He reflecteth also upon the a.s.sembly in the point of _jus divinum_, p. 6.
But what his part hath been, in reference to the proceedings in the a.s.sembly, is more fully, and in divers particulars, expressed in the _Brief View of Mr Coleman"s New Model_, unto which he hath offered no answer.
HIS CALUMNIES.
Page 3, He desireth me, with wisdom and humility, to mind what church-refining and sin-censuring work this church government, with all its activity, hath made in Scotland, in the point of promiscuous communicating. I shall desire him, with wisdom and humility, to mind what charity or conscience there is in such an aspersion. I dare say divers thousands have been kept off from the sacrament in Scotland, as unworthy to be admitted. Where I myself have exercised my ministry there have been some hundreds kept off; partly for ignorance, and partly for scandal. The order of the church of Scotland, and the acts of General a.s.semblies, are for keeping off all scandalous persons; which every G.o.dly and faithful minister doth conscientiously and effectually endeavour. And if, here or there, it be too much neglected by some Archippus, who takes not heed to fulfil the ministry which he hath received of the Lord, let him and his eldership bear the blame, and answer for it.
Page 4, I having professed my unwillingness to fall upon such a controversy in a Fast sermon, he replieth, "How can you say you were unwilling?" But how can you, in brotherly charity, doubt of it after I had seriously professed it? My doing it at two several Fasts (the only opportunities I then had to give a testimony to that presently controverted truth) is no argument of the contrary. May not a man do a thing twenty times over, and yet do it unwillingly?
Page 5, He slandereth those that did, in their sermons, give a public testimony against his doctrine; the occasion (as he gives out) not being offered, but taken. But had they not a public calling and employment to preach as well as himself? And if a Fast was not an occasion offered to them, how was a Fast an occasion offered to him to fall upon the same controversy first, and when none had dons the like before him.
A fourth calumny is this: He had first blamed two parties that they came bia.s.sed to the a.s.sembly; I answered, How then shall he make himself blameless who came bia.s.sed a third way; which was the Erastian way; and that, for our part, we came no more bia.s.sed to this a.s.sembly than the foreign divines came to the Synod of Dort, Alexander to the Council of Nice, Cyril to that of Ephesus, and Paul to the synod at Jerusalem. But now, p. 6, 7, instead of doing us right he doth us greater injury; for now he makes us bia.s.sed, not only by our own judgments, but by something advent.i.tious from without; which he denieth himself to be (but how truly I take not on me to judge: beholders do often perceive the bia.s.sing better than the bowlers); yea, he saith that I have acknowledged the bias, and justify it. Where, Sir? where? I deny it. It is no bias for a man to be settled, resolved and engaged in his judgment for the truth, especially when willing to receive more light, and to learn what needeth to be further reformed. Hath he forgotten his own definition of the bias which he had but just now given? But he will needs make it more than probable, by the instances which I brought, that the Commissioners from Scotland came not to this a.s.sembly as divines, by dispute and disquisition, to find out truth, but as judges, to censure all different opinions as errors; for so came foreign divines to Dort, Alexander to the Council of Nice, Cyril to Ephesus. Is it not enough that he slander us, though he do not, for our sakes, slander those worthy divines that came to the Synod of Dort, Alexander also, and Cyril, prime witnesses for the truth in their days?
Could no less content him than to approve the objections of the Arminians against the Synod of Dort, which I had mentioned, p. 33? But he gets not away so. The strongest instance which I had given he hath not once touched: it was concerning Paul and Barnabas, who were engaged (not in the behalf of one nation, but of all the churches of the Gentiles) against the imposition of the Mosaical rites, and had so declared themselves at Antioch, before they came to Jerusalem. Finally, Whereas he doubts, though not of our willingness to learn more, yet of our permission to receive more: That very paper, first given in by us (which I had cited, and unto which he makes this reply), did speak not only of our learning, but of the church of Scotland"s receiving, and, which is more, there is an actual experiment of it, the last General a.s.sembly having ordered the laying aside of some particular customs in that church, and that for the nearer uniformity with this church of England, as was expressed in their own letter to the reverend a.s.sembly of Divines.
A fifth calumny there is, p. 9, 6. "The Commissioner is content that _jus divinum_ should be a _noli me tangere_ to the Parliament, yet blames what himself grants." I was never content it should be a _noli me tangere_ to the Parliament, but at most a _non necesse est tangere_, for so I explained myself, p. 32, 33. If the Parliament establish that thing which is agreeable to the word of G.o.d, though they do not establish it as _jure divino_, I acquiesce; in the meantime, both they and all Christians, but especially ministers, ought to search the Scriptures, that what they do in matters of church government, they may do it in faith and a.s.surance, that it is acceptable to G.o.d. It was not of parliamentary sanction, but of divines doctrinal a.s.serting of the will of G.o.d that I said, Why should _jus divinum_ be such a _noli me tangere_?
6. It seems strange to him that I did at all give instance of the usefulness of church government in the preservation of purity in the ordinances and in church-members. He saith, For an Independent to have given this instance had been something; but it seems strange to him that "I should have given an instance of the power and efficacy of government, as it is presbyterial, and contradistinct to congregational." This is a calumny against presbyterial government, which is neither privative nor contradistinct, but c.u.mulative to congregational government; and the congregational is a part of that government which is comprehended under the name of presbyterial. But in cases of common concernment, difficulty, appeals, and the like, the preserving of the ordinances and church-members from pollution, doth belong to presbyteries and synods.
7. He saith of me, p. 9, "He ascribeth this power of purifying men, and means of advancing the power of G.o.dliness afterward, to government." A calumny. It was only a _sine quo non_ which I ascribed to government thus far, that without it, ministers "shall not keep themselves nor the ordinances from pollution," p. 23. But that church government hath power to purify men, I never thought it, nor said it. That which I said of the power (which he pointeth at) was, that his way can neither preserve the purity, nor advance the power of religion, p. 40, and the reason is, because his way provideth no ecclesiastical effectual remedy for removing and purging away the most gross scandalous sins, which are destructive to the power of G.o.dliness. G.o.d must, by his word and Spirit, purify men, and work in them the power of G.o.dliness. The church government which I plead for against him, is a means subservient and helpful, so far as _removere prohibens_, to remove that which apparently is impeditive and destructive to that purity and power.
8. Having told us of the proud swelling waves of presbyterial government, I asked upon what coast had those waves done any hurt, France, or Scotland, or Holland, or _terra incognita_? He replieth, p. 12, "I confess I have had no great experience of the presbyterial government." Why make you bold then to slander it, when you can give no sure ground for that you say? He tells us, His fears arise from Scotland and from London. The reverend and worthy ministers of London can speak for themselves _oetatem habent_, for my part, though I know not the particulars, I am bound in charity not to believe those aspersions put upon them by a discontented brother. But what from Scotland? "I myself (saith he) did hear the presbytery of Edinburgh censure a woman to be banished out of the gates of the city. Was not this an encroachment?" It had been an encroachment indeed, if it had been so. But he will excuse me if I answer him in his own language (which I use not), p. 3 and 5: "It is, at the best, a most uncharitable slander," and "There was either ignorance or mindlessness in him that sets it down."
There is no banishment in Scotland but by the civil magistrate, who so far aideth and a.s.sisteth church discipline, that profane and scandalous persons, when they are found unruly and incorrigible, are punished with banishment or otherwise. A stranger coming at a time into one of our presbyteries, and hearing of somewhat which was represented to or reported from the magistrate, ought to have had so much, both circ.u.mspection and charity, as not to make such a rash and untrue report. He might have at least inquired when he was in Scotland, and informed himself better, whether presbyteries or the civil magistrate do banish. If he made no such inquiry, he was rash in judging; if he did, his offence is greater, when, after information, he will not understand.
9. He makes this to be a position of mine, p. 13, That "a learned ministry puts no black mark upon profaneness more than upon others." A calumny.
For, first, He makes me to speak nonsense; Secondly, I did not speak it of a learned ministry, but of "his way," p. 40. How long ago since a learned ministry was known by the name of Mr Coleman"s way! His way is a ministry without power of government or church censures. Of this his way I said, that "it putteth no black mark upon profaneness and scandal in church members more than in any other;" and the reason is, because the corrective or punitive part of government he will have to be only civil or temporal, which striketh against those that are without, as well as those within.
But the Apostle tells us of such a corrective government as is a judging of those that are within, and of those only, 1 Cor. v. 12; and this way (which is not only ours, but the apostolical way) puts a black mark upon profaneness and scandalous sins in church members more than in any others.
10. He saith of me, p. 17, "The Commissioner is the only man that we shall meet with, that, forsaking the words, judgeth of the intentions." A calumny. I judged nothing but _ex ore tuo_; but in this thing he himself hath trespa.s.sed. I will instance but in two particulars: In that very place he saith, "Admonition is a spiritual censure in the Commissioner"s opinion." Whence knows he that to be my opinion? Consistorial or presbyterial admonition given to the unruly may be called a censure; and if this were his meaning, then, ascribing to elderships power of admonition, he gives them some power of spiritual censures, and so something of the corrective part of government, which were contrary to his own principles. But he speaketh it of the ministers" admonishing, who are but a part of the elderships, as himself there granteth. Now, where did I ever say or write, that admonition, by a minister, is a spiritual censure?
Again, p. 4, he so judgeth me, that he not only forsaketh, but contradicteth my words, "How can you say you were unwilling?"
11. He saith, p. 16, "Now the Commissioner speaks out, &c. What! Not the Parliament of England meddle with religion?" A horrid calumny! Where have I said it? _Dic sodes._ I never preached before them but I exhorted them to meddle with religion, and that in the first place, and above all other things. I shall sooner prove that Mr Coleman will not have the Parliament of England to meddle with civil affairs, because he makes them church officers. It is a _non sequitur_. Their power is civil, therefore they are not to meddle with religion. It will be a better consequence: They are church officers: so he makes them, p. 14; and "Christian magistracy is an ecclesiastical administration," so he saith, p. 20, therefore they are not to meddle with civil government.
THE REPUGNANCY OF HIS DOCTRINE TO THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT.
Mr Coleman, p. 13, acknowledgeth, that to a.s.sert anything contrary to the solemn league and covenant, is a great fault in any, in himself more than in divers others, if made out; he having, for his own part, taken it with the first, and not only so, but having administered it to divers others.
Yes; and take this one circ.u.mstance more: In his sermon upon Jer. x.x.x. 21, at the taking of the covenant, Sept. 29, 1643, he answereth this objection against the extirpation of Prelacy: "But what if the exorbitances be purged away, may not I, notwithstanding my oath, admit of a regulated Prelacy?" For satisfaction to this objection he answereth thus: "First, We swear not against a government that is not; Secondly, We swear against the evils of every government, and doubtless many materials of Prelacy must of necessity be retained as absolutely necessary; Thirdly, Taking away the exorbitances, the remaining will be a new government and no Prelacy." Let the brother now deal ingenuously. What did he understand by those materials of Prelacy absolutely necessary to be retained? Did he understand the dispensing of the word and sacraments, which is common to all pastors? Or did he understand the privileges of Parliament? Were either of those two materials of Prelacy? And if he had meant either of these, was this the way to satisfy that scruple concerning the extirpation of Prelacy? Again, What was that new government which he promised them after the taking away of the exorbitances of the old? Was it the minister"s doctrinal part? That is no new thing in England. Was it the Parliament"s a.s.suming of the corrective part of church government, as he improperly distinguisheth, wholly and solely into their own hands, excluding the ministry from having any hand therein? This were a new government, I confess. But, sure, he could not, in any reason, intend this as a satisfaction to the scruples of such as desired a regulated Prelacy, whose scruples he then spoke to, for this had been the way to dissuade them from, not to persuade them to, the covenant.
But I go along with his _Re-examination_. P. 14, He explaineth himself and me thus: "He should have said that I advised the Parliament to lay no burden of government upon them whom he, this Commissioner, thinks church officers, then had he spoken true." I thank him for his explanation. And, I pray, who were the church officers whom I said he excluded from church government? Were they not pastors and ruling elders? And doth not himself think these to be church officers? Yes; of the ministers he thinks so, but of ruling elders he seems to doubt, except they be magistrates. Well, but excluding those church officers from church government he takes with the charge. Why seeks he a knot in the rush? But now how doth he explain himself? He will have the Parliament to be church officers (of which before), and such church officers as shall take the corrective part of church government wholly into their own hands; yet not to dispense the word and sacraments, but to leave the doctrinal part to the ministry, and their power to be merely doctrinal, as he saith, p. 11. Thus you have his explanation. But doth this solve the violating of the covenant? Nay, it makes it more apparent; for the government of the church, which the first article of the covenant speaks of, is distinguished from the doctrinal part: "That we shall endeavour the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government."
So that, excluding pastors and ruling elders from the corrective part of government, and from all power which is not merely doctrinal, he thereby excludeth them from that discipline and government which the covenant speaks of as one special part of the reformation of religion. Come on to the reasons.
I had given four reasons; he takes notice but of three. This is the second time he hath told three for four, yet even these three will do the business.
1. "The extirpation of church government is not the reformation of it."
Here the brother addeth these words following as mine, which are not mine: "Therefore he that finds no church government breaks his covenant." His reply is, "We must reform it according to the word of G.o.d, if that hold out none, here is no tailing." He addeth a simile of a jury sworn to inquire into the felony of an accused person, but finds not guilty; and of three men taking an oath to deliver in their opinions of church government (where, by the way, he lets fall that I hold the national synod to be above all courts in the kingdom; which, if he means of ecclesiastical courts, why did he speak so generally? If he mean, above all or any civil courts, it is a gross calumny.) But now, if this be the sense which he gives of that first article in the covenant, then, 1. All that is in the second article might have been put into the first article: for instance, we might, in Mr Coleman"s sense, have sworn "to endeavour the reformation of Prelacy, and even of Popery itself, according to the word of G.o.d, and the example of the best reformed churches;" that is, taking an oath to deliver in our opinions of these things according to the word of G.o.d, and to inquire into the evils of church government by archbishops, bishops, deans, &c., whether guilty or not guilty. I strengthened my argument by the different nature of the first and second article. I said, "The second article is of things to be extirpated, but this of things to be preserved and reformed." Why did he not take the strength of my argument and make a reply? 2. By the same principle of his we are not tied by the first article of our covenant to have any, either doctrine or worship, but only to search the Scriptures whether the word hold out any; for doctrine, worship, discipline and government, go hand in hand in the covenant. 3.
His own simile hath this much in it against him. If a jury, sworn to inquire into the felony of an accused person, should, after such an oath, not only find the person not guilty, but further take upon them to maintain that there is no such thing as felony, surely this were inconsistent with their oath, so he that swears to endeavour the reformation of religion in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, and yet will not only dislike this or that form of government, but also hold that there is no such thing as church government, he holds that which cannot agree with his oath. 4. This answer of Mr Coleman, leaving it free to debate whether there be such as church government, being his only answer to my first argument from the covenant, must needs suppose that the government mentioned in the covenant, the reformation whereof we have sworn to endeavour, is understood even by himself of church officers"
power of corrective government, it being the corrective part only, and not the doctrinal part, which he casts upon an uncertainty whether the world hold out any such thing.
2. "Church government as mentioned in the covenant is a spiritual, not a civil thing. The matters of religion are put together,-doctrine, worship, discipline and government. The privileges of Parliament come after in the third article." The reverend brother replies, "What if it be? therefore the Parliament is not to meddle with it, and why?" And here he runs out against me, as if I held that the Parliament is not to meddle with religion, an a.s.sertion which I abominate. Princes and magistrates" putting off themselves all care of the matters of religion, was one of the great causes of the church"s mischief, and of popish and prelatical tyranny. But is this just and fair, Sir, to give out for my opinion that for which you are not able to show the least colour or shadow of consequence from any thing that ever I said? That which was to be replied unto was, Whether do not the materials of the first article of the covenant differ from the materials of the third article of the covenant? or whether are they the same? Whether doth the privilege of Parliament belong to the first article of the covenant? Whether is that government mentioned in the first article a civil thing or a spiritual? If civil, why is discipline and government ranked with doctrine and worship, and all these mentioned as parts of the reformation of religion? If spiritual, then why doth the brother make it "civil or temporal?" p. 11. To all this nothing is answered, but, "What if it be?" Then is my argument granted.
And to put it yet further out of question, I add other two arguments from that same first article of the covenant. One is this: In the first part of that first article we swear all of us to endeavour "the preservation of the reformed religion in the church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government," where all know that the words "discipline"
and "government" (especially being mentioned as two of the princ.i.p.al things in which the reformed religion in that church doth consist) signify church government and church discipline distinct both from doctrine and worship (which, by the way, how Mr Coleman endeavoureth to preserve, I will not now say, but leave it to others to judge), therefore, in that which immediately followeth,-our endeavouring "the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government,"-the words "discipline" and "government" must needs have the same sense thus far, that it is a church discipline and a church government distinct from the civil power of the magistrate, and distinct also from doctrine and worship in the church; for we cannot make these words, "discipline" and "government," in one and the same article of a solemn oath and covenant, to suffer two senses differing _toto genere_ (especially considering that the civil government is put by itself in another article, which is the third), unless we make it to speak so as none may understand it.
The other argument which I now add is this. In the third part of that first article we swear that we "shall endeavour to bring the churches of G.o.d in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, confession of faith, form of church government, directory for worship and catechising," where, 1. Church government doth agree generically with a confession of faith, directory of worship, and catechising. I mean all these are matters of religion, none of them civil matters. 2. It is supposed there is such a thing as church government distinct from civil government, and therefore it is put out of all question, that so far there shall be an uniformity between the churches of G.o.d in the three kingdoms (and otherwise it were an unswearing of what was sworn in the first part of that article), but it tieth us to endeavour the nearest conjunction and uniformity "in a form of church government;" which were a vain and rash oath, if we were not tied to a church government in general, and that as a matter of religion. 3. The uniformity in a form of church government which we swear to endeavour must needs be meant of corrective government; it being clearly distinguished from the confession of faith and directory of worship. So that Mr Coleman"s distinction of the doctrinal part, and of the dispensing of the word and sacraments, cannot here help him.
From these two arguments (beside all was said before) I conclude that the covenant doth undeniably suppose, and plainly hold forth this thing as most necessary and uncontrovertible, that there ought to be a church government which is both distinct from the civil government, and yet not merely doctrinal. And if so, what Apollo can reconcile Mr Coleman"s doctrine with the covenant? And now I go on.
My last reason formerly brought was this: "Will the brother say that the example of the best reformed churches leadeth his way?" For the covenant tieth us to a reformation of the government of the church both according to the word of G.o.d and the example of the best reformed churches: that as _regula regulans_; this as _regula regulata_.
The reverend brother replieth: 1. "The best reformed church that ever was went this way; I mean the church of Israel."
_Ans._ 1. Is the church of Israel one of the reformed churches which the covenant speaks of? 2. Was the church of Israel better reformed than the apostolical churches? Why then calls he it the best reformed church that ever was? 3. That in the Jewish church there was a church government distinct from civil government, and church censures distinct from civil punishments, is the opinion of many who have taken great pains in the searching of the Jewish antiquities; and it may be he shall hear it ere long further proved, both from Scripture and from the very Talmudical writers.
2. "I desire (saith he) the Commissioner to give an instance in the New Testament of such a distinction (civil and church government) where the state was Christian."
_Ans._ I desire him to give an instance in the New Testament of these three things, and then he will answer himself. 1. Where was the state Christian? 2. Where had the ministry a doctrinal power in a Christian state? 3. Where doth the New Testament hold out that a church government distinct from civil government may be where the state is not Christian, and yet may not be where the state is Christian? Shall the church"s liberties be diminished, or rather increased, where the state is Christian?
In the third and fourth place, the brother tells us of the opinions of Gualther, Bulhager, Erastus, Aretius. The question is of the examples of churches, not of the opinions of men. But what of the men? As for that pestilence that walketh in darkness through London and Westminster, Liastus" book against Beza, let him make of it what he can, it shall have an antidote by and by. In the meanwhile, he may take notice, that, in the close of the sixth book, Erastus casts down that which he hath built, just as Bellarmine did, in the close of his five books of justification. But as for the other three named by the brother, they are ours, not his, in this present controversy. Gualther(1340) expounds 1 Cor. v. all along of excommunication, and of the necessity of church discipline; insomuch that he expounds the very delivering to Satan (the phrase most controverted by Erastus and his followers) of excommunication, and the not eating with the scandalous (ver 9-11) he takes also to import excommunication. He thinks also that ministers shall labour to little purpose except they have a power of government. Bullinger is most plain for excommunication, as a spiritual censure ordained by Christ, and so he understands Matt. xviv.
17.
Aretius holds(1341) that G.o.d was the author of excommunication in the Old Testament, and Christ in the New. And now are these three Mr Coleman"s way? Or doth not his doctrine flatly contradict theirs? Peradventure he will say, Yet there is no excommunication in the church of Zurich, where those divines lived, nor any suspension of scandalous sinners from the sacrament. I answer, This cannot infringe what I hold, that the example of the best reformed churches maketh for us and against him; for, 1. The book written by Lavater, another of the Zurich divines, _de Ritibus et Inst.i.tutis Ecclesioe Tigurinoe_, tells us of divers things in that church which will make the brother easily to acknowledge that it is not the best reformed church, such as festival days, cap. 8, that upon the Lord"s days, before the third bell, it is published and made known to the people, if there be any houses, fields, or lands, to be sold, cap. 9. They have no fasts indicted, cap. 9, nor psalms sung in the church, cap. 10.
Responsories in their Litany at the sacrament, the deacon upon the right hand saith one thing, the deacon upon the left hand saith another thing, the pastor a third thing, cap. 13. 2. Yet the church of Zurich hath some corrective church government besides that which is civil or temporal, for the same book, cap. 23, tells us, that in their synods, any minister who is found scandalous or profane in his life, is censured with deposition from his office, _ab oficio deponitur_. Then follows, _finita censura, singuli decani, &c._ Here is a synodical censure, which I find also in Wolphius,(1342) a professor of Zurich, and the book before cited, cap.
24,(1343) tells us of some corrective power committed to pastors and elders, which elders are distinguished from the magistrates. 3. The Zurich divines themselves looked upon excommunication as that which was wanting through the injury of the times; the thing having been so horribly abused in Popery, and the present licentiousness abounding among people, did hinder the erecting of that part of the church discipline at that time.
But they still pleaded the thing to be held forth in Scripture, and were but expecting better times for restoring and settling of excommunication, which they did approve in Geneva, and in other reformed churches, who had received it. I give you their own words for the warrant of what I say.(1344)
I have been the longer upon this point as being the chief objection which can be made by Mr Coleman concerning that clause in the covenant, "The example of the best reformed churches."
He hath only one thing more, which may well pa.s.s for a paradox. He will take an instance, forsooth, from Geneva itself, though presbyterian in practice. And why? Because in the Geneva Annotations upon Matt. ix. 16, it said, that "the external discipline is to be fitted to the capacity of the church." "This is no Scotland presbytery," saith the brother. Nay, Sir, nor yet Geneva presbytery; for it doth not at all concern presbytery. It is spoken in reference to the choosing of fit and convenient times for fasting and humiliation,-that as Christ did not, at that time, tie his disciples to fasting, it being unsuitable to that present time; so other like circ.u.mstances of G.o.d"s worship, which are not at all determined to the word, are to be accommodated to emergent occasions, and to the church"s condition for the time, which both Scotland and Geneva, and other reformed churches do.
If I have now more fully and convincingly spoken to that point of the covenant, let the brother blame himself that put me to it.
The Lord guide his people in a right way, and rebuke the spirit of error and division, and give us all more of his Spirit, to lead us into all truth, and into all self-denial, and grant that none of his servants be found unwilling to have the Lord Jesus Christ to reign over them in all his ordinances!
THE END.
MALE AUDIS; OR, AN ANSWER TO MR COLEMAN"S MALE DICIS.