A Vindication of the Church of Scotland 2, Question 4
QUEST. IV.
Whether from the Year 1662, to the Year 1689, Presbyterian Separatists were guilty of sinful Separation?
AWise Question indeed: He supposeth them Separatists (which by no Author was ever accounted vox media, or taken in a good sense) and yet Querieth, whether they sinned in separating. But to let this pass; he telleth us of Doctrine taught in our larger Catechism, from which may be demonstrated, how necessary it is to Salvation, that every Person keep Communion with the particular Church established by the Laws of the State that he liveth in, unless she either enjoyn in her Canons any sinful term of Communion, or propose in her Confession any Heretical Article, or prescribe in her Directory for Worship any Idolatrous Impurity. To this I repone a few things. First, according to his loose and indistinct way of Writing, he neither telleth us what these Doctrines are, nor in what place of the Catechism they are to be found; we must take his Word for all this, and we utterly deny what he saith to be true. All that that Catechism saith, that could be imagined to have that tendency, is, That the visible Church hath the Priviledge of being under God's special Care and Government, of being protected and preserved in all Ages, notwithstanding the Opposition of Enemies, and of enjoying the Communion of Saints, the ordinary means of Salvation, the offers of Grace by Christ to all the Members of it in the Ministry of the Gospel, testifying, that whosoever believeth in him shall be saved, and excluding none that will come unto him. Now it is evident, that all this is said of the Universal Church, not of any Particular Church; far less can this passage be understood of a particular Church as established by the Laws of the State wherein it is: No Scripture ever made such Laws essential to the Notion of a true Church, from which none may separate: Neither did ever any Divine talk at this rate, except Episcopalians, and among them I remember of none, that so express themselves, but this Man, and Dr. Stillingfleet. He doth indeed express three Cases, that excuse from sin in separating from a true Church, but how these can be drawn from the Larger Catechism I understand not.
§. 2. How far we allow a Separation from the late Episcopal Church of Scotland, and maintain it not to be sinful in us, but sinfully caused by them, I shall declare: We affirm it to be no Schism, but a necessary Duty, that the Presbyterian Ministers did not own Episcopal Government, nor either directly or indirectly countenance the Authority of Bishops above Presbyters: He telleth us of a Letter for Union, March 1689. wherein it is said (and not answered) that never any Confession of Faith in our Reformed Church avowed a Divine Right for a parity among all Church-Officers. This Letter I never heard of before, but it seemeth the Author of it, and the Writer of this Pamphlet, have Talents equal for Controversal Scribling: For whoever said that there is a Divine Right for Parity among all Church Officers? We know that by Divine Right Ruling Elders, also Deacons, are not equal in Church power with Preaching Presbyters. And for the parity of Ministers, if it be not found in any Confession of Faith, it's enough that it's found in the Scriptures. But we affirm that the Divine Right of it is also found in the Confession of Faith, sworn to by the King and his Houshold, and by the Nation, wherein they abjure the Hierarchy, or distinction of Degrees among Ministers. He saith, the Solemn League did not abjure the President Bishop. Answ. We know no such Bishop, the President or Moderator hath no Jurisdiction over his Brethren. And he will not say, that the Bishops restored 1662. to whom we could not yield subjection, was no more but a President Bishop; if he do, all the Nation will cry shame on him, and his own Tongue will condemn him. Page 1, 2. of his Book, What some in England Petitioned for, we are not concerned; if he had told us what concessions the body or generality of Presbyterians in that Nation had made, also let us know where we might find such Concessions, an Answer might in that case have been expected from us. But what he presumeth about the Repentance of Scots Presbyterians for not submitting to Episcopacy as established in Scotland, is without ground, and absolutely false.
§. 3. What we further declare concerning the Separation that he speaketh of, is; that Presbyterians generally did not think it unlawful to hear these Ministers that had complyed with Episcopacy; and often did occasionally hear them (whatever was the practice of some among us) yet the best of the Ministers in Scotland, and to so great a number, and to whom the people were under a relation as their Pastors, being thrust from their Charges for their faithfulness in that time of Tryal, and others being obtruded on them, many of whom were very unqualified for the Ministry, and they entring without the peoples call or consent, they would not own them for their Pastors, nor thought themselves obliged to wait on their Ministry; but thought it their Duty rather to hear their own faithful Pastors (or others who walked in their steps) who were not unministred by any Church-Act, but only restrained by the force of a Civil Law, which could neither derogate from their Ministerial Authority, nor loose the relation that the people had to them. I deny not but some went beyond the limits of this Moderation; but that is not to be imputed to all the Presbyterians, being neither the conclusion of any Church-meeting among them, nor the sentiment of all.
§. 4. This being considered, taketh off the edge of all that he enlargeth on about the Episcopal party agreeing with us in the Confession of Faith, Directory for Worship, and Administration of Sacraments: For it is on none of these accounts that we withdraw from them; but partly because they suffer none to be Ministers among them, but such as comply with Episcopal Jurisdiction; partly because they deprived us of the Ministers that we stand in relation to, and ought to own; partly because the Ministers obtruded on us are none of our choice (as they ought to be by the priviledge that Christ hath given to his Church:) And indeed (many of them) unfit to be chosen; and partly because this change is made not by any Church-Authority that we can own, but by the State, and by an unlawful Church-power. It seemeth his Arguments are run low, when he chargeth us with Nonconformity even to the Presbyterian Church, in that we use not the Doxology, nor the words of the Lord's Prayer, nor the Belief at Baptism: For when or where were these injoyned by the Presbyterian Church? And if they had been, we cannot by such Injunctions be bound to what is after found to be inconvenient: That we are tyed to the use of the Doxology by the Covenant, he doth most ridiculously affirm: For whoever esteemed that a part of the Reformation then engaged to? Using the Lord's Prayer we never condemned; but that Christ hath enjoyned the using of these express words, or that that Prayer was given as a form of words rather than as a Directory for the matter of Prayer, we deny: Neither do we condemn the use of the Creed; but we think that they who have their Children baptized, should profess their Faith so as may more clearly distinguish them from Popish and other Hereticks than that Confession of Faith can do.