Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus, A Treatise of Reginald Peacock, etc.  
Guil. Needham, R. R. in Christo P. ac D. D. Wilhelm. Archiep. à Sac. Dom. etc. jan. 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 james Adamson, at the Angel and Crown in S. Paul's Churchyard. 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 Controversy 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 entirely, 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 easy to be known, and more easy to be remembered. 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 entirely 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 Ecumenical, 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 descent 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, than it must first be known what are the true and genuine Doctrines of Christianity, the steadfast 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, than 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 Catholic 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 itself, 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 Catholics no less constantly appealed to Scripture, than the Heretics recurred to Tradition. The pretence of Tradition is so easy, and impossible to be refuted by the meaner Christians, that, no wonder if Heretics 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 Heretics, pretending to have received their own Dreams and Errors, as necessary Articles of Faith, from their Forefathers. Thus all the Heretics 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 Apostolic Traditions; which pretence they carried on so far, that they published the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Traditions of almost every Apostle and Apostolic 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 Heretics. 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 Catholics, and the pretence of unwritten Revelations derived down by oral Tradition was then esteemed as a Characteristic Note of Heretics. Thus S. Augustin 
* Tract. in joan. 96, 97. , and before him Clemens Alexandrinus 
† Lib. Strom. passim. , complain of the Heretics of their times; Tertullian 
‖ De Prescript. Haeres.  assures us, it was the usual evasion of Heretics, 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 Heretics, opposed by S. Irenaeus 
* Lib. 3. cap. 2. lib. 2. cap. 3. , 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, 
Quia non possit ex his (S. Scriptures) inveniri veritas ab his qui nesciunt Traditionem. Non enim per literas traditam illam sed per vivam vocem. Ibid.  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 Heretic 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 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Apologetic. in fine Prologi. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Post medium. ) 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, etc.  
This than was the Artifice and Practice of the ancient Heretics. What the Practice of the Catholic Fathers was in opposing these Heretics, 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 
* Dissuasive from Popery. Par. 2. lib. 1. Sect. 2. , to whom I remit the Reader.  
My Design and the Age of that 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 itself 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 than 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 Heretics, that some such, I say, disbelieved this Article, and maintained Scripture to be the Rule of Faith. For if any such were, than 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 public 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 wilfully 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 Heresy; but rather esteemed an Article of Catholic 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 Judgement 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 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 men's 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 Scholastic 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 ancient 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 persuade the Laity entirely to resign up their Judgements 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 entirely 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 
† Sed tum S. Doctrina hujusmodi auctoritatibus (philosophorum) utitur quasi extrantis argumentis & probabilibus, auctoritatibus autem Canonicae Scripturae utitur propriè ex necessitate argument●ndo, auctoritatibus autem allorum doctorum eccl●siae, quasi arguendo ex propri●s sed probabilibus. Inniiitur enim fides nostra revelationi Apostolis & Prophetis factae, quì canonicos libros scripserunt ● non autem revelationi, si qua fuit aliis Doctoribus facta. Unde dicit Augustinus in epistolâ ad Hier. etc. par. 1. qu. 1. art. 8. ; 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 divers senses under one and the same Letter. In both places the Objections are thus form. 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. 
* Non tamen ex hoc aliquid deperit S. Scripturae; quia nihil sub spirituali sensu continetur fidei necessarium, quod Scriptur per literalem sensum alicubi manifestè non tradat. Art 10.  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 
† De Deo dicere non debemus, quod in S. Scripturâ non invenitur, vel per verba, vel per sensum. qu. 36. Art 2.  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 enquiring what Method is to be observed in treating of the Trinity, answers, That 
* Primò, secundùm authoritates Sanctarum Scripturarum, utrùm fides ita se habeat, demonstrandum. Sentent. lib. 1. Dist. 2. qu. 3.  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 
† 1.2. qu. 106▪ Art 2.  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: 
‖ Lex nova principaliter ipsa gratia est Spiritûs S. in cord fidelium scripta; secundariò autem est lex scripta, prout in ●â traduntur illa, quae vel ad gratiam disponunt, vel ad usum ipsius gratiae spectant. Ibid.  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: 
* Omnia quae credenda traduntur in Novo Testamento explicitè & apertè, traduntur credenda in Veteri Testamento, sed implicitè & sub figurâ, & secundùm hoc etiam quantùm ad credenda lex nova continetur in veteri. Ibid. Art 3.  All things which are plainly and explicitly delivered to be believed in the New Testament, are delivered also to be believed in the Old Testament, but implicitly 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 
† Tenetur homo explicitè credere omnes fidei articulos, implicitè verò quaecunque in sacrâ traduntur Scripturâ. 2.2. Qu. 1. Art 5. Concl.  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 enquiring whether the Articles of Faith be conveniently disposed in the Creed, he formeth this Objection against it. 
‖ Videtur quod inconvenient●r articuli fidei in Symbolo ponantur. Sacra enim Scriptura est regula fidei cui nec addere nec substrahere licet. Dicitur enim, etc. 2.2. Qu. 1. Art 9  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, 
* Ad primum ergo dicendum, quòd veritas fidei in S. Scriptures diffusè continetur, & variis modis, etc. Et ideò fuit necessarium ut ex sententiis S. Scripturae aliquid manifestum summariè colligeretur, quod propon●retur omnibus ad credendum: quod quidem non est additum S. Scripturae, sed potius ex S. Scripturâ disumptum. Ibid.  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 Milan, and Privy Counsellor to Lewis the Emperor: who asserteth, 
† Eos enim talem potestatem & authoritatem habuisse à Christo tenemur credere; qualem per verba Scripturae sibi tradita convincere possumus, nonaliam. Defensor pacis. l. 2. c. 4.  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. 
‖ Nulli sermoni vel scripturae fidem sive credulitatem certam aut confessionem veritatis praestare tenemur, nisi iis quae Canonicae appellantur, i. e. quae in volumine Bibliae continentur. Ibid. l. 2. c. 28.  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 Silvius 
* De gest. Concil. Basil. l. 1. paulò ante med.  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 john 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 than he delivers his Opinion: 
† Scriptura sacra est regula fidei, contra quam bene intellectam non est admittenda authoritas seu ratio, etc. Haec regula fundamentum est commune nobis & haereticis quos impugnare conamur. Tract. contra Heresy de commun. sub utráque speci●, Opp. Tom. 1. p. 521.  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 Heretics, against whom I now dispute. He was then disputing against the Bohemians, the Followers of hus 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 itself, 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; 
Nihil audendum dicere de divinis, nisi quae nobis à Scripturâ sacrâ tradita sunt. Cujus ratio est quoniam Scriptura nobis tradita est tanquam regula sufficiens & infallibilis pro regimi●t totius Ecclesiastici corporis & membrorum usque in finem saeculi. Est igitur talis ars, talis regula vel exemplar, cui se non conformans alia doctrin● vel abjicienda est, ut haereticalis, aut suspecta; aut impertinens ad religionem prorsus est habenda. Suspecta est omnis revelatio, quam non confirmat lex &c prophetae cum Evangelio. Alioquin, etc. De Examinat. Doctrine. Par. 2. Tom. 1. p. 541.  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 Capriccios of men's 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 wholesome 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 Catholic Truths. Lastly, disputing of those Articles of Faith, which are necessary to be believed, he determines thus: 
* Constat autem quòd Canon Bibliae lex est Dei per revelationem habita; cujus Assertiones literales innituntur huic unico literali principio. Declarat. verit. quae credenda sunt de necessit. salut. Tom. 1. p. 414.  It is manifest, 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: 
† Licet autem Ecclesiae militantis authoricas sit maxima, etc. non illi tamen nos oportet (ut videtur) triumphantis Ecclesiae titulos ascribere, ut infallibilis sit & impeccabilis, quae saepe, ut nôsti & fallit & fallitur.— Mirum sanè primâ specie satis videtur, quòd authoritatem peregrinantis in terrâ Ecclesiae authoritati videtur Evangelii anteponere: cum in multis illa falli possit, illud omnino nequaquam possit: & cum ipsius Ecclesiae authoritas quantum ad ipsius radicem & fundamentum maximè ex Evangelio constet, etc. Disput. de materiâ Conc. Gen. p. 61, 62. Lugd. Bat. 1613.  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 itself, 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 expressly and certainly be known, as from the Gospel. But, as I imagine, 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 imagine, 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 Heretics 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 entire System of Divinity, he layeth down the Sufficiency of Scripture as a most certain Principle in three whole Chapters; 
† Doctrinale fidei antiquae. Tom. 1. lib. 2. cap. 20, 21, 22.  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 
‖ 
Qui adhuc credunt Scripturarum Canon●m imperfectum, & posse adhuc augeri per authoritatem Ecclesiae, cum Iudaeis plenitudinem temporis expectant, judaico forsan sub Messia. cap. 2●.  
Nec tamen hîc laudo supericilium quod quidam attollunt, volentes occasione hujus dicti decretum patrum in Ecclesiâ majoris esse auctoris & culminis & ponderis, quam sit auctoritas Scripturarum. Quod quidem non tam ineptum videtur quam satuum: nisi talis quis dicat, etc. cap. 21.   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 jews expect the fullness of time, perhaps under a jewish Messias. He than takes notice of that famous Passage of S. Augustin, I would not believe the Gospel, unless the Authority of the Catholic Church persuaded 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) allegorise, 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, etc. 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 subjoins, That the Authority of the Scripture is far superior to the Authority of all Doctors, even of the whole Catholic Church; and that although the Catholic 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 
* Subjicitur tamen ipsi, sicut testis judici, & testimonium veritati, sicut praeconizatio definitioni, & sicut praeco regi. Ibid.  the former is subjected to the latter, as a Witness to a judge, 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, 
Cap. 22.  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, showing how many ways the Knowledge of the Catholic Truth may be attained, he saith, 
* Omnium optimè atque certissime Scripturis Canonicis. Ecce quatuor vias veniendi ad indubiam veritatem, sed plus & minùs certas, quarum prima & certissima est per Scripturas Divinas. Ibid.  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 judgement 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 johannes de Ragusio, a Learned Dominican, by the appointment of the Bishops, disputed publicly 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: 
† Quòd autem praedictus articulus sit inter alios omnes primus, in quem omnes alii resolvuntur, manifestum est: quia si dubitatio circa alios articulos contingit, statim ad sacram Scripturam veluti ad certissimam & inobliquabilem regulam communiter recurritur; & secundùm testimonium veritatis ejusdem sublatis dubiis veritas elucescit.— Nisi autem Ecclesiae existentia sciatur; nulla est Scripturae authoritas. Concil. Tom. XII. p. 1025.  But that the aforesaid Article (the existence of one holy Catholic 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, 
Praecipuè & maximè ●sumenda est ex authoritate S. Scripturae. p. 1026.  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 expressly 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: 
‖ Sexta Suppositio. Fides & omnia necessaria ad salutem tam credenda quam agenda fundantur in sensu literali (S. Scripturae) & ex ipso solo argumentatio sumitur ad probandum ea quae fidei sunt vel necessitatis ad salutem. p. 1028.  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: 
† Septima suppositio. S. Scriptura in sensu literali sanè & benè intellecta est infallibilis fidei regula & sufficientissima.  Holy Scripture in the literal sense well and sound 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: 
* Si S. Scriptura non esset sufficiens fidei regula, sequeretur quòd, etc. p. 1029.  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, etc. 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 compliance 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 Controversy 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 denied 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. 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil. Flor. Sess. 8. Conc. Tom. XIII. p. 14●.  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 ourselves, nor by any other Christians. And when the Latins recurred to their wont refuge of Explanation or Declaration made by the Church, of what is implicitly contained in Scripture, Bessarion replied, 
* N●gari non potest, etsiper modum declarationis veniret, qui● sit additio, quae prohibita videtur, & prohibitum hoc verbum apponi. cum verò induxistis actae Patrum, quibus aliqua videntur declarari, dubium nostrum non tangit. Nam quòd aliquod apponatur fidei, hoc nunquam licuit, neque licebit. Concil. Flor. par. 2. Collat. 7. Concil. Tom. XIII. p. 935.  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 allege 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, 
‖ 
Dicitis sic, dogmata fidei sumuntur ex fonte Scripturarum, quae sunt principia fidei. Ex hoc dicto inferimus nos, quòd declaratio, expressio & explicatio, quae fit circa articulum fidei vel symboli, per Scripturas Evangelii, epistolas Pauli, & Vit. & Nou. Testamenti, nullo modo est extrinseca reputanda, aut alterìus gene●●● doctrina; cum sit doctrina Dei & Ecclesiae. Quia tunc tantùm dicitur probatio extrinseca, quando fit non per principia illius doctrinae, sed, etc. Ergo probatio & declaratio quae fit per hujusmodi Scripturas, fit notoriè per principia propria fidei, & intrinseca doctrinae nostrae. Ibid. Collat. 10. p. 959.  
Immò nec propriè additio dici debet, illo dato, sc. quòd ex propriis principili fidei, so. ex S. Scriptures evidenter deducatur. Ibid. p. 960.   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 Book 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 intrinsical Principles of our Religion.— Yea, this ought not properly to be called an addition, 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 Judgement 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 concernentious fidem Concilium est supra Papam.— Puto tamen quòd si Papa moveretur melioribus rationibus, etc. Nam & Concilium potest errare, sicut aliàs erravit. Name in concernentibus fidem etiam dictum unius privati esset praeferendum dicto Papae, si ille moveretur melioribus rationibus N. & V. Testamenti quam Papa. In cap. Significâsti de electione.  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 Sum of Divinity, 
* Par. 3. tit. 23. cap. 2. Sect. 6.  and proposeth them as his own Opinion. And not only so, but also in another place declareth his Judgement no less plainly in these words; 
† Loquitur Deus in Scriptures, & ita copiosè (ut Gregorius exponit 22. Moral.) quòd non oportet Deum iterum loqui nobis aliquid necessarium, cum ibi omnia habeantur. Par. 3. lib. 18. cap. 3.  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 
‖ Dial. l. 2. c. 1.  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 joannes de Neapoli, 
* Vide Quaest 21. punct. 2. quaestiunc. 3. Edit. Neap. 1618.  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 
† Vide Edit. Lugd. 1518.  most expressly 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 Gloucester, at that time Protector of the Kingdom; by whose Favour he was promoted to the Bishopric 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 Controversy in defence of the Church against the supposed Heretics 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 Doctors. Of faith in Latyn. Of priesthood. The Donet. The follower to the Donet. The Represser. The forcrier. The book of Cristen Religion. The provoker. The book of signis in the Church cleped also the book of Worschiping. The book of Leerning. The book of filling the IV. Tablis. This present book of Faith. Of the Church in Latyn. Beside these already mentioned, Bale 
* De Script. Angl. Cent. 8. p. 594.  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 Constantine's 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 public Library of the University of Cambridge in Quarto. It is entitled, The Repressour of over much blaming the Clergy: wherein he passeth through all points in Controversy between the Church of Rome and the Lollards; and largely endeavours to confute the latter.  
But as his zeal induced him to plead the Cause of the Church so copiously; so his Learning enabled him to discover the Follies and gross Superstitions practised in that Age: which, when once discovered, his Piety enforced him to detest. Religion had now passed through so many ignorant and barbarous Ages; the means of greaterknowledge had been so studiously hidden from the People, and the ignorance of the Laity was so advantageous to the interest of the Clergy, that the true Spirit of Christianity seemed to be wholly lost, and had degenerated into Shows and Ceremonies, many of which were unlawful, but almost all unuseful. And not only this fatal stupidity and idle Superstition had generally possessed the minds of Men; but all Remedies were detested, and all Artifices made use of to continue the Disease. Many good and Learned Men endeavoured the Reformation of these Abuses, without departing from the Communion of the Church; but were attended herein with the usual Fate of the Opposers of inveterate Evils; who seldom escape the Persecution, but never the hatred of those, who are engaged both by zeal and interest in the continuance of those Evils. Our Learned Bishop was of the number of those brave and generous persons; who while he earnestly invited the Lollards into the Communion of his Church, no less vehemently opposed the Superstitions of his own Party. Some Footsteps and Marks of this Disposition may be found in this Treatise; which prove his Integrity to have been equal to his Zeal, and neither inferior to his Learning.  
The Authority of the Church, and Infallibility of her Definitions, had of late been set up as the most successful Engine against the prevailing growth of supposed Heretics. To refute the Arguments of Wicleff, and convince his Followers with solid Reasons, neither the Ignorance of the Clergy, nor the Badness of their Cause did then permit. It was accounted too great a Condescension in the Governors of the Church to confute the Mistakes, and inform the Judgements of their seduced People. Yet somewhat, at least, was necessary to dazzle the eyes of the unthinking multitude, and at once convict all their Adversaries of the Charge of Heresy. Nothing could be more effectual to this end than the pretence of Infallibility; which alone might satisfy the Scruples, and command the assent of credulous persons. For this reason ever since Heresy began to be punished with death, it was thought sufficient to oppose the Infallibility of the Church to the Arguments and Reasons of condemned Heretics; and the maintenance of this pretence was esteemed the great Bulwark of the Church. However, our Bishop easily discovered the vanity of these pretences; and in this followed the Opinion of the most Learned Writers of his Age, that the Representative Church, or General Councils, were not only fallible, but had sometimes actually erred; that the Decrees and Definitions of the Church ought to be submitted to the Examination of every private person; that no Article of Faith was to be received, which was repugnant to the Principles of Reason; and that not the Belief and Acceptation of the Church caused any Doctrine to be accounted true, and an Article of Faith, but the presupposed Truth of the Doctrine rendered the Belief of it rational and justifiable.  
Indeed the Doctrine of the Church's Infallibility had by some Men in this Age been advanced so far, that nothing less than a fatal credulity, or no less fatal ignorance could excuse the admission of it. Our Author assureth us in the first part of this Book of Faith, that many Divines in his time argued from those words of S. Paul: If we or an Angel from Heaven should teach any other Doctrine than that which ye have received, let him be anathema, that if it should happen that the Church militant and the Church triumphant disagreed in an Article of Faith, the Determination of the Church militant were rather to be followed. Such crude Positions might raise the admiration of fools, but deserved the indignation of wiser Men. Our Author chose to do justice unto Truth in owning and asserting the Fallibility of Church and Councils; and yet not to quit the specious pretence of the Church's authority in pleading her Cause, and confuting the Lollards. This therefore he proposed in a more plausible way, confessed the Church might err, and that even in matters of the greatest moment: however, that it would be most safe and rational for ignorant Laymen entirely to submit their judgement to the Direction of the Clergy; that by this submission indeed they might possibly be led into Error and mortal Heresy; but that this would be no disadvantage to them, since in that case God would reward their submission and docility, although to them the occasion of most grievous Errors, no less than if they believed the Christian Faith entire and incorrupted; and would even bestow upon them the Crown of Martyrdom, if they laid down their lives in testimony of their Errors. And since in that Age the Laity were generally very ignorant of the true Principles of Religion, and devoid of all sort of Learning; he included them all in the number of those, whose duty and interest it was to pay an implicit submission to the direction of the Clergy.  
But not only did he disown the Infallibility of the Church, but also disallowed and condemned her practice of burning Heretics. He desired rather to win them to her obedience by gentle methods, and thought it more noble to convince them by Reasons and Arguments, than by Racks and Fires. This moderation could not but displease his Fellow Bishops, who chose rather at that time to satisfy their Malice by the punishment, than serve the Church by the conviction of supposed Heretics. But our Author was acted with more noble and generous Principles; he endeavoured to remove their Errors, but refused to practise upon their Lives; and which perhaps was no small part of his Crime, neglected to thunder out his Curses against them, and scorned to treat them with opprobrious Titles. Rather in the first part of this Work he giveth to them an honourable Character, and confesseth them to have been generally persons of good Lives and exemplary Conversations.  
The incredible Fables of Legends, and incurable itch of Lying for the Honour of their Saints and Patrons▪ which then reigned among all the Monastic Orders, and was fond received by the credulous multitude, were one of the greatest scandals and most pernicious abuses in the Church at that time. The greater and more necessary Articles of Faith, and all genuine and rational knowledge of Religion had generally given place to fabulous Legends, and Romantic Stories; Fables which in this respect only differed from those of the ancient Heathen Poets, that they were more incredible, and less elegant. These, our Learned Bishop feared not to oppose and disesteem; arraigns them of Error, Heresy and Superstition; proclaims their falseness, and derides their folly.  
This denial of Infallibility, moderation towards the Lollards, and disesteem of Legends, drew upon him the envy and hatred of the Clergy, to which may be added, his favour with, and faithful adherence to his Patron Duke Humphrey; who had always manifested a moderation towards the dissenting Lollards, and aversion from the superstitious practices of the Clergy. No sooner was the Duke oppressed by a contrary State Faction, but his Client the Bishop was attempted, and his ruin designed. Several Passages were taken out of his Writings, which his Enemies accused of Heresy, at least, of Error. Hereupon in the year 1457. he was cited to appear at a Synod held at Lambeth, by Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury, attended with the Bishops of Winchester, Lincoln and Rochester, and 24 Divines; by whom, after a short hearing, he was condemned of Heresy, and enjoined to recant his heretical and erroneous Opinions publicly at S. Paul's Cross. The Recantation he performed on the fourth day of December, when his Books were also publicly burnt. His Fortunes after that time are very uncertain. Some relate him to have been made away in prison; others, to have been kept prisoner in his own Episcopal Palace until his natural death; and lastly, some, that he had a small pension assigned to him out of the Revenues of the Bishopric, and retired into a Monastery, where he ended his days in a short time.  
The Opinions which he was forced to recant, as they are represented by Bale 
* Cent. 8. p. 594. , Bishop Godwin 
† De praesul. Ang. p. 559. , and Fox 
‖ Martyrol. vol. 1. p. 928. , are these, I. That it is the Office of a Christian Bishop, before all other things to preach the Word of God. II. That human Reason is not to be preferred to the Holy Scripture. III. That the modern use of the Sacraments (as attended with so many superstitious Ceremonies and Customs) was l●ss advantageous than the use of the Law of Nature. IV. That Bishops buying their Admissions of the Bishop of Rome, do sin. V. That no man is bound to believe and obey the Determination of the Church of Rome. VI That the Revenues of Bishops are by Inheritance the Goods of the Poor. VII. That the Apostles composed not the vulgar Creed. VIII. That the Article of Christ's Descent into Hell was not formerly in the Creed. IX. That no other sense is to be attributed to Holy Scripture, but the first and genuine sense. X. That it is not necessary to Salvation, to believe the Body of Christ is materially in the Sacrament. XI. That the Universal Church (in a General Council) may err even in Matters of Faith. XII. That it is not necessary to believe in the Holy Catholic Church. XIII. That it is not necessary to believe the Communion of Saints. XIV. That the voluntary begging of the Mendicant Friars was unprofitable, and no ways meritorious.  
It must not be imagined, that these Articles were generally at that time accounted erroneous and heretical in the Church. For if we examine them, we shall find that many of them were taught and believed by the greatest Divines of the Church at that time: some at this day allowed to be literally true by the Learned Writers of the Church of Rome: and in fine, that our Author knew the Doctrine of the Church far better than his Judges; and although condemned by them, was no less Orthodox than they. As for the twelfth and thirteenth Articles, which seem to be most odious,, they are mere Calumnies, as appears from this very Treatise, For towards the end of it he acknowledgeth it to be necessary to believe the existence of the Holy Catholic Church, and of the Communion of Saints; but yet unnecessary to believe on them, that is, as himself explains it, to give a blind assent to all their Determinations. The seventh and eighth Articles are known to be literally true by all Learned Men. For no proof can be brought, that the Apostles composed this Form of Creed, which we now use: and it is most certain, that the Article of Christ's Descent into Hell was found in none of the Ancient Creeds, for the first 400. years, except in that of the Church of Aquileia. The first, second, sixth and ninth Articles, if candidly interpreted, cannot be denied to be true by any sober Romanist; and whosoever considers the gross Ignorance and Superstition of those times, will not deny the third. The fourth Article may be justified by the Opinion of many great Canonists, who define all such payments to be Simony; and the Church of France hath all along decried and disapproved them. The fourteenth was defended by Richard, Archbishop of Arniagh, Gulielmus de S. Amore, and many other great Divines of the Church of Rome. The eleventh, and consequently, the fifth Articles were believed and maintained by Occant 
* Dial. par. 1. l. 5. c. 25. , Peter de Alliaco, Cardinal of Cambray 
† Quaest Vesper. Art 3. , Thomas Waldensis 
‖ Tom 1. l. ●. c. 19 , Panormitan 
* Loc. supra cit. , Antoninus 
† Concord. Cath. l. 2. c. 3, 4. , Cardinal Cusanus 
‖ Disp. de Conc. , Clemangis 
* Sentent. l. 4. dist. 11. , and many others in this Age. Lastly, the tenth Article may be defended from Peter Lombard 
* Sentent. l. 4. dist. 11. , Peter de Alliaco 
† In 4 Senten. qu. 6. Art 4. , Scotus 
‖ In 4. Senten. Dist. 11. qu. 3. , Tonstal, Bishop of Durham 
* De Eucharist. lib. 1. , and others; who believed indeed the Truth of the Article, but denied it to be necessary to be believed.  
That Treatise which I here publish, and which gave occasion to the present Discourse, was by me transcribed out of a Manuscript extant in Trinity College in Cambridge; which seemeth to have been written with Bishop Peacock's own hand, as may be conjectured from the frequent Emendations and Additions inserted in the Margin, and bottom of the Pages by the same hand. The whole Work was entitled by the Author, A Treatise of Faith; however, in the Front of it this Title is affixed by a later hand, Reginald Peacock, Bishop of Chichester 's Sermons, in English: whereas the whole Treatise is a Dialogue between the Father and the Son, divided into two Books: whereof the first proposeth to treat of the most probable means of reducing the Lollards to the Church, which he assigns to be an entire submission of Judgement to the Decrees of the Church, although supposed fallible. The second treateth of the Rule of Faith. The first Part is chiefly taken up with a long Digression, proving that Faith is only probable, not sciential, or that the Truth of the Christian Religion cannot be proved by demonstrative, but only by probable Arguments. This Dispute is managed in a Scholastic Way, full of Subtleties and Niceties of Philosophy and School Divinity, and very obscure: which therefore I thought not worthy either my transcribing, or the Readers perusal. However, I transcribed some considerable Fragments or Excerpta, which seemed to me more remarkable and worthy of notice; which I here present to the Reader. The second Book or Treatise of the Rule of Faith, I have published entire, as far as the Manuscript Copy permitted me. For, which is much to be lamented, some few Leaves were wanting in the end.  
Besides what I have already mentioned, many things may be here found worthy a particular Observation; as with how great ardour he impugns the refusal of 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 Judgement 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 enlarging 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 win the Lay Children of the Church into Obedience, which undir greet peril of ther Soulis they owen pay and hold to the Clergy, y intend and propose in this present Book for to meet agens such unobediencers by an open weigh and in a nother manner, and by meene which the lay persoonies will admit and grant: which meene is this: That we owen to bileeve and stoned to sum Saier or teacher which may feile, while it is not known that thilk Seier or Techer thereyne failis. And so for to move and convicte them into obedience never the less and never the latter to the Clergy in leerning their faith; thoug it were so that the Clergy mygte solemnly determine agens true faith.  
II. Twey thingis be the principal causis of Heresy in the lay yeple. Overmyche leening to Scripture, and in such manner wise as it longeth not to holi Scripture for to receyve. And the seconde is this: Setting not by for to follow the Determynatiouns and the Holdingis of the Church in mater of Faith.  
III. The Fiend hath brought in so greet a sleigte in the Sect of the Sarrasenes, that they ben full wondirful violenti settid for to give audience to eny proof making for Christian Faith, or making agens Sarrasene Sect. For why thilk wicked Man Mahumet, which brought in their Sect, or sum Prelate after him, made as for a po●nt of his Law, that no persoone of his Sect should here eny Declaracioun or evydence agens his Sect, and that under pain of passing cruel deep. But O thou Lord jesus God and Man, heed of thy Christian Church, and teacher of Christian Bileeve, I beseech thy mercy, thy pity and thy charity, fer be this said peril from the Christian Church, and fro each persoon thereyne contained, and schilde thou that this Venom be never brougte into thy Church, and if thou suffer it to by eny while brougte in, I beseech that it be soon again out spit: but suffer thou ordain and do that the Law and the Faith which thy Church at eny time keepeth be receyved and admitted to fall under this examinacioun, whether it be the same verri Faith, which thou and thy Apostlis taugten or no: and that it be receyved into examinacioun whether it hath sufficient evydencis for it to be very faith or no: and ellis it mygte be hold aghe, and it were a full suspect thing to alle them that should be convertid thereto, and ellis also it were a full schameful thing to the Christian Church for to hold such a faith for a substance of her salvacioun, and yitt dursten not suffer it to be examined whether it is worthy to be allowid for true faith or no. And it were a villainy putting to Crist, that he should give such a faith to his people, and into which faith he would his people turn alle other people, and yitt he would not allow his faith to be at the full tried, and that he durst not be aknowe his faith to be so pure and so fine from all falsehood, that it mygte not by strength of eny evydence be overcomen. And therefore Lord Almygti, thou forbid that eny such prisoning of thy faith be maked in thy Church. And also this is worship ynoug for Cristen Faith, that it may without fear be avowed, and be publischid and be proffered to be examined by eny wit under Hevene in such manner of examynacioun now bifore said, as vi which each pretence faith ougte to be examined whether it be true faith or no. And yitt ferthemore to this now said, may evydence be this: that ellis Crist would have gove such a Law to be had and to be continued in his name, of which Law sum of our faith is a party, ne were that it mygte abide the fire of triel and of examynacioun of each creaturis resoun, so the examynacioun be such as ougte to be taken and used for to examine and prove whether a faith pretence be true faith or no, as ferforth as eny goldsmith will avow and warrant his Gold, which he desyneth to be tried and examined by all manner of fire of this wordli burning.  
IU. And ferthemore y will Clerkis to have in consideracioun that not for a thing is famed to be an Article of Faith, therefore it is an Article of Faith: but agenward for that it is an Article of Faith. and proved sufficiently to be such, therefore it is to be bileeved by faith. So that an Article to be bileeved by faith is dependant on this, that it is bifore proved sufficiently to be faith. And an Article to be an Article of Faith is not dependent of this, for that it is bileeved as an Article of Faith.  
V. The Clergy shall be condemned at the last day, if by clear wit they draw not Men into consent of true faith, otherwise than by fire and sword or hangement. Although I will not deny these second means to be lawful, provided the former be first used.  
VI Thomas had then these same evydences (of Christis Resurrection) in as good manner or in better than we hau now for us. For why he heard the Apostlis denounce Christis Resurreccioun to him by their own mouth, the that denouncen the same to us by their Writing: and also he knew by experience the truth and the sadness and the unbigilefulnesse of hise felowiss, where that we known it by liklihode, oonly thoug so likeli, that to the conttary we have noon evydence so likeli.  
VII. Sun I said bifore that there ben two manners of faith: oon is opinial faith; and this is the which we and alle Cristen hau by the common law of God, whilis we lyven in this life. Another faith is sciencial faith; and thoug this faith may be had by specialte in this life, yitt it is not commonli had in this life, but it is had in the Bliss of Hevene.  
VIII. Wherefore he (the Church) knoweth not himself, neither ougte know himself for to teach authentikli or by authority of mastery to eny persoon, ni las●e than he know himself to have receyved the same faith from God in manner of arguing bifore said by oon of these Meenes, of which oon is this: Holi Scripture witnesseth and denouncith this Conclusion. Another is this Holi Church; for Faith hath bileeved this in time of the Apostlis fro thence contynueli hidirto. Another is this: Miracle is done unto witnessing of it.  
IX. Resoun which is a syllogism well reulid after the craf taugt in Logik, and having two Premyssis openli true and to be granted, is so strong and so mygti in all the kindis of matters, that thoug alle the Angels in Hevene wolden feie that this Conclusion were not true: yitt we should leeve the Angels seeing, and we schulden trust more to the proof of thilk syllogism than to the contrari seiing of alle the Angels in Hevene. For that alle Goddis creaturis musten nedis obey to doom of resoun, and such a syllogism is not elliss than doom of resoun. If the Church in earth determines agens it what such a syllogism concludith, we schulen rather trow and hold us to thilk sillogism than to the determynacioun of the Church in earth.  
X. Every Man is bound to obey the determination of the Church; but if he can evidentli and openli without eny doubt schewe teach and declare that the Church bileeveth, or hath determined thilk Article wrongli and untreuli, or elliss that the Church hath no sufficient ground for to so bileeve or determine, yhe thoug the Church schuld bileeve or deterymne amiss, yet thereof should not this persoon be blamed of God, but schuld be full excused.  
XI. Sithen it is here bifore undoutabili proved that by thy obedience to the Clergy in case of the Clergies erring, whilis thou it not knowist neither desirist neither makist; noon hurt schal come, but the same good which schuld to thee thereby come, if the Clergy in thee teaching not errid: is not this ynoug to thee? what mayst thou look after eny more?  
XII. If a Parish Priest should teach his Parishioner some gross Heresy instead of an Article of Faith, 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 worthy a ground and fundament of our Faith, that noon other ground or fundament passeth it, or is surer to be eleven to than is it. Wherefore, Sir, it would seem that if I cleve to holi Scripture to take of it my Faith, I am not to be blamed, but I am thereyne thank-worthi, forasmuch as I conform me to thilk reule, which God hath purveied for to be our reule in mater of faith, and whom no other reule in earth passith. Sir, that this is true y grant we'll, namel●●l, as anentis all the faith which holi Writ teacheth. For that this be true shall be showed well in the Book of Faith in Latyn, or ellis in the Book of the Church in Latyn, as God will grant.  

PARS II.  
Fadir ye hau said in the X. Chapter of the first parti of this present Book to alle though lay men which been obstinate to the faith of the Church, that holi Writ is the chief principal ground of all the faith which is contained in holi Writ. And treuli father I can not understand as yitt but that nediss ye must have so said to them, if it mygt be hold for true in eny wise; nameliehe sithen ye hau said to them, as ye musten nedis seie to them, and it mygten not be left unseid, that the dew and right literal undirstonding of holi Writ for true faith to be had. laymen musten fetch at the Church: that is toseie, that the all hool Clergy of Dyvynite or of the more and wittier party thereof. And readily I know so moche of her wittis' and of her counseilis, that elliss if ye had not so said to them, ye schulden labour in vain; as for to bring them into the obedience, into which ye been about by writing of this present Book. Also resoun thereto money thus. The Church or the Clergy in delyvering to people faith which is in holi Writ alleggith for thilk delyverance holi Writ, and exponeth holi Writ into thilk faith so delivered. Wherefore the Church in that biknows that he hath thilk faith of holi Writ, and so not of him silf principali. Forwhi not of him silf originali or groundeli, but of the said holi Writ eer and bifore; and therefore of holi Writ originali and groundeli. And so as anentis all faith conteynyd in holi Scripture the same Scripture should be principal bifore the Church. Confirmacionn to the same may be this. If the Church had of him silf principali, groundeli and foundamentali all the faith which is contained in holi Writ, the Church would not and ougte not for to leene to holi Writ as for grounding and foundamental teaching of thilk faith: neither would send eny askers into holi Writ, or would labour to expone holi Writ to them into thilk faith. But the Church would and ougte to seie to such askers of right faith: Bileeve ye to me, for that I seie this to be right bileeve. And the Church would not fetch to such askers authority of a thing longer and of lass authority to the purpose than the Church is. Wherefore the Church, as it seemeth by his own pretencioun or interest to expone holi Writ in to teaching which is true faith, must nediss knowledge that he taketh holi Scripture for his better, worthier, higher and groundier fundament of the Faith, which Faith the Church teacheth by holi Writ, and by the exposicioun of the same holi Writ. And therefore open it is that ye have not said amiss in this your now spoken seiing to laymen. Into the other contrary side Fadir many skilis now be maked, that the Church is principalier and cheefer than is holi Writ, anentis eny faith taugt by holi Writ, and that for VIII. Argumentis, which y can make thereto. Wherefore I donte not but that trouble and discencioun schulen be bitiwixe Lay Men and Clerkis, yhe and bitwixe sum Clerkis and other Clerkis upon this, whether holi Writt or the Church is chefir and of more power having anentis faith is contained in holy Writ: ni lass than ye Fadir answer to thilk VIII. Argumentis; and so I can not see but that the mater of this discencioun must nediss be brougte forth in utteraunce and conicacioun.  
Sun I am redi to here thy VIII. Argumentis, and for to answer to them if I can. Peradventure in the answering to them schal grow in sum thing, wherebi schal be clerid what comparisoun is to be had bitwixe holi Writ and the Church anentis all faith conteynyd in holi Writ. And by so moche y am the leefir for to here thy Argumentis and for to answer to them, by how moche thou hast now said and truth is, that the truth which is now occasion of the comparisoun making bitwixe holi Writte and the Church mygte not be left unseid and untoold to the Lay people neither to Clerkis. And that cause bifore by thee alleggid.  
Fadir agens this which ye hau allowid bifore in the X. Chapter to be true, that holi Writ is such a ground and fundament of our Cristen general Faith, that noon greater or bettir or surer to us ground or fundament is for our Cristen general Faith written in holi Writ, I may argue by VIII principal Argumentis, of which this is the first. Nothing is to be said ground to us of our faith without which thing our faith mygte have be sufficientli grounded and witnissid. But without Holi Scripture now had Faith mygte habe be to us sufficiently grounded. Wherefore holi Scripture is not to be said ground of another thing, without which the other thing may be: and the seconde premysse is to be proved thus. Though the Apostlis had not write eny word, yet they mygten have taugt to other Clerkis and lay folk the all full hool faith sufficientli to thbihove of the people as to there thereof the leerning, reporting and remembering; whithe Clerkis and lay folk so taugt of the Apostlis and outlyving to the Apostlis mygten have taugten other Clerkis and lay folk the same all hool faith sufficientli, which surviving and outlyving her teachers mygte have taugte other folk both of the Clergy and of the Layte the same hool faith sufficientli; which folk so taugt also surviving and outlyving her teachers mygten have taugt the same all hool faith sufficientli to other; and so forth into this present day without eny writing maad delivered to folk upon the same faith so taugt. And if this had be done, then the faith of each Leerners had be sufficientli ynoug grounded in her teachers, and in no Scripture thereupon maked. Wherefore it followeth that Scripture is not, ne was not the ground of faith to eny persoonies bileeving. That this be true which is bifore takun in the proof of the seconde premysse, that thoug the Apostlis had not written eny word, they mygten have taugt the all hool full faith to people sufficiently, I may argue thus. In time of the oold Law it was so that all the bileeve contained in thilly Law was taugt by mouth, and mass leerned by mouth. For why Exod. the XIII. Chap. when it is said of the paske day, that it should be kept yeerli by the Law then renning, it is said ferthe anon after this: And thou schalt tell to thy soon in that day, and schalt seie: This is it what the Lord died to me, when y gede out of Egypt, and it schal be as a sign in thy hand; and as a memorial bifore thy igen, and that the law of God be ever in thy mouth. For in a strong hand the Lord led thee out of Egypt, etc. Also soon after there when it is bede that the people of jewis should hallow to God each first gendrid thing that openeth the womb among the sons of Israel as well of Men as of Bestis, then it is said anon after thus: And when thy soon schal ask of thee to morewe, and seie what is this? thou schalt answer to him: In a strong hand the Lord led us out of Egypt of the house of servage. For when Pharaoh was made hard, and would not delyver us; the Lord killed all the first gendrid thing in the land of Egypt from the first gendrid of man till to the first gendrid of bestis: Therefore y offer to the Lord all thing of maul kind that openeth the womb, and y agenbie alle the first gendrid thingis of my sons. Therefore it schal be as a sign in this hand, and as a thing hanged for mind bifore thy igen. For in a strong hand he led us out of Egypt. Also lyk sentence to this is written Deutro. VI Chap. of the paske day keeping: and Josue IU. Chap. of the XII. Stones taken out of the water and set on dry land into perpetual remembrance that Jordan was dried. Also Deutr. IU. Chap. it was said thus: Forgete thou not the wordis which thin igen sigen, and fall thou not from thin heart in alle the days of thy life. Thou schalt teach though to thy sons and to thy sons sons. Tell thou the day in which thou stodist bifore thy Lord God in Oreb, when the Lord spoke to me and said, etc. Also Deutro. XI. Chap. it was said thus: Put these wordis in your hertis and soulis, and hang ye the wordis for assign in hondis and set ye bitwixe your igen, teach your sons that they think in though wordis, when thou sittist in thy house, and goist in the weigh, and liggist down and risist. Thou schalt write though wordis on the postis and gatis of thy house, that the days of thee and of thy sons be multiplied in the land, which, etc. Wherefore by like skile in time of the new Law the all hool faith mygt have be taugt by word of mouth fro oon to an other into this present day sufficientli. Ferthemore into prof or into confirmacioun of the same said seconde premysse availith this, that we seen in sum Monasteries the kunning and the fulfilling of certeyn usagis and customs be had forth in persoones of the Monastery, and be continued both in knowing and in fulfilling sufficientlis from the first Fadirs of the Monasteries unto this present day, and that without eny writing maad upon the same usagis, but by discente of word oonli fro persoone into persoone. Wherefore in lyk manner the kunning and the using of all our hool faith mygte have be had and lad and continued sufficientlis by mind and by teaching of mouth from Fadris and Prelatis into her Children and Parischens without eny writing to be maked thereupon. The seconde Argument is this: If it had be done in deed as is next above argued, that it mygte so have be done, that is to seie, if it had be so done that the Apostlis hadden taugt by word many clerks and many of the lay folk the hool all full faith sufficientli; these clerks and laifolk surviving and outlyving to the Apostlis hadden taugt by word the same all hool full faith to other Clerkis and laifolk succeeding after the death of the Apostlis, and that sufficienli, and so forth into this day: then the faith so taugt by word and so descending by word from persoonies into persoonies into this present day sufficientli, had be sufficientli grounded in the Clergy so taugten to other. Though therewith a Scripture had be maked and delivered forth by the Apostlis upon the same faith ●o by word taugt to other. But so it was indeed that the Apostlis taugten other Clerkis the full all hool faith by word sufficientli, and the clerks so taugt of the Apostlis sufficientli taugten other Clerkis succeeding after them the same all hool faith, and that by word sufficientli, and so forth continually into this present day. Wherefore the all hool full faith both in the time of the Apostlis and always ever sithen was grounded sufficientli in the Clergy for the time being and lyvyng, and by the manner now said teaching and delyveryng. And then ferth it followeth thus. If the Clergy for the time being by their such now said teaching and delyvering was and is sufficient ground for our faith for all time sithence the days of the Apost●lis: it followeth at the leest that for to look aftir or set eny other thing as is Scripture, every other thing to be ground of the same faith after Cristis teaching by word, and sithence the teching of the Apostlis by word is no need. The first premysse of this second principal argument is open ynoug to be true, 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 teach ye alle folks, baptising them in the name of the Fadir and of the Sun and of the Holi ghost: teaching them to keep alle thingis whatever thingis y have commanded to you; and also Mark the last Chap. Crist bede to hise Apostlis thus, Go ye into all the World, and preach ye the Gospel to every creature: and anon after it is said there thus, They forsooth going forth prechiden every where. But so it is, that the Apostlis hadden not fulfilled this now said commandment maad to them by Crist, in lass than they hadden prechid by word of mouth sufficientli all the hool faith necessary to be had of the people. For why all the hool faith necessary 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. Wherefore sooth it is that the Apostlis prechiden by word of mouth to other Clerkis and folkis all the hool full faith sufficiently: and so the second bifore maad principal premysse to be proved is true. The III. principal argument is this, If the Apostlis hadden taugt many clerks and many of the laifolk the hool all full faith by word of mouth principali; and these clerks and laifolk survyving and outlyving to the Apostlis hadden taugt by word principali the same hool faith to other Clerkis, and to other folk after the death of the Apostlis, and so forth into this day: then the all hool faith so taugt by word of mouth principali and descending by word principali from persoonies into persoonies unto this present day had be principali grounded in the Clergy whilis the Clergy so taugt other, thoug therewith had be a Scripture maad and delivered forth by the Apostlis to other upon the same faith. But so it was in deed that the Apostlis taugten other Clerkis the hool full faith by word principali, and though clerks so taugt of the Apostlis by word principali taugten other clerks succeeding to them the same all hool faith, and that by word principali, and so forth contynueli into this present day. Wherefore the all hool faith both in the time of the Apostlis and always sithen was grounded principali in the Clergy for the time being and lyvyng; and by manner now said teaching and delyveryng. And then ferth it followeth thus, If the Clergy for the time veing by there now said such teaching and delyveryng was and is the principal ground for our faith for all time after the days of the Apostolis; it followeth at the fulle that to look aftir or seek after or seie Scripture to be the principal ground of our faith, or that Scripture should be a principal ground thereof, or more necessary and better grounding of the same faith, thanne is the Clergy of the Church after the days of the Apostlis, is waast idle vanity and untrewe. The first Premysse of this III. principal argument is plain ynoug to be true. And for proof of the II. premysse of this III. principal argument may be maked the same argument, which bifore is maked for proof of the II. premysse of the II. principal argument, and that by 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 earth, and of which he is the heed, is always and alltimes oon and the same, as S. Paul witnessith, where he seith that to man to have by the law oon Wyf undeptabili signifieth Crist to have oon Church for his spouse. And the same witnesseth the Clergy by the profis or sequencis, which he singith in the Mass of Dedicacioun seest 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 time of the Apostolis the Church of Crist in earth by his principal partly, which was the Clergy, was of so greet worthiness and authority and dignity, that he then more grounded the Faith of Crist, than Scripture grounded faith of Crist thanne. For why the Apostlis then being the Clergy of Cristis Church grounded more Cristis Faith than there writing maked and written by them grounded as then the same Faith: in as much as the effect of a cause doth not so much in to another effect as doth the cause of the same effect into the same other effect after good Philosophy. Wherefore it seemeth follow that the Church of Crist now being, and at all time a this side the Apostlis for the time being is and was of great worthiness, authority and dignity, that he now more groundith the Faith of Crist than Scripture groundith now the same Faith. Sithen oon and the same Church is now and then, and therefore by like skile the same Clergy of the Church is now which was thanne. The V. principal argument is this, The Clergy of the Church dispensith with the thing which holi Scripture forbiddeth. For why the Pope giveth leeve to a Bigam, that is to seie to a man that hath be twies weded, to be a Dekene and a Pressed, notwithstanding that holi Scripture forbiddeth it. 1 Thi. 3. c. But so it is that the less worthy refraineth not the worthier, neither looseth the buidingis of the worthier. Wherefore the Clergy of holi Church is worthier mygtier and of greater authority than is holi Scripture, or at the leest the Clergy is of evene worthiness, even power, and mygte and of authority with holi Scripture of the new Testament. The VI principal argument is this, The Chirche of Crist by his chief party the Clergy now and all times hath power to expone, declare and interpret holi Scripture, thoug holi Scripture oweth to be understand in the sense and undirstonding of God. But so it is that even peer hath power into his eeve peer after the comoun well allowid proverb; neither the less worthy hath power on his worthier, as may be takin of Paul, Heb. 7. chap. where he seith, That the less worthy is blessed of the more worthy. Wherefore it seemeth that the Clergy and the Chirche by his party, which is the Clergy is more worthy than is holi Scripture. The VII. principal Argument is this, What ever thing needeth to have upon him silf an interpreter or a declarer, needeth to have the same thing as his overseer and worthier. But so it is, that holi Scripture needeth to have of him silf an interpreter and a declarer, which is the Clergy in earth, as for to schewe which is the dew understonding of holi Scripture. Wherefore holi Scripture needeth to have the Clergy 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 used of alle Cristen. But the Apostlis settiden in the comune Crede this Article, that is, for to bileeve to the general holi Chirche in earth. Wherefore nediss it is to bileeve to the universal or general holi Chirche in earth. And we mow in noon other wise bileeve to holi Chirche in earth than we bileeven to the Clergy of the general Chirche in earth, for as much as the Clergy is the principal parti of holi Chirche in earth. Wherefore it followeth that nediss we must bileeve to the Clergy of the general Chirche in earth. And if the Clergy ougten in eny deed be bileeved, he ougte be bileeved in his deed when he determineth eny Article to be taken as faith. For as much as this deed is oon of the greatest aviseable dediss, which the Clergy doth. Wherefore alle Cristen owen for to bileeve to the determynacioun of the Clergy thoug he determine agens holi Scripture. Lo father these VIII. Argumentis y have gathered togidere for to be assoilid by your hige wisdom.    

CAP. II.  
Sun thy said VIII. Argumentis been right 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, when it is said thus, Without holi Scripture our now had faith mygte have be to us sufficientli grounded is falls, for to speak of kindeli mygte in our side and in our Soulis without greet singular miracle of God above kind to have be done in our resouns and mind. And it is most convenient in this purpose to speak. And when for prof of this II. premysse it is argued thus, Though the Apostlis hadden not write eny word, yitt they mygten have taugt to other Clerkis and layfolk the hool all full faith sufficientli, so theli this is falls. For why a Faith is not taugt to a people sufficientli, but if it be taugt so that by thilk reching they mow cleerli understand all it, and esili report all it, and remember all it perfitlis and currauntli, and kunne rehearse it and talk it in a stable form of wordis without variance maad in wordis and processis when it is at dyverse times rehercid. And but if they mow have recours thereto and to each point thereof redeli when eny need schal ask. And sotheli for to speak of all the hool full Faith written in the Gospels and Epistlis it may not in this said wise be taugt, without that it be write, and but if the writing thereof be delivered to the Clergy. Wherefore our all hool Faith which is now bitaken to us in Scripture, mygte never by kind have be taugt sufficientli to eny people without thereof the Scripture: and thoug full many a process withynne the boondis of the Gospels been law of resoun and of kind, yitt this that Crist taugt it and rehercid it is Faith: and so the all hool Faith written in the Gospels is oon long a tale for to be sufficientli learned without thereof the writing. And therefore sithence neither the Apostlis neither eny other clerks mygten have taugt sufficientli the said Faith without Scripture, and the people mygte not by studying in the Scripture have leerned without teachers; it followeth nediss that holi Scripture is more worthy ground of our Faith than is eny congregacioun of the Clergy. O my Sun, if thou woldist take heed how a tale or a tiding by the time that it hath run thoroug IV. or V. men's mouthis, taketh pacchis and cloutis, and is changed in divers parties, and turned into lesingis, and all for default of thereof the writing: and how that langagiss who's reulis ben not written, as ben english, freensch and many other been changed withynne yeeris and countries, that oon man of the oon country and of the oon time mygte not and should not kunne understand a man of the other kuntre and of the other time, and all for this, that he said langagis ben not stabili and foundamentali written: thou schuldist full soon and full sikirli deem, and so should each well avisid man deem, that the long tale of the Gospel's mygte never by eny long time be truly and after oon manner toolde and reportid and remember of dyvers folk without thereof the writing: but many a clout should thereto be set, and many a good piece thereof be takin away, and much stries should there be about the true rehercel thereof, as which were true rehercel thereof and which were not so: but if the same long tale of the Gospels were write. And therefore there may no teaching of the Clergy ground we'll & sufficientli to us our said Faith. And yitt the writing maad and purveied by God and by the Apostlis, and by the Apostlis hearers of thilk same long tale may ground suffi●ientli the same Faith in each Clerk or Layman notabili reasoned for to understand what he readeth in the new Testament, though he not leerne the same Faith by eny general Counseil, or eny multitude of Clerkis tokider to be gathered, thoug peradventure he schal have need at some while and in some textis of the said Scripture seche to have exposition had by the eldist party of the Church joined to the Apostlis and living in time of the Apostlis, as soschal be taugt in the book of Faith in Latyn and in the book of the Chirche. Verily as I may trow thoroug all the time of were during these XL. year bitwixe Ynglond and France, wist y not scant III. or IV. men, which wolden accord thorug our in telling how a town or a castle was won in France, or how a battle was done, the though thilk men were holden right faithful men and true, and thoug each of them would habe swore that it was true what he told, and that he was present and saw it. Wherefore by all resoun in-lyk manner it would have be and was in deed of the report of the dediss and wordis of Christ, eer they were written by the Evangelistis. And that in deed it was so therein witnessith Luk in the prolog of his Gospel, and seith that therefore he was movid for to write the Gospel which he wrote. And so by lyk skile for the same cause the other Evangelistes' gave them to writing. How ever therefore mygte it have be well and true of our Faith, if it should have come to us by report of hearing, and by mouth speaking without thereof the writing. Also what that ever eny counseil of Clergy, or eny Clergy without gadering into counseil teacheth as Faith, even the Clergy referrith his so maked teaching of Faith into holi Scripture. And therefore neediss the holi Scripture is more worthy ground for our Faith, than is the Clergy of the hool church on earth. And if thou wolt wit of what Scripture y meene, ●ertis it is the writing of the oold Testament and of the new Testament. For it witnesseth all the Faith or ellis at the lest well nigh all the Faith, which Crist sechith of us. Yhe and the writing of the new Testament confeermeth all the oold Testament in that, that the writing of the new Testament referrith us oft into the writing 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 many placis of the Epistlis of the new Testament. Ferthemore soon not oonli the writing of the all hool Faith in the Gospels is so necessary to the people being a this side the Apostlis, but also the same writing maked and written of the Apostlis were right necessary as by weigh of kind and of resoun to the same Apostlis, that by the writing of the Apostlis which they written, they himsilf migten hold in mind the multitude of though trouthis there written. And that by recurse to be maked of them into the said writing left that thereof the perfigt mind should by kind fall away from them, whilis they were so moche in dyverse troublis occupied. And so therefore full open it is, that the writing of our Faith is more necessary ground to us for our Faith, than is eny congregacioun of Clerkis began sithence the death of the Apostlis. For answer to the Textis bifore alleggid of the oold Testament in the first argument it is to be said that thoug by though Textis it is had fathers schulden teach by mouth their sons and their sons sons the lawis of God and the benefits of God. Yitt by though Textis it is not had that thilk to be done by mouth should have be sufficient teaching to tho sons and sons sons without writing: and therefore though textis maken not into the intent, 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 all this that the fathers schulden teach their sons by mouth, it is had in the last of though Textis that is to seie Deutron. XI. that though same fathers and alle the people should have Goddis lawis and Goddis benefeits in writing. For why it is said there that they schulden have though lawis and benefits bifore there igen. And this is ynoug for answer to though Textis. More thing according to this answer and confeerming it thou mayst see soon in the book of leerning in thy vulgar tongue. But then father if it was so necessary writing to be had upon Christian Faith, why was writing of our Faith so long time deferrid eer it was maked by the Apostlis, as that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the VII. peer aftir Cristis ascencioun, and Mark wrote in the X. year after Cristis ascencioun, as may be had by croniclis of Martin; and Luk wrote after other writers of the Gospelis, as he seith him silf in the prolog of his Gospel. And Jon wrote after alle the other, as many men trowen. Also why wrote not each Apostle as well as sum? Also why wroten not they to each country? Sun answer to thy first question may be this. Our Lord is wisist, and he is for to lead us into our kunning to be had in profitabilist manner always readiest. And for as much as people to know by experience how necessary it was to them for to have their Faith written was to them more profitable than for to know it without experience: therefore God so schope that the Faith should by a notable time be preached oonli by word to the people, that they mygten therbi take experience, that preaching of the all hool Faith by word oonli were not sufficient without thereof the writing, and then that therefore the people should desire to have the Faith written, and the Apostlis schulden see the same truth by experience, and schulden consent for to write to the people the same Faith, which bifore bi parcellis they prechiden by word. An other cause mygte have be this. A precious thing when it is ligtli and soon gotten without long bifore going desrie to have it, schal be the less set by, when it is receyved. For as much as the writing containing our all hool Faith is preciose, and ougte not be set litil by, neither be feyntli and unworthili receyved, therefore God so schope that it was long of the people desired eer they it receyveden: as for lyk skile God differreth full holi men's boonies, for that bither long desiring and priing and abiding after it they schulden the more joie have, and the more thank God, when they it receyveden. An other cause running herwith mygte be that the Apostlis hadden not greatest leisers for persecuciouns, that they mygten anon in the bigynning have written, and peradventure long time in the biginning the Apostlis prechiden not, neither mynystriden to the people but a few articles of Faith: as were these of Crists' coming, and of his incarnacioun, and of the cause why he came. And long time minethis mygte suffice for to bring the people into consent and bileeve of these few Feithis. Also scholars in each kind of school schulden not be oppressed in the bigynning of their school with overmanye matters to be mynistrid to them at oonies or suddenlis or oversoone. And therefore a good while by yeeris scholars in the school of cristendoom herden pieces meal the Faith preached eer the hool sum and birden thereof was delivered to them by writing. And thus much for answer to thy first question. If it be true that Joon the Evangelist wrote his Gospel eer than it is said that he wrote; and so that he wrote his Gospel bifore his coming from exile, as thereto may be had greet motyve by the writing is of saint Denis Areopagite, by cause Joon had written his Gospel's eer Denys wrote hise books. Thanne answer to the second question may be this. Right as what is necessary to a comonute is to be purveid fore: so what is waast and comberose and chargeose to a comonute is to be left of, and to be avoidid. And for as much as when Matthew, Mark, Luk, and Joon haden written, the other Apostlis sithence these writingis, and sithence these writingis were sufficient to express the coming of Crist, the birth of Crist, the living of Crist, the teaching of Crist: and therefore the other Apostlis wolden not as for the same matters cumber the peplis wittis' with eny more writingis thereupon. And that what oon Apostle or a Disciple wrote, alle the other Apostlis and Disciplis known. We mow take mark by this, that peter in his epistle the last knowlechith that he wist of Poulis writing; and by a greet liklihode he knew what the other writers wroten: and by as much greet liklihood Paul wist what peter wrote, and what each other writer wrote; and therefore he himsilf wrote noon Gospel, but held him content with the Gospels written of other. Namelich siithen Luk was fellow to Paul in much of alle Poulis labouris, and therefore to Paul mygte not be strange and unwist the writing of Luk. And also that it was not to Paul unknown, it seemeth well herbi. For in the first Epistle to Corinthies the XI. ch. Paul rehercith the process of Luk the XXII. ch. well nyg word by word. And thus much Sun for answer to thy II. question. To thy III. question I answer thus, The Apostlis knew we'll as they mygten well know by resoun, that the writing of our general Faith will serve like well to people of each country, as to people of oon country: and they wisten that the oon same writing mygte and should run from oon country into another country, like as Paul in his Epistle to the Colociens biddeth that thilk same Epistle should be radde to the people which been called Laodocenses. And therefore it was no need to make to dyverse countries dyverse writingis in this wise dyvers; that they schulden conceyve dyverse matters, thoug the writing of oon and the same mater mygte be written or translated into dyverse langagiss. And thus is the III. question assoili●. Fadir y perceyve well how ye have declared full well that what was taken to prove the said II. premysse in the first principal argument is untrewe, and therefore it is to be denied. But ye have not answered to the argumentis for the prof of it what was so taken in to the prof of the same said II. premysse. Therefore Fadir answer ye to them. Sun the first argument bifore maad for prof of it what was taken to prove the said II. premysse, goith upon processis and textis of the oold Testament, which prove no thing the intent whitherto thou bringist them in thine argument. For why tho textis will no more than this, that God would the oold Law and the oold Faith be leerned by hearing of word. But certis hereof followeth not that God would or meened it to be leerned so and in lyk manner sufficientli. And therefore the textis hurten not mine intent, neither they proven the intent wherefore thou brougtist them forth into thin argument. Also the contrary, that is to seie, that God meened thilk leerning by word herd was not sufficient to the Clergy therein and to the people then; appeareth well by this, that God bede the oold Law to be written, and forto so bid had be yvel and in veyn, if the teching and the leerning of the same. Law by word oonli had be sufficient. To the II. argument maad into the same intent I answer thus. Though a few usagis and customs in monasteries mow be born in mind without writing; how should thereof follow that so long a tale as is the story of the IV. Gospel's mygte be born in mind by leerning of word without thereof eny writing. That this should follow, hath no colour, and therefore thilk argument is ligt to be in this now said manner answered and assioiled.   

CAP. III.  
FAdir agens you metith this: that the Faith which was in the beginning of the world, and was continued forth into the days of Moses, was not written. For why Moses which was after the beginning of the world by XX. hundred yeeris, wrote the book of Genesis, and it is said comounlis, he wrote it by inspiracioun, and by such propheci wherbi thingis passed been known above power to know them by kind, and yitt thilk Faith was a long tale and a long story, as is open be the book of Genesis with rehercels full hard to mind upon generaciouns of persoonies and upon the names of persoonies. Wherefore it seemeth that as well the stories of the Gospel's mygte have be sufficientli taugt of the Apostlis, and have be leerned of the other Clergy and of the people without writing. Sun if thou or eny other man ellis were sikir or had eny greet liklihood herto, and greater than to the contrary, that there was no writing of the Faith in the eldist time from the bigynning of the world into the flood of No, and fro thence into the writing of Moses, thin argument were strong. But certis noon such sikirnes neither eny such liklihood to the contrary is had. For why soon after the flood of No there was leerning of the VII. Sciencis, and writing thereof maked in II. pilers, oon of brass and another of earth: and also in the same time there was leerning and writing of Whicchecraft or of Nycromancie, as the Maistir of Story's 
* Peter Comestor.  writeth in the Chapter of the Tower of Babel. And if worldly men in that time were so bisi in worldli leerning and writing; it is not to be trowid but lyk bisi were sum of many goostli men in leerning and writing of goostli matters pertaining to the Faith and the servyce of God and to the eend whereto man was maked. Wherefore it is more likli that in though days soon after the flood of No there was writing of Faith pertaining to God and to mannies governing and eending: than that there was no on such in though day's anon after the flood of Noe. Also long bifore the flood of No Ennok found letters and wrote book is, as the Maistir of stories seith. And this Ennok was a passing holy man, as the Bible witnesseth. And he lived in the days of Adam. Wherefore sithen it is so that such as a man is, such is his leerning, studying and writing: it is more likli that he wrote holi wondirful thingis of the Faith. And namelich sithen he lived in the days of Adam, which coude full much teach Ennok what he should write in such mater, than that he wrote eny other worldly thing oonli. And sithen No was a full holi man, it is likeli that he had and kept sum and much of this writing with him saaf in his schippe whilis the flood durid namelich sithen he preached an hundred wintre to the people eer the flood came that they should leeve their sin. And certis such preaching coude not have be done without greet kunning of full goostli thingis. And also it must be by alle liklihood that Ennok delyvered to his own Sun Mathussale the same goostli writing which Ennok wrote. And this Mathussale the Sun of Ennok lyvede with No six hundred wintre: and therefore it is to be said that No had full much and hige kunning of Faith and of his writing. For so good a man as No was, would not leeve unaspied so profitable a writing. And what he had so profitabili in writing he kept saal in his schipp, and delyvered after to hise Sons Sem, Cam, and Japhet, which Sem cleped otherwise Melchisedeck lived in the days of Abraham. Wherefore Abraham by diligence of his holiness schapide him to receyve the same writing of Sem. And by liklihode Abraham bitooke it to Ysaac, Ysaac to Jacob, and Jacob to hise Sons: and how likli it is that Ennok wrote what he leerned of Adam pertaining to God and to Men, so likli is it that No or sum other wrote what he leernyd of Matussale, that felle in the days of Ennok and of Matussale: and Sem or sum other in the days of Sem wrote what he leernyd of No that felle in the days of Noe. And Abraham or other in hise days wrote what he herd of Sem that felle in the days of Sem, which was cleped Melchisedeck. For why even liklihode was of each of these casis, as was in eny oon of them. And so at the last Moses gathered all this together, and maad a book thereof which is cleped Genesis. And certis this is more likli by story bifore allegid and by resoun togidere, than forto sei that Moses had by inspiracioun without eny manys bifore govun to him informacioun. Namelich sithen we owen for to not feign forge allegge but the trow, nor hold eny miracle to be done, save when nebe compellith us thereto: that is to seie, that we mow not save the caase otherwise by liklihode of resoun for to seie that Moses had sufficient informacioun bifore of writings, thoug he should make the book of Genesis, than is liklihode to this that he had noon such now said informacioun. Therefore in this case it is not to run into miracle, thoug divers doctouris in this case, and in special Gregory upon Ezechiel, without much avisement, and soon moved by devocioun so done. Also of sum thing done bifore the flood of No, whereof no mensioun is maked in the writing of Moses, we have knowing in stories, as of this, that Lameth was an hunter and dim of sigt, and that he was lad by a young man in hunting, and that he schotte cain by dressing of the said leader. Of this thing so untaugt in Moses' writing we mygte not have had knowing, if there had not be eny writing bifore noah's flood of thingis which bifelle bifore the same flood. Wherefore such writing of stories was bifore noah's flood. And then ferthe if such storying of worldli chauncis was written bifore noah's flood: much rather storying of worthy goostli thingis was written bifore the same flood. And if this be true, then such written stories weren kept saaf by No in his schippe for skile bifore made: and so they came afterward into the knowing of Moses, as is bifore argued: and Moses compiled the book Genesis out of them: and when the books of Moses were had, the other books fallen out of use, as it is likli to bifall; for so it falleth in other lyk casis. O Fadir me thinketh ye holden a full reasonable weigh in this mater, and such a weigh, which hath more likli evydencis for it, than hath the contrari party. Therefore your weigh ougte by law of kind, and undir peril of vice and of sin be holden, till greater evydence be founden to the contrary, then been the evydencis making for this party. But certis out of this followeth, as seemeth to me, that we should hold this party, that Esdras renewid not the oold Testament in writing by gift of inspiracioun, as is comounli hold: but that he renewid the oold Testament in this wise, that he maad be written and multiplied many books of the oold Testament many more than there were bifore, and that for zeal which that he had to this that Goddis Law should be well know, thoug of each kind of though Bookis sum Copy was bifore. For why like evydencis ben that Esdras had Copies of the oold Law, as been evydencis that Moses had Copies for to write or compile by them the Book of Genesis. Yhe greater evydencis to hold this now said affirmative party, then been evydencis for to hold the contrary negative party. Sun y hold well with thy conceit in this mater, and the evidencis thereto been these. How ever yvel the people of jewis at eny time was, yitt they were never without sum holi lovers and keepers of the same among them. Forwhi when grettist idolatry was used in Jewri in the days of King Achab so for forth, that the Prophet Hely weved and said to God, That of alle the Jewis there was noon but he all oon left alyve which lovyd and kept the Law. The Lord answered to Hely and said, (that it was not so, for he kept to him he said) More than five hundred in Israel, which never bowid their knees to Baal. That is to seie, to the falls God, which in though days was worschipid openli thorug all Israel. And if this was true in though days of greatest idolatry, that there was many privey lovers and kepers of the Law; by like skile it should be trowid, that in each other time there weren such lovers and kepers of the Law. And in lyk it was in each time when Jerusalem was in traldom by enemies withoutforth, and when the Jewis weren translated into Babilonye, and whilis they dwelliden there. But so it is, that no man lettrid would cast him to be urri knower of the Law, and therefore an urri keeper thereof, but that he would cast him to have the same law in writing. Wherefore in alle times of the Jewis, both whilis they were in the land of Israel, and whilis they were in the land of Babilonye, there were among sum of them books written of the law and used of them: thoug the law written in sum books was brent in the burning of the Temple. Also jeremy lyvede and abode in Jerusalem, whilis the last and greatest captivity of the city was maked, and whilis the Jewis weren last translated, and the temple was destroyed, and hereof he proficied, and wrote his Prophecy a little before eer this greatest and last captivity was done. And after that this captivity was done, he abiding in Jerusalem with the relief and rescail of the Jewis, wrote his book cleped the Trenies. But all this was not likeli to be, if jeremy should not have had with him the Book of the Law, into the keeping of which law he so often preached and stirid the people. Wherefore it is to be trowid that jeremy had with him always written a book of the law; thoug sum book containing the same law was brent in the temple. And for lyk skile it is to be trowid that Ezechiel had also the law written, which Ezechiel lived in time of this greatest and last thraldom, and was carried into Babylonye from Jerusalem with the greet rout. And in Babilonie the fifth year of this thraldom he began to prophesy there in Babilonie. Also sumwhat bifore the thraldoms of Jerusalem the King of Joas maad the book of of the law be knowun, and be publischid full much, which long bifore was unknown as to the Prestis and to the more multitude of the people. Wherefore it is lyk that in this King's days there were written in greet noumbre many books of the law. Nameli sithen the people were then brought into a greet devocioun anentis the law, as it is open. Also in each time of Jewis there weren sum Prophetis, as may be takun by the prologgis of Jerom into the books of Prophetis, and also by the text: and to them it longid to not be unknowers of the law, in as much as God commanded his law to be of his people knowun. And without writing such so long a law mygte not be knowun. Wherefore at alle days of the Jewis both in Israel and in Babilonie there were books all redi of the same written. And herto would serve full openli the story of Thobie, and the story of Susanne, Daniel 13. ch. ne were that they ben Apocrisis. Also Daniel, Esdras, Neomyas, Zorobabel, Mardoche, Hester, and other were kepers of the law, whilis they weren freeli in Babylonie inhabiting, as the story of the Bible maketh mencioun. Wherefore it is like that they hadden the law written, namelich sithen they mygten send and have messages to and fro Jerusalem and Babylonie. And if all this be true, certis it is likli ynoug, that when Esdras and Zorobabel came fro Babylonie into Jerusalem for to bilde again the city and the temple: they hadden books all redi written of the law: and then hereof folowingli this that Esdras renewid the five books of Moses and alle the stories into hise days, is to be understand thus: that he wrote or provokid or ordeynyde to be written and multiplied many books of the same law in great noumbre, whereof was not but few bifore. And if this be true, as it hath more likeli evidencis to be trowid for true than hath his contrary party: it folewith that for to seie this which sum Doctouris comounli holden with the Maistir of stories, that Esdras by inspiracioun wrote without eny copi alle the five books of Moses, and alle the owhere books of Stories and of Prophecies in to hise days, is not but a feynyd thing. For it is said without sufficient thereto serving evydencis. And therefore this said opinion of Esdras his writing by privey miraclus inspiracioun, is worthy to be leid a side. Namelich sithen to privey miracles we should not run for to defend our opinion or our answer by them without that sufficient evydence thereto serveth. For ellis there mygte noon opinion be overcome by strength of argument, how false so ever the opinion were: so that he included no repugnance, such as God mygte not do by miracle.   

CAP. IU.  
FAdir, after alle this, what is said for answer to the first principal argument, and what is sunken in by occasion of the same answer, it is now time the ye biginne answer to the second principal argument. Sun, thou seist sooth, and therefore as for answer to the second and third principal argumentis togidere, the second premysse in ever each of them is to be denied. Forwhi sithen by answer maad to the first principal argument it is declared that the Apostlis mygten not without writing teach sufficientli our all hool full faith, whereof now is the new Testament written, it folewith that they taugten not without writing sufficientli the same said all hool full faith, which is agens and contrary to the second premysse of the second principal argument. Neither they taugten without writing principali the same all hool full faith which is agens and contrary to the second premysse of the third principal argument. And that for as much as what the Aposilis mygten not do sufficientli or principali, they diden not sufficientli neither principali. And so as now y bifore said, the both second premysses in the second and third principal argumentis been to be denied. Ferthemore thoug Christ bede as thou allegist Matt. and Mark the last chapitris, hise Aposilis to preach all the hool Gospel, and so all the hool faith to each creature by parcel mel in word speaking of dyvers times, and thoug they fulfilled this commandment, yitt hereof followeth not that Crist has herynne bade them preach the Gospel and the all hool faith as sufficientli or principali to be done. For Crist would that a good preaching not sufficient neither principal should go bifore the teching full and sufficient and principal: which principal and sufficient teching aftirward should be done by writing oonli, or ellis by word and writing togidere. For as the Philosophy seith, Kind in his working beginneth fro imperfect preceding and growing into perfect: and man doth in the same wise in hise works of craft. And thoug God the Auctor and maker of kind do in same wise in hise works, as it is not to be wondrid, but it is to be well prisid. Forwhi in that his worching accordeth well with our resoun. And so the two premysses in thin both argumentis maad for proving of the two principal premyssis in the second and third principal argumentis be not grounded upon the textis of Matthew and Mark in their last Chapitris, and been to be denied. And this wise sufficient answer is maked to the second and to the third principal argumentis togidere. For answer to the fourth principal argument thou schalt understand that Paul seith ad Ephes. ch. IV. thus: Oon is the Lord, oon faith, and oon Baptim. And yitt the baptism of this man here in Ynglond is not the same baptym in being and in kind, which is the baptism of another man in France. For each man as he is dyvers in being fro each other man, so his baptism and his sacramental waisching is dyvers in being fro each other mannies baptim and waisching in water. Nevertheless this baptism of this man in Ynglond is oon in significacioun and in representacioun with each other mannies baptim in France. Forwhi alle the baptims and sacramenten are oon thing, which is this as Paul seith, Rom. c. That each man oweth be deed and biried to alle synnies and rise into a new life in cleanness of virtue. Also in lyk manner the Chirche of Ynglond is oon Chirche with the Chirche of France, but how, certis not in being, in kind and in substance. Forwhi the people being here is not the people being there. But they been oon in reputacioun of authority of faith, of power, and of jurisdictioun. That is to seie, for the oon of these Chirchis hath lyk power and juresdictioun to the other goven to them fro God. And in lyk manner it is to be understand when it is said that the Chirche which now is, is the same Chirche which was this same time a thousind wintre, or which was in the days of the Apostlis: or that the Chirche of God is alwei oon not in being or in kind or substance. Forwhi the people is not now and then oon, neither always oon, but oon in reputacioun. And not in all manner reputacioun, but in reputacioun of lyk faith, and of lyk power, and of lyk jurisdi●●ioun goven from God. But certis open it is to each mannies resoun that thoug the Chirche now lyvyng be in this said manner of reputacioun the same Chirche which the Apostlis weren, yitt it needeth not to follow that this Chirche now lyvyng hath like moche kunning and power for to witness our faith as had the Chirche, which the Apostlis weren. Neither it followeth that this Chirche now lyvyng hath more kunning and power forto witness than hath the writing of the new testament forto so witness: thoug it were so that the Chirche of the Apostlis had kunning and power forto so more witness. And all herfore. For this Chirche is not the same Chirche in kind, in being, and in substance with the other said Chirch, right as these pesoonies be not though persoonies. And thilk Chirche had informacioun of the faith by hearing the Apostlis and the Evaungelistis, which the Chirche now being hath not, but so sechith after forto have by reading in the writing of the Apostlis and Evangelistis. And so, Sun, if thou woldist this argument if it were maked to thee: this Chirche now lyvyng, and the Chirche of the Apostlis weren oon in the said reputacioun. Therefore as the Apostlis weren in this degree of holi living and mygten do myraclis, s●eke with dyvers tungiss and write a new testament, and witness that they saw Crist do and suffer, and herd him teach; so this Chirche now being is lyk holi, and may do lyk greet miracles, may speak with dyverse tungiss, and write a new testament, and witness that he sige Crist do and suffer and heard him teach. Even so in lyk manner thou schalt be moved forto dame thin own fourth principal argument that it make no following: which argument is this. The present Chirche is always oon and the same with the Chirche of the Apostlis. Wherefore as the Chirche of the Apostlis grounded the faith more than Scripture it groundith; therefore the Chirche, which now is, groundith more our faith than Scripture it groundith. How ever it be of the conclusioun or of the consequent of the argument, which conclusioun or consequent whether it be true or no schal be tretid in the book of the Chirche in Latin. And ferthemore, Sun, thoug thou wouldst put a successive aggregate of alle the Apostlis and of alle Cristen Men, which ever weren been and schulen be, to be the Chirche of Crist, and therefore that there is always thoroug all times oon, and the same Chirche in aggregate being kind and substance: yitt hereof followeth not that how ever kunning holi mygti and worthy this aggregat was in eny time bifore in hise parties passed, so kunning holi mygti and worthy this aggregat is now in hise parties now being: no more than followeth if the successive aggregate mygte as he was thanne in hise parties passed do myraclis, that the same aggregat may do now as he is in hise parties now being: no more than it followeth, if Ynglond sumtyme mygte make such a conquest, therefore he schal be ever a power forto make like greet conquest. And therefore, Sun, if thy fourth argument be maked in this wise, the hool successive aggregat of Clerkis is now which was in the time of the Apostlis; but in thilk this aggregat was a worthier witnesser of our faith than was Scripture: therefore so is this aggregat now. Certis this argument is not worth. For he concludith and maketh no following. Nevertheless, Sun, for to put and hold such a successive aggregate in kind in propirte without figurative speech is agens good Philosophy, and therefore▪ agens good resoun, and agens truth, as full well mygte be proved, if this place were according to treat such mater. But whilis the putting and the holding thereof hurtith not my present intent, y will here lete the treting thereof pass undir suffrance. For answer to thy fifth principal argument thou schalt understand that scripture of the new testament is not thorug each party of him lyk in authority in worthiness and in dignity. For why sum parties of Scripture techen to us faith, sum techen to us law of kind and of natural resoun, as the text in it silf well schewith, and Austyn witnesseth the same. Nevertheless this that Crist taugt thilk law of kind and of resoun, whereof it is written in holi writ that Crist them taugte, is faith. For why, this that he so taugt them cannot be leerned and found by mannies resoun without thereof a teller and a denouncer. Summe parties of the said scripture techen to us positive ordinauncis of Crist, as been the sacramentis, and sum party thereof techen to us ordinauncis of sum Apostle, as the law of bigamy, and that a woman vow not chas●ite bifore the sixtieth year of her age. Now, Sun, thoug the Clergy that now is, and thoug the Pope that now is, may dispense with it that the Scripture teacheth us the ordinaunre of an Apostle and may revoke it, as he may dispense with this that Paul ordained a bigam to not be Deken or Prest: 1 T'him. III. ch. and with this that Paul ordained a widow to not take perpetual videwite undir boond eer sche be of LX. Winter, and but if sche had be wife of oon man, 1. T'him. IV. ch. yhe and revoke these two pointiss; because that the Pope is of lyk authority and of juresdictioun with each or with the greatest of the Apostlis: yitt hereof followeth not, that the Clergy now lyvyng or the Pope now lyvyng may dispense with this that Scripture teacheth as the positive ordinance of Crist; and that he may revoke eny of though ordinauncis. Forwhi so revoke and dispense mygte noon of the Apostlis. And so thoug the Chirche now lyvyng be evene in authority and power with sum parti of Scripture, as with full few parties of Scripture, as in this forto make positive ordinances lyk as holi Scripture by power of the Apostle maad, and for to revoke thilk positive ordinance of holi Scripture maad by the Apostle: yitt he is not evene in authority and power with all the Scripture of the New Testament, neither with many other parties thereof. To thy sixth argument I answer, granting the first premysse, that the Chirche now lyvyng hath power forto expowne and interpret and declare the true undirstonding of holi Scripture. And I 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 look upon him, forto speak to him, and forto warn him of hise harms, and forto defend him, and such other. And so the Chirche now being, yhe and each thrifty well sped student in Divinity hath power forto declare and expowne holi Scripture: yhe and each good Grammarien hath power to construe Scripture, so that as the urri dew literal undirstonding we schulden ask and leerne of a greet leerned sad Divine, rather than of another youngir and lass leernyd Divine: so we should ask and leerne it of the universal or general hool Clergy rather than of eny particular persoone or persoonies save in the execeptioun spokun of in the first parti of this book in the seventh ch. and in other chap. after there following. And therefore as it followeth not hereof that each thrifti Divine and each Gramarien is more worthy for to ground Faith than is holi Scripture, so it folewith not that the Chirche now lyvyng or the Clergy now lyvyg are more worthy forto ground faith than is holi Scripture. Sun, many kindis of Powers there been. The even Peer hath no power of constreyning upon his even Peer: that is to seie forto make his even peer to do what he would not do in thilk kind of work, in which they ben evene peers: and yitt oon evene Peer may revoke and release that the other evene Peer ordeynyth or biddeth to be do or doeth indeed: as we seen that oon executor revokith and relesith what the other joined to him executor ordaineth, biddeth or doeth, namelich by the Law of Ynglond, and in this case is each Pope with each of the Apostlis. As for answer to thy VII. principal Argument, I seie that power forto interpret, expone and declare which is the right sense of Scripture is not but a full little power upon Scripture: as power forto construe Scripture aftir rulis of grammar is a full little power upon Scripture; but yitt moche lass than the other power now spokun. Forwhi so by these powers no thing is takun away from Scripture what he had bifore, neither eny thing is set of the new to Scripture, what Scripture had not bifore, neither eny thing is commanded to be or not to be agens the comaunding the or nylling of Scripture. And that because this said power of interpreting, exponing, declaring and construing is not but a power of kunning oonli for to schewe and make open the thing of Scripture which is in Scripture all redi bifore thoug priveli and hid: right as the Pressed in Lent time draweth the Lent veil, and therbi maketh open to the people what was bifore in the altar alredi, thoug not seen of the people. Wherefore the first Premysse in thy VII. principal Argument is untrewe and to be denied, when it is said thus: Whatever thing needeth to have upon him an Interpreter or Expowner or a Declarer, needeth to have the same thing as his overer and worthier. And why this is untrewe it is now said. Forwhi ellis a Deltene yhe the Perisch Clerk were worthier than the Prest standing at the altar, when the Clerk draweth aside the Lent veil. And also if the said first Premysse were true, then Scripture were worthier than sche her silf is, and sche were overer to her silf, which is repugnance. For why Scripture full oft exponeth her silf by as much as by the reading of Scripture in oon parti a man schal leerne which is the true undirstonding of Scripture in all other parti wherynne he doutid or unknewe bifore. Also Sun the jugis which the King maketh in his rewine for to juge alle cause after the Law which he and his Parliament malten, ben not so worthy forto ground right wiseness in causis as the said Law is. Forwhi all that they han to juge right wiseness in causis they han of thilk Law: and yitt the same said jugis han power by there greet kunning for to declare what is the true intent of the Law written or not written, when other not so kunning persoonies in the Law as they been dougten therein or not so for seen therein. And therefore by lyk manner in this present purpose it is that thoug the Clergy or sum of the Clergy by there greet leerning have power or kunning forto declare to simpler folk which is the urri sense and undirstonding of Scripture: yitt hereof followeth not the Clergy or thilk persoone of the Clergy so declaring is worthier in wei of grounding what Scripture was ordained to ground by his dew undirstonding of truth, than is the same Scripture in him silf for so to ground. 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 true sense of a certain portioun of Scripture, and what is the truth of sum Article, and that for his long studying, labouring, and avising thereupon, than is a greet general Conceil. For why full of it is seen that oon persoon in a general Conceil redressith all the Conceil from that, that they wolden ordain, as I have rad. If oon simple persoone had not agenstonde by hise resounis a general council would have ordained that Prestis should have be weded to Wyves if they wolden. And also I have rad in the tre departed story that if Finucius 
* Paphnutius.  had not recleimed in the greet council of Nice there had be ordeynyde that though Prestis which have had Wyves schulden have left their Wyves and schulden have be divorced from him. For answer to thy VIII. argument thou schalt understand that it is not oon and the same forto trow a thing to be, and forto 〈◊〉 the same thing for why I may trow the sultan of Babylonye to be, yitt it needeth not therefore that I trow to him. And in lyk manner it is not oon and the same forto bileeve a thing to be, and forto bileeve to thilk thing. For why I may and ougte bileeve the fiend to be, and yitt y ougte not therbi forto bileeve to the Fiend. Wherefore it is not oon and the same forto bileeve oon universal Chirche of God in earth to be, and forto biléeve to thilk oon universal Chirche. And sithence it is so that by thilk Article put into the comoun vulgar Crede I bileeve the holi universal Chirche, we ben not taught as by strength of thilk wordis forto bileeve other than this that oon holi universal Chirche is, and what followeth thereof. Even as by lyk Articlis of the same comoun Crede, by lyk tenor of wordis we ben taught oon Bap●im to be, forgevenes of sins to be, everlasting life to be; and not by though Articlis forto bileeve to oon Baptim, and forto bileeve to forgevenes of sins, and forto bileeve to everlasting Lyf, as schal be schewid bettir her after in this same II. party the VIII. Ch. Wherefore followeth that by the tenor of thilk Article in the comoun Crede in which and by which we been taugt for to bileeve oon holi universal Chirche, we ben not taught forto bileeve to the holi universal Chirche, that is to seie to bileeve that the holi universal Chirche seith and teacheth truth. So that if we be bound forto bileeve to the holi universal Chirche in this now said undirstonding, it must rise by sum other fundament than by thilk Argument in the comoun vulgar Crede, which in thy VIII. Argument thou alleggist. Whimbly the Article to be bileeved that oon universal Chirche of God is, was put into the comoun Crede, schal be sumwhat tretid here after in this same II. Parti the VII. Ch. and more somewhere elliss in Latyn. Nevertheless schortli to seie here. Soon after the Apostlis rosin Heretikis, and sum of them helden that there were dyverse Chirchis of God on earth, and that they were a Chirche of God by him silf. And for as much as the great Fadris in the Chirche hadden abomynacioun hereof, they puttiden into the comoun Crede forto bileeve oon hool universal Chirche to be with hise parties not discording oon from the other in Faith of God. And this is fer fro this for to bileeve nediss to thilk universal Chirche in alle ●asis. This is enough o my Sun here for an answer to thin VIII. principal Argument. Also it is to be understand that Catholic is as much to seie as General, and therefore the Catholic Faith is as much to seie as General and Universal Faith, and Catholic Chirche is as much to seie as General or Universal Chirche. This will good and true, grammar, and this wolen oold Doctouris of dunte as Ysidir and Bede in ther writingis. And alle wittis men known that though significaciouns of wordis in Latyn ougten be take of grammar. Also Orthodox is as much to seie as right glory, or the thing which is worthy right glory: and therefore all true Faith, thoug it be particular, ougte be cleped Orthodox Faith, thoug not each Faith ougt be cleped Catholic Faith, and each true faithful particular Chirche ougte be cleped Catholic Chirche, that is to seie General or Universal Chirche. And yitt men now late not we'll leerned in Latin and in Grammar, as good weren that they weren, and as the oold Scole of Grammar brougte forth men leerned, have brougte into a viciose use now late by ignonoraunce of true Grammar for to call a thing Catholik, for that it is Orthodox, evene as for default of sufficient leerning in Grammar men bigynne forto bring into use forto seie in Alioquin schort, where if they were well leernyd in Grammar they wolden sei Alioquin long. Look alle men whether the Ele●●urarie which Nicholas the Phisisien in his Antidotari callith Catholicon is called so for that it is Orthodox or for that it is universal. And look also alle men whether the Book of Januens● in Grammar upon the IV. parties of Grammar is called Catholicon for that it is Orthodox, or for that it is universal; and then lete alle them be schamed, or at the leest lete them amend their ignorance, which cl●pen the Chirche or Faith Catholik for that it is Orthodox or true, and not for that it is universal or general.   

CHAP. V.  
FAdir may the Clergy or all the hool Chirche in earth make, of the new eny Article to be Faith, which was not bifore Feith in it silf. Sun, I would thou forgatist not what is taugt in the first parti of the follower to the donet the XI. ch. how that Faith is takun in II. manners. In oon manner the knowing by which we known the true Article, is cleped Faith; and this manner of taking Faith is proper. In an other manner the same true Article in it silf known ●i Faith now said in the first manner, is cleped also Faith. But the second manner of cleeping, thoug it be oft used, it is an unpropir manner of cleeping. Ensample hereof is this: the knowing with which y know that Marie conseived C●ist in her maidenhead, is Faith in the first manner of speech; and the same truth or Article now rehercid and bileeved, which is this, Marry conceyved Crist in her maidenhead, is Faith in the II. manner of speech. And lyk manner each other Article bileeved is woned to be cleped Faith. Thanne ferthe thus, ever each of these manners may be departed into tweyn other manners. For why as it appeareth Chap. in the first parti of the follower to the donet, the knowing wherynne I consent in mine undirstonding to a truth being above our capacity to know, save by thereof Goddis affirming or revelling is Faith. And also the knowing wherynne I consent in mine undirstonding to a truth not by my resoun● finding, but by this that a creature, which for good evydeneis y trow not therein to lie, it affeermede, is Faith. And so the comoun speech useth to seie, y gave credence to him, he is a credible man, and so forth of other spechis lyk. Wherefore it followeth by strength of the first particioun now bifore said, that answeringli to these now last said membris, the Article or the truth knowun by the first member of this last particioun is Faith; and the Article or truth knowun by the II. member of this particioun is also said Faith. Fadir, the particiouns or dep●r●ingis of Faith I contain well, and y take and comprehend them sufficientli in mi wit and in my mind. Well Sun then ferthe thus. Take thou thilk Faith which is a knowing whereynne we consenten in our undirstonding to a truth being above our capacity to found and know, and therefore we known it by this that God it affeermyd; and take thou the Faith which is the Article or the truth in this now said manner knowun, and certis never neither of these II. Feithis the Clergy or the hool Chirche may make of the new at his own wil Forwhi it is not in the power of the Clergy, neither in the power of the hool Chirche forto make such an Article to be true or to be untrewe; as it is not in the Chirchis power forto make this to be true or to be untrewe, that Marie conceyved a Child in her maidenhead, or this, that Crist was de●d and roo again unto life, and so forth of other Articlis of Faith in this said manner and kind. And therefore it that all the Clergy or the hool Chirche may do heraboute, is denouncing and declaring and defyning to the sympler parti of the Chirche what is in ever either of these now last said manners, and that this is to be take for su●h said Faith, and that this other is to be take for such Faith, and so forth of other lyk. But alle wise men may soon see that fer is this fro power to make eny thing to be such said Faith; and that the Chirche maketh not a thing to be such Faith in this that he decreeth, decerneth, jugith, determineth, and witnessith, and publis●hith a thing to be such a Faith. ●esoun will that the wiser parti of all the hool multitude of Cristen Men take upon them forto teach and enfoorme auctoritativeli the simpler parti, which thing ougte be take for Faith and which not, and that into greet aligting and esiing and suring to the simpler parti: and ●o doeth the Clergy to the Lay parti. And of more strength than this is, y see not that the determynacioun of the Chirche is. But agenward take thou Faith which is the knowing wherynne we consenten in our undirstonding to a truth which we fynden not in our reasoning other wise than for a creature, which for sufficient evydencis we trowen not therein to lie, it affeermyde: and take thou the same truth so of us trowid and bileeved, which also is Faith: and ever either of these Feithis may be maked of new of the Clergy. Forwhi the Clergy may make now first a Fasting day and an Holi day, which never weren bifore. And of this making and ordinance risen up these II. Treuthis which never were bifore: this day is to be fastid, and this day is to be halowid. Now many of the simple people mow leerne these II. Trouthiss of the Clergy, that is to seie, they mow leerne and know that this day is to be fastid, and this day is to be holowid: which they witen not why save for this that the Clergy seien so and affeermen so to them. And therefore it is in the power of the Clergy to make into them such Faith as is now said. Fadir, this manner of Faith which the Chirche may make is of noon other kind, but as is the credence or Faith which each householder may make to hise young Children and hise rude and simple Hives and to his Hondmaydens, and Boond Men not much wittis to reason: and therefore these Feithis which the Clergy may make been for fro the highness and worthiness of Feithis, which God to us maketh. And therefore Fadir lete us speak her after, as we have spoken bifore of tho Feithis, which we have by affirming of God: for such ben algatis necessary to our help. Sun I assent well that we schulen so speak, and therefore ask thereof what thou wolte. Fadir I ask this: oweth the Clergy or the Chirche bileeve as Faith eny Article which is not expressed in the literal sense or undirstonding of holi Scripture; and which is not following out of eny Article in holi Scripture; but if he have forto it bileeve and trow by this Argument: whatever God affeermed or schewid or revelid is true. This Article God affeermyd or revelid. Wherefore this Article is true. And but if he have sufficient evydence for truth of the II. Premysse, as by such a Premysse: whatever the Apostlis or other undoutabili true hearers of God, or sum undoutable miracle, or sum undoutable inspiracioun, or sum undoutable appearing without forth or withynne forth to eny persoone, or sum long uce of bileeving in the Chirche without eny bigynning known thereof, witnessid God to have affeermyd or revelid or schewid; God it affirmed revelid or schewid. So it is that the Apostlis or sum other undoutatable credible heerer of God or sum undoutable miracle or sum undoutable inspiracioun, or sum undoutable appearing withynne forth or without forth, or sum said long uce of bileeving in the Chirche, witnessid that God affeermyd or revelid this Article. Wherefore truth is that God affeermyd thilk same Article. And yitt fer ther upon the II. now said Premysse he must have notabili likli evydencis in Argument, and so likli that to the contrary is not had, neither hopid to be had eny evydence so likli. And sotheli Sun, as may full openlis be deducid, if all what is said of Faith in this present Book be we'll takun undirstonden and comprehended, whatever Article the Clergy or the hool Chirche bileeveth as Faith, and hath not upon the same Article this said process of evydence and of prof: he in so bileeving is over hasti, and usurpith and presumeth ferther than he should: and upon whatever Article the Clergy can have the said process of prof, it the Clergy may bileeve as Faith without peril. And if the Clergy have such a preef as now is ensampled upon sum Article not written openli in holi Scripture, neither folowingli out of eny Article so written, (the Chirche so hath upon these trouthis that this holi lyver after his death is accepted into salvacioun and to be reverencid and worschipid and followed as for a savyd Soul and moche lovyd and worschipid of God, and so of many martyrs, Confessouris and Virgins other and dyverse fro the persoonies of the Apostlis: the Chirche hath the now said prof, and that by help of miracles well tried and examined by sufficient true witnessing, or by open at fulle schewing. Though the Chirche needeth not seche help of miracles for the Apostlis to be done, and that because Crist said to them: Thus joie and be ye glad, for your names been written in Hevenes. And then thereof followeth this to be take for an Article of Faith: Thomas of Cantirbiri is a saint, Joon of Bridlington is a saint in the said dew undirstonding of this word saint; and so forth of other whose living and for whom the miracles done be we'll examined and tried by witnessis sworn notwithstanding that pretence Myraclis and pretence Inspiraciouns and pretence Appeeringis of God or of Angels withynne forth and without forth and legendis or lyves of Seyntis and other stories which been written and had in ●ame, been full slider and unsure groundis forto ground upon them Faith, that is to seie, a truth passing nature and revelid by God, without passing greet trial of them. For certis among them a diligent wise ensercher schal found sumtyme Supersticiouns, sometimes Errouris agens sure known truth, sumtyme Heresies agens the Faith, and sumtyme contrariete bitwix him silf; as forto put out in special where and how oft, it were ●ver long here. And therefore thoug the Chirche suffer many such to run forth and be red, and be takin as wise men will juge and feel of them; the Chirche is not so hasty forto determine autoritativeli them to be true. Nevertheless alle though which the Chirche taketh into greet and perfigt examinacioun, and there after jugith and ●erreeth and determineth autentikli to be true ben nediss to be take for true, in lass than sufficient prof be made into the contrary, and unto time thilk prof be maked and know, as I said 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 necessary Feithis, thoug sum men so comounli holden, I may argue by right notable evydencis, of which the first is this. The Apostlis bitoken not to christian men eny Articlis to be bileeved as such said Faith by eny such weigh, which the Apostlis known to be no speedful and sufficient weigh forto in it bitake eny Articlis to be bileeved as so greet Faith. But so it is that the Apostlis known well that to bitake to the hearing and mind of the people oonli without writing eny such Articlis forto be of them bileeved was no speedful and sufficient weigh. Wherefore the. Apostlis not so bitoken. The II. Premysse of this Argument may in this wise be proved. Thilk weigh was well known considered and espied to be insufficient and unspedful, which was by the Apostlis remedied and left and leid aside. But so it was that this said weigh for to belyvere eny Articlis as such faith to the people by hearing and mind oonli without writing was left and leid aside and remedied by this that they written the Gospels and Epistlis to the people. Forwhi ellis they hadden no sufficient cause for to so write. And Luk in his prolog unto hise Gospel meaneth the same. Wherefore it followeth, that the said weigh was we'll knowing and considered and espied to be insufficient for the said intent to be sufficientli sped. Also the said second premysse mygte be proved thus: The Apostlis maad so wise by the holi ghost forto overse and know Scriptures of the oold testament, mygte soon know and remember how that many trouthis Adam said and taugte to hise sons and hise offspring over it that is written in the Bible. Whereof no man in the time of the Apostlis coude eny thing seie: and thilk manner it was knowun of the Apostlis to be true that No and Abraham seiden and taugten many treuthis to there here's not written, which no man coude rehearse in time of the Apostlis, and all for that they were not written. And in lyk manner it was true of David and of Solomon aventis ther hearers, so that noon of their wordis be knowun, than tho been written. And if we wolen come near hoom, Joon the Evangelist seithen the last ch. of his Gospel, that more myraclis Crist died, than be written in this Book, which if they weren written, all the world, thoug it were turned into books, should not take and comprehendo. And that of all though myraclis not written in the Gospels not ●on is of us now knowun. Wherefore it followeth that so wise men as weren the Apostlis in goostli necessary matters, and so fulfilled with the holi ghost, and also well put into good avi●is by full wittis Clerkis convertid into Cristen Faith knewn well that this weigh forto delyver necessary faith to peplis by word and hearing and mind oonli without that of the writing was insufficient to the people. The second evydence is this. If the Apostlis hadden lete run eny Articlis undir necessary faith to be bileeved without prof of the Scripture; this intent and deed of the Apostlis should have be better known and holden of the Chirche, which was in time of great Constantyn the Emperor, than of eny Chirche being aftir though said days. For so it was the Chirche in the days of Constantyn hold not, trowid not, and considered not, that the Apostlis so left without writing eny Articlis to be takun as necessary faith. Wherefore no Chirche after the days of Constantyn oweth so hold. The second premysse I may prove thus. In the days of the greet and first Constantyn Emperor there was maked an universal council of all Cristen in Nice of Bityne, in which universal council was gathered the Latyn Clerkis and the Greek Clerkis together for this intent principali to declare the true faith in the article upon which Ariosto errid, and folowingli forto put out in an express Crede the substauncial pointiss and articlis of our faith, as is open in the stories cleped ecclesiastic story and tripartid story, or ellis thus. The Churchis story and the third departed story: which stories been the worthiest and most credible of eny other save the Bible. And therefore so they died and maad a Crede, which in the said second book is written. But so it must nediss have be that if the Chirche in though days had known or trowid that the Apostlis had delivered to the people eny articlis undir hearing and mind oonli; the Chirche in thilk said general Counseil gathered for to point and articlee matters of our faith wolden rather have set forth in writing of the Crede than maad though said articlis, which the Apostlis left out of writing, than though of whom express mencioun is maked in the writing of the Apostlis. And that for as much as to the more n●de remedy is rather to be goven than to the lass need. And the need to put though Articlis undir writing was full greet as soon after appear. Wherefore the Chirche then gathered had no conceit that the Apostlis leften eny such Articlis of necessary faith, which the Apostlis not wroten. And in lyk manner as it was in the first said general Counseil of Nice that they pointiden out Articlis of bileeve to alle Cristen people into a form of a Crede, so died another greet general Counseil aftir at Constantynopil, and many other provincial Counseils, as appeareth in the book cleped Decrees of Counseils rehercen the II. now said Credis; and in noon of them so making and pointing Articlis of our faith in ther credis is mensioun maad of eny articlis taugt by the Apostlis out of Scripture. The III. evydence is this. If eny Article should be left to people from the Apostlis undir hearing and mind to be hold and bileeved of the people greet as faith, these pointiss and articlis should be though rather than other, or as soon as other; that is to seie: we schulen pry toward the east, we schulen bless us with a cross, Prestis schulen make trefoold crossis upon the breed and wine offride in the a●ter bifore the consecracioun, the font of baptim schal be blessed with oil, and baptisid persoonies schulen be anointed with oil. But so it is that each of the said governauncis takun there bigynning and ordinance of our Fadirs oonli not the Apostlis by a chapter of holi Ba●ile in the sum of Gracian, Dist. XI. c. Ecclesiasticorum. And in the same wise it is to be deemed of holi water, whom Alisaundir the first and Pope ordained. And of holi breed and of the moost parti of observaciouns in the Mass, and of the fasting Lent, and of many other such observaciouns, whom alle holi Fadirs sithen the Apostlis ordained, and as it appeareth by open witnessing of writings. Wherefore it is not to be hold that eny other observaciouns or articlis dyvers from these now rehercid the Apostlis betooke without writing to be kept and to be bileeved as such said greet faith. Also holi Basile the now bifore alleggid c. in the sum of Gracian, c. XI. Ecclesiasticorum, departith though thingis which alle Cristen owen to hold and to bileeve into III. membris, that is to seie, into thingis pointiss or articlis, which to us levith and bitakith apostolic ordinance, that is to seie, ordinance of a Pope, or of Popes, which to us bitaketh holi Scripture, and which to us bitaketh devoute uce chosen of the more part of the people. Wherefore holi Basile conceyved no more membris than these III. to be nediss takun and kept of Cristen people: and thanne followeth that he conceyvyd not such a fourth member to be takun and kept of the people, that is to seie, which the Apostlis taugten and leften and bitoken for substauncial faith without writing. And that by the first now rehercid member Basile undirstood Popis ordinauncis it is likli therefore: Forwhi the ordinauncis of Popis been full famous and more famous and more reverente attendance in the comoun people than is the custom and usage of the comoun people, or at the leest of and even so much. Wherefore it is likli that Basile left not Popis ordinauncis unspokun of in his particioun bifore said. But other it is that he speak not of Popis ordinauncis, but if he speak, thereof in the first member of the sei● particioun. Wherefore it is true, that he so speak. And so finally forto seie into the principal intent of this present chapter, I am not aware that the Chirche techis or delyverith eny thing to be such said catholic faith as a truth done or taught in tym of Crist or of the Apostlis, exceptid which is contained expressly in the writing of the new testament or following prof in former argument. If eny other man can remember him of other or of 〈◊〉, well be it. But yitt thingis done or taugt long after time of the Apostlis the Chirch may determine for such said faith, thoug not as a truth done or taugt or revealid by God in the time of Crist or of the Apostlis, but l●tir after the time of Crist and of the Apostlis: among which thingis declared by the Chirch for faith not contained expresse●t or impressel● in holi Scripture, if eny such be, y remember me now of noon, save of it what is bifore said in this said chapter longen to the c●nony●●ng of Seintiss. And that if eny such be, which condicioun I seie for peradventure it may be hold and undirst●nd we'll, that the Chirch ●ntendith not forto decree and determine and publisch this to be an article of such said faith, Thomas of Cantirbiri is a saint, John of Bridlington is a saint, Ambrose is a saint, and so of other lyk divers from Marie, and fro the Apostlis in the new testament, but the Chirch admyttith and allowith them to be hold and morschiped and fo●●wid for seintiss in all, or in much thing taugt or done by them, & ellis people should not courtesi so do, as the Chirch 〈◊〉 not or determineth neither publisc●●th the writings of Ambros, of Jerom, of Austyn to be true, but admittis them to be take in 〈◊〉 of stydiing, and of reading and hearing with freedom to feel of them evydencies now reasona●li and sufficientli more in time coming which writing is schulden not elliss boldly and ●o●●seli be take into such studiing, reading and hearing as they now been take; ne were the said admissioun done upon them by the Chirch, even as the Chirch repellith and weakeneth the writingis of sin other writers to be take into uce of reeding and hearing courseli, of which both dediss done by Pope Gelasi mensioun is maked in the sum of Gracian Dist. XV▪ c. Sancta Romana, and therefore thoug I will not exclude fro sum what helping into the grounding miracles and revelaciouns and long uce of bileeving in the Chirch, namelich which may be in long uce of understaunding thus or thus holi Scripture, as for his literal sense yitt they been each full feeble in him silf for to found the said faith, but he be sufficienth proved and tried. And ferthemore it seimeth that the Apostlis entendiden not for to give eny catholic faith necessary to Cristen Mennys savacioun by word oonli to be kept without writing and remembrance, and so by all that is written from the biginnen of this present chapter hiderto, it seemeth that the Clergy ougte not induce or constrain the other people into bilieve and faith of other pointiss and articlis as upon the faith of whom is hangen our salvacioun than been expressed in the literal sense of holi Scripture, or following them so expressed. O Fadir, I am much delitid in your so wise and deep forth leeding of the said now bifore going pro●●s. Nevertheless I trust so moche in your to me good Fadirhood that ye will suffer me make agens your doctrine this now to follow objectioun. Oon of the best clerks and wisist Divins and cleped therefore the Doctor Sutel Scotus, seith in his writing that this article Crist in his deith of bodi discerdid into hellis is an article of necessary faith. And that for as much as it is put in the comoun crede, which exede is ascribid to have be maked of the Apostlis, and yitt this ●ame article, as he seith, is not grounded in holi Scripture. Wherefore your doctrine standeth not, if this Doctor was not in this his new said sentence bigilid. O Sun, he berith him full well which is never bigilid, namelich if he write much or teach much. For as holi Scripture seith in much spechis default is not wanting. But that the said Doctor was in this conceit bigilid, so I may schewe thus. In the time of Austyn and of other holi Clerkis about Austyns' time the comoune crede had not withynne him this said article: Crist in his death of bodi descended to helliss, as y prove in the book of faith in Latyn. And no man may seie that the Apost●is settiden thilk article in the comoun crede, a this side the days of Apostlis. Wherefore nediss it is true that neither bifore neither aftir Austyns days the Apostlis settiden thilk article into the comoun crede. And so the ground Foundement and cause why the said Doctor held the said article to be a faith is not true, that is to seie, that the Apostlis puttiden thilk article into the comoun creed▪ and that the Kirke may make noon such article of faith, is bifore schewid in of this present chapter the forheed. That in the time of Austyn and of other holi Fadris about Austyns' time the comoun crede had not this said article it is open by divers and many omelies and expo-siciouns, which Austyn and the other said Fadris maden, exponing the comoun crede in their days running. And that fro article to article by and by fro the first unto the last, and they leeven unspokun of the now said article. And also they 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.  
anon, presently.  
Apocri●is, Apocryphal.  
Apower, able.  
Ariosto, Arlus.  
Assoilid, refuted.  
A this side, since.  
altar, Altar.  
Aviseable, deliberate.  
Avisement, deliberation.   

B.  
Bede, commanded.  
Benefetis, benefits.  
Berith, behaveth.  
By, by.  
Bifelle, be●el.  
Biknows, acknowledgeth.  
Bileeve, belief.  
Birden, burden.  
Biried, buried.  
Bisi, bulsie.  
Bisidis, besides.  
Bitaken, delivered.  
Bitooke, delivered.  
Boondis, contents.  
Boonies, gifts, graces.  
Brennyng, burning.  
Brent, burnt.  
Buidingis, commands.   

C.  
Cast him, set himself.  
Certis, certainly.  
Chargeose, expensive.  
Chauncis, accidents.  
Che●●r, superior.  
cleped, called.  
Comberose, cumbersome.  
cumber, loud.  
Comonute, society.  
Conicacioun, examination.  
Coude, could.  
Courseli, hastily.   

D.  
Deed, dead.  
Deem, judge.  
Dekene, Deacon.  
Deemed, considered.  
departed, divided.  
Departith, divideth.  
Dew, due.  
Discencioun, dissension.  
Doom, judgement.  
Dougten, doubtful.  
Dowte, doubt.  
Dressing, beating.  
Dunte, ●ame.  
Durid, lasted.  
Dwelliden, dwelled.  
dim, dim.   

E.  
Ellis, else.  
Ennok, Enoch.  
Any, any.  
Earth, earth.  
Esili, easily.  
Evene, equal.  
expone, expound.   

F.  
Fadir, father.  
Fadris, fathers.  
Fiend, devil.  
Felle, happened.  
Fer, far.  
Ferthe, forth.  
Fire, fire.  
Finucius, Paphnutius.  
Following, consequence.  
Folowingli, consequently.  
Forheed, foregoing part.  
fundament, foundation.  
Fro, from.   

G.  
Gede, went.  
Gendrid, born.  
Goostli, spiritual▪  
Govun, given.  
great, great.  
Groundeli, fundamentally.  
Groundier, firmer.  
Grow in, intervene.   

H.  
Had, had.  
Han, have.  
Hangement, hanging.  
Han, have.  
Heed, head.  
here, hear.  
Hemsilf, themselves.  
Her, their.  
Herden, heard.  
Here that, whereas.  
Heres, heirs.  
Hige, high.  
Hise, his.  
Hold, hold.  
Holi, holy.  
Hondis, hands.  
Hool, whole.  
Hive, company.   

I.  
Igen, eyes.  
Impresseli, implicitly.  
jon, John.  
joon, John.  
jugis, Judges.   

K.  
Kind, nature.  
Kindeli, natural or ordinary.  
Kirke, Church.  
Kunne, can.  
Kunning, knowledge.  
Kuntre, country.   

L.  
Leefir, more willing.  
Lesingis, lies.  
Lettris, letters.  
Liggist, lieth.  
Likli, likely.  
Litil, little.  
Longid to, belonged.  
Lyf, life.  
Lyk, like.  
Lyvyng, living.   

M.  
Maad, made.  
Mannies, many.  
Mawle, male.  
Mede, Salvation.  
Mennys, mens.  
Mensioun, mention.  
Meet agens, oppose.  
more, more.  
Moche, much.  
Money, many.  
More, greater.  
Morewe, morrow.  
Mowe, may.  
Much, much.  
Mygte, power.  
Mygten, might.  
Mynystriden, administered.  
Myraclus, miraculous.   

N.  
Namelich, namely.  
Ne, neither.  
Nede, necessity.  
Nedis, necessarily.  
Ni●asse, unless.  
Noon, none.  
Notabili, notably.  
Noumbre, number.  
Nylling, nulling.   

O.  
Omelies, Homilies.  
Oold, old.  
Oon, one.  
Oonli, only.  
Oonies, once.  
Openli, manifestly.  
other, other.  
Overer, superiors.  
Owen, aught.   

P.  
Pacchis and cloutis, additions.  
Parischens, Parishioner.  
Paske, Passeover.  
Pieces meal, piecemeal.  
Per●it, perfect.  
Persoonies, persons.  
Physisien, Physician.  
Poulis, Paul's.  
Prechiden, preached.  
Premyssis, propositions.  
Pretence, pretended.  
Prie, pray.  
Privey, private.  
Process, passage.  
Proficied, prophesied.  
Prologgis, prologues.  
Puplischid, published.  
Purveied, provided.   

R.  
Radde, read.  
Recleimed, opposed.  
Redi, ready.  
Relief and resca●l, poorer and meaner sort.  
Renne, run.  
Rennyng, running or curr●nt.  
Rennyng herewith, concuring to it.  
Resoned, learned.  
Resoun, reason.  
Reule, rule.  
Rewine, room.  
rightwiseness, justice.  
Roos, rose.  
Route, multitude.   

S.  
Saaf, safe.  
Sad, grave.  
Sadness, gravity.  
Save the caase, solve the question.  
Scant, scarce.  
Schai, shall.  
Schapide, prepared.  
Sche, she.  
Schewe, show.  
Schipp, ship.  
Schope, intended or ordered.  
Schortli, shortly.  
Schotte, slew.  
should, should.  
Scole, school.  
See, see.  
seek, seek.  
Seie, say.  
Servage, bondage.  
Settid, resolved.  
Settiden, placed.  
Seyntis, Saints.  
Sigen, did see.  
Sikir, secure.  
Sikirli, securely.  
Sithen, since.  
Slider, uncertain.  
Sun, Son.  
Sooth, truth▪  
sooth, certain.  
Sotheli, certainly.  
Sowdan, Sultan.  
Stabili, firmly.  
Stirid, stirred.  
suffrance, permission.  
Sugget, subject.  
Sum, some.  
Summe, some.  
Sunken in, drawn in.  
Synnies, Sins.   

T.  
Take mark, be showed.  
Takun, assumed.  
Teche, teach.  
Thanne, then.  
They, they.  
thence, thence.  
Theuke, meditate.  
Thy, thy.  
Thilk, that, or the said.  
Tho, those.  
Thorug, through.  
Tho that, who.  
Ti● to, unto.  
Togidere, together.  
Tre, three.  
Trenys, lamentations.  
Tretid, treated.  
Treuli, truly.  
Trew, true.  
Trouthis, truths.  
Trow, believe.  
Tungiss, tongues.  
Twey, two.  
Twies, twice.   

V.  
Uce, use.  
Uerri, very.  
Ueyn, vain.  
Uidewite, widowhood.  
Unbigilefulnesse, veracity.  
Undeptabili, undoubtedly.  
Undoutabili, undoubtedly.  
Unto time, un●●l.  
Unwist, unknown.  
Urri, true.   

W.  
Waast, vain.  
Waisching, washing.  
we'll, well.  
Weigh, way.  
Well prisid, well esteemed.  
Weren, were.  
works, works.  
Were, War.  
Weved, complained.  
when, when.  
Whicchecraft, witchcraft.  
Whilis, whilst.  
100 Wintre, 100 years.  
Wist, know.  
Without forth, external.  
within forth, internal.  
Witti, learned.  
Wittis', undirstanding.  
Wittyngis, testimonies.  
Wolden, would.  
Wole, will.  
Worching, working.  
Worschipid, worshipped.  
Worschipid, esteemed.  
Wyf, Wife.   

Y.  
Y, I.  
idle, idle.  
Ye, you.  
Year, year.  
Yhe, yea.  
Yitt, yet.  
Ynoug, enough.  
Ysidir, Isidore.  
Yvel, evil.   
FINIS.