For first an Argument holdeth indeed from the negative in matter of Faith, but not in matter of Fact: as to say, dsuch a thing is not expressed or revealed in the word, therefore it is no matter of Faith, nor such as a man is necessarily bound to believe: but not to say, esuch a thing is not mentioned or related in Scripture, therefore it was not done, or it never was: as for example, fCain hath but one son mentioned by Moses, therefore he had no more sons or children but him. Much less may a man reason gfrom matter of Fact to matter of Right, as to say, such or such a thing we never read in the word to have been done, and therefore it may not be done. For how many things are there whereof there is no example in Gods word, and yet the use of them is generally allowed as lawful and good? Many things there are whereof no precedent of the use of them but in some one kind only, which yet may be used also unto others. No use of butter recorded in the word but for food only: may it not therefore be used also for physic? Yea many things there are of ordinary use, whereof there is no mention at all in Gods ⟨p. 175⟩word, which yet all generally allow: as sugar for sweetening, printing of books, shooting in guns, and the like, which all by this argument are utterly condemned; or if they be justified, then the grounds of it fail.
For first an Argument holdeth indeed from the negatiue in matter of Faith, but not in matter of Fact: as to say, dsuch a thing is not expressed or reuealed in the word, therefore it is no matter of Faith, nor such as a man is necessarily bound to beleeue: but not to say, esuch a thing is not mentioned or related in Scripture, therefore it was not done, or it neuer was: as for example, fCain hath but one sonne mentioned by Moses, therefore hee had no more sonnes or children but him. Much lesse may a man reason gfrom matter of Fact to matter of Right, as to say, such or such a thing wee neuer reade in the word to haue beene done, and therefore it may not be done. For how many things are there whereof there is no example in Gods word, and yet the vse of them is generally allowed as lawfull and good? Many things there are whereof no precedent of the vse of them but in some one kinde onely, which yet may be vsed also vnto others. No vse of butter recorded in the word but for foode onely: may it not therefore be vsed also for phisicke? Yea many things there are of ordinary vse, whereof there is no mention at all in Gods ⟨p. 175⟩word, which yet all generally allow: as sugar for sweetning, printing of bookes, shooting in guns, and the like, which all by this argument are vtterly condemned; or if they be iustified, then the grounds of it faile.
- dHebr. 1.4, 5. Quod non lego, non credo ▪ [Greek or Hebrew], &c. Cyril. catech 4. Sine autoritate Scripturarum garruli•a• no• habet fidem. Hieron. ad Tit. c. 1. Quod de Scripturis autoritatem non habet, eadem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur. Idem in Matt. c. 23. Sancta S•riptura doctrina nosirae regulam figit. Aug. de bon. vid. c. 1. In his quae apertè p•sita sunt in Scriptura, inueniuntur •mnia illa quae continent fidem moresque vivendi. Id•m de doctr. C•rist. l 2. c. 9. Cùm hoc (Evangelium) credimus, nihil d•sideramus ultra credere: hoc enim priùs credimus, non esse quod ultra credere debeamus. Tertull. in prescript.Hebr. 1.4, 5. Quod non lego, non credo ▪ 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, &c. Cyril. catech 4. Sine autoritate Scripturarum garruli•a• no• habet fidem. Hieron. ad Tit. c. 1. Quod de Scripturis autoritatem non habet, eadem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur. Idem in Matt. c. 23. Sancta S•riptura doctrina nosirae regulam figit. Aug. de bon. vid. c. 1. In his quae apertè p•sita sunt in Scriptura, inueniuntur •mnia illa quae continent fidem moresque viuendi. Id•m de doctr. C•rist. l 2. c. 9. Cùm hoc (Euangelium) credimus, nihil d•sideramus vltra credere: hoc enim priùs credimus, non esse quod vltra credere debeamus. Tertull. in prscript.
