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
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
the least and the Authority of the Church it self as to the Ground and Foundation of it is chiefly deduced from the Gospel Nay the very Institution Power and Edification of the Church can no way so expresly and certainly be known as from the Gospel But as I imagin it can by no method be so certainly determined whether the Church or the Gospel be of greater Authority as by supposing this Case when the Church defineth any thing contrary to the Gospel I know indeed that this cannot be This is to be understood of the Belief and received Doctrine of the Universal Church not of the Decrees of the Representative Church Otherwise Clemangis will most foolishly contradict himself However that we may the better find out the truth let us put this Case Do you imagin that in that case S. Augustin would have rejected the Doctrine of the Gospel and adhered to the Definition of the Church No surely Where he proceeds at large to urge this Argument and thereby to assert the Superiority of the Scriptures Authority to that of the Church Before the middle of this Century flourished Thomas Waldensis Provincial of the Carmelites and Confessor to two Kings of England Henry V. and Henry VI. successively generally accounted the most Learned English Man of his Age and the great Champion of the Papal Cause against the Lollards and other supposed Hereticks of his time against whom he writ a large and elaborate Work which was in a particular manner confirmed and approved by a special Bull of Pope Martin V. Therein proposing an intire System of Divinity he layeth down the Sufficiency of Scripture as a most certain Principle in three whole Chapters out of which I will produce some few Passages Disputing therefore of all Articles necessary to be believed and the complete System of Christian Faith he useth these words They who yet believe the Canon of Scripture to be imperfect and that it may yet be augmented by the Authority of the Church do yet with the Iews expect the fulness of time perhaps under a Iewish Messias He then takes notice of that famous Passage of S. Augustin I would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Catholick Church perswaded me And giveth this Answer to it I do not approve the arrogance of some Writers who upon occasion of this place maintain the Decrees of Bishops in the Church to be of greater Weight Authority and Dignity than is the Authority of the Scriptures Which indeed seemeth not so foolish as mad unless such an one would say Philip were greater than Christ when he induced Nathanael to believe that Christ was he of whom Moses writ in the Law and the Prophets although without his Authority or Admonition he would not have at that time perceived it All Ecclesiastical Authority since it serveth only to bear testimony of Christ and of his Laws is of less Dignity than the Laws of Christ and must necessarily submit to the Holy Scriptures Well therefore did S. Thomas Aquinas allegorize when he introduced the Samaritan Woman to represent the universal Church which Woman when the Citizens of Samaria heard preaching Christ they were induced to believe on him c. This Passage clearly represents to us the Opinion of Waldensis to have been that by the attestation of the Church the Divine Authority of the Scripture is known which being once known all matters of Belief and Articles of Faith are to be learned from the Scripture just as Philip induced Nathanael and the Samaritan Woman her Neighbours to believe Christ to be a Divine Person of the truth of which when once satisfied they learned not the Rules of Life or Articles of Faith from Philip or the Woman but received both from Christ himself And therefore Waldensis subjoyns That the Authority of the Scripture is far superior to the Authority of all Doctors even of the whole Catholick Church and that although the Catholick Church should attest and confirm their Authority that the Authority of all latter Men following the Apostles and Churches ought to be submitted to the Authority of the holy Canon even to its Footstool That the former is subjected to the latter as a Witness to a Iudge and a testimony to the truth as a promulgation to a Law and as an Herald to a King. As a testimony therefore is no farther to be regarded than as it is true a promulgation invalid when it either increaseth or mutilates the Law and an Herald not to be obeyed when he exceeds the Commission of the King so the Decrees Definitions and Doctrines of the Church are no longer to be respected than as they are exactly conformable to the Scripture and deduced from it Upon this account Waldensis teacheth in the next Chapter That the Church cannot superadd any new Articles of Faith to the Scripture and that the Faith from the times of John the Evangelist who writ the last Book of Scripture receiveth no increase And therefore applieth to the Books of Canonical Scripture the measure of the new City of God made by the Angel in the XXI Chapter of the Revelations That as the circuit of that City consisted of so many miles neither more nor less so the whole System of Christian Faith and Divine Revelations is completed and contained in so many Books of Scripture and can receive no farther Addition Lastly shewing how many ways the Knowledge of the Catholick Truth may be attained he saith It may be obtained best of all and most certainly from the Canonical Scripture He proceeds to prove this from the Authority of S. Augustin and then concludes See four ways of coming to the undoubted Truth but more or less certain of which the first and most certain is by the Holy Scriptures the rest begetting only an Historical and uncertain knowledge of the Articles of Religion However these Doctors already mentioned were of great authority and sufficiently declare the common Doctrine of the Church in their time yet the practice and judgment of General Councils will give us greater assurance of it Two General Councils were held at the same time in this Age the one at Basil the other at Florence In both together the whole Western Church was present by its Representatives and in that of Florence the Eastern also These two Councils indeed thundered out Excommunications one against the other yet both agreed in using Scripture as the Rule of their Definitions and in all Disputations laid that down as a common uncontroverted Principle I begin with the Council of Basil wherein Iohannes de Ragusio a Learned Dominican by the appointment of the Bishops disputed publickly in the year 1433. against the Bohemians about Communion under both kinds Here magnifying the Authority of the Church he urgeth this Argument chiefly that without the Attestation of the Church the Divine Authority of the Scripture cannot be known and consequently that the Authority of the Church is antecedent to the knowledge even
of the Rule of Faith and therefore the first Principle of the Christian Religion For thus he argues But that the aforesaid Article the existence of one holy Catholick Church is the first of all others into which all others are resolved is manifest For if any doubt arise concerning any other Articles recourse is immediately made by common consent to the Holy Scripture as to a most certain and invariable Rule and according to the Testimony of Scripture the Truth is cleared and all Doubts removed For unless the Existence of the Church be known Scripture hath no Authority Whether this Argument be valid and conclusive concerns not my present purpose It is sufficient that he assumes this Proposition Scripture is the Rule of Faith as an undoubted Principle common to both Parties However if by a Church in this place he meant no more than a Society of credible Persons whose unanimous attestation of a matter of Fact ought to be received the Argument will be good and valid And that he meant no more I am induced to believe because immediately after disputing of the Authority of a Church properly so called he acknowledgeth the proof of this Article is to be taken from Holy Scripture However these words cannot infer the Doctrine at this day received in the Church of Rome since they expresly assert the Scripture to be the Rule and Judge of all Articles of Faith saving this one of the Existence of the Church and attribute to the Church no more than the power of bringing us to the knowledge of the Scripture which thenceforward is to be used as our only Rule and Guide He proceeds to lay down several Suppositions as Foundations and Postulates of his subsequent Determinations Of these the sixth is conceived in these words Faith and all things necessary to Salvation as well Matters of Belief as of Practice are founded in the literal sense of Holy Scripture and from thence only may Arguments be drawn to prove those things which are of Faith and of necessity to Salvation The seventh Supposition is this Holy Scripture in the literal sense well and soundly understood is the infallible and most sufficient Rule of Faith. This he doth not only suppose but also proveth with divers Arguments of which the second is this If Holy Scripture were not a sufficient Rule of Faith it would follow that the Holy Ghost who is the Author of it had insufficiently delivered it which is by no means to be thought of God all whose works are perfect Besides if Holy Scripture were deficient in some things necessary to Salvation then those things which are wanting might lawfully and meritoriously be superadded from some other Principle or if any things were superfluous in it they might lawfully be diminished But this is forbidden by S. John the Evangelist in the last of the Revelations where he saith If any one add to this Book c. From which words of John the Evangelist it is clearly proved that nothing is deficient or superfluous in Holy Scripture which is also consentaneous to the Author of it who is the Holy Ghost as was before said to whose Omnipotence it agreeth that he give us a System of Wisdom neither deficient nor superfluous and that he should deliver it in a method agreeable to our necessity of Salvation In the Council of Florence however the Greeks and Latins differed in all other things till the former were forced into a complyance by the Commands and Threats of their Emperor yet in this they agreed in laying down Scripture to be the only Rule and Principle of Faith although they dissented in determining how far it might be explained by the Church The Controversie was occasioned by the addition of FILIOQVE to the Nicene Creed this the Greeks maintained to be unlawful because the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is not in express Terms taught in Scripture which they held to be the only Rule of Faith. The Latins denyed not this but only asserted that it was sufficient this procession was taught in the Scripture in implicit Terms the Church having authority by explanation of those obscure Passages to constitute Articles necessary to be believed and add them to the Creed although but implicitly contained in Holy Scripture the Rule of Faith and consequently that to insert FILIOQVE in the Creed was no addition to the Faith since that Article is implicitly contained in Holy Scripture The Opinion of the Greeks is thus represented by Bessarion Archbishop of Nice who was chosen by the Greeks to manage and defend their Cause We derive and receive all Articles of Faith from the Fountains of Holy Scriptures which are the Principles and Foundations of our Faith. Nothing was ever added to them accounted necessary to be believed which is not contained in them nor may any thing ever be added to them neither by us while we are our selves nor by any other Christians And when the Latins recurred to their wonted refuge of Explanation or Declaration made by the Church of what is implicitly contained in Scripture Bessarion replyed That it is undeniable that although any thing were added by way of Declaration it was still an addition which seemeth to be forbidden and consequently the addition of this word FILIOQVE is forbidden But whereas ye alledge the Actions of the Fathers in Councils wherein some things seem to be thus explained this reacheth not our Question For that any thing should be added to the Faith it never was nor ever will be lawful The Bishop of Friuli was chosen by the Latins to answer the Arguments of Bessarion and defend the addition of the word FILIOQVE This he doth not by denying Scripture to be the Rule of Faith but endeavouring to prove that the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son might be deduced from the Principles of Faith viz. from the Holy Scriptures Ye grant saith he that Articles of Faith are taken from the fountain of Scriptures which are the Principles of Faith. From this Proposition we infer that a Declaration Expression and Explication which is made concerning an Article of Faith or of the Creed by the Writings of the Gospel the Epistles of Paul and the Booke of the Old and New Testament is by no means to be accounted extraneous or a Doctrine of another kind since it is the Doctrine of God and of the Church For then only is a proof to be accounted extraneous when it is made not by the proper Principles of that Doctrine but by the Principles of some other kind of Science As if a Physical Conclusion should be proved by a Mathematical Principle But according to you the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the Principles of Faith. Therefore a Proof and Declaration which is made by these Scriptures is plainly made by the proper Principles of Faith and intrinsecal Principles of our Religion Yea this ought not properly to be called an addition
without eny writyng to be maad therupon The seconde Argument is this If it had be done in dede as is next above argued that it mygte so have be doon that is to seie if it had be so doon that the Apostlis hadden taugt bi word manye Clerkis and manye of the lay folke the hool al ful feith sufficientli these Clerkis and laifolk surviving and outlyvyng to the Apostlis hadden taugt bi word the same al hool ful feith to othre Clerkis and laifolk succeding aftir the deeth of the Apostlis and that sufficienli and so forth into this day thanne the feith so taugt bi word and so descending bi word fro persoonys into persoonys into this present day sufficientli hadde be sufficientli groundid in the Clergie so taugten to othere Thoug therwith a Scripture hadde be maad and delyvered forth bi the Apostlis upon the same feith â—o bi word taugt to othere But so it was indede that the Apostlis taugten othre Clerkis the ful al hool feith bi word sufficientli and the Clerkis so taugt of the Apostlis sufficientli taugten othere Clerkis succeding aftir them the same al hool feith and that bi word sufficientli and so forth continuali into this present day Wherfore the al hool ful feith bothe in the tyme of the Apostlis and alwey ever sithen was groundid sufficientli in the Clergie for the tyme beyng and lyvyng and bi the maner now seid teching and delyveryng And thanne ferth it folowith thus If the Clergie for the tyme being bi ther such now seid teching and delyvering was and is sufficient ground for our feith for al tyme sithen the daies of the Apostâ—lis it folowith at the leest that for to loke aftir or sette eny othere thing as is Scripture every othere thing to be ground of the same feith after Cristis teching bi word and sithen the teching of the Apostlis bi word is no nede The first premysse of this secunde principal argument is open ynoug to be trewe and the II. Premysse of the same argument schal be proved thus Crist bade to hise Apostlis Matth. the last Ch. thus Go ye therefore and teche ye alle folkis baptizing them in the name of the Fadir and of the Sone and of the Holi Goost teching them to keep alle thingis whatever thingis y have comaundid to you and also Mark the last Chap. Crist bede to hise Apostlis thus Go ye into al the World and preche ye the Gospel to every creature and anoon aftir it is seid there thus Thei forsothe goyng forth prechiden every where But so it is that the Apostlis hadden not fulfilled this now seid Comaundement maad to them bi Crist in lasse than thei hadden prechid bi word of mouthe sufficientli al the hool feith necessarie to be had of the peple For whi al the hool feith necessarie to be had is included in the Gospel of God that is to seie in the message of God which message God sent into the world Wherfore sothe it is that the Apostlis prechiden bi word of mouthe to othere Clerkis and folkis al the hool ful feith sufficientlâ— and so the secunde bifore maad principal premysse to be proved is trewe The III. principal argument is this If the Apostlis hadden taugt manye Clerkis and manye of the laifolk the hool al ful feith bi word of mouthe principali and these Clerkis and laifolk survyvyng and outlyvyng to the Apostlis hadden taugt bi word principali the same hool feith to othere Clerkis and to othere folk aftir the deeth of the Apostlis and so forth into this day thanne the al hool feith so taugt bi word of mouthe principali and descending bi word principali fro persoonys into persoonys unto this present day hadde be principali groundid in the Clergie whilis the Clergie so taugt othere thoug therwith had be a Scripture maad and delyvered forth bi the Apostlis to othere upon the same feith But so it was in dede that the Apostlis taugten othere Clerkis the hool ful feith bi word principali and tho clerkis so taugt of the Apostlis bi word principali taugten othere clerkis succeding to them the same al hool feith and that bi word principali and so forth contynueli into this present day Wherefore the al hool feith bothe in the tyme of the Apostlis and alwey sithen was groundid principali in the Clergie for the tyme beyng and lyvyng and bi maner nowe seid teching and delyveryng And thanne ferth it folowith thus If the Clergie for the tyme veyng bi ther nowe seid such teching and delyveryng was and is the principal ground for our feith for al tyme aftir the daies of the Apostolis it folowith at the fulle that to loke aftir or seche aftir or seie Scripture to be the principal ground of our feith or that Scripture schulde be a principal ground thereof or more necessarie and better grounding of the same feith thanne is the Clergie of the Church aftir the daies of the Apostlis is waast ydel vanite and untrewe The first Premysse of this III. principal argument is pleyn ynoug to be trewe And for profe of the II. premysse of this III. principal argument may be maad the same argument which bifore is maad for profe of the II. premysse of the II. principal argument and that bi the rehercid Textis of Matt. the last chapter and Mark the last chapter The IV. principal argument is this The Church of Crist which be foundid on erthe and of which he is the heed is alwey and altymes oon and the same as S. Paul witnessith where he seith that to man to have by the lawe oon Wyf undeptabili signifieth Crist to have oon Church for his spouse And the same witnessith the Clergie bi the profis or sequencis whiche he singith in the Masse of Dedicacioun Feest day and in the VIII day of the same Feest and this same is comounli allegoriesed upon thilk Text Cant. Oon is mi Dove But so it was that in the tyme of the Apostolis the Churche of Crist in erthe bi his principal partly which was the Clergie was of so greet worthinesse and auctorite and dignite that he thanne more groundid the Feith of Crist than Scripture groundid feith of Crist thanne For whi the Apostlis thanne beyng the Clergie of Cristis Church groundid more Cristis Feith than ther writyng maad and writen bi them groundid as thanne the same Feith in as moche as the effect of a cause dooth not so moche in to another effect as doith the cause of the same effect into the same other effect aftir good Philosophie Wherfore it seemeth folowe that the Church of Crist nowe being and at al tyme a this side the Apostlis for the tyme being is and was of great worthinesse auctorite and dignite that he now more groundith the Feith of Crist than Scripture groundith now the same Feith Sithen oon and the same Churche is nowe and thanne and therfore bi like skile
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
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
Treatise which I now publish require me to descend lower and demonstrate that even in latter Ages it was the commonly received Opinion of the Church that Scripture is the Rule of Faith. And this alone will as evidently overthrow the Plea of Tradition as if the Consent of all Ages herein were demonstrated For since Tradition is the perpetual Succession of any Doctrine conveyed down in the Church by word of mouth from the Apostles to this present time if this Succession were in any Age whatsoever interrupted it can no more claim the Title of Tradition than if it had never been believed So that if it can be proved the Doctrine of Tradition being the Rule of Faith was in any Age of the Church disbelieved not only the proof of this Article from Tradition will fail but even the Article it self will appear to be evidently false For it is not possible that Tradition should be the Rule of Faith if that very Article that Tradition is the Rule of Faith were not delivered down by an uninterrupted succession of Belief for then it would not be the Rule of that very Article Besides it is absurd that the Church of any Age should have power of declaring what the Tradition of Faith is and consequently of fixing the Rule of Faith and yet be so far from being conscious of any such power inherent in her that she disbelieved it Not to say that if at any time Tradition was not believed by the Church to be the Rule of Faith and yet at the same time divers Articles of Faith were defined by the Church Tradition must necessarily ever since have ceased to be the Rule of Faith since otherwise all Definitions of the Church must indifferently be admitted made by her both when she followed and when she deviated from the Rule of Faith and consequently the Faith of all private Christians must be subjected to infinite uncertainty Now to prove that the Tradition of this Article was in any Age of the Church interrupted and discontinued it is not necessary that all members of the Church should then agree in the disbelief of it that no Doctors should believe Tradition to be the Rule of Faith or none maintain the Insufficiency of Scripture It is sufficient that some Divines of great name who lived and died in the Communion of the Church were ever held in great esteem both for Piety and Learning and never censured by the Church for any erroneous Opinions much less for Hereticks that some such I say disbelieved this Article and maintained Scripture to be the Rule of Faith. For if any such were then the contrary Opinion could not be the belief of the universal Church much less an Article of Faith. That there were such Doctors I shall immediately prove by producing their own Words and thereby demonstrate my intended purpose And not only so but farther shall therewith render it highly probable that it was the generally received Opinion of the Church at that time that Scripture not Tradition is the Rule of Faith by all those Arguments which a question of this Nature will admit I mean by the authority of the most eminent Writers and publick practice of the Church in Councils For it cannot be imagined that so many Learned Persons esteemed as it were the Oracles of their Times and Pillars of the Church should either be ignorant of the Doctrine of the Church touching the Fundamental Principle of Faith or if willfully opposing it should obtain or conserve to themselves so great a Reputation or that the General Councils of that time should in their Sessions and Disputations permit the Sufficiency of Scripture to be laid down as an uncontroverted Principle without giving some check to so grand an Error That the Church therefore in the fifteenth Age did generally believe the Scripture to be the Rule of Faith and contain all things necessary to Salvation may be evidently demonstrated from this Treatise which I now publish The Author of which was far the most Eminent and Learned Bishop of the Church of England in his time a person who as himself assures us had spent more than twenty years in writing Controversial Books against the Lollards when he composed this Treatise and who every where giveth manifest proof of his great Learning So eminent a person cannot be supposed to have been ignorant of the general Belief of the Church in his time concerning the Rule of Faith nor will his apparent zeal for the Interest of the Church permit us to believe that he wilfully opposed the Doctrine of the Church in whose Service he employed the greatest part of his life or that when he so zealously pleaded the Cause of the Church against the Lollards he should himself depart from the Church in her principal Article and therein become a Lollard Since therefore he plainly asserts and teacheth that Scripture is the Rule of Faith this undeniably proves that the belief of this Proposition was not in the time of our Author accounted any part of Lollardism or supposed Heresie but rather esteemed an Article of Catholick Belief at least an Article which might be freely disputed without violating the Definitions or dissenting from the universal Belief of the Church And indeed our Author in the beginning of this Discourse assureth us that the Doctors of his time disagreed in determining whether the Church or Scripture were chiefly to be respected in the resolution of Faith. One thing may be objected against the Authority of our Author That he was forced by the ruling Clergy to recant several Opinions and Doctrines taught by him as erroneous and consequently that he cannot be esteemed a Doctor of the Church But here not to say that the sentence of two or three partial Bishops for no more condemned him is not to be accounted the Judgment of the Church of England this very Recantation addeth no small strength to our Argument For when the malice of his Enemies obliged him to recant all those Doctrines which they esteemed to be erroneous they took no notice of his having asserted Scripture to be the only Rule of Faith nor obliged him to recant that Proposition a manifest Argument that it was not then accounted either heretical or erroneous or contrary to the received Doctrine of the Church since otherwise they would not have failed to place it in the front of his Recantation as an Error of an higher degree and greater contagion than any of those for which he stood condemned which in truth were so far from being Heresies that they were all at that time maintained by many eminent Divines who never were censured by the Church and some of them so far true that no Learned Man of the Church of Rome will at this day deny them And this also fully clears our Author from any suspicion of Lollardism or secret inclination to it That he was not singular herein defended no Paradox nor opposed any Doctrine of the Church I come next to prove The
this being once granted viz. That it may be evidently deduced from the proper Principles of Faith that is from the Holy Scriptures This manner of Disputation in defending the Article then in question sufficiently manifests that the pretence of Oral Tradition however entertained by some private Men had yet gained no general applause in the Western Church From Councils I return to private Writers but those of so great Repute and Authority that their Opinion can be esteemed no other than the general Doctrine of the Church at that time Of these I shall produce only two more Cardinal Panormitan and Antoninus Archbishop of Florence the first accounted by all the greatest Canonist of his Age and by many the greatest of all Ages and which is more considerable who had been to the Council of Basil what Gerson was to that of Constance an Oracle and Dictator the second a person of so great Authority in the Church that in the Judgment of Pope Nicolas he deserved to be Sainted whilst alive and was really Sainted when dead Panormitan therefore proposeth his Opinion in these words In Matters pertaining to Faith a Council is above the Pope Yet I suppose that if the Pope were induced with better Reasons and Authorities than the Council that his Determination were rather to be embraced For a Council also can err as it hath sometimes erred For in matters relating to Faith even the opinion of one private Man were to be preferred to the Determination of the Pope if he were induced with better Reasons of the Old and New Testament than the Pope Here Panormitan not only asserteth the Old and New Testament to be the Rule of Faith but also allows to every private Man a power of interpreting that Rule and even of rejecting the Definitions of Popes and Councils if he thinks them not consonant to it Antoninus hath transcribed those words into his Summ of Divinity and proposeth them as his own Opinion And not only so but also in another place declareth his Judgment no less plainly in these words God speaketh in the Scriptures and so fully as S. Gregory explaineth in the twenty second Book of his Morals upon Job that it is not necessary God should any other way reveal any thing necessary to us since all things necessary may be had there After so many and so great Authorities it cannot reasonably be doubted what was the general Belief of the Church in that Age touching the Rule of Faith I mean not that then the Sufficiency of the Scripture was asserted by all and denied by none but only that it was maintained by the greater and more considerable part of the Church as the Practice of General Councils and Positions of the most famous Writers of that Age do manifestly evince Many indeed had for some Ages before asserted the existence of some necessary Articles not contained in Scripture but conveyed down to us by Tradition only but they equalled not the Followers of the former Opinion either in number or Reputation And therefore Occam in the preceding Age representing the Arguments and Reasons of both Opinions proposeth that of the Sufficiency of Scripture in the first place as the most common and more generally received Opinion and Ioannes de Neapoli a Dominican and Doctor of the Sorbon disputing of the Science of Faith doth all along suppose that whole Science to be contained in Scripture and lest we should doubt of his Opinion doth in more than one place positively assert it Not to say that Nicolas de Lyra in his Glosses upon the whole Bible doth every where suppose it and in his general Preface most expresly maintain it And of what Repute his Gloss was formerly in the Church of Rome may appear from that vast number of Manuscript Copies of them which may be found in our ancient Libraries But I will not any longer insist upon the Writers of this Age having intended to confine my Discourse to the fifteenth Age the general Belief of which concerning the Rule of Faith I have already manifested It remains that I say somewhat more particular of the Treatise here published and of the Author of it He was born in Wales and bred in Oriel College in Oxford where he was created Doctor of Divinity and obtained a great esteem for his rare Eloquence and extraordinary Learning He was soon taken notice of by that great Patron and Protector of Learning and Virtue Humphrey Duke of Glocester at that time Protector of the Kingdom by whose Favour he was promoted to the Bishoprick of S. Asaph in the year 1444 translated to Chichester in the year 1450. His singular Learning appears not only from this Discourse which if put into modern English would appear to the meanest Reader both rational and elegant but also from many other plain and manifest Indications He had read the Works of the Fathers with no small care and diligence and as it should seem from what he says upon the Article of Christ's Descent into Hell had made Critical Observations on them far beyond the Genius and vulgar Learning of that Age. He was not unacquainted with the Genuine Epistles of Ignatius and in the first Part of that Work whereof this Treatise makes the second citeth the Acts of his Martyrdom writ by his contemporary Philo and published in this Age by the Learned Bishop Vsher. As his Learning enabled him so his Zeal prompted him to write divers Books of Controversie in defence of the Church against the supposed Hereticks of that time the Lollards whom he endeavoured by all means possible to reduce into the Communion of his Church to which Work as it should seem from divers Passages in the first part he had dedicated his whole Life He mentions many of them in this Work which are these The just apprising of holi Scripture The just apprising of Doctours Of faith in Latyn Of Presthode The Donet The folower to the Donet The Represser The forcrier The book of Cristen Religion The provoker The book of signis in the Church clepid also the boke of Worschiping The boke of Leernyng The boke of filling the IV. Tablis This present book of Feith Of the Churche in Latyn Beside these already mentioned Bale reckons up The Defender The Follower of it The Declaratory Of the Creed To Godharde the Franciscan Of Divine Offices A Manual Of the Providence of God. Of the Liberty of the Gospel Of the Power of Seculars Against Constantines Donation Of the equality of Ministers Of the Laws and Doctrines of Men. Of Communion under both kinds Against unlawful Begging An Account of his own Recantation The greatest part of these Books are lost being studiously suppressed by his Enemies and also burnt at his Recantation However I have seen his Represser in a fair Manuscript in the publick Library of the University of Cambridge in Quarto It is intituled The Repressour of over much blaming the Clergy wherein he passeth through
submitting the Decrees and Doctrine of the Church to the examination of every private man how strongly he contends that God can reveal nothing contrary to our reason or oblige us to the belief of it that he rejecteth the authority of Tobit and Susanna as being Apocryphal Books that a Divorce and Separation of the Clergy from their Wives after Marriage once contracted in unlawful that the Council of Nice condemned that Separation and consequently prohibited not to the Clergy the use of Marriage in the third Canon that the Church hath no more authority of interpreting Scripture and proposing it to the faithful than hath every private Housholder of proposing it to his Family every Divine to his Hearers every Learned Man to ignorant persons or no more than a Judge hath of expounding the Laws or a Grammarian the Rules of Grammar I will not so far presume upon the Judgment of the Reader as to make an Apology for the old and obsolete stile of our Author If it wanteth the Elegance and Beauties of our modern Language that must be imputed to the fault of the Age not any deficience of the Author I had once intended to represent his Arguments in our modern Language and publish both together in distinct Columns but the fear of inlarging these Papers too much deterred me from pursuing that design However I have drawn up an Alphabetical Catalogue of the more obsolete and unusual words and affixed their significations to them which the Reader will find at the end of the Book and may consult upon occasion A Treatise of REGINALD PEACOCK Bishop of CHICHESTER before the Reformation In the Year 1450. proving that Scripture is the only Rule of Faith. CAP. I. I. DEsiring for to wynne the Lay Children of the Churche into Obedience whiche undir greet perel of ther Soulis thei owen paie and holde to the Clergie y entende and propose in this present Booke for to mete agens suche unobediencers bi an open wey and in a nother manner and bi meene which the lay persoonys wole admitte and graunte which meene is this That we owen to bileeve and stonde to sum Saier or Techer which may feile while it is not knowne that thilk Seier or Techer thereyne failis And so for to move and convicte them into obedience never the lesse and never the latter to the Clergie in leernyng their feith thoug it were so that the Clergie mygte solempnely determyne agens trew feith II. Twey thingis be the principal causis of Heresie in the lay yeple Overmyche leenyng to Scripture and in such manner wise as it longith not to holi Scripture for to receyve And the seconde is this Setting not bi for to followe the Determynatiouns and the Holdingis of the Churche in mater of Feith III. The Feende hath broughte in so greet a sleigte in the Secte of the Sarrasenes that thei ben ful wondirful violenti settid for to geve audience to eny proofe making for Christen Feith or making agens Sarrasene Secte For whi thilk wickid Man Mahumet whiche brought in their Secte or sum Prelate after him made as for a poâ—nt of his Law that no persoone of his Secte schulde heere eny Declaracioun or evydence agens his Sect and that under peyne of passing cruel deep But O thou Lord Iesu God and Man heed of thi Christen Churche and Techer of Christen Bileeve y beseeâ—he thi mercy thi pitee and thi charite fer be this seid perel fro the Christen Churche and fro ech persoon thereyne conteyned and schilde thou that this Venom be never brougte into thi Churche and if thou suffre it to by eny while brougte in y beseche that it be soon agen out spet but suffre thou ordeyne and do that the Law and the Feith whiche thi Churche at eny tyme kepith be receyved and admitted to fall under this examinacioun whether it be the same verri Feith which thou and thi Apostlis taugten or no and that it be receyved into examinacioun whether it hath sufficient evydencis for it to be verry feith or no and ellis it mygte be holde aghe and it were a full suspect thing to alle them that schulde be convertid therto and ellis also it were a ful schameful thing to the Christen Churche for to holde such a feith for a substaunce of her salvacioun and yitt dursten not suffre it to be examined whether it is worthi to be allowid for trew feith or no. And it were a vilonye putting to Crist that he schulde geve such a feith to his peple and into which feith he wolde his peple turne alle other peple and yitt he wolde not allowe his feith to be at the ful tried and that he durste not be aknowe his feith to be so pure and so fyne fro al falsehede that it mygte not by strenghe of eny evydence be overcomen And therefore Lord Almygti thou forbid that eny such prisonyng of thi feith be maad in thi Churche And also this is worschip ynoug for Cristen Feith that it may withoute feere be avowed and be publischid and be profred to be examyned bi eny wit under Heuene in such maner of examynacioun now bifore seid as vi which ech pretense feith ougte to be examyned whether it be trew feith or no. And yitt ferthemore to this now seid may evydence be this that ellis Crist wolde have gove such a Lawe to be hadde and to be contynued in his name of whiche Law sum of our feith is a party ne were that it mygte abide the fier of triel and of examynacioun of ech creaturis resoun so the examynacioun be such as ougte to be taken and usid for to examine and prove whether a feith pretense be trewe feith or no as ferforth as eny Goldsmyth wole avowe and warante his Gold which he desyneth to be tried and examyned by all manner of fier of this wordli brennyng IV. And ferthemore y wole Clerkis to have in consideracioun that not for a thing is famed to be an Article of Feith therefore it is an Article of Feith but agenward for that it is an Article of Feith and proved sufficiently to be such therefore it is to be bileeved bi feith So that an Article to be bileeved bi feith is dependant on this that it is bifore proved sufficiently to be feith And an Article to be an Article of Feith is not dependent of this for that it is bileeved as an Article of Feith V. The Clergy shall be condemned at the last day if by cleer witt they drawe not Men into consent of trew feith otherwise than by fier and sword or hangement Although I will not deny these second means to be lawfull provided the former be first used VI. Thomas had thanne these same evydences of Christis Resurrection in as good maner or in better than we hau now for us For whi he herde the Apostlis denounce Christis Resurreccioun to him bi ther owne mouthe the that denouncen the same to us bi their
Writing and also he knewe by experience the treuthe and the sadnesse and the unbigilefulnesse of hise felowis where that we knowen it by liklihode oonly thoug so likeli that to the conttary we have noon evydence so likeli VII Sone y seid bifore that there ben two maners of feith oon is opinial feith and this is the which we and alle Cristen hau bi the comon lawe of God whilis we lyven in this lyf Another feith is sciencial feith and thoug this feith may be had bi specialte in this lyf yitt it is not commonli had in this lyf but it is had in the Blisse of Hevene VIII Wherefore he the Church knowith not himself neither ougte know himself for to teche authentikli or bi authorite of maistrie to eny persoon ni lasâ—e than he knowe himself to have receyved the same feith fro God in maner of arguyng bifore seid by oon of these Meenes of which oon is this Holi Scripture witnessith and denouncith this Conclusion Another is this Holi Church for Feith hath bileeved this in tyme of the Apostlis fro thens contynueli hidirto Another is this Myracle is doon unto witnessing of it IX Resoun which is a sillogisme well reulid aftir the craf taugt in Logik and having two Premyssis openli trewe and to be grauntid is so strong and so mygti in al the kindis of maters that thoug alle the Aungels in Hevene wolden feie that this Conclusion were not trewe yitt we schulde leeve the Aungels seing and we schulden truste more to the profe of thilk sillogisme than to the contrari seiyng of alle the Aungels in Hevene For that alle Goddis creaturis musten nedis obeie to doome of resoun and such a sillogisme is not ellis than doome of resoun If the Church in erthe determines agens it what such a sillogisme concludith we schulen rather trowe and holde us to thilk sillogism than to the determynacioun of the Church in erthe X. Every Man is bound to obey the determination of the Church but if he can evidentli and openli without eny dowte schewe teche and declare that the Churche bileeveth or hath determyned thilk Article wrongli and untreuli or ellis that the Churche hath no sufficient ground for to so bileeve or determyne yhe thoug the Churche schuld bileeve or deterymne amys yet thereof schulde not this persoon be blamed of God but schuld be ful excused XI Sithen it is here bifore undoutabili proved that bi thi obedience to the Clergie in case of the Clergies erring whilis thou it not knowist neither desirist neither makist noon hurte schal come but the same good which schuld to thee therebi come if the Clergie in thee teaching not errid is not this ynoug to thee what maist thou loke aftir eny more XII If a Parish Priest should teach his Parishioner some grosse Heresy instead of an Article of Feith it were his Duty to receive and would not only be excusable before God but would be as meritorious and equally rewarded with the belief of any true Article Nay if that Man should lay down his life for defence of this Heresy imagining all this while that it is the Doctrine of the Church he would be a true and undoubted Martyr XIII If you seie to me thus I have leernyd that holi Writte is so worthi a ground and fundement of oure Feith that noon othre ground or fundement passith it or is surer to be eleven to than is it Wherfore Sir it wolde seem that if y cleve to holi Scripture to take of it my Feith y am not to be blamed but y am thereyne thank-worthi forasmuch as I conforme me to thilke reule which God hath purveied for to be oure reule in mater of feith and whom no other reule in erthe passith Sir that this is trewe y graunt wee l namelâ—â—l as anentis al the feith which holi Writt techith For that this be trewe shall be shewed wel in the Book of Feith in Latyn or ellis in the Book of the Churche in Latyn as God wole graunte PARS II. Fadir ye hau seide in the X. Chapter of the first parti of this present Book to alle tho lay men whiche ben obstinat to the feith of the Church that holi Writt is the chief principal ground of all the feith which is conteined in holi Writt And treuli fadir y can not undirstonde as yitt but that nedis ye must have so seid to them yf it mygt be holde for trew in eny wise nameliehe sithen ye hau seid to them as ye musten nedis seie to them and it mygten not be left unseid that the dewe and rigt literal undirstonding of holi Writ for trewe feith to be had laymen musten fetche at the Churche that is toseie that the al hool Clergie of Dyvynite or of the more and wittier party thereof And redily y know so moche of her wittis and of her counseilis that ellis if ye hadde not so seid to them ye schulden labour in vain as for to bringe them into the obedience into which ye ben about by writing of this present Book Also resoun thereto money thus The Churche or the Clergie in delyvering to peple feith which is in holi Writt alleggith for thilk delyverance holi Writt and expowneth holi Writt into thilk feith so delyvered Wherefore the Churche in that biknows that he hath thilk feith of holi Writ and so not of him silf principali Forwhi not of him silf originali or groundeli but of the seid holi Writ eer and bifore and therefore of holi Writ originali and groundeli And so as anentis al feyth conteynyd in holi Scripture the same Scripture schulde be principal bifore the Churche Confirmacionn to the same may be this If the Churche hadde of him silf principali groundeli and foundamentali al the feith which is conteynyd in holi Writt the Churche wolde not and ougte not for to leene to holi Writt as for grounding and foundamental teching of thilke feith neither wolde sende eny askers into holi Writt or wolde labore to expowne holi Writt to them into thilk feith But the Church wolde and ougte to seie to such askers of rigt feith Bileeve ye to me for that I seie this to be rigt bileeve And the Churche wolde not fetche to such askers auctorite of a thing longer and of lasse auctorite to the purpos than the Church is Wherfore the Church as it seemeth bi his owne pretencioun or interesse to expowne holi Writt in to teching which is trewe feith must nedis knowleche that he takith holi Scripture for his better worthier higer and groundier foundament of the Feith which Feith the Churche techith by holi Writt and bi the exposicioun of the same holi Writt And therfore opene it is that ye have not seid amys in this youre now spoken seiyng to laymen Into the othre contrarie side Fadir manye skilis now be maad that the
Churche is principalier and cheefer than is holi Writt anentis eny feith taugt by holi Writt and that for VIII Argumentis which y can make thereto Wherefore y donte not but that trouble and discencioun schulen be bitiwixe Lay Men and Clerkis yhe and bitwixe summe Clerkis and othre Clerkis upon this whether holi Writt or the Churche is chefir and of more power havyng anentis feith is conteynyd in holy Writ ni lasse thanne ye Fadir answer to thilke VIII Argumentis and so y can not se but that the mater of this discencioun muste nedis be brougte forth in utteraunce and conicacioun Sone y am redi to heere thi VIII Argumentis and for to answere to them yf I can Peraventure in the answering to them schal growe in sum thing wherebi schal be clerid what comparisoun is to be hadde bitwixe holi Writt and the Churche anentis al feith conteynyd in holi Writt And bi so moche y am the leefir for to heere thi Argumentis and for to answere to them bi hou moche thou hast now seid and trouthe is that the treuthe which is now occasioun of the comparisoun making bitwixe holi Writte and the Churche mygte not be left unseid and untoold to the Lay Peple neither to Clerkis And that cause bifore bi thee alleggid Fadir agens this which ye hau allowid bifore in the X. Chapter to be trewe that holi Writt is such a ground and foundement of oure Cristen general Feith that noon gretter or bettir or surer to us ground or foundament is for oure Cristen general Feith written in holi Writt y may argue by VIII principal Argumentis of which this is the first Nothing is to be seid ground to us of oure feith without which thing oure feith mygte have be sufficientli groundid and witnissid But without Holi Scripture now had Feith mygte habe be to us sufficiently groundid Wherfore holi Scripture is not to be seid ground of another thing without which the othre thing may be and the seconde premysse is to be proved thus Thoug the Apostlis hadde not write eny word yet thei mygten have taugt to othre Clerkis and lay folke the al ful hool feith sufficientli to thbihove of the peple as to ther therof the leerning reporting and remembring whithe Clerkis and lay folke so taugt of the Apostlis and outlyving to the Apostlis mygten have taugten othere Clerkis and lay folke the same al hool feith sufficientli which surviving and outlyvyng her Techers mygte have taugte othere folke bothe of the Clergie and of the Layte the same hool feith sufficientli whiche folke so taugt also surviving and outlyvyng her Techers mygten have taugt the same al hool feith sufficientli to othere and so forth into this present dai without eny writing maad delivered to folke upon the same feith so taugt And if this had be doon thanne the feith of ech Leerners hadde be sufficientli ynoug groundid in her Techers and in no Scripture therupon maad Wherfore it folowith that Scripture is not ne was not the ground of feith to eny persoonys bileeving That this be trewe which is bifore takun in the profe of the seconde premysse that thoug the Apostlis hadde not written eny word thei mygten have taugt the al hool ful feith to peple sufficiently y may argue thus In tyme of the oold Lawe it was so that al the bileeve conteynyd in thillâ— Lawe was taugt by mouth and mas leerned by mouth For whi Exod. the XIII Chap. whanne it is seid of the paske day that it schulde be kept yeerli by the Lawe thanne renning it is seid ferthe anoon aftir this And thou schalt telle to thi sone in that day and schalt seie This is it what the Lord dide to me whanne y gede out of Egipt and it schal be as a signe in thi honde and as a memorial bifore thi igen and that the lawe of God be ever in thi mouth For in a stronge honde the Lord ledde thee out of Egipt c. Also soone aftir there whanne it is bede that the peple of Iewis schulde halowe to God ech first gendrid thing that openeth the wombe among the sones of Israel as well of Men as of Bestis thanne it is seid anoon aftir thus And whanne thi sone schal aske of thee to morewe and seie what is this thou schalt answere to him In a stronge honde the Lord ledde us out of Egipt of the hous of servage For whanne Pharao was maad hard and wolde not delyver us the Lord killid al the first gendrid thing in the londe of Egypt fro the first gendrid of man til to the first gendrid of bestis Therefore y offre to the Lord al thing of mawle kinde that openeth the wombe and y agenbie alle the first gendrid thingis of my sones Therefore it schal be as a signe in this honde and as a thing hanged for mynde bifore thi igen For in a stronge honde he ledde us out of Egipt Also lyk sentence to this is written Deutro VI. Chap. of the paske daie keping and Josue IV. Chap. of the XII Stoones taken out of the water and sette on drie lond into perpetual remembrance that Jordan was dried Also Deutr. IV. Chap. it was seid thus Forgete thou not the wordis which thin igen sigen and falle thou not from thin herte in alle the daies of thi lyf Thou schalt teche tho to thi sones and to thy sones sones Telle thou the day in which thou stodist bifore thi Lord God in Oreb whanne the Lord spake to me and seid c. Also Deutro XI Chap. it was seid thus Putte these wordis in youre hertis and soulis and hange ye the wordis for assigne in hondis and sette ye bitwixe youre igen teche youre sones that thei thenke in tho wordis whanne thou sittist in thi house and goist in the wey and liggist doun and risist Thou schalt write tho wordis on the postis and gatis of thi house that the daies of thee and of thi sones be multiplied in the lond which c. Wherefore bi like skile in tyme of the newe Lawe the al hool feith mygt have be taugt bi word of mouthe fro oon to an othre into this present day sufficientli Ferthemore into prof or into confirmacioun of the same seid seconde premysse availith this that we seen in summe Monasteries the kunnyng and the fulfilling of certeyn usagis and customes be had forth in persoones of the Monestarie and be continued bothe in knowing and in fulfilling sufficientli fro the first Fadirs of the Monestaries unto this present day and that without eny writyng maad upon the same usagis but bi discente of word oonli fro persoone into persoone Wherfore in lyk maner the kunnyng and the using of al oure hool feith mygte have be hadde and lad and contynued sufficientli bi mynde and bi teching of mouthe fro Fadris and Prelatis into her Children and Parischens
the same Clergie of the Churche is now which was thanne The V. principal argument is this The Clergie of the Churche dispensith with the thing which holi Scripture forbedith For whi the Pope geveth leeve to a Bigam that is to seie to a man that hath be twies weddid to be a Dekene and a Prest notwithstonding that holi Scripture forbedith it 1 Thi. 3. c. But so it is that the lesse worthi refreyneth not the worthier neither lowseth the buidingis of the worthier Wherfore the Clergie of holi Churche is worthier mygtier and of gretter auctorite than is holi Scripture or at the leest the Clergie is of evene worthinesse even power and mygte and of auctorite with holi Scripture of the newe Testament The VI. principal argument is this The Chirche of Crist bi his cheef party the Clergie now and al tymes hath power to expowne declare and interprete holi Scripture thoug holi Scripture oweth to be undirstonde in the sense and undirstonding of God. But so it is that even peer hath power into his eeve peer aftir the comoun wel allowid proverbe neither the lesse worthi hath power on his worthier as may be takin of Paul Heb. 7. chap. where he seith That the lesse worthi is blessid of the more worthi Wherfore it seemeth that the Clergie and the Chirche bi his party which is the Clergie is more worthi than is holi Scripture The VII principal Argument is this What ever thing nedith to have upon him silf an interpreter or a declarer nedith to have the same thing as his overseer and worthier But so it is that holi Scripture nedith to have of him silf an interpreter and a declarer which is the Clergie in erthe as for to schewe which is the dewe understonding of holi Scripture Wherfore holi Scripture nedith to have the Clergie is to be to holi Scripture an overseer and to him as a worthier The VIII Argument is this What ever thing the Apostlis settiden in the comoune Crede is to be bileeved and to be holden and usid of alle Cristen But the Apostlis settiden in the comune Crede this Article that is for to bileeve to the general holi Chirche in erthe Wherfore nedis it is to bileeve to the universal or general holi Chirche in erthe And we mowe in noon othere wise bileeve to holi Chirche in erthe than we bileeven to the Clergie of the general Chirche in erthe for as myche as the Clergie is the principal parti of holi Chirche in erthe Wherfore it folowith that nedis we must bileeve to the Clergie of the general Chirche in erthe And if the Clergie ougten in eny dede be bileeved he ougte be bileeved in his dede whanne he determyneth eny Article to be taken as feith For as myche as this dede is oon of the grettist aviseable dedis which the Clergie dooth Wherfore alle Cristen owen for to bileeve to the determynacioun of the Clergie thoug he determyne agens holi Scripture Lo fadir these VIII Argumentis y have gadered togidere for to be assoilid bi youre hige wisdom CAP. II. SOne thi seid VIII Argumentis ben rigt welcome to me For me thenkith the answer and the assoiling of them with Goddis grace schal do good The II. premysse of the same first principal Argument whanne it is seid thus Without holi Scripture our nowe had feith mygte have be to us sufficientli groundid is fals for to speke of kindeli mygte in our side and in our Soulis without greet singular myracle of God above kind to have be doon in oure resouns and mynde And it is moost convenient in this purpos to speke And whanne for prof of this II. premysse it is argued thus Thoug the Apostlis hadden not write eny word yitt thei mygten have taugt to othere Clerkis and layfolk the hool al ful feith sufficientli so theli this is fals For whi a Feith is not taugt to a peple sufficientli but if it be taugt so that bi thilk reching thei mowe cleerli undirstonde al it and esili reporte al it and remembre al it perfitli and currauntli and kunne reherce it and talk it in a stable foorm of wordis without variaunce maad in wordis and processis whanne it is at dyverse tymes rehercid And but if thei mowe have recours therto and to ech poynt therof redeli whanne eny nede schal aske And sotheli for to speke of al the hool ful Feith written in the Gospels and Epistlis it may not in this seid wise be taugt without that it be write and but if the writing therof be delyvered to the Clergie Wherfore oure al hool Feith which is now bitaken to us in Scripture mygte never bi kinde have be taugt sufficientli to eny peple without therof the Scripture and thoug ful manye a processe withynne the boondis of the Gospels ben lawe of resoun and of kinde yitt this that Crist taugt it and rehercid it is Feith and so the al hool Feith writen in the Gospels is oon long a tale for to be sufficientli learned without therof the writyng And therfore sithen neither the Apostlis neither eny othere Clerkis mygten have taugt sufficientli the seid Feith without Scripture and the peple mygte not bi studiyng in the Scripture have leerned without techers it folowith nedis that holi Scripture is more worthi ground of our Feith than is eny congregacioun of the Clergie O my Sone if thou woldist take hede hou a tale or a tiding bi the tyme that it hath runne thoroug IV. or V. mennys mouthis takith pacchis and cloutis and is chaunged in divers parties and turned into lesingis and al for defaute of therof the writing and hou that langagis whos reulis ben not writen as ben englisch freensch and manye othere ben chaungid withynne yeeris and cuntrees that oon man of the oon cuntree and of the oon tyme mygte not and schulde not kunne undirstonde a man of the othere kuntre and of the othere tyme and al for this that he seid langagis ben not stabili and foundamentali writen thou schuldist ful soone and ful sikirli deeme and so schulde ech wel avisid man deeme that the long tale of the Gospels mygte never bi eny long tyme be truli and aftir oon maner toolde and reportid and remembrid of dyvers folke without therof the writing but manye a cloute schulde therto be sette and maney a good pece therof be takin awey and moche strys schulde ther be about the trewe rehercel therof as which were trewe rehercel therof and whiche were not so but if the same long tale of the Gospels were write And therfore there may no teching of the Clergie ground wee l sufficientli to us oure seid Feith And yitt the writyng maad and purveied bi God and bi the Apostlis and bi the Apostlis heerers of thilke same long tale may grounde suffiâ—ientli the same Feith in ech Clerk or Lay-man notabili resoned
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
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
and comprehende them sufficientli in mi witt and in my mynde Wel Sone thanne ferthe thus Take thou thilk Feith which is a knowing whereynne we consenten in oure undirstonding to a treuthe being above oure capacite to fynde and knowe and therfore we knowen it bi this that God it affeermyd and take thou the Feith which is the Article or the Treuthe in this now seid maner knowun and certis never neither of these II. Feithis the Clergie or the hool Chirche may make of the newe at his owne wil. Forwhi it is not in the power of the Clergie neither in the power of the hool Chirche forto make such an Article to be trewe or to be untrewe as it is not in the Chirchis power forto make this to be trewe or to be untrewe that Marie conceyved a Childe in her maydenhode or this that Crist was deâ—d and roos agen unto lyf and so forthe of othere Articlis of Feith in this seid maner and kind And therfore it that al the Clergie or the hool Chirche may do heraboute is denouncing and declaring and defynyng to the sympler parti of the Chirche what is in ever either of these now last seid maners and that this is to be take for suâ—h seid Feith and that this othere is to be take for such Feith and so forthe of othere lyk But alle wise men may soone se that fer is this fro power to make eny thing to be such seid Feith and that the Chirche makith not a thing to be such Feith in this that he decreeth decerneth jugith determyneth and witnessith and publisâ—hith a thing to be such a Feith â—esoun wole that the wiser parti of al the hool multitude of Cristen Men take upon them forto teche and enfoorme auctoritativeli the simpler parti which thing ougte be take for Feith and which not and that into greet aligting and esiyng and suring to the simpler parti and â—o doith the Clergie to the Lay parti And of more strengthe than this is y se not that the determynacioun of the Chirche is But agenward take thou Feith which is the knowyng wherynne we consenten in oure undirstonding to a treuthe which we fynden not in oure resonyng other wise than for a creature which for sufficient evydencis we trowen not therynne to lie it affeermyde and take thou the same Treuthe so of us trowid and bileeved which also is Feith and ever either of these Feithis may be maad of new of the Clergie Forwhi the Clergie may make now first a Fastyng day and an Holi day which never weren bifore And of this making and ordinaunce risen up these II. Treuthis which never were bifore this day is to be fastid and this day is to be halowid Now manye of the symple peple mowe leerne these II. Trouthis of the Clergie that is to seie thei mowe leerne and knowe that this day is to be fastid and this day is to be holowid which thei witen not whi save for this that the Clergie seien so and affeermen so to them And therfore it is in the power of the Clergie to make into them such Feith as is now seid Fadir this maner of Feith whiche the Chirche may make is of noon othere kind but as is the credence or Feith which ech housholder may make to hise yong Children and hise rude and symple Hyves and to his Hondmaydens and Boond Men not myche witti to resone and therfore these Feithis whiche the Clergie may make ben fer fro the hignes and worthines of Feithis whiche God to us makith And therfore Fadir lete us speke her aftir as we hav spoken bifore of tho Feithis which we hav bi affermyng of God for suche ben algatis necessarie to oure helpe Sone y assente wel that we schulen so speke and therfore aske therof what thou wolte Fadir y aske this owith the Clergie or the Chirche bileeve as Feith eny Article which is not expressid in the litteral sense or undirstonding of holi Scripture and which is not folowing out of eny Article in holi Scripture but if he have forto it bileeve and trowe bi this Argument whatever God affeermed or schewid or revelid is trewe This Article God affeermyd or revelid Wherfore this Article is trewe And but if he have sufficient evydence for Treuthe of the II. Premysse as bi such a Premysse whatever the Apostlis or othere undoutabili trewe heerers of God or sum undoutable myracle or sum undoutable inspiracioun or sum undoutable appering without forth or withynne forth to eny persoone or sum long uce of bileevyng in the Chirche without eny bigynnyng knewen therof witnessid God to have affeermyd or revelid or schewid God it affermed revelid or schewid So it is that the Apostlis or sum other undoutatable credible heerer of God or sum undoutable myracle or sum undoutable inspiracioun or sum undoutable appeering withynne forthe or without forth or sum seid longe uce of bileeving in the Chirche witnessid that God affeermyd or revelid this Article Wherfore treuthe is that God affeermyd thilk same Article And yitt fer ther upon the II. now seid Premysse he muste have notabili likli evydencis in Argument and so likli that to the contrarie is not hadde neither hopid to be hadde eny evydence so likli And sotheli Sone as may ful openli be deducid if al what is seid of Feith in this present Book be wee l takun undirstonden and comprehendid whatever Article the Clergie or the hool Chirche bileeveth as Feith and hath not upon the same Article this seid processe of evydence and of prof he in so bileevyng is over hasti and usurpith and presumeth ferther than he schulde and upon whatever Article the Clergie can have the said processe of prof it the Clergie may bileeve as Feith without perel And if the Clergie have such a preef as now is ensampled upon sum Article not writen openli in holi Scripture neither folowingli out of eny Article so writen the Chirche so hath upon these trouthis that this holi lyver aftir his deeth is acceptid into salvacioun and to be reverencid and worschipid and folowid as for a savyd Soule and moche lovyd and worschipid of God and so of many Martiris Confessouris and Virgins othere and dyverse fro the persoonys of the Apostlis the Chirche hath the now seid prof and that bi help of Myraclis wel tried and examyned bi sufficient trewe witnessing or bi open at fulle schewing Thoug the Chirche nedith not seche help of Myraclis for the Apostlis to be doon and that bicause Crist seid to them Thus joie and be ye glad for your names ben writen in Hevenes And thanne therof folowith this to be take for an Article of Feith Thomas of Cantirbiri is a Seint Joon of Bridlington is a Seint in the said dew undirstonding of this word Seynt and so forthe of othere whose lyvyng and for whom the myraclis doon be wee l examyned and tried
Articlis of oure feith in ther credis is mensioun maad of eny articlis taugt bi the Apostlis out of Scripture The III. evydence is this If eny Article schulde be left to peple fro the Apostlis undir heering and mynde to be holde and bileeved of the peple greet as feith these pointis and articlis schulde be tho rather than othere or as soon as othere that is to seie we schulen prie toward the Eest we schulen blesse us with a cros Prestis schulen make tre foold crossis upon the brede and wyne offride in the aâ—ter bifore the consecracioun the font of baptim schal be blessid with oile and baptisid persoonys schulen be anointed with oile But so it is that ech of the seid governauncis takun ther bigynnyng and ordinaunce of oure Fadirs oonli not the Apostlis bi a chapiter of holi Baâ—ile in the summe of Gracian Dist. XI c. Ecclesiasticorum And in the same wise it is to be demed of holi water whom Alisaundir the first and Pope ordeynyd And of holi brede and of the moost parti of observaciouns in the Masse and of the fasting Lent and of manye othere suche observaciouns whom alle holi Fadirs sithen the Apostlis ordeynyd and as it appereth by opene witnessing of writings Wherfore it is not to be holde that eny othere observaciouns or articlis dyvers fro these now rehercid the Apostlis bitoke without writing to be kept and to be bileeved as such seid greet feith Also holi Basile the now bifore alleggid c. in the summe of Gracian c. XI Ecclesiasticorum departith tho thingis whiche alle Cristen owen to holde and to bileeve into III. membris that is to seie into thingis pointis or articlis which to us levith and bitakith apostolik ordinaunce that is to seie ordinaunce of a Pope or of Popes which to us bitaketh holi Scripture and which to us bitaketh devoute uce chosen of the mo part of the peple Wherfore holi Basile conceyved no mo membris than these III. to be nedis takun and kept of Cristen peple and thanne folowith that he conceyvyd not such a fourth membre to be takun and kept of the peple that is to seie whiche the Apostlis taugten and leften and bitoken for substauncial feith without writing And that bi the first nowe rehercid membre Basile undirstood Popis ordinauncis it is likli therfore Forwhi the ordinauncis of Popis ben ful famose and more famose and more reverente attendaunce in the comoun peple than is the custom and usage of the comoun peple or at the leest of and even so myche Wherfore it is likli that Basile left not Popis ordinauncis unspokun of in his particioun bifore seid But othere it is that he speke not of Popis ordinauncis but if he speak therof in the first membre of the seiâ— particioun Wherfore it is trewe that he so speke And so fynally forto seie into the principal entent of this present chapiter y am not ware that the Chirche techis or delyverith eny thing to be suche seid catholick feith as a treuthe doon or taught in tym of Crist or of the Apostlis exceptid which is conteynyd expressely in the writing of the newe testament or following prof in former argument If eny othere man kan remembre him of othere or of 〈◊〉 wel be it But yitt thingis doon or taugt longe aftir tyme of the Apostlis the Chirch may determyn for such seid feith thoug not as a treuthe doon or taugt or revealid bi God in the tyme of Crist or of the Apostlis but lâ—tir aftir the tyme of Crist and of the Apostlis among whiche thingis declarid bi the Chirch for feith not conteynyd expresseâ—t or impresselâ— in holi Scripture if eny such be y remembre me nowe of noon save of it what is bifore seid in this seid chapiter loâ—gen to the câ—nonyâ—â—ng of Seintis And that if eny such be which condicioun y seie for peraventure it may be hold and undirstâ—nd wee l that the Chirch â—ntendith not forto decree and determyn and publisch this to be an article of such seid feith Thomas of Cantirbiri is a seynt John of Bridlington is a seynt Ambrose is a seynt and so of othere lyk divers fro Marie and fro the Apostlis in the newe testament but the Chirch admyttith and allowith them to be holde and morschiped and foâ—â—wid for seintis in al or in myche thing taugt or doon bi them ellis peple schulde not courtesi so do as the Chirch 〈◊〉 not or determyneth neyther publiscâ—â—th the writings of Ambros of Jerom of Austyn to be trewe but admittis them to be take in 〈◊〉 of stydiyng and of reading and heering with fredom to feele of them evydencys nowe reasonaâ—li and sufficientli more in tyme comyng whiche writing is schulden not ellis boldely and â—oâ—â—seli be take into suche studiyng reading and heering as thei now ben take ne were the seid admissioun doon upon them bi the Chirch even as the Chirch repellith and weâ—â—neth the writingis of sinn othere writers to be take into uce of reeding and heering courseli of which both dedis doon bi Pope Gelasi mensioun is maad in the summe of Gracian Dist. XV c. Sancta Romana and therfore thoug y wole not exclude fro sum what helping into the grounding myraclis and revelaciouns and longe uce of bileeving in the Chirch namelich which may be in longe uce of understaunding thus or thus holi Scripture as for his litteral sence yitt thei ben ech ful feble in him silf for to found the seid feith but he be sufficienth proved and tried And ferthemore it seimeth that the Apostlis entendiden not for to give eny catholick feith necessarie to Cristen Mennys savacioun bi word oonli to be kept without writing and remembraunce and so bi al that is writen fro the biginnen of this present chapiter hiderto it semeth that the Clergie ougte not induce or constreyne the othere peple into bilieve and feith of othere pointis and articlis as upon the feith of whom is hangen oure salvacioun than ben expressid in the litteral sense of holi Scripture or following them so expressed O Fadir y am mych delitid in your so wise and depe forth leeding of the seid now bifore goyng proâ—â—s Nevertheless y truste so moche in youre to me good Fadirhood that ye wole suffre me make agens your doctrine this now to folowe objectioun Oon of the best Clerkis and wisist Divins and clepid therfore the Doctour Sutel Scotus seith in his writing that this article Crist in his deith of bodi discerdid into hellis is an article of necessarie feith And that for as myche as it is putte in the comoun crede whiche eâ—ede is ascribid to have be maad of the Apostlis and yitt this â—ame article as he seith is not groundid in holi Scripture Wherfore youre doctryne stondith not if this Doctour was not in this his newe seide sentence bigilid O Sone he berith him ful