KEY Commentary Side Textual Bibliographic Scriptural

tewysse / and with those fathers shall he geue the childern egles eyes to spie out Christ & his rightewysnesse and to forsake their awne and so to become perfecte.

92/8–9 allegories . . . can proue nothynge. Cf. CWM 8/1.81/2–3. It was a scholastic principle that allegorical interpretations of biblical passages had no probative value in theology (Summa I, Q. 1, Art. 10, Reply to Obj. 1). (JW) In the Enchiridion (1503), Erasmus frequently allegorizes classical literature ; e.g, he compares the creation of humans out of clay by Yahweh and Prometheus (Gen. 2.7; Plato, Protagoras 320D-322A): "if you read the poetic fable in an allegorical sense, it will be more profitable than the scriptural account if you do not penetrate the outer covering" (Holborn 70/29–30; CWE 66.68). In his Annotations on the NT, Erasmus repeatedly analyzes the literal meaning of the Greek; in the Paraphrases he draws pastoral applications from NT events for the individual reader. See Manfred Hoffmann , Part Three, "The Allegorical Nature of Scripture," Rhetoric and Theology: The Hermeneutic of Erasmus (U of Toronto P, 1994) 95–133. Tyndale refers contemptuously to the practice of quoting "a fabell of Ovide," rather than the Scriptures to support a "poynte of fayth" (Obedience R5). In his preface to the Pentateuch (1530), Tyndale scoffs at the distrust of the literal meaning of Scripture shown by Erasmus but without naming him, "[S]ome which seme to them selves great clarkes saye: they wott not what moare profite is in many gestes of the scripture if they be read with out an allegorye, then in a tale of robenhode" (Mombert 11/7–10;TOT 8).

92/9–11 Chryst . . . neyboure. Cf. Luke 10.36–37.

And aftir the same maner / though oure popish ypocrites succede Christ and his appostles and haue their scripture / yet they befallen from the faith and liuinge of them and are heretikes and had nede of a Ihon Baptist to conuerte them. And we departe from them vn to the true scripture and vnto the faith and liuynge theirof / and rebuke them in like maner. And as they which departe from the faith of the true church are heretikes / even so they that departe from the church of heretikes and false fayned faith of ypocrites / are the true church / which thou shalt all waye know by their faith examined by the scripture and by their profession and consent to liue acordynge vn to the lawes of god.

¶A nother argument

Another like blynd reason they haue where in is all their trust. As we come out of them & they not of vs / so we receaue the scripture of them & they not of vs. How know we that it is the scripture of god and true but because they teach vs so? How can we that beleue / excepte we first beleue that they be the church and can not erre in any thynge that perteyneth vn to oure soules health. For if a man tell me of a marvelouse thynge / wherof I can haue no nother knowlege then by his mouth only / how shuld I geue credence excepte I beleued that the man were so honest that he coude not lye or wold not lye. Wherefore we must beleue that they be the right church that can not erre or else we can beleue nought at all.

92/22–23 scribes . . . Moses sete. Cf. Matt. 23.2, which More discusses at CWM 6/1.101/10–11, 104/25–33.

92/22–31 scribes . . . tradycyons. Cf. CWM 8/1.355/5–12, 356/7–9.

92/25–26 bewarre . . . doctrine. Matt. 16.6, 11; Mark 8.15, Luke 12.1.

92/26–28 rebuked . . . them. Cf. Matt. 12.1–8, Mark 2.23–28, Luke 6.1–5.

92/28–29 what soeuer . . . rotes. Cf. Matt. 15.13.