A Mild and Just Defense of Certain Arguments, Tract · Part 3 · Argument 3
THE THIRD ARGVMENT.
It was a fault in Pharaoh his butler, that he did no ſooner remember to ſpeake to Pharoah for the libertie of Ioſeph, and for his releaſe from his affliction. Gen. 40.14. & 23. Seeing Ioſeph had interpreted his dreame of reconciliation to the grace of Pharaoh, and to his former place of earthly honorable ſervice in the houſe of Pharao. Ergo
The Parliament ought ſo to remember the interpretation of the myſteries of God his favor and heavenly kingdome by the miniſters now ſilenced: etc. That they doe what lawfully they may, to releaſe them of their troubles.
1 Marginall notes.
G. Powela This and moſt of the arguments following are grounded upon a falſe principle, viz: that the refractary Miniſters quarrell againſt the Church of England, is the miniſtery of the goſpell, the ſalvation of the people etc: wheras indeed all the contention is about croſſe, ſurplice, and ſome other indifferent Ceremonyes. and actions in the Church. And all theſe arguments doe ſpecially make againſt them, ſeeing they be onelyonly diſturbers of the ſincere profesſion of the goſpell, and worke of the miniſtery: yea ſeeing they forſake their calling, and moue ſo great contention.
And agayne.
G. Powelb would God they were halfe ſo diligent in a good cauſe, as they are importunat to ſow ſchiſme and ſedition among brethren. But they deſerue ſmall commendation etc.
Reply.One reply ſhall ſerue to both theſe notes. Eſpecially becauſe (as it is noted before) all the anſwer is grounded upon a falſe principle, that we are ſchiſmatiks etc. and ſo worthy of all that hath been done unto us. To inſiſt therefore upon this poynt, I ſay firſt of all, that this accuſation of vsus to be ſuch, is a moſt beggerly begging of the queſtion, moſt unjuſt, untrue, and uncharitable, never yet proved, neither able to be proved, vntill they proue the matters in controverſie, to be meerely indifferent to ſuch uſes, as whereto they are imployed & urged by them, yea, good and laudable Ceremonies, matters of decency, and order in the Church: yea, that we alſo refuſe to conforme our ſelues unto them, more of ſtomacke, then of conſcience. Much leſſe can they juſtifie their proceedings againſt & and puniſhing of us: yea not onelyonly of us, but alſo of our people (a thing moſt unrighteous and odious to God & men) in ſuch manner as they hauehave done, eſpecially more for theſe things (which themſelues call indifferent, ſmall, pettie, accidentall, circumſtantiall) then they doe other, for things expreſly forbidden by God himſelfe, & a thouſand tymes more offenſiue to other, and more reprochful and diſgracefull to our Church, profesſion, and kingdom then theſe things. Yea it is to be obſerved, that notwithſtanding all theſe proceedinges againſt us, all our bookes written againſt the ceremonyes, (onelyonly to ſhew the righteouſnes of our cauſe) and all their writtyngs againſt us, none of them hauehave ever yet, either in open conſiſtory, or in privat conference (that I hauehave heard of) or in publike writing, made any one, (no not one) demonſtratiue reaſon, neceſſarily concluding the lawfulnes, and the good and neceſſary uſe, of the things they ſo heavily impoſe vppon us. Some indeed hauehave written againſt ſome of our arguments, but no otherwiſe, then the witt of man may cavill againſt any principle of religion, though never ſo ſubſtantially proved by the beſt divine upon the earth.
But to returne to the poynt, there is nothing in theſe two notes and in the reſt of the booke objected againſt vsus, where with our auncients and betters,Our betters heretofore charged as we are now. hauehave not been charged in former tymes. Elia was charged with troubling Iſraell. 1 King. 18.17. Michaiah might hauehave been charged with ſingularity and ſchiſme, for diſſenting from all the 400 Prophets in Ahabs time. 1 King 22. Ieremy was accuſed by the Preiſts and Prophets of his tyme, to hauehave ſpoken againſt the ſtate of the City, and to be therefore worthy to dyc. Ierem. 26.11. Amos was charged by Amazia the preiſt, with ſuch conſpiracy againſt the King, that the land was not able to beare all his words. Amos 7.10. All the Iewes was generally accuſed by Haman to Ahaſhueroſh, not to hauehave obſerved the Kings lawes. Eſter 3.8. Ezra and the Iewes with him, were accuſed by Rehum, Shimshay, and other beyond the river to Artashasht the King, as rebellious and wicked for building of Ieruſalem: Yea, they were not only ſo accuſed for the time preſent, but alſo for the time to come, (as we are afterward in the 16 Argument in the marginall note with (r) that if they were ſuffered to proceed in building of the City, they would not pay toll, nor tribute: nor cuſtome, yea, Ezra and his companions were not onelyonly charged to be ſuch, but the whole City of Ieruſalem for former tymes was alſo charged to hauehave been a rebellious & noyſom City vntounto Kings and Provinces, that the inhabitants therof had moved ſedition of old time, & that for that cauſe, that Citie had been deſtroyed. Therefore alſo the ſayd Rehum and Shimshay and their companions, pretended regard of the Kings Honor, in writing ſo againſt Ezra and the reſt of the Iewes, Ezra 4.12. etc. The enimyes of Daniell framed the like accuſation of him to Darius, Daniell 6. Our Saviour himſelfe was blaſphemed by the name of a ſeducer & deceiver of the people. Ioh. 7.12. Yea oft tymes as a blaſphemer, profaner of the Saboth, a frend to publicans and ſinners. Paule was accuſed to hauehave taught men againſt the law and the Temple. Acts 21.28. and to be a peſtilent fellow, a mover of ſedicion. Acts 24.5. yea to be an heretike verſe 14.
Such alſo hauehave been the accuſations of all Martyrs by the common adverſaries the Papiſtes. It is therefore the more to be marveilled at, that our Prelats (profesſing, and ſometime preaching the goſpell) doe accuſe vsus in like manner. Yea, charge us to diſturbe the ſincere profesſion of the goſpell, and worke of the miniſtery, and yet alleadge no reaſon heerof: or at leaſt no other reaſon then ſuch as for which all or the moſt part of thoſe before named, were ſo charged as we hauehave heard. For beſides traditions of men, antiquity (not proved, at leaſt not true antiquity) the commaundements of Princes (procured by themſelues, uncharitably miſinformyng ſuch princes) beſids thes things (I ſay) what elſe hauehave they ſaid, doe they ſay, or can they ſay?The Miniſters not yelding to conformitie, are no ſchimatickes.
Doe we vary from the ſincere doctrine of the ſcriptures? Nay, rather many of them doe much more ſwarue from the ſame: eſpecially ſithens their late ſtrong patronizing and urging of theſe things: yea, they hauehave fallen frō that that heertofore hath been conſtantly, and generally held by our Church now teaching theſe thinges, which hauehave been accounted and are in truth, popiſh, or Lutheran errors: viz: touching generall grace, & the death of Chriſt for every particular perſon: againſt perticular election & reprobation: for images in Churches,Exceter both for remembrance of hiſtory and alſo for devotion: touching the mā ner of Chriſts preſence in the ſupper of the Lord: That the Pope is not the Antichriſt, which is the next ſtep to ſay, that he is Chriſts vicar, & wherby they hinder (what they may) the zeale of Chriſtian Princes from executing that againſt him in generall, and againſt his members in perticular, which the word partly foretelleth, and partely commaundeth to be done: concernnyng alſo the necesſity of Baptiſme: touching auricular confesſion: for ignorance (according to the popiſh ſaying, that ignorance is the mother of devotion) that it is not neceſſary for the people to hauehave much knowledge, and that therefore not much preaching, but that it is ſufficiēt, if they can ſay the Lords prayer, the ten cōmaundements, and the articles of faith: which is directly contrary to the ſcriptures. Ioh. 6.69. Ephe 4.13. Philip. 1.9. & 3.7.8. Coloſ. 3.16. Epheſ. 5.17. 2 Pet. 3.18. Who can lay any ſuch poyntes to us, or to any of vsus? This poynt is not lightly to be regarded: yea, it is of great moment. For the Apoſtle deſcribeth ſchiſmatikes, not to be ſuch, as make diviſion onelyonly, but he addeth, contrary to the doctrine which they had learned. Rom. 16.17. Yea in the very next verſe he deſcribeth them further, ſaying, They that are ſuch ſerue not the Lord Ieſus Chriſt, but their owne bellyes, and with faire ſpeeches, and flattering, diceaue the hearts of the ſimple. Doe we ſo? Nay rather we labour onelyonly for the ordinances, which the Apoſtle hath taught vsus. In this reſpect we ſerue not our owne bellyes, but rather for thoſe ordinances ſake, and to ſerue the Lord Ieſus by them, and according unto them, we depriue our owne bellyes of that which otherwiſe they might hauehave; neither doe we vſe faire ſpeeches, and flattering, but by playne dealing for thoſe ordinances of Chriſt Ieſus, we procure the diſpleaſure of all men againſt us. As therefore this place maketh for vsus, and evidently ſheweth vsus to be no ſchiſmatikes, ſo likewiſe it doth as plainely proue them to be ſchiſmatikes that make diviſion for humane inventions, either in doctrine, or otherwiſe in practiſe in the worſhip of God, contrary to thoſe things which they hauehave learned from the Apoſtle; who alſo therein, ſerue not the Lord Ieſus, but their owne bellyes, vſing faire wordes and flattering in that behalfe to deceiue not onelyonly the ſimple, but alſo if it be posſible, them that are wiſe.
Agayne hauehave we made any departure from the Church? We are deprived of our Miniſtery, and ſo thruſt out of our lyvinges, perforce againſt our wills, as any man leaveth that which is violently taken away: but though we be thus put from our miniſtery and lyvinges by our Prelats, yet we do not forſake the cōmunion of the Church. The cauſe alſo why we are put out, is not for reſpect of our ſelues, but for feare of ſinnyng againſt God, and of aggravating the burden of our owne conſcience therby. We diſturb not the ſincere profesſion of the goſpell, and worke of the miniſtery, but in all humilitie, and with the wordes of ſobriety, we condemne the corruptions of our profesſion and of the miniſtery, moſt duetifully and by all lawfull meanes (and no other) deſiring both to be reformed, according to Gods word. So in like manner we deſire to be eaſed of thoſe cloggs, which hinder both us in the worke of the miniſtery, and alſo the people ſo, that they neither doe, neither can ſo edifie themſelues in their moſt holy faith, as otherwiſe they and we would doe. On the contrary, the Prelats ſtoutly mayntaine and ſupport the ſayd corruptions, and in louelove of them (or rather of ſome other matter depending upon them) they hate and moleſt us.
Agayne hauehave we loytred in the worke of the miniſtery? HaueHave we heaped benefice upon benefice? HaueHave we eatē and drunke, and beaten our fellow ſervants? HaueHave we ſought our owne, & not that which is Ieſus Chriſts? Phil. 2.21. HaueHave we made our bellyes our God? HaueHave we minded earthly things? philip. 3.19. I ſpeake not theſe things boaſtingly (as before we hauehave been charged) but onelyonly to purge our ſelues of thoſe crimes, which the former two notes did caſt upon us, and to proue that we hauehave not been diſturbers but furtheres of the ſincere profesſion of the goſpell, and worke of the Miniſtery. Therfore let them that do ſo vntruely accuſe us, take heed that he (whoſe checke no fleeſh ſhall be able to indure) doe not charge them, rather to hauehave taken away the key of knowledge, and to hauehave shut vp the Kingdome of heaven before men, not goeyng in themſelues, neither ſuffering them that would enter, to come in. Mat. 23.13. whereas alſo the word Schiſme in the Greeke language ſignifieth a renting, and the word ſedition in the latine tongue ſignifieth ſeorſim ire, to goe aſide or, a going a ſide: as we hauehave proved that in theſe ſignifications, we cannot be juſtly charged with them, ſo let them that doe charge vsus in this behalfe ſee and conſider well, whether themſelues may not more truely be ſayde to hauehave rent themſelues, and to hauehave gone a ſide, firſt from the word (the rule of all Churches) in the poyntes of doctrine before mentioned, and in ſome other, as alſo in the obſerving & maynteyning of humaine Ceremonyes in the worſhip of God: 2 From other Churches of Chriſt Ieſus: both the auncient Apoſtolicall Churches, and alſo the preſent Churches reformed in other Coūtryes: nether of which either held or doe hold ſuch poynts of doctrine as before I hauehave named: or hauehave or doe obſerue & maintayne ſuch humaine Ceremonyes in the worſhip of God, as are here in queſtion. We beyng charged with hereſye & ſchiſme by the Papiſts for renouncyng the doctrine and communion of the preſent Romiſh Synagogue, doe truely returne the ſame charge upon the papiſts touching heriſie and ſchiſme, becauſe they hauehave fallen away from the doctrine and auncient ſimplicitie in the worſhip of God, that at the beginnynge was in the Auncient Romane Church, and in other true Churches, planted by the Apoſtles. In like mannner therefore let our accuſers in the feare of God conſider, whither the blame of ſchiſme doe not for the cauſes before expreſſed, more aptly belonge unto them, then to vsus etc.
Let me yet alſo (though ſomewhat perhaps out of place) ad one reaſon more, to proue the Miniſters pleaded for, not to be Schiſmatikes.
All Schiſmatikes are abomination to the Lord: The Miniſters pleaded for: are not abomination to the Lord, but in grace and favour with him, Ergo: The Miniſters pleaded for, are no Schiſmatikes. The propoſition or firſt parte of the Argument, is Salomons, who among the ſixe thinges which the Lord hateth, and the ſeven which the ſoule of the Lord abhorreth, he reckoneth him that rayſeth up contention among brethren. The aſſumptiō or ſecond part of the former Argument is granted by the anſwerer anſwerer himſelfe in his anſwer to the firſt Argument: yea it is manifeſt by the good ſucceſſe of their miniſtery from God in the ſayd Argument mentioned. Yea, and that this argument from the blesſing of God upon their miniſtery, is of force, and much to be reſpected, appereth by the words of the blind man reported with commendation by S. Iohn. This is a mervelous thing that ye know not whence he is, and yet he hath opened myne eyes. Now we know that God heareth not ſinners; but if any man be a worſhipper of God, and doth his will, him heareth he. And verſe 33. If this mā were not of God, he could hauehave done nothing. Was this argumēt good from the opennyng of the eyes of the body of one that was borne bodily blind, and is it not much ſtronger: from the openyng of the eyes of the minde of many that are borne ſpiritually blind?
The further anſwer of M. Powel to this third Argument conteyneth nothing, but that which is partely anſwered before, and partly to be anſwered afterward. Therefore I paſſe the ſame by and come to the 4 argument.