Reginald Pecock's Book of faith; a fifteenth century theological tractate, ed. from the ms. in the library of Trinity college, Cambridge, with an introductory essay by J. L. Morison, M. A. ...

CHAPTER IV

FADIR, y dar not argue ferther aȝens ȝoure doctrine bi eny doctouris writing, sithen ȝe han smyte so soore a strooke aȝens the bifore alleggid writyng of Gregorie. For weel y wote, what [folio 29a] ever doctouris writing y allegge, if it be aȝens ȝoure bifore maad doctrine, ȝe wolen answer that he, or sum man for him, prove his seiyng, going aȝens ȝoure doctrine, as cleerli and as evydentli as ȝe proven ȝoure doctrine, and that he assoile the evydencis whiche ȝe maken for ȝoure doctrine; and ellis ȝe ouȝten not to his writing, so aȝens ȝoure doctrine meting, forto assente. This y fele wel, that ȝe wolden seie bi it what ȝe seien ȝou have in The iust apprising of Holi Scripture, and in The iust apprising of doctouris. And therfore y wole not in waast, in thilke kinde of argumentis, ȝou attempte. Nevertheles, this lettith me not forto argue aȝens ȝoure doctrine bi the wordis of Crist, and bi the wordis of Seynt Poul; and therfore y bringe forth what Crist seid to Thomas, Joⁿ. 20 c^r. thus: For that thou hast seen me, O Thomas, thou hast

bileeved. Blessid ben thei that han not seen and han bileeved. Lo, fadir, hou Crist blamed Thomas, as it seemith, for this that Thomas souȝte aftir more evydence to bileeve Cristis resurrecioun than his [folio 29b] felowis, the othere apostlis, souȝten, in that that Thomas seide: But if y schal se in the hondis of Crist the stiking of the nailis, and y schal putte my finger into the place of the nailis, and y schal put myn hond into his side, y schal not bileeve. Also Crist preferrid in preising, and therfore in thanke, and so folowingli in merite, the othere apostlis bifore Thomas, and this was as it semeth, bicause that the othere apostlis helden hem content, and souȝten not aftir so greet evydencis for her bileeve upon Cristis resurrexioun, as Thomas dide. Wherfore it semeth that forto seche aftir the gretter evydence, to prove and confeerme a bileeve, where that lasse grete evydence wole suffice, is not preiseable, but blameworth. And if this be so, thanne forto so seche aftir tho greter evydencis lassith the merit of the same bileve. Also, Luk. I c^r, Zacharie the fadir of John Baptist was punyschid bi doumbenes, for that he hilde him not content with the evydencis, which he had bi the aungel Gabriel, that [folio 30a] his wyf schulde bere a childe whos name schulde be Johnne. And so, fadir, the seching aftir evydencis, as it semith, taken awey, or at the lest abateth the vaile and the merite of feith.

Sone, take good hede to the same processis which thou hast now forth spokun; and marke you weel therwith this what y schal seie, and thanne thin obiecciouns schulen be assoilid. First, considere thou that these iii casis ben dyvers, and not oon; that is to seie, a man forto not holde him content with evydencis sufficient to gendre in him a feith, but forto seche aftir othere and grettir evydencis, and ellis forto not bileeve in the seid feith; and a man forto be content with evydencis sufficient to gendre a feith, forto bileeve in the same feith, and ȝitt to seche aftir grettir and mo evydencis, into confirmacioun of the same feith; and a man forto holde him content and paied with sufficient evydencis unto a feith, and to not seche eny ferther for evydencis, gretter or mo, into the con|firmacioun of the same feith. Certis, sone, the first [folio 30b] case is openli reprovable, the ii^e and the iii^e ben allowable and preiseable. In the first case weren the Iewis anentis Crist, whiche wolden not bileeve into Crist for sufficient evydencis, which Crist ȝave to hem forto so bileeve, but thei souȝten aftir grettir, and mo evydencis, eer thei wolden bileeve as it is open, Mt. xii^e chap^r. and xvi^e c^r.; Mr. viii^e c^r.; Luk. xi^e c^r.; Johnne vi^e chap. And in lijk case was Thomas, in the day of Cristis resurrexioun. Forwhi, not withstonding that he hadde sufficient evydencis forto bileeve Cristis resurrexioun, ȝitt

he wolde not bileeve bi hem, but he souȝte aftir gretter evydencis, and seide as is bifore rehercid in this present chapiter thus; But if y schal se in the hondis of him the stiking of the nailis, et cetera. And therfore Crist blamyd him, not as for that he souȝt aftir grettir evydencis oonli, but for that he helde him not content with other sufficient evydencis, to bileeve Christis resurrexioun, but he [folio 31a] souȝt aftir gretter evydencis, eer than he wolde bileeve; and therfore he was worthi be blamed, as he was blamed, whanne Crist said thus; For that thou hast seen me, O Thomas, thou hast bileeved, as thouȝ Crist hadde seide thus: Not withstonding thou haddist bifore sufficient evydencis to bileeve, thou woldist not bileeve, but for that thou hast seen me thou hast bileeved. That Thomas had sufficient evydencis bifore forto bileeve Cristis resurrexioun, eer Crist schewid to him hise hondis and hise feet, y may prove thus. We now lyvyng han sufficient evydence forto bileeve Cristis resurreccioun bi this, that the apostlis han denouncid to us that Crist roos fro deeth; and we mowe have sufficient evydencis that the apostlis weren trewe and trusty men, and not liers. But Thomas hadde thanne these same evydencis in as good maner, or in better, than we han now for us. Forwhi he herde the apostlis denounce Cristis resurrexioun to him, bi her owne mouthe, there that thei denouncen the

same to us bi her writing; and also he knewe bi experience the treuthe, and the sadnes, and the unbigilefulnes of hise felowis, where that we knowen it bi likelihode oonli, thouȝ so likeli that to the contrarie we have noon evydence so likeli. Wherfore, if we ben bounden now forto bileeve Cristis resurrexioun, as for therupon sufficient evydence to us had, even so moche, or more, Thomas was bounde, eer Crist apperid to him, forto bileeve Cristis resurrexioun, for sufficient evydence therupon to him mynystrid bi his trewe britheren, whom he ful likeli knewe to be no liers. And so folowith that Thomas was in the first case, and worthi to be blamed, as he was blamed of Crist. In the first case also was Zacharie, Luk. i^e c^r., and therfore he was punyschid. Certis, if thei hadden be in the secunde case, or in the iii^e, thei hadden not be blamed. The x apostlis weren [folio 32a] in the iii^e case, and therfore thei weren not blamed, but thei weren commendid of Crist, whanne he seid thus: Blessid be thei, that is to seie, thi felowis, the othere x apostlis whiche han not seen, that is to seie in thilk maner as thou hast seen, or namelich in thilk maner as thou desiridist to se, and ȝitt thei han bileeved, holding hem content, for that without thilke now seid siȝt thei hadden sufficient evydence forto bileeve my resurreccioun. Ferthermore, sone, as

manye riȝt wise men trowen, the seyng, of which it is spokun in this processe, was the touching in whiche Thomas touchid Cristis side. And that, for as myche as undir name of siȝt or seyng may be comprehendid and undirstonde the dede of ech other outward witt, bi cause that the siȝt is the principal outward wit, and therfore his name may be transumed in to the name of ech othere outward witt. And bi so moche the bettir is holpen al myn now maad answer, that Thomas souȝt over miche evydence, eer he wolde bileeve; notwith|stonding [folio 32b] that, without this last seiyng, my seide answere is sufficient. Now, sone, forto come neer to thin argumentis, in thin argument, thou pretendist as thouȝ Thomas hadde be in the secunde case, and therfore Crist hadde blamed him, for ellis thin argument schulde not go aȝens my doctrine. And certis, y denye that Crist blamed Thomas therfore; but y seie, as y now bifore seid, that Thomas was in this first case, and for it Crist blamed him, and this is no thing aȝens me. Thanne ferthermore, whanne thou seidist in thin argument that Crist preferrid the othere apostlis, in preising, and in allowing bifore Thomas, y graunte weel this. Nevertheles, thou assignyst not the al hool cause whi Crist so preferrid; for whi, the hool cause of this preferring was that the othere apostlis helden hem content forto bileeve,

withoute seching aftir eny mo evydencis, eer thei wolden bileeve; but Thomas helde him not content with the same evydence which hise felowis [folio 33a] tolden to him, but souȝt aftir grettir, and ellis he wolde not bileeve, and herof thou makist no mensioun in thin argument, and in thin assignyng, as for the blame of Thomas. And therfore y denye it forto be the hool cause of preferring, which thou assignyst to be therof the hool cause. And what is to be seid of Zacharies blame is open in lijk maner now bifore. Ferthermore, sone, thou schalt undirstonde that the article which Thomas, first bifore he sawe the woundis, wolde not bileeve, and which, aftirward he hadde seen tho woundis, he bileeved, was not this, that this man was rise fro deeth into lijf; for therof he had in maner experience, but it was this that Crist, that is to seie God being man, was risen fro deeth in his man|hode, into lijf in his manhode, into which bileve of thilk article helpid wel, as therto a meene, the experience had bi Thomas of the woundis, which Thomas sawe in thilke manys persoone and quik bodi; and that this is trewe may be take weel here [folio 33b] of, that Thomas aftir that he had seen, and was profrid to him for to touche the woundis, seid thus: O my Lord and O my God. And so al is assoilid, what thou hast bi thi gospel aȝens me obiectid.

Fadir, ȝe seiden bifore in the secunde c^r., that whoever have sufficient meenys to gendre a feith upon eny certeyn article, he muste nedis, wil he, nyle he, bileeve thilk article. Forwhi, ȝe seide that his undirstonding schal be nedid to so bileeve, bi strengthe of tho evydencis. And now ȝe seien here that Thomas and Zacharie hadden sufficient meenys forto bileeve bi hem, and ȝitt thei not so bileeveden bi hem; wherfore, fadir, it wolde seme that oon of youre doctrinys is contrarie to the other.

Sone, thouȝ it seme so, it schal not be founde so. Forwhi, thou schalt wite that there ben dyvers maners of having a thing, as Aristotil spekith in his book of Predicamentis. Never|theles ii maners ther ben of havyng, pertenyng to this present purpos. It is seid of a good [folio 34a] scoler that he hath his lessoun in his herte, and in his undirstonding, and in his consideracioun. It is seid commounli of a badde scoler, that he hath his lessoun writen in his book, thouȝ he have it not in his herte, and in his consid|eracioun of undirstonding. Lo, sone, ii maners of having, and therfore, sone, whanne y seide bifore in the seconde c^r. as in sentence thus: Who ever have sufficient meenes to gendre a feith upon eny article, he must nedis bileeve thilk article bi the

same meenes, it is to be undirstonde of such maner havyng, wherynne a man hath the seid meenys in consideracioun of his resoun, and in weiyng hem weel, hou and hou myche thei ben able to move into feith and credence, and not of such a maner of havyng, wherynne a man hath hem oonli in heering mynystrid to him, without the taking hem into deepe consideracioun of resoun. But Thomas hadde not, and toke not the evydence [folio 34b] of Cristis resurrexioun, but in the ii inperfit seid maner, eer than Crist apperid to Thomas, and schewid his side to Thomas. And if Thomas hadde take in the bigynnyng the evydence into deep consideracioun of his resoun, to se and fele hou myche thilk evydence schulde move into feith, no doute but that Thomas, stonding in thilk receyte of evydence, muste nedis have bileeved. And so, sone, thin obieccioun is asoilid, and the worschip of my doctrine is saved. And ferthermore, thou maist se that a man may weerne, bi dedis of his wil, sufficient evydencis for feith, mynystrid to hise eeris, or to hise iȝen forto come so nyȝ into his resoun, that thei move myche the resoun. And in this maner it is to be undir|stonde, what that holi Austyn seid as in sentence thus: Thou maist be drawen to the fonte aȝens thi wil; thou maist be baptisid aȝens thi wil; thou maist speke these wordis, y bileeve, et cetera, aȝens thi wil. But

bileeve maist thou never, but with thi wil. But not|withstonding [folio 35a] all this, ȝitt if a man bi his wil suffre sufficient evydencis of feith forto entre sufficientli into resoun, and if he bi his wil suffre hem move the resoun as myche as thei ben able to move, certis, he schal not, ne may not, aȝenstonde but that he schal consente to hem in his resoun, and bileeve bi hem in his resoun, wil he, nyle he: and thus myche is ynouȝ for answere to thin obieccioun.

Fadir, what seie ȝe thanne to the wordis of Poul, Hebr. xi^e c^r., where he seith thus: Feith is the substaunce of thingis to be hopid, and an argument of thingis not appering. Wherof y argue thus. If feith be of thingis not appering, it folowith that feith is not of thingis cleerli seen, and sureli knowun.

Sone, y seid bifore that ther ben ii maners of feith. Oon is opinial feith, and this is he which we and alle Cristen han, bi the comoun lawe of God, whilis we lyven in this lijf; as Poul therto accordith in an other place, i Cor. xiii^e, seiyng [folio 35b] thus: Now we seen in a myrrour in uncerteynte; thanne, forsothe, that is to seie in hevene, we schal se face to face. Another feith is sciencial feith, and thouȝ this feith may be had bi specialte in this lijf, ȝitt it is not comounli had in this lijf, but it is had in the blisse of hevene.

Sone, Poul in the place bi thee alleggid, Hebr. xi^e c^r., spake of the first maner of feith, which is opinial; for so it was moost convenient him forto speke, in as myche as it, and not the other, is to us necessarie in this lijf, and he meened not of sciencial feith, and so thin obieccioun gooth not aȝens myn entent.

Notes

• MS. haast.
• From the margin.
• From the margin.