4.2 Ye shall put nothing to the word that I command you saith Moses neither shall ye take ought there from that ye may keepe the commandements of the Lord your God which I command you thereby giuing to vnderstand that euery putting too or taking fro is a breach of the coÌ„mandement of the Lord. Against the exception which M. Bishop vseth that these words may be vnderstood of commandements as wel vnwritten as written M. Perkins answereth that these words are as a preface to a long coÌ„mentary or exposition of the written law therfore do import that to the written law nothing is to be added nothing to be taken from it but that onely was to be done which is contained therein Now howsoeuer M. Bishop doat yet the case is plaine that because Moses spake thus in respect of the written law therefore the Israelites were to admit of nothing but what was written in the law But saith he why then were there bookes of the old Testament and of the Prophets written afterwards if God had forbidden any more to be written or taught but that one booke of Deuteronomy Behold a cosening Sophister who seeth well and knoweth that saue onely by falshood and deceipt he auaileth nothing We say not that of the booke of Deuteronomy onely but of the whole written law Moses said Ye shall put nothing to it c. Againe we do not say that God did forbid any more bookes to be written or taught but that no matter of doctrine of faith or of the worship of God should be receiued or written or taught but what was deriued from the written law Now then I wish thee gentle Reader to obserue how the wise man in his owne answer circumuenteth and ouerthroweth himselfe Moses saith Ye shall put nothing to the word which I coÌ„mand you nor take ought therefrom now tell vs M. Bishop of what word did he say this He telleth vs that we must vnderstand it of the word whether written or vnwritten Be it so but you will confesse then that to the word of God deliuered by Moses written or vnwritten nothing is to be added because the words of Moses plainly expresse so much and how then came it to passe that so many bookes were written afterwards We hope you will not deny but that Moses therein taught the Israelites whatsoeuer was necessary to saluation how then doth it stand that the rest of the Prophets added so much more in writing To vse your owne words shall we thinke that the Prophets read not these words or vnderstood them not or did wilfully transgresse them We would gladlie heare whether of these you vvill say The man is mute and he hath nothing to answer if he answer as he must his answer fully serueth our turne for defending the onely written law of Moses that the bookes that were after written by the Prophets serue to explane and declare the law to shew the experiment practise of it but adde no point of doctrine nor teach any article of religion towards God but what Moses hath written in the Law But for the further strengthening of this argument it is to be noted that Moses testifieth of himself that b Exod. 24.4 he wrote all the words of God In another place it is said c Deut. 31.9.10 Moses wrote this law and deliuered it to the Priests and to all the Elders of Israel and coÌ„manded them saying Euery seuenth yeare thou shalt reade this law before all Israel The law then which he gaue them he gaue them in writing that they might read it it might be read vnto them It could not haue bene said Moses wrote this law if he had written but a part of it and left another part vnwritten Nay it is said further afterwards d Ver. 24. When Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a booke vntill he had finished them then Moses commanded the Leuites saying Take the booke of this law and put it in the side of the Arke c. It is apparent then that Moses gaue not ouer writing the words of the law vntill he had finished them that is vntill he had written all the words of the law so that there was no word of the law but that that was written in the booke of the law And therfore that which is set downe by Moses e Deut. 27.26 Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them is thus related by the Apostle f Gal. 3.10 Cursed is euery one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to do theÌ„ therby to shew that all the words of the law are written in the booke of the law nothing left vnwritten that was any part or parcel thereof Thus when God would giue direction to Iosuah g Iosuah 1.7 to obserue and do according to all the law which Moses had commanded him giuing him charge according to the instruction of Moses here spoken of not to turne away from it to the right hand or to the left either by putting too or taking fro to shew what he meant by all the law he addeth Let not this booke of the law depart out of thy mouth but meditate therein day and night that thou maiest obserue and do according to all that is written therein Here againe it is plaine that to obserue all the law of Moses is to obserue all that is written in the booke of the law And out of this place Cyprian being vrged by Stephanus Bishop of Rome with tradition argueth against the receiuing of vnwritten traditions h Cyprian ad PoÌ„petum Vnde est ista traditriot Virumnè de dominica EuaÌ„gelica authoritate descendens an de Apostolarum mandatis atque epistolu veniens Ea enim faâ—ienda esse quae scripta sunt Deus testatur protonit Iesu Naue diceus NoÌ„ recedet c. Whence is this tradition faith he Whether descendeth it from the authoritie of the Lord and of the Gospell or commeth it froÌ„ the coÌ„mandements and epistles of the Apostles For that those things must be done which are written God testifieth saying to Iosuah The booke of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth c. Where he plainely sheweth that out of these words he intendeth this conclusion that concerning faith and deuotion towards God as we are to do the things that are written so what is not written we are not to do And this now is cleare by the place that we haue here in hand for if all that Moses commanded were written and nothing was to be added to that that Moses commanded then nothing was to be added to that that was written and those things which were written afterwards were no additions but only declarations and confirmations of those things which he had before written And thus did the ancient Fathers vnderstand that that is said of adding or diminishing as touching
them But if Christ had left any such matters to be deliuered by traditioÌ„ then it should vndoubtedly be knowne which and what they were We desire then by M. Bishop to be aduertised particularly therof and to know what those high mysteries were which the disciples could not beare What shal we think that Christ spake of that trash which they deliuer vnto vs vnder the name of traditions But S. Austin again cutteth him off froÌ„ all answer in that behalf u Ibid. tract 96. Quae cùm ipse tacuerit quis nostrum dicat ista vel illa sunt aut si dicere audeat vnde probat Quis enim est tam vanus aut temerarius qui cum dixerit etiaÌ„ vera quibus voluerit quae voluerit fine vllo testimonio diuino affirmet ea esse quae tuÌ„c dominus dicere noluit Quis hoc nostruÌ„ faciat non mâ—ximaÌ„ culpam remeritatâ— incurrat in quo nec Prophetica nec Apostolica excellit authoritas Seeing Christ himself hath bin silent of those things who of vs can say they are these these or if he dare to say it how doth he proue it For who is there so vaine or so rash who though he say things that are true will affirme without any testimony froÌ„ God that those are the things which Christ wold not say Which of vs should so do and not incurre a note of great presumption not hauing any authority either of a prophet or an Apostle Now if it cannot be known what those things were of which Christ spake then M. Bishop can haue no proofe for their traditioÌ„s hereby because wheras his words import that S. Iohn in his gospel recordeth somewhat hereof though not much after the resurrectioÌ„ of Christ we see nothing in that which he recordeth but that the matter of all the rest may be contained in the rest of his and the other Apostles writings But for the more full clearing of this matter it is to be noted that our Sauior before hath said to his Apostles x Iohn 15.15 All things that I haue heard of my Father haue I made knowne to you And again in his prayer to the Father y Chap. 17.8 I haue giuen vnto them saith he the words which thou gauest me and they haue receiued them If Christ deliuered all the words of God to his disciples before his death then it must needs follow that he deliuered no other words vnto them after his resurrection Therfore those many things which he had to speake vnto them are not to be vnderstood of any other things then he had taught them before but of a more full perfect reuelatioÌ„ for the more ful perfect apprehension vnderstanding of the same things To which purpose we are againe to note against M. Bishops fraudulent collection that our Sauior here saith not that he wold declare those things vnto them himself after his resurrectioÌ„ but deferreth the same to the coming of the Spirit saying z Chap. 16.13 Howbeit when he is come which is the spirit of truth he wil leade you into al truth Now how he shold lead them into all truth he hath before shewed a Chap. 14.26 He shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance which I haue told you He shold teach them all things not by teaching them other things but by bringing all things to their remembrance which they had bin taught by Christ himself Therfore here Christ saith further for he shal not speak of himself but whatsoeuer he shal heare that shal he speake Wherby he importeth that the holy Ghost shold speake according to his example and he stil professeth that b chap. 7.16.17 he speaketh not of himselfe that c Chap. 8.28 he doth nothing of himself but as the Father hath taught me saith he so I speake these things Christ spake d Chrysost de sanct adoran spiritu Non discessit à lege non discessit à Prophetis c. Non locutus est ex seipso sed ex Prophetis c. A seipso enim loqui extra legeÌ„ loqui est not of himself as Chrysostom noteth because he spake out of the Law and the Prophets for to speake of himself is to speake without or beside the Law So then the holy Ghost shall not speake of himselfe but as Christ spake according to the words of the Father in the law and the Prophets so the holy Ghost should speake according to the words of Christ and therefore according to those things that are written in the Law and the Prophets Therefore those many things which Christ had to speake vnto them and into the truth and knowledge whereof the holy Ghost was to leade them were no other things but what were contained in the written word of the Law and the Prophets whereof as yet they were not capable because as yet they did not so well e Iohn 20.9 know the Scripture nor could do vntill he should f Luk. 24.45 open their vnderstanding that they might vnderstand the same Origen vnderstandeth the words spokeÌ„ to the Apostles g Origen contra Cels l. 2. Fortassis vt Judaeis in litera legis Mosaicae educatis Apostolis habebat dicenduÌ„ quae sit vera lex c. VideÌ„s perdifficile esse ex animo reuellere penè conata et vsque ad grandem aetateÌ„ coalita dogmata adeòque pro diuinis habita vt amouere illa videretur imptum c. Jdeo dictum Deducet vos in omnem veritateÌ„ id est in omnem veritatem earuÌ„ rerum in quatuÌ„ figuris versantes putabatis vos vero cultu DeuÌ„ colere as Iewes brought vp in the letter of Moses law our Sauior seeing that it was very hard to pull out of their minds the opinions which had grown vp with theÌ„ to those yeers which were taken to be of God so as that it should seeme impious to remoue them Therefore where Christ saith The spirit shall leade you into all truth it is saith he as if he had said Into all the truth of those things in the figures whereof ye haue bin conuersant thinking thereby truly to worship God Here is then no warrant at all for M. Bishops vnwritten mysteries here is nothing as Origen conceiueth but that the spirit shold afterwards instruct them of the abolishing of the ceremonies of Moses law which they were not yet well able to conceiue And therefore against all illusions of heretikes pretending for their vnwritten traditions and doctrines the holy Ghost as the Church of Rome doth Chrysostom taking it for granted that what Christ spake is set foorth vnto vs in the writings of the Apostles and Euangelists giueth this most notable rule h Chrysost vt supra Si quis eoruÌ„ qui dicuntur habere spiritum sanctuÌ„ ex seipso loquitur non ex Euangelijs non credite Venit Manes dicit Ego sum Paracletus c.
as written For inke and paper brought no new holinesse nor gaue any force vertue vnto either Gods or the Apostles words but they were of the same value and credit vttered by word of mouth as if they had bene written Here the question is principally of diuine traditions which we hold to be necessary to saluation to resolue and determine many matters of greater difficulty For we deny not but that some such principall points of our Faith which the simple are bound to beleeue vnder paine of damnation may be gathered out of the holy Scriptures as for example that God is the Creator of the world Christ the Redeemer of the world the holy Ghost the sanctifier and other such like Articles of the Creed R. ABBOT Traditions saith M. Bishop are of three sorts Diuine Apostolicall Ecclesiasticall Which distinction in some meaning standeth good but as he expresseth the meaning of it it is absurd For if Apostolike traditions be expounded of doctrines as he expoundeth them what warrant hath he to put difference betwixt diuine and Apostolike traditions when the Apostles for doctrine deliuered nothing but what they themselues had receiued froÌ„ God Our Sauiour limited their commission in this sort a Mat. 28.20 teaching them to do whatsoeuer I haue commanded you Accordingly they professed to do b 1. Coâ— 11.23 I haue receiued of the Lord that which I haue deliuered vnto you saith Saint Paul c 1. Thess 4.2.8 We gaue you commaundements by the Lord Iesus and he that despiseth these things despiseth not man but God d Gal. 1.11 12. The Gospell which was preached by me I receiued it not of man nor was taught it but by the reuelation of Iesus Christ Therefore Tertullian saith of them that e Tertul. de praescript Nec ipsi Apostoli quicquam ex suo arbitrio quod inducerent elegeruÌ„t sed acceptam à Christo disciplâ—nam fideliter nationibus adsignauerunt they did not vpon their liking make choise of any thing to bring in but faithfully assigned to the Nations the doctrine which they had receiued of Christ So that if Traditions be vnderstood of doctrine there is no reason to make any difference betwixt the traditions of Christ the traditions of the Apostles because they are both one But if we wil make difference betwixt them we must call Apostolike traditions onely such ordinances whether written or vnwritten as the Apostles prescribed for ceremony vsage in the Church as the obseruation of the memoriall of the natiuity death resurrection of Christ the alteration of the seuenth day from the Iewes Sabbath to the day of Christes resurrection the precept of the Apostle of preaching bareheaded such like And in these traditions we may note that they were sometimes subiect to diuersity according to diuersity of places as was at first the feast of Easter sometimes subiect to alteration change where there might be reason of any such alteration as were f Iude vers 12. the feasts of charity first vsed by the Apostles afterwards abolished for the abuse of them as that order of the Apostle for preaching bareheaded it being by the custome of that time a signe of honour and authority so to do whereas since it is become a matter of authority to preach with the head couered The obseruation of g Acts. 20.7 Apoc. 1.10 the Lords day we hold perpetuall vnchangeable because we find it noted in the Scriptures to haue bene froÌ„ the Apostles and there can be no reason of reuersing or altering what they ordered therin If thus M. Bishop will speake of Apostolike traditions we acknowledge the name of theÌ„ but Apostolike doctrines we know none but such as are also to be acknowledged for diuine Thus therefore the question is of diuine traditions that is doctrines of faith of the worship and seruice of God which we deny to be any but what are comprised in the written word of God Now of diuine traditions he telleth vs some parabables which it seemeth he himselfe did not well vnderstand We hold them saith he to be necessary to saluation to determine matters of greater difficulty Be like then they are not necessary for theÌ„selues but only to determine matters of greater difficulty and those that are not necessary for the determining of matters of greater difficulty are not necessary to saluation By this meanes a number of their traditions must fall Purgatory praier for the dead inuocation of Saints Popes Pardons worshipping of idols images and the rest because no matters of difficulty are determined thereby Againe we deny not saith he but that some such principall points of our faith which the simple are bound to beleeue vnder paine of damnation may be gathered out of the Scriptures It seemeth then that the simple are not bound vnder paine of damnation to beleeue the rest that cannot be gathered out of the Scriptures if he say they be so bound then that clause of his was very idlely and impertinently inferred But we must pardon him it seemeth he wanted sleepe the night before and therefore being very drowsie could not well consider of that he wrote 5 W. BISHOP M. Perkins goeth about to proue by these reasons following that the Scriptures containe all matter of beliefe necessary to saluation Testimonie * Deut. 4.2 Thou shalt not adde to the words that I coÌ„mand thee nor take any thing there from Therefore the written word is sufficient for all doctrine pertaining to saluation If it be said that this is spoken as well of the vnwritten as written word for there is no mention in the text of the written word then M. Perkins addeth that it must be vnderstood of the written word onely because these words are as a certaine preface set before a long Commentarie made vpon the written Law Answer Let the words be set where you will they must not be wrested beyond their proper signification The words cited signifie no more then that we must not either by addition or subtractioÌ„ change or peruert Gods commandements whether they be written or vnwritten Now to inferre that because they are as a preface vnto Moses law that therfore nothing must be added vnto the same law is extreame dotage Why theÌ„ were the bookes of the old Testament written afterward if God had forbidden any more to be written or taught besides that one booke of Deuteronomie Shall we thinke that none of the Prophets that liued and wrote many volumes after this had read these words or that they either vnderstood them not or that vnderstanding them well did wilfully transgresse against theÌ„ one of these the Protestants must needs defend or else for very shame surcease the alledging of this text for the al-sufficieÌ„cy of the writteÌ„ word R. ABBOT M. Bishops allegations are too simple childish to moue the Protestants to surcease the opposing of that text of Moses against vnwritten traditions doctrines a Deut.
standing oracle of a written law to which all men at all times might resort to be informed as touching duty and seruice towards God And as in the creation of the world howsoeuer the light were at first sustained and spread abroad by the incoÌ„prehensible power of God yet when he created the Sun he conueighed the whole light of the world into the body thereof so that though the Moone starres should giue light yet they should shine with no other light but what they receiued from the Sun euen so in the constitution of the Church howsoeuer God at first preserued continued the knowledge of his truth by immediate reuelation from himselfe to some chosen men by whose ministerie he would haue the same coÌ„municated to the rest yet when he gaue his word in writing he conueighed into the body of the Scriptures the whole light of his Church so that albeit there should be Pastours and teachers therein to shine as starres to giue light to others yet they should giue no other light but what by the beames of the written law was cast vpon theÌ„ Which beames albeit they shined not then altogether cleare bright many things being lapped vp in obscure dark mysteries rather signified by figuratiue ceremonies then expressed in plain words yet were they not to walk by any other light nor to go without the coÌ„passe of the writteÌ„ word only what was obscure therin God by his Prophets froÌ„ time to time made more more apparent vntill by Iesus Christ in the writings of his Apostles Euangelists he set vp a most full perfect light Now then in M. Perkins meaning it is true that from Adam to Moses the word of God passed from man to man by tradition that is by word onely not by writing and thus as M. Bishop alledgeth good fathers godly maisters taught their childreÌ„ seruants the true worship of God true faith in him But it is true also which he signifieth in the second place that they whoÌ„ God thus raised vp to be teachers instructours of others receiued not the word only by tradition from others but had reuelation confirmation thereof immediatly from God himselfe Therefore there is no argument to be taken hence to giue any colour to Popish tradition nay we may iustly argue that if God would haue had the religion of Christ to be taught in any part without writing he would haue taken the course which he did then by immediate reuelation to continue and preserue the integritie and truth thereof 2. W. BISHOP His 2. Concl. We hold that the Prophets our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles spake and did many things good and true which were not written in the Scriptures but came to vs by Tradition but these were not necessary to be beleeued For one exaÌ„ple he puts that the blessed virgin Mary liued died a virgin but it is necessary to saluation to beleeue this for Helui dius is esteemed by S. Augustine an Heretike for denying it * De haeres ad Quod. hae 84. R. ABBOT It is necessary to saluation to beleeue that our Sauiour was conceiued and borne of a virgin We perswade our selues also according to the common iudgement of the Church that she so continued and died but yet we deny it to be any matter of saluation so to beleeue We say as S. Basil doth that a Basil de human Christi generat Hoc nunc suspicionem generat ne forsan posteaquam puritate sua generationi dominicae per spirituÌ„ sanctuÌ„ administratae seruiuit tum demuÌ„ nuptialia opera viro Maria noÌ„ negauerit Nos verò licet nihil hoc doctrinae pretatis â—ffiâ—eret nam donec dispensabatur Christi generatio necessaria erat virginitas quid verò postea sit factuÌ„ ad mysterij huius doctrinam non anxiè coÌ„â—ungenduÌ„ est vâ—runtameÌ„ c. it should be no whit preiudiciall to the doctrine of faith that the virgin Mary after that she had in her virginity serued for the generation of Christ should performe the office of a wife to her husband Her virginity was necessary till the birth of Christ was accoÌ„plished but what was afterwards done is not too scrupulously to be adioined to the doctrine of this mysterie But yet that no man might to the scandall and offence of deuout persons affirme rashly that she ceased to be a virgin he sheweth that the places of the Gospell which seeme to giue suspition thereof do not euict it but may well be construed otherwise And therefore Heluidius for mouing an vnnecessary question hereof to giue occasion of publike disturbance and for affirming rashly that which he had no warrant sufficiently to proue was iustly condemned reiected by the Church neither can we approue any thâ—t shall do as he did 3. W. BISHOP His 3. Concl. We hold that the Church of God hath power to prescribe ordinances and Traditions touching time place of Gods worship And touching order comlinesse to be vsed in the same mary with these foure caneats First that it prescribe nothing childish or absurd See what a reuerent opinion this man carieth of the Church of God gouerned by his holy spirit that it neuerthelesse may prescribe things both childish and absurd But I must pardon him because he speaketh of his owne Sinagogue which is no part of the true Church Secondly that it be not imposed as any part of Gods worship This is contrary to the conclusion for order and comelinesse to be vsed in Gods worship which the Church can prescribe is some part of the worship Thirdly that it be seuered froÌ„ superstition c. This is needlesse for if it be not absurd which was the first prouiso it is already seuered from superstition The fourth touching multitude may passe these be but meere trifles That is of more importance that he termeth the decree registred in the 15. of the Acts of the Apostles a Tradition whereas before he defined Traditions to be all doctrine deliuered besides the written word Now the Acts of the Apostles is a parcell of the written word as all the world knowes that then which is of record there cannot be termed a Tradition R. ABBOT The cautions set downe by M. Perkins are materiall necessary against the vsurpations of the Church of Rome which hauing forsaken the direction of the spirit of God in the word of God is now led by a 1. Kings 22.23 a lying spirit by b 1. Tim. 4.1 spirits of errour and therefore in her ordinances and traditions swarueth from the grauity and wisedome of the holy Ghost The ceremonies of the Masse are apish and ridiculous toies whereby in that which Christ instituted for a most sacred and reuerend action they make the Priest more like to a iugler or to a vice vpon the stage in his duckings and turnings his kissings crossings his lifting vp and letting downe his putting together the forefinger the
the written word i Tertul aduers Hermog Adoro scripturae plemdinem c. Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina si non sit scriptum timeat vae illud adijcientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum I reuerence the fulnesse or perfection of the Scripture saith Tertullian Let the schoole of Hermogenes shew me that that which he saith is written if it be not written let him feare the wo that is appointed to them that adde or take away And so Basil saith that k Basil ser de fide Manifestus est fidei lapsus liquidum superbia virium vel respuere aliquid eorum quae Scriptura habet vel inducere quicquam quod scriptum non est cùm Dominus dicat Oues meae vocem meam audiunt alienum autâ—m non sequuntur Apostolus per humanum exemplum vehemeÌ„tèr prohibeat aliquid in diuinis scripturis vel addere vel demere cum dicit Hominis quidem Testamentum c. it is a manifest falling from faith and an apparent sinne of pride either to refuse any thing that the Scripture hath or to bring in any thing that is not written seeing our Lord Iesus Christ saith My sheepe heare my voice they do not follow a stranger and the Apostle by a humane example greatly forbiddeth in the holy Scriptures either to adde any thing or take away when he saith A mans testament when it is coÌ„firmed no man refuseth or addeth any thing to it Hereby then it is plaine that the forbidding to adde or take away hath reference to the written word of God and therefore that the doctrine of faith and religion is to be taken from thence onely and nothing therin to be admitted but what hath the warrant of the holy Scriptures 6. W. BISHOP M. Perkins His 2. testimony * Esa 8.20 To the law and testimony if they speake not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Here the Prophet teacheth saith M.P. what is to be done in cases of difficulty men must not run to the Wisards and Southsayers but to the law and to the testimony commending the written word as sufficient to resolue all doubts whatsoeuer Answ By the law and testimony in that place the 5. bookes of Moses are to be vnderstood if that written Word be sufficient to resolue all doubts whatsoeuer what need we then the Prophets what need we the Euangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles what Wizard would haue reasoned in such sort The Prophet willeth here that the Israelites who wanted wit to discerne whether it be better to flie vnto God for counsell then vnto Wizards and Soothsayers do see what is written in the law of Moses concerning that point of consulting-Wizards which is there plainely forbidden in diuerse places Now out of one particular case whereof there is expresse mention in the written word to conclude that all doubts and scruples whatsoeuer are thereby to be decided is a most vnskilfull part arguing as great want of light in him as was in those blind Israelites R. ABBOT If M. Perkins had thought himselfe to be so wise as M. Bishop doth himselfe we should certainely haue condemned him for a wizard what we thinke of M. Bishop in the meane time we leaue it to him to consider of The Prophet in the place alledged dehorteth the faithfull from yeelding to the wicked motions and counsels of hypocrites and vnbeleeuers who casting away all trust and confidence in God and relinquishing the yoke of obedience to him sought by other helpes and meanes to secure and establish themselues against the daungers which they imagined to themselues who as they had giuen themselues ouer to idolatrie so followed the course of idolaters in this behalfe and for aduice and direction in such things as concerned theÌ„ for their safetie they sought taught one another to seeke to Southsayers and such as vsed familiar spirits and tooke vpon them to call vp the soules of dead men to giue answer to such things as should be demanded of theÌ„ By them they would be instructed what to do and what course to take for their owne good hereby were hardened in their abhominations and apostacie froÌ„ God to the further prouocation of his wrath against themselues He therefore aduertiseth the faithfull and godly not to ioyne with them in any such doings but when they shold perswade them to enquire of any such wicked persons rather to answer them a Esa 8.19 Should not a people enquire at their God Euery nation seeketh to their owne God The Lord is your God will ye not seeke to him will ye go for the liuing to them that are dead Hereupon he addeth the words here questioned b Vers 20. To the law and to the testimonie if they speake not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Wherin he giueth to the people of God a generall direction to go to the law to the testimony to be instructed what waies they ought to walke in and to hearken to none to follow none but only such as speake vnto them according to that word The Prophets of God called men one way false Prophets wizards and Southsayers called men another way he teacheth them therefore a sure way to know to whom to commit themselues by considering who spake according to that word Now to this the wizard giueth vs a wizard like answer that the Prophets willed them to see what was written in the law of Moses concerning that point of consulting wizards So then there is no more here said but this that if the wizards do not say vnto theÌ„ that they are not to consult with wizards it is because there is no light in them and who but a wizard would haue made such a construction of the place The Prophet teacheth them in generall to seeke to the law of God for aduice and answer of such things as touching which they went to consult with wizards southsayers to be directed thereby in seeking to prouide for their owne safetie thence to take resolution of their doubts and to take it for certain that they led them in darknesse whosoeuer should draw them to other waies then could be warranted thereby c Basil in Esa cap. 8. Vnaquaeque natiorem ambagiosam quaestionem de quae cupiebat edoceri suo proporebat Deo dissoluendaÌ„ Quos supponebaÌ„t esse Deos his offerebant diluendas inquisitiones suas Euery nation saith Basil vpon that place did propound to their God the doubt and question wherof they desired to be taught to haue resolution thereof whom they tooke to be gods to them they offred their questions to be answered Therfore he sheweth that the people of God for answer of their doubts should go to God in going to the law and to the testimony d Aducit Deus legem velut manuductionem viam tibi praemumentem Vis certò persuaderi quae sint futura Prouide
sedulò vt quae tibi lex facienda praescripsit opere expleas diligentèr certus opperitor iucundissimaÌ„ fruitionem repositoruÌ„ tibi bonoruÌ„ c. Bonis perfruâ— siquidem desideres quae praescripta sunt mandata opere exequitor which God hath giuen as to guide vs by the hand to direct vs the way Wilt thou then saith he be certainly perswaded what shall hereafter befall thee Prouide diligently to do the things which the law coÌ„mandeth thee to do and waite assured of the most ioyfull fruition of the good things which are prouided for thee If thou desire to enioy good things performe the commandements that are prescribed vnto thee By Basils iudgement then it is plaine that the words haue further meaning then to refer theÌ„ to the law concerning that one particular of consulting wizards But Hierome goeth yet further tels vs the meaning of the Prophet in this sort e Hieron in Esa cap 8. lib. 3. Si de aliquo dubitaris c. si vultis nosse quae dubia sunt maÌ„gis vos legi et testimonijs tradite scripturarum If ye doubt of any thing if ye would know the things that ye doubt of referre your selues to the law and to the testimonies of the Scriptures What wil M. Bishop say now wil he cal Hierom a wizard as he hath done M.P. for saying the Prophets meaning to be that the Scripture the written word shold resolue theÌ„ of al that they doubted towards God Yea the law it self sufficiently warranteth vs so to coÌ„ceiue f Deut. 12.32 Whatsoeuer I coÌ„mand you take heed you do it saith Moses thou shalt put nothing therto nor take ought therefroÌ„ Those words M. Bish vulgar Latin expoundeth thus g Quod praecipio tibi hoc tantùm facito Domino What I coÌ„mand thee that onely do to the Lord thou shalt put nothing thereto c. Now we haue seene before that Moses committed to writing whatsoeuer he commaÌ„ded If then nothing were to be done to the Lord but what Moses commanded and all that Moses commanded was written then by the written word all doubts were to be resolued as touching those things that were to be done to the Lord and nothing to be done but that that was written But saith M. Bishop what need we then the Prophets what need we the Euangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles I haue answered him before but yet let me tell him here that Faustus the Maniche denying God the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ to be the author of the old Testament when he was vrged that Christ approueth the same in saying I came not to destroy the lawe but to fulfill it replied that it could not be that Christ should say so because the author of the Law had said that nothing should be added to the law nor taken from it Saint Austine answereth him that h August cont Faust Manich. lib. 17. cap. 6. Venit legem adimplere non vi legi adderentur quae decrant sed vt fierent quae scripta erant quod ipsa eius verba iestantur Non enim ait Joâ—a vnum aut vnus apex non transiet à lege donec addantur quae desunt sed donec omnia fiant Christ came to fulfill the Law not as that any thing should be added which was wanting to the law but that the things should be done which are written therein as his words saith he do shew for he doth not say Not one iot or title of the law shall passe till the things be added which are wanting but till all things be done Hence therefore we answer M. Bishop once againe that the Prophets writings were no additions of doctrine but onely explanations of the law and so likewise that the writings of the new Testament do adde nothing to the law but onely do further declare and withall set foorth the accomplishment of those things that were foreshewed prophecied in the law And therefore Paul in preaching the Gospell professeth i Act. 26.22 to say no other things then those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come so that to vse the distinction that Vincentius Lyrinensis vpon other occasion vseth though the Euangelists and Apostles spake in a new manner yet they spake k Vincent Lyr. Eadem quae didicisti doce vt cùm dicas nouè non dicas noua no new matter or to allude to Saint Austines words though they varied in the tense yet they differed not in the signification of the word but in both times or in all times the same doctrine was preached the same faith continued the latter affirming nothing but what was confirmed by the writings of them that went before 7 W. BISHOP 3. Testimony * Ioh. 20.31 These things were written that ye might beleeue that Iesus is the Christ in beleeuing might haue life euerlasting Here is set downe the ful end of the Gospell that is to bring men to faith and consequently to saluation to which the whole Scripture alone is sufficient without Traditions Answ Here are more faults then lines first the text is craftily mangled things being put instead of miracles For S. Iohn saith Many other miracles Christ did c. but these were written c. Secondly S. Iohn saith not that for faith we shall be saued but beleeuing we shold haue saluation in his name which he clipped off thirdly remember to what faith S. Iohn ascribes the means of our saluation not to that wherby we apply vnto our selues Christs righteousnesse but by which we beleeue Iesus to be Christ the Messias of the Iewes and the Sonne of God which M. Perkins also concealed Now to the present matter S. Iohn saith that these miracles recorded in his Gospell were written that we might beleeue Iesus to be the Sonne of God and beleeuing haue saluation in his name c. Therefore the written word containes all doctrine necessary to saluation Answ S. Iohn speakes not a word of doctrine but of miracles and therfore to conclude sufficiency of doctrine out of him is not to care what one saith But M.P. foreseeing this saith it cannot be vnderstood of miracles only for miracles without the doctrine of Christ can bring no man to life euerlasting true and therefore that text speaking onely of miracles proueth nothing for the sufficiencie of the written Word Christs miracles were sufficient to proue him to be the Sonne of God and their Messias but that proueth not S. Iohns Gospell to containe all doctrine needfull to saluation for many other points of faith must be beleeued also And if it alone be sufficient what need we the other three Gospels the Acts of the Apostles or any of their Epistles or the same S. Iohns Reuelations Finally admit that S. Iohns Gospell were al-sufficient yet should not Traditions be excluded for Christ saith in it in plaine termes * Ioh. 16. that he had much more to say vnto his Apostles but
in the art of true reasoning because M. Perkins behaues himselfe in it so vnskilfully But S. Ierome in the same place declareth why that might be as easily reproued as allowed not hauing any ground in the Scripture because saith he It is taken out of the dreames of some Apocryphall vvritings opposing Scripture to other improoued writings and not to approoued Traditions to which he saith in his Dialogues against the Luciferians before the middle That the Church of God doth attribute the like authoritie as it doth vnto the written Law R. ABBOT M. Perkins indeede mistooke in naming Iohn Baptist in steed of Zacharie the father of Iohn Baptist but it is no matter of consequence for his aduantage and therefore might easily be pardoned by Maister Bishop who for aduantage hath made many greater and fouler faults a Hieron in Math. 23. Some saith Hierome will haue Zacharie who is said to haue bene slaine betwixt the temple and the altar to be meant of the father of Iohn Baptist auouching out of the dreames of Apocryphall bookes that he was slaine because he foretold the comming of our Sauiour * Hec quia ex Scriptures non habet authoritatem eadem facilitate conteÌ„nitur quae probatur This saith he because it hath not authority out of the Scriptures is as easily contemned as approued Where M. Perkins doth not out of a particular inforce an vniuersall as M. Bishop pretendeth but rightly alledgeth that Hieromes words containing a minor proposition and a conclusion must by rules of Logicke imply a maior proposition for the inferring thereof This hath no authority out of the Scriptures therefore it may be as easily contemned as approoued Why so but onely because whatsoeuer hath not authority of Scripture is as easily contemned as approued The argument contained in Hieromes words cannot stand good but by this supply and so it is not the inferring of an vniuersall from a particular but the prouing of the particular by the vniuersall according to due course But M. Bishop telleth vs that the cause why that story might as well be reproued as allowed was because it was taken out of the dreames of some Apocryphall writings Which what is it but to vse a shift in steed of an answer the sentence being in it selfe entier and absolutely giuing the cause of the reiecting of that story because it had no authority out of Scripture Yea if it be true which M. Bishop saith of traditions Hieromes argument proueth to be nothing worth For though this were written in Apocryphall bookes and had no proofe of Scripture yet it might be confirmed by tradition and therfore it followeth not that because it was written in Apocryphall bookes and had no proofe of Scripture it should hereupon be reiected b Aug. de ciu Dei lib. 15. cap. 23. In Apocryphis etsi inuenitur aliqua veritas tamen propter nonnulla falsa nulla est Canonica authoritas In the Apocryphall writings saith Austine some truth is found albeit because there are manie things also false they haue no canonicall authority If this therfore notwithstanding it were written in Apocryphall bookes might be true then it might be confirmed by tradition and therefore not to be contemned and thereof it followeth that Hieromes reason of reiecting it for wanting authority of Scripture is worth nothing Which if M. Bishop will not say then let him acknowledge that Hieromes meaning simply is this that there is no necessity for vs to beleeue what authority of Scripture doth not confirme saying no other thing therein but what else-where he maketh good reasoning both waies c Hieron aduer Heluid Naetum DeuÌ„ esse de virgine credimus quia legimus Mariam nupsisse post partum non credimus quia non legimus We beleeue it because we reade it we beleeue it not because we do not reade it And surely if Hierome had had here any conceipt of tradition without Scripture he would not haue left this matter thus indifferently as easily to be contemned as approued but would simply haue contemned it because tradition had giuen another cause of the death of Zacharie namely for that he affirmed Mary the mother of Iesus to be still a virgin and accordingly placed her in the temple in a place which was appointed onely for virgines and maidens Whereof Origen saith d OrigeÌ„ in Mat. tract 26. Venit ad nos traditio talis c. Such a tradition hath come to vs and Basil e Basil de humana Christi gener Zachariae historia quadaÌ„ qua ex traditione adnos vsque peruenit A storie of Zacharie by tradition hath come to vs and in like manner Theophylact f Theophyl in Math. cap. 23. Habetâ—ta narratio nobis tradita Thus hath a narration deliuered by tradition to vs. If this then being deliuered by tradition yet auailed so little in the Church because it wanted the authoritie of Scripture we may well conceiue that Hieromes meaning was plaine that tridition howsoeuer colourable it seeme to be yet is of no moment or credit without the Scripture As for the other words alledged by Maister Bishop that g Hieron adu Lucifer Luciferianus dixit c. Nam multa alta quae per traditioneÌ„ in ecclesijs obseruantur authoritateÌ„ sibi scriptae legis vsurpauerunt to traditions the Church of God doth attribute the like authoritie as it doth vnto the written law they are set downe for the words of a Luciferian schismatike and the example thereof taken from a Montanist heretike euen from Tertullian of whom was spoken in the former section insomuch that some of h Velutin lauacro ter caput mergitare deinde egressos lactis mellis praegustare concordiaÌ„ c. die dominico per omnem Pentecosten nec de geniculis adorare et ieiunium soluere the instances of traditions vsed by Tertullian are there set downe in Tertullians owne words And yet by those instances it appeareth that the words come not within the compasse of our question because he speaketh onely of ceremoniall customes and obseruations which are temporall and occasionall not of matters of doctrine and faith which are necessary and perpetuall which though they had in time growne to be alike in practise and vse as if they had beene written yet in iudgement and doctrine were not holden to be alike and therefore for the most part haue ceased since to be obserued euen in the Church of Rome 12 W. BISHOP Maister Perkins His third Author is Saint Augustine * Lib. 2. de doct Chri. cap. 9. In those things which are plainely set downe in Scriptures are found all those points which containe faith and manners of liuing well Answer All things necessary to be beleeued of euery simple Christian vnder paine of damnation that is the Articles of our Beliefe are contained in the Scriptures but not the resolution of harder matters much lesse of all difficulties which the more learned
Vincentius Lyrinensis either as doing damage to vs or yeelding any gaine or aduantage to themselues 14. W. BISHOP Thus M Perkins hauing ended with the Law and Testimony addeth in a postscript two other slender reasons to his former the first that Christ and his Apostles vsed alwayes to confirme their doctrine with the testimonies of Scriptures and not with Tradition Answ First for our Sauior Iesus Christ be out of his diuine wisdome deliuered his doctrine most commonly in his owne name But I say vnto you and very seldome confirmeth it with any testimony out of the Law The Euangelists do often note how Christ fulfilled the old prophecies but neuer or very seldome seeke to confirme his doctrine by testimonies their owne they do sometimes but to say they neuer wrote any thing out of Tradition proceeds of most grosse ignorance Where had S. Mathew the adoring of the Sages S Iohn Baptists preaching briefly that was done before his owne conuersion but by tradition S. Marke wrote the most part of his Gospell out of Tradition receiued from Peter as witnesseth Eusebius * Lib. 2. hist cap. 14. S. Luke testifieth of himselfe that he wrote his whole Gospell * Cap. 1. as he had receiued it by Tradition from them who were eye-witnesses What desperate carelesnesse was it then to affirme that the Apostles neuer vsed Tradition to confirme any doctrine when some of them built not onely parcels but their whole Gospels vpon Traditions R. ABBOT The reasons seeme slender to M. Bishop but yet the Reader must needs take them to be very strong in that they are put off with so slender and weake an answer If the doctrine of faith and of the seruice of God had stood in the old Testament in any part vpoÌ„ tradition vndoubtedly our Sauiour Christ would haue made some mention therof and as he often referreth himself to the Scriptures so would sometimes haue appealed to tradition also But that doth he neuer he reproueth traditions and condemneth them but neuer vseth one word to approue any M. Bishop answereth that Christ most commonly deliuereth his doctrine in his owne name I say vnto you and very seldome confirmeth it out of the Law But that is a very weak and silly shift yea there is in it apparent and manifest vntruth For we find our Sauiour in the Gospel more often citing and alledging the Scriptures then we heare him saying I say vnto you as euery Reader may obserue Againe where he doth say I say vnto you he teacheth vs to vnderstand that a Iohn 14 10. he speaketh not of himselfe but what he saith he speaketh as Chrysostome before hath taught vs to construe it b Chrysost supra sect 7. out of the Law and the Prophets according to the written word of the law and the Prophets deliuering no point of doctrine but what hath witnesse and confirmation from thence Thirdly it is much to be obserued against M. Bishop that where our Sauiour doth most often vse those words c Mat. 5.18.20 I say vnto you he vseth them to challenge the written Law froÌ„ the corruption of Tradition and to affirme the original truth thereof For Tradition had taught men to vnderstaÌ„d the law literally only of outward actions but he shewes in the commandements d Ver 22.28 of murther and adultery that the intention of the Law is extended to the affections of the heart Tradition had diminished the integritie of the Law and taken from it e Ver. 34. teaching onely not to forsweare but he teacheth that the truth of the Law extendeth to vaine and idle swearing Tradition had added to the Law of it owne deuice and where God had said Thou shalt loue thy neighbour by a corrupt glose put to it Thou shalt hate thine enemie but he teacheth that the name of f Ver. 44. a neighbour reacheth to them also that are our enemies Thus he rectifieth that which Tradition had made crooked but for Tradition he saith nothing Surely they that thus peruerted the written Law would haue peruerted Traditions also if there had bene any and Christ would haue restored the integritie thereof but there is no surmise giuen vs of any such matter We heare him often saying g Mat. 19.4 Haue ye not read and h Chap. 21.13 It is written and i Luke 10.26 What is written in the law how readest thou but we neuer heare him saying Haue ye not thus receiued by Tradition He telleth the Saduces k Mat. 22.29 Ye erre because ye know not the Scriptures and the cause of the Disciples error was noted l Iohn 20.9 As yet they knew not the Scripture but no where doth he note the not knowing of Tradition for any cause of error He saith m Iohn 5.39 Search the Scriptures they testifie of me but he neuer saith search after Traditions they are they that testifie of me n Mat. 26 54. How then should the Scriptures be fulfilled saith he but neuer mentioneth the fulfilling of any thing that was deliuered by tradition o Luke 24.27 He interpreted to his Disciples in all Scriptures the things which were written of him but out of Tradition he interpreted nothing vnto them p Ver. 45. He opened their vnderstanding that they might vnderstand the Scriptures but we reade not of giuing them vnderstanding of Traditions Thus the Euangelists from place to place vpon diuers occasions do set downe q Mat. 1.22 2.17 c. the fulfilling of those things which were spoken by the Prophets mentioning the things which are wriâ—â—en but neuer once speake of the fulfilling of Tradition And what will M. Bishop haue vs to dreame as idlely as he doth that there were Traditions from God beside the Scriptures when we find these infinit references to the Scriptures and to Traditions none at all He telleth vs a childish tale that the Euangelists very seldome confirme Christs doctrine by testimonies but their owne they do sometimes as if the doctrine of the Euangelists were not the doctrine of Christ and shewing that he is little acquainted with the reading of the Euangelists who maketh that very seldome which is so often done And when it is done it is done by Scripture only neuer by Tradition which is the point whereto he should haue answered and he saith nothing to it Onely he lewdly abuseth the ignorant Reader by seeming to say somwhat when that which he saith is but an impertinent vagary and concerneth not that that is obiected to him To say that they neuer wrote any thing out of tradition saith he proceedeth of most grosse ignorance Where had Mathew the adoring of the Sages c. Pelting brabler what is this to that that M. Perkins saith Christ and his Apostles in infinite places confirme that which they preach by the doctrine of former times they signifie the fulfilling of those things which were of old taught vnto the people of God They neuer confirme
the written law therefore some other remedie was delivered for them by tradition Further he alledgeth that there was remedy for children dying before the eight day before which they might not be circumcised but there is none found written therefore it was deliuered by tradition O the excellent wit of this man he hath with these arguments so troubled the whole pack of the Protestants as that not one of them can tel what to say But for our learning M. Bishop we are desirous to know of you what these remedies were that you speake of What was the ceremonie for the freeing of women from originall sinne and children dying before eight dayes old Where haue ye found or how can ye prooue that there was any such Surely you that can see so farre into a milstone of traditions are able I trow to informe vs what it was if any such thing were Ridiculous vain man bringing in steed of proofes fantasticall imaginations whereof he hath no ground nor can giue vs any testimony at all either from the Iewes themselues or from other ancient writers but only out of the presumptions and idle dreames of some of their owne schoolmen Yea and in this deuice of his he crosseth the doctrine of his owne part for tell vs M. Bishop did circumcision take away originall sin If it did so what difference then betwixt the sacraments of the old Testament and of the new You are wont to tell vs that the sacraments of the old Testament did signifie grace but not giue grace that they did signifie the taking away of sinne but not take it away that they did signifie iustification but did not iustifie Therefore Bellarmine accordingly determineth that circumcision did not iustifie or take away sinne but in that respect was of as little force as vncircumcision yea and argueth that if circumcision had iustified then iustification should haue bene proper to men because men onely are circumcised so farre is he from conceiuing that some other remedie was prouided for women in steede of circumcision For expounding the Apostles words b Rom 3.29 Is God the God of the Iewes onely as if he had said c Bellar. de effec sacram cap. 14. Quasi dicat Deus est omnium Deus quomodo igitur credibile est cum dedisse remedium contra peccatū solis Iudaeis Possumus nos etiam hinc alitèr argumentari An masculorū Deus tantū nonne et foeminarum Quis ergo credat Deum dedisse remedium quod solis masculis prosit God the God of all how then is it credible that he should giue remedy against sinne to the Iewes onely he addeth We may hence also argue Is God the God of men onely is he not also the God of women Who then will beleeue that he gaue a remedy against sinne that should be auaileable for men onely His resolution then is that circumcision was no remedie against sin because God would not appoint a remedy against sinne as he conceiueth which should not be common to the Gentiles as well as to the Iewes to women as well as men Now therefore inasmuch as M. Bishops foundation faileth surely that which he buildeth vpon it must needs fall and looke what he will say was the deliuering of men from originall sinne the same he must confesse hath bene the deliuering of women also so that either he must resolue one meanes for both out of the written word or passe ouer to tradition vnwritten and if he haue not a tradition for both then all his matter of Iewish tradition must come to naught and there is nothing proued but that Moses committed all to the written law But his phrase of deliuering from originall sinne implieth an errour before confuted in the question of that point Our regeneration consisteth in the forgiuenesse of sinnes and the first fruites of the sanctification of the holy Ghost the same spirit working sometimes without any signe or sacrament of initiation as in the fathers vntil the time of Abraham who himselfe was iustified before the sacrament of Circumcision sometimes with that signe of circumcision proper in execution to men onely but yet sealing the fruite of Gods promise and the effect of his spirit both to men and women d Ephes 1.5.9 according to the purpose of the grace of God sometimes with a signe common both to men and women as in our baptisme we see thereby shewing that he worketh freely according to his owne will not tying himselfe to outward signes but sauing onely by his grace either with signes where they are or without where either there is no institution as in the beginning or there wanteth meanes and oportunitie of execution as oft befell in circumcision of the old Testament and doth befall in baptisme of the new Now as touching M. Bishops third reason it is as reasonlesse as the former so that we may wonder that the author of it should be so without reason Iob and many such like Gentiles saith he were saued Very true But in the Law or any other part of the old Testament it is not written what they had to beleeue or how they should liue But that is not true for seeing there is but e Eph. 4.5 one faith f 2. Corin. 4.13 the same spirit of faith of the whole body of Christ from the beginning to the end by that faith that is written in the law of Moses we know what they had to beleeue and according to that faith how they ought to liue Yea and where it is written what they did beleeue and how they did liue there it is written what they had to beleue and how they were to liue But in the booke of Iob it is written of himself and of his friends what they did beleeue and what the ordering of their life was all according to the law of Moses and the faith therein contained It is therefore vntrue which M. Bishop saith that it is not written what they had to beleeue or how they were to liue But yet giuing the man his way let vs see what his conclusion is Therefore saith he many things needfull to saluation were then deliuered by tradition We may see his head was troubled and he had forgotten what he was to conclude for this his conclusion should haue bene Therefore Moses committed not all to writing But this would not follow for though it were not namely written of Iob what he had to beleeue yet we cannot hereof inferre that therefore he had any thing else to beleeue but that that is written What hindereth I say but that Moses may be conceiued to set downe the faith whereby Iob was to be saued though he do not expresly say that Iob was to beleeue thus But it may be that M. Bishop meant that that conclusion should be subordinate to the former and so would reason thus Iob and such like receiued many things by tradition therefore Moses committed not all to writing Yet neither can this
stand good because nothing letteth but that Moses might commit to writting all that faith that Iob receiued by tradition Iob was g Ambros Offic. lib. 1. caep 36. Iob antiqutor Mose c. auncienter then Moses as Ambrose saith and might receiue the doctrine of faith by word and tradition of other men but yet we see that that faith is no other but what Moses after comprised in the written law Albeit what that tradition was hath bene i Sect. 1. before declared not resting in relation from one man to another but continually renewed and confirmed by reuelation and illumination immediatly from God being certainly corrupted by tradition where he did not graciously shew himselfe for the preseruation of it And as for other Gentiles whosoeuer they were that were saued after the writing of the Law they were saued onely by that faith which the scriptures of Moses and the Prophets haue described vnto vs. But M. Bishop not content to bring Moses alone for a patron of traditions telleth vs beside that not any law-maker in any country comprehended all in letters but established many things by custome therefore saith he it is not likely that our Christian law should be all written Where we may iustly hisse at his grosse and wilfull absurditie that will measure the Law-maker of heauen with the law-makers of the earth and by imperfection in the lawes of men will argue imperfection in the lawes of God No vnderstanding of man can either by laws or by customes prouide for all occurrents of the commonwealth but dayly there are arising and growing the occasions of new lawes and will he then frame the light of God to the measure of our darknesse And yet what lawmaker hath there bene or is there in the world who if he were able to comprehend an absolute perfection of all lawes would not certainly take course to set the same downe in writing as being the only secure and safe way for the perpetuating therof And if we will thus conceiue of any wise and reasonable man how much more should we attribute it to the wisedome of God that knowing the slippernesse and mutabilitie of the minds thoughts of men he would for safetie and assurance set downe in writing whatsoeuer he would haue to stand for law of worship and seruice towards him I need not to stand vpon this for the comparison is of it selfe so odious and absurd as that euery man may wonder that the mans discretion should faile him so far as to reason in this sort For conclusion of this section a toy took him in the head concerning somwhat said by M. Perkins in the sectiō before It was said that it should cal the prouidence of God in question to say that any part of Scripture should be lost M. Bishop answereth that God permitteth much euill True but he permitteth no euill iniurious to his owne glory M. Perkins supposeth out of that that was said before that all Scripture was at first written for our learning To say that it was intended for our learning and yet is now lost what is it but to call in question the prouidence of God His other answer that there should be no great losse because tradition might preserue that which was then lost is a temerarious and witlesse presumption contrary to the experience of all ages whereby it is found that nothing is continued according to the first originall which is deliuered by word only from man to man And his assertion is so much the more ridiculous in this behalfe for that he knoweth not any thing that Tradition hath preserued that was written in those bookes If Tradition haue preserued any thing thereof from being lost let him acquaint vs with it or if he cannot do so let him giue vs leaue to take him for that we finde him a meere babler giuing himselfe libertie to say any thing without feare or wit 20. W. BISHOP Now insteed of M. Perkins his fift reason for vs of milke and strong meate wishing him a messe of Pap for his childish proposing of it I will set downe some authorities out of the written word in proofe of traditions Our Sauior said being at the point of his passion * Iohn 16.12 that he had many things to say vnto his Apostles but they could not as then beare them * Acts 1. Our Sauior after his resurrection appeared often vnto his Disciples speaking with them of the kingdome of God of which little is written in any of the Euangelists * 1. Cor. 11. I commend you brethren that you remember me in all things and keepe the Traditions euen as I haue deliuered them to you * 1. Tim. 6. O Timothy keepe the depositum that is that which I deliuered thee to keepe * 2. Tim. 1. Hold fast by the holy Ghost the good things committed vnto thee to keepe which was as S. Chrysostome and Theophylact expound the true doctrine of Christ the true sence of holy Scriptures the right administration of the Sacraments and gouernement of the Church to which alludeth that auncient holy Martyr S. Irenaeus * Lib. 3. c. 4. saying that the Apostles layd vp in the Catholicke Church as in a rich treasury all things that belong to the truth S. Iohn who was the last of the Apostles left aliue said * Epist 3.13 that he had many other things to write not idle or superfluous but would not commit them to ink and pen but referred them to be deliuered by word of mouth And to specifie for example sake some two or three points of greatest importance where is it written that our Sauiour the Sonne of God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is of the same substance with his Father Where is it written that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Sonne as well as from the Father Where is it written that there is a Trinitie that is three persons really distinct in one and the very same substance And that there is in our Sauiour Christ Iesus no person of man but the substance of God and man subsisting in the second person of the Trinitie Be not all and euery of these principal articles of the Christian faith and most necessary to be beleeued of the learned and yet not one of them in expresse termes written in any part of the holy Bible Wherefore we must either admit traditions or leaue the highest mysteries of our Christian faith vnto the discretion and courtesie of euery wrangler as shall be more declared in the argument following R. ABBOT The messe of pap hath scalded M. Bishops mouth and he would faine put it off to M. Perkins He is ashamed of the childishnesse of this reason yet not denying it to be one of theirs but onely blaming M. Perkins his maner of proposing it whereas we imagine he would haue done it if he had knowne how to haue proposed it in better sort But because he is so desirous to passe it ouer let vs