Containing the grounds of the Presbytery's testimony against the
constitutions both civil and ecclesiastical at the late Revolution, anno
1689: as also, against the gross Erastianism and tyranny that has
attended the administration both of church and state, since that
memorable period: with various instances thereof, &c.
After the Lord, for the forementioned space of twenty-eight years, had,
because of their manifold sins, sorely plagued this church and nation
with the grievous yoke of prelatical tyranny, bloodshed, oppression and
fiery persecution, and thereby had covered the daughter of Zion with a
cloud in his anger, and cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty
of Israel, and had thrown down in his wrath the strong holds of the
daughter of Judah, yea, brought them down even to the ground; he was
pleased, in his holy sovereignty, to put a stop to that barbarous
cruelty that was exercised upon his people, at the last national
Revolution, by the instrumentality of the prince and princess of
Orange; which is the more remarkable, in that those whom the Lord
employed as the rod of his anger, to strike off that monstrous tyrant
James duke of York from the British throne, were natural branches
sprung up from the same stock: and this at a juncture when not only the
church of Christ was in the greatest danger of being totally extirpated,
but the whole land in hazard of being again overwhelmed with popish
darkness and idolatry. But although a very fit opportunity was then
offered the nations for reviving the long buried work of a covenanted
reformation both in church and state, and re-establishing all the
ordinances of God in purity, according to their scriptural institution:
yet, alas! how deeply is it to be lamented, that, instead thereof, the
multitude of his tender mercies being forgotten, there was a returning,
but not to the Most High; yea, a turning aside like a deceitful bow; so
that, in many respects, our national guilt is now increased above what
it was in former times: wherefore, as the presbytery desire with the
utmost gratitude to acknowledge the divine goodness, in giving a respite
from the hot furnace of persecution; so they likewise find themselves,
in duty to their princely Master and his people, obliged to testify and
declare against foresaid revolution settlement, in a variety of
particulars, with the many defections and backslidings flowing
therefrom. Likeas they hereby do testify against the constitutions, both
civil and ecclesiastic, at the Revolution, anno 1689, in those
respects, and for these reasons:
1. Because that in the civil constitution, these nations once united
together in a scriptural and covenanted uniformity, unmindful of their
former establishment upon a divine footing, wherein king and people were
to be of one perfect religion, and the supreme magistrate obliged by
solemn oath to maintain and preserve the same inviolable, did call and
invite William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, unto the
possession of the royal power in these lands, in a way contrary to the
word of God, as Deut. xvii, 15: "Thou shalt in any wise set him king
over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy
brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger
over thee, which is not thy brother." 2 Sam. xxiii, 3: "The God of
Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men,
must be just, ruling in the fear of God."
In opposition to these clear precepts, the nations did choose the
foresaid persons to sway the civil scepter over them, who were neither
brethren by birth, nor religious profession, being educated in a church
where Erastianism prevails, as appears from their ascribing such an
extensive power to the civil magistrate, as is inconsistent with the
intrinsic power of the church. Accordingly, by these principles, said
prince of Orange did regulate his conduct, in the assumption of his
regal authority, consenting to swear two distinct oaths, whereby he
obliged himself to preserve and maintain the two distinct and contrary
religions (or modes of religions worship), Presbytery and Prelacy, and
so betrayed both to God and man his politic, worldly views, and
proclaimed himself destitute of that truth and religious fear, which is
the essential character of every person who may warrantably be invested
with supreme authority over the Israel of God. And as they wanted
scriptural, so likewise covenant qualifications, namely, known
integrity, approven fidelity, constant affection, and zeal to the cause
and true church of God; and therefore could not in a consistency with
the covenanted constitution, and fundamental laws of the crown, be set
up as king and queen of these covenanted lands.
Again, as during the persecuting period the nations generally were
involved in the guilt of perjury and deep apostasy, by the many sinful
contradictory tests, oaths and bonds then imposed; so, in a particular
manner, those who, by virtue of their birth and dignity, ought to have
been the defenders of the nation's privileges, both sacred and civil, on
the contrary, as privy councilors to the two impious brothers in their
rage against the Lord and his Anointed, and as members of their
iniquitous parliaments (where perverting equity and justice, they framed
the most heaven-daring and abominable mischiefs into a law, and then
with the utmost cruelty prosecuted the same), had many of them brought
themselves under the fearful guilt of these atrocious crimes of murder,
perjury, tyranny and oppression, and thereby, according to the law both
of God and man, not only forfeited their lives, had the same been duly
executed; but also divested themselves of all just right and title to
act the part of the nations' representatives, in choosing and installing
any in the office of supreme civil governor, until at least they had
given suitable evidence of their repentance. Yet such were the
constituent members of that committee of estates, and first parliament,
employed in the Revolution settlement, without so much as making any
suitable public acknowledgment of their wickedness in the active hand
the generality of them had in the former bloody persecution, as appears
from a comparative view of the lists of the members of parliament, and
particularly the duke of York's last parliament, with act second of
the acts and orders of the meeting of estates, anno 1689. Yea, by
viewing the lists of James VII, his privy council, annexed by Wodrow
to the second volume of his history, it is evident, that a great number
of the nobility alone, members of that bloody council, were also members
of foresaid convention of estates, the members of which convention
(seven bishops excepted) were exactly the same with the members of the
first parliament at the Revolution. For this, compare second act of the
meeting of estates, with act first, parliament first, of William and
Mary. By all which it is evident, that from princes who had thus
removed the bound, and discovered no just remorse for their sins, there
was little ground left to expect a happy establishment of religion, in
restoring the flock of Christ to the full possession of those valuable
privileges and liberties wherewith he had made them free.
The character of the constituent members being considered, the
constitution itself, and wherein it is inconsistent with our covenanted
establishment, and is therefore hereby testified against, comes next to
be considered. Although the declaration of the meeting of estates in
this kingdom, containing their claim of right, comprehended much more of
their civil liberties, and formal rights of government, than was enjoyed
under the former monstrous tyranny, yet by no means sufficiently
provided for the legal establishment of our former happy reformed
constitution, which necessarily obliged the civil rulers to employ their
power to maintain and defend, not only the doctrine, but also the
Presbyterian worship, discipline and government, as the only and
unalterable form instituted by Christ in his house. Whereas this craves
the abolition of prelacy, and the superiority of any office in the
church above presbyters in Scotland, simply as it hath been a great
and insupportable grievance and trouble to this nation, and contrary to
the inclinations of the generality of the people ever since the
reformation from Popery, without regarding the divine right of
Presbytery, and the contrariety of Prelacy to scripture revelation. In
agreeableness to which demand, when the first parliament met in
Scotland immediately after the Revolution, which began the ____ day of
April, 1689, in Act 3d, Sess. 1st, entitled Act abolishing
Prelacy, they abolished Prelacy for the foresaid reason, and further
declare, that they will settle by law that church government in this
kingdom, which is most agreeable to the inclinations of the people.
Accordingly, in the second session of the same parliament, Act 5th,
June 7th, 1690, the parliament establishing the Presbyterian church
government and discipline, as it had been ratified and established by
the 14th Act, James VI, Parl. 12th, anno 1592, reviving, renewing
and confirming the foresaid act of parliament, in the whole heads
thereof, except that part of it relating to patronages, afterward to be
considered of. Likewise, in the above mentioned act at the Revolution,
the thirty-three chapters of the Westminster Confession of Faith
(exclusive of the catechisms, directory for worship, and form of church
government formerly publicly authorized, and Covenants National and
Solemn League) were ratified and established by the parliament. And the
said Confession being read in their presence, was voted and approven by
them, as the public and avowed Confession of this church, without taking
any notice of its scriptural authority. And further, in the same session
of parliament, by the royal power allenarly, the first meeting of the
general assembly of this church, as above established, was appointed to
be held at Edinburgh, the third Thursday of October following, the
same year, 1690. And by the same civil authority and foresaid act, many
of the churches in Scotland were declared vacant.
2. The presbytery testify against the ecclesiastical constitution at the
Revolution; particularly, in regard, 1st—That the members composing the
same were no less, if not much more exceptionable, than those of whom
the state consisted; the whole of them one way or other being justly
chargeable with unfaithfulness to CHRIST, and his covenanted cause, by
sinful and scandalous compliance with the public defections of the
former times, or actively countenancing the malignant apostasy of the
lands, which will appear evident, by considering, that the Revolution
Church consisted of such office-bearers, as had, in contradiction to
their most solemn covenant engagements, fallen in with, and approven of
the public resolutions. And these public resolutioners, who had betrayed
the LORD'S cause, which they had in the most solemn manner sworn to
maintain, were, without any public acknowledgement demanded or offered,
or adequate censure inflicted (even, after that the LORD had remarkably
testified his displeasure against that leading step of defection, by
suffering these vipers, which we thus took into our bosom, to sting us
almost to death) for this their scandalous defection and perjury,
admitted and sustained members of the Revolution Church. Again, the
Revolution assembly consisted of such ministers as had shamefully
changed their holding of CHRIST, and sinfully submitted, in the exercise
of their ministry, to an exotic head, Charles II, who had, by virtue
of his blasphemous supremacy, and absolute power, taken the power of the
keys from Christ's ministers, and afterward returning only one of them
(viz.: the key of doctrine) to such as accepted his anti-christian,
church-destroying, and Christ-dethroning indulgences, attended with such
sinful limitations and restrictions, as were utterly inconsistent with
ministerial freedom and faithfulness, declaring the acceptors to be
men-pleasers, and so not the servants of Christ (of which above). Of
this stamp were the most of them, who, without any public acknowledgment
of that horrid affront they had put upon the church's true Head, dared
to constitute and act as the supreme judicatory of the church of Christ,
anno 1690. Again, the foresaid assembly was almost wholly formed of
such as had petitioned for, accepted of, and pretended to return a
God-mocking letter of thanks for that blasphemous unbounded toleration,
which that popish tyrant, the duke of York (as is noticed formerly),
granted, with a special view to reintroduce abjured popery; and
therefore while it extended its protection to every heresy, did exclude
the pure preaching of the gospel in the fields; which toleration
(according to Wodrow) was joyfully embraced by all the Presbyterian
ministers in Scotland, the honored Mr. Renwick only excepted, who
faithfully protested against the same.
But further, the Revolution assembly did partly consist of such members
as, contrary to our solemn covenants, had their consciences dreadfully
polluted, by consenting unto, subscribing, and swearing some one or
other of the sinful wicked oaths, tests and bonds, tyrannically imposed
in the persecuting period, or by persuading others to take them, and
declining to give warning of the danger of them, or by approving the
warrantableness of giving security to the bloody council, not to
exercise their ministry, but according to their pleasure. Moreover, they
were all, generally, manifestly guilty of the sin of carrying on and
maintaining schism and defection from the covenanted church of CHRIST in
Scotland. As also (which from the history of these times is evident),
the ruling elders in that assembly, being generally noblemen, gentlemen,
and burgesses, were mostly such as had an active hand in the tyranny and
persecution that preceded, and in one respect or other, were stained
with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. Thus, that assembly was packed
up, chiefly, of such blacked compilers, as, one way or other, were
deeply involved in the apostasy, bloodshed and cruelty of the preceding
period, yet had not broke off their iniquities, by a public confession
of these crying sins, before that meeting; nor can it be found, that any
adequate censure was inflicted on any of them for the same. Therefore,
the presbytery testify against the Revolution church, as consisting
mostly of such scandalous schismatical members, as could not, in a
consistency with the scriptural rule, and laudable acts of this reformed
church, have been admitted to church privileges, far less to bear office
in the house of God; until, at least, they had been duly purged from
their aggravated scandals, and given evident signs of a real repentance,
according to the Word of God, 2 Chron. xxx, 3: "For they could not
keep the passover at that time, because the priests had not sanctified
themselves sufficiently." And Ezek. xliv, 10: "And the Levites that
are gone away far from me, when Israel went astray, which went astray
away from me after their idols, they shall even bear their iniquity;" v.
13: "And they shall not come near unto me, to do the office of a priest
unto me, nor to come near to any of my holy things, in the most holy
place; but they shall bear their shame, and their abominations which
they have committed."
Next, the presbytery declare and testify against the Revolution church,
because plainly Erastian, and utterly inconsistent with the covenanted
constitution of the reformed church of Scotland, anno 1648: the truth
of which charge will appear obvious, from considering the act of
parliament, on which the civil power settled the constitution of the
Revolution church, viz., Act 114, James VI, Parl. 12th; where,
inter alia, it is expressly declared, "That it shall be lawful to the
kirk ministers, every year at least, and oftener, pro re nata, as
occasion and necessity sall require, to hald and keepe general
assemblies, providing that the king's majesty, or his commissioner with
them, to be appointed be his highness to be present at ilk general
assembly, before the dissolving thereof, nominate and appoynt time and
place, quhen and quhair the next general assemblie sall be halden: and
in case neither his majesty nor his said commissioner beis present for
the time, in that town, quhair the said general assemblie beis halden,
then, and in that case, it shall be lesum for the said general assembly
be themselves, to nominate and appoint time and place, quhair the next
general assembly of the kirk sall be keeped and halden, as they have
been in use to do these times by-past." Here, in this act, a manifest
invasion and traitorous attack is made upon the headship and supremacy
of Christ, as a Son in, and over his own house. He who is God's
annotated King in Zion, and sits on the throne of his holiness, is
hereby robbed of his crown rights; the intrinsic power, the spiritual
liberty and freedom, granted by Christ to his church, is encroached
upon. It is a received opinion among all true Presbyterians, that the
church hath an intrinsic power to meet in the courts of Christ's house,
from the lowest to the highest, by virtue of the power committed to her
by the Lord Jesus Christ, without dependence on the civil power. This is
agreeable to scripture, Matth. xvi, 19, and xviii, 18, 19, where the
apostles receive the keys immediately from the hands of Christ their
Lord and Master. And as one principal part of that trust Christ has
committed to his church, this has been the constant plea of the
reforming and reformed Presbyterian church of Scotland. Let us hear
what that renowned and faithful minister, and venerable confessor for
Christ, the Rev. Mr. John Welsh, says to this particular, in his letter
to the Countess of Wigton from Blackness, 1606, when a prisoner for
this same truth. Having asserted the independence of the church, the
spiritual kingdom of Christ, upon any earthly monarch, and her freedom
to meet and judge of all her affairs; he adds, "These two points, 1st,
that Christ is Head of his church; 2d, that she is free in her
government from all other jurisdictions, except Christ's. These two
points, I say, are the special causes of our imprisonment, being now
convicted as traitors for maintaining thereof. We have been ever waiting
with joyfulness to give the last testimony of our blood in confirmation
thereof, if it should please our God to be so favorable as to honor us
with that dignity. Yea, I do affirm, that these two points above
written, and all other things that do belong to Christ's crown, scepter
and kingdom, are not subject, nor cannot be, to any other authority, but
to his own altogether: so that I would be glad to be offered up as a
sacrifice for so glorious a truth." So far he. But now this assembly of
treacherous men, by settling themselves upon such a constitution have
openly given up this scriptural truth and Presbyterian principle handed
down to us, sealed with the sufferings and dearest blood of the faithful
Confessors and Martyrs of Christ, and have consented that it is unlawful
for the office-bearers in the Lord's house to exert their proper power
in calling and appointing general assemblies, however loudly the
necessity of the church may call for them, unless the king authorize
their diet of meeting, which he may, or may not do, according to his
pleasure.
Again, it is evident, that the revolution church is constituted in the
same Erastian manner with the late Prelacy in Scotland. For proof of
which, observe, that as Prelacy was never ecclesiastically asserted to
be of divine authority, neither has Presbytery, by any explicit and
formal act of Assembly, at or since the revolution. As the prelates'
high ecclesiastical court was called, adjourned and dissolved, in the
king's name, so likewise are the assemblies of the Revolution Church. As
the Episcopalians owned the king, in the exercise of his Erastian
supremacy over them, so the Revolution Church, instead of opposing, did
take up her standing under the covert of that anti-christian supremacy,
and has never since declined the exercise thereof. And, as the civil
power prescribed limits unto, and at pleasure altered, the prelatic
church, so this church has accepted of a formula, prescribed by the
civil power, requiring that all the ordinances within the same be
performed by the ministers thereof, as they were then allowed them, or
should thereafter be declared by their authority, as Act 23d, Sess.
4th, Parl. 1st, 1693, expressly bears. By what is said above, it may
appear, that this church is Erastian in her constitution. But it is
further to be observed, that the present constitution is no less
inconsistent with the scriptural and covenanted constitution of the
church of Scotland, in regard that the retrograde constitution, to
which the church fled back, and on which she was settled at the
revolution, was but an infant state of the church, lately after her
first reformation from Popery, far inferior to her advanced state
betwixt 1638 and 1649 inclusive. It was before the church had shaken off
the intolerable yokes of Erastian supremacy and patronages; before she
had ecclesiastically asserted, and practically maintained, her spiritual
and scriptural claim of right, namely, the divine right of presbytery,
and intrinsic power of the church, the two special gems of Christ's
crown, as King on his holy hill of Zion; before the explanation of the
national covenant, as condemning episcopacy, the five articles of
Perth, the civil power of churchmen; before the Solemn League and
Covenant was entered into; before the Westminster Confession of Faith,
the Catechisms, larger and shorter, the Directory for worship, Form of
Presbyterian church government and ordination of ministers, were
composed; and before the acts of church and state, for purging
judicatories, ecclesiastical and civil, and armies from persons
disaffected to the cause and work of God, were made; and all these
valuable pieces of reformation ratified with the full and ample sanction
of the supreme civil authority, by the king's majesty and honorable
estates of parliament, as parts of the covenanted uniformity in
religion, betwixt the churches of Christ in Scotland, England and
Ireland. And therefore, this revolution constitution amounts to a
shameful disregarding—yea, disclaiming and burying—much (if not all)
of the reformation attained to in that memorable period, and is a
virtual homologation and allowance of the iniquitous laws at the
restoration, anno 1661, condemning our glorious reformation and sacred
covenants as rebellion; and is such an aggravated step of defection and
apostasy, as too clearly discovers this church to be fixed upon a
different footing, and to be called by another name, than the genuine
offspring of the true covenanted church of Christ in Scotland.
Besides what has been already noticed, respecting the sinfulness both of
the members constituent, and the constitutions at the revolution, it is
to be further observed, as just matter of lamentation, that, at this
period, when such a noble opportunity was offered, no suitable endeavors
were made for reviving the covenanted cause and interest of our
REDEEMER; no care taken that the city of the Lord should be built upon
her own heap, and the palace remain after the manner thereof; but, on
the contrary, a religion was then established, not only exceedingly far
short of, but in many particulars very inconsistent with, and
destructive of, that blessed uniformity in religion, once the glory of
these now degenerate isles. The presbytery, therefore, in the next
place, do testify against the settlement of religion made at the
revolution, and that in these particulars following:
1. Instead of abolishing Prelacy in England and Ireland, as it had
been abjured in the Solemn League and Covenant, and stands condemned by
the word of God, and fundamental laws of the nations, conform to the
divine law, it was then, with all its popish ceremonies, anew secured,
confirmed and established, in both these kingdoms, as the true religion,
according to the word of God, to be publicly professed by all the
people; and the supreme civil magistrate solemnly sworn, at his
inauguration, both that he himself shall be of the Episcopal communion,
and that he shall maintain inviolably the settlement of the church of
England, in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, and territories
thereunto belonging. Thus the revolution has ratified the impious
overthrow, and ignominious burial, of the covenanted reformation in
these two kingdoms, that was made in the persecuting period, and has
fixed a legal bar in the way of their reformation, in agreeableness to
the sacred oath the three nations brought themselves under to God
Almighty.
2. As to the settlement of religion in Scotland, the presbytery
testify against it: because it was a settlement, which, instead of
homologating and reviving the covenanted reformation between 1638 and
1650, in profession and principle, left the same buried under the
infamous act rescissory, which did, at one blow, rescind and annul the
whole of the reformation, and authority establishing the same, by making
a retrograde motion, as far back as 1592, without ever coming one step
forward since that time, and herein acted most contrary to the practice
of our honored reformers, who always used to begin where former
reformations stopped, and after having removed what obstructed the work
of reformation, went forward in building and beautifying the house of
the Lord.
That this backward settlement at the revolution, was a glaring
relinquishment of many of our valuable and happy attainments, in the
second and most advanced reformation (as said is), and consequently, an
open apostasy and revolt from the covenanted constitution of the church
of Scotland, is sufficiently evident, from the foresaid act of
settlement 1690; where (after having allowed of the Westminster
confession) they further add, "That they do establish, ratify and
confirm, the Presbyterian church government and discipline, ratified and
established by the 114th Act, James VI, Parl. 12th, anno 1592." So
that this settlement includes nothing more of the covenanted uniformity
in these lands, than only the thirty-three articles of the Confession of
Faith, wanting the scripture proofs. Again, that the Revolution
settlement of religion did not abolish the act rescissory, nor ratify
and revive any act, between 1638 and 1650, authorizing and establishing
the work of reformation, is clear from the same act: wherein, after
abolishing some acts anent the late prelacy in Scotland, they declare:
"that these acts are abolished, so far allenarly, as the said acts, and
others, generally and particularly above mentioned, are contrary or
prejudicial to, inconsistent with, or derogatory from, the Protestant
religion, or Presbyterian church government, now established." Where
observe, that this general clause is restricted to acts and laws, in so
far only, as they were contrary to the religion settled in this act; and
therefore, as this act includes no part of the covenanted reformation
between 1638 and 1649, so this rescissory clause abolishes laws, not as
against foresaid reformation, but only in so far as they strike against
the revolution settlement, which the act rescissory could not do. Again,
in another clause of the same act, it is added: "Therefore, their
majesties do hereby revive and ratify, and perpetually confirm, all
laws, statutes and acts of parliament, made against Popery and Papists."
The only reason that can be given for the revival of laws, not against
Prelacy, but Popery, when abolishing Prelacy, is, that the parliament,
excluding the covenanted reformation from this settlement of religion,
resolved to let the whole of it lie buried under the act rescissory. For
as, in reality, there were no laws made expressly against Prelacy before
1592, but against Popery and Papists; so, had they said, laws against
prelacy and prelates, they thereby would have revived some of the laws
made by the reforming parliaments, between 1640 and 1650; wherein
bishops and all other prelates, the civil places and power of kirkmen,
&c., are expressly condemned. Again, in the foresaid act, they confirm
all the article of the 114th Act, 1592, except the part of it anent
patronages, which is to be afterward considered. Now, had the revolution
parliament regarded the reforming laws to have been revived, and so the
act rescissory to be rescinded, by their Act 5th, 1690, they would not
have left this particular to be again considered of, seeing patronages
were entirely abolished by an act of parliament 1649; but, having the
ball at their foot, they now acted as would best suit with their
political and worldly views. Once more observe, that when the revolution
parliament ratified the act 1592, they take no notice of its having been
done before, by a preceding parliament in 1649. All which plainly says,
that the reforming laws and authority of the parliaments by which they
were made, are not regarded as now in force. To conclude this
particular, if the settlement of religion, made in 1690, had revived and
ratified the authority of our reforming parliaments, and laws made by
them; then, as these obliged the king to swear the covenants before his
coronation, and all ranks to swear them, and obliged to root out
malignancy, sectarianism, &c., and to promote uniformity in doctrine,
worship, discipline and government, in the three nations, so the
revolution settlement would have obliged all to the practice of the same
duties, and that, before ever king, or any under him, could have been
admitted to any trust; while all that would not comply therewith, would
have been held as enemies, not only to religion, but to their king and
country also, as was the case when reformation flourished. But, as the
very reverse of this was authorized and practised at the revolution, it
convincingly discovers, that the settlement of religion, made in 1690,
left the whole of the reformation attained to, ratified and established
by solemn oaths and civil laws between 1640 and 1649, buried under that
scandalous and wicked act rescissory, framed by that tyrant, Charles
II, after his restoration. Nor is there to be found, in all the acts,
petitions, supplications and addresses, made by the assemblies at or
since the revolution, any thing importing a desire to have that
blasphemous act rescinded, which stands in full force, to the perpetual
infamy and disgrace of the revolution settlement of religion, so much
gloried in, by the greatest part, as happily established.
2. The presbytery testify against the Revolution settlement of religion,
not only as including avowed apostasy from the covenanted constitution
of the reformed church of Scotland, and a traitorous giving up of the
interests and rights of Christ, our Lord and REDEEMER, in these, and
especially in this land; but also, as it is an Erastian settlement,
which will appear, by considering 1_st_. The scriptural method then
taken, in establishing religion: instead of setting the church foremost
in the work of the Lord, and the state coming after, and ratifying by
their civil sanction what the church had done; the Revolution parliament
inverted this beautiful order, both in abolishing Prelacy, settling
Presbytery, and ratifying the Confession of Faith, as the standard of
doctrine to this church; 2_d_, In abolishing Prelacy, as it was not at
the desire of the church, but of the estates of Scotland, so the
parliament did it in an Erastian manner, without consulting the church,
or regarding that it had been abolished by the church, anno 1638, and
by the state, 1640, in confirmation of what the church had done. Thus,
Act 3d, 1689, 'tis said, "The king and queen's majesties with the
estates of parliament, do hereby abolish Prelacy." Again, when
establishing presbytery, Act 5th, 1690, they act in the same Erastian
manner, whereby the order of the house of God was inverted in the matter
of government; in regard that the settlement of the government of the
church in the first instance, properly belongs to an ecclesiastical
judicatory, met and constituted in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ;
and it is afterward the duty of the state to give the sanction of their
authority to the same. This Erastianism further appears in the
parliament's conduct with respect unto the Confession of Faith: see
Act 5th, Sess. 2d, Parl. 1st, wherein thus they express
themselves: "Likeas they, by these presents, ratify and establish the
Confession of Faith, now read in their presence, and voted and approven
by them, as the public and avowed confession of this church." Hence it
is obvious, that the parliament, by sustaining themselves proper judges
of doctrine, encroached upon the intrinsic power of the church: they
read, voted, and approved the Confession of Faith, without ever
referring to, or regarding the act of the general assembly 1647, or any
other act of reforming assemblies, whereby that confession was formerly
made ours, or even so much as calling an assembly to vote and approve
that confession of new. That the above conduct of the state, without
regarding the church in her assemblies, either past or future, is gross
Erastianism, and what does not belong, at first instance, to the civil
magistrate, but to the church representative, to whom the Lord has
committed the management of the affairs of his spiritual kingdom, may
appear from these few sacred texts, besides many others, namely, Numb.
i, 50, 51: "But thou shalt appoint the Levites over the tabernacle of
testimony, and over all the vessels thereof, and over all the things
that belong to it: they shall bear the tabernacle and all the vessels
thereof, and they shall minister unto it, and shall encamp round about
the tabernacle; and when the tabernacle setteth forward, the Levites
shall take it down, and when the tabernacle is to be pitched, the
Levites shall set it up, and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put
to death." See also chapters iii, and iv, throughout; also Deut.
xxxiii, 8, 10; 1 Chron. xv, 2; 2 Chron. xix, 11; Ezra x, 4. So
David, when he had felt the anger of the Lord, for not observing his
commandments in this particular, says, 1 Chron. xv, 12, 13, to the
Levites, "Sanctify yourselves that ye may bring up the ark of the Lord
God of Israel. For because ye did it not at the first, the Lord our God
made a breach upon us, for that we sought him not after the due order."
Likewise Hezekiah, a reforming king, did not himself, at first instance,
set about reforming and purging the house of God; but having called
together the priests and Levites, says to them, 2 Chron. xxix, 5:
"Sanctify yourselves and sanctify the house of the Lord God of your
fathers, and carry forth the filthiness out of the holy place;" compared
with ver. 11; Mal. ii, 7; Matth. xvi, 19. "I will give unto thee
the keys of the kingdom of heaven." And xxviii, 18, 19, 20: "All power
is given unto me, go ye therefore and teach all nations, teaching them
to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." From all which
it may safely be inferred, that as the Lord Jesus Christ, the King and
Lawgiver of his church, has committed all the power of church matters,
whether respecting the doctrine or government thereof, to church
officers, as the first, proper receptacles thereof; so, for civil
rulers, at first instance, by their own authority, to make alterations
in the government of the church, and to settle and emit a standard of
doctrine to the church, is a manifest usurpation of ecclesiastical
authority, and tyrannical encroachment upon the ministerial office. It
needs only to be added, that this Revolution conduct stands condemned by
the Confession of Faith itself, in express terms (as well as in the holy
scriptures), chap. xxiii, sect. 3, "The civil magistrate may not
assume to himself the administration of the word or the keys." And also,
by the beautiful practice of our reformers, betwixt 1638 and 1649, who
observed the scriptural order, the church always going foremost, in all
the several pieces of reformation attained to, and then the state coming
after, by exerting their authority, in ratification and defense of the
church's acts and deeds, in behalf of reformation.
3. The Erastianism of this settlement of religion, appears plain from
the act of parliament 1592, noticed above, upon which the Revolution
parliament did found it, as in Act 5th, Sess. 2, 1690, by which the
forementioned act 1592, is ratified, revived, renewed and confirmed, in
all the heads thereof, patronage excepted. Now, in regard that act 1592
contains an invasion upon the headship of Christ, and intrinsic power of
the church, and ascribes an Erastian power to the civil magistrate over
the church, making it unlawful for the church to convocate her superior
judicatories, but in dependence upon the king for his licence and
authority; and in regard the Revolution parliament did revive and renew
this clause in foresaid act 1592, as well as other heads thereof, it
must needs follow, that this settlement of religion cannot be freed of
the charge of Erastianism. Nor is it very strange that statesmen, who
had been educated in the principles of Erastianism, should be fond of
reviving an act that robbed Christ of his crown rights, and the church
of her spiritual liberty; but most surprising, that professed
Presbyterian ministers should so greedily embrace and approve of
Erastianism, as a valuable and glorious deliverance to the church of
Christ! In agreeableness to this Erastian article of the above act the
parliament, in their act 1690, indicted and appointed the first general
assembly, as a specimen of their Erastian power over their newly
constituted church; and it has ever since been the practice of the
sovereign, to call, dissolve and adjourn her assemblies at his pleasure,
and sometimes to an indefinite time. It is further observable, that the
king's commission to his representative in assembly, runs in a style
that evidently discovers, that he looks upon the assembly's power and
right of constitution as subordinate to him. Thus it begins, "Seeing by
our decree that an assembly is to meet," &c. Yet notwithstanding of
this, the assembly 1690 (nor any after them, so far as was ever known to
the world) did not by any one formal act and statue expressly condemn
Erastianism, and explicitly assert the alone headship of Christ, and the
intrinsic, independent power of the church, in opposition to these
encroachments made thereupon, and therefore may be justly construed
consenters thereto. To conclude this particular, of the Erastianism of
the present settlement of religion, it may be observed that although the
Revolution parliament, from political views, did by Act 1st, Sess.
2d, rescind the first act of the second parliament of Charles II.
entitled Act asserting his majesty's supremacy over all persons and in
all causes ecclesiastical; yet, from what is above hinted, it may be
inferred, that the Revolution state has still preserved the very soul
and substance of that blasphemous supremacy (though possibly they may
have transferred it from the person of the king, abstractly considered,
and lodged it in the hand of the king and parliament conjunctly, as the
more proper subject thereof): for, in the words of Mr. John Burnet, in
his testimony against the indulgence, quoted by Mr. Brown in his history
of the indulgence, "To settle, enact and emit constitutions, acts and
orders, concerning matters, meetings and persons ecclesiastical,
according to royal pleasure (and parliamentary is much the same), is the
very substance and definition of his majesty's supremacy, as it is
explained by his estates of parliament." But the Revolution act of
parliament settling religion, is just to settle, enact and emit such
constitutions, acts and orders concerning matters, meetings and persons
ecclesiastical, according to parliamentary, instead of mere royal
pleasure: and therefore the act authorizing the Revolution settlement of
religion, is the very substance and definition of a royal parliamentary
supremacy. The truth of this will further appear by the sequel.
4. The presbytery testify against the Revolution constitution and
settlement of religion, as it is not a religious, but a mere civil and
political one; "not built upon the foundation of the apostles and
prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" but upon
the fluctuating inclinations of the people, as the formal foundation
thereof. For proof of which, consider the acts of parliament relative to
the abolition of Prelacy, and the establishment of presbytery. In
consequence of an article of the claim of right made by the estates of
Scotland, the Act 3d, Sess. 1st, Parl. 1689, declares, "That
whereas the estates of this kingdom, in their claim of right, declared
that Prelacy, and the superiority of any office in the church above
presbyters, is and hath been a great and insupportable grievance to this
nation, and contrary to the inclinations of the generality of the people
ever since the reformation, they having been reformed from Popery by
presbyters, and therefore to be abolished: our sovereign lord and lady,
with advice and consent of the estates of parliament, do hereby abolish
Prelacy, and all superiority of any office in the church in this kingdom
above presbyters; and do declare, that they, with advice aforesaid, will
settle by law that church government in this kingdom, which is most
agreeable to the inclinations of the people." Agreeable to this, one of
king William's instructions to the parliament 1690, is, "You are to pass
an act establishing that church government which is most agreeable to
the inclinations of the people." Accordingly we have the Act 5th,
Sess. 2d, 1690, settling Presbyterian church-government in the same
form, and on the same footing. And so much king William, who, doubtless,
was perfectly acquainted with the true intent and meaning of that act,
declares in his letter to the assembly indicted by him that same year.
From all which (without noticing the Erastian form of these acts, &c.)
it may be observed, that there is somewhat done that is materially good;
but then there is nothing importing the contrariety of Prelacy to the
scriptures of truth, nor the divine right of Presbyterian church
government, so that the whole of this settlement is purely political,
done for the pleasure of the good subjects of Scotland: for, 1st, the
only reason why Prelacy is complained of and abolished, is, because it
was grievous and contrary to the inclinations of the generality of the
people. It is not so much as declared contrary to law, though well known
that it was condemned by many of the reforming laws; far less is it
declared contrary to the word of God, and reformation principles founded
thereupon. Neither is it said to be a grievance to the nations, though
it is manifest, by the nations entering into a solemn covenant to
extirpate it, that it was an insupportable burden to all the three. And
the great reason assigned for the people's dissatisfaction to Prelacy,
is antiquity, "they having been reformed from Popery by presbyters,"
as if our reformers had only contended for a church government merely
human; whereas they strenuously maintained the divine right of
presbytery, and condemned Prelacy as contrary to the word of God. This
reason would be equally strong against presbytery, on supposition that
prelates had got the start of presbyters in the reformation from Popery.
Again, 2d, upon the same, and no better ground, was Presbytery
established, namely, because it was more agreeable to the inclinations
of the people, and as it was of a more ancient standing in Scotland than
Prelacy. Further, that the divine right of presbytery is not
acknowledged in this settlement, appears from the express words of the
act itself, wherein it is designated, "the only government of Christ's
church in the nation;" not the only government of Christ's church laid
down in the word of God, received and sworn to by all the three nations,
ratified by both civil and ecclesiastical authority. A clear evidence,
that church government was regarded as ambulatory only, and what might
be altered at pleasure. Hence, while the king was settling presbytery in
Scotland, he was also maintaining, as bound by oath, Prelacy in England,
&c. And so Presbytery, for peace's sake, as most agreeable to the
inclinations of the people, was settled in Scotland as the government of
Christ's church there. Thus, there is a settlement of religion, and yet
not one line of scripture authority, or reformation principles legible
therein: and, as one said (though a strenuous defender of the
settlement), "The glory of that church is at a low pass, which hangs
upon the nail of legal securities by kings and parliaments, instead of
the nail which God has fastened in a sure place;" which, alas! is the
case with the church of Scotland at this day. It is true, that the
parliament call their settlement, "Agreeable to God's word;" but it is
as true, that, from their conduct toward both (abolishing Prelacy, and
establishing Presbytery, from these political motives above mentioned),
it is abundantly plain, that they believed neither of them to be
formally and specifically agreeable to, and founded upon the word of
God; but that they regarded all forms of church government as
indifferent, and thought themselves at liberty to pick and choose such a
particular form as best suited the humors and inclinations of the
people, and their own worldly advantage. Accordingly, we find the
parliament 1689, appointing a committee to receive all the forms of
government that should be brought before them, to examine them for this
purpose, and then report their opinions of them to the house.
That the parliament at this time, or the king and parliament conjunctly,
acted from the above latitudinarian principle, is further evident, from
their establishing and consenting to the establishment of these two
different and opposite forms of church government, Presbytery in
Scotland, and Prelacy in England and Ireland, and both of them
considered as agreeable to the word of God, and the only government of
Christ's church in the several kingdoms, where they were espoused;
which, as it is self-contradictory and absurd, so it is impossible they
could ever have done this, if they had believed the divine right of
either of them. And finally, by this conduct of theirs, the state
declared their approbation thereof, and resolution to copy after the
16th Act, Sess. 2d Parl. 1st of Charles II (yet in force), which
ascribes an Erastian power to the king, of settling church government as
he shall think proper. By all which it appears quite inconsistent with
the Revolution settlement, to consider church power in any other light,
than as subordinate to the power of the state. And yet with this
political and Erastian settlement of religion, the Revolution Church
have declared themselves satisfied; they have not condemned Episcopacy,
as contrary to the word of God, nor positively asserted the divine right
of Presbytery, and disclaimed the claim of right and act of settlement,
as their right of constitution; but, on the contrary, approved of both,
as appears from the commission's act, 1709, and their address to the
parliament, 1711, both homologated by the succeeding assemblies. Whereby
they declare, that they have dropped a most material part of the
testimony of the reformed church of Scotland, and are not faithful to
the Lord Jesus Christ, in maintaining the rights of his crown and
kingdom. From the whole, it may too justly be concluded concerning the
Revolution settlement of religion, what the prophet Hosea declares of
the calf of Samaria, Hos. viii, 6: "For from Israel was it also, the
workman made it, therefore it is not God; the calf of Samaria shall be
broken in pieces." It is not a divine institution founded upon the word
of God, and regulated by his revealed law; but a human invention, owing
its original in both kingdoms to the inclinations of the people, and
governed by laws opposite to the laws of Christ in the word.
Hence we have the idolatrous institutions of Prelacy, established in the
one nation, and Erastianism, under the specious pretext of Presbytery,
in the other; and both under an exotic head of ecclesiastical
government.
From what is said above, respecting the Revolution constitutions, and
settlement of religion in the nations, it will appear, that the same are
opposite to the word of God, and covenanted constitutions of both church
and state, and to the reforming laws, between 1638 and 1650, ratifying
and securing the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the
church, and all divine ordinances, sacred and civil, according to
scripture revelation; and therefore cannot be acknowledged as lawful, by
any that make the law of God their rule, and desire to go out by the
footsteps of the flock of Christ.
The Presbytery proceed now to consider the administration since the late
Revolution, as standing in immediate connection with the forementioned
constitutions and settlement: only, in the entry, it may be observed,
that as the mal-administrations, civil and ecclesiastical, are increased
to almost an innumerable multitude, so that it would be next to an
impossibility to reckon them all; the Presbytery propose only to observe
so many of the most remarkable instances, as shall be sufficient to
justify a condemnation of the present course of the nations, although
the constitutions could not, be excepted against as sinful. And,
1. The Presbytery declare and testify against the gross Erastianism that
has attended the administrations of both church and state, since the
Revolution. As the constitutions of both (above noticed) were Erastian
and anti-scriptural, so their conduct ever since has been agreeable
thereto, tending evidently to discover that, while the state is robbing
out Redeemer of his crown, and his church of her liberties, this church,
instead of testifying against, gives consent to these impieties.
Particularly, 1, as at the forementioned period, so ever since, the king
has continued, by his own authority, to call, dissolve, and adjourn the
national assemblies of this church. The first Revolution Assembly was
held, by virtue of an Erastian indictment, and by the same power
dissolved. The nest was, by royal authority, appointed to be at
Edinburgh 1691, but by the same power, adjourned to 1692, and then
dissolved, without passing any act; and though again indicted to meet
1693, yet was not allowed to sit until March 1694, near a year after
the parliament had made an humble address to the sovereign for granting
that privilege. But it would be endless to attempt an enumeration of all
the instances of the exercise of Erastianism in this particular, which
is annually renewed. How often, alas! have the assemblies been
prorogued, raised, and dissolved, by magistratical authority, and
sometimes without nomination of another diet? How frequently also, have
they been restricted in their proceedings, and prelimited as to members,
and matters to be treated of, and discussed therein; depriving some
members of their liberty to sit and act as members, though regularly
chosen, merely, because such had not taken the oaths appointed by law?
All which exercise of Erastian supremacy natively results from the
parliamentary settlement 1690. And when no adequate testimony was ever
given by the church against such Erastian usurpations, but they are
still crouched under and complied with, it may justly be constructed a
tame subjection and woful consent to this supremacy. That this is no
forced inference from the continued practice of this church, appears
from this (besides other evidences that might be adduced), viz., That as
the Revolution parliament, when ratifying the Confession of Faith,
entirely left out the act of Assembly 1647, approving and partly
explaining the same (wherein these remarkable words are, "It is further
declared, that the Assembly understands some parts of the second article
of the 31st chapter, only of kirks not settled or constituted in point
of government") as being inconsistent with the Erastian impositions of
the magistrate. So this church, when they cause intrants into the
ministry subscribe the Confession, do not oblige them to subscribe it
with this explanatory act (which does by no means admit of a privative
power in the magistrate, destructive of the church's intrinsic power),
but they only do it as the parliament ratified it.
2. Another instance of Erastianism practiced by both church and state,
is, that when the king and parliament did bind down episcopal curates
upon congregations, forbidding church judicatories the exercise of
discipline upon the impenitent, and enjoining the Assembly to admit
such, without any evidence of grief or sorrow for their former apostasy,
upon their swearing the oath of allegiance, and subscribing a formula,
homologating the Revolution settlement, substituted in the room of the
covenants; the church approved of this settlement, and protection
granted by the civil powers to such curates all their lifetime in their
churches and benefices, who yet were not brought under any obligation to
subject themselves to the government and discipline of the church. The
truth of this is manifest, from sundry of king William's letters to
the Assemblies, together with after acts of parliament, relative
thereto. In his letter, dated February 13th, 1690, to the commission
of the Assembly, he says, "Whereas there has been humble application
made to us by several ministers, for themselves and others, who lately
served under episcopacy; we have thought good to signify our pleasure to
you, that you make no distinction of men, otherwise well qualified for
the ministry, though they have formerly conformed to the law,
introducing Episcopacy, and that ye give them no disturbance or vexation
for that cause, or for that head: and it is our pleasure, that, until we
give our further directions, you proceed to no more process, or any
other business." In another letter, dated June 15th, 1691, he says,
"We are well pleased with what you write, to unite with such of the
clergy, who have served under Episcopacy; and that you are sufficiently
instructed by the General Assembly to receive them; from all which, we
do expect a speedy and happy success, that there shall be so great a
progress made in this union betwixt you, before our return to Britain,
that we shall then find no cause to continue that stop, which at present
we see necessary; and that neither you, nor any commission or church
meeting, do meddle in any process or business, that may concern the
purging out of the episcopal ministers." And in a letter to the
episcopal clergy, he says, "We doubt not of your applying to, and
concurring with, your brethren the Presbyterian ministers, in the terms
which we have been of pains to adjust for you; the formula will be
communicated to you by our commissioners," &c. See also the 27th Act,
Parl. 1695, where it is declared, "That all such as shall duly come in
and qualify themselves, shall have and enjoy his majesty's protection,
as to their respective kirks and benefices, they always containing
themselves within the limits of their pastoral charge, within their said
parishes, without offering to exercise any part of government, unless
they be first duly assumed by a competent church judicatory; providing,
nevertheless, that as the said ministers are left free to apply, or not,
to the foresaid church judicatories," &c. To which agree, Act 2d,
Parl. 1700; Act 3d, Parl. 1702; Act 2d, Parl. 1703, &c. Behold
here the civil magistrate, exercising the supremacy in matters
ecclesiastical, in that he both establishes the old Scots curates in
their respective parishes, upon their former footing, limits them in the
exorcise of their function, discharging them from exercising any part of
ecclesiastical polity, but upon their uniting with the Presbyterians, on
the terms he had adjusted for them. And further, by his authority stops
the exercise of church discipline against these curates (though the most
of them were notoriously scandalous); nay, even discharges the Assembly
from proceeding to any other business, until they received other
directions from the throne. Which palpable instance of Erastianism in
the state, was not only peaceably submitted to, but heartily acquiesced
in by the church: for as they had declared they would censure no
prelatical incumbent for his principles anent church government, however
much disaffected to a covenanted reformation, and had given frequent
discoveries of their readiness to receive into communion the episcopal
curates, according to the terms prescribed by the parliament (as appears
from the Assembly records); so the Assembly 1694, Act 11th, having
framed a sham formula, for receiving in the curates, containing no
such thing as any renunciation of abjured prelacy, the abominable test,
and other sinful oaths these creatures had taken, but only an
acknowledgment of the Revolution settlement of religion, as established
by law, by the foresaid act, appointed their commission to receive all
the episcopal clergy who applied, and being qualified according to law,
would also subscribe their formula, and that without requiring the
least show of repentance for their scandalous public sins, and their
deep guilt of the effusion of the blood of God's faithful saints and
witnesses during the tyranny of the two brothers. These instructions to
the commission and other judicatories (as appears by their acts), were
successively renewed by the Assembly upward of twenty times, from 1694
to 1716, and were indeed attended with good success, as is evident from
their address to the queen, recorded Act 10th, 1712; where they
declare, as an instance of their moderation, "That since the Revolution,
there had been taken in, and continued, hundreds of the episcopal
curates upon the easiest terms," viz., such as were by the royal
prerogative adjusted to them. Which practice, as it declares this church
homologators of Erastianism, so is directly opposite to Presbyterian
principles, the discipline and practice of our reformed church of
Scotland, and to the laws of Christ, the supreme lawgiver, Ezek.
xliv, 10-15; 2 Cor. vi, 17, 18, &c.
3. A third instance of the Erastianism practiced since the revolution,
is, that the king and parliament have taken upon them to prescribe and
lay down, by magistratical authority, conditions and qualifications,
sine qua non, of ministers and preachers. For proof of which, see
Act 6th, Sess. 4th, Parl. 1st, 1693, where it is enacted, "That
the said oath of allegiance be sworn the same with the foresaid
assurance, be subscribed by all preachers and ministers of the gospel
whatever—certifying such of the foresaid persons as are, or shall be,
in any public office, and shall own and exercise the same without taking
the said oath and assurance in manner foresaid,—ministers provided to
kirks shall be deprived of their benefices or stipends, and preachers
shall be punished with banishment, or otherwise, as the council shall
think fit." Also, Act 23d, 1693, it is ordained, "That no person be
admitted or continued to be a minister, or preach within this church,
unless that he have first taken and subscribed the oath of allegiance,
and subscribed the oath of assurance in manner appointed. And further
statute and ordain, that uniformity of worship be observed by all the
said ministers and preachers, as the same are at present performed and
allowed therein, or shall hereafter be declared by the authority of the
same: and that no minister or preacher be continued and admitted
hereafter, unless that he subscribe to observe, and do actually observe,
the foresaid uniformity." The Erastianism in these acts seems screwed up
yet a little higher, by Act 7th, Sess. 5th, Parl. 1st, 1695;
where, after appointing a new day to such ministers as had not formerly
obeyed, it is ordained: "With certification that such of the said
ministers as shall not come in between and said day, are hereby, and by
the force of this present act, ipso facto, deprived of their
respective kirks and stipends, and the same declared vacant, without any
further sentence." The Erastianism in these acts is so manifest at first
sight, that it is needless to illustrate the same; only it may be
remarked, that, by these acts, the civil magistrate prescribes new
ministerial qualifications, viz., the oaths of allegiance and assurance;
and these imposed instead of an oath of allegiance to Zion's King, viz.,
the oaths of the covenants. As also, that ministers are hereby
restricted from advancing reformation, being bound down to observe that
uniformity at present allowed, or that shall hereafter be declared by
authority of parliament. And further, Erastianism is here advanced to
the degree of wresting the keys of government out of the hands of the
church altogether—taking to themselves the power of deposing all such
ministers as shall not submit to their anti-christian impositions, and
of declaring and ascertaining, by their own authority, what mode of
worship or government shall take place in the church hereafter. This
Erastian appointment of ministerial qualifications, &c., is evidently
injurious, both to the headship of Christ in his church, and to the
church's intrinsic power. It pertains to the royal prerogative of
Christ, to appoint all the qualifications of his officers, which he has
done in the Word. And it pertains to the church representative, by
applying the laws of Christ in his Word, to declare who are qualified
for the ministry, and who are not. But here the civil power, without any
regard to church judicatories, by a magisterial authority, judges and
determines, the qualifications that gospel ministers must have,
otherwise they cannot be acknowledged ministers of this church. At the
same time, it must be regretted, that the church, instead of faithfully
discovering the sinfulness of foresaid conduct, and testifying against
it, as an anti-christian usurpation, have declared their approbation
thereof, by taking the above named illimited oaths, according to the
parliament's order; and also by the assembly's enjoining their
commission to act conform to the parliament's directions respecting
ministerial qualifications, in their admission of those that had
formerly conformed to Episcopacy, and refusing to admit any into their
communion without having these new ministerial qualifications.
4. A fourth piece of Erastianism exercised since the commencement of the
revolution settlement, against which the presbytery testify, is, the
civil magistrate, by himself and his own authority, without consulting
the church, or any but his parliament, privy council, and diocesan
bishops, his appointing diets and causes of public fasting and
thanksgiving. A number of instances might here be condescended on. So an
act of the states, anno 1689, for public thanksgiving. An act of
parliament 1693, appointing a monthly fast, declares, "That their
majesties, with advice and consent of the said estates of parliament, do
hereby command and appoint, that a day of solemn fasting and humiliation
be religiously and strictly observed, by all persons within this
kingdom, both in church and meeting-houses, upon the third Thursday of
the month of May, and, the third Thursday of every month thereafter,
until intimation of forbearance be made by the lords of their majesties'
privy council; and ordains all ministers to read these presents a
Sunday before each of these fast days, nominated, by authority; and
ordains all disobeyers to be fined in a sum not exceeding 100£., and
every minister who shall not obey, to be processed before the lords of
their majesties' privy council; and requiring sheriffs to make report of
the ministers who shall fail of their duty herein, to the privy
council." But it is to no purpose to multiply instances of this kind,
seeing it has been the common practice of every sovereign since the
revolution, to appoint and authorize national diets of fasting, with
civil pains annexed. And as the state has made these encroachments upon
the royalties of Christ, so this church, instead of bearing faithful
testimony against the same, have finally submitted thereto. In
agreeableness to the royal appointment, they observed the monthly fast
for the success of the war against Lewis XIV (of which above), and in
favor of the Pope, which king William was bound to prosecute by virtue
of a covenant made with the allies at the Hague, February, 1691, to be
seen in the declaration of war then made against France, wherein it is
expressly said, "That no peace is to be made with Lewis XIV, till he
has made reparation to the Holy See for whatsoever he has acted against
it, and till he make void all these infamous proceedings (viz., of the
parliament of Paris) against the holy father, Innocent XI." Behold
here the acknowledgment of the Pope's supremacy, and his power and
dignity, both as a secular and ecclesiastical prince; and in the
observation of these fasts, the church did mediately (tell it not in
Gath—) pray for success to the man of sin—a practice utterly
repugnant to Protestant, much more to Presbyterian, principles, and
which will be a lasting stain upon both church and state. As this church
did then submit, so since she has made a resignation and surrender of
that part of the church's intrinsic right to the civil power, see Act
7th, Assem. 1710: "All ministers and members are appointed religiously
to observe all fasts and thanksgivings whatever, appointed by the church
or supreme magistrate; and the respective judicatories are appointed to
take particular notice of the due observation of this, and Act 4th,
1722, Act 5th, 1725." From which acts it is manifest, that the
Revolution Church has not only declared the power and right of
authoritative indicting public fasts and thanksgivings for ordinary,
even in a constituted settled national church, to belong, at least
equally, to the civil magistrate, as to the church; but, by their
constant practice, have undeniably given up the power of the same to the
civil power altogether—it being fact, that she never, by her own power,
appoints a national diet of fasting, but still applies to the king for
the nomination thereof. And further, as a confirmation of this
surrender, it appears from their public records, that when some members
have protested against the observation of such diets, the assembly would
neither receive nor record such protest. Now, the sinfulness of this
Erastian practice still persisted in, is evident from the Scriptures of
truth, where the glorious king of Zion assigns the power of appointing
fasts, not to the civil magistrate, but to the spiritual office-bearers
in his house. Jer. xiii, 18: "Say unto the king and queen, Humble
yourselves." Here it is the office of the prophets of the Lord, to
enjoin humiliation work upon those that are in civil authority, contrary
to the present practice, when kings and queens, usurping the sacred
office, by their authority, say to ministers, "Humble yourselves." See
also, Joel i, 13, 14, and ii, 15, 16, compared with Numb. x, 8-10.
Here whatever pertains to these solemnities, is entrusted to, and
required of, the ministers of the Lord, without the intervention of
civil authority. The same is imported in Matth. xvi, 19, and xviii,
18; John xx, 23—it being manifestly contained in the power of the
keys committed, by the church's head, to ecclesiastical officers.
Moreover, this Erastianism, flowing from a spiritual supremacy exercised
over the church, is peculiarly aggravated by these particulars:
1. That commonly these fasts have been appointed on account of wars, in
which the nations were engaged, in conjunction with gross anti-christian
idolaters, who have been most active in their endeavors to root out
Protestantism. Now, it cannot but be most provoking to the Majesty of
Heaven for professed Presbyterians to observe fasts, the professed
design of which, includes success to the interest of the avowed enemies
of our glorious REDEEMER. Again, the above practice is aggravated, from
this consideration, that these diets of fasting, with civil pains
annexed to them, are sent by public proclamation, directed to their
sheriffs and other subordinate civil officers, who are authorized to
dispatch them to the ministers, and inspect their observation thereof.
And while professed ministers of Christ tamely comply with all this, it
amounts to no less, than a base subjection of the worship of God, in the
solemnity of fasting in a national way, to the arbitrament of the civil
powers, when whatever time and causes they appoint, must be observed.
From all which, in the words of the ministers of Perth and Fife, in
their testimony to the truth, &c., 1758, the presbytery testify against
the above Erastian conduct, as being, in its own nature, introductory to
greater encroachments, and putting into the hands of the civil powers,
the modeling of the worship of God, and things most properly
ecclesiastical.
5. Another piece of Erastianism, respecting the present administration,
which the Presbytery testify against, is the king and parliament their
arbitrarily imposing several of their acts and statutes upon ministers
and preachers, under ecclesiastical pains and censures; while this
Revolution Church, by their silent submission and compliance therewith,
have, at least, interpretatively given their consent thereto. Thus, as
the oaths of allegiance and assurance were enjoined upon all in
ecclesiastical office, under the pain of church censure (of which
above), so likewise, Act 6th, 1706, ordains, "That no professors and
principals, bearing office in any university, be capable, or be admitted
to continue in the exercise of their said functions, but such as shall
own the civil government, in manner prescribed, or to be prescribed by
acts of parliament." In consequence of which, there is an Act 1707, an
act in the first year of king George I, and another in the fifth year
of his reign; by all which statutes, ecclesiastical persons are enjoined
to take the oath of abjuration, with the other oaths, under pain of
having ecclesiastical censures inflicted upon them. And they ordain,
"That no person be admitted to trials, or licensed to preach, until they
have taken the public oaths, on pain of being disabled." The foresaid
act, in the fifth year of George I, ordains, "all ministers and
preachers to pray in express words for his majesty and the royal family,
as in former acts." The king and parliament at their own hand prescribe
a set form of prayer for the Church of Scotland, and that under
Erastian penalties, upon the disobeyers. Again, by an act of 1737,
framed for the more effectual bringing to justice the murderers of
Captain Porteous, it is enacted, "That this act shall be read in every
parish church throughout Scotland, on the first Lord's day of every
month, for one whole year, from the first day of August, 1737, by the
minister of the parish, in the morning, immediately before the sermon;
and, in case such ministers shall neglect to read this act, as is here
directed, he shall, for the first offense, be declared incapable of
sitting or voting in any church judicatory; and for the second offense,
be declared incapable of taking, holding or enjoying any ecclesiastical
benefice in that part of Great Britain called Scotland." The
Erastianism of this act is very plain, the penalties thereof are
ecclesiastical, and infer a kind of deposition; seeing the disobeyers
are hereby disabled from exercising and enjoying what is essential to
their office. Moreover, the wickedness of this act appears, in that it
was appointed to be read on the Sabbath day, and in time of divine
service; whereby ministers being constituted the magistrates' heralds to
proclaim this act, were obliged to profane the Lord's day, and corrupt
his worship, by immixing human inventions therewith, which was directly
a framing mischief into a law. Yet, with all these impositions above
noticed, this church has generally complied; and thereby declared that
they are more studious of pleasing and obeying men, than God, seeing
their practice therein infers no less, than a taking instructions in the
ministerial function, and matters of divine worship, from another head
than Christ.
6. The last piece of Erastian administration in church and state, the
presbytery take notice of, and testify against, is that of patronages.
When the parliament 1690, had changed the form of patronages, by taking
the power of presentations from patrons, and lodging it in the hands of
such heritors and elders as were qualified by law, excluding the people
from a vote in calling their ministers, this Erastian act, spoiling the
people of their just privilege, was immediately embraced by the church,
as is evident from their overtures for church discipline, 1696, where
they declare that only heritors and elders have a proper right to vote
in the nomination of a minister. Also their overtures, 1705 and 1719, do
lodge the sole power of nomination of ministers in the hands of the
majority of heritors, by giving them a negative over the eldership and
congregation. But, as if this had not been a sufficient usurpation of
the people's right, purchased to them by the blood of Christ, by an act
of parliament, 1712, the above act, 1690, is repealed, and patrons fully
restored to all their former anti-christian powers over the heritage of
the Lord; which yoke still continues to oppress the people of God. While
again, this church, as if more careful to please the court, and court
parasites, than Christ and his people, have not only peaceably fallen in
with this change, daily practicing it in planting vacant congregations,
but, as fond of this child of Rome, have further established and
confirmed the power of patrons, by the sanction of their authority, as
appears from several acts of assembly, thereby declaring their
resolutions to have this epidemic evil continued, though it should
terminate in the utter ruin of the church. Patronage was always by the
Church of Scotland since the reformation, accounted an intolerable
yoke; and therefore she never ceased contending against it until it was
at last utterly abolished by acts both of reforming assemblies and
parliaments; and that as one of the inventions of the whore of Rome.
As this anti-christian practice was unknown to the church in her
primitive and purest times, until gradually introduced with other popish
corruptions, so it has not the least vestige of any warrant in the word
of truth: nay, is directly opposite thereto, and to the apostolical
practice: Acts i, 15-24; chap. vi, 2-7: as also, xiv, 23, and xvi, 9,
with other passages therein;—a book, intended to give us the
apostolical practice and pattern, in the settlement of the Christian
church: and 2 Cor. iii, 19, &c. Wherefore the presbytery testify against
this Erastian usurpation, as most sinful in itself, most injurious to
the church of Christ, and inconsistent with the great ends of the
ministry; and against this church, for not only submitting unto, but
even promoting this wickedness; which is evident, from her deposing some
of her members, for no other reason but because they could not approve
of this pernicious scheme. Witness Mr. Gallespie, minister at Carnock,
who was deposed May, 1752: and against all violent intruders, who, not
entering by the door, can be regarded only as thieves and robbers; John
x, 1.
These are a few of the many instances of the Erastian usurpations of the
headship of Christ, as a Son, in and over his own house, and of the
church's intrinsic power assumed by the state, and consented to by this
church since the Revolution.[2] And without condescending upon any more,
the presbytery concludes this part, with observing upon the whole, that
when Henry VIII of England did cast off the authority of the see of
Rome, and refused to give that subjection to the pope formerly paid by
him and his predecessors; he did, at the same time, assume to himself
all that power in his dominions, which the pope formerly claimed; and
soon afterward procured to have himself acknowledged and declared, by
act of parliament, to be head of the church—head over all persons, and
in all causes, civil and ecclesiastical. And which anti-christian
supremacy has, ever since, continued an essential part of the English
constitution, and inherent right of the crown; so that all the crowned
heads there, have ever since been as little popes over that realm: and
that all such still appropriate unto themselves that blasphemous
anti-christian title of the head of the church, and supreme judge in all
causes, is undeniably evident from the known laws and canons of England:
and further appears from a declaration made by King George I, June 13th,
1715, where he styles himself Defender of the faith, and supreme
Governor of the church in his dominions; declaring, that before the
clergy can order or settle any differences about the external policy of
the church, they must first obtain leave under his broad seal so to do.
Which title or authority for man, or angel, to assume, is a downright
dethroning and exauctorating of Christ, the only and alone Head and
Supreme Governor of his church. From this spiritual anti-christian
supremacy, granted by English laws to the king of England, confirmed and
established, by virtue of the incorporating union, in British kings, by
acts of British parliament, do flow all the forementioned acts imposed
upon the Revolution Church of Scotland. And as these acts and laws
declare, that the British monarch confines not his spiritual supremacy
to the church of England, but it extends it also over the church of
Scotland: so this Revolution Church, having never either judicially or
practically lifted up the standard of a public, free and faithful
testimony, against these sinful usurpations, flowing from the fountain
of said supremacy, and clothed with the authority of an anti-christian
parliament, where abjured bishops sit constituent members, but, on the
contrary, has submitted to every one of them; therefore, this church may
justly be constructed, as approvers and maintainers of Erastian
supremacy. And hereby, indeed, the revolt of these degenerate lands from
their sworn subjection and obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ, as
supreme in his own house, is completed, when they have these many years
substituted another in his place, and framed supremacy into a standing
law, to be the rule, according to which their kings must lord it over
the house and heritage of the Living God. Again:
The presbytery testify against the manifold, and almost uninterrupted
opposition to the ancient glorious uniformity in religion between the
nations, that has appeared in the administrations of both church and
state, since the last Revolution. The revolution constitution and
settlement of religion, as has been already observed, laid our solemn
covenants and work of reformation, sworn to therein, in a grave, and
many stones have since been brought and cast upon them: many ways and
measures have both church and state taken to make sure the revolution
sepulcher of a covenanted work of reformation, and prevent, if possible,
its future resurrection: against all which, the presbytery judge
themselves bound to lift up their testimony. Particularly,
1. The presbytery testify against the incorporating union of this nation
with England; and as being an union founded upon an open violation of
all the articles of the Solemn League and Covenant, still binding upon
the nations; and consequently, destructive of that uniformity in
religion, once happily attained to by them: which will at first view
appear, by comparing the articles of the union with those of the Solemn
League. All associations and confederacies with the enemies of true
religion and godliness, are expressly condemned in scripture, and
represented as dangerous to the true Israel of God: Isa. viii, 12;
Jer. ii, 28; Psal. cvi, 35; Hos. v, 13, and vii, 8, 11; 2 Cor.
vi, 14, 15. And if simple confederacies with malignants and enemies to
the cause of Christ are condemned, much more is an incorporation with
them, which is an embodying of two into one, and, therefore, a straiter
conjunction. And taking the definition of malignants, given by the
declaration of both kingdoms joined in arms, anno 1643, to be just,
which says, "such as would not take the covenant, were declared to be
public enemies to their religion and country, and that they are to be
censured and punished, as professed adversaries and malignants;" it
cannot be refused, but that the prelatical party in England, now
joined with, are such. Further, by this incorporating union, this nation
is obliged to support the idolatrous Church of England; agreeable
whereto, the Scottish parliament, in their act of security, relative
to the treaty of union, declares, "that the parliament of England may
provide for the security of the Church of England, as they think
expedient." Accordingly, the English parliament, before entering upon
the treaty of union with Scotland, framed an act for securing the
Church of England's hierarchy and worship, as by law established.
Which act, they declare, "Shall be inserted, in express terms, in any
act of parliament which shall be made for settling and ratifying any
treaty of union, and shall be declared to be an essential fundamental
part thereof." Hence, the act of the English parliament for the union
of the two kingdoms, contains the above act for securing the Church of
England. Which act being sent down to Scotland, stands recorded
among the acts of the last Scottish parliament. Moreover, the last
article of said union contains, that all laws and statutes in either
kingdom, so far as they are contrary to, or inconsistent with the terms
of these articles, or any of them, shall, from and after the union,
cease and become void; which, as in the act of exemplification, was
declared to be, by the parliaments of both kingdoms. Thus, this nation,
by engrossing the English act, establishing Prelacy, and all the
superstitious ceremonies, in the act of the union parliament, and by
annulling all acts contrary to the united settlement, have sealed, as
far as men can do, the gravestones formerly laid upon the covenanted
uniformity of the nations. To all which the revolution church, by
consenting, and practically approving this unhallowed union, have said
Amen; though, at first, some of the members opposed and preached against
it, yet afterward changed, and (if some historians may be credited) by
the influence of gold, were swayed to an approbation. This church's
consent to the union is evident, from their accepting of the act of
security, enacted by the Scots parliament, as the legal establishment
and security of the Church of Scotland; and from the assembly 1715,
utterly rejecting a proposal to make a representation to the king, that
the incorporating union was a grievance to the Church of Scotland;
though it ought still to be regarded as such, by all the lovers of
reformation principles, because it is a disclaiming of our sworn duty,
to endeavor the reformation of England and Ireland. It is a
consenting to the legal and unalterable establishment of abjured Prelacy
in them, obliges the sovereigns of Great Britain to swear to the
preservation of the prelatical constitution, and idolatrous ceremonies
of the episcopal church, and join in communion therewith; and,
therefore, for ever secludes all true Presbyterians from the supreme
rule. This union establishes the civil, lordly power of bishops,
obliging the Church of Scotland to acknowledge them as their lawful
magistrates and ministers, to pray for a blessing upon them in the
exercise of their civil power, and is therefore a solemn ratification of
anti-christian Erastianism. It has formally rescinded, and for ever made
void any act or acts, in favor of a covenanted uniformity in religion,
that might be supposed to be in force before this union: and therefore,
while it stands, it is impossible there can be a revival of that blessed
work, which was once the glory of the nations of Scotland, England and
Ireland.
2. The presbytery testify against the sinful practice of imposing oaths
upon the subjects, contradictory to presbyterian principles in general,
and the oath of the covenants in particular, as the allegiance, and
particularly the abjuration; all which oaths, imposed by a British
parliament, exclude our covenanted uniformity, and homologate the united
constitution. But, to prevent mistakes, let it be here observed, that
the presbytery do not testify against any of these oaths, out of the
remotest regard to the spurious pretended right of a popish pretender to
the throne and crown of these kingdoms; for they judge and declare,
that, by the word of God, and fundamental laws of the nations, he can
have no right, title or claim, to be king of these covenanted
kingdoms—seeing, by our covenants and laws, establishing the covenanted
reformation, which are well founded on the divine law, all Papists, as
well as Prelatists, are forever excluded from the throne of these, and
especially of this land. So that it is utterly inconsistent with the
principles maintained by this presbytery, constituted upon the footing
of the covenanted church of Scotland, and the oath of God they, with
the nations, are under, ever to acknowledge and own the popish
pretender, or any of that cursed race, as their king; but they testify
against these oaths, because they bind to the acknowledgment of the
lawfulness of a prelatic Erastian constitution of civil government, and
homologate the incorporating union, in one article whereof, it is
declared, that these words, "This realm, and the crown of this realm,
&c," mentioned in the oaths, shall be understood of the crown and realm
of Great Britain, &c.; and that in that sense the said oaths shall be
taken and subscribed, and particularly the oath of abjuration, which
whosoever takes, swears to maintain Erastian supremacy, Prelacy, and
English popish ceremonies; and so, at least, by native and necessary
consequence, the swearing thereof is an abjuring of our sacred
covenants. But that which puts it beyond all dispute, that the oath of
abjuration, in the literal sense thereof, obliges to maintain the
prelatic constitution of England, both in church and state, as by law
established, and secured by the union act, is the express words of that
act of parliament, by which this oath was imposed, and to which it
expressly refers, viz., the act of further limitation, where it is said:
"On which said acts (viz., of limitation, and further limitation), the
preservation of your majesty's royal person and government, and the
maintaining of the church of England, as by law established, do, under
God, entirely depend. To the intent therefore, that these acts may be
forever inviolably preserved, it is hereby enacted, that magistrates and
ministers shall take the following oath," namely, of abjuration. The
above act, then, declaring that said oath was directly intended for the
support and establishment of the prelatic church of England, it
follows, that this oath is a solemn abjuration of the covenanted
reformation, as it is also expressly repugnant to Presbyterian
principles. But though the above oath is so manifestly sinful, yet the
ministers of this church did neither faithfully warn others of the sin
and danger thereof, nor faithfully oppose it when imposed on themselves;
but, agreeing that every one should act therein as he thought proper,
they who refused it may be reputed socii criminis with the generality,
who, contrary to their professed principles, did take and subscribe the
same, and that (as says the oath) heartily and willingly; whereby they
not only engaged to maintain a prelatic government, Prelacy, with all
its popish ceremonies, but to maintain only a prelatic government, and
to oppose all others, even though Presbyterian, in their accession to
the throne; and this by virtue of the sinful limitations and conditions,
wherewith the oath is clogged. And hereby, these nominal Presbyterians
discover that they are not possessed of a zeal for the advancement of
the true Presbyterian cause and principles, proportionable to that which
the English discover for their will worship and superstition.
3. The presbytery testify against a sinful and almost boundless
toleration, granted anno 1712, a woful fruit of the union; by which
toleration act, not only those of the Episcopal communion in Scotland
have the protection of authority, but a wide door is cast open, and
ample pass given to all sects and heretics (popish recusants and
antitrinitarians some way excepted, who yet are numerous in the nation),
to make whatever attacks they please upon the kingdom and interest of
our glorious Redeemer, in order to the advancement of their own and the
devil's, and all with impunity. The foresaid act warrants the Episcopal
clergy publicly to administer all ordinances, and perform their worship
after their own manner, with all the popish canons and ceremonies
thereof, and obliges all magistrates to protect and assist them, while
it destroys the hedge of church discipline against the scandalous and
profane, and is, therefore, a settling and establishing of Prelacy in
Scotland, giving it a security, little, if anything, inferior to that
which the established church has. Again, by a clause in the toleration
bill, the security given by former laws to Presbyterian church
government and discipline, is undermined and taken away, at least
rendered ineffectual, and made the subject of ridicule to the openly
profane, by the civil magistrate's withdrawing his concurrence, in as
much as it declares the civil pain of excommunication to be taken away,
and that none are to be compelled to appear before church judicatories.
There is nothing in religion of an indifferent nature; "For whosoever
[saith Christ] shall break one of the least of these commandments, and
shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven." It
must, then, be the most daring wickedness, and an affronting of the
Majesty of Heaven in the highest manner, for an earthly monarch to
pretend to enact a toleration of religions, and thereby give a liberty
where the divine law has laid a restraint; it implies an exalting of
himself, not only to an equality with, but to a state of superiority
above, the God of glory. Whatever principles are of divine authority
require no toleration from man; it is wickedness to pretend to do it,
seeing whatever comes under the necessity of a toleration, properly so
called, falls, at the same time, under the notion of a crime. And no
less wicked is it for a magistrate to protect, by a promiscuous
toleration, all heretics, heresies and errors; yea, it is a manifest
breach of trust, and plain perverting the end of his office, seeing he
is appointed to be custos et vindex utriusque tabulae, intrusted with
the concerns of God's glory, as well as the interests of men. Experience
has, in every age, taught, that a toleration of all religions is the
cut-throat and ruin of all true religion. It is the most effectual
method that ever the policy of hell hatched, to banish all true
godliness out of the world. But however manifold the evils be that
toleration is big with, this church, instead of opposing, seems to have
complied therewith, and to be of toleration principles; which is
evident, not only from their receiving into communion the Scots
curates, of which above; but from their joining in communion with Mr.
Whitefield (an English curate and member of that church, and
ring-leader of the Methodists there), when he is in Scotland. Again,
it is known, that when the Scots gentlemen are sent to attend the
British parliament, or at any time in England, they do, many of
them, join in communion with the prelatic church—nay, are guilty of
taking the sacramental test (that is, taking the sacrament after their
superstitious manner, to qualify them for any public post); yet this
church receives them into the closest communion, without requiring any
satisfaction for these evils; whereby they act contrary to Christ's
example, in purging and keeping his house pure, and contrary to the
Scripture; Rev. ii, 14, 15, 20.
4. In like manner, the presbytery testify against the tyranny that has
frequently appeared in the administration since the revolution, both in
church and state. The civil powers have discovered not a little of
tyrannical and arbitrary power, in imposing their laws, statutes and
injunctions, upon the church, as in the instances of the particulars
formerly noticed. But further, it has appeared in their fining and
imprisoning persons, because (though endeavoring to live peaceably, as
far as possible, with all men) they could not, in conscience, and in a
due regard to the covenanted cause, own the lawfulness of their
authority, by swearing fidelity to the present constitution. Again, in
their dispensing with, and counteracting, the law of God in a variety of
instances. Thus, while, without any divine warrant, the crime of theft
is capitally punished, yet the grossest adulterers, who are capitally
punishable by the divine law, pass with impunity. And frequently
reprieves, and sometimes pardons (as in the case of Porteous), have
been granted to murderers, expressly contrary to the law of God, which
declares that "Whosoever sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be
shed." Another astonishing and full evidence of the above charge, is in
the act repealing the penal statutes against witches, &c., 1735, where
it is enacted, "That no prosecution, suit or proceeding, shall be
carried on against any person or persons, for witchcraft, sorcery,
enchantment or conjuration," &c. This act, in plain terms, flatly
contradicts and opposes the law of God, in the very letter thereof. See
Levit. xx, 6, 27; Deut. xviii, 10-12; Exod. xxii, 18. Not only has
the state, in these and other instances (as the imposing almost
intolerable taxations upon the impoverished subjects, for supporting the
grandeur of useless and wicked pensioners, and for carrying on wars,
often not only sinful in respect of their rise and causes, but in their
nature and tendency unprofitable to the nations), been guilty of this
evil, but also the Revolution Church has exercised a most tyrannical
government. As many of the constituent members of the Revolution Church
had shown a persecuting, tyrannizing spirit, against the faithful
contenders for the truth, in the matter of the public resolutions, so
the same spirit has still continued since the revolution, and frequently
exerted itself in a most arbitrary manner, against all who have made any
appearance for a covenanted work of reformation. Accordingly, soon after
the revolution, this church raised some processes against Mr. John
Hepburn, minister at Orr, under pretense of some irregularities, but
in reality, for his making some appearance against their abounding
defection, and for a covenanted work of reformation, and continued their
prosecution to suspension and deposition; and further, applied to the
civil magistrate, to apprehend said Mr. Hepburn, who accordingly was
imprisoned in Edinburgh, and then, because of his preaching to the
people out of a window, was carried to Stirling castle, and kept close
prisoner there for a considerable time, as a book, entitled Humble
Pleadings, fully discovers. They likewise exercised their tyranny
against Messrs. Gilchrist in Dunscore, and Taylor in Wamphray,
whom they prosecuted, not only to deposition, but even excommunication,
for no reason but their bearing testimony against that ensnaring oath of
abjuration, and a number of other defections. Again, this church, still
fond of suppressing the good old cause and owners thereof, framed and
prosecuted a libel, most unjustly (some even of themselves being
judges), against Mr. John McMillan, minister in Balmaghie, for
presenting, in a regular manner, a paper of real and acknowledged
grievances; and, because he would not resile from it, but continued to
plead for a redress, was at last deposed. As also Mr. John McNeil,
preacher, for the same reason, had his license taken from him; and, by
the authority of the assembly, both of them were prosecuted and
censured, not for scandal, insufficiency or negligence, error in
doctrine, &c., but only on account of their pleading for the covenanted
reformation of the Church of Scotland, and maintaining a necessary
testimony against the prevailing corruptions and defections of former
and present times, as appears from their paper of grievances and joint
declinature, printed 1708. Nay, such was their mad zeal against
reformation principles, that, by the Act 15th of Assem. 1715, the
commission was not only empowered to censure all the forementioned
persons, but also enjoined to apply to the civil magistrate for
suppressing and punishing them; and accordingly sundry of them were
proclaimed rebels over public market crosses, only for their continued
adherence to reformation. And besides other instances, their magisterial
and lordly power exercised over the flock of Christ, in the violent
intrusion of ministers into vacant churches over the belly of the
people, and then excommunicating from sealing ordinances such as cannot
in conscience submit to the ministry of these intruders, is a most
glaring one; while at the same time, severe censures are inflicted upon
such ministers as have the honesty to oppose these anti-christian
measures. Loud complaints have likewise been made against their
arbitrary and tyrannical conduct, with reference to Mr. Ebenezer
Erskine, and others with him, designated by the name of the Associate
Presbytery, because of their remonstrating against, and endeavoring to
rectify, some of the forementioned evils in the church; the justness of
which grievances and complaints may be instructed from their own
writings on that head.
It must not be here omitted to remark, that as this church is justly
charged with tyranny in government, so she is equally guilty of
partiality in discipline. Though all that discover any measure of
faithfulness in the concerns of Christ's glory, are sure to meet with
most severe treatment, yet the loose, profane and erroneous, have seldom
any church censures put in execution against them. This church never
made any suitable inquiry into the sinful compliances, and sad
defections of her members and office-bearers, during the persecuting
period: and that unfaithfulness in the exercise of church discipline is
still copied after. How few, guilty of the most gross scandals, are
censured, such as notorious drunkenness, blasphemy, cursing, swearing,
sabbath-breaking, uncleanness, especially among the rich, who are
capable to give pecuniary mulcts to free them from church censure?
(Thus, in conformity to the prelatical and anti-christian example,
setting to sale the censures of the church, and dispensing with the laws
of Christ for money.) Nay, not only are such overlooked, but many guilty
of these gross sins, together with oppression, neglecters of family
worship, and the grossly ignorant, are without any public
acknowledgement of these sins, admitted to the highest and most solemn
ordinances, viz., both sacraments. And this may be thought the less
strange, when persons chargeable with most of these sins, are admitted,
and continued to be office-bearers in the house of God. Persons, and
even teachers maintaining most dreadful blasphemous errors connived at,
patronized, or but slightly censured, and still kept in communion,
without any open renunciation of these heresies. Play-houses, the
seminaries of vice and impiety, erected in the principal cities of the
nation, and stage players, commonly among the most abandoned of mankind,
escape with impunity. Yea, this pagan entertainment of the stage is
countenanced by the members and office-bearers of this church, and that
to such a degree, that one of the ministers thereof has commenced author
of a most profane play, called The Tragedy of Douglas, wherein
immorality is promoted, and what is sacred exposed to ridicule. Oh! how
astonishing! that a minister in the once famous church of Scotland
should be guilty of such abominations, and yet not immediately sentenced
to bear the highest of all church censure!
5. The Presbytery testify against this established church, for
unfaithfulness of doctrine; which will appear by a few instances:
although before the Revolution, the Lord Jesus was openly, as far as
human laws could do, divested of his headship and sovereignty in and
over his church; although the divine right of presbytery had been
publicly and nationally exploded, derided and denied, yet this church
has never by any formal act, declared that our Lord Jesus Christ is sole
king, the alone supreme head of his church—nor in the same manner
declared that the presbyterian form of church government is of divine
right, and condemned all other forms as contrary to the word. Such a
testimony was the more necessary, when the civil powers have arrogated
Christ's power to themselves, and continue to exercise it over his
church; and the want of it is an evidence of the church's unsoundness in
the doctrine of government, and of Christ's kingly office. This church's
error in doctrine further appears from their condemnation of a book
entitled The marrow of modern divinity, as containing gross antinomian
errors; whereby they condemned many great gospel truths as errors,
particularly, that believers are altogether set free from the law, as a
covenant of works, both from its commanding and condemning power,
together with others; whereby they have made way for, and encouraged
that legal, moral way of harranguing, exclusive of Christ and his most
perfect righteousness (which is so common and frequent in all parts of
the land), and opened a door for introducing Baxterian principles,
which, in consequence hereof, have since very much prevailed. Another
evidence of this church's unsoundness and unfaithfulness in doctrine, is
their excessive, sinful lenity toward the most gross heretics.
Notwithstanding Arminian and Pelagian heresies, and Arian
blasphemies, have been publicly taught; and although true godliness, and
the effectual working of the Spirit on the souls of men have been
publicly exposed as enthusiasm, and many other damnable heresies vented,
yet this church has never lifted up the faithful standard of a judicial
testimony, in condemnation of these heresies, and in vindication of the
precious truths of Christ thereby impugned. And when the ministers and
members of this church have been processed before her assemblies, and
convicted of maintaining many gross errors, no adequate censure has been
inflicted. This particularly appears in the case of Mr. Simpson,
professor of divinity in the college of Glasgow, when processed before
the judicatories of this church, in the years 1715 and 1716, for several
gross errors; such as, "That regard to our own happiness, in the
enjoyment of God, ought to be our chief motive in serving him, and that
our glorifying of God is subordinate to it: that Adam was not our
federal head;" and other Arminian, Socinian and Pelagian heresies,
all to be found in his answers to Mr. Webster's libel given in against
him, and clearly proven: yet was he dismissed with a very gentle
admonition. Which sinful lenity encouraged him, not only to persist in
the same errors, but also to the venting of Arian heresies among his
students.
Accordingly, he was again arraigned before the assembly's bar in the
years 1727-28-29, when it was found clearly proven that he had denied
the necessary existence of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the numerical
Oneness of the Three Persons of the Trinity in substance and essence,
with other damnable tenets. Yet when these articles, whereby he had
attempted to depose the Son of God from his supreme deity, were proven,
and when (as one of the members of this church, in his protest against
the assembly's sentence, said) the Son of God was, as it were, appearing
at the bar of that assembly, craving justice against one who had
derogated from his essential glory, and blasphemed his name, at which
every knee should bow. Yet such was the corruption and unfaithfulness of
this church, that the blasphemer was dismissed without any adequate
censure passed upon him, and still continued in the character of a
minister and member of this church.
Again, when Mr. Campbell, professor of church history at St. Andrews,
was processed before the judicatories of this church, for maintaining a
scheme of dangerous and most pernicious principles, which he published
to the world, having a manifest tendency to subvert revealed religion,
and expose the exercise of serious godliness, under the notion of
enthusiasm; to advance self-love, as the leading, principle and motive
in all human actions whatever, and to destroy the self-sufficiency of
God, making him a debtor to his creatures: yet though these, with a
number of God-dishonoring, creature-exalting, and soul-ruining errors,
were notorious from his books, and were defended by him; the heretic,
instead of being duly censured, was countenanced and carressed: whereby
this church has given a most deep wound to some of the most important
truths of the Christian religion, and becomes chargeable with the guilt
of all the errors maintained by that erroneous professor.
A third instance of this church's unfaithfulness, appears in the case of
Mr. Glas, and others, who openly vented, by preaching and printing,
independent schemes of church government, with some new improvements;
attacked our Confession of faith and Covenants, unhinging all order and
government in the church, pulled up the hedge of discipline, to
introduce all errors in doctrine, and corruption in worship; and, at
last, openly renounced presbytery, name and thing (denying that there is
any warrant for national churches under the New Testament), and
asserted, that our martyrs, who suffered for adhering to the covenanted
reformation, were so far in a delusion, with many other sectarian
tenets: for which, the church at first suspended, and then deposed some
of them. But afterward, as if this church repented of doing so much in
favor of presbytery, they were reponed, to the great danger of the
church: for having discovered no remorse for their errors, they
immediately employed all their parts to shake presbytery, by setting up
independent churches and ordaining several mechanics to be their
ministers; and nothing done by the church for putting a stop to these
errors, and for reviving and vindicating the precious truths they had
impugned.
Likewise, when Mr. Wishart was staged for error vented by him in some of
his sermons, with respect to the influence of arguments taken from the
awe of future rewards and punishments, and other erroneous notions; he
was dismissed without any renunciation of his heterodox principles, and
assoilzied by the judicatories of this church: and, as easy absolutions
encourage error, so no sooner was he assoilzied, but he had the
assurance to recommend erroneous books, such as Doctor Whitchcot's
sermons, to his students. It is indeed no small evidence of the
unsoundness of this church, when the heads of colleges are suffered,
impune, to recommend such books for students and probationers to form
upon.
Again, when professor Leechman was quarreled with for his deistical
sermon on prayer, by the presbytery of Glasgow, and afterward carried
before the assembly; yet although in all his sermons, he presents God as
the object of prayer, merely as our Creator, without any relation to
Christ, as Mediator; but recommends to his hearers, as the only
acceptable disposition of mind, an assured confidence in the goodness
and mercy of their Creator: not only has that Christless sermon been
very much extolled, but the author dismissed from the assembly's bar in
such a manner, as if thereby he had merited their applause. From all
which it sufficiently appears, that this church is unsound and
unfaithful, in point of doctrine; especially, if it is considered, that
she has been frequently addressed by representations, declaring the
necessity of an assertory net, affirming and ascertaining the precious
truths injured and impuned, and that publicly, by the above mentioned
errors; and that a solemn warning should be emitted, discovering the
evil and danger of them: yet that necessary duty has still been
contemned and disregarded.
The great truths of God, have, for many years, lain wounded and bleeding
in our streets, trampled upon by their open and daring enemies; while
this church has entirely forgotten and slighted the divine command, to
contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. And though
the Westminster Confession of Faith continues to be subscribed by
intrants into the ministry (the covenants owned by the Reformed Church
of Scotland, as a part of her confession, being abstracted from the
confession of this present church), yet how little of that system and
order of doctrine is now taught? the generality having just as much of
Christ, and the doctrines of his cross, in most of their discourses, as
is to be found in the writings of Plato, Epictetus and Seneca, and
the rest of the Pagan moralists. So that this church appears orthodox,
in little (or no) other sense than the church of England is so, viz.,
by subscribing the thirty-nine articles, which are Calvinistical in
the doctrinal parts; while yet the Arminian system of doctrine is
generally received and taught by her clergy. Add to what is above, that
this church maintains no suitable testimony against sins of all sorts,
in persons of all stations; neither emits faithful warnings anent the
snares and dangers of the nation, nor full and free declarations of
present duty, as church judicatories, like faithful watchmen did in
former times. But such faithfulness in God's matters is not now, alas!
to be expected; seeing this church has made a formal concert, or mutual
paction, binding up one another from preaching against, and applying
their doctrines to the sins, corruptions and scandals of the times: see
Acts of Assem. 16th, 17th, anno 1712; Act 6th, 1713; Act 8th,
1714; Act 6th, 1715. The Presbytery cannot also here omit observing,
and that with deep regret, that although the most damnable principles,
which have a direct tendency to deny the being of God, and so to
propagate opinionative atheism, to subvert all religion, to extol the
power of corrupt nature, and exalt Popery, as the best form of religion,
to deny the subjection of the world to the providence of God, to destroy
all distinction between virtue and vice, and consequently affirm, that
there is no moral evil in the world, and to ridicule Christianity, as
destitute of divine authority, have been lately vented by David Hume,
Esq.; and another designated by the name of Sopho: yet this church has
passed no suitable censure upon the authors of these impious and
blasphemous principles, though they justly deserve the very highest: nor
have they done anything to testify their dislike, or put an effectual
stop to the spreading of these abominable tenets. The presbytery
therefore, as they declare their abhorrence of these, and the other
errors formerly mentioned, so testify against the church's notorious
unfaithfulness, in suffering these wretches to pass with impunity; and
as being, on all these accounts noticed, unsound and corrupt, in the
matter of doctrine, &c. It may also be here remarked, as an undoubted
evidence of the corruptness of the state, that, although there are civil
laws presently in being, which declare the maintaining of
antitrinitarian, atheistical principles, to be not only criminal, but
capital; yet the civil powers in the nation have not so much regard to
God, and the Son of God, as to punish treason openly acted against them.
6. The presbytery testify against both church and state, for their
sinful associations with malignants: as declared enemies to the
covenanted interest have engrossed the civil power wholly to their
hands, since the public resolutions, that a door was opened for their
admission; so such is the nature of the laws presently extant and in
force, that one cannot be admitted to any office, civil or military, but
by swearing away all friendship to a covenanted reformation. And,
moreover, all along since the late Revolution, the nations have been the
most earnest pursuing after friendship with the grossest idolators; and,
in express contradiction to the word of God, have confederated in the
closest alliance with God's declared enemies abroad; nay, have exhausted
their strength and substance, in maintaining the quarrel of such as have
been remarkable for their hatred at, and persecution of the protestant
interest. The Revolution Church has also said a confederacy with such as
have, on all occasions, shewed a rooted enmity and hatred at reformation
principles: which appears from their admitting such (noticed above) to
be office-bearers in the church: from their observing fasts, and praying
for success to the allied armies, though almost wholly composed of such,
and many of them oftentimes gross Popish idolaters: from their going in
with, and approving of the sinful incorporating union with England:
from their acknowledging the civil power of church men as lawful: from
their joining in religious communion with Mr. Whitefield; and in many
other instances. Not to insist further in enumerating particulars, the
Presbytery finally testify against church and state, for their
negligence to suppress impiety, vice, and superstitious observance of
holy days, &c. The civil powers herein acting directly contrary to the
nature and perverting the very ends of the magistrate's office, which is
to be custos et vindex utriusque tabulae; the minister of God, a
revenger, to execute wrath on him that doeth evil. Transgressors of the
first table of the law may now sin openly with impunity; and, while the
religious observation of the sabbath is not regarded, the superstitious
observation of holy-days, even in Scotland, is so much authorized,
that on some of them the most considerable courts of justice are
discharged to sit. Stage-plays, masquerades, balls, assemblies, and
promiscuous dancings, the very nurseries of impiety and wickedness, are
not only tolerated, but even countenanced by law. And as these, with
other evils, are permitted by the civil powers; so this church seems to
have lost all zeal against sin. No suitable endeavors are used to
prevent the growth of atheism, idolatry and superstition: and though
Prelacy, as well as Popery, is growing apace in the lands, and organs
publicly used in that superstitious worship; yet no testimony is given
against them, but new modes introduced into the worship of God, for
carnal ends, as a gradual advance toward that superstition. Yea, so
unconcerned about suppressing vice and extravagant vanity, &c, that not
only are the forementioned nurseries of sin frequented by ministers'
children, but ministers themselves have countenanced them by their
presence, to the great scandal of their office, and manifest
encouragement of these seminaries of immorality. And notwithstanding
that by the late proclamation, the penal laws against vice and profanity
seem to be revived (which is in itself so far good), yet this cannot
supersede or remove the ground of the Presbytery's testimony against
church and state complexly, on the above account, or even against the
thing itself, in the manner that it is gone about. For besides that,
notwithstanding of all former endeavors of this kind, since the
overthrow of our scriptural and covenanted reformation, immorality and
wickedness have still increased and overflowed all these banks; partly,
because, after all their pretenses, the laws were not vigorously put in
execution (and as good, no law nor penalty, as no execution), and
partly, because these law-makers, being also themselves the
law-breakers, have entrusted the execution to such as are generally
ringleaders in a variety of gross immoralities; it is not likely, that
ever God will countenance and bless such attempts, whereby (contrary to
scripture and all good order) the ecclesiastical power is subjected to
the civil, and ministers made the bare inspectors of men's manners, and
informers to inferior judges, without having it in their power to oblige
such transgressors (if obstinate) to compear before church judicatories,
and conform and submit to the laws of Christ's house. Nay, so far will
God be from approving such Erastian methods of reformation, that he will
certainly visit for this, among all our other iniquities, and in his own
due time make a breach upon us, because we sought him not in the due
order. Wherefore, and for all these grounds, the Presbytery testify
against both church and state, as in their constitutions Erastian and
anti-scriptural, including the substitution and acknowledgement of
another head and governor over the church than Christ, as may be
sufficiently evident from proofs above adduced. And particularly,
because the British united constitution is such as involves the whole
land, and all ranks therein, in the dreadful guilt of idolatry,
communicating with idolators, apostasy, perjury, &c.[3] They declare
they can have no communion therewith; but that it is such an association
as that God's call to his people, concerning it, is, "Come out from
among them. Be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will
receive you, saith the Lord."
* * * * *
SUPPLEMENT TO PART SECOND.
For as much as a good number of people in the north of Ireland have
acceded, and submitted themselves to the Presbytery, and one of their
number is fixed among them as their proper pastor; the Presbytery
intended to have subjoined something by way of appendix to the above
Testimony, with relation to the state of religion in that kingdom,
especially with regard to the settlement of the presbyterian religion
there. But as diocesan Episcopacy is the religion there established by
law, against which the Presbytery has declared and testified (as above)
as an anti-scriptural, anti-covenanted and merely a human and political
settlement (whether considered abstractly or complexly with that in the
kingdom of Scotland), there needs nothing be further said anent it.
And as those called Presbyterians in Ireland, are equally enemies to
the true covenanted Presbyterian cause with those of the Revolution
Church of Scotland; so the above testimony equally strikes against
them with the other. There seems, however, to be this considerable
difference betwixt the Presbyterians in Scotland and Ireland, viz.,
That although the settlements the same as to the matter of it, yet so it
is not as to the form or manner of it, the Presbyterians in Ireland
neither having, nor claiming any other security or foundation for their
different mode of religious worship than the royal indulgence, or
toleration Act. And therefore, as the Presbytery did and do testify
against toleration, and toleration principles, disclaiming such an
anti-scriptural shelter; they therein, of consequence, bear witness and
testimony against all such as do in these lands (where God has given his
people a claim of another kind) professedly dwell under such a shadow.
But besides, the Presbytery view them (complexly considered) as unworthy
of their regard or notice in these papers, as to engaging in any
particular or explicit testimony against them, in as much as they have
denuded themselves of almost any pretense to the Presbyterian name, by
not only disclaiming and opposing the true Presbyterian cause, but
having also fallen from the belief and profession of the most important
and fundamental truths of Christianity; thereby plainly discovering
themselves to be creatures of quite another species and spirit, than the
ministers of Jesus Christ, and friends to the blessed spiritual
Bridegroom; deserving rather to be termed a synagogue of Libertines, a
club of Socinians, Arians, Pelagians &c., banded together against
Christ, and the doctrines of his cross than a synod of the ministers of
the gospel. Therefore, as the presbytery testify and remonstrate against
them, their toleration, or indulgence footing, on which they professedly
stand, together with their poisonous jumble and medley of errors,
commonly called Newlight, adopted, and with the greatest warmth and
diligence, spread and propagated by most of them, and connived at and
tolerated by the rest and all their books or prints written by them, or
others of the like spirit with them in defense of these dangerous and
damnable tenets so they do hereby judicially warn and exhort all the
people under their inspection there, to beware of such men, and such
books, however they may varnish over the doctrines they bring, with fine
words fair speeches and pretenses, in order to deceive the hearts of the
simple; and this, as they would not incur the displeasure of a holy and
jealous God, and have their souls defiled and destroyed by these
error's. On the contrary to endeavor to have their minds and
understandings enlightened with the knowledge of the truths of Christ,
and mysteries of his gospel, and their hearts warmed with the love of
them; so that being through grace established in the belief of the
truth, they may not "be as children tossed to and fro, and carried about
with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning
craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;" Eph. iv, 14, 15.
"But speaking the truth in love may grow up in all things unto him,
which is the Head even Christ;" and striving to refrain and keep
themselves from every wicked, offensive and backsliding course, and to
live soberly, righteously and godly, blameless and harmless as the sons
of God, without rebuke, adorning the gospel of Christ with a
conversation becoming the same; so shall they thereby glorify God, and
transmit a faithful testimony for the despised truths of Christ to
posterity, that so there may be a seed to do service unto him in these
lands, and make his name to be remembered through all generations.
The principles of some parties, who have made the most specious
appearances for the Reformation, considered.—Particular grounds of
testimony against that body of ministers and people known by the name of
the Secession, wherein their partiality and unfaithfulness in their
profession of the covenanted testimony of the Church of Scotland is
discovered in various instances,—their loose and immoral doctrine about
civil society and government—their corruption in worship, sinful terms
of communion, &c., &c.
The Presbytery having in the preceding pages exhibited their testimony
against both church and state, as now established in these isles of the
sea, and therein discovered the reasons, why they are obliged to
disapprove of both, proceed, next, to take notice of some of the parties
that have made the most specious appearances for reformation in this
land since the Revolution, of which that party commonly known by the
name of the Secession, are not the least remarkable. It is vast pity,
and it is with grief and lamentation, that the Presbytery find
themselves, in point of duty, obliged to lift up a testimony against the
forementioned party; considering, that they have made a professed
appearance under a judicial banner displayed for truth, and a covenanted
work of reformation, and have, in reality, showed much zeal in opposing
a variety of errors in doctrine, corruption in discipline and
government, most prevalent in the national Church of Scotland; have
contributed to vindicate some of the most important truths and doctrines
of the Christian faith, that have been openly impugned in this day of
blasphemy, and may have been instrumental in turning many to
righteousness, and reviving the exercise of practical godliness among
not a few. But as Paul withstood Peter to the face, and testified
against his dissimulation, though both of them apostles of our common
Lord and Savior; so it still remains duty to testify against the most
godly, and such as may have been very useful to the church in many
respects, in so far as they have not showed themselves earnest
contenders for the faith once delivered to the saints, but have dealt
treacherously with God in the concerns of his glory. It is therefore
with just regret they proceed to observe, that they are obliged, to
testify against this party designated, first, by the title of The
Associate Presbytery (and then that of The Associate Synod)—and that
particularly, for their error in doctrine, treachery in covenant,
partiality and tyranny in discipline and government. It may at first
seem strange, to see a charge of error advanced against those who made
the countenancing of error in the judicatories of the established
church, one principal ground of their secession therefrom. But by taking
a narrower view of the principles and doctrines which they have roundly
and plainly asserted, and endeavored to justify in their printed
pamphlets anent civil government, the reception and belief of which they
zealously inculcate upon their followers, it will appear, that their
scheme is so far from tending to promote the declarative glory of God,
and the real good of human and religious society, or the church of God,
which are the very ends of the divine ordinance of magistracy, that it
is not only unscriptural, but anti-scriptural, contrary to the common
sentiments of mankind, and introductive of anarchy and confusion in
every nation, should it be thoroughly adopted, and therefore ought to be
testified against. The sum of their principles anent civil magistracy,
may be collected from these few passages, to be found in a print
entitled, Answers by the Associate Presbytery to reasons of dissent,
&c.—Page 70. "This divine law, not only endows men in their present
state with a natural inclination to civil society and government, but it
presents unto them an indispensable necessity of erecting the same into
some form, as a moral duty, the obligation and benefit whereof no
wickedness in them can lose or forfeit.—Page 74. Whatever magistrates
any civil state acknowledged, were to be subjected to throughout the
same.—Page 50. Such a measure of these qualifications (viz.,
scriptural) and duties cannot be required for the being of the lawful
magistrate's office, either as essential to it, or a condition of it
sine qua non: I. It cannot be required as essential thereunto; for
then it would be the same thing with magistracy, which is grossly
absurd, and big with absurdities. In the next place, it cannot be a
condition of it sine qua non, or, without which one is not really a
magistrate, however far sustained as such by civil society; for then no
person could be a magistrate, unless he were so faultlessly. The due
measure and performance of scriptural qualifications and duties belong
not to the being and validity of the magistrate's office, but to the
well-being and usefulness thereof.—P. 87. The precepts, already
explained, are a rule of duty toward any who are, and while they are
acknowledged as magistrates by the civil society. Nothing needs be added
for the clearing of this, but the overthrow of a distinction that has
been made of those that are acknowledged as magistrates by the civil
society, into such as are so by the preceptive will of God, and such as
are so by his providential will only; which distinction is altogether
groundless and absurd: All providential magistrates are also preceptive,
and that equally in the above respect (viz., as to the origin of their
office) the office and authority of them all, in itself considered, does
equally arise from, and agree unto the preceptive will of God.—P.
88. The precepts already explained (Prov. xxiv, 21; Eccl. x, 4;
Luke xx, 25; Rom. xiii, 1-8; Tit. iii, 1; 1 Pet. ii, 13-18), are
a rule of duty equally toward any who are, and while they are
acknowledged as magistrates by the civil society; they are, and continue
to be a rule of duty in this matter, particularly, to all the Lord's
people, in all periods, places, and cases." These few passages,
containing the substance of Seceders' principles on the head of civil
government, may be reduced to the following particulars: 1. They
maintain the people to be the ultimate fountain of magistracy, and that
as they have a right to choose whomsoever they please to the exercise of
civil government over them; so their inclinations, whether good or bad,
constitute a lawful magistrate, without regard had to the divine law. 2.
That the law of God in the scriptures of truth, has no concern with the
institution of civil government, but only adds its precept in forcing
obedience upon the conscience of every individual, under the pain of
eternal damnation, to whomsoever the body politic shall invest with the
civil dignity; and that, without any regard to the qualifications of
person or office. 3. Whomsoever the primores regni, or representatives
of a nation, do set up, are lawful magistrates, and that not only
according to the providential, but according to the preceptive will of
God also, in regard that God, the supreme governor, has prescribed no
qualifications in his word, as essential to the being of a lawful
magistrate, nor told what sort of men they must be, that are invested
with that office over his professing people, though it is confessed
there are many that are necessary to the well-being and usefulness of
that office: and therefore, 4. That no act, or even habitual series of
the greatest wickedness and mal-administration can forfeit the person's
right to the people's subjection, for conscience sake, considered as
individuals, while the majority of a nation continue to recognize and
own his authority. The absurdity of this scheme of principles may
obviously appear at first view to every unbiassed mind that is blessed
with any competent measure of common sense and discretion, and tolerable
knowledge of divine revelation. That magistracy is a divine ordinance,
flowing originally from Jehovah, the supreme and universal Sovereign of
Heaven and earth, as the ultimate fountain thereof, cannot be denied.
Neither is it to be doubted, but that the Lord has lodged a power and
right in the people, of choosing and setting up those persons that shall
exercise civil government over them, and to whom they will submit
themselves. But then, while God has lodged this power in the people, of
conveying the right of civil authority to their magistrates, he has at
the same time given them positive and unalterable laws, according to
which they are to proceed, in setting up their magistrates; and, by the
sovereign authority of the Great Lawgiver, are they expressly bound to
act in agreeableness to these rules, without any variation, and that,
under the pain of rebellion against him, who is King of kings, and Lord
of lords. The Presbytery, therefore, testify against this scheme of
Seceding principles, calculated, in order to inculcate a stupid
subjection and obedience to every possessor of regal dignity, at the
expense of trampling upon all the laws of God, respecting the
institution, constitution, and administration of the divine ordinance of
magistracy. Particularly, this opinion is,
1. Contrary to the very nature of magistracy, as described in the
scriptures of truth, where we are taught, that all authority to be
acknowledged of men, must be of God, and ordained of God. The divine
ordination of magistracy is the alone formal reason of subjection
thereto, and that which makes it a damnable sin to resist. So the
apostle teacheth, Rom. xiii, 1, &c.: "There is no power but of God;
the powers that be, are ordained of God." Not only is it the current
sentiment of orthodox divines upon the place, but the text and context
make it undeniably evident, that by power here, is understood, not a
natural, but a moral power, consisting not only in an ability, but in a
right to command. Which power is said to be ordained of God, as
importing, not merely the proceeding of the thing from God
providentially, but such a being from God, as carries in it his
instituting or appointing thereof, by the warrant of his word, law, or
precept. So that that power which is to be owned as of God, includes
these two particulars, without which, no authority can be acknowledged
as God's ordinance, viz., institution and constitution, so as to possess
him, who is God's minister, with a moral power. In the divine
institution of magistracy is contained, not only the appointment of it,
but the defining the office in its qualifications and form, in a moral
sense, prescribing what shall be the end, and what the measure of its
authority, and how the supreme power shall rule and be obeyed. Again,
the constitution of the power, or the determination of the form, and
investiture of the particular person with the government, is of God:
hence our Savior, John x, 35, in his application of these words in the
Psalms, "I said, ye are gods," to magistrates, shows how they were
gods, "because unto them the word of God came;" that is, by his word and
warrant he authorized them; his constitution is passed upon them, who
are advanced by men, according to his law in his word. When therefore a
nation acts according to divine rule, in the molding of government, and
advancing of persons to the exercise of it; there the government and
governors may be said to be ordained of God. But that government that is
not consonant to the divine institution, and those governors, that are
not advanced to the place of supreme rule, in a Christian land, by the
people, regulating themselves by the divine law, cannot be said to be
the powers ordained of God. It is not merely the conveying the imperial
dignity by men unto any particular person, that constitutes the power to
be of God; but because, and in so far as this is done by virtue of a
warrant from God and in agreeableness to his law that the action has the
authority of God upon it.
Hence, if in this matter there is a substantial difference from, or
contrariety to the divine rule, then there is nothing but a
contradiction to God's ordinance: this must needs be granted, unless it
is maintained that God has wholly left the determination of this
ordinance to men, absolutely and unlimitedly, giving them an unbounded
liberty to act therein, according to their own pleasure, which is most
absurd. From the whole, it follows, that more is requisite than the
inclinations of any people, to constitute a lawful magistrate, such as
can be acknowledged God's ordinance. That power which in its institution
and constitution is of God, by his law, can alone challenge subjection,
not only for wrath, but for conscience sake.
2. The Presbytery testify against this scheme of principles, as being
anti-scriptural, and what, in its tendency, is destructive to the
authority of the sacred oracles. Seceders maintain, that the people,
without regard to scriptural qualifications, have an essential right to
choose whom they please to the exercise of civil government, and that
whomsoever they choose are lawful magistrates; and thus make the great
ordinance of magistracy dependent on the uncertain and corrupt will of
man. But that this annarchical system is not of divine authority, but
owes its origin to their own invention, appears from the following texts
of holy writ, besides others, Exod. xviii. 21: "Moreover, thou shalt
provide out of all the people, able men, such as fear God, men of truth,
hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers." This
counsel of Jethro, was God's counsel and command to Moses, in the choice
of magistrates, supreme and subordinate; and discovers, that people are
not left to their own will in this matter. It is God's direction, that
the person advanced to rule, must be a man in whom is the spirit;
Numb. xxvii, 18; which Deut. xxxiv, 9, interprets to be the spirit
of wisdom, (i.e.) the spirit of government, fitting and capacitating a
man to discharge the duties of the magistratical office, to the glory of
God and the good of his people; without this, he ought not to be chosen.
Deut. i, 13: "Take ye wise men and understanding, and known among your
tribes, and I will make them rulers over you." Here is a precept,
directing the people in their choice: they must not be children nor
fools; if so, they are plagues and punishments, instead of scriptural
magistrates, who are always a blessing. And they must be men of known
integrity and affection to the real welfare of Israel, not such as are
known to be haters of, and disaffected to the Israel of God. Again,
the express law of the king, is, that he must be one of the Lord's
chosing; Deut. xvii. 14, 15: "When thou art come unto the land which
the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell
therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the
nations about me: thou shalt in anywise set him king over thee, whom the
Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set
king over thee, thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, who is not thy
brother." Here, though Christians have a right to set a king over them,
yet, it is evident, they are not left at liberty to choose whom they
please, but are, in the most express and positive terms, limited and
circumscribed in their choice to him, whom the Lord their God shall
choose: and this divine choice must certainly be understood (in a large
sense) of a person of such a character, temper of mind, and
qualifications, as God pointed out to them in his law, particularly in
the text before cited (for whatever God's word approves of and chooses,
that God himself chooses). And in the text before, as the person is
further described, both negatively and positively, he must be a brother;
which relation is not to be confined to that of kindred or nation, but
especially respects religion. He must not be a stranger and enemy to the
true religion, but a brother, in respect of a cordial embracing, and
sincere profession (so far as men can judge) of the same cause of
religion, and so one, of whom it may be expected that he will employ his
power and interest to advance the kingdom of Jesus Christ. This precept
respects the office, and points at the very deed of constitution, and in
the most positive manner, restricts not only the people of the Jews,
but every nation blessed with the light of divine revelation, in their
setting up of civil rulers, pointing forth on whom they may, and on whom
they may not confer this honorable office. The same truth is confirmed
by 2 Sam. xxiii, 2, 3, 4: "The spirit of the Lord spake by me—the God
of Israel said,—he that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the
fear of God."—So Job xxxiv, 17, 18: "Shall even he that hateth right
govern?—Is it fit to say to a king, Thou art wicked? and to princes, Ye
are ungodly?" In which words, while Elihu is charging Job with
blasphemy, in accusing God of injustice, declaring that if he made God a
hater of right and impeached him of injustice, he did, in effect,
blasphemously deny his government, universal dominion and sovereignty in
the world. It is not only supposed, but strongly asserted and affirmed,
that he that hateth right should not govern. Again, 1 Cor. vi, 1, 4,
5: "If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set
them to judge—Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not
one that is able to judge between his brethren?" All these texts, which
are plain, positive, moral precepts, whereby God hath set boundaries
about his own ordinance; that it be not corrupted by men, as they
demonstrate what magistrates ought to be, and prove that they cannot be
of God's ordaining who have not these qualifications: so they evince,
that scriptural qualifications are nothing less necessary and essential
to the being of a lawful scriptural magistrate, than the consent of the
people; and consequently, do sufficiently overturn this anti-scriptural
scheme. Seceders indeed grant, that God hath declared his will,
concerning the choice of magistrates in the above, and such like
precepts; but, from their granting these scriptural qualifications to be
only advantageous to those that have them, and necessary to the
well-being and usefulness of lawful magistrates, and at the same time
denying them to be necessary to the being thereof; it necessarily
follows, as the consequence of their sentiments, that they allow civil
society a negative over the supreme Lawgiver in this matter; and in so
doing, exalt the will and inclination of the creature above the will of
the Creator, which is the very definition of sin. Say they in the
fore-quoted pamphlet, page 80th, "It is manifest, that the due measure
and performance of scriptural qualifications and duties, belong not to
the being and validity of the magistrate's office, but to the well-being
and usefulness thereof." How easy is it here to turn their own artillery
against themselves, and split their argument with a wedge of its own
timber? For if, as is granted, scriptural qualifications are essential
to the usefulness of the magistrate's office, they must also be
necessary to the being thereof, otherwise it is in itself quite useless.
And if in itself useless, with respect to the great ends thereof,
without the due measure of scriptural qualifications, it cannot then be
the ordinance of God, in regard it must not be supposed, that a God of
infinite wisdom and goodness, who does nothing in vain, has instituted
an ordinance for the good of his people, in subserviency to his glory,
which yet, in itself (as to its being and essence), is useless, and of
no profit nor advantage to them. And as for their comparison of the
magistrate's office to other common and ordinary places and relations
among men, the parallel will not hold, no not for illustration, far less
for a proof of their doctrine. Nor is there any comparison, unless they
can prove, that God in his word has as plainly and positively required
men to be so and so qualified, before it is lawful for them to enter
into, or for others to put them in such places and relations, as he has
done, with regard to magistracy. This is indeed the scope and end of
their whole scheme, to derogate from, degrade and lessen the dignity of
this great ordinance of magistracy, allowing it no more than what is
common to men in general, in other inferior states and ordinary business
of life, alleging, "That these qualifications (which they grant God has
prescribed in his word) are only advantageous to them that have them;"
and that at the hazard of evidently opposing and contradicting the
intention of the Spirit of God, in the above texts of scripture, which
imply a specialty, and particular appropriation to kings and rulers in
their office.
Again, this principle either, as above said, denies magistracy to be
God's ordinance instituted in his word; or then says, that he hath
instituted ordinances in his revealed will, without prescribing any
qualifications as essential to their being, but entirely left the
constitution of them to the will of man. But how absurd is this, and
derogatory to the glory of God, in all his perfections, who is a God of
order, once to imagine, that he hath set any of his ordinances, either
as to matter or manner, upon the precarious footing of the pure will of
wicked and ungodly men? The smallest acquaintance with divine revelation
will readily convince, that he hath not. It may as well, and with the
same parity of reason, be refused, that there are any qualifications
requisite, as essential to the being and validity of the office of the
ministry, but only necessary to its well-being and usefulness; and
therefore, is as lawful (in its exercise) in the want of these
qualifications, as the ordinance of magistracy is accounted to be. But
how contrary is this to scripture, Tit. i, 7, 8; 1 Tim. iii, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 7, &c. Now, comparing these with the above-cited texts,
respecting the qualifications of magistrates, it appears, that the
qualifications of the magistrate are required in the same express and as
strong terms (if not also somewhat more clearly,) as the qualifications
of the minister; and seeing a holy God hath made no difference, as to
the essentiality of the qualifications pertaining to these distinct
ordinances, it is too much presumption for any creature to attempt doing
it. Both magistrate and minister are, in their different and distinct
spheres, clothed with an equal authority from the law of God,—have
subjection and obedience equally, under the same pains, required to them
respectively, (as Deut. xvii. 9 to 13; 2 Chron. xix, 5 to 11; Heb.
xiii, 17, &c.)—and the qualifications of both, as above, stated and
determined with equal peremptoriness, making them no less essential to
the being and validity of the one than the other. And this being the
case, it is not easy to understand how Seceders will reconcile their
principles anent civil government, with their principle and practice, in
separating from an established church or ministry, whose constitution
they acknowledge to be good; and who being presbyterially ordained, are
also still countenanced by the body of the people. Sure, had they dealt
fairly, honestly and impartially in the matters of God, they would have
acted in this case agreeably to their declared principle, page 79th of
their pamphlet, viz.: "The passages holding forth these qualifications
and duties of magistrates, do not by the remotest hint imply, that, if
in any wise they be deficient in, or make defection from the same, their
authority and commands, even in matters lawful, must not be subjected
unto and obeyed," &c. Certainly, according to this, all the
deficiencies, defections, and mal-administrations in the church, could
never have been a warrantable ground (which yet they make the only
ground) of their separation from her. "But on the contrary," they should
still have continued in communion with her, and subjection to her in
matters lawful, in a way of testifying "against the same, and essaying
their reformation, by all means that were habile for them." Seceders
must either grant, that such was their duty, and so of themselves
condemn their separation as unwarrantable; or else deny, that the
qualifications of the magistrate and minister are required in the same
express terms in scripture; that both are clothed with an equal (though
distinct) authority; and that subjection and obedience are under the
same pains enjoined to both, and consequently say, that it is less
dangerous to cast off, contemn and disregard the authority of a church,
than that of the state; while yet (according to their scheme) civil
authority is entirely resolved into, and depends purely upon the
changeable will of civil society. But, it is presumed, they will allow,
that ecclesiastical authority is derived, and flows from, and depends
entirely upon the Lord Jesus Christ alone, the glorious Judge, Lawgiver,
and King of his church; so that (according to them) this being of a far
more noble extract and original, it must be of far more dangerous
consequence, to contemn and cast off it, than the other.
Again, as this doctrine gives unto men a negative over the Holy One of
Israel, it also opens a wide door for introducing and enforcing the
cause of deism, already too prevalent: for, if all who are set up by
civil society, however wicked, and void of the qualifications God has
required, while they are acknowledged and submitted to by their
constituents, must be equally regarded as God's ordinance, with those
who have those qualifications; then it will follow, that the corrupt
will of wicked men legitimates the magistrate's office and authority,
not only without, but in contradiction to the preceptive will of God;
and what is this (absit blasphemia), but to exalt man above God, in
giving unto the universal Sovereign and Supreme Lawgiver, only a
consultative power in the constitution of magistracy, while it ascribes
unto man an absolute and definitive power, whereby they have power to
receive or reject the law of God (at least respecting magistracy) at
pleasure, and their deed of constitution be equally valid, when
opposite, as when agreeable unto, and founded upon his righteous law.
And sure, by the same reason, that man may take a liberty to dispense
with the authority of God, in one point of his commanding will; he may
also in another, until at last every part of it is rejected. It is but a
contempt of the same authority, and he that offends in one point, is
guilty of all. Such are the absurdities that this their scheme leads to,
though it is hoped the authors do not intend so. It may here be only
necessary further to observe, that among the other desperate shifts
Seceders are driven to in defense of their favorite notion, they say,
that scriptural qualifications cannot be essential to God's ordinance of
magistracy, or necessarily required as a condition of it sine qua non;
for then it would be the same thing with magistracy; nor can these
qualifications be the condition (sine qua non, or), without which one
could not be a magistrate; for then it would be necessary, that every
one were possessed of them faultlessly, before he could be owned as a
lawful magistrate; either of which they allege would be grossly absurd.
But this plausible and fair-set argument of theirs, if it prove any
thing, will prove more than it is supposed they themselves will grant,
and consequently proves nothing at all. For the same gross absurdity
may, with equal reason, be inferred from a maintaining, that a due
measure and performance of scripture qualifications and duties are
essential to any other of God's ordinances, and so that these are the
ordinance itself. For instance, they might as well reason (as some have
justly observed already), that scriptural qualifications are not
essential to a lawful gospel minister, for then it would be the same
thing with the ministry, itself; nor can it be a condition, without
which one is not really a minister, unless he were so faultlessly. And
thus they have at once stripped, not only all of the race of Adam,
that ever exercised that office, but themselves also, of any real
mission, as ministers, unless they have assumed the Pope's
infallibility, and are advanced to the Moravian perfection. So,
although the scripture declares it essential to the true church, that
she hold the head, yet by their childish reasoning, this would infer a
conclusion big with absurdities, even that this qualification of a true
church, is the church itself. And, in like manner, it can no longer be
admitted, that faith in Christ, and holiness, are essential to the being
of a true Christian; for that would be to make faith the same thing with
a Christian, and would infer, that as in heaven only holiness is in
perfection, so there alone Christians are to be found. Upon the whole,
as the Lord has given an indispensable law, respecting the constitution
of kings, showing what conditions and qualifications are required of
them; it undeniably follows, as an established truth, that Christianized
nations must invest none with that office, but in a way agreeable to
that law, and those alone according to scripture, are magistrates of
God's institution, who are in some measure possessed of these
qualifications. It is therefore an anti-scriptural tenet, that nothing
is requisite to constitute a lawful magistrate, but the inclinations and
choice of the civil society.
3. The Presbytery testify against this system of principles, because it
has a direct tendency to destroy the just and necessary distinction that
ought to be maintained between the perceptive and providential will of
God, and necessarily jumbles and confounds these together, in such a
manner, as a man is left at an utter uncertainty to know when he is
accepted and approven of God in his conduct, and when not. That this is
the scope of their principles, is confessed, p. 87, of their book of
principles: "Nothing needs be added [say they] for the clearing of this,
but the overthrow of a distinction that has been made of those who are
acknowledged as magistrates by civil society, into such as are so by the
preceptive will of God, and such are so by his providential will only;
which distinction is altogether groundless and absurd. It will not be
refused, that all such preceptive magistrates are also providential.
But, moreover, all such providential magistrates are also preceptive.
The office and authority of them all, in itself considered, does equally
arise from, and agrees to the preceptive will of God." A doctrine most
shocking in itself! How strange! that Christians, from any
consideration, will obstinately maintain a favorite opinion, which is
confessedly built upon, and cannot be established but at the expense of
blending and confounding the preceptive and providential will of God,
while the distinction thereof is clearly and inviolably established in
the word of God! Although divine providence, which is an unsearchable
depth, does many times, and, in many cases, serve as a commentary to
open up the hidden mysteries of scripture revelation; yet, where the law
of God in the scriptures of truth is silent, there providence regulates
not, is neither institutive, nor declarative of God's will to be done by
us; and where the said divine law does ordain or deliver a rule to us in
any case, there providence gives no relaxation, allowance or countermand
to the contrary. (See Gee on magistracy, in his excellent discourse on
providence.) That an overthrow of this necessary distinction, for the
sake of the above dangerous scheme, cannot be admitted of, in a
consistency with a due regard to the authority of revealed religion, and
that therefore the right and lawfulness of magistracy is not founded
upon the providential will of God, though they are countenanced and
supported by the majority of a nation, will partly appear from the
following considerations:
1. If there is no distinction to be made between the preceptive and
providential will of God, then is providence equally in all respects the
rule of duty, as much as the precept is, and so man should be left at an
utter uncertainty, what is duty, in regard of the opposition that is
many times between providential dispensations and the precept. Nay, then
it is impossible that man can be guilty of sin, in transgressing the
divine will, because God infallibly brings to pass, by his holy and
over-ruling providence, whatever he has decreed by his eternal purpose.
Rom. ix, 17. And thus the Jews, in murdering the Son of God, should be
acquitted from the charge of guilt, and could not be said to transgress
the divine will.
2. If no distinction is to be made between the preceptive and
providential will of God, but providence is declarative of the precept,
then is providence a complete rule without the written word. And this at
once supersedes the necessity of divine revelation, and derogates from
the sufficiency and perfection of the scriptures of truth. The written
word is affirmed to be perfect: Psal. xix, 7. Sinners are reproved
for doing that which the word gave no command for, Jer. vii, 31, and
xix, 5; and challenged for following the promising appearances: Isa.
xxx. 1, 2, 3, 11. It is therefore daring presumption to set up
providence for a rule in opposition to the written law of God. Hence it
must be concluded, either that the preceptive will of God in the
scriptures is imperfect, or the laws therein repealable by providence;
or then that providence cannot be the rule of human actions.
3. If the distinction between the preceptive and providential will of
God is to be overthrown, then providence must be expressive of God's
approbative ordination, equally as his revealed will is. For, without
this (viz. the divine approbation), there can be no lawful title to what
is possessed. But this is what providence of itself cannot do; it cannot
without the precept discover either God's allowance or disallowance. If
then this distinction is denied, and the providential will of God
asserted to be declarative of his preceptive, and so of his approbative
will; it remains to be manifested, where and how it has been appointed
of God for such an end, an end that is by the Spirit of God denied unto
it: Eccl. ix, 1, 2, 4. If this distinction is to be overthrown, then
either the providential will of God, without any regard to the precept,
in every case, and in every sort of tenure, gives a just and lawful
right and title; or God has declared in his word that it shall be so in
the matter of civil government only, viz. that whosoever gains the
ascendancy in the inclinations of the people, by whatever sinful methods
this is obtained, it matters not, and so is by the hand of providence
raised up above all his rivals to the regal dignity, he is the lawful
magistrate, God's ordinance according to his precept. The first cannot
be said; it were impious to suppose it; for that would justify all
robberies and violences, and legitimate every fraud; not the latter, for
where is it to be found in all the book of divine revelation, that God
hath made such a law touching magistracy? But how big with absurdities,
to say, that a holy God has given to man a plain and positive law to be
his governing rule in every particular that concerns him, this of
magistracy only excepted. In this great ordinance he hath wholly left
him to be guided, or rather misled and bewildered by his own corrupt
inclinations: but the contrary of this has been in part discovered, and
may further. 5. If, in order to establish their anti-government scheme,
the foresaid distinction is to be destroyed, and all such as are
providential powers, and acknowledged by man, are also preceptive, and
therefore to be submitted to for conscience sake, then are the kingdoms
of men necessarily obliged to own and submit unto the dominion of the
devil. The devil not only claims to himself the possession of the power
of all the kingdoms of this world, but it is certain that of the most of
them he still retains an actual predominancy, hence styled the god of
this world. Now, it cannot be refused, but that the power he exercises
is providential (or a power of permission); and it is most certain, that
it is with the consent and good will of all the children of men, while
in a natural state. But are men therefore obliged to acknowledge his
authority, or submit to that providential power he maintains over them?
If every providential power is also preceptive, the answer must be given
in the affirmative. The like may be said of the Pope of Rome, the
devil's captain-general, to display his hellish banner against the King
of kings, and Lord of lords, with respect to those nations where he is
acknowledged in his diabolical pretensions. It can be to no purpose for
Seceders to allege that the Pope claims a power unlawful in itself,
and therefore cannot be owned, in regard the person whom they make a
pretended acknowledgment of, as their lawful sovereign, is by the act of
his constitution invested with a similar power, a power both civil and
ecclesiastical, and declared to be head of the church, as well as the
state. Nothing, therefore, remains for them, but either to acknowledge
this clear distinction between the providential and preceptive will of
God, or then profess the lawfulness of both the above mentioned powers.
6. If the foresaid distinction is too big with absurdities to be
received, and if the authority of all providential magistrates does
equally arise from, and agree unto the precept, then it would be no sin
to resist the powers ordained of God, provided that providence proves
auspicious and favorable to the rebel, and advances him to the throne,
with the good will of his fellow rebellious subjects, by expelling the
lawful sovereign; at least such resistance could not be determined to be
sinful, until once the event declared, whether providence would
countenance the treasonable attempt or not. Thus what the apostle
declares a damnable sin, Rom. xiii, 2, must be justified and made the
foundation of subsequent duty, if patronized by a multitude. This they
evidently maintain, as appears from their declaration of principles,
page 82, where, pretending to obviate some difficulties anent their
principles, arising from the people of God's disowning anti-scriptural
magistrates: "The whole nature of any simple revolt [say they] lies in
breaking off immediately from the civil body, by withdrawing from, or
withdrawing part of their territories; and then it necessarily follows
at the same time, that these revolters break off from the head of the
civil body, without ever denying his authority over the members who
still cleave unto the same." This, in connection with their grand
foundation principle, and the scope of their discourse at the above
citation, discovers that they grant, that if the whole civil society
should reject the authority they had set up (however agreeable it should
have been to the preceptive will of God, and should again set up
another, though never so opposite thereto), their doing so would be
lawful; but it is not lawful for a few to disown any authority (however
wicked and anti-scriptural), unless they can at the same time withdraw
from, or withdraw part of his territories. Nothing can be more absurd
than to say, that a people are bound by the laws of God to give
subjection for conscience sake, and yet at the same time are at liberty
to cast off and reject the same authority at pleasure. If the magistrate
be lawful, it is utterly unlawful to reject him; an attempt to divest
him of his office, power and authority, though carried on by the
primores regni, is rebellion against God. It is most ridiculous to
allege, that a people considered as a body politic, are not under the
same obligation to their rightful sovereign, as when they are considered
as individuals, but may lawfully reject him, and set up another, if they
please; so that he who one day is God's minister, next day hath no title
to that office, but if he claim it, must be treated as a traitor,
whereby all security that can possibly be given to the most lawful
magistrate, is at once destroyed. Thus, if the Chevalier had succeeded
in his late attempt, had gained the favor of the primores regni, and
thereby mounted the British throne; Seceders must then, of
necessity, either have quit their present principles, or then have
subjected to his yoke for conscience sake, under the pain of eternal
damnation. His being a professed Papist, and enslaved vassal of Rome,
could not have warranted them to leave their place of subjection to him
while owned by the civil society, and so they must have treated the
present powers as usurpers and enemies to government, though they now
flatter them with the pretensions of an ill-grounded loyalty. Again, how
absurd and self contradictory to grant, that a minor part may not only
revolt, but also withdraw part of a prince's territories; and yet that
the same party may not, when residing in the nation, refuse to
acknowledge the lawfulness of an anti-scriptural power. This is to say,
that people are no longer obliged to submit to authority, than they are
in capacity to withdraw from, or withdraw part of their prince's
territories from him, and so to justify their rebellion, by that which
can only be a terrible aggravation of their sin. These, with a number of
other absurdities, natively flow from a denial of the distinction
between the providential and preceptive will of God, making the title of
the lawful magistrate depend solely upon the will of the people. Nothing
is more evident than this, that if the inclinations of the people,
exclusive of all other qualifications, constitute a lawful magistrate,
then (though he rules ever so agreeable to God's preceptive will), so
soon as this body (though in a most unjust and tyrannical manner) casts
him off, he that moment for ever loses all title and claim to the
office, and can no longer be regarded as a lawful magistrate. A
principle that in its nature and tendency is introductive of all anarchy
and confusion, and with the greatest propriety deserves the encomium of
the anti-government scheme.
7. This anarchical system of principles, which destroys the above just
and necessary distinction, is directly in opposition to the laudable and
almost universal practice of all nations, in ordaining and enacting
certain fundamental laws, constitutions and provisos, whereby the throne
is fenced, the way to it limited, and the property thereof predisposed.
The Scripture sufficiently discovers those restrictions and rules, which
God himself has prescribed and laid down, for directing and determining
of his people's procedure about the erection of magistrates. And profane
history abounds in discovering certain fundamental laws and conditions
to take place, almost in every nation, without conforming to which, none
can be admitted to that dignity over them. But to what purpose are any
such laws and constitutions, if this vague principle is once admitted,
which cancels and disannuls all such provisos and acts? Why should
Moses have been so solicitous about his successor in the government of
Israel, Numb. xxvii, 15-17, if God had ordained the inclinations of
the people alone should determine? Or to what purpose did Israel,
after the death of Joshua, ask of God, who should be their leader, if
their own inclinations alone were sufficient to determine it? If God has
declared, that the corrupt will of the people is the alone basis of
civil power, then, not only are all state constitutions and fundamental
laws useless, because, on every vacancy of the throne, they not only
must all give place to the superior obligation, the incontrollable law,
of the uncertain inclinations of the body politic, but they are in their
nature unlawful; their proper use in every nation being to prevent all
invasion upon the government by unqualified persons, and to illegitimate
it, if at any time done. So that, if the consent of civil society is the
only essential condition of government which God has authorized, not
only are all scriptural conditions and qualifications useless and
unlawful, but also all human securities, either from intruders or for
lawful governors, are unlawful, in regard the very design of them all is
to oppose this grand foundation principle, the jure-divinity of which
Seceders have found out, and do confidently maintain. And thus, by the
seceding scheme, is condemned, not only the practice of almost all other
nations, determining by law, some indispensable qualifications that
their rulers must have; but particularly the practice of these once
reformed lands, when reformation had the sanction, not only of
ecclesiastic, but also of civil, authority, is hereby condemned.
Scripture and covenant qualifications were then made essential to the
being of a lawful magistrate, by the fundamental laws and constitutions
of the nations; so that however the inclinations of the people might run
(as it soon appeared they were turned in opposition to these), yet, by
these laws, and in a consistency with that constitution, none could be
admitted to the place or places of civil authority, but such as
professed, and outwardly practiced, according to reformation principles.
See Act 15th, Sess. 2d, Parl. 1649. And how happy we had been, if
we had constantly acted in conformity to these agreeable laws,
experience, both former and latter, will bear witness. How much better
had it been for us to have walked in God's statutes, and executed his
judgments, than by our abhorrence of them, and apostasy from them, to
provoke him to give us statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby
we cannot live (Ezek. xx, 25), or have any comfortable enjoyment and
possession of the blessings and privileges of his everlasting gospel, as
it is with us at this day. And yet, this is what Seceders would have
us caressing, embracing and (with them) blessing God for, under the
notion of a present good; and so bless God for permitting his enemies
(in anger against an ungrateful and guilty people) to overturn his work
and interest, and establish themselves upon the ruins thereof; to bless
him for making our own iniquities to correct us, and our backslidings to
reprove us, until we know what an evil and bitter thing it is to depart
from the LORD GOD of our fathers; to bless him (for what is matter of
lamentation) that the adversaries of Zion are the chief, and her
enemies prosper, Lam. i, 5: and all this abstractly, under the notion,
of good, which comes very near the borders of blasphemy.
But, moreover, the civil settlement at the revolution is also condemned
by this principle of theirs; not because of its opposition to a
covenanted reformation, but in regard it includes some essential
qualifications required in the supreme civil ruler. The nations are, by
that deed of constitution, bound up in their election of a magistrate;
and all Papists, such as marry with Papists, or do not publicly profess
the Protestant religion, are declared incapable of the throne. So that
we see the present law makes some other qualifications, besides the
consent of the body politic, essential to the constitution of a lawful
sovereign in Britain. From all which it is plain, that this principle
of Seceders is neither a reformation nor a revolution principle; let
then the impartial world judge whence it came.
Seceders, in consequence of their contradictory and self-inconsistent
system of principles, declare they cannot swear allegiance to a lawful
government. They maintain the present to be lawful, yet (in Dec. of
their principles, page 55th) they say, "The question is not whether it
be lawful for us to swear the present allegiance to the civil
government, which the Presbytery acknowledge they cannot do, seeing
there are no oaths to the government in being, but what exclude the oath
of our covenants, and homologate the united constitution." But seeing
they acknowledge that every constitution of government, that comprehends
the will and consent of civil society, were it as wicked and diabolical
as can be imagined, is lawful—yea, as lawful as any that is most
consonant to the preceptive will of God, having all the essentials of
his ordinance; and seeing, because of the will and consent of the
people, they own the present to be lawful, it is most surprising why
they cannot swear allegiance to it; their reasons cannot, in a
consistency with their principle, be sustained as valid. That the
present oaths of allegiance and the oath of the covenants are
inconsistent, is readily granted; but seeing the oaths of allegiance
bind to nothing more than what they confess they are bound to for
conscience sake, namely, to own the lawfulness of the government, and to
maintain it according to the constitution thereof (which is a duty owed
by subjects to every lawful sovereign); and seeing that whatever is in
the oaths of allegiance contrary to the covenants, does not flow from
them, abstractly considered, but from the constitution to which they
bind (which constitution is sanctified by the people's acknowledgement
of it). If, therefore, the covenants forbid a duty, to which they are
bound for conscience sake, their authority in that ought not to be
regarded.
But certainly Seceders, who have found it duty to alter and model the
covenants, according to the circumstances of the times they live in,
might have found it easy work to reconcile the oath of the covenants
with allegiance to a lawful government. The other part of their reason
is no less ridiculous and self-contradictory, viz., "They cannot swear
allegiance to the present government, because it homologates the united
constitution." But is not this constitution according to the will, and
by consent of, the body politic? and is it not ordained by the
providential will of God? therefore, according to them, has all the
essentials of a lawful constitution, which claims their protection,
under pain of damnation. How great the paradox! they cannot swear
allegiance, because they would bind them to acknowledge and defend a
lawful constitution. Is not active obedience, is not professed
subjection for conscience sake, an homologation of the constitution?
Certainly they are, and that not in word only, but in deed and in truth.
And what is the allegiance, but a promise to persevere in what they do
daily, and what they hold as their indispensable duty to do? To grant
the one, then, and refuse the other, is, in effect, to homologate or
acknowledge the constitution, and not to acknowledge it, at the same
time, which is a glaring absurdity.
But here, they would have people attend to their chimerical distinction
between the king's civil and ecclesiastical authority. They have made a
successless attempt (in order to establish their antigovernment scheme)
for the overthrow of a distinction, which Heaven has irreversibly fixed,
between the preceptive and providential will of God; and, for the same
purpose, they will impose this distinction on the generation—a mere
shift and artifice, which has no foundation nor subsistence any where
else, but in their imagination, and serves for no purpose but to cheat
their own and others' consciences, and betray the cause of God. It is
plain, that as a power, both civil and ecclesiastical, belongs to the
essence and constitution of an English diocesan bishop, so the same is
declared to belong now to the essence and constitution of an English
king, who is the head and chief prelate among them all; and it is their
manner to call themselves his bishops (not Christ's), as having their
power, both ecclesiastical and civil, immediately from him, as the
fountain of all power within his dominions So that there is no room for
this distinction of Seceders here, unless they are such expert
logicians, as to distinguish a thing from that which is essential to it,
and so from itself; but this is a destruction, not a distinction.
Seceders indeed presume and depend very much upon their abilities of
this kind; for they can distinguish between the magistrate's office and
its essential qualifications, which God has inseparably joined together
in his word. They can distinctly pray for the head, author, authorizer
and prime supporter, of abjured Prelacy and Prelates, that God would
bless him in his government, and yet not pray for the Prelates
themselves. They can pray very fervently and distinctly for the British
and Irish parliaments, and yet not at all pray for the bishops,
necessary and essential members there. And what is all this but to pray
for a nonentity, a mere creature of their own mind? They have neither
king nor parliament in their abstracted and imaginary sense, but do
clearly distinguish themselves out of both. We might refer them to that
famous and faithful embassador, and renowned martyr for the cause and
testimony of Jesus, Mr. Donald Cargill, in his last speech and
testimony, and let him determine the controversy (in this particular)
between us. They will not be so bold as to say, that this honorable
witness died with a lie in his right hand. His words are these: "As to
the cause of my suffering, the main is, not acknowledging the present
authority as it is now established. This is the magistracy I have
rejected, that was invested with Christ's power; and seeing that power
taken from Christ, which is his glory, and made the essential of the
crown, I thought it was as if I had seen one wearing my husband's
clothes, after he had killed him. And seeing it is made the essential of
the crown, there is no distinction we can make, that can free the
conscience of the acknowledger from being a partaker of this
sacrilegious robbing of God. And it is but to cheat our conscience, to
acknowledge the civil power, for it is not the civil power only, that is
made the essential of the crown. And seeing they are so express, we must
be plain; for otherwise, it is to deny our testimony, and consent to his
robbery." From these words it is evident, first, that Mr. Cargill was
no Seceder, or of their mind, in this particular; and second, that,
at the time, there were some who did cheat and impose upon their own
consciences, by distinguishing (where there was no room for distinction)
between the king's civil and ecclesiastical authority—which distinction
was condemned and testified against by all who were truly faithful to
Christ and their own consciences, and tender of his honor and glory, by
their unanimous rejection of that anti-christian and unlawful power; and
that when they had much more reason and temptation to fly to such a
subterfuge for their safety, than Seceders now have. And, third,
from these words it is also clear, that Mr. Cargill and that poor,
distressed and persecuted people that adhered to him, rejected and
disclaimed the then authority, not so much because of their tyranny and
mal-administrations, as on account of the unlawfulness and wickedness of
the constitution itself (which was the prime original and spring of all
the wickedness in the administration), namely, because the king
arrogantly and sacrilegiously assumed to himself that power, which was
the sole and glorious prerogative of Jesus Christ. And as to the
difference that Seceders make between that and the present time (since
the revolution), it is certain, that whatever greater degree of absolute
supremacy was then assumed by Charles II, it does not vary the kind of
that claimed, or rather conferred on and exercised, by the supreme
powers, since the revolution (for majus et minus non variant speciem),
nor acquit them of the guilt of robbing the Son of God, Jesus Christ, of
his incommunicable prerogative and supremacy in and over his church, as
the only king and head thereof. Nor will the difference of times, while
the constitution remains the same, while God remains the same, and truth
and duty remain the same, nor yet any distinction that can be made, free
the conscience of the acknowledger, more now than then, from being a
partaker (art and part) with the civil power, in this sacrilegious
robbery. Psal. l, 18: "When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst
with him," &c.
But passing this: seeing the above mentioned reasons, which Seceders
allege why they cannot swear allegiance to the present government, which
they assert is lawful and scriptural, cannot be sustained, some others
must be sought for them: and they may be either, because they judge
allegiance itself unlawful; or rather, because then they would be bound
by oath to continue faithful to this government in all changes that can
happen. Whereas now, they are free, and equally ready, in a full
consistency with their principles, to profess their subjection to
another, were it even a popish pretender. For according, to them, an
infidel or papist may have a just and lawful authority over us,
notwithstanding all, both the reformation and revolution laws, to the
contrary. If, therefore, the legislature would, in the oaths of
allegiance, insert this limitation, viz. so long as the body politic is
pleased to acknowledge the supreme magistrate, they would find it easier
to come over their other pretended and inconsistent difficulties. For
the truth is, they cannot, in a consistency with their anti-government
scheme, and with safe consciences, swear to any government, but with
such limitation, in regard they cannot be sure, but he that is now owned
by civil society may be rejected, and another set up, who must be
acknowledged. So they would be brought into an inextricable dilemma;
either they must own them both to be God's ordinance, which is absurd;
or then be perjured, by rejecting him to whom they had sworn; or then
incur damnation, by refusing obedience to him, who is set up by the body
politic. Such is the labyrinth of confusion and contradiction this
anarchical system leads into; a system that cancels all constitutions by
God and men anent civil government.
8. This anti-government Seceding principle, destructive of said
distinction between the providential and preceptive will of God, is both
contrary to, and confuted by many approven scriptural examples; in which
the Spirit of God testifies, that the actual possession of the throne,
under the favor of providence, and by the consent of a majority of a
nation, may be in one, while the moral power and right of government is
in another. The word of God acknowledges David the rightful sovereign
over all Israel, for the space of forty years (1 Kings, ii, 11; 1
Chron. xxix, 26, 27); seven of these he is said to have reigned in
Hebron, and thirty-three in Jerusalem. During the first seven years
of his reign at Hebron, there is a positive confinement of his actual
rule to the tribe of Judah only; 2 Sam. v, 5. And at the same time,
Ishbosheth is said to be made king over all Israel, and to have
reigned two years. In agreeableness to Seceding principles, there is no
reconciling these different texts. According to their scheme David can
with no propriety be said to have reigned forty years over all Israel,
seeing seven of the years were elapsed before he was actually
acknowledged by all Israel, before providence put him in the actual
possession of all that extensive power. There is another known example,
applicable to the present purpose, in the instance of David, during
the rebellion of his unnatural son Absalom. According to the sacred
story, 2 Sam. chap, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, xix, it appears, that he was
wholly ejected, both out of the hearts and territories of Israel, and
not only the throne, but the will and consent of the people given up to
Absalom. But was David therefore divested of his right and title?
Though it is most contrary to scripture to suppose it; yet, according to
Seceders, seeing Absalom was king, by possession of the throne, and
had not only the power providentially put into his hand, but had it also
by the consent of the people; it necessarily follows that Absalom,
being a providential magistrate, his office and authority did equally
arise from, and agree to the preceptive will of God, and subjection and
obedience, for conscience sake, was equally due to him, as to David,
by the Israelitish tribes. And so it was a damnable sin in David to
fight against him, as it could be no less than a resisting the ordinance
of God. The same may be said with respect to that other revolt, by the
instigation, and under the conduct of Sheba; 2 Sam. chap. xx. But
although, according to Seceders, he must also have been their lawful
magistrate, the Spirit of God discovers the reverse, still acknowledging
the right of government in all these changes to be in David. Another
example is in the case of Solomon, who was ordained or designed by God
expressly for the kingdom of Israel. Adonijah had obtained the
ascendancy, both in respect of actual possession, and the inclinations
and consent of the majority of the nation; the consent was general; 1
Kings, i, 5, 7, 9, 11, 18, 25, and ii, 15. He had all to plead for
himself, which Seceders make essential to the constitution of a lawful
king. He had got to the throne by providence, and had full admission and
possession, by the inclinations of the people. If then there is no
distinction to be made of those who are acknowledged by civil society,
into such as are so by the preceptive will of God, and such as are so by
his providential will only—then Solomon had no right nor title to the
crown; and the enterprise of David and Nathan, &c., of setting him
on the throne, was utterly unlawful. Both they and Solomon ought to
have acquiesced in the duty of subjection to Adonijah, as being the
ordinance of God. But this would have been opposite to the express
direction of the Lord, appointing the kingdom to Solomon, "It was his
from the Lord," as Adonijah himself confessed. To the same purpose
might be adduced, the instance of Joash, the son of Akaziah, who was
king de jure, even when Athaliah had not only the countenance of
providence, but the consent of the people, in the possession of the
kingdom; 2 Chron. xxii, 10, 12. Again, the practice of nations, in
owning those for their lawful sovereigns, who, by providence, were put
from the actual exercise of their rule and authority, contributes to
confute this absurd notion. Thus, the people of Israel, who had risen
up for Absalom, do even, when David was out of the land, own him for
their king. So, during the Babylonish captivity, there are several
persons noted as princes of Judah, whom the people owned, as having
the right of government over them. With a variety of other instances,
all discovering, in opposition to their anarchical system, that it is
not by the dispensations of providence, that the right and title of the
lawful magistrate is to be determined. Moreover, as the Associate
Presbytery have so barefacedly belied the scriptures of truth, as to
assert that there cannot be so much as an instance found in all the
history of the Old Testament, of any civil members refusing, either by
word or deed, an acknowledgment of, or subjection unto the authority of
any magistrate actually in office, by the will of the civil body:
besides what have been already adduced, take these few following
examples of many. After that Saul, by his disobedience to the
commandment of the Lord, had forfeited his title to the kingdom, he was
no more honored as king, by Samuel, the prophet; but, on the contrary,
he openly testified to his face, that the Lord had rejected him from
being king; 1 Sam. xv, 26-35. Though he mourned over him as one
rejected, yet he no more acknowledged him as clothed with the authority
as a lawful king; nay, the Lord having rejected him, reproves his
prophet for mourning for him, 1 Sam. xvi, 1. From which, and the command
he received to anoint David in his stead, and that even while the
civil society did acknowledge, and was subject unto Saul, it appears,
that the throne of Israel was then regarded, both by the Lord and his
prophet, as vacant, until David was annointed; from which time, in the
eye of the divine law, he was the rightful king, and ought, in
consequence of the public intimation made by the prophet of Saul's
rejection, to have been acknowledged as the Lord's Anointed by the whole
kingdom of Israel. In agreeableness whereto, the scripture informs,
that not only David in expectation of the Lord's promise, resisted
Saul as an unjust usurper, but many among the tribes of Israel, whom
the Spirit of God honorably mentions, rejected the government of Saul,
and joined themselves to him that was really anointed of the Lord; 1
Chron. xii, 1-23. Now, if the Lord did command, under pain of damnation,
to give loyal obedience to all in the place of supreme authority,
however wicked, while acknowledged by the body politic, he would not
reject such, nor command to set up others in their room, nor approve of
those who disowned and resisted them. But all this is done in this
instance, which of itself, is sufficient to overthrow their scheme.
Another instance is in 2 Chron. xi, 13, 16, where the authority of
Jeroboam is rejected and cast off, even when acknowledged and
submitted to by the nation of Israel, by the priests and Levites,
and after them, by all such as did set their hearts to seek the Lord God
of Israel, through all the ten tribes; and this, because of his
abominable wickedness. Whereby it appears a commendable duty to refuse
the lawfulness of the authority of wicked occupants, though acknowledged
by the majority of a nation. A similar example there is in the reign of
Baasha, who could not by all his vigilance prevent many from casting
off his government; 2 Chron. xv, 9. Again, there is an express example
of Elisha's disowning the king of Israel, even when the civil
society owned him; 2 Kings, iii, 14, 15. He did not regulate his conduct
by providence, and the will of the people, but, in opposition to both,
refused him that honor that is due to all that are really kings. To
these may be added that notable example of Libnah, a city of the
priests, who could not but have knowledge by the law of their God what
was their duty; 2 Chron. xxi, 10. Here is an instance of a people's
casting off allegiance to a king, properly because of his apostasy and
intolerable wickedness, whereby they bore testimony against him, and
discovered what was the duty of the whole nation, on account of his
apostasy from the Lord. Their so doing was a most positive, actual and
express condemnation, both of Jehoram for his wickedness, and of the
people for concurring, joining with him, and strengthening his hands in
it (even as Noah by his faith and obedience is said to have condemned
the antediluvian world; Heb. ix, 7.) And this their conduct and
testimony the Spirit of God justifies, and records to their honor. These
few of many that might be adduced, declare the impudence, as well as
fallacy and imposture of Seceders in this matter, and also justify the
principles which they maliciously nick-name the anti-government scheme;
and that for no other reason, but because it establishes the ordinance
of magistracy among a people favored by God with divine revelation, upon
his preceptive will, in opposition to their anarchical notions of
setting it wholly upon the tottering basis of the corrupt will of man.
And, to conclude this particular, how ridiculously absurd is it in them
to insinuate, that, in the examples above, or others to be found in
sacred history, those persons did, notwithstanding their own practice in
rejecting the authority of wicked rulers, still view it as the duty of
the rest of the nation, to acknowledge them? This is pure jargon and
nonsense, contrary both to reason and religion. By what law could the
opposite practices of those that disowned, and those that still
continued to own the authority of unlawful rulers, be justified? It
could not by the divine law, which never condemns that as sin in one,
which it approves as duty in others in the same circumstances. Seeing
therefore these, in the instances above, are justified, the practice of
those who continued to acknowledge the lawfulness of these wicked
rulers, must be regarded as condemned, both by the divine law, and also
by the practices of the above persons, which do all jointly concur in
witnessing, that they viewed it the duty of all the rest of the nation,
to have done as they did. And from the whole, it appears a commendable
duty for the Lord's people to disown the right and lawfulness of rulers
set up in contradiction to the divine law.
9. The iniquity of attempting to destroy the necessary distinction
between the providential and preceptive will of God in the matter of
magistracy, appears from God's express disallowance of some whom
providence had actually exalted to the supreme command over a people;
Ezek. xxi, 27: "I will overturn, &c." Although this may have an
ultimate respect to Christ, yet it has also a reference to the rightful
governors of Judah, when disposessed of their right by the
providential will of God. And here the Lord threatens the execution of
his judgments upon the unjust possessor. See also Amos vi, 13; Hab.
ii, 5, 6; Nah. iii, 4, 5; and Matth. xxvi, 52. By all which it
appears, that the supreme lawgiver states a real difference between
those who are only exalted by the providential will of GOD, and not
authorized by his preceptive will; and therefore it is impossible that
the office and authority of them both can equally arise from, and agree
to the precept. Again, in Hos. viii, 4, "They have set up kings, but
not by me; they have made princes, and I knew it not," is this
distinction showed, as with the brightness of a sun-beam, so that he
that runs may read it. The LORD by his prophet here charges this people
with horrid apostasy, in changing both the ordinances of the magistracy
and the ministry, particularly, although the LORD commanded, if they
would set up kings, they should set up none but whom he chose; Deut.
xvii, 15. Yet they had no regard to his law. This charge seems to have
respect to the civil constitution among the ten tribes after their
revolt from the house of David; not simply charging their revolt on
them, but that after their secession, they did not consult GOD, nor act
according to his precept, in their setting up of kings. As nothing can
happen in the world, but by the course of providence; and as all things
are known unto GOD, in respect of his omniscience, the text cannot
respect either of these. The true import of the charge then is, they
have set up kings, but not according to the law and preceptive will of
GOD; and therefore he neither did nor would approve either them or their
kings. Hence the prophet charges this as one cause of their national
destruction. Here then it is undeniably evident that GOD himself
establishes that distinction pleaded for; and it is therefore most
wicked to assert, as Seceders do, that it is altogether groundless and
absurd. Again, this text discovers, that all kings that are set up and
acknowledged by civil society, are not agreeable to the preceptive will
of GOD, or, as such, approven by him, as they have falsely asserted: for
here the LORD declares, that Israel had set up kings that were not
agreeable to his precept: and the charge respects their authority, the
very deed of constitution. To say then, that all providential
magistrates are also preceptive, is directly to give the GOD of truth
the lie. Moreover, this plainly intimates, that all such providential
magistrates as are not set up in agreeableness to the precept; are
disallowed and condemned by GOD, and therefore GOD commands to put away
the carcasses of such kings, as, because of the blind consent of civil
society, were little better than adored by the people, Ezek. xliii, 9,
"that he might dwell in the midst of them forever;" and therefore he
declares it the sin, and so the cause of the people's ruin, as in the
above text: and also in Hos. v, 11, "Ephraim is oppressed;" because
he willingly walked after the commandment, deliberately and implicitly
followed every wicked ruler set up by civil society. It is but a
perverting and abusing the above text, to plead that it is only a
condemnation of Israel, for not consulting the LORD in making choice
of their kings, but no condemnation of them for setting them up, and
acknowledging them, in contradiction to the LORD'S choice, as plainly
laid before them in his preceptive will. And it is very contradictory,
to acknowledge it a sin, not to consult God, and yet to assert that it
is a matter of indifference as to the validity of their office, whether
his counsel be followed or not, which it must be, if, as their principle
bears, the being of the magistrate's office and authority is equally
good and valid, when contrary, as when agreeable to the commanding will
of God. But if, as is granted, it be a sin not to consult God in the
choice of magistrates, it must needs be a great aggravation thereof,
after consulting him, to reject and contemn his counsel, and openly
contradict his positive command, by constituting kings in opposition to
his declared will, which is evidently the sin charged upon Israel, and
the reason why he disclaims all such; and therefore, according to that
known and approven rule, that wherever any sin is forbidden and
condemned in scripture, there the contrary duty is commanded and
commended; it follows, that the setting up of rulers, in opposition to
the express command of God, being here condemned, the contrary duty is
commended, namely, a disowning of all such rulers; for, if it be a sin
to set up rulers, and not by God, it must also be a sin to acknowledge
them when so set up, in regard it is a continuing in, and approving of
the sin of that wicked erection; although such an acknowledgment may
indeed be agreeable to their principle, which gives to the creature a
prerogative above the Creator. From the whole it may already appear,
what reason the Presbytery have for testifying against Seceders, for
maintaining such a corrupt doctrine; a doctrine, which they very justly
acknowledge (p. 87) cannot be established, but by the overthrow of this
distinction between the providential and preceptive will of God; a
distinction, that as they shall never be able to overturn by all their
impotent and impious attacks: so it will to all ages stand as a strong
bulwark, inviolably defending the truth here contended for by the
Presbytery.
4. The Presbytery testify against this anti-government principle of the
Secession, as being contradictory to, and inconsistent with the
reformation principles, and covenanted obligations, whereby these
nations, in agreeableness to the law of God, bound themselves to
maintain all the ordinances of God in their purity, according to their
original institution in the scriptures of truth. The Seceding scheme (as
has been noticed formerly) is, that whomsoever the bulk of the nation,
or body politic, set up, and providence proves auspicious and favorable
to, is the lawful magistrate, to be owned and submitted to for
conscience sake. The inconsistency of which tenet with reformation
principles, may appear from viewing and comparing therewith the
coronation oath, James VI, Parl. 1, cap. 8, where it is ordained as
a condition sine qua non, that all kings, princes, and magistrates,
shall at their installment solemnly swear to maintain the true religion
of Jesus Christ, and oppose all false religions. So also James VI,
Parl. 1, cap. 9th, which ordains, that no person may be a judge or
member of any court that professes not the true religion. Also Charles
I, Parl. 2, sess 2d, Act. 14, it is ordained, that before the
king be admitted to the exercise of his royal power, he shall give
satisfaction to the kingdom anent the security of religion: and so the
same parliament, Act 15th, 1649, express themselves (referring to the
coronation oath above mentioned): "The estates of parliament judging it
necessary, that the prince and people be of one perfect religion,
appoint, that all kings and princes, who shall reign or bear rule within
this realm, shall at the receipt of their princely authority, solemnly
swear to observe in their own persons, and to preserve the religion, as
it is presently established and professed. And they ordain, that before
the king's majesty who now is, or any of his successors, shall be
admitted to the exercise of his royal power, he shall, by and attour the
foresaid oath, declare by his solemn oath, under his hand and seal, his
allowance of the National Covenant, and of the Solemn League and
Covenant, and obligation to prosecute the ends thereof in his station
and calling; and that he shall consent, and agree to acts of parliament,
enjoining the Solemn League and Covenant, and fully establishing
Presbyterian government, the Directory for worship, Confession of Faith,
and Catechisms approved by the General Assembly of this kirk, and
parliament of this kingdom—and that he shall observe these in his own
practice and family,—and shall never make opposition to any of these,
or endeavor any change thereof. Likeas, the estates of parliament
discharge all the lieges and subjects of this kingdom to procure or
receive from his majesty any commissions or gifts whatsoever, until his
majesty shall give satisfaction, as said is, under the pain of being
censured in their persons and estates, as the parliament shall judge
fitting. And if any such commissions or gifts be procured or received by
any of the subjects before such satisfaction, the parliament declares
and ordains all such and all that shall follow thereupon, to be void and
null." And the same session, Act 26th, it is in short ordained, that
none shall bear any place of public trust in the nation, but such as
have the qualifications God requires in his word. Thus, in the prefatory
part of the act, they say, "The estates of parliament taking into
consideration, that the Lord our God requires that such as bear charge
among his people, should be able men, fearing God, hating covetousness,
and dealing truly: and that many of the evils of sin and punishment,
under which the land groans, have come to pass, because hitherto they
have not been sufficiently provided and cared for," &c. (And afterward
in the statutory part), "Do therefore ordain, that all such as shall be
employed in any place of power and trust in this kingdom, shall not only
be able men, but men of known affection unto, and of approved fidelity
and integrity in the cause of God, and of a blameless Christian
conversation," &c. To the same purpose, Act 11th, Parl. 2d, Sess.
3d, entitled act for purging the army. See also the coronation oath,
of Scotland, as subscribed by Charles II, at Scoon, 1650. All
which, and many other fundamental laws of the like nature, made in time
of reformation, show the principles of our reformers to have been quite
different from those of Seceders anent civil government: and that to
constitute lawful magistrates, they must of necessity have scriptural
and covenant qualifications, besides the consent of the people. With
what face then can they pretend to have adopted a testimony for
reformation principles, and to be of the same principles with our late
reformers? The vanity of this pretense will further appear, by comparing
their principles with the Solemn League and Covenant, with every article
of which they are inconsistent. They profess the moral obligation of the
covenants, and yet at the same time maintain the lawfulness of every
providential government, whether popish or prelatic, if set up by the
body politic. But how opposite this to the first article, obliging
constantly to endeavor the preservation of the reformed religion? Can it
be consistent therewith, to commit the government of the nations to a
sworn enemy to the reformation? or, with that sincerity which becomes
the professors of Christ, to plead the lawfulness of an authority raised
upon the overthrow of the reformed religion? No less opposite is it to
the second article, which obliges, and that without respect of
persons, to endeavor the extirpation of popery, prelacy—to maintain and
plead for the lawfulness of that which establishes or supports prelacy
or popery in the nations. This appears rather like a sincere endeavor in
them to promote whatever is contrary to sound doctrine, and the power of
true godliness; and that, because an apostate people approves thereof,
contrary to Exod. xxiii, 2: "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do
evil." Again, the third article binds to preserve the rights of
parliaments, and the liberties of the kingdoms, and the king's authority
in the preservation and defense of the true religion. But how
inconsistent is it therewith, to own and defend an authority that in its
constitution and habitual series of administration, is destructive of
all these precious and valuable interests? It is full of contradiction,
and a mocking both of God and the world, to pretend to own and defend
the destroyers of the true religion, in the defense of religion, as
Seceders do in their mock acknowledgment of such as are sworn to
maintain Prelacy, in opposition to the reformed religion. The
contradictoriness of this principle of theirs to the fourth article,
needs no illustration. Again, the owning of an authority, which is
reared up and stands upon the footing of the destruction of the
covenanted union, and uniformity of the nations in religion can never be
consistent with the fifth, article, which binds, to an endeavoring,
that these kingdoms may remain conjoined in that firm covenanted union
to all posterity. In like manner, as the sixth article obliges to a
defending of all that enter into that League and Covenant, and never to
suffer ourselves to be divided, and make defection to the contrary part;
it must be a manifest contradiction thereto, not only to defend such as
are enemies to that covenant, but even in their opposition thereto. And
it is a making defection to the contrary part, and from that cause and
covenant with a witness, to plead the lawfulness of the national
constitution, which is established upon the ruins of a covenanted work
of reformation, as Seceders do; whose principle and practice, in
opposition to what is professed in the conclusion of the covenant, as
well as what was the very design of entering into it, is, instead of a
going before others, in the example of a real reformation, a corrupting
of the nations more and more, and going before them in the example of a
real apostasy and defection from the reformation, so solemnly sworn to
be maintained in this covenant; and a teaching of them to appoint
themselves a captain, to return to their anti-christian bondage.
Upon the whole, as the Presbytery ought to testify against this new
scheme of principles, respecting the ordinance of magistracy; they
therefore, upon all the grounds formerly laid down, did, and hereby do
declare, testify against, and condemn the same, as what is, indeed, a
new and dangerous principle, truly anti-government, introductory of
anarchy and confusion, of apostasy and defection from the covenanted
work of reformation, the principles by which it was carried on and
maintained, and acts and laws, by which it was fenced and established;
and what is flatly opposite to, and condemned by the word of divine
revelation, in many express and positive precepts, and approven
examples, agreeable thereto, as well as by our solemn national
covenants, founded upon, and agreeable to the said word of divine
revelation. And finally, let this be further observed, that as it was a
beautiful branch of our glorious reformation, that the civil government
of this nation was modeled agreeable to the word of God; and that the
right of regal government was constituted, bounded and fixed by an
unalterable law, consonant to the word of God, and sworn to be
inviolably preserved both by king and people: so the Associate
Brethren, by their doctrine on this head, which is inconsistent with
our uncontroverted establishment, and fundamental laws, excluding from
the throne all papists and prelatists, have counteracted a most
important point of the covenanted reformation, and opened a wide door to
Jacobitism. For, if every one is bound to acknowledge implicitly any
government, in fact, that prevails: then, if a party in these nations
should rise up, and set a popish pretender on the throne, according to
their doctrine, all should be obliged to subject to him; and it would be
sinful to impugn the lawfulness of his authority, although that, by
being popish, he is destitute of the essential qualifications required
of a king, not only by the word of God, but by the national constitution
and laws, in order to make him a lawful sovereign to these nations.
2. The Presbytery testify against the Associate Presbytery, now called
Synod, for their wronging, perverting and misapplying the blessed
scriptures of truth in many texts, in order to support their erroneous
tenet: namely, that the word of God requires no qualifications as
essential to the being of a lawful Christian magistrate: but that
whosoever are set up, and while they continue to be acknowledged by
civil society, are lawful magistrates, though destitute of scripture
qualifications, and acting in a manifest opposition to the revealed will
and law of God.
The texts of scripture used by them, do prove this general proposition,
viz., That it is the duty of the people of God to obey and submit to
lawful rulers in their lawful commands: and that it is utterly unlawful
and sinful to oppose such lawful authority. But none of these texts
quoted by them, prove, that it is the duty of the people of God, blessed
with the knowledge of his revealed will, to submit to, and obey, for
conscience sake, an authority that is sinful, and opposite to the
revealed will of God, both in its constitution and general course of
administration. Nor do they prove, that a prelatical, Erastian or popish
government, is a lawful government, either expressly, or by right of
necessary consequence, over a people, who either do, collectively
considered as a church and nation, or are bound to profess all the parts
of the true religion, and to maintain all the divine ordinances in their
purity: nor do they prove, that any can be lawful rulers over these
Christian and covenanted nations, who want the essential qualifications
required by the word of God, the covenants, and fundamental laws of the
kingdoms: or that it is sinful in the people of God, to say so much, in
testifying against the joint and national apostasy from God and the
purity of religion. Particularly,
The first text they adduce is, Prov. xxvi, 21: "My son, fear, thou the
Lord and the king, and meddle not with them that are given to change."
It is granted, that this scripture enjoins all those duties that, in a
consistency with the fear of the Lord, a people owe to their rightful
kings. But nothing can be more absurd, than to extend the command to all
that bear the name of kings, who are acknowledged by a nation as kings,
and while they do so own them, though their constitution should be most
anti-christian, and they justly chargeable with unparalleled evils not
only in their private character, but in their public conduct: be they
idolaters, adulterers, blasphemers, sabbath-breakers, murderers,
invaders, and avowed usurpers of the throne, crown and scepter, and
incommunicable prerogatives of Christ, the glorious King of Zion,
setting themselves in the temple of God, and exalting themselves above
all that is called God, by dispensing with his laws, and, in place
thereof, substituting their own wicked laws, whereby they establish
iniquity, and enjoin, under severe penalties, the profanation of the
name, day and ordinances of the Lord. This command must certainly be
understood in a consistency with the duty and character of one that is
resolved to be an inhabitant of the Lord's holy hill, Psal. xv, "In
whose eyes a vile person is contemned." It must be consistent with the
fear of the Lord, which can stand very well with a fearing and honoring
all who are really kings; but a flat contradiction thereto, to fear
every vile person, because it is the will of civil society to set him up
in the character of king. Till therefore Seceders prove, either that
kings are under no obligation to obey the law of God themselves, and so
not liable to its sanction and penalty, in case of disobedience; or
then, that the favor and approbation of civil society can justify a
dispensing with the law of God, they will never be able to prove from
this, nor any other text, that such as are guilty of any crime declared
capital in the word of truth have a right and title to that fear, honor
and obedience, that is due to lawful kings, even though they are
acknowledged by civil society. And so this text makes nothing for, but
against their darling tenet; and their explication thereof is evidently
a wresting of scripture, making it speak in their favor, contrary to the
scope and meaning of the Holy Spirit therein. And their inviduous
insinuation, that all who differ from their opinion, do likewise depart
from the fear of the Lord, is but a further evidence of their abuse of
scripture, while it is at the same time utterly false. See Mr. Knox's
history, p. 422, 1st Book of Discipline, cap. 10, 11.
A second text abused, for supporting their forementioned principle, is
Eccles. x, 4: "If the spirit of the ruler rise up against thee, leave
not thy place, for yielding pacifieth great offenses." As formerly, so
here they assert, that this text refers to any rulers presently
acknowledged by the civil society, and that the rising of the ruler's
spirit must be understood as groundless, and so sinful, and necessarily
comprehends any wrath or wrong that a subject may meet with unjustly at
the ruler's hand, upon personal or religious accounts. That yet,
notwithstanding, the subject (in the use of lawful endeavors for his own
vindication) must continue in subjection and obedience to the ruler, in
lawful commands, while the civil state continues to acknowledge him; and
this, as the only habile mean of convincing the ruler of his error, and
preventing further evils.
But, as the reason which they there allege, does not necessarily
conclude and prove this rising of spirit in the ruler to be sinful; so
the whole of their application and gloss built upon it, is invalidated;
and, moreover, is a condemnation of the principles and practice of our
reformers, and sufferers for the cause and truths of Christ, in the late
times, when they left their place of subjection, and took up arms in
defense of their religion, liberties and lives.
Their explication is also self inconsistent; for, if this rising of
spirit necessarily comprehends any wrath or wrong, on personal or
religious accounts, then there must be a yielding, or keeping the place
of subjection, not only in lawful commands, but in all matters, whether
lawful or not; otherwise, this yielding cannot be supposed to answer the
end designed. For though a subject should yield in all other
particulars, yet, unless he also yield in that particular, on which the
rising of the ruler's spirit is grounded, his yielding cannot pacify the
ruler's wrath. So all the subjection, they contend, the sufferers gave,
particularly in the beginning of the late persecution, to the then
rulers, did not, nor could, pacify their wrath, because they would not
give up with their conscience and all religion, which was the very
foundation of the rising of his spirit against them; though, according
to their explication of the text, this was what they should have done,
and so have pacified the ruler's wrath. It is but a mere shift to tell
the world, that it is only in lawful matters they are to yield; the
yielding must surely correspond to the rising of the spirit spoken of.
But with such deceitful shifts are they forced to cover over a doctrine,
which, if presented in its native dress, would not meet with such ready
reception. But in opposition to their strained interpretation of the
text, the ruler must be understood a lawful ruler, who is the minister
of God for good—one who has not only moral abilities for government,
but also a right to govern. And as a subject may be keeping his place of
subjection to a righteous ruler, and yet be guilty, in his private or
public character, of what gives just offense, and occasions the ruler's
spirit justly, and so not sinfully, to rise against him—thus, one may
be guilty of many criminal mismanagements in the discharge of his public
trust, guilty of profaning the name of God or his day, or of riot,
excessive drinking, &c, without having any thought of casting off the
authority of his ruler—so, when a person has hereby provoked the spirit
of his ruler, this divine precept teaches the party offending not to
aggravate his offense, by attempting (though able) to make good his
part, or rebel against his sovereign, but to yield, acknowledge his
guilt and trespass, and submit to such punishments as the lawful ruler
shall justly inflict, according to the degree and quality of the
offense; whereby only, the ruler will be satisfied. Agreeable to this,
is that parallel text, Eccles. viii, 2, 3: "I counsel thee to keep the
king's commandment, and that in regard of the oath of God: Be not hasty
to go out of his sight; stand not in an evil thing." On the whole, it
must be a great abuse of Scripture, to wrest a divine precept, which
directs subjects to submit to such punishments as their lawful ruler
shall justly lay them under for their offenses, to the support of this
anti-scriptural notion, viz., that every wicked person, whom the
majority of a nation advances to the supreme rule, is the minister of
God, to whom obedience is due, under pain of eternal damnation, as is
done with this text.
A third scripture, perverted to support the above principle, is Luke
xx, 25: "Render therefore to Caesar the things which be Caesar's,
and unto God the things which be God's." From this, Seceders imagine
strongly to fortify their cause. But, from a just view of the text, it
will appear, that the answer given by Christ contains no acknowledgment
of Caesar's title to tribute, or of his authority as lawful. It is
beyond doubt, that the question was captious, and that the design of the
Scribes and Pharisees, in proposing it to Christ, was to have him
ensnared in his words. This they thought themselves sure of, whether he
should answer positively or negatively. For if positively, and so
recognize and acknowledge Caesar's title, then they would have
occasion to accuse him to the people, as an enemy to the laws, liberty
and honor, of the Jewish nation. This is evident from ver. 26: "And
they could not take hold of his words before the people." And then, if
he should deny that it was lawful, they would have an opportunity or
pretense of delating and delivering him to the Roman governor, as an
enemy to Caesar. They seem, however, to have been confident, that he
who taught the way of God in truth, without regard to any, would never
inculcate it as a duty for them to give tribute to Caesar, subjection
to whom, as their lawful governor, for conscience sake, was so contrary
to the divine law given to the Jews, respecting their magistrates; and
if so, they would not miss of sufficient accusation against him. But
here infinite wisdom shone forth, in giving such an answer as declared
their wisdom to be but folly, and at once disappointed all their
malicious hopes; an answer which left Caesar's claim unresolved, as to
any positive determination whether it belonged to him or not. The
question is in direct terms. Our Lord does not directly answer to the
question, in the terms proposed by the wicked spies. He neither
expressly says it is lawful or unlawful to pay it, but gave his answer
in such terms as they could not from it form an accusation against him,
either to the people or to the governor. He, in general, teaches to give
Caesar all things that, by the law of God, were due to him; at the
same time enjoining them that, under pretense of giving to men their
demands, they rob not God of what was his due, namely, a conscientious
regard to all the laws he had given them, and universal obedience to all
his commands, without regard to persons of any station. And it is
certain, that Caesar was a proud, aspiring, idolatrous and bloody
usurper (like the king of Babylon, Hab. ii, 5, for which causes the
Lord denounces fearful wrath and judgments against him, Hab. ii, 7-14),
having no other right to the most part of his dominions, than the Lord's
providential disposal, which sometimes makes "the tabernacles of robbers
prosper; into whose hand God bringeth abundantly;" Job xii, 6. "And for
their sins gives Jacob to the spoil, and Israel to the robbers;"
Isa. xiii, 24. "And giveth power to the beast, to continue forty and two
months, and to have power over all nations;" Rev. xiii, 5, 7. So that,
by looking into the divine law, which determines every one's due,
according to their just character, and of which they could not be
ignorant, they might see that he had a just title to all that was due to
an usurper, idolater and murderer. That the Jewish coin did bear
Caesar's image, could be no evidence of his being their lawful
sovereign, seeing it is most common for the greatest usurpers and
tyrants to stamp their image upon the coin of the nations they tyrannize
over. And though it be granted that the Jews had, by this time,
consented to Caesar's usurpation, yet that could not legitimate his
title, nor warrant their subjection to him for conscience sake, seeing
they could not consent to his authority, but in express contradiction to
the many plain and positive scripture precepts, given by God unto them,
as has been seen above. It is, therefore, violence done to the text (as
also opposite to the sentiments of some eminent divines on the place),
to say that it contains a command to pay tribute to Caesar; and it
would appear from Luke xxiii, 2, that the Jews themselves did not
understand it so. It may be further observed, that this is not the only
instance where our Lord, in infinite wisdom, declined to give direct
answers to the ensnaring questions of his malicious enemies. See John
viii, 3-12; Matth. xxi, 23-28; John xviii, 19-21, where are questions of
a similar nature, proposed with the same hellish intention, and all
answered by him in like manner. In each of which, Seceders might, on
as good ground as in the answer to the question anent tribute, say that
Christ did shift and dissemble the truth. But the least insinuation of
such a charge cannot be made from any of these answers, without the
greatest blasphemy.
A fourth text used by them for maintaining their erroneous scheme, is
Rom. xiii, 1-8. Without animadverting upon every part of their
explication of this place of holy writ, it is sufficient to observe: 1.
That the power here spoken of by the apostle, is not a physical, but a
moral power; a power that is lawful and warranted, in regard of
matter, person, title or investiture. A legitimacy in each of these must
go to the making of a moral power; and an illegitimacy in any of these
is an illegitimacy in the very being and constitution, and so a nullity
to the power as moral, a making it of no authority. As the text speaks
only of this moral power, so it excludes every unlawful power (see Mr.
Gee on magistracy, on this text). 2. That the being of God, or the
ordination God here spoke of, is not a being of God providentially
only, but such a being of God as contains in it his institution and
appointment, by the warrant of his law and precept; so that the
magistrates to whom the apostle enjoins obedience, are such as are set
up according to the preceptive ordination and will of God, as is evinced
not only by the author referred to above, and other divines, but what
sufficiently appears from the context, where the subjection enjoined,
and resistance forbidden, with their respective reasons, are what can
only be spoken with respect to powers ordained by the preceptive will of
God. Again, by considering the office and duty of the powers, and the
end of their ordination, as described, ver. 3, 4, which by no means
agree to any but those moral powers ordained by the preceptive will of
God, it appears a manifest abuse of this text, to apply it to every one
advanced by providence to the place of supreme rule, not only without
any regard, but in direct opposition to the preceptive will of God. It
is most absurd and self-contradictory in professed testimony bearers for
a covenanted reformation, to apply this text in a way of pleading the
lawfulness of an Erastian, anti-christian constitution, that is
destitute of all those qualifications already mentioned (and always
included in the scriptural definition of a lawful magistrate), as
necessary to constitute a moral power, viz., in regard of matter,
person, title or investiture, &c. But of the power which they so
zealously plead for, the matter is unlawful, being Erastian, partly
civil, partly ecclesiastical, by the united constitution. The person
invested with this supreme power, is one who is declared incapable, by
the fundamental laws and covenanted constitution of the nations; the
manner of investiture, and terms on which the crown is held, sinful—the
constitution being in an immediate opposition to the unalterable
constitution of the kingdom of the Messias, and founded on the
destruction of the covenanted reformation. And it may be added, that it
is unlawful, as to the exercise and application of it, which has been
all along in opposition to all true religion, and a grievous
oppression of the church, the kingdom of Christ, in the liberties
thereof. And it must be so; for the tree must be made good, before the
fruit can be such. By all which it appears, there is a nullity in the
power as moral, being so very opposite to the revealed will of God. And
from what is said, it is obvious that this scripture gives no
countenance to their corrupt scheme, but furnishes with strong arguments
against it.
A fifth scripture adduced is, Titus iii, 1: "Put them in mind to be
subject to principalities and powers," &c. As Seceders apply this text
to the same purpose, and explain it in the same manner, as they have
done those others above mentioned, so what is already said is sufficient
to discover the deceit of their use and explication thereof. The powers
and magistrates the apostle requires subjection to, are only such as are
so in a moral sense; none but such are accounted powers and magistrates
in the sense of the text. The apostle must mean the same powers here he
describes in Rom. xiii, 1-3, &c., otherwise he contradicts himself,
which must not be admitted; and the powers he there speaks of, are moral
powers, i.e., such as have not only proper abilities for government and
rule, but also a right of constitution, impowering them to use their
abilities for that purpose. How can one be expected or said to be the
minister of God for good, or a terror to evil doers, and a praise
to them that do well, if he is so disposed and inclined, as to love
that which is evil, and hate that which is good, and so actually is a
praise to evil doers, and a terror to such as do well? To suppose any
such thing, is to overthrow the universally established connection
between cause and effect, the means and the end. And so much (namely,
that the powers there spoken of are moral powers), Seceders are forced
to grant in their explication of Rom. xiii. Say they, "The text speaks
only of powers in a moral sense." And this concession at once destroys
their scheme, and confirms what the Presbytery plead for, namely, that
none are lawful powers but such as are so according to the preceptive
will of God in his word; which certainly, in the judgment of all who
would deal reverently with the oracles of God, is, in this case, a rule
far preferable "to the remainders of natural light, in the moral
dictates of right reason," from which Seceders fetch the institution
of this divine ordinance of magistracy, and on which they settle it, as
on (what they call) "the natural and eternal law of God;" preferring
that to the plain, perfect and complete, revelation of God's will in his
word.
The last text used by them, is, 1 Pet. ii, 13 to 17, the import of
which, they say, is, that all who have a constitution by consent of the
civil society, are to be subjected to for the Lord's sake, as having an
institution from him: and that, however seldom they were inclined or
employed in the discharge of the duties proper to their office. It may
suffice to observe, that while the apostle is here speaking, as in the
above texts, of moral powers, as above described, it is evident, that by
every ordinance of man, can only be meant the different kinds and
forms of civil government, and governors set up by men, to each of which
the apostle exhorts to a submission, providing, that in the setting up
of these, they acted agreeably to the general laws and rules appointed
by God in his word, both respecting the constitution of government, and
the qualifications of governors. Then, as they bear the stamp of divine
authority, they were to be submitted to for the Lord's sake. But what
manifest abuse of scripture is it, to allege with them that the inspired
apostle exhorts to submit to every monster of iniquity, if only set up
by the civil society, though perhaps guilty of a number of crimes that
by the law of God, and laws of men founded thereon, are punishable by a
severe death? Sure, such can never have a title to that obedience which
is due to the ordinance of God, who have not so much as a title to live
upon the earth. Moreover, let it be considered, that in the above cited
texts, the spirit of God enjoins either that obedience and subjection
that is due to lawful magistrates, or that subjection only which is for
a time, by an extraordinary and special command, such as Jer. xxix, 7,
given to conquerors and usurpers, having no right but what is
providential. If the first, then they cannot intend any but those moral
powers who are said to be of God, in respect of his approbative and
preceptive will. If the last, then these texts are not the rule of
obedience to lawful rulers, who are set up qualified, and govern
according to the law of God. But that these texts can only be understood
of the first, is evident from this, that in them not only is the office,
duty and end of the civil magistrate as particularly described, as the
obedience and subjection commanded; but the one is made the foundation,
ground, and reason of, and inseparably connected with the other. And
therefore it was, that the renowned witnesses for Christ and his
interest, contended so much for reformation in the civil magistracy and
magistrate, in an agreeableness to the original institution of that
ordinance, and endured so great opposition on that account.
To conclude this: as it is evident these texts give no countenance to
the corrupt scheme of Seceders, but always suppose the power, to which
subjection and obedience for conscience sake is enjoined to be lawful,
in regard of matter, person, title, &c. So the Presbytery cannot but
testify against them for perverting and wresting the scriptures of
truth, to a favoring of their anarchical and anti-scriptural tenet, and
for their so stiffly and tenaciously pleading for avowed apostasy and
defection (which is the whole scope and amount of their declared scheme
of politics), viz., that it is lawful for posterity to turn back to
where their forefathers were, giving up with many precious truths, and
further attainments in reformation, valuable and necessary, acquired at
the expense of much zeal, faithfulness and treasure, and handed down to
us, sealed by the spirit of God upon the souls of his people, as his
work and cause; and on public scaffolds and high places of the field,
with the dearest blood of multitudes of Christ's faithful witnesses, who
loved not their lives unto the death. And this, in express contradiction
to the land's solemn covenant engagements to the Lord, for maintaining
and holding fast that whereunto we had attained. For notwithstanding all
the regard and deference Seceders profess to the covenants and
reformation principles, they are, all the while, directly pleading in
defense of the same cause, advancing the same arguments to support it,
and likewise giving the same corrupt and perverted explication of the
above texts of scripture, that the merciless and bloody murderers and
persecuters did, in the late tyrannous times, in their stated opposition
to the cause and interest of glorious Christ, together with the indulged
who took part with them, in opposing the kingdom and subjects of Zions
exalted King. And as [pity it is] Seceders have pleaded the cause of
malignants, and, rubbing the rust from their antiquated arguments, have
presented them with a new lustre; so the Presbytery, in opposition
thereto, are satisfied to plead the same cause, with the same arguments
and to understand these scriptures in the same sense as was done by the
witnesses for reformation, whom the Lord honored to seal his truths with
their blood, as is sufficiently confirmed from the Cloud of Witnesses;
where their concurring testimonies are harmoniously stated, upon their
disowning the authority of the then anti-christian and Erastian
government, even when acknowledged by the bulk and body of the nation,
both civil and ecclesiastical. Whence also it is evident, that the
persecution was not the cause of their casting off that authority; but
that authority's assuming and usurping the royal prerogatives of Christ,
the church's Head, was the cause of their disowning it; and then their
refusing to acknowledge foresaid authority, was the cause of all their
persecution.
3. The Presbytery testify against foresaid Associates, on account of
their corruption in worship; particularly, in the duty of prayer, both
as practiced by their ministers, and by them enjoined upon their people.
Wherein, in an inconsistency with a faithful testimony against the
declared enemies of the church's head and king, they affect to express a
superlative loyalty unto the prelatic possessors of power, not much
differing from the forms imposed upon, and observed by the Erastian
church. The Presbytery acknowledge it duty to pray for all men, in the
various stations of life, as sinners lost, of the ruined family of Adam,
standing absolutely in need of a Savior, that they may be saved and come
to the knowledge of the truth; as is enjoined, Tim. ii, 1, 2. Which
yet must not be understood in an unlimited sense, but with submission to
the will of God, if they belong to the election of grace. Nay, they
acknowledge it indispensable duty, as to pray, that the church may
obtain such kings and queens, as shall he nursing fathers and mothers,
according to the Lord's gracious promise; so, when such are granted to
them, it is their duty to make prayers and supplications, in a
particular manner, for them. But it is no less than an abuse of
scripture, and flat contradiction to many promises and threatenings, to
extend foresaid command to every person without distinction whom
providence advances to the supreme rule over the people of God, in a way
of acknowledging their authority as lawful, and of praying for success
and prosperity to them (as Seceders do), to pray for success unto, and
the continuance of wicked rulers, that are enemies to the Lord, and
usurpers of his crown, and such whom the Lord in anger against a people
for their sins, may send as a special punishment upon them, and from
whom he has promised deliverance unto his people, as a peculiar
blessing, is no less than the slighting of the promises, and deriding of
threatenings, and in reality, is a taking part with God's enemies,
against him and his cause. As it is impossible, sincerely to pray for
the coming of Christ's kingdom, and advancement thereof, without also,
as a necessary mean conducive thereto, to pray for the downfall and
destruction of all his enemies, as such, whatever be their place and
station (which is not at all inconsistent with praying for their
salvation, as lost sinners); seeing Jesus Christ no less effectually
destroys his enemies, when he makes them to bow in a way of willing
subjection to the scepter of his law and grace, than when he breaks them
in pieces with his iron rod of wrath; so, how self-contradictory is it
in Seceders, to pray for the coming of Christ's mediatory kingdom;
and, at the same time to pray for the success and preservation of one,
in his kingly character, who themselves acknowledge, has, in that
character, made grievous encroachments upon the royal prerogatives of
the Lord Jesus Christ, is an usurper of his crown, and therefore, in
that view, must be considered as an enemy to his kingdom?
That the above is no false charge against Seceders, is witnessed by a
variety of their causes of fasting, concluding with such prayers, which
they have emitted, as well as by their daily practice: and particularly,
Antiburgher Seceders, have given a late recent proof of this; in what
they call, A solemn warning by the Associate Synod, &c. Which
unfaithful warning concludes with a self-contradictory form of prayer,
enjoined upon all under the inspection of said Synod. Among other
things, they "exhort all—the people under their inspection, to pour out
earnest and incessant supplications before the Lord, in a dependence
upon the merit and intercession of our great High-priest, that he
may—bring about a revival of our covenanted reformation,—removing all
the mountains which stand in the way; that he may abundantly bless our
sovereign king George, and the apparent heir of the crown,—blasting
all the plots or efforts of whatever enemies, open or secret,—against
the Protestant succession to the throne of these kingdoms in the family
of Hanover; that he may be gracious to the high courts of parliament,
in this and the neighboring island,—leading them to proper measures for
the honor of Christ; that he may hasten the enlargement of the
Mediator's kingdom," &c.
On all which, let it suffice to observe, 1. That as in no part of this
prayer they make any exceptions against, so they must be understood
therein, approving of the constitution of the king, the establishment,
and limitation of the throne of these kingdoms in the Hanoverian
family, as presently by law established: and also, approving of the
British and Irish, parliaments, in their constitution as by law
established, though both of them grossly Erastian, and necessarily
connected with maintaining English popish ceremonies, the whole
English hierarchy, and civil places and power of churchmen; in
opposition to the word of God, reforming laws, and covenanted
constitutions of the nations. Hence, 2. This pattern of prayer must be
understood as containing earnest supplications to the Lord, that he may
continue and preserve an Erastian constitution, that he may perpetuate
the limited succession to the throne in the family of Hanover; and
that, in opposition to all attempts whatever, toward any change, however
much it might contribute to the glory of God, good of the church, and
revival of a covenanted reformation; and also, seems to include a desire
that, God may preserve and maintain a parliament in the nations, one of
the houses whereof, viz., the House of Peers, is composed partly of
spiritual lords, as essential members thereof,—an anti-christian
designation, a title and office, not to be found in the book of divine
revelation. So, 3. This prayer seems to suppose a consistency between
the preservation of all these, and the revival of a covenanted
reformation in these lands; and also that they, particularly a
parliament, thus anti-christian in its constitution, are proper
instruments for promoting the honor and declarative glory of Christ;
although the prelates, constituent members therein, are a generation of
men that were never yet known to have a vote for Christ's kingdom and
interest. And therefore, 4. This prayer consists of flat contradiction.
(1.) In regard the revival of a covenanted reformation, and the
flourishing of Christ's mediatory kingdom, nationally, must be attended
with the overthrow of all constitutions, civil and ecclesiastical, that
hinder and oppose the same; Hag. ii, 6, 7, and with the down bringing
of all the enemies thereof, from the height of their excellency. (2.) It
is a contradiction for them to pray, that the Lord would remove all the
mountains that stand in the way of the revival of our reformation; and
yet, at the same time, pray for the preservation and continuance of the
constitution, under which (as they themselves acknowledge, Defense of
their Princ., page 51): "There is a mighty bar thrust into the way of
our covenanted reformation, both in church and state; yea, a gravestone
is laid, and established upon the same." (3.) It is a sinful and glaring
contradiction for Seceders to rank an approbation of the English
hierarchy among our public national sins and steps of defection (as they
do, page 53 of their pamphlet); and yet themselves persist and continue
in the same sin and guilt, homologating and approving the anti-christian
constitution of the British and Irish parliaments, by praying (like
their forefathers, in their fulsome address to James the Papist) for
divine illumination and conduct to the Prelates in their civil places
and power, as necessary members there, as they do in this prayer of
theirs. Can such be supposed to be either truly sensible of sin, or
humbled for it, who, notwithstanding all their confessions, still
continue in the love and practice of it? But with such mock
acknowledgements (of which a variety of other instances might be given)
have they hitherto imposed on the generation. And so, 5. It is a prayer,
that in several parts thereof, has no scripture warrant, no foundation
in the promises of God. Particularly, on what scriptural warrant, what
promise, can Seceders build their prayers for, or expectation of the
Lord's answering them, by blessing an Erastian government to themselves
or others, which being, in its constitution, contrary to the word of
God,—is such, that under it (as they grant, ibid, page 46), a people
cannot truly prosper in their civil concerns, nor be enriched with the
blessings of the gospel? From what scriptural promise are they warranted
to pray, that God may perpetuate the succession to the throne in any one
family, and especially, when that succession is circumscribed and
limited, in a way opposite to the laws of God, and mediatory kingdom of
Christ? and therefore, a prayer that cannot be made in faith, and so
cannot be acceptable to God in its complex form. No person can have
faith in the merit and intercession of Christ, for obtaining anything in
prayer, but what Christ has priorly merited, and does actually intercede
for. But it would savor too much of blasphemy, to apply some of the
particulars already noticed in this form of prayer, to the merit and
intercession of our great High-priest. Sure it cannot be thought, that
he makes intercession for the prosperity and success of his enemies, in
their stated opposition to his kingdom and interest in this world;
neither can it be consistent with fidelity to Christ, as a King, for his
professed subjects to pray for it. What a fearful trifling with God in
the duty of prayer, is it to pray that the Lord may bring down Popery
and Prelacy; and next breath to pray that the Lord may continue,
prosper, and preserve the Erastian head, and great bulwark of Prelacy?
4. Again, the Presbytery testify against the Associate party for their
treachery in covenant. This is a sin that is in scripture, and even by
the common voice of mankind, declared very heinous; but which, by what
is already discovered anent said party, appears too, too justly
chargeable upon them. It is notorious, and what themselves boast much
of, that they professedly maintain the moral and perpetual obligation of
the covenants, both the National Covenant of Scotland, and the Solemn
League and Covenant of Scotland, England, and Ireland, entered into
for reformation and defense of religion, and bringing the churches of
God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in
religion, according to the word of God. They also do in the most public
manner profess, that they are the only true faithful witnesses for a
covenanted reformation. But the consistency of such a profession with
maintaining principles that are diametrically opposite to these
covenants, and the cause of truth, sworn to in them (as has been made
evident they do) is altogether unintelligible. Is it possible
strenuously to maintain the lawfulness of a prelatical government
abjured in the covenants, and yet at the same time sincerely and
honestly, according to the profession made by the church, Psal. xliv,
17, 18, to contend for the moral obligation of the covenants, and the
work of reformation sworn to in them? But further, the necessity of
lifting up a testimony against Seceders for their treachery and
unfaithfulness in the matter of the covenants, will appear by
considering that they, after making a very solemn profession of renewing
the National Covenant of Scotland, and the Solemn League and Covenant
of the three lands, in place of practicing accordingly, have, in
reality, made a new and very different bond or covenant, both in form
and substance, which they have not only sworn themselves, but also
imposed upon many honest people: and this as a renewing, nay, as the
only right way of renewing said covenants according to the
circumstances, of the times. That this bond entered into by Seceders
(however good it may be, considered in an abstract sense) is not a
renovation of the national covenants, as they assert it to be, but a
treacherous and deceitful burying of these covenants, as to their sum
and substance, is abundantly evident from their industrious keeping out,
and omitting the most part of them out of their new and artificial bond.
Particularly, although they pretend to a renovation both of the National
and Solemn League and Covenant, yet they have almost entirely left out,
and passed over the National Covenant of Scotland; and satisfying
themselves with simply testifying against Popery, have omitted all the
particular errors, and branches thereof expressly contained in the
National Covenant. As to the Solemn League, of which they pretend their
bond is also a renovation, there is very little of it to be found
therein, as appears from a comparison of the one with the other. Thus
they have left out that remarkable and necessary clause in the first
Article, viz., "Against our common enemies:" and in place of endeavoring
to bring the churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest
conjunction and uniformity in religion, Confession of Faith, Form of
Church Government, Directory for Worship and Catechizing, as in said
article, there is an unintelligible clause or jumble of words brought
in, viz., to promote and advance our covenanted conjunction and
uniformity in religion, just as if that conjunction and uniformity had a
present existence (in its native and original state and form) in the
three lands; when, on the contrary, Presbytery is established in
Scotland, yet not on the footing of the word of God and the covenants,
and Episcopacy is established in England and Ireland, in
contradiction to the word of God and the covenants. 2. They have kept
out that necessary clause in the 2d article, viz., "Without respect of
persons, endeavor the extirpation," &c, and instead thereof say,
"Testify against Popery and Prelacy;" where appears not only a
difference in expression, but a substantial difference. 3. They have
altogether omitted and kept out the 3d and 4th articles. 4. They have
kept out that material and necessary clause in the 5th article, viz.,
"That justice may be done on the willful opposers thereof," in manner
expressed in the preceding article. 5. They have left out all the 6th
article, excepting these words: "We shall not give ourselves up to a
detestable neutrality and indifference in the cause of God." And 6. They
have wholly omitted that material paragraph of the conclusion of the
Solemn League. It is therefore evident, that the model of the covenants
agreed to by Seceders, is different in substance, as well as form,
from our ancient covenants; so that, under pretense of renovation, they
have made a new bond.
But, again, that their pretended renovation is a real burying of the
covenanted reformation, appears from their overlooking, casting by, and
keeping out the National Covenant, as it was renewed in the year 1638,
and the Solemn League and Covenant, as renewed in the year 1648, and
going back to the years 1580 and 1581, as the pattern they propose to
follow in carrying on of their covenanted testimony. And what can be the
reason of this? Can it be, because Prelacy, and the civil places and
power of churchmen, were, by the explication and application of the
covenant, anno 1638, expressly and explicitly condemned, while they
were formerly only implicitly, and by way of consequence? So they have
at least, by this step back, both tacitly condemned our reformers, of
giving themselves needless trouble in their explanation of the covenant,
as condemning and abjuring Episcopacy; and also, do overlook, despise,
and disgracefully bury the many advanced steps of reformation attained
to in these covenanted lands between 1638 and 1649 (particularly the
church of Scotland's testimony against Prelacy) in which time
reformation arrived to a greater height of purity than ever was attained
in any foregoing period of this church and nation. However, whatever
their reasons were for so doing, that they have so done is clear, from
their act Edinburgh, February 3d, 1743, where they conclude with a
nota bene, lest it should not otherwise have been observed that they
do so, and thereby declare their sin as Sodom, as if the publishing of
it would make an atonement for it. "N.B. Only the National Covenant, as
it was entered into, annis 1580, 1581 (without the bond wherein it was
renewed anno 1638) and the Solemn League and Covenant (without the
solemn acknowledgment of sins, and engagement to duties, anno 1648),
are hereby prefixed unto the following act, agreeably unto the design of
said act": and for this they pretend the example of our reformers,
anno 1638, who renewed the National Covenant by a new bond, in place
of that new bond wherewith it was renewed and sworn, 1590, which they
omitted—wherein their deceit and unfaithfulness is very obvious from
the following observations: 1. Hereby they have cast a most injurious
calumny and reproach upon our honored reformers, and in their pretending
to imitate their practice, in renovation of the covenants, are guilty of
a most dreadful and deceitful imposition on the generation; for though
our reformers did renew the covenants with a new bond, and perhaps very
seldom swear them without some additions, yet they never went back from
any part of reformation, espoused, and sworn to in the renovations that
were before them, under a pretense, that such points of reformation
formerly attained, were unsuitable, or not adapted to their
circumstances, as Seceders have done. On the contrary, our reformers,
in all the different renovations of the covenants, not only included all
that was formerly attained to, binding themselves in strict adherence to
all the articles priorly in the oath and covenant of God (at the same
time solemnly acknowledging all former breaches thereof; and obliging
themselves, in the strength of grace to the performance of the contrary,
and consequential duties), but also, still went forward in explaining
and more explicitly applying the covenants against the sins of the day,
and more expressly binding themselves to the opposite duties, as is
clear from the bond wherewith our reformers renewed the covenants 1638,
and the solemn acknowledgment of sins, and engagement to duties, 1648;
both which the Seceders have barefacedly cast by and exploded in their
alleged renovation of the covenants; whereby, as it is manifest that our
reformers always went forward to further degrees of reformation, so it
is no less manifest, that foresaid party acting contrary to them, have
gone backward. But 2d. They have not only rejected the renovations of
the covenants by our ancestors 1638 and 1640; but even when they
pretended to follow the renovation of the covenant, 1580 and 1581, they
have kept out and perverted almost the whole of the national covenants,
as was already observed; particularly in their new bond, they have cast
away the civil part of the covenants altogether. For what reason they do
so, is indeed hard to say. True, they allege it would be a blending of
civil and religious matters together; and that it is not proper (or
competent for them, as a church judicatory) to meddle in these matters
that are of a civil nature. But seeing infinite wisdom has not judged it
a (sinful) blending of civil and religious concerns together, to deliver
the duties both civil and religious in one and the same moral law unto
mankind; it is difficult to conceive, how the people of God their
binding themselves in a covenant of duties to the conscientious
performance of all the duties God required of them in his word, whether
civil or religious, according to their respective or immediate objects,
can be reputed a blending of them together; or that this has the
remotest tendency to destroy that distinction which God in his revealed
will has stated between what is immediately civil in its nature, and
what is properly religious. This, therefore, is a mere groundless
pretense and evasion; and if it has any force at all, as a reason, it
strikes against the reformers who compiled these covenants. They are the
proper objects at whom through the sides of others it thrusts; for they,
at the framing of sundry of their covenants, and afterward at the
renovation of their covenant, did it both without the ecclesiastical
authority, and also without, and contrary unto, yea, at the hazard of
suffering the greatest severities from the civil authority on that
account. And yet the ecclesiastical judicatories of the church of
Scotland afterward found it competent for them, as such, to approve of
these covenants, both as to the matter and form of them, without
branding and exploding them as a blending of matters civil and religious
together, as Seceders have done. Again, as the covenants require no
other than a lawful magistrate; and seeing Seceders acknowledge the
present as lawful, and that it is their duty to be subject to, and
support them as such, it is impossible to conceive any reason, why they
have not honored the present rulers with a place in their new and
artificial bond: unless perhaps this, that they were aware that would
have been so glaring a contradiction to these covenants they were
pretending to renew, as would doubtless have startled and driven away
from them a good many honest people, whom they have allured and led
aside by their good words and fair-set speeches; and yet it is pretty
obvious they have included the present rulers in their bond, and taken
them in an oblique and clandestine way, by swearing to the relative
duties contained in the fifth commandment, seeing they acknowledge them
as their civil parents. Again, as their bond is supposed to reduplicate
upon the national covenants, and so to bind to every article in them, by
native consequence, they swear to a prelatical government: for seeing
they have made no exception in their bond, it must be applied to no
other, but the government, which presently exists; and this, in flat
contradiction to the covenants, by which such a government is abjured.
So that their new bond is no less opposite to the national covenants,
and is much mere deceitful, than if they had plainly and explicitly
sworn allegiance to the present government therein; only the generality
of their implicit followers do not so readily observe it. Upon the
whole, how strange is it, that they should have the assurance to father
their deceitful apostasy, and wretched burying of the covenants upon our
reformers, so injuriously to their character, and at the hazard of
imposing a heinous and base cheat upon the world, while, notwithstanding
all their vain pretensions, it is undeniably evident to those who will
impartially, and without prejudice, examine the method and order whereby
our ancestors renewed our covenants, that in this they have been so far
from following their example, that they have directly contradicted the
same, and, in reality, buried much of the covenants and work of
reformation sworn to in them. For though a people may very lawfully, by
a new bond, enlarge and add to their former obligations that they
brought themselves under; yet they can never, without involving
themselves in the guilt of perjury, relax or cancel former obligations
by any future bond. Accordingly, our worthy ancestors, by all the new
bonds they annexed to former obligations, were so far from attempting to
loose themselves from any covenanted duty that either they or their
fathers were priorly bound unto, that they thereby still brought
themselves under straighter bonds to perform all their former and new
obligations of duty to God. But, as has been discovered, Seceders, by
their artificial bond, have cast out the very substance and spirit of
the covenants, by their rumping and hewing them at pleasure, to reduce
them to the sinful circumstances of the time: and this, in opposition to
their own public profession, that these covenants are moral in their
nature and obligation upon these nations to the latest posterity. How
surprising it is then, that after such a profession, they dare cast out
of their bond the greatest parts of the covenants! This is not only to
break these obligations, but it is to make a public declaration, that
different times and circumstances do free men from their obligation to
keep their most solemn vows to the Most High. To this, as very
applicable, may be subjoined the words of Mr. Case, in a sermon
relative to the covenants: "Others have taken it (viz., the covenant)
with their own evasions, limitations and reservations: such a Jesuitical
spirit has got in among us, by which means it comes to pass, that by
that time that men have pared off and left out, and put what
interpretation they frame to themselves, there is little left worth the
name of a covenant." And, indeed, so many are the self-inconsistencies
and gross contradictions attending this new bond, that it would have
been much more for the honor both of the covenants, and of Seceders
themselves, rather never to have attempted such a work, than to have
done it in a way of tearing to pieces our solemn national vows.
Wherefore the Presbytery cannot but, in testifying against them for
their unfaithfulness, obtest all the lovers of truth, to beware of
joining in this course of treachery, and apostasy from God and his
covenanted cause.
5. The presbytery testify against foresaid party, for their
unfaithfulness and partiality in point of testimony-bearing to a
covenanted, work of reformation; while yet they not only profess to be
witnesses, but the only true and faithful contenders for the said work
and cause. The justness of this charge manifestly appears from the scope
of their Act and Testimony, which seems to be principally leveled
against the corruptions of the present church judicatories, and not
equally against the corruptions of both church and state, in
agreeableness to the faithful testimonies of the Lord's people in former
times, and in a consistency with the reformation that was jointly
carried on in both church and state, and solemnly sworn and engaged to
in the covenants. They appear never to have fully adopted the testimony
of the Church of Scotland in her purest times, when the profession of
the true religion was by law made a necessary qualification of every one
that should be admitted to places of civil trust and power in the
nation. Nor are the faithful testimonies of the valiant sufferers and
contenders, even unto death, for the precious truths of God in the late
persecuting period, as stated against both church and state, fully
stated, and judicially approven by them; much less have they fully
adopted the testimony, as stated against the revolution constitution,
both civil and ecclesiastical, which they did not in their testimony
condemn as sinful; but, on the contrary, acknowledged the civil
constitution lawful, notwithstanding of their complaining of some
defects and omissions therein. Of which error in the foundation, it may
be said, in respect of all the mal-administrations since, it was fons
et origo mali. And seeing, in and by the revolution constitution, the
nation was involved in the guilt of apostasy and treachery, in
subverting and overturning the good and laudable laws for true religion
and right liberty, a faint declaring against some omissions cannot be
accounted sufficient; especially when what is thus partly complained of,
is at the same time complexly extolled, as a great and glorious
deliverance to the church and nation. Their testimony further appears to
be partial and unfaithful, considering that their secession was not from
the constitution of the Revolution Church, but in a partial and limited
way, from a prevailing corrupt party in the judicatories of the church:
upon which footing it was, that some of greatest note among them made
their accession after their first secession, expressly declaring so
much; whereby they have injured the true state of the testimony which
the Lord honored his covenanted Church of Scotland to bear; which is
stated against all lukewarm and Laodicean professors, as well as open
enemies, and against all Erastian usurpation, and sectarian invasion on
the cause of Christ. Moreover, their unfaithfulness in point of
testimony, convincingly appears from their bitter contentions, and
almost endless disputes among themselves, after their breach, upon the
religious clause of some burgess oaths, anent the true state of their
own testimony, whether lifted up against the revolution constitution of
the church, and settlement of religion, or not. Had necessary and real
faithfulness been studied, in stating their testimony clearly and
plainly, against all the defection, and apostasy of the day from a
covenanted reformation, there had been no occasion for such a dispute
among them. And now, when the one party have more openly avowed their
unfaithfulness, in receding from almost everything that had the least
appearance of faithfulness to the cause and covenant of God, in their
former testimony, and professedly adopted the revolution settlement, as
theirs, acknowledging the constitutions, both civil and ecclesiastical,
as lawful, in an open contradiction to any testimony for reformation
work: the other party, to wit, Antiburghers, have now indeed
professedly cast off the revolution constitution of the church (at the
same time continuing to make their partial Act and Testimony the basis
of their distinguished profession); but yet, in an inconsistency
therewith, and in contradiction to the covenanted testimony of the
church of Scotland, continue to adopt the constitution of the State,
as being, however defective, yet agreeable to the precept and so lawful.
Hence, they are still most partial in their testimony, of which they
have given a fresh and notable proof, in forementioned warning published
by them: wherein though there are a variety of evils condescended upon,
as just grounds of the Lord's controversy with the nations, yet there is
not that faithfulness used therein, in a particular charging home of the
several sins mentioned, upon every one in their different ranks, as, in
agreeableness to the word of God, is requisite to work a conviction in
every one, that they may turn from their sins, and as might correspond
to the title given that performance. Thus, passing other instances that
might also have been observed, they justly remark, page 31st, "The
glorious sovereignty of our Lord Jesus Christ, as the alone King and
Head of his church, is sadly encroached upon and opposed by the royal
supremacy, in causes ecclesiastical. The king is acknowledged as supreme
head, or governor on earth, of the churches of England and Ireland.
The civil sovereign is thus declared to be the head or fountain of
church power, from whence all authority and ministrations in these
churches do spring, is vested with all powers of government and
discipline, and constituted the sole judge of controversies within the
same." "The established Church of Scotland have also, by some
particular managements, subjected and subordinated their ecclesiastical
meetings to the civil power." But while they acknowledge this to be the
sin of the church, and an high provocation against the Lord; yet, as to
the particular sin of the civil power, in assuming and usurping this
Erastian supremacy unto itself, they are quite silent. They have not the
faithfulness to say, in their warning, to the robber of Christ, in this
matter, as once the prophet of the Lord said to the king of Israel, in
another case, Thou art the man. On the contrary (which cannot but have
a tendency to ward off any conviction of his sin that this warning,
should it come into his hands, might be expected to work), they are
guilty of the basest flattery, used by court parasites, stiling him,
"the best of kings, of the mildest administration," as in page 13th;
and acknowledge it, as a particular effect of the Lord's goodness, that
we are privileged with such an one. But is he indeed deserving of such a
character? better than which could not be given to the most faithful
ruler, devoting all his power, as in duty bound, to the support and
advancement of the kingdom and interest of Jesus Christ, that over
reigned. Does he really merit such an encomium, who sacrilegiously
usurps and wears the crown, that alone can flourish on the head of
Zion's king? And is this such a blessing to the church, that an enemy
to her Lord and Head rules over her? Oh! may not the Lord say? "I
hearkened and heard, but they spake not aright."
6. The Presbytery testify against said Seceding party, because of the
sinfulness of their terms of ministerial and Christian communion, as
being partly destructive of that liberty wherewith Christ has made his
people free. By which they have both imposed upon themselves, and shut
the door of access unto the privileges of the church, upon all such, as,
in a consistency with their adherence to truth and duty, cannot accept
of their unwarrantable restrictions. Of this, they gave early
discoveries, as appears from the known instance of that notable,
backslider, Mr. Andrew Clarkson, whom they obliged, before license, to
make a public and solemn renunciation of his former principles and
profession, respecting the covenanted reformation.[4] As also, their
rejecting all accessions from his Laodicean brethren, wherein was
contained an explicit adherence to the same, until they did drop their
former testimony. This blind zeal in Seceders, against a testimony for
truth in its purity, did gradually increase, until it hurried them on to
a more particular and formal stating of their terms of communion,
whereby were totally excluded all the free and faithful of the land from
their communion, who could not approve of, nor swear the bond, whereby
they pretended to renew the covenants: as in their act at Edinburgh,
1744; wherein they did resolve and determine, "That the renovation of
the National Covenant of Scotland, and the Solemn League and Covenant
of the three nations, in the manner now agreed upon, and proposed by the
Presbytery, shall be the terms of ministerial communion with this
Presbytery, and likewise of Christian communion, in admission of people
to sealing ordinances; secluding therefrom all opposers, contemners, and
slighters of the said renovation of our solemn covenants." By this act,
Seceders have obliged their adherents to consent to their infamous
burial of our national covenants with the Lord, and reformation therein
sworn to, particularly as they were renewed, both 1638 and 1648. And
that they might further evince their resolution to bear down the
foresaid work, they afterward proceeded to subjoin unto their formula
of questions to be put to candidates before license, and to probationers
before ordination, the following questions, viz., "Are you satisfied
with, and do you propose to adhere unto, and maintain the principles
about the present civil government, which are declared and maintained in
the Associate Presbytery's answers to Mr. Nairn, with their defense
thereunto subjoined?" Whereby, in opposition to the professed endeavors
for the revival of a covenanted reformation in the lands, they expressly
bind down all their intrants into the office of the ministry, to an
explicit acknowledgement of their anti-government scheme of principles
anent the ordinance of magistracy; and thereby to an acknowledging of
the lawfulness of a government, which themselves confess has not only
departed from, and neglected their duty of espousing and supporting the
covenanted principles of this church, but also opposed, contradicted and
overthrown the glorious reformation once established in these nations. A
government, under which, as they profess, the nations cannot be enriched
by the blessings of the gospel; and that, because it does not, in all
the appurtenances of its constitution and administration, run in
agreeableness to the word of God. By all which it appears that although
they refuse formally to swear any oaths of allegiance to the powers in
being; yet they do materially, and with great solemnity, engage
themselves to be true and faithful to a government, under which, and
while it stands, they are certain, if their concessions hold true, that
they shall never see the nations flourish, either in their temporal or
spiritual interests. It is only needful further to observe, that
Seceders in the terms of their communion, by debarring from the table
of the Lord, all who impugn the lawfulness of a prelatic, Erastian
government (as is notourly known they do), make subjection and loyalty
to such an authority, a necessary, and, to them, commendatory
qualification of worthy receivers of the Lord's supper, although none of
those qualifications—required by God in his word. While (as has been
already observed) they, with the most violent passion, refuse to admit
the professing and practicing the true religion, a necessary
qualification of lawful civil rulers over a people possessed of and
professing the true religion, which is in effect to deny the necessity
of religion altogether as to civil rulers, than which nothing can be
more absurd.
Lastly, not to multiply more particulars, the Presbytery testify
against the scandalous abuse, and sinful prostitution of church
discipline, and tyranny in government, whereby the forementioned party
have remarkably signalized themselves; and which, in a most precipitant
and arbitrary manner, they have pretended to execute against such as
have discovered the smallest degree of faithfulness, in endeavoring to
maintain the principles of our reformation, in agreeableness to the true
state of the covenanted testimony of the Church of Scotland; which has
not only appeared in the case of David Leslie, and some others, on
account of a paper of grievances given in to said Associates; against
whom they proceeded to the sentence of excommunication, without using
those formalities and means of conviction required and warranted by the
church's Head, even in the case of just offenses done by any of the
professed members of his mystical body; or so much as allowing that
common justice to the sentenced party, that might be expected from any
judicatory, bearing the name of Presbyterian. (Though the Presbytery are
not hereby to be understood as approving every expression contained in
foresaid paper.) But particularly, they have given notable proof of
their fixed resolution, to bear down all just appearances in favor of
Zion's King and cause, in the case of Mr. Nairn, once of their
number, because of his espousing the principles of this Presbytery,
especially, respecting God's ordinance of magistracy, against whom they
proceeded to the highest censures of the church, upon the footing of a
pretended libel; in which libel, they did not so much as pretend any
immorality in practice, or yet error in principle, as the ground of
their arbitrary procedure, further than his espousing the received
principles of this church in her best times, and what stood in necessary
connection with such a profession: although, in adorable providence, he
has since been left to fall into the practice of such immorality, as has
justly rendered him the object of church censure by this Presbytery. As
also in the case of Messrs. Alexander Marshall, and John
Cuthbertson, with some others, elders and private Christians, against
whom they proceeded in a most unaccountable, anti-scriptural, and
unprecedented manner, and upon no better foundation, than that noticed
in the case above, pretended to depose and cast such out of the
communion of their church, as never had subjected to their authority,
nor formerly stood in any established connection with them.
And further, besides these instances condescended upon, they habitually
aggravate their abuse of the ordinances of Christ's house, in pretending
to debar and excommunicate from the holy sacrament of the supper, many
of the friends and followers of the Lamb, only because they cannot
conscientiously, and in a consistency with their fidelity to their Head
and Savior, acknowledge the authority of the usurpers of his crown as
lawful. From all which, and every other instance of their continued
prostitution of the discipline instituted by Christ in his church, and
of that authority, which he, as a Son over his own house, has given unto
faithful gospel ministers, to the contempt and scorn of an ungodly
generation; the Presbytery cannot but testify against them, as guilty of
exercising a tyrannical power over the heritage of the Lord; and to whom
may too justly be applied, the word of the Lord, spoken by his prophet,
Isa. lxvi, 5: "Your brethren that bated you, that cast you out for my
name's sake, said, Let the Lord be glorified: but he shall appear to
your joy, and they shall be ashamed." Wherefore, and for all the
foresaid grounds, the Presbytery find and declare, that the pretended
Associate Presbytery, now called Synod, whether before or since, in
their separate capacity, claiming a parity of power, neither were, nor
are lawful and rightly constituted courts of the Lord Jesus Christ,
according to his word, and to the testimony of the true Presbyterian
Covenanted Church of Christ in Scotland: and therefore ought not, nay
cannot, in a consistency with bearing a faithful testimony for the
covenanted truths, and cause of our glorious Redeemer, be countenanced
or submitted to in their authority by his people.
Again, the Presbytery find themselves in duty obliged to testify against
these brethren who some time ago have broken off from their communion,
for their unwarrantable separation, and continued opposition to the
truth and testimony, in the hands of this Presbytery, even to the extent
of presuming, in a judicial capacity, to threaten church censure against
the Presbytery, without alleging so much as any other reason for this
strange procedure, than their refusing to approve as truth, a point of
doctrine, that stands condemned by the standards of the Reformed Church
of Scotland, founded on the authority of divine revelation. But, as
the Presbytery have formerly published a vindication of the truth
maintained by them, and of their conduct, respecting the subject matter
of difference with their quondam brethren, they refer to said
vindication, for a more particular discovery of the error of their
principle, and extravagance of their conduct in this matter. And
particularly, they testify against the more avowed apostasy of some of
these brethren, who are not ashamed to declare their backslidings in the
streets, and publish them upon the house tops; as especially appears
from a sermon entitled, Bigotry Disclaimed—together with the
vindication of said sermon; wherein is vented such a loose and
latitudinarian scheme of principles, on the point of church communion,
as had a native tendency to destroy the scriptural boundaries thereof,
adopted by this church in her most advanced purity; and which is also
inconsistent with the ordination vows, whereby the author was solemnly
engaged. This, with other differences, best known to themselves,
occasioned a rupture in that pretended Presbytery, which for some years
subsisted: but this breach being some considerable time ago again
cemented, they constituted themselves in their former capacity, upon
terms (as appears from a printed account of their agreement and
constitution, which they have never yet disclaimed as unjust) not very
honorable nor consistent with their former principles and professed zeal
for maintaining the same. Which agreement was made up, without any
evidence of the above author's retracting his lax principles, contained
in the foresaid sermon. Whatever was the cause, whether from the
influence of others (as was said by the publisher of their agreement),
or from a consciousness of dropping part of formerly received
principles, is not certain; but one of these brethren, for a time, gave
up with further practical communion with the other, namely, Mr. Hugh
Innes, late of the Calton, Glasgow; while yet it was observed, that
both used a freedom, not formerly common to them, anent the present
authority, in their public immediate addresses to the object of worship;
which, together with their apparent resiling from part of their former
testimony occasioned stumbling to some of their people, and terminated
in the separation of others. Foresaid latitudinarianism and falling
away, is also sadly verified, in the conduct of another principal member
of their pretended Presbytery, who has professedly deserted all
testimony bearing for the reformation principles of the Covenanted
Church of Scotland.[5]
At last, after their declared interviews for that purpose, these
brethren have patched up a mank agreement, which they have published, in
a paper entitled Abstract of the covenanted principles of the Church of
Scotland, &c., with a prefixed advertisement in some copies, asserting
the removal of their differences, which arose from a sermon on Psal.
cxxii, 3, published at Glasgow,—by a disapprobation of what is
implied in some expressions hereof, viz., "That all the members of
Christ's mystical body may, and ought to unite in visible church
communion."
Here is, indeed, a smooth closing of the wound that should have been
more thoroughly searched, that, by probing into the practical
application of said sermon, the corrupt matter of communion with the
Revolution Church, in the gospel and sealing ordinance thereof, might
have been found out; but not one word of this in all that abstract,
which contains their grounds of union, and terms of communion. Nothing
of the above author's recanting his former latitudinarian practices of
hearing, and thereby practically encouraging, that vagrant Episcopalian,
Whitefield; his communicating, which natively implies union, with the
Revolution Church, in one of the seals of the covenant; nor his public
praying for an Erastian government, in a way, and for a reason, that
must needs be understood as an homologation of their authority. On which
accounts, the Presbytery testify against said union, as being
inconsistent with faithfulness in the cause of Christ; and against said
abstract, as, however containing a variety of particulars very just and
good, yet bearing no positive adherence to, nor particular mention of,
faithful wrestlings and testimonies of the martyrs and witnesses for
Scotland's covenanted cause. As also, they testify against the
notorious disingenuity of their probationer, who, after a professed
dissatisfaction on sundry occasions, with the declining steps of said
brethren, particularly with the declaimer against bigotry, has
overlooked more weighty matters, and embraced a probability of enjoying
the long grasped for privilege of ordination, though it should be
observed at a greater expense than that of disappointing the expectation
of a few dissatisfied persons, who depended upon his honesty, after they
had broken up communion with those he continues still to profess his
subjection unto.
And further, the Presbytery testify against the adherents of foresaid
brethren, in strengthening their hands in their course of separation
from the Presbytery, rejecting both their judicial and ministerial
authority, and the ordinances of the gospel dispensed by them. And more
especially, the Presbytery condemn the conduct of such of them as,
professedly dissatisfied with the above said left-hand extremes, and
other defections of foresaid brethren, have therefore broken off from
their communion; yet, instead of returning to their duty in a way of
subjecting themselves to the courts of Christ, and ordinances instituted
by him in his church, have turned back again to their own right-hand
extremes of error, which once they professedly gave up, but now persist
in, an obstinate impugning the validity of their ministerial authority
and protestative mission, undervalue the pure ordinances of the gospel
dispensed by them, and live as if there were no church of Christ in the
land, where they might receive the seals of the covenant, either to
themselves or their children; and therefore, in the righteous judgment
of God, have been left to adopt such a dangerous and erroneous system of
principles, as is a disgrace to the profession of the covenanted
cause.[6]