« НазадПродовжити »
the wearing of Priests apparel, is, bycause, that as Poule BOOK calleth them that were offended with the eating of idol-meate, _ weak in faith, bycause they judged against the libertie of Rom. xir, the Gospel therein; even so it is to be saied of them which be offended with the wearing of Priests apparel, that they be weak in faith; for that they be not fully persuaded of the libertie of the Gospel herein, which alloweth the wearing of the saied apparel. And therfore they ought to suffer themselves to be better taught and amended therein : as they did, or ought to have don, which thought it unlawful to eat of the meat that was offered to idols.
The third cause is, bycause as they that were offended with the eating of idol-meate, were borne withal but for a time, until they were playnely taught in the libertie thereof by the Gospel; and if after that knowledge they wolde be stil offended with the eatinge of idol-meate, then they were 1 Cor. ix, coumpted no more weak in faith, but wilful and stubborne in there opinion : and so the offence that they took by eating of idol-meate was not 'regarded ; no more then Christ Matt. xv. regarded the offence of Pharisees : right so it is to bee seyed of them that be offended with the wearing of Priests apparel. At the first they were to be borne withal until further knowledge; but now that they perfitly knowe that we weare not this apparel for religion, but for order and obedience; and that they have been borne withal herein almost thees six yeres ; and yet they are rather more then less offended with the wearing of priestly apparel, they are not now weak in faith herein for lack of knowledge, but corrupt in opinion for wilfulnes, stowtnes, and singularitie. And therfore theirę offence herein is not to be regarded.
The second reason. Wee must not weare such apparel as offendeth our bre- 1 Cor. x. therne : but by wearing of Priestis apparel we offend our bretherne. Therefore we must not weare Priestis apparel.
BOOK ties injunction and commandment, that we Ministers shuld
weare Priestes apparell. Which commandment in things in
different, (as the wearinge of Priestis apparel is,) ought to be Rom. xiii. obeyed and fulfilled, even for conscience sake, as Poule saith.
And it is further knowen, (as I wold wishe it were in prynte so declared,) that almost the whole realme, as wel Protes tants as Catholikes, do allow the same apparel to be worne, not for religion, but for order and obedience. Therefore they that be offended with the wearinge of Priestis apparel, take the offence, and the wearers give none. But they that be offended withall, give the offence, in that they openly refuse to weare the said apparel, which is now commonly receaved and worne even of the Protestants; and say withal, that it cannot stand with the libertie of the Gospel to wear it. For so by the Gospel they seeme to condemne the reast of the Protestantes, which doo allowe Priestes apparel, or weare it. Whereby the people, and other also, thinke that we Pro testants disagree in our religion. And therfore they refuse to beleave it; as doubting of the truth therof. And our enymies slaunder and mocke it as false, for this our variance (as it is thought) in religion. And so the trueth is hindered, the majestie thereof defaced, and the autoritie discredited. Wherefore thus maye we wel use theire own reason against them. Ministers must weare no apparel that offendeth other: but theire wearynge of other apparel then priestly offendeth other. Therefore Ministers must weare no other apparel then is priestly.
The third reason. Durant, Maurus, and other write, that Priestis apparel hath many superstitious significations; and hath been and shuld be sanctified; and judgeth it so necessarye, that Ministers cannot serve God wel in the Church without it. Therfore Priestis apparel ought not to be worne.
The answer. Wee do not defend the wearing of Priestis apparel, as it hath been superstitiously used, but as it is now commanded,
and thought to make for good order. Therfore this reason BOOK is not good, byeause there is more in the consequent then is in the antecedent. Yea, it is a fallax à dicto secundum quid ad simpliciter; bycause it concludeth, that forasmich as Priestis apparel, which hath been superstitiously used, is not to be used, as it was used so; therfore it ought not to be used and worn at al, without such abuse. But to the foresaied reason, “ Durant, Maurus, and other write, that “ Priestes apparel hath many superstitious significations, “ and hath been judged so necessarye, that Priestes could “ not serve God wel in the Church without it. Therefore “ Priestis apparel ought not to bee worne.” If we wil make a syllogisme of this enthymeme, we shal wel understand the untrueth of this reason. Whatsoever 'thing hath been superstitiously used, ought not to be used : but Durant, Maurus, and other write, that Priestes apparel hath been superstitiously used. Therefore Priestes apparel ought not to be used. Now, who seeth not that the major is false ? For meat consecrated to idols might be eaten without synne, 1 Cor. x. thoughe by such consecration it was idolatrously used. The difference of meate and dayes, which were commanded and kept for religion, may be, for al that, stil kept for policie and order. Though God commanded that there shuld be no altar but at Hierusalem, to do sacrifice upon; and if there were, it was idolatrye: yet the children of Reuben, Gad, Josue xxii. and Manasses, builded up an altar out of Hierusalem, in remembrance that they were Goddes people, and served the same God that the reast of the children of Israel did ; and it was allowed as lawfully doen. So may we use Priestis apparel for order and obedience, however it hath been superstitiously used.
Agayne, if it were true, (as it is not,) that we ought not to weare Priestes apparel that hath been used with superstition; yet such apparel of Priestes that hath been made since true religion hath been received, and is stil made, may bee worne. Therefore the foresaied reason is a fallax (as I saied) à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter.
1 Thess. v.
The fourth reason. II.
Wee ought by Poule to forbeare from al appearance of evil. But in apparel, to go like a Papistical Priest, hath the appearance of evil. Therefore we ought not to go in Priestis apparel.
The answer. The minor is not true. For no apparel hath any appearance of evil; and no man is to bee judged thereby to be evil.
For of al indifferent things, as meate, drynke, dayes, and Col. ii. apparel be, Poule saith, Nemo vos judicet in cibo, in potu, Rom. xiv. uut in parte diei festi. For by the same Poule, neither meat,
drink, nor apparel, be the kingdome of God: they be neither good nor bad. The lawyer weareth a typpit and a gown, like a Papistical Priest ; yet no man judgeth him to synne, or to be a Papist therefore. The mourner weareth a capp like a Priest; yet no man reproveth him, or thinketh him to be a Papist for it. The porter, the horsekeeper, sometyme weare a lynnin garment, like a surplesse, yet no man judgeth them to do amisse, or to be Papists for it. Therefore, it is not the fashion of Priests garments that hath the appearance of evil.
If it be saied, that Priestes apparel hath the appearance of evil, bycąuse it showeth who is a Priest, and putteth difference betwixt a Priest and another: I answer, that the apparel of Priestes ought not to be judged to have the show of evil, for showing and putting such difference. Bycause the Priest is of another call and office than any other man is: (and it is reason that he shuld be taken as he is :) so it standeth with good order, that by difference of his apparel it shuld be declared ; and so it is not to be disallowed. For
that both Scripture and reason allow order. Further, by· 58 cause to be a Minister, as he is now, is not evil: bycause
his ministery is now whole accordinge to the worde of God. Therfore the apparel, which is appoynted and used to show that this man or that man is a Minister, is not evil, but good. But if it be saied, that Priestes apparel was invented and used for religion, and to shew forth a Papistical
Priest, such one as saith Masse, and mayntayneth idolatrye BOOK and superstition; then I answer, that thoughe it was first _ so ordeyned, and for that cause used; yet it is not now appoynted, nor used for any such superstitious end. As I wold to God it were so taught by publike doctrine in prynte, and then al this strife wold be at an end. But the saied apparel is worne and appoynted to put difference betwixt a Priest and another man; and to show who is a Priest, that he may be estemed as he is, even the Minister of Goddes 1 Cor. iv. holy worde and sacraments. Therefore Priestes apparel hath not the appearance of evil, but of good. And so it is not forbidden by Poule, bycause he forbiddeth but that 1 Thess. V. thinge which semeth and showeth to be synne indeed.
The fifth reason. Wee may not use indifferent thinges, when they bee commanded; bycause then of things indifferent, they be made not indifferent, but necessary. But Priestes apparel, though it be indifferent, is commanded, and so it is made not indifferent, but necessary. Therefore we ought not to use Priestes apparel, bycause it is commanded.
The answer. If the apparel of Priestes ought not to be used when it is commanded, bycause then it is made, of indifferent, necessarye, why then make ye it necessarye without commandment? For in that ye wil not use it, and teach that in conscience you ought not to weare it, you make it therby, of indifferent, necessarye: not necessarye for policie, which is lawful; but necessarye for religion, which is ungodly. If this were true, that we might not use indifferent things when they be commanded, bycause then of things indifferent, they be made not indifferent, but necessarye; then we ought not to obey and kepe any lawe, that properly a prince doth make, bycause properly he maketh no lawe for vertue, or against vice. For that it is made already in the worde of God : for there al vertue is commanded, and al synne forbidden. But the lawes that a prince maketh, they be of things indifferent,