A Hind Let Loose / Or, An Historical Representation of the Testimonies of the Church of Scotland for the Interest of Christ. With the True State Thereof in All Its Periods

by Alexander Shields

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.