A Mild and Just Defense of Certain Arguments, Tract · Part 3 · Argument 1
The firſt Argument.
The Miniſters ſupplicated for, are evident to be the true Miniſters of Chriſt. 1 By the ſpeciall hatred of all wicked men againſt them: Iohn 15.19. 2 By their godly life. 3 By their gifts and by the blesſing of God upon their labours. Rom. 10.15. 1 Cor. 9.2. 2 Cor. 3.2. 3. Therefore the State ought to releeue thē being now oppreſſed: becauſe that which is done for them or denyed unto them, is done for Chriſt, or denyed unto Chriſt. Exod. 16 2. 1 Sam. 8.7. Luc. 10.16. Math. 25.40 Gal. 3.25. Ephe. 5.30.
THE MARGINALL NOTES OF M. POWEL upon the former Argument.
a Gab. PowelThat is but juſtly omitted that makes nothing to the purpoſe.
Anſw.The word goſpell ſignifiyng the preaching of the goſpell, the furtherance or hinderance therof maketh to purpoſe in this matter, or elſe nothing doth.
G. Powelb There be other Miniſters of the goſpell.
Anſwer.I acknowledge it with all thankes to God: and whatſoever difference of judgment or practiſe there be, betwixt them and us in the preſent controverſie, yet I louelove and reverence them for their giftes and paynes. But what then? Though there were ten times as many more, and every one as ſufficient as the beſt, yet theſe tymes requyre all. Num. 11.29. 2 Tim. 4.1. 2 Tim. 3.1.
The note with c I paſſe by. When they ſhew our proofes not to proue our intent, we will either ſtrenghten them, or bring better.
G. Poweld Palpable ignorance. Many lay men, I are hated of the world. 2 lead an unblamable life. 3 hauehave ſufficient gifts, ergo They are Miniſters of Chriſt.
Double Sophiſtry. 1 Whereas the author ſaith, thoſe Miniſters that are ſo hated of the world etc:Anſwer. are the Miniſters of Chriſt, this anſwerer ſaith, they (not thoſe Miniſters) that are ſo qualified etc. 2 He leaveth altogether out the laſt poynt taken from the ſucceſſe of their Miniſtery whoſe arte it is ſo to clip words, I neede not to note.
G. Powele They hauehave ill neighbours, that commend themſelues. But I could wiſh they were ſuch indeed albeit they are generally noted to be great teachers and practiſers of vſury.
Wee hauehave ſuch ill neightours that as by their dayly falſe accuſations and ſlaunders againſt us,Reply. doe urge us to pleade our owne innocency, as Moſes, Samuell, Ieremy, Paule and Chriſt himſelfe, having the like neighbovrs were vrged to juſtifie themſelues. Uſury cannot be ſo truely proved to be taught and practiſed by us, as all men ſee many conformitans to be uſurers, Symoniſts, non reſidents, gameſters, potcompanions etc. Yea, and to defend alſo ſome of theſe things.
G. Powelf Why doe you not name them?
Reply.It is needles. The namyng alſo of ſuch Prelats as hauehave commended thoſe whom they hauehave deprived, may perhaps purchaſe them as much ill will and hatred with their greater Prelats, as Nicodemus and ſome other had envy with the Phariſes, for ſpeaking any good word in behalfe of Chriſt.
g All this evidence can make but a conjecture, and that ſcarſe probable, ſeeing many heretikes, papiſts etc.Gab. Powel HaueHave ſuffered more then all this comes to, for their hereſies and ſuperſtition.
Thus may the ſuffering of all Martyrs be eluded.Reply. For heretikes have ſuffered as much. etc. But marke heere his cunnyng. The author ſpeaketh of ſuffering wrongs, indignities etc. M. Powel ſpeaketh of ſuffering more, leaving out the ſubſtantiue of the comparatiue adjectiue more.Sophiſtry If he doe underſtand the former ſubſtantiue wrongs etc: then heretikes, Papiſts ſuffer not more. For they are worthy of whatſoever they ſuffer. If he vnderſtand an other ſubſtantiue, then he doth ſophiſticate, and equivocat.
h As we envy not their giftes, ſo we commend their paynes: and wiſh they had not put their hands to the plough and looked backe.
Reply.Such good words are litle worth, where there is ſuch actuall unmercifulnes. Iames 2.16. We looke not backe, but they that call themſelues our Fathers, hauehave beaten & driven us from the plough, except we would wound our ſoules by ſinnyng againſt Chriſt.
i Gab. PowelIt ſeemes they favor the doctrine de opere operantis: eſpecially waighing the latter part of this Phariſaicall compariſon.
Reply.You know the contrary. Paule may as well be ſaid to hold this doctrine as we: becauſe he ſpake much more of his labors & of the blesſing of God upon them, then we hauehave done or can doe. 2 Cor. 11.23 The Phariſaicall compariſon I leaue to them, that take upon them Phariſaicall authority.
G. Powela They commend themſelues to diſgrace other. A lying and malicious cenſure.
Reply.To plead for ſufficient Miniſters that hauehave done good is not to diſgrace other, but to hauehave all Churches the better provided for. Touching the ignorance, prophanes, irreligion, contention etc: of many places where there are conformable Miniſters either ignorant or idle, or ſcandolous, I would there were not too lamentable experience thereof. Wherfore Sir, put up agayne your lying and malitious cenſure into your owne ſheath.
G. Powelb It is not their calling, but innovation & ſchiſme that is blamed.
Reply.This is a jeſt, like as if a man ſhould fall upon another & beate him that had an ague, and ſay, he beate not him, but his ague. Of innovation and ſchiſme elſe where.
(c) and (d) I paſſe by as nothing worth.
G. Powele As if the kingdome of heaven conſiſted in meat, drinke, or other outward things. Groſſe impudency, or blind ignorance.
Reply.1 The kingdome of heaven conſiſteth as well in the abuſe of outward thinges, as in other matters. 2 The Prelats moſt offend in that which is heere objected: in that they put men from preaching the kingdome of heaven, that will not yeld to theire outward things. To reproche vsus with groſe impudency or blind ignorance beſeemeth not M. Powell, especially he ſuppoſing thoſe arguments to be written by conſent of all of our ſide: whereof ſome were preachers before he was borne,
G. Powelf They ſpare ſpeech for Chriſt. Wherfore? Becauſe the godly hauehave put on the Lord Ieſus. A ridiculous concluſion.
A litle thing will make him laugh,Reply. that will laugh at this concluſion. They that hauehave put on Chriſt, are alſo his mē bers, fleſh of his fleſh etc: as likewiſe is expreſſed in the argument at large, but ſophiſtically omitted by the anſwerer: who were beſt to take heed he clip not the Kings coyne, as he clippeth mens words. If the godly be Chriſts members, doe not they ſpare ſpeech for Chriſt, that ſpare ſpech for the godly. Call not therefore ſuch concluſions ridiculous, but make you graver if you can. The laſt note where, when, by whom, being rediculous, I diſmiſſe with this merry anſwer, that the predicament quando is before vbi, and ſo is the anſwer of the Bedles queſtions in Cambridge. Solent quaeri queſtiones, quando, vbi, ſub quo?
THE FVRTHER ANSWER OF M. POWEL to the firſt Argument.
G. Powel.VVe grant the refractary Miniſters to be indeed the miniſters of Chriſt, neither is their calling brought into queſtion: yea we hope they are ſent by God, and in grace and favor with God: yet all their giftes and ſanctification being but in parte, they may be over ſeene in ſome thinges.
Heere is a manifeſt contrariety. He that is refractary cannot be ſuch a Miniſter of Chriſt.Reply. He that is in grace & favor with God, ought not to be diſgraced and moleſted by men. The later parte of the anſwer we never denyed. But are not the gifts and ſanctification of the Prelats alſo in part? May they not be, yea are they not in ſome things overſeene?
G. PowelIt is true alſo properly in matters that belonging unto their miniſtery, not to ſpeake for them etc. is to ſpare ſpeech for God and Chriſt Ieſus. But ſuch are not the things in queſtion, viz. Croſſe ſurplice, etc: which are laudable ceremoyes, commaunded for order and decency.
Reply.1 As it is the duety of all to ſpeake for common Chriſtians not onelyonly in matters properly belonging to chriſtianity, but alſo in matters of their outward eſtate, peace, liberty, liffe, and things belonging to their life etc: ſo it is the duety of all Chriſtians, not to ſpeake onelyonly for Miniſters in matters only properly, and neceſſarily concerning their miniſtery, but alſo in other matters. The liberty alſo of preaching neceſſarily (though not properly) concerneth the miniſtery of the goſpell (preachyng being the moſt principall parte of the ſayd miniſtery) ſo alſo to preach without givyng offence to the weake, and with out diſgrace to their miniſtery. For what hope can there be of comfortable ſucceſſe where the miniſtery is joyned with offence or diſgrace? Theſe thinges are neceſſary though not proper: wherein the anſwerer committeth a great error, in confounding that that is neceſſary, with that that is proper. For many things may be neceſſary for every calling, which are not proper. Further for the whole miniſtery to be performed in all purity and ſincerity, (as nigh as is posſible) according to Gods word and practiſe of the Apoſtles, without inventions of men etc: this (I ſay) is alſo neceſſary (not proper) to the miniſtery, becauſe by inventions of men, the miniſtery of the goſpell is corrupted & weakened, even as mixture of water with wine ſo weakeneth the wine, that in time alſo it doth corrupt and decay. Theſe thinges are ſupplicated for to the Parliament: If Croſſe and ſurplice be laudable Ceremonyes, then when or where, the Sacraments are celebrated without them, there wanteth ſome laudable ceremonies. This is abſurd and jmpious. What would further follow heerof I need not to write, we may here alſo noate his cū nyng, in that he ſaith not that theſe thinges are for order and decency: but commaunded for order and decency. Many men weare long hayre, and commaund their ſonnes to doe the like for order and decencyes ſake. In like reſpect many husbands command their wiues to paynt their faces, thus and thus to attire themſelues: Are theſe things therfore orderly and decent?