The Iudgement of the Godly and learned Fa­ther, M. Henry Bul­linger chiefe Preacher and Pastor of the Church of Zurich in Swicer­lande, declaring it to be lawfull for the Ministers of the Church of Englande, to weare the Apparell prescribed by the Lawes and orders of the same Realme.

IMPRINTED at London by William Seres, dwelling in Paules Church yarde, at the signe of the Hedgehogge.

To the Reader.

SEING THAT Maister Bullinger himselfe of special good wil and zeale towards the Chur­che of Englande, and the Ministers of the same, hauing trauayled, and taken payne to write his iudgemēt in this matter, thought it expedient to cōmunicate the same, not onely with those two brethren here, at whose request he wrote his minde herein: But also with certaine Byshops of this Realme, as by his let­ter to them directed and herevnto an­nexed, apeareth: & that for the peace & quietnesse of this Church of Eng­lande, as he himselfe affirmeth: And considering also, that the iudgement of two notable learned men, Maister D. Bucer, and maister D. Peter Martyr touching this controuersie, hath alre­dy bene set forth and published, It is [Page] therefore thought good also to pub­lish in print the sayde iudgement of Maister Bullinger, being a man singu­lerly well learned and Godly, and a worthy Minister in Christes Church, not doubting but that muche good shall insue thereof, both to the sta­blishing of weake cōsciences troubled about this matter, and also to the satisfaction of those which without contention or affection seeke only the truth of doc­trine in this behalfe.

To the Reuerende Fa­thers in Christ, D. Ro­bert Horne B. of Winchester, D. Grindall B. of London, D. Parkhurst B. of Norwitch in England. &c.

REuerende Fathers, Honorable, & dearely be­loued brethren. The Lord Iesus blesse you, and kepe you from al euil. We send you the copie of our writing concerning the mater of Apparell, sent by vs to N. & M. men learned and godly, our worship­ful brethren. And therfore send we it vn­to you, that ye maye vnderstande, howe that we deale not priuately with your brethrē, without the knowledge of you, which are the principall Ministers, and that we to the vttermost of our powers doe séeke the peace and quietnesse of your Churches in all things. And we praye the Lord alwayes to saue the state there, and kéepe you in concorde. We also ex­horte you our right Reuerende, and dea­rest [Page] brethren, to haue good regarde vnto faythfull Ministers, and learned men: for such also commonly haue their affec­tions. Wherfore the Apostle also war­ned men to beare one an others burthen. Ye by your authority may do much with the most excellēt Princesse your Quene, entreate ye hir Maiestie, that the good brethren may be reconciled and restored. And we praye you honorable, and deare brother M. Horne to whome these letters may be first deliuered, that ye will cause them forthwith to be caryed to the By­shop of Norwich, and so communicate them with M. Iewell, M. Sandes, and M. Pilkington, to whom by Gods grace I meane to write the nexte Frankford mart. These letters I wrote in all haste aswell in myne owne as in Gualters name, and sent them to Basile, thence to be conueighed to Andwerpe. We praye you hartily to signifie whether ye haue receiued them. Fare ye wel right Reue­rend. The Lord blesse you & your labors.

Your Bullinger.

¶ The Copie of Master Bullingers Letter to N. and M.

RIght Worshypfull and welbeloued brethrē the Lorde Iesus blesse you, and kepe you from all euill. I haue recey­ued your Letters, wher­by I perceiued you N. to complaine, that mine answere made to your question se­med ouer short. Albeit I good Brother, then saw no cause, neyther now do, why I shuld write any long letters. For ye re­quired onely my iudgement concerning the matter of Apparell, where aboute there was contention in Englande. To that question I thought good to answere you briefly. For I coulde well in fewe wordes declare my minde. Furthermore I knewe that D. Peter Martyr of bles­sed memorie, had often & at large hand­led the same question both at Oxeforde and here with vs, wherevnto I had not [Page] what to adde. And I remember that mē ­tion was then made of my minde also, in the letter which I wrote to you Bro­ther M. And againe to say what I think in a worde or two, I can neuer allow it, if ye be commaūded to execute your Mi­nisterie at an Aultar, burthened rather than garnished with the Image of the Crucifixe, and in a Massing garment, that is, in an Albe and Vestment bea­ring on the backe also the Image of the Crucifixe. But as farre as I can per­ceyue by Letters brought oute of Eng­land, there is now no contention for such apparell. But the question is, whether it be lawfull for the ministers of the gos­pell to weare a rounde or square cappe, and the whyte Vesture whiche they call a Surplesse, by y e wearing wherof your Ministers maye be discerned from y e peo­ple? And whether they ought to forsake the ministerie, and their sacred place, ra­ther than weare such apparell? To this question, I answered y e right Reuerende D. Robert Horne Bishoppe of Win­chester the last Mart, and that briefly re­peating [Page] the wordes of D. Martyr. To him had my fellow Minister, and deare­ly beloued Alliance Rodolph Gualter written a little afore, the copie of whose letters I send to you, and our other bre­thren, inclosed in these. Therefore if ye wil heare vs, and y t ye require our iudge­ment concerning the matter of Apparel, as in your laste letters ye signified vnto me, beholde, ye haue in that Epistle our iudgemēt, whervnto if ye can not agree, we truely are most hartily sorie, and ha­uing no further counsell, we doe hartily and without ceasing pray vnto the Lord whom we must in all things & alwayes haue respect vnto, that he with his grace and might wil ease the present troubles.

You brother N. haue propoūded cer­taine questions, and our brother M. hath gathered moe of the same argumēt. And albeit I according to my simple rude­nesse neuer liked to haue maters drawē into so many questions, and intangled in intricate doubtes, whiche otherwise being of themselues more simple, might in fewe wordes and plainely ynough be [Page] answered: yet wil I note somewhat vp­on euerye one, that I maye herein also gratifie you my worshipfull and moste dearely beloued brethren, as farre forth as my poore skill and abilitie will giue me leaue. And I beséeche you to receyue these of me your brother and harty louer in good parte, and iudge of them with a quiet minde and frée from all affections. I vtterlye abhorre contentions, and no­thing doe I more humblie craue at the Lordes hande, than that he will remoue farre from the Churche all contentions, which from the beginning and alwayes haue greatly annoyed true Godlinesse, and rent a sunder the Churche when it was reasonablie quiet and in good case.

Where ye aske, whether lawes of ap­parell ought to be prescribed to Ecclesi­asticall persons, that thereby they may be discerned from laye men? I answere that there is doubtfulnesse in the worde Ought, for if it be takē for necessarie, & pertayning to the obteyning of saluati­on, I do not think the law makers them [Page] selues to be of this minde. But if it be meant, that this may be done for come­linesse and beautie, or estimatiō and or­der, to be a certaine ciuill obseruance, or some suche thing be vnderstoode, as that is that the Apostle would haue a church Minister or Bishop to be Cosmion, y t is comely, I sée not what he offendeth that vseth such Apparell, or that commaun­deth to vse such.

Whether the Ceremoniall obser­uaunce of the Leuitical Priesthoode be to be called againe into the Church? I an­swere, If a cappe and garment not vn­comelye for a Minister, and voyde of su­perstition, be commaunded to be vsed of Ministers, no man verely can truelye saye, that Iudaisme is restored. Fur­thermore I repeate here that I sée D. Martyr to haue answered to this questi­on, who when he had shewed that the Sacramentes of the olde Lawe are abo­lished, which may not be brought again into the Church of Christ hauing bap­tisme and the holye Supper, he added: There were neuerthelesse in the Leui­ticall [Page] lawe certaine actions of such sort, as they coulde not properly be called ho­ly, for they serued for comelynesse and or­der, & some cōmodious vse, which things as agréeable to the light of nature, and helping somewhat to our commoditie, I iudge may both be restored and retained. Who séeth not that the Apostles for the peace and better agréement of the faith­ful, cōmaunded the Gentiles to abstaine from bloud & strangled? These things without controuersie were legall and Leuiticall. And none of vs is ignorant that Tithes also are at this day in many places appointed to finde the Ministers. It is manifest that Psalmes & Hymnes are song in the Church, which thinges yet the Leuites also vsed. And not to o­mit this, we haue holy dayes in memory of the Lordes resurrection, and others. Nowe shall all these be done away bi­cause they be monuments of y e old law? ye sée then that all the Leuiticals are not so abrogate, but that some of them may still be vsed. Thus much he.

Whether it be lawefull to commu­nicate [Page] with the Papistes in apparell? I answere. It is not yet proued that the Pope brought difference of apparell in­to the Church. Nay, it is certaine that difference of apparell is farre more aun­cient than the Pope. Neyther doe I sée why we may not communicate with the Papistes, in apparell not superstitious, but politike and comely. If in nothing we might cōmunicate with them, then must we forsake all Churches, receyue no stipends, vse no baptisme, reade ney­ther y e Apostles, nor Nicene Créede, yea, and then must we away with the Lords Prayer. Neyther doe ye borrow of them any ceremonies. Apparell from the be­ginning of your reformation was neuer remoued, & is still retayned, not by Po­pishe order, but by force of the Princes lawe, as a thing indifferēt and politike. So verely, if ye vse as a ciuill thing the Cap and distinct Apparell, it sauoureth neither of Iudaisme, nor Monkerie. For these séeke to séeme separate from ciuill life, and put merite in their peculiar ha­bite. So Eustachius Bishop of Sebastia [Page] was condēpned, not simplie for his pecu­liar habite, but for that he put holinesse in it. The Cannons of the Councell of Gangra, Laodicea, and of the sixt Sy­node are wel knowen. If so be that some of the common people be persuaded, that this sauoureth of Poperie, Iewishnesse and Monkerie, let them be admonished, and better taught concerning these mat­ters. And if by the vndiscrete clamors of some, blowen out aboute this matter a­mong the Common people, many are made vnquiet, lette them that doe it be­ware, they pul not heauier burthens vp­on their owne neckes, and prouoke the Quéenes Maiestie, & finally bring ma­nye faithfull Ministers into daunger, whence they shall hardelye be able to winde out.

Whether suche as haue hitherto en­ioyed their libertie, may with safe consci­ence wrappe both them selues and the Church in this seruitude, by force of the Quéenes Iniunctions? I aunswere. I thinke best to prouide that there be no odious disputations, clamors, and con­tentions [Page] about the matter of Apparell, and so by suche importunitie occasion be giuen to the Quenes maiestie no longer to leaue it free for them y e hitherto haue vsed their libertie, but being exasperated with their outcries be in maner forced to commaunde either to receiue the eccle­siasticall Apparell, or giue ouer their rowmes. Surely me think it a straunge thing (I speake it vnder your correction right worshipfull and welbeloued Bre­thren) that ye persuade your selues, that ye may not with safe conscience submitte your selues and the Churches to the ser­uitude of Apparell, and doe not rather weighe, that if ye will not vse a thing méere pollitike and indifferent but still contende odiously, into what a seruitude ye then bring both your selues and your Churches, by leauing of your rowmes, and setting of the Churches wide open vnto Wolues, or at the lest to more vn­fit Teachers, which are not so furnished as ye be to instruct the people, haue ye then well defended the libertie of the Church, when ye minister occasion to [Page] oppresse the Church with more and he­uier burdens? ye are not ignoraūt what a number séeke for, how they be affected towardes the preaching of the Gospell, what maner of persons shall succéede in your places, and what is to be looked for at their hands.

Whether the Apparell of the cleargie be a thing indifferent? Verilie it séemeth a thing indifferent, being a ciuill thing, and hauing regarde to comelinesse, order and beautie, without putting anye Reli­gion in it. Thus much briefly I thought to say to your questions my right well learned and welbeloued Brother N.

Nowe I come to the questions of our brother M. also, in declaration whereof I will paraduenture be shorter. Whe­ther peculiar Apparell distinct from laye men were euer appointed for ministers of y e Church? Whether at this day such ought to be appointed in reformed Chur­ches also? I answere: That in the olde Churche there was distinct Apparell of priestes it appeareth by the ecclesiasticall historie of Theodoret lib. 2 cap. 27. and [Page] Socrates lib. 6. cap. 22. And y t they vsed Pallium in ministratiō, none y t hath but ouer séene the monumentes of olde wri­ters, can be ignorant. Therefore I sig­nified afore that diuersitie of apparel had not his beginning of y e Pope. Eusebius at the least recordeth out of y e moste aun­cient writers, how that Iohn the Apostle wore at Ephaesus a Bishops attire vpō his head, terming it: Pelatum seu La­mina pontificalis. As touching saint Ciprian the holy martyr, Pontius the Deacon writeth, that a little before he shoulde be beheaded, he gaue vnto him that shoulde beheade him, his vesture called Birrus, and to his Deacon, his vesture called Dalmatica, and so stoode himselfe in linnen. Furthermore Chri­sostome maketh mention of the whyte vesture of ministers of the Church. And it is certayne that Christians when they came first vnto Christes religion, and to the Church, for a gowne put on a cloke. For which cause when they were moc­ked of the Gentiles Tertullian wrote a very learned treatise de Pallio. I coulde [Page] bring forthe manye other things of this sorte, if these were not sufficient. In deede I had rather haue nothing layed vpon the ministers against their willes, and that they might vse the maner of the Apostles, but for as much as y e Quéenes Maiestie requireth the Cap only and the Surplesse, wherein (as is oftentimes sayde already) she putteth no Religion, and the same things haue bene vsed of the auncient Fathers, when the Church was in better case, without all supersti­tion and fault, I woulde wish good Mi­nisters not to put all the going forward of Religion in these things, as if they were all, and summe, according to the prouerb, but yelde somewhat to the time and not odiousely to striue about a thing indifferent, but iudge soberly that these things may be borne, but we must goe forwarde with the tyme. For that suche are nearer to the simplicitie of the Apos­tles as knowe no such differences or en­force them not, & yet in the meane whyle abhorre not discipline in Apparell.

Whether prescription of Apparell a­gréeth [Page] with christiā libertie? I answere: That things indifferent admitte some­time prescription, and enforcement also, as I may terme it, as touching the vse, and not for necessitie, so as that which is by nature indifferent shoulde be thrust vpon the conscience as necessarie, and so y e mindes driuē into scrupolositie. Times verilie, and places of holy assemblies, are rightely compted among indifferent things, and yet if these then be no set or­der, what confusion I pray you, and dis­order woulde growe therevpon?

Whether any new ceremonies maye be heaped beside the expresse rule of the worde of God? I answere, that I lyke not heaping of new ceremonies, and yet I denie not but that some may be ordey­ned, so that the seruice of God be not put in them, but appointed for order and discipline. Christ himselfe kept the feast or ceremonie of the Encoenia or dedica­tion, and yet we finde not this feast pre­scribed in the lawe. To be shorte, the greater part of y e propositions or questi­ons concerning Apparell, standeth in [Page] this, whether lawes for Apparell ought or be lawfull to be made in the Church. And it bringeth the question to a gene­ralitie, to wit, what order may be taken for ceremonies. To these propositions I answere briefely, that I for my parte I had rather haue no ceremonies, but such as are necessarie, thrust vpō the Church, yet in the meane season I graunt, that lawes concerning ceremonies, paraduē ­ture not very necessarie, and sometime vnprofitable, may not straight waye be condemned of impietie, and so troubles and schismes raysed in the Church, so long as they be voyde of superstition, and the things are in their owne nature in­different.

Whether it be lawfull to restore the abolished rytes of the Iewes, & to trans­late ceremonies properly dedicate to reli­gion of Idolaters, to the vse of refor­med Churches? To this question I an­swere afore, when I entreated of Leui­ticall rytes. And I woulde not haue I­dolatrous rytes vnpurged of errours, translated into reformed Churches. And [Page] agayne, and on the contrarie parte, it might be demaunded, whether receyued Rytes, superstition being remoued, may not by discipline and order be retained without sinne.

Whether conformitie in ceremonies, be of necessitie to be exacted? I answere, That conformitie in ceremonies is not paraduenture necessarie in al Churches. In the meane season if a thing not neces­sarie be commaunded, so that the same be not vngodly, it seemeth not that therfore the Church shoulde be forsaken. There was not conformitie in rytes in all the olde Churches. Yet suche as kéept not conformitie, reproued not the kéepers of vniforme rites. And I am easely persua­ded that pollitike wise men vrge this v­niformitie of rytes, bicause they thinke it maketh vnto concorde, and bicause the Church of al Englande, is one Church, wherein if there be no impietie mixed, I sée not howe ye can so fiercely sette your selues againste suche orders being not euill.

Whether Ceremonies openly offen­siue [Page] may be retayned? I aunswere, that offence ought to be auoyded. In y e meane time, we must beware that we couer not our owne affections vnder the name of offence. Ye knowe there is an offence giuen, and an offence taken, and as it were sought of our selues. I dispute not now, whether you can for a thing indif­ferent without giuing of grieuous of­fence, forsake the Churches that Christ dyed for.

Whether any orders are to be borne in the Church, which in their owne na­ture in déede are not vngodlie, but yet make nothing for edificatiō? I answere, if the orders which the Quenes maiestie enioyneth you be voyde of impietie, ye ought rather to beare them than forsake your Churches, for if the edifying of the Church is chiefely to be sought in this matter, verily we shall soner destroy the Church by forsaking it than by putting on the Apparell. And where vngodly­nesse is not, neyther the conscience offen­ded, there must we not giue ouer, though we shoulde beare some seruitude. And [Page] here agayne it might be demaunded, whether Apparell may iustly be compted seruitude, so farre forth as it serueth to comlynesse and order.

Whether y e Prince ought to prescribe anye thing to the Churches in Ceremo­nies without the good will and frée con­sent of ecclesiasticall persons. I answere, if the Prince shoulde alwayes haue stay­ed for the good will of his cleargie, parad­uenture the moste wise and godly kings Iosaphat, Ezechias, Asa and Iosias and other good Princes, had neuer brought the Leuites and Ministers of the Chur­ches into order. Albeit my mind is not at all, that Bishops shoulde be shut out of consultations for the Church. Againe I would not haue them chalenge such au­thoritie to themselues as they haue vsur­ped against Princes and Magistrates in Papacie. Neyther woulde I haue Bi­shops to holde their peace and agrée vn­to vniust ordinaunces of Princes.

The last two questions touch the ma­ter nearer. Whether it were better in thys order to serue the Churche, or [Page] for these thinges to be cast out of eccle­siasticall function? And whether good Pastors may for the neglecting of suche Ceremonies, iustly be put from the mi­nisterie? I answere, if there be no super­stition nor impietie in the rytes, and yet they are enforced, and enioyned good Pas­tours, which had rather be discharged of them, in déede I will graunt, and that more liberally than néedeth, that a bur­then and seruitude is layde vpon them, but I will not graunt, and that for most iust causes, that therefore they shoulde forsake their place or ministerie, and giue ouer vnto Wolues, as it hath bene sayd already, or to vnfitter Ministers, special­ly when libertie to preache is not taken away, and prouision may be made that no further seruitude creepe in, and many such like things.

I haue sayde what I thought to be saide of the matters propounded in ques­tion, knowing that other men for their learning coulde haue better and more finely discussed them, but bicause it was your mindes, that I shoulde answere, [Page] I haue done as I coulde, leauing to o­thers at libertie both pen and iudgemēt. To ende, my minde is not with these, to force or entangle any mans consciēce, but I offer them to be examined, and I aduise, that no man in this controuersie, frame himselfe a conscience, of a desire to contende. And I exhort you al by Ie­sus Christ our Lord, the Sauiour, Head, and King of his Churche, that euerye one well weighe with him selfe, which way he shall more edifie the Church of Christ, by putting on the Apparell as a thing indifferent, for order and comely­nesse sake, and so far somewhat making to concorde and profite of the Church, or for Apparell to forsake the Church, and leaue it to be possessed afterwarde if not of manifest Wolues, yet of vnfitter and worsse Ministers at the least. The Lord Iesus graunt you to see, sauour, and fol­low that which maketh to his glory, and the safetie and peace of his Church. Fare ye well in the Lorde, together with all the faithfull Ministers. Wée will hear­tily praye to the Lorde for, you that ye [Page] maye thinke and doe, that is holye and holesome. D. Gualter hath him moste heartily commended vnto you, & wish­eth you all prosperitie. And so doe the rest of the Ministers also.

Henry Bullinger, Minister of the Church of Zurich: in his owne, and Gualters name.

Imprinted at London by William Seres, dwelling in Paules Church yarde, at the Signe of the Hedgehogge.

Reuerendis in Christo Patribus D. Roberto Horno Win­ton. D. Grindallo Londonien. & D. Par­curstho Noruicen. Episcopis in An­glia, Dominis nostris colendissi­mis, & fratribus cha­rissimis.

REVERENDI VIRI, Domini honorandi, & fratres charissimi. Dominus Iesus benedicat vobis & seruet ab omni malo. Mittimus scriptū nostrum de re vestiaria da­tum à nobis ad N. & M. viros doctos & pios, fratres nostros colendos. Ideo autem mittimus ad vos, vt intelligatis, inscijs vobis primarijs ministris, nihil nos priuatim agere cū fratri­bus, & quod per omnia pacem ecclesiarum ves­trarum, quantum quidem possumus, quaerimus. Oramus quoquè dominum, vt rebus vestris semper consulat, & vos seruet in concordia. Vos hortamur viri reuerendi, & fratres chariss. ri rationem habeatis fidelium ministrorum, & doctorum hominum, habent hi serè suas affec­tiones: vnde Apostolus quo (que) monuit, vt alij [Page] aliorum onera portent. Vestra authoritate pluri­mum potestis apud sereniss. D. Reginam, apud eius maiestatem efficite, vt boni fratres recon­cilientur et restituantur. Rogamus item vt tu D. Horne obseruande domine, & frater charis­sime, cui primum hae literae dari possunt, ilico cures eas perferri ad D. Noruicensem, eas (que) cō ­munes habeatis cum D. Iuello, D. Sando, & D. Pilchinthono, quibus proximis nundinis Frankford. deo volente scribam. Has festina­tissime exaraui, tam meo, quam Gualtheri no­mine, & Basileam misimus inde transportan­das Antuerpiam. Vos sedulo oramus, vt significetis, an receperitis. Optime valete viri reuerendi. Dominus benedi­cat vobis & vestris labo­ribus.

Bullingerus vester.

Dominis N. et M.

DOMINVS IE­sus benedicat vobis, vi­ri ornatissimi & fratres charissimi, ac seruet vos ab omni malo. Accepi literas vestras, ex qui­bus intellexite. N. con­queri, quod mea responsio data ad tuam quaesti­onem, nimis videatur accisa. Ego vero, mi fra­ter, tunc non vidi, ne (que) nunc video quorsum o­portuerit copiosiores scribere literas. Nam ro­gabas tu duntaxat, quae esset mea de re vesti­aria, de qua contendebatur in Anglia, senten­tia. Ad hanc quaestionem breuibus tibi re­spondendum putaui. Nam breuibus meam sententiā dicere potui. Dein sciebam beatae me­moriae D. Pet. Martyrem & Oxoniae & hic, eandem quaestionem tractauisse saepius & fusi­us, quibus quod adi cerem non habebam. Me­mini vero in literis ad te. M. fratrem daias, meae quo (que) sententiae factam tunc quo (que) fuisse mentionem. Et vt iterum vno & altero verbo quod sentio dicam: Nun (que) probauerim si iu­beamini vestrum exequi ministerium. ad a­ram crucifixi imagine oneratam magis [...] or­natam, [Page] & in veste Missatica, hoc est, in alba & Casula, quae à tergo quo (que) ostentet crucifixi imaginem. At quantum ex literis ex Anglia allatis intellego, nulla nunc est de eiusmodi ves­te contentio: Sed questio est: An liceat Mini­stris Euangelicis portare pileum rotundum vel quadratum, & vestem albam, quam nuncu­pant superpellicium, qua minister ornatus, à vulgo discernatur? Et an oporteat ministeriū vel stationem sacrā citius relinquere, q̄ huius­modi vestibus vti? Respondi ad hanc quaesti­onem preteritis nundinis Reuerendo viro Do­mino Roberto Horno Winton. Episcopo, & qui­dē breuibus repetens verba D. Martyris. Scrip­serat eidē paulo ante Symmista, & affinis me­us charissimus D. Rodolphus Gualtherus, cuius exemplum hisce inclusum ad vos & ad alios fratres nostros, mitto. Ergo si nos audire vultis, nostrumque iudicium de re vestiaria expetitis, sicut vltimis vestris ad me literis significaba­tis, en habetis in illa Epistola nostrum iudici­um, cui si acquiescere non potestis, dolemus sanc quā vehementissime, & cū nullum nobis ampli­us supersit consilium, Dominum, qui in omni­bus & semper respiciendus est, ex animo & in­cessanter oramus, vt ipse gratia sua at (que) potentia [Page] rebus afflictis consulat.

Quaestiones aliquot tu N. frater proposuisti plures vero eiusdem argumenti M. noster con­texuit. Licet vero pro mea simplici ruditate, nun (que) probauerim res in tot distrahi quaestio­nes, & nodis innecti implicatioribus quaealio­qui simpliciores per se, breuibus & satis per­spicue expediri potuerant, aliquid tamen anno­tabo ad singulas, vt hac quo (que) in re, vobis Domi­nis meis obseruandis & fratribus charissimis, quantum per meam possum infantiam acumen­què retusum magis q̄ acutum, inserutam. Vos autem oro vt benigne haec à me fratre vestro vestri (que) amantissimo accipiatis, & de his animo iudicetis ab affectibus purgato at (que) tranquillo. A contentionibus abhorreo prorsus, & nihil magis supplex peto a domino, quam vt ab eccle­sia longe remoueat contentiones, quae ab initio & semper plurimum nocuere vera pietati, & ecclesiam vtcun (que) pacatam & storentem, la­cerarunt.

Cum quaeritur an debeant ecclesiasticis leges praescribi vestiariae, vt ijs distinguantu [...]à laicis. Respondeo, Ambiguitatem esse in verbo Debere. Si enim accipiatur pro necessario, & quod ad salutem consequendam pertineat, non [Page] arbitror hoc velle vel ipsos legum authores. Si vero dicatur posse hoc fieri decoris ornatus (que), vel dignitatis & ordinis gratia, vt sit ciuilis quaedā obseruatio, aut tale quid intelligatur quale illud est quod Apostolus vult ministrū vel Episcopū ecclesiae, Cosmion, compositū in (que) vel orna­tum esse, non video quid peccet qui veste huius­modi vtit [...], aut qui eiusmodi veste vti iubet

An ceremonialis cultus Leuitici sacerdotij sit reuocandus in ecclesiam? Respondeo, Si pileus & vestis non indecora ministro, & quae super­stitione carent, iubeantur vsurpari à mini­stris nemo sane dixerit verè Iudaismum re­uocari. Praeterea repeto hic quod ad hanc quae­stionem video respondisse D. Martyrem, qui vbi ostendisset sacramenta veteris legis esse abolita quae non oporteat reducere in ecclesiam Christi, quae habeat baptismum & sacrā coenam, sub­iecit: Fuerunt nihilominus in lege Leuitica ac­tiones aliquae ita comparatae, vt propriè sacramēta dici non possent. Faciebant enim ad decorem & ordinem & aliquam commoditatem, quae vt lu­mini naturae congrua, & ad nostram aliquam vtilitatem conducentia, ego & reuocari & re­tineri posse iudico. Quis non videt Apostolos pro pace & conuictu credentium faciliori, man­dasse [Page] gentibus vt à sanguine & prasocato ab­stinerent? Erant haec citra controuersiam lega­lia & Leuitica. Decimas quo (que) hodie multis in locis institutas esse ad alendos ministros nemo nostrum ignorat. Psalmos & Hymnos cant in sacris coetibus manifestum est, quod tamen Leuitae quo (que) vsurparunt. Vt (que) hoc non omittá, Dies habemus festos in memoriam Dominica resurrectionis, & alia. An vero illa omnia erunt abolenda, quia sunt vestigia legis anti­quae? Vides ergo non omnia Leuitica sic esse antiquata, vt quaedam exijs vsurpart non pas­sint. Haec ille. An vestitu cum papistis com­municare liceat. Respondeo, non dum constar Papam discrimen vestium induxisse in Ecclesi­am. Imo discrimen vestium constat esse Papa longe vetustius. Nec viden cur non liceat re­stitu non superstitioso, sed politico & composito communicare cum papistis. Si nulla re cum illis communicare liceret, oporteret & templa omnia deserere, nulla accipere stipendia, non vta baptismo, non recitare symbolum Apostolorum & Nicenū, adeo (que) abijcere orationem domini­cam. Ne (que) vos mutuatas ab ris vllas ceremoni­as. Res vestiaria ab initio reformationis nun (que) fuit abolita, & retinetur adhuc non lege papis­tica, [Page] sed vi edicti Regij, vt res media & po­litica.

Ita sane, si vt re ciuili vt amini pileo & veste peculiari, non hoc redolet Iudaismum ne (que) Mo­nachismum. Nam hi volunt videri a ciuili vita separati, & constituunt meritum in pe­culiari sua veste. Sic Eustachius. Sebastiae Episcopus damnatus est, non simpliciter propter peculiarem vestem, sed quod in veste religionem constitueret. Noti sunt Gaugreu. Concilij ca­nones, Laodiceni, & VI. Synod. Quod si ex plebe nonnulli sunt persuasi redolere hoc papis­mum, Iudaismum & Monachismum, admone­antur, & recte de his instituantur. Quod si importunis quorundam clamoribus hac de re ad vulgus profusis, multi inquieti redduntur, videant qui hoc faciunt, ne grauiora sibi oner a imponant, Regiam (que) Maiestatem irritent, de­ni (que) multos fideles Ministros in discrimen ad­ducant, ex quo vix emergere queant.

An qui libertate sua hactenus acquieue­runt, vt edicti Regij, hac seruitute implicare & sé & ecclesiam, salua conscientia possint? Res­pondeo, Cauendum ego censeo ne odiosius dis­putetur, clametur, & contendatur de re vesti­aria, at (que) importunitate hac detur occasio Re­giae [Page] Maiestati, vt liberū amplius illis nō relin­quat, qui libertate hactenús vsi sūt, sed clamo­ribus necessarijs irritata, mandet vel sumere vestes illas ecclesiasticas, vel cedere statiōe sua, Mirū sane mihi videtur (vestra pace viri orna­tissimi, & fratres charissimi dixerim) quod vo­bis persuadetis, salua conscientia vos & ecclesi­as seruituti vestiariae subijcere non posse, & non potius expenditis, si re politica & indifferēti vti nolitis, & perpetuo cotendatis odiosius, cui us­modi scruituti & vos & ecclesias subijciatis, qui vestra statione cedētes, lupis exponitis eccle­as, aut saltem parū idoneis doctoribus, qui non aequè vt vos ad docendū populum sunt instruc­ti. An vero ecclesias in libertatem asseruistis, quando occasionē suppeditatis, ecclesiam pluri­bus grauioribus (que) oneribus opprimendi? Non ig­noratis quid multi quaerant, quomodo erga E­uāgelij predicationē sint affecti, & quales vobis successuri sint, & quid de illis sperandum sit.

An vestitus clericalis sit res indifferens? Videtur sane res indifferens cum sit res ciuilis, ac decori, ornatus, ordinis (que) habeat rationem in qua cultus non constituitur. Haec breuibus ad tuas volui respondere Doctissime & dilectissi­me, mi Frater N.

[...]
[...]

Iam venio & ad M. nostri quaestiones, in quibus exponendis ero fortasse breuior. An vestitus peculiaris à laicis distinctus, ministris ecclesiae nun (que) fuerit constitutus? an & hodie in reformata ecclesia debeat cōstitui? Respōdeo, in veteri ecclesia fuisse peculiarem presbytero­rum vestitum apparet ex historia ecclesiastica Thedoreti lib. 2. ca. 27. & Socratis lib. 6. ca. 22. pallio in sacris vsos esse ministros, nemo ignorat qui veterum monumenta obiter inspexit. Ideo antea submonui diuersitatem indumentorum non habere suam originem à papa. Eusebius cer­te testatur ex vetustissimis scriptoribus Io­hannem Apostolum Ephesi petalum seu lami­nam gestasse pontificalem in capite. Et de Cy­priano martyre testatur Pōtius Diaconus quod cum iugulum carnifici praebere vellet ei prius birrum dedisse, diacono vero dalmaticam, at (que) sic ipsum in lineis stetisse indutum. Praeterea vestis candidae ministrorum meminit Chrisosto­mus. At certum est Christianos cum a Gen­tilismo conuerterentur ad Euangelium & ec­clesiam, pro toga induisse pallium: Ob quam rem cum ab infidelibus irriderentur, Tertulli­anus librum de pallio scripsit cruditissimum. Alia huius generis plura proferre possem, nisi [Page] haec sufficerent. Mallem quidem nihil inuitis inijci ministris, & eos ea vti posse consuetudi­ne, qua Apostoli. Sed quando Regia Ma­iestas pileum tantummodo & candidam ves­tem inijcit, in qua cultum (quod saepe iam re­petitum est) non constituit, eadem (que) res apud veteres, dum meliores adhuc ecclesiae res es­sent, vsurpatae sunt abs (que) superstitione & cul­pae, optarem bonos ministros in his, non vt in prora & puppi, quod dicitur, totum constituere Religionis profectum, sed dare aliquid tempori & de re indifferenti non odiosius altercari, sed modeste iudicare, haec quidem fieri posse, sed pro­ficiendum cum tempore. Propiores enim esse A­postolicae simplicitati, qui discrimina illa igno­rēt, aut non vrgeant, interim tamen à discipli­na in amictu non sunt alieni.

An vestium praescriptio congruat & Chris­tiana libertate? Respōdeo, Res indifferētes ad­mittere aliquando perscripti nem adeo (que) coacti­onem, vt sic dicam quo ad vsum, & non quo ad necessitatem, vt aliquid scilicet quod natura sit indifferens, vt necessarium conscientiae ob­trudatur, & ita animis inijciatur religio. Tempora certe & loca sacrorum coetuum recte habentur inter indifferentia, & tamen si hic [Page] nulla sit praescriptio, quanta obsecro confusio cō ­turbatio (que) orietur?

An vllae ceremoniae nouae praeter expressum praescriptum verbi Dei cumulari possint? Res­pondeo, me non probare si nouae cumulentur ce­remoniae: sed tamen aliquas institui posse non negarim, modo in eis non statuatur dei cultus, sed instituantur propter ordinem & discipli­nā. Christus ipse Encaeniorum festum vel cere­moniam seruauit, nec tamen lege praescriptum legimus hoc festum. In summa, propositionum vel quaestionum de re vestiaria potior pars de eo disputat, An de vestibus leges in ecclesia con­di vel debeant vel possint? Ac quaestionem re­uocat ad genus, quidnam videlicet de ceremo­nijs statucre liceat? Ad has propositiones pau­cis respōdeo, me quidem malle nullas ceremoni­as nisi necessarias obtrudi ecclesiae, interim tamen fateor non posse statim leges de his, forte non adeo necessarias, aliquando & inutiles, damnari impietatis, turbas (que) & schisma exci­tare in ecclesia, quum videlicet superstitione ca­rent & res sunt sua natura indifferentes.

An ritus Iudaeorum antiquatos renouare, religioni (que) Idololatrarum proprie dicatos, in v­sus reformatarum ecclesiarum liceat transfer­re? [Page] De haec quaestione antea respondi, vbi disse­rui de Leuiticis ritibus. Nolim vero ritus Idolo­latricos nō repurgatos ab erroribus transferri in ecclesias reformatas. Rursus vero & ex aduerso quaeri poterat, an recepti ritus, remota supersti­tione, propter disciplinam & ordinem retineri siue peccato non possint?

An conformatio in ceremonijs necessario sit exigenda? Respondeo, Conformationem in cere­monijs in omnibus ecclesijs sorte non esse neces­sariam. Interim si praecipiatur res non necessa­ria, rursus tamen non impia, ob eam, ecclesia non videtur esse deserenda. Non fuit in ritibus conformitas in omnibus ecclesijs vetustioribus. Quae tamen conformibus vtebantur ritibus, eas non vituperabant conformitate carentes: facile autem credo viros prudentes at (que) politicos con­formationem rituum vrgere, quod existiment hanc facere ad concordiam, & quod vna sit ecclesia totius Angliae: In quare si nihil im­pij misceatur, non video quomodo eiusmodi non malis institutis, hostiliter vos obijciatis.

An ceremoniae cum aperto scandalo coniunc­tae retineri possint? Respondeo, scandalum vita­ri oportere. Videndum interim ne sub scanda­lo nostras affectiones contegamus. Non ignora­tis [Page] aliud quidem datum, aliud vero acceptum & vltro accersitum esse scandalum. Non dis­puto nunc an vos sinc graui scandalo dato desc­rere possitis ecclesias, pro quibus Christus mor­tuus est, propter rem indifferentem.

An vllae constitutiones ferendae in ecclesia, quae natura sua impiae quidem non sunt, sed ta­men ad aedificationem nihil faciunt? Respon­deo, si constitutiones impietate carent, quas vo­bis imponere vult Regiae Maiestas, ferendae sunt potius (quam) deserendae ecclesiae. Si enim aedi­ficatio ecclesiae hac in re potissimum est spectan­da, deserendo certè ecclesiam plus destruxerimus ecclesiam, quam vestes induendo. Et vbi abest impietas, nec laeditur conscientia, ibi cedendum non est, licet aliqua imponatur seruitus. Inte­rim vero quaerirur sus poterat an sub seruitu­tem iuste referamus rem vestiariam, quatenus facit ad decorem & ordinem.

An quic (que) ecclesijs à principe praescribendum in Ceremonijs sine voluntate & libero consensu Ecclesiasticorum? Respondeo, Si voluntas Ec­clesiasticorum semper sit expectanda principi, nun (que) forte sapientissimi & pijssimi Reges Io­saphat, Ezechias, Asa, & Iosias, alij (que) princi­pes boni, leuitas & ministros ecclesiarum re­degissent [Page] in ordinem. Quamuis nolim prorsus excludi Epscopos a consultationibus ecclesiasti­cis. Nolim rursus eos eam sibi potentiam vendi­care, quam sibi vsurparunt contra principes & magistratus in papatu. Nolimitem tacere Epis­copos & consentire ad iniqua principū instituta.

Postremae quaestiones duae propius ad rem ipsā accedūt, An consultius sitecclesiae sic inseruire, an propterea ecclesiastico munere eijci? Et, an boni pastores iure ob huiusmodi ceremonias neglectas à ministerio amoueri possint? Respōdeo, si in ritibus nulla est superstitio, nulla impietas, vrgentur tamen, & imponūtur bonis pastoribus qui mallent illos sibi non imponi, dabo sane, & quidem ex abundanti, onus & seruitutem ipsis imponi, sed non dabo, id (que) iustissimis ex causis, stationem vel ministerium propterea esse deserē ­dū, & locum cedendū lupis, vt antea dictū est, vel ineptioribus ministris, presertim cū maneat libera predicatio, caueri (que) possit ne maior obtru­datur scruitus, & multa huius generis alia.

Dixi quae mihi videbantur dicenda de propo­sitis quaestionibus, non nescius alios pro sua e­ruditione longe elegantius melius (que) potuisse ex­cussisse, sed quia ita voluistis vt responderem, feci quod potui, liberum alijs relinquens de his [Page] & calamum & iudiciū Quod superest, nullius ego his conscientiam vrgere & irretire volos sed examinanda propono, moneo (que) ne quis in hac cō ­trouersia ex cōtentionis studio sibi faciat consci­entiā. Hortor item vos omnes per Iesum Christū Dn̄m nostrū, Ecclesiae suae seruatorem, caput & Regē, vt probe quis (que) apud se expendat, vera nam re plus aedificarit ecclesia Christi, si propter ordi­nē & decorē vestibus vt atur, vt re indifferenti, & hactenus ad concordiā vtilitatem (que) ecclesiae nonnihil faciente, an vero propter rem vesti ariā deserat ecclesiam, occupandū postea si non a lupis manifestis, saltē a ministris minime idontia & bonis, Dominus Iesus det vobis videre, sapere, & sequi quod facit ad gloriā eius, & ecclesiae pacem & salutem. Valete in domino vna cum omnibus fidelibus ministris. Orabimus sedulo pro vobis dominum, vt ea sentiatis & faciatis, quae sācta sunt & salutaria. D. Gualthcrus amicissime vos salutat, & omnia foelicia vobis precatur, faciunt hoc ipsum reliqui etiam ministri.

Henricus Bullingerus Tigurinae Ecclesiae minister, suo, & Gualtheri nomine.

EXCVSVM LONDINI APVD Guillihelmum Seres. Anno. 1566.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.