biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Samuel Rutherford lived from 1600-1661. (He was born over 50 years after the Council of Trent.) He was, for a time, Professor of Divinity at the University of St. Andrews, and one of four commissioners of the Church of Scotland to sit at the Westminster Assembly. Here is a paper Rutherford wrote, which speaks directly to the validity of Roman Catholic baptism:
The Validity of Roman Catholic Ministry
Though Luther and Zwingli had their whole calling from the Pope and his Clergy, yet think we not that calling [to be] no [true] calling, but that it hath that which essentially constituteth a minister:
1. Caiaphas entered most corruptly to the Priesthood, by the favor of men, and to be high-priest for [only] one year contrary to the Law, which ordained the high-priest to remain for his lifetime. But as Josephus said, [also] Toletus, Caitan, Maldonat, Iansonius, yea and [even as] our own writers Calvin, Marlorat, Musculus, Rollock, [and] Bullinger observe, all was done by the will and lustof ; yet Caiaphus was the high-priest and prophesied, which is a specific act of a called prophet, John 11.51-52. It is said, [that] he prophesied as high-priest.
2. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' chair, and are to be heard, Mat 23.1, in so far as they teach God's truth, and yet their entry to their calling was corrupt, if it be true [as] diverse say, that Christ, [in] John 10.7-9, calleth the Scribes and Pharises, Thieves and Robbers, because they came not in by the door, but climbed up another way. But however there [may have been] corruption in the way of their coming to the chair, [and given that] they leavened all [the] other Ordinances of God, and the High Priest [himself] entered a false way, [therefore] the rest of the Rules could not come, but in a corrupt way. But though Augustin and Clemens Alexan expound the place, [in] John 10, of such as lack a lawful calling, but [if we should interpret it that way] then the place cannot agree with the Scribes and Pharisees, which seemeth to fight with the course of the text. But our interpreters Brentius, Beza, [and] Rollock, expound the place [as referring to] those who preach not Christ soundly, [as] the door and the foundation, but [rather they are those who preach] human traditions, and yet [who still] had a calling. And the text saith so much, where [in] v. 9 salvation is promised to every one who entereth in by Christ the door. Now salvation is not promised to a man, because he hath a lawful calling to the ministry; he may have that and yet be a Child of perdition.
We are nowhere forbidden in God's Word to hear teachers sent and called, but only wolves in sheep skins, void of all calling, and intruders. For pastors may be antichrists in [1.] the manner of the entry, as Caiaphas, [or 2.] in the matter of the Doctrine, teaching some of men's traditions, in place of God's Word as [the] Scribes and Pharisees, [or 3. by tolerating an] antichristian calling, as prelates do and have done in Britain. And yet their Ministry [may still] be valid, and his Ministerial acts not [be] null. It is sufficient [simply] that the governing Church give him a calling, either by themselves, their express call, their silence, or tacit calling, or their approbation, communicating with him in his Ministry, [either] by those to whom the Church resigned her power, or by those who stand in place of the Church. Though prelates invade the place of the Church, yet because [1.], they themselves be pastors and have power to teach and baptize as pastors called of Christ, Mat. 18.19, [and 2.] because they stand for the Church, approving, or some way by silence consenting (as in the case of Caiaphas entry to the priest-hood) there[fore], these who are baptized by them, are not re-baptized, and those who are ordained pastors by them are not re-ordained, but have a calling to the Ministry and do validly confer a calling upon others.
Yea, many of great learning think that at the beginning of Reformation, thousands being under popery baptized by midwives and private persons were never re-baptized. [It is] not that they think such baptism valid, but where the Sacrament is lacking, ex invincibili ignorantia facti, (out of an invincible ignorance of a fact), such [who are] that way baptized do indeed lack the Lord's seal. But we cannot for that [reason] say that they are no better than infidels and unbaptized Turkes and Jewes, because [1.] their being born in the visible Church giveth a federal holiness, as all of Jewish parents had a federal right to circumcision, and were, eatenus [in this way] separated from the womb. [2.] Because their profession of that covenant whereof baptism is a seal, separateth them sufficiently from infidels, though they lack the seal external. But our Divines esteem (and that justly) baptism administrated by women, or such as have no calling, to be no baptism at all; for which let the reader see Calvin, Beza, [and] the learned Rivetus. We stand not for what Bellarmine, Maldonatus, Gretferus, and other papists say on the contrary, and also Cajetan, and Toletus.
[John] Robinson [the Separatist] and our brethren acknowledge that the Church of Rome hath true baptism, even as the vessels of the Lord's house profaned in Babylon may be carried back to the temple. But if these vessels were broken and mingled with brass and iron, and cast in another mould they could not obtain their former place in the temple. Baptism is a vessel profaned in Babel, but not broken; but the ministry and priesthood of Rome is like the new melted and mingled vessel, and [is] essentially degenerated from the office of pastorship. But I answer, if baptism be valid in Rome [then] so are the ministers baptizers. For if the ministers and priests be essentially no ministers, then baptism administered by the Romish priests is no Ministry, and all [the same] as [that] administered by midwives and private persons, who therefore cannot administer the sacraments validly in the essential causes, because they are essentially no ministers. If therefore, Robinson will [insist] that [the] Romish priesthood [is] essentially no ministery, [then] by that same reason he must say [that] baptism administrated by Romish priests is no baptism. The contrary whereof he confesseth: otherwise he must say [that] baptism administered, a non babente potestatem, even by women and private men, is valid, and cannot be but esteemed lawful in the substance of the act. Those have a ministry, essentially entire, who have power under Christ to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments, Matthew 28.19. The Romish priests have this, and are called to this by the Church.
But saith Robinson, how can England forsake the Church of Rome, and forsake the ministry, which is in the Church, as in the subject, especially, seeing you teach that a true ministry maketh essentially a true Church?
Answer: [1] England may well separate from Rome [as Rome turns away from] the fundamental parts of Faith, and [yet] not separate from Rome's baptism, or ministry, in so far as they be essentially the ordinances of Christ. And I retort this argument: how can Separatists separate from both us and Rome, and yet retain the baptism in both our church and Rome. [2] A ministry true in the essence may make a Church true kata ti, in so far; but because of many other substantial corruptions in Rome, it is a Church which we ought to forsake.
But, saith Robinson, apostates in the 10 tribes [of Israel] leaving the Church which was radically at [i.e., had its center in] Jerusalem, upon their repentance were readmitted to enter into the Temple, into which no uncircumcised person might enter. But any of the priests following idols, were never readmitted to be priests, though they should repent; therefore the ministry and baptism are not alike.
I answer [1] that [if] the true Church were only at Jerusalem radically, as you say, [this] would [imply] that the 10 tribes revolting from David's house ceased to be a Church, which is false. Israel, [as] all the land was in Covenant with God, had circumcision and the Passover, and so was a true visible Church, even when they met in their synagogues. The altar, sacrifices, [and] temple, are not the essentials of a visible Church. There was a Church, and the Church did pray toward the temple even in Babylon, and [they] were to profess the true God before the heathen, Jer 10.11. [2] There [are] typical reasons to hinder men why they cannot be capable of the priesthood, that did not exclude them from Church state. But this hindereth not [that] if the seals administrated by a minister be true seals, then is the minister thereof eatenus [in this way] a true minister.
He addeth, a minister may leave off to be a minister, and be justly degraded and excommunicated, but none ever attempted to unbaptize one who was baptized, nor can he be unbaptized who is baptized.
I answer: That proveth a difference between the ministery and baptism, which is not the question at issue; but it [still] proveth not this to be false: if Rome's baptism be lawful in its essence, so is Rome´s ministry.
Thus are the words of Samuel Rutherford. Obviously, he affirmed Rome's baptism, even though he clearly rejected the Council of Trent.
The Validity of Roman Catholic Ministry
Though Luther and Zwingli had their whole calling from the Pope and his Clergy, yet think we not that calling [to be] no [true] calling, but that it hath that which essentially constituteth a minister:
1. Caiaphas entered most corruptly to the Priesthood, by the favor of men, and to be high-priest for [only] one year contrary to the Law, which ordained the high-priest to remain for his lifetime. But as Josephus said, [also] Toletus, Caitan, Maldonat, Iansonius, yea and [even as] our own writers Calvin, Marlorat, Musculus, Rollock, [and] Bullinger observe, all was done by the will and lustof ; yet Caiaphus was the high-priest and prophesied, which is a specific act of a called prophet, John 11.51-52. It is said, [that] he prophesied as high-priest.
2. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' chair, and are to be heard, Mat 23.1, in so far as they teach God's truth, and yet their entry to their calling was corrupt, if it be true [as] diverse say, that Christ, [in] John 10.7-9, calleth the Scribes and Pharises, Thieves and Robbers, because they came not in by the door, but climbed up another way. But however there [may have been] corruption in the way of their coming to the chair, [and given that] they leavened all [the] other Ordinances of God, and the High Priest [himself] entered a false way, [therefore] the rest of the Rules could not come, but in a corrupt way. But though Augustin and Clemens Alexan expound the place, [in] John 10, of such as lack a lawful calling, but [if we should interpret it that way] then the place cannot agree with the Scribes and Pharisees, which seemeth to fight with the course of the text. But our interpreters Brentius, Beza, [and] Rollock, expound the place [as referring to] those who preach not Christ soundly, [as] the door and the foundation, but [rather they are those who preach] human traditions, and yet [who still] had a calling. And the text saith so much, where [in] v. 9 salvation is promised to every one who entereth in by Christ the door. Now salvation is not promised to a man, because he hath a lawful calling to the ministry; he may have that and yet be a Child of perdition.
We are nowhere forbidden in God's Word to hear teachers sent and called, but only wolves in sheep skins, void of all calling, and intruders. For pastors may be antichrists in [1.] the manner of the entry, as Caiaphas, [or 2.] in the matter of the Doctrine, teaching some of men's traditions, in place of God's Word as [the] Scribes and Pharisees, [or 3. by tolerating an] antichristian calling, as prelates do and have done in Britain. And yet their Ministry [may still] be valid, and his Ministerial acts not [be] null. It is sufficient [simply] that the governing Church give him a calling, either by themselves, their express call, their silence, or tacit calling, or their approbation, communicating with him in his Ministry, [either] by those to whom the Church resigned her power, or by those who stand in place of the Church. Though prelates invade the place of the Church, yet because [1.], they themselves be pastors and have power to teach and baptize as pastors called of Christ, Mat. 18.19, [and 2.] because they stand for the Church, approving, or some way by silence consenting (as in the case of Caiaphas entry to the priest-hood) there[fore], these who are baptized by them, are not re-baptized, and those who are ordained pastors by them are not re-ordained, but have a calling to the Ministry and do validly confer a calling upon others.
Yea, many of great learning think that at the beginning of Reformation, thousands being under popery baptized by midwives and private persons were never re-baptized. [It is] not that they think such baptism valid, but where the Sacrament is lacking, ex invincibili ignorantia facti, (out of an invincible ignorance of a fact), such [who are] that way baptized do indeed lack the Lord's seal. But we cannot for that [reason] say that they are no better than infidels and unbaptized Turkes and Jewes, because [1.] their being born in the visible Church giveth a federal holiness, as all of Jewish parents had a federal right to circumcision, and were, eatenus [in this way] separated from the womb. [2.] Because their profession of that covenant whereof baptism is a seal, separateth them sufficiently from infidels, though they lack the seal external. But our Divines esteem (and that justly) baptism administrated by women, or such as have no calling, to be no baptism at all; for which let the reader see Calvin, Beza, [and] the learned Rivetus. We stand not for what Bellarmine, Maldonatus, Gretferus, and other papists say on the contrary, and also Cajetan, and Toletus.
[John] Robinson [the Separatist] and our brethren acknowledge that the Church of Rome hath true baptism, even as the vessels of the Lord's house profaned in Babylon may be carried back to the temple. But if these vessels were broken and mingled with brass and iron, and cast in another mould they could not obtain their former place in the temple. Baptism is a vessel profaned in Babel, but not broken; but the ministry and priesthood of Rome is like the new melted and mingled vessel, and [is] essentially degenerated from the office of pastorship. But I answer, if baptism be valid in Rome [then] so are the ministers baptizers. For if the ministers and priests be essentially no ministers, then baptism administered by the Romish priests is no Ministry, and all [the same] as [that] administered by midwives and private persons, who therefore cannot administer the sacraments validly in the essential causes, because they are essentially no ministers. If therefore, Robinson will [insist] that [the] Romish priesthood [is] essentially no ministery, [then] by that same reason he must say [that] baptism administrated by Romish priests is no baptism. The contrary whereof he confesseth: otherwise he must say [that] baptism administered, a non babente potestatem, even by women and private men, is valid, and cannot be but esteemed lawful in the substance of the act. Those have a ministry, essentially entire, who have power under Christ to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments, Matthew 28.19. The Romish priests have this, and are called to this by the Church.
But saith Robinson, how can England forsake the Church of Rome, and forsake the ministry, which is in the Church, as in the subject, especially, seeing you teach that a true ministry maketh essentially a true Church?
Answer: [1] England may well separate from Rome [as Rome turns away from] the fundamental parts of Faith, and [yet] not separate from Rome's baptism, or ministry, in so far as they be essentially the ordinances of Christ. And I retort this argument: how can Separatists separate from both us and Rome, and yet retain the baptism in both our church and Rome. [2] A ministry true in the essence may make a Church true kata ti, in so far; but because of many other substantial corruptions in Rome, it is a Church which we ought to forsake.
But, saith Robinson, apostates in the 10 tribes [of Israel] leaving the Church which was radically at [i.e., had its center in] Jerusalem, upon their repentance were readmitted to enter into the Temple, into which no uncircumcised person might enter. But any of the priests following idols, were never readmitted to be priests, though they should repent; therefore the ministry and baptism are not alike.
I answer [1] that [if] the true Church were only at Jerusalem radically, as you say, [this] would [imply] that the 10 tribes revolting from David's house ceased to be a Church, which is false. Israel, [as] all the land was in Covenant with God, had circumcision and the Passover, and so was a true visible Church, even when they met in their synagogues. The altar, sacrifices, [and] temple, are not the essentials of a visible Church. There was a Church, and the Church did pray toward the temple even in Babylon, and [they] were to profess the true God before the heathen, Jer 10.11. [2] There [are] typical reasons to hinder men why they cannot be capable of the priesthood, that did not exclude them from Church state. But this hindereth not [that] if the seals administrated by a minister be true seals, then is the minister thereof eatenus [in this way] a true minister.
He addeth, a minister may leave off to be a minister, and be justly degraded and excommunicated, but none ever attempted to unbaptize one who was baptized, nor can he be unbaptized who is baptized.
I answer: That proveth a difference between the ministery and baptism, which is not the question at issue; but it [still] proveth not this to be false: if Rome's baptism be lawful in its essence, so is Rome´s ministry.
Thus are the words of Samuel Rutherford. Obviously, he affirmed Rome's baptism, even though he clearly rejected the Council of Trent.
Very funny . . .
