tertained by those "that have itching ears," 2 Tim. iv. 3. See how the apostle strikes at the root of division, Phil. ii. 3, "Let nothing be done through strife or vain-glory, but in lowliness of mind, let each esteem other better than themselves." Men that are irritated by a church, vain-glorious and conceity, esteeming themselves better than others, are dangerous men, and fit wedges to cleave the church of Christ asunder.

Now I shall name the second doctrine, and then apply.

DocT. II. That professors ought to beware of schism and division, as they tender the authority and honour of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Let me apply it in the words of our text, "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment." Dearly beloved, as ye tender the authority and honour of our Lord Jesus Christ, beware of this schism and division that is now troubling this church. I foresee it will be needless for me to offer to press this exhortation with motives, till I have removed three prejudices out of the way. The first is, that they are the strictest party: the second is, that the church has given them just ground to separate: the third is, that their principles are the principles of our covenanted reformation. Some, it may be, will be amazed to hear us offer to question these things; but I beseech you consider what I say.

The first prejudice then is, That those who dissent and separate from us are the strictest party. In answer to this, consider there is a twofold strictness: a strictness in practice, and a strictness in opinion. As for strictness in the point of a holy practice, life and conversation; though they seem in a late printed paper to appropriate the name of the godly to their own party, yet God forbid I should appropriate it to ours. Only I shall say, that among those that conscientiously attend the ordinances this day in our church, there are people as eminent for holiness of life, and close walking with God, that have as much of the exercise of godliness upon their spirits. and acquaintance and communion with God, as any in the nation; so far as I can discern. I could say more to this purpose, but that I desire not to give offence. As for the ministry, whatever defects be among them; and though there are many of them with whom I have no acquaintance; yet there are among them, of whom I could say, (if it were lawful to say it of any man), O that my soul were in their soul's stead! and at whose feet I would willingly sit down and learn the knowledge of Christ and practical godliness: this I declare to be my opinion of them, however low thoughts many have of them. As for strictness of opinions, as to government and church

communion, if we measure strictness according to the dictates of men's own spirits, we will yield to them for strictness; and so would our Lord to the Pharisees, and the apostles to the false teachers. But if we measure strictness according to the word of God, we deny they are strictest, but they are indeed widest from the rule. I will follow Christ to the synagogue of the Jews, (1 hope some of you at least may understand what I say), and in so doing I will be more strict than those that scruple to follow Christ's example, for fear they be involved in the guilt of the corruptions among them; for the nearer I follow Christ, the more strict I am, if strictness be measured according to the word of God. However, this is but an assertion; but it brings me to the second thing, where I shall prove it.

The second prejudice is, That the church has given them just ground to separate; and therefore they cry out on the Commission of the General Assembly, for representing them to the world as schismatics. To this I answer, That it is plain they have made a total separation from us, and refuse communion with us in ordinances, unless it be at some times to serve a turn. If this their separation from us be a sin, then their separation is a schism: but so it is, that their separation from us is sinful, which I shall prove by one argument, not to multiply words. The argument is this, Those who reject communion in the ordinances of Christ with a true church, and separate from her, because of corruptions in her, while in the meantime they might keep communion with her without sin, are guilty of schism and sinful separation: this I think will not be denied, for if our thus keeping communion be not our sin, it must be our duty; surely it is not left indifferent. But so it is, that our dissenters do thus reject communion with us, and separate from us, while, in the meantime, they might keep communion with this church without sin: therefore their separation is schism, and they are schismatics. That they might keep communion with us without sin, that is, without involving themselves in the guilt of the corruptions of the church, will appear, if ye consider, that there are no corruptions amongst us, whether real or pretended, which the church obligeth them to approve or join in the practice of, as terms of communion with her nor is there any real or pretended truth which they own, that the church obligeth them to renounce, as a term of communion with her. This holdeth absolutely as to the .people for laick-communion, as they call it; and I am sure it has been offered to some of them, that they should be allowed to exonerate their own consciences, by protesting against these things which they look upon as corruptions amongst us, if they would but come and join with us. As for ministerial communion, it must be remembered

that the ministers of this Church are obliged to own the Confession of Faith, as the confession of their faith, which is very just; and if we will believe the leaders of that party, they own it as well as we; so that herein they will move no debate. It remains then that they may keep communion with us without sin, unless mere joining in communion with a church, wherein there are many corruptions, be a sin, and defile a man. To this narrow point, I think, the controversy betwixt them and us is brought this I take to be the very foundation of the separation, which if it fall, all falls together with it: and that this is a gross untruth, I shall evince by two arguments. The first argument is from Rev. ii. 24, 25, "But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, As many as have not this doctrine,—I will put upon you none other burden; but that which ye have already, hold fast till I come.” In the church of Thyatira, Jezebel was suffered to teach and seduce Christ's servants; for suffering of her the angel is reproved, and consequently called to amend this fault. The party that kept themselves pure are not required to separate; nay, in effect, are commanded to continue in the communion of that church; while the Lord expressly tells them, "He will lay no other burden upon them," but commands them "to hold fast," and yet there is not one word anent their separating to keep themselves pure. This could not have been, if their keeping communion with the church of Thyatira, in which there were such gross corruptions, and corrupt members, had been a sin.

The second argument is from our Lord's example, Luke iv. 16, "And he came to Nazareth where he had been brought up, and as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read." What corruptions were in the Jewish church in Christ's day, ye may find by reading the Gospels, as great, I daresay, as can in any measure of modesty be pretended to be in the Church of Scotland; and ye would remember they were a covenanted land as well as we; yet our Lord keeps church communion with them in the ordinances of God; though he joined not with them in their corruptions, he joined with them in the ordinances, and consequently it was no sin; and people may keep themselves from the guilt of corruptions in a church, and yet keep communion with a church wherein these corruptions are. Mark, that it was his custom to go to the synagogue in the place where he was brought up, for it plainly relates to his custom which he had while he lived a private man in Nazareth, seeing it appears from the context that this was the first time he was in Nazareth, after he had entered upon the public exercise of his ministry; which cuts off that exception, that Christ went thither only to preach to them. Nay, afterwards,

did he not go to their solemn feasts? This he did also before, and we have plain scripture for his hearing their teachers, Luke ii. 42, "And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem, after the custom of the feast;" and in the verse immediately preceding, it is said of holy Joseph and Mary, "they went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover," so far were they from separating. And in the 46th verse of that chapter, "They found him in the temple, in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions." They that would find this point more largely proved, let them consult Rutherford's "Peaceable Plea for Presbytery," and Durham on Scandal, and on the Revelation, both proving this point against the separatists of their time.

I come now to the third prejudice; and I beseech you bear with me, for if I were to handle this point in an ordinary, ye should not hear so much of it at once. Our great business is to preach Christ, if we could get leave to do it for our divisions. The third prejudice, I say, is, That their principles wherein they differ from us, are the principles of our covenanted reformation, and that their practices, in the points of difference, are agreeable thereto and so they give out that they adhere to our National, and solemn League and Covenants, Confession of Faith, Directory, &c. But we will examine their pretensions in these matters.

First, then, As to the National Covenant, I shall take notice of two things. 1. I find these words in the National Covenant, "This true reformed kirk, to the which we join ourselves willingly, in doctrine, faith, religion, discipline, and use of the holy sacraments, as lively members of the same, in Christ our Head, promising and swearing by the great name of the Lord our God, that we shall continue in the obedience of the doctrine and discipline of this kirk." Let any compare with this, the Assembly 1638, their explanation. of the National Covenant, as ye have it sess. 16, of that Assembly, where, repeating these foresaid words of the National Covenant, they subjoin, "But so it is, that Episcopal government is abhorred and detested, and the government by ministers and elders, in assemblies general and provincial, and presbyteries, was sworn to, and subscribed, in subscribing that Confession, and ought to be holden by us, if we adhere to the meaning of the kirk, when that Confession was framed, sworn to, and subscribed, unto which we are obliged by the national oath and subscription of this kirk, as is evident by," &c. Now, I would appeal to the conscience of any separatist who hath knowledge to discern things that differ, whether or not we have the same doctrine and discipline that they had, when that covenant was first taken; and the same doctrine and dis

cipline which the Assembly 1638 declares to be the doctrine and discipline meant in that covenant, unto which we are obliged by the national oath. Seeing then we have the same doctrine and discipline, they are, by the National Covenant, obliged to join themselves to this kirk, and to continue in the obedience of the doctrine and discipline thereof; and, by their separating, they make themselves plainly guilty of the breach of this substantial part of the covenant. And hence, by the bye, appears the unreasonableness of speaking so slightly of these days, the doctrine and discipline of that time being that which the National Covenant still binds to. 2. I find, that at the first taking of the covenant, they swear to maintain the king's authority: as also, when, with additions, it was renewed in the year 1638, they swear to stand to the defence of his majesty's person and authority. How agrees our dissenters' principle, rejecting the authority of the queen, with this part of the covenant? O, say they, "she is not a covenanted queen, and therefore cannot be queen of a covenanted land." Strange prejudices! Was not Scotland a covenanted land long ere the solemn League and Covenant was heard tell of? Was not king Charles I. king of a covenanted land at that time when the covenant was renewed, and his authority sworn to be defended? But was he a covenanted king? Did he own their covenant? No, no; upon the contrary; he obliged some of their nobles at London* to abjure it, declared the covenanters rebels, and brought down an army against them to force them from it.

As for the solemn League and Covenant, we find them guilty the same way. It binds us expressly against schism, as well as Prelacy, superstition, and heresy. And that they are guilty of schism has been proven before. It also bound to the maintaining of the king's authority, it being far from the mind of the covenanters to cast off the authority of the magistrate, though it was entered into without the king's consent. Was it ever the mind of the covenanters that they would own no king, but one that had taken this covenant? I am sure the Parliament of Scotland thought not so, when in the year 1649 they proclaimed and declared to all the world, That Charles II. was king of Great Britain, &c., their sovereign lord and king; and this was a full year before he took the covenant for which see the Apologetical Relation, pp. 64, 65. Nor did the General Assembly 1649 think so, when in their letter to the king's majesty, (to be found amongst the printed Acts of the Assembly, in their last session), before he was come home, or had

Apol. Rel., p. 53.