Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	greek_a	latin_a	translate_v	3,558	5	9.2013	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

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

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 Permissu Superiorum M. DC XIV THE FIRST CHAPTER Of the true state of the Question HAVING already in the precedent Treatise spoken of the written Word of God and of all other things therunto belonging now it remayneth we speake a litle of the vnwritten word cōmonly called Traditiōs But to the end that the state of this controuersy may more easily be vnderstood I will heere set downe foure things diligently to be considered in this matter we treate of The first is that by the vnwritten Word we only vnderstand that which is not written in the old or new Testament for of the vnwritten word of God in this sense is our whole Controuersy in this place Wherefore that obiection of our Aduersaries is both friuolous and nothing worth to wit that the word of God which we call the vnwriten word may be found extant eyther amonge the holy Fathers or in the books of the Councells or other Canons of the Church But this nothing belongeth vnto this purpose for it is sufficient for vs that this word of God is not written in any booke eyther of the old or new Testament 2. The second is that a thing may be cōteined in the holy Scripture 2. wayes The one way is implicite that is to say in some generall principle from whence this other may be certaynly deduced and in this sense we acknowledge that the whole word of God is conteined in holy writ and not only in Scripture but also in the Apostles Creed yea euen in that one article I belieue the Catholike Church so that it be diligently examined and well vnderstood as S. Augustine very well noteth For so sayth Christ the whole Law and Prophets doe depend vpon two precepts of charity as in the same place S. Augustine noteth For seing that the holy Scripture teacheth that we are bound to belieue the Church in all things that it can neyther deceiue vs nor be deceiued as we will euidently proue in the next Controuersy in the 〈◊〉 Chapter it consequently also teacheth the whole and entire word of God seing that all that which is not expressed in the holy Scripture is conteined expresly in the doctrine of the Church the which the Scripture commendeth vnto vs as infallible as S. Augustine very well sayth and declareth in many places For euen as God the Father comprehended in these few words This is my wellbeloued Sonne heare him the whole word of God so Christ proposed vnto vs the whole word of God when he commaunded vs to heare the Church 3. And in this sense do the holy Fathers oftentymes say that all the points of fayth are conteined in the holy Scriptures to wit in that generall principle in the which they admonish vs to belieue the Church but many of the holy Fathers sayings are falsifyed corrupted by Martinꝰ Kēnitius and some Caluinists as may be seene in Iudocus Ruesten in his first tome defending the Councell of Trent against Kemnitius 4. Secondly a thing may be conteined in expresse words in the holy Scriptures as that Christ is borne suffered and risen againe c. And in this sense we deny that the whole word of God is conteined in the Scriptures That obiection of our Aduersaries by this may easily be answered when they say that we affirme that Traditions are the vnwriten word of God and yet we goe about to proue thē by Scriptures For we do not proue euery particuler Tradition by expresse words of Scripture but we only deduce and gather them out of it and conuince in generall that there are Traditions 5. The third thing which is to be considered is that our Aduersaries being conuinced by truth doe acknowledge that many things were deliuered vnto vs by the Apostles besids those which are written But say they those were only externall rites and ceremonies seruing only for the ornament or discipline of the Church but nothing concerning doctrine of fayth was deliuered by the Apostles which they haue not set downe in writing So Caluin and some others which follow his opinion Wherfore it remayneth for vs to proue that not only external ceremonies but also those which belong vnto the doctrine of fayth were deliuered vnto vs by the Apostles and that they were neuer expressely set downe in writing 6. The fourth thing is that seing our Aduersaries cannot deny that which was obiected vnto them by Catholikes to wit that the Scripture in many places maketh expresse mentiō of the word of God preached deliuered and diuulged ouer the whole world as we haue already declared euen out of the holy Scriptures they are wont to answere that long since in the Apostles tyme this word of God was deliuered preached and not written but the Apostles afterwards set downe in writing all the preached word of God or at the least as much therof as was necessary vnto saluation The which solutiō albeit it be very weake and friuolous seing that it relyeth vpō no sure ground yet notwithstanding that it may more fully be confuted we will declare hereafter that many of the chiefest points of faith were not expressely set downe in writing by the Apostles And thus much of the state of this Question CHAP. II. Out of the first and chiefest principles of faith it is clearly conuinced that there are Traditions THE first argument wherby we proue Traditions is taken out of some of the chiefest principles of faith For there are three chiefe and most necessary points of faith yea the thiefe grounds of our whole faith which are not to he found expressely in Scriptures 2. The first that there must needes be some Catalogue or Canon of the sacred Bookes aswell of the old as of the new Testament the which all Christians with an assured faith should imbrace as a most certaine and an vndoubted truth and this is a very necessary point of faith yea of it dependeth the authority of all the bookes of holy Scripture because by this Canon the sacred and true books of Scriptures are discerned and made knowne from all those which be Apochriphall especially because aswell in times past as in these our daies there hath byn so many and so great Controuersyes about the Canonicall and Apochriphall bookes of Scripture and such a Canon was altogeather necessary aswell in the auncient Church before Christ as in our present Church after Christes tyme the which also our Aduersaries themselues haue learned by experience For they haue also placed their new Canon of the bookes of holy Scripture in their Confession made at Rochell and in the later end of some of their Bibles and yet neyther in the tyme of the old Testament nor in the tyme of the

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