|
|
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.
|