considers the gross Ignorance and Superstition of those times will not deny the third The fourth Article may be justified by the Opinion of many great Canonists who define all such payments to be Symony and the Church of France hath all along decried and disapproved them The fourteenth was defended by Richard Archbishop of Arniagh Gulielmus de S. Amore and many other great Divines of the Church of Rome The eleventh and consequently the fifth Articles were believed and maintained by Occant Peter de Alliaco Cardinal of Cambray Thomas Waldensis Panormitan Antoninus Cardinal Cusanus Clemangis and many others in this Age. Lastly the tenth Article may be defended from Peter Lombard Peter de Alliaco Scotus Tonstal Bishop of Durham and others who believed indeed the Truth of the Article but denied it to be necessary to be believed That Treatise which I here publish and which gave occasion to the present Discourse was by me transcribed out of a Manuscript extant in Trinity College in Cambridge which seemeth to have been written with Bishop Peacock's own hand as may be conjectured from the frequent Emendations and Additions inserted in the Margin and bottom of the Pages by the same hand The whole Work was intituled by the Author A Treatise of Faith however in the Front of it this Title is affixed by a later hand Reginald Peacock Bishop of Chichester 's Sermons in English whereas the whole Treatise is a Dialogue between the Father and the Son divided into two Books whereof the first proposeth to treat of the most probable means of reducing the Lollards to the Church which he assigns to be an intire submission of Judgment to the Decrees of the Church although supposed fallible The second treateth of the Rule of Faith. The first Part is chiefly taken up with a long Digression proving that Faith is only probable not sciential or that the Truth of the Christian Religion cannot be proved by demonstrative but only by probable Arguments This Dispute is managed in a Scholastick Way full of Subtleties and Niceties of Philosophy and School Divinity and very obscure which therefore I thought not worthy either my transcribing or the Readers perusal However I transcribed some considerable Fragments or Excerpta which seemed to me more remarkable and worthy of notice which I here present to the Reader The second Book or Treatise of the Rule of Faith I have published intire as far as the Manuscript Copy permitted me For which is much to be lamented some few Leaves were wanting in the end Besides what I have already mentioned many things may be here found worthy a particular Observation as with how great ardor he impugns the refusal of
and Mark in ther last Chapitris and ben to be denied And this wise sufficient answere is maad to the second and to the third principal argumentis togidere For answere to the fourth principal argument thou schalt undirstonde that Paul seith ad Ephes. ch IV. thus Oon is the Lord oon feith and oon Baptim And yitt the baptim of this man here in Ynglond is not the same baptym in being and in kinde which is the baptym of anothere man in Fraunce For ech man as he is dyvers in being fro ech othere man so his baptim and his sacramental waisching is dyvers in being fro ech othere mannys baptim and waisching in water Nevertheles this baptim of this man in Ynglond is oon in significacioun and in representacioun with ech othere mannys baptim in Fraunce Forwhi alle the baptims and sacramenten are oon thing which is this as Poul seith Rom. c. That ech man owith be deed and biried to alle synnys and rise into a new lyf in clennes of vertu Also in lyk maner the Chirche of Ynglond is oon Chirche with the Chirche of Fraunce but hou certis not in being in kinde and in substaunce Forwhi the peple being here is not the peple being there But thei ben oon in reputacioun of auctorite of feith of power and of jurisdictioun That is to seie for the oon of these Chirchis hath lyk power and juresdictioun to the othere goven to them fro God. And in lyk maner it is to be undirstonde whanne it is seid that the Chirche whiche now is is the same Chirche which was this same tyme a thousind wintre or which was in the daies of the Apostlis or that the Chirche of God is alwei oon not in being or in kinde or substaunce Forwhi the peple is not now and thanne oon neither alwey oon but oon in reputacioun And not in al maner reputacioun but in reputacioun of lyk feith and of lyk power and of lyk jurisdiâ—â—ioun goven fro God. But certis open it is to ech mannys resoun that thoug the Chirche nowe lyvyng be in this seid maner of reputacioun the same Chirche whiche the Apostlis weren yitt it nedith not to folowe that this Chirche nowe lyvyng hath like moche kunnyng and power for to witnes oure feith as hadde the Chirche which the Apostlis weren Neither it folowith that this Chirche now lyvyng hath more kunning and power forto witnesse than hath the writing of the newe testament forto so witnesse thoug it were so that the Chirche of the Apostlis hadde kunnyng and power forto so more witnesse And al herfore For this Chirche is not the same Chirche in kinde in being and in substaunce with the othere seid Chirch rigt as these pesoonys be not tho persoonys And thilk Chirche had informacioun of the feith bi heering the Apostlis and the Evaungelistis whiche the Chirche now being hath not but so sechith aftir forto have bi reding in the writing of the Apostlis and Evangelistis And so Sone if thou woldist this argument if it were maad to thee this Chirche now lyvyng and the Chirche of the Apostlis weren oon in the seid reputacioun Therefore as the Apostlis weren in this degree of holi lyvyng and mygten do myraclis sâ—eke with dyvers tungis and write a new testament and witnesse that thei sawe Crist do and suffre and herd him teche so this Chirche now being is lyk holi and may do lyk greet myraclis may speke with dyverse tungis and write a newe testament and witnesse that he sige Crist do and suffre and herde him teche Even so in lyk maner thou schalt be moved forto deme thin owne fourth principal argument that it make no folowing which argument is this The present Chirche is alwey oon and the same with the Chirche of the Apostlis Wherfore as the Chirche of the Apostlis groundid the feith more than Scripture it groundith therfore the Chirche which now is groundith more our feith than Scripture it groundith Hou ever it be of the conclusioun or of the consequent of the argument which conclusioun or consequent whether it be trewe or no schal be tretid in the boke of the Chirche in Latin. And ferthemore Sone thoug thou woldist putte a successive aggregate of alle the Apostlis and of alle Cristen Men whiche ever weren ben and schulen be to be the Chirche of Crist and therfore that there is alwey thoroug al tymes oon and the same Chirche in aggregate being kinde and substaunce yitt herof folowith not that hou ever kunnyng holi mygti and worthi this aggregat was in eny time bifore in hise parties passid so kunnyng holi mygti and worthi this aggregat is now in hise parties now being no more than folowith if the successive aggregate mygte as he was thanne in hise parties passid do myraclis that the same aggregat may do now as he is in hise parties now being no more than it folowith if Ynglond sumtyme mygte make such a conquest therfore he schal be ever a power forto make lyke greet conquest And therfore Sone if thi fourth argument be maad in this wise the hool successive aggregat of Clerkis is now which was in the tyme of the Apostlis but in thilk this aggregat was a worthier witnesser of oure feith than was Scripture therfore so is this aggregat now Certis this argument is not worth For he concludith and makith no folowing Nevertheles Sone for to putte and holde such a successive aggregate in kinde in propirte without figurative speche is agens good Philosophie and therfore agens good resoun and agens trouthe as ful wel mygte be provyd if this place were according to trete such mater But whilis the putting and the holding therof hurtith not my present entent y wole here lete the treting therof passe undir suffraunce For answere to thi fifth principal argument thou schalt undirstonde that scripture of the newe testament is not thorug ech party of him lyk in auctorite in worthines and in dignite For whi summe parties of Scripture techen to us feith summe techen to us lawe of kinde and of natural resoun as the text in it silf wel schewith and Austyn witnessith the same Nevertheles this that Crist taugt thilk lawe of kinde and of resoun wherof it is writen in holi writte that Crist them taugte is feith For whi this that he so taugt them cannot be leerned and found bi mannys resoun without therof a teller and a denouncer Summe parties of the seid scripture techen to us positive ordinauncis of Crist as ben the sacramentis and sum partie therof techen to us ordinauncis of sum Apostle as the lawe of bigamie and that a woman vowe not chasâ—ite bifore the sixtieth yeer of hir age Now Sone thoug the Clergie that now is and thoug the Pope that now is may dispense with it that the Scripture techith us the ordinaunre of an Apostle and may revoke it as he
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