[Sidenote: Points of controversy]
From hence you may proceed—but the means of connexion I leave to yourself—to another discourse, which I think very meet to be handled either here or elsewhere at large; the parts whereof may be these: 1. That in this cause between them and us, men are to sever the proper and essential points and controversy from those which are accidental. The most essential and proper are these two: overthrow of the Episcopal, and erection of Presbyterial authority. But in these two points whosoever joineth with them, is accounted of their number; whosoever in all other points agreeth with them, yet thinketh the authority of Bishops not unlawful, and of Elders not necessary, may justly be severed from their retinue. Those things, therefore, which either in the persons, or in the laws and orders themselves are faulty, may be complained on, acknowledged, and amended, yet they no whit the nearer their main purpose: for what if all errors by them supposed in our Liturgy were amended, even according to their own heart's desire; if non-residence, pluralities, and the like were utterly taken away; are their lay-elders therefore presently authorized? or their sovereign ecclesiastical jurisdiction established?
[Sidenote: Faults of the complainants]
But even in their complaining against the outward and accidental matters in Church-Government, they are many ways faulty. 1. In their end, which they propose to themselves. For in declaiming against abuses, their meaning is not to have them redressed, but, by disgracing the present state, to make way for their own discipline. As therefore in Venice, if any Senator should discourse against the power of their Senate, as being either too sovereign, or too weak in government, with purpose to draw their authority to a moderation, it might well be suffered; but not so, if it should appear he spake with purpose to induce another state by depriving the present. So in all causes belonging either to Church or Commonwealth, we are to have regard what mind the complaining part doth bear, whether of amendment or innovation; and accordingly either to suffer or suppress it. Their objection therefore is frivolous, "Why, may not men speak against abuses?" Yes; but with desire to cure the part affected, not to destroy the whole. 2. A second fault is in their manner of complaining, not only because it is for the most part in bitter and reproachful terms, but also it is to the common people, who are judges incompetent and insufficient, both to determine any thing amiss, and for want of skill and authority to amend it. Which also discovereth their intent and purpose to be rather destructive than corrective. 3. Those very exceptions which they take are frivolous and impertinent. Some things indeed they accuse as impious; which if they may appear to be such, God forbid they should be maintained.
[Sidenote: "Doubly Deceived">[
Against the rest it is only alleged, that they are idle ceremonies without use, and that better and more profitable might be devised. Wherein they are doubly deceived; for neither is it a sufficient plea to say, this must give place, because a better may be devised; because in our judgments of better and worse, we oftentimes conceive amiss, when we compare those things which are in devise with those which are in practice: for the imperfections of the one are hid, till by time and trial they be discovered: the others are already manifest and open to all. But last of all,—which is a point in my opinion of great regard, and which I am desirous to have enlarged,—they do not see that for the most part when they strike at the State Ecclesiastical, they secretly wound the Civil State, for personal faults; "What can be said against the Church, which may not also agree to the Commonwealth?" In both, Statesmen have always been, and will be always, men; sometimes blinded with error, most commonly perverted by passions; many unworthy have been and are advanced in both; many worthy not regarded. And as for abuses, which they pretend to be in the law themselves; when they inveigh against non-residence, do they take it a matter lawful or expedient in the Civil State, for a man to have a great and gainful office in the North, himself continually remaining in the South? "He that hath an office let him attend his office." When they condemn plurality of livings spiritual to the pit of Hell, what think they of the infinity of temporal promotions? By the great Philosopher, Pol. lib. ii. cap. 9, it is forbidden as a thing most dangerous to Commonwealths, that by the same man many great offices should be exercised. When they deride our ceremonies as vain and frivolous, were it hard to apply their exceptions even to those civil ceremonies, which at the Coronation, in Parliament, and all Courts of Justice, are used? Were it hard to argue even against Circumcision, the ordinance of God, as being a cruel ceremony? against the Passover, as being ridiculous—shod, girt, a staff in their hand, to eat a lamb?
[Sidenote: Conclusion]
To conclude: you may exhort the Clergy,—or what if you direct your conclusion not to the Clergy in general, but only to the learned in or of both Universities?—you may exhort them to a due consideration of all things, and to a right esteem and valuing of each thing in that degree wherein it ought to stand. For it oftentimes falleth out, that what men have either devised themselves, or greatly delighted in, the price and the excellency thereof they do admire above desert. The chiefest labour of a Christian should be to know, of a Minister to preach Christ crucified: in regard whereof, not only worldly things, but things otherwise precious, even the discipline itself, is vile and base. Whereas now, by the heat of contention, and violence of affection, the zeal of men towards the one hath greatly decayed their love to the other. Hereunto therefore they are to be exhorted to preach Christ Crucified, the mortification of the flesh, the renewing of the Spirit; not those things which in time of strife seem precious but—passions being allayed—are vain and childish. G.C.
[Footnote 1: This admirable dissertation originally appeared in 1642, entitled, "Concerning the New Church Discipline; an excellent Letter written by Mr. George Cranmer, to Mr. R.H.">[
[Footnote 2: Gregory Martin, born at Maxfield, near Winchelsea, admitted of St. John's Coll. Oxford, 1557, embraced the Roman Catholic Religion and was ordained priest at Douay, 1573. The Rheims translation of the Vulgate has been ascribed entirely to him. He died at Rheims in 1582.]