Review and Examination of the Doctrine, Part 3 · Chapter 6
CHAP. VI.
The nature of Presbyterian Ministers relation to this Church and their call to officiat therin, vindicate from the Informers simple cavills. Mr Baxters rules for the cure of Church-divisions impertinently alledged by him. The Testimonies of the jus divinum Minist. Anglic. And of Mr Rutherfoord in his Due right of Presbytery anent unwarrantable separation, insufficient to bear the weight of his conclusion.
THE appearances of our Lords Ambassadours in his message and for promoting his Interest, have been much opposed by Satan in very various Methods and versatile disguises in all ages, but that Presbyterian Ministers of a pure Apostolick Presbyterian Church should be opposed in the exercise of their holy function and Ministry received from Christ, and this exercise impugned from pretended Scripture grounds and Presbyterian principles may seem strange, if these latter days had not produced many such prodigies of errors and wickedness. The progress of this personat doubt-resolver his impugnations will discover so much, which we now proceed to examine.
This Informer next alleages That Ministers among us make themselves Ministers of the whole Church, and the Doubter alledging [That a Minister is a Minister of the Catholick Church] he Answers from Mr Rutherfoord Due right of Presb. page 204. That tho a Minister is a Minister of the Catholick Church, yet not a Catholick Pastor of it, that by ordination, and his calling he is made Pastor and by election he is restricted to be ordinarly the Pastor of his flock. And that Mr Durham on Rev. page 106, 107. thinks there is odds betwixt being a Minister of the Catholick Church, and a Catholick Minister of it, as the Apostles were and the Pope pretends viz. to have immediat access for the exercise in all places—that …ho actu prime they have a commission to …e Ministers of the whole Church, yet actu secund… they are peculiarly delegated to such and such posts, But we have made our selves Ministers of all the congregations of the Countrey. I answer, this doctrine crosses not our principles nor practice in the least. For first, when we assert that a Minister is by election restricted to be ordinarly the Pastor of a flock, and especially delegat, and fixt to such a post & particular watchtower, it is not so to be understood, as if there could be nolawful exercise of his Ministry elsewhere: for first, this were flat independency &c. 2. All (save they of this perswasion) grant that the Minister receives no new authority as to his Ministerial acts and officiating in other places, but a new application only. Hence in the 2d place, is to be understood of the Church her ordinary settled state under a settled Ministry but when there is a destroying enemy within her bosome wasting her, and the fathfull Ministry are put from their Watchtowers and posts, by a number of Schismatick Innovators, who are dissolving her union, and impeaching her Authority: In this extraordinary case, Ministers more enlarged and unfixt officiating, is no breach of this Rule; Because 1. In this case the Parochial constitution is impossible to be held, and God calls not to impossibilities, and yet his call to preach the Gospel stands and binds, and by consequence to preach to others then the Ministers parish. The common rule will plead for this viz. necessitas non habet legem, which this Informer himself doth hold will in some cases warrand the laying by of that which otherwise were a duty; he knows what his inference is from Davids eating of the shew bread to keep from starving, and Paul, and those with him their casting their goods into the sea to preserve from perishing. So that of necessity he must admit this rule and answer, upon his own ground. 2. The reasons which did warrand our first Reformers officiating in this manner (a practice which he dare not say that the authors mentioned, or any reformed divines do condemn) will warrand this our practice in this persecute state of our Church, it being clear that the case of Reformation is parallel to that of a Churches defection, and persecution, in relation to this practice contraverted, as we cleard from Acts 8. 3. The same great end of the Churches greater good and edificaton, which warrands fixing of Ministers to their posts in a Churches setled peacefull state will warrand their officiating more largely and at other posts, when put from their own in her disturbed, persecute and destroyed coondition by a prevalent Schismatick, backsliding party. The faithfull watchmen seing the city betrayed by a party of professed defendents, who are letting in the enemy, do their duty to the city best in resisting them and running to help. 4. If faithfull Ministers their necessary keeping their posts and the unlawfulness of exercising their Ministry any where else, were in this case asserted, then it would follow that a Minister standing in that relation to a disturbed and destroyed Church, and all his gifts and graces, were useless in that case, which notwithstanding are given for the good of the Church, but this is absurd; Shall not the weeping Church be taken by the hand by her true Sons, when she is wounded and her vail taken away by smiting watchmen. 5. By our Principles the Prelatick party are Schismaticks who have already broke and overturned our Churches order, and Reformation. Now this Informer will not deny, that in such a case, the Church may send forth her Ministers to officiat among such backsliders and Schismaticks, for their healing and recovery; he knowes upon what ground Mr Lightoun not long since, sent out some of his brethren to preach in the West of Scotland. Beside Mr Gillespie will tell him, Miscell. page 23. That a Schismatick Church hath no just right to the liberty of a sound Church, as to the calling or setling of Ministers. So that in our principles no Conformists are duely or lawfully called and settled. 6. Our divines do grant that in extraordinary cases, even the want of ordination it self will not hinder to officiat Ministerially but that there may be a necessity which will sustain and comport with the want of it. Mr Gillespy Misc. ch. 4. page 63. tells us, that in extraordinary cases when ordination cannotbe had, and when there are none who have commission & authority from God to ordain, then and there an inward call from God stirring up, and …ing with the people's good will and consent whom God makes willing, can make a Minister authorized to ministerial acts—That at the first plantation of Churches, ordination may be wanting without making void the Ministry because ordination cannot be had. And if necessity will plead this in relation to ordination it self, Ergo a fortiori this necessity of our Churches destroyed perturbed condition, may much more comport with ordained Ministers their more enlarged officiating for the help and recovery of a perishing remnant, by Wolves in sheeps cloathing.
Next, this Informer going on in his nauseating repetitions, charges intrusion upon our Ministers, and enquires, what warrand they have to preach and administer Sacraments to those of another Ministers charge, being neither called nor desired by these Minsters. I answer, they have Gods call to preach the Gospel as Minsters of this Church, and as this call would warrand their officiating in other parishes upon the lawfull Ministers desire or invitation in a settled serene state of our Church, so in this her ruined and destroyed condition, the same call abundantly warrands their helping of these congregations, and such poor Macedonians, who desire their help while under destroying Schismaticks, who have no lawfull call to be their Mininisters from God or this Church.
But here our Informer assaults us with a dilemma; either Presbyterian Ministers call is ordinary, or extraordinary. Ordinary they have none, since they are not invited by the Ministers of the congregations to whom they preach, extraordinary they will not pretend unto. I Answer by a counterdilemma, and retort his argument thus, either the pretended Ministers of these congregations have an ordinary or extraordinary call to officiat therein, ordinary they have none according to the Doctrine, Reformation, and principles of this Church, being neither called by the people, nor ordained by the Presbyteries of this Church, if we speak of the generality who are ordained and obtruded by the Prelats, upon these congregations where they officiat, and for those who were otherwise ordained and have conformed, we have told him that by accepting presentation from Patrons and collation from Prelats, they have renounced their Presbyterian call and ordination and the call of this Church consequently, and thus do fall under the same consideration with the rest; and for the exraordinary call neither the one nor the other, will pretend unto it. And when he answers this dilemma, and by the Scripture-rules, and the Principles, and reformation of this Church, (which the Informer hath not disproved, yea admits us to suppose in this question) justifies the Curats call to of …iciat in these congregations over which they assume an authority we shall produce ours as to this practice which he condemns. Beside, what answer will he give to such a dilemma in the mouth of Schismatick congregations, offered unto such Ministers as the Church sends from their own congregations to officiat among them? And whatever his answer be, it will suite our case. Then he tells us of acts of councils condemning this encroachment, as he calls it, But when he shall exhibit a case parallel to ours, which these acts speak unto, we shall consider it. For what he adds of the Aberdeen Doctors their charging the Presbyterian Ministers who preacht in their congregations, with a practice repugnant to the Scripture and Canons of ancient Councils, he should have done well to have produced these Scriptures which the Doctors alleaged: And for ancient Canons, I think all things in their case considered, it would be a hard task to produce these Canons stricking against that practice as it stood circumstantiat, considering their Schismatick withstanding the Reformation of this Church, their Arminian principles, and defending popish ceremonies which errors they had openly vented and obstinatly maintaind.
His next charge of ordaining others to perpetuat our schism, is a manifest calumny, this true organick Church is by this practice, only propagating a lawfull pure Ministry in opposition to their destroying Schismatick course, the blessed fruits whereof, and its seals upon the hearts of the people of God, have been conspicuous, and we hope yet further will. And no less gross is that calumny which follows, anent our great mixt communions, and admission of ignorant vitious persons unto them, who (he sayes) by our way cannot be kept back, there being none admitted at any seasons of this nature (which have been very rare) but upon sufficient testimonies from faithfull Ministers or elderships. But is he not ashamed to object this to us, whereof his party is so notoriously guilty, who are knowen to admit, yea call promiscuously, to fill their empty tables, (which tender souls dare not approach unto) both gross ignorants, and notoriously profane to the shame and scandal of Religion, and the contempt of that holy ordinance; our persuading people not to owne Conformists as the Ministers of this Church we hope doth now appear better grounded then all this Informers persuasives to the contrary. And that we have been in any measure succesfull in this, speaks out Gods purpose not to leave wholly our married land.
For that which he cites out of Baxters preface to the Cure of Church divisions anent the odiousness of Sacrifices presented to God, without love and reconciliation to brethren, and of making a peoples communion in worship, the badge and means of uncharitablness and divisions, we th…nk reconciliation and unionin the Lord needfull to acceptable worship, but an association with scandalous Schismaticks and backsliders in their wickedness, we think is no less dangerous and obstructive to reall fellowship with God in duty; especially since God presses our coming out from among such, and our being separat from the contagion of their sin, with this motive, that he will receive us. And as there is a holy brotherhood which we must associat with in order to communion with God, so there is a congregation of evill doers which we must hate. Yea we have Davids precedency (as is before observed) to hate them with perfect hatred, and count them our enemies. But who can sufficiently admire these mens talk of unity and love who having first broken and divided this poor Church have been these so many years persecuting to the death, yea sweeming in the blood of the faithfull Ministers and professors therof because hey durst not joyn to their way, and conform to their supposed trifles and indifferencies. Surely prelacy being the grand Idol of Jealousy provoking God against us, and the fire which hath kindled all our combustions, and hath opened the veins of the Lords servants and people to bleed for many years, occasioned such horrid dispersion and unheard of oppression … the Lords Church and people in our Land, with what f…ces can these upholders of this course look up to the God of Love and peace, and how can they lift up suc… bloody wrathfull hands to him.
But now his poor half proselyted Doubter confesses that [there is much truth in what he has heard from this sound Informer forsooth—And takes leave with a profest resolution to reflect upon what he has heard from him,] Whereupon he dismisses him with some of his healing advices, prefacing with an admonition to seek illumination from God. But had this man been serious in seeking this from God, he had not vented in these trilling Dialogues such weak notions and reproaches against Gods truth and people. But since his Doubter returns him no answer therunto, I shall make up his want and shortly offer my thoughts upon them. His first advice, is not to be too confident of our own opinion as undoubtedly right, but consider what he hath said in his three conferences. Ans. If it be truth which we hold, sure we most hold it by faith in a pure conscience, and not be wavering and …ossed children. We acknowledge not the Cartesian principle, and the popish doubting way as found divinity, and a confidence of truth is far from a self confidence. As for what is offered in his three dialogues, I hope it is sufficiently antidoted by what is said above, so that it needs not in the least demurr our persuasion.
2. He will not have us think the matters of difference to be the substantialls of Relegion, since persons of both persuasions may keep love and fellowship without renting the Church and neglecting ordinances, because greater differences have been; and communion not broken thereby. Ans. If these matters contraverted be not substantialls, why then have they made such a substantiall bloody contest for them …anquam pro aris & focis, for so many years, and if communion must not be broken in a Church upon this account, why have they rent and overturned our Church, and persecute away so many godly Ministers and professors for these things, denying all fellowship with them in their worship, for adhering to their principles, and disowning this course of conformity? had prelatists suffered Presbyterian Ministers and professors to stand as they were in this Church, to enjoy their principles, and to follow their respective duties according to their stations, faithfull Ministers to preach, and Gods people to enjoy the fruits of their Ministry, he might with some colour have pretended to this desire of union and fellowship, but since prelatists have cast them out, and do so cruelly persecute them for adhering to their principles, and owning these duties, this pretence is nothing but deceitfull hypocrisy. He adds, that the difference is but a matter of government, and if we separat for this, we would have separat from all Churches since christianity began and if Christ held no comunion with a Church, where prelacy was, he hath then seldom had a Church, and hath been for many years a head without members. Ans. This is nothing but a renewed repetition of groundless assertions: for how proves he that our plea is a matter of government only? surely their course strikes at the whole of our Reformation, as hath been cleared. Again, how proves he that we would have separat upon this ground from the Church for so long a time, tho it were granted that our plea were only a matter of government, since he hath not yet produced instances of such a prelacy as we have, in any Church. Besides, since the Informer pleads for prelacy upon pretended Apostolical precepts and practices, and yet doth here vilify it unto a meer punctilio, and makes it such a sorry business as persons may come and go upon it at their pleasure, we may easily discover what nimble Sophisters, and slippery fingered Gentlemen he and his fellows are as to the retaining and holding of divine institutions, and that they can easily expose them to sale, for obtaining easefull serenity and other worldly designs. Or how proves he that its the government of our Church which they have introduced? or that they are the Church? or that we are in this practice separating from our Church? Hath not Christ a mystical body in Scotland without prelats? or finally, how proves he that there is alike ground for Joyning to prelacy, introduced by an Apostat party, after it is cast out, and abjured by all, as there is for Joyning in fellowship with a Church continuing Long under that corruption, and not purged and reformed from it. The Joyning with them in their worship, being demanded as a badge of our consent to prelacy it self and all the corruptions attending the same.
3. He pleads for charity, and that we say not Conformists are graceless because of this difference, he tells us, that for all Corinths corruptions, the Apostle spends a whole chapter upon Love, and that such as have least truth, have least charity, that the weak christians who understood not their liberty Rom. 14. in being loosed from the ceremonial Law, had least charity as they had least truth, and so papists to protestants. Ans. This charge lyes most directly home to himself, and those of his way. Let more then 20. years Law & practice, in relation to the ruine of a faithfull remnant of Ministers and professors who adhere to the reformation and government of this Church, and their vows for promoting the same, discover what hath been the charity of our Prelatical party. Beside, whatever be our thoughts as to their state with God, and without judging their eternal condition, its no breach of charity to know such as are seducers from Gods way, to beware of sin, and the ensnarings of such seducers, for which we have so many scripture commands as we have heard, and the Judgment of discretion in relation to evils which we are to eshew, is not that uncharitable judging in matters Lawfull and Indifferent, which is condemned, Rom. 14. 3, 4. for else we could not act in faith. And the same Corinthians whom Paul exhorted so much to Love, he enjoyned also to come out from among the ungodly 2 Cor. 6. and to flee the contagion of their sin.
4. He advises to consider the danger of divisions Gal. 5. 15. Mark 3. 24. since the enemy mocks religion upon this ground, and while each fights with another, all are overcome, which he illustrats with the story of Scilurus his sheaf of arrowes Ans. Divisions indeed among Gods people are sad, and have had sad effects, but union must be in truth and duty, and cemented with these bonds, since it is the unity of the spirit which we must seek Eph. 4. 3. and therefore not in a way of defection and Rebellion against God and in breaking his Covenant, which is nothing else but a combination against him; It is in the Lord, that we must be of the same mind, Phil. 4 2. and Christ who prayed so enixly, for his disciples union, Joh. 17. 21. prayed also for their sanctification in and by the truth, 17. ver. and that they might be kept from the evill of the world, 15. ver. And the Apostle Paul who is so great a pleader for Love and union, would not give place by subjection to deceitfull workers, no not for an hour Gal. 2. 5. The best way to mantain union & preserve the Gospel (which their dividing innovating course of backsliding hath exposed to so much prevalency and reproach of Papists) is to keep our garments free of their defilements, & to put away that accur sed thing which hath made us so weak before enemies.
5. He advises his Doubter to acquaint himself with the writings of the old Non-conformists in England, such as Cartwright, Bradshaw, Ball, &c. Who testify against the Brownists for their separation from that Church (for which he sayes much more might have been alledged then for ours.) Ans. We acknowledge that these worthy men have done well upon this subject, and that separation which they wrote against; But our case [anent a Church purely reformed from corruptions of doctrine, worship, discipline and Government and under universal oaths of adherence to that reformation infested, encroached upon, and invaded by a party of Schismatick overturners of her reformation, standing in opposition to a faithful Ministry, and professors adhering to them,] is so vastly discrepant from their case, [anent keeping up fellowship with a Church universally tainted with corruptions, from which she had never been purged,] that by no imaginable grounds, can a consequence be drawen from the one to the other. And any consequence relating to us, or application of the pleadings of these Divines against the Brownists, will properly strike against his dividing party, who have gone out from the fellowship of this pure Church, to which they were Joyned, and did vow adherence to her constitution and reformation, yet notwithstansting by them thus miserably rent and destroyed for many years.
As for these Rules of Mr Baxter in his Cure of Church divisions, which this Informer doth afterward commend unto us, we are not much concerned in their explication or application, since they do not in the least-strike against what we maintain, therefore we shall briefly run over them. For the first here mentioned, [anent not making communion with a Church stricker then Christ hath made it] when we disowne dividers and Schismaticks renting and destroying a pure Church, and introducing abjured innovations, we do not narrow these terms of communion, which Christ hath given. For he hath commanded us to withdraw from such as cause divisions and offences, contrary to our received ordinances, and not to have fellowship with the unfruitfull works of darkness, to turn away from Covenant-breakers; And its their dividing party who fall under the censure of this rule, who make complyance with abjured prelacy the terms of their communion, and so cruelly persecute all who will not conform to their course of backsliding. There is no doubt equal danger on the other extreme in making the terms of our communion laxer then Christ hath appointed. For the 2 rule which he mentions [anent a due impression of the evill of division and discord, and the reasons and necessity of union.] I think indeed had this Informer and his party, kept up a Scripture impression of this, they had not for the punctilio's of their trifling Conformity, so miserably rent this poor Church, and overturn'd her Reformation. For the 3. [anent not engadging too far in a divided sect,] it reaches Conformists, another blow, who have so far engadged for Prelats and their Interest, that for many years it hath been the great work of our Laws (by the instigation of them, and their Rabbies) to root out all Ministers and professors of this Church, who do not conform, and owne this course of backsliding. Dare this petulant Informer call adherence to this Church, her sworn Reformation, principles, and faithfull Ministry, adherence to a divided Sect. For the 4. [anent the difference betwixt a sound and sinfull zeal, and that we be suspicious of our Religious passions] we say, zeal for the Gospel, for keeping Covenant with God, for reformation from popry and prelacy (which is the the Test of our zeal as stated in opposition to them) doth convincingly evidence its soundness. For the 5. [anent not being over tender of our repute, or impatient of mens censures,] we say, to be tender of truth and duty, and our good name in maintaining it, which is as precious ointment, and to be tender of not offending and displeasing all who are thus tender, is nothing but a true and Gospel-tenderness. For the 6. [anent eshewing needless fellowship with the more censorious Christians] we say, we stand oblig'd to keep fellowship with all the godly in all duties, and this charge of over censoriousness we deny as to our plea against Conformists, neither hath he Informer yet made it good. For the 7. [that we lay not too much weight on doubtfull opinions, nor begin with them] we bless God that in this pure Church, Gods people have been taught the solid beginnings and first principles, and do build on that foundation; But we have not so learned Christ, as to put into the Category of things doubtfull, breach of Covenant, abjur'd Prelacy, and a Schismatick sinfull complyance therewith, For the 8. [anent not admiring or favouring a preacher for his voice, affectionat utterance, &c. Without solid understanding,] we say, Gods people with us have been helped not to regard mens speech, but their power. And as they know Christ the great shepherd his truth, by his voice from them, accordingly as his sheep to follow them. For the 9. [anent not rejecting a good cause, because owned by bad men] we say, the cause we disowne is bad in it self, and we disowne the owners of this bad cause, upon this ground; And are confirmed in our disowning of it, by the fruits which we see the owning of it produceth in its supporters and abbetors, which are such as do warrand us according to our Lords command, to avoid and beware of them. For the 10. [not to follow the bad examples of Religious persons,] we bless the Lord we are taught to walk by the rule of Gods Word, not by examples of men, and not to follow even a Paul further then he is a follower of Christ. For the 11. [anent keeping an eye on the state of all Churches upon earth, and pondering how Christ keeps fellowship with them, lest while we think we separat only from these about us, we separat from almost all Churches] we say, that we have lookt upon our own Church deservedly, as among the purest and best reformed, and by the same rule are concerned to keep up fellowship with her, as knowing that such as renounce fellowship with her, would renounce it with all Churches. And this we do with a due charity for all Reformed Churches, and whatever Churches do hold the foundation. But upon these grounds we are bound to disowne destroying Schismaticks, as are our Conformists, who have introduced abjured innovations contrary to her pure constitution and Reformation, and have gone out from her fellowship, and by the same consequential reason, from the fellowship of all Churches. For the last rule which he mentions, [that we count it as comfortable to be a martyr for love and peace by blind zealots, as for the faith by infidels] we say, that we owne no zeal which is not according to knowledge, and are contending for the union and reformation of our Mother against a party of blind fiery zelots, for ane abjured hierarchy contrary to the Word of God and this Churches vows, in which honourable quarrel that many have suffered even to bonds, imprisonments, yea death it self, it is our Glory. As for what he adds [of the English nonconformists, their testyfing against separation, as a way which God never blessed with peace and holiness though they dissented from the Ceremonies] I nothing doubt, but that they would have put the same Character upon the practice of the Prelats and their followers, had they seen and known all the circumstances of our case. They dissenting from fellowship in the ceremonies, and eatenus from fellowship in the Worship, though that Church, had never been purged from them, how much more then are we concerned to disowne innovations introduced into this Church, after they have been cast out and vowed against. Suppose that Church, had been (as ours) Reformed in doctrine Worship, discipline and Government, and a party had risen up destroying that pure constitution, contrary to all their vows, admitting none to fellowship without acknowledging of their wicked course, persecuting and casting out all Ministers and professors, who would not concur? And then let them tell us what these nonco…ists would have done in this case, surely upon the same ground that they eshewed a contagion in communicating with the Ceremonies, they would have eshewed this piece of contagious conformity also. Especially the express vows of adherence to that supposed reformation in every piece of it, and of disowning all recesses, all backsliders, and of owning all adherers to these vows in prusuing the ends thereof, being taken in, and duely pondered.
After the close of this Dialogue, our Informer will needs strengthen his plea in presenting unto us, by way of Apendix, some passages of the English Presbyterians, their Jus divinum Ministerij Anglicani, and likewise in Mr Rutherfoord his due right of Presbytery, anent the unwarrantableness of Separatio…, which as they are utterly alien from our purpose, so (as would seem in the conviction hereof) he doth not so much as offer to draw an argument from any of them, while propounding these his grand supposed topicks, except a general hint at the close, which is utterly insufficient to fortify his conclusion, as we shall after shew, but leaves the favourable conclusion to be drawn by his half-proselyted Doubter, or friendly partial reader. However (altho upon the matter any seeming conclusion he might draw from them is answered, yet) we shall view them briefly, having premised (1.) That he supposes but hath not yet made good, the charge of a sinfull separation upon the people of God in this case, which we have shown to be more applicable to himself. 2. That the case of separation from that Church at that time because of her corruptions, is far wide from this case of our disowning Conformists now, and consequently all his citations will never come home to our purpose, because.
1. Not to separat from a Church upon the ground of corruptions which have been long setled in her; is very far distinct from this practice of disowning an Innovating party introducing corruptions to the ruine of a pure Church, after they have been seen, and universally cast out, which is the practice he now pleads for; a stop as to an advance in Reformation, is much different from backsliding in this case, and especially the joyning to a backsliding party who are not the true Church, is much different from adherence to a Church tho backslidden. Its a far different case not to leave the communion of a Church because of some corruptions, and not to joyn with an unsound party of a Church drawing back from her Reformation: So that upon a due consideration of the matter of fact, and Presbyterian principles, its evident that these Testimonies do levell against Conformists.
2. Its a far different case to owne the Ministry of a corrupt Church wherin prelacy is universally owned, and wherein there hath been no other way of entry into the Ministry for many generations but by Prelacy: and to owne a party of Schismatick Intruders introducing Prelacy over the belly of a Presbyterian Church, and shutting out her faithfull Mininistry, surely these Intruders are in this case the Brownists.
3. Its a far different case to submit to a Ministry meerly Episcopal, and to keep the Worship in a Church long under this Government, and to submit to an Episcopal Erastian Ministry, and a Church Government fundamentally corrupt, deriving all its power from an Antichristian supremacy, and meer civil papacy, after it hath been eminently and universally disowned by that Church, and vowed against, Especially when a backsliding party only do thus usurp over the sound Ministry, and have ejected them, and this Erastian abomination is set up to raze this true spiritual Government of the Church once universally setled and owned.
4. Its a far different case, to submit to an Episcopal Ministry so far as pure, while Episcopacy is universally ownd, and no obligation is upon any to disowne it, further then its own corruption in that case will amount to and infer: and to owne and submit to an episcopal Erastian Government introduced by an Innovating party into a Presbyterian Church against her standing acts, solemn Oaths and vows universally taken on by that Church against the same, while a faithfull Ministry, and the great part of the people are in Conscience of their vows contending against it. Surely this superinduced obligation requires a higher degree of zeal against that defection, and renders it the more hainous. The high places permitted to David and Solomon before the Temple was built, are censured in after times; greater light and obligations do in this case cast the ballance.
These considerations do clearly repell any argument which he would draw from his citations to our case. But now to view them, The English Presbyterians in that piece do first assert page 10. [that all in the same bounds most be under the care of the same Minister, and that these limits ought not to be brangled Ans. This shall be easily accorded, give us our beautifull Church-order and a lawfully called Ministry and this parochial order shall be observed, and obeyed.
2. (page 11.) [A man under a wicked or Heretical Minister must remove his habitation rather then brangle parochial order.] Ans Then it follows in their principles, that when the order and union of a Reformed Church is already brangled by Innovating Schismaticks, whose wickedness and errors are palpable, men may attend a more pure Ministry without Schism, by clear consequence, sure he is a loser by this.
3. (page 12.) [to appoint Elders in every Church, and every city, is all one, and converts in the city must joyn with the congregation in Churchfellowship.] Ans. But what if a party in the city call themselves the Church, shut out the true Minister, and bring in one of their own, must not the true converts own their first Minister, and oppose these Innovators? Surely this Testimony rebounds another blow upon our mis Informer.
4. (page 25.) [evil men defacto have been officers, Hophni and Phineas, Scribes and Pharisees, whose Ministerial acts were not null, and Christs commission authorized Judas.] Ans. This will as much plead for owning Presbyterian Ministers as Conformists: And if he alleadge that they are disorderly, Schismatical, &c. and therefore must not be ownd in this case. I answer …he must prove this which he hath not yet done. 2. He must acknowledge, that the granting that the Ministerial acts of Church-officers, are not null by their sins, will not plead for hearing Ministers in every case, untill aliunde, and from other grounds, our obligation to owne such men as our Ministers hic & nunc be made good, which he hath not yet done as to Curats. Neither Hophni or Phineas, nor the Scribes and Pharisees, were rooting out the faithfull Ministry of the Church of the Jews, who would not concurr in a course of defection, after they had laid down a course to overturn the ordinances: which is the case of Conformists in relation to us, as is evident. Again, state the question so that Hophni and Phineas, and the Pharisees Ministry could not be owned without partaking in their sin, then this man must needs grant, that Gods people were obliged to disowne them, and had disowned them. Now we have proven this to be our case as to the owning of Conformists.
5. (page 42, 43.) [Israel is called the people of the Lord, even after the Calves were set up at Dan and Bethel, and Cajaphas was own'd as high priest, though they came to the office by bribry and faction, and the highpriest had an hand in crucifying Christ.] Ans. The same reply and retortion recurs as formerly▪ what will he say if we plead this for presbyterian Ministers, whom he will not call worse then these mentioned, nor will he say that our Presbyterian Church is worse then that Church. So that he must grant this will not reach his conclusion, till more be supposed and proved in this point. Again, tho God in his soveraign dispensation had not as yet cast off the ten tribes, having a faithfull remnant among them, yet I hope he will not from this plead for owning the Calves, or the Priests Ministry whom Jeroboam had obtruded, and set up contrary to Gods institution, and for keeping up that wofull breach in Gods worship, and in Israel, which was therby promoted, and this is a fit emblem of their Innovating prelatick Ministry. Beside that the high priests were men in a considerable measure deciders and Interpreters of the civil Law, and might in that respect be owned. But however, it is (as we have said) bad arguing from the comporting with corruptions in that old dispensation and Ministry especially when drawing near an end, to the receiving of abjured corruptions into a Church which has been rid of them, and from a non-separating in the first case, to conclude against a non-union or non complyance in the second. And thus neither will Pauls carriage toward the high prist, Acts 23. plead for adhering to Curats upon the same grounds. For he will not say that Paul understood not his office in a spiritual sense to be now expired, and that he was not to be owned as a teacher, who was every way destitute of the truth of the gospel, and an enemy unto it. Jackson thinks with sevral others, that Paul said, I knew not that he was the high priest &c. ironically, it being very improbable, that Paul knew not the high priest, and suppose it were so, he knew him to be a ruler as his own words discover, so that it was no excuse to say he knew not the high priest, because as a judge it was against the law to revile him. Therfore (saith Jackson upon Exod. 22. 28.) though they understood Paul as excusing himself, yet he spoke by way of derision as disdaining he should be accounted Gods high-priest, who carryed so. Which (saith he) is the more probable, when its considered how far he was from having any true right to that place and power to which he pretended, when Christ had abolished the legal priest hood. Calvine on that place of the Acts sayes, Its not credible that Paul-gave him his wonted honour.—Cum abolita esset adventu Christi sacerdotij Majestas, & secuta turpis prophanatio, Paulum quasi integra vigeret, solito honore prosecutum fuisse, qui tunc sub Pontificum titulo nullo jure dominabantur, after the majesty of the priest hood was abolished by the coming of Christ, and vile prophanity attending it, that Paul, as if the priesthood had been standing intire, would have allowed the wonted honour to such who under the title of Priests were governing without any right or just title. And having objected to himself, that we must not contemn civill Magistrats, in his answer he puts a difference betwixt civil Mahistrats and Church rulers—Inter civiles Magistratus (saith he) & ecclesiae praesules aliquid est discrimenus— there is a difference betwixt civill Magistrats and Church officers, tho the administration of civil Rulers be perverse and confused yet (he tells us) the Lord will have subjection remain intire.—Sed ubi spirituale regimen degenerat sol…untur piorum conscientiae, ne injustae dominationi pareant &c. spirituall government being degenerat, the consciences o… the faithfull are loosed from obedience to an unjus… domination. But our Informer will say, that I thu… set the authors of jus divinum minist. anglic. by the ear… with Calvin and Iackson as to the sense of this place. I answer, they do not peremptorly and positively assert that Paul acknowledged him as high priest, bu… onelyonly, that many think he did. 2. Hence the weight of their conclusion subjoyned, viz. that corruptions cleaving to Gods ordinances null them not, is not laid upon this solely, nor positivly at all, even as a partial, but onelyonly as a probable ground. And the conclusion it self when admitted, will never reach his designe as is above cleared. Again, admitting that Paul acknowledged his providential title, or jus in re as to a civil office and administration at that time, as it may well have its own weight in reference to the premised conclusion, civil rule, as such, being Gods ordinance, which is not made null by corruptions, so upon the the difference of civil from sacred rule this concession will not legitimat or infer an acknowledgment of the spiritual part of his administration.
Thus we have seen how well our Informer hath acquit himself in his arguing from the English Presbyterians. Let us next consider, how he reasons from Mr Rutherfoord in that peice forecited, if at least we may call that which he here offers a formal reasoning, since he offers not (as I said) any argument from these citations, but sure we will find that these passages will burn his fingers. In that piece [scil. Due right of presb. page 220. to 256.] There are several passages which this man takes hold of, as 1. [He asserts that separation from a true Church where the orthodox word is preached, and sacraments duely administrat, is unlawfull, and vindicats 2 Cor. 6.] Ans. This in Mr Rutherfoords sense will plead more for the Presbyterian Ministry & professors then for Conformists, whom he will not say that Mr Rutherfoord will look upon as our Church, in such a case as this, since (as we heard) he holds that in case of such a breach as we have now, the pure Church remains with the smaller stedfast number, and that the backsliders from truth and purity, tho the …reater number, yet really are the Schismaticks. And …n this sense we are to understand him when he sayes that this separation as to worship, will not infer an absolut separation, And his allowing non-union, where there is not sufficient cause of separation, in the case of purer to be joyned with, and his admitting a partial separation, because of a partial corruption of ordinances (Peacable plea page 121.) will much more plead for a total non-union in this our case; and I dare appeal this Informer if Mr Rutherfoords words (Peaceable plea page 122.) doth not suite our case and express such a sense therof as we have explaind; and if he would not have applyed that which follows unto our present prelatick party, had he seen our Church in this posture and in her present circumstances, viz. we separat not from a true Church or her Lawfull Pastors, when we separat from hirelings and Idolshepherds, who will not go before us, and whether he would not have thought and called Conformists so? Thus (page 148. concl. 6.) he tells us, we may separat from the worship when we separat not from the Church. So that its evident, that in Mr Rutherfoords sense we separat not from the Church of Scotland, nor her worship, while withdrawing from Curats, in attending the Ministry of Christs faithfull ambassadours.
In the Next place this Informer presents to us these passages further in that peice mentioned, viz. (page 233.) [the personal faults of others, are not sufficient ground for separation—That the disciples thought not the society unclean for Judas sin, though they knew one of them had a Devil.] Again (page 250.) [It was not Lawfull to separat from the Pharisees preaching truth.] (page 253.) [The Godly separated no… from the Church, when the altar of damascus was se… up, things dedicat to Idols, as Lutheran images, are called Idolatry, 1 Cor 10. 34. Idolatry by participation, and the cup of devils, yet Paul command… not separation, and the table of the Lord was there.] I answer, this is already removed by what is said above, as to any conclusion for his cause, which thi… loose disputer doth not so much as offer to draw ou… upon these citations. 1. Unless he prove the Conforming party to be the true Church of Scotland, to which in this case we are obliged to adhere, or 2. If we can prove, that according to our Churches Reformation, Presbyterian ministers and professors are the true organick Church of Scotland, though the persecute smaller number (which according to Mr Rutherfoord is very easy, for he sayes that in case of defection, truth as life recools to the smaller hidden part, (Due right page 253.) In either case I say this will plead more appositly for adherence to Presbyterian Ministers and their Assemblies.
Next, Mr Rutherfoords scope is to prove, that personal faults corrupt not the worship, which wee deny not, but as we have above cleared this falls utterly short of reaching his conclusion, as to the owning of Curats, untill he first prove his forementioned suppositions, wherein he begs the question, and this principle or assertion of Mr Rutherfoord will plead more strongly for not disowning Presbyterian Ministers untill this Informer prove his suppositions, and disprove ours in this debate.
In a word, the impertinency of all his citations here appears in this, that there is no reason whereby he can ward of this argument its reaching adherence to Presbyterian Ministers, and inferring a conclusion of owning them, but it will either, first be retorted upon himself, or secondly, the universality of the argument, and the conclusion deduced there from, so limited, as utterly to irritat his design; since he must acknowledge, that there may be a Lawfull separation from a Ministry and ordinances, altho not polluted by personal scandals. And therefore this principle in every case will not infer a separation to be unlawfull, far less a non union, and he must acknowledge that to argue the unlawfulness of a separation or non-union in every case, or meerly, from this ground [that there is no pollution of ordinances by the personal faults of Worshipers or administrators thereof] is a gross petitio principii & ignoratio elenchi; and which his case, supposeth many things which are to be proved, as 1. That Conformists are this Church. 2. That this practice of disowning them as now circumstantiat, is properly a sinfull separation. 3. That Prelatists have the best right to officiat as Ministers in this Church. 4. That we have no other reasons for a non-union but this pretended pollution of ordinances, and that we stand obliged upon this supposition that the ordinances are not thus polluted, to joyn to them rather then Presbyterian Ministers. And since this principle will prove them all to be Schismaticks who disowne Presbyterian Ministers in preaching the Gospel, it will follow therefrom that our Informer is in this pamphlet pleading for Schism, or else he must so limit this position, as thereby his conclusion against us shall be utterly cut off as is said.
Fourthly, he presents unto us that passage (page 254.) where he shews [That the godly in England tho separating from Bishops and Ceremonies did not separat from that Church; and approves their doing so, and in keeping communion therwith in unquestionable duties, the contrary whereof he charges upon these separatists against whom he reasoneth, telling us ibidem, that if a Church be incorrigible in a wicked conversation, and yet retain the true faith, its to be presumed that God hath some there to be saved,—that Christ himself is where his ordinances are, and some union with him the head—that though a privat scandalous brother ought to be cast off, yet not an Orthodox Chuch.] Ans. 1. The Presbyterians have all this to plead for pleoples adherence to them, untill this Informer prove that the prelatick party are our nationall organick Church, which will be ad Kalendas Graecas. 2. Mr Rutherfoord all along states his question as to separation, from a Church so and so polluted. Ergo he spaks not of a Schismatick destroying Innovating party, or a separation from them rather then a sound Church contending against them, which would quite invert his scope and arguing, and the ground and hypothesis thereof. For I pose this man what if a party of acknowledged Innovators cast out the true Ministry, and should plead this passage of Mr Rutherfoords for their schism and the peoples adherence to them, sure he would charge them with begging the question, as we do Consormists in this point, and would acknowledge that Mr Rutherfoord pleads nothing for them.
Fiftly, Mr Rutherfoord sayes ib idem [We may separat from the Lords supper where the bread is ador'd—and from baptism where the sign of the cross is—yet we are not to separat from the Church.] Ans. We may hence collect that in Mr Rutherfoords principles 1. We are to separat from all contagious Worship, tho not absolutly corrupt. 2. That this is no separation from the Church while there is a purer Church & Ministry to be joyned with, and to which we were joynd. 3. That a fortiori a non-union unto, and disowning of a backsliding party, who are not our Church, is warrantable because of their contagious corruptions, especially when (as is said) the opposition of that party to the true Church is so virulent. Mr Rutherfoord tells us there, that we separat not from the Church when we profess to hear the word, and allow the truth of Doctrine, and do not Presbyterian professors owne the true Doctrine of our Reformed Church, while hearing and and adhering unto her faithfull Pastors. Beside, Mr Rutherfoord tells us, that there may be cause of non-union where there is not sufficient cause of separation, as Paul separat not from the Jews till they blasphemed, yet, saith he, there was no cause why people should joyn to that Church before that time, since they had the cleaner to joyn with viz. That of the Apostles—Ergo in case of a true Reformed Church her being divided, and rent by a backsliding destroying party opposing her Authority, union and purity, introducing Innovations into her, contrary to her Reformation and vows, and casting out her faithfull Ministry who dare not comply with their wicked course, a non-union to them and adherence rather to that faithfull Ministry contending against them, is no sinfull separation from the Church, nor a separation at all by Mr Rutherfoords doctrine. Sure the Presbyterian party are in our principles the cleanest Church, to whom therefore Mr Rutherfoords allows to adhere. (page 253.)
But here the Informer presents us another passage in that same place to repell what is said, viz. that he asserts [there is no just cause to leave a less clean Church (if true) and to go to a purer, though one who is a member of no Church may joyn to that which he conceives purest.] Ans. This makes as little for him as any of the rest, for 1. He is still speaking of a Church, thus intirely less pure, in comparison of a more pure. But blessed be God their prelatick impurity, has not infected all our Church, their being 1000 of Ministers & professors who adhere to the truth. This man will not say that this will plead for a peoples adherence to a party of Schismatick backsliders Intruding upon a pure Church, Introducing Innovations into her, and ejecting her faithfull Ministry as Conformists are now doing; which will be yet more convincingly clear, if we consider 2. that Mr Rutherfoord layes much weight upon this, that a man is already a member of that Church which is less pure, but we cannot be said to be hactenus members of, and on this ground under a prior obligation of adherence unto, a party of Innovators and backsliders, who are destroying and ruining the pure Church, but in this case our prior obligation is in order to adherence to that pure Church and her faithfull Ministry, thus opposed as is said.
But now at last our Informer who hath been hitherto silent as to any inference from his citations, drawes out a general conclusion from them, that in Mr Rutherfoords Iudgment and the English divines, neither the personal faults of Ministers, Nor real faults about the Worship (much less supposed only) will warrand a separation, which when admitted lifts not his cause one hair breadth off the dust, as is clear from what is said; since he hath proved none of these three, either 1. That they are the Church of Scotland to which we are bound to adhere according to the tenour and principles of our Reformation, nor 2. That this practice of disowning them in this our case, is a sinfull separation. Or 3. that we disowne then meerly for personal scandals, or some corruption in Worship. Whereas we have proved that abstracting from both these, we have ground of disowning them as Schismatick Innovators destroying this Church; and himself must grant that there may be a non-union unto, yea a separation from a party ground lesly assuming the name of a Church, though neither their personal faults do pollute the worship, nor the worship it self be simpliciter disowned, or else he must yeeld the cause when this is pleaded in behalf of Presbyterian Ministers, and for not separating from them: since it is upon this ground, that all along he pleads for people's disowning them, though he dare not say that the ordinances are polluted by their supposed scandals.
After this our Informer exhorts his Doubter, to try all things—and not to be ashamed to retract what is amiss, as Augustin wrote books of retractions and Ierom exhorted Ruffinus not to be ashamed to confess an error. Ans. I think indeed, we are to search all things by the rule of the word, and had he with a single heart and an eye to the God of truth, searched better, he had not obtruded upon Gods people (in defence of so bad a cause) such insignificant arguments for demonstrations. But why exhorted he not his Doubter to hold fast what is good, as well as to try all things? It is not fit to be ever learning, and fixe in nothing. And no doubt this latter part of that scripture precept, justifies our opposing their Innovations. But he pleads for retractions, and its no wonder to see men who have Justified the casting aside such solemn Oaths and vows unto God, plead for retractions. But if he and his party retract not such monstrous retractions (the very naming whereof would have made Augustin and Jerom astonished) the wo threatned against perjury, backsliding, & breach of Covenant is very near them. His concluding prayer that God bless us with truth and peace, is good, and heartily accorded, and surely when our Jerusalem shall have this spiritual prosperity, peace, and truth (which this man pretends to pray for) within her walls, prelats and their wofull train and corrupt principles, which have made such sad breaches in her walls, will be without them. And the prosperity of such as love her, will ruine her enemies.
His Doubters Resolution [to hold fast what is good upon the proof of all things] makes up his lame advice. And having thus fortifyd the Knowledge of the serious Doubter in that which this man hath been misinforming him about, and antidoted this poyson, we pray that all the sincere enquirers for truth, may hold it fast against the times errors and defection. The character of schism presented to us at the close of the pamphlet, is verifyed in the party he pleads for: since their proud usurpation of the name and authority of this Church, after they have thus rent and separat from her, demonstrats this their schism to be superbiaeproles. And in their taking up such grosse unheard of principles anent Oaths, anent Magistracy &c. to maintain and uphold this usurping hierarchy, they are like to fall under that other branch of the character of schism, that male perseverando fit haeresis. And because of the corruptions which it is like to be more & more productive of, It may very probably become also mater haereseos. The Lord awake for judgement, and send a plentifull rain to water his in heritance, and revive his work in the admist of the years, and make his face to shine upon his sanctuary in these lands, which is disolat, for his names sake.