Review and Examination of the Doctrine, Part 3 · Chapter 1

Review and Examination of the Doctrine · Part 3 · Chapter 1

p. 2CHAP. I.

The question stated and cleard, from our Churches state before, and since the introduction of Prelacy, the different condition of Presbyterian Ministers and Conformists▪ Separation in many cases not Schisme. The Informers groundless suppositions. Arguments presented and prosecuted at some length, whereby this practise is acquit of the charge of a sinfull separation, and discovered to fall under Scripture precepts and obligations as duty.

THE state of the Question in the third Dialogue, is anent sinfull separation and Schism; whether the people of God be guilty of it in adhering to such Ministers as contend for our Reformation, rather then Curats or Conformists; And whether they stand in this case of our Church) oblig'd to adhere to the one or the other, as their true Pastours, from whom they are to receive the gospel ordinances, and to whom they owe subjection, reverence, and obedience accordingly. This state of the Question our Informer cannot in the least pick a quarrel at, it being most suitable unto his pleading, which is all along grounded upon this supposition, that conformists do stand in a Ministerial relation to this Church, and professours therein: from which he concluds peoples obligation to adhere unto them, as their only true, and proper Pastours. And in correspondence to this principle and inference, doth universally and absolutely fasten the charge of intrusion and Schism upon Presbyterian Ministers, p. 3and people, as to their respective acts of preaching, and hearing in their present state and circumstances So that if we can overturn this his grand topick, & fortify the antithesis therof, he must grant that all his reasoning in this Dialogue falls to the ground. For clearing this let us take a litle view, first, of our Church of Scotland her case at Prelacies introduction. 2ly, of her present case. 3dly, of the different grounds which the Presbyterian and Prelatick partie plead upon, for the peoples adherence. 4thly, on whose side the separation stands. Schism is a sinfull separation from a Church, with whom, & in what acts we are bound to adhere. So that when this Question is cleared, who are that Church to which we stand under obligations to adhere, it will go far to clear this debate.

First, As to the state of our Church at Prelacies Introduction, I shall l…y down these three suppositions in relation to the matter of fact. First, that our Church from the infancie of her Reformation, together with popry rejected Prelacy, and in her National capacitie, and in her supreme Judicatories disowned it as contrary to the Word of God, as a piece of Antichrists wicked Hierarchy: And in her National capacitie abjured the same often, solemnly, and universally. This hath been already clear'd upon the preceeding Dialogue. 2ly. Presbyterian Government hath been look't on by our Church, as the only Government of the Church appointed by Christ in Scripture, and as the hedge of her reformed Doctrine. Nay the owning of it hath been the great badge and Criterion, to try her true members; the subscribing the books of Discipline, and the nationall Covenant of old, and the solemn league of late, with engadgements of adherence to Presbyterian Government, have been the ordinary door of entry p. 4into her Ministry. This, as to mater of fact, is clear and undeniable. 3ly, Our Church hath Judicially condemned E…astianisme, and Ministers their state offices, and appointed Judicially the censuring of the opposers of this her establishment as scandalows, Assembly 38. Sess. 16: 17. Confirmed and renewed in Assembly 39. So Assembly 40. Sess 5.

In the 2d place, as to our Church her present condition, these things are clear and undeniable. 1. That all the legall right of the late work of Reformation is removed in the act rescissory. 2. Presbyterian Government is raz'd, and the Church-Government monopliz'd in the Arch Bishops and Bishops, obtruded upon this Church: And the right and liberties of Presbyters and all our former Church-Judicatories is removed and taken away. 3ly, Ane arbitary and Erastian Prelacy is set up in opposition, both unto our Churches intrinsick power of Government, and likewise her particular frame of Presbyterian Government. 4. All her vowes and great Oaths both in the National Covenant, as explaind An. 1638. And in the solemn League against Prelacie, and for maintaining her reformation, are disown'd, raz'd, and cassat, as far as legall enactings can reach. 5. Ane express bad…e is appointed as to both Ministers and people their owning this course of defection, and disowning the late reformation viz. ministers submitting to Erastianism and Prelacy and owning their new courts; and peoples hearing their vi…ars and substitutes, for the same scope in th… rulers diclaird designe. 6. Ministers betwixt three and four hundred disown, and stand in opposition to this course, and a great part and body of the professours of this Church have likewise disownd the same, & stood their ground. Hence upon what is said, it followes in the 7th place, that ane ax is laid to the root of her reform'd Doctrine, p. 5Worship and Government; The great hedge thereof is removed, viz: her solemn vows: and beside, her doctrinall principles anent the Antichrist and his Hierarchy, the Churches intrinsick power of Government, Christian libertie, the unlawfulness of significant ceremonies in Gods Worship; her Doctrine anent Justification, the Imperfection of obedience, Christs certain, determinat, and full satisfaction for sinners, in opposition to the Socinian and Arminian errors; The morality of the Sabbath &c. are opposed by this innovating prelatick partie. And next, for her Worship (beside what corruptions are already introduced, and others pleaded for, as the perth Articles &c.) It is, upon the matter, subjected to mens arbitrary impositions; And our National Covenant and Conf…ssion is disownd, ae stricking against popish corruptions, and also our late confession as asserting the above-mentioned Doctrine & principles. And for Government, the Curats are meer slaves of Prelats, in all their meetings by his negative voice, and the Prelats themselves are but the Magistrats creatures. And thus as our late consession is disownd in relation to several doctrinal points of Christian libertie, moralitie of the Sabath, free election, &c so likewise in relation to its principles as to Church Gobernment, and Christs appointing Officers, lawes, and censures, as head of his Church, his not giving the keys to the civill Magistrat &c. Wherein our prelatick party are come so great a length that the late theses from St Andrews an. 81, daines that Assembly of Divines whose confession is authorirized by the generall Assembly of this Church, with no other name then that of a conventicle. 8ly, Our Churches case is now worse then when prelacy was introduced by King James. The Limitations of Erastianism by the Act of Parliament An. 1592. in relation to p. 6her priviledges concerning heads of religion, heresy, excommunication, and censures, clear this. Next, Church-Judicatories were not discontinued, but sat upon their old ground; and Prelats were restored by Parliament to their civil dignities only. Hence 9ly. Its clear that this pure Presbyterian Church hath been meerly passive as to all these innovations lately introduced; her true representatives or lawfull Assemblies never having consented to this course of conformity, as appears by the Assembly 38. Their act anent these meetings, at Linlithgow 1606; at Glasgow 1610. at Aberdeen 1616. At St Andrews 1617. at Perth 1618. Which consented to Prelacie; All which meetings they demonstrat to be contrary in their frame and constitution, to the priviledges of this Church. And at prelacies late erection Presbyterian Judicatories and Synods were preparing a Iudicial Testimonie, before they were raisd. So that the voice of our lawful Assemblies is still heard in opposition to this course; & since Prelacies erection we have never had so much as a shadow of ane Assembly &c.

For the 3d point, viz. the different grounds which the Presbyterian and prelatick party (and this man particularly) do plead upon, for the peoples adherence; take it shortly thus, the prelatists do plead first, that they are Ministers, and in that relation to this Church. 2lv. That corruptions in administrators will not (according to our own principles) warrand separation from ordinances. 3ly, they plead order, and union, which (they allege) is broken by peoples withdrawing. These are the cheif topicks they insist on. On the other hand Presbyterian Ministers plead for disowning them according to the forementioned state of the question, first, from this that the body of Presbyterian Ministers & professours adhering to our Churches reformation, principles, and priviledges, p. 7are the pure genuine Church of Scotland, tho now fled into a wilderness; whose voice we are called to hear as her true Chiidren. 2ly, that this course of conformity is a meer intrusion on this Church, and invasion of Christs Kingdome, prerogatives and ordinances, subjecting the lawes, officers and censures of his Church unto men, exauctorating & putting in officers without his warrand; that Prelats, and their deputes consequently, have no right to officiat as Ministers in this Chuich. Since both the one and the other are arrand intruders upon the same, and promoters of this Schismatick destroying course of defection. 3ly, that our Churches divine right and claim to her priviledges stands fast, notwithstanding the present encroachments and invasions thereof; and her Childrens obligation of adherence to the same accordingly. 4ly, That hence it followes, because of the nature and tendency of this course of defection, that all are obliged to keep themselves free from the least accession to it, and therefore to disown Curats; both as maintaining principles contrary to the principles and doctrine of this Church, and as standing in a stated opposition to her, & likewise as the obiects of her censure, if she were in capacity to draw her sword. That the people of God have both corrupt doctrine to lay to their charge, beside the corruption Worship; and also their going out from the fellowship of this Church, and leading the people away from our vowed reformation &c.

In the 4th place, to come to clear ths great point on whose fide the separation stands, let us premise these things. 1. Every separation is not sinfull, even from a Church which hath the essentialls, yea and more then the essentialls, a man may go from one Church to another without hazard of separation. But further, in these cases separation is not schism. I. It if be from those (tho Never so many) who are p. 8drawing back, and in so far as drawing back, from whatever peice of duty and integrity is attaind. For this is still tobe held fast, according to many scripture comands, as we shall shew. So Elias when Gods Covenant was forsaken, was as another Athanasius; (I, and I only am left) in point of tenacious integrity. 2ly, if we separat in that which a Nationall Church hath commanded us as her members to disown by her standing acts, and authority, while those from whom we separat own that corruption. 4. If Ministers their supposed separation be ane officiating as they can have access, after a National Churches reformation is overturnd, and they persecute from their watchtowers by these overturners. For in this case the persecuters separat from them, and chase them away. 4. There is a Lawfull forbearance of union and complyance with noto ious backsliders, in that which is of it self sinfull, or inductive to it, which is far from separation strictly taken; The commands of abstaining from every appearance of evill, and hating the garment spotted with the flesh, do clearly include this. 5. Many things will warrand separation from such a particular Minister or congregation, which will not warrand separation from the Church National; nor infer it, by Mr Durhams acknowledgment (on scandal pag. 129.) For if scandals become excessive, he allowes to depart to another congregation. 6. There is a commanded withdrawing from persons and societies even in worship; the precepts, to avoid them that cause divisions and offences contrary to the received Doctrine, Rom. 16. 17. to come out from among the unclean & be separat. 2 Cor. 6. 17 to cease from instruction that causes to erre from ehe words of knowledge, Prev. 19. 27. to save our selves from the untoward generation. Act. 2. 40, will clearly import this by consequence. 2dly, This charge of sinfull separation which they put on Gods people supposes many thigs which p. 9must be proved, as first, that the Prelats and their adherents, are the only true organick Church of Scotland, which is denyed; her frame and constitution being such as it said; surely the Ministers and professours adhering to her reformation must be the true Church of Scotland tho the lesser number, as they should have been, if this prelatiok defection had been intirely popish. These souldiers who keep the Gen…rals orders are the true army, not the deserters of the same. Either the Church in this Nation as lately reformd & constitute, and to whose constitution many Conformists vowed adherence, was not the true organick protestant Church of Scotland, or this partie, whose constitution, Principles, Doctrine & practice, are point blank contrary therunto, is not. 2. It supposed that there is no lawfull use of ordinances among Presbyterian Ministers, as persons who have no Lawfull call to officiat in this case. Hence this man pleads for disowning them universally and absolutely; but we affirm they are Ministers standing in that relation to this Church, and under the obligation of Christs comand to officiat, which Conformists have not yet disproved 4. He supposes that every thing which may be expedient as to the foreign and order of a Church, when enjoyning her full peacable constitution, will equally oblidge in her broken and persecute condition, when a prevailing backsliding party is in her bosome. Now; scripture and reasen will disprove this: circumstances of order must give place to important duties in extreme necessity as this is: the scattered officers of the Church of Jerusalem, went every where preaching the gospel (Act. 8,) so did Ministers in the beginning of the Reformation. 4. It is supposed that our change is only as to government: and such only as was in King Iames time, both which we have showen to be false. 5. He takes for granted that their personal faults who are conformists, p. 10and a supposed pullution of the worship therby, is our ground of non-union; and that our granting them to have the essence of a Ministeriall call, and that their scandals will not pollute the worship, will infer the hearing of them in this our case, which is also false. For even upon this supposition, we are not bound to owne them no more then ane ingraind Schismatick, obtruded forcibly by a party of the congregation upon the rest of the people, might be ownd on this ground. 6 This man begs the question in supposing that the constitution and frame of the Prelacy now establish't, is the same with that of the ancient Church, for he often tels us that we would have separat from the ancient Church, upon the same grounds for which we disown Conformists. Whereas we have shewed the difference of our prelacy from theirs in many points. That our prelats both as Diocesian & Erastian, are wholly discrepant from the ancient Bishops. 7. He takes it for granted, that Ministers who disown this course of backsliding their relation to their flocks is cut off, in the present posture of our Church, and that the Prelats and their substituts, (the Curats) are the onelyonly proper representative Church of Scotland, who accordingly have onelyonly the lawfull power and exercise of the keyes as to either admission or censure of Ministers. A principle alwayes disowned by our Church. See Protesters no subverters (pag. 96.) Rutherfoords due right of Presbyt. [pag. 430. 431.] Altare Damasc. (pag. 23.) 8. He supposes that its unlawfull in this our case to officiat, ren… tente Magistrat…; that this very violence and the present Lawes will render Ministers officiating unwarrantable [pag. 205.] which is a great mistake, for the Magistrat cannot loose from the pastoral relation which he gave not, ejusdem est constituere & destituere. A…esmedull. [cap. 30. thes. 14. And hence the Ministers relation p. 11to the Church Nationall stands, tho he restrain the exercise thereof in any one place; and consequent ly the tyes and commands to officiat; so that disobeying the Magistrats command not to officiat, is no disobedience to his lawful authority. Nay Apollonius thinks that the divine relation of a Minister to this Church, tho banisht from his native country, doth stand. Ius Majestatis circasacra part. 1. pag. 331. (9.) He still supposes that, what will not exse, or of it self plead for disowning the hearing of the gospel, or of a Minister simpliciter, will plead nothing in this our case for disowning Conformists. The mans weakness, personal faults, not lecturing &c. are not of themselves sufficient to cut us off from hearing absolutely. But tho this be granted, we have the pure genuine Church of Scotland, and her faithful Ministry to adhere unto, and over and above these grounds mentiond, conformists schismatick practice, and corrupt Doctrine to lay to their charge, which will make this ground in our case very weighty and preponderating; and this the Informer himself must grant, for he will not say that such like pretences or arguments in our case, were valid as to the owning of Nonconformists and des…rting of Curats. Moreover he will grant, that Presbyterian Ministers might Lawfully be heard, if Conformists were not standing in their way. Now so the case is in relation to Presbyterian Ministers pleading; for that none of these things which he mentions were valid to infer peoples disowning of Conformists, were there no other Ministers in Scotland, and if this Church had universally, both Ministers and people faln into this cou…se of backsliding, will be readily granted; But without any advantage to his cause, as is evident. To these many discoveries of his begging the question in this debate, our plea and arguments will be clearer if we add a short view of our suppositions in this case p. 12and question. Such as 1. our principle of the unlawfulness of prelacie. 2. The binding force of our covenants. 3. Our Churches divine tight to her Reformation and priviledges once establisht. 4. that this is a case both of defection, and persecution. 5. of competition betwixt Ministers & professours contending for our Reformation, and a party of backsliders overturning it. 6. The tendency of this course of Prelatick defection, to raze our Reformation; and that if not prevented; it will end in propery. 7. That Presbyterian Ministers relation to this Church, and their obligation to duty founded upon that relation, is not extinguished but subsists notwithstanding of the present violence and persecution, which they with their weeping mother are exposed unto. Having premised these things, from what is said we may draw forth at length the great state of the question thus, whether, when the Reformation of a National Church in Doctrine, worship, discipline and government, is by a backsliding party overturnd, and a course-carryed on to raze it, God having left a considerable body of Ministers & professours, who stand in opposition to that course, and are in their capacities testifying against it, are these Ministers and professors who preach and hear in opposition to that course, or the complying Ministry and hearers, the scismaticks? This being clearly the state of this question, we shall offer these arguments to fortifie our principle of disowning conformists in this our case, and denying a subjection to them as the Ministers of this Church, and adherence to Presbyterian Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry, and acquit this principle and practise from the Informers charge of sinfull separation.

1. Whoever of the two partiss adhere unto the true genuine Church, owning her constitutions, authoritie and priviledges, its certain the contrary party must be the schismaticks; here it must be seen who are the p. 13first departers, who have first broken the hedge, who have first disownd and opposed the Covenants, the Government, the sound and pure doctrine of this Church, in complyance with persecuters, surely they and they only are the schismaticks. Had not this invasion been made upon our Church and her priviledges, what would have been her Judgement of the present principles and practices of Conformists in any of her Lawfull courts? would they not have been judged censurable as the worst of Schismaticks? Now, what is the difference here, except, that this party makes the greater number; but will this take away the charge of schism? suppose a party of notorious schismaticks should cry ou… upon such as withdraw from them as schismaticks, were not this a ridiculous charge; and Just so is that of Conformists in this case.

2. Every schism supposes ane obligation of adherence to that Church from which the separation is made. Now then, let him prove ministers obligation to joyn into this Prelatick course (without which they will not admit them to officiat) and disprove our prior obligations to opposeit; or else Ministers obligation to preach, and peoples consequently to hear in opposition to this course of defection, will stand good on the old grounds, and all the scripture comands (founded on Pastours of this Church their Ministerial relation) to set the trumpet to their mouth, and give a Ministerial testimony against this defection, and peoples obligation to hear and take warning, will press and plead for that which he calls schism and a sinfull separation.

3. Hence Presbyterian Ministers, and professors are in this their practise never toched, by all his arguments and defences, but these are weapons in their hands against him and the conforming party. 1. Whereas he pleads the essence of the ministeriall call, which p. 14conformists lay claim unto, Presbyterian Ministers answer, that Nonconforming Ministers have this, that they are Ministers of this Church, and have a better right to officiat as her true pastours then Prelatists. And if this will not plead for hearing Non-conformists, why shall this argument be thought valide for hearing Curats? is not the same way from Athens to Thebes, and from Thebes to Athens? if his concession touching the essence of their Ministerial call, will not (with him) infer hearing Non-conformists, because of their supposed schism: Ergo a fortiori it will not infer the hearing of Curats, who really are such. 2. he pleads that corruptions, and failings in administrators, or even some corruptions in ordinances, will not infer disowning of Ministers. Why then pleads he for disowning Presbyterian Ministers and ordinances adminis red by them, to whom this is so clarly applicable. 3ly, he pleads union. But let him say, what was the order and union of this Church before these innovations? was it ane union under Prelacie, Erastianism, and persurious breach of Covenant; was not our Churches Reformation in doctrine, worship, discipline and Goverment, a beautiful order and union? Now who broke this? supppose we should Plead union, against his withdrawing Presbyterian professours from Presbyterian Ministers, will he owne this pleading? or not rather disowne it, because he thinks our union is schismatical; well, so we hold and do prove the prelatick union to be: & therefore untill he disprove our charge against his party, this pleading is null.

4. Divines, do tell us (particularly Timorcus chap. 7. page 32.) that a sinfull separation which falls within the compass of schism, is from the communion of a Church as walking according to the divine rule; otherwise, if the Churches deviation specially be great, there is no fear of any guilt by schism in departing p. 15from it; and hence infers, that unless absolvers can instruct that prelacy is juris divini, disowning and abjuring it cannot be schismatical. Moreover this man himself grants, that schism in its ordinary acceptation, is taken for a causless separating, and that where communion with a Church cannot be held without sin, in that case separation is necessary. Now then if we can prove, that our non union is not causless, and that communion cannot be held with Conformists (in our case and circumstances) without sin, we are not Schismaticks by his oun confession. To clear then this great point of the sinfulness of owning them in their demanded conformity; we offer these considerations. 1. Owning them and subjecting our selves to their Ministry as the Pastours of this Church, hath a palpable breach of Covenant in it as the case now stands, for all along we must suppose its binding force, and that there is a considerable body of Ministers & professours contending for it, and that the question is, to which of the parties contending we are bound to adhere, and that according to our principles anent its binding force, and the unlawfulness of Prelacie, which this man cannot disprove. The owning of them in the manner above expressed is a breach of Covenant many wayes. specially as this man pleads for it, with a totall disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in their Ministry. In this case it is a resiling from what we have attain'd in point of reformation, contrary to the first article, wherein we are bound to maintain purity of worship and Doctrine as then establisht. Now their preaching is for the most part consisting of corrupt doctrine contrary to our Reformation? And their prayers have severall petitions with which we cannot joyn, such as for prospering Prelats and their courses; Not to speak of the abrogating the lecture, repeating of the creed at baptism, singing a set forme of conclusion, or what innovations p. 16in worship are introduced. Again, this is a concurience with promoters of this course of backsliding, and a suffering our selves to be withdrawen from our union engadged unto, and a denyall of suteable assistance to faithfull Ministers contending for the Covenant against backsliders, all which are contrary to the other articles thereof. This will be specially clear, if it be further considered. That 1. The body of presbyterian Ministers being ejected, if disown'd in the manner and extent pleaded for by this Informer, the presbyterian interest, and our Reformation according to the Covenant, will be extinct, sold and betrayed. 2. Hearing Curats and peoples subjecting themselves to their Ministry as the Pastours of this Church. is by the Rulers required as a direct badge and Test of owning Erastianism and prelacie, in opposition to the Covenant & work of Reformation: So that its a case of confession, now to adhere to a faithfull Ministry contending for it. 3. Ther's no other way to exoner our consciences before God and the World, and Declare our nonconformitie to this course of backsliding, but by this practice, there is no getting of wrongs redrest, or corruptions in the Ministry removed. Thus the Apology pag. 272. 4. We are in the Covenant engadged against Indifferency, in this great work of Reformation, and is not this the way to fall into it more and more. 5. We engadge that we shall endeavour, that this work of Reformation shall remain inviolable to posterity. But what memory shall the posterity have of this work if prelats and curats be thus submitted unto? 6. We engadge opposition in our capacity to all prelatick malignant enemies of the Lords worke and interest; but how is it performd when we thus strengthen their hands, in their avowed opposition therunto. 7. How assist we and Defend in this common cause of Religion and liberty, such as enter p. 17into this league, when we thus Divide from our suffering brethren, wound and offend them and shake off a faithfull Covenant-keeping Ministry. 8 How maintain we our reformed Doctrine, worship, and union, when thus owning false prophets, and the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge, and such as cause Divisions and offences contrary to the Doctrine we have Learnd. Prov. 19. 27. Rom. 16. 17, 18. 9. How maintain we the priviledges of our Church and her Reformed Government? when owning intruding prelats and their creatures as Ministers of this Church, and disowning her true Ministers, now taking her by the hand. This practice is ane approving of Curats call and mission, rather then that of presbyterian Ministers, which no man will deny to be contrary to the Covenant. Next, owning and adhering to Curats in this our case, and according to our principles, hath an accession to much guilt otherwise, such as. 1. The owning of a palpably blasted, and Disowning a palpably sealed Ministry. 2 A high reflection on the sufferings of many Godly upon this ground. 3. A shutting of our eyes against Ministerial Discoveries of the sin and duty of the time. 4. A casting of our selves on tentations of greater complyance. 5. A breaking of fellowship with these that are contending for Gods worke and denying a sympathy with them, yea a trampling on their blood which has been shed on this ground. 6. A disowning the Ministeriall authority, and tearing the commission of Christs faithfull Ambassadours, and depriving our selves of the blessing and benefit of their Labours &c.

5. This practice of denying a Subjection to the Ministry of Conformists, and of our Rulers demanded conformity therin unto the present course of defection, will be found to fall under great p. 18scripture obligations, such as 1. The obligation of persevering in integrity, and holding it fast. Colos. 1. 23. Heb. 10: 23. Psal. 25. 21. Supposing prelacy unlawfull, and the binding force of the Covenants in reference to all the work of reformation as it stood establisht, this practice is clearly cross to the premised obligation, both as ane acknowledgement of prelacy and Erastiani me, and also as a Disowning of faithfull Ministers. 2. The obligation of keeping at the greatest Distance from sin, exprest Jude 23. 1 Thess. 5. 22. 1 Tim. 5. 22. will infer Disowning Curats in this case. 1. All Direct, or interpretative consent to sin, is here Discharged. 2. A practice otherwise lawfull, will on this ground become inexpedient hic & nunc. We must not eat in the case of offence, tho we may freely eat all meats Rom. 14. 14. 1 Cor. 10. 25. Now on the forementiond Suppositions, the owning of Curats hath an accession to their sin, beyond that of ane apearance or a touch, It being both a Deserting the presbyterian Ministry, and a badge of conformity to Erastian prelacy, and all the corruption and defection of the time, which is therby advanc'd & promoted, 'tis also in this case of competition, a deliberat adherence to the prelatick rather then presbyterian interest. 3. The great obligation of a testimony to truth and Duty, exprest Heb. 10. 23. Mat. 10. 32. will plead for this practice, All truth must be avowed, & practically avowed. We must walk circumspectly, or exactly as the Word imports, & we must avow truth & duty on the greatest hazard; even the smallest mater is great, when a testimony is concernd in it, were it but the circumstance of an open window, Daniel durst not ommit it upon the greatest hazard. And as this testimony must be full, so must it also be constant. Demas shame is, that the aflictions of the gospel made him forsake the Apostle after great appearances for Christ, and p. 19embrace this present world. And beside, whatever truth or duty is opposed, that becomes the speciall object of this testimony. Hence Ministers and Professours in their capacity are called to contend for this Work of Reformation; and Ministers silence as to a Ministerial testimony against this course of backsliding, and people's disowning them, and adhering to Conformists, is so palpably cross therunto, as nothing can be more. 4. This practice is inferd from the scripture obligation, to guard against the slumbling and offending our brethren, exprest 2 Cor. 6. 3. Math. 18. 6. 1 Cor. 10. 32. Here is Discharged any Dictum vel factum quo alius deterior redditur, saith Polanus. Whatever practice gives occasion of our brothers sinning, of calling truth in question, of acting with a Doubting conscience, or which weakens his plerophory or assurance, is here discharged. And neither the lawfulness nor Indifferency of the thing it self, nor mens Authority commanding it, Nor the weakness, yea or wickedness of those in hazard to be stumbled, will warrand the Doing of that out of which offence arises. Paul Declares all meats lawfull, yet will not eat in case of offence 1 Cor. 10. 25. 1 Cor. 8. 13. This Declaring of the lawfulness of that practice, is equivalent to any civill Declarator or Law which alters not the nature of scandal. Paul will not have the weak stumbled Rom. 14. 1, 2, 3. 1 Cor. 8. 11, 12. Nor give occasion to the malicious who desired occasion 2 Cor. 11. 12. Now owning of Curats as the case is now circumstantiat doth harden them in their apostacy, and hath a tendency to wound the peace of the godly who dare not owne them, or may provoke them to act against their light; and therefore unless owning them could be proved a necessary duty, as matters now stand, the premisd scripture obligation will infer it to be sinfull. 5. disowning conformists will clearly p. 20follow from the scripture obligation, to turn away from seducers, and such as turn aside from Gods way. 2 Tim. 3. 1. The apostle having given a large Induction of evills adhering to these in the last dayes, putting among the rest of their black Theta's, Covenant breaking, concludes his discovery with this grand precept (ver. 5.) from such turn away. We must beware of false prophets, the concision, and of such as walk not according to the received ordinances, Math. 7. 15. Rom. 16. 17. Philip. 3. 2. 2 Thess. 3. 6. Christs sheep do flee from the stranger, and hear not his voice. Iohn. 10, 27. 1. All promoters of wayes contrary to the simplicity of the gospel, are here commanded to be eschewed. 2. We must know and discover such by their fruits and practicall unfaithfulness, as well as false Doctrine, Mat. 7. 16. compared with 2 Tim. 3. These that practically act the foxes Cant. 2. 15. are to be taken away, and consequently eschewed, the saints must be fortifyed against these that ly in wait to deceive, God disowns these that make sad the hearts of the godly and strengthen the hands of evill doers. Ezek 13. 22. such as stand not in his counsel Ier. 33. 22. & cause people to err by their lies and lightness. Ier. 26. 32. Now upon the forementiond suppositions its clear that Conformists are leading aside from our Reformation, opposing the principles & priviledges, of this Church; they are Covenant breakers from whom we are to turn away; they are speaking peace to the wicked, and healing the wound slightly, and are ruling with force and rigour Ezek. 34. 4. 1 Pet. 5. 3. Witness their present violence. 6. This practice of Presbyterian Ministers officiating in opposition to this course, and peoples adherence to their Ministry, is inferr'd from the scripture obligation of many terrible charges and adjurations laid upon Ministers, in reference to a faithfull diligence in their Ministerial function, and a suteable Ministerial testimony p. 21concerning the sin and duty of the time, which is necessarly inclusive of their peoples reciprocal diligence, in attending their Ministry, and their obedience and faithfull adherence accordingly. They are commanded to cry aloud and shew the people their sin Isa. 58. 1. and as they would not have the blood of souls upon them, to give faithfull warning touching sin and duty, and their peoples case and hazard, especially in times of great sin and judgement, when God is terribly pleading his controversy with them Ezek. 3. 17. hence they are enjoyned to be instant in season and out of season, reproving, rebuking and exhorting with all long suffering and Doctrine 2 Tim. 4. 1. And as faithfull watchmen on Ierusalems walls, never to hold their peace day nor night till she be establisht, and made a praise in the earth Isa. 62. 6. to fulfill and make full pro…fe of their Ministry Colloss 4. 17. And as these comands in order to Ministerial diligence, do singularly oblige herunto in this case, so the scripture woes and threatnings thundered against Ministers negligence and unfaithfulness, are very convincing and awakening. See Ezek. chap. 3. and chap. 13. 5. 6: Hence on the forementiond suppositions it clearly followes. 1. That Ministers are oblidged to be constantly instant in season and out of season, in their Ministerial testimony against this course of defection. 2. This case of defection and persecution ampliats and extends this duty to all to whom they can have access, as the scattered preachers Acts. 8. Went every where preaching the gospel, after that persecution that arose about Stephen. 3. This Ministerial testimony upon the forementioned grounds, must be levelled at all the corruptions of the times, and all the branches and degrees of our defection. 4. The duty and obligation of the people of God, is reciprocall and commensurable therunto. And if hearing Curats and p. 22disowning Presbyterian Ministers, be not inconsistent with this great obligation, let any Iudge.

6. That part… in a Reformed Church, which having overturnd her Reformation, hath shut out, laid aside, and persecute away sound adherers therunto both Ministers and professours, and will not admit Ministers to officiat, but upon the sinfull terms of complyance with their way, cannot charge the sound party with schism in standing where they were, & owning and prosecuting their respective duties, as Ministers and flocks, in opposition to these overturners and backsliders. For this would justify the most ingraind schism that ever was heard of; Now so the case is here, for all Presbyterian Ministers are cast out, and they and all sound professours adhering to them persecute, unless they will retract their principles, and conform to prelacie. Ministers, in taking up a new tenour and exercise of their Ministry in a precarious servile dependence upon Erastian prelacy, headed and influenced by a meer civil papacy; And people, in subjecting themselves to the Ministry of the servile deputes of Erastian prelates, as a badge of their hearty complyance with, and submission unto, this blasphemous supremacy, and consent to the overturning of the pure constitution and reformation of this Church. So that the Presbyterians their plea is an owning of duty against Schismaticks disowning it. Do not our Divines tell the Romanists on this ground, that they have seperat and persecute us away from them, and that therefore the schism lyes upon themselves, not on us: So the case is here. Let this man say, what would have been the judgement of our Church in any of her former judicatories, anent a party owning such principles as Conformists do, and persecuting or casting out all that oppose them, and dare not concurr in their course of backsliding in overturning the sworn p. 23Reformation of this Church; I dare appeal to the Informer himself, if such would not have been judged censurable as the worst of Schismaticks. And he can assigne nothing now to turn or cast the scale, no ground of disparity, unless he place it in this, that prelatists are the greater number, and have the civil power on their side. And if this pityfull plea will carry it, the Romanists have long since outweighed the protestant Churches in this debate, which this man will not for very shame admit.

7. This practice of adhering to Presbyterian Ministers, and disowning Curats, hath nothing of the ingredients of schismor, sinfull separation from this Church, included therein, as matters now stand, and as the question is stated on the forementioned hypotheses. Which will appeare in these cleare positions in the point of schism (which are evident in their own light) being applyed and brought home to our present case. 1. Schism is a starting out from under due relations to a Church and from her Ministry, and duties accordingly. But in this our case, and practise under debate, Ministers and professours are pursuing the duties of their respective relation to this Church, as it stood reformed and establisht before these innovations, and the Apostat prelatick party are doing the contrary. 2. In a sinfull Schismatick separation, it is alwayes supposed that the withdrawing, is from those who are holding the communion of the true Church, otherwise we lose the basis and fundation of all sound definitions of schism. But here the persecute party are owning the Reformation of this pure Church against a party of separatists, who have broken her order, union, and National vows; and who are also censurable by all her standing acts. 3. In a proper Schismatick separation, the principles and practice of these from whom the separation is made, are supposed to be subservient to that Churches union, right establishment, p. 24and for maintaining her communion; but to separat from those whose principles and practice is a stated opposition (and in so far as an opposition) to her purity and Reformation, is to maintain her true union and communion, and not sinfully to separat from it.

The Assumption as to this practice under debate, might be cleard by a large induction of particulars. If we take a view of the two parties (Presbyterian and prelatical) their carriage in relation to this Church: It will be evident, 1. In general. That Conformists their principles and practice, is a direct impeachment of our establisht reformation, and that Presbyterians are maintaining and adhering to the same. 2. Conformists do avowedly disowne and abjure our Covenants, Presbyterians adhere unto and owne the same. 3. Conformists are breaking and dissipating our Churches establisht order and union, Presbyterians are in this practice contending for both; the one party is wounding our Church both by persecution and reproach, the other is taking her by the hand, endeavouring her help and comfort in this her deep distresse, and so the Covenant obliges to disowne the first, and adhere to the second. 4. The one is censurable by her, the other deserves her praise. Now can there be any question in this, to which of these parties people are obliged to adhere according to the principles of our Reformation.

In the 4th place, In a sinfull separation as to communion in worship, it must be supposed, the worship of that Church ownd and establisht therein, because a party innovating herein, as well as innovating in doctrine and government contrary to that which is establisht, are hactenus, and ipso facto (in this their practice, and upon this very ground) schismaticks both in their worship and government. Therefore to disowne them therein can be no schism; for this would involve a p. 25palpable contradiction, that these withdrawers in this same practice, and in the same respects and circumstances therof, were Schismaticks and not Schismaticks. Now prelatists their doctrine is new and odd, and not the voice of this Church. And their worship, (over and above the corruption adhering to it) is the worship of an innovating party, and contrary to our Churches establisht order. And therfore to disowne them therein is no sinfull separation from this Church her fellowship and worship, while existing in her sound and purer part, and opposing these innovations.

5. In Schismatick separation, the rent is made in the bowels of the true and genuine Church. So that when a schism and rent is stated betwixt a godly Ministry contending for a pure Churches Reformation, against an apostat party of the Ministry: the sound professours stand preobliged to adhere unto, and strength…n the sounder part, upon this very ground of holding the union and communion of that pure Church against these backsliders; supposing they will rent and ruine her, if not opposed: and so the case is here. The union and order of this Church, is already broken by the prelatick innovators and backsliders, and by them only; so that upon the supposal of this fixed schism, the people of God must adhere to the sound Church and Ministry. And in this extreme necessity, the lesser obligation as to parochial order, must give place to the greater duties of preserving and maintaining the Churches union and reformation, when a course is carried on tending to ruine it.

6. Every sinfull separation is, from the fellowship of a Church either in her Ministry, lawfull courts, or Worship and ordinances, according to the various relations, state and condition of Separatists, whether Church officers or others. But in this our case, Presbyterian Ministers and professours separat in none of these respects p. 26from the genuine Church of Scotland. 1. Ministers separat not from her courts; for none of her lawful courts are now publickly own'd or existent. 2. People separate not from her Worship, as it stood reformed and vowed unto, when they owne the ordinances dispensed by her true pastours, for that only is the true Worship of this Church. Nor 3. from her Doctrine, and a due subjection to her faithfull pastours in the Lord: And therefore neither from the fellowship of her faithful Ministers and professours. Where is then the Schism? Since both the Doctrine, Worship and Government of this true Church are ownd, and backsliders and Schismaticks only (and as such) are disownd.

7. Schism supposes that these whom we withdraw from, are such to whom we are under obligation to adhere: for it is a breach of union, which is cemented and conglutinate by the obligations and duties of those who are concerned to hold it fast; So that where the obligation to the duty in subserviency to this union cannot be demonstrate, to be incumbent upon such and such persons, and in such acts, By whom and wherein this union is to be upheld, the charge of Schism upon these acts, which are supposed to violat that union, evanishes and falls to the ground. But if the person (tho a Minister supposed) from whom the separation is made, wants that which immediatly grounds this obligation of owning h…m hic & nunc, as the case stands circumstantiat, in that respect withdrawing or non-union can be no Schism, for else the most ingraind Schismaticks might be owned; the Informer himself must of necessity admit this, for otherwise he will crosse and cut the sinews of all his pleading and arguments which he presents in this Dialogue for disowning Presbyterian Ministers in this our case, for I am confident that out of this circumstanciat case he will p. 27grant that it is no breach of any of his rules or reasons to hear them. That [they are Ministers] and [are preaching faith and repentance] that [they have a lawfull Ministeriall call and ordination &c.] All these he thinks will plead nothing, as the case is now circumstantiat, for adhering to them, because of that in their present condition, which outweighs all this, and looses peoples obligation to owne them, which he thinkes is no Schism but duty: Now, let our Informer turn the tables; if there be first that in Curats present state, which preponderats as to our disowning of them now, tho all that he pleads as to their ordination, and ministerial call were granted, its no Schism in this our case to disowne them according to his own principles and pleading in this point. 2. He must grant that denying to hear hic & nunc, and in such a complex case, is different from a denying to hear simpliciter, or disowning such a mans Ministry simpliciter, or absolutely, as he will grant that out of this case Presbyterian Ministers might be heard, and that disowning them is not simpliciter a disowning a true Ministry or Church, or them as Ministers; So that its this case of competition with Conformists, which with him casts the ballance. Hence as matters now are stated and circumstantiat, and upon our principles and premised Hypotheses, he must grant there is that in conformists case, which hic & nunc will loose our obligation to receive the ordinances from them as the ministers of this Church, which is the white in the marke wherat all his arrows are shot. Such as 1. that we are preobliged by a lawful Oath to extirpat and disowne them. 2. That they are promoters of a Prelatick designe to ruine our Reformation. 3. That they have avowedly disownd our Covenants, and that we are commanded by the overturners of our Covenanted Reformation, to hear them as a badge of our renouncing it; and concurring in this course of backsliding. 4. That they p. 28are intruders, and not entring in at the door, and in the way and order of this Church; That they are violently thrusting out, and persecuring her faithfull Pastours, that they perjuriously renounce a call from the people, and ordination by the Presbyterie. All which grounds he must either grant will supersede our obligation to owne conformists hic & nunc according to our principles, or quite his plea and pleading as to the disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry.

8. He pleads in the close of the preceeding Dialogue, that the covenant abjures Sel isme. Now let us stand to this Decision; the Informer will not be dissatisfyed if I shall borrow one of his topicks, and shoot ane arrow from his own bow; I would offer then to him this syllogisme. That Schism which he pleads against is a Schism abjured in the Covenant: but disowning Conformists in their present state & circumstances, & refusing to be subject to them as the Ministers of this Church, is not a schism abjur'd in the Covenant; Ergo, &c. The assumption I prove thus. If the disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in their present state and circumstances, and withdrawing from them in the exercise of their Ministerial function and their Ministerial testimony against prelacy and for the Covenant, be that schism which is abjurd therin then a refusing to be subject to Curats (against whom they are testifying as the Covenant breakers, and upholders of prelacy) ad not owning them as the Ministers of this Church, cannot be that scism. Unless he will mak this scism, such a Janus as will cast a maligne condemning aspect upon both the contending parties, and bring adherers unto either of the two, under this imputation. But so it is that disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry, is condemned in the Covenant as schism this we have already made appear, p. 29it being a disowning of that establisht order and union of this Church which therin we do swear to maintain, and a schismatical withdrawing from her faithfull Ambassadours and others contending for the ends of the Covenant, to adhere unto whom, and keep up an union wi…h them herein, the Covenant layes upon us an express obligation, putting the imputation of schismatick division, and detestable indifferency upon the contrary practice. Ergo, upon the whole it follows evidently, that the owning of Conformists which he pleads for in this Dialogue (viz. subjection unto, and receiving ordinances from them as the Ministers of this Church, and denying this to Presbyterian Ministers) is abjurd in the Covenant as Schismatical.