that power into executâ—on Now in the former sense neither the Scripture so far as I understand nor the Church of England hath asserted such power in any Ecclesiastical persons since the Apostles who onely under Christ had a power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and autocratical Or thirdly For an eminent degree of power in Government so as that some acts thereof do solely belong unto him to perform regularly and in common order Now in this sense omitting the name as Zanchy said above and keeping our eye upon the thing it self seeing both the Scripture and the Church of England as also the practice of the whole Church through the world formerly and the most learned men of the reformed Churches of late all which have been evidenced above have constituted an order or degree of persons who of right had and ought to have the Regiment and Government over other Ministers as is plain not onely by the Apostles but also by the Evangelists Timothy and Titus as also by the perpetual necessity of the Church I must needs refer unto that fore-quoted sentence of Cyprian to this purpose and add here another of like effect out of him Haec sunt enim initia haereticorum ortus atque conatus Schismaticorum malè cogitantium Cypr. l. 3. Ep. 1. ut sibi placeant ut praepositum superbo tumore contemnant Sic de Ecclesiâ receditur sic altare prophanum foris collocatur sic contra pacem Christi ordinationem atque unitatem Dei rebellatur These are saith hee the beginnings of Hereticks the rise and struglings of ill minded Schismaticks to please themselves and with proud stomach to despise the Bishop for so this word must here be meant thence men depart from the Church thence the prophane altar of separation is placed elsewhere thence against the peace of Christ and against the Ordinance and unity appointed by God rebellion is raised Fourthly Sole Jurisdiction may be taken for exercising those Acts that of right belong to him to do wholly of his own head without ingagement to consult and advise with any or else for the sole power of acting but upon ingagement of taking with him the Judgement and opinion though not the governing power of others also Hence the Apostle in the former sense admonisheth that the Bishop as well as any other Minister and Elder Tit. 1.7 must not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that in the Government of the Church goeth upon his own head And in the latter sense is it that Cyprian than whom no man was more for the priviledge Episcopal and for entire obedience thereunto yet saith Cypr. l. 3. Ep. 10 Ad id vero quod scripserunt mihi compresbyteri nostri solus rescribere nil potui cum a primordio Episcopatus mei statuerim nihil sine consilio vestro sine consensu plebis mea privatim sententia gerere Unto that saith hee that my fellow Presbyters wrote unto mee I can alone return no answer for I determined from my first entrance into my office privately and of my own head without your counsel that are the Ministers and without the consent of the people to do nothing For the true understanding of which sentence and other like as also for a resolution of the question it self a few things must be severally and distinctly noted First That hee doth not in this overthrow what several times hee said before L. 1. Ep. 3. l. 3. Ep. 1. touching the obedience due from the whole Church to the Bishop but onely signifies that hee thinks it his duty to advise with them as theirs to be obedient unto him Secondly That this course of use then is not so necessary now when as all the motions and actings of the Bishop are laid forth and determined and hee obliged to operate and govern onely by them by the Laws and Canons which was not so fully done in that Fathers time Thirdly That this order is not observed therefore by those who are most Antiepiscopal not by the Brethren or Presbyters neither here nor beyond the Seas who do not call the people to all consultations but onely Presbyters either sacred or civil Lastly That this practice of Cyprian is ad amussim and exactly performed by the Bishops of England For The Bishops in the Church of England do nothing but by the advise of their Brethren and of the people First seeing they arrogate no power but what the Scripture the Canons of the Church and the Laws of the Land do allow and secondly that by these all whatsoever materially they do is already prescribed to them And in the third place those powers in Scripture Canons of the Church and Laws of the Nation are approved and confirmed both by their Brethren the Ministery in Convocation and by the people in the Parliament by their delegates it follows truly and really that the Bishops in England act nothing but in effect according to that Fathers example by the counsel of the Ministry and consent of the people Thus much for their assertion Brethrens proof As to their proof It is from Antiquity from the book of Ordination from the Common-prayer-book and from the Law First For Antiquity P. 47. they say in Cyprians time there were in Rome a number of the Clergy Answ who acted with the Bishop By this argument wee may infer strange consequences For the Parliament acts with the King So Acts run the Kings most excellent Majesty with the advice of the Lords and Commons c. And the Counsel acts with the King for that is common in proclamations The King by the advice of the Privy Counsel The question is not with whom the Bishops act as who hath the primary Power The Justices on the Bench act with the Judge but can they declare Law give the charge and pronounce sentence Wee heard above what Cyprians judgement was of the power of the Bishop what also out of tenderness and indulgence and to avoid offence and for better light not for more jurisdiction hee condescended unto also Next Proof 2 for that out of the book of Ordination that because it is asked the Minister to bee ordained whether hee will obey his Ordinary and other chief Ministers c. therefore there are other Ministers that have the power of jurisdiction As if this did not refer unto the Archbishop Answ or other officers of the Bishops To which because they cannot answer they object a place out of the Liturgy which shall bee spoken to in its time P. 48. The other place in the book of Ordination That because it is asked the Priest to be ordained if hee will administer the Doctrine Object and Sacraments and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this Realm hath received the same therefore they say it was the intention of the Church to admit all Presbyters to have a share in Ecclesiastical jurisdiction That is It was the intention of the Church Answ to
the Kingdom Dec. 15. 1642. was the fountain of all the following mischiefs The very first line is Your Majesties most humble and loyal subjects the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled Next the Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy do declare That the Kings Majesty is the onely Supream Governor of this Realm over all persons and in all causes 2. Oathes of Supremacy and Allegiance 3 Eliz. cap. 1. Kings Answer to the Remonstrance of May 26. 1642. Remonstr of Lords and Commons Nov. 2. 1642. Ecclesiastical and Temporal and of all other his Dominions and Countries Yea and every Parliament-man before he can sit is bound by Law to swear them Now this is not answered in my judgment by a saying out of a Private * Fleta lib. 1. cap. 17. de justitiariis substituendis Lawyer that Rex habet in populo regendo superiores legem per quam factus est curiam suam videlicet Comites Barones And by that other that Rex est major singulis but minor universis For the former Author hath that sentence and words out of Bracton who hath several times also the quite contrary as shall appear Again It is against the tenor and current of Law and Lawyers and the known practise of the Nation Thirdly It may bear an other interpretation namely understanding the Law either of God who makes Kings Prov. 8. or of men made with the Kings consent whereunto he hath voluntarily obliged himself from which at first he might be free And by the superiority of his Court their legal jurisdiction conferred on them by his approbation for decision of ordinary controversies that may fall betwixt himself and his Subjects but not simply his superiors first because he calls it His Court now the owner is greater than the thing owned as such Again else the Earls and Barons were the superior power to the King Fourthly This refers not at all to the House of Commons whereof neither Fleta nor his Author Bracton in this sentence make any mention Again secondly the Oathes of Supremacy and Allegiance and the style the Parliament speak in of his Majesties loyal and humble subjects the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament Remonstr Nov. 2. 1642. are not answered by saying that this of supream head and governor over all persons Object in all causes is meant of singular persons rather than of Courts or of the collective Body of the whole Kingdom And that it is meant in Curia not in Camera in his Courts not in his private Capacity and properly onely in his high Court of Parliament wherein and wherewith his Majesty hath supream Power For first Answ 1 The Oathes speak comprehensively both of Persons and Causes over all and in all So again the style of humble and obedient subjects is spoken as from them as the two Houses of Parliament for so they say assembled in Parliament Now if Subjects then and there sure Soveraigns or associates in Soveraignty they cannot be the terms in the same respect are contradictory Thirdly If the King be acknowledged to be the fountain of justice as the Law and Lawyers say he is of which anon then both Laws and Courts flow from him and thence are called his Laws his Courts and so ordine naturae dignitatis both in nature and dignity must be before and above both His splendor is in his Courts but his Supremacy not onely there but in his person also from whence it was derived to his Courts For there must be a First in nature either the King or his Courts and if they be His Courts then he made them and therefore in esse naturae before them Neither doth it hence follow as is there inferred Object That then the King may over-rule all his Courts Ibid. even the Parliament it self and so the goodly frame of Government should soon be dissolved and Arbitrary power brought in Answ For the King having both consented and sworn to the Laws and to the maintaining the jurisdiction of his Courts acting according to those Laws is not now in that respect sui juris and arbitrary in Government but obliged both to God and man to act by Laws and to preserve his Courts unviolate But if any Court shall assume a greater power than the King and Law hath given them or act in opposition to that power from whom they had their being whilst he doth not openly reject all Laws and Government much less when he doth rationally together with as many or more both of Lords and Commons though excluded the formality of being in such a place judge that he acts according to Law in the main of his proceedings In such case and in such actings they are not such a Court nor are not authorised with power from above but act excentrically and as private persons unto whom the Declaration grants the King to be superior As the Army having received Commission from the two Houses of Parliament afterward turned their Arms against them which they could not do by their Commission as also a great fautor of their proceedings since then spake in my hearing God thereby perhaps representing to the Houses by the Army their own failings toward their Superior And the Armies reasoning was on the like principles viz. That they were entrusted with power for the Kingdoms preservation and that the Parliament degenerating they must not see the Kingdom perish Object 3 Neither may it be received that if the Parliament may take account of what is done by his Majesty in his inferiour Courts Ibid. much more of what is done by him without the authority of any Court For to speak properly the Parliament takes account not of the Kings actions or authority in his Courts but of his Officers and of their administration of that authority and this also by the Kings consent established by Law whereby they are enabled so to do Or to speak yet more properly The Parliament that is the King Lords and Commons for the Parliament is not without the King as being the Head of it but without and in opposition unto him and the Laws they do not take such cognizance Again for that saying That they might much more take account of the Kings actions that are done without the authority of any Court meaning the great administration of Justice and the raising of Arms Seeing no Court is superior to its Author the King therefore no Court can give authority to him but he to them nor can they call him to account for then they were his superiors and had the Regal Power and himself should be no King as is expresly affirm'd in Mr. St. John's speech against Ship-mony of which afterward Humbly represent to him they may his miscarriages and punish his Ministers so it may be done without sedition and assuming the Sword which is inseparable from the Supreme Power Lastly How can this be assented unto that because when the Title is dubious Ibid. pag. ult he is
superbiam quemadmodum digni sunt Dei justo judicio in omnibus supervenienti By whose command saith he men are born by the same command Kings are constituted fit for those who in each time are to be governed by them Some of them are given for the amendment and profit of their subjects and preservation of Justice but some for terrour and punishment and rebuke and some for mockery and contumely and pride according as men deserve the just judgment of God prevailing in all things Thus he by which he implies prayer and patience but no resistance Tertullian likewise Apologet. cap. 30. cap. 33. cap. 37. A quo sunt secundi Reges post quem Deum primi ante omnes super omnes Deos. From whom God they Kings are second after whom they are first before all and above all Gods that is above all inferiour Magistrates In a word we may see the sense of Antiquity in this point in him Instit l. 3. c. 3. § 10. Aug. Contr. Faust lib. 22. cap. 75. from whom Calvin would have us learn it in all viz. S. Austin Ordo naturalis hoc poscit ut suscipiendi belli Anthoritas penes principem sit exequendi autem ministerium milites debeant Natural order saith he requires this that the Authority of undertaking war be in the power of the Prince but that the souldiers owe the service of execution and management And that they wanted not either number or strength one of the former Authours gives us assurance Tertul. Apologet cap. 37. Si enim hostes extraneos non tantum vindices occultos agere vellemus deesset nobis res numerorum copiarum If we would saith he become open enemies and not secret revengers would there be wanting to us the force either of number or Armies And so shews that the Christians filled all places insomuch that should they but have withdrawn themselves only from the rest of men they should have made a desolation in the world And thus of the Primitive Christians * Anticavalierism 7. Reformed Churches So vain is it to say that Tertullian was mistaken in their number 7. In the last place come we to the examples of the Reformed Churches particularly those of France and Holland who are said to have defended themselves by arms as we have done defended by our Writers and owned by our Princes For Answer First we are to note that though perhaps it should be granted that it may be lawful in some cases for oppressed subjects to call for help unto other Foraign and lawful power because these powers are coordinate with their own in respect of degree and dignity and in such case there is no violation of order by the rising up of the inferiour against his Prince But secondly they were neither defended by our Writers Difference of Subject and Rebel part 3. pag. 279. Ed. Lond. 1586. nor patronized by our Princes farther then the Laws and their case as represented by them did allow If the Laws of the Land saith Dr. Bilson speaking of the French the Scottish and the Holland Civil wars do not permit them to guard their lives when they are assaulted with unjust force against law we will never excuse them from rebellion And a little after for my part I must confess saith he that except the Laws of those Realms do permit the people to stand on their right if the Prince would offer that wrong I dare not allow their arms And another treating of the same example saith Quarum injuriarum atrocitates Abbot de Antichrist cap. 7. n. 5 6. occasionem fortè dederunt bello civili dum vim vi propulsant tantummodo qui contra jus fasque indignissimè habiti id sibi per patrias LEGES licere judicarunt The horribleness of which injuries saith he peradventure gave occasion to the Civil war whilst they do only repell force by force and who contrary to all right and equity were treated most unworthily and did judge that they might do so by the Laws of their Country And again Hîc verò politica res agitur quid principi juris in subditos per leges cujusque Reip. fundatrices permissum sit The question here saith he is matter of Civil policy viz. What power the Prince hath over his subjects by the fundamental Laws of each Common-wealth So that we see they defended these actions of the Protestants abroad so far only as they were legal This for their cause But as to ours the former Authour shews it to be different The German Emperour saith he is elected and his power abated by the liberties of the Princes Bils of Subj and Rebel part 3. p. 277. But the Queen of England hath one and the same right over all her subjects be they NOBLES or others You see he makes our cause and case Kings of Engl laws and allegiance to differ from the former CHAP. VII Reply to certain general Reasons for the War Scripture and Reason for defence of Arms a Book so called AND now to draw towards an end of this first point the War The defences made in the justification of the War they are of three sorts from Scripture from Law and from Reason Those from Scripture and Law have been replyed to before SECT I. Law TO those from Reason laid down in the Book quoted in the Margin a seven fold errour more especially hath miscarried the Authours though men otherwise of Learning and Piety first in mistaking the word Law They seem to take the word Law to signifie only the agreements pactions and rules established by mutual consent betwixt Prince and people and make this only to be the ground of subjection and of commanding So that what is beyond it is no way obligatory either to be performed or suffered under farther then necessity and the want of power to resist doth enforce But they forget that there is another and superiour Law viz. that of God's Soveraignty oftentimes appointing an Invader or an Usurper or a Tyrant to rule for the punishment of a people Whose will only is the Law and whom God will have obeyed by all subjects in things lawful and not resisted in things unlawful So he appointed Nebuchadnezzar Jer. 25.15 not onely to rule over the Jews but over all the Nations there mentioned and they are enjoyned to obedience unto him So Hos 13.11 Hos 13.11 Jeroboam and the following Kings over the ten Tribes in his wrath as himself saith or even over all Israel as Saul who is understood to be pointed at in that Text. And of their Kings 't is expresly said they should onely be able to cry out in that day which by their practise 1 Sam. 8.18 may be understood that they should be allowed to do no other For else why joyned they not with David or why did not David himself resist him but always fled from him And the punishment of all those subjects that rebelled in the
but even to those that are froward 1 Pet. 2.18 19 20. and that do afflict for well-doing For so the Apostle speaking to servants which by proportion holds unto subjects both because every Master is a Magistrate but especially because the ground of non-resistance here is not the lawful power he had neither as to the obtaining of it for he might take his servant by praedation pyracy or other unlawful ways nor the lawfulness of his commands for the Apostle supposeth the Masters to be such as punish for well-doing in which case God did never give direct power to command though he have given indirect power for the trial of his servants faith and patience The Apostle after he had required subjection to the King and others under him 1 Pet. 2.18 19 20. explained in every Ordinance and command comes in the same chapter unto servants with the same precept but with this further explication which belongs to both that this subjection should be to the froward that is to the wicked and for not doing things they commanded against â—od for so the sense must be also The words are If a man for conscience toward God endure grief suffering wrongfully You see it is â—ods Ordinance not to resist though he suffer wrongfully that is for things wherein there is no direct right to command which is the same with that of our Saviour Resist not evil Matth. 5.39 explained but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek which sure he hath no right to do turn to him the other also Which is to be understood especially with reference unto Superiors and comparatively that is rather than resist Plead a subject may as Paul did Act. 16.37 chap. 22.25 against oppression of Magistrates resist he may not because God hath in so many places of his Word ordained otherwise but least of all by arms and in a publick way What cases may fall out wherein subjects may be no subjects they are very rare and are spoken to else-where in this Treatise but are far from our case in this Nation and so concern us not SECT IV. A State a Parliament or inferior Magistrates THe fourth mistake of the former Authors is that they distinguish in this question betwixt a Parliament or State or inferior Magistrates and private persons granting defence unto the one though denyed unto the other and so would avoid the Scriptures as well as Reasons prohibition not to resist the higher powers But first they say that a private person is not prohibited resistance but for want of strength so not for conscience sake a vile position If the power in a Parliament or State or inferior Magistrates be derived from a Superior they have no power to use it against him for it is his and theirs onely by concession from him nor is it conferred on them but with that intention for his service not his opposition If they use it against him it must be by some other superior power that hath conferred other powers upon them and that must be some visible one too for their very esse and being as such a Parliament State or Magistracy is wholly dependent from him who conferred those powers upon them This for Reason Then for the Scripture they would so elude by saying That it doth not forbid the Senate to resist if it did prohibit private persons because neither Paul nor Peter wrote to them not being Christians We must note that the Apostle Rom. 13. forbidding every soul to resist the higher powers as being the Ordinance and order of God by and among men 1 Pet. 2. explained must mean according to the known practise of those times whether by Law or Custom or Will of the Prince Now if the Law did enable any to resist as the Senate or other why then that is the higher power for resistance is by the Sword Note and it is the higher power onely that bears the sword and so such resistance should not be resistance to but an execution of the higher power If the Laws formally or really gave no power then by this prohibition of the Apostle they could not resist because none might resist the higher power He speaks distributively every soul that he might be understood the more comprehensively all together And he speaks indefinitely without restraining or excepting lest any should plead exemption What the Senate did against that Prince under whose government they were when the Apostle wrote to the Romans viz. Nero by proclaiming him an enemy to the Common-wealth proscribing of him and decreeing he should be punished more majorum And what their power or the foundation of it was and what their case is not much material for us to query seeing the constitution or at least the practice of their State and ours as they do so they ought to differ as much as Heathenism and Christianity And this for their fourth mistake in placing any difference betwixt inferior Magistrates and private men in case of resistance beyond the Laws for in that respect they are but private men as genera species subalternae respectu superiorum But from the Thesis of States and inferior Magistrates in general they come SECT V. The co-ordinate power of the two Houses in making Laws TO the Hypothesis and in particular in reference unto the Government of this Nation They say That the King is not wholly supreme because as he hath a negative voice so also each of the Houses of Parliament and that he cannot make alter or abrogate a Law of himself but that they have a co-ordinate power with him For answer It were more for the personal advantage Answ and perhaps satisfaction of Kings if there were no Laws but that they govern'd after their own judgment It is therefore of concession and a departing from their advantage to have Laws and to limit themselves by them for the better satisfaction of their subjects Now although it be truly affirm'd by a present and reverend Pen Dr. Sanderson L. Bishop of Lincoln Preface to B. Usher of the right of Kings pag. 4. That the justice of succession is the onely right and proper foundation of Government wherein he was foregone by him who saith of succession * D. Hen. Savilius praefat ded R. Jacob. prefix operib J. Chrysost Gr. Quod si cui leve videatur sciat eam rem tanti apud majores nostros fuisse ponderis ut non priùs justum legitimum Normannorum in Anglia imperium fuisse arbitrarentur quà m Mathildis Davidis soror Henrico primo enupta regiam nobis sobolem daret ex antiqua regum Saxonicorum stirpe derivatam Which Succession saith mine Author if it seem a small matter to any man he must know that it was of so great weight with our Ancestors that they never thought that the Government of William the Conqueror and the Normans was just and lawful until Mathildis the sister of David * Abnepos grandchild to
Act as not extending to Queen Elizabeths Successors in Ecclesiastical Affairs and the Kings Proclamation till confirmed by Act and reproaching the Doctrine Pag. 62. quer 4 Worship Discipline and Government of the Church publickly These are not sons of peace but of those who as Solomon speaks separate very friends Pro. 16.28 or as others read it Separate the Captain or the Princes For Sunt qui intelligant principem a suo populo ut hic in illum rebellet aut ille in hunc alienore sit animo Mercer in loc vid. et R. Kavenak ibid. There are saith mine Author that by these words understand the separation betwixt the Prince and the People that they should rebell against him and he be disaffected toward them This for the Ministers Next for the godly and sober people Sober Christians Their calamity lyes in following rather those that delight to goe over Hedge and Ditch Answ then to keep the Kings High way But for their suffering though the Father and Mother and Children cannot but be much grieved to afflict or see afflicted a Childe or Brother yet we know some Members must suffer to preserve the whole And sometime the Parents are commanded to bring the sonne forth to justice not only for his vitiousness but for his disobedience Deut. 21.20 And the Magistrate is sometime forced to punish those that have much good worth in them only for some disorder unto Government And let no man reply that these are for vitiousness Inst but remember Answ that heresie and schisme are reckoned among the fruits of the flesh as well as drunkenness and whoredom Gal. 5. And that those whom Paul wished were cut off were not vitious persons for ought appears but schismaticks Ibid. And that our Saviour was much more facile to the Publicans and sinners then to the religious but hypocritical Pharisees Which is not written to discountenance Religion but to make it appear that if we look not well to it strictness may be mixed with much hidden evil as theirs was Col. 2. 1 Tim. 4. who yet were guilty some of Will-worship others of Doctrines of Devils Howsoever no mans piety must patronize his irregularity and disorder Jam. 3.17 for the Wisdom from above is pure peaceable c. The fifth exception against the Ceremonies is That they are burdensome for number insinuated by the citing a place of the Preface of the Common-prayer Book which quoteth * Ep. 119. Januar. cap. 19. The number of Ceremonies in the Com-prayer Book Austin complaining of this evil in his time and saying it was worse then the Jewish Paedagogy But this no way comports with ours which as they are innocent and simple and well explained so are they few in number as kneeling in Prayer and at receiving the Sacrament standing at the Creed for that at the Epistle and Gospel is not in the Common-prayer Book though not against it the Crosse in Baptism the Ring in Marriage the Imposition of hands upon Children to be confirmed and in ordination of Ministers in the Book of Ordination Besides which five I remember no other I am sure there is none material else appointed And but two of these in the ordinary service kneeling and standing and but one in any of the other Some few others there are in Vestiments and Bowing at the Name of Jesus established by Canon and others by custome as the reading the Epistle Gospel standing and at the Communion-Table with some the Vaylings of the Women to be Churched out of use Psal 64.6 which all amount to no considerable number So that after they have searched out or searched for iniquity if they could finde any in this particular and accomplished a diligent search as the Psalmist complains yet all these men whose hands are mighty in these kinde of catchings have found upon the matter nothing Ps 76.5 they have not found their hands able to fasten upon any number to make good the proof of this accusation Their last Exception is that they ought to be removed by the consequence of the 34 Article of the Church Except ult P. 32 33 35 39. Ought to be removed and of the Preface to the Common-prayer-book it self also of the second Homily of the time and place of prayer yea and by the practise of the Bishops themselves Wherein as before they prevaricate and play false For because the Article saith That it is not necessary that Ceremonies be in all places one and that they may be changed 1. By Artic. 34. therefore the Brethren infer they must be changed Answ But they should remember a posse ad esse nedum à posse ad necesse non valet consequentia That from what may be to what is much leâ—s to what must be is no good consequence Again for the Preface to the Common-prayer-book 2. By the Preface of the Com. prayer because it saith That many Ceremonies were removed because some were abused Answ so as that they could not be reformed without the removing of them That others were superstitious others unprofitable others obscured the glory of God others by their multitude were burdensome Hence the Brethren infer That therefore those Ceremonies which the Compilers of the Prayer-book left and were in their judgments profitable innocent clear few in number must be removed also To make the Composers of the Book so simple as they did the Parliament that established the Book as to confute themselves And to the third the second part of the Homily of the time and place of prayer they handled this word also deceitfully 3. By the Homily Answ as no doubt but their conscience might have told them For the Homily having complained first of those who having prophaned and defiled their Churches with Heathenish and Jewish abuses with Images and Idols with numbers of Altars with gross abusing and filthily corrupting of the Lords Supper with an infinite number of toys and trifles of their own devices to make a goodly outward shew and to deface the plain simple and sincere Religion of Christ Jesus Then the Homily saith ' Gods vengeance as for the former so hath been and is provoked because people pass not to come to the Church either through blindness or else for that they see the Church altogether scoured of such gay gazing sights as their gross phantasie was greatly delighted with because they see the false Religion abandoned and the true restored which seems an unsavoury thing to their unsavoury taste As may appear by that a woman said to her neighbour Alas Gossip what shall we do now at Church since all the Saints are taken away since all the goodly sights we were wont to have are gone since we cannot hear the like piping singing chanting and playing upon the Organs that we could before But dearly Beloved we ought greatly to rejoyce and give God thanks that our Churches are delivered out of all those things which