Theological Theses · §234

Why God had the law written — then why leave any equal part unwritten?

Click or tap any sentence to jump there. The side buttons skip a paragraph.

Press harder: why did God finally will His law written, and the rest of sacred Scripture composed?

Rome cannot deny the twin aims — to help human weakness and to block the frauds of the ungodly — and that God's counsel was to rescue the doctrine in those books from oblivion and corruption, and keep it safe against negligence and imposture.

Then why not the same care for the whole of sacred doctrine? Why write one part and leave another equal part unwritten?

Is the unwritten part somehow less open to diabolical fraud and forgetfulness than the written part?

Worldwide experience says otherwise: where Scripture was missing, Father-handed vestiges remained, but ruined by fables, foreign sacrilegious rites, and idolatry.

Rome itself counts later doctors' writings among providence's means of keeping traditions. If traditions needed writing to survive, why leave that writing to fallible common authors instead of Prophets and Apostles — and why seal Scripture on authentic tables while parking equal-weight traditions in ordinary men's books?

Latin

XXXIV. Atque, ut adversarios hic magis constringamus, rogamus eos quare Deus tandem voluit legem suam scripto mandari, & reliquum Scripturae sacrae corpus confici. Certe negare non possunt, quin id factum voluerit Deus, tum ut succurreretur humanae infirmitati, tum ut occurreretur fraudibus impiorum: & quin fuerit Dei consilium, doctrinam sacram istis libris contentam, ab hominum oblivione, & corruptelis vindicare, & tutam illam reddere contra aliorum quidem negligentiam, aliorum vero fraudes & imposturas. Quandequidem autem res ita se habet, dicant adversarii cur toti doctrinae sacrae Deus ita consultum noluit; sed unam quidem partem scribi voluit, aliam vero non scriptam remanere. Etenim, an pars illa non scripta minus opportuna est fraudibus diabolicis, & oblivioni minus obnoxia, quam pars illa quae scripto mandata est? Et nonne testatur experientia in toto orbe, ubi defuit Scriptura, mansisse quidem nonnulla vestigia divinae doctrinae a Patribus traditae, sed illa fabulis miserandum in modum contaminata fuisse, ritusque sacrilegos & peregrinos introductos, & in horrendam, ut diximus, idololatriam detortos? Adde quod adversarii inter causas, quibus divinam providentiam uti volunt in traditionibus conservandis, numerant scripta Doctorum hominum, quibus consignatae sint. Si ergo opus fuit traditiones scribi quo facilius conservari possent, cur Deus id factum voluisset potius ab hominibus vulgaribus & errori obnoxiis, quam a Prophetis atque Apostolis, quibus caetera doctrinae salutaris capita scribenda mandavit? Et cur, si ea quae ex traditione peti volunt ejusdem momenti sunt cum iis quae sacra Scriptura continentur, haec tabulis authenticis consignari voluit, ista vero in hominum vulgarium scriptis relinquere?

About this text

Louis Le Blanc de Beaulieu, Sedan Theses, newly rendered from Latin: from theology proper through the Roman theses I–77 and the Reformed theses of Part Two. The theses only — not the collected works.

English follows locked Pitt Latin through Imaginum CLOSED + Sanctorum Cultu Romana CLOSED + Pars Secunda Reformata I-XL. 1675 PDF ~384-390 (book ~370-376); Vision OCR + pdftotext + tess. No modern English. This slice densifies Sanctorum Pars Secunda I-XL. Next: Pars Secunda XLI–fin (~CI). Claim stays claimed (book densify not done).

Catalogue & scope

ESTC R17887; Wing L802. IA bub_gb_eOkHAW4G0-wC (+ EEBO 1675 for gap leaves). Densify through Sanctorum Cultu Romana I-LXXVII + Pars Secunda Reformata I-XL (Pars Secunda not closed; not whole folio).

Witnesses

This is an AI-assisted study translation. Source fidelity and completeness have not been independently certified. Open Latin on each section (or the Latin source witness link) for the source text. This is not a complete critical edition.