Short and Plain Animadversions, Part 2
A Short ANSWER to an Vnlicensed Pamphlet, entituled, A Reply to the chiefe Contradictions of Master LOVE'S Sermon.
Master DELL,
I Little thought, that you who pretend so much to bee guided by the law of Love, and of the Spirit, would have brought forth such fruits of the flesh. The best word you can afford me (who never spake ill word of you in my life) is, Satan, the Old man, the false Prophet, &c. Well, your words shall provoke me to a diligent search in mine own soul, but not to a turbulent passion against your person, what ever you say of mee shall not exasperate mee to bring a railing accusation against you. The truth is, I am exceedingly unwilling to shew your nakedness to the world, for men to see your shame, and were it not that the truth of God is more concerned then my selfe, I shou…d be silent; I cannot but say with the Philosopher, Amicus Plato, amicus Socrates, sed magis amica v…ritas. Before I shal speak to your reply, I cannot but take notice of one passage in the Title of your Booke, viz.See the Title-page to Mr. Dells Sermon. All published for the good of the faithfull at their desire. To which I have Three things to say.
1. That your Sermon, Epistle, and Reply tends directly to the hurt of the faithfull, not to their good; for what tends it to? but to pervert mens judgements, alienate mens affections from a Regular Government, and from the orthodox and godly Ministers of the Land; and is this for the good of the faithfull? Your Booke is stu…ft with selfe-contradictions, Scripture-mis-interpretations, censorious expressions, and scandalous aspersions on the City, Assembly, and Ministry of the Land; and is this for the good of the faithfull? Yea, the publishing your Book is likely to sow more seeds of Discord, and kindle a greater fire of Contention in the Kingdome, then you will be able to quench; and is this for the good of the faithfull? I cannot but give you notice of one thing from your name Del, which in the Saxon language signifies Vide Minsh… … his guide …nto the …ongues p. 125 …n the word Deale from …he Sax…n word Deelen, dividere. a gr. foreign.Division (from whence our English word deale, to distribute, or divide comes) and how unhappily doth your practice answer your name, and shew that Mr. Dell is not onelyonly a Dissenting but a Dividing Brother; if so? how can what you publish be for the good of the faithful?
2 If by faithfull you mean such of your mind and way, that your Book was published for their good, I can assure you, you misse your end, you could not doe your party a greater piece of dis-service then in publishing your Book, wherein there are such weak (yet confident) Assertions, such dangerous positions) such vain-glorious expressions, and rigid censures, which hath made you lose more friends then you have purchased.
Whereas you say it was published at the desire of the faithfull; I dare not say they are not faithfull, but I will say in this they were not wise, to desire you to publish that in Print which was so much distasted (by the Honourable House of Commons) in the Pulpit. I have no more to say to the Title of your book; I now addresse my self to answer your Reply: Wherein I must tell you that I have not had fair dealing from you, which I shall demonstrate in three Particulars.
Mr. Dels Reply p. 34. line 10.1. You charge me with that which I never mentioned in my Sermon nor ever entred into my heart as if I should say, The Reformation of Iesus Christ which hee works by his Word and Spirit in all the faithful, and in all the Churches of the Saints, is no Reformation at all: then you demand, How durst you affirme this Master Love? See Mr. Dells Reply, page 34. line 10. I may retort upon you, How durst you say this Mr. Dell? in what you have laid down for my words not a syllable tending to this purpose, is to be found: such a considerable charge against me would neither have beene left out by your notary, nor forgotten by you, had I spoken such words as those; it makes me think you cannot confute what I speak, seeing you encounter with that which I spake not, a valiant champion Ile assure you.
2. You deale not fairely with mee in this, in that you pervert my words, making them to prove that which was not intended by mee: that you may acknowledge I do not wrong you, I shall give you two instances in your Reply, the one is in page 35. line 15. where you indeavour to invalidate that saying of the Apostle▪ (The rest I will set in Order when I come) for that purpose I intended it; In your Reply you intimate as if I urged it to prove the power of the Civill Magistrate circa Sacra which I did not; I urged that Scripture in confutation of that exclusive assertion you laid down in your Sermon, page 5. line 2. This is true Gospel Reformation, and besides this I know no other, and elsewhere, that this is the onelyonly Reformation of the New Testament, page 12.22. You your selfe in writing downe my words cleere it, that I urged those words in answer to that exclusive assertion; (as you laid it downe, page 35. line 10) If no other reformation besides heart-Reformation,1 Cor. 11. then (said I) I wonder how Paul could be …o out, who said, when I come I will set all things in Order; whence I argued this must bee Church-Order, in reference to some Reformation of things externally amisse among them; and not an Order about heart-Reformation; for Paul, as I urged, could not order who should have grace, who not; who should not have small measure of grace, who great, this was not in Pauls power to Order; wherefore of necessity it must be an ordering of things by Ecclesiasticall discipline, of things externally amisse in the Church of Corinth by their scandalousnesse of life, and unpreparednesse of heart, in comming to the Lords Supper, or something else about externall Order, as the scope of the place (being the close of Pauls directions about comming to Sacrament, 2 Cor. 11.34) and the current of Expositers will warrant: (b)Certum Paulus non nisi de exter… decoro loq… tur, Cal. in 1 Cor: 11.Calvin saith expresly the Apostle meanes onelyonly Externall Order in matters Ecclesiasticall, cPareus in …in diciti … lus non po…rat brevibu… Epistolis o…nia comple… quae ad pa…cularem sin … la…um ecclesiarum discip…nam & errorum vitior… que correc… r…m requir… …; ideo &c.So doth Pareus on the place, seeing (saith he) Paul could not in short Epistles expresse all things needful about the particular Discipline of each of the Churches: therefore hee promised when hee came hee would set what is amisse in order. (d)Reliqua … dinabo, ea … pertinentia a… ordinem ec… siasticae Poli…tiae, Piscator locum.So saith Piscator; the rest I will set in order, that is, saith he, the things pertaining to the Order of Ecclesiasticall Government. This text then is pertinent and prevalent enough to gainsay what you affirme; viz. that there is no Reformation but heart-Reformation. The other instance I shall give of your perverting my words, page 39. where you accuse mee that the Scripture could not bee quiet for me, as if I did deny that speech 1 Kings 8.18. where God said to David twas well it was in his heart to build but should not. Alas, I meddle not with the Scripture; onelyonly with your corrupt and absurd application of this to the Honourable House of Commons.
3. You deal not fairly with me in inserting what was most easy for you to cavil at; and omitting the strength of the Arguments I urged: and seeing you could not easily unty the knot, you wovld fairly cut it. And thus having shewed wherein you have not dealt ingenously with me, I come now to shew wherein you have dealt injuriously with the Truth. I betake my …elf to answer your Reply: & that I might deal fairly with you, I shal lay down (what you say were) my own words, and lay down your Reply so much as is needful; then affix an answer.
The words of mine, with which you begin, are.
Love. Cast your eyes upon the begun Reformation, though peradventure cryed down with Confidence, no such thing as the Reformation of the Church. See Reply pag. 33.
Reply. Pag. 34. To which you reply: I taught indeed that the Kingdom of Christ is a spiritual Kingdom, and the Reformation of it is answerable; but little thought that any man would have been so blind or worse, as to have affirmed the preaching of this spiritual and glorious Reformation, was to preach against all Reformation. Is the Reformation of Jesus Christ, which hee works by his Word and Spirit in all the faithfull, no Reformation at all? How durst you affirm this Mr. Love?
Answ. Mr Dell to clear himselfe from what I charged him with (viz. That he c…yed down all Ecclesiasticall Reformation) saith, That he little thought any man would be so blind or worse, to affirm that the preaching of this spiritual Reformation, was to preach against all Reformation. To which I must needs confess, to preach of spirituall Reformation, as it should be preacht, is not to preach against all other Reformation: but to preach of spirituall Reformation, as Mr. Dell preacht it, viz. exclusively, is to preach against all other Reformation. Yet Mr. Dell, to make men beleeve as if he were not against Ecclesiasticall Reformation, saith, That he thinks him mad or worse, that affirms spirituall Reformation excludes all other Reformation: truly I am of his mind. Now that I might turn the edge of this Assertion against Mr Dell I shall reduce it into this Syllogism.
Major. That man that affirms spirituall Reformation, excludes al other Reformation, is either blind or worse.
Minor. But Mr. Dell affirms spirituall Reformation excludes all other Reformation. Concl. Therefore mr. Dell is either blind or worse.
The Major Proposition is evident, Master Del himself confesseth it in the page fore quoted, p. 34.
The Minor is as evident, viz. that Mr Dell affirms spirituall Reformation, and excludes all other Reformation; for he saith expresly, That besides this spirituall Reformation he knows no other, Serm. page 5. line 2. and that this spirituall Reformation is the onelyonly Reformation of the New Testament, Serm. page 12. l. 22. what then follows, but that M. Dell is either blind or worse? And whereas you lay to my charge in your Reply, That I should affirm the Reformation of Iesus Christ by his Word and Spirit in the faithful is no Reformation: Truly Sir, I never durst hold so, its farre from my heart, I acknowledg heart-reformation to be the most glorious Reformation, yet not the only Reformation. I had thought you would have answered what I spake, and not unjustly fasten upon me what I spake not, but I perceive your tongue is your owne.
Love. As if all were encompassed within the narrow heart of man.
Reply, Yet I said plainly enough when the heart is Reformed, all is Reformed, and Gospel Reformation though it begins in the inward man, ends in the outward, did you Sir, accuse me rightly then or no?
Ans. 'Tis true, you said so in pag. 6. l. 22. and you said the quite contrary in pag. 5. l. 2. Besides heart Reformation I know no other; and pag. 12. l. 22. Besides heart Reformation, the new Testament knows no other. Now if what you say in one place, you contradict in another, who can help it? And whereas you demand whether I accused you rightly, in laying to your charge that you held onelyonly for heart Reformation denying all other. I answer, I did, and I stand to the accusation stil, for did not you say, Besides heart▪ Reformation, there is no other Reformation that you know of; and that this is the onelyonly Reformation of the new Testament; Let the Reader judge whether I did not then accuse you rightly.
Love. If this be so, rase out the first Article of the Covenant.
Reply. page 37. I had rather the whole Covenant were rased out, then the least truth contained in the Word of God, though I like the Covenant well enough according to the true intention of it. And again, if the thing be truly considered, it will appeare that you are more against the Covenant then I, for the Covenant engageth us to reform according to the Word of God, but you it seems would reform without, yea, against the Word, with outward and secular power, which you wil not suffer in t…e Magistrates hands neither, but will needs have it in your owne.
Answ. I have laid down all your words in this Reply, that others may discern, and you might bee convinced of the impertinency and falshood thereof; and that in five particulars.
1. In this Reply, you take not off what I urged, viz. If there be onelyonly heart Reformation, then must you rase out the first Article of the Covenant, which binds to a Reformation in Worship, Discipline, and Government, which is a Reformation distinct from heart Reformation; but against this you speake not a word in this Reply, then I'le conclude that your silence gives consent.
2. You say you like the Covenant wel enough according to the true intention of it: truly Sir, you must pardon me, I cannot beleeve you; and that upon these grounds.
1. The Covenant, according to the true intention of it, tyes to the Preservation of the Reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government; but you like not that: you had rather pull down then preserve the Discipline of the Church of Scotland, it being Presbyteriall; yea▪ you call that the carnal Church that cals for the aide of the civil Magistrate for his civil sanction, which Scotland doth; and will you make mee beleeve you would preserve that Church or Government?
2. The Covenant, according to the true intention of it tyes us to indeavour to bring the Churches of God in the three Kingdoms, to uniformity in Religion, Confession of Faith, Forme of Church-Government, Directory for Worship; but you like not these; you have in Print and Pulpit declared your dislike against most, or all of these: How then dare you say you like the Covenant wel enough according to the true intention of it?
3. You do untruly say, that I am more against the Covenant then you. In this I hope I shall easily convince you by an induction of particular passages in the Covenant. 1. I acknowledge the Church of Scotland a Reformed Church, so doe not you. 2. I would in my place▪ and calling endevour to preserve the Reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland, in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government, so will not you. 3. I doe acknowledge the Covenant holds …orth that Reformation of Church Government or Discipline, mentioned in the first Article, to be a distinct reformation from that mentioned in the end of the Covenant, but so do not you; for you hold that besides heart Reformation there is no other. Yea, 4. I, according to the Covenant, endevour after uniformitie in matters of Religion, but you do not so, unlesse your mind bee changed from what it was when you printed a Book against uniformity. 5. I am for a Confession of Faith; but you had three passages in your Sermon against it. 6. I am for a Form of Church government; but you not so, your Sermon wil testifie against you. 7. I am for a Directory for VVorship and Catechizing; you not so. 8. I acknowledge my selfe bound in my place and calling to indevour the extirpation of Schism & Heresie, as wel as Popery or Prelacy; but you do not so. These things considered, with what face can you say, that I am more against the Covenant then you? I hope the ingenuous Reader will be a judge of Righteous thoughts about this matter betwixt us both.
4. You accuse me, and many others through my weake sides, as if we would Reform without and against the VVord; though the Lord knows the purpose of our hearts, that wee desire to make the VVord the rule to square all our services by; but because you onelyonly say it, but not prove it, 'tis not worth a words speaking more.
5. You most falsly accuse me, and others of the Presbyterian judgment, that we will not suffer Secular power in the Magistrates hands, but will needs have it in our own; we desire none of the Magistrates power in our hands, which I have sufficiently spoken to in my Animadversions on your Sermon. I must needs say you shew not plain and Christian dealing, that when you cannot overthrow what Presbyterians say or practice, by convincing arguments, you would endevour to doe it by slanderous reports; this is not fair.
Mr. Love, If this doctrine be true, that Gospel Reformation is only spirituall, then I wonder how Paul was so out, who said, When I come I will set all things in order? surely this was a Church-order.
Reply, Page 35. But pray what outward or secular power had Paul (who suffered not onelyonly much from the world, but most from the false Apostles) to set the Church in order? Did Paul thinke you use any worldly power to set the Church in order, or only the power of the Word and Spirit? But these men think if the Church he set in order by the Word and Spirit only (which were sufficient in Pauls time) it's likely to be out of Order for them.
Ans. Having spoken to this Reply before, I may spare my pains now; yet m…st I let you know that you do me wrong in three particulars.
1. In laying down a part of my words which you thought might best serve your purpose, and leave out the other part of my words, on which the weight of my argument lay, in urging that text, 1 Cor. 11.34. The rest Ile set in order when I come: I said this order must be about matters of Ecclesiasticall Discipline, and not ordering about heart Reformation, for Paul could not order any thing about this, who should have this Reformation, who should not; who should have grace, who not; who should have small measures of grace, who great: so Pauls words must have reference to externall order in matters Ecclesiasticall, as Calvin, Piscator, and Paraeus expounds it.
4. You doe mee wrong in laying downe my words to some other thing then I intended, as if I urged that Text to prove the power of the Civill Magistrate in matters of Religion; which I did not (other Scriptures testifie that sufficiently I need not wrest this) but onelyonly to prove that the new Testament warrants another kind of Reformation besides heart-Reformation; consisting in Ecclesiastical Constitutions for externall order; which this Text affirms.
3. In affirming that I (with others) think, if the Church b…e set in order by the VVord and Spirit, it is like to be out of order for us. I acknowledg the Church is then best ordered for us, when ordered by the VVord; seeing that order allows not such confused disorders, as the want of Church Discipline would bring in.
Love. To cry down all kind of government under heart-government, and all Reformation as carnall, because you have the civill Magistrates hand to it; is against that place in 1 Tim 2 2. pray for Kings and all in authority that we may lead a peaceable life in all godlinesse and honesty.
Reply. Well argued now indeed. Babes and Sucklings you shall come forth and answer this Master in Israel, the sense of this place is evidently this, that Christians should pray for Kings and Governours, that God would so incline their hearts, that whilst wee live in godlinesse under them, they would suffer us to live in peace, and not make us fare the worse in the world for our interest in the Kingdome of God, and what one drop can Mr. Love squeeze out of this Scripture to coole the tip of his tongue? for the meaning is not that the Magistrate should inforce godlinesse, but protect us in godlinesse.
An. To this I have 4 Things to say, 1. 'Tis true, you have my sense in the words you laydown for mine, but not my words. I said indeed, To cry down all Government and Reformation as carnall, because it hath the Protection or civill sanction of the Magistrate, doth crosse that place, 1 Tim. 2.2. and so I say still; and in stead of your calling forth your Babes and sucklings to answer this; you your selfe dare not come forth and deny it. 2. You had need call for Babes and Sucklings to answer this; some body else had need doe it, for indeed you doe not doe it your self; nay, you grant as much as I affirme, which I shall declare presently. 3. I cannot but take notice what a charitable allusion you have in comparing me to Dives, that I should squeeze a drop to coole the tip of my tongue; excellent good language for you to have in your mouth, what a damned man in Hell spake (if it bee not a Parable) where the Law of Love did not beare sway. You that have borrowed this one expression from Dives, have borrowed many other expressions from some one else, not farre from him. 4. You grant what I affirme from 1 Tim. 2.2. You say, the Magistrate should not inforce godlinesse, but protect godlinesse; So say I too; if hee must protect us, how can this bee but by giving his Civill Sanction to allow us the publike exercise of that Religion and Government Christ hath set up within his Dominion? …hus instead of denying, you confirm what I said.
Love. To justle out the Magistrates power, is to justle out the first Article of the Covenant; and they that justle out that, wil▪ justle out you shortly.
Reply. Good Sir, ascribe not your owne work to our hands, the justling out of the Magistrate, have you not made it a chiefe part of your businesse now for a long while together? and are you not still so diligent…y acting it every day, that now you thinke your worke is in some forwardnesse, and are pretty well able to deale with him? and now because you would not bee mistrusted your selves, you pu…likely slander us with it; wee see clearely through all your sl…nder disguises.
Answ. To return you an answer to this, I have three things to lay down, viz.
1. Here you leave out my words, and vary from the sense that I intended them; indeed I said, that to justle out the Magistrates power, as if hee had nothing to doe with matters of Reformation, was to justle out them from having any thing to do with the first Article of the Covenant, no more then any common man in the Kingdom.
2. You ungroundedly say, as if I had made it, (with others) the chiefe part of our businesse for a long while together, to justle out the Magistrate: the Lord judge betweene you and us concerning this thing: Magistrates never flourisht more, nor were they an… where more secured, then where the Presbyteriall government was establisht; and never was Magistracy more sleighted and opposed, then where Anabaptists and Heretiques prevailed.
3. You say, that we slander you, that wee might not bee mistrusted our selves; I could wish it were a slander, not a truth; as for any mistrust that we would avoid, we fear none; the simplicity of our hearts which we have in Christ Jesus, bears us up against all mistrusts, though we be slanderously reported.
Love. Ezra was of another mind, Ezra. 7.26. Whosoever will not do the Law of thy God and the Law of the King, let judgement be executed speedily upon him; whether it be unto death, or unto banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.
Reply. Well Sir, will you stand to this place, and shall this end the controversie? Pray marke then, this was part of the decree of Artaxerxes a King of the Nations touching the Iews, for the rebuilding of the material Temple, that they should have liberty to do it, and not be molested in their doing of it; but should have what assistance the State could afford: the decree was this, Ezra 7.13.21. I make a decree, &c.
Answ. Sir, instead of making a reply to that text, Ezra 7.26. which I quoted, you passe that over with silence, and spend but one line about it, & spend above fifty lines at least in clearing Ezra 7.13.21 which I quoted not: whether this be a pertinent Reply, let the Reader judge.
And whereas you vauntingly boast and triumph, as if you had got the day, daring me to stand to this, which I am not ashamed nor afraid to do, maintaining still that this Scripture doth warrant, that the civill Magistrate hath power to punish with death, banishment or otherwise (as the evill deserves) for transgrefling the Lawes of God,Mr. Burroughs of heart-Divisions, p. 24. Principes bi fuere profani, ad quos lex illa forensis a Mose …ta non pertineba…, & tamen aequum putabant, ut in impies capitali poena animadverteretur; voluit igitur formulas illas Edictorum extare Spiritus Sanctus▪ ut Principes Christianos puderet in vindi…nda Religione, profanis Regi…us priores concedere. Beza de Haereticis. as well as the Kings: and to this purpose Mr. Burroughs (with many others) urgeth this text as well as I, and Beza on the place saith, that these heathen Princes thought it equall that a capitall punishment should be inflicted on the transgressors of Gods Law; and (saith he) the spirit of God would have these decrees of heathen Princes to be exstant to shame Christian Princes, if they should not do so now.
I now come to view over what you lay down in page 38. to be the force of the place, Ezra. 7.26.
1. You say that the force of the place is that the Magistrate may make a decree for all that are minded of their own free will to build the spirituall Temple of Iesus Christ, and to gather up into a Communion of Saints.
To which I have two things to urge, 1. Here you speake for the civill Sanction of the Magistrate in matters of Religion, that he make a decree; but elsewhere you speake against this, as in Serm. p. 5. lin. 28. where you expresse your self that the duties of outward worship and government should not be confirmed by civill Sanction; and in page 24. lin. 34. and ult. that Christ called not for outward aid of the Magistrate; why then doe you here call in for his aide to make a decree to give you liberty for your selves, when you deny such a thing to us? 2. The extent of this decree, which you say this place Ezra 7.26. doth in force, that who are minded of their free will to gather into Communion of Saints, should doe it; what is this but to say, that this Text doth warrant this, that the Magistrate should give an universall Toleration to any who will call themselves Saints to assemble together, and publikely professe their way;Acts. 19.32. … foreign. should the Magistrate give this scope, that who will may gather into Communion; Churches in time would be like that rude multitude (who yet is called a Church as the Greeke word signifies) in Ephesus, who raised an uproare against Paul; could you make this place to inforce this, you would put a weapon into the hands of Papisticall, Prelaticall, Anabaptisticall, Anarchicall and Malignant men, which they never yet used; to plead for gathering together in Communion, as well as you.
2. You say, this is the force of the place, that the Magistrate ought to permit this to be d…ne according to the Law of God in your hands, or rather the Law of the spirit of life in your hearts, and not to inforce upon you any Clergy-Constitutions, page 28▪
Answ. 1. This place warrants the Magistrate to permit the free and publique exercise of the truth, not of errour; The Magistrate that is enjoyned by God to protect the true Religion must not tolerate a false.
2. This place doth rather plead for a Clergy-constitution (as you scoffingly call it) hen any wayes deny it; for this decree of Artaxerxes was granted upon the request of Ezra, who was a Priest (compare Ezr. 7.6. with Ez…. 10.10.) which place will warrant what you deny in your Sermon, viz. that Ministers may petition the civill Magistrate to have Idolaters, Heretiques; or other grosse transgressors of Gods Law to be punisht with death, banishment, or imprisonment, as the cause shall require; This decree then of banishment, death, &c. being granted upon the request of Ezra a Priest, in that sense it may bee somewhat like a Clergy-constitution. I shall say more to your third.
3. In the third place you say, that the force of this text is, that the Magistrate may deterre me and the rest of the Kingdome, that are of the like minde, from resisting and hindering you in gathering into Communion, page 38. and a little before you say he may do it upon pain of death and banishment.
Answ. I am glad you speak out, now I know what you mean, and would you stand to any thing, I should know where to finde you.
1. You grant that the Magistrate may deterre mee and others of the like minde, that we hinder not your gathering together in a Communion of Saints, and that upon pain of death and banishment: by this I see your spirit, that you would have the Magistrate deterre, and that by death and banishment, the Presbyterians who doe oppose your gathering into Communion. Oh what jugling Hypocrisie is this, one while to cry downe the Magistrates power, when Presbyterians desire his aid against Sectaries and Heretiques; anon to cry it up, that he should deterre upon pain of death or banishment, those of a Presbyterian judgement? Presbyterians had neede looke about them, should Mr. Dells Faction prevaile▪ this is the best they can expect, th… the Magistrate should deterre them, and that with death, or banishment, should they oppose what Mr. Dell saith is the Communion of Saints.
2. But suppose I should fight with you with your own weapons, and argue by your owne Principles; Presbyterians plead their way to be truth and your way to be wrong, and that they are bound to oppose it, (and their consciences rest satisfied therein:) now if they should oppose your way, the Magistrate (by your own Principles) cannot touch them, because they follow their consciences; How then dare you say the Magistrate may deterre men by punishments, for opposing you, and yet he must not deterre Heretiques by corporall penalties for opposing the truth?
Love. If it was good in your hearts to thinke to reforme it's much better to doe it.
Reply. Does not God say, it was well that David thought to build a Temple, but yet for all that he should not build it? And doe you dare to blame this very thing? Cannot the Scripture be quiet for you?
Answ. I might observe that you doe not onelyonly leave out much of my words, but also pervert them; 'tis a fault so frequently committed by you, and reproved by me, that I am weary to tell you of it any more. I come to answer your Interrogatories in your Reply. You demand, doth not God say, it was well that David thought to build the Temple, yet hee should not build it? I say so too, and never said the contrary; I acknowledge, God said, 'twas well that David thought to build him an house, but yet he should not doe it, I denyed not that, but this I deny, that ever God said to the Parliament, it was well in them to thinke to reforme, but yet they must not doe it. I have spoken to this at large in my Animadversions on your Sermon, wherefore I forbeare it now; and whereas you charge mee that the Scripture cannot bee quiet for mee, I answer; I meddle not with the Scripture, but onelyonly with your corrupt application of it; in which there were six absurdities, as I have evidently demonstrated in my Animadversions on your Sermon.
Love. You neede not feare losing a Party.
Reply Yea, but how if God be in that party? What then Sir, Is it not better keeping a little poore despised party that hath God in it, then a great and numerous party without God? Again, did you preach before the Parliament to make or cast off parties; doth this appertain to the Mystery of Christ and the Father? Reader, those men are so over-busie in making and marring parties, that I much feare they will in the end throw the Kingdome into more misery and bloud, then their Predecessors hauehave done.
Answer. There are no lesse then five mistakes, which run through the ve…nes of this Reply.
1. That that party which opposeth Presbyteriall government are the peculiar people who have God among them.1. Mistake▪
2. That the Presbyterian party, though great and numerous,2. Mistake. have not God on their side, but are still without God.
3. That I preacht before the Parliament to make parties;3 Mistake. whereas the Lord knowes, I did not intend to preach a word of all this: to which you reply, untill I heard the many falshood that you so confidently delivered.
4. That my preaching did not appertain to the mystery of Christ and the Father,4 Mistake because (as you say) I preacht to make parties; but yours must go under the name of Gospel-light, & preaching of Christ, though the scope and intendment; of your Sermon was to make a party what else did you intend in your last addresse to the Parliament, after you desired a Toleration to assemble together, when and where and how you list; if the Parliament would grant you this Liberty, how did you as the head of a Partie assure the Parliament in these words? Wee will be willingly contented to doe and suffer all things with you, wee will cheerefully runne through honour and dishonour with you, fame and infamy, gain and losse, trouble and quietnesse, peace and warre, life and death, and that you would desire nothing but this Liberty, to preach and publish the truth. If this was not a party, if you might have a Toleration, I understand not plaine English.
5. Your fifth mistake is,5 M…eak in affirming that the Presbyterians will throw the Kingdome into more misery and blood then the Prelates have done: alas, I may returne you an answer in your own words, that you ascribe your owne works to our hands; if ever the Kingdome be brought into misery and blood (which God forbid) you may thank your selves for crying up an universall Toleration; for making a causelesse seperation from Communion with us (whom yet you (at least some of you) acknowledge to bee a Churches of Christ) for fostering Divisions, alienating the people from their faithfull Pastors, and broaching damnable Heresies, which crying Provocations may prove a grave to all our hopes, and a resurrection to all our former troubles, miseries and bloodshed.
Love. Reformation is no forcing conscience, it meddles not with conscience, it retaines practice; if a Iesuite come from Rome to kill a great person, he does it in conscience, but I meddle not with his conscience, I restrain his practise.
P. 39.Reply. Doth your Reformation only restraine outward Practice? then to tye up mad Dogs and Beares and Tygers is your most excellent Reformation you that will not meddle with the consciences of men, it is no wonder you are making so many Iron yokes for their necks, and so many snares and fetters to hamper the outward man, the proper subject it seems of your Reformation; and thus taking upon your selves the Reformation of the outward man, you do indeed put the Magistrates work to an end, and then the Assembly may serve in the place of the House of Commons, and Sion Colledge in the place of the Lord Major, Aldermen, and Common-councell. See ye not, Oh you Powers of the world, how the Ecclesiasticall powers would eat you out? &c.
Answ, In this part of your Reply ('tis so long I cannot write it all) I perceive four bitter invectives, viz.
1. Against Ecclesiasticall Reformation, as if it were not worthy the name of Reformation, because it doth onelyonly restrain outward practice; whereas 'tis rather a commendation to the Reformation desired, that it can doe so much, then a discommendation of it that it can do no more.
P. 40.2. You inveigh against Reformation, that the excellency of it is to tye up mad-dogs, and Beares, and Tygers: To tell you the truth, I think those that tye up those un…uly creatures, doe better then they that let them loose to hurt and to destroy; Presbyterians (as you confesse) by their Reformation tye up those savage Beasts, but you by your universall Toleration let loose Heretiques, (who in Scripture are compared to hurtful beasts) to have their liberty to vent errors, destroy souls, and make prey of the simple; who then doe best, whether they that tye up mad-Dogs, Beares, or Tygers, or those that let them loose, the Reader will judge.
3. You inveigh against the Reformation likewise, as if iron yokes and fetters for the outward man were the proper subject of this Reformation: whereas Presbyterians doe unanimously acknowledge the censures of the Church are onelyonly spirituall, they reach not the outward man neither in estate, liberty, or life; that belongs onelyonly to the civil Magistrate: Mr. Dell, let me tell you 'tis not fit, that when you cannot confute a party, you should belie them; when you cannot overthrow what the Presbyterians hold, to asperse them with what they hold not.
4. You inveigh against the Assembly at Westminster, and the Ministers of London, as if the Assembly would …ome in the place of the House of Commons, and Sion Colledge in the place of the Lord Major, Aldermen, and Common-councell, p. 40. I see at whom you levell your invenomed arrows, you carry an akeing tooth against the Assembly and City Ministers; 'tis your usual way, that those with whom you dare not dispute by arguments, you would disparage by slanders. Time hath bin when you would have given better words of the Convocation house, then you can now give the Assembly, and of the lazy Prelates, then you can now of painfull Preache…s; I wish you might repent of both.
There are many other unsavoury passages in the latter end of your Reply, which hath made your Book to stinke before the people, both in vain commendations of your self, censorious expressions of me, and scandalous aspersions on others. Is not the end of your Reply stuft with a high conceit of your own Sermon, and a false conceit of mine? Do not you boast that your Sermon savors wel to the faithful, and ill to the world, and mine the contrary? Are not you so highly conceited of your Sermon, that it might be preacht any where, where the gospel hath a free passage, and mine onelyonly fit for Rome, or some place else, where the precious Word is under restraint? do not you glory in your own light, which you call sometimes new, other whiles Gospel light, and lay me under this condemnation, that I have but old light, and am but an old Creature still? Ile not spend time in my own vindication, I had rather write an hundred lines to vindicate the truth, then one line to vindicate my selfe. But you rest not here, you are lavish in your censures of others also. Do not you say Ecclesiasticall Powers would …ate out the Powers of the world? Do not you say that the Ministers of this Kingdome (if you mean any body else tell, us so) would exalt themselves in Christs stead in the Church, and set under their feet the Magistrates power in the World, and that this is so evident, that there is some operation of Satan upon him that sees it not. I need not returne answer to these vaine-glorious and censorious expressions, the very mention thereof will be a sufficient Confutation to worke in the hearts of the people, a detestation of what you preacht and printed. I may end this answer as you doe (almost) your Reply, concerning me, that there are many other weake, passionate, inconsiderate, and erroneous passages in your Epistles, Sermon, and Reply, neither worth troubling the Reader with, nor my selfe.