Short Reply to the Donatists, Text (3 of 3)
Then come the fourth ſort which expound theſe words (tell the church) wrong. And thoſe are they which ſay tel the church, is tell the congregation of people without the Elders. Here you ſhew ſome ſkill alſo to confute: which is but to fight with your owne ſhadow, for this fourth ſort (I thinke) hauehave neuer been heard of, but among your ſelues. And in déede your heauenly patterne (whatſoeuer ye ſpeake of paſtors, teachers, and Elders) is nothing elſe but an heape of people, without any of theſe officers. For was it euer heard of among men, that there bee offices, in which there is no power or authority at all annexed vntounto the officers which execute them, not euen in the things wherein their offices conſiſt, aboue thoſe which hauehave not the ſame offices? For if it be true which you ſay, that the greateſt miniſter hath no more power to bind or looſe the ſinnes of the leaſt member, then the ſaid member hath to bind or looſe his. Or if Chriſt ſpeake to all, euen to the wemen, Iohn 20. whoſe ſinnes ye forgiue, they are forgiuen, &c. If the word hauehave no more efficacie to worke faith deliuered by the miniſtrie, or the Sacrament to ſeale the promiſes hauehave no more power deliuered by a miniſter, then when the ſame word is vttered, and thoſe Sacraments deliuered by any man or by any woman, or if eueryevery young man, yea eueryevery maide (which is of the aſſembly) hauehave equall power with any to excommunicate, we would ſee wherein the power of any of your officers conſiſteth: where all or eueryevery one hauehave equall power, there all are officers: where all are officers, we may ſay that in déed none are publick officers. This is Maſter Barrowes heauenly patterne, by which he hath conuinced all our Churches, and found them ſo obſtinate for reiecting it, that they be quite ſeparate from Chriſt. Maſter Barrow will ſay he ſpake not of the Sacraments, for he faith a miniſter onelyonly is to deliuer them. And I ſay one part of the power of looſing is by the Sacraments, in as much as they ſeale our faith.
The power of diſcipline exerciſed by the preſbytory, as it is in the Churches of France, Scotland, Geneua, the Low Countries, &c. you moſt grieuouſly condemne: the reader ſhall ſee your own words, in your other booke page 189. and 190. thus you ſpeake. Theſe men in ſtead of this groſſe Antichriſtian gouernement, &c. would bring in a new adulterate forged gouernement in ſhew, or rather in deſpite of Chriſts bleſſed gouernement, which they in their pride, raſhnes, ignorance, and enſualitie of their fleſhly hearts, moſt miſerably, iunouate, corrupt and peruert, &c. Alſo page 166. you tearme Claſſical and Prouinciall ſynods and counſels, a diueliſh forgery. Here you ſay the fault and pride of the Elders is intollerable. Alſo (you ſay) that many were the reaſons, and more the inconueniences that might bee alleaged againſt this preſumptuous irregular conſiſtorie, which hath no ground in the word of God but vtterly ſubuerteth, deſtroyeth and corrupteth the whole order and Communion of the Churches, openeth a wide gap vntounto all licenciouſnes, and prophannes of manners, &c. Thus the Church of England is no Church of Chriſt, becauſe of their gouernement by Biſhops. In other places where the gouernement is by preſbytreies, not onelyonly the people (by your ſentence) are prophane multitudes, but their miniſters proud, raſh, ignorant, and in the ſenſuality of their fleſhly hearts, hauehave corrupted Chriſtes gouernement, & in deſpite thereof hauehave ſet vp a diueliſh forgery, and open the gap vntounto all prophaneneſſe, &c. O Maſter Barrow, what reproaches are theſe againſt all churches and their miniſters? I muſt néeds tell you againe, that there is not any which hath any ſparke of Chriſtian modeſty, but will ſay God hath not ſent ye, your ſufferings are not to be gloried in, you are but Rabaſaka, that thus reproach the church of Chriſt. What Schiſmaticks hauehave gone beyond ye? Now followeth the ſuſpenſion from the Sacraments. You muſt vnderſtand, that al your friuolous cauils about this, and all your reproaches reach not alone vntounto the Church of England, but vntounto all the re…ormed Churches which practiſe a ſuſpention. Maſter Beza in his booke againſt Eraſtus, page 10. ſheweth the vſe and practiſe of it, not onelyonly in their Church, but in the auncient Churches. Alſo page 124. he proueth it by the example of Moſes ſiſter, and of thoſe which were reſtrained a whole month from eating the paſſeouer: theſe ceaſed not in the meane time to be accounted members of the congregation. When the repentance is not throughly teſtified, or the reſt ſtand in néed of ſome terror, as wel as the party that hath offended, then is there vſe of ſuſpention.
To proue that neither the worſhip of God, nor yet the godly are polluted by the open wicked that communicate with them in the ſame, and that the couenant of God is in no wiſe thereby diſanulled, I alleaged firſt the auncient Church for example, vnderunder the conduct of Moſes in the wildernes, in which there were heapes of wicked rebels, and ſo in the time of Ieſay, Ieremie, and other of the Prophets, whoſe complaints are grieuous: for it is manifeſt that few godly ones among ſwarmes of wicked did worſhip together in the Temple. Here Maſter Barrow your cauiles are more then ſlender: firſt that our Churches were neuer true Churches, and therefore no compariſon betwéene ours and them. Touching this I hauehave ſpoken before. Then next you ſay that in y• times of wicked Kings, when Idolatry was ſet vp in Iuda, the godly did not communicate with the wicked, which is moſt true, but the wicked did Communicate with the godly in Gods true worſhip, in the dayes of godly Kings. And for the time of Moſes, you ſay thoſe wicked rebels were of the common wealth, but not of the Church, and would hauehave me proue that they were admitted to the Tabernacle or publick worſhip. If they were not of the Church ſtill in outward account, how were their children all receiued? Or where reade you of any family among them, which was of the common wealth, and not of the Church? There is no ſhew of ſuch a matter. Againe Saint Paule 1. Cor. 10. ſheweth that they did all communicate in the Sacraments. They did all eate the ſame ſpirituall meate, and drunke… the ſame ſpirituall drunke. What can be more clere then this? If men would not wickedly cauile againſt the holy Ghoſt.
Then next for the time that our Sauiour liued vponupon the earth, in what miſerable eſtate was the Church? The moſt of the teachers very corrupt, both in doctrine and maners Very few of the people did in déed feare God, and yet came all on heapes to the Temple together with the godly. VntoUnto this you anſwer that at the byrth of our Sauiour, and vntounto ſuch time as they oppoſed themſelues againſt him, things were in meetly good caſe. Would any man that were not paſt all care what he ſaith, make ſuch an anſwer? Did thoſe grieuous ſects of the Scribes and Phariſies riſe of a ſuddaine? Or did the high Prieſt by due courſe come to the office? Or were the open wicked ſeparated, where ſuch wicked men bare ſway? And if they had not of ſome long time before, brought in their owne traditions, how could they hauehave called thē the traditions of their Fathers. Math. 15? Mark 7. And when the Phariſies, and Saduces, the Prieſts & Elders reiected and withſtood our Sauiour, they, (you ſay) then ceaſed to be the viſible Church, and that our Sauiour did ſeparate himſelfe and his Diſciples from them.
What ſhould one ſay vntounto you Maſter Barrow, are you euen bent to gainſay the manifeſt word of Chriſt? The Scribes and Phariſies did ſit in Moſes chaire, Matth. 23. Was Moſes Chaire out of the viſible Church? And what can be more plaine then that our Sauiour willeth the people to heare them? For otherwiſe how ſhould he commaunde them to obſerue and doo all things which they ſhould ſay: but after their workes hée would not hauehave them doo? At this you ſet vp your throate and crie out; What execrable blaſphemie and horrible hereſies doth this wretched man runne into. &c. ? Doth he not hereby make our Sauiour Chriſt guiltie of the open breach of Gods lawes, and the deſtruction of all the people? Indeed that were moſt horrible and damnable blaſphemie, and he ſhould be a moſt vile and wretched man, that ſhould make our Sauiour guiltie of the breach of any lawe of God. And if you had but the true knowledge of ſome godly childe of foureteene yeres of age, you ſhould plainly ſee that our Sauiour did command them indeed to heare the Scribes and Phariſies expounding the lawe and the Prophets, and that therein he is not guilty at all of the open breach of Gods lawes: but indeed if he therein committed any offence, it was but agaynſt the principles of Donatiſme and Annabaptiſme, which Satan vnderunder the ſhewe of an Angell of light, hath bewitched men withall, and which you hauehave ſetled in your minde in ſtead of Gods lawes. For would you make vsus beléeue that the Phariſies and Doctors of the lawe were euen of a ſuddaine become naught? Chriſt himſelfe when he was twelue yeares old ſate among them in the Temple, & did heare them and propound queſtions vntounto them, Luk. 2. And when hee preached, his cuſtome was to goe into the Synagog vppon the Sabboth, and to reade and expound the Scriptures. Luk. 4, But let vsus ſee what you alleage to prooue that he did not meane that men ſhould heare them.
You demaunde, if God doo not in all places where he commandeth to heare true Prophets, forbid to heare falſe Prophets? What then Maſter Barrow, how blinde are you? Do you not know that our Sauiour by mentioning their ſitting in Moſes Chayre, doth bind the auditors to receiue their doctrine ſo farre as it was the true doctrine of Moſes and the Prophets? Hee doth heare the falſe Prophet which heareth and receiueth falſe doctrine. So farre as the Phariſies ſet foorth the truth, ſo farre they were to bee heard, and their Doctrine as our Sauiour willeth, was to bee followed. But men were to take heede of their Leuine, that is of their falſe doctrine and humane traditions. Our Sauiour doth not at all approoue their open wickednes, when hee willeth them to follow that true Doctrine which they ſhould deliuer out of Moſes, and not to follow their workes. The Prieſts and teachers ought indeede to be holy, but it hath fallen out farre otherwiſe, and that many times in Gods Church. And now if it were an abuſe that ſome of theſe Scribes and Phariſies which did teach, were not Leuites, but of ſome other Tribe, as Paul was of Beniamin: yet there were greater abuſes about the high Prieſt, & the reſt and begun long before that time: & yet the whole Church and our ſauiour himſelf ſo long as he did liue as a priuate man, frequented the Temple and publike, worſhip and heard them expound the Scriptures. Therefore Maſter Barrow, albeit you exclaime in this ſorte, theſe blaſphemies doth this wicked man publiſh, his ordinarie and all the Cleargie in England ſuffer them to paſſe in print: yet neither you nor all the Donatiſts and Annabaptiſts vnderunder heauen, ſhall euer be able with all your ſhifts to wring this place from vsus, which indeede ouerturneth all the chiefe grounds and principles of your ſect. Be aſhamed therefore to oppoſe your ſelues ſo wickedly againſt the cleare doctrine of Chriſt, and ceaſe to imagine abſurdities, which are but from your blind miſtaking. Agayne we ſee that our Sauiour healing a man that had the Leproſie, commaunded him, ſaying, goe ſhew thy ſelfe vntounto the Prieſt, and offer that gift which Moſes hath commaunded for a teſtimony vntounto them, Math. 8. 4. Alſo he ſendeth ten Leapers at once to ſhew themſelues to the Prieſts, Luk. 17. 14. which were alſo to offer according to the law. And this was not long before he ſuffered. You do very fondly imagine, ye if the Prieſts, the Scribes and Phariſies and Saduces, and the multitude which claue vntounto them were the viſible Church, then were there two Churches, vnles we will denie that our Sauiour & his Diſciples were the Church. For at y• time they were all in the ſame viſible Church euen thoſe open wicked and the good. Our Sauiour doth reprehend them and layeth open their wickednes, to the end that men might beware and not be ſeduced and kept from truth by them. But why are they not caſt forth? The Prophets in olde time did ſharply reprehend the wicked of all ſorts in the Church, but they had not the ordinary power to execute the cenſure of excommunication, no more had our Sauiour himſelfe.
There be diuers teſtimonies and examples of the holy ſcriptures which I alledged to proue this thing which you knitte vp ſhort, but in your other booke you deale in them at large. And becauſe Maſter Caluine hath written ſtrongly and plentifully in theſe matters againſt the Annabaptiſts, and ſuch as moſt wickedly did condemne the Churches in his time, you take vponupon you to confute him, as if he were the author of theſe things, and you tearme vsus his wretched diſciples. Whereas in very déede M. Caluine followeth but the ſteps of the auncient writers, Auguſtine and the reſt agaynſt the Cathariſts and Donatiſts. And you lighting into their Tents, ſet very freſhly vponupon the worke euen as a chiefe Captayne, to repayre and fortifie the ruines of that auncient Cathariſme and Donatiſme, and yet can bring nothing which they brought not.
Touching the reformation by Princes, which compell their ſubiects that profeſſe Chriſt, and hauehave the ſeale of the couenant, to forſake Idolatrie, and to imbrace the holy word and Sacraments, I hauehave ſpoken before: and therefore I come to the 17. page of your booke, where you write after this ſort: The next ſhiftes theſe Balaamities hauehave for the aminiſtring vntounto, and Communicating with, and retaining the prophane in the boſome of their church: are certaine arguments drawne by Maſter Caluine, from Matth. 13. againſt the Annabaptiſts, comparing the church to a corne field, where the good ſeed, and the bad grow together, to a net, and in Matth. 3. To a floar where the corne and the chaffelye together.
In deed Maſter Barrow theſe were ſpeciall places which the auncient Fathers ſtood vponupon againſt the Donatiſts, and Maſter Caluine againſt the Annabaptiſts, and which we in as great right vrge againſt you and your ſect. If we bee Balaamites, then what was Maſter Caluine, what was Auguſtine and all the reſt? Againſt whome hauehave you powred foorth your railings? Take héede it be not againſt our Lord Ieſus himſelfe, being againſt his expreſſe word: for let vsus ſée how you can auoyde theſe places. Touching the parable of the ſéed, you oppoſe (as you ſay) againſt Maſter Caluine and his Diſciples, firſt the interpretation of our Sauiour himſelfe: who ſaith not that the field is the Church, but the field is the world. And ſo the good ſéed and the bad are together in the world, but not in the Church. And then you ſhew an abſurditie of flat contradiction of the holy Scriptures which would follow, if we take it that the good ſéed and the bad ſhould grow together in the Church. The contradiction is this, there is power and commaundement giuen to the Church to caſt forth the open wicked, and here he bids let them alone. Therefore this let them alone, let them grow together vntil the harueſt, muſt néeds be expounded let them alone, and let them grow together in the world, but not in the Church.
In déed your expoſition Maſter Barrow, is the very ſame which the Donatiſts made, and obſtinately ſtoode vponupon. The field is the world, our Sauiour hath ſaid it, the truth hath ſaide it, accurſed be he that ſhal gaineſay it: but to gather from hence, that the good ſéed and the bad ſhal not be together in the church but in the world, is directly to ouerthrow the whole parable. For firſt, what is it which is reſembled or likened? The words are plaine, it is the Kingdome of Heauen. The Kingdome of Heauen ſaith he is like, &c. What is it which is here called the Kingdome of Heauen, is the world ſo called? Who dare ſay ſo? It is the Church, in which there is the Goſpell of the Kingdome, and in which Chriſt dooth raigne. If our Sauiour had ment to ſec forth, and to reſemble the ſtate of the world by the good ſéed and the bad mingled together (as he ſaith) the enemy did ſow the tares, ana meſ… tou ſitou, in the middeſt or among the wheate, and that they grew vp together, or to ſay looke how in a field good ſéede and bad grow together, ſo in the world good men and bad: it could not then be ſaide, the Kingdome of Heauen is like, but the ſtate of the world is like. Was it euer heard of, that a man would expound a parable, that is a ſimilitude, and exclude that which is reſembled by the ſimilitude? For if the good ſéed and the bad, ſowen and growing together in the field, do not reſemble and ſet forth the ſtate of the viſible church, while it is alſo in the field, that is to ſay in this world, mingled of good and bad men, ſhew what there is in the whole parable, whereunto the Kingdome of Heauen is likened. Moreouer in the expoſition of the parable our Sauiour ſaith, as the tares are gathered and burned, ſo ſhall it be in the end of this world, the ſonne of man ſhall ſend his Angels, which ſhall gather out of his Kingdome all offences, and thoſe which worke iniquitie, &c. If they ſhall be gathered out of his Kingdome, which is his Church (peculiarly ſo called, though he be Lord of Heauen and earth) then are they vntill the end of the world in his Church. I doubt not Maſter Barrow, but that ſimple men, yea poore Children (looking vponupon this parable, and conſidering what it is likened, and how Chriſt dooth expound it) ſhall bée able to ſée what a ſpirit of giddines God hath in iudgement caſt vponupon yée, for the loftines of your mindes. And now for that abſurdity of flat cóntradiction in the Scriptures, which you imagine, if wee expound it that the good and the bad ſhall bee mingled in the church, ſo long as it is in the field. There is no ſuch thing, as I will ſhew by as great an abſurdity which will follow of yt ſenſe which you giuegive, for ſpeaking of the wicked in the Church, if he ſhould ſay let them alone, it would ouerthrow the cenſures Eccleſiaſticall which are expreſſely commaunded: then ſpeaking of the wicked in the world, and ſaying let them alone, let them grow together, leaſt ye pluck vp the wheat, it ſhould ouerthrow the power of Kings and rulers, in putting euil dooers to death, which is expreſſely commaunded: for I truſt Maſter Barrow ye will not deny Chriſtian Kings to be one part of the ſeruants of the maſter of the houſe. Then whereas you reaſon thus, the power of excommunication which is giuen to the Church, and which the Church is commaunded to execute, may not be ouerthrowne: but if Chriſt will to let the tares grow in the Church, he forbiddeth to execute that power, and ſo…t is ouerthrowne, therefore he doth not ſpeake of open wickednes in the Church, but in the world.
I will reaſon agaynſt your expoſition thus. The power which God hath giuen vntounto the ciuill Magiſtrates to put murtherers and other wicked malefactors to death, is not to be ouerthrowne: but if Chriſt will men to let the wicked ones in the world alone, & will hauehave thē grow to the harueſt, leaſt in plucking them vp they deſtroy the wheate, hee taketh away that power from the Magiſtrates. Therefore this parable muſt not bée taken of the good and the bad together in the world. And mark how he ſayth not, let them alone, becauſe it belongeth not vntounto ye, but let them alone leaſt ye pluck vp the wheate. What then? ſhall we neither take it of the Church nor of the world, becauſe of an abſurditie which ſeemeth to followe on either ſide? Of the world indeed it cannot bee taken, as I hauehave ſhewed before, becauſe he ſayth, not the world is like, but the kingdome of heauen is like, but of the Church it is ſayd, that as the good ſeede and the bad are ſowen and grow together vntill harueſt in the mans field, ſo the good and bad men are mixed in the Church ſo long as it remayneth in the world. How then for theſe words, let them alone, let them growe vntounto the harueſt? It is plaine (if we will auoyd abſurdities on both ſides) that our Sauiour doth not here meddle either with the Ciuill or Eccleſiaſticall power, but as it is the manner in parables to vtter ſome ſayings which are onelyonly to ſhew ſome poynt of doctrine, & not to be taken ſtricktly according to the letter. As for example, when our Sauiour would ſhew in that place Luk. 16. which is partly a parable, that ſuch as cannot be brought to repentance by hearing Moſes and the Prophets, will not repent if one ſhould riſe from the dead: to bring in this doctrine, the damned ſoule is ſayd to intreate Abraham that hee would ſend Lazarus vntounto his fathers houſe to warne his brethren, leaſt they ſhould come into that place. Shall we think that damned ſoules hauehave ſuch a care that others may repent and be ſaued? Nay, as I ſayd, it is onelyonly to bring in a doctrine. What is the doctrine then which our Sauiour doth bring in by theſe words, let them alone, let them grow together vntounto the harueſt? This it is, that when the Chriſtian Princes hauehave done what they can in reforming the Church, and put the wicked malefactors to death: and when the cenſures eccleſiaſticall bee moſt diligently and wiſely executed, yet will there bee heapes of vngodly ones in the Church, and that ſeeing it cannot be auoyded, men are not to make Schiſmes, and ſo to rend vp the wheate, but meekly to expect the harueſt when the full ſeparation ſhall be made. Be not therefore (Maſter Barrow) ſo abſurd, as by an imagined abſurditie, to ouerthrowe the doctrine of a parable ſo cleerely expreſſed.
The next place to prooue that the open wicked ſhall alwayes be mixed with the good in the Church is the parable of the draw …et out of the ſame chapter. You ſay this is graunted to be vnderſtood of the planted Church. Who are they which graunted this? Indeed the Donatiſts granted this, and it is ſome gentlenes that you will graunt ſo much. For if in this parable the kingdome of heauen be the viſible Church, which is compared to the net which draweth together good and bad: why is not the kingdome of heauen in the former parable, alſo the Church, and ſo the eſtate therof likened while it is in the field, vntounto the wheat and the tares growing together? You ſay the euil fiſhes are not open ſinners but hypocrites, and ſo ſayd the Donatiſts. And I meruaile you ſhewe no reaſon for it, ſeeing the diuell did ſuggeſt this friuolous ſhewe of reaſon vntounto the Donatiſts, that hypocrites are very fitly reſembled by fiſhes in the net vnderunder the water, which the fiſher men cannot ſee vntill the net bee drawne to land. This I hauehave anſwered in my former booke. There is no doubt but that cloſe hypocrites which outwardly appeare holy, are one great part of thoſe euill fiſhes which the net of the Goſpell draweth together: but to exclude all the reſt, there is no reaſon.
The place in Math. 3. He ſhall purge his floar and gather the wheate into his barne, but hee will burne the chaffe with vnquenchable fire, dooth manifeſtly ſhewe, that as the corne and chaffe for a time lye vppon the floar, ſo the good and the bad lye mingled together in the viſible Church. Here you make an expoſition of your owne, and then take on grieuouſly that Chriſts Church ſhould be compared to ſuch a floar as the chaffe and the corne lye together. And aſke what the Church then differeth from the world? It is certaine that both the ciuill and eccleſiaſticall power ought to bee imployed with all diligence and care that may bee to purge the Church: that albeit the floar cannot be cleane rid of the chaffe, yet it may bee rid ſo farre as men are able. That is not the queſtion: but when theſe dueties of men hauehave been neglected, and that there he heapes of chaffe in which the graynes of corne doo lye couered, whether it bee not ſtill the viſible Church? It is a moſt cléere caſe that in the Church of Iſrael, which at that time was the viſible Church, there were very great heapes of chaffe, and very fewe graynes of good corne in compariſon of the whole multitude. Iohn Baptiſt threatneth eternall iudgement vntounto thoſe hypocrites, wicked and faithleſſe people, ſhewing that the place they held in the Church for a time ſhould nothing helpe, ſeeing the Lord will fanne them out like chaffe, which for a time lyeth with the corne, but defileth not the corne, nor cannot turne it into chaffe. You thinke you hauehave great hold that hee ſpeaketh of ſeparating the chaffe from the corne: but anſwere this one queſtion, was it not his floar, that is his viſible Church out of which he would purge the chaffe? Doth he make it his floar by purging it, or was it his floar before it was purged? The words are cléere, hee ſhall purge his floar, &c. whether the open wicked pollute the holy things of God, or the conſcience of the faithfull which doo communicate with them, I referre the reader to thoſe things which I hauehave noted betwéene the ancient Churches and the Donatiſts, where eueryevery thing hath been as ſtrongly vrged by thoſe Donatiſts, as you are able, or any of your ſect. Seeing then in your ſecond accuſation your grounds and reaſons are flat Donatiſme, & that in your blind furie you condemne all Churches both of auncient time, and in theſe dayes, moſt deepely reuiling and rayling at all the moſt excellent inſtruments which God hath raiſed vp vntounto his Church, what remayneth, but to warne ſimple men to take heed they bee not ſeduced by you? Thus much for the ſecond, now to the third accuſation.
The third accuſation is, that we hauehave a falſe Antichriſtian miniſtrie impoſed, &c.
IN your former writings, where ye came to deale about our miniſtrie, ye were in a great diſpleaſure (hauing made ſo great a chalenge) for that I did intercept this buſines frō the hands of the learned, vntounto whome (ye ſay) it did by many rights more neerely appertayne then vntounto me. I made anſwere to this, that in very deede it is no reaſon, that ſuch as you ſhould be encountred by men of great learning: becauſe in all your dooings, yee are ſo full of falſe accuſations, ſo raſh, ſo preſumptuouſly bold in powring foorth without any diſcretion, whatſoeuer lighteth into your brayn: ye are ſo miſerably ignorant, ſo full of foule errors, being altogether vnlearned (this onelyonly excepted, that yee hauehave ſcraped ſome things out of other mens writings, which yet ye peruert) that all wiſe men, both of learned and vnlearned, doo playnely ſee, it is but mad frenſie, by which yee are led. For let the things which I hauehave noted out of theſe your laſt bookes witneſſe vntounto all, I will not ſay the learned (for what ſhould they ſpend time about them) but to all the Artificers and huſbandmen which hauehave any ſound knowledge, whether I hauehave in this charged ye with more then is true.
Ye would beare the Reader in hand, that the learned men doo abſtayne from dealing with ye, becauſe they know our cauſe is bad, and that it is better therefore it ſhould be raked vp, then appeare the worſe by the handling.
Ye ſayd moreouer, that if I hauehave conſulted with my learned Brethren, they would hauehave giuen me counſell not to write, but to deale in the pulpit, where it may bee without controulment: leaſt the fowlenes of things ſhould appeare.
To one part of this I made anſwere, that whereas yee doo imagine that all the learned are afrayd ye would be too hard for them, if they ſhould deale with yee, and therefore they doo not nor dare not meddle, it is nothing ſo. But as one among the beaſts (ye know of whome it is ſayd) had gotten a Lyons ſkinne vponupon him, and went about and frayed all the ſimpler beaſts: vntill one more ſubtill, whether he eſpied the long eares, or whether he heard him bray (which is nothing like the roaring of a Lion) made anſwere, that otherwiſe indeede, hee ſhould hauehave béene ſcared as well as the reſt. For you comming with a moſt terrible outcrie againſt our Church, ye wil néeds hauehave vsus think the Lion roareth. Let not the Reader ſuppoſe that I ſpeake this vponupon mine owne conceipt: for in the fourth page of the Epiſtle of your other booke, which ye call A briefe diſcouery of the falſe Church, ye hauehave ſet it downe ſo your ſelues. Ye would not hauehave thoſe dreadfull things which ye denounce leſſe feared, becauſe they are pronounced by a frayle man: but would hauehave vsus all know that the Lyon roareth, and that the Lyon roareth not in the Forreſt if no pray be preſent. Doubtles your voyce hath beene terrible, and eſpecially at the firſt you ſcared many of the ſimpler ſorte, which tooke it to bee the roaring of a Lyon: But ye muſt vnderſtand that the learned euen at the firſt did diſcerne the voyce not to be the roaring of a Lion, but the braying of him that put on the Lyons ſkinne. Therfore ye are much deceiued in thinking they all feare and tremble at it. They ſee playnely that it is but mad frenſie, and ſo they diſdayne to deale with it. And for mine owne parte, if I did not ſee what hauock the Donatiſts made, how many the Annabaptiſts ſeduced, and how weake much of our people are, I ſhould count it great folly to giuegive you anie anſwere.
And now, whereas I did require if there bee any ſpark of modeſtie left in ye, to make ſome colourable ſhew, that the learned would councell not to deale in theſe matters, which they knowe can not bee defended, but by the diſcuſſing will become more odious: thus ye make anſwere. That theſe preachers had taken this courſe (ſay you) among themſelues, we know certaynely, by a letter that two of the chiefe of them ſent vntounto vsus, denying that conference which they had before promiſed, becauſe we denyed their Church and miniſtrie. After that, two of them being procured to our priſon, denied to deale with vsus concerning thoſe exceptions we made agaynſt their church and miniſtrie, alleadging that they were forbidden by their brethren to deale with vsus in thoſe matters. To be ſhort, what elſe can with any probabilitie be coniectured to bee the hindrance of the firſt company of preachers, that at the firſt ſent vntounto vsus to know the cauſes of our diſlike, promiſing to aſſent, or to ſhew vntounto vsus the cauſes why they could not, that they vponupon the ſight of that little paper, (wherein we ſet downe vntounto them the cauſes of our ſeparation from theſe pariſh aſſemblies, as alſo what we purpoſed in our owne aſſemblies) neuer as yet could be drawne to make any anſwere in writing or conference, if not that they perceiued, that they were neither able to defend their eſtate, neither yet had fayth to leaue it for feare of perſecution and danger.
Who can now doubt but that Maſter Barrow and Maſter Greenewood be honeſt ſimple dealing men? Who can ſay they hauehave ſlaundred the learned, or that they hauehave vttered any thing raſhly, when they now affirme that they did for certainty know that the preachers had taken ſuch a courſe among themſelues, and alleadge ſuch proofe for the certaintie hereof, as no man néedeth to doubt of ye matter. For will any man bee ſo impudent as to lie, and to publiſh it to thoſe which do know he doth Iye? I hauehave heard Maſter Barrow, by ſuch as hauehave dealt with yee, that ye make no conſcience of lying, and nowe it falleth out ſo here: for one of thoſe which came to the priſon, comming to the fight of your booke, hath ſet downe in the margent that ye make a moſt ſhameles lie. It may be in this ye will ſtand vponupon your Pantoffles, it is but your yea, and his nay. But for the letter you ſpeake of which the other two whome ye name, ſent vntounto ye: I hauehave talked with them both, to knowe why they denied conference, and what they had written. They ſay they denied conference with ye, onelyonly becauſe yee denied them to be Chriſtians, to pray with them, and that ye denied all the preachers in the land to bee Chriſtians and all thoſe which ioyne with them: not hoping that ye could take any fruit by their writings which would not yeeld to receiue any fruite or comfort by their prayers. I take it Maſter Barrow you hauehave the letter. If you hauehave it, ſhew it vntounto ſome honeſt man that may ſpeake for you and defend ye, not to be paſt ſhame in forging ſuch a ſenſe. If ye hauehave it not, I can let ye hauehave the perfect copie of it, and will let any friend ye hauehave ſee it. They are ſo far off in the letter from giuing the leaſt ſuſpition that they doubt of our Church and miniſtrie, as that they pronounce it your heatheniſh opinion, whereby ye denie vsus to be Chriſtians. What preachers ſent vntounto ye I know not, but that they refrayned to hauehave conference with ye, perceiuing vponupon the ſight of your little paper (as yee ſay) that they could not defend their eſtate, doe yee indeede think ſtill, that they tooke it to be the roaring of a Lyon? could they not diſcerne (thinke ye) betwéene rudere and rugire?
Your multitudes, and armies of wordes (being but vayne …anglings) I will paſſe by, and come directly to the ſubſtance of the matter. And becauſe our miniſtrie is ordayned by Biſhops (which is by one part of their gouernement) your third and fourth accuſation, ſhall bee handled ioyntly, as it were vnderunder one.
In page 104. Ye wonder (as ye ſay) that in this floriſhing eſtate of our Church, which ouerfloweth with ſo great learning, aboundeth with ſo many writers, that not one of them ſhould vndertake to proue the miniſtry of their Church directly by the rules of Gods word, in their office, entrance, adminiſtration, and maintenance.
Theſe may very well be ſome of thoſe ſwelling words of banitie, which Saint Peter ſpeaketh of, for who (if he know not before the vaine inſolencie of Maſter Barrow and his fellow) reading this wonder, would not iudge them to bee men very deepely read? HaueHave they not read ouer (thinke ye) all the learned writers of this age, wondring that there is not one among them all, that hath vndertaken to proue our miniſtrie directly by the rules of Gods word? Is it not pitty that there be no moe learned writers, that theſe men might ſearch them alſo, to hauehave this poynt handled? If you hauehave now done wondring Maſter Barrow, giuegive vsus leaue a little to wonder. The Papiſts denying that the churches which hauehave reiected popery hauehave any miniſtry, and requiring proofe thereof, many learned writers, both of other Churches, and of our owne nation, hauehave vndertaken this matter, and hauehave ſo directly proued our miniſtry by the rules of Gods word, as that the Papiſts hauehave no cauſe to glorie. Now there be two things here which we may wonder at: the one how it ſhould be poſſible, that ſuch ſwelling inſolency could be found in the hearts of men groſely ignorant, as that hauing read almoſt nothing, and vnderſtanding leſſe by ſundry degrees, yet openly vaunt, as if they had read all, and could finde no ſuch matter. The other how men of ſo contrarie diſpoſition, ſhould vſe the very ſame weapon againſt the Church, for this is one weapon of the Papiſts, and now in your hands, Ye hauehave no miniſtrie of Chriſt.
If the reader ſhal here thinke that I grate too hard vponupon Maſter Barrow, who directeth his ſpéech but againſt the miniſtry of our Church: the matter is farre otherwiſe, as I will make it appeare: for firſt he denieth the miniſtry of all Churches in expreſſe words: affirming that there is no miniſtry in all Europe, nor in all theſe knowne parts of the world. Secondly, we are to note, that although the reformed Churches doo differ, ſundry of them each from others, in the manner of the calling and ordination of miniſters, yet the defence which the learned writers doo make, is generally for the miniſtry of all thoſe Churches (as well for the miniſtry of the Church of England, as of others) which hauehave forſaken Antichriſt, and preach the Goſpell. Therefore Maſter Barrow, read all the learned writers which hauehave ſtood to maintaine againſt the Papiſts, that Maſter Luther, Maſter Caluine, Maſter Bucer, Martyre & the reſt, were miniſters of Chriſt, and ſeeing ye will needs fight againſt God and his truth, try your ſtrength, and ſee how ye can gratefie the Church of Rome, in ouerthrowing that which all her learnedeſt patrons are not able to ſhake more then they be able to ſhake or remoue a mountaine.
The miniſtry of our Church is not (you ſay) the miniſtry of the Goſpell, or the miniſtry of Chriſt, but the miniſtry of Antichriſt, comming in the life and power of the beaſt. Your reaſon is that we are the children of the Biſhops, & the Biſhops are the creatures of the Pope.
Againſt this I did alleage, that the popiſh Biſhops hauehave their conſecration and power from the Pope, they ſweare obedience vntounto him, to maintaine his dignity, religion, lawes, and ceremonies. And alſo with him doo exerciſe a power ouer the faith and conſcience of men. But the Biſhops of the Church of England, hauehave not their ordination, conſecration, or power from the Pope, but from our Church which hath renounced Antichriſt. The Biſhops of England, acknowledge no ſubiection to the Pope, but by anoath, hauehave renounced his vſurped power and tyranny. The Biſhops of England are not ordayned to vphold and maintaine the religion or lawes of Antichriſt, but quite contrary they promiſe and profeſſe, to aduaunce the Goſpell of Ieſus Chriſt, &c. They vſurpe not a Lordſhip ouer the faith and conſcience of men.
Let vsus ſee now what ye bring againſt this, It helpeth not our Biſhops (ye ſay) any thing, that they hauehave broken their faith and Schiſmed from the Pope, & renounced his yoake, euen his vſurped power and tyrannie, ſeeing they vſurpe and retaine (if not the ſame) yet as Antichriſtian and enormous a power as the Pope, exerciſing their authoritie and commaundements contrary vntounto, and aboue all lawes, both of God and of their prince, page 113.
If it be thus our caſe is hard: but Maſter Barrow remember the old Prouerb, a lier needeth to hauehave a good memorie, for in page 181. and 182, you hauehave quite forgotten what ye had ſet downe here, for there yee doo affirme, that the Biſhops which died for the Goſpell were godly bleſſed Martyres, of whoſe happie and bleſſed eſtate ye doo not doubt. Your reaſon is, for that they were not conuinced, but did exerciſe that power ignorantly.
I pray ye tell me Maſter Barrowe, could they bee godly and had but broken their faith and Schiſmed from the Pope? Could they be godly men, exerciſing as Antichriſtian and enormous a power as the Pope? Yea could they bee true thriſtians, exerciſing their commaundementes and power, contrary vntounto, and aboue all lawes both of God and man? Or could ignorance excuſe them in theſe matters? Then tell vsus why the Pope might not be a good Chriſtian alſo, before he was conuinced? Which way dooth the whéele turne now Maſter Barrow? Ye can neuer be able to bring both ends together in theſe, yee muſt either condemne thoſe Martyrs, or elſe make the gouernement by Biſhops, not ſuch as you ſet it forth: well let vsus procéede. Here now we muſt lay open what power the Pope dooth exerciſe, and what power the Biſhops in our Church doo exerciſe, to ſée if it be the ſame, or the like. Alſo whether the Biſhops doo exerciſe any power, but that which Chriſt hath giuen to his Church, to be exerciſed by men, that is either by Biſhops, or Preſbyteries. Touching the Pope, he hath vſurped power ouer the whole word of God, affirming that the holy ſcriptures hauehave no authority (as they ſay vntounto vsus) no certainty for the ſenſe, no life, but as hee doth giuegive vntounto them. And for this cauſe hee doth take vponupon him to expound them as he will, contrary to the grammer ſenſe. Hee doth take vponupon him to diſpenſe with all, and to abrogate expreſſe lawes of God. And further he taketh vponupon him to make lawes of his owne, to bind the fayth and conſcience of all men, euen as the articles of our fayth doo bind, or the expreſſe doctrine of the ſacred Scriptures. Hee doth vſurp in ſundry things of ſo high nature, apperteming peculiarly to God, as that he ſheweth himſelfe as God.
The power which the Byſhops of our Church do exerciſe, is firſt, in examining, appro…uing and ordaining miniſters and authoriſing them to preach the Goſpell. Secondly, it is in this, that they are to ſée the orders of the Church, for the publick adminiſtration duly obſerued, and ſo they hauehave power to excommunicate, ſuſpend and depriue, &c. ſuch as ſhall tranſgreſſe either againſt doctrine, order, or in manners. Touching lawes, they hauehave not power to make any one, not euen in things méete indiff rent, neither hauehave they power to abrogate, or to take away any one that is made, and by the publick authority of our Church eſtabliſhed: they can giuegive no commaundements of their owne. That Chriſt hath giuen power to ordaine miniſters, and to execute the cenſures Eccleſiaſticall, you doo not call into queſtion: the controuerſie is but, by whome this power ſhould bee executed, whether by Biſhops or by Preſbyters. If there be an error in the execution of it by Biſhops, or if there be a fault in the execution by Elders, this fault or error dooth not deſtroy the power it ſelfe, nor yet maketh it Antichriſtian, as ruling ouer the faith and conſcience.
I knowe Maſter Barrow, that ye will here take great exception, and ſay that the chiefe thing is yet behind. For as ye charge the preſbyteries moſt heynouſly, in that they take vponupon them to decree and ordayne Canons and conſtitutions, vntounto which they inioyne obedience in the people: ſo the Biſhops execute the lawes and Canons which hauehave been ordeyned by men (though not by themſelues) the matter is all one. Is not this to exerciſe Lordſhip and dominion ouer mens faith and conſcience? About this then muſt be our ſpeciall queſtion, whether Chriſt hath giuen ſuch a power vntounto the Church, as to make lawes or Cannons in externall matters, which wee call things indifferent? And whether the vrging men to kéepe them, be not to take away Chriſtian libertie, and ſo to rule ouer the faith and conſcience? I knowe this queſtion is hard to bee diſcuſſed, to make eueryevery ſimple man vnderſtand the matter. You (Maſter Barrow and Maſter Greenwood) are moſt blind in it. I wiſh the reader to obſerue, becauſe it is one maine rocke vponupon which ye are runne. And crye out what ye can, that I like a marked ſeruant of Antichriſt, like a graceles man, that hath his conſcience ſeared with a hot Iron, doo change yee wrongfully: yet it ſhall bee euident, that by ſeeking an Annabaptiſticall freedome, ye do abridge the power of the Chriſtian Magiſtrate, and of the Church.
To come therefore vntounto the matter: that which S. Iames ſayth muſt firſt ſtand ſure, namely, That there is one lawgiuer which is able to ſaue and to deſtroy. Iam. 4. verſ. 12. Hereupon it is moſt ſure that God alone hath Lordſhip ouer the conſcience of man to binde the faith and conſcience. For looke what God hath by his lawe commaunded to bee done, it is good, it is holie: no King, nor the whole Church can make any part of it euill, or commaund it not to be done. Looke what God hath forbidden to be done, that ſame is euill and vnholy; no King, nor yet the whole Church can make it good and holy, or command it to bee done. I ſay further, that the law of God is ſo abſolutely perfect, that there is no righteouſnes for men, but it is therein conteyned: neyther is there any vnrighteouſnes, but it is therein forbidden. Wherefore they which take vponupon them to make lawes to binde the conſcience eyther by abrogating or by adding, commit moſt high and blaſphemous ſacriledge, of which the whole poperie is to be condemued. But now there are certayne middle actions, and things, which we call indifferent, becauſe if we ſimply reſpect them in themſelues, or in their owne nature, they bee neither good nor euill. In theſe conſiſteth one part of Chriſtian libertie to vſe or not to vſe with knowledge and diſcretion. Now if we reſpect ye very nature of theſe things, no Prince or church can change it, as to make them to become neceſſarily good, or neceſſarily euill in themſelues to the conſcience. And therefore, touch not, taſt not, handle not, Coloſſ. 2. verſ. 21. making the outward indifferent things vncleane to the conſcience, is to vſurpe an Antichriſtian power ouer the conſcience euen agaynſt God. Alſo to make thoſe externall things to be of neceſſitie to the conſcience, is to lay a yoake of bondage: and agaynſt this wee are willed to ſtand faſt in the freedome wherewith Chriſt hath made vsus free. Gal 5. verſ. 1. Hetherto (Maſter Barrow) I thinke yée will agree with me. But now touching the externall vſe of theſe things, either for Princes to make politick lawes to commaund the vſe or to reſtraine the vſe of them, or for the Church to make Cannons and conſtitutions to commaund or reſtrayne the vſe as ſhall ſerue for order and comelines, therein lieth our diſagreement, and therein ye pleade for your Annabaptiſticall freedome, and confuſion, I meane that ataxia, or ouerthrowe of all order.
Firſt, ye call it a ſubtill diſtinction which Maſter Caluine vſeth, of the externall or ciuill Court, and the Court of conſcience, in your diſcouerie pag. 88. And you ſay Maſter Caluine hauing very truely ſet downe, that it is heinous preſumption in any mortall man to reſtrayne or make lawes of ſuch things as the Lord hath left in libertie: hee ſtraight way (leaſt he ſhould keepe backe ciuill Magiſtrates from receiuing the Goſpell) inuenteth a politick diſtinction, betwixt the ciuill court, and the court of conſcience: ſaying, that this outward court reſpecteth men onelyonly, and bindeth not the conſcience of the doer, the other concerneth matters belonging vntounto God, and therefore bindeth the conſcience. Thus hath he both loſt and entangled himſelfe, and vtterly ouerthrowne all his former doctrine. pag. 93. In pag. 247. of this booke agaynſt me, Maſter Greenwood ſayth, that Maſter Caluin would but diuide the ſoule and the bodie in ciuill cauſes, but I would goe a note further.
Thus farre be your wordes. How ſhall Maſter Caluine doo that is thus ſet vponupon by ſuch great diuines, which hauehave ſo purſued him that he hath loſt himſelfe, and they hauehave ſnared him in his owne wordes? Alas poore ſoules, I cannot but lament with pitie to ſee your blindenes, for I knowe this is of meere ignorance, that ye cannot vnderſtand Maſter Caluine in a doctrine which yet is cleare by the Scriptures. Ye ſay he inuented this politique diſtinction of the ciuill court and the court of conſcience, leaſt he ſhould keepe Princes back from the Goſpell. Then by your owne words it doth follow, that if it be prooued that Princes hauehave power in ſuch matters to make lawes, ye do fouly abridge their ſacred power by denying it. And for that Maſter Greenwood ſaith I go a note further then M. Caluine, it is his ignorance: for let him reade well the fourth booke of his inſtitutions, and he ſhall finde hee holdeth this diſtinction not onelyonly in ciuill cauſes, but in eccleſiaſticall canons. And now to the matter. I would I were able though in neuer ſo rude ſpeech, to lay it ſo open as that a childe might vnderſtand. I will doe the beſt I can: and I will come vntounto it by degrees. Ye cannot ſee how there ſhould be ſuch a diſtinction of an externall action to reſpect men, and not to binde the conſcience before God: Mark well and ſee. There bee ſundry ſortes of cloath of ſundry colours, and there be ſundry faſhions of garments. I am a miniſter of the Goſpell, I hauehave by mee a yelow gowne, a gréene hat, white hoſe, a tawny coate, I doo for ſome néede ſecretly where no man ſeeth me, vſe them: my conſcience is not polluted by them, I ſinne not. But now I come with theſe garments into the publique aſſemblie, I ſinne grieuouſly. What is the reaſon of this? It is becauſe the garments themſelues, the colours or faſhions which were before God to the conſcieuce of man indifferent, are now altered and become not indifferent to the conſcience before God? In no wiſe. For betwéene God and the conſcience, they remayne as they did. But now the whole matter lyeth in this: it is vncomely and offenſiue before men. Who cannot here ſee the diſtinction betweene the ciuill courte, that is for the action before men: and the court of conſcience before God? Will ye ſay becauſe it is euill for a man to doo thus before men, therefore it is euill to his conſcience before God, euen for the very dooing, not reſpecting men? Might I not alleadge a thouſand things of this nature, which I may doo and no ſinne betwéene God and my conſcience, but the ſinne commeth by the ſight and view of men? Nowe when the ſight and view of men doth reſtraine me from dooing them openly, the fréedome of my conſcience in them is not taken away before God, or my conſcience is not bound by them before God: but I am reſtrayned in the externall vſe of them before men, becauſe they be not expedient; they be lawfull, but not comely. We ſee how Saint Paul ſpeaketh about this matter, 1, Cor. 10 ver. 23. 24. All things are lawfull for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawfull, but all things doo not edifie. This is meant onelyonly of things indifferent, for all which are in their owne nature euil, be vnlawfull, and all things ſimply good are expedient: and doo edifie. Then we ſée by this there are things which are lawful vntounto our conſcience before God, and in which our concſience retayneth ſtill her fréedome before God, euen when we are reſtrayned the outward vſe before men. This we may ſée further in the ſame Chapter, eate what is ſet before ye, asking no queſtion for conſcience. But if any ſay this was offered to Idoles, eate not of it for conſcience. Conſcience I ſay, not thine, but of that other. When he ſayth not thine, doth hee not ſhew his conſcieuce remayneth free before God, euen when he is reſtrayned before men? And when he ſayth, All things are lawfull, but I will not be brought vnderunder the power of any thing: 1. Cor. 6. verſ. 12. doth he not ſhew it is ſome bondage, if a man hauehave not freedome to refrayne the vſe of a thing lawfull? This is one ſteppe towards our matter: But what is this for making lawes either politique or eccleſiaſticall to inioyne men to doo that which God hath left free, or to reſtrayn the vſe of the creatures which hee hath graunted libertie to vſe? This is your mayne reaſon Maſter Barrow. I hauehave already ſhewed that he which ſhall enioyne or reſtrayne, to lay it vponupon the conſcience before God, committeth high ſacriledge: But the vſe of things may be enioyned or reſtrayned in reſpect of men, as ſhall bee profitable or vnprofitable, comely, or vncomely, &c. A good part of a kingdome doth conſiſt of Cappers. The people are giuen all to weare Hats, and by this meanes thoſe ſubiects doo fall into pouertie. The Prince maketh a law, that all his ſubiects ſhall at certaine times not weare Hats, but Capps. If the ſubiect ſhall now ſtand vp & ſay, to weare an Hat or a Cappe is frée before God, and ſéeing God hath giuen mee fréedome of conſcience to vſe or not to vſe, no mortall creature hath power to binde my conſcience. Will not the Prince make anſwere, thou fooliſh man, I doo not binde thy conſcience in the thing before God, but I enioyne it as a thing expedient and profitable to my common wealth? It is free for a man to eate any kinde of meate. The Prince doth ſee it profitable that ſome kindes of meate ſhould be ſpared, and therfore doth make a law that at ſome times men ſhall abſtayne from the ſame. The Subiects ſhall make aunſwere, GOD hath giuen vsus fréedome of conſcience to eate, no power can binde our conſcience from it, GOD hath made it lawfull and frée. Will not the Prince make anſwere and ſay: ye Annabaptiſts doo ye not knowe that there bee many things lawfull and frée to the conſcience before God, which yet are not expedient among men? I doo not reſtrayne ye to take away the freedome of your conſcience in it before God: but it is profitable to my kingdome. It is free for a man that hath grounds to ſowe or to graze: but if men be giuen wholly to grazing, and corne waxe deare, and the Prince maketh a law that whoſoeuer occupieth ſuch a quantitie of ground, ſhall plow thus many acres, doth he now binde the conſcience, or onelyonly ſeeke the publike profite?
There he thouſands of ſuch like matters Maſter Barrow: and therefore conſider how foully ye doo abridge the power of Princes, to the ouerthrowe of Common wealths, in denying them authoritie to make permanent lawes, in things indifferent. But ye make one obiection more which is of ſome ſhewe: and that is that princes lawes are to be obeyed for conſcience: out of which a man may reaſon thus: ſeeing none can make lawes to binde the conſcience but God: and no lawe but in things good or euill can binde the conſcience, and not in things indifferent, for that were to binde where God hath left free: therefore Princes hauehave no power to make lawes in things indifferent. To anſwer this in ſuch ſort as a ſimple man may ſee the falſehood of it, is ſomewhat hard: but I will doo the beſt I can. I ſay therefore I am bound for conſcience to obey the Princes lawes, and yet the Princes lawes of themſelues, doo not binde my conſcience. It is an honeſt, a good, and profitable thing, when the Prince maketh a lawe and reſtrayneth the vſe of ſome things outwardly, which the conſcience hath freedome in inwardly before God, when it is for a publike good. Now I am bound to further a publike good, it is a great ſinne to ſhewe contempt agaynſt the Prince whom God commandeth me to obey: in theſe reſpects then I am boūd euen for couſcience to keep the lawes. The nature of the things indifferent is not altered before God vntounto my conſcience by that reſtraint of lawe: neither yet the vſe is taken from me, when and where it may bee without contempt of my Prince, without offence to men, and without hindring a publike good or commoditie. They that ſpeake in words of Arte, doo ſay that Princes lawes doo not binde the conſcience haplôs, but cata ti: not ſimply by themſelues, but for ſome reſpect, or by ſomewhat which commeth as a medium: which is as I hauehave before ſhewed. Take an example, put caſe ſome dying of clothes ſhould be harmefull to the Common wealth, as to dye in blewe: I am a Dyer, this reſtraynt doth not make the very dying in blew it ſelfe vncleane to my conſcience before God, and ſo binde my conſcience: but if I dye in blew contemning the power, & ſo giuegive a publike offence, and hinder a common profite, I doo ſinne, God doth forbid theſe things, and they doo binde the conſcience.
Now to come to the lawes Eccleſiaſticall, which M. Greenwood ſayth is to goe a note further. The Church (as in our Countrey the Prince, the Nobilitie, and Commons aſſembled in Parliament) doo agree vponupon ſome lawes in things indifferent for comelines and order, and edification in Gods worſhip: as in ſome other places the Preſbyteries, with the conſent of the chriſtian Magiſtrates. This (ſay you) is to binde the conſcience. Well, let vsus ſee your reaſons. If (ſay you) they binde not the conſcience, why ſhould men be excommunicate and deliuered vp to Satan, for violating ſuch ceremonies and orders as bind not the conſcience? This ſeemeth vntounto you a thing moſt abſurd: but marke a little. The Princes lawes (as I hauehave ſhewed) doo not bind the conſcience, but yet he that with contempt of the Prince, to a publike euill example, and harme of the Common wealth doth breake the lawes, is guiltie of great ſinne, and if he ſtand in it worthie to be excommunicate. Euen ſo hee that violateth a lawfull rule or ceremonie of the Church in matters indifferent, which are not layd vponupon him to bind his conſcience before God, but for order and comelines before men, though his conſcience touching the things themſelues is not bound before God, yet in ſhewing any contempt agaynſt ye publike authoritie of ye church, & in giuing an offence, by bringing in vncomelines or diſorder, he ſinneth, & if he perſiſt obſtinatly is to be excommunicate. Tel me M. Greenwood, is it not a thing betweene God and a mans conſcience free to weare a gowne of greene cloath, were it not in regard of comelines among men? The Church then taketh order that no Miniſter ſhall come into the publike aſſemblie to preach in a green gown, & he doth it; is he not to be reproued as for a great ſinne, & if he ſtand obſtinatly in it to be caſt forth? But you ſay all theſe things muſt be left to the diſcretion of the Miniſter. So ye may alſo take away the power of making lawes in matters ſimply euil: for eueryevery man hath not louelove or care. And now whereas I hauehave ſhewed by y• example of the holy Apoſtles Act. 15. who decreed that the Gentiles ſhould abſtaine from bloud and from ſtrangled, that the Church hath power to decrée in things indifferent, orders for edification: let vsus ſee what a learned anſwer you (M. Greenwood) hauehave found out. Firſt, you ſay I hauehave ouerthrowne my ſelfe by ſetting downe that the holy Ghoſt and the Apoſtles did this, becauſe theſe were the maſter builders, and were to make lawes, &c. Alas poore man, doth the holy Ghoſt euer make law or the Apoſtles in things indifferent, as eating blood or ſtrangled, to change the nature of the things, or to binde a mans conſcience before God, ſo that he might not ſecretly where it might neuer be knowne to the weake Iewes? Then ye ſee there may bee lawes made (the holy Ghoſt by the rules of the Scriptures guiding the Paſtors) in things indifferent, which binde not the conſcience. But (ſay you) they doo not inioyne it as a lawe, but tell them they ſhall do well if they obſerue theſe things, by no neceſſitie inforced, pag. 251. Then it ſeemeth they might hauehave eate bloud and ſtrangled and giuen offence to the weake Iewes and not hauehave done euill. That which ſeemeth good to the holy Ghoſt for them to obſerue, they may if it ſeeme not good to them, not obſerue. How abſurd is this? And if ye mark well what S. Iames ſayth, Act. 21. verſ. 25. you ſhall ſee it was not left arbytrarie, ſo long as there might offence growe thereby. Well, if the Church then hauehave power to make ſuch decrees to auoyd publike offence and diſorder; what if the Church erre and appoynt ſome orders and Ceremonies which are hurtfull? This error and fault of the Church is not in that high offence of binding the conſcience, which indeede is Antichriſtian, but in miſſing what is moſt comely, moſt without offence, and fitteſt for edification. The Church of Chriſt is ſo precious a thing, and the ſoules of men to bee regarded with ſuch sender compaſſion, that all Chriſtian gouernours and guides ought to be carefull, not onelyonly, not to lay any yoke vppon the conſcience, but euen to redreſſe the leaſt error that may breede or worke any harme touching comelines and order. To ende this poynt, Maſter Barrow, vntill you can ſhewe wherein any power is vſurped and exerciſed ouer the faith and conſcience, wee muſt needes take all that ye hauehave here ſet downe, to be but your lauiſh ſpeech.
Now touching thoſe reaſons which I brought to proue the miniſtry of our Churches, to be ye miniſtry of Chriſt. The firſt is this, they hauehave the calling of the Church. What ſound ſtuffe ye hauehave brought to warrant your moſt vngodly preſumption, in condemning the Church of England, as alſo al Churches in Europe, let the reader iudge. Alſo that the Churches doo in ſome things differ about the manner of calling and ordaining miniſters, how you or any other by this can proue all to be void, would be ſeene.
Then next the miniſtry of the Church of England is the miniſtry of reconſiliation: bringing no doctrine, but the doctrine of the holy Scriptures. Here ye cauill fooliſhly, that although they exerciſe an office, yet they hauing no true calling, doo it but as priuate men. Luther and Caluine and all the reſt which hauehave preached the Goſpell in theſe times, ye confeſſe in ſome ſmall meaſure, according to that little which they did ſee (nothing comparable to that you hauehave attained) hauehave vttered the truth: but yet as priuate men. Here beſides your wicked barking againſt the miniſtry of all Churches, which God hath ratified: your ignorance is to be noted in this, that you doo not know, that if a man enter not rightly into a publick office, yet the office it ſelfe is not deſtroyed: as if a King hauehave but vſurped the crown, yet he is a King while he be depoſed. It is more then fooliſh that ye ſay, we hauehave a leiturgy or preſcript forme of praier, therfore we bring other doctrine beſides the Scriptures.
Thirdly, the miniſtry of the Church of England dooth bring men to faith, there being ioyned with it the effectual power and bleſſing of the holy Ghoſt, &c. In anſwering this Maſter Barrow, yee fall into your former ſtincking puddle, into which yée draw many a raſh ignorant man. I meane ye vtterly deny with the vngodly Swinckfeldians, all the whole efficacy, power and bleſſing, which God hath annexed vntounto the miniſtry of the Goſpell. Here is a great patch ſet on to help the Papiſts, how by this alſo ye ſay, they may reaſon to proue their miniſtry and Church to be ſuch, as they that ſeparate themſelues muſt néeds be Schiſmatikes. Why Maſter Barrow, do you not know that as God made a promiſe to his Church to the end of the world, and hath giuen gifts & a miniſtry, to continue euen to the worlds end, to build it, for Saint Paule ſaith, this miniſtry is giuen, vntill we all meete together in the vnity of faith, which cannot bee, vntill the laſt day, that the whole number be accompliſhed. Epheſ. 4. 13. So hee hath alwaies reſerued not only ſome miniſtry in the popery, but alſo in all times ſome godly miniſters? How little help this bringeth to the Papiſts, or all thoſe ſound points or doctrine that remained and do remaine among them to proue that the Churches which hauehave forſaken them are but Schiſmatikes, or that the Churches ſhould not caſt foorth the vſurped power of Antichriſt, I thinke children might be made to ſée and vnderſtand, for although they hold ſundry points of the faith, yet they quite ſubuert the holy faith. And whereas the Apoſtleſhip and miniſtry of Saint Paule being called into queſtion, he vſeth this reaſon vntounto thoſe which had receaued the faith and power of the holy Ghoſt by his miniſtry, If I be not an Apostle vntounto others, yet am I vntounto you: I ſaid the ſame is to be made the defence of the miniſtry of the Churches at this day, vntounto all ſuch as by the publick preaching of the word, and adminiſtration of the Sacraments are called vntounto an aſſured faith and comfort in God, and vntounto vnfeined repentance. For let all theſe iudge whether there be no efficacy & power, in the publick adminiſtratiō of the word and Sacraments, more then from the mouth of any priuat perſon. VntoUnto this you anſwer is too foule and beaſtly: for ye ſay it w…l fit the Papiſts againſt vsus: and then I ſay it might fit the falſe Apoſtles againſt S. Paule. For if the Papiſts can or may as well ſay, though wee bee no miniſters of Chriſt vntounto other, yet vntounto you that féele the comfort and power of our doctrine and ioy in it, we are miniſters of Chriſt. Then might the falſe Apoſtles in like manner hauehave riſen vp againſt S. Paul, and ſpoken the ſame vntounto thoſe which delighted to heare them. Is there no difference betwéene that power of the Goſpell, that aſſurance of faith, of peace and ioy in the holy Ghoſt, and of vnfained feare of God, and repentance which it worketh: and that blinde zeale, and comfort which hereticks and Papiſts hauehave in falſe doctrine and ſuperſtition? Will ye confound all? When ye pronounce that there is no ſuch faith nor repentance, nor ioy in the holy Ghoſt, nor peace of conſcience wrought in the hearts of any by the miniſtry of our Church: how far aboue the clouds doth your ſwelling blind pride, lift vp her hands? Let al ſuch as hauehave felt the effectual calling of God, beare witnes in this matter.
In the fourth, I alleadged that the Martyrs which ſuffered in the dayes of Quéene Marie, were moued and brought to fayth & repentance, at the preaching of Maſter Latimer, Taylor, Hoper, Bradford, and others. Your replie is, that this reaſon ſtandeth vponupon popiſh and Annabaptiſticall grounds. For popiſ… don alleadge, … as▪ many martyrs his predeceſſors Let me then aſke this queſtion? when it is confeſſed that they were holy martyrs, & died for the true faith, will it not follow, if the Pope could prooue that the Church of Rome had held ſtill that holy fayth, that it ſhould bee the true Church? We hold the ſame fayth with the holy Martyrs. The motions ye ſay at our preachings are but the illuſiōs of Sathan, and this is the cauſe that you account the reaſon to be Annabaptiſticall. God is highly to be bleſſed, who hath ſo ratified the effectual power of the miniſtrie of his word in the hearts of many thouſands, both: in this land and in other countries with ſuch aſſurance and conſtancie of faith, that the whole power of Sathā out of the mouthes of papiſts, Annabaptiſts, Schiſmatiks, and frantick perſons, is not able to bring it into doubt. Laſtly, I did aduiſe men to be ſomewhat moued with the iudgement of other Churches. This (you ſay) is an old popiſh reaſon. M. Barrow it is not popiſh at all vntounto ſuch as ſhall conſider that ye Churches with theſe principal inſtruments which God rayſeth vp as lights, doo diſcuſſe matters by the Scriptures: men are to ſeeke for the truth at their handes. But I muſt tell yee it is the trick of all ranck heretikes and ſchiſmaticks to deſpiſe the iudgement of the Churches. Shall we think that a few ignorant raſh men hauehave receiued ſuch light from God, as al the moſt noble inſtruments rayſed vp, hauehave not? Thus ye hauehave anſwered no one reaſon which I brought, but only with vaine, yea more then vayne cauills.
The foule reproachfull ſpeeches, which yee vſe to deface all the miniſters of Chriſts Goſpell, both of other Churches, & of the Church of England, are ſo many, and that in ſundry places of your bookes, but ſpecially in your Diſcouery, from pag. 140. vntounto pag. 187. that hee that will ſearch all that is written of the Cathariſts, the Donatiſts & Annabaptiſts, and ſundry hereticks, ſhall not be able to finde the like, for the ſlanderous preſumption, & prowd contempt. The preaching of the Goſpel it ſelle, in our church ye do moſt prophanely blaſpheme, in ſaying, that ther with, as with a goodly embrodered couerlet and fine ſhéets of Egipt, we couer Ieſabels bed, & hide al our fornicatiōs. When ye ſay it as a ſweet whiſtle & as a charme, yea when ye tearme it the whores ſcarfes to couer her ſhame, pag. 141▪ Alſo wher as in many places of this land, but chiefly when the Spaniards came to inuade, there were faſts, & the word of God preached in ſome places by two, in ſome by 3. miniſters: this ye call a ſtage play. pag. 97. Ye ſay ye are no Donatiſts nor Schiſmaticks, & out of that which I hauehave written to ſhewe that ye are full Donatiſts, ye gather ſundry diſſimilitudes betwixt your ſelues and them. Ye might perhaps by diligence finde out ſome other things in which ye are not like them: as it may be they did weare blew caps, or gréene cloaks, which ye doe not. The truth is you do agrée with thē in the ſum & ſubſtance of all yt fowleſt things, which ye cannot denie: at leaſt if ye come behinde them in any one poynt, ye are before them in two other for it. To follow ye in all points wher in ye erre tither with thē, or with ſome other as wicked, would be ouer tedious: onelyonly I note theſe and ſet them downe together.
1 Firſt that ye do moſt preſumptuouſly againſt the expreſſe rules of Gods word, intrude your ſelues into the Lords office, in taking vponupon ye to condemne the whole Church of England, as ſeparated from Chriſt, refut page 23.
2 That ye condemne al the Churches in Europe which profeſſe the Goſpell, that their people are but heapes of prophane men. diſe. page 33. That their worſhip is blaſphemous Idolatrie, in as much as they hauehave leiturgies, which is (as ye ſay) to hauehave another Goſpell, another Teſtament, Refut. page 244. That there is no miniſtry of the Goſpel in al Europ, Diſc. page 104. that the gouernement of al Churches is falſe and wicked, Refut. page 74. 75. Diſcou. page 189. 190.
3 That ye confound errors and hereſies, as to make all errors, hereſies being conuinced to his conſcience that erreth & held, and to make none to be hereſies, vnles he be conuinced that erreth, Refu. page. 24.
4 That with Nouatus the wicked heretick, ye take away all hope of ſaluatiō frō thoſe which offend of knowledge willingly, in as much as ye make eueryevery obſtinate perſiſting in the leaſt error, to ſeparate frō the faith & Communion of Chriſt pa. 24.
5 That ye deny the diſtinction of errors fundamentall and not fund amentall, calling it popiſh. Refut. page 26.
6 That yee iudge of the whole Church to bee conuinced in conſcience as of one man, page 24.
7 That ye hold it a due conuincing, not onelyonly of particular perſons, but alſo of whole Churches, and ſuch as doth caſt them forth as heathen, ſo ſoone as any priuat man dooth reproue the leaſt error, & they forthwith do not reforme the ſame. page 24.
8 That ye condemne al without exception, both learned and vnlearned, men and wemen young and old, which profeſſe the Goſpell in publick aſſemblies, vponupon falſe accuſations, without admonition, & in matters wherein if there be errors, yet excellent godly men hauehave erred in them finally, euen by your …wne confeſsion. Refut. page 180.
9 That ye ſay the beſt part of the booke of common praier is no better then a peece of ſwines fleſh, and abomination to the Lord. Refut page 48.
10 That ye ſay the greateſt miniſter hath no more power to binde or looſe the leaſt member, then the ſaid member hath to binde or looſe him: and ſo with the Swinckfeldians, deſtroy the whole power of the miniſtry. page 37.
11 That ye ſpeake ſo prophanely of ſinging of Pſalmes, and ſo diſhonorably of Chriſtian people. Diſcou. page 180.
12 That moſt offenſiuely and prophanely, ye tearme the articles of our faith, our forged patcherie. Diſcou. page 76.
13 That ye deny men are to ioyne in that worſhip, where any errors whatſoeuer doo appeare, and are not reformed, and ſo open a moſt wide gap vntounto all Schiſmes. Refut page 27.
14 That you are ſo groſly ignorant how the falſe Apoſtles vrged circumciſion, and ſo from the words of S. Paule to the Galathians affirme that paying tithes, or the obſeruing any times as it is in our church, is an error fundamētal. Refut. pa. 36
15. That ye iudge them to be no true Churches which hauehave not excommunication. pag. 54. 73.
16 That ye denie baptiſme to the children of open ſinners, which yet remayne in the Church. Refut. pag. 58. 59.
17 That ye make the ſtablenes of Gods couenant towards his Church to depend vponupon the works of men. Refut. pag. 60.
18 That ye hold circūciſion amōg the ten tribes, or in Iuda in time of Idolatrie, was no true ſeale of the couenant, & yet ye ſay that cōcerning the outward cutting it was true circūciſion: the like ye ſay of baptiſme adminiſtred in popery. Ref. pag. 64.
19 That in your Diſc. from pag. 16. to pag. 45. and Refut. pag. 97. ye take vponupon ye to confute almoſt all which M Caluiue hath written againſt the Donatiſts & Annabaptiſts, holding that the prayers and Sacraments, & the conſciences of all that communicate together are defiled, where any open ſinners are admitted.
20 That ye deny the diſtinction of the external court, & the court of conſcience: & ſo take away the power of the ciuil magiſtrate, & the power of the Church in making lawes, in things indifferent, taking vponupon ye to confute M. Cal. Diſc. pa 94. 95.
21 That ye condemne Logick, Rethorike and other liberal Artes. Refut. pag 117.
22 That ye would hauehave al authors (the bible only excepted) caſt aſide in the ſtudy of diuinitie. Diſc. pag. 146.
23 That ye wickedly blaſpheme the operatiō & motions of Gods ſpirit in the harts of men at the preaching of the goſpel, as if they were but the illuſions of the diuel. Diſco. pa. 141. 156
24 That ye ſpeake ſo reprochfully of all the moſt excellent learned diuines which God hath rayſed vp in al Churches, cō demning them of pride, ignorance, raſhnes, ſenſualitie, &c. Diſco. from pag. 140. vntounto pag. 191.
25 That ye ſtill ſtand to maintaine, that priuate men may aſſemble and erect a Church with all the offices & officers. Refut. pag. 191.
26 That ye affirme there bee no true miniſters any where to be found vpō earth, nor yet any extraordinary miniſters to be looked for, & therfore meere priuate men are (as ye ſay) to erect and eſtabliſh the Church Refut pag. 196.
27 That ye affirme theſe priuate men are not to ſtay for the Prince Refut. pag. 196.
28 That ye maintaine that no fault is to be tolerated in the church: but if any priuate man do eſpie a fault and reproue it, if they will not amend it he is to forſake that church. This is your whole practiſe.
I will not ſtand to lay open eueryevery particular but vponupon theſe conclude, that ſeeing ye hold ſo many foule errors, and with ſuch outrage in your dealing, God hath not ſent ye, nor ſet ye a work, more then he ſent the Donatiſts and Annabaptiſts, but Satan hath ſeduced ye, & ye labor to ſeduce others. And if it pleaſe God I beſeech him for his ſonns ſake to open your eyes, and to giuegive ye ſome ſpark of wa… …orepent. Amen.
FINIS.
End of the text · George Gifford, Short Reply to the Donatists (1591)