Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	command_v	day_n	sabbath_n	2,991	5	9.6152	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A03880	A treatise of the vnvvritten Word of God, commonly called traditions. Written in Latin, by the R. Father Iames Gordon Huntley of Scotland, Doctour of Diuinity, of the Society of Iesus. And translated into English by I. L. of the same Society. The second part of the first controuersy; Controversiarum epitomes. English. Selections	Gordon, James, 1541-1620.; Wright, William, 1563-1639.	1614 (1614)	STC 13996.A; ESTC S115739	25,730	61

belieue nothing which is not expresly in Scriptures And whereupon Beza himself in his booke which he wrote against the same Ochinus doth testify that Ochinus vsed this argument where Beza also manifestly acknowledgeth that Polygamy is not forbidden in holy Scriptures by any expresse Law The other argument saith Beza of Ochinus is that Polygamy is not forbidden by any expresse law to the contrary but I answere that there are not lawes written of all thinges Thus Beza 3. But afterward indeed Beza goeth about to proue that Poligamy is contrary to the Law of Nature but the same difficulty still remayneth For according to our Aduersaries doctrine all thinges necessary to saluation are expressed in holy Scriptures but the obseruatiō of all things belonging to the Law of Nature is altogeather necessary to saluation therefore the obseruation of these thinges is expressed in Scriptures or els truly many thinges necessary to saluation must be sought for out of the Scriptures Moreouer that Polygamy is vnlawfull is a point of faith but this as Beza confesseth is not expressely contayned in Scriptures therfore all the pointes of faith are not expressely contained in Scriptures 4. The first point of faith is that the Sacrament of Baptisme may only be giuen in water For this point is also very necessary for the Church least so great and worthy a Sacrament be prophaned contrary to the institution of Christ and yet our Aduersaries will neuer be able to proue this out of the Scriptures only who deny that the forsaid place of S. Iohn is to be vnderstood of true water as we haue said before in the second point For the examples of holy Scripture do proue indeed that water is the fit matter of Baptisme but they do not proue that there can be no other matter 5. When Beza did consider this well least that his foresayd principle that we must belieue nothing but Scripture might seeme to be called in question he was not ashamed to write that Baptisme might be giuen in any liquour and by this meanes it wil be true and lawfull Baptisme though it be giuen in milke wyne yea in Inke or any other filthy liquour Thus are our Aduersaryes forced to admit these absurdityes least they might be forced to depart from that their principle of belieuing only Scripture 6. Furthermore to the end that Beza might more easily perswade the ignorant common people to admit this his strange paradoxe addeth presently a very grieuous slaunder against the Catholike Doctors Let water be wanting saith Beza and yet the Baptisme of any cannot be deserred with edification nor must not be I truly would as well and as lawfully baptize in any other liquour as in water neyther are the most superstitious Deuines of any other opinion in these matters Thus far Beza But these thinges which he writeth are most false For there is no Catholike nor Scholasticall Doctor who hath euer eyther thought or written so yea the playne contrary is defined by the Catholike Church as a poynt of Fayth 7. The sixt poynt of fayth is that bread and wyne is only the necessary matter of the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist This poynt of faith is also very necessary for the Church least so great and so excellent a Sacrament should be prophaned yet our Aduersaries will neuer be able to proue it effectually out of Scripture only For by this word Bread any kind of meate is oftentymes signifyed in Scripture of wine it is farre more doubtfull For the Scripture maketh only mention of the Chalice and not of the liquor which was in the Chalice and Caluin himselfe acknowledgeth that those words of the fruite of the vyne were spoken before the institution of this Sacrament 8. The which when Beza easily preceaued heere also he went about to bring in another error least indeed he should be forced to forsake his former principle of belieuing only Scriptures For he was not afraid to write that he erred nothing from the institution of Christ who in the consecration of the Eucharist should vse insteed of the bread appointed for that purpose any other vsuall meate and insteed of the wyne any other ordinary kind of drinke and by this meanes one may consecrate the Eucharist eyther in cheese flesh fish or egges as also in milke water beare or vineger or any other liquor which hitherto was neuer heard of in Gods Church And yet for all this Beza is not ashamed to attribute this most absurd error of his to all the Scholasticall Doctors For of both these errors he treateth in the words before alledged because when he sayth the Scholasticall Doctors were of no other opinion he speaketh as well cōcerning the matter of the Eucharist as of the matter of Baptisme After this manner our Aduersaries do force so many and so great errors out of that their principle of belieuing only Scriptures wherof more might be alledged which for breuities sake we omit 9. But there is one thing I cannot let passe because therby we clearly conuince that the Traditions of the Church do not only contayne vnwritten points of fayth but that which is more euen in our Aduersaries iudgment they change and abolish such things as are expresly commaunded in Scriptures for euen in the Table of the Law of God which is sayd to be written by Gods owne hand in many and manyfest words the keeping of the Sabboth day is comaunded the which notwithstanding now all except a few Anabaptists do confesse to be abrogated by Ecclesiasticall Tradition only without any expresse testimony of Scripture The Anabaptists I say being also deceiued by that Common principle of our Aduersaries of blieuing only Scriptures they go about to bring the obseruation of the Sabboth day into vse and custome agayne and for this cause they are called Sabatharians but not so much the heresy as the madnesse of these men is condemned of all and namely of Luther in his booke against the Sabbatarians in the seauenth Tome CHAP. V. Wherin it is proued that there are Traditions by the testimonies of the holy Fathers THE third argument wherby we proue that all the poynts of our fayth are not set downe in writing by the Apostles is the authority of the aunciēt Fathers who affirme and teach this in many places The which places of the holy Fathers as well the Greeks as the Latins Iodocus Coccius hath very diligently gathered togeather in his booke intitled Thesaurus Catholicus and before him Bellarmine did the same But least we be longer then the order of Epitomes doth permit especially in a thing so manyfest it shall suffice vs to alledg one chiefe Doctor of the Greeke and another of the Latine Church 2. Among the Grecians S. Chrysostome is the most famous who doth not only affirme it but also manifestly proueth it out of holy Scripture For when he expoundeth those words of the later Epistle to the Thessalonians Therefore brethren stand

Diuell himself against Christ vsed this reason It is written God hath giuen his Angells charge of thee therfore cast thy selfe downe headlong Lastly all the arguments indeed which our Aduersaries at this tyme alleadge against vs out of Scriptures and all the errours which they haue inuēted do take their beginning and strength from their new illations and reasons and not out of the bare and playne words of Scripture as will manifestly appeare in euery one of the Controuersies 10. The reason also is manifest why these their collections and reasons are vncertaine and doubtfull For in nothing can one more easily or more often erre then in these illations The which may proceed of many causes eyther because the illation it selfe is bad and Sophisticall or because the place of Scripture from whence it is gathered is falsified by some false exposition therof or because the proposition which is assumed and adioyned to the wordes of Scripture is false and ambiguous or because one or more wordes in that collection are vsed doubtfully that is to say in one sense in the premises and in another in the conclusion or lastly because there hapneth some errour to be in the collection which maketh it weake Sophisticall and erroneous 11. Besides that there are so many and so contrary illations of diuers men that the authority of the Church is altogeather necessary in matters of faith that there may arise a certaine and an vndoubted faith of these matters of which sort Traditions are that is to say the doctrine of the whole Church 12. But when one belieueth such an illation with a diuine or Catholike faith he must needes know two thinges the one is that the expresse place of Scripture from whence this conclusion is deduced must certainly be well vnderstood by him which disputeth the other is that he who maketh such a deduction and collection can neyther deceiue others not be deceyued himselfe But none can know eyther of these without the Traditions of the Church seeing that otherwise there is none which may not be deceiued sometymes All collections therefore which produce or breed fayth in vs do most clearly conuince and shew the authority and necessity of Traditions CHAP. VII Wherein it is proued that there are Traditions by the absurdities which otherwise would follow THE fift argument wherby we proue that many things are to be belieued which are not expressed in holy Scriptures is taken out of the absurdities which do ensue of the contrary doctrine For hauing once admitted that nothing is to be belieued which is not expressed in Scripture all old heresies are renewed and a great vncertaynty and confusion of all things is brought into the Church of God yea euen the way to Atheisme is layd open because hauing once reiected despised the Tradition of the Church all the poynts of fayth from the Apostles tyme till now explicated and proued by the auncient Fathers against heretiks all those things also which were decreed and determined by all the generall Councells in times past against the said heretiks leese their chiefest strength and authority the which notwithstanding our Aduersaries do acknowledge themselues to receiue and belieue 2. Neyther do we know by an assured Catholike fayth whether there were euer any Fathers or Councells but by the Traditions of the Church But neyther do we know any other way but by fayth whether since the Apostles tyme till now there were any Catholikes or not because of those things which were done since the tyme and death of the Apostles there is nothing extant in holy Scripture seeing that all the bookes therof were written before the death of the Apostles But such things as haue byn donne since till now cannot otherwyse be knowne but by the Tradition of the Church 3. Neyther is it sufficient to say that we know these things by the Ecclesiasticall histories For that fayth which proceedeth of histories without the authority or Traditions of the Catholike Church is but an humaine fayth which oftentymes deceaueth others and may be deceiued it selfe and therfore these kind of histories cannot produce a diuine fayth in vs this experience it selfe doth clearly teach vs. For our Aduersaries do somtymes doubt whether S. Peter was euer at Rome or no because forsooth this is not to be found expresly in holy Scriptures wheras notwithstanding it is most assuredly proued and testified in many bookes both of the auncient Historiographers and holy Fathers Why may they not as lawfully call other matters in question which are notwithstanding expressely set downe in other auncient writers Our Aduersaries therfore do make all things very doubtfull and vncertayne whyles they will only belieue and admit the Scripture but now let vs answere their arguments CHAP. VIII Wherein the arguments of our Aduersaries taken out of the old Testament are confuted THE first argument wherby our Aduersaries oppugne Traditions and which they vse very often the which also as inuincible they haue added to the confession of their fayth they take out of those words of Deuteronomy Thou shalt not add any thing to the word which I speake vnto you nor shall you take any thing from it And againe that which I commaund thee do that only neyther add or diminish any thing from it By these places of Scriptures our Aduersaries do inferre that nothing is to be receiued as a poynt of fayth which is not expressely set downe in Scriptures 2. But this argument is erroneous and the weaknes thereof is very great for many causes First because in those words there is no mention made of the Scripture nor of the written word of God but only of the word preached and deliuered viua voce Thou shalt not add sayth the Scripture to the word that I speake vnto you he doth not say that I write vnto you Againe Do only sayth he that which I commaund thee he doth not say that which I write vnto thee 3. Moreouer in these words the holy Scripture doth not only speake of matters of sayth to be belieued but also of ceremonies and customes to be done and obserued but our Aduersaries themselues confesse that these customes may be added by the authority of the Church yea they haue ordeined themselues very many the which they chang euen yet when they please Caluin also acknowledgeth that many vnwritten customes were deliuered vnto vs by the Apostles 4. That also according to the phrase of Scripture is said to be added to the word of God which is contrary opposite vnit For Iosue did not transgresse this commaundement of Deuteronomy when he added his booke to the bookes of Moyses Nor did others transgresse it who added the bookes of the Iudges Ruth and of the Kinges which were not written by Moyses which are also to be belieued as contayning pointes of faith But in these bookes there is nothing contrary to that which Moyses wrote And the Hebrew text agreeth very well to this answere for in both

places of Deuteronomy this word Ghal is vsed which signifieth oftentines contrary or against so that the sense is do not add any thing contrary to the word which I commaund and againe yee shall not add any thing contrary to the word which I say vnto you For so is that particle Ghal taken in the 40. Psalme or according to the Hebrewes 41. in the 2. Psalme also the second verse And in the 14. of Numbers the 2. verse els where very often Euen as also in the new Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which answereth to the Hebrew Ghal signifieth also contrary or against when the Apostle writeth to the Corinthians that in vs you may learne one not to be puffed vp against another aboue that is writiē that is to say against the Scripture the which saith we must not be puffed vp in pryde as S. Chrysostome and after him Theophilactus others do note vpon that place The which place some bodliy alledge against Traditions wheras the Apostle in that place doth not speake of the whole word of God but of this one point that we must not be puffed vp in pryde as euen Caluin himselfe acknowledgeth 5. But to omit all such thinges as other Catholike Doctors haue very well and learnedly written of the proper and literall sense of these wordes yea that we may also graunt to our Aduersaries that this which they alledge is the true sense they erre very much in that they thinke that these wordes of Moyses belong vnto vs and that we are no lesse now bound and obliged by them then the Iewes were in tymes past For these wordes do no more appertaine vnto vs then those of the same booke of Deuteronomy Cursed be he that abideth not in the wordes of this Law and fulfilleth them not in worke From which wordes S. Paul manifestly teacheth that we are deliuered and freed by the grace of Christ Iesus But seing that in these wordes which they do heere alledge Moyses commaundeth that the Childrē of Israel should obserue fulfill euery word which he had commaunded them for so it is expresly set downe Deuteronomy ●…2 the last verse in the Hebrew text and in all the Bibles of our Aduersaries and he presently addeth that nothing is to be added or detracted from all these he manifestly commaundeth the keeping of the whole Moysaicall Law and of all the Sacraments Sacrifices and Ceremonies of the old Testament For he doth not only commaund that nothing should be added but also that nothing is to be detracted of all those thinges by him commaūded Wherefore if our Aduersaries obiect against vs that we adde any thing against this precept we may more iustly obiect vnto them that they detract farre more then we add seing that they neyther obserue the Circumcision nor the legall Sacrifices nor other Ceremonies which are so often and so straitely commaunded in Deuteronomy It cannot truly be denyed but that this is to detract somewhat from those thinges which Moyses commaunded and therfore our Aduersaries must needes confesse that these are the wordes of the old Law and consequently to appertaine nothing vnto vs. Out of this which hath byn said it followeth that our Aduersaries do very indiscretly foolishly boast and bragge of those wordes of Moyses For in the exposition thereof they erre farre from the truth and a great deale more in the application when they go about to proue that we are also bound and obliged by them 6. Our Aduersaries take their second argument out of these wordes of Salomons prouerbs Euery word of God is fiery it is a shyeld of defence to those which hope in it do not add any thing to the wordes thereof and thou shalt be found and reprehended as a lyar I answere that this place maketh nothing against vs for in that place there is no mention made of Scripture only but of al the word of God And it is most true that nothing should be added to all the whole word of God the which is to be belieued with a Catholike faith as the true word of God For as we haue said before our faith relyeth only of the word of God but the Scripture only is not all the word of God because all Traditions also which contayne poynts of faith belong therunto as we haue sufficiently proued already But they add to the word of God are lyars who affirme that God sayd this or that which indeed he neuer spake And of this sort are those false Prophets of whome God by the Prophet Ieremy conplayneth saying They speake the vision of their hartes not from the mouth of our Lord againe I did not speake vnto them and they did prophesy This place also may very well be vnderstood of those who add any thing contrary to the word of God For in the Hebrew text there is set downe that particle Ghal which oftentymes signifieth contrary or against as we haue already declared in our answere to the first argument CHAP. IX Wherin is examined that place of S. Pauls Epistle to the Galathians the which our Aduersaries do obiect against Traditions THE third argument our Aduersaries take out of the first Chapter to the Galathians the which they haue also added to their confession of fayth as inuincible For they haue omitted their second argument as not strong inough for their purpose But thus they frame their argument The Apostle sayth twice an Anathema to those who teach any thing besids that which he hath taught therefore nothing is to be receiued or belieued but Scripture Our Aduersaries haue this place of the Apostle often in their mouthes wherefore it shal be examined more exactly We answere therfore that our Aduersaries do erre heere for two reasons first because our whole controuersy is of the written word of God but in these words there is no mention made of the writtē word or of Scripture but only of the word preached and deliuered viua voce to the Galathians by S. Paul And hence it is that S. Augustine farre otherwise then our Aduersaries disputing against the Donatists proueth by these words of the Apostle that we are bound to admit and belieue the Traditions of the Church as for exāple that those who are once orderly and lawfully christened by Heretiks are not to be baptized againe And well truly for that which is viua voce deliuered is a Tradition and not Scripture Moreouer if the Scripture only conteyned expressely all the poynts of fayth the Apostle would rather haue proposed the Scripture as the rule of faith then his owne preaching seing that the Scripture is manifestly well knowne to all Nations but his owne preaching to the Galathians only But our Aduersaries vrge againe and say that all that which the Apostle preached to the Galathians was written eyther before that tyme or afterward by S. Paul and the other Apostles they say this but they proue it not For this is

no where written in holy Scripture and so whyles they goe about to perswade vs that all points of fayth are writtē they coyne inuent a new point which is no where extant in Scripture that is to say that all such things as S. Paul viua voce taught the Galathians are written But we following herein S. Augustine do gather much better by these words and infer thus against them If there must be nothing belieued but that which S. Paul preached to the Galathians and that none knoweth certainly what are those things which he preached but by the Traditions and doctrine of the Church it followeth manifestly that besids the Scripture we must also belieue the Traditions and doctrine of the Church seing that without them we cannot certainly and without errour know what were those things which the Apostle taught the Galathians 2. Secondly our Aduersaries do erre in that they doe not rightly expound that particle in the wordes of S. Paul praeter besides but rather contrary to the Apostles meaning For the Latine word praeter as also the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Hebrew Ghal haue two significations In the former it signifyeth all that which is not the selfe same thing whereof we doe speake in the later sense it signifieth that only which is contrary to that we speake of In which sense praeter signifieth the same that contra doth to wit against the former sense is manifest inough the later is proued by these places of Scripture Act. 18. v. 13. where all do translate these Greeke words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be against the Law so hath not only the vulgar edition but also Caluin and Beza and all the French Bibles of Geneua Likewise in the first to the Romans the 26. vers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth against Nature so hath the vu●…gar edition and all the french Bibles of Genena yea Cicero as witnesseth Henricus Stephanus doth thus translate this phrase out of Greeke Againe in the 4. to the Romanes the 18. verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth against as the vulgar edition and Beza hath in all editions Moreouer in the 11. to the Romans the 24. vers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth against as the vulgar edition and all the Bibles of Geneua haue finally in the last to the Romans the 17. vers aswell the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Latin word praeter in our interpretor signifieth the same thing that contra doth as manifestly appeareth by the precedent wordes for dissensions and scandals are contrary or against the doctrine of Christ and not only besides his doctrine Wherfore Caluin in his Commentaries set forth in the yeare 1557. vpon the Epistle to the Romanes and Sebasti●…n Castalio and all the French Bibles of Geneua haue cōtrary or against the doctrine and albeit Beza translateth it besids the doctrine yet in his last edition set forth in the yeare 159●… he translateth it contrary to the doctrine and in his Annotations he warneth that it is rather so to be translated It is not therfore strange or absurd that the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Latyne praeter should signify the same that contra doth 3. But now that this word may not only be thus vsed but that also it must necessarily be so vnderstood and taken in this place we haue shewed by the absurdities which would otherwise follow The first is that S. Paul would haue sayd Anathema to S. Iohn Euangelist who many yeares after the preaching of S. Paul to the Galathians yea after his death wrote his Apocalyps wherein there are many new reuelations which S. Paul had not preached to the Galathiās because they were not thē reuealed by God 4. The second absurdity that S. Paul had pronoūced an Anathema vpon all those who in his tyme by a propheticall spirit did dayly prophesy new things For in the Apostles tyme there were many such as appeareth by the first epistle to the Corinthians And S. Paul could not preach to the Galathians which God had not yet reuealed 5. The third absurdity the Apostle for the same reason had pronounced Anathema against S. Luke who in the Actes of the Apostles relateth many thinges which happened long after S. Paul left Galatia 6. The fourth absurdity the Apostle for the same cause also had condemned himselfe with the said Anathema For he wrote many Epistles after he had left Galatia wherein he relateth many thinges which hapned afterward vnto him eyther at Rome or in other places 7. Lastly it is an absurd thing to think either God after those wordes of S. Paul to the Galathians could reueale to men nothing more by an Angell sent from heauen or that the said Angell who by the commaundement of God should reueale any new thing but not contrary to faith should incurre that Anathema by S. Paul seing that this were to wrest the Anathema vpon God himselfe who commaunded the Angell to do so This place therfore cannot be vnderstood of diuers and distinct thinges from those which S. Paul taught the Galathians but only of contrary and opposite thinges vnto them But according to this sense of the word praeter all the foresayd Absurdities doe cease For neyther S. Iohn in his Apocalyps nor S. Luke in the Actes of the Apostles nor any other which did prophecy nor S. Paul himself euer wrote or taught any thing contrary to that which S. Paul taught the Galathians But euen God himself cannot reueale the contrary by an Angell because according to the Apostle It is impossible for God to lye 8. Neyther is it sufficient for me to say that those thinges which were afterward reuealed and written were not necessary pointes of faith to saluation For S. Paul did not say if any shall Euangelize vnto you any point necessary to saluation but absolutely if any shall Euangelize any thing contrary to that which you haue recevued Moreouer all these thinges which were afterward set downe in holy Scripture were true pointes of faith the which euery Christiā is necessarily boūd to belieue if not expressely yet at the least virtually and generally euery one is boūd to belieue with an assured faith all those things which are in holy Writ to be most certaine and true 9. Finally euen our Aduersaries confession doth conuince this to be most true for now they acknowledge that all those thinges which by a necessary consequēce are deduced out of the Scriptures do belong vnto the word of God and are points of fayth and therfore they may be lawfully preached vnto the people as we haue said before But al these are distinct things from those which are expresly written in holy Scriptures For the antecedent wherby some other thing may be inferred is distinct from that which is inferred For it were a ridiculous illation if one and the same thing should be inferred from it selfe But that which is inferred in a good collection