The Nature and Use of Things Indifferent, Argument 16 – Reason 6
XVI. ARGVMENT.
The Matters in queſtion, Supplicat.viz. Subſcription, Ceremonies, the ſtrict obſeruation of the Book, and other Conformitie, are not of any neceſſarie vſe, but are cauſes of diuiſion, and bones of contention amongſt vsus.
Ergo, They both conueniently may, and ought to be taken away.
ANSVVERE.
To the Antecedent.
I.
IF the matters in queſtion betweene vsus, Anſwere.bee but Subſcription, Ceremonies &c. as here the Suppliāts ingenuouſly confeſſe; wherefore hauehave they hitherto mainely cried out, that their contention was about the CAVSE OF GOD, and his WORD, WHOLE CHRIST and his GOSPELL, the MINISTERIE thereof, and SALVATION of the people?
The Defender replieth. Reply.The least tranſgreſſion of Gods Word, and the leaſt obedience to Gods Word, is the Cauſe of God, as well as the greatest.
But the Defender ought firſt to hauehave proued, Reioynder.that wilfull contemning and kicking againſt the gouernment and rites eſtabliſhed in our Church, is OBEDIENCE TO GODS WORD: alſo, that dutifull and peaceable conformitie, and exerciſing of the ſaid ceremonies and rites eſtabliſhed, is TRANSGRESSION OF GODS WORD; and then he had ſaid ſomewhat. But that will neither the Defender, nor all the packe of the faction, be neuer able to do.
II.
Albeit we alſo do not hold Subſcription, Anſwere.Ceremonies &c. to be abſolutely neceſſarie to ſaluation, nor to be impoſed vponupon eueryevery Church (for why ſhould not other Churches vſe their owne libertie?) yea and our Church alſo hath power to alter theſe particulars: yet we know that ſome Ordinances and Ceremonies, are neceſſary for gathering of aſſemblies, eſtabliſhing of a Church, and to be as it were the bonds and lincks of ſocietie.
The Defender replies. Reply.How doth the first point of this Anſwere agree with that, that ſome of the great Prelats hold, that their auctoritie is Apostolicall, and the Ceremonies matters of order and decencie? Are not things Apostolicall and decent, common to all Churches? Or may our Church alter that, that is Apostolicall? Or why ſhould theſe Ceremonies, be more neceſſarie for our Church, then for other Churches? Or not decent for other Churches, and yet decent for ours?
I anſwere particularly. 1. Reioynder.There is no contratietie betweene what I writ, and what the Defender ſaith others of our ſide do hold: for the calling of Biſhops is Apostolicall, who denies it? 2. The Ceremonies we vſe are matters of order and decency. 3. There are many things both Apoſtolicall and decent, which all Churches at all times are not bound vntounto. 4. The particular occaſions, and circumſtances of our Church may be ſuch, that ſome things may be decent vntounto vsus, which are not ſo for other Churches. All which are perſpicuouſly laid downe and proued by inſtances and examples in my Booke de Adiaphoris, which here need not be repeated, vntounto which I referre the Reader.
III.
Yea euen theſe particulars, Subſcription, Anſwere.Ceremonies &c. being impoſed by the Church, and commanded by the Magiſtrate, are neceſſary to be obſerued vnderunder paine of ſinne, ſeeing he that reſiſteth auctoritie, reſiſteth the ordinance of God. Rom. 13.
The Defender replies. Reply.What if they be commanded only by the Christian Magistrate, not impoſed by the Church? Or impoſed by the Church only, the Magistrate being an Infidell, or a perſecutor of the Church? Can paine of ſinne alſo be without paine of damnation? Are not thoſe things that are to be obeyed vnderunder paine of damnation, neceſſarie to ſaluation? Hence alſo it followeth, that things once commanded by the Church or Magistrate (especially by both) are as holy, as the immediate Commandements of God. The particular inconueniences and abſurdities hereof are infinite. What alſo is heere ſaid, that was not wont to be ſaid by the Papists against the Martyrs?
The Magiſtrate cannot impoſe any thing vponupon the Church, Reioynder.without the conſent thereof: but the Church may impoſe any indifferent ordinance vponupon it ſelfe, without the conſent of the Magiſtrate, if the Magiſtrate be an Infidell, or a Perſecutor; which cannot be wilfully tranſgreſſed vnderunder the penaltie of Sinne, and ſo conſequently of damnation, without repentance for it. Yet it followeth not, that ſuch Decrees are as HOLY, as the Ordinances of God, the reaſon hereof is apparant in my booke De Adiaphoris. The Popiſh ordinances and rites are not things indifferent, or lawfull in themſelues; ours are. The Error is, foreign.
IV.
And that they are things Indifferent in themſelues, Anſwere.and may bee vſed without ſinne, wee hauehave proued at large, in a peculiar Booke written of that Argument. Lib. de Adiaphoris.
The Defender replies. Reply.Alas M. Powel, make not ſuch account of your Booke de Adiaphoris, then which, there neuer came more ſimple ſtuffe from any man reputed learned. You had neede recant your blaſphemous point therein, against the auctoritie of Christ Ieſus for making lawes in his Church. Verily you might as well hauehave denied him to be a King, and a Redeemer.
As by writing that Booke DE ADIAPHORIS (a work not voluntarily vndertaken by my ſelfe, Reioynder.but impoſed by Authoritie) I neuer regarded to pleaſe Man, at whoſe hands I looke not for my reward; but laboured to ſerue the neceſſitie of Church, vntounto whoſe ſeruice I owe my ſelf: So now being written and publiſhed abroad, I weigh not what any priuate Spirit, being ouerruled by inordinate paſſions of louelove or hatred, will cenſure or account thereof, for friends will flatter, and aduerſaries raile; but wholly referre it vntounto the iudgement of the CHVRCH of God, at whoſe graue and iudicious ſentence, I ſtand, or fall. And touching the generall doctrine of the Proteſtants, that CHRIST IS NO LAVVGIVER, which you in your deep ignorance terme BLASPHEMIE; obiect againſt it, & you ſhall (God willing) be anſwered. But you profeſſe (pag. 156.) that you will leaue that Book to other to ſhew my childiſh weakenes therein. You doe very well; for by ſo doing you prouide the better for your owne credit: for that Book is written in Latin, & you cannot write true Engliſh.
V.
Now that they are become the Bones of contention, and Cauſes of diuiſion among vsus, Anſwere.is very much to be lamented, ſeeing the free courſe of the Goſpell is ſomewhat troubled, and the common enemie aduantaged thereby. But the fault reſts on them, who of meere ſuperſtition and groſſe ignorance, cannot find in their conſciēces to embrace the wholeſome Ordinances and Conſtitutions of the Church, not any way preiudiciall vntounto the Goſpell, nor repugnant vntounto the Word of God, but moſt agreeable and conſonant vntounto the ſame.
The Defender replies. Reply.That theſe things are become bones of contention, is only the fault of the Prelates, that ſtriue with might and maine for them. They acknowledge that they hauehave power to alter and remoue them, and they ſee great reaſon ſo to doe: neither can they giuegive any reaſons but childiſh for continuance of them; and yet to the great diſhonour of God, and to the griefe of thouſands of the godly, they retaine them.
It is not the fault, Reioynder.but the dutie of the Prelats, to labour to reduce Schiſmatiques and factious perſons to vnitie and concord: neither doe they ſtriue with might and maine for Ceremonies, but for the peace of the Church: neither can the Prelats, without direction from the Chriſtian Magiſtrate, and the conſent of the Church, alter or remoue the Ceremonies now vſed: neither if they could, were they, in policie, to inſtitute any importune innouations, which would bee a ſpeciall ſcandall to many, both within, and without the Church.
XVII. ARGVMENT.
IN this Argument the Suppliants, Supplicat.heaping (as themſelues profeſſe) many things together, and contriuing many Arguments into one, do certainly very worthily and Chriſtianly diſcourſe, as of ſundrie other things, ſo eſpecially cōcerning the Lords great mercies, in the miraculous deliuerance, as of you honorable Houſe of Parliament, ſo alſo conſequētly of the whole State & Kingdome, thereby redeeming both our Bodies from corporall, and our Soules from ſpirituall intended captiuitie of that bloodie Man of ſinne, the child of Perdition. Which verily ſhould prouoke eueryevery good Chriſtian, to ſpeciall thankfulnes vntounto our heauenly Father, to repentance for our former tranſgreſſions, to preſent diligence in our ſeuerall vocations, and euer hereafter to keepe a more vigilant and watchfull eye, ouer the perfidious & treacherous Aduerſaries. But let vsus examine, how the Suppliants applie theſe things to their purpoſe.
BVt before wee come to the particular examination of the REASONS of this 17. Argument, the Defender ſpieth ſomething herein, which maketh much for them of his faction.
Reply.In theſe words (ſaith he) let the contrarietie of the Anſwerer, to almoſt in his whole Anſwere written, be obſerued. For he being a Scholer, his words must be Scholerly interpreted. Becauſe therefore wee are not to doubt, but that the Anſwerer remembreth, as well what hee hath learned in the Ethiques, as in the Elenkes of Ariſtotle: may it pleaſe the Reader to vnderstand, that Ariſtotle, in his ſaid Ethiques, maketh great difference betwixt Bonum and Benè, good and well; Iuſtum and Iuſtè, iust and iustly. Good and iust things may bee done by euill and vniust men; but onelyonly Good and iust men can doe things Well and iustly. Becauſe the Anſwerer therefore doth here testifie, that the Suppliants diſcourſe, not onelyonly of many Worthie and Chriſtian points, but alſo Worthely and Chriſtianly: how can this agree with all the reprochfull termes he giueth them, of Schiſmatiques, Refractaries, wilfull contenders with the Magiſtrate, preſumptuous cenſurers &c.
But what maketh all this againſt me? Reioynder.or wherein doth it contrary any thing that I hauehave writtē? I hauehave euer thought, and doe at this preſent thinke (as charitie bindeth me) that many of the refractarie Miniſters, are indeede good Men (though not as they are ſchiſmaticall) and in grace and fauour with God, as was ſaid before (in the 1. Arg. pag. 107.) But may not GOOD MEN offend in ſome things? Is our regeneration perfect in this life? Doe not wee all amiſſe in ſome things? Can any man ſay, he hath no ſinne? What needed all this Defence therefore of a thing that was neuer denied?
I. REASON. of the 17. Arg.
God ſent lately amongſt vsus a mightie and feareful Peſtilence, Supplicat.for the omiſſion of ſome duty which ſhould hauehave been performed.
Ergo, The high Court of Parliament is preſently to reſtore the refractarie Miniſters, ſpecially ſeeing the plague doth ſtill houer ouer our heads.
ANSVVERE.
To let the Antecedent paſſe, Anſwere.which yet is not ſo fully and warily laid downe, as it ought to hauehave been. Who doth not ſee the weakenes of the Conſequence▪ For doth GOD plague vsus, becauſe of the proceedings againſt the refractarie Miniſters? and not rather for our horrible Sinnes of ſecuritie, pride, vnthankefulnes &c. This is certaine: and that reſts to be proued ſtill.
The Defender replies. Reply.I hauehave told you of your mistaking Logike before. The Auctor diſputeth not particularly of the ſinnes that moued the Lord to viſite vsus; but of the generall end wherefore he did both correct vsus, and alſo magnifie his merciemercy towards vsus: The which hee applied to the particular point of fauour for the Ministers molested. Notwithstanding, to anſwere your question, though it cannot be denied, that for other ſinnes the Lord hath ſo heauily ſcourged vsus, yet why ſhould the ſuppreſſing of the Ministerie of the Goſpell be excluded?
HaueHave you told me of my miſtaking Logike, Reioynder.who cannot tell (as appeareth by this a logicall Defence) what Logike meaneth, and are as fearfull of meeting a fallacie, as you are of a furie? All your clamour was raiſed only vponupon the Correctors miſtaking. The words in the written coppie (which yet is to bee ſhewed) are theſe. They mistake the End; as thoſe Gentiles did the Efficient, who affirmed they were plagued, becauſe of the Christians contempt of their Gods. You take all the aduantage you can, and allow vsus no time to Anſwere your LIBELS. The Auctor divulged his Supplication, euen almoſt in the latter end of the laſt Seſſion of Parliament, and I had not aboue foure or fiue daies to write the Conſideration; which I was compelled, through the ſtraightnes of time, to commit vntounto the preſſe, as faſt as I could write it: wherefore I could not intend to correct it my ſelfe; which was the cauſe aſwell of this error you exclaime againſt, as alſo of breaking the Series of the Alphabet, in the Marginall gloſſes of this 17. Arg. and of ſome other typographicall eſcapes. Neither hauehave I much more time allowed me to write this REIOYNDER, but am conſtrained (for lacke of time) to put part of it to the preſſe, before the whole can be finiſhed. If I liſted to take exception to what I thinke is the fault of the Printer in this your Booke, I might exclaime as much, and as iuſtly as you do: but I hold it no ingenuitie to catch at ſyllables and letters.
But to returne to your Replie. I ſay againe, that the END wherefore the Lord doth correct vsus, is not the Restoring of the refractarie Ministers; but rather he doth it, to recall vsus from our ſinnes, of ſecuritie, vnthankefulnes, pride, &c. The repreſſing of the Schiſmaticall Miniſters (not the Suppreſſing of the Miniſterie of the Goſpell, as you ſpeake) is excluded from that End; becauſe it is no ſinne to labout to recouer them, and to reduce them to vnitie and obedience. The Error is, foreign. The reſt, which the Defender addeth, is true, not of ſuch as he is, but of the faithfull Miniſters of the Goſpell.
II. REASON of the 17 Arg.
Supplicat.God hath lately deliuered the Houſe of Parliament, and the whole Land frō a bloodie intended Maſſacre.
Ergo, That honorable Court ſpecially ought to teſtifie their thankefulneſſe vntounto God, by reſtoring the refractarie Miniſters.
ANSVVERE.
AS if there were no other meanes, Anſwere.whereby that honorable Court might teſtifie their thankefulnes, but by reſtoring Schiſmaticall Paſtors vntounto the Church, the more to diſturbe the peace thereof.
The Defender replies. Reply.We denie not but that there are other meanes whereby that honourable Court may teſtifie their thankfulnes: yet this hindreth not, but that this alſo may bee one.
But the other meanes differeth from this ex toto genere. Reioynder.That other is the true exerciſe of pietie and charitie: this is horrible ſinne, which would prouoke GOD the more to puniſh vsus. That which he addeth concerning merciemercy and crueltie towards mens ſoules, is meere fopperie, which hath been anſwered alreadie.
III. REASON of the 17. Arg.
Many of the honorable Lords, Supplicat.and other members of the Parliament, are very ancient and ſtriken in yeeres: and therefore neuer againe like to be of any other Parliament.
Ergo, They ought to do good now, by reſtoring the Depriued and Silenced Miniſters.
ANSVVERE.
BVt it hath not been yet proued, Anſwere.that to reſtore the refractarie Miniſters, is to do Good, and not rather to do hurt, and to SINNE, by being cauſe of nouriſhing faction and diſſention in the Church.
The Defender replieth NOTHING, but ſaith that this is Anſwered alreadie. But where?
IV. REASON of the 17. Arg.
Supplicat.The refractary Miniſters would be very glad, if they were comforted, reſtored and let alone.
Ergo, They ought ſo to be.
ANSVVERE.
So would all Schiſmatiques, Anſwere.Heretiques, Papiſts, Atheiſts; yea all malefactors, murderers, theeues, cutpurſes, be very glad, if they were comforted, deliuered, and let alone.
The Defender replies. Reply.In the bitternes of his Spirit, he reckoneth vsus vp with all Schiſmatiques, Heretiques, Papists, murtherers, theeues, cut-purſes.
That my SPIRIT IS BITTER, Reioynder.ſuch as hauehave any familiar acquaintance with me, know to bee the ERROR of your iudging and cenſuring Spirit, a fault too common vntounto the men of your ſtampe. I doe not parallel you with Heretiques, Papists, Atheists, murtherers, theeues, cut-purſes; onelyonly I ſhew the abſurditie of the Suppliants reaſon, ſeeing all theſe would bee as glad to bee let alone, as you would.
V. REASON. of the 17. Arg.
Supplicat.The Houſe of Parliament by their merciemercy ſhewed to the refractarie Miniſters, ſhall not only treaſure vp comfort vntounto themſelues againſt the day of their death, but ſhall alſo make their Old-age the more honorable, and their names memorable amōgſt all poſteritie.
Ergo, They ought ſo to do.
ANSVVERE.
I.
IF by Mercy, Anſwere.they meane their reclaiming from Schiſme and faction, I graunt the whole.
II.
But if they meane, their reſtoring againe, they continuing ſtill the ſame men they are now: then is the Antecedent a foule Begging of the Queſtion, and the Argument inconſequent.
III.
For contrariwiſe it may bee concluded: The Houſe of Parliament, by Reſtoring Schiſmaticall Miniſters, to diſquiet the peace of the Church, ſhall not only attract guilt and remorſe of conſcience; but alſo preiudice their honorable Age, and make their names reproachfull amongſt all poſteritie.
The Defender replies. Reply.OnelyOnly herein the Anſwerers cenſure of the Parliament, if they ſhould restore vsus, is to be obſerned, viz. that they ſhall not onelyonly attract guilt and remorſe of Conſcience, but alſo preiudice their honourable Age, and make their names reprochfull to all poſteritie. This toucheth not onelyonly the Lords of the vpper houſe, and body of the Commons in the nether houſe, but alſo his most excellent Maiestie, without whoſe Princely auctoritie nothing can be done by the other.
I cenſure not the honourable Court of Parliament, Reioynder.neither the vpper, nor the lower Houſe, much leſſe doe I cenſure his Maieſtie, becauſe I know they will neuer RESTORE SCHISMATIQVES to diſquiet the peace of the Church. My words are plaine; I ſpeake vponupon ſuppoſition of doing that, which (I aſſure my ſelfe) will neuer be done, to retort the Supplians Reaſon vponupon themſelues. Is this cenſuring the Parliament and King? No no, that trade is proper vntounto the Defenders faction, and vntounto their catercozens or fellow-cenſurers, the Papiſts. This fellowes malice, ſeemes to exceede his learning.
VI. REASON of the 17. Arg.
Supplicat.As Jſrael was bleſſed aboue other women dwelling in tents, for driuing a nayle into Siſeraes head: So ſhould theſe Parliament men, bee bleſſed aboue many former, if they vtterly took away all the Whoore of Romes Ornaments yet remaining &c.
Ergo, They ought to do ſo.
ANSVVERE.
THe inſtance is altogether different. Anſwere.For Siſera was a ſpeciall enemie of the Children of Iſraël, and of the Church of God (Iudg. 4.2.) But the Ornaments the Suppliants ſpeake of, are the good creatures of God, hauing no hurt or ill in them.
The Defender replies. Reply.I. Was not Siſera alſo the creature of God, and in that reſpect may it not be ſaid, that hee had no euill in him? And is not the Pope alſo an enemie to the people and Church of God, as well as Siſera was?
Siſera was indeede the creature of GOD, Reioynder.but an hurtfull enemie vntounto the Iſraelites: the Ornaments wee ſpeake of are creatures in like manner, but without hurt in them. What (ſaith the Defender) is not the Pope alſo an enemie to the Church of God? as if theſe Ornaments were the Pope.
II. Reply.What doth the Anſwerer ſay for the Ornaments, that might not hauehave been ſaid for Images?
Yes forſooth. Images are hurtfull; Reioynder.ſo are not the Ornaments. We are prohibited to MAKE Images: but not to VSE the Ornaments. The Error is foreign.
II.
Neither were the Popiſh Idolatrous Prieſts euer decked with our Ornaments; Anſwere.neither are they now.
III.
Neither were our Ornaments euer worſhipped or abuſed to Idolatrie; neither are they yet.
IV.
Neither if they had bin, is it abſolutely neceſſary to deſtroy the Subſtance of them, together with the abuſe: but the abuſe is to be aboliſhed, and the true vſe reſtored. The reaſons hereof, and cautions to be vſed in this point, I hauehave laid downe in another place. Cap. 11. lib. de Adiaph.
The Defender replies. I. Are you ſure, Reply.there is neuer a Surplice now in England, that was abuſed to Idolatrie publikely in Queene Maries time, or ſecretly ſithens that time? If it be true of Surplices, are you ſure it is true of all Coapes?
I am not ſure, I thinke ſo.Reioynder.
II. HaueHave you forgotten the distinction of Idem ſpecie, Reply.and Idem numero?
I remember it well: but this is, Reioynder.as if it were vnlawfull to vſe gold in the Temple at Hieruſalem, becauſe Aaron framed his Idolatricall Calfe of gold.
III. By this reaſon, Reply.we may erect new Images in the Churches, & ſay that theſe Images were neuer worſhipped or abuſed.
Nothing leſſe: Reioynder.We are expreſſely forbidden to MAKE an Image, as hath bin noted before.