properly because there is ceremoniall doctrine as vvell as morall or substantiall 4 To vvhich of these points vvill the Def referre the Hierarchie of Bishops or are they no points of Religion For the negatiue part of this answer that ceremoniall points of Religion are not revealed in the Scripture but left to the libertie of the Church it is too too nakedly set down for to beare any colour of truth vvith it For 1 vvas this true before the comming of Christ then all the ceremoniall law is Apocriphall 2 is this true universally as it is heere set down in the new Testament then vvater in baptisme and bread and wine in the Lords Supper are no ceremoniall points of Religion 3 the caution that is given Deut. 4. 2 and such like did they not conteyne in them ceremoniall points of Religion then it vvas lawfull for the Iewes to adde detract and alter the ceremonies according to their pleasure and doth not that law binde us as vvell as the Iewes then vve doe the Papists wrong in putting them to so much trouble as vve doe in finding out shifts to avoide the dint vvhich such places giue them But to leaue this mishapen distinction An answer is given at length to the place alledged out of Heb. 3. 2 concerning the comparison betwixt Christ and Moses sect 4 5. SECT IIII. IN this Section comparison is made betwixt Christ and Moses in reall faithfulnes as he calleth it But this sufficeth not to loose the knot For Moses vvas faithfull in all the house of God and Christ vvas not inferiour but in all parts of his office Propheticall concerning all points of Religion vvas no doubt as faithfull as Moses SECT V. HEre the Defendant can find nothing to bring out of Scripure for Christs faithfulnesse in rituall ordinances but as Moses appointed ceremonies so Christ removed them Is not this a proper explication of Scripture to interpret a similitude by a dissimilitude The Scripture maketh Christ like unto Moses this Defendant expoundeth the likenesse to be in this that Christ pulled down that which Moses had set up Out of M. Calvin Instit. lib. 4. c. 10. S. 30. he taketh upon him to decide this question But he should haue dealt more plainly and according to the scope of his author if he had cited Bellarmine de pont l. 4. c. 17. where the same words are according to his meaning For in that place of Calvin there is nothing at all which vvithout grosse aequivocation will serve the Defendants purpose For Calvins meaning was nothing lesse then to teach that Christ had given libertie unto men for to prescribe at their discretion mysticall signes in the Church but onely to dispose of such circumstances as in their kind are necessarie but in particular determination doe varie He instanceth in the next section in the circumstance of time vvhat houre the congregation should meet in the place how large or in what fashion the Church should bee built in meere order what Psalmes should be sung at one time and what another time These and such like circumstances of order and comelinesse equally necessary in civill and religious actions are understood by Calvin not significant ceremonies proper unto religious worship such as ours are now in controversie This allegation therefore borroweth all the shew it hath from the ambiguous meaning of the word ceremonies The same deceit is in the known case which the Defendant adjoyneth to Calvins words For if by Rites he meaneth such circumstances of order and decencie as were before mentioned then I grant all he saith but if by Rites he meaneth ceremonies properly of religious nature use and signification such as the crosse in baptisme and surplice are knowne to be then there is no reason in his speech For 1. there is no necessitie that in any nation the Churches should haue any religious ceremonie of spirituall signification beside those which Christ hath appointed to all and if the Defendant can shew any such necessitie then I would desire him also to shew by what rules and for vvhat cause these religious ceremonies imposed upon us in England are fitter for us or tend more to our edification then other ceremonies would or then they would in any other nation under heaven Except both these positions be proved the words of this section are all but wind and proved I am sure they never were nor will be SECT VI. VII THe second place of Scripture handled by the defendant is 2. Sam. 7. 7. Where I cannot but marvell why so resolute a disputer would passe by in silence Deu. 4. 2. 12. 32. Prov. 30. 6. Lev. 10. 12. all which places are alledged by the Lincolnshire ministers against whom he professeth principally to write choose this place which they bring in after the former Was there not a cause But to take him as we finde him he professeth plainly that it vvas lawfull for David vvithout speciall vvarrant to build a house unto God and in this he is so peremptory that he condemneth the contrary opinion of notable precipitancie and presumeth to make this example a ground of confutation against his adversaries disputing as he pedantically speaketh first by extortion and then by retortion out of this place But if his extortion bee meere torting and torturing of the text we need not feare his retortion Now that the purpose of David vvas partly condemned appeareth plainly 1. because it vvas prohibited as here the Defendant in his answer expressely granteth 2. Because as honorable M. Calviâ— well observeth on Act. 7. 46. It was not lawfull for man to choose a place for Gods Name Ark but it was to be placed in that place which God himselfe should shew as Moses doth often admonish Neither durst David himselfe bring the Ark into the threshing floore of Arauna vntill the Lord by an Angel from heaven had witnessed unto him that that was the place chosen by himselfe 2. Sam. 24. 11. 3. Because it cannot bee absolutely excused from some mixture of rashnesse vvith zeal that he should resolue absolutely to build an house unto God before he knew either vvhat manner of house God vvould haue built or when or by whom seeing vvithout the especiall direction and assistance of Gods spirit nothing of this kind could bee well done How could David haue built a house except the Lord had filled vvith the spirit of vvisedome Bezaliel and Aboliab or some such The Arguments brought by the Defendant for the contrary opinion are nothing worth 1. Nathan sayth he had allowed the purpose of David v. 3. But iudicious Iunius answereth in his notes upon that place that so Samuel out of humane infirmitie said that Eliab vvas the man vvhom God vvould haue king 1. Sam. 16. 7. 2. God calleth Daâ—id his servant which hee never doth in reproofe Which is not true though the reproofe be for a thing simply evill as is plainly to be seen Isa. 1. 3 â—er 2. 13. and in many such places vvhere
Iewish opinion For he himselfe after contendeth that our ceremonies are not the same with the Papists because wee haue not the same opinion of them which the Papists haue 2. What doth he mean by this new tearme domnable I hope he doth not symbolize with the Papists in their difference of mortall sinne and veniall of which fault he so vainly accused us before If he meane by not damnable not unlawfull then hee holdeth circumcision as it is used vnder Prester Iohn to be lawfull If hee meaneth any thing else as that it doth not utterly destroy the being of a Church then he speaketh some truth but nothing at all to the purpose His second answer is that it is farre more safe to invent new ceremonies then to use those which God once appoynted and now hath abolished because they might ingender an opinion of necessitie and so might bring in all the Leviticall law Where 1. it is well he confesseth plainly that all the Iewish ceremonies are abolished for therein hee contradicteth that which hee sayd in his former answer 2. from hence our divines use thus to argue Num vero veteres figurae sublatâ—â— sunt ut locus esset novis num divinâ— sublatae sunt ut humanâ— succederent i. Are divine ceremonies abolished that humane may bee erected in their place They are the words of Doctor Whitaker de Pontif. cont 4. â— 7. c. 3. and the reason is strong For if it had been the will of God that we should haue bee been taught by other signes then those that are appoynted in the Newâ— Testament hee could easily and vvould surely either haue chosen some of the old or appoynted some new in their places 3. Though there may bee more danger in some respect on the one side yet there may bee more absolutely on the other 4. The inventing of new humane ceremonies haue ingendred an opinion of necessitie in them and haue brought in all the Popish law of rites so that even in these respects it may be questioned in whether side is greater danger SECT VII THe third and last reason vvhich the Def. could find brought against significant ceremonies is that this will open a gappe to images oyle spittle and all Popish ceremonies all which Bellarâ—inâ— commendeth as fit to put men in remembrance of good things c. To this hee answereth divers things 1. This consequence sayth hee from some to allâ— is too lavish But this consequence is of his owne framing for the consequent vvhich the Abridgement maketh is from the common nature of significant ceremonies to every speciall being equally considered in regard of other circumstances Neither is there any occasion at all in the Abridgement for that ridiculous consequence which the Def. maketh from may to must in his example of the Kings Councell Secondly It is as unreasonable sayth hee as if a Patient that hath some drugges prescribed him should thence conclude hee may taste of all But it is as reasonable say I as if a Patient having some druggs prescribed unto him should thence conclude he may taste of any which are of the same nature especially if the same Physitian should prescribe them unto him Thirdly It is unconscionable sayth hee because there are many abuses mixed with Popish ceremonies Which answer seemeth meerly unconscionable because it is plainly expressed in the Abridgement that this inference doth consider the Popish ceremonies onely in regard of that signification vvhich they haue of good things Fourthly he disproveth the use of oyle and spittle because they were once vsed miraculously As if the mirâ—culous using of any thing did forbid that it should at any time after bee used for signification Surely then the many miracles vvhich histories do record to haue been done by the Crosse must needs banish that also out of the Church Fiftly for Images hee sayth They are not to be called Popish but onely in regard of superstitious adoration As if Cassanders image were not Popish which is an assertion 1. directly against all our Divines vvho not onely confute the Papists for adoration of their images but also for having them in any religious use especially in Churches for this is the controversie betwixt Calvin and Bellarmine de Imag. lib. 2. c. 9. wherein this Defendant taketh Bellarmines part Secondly it is directly against the Homily concerning images unto which we are bound to subscribe Thirdly it confirmeth the soule words of Bellarmine who saith that the Apologie of the Church of England lieth in saying that the Councel of Frankford decreed that Images should be abolished De Concil Auth. lib. 2. c. 8. for the onely answer is that which lunius giveth in his notes upon that chapter an 56. He that forbiddeth Images to be worshipped doth forbid the having of Images worshipable especially in Churches Which answer this Defendant doth flatly deny Sixtly for holy water he sayth that may bee accounted Christian were it not for the operatiue power which is ascribed unto it in Poperiâ— But good Protestants I thinke will rather beleeve Calvin who calleth it a kind of repetition of baptisme Instit. l. 4. c. 10. sect 20. and Iunius who peremptorily affirmeth that no humane ordination opinion or superstition can make it good and profitable in Bel. de Cul. sanct l. 3. c. 7. At the least let it be called Iewish not Christian for Christ will not haue his name called upon such superstitious devices neither can it without taking in vaine 7 Lastly he sayth there is no reason to deprive the Church of power of ordeining significant ceremonies because she may abuse it wherein he saith true But to argue from manifest abuses against that which is called use and yet is as like those abuses as one egge is like another this I hope is reason That which by the way is brought out of Peter Martyr is not of any great force For he there persuadeth that unto Hooper out of a good affâ—ction which out of conscience he durst not doe himselfe though his place at Oxford did tie him unto it as hee professeth in an Epistle p. 1127. Where also hee sheweth that the chiefe end that moved him so to persuade Hooper was because he hoped that by his and such mens yeelding the ceremonies might in time be abolished which we find to be an erronious conjecture But that hath much lesse reason in it which he addeth viz. that the open gap of many ceremonies is now quite shut up because our church is contented to admit of so few and no more For 1. we haue not so much as the word of our Prelats for this nil-ultra 2. The gap is every day made wider and wider by such defenses as this is which allow of Images themselues for some religious use For by this meanes any crucifix may come in that is not greater then the Church doore 3 They that shut up a gap upon their pleasure onely can when they please open it againe Now I haue maintained the testimonies and
inestimable hurt to the Church of God is not the vvisedome of the burnt child vvho dreadeth the fire SECT XXX OF our own Writers the Def. heere opposeth unto us Calvin Iunius Chemnitius and Zepperus Now for these it hath been plainely manifested before that they all vvith one consent condemne humane symbolicall ceremonies in Gods worship and that upon good grounds out of Gods word Now therefore if any thing elswhere hath fallen from any of them by occasion sounding to the contrary then we may well think that either their meaning is mistaken therin or else they shewed themselues to be men and indeed to say the truth there is a little varietie to bee found in some of our divines concerning the poynt of ceremonies But the cause thereof being marked will make it lesse offensiue All our Divines when they look into the clear chrystall of the scripture condemne plainly all devices of man in Gods worship whatsoeever but againe some of them when they fixe their eyes on the false glosse of ancient times and consider withall how hardly men are drawen from their accustomed vanities and what good some men may doe by applying themselves somewhat to the times then receiving another kind of impression they seeme sometime to vvaver in their words This observation I thought fit to set down in generall because it may haue good use in some particular places which this Def. threatâ—eth hereafter to object But as for the places here quoted the answer is easie Calvin in the first place disputing against the grosse corruptions of the Papists sayth he doth not contend therein about ceremonies vvhich hee might truely say not onely comparatiuely but even absolutely in regard of contention with others who did not obtrude them upon him And so I am assured few or none would contend much about ceremonies if they would not force them vpon others In the other place he understandeth by ceremonies such as are given us of God as the following words shew Paucae igitur nobis divinitus datae sunt ceremoniae What indeed he thought was to bee given to the rude people in this kinde he shewed sufficiently not onely by his words formerly cited but also by his practise in that he banished such ceremonies utterly not onely out of Geneva but also out of all Churches vvhich hearkned vnto his counsell Chemnitius in regard that some ceremonies were in use where he lived handleth them so gently as he can and speaketh too favourably of Images yet in other places the truth wresteth from him and Brentius also a right confession as hath been alledged before Zepperus meaneth onely that the simple having of Images in Churches is not such impietie as doth unchurch a people Iunius and Chemnitius in the last place doe but give a difference betwixt the Fathers and Papists use of some things Here is nothing directly against our assertion But if all these witnesses did speak as the Defendant would haue them in these places mentioned what were that to the cloud of testimonies which are brought forth in the Abridgment and unanswered as yet by the Defender His own mouth will testifie that our Divines are generally on out side For in that regard if he speaketh with good reason he calleth them still our owne witnesses Our owne they are not because we alledge them onely for so both Fathers and Papists and Conformists also are alledged by us but because they speake plainly for us Which appeareth also the more by his silence at the most part of their speeches SECT XXXI AFter much sayling in the maine sea the Defendant directeth his course as he sayth homeward to the narrow seas by instancing in the practise of Non-conformists themselues His comparison is good for as the scriptures were too deepe for him to fasten any anchor of a conforming argument in so the practises of vveak men are so full of sands and shelves that here hee can haue no sure riding The sea of Rome turned by one of our Prelates mare Romanum is the best harbour of all the world for the ceremonies to arriue and rest in The first example brought is the forme of an oath vvhich is taken on a booke To which I answer 1. That if this forme of swearing can be proved to bee of the same nature with the crosse in baptisme c. we will rather abandon this forme to avoyd the Crosse then admit of the crosse for loue of this 2 I affirme that it vvere much better that this forme invented by Papists and abused not onely by them but also by many among our selues were abolished as it is in other Countries not Popish then reteined Mr. W. Thorpe a Martyr or Confessor in King Henry the fourth his dayes refused to sweare upon a booke alledging Chrysostome for the same opinion 3. This forme if it bee vvorship seemeth to be essentiall and necessarie vvorship not accidentall for no man is esteemed to haue taken his corporall oath as Lindwood affirmeth but hee that sweareth upon a booke 4. It is not our practise to make any more of touching the book then of lifting up of the hand vvhich is used in other Countries i. to make it a signe of assent unto that which is required of us So that I for my part vvould not finde fault vvith those vvhich sometime hold out a service-booke or any other to touch and kisse for it is all one vvhether we shew our assent one way or another so it be shewen iâ— a decent manner 5. This forme is not used in the speciall solemne worship of God but in a civill assembly where occasionally God is called upon for confirmation of the truth And indeed as the Def. speaketh well an oath is rather a cognifance or note of supreame worship then proper and direct vvorship SECT XXXII THe next instance is The observation of the Lords day vvhich the Defendant would never haue brought in as an example of a humane ceremonie if he had not either been sea-sicke or else sleepie with his long sayling which he spake of in the former section For he taketh it for granted that we hold the Lords day to be an institution of man vvhich we utterly deny We hold as Iunius answereth Bell. about this matter de cult sanct l. 3. c. 10. an 33. c. 11. an 3. it is the divine institution of Christ himselfe By the vvay here he bringeth in a testimony of Zanchius calling our Temples types and shadowes of the celestiall Temple But Zanchier meaning was not to make them destinated instituted types but onely such things as by accommodation may serve fitly to put us in minde of such a matter even as any arbitrarie similitude that is fit may be called a tyde and shadow I would the Defendant would read the very next Thesis of Zanchie to that hee quoteth there he should see that Images though they bee not for the present worshipped yet ought to be removed out of Churches because they helpe not but hinder the vvorship
the Papists but by our owne canons and Canonicall imposers of it 20 Leo forbidding men to have any thing to do with hereticks meaneth it onely of doctrinal conference sayth the Def. But conformitie with them in their ceremonies is a greater fault for the nature of it then doctrinall disputing with them Therefore the testimonie holdeth from the lesse to the greater Thus in briefe I haue examined his particular answers unto our testimonies out of Councells and Fathers Bâ—t one answer might haue served for all viz. that they were not brought in by the Authors of the Abridgement for to make an immediat conclusion by against our ceremonies as the Def. in his answers evermore taketh them but to illustrate the proposition vvhich condemneth conformitie with Idolaters in their ceremonies And herein wee haue not onely the Fathers but even the Papists themselues in words many times consenting with us Suarez in Thom. p. 3. q. 65. maketh it one rule which the Church is to follow in appointing of ceremonies Now the Def. passeth from the proposition of this argument unto the assumption But he should haue done vvell to haue made a little stand at the armie of Protestants vvhich are brought in as giving witnesse to this truth Abridg. p. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. why had we not heare one head of Protestant Divines as vvell as in the former arguments seeing more are cited here then in them Surely the Def. could not tel how to giue a colorable answer to so many pregnant testimonies and therfore thought good to passe them over in silence and make his reader beleeve that none were objected because none are answered SECT XXI THe Def. here meaning to say something against the assumption setteth it down by halves or rather by quarters For the assumption is Abridg. 26. 27. our ceremonies in question are humane inventions of no necessary use and abused to idolatry He setteth it thus downe our ceremonies haue been idolatrously abused by Papists There is great difference as by and by we shal see His answer is by a distinction These ceremonies are either generally or individually and numerally the same that haue beene abused to idolatry If generally then it hindereth not but they may still lawfully bee vsed though they haue been so abused If individually then it is not true which is affirmed neither doth it follow from thence that they must be abolished because they haue been so abused except they be the same formally i. in intention and opinion of those that impose and practise them What miserable shifts is the Def. put to he told us before his distinctions were wedges but this is a very pick-lock made for to open the doores of Godsâ— Church into those ceremonies against vvhich by the keyes of Gods kingdome they are streightly shut up For by this meanes any kind of Popish Iewish Heathenish ceremonie may come in so there be new particulars of the same kinde and a new intention used The first assertion is most grosse viz. that in ceremonies abused to Idolatry those are not forbidden which are generally the same but onely the same individualls For by the like reason of ceremonies instituted by Christ those onely are commanded which Christ individually and numerally did sanctifie not all of the same kinde So also Papists are iustified against all the charges of our divines who accuse them for using of Iewish and Heathenish ceremonies for they are not the same individually and numerally but onely in kinde with those vvhich Iewes and heathens used So the meaning of the scripture forbidding conformitie with the heathen Idolaters should onely be of using the same particular rites and ceremonies with them as if when the cutting of their heads rounding of their haire like the heathen vvas forbidden to the Israelites Lev. 18. 19. there had been danger lest the people of Israel should either get heathen mens heads and set them upon their shoulders or heathen mens beards and set them upon their faces and then put them into the forbidden fashion It is but folly to confute largely such a beggarly assertion But if sayth the Def. the same generally be forbidden then you cannot justifie any one of your owne ceremonies of order and decencie Why so because there is no gesture or circumstance of worship which hath not been abused to Idolatry Now he sheweth plainly wherefore hee set downe onely a peece of the assumption for if the reader marke that our assumption is onely of ceremonies devised by man and of no necessarie use then he shall see that this poore obiection concerning circumstances of order and decencie can haue no place here for they are of necessarie use in their kinde neither are they meere inventions of man as the ceremonies are by Bellarmines owne confession de effect sacr lib. 2. c. 29. For the second that our ceremonies are not 〈◊〉 the same which the Papists haue solemnly abused to Idolatry if this be granted it is no marvel for it is altogether impossible to carry the same particular signe of the crosse so far as from the font to the Church doore or to keep it in being so long as it is in making Hath not the Def. then found out a great subtil mysterie in this distinction yet it seemeth more true that the Papists doe give divine honor unto the same individual ceremonies which are used in England especially to the signe of the crosse as it is used among us For Bellarmine ascribeth divine honour and operation unto the signe of the crosse as it was used by heathens by Iewes by Iulian the Apostate Bellâ—de eff sacr l. 2. c. 31. Though the Papists count us hereticks and I know not what yet they esteeme us not vvorse then Pagans unbeleeving Iewes cursed Apostates Seeing therefore they yeeld such honor to this signe as it was used by them they cannot deny it unto our individuall crosses The last conceit that our ceremonies are not formally the same with the Papists because we haue another intention and opinion of them then they and therfore need not be abolished is as vain as the former For not to dispute here of materiall and formall identitie 1. a very shew of Idolatry must be abstained from and abolished 2. It cannot bee sayd simply and truely that our intention and opinion concerning the ceremonies is not the same with the Papists For we haue no intention or opinion in the use of the crosse or other ceremonies but the Papists haue the same onely they haue some other opinions about these things vvhich wee haue not And if this doth make a ceremonie not the same that men haue not altogether the same opinion of it then among the Papists there are also as many kinde of ceremonies crosses Surplices c. as there is diversitie of opinion about their nature and use vvhich no man wil say 3. the Altar erected by Vria 2. King 16. vvas an idolatrous Altar like that of Damascus though it vvas for
the Gospell Finallie if sacraments ceremonies and rites partlie Apostolicke and partlie Popish be used and the Church bee cloathed with them as with a garment of linsey-wossey For what agreement hath light with darknesse And therfore those things which bee not of God but from them who haue defiled Gods worship are utterlie to be cast away which the Lord himselfe commanded to bee done when hee charged utterlie to destroy all things which appertained to those who should giue vs counsell to follow strange Gods and to burne their garments and all their stuffe with fire in the middest of the street to shew our detestation of such Seducers and that they might bee an execrable thing to the Lord. And who knoweth not that these garments are a part of the houshould stuffe of that Romish Seducer There shall cleave nothing of the execrable thing sayth hee to thy hand that the Lord may turne from the fiercenesse of his wrath and multiplie thee as he hath sworne to thy Fathers c. Wherefore to bring these garments seeing they bee the houshold stuffe of Antichrist into the Church of Christ what is it else then to provoke God to anger and to kindle his furie against us Certaine it is that he who is a true friend of Christ will never seeke to haue the ornaments of Antichrist in his owne house and much lesse will hee suffer them in the Temple of Christ. For who can indure the armes of his enemie in his owne house and specially in the chiefest roome of the same And if God will haue a thing destroyed and abolished who are we that we dare build it up againe But it is Gods will that after the death of Christ all garments of Aaron and Levi should be abolished and hee hath plainlie enough manifested everie where that in these our dayes he would haue all vngodlie and vaine ceremonies pompes deceits and paintings of the Papists driven away by the shining brightnesse of the Gospell because these things haue no power in them to kindle and increase godlines but greatlie availe to the quenching of the same Neither verilie can I see to what other end these garments tend then in very deed that I may now come vnto the second head to defile and disgrace the faire face nay the whole bodie of the Church of England reformed according to the Gospell as if the chaste and honest daughter of a King should bee attired with those verie garments wherewith some famous and notable whoore used to bee adorned and when shee were so clothed were commanded to goe abroad in the streets Now who can allow or judge this to bee tolerable Wherefore though for no other yet for this very cause such garments ought not to bee thrust upon the Church of Christ because that harlot of Rome hath abused and doth still at this day abuse them though in their owne nature they bee not evill to evill and to cover her fornications or rather to entice men to commit fornication For all these pompes and Popish ceremonies are nothing else but whoorish paintings invented and devised for this end that men might thereby bee allured to spirituall fornication Is it not therefore a filthie and dishonest thing to haue these in the Church of Christ If the brasen serpent which had beene ordained of God and that for the wholesome vse of the Israelites was taken away by godly King Ezekias because the Israelites had abused it contrarie to the word of God and if Ezekias bee highlie commended for this so doing because hee had â—â—ned that Serpent into ashes and commanded them to bee cast into the running water that there might never bee any print or signe of it extant any more how much more then are these vncleane garments to bee banished out of the Church of God seeing the Apostles never vsed them but the whoore of Rome hath used them in her Idolatrous worship and to seduce men For it is a verie dishonest thing that such things as are of themselues indifferent and haue been long used to the dispight and dishonour of God should bee retained in the Church of God to the hazard of the salvation of godlie men And much lesse that kinde of garments which is nothing but an invention of men or rather of the Divell himselfe devised to seduce the simple ones Wee all know what praise those common-wealthes deserue which make good lawes that the subiects shall not weare out-landish and strange apparrell nor bring it into the Common-wealthes because it is a corruption of good and honest manners and of the Common-wealthes themselves How then can that counsell which is given to your Maiestie bee commended to wit that garments unknowne to the Christian world in tht time of the Apostles and Apostolicall men should bee brought into the Church of Christ. Aâ—d if an out-landish kinde of attire bee not tolerated in well-governed Common-wealthes how much lesse are Idolatrous and heathenish garments to bee borne with in the Church where God is to be worshipped in spirit and truth and where hee would haue few and verie simple ceremonies Also if God established by his Law that a woman may not put on a mans apparrell not a man a womans the one beeing so well of it selfe dishonest and contrarie to nature as the other Why then should godlie Bishops and the servants of Christ bee clothed or rather shamed and deformed with the garments of godlesse Priests and slaues of Antichrist Why should wee not rather as wee bee of a divers religion from them so also be discerned from them at least in the performance of such duties as belong unto Gods worship by outward signes such as garments be Verilie this was Gods will and hee required of his people that it should bee discerned from the prophane Gentiles as by other things so also by a divers sort of apparrell and so should professe by this publicke signe that it would haue nothing to doe with the Gentiles And why should not wee doe the same Are wee not the people of God abides not the equitie of the same commandemet And if the word honest bee derived of honour what honour will it bee for the Church of Christ to haue Bishops attired and disguised with Popish visors in the administration of the Gospell and Sacraments so as they shall rather be derided then be reverenced any whit by the people And what commendation shall it be for your gracious Maiestie in true Churches and among true beleevers that you permit such trifles to bee called back into your Church Therfore it standeth not with honesty that holy Bishops be compelled to receiue such visors neither is it indeed a matter worthy of honour and praise neither deserveth it the name of vertue For if your Majestie should command that all English men leaving that ancient and very graue and comely attire should weare Turkie coats or a souldiers weed as it is called who would ever approue this decree as honest And