In that part which treateth of a Christian Commonwealth,there are some new doctrines which,it may be,in a state where the contrary were already fully determined,were a fault for a subject without leave to divulge,as being a usurpation of the place of a teacher.But in this time that men call not only for peace,but also for truth,to offer such doctrines as I think true,and that manifestly tend to peace and loyalty,to the consideration of those that are yet in deliberation,is no more but to offer new wine,to be put into new casks,that both may be preserved together.And I suppose that then,when novelty can breed no trouble nor disorder in a state,men are not generally so much inclined to the reverence of antiquity as to prefer ancient errors before new and well-proved truth.
There is nothing I distrust more than my elocution,which nevertheless I am confident (excepting the mischances of the press)is not obscure.That I have neglected the ornament of quoting ancient poets,orators,and philosophers,contrary to the custom of late time,whether I have done well or ill in it,proceedeth from my judgement,grounded on many reasons.For first,all truth of doctrine dependeth either upon reason or upon Scripture;both which give credit to many,but never receive it from any writer.Secondly,the matters in question are not of fact,but of right,wherein there is no place for witnesses.There is scarce any of those old writers that contradicteth not sometimes both himself and others;which makes their testimonies insufficient.Fourthly,such opinions as are taken only upon credit of antiquity are not intrinsically the judgement of those that cite them,but words that pass,like gaping,from mouth to mouth.Fifthly,it is many times with a fraudulent design that men stick their corrupt doctrine with the cloves of other men's wit.