Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	church_n	house_n	pillar_n	3,545	5	10.4316	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A05123	A treatise touching the Word of God written, against the traditions of men handled both schoolelike, and diuinelike, where also is set downe a true method to dispute diuinely and schoolelike / made by A. Sadeele ; and translated into English, by Iohn Coxe ...; Locus de verbo Dei scripto, adversus humanas traditiones. English	Chandieu, Antoine de, 1534-1591.; Coxe, John, fl. 1572.	1583 (1583)	STC 15257; ESTC S106888	76,765	187

of Arius yea the Apostles thēselues knew not al things necessarie vnto faith The which thing is most absurd sauouring of Athisme And therefore we may well turne this argument home againe vnto our aduersaries saying If such were the religion of the auncient fathers that they would not inuent anie one word to the intreating vpon anie principle of faith the which was not grounded vpon expresse places of scriptures as it is manifest by these words trinitie substance persons such like what shal we then think of our aduersaries which do not only inuēt words but also euē matter it self altogether abhorring contrarie to the Scriptures of God And therefore we may amend y e error of this their obiection saying That it is lawfull for the godly fathers of the church of God to vse inuent certaine words and tearmes whereby the matter contained in the scriptures may the better easier bée expressed If we must altogether beleeue the church in no part swarue from the credit of the church we beleeue the church in this part affirming that the scriptures came from the spirit of God thē truly we ought to beleeue the church likewise affirming that these such other like traditions came from the Apostles The antecedent is true and therfore it must follow that the cōsequēt is also true The Maior hath two parts touching the which we will particularly speake And touching the first point I doe make a distinction of the Church which Paule calleth the house of God the piller foundation of truth which heareth y e voice of her spouse onely dependeth vpon his mouth and is alwaies gouerned by the spirit of God cannot be séene because shée is not tied to circūstances of place time or persons yet notwithstāding we beleeue y ● the same church is vpholden by the word of God that she nothing estéemeth mans traditions But this or y e visible Church or the companie of many visible congregations may swarue from the truth as it is manifest touching the Churches in the East of which y ● most part haue turned to Mahumet I will not héere bring in the ancient counsells which haue both allowed brought into y e church great gréeuous errors And touching this church we may thus determine inasmuch as she is subiect to many errors she is not otherwise to be heard except shée speake those thinges which are agréeable to the Scriptures touching which matter I haue disputed more at large in another place wherefore this hath héere no place which they say affirme y ● wée must altogether beléeue the church in part swarue frō the credit of the same thē must we beléeue the visible Churches when as they propound nothing els vnto vs but the word of God on the other side we ought not to beléeue the visible churches when they swarue frō the word of God for I make my example by the Sinagogue which very religiously hath reserued the Cannons or bookes of the Scriptures yet notwithstanding she hath innumerable errors So thē we may beléeue the same Sinagogue whereby she saith y ● the Canonicall bookes haue sprong from y e spirit of God againe we may not beléeue her when she reiecteth casteth away the doctrine of Christ Therfore in y ● respect Christ saith The Scribes Pharesies sitting in Moses chaire are to be heard yet notwithstanding in another place he reprehendeth reproueth their traditions whereby wée sée proued that in one parte they ought to be heard on the other not Wherfore their Minor is not true so the consequence cannot stand because there is an error Secundum fallaciam figurae dictionis And they reasoning thus we may well bring thē to a great inconuenience saying In the time of Tertulian the church did affirme that an oblation for birth daies was a tradition receiued from the Apostles but in the time of the Nicēe coūsel the church did affirme that oblation for birth daies was not a tradition of the Apostles as in his proper place I haue proued ergo if wee must in all parts beleeue the Church and in no parte swarue from the Church then must we beleeue the things which are manifest opposit contarrie one to the other the which is impossible Wherefore we may turne their obiection vpon themselues after this sort saying Whosoeuer affirmeth the scripture to be the word of god the which we ought to beleeue likewise affirmeth that traditions not written are to be receiued speketh cōtraries But the Church of Rome affirmeth the scriptures to be the word of god which we ought to beleeue also affirmeth that traditions not writtē are to be receiued Ergo the church of Rome affirmeth contraries by force of the consequent we must beleeue hir in one part in another not if this be of anie force that we must beleue the church in all parts swarue frō hir in no part thē this foloweth by their argumēt that the Church may not wel be called the Church For y e truth of the maior proposition is proued thus If you did me belée●e the scriptures truly I will beléeue y t there is nothing to be added thervnto because y t it is so commanded in them as I haue in diuers places of my booke proued therefore this sentence of Tertulian is highly to be imbraced Whē we beleeue saith he this first we must beleeue that there is nothing els that we ought to beleue Now if we wil consider the traditions of our aduersaries we shal easily perceiue y t they are not only added by inuentions but also contrarie to expresse places of scripture so ye sée y t we cannot beléeue the scriptures also the traditions of our aduersaries And therefore we may amend the error of the former obiection after this manner Sith we ought to beléeue God alone then most diligently ought we to take héede least vnder the shew of pietie we be seduced into errour and because the name of the Church is verie glorious therefore if anie thing be proposed vnto vs vnder the title of the Church we ought to giue attētiue diligence whether it be y e voyce of the true church or not which we heare y t we may be able so to doo we must take counsell with the word of God set foorth vnto vs in the Scriptures from the which the true church of God neuer swerneth whē therefore the Church affirmeth vnto vs that the scriptures are the word of God we acknowledge the same to be true not onely because the church so affirmeth but because of the inward efficacie of the spirite of God by the which the truth of the scriptures is sealed in our hearts lyke as the church by the conduction of the spirite of God affirmeth vnto vs y t the scripture is the word

the truth of matters may be manifestly séene and as it were touched with our hands And this last way perchaunce is not so well welcome to those which are delighted in plesantnesse of speach but truly no lesse profitable to all those which are both louers of simplicitie and desirous of the truth For like as the view of mans bodie is a great deale more pleasaunt to beholde while it is clad with the flesh the bloud running in each veyne hauing a comelye colour yet notwithstanding if we come at any time to the Anatomie then the facultie of each part and the constitution of the whole bodie is a great deale better knowne so if any wil wisely diligently weigh those larger and pleasanter treatises and bring them to arguments as vnto Anatomies then without doubt he shal easily perceiue whether they be absolute perfect in euerie point or whether there be anye thing wanting and as the Phisition sheweth foorth euen as it wer with the finger the original and causes of diseases so shal he héere doo touching errors if there be any The former sort doeth indéede delyght the mindes as wll of those which are learned as those which are vnlearned but this latter manner of exercise sith it is occupied in that onely kinde of matter which appertaineth to doctrine is more méete for those which are best learned who are nothing moued with the floud of vain wordes if especially there be no force of matter contained in them because that speach without reason is not to be counted any thing worth Augustine Ciprian Hillarie Hieronimus and diuers olde learned Fathers haue vsed this kinde of disputing very much this also the schoolemen seemed to professe but with what successe I haue shewed alreadie But chieflye we must consider and haue great care on doth sides that when we dispute touching doctrine all our arguments be necessarye and pertaining to doctrine so that they bée grounded vppon most sure principles and infallible groundes of Diuinitie And aboue all things we must beware that we take not things which may be disputed on both sides for things necessarie things which be strange for those that are knowen falshoode for truth the which trulye dooth happen oftentimes in much lauishing out of speach the which y e aduersaries of the truth most commonly abuse where by they may the more conuenientlye hyde themselues vnder the couerte of manye words so that when they haue said much ●hey would also séeme to haue spokē truth The best chiefest for this mischiefe is if after the long circumstaunces that then there be● fet downe a briefe Logicall handling of those their wordes spoken before to be as it were an Anatomie and recapitualation of all subtil sophemes and craftie fallaces And when the falsehood of words is cleane taken away it wil bewray those things which are false it wil set truth against falshood and beare them both out yea finally it wil bring to passe euen as Augustine sometime said That each thing with other cause with cause and reason with reason may striue together And héere who séeth not that when errors are cleane taken awaye how easely the truth will ouercome and the same truth which the huge floud of words had ouer whelmed will euen willingly as it were aduaunce hir selfe vp againe Sith then that schoollike handeling of matters will bring so great profit so y e Logick be directed by the true rules of diuinitie I thē intreat beséech these learned diuines of this our age which are defēders of y e gospel y t they haue ●are héerof set down vnto vs some certain easie methode of this schoolike way how to handle each point y ● which we may follow and the which also may be both to vs present as also to y e posterities héereafter a most true touchstone wherby we may trie the sundry workes of diuers men which haue written of diuinitie y e which if they shall performe they shal greatly profit the Church of God especially in these times in which each man striueth in setting forth of bookes touching the principall pointes of diuinitie who may doo best For where as the Ciuilians only write touching their lawes the Phisitions of their facultie and so all others of those artes and sciences which they professe in y e which they are conuersant yet notwithstanding it commeth to passe I knowe not by what meanes that not onely diuines but also men cleane voide of diuinitie of all sorts are wont now euerie where to dispute in their bookes touching diuinitie so y t héerein I assent with Nazianzene which before time hath most gréeuously complained of this matter And we haue thought good to publish this our small labour abroad not y t we thinke we haue obteyned y e same methode whith we desire but that by this meanes we may at the least giue a testimonie that wée looke for a more exact methode from the learned diuines yea and earnestly desire them to performe the same Beholde then wée héere set downe a schoolelike treatise of diuinitie takē out of the first Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrewes to wit touching the word of God written against mannes traditions about which matter there is great controuersie betwéene vs and the Papists And for this cause I omit the handling of this point at large because it may be easily séene in the writings of late set forth on both partes of which writings I wil make as it were a certaine resolution or anatomie in this schoole like treatise But before I come to this my purpose I am willing somewhat to admonish the Reader howe that these disputations touching y e Scriptures doth farre differ from all others For in disputations of Philosophie Phisicke ciuill gouernment and such other there eloquence sheweth it selfe there desire to excell doeth rule there oratorie pleading bursteth out yea oftentimes in such matters men desire nothing but to shew forth the brauenesse of their wits or else séeke after glorie and praise But in diuine disputations where as Augustine sayth Brauerie must not bée sought but good documentes and lessons and that with great reuerence yea and verie reuerently wée must dispute of holy things not as vpon the stage before men but as in the middest of the Church before the liuing God and his Angelles not for the desire of victorie but for the maintenaurce of the truth in as much as Paule forbiddeth the Pastours of the Church once to speake of vaine questions or contentions of wordes which can scarce be done without the detrument of the truth Wherfore praying aide at the hands of almightie God that he will direct and establish this our labour by his holy spirit let vs procéede into this most holy conflict in the which the worde of GOD is the place of combat God himselfe the chiefe Iudge truth the victorie saluation the garland of triumph And héereby with more valiant

could haue bene kept and preserued without the scriptures to what ende were the Scriptures for the spirite of God doth nothing in vaine If the Scriptures were written to the ende our memorie might be holpen who then can denie that our memorie must bée holpen by the Scriptures in all things necessarie to saluation Finally and to conclude If the Scripture were giuen by the spirite of God that thereby the Church might be the better instructed why then should not the Scriptures haue in them al those things which are necessarie to saluation Wherefore what starting holes so euer our aduersaries séeke yet the truth of our former proposition remaineth to wit that they goe about to frustrate the spirit of God of his effect in giuing the Scriptures except in them be contained whatsoeuer is necessarie to our saluation The consequent no Christian can deny If the Apostles were led into all truth by the spirit of God as it appeareth Ioh. 16 and wrote not all things that were necessarie to saluation that came to passe either because they ought not to write them or because they would not write or because they could not But to affirme that they ought not is false that they would not is absurd and that they could not is the part of one that disputeth like an Atheist Wherefore the antecedent is false absurd and altogether from Diuinitie The consequence of the former proposition is manisest except our aduersaries can bring any thing to the contrary For we dispute not héere of euerye man but only of y e Apostles whom y e spirit of God gouerned and directed in the writing of the Gospell The minor is manifest except our aduersaries can proue what reason there is of dissimilitude or vnlikenesse in things not onely like but also euen béeing the selfe same And this truly is most certaine and most vndoubted amongst all Christians that if the Apostles wrote not all things which are necessary to saluation that it was because they ought not so to doo Qur aduersaries of necessitie must proue some one of these causes or els them what was the cause that y e Apostles ought to write some things which were necessa●ie to saluation and to omit other some or else truly y t the Apostles themselues haue by manifest plaine words testified that they haue not written all things which appertaine vnto Christian faith and Religion for good and necessarye causes which God himselfe would not that men should know But vndoubtedly our aduersaryes can prooue neither of these and therefore the conclusion of this argument resteth most firme and vnuiolable If the Canonicall bookes of the old Testament doo containe all things which appertained vnto the olde testament And the Canonicall bookes of the new Testament doo not containe all such things as doo appertaine vnto the new testament then doeth it follow that the old testament is more perfect then the new The consequence is false And therefore the antecedent is false The consequent of the maior is thus prooued The bookes of the old testament are called the olde testament of Paule where as hée dooth intreate of the reading of the old testament To this maye be added that which Moses saith The couenant saith he which is written in the booke of the lawe and in the diuine and holy historie there is mention made of the booke of the couenaunt Wherefore there is no doubt but that the olde Testament that is the writings of the olde testament is agréeable to his title For nothing can be allea●ged besides y t scripture which may rightly be said to appertaine to the old testament to wit the knowledge whereof were necessarie to the saluation of those godly fathers that liued vnder the olde testament Now if you say not the like of the newe testament who dooth not sée that the newe testament is more weake unperfect then the olde For it is as much as if you wold thus expound the title The newe testament that is to saie Some certain things appe●taining to the new testament The which how absurd it is I suppose I shall not néede with 〈◊〉 more arguments to prooud for no 〈◊〉 hath at anie time héeretofore affirmed that the Scriptures and writings of th●● we 〈…〉 not so perfect as the writings at the old Wherefore we wil 〈…〉 more to the pr●uing of our 〈◊〉 If the Scripture of the new testament be a couenaunt will or testament nothing must be added vnto a will or Testament then trulye it is not lawfull to a●de anye thing to the writinges of the newe Testament The Antecedent is true And the consequent is the like And by the force of the same consequent the traditions not w●tten of the Apostles are not to be receiued The antecedent is manifest The minor doth containe two parts the 〈◊〉 part is mainfest and prooued by the verie title to wit y ● it is a will or a testament neither néedeth the●e any other probation The latter part is prooued by Paule when hée sayeth That it is not lawfull to adde vnto a mannes Testament and from thence hée gathereth that we ought not to adde vnto the diuine Testament of God But if yée interpret it to bée a testament and not a rouenant then our conclusion remaineth of more sorce for dareth anie man adde vnto the Will and Testament of a man The which if it be not lawofull to doe in the Wil and Testament of a man how much lesse then is it lawfull so to doe in the Testament of God If till the later end and consumation of the world we ought not to looke for anie other bookes canonicalt besides these which we haue alreadie in the writings of the old new Testament Then it followeth that the Scripture is absolute and pefect in euerie part The antecedent is true And therfore so is the consequent by force of the saide consequent the Scripture hath no need of anie traditions not writtē The Maior is euident inough especially sith God is the author of the said scripture which would not suffer the same during the world to remaine vnperfect because he being the author is most perfect The Minor our aduersaries themselues cannot denie for they are not ignorāt that the time now after Christ is exhibited giuen to the world is called the fulnesse of time as the Apostle saith If traditions not written are as wel to be receiued as the Scriptures as our aduersaries would haue it then must wee beleeue the writings of the Doctors with the like perswasion of faith as we beleeue the writings of the Prophets and Apostles But the consequent is false And therefore the Antecedent cannot be true and by force of the consequent traditions not written are not to bee receiued in matters of faith The consequent of the maior proposition is thus proued For so often as our aduersaries propoue vnto the traditions of men

Secundum ignorantiam Elenchi as the Schoolemen saie because they put in other words then the Apostle Paule vsed For thus Paule saith Yee are our Epistle not written with inke but with the spirite of God for he speaketh of the inuisible Scriptures neither doth he therfore vtterly take awaie the visible as his Epistle which he then wrote to the Cornthians is witnesse But our aduersaryes reason farre otherwise for they say the Epistle not written in Tables but deliuered by hand the which is farre both from the words and minde of the Apostle Now let vs ouerthrowe the consequence of our aduersaries being ful of absurdities and without reason If we must not absolutely stick vnto the writings of the Apostles because God hath written the Gospell in the mindes of the godly the should it followe that the writings of the Apostles are not necessarie for godlie men If all things as they saie are not written which are necessarie to saluation to what end then appertaineth the scriptures For all things saie they that are necessarie to saluation God hath written in the mindes of the godlie But this argument cannot bee concluded in one part onely for either it is vniuersallie true or els vniuersally false so the whole authoritie of the scriptures must bee vtterly abolished the which God forbid Againe If this consequence be of anie force that is to saye we must haue recourse to vnwritten traditions because GOD hath written the gospell in the minds of the godly then would it followe that the spirituall efficacie of God should be confounded with the externall and visible ministerie of the Apostles and that traditions deliuered by mouth are the inuisible Scriptures of God the which the holie Ghost did imprint in the mind of the faithfull the which thing is most false Againe if they make any good conclusion out of that place of Ieremie that all thinges are not written that appertaine to the Gospell because vnder the new testament God doth write his law in the minds of the faithfull when as it was written in tables vnder the old testament Ergo by the force of this opposition it followeth that God in the old testament did onely remit sinne in part and that he was the God of the Israelites but in part also because that Ieremie addeth saieng that it wil come to passe that in the new testamēt God will remit the sins of the people and be their God The which is too too absurde and contrarie to the opinion of all men Now finally let vs turne this argument of our aduersaries vpon themselues saie thus All the lawes of God are written in the hearts and minds of the faithfull as our aduersaries seeme to affirme by the former places cited for Paule saith it is not written with inke but with the spirit of God but none of the traditions of our aduersaries are written in the minds of the godly for they are written with inke and not with the spirit of God Ergo none of our aduersaries traditions are the lawes of God So that héereby it is most manifest as I suppose how foolish or rather no argumēt at al this argument of our aduersaries is y ● which that we may correct we must saie with the word of God that the writings of the Apostles and Euangelists doth containe all that doctrine of the Gospell the which the Apostles and Euangelistes did teach and afterward put in writings the which also God by his spirit did write in the mindes of the godly thus much touching this obiection And now we come vnto the second The Church of Christ for the space of 20. yeares wanted the writings of the Apostles and was only contented with their traditions Ergo the writings of the Apostles are not absolutely necessarie vnto saluation neither is it needfull that al things appertaining to the doctrine of the Gospel shuld be contained in the writings of the Apostles The Antecedent is manifest by reading of histories Although I doo not meddle much with the antecedent neither doo dispute touching the number of yeares yet would I that the readers should call to their remēbraunce that the Church wanted not the scriptures before that the Gospell was extant by the writings of the Apostles Yea that Christ himselfe and the Apostles did preach the Gospell out of the writings of the Prophets as before in his proper place we haue shewed Wherefore the antecedent of our aduersaries is no other thing then a foundation laid vpon sand or water so that the conclusion which they bring cannot stand Therefore I denie the consequent for the errour is as the Logitians tearme it Secundum ignorantiam Elenchi for they chaunge the forme of affirmation come from the time past vnto the time present and the time to come The Church saye they wanted the gospel Be it so although the writings of the Prophets to contayne the promises of the Gospell insomuch that the Apostles did altogether depende vppon the sayd writings of the Prophets adde héer vnto also if it please you that the writings of the Apostles were not altogether necessarie what doo you héereof conclude That they are not now therfore necessarie or héereafter shall not bée What man is so ignorant to grant that This is the difference y ● the Apostles ought first to haue preached by mouth before they committed anie thing to writing And when the Apostles did preach the gospell they did then publish by mouth those thinges which afterward they wrote But sithens the Apostles died coulde not by mouth instruct the Church without doubt their writings are now so necessarie vnto vs as their preching by mouth was in those dayes in stéede whereof their writinges doo nowe remaine Let vs bring them therfore to an absurditie If the consequence of our aduersaries be of force or value this is also of force or value the Church of the Isralites not twentie yeares but two thousande yeares or somewhat more wanted the law written therefore it was not necessarie to the Church that the lawe should be written or the law written contained not all those things y e wer necessarie to y e doctrine of y e old testamēt But this is very absurd Let vs turne the argument of our aduersaries against themselues after this manner If God being perfect wise hath not suffered the church of Christ long time to want the writings of the Apostles both that hee might maintaine the truth of the Gospell as also he might prouide for the safegarde of his church Ergo these men are blasphemous against the prouidence of god which denie that all things are contained in the apostolicall writings which are necessarie to the doctrine of the Gospell For to what end would God by his diuine prouidence that the Apostles should write the gospell which they by mouth did preach was it because they should deliuer an vncertain and imperfect doctrine Furthermore if