The rest of the second replie of Thomas Cartvurihgt [sic]: agaynst Master Doctor Vuhitgifts second ansvuer, touching the Church discipline

THE FIRST CHAPTER VVHEREOF, being of holy daies: is deuided, into tvuo partes.

THE FIRST PART, OF THE FI∣rst chapter: of the ceremony of the Easter, Natiuity, and Ʋuhitson ho∣ly dayes.

TTe Treatise of the general fautes being* 1.1 ended, I come to the particuler: where, I pas, the eight first diuisions, as those whi∣ch haue no matter, ether worth, or requi∣ring answer. Before I come to the ninth, which is of the prayers: I wil dispatch the treatise of the holy dayes, as it lieth pa∣ge 538, of the Doctors book. To that of abrogating them, for the shameful abuse and superstition, crept into mens mindes of them: he answereth, that thinges of necessary vse, owght not for their abuse, to be abrogated. where, first he ma∣keth a necessary vse, in the church of thinges, which the scripture hath giuen no commandement of: Secondly, he condemneth in this point, the churches that vse them not: and thirdly, destroyeth the liberty of placing or displacing them, which hym self a 1.2 otherwhere ascribeth to the magistrate. His other answer, that they be meanes rather to withdraw from su∣perstition, by reason of reading and preaching, diuers tymes after re∣peated: is but an abusing of the tyme. For nether doeth he

answer any thing to my reply, which was, that preaching cā not come to al, throvugh the scarcity of preachers, and that vuhere yt doeth, the fruit is hyndered, vuhilest the commō sort attend rather to that vuhich is doē, thē to that vuhich is said: Nether can he make any sufficient reply to my a 1.3 ans∣wer, which is, that that profit is vuithovut danger receiued othervuhere, and may be vuith vs, vuithovut such solem∣nities of feastes, yf, preaching ād prayers being as they are, the rest of the day be imployed, as other vuorking dayes. Against which, that which he excepteth page 546, that yf these and other holy dayes were not, men should, for instruction of their famili∣es, be driuen to spēd twise or thrise in a week, half the day: is to simple. For they haue the lords day, a great part whereof may be bestowed that way: and that which is needful for their furt∣her instruction, may be supplied of the howshoulders, whi∣lest their families be in their dayly occupation: as also, the lord in his b 1.4 law, by reckoning vp certein kindes, comman∣deth to be doen, in al maner of our exercises. The next re∣quireth no answer.

That the keping of Easter, vuas left free at the first:* 1.5 wil appear after, owt of Socrates. That owt of c 1.6 Eusebius: ma∣keth against hym self. For to let pas, the vnlikelihood of the dayes of fast, which should goe before, wherof there is not a word, nether in the ould nor nue Testament: yf it were a tra∣dition of the Apostles, yet it was vsed of them, as a thing indiffe∣rent: considering that the same story witnesseth, that S. Iohn the Apostle, togither with the churches of Asia, did celebra∣te* 1.7 the Easter, as the Iues were wont, vpon the xiiij day of the moneth. Now, if S. Iohn hym self, which departed not from the autority of the scripture, did kepe the Iues day: he gaue sufficiently to vnderstand, that our Easter hath no au∣tority from the scriptures: for then he would haue kept yt also. Likewise, the Heluetian confessiō, leauing yt at the liberty of the churches, as a thing indifferent: maketh against hym, but a∣gainst

me yt maketh not, which confes, that that day may be kept, and deny, that yt is for our estate and tyme, so expe∣dient. his answer to the incommodity of restrayning our co∣gitations, to a fevu dayes, vuhich should be extended to our vuhole lyfe: is nothing worth. For althowgh, no abuse of men, may take away gods institution: yet in abuse of thinges, which may be chaunged, and are indifferent, yt is not so.

His allegation, that the lord notwithstanding the liberty of wor∣king* 1.8 six dayes, made certein other holy dayes: is but an abusing of the reader, it being a 1.9 preuented by me. And not content here∣with, the very same iudgmēt, which he here aloweth in hym self: in me he flatly condemneth afterward. For where in his former book page 174, he confesseth that god gaue liberty to la∣bour six dayes: in this, he affirmeth, that by making certeyn fea∣stes, whereof some fal vpon these six working dayes, he hath taken away that liberty. I say not a iot more, in effect: yet my sa∣ying is nue, and his is ould: I am ouershot, and he hath hit the mark. His reason is, because I make god contrary to hym self. But how I, more then he? o haue liberty of god to work six dayes, and to be restrayned by him of that liberty: be as contrary, as any thing which I haue set down. And of hym, it is said also blu∣ntly, withowt any caution: whereas, I shewed the equity of god in this colour of contrariety. Against which, hys exce∣ption, that yt can not be shewed in al the scripture, that god hath made any law against his own commandement: ys vntrue. For not to goe far, was it not a law of god, that the Iues were bound of ne∣cessity, to keep the Sabbats, and other solemn feastes? And, is yt not now a law of god, that (at the least) they are not so bound? His fear, that god should be thus contrary to hym self, is causeles: no more, then the father is to be houlden vncon∣stant, which when his son commeth to mans estate, freeth hym of the obedience vnto his seruant, vnder which he cast hym in hys tender yeares: or then the physition, which, ac∣cording to the state of his pacients body, prescribeth not* 1.10 onely a diuers, but a quite cōtrary diet. This ys a catechism matter, whereat he could hardly haue stumbled, yf his e∣y had bene simple: althowgh, to say the truth, in this case in

hand, there is no contrariety, but onely exceptions owt of a general law. which, that the church may doe in likewise, as god the lawgiuer hym self, which he after maketh his proof: is to gros. For thereby, not onely the question yt self: but more also then ys in question, is demaunded.

That those to whome the establishing of the ceremo∣nies doeth belong, may appoint that which is conuenient for diuine seruice, as often as the church may conueniently assemble, ys agreed: and euen in the matter of appointing whole ho∣ly dayes, in certeyn cases, yt is also by me a 1.11 confessed. But, that the Magistrate may cal from, or compel to bodily labour, as shal be thowght to hym most conuenient: ys not measured, according to the cubit of the sanctuary: I mean, of the word of god. For, what yf the Magistrate shal think yt conuenient, that men should labour, but one day in the week: what yf he sh∣ould think neuer a one: is the Subiectes obedience tyed to this ordinance? Yf it be so, what shal then become of gods commandement: that b 1.12 men shal eat their bread in sore trauail? who shal prouide for wife and children, with the rest of the family: for which notwithstanding c 1.13 vuhoso pro∣uideth not for, is vuors then an infidel. His reason, that this yt no conscience matter, deceiueth hym, whilest he alwayes restrayneth conscience matters, to inward thinges alone: w∣hereas yt extendeth yt self as far, and to as many matters, as there is ether commandement for, or prohibition against, in the word of god.

And as this is vnaduisedly put forth, so that which so∣loweth, that the word of god doeth not constrein the Magistrate, from turning carnal liberty to the spiritual seruice of god: ys to fowl an o∣uersight. For, thereby he accounteth bodily labour a carnal* 1.14 liberty, which is an acceptable seruice vnto god: as hath be∣ne alledged, where he fel at the very same stone. whereas, yf bodily labour were carnal liberty: the church, and the Magistrate not onely might, but were streightly bownd to restrayn yt: yea vtterly to abolish yt.

After he asketh, why the church may not aswel restrayn frō

working any part of the day, as from the most part of yt: which (saith he) I confes. where, first, my wordes taken at the largest, affou∣rd no further vacation from labours, then the tyme wherein the ordinary seruice may be celebrated: which is not, the most part of the day. Secondly, where he concludeth thereupon, that yt may restrayn vs any part of the day: yf that were admitted, what would folow? that therefore, yt may restrayn from labour the w∣hole day? there is great oddes: for, yt is one thing to restrayn any part of the day, and another, to restrayn the whole day. The∣refore, to haue concluded any thing: for these wordes, any part of the day, yow should haue put, the whole day. Now yf yow ask me, why the church may not aswel restrain men fr∣om labour the whole day ordinarily (for in extraordinary cases yt is confessed) as to restrayn them so much tyme, as the deuine seruice may be celebrated in: yt is, but a faīt que∣stion. For I would ask of yow, whether, yf it were lawul for∣the church to appoint two holy dayes euery week: yt were therefore lawful for her, to appoint six? And yf yow wil haue your reason trust vp in few wordes, yt is this: The church may doe that, which is les, therefore yt may doe that which is more.

Again, the deuine seruice, wherefore the vacation is com∣manded, being ended: whereupō should the rest of the day be better imploied, thē in the dayly vocations? yow wil ans∣wer, in priuate reading the word of god, and prayer. This, in deed, might haue better colour, yf the charge were as streight to driue men from playing, and dissolutnes often tymes, vnto this exercise: at yt is, to driue them from their work. How∣beit, here owght not to be forgotten, the wise mans counsa∣il,* 1.15 that vue should not be to iust: So that, as the greatest heap fal away from god, by prophanes and contempt of his serui∣ce, thorowgh the desire of folowing the world: euē so of the contrary part, men boeth may, and haue sometymes decli∣ned, whilest they estemed that the cutting away of some pe∣ece from their necessary trauail, could not be vnacceptable vnto the lord, so that the same were bestowed in the church exercises.

And, althowgh the wealth of some may wel suffer, al the∣se

vacations from their dayly callings, and moe to: yet, in making the church ceremonies, respect must be had, what the comon sort may doe: euen as yt is in a musical consent, where the sweeter or finer voice ys not alwayes takē, but th∣at which wil best accord and fal in, with the rest of the Qui∣er. As for those, to whom the lord hath giuen the meanes, to occupie them selues oftener, in priuate reading of the holy scripture, and prayer, yf they haue affection thereunto, they wil likely doe yt, withowt this order: if they haue none, they wil abuse the rest, to fulfil their nawghty desires: which mig∣ht be in part restrayned, by trauail in their vocation.* 1.16

The reason, is like. For the autority is al one, to make yt vnlavuful to vuork vuhen god hath made yt lavuful: and to make yt lavuful to labour, vuhen god hath made yt vn∣lavuful. And therefore, euen as the church can not comma∣und men, to labour the seuenth day, wherein the lord hath commanded rest, but vpon some good cōsideration: so can yt not, but vpon like considerations, restrayn men from la∣bour any of the six dayes: so that his answer, that the one is a commandement, the other a permission, is nothing worth. For, as the commandement of resting the seuenth day, must, beca∣use of gods autoritye, abide in the nature of a commande∣ment: so the permission to work the six dayes, warranted by the same autority, must abide in the nature of a permission. The third section, is beside the cause. For yt is not in que∣stion, whether priuate men should be subiect, vnto such orders: but w∣hether the church, should charge them with this yoke, or no.

Of the liberty of the church in this matter, so yt be vpon con∣ditions* 1.17 before specified, there is no question. Howbeit, the example owt of Esther 9, of the two dayes which the ••ues instituted, in the remembrance of their deliuerance: is no sufficient warrant, for these feastes in question. For first, as in other cases, so in this case of dayes: the estate of Christians vnder the gospel, ow∣ght not to be so ceremonious, as was theirs vnder the law. Secondly, that which was doen there: was doen, by a special direction of the spirit of god, ether throwgh the ministery

of the Prophetes which they had, or by some other extraor∣dinary meanes, which is not to be folowed of vs. This may appear by another a 1.18 place, where the Iues changed their fa∣stes into feastes: onely by the mouth of the lord, throwgh the ministery of the Prophet. For further proof whereof, first I take the 28 verse: where yt appeareth, that this was an order to endure alwayes, euen as long as the other feastes dayes, which were instituted by the lord hī self. So that, what abuses so euer were of that feast, yet as a perpetual decree of god, yt owght to haue remained. whereas our churches, can make no such decree, which may not, vpō change of tymes and other circumstāces, be altered. For the other proof he∣reof, I take the last vers. For the Prophet cōtenteth not hym self with that, that he had rehearsed the decree, as he doeth sometyme the decree of prophane kynges: but addeth pre∣cisely, that as sone as euer the decree was made, yt was regi∣stred in this book of Esther, which is one of the bookes of the canonical scripture: declaring thereby, in what esteme they had yt. Yf yt had bene of no further autority, then our decrees, or then a canon of one of the councels: yt had bene presumption, to haue browght yt into the library, of the ho∣ly gost. The sum of my answer, is, that this decree was diui∣ne, and not ecclesiastical onely. That which he addeth, of e∣uery priuate mans consent in these matters: is not to the question, a∣nd* 1.19 yet is ^b before answered.

THE SECOND PART OF THIS chapter, of Saintes dayes.

YF purgatory were propounded onely as a* 1.20 thing indifferent, which a man might be∣leue or not beleue, and yt were in our cho∣is, whether we would pray for the dead or no: yet this liberty is nawght: wherefore, your answer, that purgatory is made necessary to saluation, is insufficient. But, as purgatory ys vnlawful, with what sauce soeuer yow set yt before vs: so

the keping of Saintes dayes holy, can by no glos be made good. your confounding therefore of Saintes dayes, with holy dayes, as yf there were one case of them boeth: is no simple dealing.

Vuhat force there ys, in the name of saintes dayes, to ma∣ke* 1.21 men beleue, that they are instituted to their honour: let the reader iudg, of that which I a 1.22 haue written. How mu∣ch more, doe they confirm this: when boeth the corrupt custome, and doctrine, in popery, hath forestalled the peo∣ples mindes with that opinion. whereunto his answer, that I might much better reason against the names of Sonday and Moneday: ys vntrue. For first, the vse of such thinges, is not so free in ec∣clesiastical matters: as in ciuil affaires. Secondly, our people hath not bene nusled vp, in that filth of worshipping the Sun and Mone, as they haue bene of the saintes: in so much as (the learned set apart) there are few, which know that th∣ere were euer any dayes, obserued in the honour of the Sun or Mone. Yf they had bene so nusled, who seeth not, but th∣at yt had bene moste cōuenient, for the rooting owt of that Idolatry: to haue made a change, of these names. Thirdly, yt ys knowen, that good men after the example of Dauid* 1.23 (which would not once defile his lippes with naming the Idols or Idolatrous thinges, except yt were with detestati∣on): boeth absteyn from such names, as much as the com∣mon vse wil suffer, and desire the abolishment of them.

To my reason, that as the lordes holy dayes, are taken to be instituted to his honour, so the saintes holy dayes may easely be thovught of the ruder sort, to be instituted to their honour: he answereth, that the lords holy dayes, are so called especially, because the scriptures concerning hym, are then red: which is no answer. For, yf hys answer were true: yet, yt confessing by the way, that they are taken in part, to be instituted to the lords honour, graūteth forthwith, that there ys occasion gi∣uen to the ruder sort, to think that the Saintes dayes are in part, instituted to their honour. As for hys sentence owt

of Augustin, yt ys a meer abusing of the tyme: as yf euery thing instituted to the honour of god, were a sacrament, or that a thi∣ng doen in remembrance of the lord, may not, or rather ys not, doē to hys honour. And here, yt is to be noted, that the D. ys taken, in hys own nettes. For he defendeth the keping holy, of these Saintes dayes, as they were vsed in the elder churches, and as Ierome and Augustin mayntein thē. Now, hym self, hath for hys defence alledged owt of Ierome,* 1.24 that these dayes are obserued to the Martyrs: and owt of August∣in, that in them we honour the memoryes of martyrs. Therefore hys escape, that no man ys so mad, as to think, that by these dayes we doe any honour vnto the Saintes: ys not onely an opē vntruth, but directly contrary to that hym self maynteyneth.

Vuhat ignorance is in the land, for want of teaching: I* 1.25 leau to the readers iudgment, of that which hath bene said. To that I alledged, that althowgh there vuere teaching, yet yt vuere good, that these names should not help to vnteach: he answereth not. Howbeit, he goeth further, asking whet∣her for euery particular mans ignorance or abusing of yt: the churchis order, must be changed. He may wel know, that yf there be one man which abuseth yt throwgh ignorance, there are moe then a thowsand: and yf there were but one onely, yet, seing that man ys in danger to wrake hym self at this rok, owght not the church rather to change this name, then to giue oc∣casion of destroying hym, for whome Christ hath died? cō∣sidering, that of naming those holy dayes, Saintes dayes, there can be no fruit, or profit assigned.

Hys exception against Augustins complaint, of the* 1.26 multitude of Ceremonies, that he speaketh not of holy dayes: ys vnworthy of answer, considering that he speaketh generally of al kinde of ceremonies: likewise, that he saith he speaketh of vnprofitable ceremonies. For, he disputeth simply against the multitude of Ceremonies vnder the gospel. whereas, yf th∣ey had bene but a few, and yet vnprofitable, he would there∣fore, haue condemned them. As for that he saith, that ours are profitable, and appoued by the custome of the whole church: the first ys an asking of that in question, the other ys an vntruth, as

doeth after appear. Now, whereas I said, that in this ceremo∣ny of holy dayes, vue excede euen the Iues: he maketh hys accountes so, that they (as he saith) had the greater numbre. But what Auditor wil alow, these accountes of yours. First of al therfore, yow must strike of the supposed holy day of Iudith, for the reason, shewed in a 1.27 another place: likewise, those of the Ma∣kabites, as those whereof there is no certeinty: and boeth Iudi∣ths, and the Makabites togither, as those which, yf euer they we¦re houlden, were houlden many hundreth yeares after the giuing of the law. For the which cause, the two dayes of He∣sther, althowgh they differ as far from the other, as heauen from earth: owght not to come, into this account.

For this comparison, is not instituted betwene vs, and any estate of the Iues vnder the law: but with the ordinary e∣state, and with that which was giuen in mount Synay, by the ministery of Moses. For, that is boeth S. Augustins meani∣ng, and yt is a fowl wart in the churches face vnder the go∣spel: to be so ceremonius, as the ordinary estate of the chur∣ch was vnder the law. There remayn onely, three feastes of the Pasouer whitsontyde and the Tabernacles: vnto euery one whe∣reof, yow ascribing seuen, raise the sum of one and twenty ho∣ly dayes. But here also, yow are fowly ouer reckened. For, the first onely, and the last day, of euery of those three seuēs, we∣re* 1.28 holy: in the rest, which were betwene them, althowgh the∣re were extraordinary sacrifices, yet men might, after diuine seruice, folow their ordinary vocations. Oneles therfore, yo¦w make a far other rowl of the Iuish holy dayes, then yow haue doen hether toward: yow see that my saying, that vue haue more thē dubble as many holydayes as they, ys mayn∣tenable, and deserueth no such censure, as yow giue yt.

For any thing that I could euer learn, we are by the lawes as much bownd from labour vpon the saints dayes, as vpon the lor∣ds day: wherein, I report my self to that which may be kno∣wen hereof: the rest ys answered. In the next diuision, there is nothing but a manifest piller of popery, with shameful owtrage vnto the holy gost: in that he calleth the appeal to the scriptures and example of the Apostles, from certeyn

customes of the churches, which were more then a hundre∣th yeares after Christ, an vnlearned shift: which is a 1.29 before tow∣ched.

In the next, the testimony of Socrates, ys faithfully cy∣ted* 1.30 of me. As for that he answereth, that by euery one, he meaneth not euery person, but euery countrey or people, alledgi∣ng to that purpose another place in the same chapter, where (saith he) ys put euery particuler people: he ys abused. For there is no more mention of people in that b 1.31 place: then, in that which I alledged. Beside that, in saying that yt was no law, but a custome, and that yt was not penal to those vuhich did not kepe yt: Socrates confirmeth the indifferency, which I affir∣med, to haue bene in in the beginning.

For the alowance of Saintes dayes, whereof the questi∣on* 1.32 is here, althowgh he hath onely M. Bullingers testimo∣ny, which ys retracted and condemned by M. Bullingers o∣wn self: yet he marcheth forward stil as bouldly, as yf he had a whole legion of learned men, of hys side. what dealing th∣is ys, let the world iudg. But they be (forsooth) his own wordes, which he hath alledged: so are these yours, Basil in his book of offices, yet, I suppose, yow wil be loth, that yt should be now acco∣unted your iudgment, after yow haue corrected your self. Here also, to the iudgment of such a c 1.33 number of reformed churches vuhich haue condemned the keping of these da∣yes as vnlavuful: he not onely answereth nothing, but wal∣keth stil in his ould path of bould and vntrue affirmation, that the custome of the whole church confirmeth them: as thowgh* 1.34 the reformed churches now, were no churches at al. And, that the reader may further know, hys importunity in this behalf: he may vnderstand that beside M. Bullingers con∣sent in general, with the rest of the churches: the disalowan∣ce of that particular church of Zurich, and consequently of hym towching these Saintes dayes, doeth appear in a book* 1.35 a part. And if the learned reader look, the later edition of M. Bullingers commentary vpon the Romanes: he may, per∣aduenture,

finde his former iudgment, alledged by the D. corrected.

Hetherto also, commeth Musculus iudgment in parti∣cular:* 1.36 which affirmeth, that there can be no defence for the saintes dayes, vuhatsoeuer be pretended: likewise M. ^a Hop∣ers, which condemneth them, notwithstanding their gray heares, yea the very first institution of them, and that vpon credit of that, which the D. calleth an vnlearned shift: that ys to say, by opposing the autority of the word of god, and the examples of the churches, gouerned by the Apostles and Prophetes. In the next diuision, in Caluins iudgment, tow∣ching the three feastes dedicated to the lord, I wil procede no further: considering that yt appeareth in his epistles, th∣at he was not the cause of the abrogating them. As for the saintes dayes, whereof onely (in deed) the question is in th∣ys place: considering that which hath bene alledged, I think the D. hym self wil make hym no patrone of. Althowgh, throwg•• the multitude of our papistes, the obseruation of these dayes, as of Easter &c. amongest vs, vuould haue in∣conueniences, vuhich yt should not haue vuith them, vu∣here there are none, as I haue also before obserued. The rest in this chapter, is answered.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Diuis. 1. pa. ••••8.
• a 1.2

  pag. 541. ••ect. 2.
• a 1.3

  diui. 4 p. 540.
• b 1.4

  Deute. 60. vers. 7.
• * 1.5

  Diuis. 3. pa. 539.
• c 1.6

  lib. 5. cap. 22.
• * 1.7

  Euseb. 5. li. 24. 25.
• * 1.8

  Diuis. 4. p. 541.
• a 1.9

  In my for¦mer booK diuision. 6. p. 542.
• * 1.10

  Cal. 4.
• a 1.11

  pag. 54••.
• b 1.12

  Genes. 3.
• c 1.13

  1. Timo. 5.
• * 1.14

  Tract. 7. p. 757.
• * 1.15

  Eccles. 7. 18.
• * 1.16

  Diuis. 5. pa. 541.
• * 1.17

  Diuis. 6. p. 542.
• a 1.18

  Zach. 8.
• * 1.19

  •• In the for∣mer part of this book p. 226. lin. 35.
• * 1.20

  Diuis. 1. pa. ••43.
• * 1.21

  Diui. 2. pa. 544.
• a 1.22

  In the first booK. p. 61. sect. 3. & 4. and pa. 62. sect. 1. 2. al∣so in the for¦mer part of this p. 408. lin. 37.
• * 1.23

  Psal. 16.
• * 1.24

  pag. 546.
• * 1.25

  In the for∣mer part Tract. 5.
• * 1.26

  Diuis. 3. pa. 545. Augu. Epi. ad Ianuar. ••9.
• a 1.27

  In the for¦mer part p. 400.
• * 1.28

  Leuit. 23. vers. 7. 8. &c.
• a 1.29

  pag. 549.
• * 1.30

  Socrat. 5. li. cap. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• b 1.31

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.32

  Diuis. 6. p. 549.
• c 1.33

  Cōfess. Ec∣cles. Tigur. & aliarum ••cc. cap. 24.
• * 1.34

  pag. 545.
• * 1.35

  Lauaterus de ritibus eccles. Tigu. cap. 8.
• * 1.36

  Muscu. com¦mon places vpon the 4 commande¦ment. Hoper vpō the same cō¦mandemēt.