Plain Declaration that Brownists be Full Donatists, Title page – To the reader
A Plaine Declaration that our Browniſts be full Donatiſts, by comparing them together from point to point out of the writings of Auguſtine. Alſo a replie to Master Greenwood touching read prayer, wherein his groſſe ignorance is detected, which labouring to purge himſelfe from former abſurdities, doth plunge himſelfe deeper into the mire. By George Gyffard Minister of Gods word in Maldon.
BY PEACE PLENTY BY WISDOME PEACE
TO
AT LONDON, Printed for Toby Cooke, dwelling at the Tygers head in Paules Churchyard. 1590.
TO THE RIGHT HOnorable, Sir William Cecill, Knight of the Garter, Baron of Burghley, Lord high Treaſurer of England, and Chauncellor of the Vniuerſitie of Cambridge: Grace and peace.
I Publiſhed a Booke (Right Honourable) against the Browniſts, who complaine of hard dealing, and not onlie they, but others, in that I hauehave termed them Donatiſts, and charge them with ſundrie foule matters. And hauing now receiued from them an anſwer vntounto one part of that my booke; I hauehave alſo framed this replie: In which I firſt ſet downe from point to point out of the writings of the holie Father Auguſtine, with what Scriptures and arguments it was defended, and ſo compare our mens writings and doings with the ſame. They muſt for this, chuſe either to affirme, that the Donatiſts had the truth, and the churches were periſhed: or elſe ſhewe ſome materiall points of Donatiſme, which they doo not hold. And then in the latter part of this my booke, I anſwer to that which is publiſhed now by them againſt read prayer. As I was bold to preſent the former vntounto your Honor, ſo do I alſo humblie offer this, preſuming vponupon your Honors fauourable acceptation. And thus I beſeech the Lord God to bleſſe and proſper your Honor.
Amen.
To the Reader.
GOod Chriſtian reader, I publiſhed a booke againſt the Brownists, whom I hauehave in the ſame termed the Donatiſts of England. How farre of I was from purpoſing anie ſuch thing at the firſt, and how I was drawne into it afterward, I hauehave in that former booke truly reported. And for warrant of my doing before the Lord, I had no doubt but that it ſhould bee an acceptable ſeruice to Chriſt: notwithſtanding when I reſpect the waightines and neceſsitie of the worke, I hauehave alwaies wiſhed, and do wiſh, that ſome man of greater learning might deale againſt thē. Neither as yet am I caſt into any thoughts of doubting, by the miſlike, or fault finding of ſome in all places, which are no Brownists: But I am rather thruſt forward by beholding that weakenes of iudgement and want of vnderſtanding not in a feaw, touching the foulnes of Donatiſme, and by the ſight of ſuch nerenes of multitudes vntounto the danger, which before I coulde not ſuſpect. Now touching the faultes which are found, which cauſeth the miſlike, they are partelie for the matter it ſelfe, and partlie for the manner of dealing both in it, as alſo towards the perſons themſelues againſt whome I write. In the matter ſome hauehave found fault as though I ſhould ſtand to cleere & to iuſtifie al things, not onlie in the Booke of Common praier, but alſo in the calling and ordination of our Miniſters, and in our Church gouernement, others affirme that I hauehave diminiſhed the faults which are eſteemed to be in theſe, and made them lighter, at the leaſt by not reproouing them. The firſt ſort I cannot but meruaile at, ſeeing I hauehave in that my former booke ſet downe expreſſie in theſe words, that the matter in queſtion betweene the Browniſts and me, is not about the controuerſie in our Church, as whether there be imperfections, corruptions and faults, in our Worſhip, Miniſterie and Church gouernement, nor how many great or ſmal: but whether there be ſuch heinous enormities as deſtroy the verie life, and being of a true Church, and make an vtter diuorſe from Chriſt. I doo then lay open the ſtate of this queſtion ſo plainelie, as I know not how to make it more plaine: now vnles I ſhould run through euerie particular which wee deale in, which I thought to be needleſſe, but now I will a little ſtand vponupon it. They reckon Romiſh faſts, Ember dayes, Saincts eues and Lent: Idoll feaſts, as Alhallowes, Candlemas, ſeuerall Ladie daies, Saincts daies, dedicating Churches vntounto Saints. Comminations, Rogations, and Purifications, Tithes, Offerings, Mortuaries, howſling the ſick, with the Sacrament, abſolution, and blaſphemous dirges, and funerall Sermons, ouer and for the dead. Corrupt manner of adminiſtring the Sacraments, the Font, the croſſe in Baptiſme, Baptiſme by women, goſsippings, blaſphemous and hereticall collects. Theſe and certaine other hauehave they ſet downe, to bee in the Booke not vnderunder the termes of faults, blemiſhes and corruptions, but as hereſies, blaſphemies, and abominations, and that ſuch as ouerturne the foundation of the Chriſtian faith, deſtroy the ſubſtance of Gods worſhip, and take away the life, and beeing of a true Church. To this I hauehave anſwered, that they be foule ſlaunderours liars, & falſe accuſers, ſhewing that our Church hath renounced in thoſe former things that which is blaſphemous and hereticall, or ſo abominable, as that it approacheth neereſt to the deſtroying of the faith and holy worſhip of the Lord. As namelie the remiſsion of ſinnes, and merite of eternall life by faſting, which is the doctrine of the Romiſh church. The worſhip and inuocation of Saints and Angels, the power of expelling Diuels by the ſigne of the croſſe, and ſuch like things which the papacie is full of, but reiected by vsus. If the Browniſts in their replie againſt that I hauehave written, ſhall prooue by the word of God, that there be great corruptiōs in our praiers, in our faſts, in our keeping the Saints dayes, in the Croſſe, and in manie other things which bee in our Church, as in our Miniſterie and Church gouernemēt. And further if their proofes be neuer ſo clere & ſtrong from the Scriptures, yet they anſwere not me at al, nor touch the queſtion or controuerſie between them and me, vnles they can prooue them to be ſuch faults as deſtroy the worſhip of God, ouerturne the foundation of the faith, and take away the verie life and being of true Chriſtianitie. If (I ſay) they do not prooue them, according as they hauehave ſet thē downe, to bee blaſphemies, hereſies, abominations, yea the verie worſhip and yoake of Antichriſt, the marke of the beaſt, and his power: I remaine vnanſwered, and they ſtand conuicted as liars, ſlanderers and moſt wicked falſe accuſers not of particular perſons, but of whole Churches. For I ſhewed in expreſſe wordes that I doo not meddle at all in theſe queſtions, whether there bee corruptions and faults in our Church condemned by Gods word, whether they bee manie or fewe, whether they bee ſmall or great, but onelie thus farre whether they bee ſuch or ſo great, as make our Churches Antichriſtian. Here therefore I doo intreate the Chriſtian Reader to fixe his eyes in reading my writings and theirs, onelie vppon this one queſtion, whether there be in our Church any errors or faults that be found amentall? Looke if I hauehave in this point by denying that there bee ſwarued from the ſacred word of God, from the iudgement of the holie Churches, and writings of the moſt worthy & noble inſtruments which God hath at all times giuen to be the guides and lights in the ſame. And if it can be prooued, that I hauehave gone awrie from the trueth but an heire breadth, I will reuoke it: for trueth is to bee bowed vntounto and reuerenced, whereſoeuer ſhee ſheweth her ſweete face, of all that looke to hauehave any part in her. Marke alſo their writings as they ſhall come foorth, and ſee wherein they can conuince me of any error, falſehood or corruption, touching this one forenamed queſtion, vntounto which they are to be held ſeeing we ſet all other controuerſies aſide.
Then touching the ſecond ſorte, which finde fault about handling the matter, as if that I ſhould mitigate or make lighter the faults of our Churches, at leaſt in this, that I do not reprehend them. To this I anſwer, firſt, that vnles it can bee ſhewed, that our Church is guilty in ſome of thoſe crimes which I ſtand to clere it in, I ſee no reaſon why I ſhoulde bee charged to make things lighter, which I medle not withall, further than in ſhewing that they be not fundamentall. Secondlie, I intreate al men to conſider that I ſtand to defend a Church, and not the infirmities or offences of a Church, in which as there be many bad mēbers, ſo the beſt are traile. If a godlie man becauſe of ſome apparant ſinnes, ſhould be accuſed to be an Atheiſt, an infidell, a traitor, or a moſt vile and filthie wretch: might not he clere himſelfe of ſuch horrible crimes, but it muſt be ſaide, he dooth mittigate his owne infirmities or make them lighter? Thirdlie, I doo requeſt them to conſider the ſtate of our people, how ſpeedelie verie manie are carried into great euils and dangers, though not all in the ſame degree. I am of this minde, that where any thing is amiſſe in Gods Church, it is the part and duetie of the faithfull Miniſters of Chriſt, all dutifull reuerence and ſubmiſsion being obſerued towards Magiſtrates & publique authoritie, peaciblie to ſeeke redreſſe of the ſame, with godlie and charitable reprehenſion. I doo alſo holde that eueryevery chriſtian man is wiſelie and ſoberly (with the like deuties of reuerence, ſubmiſsion, and peaceable behauiour obſerued) to ſeeke to hauehave his conſcience informed in all matters, which may any way concerne himſelfe. But we ſee how farre ſome hauehave ſwarued and doo ſwarue from this. For the rule of charitie and chriſtian dueties being neglected, the vttet diſgrace and contempt of men is ſought, and that on either part. The warre is made as deadlie, as if the grounds of chriſtianitie were in queſtion: while ſome paſsing the bounds of modeſtie, others doo replie againſt them after the ſame manner. Our Sauiour ſaith Satan dooth not caſt foorth Satan: and ſhall we thinke then that ſinne, ſhall caſt foorth ſinne? Such as condemne and abhorre Schiſme and errors, and inordinate dealing, muſt bee burthened and reproached with the ſame notwithſtanding, which is iniurious. And what is in the mouthes of many againſt this, but that the Papiſts then may as well be excuſed, which condemne Maſter Luther and other as the fathers of heretiks, becauſe ſwarmes of Anabaptiſts did followe immediatelie vponupon their preaching the Goſpel? When ſhall we then here come to an end? There wil bee contention in the Church: and humaine frailtie hath ſhewed it ſelfe this way, euen among the holie teachers of old, to the ſharp reprehenſion, and in manner reproaching one of another, as Maſter Beza noteth in the Epiſtle of his Booke againſt Erastus: but godlie men when they hauehave ſomewhat gone awrie, ſeek to amend their fault, by ſubduing their paſsions. Now looke alſo vponupon the people, where wee may ſee verie many; who not regarding the chiefe chriſtian vertues & godlie dueties, as namelie to be meek, to be patient, to be lowlie, to be full of louelove and merciemercy, to deale vprightlie and iuſtly, to guide their families in the feare of God, with wholſome inſtructions, and to ſtand faſt in the calling, in which God hath ſet them) giuegive thēſelues wholy to this, euen as if it were the ſumme and pith of religion, namelie to argue and talke continuallie againſt matters in the Church, againſt Biſhops and Miniſters, and one againſt another on both ſides. Some are proceeded to this, that they will come to the aſſemblies to heare the Sermons and praiers of the Preacher, but not to the praiers of the booke, which I take to be a more grieuous ſinne than manie doo ſuppoſe. But yet this is not the worſt, for ſundrie are gone further, and fallen into a damuable Schiſme: and the ſame ſo much the more feareful & dangerous, in that manie do not ſee the foulenes of it, but rather holde them as godlie Chriſtians, and but a little ouerſhot in ſome matters. The ſore is grieuous, and the wound is deepe; as I hauehave ſmall ioy to behold it, ſo hauehave I leſſe deſire to make it deeper, wiſhing from my heart, that it might rather be cured. Such as bee of another minde, either in this, or in any thing that I hauehave writtē, I craue of them, that they wil giuegive me leaue, according to the doctrine and rule of the Apoſtle, fraterne diſſentire, to diſſent in ſome thing, without the breach and hindrance of brotherly louelove. For as I do greatlie eſteeme that rule of S. Paul, let as manie as be perfect be thus minded: if any be otherwiſe minded, God will reueale it. But ſo farre as we are come, let vsus proceed by one rule, to be like affectioned Phil. 3. ſo do I much lament to ſee it almoſt vtterly neglected, and the breach of louelove & concord as violent among many, for eueryevery matter wherein they diſſent, as if ſome ground of chriſtianity were in queſtion between them. I do not meane that a man ought to conſent vntounto any error, or vntounto any euill committed by others, or to neglect the inſtructing and admoniſhing, as his place and calling dooth require. But I had rather (as one ſaith) anſwer to God, if I muſt giuegive account, for merciemercy, rather than for rigour and ſeueritie. I knowe there be faults in extremities on both ſides: as on the one ſide vnderunder a perſwaſion of louelove, a man may be ouer fauorable in eſteeming and bearing as brethren, ſuch as hold the foundations of the faith, and yet erre in ſome things, and hauehave great faultes: ſo on the other ſide, vnderunder a perſwaſion of zeale againſt all falſehood and wickednes, they may fall into an vncharitable rigour, as very many doo. The nature of man is more prone to this latter, and the fall is more grieuous than in that former; few are carried with aboundance of godly louelove, to offend in ouer fauorable iudging their brethren: and becauſe the elect of God hauehave great infirmities, & the Scripture doth not warrant men to be rigorous in condemning, if a man holding the hatred & zeale againſt all ſin, iudge & repute them as chriſtian brethren, which it may be are not, his fall is not great, although he be ouer fauorable; for through humility he is below. Wheras on the other part, ſuch as condemne with vncharitable rigor, they are lifted vp with ſwelling, and ſo their fall is deeper. This is my meaning in that I ſaide, I had rather anſwer to God for mercy than for rigour: now as I eſchew it in my ſelf, ſo would I be loath, ſeeing rigor aboundeth among many, to giuegive any occaſion to nouriſh the ſame by my writing. If I ſin in this, yet I truſt it is ſo, as no godly charitable man & wel aduiſed wil make an outcry againſt me for it; if I ſhake hāds with ſin let me be condēned for it, otherwiſe I craue that I may follow the rule of the Apoſtle. But now it wil be ſaid by the third ſort which finde fault with my book that I hauehave broken this rule towards the Browniſts: as alſo that rule of S. Paul, who willeth to inſtruct with patience ſuch as be contrary minded, becauſe I charg them not only with foule Schiſme, but alſo with hereſies, and for which I take it that obſtinacie if it be found in thē, wil make them heretickes. They differ not frō vsus, ſay ſome, in matters of faith, but doo ouer ſhoot thēſelues, & that on the right hand: for anſwer vntounto theſe, firſt touching the rules of Paul, I know he himſelf did practize thē. And he that gaue theſe rules, ſo far as wee are come let vsus proceed by one rule, &c. and inſtructing with patience &c. ſaid alſo beware of dogs, beware of euill workmen, beware of the conciſion. Philip. 3.
Why did. S. Paule this, but mooued with the danger which the Churches were in by them? Men hauehave not now the conſideration what it is to condemne the whole worſhip & the Miniſtrie as Antichriſtian, and ſo vtterlie to take away the credite and power of the Miniſtrie and preaching Gods word. Will they eſteeme it to bee leſſe than that which the falſe Apoſtles did? Againe, I ſee men are ignorant what the power of Donatiſme was, how it preuailed and ſpread not onelie among the common ſort, but had hundreths of preachers to publiſh and ſet it foorth. Neither doo men knowe the foulenes of Donatiſme, nor the poynts of it, and that maketh them offended, that I terme the Browniſts Donatiſts, & hold it as a ſchiſme and hereſie. Creſconius the Donatiſt writing againſt Auguſtine, doth reprehend him for calling them hereticks; becauſe they held the ſame doctrine, as hee ſaith, and if they offended, it could bee but as in a ſchiſme. Augustine replieth, that Schiſma inueteratum eſt haereſis, Inueterate ſchiſme is hereſie. And ſheweth that ſome thinges they helde were hereticall. The Churches hauehave condemned it not only as a ſchiſme, but alſo as an hereſie. I hauehave out of large diſcourſes of the controuerſies betweene▪ the Churches and the Donatiſts, drawen foorth brieflie all the chiefe heads of Donatiſme, and how they did ſtand to maintaine them, and with what ſcriptures. I compare the Browniſts and them together in all poynts generallie held, and will ſtand to iuſtifie that they bee full Donatiſts, euen in the rankeſt Donatiſme. If I hauehave not ſet down the Donatiſme aright, and if the Browniſme be not the ſame, let me hauehave the ſhame for euer, that I hauehave giuē them the title, and can not iuſtifie that they are worthie of it. Let the Browniſts chuſe which part they will, either to affirme that the Donatiſts had the truth, or elſe to cleere thēſelues frō Donatiſme, I will ioyne with them, or rather againſt them in either. And in the meane time I do exhort al other to be ſober minded and diſcreet, and not to thruſt the ſimpler ſort headlong into it, by exclaiming that they bee ouer hardlie dealt withall. For what ſay ſome? If theſe that are called Browniſts bee godly men, and but ouerſeene in ſome matters, we will chuſe to ioyne with thē, rather thā with the publike aſſemblies of our Church. Theſe men are they in compaſsion of whō I write. Now, the chiefe heads in which I compare them are theſe: The Donatiſts did falſelie accuſe and condemne the Churches and al the Miniſters to be vtterlie polluted, and al their worſhip, and ſeparated themſelues without all order of diſcipline: So hauehave the Browniſts done. The Donatiſts tooke beginning by occaſion of one man, whom they held to be no Miniſter of Chriſt, but after they made their defence that all were polluted, and all the Miniſters the generatiōs of Traitors, Iudaſſes, and perſecutors of the iuſt: that the Churches in the beginning after the times of perſecution were not well ordered by ſeparation of the faithfull from the wicked. For becauſe there were many both Miniſters and people which in time of perſecution to ſaue their liues had denied the faith & ſacrificed to Idols, and deliuered the holie Scriptures to the perſecutors: and when Conſtantine gaue peace, being become Chriſtian, returned and were not caſt foorth. Hereupon the Donatiſts ſaid all were vtterlie polluted: & that becauſe ſome ſuch did ordaine Miniſters, at leaſt as they reported, they accuſed all the Miniſters to bee the ſons of traitors which ordained them, and ſo were no miniſters of Chriſt, had no true praier, nor Sacraments. The Browniſts affirme that all our aſſemblies which openlie committed Idolatrie, were at the ſound of a Trumpet, at the coronation of the Queene called to be Churches: that the bad were not ſeparated frō the good: that our ordainers were Idolaters, & that we are their children; no Miniſters of Chriſt, but Baals prieſts & perſecutors: & ſo hauehave no word of God, nor no Sacraments, nor true church, all being polluted with the open ſinnes committed. Thus both make the holie things of the Lord, which indeed are vnchangeable, or els we could hauehave no cō fort: as namely, the word of God, the praiers, the Sacraments, & the ordination of Miniſters, to be polluted & deſtroied by the wickednes of men. The Donatists held that Princes were not to compell vntounto religion, & ſo cried out of perſecution, & gloried of their ſufferings & multitude of martyres. And what do the Browniſts? Theſe things with the reſt will better appeare in the ſeuerall compariſons, as they followe in my booke. I now intreate the reader not to iudge of any one thing vntill he hauehave read the whole. I alſo deſire that the ſayings of the ancient writers which I alleage may be wel waied, for proofe of that for which I cite them. If any ſhall ſay, what ſhall we ground vppon men? I anſwer, I alleage them but to ſhew what the controuerſie was & how it was diſputed on both ſides: & for this they are ſufficient witneſſes. Beleeue their reaſons as ye find they be confirmed by the holie Scriptures: I hauehave ſet downe the Latin, leaſt any ſhould thinke I hauehave not dealt plainlie. And touching the laſt part of this my booke which is an anſwer to Maſter Greenwood, concerning read prayer, peruſe it throughlie and then iudge whether I hauehave charged him wrongfullie in any matter. I do lament that many of our people which hauehave been hearers of the Goſpell, ſhould be ſo ignorant, as to ſuck in ſuch dregs as he offereth. Now to conclude, there are two things which deceiue many, which I deſire thē to conſider: one is that they are caried away with many true and notable ſentences of Scripture & worthie principles which the Browniſts ſet down, not conſidering or not eſpying how they from them doo draw out falſe aſſumptions, and thereupon cōclude that which is vntrue. The other is that they looke not vpō that which followeth vppon their wordes by conſequence, but ſtand vponupon this, O they hold no ſuch thing, they hauehave wrong. Maſter Greenwood crieth out that he doth not condēneal Churches, he denieth not that the pſalmes are to be ſung to God, he ſaith not that the regenerate do not ſin, he hath no ſuch meaning, he hath wrong. But mark if I hauehave done him any wrong at all: looke vponupon his ſayings, and vponupon that which muſt needes followe vponupon them. The other Browniſts crie out of the like wrōgs. Iudge not vntil both ye heare wherein they hauehave wrong, and ſee mine anſwer. If I hauehave charged them with matter which either their words doo not expreſſe, or that followeth not from them by neceſſarie conſequence, let me then bee iudged raſh and vncharitable.
FINIS.