HEAD I.

_Where the sufferings of many, for refusing to acknowledge a corrupt

ministry, are vindicated; and the question of hearing curates is

cleared._

This question, though it may seem nice, and of no great moment, to

persons of Gallio's or Laodicea's temper, indifferent and lukewarm

dispositions, consulting their own more than the things of Christ, which

make it pass without any enquiry with the most part of the world; yet,

to all who are truly tender in keeping a good conscience, free of the

times contagion, to all who have the true impression of the fear of God,

who is jealous, especially in the matters of his worship; to all who

have the true zeal of God eating them up, in a just indignation at the

indignities done to him, in usurping the office and corrupting the

administration of the ministry; to all who truly love the gospel, and

put a due value on the ordinances of Christ, the corruptions whereof

this question touches, it will be accounted of great importance.

There are three questions about the duty of hearing the word, concerning

which the Lord Jesus gives us very weighty cautions, to wit, what we

should hear, Mark iv. 24. how we should hear, Luke viii. 28. and whom we

should hear. The last of which, though it be not so expressly stated as

the other two, yet the searcher of the scriptures will find it as

clearly determined, and as many cautions to guard from erring in it, as

in any other case, and that the concern of conscience in it is very

weighty. And certain it is, if there had been more advertency in this

point, there would not have been such inconsideration and licentiousness

in the matter and manner of hearing. Nor would that itching humour and

luxuriancy of lust, in heaping up teachers to please the fancy, have

been so much encouraged, to the great detriment of the church, disgrace

of the gospel, and destruction of many poor souls. But through the

ignorance and neglect of this duty of trying whom we should hear, by

seeking some satisfying evidence of their being cloathed with authority

from Christ, the world hath been left loose in a licence to hear what

they pleased, and so have received the poison of error from the

mountebanks, instead of the true and wholesome potions of Christ's

prescripts from them that had power and skill to administer them. Hence

the many sects, and schisms, and errors that have pestered the church in

all ages, have in a great measure proceeded from this latitude and

laxness of promiscuous hearing of all whom they pleased, whom either the

world's authority impowered, or by other means were possessed of the

place of preaching, without taking any cognizance whether they had the

characters of Christ's ambassadors or not. If this had been observed,

and people had scrupled and refused to hear these whom they might know

should not have preached; neither the great antichrist, nor the many

lesser antichrists, would have had such footing in the world as they

have this day. It is then of no small consequence to have this question

cleared. Neither is it of small difficulty to solve the intricacies of

it, what characters to fix for a discovery of Christ's true ministers;

whom we should submit to and obey in the Lord, and love and esteem them

for their work's sake, and for their qualities sake, as standing in

Christ's stead, having the dispensation of the word of reconciliation

committed to them; and how we may discern those characters; what

judgment is incumbent to private Christians, for the satisfaction of

their own consciences in the case; and how they ought to demean

themselves in their practice, without scandal on either hand, or sin

against their own conscience; how to avoid the rocks and extremes that

inadvertency or precipitancy in this matter may rush upon; so as to

escape and sail by the Scylla of sinful separation on the one hand, and

the Charybdis of sinful union and communion on the other, which are

equally dangerous; especially how these cautions are to be managed in a

broken, and disturbed, and divided case of the church. The question also

is the more difficult, that as it was never so much questioned before

this time, and never so much sought to be obscured, by the perverse

disputings of men of corrupt minds, to find out evasions to cover sin

and escape sufferings upon this account; so it hath never been discussed

by divines either at home or abroad, with relation to our case, except

what hath been of late by some faithful men, who have suffered upon this

head, from whom I shall gather the most of my arguments, in as

compendious a way as I can without wronging them. The reason, I fancy,

that we are at such a loss in our helps from the learned on this head,

is partly, that they have written with relation to their own times, in a

constitute case of the church, when corruptions and disorders might be

orderly rectified, and people might have access to get their scruples

removed in a legal way by church-order, in which case the learned and

judicious Mr. Durham hath written excellently in his book on scandal;

but therein neither he nor others did consult, nor could have a prospect

of such a case as ours is; and partly, that foreign divines, not having

this for their exercise, could not be acquainted with our

circumstantiate case, and so are not fit nor competent arbiters to

decide this controversy; hence many of them do wonder at our sufferings

upon this head. Every church is best acquainted with her own testimony.

Yet we want not the suffrage of some of the most learned of them, as the

great Gisb. Voetius in his polit. eccles. in several places comes near

to favour us: where he allows people to leave some, and hear such

ministers as they profit most by, from these grounds, 'That people

should choose the best and most edifying gifts, and from that scripture,

1 Thess. v. 21. Prove all things, &c. and answers objections to the

contrary, and granteth, that, upon several occasions, one may abstain

from explicit communion with a corrupt church, for these reasons, that

such communion is not absolutely necessary, by necessity either of the

mean or precept, where the Christian shall have more peace of

conscience, and free exercise of Christian duties elsewhere, and that he

may keep communion with more purity in other places, polit. eccles.

quest. 17. pag. 68. And he approves of the people refusing to bring

their children to be baptized by such corrupt ministers, because they

may wait until they have occasion of a minister; for if the best gifts

be to be coveted, why should not the best ministers be preferred? and

why should not Christians shew by their deeds, that they honour such as

fear the Lord, and contemn a vile person? They ought not to partake of

other men's sins, 1 Cor. v. 9, 11. Eph. v. 11. They should not

strengthen the hands of the wicked, and make sad the godly; the

authority of such ministers should not be strengthened,' Voet. polit.

eccles. pag. 637 to 640. But though it labour under all these

disadvantages; yet it is not the less, but so much the rather necessary,

to say somewhat to clear it, with dependence upon light from the

fountain, and with the help of faithful men who have sufficiently

cleared it up, to all that have a conscience not blinded nor bribed with

some prejudices, by which more light hath accrued to the church in this

point of withdrawing from corrupt ministers than ever was attained in

former times; which is all the good we have got of prelacy. Insomuch

that I might spare labour in adding any thing, were it not that I would

make the arguments, vindicating this cause of suffering, a little more

public, and take occasion to shew, that the grounds espoused by the

present and reproached party for their withdrawings, so far as they are

stretched, are no other than have been owned by our writers on this

head; to the intent that it may appear, there is no discrepancy, but

great likeness and harmony between the arguments and grounds of

withdrawing, in the late informatory vindication, &c. and those that are

found in other writings. And so much the rather I think it needful to

touch this subject now, that not only this hath been the first ground of

our sufferings, but many that suffered a while for it, now have fainted,

and condemned all their former contendings for this part of the

testimony, calling in question all these reasons that formerly satisfied

them. But to proceed with some distinctness in this thorny point: some

concessory assertions must first be permitted, and then our grounds

propounded.

First, I willingly yield to, and cordially close with the truth of these

assertions.

I. The unity of the spirit, in the bond of peace, ought to be the

endeavour of all that are members of the one body of Christ, partakers

of his one Spirit, called in one hope, professing one Lord, confessing

one faith, sealed with one baptism, Eph. iv. 3. &c. and for brethren to

dwell together in unity, is good and pleasant, and like the precious

ointment upon the head, that ran down upon Aaron's beard, Psal. cxxxiii.

1, 2. A fragrant ointment indeed, if it be composed aright of gospel

simples, according to divine art, and the wisdom that is from above,

which is pure, and then peaceable: and not made up of adulterate

politics: that union that hath the Spirit for its author, the scripture

for its rule, peace for its bond and beauty, love for its cement, faith

for its foment, Christ for its foundation, and truth and holiness for

its constant companions, cannot but be intensely desired, enixly

endeavoured, and fervently followed by all the professors of the gospel

of peace, and subjects of the Prince of peace: which makes division and

schism, not only a great misery, but a grand sin. But it must be in the

way of truth and duty, and consistent with holiness and the honour of

Christ, otherwise if it be in the way of apostasy and defection, it is

but a confederacy and conspiracy against the Lord. And true union can

neither be attained, nor retained, nor recovered, except the sinful

cause of division, defection, and the holy over-ruling cause, the anger

of the Lord be removed, in turning to and following him.

II. Though there be not perfect union, but diversity both of judgments

and practices, in several cases there may be communion with a church in

its ordinances and ministry. As, 1. We may have a catholic communion

with all christian ministers and members of the catholic church,

considered as such; holding the head Christ, and the fountain sure. And

so we may meet for worship with all devout men in every nation under

heaven, whether they be Parthians, or Medes, or Elamites, or French or

Dutch, &c. though differing in controversies of lesser moment, not

overturning that; if they hold the universal testimony of the gospel,

against the common enemies thereof, Jews, Turks, or Pagans: for there is

neither Greek nor Jew, if he be a christian, Christ is all and in all,

Col. iii. 11. But if they be heretics, we can have no communion with

them. 2. We may have a more special communion with all protestant

ministers and members of the reformed church, considered as such, more

strictly, and upon stricter conditions: providing they hold, not only

the universal of christians, but the general testimony of protestants,

against the greater and lesser antichrists; though differing from us in

some circumstantial points, not reformed, and not contradictory unto the

protestant testimony against popery, and all heresy; nor declining from

their own reformation, by defection or schism. And consequently, it is

lawful to own communion with the churches of the united provinces, and

take ordination from them, though they have some forms not allowable,

from which they were never reformed, because they are sound in the

protestant testimony. But with the sectarians, or schismatics, or

apostates among them, we cannot own that special communion. 3. We may

have a more particular communion upon yet stricter conditions with all

our covenanted brethren, ministers and members of the churches of

Britain and Ireland, considered as such: providing they hold, not only

the universal, not only the more special, protestant testimony against

the greater and lesser antichrists, but the covenanted testimony for the

reformation in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, against

popery, prelacy, superstition, heresy, schism, and profaneness,

according to the covenant; though differing from us in those

controversial points, never reformed, and which were never the word of

Christ's patience, and do not overturn the covenanted testimony. But

with those that contradict and counteract that, we own that particular

communion. 4. We may have yet a nearer organical communion, upon

stricter conditions still with all the ministers and members of the

national church of Scotland constitute and confederate under one

reformed government, according to the rule of Christ: providing they

hold, not only all the former testimonies under the foresaid

considerations, but the presbyterian testimony as stated in the

ecclesiastical constitution, and sworn to in the national covenants and

engagements of that church, founded upon the word of God, against

popery, prelacy, erastianism, sectarianism, toleration, schism and

defection; though differing in some things from us, never reformed,

never considered in ecclesiastical judicatories, never engaged against

in our covenants, never stated as the word of patience and matter of

testimony. But with those that oppose, suppress, reproach, and abandon

this testimony, we cannot own this organical communion, in this broken

state of the church. We may have yet a stricter congregational

communion, upon stricter conditions, in and with the ordinary or

extraordinary meetings or societies of the Lord's people for gospel

ordinances, with any minister or ministers, duly and truly admitted to

that function, according to Christ's appointment, and the call of the

people, whether in a fixed or unfixed relation; providing he holds the

testimony of Christ, under all the considerations, and owns and adheres

unto the true received principles of the church of Scotland, in

doctrine, worship, discipline and government, founded upon the written

word of God, and whatsoever declarations or testimonies, former or

latter, particular or more general, are agreeable thereunto; though

differing from us in some of the integral and not essential parts of our

testimony against the enemies of our covenanted reformation. But with

such as deny or decline from it, by schism or defection, or compliance

with the enemies thereof, we cannot own this congregational communion,

in this broken state of the church.

III. Though there be many things in a church, to brangle and lessen the

comfort of our communion with it, and the ministry thereof; yet we may

keep fellowship with a true church, though in many things faulty and

corrupt, as all churches are, in some measure, in this militant state.

As the church of Corinth had many corruptions in their practice, yet no

separation is enjoined from it. And the Lord did not require separation

from the churches of Pergamos and Thyatira; though they had many

corruptions and deficiences in discipline, in a toleration of heretics;

and would lay no other burden upon them, but to hold fast what they had:

as Mr. Durham shews in his Commentary on the Revelation, chap. 2. lect.

6. page 148, 149. as also chap. 18. lect. 1. page 585. in 4to. This must

be granted especially in these cases, 1. In the infant state of the

church, when the reformation is only begun: then many things may be

tolerated, before they be gradually reformed, which, in an adult state,

are not to be suffered. 2. In a growing case of the church, advancing

out of corruptions, then many things may be borne with, while they are

ascending and wrestling up the hill, which in a declining state, when

the church is going backward, must not be yielded unto. See that

objection of hearing prelatical men in the time of former prelacy,

answered above, Period 4. In a constitute and settled case of the

church, enjoying her privileges and judicatories, corruptions may be

forborn, and the offended are not to withdraw, before recourse to the

judicatories for an orderly redress; but in a broken and disturbed

state, when there is no access to these courts of Christ; then people,

though they must not usurp a power of judicial censuring these

corruptions, yet they may claim and exercise a discretive power over

their own practice; and by their withdrawing from such ministers as are

guilty of them, signify their sense of the moral equity of these

censures that have been legally enacted against these and the equivalent

corruptions, and when they should be legally inflicted. As we do upon

this ground withdraw from the prelatic curates, and likewise from some

of our covenanted brethren, upon the account of their being chargeable

with such corruptions and defections from our reformation, as we cannot

but shew our dislike of. This the reverend author of Rectius Instruendum

justifies, Confut. 3. Dial. chap. 10. p. 8. where he is shewing what

separation is not sinful; and gives this for one, If we separate in

that, which a national church hath commanded us as her members to

disown, by her standing acts and authority, while those from whom we

separate own that corruption. Which holds true of the curates, and

indulged and addressers, and all that we withdraw from. However it be,

certainly those are to be withdrawn from, with whom we cannot

communicate without submitting to the laws establishing them, and taking

on that test and badge of our incorporation with them, and partaking of

their sin, and in hazard of their judgment.

IV. Though in some cases, as we are warranted, so are necessitated to

withdraw: yet neither do we allow it upon slight or slender grounds, nor

can any tender soul be forced to discountenance the ministers of Christ,

(I do not here speak of the prelatical curates), without great

reluctancy and grief of heart, even when the grounds of it are solid and

valid, and the necessity unavoidable; therefore we reject these as

insufficient grounds. Besides what are given already, 1. We cannot

withdraw from a minister, for his infirmities or weakness, natural,

spiritual, or moral. 2. Neither for personal faults and escapes: we

expect a faithful, but not a sinless ministry. 3. Nor for every defect

in faithfulness, through ignorance, want of courage, misinformation, or

being biassed with affection for particular persons. We do not hold,

that faults in members or defects in ministers, do pollute the

ordinances, and so necessitate a separation; but agree with what Mr.

Durham says on Revelations, chap. 2. lect. 6. p. 147. in quarto.

Sincerity discovered will cover many faults. 4. Nor for every discovery

of hypocrisy; though we may have ground to suspect a man's principle and

motive be not right, yet if he be following duty unblameably, and have a

lawful call, what then! "notwithstanding every way, whether in pretence

or in truth, Christ is preached, therein we may rejoice," Phil. i. 18.

5. Nor yet for real scandals, not attended with obstinacy, if ministers

will take reproof and admonition, and at least by doctrinal confessing,

and practical forsaking them, satisfy the offended. 6. Yea, though his

scandals be so gross, that we must discountenance him, when he persists

in them: yet that is not a disowning of his ministry, or a rejecting

his commission, but a discountenancing for his disorders, until they be

removed. But the Apologet. Relat. sect. 14. p. 290, 291. says, (1.)

'There may be ministerial corruptions, that cut the very throat of the

office, and make one no officer,----and it is past questioning, such may

be shunned, without all hazard of separation. (2.) When personal faults

are very gross and palpable, open and avowed, such may be shunned

without any hazard of separation; because the man's being an officer,

before God, is much to be questioned; and there is great probability,

that by the very deed itself, he had forefaulted the same, though such

should be the corruption in a church, that notwithstanding of all this

he may be maintained. (3.) Separation is one thing, and not hearing such

or such a man is a far other thing: there may be many just grounds of

exception against a particular person, why people may refuse to

countenance him, without any hazard of separation, or joining with

separatists in their principles: separation is one thing, and refusing

to attend the ministry of such a man is another thing; for a man may

join with ordinances in another congregation, and so testify that he

hath no prejudice at the ministry, but only against such a man in

particular.' Whence it is an ignorant as well as malicious calumny, to

say, that our withdrawing from the curates, and also from some

ministers, whom otherwise we respect and reverence as godly ministers,

for their offensive defections, is a disowning all the ministry of

Scotland. Whereas, we do profess indeed a disowning of the curate's

ministry, but for our reverend presbyterian ministers, though we do

discountenance many of them with sad hearts, for not keeping the word of

the Lord's patience in this hour of tentation, nor adhering to the

principles and constitutions of the church of Scotland: yet this is not

a disowning of their ministry, but a refusing to countenance them in

their present administrations, in this disturbed state, till these

offences be removed.

V. As to disown the ministry were hateful sectarianism; so to dissolve

or break off communion with a true church, whereof we are members, were

an unnatural schism, which is horrid sin. But because among all the

various sufferings, wherewith the poor tossed and racked remnant now

persecuted, have been exercised, this hath not been the lightest; that

they have been on all hands stigmatized as schismatics and separatists,

not only because they have maintained a resolved withdrawing from the

curates, but also have discountenanced many presbyterian ministers, with

whom they have been offended for their declining courses, and

compliances with the times corruptions, and forsaking in a great measure

the duty of this day: I shall distinguish some cases of separation, out

of the writings of our approven authors, which will justify all their

withdrawings. 1. Mr. Durham distinguishes these three, schism separating

from the unity and communion of a true church, consisting not always in

diversity of doctrine, but in divided practices, according to that of

Augustine, it is not a different faith makes schismatics, but a broken

society of communion: then separation, either in whole from a church as

no church, or in part in some things wherein they cannot communicate

with that corrupt church, which is lawful if it exceed not its ground;

then, lastly, secession, a local removing to a better church. The first

of these cannot be imputed to the persecuted wanderers: for they

separate from no true church, whereof they were members, but these from

whom they separate, will be found to be the schismatics. 2. The second

of these, to wit separation, is either positive and active, or negative

and passive. The first is, when a party not only leaves communion with a

church whereunto they were formerly joined, but also gathers up new

distinct churches, different from the former, under another government

and ministry, and ordinances, disowning those they left. The latter is,

when the faithful remnant of a declining church, standing still and

refusing to concur with the backsliding part of the same church, after

they have become obstinate in their defections, hold closely by, and

adheres unto the reformation attained. This famous Mr. Rutherford, in

his due right of presbyteries, p. 253, 254. sheweth to be lawful, and

calleth it a non-union, as that in Augustine's time, when the faithful

did separate from the Donatists; which is lawful and laudable. 3. 'Mr.

Rutherford there proceeds to distinguish between a separation from the

church in her worst and most part, and a separation from the best and

least part: and these who separate from the worst and greatest part, do

notwithstanding retain a part of, and a part in the visible church,

because they do not separate from the church, according to the least and

best part thereof; as the godly in England, who refused the popish

ceremonies and antichristian bishops. Hence it will follow, that though

people should now withdraw from communion with the greatest part of the

church, which is now corrupted, they cannot be counted separatists,

because they hold full communion with the better, though lesser part.

Moreover he saith, p. 254, 255. That there may be causes of non-union

with a church which are not sufficient causes of separation. Lastly, he

tells us in the same place, p. 258. when the greatest part of a church

makes defection from the truth, the lesser part remaining sound, the

greatest part is the church of separatists; though the manyest and

greatest part in the actual exercise of discipline be the church, yet in

the case of right discipline the best, though fewest, is the church. For

truth is like life, that retireth from the manyest members unto the

heart, and there remaineth in its fountain in case of dangers. So that

it is the major part which hath made defection, that are to be accounted

separatists, and not such who stand to their principles, though they

cannot comply or join with the corrupt majority.'

Thus the Apol. Relat. rehearsed his words, sect. 14. pag. 292. 293. 4.

There may be a lawful withdrawing, where the ordinances and ministry are

not cast at, as the Apol. Rel. saith ibid. 291. 'So then, so long as

people do not cast at the ordinances, but are willing to run many miles

to enjoy them: nor cast at the church as no church (thought they sadly

fear, that God shall be provoked by this dreadful defection, which is

carried on by these men and their favourers, to give her a bill of

divorce) nor at the ministry, for they love those that stand to their

principles dearly, and are most willing to hear them either in public or

private. 5. It is granted by all that write against separatists, that

separation from a church is lawful, when the case so falleth out, that

union cannot be kept up with her without sin,' Voet. Polit. Eccles. p.

68. quest. 17. 6. The grave author of Rectius Instruendum Confut. 3

dial. chap. pag. 7. &c. 'Allows, every separation is not schism, even

from the church which hath essentials; yea, and more than essentials: if

it be from those (though never so many) who are drawing back from

whatever piece of duty and integrity is attained; for this is still to

be held fast, according to many scripture commands. So Elias, when God's

covenant was forsaken, was as another Athanasius (I and I only am left)

in point of tenacious integrity. 7. Next he says, If we separate in that

which a national church hath commanded us as her members to disown, by

her standing acts and authority, while those from whom we separate own

that corruption. 8. Likewise he there asserts, there is a lawful

forbearance of union and compliance with notorious backsliders, in that

which is of itself sinful, or inductive to it: which is far from

separation strictly taken. The commands of abstaining from all

appearance of evil, and hating the garment spotted with the flesh, do

clearly include this. 9. He adds, many things will warrant separation

from such a particular minister or congregation; which will not warrant

separation from the church national; nor infer it, by Mr. Durham's

acknowledgment (on Scandal, pag. 129.) for if scandals become excessive,

he allows to depart to another congregation. 10. Lastly, He says, There

is a commanded withdrawing from persons and societies even in worship,

the precepts, Rom. xvi. 17. 2 Cor. vi. 17. Prov. xix. 27. Acts ii. 40.

will clearly import this by consequence.--Surely the ministers and

professors, adhering to the reformation, must be the true church of

Scotland, though the lesser number: these soldiers who keep the generals

orders, are the true army, not the deserters of the same.'

But, Secondly, it being in part cleared by these assertions, what is our

mind in this controversy, I shall lay down from scripture oracles, all

the causes and cases justifying and warranting withdrawing from any

ministers; with application of all of them to the curates, and

accommodation of some of them to all that the wanderers withdraw from:

with arguments endeavouring to evince the validity of them, and

evidencing they are not new notions, but the same grounds which approven

authors have improved in this controversy. I shall omit the ordinary

criticisms in stating the question, in distinguishing betwixt hearing

and joining in worship, and owning them as our ministers, and submitting

to them, &c. And only essay to prove this thesis: we cannot, without

sin, own church communion in gospel ordinances with the prelates or

their curates, as our ministers, but must withdraw from them, and any

other guilty of the like corruptions, which we can make out against

them. I shall not resume what confirmations this thesis is strengthned

with, from the testimonies, or church constitutions of former periods,

which are permitted in the foregoing discourse; nor make any repetition

of the circumstances of our present condition, represented above, which

contributes to clear it: but shortly come to the arguments.

I. It is necessary that we must acknowledge them ministers of Christ,

and his ambassadors clothed with his commission, from whom we receive

the ordinances of the gospel. For otherwise they must be looked upon as

thieves, robbers, usurpers, and strangers, whom Christ's sheep will not,

nay must not hear, John x. 1, 5. And "how shall they preach," or be

heard, "except they be sent," Rom. x. 15. For such whom we know may not

lawfully preach, we cannot lawfully hear. These from whom we may receive

the mysteries of God, we must account ministers of Christ, 1 Cor. iv. 1.

and ambassadors for Christ, standing in his stead, beseeching us to be

reconciled to God, 2 Cor. v. 20. Hence such as we doubt to acknowledge

ministers of Christ, clothed with his commission, them we cannot hear

without sin; but the prelatical curates are such as we doubt to

acknowledge ministers of Christ, clothed with his commission: therefore

we cannot hear them. The minor only needs probation. These who neither

have nor can have the qualifications of a minister of Christ, cannot be

acknowledged with confidence to be ministers of Christ clothed with his

commission: but the prelatical curates are such: Ergo----First, they

neither have, nor can have the qualifications of Christ's ministers;

since few of them have the personal, as christians, far less the

ministerial as officers, mentioned 1 Tim. iii. 2, 3. Tit. i. 6, 9.

except it be to be "husbands of one wife," and if that do not make them

ministers, they having nothing else, especially four are wanting in all

of them. (1.) Blamelessness, and freedom from scandal, even such as

affects the office (besides other gross disorders in their life and

conversation, obvious to the view of onlookers, being men who have

denied the faith; and therefore unfit to have the privilege of church

members in any well governed church) being, in the experience of all

that know them signalized under the characters of those that run unsent,

and from whom we are commanded to withdraw: causing the people to err by

their lies, and by their lightness, not sent of God, Jer. xxiii. making

the heart of the righteous sad, and strengthening the hands of the

wicked, Ezek. xiii. 22. See also Ezek. xxxiv. 2, 3. Such as we are

commanded to beware of, Matth. vii. 15, 16. Such as we must mark and

avoid, Rom. xvi. 17, 18. Phil. iii. 2. Disorderly walkers from whom we

must withdraw, 2 Thess. iii. 6. Covenant breakers, from whom we are

commanded to turn away, 2 Tim. iii. 3, 5. They are not then blameless:

and in shewing how fitly these agree unto the persons now spoken of,

time needs not be spent, such as know them can best judge. Hence, such

as either are not fit to be church members, or have all the characters

of such officers from whom we are to withdraw, cannot be acknowledged

capable of the qualifications of the ministers of Christ; but such are

the curates: Ergo----(2.) The qualification of vigilancy cannot be found

with them for all that know them will acknowledge that they neither do,

nor can in preaching the word be "instant in season and out of season,"

so as to make "full proof of their ministry," 2 Tim. vi. 1,--5. Nay,

they can give no proof of their ministry at all, further than may be

competent to dumb dogs that cannot bark, Isa. lvi. 10, 11. For they nor

no man can say, That the diseased they have strengthened, or healed that

which was sick, &c. Ezek. xxxiv. 4. And it is known to all that know

them, that if ever there were any that assumed to themselves the name of

Levites, who departed out of the way, and caused many to stumble at the

law, and corrupted the covenant of Levi, and therefore were deservedly

contemptible and base before all the people, (Mat. ii. 8, 9.) they are

the men. Let any man judge then, whether they have the qualifications of

the messengers of the Lord of hosts. Hence, they that can give no proof

of their ministry, but that which proves them to be such whom the Lord

condemns, and such who deserve to be contemned of all, cannot be

acknowledged to be qualified as the Lord's ministers; but the prelatic

curates can give no proof of their ministry, &c. Ergo----(3.) The

qualification of aptness to teach is wanting; yea, incompatible with

them, not only such of them as are noted for ignorance, of whom clearly

that is verified, they are blind watchmen, they are all ignorant (Isa.

lvi. 10.) but even their greatest clerks and rabbies may fitly be called

after the name of their forefathers, whom Christ calls blind leaders of

the blind, concerning whom he gives a command to let them alone, Mat.

xv. 14. Either generally they are discovered to be such masters of

Israel, as know not these things, John iii. 10. being men not exercised

in religion, and have not learned the truth as it is in Jesus; or they

are such, as if they have had gifts or grace, yet now they are palpably

blasted of God, and so cannot profit the people at all, being such as do

not stand in God's counsel, for then they should have turned the people

from their evil way, and so they are not apt to teach others when they

are not taught of God, but steal his words every one from their

neighbour, clearly discovering they are not sent of him, Jer. xxiii. 21,

22, 30, 32. And because they do not stand in God's counsel, they cannot

declare all the counsel of God, Acts xx. 27. For they can neither be apt

to teach repentance towards God, since they cannot be supposed to be

sensible of these sins to be repented of, for which the land perisheth,

and is burnt up like a wilderness, Jer. ix. 12. For then they would

first repent themselves of their own conformity with prelacy, of their

breach of covenant, &c. All that they can do in such a subject is, to

see vain and foolish things, and not to discover the land's iniquity,

but to see false burdens, and causes of banishment, Lam. ii. 14. Nor can

they be apt to teach faith, seeing in many things they teach otherwise

than Christ hath taught us in his word, and consent not to wholesome

words, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, from such

the command is to withdraw, 1 Tim. vi. 3,--5. whose mouths must be

stopped when they teach things which they ought not, Tit. i. 9,--11.

which is undeniable to all that know what sort of stuff they preach,

contrary to the word of God, and the principles of our covenanted

reformation. Hence if none of them be apt to teach, then none of them is

fit to be heard; but none of them is apt to teach: Ergo----'It is true

private christians may not judge of the endowments and qualifications of

ministers; yet every private christian hath the judgment of discretion,

and that way may judge such an one if he appear qualified according to

the rule of the word; and may doubt if he be a qualified minister before

God, wanting these qualifications which the word requireth,' Apol.

Relat. sect. 15. p. 285. Secondly, They have not the lawful call of a

minister of Christ, so much as an external call of his institution:

which I prove thus. They that have presentations from patrons, and

collations from prelates, and no more for a call, have no lawful call at

all; but the curates have presentations from patrons, and collations

from prelates, and no more for a call: Ergo they have no lawful call at

all. The minor cannot be doubted: 'For, in this government, the

minister's mission, call, ordination, and relation to such a people over

whom he is to officiate, flows all from the prelate; the congregational

eldership hath not the least interest in it: hence the presbyterian way

of calling pastors was ranversed by the parliament, when prelacy was set

up, and the old custom of patronages was restored,' Rectius Instru.

Confut. of 1 Dial. chap. 4. p. 3. The major proposition may be proven by

parts. First, Presentations from patrons cannot give a lawful call; for

besides what other reasons might be given against this old relict of

popish bondage of patronages, it destroys that privilege and liberty of

the church in calling their own pastors, and makes all intruders,

without the church's choice; whereas the flock are allowed a judgment of

discretion, knowledge of, and consent to the admission of their pastors,

to whom they intrust their soul's directions, before they be subject to,

and obey him in the Lord, for otherwise he is a stranger that hath not

come in at the door, and they must not, nor will not be imposed upon,

John x. 1-5. They had an interest in choosing and nominating even the

apostles, though there were other apostles of infallible knowledge, as

to qualifications, present to ordain them; and they appointed two to be

chosen by lot, Acts vi. 23. and even the deacons were looked out and

chosen by the people, and appointed over the business, Acts vi. 3. 'Much

less ought ministers to be thrust upon such a weighty employment, to

pleasure great men who are patrons, since in their faithfulness the

people are infinitely more concerned,' Rectius Instruen. ubi Supra.

Hence, if the curates have no call but what destroys the people's

privilege, they have no lawful call at all, neither ought they to be

owned, or countenanced as called ministers; but by the presentation of

patrons they have no call, but what destroys the people's privilege:

Ergo--Next, collations from prelates cannot give a lawful call: for (1.)

they cannot give that to others which they have not themselves; but they

have not a lawful call themselves, because they are not lawful officers,

as is clear, and may be proven afterwards. (2.) the only way of

conveyance of an ordinary call to this office, is by the act of a

presbytery, Tim. iv. 4. And, by ministers, their ordaining elders in

every church, with the consent of that church; but a prelate's collation

is not this act of a presbytery. (3.) That which only makes a man a

prelate's depute, cannot give him a call to the ministry of Christ; but

this collation only makes a man a prelate's depute. Or thus, a prelate's

depute is no minister; but a curate is a prelate's depute: Ergo----That

a prelate's depute is no minister, I prove; not only from that, that a

prelate, as such, is not a servant of Christ, but an enemy; and

therefore cannot confer upon another, that dignity to be Christ's

servant; but from this, that the scripture allows no derivation of

deputed officers. If no officers of Christ can have deputes of Christ's

institution; then the deputes that they make cannot be Christ's officers

of his institution; but no officers of Christ can have deputes by

Christ's institution: every man that hath any piece of stewardship in

God's family must ever see and execute it immediately by himself, and

wait upon it, Rom. xii. 7, 8. That curates are prelates deputes is

clear: for they are subject to them in order and jurisdiction, and

derive all their power from them, and are accountable to them: therefore

they cannot be acknowledged with confidence of conscience to be Christ's

ministers. 'Because they have not such a visible evidence of the call of

Christ, as, in reason and charity, doth oblige all men to receive the

person so called, as truly sent: which things are so evident in

themselves, that whoever denieth them, is obliged by the same

consequence to affirm, that if Simon Magus had in his horrid wickedness,

purchased the apostleship by money, the Christian world had been bound

to receive him as an apostle,' Naphtali, p. 105, 106, first edition.

That their ministry is the Lord's ordinance is plainly denied, Naphtali,

p. 109. 'They have nothing like a solemn ordination, having no

imposition of hands of the presbytry with fasting and prayer, according

to the order of the gospel, but the sole warrant and mission of the

prelate, and therefore it cannot be lawful to countenance such, and to

look upon them as lawful ministers,' Apol. Relat. sect. 15. pag. 183. It

will be objected here, 1. 'That then their baptism is no baptism, if

they be no ministers.' Ans. '(1.) what sad consequences may follow upon

the nulling of their office, let them see to it who either send such

forth, or employ them.' Apol. Relat. ib. p. 294. the best way to avoid

these inconveniences is not to countenance them. But (2.) the same

answers may serve which are adduced for popish baptisms and ordinations:

and the deed sometimes signifies, That it ought not to be done. Next it

will be, Object. 2. That many of the curates were in the ministry

before, therefore the argument is not stringent against them. Ans. The

one half of it about the qualifications does still urge them, through

the want of which, and their base treachery and betraying their trust,

and perjuries in breaking covenant, they have really forefaulted their

ministry, and loosed all from an obligation to hear them, or any other

to whom these scripture-characters may be applied, and brings all under

the guilt of partaking with them that hear them.

II. It is necessary also, that all whom we may lawfully hear as

ministers and ambassadors of Christ, should not only have had a

commission from Christ, sometimes conveyed to them in his orderly

appointed way, by and from approven church officers; but they must have

it then when we hear them, at this time when we own communion with them.

For if they have sometimes had it, and forefaulted or changed it, by

taking a new right another way, it is all one in point of owning them,

as if they had none at all: and we must not meddle with such

changelings, in things that they and we must not come and go upon, Prov.

xxiv. 21. Now plain it is, that some curates sometimes had a commission

from Christ, when they were presbyters; but now they have changed their

holding, and taken a new right from them who are no officers of Christ,

invested with power to confirm or convey a ministerial mission; and so

they have forefaulted what they had. Mr. Durham, in a digression on this

subject of hearing, shews, that ministers may forefeit, on Revel. chap.

i. p. 55. in 4to. 'In matter of hearing (says he) it is not so hard to

discern, who are to be counted to speak without God's commission;

because ordinarily such have no warrantable call at all (no not in the

outward form, and so cannot be counted but to run unsent) or by palpable

defection from the truth, and commission given them in that call, they

have forefeited their commission: and so no more are to be counted

ambassadors of Christ, or watchmen of his flock, than a watchman of the

city is to be accounted an observer thereof, when he hath publicly made

defection to the enemy, and taken on with him.' Let the indulged and

addressing ministers advert to this: and consider, whether or not the

truly tender have reason to discountenance them, while they continue in

their palpable defection. But undeniably this resells that objection of

the curates ordination before they were curates; for they that change

their holding of a right, and take a new right which is null, they

forego and forefeit their old right, and all right; but the prelatic

curates have changed their holding of their right, and taken a new one,

which is null: therefore they have foregone and forefeited their old

one. The minor I prove thus. They who had a right from Christ by

conveyance of his officers, and take a new grant for the exercise of it,

not from Christ, but by conveyance of such as are none of his officers,

they change their holding, and take a new one, which is null. But the

prelatic curates, who had a right by conveyance of his officers, have

taken a new grant for the exercise of it, not from Christ, but by

conveyance of the prelate, which is none of his officers;

Therefore----The stress of all will ly in the probation of this, that

the prelate is none of Christ's officers, and therefore the conveyance

of a power from him is not from Christ. Which I prove, 1. Because his

office is cross to the very nature of gospel church government, and

therefore he cannot be a gospel church ruler. Christ discharged his

officers to exercise dominion (or lordship, Luke xxii. 25.) or

authority, as the Gentiles did, but that the chiefest should be only a

minister, Matth. xxii. 25, 26. The apostle Paul disclaims dominion over

the church, 2 Cor. i. ult. Peter exhorts the elders not to be lords over

God's heritage, 1 Pet. v. 3. The authority of church-officers then is

not a despotic power, but a ministerial stewardship. But the diocesan

bishop is both a lordly title and power, having all authority in the

diocese derived from him, as being as it were the universal pastor, and

so taking upon him a power, which is neither commanded, nor can be

discharged. Hence, he that subjects his ministry to the domination of a

strange lord, inverting the nature of gospel church-government, cannot

be owned in his ministry; but all curates subject their ministry, &c.

Therefore----2. Because he is an officer distinct from, and superior to

a presbyter or pastor; whereas the scripture makes a bishop and

presbyter all one. The elders of the church of Ephesus are called

episcopi or overseers, Acts xx. 17, 28. An ordained elder must be a

blameless bishop, as the steward of God, Tit. i. 5, 7. Again, it cannot

be shown, where the scripture mentions either name, qualification, work,

duty, or ordination of an ordinary church-officer superior to

presbyters, and which are not likewise appropriate to them who are

called rulers, governors, bishops. In all the holy Ghost's purposed

recitals of ordinary church-officers, there is not the least hint of a

diocesan bishop; and yet a deacon is described the meanest officer in

his work and qualifications. Hence then, if this diocesan prelate be

such an uncouth beast, that neither in name nor nature is found in the

word of God, all the power derived from him is null; but the first is

true: therefore----3. Because every officer in the scripture relates to

the flock (except the extraordinary officers, who were further extended,

now ceased) bishops of Ephesus, were overseers over the flock, Acts xx.

the elders that Peter writes to were over the flock. But this diocesan

antiscriptural monster pretends to be over the shepherds, and invents

new degrees and orders of superiority and inferiority of officers of the

same kind, beside and against the scripture, which makes all apostles

alike, and all evangelists, so all teachers; though there be a

distinction and superiority in diverse kinds, yet not in same. God hath

set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly

teachers, 1 Cor. xii. 28. but not among teachers, some above others, in

a power of order and jurisdiction. Hence, an officer over officers of

the same kind, is not an officer of Christ's institution, and

consequently any power conveyed from him is null; but a prelate pretends

to be an officer, over officers of the same kind: therefore, 4. Because

every officer in the church hath equally, and in perfect parity, equal

power and authority allowed them of God in the exercise of both order

and jurisdiction; all ruling elders may rule alike, and deserve equal

honour; and all preaching elders have the like authority, and the like

honour conferred upon them, 1 Tim. vi. 17. The scripture attributes both

power of order and jurisdiction; to all preaching presbyters equally.

They must oversee the flock (or as the word is, do the part of a bishop

over them) Acts xx. 28. and they must also feed the flock, 1 Pet. v. 2.

Subjection and obedience is due to them all alike: all that are over us

and admonish us, we must esteem highly for their work's sake, 1 Thes. v.

12. and obey and submit ourselves to them that watch for our souls, Heb.

xiii. 17. We find also excommunication belongs to all alike, 2 Cor. ii.

6. and ordination, 1 Tim. iv. 14. But the diocesan prelate takes from

presbyters to himself power of ordination, assuming only his curates for

fashion's sake, and the sole decisive power in church judicatories,

wherein he hath a negative voice; like a Diotrephes, the first prelate

who loved to have the pre-eminence, 3 John 9. the only precedent for

prelacy in the scripture. Hence, he that would take all power to

himself, which is undivided and equal to all officers by Christ's

appointment, hath none by Christ's allowance, but is to be reckoned an

usurping Diotrephes; but the Diocesan prelate would take all the power

to himself, which is undivided and equal to all. By all which it

appears, the prelate being no authorized church-officer of Christ's, no

authority can be derived from him; and so that such as betake themselves

to this pretended power, for warranting them in the function, can

warrantably claim no deference thereupon, nor can be owned as ministers,

whatever they were before. 'For this were an acknowledging of the power

and authority of prelates (especially when the law commands our hearing

as a submitting to them.) The reason is, because these men came forth

from the prelate, having no other call or warrant but what the prelate

giveth: and so a receiving of them will be a receiving of the prelate,

as a refusing of them will be accounted a slighting of the prelate and

his power,' Apol. Relat. 15. p. 272.

III. It is necessary also, that all with whom we own communion as

ministers, should be Christ's ambassadors, having then, when we hear

them, and holding still their commission from Christ as king, and only

head of his church: conveyed not only from church-officers, in a way

that he hath revealed as the prophet of his church, but in a way of

dependence upon, and subordination to Christ as king, who ascending far

above principalities and powers, appointed and gave the gifts of the

ministry, Eph. iv. 8, 11. and set them in the church, 1 Cor. xii. 28.

and gave them commission to go and teach the nations, by virtue of that

all power that was given to him in heaven and earth, Matth. xxviii. 18,

19. If then they take a new holding, and close with a new conveyance of

the ministry, and of the power to exercise the same, from a new

architectonic usurped power in the church, encroaching on Christ's royal

prerogative, we dare not homologate such an affront to Christ, as to

give them the respect of his ambassadors, when they became the servants

of men, and subject even in ministerial functions to another head than

Christ, for then they are the ministers of men, and by men, and not by

Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead, because

they do not hold the head, Col. ii. 19. Hence those that receive and

derive their church power from, and are subordinate in its exercise to,

another head than Christ Jesus, should not be received and subjected to

as the ministers of Christ in his church; but the prelates and their

curates do receive and derive their church power from, and are

subordinate in its exercise to, another head than Christ: therefore they

should not be received, &c. The first proportion cannot be denied, the

second is proved thus: Those officers in the church, professing

themselves such, that derive their church power from, and are

subordinate in its exercise to, a power truly architectonic and supreme

in the church (to wit the magistrate) beside Christ, do derive their

power from, and are subordinate in its exercise to another head than

Christ Jesus; but so it is that prelates and their curates do derive,

&c. Therefore----The major is evident; for whosoever hath a supreme

architectonic power in and over the church, must be a head to the same,

and the fountain of all church-power. The minor is also clear, from the

foregoing historical deduction, manifesting the present prelacy to be

gross erastianism; for the disposal of the government of the church is

declared by law to be the crown-right, and and an inherent perpetual

prerogative, and thereupon the bishops are restored to the episcopal

function; it is expressly declared, that there is no church power in the

church office-bearers, but what depends upon, and is subordinate unto

the supremacy, and authorized by the bishops, who are declared

accountable to the king for the administration; by virtue of which

ecclesiastic supremacy, he put excommunication, and spiritual censures,

and consequently the power of the keys, into the hands of persons merely

civil, in the act for the high commission. Hence it is clear, that as

the fountain of all church government, he imparts his authority to such

as he pleases, and the bishops are nothing else but his commissioners in

the exercise of that ecclesiastic power, which is originally in himself,

and that the curates are only his under clerks. All the stress will ly

in proving, that this monster of a supremacy, from which the prelates

and their curates have all their authority, is a great encroachment on

the glory of Christ as king; which will appear, if we will briefly

consider these particulars. 1. It usurps upon Christ's prerogative, who

only hath all undoubted right to this architectonic and magisterial

dominion over the church, his own mediatory kingdom; not only an

essential right by his eternal Godhead, being the everlasting Father,

whose goings forth hath been of old, from everlasting, Isa. ix. 6. Mic.

v. 2. in recognizance of which, we own but one God the Father, and one

Lord, by whom are all things, and we by him, 1 Cor. viii. 6. but also a

covenant-right, by compact with the Father, to bear the glory and rule

upon his throne, by virtue of the counsel of peace between them both,

Zech. vi. 13. A donative right by the Father's delegation, by which he

hath all power given in heaven and in earth, Mat. xxviii. 18. and all

things given into his hand, John iii. 35. and all judgment and authority

to execute it, even because he is the Son of man, John v. 22, 27. and to

be head over all things to the church, Eph. 1. 22. An institute right,

by the Father's inauguration, who hath set him as King in Sion, Psal.

ii. 6. and appointed him governor, that shall rule over his people

Israel, Matth. ii. 6. An acquisite right, by his own purchase, by which

he hath merited and obtained, not only subjects to govern, but the glory

of the sole sovereignty over them in that relation. A name above every

name, Phil. ii. 9. which is, that he is the head of the church, which

is as much his peculiar prerogative, as to be Saviour of the body, Eph.

v. 23. A bellical right by conquest, making the people fall under him,

Psal. xlv. 4. and be willing in the day of his power, Psal. cx. 3. and

overcoming those that make war with him, Rev. xvii. 14. An hereditary

right by proximity of blood and promogeniture, being the first born,

higher than the kings of the earth, Psal. lxxxix. 27. and the first born

from the dead, that in all things he might have the pre-eminence, Col.

i. 18. An elective right, by his people's choice and surrender, having a

crown wherewith his mother crowned him in the day of his espousals,

Cant. iii. last verse. By all which undoubted titles, it is his sole

incommunicable prerogative, without a co-partner or competitor,

co-ordinate or subordinate, to be judge, and only lawgiver, and king in

spirituals, Isa. xxxiii. 22. to be that one lawgiver, Jam. iv. 12. who

only can give the power of the keys to his officers, (which comprehends

all the power they have) Matth. xvi. 9. to be that one Master over all

church officers, who are but brethren, Matth. xxiii. 8, 10. in whose

name only they must perform all church acts, and all parts of their

ministry, and not in the name of any mortal, Matth. xxviii. 18, 19.

Matth. xviii. 20. from whom only they receive whatever they have to

deliver to the church, 1 Cor. xi. 23. to be the only instituter of his

officers, who hath set them in the church, 1 Cor. xii. 28. and gave them

to the church, Eph. iv. 11. whose ambassadors only they are, 2 Cor. v.

20. from whom they have authority for edification of the church, 2 Cor.

x. 8. 2 Cor. xiii. 10. in whose name only they are to assemble, and keep

and fence their courts, both the least, Matth. xviii. 20. and the

greatest, Acts xv. But now also this is usurped by one who is not so

much as a church-member, let be a church-officer, as such: for the

magistrate is neither, as he is a magistrate, otherwise all magistrates

would be church-members. Hence they that have all their power from a

mere usurper on Christ's prerogative, who is neither member nor officer

of the church, have none at all to be owned or received as his lawful

ambassadors; but the prelates and their curates have all their power

from a mere usurper on Christ's prerogative, who is neither member nor

officer of the church: Ergo----2. It confounds the mediatory kingdom of

Christ with, and subjects it to, the kingly government of the world,

removes the scripture land-marks and limits between civil and

ecclesiastic powers in making the governors of the state to be governors

of the church, and denying all church-government in the hands of

church-officers, distinct from and independent upon the civil

magistrate: which clearly derogates from the glory of Christ's mediatory

kingdom, which is altogether distinct from, and not subordinate to the

government of the world, both in the old testament and in the new. For,

they have distinct fountains whence they flow; civil government flows

from God Creator, church government from Christ the Lord Redeemer, Head

and King of his church, whose kingdom is not of this world, John xviii.

36. though for this end he came into the world, that he should have a

kingdom there, verse 37. They have distinct objects: civil government

hath a civil object, the outward man; church government a spiritual

object, men considered as Christians; in the old testament, the matters

of the Lord are clearly distinguished from the matters of the king, 2

Chron. xix. last verse. In the new testament, there are matters of

church cognizance which do not at all belong to the civil magistrate;

as, in the case of offence, they must tell the church, not the civil

magistrate, Matth. xviii. 15, 20. In the case of excommunication, the

church is to act by virtue of the power of the Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Cor.

v. 4, 5. not by the magistrate's power; in the case of absolution, the

church is to judge what punishment is sufficient, and what evidence of

repentance is sufficient to remove it, 2 Cor. ii. 6, 7. So in the case

of trial and ordination of ministers, &c. None of those belong to the

magistrate. They have distinct natures: the civil is a magisterial, the

ecclesiastic is a ministerial government; the one is the power of the

sword, the other of the keys; the one put forth in political

punishments, the other in ecclesiastic censures: In the old testament,

the magistrate's power was coactive, by death, banishment, confiscation,

&c. Ezra vii. 26. the church, but putting out of the synagogue,

interdiction from sacred things, &c. In the new testament, the

magistrate's power is described, Rom. xiii. to be that of the sword by

punishment; the power of the church only in binding and loosing, Matth.

xvi, 19. They have distinct ends, the end of the one being the good of

the commonwealth, the other the church's edification: In the old

testament, the end of the civil government was one thing, and of the

church another, to wit, to warn not to trespass against the Lord, in

that forecited, 2 Chron. xix. 10. In the new testament, the end of

magistratical power is to be a terror to evil works, and a praise to the

good, Rom. xiii. 3. but the end of church power is edification, 1 Cor.

v. 5. 2 Cor. x. 8. 2 Cor. xiii. 10. They have distinct courts of

officers: in the old testament, the distinction of the civil and

ecclesiastic Sanhedrim is known, where there were distinct causes, and

persons set over them to judge them respectively, 2 Chron. xix. last

verse. In the new testament, we find officers given unto the church, 1

Cor. xii. 28. with no mention of the civil magistrate at all, and church

assemblies distinct from parliaments or senates (yea, when the

magistrate was an enemy) determining questions that did not belong to

the magistrate at all, Acts xv. we have rulers distinct from the rulers

of the commonwealth, 1 Thess. v. 12. whom we are to obey and submit

ourselves to as those who are accountable to Christ only, for to whom

else can they give account of souls? Heb. xiii. 17. we have rulers

inferior to labourers in word and doctrine, not to be honoured so much

as they: sure these cannot be civil rulers, 1 Tim. v. 17. we have rulers

commended for trying impostors, which were not magistrates, Rev. ii. 2.

And others who are rebuked for suffering hereticks, ibid. ver. 14, 15,

20. which supposes they had authority to do it; yet distinct from and

not depending on the magistrate. Besides it is from the confusion of the

two governments together, and making the supreme magistrate to be

supreme governor of the church, would follow many absurdities; as that

they who are not church-members should be church-officers, even heathen

magistrates; yea women should be church-officers; and none should be

chosen for magistrates, but such as have the qualifications of

church-officers. See Apol. Relat. Sect. 12. pag. 190. Rectius Instruen.

Confut. 1. Dial. chap. 6. pag. 50. Hence, they that in deriving their

authority do confound the two governments, civil and ecclesiastic, and

take it all from a mere civil power, cannot be owned as having any

authority of Christ's institution: but the prelates and their curates,

in deriving their authority, do confound the two governments civil and

ecclesiastic, and take it all from a mere civil power. This same

argument equally militates against hearing the indulged ministers, who

have taken a licence and warrant from the usurper of this supremacy:

because it is highly injurious to Christ's headship; very contrary to

presbyterian principles; clearly homologatory of the supremacy; plainly

prejudicial to the power of the people; very much establishing

erastianism; sadly obstructive and destructive to the good of the

church; wronging our cause and ground of suffering; strengthening the

prelates hands; contradictory to our covenants; prejudging the meetings

of God's people; and heinously scandalous and offensive: as is clear by,

and unanswerably proven in the history of the indulgence.

IV. There is a necessity that any man whom we may join with as a

minister, must not only be a minister, and a minister clothed with

Christ's commission then, when we join with him, but he must also have a

right to administer there where we join with him. Else we can look upon

him no otherwise than a thief and a robber, whom Christ's sheep should

not hear, John x. 1-5. Now the prelates and curates, though they should

be accounted and acknowledged ministers, yet they have not a right to

officiate where they have intruded themselves. Hence we have several

arguments, as 1. They who have no just authority, nor right to officiate

fixedly in this church as the proper pastors of it, ought not to be

received but withdrawn from: but the prelates and their curates have no

just authority, or right to officiate in this church as her proper

pastors: therefore they ought not to be received, but withdrawn from.

All the debate is about the minor, which may thus be made good. They who

have entered into and do officiate fixedly in this church, without her

authority and consent, have no right so to do: but the prelates and

their curates have entered into and officiate fixedly in this church,

without her authority and consent: Ergo--The major is manifest: for if

this church have a just right and power of electing and calling of

ministers, then they who enter into and officiate fixedly in this

church, without her authority and consent, have no just authority or

right so to do: But this church hath a just right and power of electing

and calling of ministers, as all true churches have. And, if it were not

evident from what is said above, might be easily demonstrated from

scripture. The minor, to wit, that the prelates and their curates have

entered into and officiate fixedly in this church, without her authority

and consent, is evident, from matter of fact: for there was no

church-judicatory called or convocated, for bringing of prelates into

this church; but on the contrary her judicatories were all cashiered and

discharged, and all her officers turned out to let them in; and all was

done immediately by the king and acts of parliament without the church;

a practice wanting a precedent in this, and (for any thing we know) in

all other churches: All that the curates can say is, that they came in

by the bishop and patron, who are not the church, nor have any power

from her for what they do; all their right and power is founded upon and

derived from the supremacy, whereby the diocesan erastian prelate is

made the king's delegate and substitute, only impowered thereto by his

law. This is Mr. Smith's, 1st and 6th argum. If 'we suppose a particular

congregation acknowledging their own lawful pastor, and a few violent

persons arise and bring in a minister by plain force, and cast out their

lawful pastor; are not the faithful in that church obliged to relinquish

the intruder, and not only discountenance him, but endeavour his

ejection?' This is our case, Naphtali, pag. 106. Sect. 5. first edition.

2. If we cannot submit to these curates, without consenting to the great

encroachments made upon the privileges of this church, then we cannot

submit to them without sin; but we cannot submit to them without

consenting to the great encroachments made upon the privileges of this

church: therefore we cannot submit to them without sin. The minor is all

the question: but instances will make it out. As first, The robbing of

the privilege of election of her pastors, and substituting the bondage

of patrons presentations, is a great encroachment upon the privilege of

this church: but accepting of curates as ministers lawfully called,

notwithstanding that they want the election of the people, and have

nothing for their warrant but a presentation from the patron, were a

consenting to that robbery and wicked substitution. It will be of no

force to say, Our forefathers did submit to this, and to a ministry who

had no other call. This is answered above in the narrative; 'tis a poor

consequence to say, The posterity may return backward, because their

forefathers could not advance further forward. Secondly, The thrusting

out of lawful ministers without any cause but their adhering to the

covenanted work of reformation, and thrusting in others in their rooms

who denied the same, is a great encroachment on the churches privileges;

but embracing and encouraging curates by countenancing their pretended

ministry, were a consenting to this violent extrusion and intrusion. The

minor is proven thus. They who leave the extruded, and countenance the

intruded, they consent to the extrusion and intrusion, and declare they

confess the intruded's right is better than his who is extruded: but

they who embrace and encourage curates by countenancing their pretended

ministry, do leave the extruded, to wit, their old ministers, and

countenance the intruded: Ergo----To say, that people, in this case,

should protest against these encroachments is frivolous; for withdrawing

is the best protestation: and if after their protestation they still

countenance the encroachment, they should undo their own protestation.

The same argument will militate against countenancing the indulged, or

any that obtained authority to preach in any place by a power

encroaching on the churches liberties. There is an objection to be

removed here, from Matth. xxiii. 2, 3. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in

Moses chair; therefore whatever they bid you observe, that observe and

do; therefore they who, without a title, usurp the office, may be heard.

Ans. 1. The case is no-ways alike; for then the Lord had no other church

in the world but that, which was confined in its solemnities of worship

to that place, where they intruded themselves: he had not yet instituted

the New Testament form of administration in its ordinances and officers.

Therefore the head of the church being present might give a toleration,

during pleasure: but it is not so now. But, 2. Our Lord's words bear no

command for the people to hear them at all, but only not to reject sound

doctrine, because it came from them: surely he would not bid them hear

such, as he calls plants that his Father had never planted, whom he

bids let alone, Matth. xv. 13, 14. and who were thieves and robbers whom

his sheep should not hear.

V. They must not only be ministers, and acknowledged as such then and

there, when and where we join with them; but they must be such as we can

own church communion with in the ordinances administrated by them, as to

the matter of them. Otherwise if they pervert and corrupt their

ministry, by preaching and maintaining errors, either in doctrine,

worship, discipline, or government, contrary to the scriptures, our

confessions, and principles of our covenanted reformation, and

contradictory to our testimony founded thereupon, and agreeable

thereunto, maintaining errors condemned thereby, or condemning truths

maintained thereby, we must withdraw from them. For if any seek to turn

us away from the Lord our God, we must put away that evil, and not

consent nor hearken to them, Deut. xiii. 5, 8. We must cease to hear the

instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge, Prov. xix.

27. We must have a care of these leaders that will cause us to err lest

we be destroyed with them, Isa. ix. 16. we must mark these who

contradict the doctrine that we have learned, and avoid them, Rom. xvi.

17. If any man teach otherwise we must withdraw ourselves from such, 1

Tim. vi. 3, 5. If there come any, and bring not this doctrine, we must

not receive him, nor bid him God speed, in that work of his preaching or

practising against any of the truths, we have received from the word, 1

John x. 11. Hence we must not hear false teachers, who, in preaching and

prayer, bring forth false doctrine contrary to the principles of our

reformation; but the curates are false teachers, who, in preaching and

prayer, bring forth false doctrine, &c. Therefore we must not hear them.

The minor is certain, in that not only many of them are tainted with

points of Popery and Arminianism; but all of them do teach false

doctrine tending to seduce the hearers: when in their preaching they

cry up the lawfulness of prelacy, and vent bitter invectives against

presbyterian government, condemn the work of reformation, and inveigh

against the covenant, and so teach and encourage people to follow them

in open perjury, and condemning all our testimony, as nothing but

treason and sedition; which we are persuaded is truth, and that

therefore they are blasphemers: and in their prayers, stuffed with

error, and larded with blasphemy, they reproach the work of reformation,

and the power of godliness, and pray for a blessing on the prelates, and

on their courses which are cursed; besides their parasitick prayers for

the king, to be blessed in his government when stated in opposition to

Christ, and several other things that tender consciences cannot go along

with them therein. And yet if they hear them, they must go along and

actively concur with them, as their mouth to God. If it be objected

here, that this doth not strike against all, nor against any at all

times, because some preach always sound doctrine, and all preach

sometime sound doctrine, and the like may be said of their prayers:

therefore sometimes at least they may be heard. I answer 1. This may be

alledged for all hereticks, who do all at sometimes preach sound

doctrine, and yet these scriptures are stringent against them at all

times, which I have adduced; for by these fruits which they bring forth

at sometimes, they shew themselves to be such as we must beware of at

all times. 2. We cannot know when they will preach sound doctrine,

seeing by their subjection to that government, they are obliged to

maintain prelacy, and impugn our covenanted constitution.

VI. They must not only be such as we can join with in the ordinances as

to the matter of them, but in the manner also they must be such

administrators, as we are obliged in charity to think the Lord will

approve of them, and their administrations, and of us in our communion

with them; or at least, that, in their manner of dispensing ordinances,

they be not such as we find are under a recorded sentence of dreadful

punishment, both against them and their partakers: for if it be so, it

is as sufficient a ground to withdraw from them, as for men to withdraw

from a company staying in a house, that they see will fall and smother

them in its ruin; yea it is as warrantable to separate from them, as for

Israel to separate themselves from the congregation of the rebels who

were to be consumed in a moment, Numb. xvi. 21. or for the Lord's people

to come out of Babylon, that they receive not of her plagues, Rev.

xviii. 4. Now we find that not only the prophets of Baal, and enticers

to idolatry, and leaders to error upon the matter are threatened, and

the people for adhering to them, but we find also (as is observed by

Rectius Instruendum confut. dial chap. 1. pag. 21.) many terrible

charges and adjurations laid upon ministers, in reference to a faithful

diligence in their ministerial function, and a suitable testimony

concerning the sin and duty of the time, that they are commanded to cry

aloud and shew the people their sin, Isa. lviii. 1. and as they would

not have the blood of souls upon them, to give faithful warning touching

the peoples case and hazard, sin and duty, especially in times of great

sin and judgment, when God is terribly pleading his controversy with

them, Ezek. iii. 17. therefore they must be instant in season and out of

season, 2 Tim. iv. 2. And for their negligence and unfaithfulness

herein, we find many scripture woes and threatenings thundered against

them. When in the deceit of their own heart they promise assured peace,

when the Lord is pleading against a generation, they are threatened to

be consumed with sword and famine, and the people to whom they prophesy

shall be cast out in the streets, Jer. xiv. 13, 15, 16. therefore we

dare not admit them to prophesy to us. When they strengthen the hands,

and harden the hearts of evil doers, that none doth return from his

wickedness, the Lord threatens to feed them with wormwood, and commands

not to hearken to them, Jer. xxiii. 14.-16. their blood shall be

required at their hands, Ezek. iii. 18. one builds a wall, and another

daubs it with untempered morter, then ye, O great hailstones shall fall,

and they shall be consumed in the midst thereof, Ezek. xiii. 10, 11, 14,

18, 22. we dare not join with either builders or daubers of such a work,

as is carried on to the dishonour of Christ and ruining of reformation,

nor by our countenance and concurrence strengthen either builders or

daubers; lest we also be consumed in the midst thereof. When there is a

conspiracy of the prophets, and the priests violate the law, and profane

holy things, and shew no difference between the unclean and the clean,

then the Lord will pour out his indignation upon all, Ezek. xxii.

25,--to the end. We would endeavour to keep ourselves free of having any

hand in that conspiracy. These scriptures do give the perfect

pourtracture of our curates, in the conviction of all that know them.

Hence we draw a complex argument: such ministers as can do no good by

their ministry, but a great deal of hurt to their hearers, and expose

themselves and them both to the indignation of a jealous God, are not to

be heard; but the curates are such as can do no good by their ministry,

but a great deal of hurt to their hearers, and expose themselves and

them both to the indignation of the jealous Lord: therefore they are not

to be heard. The connexion of the major is clear from what is said

above. The minor is also evident from the application of these

scriptures, thus: they that in the deceit of their own heart promise

peace to, and strengthen the hands of evil doers, and give them not

warning, but seduce them by daubing their wickedness, and shew no

difference between the unclean and the clean, &c. are such as can do no

good by their ministry, but a great deal of hurt to hearers, and expose

themselves and them both to the indignation of God; but the curates are

such, and all others, who are so unfaithful as to give no warning

against, but justify the sins of the times. To be short, the minor of

both these foregoing arguments is evident from the experience of all

that go to the curates, who wrong thereby their own souls, mar their

edification; and run to cisterns without water. What blessing can be

expected upon the labours of such, who having perjured themselves in

taking on with the prelates, are prosecuting that course of defection,

and making themselves captains to lead the people back to Egypt,

encouraging profanity and wickedness, being themselves patterns and

patrons of the times corruptions? And seeing a blessing cannot be

expected upon their labours, but rather a curse, as daily experience

maketh good, when instead of any work of conversion or conviction among

people, there is nothing seen but a fearful hardening in profanity,

ignorance and atheism: so that many that seemed to have somewhat like

religion before, through hearing of them, are turned loose and lax in

all duties: yea never can it be instanced these twenty-seven years, that

they have brought one soul to Christ, from darkness to light, and from

the power of Satan unto God: but many instances might be given of their

murdering souls, as indeed they cannot be free of it, who cannot warn

nor declare the whole counsel of God. Hence these who cannot but be

soul-murderers, may not be heard nor entertained as soul-physicians; but

the curates cannot but be soul-murderers. Again, we can expect no good

from them, but a great deal of hurt; seeing their ministry is not the

Lord's ordinance, which he will approve, and no performances can be

acceptable unto the Lord which are not, in manner as well as in matter,

agreeable to his will: hence the wickedness even of the Lord's lawful

priests, not only caused the people to abhor the offerings of the Lord,

but even the Lord himself to abhor his sanctuary, and to account their

incense an abomination, so that he could not away with the calling of

their assemblies, which yet upon the matter were duties. Should not we

then hate that which the Lord hates, and withdraw from that which he

hath forsaken? But the meetings of the curates for administration of

ordinances in their way, the Lord hates, and hath signally forsaken:

therefore we should hate and forsake them. This is confirmed by what Mr.

Durham says in that digression about hearing, Rev. 1. page 55. in

quarto, 'Seeing edification is God's gift, can it be expected but in his

way, or can that be accounted his way which he hath not warranted.'

VII. As we would not partake of their judgment in countenancing of their

administration of ordinances, so we would keep ourselves free from all

participation of their sin; for we must not be partakers with any in

sin, nor have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, that we

must reprove, and that we find the Lord reproves and condemns, Eph. v.

7, 11. and not only ministers in ordaining, but people in hearing, may

be in hazard of partaking of some mens sins, who enter into the

ministry, 1 Tim. v. 22. we must keep at the greatest distance from sin:

hence if we hear the curates without partaking of their sin, then we

must not hear them; but we cannot hear the curates without partaking of

their sin: therefore we must not hear them. The minor I prove. If

hearing of them be a tessera of our incorporation with them, a test of

our submission to them, a badge of our compliance with them, and sign of

our approbation of them, then we cannot hear them without partaking of

their sin; but hearing of them is such: the major cannot be denied, if

prelacy and conformity therewith be sin, as is in part proven above: for

if these be sins, then we must not incorporate with, nor submit to them,

nor comply with them, nor approve them. The minor I prove by parts. 1.

Hearing of curates is a tessera of our incorporation with them; for

communion in sacred things doth infer an incorporation of the

communicants or joiners in all cases, both in lawful and unlawful

communions, 1 Cor. x. 17.-20. All partakers of the bread are one body,

and they which eat of the sacrifices are partakers of the altar; and

also they that partake of the sacrifice offered to devils, though they

do not offer it so themselves, yet they are incorporate, and have

fellowship with devils. And 2 Cor. vi. 14.-17. where they that do not

come out, and are separate from unlawful communions, are expostulated

with, as making an unequally yoked fellowship between righteousness and

unrighteousness, light and darkness, Christ and Belial, the temple of

God and idols: hence then, if we cannot partake of their sacred things,

without partaking of their altar, and becoming one body with them, and

making such an unequally yoked mixture with them, then we must be

separate; but the first is true from these places. This argument

concludes with equal force, against joining with any deeply engaged in

the gross defections of the time. 2. Hearing of curates is a test of our

submission to them, and compliance with them: for so it is required by

law, as the acts themselves say, 'That a chearful concurrence,

countenance, and assistance given to such ministers, and attending all

the ordinary meetings for divine worship, is an evidence of a due

acknowledgment of, and hearty compliance with his majesty's government

ecclesiastical and civil, as now established by law within this

kingdom,' Act of Parl. July 10, 1663. And themselves look on all such as

obey this act as their friends. Hence, if this be sinful to submit to

them, and comply with their establishment, in obedience to a sinful act

of parliament, then it is sinful to hear them; but the former is true,

as hath been shown: Therefore----3. Hence it follows, by native

consequence, that hearing of curates is a sign of our approbation of

them: for he that gives that which is required, and accepted, and

interpreted as an evidence of a due acknowledgment, and of compliance

with the government ecclesiastical, gives the sign of his approbation

of it; but the hearer of curates does that in obedience to the act

requiring accepting, and expresly interpreting it so: therefore, &c.

VIII. As we would be free of their sin, in approving of, and complying

with their course; so we must endeavour to stand at the greatest

distance from all appearance of sin in ourselves, either by commission

or omission, in which our joining with them in these circumstances would

involve us. For we must abstain from all appearance of evil, 1 Thess. v.

22. and from every thing that circumstances may make sinful: for

otherwise, suppose a thing might be materially lawful and not sinfully

sinful, yet circumstances may make it sinful, and a countenancing it so

circumstantiated, doth infer a communion in these circumstances that

makes it sinful. They that eat of the sacrifice are partakers of the

altar, and if the altar be not of God's approbation, the thing offered,

though otherwise lawful to be eaten, cannot justify the eaters, so

circumstantiated. An idol is nothing, and that which is offered in

sacrifice to idols is nothing, yet they who eat of it, when they know it

is so circumstantiated, have fellowship with devils, 1 Cor. x. 18, 19,

20, 21. And it is called idolatry, comp. verse 14. which provokes the

Lord to jealousy, verse 22. Especially when an action is so

circumstantiated, that it would infer an omission of our duty, and a

declining from or denying of our testimony, then it is clearly sinful.

For whosoever shall deny the Lord before men, him will he deny before

his Father, Matth. x. 33. And we must 'hold fast the profession of our

faith without wavering,' Heb. x. 23. and 'keep the word of his

patience,' if we would be kept in the hour of temptation, and hold it

fast that no man take our crown, Rev. iii. 10, 11. 'All truth must be

avowed, and practically avowed, on the greatest hazard: and as this

testimony must be full so must it be also constant. It was Demas's

shame, that the afflictions of the gospel made him forsake the apostle,

after great appearances for Christ: and therefore whatever truth or duty

is opposed, that becomes the special object of this testimony.' Rectius

instruend. confut. 3. Dial. Chap. 1. Pag. 18, 19. Hence, if hearing of

the curates would infer and involve us under the guilt both of

commission of sin, and omission of duty, then we cannot hear them

without sin; but the former is true; therefore also the latter. I prove

the minor by parts. First, That it would infer and involve us under the

guilt of commission of sin, all that is said above doth evince it; and

besides, palpable breach of covenant, hereafter to be charged and

cleared: and idolatry is a great sin of that nature; but the hearing of

the curates doth infer this. Which may be made out thus; the breach of

the second commandment is idolatry, (for to make the sins against that

command odious, they are all comprehended under that odious name of

worshipping images, as the sins against the seventh are called adultery,

comprehending all unchaste thoughts, words, and actions); hearing of

curates is a breach of the second command: Ergo----The minor I prove

thus: Every worship, not according to Christ's appointment, is a breach

of the second commandment; but hearing of curates is a worship not

according to Christ's appointment. Which I prove thus: a worship

enjoined by, and performed in obedience to a law, establishing a human

ordinance in the church, besides and against the institution of Christ,

is a worship not according to Christ's appointment; but the hearing of

curates is a worship enjoined by, and performed in obedience to a law

establishing a human ordinance, to wit Diocesan Erastian prelacy, with

the curates their substitutes. Hence also the second doth follow by

necessary consequence, that it would infer and involve us under the

guilt of omission of duty. For, first, If reductively it may involve us

under the guilt of idolatry and breach of the second commandment, then

it will infer the guilt of omission of these necessary duties incumbent

to the Lord's people with a reference to idolatry; to make no covenant

with them nor with their gods, nor let them dwell in the land, lest they

make us sin, Exod. xxiii. 32. 33. Exod. xxxiv. 14, 15. to overthrow

their altars, and break their pillars, and destroy the names of them out

of the place, Deut. xii. 3. Judg. ii. 2. I do not adduce these precepts,

to stretch them to the full measure of the demerit of the grossest of

idolaters: for as there are degrees of breaches of the commandment, some

grosser, some smaller, so there are also degrees of punishment, and as

to the manner of destroying and extirpating all pieces of idolatry; but

that the commands being founded upon a moral ground, lest they be sins

and snares unto us, do oblige us to some endeavour of expelling,

extirpating and overthrowing all pieces of idolatry, according to the

word and our covenants; 'and that the true and right zeal of God should

and would not only inspire all with an unanimous aversion against the

profane intruding curates, but animate us as one man to drive away these

wolves and thieves, and to eradicate these plants which our heavenly

Father never planted,' Naph. Prior edit. pag. 108. The least duty that

can be inferred is that of the apostles, flee from idolatry, 1 Cor. x.

14. which idolatry, there mentioned to be avoided, is to eat of the

sacrifices offered to idols: whence we infer, that if to eat of things

consecrated to idols be idolatry, then also to partake of sacred things

consecrated by idols must be idolatry; as the curates dispensing of

ordinances is consecrated by, and hath all its sanction from an idol of

Diocesan Erastian prelacy; but we see the apostle expresses the former:

therefore we may infer the latter. Further, It will also infer a

declining from, and denying a necessary testimony, in the case

circumstantiated. Even the smallest matter is great, when a testimony

is concerned in it, were it but the circumstance of an open window;

Daniel durst not omit it upon the greatest hazard. And now this is

clearly come to a case of confession, when there is no other way to

exoner our 'consciences before God and the world, and declare our

non-conformity to this course of backsliding, no getting of wrongs

redressed, or corruptions in the ministry removed, but by this practice;

and certainly some way we must give public testimony against these

courses, and there is no other way so harmless and innocent as this,

though suffering follow upon it,' Apol. Relat. Sect. 14. 272, 273. And

now there is no other way apparent, whereby the difference shall be kept

up betwixt such as honestly mind the covenanted work of reformation, and

the corrupt prelatical and malignant enemies; but this argument also

will infer the expediency of withdrawing from all ministers, with whom

our circumstantiate joining would involve us in a participation with

their defections.

IX. As we would endeavour to avoid sin in ourselves; so we must have a

care to give no occasion of others sinning, by our taking liberty in a

promiscuous joining in church communion, whereby we may offend and

stumble the conscience of others: for to that, in this as well as in

other things, we must have a special respect, and forbear things, not

only for our own unclearness, but for the sake of others also. If

therefore the hearing of curates be a scandal, we must refuse it, be the

hazard what will: for 'whoso shall offend one of Christ's little ones,

it were better for him that a milstone were hanged about his neck,'

Matth. xviii. 6. 'No man must put a stumbling block, or an occasion to

fall in his brother's way,' Rom. xiv. 13. They that 'sin so against the

brethren, and wound their weak conscience, they sin against Christ,' 1

Cor. viii. 12. we must forbear some things for conscience sake.

Conscience, I say, not our own, but of others, giving none offence,

neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God,' 1

Cor. x. 28, 29, 32. and so 'cut off all occasion from them that desire

occasion,' 2 Cor. xi. 12. 'These commands discharge whatever practice

gives occasion of our brother's sinning, of calling truth in question,

of acting with a doubting conscience, or which weakens his plerophory or

assurance; and neither the lawfulness nor indifferency of the thing

itself, nor mens authority commanding it, nor the weakness, yea, or

wickedness of those in hazard to be stumbled, will warrant the doing of

that out of which offence arises,' Rectius Instruend. Confut. 3. Dial.

chap. 1. p. 19. Mr. Durham in that forecited place saith, 'It carries

offence along with it; in reference to the party who runs unsent, it

proves a strengthening and confirming of him, and so a partaking of his

sin; in reference to others, either strengthens them by that example, to

cast themselves in that snare, which possibly may be their ruin; or it

grieves them, and makes them sad, who are tender of such things, or

gives occasion to make all difference of that kind to be thought light

of.' Hence, if hearing of the curates be an offence or scandal, both in

reference to malignants, and in reference to the godly, and in reference

to the posterity, then it must be avoided; but the former is true: which

is evidenced by parts. First, in reference to malignants, it hardens and

encourages them in their opposition to the work of God, and all

backsliders and compliers with them in their apostacy; this strengthens

their hands in their wicked courses, when they see how they are

countenanced by all, and that there is no disrespect put upon them, nor

dissatisfaction evinced against their courses, then they conclude that

they are approven of all: and this hardeneth them, so that they never

once think of the evil of their ways. Next, in reference to the godly,

stumbles the truly tender, by encouraging them to do contrary to their

light and conscience, even when they are not clear to hear them, then

they are emboldened thereunto when they see others doing so; and so it

tends to the wounding of their peace, and makes them halt in the ways of

the Lord. Lastly, With reference to posterity, it would prejudge them

very much: though now the honest party be not in a capacity to transmit

the work of reformation unto their posterity, in such a manner as were

to be wished: yet they should do something for keeping fresh the memory

of the good old cause, by keeping up some footsteps of a standing

controversy for Zion's interest against the common enemy: but now let

all join with, and own the curates, what appearance of this shall the

posterity see? shall not they conclude that the day is lost, and the

cause is gone, when they see that this generation hath fled the fields,

or rather sold and betrayed the cause, by owning, countenancing, and

complying with the enemy, and no standing testimony against these

corruptions? whereas if there were but this much of a standing

difference, betwixt the people of God and the common enemies of God, to

be seen, posterity shall in some measure be kept from being deceived,

and shall see the interest of Christ not killed nor buried quick, but

living, though in a bleeding condition, and this will occasion their

engaging for Christ, and interesting themselves in the quarrel; and it

is far better to see the cause of Christ owned, though by suffering and

blood, than sold and betrayed by base flenching and complying with

persecutors. This argument may also sound and infer a withdrawing from

the addressing ministers, who, to the great scandal of presbyterians,

give forth their addresses in the name of all of that persuasion.

X. Our duty to themselves, yea our greatest office of love we owe to

them, in order to their conviction, does oblige us to withdraw from

them. This may seem a paradox, yet it will be apparent, if we search

the scriptures, to see what we owe to scandalous brethren. There we find

it is a duty, to endeavour by all lawful means to shame them out of

their sin; and it is an argument of hatred, when we do not rebuke our

neighbour, or when we suffer sin upon him, Lev. xix. 17. If we consider

them then as neighbours and friends, we must use endeavours to take away

their sin from them; if we consider them not as such, but as enemies,

then we must avoid them, and not be mingled with them, as I could adduce

many scriptures for that. But I suppose all that will oppose my thesis,

would have them considered as friends. Well then, if they be scandalous

brethren, this is the way prescribed by the apostle to deal with them,

in order not to suffer sin upon them, that we should withdraw from them

our company; and if we must withdraw our company, then also a fortiori,

we must deny them our religious communion: for that must either be

included there, or necessarily inferred. He writes, not to keep company:

If any man that is called a brother (mark that especially) be a

fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or an extortioner,

with such an one no not to eat, 1 Cor. v. 11. And I presume they that

know them best will grant, that it would not be hard to prove, that all

the curates in Scotland were chargeable with some of these, or at least

partakers with them; and that if they were all impartially impannelled,

they would be rare ones, whom an honest jury would not bring in guilty

of this libel. Then we are expresly commanded 'in the name of our Lord

Jesus Christ, to withdraw ourselves from every brother that walketh

disorderly, and not after the received tradition. And if any man obey

not the word, to note him, and have no company with him, that he may be

ashamed,' 2 Thess. iii. 6, 14. Sure neither their office nor their

innocency can exempt them from these rules. For either they must be

considered as our brethren; or not; if not, then we own no church

communion with them; for that is only among brethren that are so in

sympathy and affection, and affinity, having one father and one mother,

if they be brethren, then all scandalous brethren are to be withdrawn

from; but they are scandalous brethren: therefore they are to be

withdrawn from. The minor will not be doubted by any, but such as are

strangers to them, who both in their ministerial and personal capacity

are so scandalous to the conviction of all, that profaneness hath gone

forth from them into all the land, and they as much as ever the profane

sons of Eli, have made men to abhor the offering of the Lord, 1 Sam. ii.

17. But even strangers, that are unacquaint with their personal

profligateness and ignorance, &c. cannot be altogether ignorant of the

scandal of prelacy and erastianism, in which they are involved, of the

scandal of apostasy, perjury, and breach of covenant, which is their

brand, and the nation's bane, that hath countenanced them. And none can

doubt, but if our church were duly constitute, and invested with the

orderly power of Christ, and in capacity to exercise and improve it,

they would soon be censured every soul of them as scandalous, as they

have been also previously sentenced as such, by the acts of our general

assemblies. This argument levels also against all complying, indulged,

addressing ministers, who by these courses have incurred the character

of disorderly brethren.

XI. Our faithfulness to God, and to one another, engaged in our

covenants, doth oblige us to turn away from them who have broken it, and

so classed themselves among these truce breaking traitors, who make our

times perilous, from whom we must turn away, 2 Tim. iii. 1,--5. It

appears from the foregoing deduction, how solemnly these nations were

engaged, both to keep out and put out this generation of prelatists, now

prevailing; the obligation of which yet lies upon all the inhabitants of

the land, with a binding force, both in regard of their form, and

object and end. Hence, if the curates be covenant-breakers, and we also

in owning them, then we cannot own them without sin; but the curates are

covenant-breakers, and we also in owning them: Ergo----The minor may be

manifest by an induction of all the articles of the solemn league and

covenant, broken by them, and all that own them. 1. That doctrine,

worship, discipline and government in the 1st article, sworn to be

preserved and propagated, was the presbyterian then established, which

our church was in possession of, which they have opposed, and their

owners refiled from, and have not maintained. 2. We are engaged in the

2d article, to endeavour the extirpation of prelacy, and its dependents;

which is diametrically opposite to owning of curates: can we own them

whom we are bound to abhor? and submit to them whom we are bound to

extirpate? Surely this were to rebuild what we have destroyed, see

Napht. p. 104. and since in relation to popery, heresy and schism, this

article obliges us to disown, and not to hear papists and schismatics,

why not also in relation to prelatists, who are greatest schismatics? 3.

They have established and homologated an erastian supremacy, to the

prejudice of true religion, and the liberties of the church and kingdom;

and their owners have abetted and countenanced the same, and not

preserved either the liberties of church or kingdom, contrary to the 3d

article. 4. They have not only concealed and countenanced malignant

enemies to this church and kingdom, but have themselves been real

incendiaries, hindering the reformation of religion, making factions and

parties among them contrary to this league and covenant: and their

hearers are so far from bringing them to condign punishment, that they

have strengthened their hands in their avowed opposition to the

covenants, contrary to the 4th article. 5. They have broken our

conjunction in firm peace and union, and yet their hearers have not

marked and avoided these causers of divisions, contrary to scripture,

and the 5th article. 6. Instead of assisting and defending all these

that entered into this league and covenant, &c. they have been the

greatest persecutors of all them that adhered to it; and their owners

have suffered themselves, by combination, or persuasion, or terror, to

be divided and withdrawn from their suffering brethren, and have made

defection to the contrary part, and given themselves to a detestable

indifferency in this cause, contrary to the 6th article. 7. Instead of

humbling themselves for their sins, and going before others in the

example of a real reformation, they have obstinately defended their

breach of covenant, and have been patrons and patterns of all

deformations; and their owners and hearers have not repented of that

neither, when they countenance such covenant-breakers and profane

persons, nor of their not labouring for the purity and power of the

gospel when they seek it from such impure hands: neither do they go

before others in reformation, when they are such bad examples of

defection, contrary to the conclusion of the covenant. This argument

will also strike against hearing of such ministers, that have made

themselves guilty of the same, or equivalent breaches of covenant.

XII. Finally, for union's sake, and to avoid schism in the body, we must

withdraw from them. This may seem another paradox; but it is apparent,

if we consider, 'That there should be no schism in the body, but that

the members should have the same care one for another,' 1 Cor. xii. 25.

And that for to prevent and remeid this, the apostle 'beseeches us to

mark them which cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine

which we have learned, and avoid them,' Rom. xvi. 17. Now then, if the

prelates and their curates be schismatics and separatists, and dividers,

then we must avoid and withdraw from them, but so it is, that the

prelates and their curates are schismatics and separatists, and

dividers: therefore we must avoid and withdraw from them. The minor I

prove from all the constituents of a formed schism, separation and

sinful division. 1. They that start out from under due relations to a

church, and from her ministry, are schismatics, separatists and

dividers; but the prelates and their curates have started out from under

due relations to the covenanted church of Scotland, and from her

ministry, in being so unnatural rebellious children, as have broken

their mother's beauty and bands, order and union, and razed her

covenanted reformation in doctrine, worship, discipline and government.

2. These who withdraw from the communion of a true church, and therefore

are censurable by all her standing acts, are schismatical separatists;

but the prelates and their curates have withdrawn from the communion of

the true church of Scotland, and therefore are censureable by all her

standing acts, in that they have made a faction and combination

repugnant to the communion of this church, and all her established

order. 3. Those who separate from a church, whose principles and

practices are subservient to that church's true union and communion, and

right establishment, are properly schismatics; but the prelates and

their curates have separated from this church, whose principles and

practices are subservient to its true union and communion, and right

establishment: for they could never yet impeach or challenge any

principle or practice, contrary to the word of God, or not subservient

to true union and order, but their principles and practices are stated

in opposition to her purity and reformation. Those who innovate the

worship and government, owned and established in a true church, are

schismatics; but the prelates and their curates have innovated the

worship and government of the true church of Scotland, in bringing a

doctrine new and odd, and not the voice of this church; and their

worship, over and above the corruption adhering to it, is the

worshipping of an innovating party, contrary to our church's established

order. 5. They that make a rent in the bowels of the true and genuine

church, are the schismatics; but the prelates and their curates have

made a rent in the bowels of this church, and have caused all the

divisions in this church. 6. Those that divide themselves from the

fellowship of a pure church, either in her ministry, lawful courts and

ordinances, are the schismatics; but the prelates and their curates have

divided themselves from the fellowship of this pure church, in her

ministry, lawful courts and ordinances, in that they have caused the

ejection of her ministry, dissipation of her assemblies, and subversion

of her pure ordinances. 7. Those that break union with such, to whom

they were under obligations to adhere, are schismatical dividers; but

the prelates and their curates have broken union with such to whom they

were under obligations to adhere, both from the antecedent morally

obliging duty, and from the superadded obligation of the covenants,

neither could they ever pretend any thing that might loose the

obligation. 8. That party in a reformed church, which having overturned

her reformation, hath shut out, laid aside, and persecute away sound

adherers thereunto, both ministers and professors, and will not admit

ministers to officiate, but upon the sinful terms of compliance with

their way, are schismatics; but the prelates and their curates are that

party in this reformed church, which having overturned her reformation,

hath shut out, laid aside, and persecute away sound adherers thereunto,

&c. therefore they are the schismatics to be withdrawn from, and their

way is the schism, which we are bound to extirpate in the covenant.