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
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
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
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
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
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
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
wel which is never bigilid namelich if he write myche or teche myche For as holi Scripture seith in myche spechis defaut is not wanting But that the seid Doctour was in this conceit bigilid so y may schewe thus In the tyme of Austyn and of othere holi Clerkis aboute Austyns tyme the comoune crede hadde not withynne him this seid article Crist in his deeth of bodi descendid to hellis as y prove in the book of feith in Latyn And no man may seie that the Apostâ—is settiden thilk article in the comoun crede a this side the daies of Apostlis Wherfore nedis it is trewe that neither bifore neither aftir Austyns daies the Apostlis settiden thilk article into the comoun crede And so the grounde Foundemente and cause whi the seid Doctour held the seid article to be a feith is not trewe that is to seie that the Apostlis puttiden thilk article into the comoun crede and that the Kirke may make noon such article of feith is bifore schewid in of this present chapiter the for-heed That in the tyme of Austyn and of othere holi Fadris about Austyns tyme the comoun crede had not this seid article it is opene bi diverse and manye omelies and expo-siciouns which Austyn and the othere seid Fadris maden expownyng the comoun crede in ther daies rennyng And that fro article to article bi and bi fro the first unto the last and thei leeven unspokun of the now seid article And also thei overleepen this article Caetera desunt An Alphabetical TABLE of the more Obsolete English Words to be found in the Treatise with their Significations A. AGens against Aghe against Agenbie redeem Agens metith opposeth Algatis in all respects Aligting facilitating Anentis concerning Anoon presently Apocriâ—is Apocryphal Apower able Ari Arlus Assoilid refuted A this side since Auter Altar Aviseable deliberate Avisement deliberation B. Bede commanded Benefetis benefits Berith behaveth Bi by Bifelle beâ—el Biknows acknowledgeth Bileeve belâ—ef Birden burden Biried buried Bisi bulsie Bisidis besides Bitaken delivered Bitooke delivered Boondis contents Boonys gifts graces Brennyng burning Brent burnt Buidingis commands C. Cast him set himself Certis certainly Chargeose expensive Chauncis accidents Cheâ—â—r superior Clepid called Comberose cumbersom Combre loud Comonute socâ—ety Conicacioun examination Coude could Courseli hastily D. Deed dead Deeme judge Dekene Deacon Demed considered Departid divided Departith divideth Dewe due Discencioun dissention Doome judgment Dougten doubtful Dowte doubt Dressing beating Dunte â—ame Durid lasted Dwelliden dwelt Dymme dim E. Ellis else Ennok Enoch Eny any Erthe earth Esili easily Evene equâ—l Expowne expound F. Fadir father Fadris fathers Feende devâ—l Felle happened Fer far Ferthe forth Fier fire Finucius Paphnutius Folowing consequence Folowingli consequently Forheed foregoing part Foundement foundation Fro from G. Gede went. Gendrid born Goostli spiritual Govun given Grete great Groundeli fundamentally Groundier firmer Grow in intervene H. Hadde had Han have Hangement hanging Han have Heed head Heere hear Hemsilf themselves Her their Herden heard Here that whereas Here 's heirs Hige high Hise his Holde hold Holi holy Hondis hands Hool whole Hyve company I. Igen eyes Impresseli implâ—citly Ion John. Ioon John. Iugis Judges K. Kinde nature Kindeli natural or ordinary Kirke Church Kunne can Kunnyng knowledg Kuntre countrey L. Leefir more willing Lesingis lies Lettris letters Liggist lyeth Likli likely Litil little Longid to belonged Lyf life Lyk like Lyvyng living M. Maad made Mannys many Mawle male Mede Salvation Mennys mens Mensioun mention Mete agens oppose Mo more Moche much Money many More greater Morewe morrow Mowe may Myche much Mygte power Mygten might Mynystriden administred Myraclus mâ—raculous N. Namelich namely Ne neither Nede necessity Nedis necessarily Niâ—asse unless Noon none Notabili notably Noumbre number Nylling nulling O. Omelies Homilies Oold old Oon one Oonli only Oonys once Openli maniâ—estly Othre other Overer superâ—ours Owen ought P. Pacchis and cloutis additions Parischens Parishioner Paske Passeover Peces mele pâ—ecemeal Perâ—it perfect Persoonys persons Physisien Physitian Poulis Pauls Prechiden preached Premyssis propositions Pretense pretended Prie pray Privey private Processe passage Proficied prophesied Prologgis prologues Puplischid published Purveied provided R. Radde read Recleimed opposed Redi ready Releef and rescaâ—l poorer and meaner sort Renne run Rennyng running or currâ—nt Rennyng herewith concuring to it Resoned learned Resoun reason Reule rule Rewine room Rightwisnesse justice Roos rose Route multitude S. Saaf safe Sad grave Sadnesse gravity Save the caase solve the question Scant scarce Schai shall Schapide prepared Sche she Schewe shew Schipp ship Schope intended or ordered Schortli shortly Schotte slew Schulde should Scole school Se see Seche seek Seie say Servage bondage Settid resolved Settiden placed Seyntis Saints Sigen did see Sikir secure Sikirli securely Sithen since Slider uncertain Sone Son. Sooth truth Sothe certain Sotheli certainly Sowdan Soldan Stabili firmly Stirid stirred Suffraunce permission Sugget subject Sum some Summe some Sunken in drawn in Synnys Sins T. Take mark be shewed Takun assumed Teche teach Thanne then Thei they Thennes thence Theuke meditate Thi thy Thilk that or the said Tho those Thorug through Tho that who Tiâ— to unto Togidere together Tre three Trenys lamentations Tretid treated Treuli treuly Trew true Trouthis truths Trowe believe Tungis tongues Twey two Twies twice V. Uce use Uerri very Ueyn vain Uidewite widowhood Unbigilefulnesse veracity Undeptabili undoubtedly Undoutabili undoubtedly Unto tyme unâ—â—l Unwist unknown Urri true W. Waast vain Waisching washing Wee l well Weie way Wel prisid well esteemed Weren were Werkis works Werre War. Weved complained Whanne when Whicchecraft witchcraft Whilis whilst 100 Wintre 100 years Wiste know Withoute forth external Withynne forth internal Witti learned Wittis undirstanding Wittyngis testimonies Wolden would Wole will. Worching working Worschipid worshiped Worschipid esteemed Wyf Wife Y. Y I. Ydel idle Ye you Yere year Yhe yea Yitt yet Ynoug enough Ysidir Isidore Yvel evil FINIS * Tract in Ioan. 96 97. †Lib. Strom. passim ‖ De Praescript Haeres * Lib. 3. cap. 2. lib. 2. cap. 3. Quia non possit ex his S. Scripturis inveniri veritas ab his qui nesciunt Traditionem Non enim per literas traditam illam sed per vivam vocem Ibid. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apologetic in fine Prologi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Post medium * Dissuasive from Popery Par. 2. lib. 1. Sect. 2. †Sed tum S. Doctrina hujusmodi auctoritatibus philosophorum utitur quasi extrantis argumentis probabilibus auctoritatibus autem Canonicae Scripturae utitur propriè ex necessitate argumentâ—ndo auctoritatibus autem allorum doctorum ecclâ—siae quasi arguendo ex propriâ—s sed probabilibus Inniiitur enim fides nostra revelationi Apostolis Prophetis factae quì canonicos libros scripserunt â— non autem revelationi si qua fuit aliis Doctoribus facta