The Institution of Christian Religion

Now howsoever the heretics bark at the name of person, or §3some overmuch precise men do carp that they like not the word feigned by devise of men: sith they can not get of us to say, that there be three, whereof every one is wholly God, nor yet that there be many gods: what unreasonableness is this, to mislike words, which express none other thing but that which is testified and approved by the scriptures? It were better (say they) to restrain not only our meanings but also our words within the bounds of scripture, than to devise strange names that may be the beginnings of disagreement & brawling: so do we tier our selves with strife about words: so the truth is lost in contending: so charity is broken by odiously brawling together. If they call that a strange word, which can not be showed in scripture, as it is written in number of syllables: then they bind us to a hard law, whereby is condemned all exposition ye is not pieced together, with bare laying together of texts of scripture. But if they mean that to be strange, which being curiously devised, is superstitiously defended, which maketh more for contention than edification, which is either unaptly, or to no profit used, which withdraweth from the simplicity of the word of God, then with all my hart I embrace their sober mind. For I judge that we ought with no less devout reverence to talk of God than to think of him, for as much as what soever we do of our selves think of him, is foolish, and what so ever we speak is unsavoury. But there is a certain measure to be kept. We ought to ⟨image 39⟩learn out of the scriptures a rule both to think and speak, whereby to examine all the thoughts of our mind and words of our mouth. But what withstandeth us, but that such as in scripture are to our capacity doubtful and entangled, we may in plainer words express them, being yet such words as do reverently and faithfully serve the truth of the scripture, and be used sparely, modestly, and not without occasion. Of which sort there are examples enough.

Nowe howesoeuer the heretikes barke at the name of persone, or §3some ouermuch precise men do carpe that thei like not the worde fained by deuise of men: sithe they can not get of vs to say, that there be three, whereof euery one is wholly God, nor yet that there be many goddes: what vnreasonablenesse is this, to myslyke woordes, whiche expresse none other thynge but that whiche is testified and approued by the scriptures? It were better (say they) to restraine not only our meanynges but also oure woordes within the boundes of scripture, than to deuyse straunge names that may be the begynnynges of disagrement & brawlyng: so doo we tyer our selues with strife about woordes: so the truthe is loste in contending: so charitie is broken by odiousely brawlyng together. If they call that a straunge woorde, whiche can not be shewed in scripture, as it is written in nombre of syllables: then they bynde vs to a hard law, wherby is condemned all exposition ye is not pieed together, with bare laying together of textes of scripture. But if they meane that to be straunge, whiche beyng curiousely deuised, is superstitiousely defended, whiche maketh more for contention than edification, whiche is either vnaptely, or to no profite vsed, whiche withdraweth from the simplicitie of the word of God, then with all my hart I embrace their sobre minde. For I iudge that we ought with no lesse deuout reuerence to talke of God than to thynke of him, for as muche as what soeuer we doo of our selues thinke of him, is foolishe, and what so euer we speake is vnsauorye. But there is a certayn measure to be kepte. We ought to