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 Assemblies, are for keeping off all scandalous persons; which every godly 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 [pg 3-020] 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 biassed to the Assembly; I answered, How then shall he make himself blameless who came biassed a third way; which was the Erastian way; and that, for our part, we came no more biassed to this Assembly 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 biassed, not only by our own judgments, but by something adventitious from without; which he denieth himself to be (but how truly I take not on me to judge: beholders do often perceive the biassing 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 Assembly 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 [pg 3-021] 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 Assembly 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 Assembly 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 God, 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 assurance, that it is acceptable to God. It was not of parliamentary sanction, but of divines doctrinal asserting of the will of God 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 cumulative 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 [pg 3-022] this power of purifying men, and means of advancing the power of godliness 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 godliness. God must, by his word and Spirit, purify men, and work in them the power of godliness. 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 assisteth church discipline, that profane and scandalous persons, when they are found unruly and incorrigible, are punished with banishment or otherwise. A stranger [pg 3-023] 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 circumspection 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 trespassed. 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, [pg 3-024] 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.