A Mild and Just Defense of Certain Arguments, Tract · Part 3 · Argument 2
The Second Argument.
By the miniſtery of the goſpell the Angels of heaven receaue divine revelation to their further ioye etc. Exod. 25.20. 1 Pet. 1.12. Epheſ. 3.10. Ergo To ſpeake for the miniſtery and miniſters of the goſpel, is to ſpeake for Angels etc.
The marginall notes.
The firſt with (a) ſhalbe anſwerd afterward.
G. Powelb What a conſequence is this? The Angels deſire to ſee into the ſecrets of our redemption, ergo. The miniſtery of the goſpell is prepared for them.
Theſe words into which things the Angels deſire to behold, Reply.1 Pet. 1.12. muſt of necesſity hauehave relation to the thinges before ſaid to be ſhewed by them that had preached the goſpell. For there is no other antecedent to the relatiue, into which. Therefore the conſequence is not to be ſo ſcorned by any that knoweth a conſequence. Heere alſo the anſwerer abuſeth his reader, by wrangling with the concluſion and leaving out the principall confirmation thereof, Epheſ. 3.10. Where it is expreſly ſayd, that Paule had receaved the miniſtery of the goſpell, to the intent that unto Principalityes and powers in the heavenly places now (not before in that manner) might be knowne by the Church (let that be alſo noted) the manifold wiſdome of God.
The other two notes touching ſchiſme and contention hauehave been anſwered, and ſhall afterwards be anſwered more fully: yet here I ad, that he doth unjuſtly heere ſay, their contention. For we contend not with them, but they with vsus. We ſeeke to take nothing from them: they ſeeke and take all from us. Abraham for peace with Lot (his yonger, and nepheu) was cōtent to part from his owne right: but theſe are ſuch holdfaſts of their rites and ceremonies, that for peace with us, they will not part with an inch, though they get nothing by the whole. No marveill: for they will not parte with that which is the right onelyonly of Chriſt. Let it be therefore here noted, how unfitly in the title pag, the anſwerer hath prefixed the ſentence of Abraham Gen: 13.18. Let there be no contention etc.
Further anſwer to the 2 Argument.
G. PowelThis Argument is ambiguous and ſavors of a paradox. For how will they underſtand it? That Angels ſhould be miniſters of the goſpell? Imposſible. Or that they ſhould be converted thereby etc? Abſurd: they never ſinned: or that they might learne to knowe the wiſdome of God? So they doe by all other creaturs, and actions of God:
Reply.No paradox at all. Neither had the anſwerer any cauſe to make the two firſt queſtions, if he had conſidered the places alleadged. That which he oppoſeth to the third againſt knowledge of the wiſdome of God by the goſpell etc: may as well be oppoſed to mens knowledge of the wiſdome of God by his word. For they are alſo taught the wiſdome of God by his creatures and works. pſa. 19.1 Rom. 1.1920. The further meanyng of this argument, in any ſpeciall manner differing from other, I leaue to the author himſelfe: who is able (no doubt) to defend his meanyng, or ready to yeeld better reaſon to the contrary. But be it, that he had no other meanyng in this poynt then other men hauehave, yet the common doctrin of the ſcriptures touching Angels in this behalfe, maketh the argument good. For the Angels of themſelues, know not who be elect, and who be reprobat. This knowledge before calling is proper to the Lord. 2 Tim. 2.19. The election of men is made knowne to the Angels, by their calling and converſion, wherein it is ſayd the Angels rejoyce Luc. 15.7. & 10. And ſo accordingly they glorifie God, in glorifiyng of whom conſiſteth their happines. The more therefore the word is preached, and men converted thereby, the more the Angels reioyce, and glorifie God: the leſſe the word is preached, the leſſe they rejoyce: yea, they may be ſayd in ſome ſort the more to mourne. In this reſpect therfore, the goſpell may be ſaid to be for the Angels. So this great paradox is unfolded. The ſubſtance of the ſecond parte of this anſwer to this 2 Argument hath been anſwered before. Whereas he chargeth us to forſake our miniſtery for a fewe pety accidentall circumſtances; therein he diſcovereth the nakednes of the Prelats, in inflicting ſo materiall and ſubſtantiall puniſhment, for a few pety accidentall circū ſtances. For juſtice requyreth a proportion betwixt the offence and the puniſhment. But we acknowledg no offence. For we may not purchaſe liberty of doing the greateſt good, with committing the leaſt evill. He that ſaith doe good, firſt ſaith, eſchew evill. pſal. 34.14. Theſe thinges being alſo proved evill in other bookes, they are not to be accounted pety and accidentall circumſtances. The leaſt ſinne againſt the great God, is to be accounted a great matter.
In his third anſwer he proclameth agayne, but proveth not our error and faction. If we erre or be factious, let us in that reſpect be puniſhed (ſo notwithſtāding that the people be not puniſhed with us) and let us be holpen as we are Miniſters.
G. PowelIt doth not follow, that if the wiſe and judicious Parliament, ſhould iuſtly refuſe to deale in the cauſe of Schiſmaticall Miniſters, further thē only to admoniſh them to deſiſt from their ſingularity, etc: therefore they ſhould provoke God and Angels: Yea, if they ſhould take parte with Schiſmatikes, and intercede for them, to deteyne them and the people ſtill in faction, thē they ſhould provoke God, etc. pſa: 50: 1718
Reply.Indeede now you ſpeake ſure: and if alwayes you ſpeak ſo, you ſhall not be trapt. If the Parliament iuſtly refuſe etc. and if we be ſchiſmatiks and ſingular etc. then all is well on your ſide: But when will you proue us ſuch? As I ſhall anone proue the contrary, ſo in the meane tyme for ſingularity, it belongeth not to us, but to the Prelats, that are ſingular by themſelues, differing from the word, and from more Churches reformed then we; both in judgment & alſo in practiſe. But to returne to your other words, thus I reaſon from them againſt you. The wiſe and iudicious Parliament will not intermedle in the quarrell of Sdhiſmaticall miniſters further then onelyonly to admoniſh them to deſiſt from their ſingularity etc: all theſe are your owne words.
But the Parliament hath further intermedled for vsus etc. ergo. We are not ſchiſmaticall. Either therefore recant your commendation of the Parliament, or elſe revoke yous reprochfull accuſing vsus to be ſchiſmatikes. Vtrum horum mauis accipe. I ſuppoſe you will not charge the Parliament, with any thing contrary to the commendation you hauehave before geiven of them; and which all wiſe and judicious men will acknowledge to be due vntounto them. Therfore I hope you will de nobis palinodiam canere, and never heerafter charge vsus as you hauehave done.
Here is one thing more to be noated as ſome what croſſing my former ſuppoſall, for not revoking his former cō mendation of the Parliament, yea, & making me to feare that he will rather impute folly to them (according to the manner of ſome other Prelats) then revoke his reproches againſt vsus. What is this that is to be noted? viz. That to proue, if they ſhould take parte with vsus, then they ſhould provoke God and the whole hoſt of heaven againſt us, that (I ſay) to proue this, he applyeth unto them, pſal. 50.17.18. Whereby he inſinuateth, that they having interceded for us, doe therefore hate to be reformed, hauehave caſt Gods word behind them, hauehave runne with theeues, and taken part with adulterers. For theſe are the expreſſe words of the pſalme, which he applyeth to the Parliament for dealing in our behalfe: ſo indeede accuſing us as the principall offenders in thoſe ſinnes, that are mencioned in that pſalme, but yet making the Parliament alſo acceſſary with us in them.