men And they verily who are worshipped are dead but they bring in their images to be worshipped which neuer were aliue the mind going a whoring from the true and only God euen as a common strumpet absurdly desiring variety of carnall coÌ„pany is past being content with the lawfull mariage of one man Hereby appeareth the falshood of that which Epiphanius the deacon in the place here cited by M. Bishop saith as touching this Epiphanius the Bishop that in his booke against heresies he set downe none as touching images when as expresly he coÌ„demneth in those heretiks the making of the image of the virgin Mary as I haue said and offering to it as their manner was to offer to it a cake whence they had that name of Collyridians giuen to them And hereby may be conceiued what account we are to make of M.B. third reason that in the same Councell other two places were brought as it were out of Epiphanius works which were found to be none of his Where M. Bishop turneth one place into two and the same one more likely to be forged by him that mentioneth it if it were forged then by any man else The words are cited as out of an Epistle of Epiphanius to Theodosius the Emperour in the end wherof he saith these words were b Synod Nicen 2 Act. 6 Epiphan resp tom 5. Saepe cum comministris meis de ablatione imaginuÌ„ egi sed ab iijs noÌ„ receptus sum neque vel in pauciâ— vocem meam audire sustinuerunt I haue often dealt with my fellow Ministers for the taking away of images but I haue not bene accepted of them neither would they suffer that in some few words I should speake vnto theÌ„ These words or rather the whole Epistle Epiphanius the deacon affirmeth not to haue bene written by the other Epiphanius but alledgeth nothing to proue it so Only like a wily Sophister he reckoneth vp of the Bishops that liued in the time of Epiphanius diuerse chiefe men as Basil Gregory Nazianzene Gregory Nyssene Chrysostome Ambrose Amphilochius and Cyril so carying the matter as if these were the men with whom Epiphanius had dealt and hereupon inferring that if these so worthy men would not yeeld to him for the taking away of images theÌ„ there should be no reason now to take them away whereas he had no reason at all whereupon to imagine that these or any of these should be the men whom Epiphanius meant Now beside that Epistle he importeth that some other writings there were alledged of Epiphanius directed against Images which that being the readiest way to put them off he without any proofe at all affirmeth to be counterfeit but seeing we haue found him false as touching those workes which he confesseth to haue bene written by Epiphanius we can giue him no credit for the deniall of the rest Whatsoeuer they were we see they haue taken course to make theÌ„ away and indeed what hath lien in them they haue laboured to suppresse whatsoeuer most clearely did make against them and in place thereof to fâ—ist in bastards and counterfeits such as are fit to serue their turne but are altogether vnworthy of them whose names they are forced to beare The last reason of Epiphanius his scholers erecting an image to him and setting it in the Church of what waight it is may be esteemed by that that hath bene said It resteth only vpon the credit of Epiphanius the DeacoÌ„ that is little in this case Epipha the Bishop of Cyprus liued 400 years before this Epiph. the deacoÌ„ that is before the time of that 2. Nicen Councell If they wold haue bin beleeued as touching a matter foure hundred yeares before they should haue brought meete proofe and testimonie thereof which sith they did not wee cannot hold it for truth inasmuch as otherwise wee finde them so many waies culpable of vntruth But whereas Maister Bishop saith that those Schollers of Epiphanius would neuer haue done so if he had taught the same to be against the Scripture it is his bare presumption not any necessary conclusion because though Moses had taught the children of Israel from God that they should make no Idols or worship them yet when he was but a little gone from them they made them yea Aaron himselfe made for them a golden Calfe As touching the other sentence of Epiphanius cited by Maister Perkins out of the Councel of Constantinople it is this i Synod Constantinop apud NiceÌ„ 2. Act. 6 Estote memores dilecti filij ne in ecclesiaÌ„ imagines inferatis neque in sanctorum caemeterijs eas statuatu sed perpetuò circuÌ„ferte Deum in cordibus vestris Quinetiam neque in domo coÌ„mmuni tolerentur Neque enim fas est Christianum per â—culos suspensuÌ„ teneri sed per occupationeÌ„ meÌ„tis Be mindfull beloued sonnes not to bring Images into the Church neither to set them in the Churchyards but alwaies carie God about in your hearts Yea let them not be suffered in the ordinarie house for it is not fit for a Christian man to be holden by the eies but by the occupation of the minde M. Bishop answereth that Images must be suffered in all places that we may the better carie God in our hearts being by sight thereof put in minde of him But how vaine this answer is hereby appeareth for that wee finde in the Scriptures that the setting vp of such Idols is propounded to be the k Deut. 4.23.25 forgetting of Gods couenant and the corrupting of our selues but finde it no where commended in the Scripture to be a meanes of remembring him He hath set before vs the heauen and earth as a glasse wherein we may behold l Rom. 1.20 his power and Godhead and thereby be moued to make enquirie after him He hath giuen vs his word to answer vs what is needefull when we enquire of him He hath appointed the Sacraments for seales of that grace and mercy that hee hath reuealed in his word He setteth the spectacles of his prouidence and mercie and iudgement continually before our eies By these meanes he hath taught vs to be put in minde of him and to learne to carie him in our hearts but to be put in minde of him by an Image it is onelie a vaine and friuolous pretence of Idolaters and no direction or instruction of the holy Ghost It is enough for vs that the people of God who were to remember God as well as wee yet neuer found it lawfull to set vp an Idoll to remember him thereby 11. W. BISHOP Now I come vnto a third point which M. Perkins maketh the second of our difference that images may be not onely made and set in churches but also worshipped M. Perkins holds the contrary and his principall ground is the second commandement which containes saith he two parts The first forbids the making of images to resemble God the second the worshipping of them or God in
gold and siluer practised to rob the poore people of God of their substance Now therefore M. Bishop gaineth no credit to his doctrine of satisfactions by charging these enormities vpon vs inasmuch as they are found much more intolerably in the Pope himselfe and therefore much more in them who are the members of so bad a head Whosoeuer amongst vs do sinne in these kindes and cause the people of God to grieue and his enemies to blaspheme his truth we teach them and they shall finde that e 1. Thess 4.6 God is the auenger of such things and his iudgement shall in due time finde out their sinne Of the ridiculous absurditie of their satisfactorie praiers I haue spoken before His words of bitter teares are but formall Catholike eies are too tender to be made red with bitter teares and the forme of their praiers fitteth not thereto Our singing of Geneua Psalmes as he calleth them indeede Dauids Psalmes though many of them haply turned into English meeter at Geneua is a deuotion prescribed by the holy Ghost saying by the Apostle f Col. 3.16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you plenteously in all wisedome teaching and admonishing your owne selues in Psalmes and Hymnes and spirituall Songs singing with a grace in your hearts to the Lord. If being merry in good sort we thus sing Psalmes we therein follow the rule of S. Iames g Iames 5.13 Is any man merry let him sing Yea and we hold it for a notable token of the apostasie of the Church of Rome that it hath so abandoned this point of Christian exercise and deuotion from all both publike and priuate vse We do not raile but performe the office of carefull pastours and teachers in noting their sinnes and errours not imagined onely but verie sensible nor onely pretended but proued by the testimonie of him who is truth and cannot erre As for that which he saith of laying all paine and sorow vpon Christes shoulders it is true that we do so indeede as touching satisfaction for sinne but otherwise God wanteth not meanes to lay paines and sorowes vpon those that are his to make them know that they are not borne to pleasure and pastime but to h Act. 13.36 serue the counsell of God to glorifie his name The Church of Rome swarmeth as before hath bene noted with Atheists and Epicures that cary the shew of that perswasion but amongst the true professors of the Gospell there are no such found CHAPTER 7. OF TRADITIONS 1 W. BISHOP MAister Perkins Traditions are doctrines deliuered from hand to hand either by word of mouth or writing besides the written word of God His first conclusion as touching our consent Concl. 1. We hold that the verie word of God was deliuered by Tradition from Adam to Moses who was the first Pen-man of holy Scripture Item that the Historie of the new Testament as some for eight not eightie or as other think for twenty yeares went frō hand to hand by Tradition till penned by the Apostles or being penned by others was approued by them Hitherto we agree but not in this which he enterlaceth that in the state of nature euery man was instructed of God immediatly in both matters of faith and religion for that God thē as euer since vsed the ministerie as well of good fathers as godly maisters as Enoch Noe Abraham and such like to teach their children and seruants the true worship of God and true faith in him otherwise how should the word of God passe by Tradition from Adam to Moses as M. Perkins affirmeth if no child learned any such thing of his father but was taught immediatly from God but M. Perkins seemeth to regard little such pettie contradictions R. ABBOT M. Perkins meaning is plaine enough without any contradiction God in the beginning reuealed his will vnto our father Adam not by writing but familiarly by word of mouth He left it not thenceforth meerely to passe from man to man but as he first gaue this light by immediate reuelation from himselfe so afterwards he continued renewed and confirmed the same raising vp some in all times to be neere vnto him to whom a Heb. 1.1 in diuers manners by speech by visions by dreames by sundry illuminations and inspirations he imparted the knowledge of himselfe and endued them with eminencie of gifts and authority to be b 2. Pet. 2.5 preachers of righteousnesse both to their owne families and to other whom the Lord would call It is not true then which M. Bishop would so gladly fasten on that the doctrine of faith passed by tradition in such sort as the question of traditions standeth betwixt them and vs. They pretend that Christ taught his Apostles diuers and sundry doctrines which he would haue wholy left without writing to the custody of the Church and to be reported successiuely from man to man to the worlds end But God did not in those first ages leaue his word in any such sort wholy to the memory and report of men as trusting to their fidelity for the successiue deliuering of that which at first had bene receiued but he himselfe tooke vpon himselfe the custody of his owne tradition and continued still to report what he had first taught knowing the chanel of humane conceipt to be more corrupt thē that the streame of diuine truth can long runne pure cleare therein And this may sufficiently perswade vs that our Sauiour Christ would not leaue any part of his religion to so vncertaine and doubtfull course so subiect to the corruptions of humane deuices If God would euer haue had his truth to passe altogether from hand to hand vndoubtedly he would haue taken that course in the beginning when men liuing so long might be likely to confirme and settle in their posteritie what they should beleeue But he saw there would be no safety vnlesse he himselfe still continued to be an instructour vnto them He knew how subiect men are to alteration and change how easily one man mistaketh that which is rightly deliuered by another how readily men sometimes come short sometimes go too farre how one mans fancy conceiueth one way another mans another way and that we can neuer keepe any straight and euen path so long as instruction is no otherwise had but from man to man Therefore where God himselfe attended not to keepe the fire burning which he had kindled it soone went out where men were left onely to tradition they soone degenerated from that seruice of God wherein they had bene brought vp vnder iust and righteous parents There is no likelihood therefore that God finding so little safety in tradition in the beginning would leaue his Church now to be guided by tradition in the end Nay when he thought good somwhat to withdraw himselfe from that familiar conference dealing with men he would otherwise supply the want thereof prouide for the safety of his people by appointing a
top and perfection of the whole worke is charity R. ABBOT To set downe the places alledged out of Ambrose is sufficient to discouer the bad and euill conscience of M. Bishop in the answering of them and to shew what a one he is indeede in all the rest of his answers First a Ambros in Rom. ca. 3. Iustificati sunt gratis quia nihil operaÌ„tes neque vicem reddentes sola fide iustificati sunt dono Dei they are iustified freely saith he because working nothing nor making any requitall they are iustified by faith alone through the gift of God The second is this b Jbid cap. 4 Manifestè beati sunt quibus sine labore vel opere aliquo remittuntur iniquitates peccata teguâ—tur nulla ab hâ— requisita poenitentiae opera nisi tantùm vt credant They are blessed to whom without any labour or worke their iniquities are forgiuen and sinnes couered no worke of penitencie being required of them but onely to beleeue Thirdly he saith c Idem in 1. Cor. cap. 1. Hoc constitutuÌ„ est à Deo vt qui credit in Christum saluus sit sine opere sola fide gratu accipiens remissioneÌ„ peccatorum This is appointed of God that he that beleeueth in Christ shall be saued without works freely by faith alone receiuing forgiuenesse of sinnes I pray thee now gentle Reader to marke well his answer to these allegations First he saith that it is very vncertaine whether these Commentaries be Ambroses It is true indeede that some make question of the Prefaces that are inserted to the seuerall Epistles but of the Commentaries themselues saue onely vpon the epistle to the Hebrewes I know no man that doubteth Their d Sixt. Senens biblioth sanct lib 4. Sixtus Senensis reckoneth them for the workes of Ambrose for their part and our e Centâ—r Magdeburg lib. 4. cap. 10. Centuristes for our part and on both sides they are alwaies cited in his name There is no doubt but they are the workes of a very auncient writer if they were not his and therefore that can make little to acquit Maister Bishop of crossing the auncient Church vnlesse he can giue vs a better answer But that we shall haue namely that that Author excludeth not repentance but onely the workes of Moses law which the Iewes held to be necessarie as circumcision and such like Short and sweete this he hath told vs and if we will fare better we must take the paines to go further But let him remember that the point in question is of being iustified by faith alone which Saint Ambrose there directly and fully affirmeth by faith onely by faith onely it is required onely to beleeue Now though the ceremoniall workes of Moses law be excluded from iustification yet if we be iustified by any other workes we are not iustified by faith onely or alone He excludeth not repentance saith he but let vs request him to turne vs these words into English Nulla ab his requisita paenitentiae opera nisi tantùm vt credant We take it to be this there being required of theÌ„ no labour or worke of penitency or repentance but onely to beleeue He meaneth indeed by penitencie that which publikely was don for which men were called poenitentes penitents as afterward appeareth but by excluding such works of penitencie it appeareth that it was not his meaning to exclude only circumcision and such other ceremonies of Moses law and therefore that M. Bishops answer is a verie absurd and broken shift Marke the words gentle Reader Working nothing not making any requitall without any labour or worke no worke of penitencie required without workes and freely and by faith alone all sounding that f Ambros in Psal 43. Non facta sua vnumquenque iustificant sed fides prompta a mans works do not iustifie him but his prompt faith as the same S. Ambrose speaketh in another place As for the words which he bringeth to crosse the other they are no way contrarie to vs. We say as he saith that faith alone sufficeth not and yet we say as he also saith that faith sufficeth to iustification For it is one thing to say what sufficeth to iustification another thing to say what sufficeth to the perfection of a Christian and iustified man The place alledged out of Austin inferreth our assertion though it expresse it not If it be our propitiation that is our iustification to beleeue in Christ then onely to beleeue in Christ doth iustifie If not then it cannot be said to be our iustification to beleeue in Christ For where the effect belongeth to many causes alike there it cannot be singularly attributed to anie one His answer to the words of Hesychius is impertinent for Hesychius beside that he saith that grace is not merited because it is of mercie telleth vs also what it is whereby the same is apprehended and that he saith is faith alone g Hesych in Leuit lib. 4 cap. 14. Gratia ex misericordia compassione probatur fide comprehendiur sola non ex operibus Grace which is of mercy is apprehended by faith alone and not of workes If grace be not apprehended by works as Hesychius saith why doth M. Bishop tel vs that it is apprehended by workes If it be apprehended by faith alone why doth he tell vs that it is not apprehended by faith alone Be it that our workes before grace doe not merit our iustification yet if by workes we be iustified as well as by faith then it is not true which this Father saith that the grace of iustification is apprehended by faith and not by workes The words of Saint Bernard are plainely spoken of the imputed righteousnes of Iesus Christ by occasion of the Apostles words that Christ is h 1. Cor. 1 30. made vnto vs of God wisedome righteousnesse sanctification and redemption i Bernard in Cant. ser 22. Iustitia in absolutione peccatoruÌ„ Righteousnes saith he by forgiuenesse of sinnes for prosecuting therof saith of Christ k Iustitiae tuae tanta vbique fragraÌ„tia spargitur vt non solum iustus sed ipsa dicaris iustitia et iustitia iustificans TaÌ„ validus denique es ad iustificandum quaÌ„ multus ad ignosâ—enduÌ„ Quamobrem quisquis pro peccatis compunctus esurit et sitit iustitiaÌ„ credat in te qui iustificas impium solam iustificatus per fidem pacem habebit ad Deum so sweete a sauour of thy righteousnes is euery where spred abroad as that thou art not only called righteous but also righteousnesse it selfe and a iustifying righteousnesse As strong thou art to iustifie as thou art readie to forgiue Whosoeuer therefore being pricked with his sinnes hungreth and thirsteth after righteousnesse let him beleeue in thee who iustifiest the vngodly and being iustified by faith onely he shall haue peace with God M. Bishop telleth vs that S. Bernard by faith alone
loue of that righteousnes for which we fight in fighting against it So death of it selfe the wages of sin becometh to the faithful as a poison broken into a medicine and as a serpent that hath lost his sting a Bern. in Cant. Ser. 26. Iam non stimulus sed iubilus I am cantando moritur homo moriendo cantat Vsurparis ad laetitiam mater moeroris vsurparis ad gloriam gloriae inimica vsurparis ad introitum regni porta inferi fouea perditionis ad inuentionem salutis There is no sting but song saith S. Bernard man now dieth singing and singeth dying O thou mother of mourning saith he thou art turned to ioy thou enemy of glory doest now serue to giue glory thou gate of hell art vsed for an entry to the kingdome of heauen and thou pit of destruction for the finding of saluation S. Austin saith thereof that b Aug. de pec mer. remis li. 2. cap. 34. MorteÌ„ cerporis propter peccatum homini Deus inflixit post peccatorum remissionem propter exercendam iustitiam non ademit Et paulò priùs eam fidelibus euenire vt eius timore vinceÌ„do exerceretur fortitudo iustitiae God inflicted death for the punishment of sin and after forgiuenes of sins he still left it for the exercising of righteousnesse that saith he the fortitude of righteousnesse might be exercised in ouercoming the feare thereof The like hath bene noted out of him c Sect. 2. before concerning other iudgements laid vpon mankind in the beginning by reason of sinne Now as of these so of all other afflictions after forgiuenesse of sinnes we resolue that they forgo their former condition and propertie and cease to be reuengements and punishments for sinne but haue other respects and vses for which they are continued The examples so strongly vrged by Master Bishop make nothing against this First the Israelites murmure God to Moses threateneth wholly to destroy theÌ„ promising to make of him a mighty people Moses prayeth vnto God to withhold that wrath from his people to forgiue the trespasse God saith d Num. 14.20 I haue forgiueÌ„ it according to thy request but he addeth Notwithstanding as I liue all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord for all those men which haue seen my glory my miracles which I did in Egypt in the wildernes and haue tempted me these ten times and haue not obeyed my voice certainly they shall not see the land wherof I sware vnto their fathers Here is the forgiuenes of a sin saith M. Bishop and yet a punishment ensuing after But we answer him that this example altereth the question cometh not within the compasse of that wherof we speake For it is one thing to speake of the forgiuenesse of a sinne to the whole body of a people and another thing to speake of forgiuenesse to one particular man Forgiuenesse of a sinne to a whole people is not absolute but onely in a respect it is not simply the taking away of a sinne but the taking of it away in some sort and therefore though it be the excluding of one punishment yet nothing hindreth but that it may leaue place for another yea and though in common there be a forgiuenesse yet in particular there may stil remaine an imputation of the sinne euen as amongst this people were many reprobates and cast-awayes who though they were forgiuen and freed in respect of the destruction then threatened yet being void of repentance and true faith found otherwise spiritually no benefite at al of this forgiuenesse God saith not here simply I haue forgiuen it but I haue forgiuen it according to thy request Moses request was according to Gods threatening Gods threatening was wholly to destroy that nation In this respect God said I haue forgiuen it namely so as not at once to destroy this people according to my wrath and indignation conceiued against them And this Lyra very well obserued e Lyra in Num. ca. 14. Benè dicit iuxta quòd non totaliter dimisit sed quantum ad hoc quòd non deleret totum populum simul He saith well saith he according to thy request because he did not wholy pardon it but onely as touching the not destroying of the whole people at once Now albeit in this respect he did forgiue it because he did not wholy forgiue it therefore he voweth to glorifie himselfe throughout all the earth by making them an example of his iudgement vpon vnthankfull men with whom no sights nor sayings can preuaile to make them obedient to the voyce of God Therefore he would forbeare to destroy them in that sort and to their seed he wold make good the promise of the land of Canaan but as for them he would weare out the whole multitude of them that not one of them shold haue the enioying or sight thereof This he laid as a iudgement in common vpon that generation of men which had so infinitly from time to time prouoked him as that they made him f Psal 95.12 to sweare that they should not enter into his rest But yet in the bosome of that multitude we cannot doubt but many there were who truly repented and obtained forgiuenes both of this of all their other sins yet together with the rest were depriued of entrance into that holy land For God doth not except particular men from generall and common plagues and when he striketh a nation with famine sword pestilence or other calamity both one and other good and bad are subiect vnto it g Cyprian contra Demetr Intrae vnam domum boni mali interim coÌ„tinemur quicquid intrae domum euenerit pari sorte perpetimur donec c. We are shut vp together in one house saith Cyprian and whatsoeuer befalleth within the house we suffer it all alike Onely he so ordereth that what is to a nation in common for reuenge punishment becommeth in particular to the repentant and faithful a helpe and furtherance of saluation And so was it with the beleeuing Israelites who though by a common iudgement they were excluded corporally from the Sacrament and signe yet were thereby spiritually edified and learned with Abraham and Isaac and Iacob so much the more to meditate to desire long for the spirituall and euerlasting rest Albeit in respect of the faithfull also it is to be vnderstood that Gods chastisements oftentimes lye vpon them after forgiuenesse of sinnes though not for punishments to theÌ„selues yet for exemplary admonitions to others h Tho. Aquin. 12. q. 87. art 6. ad 3. Vt edificeÌ„tur in poena qui scaÌ„dâ—lizati sunt in culpa that as Thomas Aquinas speaketh they may be edified by the punishment that were scandalized by the sinne And thus S. Austin rightly saith that i Aug in Joan. tr 124. Productior est poenae quà m culpa ne parua putaretur culpa si cum
is not in the generall signification whether the Gospell were a tradition that is a thing deliuered frō God or whether it were a tradition by word that is a thing deliuered by word but whether of that traditiō that is of that doctrine deliuered from God by word any part were left vnwritten to go thenceforth vnder the name of vnwritten tradition We denie not but that the whole Law and Gospell is the Lords tradition we denie not but that the Euangelists in the historie of Christ had things first deliuered vnto them by word which they should afterwards commit to writing although in the writing thereof inspired of God e Iohn 14.26 the holy Ghost bringing all things to their remembrance and guiding them in what sort they should set them downe but we denie that either in the Law or in the Gospell there was any thing left vnwritten that concerneth vs to know for attaining of true faith and righteousnes towards God To come now to the point howsoeuer the Euangelists built their Gospels vpon Tradition that is vpon that that was then deliuered vnto them whether by Christ or by his Apostles yet what is this to prooue that they confirmed any doctrine that is any part of this tradition now deliuered vnto them by tradition of former times that is by any doctrine left vnwritten by Moses and the Prophets This was the matter in hand why then doth M. Bishop seeke thus in a cloud to steale away He telleth vs of desperate carelesnesse thinking to carry the matter with desperate words but we must tell him that it is desperate trechery in him thus to mocke his Reader with boisterous babling when he saith nothing to prooue that that he should that either the Apostles prooued any doctrine by vnwritten tradition of the old Testament or left any thing to be prooued by vnwritten tradition in the new 15. W. BISHOP His other reason is that if we beleeue vnwritten traditions were necessary to saluation then we must as well beleeue the writings of the ancient Fathers as the writings of the Apostles because Apostolicall traditions are not elsewhere to be found but in their bookes but that were absurd for they might erre Answer That doth not follow for three causes First Apostolical traditions are as wel kept in the mind of the learned as in the ancient fathers writings and therefore haue more credit then the Fathers writings Secondly they are commonly recorded of more then one of the Fathers and so haue firmer testimony then any one of their writings Thirdly if there should be any Apostolicall tradition related but of one auncient father yet it should be of more credit than any other thing of his owne inuention because that was registred by him as a thing of more estimation And a-againe some of the rest of those blessed and godly personages would haue reproued it as they did all other falshoods if it had not bin such indeed as it was termed which when they did not they gaue a secret approbation of it for such and so that hath the interpretatiue consent at least of the learned of that age and the following for Apostolicall tradition But Master Perkins proues the contrary by Saint Paul who saith * Act. 26.22 That I continue to this day witnessing both to small and great saying no other thing then that which the Prophets and Moses did say should come Why make you here a full point let Saint Paul make an end of his speech and tell vs for what points of doctrine he alledgeth Moses and the Prophets Marrie to proue that Christ should suffer death and rise againe and that he should giue light to the Gentiles For these and such like which were euidently fore-told in holy writ he needed not to alledge any other proofe but when he was to perswade them to abandon Moses Law he then deliuered to them the decrees of the Apostles and taught them to keepe them * Act. 16. As also when he instructed the Corinthians in the Sacrament of the Altar he beginneth with Tradition saying * 1. Cor. 11. I deliuer vnto you as I haue receiued from our Lord not in writing but by word of mouth And in the same Chapter putteth downe the contentious Scripturist with the custome of the Church saying If any man lust to striue we haue no such custome so that out of S. Paul we learne to alledge Scriptures when they be plaine for vs and when they beare not so cleare with vs to pleade Tradition and the custome of the Church R. ABBOT It is strange to see how M. Bishop hath slubbered ouer this matter being of so great moment and importance for the authoritie and credit of their traditions They tell vs that traditions vnwritten are a part of the word of God The councell of Trent professeth a Cōcil Trident. ses 4 cap. 1. Pari pietatis affectu ac reuerentia suscipit c. to receiue them with the like affection of pietie and reuerence as they do the holy Scripture Now we desire to know by what testimonie or warrant we may be secured particularly what these traditions are for if they be alike to be esteemed with those things that are contained in the Scriptures there is reason that they be approued vnto vs by testimoniall witnesse equiualent to the Scriptures If then the writings of the auncient fathers be made the witnesses of these traditions we must beleeue the writings of the auncient fathers as well as we beleeue the Scriptures M. Bishop telleth vs that traditions are as well kept in the mindes of the learned as in the auncient fathers writings and therefore haue more credit then the fathers writings So then belike the mindes of the learned together with the writings of the auncient fathers are of equall credit and authoritie with the Scriptures and if Maister Perkins had put in both these then Maister Bishop had not had a word to say But we must yet aske further whence or vpon what ground do the mindes of the learned accept of these traditions If he will say that they receiue them of the fathers then the argument still standeth good If he say that they receiue them of other learned that were before them then it must be said that they also receiued them from other learned that were before them and so vpward till we come to the fathers and so in fine it must fall out that the fathers must be alike beleeued as the holy Scriptures If M. Bishop be ashamed to say so let him tell vs otherwise what it is that we shall certainly rest vpō But alas good man we see he cannot tell what to say only Bellarmine telleth vs that b Bellarm. de sacram lib. 2 ca. 25. Omnium cōciliorū veterum omnium dogmatum firmitas ab authoritate praesentis ecclesiae dependet the assured certainty of all councels and of all doctrines of faith dependeth vpō the authority of the present
That many of the Propheticall bookes were lost may be proued out of the history of Paralipomenon which they translate Chronicles Now as for M. Perkins guesses that some of them are yet extant but otherwise called some were but little roles of paper some prophane and of Philosophie I hold them not worth the discussing being not much pertinent and auowed on his word onely without either any reason or authoritie R. ABBOT Of this argument well propounded we deny the minor propositiō We say that some of the Scriptures though some other had miscaried should containe all doctrine needfull to saluation The consequence that he maketh thereof that then those other are superfluous is childish and absurdly iniurious to the Scripture The same doctrines are contained in a hundred places of holy Scripture and who will hereupon conclude that they are superfluous in one place because they are contained in another The Euangelists diuers times record the same stories and euen word for word and must it follow that the latter did superfluously write that which the former had set downe There is no point of necessary doctrine and faith contained in any one booke of holy Scripture but the same hath testimonie and witnesse of other bookes Matters of fact and circumstance there may be one where which otherwhere are not mentioned but points of necessary doctrine and faith haue manifold testimonie of the written word Supposing it then to be true which M. Bishop saith that some of the old bookes were lost which the wisedome of God thought necessary for those times though vnnecessary for vs yet it cannot be inferred hereof that any doctrine was thereby lost because though there might be some matters of storie there onely mentioned yet there could be no matter of doctrine that was not contained in Moses law And if Maister Bishop will needs perswade vs that some points of doctrine were there deliuered that are not in other scripture and must now be learned by tradition we desire to vnderstand whether by tradition he haue learned what those traditions were and that out of their Churches treasury of traditions he will discouer these secrets of which neither the Prophets nor Euangelists nor Apostles nor Fathers nor Councels were euer able to informe vs. He telleth vs that Chrysostome affirmeth the losse of those books but doth Chrysostome tell him of any doctrines deriued by tradition from those books Surely he wanted some proofe for the Popes triple crowne his yeare of Iubile and the great storehouse of merits and satisfactions at Rome and dreaming it in his sleepe beleeued it when he was awake that these matters were written of in these bookes and the bookes being now lost they come to vs by a tradition of which the world neuer heard any thing for the space of two or three thousand yeares But we must thinke that he wrote not these things for vs but for them who he thought would be more ready to beleeue him then we are Now M. Perkins further answereth that though those bookes were lost yet it followeth not that any part of the Canon of the Scripture was lost because there might be bookes which were not reckoned for Scripture bookes For proofe hereof he bringeth the words of the Apostle a Rom. 15.4 Whatsoeuer things were written before time were written for our learning arguing hereof that because bookes that be lost cannot serue for our learning and all the books of scripture that were formerly written were to serue for our learning therefore no bookes of scripture formerly written could be lost M. Bishop after his manner calleth it a shamefull answer but saith not a word to disproue it He telleth vs that there were such bookes but he proueth not that they were bookes of scripture and to the reason alledged out of the Apostles words he replieth nothing at all and therefore I passe him ouer without any further answer 19. W. BISHOP Master Perkins his fourth obiection of the Iewish Cabala is a meere dreame of his owne our argument is this Moses who was the pen-man of the old Law committed not all to writing but deliuered certain points needfull to saluation by tradition nor any Law-maker that euer was in any country comprehended all in letters but established many things by customes therfore not likely that our Christian law should be all written That Moses did not pen all thus we proue it was as necessary for women to be deliuered from originall sinne as men Circumcision the remedie for men could not possible be applied to women as euery one who knoweth what circumcision is can tell neither is there any other remedy prouided in the writen law to deliuer women from that sinne therefore some other remedy for them was deliuered by tradition Item if the child were likely to die before the eight day there was remedy for them as the most learned do hold yet no where written in the law Also many Gentiles during the state of the old Testament were saued as Iob and many such like according to the opinion of all the auncient Fathers yet 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 wherefore many things needfull to saluation were then deliuered by tradition To that reason of his that God in his prouidence should not permit such a losse of any part of the Scripture I answer that God permitteth much euill Againe no great losse in that according to our opinion who hold that tradition might preserue what was then lost R. ABBOT It concerneth M. Bishop to speake well of the Iewish Cabala for if the Cabala be not good certainly Popish traditions are starke naught the Iews hauing as good warrant for the one as the Papists for the other Both of them to purchase credit to their owne fancies and deuices betooke themselues to this shifting pretence that the word of God was deliuered first by Moses and then by Christ and his Apostles partly written and partly vnwritten Whatsoeuer they haue listed to bring in either of curiositie or for profit they haue referred it to the vnwritten word and this hath bene the sinke of all both Iewish and Popish superstition both verifying in themselues that which our Sauiour obiecteth to the one a Mat. 15.6 Ye haue made the commaundement of God of no authoritie by your tradition M. Bishop here like a louing brother taketh the Iewes by the hand and will help them for the maintenance of their traditions that by them he may gaine some reputatiō to his owne His proofs for them are such as that without doubt they being but dul-heads in cōparisō of him were neuer able for themselues to deuise the like That Moses committed not all to writing he proueth because it was necessary for women to be deliuered from originall sin but they could not be deliuered from it by circumcision not being capable therof and no other remedy is prouided in
meanes giue ouer till he had left vs this stinke of Images This is one of the grosse and palpable abhominations of the kingdome of Antichrist the filth whereof there is no man but seeth saue onely they a 2. Cor. 4.4 in whom being vnbeleeuers the god of this world hath blinded their mindes that the light of the glorious Gospell of Iesus Christ which is the Image of God should not shine vnto them By this the Church of Rome hath matched all the idolatries of the heathen and brought all their iugling deuices into the Church abusing the ignorance and simplicity of the people as grossely and damnably as euer they did But in this field I haue walked at large before in b Sect. 12. answer of the Epistle to the King and therefore I will here tye my selfe to those things which Master Bishop giueth vs occasion to consider of M. Perkins in his third conclusion affirmeth a lawfulnesse of making Images to testifie the presence and effects of the maiestie of God when God himselfe hath so commanded as he exemplifieth in Moses his making of the brazen serpent in figure of Christ crucified the Cherubin set ouer the mercy seate God there promising his presence and signifying the attendance of Angels to do him seruice Concerning this point Tertullian being vrged by idol-makers with the example of the brasen serpent answereth very rightly c Tertul. de Idol Benè quod idem Deus lege vetuit similitudinem fieri extraordinario praecepto serpentis similitudinem interdixit Si eundem Deum obserues habes legem eius Ne feceris similitudinem Si praeceptum factae posteà similitudinis respicis tu imitare Mosen Ne feceris aduersus legem similitudinem nisi tibi Deus iusserit It is wel that the same God both did forbid by law that any likenesse should be made and by extraordinarie commandement did appoint the likenesse of a serpent If thou worship the same God thou hast his law Thou shalt not make the similitude or likenesse of any thing if thou looke to the coÌ„mandement of making a similitude afterward do thou imitate Moses do not against the law make an image vnlesse God command thee also God giueth not lawes to himselfe but to vs what he commandeth to the contrarie by his owne authoritie is no iustification of our presumption For this cause M. Perkins obserueth that in the commandement it is said Thou shalt not make TO THY SELFE any grauen image to thy selfe that is saith he vpon thine owne head or vpon thine owne will and pleasure M. Bishop saith that this is a wilfull peruerting of the words which cannot signifie but to thine owne vse that is to adore Thus he cannot abide that they should be restrained from doing somewhat of their owne heads and at their owne will it is death to them to be hedged from that walke Yet Moses gaue it for a lesson from God d Deut. 12.8.32 vulg Hoc tantuÌ„ facito Domino Ye shall not do euery man what seemeth good in his owne eyes What I command thee that onely do to the Lord thou shalt put nothing to nor take ought therefrom Whereby it appeareth that M. Perkins exposition containeth a truth that to the Lord or by way of seruice to God no image might be made but what God himselfe commaunded neither doth the text declare any thing to the contrarie but that that is the true meaning of the words which he expoundeth In his fourth conclusion he saith that the right Images of the new Testament are the doctrine and preaching of the Gospell and all things that by the word of God do thereto appertaine whereby e Gal. 3 1â— Iesus Christ is described before our eyes as the Apostle saith euen as crucified amongst vs. This saith he is an excellent picture whereby Christ with his benefites is liuely represented vnto vs. These are Metaphoricall pictures saith M. Bishop not belonging to this purpose But why doth he admit that which M. Perkins citeth out of Origen affirming that Christians haue no other f Origen contra Celsum lib. 8. Simulachra Deo dicanda sunt non fabrorum opera sed à verbo Dei dedolata formataque in nobis videlicet virtutu ad imitationem primogeniti totius ereaturae in quo sunt iustitiae temperantiae fertitudinis sapientiae pietatis caeterarumque virtutuÌ„ exempla Hae sunt statuae Deo dicata in animuÌ„ virtutes exertentium quibus deceÌ„tèr honorari credimus omniuÌ„ huiusmodi statuarum archetypum primuÌ„ c. The images to be dedicated to God are not the workâ—s of Carpenters but hewed by the word of God and framed in vs namely vertues to the imitation of him who is the first borne before all creatures in whom are the examples of iustice fortitude temperancie wisedome pietie and other vertues These are Images dedicated to God in the minds of them that exercise such vertues wherewith we beleeue the principall of all such Images the image of the inuisible God who is God the onely begotten to be conueniently honoured He knew no other images lawfull amongst Christians but onely such as wherein we beare the image of God and of his Son Iesus Christ but this M. Bishop thought not good to take knowledge of As for that which he saith that he beleeueth not our doctrine to be as M. Perkins hath set downe because the Magistrates publikely take away pictures from Catholikes and teare them downe and burne them he must vnderstand that it is nothing to vs what he beleeueth Our Magistrates know how to put difference betwixt the lawfull vse of things the vnlawfull abuse they know well how such pictures and images are by Papists turned to Idols and therefore to shew the detestation of the dishonor that thereby is done to God they burne them and teare them and deface them being found with them that they may no more be abused to such idolatrie Where otherwise they are found and are not subiect to their superstitious and false deuotions our Magistrates do nothing against them because they are not offended at the hauing but at the abusing of them By reason of those idolatrous fancies it is that our more feruent disciples as he calleth theÌ„ cannot abide a Crosse staÌ„ding by the high way side or in any other place They carie therein a true zeale to God though not alwaies so aduisedly managed as it ought to be But if any of priuate fancie proceed to the demolishing and destroying of such publike monuments we approue it not and they that do it deseruedly receiue their check We are well enough perswaded that they who first began the erecting of those Crosses did it meerely in the honour of the name of Christ that where before had stood the ensignes of false and idoll Gods g Ezec. 16.25 at the head of euery way there might be lifted vp a trophee and standard as a monument and token of the exaltation
in Egypt vnder Pharao did leane or bow himselfe thereupon to worship God In a word therefore here is nothing any way to proue the religious adoration and worship of any creature but most fantastically of all other is it alledged for the worshipping of Images He further referreth vs to the Rhemish Testament but he should withall haue confuted Doctor Fulkes answer to it if he would haue had any thing there to be beleeued There is nothing there said of this matter but what is here alreadie answered 17. W. BISHOP The second reason is taken out of Exodus 3. where God said to Moses Put off thy shoes for the place where thou standest is holy Now if places be holy and to be reuerenced by reason of the presence of Angels why not aswell the Image that representeth an Angell or some Saint which is equall to Angels M. P. his answer rather confirmeth than solueth this argument for he saith that the ceremonie of putting off his shooes was commanded to strike Moses with a religious reuerence not of the place but of the person there present which was not God but an Angell as the text there expresseth * Exod. 3. The place then being holy required the reuerend respect of putting off his shoes and the reuerence done to the place struck Moses with a religious reuerence of the Angell speaking in the person of God euen so holy pictures being first duly reuerenced do strike men with a religions regard of the Saint represented To this let vs annexe that dayes be truly called holy and worshipped as the first and last dayes of the feast of Easter be * Exod. 12.16 the vestments of Priests * Exod. 28.5.2 because they are dedicated and employed to holy vses euen so Images which are made in honour of God and his Saints and erected to moue and teach vs to embrace heauenly courses R. ABBOT The place where Moses stood was holy dayes were called holy the Priests vestments were holy therefore Images are holy and must be worshipped The Sunne shines in the colehouse and the Moone in the Mustard pot therefore all M. Bishops wit lieth in his left elbow Do these men deserue any other but scorne and contempt who bring vs reasons in no other sort then as if they were outright either mad or drunke What is the medius terminus I maruell that should coÌ„uey holinesse to Images from those things which he mentioneth The place where Moses stood was holy as Origen rightly saith a Origen in Ios hom 6. Per seipsum non erat locus sanctus sed quia Dominus stabat cuÌ„ Moyse praesentia Domini sanctificauerat locum not of it selfe but because the presence of God had sanctified the place M. Bishop saith it was not God but an Angell but he speaketh therein falsely and ignorantly It was an Angell indeed but it was * Mal. 3.1 the Angell or messenger of the Lords couenant b Ios 5.14 the Captaine of the Lords hoast the second Person in Trinitie the Sonne of God vsually termed an Angell in those apparitions because he tooke vpon him the office of an Angell to do the messages of the Godhead vnto men c Euseb hist lib. 1. cap 2. Saâ—è fas non est visiones Dei in Scripturis traditas Angelis illis inferioribus ac ministris Dei tribuendas esse suspicari Surely saith Eusebius it is not lawfull to thinke that the apparitions of God deliuered in holy Scriptures are to be attributed to the inferiour Angels which minister vnto God Therefore he expoundeth them and namely this to Moses as * Ambr. in Psa 43. Quis est in rubo visus Moysi nisi rimogenitus Dei filius Sic in Epist ad Col. c. 1. Ambrose also doth of Christ the Sonne of God and proueth by the very plaine text that the Angell there mentioned was God d Exod. 3.4 When the Lord saw that Moses turned aside to sce God called vnto him out of the middest of the bush saying Moses Moses And he answered I am here Then he said Come not hither put off thy shooes from thy feete for the place where thou standest is holy ground Moreouer he said I am the God of thy Fathers the God of Abraham c. Then Moses hid his face for he was afraid to looke vpon God Thus e Act. 7.30 the Angell speaking to Moses in the bush as S. Steuen termeth him is called by our Sauiour Christ f Mar. 12.26 God speaking to Moses in the bush I did amisse therefore to terme Master Bishop ignorant in this behalfe for he could not but know the matter I should rather haue termed him impudent that to make an aduantage and yet nothing woorth wold contradict that which the Scripture so expressely saith As for daies they were appointed by God to be holy in respect of being applied to holy vse but that those daies were called worshipfull it is but M. Bishops deuice because he would haue vs to take him for a worshipfull wise man So the vestiments of the Priests were holy because as he saith they were dedicated and employed to holy vses Let all these things be taken for graunted as they are but what of all this to the holines of Images Surely we do not know but they may as well conclude that the Popes excrements are holy the parings of his nailes and the pollings of his head or whatsoeuer other filth or foolerie they will commend to vs. No maruell if there were that holinesse in the g Vide Hospinian de orig Monachat lib. 3. ca 12. Franciscan Friars weed as that men desired as a matter of great safegard to be buried therein or that the Franciscans breeches should be of great vertue to yeeld women speedy trauell for daies and vestiments of old were holy and the place where Moses stood was holy ground But it is further to be obserued that though all those things which Master Bishop nameth were holy yet none of them is found to haue bene worshipped Moses did not worship the holy ground The Israelites did not worship the holy daies nor the Priests garments The Temple was holy the altar was holy the offerings were holy the Priestes were holy and many other things and yet they worshipped none of them how then come we here to the worshipping of Images Well we must learne it our selues if we can Master Bishop can say no more then he hath done But it should be very strange that we should see more therein then the Church of the Iewes could euer see they read and knew all those things to be holy which Master Bishop nameth and yet they could neuer find the worshipping of Images He telleth vs of the Cherubims which God commaunded to be set wholy out of sight or were vsed as the pictures of Lions and Bulles and Flowers and Trees for the garnishing of the workes of the Temple and the fashion whereof no man doth know as