The Nature and Use of Things Indifferent, Argument 4
IV. ARGVMENT.
Such whom the Lord hath made his inſtruments, Supplicat.for the ſpirituall deliuerance of many thouſands from ſpirituall enemies, are to be reſpected and recompenſed.
Ergo, The refractarie Miniſters are to be remembred and reſtored.
ANSVVERE.
I
THis Argument is parallel vntounto the former, Anſwere.and is there fully anſwered.
II.
The Miniſters, in deliuering thouſands from ſpirituall enemies, did but their duty, for which they deſerue louelove of the people, and commendation of all men: but they ſhould ſtil hauehave continued faithful in their Miniſtery, and not ſhamefully hauehave forſaken their calling.
The Defender replies. Reply.If men ſhould alwaies be ſo anſwered, when in their neceſſities they ſhould require ſome helpe and comfort in regard of ſome former kindneſſe; would not men condemne ſuch Anſwerers of great ingratitude and inhumanitie? viz. thus to be anſwered, That which you hauehave done, was but your dutie?
But with what conſcience doth this man write; The Defenders malicious dealing.that inſteed of the ſecond anſwere vntounto this Argument, layeth downe only theſe words, The Ministers did but their dutie &c. ſuppreſſing the reſt of the Anſwere, and then ſhapes his Reply in moſt bitter manner, to perſwade all men, that I had neither common humanitie, not compaſſion, not feeling of their miſerie: whereas the Lord knoweth, my heart many times yerneth for ſorow, when I thinke of our domeſticall controuerſies, which would GOD I might appeaſe and reconcile, that ſo the Church might enioy reſt and quietnes, though it were with the effuſion of my deareſt BLOOD. In the meane time, I feele oftentimes ſuch inward pangues and griefe, that (I thinke) the Defender hath neuer bin acquainted with the like. Neither could my compaſſionate affection towards the refractarie Miniſters, be altogether vnknowne vntounto this wrangling Aduocate, if he had not alreadie made ſhipwracke both of ingenuitie and conſcience. For euen in this very Anſwere, which he mangleth and curtolizeth at his pleaſure, he might hauehave ſeene, that I acknowledge, that for their labour and diligence in the Miniſterie, the Miniſters deſerue louelove of the people, and commendation of all men. Alſo in the Argument going before, It is true, Good deedes muſt be rewarded, ſpecially the Miniſters faithfull labours, &c. And laſtly (to omit diuers other places) in the Concluſion, I cannot but grieue in my very ſoule, when I heare the Ministers complaine of their pouertie, and want of the benefits of this life, &c. And againe, Loe the malice, the enuie and ſpite, which we, whom they terme their Accuſers, doe beare vntounto them, GOD being witneſſe vntounto our conſciences, that we wiſh them all the good that may be. Theſe things whileſt the Defender diſſembleth, how is he as good as his promiſe, where he ſaith, I will collect his words with ſuch faithfulnes, that the Anſwerer ſhall hauehave no iuſt cauſe to complaine of the ſaid collections, as vniuſt, or not agreeing to his owne words (Mild Defence pag. 1.) What iuſtice is it, to take only a piece of a ſentence, and to racke that vponupon the tenture-hooke of malitious conſtruction, directly againſt the Auctors meaning?
III.
Ionathans example, alleadged by the Suppliants, Anſwere.is vnlike vntounto the Miniſters caſe. For Saul in deepe hypocriſy, had made a raſh vow, that whoſoeuer did taste any food, &c. (1. Sam. 14.24.) ſhould be accurſed, and die the death, wherefore the people iuſtly reſcued him from the furie of Saul. But the actions of our dread Soueraigne are not ſo exorbitant, they are not raſh and headie, but aduiſed and iuſt, intended for vnity and quietneſſe in the Church, to preuent and repreſſe phanaticall giddineſſe, ſchiſme, factions and innouation.
The Defender replies. Reply.See how wiſe the children of this world are in their kinde? The auctor altogether wiſely and purpoſely (as it ſeemeth) concealed the name of Saul in the Argument, that ſo the worke might be generally and ſimply reſpected in it ſelfe, without any particular eye vntounto Saul, out of whoſe hands the people deliuered Ionathan. If the Iſraelites iuſtly reſcued Ionathan, as the Anſwerer confeſſeth they did iuſtly, much more iust is it, that many Ministers ſhould be relieued in their troubles.
Reioynder.I thinke the Auctor of the Supplication is but little beholding vntounto the Defender, for ranging him amongſt the Children of this world, a phraſe in Scriptures properly belonging vntounto the Reprobates. But I anſwere vntounto the Reaſon. The fallacie is, foreign. For hee maketh that leſſe, which is not leſſe: there was greater reaſon for reſcuing of Ionathan, being the auctor of ſo great deliuerance, from the furie of Saul, who hypocritically without warrant from God, had vowed that whoſoeuer ſhould taſte any foode &c. ſhould die the death; than there is for the reſcuing of the refractarie Miniſters from the iuſt execution of Law vponupon them: as well becauſe by their wilfull obſtinacie in perſeuering ſingular and forſaking their calling, they are not the auctors of deliuerance, but rather of destruction to Gods people; as alſo becauſe the puniſhment inflicted vponupon them, is not vniuſt and vndeſerued, as Ionathans ſhould hauehave been, but iuſt and deſerued for their ſchiſmaticall cariage, &c.