the Doctors book To that of abrogating them for the shameful abuse and superstition crept into mens mindes of them he answereth that thinges of necessary vse owght not for their abuse to be abrogated where first he maketh a necessary vse in the church of thinges which the scripture hath giuen no commandement of Secondly he condemneth in this point the churches that vse them not and thirdly destroyeth the liberty of placing or displacing them which hym self otherwhere ascribeth to the magistrate His other answer that they be meanes rather to withdraw from superstition by reason of reading and preaching diuers tymes after repeated is but an abusing of the tyme For nether doeth he answer any thing to my reply which was that preaching cā not come to al throvugh the scarcity of preachers and that vuhere yt doeth the fruit is hyndered vuhilest the commō sort attend rather to that vuhich is doē thē to that vuhich is said Nether can he make any sufficient reply to my answer which is that that profit is vuithovut danger receiued othervuhere and may be vuith vs vuithovut such solemnities of feastes yf preaching ād prayers being as they are the rest of the day be imployed as other vuorking dayes Against which that which he excepteth page 546 that yf these and other holy dayes were not men should for instruction of their families be driuen to spēd twise or thrise in a week half the day is to simple For they haue the lords day a great part whereof may be bestowed that way and that which is needful for their further instruction may be supplied of the howshoulders whilest their families be in their dayly occupation as also the lord in his law by reckoning vp certein kindes commandeth to be doen in al maner of our exercises The next requireth no answer That the keping of Easter vuas left free at the first wil appear after owt of Socrates That owt of Eusebius maketh against hym self For to let pas the vnlikelihood of the dayes of fast which should goe before wherof there is not a word nether in the ould nor nue Testament yf it were a tradition of the Apostles yet it was vsed of them as a thing indifferent considering that the same story witnesseth that S. Iohn the Apostle togither with the churches of Asia did celebrate the Easter as the Iues were wont vpon the xiiij day of the moneth Now if S. Iohn hym self which departed not from the autority of the scripture did kepe the Iues day he gaue sufficiently to vnderstand that our Easter hath no autority from the scriptures for then he would haue kept yt also Likewise the Heluetian confessiō leauing yt at the liberty of the churches as a thing indifferent maketh against hym but against me yt maketh not which confes that that day may be kept and deny that yt is for our estate and tyme so expedient his answer to the incommodity of restrayning our cogitations to a fevu dayes vuhich should be extended to our vuhole lyfe is nothing worth For althowgh no abuse of men may take away gods institution yet in abuse of thinges which may be chaunged and are indifferent yt is not so His allegation that the lord notwithstanding the liberty of working six dayes made certein other holy dayes is but an abusing of the reader it being preuented by me And not content herewith the very same iudgmēt which he here aloweth in hym self in me he flatly condemneth afterward For where in his former book page 174 he confesseth that god gaue liberty to labour six dayes in this he affirmeth that by making certeyn feastes whereof some fal vpon these six working dayes he hath taken away that liberty I say not a iot more in effect yet my saying is nue and his is ould I am ouershot and he hath hit the mark His reason is because I make god contrary to hym self But how I more then he o haue liberty of god to work six dayes and to be restrayned by him of that liberty be as contrary as any thing which I haue set down And of hym it is said also bluntly withowt any caution whereas I shewed the equity of god in this colour of contrariety Against which hys exception that yt can not be shewed in al the scripture that god hath made any law against his own commandement ys vntrue For not to goe far was it not a law of god that the Iues were bound of necessity to keep the Sabbats and other solemn feastes And is yt not now a law of god that at the least they are not so bound His fear that god should be thus contrary to hym self is causeles no more then the father is to be houlden vnconstant which when his son commeth to mans estate freeth hym of the obedience vnto his seruant vnder which he cast hym in hys tender yeares or then the physition which according to the state of his pacients body prescribeth not onely a diuers but a quite cōtrary diet This ys a catechism matter whereat he could hardly haue stumbled yf his ey had bene simple althowgh to say the truth in this case in hand there is no contrariety but onely exceptions owt of a general law which that the church may doe in likewise as god the lawgiuer hym self which he after maketh his proof is to gros For thereby not onely the question yt self but more also then ys in question is demaunded That those to whome the establishing of the ceremonies doeth belong may appoint that which is conuenient for diuine seruice as often as the church may conueniently assemble ys agreed and euen in the matter of appointing whole holy dayes in certeyn cases yt is also by me confessed But that the Magistrate may cal from or compel to bodily labour as shal be thowght to hym most conuenient ys not measured according to the cubit of the sanctuary I mean of the word of god For what yf the Magistrate shal think yt conuenient that men should labour but one day in the week what yf he should think neuer a one is the Subiectes obedience tyed to this ordinance Yf it be so what shal then become of gods commandement that men shal eat their bread in sore trauail who shal prouide for wife and children with the rest of the family for which notwithstanding vuhoso prouideth not for is vuors then an infidel His reason that this yt no conscience matter deceiueth hym whilest he alwayes restrayneth conscience matters to inward thinges alone whereas yt extendeth yt self as far and to as many matters as there is ether commandement for or prohibition against in the word of god And as this is vnaduisedly put forth so that which soloweth that the word of god doeth not constrein the Magistrate from turning carnal liberty to the spiritual seruice of god ys to fowl an ouersight For thereby he accounteth bodily labour a carnal liberty which is an
must be necessarily had yet preaching at burials is not meet vnles withal yt be doen withowt inconueniences He denieth yt also to be acceptation of persons houlding forth the obiection which I gaue hym but the answer vnto yt he towcheth not Likewise he saith that there is sometymes more occasion to preach at the rich mans burial then at the poors but he saith yt onely for proof he bringeth none My argument he answereth not which is that the cause vuhy burial sermons vuere brovught in of giuing of famous men their commendation vuas insufficient considering that the same vuas doen by the holy Prophetes moste able and vuilling to doe yt by sermon yf yt had bene conuenient Likewise to the infamous beginninges of these funeral sermons from infidels he saith nothing onely he abuseth the tyme in opposing the autority which I confessed by which kinde of reasoning he may also bring in torches at noon dayes moneth weke and year mindes which haue the alowance of the same tymes that these burial sermons haue The first sect is answered in the 3 diuision My argument which is that as other inuentions of men vse to doe so these sermons haue driuen ovut the necessary duty of particular comforting the partyes vuhich are especially stricken by the death of their friendes he hath vtterly peruerted turning my argument of effectes into that of contraries as he did likewise boeth my argumentes of the final and efficient causes in the 7 diuision which is but vntrue dealing The general sorow of the church in the death of a member may be easely susteyned by the ordinary teachinges but they that be specially wounded owght to haue a special plaster wherein that which he affirmeth of the exhortation giuen generally to be as apt to comfort as when yt is particularly applied is boeth a manifest vntruth and directly contrary to hym self which saith None douteth but that a man is more moued by that which is spoken to hym particularly then he is with that spoken generally aswel to other as to hym self And hereby yt may appear how inconuenient yt is to clog the minister with this voluntary charge of preaching at burials which beside his ordinary ministery hath so necessary a duty cast vpon hym in the death of his parishoners whereunto ad also the travail and care toward the deceased during his siknes The first section is answered in diui 3. To that of tying hereby the meditation of death vuhich ovught to be continual to one onely tyme he answereth as yow see the reply whereunto is before Althowgh this reason owght not to haue bene so whotly pursued seing that althowgh I wrote yt yet I professed that I would not precisely subscribe yt M. Caluins iudgment of these sermons doeth now appear which is that he doeth not greatly disalow them His answer against that I alledged that they might be easelier born in other places then vuith vs vuhere there are such svuarmes of papistes and other ignorant vuhich take occasion of falling thereby is partly replied vnto in the 3 diuision and is further confuted in that the doctrine against purgatory and trentals may be as frutfully tawght at other tymes as yt is in other churches where we see singuler frute of such teaching As for the morosity he talketh of yt is before answered Althowgh the money for preaching be giuen vnasked yet if yt be receiued in that respect the occasion of the papistes slaunderous speach is not taken away The next diuision belongeth vnto the readers iudgment the next is answered Here yt is once to be noted that he not content to wrest my particular argumentes hath peruerted this whole disputation For where my reasons doe neuer conclude the vnlawfulnes of these ceremonies of burial but the inconuenience and inexpedience of them he imagineth me cōcluding that they may not be and that yt is vnlawful to haue them which notwithstanding S. Paul doeth precisely distinguish THE EIGHT CHAPTER OF the second part of this Treatise of the surplice and other apparel taken from popery AGainst their importunacy which may peraduenture say that I leaped the matter of apparel throwgh conscience of the weaknes of our cause yt shal not be much owt of the way to run yt ouer that yt may appear boeth how little there is which hath not bene answered and how little weight yt hath which remayneth to be answered The first diuis is answered so is the second for further answer whereunto I refer the reader to the Bishop of Salisburys book where he shal perceiue how directly the D. is contrary vnto hym in that point As for the last section yt is answered in the first part of this tractate sauing that he misconstrueth my wordes in affirming me to say that monumentes of Idolatry may be vsed in the church yf some manifest profit doe appear Vuhere as my meaning is playn that they owght to haue no entrance into the church not onely for that they are monumentes of Idolatry but because there appeareth no manifest profit of them For althowgh I wil not enter into that question yet I can not see how that which is properly a monument of Idolatry can haue any good vse in the church That thinges ordeyned to good vses and after cōuerted to Idolatry may be profitable I graunt but that a thing shal be profitable in the church especially whose natiuity and first birth was consecrated to an Idol and which the first day yt was inuented was applied vnto Idolatry I think the Answ is not able to shew In the next the first part of the first section the reader hath to iudg of vpon the reasons alledged and vpon the common experience His question is onely to blot paper being afterward precisely boeth moued and answered by me For proof that some think the sacrament better administred with then withowt a surplice I alledged as witnesses them vuhich say I vuil not communicate vnles he vuear a surplice whereunto he answereth that yt may come of iust cause when the Minister by not wearing sheweth an example of disobedience Vuhereby he first aloweth that men should absteyn from the Communion for want of a surplice then in part he giueth the execution of the lawes to priuate men contrary to the law of god and of the realm Vuhereas yf the Minister did euil in not taking a surplice and would not giue place to their admonition yt behoued them to receiue the sacramentes and hear the word at his hand and after to complain of the disorder to those to whome the correction belongeth His reason that none which are perswaded to communicate with vs think the sacrament better or wors for a surplice for that they are disswaded from greater thinges is insufficient For there were Iues which were browght from confidence in them selues and in their own workes to seek for their saluation in Christ which in a peece of a holy day or a bit of flesh which is far les put great religion Vuhere the lord taketh
acceptable seruice vnto god as hath bene alledged where he fel at the very same stone whereas yf bodily labour were carnal liberty the church and the Magistrate not onely might but were streightly bownd to restrayn yt yea vtterly to abolish yt After he asketh why the church may not aswel restrayn froÌ„ working any part of the day as from the most part of yt which saith he I confes where first my wordes taken at the largest affourd no further vacation from labours then the tyme wherein the ordinary seruice may be celebrated which is not the most part of the day Secondly where he concludeth thereupon that yt may restrayn vs any part of the day yf that were admitted what would folow that therefore yt may restrayn from labour the whole day there is great oddes for yt is one thing to restrayn any part of the day and another to restrayn the whole day Therefore to haue concluded any thing for these wordes any part of the day yow should haue put the whole day Now yf yow ask me why the church may not aswel restrain men from labour the whole day ordinarily for in extraordinary cases yt is confessed as to restrayn them so much tyme as the deuine seruice may be celebrated in yt is but a faiÌ„t question For I would ask of yow whether yf it were lawul forthe church to appoint two holy dayes euery week yt were therefore lawful for her to appoint six And yf yow wil haue your reason trust vp in few wordes yt is this The church may doe that which is les therefore yt may doe that which is more Again the deuine seruice wherefore the vacation is commanded being ended whereupoÌ„ should the rest of the day be better imploied theÌ„ in the dayly vocations yow wil answer in priuate reading the word of god and prayer This in deed might haue better colour yf the charge were as streight to driue men from playing and dissolutnes often tymes vnto this exercise at yt is to driue them from their work Howbeit here owght not to be forgotten the wise mans counsail that vue should not be to iust So that as the greatest heap fal away from god by prophanes and contempt of his seruice thorowgh the desire of folowing the world eueÌ„ so of the contrary part men boeth may and haue sometymes declined whilest they estemed that the cutting away of some peece from their necessary trauail could not be vnacceptable vnto the lord so that the same were bestowed in the church exercises And althowgh the wealth of some may wel suffer al these vacations from their dayly callings and moe to yet in making the church ceremonies respect must be had what the comon sort may doe euen as yt is in a musical consent where the sweeter or finer voice ys not alwayes takeÌ„ but that which wil best accord and fal in with the rest of the Quier As for those to whom the lord hath giuen the meanes to occupie them selues oftener in priuate reading of the holy scripture and prayer yf they haue affection thereunto they wil likely doe yt withowt this order if they haue none they wil abuse the rest to fulfil their nawghty desires which might be in part restrayned by trauail in their vocation The reason is like For the autority is al one to make yt vnlavuful to vuork vuhen god hath made yt lavuful and to make yt lavuful to labour vuhen god hath made yt vnlavuful And therefore euen as the church can not commaund men to labour the seuenth day wherein the lord hath commanded rest but vpon some good coÌ„sideration so can yt not but vpon like considerations restrayn men from labour any of the six dayes so that his answer that the one is a commandement the other a permission is nothing worth For as the commandement of resting the seuenth day must because of gods autoritye abide in the nature of a commandement so the permission to work the six dayes warranted by the same autority must abide in the nature of a permission The third section is beside the cause For yt is not in question whether priuate men should be subiect vnto such orders but whether the church should charge them with this yoke or no. Of the liberty of the church in this matter so yt be vpon conditions before specified there is no question Howbeit the example owt of Esther 9 of the two dayes which the â—ues instituted in the remembrance of their deliuerance is no sufficient warrant for these feastes in question For first as in other cases so in this case of dayes the estate of Christians vnder the gospel owght not to be so ceremonious as was theirs vnder the law Secondly that which was doen there was doen by a special direction of the spirit of god ether throwgh the ministery of the Prophetes which they had or by some other extraordinary meanes which is not to be folowed of vs This may appear by another place where the Iues changed their fastes into feastes onely by the mouth of the lord throwgh the ministery of the Prophet For further proof whereof first I take the 28 verse where yt appeareth that this was an order to endure alwayes euen as long as the other feastes dayes which were instituted by the lord hiÌ„ self So that what abuses so euer were of that feast yet as a perpetual decree of god yt owght to haue remained whereas our churches can make no such decree which may not vpoÌ„ change of tymes and other circumstaÌ„ces be altered For the other proof hereof I take the last vers For the Prophet coÌ„tenteth not hym self with that that he had rehearsed the decree as he doeth sometyme the decree of prophane kynges but addeth precisely that as sone as euer the decree was made yt was registred in this book of Esther which is one of the bookes of the canonical scripture declaring thereby in what esteme they had yt Yf yt had bene of no further autority then our decrees or then a canon of one of the councels yt had bene presumption to haue browght yt into the library of the holy gost The sum of my answer is that this decree was diuine and not ecclesiastical onely That which he addeth of euery priuate mans consent in these matters is not to the question and yet is b before answered THE SECOND PART OF THIS chapter of Saintes dayes YF purgatory were propounded onely as a thing indifferent which a man might beleue or not beleue and yt were in our chois whether we would pray for the dead or no yet this liberty is nawght wherefore your answer that purgatory is made necessary to saluation is insufficient But as purgatory ys vnlawful with what sauce soeuer yow set yt before vs so the keping of Saintes dayes holy can by no glos be made good your confounding therefore of Saintes dayes with holy dayes as yf there were one case of them boeth is no simple dealing
Vuhat force there ys in the name of saintes dayes to make men beleue that they are instituted to their honour let the reader iudg of that which I haue written How much more doe they confirm this when boeth the corrupt custome and doctrine in popery hath forestalled the peoples mindes with that opinion whereunto his answer that I might much better reason against the names of Sonday and Moneday ys vntrue For first the vse of such thinges is not so free in ecclesiastical matters as in ciuil affaires Secondly our people hath not bene nusled vp in that filth of worshipping the Sun and Mone as they haue bene of the saintes in so much as the learned set apart there are few which know that there were euer any dayes obserued in the honour of the Sun or Mone Yf they had bene so nusled who seeth not but that yt had bene moste cōuenient for the rooting owt of that Idolatry to haue made a change of these names Thirdly yt ys knowen that good men after the example of Dauid which would not once defile his lippes with naming the Idols or Idolatrous thinges except yt were with detestation boeth absteyn from such names as much as the common vse wil suffer and desire the abolishment of them To my reason that as the lordes holy dayes are taken to be instituted to his honour so the saintes holy dayes may easely be thovught of the ruder sort to be instituted to their honour he answereth that the lords holy dayes are so called especially because the scriptures concerning hym are then red which is no answer For yf hys answer were true yet yt confessing by the way that they are taken in part to be instituted to the lords honour graūteth forthwith that there ys occasion giuen to the ruder sort to think that the Saintes dayes are in part instituted to their honour As for hys sentence owt of Augustin yt ys a meer abusing of the tyme as yf euery thing instituted to the honour of god were a sacrament or that a thing doen in remembrance of the lord may not or rather ys not doē to hys honour And here yt is to be noted that the D. ys taken in hys own nettes For he defendeth the keping holy of these Saintes dayes as they were vsed in the elder churches and as Ierome and Augustin mayntein thē Now hym self hath for hys defence alledged owt of Ierome that these dayes are obserued to the Martyrs and owt of Augustin that in them we honour the memoryes of martyrs Therefore hys escape that no man ys so mad as to think that by these dayes we doe any honour vnto the Saintes ys not onely an opē vntruth but directly contrary to that hym self maynteyneth Vuhat ignorance is in the land for want of teaching I leau to the readers iudgment of that which hath bene said To that I alledged that althowgh there vuere teaching yet yt vuere good that these names should not help to vnteach he answereth not Howbeit he goeth further asking whether for euery particular mans ignorance or abusing of yt the churchis order must be changed He may wel know that yf there be one man which abuseth yt throwgh ignorance there are moe then a thowsand and yf there were but one onely yet seing that man ys in danger to wrake hym self at this rok owght not the church rather to change this name then to giue occasion of destroying hym for whome Christ hath died cōsidering that of naming those holy dayes Saintes dayes there can be no fruit or profit assigned Hys exception against Augustins complaint of the multitude of Ceremonies that he speaketh not of holy dayes ys vnworthy of answer considering that he speaketh generally of al kinde of ceremonies likewise that he saith he speaketh of vnprofitable ceremonies For he disputeth simply against the multitude of Ceremonies vnder the gospel whereas yf they had bene but a few and yet vnprofitable he would therefore haue condemned them As for that he saith that ours are profitable and appoued by the custome of the whole church the first ys an asking of that in question the other ys an vntruth as doeth after appear Now whereas I said that in this ceremony of holy dayes vue excede euen the Iues he maketh hys accountes so that they as he saith had the greater numbre But what Auditor wil alow these accountes of yours First of al therfore yow must strike of the supposed holy day of Iudith for the reason shewed in another place likewise those of the Makabites as those whereof there is no certeinty and boeth Iudiths and the Makabites togither as those which yf euer they were houlden were houlden many hundreth yeares after the giuing of the law For the which cause the two dayes of Hesther althowgh they differ as far from the other as heauen from earth owght not to come into this account For this comparison is not instituted betwene vs and any estate of the Iues vnder the law but with the ordinary estate and with that which was giuen in mount Synay by the ministery of Moses For that is boeth S. Augustins meaning and yt is a fowl wart in the churches face vnder the gospel to be so ceremonius as the ordinary estate of the church was vnder the law There remayn onely three feastes of the Pasouer whitsontyde and the Tabernacles vnto euery one whereof yow ascribing seuen raise the sum of one and twenty holy dayes But here also yow are fowly ouer reckened For the first onely and the last day of euery of those three seuēs were holy in the rest which were betwene them althowgh there were extraordinary sacrifices yet men might after diuine seruice folow their ordinary vocations Oneles therfore yow make a far other rowl of the Iuish holy dayes then yow haue doen hether toward yow see that my saying that vue haue more thē dubble as many holydayes as they ys mayntenable and deserueth no such censure as yow giue yt For any thing that I could euer learn we are by the lawes as much bownd from labour vpon the saints dayes as vpon the lords day wherein I report my self to that which may be knowen hereof the rest ys answered In the next diuision there is nothing but a manifest piller of popery with shameful owtrage vnto the holy gost in that he calleth the appeal to the scriptures and example of the Apostles from certeyn customes of the churches which were more then a hundreth yeares after Christ an vnlearned shift which is before towched In the next the testimony of Socrates ys faithfully cyted of me As for that he answereth that by euery one he meaneth not euery person but euery countrey or people alledging to that purpose another place in the same chapter where saith he ys put euery particuler people he ys abused For there is no more mention of people in that place then in that which I alledged Beside that in
answered and another of M. Beza which in that sens he pretendeth them are quite contrary one to another yt is therfore meruail if he can make of them one vniform and euen answer Now he hath ranged and roued almost in this whole disputation he must haue leau to run bak the way he came to see whether he hath let any of his peeces fal And first good reader he dasheth the in the face with two open vntruthes in the forehead of this chapter For the order of the church propounded by vs is vniform and standing as it is left vs in the word of god and not as he surmiseth varying according to the numbre of the churches Also for ceremonies variable by circunstance it is frankly confessed that they owght to be determyned of by aduise of the church Synod assembled especially of the flower and most sufficient of the ecclestical gouernours sent by consent of the rest if al as yt happeneth can not be coueniently there Secondly it is nether affirmed nor euer practised in any church where this order is or hath bene vsed that he that is chosen may not refuse yt So that if there be any that thinketh his honour stayned in being ioyned in counsail of church matters with poor men when there ether are not or are not enow of others he hath not to complain seing he is at his choise Albeit if any man should be so myneded to think skorn to hear the sentence of a poor man in that he is a poor mā let the same know that he reprocheth god that made hym poor And if he be lawfully appointed to this office thē he doeth not disdain the man but Christ hym self Therfore if he haue any fear of god before his eyes he wil from hence forth be ashamed to vse this for a reason Beside that he thus ouerthroweth the high court of Parliament where with the nobility are ioyned in consultation the commons of the Realm where also the estates being vnequal the voices notwithstanding are equal I omit how that if there were any inconuenience in this that the sentence of the Pastor and other not so rich or so noble should weigh down the sentence of that noble man he speaketh of yet him self hath deliuered vs of yt which telleth vs that the lord of the town or some other of countenance wil lead away the rest of the church how much more then shal he be able to lead away two or thre Thus he plaieth on boeth handes for there he pincheth at the nobility and here he pretendeth as if he were tender ouer their honour His third reason is answered before likewise his fourth his fift his sixt and a seuēth As for the eight of partial affectiō and contentions which would ensue it is plentifully answered in the question of the church election For if these be friuolous reasons against those ecclehastical actions where the whole church hath interest much more are they against the assemblies of thre or fower onely and those of the choisest the ninth is also answered The tenth that it would be to great extremity to punish for one faut twise is a fals principle taken from the Pelagian herefy For the Magistrate may appoint fower kinde of punishmētes for one faut if he think good to be executed at diuers tymes so that they altogither and ioyntly exceed not the quantity of the faut And by his reason the Magistrate shal be shut owt from his right of punishyng syn if it fal owt that the lord by some punishment laid vpon the offender preuent the Magistrates punishment especially when the punishment is in such sort that it may appear that yt was sent for that special faut for examples sake if of dronkennes he fal into some siknes na thus the lordes sword is wrung owt of his hand For nether may he punish those fautes which the Magistrate punished before and if he punish a man in this life he hath bound his handes for punishing him in the world to come For in deed the church discipline is the punishment or rather the correction of the lord in a far other kinde and to an other end then the ciuil punishment But I haue shewed that boeth these were practised amongest the people of god for one and the same faut And is not this in the Apostles to condemn the holy gost him self For if it be true which he saith when one had stollen or committed adultery it had not bene lawful for them to haue vsed the ecclesiastical censure least the offender being after apprehended and punished according to the lawes of the common wealth where he liued should thereby haue bene wronged Beside that the D. accuseth al our Bishops which for diuers causes punishable by the lawes of the Realm send forth their excommunications yea al the elder churches which did not leau to proceed in ecclesiastical censures against those whom the heathen Princes had iustly punished But hereof the reader may know further in M. Caluins institutions also in M. Bucer who praecisely cōfuteth them which say that the punishment by the ciuil Magistrate is sufficient His eleuenth that alterations are dangerous is vnworthy answer For when yt hath bene shewed that ceremonies otherwise in different owght when they breed offence to be changed how much more owght those to be chāged which are shewed to be cōtrary to the institutiō of god And nether this nor the next clause in thys eleuēth article nor diuers other allegatiōs in this chapter haue so much as a countenāce of reason vnles it be first graunted vnto the D. which is the principal questiō that is to fay that the Eldership of the church is not cōmaunded of the lord his two other reasons in this article are boeth often repeated and vtterly vntrue there hauing bene neuer any Christiā Prince that vsed the spiritual sword which onely is giuē to the Eldership nether any noble mā or gentilmā which in our lād vseth this kinde of correction but onely the Bishop which vsurpeth yt and abuseth yt I omit his often iesting at the Pastor by calling him diuers tymes in contempt Master Pastor which the Angels them selues dare not doe when as him self can not deny but to haue a Pastor in euery cōgregation is the ordinance of god If men wil not look to such disorders I dowt not but the lord wil lay to his hand The first reason to proue no certeyn kinde of church gouernmēt apointed is answered before likewise the second and third the fourth is a gros asking of that in question In the fift M. Caluins and M. Bezas first and last sentences are violently drawen from their meaning as hath bene shewed The middle sentence beareth no such argument as he would gather for there is no word that shutteth owt the necessity of the Eldership vnder a Christian Magistrate no or that maketh it so much
may as wel say that a woman owght to doe the same in the holy supper But the knot is not yet loosed my answer whereunto is that if there were any priuate sacramentes as there is priuate teaching I would accord vnto him that wemen hauing power to teach priuately might also minister the sacramentes priuately But because that the holy sacramentes are publik as is the preaching his argument hath no force For in what place wil he lodg this argument a woman may doe a priuate act therfore she may doe a publik The diuision folowing being euil seuered of him from the next chapter whereunto it belongeth I leau vntil I come vnto that matter Now it may please the reader to turn vnto the 5 chapter pag. 516 which is also of this point in hand towching the person by whom this sacrament should be administred where first mark I pray yow a wily distinction which in effect is that he defendeth not baptim by wemen but improueth the Adm. that disaloweth yt as thowgh one could improue the one and not defend the other And vnles he had browght the example of Sephora to mayntein baptim by wemen it had bene fondly alledged considering that the wordes of the Adm. are of the practis of the Apostles tymes an exception against which fetched from the tyme which was 1000 yeares before might seme to come from him whose wittes were not at home especially when the question is what was doen and not what owght to be doen as he hym self now pretendeth Secondly he saith he wil not contend with me in diuers thinges in this diuision for that he misliketh their error which condemn infantes that be not baptized as much as I which is not so For he saith that the lak of baptim may seme to be a probable token and sign of reprobation which is boeth vntrue and perillous considering that not the want but the contempt or neglect onely of the holy Sacrament can draw any the least apparance of the lordes wrath Nether is that ether neglect or contempt preiudicial to the infant but to the parentes onely whose faut that is which notwithstanding can be none where they seek to thir vttermost that yt may be baptized of the minister of the church orderly and conueniently no more then it was preiudicial ether to the childe or parentes vnder the law when the infant died before the eight day which was the tyme apointed for the administration of the Sacrament of circūcision For as the eight day was to them so is a conuenient and orderly tyme to vs. Yt is therfore a shameful dealing that he maketh vs here to ioyn with the Anabaptistes which reiect childrē from baptim vntil they be able to make profession of their faith whereas we confes it owght to be ministred with al conuenient speed so it be by the minister whome god hath ordeyned for the same purpose In which accusatiō of Anabaptism with vs he windeth vp also as it were in one bottom the reformed churches where it is not permitted that the infant in any case should be baptized but by the minister withal the reader may perceiue how idle he is which translateth a great peece of M. Caluin to proue that which none denieth whom also he goeth abowt to oppose to him self which is of the same iudgment with vs in this behalf althowgh there be not so much as a tittle in the wordes he setteth down bending that way Yt may wel stand that this profanation came from the Gentils from Victor and from the Papistes Victor borowing it of the heathen and the Papistes of hym For boeth popery is like a bundel of corruptions which being picked owt of sundry tymes and places it hath cocked vp togither and the Pope is like a hog which when he cometh into a garden leauing the sweet flowers taketh him self alwaies to that which is most filthy in al the place otherwise the D. might deny any corruption almost to be papistical seing they haue few whereof ether paganism or declinyng from Christianism hath not bene the first founder To that I alledged to proue the vnlawfulnes of the circumcision by Moses wife for that she did it in presence of her husband a Prophet which is M. Caluins reason he opposeth the note of the bible printed at Geneua that he could not doe it because he was sik and that the Lord required it then whether he was able or no I wil not striue but that the lord required circumcision if there were no ordinary minister for it doeth not appear For as it was an order of god that the male childe should be circumcised the eight day so was yt also his order that he should be circumcised by a minister Now how can it be shewed by that the lord strake Moses that he would therefore haue this ordinance changed when as the siknes sent was a correction for the breaking of one of his orders and not a trumpet blown to cal them to the breach of the other And what if as it cometh to pas the lord had as yt were stricken Moses by siknes in the childe or that the childe being of discretion had hym self willingly wanted circumcision owght the childe therfore by and by with the present hazard of his life haue bene circumcised no verely But as this siknes should haue instructed boeth father and son to repent them of the former negligence and to purpose the amendement of yt when the childe should be able to abide the wound so the siknes of Moses was for that end sent that he should repent him of the former negligence and amend it when it might be according to the order appointed To that alledged that she did it in a koler he answerereth not To that that Moses recouery is no proof of the lavufulnes of it considering that vuhen thinges are measured by the euent the good are condemned and the vuicked iustified oftentimes he answereth that the euent oft declareth the thing which is but to wast winde For if it doe oft otherwise it can serue for no reason or allowance of that circumcision And if the iudgment by the euent be to be taken it is there where the causes doe not appear but here the cause of circumcision which is the institution of god is able to try the matter where also appeareth how affamished he is to finde contrarietyes in my book in that he supposeth variance in this that here I cal Moses a prophet and in another place say that the priesthood vuas taken from hym and giuen to Aharon which is to foul an ouersight For boeth there were Prophetes which were no Priestes nor of the race of Priestes and the tyme of the deliuerance ouer of the Priesthood vnto Aharon was long after the tyme here spoken of Against that I affirm it a necessary point of the Sacrament that yt be ministred by a Minister he maketh many owtcryes but they be not these lowd clamours which can
effectual operation and thereto abuseth 1. Corinth 3. what is Paul c. which is rather to proue that the being of the sacrament dependeth not of the vsing of the wordes I baptize the in the name of the father c. forasmuch as S. Paul speaketh there of the vocale ministery whereof this is a part wherein the D. hym self placeth the being of the Sacrament And in deed the drift of his reason is that there is no owtward thing whatsoeuer necessarily required in the being of the Sacrament which is a shameful error Howbeit let it be that the vsage of these wordes is the onely essential form what shal be the material cause For there must be aswel a matter whereof the sacrament must consist as a form whereby it is and as wel is the material cause of the sacrament a substantial cause as ys the form For eueÌ„ as a thing can not stand withowt the form so can yt not stand withowt the matter Now when the one is as necessary to the constitution of a thing as the other let him shew me why a faut in the form or departing from the wordes should more destroy the nature of the sacrament then a defaut or departure from the matter which is the water And verely for my part I would rather iudg him baptized which is baptized into the name of Christ withowt adding the father and holy gost when the element of water is added then when the other wordes being duly kept some other liquor is vsed This also is declared by his own example of the â—ue baptized with sand in that yt was decreed that he should haue vuater povured on hym whereby appeareth that yt is vntrue which he saith that the sacrament alway remayneth what error soeuer be committed when the form of wordes is retayned For there the wordes were kept and yet the sacrament was not supposed to be ministred Althowgh the example otherwise in my poor iudgment be vnsound that a man hauing the wordes said at one tyme and the Element powred at another should be iudged baptized For it is as much as if a man receiuing the bread in the church at Easter and the cup at the Natiuity should be therfore said to haue receiued the holy holy supper of the lord Therefore howsoeuer some learned and godly giue some liberty in the change of the Elementes of the holy sacrameÌ„tes yet I doe not see how that can stand coÌ„sidering also that the prophet threatning a general dearth of corn wyne and oyl sheweth that the Priestes should wepe and lament for that boeth the meat offering and drink offeriÌ„g should â—eas whereas nether the offeringes needed to haue ceased nor the Priestes for that to haue lameÌ„ted if they might for wine and oyl haue vsed water or for the beastes of the land taken the fishes of the sea or other creeping thinges for their offeringes Hauing thus spoken of the matter that it must necessarily be such as the institutioÌ„ of god hath prescribed let vs come to the Minister which is a subordinat efficieÌ„t cause whome seing I haue also proued whatsoeuer he say to be instituted the onely minister of the sacramentes let him shew me why the breach of the institutioÌ„ in the form should make the sacrameÌ„t vnavailable and not the breach of this part for if this be not also necessary and of the being of the sacram then when two goe togither if one speak the wordes of the institution althowgh no man powr on water but god onely by rayn from heauen yt is baptim And if it be baptim which is ministred of a childe in sport which thing M. Farel derideth as a mere toy then if a mad maÌ„ with minde to hurt doe speak those wordes in powring water vpon his head which is not baptised it shal be baptim also further if it be administred by him which is by profession a Turk it must by his rule be a good baptim so we shal come to the dotage of the papistes which imagin that the Shepard in the field coÌ„secrated their host in saying certeyn wordes of the institutioÌ„ of the supper which was the cause why afterward they would haue theÌ„ muÌ„bled vp in secret These thinges beiÌ„g absurd it is certeyn that the D. rule that it is baptim by whomsoeuer it be ministred is crooked But wheÌ„ none caÌ„ wash vs from our synnes but our S. Christ and none can represent his person in that owtward sacrameÌ„t of the inward washing but he whome our Sav. Christ hym self hath appointed if we wil receiu the benefit of the holy seal of baptim to assurance of our conscience that we are washed froÌ„ our synnes we must haue the publik minister If it be said that this is to ty men to streight to the owtward meanes and that for somuch as it is Christ that washeth from sinnes there is les matter who be the Minister I answer that as our Sa. Christs bloud being the spiritual matter of the sacrament and that onely wherewith we are purged yet we may not therfore lak the water which he hath ordeyned so althowgh he be he which alone washeth vs from our synnes yet we may not therefore lak that owtward minister which he hath appointed And if the wil of a Prince doe make that onely to be his seal which he hath appointed for that purpose so that althowgh another ether withowt or against his wil be made of the same matter and faschion and in al thinges like yt yet the same is none of his seal how much more owght the wil of god which is that onely those should minister the sacrament which haue a publik calling thereuÌ„to haue that autority And as by the seal which the Prince hath set apart to seal his grauntes with when it is stollen and set to by hym that hath no autority there groweth no assurance vnto the party that hath yt so if it were possible to be the seal of god which a woman should set to yet for that she hath stollen yt and put it to not onely withowt but contrary to the coÌ„mandement of god I see not how any can take any assurance by reason therof If it be said that the Princes confirmation afterward maketh euen that stollen seal which was set to of force I answer that where yt can be shewed that baptim by wemen is confirmed of god there I wil graunt the like in yt hetherto may be referred the pursuit of the former comparison For as a priuate man kylling a murtherer hath hym self murthered and executed no iustice because he had no calling thereunto euen so those which withowt al calling haue taken in hand to baptize haue made a prophane washing and ministred no sacrament of the lord That a distinction hath bene kept in names of offices vuhen the offices theÌ„ selues haue not bene distinguished or at least not so thorowghly as they owght is an easy thing to shew if it were to great purpose But yt is
verses at the least are no more to be dayly said of vs then the salutation of the virgin Mary So that boeth for this cause and the other before alledged of the psalmes yt is not conuenient to make ordinary prayers of them Nether doeth the respect that they contein the mistery of our redemption serue to make them ordinary prayers no more then infinite other places of the scripture yt proueth rather that they should be the ordinary textes to preach on The two next be answered To the defaut of the book assigned for that there are no formes of thankes giuing for the releas from those common calamityes from vuhich vue haue petitioÌ„s to be deliuered althowgh he can here answer nothing yet as his maner ys he blotteth paper Howbeit page 536 he goeth abowt to return this vpon my head because taxing the want of thanckes giuing here doe there finde faut with the solemn thanckes giuing at wemens churching whereunto I answer that I doe not simply require a solemn and expres thancksgiuing for such benefites but onely vpon a supposition which is that yf yt be expedient that there should be expres prayers against so many of these earthly miseries that then also yt is meet that vpon the deliuerance there should be an expres thaÌ„ckesgiuing But whereas he saith that thanckes are then giuen for encreas of godes people and deliuerance from syn the first ys here owt of tyme as that which belongeth to baptim and not to churching nether is there any such thing conteyned in the book The other is spoken first dangerously to the simple reader as that which hauing no good sens giueth also manifest suspitioÌ„ that ether the company in mariage or the bringing forth of children boeth which are commendable is syn Then yt is spoken slaunderously in respect of the book which hauing no such thing is browght into suspition of yt Here also yow should haue learned to mend your speach of our subiection vnto syn For althowgh the daungerous trauail of wemen with childe be a testimony of syn which we committed yet it is not a testimony of subiection vnto syn in vs which are sanctified coÌ„sidering that althowgh syn dvuel in our mortal bodyes yet it reigneth not ouer vs nether are we subiectes vnto yt THE II PART OF THE II chapter of this Tractate of the fautes in the form of our prayers TO that against the prayers shred into so many and smal peeces vuhere as in doctrine so in prayers regard ovught to be had not onely to the matter but also to the form he answereth that so the doctrine be the same the form is left free which is vnrrue For yt owght to be doen withowt al pomp and owtward shew also to the capacity and moste aduantage of the hearers memory and that which towcheth this point cheifly yt owght to be doen comely and orderly al which thinges as they pertayn to the form of preaching so doe they to the form of prayer To this vncomelines set forth by similitude of a supplicatioÌ„ made vnto an earthly Prince he answereth that the dealing with god herein is far other then with men except I wil admit the popish reason of praying to saintes which is nothing worth For boeth hym self hath vsed this kinde of reason before and the Prophet in the matter of sacrifices doeth vse the same Peter Martyr also vseth the same in the case of prayer where the word of god hath determined the contrary there this kinde of reasoning drawen from the vsage of men is shut owt but where the lord hath not prescribed the coÌ„trary there yt hath a place Of which kinde is the matter of comelines and decency wherein we must haue regard to the comely vsage and conuersation of men vpon which grownd we say that yt is comely that the lords table should then onely be spred when the holy supper is to be ministred and rather with a fayer cloth then with a fowl Also that yt is not against order that many should sing togither but yet a disorder that many should speak togither My answer to the short prayers obiected owt of the Actes that S. Luke setteth dovun onely the sum of the prayers ys manifest seing in sermons as needful to be reported at large as the prayers he hath vsed the same shortnes Althowgh towching those which are priuate prayers for particular necessityes they owght to be no rules in this point of publik prayers To that that euen those prayers as they are set dovn vuere continued and not cut into peeces he can answer nothing whether the form of prayer which we haue in this point taken of the papistes be as good as that which I towched and which is vsed of other reformed churches let the reader iudg That al or the moste part of them haue alowed our order is vntrue as may yf need were be shewed by recordes of the difference for yt in Queen Maryes dayes Diuers other rouing sayings he hath whereof that of our Sauiour Christes and the Apostles vsual preaching withowt textes hath no ground That of their preaching withowt prayer before or after their sermons is a shameful vntruth For prayer being assigned for a peece of the duty of the ministery althowgh yt had bene neuer as sometyme yt is expressed yet yt must of necessity be intended Oneles peraduenture he wil say they prayed as the papistes in the middest of thir sermons as yf gods assistans were needles for the first part of their preaching That the Apostles did not labour and study for their sermons is another vntruth before confâ—ted Beside the confusion and wast of tyme in that the people rehears word for word after the Mynister certeyn prayers which they may as wel doe by consent and affection of minde was alledged that thereby is engendred an opinion that the other prayers doe not so much pertein vnto them whereto he answereth that there is special cause why they should be vsed because they contein a general confession which al Christians must euen with their voice confes as yf the desiring of thinges which are necessary and giuing of thanckes for benefites which we haue receiued were not boeth as general and as necessary to al Christians and a thing which concerned the glory of god as much as the confession of our synnes Yf yt be so what cause can he assign why the people should with their voice pronounce one and not the other My reason which is that as in the publik liturgie the Minister is onely the mouth of god from hym to the people so he is the onely mouth of the people from theÌ„ vnto god he corrupteth leauing owt onely in one place and taking yt in the other that the strength of the argument of payers might the les appear For answer whereunto he ys fayn to take the answer seruing to the last reason which is of the practis of the church in the
antiquitity which he aduoucheth yt wil fal owt that he can fetch yt from not other head then from popery For as for that he alledgeth of the Christians which vsed yt because the Iues abiding other names of god could not abide yt yt ys nothing so considering that the Iues haue that name in great honour althowgh they haue not hym so to whom of right yt belongeth And in regard that yt was giuen to the son of god they hated the name of Christ as much and in some respect more because in sound yt is further of from their word then the name of Iesus That especially this curtesy should be made at the name of Iesus when the Gospel is red which conteineth the glad tydinges c. is a foul ouersight the confutation whereof I haue before noted which serueth also against the standing rather at the gospel then at the Epistle That also of subduing of al our spiritual enemyes by Christ c is friuolous seing that boeth god the father and the holy gost haue their work in our saluation althowgh afrer an other sort as wel as our Sa. Christ How absurd he is aswel in affirming that a Pastor may better haue two benefices to preach at then a Curate two cures to read at as also in his reason thereof let the reader iudg THE III. CHAPTER OF THE SEcond part of this treatise of ministring the holy sacramentes in priuate hovuses beginning pag. 510 of the D. book YT hath bene shewed that the administration of the word and Sacramentes owght to be publik and that they ceas not to be so euen then when for the distres of persecution the church is driueÌ„ to hould her assembly in a priuate how 's Here yt remayneth onely in questioÌ„ whether yt be conuenient that in the churchis peace the sacramentes for siknes sake should he ministred in priuate howses Vuhere to that alledged owt of S. Paul that he opposeth the congregation vuherein the lords supper should be houlden vnto a priuate hovus vuhere men satisfy their hunger he can answer nothing but repeateth that owt of Caluin which he idly alledged before I am content that the reader iudg whether boeth those absurdities which I layd vpoÌ„ hym folow of his rash answer As for that he replieth that our Sau. Christes preaching and S. Iohns baptizing openly proue not that the administring of the word and sacramentes should be publik because examples proue not yt is answered Beside that I haue shewed that yt hath commandement Another reason of his is because our Sau. Christ preached in priuate fâ—milies which is likewise answered That owt of Zuinglius that yt is not necessary to baptiz in the church I graunt for the case may be such that yt may be baptized in the fieldes but in a priuate how 's in this case of siknes where there be set and ordinary meetinges in the church I deny yt conuenient Yf he mean by not necessary that it is baptim althowgh yt be not ministred in the ordinary assembly I graunt yf he mean that yt ys not necessary to decency and good order his own wordes giue me answer enowgh For as the tyme maketh conuenience when yt is ministred so sone as yt may be commodiously or inconuenience when yt is differred longer so doeth the place Albeit S. Paul was a prisoner yet the Iaylor being conuerted would haue accorded hym what place he had iudged meetest for baptim therefore that example had bene more apt theÌ„ the other of Peter althowgh nether of them make any thing for yow As for that owt of Mathew 18 where two or three c to proue that two be enow to make a congregation wherein baptim may be ministred first yf it could come to pas that there were but two persons in the whole church one to baptiz the other to be baptized I dowt whether yt were meet to stay the baptim vntil we saw whether the lord would giue further encreas But that yt is conuenient that in our church yt should be ministred in the presens of two or three onely is a thing most vnworthy of the dignity of the holy Sacrament when as yf the ciuil administration of iudgment should be handled so cornerlike yt should worthely be suspected But what shal then be answered to the place of S. Mathew euen this that our Sau. Christ speaketh not there of the publik administring of the word and Sacramentes but of the proceeding in the church discipline against offences and of that part which was doen priuately For after he had tawght how from the admonition by one we owght to proceed vnto that which is made by two or three and so to the churchis hauing before ratified the proceeding of the church he autoriseth also by thys word the admonition which with inuocation of his name was giuen by those two or three â–ª promising that yt shal not be in vayn but haue effect that way which god hath disposed of whether yt be to conuersioÌ„ of the party or to further making hym inexcusable Yf it be asked why then our sauiour Christ did not also speak of the ratifying of the first admonition by one I answer that he spake of the effect of these two later admonitions not that the other should he withowt fruit but for the excellency of the effect of these before that Vuhich was also therfore needful to be made mention of more theÌ„ the first for so much as otherwise vpoÌ„ experience of the synners hardnes of heart in reiection of the first admonitioÌ„ he which gaue yt with the other one or two appointed for that matter throwgh dispair of his amendement might be beaten bak from proceding any further with hym To me acknowledging that in the tyme of persecution yt may be in a priuate hous as may also the publik preaching he answereth that the same may be doen in this necessity which he repeateth in his 6 diuision where stil he demauÌ„deth that in question For yt is in question whether there is any such necessity of baptim as for the ministring thereof the common decent order should be broken And verely by these kinde of speaches he playnly condemneth those churches ether of neglect or contempt of the holy sacramentes which suffer none to be administred but in the ordinary congregations Here I leau to the readers iudgment whether by this extraordinary administration there be more danger of confirming this error that children can not be saued yf they dy before they haue receiued baptim then the administring yt onely when the infantes may be conueniently browght to the church doeth confirm the error of the Anabaptistes which say that children may not be baptized vntil they come to age seing that by the dayly practis of the church in baptizing them there can not rise the least suspition of this later error In saying that I haue nether scripture reason nor Doctor he kepeth but his wont For scripture and reason
of whom onely his reason dependeth which wil haue them alike necessary His reasons that the milk indured not long nor was general besides that they are popish reasons are not proued and may be in part confuted in that yt had not onely place in Afrik but in the west partes not onely in Tertullians but also in Ieromes tyme At the least the anointing in Baptim was as general and of as long continuance as the cros For being in Afrik in Tertullians tyme yt spred yt self into the east and west churches with such continuance as from them yt passed into the pâ—pish synagoges aswel as crossing To this defence may wel be referred that which he answereth pag. 275 vnto my obiection that Sensors Tapers holy bread c are euen of the same coate that the surplice is of and to be measured with the same pole for yf his answer there which is that the surplice is indiffereÌ„t but that these thinges be falsly accouÌ„ted indifferent be good yt wil help to succour his weaknes here and yf yt be shewed nawght here nether wil yt serue hym there Let hym tel vs therefore why the surplice and the cros with their significations should be indifferent and oyl and tapers c with their interpretations falsly counted indifferent Here we must beleue hym of his word for reason he hath none Howbeit page 291 where he repeateth this again he pretendeth this reason that the one haue an opinion of saluation and of worship annexed al which saith he we remoue from these orders which sauing that yt is against hym self is to no purpose For in the first part of his answer he giueth to vnderstand that the papistes shameful abuse of these thinges is cause enowgh to make them now vnindifferent which is contrary to the whole cours of his defence and in the later part of his answer he giueth to vnderstand that their oyl tapers censors holy bread and holy water may be browght into our church so that the opinion of saluation and worship be by a publik and solemn protestation of the indifferency of them remoued Vâ—ho knoweth not also that the abuse of the papistes hath bene as great and rather greater in the cros especially by opinion of saluation and worship then euer were the tapers or sensors whereupon yt is manifest that the D. herein can make no more distinction or difference betwene the cros and the surplice with oyl and tapers c then he vhich chaulketh â–ª as they say a vuhite lyne vpon a vuhite vual Let vs therfore return In the next diuision to diuers reasons against this ceremony in Baptim boeth simply and in respect of the present tyme he answereth not a word onely he passeth the tyme in shewing how the papistes vsed yt otherwise then we doe which is not in question In the next to that alledged of the signification making yt more popish he answereth that the papistes did not declare the signification and that they were therefore dumb with them as thowgh their pulpites rung not oftentymes of such vnsauory voices or that a number of the simpler papistes knw not this popish deuinity To that that yt bringeth in a nue vuord into the church he answereth that there is nothing against yt in the word which is vntrue For althowgh the ceremony of crossing were conuenient yet to rayse a doctrine of yt is vnlawful for asmuch as yt is not enowgh to teach the truth vnles yt be truly tawght and that is onely owt of the word of god Now let hym shew a word of god that two lynes laid croswise signifieth that we should not be ashamed of the passion or cros of Christ Hetherto belongeth that which he hath 291 towching the surplice where yt appeareth that his defence in this cause is spekled and of diuers colours For there in the first section he giueth playnly to vnderstand that he aloweth not that a man should draw any such signification from the apparel as the admonition doeth from sitting at the lords supper Now the signification yt bringeth of rest and of a ful finishing throvugh Christ of al the ceremonial lavu and of a perfect redemption vurovught that giueth rest for euer ys a holy doctrine therefore yt foloweth that he wil not haue so much as an holy and an agreable doctrine vnto the rest of the scriptures fetched owt of the wearing of the apparel which is the same thing which I affirm namely that yt is not enowgh that the thiÌ„g signified be accordiÌ„g to the scripture onles the significatioÌ„ yt self be raised and grouÌ„ded of the scripture So that hereby he hath vtterly ouerthroweÌ„ hym self not onely in the signification of the apparel but also in this of the cros and that after of the ring For by the same reason that he misliketh al such signification in the one he must needes mislike yt in the other I answer the supposed reason of M. Martyr directly For â—eing yt buildeth the wearing of a white surplice vpon that the Ministers are called angels yt must folow that the same cause that moueth the scripture to bring in the Angels clad in white must be the lesson that the Ministers haue to learn of their white apparel which whether yt be purenes or glory or boeth yt being a true representation in them is as I said a lying sign in the Ministers which are miserable and sinful men Herein also to that which I obiected that by the same reason the Ministers should vuear vuinges because the Angels are so described he can answer nothing whereunto ad that hereof there is yet more cause For the white apparel which the Angels wore was no signification of their office but of their pure and glorious nature wherein they were created and wherein they stil remain whereas the winges shadow forth their office which is that they are swift messengers of god in al thinges whereunto they are sent Therefore seing this reason wil haue the coÌ„formity betwene the heaueÌ„ly spirites and Ministers of the gospel to stand in respect of their office their winges being a picture of their office and not the whitenes of apparel yt foloweth that the conformity should be rather in the winges then in the whitenes of apparel To that which I alledged against them which make yt a ciuil matter that by this signification yt is made ecclesiastical he opposeth that a graue apparel putteth vs in minde of grauity Yâ— doeth so and that is no ciuil nor yet ecclesiastical but a diuine order that by how much a man hath obteyned at the hand of god such an estate or dignity as requireth such apparel by so much he is bound in the whole cours of hys lyfe by modesty and grauity to shew hym self thankful whereof euen his table better furnished then other mens owght likewise to put hym in remembrance And these thinges haue a perpetual conuenience which can not be changed As for the seueral habites of degrees
of the Apostle For seing boeth that which immediatly goeth before this and which foloweth immediately after be publik offices what extreme bouldnes would it be to say that this in the middest is but priuate If he doe giue him self this licence let him shew example of such an order Further the Apostle here maketh a partition as it is manifest by the wordes and articles which are instrumentes to part with Now if he wil haue one membre in this partition bigger then al the rest and to conteyn them al he maketh the holy gost which is to be detested an euil and an vneuen parter Herevpon it cometh that when he speaketh of the dutyes which belong to al alike he beginneth with another form of speach Last of al yt is not to be omitted that he vseth the word of Distributor rather then the word giuer For althowgh it be taken sometyme for the giuer yet that is but by a trope for somuch as the same is often the distributor which is the giuer so that the proper signification being to dispose that which was giuen of others agreeth vnto the Deacon and not vnto one which giueth of his own His exceptions of Prophesy and widowes office be answered In the next being cōuicted of his vntruth he falleth to iesting albeyt it be manifest that the Adm. towcheth not onely thinges in controuersy but sometyme also the breach of that which is established To proue that the Deacon owght not to meddle with the administration of the word and Sacramentes I alledged first that the Apostle vuilling euery one to kepe him self in his boundes boundeth the Deacons office in distributing of the church treasur and by that separateth him from those vuhich haue the dispensation of the vuord vuhereas if he should preach the vuord as the other the Apostle should haue made an euil partition and pretended a separation vuhere none is His answer hereunto is that it is no reason but why it is not he kepeth to him self The second reason was that for so much as the Apostles hauing such passing giftes did finde them selues vnable to susteyn boeth the ministeries of the vuord and for the poor that therfore there can be much les novu any able to doe them boeth togither His first exception whereunto is friuolous and before confuted his other that they spent no great tyme in prouision for their sermons is vntrue and openeth a gap to Anabaptism For althowgh their giftes were greater in those tymes then now yet they omitted not therefore to study diligently which may appear in that S. Paul is so careful to haue his parchmentes browght in that S. Peter had red S. Paules epistles so diligently Likewise that the Prophetes in tymes past which had extraordinary giftes vsed great diligence in reading as it may appear in Daniel which notwithstanding he was so wise so expert in the tonges and had so oft and so wonderful reuelations yet studied the prophesy of Ieremy And in a word of them al S. Peter pronoūceth that they took great paines in their prophesies vsing wordes most strong to set forth their great labor in prouiding fo◠that they tawght Nether was this of pleasure and a thing which they might ether doe or leau vndoen but a commandement as it is to be seen in the exāple of Timothy which had giftes so much the more excellent then the Deacons as his office of Euangelistship was higher then the Deaconship For he is biddē to read to meditate and to preach ioyning one with another and that not sleightly but with attention yea that he should dvuel in them or be as it were shut vp and enclosed in them thereby noting the great diligence that was to be bestowed as wel in reading and studying as in preachīg And thus went the building of god singulerly forward whē vnto the giftes which came withowt their labor miraculously they labored also after ether encreas of them or getting of nue by the ordinary meanes prouided of god in that behalf Again S. Paul reckoning vp al the ministers of the word the Deacon not being there it foloweth that he is no mininister of the word And here the D. is plainly found at strife with him self For he confessing that there is in that place a complet and perfect diuision of the ministeries of the word and withal that the Deacon is not there conteyned doeth notwithstāding here sing a clean contrary song Moreouer it is diligently to be obserued that S. Paul in describing this office requireth not that they should be able or apt to teach which notwithstanding being by the An. iudgment the cheif point belonging vnto him should haue bene most absurdly left owt Lastly if the Deacons office had bene togither with the Stewardship of the church treasure to haue preached and administred the sacramenres yt must folow that his office must haue bene a greater office then the Pastors as that which requireth greater giftes for executing boeth that which the pastor doeth and more to which being absurd that is also whereof this foloweth That monster which remaineth in this diuision I wil set vpon whē I shal haue run throwgh that which pertayneth vnto this matter as it lieth in the 14 Tract As I did not before deny so now I cōfes him to haue bene Phillip the Euangelist and not Phillip the Apostle which is mentioned Actes the 8 and hould as before that he preached by vertue of his Euangelistship and not by vertue of his Deaconship vuhich vuas then ceased for that the church vuhereunto he serued vuas scattered Against which answer his autority owt of the Actes 21 to proue that he was stil Deacon is quite contrary to him self For it affirmeth of the tyme past that he was before Paules arriual vnto Caesarea Deacō not that he was so when he arriued For then the interpreters would haue turned the participle which serueth boeth for the tyme past and present according to the circumstance of the place which is one of the seuen and not vuhich vuas So that here we haue the common consent of al interpreters flatly against the D. namely that Phillip was not then Deacon when S. Paul came to Cesarea but had bene before That of M. Gualter maketh also against hym which placeth the Deacons office in the disposing of the church treasure and that they preached not but in tymes of necessity So that where M. Gualter permitteth preaching no more vnto Deacons then yow doe baptim vnto wemen yow wil haue it their standing office The difference betwene a Priest and a Deacon browght owt of Augustin and Epiphanius can by no meanes stand considering that that imposition of handes whereby giftes were extraordinarily giuen which Phillip absteyned from he did not absteyn from onely as Deacon but also as he was Euāgelist seing that was a thing peculier vnto the Apostles and a proper note whereby the lord magnified their ministerie
aboue al other ministeries whatsoeuer So that it is no good reason to say that Phillip could not by laying on of his handes giue the holy gost therfore he was a Deacon considering that nether Euangelistes nor Prophetes them selues meddled with that kinde of laying on of handes which is there mentioned And if Phillip were then Deacon he was Deacon of the church of Ierusalem whereunto he was chosen But it ys manifest he was not Deacon there considering that S. Luke after his departure from thence and preaching in Samaria and certein other places bringeth hym to Caesarea where he leaueth hym as a houshoulder and towndweller so that vnles he dare say of Phillip that he was a continual non resident yt can not be that he was Deacon after his departure from Ierusalem But let vs graunt that Phillip was boeth a Deacon and Euangelist which is notwithstanding absurd seing that the Apostles confessed them selues insufficient to susteyn that burden togither with their preaching ministery I say let vs graunt that yet forasmuch as he can not deny but that yt belongeth vnto the office of an Euangelist to preach how is he able to proue that Phillip preached rather by vertue of his Deaconship thē of his Euangelistship So that onles he be so bould as to deny that Phillip was there no Euangelist he gaineth nothing by al this travail For otherwise it foloweth that Phillipes example wil not warrant the Deacons preaching except he haue some other ministery of the word ioyned with yt Therefore let not him any more pretend the autority of the godly writers but confes as the truth is that this argument was ministred hym owt of Pigghius who vpon this example of Phillip affirmeth as he doeth that the Deacons may preach euen as the Priestes doe As for Augustin he goeth abowt althowgh not so aptly as I haue declared rather to shew that the Deacons might not lay on their hādes then that yt belonged vnto them to preach which may appear in that he doeth not permit them to conceiue the prayers wherunto the people should answer which notwithstanding is les then to preach I shewed that by the same reason they are houlden from the administration of the supper they ovught also to be barred from that of baptim considering that it is not onely a miserable rending in sonder of thinges vuhich god hath ioyned but also giueth occasion or rather being crept in maynteyneth a daungerous error vuhich is that men esteme some holier thing to be in the sacrament of the holy supper then in baptim To this he answereth that the reason of this difference is because yt is mentioned that Phillip baptized and not that he administred the supper where by the way let the reader obserue that vpon two particuler examples which he also vntruly pretendeth he would ground a doctrine that the Deacons owght to preach althowgh he be able to shew no rule nor commandement for yt which notwithstanding he vtterly cōdemneth in vs althowgh yt be shewed to haue bene doen generally Secondly how he reasoneth negatiuely of autority that it was not doen because yt ys not so written yea which is more that yt owght not to be doen another thing also which he reprocheth vs with Now as for his answer yt is to friuolous For althowgh yt be a good reason in the direction of the church to say there is nothing wtitten towching yt therfore it is not to be admitted yet in the practise of that which is prescribed to be doen it is an euil argument to say it is not written therfore yt was not doen much more that yt may not be doen. For when our Sau. Christes actes were not al written is yt any marueil althowgh al that Phillip did be not written And by his reason the Bishops owght not to administer the supper considering that in al the scripture it is not mentioned that a Bishop ministred yt Nether if Phillip did not minister the supper foloweth yt therfore that he had not autority to administer yt aswel as baptim except he think that our Sa. Christ had not autority aswel to administer baptim which he did not as to administer the supper which he did To that wherein I noted the disorder in our church permitting to one that can not preach the administration of the supper and not to the Deacon as they cal hym which can preach he answereth that the one is called thereto the other is not where he must needes mean that the one is lawfully called thereto and the other lawfully shut therefro which is an asking of that in question My reply to his obiection of Steuens oration that yt vuas no sermon but a defence of hym self against his accusations is clear For yt appeareth that the high Priest and Scribes c. were there set in iudgment the fals witnesses were set vp against hym he was demaunded whether the accusation were true and vpon that demaund began his oration now let hym shew such a form of preaching to haue bene vsed in any church Yt is also vnlike that the high Priest and Scribes would permit hym to preach when as they had forbiddē the Apostles before but to giue hym leau to answer to his accusatiōs was needful for thē therby to mayntein that visard of holines whereby they pretended an exact obseruation of the law which was that no man should be cōdemned vnheard And so if he wil haue this a sermō he shal yet gain nothing considering that he had not this power by his ministery of Deaconship but by commaundement of the Councel that had power to require an account of that which he had propounded in disputation with those of the Colledg of Liber tynes c. His proof that it was in the Synagog is first withowt al warrāt there being not a word thereof in the scripture And yet being made in Ierusalem if it had bene a sermon it is liker to haue bene in the temple Nether if yt were in the Synagog hath yt any force to proue a sermon onles he think that euery one which pleaded his cause in Paules Consistory in Queen Maries tyme made a sermon That he also reprehended them sharply is no other thing thē diuers of the Martyrs of god haue doen with vs which I think he wil not say to haue preached by vertue of any ecclesiastical function althowgh I confes that that is not to be lightly doen and withowt some especial directiō whereof the lord in such tymes doeth furnish his otherwise those that are priuate men owght to content them selues with a simple and playn defence of the truth Nether is Paules answer vnto Tertullus accusation Act. 24 any sermō but a simple defence addressed onely to Felix as to his Iudg vttered at the bar as they speak in a ciuil Court and in a ciuil or common wealth cause namely of sedition and hath les of the nature of a sermon then Steuens oration
a man by the hand there he may leap ouer a wal but where to let vs haue experience of our own weaknes he reacheth not his hand there a little stone in the way is not withowt danger But admit saith he they haue a religion yet because their error is as great which think the sacramentes polluted by this apparel yt is conuenient yt should be vsed and their errors confuted This conuenience did S. Paul neuer know yf he had he would vndowtedly haue tawght yt when the like question in meates as this is in apparel was moued in the church For so he had had an easy way to haue compounded betwene the Iues and Gentiles yf he could haue tawght the Corinthes which were so loth to be abbridged of their liberty that they might vse yt before the weak brother so that thei gaue hym instructiō of the indifferēcy of yt whereas the Apostle plainly forbiddeth to eat before him as lōg as he remaineth in that weaknes what other thing is this therefore then to set the Apostle to schole The 2 section of the next diuision is answered so are the two other likewise the three next the next vnto them belongeth onely vnto the readers iudgment The first section hath nothing but wordes His second that Saul knew not Samuel to be a Prophet for want of a mark in his apparel but forsomuche as he was a rudesby in the common wealth as Master Martyr saith is to very little or no purpose For he saith not that Saul knw not what maner of apparel the Prophetes wore but onely that he knw not Samuels particular person Now they may wel stand boeth togither that Saul knw the Seers particular apparel if any were and yet not know Samuels own person where he would get this owt of the which is description of Samuel by a mantel he may as wel say that yt was a proper mark to the Ministers of the word to be ould seing the one as wel as the other is giuen as a mark to set forth Samuel by howsoeuer he boeth absurdly and withowt any assistance of reason doeth deny this For I would know of hym why she nameth hym an ould man yf yt were not for this cause that he might the easelier acknowledg hym for Samuel and how could a mantel be a sufficient note of discretion of Samuel from other Prophetes which were dead whē as hym self saith that al the Prophetes wore the same kinde of weed Last of al seing Samuel was as he alledgeth a Prophet a Magistrate and a Captayn of the host yf he had had a peculier kinde of garment why might yt not as wel be the proper garment of the Prince or Captayn as of the Minister Towching the proper apparel of those Prophetes which were extraordinarily raysed vp whereof he maketh such large discours it was confessed and the reason beaten vpon his own head where yt cleaueth stil For yt was alledged that they vuere notes of their extraordinary calling and therefore vnmeet for vs vuhose calling ovught to be ordinary whereunto he answereth not And if he wil haue the Bishops now cōformed vnto the prophetes in their apparel they must were commō cours homely and vile cloth For so M. Caluin frō whome he pretēdeth his help describeth yt But where is Luther now become which saith that the dstiinction of the apparel amongest the Ministers vnder the gospel is not conuenient before he could take Luther and leau M. Caluin here in the same Prophet the same chapter and almoste the same vers he hath cast of Luther and layd hould of M. Caluin which notwithstanding maketh nothing for hym For the doctrine which he gathereth that the Ministers apparel should be graue and sparing withowt rufling in their silkes and veluetes is that which we desire and hym self with others whome he defendeth faut in Nether is his other place owt of M. Caluin any thing to the purpose for the Anabaptistes condemn the vse of armour which is not onely not forbidden but also in some case commanded of god Nether doe we disalow any of this apparel simply as vnlawful but as inconuenient and that not altogither but to that vse whereūto yt is especially in these tymes and with these circumstances applied His plaster for al sores of a negatiue argument vnto our reason that the scripture maketh no mention of any distinction of apparel for the Minister of the gospel as in other places so here especially yt healeth not For there is not the least thing incident vnto a Minister as he is a Minister but yt is comprehended in the word of god els let hym giue an instāce or one onely exāple whereof also this may be a good witnes that S. Iohns apparel which was seueral is set forth so diligently euē vnto the very girdle And seing the Apostle entred into mētion of the Ministers apparel whē he willeth yt should be honest yf he had thowght yt needful that he should haue had a mark in yt to be knowen by how easely could he haue noted yt which was instructed by the holy gost of al thinges profitable to aduance the ministery of the gospel How vain a thing then ys yt that the D. would bear vs in hand that yt is so profitable and so conuenient for their ministery Vuhat also that the Apostle where need is and comelynes doeth require contenteth not hym self to command in general that the apparel should be honest but descendeth also to the very form of the apparel as when he commandeth that vuemen should haue a long garment comming dovun to their foot Vuhen therefore the Apostle appointing this long garment for wemen did leau yt free vnto Ministers which fashion of long garment of al other seemeth to be moste fittest for a Minister and seemliest in al places what can we think but that he would haue the Minister free in this behalf Vuhere he taketh for graunted by me that some of the Apostles vsed a seueral apparel he is to light handed in taking that which I neuer gaue For when as in speaking of the Prophetes Apostles and our Sauiour Christ I confes that some of them had a peculiar garment yt is manifest vpon my discours that I meant the Prophetes onely which were extraordinarily raysed And so far I wil graunt his conclusion otherwise yf some onely of the Apostles had a special garment how could that be a mark of his ministery when the rest of the Apostles which were fellowes in the same ministery had not And therefore I meruail how yow dare pres S. Iohns thin plate vpon his head seing that Eusebius noteth that of hym as a singuler attire from other the Apostles whereas if yt had bene a mark of the ministery of his Apostleship other Apostles should haue had the like Yf yt had bene a mark of his Archbishoprik whereunto from the