VI.1 But sith the sacred Scriptures themselves afford oftentimes such arguments as are taken from divine authority both one way and other; “The Lord hath commanded, therefore it must be;” and again in like sort, “He hath not, therefore it must not be;” some certainty concerning this point seemeth requisite to be set down.
God himself can neither possibly err, nor lead into error. For this cause his testimonies, whatsoever he affirmeth, are always truth and most infallible certainty2.
Yea further, because the things that proceed from him are perfect without any manner of defect or maim; it cannot be but that the words of his mouth are absolute, and lack nothing which they should have for performance of that thing whereunto they tend. Whereupon it followeth, that the end being known whereunto he directeth his speech, the argument even negatively is evermore3 strong and forcible concerning those things that are apparently requisite unto the same end. As for example: God intending to set down sundry times that which in Angels is most excellent, hath not any where spoken so highly of them as he hath of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; therefore they are not in dignity equal unto him. It is the Apostle St. Paul’s argument4.
The purpose of God was to teach his people, both unto whom they should offer sacrifice, and what sacrifice was to be offered. To burn their sons in fire unto Baal he did not command them, he spake no such thing, neither came it into his mind; therefore this they ought not to have done. Which argument the Prophet Jeremy useth more than once, as being so effectual and strong, that although the thing he reproveth were not only not commanded but forbidden them5, and that expressly; yet the Prophet chooseth rather to charge them with the fault of making a law unto themselves, than with the crime of transgressing a law which God had made6. For when the Lord hath once himself precisely set down a form of executing that wherein we are to serve him; the fault appeareth greater to do that which we are not, than not to do that which we are commanded. In this we seem to charge the law of God with hardness only, in that with foolishness; in this we shew ourselves weak and unapt to be doers of his will, in that we take upon us to be controllers of his wisdom; in this we fail to perform the thing which God seeth meet, convenient, and good, in that we presume to see what is meet and convenient better than God himself. In those actions therefore the whole form whereof God hath of purpose set down to be observed, we may not otherwise do than exactly as he hath prescribed; in such things negative arguments are strong.
Again, with a negative argument David is pressed concerning the purpose he had to build a temple unto the Lord; “Thus saith the Lord, Thou shalt not build me a house to dwell in. Wheresoever I have walked with all Israel, spake I one word to any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people, saying, Why have ye not built me an house7?” The Jews urged with a negative argument touching the aid which they sought at the hands of the King of Egypt; “Woe to those rebellious children, saith the Lord, which walk forth to go down into Egypt, and have not asked counsel at my mouth; to strengthen themselves with the strength of Pharao8.” Finally, the league of Joshua with the Gabeonites is likewise with a negative argument touched. It was not as it should be: and why? the Lord gave them not that advice; “They sought not counsel at the mouth of the Lord9.”
By the virtue of which examples if any man shall suppose the force of negative arguments approved, when they are taken from Scripture in such sort as we in this question are pressed therewith, they greatly deceive themselves. For unto which of all these was it said that they had done amiss, in purposing to do or in doing any thing at all which “the Scripture” commanded them not? Our question is, Whether all be sin which is done without direction by Scripture, and not, Whether the Israelites did at any time amiss by following their own minds without asking counsel of God. No, it was that people’s singular privilege, a favour which God vouchsafed them above the rest of the world, that in the affairs of their estate which were not determinable one way or other by the Scripture, himself gave them extraordinarily direction and counsel as oft as they sought it at his hands. Thus God did first by speech unto Moses, after by Urim and Thummim unto priests, lastly by dreams and visions unto prophets, from whom in such cases they were to receive the answer of God.
Concerning Josua therefore, thus spake the Lord unto Moses, saying, “He shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall ask counsel for him by the judgment of Urim before the Lord10;” whereof had Josua been mindful, the fraud of the Gabeonites could not so smoothly have passed unespied till there was no help.
The Jews had prophets to have resolved them from the mouth of God himself whether Egyptian aids should profit them, yea or no; but they thought themselves wise enough, and him unworthy to be of their counsel. In this respect therefore was their reproof though sharp yet just, albeit there had been no charge precisely given them that they should always take heed of Egypt.
But as for David, to think that he did evil in determining to build God a temple, because there was in Scripture no commandment that he should build it, were very injurious: the purpose of his heart was religious and godly, the act most worthy of honour and renown; neither could Nathan choose but admire his virtuous intent, exhort him to go forward, and beseech God to prosper him therein11. But God saw the endless troubles which David should be subject unto during the whole time of his regiment, and therefore gave charge to defer so good a work to the days of tranquillity and peace, wherein it might without interruption be performed. David supposed that it could not stand with the duty which he owed unto God, to set himself in a house of cedar-trees, and to behold the ark of the Lord’s covenant unsettled. This opinion the Lord abateth, by causing Nathan to shew him plainly, that it should be no more imputed unto him for a fault than it had been unto the Judges of Israel before him, his case being the same which theirs was, their times not more unquiet than his, not more unfit for such an action.
Wherefore concerning the force of negative arguments so taken from the authority of Scripture as by us they are denied, there is in all this less than nothing.
And touching that which unto this purpose is borrowed from the controversy sometime handled between M. Harding12 and the worthiest divine that Christendom hath bred for the space of some hundreds of years13, who being brought up together in one University14, it fell out in them which was spoken of two others, “They learned in the same that which in contrary camps they did practise15:” of these two the one objecting that with us arguments taken from authority negatively are over common, the Bishop’s answer hereunto is, that “16This kind of argument is thought to be good, whensoever proof is taken of God’s word; and is used not only by us, but also by St. Paul, and by many of the Catholic Fathers. St. Paul saith, God said not unto Abraham, ‘In thy seeds all the nations of the earth shall be blessed:’ but, ‘In thy seed, which is Christ:’ and thereof he thought he made a good argument17. Likewise, saith Origen, ‘The bread which the Lord gave unto his disciples, saying unto them, Take and eat, he deferred not, nor commanded to be reserved till the next day18.’ Such arguments Origen and other learned Fathers thought to stand for good, whatsoever misliking Master Harding hath found in them. This kind of proof is thought to hold in God’s commandments, for that they be full and perfect: and God hath specially charged us, that we should neither put to them nor take from19 them; and therefore it seemeth good unto them that have learned of Christ, Unus est Magister vester, Christus20, and have heard the voice of God the Father from heaven, Ipsum audite21. But unto them that add to the word of God what them listeth, and make God’s will subject unto their will, and break God’s commandments for their own tradition’s sake, unto them it seemeth not good.”
Again, the English Apology alleging the example of the Greeks, how they have neither private masses, nor mangled sacraments, nor purgatories, nor pardons; it pleaseth Master Harding to jest out the matter, to use the help of his wits where strength of truth failed him, and to answer with scoffing at negatives. The Bishop’s defence in this case is22, “The ancient learned Fathers having to deal with impudent heretics, that in defence of their errors avouched the judgment of all the old bishops and doctors that had been before them, and the general consent of the primitive and whole universal Church, and that with as good regard of truth and as faithfully as you do now; the better to discover the shameless boldness and nakedness of their doctrine, were oftentimes likewise forced to use the negative, and so to drive the same heretics, as we do you, to prove their affirmatives, which thing to do it was never possible. The ancient father Irenæus thus stayed himself, as we do, by the negative23, ‘Hoc neque Prophetæ prædicaverunt, neque Dominus docuit, neque Apostoli tradiderunt;’ ‘This thing neither did the Prophets publish, nor our Lord teach, nor the Apostles deliver.’ By a like negative Chrysostom saith24, ‘This tree neither Paul planted, nor Apollos watered, nor God increased.’ In like sort Leo saith25, ‘What needeth it to believe that thing that neither the Law hath taught, nor the Prophets have spoken, nor the Gospel hath preached, nor the Apostles have delivered?’ And again26, ‘How are the new devices brought in that our Fathers never knew?’ St. Augustine, having reckoned up a great number of the Bishops of Rome, by a general negative saith thus27; ‘In all this order of succession of bishops there is not one bishop found that was a Donatist.’ St. Gregory being himself a Bishop of Rome, and writing against the title of Universal Bishop, saith thus28, ‘None of all my predecessors ever consented to use this ungodly title; no Bishop of Rome ever took upon him this name of singularity.’ By such negatives, M. Harding, we reprove the vanity and novelty of your religion; we tell you, none of the catholic ancient learned Fathers either Greek or Latin, ever used either your private mass, or your half communion, or your barbarous unknown prayers. Paul never planted them, Apollos never watered them, God never increased them; they are of yourselves, they are not of God.”
In all this there is not a syllable which any way crosseth us. For concerning arguments negative even taken from human authority, they are here proved to be in some cases very strong and forcible. They are not in our estimation idle reproofs, when the authors of needless innovations are opposed with such negatives as that of Leo, “How are these new devices brought in which our Fathers never knew?” When their grave and reverend superiors do reckon up unto them as Augustine did unto the Donatists, large catalogues of Fathers wondered at for their wisdom, piety, and learning29, amongst whom for so many ages before us no one did ever so think of the Church’s affairs as now the world doth begin to be persuaded; surely by us they are not taught to take exception hereat, because such arguments are negative. Much less when the like are taken from the sacred authority of Scripture, if the matter itself do bear them. For in truth the question is not, whether an argument from Scripture negatively may be good, but whether it be so generally good, that in all actions men may urge it. The Fathers I grant do use very general and large terms, even as Hiero the king did in speaking of Archimedes, “From henceforward, whatsoever Archimedes speaketh, it must be believed30.” His meaning was not that Archimedes could simply in nothing be deceived, but that he had in such sort approved his skill, that he seemed worthy of credit for ever after in matters appertaining unto the science he was skilful in. In speaking thus largely it is presumed that men’s speeches will be taken according to the matter whereof they speak. Let any man therefore that carrieth indifferency of judgment peruse the bishop’s speeches, and consider well of those negatives concerning Scripture, which he produceth out of Irenæus, Chrysostom and Leo31; which three are chosen from amongst the residue, because the sentences of the others (even as one of theirs also) do make for defence of negative arguments taken from human authority, and not from divine only. They mention no more restraint in the one than in the other; yet I think themselves will not hereby judge, that the Fathers took both to be strong, without restraint unto any special kind of matter wherein they held such arguments forcible. Nor doth the bishop either say or prove any more, than that an argument in some kinds of matter may be good, although taken negatively from Scripture.
← The first assertion endeavoured to be proved · Contents · Their opinion concerning the force of argume →
Footnotes
-
T. C. l. ii. p. 48. “It is not hard to shew that the Prophets have reasoned negatively. As when in the person of the Lord the Prophet saith, Whereof I have not spoken, Jer. xix. 5. And which never entered into my heart, Jer. vii. 31. And where he condemneth them because they have not asked counsel at the mouth of the Lord, Isai. xxx. 2. And it may be shewed that the same kind of argument hath been used in things which are not of the substance of salvation or damnation, and whereof there was no commandment to the contrary,(as in the former there was. Levit. xviii. 21; and xx. 3; Deut. xvii. 16.) In Josua the children of Israel are charged by the Prophet that they asked not counsel at the mouth of the Lord, when they entered into covenant with the Gibeonites, Josh. ix. 14. And yet that covenant was not made contrary unto any commandment of God. Moreover, we read that when David had taken this counsel, to build a temple unto the Lord, albeit the Lord had revealed before in his word that there should be such a standing-place, where the ark of the covenant and the service should have a certain abiding; and albeit there was no word of God which forbade David to build the temple; yet the Lord (with commendation of his good affection and zeal he had to the advancement of his glory) concludeth against David’s resolution to build the temple with this reason, namely, that he had given no commandment of this who should build it. 1 Chron. xvii. 6.” [The first part of this extract, from “It is not hard” to “Isai. xxx. 2.” is from T. C. i. 13, 14. The parenthesis (“As in the former … . Deut. xvii. 16.”) seems to be a note of Hooker’s. The latter part from “Moreover” is from T. C. ii. 49.] ↩
-
1 John i. 5. “God is light, and there is in him no darkness at all.” Heb. vi. 18. “It is impossible that God should lie.” Numb. xxiii. 19. “God is not as man that he should lie.” ↩
-
[“Ever more” (in two words) 1st ed. “Ever-more,” Spencer. 1604.] 1886. ↩
-
[Heb. i. 5-13; ii. 5-8.] ↩
-
Levit. xviii. 21; xx. 3; Deut. xviii. 10. ↩
-
[See Whitgift, Defence, &c. p. 78.] ↩
-
1 Chron. xvii. 6. ↩
-
Isaiah xxx. 1, 2. ↩
-
Josh. ix. 14. ↩
-
Numb. xxvii. 21. ↩
-
1 Chron. xvii. 2. ↩
-
T. C. l. ii. p. 50; “M. Harding reproacheth the Bishop of Salisbury with this kind of reasoning; unto whom the Bishop answereth, ‘The argument of authority negatively is taken to be good, whensoever proof is taken of God’s word; and is used not only by us, but also by many of the Catholic Fathers.’ A little after he sheweth the reason why the argument of authority of the Scripture negatively is good; namely, ‘For that the word of God is perfect.’ In another place unto M. Harding casting him in the teeth with negative arguments, he allegeth places out of Irenæus, Chrysostom, Leo, which reasoned negatively of the authority of the Scriptures. The places which he allegeth be very full and plain in generality, without any such restraints as the Answerer imagineth; as they are there to be seen.” ↩
-
[Vaughan in his Life of Dr. Thos. Jackson, prefixed to his (Jackson’s) works, p. 8, says of him, “I shall willingly associate him to those other worthies, his predecessors in the same college, (all living at the same time:) to the invaluable Bishop Jewel, Theologorum quos orbis Christianus per aliquot annorum centenarios produxit maximo: as grave Bishop Goodwin hath described him. To the famous Mr. Hooker, who for his solid writings was sirnamed, The Judicious, and entitled by the same, Theologorum Oxonium; ‘The Oxford of Divines:’ as one calls Athens, ‘The Greece of Greece itself.’ To the learned Dr. Reinolds; who managed the government of the same college with the like care, honour and integrity, although not with the same austerities” as Dr. Jackson. Bishop Godwin borrowed the expression referred to (De Præsul. Angl. p. 354, ed. 1743,) from Hooker: and adds concerning him, that he was “a magno Theologo Literarum Oxonium appellatus.”] ↩
-
[According to Camden, they were bred in the same grammar school also. “Out of this town’s school” (he is speaking of Barnstaple) “there issued two right learned men and most renowned divines, John Jewell Bishop of Sarisbury, and T. Hardinge.” Britannia, transl. by Holland, p. 208.] ↩
-
Vell. Paterc. “Jugurtha ac Marius sub eodem Africano militantes, in iisdem castris didicere quæ postea in contrariis facerent.” [l. ii. c. 9.] ↩
-
[Reply to M. Harding’s Answer.] Art. i. Divis. 29. [p. 51, ed. 1611.] ↩
-
Gal. iii. 16. ↩
-
Orig. in Levit. Hom. 5. [t. ii. 211. ed. Bened.] ↩
-
[“fro:” edd. 1, 2, 4.] 1886. ↩
-
Matt. xxiii. 8. 10. ↩
-
Matt. xvii. 5. ↩
-
Defens. par. v. cap. 15, divis. 1. ↩
-
Lib. i. cap. 1. ↩
-
De incomp. nat. Dei, Hom. 3. t. vi. 403. [“Hanc arborem non Paulus plantavit, non Apollos rigavit, non Deus auxit.”] ↩
-
Epist. xciii. c. 12. [p. 167, ed. Paris. 1639: “Quid opus est in cor admittere quod lex non docuit, quod prophetia non cecinit, quod Evangelii veritas non prædicavit, quod Apostolica doctrina non tradidit?”] ↩
-
Epist. xcvii. c. 5. [“Quomodo … nova inducuntur, quæ nostri nunquam sensere majores?” Quoted by S. Leo from S. Ambrose, de Incarn. Dom. c. 6.] ↩
-
Epist. clxv. [al. 53. t. ii. 121. “In hoc ordine successionis nullus Donatista episcopus invenitur.”] ↩
-
Lib. iv. Ep. 32. [“Nemo decessorum meorum hoc tam profano vocabulo uti consensit: nullus Romanorum Pontificum hoc singularitatis nomen assumpsit.”] ↩
-
[S. Aug. Ep. 53. (al. 165.) § 2. “Si ordo episcoporum sibi succedentium considerandus est, quanto certius et vere salubriter ab ipso Petro numeramus, cui totius Ecclesiæ figuram gerenti Dominus ait, ‘Super hanc petram ædificabo Ecclesiam meam, et portæ inferorum non vincent eam.’ Petro enim successit Linus; Lino, Clemens; Clementi, Anacletus;Anacleto, Evaristus; Evaristo, Alexander; Alexandro, Sixtus; Sixto, Telesphorus; Telesphoro, Iginus; Igino, Anicetus; Aniceto, Pius; Pio, Soter; Soteri, Eleutherius; Eleutherio, Victor; Victori, Zephirinus; Zephirino, Calixtus: Calixto, Urbanus; Urbano, Pontianus; Pontiano, Antherus; Anthero, Fabianus; Fabiano, Cornelius; Cornelio, Lucius; Lucio, Stephanus; Stephano, Xystus; Xysto, Dionysius; Dionysio, Felix; Felici, Eutychianus; Eutychiano, Gaius; Gaio, Marcellinus; Marcellino, Marcellus; Marcello, Eusebius; Eusebio, Miltiades; Miltiadi, Sylvester; Sylvestro, Marcus; Marco, Julius; Julio, Liberius; Liberio, Damasus; Damaso, Siricius; Siricio, Anastasius. In hoc ordine successionis nullus Donatista Episcopus invenitur.”] ↩
-
[Proclus in Euclid, II. 3. Montucla, Hist. des Mathématiques, I. 230.] ↩
-
[S. Irenæus, I. 1. 15, (after a minute exposition of the Valentinian doctrine of Æons:) Τοιαύτης δὲ τη̑ς ὑποθέσεως αὐτω̑ν οὔσης, ἣν οὔτε Προϕη̑ται ἐκήρυξαν, οὔτε ὁ Κύριος ἐδίδαξεν, οὔτε Ἀπόστολοι παρέδωκαν, ἣν περὶ τω̑ν ὅλων αὐχου̑σι πλει̑ον τω̑ν ἄλλων ἐγνωκέναι, ἐξ ἀγράϕων ἀναγινώσκοντες, καὶ τὸ δὴ λεγόμενον, ἐξ ἄμμου σχοινία πλέκειν ἐπιτηδεύοντες· ἀξιοπίστως προσαρμόζειν πειρω̑νται τοι̑ς εἰρημένοις ἤτοι παραβολὰς κυριακὰς, ἢ ῥήσεις προϕητικὰς, ἢ λόγους Ἀποστολικοὺς, ἵνα τὸ πλάσμα αὐτω̑ν μὴ ἀμάρτυρον εἰ̑ναι δοκῃ̑.S. Chrysostom, VI. p. 402, 3, (speaking of one of the most offensive modifications of Arianism;) Ἡ τω̑ν Ἀνομοίων ἐρημωθει̑σα ψυχὴ, καὶ τη̑ς ἀπὸ τω̑ν γραϕω̑ν ἐπιμελείας οὐκ ἀπολαύσασα, οἴκοθεν καὶ παρ’ ἑαυτη̑ς τὴν ἀγρίαν ταύτην καὶ ἀνήμερον ἐξέβρασεν αἵρεσιν· του̑το γὰρ τὸ δένδρον οὐ Παυ̑λος ἐϕύτευσεν, οὐκ Ἀπολλὼς ἐπότισεν, οὐχ ό Θεὸς ηὔξησεν· ἀλλ’ ἐϕύτευσε μὲν λογισμω̑ν ἄκαιρος περιεργία, ἐπότισε δὲ ἀπονοίας τύϕος, ηὔξησε δὲ ϕιλοδοξίας ἔρως.S. Leo, as before, Ep. xciii. c. 12.] ↩