The Nature and Use of Things Indifferent, Argument 1
I. ARGVMENT.
The Miniſters ſupplicated for, Supplicat.are the Miniſters of Chriſt, ſent by God, and in grace and fauour with God. Not to ſpeake for them, is to ſpare ſpeech for God himſelfe, for Chriſt Ieſus, and for the euerlaſting ſaluation of many thouſand Soules.
Ergo, The honorable and high Court of Parliament ought to intercede with his Maieſtie for them.
ANSVVERE.
I. To the Antecedent.
I
WE willingly grant that the Refractary Miniſters are indeed the Ministers of Christ in the miniſtration of his Goſpell, Anſwere.that they are brought in queſtion: and we hope alſo, that they are ſent by GOD, and in grace and fauour with GOD. Yet muſt they remember, that their Sanctification being in part, they hauehave but their meaſure of gifts and graces: for our knowledge is but in part, as the Apoſtle teſtifieth; and therefore that they may be ignorant and ouerſeene in ſome things, wherein they ought not to flatter themſelues, but by all meanes labour to come to vnderſtanding, that they may attaine vntounto the knowledge of the truth.
The Defender replieth. Heere is a mnaifest contrarietie. Replie.He that is refractarie, cannot be ſuch a Minister of Christ. He that is in grace and fauour with God, Reioynder. In what ſenſe the refractarie Miniſters may be good Men.ought not to be diſgraced and molested by men.
But I wonder the Defender is ſo Eagle-ſighted, that he can ſpie a contrarietie, where there is none at all. He that is Refractarie, cannot be ſuch a Minister of Christ. Well. Neither do I ſay that he is ſuch, as he is Refractarie, but in the ministration of the Gospell, which words the Defender hath purpoſely, if not maliciouſly, omitted in my anſwere, leſt his cunning might hauehave bin eſpied at the firſt bluſh. Aaron was the Prieſt of almighty God, in grace and fauour with him; but not in that he made the golden Calfe, (Exod. 32.4.) Peter was the Apoſtle of Ieſus Chriſt, in grace and fauour with him; but not as he went not the right way to the truth of the Goſpell, (Galat. 2.14.) So the refractarie Miniſters may be the Miniſters of Ieſus Chriſt, and in grace and fauor with him, but not as they erre, or are ſchiſmaticall or Refractarie. Where is the contrarietie? Ad populum phaleras: the Defender diſputeth not ad idem. His error is two-fold, 1. foreign. 2. foreign.
But, he that is in grace and fauour with God, ought not to be diſgraced and molested by men. True, they ought not to be moleſted, in or for that thing which procures them grace and fauour with God: which muſt be ſo reſtrained. Otherwiſe the Defender muſt needs plead for immunitie and freedome for any tranſgreſſor and diſturber of ciuil ſociety, to do what he liſteth, vncontrouled by the Magiſtrate; or deny that any ſuch is in grace and fauour with God, which I thinke he will not doe. The Errour, is the ſame with the former.
II.
It is true alſo, Anſwere.that not to ſpeake and take paines for the Ministers of the Goſpell, for ſuch things as properly belong vntounto their Miniſterie, or are requiſite vntounto the performance thereof, is to ſpare ſpeech for GOD, and for Ieſus Chriſt, according vntounto the places quoted in the Argument, and alſo to hinder the ſaluation of Gods people.
Here the Defender, Reply and Reioynder.as if he had loſt himſelfe in ſome inextricable labyrinth, idly diſcourſeth of the tearmes, proper and neceſſarie, and ſaith that I confound both, which any man, though but of meane capacitie, may eaſily ſee I doe not: adding moreouer, Note, the Defenders abſurd Poſition.that the Libertie of preaching doth not properly belong to the miniſterie of the Goſpell; as if it were lawfull for Coblers and Tinkers to preach the Goſpell, which is abſurd and ſcandalous. The error, is Pu…ida foreign, and foreign in Theologia.
II. To the Conſequence.
If the Suppliant had prayed your high Court of Parliament to intreate in their behalfe, Anſwere.for matters which had neceſſarily concerned the Goſpell of Chriſt, or their Miniſterie thereof, or the Saluation of many thouſand-Soules, then had your Honorable Aſſemblie ſome reaſon to mediate for them: But ſeeing it is but only to free them from the Croſſe and Surplice, and ſuch other laudable Ceremonies of the Church, commanded for order and decencie ſake, which may well ſtand with the puritie of the Goſpel, ſeeing The kingdome of heauen ſtands not in meate and drinke, &c. Then hauehave theſe importunate Suppliants greater reaſon to beare that burden in the diligent applying their vocation and calling, then to trouble your Wiſdomes with ſuch perie and ſmall matters.
The Defender omitting the weight of Reaſon in this anſwere to the Conſequence, Reply.ſnarleth onelyonly at certaine words and phraſes; replying, 1. If Croſſe and Surplice bee lawdable Ceremonies, then when or where the Sacraments are celebrated without them, there wanteth ſome lawdable ceremonies. This is abſurd and impious. What would further follow hereof, I neede not to write.
This is neither abſurd, nor impious, Reioynder.neither can the Defender ſhew the leaſt inconuenience that followeth hereof: for there is no doubt, but the Sacraments may bee adminiſtred without either theſe, or diuers other lawdable ceremonies, and yet no ſinne committed, neither in the omiſſion, nor in the vſe of them, if the particular circumſtances and occaſions ſo require.
And that the Defender may ſee, Of the Ceremonies of the Lords Supper.that this is ſo, as I affirme, I will inſiſt onelyonly, for example ſake, in the ceremonies of the Lords Supper. And becauſe haply he doth not know (ſo groſſe his ignorance ſeemes to bee throughout this whole Defence) what the learned meane by Ceremonies of the Lords Supper, it may pleaſe him to vnderſtand, that therby they meane all the whole externall action of that Sacrament, namely whatſoeuer is the obiect, either of the eies, of the eares, or of the hands, whether it be an element, or geſture, or words ſpoken by the Miniſter.
Theſe Ceremonies therefore are of two ſorts: Ceremonies of the Lords Supper twofold. 1. Eſſentiall,Some be Eſſentiall; and ſome Accidentall. The Eſſentiall Ceremonies are theſe; that Chriſt had, 1. his Diſciples gathered together, 2. a fit table, 3. true bread, 4. naturall wine, 5. that he gaue thankes, 6. brake the bread, 7. diſtributed it, 8. declared the vſe thereof, 9. that his Diſciples tooke, ate, and drunke, 10. and ſo declared the Lords death. Theſe Ceremonies are ſo proper and neceſſarie vntounto the Lords Supper, that without them, a man could not communicate rightly according vntounto the inſtitution, commandement and example of Chriſt.
The Accidentall Ceremonies, 2. Accidentall.are that Chriſt celebrated his Supper, 1. in the euening, 2. in a chamber prepared, 3. after meate, 4. together with his twelue Diſciples, 5. ſitting at the table, 6. with vnleauened bread, 7. ſo apparelled, &c. NW.Theſe Ceremonies doe not properly and neceſſarily belong vntounto the action of the Supper, becauſe they do not ſignifie any myſterie, neither did Chriſt ſay, Doe this, after meate, or with ſuch a number of communicants, or ſitting, or ſo apparelled, &c. Wherefore herein eueryevery man ought to follow the determination and practiſe of that Church wherein he liueth: otherwiſe none but Miniſters ought to participate this Sacrament; and where ſhould we finde the ſame chamber prepared? the ſame table? the ſame cloath? the ſame diſhes, &c. And who ſhould be Chriſt? who Iudas the traytor? who Iohn that leaned on Chriſts breaſt? ſuch as were in that Supper. To imitate theſe things, were apiſh, childiſh and fooliſh. The Defenders error, is foreign in Theologia.
2 Becauſe I had ſaid, out of the Apoſtle, Reply.The kingdome of heauen ſtands not in meate and drinke, the Defender replies, The kingdome of heauen conſisteth as well in the ABVSE of outward things as of other matters.
Good Lord! Reioynder.What is become of the Defenders reaſon and ſenſe? Did euer any man heare the like horrible ſpeech vttered by a man of common ſenſe, Another Poſition of the Defenders.much leſſe by a Diuine; The kingdome of heauen conſisteth IN THE ABVSE of outward things! I profeſſe ingenuouſly, I cannot imagine what he would ſay, he ſpeaketh ſo abſurdly and groſly, yea ſo blaſphemouſly: for I am ſure, this propoſition is truer in Diuinitie, The kingdome of HELL conſisteth in the abuſe of outward things. O me, that it was my hard hap, to hauehave ſuch an ignorant ſenſeleſſe man, to become my antagoniſt! What? had not the refractarie Miniſters one Scholler amongſt them, to defend their cauſe? Why then hauehave they made choice of this man to doe it, who in true Theologie knowes not his right hand from his left? The Errour is a monſtrous and blaſphemous foreign in Theologia.