DEFENCE

OF THE

Reformation-Principles

OF THE

Churoh of Scotland.

WHEREIN

The EXCEPTIONS that are laidagainft the Conclu(5t of the Associate Prsebytery, as alfo againft their judicial AU and won]\ by the Reverend Mr. Currie in his Effay on Separation-^ are examined ,* and the injurious Reflections caft upon our Re¬ forming Period from 1^38 to 1650, in the forefaid Effay are difcovered.

By William Wilson A. M. Minifter of the GoTpei

at PERTH.

I Bev.- ii. 25. But that which ye have already, hold fajl till 1 come.

( Jude, Ver. ^.-—Earnefily contend for the Faith which was once delivered unto the Saints.

“ When the greateft; Part of a Church raaketh Defedlion from “ the Truth, the leffer Part remaining found, the greateffc “ Part is the Church of Separatifts: _Tho’ the manieft and “ greateft Part in the adtual Exercife of Difeipline be the “ Church ; yet, in the Cafe of right Difeipline, the beft, tho’ “ feweft, is the Church, &c’^ Rutberfoord’s Due Right, &c. P- 255-

plaufibile qitidem eft nomen Facts : fed maledicla efi Fax qua , tanta jatlura reaimitur, ut nohis pereat Chrijii DoBrina : qua fola, in piam & fanUam TJnitatem coalefcimus. Calvin, in A(fta Apoft. p. 200.

; ~ E D I N B U R G H,

Printed by T. Lumi/den and J. Rohertfon, for J. Jaffra^; Boo k- fe 1 1 e r i n Stirling .

L

^HE Quotations from the judicial Jcl and Tejiimony of the Affociate Presbytery are infert according to the lafl: Edition printed on fine Paper, by Jhomas Ltimifden and John Pobertfon j and thefe that are quoted in the Effay, are mentioned according to the Pages the faid Edition : And fuch as want it, may be furnifhed with it at the Printing-houfe of the faid Perfonsj as alfo, with any of the other Papers publifhed by the Seceding Mi-' nifters.

The Author expeds that no Perfon will prefume to reprint this TAefence without fpc; cial Licence from himfelf.

PREFACE

The <re{limony of the Church of ScotUnd^ fince her Reformation from Popery, has been ftated and pro- fecuted for the Rights and Prerogatives of the Kingly Office of the Lord Jefus, for his foie Headffiip and Royal Supremacy over the Church his fpiritual Kingdom. And as the Headffiip of Chrift over his Kingdom has been of¬ ten encroached upon by the Powers of this Earth, fo it has been exprefly witnefled and wreftled for by the Fol¬ lowers of the Lamb in this Land, unto the Spoiling of their Goods, unto Impriffinments and Baniffiments, yea, even unto cruel Tortures aiad Refifting unto Blood. In like Manner, the Judicatories of the Kirk of Scotland^ in all their feveral Contendings in her reforming Periods, have exprefly witnefled for the Order, Government and Dif- ciplinc of the Houffi of God, agreeable to the Pattern (town in the Mount of Scripture-revelation, againft Prela- tick Tyranny, Seftarian Diforder and Confufion, and Era- flian Ufurpations upon the Prerogatives of Him who is, by his Father’s Deflgnation and Appointment, King over Zion the Hill of his PJoUnefs.

If we ffiall ferioufly confider the State of Matters in the Church of Scotland at prefent, we ffiall find, that, fince the mild Treatment which was given to a Scheme of dangerous and pernicious Principles, by the General Af. fembly that met y^nno 1717, when Mr. 5/w7/o« was dif- mifled from the Bar of that Aflembly, with a general Ad¬ monition, without any particular exprefs Teftimony a- gainft his feveral pernicious Principles, Laxnefs both in Principle and Practice has prevailed from Time to Time, Error has taken deep Root, it has been on the growing Hand, and Errors ftill more grofs and more dangerous have been difleminate amongft us; the true Deity of the great God our Redeemer, and of the Holy Ghoft our

A z San^

9 PREFACE.

Sanftifier and Comforter, has been impugned and denied ; the Idol of Se/f has been exalted and fet up in the Temple of God ! And what lamentable Inftances have we of late of horrid Blafphemies by fome anonymous Writers, from the Prefs, in their profane Ridicule of the feveral peculiar and fpecial Doctrines of revealed Religion ? I know not if we can find a Parallel unto them in any Age fince the firft Iprcading of Chriftianity amongft the Nations.

Tho’ the Kingly Office of the Lord Jefus our exalted Redeemer, on ivhofe Head are many Crotunjj has been in a fpecial Manner in former Times, and may even in our Day be, reckoned the IFord of Chrif's Patience given unto the Church of Scotland^ and for which fhe is called faith¬ fully to contend; yet in thelc perillous Times in which our Lot is calf, wherein many grofs and dangerous Errors abound, whereby the Foundations of our Chriftian Faith are fubverted, ffie is loudly called to enlarge her Teffimo- ny, and to bear more exprefs Witnefs unto the true Deity of the Perfon of Chrift, and to his Prophetick and Prieftly Offices, againft a Generation of Men, who endeavour to rob the Redeemer of his effcntial Glory, and who pro¬ fanely trample upon many important Truths of Revealed Religion, held forth from the Word of God, in our ex¬ cellent Corffjfion of Faith.

In the Year 17155, the Judicatories of this National Church thruft out Four Minifiers from Minifterial Com¬ munion with them, for no other Reafon but becaufe they ■prote(ieJ^ for their own Exoneration, againft an A6t and Sentence, reftraining that P'reedom and Liberty of tefti- fyiiig //cKT/rwrt/Zy againft publick Sins and Defections, which belongs to their Office as Minifters, both by the Word of God, and by the Aits and Conftitutions of this National Church; whereupon the Paid Minifters judged it their Duty to ajfociate together in a Presbyterial Capacity, being perfwaded from the Word of God, that the A'eyx of Go- vtrnment and DifeipUne are given to Minifters of the Gof. pel, as well as the Key of DoHrine, and that the former may and ought to be exercifed by Minifiers Two or Three in coUegio^ and that it is not Numbers, but the Truth on their Side, that gives Authority and Weight to the Aits and Decifions of any Church-judicatory, Alatth. xvi. 19. and xviii. 18, 19, io. And, having conftitute themfelves into a Presbytery, they waited three Years, to fee if the prefent Judicatories would difeharge the Duties incum- bejit upon them: Bur finding, that inftcad of returning

unto

27;^^ PREFACE.

unto the Lord, and lifting up any faithful Teftimony for wounded and injured Truth, the Courfc of Defedion and Backfliding was carried on, and particularly, that in the Year 1756 Error was juftified at the Bar of the Aflembly that met the faid Year, and difmifled without any Cenfure at all ; therefore they did emit a Judicial AB and monyy condemning feveral Steps of Defedion, both in pre- fent and former Times, from that Reformation-purity once attained unto in this National Church, as alfo afferting the Truth in Oppofition to feveral grofs and dangerous Errors that had been brought unto the Bar of the Judicatories, and which they difmifled without any due or fuitable Te¬ ftimony againft them: And Four other Minifters found it their Duty to declare their Conjundion with the forefaid Minifters, after they had waited for fomeTime.in the Ju¬ dicatories, till they could fee no probable Ground to hope or exped that they would fet about the Reformation of Corruptions, and the Purging of the Houfe of God of thefe Scandals that had been frequently complained of, and often remonftrate againft. >

The Reverend Mr. Currie Minifter at Kinglajjie has thought fit to take the Field againft the Affociate Presbytery ^ and to condemn them, and their judicial AB and ^ejli^ rnony, in a Book which he intitles. An EJfay on Separation, OR, A Vindication of the Church of Scotland. How an ElTay on Separation, and a Vindication of the Church of ! Scotland^ zrc equivalent Ferms^ as the Vi/Zi? imports, I leave I it to hinifclf, or the Recommenders of his Book to ex¬ plain. That which I here notice is, that, through the Whole of his Book, he ranks the Aflbciate Minifters a- mongft the moft rigid Separatifis ; he joins them with the groffeft Sedarians, and lays the Charge of Schifm againft them. In his Preface, p. 1 1. he tells his Reader, That thefe Brethren “ are doing what they can, to rent, ruinc, “ and occafion Separation from the Church of Scotland." This is a very grievous Charge indeed : But, does not our Author make fome Acknowledgment {Effay^ p. 59.) that j the Church of Scotland may be worfe at this Day than I fometimes formerly ? Does he not profeis to regretc the i late Omiflions, with refped to a judicial Teftimony for Truth, that have been juftly complained of? Does he not j own that there are many Things both amongft Minifters I and People that call for bitter Mourning and Lamenta¬ tion ? p. 221. tho’ he is very fparing in condctcending upon Particulars. I have not obferyed that he undertake*

to

Vi P R E F A C E,

to juftify exprefly any of the Steps of Defection, whether in former or prefent Times, that are condemned by the Presbytery in their judicial AGt andTeftimony; only, he alledges as to fome few of them, that they are controverted Points, and therefore, according to him, not fit Matter for a Teftimony. What now have the Aflbciate Presbytery done, for which the Charge of Renting and Raining the Church is brought againft them ? They have even done what our Author acknowledges the Judicatories of the Church fliould have done; they have judicially condemned fome Steps of Defection, and afl'erted the Truths in Op- pofition unto many particular Errors of the prefent Times, which they have in like Manner particularly and exprefly condemned : Are they therefore Schifmatkks, Renters and Ruiners of the Church ’ Yea, fays our Author, they are, and that becaufe they teftify in a Way of Secejfton. Bur, can a judicial Teftimony for Truth, ami againft a Courfc of Defeifion, be obtained in a Way of Conjun<5tion with the prefent Judicatories? He cannot refufe that the Judi¬ catories decline to difeharge this Duty : Ought the Duty therefore to be negleded by the fe‘iu who are grieved with their Management? Is it agreeable cither to the Word of God, or found Reafbn, to fay, Becaufe the Alajority of an Ecclefiaftick Body carry on a Courfe of Defedion, and, inftead of doing Juftice to the Truths of God, do manifeft Injury unto them, that therefore the Minority^ who arc grieved with their Pro¬ ceedings, ought not judicially to witnefs againft a Courfe of Defeftion, and in the fame Manner vindicate and af" lert injured Truth ? or, muft they be reckoned Schifma- ticks and Renters of the Church if they do fo? The I7n- juftice of the Charge that is laid againft the feceding Mi- nifters, of Ruining and Renting the Church, will further appear, if we enquire into the Reafons why the prefent Judicatories refufe to condemn fuch Steps of Defeftion, or to purge out Iqch Corruptions, whereby the whole Lump IS in Danger to be leavened. Has not the Wif- dom of the Son of God, the glorious Head of the Church, provided fufficient Remedies in the Church for all her internal Neceflities Is not the Difeipline of Chrift’s Ap¬ pointment a fufficient Mean for the Prefervation and Re¬ formation of his own Houfe ? And, have not the Courts of Chrift Power and Authority from the Lord Jefus to exercife the Keys of Government and Difeipline for the Edification of his Body, and the Advancment of his Ho-

PREFACE vii

nour and Glory ? What Reafon then can be given, why the prefent Judicatories refufe to difeharge their Duty in lifting up a judicial Teftimony for Truth, or why they fefuie to fet about Reformation- work ? There rauft be one of two, I cannot conceive a Midft betwixt them ; cither they <will not^ or they are bindred to diftharge their Duty by fome outward Force and Violence upon them. I hope the laft cannot be alledged. This was indeed the Cafe of this Church betwixt 1600 and 1638. The Judi¬ catories were born down by Force and Violence from the Court', King y/rw7ej VI. threatned and opprefl'ed them; he confined, imprifbned, or baniflted many eminent Mi- nifters, when they were contending and wreftling for the Rights and Liberties of the Kingdom of Chrift : But it cannot be alledged, that any fuch Violence has been of¬ fered in the lead: to the prefent Judicatories, or any of their Members; therefore no other Reafon can be given for the Condud: of the Judicatories, but that they are chjlinate in their Courfe and Way, and will not reform. And I doubt not to aflert, that, when the Majority of a particular vifible Church do in their Ecclefiadical or Ju¬ dicative Capacity go on in a Courfe of Defeftion from Reformation-purity once attained unto, and will not be reformed, after the ordinary Means have been ufed to reclaim them, that then, and in this Cafe, the minor Partf tho’ but very few in Number, who defire to be found faithful unto the Lord, and to hold faft the Purity once attained unto, may, yea, ought to depart from Church- communion with the backfliding Part; and that fuch as are Office-bearers may warantably exercife the Keys of Government and Difciplinc, in a difiinU Capacity from the Majority who arc the backfliding Party for thefe Ends and Purpofes for which they arc given unto the Church by her exalted and glorious Head. It is upon this Principle that my Reafonings for Seceffion from the prefent Judi¬ catories are built ; and I hope it will be found agreeable to the Word of God, and to the laudable Afts and Con- ftitutions of this National Church ; and I look upon it to be a Reformation-principle, or a Principle upon which the reformed Churches did at firft fet out, and carry on the Reformation-work. To the fame Purpofe a con- fidcrable Divine * expreffes himfelf; “ And when any “ Church is fo inobfervant of its own Decays, as to be

negligent of Endeavours for a proportionable Refor-

mationg

J OwenV Humble ^efiimonyy Pref, p. 7.

t

Vlii T:be PREFACE.

“ nation, if after a while any will deliver their own “ Souls, it muft be by a Departure from them that hate to be reformed. *’

The Author of the EJfay is vei^ fparing in his Scripture- pleadings, a few Pages do the Buhnefs in his fifth Chapter ; but he abounds in human Authorities., his Book is fwelled with them, his Page is everywhere filled with Rotations from great Men, upon whom he bellows liberal Enco¬ miums, fuch as thele of eminently holy, zealous, learned and judicious, and fbmetimes all thele with one Breath, when he would have “ fuch as have feparatcd or are tempted to “ feparate from this Church lerioufly to weigh their Sen- timents;*’ as p. 51. I doubt not of our Author’s Re¬ gard to the worthy Men he mentions, and I make no Quc- ftion but they deferved the Charafters he gives them ; ye: I do not think I tranlgrels the Bounds of Charity, when 1 alledge, that the above high Charafters are given them, as much out of a fly Defign to imprefs his fimple and cre¬ dulous Readers, as from a juft and true Regard to thele worthy Men themlelves, as appears from his above Words.

The Author of the EJfay lets the World know, that he has had a good Number of Books in his Hand ; but I muft beg Leave to obferve, that the moll Part of his Ro¬ tations arc applied in a Manner contrary to the Intenti¬ on and Defign of the worthy Authors, if the Connexion of the Purpofes which they treat, and out of which the Quotations are taken, is duly confidered: And therefore I humbly judge 1 may jullly apply to our Author fome Words of Doftor 0<a!en in his Defence of the Diflenters, UoAor Stillin/rfleet^ who feems to have managed the Argument againft the Diffenters after the lame Man¬ ner ; “ Neither, fays he, to my Knowledge, did I ever “ read a Book wherein there was a greater Appearance of Diligence in the Colleftion of Things, Words, Say- “ ings, Expreflions, Dilcourles unto other Ends, which ** might only call Odium on the Gaule oppoled, or give “ Advantage for Arguings unto a feeming Succels, very “ little or noway belonging unto the Caufe in Hand, “ than there is in this of our Reverend Author 1. ” I have given feveral particular Inllances, which I hope will fatisfy the Reader that the above Obfervation is juft ; I have not purfued every Quotation of our Author’s, otherwife I had drawn forth this Performance to a greater Length ; and I fear I have Ground to make an Apology

fot

t Enq. Pref. p. 45.

PREFACE. fjc

for writing fo much upon the Subject, ir is very much contrary to my own Inclination; but the great Variety of Matter that the Eflay has brought upon the Field, has obliged me unto it,

I muft further obfcrve, that tho’ Quotations from great and learned Men may be of very confiderable Ufe to illuftrate and clear an Argument, yet if the Argument, efpecially when it is upon a religious Suhjeft, leans only to the JuthoYity of Men, the Simple and Credulous may be either amufed or impofed upon; but it can never be convincing and fatisfying to fuch as with Knowledge and Judgment fcarch after the Truth, Befides, when, in a Difpure, the Authority of great and learned Men is thrown up, we are led to enquire into the Senfe and Meaning of thefe great Writers ; and it is often a fmitlefs fpending of Time, to infift in Debates about the Senfe and Meaning of the Words of great and learned Men. I would have willingly avoided any Thing of this Nature, but our Author has obliged me unto it, not only that I may do Jufticeunto the great Names whom I judge our Author has injured, but efpecially that I may do Juflice to the Caufe againft which he has employed his Pen. I have frequently brought fbme of our Author’s learned and great Men againfi bimfejfy and made ufe of others for clearing and illuftrating my Argument ; but if any Principles and Conclufions that I have laid down are foun¬ ded only on the Authority of Men, if they are not built upon the Divine Teftimony, or if they are not fupported by found Reafbn, in an Agreeablenefs to the Word of God, and the Ads and Conftitutions of this Church foun¬ ded thereon, let them be rejeded, and I fhall reckon my- felf obliged to our Author or any other who lhali difeo-. ver them unto me.

With refped to our Author’s Treatment of our reform ming Periody he apprehends {Pref. p. 4.) “ that it may

‘‘ be thought ftrange that he has given fb many Inftances “ of Faults, Failings, or bad Ads of our Aflemblies from “ 1658 to 1649 inclujivcy which, fays hey have been rec- “ koned by fome the pureft Times of Presbytery.” It is very obvious, that our Author is none of thefe who reckon thefe Times the pureft Times of Presbytery ; but however diminutively our Author may fpeak of them, yet the Bulk and Body of Presbyterians who have known thefe Times, or who are acquainted with theHiftory of them, have always efteemed them as Times both of Divine

B Power

X PREFACE,

Power and great Purity in the Church of ScotJa-nJ, excel¬ ling any After-period of this Church, in many Inftances ; till now, that the Juthor of the ElTay, a pofejfad Presby^ terian, has difeovered fome Ads of Tyranny in the Admi- niftration of thefe Tiroes, if not exceeding, yet equal at leaft to, any Thing that can be alledged from the Con- dud of the prefent Judicatories of this National Church. But he makes the following Apology for what he is ap- prehenfive may be thought ftrange ; “ I own {fay she) the “ Lord honoured his faithful Servants in that Period to do much for his Glory, for which I defire to give Praife; “ and, my Witnefs is in Heaven^ I have not mentioned any “ of thefe with a Defire or Defign to blacken the Church ** of Scotland^ or fuch worthy Minifiers as lived in that “ Period, but for her Vindication at this Day,

After fuch a folemn Jppeal to Heaven, I fhall judge cha¬ ritably of our Author’s Intentions and Defigns ; He to whom the Appeal is nfade, can only penetrate into them : But then I muft be allowed to fay, That the Tendency and Defign of what he writes upon this Head, is to wea¬ ken all the Arguments drawn from that Period for the Purity of our Reformation. He owns that the Lord ho¬ noured his faithful Servants, &c. bur, does he ever men¬ tion any particular Step of Reformation attained unto, or maintained in the forefaid Period ? We have a fair and fmooth General, that his faithful Servants did much fur his Glory ; but, does he ever tell us any of thefe Things which they did for his Glory 1 Nay, when he fpeaks of our reforming Period, he tells us. It was reckoned by fome the pursft Times of Presbytery, and often mentions it un¬ der the Name of that extolled Period: And he gathers to¬ gether through his Book, any Thing that he can invent or alledge againft it; he throws up what he reckons their Faults, Failings, or bad A'9:s, without mentioning their faithful and zealous Proceedings in a Work of Reforma¬ tion : Let the unprejudifed World judge, if a Perfor¬ mance of this Kind has not a direft Tendency to blacken th6 above reforming Period. Bur, not to infift upon this, let us examine what our Author declares to be his own Intention and Defign, in giving fo many Inftances of Faults, Failings, and bad A(5ts of former Affemblies; It is, fays he, “ for her Vindication {viz. of the Church “ of Scotland) at this Day, and to fliew that tho’ the chief ** Ground urged by fundry for Separation in our Day, ” is our alledged dreadful, ftandalous, unparalleled Apo-

‘‘ ftafy

i

7he P R E F A C E. ki

ftafy from what the Church of Scotland was in that Pe- “ riod ; yet the Pradfice of Judicatories then, is whac can as little be juflified in fundry Things, as the Pra- fticeof the Church of Scotland in our Times.” And" in h's fiiort Vindication, p. lo. he tells us, that in the above- mentioned Inftances he had “ nothing fb much in View, ** as the Juftification of the Church of Scotland at this “ Day, from the Charge of being fuch a fcandaloufly apoftate Church from what file was in that Period, “ that now no Communion is to be kept with her.” What is here advanced by our Author, is defigned to re¬ lieve his Reader from’the ftrange Thoughts he may enter¬ tain with refpcft to his own Conduit, in the Inftances that he gives of the bad Aits of the former Period ; but, how can any reafonable Man imagine, that giving Inftances of the Faults, Failings, or bad Aits of a Church in one Pe¬ riod, can tend to the Vindication or Juftification of the bad Aits of a Church in another Period ? or, how they can tend to prove, that, notwithftanding of thefe bad Aits, Communion is ftill to be kept with her ? But, if our Author only means a comparative Vindication and Jufti¬ fication of the Church of Scotland at this Day, I have ex- mined the Charge he brings againft the Period mentioned, and I hope I have difcovered the Falfhood of it in many particular Inftances ; But was it true, that the Procee¬ dings of the Judicatories were then as had as now, or that they were as tyrannical in the Adminiftration in the for¬ mer, as in the prefent Period ; yet our Author’s Conclu- clulion would never follow from his Premifl'es, fince he owns, Pref. p. 5. that “ her Condudt in that Period is “ not to be our Rule, but as it agrees with the Divine Teftimony ; and addsy Her Failings are not to be in- ftanced as Precedents for Imitation, nor mentioned as “ the leaft Excufe for our Faults in later Times.” He might then have fpared all his Pains, and not mentioned any of them for the Church’s Vindication at this Day, feeing they are fo far from being a Vindication, that, ac¬ cording to his own Sentiments, they cannot be the leafi Excufe for our Faults in later Times.

I muft further obferve upon this Head, that as the Ar¬ gument is laid by our Author, from the Inftances of Fail¬ ings and bad Afts of former Aflemblies, in order to the Vindication and Juftification’ ot the Church of Scotland this Day, he has indeed managed it v.^ilh abundance of Cunnirgy but not with that Candour that becomes one of his

B z Pro-

xi! ‘Ihe PREFACE.

Profeffion and Character ; in regard he only menrions al- ledged Failings and bad A6ls of our reforming Period. If he had dealt honeftly with the former and prefent Ge¬ nerations, he ought likewife to have compared the Pro¬ ceedings of the Judicatories at this Day, with the faitluuf and zealous Contendings of the Church of for Rt-

formation-work from the Year 1638 to 1649; and, if he had (fated the Comparifbn juft ly upon this Head, his Rea¬ der might eafily have feen, that the Charge of Defection from our Reformation-purity, that is laid againftthe pre¬ lent Judicatories, can very well be vindicated, notwith- Ifanding of the Inftances he alledges againft the AlTcmblies during the forefaid Period : His Reader might likewife have feen the vaft Difference that there is betwixt the ge- fieral and habitual Courfe of the Proceedings of the Af- lemblies during our reforming Period, and the Procedure of Affemblies in the prefent Times of lamentable Degene¬ racy and Defeftion; namely. That the former were to¬ wards Reformation^ and that the latter have a manifeft: Tendency towards Deformation ; and confequently, that all our Author’s alledged Inftances of Faults, Failings, and bad Afts of Aflemblies in the former Period of this Church, when duly examined, make nothing at all to his Purpole. Upon the Whole, notwithftanding of the above * Apology the Author makes for himfelf, I cannot conceive that he has gained any Thing by the many Inftances he alledgcs of had A6ts of former Aflemblies wherewitli he fwxlls his Book, and which he repeats I know nor how often, but the Ilardning of the prefent Generation in their Iniquity, when it is reprefented unto them through the Whole of the Effay, that their Sins were equalled, if not exceeded, in a Period which has been reckoned the purefl; Times of this Church ; as alfo the expofing of tlie Church of Scotland to the Ridicule of our common Adverfat^'es, who have always ftretched their wicked Inventions to de¬ fame our reforming Period, and who may now make their Eoaft of it, that a profejfed Son of tiie Church of Scotland does in feveral Inftances fymlcUze with them in the Con¬ tempt they have poured upon the famous AflTcmbly 1658, and other Affemblies of that Period.

Our Author, Fref. p. i r. makes another folemn Appeal in the following Terms; Tho’ here I can appeal to tlie Searcher of Hearts., I have faid nothing with a Defign “ to difplcafe any, and faid nothing bin what I concei- ved ro be Truth and Matter of Fafl; yet, as I have

“ no:

I’he PREFACE. xiil

®‘ not written with a Defign to plcafe any Party, fo I lay “ my Account with Cenfure from Perfons of very difte- “ rent Sentiments, Tho’ 1 have given feveral parti¬ cular Inftances of Things advanced by our Author, that are neither Truth nor Matter of FaH ; yet I fliall charitably judge, that he conceives what he has writ to be Truth, and Matter of Fadt : Only, I wifh he had been more tender in making fuch folemn Appeals and Atteftations, which appear to me to be equivalent to a Ibletnn Oath ; or 1 wilh that at leaft he had better advifed what he has written, before he had ufhercd in his Efl'ay to the World with fuch weighty and awful Atteftations. He infinuates in his Vreface, that it had been two Tears at leaft upon his Hands ; and 1 conceive the Church of Scotland would have been at no Lofs, neither would Truth have fuftained any Prejudice, tho’ it had lien till this Day in hisClofet, amongft his other Papers, which according to his Adver» tifetnent he was once refolved to publilTi. But, whatever his or my Concepcions may be, 1 doubt if he will pcr- fwade every one w ho reads his ElTay, and who knows the Hiftory of this Church, to believe that he himfelf is well aflured that every Thing is Truth and Matter of Fa^ which he reports in his Efiay. It is a conftderable Lofs unto this Church, that W’e want a full and juft Hiftory of the above-mentioned Period ; we have nothing but fome fcattered Shreds and Fragments of the Hiftory of thefe Times: However, I have endeavoured, from the beft hiftorical Vouchers that I could find, to give fome fhort Account of the Rife and Progrefs of Reformation- work in the Year 1638; this, with the other hiftorical Accounts that I have given, for vindicating that defpifed Period from the Contempt that many caft upon ir, and for difeovering the Falftiood of feveral Matters of Fa£t alledged in the Eflay, has very much fwelled this Book : Yet I hope it will not be difagreeable to the Loi’crs of iSVo//4«<i’s Covenanted Reformation, and may be ul'eful for the Information of fuch as are willing to receive it; the moft Part of the prefent Generation being very much • unacquainted with the remarkable Appearances of the Lord for this Church in former Times, and with the faitlv ful Proceedings and Contendings of our reforming Fathers, for maintaining and carrying on a Work of Reformation in this Land.

As I have no Pleafurc in controverfial Writings, fo I had no Incliuariou to attempt an Examination of the Re¬ verend

xiv 7^^ P R E F A C E.

verend Mr. C - e's EfTay on Separation, confidering rlie

Difficulties that attend an Undertaking of this Kind,cipe- cially at this Jun6ture, not only from the critical Humour of the Age, but alio from the different Views, and divi¬ ded Sentiments, that are to be found even among fuch who fear the Lord, in this Day of Perplexity in our Val¬ ley of Vifion ; being alfb confcious to myfelf of my own Infufficiency for managing a Work of this Nature ; yet I was led by the Hand of Providence to it in the following Manner. Upon the firft reading of the Reverend Mr.

C - e’s Eflay, publifhed a little before the down-fitting

of the lafl AfTembly 1758, it appeared plain to me, that as he had miftaken the State of the ^ueftion betwixt the receding Minifters and the prefent Judicatories, fo I'.e had fet their whole Cafe in a very odious Lighty both to tiie Prejudice of Truth, and of that Caufe which the fe- ceding Minifters efpoufe, and which I hope and am per- waded is no other but what is efpoufed by the Church of Scotland in her laudable Afts and Conftitutions, agree¬ able to the Word of God, our Confejjion of Faitby Form of Church- government y Books of Difcipliney and DireBory for iFcrJhipy and which we are bound and obliged to e- fpoufe and cleave unto, by the National Covenant of Scot- iandy and the Solemn League and Covenant of the three Nations. This engaged me to publifn a Letter I had writ a Reverend Brother on the Subject of Seceffion from the prefent Judicatories, to which I fubjoined a Pof/cr/pty containing feme Remarks upon the F.Jj'ay on Separation ; this I did with a Defign to clear the true State of the prefent Queftion, and to prevent the Impreffions that might be made, to the Prejudice of Truth, upon the Minds of inadvertent Readers, by a Book filled witli the Fames of great Men, and at the fame Time highly ap¬ plauded, and ftrongly recommended by Men of difte- rent Principles, and, I doubt not to fay, from different Alorives and Ends. Whether the EfTay was recommen¬ ded fo warmly by fome confiderable Men, both Minifters and others, from any Conviftion they had of the Juftnefs and Strength of the Author’s Reafonings ; or rather, if they did not recommend it, becaufe they judged it a Book calculate to make feme Imprejfton upon the Minds of People, from the Author’s fair and fmooth Language, and the large Profejpen he has made of Zeal for the Rights of the Cbrijlan Peepky and his numerous flotations from Di¬ vines which are juftly eftecracd; whether I fay, theic

Ihe P R E F A C E, isv

Recommendations did chiefly proceed from one or other of thefe Springs, is a Queftion I leave with themfelves, and fliall not determine : Only I muft own, that, if this EfTay had not been fo much applauded and recommen¬ ded, I fhould never have judged it worth my while to .have enquired further unto it. And, when I came to read it over again with fome more clofe Attention, I fbon perceived that the few Remarks I had made in the above Pojlfiripty tho' I judged them juft, yet were very de- feitivejand therefore I digefted my further Thoughts upon it, into the Order and Method in which they are now pub- lifti’d. And as I judged the Publifhing of them was a Debt that I owed to the Truth, fb I thought it likewife my Duty to give a Realbn of the Hope that is in me, upon fuch a publick and confident Challenge as the Author of the Eflay has given : As alfo, I judged it incumbent upon me, to contribute my Endeavours to remove the Miftakes that many are under, and the Prejudices that others are filled with, againft a Caufe that is induftrioufly mifreprefented by Ibme, and out of mere Ignorance (jx)ke againft by others. If the Author of the Eflay thinks fit to enter into the Queftion and Argument as I have endeavoured to clear and ftatc them, I ftiall, if the Lord give Tima and Health, attend him ; but if he diverts from the true I State of the Queftion, amufing the Simple with mifapplied I Quotations from eminent and learned Divines, or with reporting private Stories and Hearfays, I reckon I have more important Work on my Hands than to take any Manner of Notice of him.

The Author of the Eflay, in his ^ille-page^ mentions only the feceding Brethren as his Parties ; and in his Pre- face^ p. lo. he tells us. That, “ when he entred upon the “ Subject of Separation, he had not a Thought of menti- “ oning the Paid Brethren as writing againft their Con- “ duft, but that upon fecond Thoughts he judged it “ needful to confider their Teftimony,^c.” Accordingly, a great Part of his Eflay is laid againft a Book called Plain ReafonsyQPc. a Book in which the feceding Brethren have no Manner of Concern. As I have not read it for feve- ral Vears bypaft, fo I am not to take any Manner of Notice of what our Author advances about it ; whether or not he has done Juftice to the Author or Authors of the Paid Book, I leave it to themPelves to enquire into ; In the mean Time, fince it is only upon fecond thoughts (as he tells us) that he brought in his feceding Brethren,

XVI l^he PREFACE.

and fince the Plain Reafons have Co much Room in hi* Efl'ay, he might have given that Book a Place likewiic in his Title-page ; but he has thought fit to do otherwife, for Reafons beft known to himfelf, leaving it to the World to make what Conjefturcs they plcafe.

When I have confidered the lax Principles concerning Church-communion that run through the EJfay on Sepa~ ration, and that the evident Tendency of that whole Per¬ formance is not only to defame a reforming Period of this Church, but alfo to caft loofe our Reformation-principles ; I have ventured to fend this Book abroad, under the Title of, Defence of the Reformation-principles of the Church of Scotland ; being likewife perfwaded that there is nothing maintained or afferted in the Judicial AB and Teftimony of the Affociate Presbytery, but the very fame Principles: But, if any fhall take Exception at the Title, I wifh that, before they cenfure and condemn it, they would give themfelves theTrouble to read over the Book; and if any other but our Reformation-principles agreeable to the Word of God are afferted, I fhall (as I have faid) reckon myfcif obliged unto them who point them out unto me : And, if any alledge that I have failed in the De¬ fence of the faid Principles, I readily acknowledge I have failed very much this Way, but I have endeavoured to do what I could ; and it is with fome Difficulty that I have got fome few Hours fpared now and then, for a Work of this Kind, from the other neceffary Duties of my Minifterial Office and Calling.

I conclude this Preface with tranferibing a few Words which, Mr. Knox in his Hiftory reports, were uttered by Mr. Wtfbart, who was an eminent Inffrument in the Hand of rhe Lord in bringing the Church of Scotland out of Rome Anticbrifian, and who fealed the Teftimony of jefus w'ith his Blood, againft the Abominations of Rome. A little before his violent Death, he expreffed himfelf in the following Manner; “ This Realm fhall be illuminated “ with the Light of Chrift’s Gofpel, as clearly as ever “ any Realm fince the Days of the Apoftles ; the Houfc “ of God fhall be builded in it; yea, it fhall not lack “ (whatfbever the Enemy imagine in the contrary) the “ very Cope-ftone : Neither (faid he) fhall this be long “ to ; there fhall not many fuffer after me, till that the “ Glory of the Lord fhall evidently appear, and fhall once “ triumph in Delpite of Satan : But, alas, if the People “ fhall be after unthankful, then fearful and tetrime

“ fljall

P R E F A C E. xvH

* * fhall tlie Plasjues be thac lliall follow. ” The above Words of one who had a more than ordinary Meafure ot the Spirit ofGod, and who was a Seer in his Day, deferve to be noticed; efpecially becaufethey are agreeable unto the Teftimony of God in the Holy Scriptures, and alfo becaufe they may give us fome View of the State of the Church of Scotland^ both in her reforming and declining Periods. When I confidcr the Words of the Spirit of God by the Prophet, Ifa. Iv. 5. Behold, thou Jbalt call a. Nation that thou kmtve/i not, and Nations that knew not thee Jhall run unto tfjce.Scc, Ifa. xlii.4. And the IJles Jhall wa'tfor his Law ; and Pfalm ii. 8. Ask of me, and I (ball give thee the Heathen for thine Inheritance, and the uttermo(i Parts of the Earth for thy Pofejfion ; I doubt not to fay, that in Scotland, in reforming and covenanting Scotland, the above and the like Prophecies had in Part a ngnal & glorious Accomplilh- menr, and that the Event anfwered what the above emi-* nent Inftrument in our Reformation had forefeen and ex- prelTed : And if we confider our Unthankfulnefs unto God for his fignal Appearances for us, manifefted in the Degeneracy of all Ranks of Perfons in Scotland from the Lord, the whole Word of God gives us Ground to ap¬ prehend fearful and terrible Judgments upon us. Yea, what fearful Judgments are we under at prefent ? A per- verfe Spirit is at this Day mingled amongft us, a Spirit of Error and Delufion prevails, the Anger of the Lord has divided us, and the good Spirit of God is very much departed from our AfTemblies for Worfhip and Difeipline, and the Spirit of deep Sleep and Slumber is poured out upon us ; thefe and the like fpiritual Strokes may be the Forreunners of fbme terrible Appearance of God in a Way of righteous and holy Judgment againft us.

When I have mentioned the evident Reflraint of the Spirit, I cannot but take Notice of a Refleftion made by the Author ot the EfTay, p. 25. where, after fome Words tranferibed from a Print called A Seafonable ^efiimony, our Author, as appears to me, with a Sneer at the Seceding Brethren, fubjoins, “ Nor {^fays he) have we heard of any “ extraordinary Pouring out of the Spirit attending the “ Miniftry of our Brethren more than others; few pricked “ at the Heart, crying out, A/en and Brethren, what fall “ we do to be faved ? ” The above Refleftion is very in¬ decent in one of our Author’s Charafter and Profeffion: But I fhall only obferve upon it, that I hope every one of the feceding Brethren will readily acknowledge tnat they

C arc

kvlii Ihe PREFACE,

are not free of the Guilt and Sin of our Day, whereby the Spirit of the Lord is grieved and provoked to depart ; and that therefore they ought to be humbled before the Lord as much as others. And tho’ they do not alledge that there is any extraordinary Pouring out of the Spirit attending their Miniftry more than others, yet if the Lord is pleafed at any Time to countenance his Work amongft their Hands, either in the Conviftion or Edification of any, whether upon the Days of folemn Humiliation that they obferve through the Land, or upon other Occafions, the lead Mcafure, I fay, of fuch Countenance from the Lord, ought to be humbly acknowledged, efpecially in a Day of great Provocation ; and there fhould be a Waiting upon the Lord, who hideth his Face from the Houfe of Jacob. And tho’ the feceding Brethren may be upbraided with the above infulting Refleftions, yet as the Communications of the Holy Spirit are not the Rule of our Duty, but the Law and the ^efiimony- fo it may be alleviating unto them, that the Cafe is not altogether fingular, I mean with re- fpeft to the above Refie^ion. An eminent fVitne/s in h\3 Day cries out, Pfal. xlii. lo. j4s with a Sword in my Bones, mine Enemies reproach me : iVhile they fay daily unto me, IVhere is thy God? And the Church in like Manner, P/al. cxv. 2. But as every one of us have a deep Hand in the Provocation, and as the Lord is holy and righteous in pleading his Controverfy with us; May that blefled Time come, when the Lord’s profefSng People in Scotland lhall thro’ the Influence of his Spirit and Grace, by the Means of his Word, be made to fay. Come and let us return unto the Lord : For he bath torn, and be will heal us ; be bath fmittea, and he will bind tts up* Hof. vi. i. May the Lord baden it.

William Wilsoiv,

( y? )

DEFENCE

OF THE

Reformation-Principles

. OF THE

Church of Scotland, &c.

INTRODUCTION.

Comainipg a jhort Narratwe of fome Con^ tendings in a 'scay of Church-communion^ for fome Tears immediately before the Seccilion from the prcfent Judicatories was fated*

HAT it is Duty to ieflify againft the De¬ fections and Backflidings of a particu¬ lar vifible Church from that Reforma¬ tion-purity file has once attained unto, is what cannot well be refufed ; bur, with refpeCt to the Manner of teftify- ing againft fuch Defections and Back¬ flidings, this is fo much difputed, un- <ler fo many fpecious Pretexts, and from fuch different Principles and Motives, that, in effeCt, any kind of pu- blick Teftimony againft the Corruptions of a backfliding Church is condemned, as having a Tendency towards Divifion, Schifm and unwarrantable Separation. There

C 2 arc

( JO )

are only two Ways alledged whereby a Teftimony can be maintained againtt (uch Corruptions as may prevail in a Church ; the one is, by Secejjion from that Fart ot the Ecclefiaftick Body who are carrying on a Courfe of De¬ fection, and who obftinatcly continue in the fame, refu- fing to be reclaimed ; the other is, by continuing in Com¬ munion and Conjunction with them, and at the fame Time teftifying againft their Corruptions and Defections. With refpect to the frfi of thefe, when a ^eftimony is maintained in a vjay ofSecejJiony thefe from whom the Seceffion is made, Jiaving Numbers for ordinary on their Side, exclaim a- gainft fuch as withdraw from Communion with them, as dangerous Schifmaticks : Thus the Church of Rome ac- cufe all the Proteftant Churches as guilty of a dangerous Schifm ; and likewife the Church of England charge the whole Body of Dijfenters with Breach of Ecclefiaftick U- nity, and with unwarrantable Separation from them ; in like ItlznntT ihc prefentyudicatovies of this National Church, in an Act of their lafi Jjfemblyy condemn the Condutf of the Brethren of the ^jjodate Presbytery, as- a dangerous Schifm. The Reverend Author of the Effay on Separation endeavours to prove the Juftice of the Charge ; but how he has fucceeded in his Attempt, is afterwards enquired into. And as for the other Way of bearing Teftimony a- gainft the Corruptions of a particular Church, namely, by continuing in Communion with fuch who are carrying on a Courfe of Defedtion, and at the fame Time teftifying a- gainfl: the fame ; the forefaid Author makes fome Acknow¬ ledgment, that the Church of Scotland is worle at this Day than fometime formerly, and that fhc hath been upon the Decline for fome Time, Effayy p. 59. but he pleads that we ought to contend in a way of Communion with the prefent Judicatories : Therefore I judge it may give fome Light to the Queflion before us, if w-e obferve, that, when a Teftimony is given againft the Backflidings of a Church in a way of Communion with the backfliding Party, it muft be done in one of the three following Ways ; cither doSlrinally from the Pulpit, or by Proteftations and Diffents in Judicatories, or by Petitions and Reprefentations unto them, by fuch Minifters or other Church- members as are grieved with their Proceedings. But the prefent Judicatories of this National Church hiive. judicially con¬ demned all thefe fcveral Ways of teftifying againft their Procedure; whereby they have upon the Matter deman¬ ded from Minifters, and other Church-members, a JlUnt

Sab-

. ( ' )

Sabmifflon to all their Determinations. The Truth of this will appear from the following fhort Narrativsy that I of¬ fer, of fome Contendings in a way of Communion with the yudicatories immediately before the Secejfon was fated: And, as I go along, I fhall alfb take notice of fome confide- rable Failings in pleading the Caufe of Truth, while the Teftimony was managed only after this Manner; and thefe had their Rife and Spring in a very great Meafure from a prevailing Difpofition and Inclination to maintain what was reckoned Peace and Hcclefiaflical Unity,

When the Intrufion of Minifters upon diffenting and reclaiming Congregations in confequence of the Patronage- aB became frequent, feveral Presbyteries dealt with Jf- femhliesy by InfiruBions given unto their Commillioners, that a Stop might be put to violent Intrufions, and that proper Meafures might be taken to prevent the Settlement of Mi- nifters in Congregations without their Call and Confent: Bur no Regard was had to thefe Inftruftions; they were read once or twice in a Committee appointed by the feve- ral Allemblies for receiving them, and there they were buried. The violent Settlement of Minifters was at length countenanced and fupported by the Authority of the Ge¬ neral Affembliesof this Church; therefore fome Minifters began to think it needful to teftify in a more open and plain Manner againft the Violence done to Chriftian Con¬ gregations by the intruding of Minifters upon them* Hence in the Year 1730, when the Cafe of the Parilb of Hutton^ complaining of a Sentence of the Commiffion ap¬ pointing a violent Settlement in that Parifli, came before the Aflembly that met that Year, they not only refufed to reverfc the Sentence of the Commiffion, but likewife ap¬ pointed the Presbytery of Chirnfde to proceed to the faid Settlement. Several Members of that Aflembly dijfented from the faid Sentence, and craved that their Dijjent might be recorded ; but this was refufed by a Fote of the Aflem- bly, and their Clerk was difeharged to mark any Diflfent in that Matter, I have juft now before me the original Subferiptions of feveral Minifters and Elders to the forefaid DiflTent ; fome of the worthy Minifters are now with the Lord: They were once refolved to have publifhed their Diftent, together with the Names of all fuch as fhould fign their Adherence to the fame, that there might be fome pu- blick ftanding Teftimony againft the Injury that was done to the Flock and Heritage of God by the forefaid Sentence of Aflembly, and alfo as a Mean to put fome Stop to fuch vio¬ lent

( * )

lent Proceedings for the Time to come; but this Defign was laid afide ; the Arguments for maintaining Peace and Unity did prevail, as frequently they do in a declining State of the Church, to the very great Prejudice of a fui- table and feafonable Teftimony for Truth.

Tho’ the Intrufion of Minillers upon Chriftian Congre¬ gations, efpecially when they are authorifcd and counte¬ nanced by the fupreme Judicatories of this National Church, muft be reckoned a very confidcrable Step of DefeStion from our Reformation-principles ; yet an Affair of much greater Confequence came upon the Field, when

in the Year 1726 we were alarmed with a flagrant Report, that the Arian Herefy had entred into our Borders, and that it was taught in one of our principal Seminaries of Teaming, the Univerfiry of Glafgovs, by Mr. Simfcn Pro- fdTor of Divinity there: It was likcwife reported, that the faid Mr. Sim fan continued to reach the fame dangerous Errors for which he had been formerly under Procefs, and which the h{{cmh\y Anno 1717 had difeharged him to vent and teach ; tho’ in the Aft of the faid ,-\fiembly the Prohibition is laid in very general Terms, and none of his dangerous Propofitions, which were owned and maintained by himlelf in bis Anfwers to the Libel exhi¬ bited againft him, are either particularly condefeended upon, or exprefly condemned. The Presbytery of Glaf~ gow, having enquired into the Truth of the above Re¬ ports, found Ground for a Procefs againft him ; and the Profecution was carried on with tha Afliftance of a Cwi- mitUe appointed bv the Aflembly that met Anno l~z6, as alfo vjith the Afliftance of a Committee named for the fame Effeft by the Aflfembly Anno 1727. When this Atfair had been before feveral Afiemblies of this Church, it was found proven, both by the Depofitionsof Witnefles who heard him, as alfb by his own Papers and Writings contained in the Procefs, that he had vented and taught fuch Propofitions whereby the great God our Saviour is rob¬ bed of his true Deity ; as alfb it was found proven that he had aflerted, That the three Perfons of the adorable Trinity were not one Subfance in Number. Lilcewife the Committee appointed by the Aflembly 1727 found it proven, that he Jiad continued to teach the fame dangerous Errors for which he was formerly procefled, and whereby many of the important Truths held forth from die Word of God, in our Confejfion of Faitb^ were fubverted. And when this important Afl'air was referred by the Airembly ijzS

unco

, C *3 ) , .

unfo the fevcral Presbyteries of this National Church, that they might give their Judgment upon it, siio’ a great Part of Presbyteries gave it as their Opinion that Mr. Sim-' fon Ihould he ^epofed, yet the AlTembly 1729, who con¬ cluded the Procefs, inflidted no higher Ccnfure upon him than that of Sufpenfion from Teaching and Preaching, and all Exercife of any Ecclefiaftical Power or Fundtion, until another General Airembly fliould think fit to take off this Sentence. The late Reverend Mp. Bojion Minifter at Et~

: terick read a Protefiation againft the forefaid Conclufion I given unto this weighty Affair ; but, at the earneft Defire of the Moderator, he took the fame under hisGonfidera- tion till the Meeting of Affembly next Day, and then he did not infift upon it. Several Minifters having entred into a Refolution, that InfimSlions fhould be brought up from I the feveral Presbyteries to the next Affembly for an AB 1 offertory of the Truths of God to be conceived in fuch a I Manner, as to obviate and conaemn the grofs Errors taught : by hir/Sim/ojiy in the Terms and Expreffions in which he had vented them ; this was propofed as the beft Expedient for maintainingTruth, together with our Ecclefiaftical Peace and Unity 7 and, upon this Motion and Refolution, Mr. Bojion was dealt with to drop his Proteftation: But it is to be regreted, that the proper Seafbn of a Teftimony againft the Injury that was done to Truth, by paffing M.r.Simfon \ in fuch a fuperficial and flight Manner, was loft. By the I forefaid Sentence of Affembly he is continued inMiriiJle- ) fial and Chrifiian Communion, tho’ it was found proven [ that he had blafphemed that Name which is above every i Name that is named: And tho* he could eafily have fatiG fied the Presbytery of GlafgoWy if he had been found in the Faith, before the Commencement of the Procefs againft him ; yet, in his very firft Letter unto them, he juftifies his leading Fallacy, whereby he confounds the effential PerfeBions of God, with the perfonal Properties of the ; three adorable Perfons of the Godhead; And alfo he con¬ tinued, by manifold Tergiverfations and Shifeings from Year to Year, to refufe to give Satisfaction to the Judica¬ tories, always juftifying his Doftrine as agreeable to the Word of God, and our ConfeJJion of Faith y till he faw thatCenfurc was inevitable; and then he made fomc ge¬ neral Acknowledgment, but yet he never acknowledged that he had taught any Thing contrary to the Word of God or our ConfeJJion of Faith. As the forefaid Ssafon of a Teftimony 5or the Honour of the Redeemer, and againft

the Indignity done him, wss lolt; fo fome of the Miniftcfs* w ho, for the above-mentioned Keafon, advifed Mr. Befion to drop his Proteftation, were foon very fenfible of their Miftake. The j4jfociate Presbytery^ in their Judicial jdH and ^efiimenyy do juftly reckon the Conclufion given by the Aflembly 17^9 to the important Affair before them, to be one of the Grounds of the Lord’s Controverfy againft us ; and v/e have every one Reafon to be humbled before the Lord, becaufe a fuitable Teftimony was not given in its proper Seafon againft the above-mentioned A6t and Sentence, whereby Mr. Simfon was difmiflcd, not only with flich a flight Cenfure for his Errors in the Doftrine of the bleffed Trinity, notwithftanding of the above Aggrava¬ tions of his Crime in fhifting to give due Satisfaftion, but alfo without the leaft Cenfure for the many other grofs and dangerous Errors he had taught; neither was there any Kind of Teftimony given by the faid Aflembly againft them.

Several Presbyteries did, in confequence of the above Motions and Refolutions among fome Minifters at the former Aflembly, inftruft their Commiflioners to infill: before the Aflembly 1790 for a fp'arning againft Mr. Sim- fon\ and other Errors of the Times, ftriking againft the Fundamentals of our holy Religion: Thefe Inftruftions were moved in open Houfe, and it was agreed that the Committees of Inftruftions and Overtures fhould have them under their Confideration, and that then the Aflembly fhould confider the Matter ; but, after all, no particular iVarning againft Error could be obtained, nor any ajjertory of the Truths, in Oppofition to the Terms in which they had been impugned by M.r. Simfon. All that was done by that Aflembly is contained in their eighth ■printed AB, wherein they recommend it to all Minifters of this Church, “ to be careful to warn and guard their “ People againft the fpreading of any Errors contrary to “ the Scriptures and our Confeffion of Faith^ and fuch as ‘‘ are condemned by former General Aflemblies of this “ Church, particularly fuch as ftrike againft thcFunda-

mentals of our holy Religion. ” In the above Recom¬ mendation^ Minifters are dire<Scd to warn People againft Errors condemned by the Confeffion of Faitby &c. but the Aflembly make no particular Mention of thefe Errors ; they leave every one to judge what were Errors of that Sort, and what not; and this could nowife anfwcr the End of the above Inftruitions for a particular Warning againft

Error ;

(25')

F.rrnr; neirfier couM it be of Ufe to fupport tbe Truths v.hich were oppofed and lubverted by isir. feeing

he always maintained that the Propofitinns vented by him were not contrary to our CoTjfeJflon of Faith, but agreeable thereto: Therefore a Motion was made at this Meeting of Afiembly^ that, for the Sake of Truth, they would aflerr, in exprefs Terms, the Necejfary Exijierice of our Lofd Jefns Cktift-, but this was refufed, upon a Pretence that the above general Recommendation, to warn People againft Errors condemned by the Confejfion of Faith, was fufficient; Upon which a Protefiation was taken by a Re¬ verend Brother, now one of the feceding Minifters; but thro’ Perfwafion it was not duly infifted upon. Before I pals the Proceedings of the Afl'cmbly 1750, it deferves to be remembred, that tho' the Conclufion given to Mr. Simfon\ Affair was contrary to the declared Minds of a great Number of Presbyteries, yet there was not a Rc- monprance offered at the Aflembly 1750, by any of the Presbyteries of Scotland, againft the above Conclufion of the Affcmbly 1729; yea, it was from a very fmall Num¬ ber of Presbyteries that the above Inftruftions, about a fcafonable Warning againft Error, were fent. As this was a lamentable Evidence of a filent Submiflion unto the Decifion of the National Aflembly in Mr. Simjons Affair, fo it might be juftly conffrudfed that the moft Part of Presbyteries had not only let go any Teffimony they had given, for a higher Cenfure to be inflifted upon Mr. Aot- for, but alfo that a fuitable and due Concern for Truth, lying wounded and bleeding in our Streets, was at a very low Ebb amongft us.

A little after the Meeting of the Aflembly 1750, a Pa¬ per was publifhed, intituled, j4n Enquiry into Adr. SimlbnV Sentiments about the Trinity, from his Papers in Procejs. The very Reverend and Learned Author, who is well known in the Church of Scotland, makes it evident from Mr.5/w- fon*s own Papers, that it is his Opinion, Fhat the three Perfons of the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghofl, are not one Subftance in Number, but three difiinS Subfiances ; as alfo, that it is his Opinion, that the Father alone is the Selfexijlent, Necejfarily-exifient, and Indepen- ' dent Being ; and confequently, that the Divine Attributes I and Titles, fuch as the Supreme Cod, the Only true God, in

■ their firiB and proper Senfe, belong to the Father alone, and

■ are not to be applied unto the Son and Holy Spirit. The above j Enquiry is dircdtcd to all the Presbyteries of the Church

I D of

( 26 )

of Scotland: It was thought that the pathetick and ftrong Reafoning that it contains, would have had Weight wicli them to have exerted themfelves with more Vigour for the Caufe of Truth, againft the Meeting of another Af- fembly; efpecially when it was found, that the Method of Dealing by In[lruBions had not the dcfired Effect. Ac¬ cordingly the Synod of Perth Stirling, at their Meeting y^pril 1751, drew up a Petition concerning Errors in Do- dtrine, and Intrufions into vacant Congregations ; and ap¬ pointed their Brethren, Members of the enfuing Aflem- bly, and others joined with them in Commiflion, to pre- fent the fame, and to infill upon it before the Afifembly. This Petition was prelented and read in the Aflembly that met May 173 i ; and the Members from the Synod of gus, and Presbyteries of St. Andreisjs, Dunfermline, Aber¬ deen, Kincardine, Ellon, and Aberlour, like wife reprefen- ted, that they had InfiruBions from their relpcdlive Conlli- tuents to make the like Reprefentations to the Aflembly, craving a Warning againft Errors in Dottrine, the Growth of Infidelity, 6^0. But all the above Reprefentations and Petitions were referred by that Aflembly to their Com- milfion, with Power to them to do concerning the Mat¬ ters contained in them as they fliould fee Caufe, excepting w'hat related to the Method of calling Minifters to vacant Parilhes: And the CommiflTion having delayed the Affair from one Meeting to another, till the 9th Day of March 1732, upon which Day (as the Extratfl: of their Sentence before me bears) the Addrefs of the Synod of Perth wasi read, allb InjlruBions from the Presbytery of St. Andrews to their CommilTioners to the late AfTembly ; fuch of the CommifTioners from the Synod of Perth who were prefent, were heard. After fome Reafoning, the Commiflion a- greed, that a Letter fhould be writ to all the Presbyte¬ ries, earneftly recommending in the Terms of the above- mentioned A6t of the Aflembly 1730. This was all thai was done by the Commiflion : Whereupon the Reverent JMr. Alexander Aloncrieff did in his own Name, and it Name of his Conftituents, protefl againft the above Sen ii tence, as too general ^ and not anfwering the Ends propo j«

d by them.

When the above Methods of Presbyterial and Synodi . cal Inftruftions and Reprefentations were tried withoi; : any Succefs, a Reprefentation and Petition to the Genera Aflembly, that met at Edinburgh Anno 1752, was figned b : sbove Forty MniJterSf and fbmc Ruling Elders^ containin .

I

( 27 )

a particular Reprefentation of Grievances, fuch as the Growth and Spreading of Error, Intrufions into the Mi- niftry, and the Procedure of the Commiflions of rhe Ge¬ neral Aflemblies, afliaming to themfelves a Power of ap¬ pointing Committees for trying and ordaining Minifters in vacant Congregations, not only without the Concurrence and Conicnt of the Presbyteries and Synods immediately concerned, but alfb in direft Oppofition to their declared Minds; craving likewife, that the Aflembly might take proper Meafures for the Redrefs of the above and other Grievances particularly mentioned. The forefaid Repre- fentation and Petition was given in, according fo the ufual Order, to the Committee of BillSy to be by them tranfmit- ted to the Aflembly ; but after long Attendance upon tliem, till near the Clofe of the Alfembly, they refufe'i to tranfmit the fame. This obliged fuch of the Minifters as had a Commiflion from their Brethren to prefent the faid Reprefentation and Petition, and to infill upon the fame, to go to the Bar of the JJfemhly with a Complaint againft their Committee^ and to crave that the Aflembly themfelves might do them the Jufticc, to give their Re¬ prefentation and Petition a Reading in their Prefence ; but this was ftiffly refufed : Whereupon the Reverend Mr. George GiUeJpie gave in a Protefiation, figned by himfelf and Fourteen other Minifters, being all the Petitioners thar were then prefent at Edinburgh. In this Proteftation a- rgainft the Deed of the Aflembly refufing to read their fReprelentation, they exprels themfelves in the following ^Manner; “ We find ourfelves obliged much againft our Inclination, and with all due Deference to this Vene- rable Aflembly, humbly to proteft in our own Name, “ and in Name of all concurring in the faid Reprefenta- “ tion, or adhering, againft the faid Deed ; and for Pre- “ fervation of the juft Rights belonging to us as Men, “ Chriftians, and Office-bearers in this Church (by the Light of Nature, Word of God, Conftitutions of this Church, Claim of Right, Laws of the Land, and ma- approven Precedents fince the Reformation

(I

f-

nifold

to

this Day) to have Reprefentations and Petitions anenc Grievances, which are or may be oftered by ourfelves or others to the General AflTembly or other Judicatories of this Church, received, openly read, and taken into ferious Confideration by the faid Courts for Redrels, r‘ QPc.” But neither was this Protejbation, tho’ given in under Form of Infrument, regarded, or allowed to be

D

mac-

tnarlced. The Rcprefentation and Petition, together with fheir Proteftqtion, were immediately pubJiHied, and are extant in Print.

From the above Words of the Proteftation, it is evi¬ dent, that the frotejlhg Minifiers reckoned themfelves denied a jufi Right belonging to them as Men, Chrifiians^ fiPc. by the Light of Nature, &c. Yet the Reverend Mr. Currie, who figned this Protertation, has not in all his EJfay found the prefent Judicatories guilty cf one firgle -ASi of tyranny in the Adminifiratton. It is proper likewife here to cbferve, that at the fame T'ime (and, I can well affirm, without any Concert with the Minifters, and there¬ fore by a fpecial Direftion of Divine Providence) a Re~ pefentathn and Petition was given in to the lame Affetnbly, figned by above Fifteen hund) ed People, Members of this Church, many of them bearing the Office of Elders, tho* they do not defign themfelves fuch, as appears from their Subferiptions to their Paper now printed ; but their Re- prefentation and Petition could not get the Credit of a Tranfmit to the Afiembly: Therefore their Commiffio- ners came to the Bar of rlie Afiembly, and craved that their Petition might get a Reading in their Prefence ; but this ivas pofitively refufed; whereupon they likewife pror tefied againft the Refufal. It was jufily reckoned an In- ftance of Tyranny in the two Reigns preceeding the Re¬ volution, that the Suhjedfs were difeharged to petition for the Redrefs of Grievances ; and therefore this their juft Privilege was refiored them by our valuable Claim of Right. Tho’ our Aflemblies have not under Ecclefiaftical Pains prohibited the Members of this Church to petition them, yet the Contempt with which fb many Aliniftcrs and Members of the Church were treat, when they came in a regular and orderly Manner to the Bar of the Afiem¬ bly, ^i\\s little Jhort oi the Fyranny of the above-mentio¬ ned Reigns ; and it is a manifeft Evidence that the AfiTcm- bly I75Z did condemn this Way of Tcftifying by hum¬ ble Reprefentations and Petitions againft the Courfe of Eackfiiding and Defection, that the Judicatories v/cre carrying on with a very high Hand: We fiiall fcarce find a Parallel to it in any well^overned Civil Society, and was very unbecoming any Ecclefiaftical Judicatory, who have only a Minijlevial Power and Authority given them by the Head of the Church for the Edification of bis &ody, and who ought to cxcrcife that Power and Au- efiority for the Redrefs of fuch Grievances as a:iy Alem-

( 2> )

ber of the Body brings before them. Tho* the above arbitrary Step might have been juftly reckoned a Ground of Secejfion from fach Judicatories, who had fo little Re¬ gard unto, yea, who poured fo much Contempt and Scorn upon, fuch a confiderable Number of the Members of the Ecclefiaftical Body, when they came before them with their mournful Complaints; yet, notwithftanding of this, we continued ftill to contend in a Way of Com¬ munion and Conjunction with them.

When Teftimonies by Reprcfenrations and Petitions were fo little regarded, feveral Mini fters judged it their Duty to tefiify more plainly from the Pulpit againfl the Courfe that the Judicatories were taking: Accordingly the Reverend Mr. Ebenezer Erskine did at the Opening of the Synod of Perth and Stiylin^^ OBoher 1732, teliify doftrinally againJl: the ACt of Aflemhiy part that Year anent the Method of calling Minifters, as alfo againft the Proceedings of Church- judicatories in impofing Minifters upon dilTenting and reclaiming Congregations ; but that Synod condemned his DoCtrine, and appointed him to he rebuked at their Bar, for the faithful Freedom he uled : j Upon which he appealed from them to the General Affem^

! bly that met at Edinhivgh 1733 ; and that AfTembly a-^r~

I med the Sentence, of the Synod, and appointed him to be rebuked at their Bar for impurigtng^ in his Sermon before the Synod, Alls of AJfembly, and Proceedings of Church^ Judicatories. Now, the Door is (Jjut againft dolirinal Tefti¬ monies, and the Mouths of Minifters are ftopt : If they tefiify from the Pulpit againft the Proceedings of Judica¬ tories however arbitrary they may be, or againft ABs of Aft'emblies however oppofice to our Reformation-princi¬ ples and Purity, they muft lay their Account v/ith Churchm cenfure. When Mr. Erskine and three other Minifters per¬ ceived tliis, they judged it their Duty to protefl^ for their ' own juft and ncccfl'ary Exoneration, againft the forefaid i ACf and Sentence : But this Way of teftifying is imme- i diately condemned in a moft fcverc and arbitrary Manner ;

the Aflcmbly appoint their Commiffion to fufpend the four 1 prctejlv g Minifiers, in cafe tltey do not retraB their Pro- teftacioi), and declare their Sorrow for the fame ; and, in cafe the forefaid Minifters a£f contrary to the Sentence I of Sufpenfion, the Commifllon is appointed to proceed to j a higher Cenfure againft them.

! Notwirhftanding of the above unjiift Sentence, the four I proteftiug Minifters continued to ceftify in a Way of

Comm union

( 3° .)

Ccmtnmicn with the Jud'catorics: Therefore, at the Meeting of Commiflion in Augufi forefaid Year, they gave in tvjo Teverai ReprefeTstathns - one of them was read^ but the other was refuied a Reading: The Reprclentations are in Print, and fpeak for themfclves. Only, I muft notice, that^ in both their Reprefentationv, they nor only give the Reafbns why they could nor rerra<!ft their Pro- teftation, but alfo they judged it their Duty to enlarge their Teftimony in feveral particular Inftances ; and, amongft others, they make Mention of the grofs Errors that had been vented and taught by Mr. Sim/on, and of the Con¬ duct of Judicatories in difmifling him from their Bar without a fiiitable Teftimony againft his Errors. Thus they do not confine their ^efiimony to violent Settlements^ but upon the Matter take in v-hat had been contained in IntiruBionSf Reprefentatiens tiod Petitions laid before former AJfemblies: Bur, at the forefaid Meeting of Commiftion, the Sentence of Sujpenfion paft by the JJfemhly was execute againft them ; and, in November thereafter, they were thruft out from Communion with the Judicatories, with their above Teftimony in their Hands: Whereupon they gave in a Protejlationy declaring a SECESSION from the Party who were carrying on a Courfe of Defection from oar reformed and covenanted Principles; as the faid Pro- teftation more fully bears. From w hat is above narrated, the Reader may fee, that there has been a Series and ^ralf of ‘Teftifying in a Way of Communion and Conjunction with the Judicatories, before a SeceJJion from them was declared ; as alfo he may lee, that the ordinary Means of teftifying in a Way of Church-communion judicially condemn Tied by the prclent Judicatories: As for Jnftance, when many Minifters, and many other Cfiurch-membcrs, came to the Bar of the Ajfembly w’ith Reprefentations and Petiti^ onsy thele are defpifed and quite difregarded ; and there¬ fore this Way of teftifying ftands materially condemned. When adoBrinal Teftimony is emitted againft a Courfe of Defection, this is exprejly condemned by the AJfembly 1753 ; and, when a Vrotejlation for Exoneration is entred againft the laid condemnatory Sentence, this is alfo feverely cenfu- ved by the forefaid AJfembly. And tho’ it may be juftly affirmed, that any of the Members of the Ecclefiaftick Body have a juft Claim to proteft againft any Determina¬ tion and Decifton of the fupreme Judicatory, which are oppofite unto, or a Deviation from our Reformation-prin¬ ciples and Purity ; yet this Privilege has been denied even

the Members of that Court; they have been always fefu- fecl the Liberty of having rheir Dijfenti recorded, except in two Caics Jnr.o 1737. And it does not appear to be the Judgment of that All'embly, that Diflents with the Rea- fons of them ihould be recorded; in regard they inftru- €ted their CommilTion to prepare the Draught of an Over¬ ture againft next Alfembly, to be tranfmitted to Presby¬ teries, to know their Opinion whether DifTents, with the Reafbns of them, ihould be infert in the Regifters of PiX- fembly, or not ; and accordingly, tho’ two Diflents with their Reafons were marked u4nno yet the Aflembly

1738 refufed that Privilege. From what is above oblcr- ved, it is evident, that the prefent Judicatories were bent upon their backfliding Courfe, before any Seccflion was declared from them ; and that they not only condemned and defpifed all the ordinary Means of tettifying in a way of Communion with them, but that they came the Length of thruJliniT cut fome Miniflers from their Communion^ for no other Reafon but becaufe theyjudged it their Duty to bear Teftimony againft their Courfe and Way. And tho* the Judicatories are not to this Day reforming, nor retur¬ ning to the Lord ; yet the Cry is now, as it was then, for U72ion and Conjunction with them ; and againft Secejfton from them, as an unwarrantable Separation and an unac¬ countable Schifm. 1 muft here alfo obferve from the fore- faid Narrative, that tho’ there was no Seceffion ftated, till, by the overruling and adorable Providence of God, feme Minifters were thruft out by the Judicatories themfelves; yet I humbly judge there was too much Ground given for Seceflion before that Event : As for Inftance, when ihQjffem- bly ijz^ kept in Minifterial and Chriftian Communion with them, one who had derogate from the eflential Glory of the Son of God, and who had continued to vent and teach feveral other grofs and dangerous Errors ; efpecially when the two following JJfemhlies^ tho* dealt with for that End, refufed an JB ajfertory of the Truths, in Oppofition unto the Terms in which they had been oppofed, or a feafari' able Warning againft the Errors of the Times ; As alfb I judge, that the Grounds of Secejfton were yet more enlarged, when the Aflembly 1732 refufed to give a Hearing to fb many Church-members, who reprefented their Grievan¬ ces to them, and petitioned for Redrefs; and yet more, when the jjfembly 1735 condemned a doBrinal Tfettimony for Truth, and fentenced fbme Minifters to Cenfute for protejling for their juft Rights and Privileges. After all,

when

f 3® )

tvTier. the SeceHlon not declared, till fome Minifferj ■were thnirt out from their Communion merely for conten- ding againft a Courle of Defection ; it is a manifeif Evi¬ dence, that they have not been precipitant nor rafb in their Scceffion; they have not gone out with Hajicy neither have t\ity gone cut ky Flight. They were brought at firft into their prefent Situation by the adorable Providence of God ; and this is the ^efiion th^t is now before us. Whether or not it is their Duty to contend for Truth, and againft prefent and former Defedtions, in a way of SeceJJton from the pre¬ lent Judicatories of this National Church ? or, which is the fame Thing, Whether or not it is their Duty to con¬ tinue to teftify againft a Courfe of Defedfion, in the pre¬ lent Situation into which they have been brought by the holy and wife Providence of God ? and confequently. Whether or not it is the Duty of fuch other Brethren in the Miraiftry, and of Prcfejfors through the Land, who de- fire to cleave to Scotland’s covenanted Reformation, to join Hands with them in the forelaid Teftimony and Manner of teftifying ? This leads me to obferve in laft Place, Thar, when the Seceflion was ftated at firft, the protefting Mini- fters declared their Readinefs to hold Communion w ith all and every one “ who were adhering to the Principles ot “ the truePresbyterian covenanted Church of d’cot/cwW, in her “ DcBrinOy tf^orjbipy Government and DifeipUne," and “ who “ were groningunder the Evils, and affefted with the Grie- ■ “ vances complained of, and in their feveral Spheres were “ wreftling againft the fame,” But it is Matter of Re- grete, that fb many who have Ibmetime appeared againft a • Courfe of Defedbion, and amongft others the Juthor of the Effdyy are involving themfelves in the Sins of the Judicato- ■ ries, either byjuftifying or extenuating their Defedbions, or i by their continuing in Conjundbion with them, tho’ they arc i ftill going on in a Courfe of Backfliding, and refufc to be i reclaimed ; whereby the Door of Communion with them is i more and more fliut. But I proceed to confider more par- ‘ ticularly the State of the ^ejiiony and the Reafons and 1 Grounds of our prefent Sece^on^ v/hich I hope will be i found to be warranted by the IF^ord of Gody and the i and Confiituthns of the Church of Scotland agreeable there¬ to.

CHAP.

CHAP, I,

Wherein the true State of the Quefim coifi cerning SeceJJion from the prefent Jttdi- catories is enquired into*

As unwarrantable Separation from any particular Church is both finful and dangerous ; fo Conjun- . , oackflidihg and corrupt Church, ei-

ther in her Backflidings ahd Corruptions, or to theJPre- judice of Truth, and of a fuitable Teftimony againftVuch prruptions and Backflidings, is diflionourini to God, hurtful to Mens Souls, and the greateft Injury that can be done to our Poflerity. The Reverend Author of the EjTay Separation thinks fit to begin his Performance with a Citation from Mr. Shieils in his Account of the Life of

^ f tojhew Pecplehovj great

aStn Schtfmts *. Here our Author flops; but I hope it v/ili not be impertinent to tranfcribc what Mr. ShieJls fub- joinsto the above Words, “And in this Endeavour to «< condemn true Scbi/m, and to prefs true

« was not wanting ; but he thought it alfo

« to teach Peopje^ not to call every Thing Sciifm

•« ^orld calls by that Name, otherwife he

„ would have condemned all the mofl innocent Wit hdraw- tngs from the Corruptions and Defeaions of Men that >< World, even fuch Separations which

u j commanded from unequally

^ 3^ked Fellowfhipsj and thought it likewife needful to . ^ Ihew, that flanding flil] in an Adherence to the Refor- ^ m^ation and refufing to concur with the backfliding Part of a Church, tho the greateft Part, when Union and ■ ^ t^ommunion with them cannot be kept up without Sin,

‘ being induced or feduced from formerly at-

« o Ifitcgnty, when the Separation is in that which 1 ^3th commanded all her Members to

i: ^ Adis and Authority, is not

^ 1 m nor flnful Separation: He thought it alfo needful

o warn, that the Wrath of God is not far oft' from them

finful Communion, and partake o '"’ftccs Sms, which in many Cafes the Scripture fays will bring Wrath upon the People. Lev. x. 6. ifa. ix. 1(5. Ifa. xlin. 27, 28. y^r. ii. 8, 5?. Jer. xiv. 15,

?Re»w/£^’sLife, p. 107.^

( 34 )

1 6, S^r.” If the Author oi the Effay thinks it his Duty to attempt a Difcovery of the Evil of Schifm^ I hope I fhall be excufed, when I give my Rsafons why I think our Secejfion from the prefent Judicatories of the Church is both warrantable and receffary., and confequently why I cannot reckon that to be Schifm which he and many others call by that Name ; bur, unlefs the ^ueflion is clearly ftated, the Reader cannot have a diftinct View of the Cale as it ftands betwixt the prefent Judicatories of the Church and the feceding Minifters: Therefore, in order to this, I fliall firrt offer a few Ohferves concerning the Church and Church- communion ; and then I fhall examine into the Way how the Author of the Effay dates the Que- ftion, and fliew that it is mif-Jlated byhinr, and, under this Head, I may take notice of fome lax Principles with rcfpeci: to Churcli-communion, that are cither direftly affirmed, or by juft and necefl'ary Confequence flow from fome Pofirions laid down in the Ejfay, and, in the laft: Place, I ftiaii endeavour to declare the true State of the prefent Queftion.

SECT. I.

Some Ohferves concerning the Church and Church- Communion.

The Terms CTttrrf', and Church^communion, do fre¬ quently caft up in the prefent Q^ueftion : I fhall therefore offer a few Ohferves concerning them, which may be neceffary for the Reader to have in his Ey.o, it he would be informed in the Queftion betwixt the prefent fudicatories^ and thofe who have ftated a Se~ ceffton from them ; and I hope T fhall advance nothing upon this Head, '"’t what is agreeable unco our laudable Afts and Conftirur ns, and what found Presbyterians, who know their- own Principles, will readily agree unto.

I. When I fpeak of the Church in the prefent Que- flfion I do not mean the Church invifible^ but the vtfihlt I Body of Ghrift; and this may be confidered either as it is Catholt>-k and l/niverfal, or it may be taken for parti- cular Churclics.

Z. The Catholick vifthle Church conflfts of all thofe throughout the World that profefs the true Religion, anc of tbeir Children-, and is the Kingdom jf the Lord Jefu Chrift, the Houle and Family of God, out of which tber if no ordinary Polfililiry of Salvation; according to ou

( 3f )

Corf. Chap. 25. § 2. Unto this Catholick vlfible Church, the Lord Chrift, her only Head, Lord and Lawgiver, hath given the Miniftry, Oracles, and Ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the Saints in this Life to the End of the World ; according to the forefaid Chapter of out CorfeJJior^ § 3. and the Scriptures cited.

5. As there is a Catholick vifible Church, fo there are particular vijible Churches ; and thefe are either National^ Provincial, Presbyferial, or Parochial : And tho’ every par¬ ticular Church may be confidered as a vifible Body, in refpeCt of its own Members, Order and Government ; yet at the fame Time, if any particular Church, whether National or Presbyterial, is confidered with relation to the whole vifible Body of Chrift, it is only a Member thereof; that is, every particular vifible Church ftands in relation to the Catholick Body, as a Part unto the Whole : This neceflarily flows from the Unity or Onenefs of the whole vifible Body of Chrift.

4. Particular Churches, which are Members of the Ca¬ tholick Church, are merte or lefs pure, according as the Doftrine of the Gofpcl is taught and embraced, Ordi¬ nances adminiftrate, and publick Worfliip performed more or lefs purely in them ; according to our Confejfton, Chap. 25. § 4. As in the natural Body a Member may be im¬ potent and inaftive, or may be feized with a dangerous and corrupt Ulcer ; this may be the Cafe likewife of par¬ ticular Churches which are Members of the Catholick

! Body. As for Inftance, A National Church, as fhe is re- i prefented in her Judicatories, may fall into fuch a State of Inactivity, whereby fhe does not at all anfwcr the I Ends and Defigns of her Ereftion into a Church-ftate, t namely, the Glory of God, the Support and Defence of the Truths of the Gofpel, and the Edification of the Bo- idy of Chrift: Yea, a National Church may fo far de¬ cline from that Soundnefs and Purity fhe has once attained : iunto, that Ihe may be juftly reckoned an impure or corrupt ■ 'Member of the Catholick Body.

5. The Divine Warrant for National or Presbyterial * t 'Churches is not difputed by thele with whom I have im¬ mediately to do : The Reader, for his own Satisfadfion

J 'Upon the Head of National Churches, may confult the aJ judicious Mr. Durham in his Commentary on Kev. xi. 15.

[i where he will find the Queftion handled fuccindtly, and K !with a great deal of Judgment ; and, upon the Head of D Presbyterial Churches, he may confider what is faid ia'

E 2

our

( 3<5 )

bur J^orm c/" Church’-governmnet, But it may not be amifs here to obferve what is meant by a National Church : A National Church, fays Mr. Durham in the Place above- named, is the Combination of a Nation as one unto God ;

and Nations or Kingdoms are faid to become the Lord’s “ upon the Sounding of the fevcnth Trumpet, a.s former- ly they were Antichrift’s.” Formerly they belonged to Antichrift, by an outward vifible Profefuon of the Doctrines of tlie Church of Rome^ the Pra6ticc of her idolatrous Worlbip, and Subjeftion to the Papal Power and Authority ; but now they become tlie Lord’s, “ by “ the publick Profeffion of Truth in its Purity, and by “ having his publick Worlbip and Ordinances in their “ Purity, nationally among them.” The Reverend and "Worthy Nutbor of tho Defence of National Churches, pu- blilhed udnno i^zp. p. 13. deferibes a National Church thus; “ When a Nation with its Rulers and Generality of the People do agree to receive the Gofpel, profefs its “ Truths, and fubjeft themfelves unto its Ordinances ; that is, when they join and unite together in one Eccle- fiaftick Body, for maintaining the fame Syftem of Do- “ btrines, and Rules for Church-government and Wor- Ibip, as they judge moft agreeable to the Word of God.’’ As a National Church refpefts thole who are joined to¬ gether in the lame Civil Society by the Providence of God, who hath lefere determined the Bounds of our Habitation ; fo it includes their Union and Cpnjunbtion together in one Body EccJefiaflick, for the Maintenance of the fame Sy¬ ftem of Doctrines, and Rules for Church-government and Worlbip, or, v/hicb is the fame, their joint ProfelTton and Confelfion of the fame Faith, and embracing the lame Ordinances of Worlbip) and fubmitting to the fame Order and Government.

6. The pthJick Profeffion and ConfelBon of the Truths of God, is one of the peculiar Charafterificks of the Church of the living God ; fhe is defigned the Pillar andi Ground of ^ruth, i Vim, iii. 15. that is, the Church is a| publick Wjtnefs unto the Truth, a publick Keeper and| Notificr of the Truth. In the above Words there is am Allulion unto a Cullom among the Antients, who in theiii publick Places and Courts of Judgment had Pillars un-| to which the Edicts of Magirtrates were fixed, that al ; might Ice, read and know them : And by Vruth, in thi I Place, we are not only to underftand the Doftrines whic) ought to be bclicvcdj but like wife the Truth as it con

cern

( 37 )

cerns the JVorfbip that ought to be praftifed, and that Order and Government that fliould be exerciled in the Houfe of God ; all the Adis, Statutes, Ordinances and i Inftitutions of the Head and Lord of the Houfe, ought fo be plainly and clearly publifhed, efpecially by the Church-reprelentative, or by the Office-bearers of the Church in their Judicative Capacity, that they may be read, known, and embraced by all the Members of the Body. The Church ought to bear ^efiimony and Witnefs, ip a particular and exprefs Manner^ to thefe ^ruthi that are (ontroverted and oppofed by the Subtilty of Men, or the ‘ Wickednefs of Hell; this is a Debt that 2vion owes to her God, to make publick Profeffion and Confeflion of him and his Truths, Pfal. cxlvii. iz. Praife thy Gody O Zion\ or, as it is emphatically rendred in our Paraphrafe which 1 we fing, Zion, thy God confe/s. As this is a fpecial Charge : given unto her, fo it is the Church’s greateft Dignity and : Honour to confefs him ; if fhe refufes or neglefts to con'^

‘ fefs his controverted and oppofed Truths, he is exceed,.

: ingly difhonouredj and fhe does not anfwer one of the i primary Ends and Defigns of her Erection and Conrtitu- 1 tion upon this Earth. When the Lord did with an out- ' ftretchcd Arm bring the Protefient Churches out of fpiri- i tual Babylon, they came forth with a ^efiimony in their I Hands againft the Abominations of Rome ; the feveral ; Churches emitted their Confejftons of Faith, and in I them the Banner was difplayed for Truth, and the Stan- , dard of a publick Teftimony was lifted up againft the i abominable Doftrines, and the tyrannical Ufurpations of i the Church of Rome. That Harmony is beautiful which 1 v/e may obfervc amongft the feveral ConfeJJions of the re- i formed Churches, and an Evidence that there was a fpe- : cial Prefence of God with them, and alfo of a plentiful I Etfufion of the holy Spirit upon them ; it is likewife a I hopful Prefage, that v/hen the Lord turns again the Cap- i tivity of Zion, and when his holy Arm fhall give the Blow unto the Throne of the Beafl, the feveral Churches and their Watchmen Jball fee Eye to Eye, and that vojth j the Voice together they fiall fing. I conclude this Head with i ob/erving. That the 'National Church of Scotland, in her ;; reforming Times, was a confejfing Church in a peculiar i Manner; JJot only was her firjl Confejfion of Faith recei- I ved and publiflied, as the Confeffion of the Faith of the i States of Scotland, ‘with the Inhabitants of the fame profef- 'i ^ff^ChriftJefus his holy GofpeV, but this Confeffion was fi " ra-

ll

( 38 )

ratified with a folemn Oath, frequently renewed, asalCo the AbofBinations of Popery were particularly abjured. Hence all Ranks of Perfbns, and all the Members of this Church come to the Years of Dilcretion, did, by their Hands lifted up to the mod high God, became Confejfors^ in an eminent Way and Manner, of the Lord Jefus, and of his precious Truths: This folemn Profeffion and Con- fellion of the Truth was in reforming Times the out¬ ward Bond of Union and Communion, both unto Church- members among themfelves, and unto the Office-bearers of this Church in her feveral Judicatories ; but whether the Church of Scotland at this Day, in her feveral Mem¬ bers, or as fhe is reprefented in her prefent Judicatories, is a ivitnejfing and confejjlng Church, in Oppofition to the Errors and Corruptions of the prefent Age, will afterward fall under our Confideration.

7, There is an Union and Communion CaihoJick and Uni~ verfal amongji all Ckrijlians, confidered as fuch ; and an Ecclejlajlick Union and Communion amongfi Members of one "particular Organical Church, confidered as Members of that Church. This Obferve I take from Mr. Shiells on Church~ communion^ p. 25. a Book frequently cited in the EJfay. The fame worthy Author likewife obferves, that “ Orga~ nick Communion muft be on drifter Terms than Catholick “ Communion with others that are not Members of the fame Organick Church.” He adds, “ If we were in “ Mfrick or MJia, we would join with all Chridians hol- ding the fame fundamental Tedimony againd 'Je’ws^ SUurks and Pagans, tho’ not with Hereticks.” And it is plain, that all Chridians have Union and Communion to¬ gether, in fb far as they hold the fundamental Tedimony of Chridianity againd declared Infidels; in like Manner all Protedaiits, in fo far as they hold the Protedant Tedi¬ mony againd the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome. But tho’ all the Members of thcCatholick vi- fible Church, profefling the true Religion, have Union and Communion among themfelves, in their joint Profef- fion of the fame Lord, and the fame Faith, and in recei¬ ving the fame Raptifm; yet, as a confiderable Divine cx- predes himfelf *, “ The Obligation that lies upon Mem- “ bers of the fame particular vifible Church, to hold “ Communion v/ith thefe with whom they are externally joined, is not v/ithout its Bounds and Meafures ; we arc y joined together under certain Conditions.” The Condi-

ticnj

* Le Clauci'i Hid. Def. Part 3* p- 9.

( 39 )

\thtis and Means of our Union and Conjunction, in

this particular Or^ar/ick Church^ 'dVCy one Confefjion of Faith^ one Form and Order of Church-^overnmeni and Di/ciplinef one DiveBory for lVoyJhip\ or, The outward Ligament and Bond of our Union and Conjunction in this National Church, is that Syflem of pure and found DoCtrine, that Order of Government, Worfhip and Difeipline, held forth from the Word of God, in our Confejfion of Faith^ Bocks of Difeipline, Form of Church-government, and Di- reBory for Vf'orfbip, in the Profeffion and Obedience of which all Ranks of Perfons in this Land have folemnly bound and obliged themfelves to abide, hy the National Covenant of Scotland, and tlie Solemn League and Covenant of the three Nations. Whether this Bond of ourEccIe- fiartical Union is maintained by this National Church in iher prefent Judicatoiies, and confequently whether or not the Conditions of our Union and Conjunftion in oneEc- iclefiaffical Body do now fubfift, will likewife fall after- I wards under our Confideration.

SECT. 11.

^hc ^uefiion mif-flated, and fever al I an Prin^ ciples anent Church-communion niaintainedy in the Iffay.

WHEN the Commijfion of the General AlTembly did by their Sentence, as is noticed already, thvuft out four Minifters from Communion with the pre¬ fent Judicatories, the faid Minifters did at the fame Time declare a Secejfion from them, and that becaule they were Carrying on a Courfe of Defection from our Reformed and Covenanted Principles. Therefore it is a very great Mi- ftake in the Ejfay, and a mif ftating of theQueftion, when he affirms, that violent Intrufons were at that Time the thief Ground of the Complaint, p. 6. Violent Intrufions were indeed one of the Grounds of Complaint ; but many other Steps of Defeftion were likewife complained of, as appears from v/hat has been narrated in the IntroduBion and, amongft others, the Injury that was done to many important doCtrinal Truths by the ConduCt of Judicato¬ ries, when grofs Errors were brought to their Bar : And, I humbly judge, the Blow that was thereby given to the truths, held forth from the Word of God in our Con- fejfion of Faith, deferves to be reckoned amongft the chief

Grounds

(4® )

Grounds of Complaint ; tho’, as we fhall afterwards fee, this, as well as other Steps of Defection, make but very little Impreffion upon the Author of this EJfay. .From what is above oblerved, it is alfo plain, that it was noc violent Intrufions, it was not the Adc. 1732, neither was it any other particular Step of Defection, confidered ab- firaBly and by themfelves, upon which the SeceJJlon was ftated ; but a complex Courfe of Defection, both in Do- ftrine, Government and Difeipline, carried on with a high Hand by the prefent Judicatories of this Church, juftifying themfelves in their Procedure, and refufing to Ife reclaimed. Hence in our firji ^efiimony, wherein we give the Reafons at large for our Proteftation, bearing our Seceffion from the prefent Judicatories, we lay the Charge againft them f, “ Of breaking down our beautiful Pref- “ byterian Conftitution, and of purfuing fuch Meafures “ as actually corrupt, or have the moft direct Tendency “ to corrupt, the Doctrine contained in our ConfeJJion of “ Faitbj as alfb of impofing new Terms of Communion;’* and we obferve, “ That all this is done contrary to their fblemn Engagements when ordained to the holy Mini- “ ftry,,notwithftanding that the ordinary Means had been “ ufed to reclaim them, till at length Matters were come " to fuch a Height, that we were excluded from keeping up a ftanding Teftimony againft their Defections in a “ Way of Communion with them.” The above Charge is made good by Arguments taken from Matters of FaCt in the forefaid Paper; I may leave it*to the unprejudifed Reader, who has been at Pains to inform himfclf in this Controverfy, to judge, whether or not the Author of the EJfay has ever once entred into the Queftion or Argument as it is more fully ftated in the forefaid Paper.

The Author of the EJfay proceeds in his fifth Chapter to his Arguments againft Separation. Tho’ he has never ftated the Queftion concerning Seceffion, as the Cafe ftands betwixt the prelent Judicatories and the Aflbciate Pref- bytery ; yet, left he alledge that this is done in his fitft four Chapters, in the feveral Principles and Propofitions that he has laid down, I lhall briefly examine fome of his leading Principles, which, I hope to make evident, arc partly general and ambiguous, and others of them exceeding lax, and therefore, inftcad of giving us a juft View of the State of the Queftion, have a native Tendency, either to intangle and infhare his Reader, or to amufe and per¬ plex him. The

t Firft ^ef imony^ p,

The EfTay is

begun

41^

with

the following AfTertion

That Separation from a true Church is not only a great “ Milery, but a grand Sin. ” This is everywhere affir¬

med through the as p. 7, Prop, 3. “ Tho’ Sepa

“ ration from a true Church be a great Sin, QPc.'’ and very much Weight and Strefs is laid upon it. But the Author has given no determinate Senfe of the Terms true Churchy nay, they are ufed by our Author in a very general and equivocal Senfe. Our Divines, in fpeaking of the Church, tell us, That a particular vifible Church may be confidered, either as fhe is a true Church, or as fhe is a pure Church ; and, when they fpeak of a pure Church, they do not mean & perfeB Church, but a Church that, thro’ the Goodnels and Mercy of God, has attained to fnch a Meafure of Conformity to the Divine Pattern, in her Doctrine, Worfliip, Government and Difciplinc, that the Denomination of Pure may be juftly given unto her, tho’ fhe has not yet attained unto a State of Perfcdtion. Thus the learned lurretine, in the Place cited by our Author *, EJfay p. 4. diflinguilhes betwixt a true Church and a pure Church ; after giving the Marks of a true Church, he obferves, “ That fometimes Hay and Stubble “ may be built upon the Foundation, and yet a Church “ is not thereby immediately deprived of the Dignity of “ being a Church ; and, tho’ Ihe cannot be any more “ reckoned a pure Church, fhe does not therefore ceafe “ to be a true Church.” Our Preibyterian Divines have likewife obferved, That tho’ a Church may have all ihefc Things that are effential to the Being of a Church, yec there may be Ground of Seceffion from her. So Mr. Fo~ rejler, in his Book cited by our Author, affirms Jp, Evc- “ ry Separation is not finful, even from a Church which hath the ElTentials, yea, and more than the Eflenti- “ als.” And conftquently, according to this learned Man, what our Author advances, EJJay p. 4. is nowife to “ the Purpofe, when he fays, “ I humbly think, none who knows what orthodox Divines reckon effential to “ the Being of a true Church ofChrift, but will readily ‘ own all that and much more is to be found in the '* Church of Scotland- ” Our Author has never told us what orthodox Divines reckon effential to the Being of a Church ; but tho’ he fhould prove that the Church of Scotland in her prefent Judicatories has the EffesiialSf yea,

F more

* ^ur, Loc. 1§. Queft, 12, Seft, J, 4=

Dwl. 3. p. 7. ------

^ ( 4* ) ,,

■war? than the Enentials, it will not hence follow, according to Mr. Forffflery that there is no Ground of Secejfton from them. If then by a true Churchy and a Church having the Things that are reckoned ejfential to the Being of a true Churchy our Aufhor means a Church wherein fuch Do- ftrines as are abfolutely necefTary to be known and believed in order to Salvation, are held, at leaft by external vifible Profeflton ; then I affirm it isfalfey that a Separation from fuch a Church is always a great hlifcry and grand Sin ; for this Reafoti, That fuch Hay and Stubhle may be built upon the Foundation, and fuch Corruptions both in Government and Difeipline may be introduced, as may make it necef* fary and warrantable to depart from Communion with her. Thus the Church of England holds the Truth in her dcSlrinal Articles ; but, befides her Corruptions in Go¬ vernment, Worfhip and Difeipline, ffie has always declined to teflify againft many groft and hainous Errors which have been vented and taught by her Members, and which are directly contrary to her own received and approven Articles : Therefore a Secejjlon has been juftly dated from her by a confiderable Body of Dijfenters in England and Irelandy by fome of them upon all of the Grounds above- mentioned, tho’ by the Generality of them on Account of her Corruption in her Government and Worfhip. But if, by a true Churchy our Author means a Church that has attained to the Purity above-mentioned ; As this is the Meaning of the Terms true Kirky in the i8th Article of our firft ConfeJJlon of Faithy as is evident from the Marks and Characiers there given, fo our Author will never be i able to prove that they are to be found in this National Church as (he is now reprefented in her prefent Judica rories. The Characters of a true Church, mentioned in the forefaid Article of our Confeffiony hold forth unto us a pure and found Church ; a Church holding the Head, difplaying the Banner of Truth againft the Adverfaries of Truth ; a Church wherein Ecclefiaftical Difeipline is cxercifed, for the Edification, and not for the DeftruCti- on of the Body of Chrift ; and finally, a Church wherein the Seals of the Covenant are difpenfed hy fuch as are lawfully called, and authorifed by the Head and Lord of the Houfe to feed the Sheep of his Pafture. But I have made it already appear in Part, in the Poflfcript to the Letter on Sectjjftony that thefe Charafters do not agree to this National Church in her prefent Situation, and it may be more evident from what is afterwards to be advanced

The

r f 43 ) . .

The Author of the Effay proceeds in his /econd Chapter to lay down fandry Propojttiorn anent Separation. I fliall pafs his fr[l Propofition juft now. His fecond Propofition runs in the following Terms ; “ ^here maybe different «Se«- “ timenit •without Separation." This is a fair General ; Bur, when he comes to the Illuftration of if, he tells us. As long as we fee but in Part, as we think others “ fhould allow us to differ from them, we ought to for- “ bear fuch as differ from us, I mean, in Things not fun- “ damental.” 'Tht’Vcrms fundamental and not fundamen¬ tal likewife run throughout his whole Effay^ as p. i<J, 115, Qr-c. But, as he gives us no determinate Senfe or Meaning of the above Terms, fo he leaves us in the Dark about this Forbearance which he recommends, when the Difference is in Things not fundamental : Therefore I ask that he may explain himfelf about Fundamentals, and let him tell us plainly whether he confines Fundamentals un¬ to doBrinalFrnths only, and if he gives up y/ith the Foun¬ dations of Government and Order in the Edoufe of God; or if his Meaning be, that, when the Foundations of Do- dtrinc are maintained, we muft forbear a ^eftimony when the Foundations of Order and Government are fulverted. If lie or any fhall affirm, that we muft continue in Con- jun6lion with fuch, or forbear a Teftimony againft them, who are fubverting the Foundations of Government in the Houfe of God, it is plainly contrary to the Scriptures he names, Phil. iii. 16. Whereto <we have already attained, let ut •walk by the fame Rule. If we forbear to teftify in the Cafe mentioned, it is plain we depart from what we have attained nnto, and coniequently do not walk by the Rule.

‘ It is contrary to Epb. iv. 2. Forbearing one another in Love. It would be a Dilbonour done to the Head of the Church, and the greateft k6i of Unkindnefs unto fuch as bear the (Charadfer of Office-bearers, to fuffer them to raze the I Foundations of Government and Difeipline, without a ifuitable Teftimony againft them. Again, when our Au- i thor pleads for Forbearance in Things not fundamental, ‘^•fmuft no Teftimony be given againft doftrinal Errors, ex¬ cept fuch as are ftriftly fundamental? Our Divines do very Iweli obferve, That there are fbmc Truths that are like the that ly immediately upon the Foundation -, and, if Ithefc are pulled our, the whole Building falls to thcGround, as if the Foundation were removed. Likewife, is there not ia near Connexion betwixt one Divine Truth and another? % 'And, have not forac Truths that probably fome may reckon cli F a not

rot funHamerttal^ a very near Influence upon fuch as they cannot refufe zrc f undamental ? As for Inftance, How many facred Truths are connected with that of the federal Head~ flip of the firfi J dam? The Denial of this one Truth brings forth Abundance of dangerous Errors in Divinity, yea, even fuch as may ftrike at the Foundation. Our re¬ formed Divines have juftly refuted to anfwer the unrea- fonable Demand of the Papiftjy who, in their controver- lial Writings againft us, have required a Lift of rhefe Truths that we reckon fundamental, for the above Rea- Ion, viz,, the near Gonneftion of Divine Truths with one another-; and, for the very fame Reafbn, I humbly judge, that it is very dangerous to plead with our Author for a Forbearance in theie Things that are not fundamen¬ tal : Befidcs the Difficulty that there is in determining vbat thefe Truths are that are not fundamental, the For¬ bearance pled for opens a Door for Ecclcfiaftical Union and Conjunction in a Church, when fhe is letting go many important Truths which (he has once received and con- fefled. I fhall only add upon this Head, That if the Author of the Ejfay, or any others, fhall be found pick¬ ing out the Pinnings of the Building of the Lord’s Houle, or breaking down the Walls of his Vineyard, they delervc rot to be joined nvitb in building the Houfe, or keeping the Vineyard, rpore than they who are rearing up a Fa- brick without a Foundation, or pulling up the Vines ; yea, in many Cafes the former are more dangerous than the latter.

I have already made an Obferve on his third Propofl- tion. His fourth is as follows; Communion may he kept with a Churchy tho' her Faults and Corruptions be many." What is immediately added, for Illuftration of this Pro- pofition, leaves usftill in the Dark about the true State of the Queftion: “ For (^fays he) we are not to expeCf a per¬ fect or faultlefs Church here upon Earth.” But, tho* we ' arc not to expeCt a perfeCt or faultlefs Church, mufl: we therefore continue in Conjunction with fuch Judicatories as are carrying on a Courfe of Defection, and thereby in¬ volving themfelves and Church-members in many Corrup¬ tions, and at the fame Time juftifying themfelves in their Backflidings, and refufing to be reclaimed ? As this is the Queftion before us, fo the human Authorities he brings forth upon this Propofition are nowife to the Purpofe, as the Reader may eafily fee. As for the Scripture-examples of the Churches of Corinthf PergamoSf 6cc, they are fre-

( 4? )

I quently caft up by our Author; but they teach no fuch I Thing as Conjundtion with a Church in the Gircumftances I above-mentioned, as may be made more fully afterwards to appear. The Words of our ConfeJficrjy Chap. 25. Seft. 5. cited by our Author, ^he purefi Churches under I Heaven are fuhjeB both to Mixture and Error ^ are moft true ;

I and it is likewife a certain Ttuth which follows, Some have ' fo degenerated as to become no Churches of Chrif, but Syna- I gogues of Satan : But it nowife follows from any of the a- I l)ove Words of our Confeflon, that we are to continue in I Conjun&ion with a Church, when fhe degenerates from ' Truth to Error, or departs from her Purity, and involves I herfelf in Corruption.

Our Author’s ffth Propofition is, ^ho* eve are not fo fe- j parate from a true Church of Chrifi, altho' her Faults or Corruptions he many ; yet eve are obliged to feparate from all the Corruptions which may be in a Church. He adds. To feparate from Corruptions is one Thing, and to fe- ' “ parate from the Corrupted is another Thing.” In the i Illuffration of this Propofition, we have feveral warm Ex- j preflions againft the leaft Compliance with any Thing that I is finful; yet our Author’s Propofition appears to me to be I equally ambiguous with thofe I have already mentioned :

It fuppofeth a Church may be a true Church, and yet that ! her Faults and Corruptions may be many, fhe muft then I certainly be a very impure Church: But, if true Church is I taken in the large Senfe above-mentioned, I fhall notcon- 1 trovert it, that an impure Church may be called a true I Church. Therefore, if our Author had fpoke plainly u- [ pon this Propofition, he ought to have told us what kind ' of P'aults and Corruptions he means, when he tells us, We are not to feparate from a true Church, tho' her Faults and Corruptions he many. If by Faults and Corruptions he means perfonal Defeats and Blemilhes in the Walk and Converfation of ProfefTors, I fhall grant him that thefe are not Ground of Seceflion from a trye Church ; but if by Faults and Corruptions he means dangerous Errors or grois Scandals which a Church refufeth to purge out notwith- ffandingof Warnings and Admonitions given her, or De- ' feiEfions and Backflidings carried on in her Ecclefiaftick Capacity from Points of Reformation once attained unto,

I then his Propofition is what we ufe to call a Begging of the ^efiion. When he tells us. That to feparate from Corruptions is one Thing, and to feparate from the Cor¬ rupted is another ; I ask him, Gan he feparate from the

Ck)r-

I

I

Corruptions of the Church of Englandy without aepar- ting at the fame Time from Communion in Worfhip with the Members of that corrupt Church i In like Manner, Can he give the Right-hand of Fellowfhtp, by a Con- jun<tiion in Ecclefiaftical Judicatories with Intruders, miniansy or JrianSy or even with fuch as refufe to difplay the Banner of a Teftimony againft fuch Corrupters and their Corruptions, and after all lay, he is pure Can one take a Viper in his Bofom, and receive no Hurt ? Can a, Man take Ftre in his Bofonsy and his Clothes not he burnt ? or, can one go upon hot Coals y and his Feet not be burnt ? Prov. vi. 27, 28.

His fixth Prnpofition is, UFtle ive can maintain Commu¬ nion with a Church without 5/«, and while jinful Terms of Communion are not rerjuired of uSy we are never to feparate. This Propofition confills of two diftindt Propofitions, and therefore I lhall confider them diflindlly. The frjl where¬ of is, Jf^hile we can maintain Communion with a Church without SWy we are never to feparate. This is very true, as it is laid in general Terms ; but hill the Qiicllion is. If we can maintain Communion, without Sin, with the Ju¬ dicatories of a Church, carrying on a Courfc of Dcfe- feftion in their Judicative Capacity 1 This is what the Author muft maintain, if he fpeaks any Thing to the Purpole againft the feceding Brethren; and, if this istlie Meaning of his Propofition, he ftiil begs what is in Que- ftion: But, for conhrming his Propofition, he tells us, ‘‘ Mr, Rutherfoordy when fpeaking of the Popifli Ceremo- “ monies of the Church of Old Englandy fays, JVe teach

Separation from thefe Ceremonies to be lawfuly hut not from

the Churches." Even lb the feceding Brethren affirm, that Secejfion from the prefent Judicatories is lawfuly hut not from the Church of Scotland. He adds from Mr. Durham on Scandal “ When Men may unite without perfonal “ Guilt, or Acceffion to the Defeats or Guilt of others, “ there may and ought to be Union, even tho’ there be “ Failings and Defedfs of feveral Kinds in a Church.” But the Queftion is. If we can have Uni’on and Conjuncti¬ on with the prefent Judicatories, zs, Parts and Alemhers of f he fame Ecciefiaftick Body with them, without perfonal Guilty or Acceffion to their Guilt and I^fed:s ? We may be acceflbry to the Guilt of others, in mo Cafes than our Author leems to apprehend : As for Inftance, If our Union With a backfliding Party flrengthens the Hands cf the

conlunii

* On Scand. Part. 4. Chap. 7. p. m. 324,

^ 47 . "I

tcnjurB Ecclefiaftick Body in their backfliding Courfe, we are thereby acceffory to their Guilt; tho’ we fliould abhor it with our Hearts, and teftify againft it with our Mouths, vet, we are faying, ^4 Confederacy y to them to whom wc ought not to fay y yi Confederacy. Again, If our Union with a backfliding Body oSdrufts our Difcharge of thefe Duties which our Oflfice does oblige us unto, we are not only acccfl’ory to their Guilt, bur are thereby deep¬ ly involved in perfonal Guilt: Therefore the judicious Durham, in the place cited, tells us of fome Things that may juftly fear a tender Confcience from uniting ; and, amongft others, “ When fome Engagement isrequired for “ the future, which doth reftrain from any Duty called “ for, or that may afterward be called for.” And it may be made evident in its proper Place, that Union and Con- junftion with the prefent Judicatories, doth in its own Nature, tho* no exprefs Engagement fhould be required, lay Minifters under a refit aining Bond, inconfiftent with their Duty in the prefent Situation of the Church of Scot¬ land.

I proceed to the other Branch of his fixth Propofition, which is, pyhile finful 7erms of Communion are not requi¬ red of uSy vie are never to feparate. I fhall confider, toge¬ ther with this, his iith Propofition, on Account of their Affinity, “Tho* the greateft Part of a Church, Minifters “ and People, fhould make fad Defeftion, that will not “ be fufficient Ground of Separation from her, vibile no ** finful ^ermj of Communion are required of us.” Our Author in the Whole of his Reafonings pleads, that there fhould be no Separation where no finful SCerms of Commu¬ nion are required ; his Arguments againft Seceffion do fre¬ quently turn upon this. Tho’ I do not grant it, that the prefent Judicatories have not impofed finful Terms of Communion upon Minifters and Church-members ; yet I cannot admit of our Author’s Propofition, and that be- caufe Church-communion is thereby ftated upon negative ^ermsy whereas fomething pofitive is required unto warran¬ table Church-communion ; Particularly, as I obferved ia the firft Seftion, a publick ProfeJJton and Confejfion of the Truths of God, is one of the peculiar CharaBerifiicks of the Church of the Living God ; the Church unto which we may warrantably join ourfelves, ought to maintain and frofefs the true DoBrine, and the true Faith, according to the Citation given us from Mr. Gille/pie, Ejfav p. 5. and all our reformed Divines have always ftated Church-com-

munioa

II

( '48 )

munion viponfojiihe Terms, as may appear from the iSth Article of our firli Contcilion. If the moft Part of the Members of a Church fhould maintain and profefs Jvrnini- an Errors, or Arian Blafphemies, and at the fame Time do not require it of us, as a '^etm of Communion with them, to make the fame Profeflion ; muft we therefore join in Communion with them ? or, muft we own our- felves Members of the fame Ecclefiaftick Body with them ? Where is then our Confeflion of Chrift, or of the Truths of Chrift, before aperveric and wicked Generation ? The Chriftians of old were very cautious of Communion with the Erroneous; When the Atian Herefy prevailed in the fourth Century^ the Orthodox refufed Church-communion with the Arians ; the great AthanaJiuSy in the feveral Biaces where he preached, exhorted the Faithful to fhun the Fellowfhip of the ArianSy and to have Fellowfhip only with them who confefled the true Faith Yea, they would not fit in the fame Council or Synod with the Arians : Hence Paphnutius the ConfelTor, when he obfer- ved Maximus a godly and orthodox Man (as Ruffin re¬ ports) throl too much Simplicity fitting in the 5ynod of fTyre, compofed of fuch as were of the Arian Side, the laid Paphnutius went boldly into the Midft of the Synod, and faid, 'Te non patiar federe, &c. /. e. “ O MaximuSy I will not fuffer thee to fit in a Synod of Malignants, “ nor to enter amongft the Workers of Iniquity and forthwith brought him out of the Synod H. Bur, accor¬ ding unto our i\uthor*s Principles, they fhould have both kept their Scats in that Synod, and contended againft the Arian Faftion, becaufe no finful Terms of Communion were impofed upon them. Doctor Oiven obferves in his Enquiry into the OriginaJy 8cc. p. 1 79. that the Socinians, ‘‘ under a Pretence of Forbearance, Love and mutual “ Toleration, do offer us the Communion of their Churches, “ wherein there isfomewhatof Order and Difciplinecom- “ mendable ; yet fay she) it is unlawful to join in Church- “ fellowfhip or Communion with them, on Account of their pernicious Errors,” fome of which he mentions. I had Occafion to notice in the printed Miffii-vcy that a con- fiderable Body of the Dijfenters in Ireland have rejefted Confeflions of Faith, as Tefts of Orthodoxy, or Sound- nels in the Faith ; and, in their Room, the only Term of Church 'Communion which they require, is our Ac-

know-

* Socrates Hift. Ecclefiaft. Lib. 2. Cap. 19. || Ruf. Hift. Ecclefiaft. Lib. i. Cap. 17.

( 4? )

k^iowledgftienr of the Truth, in exprefs Scripture-terms j This cannot be reckoned a finful Term of Communion; and yet, in the mean Time, Arians^ Soctniatis^ Arminiant and others, who wreft the Scriptures to their own De- ftruftion, will not rcfufe to make a Gonfeflion of their Faith in cxprels Scripture-terms ; but their Senfe and Meaning of Scripture-words, is quite oppofite to the Scope and Defign of the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures : And therefore, I humbly judge, our worthy Brethren ia Ireland have Scripture and Reafon on their Side, to fup- port them in their Condud: and Praftice, when they have declared a Secejjlon from fuch who have laid afide Con- feflions of Faith, and in their aflbciating together in di- ftin6i: Presbyteries from them. I hope the Author of the ElTay will not difpute with me the Lawfulnefs and Ne- ceflity of Confeflions of Faith, as Tefts of Soundnefs in the Faith, in the prefent Situation of the Church : And, if they are warrantable and neceflary, it is not fufficient to juftify our continuing in Communion with any Church ■whatfbever, that Ihe requires not exprefly any finful Terms of Communion, unlefs there is likewife a joint Profeflion and Acknowledgment of the Truth as it is in Chrift Jefus, in Oppofition to the Errors of the Time, and to erro¬ neous Seducers : Therefore, for the above Reafons, I muft rcfufe and reject our Author’s above Principle, upon which he Jays fb much Strefs and Weight, and which he frequently repeats in his EJfay^ as lax and dangerous, and as having a Tendency to make the Church of the living God a Receptacle of the grofleft Errors, providing it is not required as a Term of Communion that fuch Errors be received and embraced by Church-members. And, from what is above obferved, the Reader may eafily per¬ ceive the Ambiguity and Deceit of our Author’s common Topicks that run through his whole EJfay^ ^hat Separa* thn from a true Churchy or where the EJfentials of a true Church are continued^ is Jinful ; and that it it unlawful to feparate from a Church which requires no Jtnful ^ermt of Communion. As for the firft Part of the laft above-men¬ tioned Propofition, ‘‘ Tho’ the greateft Part of a Church, Minifters and People, Ihould make fad Defe^ion, that “ will not be fufficient Ground of Separation from her.” For Confirmation of this Propofition, he gives us the Cafe of the Church of Sardis : And this leads me to ob- lerve, that there is an Ambiguity in the Word DefeBiov, ^ our Author makes ufe of it in his Propofition. If by

G

1

DeffBhr: he means Degeneracy in a Church from the in¬ ward Principle of Grace, or falling away from thefc Meafures and Degrees of the Exercife of Grace once at¬ tained unto by Church- members, and that in the Room thereof a dead, lifclefs and formal Profefiion prevails ; I Hiall readily grant that this cannot in itfelf be judged a fufficient Ground of Seceflion from any Church whatH)- ever, and that becaufe, where a vifible Profefiion of the Truth is kept up, the Dcadnefs or want of Livelinefs in that Profefiion, falls only under the Cognifance of the faithful and true Ifitnefs. And this was' the Cafe of the Church of Sardis : She kept up her Profefiion of the Truth, therefore it is faid file had a Name to live ; but in the mean Time the faithful and true Witnefs, who only beft knew her State, finds her to be deady or, as our Au¬ thor exprefies it, formal and hypocritical, having fallen from her former Livelinefs, Zeal and Tenderncls. But if by DefeBion, in the Propofition, is meant Degeneracy in a Church, or the Defeftion of moft Part of Miniflers and Church-members from the Doftrine, Government and Difeipline of the Lord’s Houfl*, as it has been once received, profefTed and practifed amongfi them, this is nor the Sin charged upon the Church of Sardis : She re¬ tained ftill her outward vifible Profefiion, as has been faid ; and upon this Account fire had fo a great Name amonglt the other Churches, that they reckoned her a living Church. And it is concerning Dtfeftions of the latter Kind that the Queftion at prefent is.

I fiiall leave our Author’s PropoJttionSy as they are laid in his fecond Chapter, when I have obferved, that, in the Illuftration of bis eighth Propofition, he tells us, That the i Reverend Mr. Forejier cites Mr. Durham on Scandal, ac- i kowledging, that, nhen Scandals become excejpvey ‘we may \ depart to another Congregation *. And may not I, for the ' very fame Reafon, affirm, that when Scandals become ex« ceffive in a National Church, and when the Judicatories ! refufe to purge themfelves or the Church from thefc Scan- : dais, it is lawful and necefiary to depart from Commu- i nion with them, left, by continuing with the fame Lump, ; "WC aifo he leavened therchy 2 Since our Author has men- i tioned the Reverend Mr. Forejlery I cannot but notice, i that, if he had fericufly confidcred the excellent Rcafo- I flings of that learned Man, and his ftrong Pleadings (in ' that Part of his Book which he cites) for Separation from : a corrupt Church, I do not think he would have put Pen I

to

• Ked. Jriflr. Cctf, Dial 3. p. 7, 8.

( yi )

to Paper on the Head of Separation : Tiie mofl Part of his Arguments are laid directly againft our Author’s Prin¬ ciples ; and if, in many Places of his Book, we lhall, for Conformijis^ read prtfent Judicatoriet^ he proves all that the leceding Brethren plead for. And, in the Page out irof which our Author takes his Citation, Mr. Forefier tells ^ys of feveral Cafes, in which Separation is not Schifm\ as |firtt, “ If it be from rhofe, tho’ never fo many, who arc 1“ drawing back, and in fo far as drawing back from what- li pygj. Piece of Duty and Integrity is attained ; for this “ is liill to be held fall, according to many Scripture^com- “ mands.” And this is what the feceding Minifters plead for. The fame Author has much more to excellent Pur- po!e upon this Head, which the Reader, if he pleafes, may confult at Leifure.

■ The Author of the Effay proceeds, in his third Chap-

)ter, to give Inftances of fome Things which arc juft Ground for Akurmng and Lamentation^ yet are not fufficient Caufes of Separation. His firjl Inftance is, EJfay^p. 17. “Albeit “ there be Errors, and Errors of a hainous Nature, a- |l'‘ mong fome in a Church, this is not fufficient Ground of “ Separation from that Church, nay, not tho’ thefe Er- “ rors ffiould remain uncenfured.” This Propofition, as it is laid by our Author without any Limitation or Re- ftriefcion, appears to me to be very lax and dangerous; in regard it is one of the fpecial Ends and Defigns of God’s rearing up and erefting a vifible Church for himfelf in the World, that he may be honoured and glorified by a pu- blick and open Profeffion aud Acknowledgment of the Truth; Therefore, if any particular vifible Church fltall tolerate in her Bowels Errors of a hainous Nature, ffie floes not anfwer the End and Defign of infinite Wifdom, Love and Grace in her Eredfion and Conftitution; if Er- ij rors of a hainous Nature pafs uncenfured, the Houfe of •the ih/ing G’t’iV becomes thereby a /><-’» of notorious ’thieves ind Robbers, and the Church may be a Society made up iof Infidels who deny the Refurredtion of the Dead, or of Brians, Socinianty and the very worft Hereticks. I doubt not but in the pureft Churches Error may fpring up, as alfo the Office-bearers may need to be excited and ftirred ip to their Duty ; this is the Cale with refpedt to the inftance that he gives us from the Church of Corinth : The Apoftle, in his firft Epiftle, ftirs up the Office-bearers of rhat Church to the Exercife of Difeipline againft the in- 'e^tiOHs Perfon ; he chargech like wile fome in that Church

G 2 with

( IS 5

with denying the RefurreBion of the Dead ; But then it deferves our Confideration, that from his fecond Epifile it is evident, that the Presbytery of Corinth had obeyed the j4poflolical Admonition^ and had repented of their Negligence ; they cenfttred the inceftuous Perfon, and the Cenfure had its defired EfFeft ; confequently this Church was, in her Ecclefiaftick Capacity, a reforming Church, 2 Cor. ii. 6^ 7. Chap. vii. 8, 9. I likewife conclude, that the Of¬ fice-bearers of the Church of Corinth had difeharged their Duty, either in reclaiming fuch who denied the Refur- reftion of the Dead, or by a fuitable Teftimony againft fuch obftinate Hereticks; and that becaufe of their for- rowing after a godly Manner y in the Place cited ; as alfo, be¬ caufe in his fecond Epifile he does not give the leaft Hint, that this capital Herefy which he had condemned, and charged fome of them with, was remaining amongft them j And if the Author of the Effay or any others will affirm that the Herefy remained uncenfured in Corinthy they accufe, not the Apofile Paul only, but a greatery even our Lord Jefus Chrift himfelf, who, by his Spirit (peaking in the Apoftle, gives not the leaft Reproof or Admonition on that Head in the fecond Epiftle, when they are fuppofed to flight the Warning that was given them in the frfl. From what is obferved it is evident, that our Author’s Inftance of the Church of Corinth does not prove his Pro- pofition. Our Author thinks fit (bmetimes to cite Doftor Owen : I hope he cannot juftly refufe me the fame Liber¬ ty ; and therefore I lhall fubjoin the DoBors Anfwer to the Ohjeftion againft Separation from a corrupt Church, from the Cafe of the Church of Corinthy in his Piece on Schifmy p. 265. He grants, that many Abufes may enter into the beft Churches, and that Seceffion is not to be immediately ftated without Attempts for Remedy unto fuch Dilbrders ; and this the feceding Minifters likewife yield : “ But (fays the Doctor) had the Church of Corinth con- “ tinned in the Condition before-deferibed, that notori- “ ous (candalous Sins had went unpuniflied, unreproved, Drunkennefs continued and praftifed in the Aflemblies, “ Men abiding by the Denial of the Refurredtion, fo overturning the whole Gofpel, and the Church refufing “ to do her Duty, and exercife her Authority, to caft all “ thefc diforderly Perfons, upon their Obftinacy, out of her Communion ; it had been the Duty of every Saint of God in that Church to have withdrawn from it, to ** come out from among them, and not to have been Par-

taker

'* taker of their Sins, unlels they were willing to partake '* of their Plague alfo, which upon fuch an Apoftafy “ would certainly enfue.’* Tho’ the Chapter above-men¬ tioned gives Occafion for Abundance of Remarks, yet I lhall not trouble the Reader with them ; only it deierves to be noticed, that, in all the Inftances he gives us of Grounds of Mourning and Lamentation, we have none from the Conduit of the pre/ent JudkatoYies of the Church of Scotland ; He gives his Opinion, that the A6t of AH. fembly 1732 was a bad A&, p. 21. but he nowhere rec¬ kons it a Caufe of Mournings even tho’ this A6t, albeit it is repealed, is to this very Day juftificd praftically, by the Procedure of Judicatories in this Settlement of Mini- ftcrs; and likewife he makes fome faint Accknowledg- ment, that there may be much Ground at this Day to la¬ ment over a dead Miniftry in many Places, p. 24. but he gives Vent to his Inveftives againft our reforming Pe¬ riod, particularly againft the Aflembly 1638, as p. 20, 21, The Author of the E(fay goes on, in his fourth Chapter, to inifance feveral Things reckoned juft and fufficicnt Caufes for Separation from a Church. The frft is, “ When a Church turns heretical in her Doctrine, main- “ taining fuch Do3;rines in her Standards as are everfive “ of the Foundation, utterly inconfiftent with Salvation;

or denies fuch Truths, without the Knowledge and “ Faith whereof we cannot have Life and endlefs Happi- ‘‘ nefs. ” He gives an Inftance in three fundamental Truths; I hope he does not pretend to give us a Lift of fuch Truths as are fundamental. I have already obferved, that the Queftion about Foundation-truths is a very im¬ portant one : All Divine Truths arc fo clofly linked to¬ gether, that it is not eafy to determine the Queftion about Doftrines everfive of the Foundation. I may tranfcribe, to this Purpofe, fome emphatick Words of the Author of the Fulfilling of the Scriptures, Append, p. 511, 512.

Truths, comparatively fmall, may be great in their “ Scafon, when they are the Word of His Patience ; yea, “ we may fay, the lefler it feems, and of mean Value “ with many, it makes the Chriftian’s Adherence thereto “ a greater Teftimony. It is clear what a clofe Concate- “ nation there is amongft the Truths of God held forth in the Scripture, that one Part thereof cannot be reached ** without a fpecial Prejudice to the Whole; yea, it may be faid, every Corruption of the Truth hath an Aim ‘‘ at the very Soul of Religion, by a direft Tendency

thereto.**.

4(

( 54 )

thereto.*' But whereas our Author affirms in his above Propofition, that there is Ground of Separation from a Church, w'hen fhe maintains fuch Doilrines in her Stan¬ dards as are everfivc of the Foundation ; There is a fiion that comes UjX)n the Field in the prefent Difpute, and that is, When the publick Standards of a Church are found, yet Errors ftriking at the Foundation, and everfive of that Scheme of Dodfrmc contained in her Cotifejpon of Faith^ are brought to the Bar of her fudicatoriesy but they refufe to cozdemti them as contrary to her Standards, and give no fuitable Feflimsriy againft them ; W'^hether or not, in this Cafe, that Church is holding the P'oundation ? And,

I am afraid, this will be found to be the State of Matters with the Judicatories of this Church; and, if this is the Cafe, there is as much Ground for Scceflon from them, as if Doftrines everfivc of the Foundation were maintained in her Standards. A Confeffion of Faith is of no more Ufe as a Teft of Soundnefs in tfic Faith in any Church, yea, it is ftript of its principal Ufe and Dcfign, if Errors are vented and maintained everfivc of the Scripture-do-’ fl:rines contained therein, and if the Judicatories of a Church refufe to declare fo much.

But tho’ the Author of the EJf ay lays down the above Propofition, That there is Ground of Separation from 3' Church, when Ihe maintains fuch Dodtrines in her Stan¬ dards as are everfivc of the Foundation ; yet we are at a ‘ Lofs to know what his real Sentiments upon this Head are. As the Title of his Chapter runs, he may be conftrud:cd to be taking upon him the Parc of an Htfioriarty reporting feveral Things which are reckoned juft and fufficient Caufcs for Separation. They arc reckoned^ fays he ; But, by whom;’ He does not fay exprefly that he himfelf reckons them ; and accordingly I find him once and again limiting and reftridfing the above Propofition, as p. i6. “ When “ Defedtion from the Truth is made in Fundamentals, and “ the Church’s Standards of Dodfrine are corrupted, and “ <we required to approve thereof/' And, p. 115. fpeaking " cf this National Church, he fays, “ If it was true that her

declared or profefled Dodtrine is corrupt in fundamen-

tal Points, and lue required to approve thereofy I fliould ‘‘ think it fufficient Ground of Separation.” From the above Inftances, this Juthor appears to me to be fo amhi- guouSy that it is a Difficulty where to fix him. Yet from the Paflages I have cited it appears very plain, that, in order to ttate a Scccfiion from a Church on Account of

her

I her Errors in Doftrine, 77;r«e Things mnd Concur ;

The Errors muft be of Jiich a Nature as are utterly in, i confident with Salvation, idly. They muft be maintained by a Church in her Standards ; yea, tho’ fucb grofs Errors fhould be maintained in her Standards, yet we muft not flare a Seceflion from her, unlefs, in the third Place, fiie I requite us to approve thereof. At this Rate, Conjunction ought to be maintained, tho’ flie fliould make a publick and open Prof«Jfion of Errors utterly inconfiftent with Sal¬ vation, if flie does not require it of her fevcral Members 1 that they approve thereof If this is not to eftablifh a I profane Syncretifm or Coalition with the Adverfaries of ; Truth, condemned by the primitive Church, and by all I reformed Divines, let the unprejudifed World judge. Ac- cording to our Author’s Principles, he cannot flare a Se- ; ceflion from the Church of Rome on Account of her do- ; Ctrinal Errors, if fhe is pleafed to give him fucb an In¬ dulgence as not to require him to approve of the fame ;

; and the laft Age did afford Inrtances of the Popifh Party, their being willing to compromife Matters with the Re¬ formed after fucb a Manner * : Yea, according to out , Author’s Principles, there was no Ground of Seceflion from Rome on Account of her grofs doClrinal Errors bc- . fore the Council of Trent, or at leaft before the third La.’- teran Council, that condemned the DoCtrine of the ^lli- genfes, who then witnefled for the Truth in a Way of Se- ceffion from the Church of Rome.

The fecond Inftance, which he fays is reckoned fufficient Ground of Separation from a Church, is Idolatry in Wor- fhip. In his Illuftration of this, he tells us, p. 27. “ I am of their Opinion, who think we are to feparatefrom all “ falfe and corrupt Worfliip in any Church, tho’ every Corruption in Worfhip is not fufficient Ground of Se- ** paration.” Tho’ he thinks .fit to deliver his own Opi¬ nion in this Place, yet I am at a Lofs to underftand how both Parts of his above AfTertion can hang together. He tells us, We are to feparatc from all falfe and corrupt Worfhip; and yet he fays, Every Corruption in Wor¬ fliip is not Ground of Separation. I wifh he had told us what is that Corruption in Worfhip that falls not under the Univerfal, JU falfe and corrupt H'orjhip ; or that he had told us what Corruption there is in the Worfhip of God, which he judges is not a fufficient Ground of Separation ; For my Parc, I humbly think it may be made evident,

chat,

* Turret, de Neceff. Secejf. Difput. 5ta. Seft, 34.

.( 5 ^ ) .

tliaf, wherever there is any Corruption in the Worfhip of God, it is a fufficient Ground of Separation from Com¬ munion with the Worfhippers in their Worlhip, in cafe they refule to reform.

The third Inftance he gives of what is reckoned Ground of Seceflion, is laid in the following Manner ; “ Tyranny “ in the Government of a Church is reckoned juft Ground

of Separation by fome,” I am forry that I have Occa- flon fo often to notice the amhiguoui Manner in which this Author delivers hirafelf upon fuch a weighty and impor¬ tant Subjeft. He fays, 'Tyranny y^c, is reckoned by /owze; But, by whom ? He ftiould have told us plainly, whether or not he himfejf reckons it a juft Ground of Separation from a Church: This Way of treating fuch a grave Sub- je6t, has a native Tendency to amufe or intangle his un¬ thinking and unlearned Reader. When he tells us. Ty¬ ranny is reckoned by fome a juft Ground of Separation ; perhaps it is only by fome two or three Divinety who have not duly confidered the Subjeft : And yet Mr. Shiellsy on Church- communion y mentions Tyranny of Government as one of the general Grounds of Separation, commonly al¬ lowed by all f. It is true, our Author gives us an Inftance of one confiderable Divine, viz. *furretiney who mentions Tyranny in Government as a Ground of Separation : He has not direfted us to the Place, neither in this nor in the former Page where he cites Turretine ; but the Reader will find the Paflages he cites, in his Difpute upon the Necejpty of Seceffton from the Church of Rome i|. Our Author ob- ferves, Thar, according to Turretiney “ it is not every “ Diforder in the Government of a Church which is “ Ground of Separation, but moft cruel Tyranny, and “ intolerable Perfecution both of Soul and Body.” But, as that learned Divine in the Place cited ftates the Queftion concerning Seceflion from the Church of Romey he lets his Argument in as ftrong Light as Matter of Fa6t could fu{>- port the fame; for it is Truth, that the Church of Rome ■was guilty of cruel Tyranny, and intolerable Perfecution. But, to fpeak plain upon this Head, our reformed Divines allow Tyranny in Government to be a Ground of Seceflion from a Church, tho’ fhe has not arrived at the Height of Roman Cruelty and Perfecution j therefore Mr. Shielh in the Place cited, when he mentions Tyranny of Govern¬ ment, which he fays is commonly allowed by all to be one

of

■f On Church-communiony p. 1 8.

11 Difput. ^ Nsceff. Secejf. Queft, i. Sed. 12,

( >7 ) . .

oF tFie Grounds of Separarion, he explains it 'oF ^yranfifi encroaching upon the Right of AdminilFration, and the Exercife of it then and there.” Bur, that the Queftioti upon the fdcad of Tyranny may he more clearly ftated, I muft obferve, That a Church may be faid to be tyrannical in her Government, either when the Form and Model of her Government is tyrannical, or when flie is tyrannical in the Jdminifiration of her Government. Our Presbyte¬ rian Divines do generally affirm, that Dioceftan Epifcopacy is a tyrannical Form and Model of Government: And rho’ Prelacy was not fo tyrannical in its Form and Model before the Year 1638, as when it was re-introduced into this Church in the Year 1662, as I fhall afterwards fhew ; yet a SecefRon was ftated by faithful and eminent Minifters,

, even from that Form and Model of Prelacy that obtained : before the Year i6;8. And it is what cannot be refufed, that the Bulk and Body of Presbyterians in Scotland did Ifate a Seceflton upon that Form and Model of Prelatick Government that was eftablifhed in the Year 1662; and their refufing Communion with the Prelatick Church of Scotland^ was made a Handle of for that violent Perlecu- ; tion that was railed againft them. But, according to our I Author’s Way of ftattng the Cafe anent Tyranny in Go- • vernment, unlcfs there is mojl cruel and habitual Tyrannyi with intolerable Perfecution of Soul or Body, there is no ' Ground of Seceffion from a Church on the Head of Ty- 5 fanny ; yea further, according to our Author’s Way of I reafoning, it appears to me, that there was no Ground of : Seceffion from the Prelatick Church of Scotland purely ■ upon her Form and Model of Government ; at leaft, that i Church-members might have entertained Communion irt I Worfhip v/ith that Church : Efpecially when it is confi- f dered, that, during the late Times of Prelacy, the Cere- : monies of the Church of England had no Place in her Worfhip.

Again, a Church may be faid to be tyrannical in her i Government, when the j4dminifivation of her Government 1 is tyrannical : As for Inftance, Tho’ Presbyterian Church- .'government, as to its Form and Model, is Divine', yet ifj I under the Shadow of the faid Government, a lordly and rnagifierial Power is exercifed over the Heritage of God, if the Flock of Chrift are ruled with Rigour, if the Keys of Government and Difeipline arc perverted ; in theft; Cafes the Adminifiration is tyrannical, and the Government i is not a Whit better than if its Form and Model were

H Pr*-

I

( 58 ^

Prelatkal. We ufe to fay, Corrupth optimi pejfima. This tyrannical Adminiftration of the Government lays a juft Foundation for Seceflion from Church-judi¬ catories, who are walking quire contrary to the End and Defign of their Erection and Conftitution in the Church, and who thereby forfeit their Claim to the Exercife of the Keys of Government and Difeipline in the Houfe of God ; And that this is the State of Matters in the prefent Judicatories, may be made evident afterwards. I fliall only add further, for clearing this Head, That it is not Sejfionsy PresbyterieSy Synods and General Jjfembliesy that make us truly a Presbyterian Churchy but the free Jccefs of Church- members with their Grievances unto thefe Courts; and i\i^Exercife of Adinijlerial Power a.nd Authority in them, for the Edification of the Body of Chrift, for the Redrefs of their Grievances, for the Removal of Offences whereby the Flock of Chrift may be hurt or ftumbled, for pre~ ferving the Inftiturions of Chrift in their Purity, for main¬ taining that Liberty wherewith Chrift hath made his Peo¬ ple free, and for purging the Church of fuch Errors or erroneous Perfons whereby the whole Body is in Danger to be leavened. If Power and Authority is not exercifed in the faid Judicatories, for thefe and the like valuable Ends, to the Honour and Glory of the Head of the Church ; or if it is exercifed by the Judicatories of a Church unto quite contrary Ends and Purpofes ; What remains but a Prelatick Government, under a Presbyterian Name and Shadow ?

The fourth Inftance given in the Ejfay is concerning the Intrufon of Minifters, p. 29. “ Some, fays hey make •* the Intrufion of Minifters upon Chriftian Congregations •* a Ground of Separation.” He owns, that the Charge of violent Intrufions “ is a Charge from which the Church

of Scotland can leaft be vindicated of any Thing laid to her Charge fince the Revolution, confidering how many “ Settlements have been made when Congregations “ were reclaiming fince the Aft reftoring Patronages

Anno 1712.” p. 30, What he adds concerning the Stop that has been put to fuch violent Settlements, 1 fhall af¬ terwards confider. But he further adds, “ Whatever “ Ground there is for Lamentation, there is no fufficienc •* Ground for Separation from the Church of Scotland ** Qotwithftanding of fuch Intrufions, whatever fbme par- ** dcular Congregations may have to fay for vindicating ^ their Praftice in not attending upon the Miniftry of

“ fuch .

( 59 .)

** fuch as are violently thruft in upon them.” Here a* gain our Author perverts the true State of the Queftion, in regard the prefent Judicatories of this National Church muft be confidered as carrying on, authorifing and fup- porting violent Settlements, notwithlfanding of manifold : Remonftrances againft their Conduft and Practice, both by Miniftcrs and other Church-members: And confe- qucntly the Queftion is, Whether or not this, with other ■ Adts of Tyranny in the Adminiftration that may be af¬ terwards named, juftly infer that the prefent Judicatories : are fo tyrannical in their Government, that our Seceflion from them is neceflary and warrantable ? Our Author en- [ dcavours to imprefs his Readers with his great Zeal a- I gainft violent Intrufions ; yet he thinks fit to make an Jpology for his Brethren that are aftive in carrying on vio- , lent Settlements, when he tells us, p. 32. “Tho’ I am not ' “ to vindicate them, yet fundry of our Brethren who have I ‘‘ gone Lengths in appearing for Candidates having Pre- “ ientations, which others cannot but condemn, have > “ declared. Was it not for the Strait the Church is in from I “ the Grievance of Patronage, which they profefs is a I “ Grievance to them as well as others, they had been as ' “ averfe from countenancing fuch Settlements as any.” It I is a very mean Jpology for them, to tell the World that I the Grievance of Patronage {that is, the Civil Law eftabli- ’ fhing Patronages) has led them to counteraH the Laws of I the only Lord and Lawgiver of Zion. If our Author I had dealt faithfully with his Brethren, and according to : the great Zeal that he profefl'es, he ought plainly to have I told them that they fhould rather fttffer than Jin; But, that 1 he may dill extenuate their Sin, he likewife adds, “ They “ affirm, the gravaminous Law of Patronages conftrained “ our Church-judicatories, even in the beft and pureft Times of Reformation, to the like Meafures.” Our Author muft needs have a good deal of Affurance, when he reports, without a juft Remark upon it, that his intru¬ ding Brethren affirm, that the Judicatories of this Church in her reforming Times purfued the like Meafures with the I prefent Judicatories in the Settlement of Minifters. This 1 is a molt injurious Refleftion upon them. Can bis Bre¬ thren give one Angle Inftance of their purfuing the like Meafures with the Affembly 1737, in their Ad: and Sen¬ tence anent the Settlement of the Parifh of Denny ? befides many other particular Inftances that might be given. Or, can our Author or his Brethren give any Inftance of ag-

H z grieved

( ■'5° ) .

grieved and opprefled Congregations coming before mif General Aflemblies in our reforming Times, with a loud Cry of Oppreflion on the account of the violent Settle¬ ment of Minifters amongft them? But, how many Inftan- ces have we bad of this kind before our National Affera- blies within thefe tv/enty Years bypaft ? Yet he tells us. They affirm, that our Church-judicatories in our pureft Times of Reformation took the like Meafures with the prefent ; and, if it is not Truth which they affirm j what End can our Author propofe to himfelf by reporting it in his EBay without a jull Remark upon it, unlefs it is that he may extenuate their Sin ?

Upon this Head of the Intrufion of Minifters, the Bffiay obferves, p. 29. “ That fundry of the Diflenters ** from the Church of England have judged the Want of ‘‘ a free Choice in the Eleftion of their own Paftors, is enough to vindicate them in feparating from the Com- munion of that Church.” But it feems he has not found a Scots Presbyterian Divine that makes the Intrufion of Minifters a Ground of Separation. Since our Author thinks fit to deal fo much in Authorities, I fhall give him two Teftimonies, upon this Head, from an Author whom be juflly commends, i/iz. Mr. Shiells on Church-communion^ who, p. 18. mentions “ four general Grounds of Separa- ®‘ ration commonly allowed by all, Here/y in DoHrine, Ido- latry or Breach of the Second Command in the Matter and Manner of Worlhip,7Ktr«j?oM or Tyranny of Govern- “ ment, and Schifm or a divided Government.” This wor¬ thy Author is pleading for Communion with the Miniftry about the Time of the Revolution^ and he applies the four general Grounds in the following Manner ; Speaking of the Minifters at that Time, he fays, “ For as none can “ doubt their Right to adminiftrate all Ordinances, fb there is none of thefe Ordinances perverted by them ei- ther in Matter or Manner, fince they are not erroneous in Doftrinc, nor do break the Second Commandment in Worfhip, nor Intruders or ^yrartnicaly nor fehifma- tical in Difeipline or Government.” I heartily wifti that we could fay as much concerning the prefent Miniftry and Judicatories of this Church. From the above Words it is plain, that Intruders^ and Tyrannical, are one and the fame with Mr. Shiells ; as alfb, that Intrufion, or Tyranny in Government, when it prevails in a Church, is a Ground of Sefaration commonly allowed by all. Likewife, the In- insfioa of Minifters was one of the Grounds upon which a

( 6i )

SeceJJtofj was dated from the PreJatick Church of Scotland by the Body of Presbyterians^ as the fame Author fhews at Length, Hind-let-loofey p. 256, 237, &Pc. to which I refer the Reader, When the Author of the EJfay^ in the Words cited above, teems to allow that particular Congregations have fomerhing to fay for refufing to fubmit to the Mini- ftry of fuch as are intruded upon them, I humbly judge Minifters may have as much to fay, who refufe Commu¬ nion with fuch Judicatories as obtrude Minifters upon Chriftian Congregations ; thiere is as much Reafon on the one Side, as the other ; Yea, there may be more Reafon for refufing Communion with the Judicatories, if there is any Weight in what our Author very well knows. In¬ truders have fometimes pled in their own Defence, that they muft fubmit to the Authority, and obey the Sentences of Judicatories; and, if the Judicatories did not intrude Minifters upon Congregations, Intrufions could not take Place by any other Means whatfoever.

His next Inftance of a Ground of Separation is. When Minifters are fcandalcus in Life and Converfation. And here I have no Difference with him; For he not only tells us what fame affirm^ and what fame think y but declares plainly, that he is much of their Opinion, who think, ‘‘ fuch as are evidently Icandalous may be withdrawn from, “ albeit, through the Iniquity of the Times, they fhould “ not be cenfured by a Church-judicatory when com- “ plained of.”

The laft Inftance he gives, of what is reckoned Ground of Separation, is, “ The impofing the leaft finful Term of

Communion upon us.” Here again he delivers himfelf plainly; for he owns, that this is Ground of Separation from a Church. He adds, “ Some have been of Opinion, “ that this is the only Ground that can juftify Separation “ from a Church of Chrift.” And here, at the Foot of the Page, he cites Claud's Defence of the Reformation^ but he cites no Place of that Book ; And, if he pleafes to con- fult it, he will find other Grounds of Separation advan¬ ced ; as for Inftance, Claud affirms, “That when Cor- “ ruprion fpreads over all the Body {viz. of the Mkii- “ ftry) in fuch a Manner, and to that Degree, that the “ Safety of the Faithful cannot longer fubfift under the “ Conduct of thefe Perfons, and that there is no Hope

among them of any Amendment, then the only Reme- “ dy that remains is to feparate from them ; and it would “ be fo far from either violating the Order of God, or

oppo-

( )

oppofing the Miniftry that he had ict up, that it would be on the contrary to deliver it, as much as in us lay, “ out of the Hands of thofe who have invaded it, and to draw it out of that Opprcffton to which they have rc- “ duced it: This Separation therefore only regards thofe “ Perfons who were unlawfully called to the Miniftry, and who abufod it againft God and his Church And here, by the by, our Author may obforve a famous re¬ formed Divine acknowledging the Juftice of Separation from thofe who are unla^wfully called to the Miniftry ; And I leave it to himfelf to judge, if Intruders are lav;^ fully called to the Miniftry ; as alfo, whether or not the Minifterial Power is abufed againft God and his Church, when Men are intruded upon diftenting and reclaiming Congregations, who are willing to have a Gofpel-minifter fettled amongft them. He cites alfo, at the Foot of his Page, Bifhop Burnetts Hiftory of his own Time : Bur he might have been afhamed to have mentioned one who is known to be abundantly lax in his Principles about Church- communion; and efpecially, when, in the Place to which our Author direfts us, the Bifhop is reafoning againft Se¬ paration from the Church of Ersgtand. Our Author pro¬ ceeds, p. 57, to give fome particular Inftances of finful Terms of Communion : He names feven^ wherein I agree with him ; only I crave Leave to exprefs his Seventh in the following Manner, namely. If cur Communion or Con" junBion with any particular Church binds us up or refrains Sts from the Difeharge of any Duty which our Station^ Office and Charadery by the Command of God^ does oblige us untOf whether the Refraint that is laid upon us be explicite or mare implicite. This 1 have illuftrate already ; and I hope our Author cannot reafonably refufe that it makes Conjunction with any particular Church equally finful with thefo In¬ ftances that are given by himfelf of finful Terms of Com^ munion. 1 proceed now to

SECT.

*

• /ft/?. Def. Part 3. p. 17, 18. Engl Tranfl.

( ^3 )

SECT. III.

Wherein the State cf the ^lefilon concerning Secefjion from the prcfent judicatories is de¬ clared.

TH E Author of the EfTay diverts himfelf a little with his Criticifms upon the Secejftoriy p. 193. when he tells us, The ordinary and common Senfe thereof is “ a local Removing^ upon lome urgent law- ‘‘ ful Occafion, Spiritual or Temporal, to another or bet- “ tcr-conftitute Church.” Tho’ the worthy Divine whom he cites tells us, That the Word Secejfion may be taken in this Senfe; yet he cannot but know, that our Divines have made ufe of this Term to exprefs a Departure from Com¬ munion with a particular vifible Church, either in Whole or in Parr, upon juft and weighty Grounds, even when there is no local Removing^ or Changing of one’s Habitation : Hence ^mretine^ in his Dijfertation concerning the Ne- ceffity of Separation from the Church of Romcy makes ftill ule of the Term Secejfion^ tho’ he knew very well that the Protcftants in France and Germany^ and other Popilh Countries, never removed from their Habitations, except when Force and Violence drove them from them. Our Au« thor adds, “ They (the feceding Minifters) have not fepa- “ rated locally, feeing they ftill inhabit the fame Manlcs, “ as well as enjoy the fame Benefices.” It (eems the above Obferve upon the Term Secejfiori is made, that he may vent (bmewhat of a Grudge that we have a peaceable Re- fidence in our fcveral Congregations to which we bear a paftoral Relation, and that we enjoy the Benefices to which we have a juft Claim by vertue of our Office and Relation to them. Next, he tells us. The Word Secejpon is ibme- times taken for a Revolt and Mutiny. He does not alledge any Authority for this Senfe and Meaning of the Word, and I do not know if he can ; but he is pleafed to add^ “ Many think they have made a Seceffion in that Refped.** Here he difeovers a Difpofition to hold and treat us as Re* voJters and Mutineer! ; but I lhall not trouble the Reader further with his idle Criticifms in handling fuch an im¬ portant Subject. Only I cannot but here oblcrve, that it may be reafonably prefumed that our Author has learned the above Criticifm from fbme DoSor of the Church of or at leaft from fome Author whole Name for

Shame

f ^4 )

Shame he behoved to conceal ; and what makes this Con- jefture more probable is, that Mr. Claud reports, that the Doctors of the Church of Rome treated our worthy Re¬ formers after the fame Manner : His Words are, “They accufe them (jviz. our Reformers) to have been Rebels “ and Schifmaticks, who lifted themfelves up againft the “ Authority of their Mother the Church, and broke the “ facred Bond of the Chriftian Communion*.” Which is the fame upon the Matter with what our Author has ad¬ vanced as above. Bur, whatever be in this, fare it was fome urgent Neceflity that brought him upon the Field, without a ‘uijihle Second^ if not two to fupport him, feeing he feldom takes the Field without two or three fuch y4t~ tendatJts, tho’ frequently prejfed into his Service. But I proceed to lay down Ibme neceflary Ob/erves and Di(lin» Hions, for laying open the true State of the Queftion.

ifty There is a Difference betwixt different Sentiments amongft the Members of a Church, upon fome particular Points that have never been a Part or Branch of Tefti- mony in that Church, or that were never adopted in any of her publick Acts and Conftitutions ; and fuch Princi¬ ples and Praffices maintained and juftified, which are in themfelves a Departure or Backfliding from fome Part or Branch of what has been received and adopted as a Point of Confeflion and Teftimony in a Church. The feceding Brethren are far from (fating their SeceflSon upon every Difference of Sentiments. He tells us upon his firft Pro- pofition, “ That fome would, and do, excommunicate all that are not exactly of their Mind.” Who thefe fome are, our Author belt knows. The Inlfance that he gives of the Giant Procrujles^ p. 6. has more Levity in it than becomes the Gravity of the Subject. But as the above is none of the Principles of the feceding Minifters (for they know very well that the beft of Men may have different Sentiments) fo the Queftion before us is concerning fucb Principles or PraBices as may be juftly reckoned a Depar¬ ture from what has been Matter of Confeflion and Tefti¬ mony in this particular National Church.

zdly. There is a vaft Difference betwixt Evils and Er¬ rors that a Church mzy fall into, and thefe Evils jufiifiedy and continued in, after the ordinary Means have been ufed to reclaim a Church or the Judicatories thereof. The feceding Minifters have not ftated their Scceflion upon any particular Evils lately fprung up in this National

Churefr

* C/afiffs Hill. Dcf. Part i. p. 2.

ChOrch, and which the Judicatories Hiew a Willingnefs to reform, or bear Teirimony againft, in tiicir judicaxive Capacity ; but upon fuch Kvils as have been oftev com¬ plained of, and remonftrare againft ; yea, and after all the ordinary Means have been uled to bring the Judicatories to the faithful Dilcharge of their Duty, till at length feme Minifters were thruft out from the prefent Judicatories, merely on account of their contending in a Way of Com¬ munion againft the forefaid Evils, as is more fully fliown ,a the htroduBion.

It is one Thing to depart from the Comrnitnim of a CLunby and another Thing to depart from Communion With a Party in that Church, tho’ the greateft Number, who are carrying on a Courfe of Defcdlion and Back- Hiding. The feceding Brethren have always refufed, and i hey do upon good Grounds refufe, that they have made my Secejfion from the Church of Scotland. If the Church Df Scotland is confidered as her Principles are held forth roni the Word of God, in her Confeffton of Faithy Lar- rer at)d Shorter CatechifmSy Form of Church -gevernment^ DireBory for Ji^orjhipy and other laudable Adts and Con- b’tutions of this National Church; the feceding Minifters rave openly declared and acknowledged their j^dhe^ \''tnce to all thefe, in their judicial ASl and Tefiimony ; pr, if her Principles are confidered, as they are folemnly ♦vouched and fworn to the National Covenant of Scotland^ i'md the Solemn League and Covenant of the three Nati- pns, they have alfb in like Manner, in their forefaid hdL ind Teftimony, acknowledged the inviolable Obligation )f thefe folemn Oaths and Covenants: Bur, if the Church i )f Scotland is confidered as reprefented in her prefent Judi- atoriejy they own that they have declared a Scceflion from hem, and that they cannot now adt in Conjundtion with hem, as Members of the fame Ecclefiafticai Body ; and that recaule they are carrying on a Courfe of Defedtion and Backfliding from our covenanted Uniformity in Dodtrine, Worfhip, Government and Diftipline, notwithftanding tf manifold Reprefentations and Remonftrances made be- iibre them unto the contrary. Therefore the Queftion ; tnder our Confideration is not concerning Secejfion from ! be Church of Scctlandy but concerning Secejfion from the • refent Judicatories of this National Church.

t^tblyy There is a vaft Difference betwixt a Church pur- uing after ReformattoHy and a Church declining and back- f ^iding from her Reformation-purity. In the former Cafe,

I when

( )

when a Church is uhng her Endeavours to reform what is wrong, and to redrel's what is gravaminous, tho* through Miftake (he may take fome wrong Steps in her Adminiftration, yet it would be very unreafbnable to de¬ part from her Communion; but in the Cafe, when- thc prevailing Courfe and Management of the Judicatories of a Church is towards Backjliding from Reformation-pu¬ rity once attained unto, every wrong Step that is taken has a native Tendency towards ftrengthning and accele- rarting the general Courfe of Apoftafy and Backfliding. Tho’ the EfTay looks upon this Diftinftion as of no Weight, yet I find Mr. Shiells^ in his ^reatife on Church^ communion, lays very much Strefs upon it : Therefore, p, 25, 24. of that Book, he lays down the very fame Di- ftinftion; and when he comes to ftate the Queftion, p. 27. he ffates it in the following Manner, according to his Views of the Church of Scotland at that Time ; “ The Queftion (fays he) is nor. Whether we can hold Uni- “ on or Communion with thole Minifters, tho’ found in “ Principles, who yet are carrying on Courfes of Com- “ pliances and Defections, involving all in Sin that have “ Communion with them, in a broken and declining Stare “ of the Church ? but the Queftion is. Whether we can “ have Communion and Union with thefe that did indeed ** comply with the wicked Eftablifhments of the Time, ' “ and were involved in the Defections of the Church, I “ but nom are carrying on Reformation in DoCtrine, Wor- fhip, Difcipline and Government, according to the ** Inftitutions of Chrift, and the Conftitutions of this “ Church in former Times? “ The fame excellent Perfon “ is yet more plain, when he tells us, p. 15. Only we “ plead for Union with Presbyterian Minifters promoting Reformation in DoCtrine, Worfliip, Difcipline and “ Government, and oppofing Popery, Prelacy, Eraftia- ** nifm, SeCtarianifm, and whatfoever is contrary to (bund “ Doctrine and the Power of Godlinefs, according to the Word of God, our Confejjlon of Faith, and Cove* “ nants.” I humbly judge, the feceding Minifters may be fatisfied to have their Caufe examined and tried accor¬ ding to the above Way and Manner in which Mr. ShielU ffates the Queftion. Our Author thinks fit to tell us, p. 1 95. “ That he knows the above Treatife was recommended bj our dear Brother the Reverend Mr. Ebenez^er Erskint ** to fome of his Parifhoners when at Portmoak; and (fayi ** he) 1 wilh all our Separarifts and others alfo may rear

c<

4(

/ <57 >

It ferioufly, licarkning to his folid Reafbns againft Sepa¬ ration. ” Whether our Author fpeaks of the Reve¬ rend Mr. Erskire in the above Manner, in a Way of Jeft, or out of true Regard unto him, I fliall leave it to the Reader to judge ; only I muft obferve, that he had good Reafon to recommend Mr. on Church-communion,

and I wifh our Author and others would fcrioufly confider his folid Reafons and Conclufions againft Union and Con¬ junction with fuch as are carrying on a Courfe of Defecti¬ on from our reformed and covenanted Principles.

It is one Thing to date a Seceflion from a Church on account of perfonal Blem/Jhej and DefeCtsin the Walk and Converfation of her Members, and another Thing to ftate Seceflion from a Church on account of a Courfe of DtfeBion from Steps of Reformation once attained un¬ to, carried on by her Judicatories in their judicative Ca¬ pacity, notwithftanding of Remonftrances againft fuch Backflidings and Declinings: The feceding Miniflers have never ftated their Seceflion upon the formety but they do it upon the latter. The Effay^ p. \6. gives us the fol¬ lowing Propofition out of Mr. Rutherfoord'a Due Eighty p. 25?. “ There is no juft Caufe to leave a lefs clean Church, “ if it be a true Church, and go to a purer and cleaner.” And he apprehends that this makes fb much for him, that he puts it in the Front of the Paper which he calls his Jbort Vindication ; but any who have read that Book of Mr. Rutherfoord'Sy will eafily fee, that he reafons againft fuch who plead for the Neceflity of pojltive Evidema and Signs of Regeneration in order to Church-communion, and who ftate Seceflion from a Church on account of perfonal De« fedfs and Blemifhes in the Walk and Converfation of Church-members : But as our Seceflion is not ftated upon any fuch Principles, fo this Propofition of Mr. Ruther^ foord's is not at* all to the Purpofe. As for Inftance, If any fhould feparate from the Parochial Church of Kinglaffte^ and join themfelves unto another which they apprehended if( to be more pure and clean, merely becaufe the moft Part iji of the Members of the laid Church may want pojitive E- of 'vidences and Signs of Regeneration, I doubt not but all the ;j| ifeceding Brethren would condemn them, and would readi- ^ ily declare themfelves of the fame Mind with Mr. Rutber- il) foord in his Due Right. And as it is well exprefled by him,in J his laft printed Letter diredted to fbme Profeflors in Jher- [fdeeny who were carried away into fuch Extremes; “ If you 4 “ exclude all Non-converts from the vifible City of God,in

I z

‘‘ which

1

. )

which daily, Multitudes in Scotland^m all the fourQuarterj of the Laud, above whatever our Fathers faw, throng into Ghrift ; fhall they not be left to the Lions and wild “ Beads of the Foreft, even to Jefuites, feminary Prielis,

and other Seducers? - Nor can it be a Way appro-

“ ven of the Lord in Scripture, to excommunicate from the vifible Church (which is the Office-houfe of the free Grace of Chrift, and his Draw-net) all the Multitudes of Non-converts, baptiftd, and vifibly with- in the Covenant of Grace, wiiich are in Great Britain and all the reformed Churches, and fo to fhut the “ Gates of the Lord’s gracious Calling upon all thefe, becaufe they are not in your Judgment chofen to Salva- tion, when once you are within yourfclves.” I wifh fuch 0S are in Danger of thefe Extremes would ferioufly con- fidcr thefe and the like ftrong Scripture-reafonings con¬ tain’d in the forefaid Letter : But tho’ the feceding Bre¬ thren do not date Church-communion or Seceflion upon the above-mentioned Principles; yet they may very well affirm, with the whole Stream of reformed Divines, that A vijihle Prtfejjlon and Confejficn of the Truth is necejfary to the Confitution of fuch a particular vijible Church., unto which we may fafely join in Communion : Or according to Mr. Gilkfpie, as he is cited, EJfay, p. 5. “To maintain and profefs the true Doctrine, and the true Faith, is by ali Protedant orthodox Writers made one, yea, the “ principal Mark of a true vifible Cliurch,” They may likewife fafely affirm with Mr. Rutherfoord in the Page above cited, “When the greated Part of a Church maketh “ Defection from the Truth, the lefler Parf remaining “ found, the greated Parr is the Church of Separatids ; “ Tho’ the manied and greated Part in the actual Exer- “ cife of Difeipiine be the Church, yet, in tlie Cafe of “ right Difeipiine, the bed, tho’ fewed, is the Cliurch; “ for Truth is like Life, that retireth from the manied “ Members unto the Heart, and there remaineth in its Fountain, in cafe of Danger.” Here Mr. Rutherfoord writes very plainly : In the former Propofition, be tells 1 tis what is not'Ground of Separation from a true Church*; 1 in this, he tells us what is Ground of Separation from a ; Church, even wlien the greated Part make Defeflior I from the Truth. The Effay but clouds and darkens the Matt'*!', when he tells us, that furely Mr. Rutherfoorc means “ of declared Defediion from the Truth in Fun- “ damentals.” 1 havefaid enough upon the Point of Furr

damenial :

( ).

y^amentnjs already ; I fhall only fubjoin the following Pro- || podtion concerning Fundamentals, advanced by Mr, Ku- ^tberfoord in the fame Scdtion, p. 229. “ Tho’ the Know'* I “ ledge of Fundamentals be neceflary unto Salvation, yec

1“ it cannot eafily be defined what Meafure of Knowledge, of Fundamentals, and what determinate Number of Fun- damentals, doth conliitute a true vifible Church, and a “ found Believer,”

6tbly^ It is one Thing to depart from Communion with a particular Church on account of her Corruptions, and another Thing to unchurch that fame particular Church : I find thefe two frequently confounded, or reckoned one jjl and the fame Thing in the Ejfay, as p, 4. “ Tho’ fbme “ among us Ihould be leavened with unfound Doctrine, “ and albeit there Ihould be Faults both as to the Admi- niftration of Sacraments and Exercife of Difcipiinc, it “ is far from being enough to unchurch, or occajion Sepa- ration from the Church of Scotland, feeing fhe doth not “ own nor approve of thefe,” A Seceflion may be war- rantably declared from a Church on account of her Cor¬ ruptions and Backflidings, when yet fhe is not unchurched ; It is hard to determine what Length a Church may go in Apoftafy and Backfliding, before fbe is altogether un¬ churched ; the Author, if he pleafes, may read to this Purpofe one of his own Books, Mr. Rutherfoord's Peaceable Plea, Chapter 10, Tho’ the Diflenters in England and Ireland have dated a Seceflion from the Church of England^ on account of her Corruptions in Worlbip, Government and Dilcipline ; they do not therefore unchurch her : They do not refufe her the Charader and Denomination of a Protefiant Chmch •, nay, they do not difpute, that many .have lived and died in Communion with the Church of ! England, thro’ Ignorance of her Corruptions and the Sin- fulnefs thereof, who have had Communion with Chrift.

! And this leads me to take Notice of one of our Author’s ! Arguments againft Seceflion from the Church of Scotland ! in her prefent Conftitqtion, on account of its Affinity with I W'hat is oblerved on this Head ; “ Moreover (fays he, “ P- 6?.) to feparate from the Church of at this

“ Day, ’fis interpretatively a Condemning of Chrift the “ Head of tiie Church, as if he was to be blamed, feeing he yet keeps Communion with her,” All the Proof he brings, for the Support of his Argument, is fome Words aliedged from Mr. Durham -, but he has nor thought fit to tell us in which of Mr. Durham^ Works the Words are

to

( '70 )

to be found ; I cannot therefore pals any Judgment about them. J have given Tome Inftances already, and I lhall give mo ere I have done, that our Author’s Citations do not always fupport his Arguments, efpecially if they are taken in Connexion with other Parrs of the Subjeft out of which they are excerpted : But, with refpedt unto his above Argument againft Seceflion, it leans evidently upon the following Propofiiion, H’hen tue feparaie from a Church, we interpret at ively condemn Chrifi, as if he was to he blamed for keeping Communion with any of her Adembers. But I do not think that our Author will get any of our ■ Presbyterian or Reformed Divines that will jullify his > Affertion ; they are all very cautious in determining what : Length a Church may go in Defeftion or Corruption, be¬ fore Communion is wholly cut off betwixt the Head and , all the Members thereof: Tho’ Corruption and Superfti- tion can never have the Approbation and Countenance of Heaven, will it therefore follow, that, when we depart from Communion with a particular vifible Church on ac¬ count of her Corruptions, our Seceflion is “ interpreta- . “ tively a Condemning of Chrift the Head of the Church,

“ as if he were to be blamed," if be in his adorable So¬ vereignty communicate himfelf and his Grace even to thelc , who remain in Communion with a corrupt and degenerate Church? The Sovereignty of Grace may be glorified i amongft thefe, whom it is not fate nor warrantable for : Us to hold Comimunion with as Members of the fame Ec- •lefiaftick Body. The hidden and fccret Communications i of the Grace of the Redeemer, are neither the Standard I nor Rule of our Duty ; therefore, tho’ we have declared a Sect flion from the prefent Judicatories, it does not fol¬ low that we have unchurched them. Neither will it follow ■ that we alledge, that none of the Members of this Natio¬ nal Church, who are in Conjunction with the prelcnt Ju- i dicatories, have Communion with the Lord Jefus; and far Icfs will it follow, that our Seceflion is to be interpreted in the Manner abovc-exprefltd by our Author, which I ihall not repeat.

Ithly, Some are pleafed to diftipguifh betwixt a negative end pofitive Seceflion from a Church, particularly the Author of the Ejfay, p. 9. with a manifeft Dtfign to fix a pofitive Seceflion (according to his Senfe and Meaning of i it) from the Church of Scotland upon the leceding Mini-i fters ; and therefore it will be recefl'ary that 1 explain whac is commonly meant by the above Terms, as alfo that I

con*

i f 71, )

" confider how far they are applicable to the Secefflon as it is ftated at prefent by the Ajfociate Presbytery. Nreative Se» cejfion is, when a Perfon or Pcrfons withdraw from Com¬ munion with a particular Church on account of fome Cor¬ ruptions that have taken Place, but have not Freedom as yet to meet together in diftinft Aflemblies for Worlhip and Government, in Expeftation that the Corruptions com¬ plained of may be fliortly amended by that particu¬ lar Church from whom they have, in fo far, fcceded,

^ Again, pofitive Secejfton is, when fuch as depart from Com- I munion with a particular Church upon juft and warran- ■ table Grounds, do likewife meet together in diftinQ: AC- I fcmblies for Worlhip and Government, after they have

ii tried all the ordinary Means for removing of the Corrup¬ tions, or for Remedy of the Evils complained of; and yeC iin the mean Time the Means that they have ufed are fo [•far defpifed, that the Corruptions and Evils complained of • are perfifted in and juftified, and thereby all realbnable Expeftation of reforming the faid Corruptions and Evils is loft. The feceding Minifters will readily grant that they have upon the forefaid Grounds made a Seceflion both ne¬ gative and pofitive from this National Church as fhe is now reprefenled in her prefent Judicatories; but then they have always refuled that they have made a Seceffion in I either of the above Senfes from the National Church of 1 Scotlandy when Ihe is confidered in. her reformed Prin- i ciples, with refpeft to Doftrine, Worlhip, Government I and Dilcipline, as they have been laid down from thfi I Word of God in her approven Standards, unto which all

; Ranks of Perfons in the Land have bound and engaged 1 themfelves by folemn Covenant conftantly and ftedfaftly i to adhere. And here I would have the Reader carefully i to obferve the Difference between the National Church of i Scotland in her excellent Conftitution agreeable unto the I Word of God, and as Ihe is at prefent reprefented in her Judicatories, who are carrying on a Courfe of Defe(9:ion, in letting Jlip, or departing from, fuch Reformation- prin¬ ciples as we in this organick Church have once profefled, acknowledged, and fworn to maintain. I hope I may af¬ firm in Behalf of the Members of the Jjfociate Presbytery, that they defire thro’ Grace never to fecede from the Con¬ ftitution and Principles of the National Church of Scot* landy but to contribute their Endeavours for the Support and Defence of the fame : And therefore they are not conftituting a dijlind Church from the National Church of

Scot*

( li ■)

Stetlardy but only, as a Part of that NTational Clmrcb, are endeavouring, in the Situation wherein adorable Provi¬ dence has placed them, to cleave to Reformation-purity once attained unto in this Church, and to teftify againft a Courfe of Defeflion from the lame, carried on by the Ma¬ jority at this Day. For I have already obferved, that e- very particular vifible Church is related to the Catholick Body, as a Part unto the Whole ; Hence it follows, that, in a Xational Church, every particular Parochial or Pref- byteiial Church ftands in the fame Relation to the Natio¬ nal; confequcnrly, when thegreateft Part of theReprefenta- tives of a National Church are involved in a Gout <e of Defection from the Principles of that Church, that Part of the National Church, tho’ the lejfery who defire to cleave to their Conftitution and Principles, and who for this End ajfociate together, either in a Presbyterial or Synodical Capacity, to make an open and publick Profeflion of their Paid Principles, are r.ot a diftinB Church from the National, but a Part of the fame only, however difiinB they may be from the Majority of the prefent Reprefentatives of that National Church, who are carrying on a Courfe of De¬ fection in Oppofition to the received Principles of that Church whom they reprefent. I muft like wife obferve, that, when Seceflion is (fated from any particular Church upon juft and warrantable Grounds, it is alfo the Duty of the Seceders to meet, together in diftindt Aflemblies for Worfhip ; in regard the publick Worfhip of God is what even the Light of Nature warrants, and what the whole Word of God docs exprefly oblige us unto, fince the Time that Men began firlf to call upon the Name of the Lord : And therefore, if fuch as declare a Seceflion from a Church upon juft Grounds, arc warranted and obliged to aflemble together for the publick Worlliip of God, then fuch as are Office-bearers among them have the very fame Warrant to afTociate together for the Exercife of Government and Difeipline.

From what is above obferved, the Reader may fee, that, as the Cafe ftands betwixt the AfTociate Presbytery and the prefent Judicatories, the Queftion is not concer¬ ning Seceffion from the Church of Scotland, but concer¬ ning the Warrantablenefs and Juftice of Seceffion from her prefent Judicatories, or from this National Church as £he is reprefented in the Paid Judicatories : The feceding Minifters refufe Seceffion from the Church of Scotland, but affirm that it is their Duty to depart from the prefent

‘ Judicatories. Again, r’le C^ueftion is hot concerning the rearing up of a diftinft Church from the National Church of Scotland, but, whether or not thefe who are grieved with the Condudt and Management of the prefenc Judi¬ catories, have Divine Right and Warrant to aflbeiare to¬ gether for the Exercife of the Keys of Difeipline and Go¬ vernment in a diftindt Capacity from the laid Judicatories 1 Likewife, the Queftion is not concerning Seceflion from a Cimrch holding and maintaining her Reformation-purity, but concerning Seceflion from fuch Judicatories as are let¬ ting flip that Purity once attained unto, or who are carry- 1 ing cm a Gourfe of Defedtion from our Pveformation.prin- ciples and Purity. Again, the Queftion is not concerning I Seceflion from a reforming Church, or from Judicatories that are willing to be reformed ; but concerning Seceflion from fuch Judicatories v/ho refufe to be reclaimed, and who, inftead of returning unto the Lord, are in feveral Inftances backfliding more.and more, particularly in the : late adfive Concurrence of the moft Part of the Miniftry I with an evident Encroachment upon the Crown and King- ' dom of the Redeemer, by their reading in one Shape ’ or other the late Adt of Parliament anent Captain John I Porteout, and in the univerfal filent Submiflion and Ac- quiefcence of the Judicatories unto the faid Eraftian En¬ croachment and Ufurpation. Alfo, the Queftion is nor. If this or the other particular Step of Defedtion from our Reformation-purity, confidered abftradfly and in ic- felf, gives juft Ground of Seceflion from the prefent Ju- ► dicatories? but the Queftion is, Whether or not a com* plex Courfe of Defedtion, and this perflfted in after the ordinary Means have been ufed to reclaim them, gives juft Ground for fuch who deflre to be found faithful unto the Lord, to depart from Ecclefiaftical Union and Conjun- dtion with the faid Judicatories, and to aflbeiate together in a diftindt Judicative Capacity from them, in order to bear Teftimony unto our Reformation-principles, and a- gainft fuch a complex Courie of Defeftion from them^ wtfiereby the Bond of our Eccleflaftical Unity in the pre- Pent Judicatories is diflfolved and broke ? The (eceding ' Minifters have never ftated their Seceflion upon an]jt par- I ticular Step of Defedtion confidered abftraftly in irfelf, ! but upon a Series and Tradt of Backfliding, or upon a ! complex Courfe of Defeftion from our Reformation-purity ; » is is evident from their firft Teftimony, p. 4d. The fece- t ding Minifters have juft Ground to allege, that the pre- * K fen?

C 74 )

fent Judicatories refufe to dilplay the Banner of a judicial Teftimony for Truth; in regard they have neither cx- prelly nor particularly condemned the many hainous Er¬ rors that have been brought to their Bar, whereby a dan¬ gerous Syncretifm is introduced into this Church. They may likewife julUy allcdge, that there is a Series and Tradt of Tyranny in the Adminiftration, whereby the Flock of Chrift are wounded, Icattered and broken; as alfo, that the Crown-rights of the Redeemer have been profaned and caft down to the Ground of late, as well as in former Times; and that no judicial Teftimony is lifted up for his fpecial Prerogatives as King of Z;ion, nor for the Honour of his Kingdom ; and that, in thefe and the like particular Inftances, the Bond of our Union and Con- jundtion in this particular organized Church is diflblved and broken. And further, it may be alledged. That a Courfeof Defedlionis perfifted in, notwithftandingof Re- prefentations, Remonftrances, and other ordinary Means that have been ufed by Minifters and other Church-mem¬ bers to bring the Judicatories to the faithful Difcharge of their Duty ; and therefore, that it is the Duty of all fuch Office-bearers in the Church of Scotland^ who defire to keep the Word of the Lord’s Patience, and to be found faithful unto him in this Day of Degeneracy and Backfli- ding, to depart from Ecclefiaftical Communion with the

Erefent Judicatories, and, tho’ they may be few in Num- er, to aflbeiate together for the Exercife of the Keys ol Government and Difeipline for the Ends for which they are committed unto them ; or, that it is their Duty to dc what they have a Right and Warrant to do, and what all Ecclefiaftical Judicatories are commanded to do, as they would approve rhemfelves unto the Head of the Church, and as they would anfwer the End and Defign of theii Appointment and Inftitution in the New-Teftamcnj Church, which is for the Support and Defence of th« Truth, and for the Edification of the Body of Chrift.

I ffiall only further obferve. That when the complo Condudt and Management of the prefent Judicatories i. confidered, together with their Submiffion to fuch Era- ftian Encroachments and Ufurpations which nearly affefl their Conftitution ; the Queftion likewife is. Whether oi not the prelent Judicatories of this National Church cat be held and repute as lawful arnd right- conftitute Courts oi Chrift f I ffiall alfo confidcr the Queftion in thi.

Shape,

I . . ( 7f )

%ape, in ftating the Argument for SecefEon from the faid Judicatories. I proceed then to

CHAP. II.

Wherein the Argument for Seceffion from the prefent Judicatories is flated-y and I alfo vindicated fromthe Exceptions laid again ft the fame hy the Author of the EfTay.

As the Queftion is Rated in the Clofe of the precee- ding Chapter, that which I am now to inftruit and prove iSj Thar, whentheConduftof the pre- Jient Judicatories of this National Church is confidered, all fuch who defire to ftand upon our Reformation Bot- r'tom and Ground, ought to depart from Communion with : them in their Judicative Capacity ; as alfo, that fuch Mi- Xnt^ers and Elders, who defire to be found faithful to the p Lord, have Right and Warrant on their Side, from the \Word of God, and from the Afts and Conftitutions of t this National Church agreeable thereto, tho* few in Nura- I ber, to ajfociate together, and to exerefe the Keys of Go- f vernment and Difeipline, that they may in a ‘Judicative 1 Capacity hear ^epimony to the Truths of God againft I the many Injuries that are done to the fame, as alfo that I they may in the faid Capacity contribute their Endeavours for the Help and Relief of the Lord’s opprefled Heritage through the Land. And, for Proof of this, I fhall take a View of the Church of Scotland as llie is reprefented in !her prefent Judicatories, both with refpeft to her Conduft in doftrinal Errors, and alfo with refpeft to her Behavi-* jour in the Exercife of Government and Difeipline ; and ^rom her Management in thefe fhall flicw, that there is .too juft Ground for Secejfion from her ; and that fuch Mi- joifters and Elders, who endeavour to cleave to our Refor- (mation-principles, have Right, as is faid, to afTociate to¬ gether in a diftinef Capacity from the faid Judicatories: 'And I fhall conclude this Chapter with fome Inftances of Teveral Steps of Defection that have taken Place fince the Seceffion was firft Rated Anno 1753, whereby it wiil ap¬ pear, that the prefent Judicatories, inftead of reforming

( 7« )

and returning unto the Lord, have rather given Ground to the receding Minifters to continue in their Seceffion from them.

S E C T. I.

Wherein it is proven, that this PTational Church, as pe is reprcfented in her prefcnt Judica^ tories, has not the Scripture-Cbarahier of the Church of the living God, i Tim. iii. 15.

I Have obfervcd already, that it is a fpecial Cbaradtv of the Ciiurch of the living God, that fhe is a Society profefling and confeffing the Truths of God; hence ihe is defigned, the Pillar and Ground of ^rutb, 1 Tim. iii, 1 5. The Popifh Doftors do grofly abufe this Scrip¬ ture, when they conclude from it the Infallibility of their Church ; but our Reformed Divines do very well obferve, that the Holy Ghoft, in the above Words, plainly declares unto us one of the principal Ends and Deligns of the E- reftionand Conftitution of a vifible Church in this World, with the Duty that is incumbent upon every particular Church, as fhe would evidence and manifeft hcrfclf to be the Church of the living God, The Church is the Ground, ef ^rutb, that is, flic ought to maintain, uphold and fup- port the Truth, againll all fuch Errors as may fpring up in the Church, whereby the Truth may be anywife pre- judifed : She is the Pillar cf ^ruth, that is, fhe ought to 1 publifh, notify and declare the Truth, in fuch particular and diftin<Si: Terms, as every one may underlfand the IMind and Will of the Lord and Head of the Church ; when Error is vented, fhe ought to give a certain and difiinSl Sound, that it may be known what is ^ruth, and what is Error. The Office-bearers of the Church arc in a fpecial Manner injoined this Duty, therefore this is what is incumbent^ upon the Church-reprefentative in a particular Manner: The Apoftle Paul gives a particular Charge and Warning to this Purpofc unto the Elders of Ephefus, ASs XX. 28, 29, As alfo, the Maintenance and Prefervation of Truth, is a Strufi committed unto the Office-bearers, which they are commanded to bold faji,

2 ‘7?w. i. ig, 14. In every particular vifible Church, whether National or Provincial, their Communion rogc- ti)er is built upon their common tuoXoyict, or joint Pro- feffion and Conicffion of the fame raiih; If, in a particu-

I

. ( 77 )

I iar vifible Church, every one have a DoBrine^ and every I one have a there is nothing hut Diforder and Con-

fufion in the Houfe of God ; and if there is not a joinc I Profeffion of the Truth, in Oppofiti^n unto fuch dange- ij jous Errors as may arife, a particular Church may foon become a Habitation of Dragons^ ihffead of being rhc Houfe of God ; or a Synagogue of Satan., inlfcad of being the Church of the living God. It is one of theipecial Ules and Ends of all publick Confeflions of Faith, to hold C forth from the Word of God the Truth, in Oppofition

I unto fuch Errors and Herefies whereby Divine Truth may be fubverted. But, if we take a View of the Conduft of i the prefent Judicatories with refpe6t to the dangerous I Errors that have arilen amongft us, I muft obferve with Regrete, that this National Church, as fhe is reprefented in them, has not the above CharaBer of the Church of the living God-, tho’ we have an excellent Confeffion of Faith, yet, through the Condud: and Management of the Judi¬ catories, it cannot be looked upon any more as a fixed Standard and Teft of Soundnefs in the Faith amongft them, as may be evident from the following Particulars.

A Scheme of Principles, everfive of that Scheme of Di¬ vine Truth laid down from the Word of God in our Con- feflion of Faith, has been brought to the Bar of our Afi. femblies: As for Inftance, Doftrines, whereby the fede-

Iral Hcadfltip of the Firji Jdam was impugned and de¬ nied, and confequently the true and proper Imputation , of his firft Sin to his Pofterity is overthrown ; Doflrines,

' whereby the hainous Delert of Original Sin imputed and inherent is diminifhed ; as alfo Dodtrines, whereby uni- verfal Grace is eftablifhed, in fo far as it has been alferted .at the Bar of our AlTemblies, that there is an implicite Offer of Grace, and an obfcurc Revelation of the Remedy provided for Sin, made to thofe that live without the . Church, by the Works of Creation and Providence in- I eluding Tradition- as likewife, in fo far as a Connedfion is eftablifhed, either from the gracious Nature, or from ; the Promife of God, betvdxt the ferious Endeavours of the Heathen, and a fuller and clearer Revelation of the Remedy unto them ; and betwixt the ferious Endeavours , of thofe that are within the Chnrch, and fpecial and laving Grace : Dodfrines alfo, whereby tlie abfolute Dominion ' of God over the free Adtions of the rational Creature,

I and the Creature’s ablblute Dependence upon him in Work- [ ing, as well as iq Being, are ilibverced, and confequently

a.

i

( 78. )

a fpcdal Part anil Branch of Divine Providence impugned : Doftrincs likewiie, whereby our Faith of the Truth of Divine Revelation is, according to Mr. Lock's Scheme, ul¬ timately refolved into a Series and Train of Moral Argu¬ ments and R;.afbnings. As thele and other pernicious Doctrines have been vented and maintained amongft us, fo the Author of the EJfay will be hard put to it to prove tha^ they are not everfive of the Foundation; and however light fome may make of them, yet, if they are ferioufly confidered, it will plainly appear, chat the whole Syffem of Divine Truth, held forth from the Word of God in our Confeflion of Faith, is fubverted by them: And it may be too juftly faid, that the Church has been leavened by the faid Doftrines, feeing thefe dangerous Errors have been brought to tlie Bar of our Aflemblics once and again, and the Standard of a Teftimony has never been lifted up Bgainft them. When the above Doftrines were brought brft under the Cognifance of our General AfTemblies, they were difmifled 1717 in fome general Terms, and

rone of them were particularly and exprefly condemned. And when the Committee of Aflembly, Amo 172.7, found it clearly proven that Mr. Simfon perlifted in reaching the ^ame dangerous Scheme, yet the Aflemblics of this Church have never given any Manner of Teftimony againft the fame; neither does the Author of the EJfcty alledgc, that any of them have been condemned, as contrary to the Word of God and our Confeflion of Faith. And, if this is duly confidered, every unprejudifed Perfon may fee, that there is no Truth in what is afl'erted concerning this Church, EJfay p. 2. “ As her Standards for Doiffrine are “ pure, fo fhe allows of no Errors in Doctrine.” Tho" her Standards for Doftnne were never fo pure or perfedf, yet when Error is brought unto her Bar, and nor con¬ demned, fhe is juftly charged with tolerating and allowing Error. It is evident, that tho’ the Standards of a Church may be pure, yet, if Error is brought to the Bar of her Judicatories, and maintained as agreeable unto her Stan¬ dards, and the Church fays nothing to the contrary, that every one who adopt fuch dangerous Principles may rea- Ibnably judge in themfclves, that the Church does not reckon the Errors they cfpoufc to be contrary to her pu- blick Standards. And this was the Cafe with Mr. Simfon ; be maintained, that the feveral Propofitions which were owned and acknowledged by him, tho* of the above dan¬ gerous Nature and Tendency, were agreeable to the Word

( 19 )

of God, and nowife contrary to our Confeffion of Fairli, Heiice ic is plain, that, with refpeft to the Errors allerted and maintained by Mr. Simfon in his firft Procefs, our Con- feffion of Faith can no more be reckoned a fixed Standard, and Telt of Orthodoxy or Soundnefs in the Faith, in Op- poficion to the faid Errors, either in the Judicatories of the Church, or amongft fuch as are in Conjunftion with them ; in regard the prefent ’Judicatories have refufed a Confeffion of their Faith, in Oppofition to the above per¬ nicious Errors maintained at their Bar as agreeable to the Word of God, and nowife contrary to our faid Confeffion of Faith; and confequently they muft be held z&nleavened Lump, until the above-mentioned and other Errors are particularly and exprefly condemned.

With refpedl to the fecond Libel againft Mr. Simfon, and the Errors vented by Mr. Campbell, if they are duly confidered, it is to be regreted that it may juftly be af¬ firmed, that Errors everfive of the Foundation have been vented amongft us, and that the Judicatories have given no particular Teftimony againft them, even tho’ the Ven¬ ters of the faid Errors have in like Manner pled that their Dodlrincs were nowife contrary to the Word of God, or our Confeflion of Faith. As for Inftance, The true Deity of the Son of God is a Foundation-truth as alfb, it is a Foundation-truth, That the Three Perfons of the adorable Trinity are One Subftance in Number; But it was clearly proven, both by the Depofitions of Witnefles, and by Mr. Simfon s own Papers in Procefs, that he had exprefled himfelf in Terms fubverfiveof thtik fundamental iTvnths. Yet the General Jjfemblies of this Church have never in¬ flicted any Cenfurc upon the faid Mr. Simfon, bearing any Proportion to the grievous Scandal and Offence he had given ; yea, they have never particularly condemned the erroneous Propofirions vented by Mr. Simfon, whereby the Scripture-doftrine of the Holy ’Trinity is fubverted; nei¬ ther have they ajferted the Truth in Oppofition unto the Terms in which it has been oppofed and denied: And con¬ fequently the prefent Judicatories have never to this Day Jifted up a faithful judicial Teftimony for the above Foun¬ dation-truths, and againft the Errors that have bean vented to the Prejudice of the fame.

Likewife, a .Scheme of dangerous Principles has been publiflied and defended by Mr. Campbell Profeflor of Church-hiftory at St. Andrews ; and amongft others, in his Preface to his Difeourfe proving that the Jpofles were not

En-

c So )

EntJouJiaflsy he aflerts, p. 5, 6. “ That the Laws of Ma- “ riire are in themfelves a certain and fufficient Rule to direft rational Minds to Kappincfs; and that the ob- “ ferving of thefe Laws is the great Mean and Inftrument “ of our real and lalting Felicity.*’ And alfo in his £»- (jMiryy p. 275. he aflerts and maintains, “ That if we fettle it as our main Purpofe, to recommend ourfelves to the “ Love and Efteem and Commendation of God, and of “ all Mankind, thro’ every Stage of our eternal Exiftence {viz. by our Moral Virtue, or by our Duties of Obc- “ dience unto the Moral Law) which, fays he, if we fol- “ low Nature, we cannot but do; every Degree of Efteem we acquire here cannot but be exceeding grateful : The “ Profpeft of being univerfally applauded for ever hcre- ** after, muft neceflarily be very tranfporting ; and the Means that lift us up to this Commendation, viz. Moral Virtue, cannot but prove extremely agreeable.” From whence it is plain, that Mr. Campbell aflerts, That the ^rafticc of Moral Virtue is an inftituted Mean for recom¬ mending us unto the Love, Efteem and Commendation of God; as alfo, That, in the Praftice of Moral Virtue, we are to fettle it as our main Purpofe to recommend our- fclves to the Love and Commendation of God thereby* The Author of the EJfay may try if he can reconcile all the above feveral Propofitions, confidered together, with what he himfelf acknowledges to be a Foundation-truth, p. z6. “ That our Juftification is folely by the Surety’s imputed everlafting Righteoufnefs.” Again, Mr. Camp^ lell affirms, “ That the foie and univerfal Motive to vir- ** tuous Aftions is Self-love, Intereft, or Pleafure, Enqui^ “ ry, p. 465. and that Men may refufe to worfliip God, un- “ lefs he prefents himfelf favourably inclined to their Inte- “ reft, and ftudious of their Happinefi; and that in Matter ‘‘ of Devotion they areabl'olutely governed by Self-intereft.” To which I may add another of Mr. Simfon*s Principles, That, were it not for the Profped: of Happinefs, we ** could not, and therefore would nor, ferve God, ” The Committee of j^Jfemblyj Amo 1727, do give it as their Judgment, That this Principle of Mr. Simfens (which IS the fame upon the Matter with Mr. Campbell's Prin¬ ciple concerning Self-love and Self-intereft) is cverfive of the Foundation.” FoTj fay ihey^ it is contrary to the “ Inftintff of that new Nature the Lord endueth all his “ People with in Regeneration — and that it is through

‘‘ a prevailing Refpea to God’s Honour and Glory, and

“ COJ

«k

( Si

not a mere or chief Refpe^i: to our own HappInefSj that the Difference betwixt Nature and Grace is to be cleared to the doubtful Chriftian.” And they add, That the above Principle “ is a facrificing of all to the “ Idol of ourfelves, and a going only the Length of the foolifh Virgins, who may defire the Oil of Grace for the Sake of their own Happinefs} and that they may “ enter into Heaven.” State Proc. p. £77. If the Gene¬ ral Affembly had approven of the above Judgment of their Committee, they had given fbme Teftimony to the Truth ; but they took no Manner of Notice of it : And tho’ the above Doftrines, everfive of the Foundation, have been brought to the Bar of the Judicatories; yet none of them have been particularly or exprefly condemned : And as for the Broachers of them, Mr. Simfon was but Jlightly cenfiired, and Mr. Campbell was difmifled from the Bar without any Cenfureat all ; yea, his Principle con¬ cerning and Intereft has hetn adopted by the j4f-

femhly 1736 in their Aft difmiflTing the Procefs, as the fcciate Presbytery have found, and give their Grounds and Realbns for it in their and ^ejlmony, p. 65. and, fince the Author of the Effay has not attempted to dif- prove any of the faid Reafons, I need not infift upon the Vindication of them. Upon the whole, Since grofs and hainous Errors, yea. Errors fubverfive of the Foundati¬ on, have been brought to the Bar of Judicatories, and fince they have not been particulary nor exprefly condem¬ ned, nor the Truth aflerted in direft Oppofition unto them ; With what Colour or Shadow of Reafbn can ic be affirmed, that the Judicatories allow of no Er^ tors in DoSrine? Eflay, p. 2. Our Author likewile in a very magifierial Manner allerts, “ That it is unaccountable to “ charge the Church of Scotland as Favourers of thefe “ Errors, feing never fo much as one Perfon in any of ‘‘ the Judicatories of this Church offered to vindicate or plead for any of thefe,” p. i8- But tho’ never one Perfon did plead for them under the Charafter of Errors^ yet, has it not been pled before the Judicatories, that they Ihould be difmifled without Cenfure ? and, when an Aft . aflertory of the Truth has been demanded, does not our [ Author very well know that it has been argued in open 5 Court, that we were not to add new Articles to our Con- is feflfion of Faith ? And what could be meant by fuch [, Pleadings, but that our Confefllon docs not determsna. i particularly and exprefly, in Oppofition unto many of the jl L groft

( Si )

grols and hainous Errors that have been vented ? iL ca, had not fuch Pleadings a direct Tendency to fupport Mafters Simfon and Campbell in their ordinary Plea, that their pernicious Errors were not contrary to our ConfeP- fion of Faith and, is it not plain, that the Judicatories have never particularly or exprefly condemned any of them as fitch ? If thefe Things are duly confidered, our Au¬ thor may eafily fee, that the Charge that is laid againft the Judicatories, as P^vourers of the Errors that have been vented amongft us, may be very well accounted for, Tho’ Mr, Campbell’s Affair was fomecime after the (fa¬ ting of the Seceflion, and tho’ there wasfnfficient Ground and RcaCon given for declaring a Seceflion on account of the Conduft of Judicatories in the Affair of Mr. Sim^ elpecially when the ordinary Means did nor pre¬ vail for obtaining a judicial Tcftimony for the Honour and Support of injured Truth ; yet, to prevent Repetition, I judged it proper in this Place to confider what relates unto Doctrine ; and, for the fame Reafon, I fhall briefly con- fidcr the Gonduft of the Judicatories with refpeift to Do- ^or JViJbart’s Affair. The Presbytery of Eilinburirh ha¬ ving excerpted out of two Sermons, preached and pub- lifhed by him, fome Proportions which they alledgcd did either ftrike againft the Ufe and Defign of Confefflons of Faith as Standards of Orthodoxy in a particular Church, or were contrary to fome important Articles of our own Confeffion of Faith; when the Caufe came before the lafi General j4JJembly 1738, the Managers for the Presbtery of Edinburgh infifted before that Aflembly, that tiie particu¬ lar Propofitions excerpted out of the Doifor s Sermons Ihould be judged, and that the Aflembly fliould confider whether they were Errors contrary to our Confeflion or not. Tho* this Demand was juft and reafonable, yet the Aflembly thought fit to conduft themfelves after another Manner ; they heard the DoBor declare his Adherence to our Confeflion of Faith, and upon his declared Adhe¬ rence to the feveral Articles of our Confelfion, unto which the Propofitions taken out of his Sermons were alledged to be contrary, he is acquit from the Charge of Error. At this Rate, tho’ one fhould teach and publifli Error, if he fhall declare his Adherence to our Confef- fion of Faith, or if ‘he has the Skill and Dexterity to im- po(e fome Senfe upon the received Articles of our Gon- feflion, whereby he pretends to reconcile his own Tenets and Sentiments with them, he is immediately acquit from

F

( 83 )

I tlie Clinrf;e of Error. And who can doubr, that, where ) a ConlclTion is authorifed by the Laws of the Land, fuch I as are not refolved to deprive themfelvesof the legal Be-

(iiefice will own the faid Confeffion, and profcls their Ad- herence to the fame, even when their Scheme of Prin¬ ciples is quite oppofite to the genuine Senfe and Meaning of a publick and authorifed Confeffion of Faith ? But, in the mean Time, when the Principles or Doftrines that Men have vented are not impartially examined and judged, i as to their Agreeablenefs or Difagreeablenefs to that I Scheme of Divine Truth laid down from the Word of God in our Confeffion of Faith, in this Cafe our Confef- I fi on is of no Significancy to diftinguiffi betwixt fuch as make a Profeffion of the Truth, and others; it gives no diftinct nor determinate Sound in the Church, it is given up and abandoned as a Standard of Soundnefs in the Faith: And that this is the State of Matters at prefent in (J this National Church, as ffie is reprefented in her prefent [j Judicatories, is too evident from the feveral Inftances I I have given of her Procedure and Condudl in the dodtri- f nal Errors that have been brought to her Bar.

' From what is above-obferved, the Reader may judge ^ what Ground our Author has for that Confidence where- t with he exprtffes himfelf, p. 26. “ I hope, fuys he, and I am confident, that nothing like thefe {-viz Errors ever- I “ five of the Foundation) is to be found in the Church of f “ Scotland \ for fiie adheres to all the Doctrines contained in our excellent Confeffion of Faith.” Nctwirhfianding of our Author’s confident Boaft, it is Ground of Lamentation, that even fuch Errors arc to be found in the Church of Scotland ; and it is alfo evident from whatiis already obfer- ’ ved, that the Judicatories are fo far from adhering to all I the Articles of our excellent Confeffion of Faith, that I they have difmiffed fuch Errors from their Bar, without a 1 diredt and exprefs Teftimony againlf any of them. What I he adds concerning the Engagements, that fucli as are li- t cenfed to preach the Gofpel, or ordained to the holy Mi- I. niftry, come under, to “ aflert, maintain and defend the “ Dodfrine contained in the faid Confeffion;” and their exprefs difowning “ all Pop/Jb, Arian, Socinian, See. and “ other Dodtrines, Tenets and Opinions whatfoever, which are contrary to, and inconfiftent with, the fore- “ faid Confeffion of Faith;" Neither doth this fupport our Author in his Confidence ; in regard fuch as are licen- icd to preach, or ordained to the holy Miniltry, may

L 2 reckon

( 84 )

feckon that they may warrantably fign our ConfeJJtoti of and make the above folcmn Renunciation, in a Con~ fijlency with their adcpthg Matters Sirnfons and Campbell’^ ocheme ; and that for this Reafon, Becaufe the prefcnt Judicatories, who require the faid Engagement and De¬ claration, had the above hainous Errors under their XDon- fidcration, and have neither found nor declared them to be contrary to the Doftrine held forth from the Word of God in our Confeffion of Faith ; neither have they found Matters Simfons nor Campbell's Propoficions to be either Topijb^ Ar'tan^ Socinian or Aymiman Doftrines. It may be realbnably judged, that when a Confefiion is figned, or any Renunciation of the above Nature is made, that both are done according to the declared Senle and Meaning of thefc who require the faid Renunciation and Subfcription : Can it then be imagined, that when fome doftrinal Errors have been brought to the Bar of our Judicatories, and when they have refuled once and again to condemn them in exprefs Terms, as contrary to our Confcllton of Faith ; can it, I fay, be imagined, that fuch who are folemnly engaged to adhere to the Doctrine of the faid Confeffion, fhould thereby think themfelves engaged againft fuch do¬ ctrinal Points as the Judicatories have refufed to condemn, or that they fhould look upon any of Matters Simfon's or - Campbell's Propofitions to be either Pcpijh, Arlan or Armi- i marly which the Judicatories have refufed to condemn as j fuch ? Therefore there is no Ground for what our Author further adds for the Support of his confident Hope, “ If “ there be fuch abominable Hypocrites, adting below “ hlen, as profefs, promifeand engage contrary to what “ may be their Sentiments, this is to be lamented, but cannot beabfolutely prevented in any Church.” There would have been fome Truth in what our Author afferts, if the Judicatories had difcharged their Duty, in giving a ' particular and faithful Teftimony againft the Errors men¬ tioned ; but, fince it is otherwife, they may judge with themfelves, that they are not engaged to any Thing con¬ trary to their own Sentiments, even when they are the lame with thefe of Matters Simfon and Campbell ; and cop- fequently they may reckon, that the Charge of being abo¬ minable Hypocrites cannot in Juftice be laid againft them.

Before I pafs this Head, it deferves to be noticed, that the Management of the prefent Judicatories, in the Errors that have been brought to their Bar, has been not only dif¬ ferent from, bat the Reverfe of, the Condudt and Praftice

of

. (■ )

I of fucb Ecclefiaftical Synods and Aflembh’es as in former I or larer Times have faithfully difplayed a Banner for Truth: As for Inftance, The four general Councils did

particularly and exprefly condemn the feveral grofs and i, dangerous Errors that did fpring up in the Church, where- >• by the true Deity of the Son and Holy Ghoft was denied, or the two Natures of the Redeemer confounded, or whereby the Unity of his Pcrfbn was overthrown : and

I they alio aflerted the Truth in Oppofltion to the Terms in which it was either impugned or denied by the fcvcial Adverfaries. Likewife the famous Synod of Dort did the : fame, with the feveral Arminan Errors that were brm’ghc I to their Bar. Likewife the famous Churches of France^ ?| when Pifcator^ a very confiderable Divine, publifhed his : peculiar Opinion concerning the Obedience oi Chrift,

tho’ he was not a Member of that Church of France, vet _ they did, in their National Alfembly at Gap, condemn pa'-- I ticularly Pifcator’s Error, as contrary to their Confeffion of Faith ; and warn’d Synods, Presbyteries and Seffions, to - have a particular Eye upon Perlons tainted with his Er- <; ror, be they Minifters or private Chriflians: And, in their - National Aflembly held at Rochelle, they aflert the Truth in exprefs Terms, in Oppofltion unto Pifcator s Error, who • denied the Imputation of the adfive Obedience of Chrifl ;

the Words of that Synod are, “ The whole Obedience of , Chrift, both in his Life and Death, is imputed unto us,

■ “ for the full Remiflion of our Sins, and Acceptance un- “ to eternal Life The National Church of France li did teftify in the fame Manner, not only againft Errors vented amongft themfelvcs, but againft Errors vented in neighbouring Churches, whereby they might be in Danger of being tainted ; till they began to decline from their } Reformation-purity, as in the Calc of the Univerfalilis, i which was brought before the National Synods at Alanfon ' and Charenton\ and their Declining did gradually incrcafe till Defplatipn came upon them.

' And, fince our Author has perufed the ABs^nA Dedjlons of the National Synods of France, he could nor but ob- ferve an agreeable Harmony between the Methods taken in reforming Times, by the Churches of France Scot¬ land, for preferving the Purity of Dodlrine, by an exadl: and impartial Exercife of Difcipline, in condemning all Errors whatfbever. Likewife he could not bur obferve, that the prefent State of the Cliurch of Scotland in a great

Meafurc

* ^.'ck'sSvn. Vpl i.p, 2J7,

( 85 )

Mcarure rcfemWcs that of the Church of France when upon the Decline ; and that the Meafures taken hy their National Synods, when Errors and erroneous Perfons were brought before them, exaft'y corrciponds with thefe ta¬ ken by our prefent Aflemblies, of wliich we have a clear Evidence in the above Inflance. And as this was a Fore¬ runner of their Ruin, fo while we follow their Example, which, {landing upon Record, Ihould be a Warning to future Generations, ’tis to be fear’d that, in the righteous Judgment of God, fometime hence Strangers may have Occafion to fay of us, as the Colle6lor of thefe Monu¬ ments fays of them, “ O that the Generation which fuc- “ ceeded the firft Reformers, had not lax’d the Reins!

“ Hov/ happy might they have been ! In the Morning of “ the Reformation they were fair as the Moon, clear as the Sun, and terrible as an Army with Banners. The “ greatdl Princes of fubmitted their Necks to this

“ golden Yoke of Chrid. A National Synod was for- “ midable to the molt daring Sinner, Their Difcipline,

“ duly and prudently managed, preferved the Purity of Doftrine, Worfhip and Morals amonglt them Had our Author duly attended to thefe Things, I am perfwa- ded he had not been fo forward to acquit the Church of Scotland^ and condemn thofe who oppofe the Meafures taken by her prefent Judicatories, with refpeft to Errors and erroneous Perfons brought before them.

From the whole of what has been faid. Since Mailers Simfon and Campbell have pled at the Bar of the Judica¬ tories, that their Principles w'cre nowife contrary to our Confeffion of Faith, and lince the Judicatories have not declared their feveral Errors to be contrary to the fame, tho’ the above-mentioned and other grof. Errors have been vented by them ; hence it is plain, that our ConfelTion of Faith cannot any more be judged a fixed Standard of Or¬ thodoxy or Soundnefs in the Faith, at lead with refpeft to thefe important Points that have been brought to the Bar of the Judicatories. And, from what has been faid, I may likewife draw the following Concluilon, That this National Church, as fhe is reprclented in her prefent Ju¬ dicatories, has not the CkaraHer I have mentioned of the I Church of the Living God, in regard fhe does nor uphold I and maintain, ajfert and confefs the Truth, in Oppolition i unto the many dangerous Errors that have been vented ; amongd us, which are either everfive of, or very nearly j

aOect !

syn. Vol. I. Intro, p. i6,

. f S7 ■)

aTefl:, the Foundation of our Chriftian Faith and PratSice; and conrequenciy we cannot have Union, ConjuuiSion or Coaiefcencc with them, as Parts and Members of that fame Ecclenaftick Body; efpecially when it is confidered, that, by their above Condudland Management, they have broke and difTolved that Bond of our Ecclefiaftical Union and Communion, v/hich conlifts in our common oiAthoytat or joint external Profeffion of the fame Faith.

I reckon the Argument for Seceffion, as it is ftated u- pon the Head of Doftrine, to be of confiderable Weight ; and therefore I fhall briefly take notice'of fome Things alledged by the Author of the EJfay, to take of the Force thereof: And I muft judge, from the high Commendations that have been given to tliis Performance, he has offered the Force and Strength of what thefe who warmly con¬ demn our Seceflion, have to fay for themfelves on this as well as one other Heads. Our Author, p. 113. ftates the Objedtion of Separatijliy as he calls them, upon tlie Head of DoBrine after his own IJ^ayy and fpends fevcral Pages in his Anfwers unto it; but the Reader may cafily (ec, that he has never dated the Argument in its true Light and due Force, and therefore his Anfwer unto it is only accor¬ ding to his Way and Manner of ftating it. I lhall not weary the Reader with every Thing that might be noticed upon this Head ; I fhall only take notice of fbme Things, on which the Author Teems to lay the greateft Streisand Weight. He refers to what he had laid in the Beginning of h\s, fourth Chapter, which he reckons may be a fuffici- ent Anfwer to the Objection. I have already confidered what he has offered in the Paid Place, and therefore lhall not infift further upon it. He adds, p. 114. “ That, “ whatever heterodox or erroneous Principles fome may be leavened with, they do not, nor dare they vent and ** openly avow them and concludes, “ While they arc “ not ov/ned and defended, they cannot be charged upon the Church of Scotland." But, have not Mailers I and Campbell openly avowed their Principles ? have they i not owned and defended them at the Bar ’ and have not the Judicatories refjfed exprefly to condemn their Er¬ rors ? Therefore, according to our Author’s own Reafb- ning, their erroneous Principles may juftly be charged ! upon the Judicatories of this National Church,

The Author of the EJfay proceeds to give Ibme more particular Anfwers to the Obje(9:ion, as he ftates it: He owns, p. 115. that Mr. “ was too eafy paft,

( 88 )

1717-” - And, “ Tliar if was the Fault of the Church

“ of Scoilandf that fhe did not free that zealous faithful “ Servant of Chrift, M.v. y^ameslf'’^ehfier^ from the Burden “ of a Profecution by Libel ; feeing that Affair was no I

perfonal Concern of his own.” But if our Author had I faid that it was the Sin of this Church, and that it is a Ground ! of Mourning to this Day, that Mf. Simfons Errors were paft in genera! Terms at that Time, without any particu¬ lar exprefs Tcftimony againft any of his grofs Propofitions, he had fpoke more to the Purpofe. Our Author adds, that” Mr. (upon the fir'll Libel) declared his Ad-

” herence to our Confellion of Faith and Do(ftrines therc- ‘‘ in contained, and dilbwned the Errors oppofite thereto “ wherewith he was charged.” Who doubts of Mr,

” Simfons declaring his adherence to our Confeffion ? This both he and Mr. Campbell always did ; they Hill pled the Doftrines they taught were agreeable to the Doftrines contained in the Confeflion : And this is what wasthcA‘» of the Judicatories, that they did not declare their pecu- ' liar Dodlrincs to be what in very deed they are, viz. Er¬ rors, and contrary to our Confeflion of Faith. As for what is faid of Mr. 5/ot/ow’s difowning the Errors oppo¬ fite to our Confeflion, tho* our Author mentions this once and again, yet he clouds and darkens the Matter after his ordinary Manner. If he means that Mr. Simfon refufed that he had taught any Errors oppofite to the Dodlrine contained in our Confeflion, this is very true ; for Mr. i Simfon always refufed this Chargp : But if, by difowning Errors, is meant his difowning the erroneous Proportions which in his j^nfwers to his firfl Libel he afferts and de¬ fends as fTruthsy agreeable to the Word of God and our Confeflion of Faith, and which the Committee of Affem- bly 1727 found he continued to teach, it is, if I may ufc one of our Author’s Phrafes, an Tmpofinp upon the World, when our Author affirm.s, he has difowned the Errors wherewith he was charged ; and I may challenge the Au¬ thor of the EJfay to point me out any of his faid Errors which he has difowned

The Author of the Effay gives it as his lumlle Opinion^ anent the grofs and damnable Errors in Mr. Simfons fecond Libel, that, ” confidering what an Affront was put upon ” the great God our Saviour by his erroneous Dodlrine,

“ he juftly deferved Depefition from the holy Miniftry for ” what was found proven againft hi.m at that Tim.c ” But yet, to extenuate the Matter, he fubjoins fojne Declarati-

on|

t)hs and Acknowledgments which he alledges Mr, ^imfon made ; and thele are fee down with the ordinary Markt of a Citation^ but he has not direfted us to the Place tvhere they are to be found ; and the Truth is, they are I rotvhere to he found in any of his Acknowledgments, recor*

I ded in the State of the Procefs, according to the Terms in ( which they are laid by our Author : And yet I find the ; A6t of Affembly, difinifling the Procefi, makes ufe of 1 the fame Expreflions with our Author, whereby Mr, Sim* fons Acknowledgments are reprefented \n fuller ^erms than ' what we have from himfelf in the faid State of the Procels. But yet, after all thefe Endeavours to drefs up his Acknow¬ ledgments in the moft favourable Manner, it is certain thaC he never made any till he was brought unto a Pineb^ and : then his Acknowledgments are in very general Terms,

1 Tho* in his firfl Letter to the Presbytery of Glafgow he ' vents fuch Exprellions as plainly derogate from the eflen- 1 tial Glory of the moft high God our Saviour, and tho’ in his other Papers in Procefs he alfo fubverts the Scripture- doitrine of the Trinity, yet he never makes any Acknow¬ ledgment of the Indignity that he has done to our glori¬ ous Redeemer ; he never makes the leaft Acknowledgment* that ever he vented any Thing contrary to the Dottrinc concerning the adorable Trinity, as it is held forth from the Word of God in our Cojifeffion of Faith : And there¬ fore the Reverend and Worthy Author of the Enquiry, formerly mentioned, had juft Ground for the following judicious Ohferve on Mr. Simfons Declarations^ “ Which “ i’^)in Words may bear a (bundSenfe, but in ray

‘‘ C^inion are very little to be regarded, while he under- “ ftands them in a Senfe confiftent with his former Pa- “ pers, and does not ingenucufly retraft.his Arian Tenets therein vented

It isalledgcd by the That the Church

“ of Scotland was fo far from approving his Errors, that as fhe found them relevant to infer Cenfure, which was “ a plain Condemning of them ; fo, notwithftanding of all “ laid by him for alleviating of his Offence, the Affem- “ hly i728cenfurcd him with the Sentence of Sufpenfion, ** &Pc.” To which it is anfwered, That it cannot be al* ledged that the Judicatories have ever found any of the Errors containted in the firfl Procefs againft Mc. Simfon relevant to infer Cenfure^ and confequently they have never plainly condemned them; and the like may be faid of (he

M Errors

* Eref. p. y.

( 90 )

Errors vented by Campbell: And tbercfore tbe Ar¬ gument for Scceilion, as it is ftated upon the Head oi do- ftrinal Errors, (lands (lill in its Force. And as to the Relevancy that was found in the Articles of Mr. Si m/un i fecund Libel, it is only a general Relevancy, and none of them are particularly declared to be contrary to the Word of God or our Gonfedion of Faith And here it mud be obferved, that, as the Libel is laid, Propofitions not necef- fary to be taught in Divinity, and which gyve more Occajton to Strife than to promote Edification^ are relevant to infer Cenfure, as well as thofe that are exprefly contrary to the IVord of God and our Confeflflon of Faith. Now, in de¬ termining the Relevancy of the (everal Articles of Libel againfl Mr. Simfon^ the Afiembly do not determine whe¬ ther the Proportions libelled are fuch as are exprejly con~ trary to the Word of God and our ConfelTion of Faith, or if they are only fuch as are not necejfary to he taught m | Divinity: lienee, notwithllanding of what is alledgcd by I our Author about finding the Articles of Libel relevant to infer Cenfure, the Judicatories have never yet declared them to be contrary to the Word of God and our Confef- fion of Faith ; and confequently the 'Truth in thefe i.m- portant Points has never yet been exprejly afferted, in Op- pofition to the Terms in which it has been oppofed and fubverted. With refpe^t to the Cenfure infliiled upon Mr. Simfon, tho’ our Author declares that he juflly deier- ved Depofition, on account of the Affront he had put upon the great God our Saviour by his erroneous Do- ftrine ; yet he thinks fit to make an Apology y in the Page lad cited, for fuch as voted only for his Sufpenfion, and confequently for the Conduft of the Judicatories of this Church in paffing him with a Cenfure nowife adequate to his Crime and Offence : “ And {fay$ he) 'tis well known “ there were fundry in the Affembly flilly of the Mind “ he deferved Depofition, who yet, from Apprehenfions ** of as great or greater Damage to follow upon this to the Church of Chrifi in Scotland, they only voted fot “ his Sufpenfion ; and I apprehend it flowed more from this, than Lenity to him, that he was not depofed.” And here, by the by, I may remark, that, if forac others had u(ed the Terms of tbe Church of Chrijl in Scotland, a grievous Charge had been brought againfl them ; bur, in regard I judge they may be ufed without any Derogation ftom the Divine Warrant and Authority for National ^hurches, therefore I (hail pa(s them. In the above

Words

Word.< oF oL’f Author, rhe Reader is airiufed vrirh feme general and dark Exprefiions about ^re4ii or g^ye/iter Da¬ mage to follow to the Church upon the Depofitior, of an yJriatty than if he was only fufpendei ; he Ihould have told us plainly, what tlicfe great or greater apprehended Damages were: Would the Depofitiou of one, who, as Qur Author acknowledges, had put an affront upot the preat God cur Saviour ^ occafioned a Divifton in the Affem- hly, or a Rent in the Church of Scotland^ Or, was the I Sentence of Sufpenfion agreed upon, to compromife the Matter betwixt fuch as were for depofing him, and fuch as were for no Cenfure at all, or, as it is exprefled in the Aft concluding the Procefs, with fuch as give it as their Opinion, that he ought to be treated with more ^endernefSf in refpeft of the Declarations he had made, and the Al- Jeviatidns that are faid to be found in the Courfe of the Procefs 1 If this is our Author’s Meaning, it is Ground of Lamentation that Matters were come to fuch a Pafs in , a National AfTembly of the once famous reformed Church of Scotland, that there Ihould be any Difpute or Ilefita- ' tion about holding in Minifterial Communion one who had endeavoured to rob the Son of God of his true Deity ; cfpecially when it isconfidered what other dangerous Er- i rors he had obftinately taught. Our Author makes liberal ' Acknowledgments that Mr. Simfon deferved Depofition, and yet he makes ufe of ail his Jrt and Skill to extenuate the Sin of the Judicatories ; but I humbly judge they ' have a very had j4pologipi for them, when he tells us of I great or greater Damage to follow upon their calling out an Arian from Miniflerial Communion with them. If a proper and due Teftimony againft an open Affront put u- pon the Son of God was neglefted, in order to compro¬ mife Differences among themfelves, it is a Sin that lies at the Door of this National Church, and for which we have Ground to fear that the Son cf God, who hath faid. All the Churches fijall know that lam he which fearchetb the Reins and Hearts, may yet plead a Centroverfy againff us. Our Author fubjoins an Evidence “that thejudica- “ tones of the Church of Scotland ars neither Co corrupt in Doftrine, nor fo lukewarm in the Caufe of Chrift, ‘‘ as Separatifls reprefent namely, that, “ According ' “ to the Brethrens firft Teftimony, p. 4p. it was contrary j “ to the declared Mind of moft of the Presbyteries of ( “ this National Church by far, that the Afl’cmbly 1729 , 4id reft in the Sentence of Sufpenfion againft Mr. Sim- I , ■ Ma

r )

/)».** But then, how comes it to pafs that there was fuch an univerfal filent Submiflion to the above Sentence i of that AlTembly ? How comes it to pafs that there was rot a Presbytery in all the Church of Sailavd remonftra-* ting, before the Aflembly 1730, againlf a Deed that was done contrary to the declared blind of moft Part of Pref- byreries? Ah f how Toon was this Concern for Truth, which our Author infinuates, and this Zeal for the Caufe of Chrift cooled ! Yea, fo very low did it turn of a fud- den, that, at the Aflemblics 1750 and 1751, very few Synods and Presbyteries fent Inflruftions, Reprefentations or Petitions for an Jii ajffrtory of the Truth, and a fear fbnahle Warning againft the Errors of the Time ; any Goodnefs that appeared amongft us was like the Morning- tloud and lite early Detv that foon paffeth away.

With refpeft to Mr. Campbell's Errors, the Author of the EfFay reckons that his erroneous Propofitions thac were under the Confrdcration cf the Judicatories were ; only “ uncautious Exprclltons,” and thac “ his Explica- ij tions mdght be found and orthodox," p. 1 19. and he pro¬ ceeds, p izi. to purge Matters Simfon and Campbell of Hcrefy, if the Word Hcretick is taken in its ft rift Senfe. And here it is proper to notice the Rcafbn given by our ' Author, why neither of them can be called Hereticks, when the Word is taken in the ftrift Senle ; “ For {fays < “ ha) none of them offered to defend the erroneous Pofi- tions as libelled, or in the Senfe alledged againft them,’* Their feveral Poficions were laid in their Libels as Er- ' rors ; and it is very true, that none of them were fb weak ' as to defend their Pofitions under the Notion of Errors. As for what our Author adds, or in the Senfe alledged a-* gainfi them ; our Author does not alledge that they re- ■ trafted any of their Propofitions, bur only that they did ' not own them in the Senfe alledged againfl them ; There¬ fore, according to him. they gave a found Senfe and Meaning unto the feveral Propofitions that were libelled againft them, I hope it will be allowed, that a Senfe and ' Meaning, oppofed to our received and approven Princi- ' pies, was the Senfe in w'hich Mafters -S/w/tJw’s and Campbell's ' Pofitio"s were libelled againft them; and it i.s very evi- .hat they have all along defended their Opinions in : a ‘ienfe direftly oppefire to the received Principles of the Church of Scotland j Therefore, whatever Art they have ufed, now and then, in colouring their Errors with fly Piftiuftions ; yet it mutt be owned by ail who underftand

their

I

( 93 )

tlicir Scheme, that they 'have , defended their erroneous > Pofitions as libelled, or in the Senfe alledged againfi them :

I, And, if our Author refufe this, let him give an Inftancc i of fuch erroneous Propofitions as Mafters Simfon and I Campbell have explained into a found Senfe, and fuch as I he will venture his own Charafter upon, that they arc found and orthodox ; and, until he do this, I muft I cither hold him as giving up the Qutftion as he himlelf ^ has dated it upon the Head of Doctrine, or that he has not underdood their Principles: For when he fays that I Mr. C««7pie/fs Explications found and orthodox,

i to ufe one of his own Phrafes, /ome may allcdge that it is as much as if he had faid he docs not know whether they were fo or not.

The Author of the Elfay obferves, from the Preshyte- ry’s and ^ejlimony, p. 66. that they affirm, “ That ( ‘‘ the Aflcfnbly 1 7^6 adopted ProrefrorGtJwjftWfsPrinciple [; concerning Self-love,” And this they had good Reafon I to affirm ; and our Author has never attempted todifprove I any of the Reafons and Grounds that they have offered, I why they judge it fo raanifeff and plain. “ But ( fays our J /Author') feeing they own fame worthy Men in that j^Jfem- ' hly did not notice this^ it might been charitably thought f- “ this was a mere Overfight in the Affembly.’' But he f does not fairly report the Words of the Presbytery’s I and ^ejlimony ; their Words are “ The Cafe is fb plain f ** of irfelf, and from what has been obferved, that no- » thing is neceffary to be added, except to lament that { God has left this Church fo far as to adopt this Error, i “ and that he fo far deferred fome worthy Men as not to r ** notice it, and tedify againd it;” and this they had juft ! Ground to fay. Our Author adds, “ And that they had “ no Defign of adopting this Propodtion is evident, in “ that not fb much as one Perfon in all the Affembly did ' fpeak a Word againd it; for it cannot be denied, fbme

in that Affembly had the Intered of Truth as much at “ Heart as the Brethren thcmfelves, ©“c.” But this is fo f far from being an Evidence that the Affembly had no De- if, fign of adopting Mr. Campbell's Proportion concerning 1 Self love according to his Senfe and Explication of it, that li it is an Evidence to the contrary. And what tho’ there were worthy Men in that Affembly, that had the intereft :j of Truth at Heart, who fuft'ered it to pafs without Oppo- i> fition ? This was indeed an Evidence that they were in this ' Mat*;

* ♦ and Teflimony^ p.

( 94 ) , .

Matrsr, as the Preshyrery fpealc, fo far deferred of God, as nor to notice it and tefiify a^ainrt it ; but it is far from being an Kvidence that the Bulk of that AflTerrbly did rot take up Mr. Propofition in the Senfe in which

be underftood it, neirlier was it an Evidence that the Affembly’s Condud: in this Matter was a hare Overji^ht, as our Author fpeaks. And when be adds, “ That Cha- “ rity obliged to think that the Aflembly hath not uickedly departed from the Lord in this Matter, nor adopted “ this Propofition as their Principle;" Tho’ none vill afF.rm that the Afiembly adopted any Propofition under the Notion of Error, yet it is a <wicked Deparitvg from the Lord, when Darknefs is put for Lipht^ and when Evil is called Gcod^ or when any Church-judicatory embrace Error as if it were a Divine Truth. Our Autiior like- wife adds, “ As the Aflembly 1736 declared they had not “ paflTcd a Judgment on hfr. quarrelled Pofi-

** rions, fo, tho’ the following Aflembly 1737 did not ** think the former Aflembly had given juft Ground for the above Charge, yet they declared their ftedfafl Ad- “ herence to the Principle of this Church, as contained in our Confeflion and Catechifms, as to our chief End in every Thing we do; which was a plain difbwning that “ Principle of Self-love.” But, did not Mr. Campbell in like Manner always declare his Adherence to the Prin-» ciples of this Church ? And did he not attempt to recon¬ cile his Principles concerning Self-love w ith our Confeflion and Catechifms ? Therefore the above general Declaration of the Aflembly 1737 leaves us ftill at an Uncertainty what is the Dodfrine of this Church concerning the Principle of Self-love, in regard Mr. Campbell may in a Confiflency with bis own Principle, as it is adopted by the Aflembly 1736, acknowledge and declare in the fame Terms with the Aflembly 1737: Efpetially when it is confidered, that the only Reafon that is given, to prove that the Aflembly 1736 did not adopt Mr. Cflw/iicfi’s Principle, is, That the faid AfTemibly gave no Judgment or formal Sentence upon the Report of their Committee ; whereas it is evident that the faid Aflembly do in exprefs Terms declare, that ‘‘ the “ examining and flaring the Matter as has been done by “ their Com.miirtee, is fufficient for cautioning againft the “ } T-rors that feme at fiift fuppofed Mr. Carrphell was “ guilty of. ” And it is no lefs plain, that the Com.mirrcc, in examining and flaring the blatter, have approved of the above erroneous Propofition, in refpeit that ihe Cmi-

mittcc

tnittee have decUfed “ their Opinion and good Hopes “ that Mr. Campbell had no iinfound Meaning in afTerting “ Self-love to be the foie Principle, Standard and Motive “ of all religious Actions ; becaule he had declared before *'■ them, That, by his faying that the chief or foie Mo- “ tive to virtuous and religious Actions v/as the Dehre of “ our own Happinefs, he meant no more but that our “ Delight in the Glory and Honour of God was that “ chief Motive;” which is the Propofition iv terminls^ which the Presbytery in their have afferted to be an Error adopted by the AlTembly 1756.

I fhall here confider another Exception laid by onr Author againrt SecelTlon on the Head of Doctrine, Ejfay p. 5. “ Tlie Aft of Aflembly 1736 i&fi) anent Preach- “ ing is a further {landing Tedimony of the Orthodoxy “ of this Church, and ®f her Concern to have found Do- “ ftrine taught and preached by all her Minifters.” And, p. 142, The faid “ is an Ail ajfertory of moll of the great “ Truths which had been controverted.” And, p. 175. it is called a “ Warning at lead to all Minifters and “ Preachers againft the Errors and blafphemous Herefies “ vented among us y But the above Aft of Aflembly, tho* it contains fome good and excellent Things, is not an Aft aflertory of the Truth, in direft and exprefs Oppo- fition to the many damnable Errors that have been brought unto the Bar of our AlTemblics ; neither does it bear any I particular Warning againft fuch dangerous Errors, in the f Terms in which they have been aflerted and maintained I at the Bar of the Judicatories. Befides, if the faid Aft I is reckoned alTcrtorv of the Truth, or a Warning againft I the Errors of the Time, what a very inconfiftent Part did I that AlTembly aft with themlelves, when they difmifled I from their Bar a Scheme of dangerous Principles vented by Mr. Campbell without any Teftimony againft them ? And when this Aflembly did the one Day build again what they pretended to deftroy the other, can their Aft, which our Author calls aflertory of moll of the Truths •controverted, be reckoned a /landing ^ejlimony of their Orthodoxy, or Concern to have found Doftrinc taught and preached? Nay, have they not rather by fuch an incon¬ fiftent Procedure made themfelves 'Tranfgrejfors 7 Gal. ii. 18, To prevent Repetition, I (hall here alfo nptice what our \ Author affirms, p. 1 74. viz. “ As to the putting a Bar to ' “ violent Intruiions, the General Aflembly 1736 revived ; ‘‘ that old Aft which declares againft fettling Church-

“ officers

( 95 )

officers ccnirxry to the Will of the Covgregatteny what Bar have they put upon violent Intrufions, when with the fame Breath they appoint the Presbytery of Stirling to proceed to the Settlement of the Prelentee to the Parifh of Denny., and to be at Pains to bring the People of that Parifh to Jubmit to the Deeijions of the Church ? Let every unprejudiced Perfon judge, if fuch inconfiftent Proceed¬ ings, in 3 Judicatory that bears the Charafter of a Court of Chrift, have not a direft Tendency to expofe and caft loole our Principles, inftead of afferting and maintaining them.

Our Author, p, 122. alledges, That “ the not cenfu- ** ring Profeflbr Simfon and Profcflbr Campbell according “ to the Demerit of their Offence, can be no fuch Step “ of Defedion as is Ground of Separation: For {fay she") “ fometimes the Church of Chrift hath judged it conve- “ nient to pafs the Erroneous without inflidiing any Ec- “ clefiaftical Cenfure for their Offence.” And the Proof he brings of this is taken from ABs xv. where he obferves. That the firft New-Teftament General Affembly or Coun¬ cil, tho* they condemned the corrupt and erroneous Do- ftrine that was vented, “ yet {fayt he) we read not a

Word of any Cenfure inflifted upon the Preachers or “ Teachers thereof.” But our Author would remember, that the Secejpon from the p’-efent Judicatories is not ftated limply upon their not injliHing due Cenfure upon the Er¬ roneous, but efpecially upon their difmifftng them from their Bar, without afferting the Truth in C)ppofirion unto their Errors, and without an exprefi Condemnation of thele Errors; and in this refpeft their Conduft was the Reverfe of what was the Praftice of that famous Synod, who par¬ ticularly and exprcfly condemned the corrupt Doctrines that had then fprung up in the Church. When our Au¬ thor affirms that there was not a Word of any Cenfure infli6bed upon the forefaid corrupt Preachers and Teachers, ‘ he unwarrily pleads the Caufe of the Independents, who affirm the very fame Thing; bur, in Oppofirion to them, : our Presbyterian Divines do affirm, that this Synod at rufalem did “ put forth a critick or cenfuring Power, “ ftigmatizing the falfe Teachers with the infamous Brand “ of troubling the Church Viitb Words, and fuhverting of

Souls, A&s XV. 24.” This was indeed a very high Ceo- rure, as the Author may find from the London Minifers in their fus Div. Reg. Scot. p. 226. and there he will find likewife a mure folid Rcafon than that imaginary one

which

( P7 )

V/hirli he allcf^ges and pretends to anfwer, why that Synod did HOC proceed againft the falfe Teachers hy the Cenfure of Itxcommunication. And it is plain that the Point in queftion before the faid Synod was a Point that had not been determined before that Time in the Ghriftian Church ; and therefore it was neither feafbnabie nor needful to pro¬ ceed to a higher Cenfure than that which was already paft againft thefe falfe Teachers, until it Ihould appear that they perfifted in their Courfe, and were obftinate in the fame, notwithftanding of the forefaid Synodical Deter¬ mination. But tho’ the dodtrinal Errors which have been brought to the Bar of our Judicatories are fuch as ftatid, condemned by our Confeflion of Faith, and theConfeflions of other reformed Churches, yet, if the Judicatories of this National Church had condemned the faid Errors, and declared the Teachers of them to he fuch as have troubled us vjith H'ords^ and Sub'verters of Souls, tho‘ they had not proceeded to any higher Cenfure, I humbly judge the Argument had not been quire fo ftrong, as now it is, for ftating a SecefTion from them upon the Head of Do- dirine.

I have now traced our Author in the feveral Exception againft our Argument for Secefllon, as it is ftated upon the Conduct of the Judicatories on the Aft'air of DcBrine', and it is plain from what is obferved, that the Tendency ' of his Reafbning is to vindicate the Condudf, or extenuate the Sin, of the prefent Judicatories in the whole of their I Management about this weighty and important Matter. As for the Treatment he gives fome Expreffions contained in the Paper given in by my Reverend Brother Mr. Mair to ’he Presbytery, together with his Retreat to the Affembly ttJjS, and his other common Topicks, which I know not flow oft are repeated in his EJfay, I fhall confider them n their proper Place ; only, before I pafs this Head, I :annot but notice what a fmall Account this Author makes ^f the grievious Backflidings of the Church of Scotland rom her Reformatton-purity : “ For {fays he, p. 122 )

moft of the Things laid to the Charge of the Church ‘ of Scotland at this Day are only Omiffions. ” And, p» 174. when he mentions it as one of the principal Grounds )f Secefllon, that no Warning hath been emitted againft Errors and blafphemous Herefies vented amongft us, “ FoC ‘ my Part {fays he) I lliould be glad to fee fuch a W'ar-

‘ ning ; - but the Neglect of this is only an OmifllotK.”

it feems that fuch Omijfions make but a little ItnprefTion

N upon

. ( 98 •)

upon his own Mind ; and he endeavours what he can, that his Reader may make as little Account of them as he does. Tho’ our Secelllon is dated upon Commijftons as well as Omjftons^ yet I widi our Author would confider that Omijftons are fb hainous and grievous in the Sight of God, that, when Sentence is pad againd Men at the great Day, Omijftons are only mentioned. Mat. xxv. 41, 42, &c. For / <was an hungred^ and ye gave me no Meat^ &c. Omif- lions may even turn the pured Churches into Synagogues of Satan-, if the Erroneous are not cenfured, and if Er¬ ror is not condemned, a Society profefling to be a reli¬ gious Society, may foon become a Herd of blafphemous Arians and Soctnians, and of wicked Arminians, or of the like grofs Subverters of the Truth, and of the Souls of Men : And therefore, whatever the Author of the Ef- fay, or others, may think of the Condu<9: of the prefent Judicatories, in not condemning plainly the Errors of the Day, and in refufing to aflert the Truth in Oppofition unto them, yet from what is obferved it may be evident, that their Omijftons in this Matter arc fuch, whereby this National Church as die is reprefented in her prefent Ju¬ dicatories has forfeit a Claim to the Scripture-charafter of the Church of the living God, in regard die does nor up¬ hold, fupport, maintain and con fefs the Truth, in Oppo¬ fition to the Errors of the Day : Yea, they are fuch, whereby die does not anfwer one of the fpecial Ends of the Lord’s rearing up and crefting a vifible Church upon the Earth, namely, That there may be an open and pu- blick Profeflion and Confeffion of the Truth, to the Ho¬ nour, the Praife and the Glory of our great IMMANU¬ EL, w ho builds the Temple of the Lord, and bears all the Glory Again, thefe Omiffions are fuch, whereby our Confeflton of Faith is no more a fixed Standard and Teft of Orthodoxy and Soundnefs in the Faith amongft the prefent Judicatories, or thefe that are in Conjundion with them ; and likewife, the faid Omiffions arc fuch, where¬ by die has practically let go, in her forefaid Capacity, thefe Truths that were once received and confclfed amongft us, while our Confeffion of Faith and the feveral Articles thereof were maintained and held in their genuine Senfe and Meaning. In fine, the Omiffions mentioned arc fuch, whereby one principal Bond of our Ecclefiaftical Unity is diflblved and broke by the prefent Judicatories. From all which it appears, that our Seceffion from them as it ii dated upon the Head of DoCtrine is both juft and w-ar-

rantable.

f ( 99 )

trantabic, I fliall conclude this Head with an Inftance op two, befides thcl'e I have already named, to fliew how averle the primitive Chriftians were from the very Ap¬ pearance of any religious Communion with the Erroneous. Mr. Claud reports, That, as for thole who taught falle Dodirine, the primitive Church never had any Union with them, “ And (Jays he) not only the Ancients had no “ Communion with them, but, to Ihew how necelTary “ and indifpenfible they judged a Separation from them “ to be, they went fo far as to refufe Communion with “ the Orthodox themfelves, when either by Surprife or Weaknefs, or fome other Intereft, they had received “ Hereticks into their Communion, altho’ as to fhemlelves they had kept their Faith in its Purity He gives two Examples of this Stridtnefs in the primitive Church ; The one is of Gregory the Father of Gregory NaZianzen^ who, being deceived by a fallacious Writing, gave the Communion to j4rians ; whereupon “ all the Monks of “ his Diocefe, with the greareft Part of his Church, lepa- “ rated themfelves from him, altho’ they well knew that “ he had not changed his Mind, nor embraced Hcrefy. ” The other Inftance he gives is that of the Orthodox of the Church of Romoy who refufed to hold Communion with Felix their Bifhop, “ becaule he held Communion ' with the Ajiansy altho* be entirely held the Creed of ‘‘ the Council of Flice. ” Claud mentions thefe Inftances, only to Ihew how far their Averfion went, which they had ‘ from holding Communion with the Ariansy tho’ he does I not abfolutely approve of the above Carriage: Neither 1 can I Juftify the Carriage of Gregory's Church, who fepa- I rated from him when he was impofed upon by a fallacious ! W riring ; but their Carriage would have been more ju- I fiifiable, if they had been in the lame Circumftances with i us, who have to deal with Judicatories, who, without I any Impofition upon them, have held an Atian in Mini- [ fterial and Chriftian Communion with them, and have ob- flinately refufed to give the Church faithful Warning againft his Errors. The lame Author likewife reports 4-» that Faufiinusy in his Treatife againft the ArianSy fays, ** If any one did not believe that the Society of the A~ rians could be rendered culpable, under a Pretence that ** he had the Teftimony of his own Conlcience, which did ** not accufe him of having violated or renounced the Faiith there; it belonged to fuch a one to take heed

N 2 and

* Claud's Hift. Def. Part 3. p. 8. 4= Ib, p. 25.

( lOO )

and to examine himfelf: Bur, as for me, the Caulc of God being concerned, I judge myfelf bound to be more precautioned, and ro have a greater Fear than “ thofe Perfons have.” I fhall only add what Dupin reports of Hilary Billiop of PoiBiers, who, having come to the Synod that met at Selucia Anno 559, did, at his firft Entrance into the Synod, make Confeffion of his Faith according to the Decifions of the Council of N/re, upon which he took his Seat in the Synod ; but, when he ob- lerved that many of the Bifhops were Arians, he depar¬ ted, and would not be any more prefent with them It is to be obferved, that the Synod admitted of the above Confeffion of his Faith ; yet he would have no Church- communion where Arians were fitting as Members. Many other Inftances to this Purpofe might be given of the pri¬ mitive Chriftians their refufing religious or Church Commu-* nion with the Adverfaries of Truth, even where no fuch Thing was exprefly required as an Approbation of the Principles of the Erroneous.

SECT. II.

Wherein it is proi^en that the prefent '^tidicatc^ \ ties of this National Church are tyrannical in the Adminifiration of Government and Difcipline. j

AS every Society in the World muft have its own di- ftindt Government within itfelf, without which it cannot fubfiff, but muff needs fall into Confufion and Diforder; fo the Church of Chrift is a Society which muft needs have fome Order and Government within itfelf, for its own Prefervation and Support: And therefore the Lord Jefus, who is faithful in all kis Heufe as a Son^ hath not left his Church deftitute of fuch a Mean, which is abfo- lutely neceffary for her Prefervation and Subfiflencein her . prefent militant State; he upon whofe Shoulders the Go¬ vernment is laid, and who is, by his Father's Defignation and Appointment, King over Zion the Hill of his Hcltnefsy hath fettled the Order and Government of his own fpiri- tual Kingdom ; he has not left it to the arbitrary Will and Pltafure of Men, what Model and P'orm of Government fliould be let up in his Church ; he has not left it to Men to give Laws unto his Subjects, in thefe Things that con-

* BfbUoth, AnB. EccUf, Tom. z. p. 13S.

cern them as they are the Subjefts of his fpiritual King¬ dom ; neither has he left it to Men to give Officers and Ordinances unto his Houie according to their arbitrary Will and Plcafure: He has declared his Mind concerning all thefc Things plainly in his Word ; there he has told 0 us what Officers he has appointed in his Houfe, and after ^ what Manner they are to be fet over his Flock and Heri-

!tage ; there he has alfo declared his Mind concerning the Courts of his fpiritual Kingdom, and all the Office-bear, 5 ers in his Kingdom have their feveral Inftruftions delive- (1 red them, not from Men, but from him who is the only f Lord and Lawttiver to his Subjects; and it is upon their rl higheft Peril if they tranfgrefs them. Hence all the Sub- 5 jefts of his Kingdom are charged with the greateft So¬ il lemnity in the following Manner, Ezek. xliv. 5. And the k the Lord /aid unto me. Son of Man, mark modi, and behold K Hviih thine Eyes, and hear with thine Ears all that I fay un- t to thee concerning all the Ordinances of the Houfe of the Lord,

I and all the Laivs thereof, and mark moell the Entring in of the Houfe, moitb emery Going forth of the SanBuary. As for d the Officers of Chrift’s fpiritual Kingdom, the Apoftle i; gives us a Roll of them, both extraordinary and ordinary, ) I Cor. xii. 28. The extraordinary Officers were Apojlles, f. Prophets, fuch as were endued with the Pomcer of moorking ii Miracles, Gifts of Healings, and Diver fties of ‘fongues’, but, li the Scripture-canon being now compleatcd, the Church does not ftand in Need of any fuch Officers. The ordi- C nary Officers fet in the Church are, Teachers ; Helps or I Deacons, who have the Overfight of the Poor ; Govern- |lf mer.ts, that is. Governors or Rulers ; by whom the Elder i that only rules is intended, the Abftraft being put for the it Concrete. As for the Manner how thefe Officcr.s are to k be given to the Church, they muft be fet over her by her I own Choice, Call and Conlent, ABs i. 25. ABs vi. 3, 5. ^ and xiv. 28. Likewife, they muft be authorifed and fet if apart unto their refpeftive Offices, ABs vi. 6, i Tim. iv. 14. k Rom. X. 1 5. The former refpefts their Nomination or y Defignation unto their feveral Offices, and this belongs un- • to the whole Church ; the latter refpefts their authorita- I tive Million, and this belongs only to fuch Office-bearers • of the Church as have Power and Authority from the Lord Jefus for that Effect.

As tor the Courts of Chrift’s fpiritual Kingdom, thefc are either Congregational Elderlhips, Presbyterial Mcec- ■ ings, or Synodical Affemblies. As for Synodical AJfem.,

blieii

( 102 )

llieSy thefe are either Prcvincinl or National^ and, if the State of the Church did admit them, OEcumemcal, Wc have the Divine Pattern and Warrant for fuch Affcm- blies, JBs xv. with ABi xvi. 4, 5. With rerpe6t to ?ref- hyterial Meetings^ the Divine Pattern and Warrant is very plain for them ; as ABs xiii. i, 2, 5. where we find fcveral Teachers or Miniftersof the jointly minillring unto

the Lord, and at his Commandment and Dircdkion exerci- fing AiSts of Jurifdiftion, 5. as alfo, the Name Prejbym iery is exprefl'ed in Scripture, i iv. 14. holding forth a Society or Body of Elders aflbciated together for the Excrcife of Government and Difcipline in the Church, i Our Presbyterian Divines have made the fame Thing evi¬ dent from the Churches of Corinth^ ‘Jerufalem, Ephefus^ See. which were Presbyterial Churches, under the In- fpeftion and Government of their Paftors and Elders aC- fociated in a Presbyterial Capacity. I refer the Reader to | their Writings, particularly to the of Church-govern^ tnentj received and approven by this Church Anno 1645.

1 fhall only further obferve upon this Head, That Presby¬ terial Courts appear to be in a proper and drift Senfe ra¬ dical JudicatorieSf as is evinced by the Reverend and Worthy Author of the State and Duty of the Church of Scotland, &c. publifhed Anno 1752, p. 95- for the fol¬ lowing Reafons amongft others; jy?, “A Church-feffion “ or Congregational Elderfli ip fuppofes and implies a Pref^

“ bytery, as morally necefiary towards its Ereftion, and “ the Ordination of its conftituent Members, without whofe Ordination that Seflion could not in an ordinary “ Way have been erefted; and, without a Presbytery previoufly cxifting, thefe its Members the Minifters and “ Elders could not have been ordained. 2^//, A Synod “ Provincial or National is fo far from preexifting a Pref^

“ bytery, that it fuppofes and implies in its very Nature and Conflitution the Prcexiftence of Presbyteries, as the “ Matter of its Being and Ereftion.” With refpeft to Congregational Elderlhips, the Divine Warrant for them is concluded by juft and neceflary Confequence, from fc¬ veral Places of the holy Scriptures ; as for Inftance, when there is mention of a Plurality of Churches in the one Presbyterial Church of Corinth^ 1 Cor. xiv. 54. as like- . wife where there is mention of the Church in fuch a Houfc, as Horn xvi y. i Cor. xvi. 19. Col. 'w. 15. Philem. 2. As thefe Churches were finglc Congregations, fo the London

Moi-

I Minifiers do well ol^ferve that thefe finglc Congregati- j| ons have the Name and Nature of Churches, and there¬ fore behoved to have the ordinary ftanding OflScers that ' are fet in the Church, viz. Paftors or Teachers, Govern- i menrs or Elders ruling well, and Helps or Deacons ; and,

I if fuch fingle Congregations have the ordinary ftanding ' OftScers, they muft needs have likewile the Power of Rule r and Government, for the Edification of the Body of Chrift I in Matters peculiarly belonging unto them, and which in * ordinary Gales, according to the Rule of the Word, fall :: under their immediate Cognifance in thefe fingle or par- 3 ticular Congregations,

^ With relpeft to that Power and Authority that belongs i to the feveral Courts of Chrift’s fpiritual Kingdom, I fliall ( not take upon me particularly to define or determine it ;

tonly it is not a mere coufultative Power and Authority :

When no more is given unto the Courts of Chrift’s k fpiritual Kingdom, the Authority of the King of 2,ion is c not reprelented or manifefted in them ; they are robbed I of the Key of Difeipline, which is given by the Lord I Jefus to the Office-bearers of his Houfe ; they have no t cenfuring Power with refpefi: to Herefies, Scandal, and K Obftinacy : If their Power is only confultative, the Cen- ^ furesof Reproof, Admonition, Sufpenfion from Ibaling Or- ti dinances, and Excommunication, cannot be inflifted by >i the feveral Ecclefiaftical Courts above-mentioned ; tho* the ^ Power of Cenfure is very ncceflary for prelerving Sound- ■ nefs in the Faith, and Purity in the Walk and Converla- t tion of Church- members. But yet, tho’ Ecclefiaftical b Courts may proceed in an authoritative Manner, in the »v Name of the Head and King of Zdon, their Power and C Authority is limited, it is a Power for Edification ; they I. have not a Lordly and Magijierial, but a Minifierial ana Stewardly Authority ; they have not a Legijlative Autho- \ rity, tho’ they have a Power to declare and publiffi the : genuine Senfe and Meaning of the Laws of Chrift’s fpi- i ritual Kingdom, in Oppofition to Corrupters and Subver- ters of the fame ; they have a Power to apply the Doctrines of Faith, or the Truths of God declared and laid down in his Word, againft emergent Herefies and Errors; they ' have allb a Power to apply the Cenfures of Chrift’s Houfe to the Erroneous and Scandalous : They are not Lords over our Faith and Conlcience, nor the Rule of our Faith and PraBice, but Helps to both ; all the Office-bearers in

the

f Jus Div. Reg. EceJef p. 187.

( '04 )

the Chnrch are ^ivsn her, and conlcqucnrly all Ecclefi- aftical Courts are inftituted and appointed, for the per¬ fecting of the Satrts, for the iVork of the Mintjtry ^ for the edi- fying of the Body of Ckrilly Eph. iv. 1 2. and according to our Confejft 'n^ Chap. xxxi. § 2, 5, 4. But if Ecclefi- aftical Courts rule over the Flock of Chrift with Rigour, if they refufe to publifh and declare the Laws and Ordi- ; nances of the Lord Jefus in Oppofition to Gainfayers; if they walk contrary to the Laws of Chrift'slpirirual King¬ dom, or the Inftruclionsthat they have received from him ; if they wound, Icatter and break the Heritage of God; , if they fereen and proredt the Erroneous or Scandalous ; if they turn the Edge of Difeipline againft fuch as cleave , to the Truth, and reftify againft Iniquity ; then they arc unfaithful to their 7r«y?, and pervert the Keys of Govern¬ ment and Difeipline, and they thereby forfeit their Claim to the Exercife of the Keys, till they repent and return to their Duty : And, in this Cafe, their Power and Autho¬ rity may juftly be rejefted, as tyrannical in its Exercife, by the Subjects of Chrift’s fpiritual Kingdom. And that this is the State of Matters with refpedt to this National Church, as fhe is reprefented in her prefent Judicatories, . is what I am now to evince ; and I hope the fhort Account . that is given above of our Presbyterian Principles will not be judged foreign to the Purpofe in Hand, efpecially - when they are fb much oppofed even by fome who not many Years ago diftinguifhed themfelves by a zealous : Appearance for them ; whereby fome are in Danger to be carried away unto the Sectarian Extremes on the one Hand, and one the other Hand many are lofing Sight of our Presbyterian Principles, by reafbn of the Conduft of the Judicatories, who, tho’ they bear the Name and Cha¬ racter of Presbyterian Courts, yet, ip the prefent Exer¬ cife and Adminiftration of the Government and Difei¬ pline, do in their judicative Capacity oppofe themfelves •' unto our Presbyterian Form and Order, and walk contra- ■ ry unto the fpecial End and Defign of the Ordinances of ^ Government and Difeipline in the Houfe of God, as may evidently appear from the following particular Inftances. .

ly?. That the prefent judicatories of this Church arc 1 tyrannical in the Adminiftration, may appear from their . Conduct in the Settlement of Minifiers in vacant Congrega- I tions. There has been for about Twenty Years bypaft, \ and upwards, a continued Series and TraCt of violent Set- < elements, whereby Minifters have been intruded upon dif-

fenting

fentipg; and reclaiming Congregations ; As thefe violent Secrlcrnenrs have been countenanced and fupporred by the Authority of the Supreme Judicatory of this National Churcli, fo they have taken Place many of them upon thd Footing of Vrefevtations in confequence of the reJ}o~ rini> Patronages, and others upon the Footing of the pad by the Jjfembly 1732 anenC the Settlement of vacant Congregations. It is plain that a Legiflative Power and j Authority was exercifed over the Houfe of God in the pairing of the forelaid A6t, whereby the Flock and He- I ritage of God were fpoiled and robbed of the Power of I Choohng and Calling their own Minifters; and this Power was given up to Heritors under the general Denomination of Protefiants^ by which Means fuch as declare them- i felves oppofite unto our Presbyterian Conliitution wercin- I Veiled with the Power of giving Minifters to Presbyterian I Churches. The forefaid ASi was indeed repealed by the Aflembly 1734 ; Bur, how was it repealed ? Was it de- I dared to be ftnful or contrary unto our Presbyterian Prin- i ciples and Conllitutions, as they are aflerted in our Books of Difcipline, or other laudable A6ts of this National Church ? or, was the above Aft declared to be a Viola¬ tion of the Rights and Privileges of the Subjefls of the King of Zion ? No, by no Means ; it was only repealed^ hccaufe it was part contrary to fome Forms appointed to be obferved in the palling of Afts of Aflembly : And therefore the Settlement of Minifters is to this very Day carried on, either upon the Footing of Prefentations, or after the Manner prelcribed in the repealed AB and con- : fequently the Judicatories of this Church, not onlyjuftify i that A<5t in their PraftiCe, bur, by their habitual Procc-

■ dure in the Settlement of Minifters, counterad: the Ordi-

■ nances and Inftitutions of Chrift, and exercife a Lordly . Dominion over the Heritage of God, whereby they are ; Wounded, feattered and broken ; and this is done not-*

• W'ithftanding of manifold Reprefentations and Remon-* f ftrances to tne contrary.

I The Author of the Hjfay owns, that the Charge of vio- lent Intrufions is what the Church of Scotland can leaft be ! vindicated from, p. 30. he likewife acknowledges that wd r have juft Ground to lament the many violent Settlements . that have taken Place ; “ But, fays he^ as there hath been I, “ a confiderable Struggle made by many Minifters of this :• Church againft them, a confiderable Stop hath been put

i- ‘‘ to them for fome Time bygone,** It is true, that both 5, ■' O Mini^

( 'io5 )

Ml'niftcrs and many other Church-members have made a confiderable Struggle againft them, as may appear from the Narrative I have given in the Introduftion ; but then fuch as are Strangers to Affairs amongft us in Scotland^ and who read the above Words of our Author, may readily apprehend, that the Struggles he mentions have had fuch , dcfirable Surcefs, that the prefent Judicatories are repen¬ ting and reforming that Courfe of' Violence which they have praftifed againft the Lord’s Heritage and Flock in Scotland : But I appeal to our Author himfelf, if he can honeftly fay, that the Judicatories arc either repenting or reforming their Violence. Whether our Author’s Words may be reckoned an Extenuating of the Sin of the Judica¬ tories, or whether or not, as they are laid, they have an ; evident Tendency to impofe upon the Worltf, I leave it ■ to the Reader^ who knows the State of Matters with us in , Scotland^ to judge for himfelf: Only I may ask our Author^- Can he give me an inftance in any of the General AiTem- blies for feveral Years bygone, wherein violent Settle¬ ments one or mo have not been either countenanced, fup- ported, or expredy enafted ? Before I have done, I fhall , give him particular Inftances to the contrary. Here I fhall only obferve, that the Aflembly 1754, whofe Con- i duft and Management was much better than that of feve- | ral Affemblies before, or of any that have followed, yen i when the Cafe of the Parifh of Cambufnethan was brought before them by an Appeal from a Sentence of the Presby~ tery of Hamiltoun^ which had an evident Tendency to¬ wards a violent Settlement in the faid Parifh, even the forefaid AfTembly remit to the Presbytery of Hamiltoun to proceed towards the Settlement of the laid Parifh as they fhall judge beft for the Edification of that Congregation: This was a Delivering-up of the Opprefled into their Hands who had given Sentence againft them ; for, who could doubt but that Presbytery would think it necefTary to fee to the Execution of their own Sentence ? I fhould not have upbraided that Ajfembly with this particular In¬ ftance, if the Judicatories had been indeed reforming their 1 violent Mcafures ; but the following Aflemblics one after 1 another countenanced or fupported, as I have faid, the ' Settlement of Minifters over diffenting and reclaiming 1 Congregations, tho’ the Author of the Ejfay would have the World believe that a confiderablc Stop has been put to fuch finful PraQrices for fbme Time bypaft.

That the Settlement of Minifters over diffenting and

rc-

I

; ( 107 )

> reclaiming Congregations is tyranny y I need only appeal to the Reverend Mr. Cunie in his Jm Pop. Div. Pref, p. 4. where he gives it as a Reformation-principle from

{Calvin and Calder<woody which he himfclf adopts, “ That ** it is an impious Robbing of the Church, Rapine and Sacrilege, to fettle any Minifter whether the People r“ conlent or nor.” If our Author continues to own this, d which he calls a Reformation-principle, it will be no dif- tficult Matter to prove againft him, that the prefent Judi- I eateries are guilty of Tyranny ^ yea, of habitual Tyranny I in the Adminiftration. It is affirmed in the EJfayy p. 29.

I That he is not a Tyrant who is guilty of a few Adts of “ Oppreffion, but he who is habitually guilty of them ? “ in his Adminiftration.” He addsy “ I think none will it “ fay the Church of Scotland is habitually guilty of Ty« i “ ranny, and intolerable Perfecution whether of Soul or I “ Body.” Can our Author have the Confidence to fay, • that the prefent Judicatories are only guilty of ^ few ABs ' of what he calls impious Robbery, Sacrilege and Rapine ? I 1 would gladly know what our Author reckons necelTary i to determine habitual Guilt : Can he refufe that a Series d and Traft of Intrufions for a great Number of Years by- \ paft, and thefe perfifted in by the Judicatories, notwith- I ftanding of Petitions, Reprefentations and Remonftrances I againft them; Can he refufe, I fay, that thefe are fuffici. e ent to denominate them habitually guilty of Afts of Op- ) preffion, or, according to our Author, of impious Robberyy i»' Sacrilege and Rapine in the Adminiftration} He (peaks of |i intolerable Perfecution of Soul and Body : Is not impious d Robbing of Men of what belongs to them as they are Chri- I ftians, a confiderable Height of Soul-perfecution } I know? » not what he means by intolerable Perfecution ; for the r Faith and Patience of the Saints has overcome the greateft f Tyranny and Cruelty, Rev. xii. ii. & xiii. 10. And as to f Perfecution of the Body; It is no Secret, but what is very f well known through the Land, that Tenants have been r frowned upon, and confiderable Severities have been threat- ' ned againft them, if they fhould not give in to the Man whom their Heritors have thought fit to chufe for their Minifter : Can our Author fay that there is no Perfecu¬ tion of Body in all this? And, do not the Judicatories fupport and encourage fuch Perfecution, when they take the Heritor s Man by the Hand, and thruft him in upon a diflcuting and reclaiming People ? The Ejfay tells us, from

O z R»’

Rutherfcdvd “That a Tyrant is he who habitually Sinj “ againft the Catholick Good of the Subje6ts and State, i and fubverteth Law.’* But, is not that which our An- i thor reckons impioui Robbery^ a Subverting of the Laws of . the Kingdom ot Chtid ? Can our Author, who has profeG ’ fed fb much Zeal for the Rights of the Chriftian People, refufe tha*' the Catholick Good of the Subjefts of the Re- ' dccmer’s Kingdom is interefted in the Eleftion of Church- officers r' It IS reckoned an eflsntial Point in the Confti- i tution of any Civil Society, and what the Catholick Good | pf the Society is concerned in, who ffiall chufe their Ma-> | j^ilfrates or fuch like Officers ; and our Reformed Divines | have reckoned it of as great Importance and Moment to the Church, who lhail cimfc her Pallors and Overfeers. i And here I ffiall give him the Words of a confiderable i Divine, for whom our Author doth fometimes exprefs a j very great Regard, viz. Doftor Owen., in his Enquiry into i the Original, &c. p. iSi. fpeaking of the Things that are I vecejfary Fur.damentals unto the Order of the Ch\irch, on the Part of the Miniflry, fays he, “ That all the Mini- fters or Officers of the Church be duly chofen by the Church itfelf, and folemnly let apart in the Church i “ unto their Office, according unto the Rule and Law ' of Chrift; this is fundamental unto Church-order, the ' Root of it, from whence all other Parts of it do fpring- “ and it is that which is exprefly provided for in the Scrip- cure : If there be a NegleQ: herein, and no other Re- lation required Ixrtween Minifters, Elders, Rulers, Bi- ffiops, and the Church, but what is railed and created by Ways and Rules of Mens Appointment, — the Law of Chrid is violated, and the Order of the Church is difturbed in its Foundation.” And, if our Author is confiftent with himfelf in his other Writings, I do not fee how he can refufe that the prefent Judicatories in their Settlement of Minifters are guilty of habitual Sinning ar gainft the Catholick Good of the Subjefts of Chrift, and of fubverting the Lav/s of his fpiritual Kingdom ; and, if he continues to own that the Intrufion of Minifters is impiors Robbery, Sacrilege and Rapine, how comes he to give the right Hand of Fellowffiip to fuch, by fitting in Judicatories witli them ? Can we have a Conjundlion, as parts and Members of the fame one Ecclefiaftical Body, with impious Robbers, and fuch as are guilty of Sacrilege and Rapine^ ^nd who refufe to repent and reform ; and

yet

hex Rex f p. 2,1),

( 109 )

• yet at the fame Time fay, We are not Partakers of their '! Sins? I ask our Author again, Whether or not impious •' Robbers, and fuch as are guilty of Sacrilege, 8cc. delervc I that the Cenfures of the Houie of God fhould 'be infli<5hed ; upon them f And, if fo, then, according to our Author’s

declared Principles *, they ought to be Icparated from. zdly, A fecond Inllance that I give of Tyranny in the . Adminifiration, is the ConduB of the prefent Judicatories V with refpe^t to fuch as have endeavoured to tefiify dcBrinal- ^ ly againlt the prefent Courfe of Defection. Tho’ Mini¬ mi fters of the Gofpel have it in Commiflion to teach all J Things nvhatfoever the Lord Jefus hath commanded, and tho’ h they are obliged under their higheft Peril to teftify doftri- jl Dally againft every publick Sin, Iviii. i. Ezek. xxxiii, , 7> 8. yet, as I have noticed in the Introduction, when the

i Reverend Mr. Erskine Minifter at Stirling did teftify do- i ftrinally from the Word of God againft fome of our Steps of Defection, he is brought to the Bar of the Judicatories, and the Aflembly 1 755 appoint him to be rebuked at their Bar, for impugning JBs of j^ffembly and the Proceedings of i the Judicatories, in a Sermon at the Opening of the Synod ( of Perth and Stirling : And what were thefe Proceedings of 1 the Judicatories which he impugned ? Even the above- 1 mentioned and the like, viz. the Impofing of Minifters upon diflenting and reclaiming Congregations.

^dly, A third Inftance of Tyranny in the Adminiftra- tion is the ConduCt of the prefent Judicatories, in thrujling out from Minijierial Communion •with them fome Minifters . who have refufed to fubmit to the above unjuft ACf and ' Sentence, whereby they judged their Minifterial Freedom . was reftrained, and who therefore protefted for Liberty to teftify on all proper Occafions againft the Courfe of De- feCfion carried on by the Judicatories : This was done by the forefaid Aftembly 1753 their Aft and Sentence paft againft Mr. Erskine and three other Minifters, as I have alfo narrated in the Introduftion. They were every one, in confequence of the forefaid Aft and Sentence, firii fufpended from the Exercife of their Miniftry, becaufe

• they would not retraft their above Proteftation ; this was

done by the Commiffion of the forefaid Aflembly: And afterwards, at another Meeting, of the fame Commiffion, they were declared to be no longer Minifters of the eftablijbed Church, becaufe they refqfed to fubmit to the Cenfure of Sufpenfion, and continued to refufe to retract their Pro- tft4tiQu . The

* P- 35*

( 1 10 )

The Author of the EJf/iy does not pretend fo juftify the above Sentence of the Aflembly 1755 : He tells us, p. 28.

“ I was and am forry ever fuch a Sentence was paft, whcrc- “ by thete Brethren were caft out from the Communion of “ this Church/’ I have no Ground to queftion our Au¬ thor’s Ingenuity, efpecially when he gave fuch a publick and folemn Evidence of what he affirms above, in a Ser¬ mon preached in the ^olbooth-chunh in Edinburgh fame Year, on the Faft-day before the Celebration of the Lord’s Supper there, when, fpeaking of theCondudt of the Ju¬ dicatories towards the protefting Minifters, he expreffied himfelf in the following Terms;” Thar, tho’ they fhould “ fuffer Sufpenfion, Depofition, Imprifonment, Baniffi- “ ment. Heading or Hanging, I am convinced in my Con- ** fcience they fuffer for a good Caufe, and the Lord will “ own and honour them in it.” I hope I ffiall be excufed if I have for once reported a Hearfayy a Praftice very frequent with our Author, and for which I have elfewhere condemned him : I fhould not have done it, if I had not very good Authority for it ; and befides, I do not reckon it any way prejudicial onto our Author’s Charader. But I muft be allowed to add, that I am alfo forry, that, not- ivithftanding of his large Profeffions of Zeal againft the Conduct of the Judicatories, he has not found them guilty of Tyranny in the Adminiftration, neither in this Parti- * cular, nor in any other inftance whatfoever; yea, he does : what he can to extenuate the Sin of the Judicatories, and I for this End he brings in our reforming Period as more ty- 1 rannical by far in the Adminiftration, and alledges. No¬ thing can be laid to the Charge of the prclent Judicato¬ ries, equal to thefc Afts of Tyranny which he thinks fit fo condefeend upon from the forefaid Period : But this I am afterwards to conftdcr in its proper Place. Here I ffiall briefly notice a few Things that our Author offers for taking off the Force of our Argument as it is laid upon Tyranny in the Adminiftration, in the particular Inftance now be¬ fore me : He allcdges, in the firft Place, That the Aft and Deed of the Synod of Perth and Stirlingy reftoring the fc- ceding Minifters to Minifterial Communion with this Church, to their feveral Charges, and to the Exercife of all Parts of the Minifterial Funftion tlierein, in confe- qucnce of the Power and Authority given the faid Synod by tlie General Aflembly 17:^4, ‘‘ was, if not a formal,

“ vet a material Kcicinding of the Sentences pronounced agaicft them,” Ej[ay^ p. \ Cy In Oppofition to this.

( II I

the receding Miniftcrs affirm, That the Aft and Sentence part by the AlTembly 17^5 is never to this Day either formally or materially refcinded\ and they have given their Reafons for this, in their Paper intituled, Reafom by., &c. •why they have not acceded to the Judicatories., &c. The Au¬ thor of the Effay has never fo much as attempted to enter into the Argument as it is laid in that Paper, nay, he has induftrioufly ffiifted the fame: As for Inftance, he tells us, p. 165. “ Whereas in Vindication of their not acceding,

“ upon what was done by that Aflembly and the forefaid “ Synod 1734, it is complained, ^hat JJfembly did not ' “ themfelves judge of the Legality of the Sentences pronounced 1 againfl the Brethren as they ought, feeing the Synod could ‘‘ not do this ; ’* and for this he cites Reafons not acced. p. 23.

I obferved in my Pofifcript to the Letter mentioned above, that the Author of the Effay perverts our Words, and that as they are cited by him they are unintelligible, and that "' he appears to me not to have underftood what he was at¬ tempting to anfwer. Upon this our Author, in a Paper he calls his Short Vindication, after, fome frivolous Criti- cifms, fuch as, ‘‘ Whereas it is faid, I pretend to give one “ of their Reafons, &c. this I refu^ ; 1 only fay, ’Tis complained that Aflembly did not, &c." Under what- . ever Shape he may think fit to take up our Words in the Page from which he pretends to cite them, they are laid as a Reafbn why the fcceding Minifters judged the Aft and I Sentence paft againfl them was neither materially nor for- , mally refeinded. But I fay. After two fuch infignificanc ( Criticifms, and an Alledgance againfl fbme Words in ouc ' and ^efiimony, which I fhall afterwards confider, he tells us, p. 8. Short Rind. “ I gave what I took to be the Subftance of that G>mplaint, tho’not precifely in their “ Words, nor did I fay they were their Expreffions. ’*

I How comes he then to mark them with the ordinary Marks of a Citation, as if they had been our precife Words? Ic I had been more fair if he had told his Reader, that he did I not give our precife Words, but what he took to be the Subflance of what he calls our Complaint. He tranferibes in the Page laft cited fbme Sentences out of which he had gathered what he calls our Complaint ; but flill they are unintelligible as he lays them, neither can they convey unto any that read his Book a juft View of the Argument or Reafbn why the feceding Brethren judge the Aft and Sen¬ tence paft againfl: them is neither formally nor materially repealed : And I doubt not to affirm, that the Rcafon as

( II2 ) '

it IS there laid is fuch, as neither he nor any other Can give a fatisfying Anfwer unto. The feceding Brethren juHly obferve That the Aflembly I754i in their A(ft anent them, give full Power to the Synod of Perth to take the Cafe of the four Brethren, as it then flood, under their Confidcration, and to proceed and do therein as they fliall find mofl juflifiable and expedient for refloring the Peace and preferving the Authority of this Church, “ But “ with this exprefs Direftion, That the faid Synod^ fliall “ not take upon them to judge of the Legality or Formality “ of the former Proceedings of the Church-judicatories “ in relation to this Affair, or either to approve or cevfure

the fame.” The Brethren juflly argue, That, from the : above exprefs Direction of the Aflembly to the Synod of Perth and Stirling, it is plain, that the Aft of Aflembly 1755, and the Proceedings of their Commiffion thereupon, are nowife affefted by the Aft of AflTembly 1734, either as to their Legality or Formality ; that is, they are held and repute to be formal and legal Deeds by the faid Aflembly, and the Synod of Perth is bound up from difapproving or cenfuring them. And, when the Aflembly 1734 did nei¬ ther difapprove nor condemn the forefaid Proceedings againfl the Brethren, it is plain the Synod could nor : And tho’ the Synod had difapproven and condemned them, v/hen they are exprefly difeharged by the Aflembly fo to > do, yet the Aft of Aflembly 1733 muft flill be reckoned : a Deed of this Church, neither materially nor formally refeinded to this Day ; for an inferior Judicatory can never repeal an Aft and Sentence paft by a fuperior, while they continue in Conjunftion with and Subordination to them.

If it is then enquired, What are the Powers given by the ' Aflembly 1734 to the Synod of Perthl I anfwer, The Synod of Perth are only impowered to relax the four Bre¬ thren, upon fome political Confiderations, from the Sen¬ tences that were pafled againfl them, viz, for preventing the “ lamentable Confequences that have followed and :

may yet follow upon their Separation from this Church,

“ and the Judicatories thereof” And, in the mcau j Time, the Aft and Deed of the Aflembly 1733 againfl: i them is held and repute to be legal and formal, and is no¬ wife to be cenfured by the Synod; and the Synod have 1 accordingly relaxed them from the Sentences pronounced ; and execute againfl them, and this was all that was done, ' or could be done by the Synod, in confcquence of the !

Powers I

* Reafons not acetd. p. 23,

J

I Powers crttnrnttfecl fo rhem. 1 may here likewifc ohferv’C’j that the laft Alfcmbly 1758 give us the Senfe tliat the pre* fcnt Judicatories have of the Adt of Aflembly 1754, wherl they mention it in the Preamble to their Adf anent the fs- ceding Minifters, as an aggravating Circumftance of their ( continued Sccellton, that this is done notwithftanding of \ the Clemency fhewed to feme of them in the Year 1754,

I The receding Minifters have always pled for the Repeal of the Deed 1735 agaitift them, not as an Adt of Favour or Pity unto them, as ftraying Brethren, who deferved fuch a Sentence, but as an Adt of Juftice ; and they have pled the Repeal of the faid Deed, not merely as an Adfc I of Juftice to themfclves, but as a Piece of Juftice that ; fhould be done to injured Truth, namely, that an Adt and j Sentence condemning a faithful dodfrinal Teftimony againft: Steps of Defedfion, and likewife condemning a Protefta- tion againft the unwarrantable Exercife of the Key of Dift ciplinc, might not remain to future Generations as a ftan- ding Adt and Deed of this National Church, When the Author of the Ejfay cites fome of our Words, but yet ! never touches the above Reafon why we judge the A(9: of Aftembly 1735 was never yet repealed either materially or formally, the moft favourable Conftrudtion that I could put upon his Condufi: was, that he appeared to me not to have underftood the Argument. He feems to be offen¬ ded at this, and infinuates in his Short VindicatioVy that it I is a bringing into Queftion his Intelledluals : But if he 1 took up the Force of our Reafoning, and took no Manner ' af Notice of the fame, which 1 have fhown he has not,

,j :hen he waved it induftrioufly and with Defign, and there- by impofes upon his credulous Reader, when he conceals : the Weight and Strength of our Reafon from him; and . this was what 1 was very loth to impute unto him.

• ; From what is above obferved it is evident, that the Aft ♦ jf Aflembly 1735 is a fianding and Deed of this Na- i tonal Church, never yet refetnded nor repealed ; therefore ,| [ fliall not weary the Reader with tracing our Author 111 urther in the Anfwers he makes to the feveral Citations,

I ivhich after his own Way he tranferibes from our Reafons . >f Not-acceJJiony in regard he never once touches the Ar- { jument, as the Reader may find, if he thinks it worth hrs (j; while to compare with the forefaid Reafons, the Citations

I I aken from them, Ejfay p. 168, 169, 170, If I Ibould f ell our Author, that in fome of thefe he has perverted nl )ur Words as much as in the above Citation which I have,

! P examineda

♦

( II4 )

examined, or that he has concealed the Force of ourRes- loning in every one of them, I expert no other Anfwer from him, but that he has given nhat he takes to he the Subfiance of cur Complaint j tho’ not precifely incur fVords, it is like fome may judge, that it is not of any great | Importance in the prelent Queftion, whether the Ad: of Aflembly 1735 againft the four Brethren was refeinded or 1 nor, when the Execution of the Sentence againft them was diverted : But it will be found to be of confiderable Moment and Importance, when it is obferved, that, by the Aft and Deed of the laid Aflembly, a doHrinal Tejli- many againft the finful Proceedings of the Judicatories is cenfured, and thereby faithful Minifterial Freedom againft a Courfe of Defeftion, as allb a Protejlation for Exonera¬ tion againft fuch a grofs Perverting of the Key of Difci- plinc, are both condemned; by which Procedure I hum¬ bly judge, that not only our Principles as Presbyterians, but alfo as Proteftants, are attacked, and a blind Submif- fion and Subjeftion unto Judicatories, even when walking contrary to our laudable Afts and Conftitutions, is efta- blifhed : And as this is a Piece of manifeft Tyranny in the Adminiftration, fo it has a native Tendency to fubvert our Confiitution.

With refpeft to Minifterial Freedom in teftifying do- 1 ftrinally againft the finful Proceedings of Church-judica¬ tories, it is plainly'condemned by the Aft of Aflembly 1733, appointing Mr. Erskine to be rebuked at their Bir, for impugning, in his Sermon, Afts of Aflembly and Proceedings of Church-judicatories: And, what were thele Afts or Deeds of Aflembly and Proceedings of the Judicatories which he impugned ? Only fuch as con¬ cerned the violent Settlements of Minifters in vacant Congregations, in direft Oppofltion to our received and known Principles. But it is alledged, that the Aflfembly 1734 have declared for Minifterial Freedom in the plain- eft Terms, wrhen, in their Aft relative to the fame, “ they ** do, for the Satisfaftion of all, hereby declare, that due and regular Minifterial Freedom is ftill left entire to all Minifters ; and that the fame <was noty nor fhall ** be held or underftood to be, anyxoife impared or re- ftrained by the late Aflembly ’s Decifion in that parti- “ cular Procefs,” vti.. in the Procefs againft Mr. Erskine, Upon the above Words of the Aflembly, the feceding Brethren juftly obferve in their Reafons of not accedingy p,

5 5* That they are conceived in very genera! Terms:

That

rc

«

V‘

f ( IIJ )

That they have not told us what they mean by due and

(regular Miniftcrial Freedom ; and that it is plain, that, according to the Aft of Affembly 1735, the doftrinal Freedom ufed by Mr. Erskine^ and the Freedom which 3 the four Brethren ufed in protefting for the faithful and (ifree Exercife of their Miniftry, was neither due nor regu~ lar Minifterial Freedom, in the plain Senfe and. Meaning of rheforefaid Aft of Aflembly; and therefore they juft- I ly conclude, that the Aflembly 1734, inftead of taking off the Reftraint that was laid upon Minifterial Freedom, do rather approve and vindicate the Aft and Deed of Aflembly 1733, when they exprefly declare, “ That due and regu¬ lar Minifterial Freedom was not anywife impaired or reftrained by the Decifion of the faid Aflembly in this particular Procefs.” But faysthe Author of the EJfay, This is not Matter of Faft(p. 171.) for it is a plain Mif^ reprefentation of the Words of the General Aflembly 1734 upon this Head; for that Aflembly never fays, Aiinifievial Freedom was not anywife impared hy that Ail 1735.” What then do they fay ? O fays our Author, they declare, for the Sarisfaftion of all, that due and “ regular Minifterial Freedom is {fill left entire to all Minifters ; and that the fame was nor, nor fhall be held “ or underftood to be, anywife impaired or reftrained by “ the late Aficmbly’s Decifion,” viz. againft Mr. Erskine and the other three Minifters. Let the Reader now judge for himfelf on whole Side the plain Mifreprefentation on t- this Head lies. It is but a very forry Evafion, when the ) 'Author of the Effay adds,’ “ As that AfTembly 1734 1 “ declares for Minifterial Freedom in the plaineft Terms;

) “ fo, when they fay, Due and regular Minifierial Freedom »“ was not held or under flood to be anywife impaired by that Decifion, that Aflembly might mean no more but only that they judged the Aflembly 1733 did not defign to reftrain due and regular Minifterial Freedom by that

At

[((

«(

1“

1;“

jitr

. “ Aft ; and fo much the principal Men concerned in fra- ir “ ming thereof did declare.” It leems our Author was at j an Uncertainty about the Meaning of the Aflembly, when I he tells us they might mean no more ; but, to relieve y himfelf of this Uncertainty, he has got out the fecrec ^ Defign and Meaning of the principal Men, &c And, after all, what is the great Difeovery that he has made ? It is even this, that they did not, in framing the Aft I 735» defign to reftrain due and regular Minifierial Freedom by that Aft. And, who doubts that the principal Men would

P 2. make

( iiiJ )

make this Declaration ’ But, have they told our Author what they reckoned due and regular Minifterial Freedom ? Or rather, if he had enquired a little further into the Meaning of the principal Men, he might have found, that I^fr, Erski»e's dottrinal Freedom, and the Freedom ufcd by the four protefting Minifters, was, in their Recko¬ ning, neither due nor regular Miniflerial Freedom; Yea, our Author, if he pleafes, mav fee it with his own Eyes from their Aft and Sentence ; for, if they had reckoned ‘ otherwife, they would never have pafTed fuch an Aft and Sentence againft the four Minifters. From all that is a- bove oblCrved it is evident, that the prefent Judicatories are tyrannical in their Adminiftration, in fo far as they condemn doftrinal Freedom againft a Courfe of Defeftion, and have thruft out fome Minifters from Communion with them, merely for protefting, for their own juft and necef. fary Exoneration, againft an unjuft Sentence reftraining jMinifterial Freedom and Faithfulncfs, v/hereby the Key of Difeipline is perverted, and the Ordinances of the King of Zion are changed, and the Covenant of Levi is corrupted by the above Conduft and Adminiftration of the prefent Judicatories.

A fourth Inftance I give of Tyranny in the Ad- I miniftration is, Thar, by the Afts and Conftitutions of the prefent Judicatories, fuch of the Lord’s People as live in Parifhes where Minifters are intruded upon them, are required to fuhmit to tbs Aliniflvy of fuch Intruders ; yea, they are upon the Matter excommunicate from fcaling Ordinances, if they do not fuhmit to their Miniftry. This is done by the Aft of Aflembly 1 753 concerning i feme Minifters in the Presbytery of Dunfermline^ whereby li the Minifters of that Presbytery are inhihirc and difehar- |l ged to admit any of the Parifh of Kinrofs to fealing Or- I dinanccs, without the Confent of the Intruder into that I Parifh, under the Pain of the higheft Cenfures. It is al- ledged by the Author of the EJfay^ in Vindication of the prefent Judicatories, p. 54. “ That the Aflembly 1755 allowed fbme of thefc Pariflies, who had Paftors thruft 1 “ in upon them, a Liberty of Church-privileges wherever they might have Freedom to ask them ; which {fays he) was a material Teftimony againft Inrrufions.” And, p. 173. he alledges, that the forefaid Aft is ** materially refeinded, in regard the Aifembly left it to the Synod of Fife to do in the Affair of Kinrofs^ as to the admitting ' fhat People to partake of Church-privileges, as they

^ “Uioulcj

ftould think fit ; and (/rfyi he) the Synod of Ftfe did, upon this, allow that People to have the Benefit of - Church-privileges wherever they fiiould think meet to I ** ask them.” But I have evinced in the Pofifenpt to the 1 printed Letter, that the Aflembly 1735 gave no fuch Al- fl lowance in the Terms reported by onr Author: I have f likewife obferved, that the fame Aflembly did in like ii Manner refer the Calc about the Inrolment of the Intruders I in fome of thele Parifhes to the refpedtivc Synods ; and, I in confequence of this Remit, the Synod of Perth and t Stirling did a6tually inrol the Intruder into the Parifh of t Jfuckhart. Hence, even according to our Author’s Way 4 of Rcalbning, that Aflembly was lb far from giving a ma~ r. ferial ’Tefiimony againft Intrufions, that they have both •v materially and formally countenanced them, by allowing ^ Synods to inrol Intruders. But I refer to what is more li fully faid upon this Head in the forefaid Pofifeript^ where i I have made it evident, that the A6t of Aflembly anenc 1 the Minifters of Dunfermline Presbytery is ftill a (landing ij Afl and Deed of this Church ; and it may be afterwards » evidenced, that the Key of Difeipline is thereby perver- e ted, and that it is a confiderable Piece of Tyranny in the K prelcnt Adminiftration,

ytfc/y, The laft Inllance I give of the tyrannical Proce-' dure of the prelent Judicatories is, the Contempt that they » have cad upon the Petitions and Reprelentations of Mi- i nifters. Elders; and other Church-members, when they have c come to their Bar, fpreading out their Grievances before (i them ; I have given particular Inftances of this already in tl the Introduction, where I have made it evident from the ^ Words of the Proteftation figned by the Reverend Mr. fi Currie and other worthy Brethren, that the ConduC of |1 the Aflembly 1752 in this Matter was a Piece of the grea- i: tell Tyranny; and therefore I fliall not further infill upon ■ it in this Place.

Upon the whole, If the feveral Particulars above- add u- e ced are ferioufly confidered, it will be found, that the pre- t:i fent Judicatories of this National Church are guilty of r an habitual TraC and Series of ‘Tyranny in the Admini¬ ftration : Particularly, they are highly guilty of a habi¬ tual TraC of Violence and Opprellion upon the Heritage of God, by the Intrufion of Minifters upon them ; as alfo, they are guilty of Icrcening the Erroneous, in difmifling them from their Bar without any Cenfure at all, or without fqch C<?nfure as is proportioned to the Scandal and Of-

■ fence

{, lib )

fence tV.ey have given ; and at the feme Time they havff turned the Edge of DifcipHne againft fuch as endeavour a faithful and confeientious Difcharge of their Duty, ci¬ ther by thrufting them out from Minifterial Communion with tiiem, who have endeavoured dodfrinally or judici¬ ally to teftify againft a Courfc of Difedtion ; or by thru- fling fuch out from Chriftian Communion, who refule to fubmit to the Miniftry of Intruders : They are likewife guilty of fuffering fuch Afts, Deeds and Confticurions, whereby the Key of Difeipline is perverted, to remain among the ftanding A€ts and Deeds of this National Church *, yea, they are guilty of neglecting and defpifing the humble Petitions and Reprefentations, and the juft Rc- monftrances, of Minifters and other Church-memhers a- gainft their unwarrantable Proceedings ; In all which In- flances, the Laws and Ordinances of the great Matter of the Houle are counteracted, our Presbyterian Form and Model of Government is undermined, and the Bond of our Ecclefiaftical Unity, in fo far as it concerns the Government and Dilcipline of the Houfe of God, is broken and diflbl- ved. And the faid Sin of Tyranny in the Adminiftration is yet more highly aggravated when it is confidered, that theprefenr Judicatories juftify themfelves in what they have done, and rcfulc to acknowledge their Iniquity ; yea, they perfift in the fame Courfe and PraCtice, particularly in the Jmpofing of Minitters upon diffenting and reclaiming Con¬ gregations, notwithttanding of the many difmal Elietts that this has produced, even the wounding, breaking and fcatr tering the Lord’s Flock and Heritage through the Land.

SECT. III.

Cottcernifig the Adminijlration of Gofpel-oY di- nances hy fuch as are ijnpofed upon dijfcfiting and reclaiming Congregations.

I Have already obferved, that the Characters and Marks of a true Church, as they are laid in the i8th Article of our firft Confeflion of Faith, are fuch as give us a Deferipfion of a pure Church as well as a true Church. A perfect Church is not indeed to be expeCted in this mili¬ tant State ; the pureft Churches that ever were, may be compared to the Moon, which in her brigbteft Appear¬ ances has always difcernihle Spots: Yet a particular vir fible Church may, thro’ the Grace of the Lord Jefus, ac-

jaiq

I

( 1 T9 )

; tain fucli a Meafure of Conformity in her Dodtrine, Or-

ider and Government unto the Pattern fhown in the Mount, that (lie may very well be denominate a pure Church ; and 1 ftich a Church is held forth unto us in the above-mentioned f Article of our Confcffion. As Purity of Doftrine is the ) firfl:, fo the lecond Note or Character there given of a true Church is, “ The right Adminiftration of the Sacra- • “ ments of Chrift Jefus, which inuft be annexed unto the “ Word and Promile of God, to fcal and confirm the ^ fame in our Hearts.” Our reforming Fathers do alfb r. inform us, in the zzd Article of the fame Confeffion, what ‘ they judge requifite unto the right Miniftration of the > Sacraments; “ That Sacraments be rightly minilfred, wc “ judge two Things are requifite: The one, Thar they ■ “ be minilfred by lawful Minifters, whom we affirm to “ be only they that are appointed to the Preaching of the , “ Word, into whofe Mouth God hath put feme Sermoa

“ of Exhortation, they being Men lawfully chofen thereto ‘ by fame Church : The other, That they be miniftrate in “ fuch Elements, and in fuch Sort, as God hath appoin- 1' ted ; elfe we affirm, that they ceafe to be the right Sa- ’• “ craments of Chrift Jefus.” And what they mean by Men lawfully chofen to the Work of the Miniftry, we may p learn from the firTf Book of Difeipline, Head 4, where f they tell us, “ That ordinary Vocation {-viz. to the Mini- “ ftry) confifteth in Election, Examination and Admiffi- ■ on.” And concerning EleWon they fay, “ It appertain- ^ “ eth to the People, and to every leveral Congregation, i “ to eleft their Minifter.” Compared with Head 20. of it the faid Book, where they affirm, “ That the Spirit of God “ inwardly firft moving the Hearts to feek Chrift’s Glory “ and the Profit of his Kirk, and thereafter the Nomina- l “ tion of the People, the Examination of the Learned,

; and publick Admiffion (as before is (aid) make Men “ lawful Minifters of the Word and Sacraments, We I “ fpeak of an ordinary Vocation, &cf* From the above '< Words in the forefaid Article of our Confeffion, I obfer- ) ' ved, in my Poftfeript to the Letter on Seceffion, “ That “ Mr. Currh cannot refufe that there are many who have “ been intruded into the holy Miniftry, being Men that ’ “ were never lawfully chofen thereto by any Church ; . and, according to the forefaid Confeffion, they are not lawful Minifters, neither arc the Sacraments ** difpenfed by them right miniftrate ; yea, according ** to the faid Confeffion, they are no: right Sacraments

“of

•• ^

( 120

** of Chrifl Jefus:*’ As alfo, ‘‘Thar Mr. Cttnre cnn* . “ not refufe that the prcfent Judicatories fupport, :

proteft and countenance fuch Men, in the Exercife of “ their Miniftry, and in the Difpenfation of the Sacra- ments, whom the Confejjton declares to be no lawful Mi- i “ niftcrs of Chrift.’* I add, That it may be furprifing, that when Mr. Currie, EJfay, p. 5. fpeaks of the lecond Note of a true Church, he fhould without the lead Li¬ mitation or Reftrittion affirm, “ I think none can objeft a- i “ gainft this, that the Seals of God’s Covenant arezspurely 1 ‘‘ adminiftrate in this Church as ever they were in any.” Having made the above ffiort Obferves in my Poflfcript to the printed Letter, p. 59, 40, the Reverend Mr. Currie in his Short Vindication, p. 5. refledts upon them in the fol- ! lowing Manner; “ I mull: tell our Brother, It is an unac- countable Impofing upon the World, to fay. Our jirjl “ Confejpon of Faith denies that the Sacraments can be j “ rightly adminiftred by fuch as have been intruded upon “ Chriftian Congregations; or to fay. The Sacraments .1 “ are not right Sacraments of Jefus Chrift, which are ad- I “ miniftrate by fuch Men.” He adds, “ This Dodtrine “ is enough to beget perplexing Scruples in the Confeien- > CCS of poor ferious People, To as to queftion whether or 1 “ not ever they have been baptifed.” He compares it to Dodwell's wild Dodtrine, of the abfolute Neceffity of E- pifcopal Baptifm ; and he fears not to fay, It is oppofiteto the Dodtrine of all the Proteftant Churches. Mr. Currie ■< leems to have been in a more than ordinary Ferment when he writes at this Rate : I perfwade rayfelf, that, when he h is in calm Blood, he will not juftify himfelf in the above ' confident Aflertions, that have more of Banter than of Argument or Reafon. As to oi zw unacccuntnhle lm~ .1 pojing upon thelVorld, I fhall briefly notice what Mr. C«r- ' tie has advanced to deliver the World from this great Im- I

fofitioo upon them; and, in order to this, he affirms, that j labour under a Miftake; For the above Confefllon (fays 1 he) “ makes only two Things requifite to the right Ad- I ‘‘ miniftration of Sacrament: The firft is. That Men be ;i “ lawfully chofen to the Work of the (jofpel by fbme “ Church or “Judicatory thereof ; for by Church a Presbytery^ . i ** or Minifters the Church-reprefentative, who, according- “ to the conftant Doftrine of this Church, are only do- ; “ thed with Authority to ordain Men to the Work of the 1 “ Gofpel, is meant.” But here Mr. Currie makes an Ad- 1 dition to the Confejpon of Fu/th .* Whereas the Confejpon ^ \

f til )

{n giving the Charsfters cf lawful MiniflerS, makes this oae, they being Men laiufuUy chojcn to the H^ork of the Minh I pry by fame Chureh ; Mr. Currie thinks fit to add, or Judl-' [ catory thereof -, but the Gonfcflion has no fuch Thing. And I whereas Mr. Came affirmS) that by Church h there hleant i a Presbytery, or Minifiers the' Church-Keprefentatlve ; 1 muft t tell him, that the Word Church is nowhere taken in this i Senfe in the faid Confeflion : And befides, the Word t Church, in the Piace cited, cannot he taken in Mr. Currie’s I Senfe; becaufe the ConfeiTion fpeaks of EleHiov, and not ! of the Orcitnatien of Minilfers: ’Tes Ckcofe, and to Ordaitr^ ate quite different Things, and they have as different Mean- 1 ings as they have different Letters., Syllables and Sounds.

! 4 have made it evident from rhe Words of the Book of ! Difcipline above cited, what our Reformers mean by /aai- I fu//y clofen to rhe Minidry ; and Mr. Currie knew fome- i time ago very weii ho'v to diftinguilli betwixt Chocjlng and , Ordaining, when he tells us in his J^us Pop. DiVi p. 131,

! 152. that Eledtion belongs to rhe People, and Ordination to the Presbytery. If the Confeffion had faid they muff be lawfully ordained by fame Church, his Reafbning had been good Senlc. I muft alfb here obferve, that accor- ' ding to our Author’s Jus Div. Chap. 4. it is a ProteftanC I Principle, afferted at the Reformation, That it belongs to

■ the People to choofe their own Mii^ifters : And it is this I very Principle chat is afferted in the above Paffage of the f Confeffion ; and it is the very fame with that which is af- 1 ferted in the 4th Head of the firft Book of Difcipline, which,

: Mr. Currie, in his 'fus Pop. Div. p. 8i. tells us, treats of : Minifters, and their lawful Election. I fhall only add, f that when Mr Currie, by the Church chooling a Minifter,

■ ; mderftands a Presbytery ; he is now in fb far agreed with • he Humble and modefi Enquirer : And I doubt not but this *; \uthor and his Followers will judge it their Duty to make ft heir Compliments unto him for this liberal Conceffion j! hat he has made them.

•I Mr. Currie alleciges, as above, That what I have inferred «i rom ourfirft Confeffion of Faith, “ is enough to beget per- 5, plexing Scruples in theConfciences of poor ferrous Peoplcj) f, ■ fo as to queliion whether or not ever they have been bap- fj’ tifed.” To which I anfwer, That he himfclf has given rj eal Ground and Occafion for fuch perplexing Scruples, a ,y confounding two Queftions that are quite diftin^, 1* amely, that about the right Miniftratfon of the Sa¬ lt raments, and the other about their YaUdity. Cur Con- 3 Q_ . ' leffioHj,

( 122 )

felTton, in the above-cited Article, aflerts, “ We flee the “ Doftrine of the Papiftical Church, in Participation of their Sacraments; Becaufe their Minifters are

no Minirters of Chrift Jefus. Secondly^ Becaufe they “ have fo adulterated, both the one Sacrament and the other, with their own Inventions, that no Part of “ Chrift’s Adtion abides in the original Purity.** Yet e- very Body knows, that the Compilers of our Confeffion, and other Reformers, never rebaptifed any that were bap- tifed in the Church cf Rome, and that becaufe fhc profef-* fed the Doftrine of the Holy Trinity, and becaufe Bap- tifm is adminiftrate by her Minifters in that adorable Name ; as alfo, becaufe fome other eflential Articles of Chriftia- nity, fuch as the Deity of the Son and Holy Ghoft, the Incarnation of the Son, the Unity of his Perfbn, and the true and real Diftindtion of his Natures, are held in that Church by outward vifible Profeflion, conform to the De- cifions of the firft four general Councils, againft fuch as ftated themfelves Adverfaries unto thefe important Points of our Chriftian Faith : For thefe and the like weighty Realbns, our Reformers acknowledge the Validity of the Sacrament of Baptifm, tho* difpenfed in the Popifh Church;, and yet, at the lame Time, all the reformed Churches a- gree with our Confefllon of Faith, that the Sacraments had not that Rectitude and Purity which is required ac¬ cording to the Divine Inftitution, when adminiftrate in the Church of Rome ; not only becaufe they are adulte¬ rate in the faid Church by a corrupt Mixture of their own Inventions, but allb becaufe the Popifh Minirters are not Minifters of Jefus Chrift. In like Manner, all Pref. byterian Diflenters from the Church of England do juftly maintain, that the Sacraments are not rightly adminiftrate in that Church, by Reafbn of the Additions of Men unto the Divine Inftitutions; yet at the lame Time they ac¬ knowledge their Validity, and never pled for the rebapti- iing of any that are baptiled in the Church of England, Alfo in the late Times of Prelacy, tho’ the Prelatick In¬ cumbents adminiftrate the Sacraments in the fame Plan¬ ner as we do, without the fuperftirious Additions either of the Popifh or Englijh Church ; yet the Presbyterian Church of refufed to receive Gofpel-ordinances from them,

for lifts Reafon, amongft others, Becaufe they did not look upon the Bifhops Underlings to be lawful Minifters of Jefus Chrift ; yet they never made a Qiieftion about the Validity of Ordinances dilpenfed by rhera. From

whal

" ( ^^3. )

what I have obferved, I hope it is plain, that the C^uc* tt ftion about the right or pure Adminiftration of the Sacra- pments is quite diftinft from the other, about their Validi- 1; ry ; and I cannot conceive how it entred into Mr. Curries 1 Head, or what good End and Purpofe he intended to pro- ! mote thereby, when he threw up Dadwellh Scheme in the

i prefent Difpute. The Doftrine advanced by himfelf,

I Effay p. 6^. is more like unto Dod-zuell’s wild Doftrinc

than any Thing 1 have advanced : If it is true that Sc- ceffion from a Church is, according to our Author, a Con- 1 demning of the Lord Jefus if he keeps Communion with ^any of her Members; then, if our Author owns that y Seceflion from the Church of England is warrantable and j. neceflary, he muft condemn the Head of the Church, if

ii he communicate himfelf and his faving Grace to any who live and die Members of that corrupt Church : But our

b Author may find this Dodirine juftly exploded by the Or¬ thodox; and, to ufe his own Words, “ I fear not to lay, ’tis a Doftrine which is oppofite to the Dodtrine of all '5 the Proteftant Churches.”

From what I havefaid, ’tis plain, that, according to the Doftrine delivered in our firft Confeflion of Faith, two Things are requifice in order to the right Adminiftration of the Sacraments according to the Divine Inllitution ; Dry?, That they be miniftrate by lawful Minifters ; and one of the Charadters given us of lawful Miniilers, is, ■heir being lawfully chefen to the Miniftry by fome Church, The fecond Requifite is, That they be minillrate in fuch Elements, and in fuch Sort as God hath appointed : Hence I juftly conclude, that fuch as are intruded upon the Church, or impoied upon Chriftian Congregations without their Call and Confent, as they run unto the Work of the Lord unfent, lb they are not lawful Minifters of Chrift ; ind confcqucntly, that the Adminiftration of Gofpel-ordi- lances by fuch Intruders wants that Purity and Redtitude t which the Divine Inftitution requires. Our Author in his I Short Vindication^ p. 6. propofes the following Queftion ; i ‘ Such Men as going to the Plantations are ordained, t ' could they not rightly adminifter the Sacraments, tho‘ ‘ as yet they have not been chofen by any particular ‘ Church?” To which I anfwer. If they are not chofen jy any particular Church, yet neither are fuch Men in- - ruded upon any particular Church; and this does very i nuch alter the Cafe. But further, extraordinary Cafes, iich as the above Cafe fuppofed is, tall not under the pre-

a fenr

i

( JH )

fent Qiieftlon : Oar Author knew loirfetime ap;o howto diftinguifli betwixt ordinary and extraordinar'y Cafes; for he tells us, in his Pep. Div. p. 162. “ 7’hat fuch is the Peoples Inrereft in the Eleftioft 'of their Pallors, that “ their bare Eleftion is enough to make one aMinifter ** of Chrift, AVliere Ordination cannot be had according “ to his Inllitution.” Yet he very wcli knows, that, ac«« cording to the Sentiments of Presbytetifin Divines, the bare Election of tlie People in ordinary Cafes will not conftitute one a lawful Minifter of Ghrili without Ordina¬ tion. In like Manner, tho’, in fome extraordinary Cafes^ indefinite Ordination (as they term it) may he neceflary and fufficient to denominate one a lawdul Miniller of Chrift; yet in ordinary Cafes, when one is appointed a Minifter unto a particular Congregation, Ordination with¬ out lawful Eledlion does nor conftiture him a lawful Mi- rifter of Chrift. And if it is true, as Mr. Currie affirms in his Preface to the forefaid Book, p, 4. “ It is an impious “ Robbing of the Church, Rapine and Sacrilege, to fettle any Minifter whether the People call and confent or not;-- How can the Church be obliged to receive and acknowledge fuch as her lawful Pallors, who are impious Robbers, and who are guilty of Rapine and Sacrilege? Upon the Whole, it is evident, that the prefent Queftion is not about the Validity of the Sacraments difpenfed by Intruders, bur, Whether or not fuch fiiould he held and repute as lawful and fent Minifters of Chrift, who have not been chofen by any Church whatfoever, but who are impefed upon the Church while difl’enting and reclaiming? And, if fuch are not to be held and repute as lawful and fent Minifters of Chrift, whether or not the Adminiftra- ticn of Gofpel-ordinances by fucb has that Purity and Reftitude which the Divine Inftitution requires? And I humbly judge, that the above-cited Article of our firft ConfefHon of Faith decides both the Quellions in the Man¬ ner I have already obferved in my Pollfcript : And there¬ fore, when Men arc intruded upon the Church by the prefent Judicatories, and alfo countenanced and fupported by them in their Minifterial Adminillrations, our Author might have fpared, or at leaft he ought to have qualified, Jits confident Boaft, EJftiy p. 5. “ 1 rhink none can objeci againft this, that the Seals nf God’s Covenant are as purely adminifirace in this Church as ever they were in anv.

Qur .^uchorj in his Jhrt Vindication^ p. 6. puts another

(^ueftioa

] c )

Qucfiion unfo me, which I fhall not decline to anfwer ; VVill our Brother (fays he) deny that the Sacraments could he riglitly adminiftratc by the great Mr, Hen^cr- “ fon when in Leuchars^ albeit he was thrud in upon them “ at firft To which I anfwer, There was a vail Diiie- rence betwixt Luther a poor blind Friar (as he fpeaks con¬ cerning himfelf ) and the fame Luther when cnlightned in the Knowledge of the Truth: In the former Cafe, he was neither a lawful nor lent Minifter of Chrift according to our ConfefTion ; yet, for the Re&fons I have given, the Sacraments difpenfed by him were valid. In like Manner, there was a great Diflerence betwixt Mr. Hen^ devfan the Prelatick Incumbent and Intruder in the Parilli of Leuchavsy and the fame Mr. Hsvdevfon when conver¬ ted by the Mmiftry of the famous \Ar. Kohevt Bntce : In the former Cufe, according to our faid Gonfeirion, he was not a lawful Minifter of Chrift ; yet, for the fame Reafons, the Sacraments difpenfed by him were valid. The Effay obferves, p. 5. from the Fuljillin^ of the Serif turef^ That Mr. Henderfon having gone out of Curiofity to hear Mr. Bruce preach, the Words he firft uttered from the Pulpit were, FJe that cometh not in hy the Door^ but chmheth up any other U'ayy the fame is a ^hief and a Robber. Thefe Words were very clofe to the Cafe of Mr, Henderfon the Intruder, and, as the E^ay tells us, “ did, by the Lord’s “ Blelling, at the very prelent take him by the Heart, and had fo great an Impreflionon him, that they were “ the Mean of his Converfion. ” If the prefent Intruders in the Church of Scotland would give the lame Evidences of their lincere Repentance and Converfion which the great Mr. Henderfon gave, I doubt not but all the Lord’s People through the Land would cheerfully embrace them as lawful Minifters ot Chrift; and, if the prefent Judi¬ catories of the Church would give the like Evidences of their Repentance for the Violence they have done to the Heritage of God, and their otfier Steps of Defeftion from I our Reformation-'principlcs, our Seceffion from them would fjon be at an End : But it is to be regreted, that the quite contrary PraiSlice is pu»'fued; the Judicatories , juftify themfcives in their finful Proceedings, and Intru- ' ders hold thcmfelves as lawful and lent Minifters of Chrift:

The Lord may juftiy fay of us, as he fpeaks of fudab by ' the Prophet fer. viii. 6. I hearkried and heard, hut they fpahe not aright] no Man repetUed him of his hf'^ickednefs^ fayingy Ifhat have i done ?

I

( riS )

I have not d^Hned to make Anfwer to fach Queftlons as the Author of the in hhjhort Vindication has thought fit to propofe upon this Head unto me ; and therefore I may expcdt that he will not refufe to give me an Anfwer to the two following: The firft is, Whether or not fuch as are intruded info the Office of the Miniftry, or who are appointed Minifters over diflenting and reclaiming Con¬ gregations, fhould be received and acknowledged by the Church as lawful and fent Minifters of Chrift, while they juftify their Intrufions, and give no Evidence of fincere Repentance for the fame ’The fecond Queftion that I pro- pofe is, Whether or not Goijjel-ordinances difpenfed by luch as are neither lawful nor fent Minifters of Chrift, have that Reftitude or Purity in their Adminiftration ivhich the Divine Inftitution requires ’As I have given my Judgment plainly upon both thefe Queftions, and I hope according to the genuine Senfe and Meaning of the abovc'cited Articles of our Confeffion of Faith j lb I wifh. our Author would give a plain and direft Anfwer unto them, without amufing his Reader with Dodwell's wild DoSriney and an extraneous Queftion about the Validity of Baptifm. I fhall conclude this Sedtion with a Citation from a Judicious Divine, for whom our Author profefleth a very great Regard, and which I think very applicable to the Cafe now before us, viz. Mr. Durham on the Revelation^ in his Digreffion upon Reading znd Hearing’, “In Matter' i of Hearing (fays he) it is not fo hard to difeern who '

“ are to be accounted to fpeak without God’s Commiffion, becaufe ordinarily fuch have either no warrantable Call at “ all (no, notin the outward Form, and fo cannot be ac- “ counted but to run unfent) or, by palpable Defedtion from the Truth and Commiffion given them in that Call,

“ they have forfeited their Commiffion, and fo no m.ore are to be accounted AmbalTadors to Chrift, or Warch- ** men of his Flock, than a Watchman of the City is to “ be accounted an Obferver thereof, when he hath pu- “ blickly made Defedtion to the Enemy, and taken on with him.”

SECT.

( 'IS7 )

SECT. IV.

Wherein it is jhoivrh that, hy fotne Ahfs and Deeds of the prefent Judicatories, jinful and unwarrantable ‘Terms of Communion are im- pofcd upon the Members of this Church.

The Author of the Effay grants, p. 56. that, when the leaft finful Term of Communion is impofed upon Church-members, it is a juft Ground of Se¬ paration from that Church ; And the Affociate Presbytery have affirmed in their JR and Tefiimony, That by ibme {landing A<5ts and Deeds of this National Church, as (he is reprelenred in her prefent Judicatories, feveral unwar¬ rantable Terms of Communion are impofed upon Mini- llers and other Members of the Church. Tho’ I judge that I have evinced in the preceeding Seftions, that the prefent Judicatories, in their Management with refpeft to the Doftrine, Government and Dilcipline, have broke the Bonds of our Ecclefiaftical Unity ; as allb, that they have forfeit their Claim to the Charafters given us in the 18th Article of ourConfeffion of a irtte Church, that is, of a Church which has attained fuch a Meafure of Puri¬ ty, that we may fafely join ourfelves unto her as Members of the fame Eccleliallick Body; and tho’, from what is al¬ ready ohlerved, ir may clearly appear that Seceffion from the prefent Judicatories is lawful and warrantable ; yet I {hall briefly notice what thele finful and unwarrantable Terms of Communion are, which the Presbytery affirm are impofed upon the Members of this Church; and I {hall alfo confider what the Author of the Effay has ad¬ vanced, to take oft' the Force of the Argument for Secef^ fion, as it is ftated upon finful Terms of Communion.

The AfTociate Presbytery in their judicial JB and 'lefit- mony, p. 85, obferve, That, by the Aft of Afl'embly 1755, againft Mr. Erskine and the other protefting Minifters, two finful Terms of Communion were impofed ; Fir ft. That no Minifier of this Church Ihould teftify from the “ Pulpit againft Afts of Affembly and Proceedings of Church-judicatories, even tho’ they were fuch as had a “ direft Tendency to undermine our Conftifution. Second- “ ly. That no Minifter or Member of this Church fhould protefi, for their own Exoneration, againft Afts, Sen- r “ tences

( T:8 •)

fences or Decifions of tlie Supreme Judicatory, even “ tho’ they fhould nearly afte<9: rhe publick Caufe of God,

and rcllrain Miniftertal Freedom and Faithfulnefs in

tertifying againft rhe Sins and Defeftions of a backfli-

ding Church.” The Presbytery do juftly conclude, that the Sentence of Rebuke and Admonition paft a- gainft Mr. Erskine, on account of his dodtrinal Freedom in teftifying againft the Hnful Proceedings of the Jadica-» tories, was an h€t and Deed of the Supreme Judicatory, making all the Minifters of this Church liable to CenfurC, if they Ihould teftify dodtrinally againft the fame or the like Proceedings of the Judicatories; As alfo, they judge *tis plain, that the fevere Sentence palled againft rhe four protefting Minifters, on account of their Proteftation, was an Aft and Deed of the Supreme Judicatory, finding and declaring any Miuifter or Memfcr of this Church i obnoxious to Cenfure, if they fiiould proteft for theif i own Exoneration againft finful Afts, Sentences or Deci¬ fions of the Supreme Judicatory, reftraining Minifterial Freedom and Faithfulnels.

The Presbytery likewile judge, that by the Aft and Sentence of the Afletpbly 1755, difeharging the Mini- fiersof the Presbytery of Dunfermline^ under Pain of the higheft Cenfure, to admit any of the Parifh of Kinrofi to fealing Ordinances without PermilTion of the intruded In¬ cumbent, two other unwarrantable Terms of Communion are impefed ; the Jirfl whereof is, That, by the forefaid Aft, Minifters are bound up from difpenfing fealing Or¬ dinances to fuch of the Lord’s People as have not Free- ‘ <lom to fubmit to the Miniftry of Intruders, under Pain of the higheft Cenfure. And, feccndly. By the very fame ’ Aft, all the Lord’s People through the Land arc required to fubmit to Intruders as their lawful Paftors, or otherwile they are excommunicate from fealing Ordinances. The plain Import and Meaning of the forefaid Aft is. That People muft either fubmit to the Miniftry of intruded In¬ cumbents, or want the fealing Ordinances of the Gofpel ; and if any Minifter lhall venture to difpenfe them unto 1 them, except in the above Terms preferibed in the Ad’, I viz. the Permiflion of the intruded Incumbent, he muft do it at his Peril, the higheft Cenfures of the Church are de- ■ tiounred againft him : This looks very like the tyrannical yfnathemas pronounced by the Council of ^rent againft fill rhe Proreftant Churches who would not lubmic to their no Icfs tyrannical Decifions.

( 15? )

The Author of the Ejfay grants, p, %(y. That it is a fiiiful Term of Communion, “ if a Church require of us to condemn any Thing in our former Pradtice which is ju(l and lawful as alfo, ‘‘if they require us to con- “ demn any Thing in the Pradtice of others which is “ right and equitable.” And he cannot refufc that Sub- j miflion to a Sentence of Rebuke for the Difcharge of one’s I Duty, and the Retracing of a Proteftation for Exonera¬ tion, which was demanded of Mr. Enkwe and the other protefting Minifters, .was a requiring them to condemn a I Thing in their own Pradtice, which they judged upon I good Grounds to be juft and lawful ; neither can it be rea- ibnably refufed, that when Minifters are convinced 'njthcir 1 ow n Minds that it is the Duty of People to wich.lraw from : intruded Incumbents, if notwithftanding of this they are difcharged, under the Pain of the higheft Cenfure^ of the Church, to difpenfe fcaling Ordinances to People who live under the Miniftry of fuch, then they are exprefly required to condemn a Thing in the PraBice of others •which they judge right and equitable: Yea, further, if People are by an Ecclefiaftical Adt and Sentence fhut up t under the Miniftry of Intruders, they are thereby obli- ' ged, yea, they are forced as far a.s an Ecclefiaftick Canon can do it, to own and acknowledge fuch for their lawful and fent Minifters, whom they are perfwaded have run 1 unfent.

t Tho’ our Author does not pretend to juftify any of the ; above Adts, yet he attempts to take off the Force of the I Argument for Seceflion, as it is ftated upon finful Terms of Communion, in fome Exceptions that he has laid againft: ,, it. His chief and leading one is. That the above Afts of i ! AfTembly 1735 are materially refcinded, viz. the Adt a- gainft the protcfting Minifters, by the Adt of AfTembly [i 1734 with Reference to the faid Minifters; and the A& h againft the People of Kinrofs^ our Author reckons, is ma¬ terially refcinded by the AfTembly 173 5, “ Who(ib« fays') “ allowed the Synod of Fife to do in that Affair as they “ faw rszeety or fhould find moft for Edification.” There is no fuch extenfive Remit of this Aftair made to the Synod of Fife as our Author gives out: The Words, as they (aw meet^ are added by our Author ; they are not to be found in the Remit as it lies in the Index of the unprin¬ ted Afts. But I fhall not infift further upon this, having in a former Sedtion difccvcrcd the W'^eaknefs of this E- vafion, where I have endeavoured to prove, that there is

f 130 )

no I'ubfequent Aft and Deed of any Aflembly fince the 1733^ whereby the Afts and Deeds of that Aflembly are repealed either materially or formally ; and confequently they are yet flanding Afts and Deeds of the prefenr Ju¬ dicatories of this National Church, whatever Connivance there may be in the mean Time at the Praftice of difpen- fing fcaling Ordinances to fuch as are under the Miniftry of Intruders; and I doubt not but the leading Men con¬ cerned in framing the Afts that our Author mentions, whereby he alledges the Afts of Aflembly 1733 are re- pealedj will acknowledge Ib much when they find a pro¬ per Opportunity for doing fb, whatever flattering Com¬ pliments they thought fit to make unto the Author of the at the Meeting of the laft Aflembly, for the good Service he had done them. We have one Inftance of their making fuch Acknowledgments in the Aft and Sentence part againft the feceding Minifters at the faid laft Aflembly, when, in the Preamble to their Aft, the Aft of Aflem¬ bly 1734 anent them is declared to be only an A6t of Clemency towards them.

If the former Exception is not fufficient to weaken the Argument, the Author of the EJf‘ry has yet another ; “ Thefe Sentences were not finful Terms of Com-

munion to all the hlinifters of this Church; for they “ refpefted the four Brethren allenarly.” And, p. 182.:

That A6c {viz. the Aft 1733) refpefted only the four “ Brethren.” And in the fame Page, fpeaking of the Aft of Aflembly concerning the People of Kinrojsy fays he, “ As it was only an Aft in a particular Cafe, and an ‘‘ Aft which only concerned the Presbytery of Dunferm- \ ** line and Parifh of Kinrofsy fo it was no Term of Com- 1 “ munion to other Minifters and Parifhes.’* But, can itil be prefumed that a National Aflembly fhould prefcribcl Terms of Communion to one Part of the Ecclefiafticab Body, which do not equally, and for the fame very Rea-i fons, extend to the Whole, both Minifters and other j Church-members, according to their different Situation i and Circumftances ? Our Author’s Reafoning, both or this and on other Heads, may well deferve the Cenfurc” that he thinks fit to pafs upon my Reverend Brother Mr' Expreflions, EJJay^ p. 117. but I fhall be far from making uie of fuch Exprellions ; I may have occafion tc notice them in their proper Place. I doubt not to fay That it may ly open to any ordinary Capacity, who take notice of his Reafonings upon this Head, to obferve hov

. t *31 . )

Krtle Force or Weight there is in them, however fair and plaufible they may appear to his credulous and inadver¬ tent Reader. I ITiall only further add, When the Gene¬ ral Affembly 1735 cenfure one Minifter fora faithful do- drinal Teftimony, is it not a publick Declaration of the Church reprefented in her National Aflembly, that every other Minifter who ufes the lame Faithfulnels and Free¬ dom muft in like Manner be cenfured 1 Or, is not the a- bove Deed a judicial Condemning of all fuch Freedom and Faithfulnefs ? Again, when four Minifters arc fentenced to Cenfure on account of a Proteftation for Exoneration a- gainft the forefaid Deed, is not this a judicial Condemning of all Proteftations of this Kind ? Or, is it not a publick ftanding Declaration what any Minifter or Member of this Church ought to cxpeft if they preliime to proreft after this Manner againft a Deed of a General Aflembly 1 Like- wife, when the People of Kinrofs are a6i:ually excommu¬ nicate from fcaling Ordinances, does not this Deed of Af- fembly affeft all thofe who are in the like Situation and Circumftances with them ? Can our Author affirm, that when the Judicatories thought their Procedure juft and rea- fonablc with refpeft to Mr. Erskine and his Brethren, and with refpefi: to the Presbytery of Dunfermline^ that yet they would certainly judge the like Procedure with other Minifters and Presbyteries unjuft and unreafonable 1 Or, will he refufe that the Judicatories by the above Decifions have laid down Precedents for all fimilar Cafes ? And, can he deny that the Decifions in the above Cafes are re¬ corded among the printed Afts of Aflembly, which are .acknowledged by the Church to be of publick U<e ? If the Author of the EJfay fhal! duly confider thcfe Things, I am perfwaded he will find that the Evafion he makes ufe of here, •viz. Thar the above-mentioned Adis are only in -particular Cafes^ has nothing in it but an empty Sound, however it may amufe and intangle his inadver¬ tent Reader. I find nothing elfe from our Author thatde- I ferves any Notice on this Head, except his ordinary Rc- Jl treat to the Aflembly 1638, and the Proceedings of that Perio<l, which, as I have already faid, fhall be afterward.? .> I confidercd.

As our Author grants that the impofing the leaft finful Term of Communion upon us is juft Ground of Separati- 4 : on from a Church, fo, amongft the finful Terms of Com- I munion required by a Church, the laft which our Author

mentipns, p. 57. is,

“ If they fhould requir R 2

us

to engage for

( .13? )

for the future to abftain from what is (eafonabic Duty,

“ and required of us in our Station." And here I agree with our Author, providing he does not confine the Engage- | ment he fpeaks of to an expreft form.il Promife. I hunt' bly judge that it is a finful Term of Communion, when Conjunrtion with tlie Judicatories of a Church dees in its own Nature involve Minifters in the Omiffion of fuch j Duties as their Office and Station does oblige them to,^ and which the Providences of their Day and the Circum- ftances of the Church require from them ; Or, the Con- jundtion mentioned is finful, when it reftrains the Office-, bearers of the Church from the Difcharge of any of the Duties of their Office. And, if this is the Cafe with us at prefenr, then a Seceffion from the prefent Judicatories is , iieceffary and warrantable, in regard we cannot continue in Conjunftion with them, without ahftaining from what is fcafonable Duty, and what both our Station and the Gtrcumftances of the Church require from us ; and con- fequently the Union with the prefent Judicatories, that is pled for, muff be under fuch Terms as are finful and un¬ lawful ; And that this is the Cafe at prefent, may appear from the two following Inftanccs I give.

ifit A judicial Tefiimony for Truth, when oppofed or controverted, is a Debt that the Office-bearers of the Church owe both to prefent and fucceeding Generations : But the prefent Judicatories of this National Church re- fufe to afiert the T ruths of Chrift, in Opppofition to the Errors that have been vented in our Day ; they refufe to condemn feveral Errors, by which many important Truths, held forth from the Word of God in our Confeffion of Faith, are oppofed and alTaulted: How then fhall the Du¬ ty we owe to the Head of the Church, or the Debt that we owe to prefent and fucceeding Generations, be difehar- ged ? If the minor Part, who are fenfible of their Duty, continue in Conjunftion w’ith the Judicatories, they cannot lift up a judicial Teftimony for Truth; they cannot by any judicial Aft or Deed condemn the particular Errors that are vented, or teflify particularly againft former and prefent “^ins : The Majority hear the Keys of Government and Difeipline, and the hlinoriry cannot exercife them while they remain in Conjunftion with them ; and there¬ fore, fince the ordinary Means have been ufed with the prefent Judicatories to engage them to their Duty, but without any Succefc, the Minority, tho* few in Number, who are fcnhblc of their Duty, ought to mahe a Seceffion

from

' .( 133 )

j from thetn^ and afTociate togerher, that they may endea¬ vour to difcharge that Duty which their Office and the prefent Circumftances of the Church, thrcatnrd with an In¬ undation of pernicious Errors, does oblige them unto.

idly., Many Congregations in Scotland are groning un¬ der the Load and Weight of IntruCons ; they want faith¬ ful Gofpel-Minifters : But, how can fuch Minifters as pi- ' ty their Ca(e, rake the proper Steps toward their Help and Kelief ? How fhall they licenfe proper Perfons as Proba¬ tioners for the holy Miniftry ? or, how fhall they ordain and appoint Minifters over the opprefled Heritage of God, to labour among them in the Work of the Gofpel ? There is no doing of this, while they continue in Conjunction with the prefent Judicatories. Thefe, and feveral other Jnltances of this Kind, might be offered, to prove that a Conjunction with the Judicatories involves us in the O- miflion of fuch Duties as our Station and Charafter o- blige us unto. But this leads me to enquire into the Right and Warrant that the Minority (rho’ few in Num¬ ber) in a Church have to alTociate together for the Excr- cife of the Keys of Government and Difcipline, when the Majority are carrying on a Courfe of Defection from re¬ ceived Principles, and will not be reclaimed ; or, when they refufe to difcharge their Duty, and cannot be pre¬ vailed upon to do it. I proceed then to

SECT. V.

Wherein it is proven^ that when the Majority of the Office-bearers of a Church do ohfiinate^ ly carry on a Courfe of Defebiion from Reform rnatioH-principles once attained iintOy that the Minority in this Cafe, thd* very few in Num¬ ber, have Divine Right and Warrant to ex- ercife the Keys of Government and Dijeipline in a diflinbi Capacity from them.

I Have in the preceeding SeCtions made good the Charge rliat was laid againft the prefent Judicatories of this National Church, when I ftaced the Queftion : Parti¬ cularly, I have made it evident, that the ConduCt of the prefent Judicatories, in tlie many important doCtrinal Points that have been brought to their Bar, is fuch, that this Church, as llie is reprefented in them, is not the P.'/A-n*

or

I

- c *34 )

6v Ground of uruih'i and that our excellent Confeflion of Faith, thro* the Countenance and Support that has been given to many grofs and pernicious Errors that have been under their Confideration, cannot any more be look’d upon as a fixed Standard of Truth, or of Soundnefs in the Faith, either in the faid Judicatories, or amongft fuch as are in Conjunftion with them, I have likewiie evinced, that the prelent Judicatories are tyrannical in the Adminiftration of the Government; and that not in Tome few particular Inftances only, but in a Series and Traft of Oppreflion and Violence done to the Flock and Heritage of God, whereby the Keys of Government and Difeipline are per¬ verted, and a lordly magifterial Power is exerciftd over the Subjects of the King of Zw», everfive of the great End and Defign of that Order and Government which he hath inftituted and appointed in his fpiriiual Kingdom, viZ., the perfeBirg of the Saints^ and the edifyinfr of the Body of Chrif, Eph. iv. I2. Alfb, from what has been obferved it evidently appears, that fuch are fupported, encouraged and countenanced in Ecclefiaftical and Spiri¬ tual Functions and Adminiftrations, who are not lawfully chofen to the Work of the Minifiry, but obtruded upon the Church, or impofed upon dilTenting and reclaiming Congregations : And all this is done, yea, perfifted in, notwichftanding of Petitions and Reprefentations, and re¬ peated Remonftrances from Minifters and other Church- members againft their Proceedings. From all which it is plain, that this National Church, as fhe is reprefented in her prelbnt Judicatories, has not only broke the Bonds of our Ecclefiattical Union and Conjundtion as a vifible orga- nick Body ; but alfo, that flie has not thefe Characters of a true Church, unto which we may and ought to join ourfelves, as they are laid down by our Reformers in the iSth Article of our firfl Confeflion of Faith: And conle- quently our Seceffion from the prefent Judicatories is jufl, warrantable and neceflary, ay and until they return to our Reformation-ftandards, agreeable to the holy Scri¬ ptures, the primary Rule and Standard, unto which all the Churches of Chrift ought to conform themfelves. Gal. vi. i6.

I proceed now to prove, that all fuch as defire to ftand faft to our Reformation-principles, and to keep the Word of the Lord’s Patience, have Right on their Side from the Word of God, and likewife from the A6ts and Conftitu- tions oj this Church agreeable thereto, tho’ few in Num¬ ber,

„ ber, to afTodatc togetlier, or to ccniHtute themlelves into I diftiiid Judicatories, for the Exercile of the Keys of Go- Y vernmetir and Dilcipline, that they may in a judicative t Capacity bear Teffimony to the Truths of Chrift, againft i the manifold Injuries that are done to the fame, in this Day ^ of Defedtion and Backfliding; and that they may, in the i faid Capacity, affert the Rights of Chrift’s fpiritual King- t dom, and the Liberties of his Subjedts; and that they may contribute their Endeavours for their Help and Relief, in their prefent opprefled and broken Gircumftances through the Land.

If we confider the primary End and Defign, next unto the Glory of God and the Honour of our exalted Re¬ deemer, of all Church Order, Government and Difcipline,

L which is the Edification of the Body of Chrift ; and if we likewifc confider for what End Paftors or Teachers arc given unto the Church, namely, that they are fet for the Defence of the Gofpel of Chrift, Philip, i. 7, 17. that they are particularly inftrudfed, to teach the Obfervance of all Things whatfoever Chrift hath commanded, Matth.xyisriii. 20. that they are appointed to publifli and declare, to up¬ hold and maintain the Truths of God, which are either controverted or oppofed, i Tim. iii. 15. that they arc commanded to feed the Flock of God, i Pet.v.z. Ah:$xx. 28. and to commit the Minifterial Truft unto faithful Men, 2. Tim. ii. 2. When thefe Things, I fay, are duly con- fidered, it appears to me to ftiine with bright Evidence from the holy Scriptures, that when the Judicatories of a particular vifible Church (which I have proven is the Cafe at this Day) do not ftand for the Defence of the Gofpel of Chrift ; or, when Error is fo far fupported and coun¬ tenanced, that it is difmifled from their Bar either with a flight Cenfure or with no Cenfure at all; and likewife, when they exercife a lordly and magifterial Power over the Heritage of God, when they rule over them with Ri¬ gour; and when the Sword of Difcipline is turned againft

ifuch as are cleaving to Truth, and who endeavour to bear Teftimony againft a Courfe of Defe(5Hon ; and v/hen fuch Judicatories refufe to return to their Duty ; Then, and in this Cafe, the minor Part, tho’ few in Number, may and L ' ought to leave the backfliding Part, and have Divine Right !t and Warrant to aflbciate together for the Exercife of the 1) Keys of Government and Difcipline, in the Defence of the Gofpel of Chrift, and for the Relief and Support of ’! his Flock and the Sheep of hisPafture. This I have en¬ deavoured

1

( )

deavourcd to prove from (evera! Places of Scripture, par« ticularly from and Philip, i, 27. in the printed Let¬

ter, to which I refer. Bur, in regard I judge that the Controverfy betwixt the AfTociate Presbytery anil the pre- fenr Judicatories turns very much upon this Point, I fhall endeavour further to confirm and illuftrate the fame from the holy Scriptures, as alfo from the laudable Ad:s and Conftirution'^ of this National Church agreeable thereto.

ift. As the Key of Doftrine is given by the Head of the Church to every Minifter who has a Commiflion from him, fo the Keys of Government and Difeipline are given to the Office-bearers of the Church, two or mo afting conjunftly, Matth xviii. 19, 20. The Right to exercife the Keys of Government and Difeipline, in the Manner appointed by the Head of the Church, belongs to the Pa- fioral Office, as well as the Key of Do6lrinc : And that folemn Command given to the Office-bearers of the Church, ABs xx. 28. I^eed the Church of God, includes the Paftoral Rule and Government; fo much the original Word imports, as is very well known. Hence I argue. If the Majority in the Judicatories of a particular viable Church carry on a Courfe of Defection from received Principles, in the Manner I have proven the prefent Judi¬ catories are doing, then the minor Part, who are grieved with their Proceedings, ought to leave them, and aflociate together for the Exercife of the Keys of Government and Difeipline; otherwife they give up with the Exercife of the Keys to the Majority who are carrying on the Courfe of Defeftion. That they give^ up with the Keys, in this Cafe, is evident and plain ; fot the Majority muft (fill be reckoned the Court, and they only have the Keys of Go¬ vernment in their Hand ; And, when the Minority give up with the Keys to the Majority in the Cafe mentioned, many grofs Abfurdities follow; as for Inftance, they give up the Exercife of the Keys to fuch as are perverting the Keys of Government and Difeipline, and making ufe of them to Ends and Purpofes quite contrary to thefe for which they are appointed by the Head of the Church ; yea, the minor Part, who have not forfeit their Claims give up the Government and Difeipline to fuch who by their hlal-admlniftration have hicQP nunc, or in the, pre¬ fent circumftanriate Cafe, forfeit their Right to the fame ; and confequently, by their continued Conjunction with them in the Judicatories, they fupport them, and ftrengthen their Hands in ruling over the Flock of Cbrift withRi-

gour,

i!ll|

|»our, and in {iiflTering Truth ro !y wounded and bleeding in rhe Streets, witfiout a fuitable Teftimony unto it; Ycaj further, the Minority, while they continue in Conjunftion with fuch Judicatories as are obftinately carrying on a Couife of Defeftion, unwarrantably divert themfclves of the above Grant of the Keys, which the Head of the Church has made unto all fuch as bear his Commirtion ; and they leave the Government in the Hands of thofe who are fpoiling the Vines, and who are wounding and fcattering the Heritage of God; and at the fame Time they leave the Lord’s Flock and People, without fielp and Relief, under the Oppreffion and Violence that is done them • and Truth remains injured and wounded without a judi¬ cial Teftimony unto it : And confequently, by the faid Conjunction, they ftrengthen the Eiands of fuch as are carrying on a Courfe of Backfliding, and thereby become acceflbry to the Guilt that is contracted in the Judicato¬ ries. The only plaufible Exception that can be laid a- gainrt the forefaid Argument is. That if two or three may, upon alledged DefetSions and Backflidings, depart from Communion with the Judicatories of a Church, and ereCt themfelves into a diftinCt Judicatory, then Order cannot be maintained, and the Unity of the Church cannot be preferved. To which I reply. That the Seceffion as it is ftated atprefent from the Judicatories is not upon merely alledged DeleCfions and Backflidings, but upon fuch Back¬ flidings and Defections as are juftly charged againft them, as I have proven in the former SeCtions. If it is urged. Who fliall be Judge in the Juftnefs of the Charge? or, who fliall decide the prefent Queftion betwixt the aflbeiate Presbytery and the J^udicatories ? I anfwer. That we may appeal unto the Word of God the primary Rule and Standard, and to our other received fubordinate Standards of DoCtrinc, Worfliip, Government and Difeipline ; let thefe be Judge in the Cafe betwixt the prefent Judicatories and the aflbeiate Presbytery; let thefe be Judge in the Charge that is laid againft the Judicatories : Let theic Proceedings and Managements, in the many parti¬ cular Inftances I have given, be weighed in the Balance of the Sanctuary ; let them be tried according to the Acts and Conrtitmions of the Church of Scotland agree¬ able to the holy Scriptures. The Author of the Ef’- fay^ who has undertaken the Management of their Caqfe againfl; Seceflion from {hem, never attempts

S abfo-

( )

abfolutely to judify any of the Inftances of Defeftion and •Backfliding t have given; tho’ he does what he can to ex¬ tenuate their Sin, as 1 have already obferved : I leave tr then with the Judicatories themfelves. to judge how well he has acquit himfelf in their Defence, and how far they are obliged unto him for the Service he has done them. With reipeft to the alTociate Presbytery, if they were a- ■dopring any Thing as a Point of Teftimony, which is not founded upon the Word of God, and agreeable to our approven Acts and Conftitutions ; if they had cl'poufed any 7’hing in their Teftimony as a Principle, that was never efpoufed in this National Church in her reforming Times; the above Exception would be of Force againft the Argument which I have brought for the Defence of their Presbyter ial AlTociation: But let all their printed Papers, particularly their judicial AB and ^ejiimony^ be fearched, it will be found that they have afTerted our Presbyterian Principles in a full and plain Manner ; they bave likewife aft'erted the Truths from the Word of God and our Confeflion of Faith, in Oppofition unto many dangerous and pernicious Errors of the prefent Times ; and the Steps of Defedfion which they have condemned, | they have found them to be fuch as are contrary to the Word of God, our folemn Covenant-engagements, and our j laudable Acts and ConlHtutions. Tho’ the Author of the EJfay difeovers his critical Talent with Abundance of ill Humour againft the fcceding Brethren, and tho* he has ifretched himfelf, as we fhall afterwards lee, in order to defame and diferedit their A6t and Teftimony ; yet he has nor, neither can he charge them with any Principle adop¬ ted therein, but what has been received and confefled by this Church in her reforming Times. There are indeed fome few Particulars, which our Author reckons contro¬ verted Points, and which the Presbytery have judicially declared to be Steps of Defection ; but our Author has nor j neither can he plead from any of thefe which he calls con- 1 troverted Things, that the Presbytery have adopted anj| Thing contrary to our received and approven Standards | If it is ftill urged, Shall a few depart from a great anc j confiderable Body? and, fhall they take it upon them t(i emit a judicial Act and Teftimony ? Then let our Author I and all whole Caule he pleads, know, that Numbers givi not Authority nor Weight to aCaufe of this Nature; iti only Truth that fupports a religious Caufe : And therefore |ho 3 Teftimony may be defpifed on account of the Pau

' ( . t39 ) .

city of fuch as manage it, and tho’ it may prove a very popular and amufing Argument to difregard a few depart- j ing from Ecclefiaftick Communion witli Judicatories con- a fifting of great Numbers; yet Numbers have not always a h Teftimony for Truth on their Side. This was indeed one t of the Arguments that the Church of Rome improved a- f gainft our Reformers ; but they were told, That a Tefti- K mony for Truth may be in the Hands of a few, even of » two WitnefTes, Rev. ii. 5. againfta very numerous Body I who had departed from the Truth and Simplicity of the I Gofpel.

\ 2(lfyy All the Minifters of the Gofpel are commanded to I take heed to the Miniflry which they have received in the Lord,

I that they fulfil it. Col. iv. 16. They muft likewife teach ^ the Church to oblerve all Things whatfoever her exalted Head hath commanded^ Mat. xxviii. 19. They are allb charged to commit the Minifterial Truft unto faithful Men^ 2 Tim. ii. 2. Hence I argue. That fuch is the State of Matters in the prefent Judicatories, that all who would .make Conlcience of the Duties unto which they are obli¬ ged by the above and the like Scripture-commands that might be mentioned, ought to depart from Communion Jwith them, and alTociate themfelves in a diftinft Capacity Trom them, in order to the Exercife of the Keys of Go¬ vernment and Difeipline ; in regard they cannot, while ^ hey continue in a Conjunftion with them, difeharge many of the Duties they are called unto, and which the State of Matters in the Church of Scotland at prefent requires. I gave fome Inftances in the Clofe of the preceeding Seftion, to evince that a Conjunftion with the prefent Judicatories [reftrains and binds up fuch Minifters as are (enfible of their Duty, and defire to difeharge the fame, from the Perfor- 'mance of fome particular Duties, which the Command of ::he Head of the Church, their Paftoral Office, and the iprefent State of the Heritage and Flock of Chrift, do all |Dblige them unto. I fhall here give fome Inftances of fome particular Duties that ought to be difeharged, and which ':annot be done, unleft fuch who are fenfible of their Duty, ind who are grieved with the prefent Proceedings of the ’’ Judicatories, afTociate together for the Exercife of Govern- nent and Difeipline in a diftind: Capacity from them. (/?, If the Office-bearers of the Church, particularly the Minifters of the Gofpel, would fulfil that Miniflry which I hey have received of the Lord, they ought not only do- 1 Strinally to declare the Truths of Chrift, but alfo judicial-

f ' S ^ ly

■ 1

i

( 14® >

ly aflert rliem, in Opjjdfition unto the particular Errors by which they are fubverted in the Times and Places where¬ in they live; This I hope I have fully proven already, and I do not think the Author of the EJftty will refufe it. But the prefent Judicatories of this National Church do ob- ftinately decline judicially to aflert the 'Pruths, in direct and exprefs Oppofition unto many dangerous and pernici' dus Errors that have been vented among us; and confe- quently they refufe to fulfil that Miniflry which they have received of the Lord ; d'herefore I conclude, that fuch who are fenfihle of their Duty, and who are grieved with the Injury that is done to Truth, ought to aflTociate toge¬ ther, and, in the Name and Authority of the Head of the Church, difplay the Banner of a judicial Telfirnony for injured Truth, by condemning particularly and exprefly fuch erroneous Propofitions or Principles whereby the Truths of God have been openly and wickedly oppofed and undermined, and by aflertingthe Truth in diretlt Op- gofition unto fuch grofs and dangerous Errors whereby the 1 ruths of God have been fubverted amongfl us. The Author of the EJfay cannot refufe that the Judicatories have declined a fuitablc Teftimony for Truth ; for he wiflies there were an affertory Aft, and profefles to regrete the Omiflions of Judicatories in this Matter: Tho’, as we have already ob- lerved, he extenuates their Sin, and makes but a very fmall Account of fuch Omiflions, tho’ yet they are fuch as involve the Judicatories in the Guilt of fupportlng artd countenancing many dangerous Errors ; yCa, they are fuch as are not only prejudicial to the prefent Generation, but alfo to the Souls of Pollerity. If then theft culpable and dangerous Omillions of the Judicatories are duly Confidcred, how fhall Juftice bt done to Truth ? how fhall the Banner of a judicial Teftimony againfl Error be difplayed ? how ftiall the Redeemer have that Revenue of Honour and Glory which all the Churches owe unto him, namely, a publick and judicial Confeffinn of hfs Truths, in Oppofition to the Injuries and Indignities that are done them ? how fhall Minifters fulfil their Minlftry, unlefs they lepart from ConjUnftion with fuch Judicato¬ ries as decline to difeharge this Duty, and alTbciate to¬ gether that they may make a joint, publick and judicial Confeflion of the Truth, in Oppofition unto dangerous and pernicious Errors whereby the Truth is oppofed or fubverted ? zd/v. If Minifters would fulfil their Miniftry, they ought to fee the Trumpet to their Mouths, and to

Jbew

r ( 141 )

Jhfiv unto the Lord s profeffing People their Tranfgrejjtort^ and the Houfe of Jacob their Striy Ifa. Iviii. i. It is not * enough that Sin is doftrinally declared, it ought alio to be H judicially condemned : But we cannot expect that the I prefent Judicatories will condemn particularly the Back- ii flidings and Defections of former Times, when they re- b fufe to acknowledge and condemn the finful Steps that If they themlelves have taken ; as for Inftance, that ACt \ of AlTembly 1752, whereby the Rights and Privileges of Chrift’s Subjects, in chafing and calling of their own Minifters, were delivered up even to the declared Enemies

iof our Presbyterian Gonftitution. It was repealed, be- caufe it was part contrary to fome Rules directing after what Manner ACts of general Concern fhould be con¬ cluded ; but it was never condemned as contrary to the Word of God, and the laudable ACts and Gonftitutions of this Church, directing how Minifters ought to be cal¬ led and chofen ; \ ea, the prefent Judicatories are fo far 1 from acknowledging and condemning violent Inrrufions,

' that they are carried on with an high Hand to this very Day. Likewife, of late, the Sabbath of the Lord was profaned, and the immediate Subordination of the Courts of Chrirt’s fpirirual Kingdom to the Lord Jefus the alone Head and King of Zion, was praCtically given up, by Minifters their reading from the Pulpit the ACt of Par¬ liament anent Captain yobn Porteous. It cannot be expe¬ cted that the prefent Judicatories will condemn this Deed, whereby the Headfliip and Sovereignty of Ghrift over the Courts of his ow;a Houfe was invaded, and his holy Day profaned ; when the moft Part of the Minifters of this Church have read the faid ACt in one Shape or another. Therefore, fince a judicial Teftimony againft: publick Sins and Steps of Defeftion cannot be obtained from the pre- : fent Judicatories, it is neceffary that fuch Minifters who are grieved with their Proceedings, and who defire to i difeharge the Duties of their Minifterial Office, fliould : come out from among them, and afidciate together in di- 1 ftinCt Judicatories, that they may, according to the Power I and Authority which they have received from the Lord I Jefus, condemn particularly our publick Sins and Back- I ' Hidings from the Lord, and that they may humble ! themlelves for thefe before him; and alfo, that they I may call all Ranks of Perldns in the Land- to Repentance and Humiliation for the Iniquities of the prefent Genera¬ tion,

tion, and for the Sins of our Fathers, conform fo Scripture Pattern and Example, P/al. cvi. Pfal. Ixxviii. ^dly^ Ie is the Duty of the Minifters of the Gofpel to feed the Church of God which he hath purchafed with his own Blood, and to commit the Minifterial Truft to faithful Men, according to the Lord’s exprefs Command in his own Word, xx. 28. John xxi. 15, 16. 2 ^im. ii. 2, j But fuch is the Conduft of the prelent Judicatories, and \ fuch is the State and Situation of many Congregations in ; Scotland at this Day, that they cannot have faithful Mini- flers fet over them, unlefs fuch as arc grieved with the prclent Proceedings of the Judicatories afibciate together in a diftinft Capacity from them, in order to the Relief ' of fuch Congregations as are groning under the Weight of violent Settlements. I hope the Author of the Ejfay will not refule that this is the State and Condition of many Congregations in Scotland; the Judicatories have obtruded Minifters upon them, they are thereby fcattered and broken, and want the Food of their Souls: They muft therefore either fubmit to the Miniftry of Intru¬ ders, and acknowledge their Paftoral Authority over them, or be deftitute of Golpcl-miniftcrs, unto whole Paftoral Care and Infpeftion they can warrantably fubmit ; but the former they cannot do, without betraying their Principles and wounding their Conlciences : Therefore, unlefs they have Minifters appointed over them according to the Divine Rule and Inflitution, they muft remain like Sheep without a Shepherd, But, how lhall they obtain fuch Minifters? If the fmaller Part in the Judicatories, who are grieved and affected with the above violent Set- - tlements, continue ftill in their Conjunction with them, they cannot relieve the opprelfed Flock and Heritage of God, as I have already obferved : And I add. That thereby they involve themlclves in pcrfonal Guilt ; in regard that, by this Means, they not only refule Obedi- ■ enre to the above pofitive and exprefs Command of the Head of the Church, but alfo become acceflbry unto the , Continued Mileries and Bondage under which many of the | ^-.ord's People do labour and grone through the Land ; they have a Hand, either in the Perilhing or Starving of many Souls, through a Famine of the Word of the Lord. Wherefore it is neceftary, that fuch Minifters, tho’ few i in Number, w'ho pity the grieved and opprefied Heri¬ tage of God, Ihould affociate together, that they may ap-, point Minifters over them according to the Divine Pattern

an4

H and Ru’e ; To this they are obliged by their Office, as I aIf<J by the above-mentioned and other pofitive and ex- I prefs Commands; which are likevviie their Warrant for i Aflociatioiis of this Nature. From all the above, and the like Confiderations, it is plain, that, when the Judica¬ tories of a particular vifible Cimrch do obftinately carry on a Courfe of Defection, the minor Fart, tho’ few in ' Number, have Right on their Side, and are fully war¬ ranted from the Word of the Lord, to aflociate together I for the Exercife of the Keys of Government and Difci- , pline, that they may fulfil that Miniftry which they have 1 received in all its Parts and Branches, and that they may I difeharge thefe Duties towards the Church of Ghrift, that I the State of the Church, their Office, and the pofitive Commands of the Head of the Church, do all oblige I them unto : And particularly, that in a Day and Time i when Error prevails, and Sin abounds, they may teftify judicially againft Error and Sin, and difplay a Banner for Truth ; as alfo, that, in a Day and Time when the He¬ ritage of God are opprefled and fcattcred, they may ufe proper Endeavours for appointing Minifters over them, unto whofe Paftoral Infpedkion they may warrantably commit themfelvcs, under the Leading and Direftion of the chief Shepherd of the Sheep, the Lord Jefus Chrift.

' The only Exception that is brought againll the above > Argument, as I have laid it, is, That Minifters may fully ' ! difeharge their Doty, and exoner themfelves, by Diflents ' I or Proteftations againft the bad A61:s and wrong Decifions ' of the Judicatories. I have already obferved in the Intro- duftion, that Proteftations of this Kind, againft the fu- 5 preme Judicatory, ftand judiciallyicondemned by the Gene- J ; ral AfTembly 1755. But tho’ Proteftations may in fome ‘ i particular Inftances be fufficient Means of Exoneration,

’ j when they are allowed, together with their Reafons, to ! be marked in the Records of the Court; yet I humbly ® I judge, that Diflents and Proteftations cannot in every Cafe 'ij be reckoned a fufficient Teftimony for Truth ; and parti- M cularly, that they cannot, in the prefent Situation of the (I Judicatories, be reckoned a fufficient Difeharge of the f ! Duty that is incumbent on the Office-bearers of the Church, who defire to be found faithful to the Lord in ’ i this Day of Declining and Backfliding, and that for the ■j following Reafons; A continuing in Communion with 'I the Judicatories of a backfliding Church, under the Co- I [ ¥crc of fuch Diflents and Proteftations, opens a Door for a

( 144 )

corrupt Mixture in the Houfe of God : At this Rate, tians, Soctnians, Arminians and Cahinip$ may fit down together as Members of the lame Ecclefiaftical Body ; and I know not but the right Hand of Fellowfliip may after i the lame Manner be given to Deijls, who run down re¬ vealed Religion, if they can conform themlelves to the Re¬ ligion that has the legal Countenance in the Society where¬ in they live. And if we confider the Management of the prefent Judicatories, in the many important doftrinal Er¬ rors that have been brought to their Bar, which I have al- i ready examined ; however lome may pleale themlelves i with what they call Teftimonies in Judicatories, yet, while no joint and judicial Teftimony is given to Truth, the Lord Jcfus and his Truths are not confefled by that Ecclefiaftick ^dy : And therefore I fay, However Ibme may pleale themlelves with fuch Teftimonies, yet they have Ground to fear that the Covering will be found narrower than that they can wrap themfclves in it, and the Bed lliortcr than that they can ftretch themfelves upon it. 2rf/y, Tho* a Dif- , fent or Proteftation, with the Reafons thereof, Ihould be recorded in the fupreme Judicatory, when Truth lies woun¬ ded and bleeding in our Streets; yet this is not a faithful Difcharge of the Truft committed unto Minifters, it is not a fulfilling of their Miniftry, it is not a doing the whole of what their Office obliges them unto, and what they have a Right and Warrant to do ; in regard a judicial Teftimo¬ ny to Truth is ftill wanting. A Proteftation in the Court may be the Deed of fome few in the Court, teftifying againft the Proceedings of the Court as wrong, and giving their i Reafons why they judge lb ; but yet, in the mean Time, they give up with the Government and Difcipline unto iuch as are fupprefling and bearing down the Truth, or who are proteftingand fcreening the Erroneous from Cen- fure, and thereby fupporting and countenancing Error. I have ellewherc * Ihown that in this Cafe a Proteftation or Diffent bears no Proportion at all unto the Injury that is done to Truth, and therefore lhall not here infift upon . it : I fhall only add, That as the Support and Maintenance ; I of Divine Truth is one of the great Ends and Defigns of, the Inftitution of Ecclefiafttcal Courts in the Church of i Chrift, fo, if the Church-reprelcntarive makes not a publick and judicial Confeflion and Acknowledgment of the Truth, in Oppofition unto the Errors that are vented unto the Prejudice and Subverfion of the fame, fhe refu-

* Letter p. 6, i].

I ^45 )

les to give tlie Redeemer thar Revenue of Glory, Honour and Praile that oui»hc to be given him before a wicked and pcrverle Generation, yjy<rtft7. x. 32,53. viii. 58. 3^1//*

Tho’ the fupreme Judicatory iTiould record a DifTent or Prote(iation,v/ith the Realbns thereof, againft the Intrufion of Miniliersupon difl'encing and reclaiming Congregations ; yet it is obvious and plain, that there is no Relief given thereby unto fnch as are labouring under the Load and and Weight of fuch grievous OpprefTion and Tyranny; Notwithftanding of fuch DifTents and Proteftations, they murt want the Pafloral Infpecfion of faithful and fent Mi- niffers, unlefs fuch as proteft do affociate in diflindf Judi¬ catories for their Help and Relief. However fome of our Reverend Brethren may pleafe themfelves with fuch Pro- teftations, yet they leave the Flock of Chrift under intru¬ ded Hirelings ; they do not what is their Duty to do, and what the chief Shepherd of the Sheep commands them to do, while they take not the proper and neceflary Steps, to appoint over opprefTcd and deftitute Congregations, Mini- ilers according to the Divine Rule and Inftitution : Nei¬ ther can they take the neceflary Steps for the fame, unlefs they declare a Seceflion fiom the prefent Judicatories, and afTociare together, that they may commit the Minifte- rial Truft to faithful Men From what I have obferved, f hope it is evident, that fuch as continue in the prefent Judicatories, even tho’ they witnefsby Reafonings, Diffents ar Proteftations againft their finful Proceedings, are invol¬ ved in the Omiffion of fuch Duties as the Head of the Church has injoined them, and which their Office does oblige them unto ; and confequcntly, that Union and Con- unftion with the prefent Judicatories, in the prefent Si- uation and State of Matters in this National Church, |s upon finful and unwarrantable Terms: As alfo, it may 1C evident from the Grant of the Keys to the Office-beaf- -Ts of the Houfe of God by the Lord Jefus the Head of 'he Church, and from the peremptory Inflruftions that are ',iven to Minifters of the Gofpel to teach all Things what- bever Chrift hath commanded, to fulfil their Miniftry, to ced Chrift’s Sheep and Lambs ; that, when the Judicato- . ies of a Church carry on a Courfe of Defeftion from the Lord, as in the particular Inftances I have given concer- ling the Judicatories of this National Church, then, and ind in this Cafe, fuch Minifters as defire to be found faith- iil, tho’ they fhould be few in Number, have Divine light and Warrant to leave the backfliding Part, and to

T

( *4^ ) . . .

afTocIare together, that they may in a judicial Capacity bear Teftimony to t!ic Truth, and vindicate the Liberties of t!ie FJock of Chriff ; and conlequcntly, that the affo- ciaie Presbytery have Divine Right and V\’’arrant for their prclent Practice, in emitting a judicial Tetfimony for Truth, and in ufing their Ilndeavours for the Relief of the Lord’s opprciled Heritage through the Land.

jif/y, i may likesvife prove the Divine Right and War¬ rant tiiat is pled for, from that foleran Charge given to the Church of Galatia, Gal. v. i. Stand fafl therefore in the Liberty <a;hsrerjith Chrifl hath mads you free, and he tii't intangled again avith the Yoke of Bondage. The Spirit of God, by the Apoffie in this Epiftle, warns the Cfuirches of Galatia againft erroneous and leducing Teachers, who perverted the Gofpel of Chriff, Chap. i. 7. and exhorts them to ftand faft in their Chriftian Liberties, that is, in the Faith, Proleffion and Practice of the Truths of the Gofpel, in C)ppofition to the Doctrines and Principles of thefe corrupt Teachers, which had a native Tendency to bring them under fpirirual Thraldom and Bondage. The Charge, to Jiand fafi in their Liberties, is given to every individual Member of thefe Churches, according to the Place that every one had in theorganick Body ; and they are all hereby commanded to keep rhemfelves pure and tree from the Bondage of Error. The Office-bearers of that Church are likewife hereby injoined to difeharge the Duty incumbent upon them in their Station, for maintai¬ ning their Ghriftian Liberty and Freedom; as is evident from the 12. v. I <would (fays he) that they zvere even cu. off zvhich trouble you. As it is the Leaven of Error, v. p which the Apoftle warns them againft ; fo this Leaven i.' purged out of the Church by Ecclefiaftick Procels anc Difcipline, particularly when fuch as trouble the Churef with this Leaven arc either reformed by the Difeiplinf of the Lord’s Edoufe, or elfe cut off from the Church b] this fpirirual Sword : And this belongs only to the Office bearers of the Church ; it is their Province, not only do drinally to guard the Church againft Error, but alfo judi cially to condemn and cenfure the fame. And as the A poftle does in the plaineft Terms declare unto the Office ' bearers of that Church their Duty, in the \ z,v. fb, inth 9, V. a weighty Reafon is given, A little Leaven leavenet the whole Lump, Tho’ the Churches of Galatia are men tioned in the plural Number, Gal. i. 2. yet in this Verl they are called one Lump^ being one Ecclefiaftick or Orga

f

( H7 )

nick Body ; and hereby the ApofUe declares likewifc in the plaineft Terms, that, if Error was not condemned and cenfured, the whole Body would be held and repute . as leavened. As the Duty of the Office-bearers of the Church of Galatia^ and confequently of all other Office¬ bearers when the Church is in the like Circumftances, is clearly pointed out by the Spirit of God in the above Words; fo, if wc fhall make the following Suppofition, that the Majority of the Office-bearers in that Church refufed to condemn Error, or to cenfure the Erroneous; and that, in their Ecclefiaftical Capacity, they Ipoiled the leveral particular Churches of any of the valuable Liber¬ ties wherewith Chrift had made them free ; and that, in- • ftead of yielding Obedience unto the Commands of the Head of the Church, they juftified themfelves in their Difbbedience to the fame ; I fay, when the Cafe is thus •ftated, let every unprejudifed Perfbn judge what the lelfer : Part of the Office-bearers of that Church, tho’ few in Number, who were grieved with the Difobedience of the I greater Part, ought to have done in Obedience to the fore- 'faid Commands. Could the Difobedience of the greater j- Part abfblve them from the Difcharge of thefe Duties po- ' fitively and exprefly injoined the feveral Office-bearers of the Church of Galatia ? Or, becaufe the Judicatories of »' Galatia would not ftand faft in the Liberties wherewith Chrift made them free, and becaufe they would not con- I demn Error or cenfure the Erroneous, were the few that ; were grieved with their Proceetfing, and w'ho might eafily ‘fee that the Management of the laid Judicatories had an ' evident Tendency to the Ruin of that Church ; were they,

[ I fay, thereby bound up from exercifing the Keys of Go- I vernment and Difcioline, or from fupporting and main- i raining Truth judicially, and aflerting the Liberties and I Freedom of the Difciples of Chrift ? Or, were the Mi- L‘rority thereby bound to continue in Ecclefiaftical Com¬ munion with the greater Part who refufed to difcharge thsir Duty, when the Spirit of God declares, that, if the : Leaven of Error was not purged out, the <whoIe Lump^ that is, the whole Ecclefiaftick Body, was thereby leavened ? Tho’ the Author of the EJ^ay^ p. 42, and frequently through his Book, pleads againft Seceflion from the pre- fent Judicatories, from the State of the Churches of Gala» tia, and the other Churches erefted by the Apoftles ; yet it appears to me very plain, that, if we duly consider ciie Commands aud Injundtions given to the Office-bearers of

T 2 tha

( HS )

the Churches, in the feveral Kpiftles that were writ them^ and particularly thefe that are given to the Church of (7<i- lattUy we fhall fee their Duty clearly pointed out unto them. The above Command, to ftand fad in their Chrifti- an Liberties, is given to all the Officc-bcareis and Mem¬ bers of the Church of Galatia ; and Obedience is requi¬ red from them unto it, according to their different Spheres and Stations ; Confcquently, if the hiajority of the Office¬ bearers proved difobedient to the Divine Command, the fmaller Parr, tho’ few in Number, who defired to adhere to their Chrilfian Liberties, were obliged to give Obedi¬ ence unto it, and had fufficient Right and Warrant for the Difcharge of their Duty, in a difi:in6t Capacity from, the backfliding Part of the faid Church. If the Author of the EJjfay would manage the Argument to purpofe a- gainft the Condudt of the Affociate Presbytery, he mull prove, that, when the major Part of the Office-bearers of a Church refufe Obedience to fuch pofitive Divine Commands as are above cxprelTed, that the Unfaichfulnefs of the Majority binds up the IclTer Part, who are fenfible of their Duty, from the faithful Difcharge of the fame: Or, which is to the fame Purpofe, he mull prove, that when the Judicatories of a Church in their judicative Ca¬ pacity, inllead of maintaining and fupporting the Truth, refufe to condemn dangerous Errors when brought to their Bar ; and when, inllead of vindicating and alTerting the Liberties and Freedom of the Members of the Church, they wreath a Yoke of Bondage about their Necks (v.'hich I have already proven is the Cafe with the prefent Judica¬ tories) that, notwirhflanding of this, the fmaller Part, who are fenfible of their Duty, ought to remain in Com¬ munion and Conjunftion with them, and that they ought not to affociate by themfelves, to affert the Liberties wherewith Chrifl has made his People free, and to main¬ tain a Tcllirnony for the Truth in Oppofition to Error; tho’ Office-bearers are given to the Church, and Eccle- fiaflical Courts are inflituted and appointed, for thefe and the like valuable Ends and Purpol’es. Or, to exprefs it in few Words, the Author of the Ejfay, under the Pain of lofing all his fpecious Argument's from the Churches of Galatia Corinth, mufl prove the following Propofi- tion, viz. ^hat, when the Majority of an Ecclejiaficli Bch dy continue to difohey the exprefs Commands of the Head of ike Church, the Minority are thereby well warranted to dif- fbey the faid Cemma/sds, for the Sake of yeace, and to main.-

( T49 ).

I fain Union nvith the Majority. But this I judge he will not

|l»c able to reconcile to the Scriptures of Truth, nor will it agree with his own declared Principle, Effay p. 56. That we are not to keep up Union with a Church at the Expence of the leaft Sin.

5 I might in like Manner prove the Divine Right and 5 Warrant that is pled for, from the Reproofs and Admo- nitions, from the Comrnands and Direftions, that are given I in the feveral Apoftolick Epiftles to the Churches to I whom they are directed : But I fhall not further infift I upon this ; I refer the Reader to the printed Letter, for h what I have obferved upon the Cafes of the Churches of ^kyatira and Vergamos^ and on the Reproofs and Dire- tji Clions that are given them. I hope, from what is now ii faid, it may be evident, that, when the ConduCt: of the ti prelent Judicatories of this National Church is ierioufiy ft Confidered, the Aflociate Presbytery have Divine Right I and Warrant for the Steps that they have taken ; and par- I ticularly, for their emitting a judicial A6i and Tefti- I mony to the DoCfrine, Worfliip, Government and DiG cipline of our Lord’s Houfe, and againft the leveral De¬ fections both of prefentand former Times from the fame, I fhall only here fnbjoin the Words of the Apoftle, Col. ii. 2. ^hat their Hearts might be comforted.^ being knit toge¬ ther in Love- — to the ylcknoivlcdgment of the My fiery of God^ and of the Father.^ and of Chriji. PYom thefe Words I obferve, That there can be no true Fellowfhip without Love ; and Church-members, whether Office-bearers or others, cannot be knit together in Love where Offence is . daily given, and the Jilattcr and Ground of Offence is ob- ftinately perfifted in and juftified, notwithftanding of the : moft dutiful Reprefentations againft the fame. I further • obferve. That the Members of the Church ought to be knit together^ to the Acknowledgment of the Myjlery of God. How then can we have Eccleliaftical Union and Conjun¬ ction with Judicatories, that refufe to acknowledge and confefs many great and important Truths, in Oppofition ■ unto the many pernicious Errors by which they are fub- f I verted ?

I ' 4^/;/k, When the ConduCt of the prefent Judicatories

I is confidered, the laudable ACts and Conftitutions of this ! Church warrant our Seceflion from them, and our Afloci- ation together for difplaying the Banner of a judicial Te- ttimony for Truth. The Duties pointed out unto us, from the Acts ai\d Qpnftitutions of this reformed Church, are

fummed

( JJO ) .

fummed up in our Covenants, National and Solemn League. In the National Covenant, we fwear that we ** fliall continue in the Obedience of the Doftrinc and “ Difcipline of this Kirk, and flaall defend the fame, ac- cording to our Vocation and Power, all the Days of our Lives.” And in the Bond fubjoined, Anno 1(538, where¬ by the Covenant was fworn with Accommodation to their then Circumftances, we fwear, that we fhall “ continue in “ the Profeffion and Obedience of the forefaid Religion,

“ and that we fhall defend the fame, and relift all thefe contrary Errors and Corruptions, according to our Vo- cation, and to the utmoft of that Power that God hath “ put into our Hands, all the Days of our Life.” Alio, in the firft Article of our Solemn League, we fwear, “ That “ we fhall fincerely, really and conftantly, through the “ Grace of God, endeavour, in our feveral Places and “ Callings, the Prefervation of the reformed Religion in i “ the Church of Scotland, in Doctrine, Worfhip, Difci- • “ pline and Government, againft our common Enemies. ’* And in the 6th Article we fwear, ‘‘ That we fhall not “ fufFer ourfelves, diretSfly nor indire(5lly, to be divided “ and withdrawn” from our Covenant Union and Con- - jundtion, “ either by making Defeiftion to the contrary | “ Parr, or by giving ourfelves to a deteftable Indift’erency 1 “ and Neutrality in this Caufe.” Can we, in aConli- > ftency with our Covenant Union and Conjunftion, maintain t a Conjunction with the prefenr Judicatories, who are car- < rying on a Courfe of Defection to the contrary Part ? Can || we, without giving up ourlelves to a deteftable Indifferency ^ and Neutrality in the Caufe of God, fee Error lifting up | its. Hea<l without any fuitable Teftimony againft.it r' And, jl can we fee the Heritage of God n:atrcred and broken, / without ufing our Endeavours for aftording Relief to the i Lord’s opprefied People ? Do we, in our Places and Cal- « ling', V'fcfetvc our reformed DoCtrine, Government and i Difcipline ? Do we defend the fame againft all contrary 1 Ertors and Corruptions, according to our Vocations, and } the utmoft: of that Power that God hath put into our I Hands, if we fhall be Witnefles to the Injury that is done < to Truth, if we fhall fee any of the Rights of the Re- I aremer’s fpiritual Kingdom invaded, and his SubjeCts fpoiled of their Rights and Privileges, and yet in the mean Time fhall not ufc that Power which is put into our Hands, and which we have a Right to ufe according to our fevc- ral Places and Callings, namely, c;f lifting up a judicial

Tcfti-

( I?! ) ,

Teftimony for Truth, and for the Rights and Privilege* of the Subjects of the Redeemer’s Kingdom ? And there¬ fore I humbly judge that we have Right and Warrant to afl'ociate togctlicr in dilfind: Judicatories from the pre- fent, who arc carrying on a Courfe of Defection, that we may thereby endeavour, not only to anfvver the Knd and Dcfign of tlie Inftitution of Ecclefiaifical Courts in the New-Tcdament Church, but that we may alfo do what in us lies to profecute the Ends of out folcmn Covenant- engagements.

•ythly^ All the Minifters of this Church, when they are ordained to the Office of the holy Miniftry, folemnly pro- mife and engage, “ That they fhall firmly and clofly ad- “ here to the Dodrine contained in our Confeffion of

“ Faith; - and likewife. That they Ifiall to the utmoft

of their Power, in their Station, afferr, maintain and defend the faid Dodrine, Worfliip, Difcipline and Go- “ vernment, &c." But the prel'ent Judicatories, as has been made evident, refufe to aflert, maintain and defend the Dodrines contained in our Confeffion of Faith, in Oppofition unto many Errors fubverfive of the fame, that have been brought to their Bar; and, inftcad of main¬ taining and defending our Presbyterian Government and Difcipline, they purfue fuch Meafures as have an evident Tendency to overthrow the fame, as has likewife been made evident in feveral particular Inftances : Therefore, fuch who are fcnfible of their Duty as Office-bearers of the Church, and of the folcmn Engagements they have come under, that they Ifiall to the utmoji of their Power^ in their Station, ajferty maintain and defend the Dodrine contained in our Confeffion of Faith, QPc. have Right and Warrant, from the Ads and Conftitutions of this Church, to afibciate together for the Exercife of the Keys of Government and Difcipline, that they may ajfert and maintain^ in a judicial Capacity, the Dodrine contained in our Confeffion of Faith, and our Presbyterian Church- government and Difcipline; and confequently the AfTo- ciate Presbytery, in their judicial and ^eflimonyy and in their feveral Proceedings thereupon, are endeavouring to pay their Vows unto the Lord, and to fulfil the Engage¬ ments that they came under, when they were ordained to the Office of the holy Miniftry, I ifiall only further obferve upon this Head, That all the Minifters of this Church do iblemnly engage themfelves, and alfo fign it with their Hand, ^hat they Jball never endeavour f direBly

( IS2 )

mr IvdireBTy^ the Prejudice or Sulverjion of the forefaid D3~ iirinc^ H-'oyJhipy Government and Difcipline. I I'ubmic it ro the Judgment of fuch as are not quite prejudiled, if the prclcnt Judicatories are fulfilling thisfolemn Engagement ; or rather, if the whole of their Management, with refpedt to the doctrinal Errors that have been brought to their Bar, is not directly to the Prejudice of the Doctrines con¬ tained in our excellent Confeffion of Faith; as likewife, if their Condu<5t, with refpedt to the many Inftances t have given of Tyranny in the Adminiftration, is not di- reftly to the Prejudice of our Presbyterian Church-go¬ vernment and Difcipline; and confequently, it they are not guilty of the Violation of the forefaid lolemn Engage- ments that they have come under, when ordained ro the Office of the holy Miniftry. When all thefc Things arc impartially confidered, they are fufficient to juftify the Conduct of the AfTociate Presbytery, and to evidence that they have Right and Warrant, from the laudable Afts and Conftitutions of the Church of Scotland^ to depart from Ecclefiaftical Communion and Conjunction with the prefl-nt Judicatories, and to aflociate together, for afferting judicially the Truths that are oppoled and fubverced, and for endeavouring in the faid Capacity the Relief of the broken and opprefled Heritage of God through the Land.

6thlyy The Bond of our Ecclefiaftical Union and Con¬ junction with the prefent Judicatories of this National Church is broke, by the finful and unwarrantable Pro¬ ceedings of the faid Judicatories: Therefore, fuch who defire to hold faff that Reformation-purity, once attained unto, ought not only to depart from Communion with them, until they return to their Duty ; but they have alfo ' Right on their Side to aflociate together for the Exercife of the Keys of Government and Difcipline, in a diflintH: Capacity from them. I have already obferved, that all Ecclefiaftical Union and Conjunction, in any particular vifible Church, is under certain Conditions and Limitations ; ^ the Members of the organick Body are joined together by , fome fpecial Ligaments and Bonds; It is true, that the Profeflion and Acknowledgment of the Truth, as it is, contained in the holy Scriptures, the only unerring Rule | of Faith and Practice, deferves to be reckoned the pri- ^ mary Ligament and Bond of all fuch Union andConjun-, dtion, Ifa.v'ni.ZQ. Gal.\\.\6. zPet.i. 19. but the fecon- dary Ligaments or Bonds of Ecclefiaftical Union and'|

I

^ )

Cotijunftlon are the fubordinate Standards of Doftnn^, Worfhip, Government and Dilcipline, which are received k and adopted by any particular Church, as agreeable to i and founded upon the holy Scripture; and the prefcnt

I, State and Circumftances of the Church make thefe fubor¬ dinate Standards more and more neceflTary, in order to knit together the Members of the organick Body. Such is the Blindnefs and Wickednefs of Men, that they wreft the holy Scriptures to their own Deftruftion ; fuch is the cunning Craftinels of Men, whereby they ly in wait to deceive, that they father their Lies upon the holy Scri¬ pture; they even pretend Scripture-authority for their

, grofs and pernicious Errors : Hence, Confeflions of Faith ’ are ncceB'ary and fuitable Means of acknowledging and ; confefling the Truth, in Oppofition unto the Sleight of j Men, who fubvert the fame ; they are likewile neceflary , to evidence that we receive and hold the holy Scriptures ji in their genuine Senfe and Meaning, in Oppofition to the , perverie Wreftings of the fame by Men of unftable and ' corrupt Minds. And as the Reverend Mr. Mafierton ob- 1 ferves, in his Apology for the Presbyterians in the North I of Ireland^ p- 1 7. i» Anfwer to a common Objeftion againft j Ccnfejftons of Faith, “ By Scripture-precepts and Prcce- “ dents, dangerous Errors ought to be cxplicitely declared “ againft ; our Saviour exprefly apprifed his Hearers of j “ the Errors of the Scribes and Pharifees ; the Apoftle “ Paul exprefly mentions the Errors of Hymeneus and Philetus, 2 Tim. ii. 17, <whofe JVord doth eat as a Canker^ “ V. 18. IVho concevning the Faith have erred, faying that the RefurreSion is pajl already ; and overthrow the Faith I'd ** The great Apoftle judged it necefTary to be

jj. “ as exprefs in oppofing thele Errors, as the Abettors of ^ them were bold and exj^refs in affirming them : And, in 'll : “ Conformity to thefe Scripture-examples, the Confeflions “ of the reformed Churches confift very much of open and exprefs Declarations againft the Errors which in- ‘ “ fefted the Church, efpecially in thefe Times when fuch J “ Confeflions were impofed. ” In like Manner, thro’ the

J. ! Subrilty of Satan, and the Wickednefs of Men, that Order I and Government which Chrift has appointed in his Houfe

has been fubverted in the Chriftian Church, and the Or- : dinances of Worfhip have likewife been changed and cor- ' rupted : Hence it is neceflary for a particular vifible j Church, that would approve herfelf unto the Head, to ■ I have the Order and Government of the Houfe of God laid

U down

( 154 ) .

down accordin" to the Pattern fltown in the Mount; and to have fuch a Directory for t’lc publick Worfhipof God, to which the Members of the Churcii may warrantably conform thcmfjlves, if they would m iintain Union and Communion to^rerher, as Members of the fame EccleHa- flick or Ort^atiick Body, to tlie Honour of God, and the Praile and Glory of their exalted Redeemer.

That I may apply vvhat is above advanced to the State and Condition of this National Cliurch as fhe is reprefen- ted in licr prclent Judicatories; I hope it will not be rc- fufed by fucii as own themfelves to be Presbyterians, that the outward Bonds and Liga'ments of the Members of this National Church amongft rhernlelves, and particular¬ ly of the Union and Conjundtion of the Office-bearers of the Church in all her Judicatories, are, the Doftrine, Worfhip, Government and Difeipline of the Lord's Houle, as the fame are held forth from the holy Scrip¬ tures, in our Confeffion of Faith, Books of Difeipline, Form of Presbyterian Church-government, and Directory for Worffiip. Ail Ranks of Perfons in this Land are Ib- lemnly bound and obliged to abide in the Faith, Profeffi- on and Obedience of the faid Doctrine, Worffiip, &c. by the National Covenant of Scotland., and by the Solemn League and Covenant of the three Nations; and all the Minilfcrs of this Church, when ordained to the Office of the Miniftry, do promife and engage, as I have already obffirved, that they ffiall firmly and clofly adhere to the Doctrine contained in our Confeffion of Faith, to the Pu¬ rity of Worffiip praftiffid in this Church, and to our Presbyterian Government and Difeipline ; and that in their Station, and to the utmoft of their Power, they ffiall aflert, maintain and defend the faid Do6trine, Worffiip, Government and Difeipline ; and that they ffiall never endeavour direftly nor indireflly the Prejudice or Sub- verfion of the fame. But I have already proven, that thefe Bonds of our ficclefiaflical Unity are broke by the prefent Judicatories, in regard the Erroneous have pled at their Bar, that their perverfe Schemes were agreeable to the Doftrines contained in our Confeffion of Faith ; and yet the Edge of Divine Truth, as it is laid down from the Word of God in our Confeffion of Faith, has not been dire'^fed againft the new and diHferent Shapes under which the old Arian, Arminian and other Errors have appeared : Wherefore the Judicatories of this Church are juftly chargeable with letting flip the Truths that they have re¬ ceived,

f

( ,155 1

celved, contrary to Heb. ii. i. And, by their above Con- : ducr and Management, Truth has been left naked with- 7 out a judicial Teftimony unto it, in direct Oppofition unto ,'the Errors fubverting the fame; whereby our excellent i' Confeffion of Faith cannot any more be reckoned, in : the prefent Situation of this National Church, a fixed Standard of Soundnefs in the Faith, at lead with relpeft •: unto thele important Truths that have been either diredtly or indiredtly oppofed and fubverted by the feveral per- jr nicious Schemes that have been brought to the Bar of f Aflembiies. In like Manner, the Bond of our Ecclefi- X aflical Unity, as it refpe<9:s the Order, Government and i DifeipHne of the Lord’s Houfe, is broke by the prefent Judicatories; in regard our Presbyterian Frame and Con* ^ liitution is unhinged in the many particular Inftances 1^ which I have given of Tyranny in the Adminiftration : I Therefore I conclude, that fuch vdio are grieved with I the Conduct and Management of the Judicatories, and ' w'ho are fenfible of their Duty, have Kight on their Side, from the Principles and Conftitution of the Presbyterian or Covenanted Church of Scotland^ to aflociate together for the Exercife of the Keys of Government and Difci- pline, that they may, in a judicative Capacity, acknow- . ledge, confefs and affert the Truths held forth from the Word of God in our Confefiion of Faith ; as alfo that they may, in the fame Capacity, afl’ert, maintain and de¬ fend our Presbyterian Principles and Confiitution.

SECT. VI.

Wherein the Condut^ of the Judicatories is con- ftderedf ftnee the ^irue that the Seceffiori from them was firji fiated and declared ] and ’particularly, the Conduct of Mini/lers and Judicatories with refpeht unto the late of Parliament anent Captain John Portcoiis ; as alfo the Atf of Affemhly 1738, againft the fcccding Minifters, arc enquired into.

I Have, in the preceeding Sections, laid the Argument for Seceflron from the prefent Judicatories, mainly, in the Shape in which the Seceflion was ftated, when four Minifters were thruft out from Communion with

U a tlicui

( iji5 )

tTiem u^t2Ko I7;5, in confequence of an A6t and Sentence 1 of the precccding AfTembly paft againft the faid Minifters. But, tho’ a Seceflton was ftated at that Time upon very juft and weighty Grounds, yet if is to be regreted that the Judicatories of this National Church are ibfar from fhew- ing a Difpofirion for removing the Grounds of SecefTion, that by their Procedure from Time to Time they increafe or ftrengthen the fame ; and, inftcad of aftording to the receding Brethren the agreeable Hopes of Union and Conjunttion with them in the Lord, the Procedure of the Judicatories is fueh, as gives them more and more Reafon and Ground, not only for continuing in their SecefTion, but even for enlarging and extending the fame further than it was ftated before the Commiffion of the General AfTembly in the forefaid Year 1 733. There arc Ibmo Things advanced by the Author of the p. 5.

wherewith he thinks to twit thefeceding Brethren; as for Inftance, that our Reverend Brother Mr. Erskine^ in hij Anfwers to the Remarks of the Synod of Perth and Stirling on his Sermon, OBober \z. 1732 , fays, “ I know that there is a great Body of faithful Miniflers in the Church of “ Scotland^ with whom I do not reckon myfdf worthy to “ be compared. " And downward in the fame Anfwers,

“ I know that a vaft many of them have God’s Call and the Church’s Call.” Hence our Author concludes, If there be a Body and a great Body, many and a vajl “ many in the Church of Scotland, of faithful Minifters,

** having God’s Call to the Work of the Gofpel, I think fhe is a true Church of Chrift ; and who {fays he) can but own her for fuch ? ” I fhall not infift upon the Terms, true Church, fo frequent with our Author ; I have I faid what I judge fufticienc upon them : But I muft here ' obferve, that our Author’s above Conclufion, in which he feems to boaft, does not at all follow from any of his Pre- mifles ; and my Reafon for this Ohfervation is. That tho‘ there fliould be many, yea, a vafi many Minifters in a Church, having the Lord’-s Call to the Work of the i Gofpel ; yet, if the Majority in the Judicatories are carrying on a Courfe of Defe6tion, the Majority are ftill the Court, and therefore the Majority are the Church-reprefentative. I have already proven, that this National Church, as fhe is reprelented in her pre- fenr Judicatories, is carrying on a Courfe of De¬ fection from her Reformation -principles ; and I am about fp copfirm a^nd illuftrate the Argument in this SeCtion.

. ^ Wha^

I

( *57 )

What then, tho* there fhould be many that have had the Lord’s Call and the Church’s Call to the Work of the Miniilry, who yet continue in Connexion and Conjunftion with the prcfent Judicatories? It does not therefore fol¬ low that this National Church, as fhe is reprefented in them, is a true Church according to the obvious Senfe and Meaning (as above explained) of the i8th Article of out firft ConfcfTion of Faith ; Therefore our Author’s Argu¬ ment may very well be turned againft himfelf in the fol¬ lowing Manner; If it isfo, asl have already proven, that the Judicatories of this Church are carrying on a Courfe of Defection from our Reformation-purity, and refufe to be reclaimed, then it is the Duty of fuch Minifters who profefs lo be grieved with their Proceedings, to come out from among them, and to bear Tclfimony againft a Courfe of Defetftion in a way of Seceflion from them, that they may exert themfclves in their Station, and according to their Power and Ability, for aflerting, maintaining and defending the Doctrine, Worfhip, Government and Dif. cipline of the Houfe of God, in this Day of Treading- downinour Valley ofVifion: For, as there are Degrees of Faithfulncfs, fo thefe worthy Minifters would be more faithful to the Head of the Church, and to the Commif- fion they have received from him, as alfb to the Souls of the prcfent and rifing Generations, if they would depart from Communion with the prcfent Judicatories, who pour Contempt upon their Reprefentations and Petitions, and where they are often born down with Banter and Scorn, when they make any Thing like an honeft Appearance a-» gainft the finful Steps that are taken, and if they would aflbeiate together for the faithful Difcharge of their Duty, in the Exercife of the Keys of Government and Difci- pline, for the Ends and Purpoles for which they are given them by the exalted Head of the Church. If one Heart and Soul were given to fuch Minifters, who profefs to bs grieved with the prefent Courfe of Backfliding from the Lord, to exert themfclves after this Manner, it would be a promifing Token for Good, in thefe Days wherein we have fecn Evil ; it would be a Door of Hope unto this finning, broken and finking Church ; and might, thro’ the Blclfing of the Lord, ftagger the Counfels and Projedisof fuch as are carrying on a Courfe of Defe6tion.

There is another Thing advanced by the Author of the P- 5> 6. viz. Thar Mr. Ershne in his Proteftation againft the Sentence of the AlTembly Anno. 1753, to which

the

,.( 158 )

die other three Minifters adhered, declares, “ Thar he had “ a very great and dmvful Regard to the Judicatories of this Church, to whom {fays he') I owe my Suhjedtion in '* the Lord.” He adds, That the Brethren in their Re- prelentation given in to the Commiflion of the Aflembly 1755, ‘‘when fpeaking oi their Proteftation taken againft “ the Coinmiffion that Year,” (he lliould have faid, a- I gainft the Aflembly that Year) “ they fay. Our Protefta- “ tion is ib far from impugning the juft Power and Autho- “ rity of the fupreme Judicatories of this Church, that it 1 “ plainly acknowledges the fame.” From the above Ex- prefflons our Author argues, “Now, if a true Church, whole “ Authority in her fupreme Judicatories in 1755 was to “ be acknowledged and regarded with a very great Regard “ as juft, I hope fhe is not vafliy worfe fince that Time; i for fome Stop hath been put to what was then the chief 1 “ Ground of Complaint, viz. violent Intrufions.” I have ; already obferved, that it is not Matter of Fadl that violent I Intrufions were the chief Ground of Complaint : There j are two other Things advanced by our Author in his two | laft Lines above-cited ; the one is, when he tells us. That j he hopes that this Church is not vaPlywofe fince the fore.r i faid Time ; and the other is, the Ground he gives us for : this his Hope, wherein, after liis ordinary Way, he ex- < tenuates our publick Sins, by infinuating in his fmooth ( Manner that this Churcli is fomewhat amended : “ For, ,

“ fays hey fome Stop hath been put - to violent Intru- •

fions.” But, as this is the Ground of our Author’s ! Hope, I humbly judge it will be found as weak as his 1 Superftrudfure is imaginary. 1 might here obferve, that i the above Proteftation mentioticd by our Author was en- tred, while we were contending in a way of Church- com¬ munion with the Judicatories, before the Scccfiion was de¬ clared and ftated, and ccnfequently vthilc we were ufing , the ordinary Means of dealing with them for their Repen- • tance and Reformation ; of this I have given fome ftiort ' Account already in the Introduction, and therefore fball not now infift upon it. What I here intend is, to fhew that ■ the prefent Judicatories of thisNational Church are worfe, , or, toufe our Author’s own W'^ords, they are vafily nvorfey fince the above Proteftation was entred againft the Adt ard Sentence of the Aflembly 1755. And, for the Proof of this, 1 oft'er the following particular Inftanccs of their Procedur e and Conduct.

1/, After the entring of the above Proteftation, the

fore^

\ ^59 n

forefiid AfTembly pafiM an A6t and Sentence againft rfie 9 protefting Miniliers, appointing their Gommiffion to fufpend ) them in cafe they fhould not letraft their Proteftacion, ^ and to lay them under an liigher Cenfure if they fhould not I'ubmit to tlie Sentence of Sufpenfion: This was a Step I vahly worfe than any Step the Judicatories had yet taken, f when it is confidered, that, by the faid Aft and Sentence,

' new and unwarrantable Terms of Minifterial Communion were impofed, as I have already obferved. Our Author k could not but very well know that this Sentence W'as po¬ ll fterior to the Proteftation ; and as he never profeflfes to ^ juhify, but rather feems to condemn the above Sentence, fo he cannot refufe that the Judicatories may be at leaft fomcwhac worfe: And, if he had underftood the prefenc f^ueftion and Argument, he might have known that the r Point upon which the SecefTion was at firft (fated, was the I above-mentioned Aft and Deed of the Aflembly, where¬ by Miniffers were deprived of their Freedom and Liber¬ ty of teffifying doflrinally from the Pulpit, and by Pro- teffation in the fupretne Judicatory, againft a Courle of Defeftion, If notwithffanding of this Sentence of the Af* fembly, pofterior to the entring of the Proteflation, our Author dees not reckon the Judicatories vaftly worfe, yet I doubt if he (hall find a Parallel unto this extraordinary Sentence, fince our Reformation from Popery, whereby four Miniffers were thruff cut from Communion with the Judicatories, on account of a Protelfation for their juft and necelfary Exoneration.

2(//y, The above arbitrary Sentence was execute in a very arbitrary Manner by the Commiflion of the forefaid Aflembly : They refufed to confider what the protefting Miniffers had to offer for their juft and neceflary Vindi¬ cation, they refufed the Reprefentation above-mentioned a Reading ; the faid Miniffers behoved to retract their Proteftation, otherwife nothing could fatisfy the Commif- fion, or fave them from Cenfure. As the arbitrary Exe¬ cution of the above e.xtraordinary Sentence was a Step vaft¬ ly worfe than any Thing the Judicatories had formerly done, fo the Proceedings of that Commiflion were nei¬ ther difapproven nor condemned by the fubfequent Aflem¬ bly, bur held and repute to be forma! and legal Deeds, as 1 have already fhown from the AA of the laid Aflembly with Reference to the feceding Miniffers.

3<//y, Tho* the Author alledges, p. 6. That Ibme Stop hath been put to what he calls the chief Ground of Com¬ plaint,

( i5(5 ) 1

plaint, viz. violent l}7truJto»s ; and, EJptyp. 50. he tells uy, That a considerable Stop hath been put to them for fomc Time bygone : Yet the prefent Judicatories are worfe even ; in the AtJair of violent Intrufions than formerly ; every one of our Affemblies fince the Year 1754 have either* authorifed, fupported or countenanced fuch violent Set¬ tlements, cither upon the Footing of the repealed Aft 17^2, or upon the Footing of the PatronagC'aft : As for Inftance, the Affembly 1755 appointed a Call to be mo- i derated for the Preientee to the Parilh of Carridden, and ' they refer the Cafe of the Inrolment of the Intruders into the Parifh of MucHart and Troquire unto the refpeftive ' Synods; as this was a plain Authorifing of the Synods to r inrol thefe Intruders, fo the Remit to the Synod of Perth bears an Appointment unto them to continue their Endea- 1 vours to obtain Harmony in that Corner. The obvious 1 Meaning of this Appointment is, that they fhould ufe their Endeavours to bring the People in Muckhart to fubmit to the Miniftry of an Intruder. The Affembly 1736 ap¬ point the Presbytery of Stirling to proceed to a violent Settlement in the Parifh of Denny ^ and at the fame Time exprefly injoin the faid Presbytery to be at Pains to bring the People of the faid Parifh to fubmit to the Decifions of the Church, and to the Miniftry of the intruded Prefentee. The fame Affembly appoint the Presbytery of Dumfriet^ and Synod, to inrol the Intruder into the Parilh of Tro- quire as a Member of their refpeftive Judicatories, and to fupport him in his Miniftry, and to endeavour to bring the People in that Parifh to fubmit to it. Again, the Af- fcmbly 1737 “ declare their Diffatisfaftion with the ■

“ Conduft of the Presbytery of Stirling^ in neglefting or refufing to obey the Appointment of the Affembly 1756 : with refpeft to the Settlement of Mr. Jamei Stirling., the “ Prefentee to the Parifh of Denny: And they appoint the ;

faid Presbytery to proceed to the Trials and Settlement “ of the Prefentee to the faid Parifh, and to finifh the “ fame before the firft of September that Year ; and, in “ cafe he is not aftually fettled before that Time, the ■ “ Synod of Perth and Stirling are appointed at their OBo~

“ her Meeting to proceed to his Trials, and to finifh his ^ “ Settlement before the Month of March enfuing: And it “ is exprefly declared, that it lhall not be lawfiil for the “ Synod to put any Queftion, whether they fhall obey “ this Appointment , but that any Ten or mo Minifters “ thereof do proceed as above direfted, whether any

“ others

( )

otTiers of the Synod concur with thcrti or not, or hot* withftanding that others, or even the greateft Part then “ prefent, fhould oppofe the Execution of this A6t; And “ in cafe the Synod, or fuch Number of them as above- “ mentioned, fhall not before the firft of November enter “ the Prefentce upon Trials, or before the firft of March “ finiOi the fame, the Aflembly impower a fpecial Com- miflion of the faid General AfTembly to couveen at dinhur^h on the third If^^ednefday of November or March “ rcfpectively, with Power to adjourn themfelves as they ‘‘ fltall think fir, in order to take Trials, and ordain the Prefentce as Minifier of Denny.” Alfb, the fante Af- fembly appoint a Settlement in the Town and Parifh of Perth y upon the Footing of the Adt 1752, even when the I Majority of the Elders of the faid Parifh were diflenting ' from the faid Settlement, and a conftitute SelHon reclaim- 1 ing againft the fame, before all the Judicatories of the Church. Likewife, the AfTembly 1758 appointed a vio¬ lent Settlement in the Parifh of Dron, the Call being on¬ ly figned by the Heritors and one Elder of the faid Parifh, and the moft Part of the Congregation by far diflenting and reclaiming: As alfo, they fuftained a Call for Dodtoc I jViJ}.'eart to be one of the Minifters of Edinburghy which . proceeded purely upon the Footing of the repealed Adk

: 1752-

The above are fbme Inftances of fomc violent Settle- ij ments, amongft others that might be condefeended upon, g which have been either authorifed or fupported by the • NTational Afl'emblies of late ; befides Inftances of this kind, t:' :hat might be offered from the Procedure of the Commif- it (ions of the feveral General Afl'emblies, by vertue of their

i delegated Power from them, fince the AfTembly 1734: ;( Therefore our Author muft needs have very much AfTu- ;!, "ance, when he would have his Reader to believe that m ome Stopy yea, that a confiderahle Stop, has been put to t Violent Intrufions for fome Time bygone. Does he think

ii vith his fair and fmooth Words to put out the Eyes of lit Vien ? It is indeed to be regreted, that the moft Part are [. '0 obftinafely blind, that they will not fee the Grounds and ill 2aufes of the Lord’s Controverfy againft us ; and our Au- iil hor’s Reafonings have a manifeft Tendency to cherilh It hem in their wilful Blindnefs and Darknefs. Likewife, (|l rom the above Inftances we may plainly fee, that the pre-

'em Judicatories are worfe, yea, vaftly worfe, than when ml he Seceflion was at firft ftated and declared. Was ever

( i6i )

Tyranny over the Confciences of Men fere wed higher by the Church of Korney than it is by the Aflembly 1757, when they declare, ^hat it f.uiU not he lawful for the Synod of Perth to put any Queftion, whether they (hould obey their Appointment or not? Here is abfolute and implicite Obe¬ dience demanded with a Witnefs. Befides, the Judicatories are vaflly worle, in regard they continue in the Practice of violent Intrufians, in Face of a more publick and more open Tellimony againft the fame, and when the Sinfulnefs of them is now become a Point of Confellion amongft the Alembers of this particular vifible Church. I humbly judge, that it is an Aggravation of the Sin of the Judica¬ tories, when Petitions, Reprefentations and Remonftran- ces in a way of Church-communion have not reclaimed them ; and that it is yet a higher Aggravation of their Sin, when a Teftimony is lifted up againft their Procedure in a way of Seceflion from them, on account of their complex Courfe of Defeftion from the Lord, and therefore on ac¬ count of violent Intrufions amongft many other Things’, that they fhould, notwithftanding of this, continue to op- prefs, break and fcatter the Sheep of the Lord’s Pafture.

t^thlyy As if the Injury done to Truth by former Af- , (emblies in the Affair of Mr. Simfon had not been enough, ! Truth is wounded over and over again ; particularly, j when the Aflembly 1736 difmifs Mr Campbell from their i Bar. Tho’ a Scheme of dangerous Principles was vented and pnbliflied by him, and alfb defended at the Bar of the ; laid Aflembly ; yet he is not only acquit by the faid Af- i fembly from the Charge of Error, and difmifled without i any particular Admonition given him ; but one of his dan¬ gerous and deftruftive Errors was adopted by the faid Af- fembly, as I have already obferved. And likewife, 'when : at the laft AiTcmbly the Presbytery of Edinburgh brought ! unto their Bar feveral grofs Principles contained in two i Sermons preached by Do£lor Wijbearty whereby Confef- i fions of Faith in general are undermined, Subferiptions unto them being fubtilly condemned, as great againft a free and impartial Enquiry, arifing from a Regard to i worldly Intereft; as alfo, whereby fome important Articles contained in pur ConfcflTion of Faith are overthrown : Yet the faid Aflembly afloilzied him from the Charge of Error in the Manner I have already mentioned. On all which accounts, the prefent Judicatories are wor/#, yea, vaflly •worfey fince the Time that the Proteftation was entred a- gainft the Aflembly 1733.

( ) ■

^fhlyy If the Condufi: of the Miniffers and Judicatories of this National Church with reference to the late A6t of Parliament anent Captain yohn Porteous is confidered, it will appear, that the prefent Judicatories are worfe^ yea,

1 vafily wor/e, than when the above Proteftation was entred.

' As this Aft of Parliament was appointed to be read by all the Minifters of this Church, the firft Lord’s Day of every Month, for the Space of twelve Months, and at the Time when the Church was aflembled for the publick Worfhip of God ; fo the moft Part of the Miniftry of this Church i did aftually read this Aft from their Pulpits in one Shape ' or another. 1 fhall not infift at large upon the Sinfulnefs I and Scandal of this Praftice, but only make a few Re- I marks upon it, for confirming and illuftrating the prefent Argument.

As the forefaid Aft of Parliament contains feveral Things I that have no Manner of Foundation in the Word of God,

: lb the Reading of the fame by Minifters from the Pulpit, in Time of thefoiemn Worfhip of God, wasa Publiftiing the Doftrines and Commandments of Men unto the Church ' aftembicd together for hearing the Voice of the great Shepherd the Lord Jefus; whereby the Readers of the l*aid Aft profaned the Lord’s Day, expofed the Office of the Miniftry, hardned a wicked Generation, and grieved ■ and ftumbled many. of the Lord’s People. Likewife, the ; Impofing of the faid Aft to be read in Time of Divine 1 Worfhip, was a giving Direftrons and Inftruftions unto [ Minifters of the Gofpel, in the Exercife of their Mini- ; fterial and Spiritual Funftion : This is indeed a Branch , of that Supremacy that the Powers of the Earth have . claimed over the Houle of God, and the Readers of the faid Aft have tamely fubmitted to the fame ; whereby they have praftically owned and acknowledged, that they may receive Direftions and Inftruftions in the Exercife of their Minifterial Funftions from the Civil Powers ; and coiife- Iquentiy they have declared themfelvcs the Servants of (Men, or they have thereby declared, that they are not I regulated and governed in the Exercife of their holy i Funftion by Jefus Chrift alone, but alfb by the Civil [Powers. If it is laid, that Minifters may warranrably jyield Obedience unto fuch Commands of the Civil Magi- jltrarc as are not contrary to the Word of God; no doubt 'they may and ought r Minifters are nowife exempted from Subjeftion to the Civil Magiftratc rrtore as other Subjefts, lyea, they ought to be Patterns and Examples unto all others

X z of

( i S4 )

of Obedience and Subjeftion to their lawful Commands ; yet, in the mean Time, it is only as Members of the Com¬ monwealth that they are fubjed: unto the Magiftrate, and not in their Office as Minifters, which they receive and hold from the Head of the Church alone. And tho’ the Magiftrate is Guardian of both Tables of the Law, and may warranrably command, every ^hing in the Houfa of the God of Heaven^ be done according to the iVill of the God of Heaven ; yet he is not, by vertue of his Office, an Interpreter unto the Church of the Laws of Chrift ; Therefore it is not his Province to give Inftrudions to Minifters of the Gofpel in the Exercife of their Mini- fterial Fundion, and far lefs to preferibe in an authorita¬ tive Manner unto Minifters, any Laws, Ads and Statutes whatfoever, to be publiffied unto the Church in his owq Name, and by his own Authority. It is the peculiar Pro¬ vince of the Courts of Ch rift’s spiritual Kingdom, mini- fterially to declare the Laws and the Will of Chrift the Head of the Church, from the holy Scriptures ; and to publifh the fame unto the Church, in his Name and Au- , thority, who is the only Lord and Lawgiver unto his | Church and People.

But the Penalty annexed unto the foreLid Ad deferves | fome more particular Confideration. It is exprefly ftatute, I Thar, in cafe any Minifter fhall negled to read the faid Ad, he fhall for the firft Oftence be declared incapable of fitting or voting in any Church’ judicatory. The feveral Writers againft the Reading of this Ad of Parliament have obferved, that the declaring Minifters incapable of fitting and voting in any ChurchJudicatory^, is a depriving them of the Exercife of a confiderable ^anch of their Minifterial Office; confequently, that it isan Ecclefiaftick Cenfure, and that the Parliament in the forefaid Penalty have aflumed to themfelves the Power of the Keys ; and that this is an Eraftian Power exercifed over the Church, altogether incompetent for any Civil Court ; and that Pe¬ nalties of this Kind belong only unto Ecclefiaftical Courts: And hence they argue. That the Reading of the Acl was a finful Compliance with an Eraftian Ufurpation over the Judicatories of the Church. The Argument has been very well managed in this Shape, againft the Reading of the faid Ad, by feveral judicious Writers; therefore I ffiall not here further infift upon it : Only I muft beg Leave to add a few Remarks on tfte forefaid Penalty, to iil;iftratc the Arg«m?pt in H^ud.

Wheq

I . . ( )

I When it is declared that fuch asnegledk to read the

I {aid Aft fliall be incapable of fitting or voting in any Church-

I judicatory, the Reading of this Aft is made a Condition

f and Qiialification of Minifters their fitting and voting in i Church-judicatories : Hereby the Parliament aflume to 1 themfelves a Power of appointing and determining the ) Qualifications of fuch who fhall have Power to fit and vote I in the Courts of the Lord’s Houle, or who lhall be judged I capable of exercifing an cflential Part and Branch of the

’ Paftoral Office, namely, the Exercile of the Keys of Go-

(• vernment and Dilcipline.

idfyy By the above Penalty it is lilcewile plain, that ] the Parliament claim to themfelves a Power of emitting Afts, Orders and Conflitutions concerning the conftituenc Members of the Judicatories of Chrifi’s Houle, and con- Icqucntly concerning the Conftitution of Ecclefiaftical Courts. And therefore,

^4lyy By the forefaid Penalty, the Parliament claim to themfelves a Superiority over Ecclefiaftical Judicatories i. as fuch ; and, according to their forefaid Statute, thelc I are confidcred as fo far fubordinate to the Parliament, that 1 they may determine who fiiall not be held and repute as conftiruent Members of thefe Courts. Hence,

The Parliament, by the fame Penalty, alTume to ^ themfelves a Power, whereby they may enaft fuch Laws \, and Oi ders as may debar from Church-judicatories, or i from fitting and voting in them, fuch as have all thofc Qualifications which give them full Warrant and Autho- j rity from the Lord jefus, the Head of the Church, to fit and vote in the Courts of his Houfe ; and thus Eccle- I fiaftical Judicatories are ftill lb far fubordinated unto the I Civil Powers, that they may model them with refpeft: ‘i unto their conftituent Members according to their Will ^ and Pleafurc. If thele Things are duly confidered, we * fhall find that the forefaid Penalty contains the very Sub- >. ftance and Soul of the Eraftian Supremacy y as it was afl'er- ted and declared by our Scots Parliament when it v/as ferewed up to its higheft Pitch, particularly by the firfi: Aft of that Seffion of Parliament that met OHober i9tli 1 1669, where, amongft other Things, it is declared anti

enafted, “That the King and his Succeffors have the Supreme Authority and Supremacy over all Perfons, and in all Cattles Ecclcfiaftidc within this Kingdom ; — and that they may fettle, enaft and emit fuch Gonftitutions, Afts and Orders, concerning the Adminiftration of the

external

I

( )

** external Government of the Church and the Perfbns “ employed in the fame, and concerning all Ecclehaftical “ Meetings and Matters to he propofed and determined “ therein, as they in their Royal Wifdom ihall think fir.” From what has been oblerved it may be evident, that the very fame Supremacy over the Judicatories is upon the Matter claimed by the forefaid Penalty, which our Scots Parliament declared and aflerted to be in the Perfon of the King and his Succeflbrs ; and this very Supremacy W'as witneffed againft by the Presbyterian Church of Scot¬ land in the Face of the greateft Tyranny and Violence, in the late Times of cruel Pcrf'rcntion, Her known Prin¬ ciples arc, That the Lord Jefus Chrift alone, as Media¬ tor, is Head, Lord and Lawgiver unto his Church ; and that to him alone it belongs to give Laws, Ordinances and Statutes unto the Office-bearers of his Houfe, in their feveral Spiritual and Lcclcfiaftical Functions and Admi- niftrations ; and that all the Courts and Judicatories of his Houfe are fuhordinate to him alone in their kcclefiaftical Fundfions and Adminiffrations ; and that unto the Lord Jefus alone it appertains to give luftruftions unto his Mi- nifters, to regulate them in the Excrcife of their Mini- ftry, and to preferibe Laws and Rules concerning the Meetings of his own Courts and their conftituent Mem« bers, as alfo to determine the Qiialificationsof the Office¬ bearers of his Houfe who have Right to fit and vote in his own Courts. If the Courts of Chrift’s Houfe are framed and modelled according to the Laws, Adis and Conftitu- tions of Men, as is done by the forefaid Penalty, then they are no more the Courts of Chrift, their Conllitution is changed, they hold not of Chrift the Head alone in their Ecclefiaftical Meetings and Adminiffrations; and, as they are thereby fubordinated unto the Civil Powers, they arc not to be reckoned Ecclefiaftick but Civil Courts. The grand Defence that is made againft the Eraftian Penalty Annexed to the above Adi is. That no more is intended by it, but that fuch as fhould neglcdl to read the Adi cannot Jit and vote in Judicatories that have the legal Efiablrjhment; or, that they thereby forfeit the legal Countenance and Protcdiicn ; and that it is only Minifters Power and Right of fitting and voting in Church-judicatories, as they enjoy it in verrue of Civil Statutes, that can juftly be under- ftcod. Tlius feme Writers upon this Subjedl have thought fir to exprefs themfelvcs ; And, what is the Amount of this Reafoning I It appears to me to be juft as much as

( ’*^7. 1 . .

if it were faid, That EcclehatHcal Judicatories, which have the legal Ertablintmenc, may and ought to Receive Afts, Orders and Statutes from the Civil Powers concer¬ ning their Meetings and conftituent Members; and con- fequently, that Ecclefiaflical Judicatories, in fo far as they have the legal Eftablifliment, or the Authority of Civil Statutes on their Side, are fubordinate to the Civil Powers : And this is nothing eife but to plead the legal EftabliHiment for giving up with the Sovereignty and Headlliip of tha Lord Jefus over his own Houle, and for fubjedling the Courts of his Spiritual Kingdom unto the Authority and Commands of Men; and in this Cafe it were far better that the Church wanted the legal Eftablifh. ment, than to enjoy it at fuch a coftly Rate. The Coun¬ tenance of Civil Authority is not neceffary to the Being of the Church, tho‘ it is indeed very profitable and ufeful un¬ to her outward peaceable Being, and is promifed as a great outward Blefiing unto the Church in New-Teftament Times, Ifa. xlix. 23. and lx. 5, 10. Rev. xvii. 16. But, when is it that the Countenance of Civil Authority is a Blefllng unto the Church of Chrift ? It is when the Civil Power is employed for the Support and Defence of the Office-bearers of the Church in the faithful Difcharge of their Duty, and for the Protection of the Courts of his Kingdom in all their feveral juft Rights and Privileges. As the Magiftrate’s Power over the Church is not priva¬ tive or deftruCtive, fb, if the Countenance of Civil Au¬ thority is pled for depriving her of the leaft of thefe Rights and Privileges that are given her by her exalted Head, the legal Eftablifhment becomes in this Cafe a Snare and a Judgment unto the Church ; and it is none of the leaft of the Rights and Privileges of Chrift’s Spi¬ ritual Kingdom, that the Office-bearers of his Houfe have a Claim to the Exercife of the Keys in the Name of the King of Zion, and in Subordination to him alone, as the only Lord and Lawgiver unto his Church and People.

From what is above obfervcd, concerning the late A(9: of Parliament anent Captain John Porteous, it is evident,

! that the Civil Powers have claimed to themfelves fuch a i Superiority over the Office-bearers of the Houfe of God,

! in their Spiritual and Ecclefiaftical Functions and Admini- I ftrations, as they have thereby declared them to be fubor¬ dinate unto the Civil Authority in their faid Functions and Adminiftrations : And therefore the Submilfion that has beep given by the moft Part of the Miniftry to the faid

EraftL

{ ifiS )

Itrattian Ufurpation, muft needs be con{lrn£ted a ruhmit- ting thcmfelves in the Ejrercife of their Miniftry to Men, and a taking their Holding for the Ejtercife of the Keys of Government and Difcipline from the Civil Powers ; whereby they have praftically given up with the foie Head - fhipand Sovereignty ofChriftover his Spiritual Kingdom, and acknowlegcd that the Judicatories, as they enjoy theCi- vil or Legal Eftablifbment, are immediately fubordinare unto the Civil Powers, and may and ought to receive A(fts andOrders from them concerning their Ecclefiaftical Meet¬ ings, their conftituent Members, together with the Qualifi¬ cations of fuch Members. Let us here alfb confider what has been the Condu£i: of the Judicatories of this Church fince the above A£l of Parliament did take Place : When, by the Penalty annexed to the faid A6t of Parliament, the Civil Powers have plainly and exprefly declared that the Ecclcfiaftick Judicatories in Scotlandy by vertue of the Ci¬ vil or Legal Eftablilbment granted unto them, are fubordi- nate unto the Civil Magiftrate, this was a loud Call unto the Judicatories to bear plain and exprefs Teftimony unto the alone Sovereignty and HeadlTiip of Chrift over his own Houfe, and for aflerting the juft Rights and Privileges of his Spiritual Kingdom, in Oppofition unto the above Encroachment made thereupon ; now was the Seafon for luch a Teftimony, now was the Seafon for difehar- ging a Duty, the Omiflion of which was juftly complain'd of and regreted by many, at our wonderful Deliverance from Popery, Tyranny and Slavery Anno 1688. But it is to be regreted that no Teftimony of this Kind has been given by any of the prefent Judicatories of this National Church; yea, fbme Synods, particularly the Synod of Perth zr\d Stirling y did, at their Meeting 17^7, givo

an ample Teftimony to the Readers of the above Aft as irue PreshyterianSy and that they did it from a Senfe of Duty : This was a faying A Confederacy unto them in their Sin, and a hardning of them in their Iniquity. And the laft General Aflcmbly of this National Church, which was the firft that met after the Impofing and Reading of the faid Aft, gave no Manner of Teftimony againft the Diflionour done to the King of Zion, and the Encroachment that was made upon his Spiritual Kingdom by the Enafting and Reading of the fame: Neither could any other Thing be expefted from them, when the moft Part of the conftitu¬ ent Members of that Aflembly were involved in this grie¬ vous Sin and Scandal.

Upon

f 169 )

tJpon the Whole, Since by the above-rrienrioned A^o? Farliament, and the Reading thereof, the prelent Judica¬ tories of this National Church, as they enjoy the Civil of Legal Eftablifhment, arc declared and acknowleged to be fubordinate unto the Civil Powers, and iir.ee no Teftitnony has been offered by any ol’ the faid judicatories againft this grievous Encroachment upon the Power and Authority of the King of Zion over his own Spiritual Kingdom, ic plainly follows, that this Ufurpation is fubmitted unto by the Judicatories of this National Church ; and therefore, by their SubmilTion unto the fame, their Conftitution is fb far altered and changed, that they cannot be held and efiee- med as Courts that are immediately fubordinate unto thb King of Zion, but as Courts that have changed their Hol¬ ding, and who have fubordinated themfelvesuntbthe Civil Powers: Hence it is evident that they are vaftly worfe than when the Proteftation was entred j4»no 1755.

A 6th Inftance I give is the hdi of the laft Affembly gainft the feceding Brethren. This is an Aft of a very extraordinary Nature; it is an Aft that loads the lecediirg Brethren in a very grievous Manner, without any fufficicnc Evidence brought againft them ; ’tis an Aft that condemns their judicial Ati atid ^efiimony : And yet there is not one Particular in it that is found or alledged to be contrary to the Word of God, or the received and acknowleged Prin'=‘ ciples of the Church of Scotland. The Charge that is laid by the faid Aft againft the feceding Minifters is, That they have “ feceded from the Communion of this Church,

and made a pofirive Separation therefrom.’* The Evi* dence that is brought for the Notoriety of thefe Fafts is, That Reprefentations and Complaints have been laid before them concerning the faid Conduft of thefe Minifters, as alfo “ the perfonal Knowlege of many of the Minifters of the faid Aftembly.” The feceding Minifters are neither afraid nor afhamed to own that they have made a Seceffioa from the prefent Judicatories of this National Church ; but they refufe that they have ever feceded from the Commu¬ nion of the Church of Scotland^ or that they have made any Kind of Separation from her. The Aftembly further add, ** That the faid Minifters have feceded from this ‘‘ Church without any juftifiahle Grounds ; and that they “ continue in their unwarrantable Seceffion, notwithftand* “ ing of their own fblemn Engagements to the contrary at “ their Ordination, &*c.’* And further, their Scceflion is declared to be a 5cit//»7,yea, a dan^erotti SsUffn i And, in the

y Clolb

( lyo )

Clofe of the AS:, it is declared to be “ dangerous to the “ Peace of this Church, contrary to the Spirit of the Gof*

“ pel, very hurtful to Religion and ferious Godlinefs, to “ Chriftian Charity and brotherly Love and fuch as ad- . here to the feceding Brethren and their judicial anti ^eftimony, are declared to be a Company of poor deluded People. One would think that fuch a Sentence, pad by a National Affembly againfl: feveral Minifters of the Go- fpel, fhould be founded upon very clear and convincing Grounds and Evidences. When they declare that the pre- ient Seceflion is without any juftifiable Grounds, and that the feceding Minifters are Cteluders of the People, have they ever examined the Grounds upon which the Seceflion is ftated ? Either they knew them, or not. If they knew them, ought they not to have confidered them and weigh¬ ed them in the Balances of the Sanftuary ? and was it not their Duty to have compared them with our received and approven Standards, before they had condemned the fece- «iing Minifters as councerafting their Ordination-engage¬ ments, and as dangerous Schifmaticks and Deludersot the People? But to condemn them in the Manner forefaid, mere¬ ly becaufe they have feceded, and without enquiring into their Principles, or examiningthe Grounds of their Seceflion according to the Word of God and our approven Stan¬ dards, is a dealing with them by mere Authority ; kis a dealing with them in a Manner that can neither convince nor perfwade the Confciences of Men. The Council of ^renty before they condemned the Protejlants as Schifmaticks excerpted out of their Teftimonies and Writings feveral, 1 of their dodtrinal Propofitions, and made fome Shew of ; examining of them ; but a National Aflembly of the Church I of Scotland^ by a folemn Adt and Sentence, condemn eight ‘ Minifters as dangerous without condefeending

upon any erroneous Principle maintained by them : They . declare the Grounds of their Seceflion to be unjuftifiable ; • but what thefe Grounds are, they have not told. They cannot alledge, that they did not know the Grounds upon ■which the Seceflion is ftated ; for the Adt of Aflembly bears, That the .^(3, Declaration and ^efiimony of the fe¬ ceding Minifters, and their other Papers, afllgn the Grounds of their unrealbnable and irregular Condudt. And they further add. That the feceding Minifters, in their faid ^eflimony zx\d Papers, do, “ with the Air of a “ paramount Power and Authority, condemn this Church and the Judicatories for their Proceedings, and caft ma- ;

ny I

( 17* ) .

** ny groundlels and calumnious Refle^lions upon her and “ them ” If a general Council fhould let go a Teftimony for Truth, why may not a Presbytery, conftitute in the Name of the Lord Jefus, judicially aflert the Truth, without alfuming to themfelves a paramount Power and Authority 1 The Councils of Ariminum and Conjlantiano- polcj which comprehended both the Eaflern and Weftern Churches, did, in the Years 359 and 360, let flip the true Faith concerning the Deity of Chrift, as it was af- iertcd and held forth by the Council of Nice : But, in the Year 56Z, an AlTcmbly of Confejfors being met at Alexan- \ dria^{(o Ruffin in his Hiftory defigns them, Pauci Numero^ &c. i that is, feiv in Number^ but many on account of their ! Soundnefs of the Faith') decreed, that the Ringleaders of the Apoftafy fhould be cut off from the Church; and that others, who renounced their Error, and returned unto the Faith, fhould be received again into the Bofom of the Church *. Did thefe few Confelfors aflame to themfelves a paramount Power over all the Churches of the then I known World ? or, were they in the Wrong in their ho- \ reft and faithful judicial Determination ? If an Oecume- i nick Council fhould fwerve from the Faith, may not one I Minifler doftrinaliy bear Teftimony to the Truth ? And, if one may do it doftrinally, why may not feveral Mini- fters, aflociate together, emit a judicial Teftimony for Truth, when the Judicatories of a particular vifibic i Church either depart from the Truth, or negleft a judici¬ al Teftimony for the Support of the fame ? I fay. Why I may not this be done, without afluming a paramount Power ? 1 ’Tis no other Power but what the Lord Jefus has given « to the Office-bearers of his Houfe, and it is no other Power but what they are warranted by him in the Cale mentioned to exercife. If the Judicatories of this Natio- ' nal Church had done their Duty, the feceding Brethren would not have had Ground either for their Aflbeiation or for fuch a Procedure.

The Aflembly having declared the feceding Brethren dangerous Schifmaticks, &c. they conclude, “ That they “ might proceed upon thefe Accounts in the due Excrcifc of Difeipline, to appoint thefe feparating Brethren and “ their Followers to be proceeded againft and cenfured “ according to the Demerit of their Faults; yet, chufir^ “ rather ftill to treat them in the Spirit of Meeknef^ ‘‘ brotherly Love and Forbearance, they injoin all the Mi-

Y 2 “ nifters

^ Hif, Ecclejtafl. Lib. 1. Chap. 28.

( ^72 ) I

nifiers of this National Church as they lhall have Ac« , cefs, and efpeciaily the Minifters of the Synods and “ Presbyteries within which thefe feceding Brethren refide, to be at all Pains, by Conference and other gentle j Means of Perfwafion, to reclaim and reduce them to . their Duty, and the Communion of this Church, 6Pc.’‘ The Aifembly think fit to fpeak of treating the Brethren in the Spirit of MeekneCs, brotherly Love, QPc. and yet at the fame Time they are condemned as dangerous Schif- maticks, before the Grounds of rheir SecefiTion are either enquired into or examined: And therefore the Conferen-' CCS appointed with them, upon the fpecious Pretexts of brotherly Love, and gentle Means of Pcifwafion, muff be to this Effcdt; ^he General yijfemhly of the Church of Scot¬ land have founds that you are Separatiflj from this Church ; that your Seceffion is unwarrantable ; that it is without any juftjiable Grounds’, and that you have ajfumed a paramount Power and Authority to you^f elves, and are promoting a dan¬ gerous Sebifm ; that you are feducing and deluding the People : therefore they have appointed us to commune with you, in erder to reclaim and reduce you to your Duty, and, if ycui will not be reclaimed and reduced unto your Duty, the Com- sni£ion are impowered to take all proper Steps and Methods for duly Jifiing you before the next /djfembly, there to anfwer for your irregular ConduSi and all the Parts thereof. Is this to treat them in the Spirit of Meeknefs ? Are thefe the gentle Means of Perfwafion ? Who could expert that the rece¬ ding Brethren would enter into Conferences with any u- pon the above Terms, whereby their Teftimouy and the •whole of their Condu(St is condemned as a dangerous Schifm, and that without any Regard to what they might offer tor their own Vindication ? I hope they are ready to give a Reafon of that Hope that is in them to any that ask it; but, in the mean Time, it cannot be expected that they fhould a6t an inconfiftent Part with the Teftimony \vhich they are bound in Duty to hold.

I further obferve, That the forefaid Aft againft the receding Brethren reilcfts upon their appointing Faffs in i difirerent Corners of the Country ; and the Refleftion l contains an indecent Infinuation, unworthy of fuch a Re¬ verend Body; “ To which Falls [^fay they) there is a Rc- fort of fcveral Thoufands of Pcifonsof both Sexes; and “ too many of them, as there is good Ground to think,

V come there with other Views than to promote Religi- !f pn. ” Are not all pur publick Afl'emblics for Vvorfhip.

* piadc

made up of Perfons of both Sexes? and is it not their Dury to refort unto them ? Gan any of our pubiick AU femblies for Worfhip be purged of fuch Perfons, of whom there is too much Ground to think that they come there with other Views than to promote Religion ? Yet, even many fuch have been eft'edtually called by the Word of the Gofpel, and made Monuments of the rich and Ib- vereign Grace of God in Chrift Jefus. As for the Falls appointed by the Aflbciate Presbytery, there is no Doubt but that too many relbrt unto them with other Views than to promote Religion; bur I hope that there are o- thers that frequent them for their fpiritual Edification^ and who have Reafon apd Ground to blefs the Lord foe fuch folemn Meetings.

From what I have obferved upon the PiA of the laft Aflcmbiy againft the feceding Brethren, it is evident, that it contains a general Condemnation of their Teftimony, •without condefeending upon any particular Inftances of any Thing adopted by them contrary to the Word of God, or the laudable Acts and Conftitutions of the Church of Scotland', yea, by the faid A6l of Affembly, all the Proceedings of the prefent Judicatories are ju(lifi>- cd, and the feceding Minifters are condemned as cafting many groundlefs and calumnious KejicHwns upon them in their faid ^(5 and ^efiimeny, and in other Papers emii;- ted by them : Hence 'tis aifo plain, that the particular Steps of Dcfedlion both of prefent and former Times, contained in the Presbytery’s jdB and Tefiimony, are rec¬ koned injurious and calumnious Refledlions. The prefen^ Judicatories then are fo far from acknowledging their Ini¬ quity, and returning to the Lord, that they condemn the leceding Minifters for bearing Teftimony unto the Truth; they not only refufe to lift up a judicial Teftimony for Truth themfelvcs, but they condemn others who are en-* deavouring to do it : Therefore I cannot but look upon this Procedure as an Inftance that they are <worfe than when the Proteftation was entred agaiuft the Afiembly 1753. And, from all the above particular Inftances tha(; I have given, the Author of the may fee that the

prefent Judicatories are worfe, yea, vafily ivorfe, than when the faid Proteftation was entred: As alfb, he may fee, that the Grounds of Secefiicn from the prefent Ju¬ dicatories, as the fame was ftated before the Commillion of the General Alfembly 1755, do ftiii fubfift ; and that the Procedure of the Judicatories frome Time to T»me

C >74

has been fuch, as not only gives juft Ground for the re¬ ceding Brethren to continue in their Seceflion, but alfb to enlaij;e the fame further than it was ftated before the Gommilfion of the General Aflembly Anno 1735.

I fhall only further oblerve upon the prefent Proceed¬ ings of the Judicatories, That having thruft out from Communion with themfome Minifters, becaufe they were contending within the faid Judicatories againft leveral Steps of Defection ; thefe Mtnifters judged it their Duty to afl'oeiate together, that they miglit teltify in a judicial Capacity for the Truths of God, as alfo, that they might contribute their Endeavours, in the fame Capacity, for the Help and Relief of the Lord’s oppreffed Heritage through the Land; And now the Judicatories will have them to return again to their Communion ; and, if they will nor, they threaten to procefs and libel them, that is, they will have them forced back again into their Communion, even tho’ the Grounds of their Scceffion are fo far from being removed, that, in all the above particular Inftances named, the faid Grounds are ftrengthned and increafed. I may therefore leave it to any unbiafted Perfon to judge if this is either a confiftent or realbnable Procedure.

I fhall now conclude this Section with laying before the Reader a fhort Sum of the Argument for Seceflion from the prefent Judicatories, and for the Exercife of the Keys in a diftindi Capacity from them, as I have ftated and laid the fame in this Chapter, viz.. This National Church, as fhe is reprefented in her prefent Judicatories, is not a confeflTing Church ; fhe has not the Scripture-cha- radter of the Church of the living God ; in regard her Judicatories refufe to do Juftice to Truth, in condem¬ ning particularly and exprefly many grofs and pernicious Errors that have been brought to their Bar, whereby the Scheme of Divine Truth laid down from the Word of God in our ConfefUon of Faith is fubverted ; as alfo, in regard the Erroneous have been difmifted from their Bar, either without Cenfure, or with no Cenfure proportioned to the Scandal and OtFcnce they have given. In like Manner, the faid Judicatories are Tyrannical in their Ad- miniftration, and that not in a few lingle Inftances only, but in a Series and Tradt of Violence done unto ibc Heritage of God; whereby they not only obtrude Mini- fiers upon the Church, but even appoint the right Hand of Fellowfiiip to be given to Intruders, by fuch Sy- tiods and Presbyteries as have b?cn reclaiming againft

( 'ijS )

Cudi Violence ; and likewife they appoint and ofdait^i that the Members of the Church fhould fubmit to the f Miniftry of thofe that are impofed upon them, as i-f they were lawful and fent Miniffers of Chrift, or other- v/ife be deprived of the Seals of the Covenant, And further, this Tyranny in the Adminiftration is mani- fefted in feveral A6fs and Deeds, whereby finful and tm- warrantable Terms of Minifterial and Chriftian Commu¬ nion have been laid down, and the Judicatories of the Church do ftill perfift in refufing to do Juftice to injured Truth, as aUb in their Tyranny in the Adminiftrution ; And, of late, the moft Part of Minifters having atfually fubmitted unto fuch Ufurpations of the Civil Powers, whereby the Courts and Judicatories of the Lord’s Houfe I are held and declared to iubfift and ftand in a direft Subor- i dination unto the faid Powers ; and the prefent Judica¬ tories having given no Manner of Teftimony at all againft the faid grievous Ufurpation, but having continued with a filent SubmifTion under the fame, their Conftitution is I thereby changed, and they have virtually confented to i take their Holding, with refpe61: to the Difpofal and Or- I dering of their conftituent Members and their Qualifica- I tions, direftly and immediately of the Civil Powers : And further, the faid Judicatories have and do perfift and con¬ tinue in the above and the like finful Praftices, notwith- ftanding the ordinary Means have been ufed to reclaim them, particularly by Petitions, Rcprefentations, Diflents and Proteftations againft many of the above Practices com¬ plained of; by all which they have departed from our received and approven Standards of Doctrine, Worfliip, Government and Difcipline, and confequently have broke the Bond of Ecclefiaftical Union in this particular vifible Church : Therefore a Secellion from Ecclefiaftical Con- junftion and Communion with the prelent Judicatories is necelTary Duty, ay and until they return to our Reforma- { tion-ftandards ; and fuch as are fenfible of their Duty, and

1 who defire to be found faithful to the Lord in this Day of Degeneracy and Backfliding, have Right on their Side, both from the Word of God and from the A£ts and Gon- j ftiiutions of this Church, from our folemn Covenant-en- gagements, and from the Engagements that each Miniftee comes under at his Ordination to the Miniftry, by all which they are bound to hold faft what we in this reformed Church and Land have received ; as alfo, in regard they cannot otherwife difeharge feveral Duties that their Station

( 175 )

and Office oVdige them unro, and which the prefent Sratn of the Church of Chrift in this Land requires, they have Right, I fay, to aflbeiare together in a difiinft judicative Capacity from the prefent Judicatories, that they may difplay the Banner of a Teftimony for tfie Truths of Chrirt, for tiae Freedom of his Spiritual Kingdom, and the Rights of his Subjects, in Oppofiticn to the Injury that is done to Truth, to the Invafions that are made upon his Spiritual Kingdom, and the Violence that is done to his Subjects; and this, as a Debt that Z/on owes to her Goti, and as a Branch of that Revenue of Glory and Praife that is due from the Church unto her exalted Head, and as a publick Debt that Ihe ought to difeharge for the Sake of the prefent and fuccceding Generations.

It is to be regreted, that fuch is the State of Matters in the Judicatories of this National Church, that I have Co much Ground for laying my Argument in the above Man¬ ner againft them ; I have been obliged unto it, for the De¬ fence of that Caule which I doubt not is the Caufe of Truth, and which the Aflociate Presbytery, whereof I am a Member, have by their judicial and CCejlimony cfpoufed. I have in this, and in the preceeding Seflions, endeavoured to explain and give my Reafons for the Ve¬ rity and Truth of tlie feveral Particulars contained in the above Charge: And it is with fome Meafure of Concern that I find tite Conclufion which comes out from the fe- X'eral Premiffes that I have laid down may be exprefled in the following Terms, viz» Since the prefent Judicatories of this National Church refufe to confefs the Truths of God in direct Oppofition unto fuch dangerous Errors whereby they have been fubverted ; and fince, by feveral particular Afts and Deeds, they are tyrannical in their Ad- minirtration ; and fince they are conifitute of fuch Mem¬ bers as are obtruded upon the Church, and therefore have ro Right nor Warrant from the Head of the Church to fit in his Courts, nor to rule and govern his Flock, yea, conftitute of fuch Members who are fcattering the Flock of Chrift, and ruling over them with Force and Rigour, by which and the like Practices they have given Scandal and Offence to the Church of God ; as alfo, fince the laid Judi¬ catories have, by their filent Submiffion unto the Ufurpa- tions that have been made upon the Kingdom of Chrift and the Courts thereof, virtually and practically given up with their Holding of the King of Zww, whereby the Conftitution of the feveral Judicatories of this National

Church

( 177 )

Church is changed ; and finally, fince they continue to ]tl» flify thcmfelves in thefc and the like Praftices: There¬ fore, for the above, and for all the ocher Reafons that have been more particularly fpecified and exprefied, the pre- fent Judicatories of this National Church cannot be held nor repute as Li'Xvful or right-conf}itute Courts of Chrift ; and confequentiy it is the Duty of fuch as defire to be found faithful to the Lord to come out from among them,

I and to make ufe of the Keys of Government and Dilci“

1 pline for the Ends and Purpofes.for which they are given i unto the Oifice- bearers of the Church by her glorious and exalted Head. And, in like Manner, it is the Duty of all ! who fear the Lord through the Land, and who defire to I hold faft that Reformation-purity once attained unto, fted- ! faltly to adhere unto any Teftimony emitted by fuch Of¬ fice-bearers, for the Truths of God, and againtl a Courfe j of Defection and Deviation from them, whether in pre- fent or former Times; the Command being given to all ' the Members of the Church, according to their different Spheres and Stations, to fiand fafi in one Spirit, with one Mind, firiving together fur the Faith of the Gofpel, Philip, i i. ly

CHAP. III.

Wherein the Arguments advanced by the Author of the EfTay, againji SeceJJwn from the prefent Judicatories^ are ex^ amined*

The Author of the Effay proceeds in his fifth Chap¬ ter to give us what he calls his weighty Argumentt againft Separation ; bur, fince he has never di- ftinflly ftated the Queftion, I cannot expeft to find that his Arguments fhall be laid in a fair or plain Manner: Sometimes they appear to be levelled againft the Sectarian Separatifts, fometimes againft a Book called Plain Reafons, &c. But, fince in his Title-page he ftates the feceding Brethren as his only Adverfaries, I fhall confider his Ar¬ guments as diredfed againft the Conduct of the Affociate Presbytery, whom he think fit to dais with the worft Schif- maticks and Separatifts. In his Preamble to his Argu-

2i ments

. ( *7S )

ment.«, in the Beginning of the fifth Chapter, Separation “ {fays he ) from a true Church, except in the above or “ like Cafes, was always reckoned a hainous Sin by the Ja- “ dicious and Tender, albeit her Faults fhould be many.” I have already noticed the Ambiguity in the Terms, true Churchy as ufed by him. By the above and like CafeSy he means the Caies mentioned in his- fourth Chapter, where he mentions fix general Grounds of Separation : And I have likewife obferved, that he is neither diftin6t nor plain •upon any of them, except upon the when he tells us, p, 55. “That fuch Minifters as are evidently fcandalous “ may be withdrawn from, albeit, thro’ the Iniquity of the “ Times, they (hould not be cenfured by a Church-judica- tory, when complained of.” And here I might ask our Author, Whether or not fuch are evidently fcandalous, •who have an aftive Hand in obtruding Miniilers upon the Church, or who have praftically given up with the foie Headlbip and Sovereignty of Chrilt over his Spiritual King¬ dom, or who have pled that Self-intereft muft bear the Sway in all our Aftions whatfoever; Whether or not, I fay, fuch Perfons are evidently fcandalous, or if they have given juft Ground of Oftence unto the Church and People God? If our Author will grant that they are fcandalous, then, how is he confiftent with himfelf, in continuing to maintain Eccleftaftical Communion with them, when, thro’ the Iniquity of the Times, they are not cenfured by a Church-judicatory, tho’ they have been often complain¬ ed of ? I know not what our Author reckons evidently fcandalous', but I doubt not to affirm, that fuch as are guilty of an open and publick Violation of feveral exprefs Com¬ mands of the firft Table of the Moral Law, and who ju- ftify themfelves in the fame, are equally fcandalous, and more dangerous to the Church, as thefe, who may be guilty of the open Violation of the exprefs Commands of the fecond Table of the fame Law, tlio* the latter ought likewife to be cenfured by every Cburch-judicarory.

The Author of the EJfay is likewife plain upon his fixtb general Ground of Separation, viz.. “ That the impofing “ the Icaft finful Term of Communion is juft Ground of “ Separation from a Church.” I have already evinced, that unwarrantable and finful Terms of Communion arc by feveral Afts and Deeds impofed upon the Minifters and Members of this Church ; as alfo, that our Conjun¬ ction with the prefent Judicatories does in itlelf bind us up fr9n) the Difcharge of feveral Duties wbicli our Mini-

fterial

I

( J7P )

fterial Office and our Ordination Vows and Engagements I do oblige us unto, in the prefent State of Matters in this National Church, I might therefore pals over all oUc Author’s Arguments, as nowife affedting the prefent Que«

1 ftioii betwixt the prefent Judicatories and the feceding Mi- nifters; but in regard his Divine and human Authorities, tho’ very much mifapplied, are yet induftrioufly managed to I the Prejudice of the Caule of Truth, I fhall briefly confider 1 them, alter I have noticed what he mentions in his Pre¬ amble, concerning the Emperor who (he tells

us) was fo afflifted with the Diflentions of the Church in his Day, that they brought many a Tear from his Eyes, and robbed him of his Night’s Reft. As the Anan Herefy was the Occafion of thefe great Diflentions of the Church in Con^antine's Time, fo, if the Indignities that have been done to the Perfbn of Chrift in our Day, and the Injuries that have been done to many important and precious Truths, had drawn Tears from the Eyes of Minifters and other Church-members, the Banner of a judicial Tefti- mony had been difplayed long ere now by the Judicato¬ ries, for injured and wounded Truth, after the Example of the Council of Nice^ which was afilfted and countenan¬ ced by that great Emperor, As for Mr. Kings dying Ex¬ hortation in the Words of the Apoftlc, Philip, ii. 3. as our Author joins him in it, fo I hope all the feceding Mini¬ fters do in like Manner cordially join the fame. I proceed now to confider our Author’s Arguments againft Seceflion in the following Set^lions,

S E C T. I.

Wherein the Scripture-arguments againfi Secef- fion from the prefent Judicatories are confi- dered,

TH E firft Argument advanced by the Author of the P* 39’ to prove the Unwarrantablenefs of Separation from what he reckons a true Church, is, “ That it is againft the Praftice of all the Saints under “ the Old Teftament, who, notwithftanding theCorrup- tions of Priefts and People, never feparated, fo as to “ eredt a new Church, or a new Altar • and who never i feparated from the Worfliip of the true God, whatever were the Corruptions of the Church.” And he pro- I cceds CO give Inftanccs of Zachariai the Prieft, Alaryy An-

Z z na

>J4 thi Prophetefs, gs alfo of our blcfted Lord, and his Apoftles, who all continued in Communion with the ye<w>/b Church, notwithitanding of her Corruptions. I have ob- ferved in my Pojlfcript to the printed Letter, that this Ar¬ gument proves coo much, even more than our Author himfelf will own; namely, That we ought to I'ubmit to Gofpel-ordinances dilpenfed by JSIcn grofly immoral irt their Walk and Praftice ; for fuch were fome of the ’Jemjb Pi iefts, in thefe degenerate Times chat our Author mentions. But the Author of the Effay delivers his Opi¬ nion very plainly upon this Head, when he tells us, as I have noticed above, Ejfay, p. 55. That “ fuch as are evi- dently fcandalous may be withdrawn from, albeit, thro* the Iniquity of the Times, they fhould not be cenfured by a Church-judicatory when complained of,” And here I may leave it to our Author, to reconcile v/har he himfelf allows to be a Ground of Separation, with his firft Scripture- argument according to the Way that he has thought fit to ftate it. Tho’ I humbly judge I have faid enough, to take off the Force of the above Argumenr, in my Pofifeript to which I refer, yet I fliall add. That, if the laid Argument is laid againft our Seceffion from the prefent Judicatories, his Reafonings as he lays them amount to this ; All the Saints under the Old Teftament, notwith- ffanding of the Corruptions of the Jewifi Church, never leparated, fb as to eredt a new Church, or a nev/ Altar, or to worfliip any other than the true God ; therefore, if we depart from Communion with the prefent Judica¬ tories, we ere ft a new Church, or a new Altar, and fepa- rate from the Worlhip of the true God. Bur, who may not fee the Abfurdity of this Rcafoning ?’ Our Author’s Argument would indeed he ftrong, if he was able to con¬ fine the Church and Worfhipof God to the prefent Ju¬ dicatories, as of old the only Place of their folemu Wor¬ ship was the T'emple^ and the National Church of the J^ews was the only vifible Church upon the Face of the Earth; yea, the Church was confined to that Nation, from the Time at leaft that the Law was given from Mount Sinai ^ to the Rearing up of the New-Teftament Church, after the Refurredtion of our Lord from the Dead; and ^eru- falem^ or the Temple, was the iiiftiruted and appointed Place of folcmn Worfnip unto the whole Church : But row it is no more tlie Seat or Place of Worfhip ; the Prophecy has long ago taken Accomplifhmenr, Mai. i. ir, ^<r from the Rifng of fbe Shv fvjn unto tbs Going down of

tb*

( i8i )

ihe famty my Name pall be great among the Gentiles, anA in every Place Incenfe Jball be offered unto my Name, and a pure Ojffering. The vifible Church is not now confined to one Nation, but confifts of all thcfe throughout the World that profefs the true Religion : Hence it is evident, that when we depart from Church-communion with a particu¬ lar vifible Church, whether Provincial or National, on account of her Corruptions and Backflidings, we depart not from the Church, nor from the Ordinances of Divine Inftitution ; our Seceflion is, in this Cafe, a cleaving more clofly to our only New-Tcftament Altar Chrift Jefus, and to the Ordinances of his Inftitution ; it is not a De¬ parture from the Church, but from the corrupt and de¬ praved Part of the Cathclick Body ; And, in this, we follow the Example of the Prophets and Saints under the Old Teftamenr, and of our bleit'ed Lord and his Apoftles, who departed from the Corruptions of the ^ewijb Church, but at the fame Time did cleave to the Church, and to the Ordinances of Worfhip that were of Divine Inftitution and Appointment. If it were duly obferved, that the Catholick Church is but one Body, and that the Ordinan¬ ces are given primarily to the Church Catholick vifible, and that every particular Church is but a Part of this one Body, and that the Seceflion pled for is a Seceflion only from a corrupt and depraved Part of the Catholick Body ;

Iir would plainly appear, that the Practice of the feceding Minifters is conform to the Pradtice of the Prophets and Saints under the Old Teftamenr, who departed from the Corruptions of the JevuiJh Church, and at the fame Time remained ftedfaft in their Obfervance of the Ordinances of Divine Inftitution and Appointment. I fttall only add upon this Head, That the Papifts have ftated the Argu- i ment from the Old-Teftament Church, againft the Secef* fion of the Proteftanr Churches from them, after the fame Manner as the Author of the Effay does againft his Sepa- ‘ ratifts: And, if he is pleafed to confult the learned Turret tine, our Author may fee his firft Argument againft Sepa¬ ration ftated in the very fame Manner by the Papifts from the Pradtice of the Prophets and Saints in the Old-Tefta- , ment Church, againft the Seceflion of the Proteftants from the Church of Rome \ and, amongft other Anfwers given by that Learned Divine, he may find, that he takes notice of the vaft Difparity betwixt the State of the Church un¬ der the Old and New Teftamenr in the above Particulars I have named j, D/fp, 2. Sedt. 4, 6. Difp. 8. Sedt. Z5, 26.

( 'i82 )

Our Author, p.4i. tells us, That our Lord injoined the People to hear them that fat in Mofes'% Seat.” He does not mention the Scripture ; I judge he intends Matth. xxiii. 2, 5. ‘Ihe Scribes and the Pharifees jit in Mofes*j Seat ; all therefore vihatfoever they bid you obfervey that obferve and do, but do not ye after their fVorks. Our Author cannot but know, that this Scripture has been pled for joining in Communion with Prelatick Conformifts ; and he cannot hut likewife know what the worthy Authors quoted by him, the Hind-let-loofe, and l\\r. Forejler in \\\%Rebiiut injlruendum, have faid upon the Subjedl. But, in regard this Place of holy Scripture has been very much perverted and abuled, I fhall here tranfcribe what a worthy Divine, ■whom our Author frequently cites, has with a great deal of Judgment oblerved upon it, viz. Mr.Hog in his Cafu~ ijiical Effay, p. 71, 72. “ I fincerely judge {fays he) that our Lord Jefus did not command or allow to hear the Pharifaical Teachers of that Period, nor fuch as they “ were in any Age ; for when I ferioufly ponder {as be- ** fore the Lord) how clearly and pointedly their grofs Ig* “ norancc, and Perverfions of the great Fundamentals both of Law and Gofj3el are decyphered in the Word, their bitter and implacable Hatred, and violent purfuing of the Mejfiasy whom they perlecuted to the utmoft, even againft their own Confciences, (wherein at leaft feverals of them commuted the unpardonable Sin) together with “ the Pains (may I fo exprefs it) which our Lord had “ taken on all (i)ccafions to defeat them unto the People, “ with the many Cautions he gives to beware of them, and to take heed left they ficuld be infeBed with the poifonous ** Leaven of their DoRrine, and hypocritical Pageantry ; and “ add to this the Woe.s he pronounccth againft them in “ the Courte of his Doftrine alinoft at every Turn, and “ the whole Cluftcrs which at once he heapeth on them, “ and more to this Purpofe, which the Gofpel-hiftory re- “ prefenteth; I cannot reconcile thefc fo ftrong and pa- “ thetical Diftwafives with an Allowance to countenance the Adminiftrations of fuch of them who taught pu- blickly, elpecially for that we are exprefly prohibited “ to hear the InjlruRion which caufeth to err from the iVords of Knowledge ; and the poifonous Plague of heretical “ Do6trines and Teachers is ftill to be evited, chiefly when the whole Mafs is corrupt, and fcarcc any Thing left entire (as in the prefent Cafe) and that it is both required of Ghrift*s Sheep, and commended as a Pro-

t(

perty

( iSj )

P*rty peculiar ro them, from a Tupernatural and fiving I Inftinct, to put Difference betwixt Chtift’s Voice and “ the Voice of a Stranger; as alfb not to follow, but to flee from, thefe Strangers. ” The fame worthy Author proceeds to explain the above Words, Matth. xxiii. 2, 5. and he reckons that, according to the Original, they may be rranflared indicatively ; but, in regard he does not infift upon this Interpretation, I fhall rranfcribe the Commen¬ tary he gives us upon them, in his Letters frequently cited by our Author, p. 35. where he fays, “ I doubt not but “ that the Scribes and Pharifees were Teachers, and, as “ fuch, I firmly believe they were not to be heard, be- “ caufe they were Hcreticks, and for other weighty “ Reafons before-mentioned. The Command is very ex- “ preff, xix. 27. Ceafe^ my Son ^ to hear the InjlruBion ** that caufetb to err from the Prords of Knovjledge. Not- “ withftanding thefe Scribes and Pharifees were alfo Ru- “ lers, and Members of the great Council, and in

“ this Senfe were confidered in a legiflative Capacity. ‘‘ This is that Capacity wherein I think they are faid fby “ our Lord Jefus) to ft in Mofes’j Seat', for, whatever “ other Dignities Ahfes was invefted with, he is mainly “ confidered and held forth in Scripture as a Lawgiver, ‘‘ John\. 17. The La<w nu as given AyMofes; and on this “ Account it is, I would judge, and do tender it with all “ due Refpeft to great Divines otherwifc minded, that “ the fitting in Mofes’s Seat appeareth to imply Authority “ and Power, at leaft executive of thele Laws which the “ Lord gave by Mcfes. This Expofition, tho’ not ordi- “ nary, yet leems native, plain and eafy, and taketh off “ all Grounds of Exception I know; feeing we have no ! Caufe to doubt but that Obedience was at that Time I “ due to t\\c.je<ivijh Sanhedrim, in fo far as they injoined [ “ nothing but that which the Lord had before com-

“ manded by Alcfes." It is plain that the Scribes and Pha¬ rifees may well be confidered as Civil Rulers; and in this Capacity, as they were Interpreters and Executers of the judicial Law given by Mofes, fo Obedience was due unto their lawful Commands. 1 fhall only further add upon I this Head, That as there is a great Difference betwixt ! fitting in Mofes's Seat, who was King in Jtfbunin, and a Civil Lawgiver to that People, and fitting in Aarons Seat, who was an Ecclefiaftical Officer ; fo it is moft agreeable to the Analogy of Faith, ro underftand the above Words fo reljpeft the Scribes and Pharifees as Civil Judges or 1 Rulers.

( i84 )

Hulers. And the worthy Diviiie that I have named is n6f fingular in this Sentiment ; for I find that Mr, Forefier tells his Advcrlary. who pled the fame Scripture^ Matih. XKiii.

2, 5. for Communion with Prelatick Conformifts, ‘‘ That ’ “ thefe Pharifi.es might be Civil Doftors and Interpreters ' of /f/a/ei’s Judicial Law, and of Municipal Law, .

from his Civil Chair, who was King in ; which ;

will no more infer a Hearing them teach and preacii as ! “ Church-officers, than our Obedience unto the King, . “ Council, Parliament and Sefliou, will infer that Con- “ clufion

The Author of the E^ay proceeds to argue againfl Sepa- > ration, from the State of feveral eminent Churches erefted ! by the Apoflles: He obferves, p. 41, 42. That many 1 Things were amifis in thefe Churches, yet that we never read of any Thing like Separation injoined ; particularly, that in the Church of Corinth many Faults of a hainous Nature were tolerated, or not duly cenfured ; and that in the Church of Galatia many had departed from him who had called them to the Grace of Chrift, unto another Go- fpel; that Ephefus had fallen from her firft Love ; and that Pergamos had fuch in her Communion, that held the Do¬ ctrine of Balaam^ &c. and that the Church of ^hyatira fufFered the wicked Woman 'jezebel to feduce Chrift’s Servants, &c. From all the above Inftances, our Author concludes, p. 43. “ If all thefe were true Churches, then “ may a Church with many Faults and many Corruptions “ remain a true Church of Chrift, with a lawful and vi- “ fible Miniftry, and for all thefe Faults and Corruptions cannot be feparated from.” But, if the Reader will confidcr what I have already obfierved, he will find that our Author’s above Conclufion is laid in very deceitful and ambiguous Terms. If he would form the Argument, from the State of the Churches he mentions, againft the Conduft of the feceding Brethren, his Conclufion fhould , run in the following Terms; That it is unlawful and un¬ warrantable for the fmaller Part of a Church, when the Majority are in their judicative Capacity carrying on a Courfe of Defe61:ion, and refufe to be reclaimed, to exer- cife the Keys of Government and Difeipline for the Main¬ tenance of Truth : But none of the Inftances that our Au¬ thor gives, can fupport him in this Conclufion, in regard he cannot prove that any of the Churches he mentions carried on a Courfe of DefeAion in their judicative Ca¬ pacity, neither can he prove that they defpifed the Reproofs

( i8y 5

and Admonitions that were given them. I have already oblerved, that the Church of Corinth had fubmitted to Reproofs and Admonitions given her by the Apoftle in his fir ft Epiftle, and that they had farrowed after a godly Sori^ and therefore were a reforming Church ; and t have like* wife evinced, that the Admonitions, Warnings and Directi¬ ons, given in the feveral Epiftles direfted to the Churches, do clearly point out the Duty of the fmaller Part of the Office-bearers of a Church, if we ffiall fuppofc the Majo¬ rity of the Office-bearers fhould decline, or obftinately reffife to difeharge their Duty. But, if our Author will ftill pufh his Argument from the State of the Churches of Corinth and Galatia^ then he muft fay, Tho* the Refur- reCtion o'f the Dead fhould be denied in a Church, an Er¬ ror which, the Apoftle declares, fubverts the whole Do¬ ctrine of Chriftianity, i Cor, xv. 13, 14. and tho’ the Go- fpel of Chrift fhould be perverted, and the grand Arti¬ cle of Juftification ftiodld be overthrown, and tho* all this fhould be profefled, avowed and tolerate in a Church, yeC file is ftill fuch a true Church, as we muft not feparate from her, and are obliged to hold Ecclefiaftical Communion therewith,even when flie declines or refufes toteftify parti¬ cularly orexprcfly againft fuchgrofs anddangerous Errors* At this Rate ofReafoning, our Seceffion from the Church of Rome, as it was ftated upon her doCtrinal Articles, andl efpecially upon the Article of Juftification, which was rec¬ koned the principal doCtrinal Point upon which our Re¬ formers ftated their Seceffion ; at this Rate, I lay, it muft be condemned. And, if our Author thinks fit to confule ^urretine on the Head of Seceffion, he will likewife find# that the Popifh DoCtors have argued from the State of the Churches of Corinth and Galatia, againft the Seceffion of the reformed Churches from them ; and, I humbly judge, it may be evident from what is above obferved, that, according to our Author*s Way of Realbning againft his Separatifts, the Argument, as it is managed by the Church of Rome, ftands in its full Force and Strength againft all the Proteftant Churches.

As for the Churches of ,Afa, particularly Pergamoi and Thyatira, I have fully examined the Argument, as it is laid againft the ConduCt of the feceding Brethren, from the State of thefe Churches in the printed Letter, to which I refer. Since our Author has mentioned the Church of Epbefus as a Church that had many Corrupti¬ ons, I muft obferve, that this Church did hold faft, by

A a external

( i85 )

external vifible Profedion, the Purity fhe had once at- rain’d ; yea, Ihe was faithful in her judicative Capacity; Ihe tried and cenfurcd the Erroneous, ^hou canft not bear i them •which are evily and thou hafi tried them which fay they are j4poflles, and are noty and haft found them LiarSy Rev. ii. 5, 4. This is a Com.Tiendation that this National Church, as fhe is reprelented in her prefcnt Judicatories, , has not any Claim or Title unto. That for which Ephefus \ is condemned and threarned, v. 4, 5. is, that the Grace of Lovoy that inward animating and influencing Principle, which powerfully and fweetly conftrains unto Obedience, was more cool and languid than at her firft Converfioii from Paganifm to Chriftianity.

The Author of the Ejfayy p. 62, 65, ^c. argues a- gainft Separation, according to his Way of dating the (^eftion, as a Sin againft the Command of the great God our Saviour, Heb. x. 25. as oppofire to the Commands of Union and brotherly^Love, i Cor. i. 10. fohn xiv. 34. as contrary to the Defign of Chrift’s Death, Epb. ii. 14, — 16. as a Sin againft the InterceflTion of Chrift, John xvii. 31. as that which is hurtful and fatal to the Church, which tends vaftly to the Hurt of Religion, and which hath a direci: Tendency to mar the Succefs of the glorious Gofpel: He concludes, That Separation is commonly faid to be a Renting of Chrift’s feamlefs Coat, and includes fun- dry other Evils in it; and therefore the Apoftle isfopa- thetick in prefTing Unity, Eph. iv. i, 2, 3, &c. Philip. ii. I, 2. The Author may enlarge as much as he pleafes in condemning Separation, and in commendng Union, as his Reverend flrother the Author of a Paper called the Seafonable ^eflimony has done before him, in a Flow of Words, without ever ftating the Queftioo or Argument. I humbly judge, I have equal Reafon to fay. That Union and Conjunftion with declining and backfliding Judica¬ tories, to the Prejudice of a fuitable and neceffary Tefti- mony for Truth and againft dangerous Errors and publick National Steps of Defection, or which involves the Of¬ fice-bearers of the Church in the Omifllon or Negledt of any Duties that their Office does oblige them unto, and J which I have proven to be the Union and Conjunction j that our Author pleads for with the prefent Judicatories 2 of this National Church ; an Union and Conjunction of ’ this Kind, I fay, is contrary unto the exprefs Com¬ mand of the great Head of the Church, Jude^ v. 3.—

Corf

( i87 )

CeitffXii earnejlly for the Faith cnee de]i<vered unto the Saintt. It is contrary to one fpecial End and Dcfign of the Son of God his coming into the World ; he came to beavtVit^ nefs to the Fruth, John xviii. 57. he witnefTed a good Con- felTiot) hthrt Pontius Pilate^ i 'Tim. vi. 13. and hefealed his Tcfiimony and Witnefs with his Death : Has he not, in all this, left us a Pattern that we Ihould follow ? Are we not under the ftrongcfl Obligations, from his Dying for m, to bear Witnefs and Teftimony unto his Truths, when any of them are controverted or oppofed, and that in every Station and Capacity in which we are placed ? Ought not therefore fuch as are Office-bearers in his Houfe, who defire to be found faithful unto him, when the Keys are perverted or abufed by a Majority, make Ufe of them for aflerring and maintaining the declarative Honour and Glory of the Redeemer ? And ought not all the Mem¬ bers of the Church, who defire to approve themfelves unto the Lord, in a Day of Sinning and Backfliding, ad¬ here to any Teftimony lifted up for Truth, and againft a Courfe of Sin and I^efeclion > Again, the above Union and Conjundtion that is pled for is contrary unto our blef. fed Lord’s interceflory Prayer, John xvii. The Chara- dcr that he there gives of his Difciplcs is, that they have kept his Father’s Word, v 6. He prays that they might be fandfified through the Truth, e;. 1 7. fie prays for their Union and Conjunftion in the Truth, v. 2.1. that they all may he one in us, Likewife, the Union and Conjunftion pled- for is a faying A Confederacy with thcfe who are car¬ rying on a Courfe of Defedfion ; if has a native Tenden¬ cy to harden them in their Sin, in regard they may there¬ by juftly conclude, that the Offence or Scandal which they give is not of fuch Moment as to make us depart from Minifterial Communion v;ith them. Alfo, the above Union is hurtful to the Souls of Men ; it is hurtful to thefe with, whom we unite, in fb far as it is hardning un¬ to them in their Sin ; It leaves fuch as are groning under the Burden of unfent Minifters, without fuitable Help and Relief; in regard it puts us out of Capacity of gi¬ ving Minifters unto them v/ith their own Call and Con- fent, according to the Divine Pattern and Inftitution ; and thereby many through the Land have a Famine of the Word of the Lord. Finally, fuch an Union and Cou- jundfion as is pled for is prejudicial to Pofterity; it binds us up from tranfmitting unto them fuch a Teftimony as is ncceftary unto the Dodtrine, Worlhip, Government

A a z and

(. *S8 )

Difcipline of our Lord’s Houfe, in a 'Day of Defeftion f and Backfliding. It is true, Peace^ Union^ Harmony.^ arc all pleafant Words; DiHiifion^ Separatiojjy &c. have a hateful and frightful Sound': Bur, what is the Unity that we ought to purfue after? Is it not the Unity of the Spi¬ rit ? Epb. iv. 3. And, what is the Unity of the Spirit ? The holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, he is not^a Spirit of ci Error; he is the Spirit of Wifdom and Underftanding in i the Fear of the Lord, and not of carnal Prudence nor carnal Policy ; he is a Spirit of Counfel and Might, he 1 is not a Spirit of flavifh Fear or Cowardice ; he infpires with a holy Refolution and Courage for God, and the Things of Chriff, for the Honour of the Redeemer’s Per- . Ion, and for the Glory of all his iOfitces, for the Rights of his Royal Crown, and the Privileges of his Spiritual . Kingdom. And in tliefe Things we ought to be of one ; Accord, and of one Mind, namely, in feeking the Things of Chriff, even the Honour and Glory of him whom God hath highly exalted, and to whom he hath given a Name which is above every Name, that at the Name of jefus every Knee Ihould bow, Philip, ii. 2, 9, 10.

SECT. n.

JVherein the humm Authcrities advanced by the Author of the Effay, againji SeceJJion from the prefent Judicatories, are examined.

1 Proceed now to fake under Confideration the human Authorities, or the Tellimonies of great and eminent Divines, adduced by the Author of the Effay^ againft what he calls Separation. It is needful that I Ihould here acquaint the Reader, that he may be able to form a juft Judgment upon the moft Part of our Author’s Teftimo- nies, vdth an Obferve that Mr. Baillie makes, in his Dif- fwafive from the Errors of the ^ime, p. 10. When the Work of Reformation was goitig on fuccefsfully, by the Miniftry of thefe eminent Inftruments whom the Lord railed up to bring the Churches out of Antichriftian Baby¬ lon ; amongft the many Stratagems whereby Satan diverted the Progrefs of Reformation-work, there were two con- Jiderable ones. “ In our Flight {.fays be ) from Kome^ he “ got fome perfwaded to ftand too foon, before they had pafTed the Territories of the Whore, and the Line of

(189 )

i her Communication: Others he wrought to the contrary Perfwafion, he made them run on too long, not only to ^ “ the utmoft Line of Error, but allb far beyond all the I ** Bounds both of Charity and Truth ; hence our grea- “ teft Woes: All our Difcords and mutual Wounds hive fprung from thefe two Fountains.” Amongft the fir!?; he reckons Luther and his Followers, as allb the firft Ir ftruments of Reformation in England^ who, he obferveSj kept more Correfpondence with their Acquaintance in higher Germany^ than with Calvin and the French Divines* and, tho’ they did not follow Luther in the Do6lr ne of the Sacrament, yet retained fo much of Rome in their Worfhip and Difcipline, as has been the Occafion of all the woful Divilions which have rent our Bowels, and of grievous Perfecutions which have undone many. As for the other Sort, who hindered the Progrefs of Reforma¬ tion by running on too far ; thefe were the German Ana- baptifts, who at their firft Appearance had a very great Shew of Piety and Devotion, but in a Ihort Time they proceeded to the greateft Extravagancies ; However, fome of their peculiar and diftinguifhing Principles were em¬ braced in England by one Robert Brown^ firft a School- mafter, and afterward a Preacher near London : He wrote in Defence of the Principles he efpoufed, yet he after¬ wards recanted them, and received a Parfonage at the fiand of a Bifhop; but fuch as adopted his Principles were ordinarily after him called Brownifis. The Learned Writer I have mentioned, gives in his fecond Chapter a large Account of their Doftrines and Principles, I fhall only mention feme few of them. They affirmed, That, in order toAdmiffion unto Ghurch-memberfhip, it was ne- ceflary that one fhould give Satisfaftion to the wholeChurch of his real San6tification and true Regeneration; and that not only theOffice-bcarers,but that all and every Member of the Church, was a Judge of the Qualifications of fuch as fhould be admitted (Ilhurch-membefs. They likewife af¬ firmed, That if any who wanted the above Qualifications fhould be admitted to Church.fellowlhip, or to partake in the Sacraments, he fhould quickly fo far pollute the whole Church, that every Member thereof mu'ft needs become Partaker of his Sin; and if, upon Admonition, the Church did not excommunicate him, they ought to be feparated from, as an infefted or leprous Society. They acknow¬ ledged no Power of Jurifdiftion in any Ecclefiaftical Ju¬ dicatory, above a. Congregational Church. They rejected

Cate-

( ipo )

Catechifms, as (et and unlawful Forms of Tnftruftlon. They affirmed, That the Chriftian Magifirate had no Right to meddle at at all with any Matters of Religion; and they pled for an univerfal ’Tolerat'wn^ under the fpe- cious Pretence of Liberty cf Ccnfcience. And leverals of the Followers of the firft Bronunifis came the Length to run down the Ordinance of Preaching, and to cry down the Office of the holy Minift ry ; and it is very well known to what Heights they proceeded, and into how many dif¬ ferent Se£ts they were divided, in the Time of CromiveTs Ulurpation. Againft the above extravagant Principles our reformed Divines imployed their Pens, and difeovered the Contrariety of them to the holy Scriptures, and their Af¬ finity to leveral of the grols Principles of the antient Dona- tifls and Novaiians. The above are the Principles that the moft Part of our Divines, cited by the Author of the Effay, do reafon againft ; and the Principles of the lece- ding Minifters are as far diftant from them as Eaft from Weft. They never reckoned that the per Tonal Defefts, Blemiffies or Sins of Fellow-worfhippers did pollute the Or¬ dinances to others, or render them Partakers in their Sins; neither have they ftated their Seceffion upon any fuch Bottom : But they have juftly ftated their Seceffion upon a Courfe of Defedtion, carried on by a Church in her Eccle- iiaftick Capacity, from Steps of Reformation once attained unto. They do not plead for pofitive Signs of Regenera¬ tion, as a neceflary Qualification of Church-mcmbcrfhip; they agree with the reformed Churches, that a credible Profeffion of the Faith, with an outward Subjedfion unto the Ordinances of the Gofpel, is all that the holy Scrip¬ tures require in order umo Church-memberfhip. They alfo agree with all our reformed Divines, and regard the Adts and Conftitutions of the Church of Scotlarid^ which require, in order to full Communion with the Church in all her fcaling Ordinances, the three followingQualifications as neceflary, A Profeffion of the Truth, with a com¬ petent Meafurc of Knowledge ; a Life and Converfation without Scandal ; and Subjedtion unto the Order and Dis¬ cipline of the Church. Again, the feceding Miniflers do not unchurch any of the Proteflant Churches, they do not reckon them Antichriftian Synagogues; yet I hope the Author of the FJfay^ if he is confident with his Presbyte¬ rian CharaSer and Profeffion, will nor differ from them when they lay, That there are forae Proteftant Churches fo corrupt both in their Government, Worfhip and Dif-

cipline.

( I9I )

cjpHne, that they cannot hold Communion with them. Upon the Whole, As the Secellion from the prefent Ju¬ dicatories proceeds upon none of the above mentioned Principles, but upon quite different Grounds, I might here leave our Author to boaft of his Teftimonies from great JMen as much as he pleafes ; but I fiiall inftance a few of them, and fhew that they noway affect the Queftion, iti its true State, betwixt the prefent Judicatories and the receding Minifters.

Tiie great Calvin is amongft the firfl who is adduced by our Author, E£'ay p 3, as alfb he is cited, p.41. The lirft Quotation from Calvin is, “ Thar v/herever there is “ the pure Preaching of the Word, and the pure Admi- “ niftration of the Sacraments, we may lafely embrace “ that for a true Church; md{fays he') we are never to “ rejeft the Society thereof as long as thefe remain, albeit “ otherwife it abound with many Corruptions. Yea (^adds “ he) fome Corruptions in the Adminiftration of Doftrine “ or Sacraments may creep in, which ought not to alie- “ nate us from her Communion The Latin Word 1 which Calvin makes Ufe of, and which our Author ren¬ ders Corruptions^ is Vitium\ and I humbly judge our Au¬ thor’s Tranflation is too ftrong: The Word properly fig- nifies Faults^ Defe&s or Blemijbes ; accordingly I find that Mr. AWcff, in his Tranflation of CalvitSy readers it FaultSt and Faultine/s. Bur, pafling this, the very fame Tefti- mony from Calvin is olue^led unto the Diffenters from the Church of England by Doftor Stillingfieef, and I may make the fame Obferve upon it, which Doftor Owen makes in his Reply to Stillingfeet, Enq. p. 287. “ There is a great “ deal more belongs unto the pure Preaching of the Word, and the Adminiftration of the Sacraments according un- “ to Chrift’s Inftitution, than fome feem to apprehend ; “ they may, they ought to be fo explained, as that, from “ the Confideration of them, we may juftify our whole Caufe : Both thefe may be wanting in a Church which is “ not guilty of fuch hainous Errors in Doftrine, or Ido- latryin Worfhip, as fhould deftroy its Being.” I have faid what I reckon fufficient concerning the above Cha¬ racters which Calvin gives of a true Church, and there¬ fore fhall not here infift upon them. But whereas our Author tells us from Calvin^ That we are never to rejeCt the Society of the Church as long as thefe remain, albeit otherwife it abound with many Corruptions^ or rather, as

the

* CaJv. Inft, Lib. 4, Cap. i. § I2»

( )

the Word fliould be rendered, with many FauUt or 5/e- I fnijhes : Since Calvin explains himfelf in that fame Place, I in the Caution which he fubjoins, and which our Author ! does not think fit to notice, I judge it deferves a Room ■■ here; Hie autem patroctnarf,&:c. i. e. “I would not have ‘‘ it thought that I here intend to patronize Errors, even “ the moft minute, as if I judged that they fhould be che- ; “ rifhed, either by Flattery or Connivance ; but I fay,

** A Church is not to be rafhly forfaken for any trifling “ Differences, in which only that Doftrine is retained fafe and incorrupted, wherein the Safety of Godlinefs con- i “ fifts, and the Ufe of Sacraments as appointed of the Lord 1 “ is preferved.” And in this all the feceding Minifters i will readily join him. This eminent Divine proceeds to lay the Argument in his following Sections againft the Ana» haptifis in his Time, whom he compares to the antient Ca» ihari and Donatifis ; and he charges them with inconfide- rate Zeal, who departed from the Communion of the Church, and reckoned fuch to be no Churches at all, I where they obferved fuch Blemifhes in the Walk and Con* i verfation of Profelfors unfuitable unto their Chriftian Pro- i feflion ; and, having in very pathetick Terms bewailed ii the Unholinefs of Profeflbrs, he adds, Jillegant Ecclefiam i Cbrifti fanBam eJfe^SiZc. i. e. “ They alledge that the Church I “ of Chrift is holy ; but, that they may alfb know that it i» ij mingled of good and evil Men, let them hear this Pa- i “ rable from the Mouth of Chrift, wherein the Church is compared to a Net, wherein Fifhes of all Kinds are 1 “ gathered, and the Separation is not made till they are 1 “ brought unto the Shore ; let them alfo hear, that the i “ Church is like a Field, wherein good Seed is fown, ; “ but thro* the Fraud of the Enemy it is mixed with •;

Tares, from which it is not purged till at Harveft it is i “ brought into the Barn-floor, Finally, let them hear, , “ that it is like unto a Floor, wherein the Wheat is fo ga- ' thered together, that it lies hid under the Chaff, till it '' “ is cleanled with Fan and Sive, and at length laid up in *' “ the Garner.” Likewife, in the other Citation given ' ** us from Calvin^ EJfayy p. 41. He argues againft the fame - Principles of the Anabaptijlsy and improves fomc Words , from Cyprijin againft them, viz. “ Let no Man challenge to “ himfelf that which belongs to the Son of God only, to “ be able alone to fan the Floor, ^nd cleanfe che ChaET,

« epr.”

( iP3 )

As for our worthy CoUnrrymen, Makers Rutherfoorify Gillefpie and Durham^ who wrote at the Time when the above Seftarian Principles were prevailing in Englandy and forcing a Way for themfelves into Scotland ; All the Reafonings of thefe eminent Men, in the Places alledged by our Author, are exprefly laid againff the above extra¬ vagant Principles. As for Inftance, Mr. Rutherfoord’s Peace¬ able Pleay cited Ejjay, p. 5, 41, 42, &c. This Book was wrote in Defence of the Doctrine of our reformed Di¬ vines anent Church-communion : And the Argument as it is managed by Mr. Rutherfoord^ from the State of the Church of Corinth^ cited EJfay^ p. 42. concludes in the following exprefs Terms ; ‘‘ Then it is unlawful rb fepa-- “ rate from the pure Worfhip of God, becaule a Church “ is not conftitute of vifible Saints and a People all taught

of God As Mr. Rutberfoord is here pleading againft pofitive Signs of Regeneration as a neceflary Qualification of Church-memberlhip, fo all the feceding Minifters join with him ; but our Author thinks fit to fct his Thumb u- pon the above Conclufion of Mr, Rutherfoord's Argument, other wife his Reader might have eafily perceived that Mr. Rutherfoord's Teftimony is not in the leaf! againft the Principles or Conduct of the feceding Minifters. As for Mr. Rutherfoord's Due Right, chcd Ejfay, p, 3, 9, 10, &c. Tliis excellent Book (as our Author acknowledges, Pref. p. 8.) is writ againft the Independents • and the Separation that Mr. Rutherfoord argues againft, through that Book, is a Separation ftared from Churches that are not conftitute in the Manner I have juft now mentioned ; And therefore all our Author’s Citations from that Book are nowife to the Purpofe. The judicious Mr. Durham upon Scandal is likewife frequently cited, as Ejfay p, 19,41, &^c. particu¬ larly Part 2. Chap. 12. But in the Beginning of the faidl Chapter, when he ftates the Queftion, he tells us. That it is the fame upon the Matter with that betwixt the an- tient Church and the Novatians and Donatijls', and all his Reafonings are againft Separation on account of the per- fonal Defefts and Blemifhes of Church-members, or upon a Suppofition that fuch Perfoos as deferve Cenfure pollute the Ordinances to others : But in his third Jjfertlon, in the Chapter cited, he acknowledges, that if the Office-bearers of the Church be defective in the Exercife of Difcipline, and if this Defeat “ become fcandaloufly exceflive, it may “ give Occafion to them that are tender, to depart, and

B b “go

*feac.I>Jea, p. 142,

( 194 )

**go where that Ordinance of Difciplinc is more vigo- | “ rous.” And certainly, where the Defetf is only in a i particular Congregation, this may be a fufficient Relief j for a render Confcience : But, what fhall be done when the Defedt is fcandaloully exceflive in a National Church ? And that this is the State of Matters in the prefent Judi¬ catories, I have already evinced : Therefore, according to the judicious Mr. Durham^ we may dejaart from Com¬ munion with them; and, in this Cafe, we depart not from the Ordinances of Chrift, but endeavour, in that Station wherein the Lord has placed us as Office-bearers in his Houfe, to cleave to his Ordinances and inftitutions, both Word, Sacraments and Difeipline.

The Author of the EJfay gives us lilcewife fome Paffia- gesoutof the Commentaries of the fame judicious Divine ox\ih^ Revelation^ p. 4, 52, particularly from his Ob- fervations upon the Church of ^hyatira. From the very Words, as they are cited by our Author, it is plain that Mr. Durham's Argument is laid againlf the Sedtarian Se- paratifts, viz. “ Our Lord Jefus is no Approver nor Coun- “ tenancer of Separation from a true Church, for the

Faults of fome Members in it ; neither do Faults in “ fome Members, and Defedfs in Minifters and Officers “ in executing Difeipline, pollute the Ordinances in tbem- felves^ or to others^ who are free of that Guilt.” And, after he has reafoned to good Purpofe on this Head, he obferves, ‘‘ It muft therefore be an untender Thing, to “ burden honed Souls with the Apprehenfion of being “ polluted from the perfbnal Faults of joint Worfhippers “ or Communicants.” And he fuWoins feveral weighty Reafons and (irounds for the Proof of this. Our Author i concludes from Mr. Durham's Reafonings in this Part of > his Commentaries, that “ the Words of the judicious Dur- “ ham are plain and pointed againd Separation from any “ fuch Church as the Church of Scotland is, and hath been “ fince the Revolution.” I mud own, that I cannot fee that the Words of the judicious Durham are either plain or pointed againd Seceffinn from the prefent Judicatories of this National Church : They are indeed plain and poin¬ ted againd fuch who affirm that the jxrfonal Faults of joint W^orfhippers pollute the Ordinances in themfelves and to ethers ; and, as he manages the Argument from the Stare of rhe Church of ^hyatha to excellent Purpofe againd thefe Principles, fb he had good Reafon to be plain and pointed againd them, when Efforts were made, about the

Time

J Time when his Leftures were delivered, to introduce thefe Principles into the Church of Scotland ; and when feveral Profcffors in jiberdeen did in a fliort Time declare themfelves for them: Bur, tho’ he is plain againft thefe unfcriptural Principles, yet his Argument is nowife di- I reftcd againft fuch who affirm, that Seceffion is warran¬ table and neceflary from a particular vifible Church, when in her Ecclefiaftical Capacity fhe is carrying on a Courfe of Defection from Steps of Reformation once attained un¬ to, and at the lame Time refufing to be reclaimed. As I have laid the Argument for Seceffion from the prefent Judicatories, and for a Presbyterial Aflociation for the Support and Defence of Truth, from the pofitive and par¬ ticular Commands given to the Office-bearers of the Church of Pergamos and Tbyatira, in the Letter on Sece£lon\ fo tile Reafonings of the judicious Durham are not in the Icaft againft the Argument as I have ftated it ; And, if I was to deal with the Seftarian Separatifts, I would reafbn from the fame Scriptures and in the very fame Manner againft them ; and I wifli that fuch who in our Day are in Danger of being enfiiared into fuch Extremes, would ferioufly confider the weighty Reafonings of the forefaid eminent Divine.

Our Author, Effay p. 51. gives us a Citation from Mr. Gillefpie *, vii. “ Beware of feparating new Lights; to feparate from, or gather Churches out of tlie true reformed or reforming Churches, hath not the leaft “ Warrant from the Word of God, &‘c." I heartily join with Mr. Gillefpie. I do think it very unwarrantable to de¬ part from Communion with true reformed or reforming Churches; but furely our Author cannot reckon this Na¬ tional Church as fhe is reprefented in her prefent Judica¬ tories a reforming Church, when he tells us, EJfay p. 59, I fhall not fay but the Church of Scotland may btwcrfe “ at this Day than fometimes formerly, nor fhall I fay “ but that fhe hath been upon the Decline for fbme Time.” If fhe is worfey if ffie is on the Decliney then furely fhe is not a reforming Church ; But befides, if our Author had dealt fairly and plainly, he ought to have told his Reader who thefe new Lights are, that Mr. Gillefpie cau¬ tions againft ; and, if we look to the Beginning of that Chapter whence the above Citation is taken, Mr. Gillefpie obferves, that “ 'Tis pleaded by fome, who pretend to more Tendernefs of Confcience than others, that to c-

B b 2 “ ftablifl^

* MJeel ^ejl, p. 123, 132,

( i$6 )

** ftablifli by the Law of the Land, a Confeflion of Faith, “ or a Direftory of the Worfhip of God and of the Go- “ vernment of the Church, and to appoint Penalties or “ Punifhments upon fuch as maintain the contrary Do- “ ftrines or Praftices, is to hold out and fhut the Door “ upon new Light.” And, having likewife obferved that the greatelf Deceits have been brought into the World, under the Name or Notion of new Lights, he gives Ten excellent Directions and Cautions concerning thefe new Lights, amongft others the above Caution cited by our Author. ’Tis to be regreted, that fuch new Lights have of late appeared in our Horizon, who plead againft the Eftablifliment of Confeflions of Faith, &c. by the Laws of the Land; If our Author hadimployed his Penagainft fuch fiev; Lights^ providing he had done it to purpofe, he had thereby done more Service to our Reformation-rights, and our Presbyterian Intereft, than he has done by his Ejfay on Separation,

We have a large Quotation out of a Letter of Mr. M'^lVarSi, to fbme of his Friends, EJfay p. 53. wherein he warns them in pathetick Terms againft Separation, as alfo another Quotation from the Htnd-let-loofe ; but I am wea¬ ried with purfuing our Author’s Qiiotations which are no¬ wife to the Purpofe, and I fear I may weary my Reader likewife; If he will take the Trouble to read Mr. M'lVard’s Earnrji Cent endings ^ with his Letter cited by cur Author which is fubjoined to the faid Book, or the Uind'lst-lopfe, he will fee with his own Eyes that they all militate againft our Author; particularly, Mr, M'^lVard in his Letter is exprefly for Separation from the indulged Minifters, and, fpeaking of them, he faith, “ For all of

us will grant that many of them are godly Men; bur, “ alas I their Godlinefs, as it hath been pleaded, hath “ been of more Prejudice to the Work and Intereft of of Chrift, than the Ungodlinels of all the Prelates and Curates.” And the Separation that Mr, con¬

demns is a Separation that is not ftated upon clear and iuft Grounds, and every fuch Separation ought to be con¬ demned. As for rhefe worthy and great Men, Mafters KVebfier^ Hog and Boflon ; the firft two are very often men¬ tioned in the ; they all contended againft the Defe¬ ctions of the Church-judicatories in a Way of Communion with them, and fo did the feceding Brethren at the fame Time, as I have obferved in the introduction: And I

humbJy

({

( 197 ^

liumbly judge that the Author of the EJfay is too bold, if he intends, by the Quotations he brings from their Writings, to determine what their Conduft and Pra6tice would have been, if they had lived till the prefent Times. I have already confidered, in my printed Letter, his Quo¬ tation from Mr. Bofion^ EJfay p. 57. As for that excellent Man Mr. iVekfier^ it is well known how deeply he was affefted with the Proceedings of the Judicatories in his own Time, efpecially with the Injury that Truth received by the flight Manner in which ^'ir. Sirnfon was part by the Aflembly 1717 : But the Lord did in a fhort Time there¬ after fliut his Eyes, that he did not fee the greater Evils that were a-coming. As for Mr. Hog^ whofe Letters are frequently mentioned by our Author, the laft of them bears Date 16th 1717; and his Poftfcript to this Letter is a fufficient Anfwer to all the Quotations that our Author brings from them, viz. “ The preceeding Re- “ marks relate to the circumftantiated Cafe of this Church, both now and before this Time, as it is formerlv de- “ fcnbcd.” Therefore his Letters do not relate to the prefent circumftantiated Cale of this National Church as I have already delcribed it. He adds, May we defire and hope, that a merciful Retrival lliall further encou- rage Minifters and Members thereof to contend for the Faith in a regular and refpedlful Way without any fur- “ rher Breach, and that the prefent may at length be “ healed." Bur, alas! we have contended in a regular and refpeflful Way, by Petitions, Reprefentations and otherwife ; yet thefe regular Contendings have been de- fpifed by the Judicatories, and they have been fo far from returning to the Lord, thatfomeof the leceding Minifters have been rhruft out from among them, merely on account of fuch regular Contendings ; and others became fenfible that they could not fafely nor warrantably continue any longer in Communion with them.

The Author of the EJj'ay reafbns againft what he calls Separation, from the A(tts of the Church of Scotland in what {fays he) hath been reckoned her beft and pureft Times, and from the A6ts and Conftitutions of foreign Churches; particularly, from the Adt of Aifembly y^uguji 9th 164.5, whereby Minifters upon the Coaft are injoined to try and fearch for all Books tending to Separation : This Adi did relate to the Books of Sedfarian Separatifts, who at this Time were very induftrious in fpreading their Writings. Likcwifcj our Author mentions another A <9:

( 198 )

that fame Year, of Date Auguft 1 5 th, In which {fays “ cur Author) the Aflembly leftify their unanimous Con- “ fent againft all Schifm and Divifion, unto which thele Times, thro’ the Working of Satan and his Inftruments “ againft the Propagation of the Gofpel of Peace, are fo “ inclined, QPc." This A(5i: of AlTembly was an A£l for preparing a Diredtory for the publick Worftiip of God, and for Unity and Uniformity in the fame : Any who read that Adt of Affembly, and who fhall compare it with our Author’s Quotation, will fee that he has curtailed it infuch a Manner, that his Reader cannot perceive the genuine Senfe, Import and Defign of it. The Adt is laid againft fiicli Scandals and Divifions, and the very Beginnings of them, which were contrary to the Work of Reformation ; and therefore, till a Diredlory for Worftiip , fttould be prepared, the Aflembly prohibites and difeharges the condemning one of another in fuch lawful Things as have been univer Tally received, and by perpetual Cuttom “ pradtifed, by the moft faitliful Minifters of the GofpcI andOppofers of Corruptions in this Kirk, fince the firrt “ Beginning of Reformation to thefe Times.” If the prefent Judicatories had followed the Example of this and other Auerablies of that Period, the lamentable Grounds of our Seceffion from them had never taken Place.

Our Author likewife, p. 46. mentions the Adi of Aflem- bly 1647, intituled, yfdf againji juch as •withdraio tbem~ fives from the publick If or ftp in their own Congregations. “ Xn this Adt {fays he) for preferving Order, Ihiity and Peace in the Kirk, and for preventing of Schifm, they injoined every dIember in every Congregation to keep their own Parifh-kirk, communicating there in W’ord and ‘f Sacrament.” This Ad: is frequently thrown up by our Author, with very indecent Infinuations againft it. I fhall in this Place ofter what I intend for the vindicating and clearing of if. The Preamble to the Adt declares the End and Defign of it, viz. for preferving Order, Unity, EPc. and for preventing Schifm. I once defigned to have given a more large Account of the Nature of Schifm in a Sedlion by itfelf ; but, finding that this Book fwells upon my Hand, I fhall forbear it; Only, I muft here obferve, that we find the Word Schifm ufed feveral Times by the Apoftle in his firft Epiftle to the CorinthianSy as Chap. i.

JO. Now I hefeech you. Brethren, - and that there be no

Div'fior.s among you. The Word Divijions is in the Ori¬ ginal SchifmSf Chap, xi. i8. I hear 'that there be Divifiom

mjing

( 199 )

amofig you, or SCHISMS. And if we enquire, What ■were thefe Schifms that were in the Church of Corinth }

I anfwer, They were Divifions, Differences and Jan^jlings arnongft the Members of that Church, who ftill remained joined together in external Church~communion, or in the fame Church Order, Difeipline and Worfhip ; TheApoftic gives a particular Inftance of their Divifions and Janglings,

1 CV, i 12. and iii. 4. One faid, / <7W7 o/" Paul ; another^

I am of Apollos. There was a Siding amongft them about their Minifters and Teachers, who held the fame Tefti- mony of jefus. And here I ohferve, that the Spirit of God in the holy Scriptures calls it Schifm, when the Mem¬ bers of a particular organical Church pur a Difference amongft their faithful Minifters and Teachers, who are bolding the fameTeftimony of the Lord Jefus : As this is Schifm in the Scripture- fenfe of the Word, fo it ought to be condemned in all the Churches of Chrift; and this is that Schifm and Separation teftified againft by the above A6t of the Affembly 1647. Our Author, when fpeaking of it, p. 95. tells us, “ That many think there wanted not “ a great deal of Tyranny in that A6l of Affembly 1647, “ &c." But, whatever he or others may think, there wanted not a great deal of Scripture-reafbn in it ; in regard that all the Minifters of the Church of Scotland were at that Time holding the fame Teftimony againft Popery, Prelacy, Eraftianifm and Seftarianifm : They were, in their judicative Capacity, aflerting and maintaining the covenanted Doftrine, Worfhip, Government and Difci- pline of the Houfe ot God in this Land, in Oppofition to every Thing contrary to found Doftrine and the Power of Godlinefs ; the Confeffion of Faith compiled at Wefiminfter was received and approven by this Affembly : And the In* troduftion to the kSt our Author inveighs againft runs in the following Manner ; “ Since it hath pleafed God of his “ infinite Goodnefs to blefs his Kirk within this Nation “ with the Riches of the Gofpel, io giving to us his Or- “ dinances in great Purity, Liberty, and withal a comely “ and well-eftabliflied Order.” If thefe Things are con- fidered, it is plain that the Schijm condemned by this AC« fembly is that which the Scripture cdXh Schijm, namely, a leparating from fuch Minifters as are holding the fame Teftimony of Jefus. But this will further appear, if we confider the Means that are injoined by this Alfembly for preventing Schifm-, and thefe are of two Sorts, the firfl* concerns Minifters themfelves, and the other concerns the

People.

( 2 00 )

People, Oar Author thinks fit to report what concerns the People, and, after his partial Manner, he conceals the firft Mean that is laid down by this faithful Aflemhly, “ for prelerving Order, Unity and Peace in the Kirk, “ and for maintaining that Refpedt which is due to the Ordinances and Minifters of Jefus Chrift, for preven- “ ting Schifm, noifom Errors, &c.” Bat, tho’ he thinks fit to omit what is injoined Minifters for attaining the above valuable Ends, I think it very neceflary to tranferibe it, v/z. The Aftembly “ doth charge every Minifter to be “ diligent in fulfilling his Miniftry, to be holy and grave “ in his Converiation, to be faithful in Preaching, de- “ daring the whole Counfcl of God, and, as he hath Oc- “ cafion from the Text of Scripture, to reprove the Sins “ and Errors, and prefs the Duties of the Time; and in all thefe to obferve the Rules preferibed by the Aflem- bly: Wherein if he be negligent, he is to be cenfured. “ by his own Presbytery. ” Therefore this Aft of Afi« fembly obliges Minifters and People to their mutual rela¬ tive Duties; and, in order to prevent Sebi/m, it injoins not only every Member in every Congregation to attend the Miniftry of his own Paftor, but it likewife injoins every Minifler in every Congregation to be a faithful Steward of the Myfteries of God. Hence I think it very evident, that the Separation condemned by this faithful Aftembly, is a Separation from fuch Minifters who are holding the Teftimony of Jefus delivered to his Church and People in this Land.

As for his Quotations from the Difcipline of the famous Church of France, and from the Confeffion of Faith of the Churches of Helvetia, the Reader may fee, from what I have faid, how little they make for his Purpofe. As for that Aft of Union paft in the National Synod of Privas in the Year 1612, the lon^ Quotation which our Author gives from that Aft contains many pathetick Expreflions for Union ; and the Occafion of palling this Aft, according to our Author, was. That at this Time there were Diftcn- ters in that Church ; but he has not told us who thefe Dif- lenters were, nor upon what Principles they diftented: But, if the Reader would be fatisfied about thefe, he may fee what the Publifher of the Afts, &>c. of the famous Church of France, in his Introduftion, § 14. fays upon this Head, viz. “ There arofc a Combination of Men, fuch as Morlas, &c. who were for accommoding and reconciling the two Religions, (i, c. the Popijb and Pro^

‘‘ tepanty

( iot )

” iefiant) and tliefe were put upon it by tbe Bribes and “ Penfions of tbe Romift} Clergy, and Promif'es of gteat

Preferment. - The National Synods of Saumur and

Privasy &c. did what they could to ftem the Current.’* Such as were promoting a Syncretifm or Coalition with Romfy were tbe Perfons againft whom the forefaid Synod of Privas exprefs themfclves in fuch a pathetick Manner, in the Quotation given us by our Author.

I lhall only further notice his Quotation from the Plat¬ form of Church-difcipline of the Churches of New-Englantf. Here he gives us a long Quotation from Chap. 14. § 8, 9. but it is after our Author’s partial Manner, he flops when he comes to any Thing that he thinks may make againft him : And therefore, after our Author’s long Citation concerning maintaining Communion with a Church in the Participation of the Sacraments when fcandalous Perfons are tolerate in the Church, it is added, “ If the Church “ cannot he reformed, they (wz. fuch as are grieved with “ the tolerating of fcandalous Perfons') may ufe their Liber- “ ty, as isfpecified. Chap. 13. § 4.” I know not if our Author does approve of every Thing that is contained in the above Platform; but, if he does, he cannot condemn our Seceflion from the prefent Judicatories upon the Prin¬ ciples that are laid down in the faid Platform,

Our Author proceeds, p. 59. to tell his Reader, that “ Separation is an Evil againft which God hath often tefti- fied his Difpleafure, by feparating S^aratifts from one “ another, and giving them up to grofs Errors : This (fays “ he) with other Arguments, may have Weight to make us “ guard againft it.” The Inftances that he gives us are, one iSir. John f on a rigid Brov!;nifly and one Mr. Roger Wil¬ liam Sy who difturbed tbe Churches in Neiv-England. He mentions one of Mr. Williamses Principles, viz. That he re- fufed to communicate with the Church of BofiorSy becaufe they would not make a publick and folemn Declaration of Repentance for their having communicated with the Church of Englandy while they were in the Realm thereof ; But, how comes our Author to conceal his other Principle men¬ tioned by Mr. Mather in the Place quoted by him, viz. his violent urging, that the Civil Magifirate might not punijb Breaches of the firfl ^ahle in the Laws of the fen Command¬ ments ? Our Author has no doubt his own Reafons for not mentioning this Seftarian Principle, maintained by the faid Williams', however, according to Mr. Mather in his

C c Hifto-

( 202 )

Hiftory the above Principle bred as much Difturbance in New-England as that which our Author mentions. Our Author likewife gives us an Example in our own Land, p, 6i. of Separatilh falling from Truth to Error, “ par- “ ticularly in the Gale of fome eminent Profeflbrs in betrdeen\ as {/ays ke) is to be feen in the Pofticript to Mr. Rutherfoord's Letters.’* Bur, why does not our Author give us Ibme Inflances of the Lord’s teftifying his Difplea- fure againrt fuch as have run into the other Extreme ; namely, fuch who have once made a fair Profeflion of Kegard unto the Order, Government and Dilcipline of the covenanted Church of \otlandj and who have after¬ wards apoffatized from the fame ; or, who have put to their Hands to pull down and deffroy what once they feemed to be building ? I join with our Author when he fays, “ Tho’ Providence alone is not to be our Rule, yet the “ Lord’s Doings and the Operations of his Hands are to be regarded.” And I add, We ought to be very cauti¬ ous and tender in making particular Applicatiop of Di¬ vine Providences: But fince the grave Author of the Fu[~ filling of the S-riptures has given lome particular Inflances of fuch in our own Land, who have turned Oppofers of the Truth which once they profeffed, and againft whom a Righteous Lord has teftified has Difpleafure I may venture to report them. The Inftances he gives are of Maflers 'James NicoIforSy iVilliam Couper^ Andrew Forefler and Mr. Patrick Adamfon^ with others, fome of whom died in great Horror of Confcicnce : And, concerning the lad I have named, he tells us. He “ was once a Preacher “ of great Repute ; but, being fwayed by Ambition and i “ private Intered, he infinuated himfelfinto King James'^ , “ Favour, and made it his Work to overturn the edabli. ** fhcd Government and Difcipline of the Church : At r “ length, he got himfelf into the Archbifhoprick of St. ‘‘ Andrews ; and, in the Height of his Power, he ufed to j “ boad of three Things, that he faid could not fail him ; “ his Riches, the King’s Favour, and his Learning: But, ** a fhort Time thereafter, he was forced to get Charity ** from thefe Minidcrs whom he had perfecuted ; and, as ‘‘ for the King’s Favour, he was defpiled and abhorred by him ; and, with refpeft to his Learning in which he I “ did alfo boad, his Parts did fo far wither and dry up, : ** that, in feeking a Blefling on his Meat, he could fcarcc

fpeak .

* Book 7. p. 7,

^ Fulfil. Script, p. m. 40^, 407, &c.

( 20J )

** fpeak a few Words to Senfe, tho* once admired for his E- “ loqucnce.’* Thele, and the like Inftances, may be War¬ nings both to our Author and to us eyery one, mt to be high*' mirded^ but to fear ; and to remember that Word of the Lord, Let him that tbinketh he fiandethf take heed lefi he fall,

SECT. III.

Wherein the Argument againfi Seceffton from the prefent Judicatories^ from the ConduA of faithful Minijiers hetwixt and 1538, is examined.

AS the Author of the Eifay acculcs the feceding Bre¬ thren of unwarrantable Separation, and of a dan¬ gerous Schifm; lo he fpends fome Pages in per- fwading his Reader that their Condudt is unprecedented, and that they follow not the Footfteps of our worthy An- ceftors betwixt 1596 and 1658. I cannot propofe to tranferibe his long Reafijnings upon this Head, p, 12, 13, I4> 15. and what is thrown up upon the Subject frequent¬ ly through the Effay : I fliall endeavour to lay down his Argument in its full Force and Strength, and I have no Iirclination or Defign to overlook any Thing of Weight that is offered by our Author. The Subftance of his Reafoning is as follows; “ A Courfe of Defection and “ Backfliding was carried on betwixt 1596 and 1638, “ after that the Church of SotJand had attained to a high Pitch in Reformation ; yet, tho’ for upwards of forty “ Years her Defections were lamentable, and far more “ grievous than can be pretended at this Day, our worthy Anceftors continued in the Church, ftruggling againil her Defections, without making Seceflion or Separari- “ on ; they contended againft the laid Defections, with- “ out erecting themfelves into different Judicatories, or “ any Thing like Separation. He obferves, that in their “ and ^ejiimonyy p. 13. the feceding hliniffers affirm, “ That, during this Period of grievous Sinning and Back- “ Aiding, there were fcveral eminent Men who witneffed “ againft the fame, &Pc. ” Upon this fays our Author, p. 15 “ How did thefefeveral eminent Men witnefs againft “ the grievous Sinning and Backfliding of their Day ? ” He fubjoins, “ Was it not in a Way of Church-commu- ‘‘ nion ] ” As the above is the Subftance of our Author’s

C c a Argu,

( *°4, )

Argiimenf, (b I fhall now examine how he confirms and illuftrates the fame. And here I humbly judge two Things muft be enquired into ; Ftrjly Whether or not, during the forefaid Period, the Church of Scotland did in her Eccle- fiafiicai or Judicative Capacity carry on a Courfe of Defection and Sackfliding ? Secondly, Whether or not all fuch as witnefied againft the Courfe of Backfliding continu¬ ed to contend in a Way of Communion with the back¬ fliding Parry? I am heartily forry that 1 fliall have fo fre¬ quent Ground, upon both thefe Heads, to fay concerning one of our Author’s Profeflion and Character, That, in- ftead of (hewing what was the Practice of our worthy An- ceftors during the Period mentioned, he has very much mifreprefented the fame ; and, inftead of narrating Mat¬ ters of Fad:, he has advanced feveral Things that arc neither Truth nor Matter of Fad; I (hall be far from faying he has done this deliberately, but I humbly judge he has not duly confidcred the lliUory of this Period of our Church.

With refped to the firft of thefe, our Author feems to me peremptorily to determine, tliat the Church of Scot-- land in her judicative Capacity carried on a Courfe of Defedion and Backfliding; He aflerts, p. 14. “ That “ the Kirk took Vote in Parliament, and conftant Mcde-

rators. ” But, before I proceed upon this Head, it is necefl'ary to acquaint the Reader, that when our Author writes, p. 12. in Jralick, That in the Tear 1596, according /o Calderwood, our fincere General j^Jfembltes ended', I fay, it is needful that the Reader fhould knov/, that, from the Year 1602 to 1658, there was not a General J^embly of the Church of Scotland, except one at Aberdeen Anno 1605; There were indeed fix pack’d Meetings of Mi- nifters. Noblemen and Gentlemen, viz- two at Linlith¬ gow, and four at Aberdeen, Glafgovj, St. Andrews and Perth, who afl'umed to thcmfelves the Name and Autho¬ rity of General Aflemblies, and under that Name carried on a Courfe of Defedion; but thele Meetings were never acknowledged as General Aflemblies of the Church of Scotland, by the faithful Miniflers of that Period ; and they were all condemned as pretended Aflemblies, by the firft free and lawful General A»flbmbly that met at Glaf- gew Anno i6;8 : Neither was rhe Authority or Conftiru- rion of thefe Aflemblies ever ackowledged by the moft Part of Presbyteries in Scotland, as we may afterwards fee. As far the Ailembly at Aherdan Anno 1605, tho’ the

Miuiflcrs

^ .'f .

Mlnlfters that met there did nothing but conftitute and appoint the Diet of another Affembly, yet it was ac¬ knowledged and defended as a lawful Alfembly by the honeft Minifters in that Period, and Mr. James Melvill wrote an excellent Apology for the faid Ailembly *. It is alfo well known what Hardfhips feveral great Men who were Members of that Aflembly fuffered on account of the Teftimony they gave when they conftitute the laid Aflembly in Name of the Lord Jefus, and appointed the Diet of the next Aflembly, notwithftanding of the Op- pofition that was made unto them by the Laird of Law- tifoun the King's Commiflloner. Mafters Forbet

and others were impnlbned, profecure as Criminals, and fix of them were banilhed ; and befides, from the Year 1596 to 1602, the Church of Scotland had not any Af- fembly which was accounted a free and lawful Aflembly by the honeft Minifters of that Period ; Therefore, when our Author tells his Reader, that in the Year 1595 cur Jtncere General y^Jfembles ended^ if he had dealt in a fair and candid Manner, he ought alfo to have told us, that from the Year 1602 to 1658, that is, for about the Space of 56 Years, tbe Church of Scotland had not a General Aflembly whofc Authority and Conftitution was owned by honeft Minifters and Presbyteries in that Peri¬ od, except the AflTembly of Aberdeen 1605; he ought likewife to have told, that from the Year 1596 to 1658, that is, about the Space of 41 Years, the Church of Scot¬ land had not a General Aflembly which was reckoned by tbe witnefling Minifters in that Period to be a free and lawful Aflembly. Bat it is needful that I give fome mo particular Evidences, that the Courfe of Defection du¬ ring this Period was not carried on by the Church of Scotland in her judicative Capacity.

King James VI. having formed a Dcfign to introduce Prelacy into the Church of Scotlandy he gained fome cor¬ rupt Churchmen to his Side, whom he made ufe of as Tools for promoting his Defigns. And the fir ft dire<!d: Step that was taken by the Court, towards the Subverfion of the Order and Difeipline of this Church, was the bringing in fome Minifters to vote in Parliament: And, in order to this, a Commifixon of the General Aflembly Anno 1597, confifting only of Fourteen Minifters, where¬ of Seven were a .^toram, gave in a Petition to the Parlia¬ ment in Name of the Kirk for Minifters to vote in Parlia-

menc

* Cald, Hift. p. 506.

( ioS )

mcnt *; this was done without any Authority, Commil^ lion or Inftru(^ion from the General AlTembly : And when the General Aflembly met thereafter at DmAeCy Calder. tells us ll, that “ the Number that carried for Mi- nifters voting in Parliament were not fuch as laboured ** in the Word, but others wanting Commiflion ; and “ that, notwithftanding of their Help, and the King’s A u- “ thority bewraying himfelf a plain Party, they exceeded “ the fincerer Sort only by Ten Votes.” At the Down¬ fitting of this Aflembly, Mr. Andrew Mehill and Mr. John yobnfion Profeflbrs in St, Andrews^ tho’ Members of the Aflembly, were charged to depart out of the Town under Pain of Horning. When this Aflembly was overawed, when Members that had Right to vote were debarred from it, when fuch as had no Commiflion from Presbyte¬ ries voted, worthy Mr. Davidfon had jufl Ground ro pro- teft, as he did, againft the forefaid Aflembly, as not ha¬ ving the Freedom due to a free General AlTembly ; after which Proteftation be left the Aflembly, and many Mini- fters following fubferibed the Gme. From all which it is evident, that the Affair of Miniflers voting in Parlia¬ ment had not the Authority of a free and lawful General Affembly of the Church of Scotlar d, and confetjuently wa.s not the Deed of the Church of Scotland in her judica¬ tive Capacity. As for the Affembly that met at Montrofe Anno 1600, where the were voted, for fuch Mi-

nifters as had Vote in Parliament, againfl their attempting any Thing contrary to the Order and Difeipline of this Church; it is a juft Obferve of the Affembly 1658, in their Aft againft the Civil Places and Power of Kirkmen, “ That the Aft of the faid Affembly holden at Adontrofe ** 1600, anent Minifters voting in Parliament, being pref- fed by Authority, did rather for an Interim tolerate the “ fame, and that limited by many Cautions, than in Free - domof Judgment allow thereof” And, befides, it is obvious from the Account that Calderwood gives of the laid Affembly at Montrofe^ that it was neither a free nor lawful Affembly of the Church of Scotland.

The next Step taken hy the Court, towards the intro¬ ducing of Prelacy, was the fetting up of conftant Mode¬ rators in Synods and Presbyteries; bur, before this Step is taken, eight eminent Minifters, who had confiderablc Weight in the Judicatodes, were taken up by the King’s Authority to London. That great Man, Mr. John fL'elJk,

with

♦ Cald, Hift. p 41 Z. II Ibidem, p. 416, 411?, 420,

C . 207 )

with five others are banifhcd ; Icveral faithful Minifiers are imprifoned and confined, upon one Pretext or another; Yet, after all, the Court durft nor venture the Matter of conftant Moderators to the Determination of a free AlTem- bly; therefore a Meeting of Minifters, with a confide- rable Number of Noblemen and Barons, all nominate by the King, is called at Linlithgoiv Jnvo 1 606 ; at this Con¬ vention it is appointed, that conftant Moderators fhould be admitted in every Presbytery : But, when the LinlHh- go<w Act came down refined from the Court, a Claufe is found in it appointing conftant Moderators in Synods like- wife * ; and all Synods and Presbyteries were charged, under Pain of Rebellion, to admit the conftant Modera¬ tors. But, how were the Ails of the above pretended Afiembly received ’ C/ilderwood fays, “ Some obeyed wil- “ lingly; others yielded for Fear; fome refufed Jlmpli* “ citer ; fome took Inftruments, that, if the Perfon ap- pointed fhould enter unto that Office, it was violent Dealing and without their Confents.” The HindJet- loofe^ p. 51. fays. Many Presbyteries refufed refolutely. The Latin Hiftorian |( fays, “Some of the Minifters, being forced under Pain of Rebellion, did fubmit to the A<B: “ paft at Linlithgow, but under Condition that the Matter “ fhould be more fully examined in a free General Af* “ fembly.” As for the Provincial Synods^ none of them accepted the conftant Moderator except the Synod of gus Calderwood gives fome particular Inftances of the faithful Behaviour of Synods in Oppofition to all the vio¬ lent Threats of the Court, and amongft others of the Sy¬ nod of Verth : Lord Scoon came with a Commiflion from the King to that Synod at their Meeting 1607 ; he threatned them in the King’s Name if they would not ex¬ cept of a conftant Moderator; But, notwithftanding of all his Threats and moft outragious Infiilts, their laft Mode¬ rator Mr. Row took the Roll of the Synod in his own 1 Hand ; and, when Scoon would have pulled it out of his

I Hand, he held the Synod-roll in the one, and Lord Scoon

I with the other Hand, and called all the Names of the

' Members, who chufed their Moderator according to the

[ Form and Order of the Church of Scotland. When the

I new Moderator was chofen, he began with Prayer accor-

! ding to the Cuftom of Judicatories at that Time ; Scoon

raged in a profane Manner in Time of Prayer, and threw

the

« * Hift. p. 554, 555,~554. H Hill. Mot. p. 12.

t Cald. Hift. p. 565), 572.

( 20S )

fhe Tatile, about which fome of them were kneeling, over upon them ; hut theyv^continued in Prayer, and never ftir- red. Lord Scoon, being alfb Provoft of the Town, called for the Baillies, and commanded them to ring the common Bell, and difniifs thefe Rebels ; but the Baillies honcftly declined yielding Obedience to him. When they retur¬ ned to the next Diet of the fame Synod, they found the Church' doors fhur : Some of the Town-council went to crave the Keys from Lord Scoon the Provoft, but in vain ; the Baillies offered to make patent Doors, but this the Mi- nifters refufed, and they choofed rather to meet at the South Church-door, in the Midft of a great Concourfe of People, who accompanied them with Tears, and brought Tables and Seats for them. And, after the Synod was conflitute, they enquired what Presbyteries in their Bounds had accepted of the conftant Moderators appoin¬ ted by the Meeting at Linlithgow ; and none were found but the Presbytery of Perth, who reported to the Synod, that he had entred the Chair by Violence, as their Pro- teftation taken in Presbytery did bear ; and in the mean Time declared themfelves willing to fiibmit to Cenfure. The Synod made an A6t, That every Presbytery, at their firft Meeting after the Synod, fhould choofe their own Moderator according to the common Order. I have on¬ ly given a fhnrt Hint of what is more fully recorded by Caldevwood'*^ , that the Reader may fee that the Judicato¬ ries of the Church of Scotland were at this Time conten¬ ding with great Faithfulnefs and Zeal for their juft Rights and Privileges, in Oppofition unto the greateft Violence : And, from what I have obferved, the Reader may like- wife fee, that conftant Moderators were forced upon Sy¬ nods and Presbyteries ; and that the Church 'of Scotland in her judicative Capacity was fo far from giving her Con- fent unto them, that fhe wreftled with great Zeal againfi: this Impofition : Hence, as Matters were then ftated, there was not the leaft Ground of Seceffion from any fuch Ju¬ dicatories. And when, at the Meeting of Parliament the fame Year, Biftiops were advanced to Civil Dignities, tho’ no Ecclefiaftical Jurifdiffion was given them, theCom- xniflioners from the feveral Presbyteries through Sco^land^ being met at Edinlurgh, gave in a Proteftation againft the fame, in the Name of the Church in general, and in Name of their Presbyteries from which they had Commiflion f*

From

* CaJd. Hift. p. 566, &c. \ Ibid. Hift. p. 527'

Relat. p. 34.

( )

From all wMcli it appears, that it is fo ^ar from being Matter of Faft (as the Author of the reports) that the Kirk took Vote in rarliament and conjlant Moderators^ that on the contrary the Church of Scotland did then, in her judicative Capacity, with great Zeal and Faithfulnefs op- pofe the fame.

Tho’ the above-mentioned Steps were taken in order to the rearing up of Prelacy, and tho’, as Calderviood ob- ferves *, “ the chief Oppofites unto thisCourfe were ei- ‘‘ ther banifhed, warded or confined; yet the Court durft “ not venture upon a free Ele6tion amongft the Remanent “ of the Miniftry ; *’ Therefore, when a General Alfem- bly is inditifed at Glafgoiv Anno i6id>, all the Members are nominate by the King ; at this pretended Alfembly the Bifhops are appointed conftant Moderators of Synods, and a Negative was given them over Synods and Presbyteries. Calderwood makes the following Obfervation concerning Epifcopacy as it was introduced by the forefaid Affembly f ; “ There was no Mention made in the Aflembly of Glafgovs “ of the Confccration of Bilbops: For, howbeit the un- “ happy Pack there conveened tied Presbyteries and Sy- nods unto them in the Cafes expreffed ; yet meant they “ not to determine, that there was a diftin£t Office in the “ Word, differing from the Office of a Minifter ; For by the Bifhop of the Diocefe, in the A6t of Glafgo’Wy is “ not meant a Bifhop by Office, but only a fimple Mini- “ fter, fo ftiled in the preceeding Alfembly, and that vul- garly, in refpeft of his great Benefice of Bifhoprick. ’* As the Members of the forefaid pretended Affembly were all nominate by the King, fo there were none of the ho- neftPartof the Miniftry prefent; and, zs CaJdenwood rC" ports, neither was it convenient that they Jhould mix with them^ Idift. p. 625. Again, the five Articles of Pertb^ whereby fome of the Englijh Ceremonies were brought into Scotland^ were concluded by a Meeting at Perth ufurping the Name and Authority of a General Affembly, but tefti- fied againft by the Bulk and Body of Minifters and Pro- feffors through the Land. From what is above obferved, we may fee a vaft Difference betwixt the Conduct of Ju¬ dicatories during the Period before 1658, and thePraftice of the prefent Judicatories: As for Inftance, The Courfe of Defection, from the Year 1 596 and downward, was carried on by Threatnings, and manifold A<9:s of Force and Violence from the Civil Powers; but the Courfe of

D d De-

* CalderwootTs Elift. p. 6ia, t P*

( 210 )

Pefeftion carried on at prefcnt by the Judicatorlc; them- felves, our Ruin is from ourklves; there is no Violence nor Force done the Judicatories, they are nor terrified with Threatnings, they walk readily and willingly in their prefent backfliding Courle and Way. Again, the above- mentioned Courfe of Defection was carried on by packed Meetings of fome corrupt Miniflers, with Noblemen and Gentlemen, who ufurped the Name and Authority of a General AfiTembly; when, as Mr. obferves ||, the

true Reprelentatives or lawful Aflemblies of the Church of Scotland never confented to the faid Courfe of Defe¬ ction : The Cry of Minifters and Presbyteries during that Period was for a free and lawful General Aflembly, confi¬ ning of Members chofen according to the Form and Order preferibed by the Church of Scotland ; but this they could not obtain till the memorable 1658, when the Lord turned back the Captivity of his People : But the prefent Courfe of Defection is carried on by General Affemblies, confifting of Members chofen after the ufual Manner by Presbyteries. From all which it is evident, that the pre- Icnt Courfe of Defection is carried on by the prefent Ju¬ dicatories of this National Church in their Ecclefiaftical or Judicative Capacity, and who in the fame Capacity are ^willingly ‘walking after the Commandments of Men ; where¬ as the Courfe of Defection, from 1596 101638, was car¬ ried on by outward Violence and Force from the fecular Powers, and by pretended Aflemblies, in Oppofition unto the Contendings, not of Minifters only, but alfb of the proper Judicatories of the Church of Scotland,

The next Thing that I am to enquire into is. If fuch as faithfully witnefled againft the Courfe of Defection, during the above-mentioned Period, did contend in a Way of Church-communion with the corrupt Party ; or, if they contended in a Way of Seceflion from them ? The Author of the EJfay is very peremptory and pofitive, as we have heard, that they all contended in a Way of Church-com¬ munion ; but in this he mifreprefenls their ConduCt and Procedure, and in feveral particular Inftances he aflerts ■what is neither Truth nor Matter of FaCtTlt is therefore recdful, that upon this Head I give fome particular In¬ ftances of Seceflion from the corrupt Party that were car¬ rying on at this Time a Courfe of Defection ; and, from the Practice and declared Sentiments of fome eminent Minifters that 1 lhall name, 1 hope to make it evident,

that

(I Confut, 3d Dial, p, 6.

( 2II )

that their Contending was not always in a Way of Church- f communion with the corrupt Party, or with their corrupt Judicatories, as the Author of the EJfay pofitively deter¬ mines. And, for clearing this Head, I may obferve in the 1 ^rji Place, That many Presbyteries, as well as particular I Minifters, exprefly dilowned the Authority and Conftitu- tion of the feveral pretended Aflemblics in that Period, as alfo they refufed Obedience to their Adis: Many Pref- byteries, as I have narrated above, never admitted of the conftant Moderators appointed by the pretended Affembly at Linlithgow 1606 ; and, when the five Articles were paft by the pretended Afiembly at Perth, the moft Parc of Presbyteries, as well as particular Miniflers, refufed to acknowledge the Authority of that Affembly, or to yield Obedience to its A<fts and Conftitutions. Any that read ■ Calderwood’s Hiftory may fee what Numbers of Miniflers were fufpended, deprived and confined, for refufing Obe¬ dience to the Afe of the faid Affembly, and for their dif- owning it as a pretended and unlawful Affembly : The Pre- latick Party, who were going alongft with the Court- ' meafures, durft not venture the Caufe of fuch Miniflers to I be tried by their Presbyteries ; and therefore a Court cal- I led the fJigb Cor/imijpon was erected by the King’s foie [ Authority, and by this Court the above Sentences were

tpaft againft them. And when the Parliament met Anno 1621, where the Articles of Perth were ratified, a great [. Body of the Miniftry conveened at Edinburgh, and agreed upon a folemn Proteftation againft the ufurped Government !; of the Bifhops and the Articles of Perth ; but, being i charged by Proclamation to depart out of the Town, they ; leave an Information and Admonition behind them, to be ' put into the Hands of the Members of Parliament, wherein they condemn the Meeting at Perth as an unlawful Affem- ! bly, and their Proceedings as null and void : They like- ' wife agreed upon a folemn Proteftation againft the ufurped Government of the Bifhops and the Ceremonies, to be ; given in to the Parliament, in cafe they fhould ratify the Perth Articles. This Proteftation was figned by one of 1! their Number in Name of the reft, whom they impowered to give it in to the Parliament; but, when he could not get ' Accefs into the Parliament-houfe, he affixed a Copy of the faid Proteftation on the Croft and other publick Places, taking Inftruments in the ufual Manner when the A6f of Parliament ratifying Perth Articles was publilhed Cal¬ led z derivood

t !*• 770,’ - 7S4-

'^erivood likewiTe reports, That the greateft Part of the beft-qualified Minifters through the Land, and of the molt zealous ProfefTors, refufed the Authority and Conlfitution of Perth AlTembly. Alfo, a Paper before me, intituled, j4 Jbort Relation of the State of the Kirk of Scotland, fince the Reformation of Religion unto the prefent ^imOy for Infor¬ mation and Adveriifement to our Brethren in the Kirk of England, &c. publifhed Anno 1658, bears, “ Thar the “ moft religious and judicious of the Miniltry did fblemnly proteft in Name of the reformed Kirk of Scotland againft the Ratification of the Articles of Perth in Parliament ; whereunro the mofi Part of the particular Congrega- tions have adhered, and n-.ver praftifed thefe Articles. '* Upon what I have now oblerved, I may enquire at the Author of the EJfay, Whether or nor, if Presbyteries, Winifters and ProfefTors, fhould not only rcfufe to give Obedience to the A6ts of the prefent National AlTemblics, but likewife difbwn their Authority and Conftitution ; Would nor fuch Presbyteries be reckoned feceding Prcf. byteries, and would not fuch Minilfers and ProfefTors in like Manner be reckoned Secedcrs? And, in this very Period, the Charge of Schifm and Separation was laid a- j gaiuff thefe faithful Minilfers, who difowned the Autho¬ rity of the pretended Aflemblies of the faid Period. When this Charge was laid againlf that zealous Minifter, Mr. John Scrimger Miniflcr at Kinghorn, before the High CommilTion Court, he replied, “ As for my keeping a “ Schifm, ye do wrong to alledge fo, ye fhall not be able to quit yourfelves of it ; we walked all foundly in the “ Truth, ye have leaped from us, ye make Schifms *.’* Before I give Inftances of the Sentiments and Praffice of fome eminent Miniffers during this Period, I muft take notice of what is affirmed by our Author, p. 14. “ Yea “ C ) i” former Times of great Defections, worthy

“ Miniffers were fo far from thinking it Duty to feparate “ and ereCt rhemfelvcs in feparate Judicatories, that, when “ Court and Kirk would had them forfakc thefe Judica- “ tories, they ftill attended, and oppofed finful Meafures taken in them at that Time.” And be mentions two that were difeharged by the Court to go to the Judicato¬ ries in the Year 1607, viz. Mr. fohn Carmichaelf and Mr. Henry Livingfon, v\ho was confined to his own Parifli upon the account of the Proceedings at Perth Synod above- mentioned. But our Author might have known, that the

proper

♦ Cald. Hift. p. 747.

. ( *’'3 )

proper Judicatories of the Church of Scotland were then contending for their juft Rights and Privileges, in Oppo- fition to Oppreffion and V'iolence from the Court : It is true, that, at that Time, the Court confined many worthy Minirters, and difeharged them to attend upon Presbyte¬ ries and Synods, with a Dcfign to carry on the Caufe of Epifcopacy ; and it was the Duty of Minifters to attend upon the proper Judicatories, in order to teftify and wit- nefs againft the Encroachments that were made upon them; an Inltance of which I have given in the faithful Behaviour of the Synod of Perth and Stirling. And I muft a!fo here obferve, that our Author is miftaken, when he affirms that the Kirk at this Time, would have worthy Minifters for- fake thefe Judicatories : He can give no Inftanccs of this from any Ecclefiaftical Judicatory at that Time in Being; the two Inftances above-mentioned do only prove that the Court would have had them forf.ke the Judicatories. Bur, tho’ Minifters attended the Judicatories before the pretended Aflembly at Glafgo<w i6io, yet the Cafe altered very much, when the faid Aflembly appointed Bifliops to prefide in Synods, and gave them a Negative over them: Then many honeft Minifters refufed to attend the faid Synods ; and the faid pretended Aflembly, judging it would be lb, did enadt, “ That whatfoever Minifter, without “ juft Caufe and lawful Excufe made, fhall ablent bimfelf “ from the Vifitation or the Diocefian Aflembly, he fhall “ be fufpended from his Office and Benefice, and, if he “ amend not, fltall be deprived f.” And this made many Minifters obnoxious to the High Commifiion Court, who (as Calderovood obferves) put in Execution the Adts of Af- lemblies overruled by the Bifhops, in regard they knew very well that they would not get the Concurrence of the ordinary Judicatories of the Church. After the faid pre¬ tended Aflembly, Synods became very unfrequent, many honeft Minifters had no Freedom to be prefent at them. I fliall not weary the Reader with many particular Inftan- <es; only, he may take one amongft many, and that is of Mr. David Caldervvoodj who (according to our Author, ^ifay p. 178.) contended in a Way of Church-communion betwixt i6io and 1638. I find that this great Man repiorts, that, at a Conference he had with fome of the Bi/hops, they urged him to repair to rhe Synods ; and the Biffiop of Caithnefs faid to him, “ Come and fay, Hie fum^ (i. e,

I am here) and then do as you pleafe.” To which Mr.

Cal-

t Caldi Ilift. p. 6^ z.

( iH )

CaUevwood replied, “ That hie fumy or, I am hersy is the “ Queftion f,” and he gives fome weighty Reafons why he could not be prelent at Synods. I hope that the Read¬ er will be fatisfied, that this is an Inftance of a confider- ablc Minifler, who declined to contend in a Way of Church-communion with the backfliding Party. I fhall likewife give him the Judgment, upon this Head, of one who was reckoned amongft the moft eminent Minifters of the Church of Scotlandy viz. Mr. JVelOjy who in a Tetter diredled to Mr. Robert Bruccy after charging the Bilhops with Perfidy and Apoftafy, &c. conclude*, “ Therefore they are not to be heard any more, either “ in Publickj or in Confiftorie-s, Colleges or Synods ; for, ‘‘ what Fellowfhip hath Light with Darknefs f ? ” What can be more plain for Secefiion from the corrupt Party in that Period ’ Yet our Author has the Aflurance to fay, Effay p. 12. “ That our worthy Anceftors, from the Year “ 1 59<J, continued in the Church v/ithout making SecelTioa “ or Separation, tho’ ftill they ftruggled againll her De- ** fedtions.” And, amongft other worthy Men, he names Mafters David Calderwood and John li'eljh, Likewife, the fame Mr. Weljb was imprifoned on account of his being at the Aflembly at Jberdeeny and alfo banifhed in the Year 1606 ; and as he never returned again to Scotlandy fo he never joined in Communion with any of the corrupt Party, or wdth their corrupt Judicatories. I fhall here likewife fubjoin the Judgment of that great Man, Mr. J ,mes Mehtlly concerning the Manner after which he thought the Lord's Witnefles in that Period fhould have teftified, as it lies in a Letter he fends from England di¬ rected to one of his confined Brethren in Scotland *, where I find the following Words; ‘‘Alas, if that Spirit of Action, Zeal and Courage, that fometimes did migh- tily reign in our Kirk, were kindled up again, that “ might make a fev/ from every Presbytery and Province “ to conveen together in the Name of Chrift, and cen- “ fure thefe Corrupters of the Kirk to the uttermoft.” In which Words, this eminent Minifter gives his Judg¬ ment in a very pathetick Manner, not only for Seceffion from the corrupt Party at that Time, bur alfo for meet¬ ing together in a diftinCt judicative Capacity from them, in order to cenfure them on account of their Corruptions ; yea, he declares it to be the Duty even of a few, to exer- cife the Key of Difciplme in cenfuring the corrupt Party,

After

Cald.UiR, p. 6S7. t p. 743. * p. 614.

After our Author has named the eight Mimfters, who were called up to London and detained there, that in their Abfence the Epilcopal Gaufe might be advanced, he adds,

“ They did not feparate, tho’ then conflant Moderators^ Vote in Parliament by the Kirk, and B'Jbops were brought “ in.” But our Author might have known, that thelc eminent Minifters were taken up to London before either conllant Moderators or Bifhops were brought in ; and two of them, "VIZ- Matters Andrew and ‘^ames Melvills, never returned to Scotland, and therefore could not fit in Judica¬ tories after conftant Moderators and Bifhops were brought in; the other fix Minitters, tho’ they returned to Scotland^ yet were confined to their own Paritties, and had not Ac- cefs to fit in Judicatories : As for Mr. John Davidfon, who is alfb mentioned by our Author, he was confined to his own Parifh, and there is no Evidence of his fitting in the Judicatories after his Proteftation againft the Aflembly at Dundee. Our Author like wife tells us, p. 177. “ That, from 1610 to t637, Matters Robert Bruce, Andrew “ and James Melvills, David Galderwood, Samuel Ruther- \ foord, Alexander Henderfon, David Dickfon and others,

I ** remained in the Church.” By remaining in the Church 1 our Author means, that they continued in the Judicato¬ ries, and contended in a Way of Church-communion ; but, in the feveral Inttances he gives, he writes at Ran¬ dom. I am forry that I muft charge him lb often with narrating what is neither Truth nor Matter of Fa61: ; As for Matters Andrew and James Melvills, they never had Accefs to contend in any of the Judicatories after the Year 1610, in regard, as I have juft now obferved, they I were taken up to London in the Year 1606, and never re- : turned to Scotland. And, as for that great Man Mr. Robert 1 Bruce, he was violently thruft from his Charge in the Year ; 1600, and banittied the Country, becaufe he had nor fuch < Satisfaftion about the Truth of Cowrie's Confpiracy, as that he could with Aflurance give publick Thanks unto the Lord for the King’s Deliverance from it , and after this Time he never fat in any of the Judicatories : And tho’ he had Liberty granted him by the King to return ; again to his own native Country, yet he was confined firft to his own Houfe at Kinnaird, and afterwards to Inverneft and other Places; and, in the feveral Places wherein he was confined, he continued ftill to exercife his Miniftry with great SucceG without any Conjunction with the Ju- ■ dicatories. During his Confinement at Monkland he kept

two

( ti’S J

fwo fblemn Faffs, afffffed by the famous Mr. Princi¬ pal of the College of Glaff oiVy and Mr. Robert Scot Mini- ffer there *; and he died Amo 1651, wirnefling againft the Defeftions of the Times without any Connexion with the Judicatories. As for Mr. David Calderzvood, I have reported bis Judgment already againft joining in Synods after the Year 1610. This great and learned Man was confined to his own Parifti, as alfo his Copresbyter Mr. fobn- potty on account of their declining Bifhop Law's Vifitation of the Presbytery of ’Jedburgh. Mr. Calderwood was after¬ ward deprived by the High Commiffion Court, and an A6l of Baniffiment was paft againft him by the Privy Council t- With refpeft to Mr. Henderforty there is no Doubt that he joined in Synods after the Year 1610, for he was Prelatick in his Judgment ; but our Author can¬ not prove that he continued to fit in the faid Synods after he was favingly enlightned by the Miniftry of Mr. Robert Brucey as is reported by our Author from the Fulplhng of the Scriptures y EJfay p. 51. As for Mr. David Dick/ort^ who is alfo mentioned by our Author, he was depri¬ ved by the High Commiffion Court i6ziy and con¬ fined to 7urriff in the North ; and tho’ he obtained Li¬ berty by the Earl of Eglintouns Interceflion to return to his Charge at Irviney yet our Author cannot inftruft it, that ever he fat in any of the Synods during this Peri¬ od. Our Author thinks fit likewife to mention Mr. Ru- iherfoord amongft others who remained in the Judicatories : Tho’ Mr. Rutherfoord was ordained to the holy Miniftry during the Time that Epifcopacy prevailed, yet I hope rone will credit our Author if he fliould affirm that Mr. Rutherfoord was ordained by the Biffiops, or that he fat in their Diocefian Synods. When the Judgment and Prafticc of the worthy Minifters I have named is confidered, as al¬ fo Mr. Rutherfoord's known Zeal againft Prelacy, our Author’s pofitive Affirmations, that Mr. Rutherfoord and other eminent Minifters did fit in fuch Judicatories, mud be held ‘as mere Calumnies, until our Author produce good Vouchers for them, which he is not able to do. J^t tho’ many of the Minifters at that Time did not fre¬ quent the Synods, yet they continued to keep up their Presbyterial Meetings. And this leads me to give a fhort Hint at the State of Presbyteries before the Year 1638. Our Author tells us, EJfay p. 14. “ That, becaufe honed “ Minifters attended Presbyteries, therefore the King

came

* CaU. Hid. p. 736. t P* <^^4-

' . ( 217 )

** came at laft to difcharge them altogether.** Neither is , this Matter of Fa£t. The Place in CaUerwoodj to which I our Author direfts us *, bears, that, at the pretended Af- i fembly at 1 6io, the Earl of Commiflio-

, ncr produced the King’s Warrant to difcharge Pre.'-byte- ries ; but this Warrant was netter put in Execution. Tho* fuch Threatnings were frequently ufed to frighten Mini- fters into a Compliance with the Meafures of the Court,

: yet, from the 1596 to the 1658, Presbyteries were nei¬ ther abolifhed nor difcharged. Calderwood indeed ob- : ferves, that the pretended Aflemhly 1610, to picafe the I King, inftcad of the Word Presbytery, defigned them the ! Alinifiers of the Bounds. Our Author like wife tells us in the fame Page, “ That at that Time, viz., before itijS, “ it feems Elders were not allowed to fit with Minifters in “ Presbytery.” Our Author likewile is miftaken in this ; for there was no Law during that Period, either Civil or Ecclefiaftical, difallowing Elders their fitting with Mini- ffers in Presbytery. Neither does his Citation from the Presbytery- Rcgifter of Kirkaldy, of the Date September 15. 1638, prove what he alledges ; there he tells us, ’tis faid that the “ Earl of Rothes and Mr, Robert Douglas “ fhew, that it was thought meet by the Meeting at Cou- “ par. Ruling Elders fhould fit with the Presbytery.” This proves only that Elders were negligent in their Duty ; and Inftances can be given of many Presbyteries in Scot~ land, where frequently from one Synod to another an El¬ der is not to be feen in the Presbytery : But it would be very unrcafbnable if we fhould from this conclude, it feems they are not allowed to jit with Alinifiers in Presbytery. And, with refpedt to the State of Presbyteries, the Rea¬ der may take the following fhort Account from Mr. Woodrow' i Hiftory where, in giving an Account of the

Difference betwixt the Prelates before the Year i6;8,and thefe that were let up in the Year 1662, he obferves, “ Our firft Prelates were not againft the Meetings of Pres- byteries in their feveral Jurifdidlions, but they conti- “ nued to meet regularly, and had almoft the whole of “ Church-difeipline in their Hands ; buj now there is no “ Church-power fave in the Perfon of the Bifhop, and “ what he pleafes to meafure gracioufly out to whom he pleafes.” From the above Account it is evident, that be¬ fore the 1 638 the Presbyteries continued to meet regularly, and had almoft the whole of Church- difeipline in their

E e Hands:

1 P< 569. t Vol. I. p. 1 1 7, u8.

( '2i8 )

Hands: And from what I have oblerved it may appear, that any Power of Church-difcipline they wanted, was vi¬ olently taken our of their Hands by the Court of High Commifllon ; and in this Cafe the Presbyteries were not adtive, but pailive. Mr. lf’'oodrow adds, from the Reve- i rend Mr. Robert Douglas's Remarks, ” That he (jviz. Mr.

“ dealt with the Sratefmen, in the Year 1662,

not to difeharge Presbyteries, but to allow themtofiand 1 ‘‘ as under the former Bifliops ; and fuggefted, that feve- :

ral Minifters would keep thefe Meetings, if permitted i “ to continue as before, notwithflanding Bifhops were fet i “ up ; but if pulled down, and fet up in Subordination “ to the Bifhops, no honeft Minifters would keep them.” From this Account which Mr. gives, it is evident,

that before the Year 1638 Presbyteries were not pulled down, and that they did not at that Time fubfift in Sub¬ ordination to the Bifhops. It is a LoP unto us, that we have not a full and clear Hiftory of the State of the Church of Scotland before the Year 163S; we have only fome hifto- rical fragments from Calderu'ood, and we have nothing at all from the Year 1624, where his Hiftory ends. If we had any diftindt Hiftory of that Period, I doubt not but it would ap{.)ear, that as Presbyteries continued to meet re- gula lv, lo thev likewife ordained Men to the holy Mini- ftry without the Afllftance and Concurrence of the then Bifhops. I find from Calderwood, that in the Year 1621, when honeft Minifters are conveened out of all Quarters of lue Country to proteftagiinft the Parliament’s ratifying Pertfc Articles, and when they are charged by Proclamati- | on to depart out of the Town under Pain of Rebellion, ] that one of the Reafijns of rhe faid Charge is. That fbme j of them had intruded themfelves in the Pulpits without a i lawful Warrant or Calling ; and, according to the Lan¬ guage of the Court at this Time, Intrufion without a law- 1 ful Calling or Warrant was, when the Bifhop did not afltft in the Ordination, in the Manner appointed by the preten¬ ded AfTembly at Glafgow I fhall only take Notice of a- nother of the Authorities adduced by our Author, to prove that our worthy Anreftors made a noble and refolute Stand againft all Encroachments and Corruptions, but ftill in a Way of Church- communion , viz. the ^pologetical : Relation, p too where, giving the Difference betwixt the State of Judicatories before the Year 1658, and after the Year i66z, ’ris faid, “ The Cafe then and now ditfererh far; for then thefe Judicatories were (landing when the

“ Pre-

( sip )

Prelates were brought in upon them, and Mmifters “ were then bound to keep Pofleffion of their Rights fo “ long as they could, QPc." And it is very plain from the Account I have given of the Stare of Presbyteries, that it was their Duty to keep PoflefTion of their Right, under Violence and Oppreflion from the Ci/il Powers. The Au¬ thor of the ^pologetical Relation likewife obferves in the fame Place, That ‘‘ then they were Hedges ftanding in the “ Prelates Way, thn’ much weakned by Realbn of the “ Civil Power oppofing; but now they are Props to fup- port and ftrengthen the Hands of the Prelates, as be- “ ing wholy ruled and guided by them.” But it is to be regreted, that Presbyteries at prefent are fo far from be¬ ing Hedges in the Way of the fupreme Judicatory who are carrying on a Courfe of Defection, that they a re rather Props to ftrengthen and fupport them, in fo far as they do not duly tef ify againft their Proceedings, nor cen- fure their Commiflioners, who are either active in carry¬ ing on the laid Courfe, or give not a fuitable Teftimony againft the fame.

Our Author to confirm and ftrengthen his Argument againft Seceftion, from the Conduct of Minifters before the Year 1658, gives us a Citation from the Teftimony of the Minifters of Fife and Perth', ‘‘ Then (/tyr he) “ there was no Separation, rho’, as the faid Minifters de- dare in their Teftimony, Prelates were high in Power, a Service-book and Book of Canons were obtruded^ and the \ ** greateft Part of the Mini fry carried away with the Courfe “ of Conformity, and couching with Iflachar under the Bur- ! den. ” But this Quotation is not laid in a very fair Manner, in regard a whole Sentence is omitted betwixt the firft and laft Part of the (aid Quotation. According I as *tis laid by our Author, his Reader may think that the Minifters of Perth and Fife fay. That the greateft Part of the Miniftry fubraitted to the Service- bock and the Book of Canons; whereas the Minifters of Perth and Fife fay no fuch Thing : And any who know the Hiftory of that Time, know, that very few of the Miniftry fub- rnitted unto them ; and thele few either left the Country ! at that wonderful Turn in the Year 1638, or were duly cenfured by the Aflembly that met that Year. Yet it j is true what the Minifters of Ftfe affirm. That the i greateft Part were carried away with the Courfe of Con- : formity, in regard many did continue to fit in Synods after i Bifuops were intruded into the Moderalox’$ Chair; and,

E e 3

( 220 )

in this Refpe^, fuch Minifters couched with fjfachar nndef the Barden. Bat the Miniliers of Fife do not fay that all the Miniftry were carried away with the Courle of Conformity ; and therefore, for thef'e Rcafons, I humbly judge that our Author’s Quotation is fo far from fuppor- ting his Argument that there was no Separation under that Period, that it rather militates againft him, and Ihews i that there was a great Part of the Miniftry who were not ! carried away with the Courfe of Conformity, and who , did not contend in the Way of Ecclcfiaftical Communi¬ on with the Prelatick Parry at that Time.

I fhall not infift further on our Author’s Inftances from this Period, when I have taken Notice of the Account that he gives of Mr. Ruth er f cor Cafe, p. 14. “ And at “ that Time (/<iyr he') Error, particularly “ was rampant in this Church; and, for writing againll “ it in that Period, Rutherfoord was put from his Charge, and fent Prifoner to Aberdeen^ where he was confined^ as appears from his firft Letter. ” It is very unplea- fant to me, that I muft fo often charge our Author with inifreprefenting ordifguifing Matters of Faft : Any that read the above Words, may be ready to conclude that Mr. Rutherfoord was cenfured by fome Church*judi- catory for writing againft Error, and defending the Truth; but, in the Letter to which our Author refers, Mr. Rutherfoord writes, That it had pleafed the Lord Je- fus “ to let loofe the Malice of thefe interdidfed Lords “ in his Houfe ” (meaning the Prelates) to deprive him of his Miniftry at Aruwotby &c. The Cafe flood plainly thus; Mr. Rutherfoord was brought before the High Com- miflion Court ; the Book that he wrote againft the Armi- uians was one Challenge againft him ; his not lording the Prelates was another, as he tells us in his Letters, Part 5d, Letter 56, And, according to the Praftice of faith¬ ful Minifters at that Time, he declined the faid Court ; upon which he was deprived, and confined to Aberdeen.

I hope it will not be alledged that this Court was a Judi¬ catory of the Church of Scotland: None of the Judica¬ tories of the Church did even at that Time condemn or cenfure Mr, Rutherfoord for writing againft the Armi~ marts \ and, however corrupt their pretended AfTemblies were, yet I muft do them the Juftice to own, that their Confeflion of Faith agreed upon at their pretended Af- fembly at Aberdeen was both found and orthodox, and fe- vsral Propofitions in it are laid diredly againft the Armi-^

( 22 1 )

man Articles : Tho’ our Author alledges that Arminia^ riifm was then rampant in the Church, yet there is Ground to fear that k is more rampant now than it was then Kujb- vjortb in his Collcflions obferves 4^, from the Memoirs of the Houfe of Hamiltoun^ “ That the Opinions of Ar~ “ minius were generally ill-reported of in all the refor- “ med Churches, and nowhere worfe than in Scotland^ “ and that moft of the Bifhops and their Adherents un- “ dertook openly and zealoufly the Defence of rhefe Te- “ nets. ” This is mentioned in the forefaid Memoirs, as one of the Springs of that remarkable Revolution in the Year 1658 ; The whole Land being generally difla- tisfied with Arminian Dodtrine, this among other Things raifed their Indignation at the Prelatick Party, who had openly elpoufed the fame: And we fiiall afterwards fee, that the General Affembly, that met the forefaid Year, did duly cenfure fuch as had openly tauglit Arminia- n'tfm. 1 fliall have done with our Author’s Reafonrngs upon this Head, when I have oblervcd what our Author afledges, p. 13. viz. “ That the Defedtions of the Church of Scotland after the Year 1596 for upwards of forty Years were lamentable, and far more grievous than “ can be pretended at this Day.” And here I muft dif¬ fer from our Author, when he affirms that the Defedtions of the Church of Scotland were far more grievous in that Period than can be pretended at this Day ; and that be- caufe Arminian Errors were not brought to the Bar of the Judicatories during the Period mentioned, and dif- mifled without any Cenfure at all : But this is the Cafe with rcfpedfc to the prefent Judicatories ; Arminian Er¬ rors have been brought to their Bar once and again, and have been difmiffed without any particular Teftimony againft them. As alfo, tho’ fbme of the Prelatick Party openly defended Arminian Dodlrines in the forefaid Pe¬ riod, yet the Sound of Arian Blafphemy was never heard in the Church of Scotland till thele degenerate Times wherein we live ; and the Arian Scheme, in its modern Shape and Drefs, has likewife been difmifled from the Bar of Judicatories without any fuitable Teftimony given againft it. Again, if the proper Judicatories of the Church of Scotland did not in the former Period cenfure ^nd condemn the Abettors of Arianifm^ it was becaufe they were under the Reftraints of outward Force and Vio¬ lence ; and therefore, when they arc mcrcifitily delivered

from

Hift. Golleft. for

( 2 22 )

from the(e Reftraints in the Year 1638, the Sword of Dif^ ciplioe was faithfully drawn againft the Teachers of Af Tn 'mian Doctrine : But it cannor be alledged that the pre- fent Judicatories of this National Church are under any liich Reftraints of outward Force and Violence, and yet they difmifs Ayminian Errors and Arian Blafphemies from ther Bar in the Manner I have already obferved. Fur- their, during that Period before the Year 1638, Presby¬ teries fubfifted in a kind of independent Stare, without Subordination to the Bifhops, aU'o for the Space of about Thirty fix YearS) •viz. from 1602 to 1638, without ac¬ knowledging a Subjerftion or Subordination to the preten¬ ded General Aflcmblies of that Period ; yea, for the Space of twenty Years, that is, from 1618 to 1638, they had not any Ecclefiafiical Court which had the Name of a Gene¬ ral AlTembly: But, in the prefent Period, Presbyteries continue in their Subordination and Subjection unto Ge¬ neral Affemblies; and confequcntly all the prefent Judi¬ catories of this National Church are one Ecclefiaftick Bo¬ dy, wherein a Courfe of Defection is carried on from our Reformation and covenanted Principles. Therefore, and for all the above Reafons, I humbly judge the Defeftions of this National Church, asflie is reprefented in her pre¬ fent Judicatories, are far more grievous than can be pre¬ tended concerning the above-mentioned Period betwixt lyptJ and 1638.

After our Author has done with his Reafoning, p. 15. he concludes his Argument in the following Manner; “ Tho’ in the above Propofition I have narrated Matter “ of FaCt, and Ihown what was the Practice of our wor- “ thy Anceftors who remained in the Church of Scotland in the Midft of moft lamentable Defections, from i 597 to 1638;” (but how he has narrated Matter of Fa^, and if he has fairly reprefented the PraCtice of our wor- tliy Anceftors, I ftiall now leave it with the Reader to judge: Our Author adds) “ Yet I have not declared my “ own Opinion in relation to their CoqduCt, nor told what “ 1 ftiould reckon Duty were Things come to fuch a Pafs “ with us as in their Day, which God forbid they ever ftiould.” I take this to be a modeft Infinuarion from our Author, s if he was more ftriCt in his Principles than thefe em nenr Men he has named, viz. Mafters Rrwee, W ifl., Rutherfoordf Scr. However, I have no Manner of Strait to delive.’ my Opinion in relation to their ConduQ:, neither fhall X be fo very ftiy to tell what I ftiould reckon

Pary

Duty if I was in their Situation : And therefore I humbly judge, that, in a Confiftency with the Teftimony which I judge it my Duty to hold in Conjunction with my other Brethren, I could have joined in liich Presbyteries, during that Period, as were wreftling againll a Courle of Defe¬ ction, and wlio were noway aCtive in carrying on the faid Courfe, but rather pafl'ive, bearing and fuffering Vio¬ lence and Oppofition from the Civil Powers, and who were alfo independent upon any General Aflembly till the Lord turned back the Captivity of his People in the Year 1658. That which feems to be culpable in their ConduCt is, that, according to Mr. ^ames d/e/wV/’s Judgment above-expreft, fbme few Miniders out of every Presbytery and Province did not aflbeiate together in a National Aflembly, in order to cenfure the wicked Subverters of the Order and Dif- cipline of the Church of Scotland. The only Apology that can be made for them is, Thar, if they had followed this Courfe, they might have expeCfed, according to the Violence and Tyranny of thefe Times, the fame Treat¬ ment that Mr. WeJjb and his Brethren met with for holding an Aflembly at Aberdeen, Our Author concludes, “ Yet “ it naturally follows, fuch as remained in Judicatories in “ that Period, they could never have entertained a “ Thought of Separation from us at this Day.” Nay, ic rather follows, that if fuch Minifters, who contended with lb much Faithfulnefs and Zeal, againft Violence and Op¬ pofition from the Civil Powers, for the juft Rights and Privileges of the Kingdom of the Lord Jefus, were alive at this Day, they would never acknowledge the prefent Judicatories as their genuine Offspring, who are departing from, or giving up with, in the many particular Inftances which I have mentioned, thefe Reformation-principles, for which our worthy Anceftors did valiantly contend, and for which they endured fo many and fo great Severities and Hardftiips. I am fenfible I have infifted too long upon this Head ; yet I thought it neceflary, in order to give the Reader fome View of the Conduft and Behaviour of the W^itnefles for Chrift in Scotland before the Year 1638, in regard it is generally mifreprefented, and their Praftice is, without the leaft Ground or Reafon, adduced as an Ar¬ gument againft the Condudt of the feceding Brethren.

I have now done with our Author’s Argument, as it is laid againft the feceding Minifters from that former Period of this Church, whereby he reprefents their Conduct as altogether unprecedented, and contrary to the Judgment,

Sen-

( ^ ^4 )

Sentiments and Praftice of our worthy Anccftors ; and in his Preface, p. 1 1 . he fays with a magifterial Air, “ It gave “ me the greateft Freedom in writing again!! Separation from the Church of Scotland in our Day, that I could “ neither fee Scripture Precept, Promife nor Exrample, “ nor any approven Footfteps of the Flock, to countenance “ it in any former Age fince Chrift had a Church upon “ Earth.” Thus he Ipeaks upon the Matter to the Ic- ceding Minifters, as Eliphaz did to Yob *, Call now if there he any that will anfwer you, and to which of the Saints will you turn ? To which all the feceding Minifters may an¬ fwer, We will turn to thefe faithful Minitters who refufed to fay. Hie fum^ or, / am heroy in thefe corrupt Judica¬ tories in former Times of Defedlion: Alfo, we will turn to thefe Minifters and Presbyteries who refufed the Au¬ thority and Jurifdidtion of pretended General Aflemblies, and continued in an independent State till the Lord gave them a free and faithful General Aflembly: Likewife, we will turn to the approven Footfteps of the Proteftant re¬ formed Churches, as they are pointed out unto us in our firft Confefiton of Faith, where we have the Charadters of that Church unto which we may fafely and warrantably join ourfelves, namely, the true Preaching of the Word, or tire Maintenance and Profeflion of the true Dodtrine and the true Faith, the right j4dminijlration of the Sacraments of Ckrifi Jefus, and Ecclefiafiical DiJeipUne uprightly admi- niftred as God*s Word preferibeth, whereby Vies is reprejfed, and Virtue nourijbed. Yea further, we will turn ourfelves to the Example and Footfteps of the primitive Church, who refufed all Church-communion, both with the Er¬ roneous, and with fuch as countenanced or tolerated Error. Yea, the feceding Minifters have Ground to fay. We will turn to the Commandments of the Lord by his holy A- poftles and Prophets, Tfa, lii. ii. Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean ^btngy go ye out of tbs Midf of her ; be ye clean that hear the Vejfels of the Lord. Gal. V. 1 . Stand faji therefore in the Liberty wherewith Chrifi lath made us free. 2 John 8. Look to yourfelves, that we hfe rot thofe things which we have wrought, 2 Cor. vi. 17. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye feparate, f aith the Lord^ and touch not the unclean 7hing ; and I will receive you. As alfb, to all the Scripture Commands and Diredlions which I have already particularly named in the preceeding Chapter, with many others, that give them full

War-

Job V. 1.

. ( 22S )

Warrant for their prefent Condud: and Practice. And, to conclude, they have iikewife Ground ro fay, We will turn ro that Example and Pattern that the faithful and true l^'itnefs hath left us, who before Pontius Pilate wic- neflTed a good ConfefTion; and the Truth which in a pecu¬ liar Manner he did bear Witnefs unto, did concern his ow'n Kingly Office and Spiritual Kingdom : As this was the Truth which was in a fpecial Manner controverted and oppofed by Pontius Pilate and the Jenxis^ fo whatever Truth is controverted or oppofed in the Church, whether it concerns the Perfon or Offices of the Redeemer, all his Followers ought to make an open Profeflion and Confeffion of that Truth ; they ought in a particular Manner to bear Teffimony and Witnefs unto it, according ro the different Stations in which they are placed, and the different Gha- radters which they bear, that they may thereby contribute their Endeavours to render unto the exalted Head that Revenue of Honour, Glory and Praife, that is due unto him in a peculiar Manner from the Church militant; and that they may make his 'Piame to be remembred to all Gene- rat ions y Plal. xlv. 17,

0 ^ t ^ ^ S *15 ^ 0

CHAP. IV.

Whtrein the injtirious ReJIeUions cafi upon the reforming Reriod of this Churchy betwixt 1638 and 115505 by the Jmhot of the Effay, are conjidered*

I Have in the laft Seftion of the preceeding Chapter narrated, that, when the Judicatories of this Natio¬ nal Church were contending in their Ecclefiaftical Capacity for the Crown-rights of the Redeemer the only King of Zww, and when they were wreftling for the Pre- lervation of that Reformation-purity they had once attained unto, and for the Maintenance of the Government, Wof- Ihip and Difcipline of our Lord’s Houfe, they were born down by more than ordinary Violence from the Civil Powers, afiifted by fome ambitious and Time-ferving Church-men. This Violence, Tyranny and Oppreffion continued for about the Space of forty Years; when, in die Midft of the Miferies and CalatnUies under which the

F f Church

( 226 )

Church of '}cotl/t»ii groned, che Lord was pleafed, in a very furprifing and wonderful Manner, to turn back the Captivity of his People in this Land. When the Prelates were in the Height of their Power and Pride, and when the Church was like ff>-ael in the Straits of Pibahirotb be¬ twixt Migdol and the Sea, an unexpected Deliverance v/as given her in the Year 1658: And, for fome Years there¬ after, the Glory of the Lord did Ihine upon this Church; Shu look'd forth as the Mornings fair as the Moon^ clear as the SuMy and terrible as an Army with Banners. I know none of the Presbyterian Denomination in Scotland, that have not both writ and fpoke honourably of this Period, till the Author of the Ejfay on Separation appeared upon the Field, who under a Pretence (Pref p. 5.) that the Faults of the Church of Scotland from 1658 to 1649 Ihould be Icarched out, confeffed, mourned over, and teftified againft, as much as her Faults 1650 or 1651, and other Times ; under this Pretence, I fay, he loads the Aflcmbly 1638, and other Affemblies of that Period, with very unwarrantable and odious Proceedings: He fpeaks frequently in a very diminutive Manner of that reforming Period ; he tells us, That fome do reckon it the purefl 'Times of Presbytery, he Calls it an extolled Period, Effay p. 199, and, p. 21. fays he, ‘‘ All our Separatifts wonderfully magnify the ACfs “ of Aflemblies during that Period.” Tho’ I judge it jny Duty to make honourable Mention of the forelaid Pe¬ riod, and to edeem it as a reforming Period of this Church ; yet, if any reckon it faultlefs, or extol it above Meafure, I fhall not vindicate them; But I may fafely fay, that the AfTociare Presbytery, who are reckoned by our Author amongll: the Separatifts, have kept within jud Bounds, when they exprefs themfelves in the following Manner, in their judicial AB and Tejiimony, p. 18. “ But, fince the “ Church while militant is in an imperfeft State, it is not “ hereby intended to affirm, that under the above men- “ tioned Period there was nothing defective or wanting as to the Beauty and Order of the Houfe of God, or that “ there was nothing culpable in the Adminiftration ; All “ that is defigned by the above particular Deduction is, “ to declare that this Church endeavoured, and merci- fully attained, a confiderablc Pitch of Reformation du- r:nf the forefnd Per'od ; towards this their feveral Con- “ t< dings and Wrcfllings, their folemn Vows and En- gagements, ’heir Declarations and Tclfimonies, all pointed. ” In the above Words, tlic Presbytery affirm,

that

( S27 )

that the Judicatories of this Church endeavoured, and mercifully attained, a confidcrable Pitch of Reformation during the Period mentioned ; and they give I'everal par¬ ticular Inffances of this: I find none of them controverted by onr Author, except the laft, viz* an Ad: paft in Par¬ liament 1649, which I fhall confider in its proper Place. The Presbytery likewife affirm. That the fevcral Conten- dings and Wreltlings, the fblemn Vows and Engagements, the Declarations and Teftimonies of this Church during that Period, all pointed towards Reformation : And this is what our Author cannot refufe, tho* he has not done that Juliice to this reforming Period as to acknowledge fo much. And, from what I have obferved in the preceeding Chap¬ ters, I hope the unprejudifed Reader may fee, that the general Tendency of the Judicatories in the prefent Period is tov/ards Deformation : They are Co far from holding faft v/hat we have received, and from contending towards further Reformation, that they are letting Jlip thefe Things that we have attained, and are juftifying them- felves in their feveral Defedtions and Backflidings. This one Obfervation is alone fufficient for the Vindica¬ tion of what is aflerted with rcfpedl: to our reforming Period, in the Presbytery’s Act and Tefitmony. But I judge it my Duty to endeavour to do Julfice to that de- fpifed Period of our Reformation, by confidering more particularly the Treatment that the Author of ihc EJfay has given the AfTembly 1658, and other famous Afl'em* blies ; And, in order to this, I fliall premife a fliort hifto- rical Account of that wonderful Turn the forefaid Year, *Tis, as I have already obferved, a confidcrable Lefs un¬ to this Church, that we have not a full and compleat Hi- ftory of that Period : However I fhall make ufe of fuch Helps as I have at Hand, and, amongft others, of the tin Hiftory, intituled, Hifioria Motuum in Regno Scotite, or, Yi&e Htfiory of the Commotions in the Kingdom of Scotland^ &c. This Hiftory was writ, according to feme, by Mr. Spang ; bur, according to others, by Mr. Baillie, who was firft Minifter at Kilwinning^ and a Member of the Afiem- bly 163S, and afterwards Principal of the College of G; 4/^ gow, and one of the Commlffioners of this Church to the Aftembly at IVeJlminfler : The Latin Stile of the faid Hi¬ ftory is agreeable to that of Mr. Baillie's in his other WTirings, and, if need were, other Evidences of his be¬ ing the Author of that Hiftory might even at this Diftancq of Time be produced. I likewife make ufe of d Manu-

F f 2

( 428 )

fcvipt youvnal of the Proceedings of the AfTemhlies and 1639, which I know is in the Hands of feverals; and it agrees everywhere with the Latin Hiftory, and may juftly be reckoned of equal Authority with any Manu- feript of this Kind ; Only the Reader may notice, that the Speeches of the Members of Aflembly which are re¬ corded in the Journal, fome of which I have tranferibed, Teem to have been taken in fhnrt Hand when they v/cre delivered, and therefore muff needs labour under Ibmc Difadvantage; yet I thought it might give fome Light in¬ to the Proceedings of the AlTembiy 1638, and I hope it will not be difagreeahle to the Reader that I have trail'# feribed a few of them. And what 1 intend for the Vin¬ dication of our reforming Period from 163S to 1649, I fhall cafl into the following Se£tions.

SECT. I.

A Jkort hijior'ical Account of that glorious Ap^ pearance of God for the Church of Scotland in the Tear 1638.

Before Iglve a particular Account of that re¬ markable Turn of Affairs in this Church and Land in the Year 1637 and 1638, I do nor reckon it a- mifs to take notice of Ibme Things by which the Lord paved a Way for this great and glorious Revolution.

Tho’ the Perfecuticn was hot againft fome eminent Mi- nifters, yet many, by the fpecial Providence of God, had a peaceable Refidence at their Several Paftoral Charges: Some of them were proteffed by Perfons of confiderahle Diffinffion ; not a few of the firft Rank in Scotland did diftinguifh themfelvesby a Concern for the Purity of Go- fpel-ord 'nances ; even before the Year 1^)38, the Pride and Ambition of the Prelates rendered them odious to many of the firft Rank and Quality in Scotland, And, be- fides, feverals both of the Nobility and Gentry retained a Love and Reg.ird to our Reformarinn-purity ; and there¬ fore many eminent Nfinifters were countenanced and pro¬ tected in the peaceable Excrcifc of their Miniftry : A- mongft others, Mr. Datjid Dkhfcn Minifter at Irvine, after Ihe was deprived hv the f-ligh CommilTion Court, and con¬ fined to Jurrijf in the North, was, thro’ the Earl of E’glirifoun's Influence, liberate from his Coufinemcnr, and ftftQrcd wnio the Excrcifc pf his Miniftry at Jrv-ne. Like-

( 229 )

wife, tlio’ the Violence of the Bifhops before the Year 1658 was great, yet it was nothing like the Tyranny and Fury of the Prelates in the late Times of Prelacy, as the Reader may fee from Mr. If'^oodrow's Hiftory, where, fta- ting the Difference betwixt the Prelates in the late Times and the former Bifhops, he oblerves :f:, “ That the old “ Sett of Bifliops made by the Parliament 1612. were buc “ Pigmies to the prefent high and mighty Lords.” Hence, many faithful Miniflers, who did not countenance the Dio- cefian Synods, had yet peaceable Refidence in their own Parifhes ; the Lord made the If rath of Man to praife h'tm^ and the Remainder of IVrath he did refrain. And here I cannot but notice one Thing which paved a Way for the above great Turn of Affairs, and by which the Lord pre¬ pared a People for himfelf; namely, The remarkable Sue- cefs that did attend Gofpel-ordinances under the Miniftry of fuch faithful Gofpei-minifters at this Time, who had nor conformed to Prelacy, The Author of the Fulfilling^ of the Scriptures, p. 416. reports, “ That there was a very “ fblemn and extraordinary Out-letting of the Spirit about “ the Year 1625 and thereafter in the Weft of Scotland,, and particularly under the Miniftry of Mr. Dickfon at “ [rvine." As alfo, he mentions that folemn Communion at the Kirk of Shots, “ At which Time {fays he') there was fo convincing an Appearance of God, and Down-pour- “ ing of the Spirit, even in an extraordinary Way, that did follow the Ordinances, efpecially the Sermon on “ Monday, with a ftrange unufual Morion on the Hearers, who in a great Multitude were there conveened of dim, verfe Ranks, that it was known (which, adds he, I can “ fpeak on fure Ground) near Five hundred had at that Time a difcernible Change wrought on them, of whom moft proved lively Chriftians afterwards,

Likewife, about this Time folemn Fafts were obferved through the Land, on account of the prefent difmal and deplorable Stare of the Church of Scotland. Here I fhall tranferibe the Teftimony of an Adverfary, viz. Bifhop Guthrie, who in his Memoirs, p. 8. fpeaking of the honeft Minifters of that Period, he tells us, “ They laboured to “ increafe the Number of their Profelytes everywhere, “ and that not without Succefs, efpecially in Ffe, and in the weftern Parts. Whereunto {fays he) a W'ay, which “ they then begun, proved very conducible ; and this it “ w'as : They kept foraetimes every Year a Faft in every

‘‘ Kirk

^ VoJ. i. p. up

f *3° )

“ Kirk throughout the Kingdom, where the Minifters “ were rf their Stamp, •l-.z.. upon the firft Sabbath of « every Quarter ; whereof there was no publick Intima- “ tion, fave that the Minifters did privately define fo many of their Flock, as from Time to Time they could draw “ over to their Parry, to join in it : And, upon rhofe “ Days of Fafting, they ufed in their Dodlrine to hint at “ the Danger of Religion by Prelacy, and the Depen- “ dencies thereof; and in their Prayers to fupplicate for Remedy, with a BlefTing upon all good Means which Providence fhould atford for that End ; by which Courfc they prevailed much upon the Commons.’* This perfi¬ dious and apoftate Prelate does everywhere in his Me¬ moirs mifreprefent the Proceedings of faithful Minifters both before and after the Year 1658 ; bur from bis above W'ords we may gather what was true Matter of Fa6t, Viz. That the honeft Minifters at that Time kept folemn Fafts, for mourning over the Sins and Backflidings of the Land, and for Prayer unto the Lord for a Revival unto his Work in Scotland ; and the Lord was pleafed to give a gracious Return unto their Prayers in the Year 1638. I proceed now to give as fhort an Account as I can of the Beginning and Progrefs of that remarkable Appearance of the Lord in the forefaid Year.

In the Year 1637, a Liturgy with a Book of Canons be¬ ing framed by the Bifhops for Scotland., King Charles I. refolved, however difagreeable they were unto a great many in the Church of Scotland., to impofe the fame upon that Church His Defign is now open and declared, to bring the Church of Scotland unto a full Conformity with the Church of England. The Liturgy deviled for ScoU land was in feveral Particulars worfe than the Ene^lip Li- turgy, and more agreeable to that of the Church of Romez The Latin Hiftorian gives fome Inftances to this Pur- pofe f. And, by the Book of Canons defigned to be imr pofed upon the Church of Scotland, Presbyteries and Sef- rons which yet lubfifted were wholly fuppreffed But, when cur Night was moft dark, behold, the Day breaks; when our Strength Teemed to be quite gone, the Lord of Hofts awoke for his opprefled Heritage, his right Hand and his holy Arm did work Deliverance for them: When the Liturgy is at firft impofed upon Scotland, a Shaking began amongft the dry Bones ; this Shaking did wax louder and louder, and the Bones came together Bone unto Bene, and /c,

the

t riift. Mor. p. zS,

( S3 1 )

the Sinews tame up upon them, and the ^hin covered them above ; and the Spirit of Life from the Lord did enter into Miniders and Profeflors, yea, into all Ranks of Per- fons through the Land.

According to King Charles I. his exprefs Orders, the Liturgy is firll opened in the great Church of Edinburgh by the Dean, with the Affiftance of the Biihop of that Diocefe, upon the 23^ of ^uly 1637: Bur, the moft Part of the People rifing at that Inftanr, the Reading was ftopr, and in like Manner in another of the Churches, where the Bifhop oiJrgyll was attempting to read it. Within a fliorc Time Supplications were given in to the Council, againtt the Liturgy and Book of Canons, by leveral Minifters and ProfelTbrs through the Land ; and in a few Weeks the moft Parr of the N^obility and Gentry, and the moft Parr of the Royal Boroughs, declared themlelvcs againft the above Impofitions upon the Church of Scotland. In the Month of September the forefaid Year, a great Num¬ ber of Minifters with Elders conveen at Edinburgh, and fupplicate the Council againft the fame: Likcwife feveral Petitions figned by Perfons of all Ranks, againft the Service- book and the Book of Canons, were put into the Hands of the Duke of Lennox, who was then going to the Court, that he might prefent them to the King ; and in the mean Time the Privy Council difcharged the Biftiops to prefs the Liturgy, till the King fhould be informed about the prefent State of Matters in Scotland: Upon which, the Minifters and Elders that were met at Edinburgh retired unto their feveral Dwellings. The Elders, who upon this Occaflon came with the Minifters to Edinburgh, confifted (according to the Latin Hiftorian) of the Nobility, and of the chief Magiftratcs of the Burghs ; and he reports*, that, upon their return Home, “ publick Fafts were kept, that “ the Lord might turn the Counfels of the King unto the

publick Good of this Church and Kingdom, and that “ he might difappoint the Projects then on Foot againft “ the Church of Scotland^ fo much fhaken already by the “ fubtile Devices of her Adverfaries.”

The Return to the above Supplications, and Informati¬ ons from the Privy Council, came down from the King in the Month of OHober. Upon this Occafion there was a vaft Confluence from all Parts of the Country to Edin' burgh; according to the Bifhop in his Memoirs, p. 24.

Multitudes of People from feveral Parts of the Land

“ fiock-

* Hift. Mot. p. 35.

( ® , )

“ flocked to EdiKhur^h, to join in lupplicatin^; and tkaf fo generally, that befides the Increal'e of Noblemen, “ who had not been formerly there, there were few or “ no Shires on the South of the Grampian tiills from which came not Gentlemen, Burghers, Minifters and Commons.” But no favourable Anfwer was given to the Supplications that had been fent up to the King ; and a Proclamation was iffued forth, charging all the Suppli¬ cants to depart out of the Tov/n within Twenty four Hours under the Pain of Rebellion : As alfo, the Court of Seffion and the Privy Council were ordered within a a fet Time to remove from Edrnhurgh. But, notvvithftand- ing of the above Proclamation, the Petitioners continued in the Town, their Numbers did daily incrcafe, and by this Time all the Burghs except Aberdeen had declared themfelves againft the above Innovations in the Worfhip of God : And when the Petitioners faw that their formef Supplications were not regarded, and when they confide- red that theCaufe in which they had inrercfted themfelves was a publick and common Caufe, they refblved that they would ad: DO more in a feparate Capacity as hitherto they had done, but in a more unite and joint Capacity. And, about this Time, thefe Meetings were formed which were commonly called the tables) they confided of the Nobility, of the Gentlemen from the Shires, and of Ma- giftrates from the Burghs, and of Miniftcrs from all Corners of the Land. Thefe Meetings did nor aflume to them¬ felves any juridical Power, but were held for Confultation and mutual Advice, with refped to the proper Meafures that fhould be taken for the Redrefs of their prefent Grievances.

After the above Proclamations were made, a Petition was agreed upon to be given in to the Privy Council, containing a Complaint againft the Bifhops as Authors of the Liturgy and of the Book of Canons, as Renters of the Church, and Underminers of Religion, as Movers of Difeontent between the King and his Subjeds, and of Difeord between Subjed and Subjed : And, in regard the moft Part of the Bifhops were Members of the Privy Council, they not only craved that the above Charge a- gainft them might be pur to the Trial, but alfo they ftate them as Parties, and crave that they be not fuffered to fit any more as Judges until the Caufe is tried and decided according to Juftice The Latin Hiftorian reports,

* RfJl'Worth'i Colled.

that a va(^ Number of all Ranks fublbribcd the above Pe» ticion and Complaint, and that it was adhered to by all who had it at Heart to aflert the Liberties of the Church, and the Purity of Divine Worfliip, in Oppofition to the Tyranny of Bifhopsand Superftition Ij.

The Number of the Petitioners did daily increafe aC Edinburgh, and the Privy Council had none to fupport their Authority; all Scotland almoft being now engaged on the Side of the Petitioners, the Bifhops and their Ad¬ herents were become a defpicable Party : But, in regard it was judged inexpedient that fuch Numbers fhould con¬ tinue in Edinburgh, as alfo becaufe the Council were of¬ fended at fuch numerous Meetings, therefore it was agreed betwixt the Privy Council and the Petitioners, that fome few Hiould be chofen by the Petitioners themfelves out of their own Number, to remain at Edinburgh, there to attend upon an Anfwer to their (cveral Petitions, Suppli¬ cations and Complaints. In Confequence of this Agree¬ ment and Rciblution, the Nobility chofe four out of their Number ; the Shires, the Burghs and the Minifters did in like Manner each of them choole four to remain at Edin^ burgh for the End above-mentioned, as alfo to give Intel¬ ligence through the Country as fhould be found necefl’ary from Time to Time. I judge it not improper that I here narrate what is reported by the Latin Hijiorian 4^, i>iz. Thar, before they parted from Edinburgh, “ they came “ under folemn Promifes and Engagements each of them “ for perfonal Reformation, as alfo that they would be

infiant in Faffing and Prayer, that the Lord would turn “ away his Anger from his People, and that he would be “ gracioufly pleafed to turn the Heart of the King to “ fuch Counfels as might be for the Glory of God, the

Honour of the Crown, and the Peace and Safety of his “ Subjefts,”

The Privy Council informed the King concerning the Petition and Complaint againft the Bifhops; and, by an Exprefs fent down in the Beginning of December, the King difeharges the Council to meddle any more in that Mat¬ ter: Whereupon, the Deputies from the Petitioners refbl- ved upon a Proreftation to be given in to the Council, bearing that they had tried all peaceable Mcafures without Succefs, and that it might be warrantable for them to ufe their Endeavours for the Prefervation of the Liberties of

G g ths

11 Hift. Mot. p. 35. ^ p. 38.

( *54 )„ ,

the Church ; as alfo, declaring, that if any Tumult arofe, thro’ their Profecution of the Caufe, the Council only might be blamed, as refufing Juftice. When the Privy Council heard of the above Protellation, they agreed to give the Deputies a Hearing, and in the mean Time adviie the Bilhops to withdraw from the Council.

The Privy Council being met at Dalkeith on 2ift of December^ the Deputies from the fevcral Petitioners com¬ peared before them : And that religious and truly noble Patriot, the Lord Lowdoriy did, in a very eloquent Speech, juftify the Proceedings of the Petitioners, and infifted that the Bifhops might be tried according to Law and Juftice, and offered to prove them guilty of grievous Crimes, in name of the faid Petitioners, under their high- eft Peril ; he likewife obtefted the Privy Council, that without further Delay they would evidence to the whole Nation their Regard to Juftice and the Purity of Religi¬ on. The Speech of this noble Lord is followed by ano¬ ther from one of the Minifters, who put them in Mind of the Curfe that is pronounced upon MeroZy if they fhould withdraw their helping Hand from the Church in her prefent Situation ; as alfo, that the Lord hath laid. Him that honoureth me I ‘Will honour, and tbofe that defpife me /halt he lightly efteemed: He likewife told them, That, •if in this perillous Time they Ihould hold their Peace, Deliverance and Enlargement would come to the Church from Ibme other Airth. The Latin Hiftorian adds That the Minifter infifted upon the above Places of Scrip¬ ture, and applied them in fuch a pathetick Manner, as drew Tears from feveral Members of Council. The An- fwer which the Privy Council gave to the laid Deputies or Commiflioners was. That they were bound up by the King’s exprefs Orders from mecidling in thefe Matters ; and they likewife exprelTed their Grief and Sorrow that they could not fatisfy the Defires of the Petitioners, and therefore told them to w'ait yet patiently for a fhort Time, till they fhould again inform the King about the prefent Pofture of Affairs. Accordingly the Privy Council wrote unto the King; and the King fent for the Earl of 7ra- ^uair, that he might have a more particular Information from him concerning the State of Matters in Scotland.

In the Month of February 1658 the Earl of Iraquair returned from Court, and he went to Stirling, where the Privy Council was fitting, where a Proclamation was pu-

blifhcd

f Hift. Mot. p. 40r

, ( *35 )

bliHied in the King’s Name, wherein the King owned the Liturgy and the Book of Canons, and declared they were nor contrary to the Laws of the Land; as alfo, that the Liturgy was a ready Mean to maintain the true Religion already profefled ; Likewife, the faid Proclamation con¬ demned the Meetings of the Supplicants as Confpiracies contrary to the Laws of the Land, and difeharged all fuch Meetings of the Subjefts to be held either in Stirlings or in any other Burgh where the Privy Council or Court of SefTioJi fhould fir. The Petitioners prepared a Prote- ftation againft the above Proclamation, which was read by the Karl of Home and Lord Lindfay^ accompanied with a great Croud of Nobles and People, and affixed on the Croft of Stirling', and Inftruments were taken thereupon in the Hands of a publick Notar *. In the faid Proteftation, they protefted againft the Books of Liturgy and Canons, as manifeft Innovations, and full of Errors and Superfti- tion ; and likewife againft the Privy Council’s refufing to receive Libels againft the Bifhops : They protefted like- wife againft the High Commiffion Court, as a Court ob¬ truded on Scotland contrary to the fundamental Laws of the Land ; as alfo, that the Bifhops fhould not be Judges in their own Caufe: And they further protefted, that their Meetings and Supplications were lawful and warrantable, being only intended againft the Tyranny of the Bifhops, and for the juft Rights and Liberties of the Church, and againft the Novations lately obtruded upon her; and there¬ fore, that it fhould be warrantable for them to continue thefe Meetings for the above Ends and Purpofes. And finally, they protefted, that they could not with a good Confcicnce forbear the faid Meetings, unlefs they fhould wrong the Glory of God, and betray the Honour of the King, and the Liberties of Church and Kingdom.

The Deputies at Edinburgh had fent Intelligence unto the Petitioners through the Nation, concerning the prefenc State of Matters: And,' upon this Occafion, a great Num¬ ber of Noblemen, Gentlemen, Minifters and others con- veen at Stirling ; according to Bifliop Guthrie in his d/e- mcirsy they w'ere reckoned above Two thoufand in Num¬ ber. They refblved, upon the above Proclamation that was made dilcharging them to continue in Stirling under Pain of Rebellion, to depart peaceably to Edinburgh. And here I muft inform the Reader, that they began now to teftify in a more plain and more folcmn Manner for the

G g 2 Li-

Rapine's Hift. Vol, 2. p. 302. Folio.

I

( 1^6 )

Liberties of the Church of Stotlandf and our Reformation- purity. The Proclamation that I have mentioned bad a quite contrary EfLdt to what was intended and defigned by the King and the Prelatick Party: It iffned in a pu- blick Acknowledgment of their Breach of Covenant, and in the Return of all Ranks of Pcrfons through the Land unto the Lord, by the Renovation of their folemn Natio¬ nal Engagements ; and this was done, both with deep Mourning, and with great Joy. I fhall here tranfcribe what the feveral Writers 1 have before me report upon this extraordinary Occafion.

The Paper I have formerly mentioned, intituled, A Jhort Relation of the State of the Kiik of Scotland, publifhed Anno 1658, narrates, That “ the whole Nobility, Gentry, “ Boroughs, Minifters and Commons, who had now lb often fupplicate, and fo long attended, were caft into ‘‘ great Difficulties ; confidering their Religion, fo well “ warranted by God’s Word, and eftabliffied by the Laws of the Kirk and Kingdom, was now' begun to be changed, “ both in Doctrine and Difeipline, at the PJeafurc of the “ Fourteen Bifliops, and the Liberties of the Country like to be infringed by their Ufurpation; and, having com- “ plained often upon them to his Majefty by his Council, were anfwered by the former Declaration, viz. at Sth~

“ ling,- - All thefc did move the Supplicants to bethink

the renewing of the National Covenant of this Kirk and “ Kitigdom (the Breach whereof hath been a fpecial “ Caufe to bring thele Evils upon them) as a good Mean “ for obtaining the Lord’s wonted Favour, having many “ Examples in holy Scripture, that the People of God “ have happily renewed their Covenant with God.” The ApoJo^etick Relation^ p. 47. reports, Thar, being “ com- “ manded to depart forth of the Town of Stirlings they go together towards Edinburgh) and there, after ferious Thoughts, they find the main procuring Caule of all “ thele Calamities to be the Violation of the National Co- “ venanr, ai d therefore they unanimoufly refolved to re- “ new that Covenant. ” The Latin Hiftofian reports f, “ That a numerous Company went from Stirling to Edin- “ burgh, adverdfing their AlTociates, that they fhould come quickly thither, in order to deliberate on fuch Things as might make for their common Safety : And when “ they called to Mind, that the chief Caufe of all their Calamities, both of old and of late, was the Breach of

“ the

t Hift. Mot. p. 45.

“ the National Covenant that had been made with God, “ they unanimoufly conclude upon a folemn Rcnovatioa “ of the fame.”

But the Account that is given by the Church of Scot* in their Letter to the Churches of Helvetia in the Year 1640, concerning this important Matter, deferves to be noticed. This excellent Letter contains a fuccinft Account of the State of the Church of Scotland from her Reformation till the Year 1640 ; and, concerning this re¬ markable Turn in the Year 1638, they exprefs- them- felves in the following Manner: “ For when, by the “ King’s Proclamation, Minifters and People were caft “ into fuch Straits, that they -were forced either to ly un- “ der the Charge of Rebellion, or to embrace that Litur- gy, contrary to the Oath, Faith, and Laws of Church “ and Country ; it came to pafs, that the Eftates of the Kingdom, whofe Patience was for along Time benum- ** med in bearing with the Bifhops, being awakned with “ the News of this Liturgy, did take Counfel concerning; “ extirpating Corruptions, and refforing their antient “ Purity. Therefore they infilled by many Suplications, intreating, belceching, and exhorting his moft Serene Highnefs the and his honourable Council^ that

“ they would fuccour the afflidted Church, and call the “ Bifhops to an Account, who were the Authors of fo “ great Mifehiefs : But while they perceived that no Re- “ drefs was given them, and that no Anfwer was retur- “ ned unto their Petitions, and that their Demands were “ nor regarded, they entred more deep tivitbin their own “ Breafts^ fearching into the Recejfes of their Souls', and the Remembrance of their Breach of Covenant did flings wound and pierce through their Confciences : Wherefore,, being moved with ferious Repentance, they refolved to re- new their Covenant or National Confejfion, which was at frfl figned with all their Hands, ( vix.. of the General “ Meetings or Eftates of the Kingdom; ) then, a folemn Fajl being appointed, it was puhlickly ratified in the Chur- “ ches, by (wearing with their ripjot Hands lifted up, with deep Grones and Fears ||. ” Here the Reader may fee the Eftates of the Kingdom ordines regni, fb they are defigned in the Letter, as alfo the whole Nation, under ftrong Conviftions and deep Sorrow and Mourning. What was the Ground and Reafon of all this Sorrow and Mour¬ ning ? It was even their Breach of Covenant. Bur,

where-

11 Hift Mot. ad fioj

( 238 )

ivherein were they guilty of Breach of Covenant? They had never fubmittcd to the Liturgy, nor to the Book of Canons, they had always oppofed them, and teftified againft them; Therefore this Sorrow for the Breach of their Covenant was on Account of the Courfe of Defection that had been carried on for above thirty Years bypaft, by the rearing up of Prelacy, and by the five Articles of

Perthy and what Compliances there had been with the fame

When the Petitioners had met at EMnhurghy and bad rcfolved to renew the Covenant as is above declared ; the Covenant, as it was framed by the General Meetings, con- three Parts. They firft inferted the National ConrelTion of Faith without any Alteration, as it was com- fworn in the Year 1580 by the King and his Houfhold, and thereafter by Perfons of all Ranks in the Year 1581, according to an Ordinance of the Privy Council, and an Adt of the General AfTembly; and again by all Sorts of Perfons in the Year 1590 Immediately after the above National Confeflion, the General Meetings did infert a great many Afts of Parlia- of the reformed Religion, in Dodtrine, Worfhip and Difcipline : Thefe Adts of Parliament were infert at ^at Time by the Meetings at Edinburgh, to jufti- ly their Proceedings before the World , and to fhew, that they were not adting contrary to the laudable Laws of the Land, but that they had Law on their Side, even tho* the Court was oppofing their prefent Proceedings. And here I rouft obferve, that it is a Miftake that many are un¬ der, when they affirm. That the feveral Adis of Parliament mentioned are a Part of the Oath of the Covenant; for all that IS mtended by them is to prove the legal V\'arrant t at the Covenanters had for their prefent Proceedings. As the King’s Coronaticn-oath is infert among the reft, lo u would be ridiculous to fay that the Subiedfs fwore the Coronation-oath.

After the above Adfs of Parliament, inftead of the ge- ^ral Bond which was fubjoined to the Covenant in the year 1590, the Meetings at Edinburgh Bond,

whereby the National Confejfton of Faith or Covenant is ac¬ commodated to their Circumftances at that Time. This was done after the Example of their worthy and religious Progenitors, who in the faid i 590 had figned the Cove¬ nant, w ith a Bondagrcc-dbkto their Situation and Circum- nances in the forefaid Year. In the Bend that was agreed

upon

( 239 )

upon in the Year 1658, they condemn the Innovation!? and Kvils contained and particularly mentioned in their late Supplications, Complaints and Proteftations ; as having no Warrant of the Word of God, and alfo as contrary to the Articles both of the large ConfelTion of Faith, and of the National Confefiion or Covenant. With refpeft to the Innovations in the Worfhip of God, •viz. by the five Ar¬ ticles of Perth, and the Corruption of the publick Govern¬ ment of the Kirk, and the Civil Places and Power of Kirkmen, they bind themfelves to forbear the Praftice of all fuch Novations, till they be tried and allowed in free Aflemblies and in Parliaments. And they further en¬ gage “ to labour, by all Means lawful, to recover the Pu- “ rity and Liberty of the Gofpel, as it was eftablifiied and “ profeffed before the forefaid Novations.” ’Tis plain, that, by the above Words of the Bond^ the five Articles of Perth, the Government of the Kirk by Bifhops, QPc* are virtually condemned ; in regard they are called Nova¬ tions, and under the forefaid Novations that Purity and Liberty of the Gofpel, as it was formerly eftablifhed and profelTed, was wanting. But yet the General Meetings do not exprefly condemn the above Novations as contrary to the Confeflion of Faith, but refer the Queftion to the De» termination of a free and lawful General Aflembly ; in re¬ gard feverals doubted if the Novations mentioned were contrary to our National Confeflion of Faith : And as the General Meetings did not aft in a judicative Capacity, £b they thought it proper to refer the Queftion to the De¬ termination of an Aflembly, efpecially when they had now the Hopes of having fuch a free and lawful Aflembly, to whom they might fafely refer a Queftion of this Na¬ ture. But it is here to be noticed, that fuch as were in the Dark upon this Queftion, were willing tofubmit the fame to the Trial and Determination of a free and lawful Aflem¬ bly ; and hereby they likewife declared themfelves wil¬ ling to ly open unto Light upon the above importan tQue- ftion. The Latin Hiftorian * mentions them as a confi- derable Number, who either reckoned the aforefaid No¬ vations indift'erent, or who doubted if they were condem¬ ned by our National Confeflion of Faith : But, as that learned Author was the only Member of the Aflembly at Glafgow who did hefitate when the Queftions were deter¬ mined concerning the Government of the Kirk by Bifhops, and the five Articles of Perth', Co he feems to magnify the

Num-

f Hift. Mot. p.

( 240 )

Numbers, as Is evident from what is already obferved con¬ cerning the Proceedings of the General Meetings, and may yet more fully appear from what I am further to offer upon what paft this Year,

Befides what concerned the above-mentioned Novations, the Bond fubjoined to the Covenant contains a qualified Allegiance to the King, viz. an Engagement, to “ fiand “ to the Defence of our dread Sovereign the King’s Ma- “ jefty his Perfon and Authority, in the Defence and Pre- fervation of the forefaid true Religion, Liberties and “ Laws of the Kingdom As alfo, they bind themfelves to the mutual Defence and Afllftance one of another, in the fame Caufe of maintaining the true Religion and his Majefty’s Authority. They likewife “ fwear, by the great Name of the Lord their God, to continue in the Pro- “ fefiion and Obedience of the forefaid Religion; and “ that they fhall defend the fame, and refift all the con- “ trary Errors and Corruptions fpecified, according to “ their Vocation, and to the utmoft of that Power that “ God hath put in their Hands, all the Days of their Life.” In like Manner, they bind themfelves to a Life and Con- verfation as befeemeth Chriftians who have renewed their Covenant with God ; and that both in pubfick, and in their particular Families andperfonal Carriage, they fhall endeavour to keep themfelves within the Bounds of their Chriftian Liberty ; and alfo to be good Examples to o- thers, of all Godlinels, Sobernefs and Righteoufhefs, and of every Duty to God and Man.

As the above is the Sum and Subftance of the Bond which the General Meetings at Edinburgh fubjoined, fo the Covenant with the faid Bond was fworn with great Solem¬ nity on the firftof March 1658, in the Gray~friarsQ\\UTch of Edinburgh. The Flower of the Nation were prefent ; this fblemn Meeting confifted of the Nobility, of the Ba¬ rons and Gentlemen from the feveral Shires, of Burgefles from the Burghs, with Minifters and others ; and thereaf¬ ter Copies of the Covenant were fent through the whole Nation, According to the Hiflorian *, it was fworn through the whole Land before the End of Afril^ except by F«/>;^j,who were then but a very inconfiderable Party ; as alfo excepting fuch who were addifted to the Enghjb Ceremonies, and w ho favoured the Book of Canons and Liturgy, amongft w hom he reckons the Aberdeen Dodtors and Minifters : He mentions alfo others who at their En¬ trance

* Hift, Mot. p. 60.

( 241 )

tfaiice into the Miniftry had engaged to the OhlervanCe of the Articles of Perth. But the Apologetical Relation re-* ports, p, 48. “ Thai in a fliort Time few in all the Land “ did refufc, except fome Papifis^ fome afpiring Courtiers “ who had no Will to difpleafe the King, fome who were “ addifted unto the Englijb Rites and Ceremonies, and “ fome fevj Minifters who had fworn the Oath at their Entry appointed by the Parliament Anr.o 1612.” Mn Rapine informs us t» “ That the Innovations introduced “ into the Church for thirty or forty Years part, were difapproven by almoft the whole Kingdom/’ And, ha¬ ving infcrt the above-mentioned Bond, he adds, “ This Covenant, like an Alarm-bell, brought all the Scots to** “ gether that were diflfatisfied with the Government, that “ is, almoft the whole Nation ! It was fubfcribed by the great Men and the People, except the Privy Coun- fellers, the Judges, the Bifhops, and fuch Minifters as were Dignitaries in the Church/’

I have already given an Account, from the Letter to the Churches in Helvetia^ after what Manner the Covenant was fworn at this Time, Tho* the faidTeftimony is fuffici- ent, yet I ftiall fubjoin a few mo, who take notice, noC only of Mourning, but alfo of great Joy through the Land upon this folemn Occafion, with great Readinefs and Wil- lingnefs in coming under the Oath of God.

The firjl I Ihall mention is Bifhop Guthrie in his Me* moirs, p. 50, where he tells us, That ‘‘upon thefirftof “ March 1638, they being all aflembled in the Gray-friars ** Church and Church-yard, the Covenant was publickly “ read, and fubfcribed by them all with much Joy and Shouting. He addsfVhQ Archbifhop of 'St. Andrews being “ then return’d from Stirling to Edinburgh, when he heard “ what was done, laid, Elow all that we have been doing “ thefe thirty Tears pafl is thrown down at once."

The Apologetick Relation, p. 48, informs us, “ That “ the Covenant, being read in the Churches, was heartily “ embraced and fworn, and fubfcribed with Tears, and “ great Joy.” “ He adds^ Great was this Day of the. “ Lord’s Power ; for much Willingnefs and Cheerfuincfa “ was among the People.” Likewife, Matters Alexander Henderfon and David Dickfon, in their firft Anfwer to the Replies of the Aberdeen Doctors and Minifters, fay, “ And “ for that which difpleafeth you. in our Way, that wc “ deal after fuch a Manner with People to come in {viz. to

H h the

f Hift. Vol. 1, Fol. p. 303.

( Hi )

the Covenant): We anfwcr, That we have feen in this “ Land the D.ty of the Lord's Po’iver^ wherein his People “ have moft willingly offered rhemfelves in Multitudes, like the Dew of the Morning : That others of no fmall Note “ have offered their Sishfcripthns, and have been refuted,

“ till Time fhould try that they join in Sincerity; from “ Love to the Carsfe, and not from the Fear of Men :

‘‘ And that no ^kreafnint’s have been ufed, except of the “ deferved Judgment of God ; nor Force, except the ** Force of Reafon, from the high Refpefts which we owe “ to ReligioTt^ to onrKiftg, to our native Country, to our- felves, and to the Pofterity ; which hath been to fome a greater Conftraint than any external Violence, and we i v/ilh may alfo prevail with you.” And from the fore- i ftid Anfwers we may alfo fee, that this fblemn Work was carried on w ith Farting and Edumiliation through the Land ;

In the firrt and Eleventh Anfwers ’tis faid,That the Aber¬ deen Minirters declined to concur with the reft of the Kirks oi the Kingdom in publick fJumiliatioH and Farting.

I fhall only add the Teftimony of that eminent Minirter, Mr. Livin^fion, who in his Life writ by himfelf, p. 22. reports, ‘‘ I was prefent at Lanark^ and at fever al other “ Parifhes, when, on a Sabbath after the Forenoon’s Ser- •* nion, the Covenant was read and fworn ; and may tru- “ ly fay, that in all my Lifetime, except one Day at the Ktrk of Shots, I never faw fuch Motions from the Spirit “ of God ; all the People generally, and moft willingly concurring : I have feen more than a Thoufand Perfons “ all at once lifting up their Hands, and the Tears falling “ down from their Eyes ; fb that through the whole Land,

** except the profeffed Papi/fs, and fome few who for bafe “ Ends adhered to the Prelates, the People univerfally entred into the Covenant of God, for Reformation of Religion, againft Prelates and the Ceremonies,"

Reader, ftop here, and behold the Nobility, the Barons, the Burghers, the Minirters and Commons of all Sorts in Scotland, all in Tears for their Breach of Covenant, and for 4heir Backfliding and Defection from the Lord, and at the fame Time returning with great Joy unto their God, by fwearing cheerfully and willingly to be the Lord’s. It may well be faid of this Day, Great was the Day of JeZ' reel: It was a Day wherein the Arm of the Lord was revealed, a Day wherein the Princes of the People were aflembled, to fwear F?alry and Allegiance to that great King whole Name is the Lord of Hofisx It was the Day

^ ^43 . ) ,

of the Redeemer’s Power, wherein his Volunteers flowed imto him ; even the Day wherein his Youth were like the Dew from the Womb of the Morning. If we compare our prefent Times with the above Day of the right Band of the moft High, may we not take up a Lamentation o- ver our Land, and cry, Ah Scotlandy ScotJmdy how is thy. Gold become dim ! how is thy mofl fine Gold changed! Where is that Zical for the Redeemer’s Honour and Glory, that was once warm in the Breads of thy Nobility, thy Barons,, thy Minifters and Commons? Where is that heroick Cou¬ rage and Refolution for the Caufe of Chrift, as well aa for the Liberties of the Nation, that did at this Time a- nimare all Ranks of Perfbns through the Land? Where art thou now ? Ah ! how much funk in great Degeneracy and Defedlion from the Lord ! Can thefe dry Bones in Scotland live ? The Lord only knoweth, the Refidue of the Spirit is with him. It becomes us to acknowledge that we have finned, and that we have dealt treacheroufly in his Cove- vant, and that he is righteous and holy in reffraining his Spirit from us ; it is likewife our Duty to wait upon thi^ Lcrdy who hideth his Face from the Houfe of Jacob.

The Town of Aberdeen was the only Place of any Cenfideration in Scotland that declined to join in the Cove-n nant, being very much under the Influence of their Mini¬ fters, who all adhered to the Prelatick Intereft : Therefora tite General Meetings at Edinburgh fent Mafters Alexander* Ilenderfon^ David Dickfon and Andrew Cant to that Town^ to deal with Minifters and People in a brotherly and friend¬ ly Manner, to join with the Church and Kingdom in the Covenant lately fworn. And when the faid Minifters came to Aberdeen^ as they report in the Preface to their Anfwers to the Aberdeen Doctors and Minifters, they were altogether refufed the Pulpits and Kirks ; and there¬ fore they preached in a convenient Place for two Sabbaths, and delivered their Mcflage in the Audience of many, and they found that their Labour was not in vain in the Lord : “ For, fay they^ diverle Perfbns, of fjjecial Note “ both for Place and Wifdom, with willing Heart and

great Readinefs of Mind, did publickly put their Hands “ to the Covenant.”

The King being informed of the Proceedings at Edin- lurgb, and of the Renovation of the National Covenant through the Land, he fent down the Marc^uis of Hamiltoun as his High Cornmiffioner to Scotland. The Marc^uis was sovcfted with this eminent Charafter, as Mr. Rapine re-

H h 2 poics

f 444 )

ports becaufe the King irtiagined he would hy hCs ‘ Credit and Induftry reduce the People of Scotland to his “ Obedience, without giving them any real Satisfad:ion, being ftilj very unwilling to defift from his Projects.” When the Marqms came down to Scotland, he demanded, that they fhould deliver up and renounce their fubferibed Covenant : This they all honcilly and boldly refufed to do. Then the Marquis demanded, What might be ex¬ pected from them for returning to their former Obedience lo the King? They replied, That they could not return to his Majefty’s Obedience, in regard they had never de¬ parted from it ; and in the mean Time they infilled for 3 free Affembly and Parliament.

When the Marquis could not prevail upon the General Meetings to give up with their fublcribed Covenant, he did, before he returned to Court, publifh a Declaration from the King, bearing Date at Qreennvich the zSth of June this *Vear : This Declaration was defigned more to amufe than to give any re^l Satisf^Clion. By it, the Proceedings of the Meetings at Edinburgh are condemned, under the Name of Diforders and great Diforders ; and the King’s IMind with refpeCt lo the Book of Canons, the Liturgy and High Commifiion Court, is declared in very doubtful and general Terms. Upon the publifhing of the above Declaration, a Proteflation is read againfl it at the Crofs of Edinburgh, in the Name of the Noblemen, Barons, &'c. I find, from a Copy of this Protdlation before me printed in the Year 1638, that Inflruments were taken ihcreupon in the Hands of three Notars, by the Earl of Cajpls in Name of the Noblemen, by Mr. Giffon of Dury jn Name of the Barons, by the Provoll of Dundee in Name of the Burrows, and by Mr Kerat Salt- P re fi gun in Name pf the Minillcrs, and by Mr. jlrchibald Johnson (after¬ wards Lord Wanjoun') in Name of all who adhered to che Confeliion of Faith and Covenant, lately renewed within this Kingdom, In the above Protdlation, after feyeral weighty Grounds and Reafons laid down againfl the King’s Declaration, they declare their Adherence to the Whole of our Reformation, notwithftanding of any Inno¬ vations introduced, cither of old or of late-. As alfb their Adherence to the Grievances, Supplications, and Protefta- tions given in at AlTemhIies and Parliaments; and to their late Complaints, Supplications, Protdlations, P^c. And likswife their hearty Adherence to their Oath ^nd Subferip-

ticq

fliH. VqI I. p. |P2»

( HS )

tion of tlie Confeflton of Faith, the Solemn Covenant bel tween God and this Church and Kingdom ; And, in like Manner, they juffify all their former Proceedings, and pro- left againft any Alitor Deed of rhe Privy Council, carry¬ ing an Approbation of the King’s Declaration, as unjuft, illegal and null ; and offer to fubmit their Caufe to the firft free General Aflembly of the Church, and Parliament of the Eftates. The curious Reader may fee this Pro- teftation, at full Length, together with the King’s Decla¬ ration in Rufhworth's Colle^fions for the Year 1638.

After the Return of the Marquis of Hamihoun to the Court, folemn Fafts were obferved through Scotland on Account of the prefent State and Situation of Affairs, and efpecially upon thefe Days wherein the King’s Cabinet Council at London met upon the Affairs of Scotland In the mean Time, the General Meetings^ fearing Delays, agreed to publifh a Paper, intituled, Reaforis for a Gene^ ral JJfernhly ; wherein they prove the Neceflity of a (7^- neral Jffemhly, from the prefent Stare of the Church of Scotland', and that this is one of the Rights and Privileges that belongs to rhe Church, from the Word of God, to hold fuch Affemblies ; as alfo, that the Church of Scot-^ land L warranted to hold her General Affemblies, by fuch Laws of the Land as had never been repealed. And they likewile argue. That when the Chriftian Magiftrate either forbiddeth, or in the urgent Neceffities of the Church forbeareth to conveen Affemblies; thar,in thisCafe, the Church is left to her own Liberty, and muft provide for her own Safety: And for this they give the following Reafbn, which deferves to be noticed; “ The great Wil- dom of Jefus Chrift, the King of the Kirk, hath pro- “ vided fumcient Supplies for all her Neceffities, and fit- “ ting Remedies for all her Evils, of which there be ‘‘ many that cannot be helped without General Affem- blies; and therefore, not only the Chriftian Prince, but the Paftors of the Kirk, efpecially when the In- diftion cannot be obtained of the Prince, are bound, “ as they will anfwer to Chrift, to provide that the Ec- “ clefiaftiek Republick receive no Detriment, and to efteem the Safety of the Kirk to be the fupreme Law’. ” The above Paper is Ihort, but very nervous and ftrong; and about this Time the General Meetings came to a Re- folution, that in cafe the King fhould refufe or delay to

call

f Hift. Mot. p. jQ.

( )

call a General Affembly, that they would fall upon the moft proper Meafures themfelves, for conveening a free National Afl'embly of the Church of Scotland.

The Marquis of Hamiltoun returned again to Scotland about the 12th of Jugufi^ and propofed from the King the granting of an Affembly, but upon fuch Conditions as had an evident Tendency to difapf)oint the Defign of a free General Aflembly. Mr. Rapine reports *, “ That “ the high Commiffioner perceiving he had to deal with “ Men who were upon their Guard, and that it would “ be difficult to furprife them, refblved to take a fecond “ Journey to England, to inform the King of the State of Affairs. By putting the Maheontents (^as Rapine thinks Jit to call our Covenanters') in Hopes the King would grant fuch a General Alfcmbly as they defired, he ob- “ tained with great Difficulty, that the Eleftion of “ CommifTioners Ihould be delayed till his Return, which “ was fixed to the 21ft of September.” Likewife the “ Latin Hiftorian reports j|, That it was with great Dif¬ ficulty that many agreed to the Delay, on account of the

f)relcnt Neceffity of a General Affembly : But it was at ength concluded, that, if the Marquis did not return againft the 22d of September, they fhouM proceed in the Election of Commiflioners for a General Affembly.

The Marquis returned from London before the Day ap¬ pointed ; and, on the 22d of September, a Proclamation was made for a General Afl'embly to be held and kept at Glafgow upon the 2 iff of November, as alfo another Proclamation for a Parliament to meet at Edinburgh on the 15th of May 1659 : Together with the above Proclama¬ tions an Aft of Privy Council was publifhed, comman¬ ding all to flgn the National Covenant or ConfeATion of Faith, with the general Bond lubjoined Jnno 1589. But the General Meetings at Edinburgh perceiving, that, by the above Proclamation for an Aflembly, a free General Aflembly was not intended, for this Reafon amongft o- thers, becaufc Archbifliops and Bifhops, as well as other Commiflioners, were warned to repair to the faid Affem- bly as Members thereof ; Alfo, they perceiving that by the Aft of the Privy Council, appointing the Covenant to he fworn and fubferibed with the Bond annexed Mnna J589, the Covenant as it was lately fworn, with the Bond wliich the faid Meetings had fubjoin’d thereto, was upi- on the Matter condemned ; Therefore they prepare a

Pro-

* Vol.i. p. 306. II Hift. Mot. p. 72.

( 247 ■)

Proteftation, ■which was read ar rhe Crofs of Ed'mhtYph^ immediately after the above Proclamations, in the midft of many Noblemen, Barons, Gentlemen, &c. adhering to the fame.

The above Proteftation is long, and well drawn. They firft give Thanks unto the King for indidting a General AflTembly, and declare their Refolurion to hold the Af- fembly at the Time appointed ; then they pray, that the Lord may inlarge the King s Heart, to give full Satisfa- ftion to all their Grieves and Complaints : After this, they declare the Reafons that moved them to this Proteftation, and amongft others, fay they, “ That Chrift our Lord,

“ the King of Kings, thro’ our Negleft or Lukewarm- “ nefs, may want no Parr of his Sovereignty and Domi*

“ nion; and that in our Religion, which is more dear unto *' us than our Lives, we deceive not ourielves with that

which cannot fari.^fy, Then they take Notice of

fome Things in the Preamble to the King’s Proclamation, as prejudicial to the Freedom of the intended Affembly ; and they proteft exprefly againft that Claufe in the Procla¬ mation, warning Archbifhops and Bifhops to be prefent as if they had Place and Voice there. They likewife proteft againft the Aft and Proclamation, commanding the Bond framed in the Year 1589 to be figned: Amongft other weighty Reafons, they obferve. That, by the fubferibing of the faid Bond, the Land would be involved in Perju¬ ry ; in regard it wodd be a Departing from their Tefti- mony lately given in the Bond that they had fworn and figned, whereby the National Covenant was accommodate to their preftnt Circumftances, and wherein the Liturgy and Book of Canons were exprefly condemned : They likewife obferve. That the Bond 1 5S9 was general, and nowife adapted to their prefent Circumlfances. And here they have fome beautiful Expreffions upon the Ufe and Defign of Confefltons of Faith, which well deferve a Room here, viz. ‘‘ What is the Ufe of March-ftones upon Bor- “ ders of Lands, the like Ufe hath Confejjions of Faith in “ the Kirk, to difterminate and divide betwixt Truth and “ Error ; and the renewing and applying of Confejjlons of “ Faith to the prefent Errors and Corruptions, are not un** “ like ridding of Marche.s : And therefore, to content “ ourfelves with the general, and to return to it, from the “ particular Application of the Confeffion, neceffarily “ made, upon the Invafion, or creeping-in of Errors ** within the Borders of the Kirk, if it be not a Removing

of

( 'h8 )

of the Mar^h-ftone from the own Place, it is at leaf! the ** Hiding of the March in the Ground that it be nor fcen, “ which at this Time were very unrcafonable, &£■. ” After the faid Proteftation was read by Mr, Archibald J^ohn~ fioTiy according to the printed Copy before me, Inftru- ments were taken thereupon in the Hands of three publick Notars, and an Extraft craved by the Earl of Montrofe in Name of the Noblemen, by Mr. Gihfon of Durie in Name of the Barons, by George Porterjield Burgefs of Glafgo<w in Name of the Boroughs, by Mr. Henry Rolfo Minilfer at Edinburgh in Name of the Minillers, and by the faid Mr. 'Johnjion in Name of all who adhered to the Confejfton of Faith and Covenant lately renewed within this Kingdom; and a Copy of the Proteftation was offered to the King’s Herald.

The Presbyteries did now proceed to the Eleffion of Commiflioners for the enfuing General Aftemhly ; and, according to the former Cuftom and Praftice of Eleftions for free and lawful General Aflemblies, Three or at leaft Two Minifters were chofen from every Presbytery, toge¬ ther with One Ruling Elder *. It is then a Miftake in the ingenuous Rapine f, who, following the Englijb fdifto- rians, writes, ‘‘ That the General Meetings entred into a “ Refolve, that the Ruling Elders fhould exceed the “ Number of Minifters at this Aflembly. ” The General Meetings did only advife the Presbyteries to obferve the laudable A6ts and Conftitutions of lawful Aftemblies in their Eledtion of Commiflioners. I find from the Latin Hiftorian ||, that the conftituent Members of the Aflembly ztGlafaow were 145 Minifters together with Profeflbrs from the Univerfitiesy and 95 Ruling Elders from the Presby¬ teries and Burghs. As the Burghs were very zealous at this Time, fo there is no Doubt of their being well con- veened at this Affembly : I find, from the Manufeript foiir- Tial, that 48 Burghs were prefenc by their Commiffioners; and confequently there were only 47 Elders from the feveral Presbyteries: Hence ’ris evident, that the Proportion of Elders to Minifters was not by far fo great at that Aflem¬ bly from the feveral Presbyteries, as it is for ordinary in our Aflemblies in the prefent Period,

The General Meetings came to aRefblution to libel and cite the Bifhops to the Aflembly at Glafgow. The Englijb Hiftorians give a very indiftint^ Account of the Manner of

citing

* Hift. Mot. p, 77. Guthrie's Memoirs^ P'3^* t Vol.i. p. 305. II Hift. Mot. p. 294.

( 249 )

clcinfi; tlie Blfliops ; Rapine, following the EneVp Plifiovtans^ writes, that they were all cited by the Presbytery of Edin- hur^h i But the following Method was taken; Several Noblemen, Barons, Gentlemen and Minifters, who were not CommifTioners to the General AfTembly, gave in Infor¬ mations againft the Birtiops, to the fevcral Presbyteries in which. rbcy had their Rcfidence; likewifc the faid Noble¬ men, &>c. rtatcd thetnfelvcs Purfucrs of the Bifliops; and the Presbyteries, taking the Matter into their Gonlidera- tion, referred the whole Caufe unto the General AfTem- bly, and in the mean Time agreed to cite the Bifhops to the faid AflTembly. Such of them as were in the Country had their Libels put into their Hands; but in regard the mod Part of them had fled the Country, and retired into England, the Libels were appointed to be read publickly on the Lord’s Day in the Churches, and they were cited from the Pulpits to the AlTembly that was to meet at G/^/- go'vt} : and, according to Rujhworth, the Libels were read in all the Cliurches of Scotland. In like Manner, leveral Presbyteries prepared Libels againfl: fuch Minifters as bad been fcandalous in their Walk, or who had vented Avmi- Tiian or Popiih Do(ftrines, or who had read the Liturgy ; and thefc were alfo cited to the General AfTembly *•

Upon this remarkable Turn of Affairs, M.v. Rutherfoord was liberate from his Confinement at Aberdeen, and was chofen a Member of the Aflembly at Glafgow : Likewife# feveral of the Prelatick Miniflers having left their Charges and retired into England, fome eminent Minifters, who had come over from Ireland, were immediately fettled in their Pariflies ; fuch as Mr. Blair, Mr. Livingjlone and others, who were alfo chofen Members of the faid ACf fembly.

The General Aflembly was opened at Glafgaw on the 21 ft of November. That great Man, Mr. Henderfon Mi- nifter at Leuchars, was chofen their Moderator, The Alarquis of Hamiltom prefented the King’s Commiflion, whereby he was appointed his Majefty’s Commiflloncr to that Aflembly, which was read, together with a Letter direfted to them from the King. The firft Six Seflions of the Aflembly there was nothing done, but the Choice of their Moderator and Clerk, and the examining of the Commifllons from the feveral Presbyteries and Burghs. The Commiffloner endeavoured to embarrafs them in all

I i thsir

* Hift.MoC. p. 78, 79, 80.

. ( ^5° ).

^heir Proceedings, and protelled againft every Step of the fame.

In the fixth Sefiion of the AfTembly, Doftor Hamilton^ as their Procurator, gave in a Proreftarion againft and De¬ clinature of the AlTembly, figned by Six of the Bifhops, to which a few Miniffers that were of their Party adhered. 'Xhis Declinature, with the Reafbns thereof, the Reader may fee in Rulhwortb’s Colleftions. I have not feen any Copy of the AfTembly’s Anfwers, but that which is in the Latin Hiftory, and there the curious Reader may find it.

At the following (eventh Sefllon, the AlTembly approved the Regifters of former free and lawful General AlTemblies fince the Reformation: Then they entred upon theConli- deration of the Bifhops ; and after Deliberation

on the fame, and feveral Reafons offered to take off any Thing in their Declinature that could be alledged to have any Force or Weight, the Queftion was ftated. Whether or nor, notwirhftanding of the faid Declinature and Pro- teftation, this AlTembly was a free, lawful and right-con- fiitute AlTembly ? And, when they were about to vote the laid Queftion, the King’s Commiflioner, after a long Speech, told them rhat he could not any longer, in a Con- fiftencv with his Duty to his Majier^ countenance them ; and therefore dilcharged them in the King’s Name to fit any longer, and declared that any Thing done in the Af- lembly fhould be of no Force, and fhould not bind any of his Majefty’s Subjefts. The Affembly knowing very '•well rhat the Commijftoner had a Defign to diflblve their .Meeting, a Proteftation was prepared and in Readinels againft this Event, which was now put into the Hands of the Clerk to be read ; and, while this Proteftation was reading, the Commiflioner removed: And the next Day, November 29th, a Proclamation was made over the Crols of GlafffoiVj inhibiting and difcharging the AlTembly, under the Pain of Treafbn, to continue their Meeting ; and alfo declaring all and whatfoever they fhould happen to do, to be null, and of no Force, Strength or Effeft. After the above Proclamation was made, the Proteftation which was read in the AlTembly, and which they had approven, was likewile read at the Croft of Glafgoiv in Name of the Church of Scotland^ and of all the Subferibers of the Co¬ venant. The Reader will find both the Proclamation, and the Aflembly’s Proteftation, in Rufi<wortb*s Collc<9:ions for this Year. I lhall only tranlcribe the Words with which

their

. . ^ *5^1 )

cheir Protcftation is begun, viz.. “ We Commiffioners from “ Presbyteries, Burghs and Univerfities, now conveened “ in a free and full Aflembly of the Church of Scotlandf “ indiffed by his Majefty, and gathered together in the “ Name of the Lord Jefus Chrijl^ the only Head and Mo- ** narch $f his own Church ; and we Noblemen, Barons, Subfcribers of the Confeflion of Faith, make ic “ known, &c." Likewife, by the King’s Orders a Pro¬ clamation is made at Edinburgh the i8th of December ^ con¬ demning the General Aflembly at Glafgow as an unlawful Meeting, and difcharging all the Subjefts, under the higheft Pains, to acknowledge, or give Obedience to the pretended Acts and Conftitutions of the Aflembly now met zt Glafgow \ declaring their prefent Meetings and A6ts to be illegal and unwarrantable, and prohibiting Sefiions, Presbyteries and Minifters, either publickly or privately, in Conferences, Sermons, or any other Way, to authorife, approve, juftify or allow the faid unlawful Meeting or Af. fembly at Glafgow^ &c. This Proclamation at Edinburgh is anfwered with a long Proteftation in Name of theAf- Icmbly, and in Name of the Noblemen, Gentlemen, Bo¬ roughs, Minifters and Commons, Subfcribers of the Cove¬ nant. The Proteftation has the fame Preamble with the former I have mentioned; and, in it, they juftify their Proceedings, and give a full Anfwer to all the Particulars alledged againft them in the King’s Proclamation ; they prove that they have Law on their Side in continuing to meet together, and take off the groundlefs Afperfions and Calumnies that were at this Time caft upon all their Pro¬ ceedings,

After the Commiflioner had removed, the Moderator, according to the Latin Hiftorian and the Journal did fpeak to the Aflembly in the following Manner ; “ All that are here, know how this AflTembly was indifted : And “ albeit we have acknowledged the Power of Chriftian Kings for conveening Aflemblies, and their Power in “ them ; yet that muft not derogate from Chrift’s Right ; for he hath given Warrant to convocate Aflemblies, whe- ther Magiftrates confent or not : Therefore, feeing we perceive Men to be zealous of their Mafters Commands, “ have not we as good Reafon to be zealous toward our “ Lord, and to maintain the Liberties and Privileges of “ his Kingdom ? You all know, that the Work in Hand hath had many Difltculties, and God hath born us through them alUo this Day ; therefore it bccometh not

J i 2 “us

( *5* )

“ US now to be difcouraged for any Thing that hath inter- vcen’d, hut rather to double our Courage, when we “ Teem to he deprived of human Authority.”

The Moderator, having thus fpoke to the Aflemhly, defired fome orher.v to fpeak : Whereupon Mr. D.tvid Dickfon rofe up, and faid, “Ye all underftand that the “ great Work now in Hand hath been carried on from “ fmall Beginnings; for at tlie firft we intended only to “ exoner ourre!ve.<-, and to leave a Teftimony to Pofteritjr “ that we bear Witnels to Chrift’s oppreiTed Caufe. We thought the Caufe defperate, when we were charged to ®‘ buy the Service- book.s under the Pain of Horning ; yet we gave in Supplications to the Council^ defiring them to hear us fpeak againfi: fuch Proceedings: And, when ** we knew nor what to do next, God hath led us on Step by Step, keeping us dill within the Compafs of h'.s Word, and Laws of this Kingdom, for any Thing we “ know; and we have only followed our Caufe, with humble Supplications to our King, and Protdfations a- gainft that which we could not obey : And it is evi- dent that God hath accepted our Teftimony, for his Hands are about us ftill ; for, if Iiis Eye had not di- re'^fed us, and his Hand had not guided us, we had long fince been confounded in our Wits, and could have done nothing for the Compafllng of this great Work more than young Children ; neither could we have continued in one Mind to this Day. He is now to ** crave a folemn Teftimony of the Kirk of Scotland^ and to ask of every Man, Who is his God ? And we have clearly reprefented unto us a LefTon of our Fidelity “ to our Lord and Maftcr, from my Lord Commi£loKer ; “ he hath ftood punftually to the Icart Jot of his Com- “ miffion, and it becometh us to be as zealous and loyal to our God. Therefore, feeing this Court is granted to us of God, under our King, and with his Allowance, and a Parliament indifted to warrant all the Conclu- fions of it ; and now', that he hath drawn back his gran- “ ted Warrant, Iball wc for this be difloyal to our God, and Aide from that which he hath granted? If we go not on, we ftiail prove Traitors both to God and to our King ; or, if we be filent and pafs from this AiTembly, “ how ftiall thc'A'ill of (jod be demonftrated to our King “ in Thing.s controverted ? There is not a Mean to inform our King fully and clearly, but the Determinations of tills Aflembly ; Therefor? wc muft now proceed, and

fo

( 2J3 )

fi proceed, as all our Proceedings mud anfwer for ‘‘ themfelves ; that it m.iy be Iccn that we have proceed- “ ed as good Subjefts to God and our King. We muft “ either go on, or take upon ns all the Imputations of “ Icandalous and turhulci/ Perlbns, and grant that there “ have been as many Wrongs as there have beenfalle Im- “ puratinns laid out againft us ; and this were ro fin more “ deeply, and to quit thefe glorious Privileges which “ Chrift hath granted unto us above all our Sifter Churches. “ Seeing there is not a Mean to clear ourleives before the “ Chriftian World but this, let us go on in putting over “ the Matter upon our Lord and Mafter, and he fhall “ anfwer for us at the Court of Heaven, and juftify us in “ the Eyes of all that are wife.” I have tranferibed the above Speeches as they ly in the Journal. There were fe- veral ocher Miuifters who likewife fpake to the fame Pur- pofe ; Thefe Speeches did put Life and Courage, not on¬ ly into the Members of AfTembiy, but alfo into a Multi¬ tude of Spectators that were prefent; amongft whom, as the Latin Hiftorian * and the Journal report, was Lord Ershne^ Son to the noble Earl of Marr^ then a Member of the Privy Council, who came into the Aflembly, “and “ with Tears belbaght that he might be admitted to fign the Covenant and Confe (lion ; He ingenuoufly confeffed, “ that his Confcience frequently checked him, as alfo ad- “ monifhed him, that with the nrft Opportunity hefhould join himfelf to fuch a good Caufe; and having hither- to neglected to do fo, faid he^ he perceived God was angry with him, and therefore defired their Prayers oa his Behalf to the Lord, that his Anger might be turned “ away from him.” Many others followed the Example of this noble Youth. The above Hiftorian adds, that “ the whole Aft'embly looked upon it as a certain Evi- “ dence of the Divine Countenance, that, when they were “ afraid that many fhould be intimidate and difeouraged, “ and that they iLouId turn their Back upon the Caufe, “ yet at this very Moment the Hearts of fbme were fo “ much confirmed, that being moved as it were of God, ‘‘ and defpifing all Dangers, they befought to be received “ into the Covenant.” Then the Moderator put the Qire- ftion, (according to tht Journal) Whether they would ad¬ here to the ProteftatiSn newly read, and continue, tho” the Aft'emhly was now difeharged 1 And the AfTembiy ail in on Voice, e.xcept Jix or declared folemnly,

that

* Hift. Mot. p. 110.

( 254 ;

that with all their Hearts they adhered unto their Protefta- tation ; and that they refolved tocondnue, rill this AfTem- bly (after the Icrrling of all Matters) be difloJved by the common Confcnt of the Members thereof. The fame Thing is alfb reported upon the Matter by the Latin Hi- ftorian. After this the Moderator pur the following Que- ftion, If, notwithftanding of the Bifhops Protcftation and Declinature, this Aflcmbly fhould hold themfelves lawful or competent Judges of the Bifhops ? According to the Latin Hiftorian, the Vote in the ^Affirmative was unani¬ mous; according to the Journal, three or four vote in the Negative.

The Earl of .^Argyll, who was afterwards Marquis, tho* he was a Member of Privy Council, and tho’ he was nor a Member of the Aflcmbly, continued to attend all the Scflions thereof ; and he exprefled his Defire to hear the Reafonings and Judgment of the Aflembly concerning Epifcopacy, and the five Articles of Perth : And, when the Aflembly determined that they were contrary to our Na¬ tional ConfefTion of Faith, he declared his Satisfaftion with, and Submiflion unto, their Determination. This noble Peer did here begin to diftinguifh himfelf, by a Concern for the Redeemer s Glory, and for his Spiritual Kingdom; and he continued ftedfaft unto the End, dying a Martyr for the Lord's Caufe and Teftimony which he now efpoufed. Likewife, in the eighth Seflion of the Afl- fembly feveral others of the Nobility exprefled themfelves after the fame Manner with the Earl of Jrgyll •, and up¬ on this Occafion, according to the JomnaX, the Modera¬ tor (aid, “ Tho’ we had not a Nobleman to afllft us, our ‘‘ Caufe were not the worfe nor the weaker ; but there “ is Occafion given us to blefsGod, that they are coming “ in daily in Throngs. ” The Noblemen, and others that were Purfuers of the Bifhop,s, infifled at this Seflion, that the Aflembly might proceed to try and Judge the Bi¬ fhops; and the Libel againft the Bifbop of Gallcxway was read, and delayed till another Seflion : And the Aflembly having difeufled the Prorefles againft the Bifhops in many Seflions, as the printed Ads bear, the moft of them were depofed and excommunicate ; four of them were depofed jimpheiter, and two of them from their pretended E- pifcopal Fundion, upon the Grounds and Reafons that are laid down in the printed Ad.s. In their twelfth Seflion^ the Aflembly find and declare the Aflemblies at Linlithgow j6o6 and 1608, at Glafgow 1610, at Aberdeen i6i6, at

St.

( 255

St. .-Andrews 1617, and at Perth 1618, upon the Grounds and Realons mentioned in tiieir printed Adts, to have been from the Begining unfree, unla wful and null Aflem- biies, and never to have had, nor hereafter to have any Ecclefiaftical Authority. In the thirteenth hellion, they condemn the Oaths exafted by the Prelates of Intrants into the holy Miniftry, as unlawful. In the fourteenth Sellion, the Service- hook., the Book of Canons and Ordination^ are all condemned by the AlTembly, as contrary to our Confeflion of Faith ; and the High Commijfton Co/o'# is de¬ clared to be unlawful in itfelf, and prejudicial unto the Liberties of Chrift’s Kingdom. In the fixteenth Seffion, the Aflembly moft unanimoufly, and with the Hehtation of one only, find and declare, that all Epifcopacy, diffe¬ rent from that of a Paftor over a particular Flock, was abjured by the Confeflion of Faith as it was fworn in the Years 15S0, and 1581, and 1590; and therefore, that it ought to be removed out of the Kirk. After this unani¬ mous Sentence was paffed, according to the fomnal, the Moderator had the following Speech, which deferves a Room here ; “ I think, fays he, there be none of us “ here, but have been oftentimes calling upon the Name “ of God in fecret and openly, that he, and he only who was able to do it, would have been pleafed to flay the “ Courfe of Defection that was going fo faft on ; and I “ think there be none of us that did not earneftly defire ** and wifh to have feen a Day to have taken it to Con- “ fideration, whether we had tranfgreffed the Covenant of “ God or not, in going on in a Courfe of Defedfion : “ And now he hath granted this Day wherein we may “ call all Matters to a Reckoning, which Day we much “ longed for ; and many a Time have I myfelf befbught “ God to flop this Courfe of Defedtion, and fo he hath “ done. Many are the Miferies, Burdens and Calamities “ that have been upon this poor Kirk thele Years by- “ gone; and wc were fcorned by others, that it was for “ the breaking of Covenant with God ; and we truft it “ fhall appear to the World when we are dead, that we “ have turned unto him, and renewed it again. It refts “ now that we be thankful unto our Lord for the fame. “ And I truft that there are none of us that are come “ here with an honeft Mind, but they would have bought “ this Day at a dear Rate, and given a dear Price for this “ Voting, which God hath done far beyond our Defer- “ ving or Expeftation. And our Adverfaries need not

«» to

( 2^6 )

** to fay that if was the Votes of a Number orGeiitlemen « and Klders that carried all away ; but, hleflcd be God, ** TT every one prefent here, with great

!' h-ive gone together without any Contra¬

diction ; which is a Matter of Admiration and Won- der, for the which we know not what we Hiall render It gracious Lord: Therefore we will not med-

die wuh^iy other Purpofe now, but go altogether. Thanks heartily to our Lord for this [Jarmo- Reader may fee the Moderator, who was the Mouth of this AfTembly, acknowledging in pa- t etick Teri^ their tranigrefltng the Covenant of the

I /!• a Courfe of Defection and

Backfliding from him, by the rearing up of Prelacy before the Year 1658.

In the i7thSefIion of this Aflembly, the five Articles Oi Perth arc declared to be abjured by the National Cove¬ nant, as It was fworn in the Tears 1 5S0 & 1 5po. This was aifo a particular Acknowledgment, that the Land was in¬ volved in Breach of Covenant, in fo far as the faid Articles

K with. In the zift SefTion,

the Ailembly reraembring that they fiand obliged, by

Onth and Covenant ivith Gody to return to the Joanne and Difcipline of this Kirk, reftore Kirk-feJJions, Provincial and National AfTemblies, to their Privileges, ^liberties, Pow'ers and Jurifdiaions, as they were confti-

D/feipline. In the 28th Seffion, the AfTemhly affert, That this National Church hath Z)i- •Vtnezs well as Ecclefiaftick and Civil Warrants, to con- veen in "cr yearly General Aflernblies, and oftner as Oc- cahon and Nec^ity fhall require. The Preamble to this ict mentions, That the AfTemhly having confidcred the Kcafons lately printed for holding General AfTemblifs (which I noticed above) rhefe Reafons are taken from the J-|ght of Nature, the Promife of Jefus Chrift, the Pra- Ctice of the holy Apoftles, the Dodrine and Cuftom of other reformed Kirks, &c. Here the Reader may notice, t at the oupr^acy, as it was claimed and exercifed at this iime by the Civil Powers, did mainly and chiefly refped the Kings foie Power of indiding General Aflernblies; there was notliing of that Power exercifed or claimed which was given unto the King in the Years iC6z and 1665, when It was declared,that the Ordering and Difpo- lai of the external Government and Policy of the Church doth properly belong to the King, as an inherent Right

f, '257 )

of the Crown, * The Reader may likewife ohferve, that the above Aft of Aflembly is direftly and exprcily laid againd the Supremacy, as it was claimed and exerci- Jed before the Year 1658; and conrequently, this Alfem- bly gave a free and faithful Teltimony, by their laid Aft, for the Rights and Privileges of the Kingdom of Chrift, againft the Supremacy as it was then claimed and exerci- led. The Afifcmbly in that fame Seffion give yet a further Tedimony for our covenanted Reformation, when they prohibirc and difeharge any of the Members of this Church to fwear or fubferihe our National Confeflion of Faith, according to the Senfe impofed upon it by the if/Ver, who had cauled publifli a Declaration, bearing, That he did nor intend nor defign by his Commands requiring the faid Confeflion robe ligned, with the Bond 1580 fubjoined, (which I have mentioned above) thereby to abjure, but to defend, Epifcopal Government ; this the Aflembly de¬ clared to be direftly repugnant to the genuine and true Meaning of the faid Confefiion, as it was profefled in the Years 1 5S0, &c. And by their Aft, Sefllon 26. they ap¬ point the Confeflion and Covenant fhould be afterwards fubferibed according to the Determination of the faid free and lawful General Aflembly at Glafgo<vu.

Befides the Procefles brought before this Aflembly a- gainll the Bifhops, there were alfo Procefles laid before them from Presbyteries againft feveral Minifters, either for reading the Liturgy, or for other fcandalous Praftices ; and many of them were depofed from the Miniftry, fuch as Doftor Hamilton Minifter at Glasfoord Procurator for the Bifhops, Doftor Panther Profeflbr of Divinity at Sf, uJndrewSy Mr. Mitchel Minifter at Edinlttrghy and Mr. Gladjiones at St. AndrevjSy with leveral others, as the Rea¬ der may fee from the Latin Hiftory. The lame Hiftorian Rkewife reports f, That, before Cenfure was paft upon the Teachers of Arminianifm and other corrupt Doftrine, Mr. David Dkkfon and Mr. Robert Baillie (and, accor¬ ding to the Jomnaly fome others) had learned Dilcourfes before the Aflembly upon the feveral Points of Armini- anifm, proving their Contrariety to the holy Scriptures and our received Doftrine. The AflTcmbly likewife give eight Commiflions to leveral Minifters, who were appoin¬ ted to meet at the Places named in the leveral Afts, for trying and judging Minifters or Profeflbrs in the Colleges

K k who

Char. 2. Pari. 2. Sell. 2>. Aft !• t liift. Mot. p.

( jj8 )

who were guilry of Error, or who had fubmitted to the Liturgy, and who refufed to fubmit to the A6ts and Con- ftitutions of chi') Aflembly, or who were orherwife I'canda- lous in their Practice. And, among the laft Things done by this Afl'embly, a fblemn Thankfgiving was appointed to be obferved through all the Churches in this Land, for the Succefs that the Lord had given unto them. There are two excellent Speeches at the Conclufion of this Af- lembly, the one by the Moderator, the other by Mr. David Dickfony wherein the Rile and Progrefs of this great Work of God are mentioned with Thankfultiefs to the Lord ; I dare not fwell this Book with giving even the Heads of them. Likewife, at the Moderator's Defire, the Earl of Argyll fpoke to excellent Purpole. Then the Aflembly was concluded with Prayer and Singing of the 153d Pfalm ; and they all parted with the greateft Har¬ mony and Joy.

I have now given an Account, tho’ but a very fhort and imoerfedt one, of that glorious Appearance of the Lord for this Church in the Year 1658. The want of a full and faithful Hiftory of this wonderful Turn, is a very confiderable Lofs unto this Church ; and I am perfwaded, that the Author of the EJfay^ if he had been acquainted with the Hiftory of this Period, would not have treated the Aflembly 1638 in the Manner he has done. Before I clofe this Seftion, I fliall, to prevent Repetition, take notice of fame confiderable Differences betwixt the Pro¬ ceedings of this Church in the Year 1658, and the Ma¬ nagements of all Ranks of Perfons, and particularly of the General Aflembly 1690 ; and that becaufe the JjJ'odate Presbytery in their judicial and Te^imonyy p. 38, 39, &c. make mention of fome confiderable Omiflions at the Revolution; as alfo becaufe the Author of the Effavy p, 326, 127, ^c. endeavours to vindicate thefe Omiflions, and reprefents this Church as more faithful at the Revolu¬ tion than in her former Period. I do not judge it needful to purfue our Author in all the Particulars that he alled¬ ges againlfthe Aflembly 1638, fome of which he repeats over and over again, and always in a Manner very dimi¬ nutive of our reforming Period. And, before I enter u- jMn Particulars, I muft obferve. That when the ^Jfociate Freshyteryy in their and ^ejlimonyy p. 37. make men¬ tion of the Year 1688, they fpeak of the Revolution that Year as a glorious and furprijing appearance of God for us^ and they bad good Reafon to do fo; as likewife, they

judge

judge it their Duty to commemorate with ^hanJifuVnefs the Divine Power and Goodnefs manifefied in this wonderful IVork : It was a Work of God, which ought to be remembred to the lateft Pofterity ; it was a Work, whereby Deliverance was given us from Tyranny and Slavery, and whereby a Stop was put to an Inundation of Popijh Idolatry and Su- perftition ; Yet the Presbytery do juftly obferve, that it is to be regreted that this valuable Seafbn was neglected, and that the Deliverance that was given us was not fuitably improven. ^ho' he faved us for his Name's Sake^ yet we provoked him at the Sea, even at the Red-Sea : we forgot his ■ff^orkst and wafted not for his Counfel, From the hiftorical Account I have given, the Reader may obferve the follow¬ ing Things;

i/, The Lord’s Work, in the Year 1638, was carried on with Falling, deep Humiliation and Mourning, and Acknowledgments made by all Ranks of Perlbns of the Breach of our National Covenant: Scotland at that Time nvght be called Bochim^ or a Place of Mourners ; the Voice of Weeping and Supplication was heard amongft us, becaufe we had perverted our Way, and forgotten the Lord our God. But, in the Year 1688, the Efates of the Nation were more concerned in fecuring their Civil Liberties, than in appearing for the Rights and Liberties of the Kingdom of Chrilf, or in laying lerioufly to Heart their hainous Perfidy and Treachery in Breach of Cove¬ nant, tho’ this was highly aggravate above what it was in the Period before 1638: Neither did the Miniftry of the Church, in their judicative Capacity, lay home the parti¬ cular Inftances of their Perfidy and Treachery unto the Efates of the Kingdom, in order to ftir them up to Humi¬ liation and Mourning before the Lord.

zdlyy As all Ranks of Perfons in the Land were fenfible of their hainous Defebtions and Backflidings, in the Year 163S; fb the Reprefentatives of this Church, when they met in the General Affembly the faid Year, they came to¬ gether under a Scnfe of the fame : And, when fbrae doubted if Ep’fcopacy and the five i\rticles of Perth were abjured by our National Confeffion as it was fworn in the Year ] 581, the Allembly fully fatisficd many that were in the Dark upon this important Queftion, and a general Submif* fion through the Land was given unto the Determinations of the General Affembly in this Point. Further, Were not all the Proceedings of tliis Affembly, with refpeft to Epif- copacy, the five Articles of Perth the Oaths of Intrants^

K k a with

{ 266 )

Viith others that I have mentioned^ a particular and exprefs Condemning of their National Steps of Dcfedlion ? As for what is affirmed by our Author, that there were no Fafts appointed in the Years 1658 or 1639; he ought to have known, that the Work was carried on with Fafting and Humiliation, and that the AfTembly 1638 had Ground for appointing a folemn Thankfgiving for the great Things the Lord had done for them. And whereas he aFerts, p. 136. That, when a National Faft is appointed in the Year 1642, they were far from being fo particular as the Affembly 1690; He might likewilc have known, that the AFcmbly 1638 did particularly and exprefly condemn, as is above oblbrved, the Steps of Defeftion and Backfiiding that had taken Place before that Time; Bur, in the Act appointing the Faff 1690, there is no particular nor exprefs Mention of any Sieps of Defection as contrary to our National Confeffion of Faith, or our Solemn League and Covenant. When they mention the Alteration of the Government of the Church, they fay, That “ Prelacy was introduced “ without the Church’s Conlenr, and contrary to ftanding A6fs of our National AlTcmblies;” but do not declare that it ought to be mourned over, as contrary to our Na¬ tional Oath and Confefficn of Faith. But it is declared by the Mouth of the Alfembly 1638 to be aTranfgreffing of the Covenant of the Lord, and acknowledged as a Courfe of Defeftion from him. It is likewife told in the laid Act 1690, that much innocent Blood had been flied ; but they never tell that it w^as the Blood of Witnefles for the Tellimony of Jelbs that was flied. Innocent Blood may be fhed in a Land by Tumults, in Robberies, and in Quarrels, and many ether Ways : Therefore Pofterity can never know what innocent Blood is intended by the faid A6t of Affembly. If our .Author would give Credit unto the late Reverend Mr, ffogy to whole Authority he fre¬ quently appeals, he tells us in his Life writ by bimfelf, That after the happy Revolution, under the fjxcious Names of Prudence and juft Moderation, the Teftimony of former Times was fupprefied ; and that it was not th.oughr a proper Seafbn to intermeddle with our Covenants, or Defections from them, that we might not give the leaft Umbrage to thole that were in the Government, many of whom were not of our Principles, and fome had been amongft the Leaders in the former Perfecurion. Our Author, p. 135. v.'hen he fpeaks concerning the Complaint made againft the Church a: the Kcvolution, for not being more particular

in acknowledging Steps of Dcfedtion in Church and State he anlwcrs, Fhac fome Things reckoned Steps of D=f<; ftion were debatable Points ; “ but, for other Detc^tt'on “ in which they were clear, they have not been fo lilci as is alledged. ” And, for Proof of this, he tells c That in the Att of Affembly 1690 they exprefly confe ‘‘ the late great and general Dtfettion of this Church an ‘‘ Kingdonj;” alfo “ too general a Fainting under th great Defeflion, not only amongft Profeflbrs, but al ‘‘ amongft Minilters, yea, even amongft fuch who in tl “ main Thing did endeavour to maintain their Integrit;

“ in not giving feafonable and neceflary Teftimony again “ the Defections and Evils of the Time, and keeping due Dilfance from them.” Bur, why does not our Ai thor add what follows? viz. “ And Ibme on the oth( Hand managed their Zeal with too little Diferetion an “ Meekiiefs. ” But what is in all this exprefs Confefllo that our Author Ipeaksof? We are told of Defedrion great and general Defections, Fainting, indifereet bur what thelc Defedtions v.'ere, we are not told. Mr. Ho, in his Life tells us, when fpeaking of the above-mentionei Complaint, ‘‘ ft is true, feveral publick Sins were thei “ controverted ; yet fure there were many Sins beyoni “ Dilpufe, and the Confe flion of thefe was neglected thre “ carnal Prudence and Man-plea/ing.”

Tins whole Church and Land returned unto th' Lord in the Year 1658, by a folemn Renovation of thei National Covenant accommodated to their Situation and Circumftances at that Time; Thereby flie not only madi a folemn Profeflien and Confeflion of her God, in Oppoi fltion unto the Difhonours that were done him, and the in. dignities that were oifered unto the Ordinances of his In* ftitution, with refpeCf; to the Government, Difeiphne and Worfhip of his Houle; but alfo flic did, with the fame Solemnity, acknowledge and avouch the feveral Articles of Faith laid down from the Word of God in our Con- fcflions of Faith. But, at the Revolution, the National Church of Scotland was not a Covenanting Church ; flie made no luch Iblemn ProfefTion or Confeflion of the Truths and Ordinances of her God, in Oppofition unto a highly aggravated Violation and Profanation of them for the Spsce of Twentyfeight Years of unparalleled Apolfafy and Defcd^fion.

4^1-iyy The Afl'emhiy 1658, in their fixteenth Seflon, exprefly condemn Epifcopacy, as contrary co the Ward

of

( 262 )

f God and our National Gjtireflion of Faith: But nothing ke this was done by the Affembly 1690. This Omiffion fas attended with (everal Ipecial Aggravations; As for In- ance, The Teftimony of the Church of Scotland had been ated more particularly and exprefly againft Prelacy in ie Year 16^8 than formerly, when the laid Affembly de¬ lated Prelacy rn be abjured by our National Covenant, ad when the Covenant, according to this cxprefs Decla- ation, was aferwards fworn and fubfcribed by all Ranks f Perfons through the Land ; hence the above Omiflion 1 1690 was a Dropping a material Part of theTeftimony f this Church, which had been Rated in fuch a panicu- ir and exprefs Manner. Likewife, Epifcopacy in its 'orm and Model was far more tyrannical as it was reared p by our Scots Parliament in the Year 1662, than it was 1 the Period before the Year 1658: For, as I have al- cady obferved, the Affembly at Glafgozv 1610, which irought in Epifcopacy into the Church, did not allow of he Bifliop as a diftinft Officer from preaching Elders ; leither did the Prmliament 1612, which ratified the Pro- leedings of Glaficw Affembly, confider the Bifhop as a [iflint^ Office from Presbyters: But when Prelacy is reared ip in the Year 1662, as Mr. lf'\odro<w in his Hiftory ob* erves *, “ Not only a Negative^ but likewife a Pojitive is ‘ given him ; and all Church Power and Government is * lodged in his foie Perfbn." Hence Epifcopacy was not mly confidered as a diftinft Office from Presbyter?, but ipon the Matter the Bifliop is conftitute the foie Officer in he Houle of God. Therefore the Omiffion of the Aflem- ily 1690 was ftill more aggravated, in regard the Order md Government of the Houle of God in Scotland had been murb more fubverted in the Period before 1688, than in that before the Year 1638. Likewife, by the rearing up of Prelacy in the Year 1662, the Land was more deeply involved in Perjury than in the Period before 1658 ; in re¬ gard it was a Breach, nor only of the National Covenant as it was explained by the Affembly 1658, but alfb of the Solemn League and Covenant, which both the King and all Ranks of Perfons in Scotland had fworn with great Solemnity. When all rhefe Things are confidered^ ’ris very manifeft, that the above Omiflion at the Revolution was attended with fpecial and hainous Aggravations.

It is likewile juRly complained, and ^ejl'imony.^

). {o. that the Affembly 1600 did not affert the Divine

Right

^Vol, I. p. 118.

( 2^3 )

Right of Presbytery. Unto this the Author of the FJfa makes Anlwer, p. lip. If this Omillion was

“ Fault in the Church of Scotland at the Revolution, the “ it was much her Fault in 1658: Fortho’ that Aflembl condcmnc'-i Epi/copacy, as having no Foundation in God ‘‘ Word, and as being contrary unto it, yet they have n “ exprefs Word of Presbytery zs being founded upon th “ Word of God, tho’ I fuppole it was their Judgmen “ as ’tis well known it was the Judgment of the Churc of Scotland at the Revolution ; and when by their A<f “ reftoring the Judicato-Hes of this Church to their forme Privileges, of December 17th 1658, according to th' printed Afts, they reftored them only as they were con rtitute by the Beck of Policy ^ without any exprefs men* tion of the Divine Ripht of Presbytery." Our Author hat a good deal of Aflurance, or (if t may ufe his own Dia- ledt) he is guilty of an unaccountable Impojttion upon the JVorld, when he affirms, That the AlTembly 165S have no exprefs Word of Presbytery as being founded upon the Word of God. In the Preamble to that Aft of Aflem** bly condemning Epifcopacy, they fay, “ The AfTembly ta- king to their molt grave and ferious Confideration, firft “ the unfpeakable Goodnels, and great Mercy of God, manifefted to this Nation, in that fo neceflary, fo diffi- “ cult, and fo excellent and divine Work of Reformation “ was at laft brought to fuch Perfeftion, that this Kirk was reformed, not only in Do6trine and Worfhip, but “ allb after many Conferences and publick Reafonings in “ diverfe National Aflemblies, joined with fblemn Humi- “ liations and Prayers to God, the Difeipline and Govern- “ ment of the Kirk, as the Hedge and Guard of the Doftrineand Worfhip, was preferibed according to the Rule of God’s Word, in the Book of Policy and Difci- “ pline, agreed upon in the AfTembly 1578, and infert in “ the Regifter 1 581, eftablifhed by the Afts of Aflemblies, “ by the Confeffion of Faith, fworn and fubferibed at the “ Direftion of the AfTembly, and by the continual Pra- “ ftice of this Kirk,” Is not our Presbyterial Church- government and Difeipline exprefly laid down from the Word of God in our Book of Difeipline ? And, is it not exprefly aflerted by the AfTembly 1638, in the above Words of their Aft, That the faid Government and Dif¬ eipline was preferibed according to the Rule of God’s Word, after many Conferences and many Reafonings, joined with foiemn Humiliations and Prayers I As alfo.

C 2(^4 ')

3t tlie fame Government and Difcipline was fworn and 3rcribed, at the Direction of the AfTemhIy, and by con- ual Praftice of this Kirk ; and likewile, ’tis afl'erred, lat the Government and Difcipline, laid down in the efaid Book, was a Parr of that neceflary, difficult, ex- lent and divine Work of Reformation, whereby this •urch was at laft brought to a confiderable Perfection, our Author fhould alledge, that the Word Presbytery not mentioned in the above Preamble, I believe every tfon of Judgment would defpife it as a filly Evafion ; ildes, any Body that r^eads the Aft of Aflembly con- mning Epifcopacy, will fee, that the whole Tenor of at Aft afierts the Divine Right of Presbytery. And in e Aft cited by our Author, reftoring the Judicatories ’ the Cliurch to their former Privileges, in their Preamble I the faid Aft, the laid AlTembly exprefs themfelves in le following Terms; “ And clearly perceiving the Bene¬ fit that will redound to Religion, by the Reftitution of the faid Judicatories ; remembring alfo, that they ftand obliged, by their fblemn Oath and Covenant with God, to return to the Doftrine and Difcipline of this Kirk, as it was profeffed in the Years i 580, &c.'’ Our Author lerefore greatly milreprefents this Afl'embly, when he af- rts they reftored^the faid Judicatories, only as they were onftitute by the Book of Policy, for the AlTembly did re- ore them on account of the Benefit that would redound o Religion thereby, as alfo from a Senfe of the Obliga- ion they were under by their fblemn Oath and Covenant ;o return to their Duty ; and this was a plain Acknowledg¬ ment likewife, that they and the whole Land had general¬ ly departed from their Duty to the Lord. Further, the faid Judicatories were conftitute, by the Book of Policy, upon the Footing of the Divine Right and Warrant for them, as has been already obferved.

^thly, The Supremacy ufurped before the Year 1658 was not only praftically condemned by all the Proceed¬ ings of the Aflembly that Year, but likewife the Rights of Chrift’s Spiritual Kingdom were exprefly aflerted, in Oppofition to the Supremacy as it was exercifed before the faid Year 1658; and particularly, in their Aft, Seffion 26:h, concerning yearly General Afl'emblies, the Aflembly exprefly declare, “ That this National Kirk hath Power “ and Liberty, by Divine, Ecclefiaflical and Civil War- rants, to conveen in her yearly General Aflemblies, Q^c." But nothing like this was done by the AlTembly

1 65)0. *

C 2i?5 )

i6pd. It has been juftly complained that this Chu?ch at the Revolution never alleitcd her intrinlick Power. To this our Author anfvvers, p. 151. That ” the Church of “ Scotland hath declared for it \ fayshe) I know not how “ often, by injoininp; all her Mindters and Elders to luh- “ fcribe our Confeflion of Faith ; whereby they have aF- “ ferted the intrinfick Power of the Church.” And, for Proof of their aflerting the intrinfick Power of the Churchy he cites Chap. 3 i. Art. 2. which he tranfcribes ; and then he adds, “ If this be not a fufficient Afferting hereof {viz. “ of the Church’s intrinfick Power) then the IVeJimin^er “ AfTembly hath been defedtive.” But our Author might have known, that the General Aflembly of this Church u'^nno 1647, their Aft approving the Confeflion of Faith) did not think the forefaid Article contained a fufficient Af* fertion of the intrinfick Power of the Church, Tor con- veening in her Synodical Affemblies Provincial or National J and therefor e in their faid Aft they receive the Confeffion of Faith, with a Declaration upon, and Explication of, the above-mentioned fecond Article of the 31ft Chap, of our Confeffion, wherein they affert the Power of the Church as it had been afferted by the Aflembly 1638k Our Author in the forecited Page obferves, that the State ratified the Confeffion of Faith j4nno 1689 (he fhould have faid, Anno 1690) Aft 5th June 7tb. And he adds, Mr* jVoodrovj fays, “ This was a Step of Reformation never “ before attained to in Scotland^ whereby the fcriptural “ and pure Doftrine of this Church is embodied with our “ Civil Liberties.” But here that excellent Hiftorian Mr. W'oodvD<vj is miftaken : For our firft Confeffion of Faith, which likewife contained the fcriptural and pure Doftrine of this Church, was as much embodied with our Civil Liberties as the Confeffion of Faith, in regard

our firfl Confeffion was approven by the Varliament 1560; it is approven agaj^ by Aft of Parliament 15th

1567, and infert in the faid Aft at large, together with the Scripture-quotations, which was fomething more than was done by the Aft of Parliament 1690. Likewife, theE- ftates of Parliament, in their Adi February 7th 1649, do ratify and approve the If^'ejlminfler Confejpon of Faithy the Larger and Shorter Catechifmsy and AUs of Affembly ap-» proving the fame ; this was alfb fomething more than was done by the Parliament 1690. The faid Parliament did indeed leave the Afts of Parliament 1649, and the other Afts of that Period, buried under the A^ Refdjfory ; and

LI there-

( -255 )

therefore they made an Adt of their own, with refpe^ unto our Confcilion of Faith, The Author of the EJfaVy p. 129. obicrves, Thar in our Confeflion of Faith, Chap. 50 Art I. ’tis aflerted, That the J. or djefus is the Head of his Church ; and that the Commiifion of AfTemhly 169S aflerf, “ Thar Jcius Chrift is the only Head and King of “ his Church ; ” and that the fame Thing is afferted by fhe AlTembly 1705, in their A6t anent Mr. Hepburn: Hence he concludes, That “ the Brethren in afl'crting, “ p 40. of their and ‘lefiimonyy that the Church of Scotland^ neither in 1690, nor in any of her Aflemblies “ fince, hath aff'<’rfed Chrijf to be, ixihat really he is, the “ alone Supreme Head and Kir^ over bis Church ; they “ aflert that which is nor Fadt.” But, if our Author had nor quoted the Words of the JH and *Iefiimony after his ordinary partial Manner, the Reader might have fecn, that he unjnftly loads them with the Charge of aflerring what is nor Faft. The Words of the JB and Tejlimony are ; “Neither fhe forefaid Afl'embly 1(590, nor any of “ the AlTemhlies of the Church fince that Time, did, by “ any one formal JB or Statute, explicitely and judicially “ condemn the facrilegous Ufurpation of his Royal Dig- “ nity, by that blafphemous Supremacy arrogated during ** that bloody Period ; nor afferted him to be, what he “ really is, the alone Supreme King and Heacd over his Church as his free and independent Kingdom.” If our Author can fhew any formal A(St of Aflcmbly condem¬ ning rhe forefaid facrilegous Ufurpation, or that Supre¬ macy that was arrogate by the King in the late perfecu- ting Times, then he may charge the Jjforiate Presby~ tery with afTerting what is nor Afatter of Fa6t ; or if he can fhew any formal Adt of Aflembly, exprejly and ju¬ dicially afTerting the alone Supreme Headfhip of the Lord Jefus over his Church, and rhe Freedom of his Spiritual Kingdom, then he may alfb^harge the ^Jfociate Presbytery with aflerting what is not Fa<3:. The grofleft Erafiians will fubfcribe to the above Propoficion of the Commiflion of the General Aflembly 1(598 according to their own Senfe and Meaning of it, yea, fb may the Pope of Rome himfelf, who pretends to be Chrift’s Vicar and and Depute upon Earth, viz. That the Lord fefus is the alone King and Head of his Church; and yet at the fame Time they all diveft Chrift’s Spiritual Kingdom of its Freedom, and the Erafiians fubordinatc the fame to the Civil Powers. 'Tis plain, that the Presbytery ^ in the above

Words

( 5l?7 )

Words, alTcrt the Negle<St of a proper Teftimony for the alone Headlhip of Chrift, in Opposition to the wicked Encroachments that the Powers of the Earth had made upon the fame. Our Author further obferves, p. 127. That the General j4Jfembly 1690 “ mentions the Suprema- “ cy as one of the Caufes of Fafting ; for, fpeakmg of “ the Sins of former Times under Prelacy, they lay, The “ Supremacy was advanced in fuch a Way, and to fuch “ a Height, as never any Chriltian Church acknow- “ ledged : And this is more than was done by any Aflem- “ bly from 1658 to 1649: This was a plain Condemning ‘‘ of the King’s Supremacy, &c." But this was fo far from being a plain Condemning of the Supremacy as it was exercifed before j688, that any who read the forefaid Atl can never know what Branch of the Supremacy they intended. It was far from the Faithfulnefs of the Alfem^ bly 165S, who, as I obferved before, both pradlically and exprefly condemned the Supremacy as it was exer¬ cifed at that Time: And befides, the Aflemblies betwixt 1638 and 1649 could nor exprefly condemn the Suprema¬ cy as it was exercifed before 1688, becaufe, as I have already obferved, it was never advanced to fuch a Height from the Reformation to their Times Our Author adds. But “ fbme, as the Brethren in their fecond ’Jeflimony^^ p. 41. will fay, Tnis {viz, what is laid in the Adt 1690)

“ was not an abfolute Condemning of all Supremacy in “ Civil Rulers over the Church.” Here our Author, after his ordinary Manner, curtails the Words of the Brethren in their ^(5 and^efiimony : Their Words are, “ Yet they (viz. the y^Jfembly 1690) do not abfblutely “ condemn that ufurped Supremacy, nor exprefly alTerc the Headfhip and Sovereignty of Chrift, in Oppofiuon to the above-mentioned bold and daring Invafions made “ upon it in the late Times of lamentable Defedtion and grievous Perfecution. ” Tiiis our Author cannot refufe ; but he quibbles, when he tells us of Difputes about the Oath of Supremacy among good and learned Men ; And therefore he mentions Mr. Gillefpie in his Mifcellanies making mention of fuch Difputes ; he alfo quotes Burroughs^ and the Minifters of the Province of London. But the Reader may eafily perceive, that ail his Citations are nothing to the Purpofe ; For none of them do either treat of the Supremacy as it was exercifed in Scotland before the 1688; neither is it aflerted by any of his Authors, tiwt there have beeu great Difputes among good and.

L I a learned

learned Men about the Supremacy as it was exercifed in Scotland betwixt the Years 1662 and 1688. Our Author proceeds, p. 128. to give his own Judgment concerning the Power of the Civil Magiftrate in the Church, or ac leaft to tell us what he thinks all Presbyterian Divines own, viz. “ That the King hath not a Dogmatick^ nor ‘‘ DidaBick, nor Diacritick Power, fo as to make new Ar- rides of Faith, to fet up any new Kind of Worfhip, to licenfe or ordain Men to preach the Gofpel, nor to preach or adminiftrate the Sacraments, nor to exercife “ Church-dilcipline, nor determine in Controverfies of “ Religion, nor to make Church Canons and Conflituti- “ ons, nor to depofe Minifters from any Part of their “ Office. ” I ffiall not take it upon me to explain our Author’s School Terms^ or to enquire into the Senfe and Import of what he calls a Diacritick Power ; but I mull obferve, that our Author does nor give us a full Knumc- ration of what our Presbyterian Divines refufe unto the Civil Magiftrate. As for the particular Inftances above given by our Author, the Erajlians will own, that the moft of them do not belong to the Civil Magiftrate. See Mr. Gillefgie's Aarons, Rod, Book 2. Chap. 5. Pie adds. That our Presbyterian Divines own, “ that the Magi- “ ftrate has not only a defenfive, but a regulating ruling ** Power, and alfo a coercive Power ; having much Power circa facra, tho’ no Power in facris, no Power that is *• properly, formally and intrincically Eccleflaftical, his Power being only Civil. ” But I willt our Author would explain himfelf concerning this regulating ruling Power: Tho’ he afterts, that he is giving us the Judgment of all Presbyterian Divines ; yet he has not mentioned any one of them, who exprefs themfclves in the above Terms without fome Caution or Limitation ; and I humbly judge that they have fuch an Erafiian Savour, that they need feme Explication. As alfo, v.'hen our Author tells us that the Magiftrate has much Power circa facra, this likewile needs fome Explication : For tho’ our Presbyterian Di¬ vines own that the Magiftrate has a Power circa facra, yet they always limit and qualify this Power I am afraid that under the Terms, much Power, and ruling rsgulatirg Power^ the raoft Part of what the Erafiians plead for may be in-- eluded, and, amongft others, the Subordination of Church- judicatories to the Civil Magiftrate, the Liberty of Ap., peaj from their Sentences to the Magiftrate, as likewife wh^t our S(j^s Pgrii^rnefic ^oribtd lin^o the King,

( '21^9 )

viz. the Ordering and Difpolal of the external Govern¬ ment and Policy of the Church, and the like. If our Author had faithfully reprefented the Judgment of our Presbyterian Divines, he ought to have told his Reader, that they afcribe none of the above Things to the Civil Magiftratc ; bur, in regard our Author has thought fit to wave thele and the like Particulars, it may give Occa- fion to fome to think that he too much favours Erafiian Principles : However, I fliall be very far from charging him with them, or take any Advantage againft him from his general Kxpreffions; only, I wifh he may explain him- felf more particularly upon this Head, when he comes, according to his Jdvertifement fubjoined to his Book, to publifli his intended Remarks upon the different Sentiments and Condudt of Minifters relating to the Affair of tain Port ecus.

6ihlyy The Ringleaders of the Defeftion and Apoftafy from tiie Lord were duly cenfured in the Year 1638 but fuch were never called to an Account by the AlTem ; bly 1690, tho’ their Apoftafy was much greater. As for Jndance, If the Bifhops were cenfured by theAlfembly 1638 for breaking the Caveats laid down by the Affembly at Montrofey the Bifhops of the late Period were much more guilty, by their Violation and Breach of the Natio¬ nal Covenant, and of the Solemn League and Covenant, Again, if the Bifhops were cenfured by the Affembly 1638 for their Managements in the High Comnnflion Court, where they preffed Novations in the Worfhip of God, and deprived and confined many eminent Miniflers ; the Bilhops of the late Period were yet more wicked and guilty, when they imbrued their Hands in the Blood of the Witneffes for Chrift in Scotland', the Tyranny of the former Bifhops did never proceed unto fuch a prodi¬ gious Height. Yea further, if the Bifhops of the former Period, together with their Adherents, v/ere guilty of jirminian and Popijh Doftrines ; fo, if the Bifhops in the Period before the Year 1690 had been tried and judged in the fame faithful Manner, according to the Example of the Allembly 1638, many of the Prelatical Clergy nad been found as deep in fuch grofs Errors.

Tthly, The Order obferved in the laudable Proceedini's of the Affembly 1638 was inverted in the Year 1690; As for Inftance, The Aflembly 1638 condemned exprelly rr.a Corruptions and Defedtions of the former Period, and aii'erced the Presbyterian Government and Difcipline o: this

( 270 )

Church, from the Book of Dilcipline, according to the Word of God and our National ConfeiRon of Paith or Covenant ; and the Proceedings of this Aflcmbly are con¬ firmed by the AlTembly 1659, and thereby the Houfe of God in Scotland was reared up upon its Scripture B^fis and Foundation; and, after all, the Civil Sanction is given to our Reformation by the Parliament 1640 : But in the Year 1690 the Parliament firft fettle the Government of the ^urch, after their own Way and Manner, by their A6t Jane 7th 1690; and the firft General Aflembly of this Church after the Revolttthn is conveened at Edinburgh October 1 6th the forefaid Year, and fts down upon the fcrefaid Settlement: Hereby the due Order of the Eioule of God was inverted, in regard the Settlement of the Go¬ vernment of the Church belongs in the firft Irftance unto a Judicatory of Chrift met together in Name of the Lordjefus; and that which is incumbent upon the Civil Powers, in this Cafe, is only to give the Civil Sanction unto the f -.mc. Like wile, when the firft General Aflembly met after i\\c ReKiolut ion ^ they reft fatisfied with the Parlia- mei't’s Set'lement of our Government, and never rear up the Houfe of God in their Ecclefiaftical Capacity upon its proper Bajtt and Foundation, vix.. the holy Scriptures, and, in an Agreeablcnefs thereto, upon our Book of Dif- , cipline, and the foletnn Covenant-engagements of this whole Church anti Land to the moft high God. And here I muft add, That in the Settlement of our Presbyterian Church Government by the Parliament 1690, as the in

their Aii p. 5S. juftly obferve, “ All the legal Securities “ given to this Chuich, in that Covenanting Period from “ 1658 to 1650, are overlooked and pafled by.” And it muft be regreted, that the above Proceedings, and this filent Suhm'flion of the Aflembly 1690, who gave no Man¬ ner of Tciiiino.;y '^ ''linft the above Omiflions, was a De¬ parture from a mateiiu’ '^trt and Branch of the Teftimony of the Church of Scotland. only Apology that can

be made for the Proceedings 01 ; hurch at that Time, and their filent Submiflion under i..c Parliament’s Settle¬ ment, is what is contained in the Judgment that the Com¬ mittee of Aflembly 1690 give concerning r;-;c Paper given in by Mr, Shiells and other Minifters, viz.. That it con¬ tained feveral unfeafonable znd impradicable Propofals. The particular and evprefs Condemning of our National Steps of Defection, the Renewing of our Covenants, the Aflcr- ting of the Rights and Privileges of the Spiritual Kingdom

( 271 )

of Chrift, &r. were at this Time judged mfeafonahle an^ impraSlkahle Propofals: Bur, v/hat made fuch Propofals un- leafouable and impracticable ? The Cafe flood plainly thus, A thorow Reformation was not at Heart with the mofl Part; the Eflares of the Kingdom at that Time were of a quite different Temper and Difpofition from what they were in. the Year 1658, they were not fenfjble of their Defection and Backfiiding from the Lord ; and, as Mr. Ho^ obferves in his Life, “ New Presbyterians, formerly Persecutors or Compliers, grew into great RefpeCt and Power; and fbme got into Church-judicatories, tho’ they negleCted “ inferior Courts, and took no InfpeCtion of the Congre- “ gations they belonged to; Thus old Sufferers were born “ down, unlefs they went into a Sort of Political Presby- “ up^n the f?ei!o/«rwW“Footing. ” He regretes in the fame Place, that when J ulicatories had the Benefit of Ac- cefs unro crowned Heads, that they did noremb»ace that Opportunity for afferring and owning the Principles for which we had fuffered for many Years.

I fhall not further infifl upon the Omiflions at the Ruvo' lutioriy fuch as, the Church’s neglecting judicially to alTert the perpetual Obligation of the National Covenant of Scotm land-f and of the SoJemn League and Covenant of the three Nations, with other Particulars that are mentioned in the Presbytery’s JPl and ^eRimony ; in regard the Exceptions that are laid by the Author of the E£ay againft the AH and ^efiimony^ upon thefe Heads, are lb very frivolous, that they deferve no Manner of Notice. Tho’ I have given the above Account of the Differences betwixt the Proceedings of the Aflembly 1638 and the ConduCl of the Aflembly 1 690, yet I am far from affirming that the Af- fembly 1638 was in nothing defective; while General Af* femblies confift of finful and fallible Men, their Proceedings will be always imperfeCt and defective: But it is evident from the Inftances that I have given, that the Teftimony of the Church of Scotland^ as it was ftated in former Times, for our Covenanted Reformation, and againfl a Courfe of Defection from the fame, was in many Inftances dropt or departed from in the Year 1690 ; as alfb, that the Church of Scotland^ in her judicative Capacity the forefaid Year, was far from being fo faithful in teftifying againft a Courfe of Defection and Backfiiding betwixt the Years 1660 and 1688, as the Aflembly dXGlafgoiv was, in teftifying againft the Courfe of Defection carried on before the Year 1638 ; and this made feme of the old Men who had feen our Hrlt

Temple

( 271 ),

Temple weep, when they faw the Foundations of our fe- cond Temple laid ; tho’ many of the younger Sort, who had not been Witnefles to the Glory of our reforming Pe¬ riod, rejoiced at their Deliverance from Popip and Prela- Ucal Tyranny. I fhall clofe this Seflion with fome Words of Mr. Rutberfeord’i.^ in his Letter to the perfecuted Church of Irelandy dated in the Year 1659, where, fpeaking of the Work of Reformation in that Period, he lays *, “ Alas ! I fear that Scotland be undone and flain with this great Mercy of Reformation, becaufe there is “ not here that Life of Religion, anfwerable to the huge Greatnefsof the Work, that daileth our Eyes: For the “ Lord is rejoicing over us in this Land, as the Bride- “ groom rejoiceth over the Bride ; they call us now no “ more Forfaken and Defolate^ but our Land is called “ Hephzibab and Btulab, Ifa. Ixii. 4.-— —The Canaavits is put out of our Lord’s Houle ; there is not a Beafl left “ to do Hurt (at leaft profefTedly) in all the holy Moun- tain of the Lord. Our Lord has fallen to wreftle with “ his Enemies, and hath brought us out of E^ypt\ U-'e

“ have the Strength of an Unicorn^ Num. xxiii. 22. - -

“ It is not Brick nor Clay, nor Babel's curfed Timber and ** Stones, that is in our fecond Temple : But our princely King, yefus, is building his Houle all Palace-work and “ carved Stones; It is the Habitation of the Lord. We do welcome Ireland and England to our Welbcloved, 6Pc. ” This excellent Perfon has more to the fame Purpofe in that Letter. I am fenfible that f have fwelled this Book too much with the above hiftorical Account I have given, yet I do not grudge any fmall Pains I have been at in fearching into theConduft of our reforming Fathers; and, fince the Author of the Effay has given me Occafion to contribute my fmall Endeavours for vindicating and clearing the Pro¬ ceedings of the Year 165S, I hope fiich as have any Re¬ gard for our Covenanted Reformation will not judge their Labour altogether loft in reading the Account I have given.

il;.

f Let, Part 2, Epift. 27.

SECT

( 273 )

/

SECT. II.

Wherein the injurious Reflexions that are cafl by the Author of the Eflay upon the AJJembly I <538 are confidered.

I Have in the preceeding Seftion given Tome Account of the Rife and Progrefs of that glorious Appearance of the Lord for this Church in the Year 1638, as alfo of the Proceedings of that famous Affembly at Glafgow that fame Year. This AfTembly has been always treated with Contempt by the Pop’Jb and Prelntical Party * theii* faithful Proceedings have been a grievous Eye-fore unto them. Our Scots Parliament, by the fecond h&. of theit* fecond Seflion Jnno 1662., do exprefly condemn the Af- fembly at GlafgoiVy “ as an unlawful and feditious Meet- “ ing; and declare, that all their Afts, Deeds and Sen- tcnces are in all Time coming to be repute unlawful* void and null.” But I never heard of any of the Pre/- hyterian Denomination in Scotland^ who have not always fpoke and writ honourably, and with great Regard to this AfTembly and their Proceedings, till the Author of the EJfa)', under a Presbyterian Charafter and Profeffion, has thought fit to vent himfelf in a very indecent and injurious Manner againft them, while he treats feveral of their Pro¬ ceedings as unreafonable, bad and tyrannical. How'ever, our Author is fure that no Law now in Being, either Civil or Ecclefiaftical, can reach him ; and therefore he may deal the more freely with that folemn AfTembly at flow : For the above Aft of Parliament was neither re- feinded nor repealed at the Revolution. As it condemns the AfTembly 1638, fb, as Mr. obferves itcafts a Slur upon our excellent Reformation from Popery ; and therefore he juftly affirms, “ That ’tis a Shame and Rc- “ proach that it ftands in the Body of our Scots Laws. ” Before I enter upon the Refleftions that he throws upon |he Proceedings, as alfb upon the conffituent Members, of the forefaid AfTembly ; ’tis neceflary that I examine the Exceptions that are laid by our Author againft theNatio- i nal Covenant, in regard this Covenant was renewed with great Solemnity and Devotion in the Year 1638, and alfb j in regard the AfTembly that met at Glafgow the faid Year declared the true Senfe and Meaning of the Covenant in i M m force

[ I Hift. Vol I. p. 119.

( '*74 >

fome Things that were controverted, and appointed it to be fubfcribcd according to its genuine Senie and Meaning ia all Time coming, as 1 have narrated in the preceeding Sedtion.

With refpcfSt to the National Covenant^ our Author gives us an Account of its Rife, from Petrie's Hjdory, Ef- f‘ty p. 65. where he tells us, “ In 1580, (^Petrie fays) Dif- ** penfations were fent from Rome, permitting Papijis to “ promile, fwear, fubferibe, and to do what other Things “ might be required of them, if in Mind they continued “ firm to the Popijh Intereft ” Our Author adds, “ And “ according to him (viz Petrie) thele Difpenfations gave “ the firft Rile to our National Covenant, in which Papi~ firy is fo pointedly abjured.” Bur, according to our Au¬ thor’s indilHndk Way of exprefling himfelf, fome of his Readers have imagined that Petrie affirms our National Covenant had its Rife from Rome : Therefore, to clear the Matter, I lhail give the Reader the exprefs Words as they ly in Petrie's Hiftory *, in regard his Words are both altered and very much curtailed by our Author. “ Ac that Time, fiys Petrie^ viz. 15S0, were found Ibme “ Dilpenfations lent from Rome, permitting Papifis to pro- mile, fwear and fubferibe, and do what other Thing might be required of them, fo that in Mind they con- “ tinue firm and ufe Diligence to advance privily the Rc- man Faith. Thele Dilpenfations were fhewed unto the ‘‘ King ; For Remedy, at firff he gives Order to one of his Minifters, yohn Craigs to writ a Form of Abjuration “ of Papijiry, in Obedience, Craig writes a Confef- lion, relative unto the former Confeffion (which was “ wholly po(itive)and abjuring all theCorruptions of “ both in Dodtrine and fuperftitious Rites and whole “ Hierarchy ; together with a Promile to continue in the “ Obedience of the Dodtrine and Difeipline of this Church, “ and to defend the fame to our Vocation and Power all the Days of our Lives, under the Pains contained in the Law, and Danger both of Body and Soul : And “ feeing many are ftirred up by Satan, and that Roman, Antichrift, to promife, fwear, fubferibe, and for a Time ule the holy Sacraments in the Church deceitful- ly, againft their own Confcicnce, QPc." as follows in the National Covenant. From the above Words of Petrie, we may clearly fee what gave Rife to the National Cove¬ nant, viz. Under the Covert of the above-mentioned

Dif.

* Hill p. 405,

^ )

Dlfpentations from Rome, Icveralsof the Popijb Party fliel- ,tered and thoughr rhemfelves fafe, both in figning our large Confejfion of Faith, and in joining deceitfully in the Ufe of the holy Sacraments ; therefore the fltort Confefl. lion of Faith or National Covenant was framed, wherein the Abominations of Rome, and amongft others the above Difpenfations, are particularly and exprefly abjured \ and wherein likewifc the fincere Intention of the Swearer is declared in the ftrongeft Terms. And as for the ftrong Expreflions that are made Ufe of in the National Cove¬ nant, ’tis plain that they were defigned by the Framets of it, as a Rail to debar fuch as they lay were ftirred up by Satan and that Roman Antkhrifi, to promife, fwear, &C. and for a Fime to ufe the holy Sacraments in the Kirk deceitfully ; minding thereby, under the external Cloke of Re¬ ligion, to corrupt and fubvert fecretly G.d’j true Religion ‘With¬ in the Kirk, &c. And if, after all, any fliould wickedly prefume to break in over the Rail, the Sin fhould ly at their Door, and this bold Prefumption fliould be an Ag¬ gravation of their hainous Guilt, or, as it is exprefled in . the Covenant, their double Condemnation in the Day of the Lord Jefus.

The above Oblervation, taken from Petrie’s Hiftory, may help to take oft' the Force of fome other Exceptions that are laid by our Author againft the National Covenant; As for Inftance, EJfay p. no. he tells us, “That fome, “ fundry, yea, many among the moft judicious, are of O- “ pinion the National Covenant ought to be rectified, not only by Explications, but by fome Alterations: And, ‘‘ to name but in one Particular, ’tis faid. They cannot fee “ how any elfe but real afl'ured Converts or Believers'Caii “ take the National Covenant, none but fuch as have whan is called fenfible refex AJfurance.” ’Tis plain, that ouc Author is amongft the fome or many who Hart the above Difficulty againft the National Covenant ; otherwile, when he mentions the faid Difficulty, he fliould have been at Pains to fatisfy thefe mo f judicious Perfons who have mo- - ved it. The Objeftion then that our Author makes a- gainft the National Covenant is. That none but aflured Converts or Believers, and fuch who have Jenfihle reflex AJfurance, can take the National Covenant, Here I mighc ask our Author, May not a true Believer be allured and perfwaded of the Truths of the Gofpel, and yet at the fame Time be in the Dark about his own Intereft in Chrift, or want what he calls fenflble reflex Jjfurance ? As alfo, it

M m a ~ ■ might

( *7'^ )

might be enquired, If there can be any reflex Afliirance, bur what is in fonje Degree or other fenjihle ? But, not to inlift upon this, I lhall confider what is ofl'ered by our Author, to prove that “ none but fuch as have what is cal- led fenfible reflex Affurance can take the National Co- venant.” This he') they could nor do, “ In re- ^ gard the Takers in fwearing fay. After long and due “ Examination of our Confcienccs in Matters of true and ** fal/'e Religion, we are now thorowly refolved in the ** Truth by the and Spirit of God." But there is no¬ thing inthefc Exprcllions which are contained in the Pre¬ amble to our National Covenant, that gives the leaft Ground for the Difficulty above-mentioned: The Subjed: of the thorow Refolution, mentioned in the above Words of the Covenant, is not one’s particular per/onai fnterefi in Chrifiy ht4t Matters of true and falfe Religion', and, may not one be fully aflured, or thorowly perfwaded, with refped: to the Truth in Matters of true and falfe Religi¬ on, tho’ they have not a fenfible reflex Aflurance concer¬ ning their own perfonal Intereft in Chrift ? for it is this Aflurance I fuppofe is meant by fuch who move the Dif¬ ficulty. And f judge that thefe fundry or many judicious Perfons, who have moved the above Objection againft the Covenant, have not duly confidered the above Words of our National Covenant on which their Difficulty is groun¬ ded, in regard the Objedtion that they move upon this Head, againft our National Covenant, amounts to this. That none can be thorowly refolded in their own Cor.fcien- ces in Matters of true and falfe Religion, if they have not an Aflurance of their perfonal Intcrefl in Chrift : And I fuppofe this will he looked upon as a dangerous as well as erroneous Conclufion, in regard it would make true Believers, while they w'ant fenfible reflex Aflurance, Scepticks in Matters of true and falfe Religion. When it is added in the Preamble to the Covenant, “ That they are thorowly refolved in the Truth by the iVord and Spirit of God;" Neither does this infer the Neceffity of what our Author calls fenfible reflex /IJfurance; and that becaufe fuch as are only temporary Believers mav he rc- fblvcd in the Truth of Matters of true and falfe Relt-

fion, by the Word and the common Operations of the pirit of God. I doubt nor but it may be faid of thofe mentioned in the Parable, Mat. xiii. 20. who heard the f^'ord, and anon with foy received it, and yet fell away ; tha: they were refolved in tiic Trmh with refpedt to Mat-

icrt

( .277 )

tcrs of true and falfe Religion ; And therefore even fuch who are neither Convtrrs, nor aflured Converts and Be¬ lievers, may exprefs themfelves in the above Words of our National Covenant. Yea, further, fuch as have only what is called a mere hiftorical Faith, may be refolvcd ia their own Confcicnces in the Truth, with reljoed: to Mat¬ ters of true and falfe Religion, both by the Word, and the common Strivings oi the Spirit of God with their own Confciences ; and therefore might take the National Covenant, and warrantably expreis themfelves in the a- bove Manner. ’Tis here likewife to be obferved, that, after the Truth had been overclouded with Antichriftiaa Darknefs, it did break forth with a beaming and radiant Lufire in reforming Times; there was a very plentiful R£- fufion of the Spirit, when the Lord brought his Church, and People in this Land our of Antichriftian Darknefs ; a? alfo, there was in the Year 1658 a more than ordinary EiFafion of the Spirit upon all Ranks of Perfotis in this Land, as I have already obierved. Under this plentiful Etfufion of the Spirit, many were favingly inlightned ; others had a common inlightning Work of the Spirit of God, in Matters that concerned the Difference betwixt true and falfe Religion ; and therefore might warrantably fvvear, not only in the above Terms contained in the Pre¬ amble, but might alfo fay, “That they were perfwaded in their Confciences, thro’ the Knowledge and Love of God’s true Religion^ imprinted in their Hearts by the “ Holy Spirit.” And tho’ many at this Time were faving¬ ly inlightned, yet there is no Doubt that others were on¬ ly under a common inlightning Work of the Spirit, and therefore fell away; they proved unftedfaft and psrfidous in his Covenant ; And this was likewife the Cafe with Is¬ rael in the Wildernefs, who fwore with as great Solemnity to the Lord as ever Scotland did, and yet with many of them God was not well pleafed, i Cor. x. 5. I mulf further obferve, with refped: to the above ftrong Exprcllions con¬ tained in the Covenant, that they are agreeable to the Scripture-rule for fuch folemn A(&ions ; fuch as, Jer. iv. 2. And thou Jbalt fwear^ ^he Lord Uveth^ in ^ruth, in 'J^dg-m tnenty andin Righteoufnefs \ and the Nations Jb all hie fs them- felves in him y and in him Jhall they glory . Thefe Words of the Prophet do plainly point at the Swearing or Cove¬ nanting of Nations unto the Lord ; and the above Ex- prefTions in our National Covenant are exprefly laid a- gaioil thefe who Ihclcered themfelves under Difnenfations

from

{ 278 , )

from Romey and who dealt deceitfully and againft their own Confciences in the Matters of God: Therefore our Covenanting Fathers declare, That they fwear in Truth, or in Sincerity, being refolved in their own Confciences in the Truth, with relpedt to Matters of true and faife Re^ ligioKy by the Word and Spirit of God : This is faid, in Oppofition to the above hypocritical Deceivers. Again, they declare they fwear in Righteoufnefs and Judgment, being perfwaded in their own Confciences, ‘‘through the “ Knowledge and Love of God’s true Religion imprinted “ in their Hearts by the fioly Spirit.” This is faid like- wife in Oppofition to fuch as were guilty of Uypocrify and Double-dealing with God and his Kirk ; as alfb, a blind implicite Faith, or the general doubtfom Faith of the Church of Romoy is hereby condemned.

As for the other ExprefTions of our National Covenant, from which our Author likewife argues, that a fenfthle rejlex ^Jfurance is needfn\ in fuch as would fwear tiie Na¬ tional Covenant, viz. “ To this true reformed Kirk we join ourfelves willingly, in Dotdrine, Faith, Religion, Dif- “ cipline, and life of the holy Sacraments, as lively Mem.. “ hers of the fame in Chriji our Head." The Difficulty is chiefly founded upon the laft Words, as lively Members ^

■ &c. And, for clearing of this Difficulty, lobferve, That as the Lord Jefusis given to be Head over all Things unto the Church which is his Body, fb this glorious and exalted Head may be viewed under a double Confideration, and fo may his Body the Church, ijly The Church may be confidered as it is his believing and myfiical Body ; zdly^ As it is a vifihle profejpng Body. To the Church confi¬ dered as his believing myfiical Body, the Lord jefus Chrift is not only the Head of Rule and Government, but he is in a fpecial Manner the Head of all gracious, faving and fpiritual Influences, whereby they are quickned andfan- ftified, and preferved unto his heavenly Kingdom ; their Unction is from this holy One, who communicates his Spi¬ rit unto all the Members of his myftical Body, according to their different Meafurcs. Again, if the Church is con¬ fidered as a vifihle profejftng Body, he is both a Head of Rule and Government, and alfo of the Communication of all thefe fpiritual Gifts, not only fuch as arc faving, but alfo of all thefe common Gifts and Graces, whereby all the Members of the vifihle Body are, in their feveral Spheres and Stations, adapted and made ferviccable unto the Good of the whole Body, 1 Cor. xii. 14,- Z3. Further, when

f 27P V

the Church is viewed as the believing myftical Body of- Chrilt, fhc is then confidered as under the internal Dif- pcnlation of the Grace of tiie Covenant. Again, when the Church is viewed as a vifibie profeliing Body, fhe is then confidered as under the external Adminiftration of the Covenant of Grace, making an outward credible Profef- fion of the Truths of the Gofpel, and giving an outward Subjeftion unto the Ordinances of Ghriif, particularly the Government and Difeipline of his Houfe. I obferved in the firft Section of the firft Chapter, That tho’ every par¬ ticular Church (lands in Relation unto theCatholick Body as a Payt unto the Wkole^ yet every particular Church, whether National or Presbyterial, may be confidered as a vifibie Body, in refpeftof its own Members, Order and Government. And it is very obvious and plain, that when our reforming P'arhers declare their Conjundtion with this true reformed Kirk in Dodlrine, P'aith, Religion, Difei¬ pline, B’c. no more can be meant but their Conjundtion with this reformed Church as an outward vifibie organi- cal Body, making an outward Profeflion of the true Faith, and profefiing Subjection unto the Ordinances of Divine Inflicution and Appointment : And, when they declare themfelves lively Members of the prcfefiing vifibie Body in Chrift their Head, no more can be intended than the Sincerity of their Profefiion, in Oppofition unto the dead and corrupt Members of jdntichrifi their Heady who were only moved from worldly Refpefts, as it is exprefl'ed in our Confeffion of Faith ; and who under the external Cloke of Religion, by vertue of the Pope’s Difpenfations,. fubverted fecretly God’s true Religion, and, when their Time did fervethem, became open Enemies and Perfecu-^ ters of the fame, under the vain Hope of the faid Dif- penfations, devifed (as is likewife exprefl'ed in the Na¬ tional Covenant) againft the Word of God, to the Pope’s greater Confufion, and the double Condemnation of all luch his Followers, in the Day of the Lord Jefus. Hence the Reader may fee, that when our Covenanters fwear, as ' lively Members of this reformed Church in Chrift their (; Head, it is not that vital Union betwixt Chrift the Head t and the myftical Body, that is here mainly intended; but I it is that outward vifibie Conjunftion, as Members of the 1 fame vifibie organick Body, under Chrift the Head of the Church, that is here principally intended : And therefore; I when they declare themfelves lively Mernbers of the faid Body, no more can be meant bur that their Profefiton was ■ not

( sSo ^

not that deac^, rotten, hypocritical and deceitful Profef^ jflon, with a Defign to fubvert the true Religion, v/hich feverals of the Popijh Parry made. Hence they add, ‘‘We therefore, willing to take away all Sufpicion of Hypo- “ crify, and of fuch Double-dealing with God and his Kirk, call the Searcher of all Hearts for Witnefs, that our Minds and Hearts do fully agree with this our Gnn- “ feffion, Promile, Oath and Subfcription, &c’' From •what is above obferved, I hope the Reader may fee, that there is no Ground for that Objeftion which our Author tells us many among the moft judicious make againft the National Covenant ; as alfo, that the Covenant may be fworn in its genuine Senfe and Meaning, even by fuch who have not what our Author calls fcnfible reflex AlTu- rance.

Our Author makes another Objedtion againft the Natio¬ nal Covenant, p. 185. viz. “ Might not fome ferious Souls, having a full fenfible Afliirance, being perfwaded the “ Believer is beyond all Danger of Hell, had a Scruple “ to fwear to do fb and fo, under the Danger of both Body “ and Soul in the Day of God's fearful J^udgment ? which “ are the Words of that Covenant. He adds, If I mi- “ ftake not, moft Part of the feven Brethren, fometime “ fince 1722, would had a Scruple to fwear in the above Terms.” To which I anfwer,Our Author is very much miftaken ; for all the feceding Brethren may fafely fwear the Covenant in the above Terms without any Scruple I hope our Author will not alledge againft any of them, ^ that they have departed from the Doftrine laid down in our Confeffion of Faith ; and they cheerfully own the fixth Article of the 19th Chapter of our Confefllon of Faith (as well as the other Articles of that Confellion) viz. “ Altho*

“ true Believers be not under the Law as a Covenant of “ Works, to be thereby juftified or condemned ; yet it

is of great Ufe to them, as well as others, - and the

“ Threatnings of it ferve to fhew what even their Sins “ deferve, &c." Does not every Oath contain, either ex- plicitely or implicitely, a folemn Appeal to God, not only as the Witnefs, but alfb as the Judge and Avenger in cafe of Perfidy or Falfe-fwearing? If our Author is amongft the fame who fcruple at the National Covenant on account of the above awful Certification in its Bofom, he is not far from the Principles of the fakers and German Anabap.. tifis, who affirm, that it is not lawful to fwear any Oaths whatfoever.

I pro-

( 2

I proceed now to confider what is advanced by our Au® thor againft the conftituent Members of the AfTembly 1638. He makes mention of a great many Oaths that were impo- fed before 1638, tho’ I have not oblerved that any of tbern Were impofed either by Civil or Ecclefiaffick Authority, nay, not by the pretended AfTemblies of that Period ; I do not pretend to know what the lawlcfs High Commijfion did. And, after he has reckoned up his Oaths, he tells us, EJfay p. 92. I fuppofe the Minillers of that Aflem- bly 1638, for a great Part, were Men who had fworn and come under thefe Oaths.” And, p. 89. he tells us* “ That AfTembly confifled mainly of fuch as had fubjefted. “ themfelves to Prelacy, which, fays j&e, was the lettled Government of the Church from 1606 to that Time j “ and many of them had taken the abominable O^ths ** which were impofed in that Period : And then tney “ neither profefled Repentence for complying with Prela- “ cy, nor profeffed Repentance for taking fuch Oaths, nor was any Confeffion required of them, He fub-

joins, “ And,, for ought I know, there might be Twenty in that AfTembly that had complied with Prelacy, for one fuch received by the Church of Scotland at the Re- volution." The above Charge againft the Members of that famous Afl’embly is laid in a very invidious Manner, and with an evident Defign to expofe and defame them;, I hope, from the Narrative that I have given in the pro¬ ceeding Part of this Chapter, the Reader will fee that there is no Truth in what our Author advances, when he affirms, That fuch as had complied with Prelacy, and had taken the Oaths he mentions, did not profefs Repen¬ tance for the fame. The whole Proceedings of the Land at that Time, as alfo of the AfTembly 1638, were one Continued Series and Trait of a, publick ConfefTion of the Backflidings of this Church and Land from the Lord, and of a publick ProfefTion of Repentance for the fame ♦ Therefore, upon Suppofition that it was true that the moft Part of that AfTembly had fubjeited to Prelacy, it is very indecent in our Author to throw up the fame : The Lord hath faid that he will not remember the Sins of his People, who acknowledge their Iniquities and return unto him, and that he will caft all their Sins into the Depths of the Sea; ’tis then very much Prefumption in others to upbraid them with thefe, much more when it is done with a De« fign to extenuate the Sins of others. And it is obvious, thatour Author miffeprcfents the Aflemby 1638, that he

N n *nay

( 282 )

may extenuate the Conduct of the AlTembly 1^90, with refpeft to the Prelatick Clergy, and ether Steps of De- feftion.

But when our Author affirms fo confidently, that the Affemhly 165S confided mainly of fuch as had fubjedted themfelves to Prelacy, and that the Minillers of that Af- fembly were for a great Parr Men who had fworn the Oaths he mentions, 1 want his Vouchers to fupport this Charge. Tho’ he abounds in his Authorities, yet he has not given us one Authority to fupport the Charge he has laid againft fuch a reverend and faithful Body of Men. Docs he think that we mufti fuftain his invidious Accufa- tions as true, upon his foie Authority ? Therefore I de¬ mand of him a Proof of the Charge; and I may juftly crave that the World may hold him as a Slanderer, unlefs by good and fufficient Vouchers he prove the Accufations that he has laid againft an Aflembly, concerning which I may fay, without Difparagement unto any others, that the Church of ScotUnd has never feen a more faithful Body of Men reprefenting her in the Capacity of a National Afl fembly, I do not refufe that fome of the Minifters who were Members of the Aflembly 1638 had complied with Prelacy, and alfo taken the Oaths required of Intrants in¬ to the Miniftry: That great Man, Mr. Henderfonl\\t\T Moderator, was Prelatick in his Judgment at firft, as I have reported already ; and likewile I have obferved, that he gave abundant Evidences of Repentance for hia^Coro-^ pliance with the fame. But that which I demand our Au¬ thor may prove, is, that the AflTembly 1638 confifted mainly of fuch as had fubje^ted themfelves to Prelacy, as he affirms p. 89. and that the blinifters of that Aflembly, for a great Parr, were Men v;ho had fworn and come un¬ der the Oaths which he mentions p. 92. I am not obli¬ ged to prove a Negative ; yet I might give as ftrong Evi¬ dences to the contrary, as a Proof of this Nature can ad¬ mit: But I fliall give one Evidence at the Time; and, if our Author Iball upon any fufficient Grounds and Rcafbns difprove it, I may afterwards give him others. The E- vidence I give, againft our Author’s AflTertions, is. The King’s Proclamation made at the Crofs of Edinburgh^ De¬ cember i8th 1638, in the Time of the fitting of the faid Affembly : In the faid Proclamathny their Proceedings are condemned as illegal and unwarrantable, and all their Afts and Deeds are declared to be null and void, and the for¬ mer Prohibition given them by the King’s Commiffionce

( iSj )

is juftified, amongft other Reafons, for the following, That the Commiflioners for the Aflembly, fotne of them were “ under the Cenfure of this Church, fome of them un- “ der the Cenfure of the Church of Ireland^ fbme long “ fince banifiied for open and avowed Teaching againft “ Monarchy, others of them fufpended, and fbme ad- “ mitred to the Miniftry contrary to the Form preferibed by the Laws of this Kingdom, others of them Rebels “ and at the Horn, fome of them confined, and all of “ them by Oath and Subfeription bound to the Overthrow “ Epifcopal Government.’* By the Cenfures of this Church, and the Cenfures of the Church of Ireland in the Proclamation, are meant the Sentences of Deprivation, Sufpenfion and the like, which were pafled by the High Commijfion Courts^ on account of the Nonconformity of feveral worthy Minifters to Prelacy : By thefe who were admitted to the Miniftry contrary to the Laws of the Kingdom, are meant fuch Minifters who were ordained by Presbyteries, and who had not complied with the Oaths required of Intrants at that Time. Look now. Reader, and fee what Truth there is in the Charge that is laid againft the conftituent Members of this Aftembly by the Author of the EJfay ; they are indeed treated after a very hard Manner : The King by his Proclamation con¬ demns them all, as fuch who had been one Way or other witneffing againft Prelacy, and a Courfe erf Conformity to the fame; and now, in this Age, a profejjed Son of the Church of Scotland accufes the Bulk and Body of them as Compliers with Prelacy, and as a Sett of Men who had fworn all the abominable Oaths he mentions.

I lhall proceed now to confidcr the Treatment our Au-* thor gives to the Adts and Proceedings of this Aflembly; and particularly, to an Article pafi'ed amongft feveral o- thers into an Aft, on the 17th and 18th of December-, ic is the 17th Article in Order : I know not how often ic is thrown up by our Author, and always in a very invidious Manner, as p. 20, 95, 94, 146, 168, 175, 181, ^c. This Aft is one of his common Topicks, it runs through his whole EJfay, unto it he makes his Retreat when he is brought to any Pinch ; He reprefents it as a bad Aft, as fuch an unveafonable Adc, that it has not a Parallel from that T'ime to this; as an Aft of the greatefi tyranny, as an un~ accountable Aft, as an Aft reftriBing Minifierial Freedom,, etc. I fhall now tranferibe this Aft, againft which our Author brings fo many and fuch grievous Charges; and,

N n 2

( .'284 )

Jn regard he always mentions fcarce the one Half of if, t ^hall tranferibe in Italick that Part upon which he thinks fit to fet his Thumb, that the Reader may fee that Part 'which is ftill left out of the EJfay. “ Whereas the Con~

** of Faith of this Kirk, concerving both DoBrwe and

S* DifeipUne^ fo often called in ^uefiion by the corrupt Judg- ‘‘ ment and tyrannous Authority of the pretended Prelates ^ it now clearly explained, and by this whole Kirk reprefenied by “ this General j4Jfembly concluded, ordained alfo to be fubferibed by all Sorts of Perfons within the faid Kirk and Kingdom ^ The Aflembly conftitutes and ordains, that from hence- forth no Sort of Perfon, of whatfoever Quality and Degree, be permitted to fpeak or write againft the faid Confeffion, this Aflembly or any Aft of this Aflembly,

V and that under the Pain of incurring the Cenfures of this Kirk, ”

Is it without Defign that our Author leaves out the firft and the greateft Part of the above Aft ? Is it fair Dealing to treat fuch a Body of Men after this Manner, by gi¬ ving fcarce the one Half of their Meaning? Does not the Ratio Legis, or the Reafon of Law, tend much to explain the fame ’ And the Part of the above Aft which is o- mitted by qup Author, contains plainly the Reafons and Grounds of their Aft, viz. That the Confeflion of Faith, pr the National Covenant of this Kirk, concerning both ^ Doftrine and Difeipline, which had been called ir4-Q4i6- Ifion by the Prelates, was now clearly explained ; as mfb, ihat this was done by this whole Kirk, reprefented in Jchat General Aflembly • and likewife, becaufe the faid Aflembly had ordained the National Covenant to be fub- Icribed by 3^1 Sorts of Perfons within this Kirk and King¬ dom : Thefe are the Grounds upon which they enaft and prdain as follows in the Aft. And the above Pajrt of the Aft, which our Authpr always cites, contains three Things; The one is. That henceforth no Perfon, of whatever equality or Degree, fliould fpeak or write againft the Con- fellion of F’aith or National Covenant, viz. as it was clear¬ ly explained by this Aflembly, as is evident from the a- bove Preamble to their Aft. The fecond Particular e- jnafted is, That none fhould fpeak or write againft this Af¬ lembly, viz- againft the Conffitution of this Aflembly, as a free and lawful Reprefentative of the whole Church of Scotland. And a third Particular enafted is, That none ^ak or write againft any kSt of this Aflembly ; and ail,

there

( *8y )

tbefe are prohibit under the Pain of the Cenfures of this Kirk.

From the hiftorical Account that I have given, it is evi¬ dent, that the Particulars above-mentioned were oppofed by the Prelates and their Adherents; they had protelled againft the Conftitution of this Alfembly, and declined their Authority } they condemned the Explication that was given of the National Covenant or Confeflion of Faith; yea, by publkk Proclamations made both at Glafgow and Edinburgh^ their Meetings were condemned as unlawful, after they were difcharged by the King’s Commiffioner; likewife, all their A£ts and Proceedings were declared to be null and void, and the SubjeiSs were difcharged to yield any Obedience unto them : Therefore it was ne- cefTary for the Alfembly to alfert their own Conftitution, and to juftify their own Afts and Proceedings, as alfo to declare all fuch cenfurable who fhould impugn their Con¬ ftitution, or refufe Obedience unto their Afts and Pro¬ ceedings. As this is all that is done in the A61: about which our Author makes fo much Noife, fb the Alfembly could do no lefs; for, if they had done otherwife, they had not alferted the juft Rights and Privileges of Chrift’s Spiritual Kingdom, which was the Quefiion now upon the Field ; they had departed from the Teftimony that they gave, when theBilhops protefted againft their Conftitution, and when the King’s Commiffioner difcharged their Meeting; and the World might juftly have looked upon them as Men who had given up with that Caufe, which they had efpoufed with the greateft Solemnity ; yea, if they had done fo, they had well dclerved all the unfair Characters that the Author of the EJfay gives them.

But fince the Author of the Ejfayy to fupport his Charge againft this famous Alfembly, mufters up a great many of their particular ACts and Proceedings, which he likewife brings as fo many Accufations againft them ; I ftiall briefly confider them. The Accufations that are brought by our Author are for the moft Part laid by way of ^uery^ and they are introduced after his ufual ambiguous Manner of dealing, Effay p. 95. “ Now (fays he) Jome might think this (v/z. the above ACl:) was an ACt of the greateft Tyranny, and a plain Reftrifting of Mihifterial Free- dom, And afterwards he fays, “ Some tender

*“ ferious Minifters might think themlelves obliged in Con- fcience to fpcak, preach, and teftify even againft this very Act itlelf, as reftriCting Minipetial JFi eedom : And

they

( )

they might fpeak againft that Afl: whicii condemned ‘‘ rhefe Aflemblies at Aberdeen and St. Andrews^ partly “ upon fuch a Ground as that the Burghs could not be prefent at thefe Aflemblies. ” To which I anfwer, It would have been no great Evidence, either of Tendernefs or Serioufnefs, if they had fpoke againft the Aflembly i6;8 on this Account; and that becaufe the forefaid Aflemblies were condemned upon other good and weighty Grounds ; as alfo, bccaufe the Indidtion of thefe pretended Aflemblies was fo fhort before the Time of holding of them, that Burghs could not fend up their Commiflioners, as the Afl of the Aflembly at Glaf^ow con¬ demning the faid pretended Affemblies bears. And tho’ I lhall not enter into the Queftion, Whether this Part of our Conftitution is right or wrong 1 yet it is certain that Burghs have had their Commiflioners to our Aflemblies from the Reformation to this very Day; and therefore they may reckon that they have a Right to fend their Commiflioners, ay and until fome General Aflembly enquire into their Right, and difeharge this Pradfice : And befides, 'tis plain, that it was with Dcfign that fo fhort Advertifement was given of the Meeting of thefe pretended Aflemblies, that the Burghs might not be prefent ; it leems they were not very pliable at that Time to the Court-meafures fur" fupporting Prelacy ; And therefore the Aflcmbty -at^T^/- gtiv had good Ground to fubjoin the above to the other weighty Reafbns they give for the Nullity of thefe pre¬ tended Aflemblies.

Our Author adds, “ What if they (viz. ferious and tender Minifters) fhould thought it Duty to teftify againft that Adt December 5th, Seflion i 5. which condemned the unla<ivfHl Oaths of Intrants in Time of Prelacy, be- “ caufe ‘without any Pretext or iVarrant from the Kirk, &C. “ without ever mentioning their being contrary to the Word of God; fo alio becaufe. when they condemned the Service-book^ the Book of Canons and High Commijponf they condemn them upon fuch like Grounds, but never mention their being contrary to the Word of God T’

I anfwer, That this Accufer of the AJfembly 1658 always xnifreprefents or conceals their faithful Proceedings. As for the Service-book, they condemn it in their A6t, Seflion 14, on account of its Popifj Frame and Forms in Divine Wor- Ihip, and becaufe it contained many Popijb Errors and Cc- t'cmonics, and allb was repugnant to the Doftrine, Difci- plinc and Order of this reformed Kirk, as the Reader

may

( i87 )

may fee from the printed Aft, As for the Book of CuxoKfj the AiTembiy finds, “ That it cftabliHieth a tyrannical “ Power in the Perfbns of the pretended Bifhops, over the Worfhip of God, Mens Confciences, &c. and that “ it overthrows the whole Difeipline and Government or “ Synodal Afl'emblics, dPc. Therefore tliey rejeft and “ condemn the faid Book, as contrary to the Confeffioa “ of our Faith, and repugnant to the eftablifhed Govern- ‘‘ menC, the Book of Dilcipline, &c.’' As for the Court of High Commiflon, the Aflembly find that it “ fubverteth “ the Jurifdiftion, and ordinary Judicatories and Aflem- hliesof the Kirk, Seffions, Presbyteries, Provincial and

“ National AlTemblies ; - and they condemn the faid

“ Court as unlawful in itfelf, and prejudicial to theLiber- “ ties of Chrift’s Kirk and Kingdonfi,” As for the Oaths ®f [ntrantSf the Aflembly condemn them as unlawful, not only becaufe they were without any Pretext or Jf'arrant front the Kirk, but al(o becaufe they were “ contrary to the an- “ cient and laudable Conftitutions of this Kirk, which “ never have been nor can be lawfully repealed, but muft “ ffand in Force.” Let the Reader now judge if there is any Truth in that which is reported by our Author, Thar the Book of Canons, &c. are condemned, becauie without any Pretext or Warrant from the Kirk, and upon fuch like Grounds’, nay, from what I have iranfcribed from the Afts of that Aflembly, the Reader may eafily fee, that they were condemned upon better and Purer Grounds. If our Author fliall fay. There is no Mention of their being con¬ trary to the Word of God ; Are they not declared to be contrary to the Doftrine, Difeipline and Order of this re¬ formed Kirk, to our Confeflion of Faith, or the ancient and laudable Conftitutions of this Kirk ? And, was not our Doftrine, Government and Difeipline, together with our Confeflion of Faith, all received by this, as well as former free and lawful Aflemblies, becaufe they were founded and bottomed upon the Word of God I There¬ fore I conclude, that, if any Minifter fliould alledge it to be his Duty to teftify in the Manner mentioned by our Au¬ thor, he would be fo far from fliewing that he is either fe~ tious or tender, that he would give fufficient Evidences of his being unworthy of being a Minifter of the Church of Scotland.

His next ^uery is, What if they fhould thought it ** Duty to teftify againft them for that Expreflton in their

SemenceagaiDftArchbiniopiSj&<i///ww^f and others, where

‘‘ they

( '288 )

they (ay, Declining and protejiing againft the y^Jfenihly it ** by the ABs of this Ajfemhly cenfurahle with fammary “ Excommunication’’” To which I anfwer. That, inftearl of ABs of this AJfernblyy our Author Ihould have writ AB of Ajfemhly ; for fo it is in the A61: he refers to. And rhac which is faid by the Affembly 1658 is, That, according to the A6ts of Affembly in this Church, fuch as proteft, and decline the Authority of a free, lawful, and right-confti- tute General Affembly, are ceufurable with the fummaC Excommunication: And, when they faid fo, they fay no¬ thing but what the Bible fays, Matth. xviii. 17. But^ if he fjegleB to hear the Churchy let him be unto thee as an Heathers Man and a Publican,

Our Author goes on with his Queries ; “ What ( fays he) if they fhould thought it Duty to fpeak againfl: that “ Affembly, for fhowing fb much Lenity to the Bifhops of Dunkeld and Caithnefs^ as only to fufpcnd them from the Miniftry, when it may be thought they deferved Dcpofition, on account of what was foUnd evident againft “ them ? ’* To which it is anfwered. That the General Affembly, in their Sentences paft againft the faid pretended Bifliops, give their Reafons why they proceeded no further againft them than they did ; and our Author, if he had done Juftice to that Affembly, fhould likewife have told them. Both the faid Bifhops fent Letters to the Affembly, giving their Reafons why they could not be prefent ; one of them mentions his Sicknefs at the Time, the other by his Letter fubmitted himfelf to the Affembly. As none of thefe pretended Bifhops were contumacious, fo none, who read the Sentences paft againft them, will find Ground for alledging that any undue Lenity was exercifed towards them ; fince the Excufes that were contained in their Letters were found relevant, it was but juft and reafonable to hear them upon their Libels : And in the mean Time the Affem¬ bly fufpended them from all Minifterial and they

appoint them both to be excommunicate, in cafe they gave not fatisfying Evidences of their Repentance to fuch Com- miflioners as the Affembly had impowered to try and judge them.

Our Author’s next Query is, “ What if (bme fhould faid. The Sentence of that Affembly againft the Minifter ** of 'Braren feemed fomewhat fharp, in that he was fu- “ fpended foi b .ptifing a Child in a private Houfe ? ” To whicf) I anfwer, That our Author difcovers a more than ordinary Keennefs againft the Affembly 1638, when he

charges

( 289 )

feliarpes them with a Deed that was done and paft near fifty Years before the laid Aflembly had a Being: From •what Spring and Principle all this Keenncfs flows, I fiiali leave it unto his own Conlcience to determine ; in the mean Time he gives many Evidences that he has writ very much at Random, tho’ he tells us in his Preface^ that a Draught of his EJfay was prepared a Year before it was publifhed. If our Author had read the Afts of Aflembly 1638, againft which he exprefles himfelf in fuch an i^idious Manner, he might have feen that in their A6f, Seflion ly* when they are upon the Head of private Baptifm, they give fome Inftances that this Church condemned the lame, and, amongft others, that, in the Aflembly holden at Edinburgh 1581, the Minifter of Tranent was fulpendecl for baptifing an Infant in a private Houfe. Our in hh Short Findicat ion zcknovilcdgts his Miftake; I wilh

he were likewile lenfible of his Miftakes in many other particular Inftances, which have led him to report what is neither Truth nor Matter of Fa£i.

As for his next Query, “ What if they Ihould thought that Sentence fomewhat fevere, which injoined fuch Mi- nifters to be excommunicate, as, being depofed by that “ Aflembly, did not acquiefce in their Sentence, ^ it “ they Ihould exercife any Part of their Mimfterial Fun- “ ftion ? which was enafted Self. 14.” To which I briefly anfwer. That all who were depofed by'this Aflembly were depofed on juft and relevant Grounds, by a lawful and right-conftitute Court of Chrift ; and therefore, if they difobeyed the Sentence of fuch an Aflembly, they defer- ved to be excommunicate on account of their Contumacy,

«{

according to the Scripture above-cited. , , , ,

His next Query is, “ What if fome fhould thought it “ a Fault to thank his Majefty for inditing or callmg that « Aflembly, terming it a Royal Favour, when they had all Right by their intrinfick Power to meet of them* felves ’ *’ To which I anfwer, according to our Au¬ thor, p. 87. Is it not deftrable token Church and State rf- eree ? efnecially in a Matter of fuch publick Concern ; And therefore, when the Supreme Magiftr^e, without prejudging the Power of the Church, indifts or ca s a General AlTembly, efpecially in a broken State of the Church, as was the Cafe at prefent, they have good Kea- fon to thank him for it ; and it is always more eligible to have General Aflbmblies with the Magiftrate sC^ntenance, than to convesn in Oppoficion unto him. ihc^^ov^

( spo )

Words of our Author, concerning the Church’s having all Right hy their intrinfick Power to meet cf themfelves ; whether they are laid by him in a Way of Jeft, or in fo- ber Earneft, I fliall not determine : But, from the above hiftorical Account that I have given, ’cis evident, that our Reformers at that Time were fully refblvcd to call a Ge¬ neral Alfembly, in cafe the King fhould have refufed to grant their Petitions for the fame. And Rapine^ tho’ a Stranger, does more Juftice unto them than our Author, tho’ a Scotfman^ and bearing the Charadter of a Presbyte¬ rian Minifter, when he tells us in his Hiilory That af¬ ter the Marquis of Hamiltoun returned to Court, ^ugujl 1638, “the Tables Rapine calls them) expecting only “ new Snares, or frefh Delays from the Court, refolved “ that a General Affembly fhould be held, either with

the King’s Permiflion if he would grant it, or without “ his Content ; and that the Eledtion of Commiffioners “ Ihould be the 2zd of September”

As for our Author’s laft Query, concerning Exprefllons in the Aflembly’s Supplications with refpedt to King ^ames VI. which he alledges fome might be apprehenfive looked too like Flattery *, it deferves no Manner of No¬ tice. None that were either ferious or tender could juftly charge this Affembly with Flattery, who had fo fully af- ferted the Rights of the King of Zion, and of his Spiri¬ tual Kingdom, notwithftanding of the flrongeft Oppofiti- on from the King and the Court. The Titles of Civil Honour and Regard that are given to Sovereign Princes are warranted from the Praftice of the Church and People of God recorded in Scripture ; it was no Flattery in the three Children, when x.hcya.ddrePPe.d'Kan^Kebuchadnezzar^ a grand Adverfary of the Church and People of God, Dan. iii. 9. after the very fame Manner in which the Chaldean Magicians addrefs him, Dan. ii. 4.

I have now done with the Accufations that the Author of the EJfay has brought againft that faithful Affembly at Gla/goWf in fcveral iVhat if's. I hope the Reader will fee that they come to nothing, and that, after he has filled up his Roll of invidious Accufations, be muft be very Tore put to it to prove them tyrannical in their Adrninifira- tion ; for he has not the Confidence to fay in any of the above Inftanccs that he thinks fo and fo, but ftill, iVkat if fome fhould think or fpeak fo and fo ? And yet, after all, he draws the following Gonclufion, “ Will not an Aft of that

Nature

f Vol. I. p,

f

5

( 291 )

Nature (viz. the 17th Article above-mentioned) be “ owned by all to be a mofl tyrannical A<^’” Are they iy. rannical^ and mofi tyrannical^ in the Aft our Author men- : tions, when yet, in all the Inftances he has given to fup- ' port the above Charge, he has not produced one Aft of ' that AlTembly, but what may very well be juftified, yea, which he himlelf has not the Confidence direftly or ex- prcfly to condemn, tho’ he gives fufficient Evidence that he wants not abundance of Good-will unto it ? And I am tbrry that I mull fay it of one of our Author’s Profefli- on and Denomination, That he has given too much Ground to hold and efieem him an unjuft y^ccufer and Slanderer of 3 faithful reforming Aftembly of the Church of Scotland.

I (hall only further add, That our Author, in his In- veftives againfl: the Aft he mentions fo often, tells us, p. 2. 1. That it looks very like a reftrifting of Minifierial Freedom \ this he frequently harps upon ; As alfo, that it is more a Term of Minifterial Communion than the Aft of Aftembly 175? ; and he reckons it a very finful Term of Communion, p. iSi, 182. To which I anfwer, That as all the Proceedings of that Aftembly were for the Sup¬ port and Advancement of our Reformation, fo there is no Freedom reftrifted but fuch as may be juftly reckoned a Freedom of Writing and Speaking againft our Confeffi- on of Faith and our Reformation-principles : And ouc Author has given too many Evidences of his favouring a finful Latitudinarian Freedom, in his lax Principles concerning Church-Communion that run through hisEJfay, With refpeft to our Author’s arguing, That it is a very finful Term of Minifterial Communion, or at leaft, that, according to the Brcthrens Reafbnings upon the A<^ 1 755, it may be reckoned a Term of Minifterial Communion, tho’ in our Author’s Account a very finful one. I anfwer. That when I confider the faithful Aftings and Proceedings of the Aftembly 1(538, as I look upon the Aft that he quarrels to be ftill a binding Aft, fo I judge that our Au¬ thor, or any others who treat the Proceedings of that Af- fembly in the Manner that he has done, deferve the Cen- faresof the Church ; and, if the Difcipliue of the Lord’s Houfe were rightly excrcifed, the Spiritual Sword would be drawn againft them ; But it is to be regreted that Mat¬ ters arc otherwile ftated amongft us, and that fuch astcfti- fy againft a Courfe of Dcfeftion, will (boner fall under the Cenfures of the prelent Judicatories, than thofe who (i^tenuate or palliate the fame.

O 0 a SECT,

SECT. III.

Wherein the Receptions that are laid hy the Ati-i thor of the EfTay, again fi the A6ls and Pro¬ ceedings of fever al Afl'emblies of our refor^ ming Period after the Tear 1538, are conft^ dered,

The Author of the EJfay gathers together a great Heap of Matter from the Beginning of the fourth Sedion of his fixth Chapter p. 79. to his 7th Chap¬ ter p. 214. that is, for about 152 Pages, it is all laidinfuch a confufed Manner, and is never diftinguifhed under proper Heads or Seftions, that it is very difficult to trace him ; the fame Things are repeated frequently over and over again. I fhall not concern myfelf in his Arguings againfi: the Author of the Book called Plain ReafonSf but fhall only meddle with fuch Things as have a direft Relation unto the ^ejiimony of the feceding Brethren. I have had Occafion, upon the former Heads, to examine a great many of the Particulars advanced by our Author, in his long Section, againfl the faid Brethren : But in regard that oar Author mufters up many Afts and Proceedings of our reforming Aflemblies, which he reckons Faults and Fail¬ ings, or bad Afts in what he calls that extolled Period^ yea likewife, according to his ordinary Way, with an If., w’irh a Perhaps, endeavours to imprefs his Readers that the Pro¬ ceedings for Twelve Years Time from 1658 to 1650 were more tyrannical than any Proceedings of the Judicatories of this Church fince the Revolution ; and therefore he con¬ demns the receding Minifters, becaufe they do not in their ffejlimony condemn the Faults and Failings of this Church before the Year 1650, as well as her Defections after that Time ; This obliges me to confider the bad ACts that he has charged upon the Aflemblies of the above-mentioned Period. And, in regard I have fwellcd this Book too much already, I Ihall only take Notice of fuch of thern as our Author feems to lay the moft Strefs and Weight upon.

Our Author, p. 88. takes Notice of a Complaint, which he calls a great Clamour made againft the Church of Scot~ land as being Erafiian-, “ Becaufe Ibmcrimes, as in 1692, when the Day was altered for the Affembly’s Meeting, the A^erably fubmicted^ ^nd yet gave r40 Tcftimcnv

againfj

( *9? )

** agatnft this Incroachm^nt. *’ The Cafe (lands thus; The General Aflembly in the Year 1692 was diflblved by the King’s Commiflioner; The Moderator protefted againft the Diflblution of that AfTembly ; and they immediately rofe, after another Day was named by the Moderator for the Meeting of the next AfTembly : But, by the King’s Proclamation from the Crofs of Edinburgh^ their Meeting was adjourned from Time to Time till March 1694. And if our Author will believe Mr. Hog in his Life, as well as many others, they report, that a confiderable Body of the Miniftry made an Apology to the King for the Mo¬ derator’s taking upon him to name the Day for the Meeting of another AfTembly, after his Majefty by his Commiflioner had diflblved them; as alfo, that the Diet named by the Moderator was deferred, which laft cannot be refufed: Therefore many did juftly complain, that the Church of Scotland had fubmitted unto an Erajlian Incroachment, and that fhe had thereby departed from a material Branch and Part of her Teftimony ; efpecially when the AfTembly 1690 had never aflerted the juft Rights and Privileges of the Courts of the King of Zion. And, when the Afl'em- bly did meet 1694, they gave no Manner of Teftimony againft the above DifToIution; neither did they affert the juft Rights and Privileges of the Kingdom of Ghrift, rho* the above Incroachment up«n the fame was reckoned by many a particular and fpecial Call to this necelTary Duty. Our Author tells us, he frankly owns, that “ it was the Fault of the Civil Government, and a Fault in his Ma- jelly King IVilliam^ that he by his Proclamation did “ alter the Time appointed for the Meeting of our Gcne- “ ral AfTembly; and that it was the King’s Fault that by “ his CommifTioner in 1692 he railed that AfTembly : And ‘‘ alfoy be thinks it was the Sin of the Church of Scotland^ ** that fhe did not adhere to the Proteft taken by Mr. Crigh- “ ton her Moderator at that AfTembly, But, to ex¬

tenuate what he humbly thinks to be a Sin, he tells us. That the Church of Scotland was thus guilty in what they reckon her beft Times : For, fays ke^ iho’ the Af- ** fembly 1638 appointed their next Meeting to be upon “ the third Wednefday of July 1639, and appointed fuch ** as fhould not acejuiefee to their ABs to be cited to that Time; yet the King altered the Day, and they did not **■ meet rill the 17th of Augufi that Year; and we read of no Teftimony that was given by the Church of Scotland againft what was dque in th^t Aftair." All this is tqld

by

( 294 )

by onr Author, not only with a Defign to extenuate the Sin of the Church of Scotland ; but likewife with a Defigii to fix a Charge upon our reforming Period, of departing from the Teftimony they had given for the Rights of Chrift’s Spiritual Kingdom. But, if our Author had dealt in a fair and candid Manner with the Aflembly 1639, he ought like- wife to have told his Reader how it came to pafs that the Day appointed by the Aflembly 1638 was not kept; And therefore I think it not amifs to give the Reader as fhort an Account of it as I can. The Apologttical Relation gives a fliort Hint at it * ; but the Latin Hiftorian f gives the fulleft hiftorical Account of the Tranfaftions of the Year 1639 that I have feen, and the Reader may take from hini t);e following fliort Relation of this Matter.

The feveral Commiffioners of the General Aflembly 1638 having faithfully difeharged their Duty, in purging the Houfe of God of many corrupt Minifters, in Confe- quence of the Powers and Inllruitions that were given un¬ to them by the faid Aflembly ; fuch as they nad duly cenfured, together with the depofed and excommunicate Bifliops, being filled with Rage, did run to the Court, and ftirred up the King to make War againft Scotland'. And accordingly War is concluded both by Sea and Land againft this Kingdom ; and Preparations are made for co¬ ming down in a hoftile Manner, in order, as was given out, to reduce the Rebels in Scotland to the King’s Obe¬ dience. In the mean Time a Declaration is publifhed by the Eftates of this Nation for their own neceflary Vindi¬ cation, wherein they juftify their bygone Proceedings, and prove that the Security of their Civil Liberties and Religi¬ on was their only Intention and Defign, and Confoience their only Motive in all that they had done. But this De¬ claration was fupprefled by the Court in England^ that the true State of Affairs in Scotland might not be known there ; and by the King’s Orders there is a contrary Declaration emitted, ftiling the Covenanters Seditious Rebels. This was read in all the Churches in England^ to inflame that! Nation againft them.

When the Eftates of Scotland faw that they could ex- pe£f nothing bur War, they refolved to prepare for their juft and neceflary Defence : They levy an Army of Men, who marched to the Borders under the Command of General Le(lie ; the principal Nobility and Barons of the Kingdom were in the Army, with many of the Mini-

ftry :

AtoL R(Ut. p. 53. t Hift. Mot. p. 295,

( 29J )

ftry : Tiiey refolved to keep themfclves upon the Dcfen- five, and nor to remove out of the Scots Side, and in the whole of their Behaviour to teftify to the Englip^ tliaC tliey had no Defign either of Rebellion againft the King, or of War againft the Erigtijh Nation, tho’ they had been loaded with fuch unjuft Calumnies and Afperfions. This was indeed a rare and ftngular Army, as the Latin Hifto- rian reports: When they lay encamped at on

the Border, there was “ a wonderful Unanimity both amongft Leaders and Soldiers, with a cheerful Refolu- tion for the Support and Defence of their common Caufe ; they were frequent in the Exercife of publick and pri- “ vatc Religion ; there was nothing of that Wickednefs “ or Intemperance to be feen amongft them, which is fre- ‘‘ quent in military Camps : Their Hours were divided “ throughout the whole Army unto Prayers, Preachings, “ the neceflary Refrcfhment of their Bodies, and the Ex- “ creife of their Arms Mr. Livingjlone in his Life re¬ ports, Thar, when he went up with the Army to England •I 640, “ It was very refrefhful to remark, that, after they “ came to a Quarter at Night, there was nothing to be “ heard almoft through the whole Army, but finging of “ P/almsy Prayer , and reading of the Scripurey by the Sol- “ diers in their feveral Tents. He addsy And, as I was informed, there was large more the Year before, when “ the Jrmy lay at Dunce-lavoy When the Englifi Army beheld the Difpofition and Behaviour of the Scots Army, they were fatisned that they had been impofed upon ; and therefore fbme of the Englijb Nobility propofed unto tha ScotSy that they fhould petition the King for a Treaty, which they did accordingly : Upon which a Treaty enfued; and, amongft other Things in the Treaty, it was agreed, that a free National Affembly fhould be held at Edinburgh upon the 6th of jLugufi ; and that the Parliament fhould meet at the fame Place upon the 20th of jLugufly in order to give the Civil Sanftion to the Afts and Proceedings of the Affembly. Our Author is then in a Miftake when he affirms, That the King altered the Day to the 1 7th of Jugufi. If he had obferved the printed Adts of Aflembly 1639, he might have feen that the firft printed Aft, bearing Date Juguft 1 7, was paffed in the SchSeffion of that Aflembly, Belldes, from the fhort hiftorical Account I have given, the Reader may fee the vaft Difjparity that there is betwixt what part in the Year 1692 and the 1639 ; As for inftance, the Aflembly 1692, wheo it was

mer^

( 29^ )

tnet, was diflolved by tbc King’s Authority, and they did immediately rife in Obedience thereunto ; but the Ad'em- bly 1659 was neither convecned nor diflblved. Again, the King by his foie Authority altered the Day that was named by the Moderator of the AfTcmbly 1692, and ad¬ journed the Meeting of the next Aflembly from Time to Time till the Year 1694; hut the Diet appointed for the Aflembly 1639 was altered by a Treaty concluded betwixt the King and the Flower of the Nation, with the Confenc of a confiderable Body of the Miniftry, who were there prefent by the Appointment of their Presbyteries, Like- wife, the Diet of the Aflembly in the Year 1692 was ad¬ journed by the King’s Proclamation for about the Space of two Years; but, by the Treaty at Dunce-law y the Meet¬ ing of the Aflembly was only adjourned for about 20 Daysatmoft: And when it is confidered that the Gamp at Dunce-law did breakup only on the 20th of June^ where fuch a confiderable Part of the Nation were prefent, it cannot be well prefumed that in the prefent Situation of their Affairs they could be in Readinefs to meet together in a National Aflembly at the Time appointed in the Month of July. From all which it may be very evident, how unjuft our Author is, in charging the Aflembly 1639 with negledling a Teftimony againft the 20 Days Ad¬ journment of the Meeting of Aflembly, and how little it fupports his Charge againft the Aflembly 1639, viz* That they were guilty of what is juftly complained of with re- foeft to the Management of this Church in the Year j6pz.

I fliall now confider the Exceptions that our Author lays againft our reforming Period, on account of their impofing of the Covenants under fevere Penalties, as he alledges. But, before he enters upon this Head, he makes a Profefllon of owning, p. 109. “ That it was a Praife “ and Glory to our Land, to be a People folemnly de- “ voted to the Lord, fworn to be for him, and to live to his Praife. A/e likewife ownsy this Land hath been hai- noufly guilty many Ways, both in former and later “ Times, in breaking our National Engagements : This, “ fayj hey is juft Ground of Lamentation. ” But then our Author is very fparing in his condefeending upon particu¬ lar Inftances. He indeed tells us. Some have violated our Covenants by turning to Poperyy and others by Difloyalty to our rightful Sovereigns ; thefe are his Particulars : But then, when he tells us, that forac have violate them by

turning

( ^97 )

fuming to otiier dreadful Errors, and by Unful complying with and declaring for Prelacy, and fome by Schifm and /inful Divifion ; his Reader is left, ro make his Con- jeftures whatthefe dreadful Errors or finful DiviHons are, and what thefe Compliances or Declararions for Prelacy were, or who were the Compliers with or Declarers for Prelacy. Our Author likewife, p. 112, would have bis Reader believe that he is not fjsealcing againft the Cove¬ nants themfelves, but againft the Manner of impoling them. As to the Manner of impoftng them, he tells us, p. 111. “That, if the Covenants were to be renewed, ic would be a Sin to injoin them under any fuch fevere Penalties as Church and State enforced them with frcm 1658 to 1649. And, fayi he. If we are to give a full, “ free, faithful Teftimony againft the Sins of our Fore- “ fathers, as well as againft the Sins of our own Day,

“ inftancing their Iniquities as Gaufes of Fafting, then “ I think we ought to acknowledge the Sin of Church “ and State in that Period, in impofing thefe folemnCove- “ nants under fuch fevere Penalties, which were a ftrong . Temptation to the dreadful Sin of Perjury.”

With refpedt to the Proceedings of the State, I fhall not take upon me to juftify every ftrong Exprefixon that is ufed by them in their ABs injoining the Covenant \ bur neither dare I condemn them, in regard I do not very well know the particular Situation of the Nation in our Cove¬ nanting Period : Only, it feems to be very plain, that the Covenants were refufed by none but the Popijb and Pvelati-^ c/r/ Party, who were all at that Time zealous Aflerters of the Sovereign’s arbitrary Power and Authority. Likewife, our Author cannot give me an Inftance of any that fuf- lered either Confifeation of Goods, Baniftiment or Death, on account of their refufing the Covenants ; tho* Ibme fuf- fered capital Punifhment on account of their Infurredtion and Rebellion againft the Civil Government of the Nation, in Defence of arbitrary Power, and againft the juft Rights and Liberties of the Subje<9:.

With refpeft to the Conduct of the Judicatories of the Church in that Period, they give frequent Evidences of their Caution and Circumfpe<Siion about admitting Perfbns to fwear or fign the Covenant. As for Inftance, The Ge* neral Afl'embly 1649, in their Aft SefT. 19. concerning the receiving of Engagers in the late unlawful If^ar againfl Eng- ' land, to puhlick SatisfaBion, obferve. That many have heretofore made a Shew and Profeflion of their Repentance, ‘ F p who

( ‘298 ) .

■wlio were not convinced of their Guiltinefs, nor humhled for the fame, &c. Tlierefore, for the better determining the Truth of the Sincerity of the Repentance of thofe who defire to be admitted to the Covenant and Communion, they appoint and ordain, “ That none of thefe Perfbns “ who are debarred from the Covenant and Communion “ Ihall be admitted and received thereunto, but fuch as, ** after exaft Trial, fhall be found, for fome competent ** Time before or after the Oder of their Repentance,— to have in their ordinary Converfation given real Tefli- “ mony of their Diflike of the late unlawful Engagement, “ and of the Courfes and Ways of Malignants, and of their “ Sorrow for their Acceflion to the fame ; and to live fo- “ berly, righteoufly and godly, &c.‘' And, after they enumerate feveral Sorts who have made Defection and Backfliding from the Covenant, they ordain, ‘‘That thefe, notwithftanding their Profeffion of Repentance, be not “ fuddenly received ; but a competent Time, according ** to the Dilcretion of the Judicatory, be afllgncd to them for the Trial of the Evidence of their Repentance, ac- “ cording to the Qualifications above-mentioned.” ^ve- ral other Evidences might be given, that the Judicatories at that Time were very cautious and tender in admitting into the Covenant fuch as they had Ground to fufpeft were dealing deceitfully in the Matters of God; and I de¬ fy our Author or any others to prove that the leaft Seve¬ rities were exercifed upon any fuch who fcrupled at the Covenants upon any real Tendernels of Confcience, yea, I doubt if there were any fuch in Scotland at that Time.

With refpeft to the Proceedings of the Church, our Author thinks fit to charge the Judicatories, particularly the Aflembly 1659, as being acceflory to what Ire calls great and fevere Penalties ; in regard they fupplicatc the Council and Parliament to injoin the National Covenant to be taken by all his Majefty’s Subjedls of what Rank and Quality foever^ under all Civil Pains : Which Petition and Supplication was granted by the Parliament, and they ordained and enaClcd accordingly. Our Author, p. alledges, Thar under all Civil Pains might be included Confifeation of Goods, Imprifonment, Banifhmenr, for¬ feiting of Life and Fortune. To which I anfwer, Tho’

I do not pretend to have Skill in the Law, yet I have heard it affirmed by fuch as are well acquaint with our 3i:i: Laws, That unlefs the Law exprejly declares Death to be the Puuilhmcnt, or mentions the Pains of Treafon,

any

J

( '299 )

any other Penalty, even tlie higheft annexed to any Parlia¬ mentary Statute, cannot be conftrufted in Law to amount to Death ; and that, when the Punifhment is all Civil Paitts^ the Judge is at Liberty to proportion the Punifliment to the Nature of the Crime, and the Quality of the Of¬ fender : 'And therefore, when the Covenant was injoined under all Civil Pains, it appears to me that no more was intended than that the Refuftrs of the Covenant fhould not be admitted unto Places of publick Truft ; and this I humbly judge may be very well vindicated. And befides, when I have looked into the Aft of Parliament 1640, ra¬ tifying the Covenant, after the Claufe of all Civil Pains, it is fubjoin’d, “ And alfo (viz. the Parliament) ordains “ the famen (viz. the Covenant) to be prefented at the “ Entry of every Parliament, and, before they proceed to any other Aft, that the fame be publicity read and “ fworn by the v/hole Members of Parliament claiming “ Voice therein ; otherwife the Refufers to fubferibe and “ fwear the fame fhall have no Place nor Voice in Parlia- ment.” Here the Reader may obferve, that no higher Penalty is decerned againft fijch Refufers, than excluding them from Voice in Parliament. In like Manner, they ordain “ all Judges, Magiftrates, or other Officers of “ whatfbever Place, Rank or Quality, and Minifters ac “ their Entry, to fwear and fubferibe the fame Covenant.’* Here the Parliament do clearly explain themfelves with re- fpeft unto the Penalty fo much quarrelled by our Author : But if our Author ffiall make it evident unto me, that the ) Civil Punilliment for a fimple refufing of the Covenant i was carried any higher than as I have mentioned, I lhall

I yield unto him that the Parliament 1640 were wrong, nei¬ ther lhall I juftify the Supplication of the Afiembly 1639. Our Author appears to me very dubious and dark in his [ Reafonings concerning Civil Penalties annexed untoChurch- i decifions or religious Oaths, as alfo concerning Church- I cenfures inflifted upon the Refufal of religious Oaths. I have not Room to purfue our Author at this Time in bis feveral Reafonings upon thefe Heads ; and therefore I fhall only propofe a few Queftions to him, an Anfwer to which is very needful for clearing the Queftions upon the Field : And I fhall not tell him what fome others fay upon them, but give mine own Judgment plainly upon them; and i hope our Author will deal in the fame P'reedora and Plain- nefs with me.

ijif V/hether or not a Law, whether Civil or Eccle-

P p 2 ftaftical,

i

( 3°° )

fiaftical, requiring a pofitive Duty, with a Civil Punlflii ment or Ecclefiaftical Cenfure annexed, infers Force upon the Confciences of Men f The Realbn why I put this Queftion to oqr Author is, becaufe, p, lu. he tells us. That the Impofing thele folemn Covenants, under the fevere Penalties he mentions, was a ftrong Temptation to the dreadful Sin of Perjury. Allb, p. 113. he tells us. That we have fundry Initances in Scripture, where Force was uled in taking lolemn Covenants ; as z Chron. xv. 1 2, 1;. 2 Cbron. xxxiv. 31, 32. Ezra x. 5, 8. Neh. xiii. 25. It is an Article of our Gonfellion of Faith, Chap. 22. Art. 2. “That a lawful Oath being impofed by lawful Authority, in Matters of Weight and Moment, ought to be taken.” I hope our Author will not refufe, that Swearing unto the Lord in religious Matters is a pofitive Duty injoined under the New Teliament, as well as under the Old; and that it is Duty to fwear a religious Oath, when required by lawful Civil or Ecclefiaftical Authority 5 But, if there is not a Penalty annexed unco the Law, it cannot be faid to be impofed by Authority ; a Law with¬ out a Sanction, is only a mere Recommendation, which may be obeyed or difobeyed as the Subject pleafes. All the Divine Laws have the molt awful Certification annex-* ed unto them ; yet I hope it will not be therefore faid, that Men are forced to Obedience. Hence, when our Au¬ thor, from the Scripture-inftances he gives, tells us that Force was uled in taking thcle folemn Covenants, he re¬ flects upon the Laws and Authority of the great Lawgi¬ ver. As alfo, when he fays, The Impofing of our folemn Covenants under the Penalties he mentions, was a ftrong Temptation to the dreadful Sin of Perjury ; it is an inju¬ rious and unfound Reflection, in regard the Corruption and Wickednelsof Mensflearts may ftrongly tempt them to this dreadful Sin ; But a righteous Law, whatever the Penalty is, when it requires a Duty exprefly commanded by the great and fupreme Lawgiver, cannot in a fafe Senfe be faid to be a ftrong Temptation to the above dreadful Sin. Our .\uchor indeed adds, p. lu. “ 1 am far from “ thinking the Impofing of a lawful Oath under a fevere “ Penalty, will make it finful to take that Oath ; but it “ may be, yea, in my Opinion, it certainly is, a Sin in “ the Impofcrs to injoin fqch a folemn religions Oath un- “ dcr a I'evere Penalty ; cfpecially if in that Oath we are obliged to fwear, that, in taking it, -zi-e are not movoef any ‘laorhily Reffcif which aic the very Words

“ of

< 3?i )

“ of the National Covenant’' As for the injoining a fb-' lemn religious Oath under a (evere Penalty, whicii, our Author tells us, is certainly a Sin in the Impofers ; I mull: obferve, that every Oath is an Adt of folemn religious Worfhip, By a religious Oath, I fuppofe, our Author means, an Oath, the Subjedt-matter whereof is religious Things only : Bur he Ihould have considered, that oun National Covenant contains alfo a Civil Allegiance to the King; and no doubt this is like wife a religious Duty, to which we are bound by the fifth Commandment. Whea our Author reckons that it w'as a Sin to impefe the Cove¬ nant under a fevere Penalty, I have already oWerved that the Penalty annexed by the Parliament may be very w'all vindicated. I wifii our Author would give us his Judg¬ ment, whether or no an Adi injoining fuch a folemn reli¬ gious Oath as the National Covenant, may have anj Civil Penalty annexed unto it? If our Author fhall affirm, that tiie Civil Sandlion ought not to be given unto any re¬ ligious Oaths in joined by the Church; he may for the very fame Reafons affirm, that the Civil Sandlion ought not to be given unto any Confeffiou of Faith received and adopted by a Church ; or, that it ought nor to be given unto any Ecclefiaftick Statute or Ordinance. I alfb wiili our Author may tell us. Whether or not the Scriptures he mentions do warrant any fuch Penalty ? Our Presby¬ terian Divines have hitherto pled them for Penalties of this Kind ; He may fee amongft others Mr. Gillefpie in his Mtfcellanies, p. 204. Our Author upon the forefaid Scrip¬ tures obferves, p. 115. That “ thele Oaths or Covenants “ were wholly and altogether Divine, nor only as to their Matter, but alfo as to the Form, Words, and every Expreffion : So that People could not be under the leafi Hefitarion, Doubt or Scruple as to the Lawfulnefs “ of all contained in them.” I want that our Author may explain himfelf, when he fpeaks of xhzForm, iVovds^ and ev-ry Exprejjion of a Covenant, as neceffary in order to make a Covenant wholly and altogether Diviiie. If our Au¬ thor means, that the exprefs Words as they were writ by the infpired Penman are neceflary, then we cannot have a Covenant wholly and altogether Divine, unlels it is among fuch as do very well underftand the Hebrew and Greek Eanguages : . But as the holy Scriptures, when they are tranflared into many and ditierenc Languages, may very well be called the Word of God, in fo far as the fcveral I'rftnllarions give us tlic jufl and true Meaning of the ori-

ginal Text ; fo whatever is deduced by good and necefla- ry Conftquencc from the holy Scripture, may and ought to be received with a Divine Faith, and without the ieaft Hefitation, as well as that which is contained in exprcfs Scripture-words. If our Author does not grant this, he pleads the Caufe of fuch as refufe the Warrantablenefs of Confeffions of Faith ; and the Reader may fee that his Argument, as he has laid it againft our National Covenant, points plainly this Way.

2d//, I ask our Author, May not the Church, not only advife the Magiftrate, but alio direftly apply him for the Civil Sanction to fuch A&s and Conftirutions of her Judi¬ catories as are founded upon the W'’ord of God ? And, is it nor the Duty of the Civil Magiftrate in this Cafe, as he is Guardian of both Tables of the Law, to give the Civil Sandlion to fuch Ecclcfiaftical A6l:s and Conftiturions ? This is all that was done by the General AlTembly 1659 in their above-mentioned Aft. And, if our Author is in any Doubt about this, he may confult our Presbyterian Di¬ vines, fuch as Mr. Rutherfoord and Mr. Gillefpie upon this Head.

^dlyj I ask our Author, Whether or not a particular viflble Church, who have embraced one Confeflion of Faith, one Form of Church-government, one Direftory for Worfhip, may require it of all her Members, in or¬ der to full Communion in all fealing Ordinances, that they confels, acknowledge, and fwear to abide in the Profeffion and Obedience of the fame Doftrine, Worlhip, Govern¬ ment and Difcipline ? Is nor this a publick Confefling Snd Avouching of the Lord and his Truth.s ? Is not this ne- ceflary to the Unity of the particular Organick Body ? Is it not warranted from the VVord of the Lord ? as ^er. iv. 2. Micah iv. 2. Zech. ii. 5. Is it not a very proper Mean fo excite all the Members of a Church to fearch into the Scriptures, that they may know and be eftablifhed in the Principles which they profefs ? Is it not a very ufeful and neceftary Mean to preferve a Church from Corruption and Degeneracy from fuch Sreps of Reformation as fhe has already attained unto ? Our Author inveighs againft our reforming Period for making the Covenants a Term of Chriftian Communion ; particularly, againft the Aft of Aftembly 164.S, requiring, that all Perfons whatfoever take the Covenant at their firft receiving the Lord's Sup¬ per. Our Author has indeed given abundant Evidence of his Laxnefs with refpeft: to Terms of Communion, as

( 303 )

I have already ohferved ; 1 pray the Lord may preferv® his People in Scotland from his lax Principles. Our Au¬ thor brings no Argument againft the Adi of Aflembly 164S, bur only in a confident Manner tells us, That “ the “ King of Zion never defign’d to make it a Term of Com- “ munion, fo as no ferious Soul, who might fcruplc to “ take that folemn Oath becaule of fome Kxprellions in.

“ it, fhould not be admitted to his Table.” I lhall not in¬ fill upon the invidious Comparifon that he makes, p. 16S. betwixt the Adi of Aflembly 1642, and tht facramental the Abfurdity of it may be obvious to any. Upon this Head of Chriftian Communion, I ask our Author, Can he refufe, that the Duties we are bound to in the Co¬ venants are fuch as we are bound unto antecedently unto the faid Oath ? Yea, we were bound unto every one of them materially when we were baptiled. In all the Ex¬ ceptions that he has laid againft our National Covenant^ he has not pointed at any Duty we arc thereby engaged unto, to which we are not bound tho’ there had been no fuch Covenant. I again ask our Author, What if (bme lerious Souls fhould fcruple at one or mo Articles of our Con- feflion of Faith : Will he therefore lay afide the Confefli- on of Faith when he baptiles Children 1 Or, can any Con- feflion of Faith be framed, but, according to our Author’s Way of Reafoning, fome ferious Souls may be found who who may fcruple at fome Exprcffions in them ? At this Rate all Confeflions of Faith muft be baniflied out of the Churches of Chrift : This is indeed very agreeable unto the lax Principles he has vented, but oppofite to all the Principles of the reformed Churches.

He refledts upon the Adt of Aflembly 1659, Seff. 25. ordaining particularly, Mafters of Univerfities, Schools, and all Scholars at the palling of their Degrees, to fub- fcribe the Covenant : Bur, does it not well become an Af' fembly to be careful that fuch as have the Truft of teach¬ ing Youth be found in their Principles’ And as for the Matter of palling of Degrees, why might not the Aflem¬ bly require of fuch, who were graduate in the Univerfi¬ ties, an Evidence of their Soundnefs in the Faith 1 This was not a new Thing in this Church ; it was ordained by the Aflembly 1581, and always pradtifcd in the Univerfities ev’n from the forefaid Year to the 1638, as the Latin Hiftorian reports, p. 59, 63. As for that Adt of Aflembly 1640, Self. 10. declaring. That any Expcdtant who refufcd the Covenant Ihould not have Liberty of re-

fiding

(304 'i

(iding in a Burgh. As rhis Aft is confined to Ex- peHarJs, fo that Aflembly had no doubt fomc particular Grounds and Reafons for a Declaration of this Mature ; and, fiuce I do not know their Reafons, I fliall not take It upon me either to juftify or condemn their Declaration ; Bur, as it is laid in their Aft, it appears to be a Civil Pe¬ nalty ; and the moft that can be (aid againft it is, That it was a Miftake in the Adminidration. And as for that Aft of the Aflembly i(54S, Sefl'. 31. ordaining all young Stu¬ dents to take the Covenants. After the heavy Charges that our Author has brought againft it, What is it that the Aflembly ordain ? It is even this. That fuch as enter into the Colleges, who are fuppofed to have come to the Years of Difcrction, fhould renew their baptifmal Engagements to the Lord, or declare exprefly their Adherence to the fame.

With refpcft to the Solemn League and Covenant^ there are two Exceptions laid againft it by our Author ; the one is, p. 84. That all Sort of Prelacy was not abjured by the lecond Article of that Covenant, particularly the Scheme propofed by Archbifhop UJber. He ought to have told his Reader what this Scheme was; but, not to infift upon this, I fhall only obferve, That, in the firft Article of the Solemn League^ they exprefly fwear “ to the Prefervatiort ‘‘ of the reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland^ in

Doftrine, Worfhip, Difeipline arid Government.*’ I hope it will not be alledged that any Sort of Prelacy ob¬ tained in the Government of the Church of Scotland at that Time : Our Presbyterian Church-government was then in its Vigour and Purity, and our Government is owned in this Covenant as a Branch of the reformed Peligion in Scotland^ and the Swearers of the Solemn League and Cove¬ nant bind themfelves to the Prefervation of this reformed Government and Difeipline ; but this they could never have done, in a Conflftency with their acknowledging any Sort of Eptfeopacy. When the Author, from the Hiftorian he refers to, mentions fome great Men in the IVeflminfier Af- fembly, who would not abjure all Sort of Epifcopacy, both he, and fuch Hiftorians, leave a Blot upon the Memory of thefe great Men; 'tis upon the Matter a Charging them with dealing deceitfully in fuch a folcmn Tranfaftion. Likewife, p. 18?. he lays another Exception againft fome Words in the third Article of the Solemn League \ “ Might “ not (■ favs he') fome Perfons of weaker Capacity, having

the Truth of Grace, fcruple to fwear, that with their

( JOJ )

Efntes arid Lives they fljmld defend the Rights and Privi* “ lee,es of Parliament ? ” To which I anfwer, That fome Perfons of weak Capacity^ who may have the Truth of Grace, will fometimes fcruplc at thcle Things that are moft obvious and plain ; and in this Gale they fhould be informed and inftrudted. But further, as the Cafe was ftated in oar covenanting Period, an arbitrary Power was claimed by the Sovereign, it was likewife in many Inflances exerciled; particularly, when Taxes were impofed without Confent of Parliament as in England^ and when the Par¬ liament was prorogued or dilTolved at Plealure as in Scot-* land 1659, 1640, the Eftates of the Kingdom did at that Time proteft againft their Prorogation as contrary to their juft Rights and Privileges : And I doubt not but the Sub- je6ls of the weakefl Capacity might have fo much Know¬ ledge in the Queftion as it was ftated at that Time, that they could with Judgment and Knowledge fwear the above Article of the Covenant. And, upon this Head, I may ask at our Author, Is there not as much if not more Diffi¬ culty in fome Expreffions in the Oath of Abjuration, even as it is calculate for the Minifters of Scotland? As for In- ftance, when they are obliged to fwear, ^hat they Jball defend his Alajefy's Perfon and Government againfl all trai- terous Con/piracies and Attempts avhatfaever^ as alfb to difcloje the fame ; Might not fome reckon it a Difficulty to fwear in fuch Terms, in regard they cannot define or determine what the Law may reckon a traiterous Confpiracy or At¬ tempt ’ Again, Might it not be a Scruple with others to fwear his Majefty’s Right and Title to all his other Demi- Tiions belonging unto Great Britain', in regard they do not know what all thefe Dominions are, and it is like do not know what his Maje fly’s Right and 7itle is unto them ? But I doubt not but our Author will reckon fuch who move thefe Difficulties to have but a weak Capacity, when they cannot underftand fuch comprehenfive Expreffions.

I have now done with the Exceptions that our Author lays againft our Covenants, and the Proceedings of our re¬ forming Period with reference unto them. I fhall now briefly confider his Exceptions againft fome other Afts of the faid Period, which he brings as Inftances of the Faults^ Failings, bad and tyrannical Adts of our covenanting Pe¬ riod. The firft that I mention is the Account that our Au¬ thor gives us of a Claufe in the Aflfembly’s Direftory, Au-* gufi 24, 1647. for fecret and private Worffiip, and mutual Edifica on, S’c. Our Author mentions only the feventh ' - (Iq Di-

( 3°^ )

Direftlon ; but, in order to underhand it, ’tis necelTary that I firft tranlcribe their fixth, viz. “ At Family- wor- fliip, a fpecial Care is to be had, that each Family keep “ by themfelves: Neither requiring, inviting, nor admit- “ ting Perfbns from diverfe Families; unlels it be thole “ who are lodged with them, or at Meal, or otherwife with them upon fome lawful Occafion. ” Then follows the feventh Article mentioned by our Author, viz. “ What- “ foever hath been the Elfedts and Fruits of Meetings of Perfons of diverfe Families, in the Times of Corruption or Trouble (in which Cafes many Things are commend- able, which otherwile are not tolerable) yet, when God “ hath blcffed us with Peace and Purity of the Gofpel, “ fuch Meetings of Perfons of diverfe Families (except in Gales mentioned in thele Diredlions) are to be difap- “ proved, as tending to the Hindrance of the religious “ Exercile of each Family by itfelf, to the Prejudice of “ the puhlick Minillry, &c. ” Our Author gives it as his Opinion, that in the above Diredfion that Alfemhly de¬ clared againft Fellowfliip-meetings for Prayer and Chrijlian Conference. I know not by what Spirit our Author is led in his Manner of writing; there cannot be a more unjuft Charge laid againft an Aftembly than this that is laid againft the excellent Diredtions. that this Aflembly give for private and lecret Worfhip, Any who is not blind may lee from the above Articles, that the Diredtion here given by the Aflembly is, Thar each Family by itfelf fhould keep up the Worfliip of God ; and that which is condemned is, the hfeeting of Perfons of diverfe Families together, to the Hindrance of the religious Exercife of each Family by itfelf-, and this is what they had good Reafon to condemn, as having a Tendency to all the bad Effedts that they men¬ tion. Our Author tells us from Guthrie ip his Memoirs, That the above Adk or Conclufion was unanimoufly gone into by leveral eminent Minifters, feme of whom he men¬ tions, who met to confer about that Affair in Mr. Hender- fona Chamber That is. An Adt of the Affcmbly

1(547 was concluded by feveral Minifters in 1639, even feyen Vears before it was enadted. Our Author tells us this Story from Guthrie's Memoirs. Several of his Readers, and thefc none of the weakeft, have thereby been impofed upon, and thought that our Author told them this Story from one of thefc eminent Minifters, Mv.jfames or Mr. FFilliam Guthrie Bur, to undeceive them, 1 muft inform thcnif that this Guthrie was one Mr. Henry Gtsthriey who

made

rnn.-^e a ronfldcrable Profefrioti of Zeal for our Reformaticn before the Year \66z\ but at that Time he complied with Prelacy, and received the Bifboprick of Dunkeld as his Re- vard tn the Year 1665. I have (bmstimes made ule of bis bfemoirs for clearing or confirming fome hiftorical Fafts ; but in this Place * the Bifhop tells us a very in- confiftent Story, viz.. Some ( fays le) came from England,, who were fuppofed to favour the Br oivnifi teal \ and

others likewife came from Freland, who had betaken them* Tlves to Conventicles, having forfaken the public!? Aflem- blies of the Church in Ireland: And he tells us, that they l-'t up thofe Conventicles which they called private Meetings in Scotland ■, and that they were countenanced by blr. David Dick/on, Mr. Samuel Rutherfoord and others : Bur that the foundeft of the Minifters, Mr. Ramfay, Mr. u4lexander Hendevfon and others (the Bifltop thinks fit to name himfelf among them) were deeply aftefted with the fiid Conventicles, doubting that the Courfe might lead to Erewrifm ; and therefore they purpofed to have an Aft of Affcmhly in the Year 1659 againft the fame; but Mr. Dickfon and Mr. Ruiherfoord oppofed the Motion, and, in- ftead thereof, moved for a Conference, that Brethren might unite upon the Queflion ; and that hereupon a Conference was held in Mr. flenderfon's Chamber, wherein the above- mentioned Conclufioif was taken. He likewife reports, that the Keepers of the find Conventicles or private Meet¬ ings having b&come more numerous and bold, the General Adcmhly at ylkerdecn in the Year 1640 took the Matter into Confideration ; and that Mr. Dickfon and Mr. Ruther^ foord pleaded vehemently for the faid Conventicles, till Mr. Guthrie (that is, the Bifliop himfelf) took the Paper out of his Pocket, which had been figned by Mr. Hendev¬ fon and Mr, Dickfon in all their Names: And then, fays the Bijho-p, Mr. Dickfon was filent; whereupon the paft unanimoufly againft private Meetings.

But every Body may fee that the above Account given by the Bijhop is both falfe and inconfiftent ; there was no fuel) A£t as he reports paft at the Aflembly at Aberdeen 1640. No Body that know the Charafters of Mafters Rte- iherfoord and Dickfon will believe that they favoured the Browni/iical Way, or that they would oppofe in an Aflem- bly a Conclufion figned with their own Hands: It is plain that the perfidious Prelate has laid the whole Story with a Defign to defame thefe excellent and worthy Men ; and it

(^q 2 is

* Memoirs, p. (5).

. . . . C )

is llkewife plain that there was no fuch Meeting in Mr. Hcnderfons Chamber, concluding an Article of our Di¬ rectory, which had not a Being till 1(547, that is, feven Years thereafter: Therefore, if our Author had not a De- fign to impofe upon the World when he cites Guthrie's Me¬ moirs, he has quoted him without any Manner of Judg¬ ment or Gonfideration.

Our Author tells us, He is far from condemning private Meetings for Prayer and Conference ; he owns, that Fel- Jowlhip-meerings, if rightly managed, are profitable : But in the mean Time he infifts only upon the Abufe of them; he never telis us wherein they arc profitable. He gives us a Qjjntarion from Mr. Durham on Scandal, Part 5, Chap« 1 5. and we have only the one Half of what Mr. Durham fays upon Fellowfhip-meetings, namely, what he (ays upon the Abufe of them ; but what is faid by that great Man upon the Ufefulnels of fuch Meetings, is entirely dropt by our Author : I (hall leave it to the Reader to look into Mr. Durham himfelf. I (hall only add. It is an unfair, and a very cunning W^ay of dealing, to commend the Pra¬ ctice of any Thing as profitable and ufcful, and yet to infift only upon the Abules of the Pra(5tice, without gi¬ ving any Inlfances of the Profitablenefs or UTcfuInefs thereof. ^

The Author of the EJfayy p. 53. oblervcs, That the Brethren in their Judicial and ^efiimonyy p. 14. fay, Thar, from 1641, the Building of the Houfe of God “ went on profperoufly and fucccisfuly till 1650.” And then he adds, “ But if the Robbing of the Chriftian “ People thus of their Right to eicCt their Paftors, and the many other bad A6ts made in that Period, was a ** Building of the Houfe of God, Pm far miftaken.” He gives us an Inftance of one of thefe bad A(^s, viz. “ The “ Affembly 1642 { (ays he) ordains, nor the Congregation, “ but the Elderfhip (hall have the filling up of Vacancies in theSeffion.” As alfo, p. 146. he affirms, that the faid Aft 1(542 was a P,ohbing the People of all Right to eleft “ their Elders and Deaepns. ” Here our Author charges the AlTembly 164.2 with a facrilegious Robbery; but, to vindicate them from this Charge, I (hall tranferibe our Author’s Judgment upon that Aft of Afl'embly, in his Full Findicatijn cf the Peoples Right, p. 53. W'^hen his An- tagonift throws up the above Aft of AfTembjy unto him, he rephcj, I fuppofe all the An’cmbly meant by that Aft was only this, that theSeflion (hQuld have the fijt

( 3°P )

Nomination of fuch Elders and Deacons as fhould be “ taken into the Sedion, leaving ftil! a Liberty to the

Congregation to add or alter as they faw meet; and if “ fo, tho’ that A6t may difter from what the Jpojlles “ did, it will not be in diredl Contradiction toit. ” Our Author’s above Vindication is indeed clogged with an Tf^ after his ordinary dubious Manner of expreffing himfelf. Tho’, for the above Reafbn given by our Author, I Ihall not abfolutely condemn the ACt of the Aflembly 1(542 in the Manner he thinks fit to do in his EJfa_y, as if it wete a robbing the People of all Pjght to chufe their El¬ der i and Deacons, yet neither will I jufiify it in the Terms in which it is laid, as if it were agreeable to Apofiolical Pattern : But, after all, the Presbytery afiert what is true, when they affirm, That the Building of the Efoufc of God went on profperoufly and fucefsfully during that Pe¬ riod ; and, aficr the particular Inffances they mention, they declare, p, 18. That they do not intend to affirm.

That under the above-mentioned Period there was no- “ thing defciidive or wanting as to the Beauty and Order “ of the Houfe of God, or that there was nothing cul- “ pable in the Adminiftration,” I (hall only add upoa this Head, That the A(3: of the Aflembly 1642 has been always obferved in Pra(5tice fince that Time, and, for any Thing I know', long before it. And if I may here (peak in our Author’s ordinary Diale<3:, or as he does in Ins Short Vindication^ p. 4. ’Tis commonly reported, that a certain Minifler, who exprefles himfelf with a great 2^eal againft robbing the Chriftian People of their Right to chufc their own Office-bearers, obferved the ACf of Aflembly 1(542 in his laft Ele(Sfion of Elders; I fuppofe our Au¬ thor underftands me, ^uis tulerit Gracchos^ &e.

Our Author, p. 35, O’r. refle(51:s upon that APt of Af- fembly 1642, whereby a Leit of fix Perlbns was given to the King and other Patrons, that they might prefent one of the faid Leit to the vacant Congregation ; as alfo a- gainft tile A(5t 11543, whereby the Aflembly petition the King that the Leif may be refl:ri(fled to three. Our Au¬ thor grants, that, according to ihefe feveral A6ls, the Leit was to be made up with the Confent of the moft or bejl Part of the Congregation : Yet he fubjoins, Thar the above Aiflrs were ‘‘ a plain robbing the People of their Right “ of E!c(5tion ; For (/rfyr he') in that Cafe they might ne- “ ver get the Perfon they mofl inclined for, and who “ would have been their Choice bad they been left to

“ their

( 3^0 ^

“ their Liberty in the Eleftion, He adds, Thar, by the “ Ad: 1642, the Congregation had not fo much as the “ Nomination of one of the fix who were to he upon that Leit; for the Presbytery had the Naming of them all.” The Church of Scotland was indeed at this Time under the Yoke of Patronage, under which Ihe had ever groned fince our Reformation from Popery, but yet our Author is very unjuft unto that Aficmbly, when h.e affirms, that the Ad 1642 was a plain robbing the People of their Right of Eledion. In their Ad they were fo far from being Robbers of the People upon this Head, that they plain¬ ly fhew, that they did as much as they could, in their prefent Situation, for aflerting and maintaining the Pcof)Ies Rights in the chufing of their own Minifters. Our Au¬ thor in his Full Vindication, p. j S4. fpeaking of the fore- faid Ad, exprefies himfelf in the following Manner; ‘‘ I dare fay, was the Church of Scotland at her next AH. fembly to enad, that no Judicatory fhould go into any “ Prefentation, fo as to fettle a Minifter upon it without “ the Confent of the beft or moft Part of the Cougrega- “ tion ; none but the Favourers of Patronages fhould “ complain.” After our Author’s above Declaration, ’tis very plain that he treats the AlTembly 1642 in a very indecent Manner, when he tells ns that their Ad was a robbing the People of their Right, 6'’r. And, if the Reader wants to be further fatisfied anent the Regard that all the Judicatories had in this Period to the Rights of the People in calling their own Minifters, I refer them to our Author’s R«// Vindication, particularly p. 181, 182, and to his Performance intituled the Search, p. 103, 104, QPc. Upon this Head I cannot but take Notice of what is affirm’d by our Author, p. 52. «;;?:.That the Church of Scotland has done more of late to have Patronages abo- lifhed, “ than was done from 1638 to 1649, or I think “ in any other Time fince the Reformation.” But, what¬ ever fhe has done of late, Ihe has not done fb much, ac¬ cording to our Author’s own Acknowledgment in his above Words, as the AfTcmbly 1642 did for the Rights and Interefts of the Chriftian People in the calling of their Minifters. The Reverend Author of Modern Erajimnifm unvailed juftly obferves, p. 125. upon the Ad 1642, Thar, “ in the making up of the Lift with the Confent of the “ Congregation, — the Church maintained and retained “ their Right to eled their Minifters, tho’ by the Patron’s “ Title they were mifcrably involved in the Exrcife of

“ that

( 311 )

“ rhat Right,” This was more than has been done by the prefent Judicatories lince the Patronage- a<ft was palt. The fame worthy Autlior has many other judicious Obferves upon the forcfaid Aft. Bur, what have our prefent Judica¬ tories done of late Years with refpeit to the Patronage-aft? They have indeed declared it to be a Grievance, they have petitioned the Parliament for the Redrefs of the fame ; and this is what the SubjeB may do with refpeft to any Law that they apprehend to be gravaminous unto them: But, have ever the prefent Judicatories judicial¬ ly aflerted the Principles of this Church with refpeft to Patronage? No, they have not; yet I find the Church of Scotland fince the Reformation has done fb, particular¬ ly when in her Second Book of DifcipUne^ which v/as re¬ ceived and approven in the Year 1581 by the General Af- fembly, they did in the Face of a (landing Law declare, That the “ Order which God’s Word craves cannot “ ftand with Patronages and Prefentations to Benefices “ ufed in the Pope’s Kirk, &>c."

I fhall only take notice of another Aft of which our Author very much mifreprefents, viz. the Di~ reBory of Alfembly 1649, which f fays he., p. 1 3 5.) ‘‘ gives “ the dccifive Vote in the Eleftion of Pallors to the El- “ ders only.” And, p. 147. “ It robs the People of theic “ Right to eleft their Padors fo far, that they had not the Choice of any of the Perfons to be upon the Lcit foe “ Minifters, in regard by that Aft the Elders only had “ both the Nomination and Eleftion.” Our Author adds, “ Tho’ the People had a Negative upon them, yet they might never have the Perfbn they mod inclined to have, “ if but four of feven Elders, fhould be againft the whole Parifb.” Our Author cannot refufe that the People had a Negative over their Elders by the DireBory 1649 ; and, if fo, then it is plain that the People were fb far from being robbed of their Right to chufe their own Miniders, that the Seffion could not impofe a Minider u- pon them, if the Majority of the Congregation diflented ; efpecially when it is conudered, that according to the Di- reBory,> when the faid Majority diflented, they were no more obliged to give their Reafbns for their Diflent than the Sefllion for their Eleftion, as our Author pleads in his Populi, p. 125, 12(5. And in the fame Place, when i^caking of the Affair of Aberdeen in the Year I72(S, he reports, That, when fuch as oppofed the Peoples being called as Confenters in the faid Affair of Aberdeen^ they

( 3’^ )

fau-^, could fee no Difference at all hetiveen calling them as decijive VoterSy and making an exaB Enquiry into their Sentiments as Con/enicrs. Our Author adds, “ And indeed I own the Difference is but finally while as the Church “ of Scotland required their Confent to be enquired into, “ and People were not obliged to objetff againll the Man’s Life or DoBrine." Our Author, if he had pleafed, might have faid, *Tis but a Strife about Words, to que- ftion whether the People ffiould be called dedfive VottrSy or only ConfenterSy when the Presbytery mud flop further Procedure, and when the Seflion muft proceed to a new Eleftion, if the Majority of the Congregation diffcnt, with¬ out being obliged to give any Reafon for the fame.

A confiderable Divine, who is fometimes quoted by our Author *, affirms, “ That the Right of Calling Mini- “ fters does not belong to the Church-reprefentative, but “ originally and radically {-primario & radicaliter) to the “ Society of the Faithful, or the colleftive Church, who, “ for Order’s Sake, may transfer it upon the Church- reprefentative ; and yet in the mean Time do not alto- gether give up with their Right, but allow it to be ex- ** ercifcd in their Name, aixi by their Authority, fo that “ they may exercife it themfelves, when they, to whom “ they have committed this Power, do bafely abufe it “ ad Mendacii propagationem,* i. e. by fpreading a Lie, or by giving out that the Chriftian People are for a Man to be their Minifter, when in the mean Time there is no Truth in it. And I find our Author, Full Vindication y p. 206. in his Difpute with his Adverfary, who alledged that by the Affembly 1649 the Elders were confidered as the Peoples Reprefentatives ; from this, I fay, our Author juftly concludes. That his Antagonift had yielded it unto him, “ That the Affembly 1649 were of the Mind, that “ it is the Peoples Right originally to ele6t their own Pa- ffors.” Our Author adds, “ If the Elders chufe for “ and in Name of the People, I think no Man of com- ** mon Underflanding can deny but it is the Peoples Right; “ and, if their Right, I fee not but they muft have a “ Right to exercife it, unlefs they have rendered thcm- “ felves unworthy of it, or unfit for exercifing thereof.’* From our. Author’s oWn Acknowledgment, as well as from the ample Negative that the Direftory 1649 gives to the People over the Seflion, ’tis plain, that the faid DircBcry is fo far from denuding the People of their Right, that

it

* ffurret. dc Neccff. Scceff. p. 227.

i* does acknowledge (as is well ex'prcfTed by ^urretir.e) that the Pvight of Election of Miniltcrs is originally and radically in the whole Body of tlie Faithful; and, if lb, then [he EleiVion which the DireHory gives to the Sellion amounts to no more than a Nomination of one to be Mi- rifter of the Congregation. Tlierefore our Author mifre- prefents the DireBory, when he affirms, that, according to it, the People might never have the Pcrfou they moft in¬ clined to have : For, from the Negative, which our Au¬ thor in his FtiH Ftndicaiion proves to be given to the People over the Seffion, it rather follows, that the Elders or Sel¬ fion can never have the Man they moft incline to have ; yea, it follow's, that they can never chufe any, with Hopes of having him fettled to be their Minifter, but the Man whom the Majority of the Congregation incline to have. And confequently, notvvithftanding of the Noife our Au¬ thor has made againft the Dire6tory 1649, as robbing in Part at leaft the People of their Right, Ido not fee that tliere is any Prejudice done to the Rights of theChriftian People in calling their own Minifters thereby : And I doubt not to fay, that if iht Directory 1649 were revived, and the Method of fettling Minifters therein preferibed were faithfully obferved, vve fliould have no Complaints thro’ the Church of Scotland of the violent Settlement of Minifters. The Author of the Ejfay cannot alledge, thac the Formality of making up a Leit, and of calling every one of the Congregation, Man by Man, is ell'ential to the Calling of a Minifter. According to the Cuftom of the primitive Church, the People fignified their Choice by lifting up their Hands, as the original Word (^NBsxiv. 2.5.) imports: And therefore I judge, that our Author gives a very good Anfwer unto an ObjeiSion that is fre¬ quently made againft popular Eleifions, viz. the Confu- fjon which muft attend them, in his Preface to his Jus Div. p. 6. “ I do not think the Votes of all, nor the Vote of “ any at all, eftential to the Calling of aGofpel-minifter; “ for if, at the Moderation, all agree upon a Perfon, I fee no Neceffiry for a Vote in the Attair: Or the Elder* fhip may be allowed to vote firft ; and, if all agree* to • the Perffin voted for, I fee no Need of calling more, B’c.” He likewife juftly obferves, That it is the ob¬ truding a Perfon upon a People, which only occafions Confufions at Moderations and Ordinations. I alfb join with him, when he fays, That, if the People demand a Suffrage, it onghr not to be refufed ; or, “ If the People

R r “ differ

( 3>,4 ) .

** differ as to the Perfon nominate, there is no coming to “ the certain Knowledge of their Inclinations, but by ** calling them Man by Man.” And I humbly judge, if the Direftory 1649 is underftood in its genuine Senfe and JMeaning, it grants all that our Author pleads for; and all this is likewife afl'erted upon the Matter by the Presby¬ tery in their judicial Ail and ^eftimony^ p. 100. tho’ our i^uthor has feveral critical Queftions upon their Affertion, Ejfay p. 199. with which I fliall not trouble the Reader, in regard I do not fee any Difference betwixt him and them upon this Head.

Our Author frequently appeals unto a fhort Paper, cal¬ led, Air. RutherfoordV Dying ^eflimony. He quotes i*", p. 96. and gives us a long Citation from it ; and concludes, that Mr. Rutherfoord’s Words fliov.r, “ That the Judica- ‘‘ tones of the Church were as guilty in the Period before *’ 1650 in their Decifions, as any Thing that can be al- ‘‘ ledged againff the Church of Scotland at this Day.” As for this Paper called Mr. Rutherfoord’i Dying ^ejlimcnyy it was publiflied in the Year 1715, and recommended to the World by an anonymous Author, whofe Preface Unto it contains a Variety of excellent Things ; but fince the faid Teftimony had not been heard of till the forefaid Year, and fince it came abroad not fubferibed by Mr. Ruther- foordy nor attefted by any Perfon who was acquainted with Air. Rutherfoord, or who was with him when on his Death¬ bed, this may give Ground to fufpedf: if it is altogether genuine: But, upon Suppofition that all that Teftimony contains Mr. Rutherfoord's own Words, the Words quoted fay our Author cannot be applied to the Period before 1650, but feem to be plainly intended of the Period after 1650, when the Church was divided by the publick Refolu- tions that were then taken; for, immediately after the above Words quoted by onr Author, ’tis added, “ If the Word “ of Truth in the Old and New Teffament be a fufficient

Rule, holding forth what is a Chriftian Army, whether

oft'enfive or defenfive ; whether clean, or finfully mixed ; “ then muft we leave the Queftion, betwixt our publick ** Brethren and us, to be determined by that Rule.” And I’m more confirmed that the Words in 'is\.r.Rutherfcord'’i ^efiimony ^ioint at the Year 1650 and following Years, when I confider the ample ^eflimony he gives to the Pro¬ ceedings of the Year 1698 in his Letter to the Profeffors in Ireland, which I have noticed already ; as alfb, the large Commendation that is given to the Work of Refor¬ mation,

( )

ination, as it was carried on from i()5Sto 1(^49, in the Tcltimony of tlie Minirters of Perth and Fife^ whicii ^Jr. like wife figns. ,

I have now done with examining our Author’s invidious Kefledtions upon a famous reforming Period of this Church : I hope the Reader will fee, that there is not the leaft Ground for the Charge that he lays againft them of Ty¬ ranny in the Adminillration ; and far lels for his fetting the Aflembly 1755 and other Aflemblies of this Period on a Level v/ith them, as if they were as faithful in the Ad- mtnifiration. I’m forry that one of his Charader and Profeflion has done fo much towards weakning tlie Argu¬ ments that are taken for the Purity of our Reformation from that Period ; and that he has never taken particular Notice of the feveral Proceedings of our Aflemblies at that Time, for advancing the Kingdom of Chrift, not on¬ ly ii5 this, but in all the three Nations, which the Mini- flei's of Perth and Fife in their forefaid ‘Tejiimor.y did bear particular Witnefs unto. And, notvvithflanding of all that our Author has laid, it will be found that there is juft Ground for complaining, that the Judicatories of this Church did neither at the Refolution, nor fince that Time, hear ex- prefs Witnefs and Teftimony unto the faithful Proceedings of tlie former Period, for carrying on a Work of Refor¬ mation. Our Author thinks fit with a Sneer to tell us, p. 193. “ Of what Advantage could it be, to revive fuch “ Acts as that of the AfTembly 1645, in which itisinjoi-

ned, that thefe <who are taught in Ariftotle be found well ‘‘ irfruBed in bis Fext ? It is certainly the Duty of Affem- blies to be careful about the Education of Youth, cfpeci- ally in the Colleges ; We have had a Swatch of late from the Prefs, by a Student in Glafgoxvy of the moral Philo^ fophy that is taught there ; And I do not think it would be unworthy of the General AfTembly 1639, to give fuch a Recommendation unto the Teacher anent Arijiotle^ as the Aflembly 1645 did; or to recommend Arfot/e’s Rthicks unto him inftead of his own Scheme, providing the Re¬ commendation is given with fome fuch Cautions as are mentioned in an Adt of AfTembly 1578 *. And it will be a further Evidence of the Degeneracy of this Church, it the Judicatories do not enquire into that Scheme of moral Philojcphy that ’tis reported is taught there.

Tho’ our Author fpeaks everywhere in a diminutive Manner of the Period, which he calls the txiolkd Period^

R r a 'yet

* Cald. Hift. p. S29.

( '31^ )

yet I hope all the fincere Lovers of Scotland’s covenanted Reformation defire to extol the Lord, who, with an out- ftretched Arm, gave a great and glorious Deliverance un¬ to this Church in the Year 1658, and who did make Ins great Power to be knov/n in mainraining, advancing and carrying on his own Vv^ork, until we did prove unficdfall and perfidious in his Covenant, particularly by raking the Adverfarics of his Caufe and Inrcrcfi itiro our Bofom, as well as by other Steps of Backfliding ftom him; where¬ by he was provoked at laft to deliver his Strength into Captivity, and his Glory into the Hands of his Enemies, and to throw liis People in this Land into the hot Fur¬ nace cf 2S years Tribulation and Pcrfccution. And we have iuft Ground to fear, that if the r.ord fltal! enter into |udgmcnt with us, on account of the Miiiiuprovcment of Zhe Deliverance given us in the Y^ear 1688, and for our manifold Defections and Backflidings fiont fum fince that Time, a Furnace feven Times hotter than the former may yee be fet up in Scotland^ Amos tv, i z.

CHAP. V.

JlhdYein fome Exceptions laid hy the dii* thor cf the Eflay, adt^ainfl the A(5t and Teftimony of the AiTociate Presbytery, are confidered^

I Have had Occafion in the prerceding Chapters to con- fider feveral of the Exceptions that arc laid hy our Author againft the and CCe^lmony emitted by tho ^Jfociate Presbytery : Ede endeavours through hts whole Ef- fay to mifreprefent the faid ^editnonyy fometimes hy his Crittcifins on the Words of the ^*rcsbytery, and fometimes he roundly charges them with reporting what is not Matter of FaCe, and fometimes he condemns them as juftifying v-hat he reckons to be bad ACrs. I have fwclled this Book fo much already, that I cannot at this Time go in .to ail our Author’s particular Inilanccs; I fhall therefore only now touch at a few of them which I have nor noti¬ ced already, and fuel) as appear to me to be fomc of the rnofi material Exceptions that arc laid aguinlE the Presby¬ tery’s Tcflimony.

( 3U

The y^Jfocrate Presbytery in rheir ^<5 and dejlimony, p. 17. mak" mention of the Act of Parliament 1649 as i laudable Adt; v/herein it is ftatute and ordained, That the King, before he be admitted to the Exercile of the Royal Power, aflure and declare, by bis folemn Oath, his Allowance of the National Covenanfy and the Solemn Leap’ue and Covenanty 5cc. as it is narrated in the ^eflimony. This Aft our Author reckons bad and unjuftifible, AJfay p. 201. And this (//ijj /&!?) is evident, becaufe, “ i/?, The “ Aft declares ’tis necellary that King and People be of “ one perteft Religion.” This our Author alledges to be contrary to our Ccnfefion cf Faithy Chap. 2^. Arc. 4. I believe that our Author is the firft that has difeovered the Contrarity he mentions ; It may be obvious to every Body, that the Neceffity intended in the Preamble to the Paid Aft is, tiiat it is neceffary for the good of the Subject, and for tiie Maintenance of their religious Liberties, that King and People be of one perfeft Religion ; yea, that it is ncccffary by vertue of the Command of God, that both King and Subjefts be of one perfedt or true Religion, in regard the Command of God binds ail Ranks of Pcrlons, the King as well as the Subjeft; therefore the Preamble contains a good Reafon fdr the Aft and Statute. Again, our Author reckons it hard that, by that Aft, the King fliould not only fwcar for himfelf, but alfo for his Siiccejj'orsy when none could tell who they might be. Buf, is it not as bard for Parents to engage for their Children, •when none of them can tell what they may be? Was ever this quarrelled by any Proreflant Divine ? Our Author may reckon Aiofes's Words to /frael zs hard, Deut. xxix. 14. Neither Kiith ycu only do / make this Covenant and ibis Oath ; bat ‘iviih him that fiandeth with us here this Day before the Lord cur Gody and alfo ivith him that is not here with us this Day. Bur, as our Author is fingular in many of hisRea- ionings, fo likewife in this; lor by the fame Argument he overthrows tlie Obligation of all religious Oaths upon Po- flcrity, wfiich is contrary to the whole Scriptures. Ano¬ ther Reafon to prove the above Aft of Parliament bad That the King "was bound to I'wear, “ never to endeavour “ any Afreration of the Afts feenring our Religion : For “ (/rtvj he) I'ome of thele Aft.s flood very much in need of Alteration ; as particularly the Aft of Parliament “ 1592, which, tho’ a good Aft in the main, fays he, yet “ had fundry ’I’hings in it very bad.” What inconfiflent

Rcafoniivg is !i;re'

Could the bad Things in any Att fc-

cure

f 518. )

cure our Religion I Therefore it is evident, that, when the King fwore not to alter any A<fi: fecuring our ReJigior?^ none of the bad Things in any Adis were fworn to be maintained ; yea rather, by vertue of the Oath he w'as obliged to alter them. A fourth Reafon our Author gives againft the Adi of Parliament is, Thar the King was o- bliged to rake a mofi ilUmitedOath. Bur, how was it illi- mited ? Our Author tells us, “ That the King fwore for ‘‘ him(elf and his Succcjfors to agree to all Adis of Parlia' ment injoining the Covenants, and fully eftablifhing freihyterian Government." He fhould have added, the Direliory for U'^orffp, Confcjftcn cf Faith and Catechifms ; for thele are likewife mentioned in the Adi; And I believe any Body but our Author will fee that this is a very limited Oath. Our Author adds, “That, by the Oath admini- “ flrate to King Charles at Scocn, it feems it included Adis made or to be made : For, fays he, the King was obliged “ to fwear j /, for myfelf and Succejfors, JJoall confent and agree to all ABs of Parliament injoining the National Co~

venant, and the Solemn League and Covenant’, - and

“ that / Jhatl give my Royal j^Jfent to all NBs and Ordinances “ of Parliamenty fafl or to be pajl, injoining the fame in my other Dominions." Our Author adds, “ Here the King “ is fworn to what neither he nor the Irapofers of that “ Oath could know what. ” Bur, in the mean Time, is it rot exprefly declared, that he ihould give his Royal Con¬ fent to JBs injoining the Covenants ? And therefore both the King and the Parliament knew very well what the Oath obliged the King unto ; but it feems a more than or¬ dinary Antipathy at our Covenants has blinded his Eyes. I know not for what Reafon our Author has again dropt our ConfeJJton of Faith and Catechifms for thefe are alfo exprefly mentioned in the King’s Coronation-oath. But I ihall not purfue his other two Reafons againll the faid Adt of Parliament, in regard they have no more Strength in them than thefe I have mentioned.

Our Author, p. 102. tells his Reader, That the feceding Brethren in their and ^efUmony, p. 59, aflert, That the Parliament immediately after the Revolution appointed the Oath of Allegiance to be fworn, in place cf any other Oaths impofed by Laws and ABs of preceeding Parliaments. Our Author’s firft Obferve is, That the Brethren never tell which cf all the nine Seflions of King William's, firll Par¬ liament it was. There are many fuch Omiflions in our Author’s Fffay : \Vc muff fometiracs fearch through a

whole

U'hol" Rink for his Gitahon.s, as in the Cirattons he gives U3 from ’^lurretine^ p. 27, zS. yea, tlirough many Books,

as in the Citation he gives us irom Durham ^ p. 63. But oiir Author has fallen upon the Adn of Parliament which he makes no Doubt we intend; and, according to him, ic is the fecond hdc. of the fecond Seffion of King iVilliam and Queen Alary’s flrji Parliament. Yet there is no fuch Claule as he himfelf quotes to be found in that Adt ; but the Reader may find it in fecond Adt of the frfi Seflion of the laid Parliament, where it is Paid, That “ the Par- “ liament do hereby retreat and refeind all preceeding “ Laws and Adis of Parliament, in fo far as they impofc “ any other Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, Declara- tions and Tells, excepting the Oath de jideli, ” Anti this Adi of Parliament bears an exprefs Reference unto the Claim of Right, the lall Article whereof declares, “ That “ the Oath hereafter mentioned (^viz. the Oath of Alle- “ giance) be taken by all Protellants, of whom the Oath “ of Allegiance and any other Oaths and Declarations might be required by Law, inftead of them; and that “ the faid Oath of Allegiance, and other Oaths and De- “ clarations, may be abrogated.” Our Author thinks fit to exclaim againll the Brethren, and alledges. That they take a Liberty of altering and changing the Words of Adis of Parliament, that they make them fpeak what they never intended; he likewife allcdges, that rvothing is meant by the Oaths mentioned in the Adi of Parliament and Claim of Right, but the finful Oaths in the former Period, which were Hill in Force by Law, &‘c. But the Brethren in their ^efiimony did forefee the above Objedlion, and there^ fore they explain themlelves in the following Manner; “ Yet, fay they, the Terms in which the Adi of Parlia- “ ment is conceived appear plainly to exclude the Oath “ of the Covenant, which contained a very folemn Tell “ of Allegiance to the Sovereign ; efpecially when it is “ confidered, that the above-mentioned refcijfcry was “ not repealed. ” By the JB refdjfory they mean, the Adt part in the firft Seflion of King Charles IPs Parliament, u4nno 1661, whereby all the Parliaments of our reforming Period, as alfo all their Adis and Deeds, were declared null and void. Hence it is obvious, that the Strength of the Brethrens Realbnings upon this Head does not lean to the Words of the Adi of Parliament vefcindtng all pre¬ ceeding Laws,—— in fo far as they impofe any other Oaths of Jllegiance, 6cc. but they aflerc what is plain Matter of

r. . ^ 320 )

raft, Vtt. 1 hat oviv Ccv^nnnt-allepjaiHe was left hariecl hy the Pariiamenc 1690; and that, inffead of revivint^ our Covevant^allegiance, tlie Oath of JUrgi.wce contained in their Aft is impofed ; and therefore they jiilily arj^ue, that the above Aft of Parliament is conceived in Ibr.li Terms, as appear plainly to exclude the Oath of the Co-, venant: And for this fame Reafon they afnrni, p.

“ Thar the Oath of Jhjuratior:^ together with the “ ance^ is fubftitute in the Room of our Solemn National

Covenants^ vihxch contain the fliifteft Engagements of “ Duty to the Sovereign, a mofl: folcmn Renunciation of “ Popery, and confequently of all Popifii Pretenders what* ‘‘ fbever. *’

As for what our Author alledges, p. 107. “ To me, fays “ he, it is unfair in the Brethren, and tbefe who now ex- “ claim againft the Abjuration, that they never mention the “ difierent Forms or Draughts thereof, as if there had not “ been the lead Appearance of Difference between riicm, “ &cf' I anfwer, They did not think it needful to men¬ tion thefe different Forlns or Draughts, in regard tliey judged that, in all its feveral Forms znd Draughts, the united Conffitution was homologate.

The Author of the Ejfay charges the Brethren with afferting in their SLefiimony feveral Things which are not Matter of Faft ; as Effayy, p. 91. he fays. They affert, all the Prelates were depofed from the Mini pry (juiz. by the Af- fembly 1658) AH and ^ef imony, p. 14 and 40. This lays our Author, is not Matter of Faft. But the Brethren fay no fucli Thing as our Author alledges: For, in both Places quoted by him, they fay only that all the Bifhops were depofed; thefe Words, from the Mtniftry, are an Ad¬ dition of his own, that he may the more eafily fix a Falf- hood upon the Teflimony. But ’tis plain, that all the Pre¬ lates were depofed by the Affembly 1658 from their pre¬ tended Epifcopal Funftion ; Two of them were fufpended only from the Minifiry for the Rcafons I have already given : And, when the Brethren fay they were All depofed, they fpeak according to the Title of the feveral Afts rela¬ tive unto them ; they fpeak likewife in the Stile of all the Writers at that Time, and in the exprefs Words of the Minidcrs of Perth and Fife in tlieir Teftimony.

The Author of the Ejfay, p. 97. takes Notice of the fol¬ lowing Affertion in the AH and TeRimony, p. 45. where, Ipeaking of the Declarations of the Commiffion of the Ge- ceral Affembly in their. Petitions againft the Unie»f they

.( 3,1 1 )

fay, Blit, as the enfuing General Aflembly only approved of the Proceedings of this Commiflion in common Formy without an exprefs Approbation of their Conduft in this “ Particular, tho’ Matters of lefs Moment have fometimes “ been particularly noticed, &c. ” Our Author affirms, That in this Two or Three Things are aflerted by the Presbytery which are not Matter of Faft. The frfi In- ftance that he gives is. That the Affiembly, in ratifying the Proceedings of that Commiffion, commended and thanked them for their great Zeal, Faithfulnefs and Diligence. Now, fays he^ in giving their Zeal and Faithfulnefs the Epithet of GREAT, this was out of the common Form, and more than any of our AfTemblies ufe to do in approving their Commiffions. ” Bur our Author is very much miftaken : For the Epithet of Great is fbme- times given to the Zeal, Faithfulnefs and Diligence of the Commiffion, and fometimes the Epithet Aduchy and this will be found to be frequent and common Fortn for a confiderable Time after the Revolution ; and the Difference between great Zeal and much Zeal is not very material. The Af. lembly 1705 approve of their Commiffion for their great Pains and Diligence in the Affairs referred to them ; the Affembly 1700 approve of their Commiffion for much Di¬ ligence and Faithfulnefs; fo the Affembly 1697 ufe the Term and the Affembly 1695 commend two for¬

mer Commiffions, as evidencing in their Proceedings much

Wifdom - and commendable Zeal: Likewife the Af-

fembly (701 approve of the Proceedings of a Commiffion

of the former Affembly, as evidencing W7»ci& Wifdom, -

Zeal and Faithfulnefs. Another Mirtake that he charges the Presbytery with is. That they fayy “ Sometimes Mat- “ ters of lefs Moment have been particularly noticed. “ Upon this he obferves, Thar, in “ approving the Com- “ miffion in all our A£ts fince the Revolution, the Affcm- bly have never noticed any Affairs in particular. ” It had been more for our Author’s Honour, if he had con- I'ulted the Regifters more exactly, before he had charged the ffudicial JlB and Fefiimony in fuch broad Terms, as afferting Things that are not Matter of Fa6t: For the Affembly 1714, in their Approbation of the Proceedings of the Commiffion of the former General Affembly, do defervedly take particular Notice of the Zeal of that Com¬ miffion againft Popery and a Popijh Pretender, expreffed^ in that ’excellent Paper, their Seafonabls iVftrning ; which

S f Ap-

( )

Approbation is recorded among the printed Afts of that Year. Alfo, the General Aflembly 1755 approve of the preceeding Commiffion; ” and, in particular, they got the “ AlTembly’s Thanks for their Care, in caufing Applica- “ tion to be made to the King and Parliament for the Re- “ peal of the Patronage-ad:;” as is, to be feen in the Index of the unprinted Ads that Year. Whether thefe Things are of lefs Moment than the Union ^ is not the prefent Que- ftion ; but it may be fafely faid, That the Addrefles ot the Comraiflion relative to the Union defcrved at leaft an equal Regard.

Our Author, p. 98. after his ufual Manner, makes a Retreat to our reforming Period, and tells us, For “ as momentuous an AlFair the folemn y4cckno<wledgntent “ of puhlick Sinsy and Engagement to DutieSy drawn up by “ the Commiffion of the Aflembly 1648, was; yet the “ Aflembly 1649 never took the leaft Notice of it.” But our Author might have known, that the Covenant was fworn with the above Acknowledgment of Sins and En¬ gagement to Duties according to an A6t of the Commiffi¬ on, and with Concurrence of the Eftates of Parliament, by all Ranks of Perfons in Scotland before the Meeting of the Aflembly 1649 ; and confequently, the Commiffion’s Ad had the particular and exprefs Approbation of ail the Synods and Presbyteries, yea, and of all the Minifters and Members of the Churen of Scotland before the laid Aleeting of Affembly : Therefore there was not the leaft Occafion for the Aflembly 1649 to make particular Men¬ tion of it in their Ad approving the Proceedings of the faid Commiffion. But we find that they make a Reference unto it once and again, as a Deed approven and juftified by the whole Church of Scotland : As for Inftance, in their feafonable and necejfary fVarningy July 27th, SefT. 27. they have thefe Words; “It is Matter of exceeding “ great Sorrow, to think upon the Ignorance and Profa- ‘‘ nity, the Impenitence and Security that ftill abounds in

“ the Land, notwithftanding - of our late folemn Con-

fejjton of Sinsy and Engagement unto DutieSy fealed with the Renewing of the Covenant and Oath of God.” And in their Ad anent Catechifing, July 30th, “ The ‘‘ General Aflembly taking into their lerious Confiderati- on the great Darknefs and Ignorance wherein a great Part of this Kingdom licth, together with the late fo-^ lemn Engagement to ufe all Means for Remedy thereof ;

“ do

f 3-3 ) .

“ do ordain, &c.'' Our Author then writes at Random, as 1 have ohferved he frequently docs, when he tells us, tiiat the Aflcmbly 1649 never took the haft Notice of the folemn Acknowledgment of Sins and Engagement to to Duties. Whether he has read the A6ls of Aflembly or not, I fhall not determine ; bur, if he has read them, he Icems to me to have defigned to palm it upon the World, that the Aflembly 1649 had as little Regard to the Renewing of the Covenant as the prefent Judicatories f‘ em to have. I might likewife here obferve, that the Author of the Effay is alfo miftaken, when he affirms, Thar, in all our old AGcs from 1658 to 1650, there is but one Inftance of any particular Deed of the Commiflions of the feveral Aflemblies noticed, viz. that which he men¬ tions in the Year 164S. I fliall nor give the Reader the Trouble of tranferibing, but refer him or our Author to AlTembly 1645, Sejf. iS. and Aflembly 1649, ip.

where he may fee, that the Deeds of feveral Commiflions have been particularly noticed by feveral Aflemblies; and other Inftances might be given, if it were needful.

The (eceding Brethren in their and Eeftimony^ p. 41. obferve from the Index of the unprinted Afts 1690, a Declaration made by the Moderator, “ That the Aflem- “ bly would depofe no Incumbents (imply for their “ Judment anent the Government of the Church.” The Presbytery add, “ That is, they {viz. the Aflembly by “ their Moderator) declare, that the perfidious Prelates “ and their Underlings were not to be depofed for their “ treacherous Defeftion from the covenanted Principles of “ this Church.” Upon which our Author, EJfay p. 90. explains the above Aflertion of the Presbytery in the fol¬ lowing Manner ; “ As if that one Principle Amply, of a Man’s being for Prelacy, was enough to depofe him from the Miniftry, tho’ as holy as Cranmevy Ridley^ “ 8cc. ” But thefe, of w'hom the Moderator of the forc- faid Aflembly (peaks from the Chair, were, as the Pres¬ bytery obferve, perfidious Prelates, and guilty of a trea¬ cherous Dcfedlion ; but fuch were not Cranmer and Ridley. If I fhould tranferibe the Apology that our Author makes for that Aflembly, I believe any Reader of ordinary Ca¬ pacity might think I impofc upon his Underftanding : As for Inftance, When our Author tells us, “ That the Mo- ‘‘ derator might declare as above, while perhaps the ma- ‘‘ jor Part was againft it, tho’ they might fee meet to let

5 f 2 ic

«

((

MiSVhV ’’wL^'p'ra 'T?' Moderator’s

“ Mtftake” R„^^• K • ^ laboured under a

ty that as' .hr M ’f to the weakcft Capaci-

in’ the ’ Declaration ftands recorded

Mtfo^atliaft %Kon b°chove^ .''be^L'

fl3.^d™nli':LfasTtt'th:^

al the p, jjj charges the Yudui^

T' «■' Things tha{

" w^rh^l a ‘t ‘leclares, p. 4?, •< That it

•' dem^all ttfotming Ttmes to con.

ctemn all Steps of Defeftjon, and duly ro cenfure fuch

the Ke'adeff.r' ^ ft3il“rj

Dare Jhl o he maycom-

obferved alreTr? ^ Miftakes, with what I have

J^iffta already m the former Chapter, concernint» the

■*’' Affcmbi“?4s:

the LTuiuft.Ve^ readily lee

bytcr,T^a.f,T^^^^ "Sainft the Pres-

TiJ7 f ^efiimony. Neither fhaii I infill at this

again 11° thrfaid TrT^- * particular Pixeeptions

that rhpv^ Reader may fee,

tiVf^rl oPthe came Kind with thefe that I have ro¬ of a’ S^drif MiPreprefentations, that favour mucli

Brethren n or irritate againft the fecedin'g

rethren, upon fome one Occafion or another

J cannot omit to take Notice of one other particular Inllance, and that is, the Treatment he give o ^ay ^'. -

-1 th EJfay p. n7.‘‘ToaffirV;i

“ f Juaicarories^ of this Church have done whi l?y to pull the Crown off Chrift’s Head, refu- mg to give him the Glory of his Supreme Deity, is an unaccountable and groundlefs Charge, unworthy of . c weaken And upon his Margin he mentions Mr

Ma:r, Second p, i t 5. When our Author gives a'

Brother, avho is very well known in his Neigh- bourhood, fuch a niminutive Charafter, it argues fuch a B rterneli of Sp.nr, blended with fuch a quantity of Pride and Self eftimat.on, as, I fhaii not fay, iT of th,

but I may lav, ’cis not like common Prudence ordinary Civi.iry and Difererion ; efpecially when ic rpay he found, that th? Charge, as it is laid by^thc

ffCj

CC

( 32) )^,

Mr. Mair^ is not fo unaccountable and ground lefs as our Author alledges. To fupport the above Charge, our Author puts the following C^ueftions; “ Did it not ly in ** their Power to declare thePofitions charged^againft Pro- “ feflbr 5/W2/0W are Truths, and not Errors? Did it not ly in their Power to cenfure any that would call themi

Errors ? - Was it not in their Power to commend

“ him as teaching (bund Dodlrine ? 0’c. ” The plain Im¬ port and Meaning of the above (Queries is, Was it not in the Power of the Judicatories to declare, that the great God our Saviour is not the Independent God,is not Nece(- farily-exiftent, is notSelf-exiftent, and that the Three Per- (bnsofthe adorable Trinity are not One Subftance in Num¬ ber ? Horrefco veferens ; it may make one tremble to think what Liberty this Author takes unto himfelf, in the above, which he no doubt reckons to be pungent Qiteries, I wifh he had writ with more Sobriety upon fuch a grave and weighty Subject. But, in Anfwer to his above Queries, If the Judicatories had declared in the above Manner ex- prclTed by our Author, their Declaration would have been a barefaced and exprefs Voting of our Confeffion of Faith to the Door ; and I doubt if it is in their Power to do fo, while the A6b of Parliament 1690 ratifying our Confefli- on of Faith (lands ; But yet in the mean Time, if their Conduftand Behaviour towards Mr. Simfon, and if their Management of that Procefs is confidered, they have, as I already obferved, ftript our Confclfion of Faith of one of the principal Ends and Defigns of Confeffions of this Na¬ ture ; tho’ in the mean Time it muft be held fome way or other, fince it is ratified by the Laws of the Land, I muft further obferve, that our Author cites our Brother Mr. Mnirs W^ords after- his ordinary partial Manner: W^hen the Reverend Mr. Mair allerts, that the Judica¬ tories had been doing what in them lay to pull the Oown offChrift’s Hea<l,he adds, “Refufing to give him theGIory “ due to his Name, to give him the G\ory \m Supreme “ Deity ^ by refenting fuituhly the hlafphemoui Denial of the fame ; and, inftead thereof, have even kept the Blaf- “ phemer in full Communion with the Church, and re- “ fufe all Calls to lay to Heart or acknowledge their Sin “ in this.” The(e are the Reverend Mr. Mair’s own W^ords, and ought to have been quoted by our Author, if he had defigned to treat him with Candor ; but it is upon fuch partial (flotations that our Author builds

( >

Ijis leading Arguments from Authority. But, for further clearing of Mr. Muir's ExprelTions, let me fuppofe that I fhould lay, that the Reverend Mr. Currie, Author of the E(fay, has done what lay in his Power to weaken the Au¬ thority and Reputation of the Alfembly 1638, as well as the Authority of the other Aflemblies of that Period ; our Author according to his above Way of Reafoning might reply, Did it not ly in my Power to defend the Caufe of the Prelates ? Did it not ly in my Power to ap¬ prove of their Declinature oi the Alfembly 1638? Did it not ly in my Power to declare them a treafonable and fe- ditious Meeting, as King Charles I. by his Proclamation did ? But if our Author, or if any who has writ againlf the Allembly 1638 as he has done, fhould fpeak after this Manner ; it might be fafely told them, that they had now taken off the Mask, and that they had now declared them- felves openly to be, what really they were, even Enemies to the Work and Intereft of Chrift in Scotland ; and it might be likewife told them, that they fpoke in an arro¬ gant Manner, as if they were independent on God, or without the Reftraints of his adorable Providence : And this I rake to be imported in the above Qiicries propofed by our Author. And as for the Reverend Mr. Adair s Ex- preflions, they only import, that when the Judicatories did not particularly and exprefly condemn the feveral er¬ roneous Propofitions vented by Mr. Simfon, and when they did not fuitably refent the blalphemous Denial of the true Deity of the ‘^on of God, but fcreened and prote(Sed Mr. Simfon from the Cenfure he delerved, and, inftead thereof, kept him in full Communion with the Church ; they could not have done a greater Injury to the Deity of hi', •’erfon, in a Confiftency with that Profcflion which they continued to make. As for what our Author fubjoins, That the Alfembly, in their Att fulpending Mr. Simfon, have plainly aflerted the -proper Supreme Deity of our Lord Jefus. I have already obferved in the Vojlfcript to the printed Letter, p. 37. That our modern Arians will ac¬ knowledge a proper Supreme Deity in the Perfon of the Son, in a Confiftency with their own Scheme ; as alfo, that Jvlr. Simfon will fublcribe to the Words of the above Aft of Alfembly according to his own Scnlc and Meaning of them, without difclaiming his darling Propofition, that the Terms, Necejfary Exigence, Supreme Deity, and Istle

of

( 5^7 )

of ^be only true God, may be taken ^ and are by fame Au¬ thors taken^ in a Senfe that includes the perjonal Property of the Father^ and fo not belonging to the Son ; and therefore I fhall nor further infill upon it in this Place.

Our Author lays Tome general Exceptions againft the judicial AB and Fefiimony ; as for Inftance, he alledges. That Separatifts may complain that it is very defeftive and unfaithful, p. 149. I anfwer, The feceding Brethren did never pretend to emit a perfect Teftimony, and I doubt not but they will readily acknowledge that their Teftimo¬ ny may have manyDcfeifts: And if any, whether they are Separatifts or not, (hall difeover unto them any publick Steps of Defeftion which ought to be teftified againft, and. which they have omitted, I know nothing to hinder them from enlarging their Teftimony upon a proper Occafion. As for the Defeats tjiat are alledged by our Author, I have already taken notice of feme of them ; and, as for others of them, it does not appear to me that they deferve any Regard, Our Author alfo alledges, Th^x. the judicial AB and teftimony is not plain, p. 1 50. But I ftill judged, ' that it was more plain than pleafant to many. As for the Inftances that our Author gives, I fhall leave it to the Rea¬ der to judge whether they amount to a Proof, that the Teftimony of the feceding Brethren wants any Thing of that Plainnefs that is neceflary for a Teftimony of this Kind. Our Author further alledges, p, 151. “ Things difputed “ among the truly godly, learned and tender, have not “ been thought fo proper Matter for a publick Teftimony.” But I muft ask our Author, Has not our Presbyterian Church-government and Difeipline been difputed even by fbme who were learned and godly? Muft we therefore give up with our Government as improper Matter for a publick Teftimony ? Yea, I could give Inftances unto him in feveral Articles of our Confellion of Faith, that have been difputed by fome who have been reckoned godly and learned; Shall we therefore, upon the Account of the Er¬ rors and Corruptions of godly and learned Men, give up with our Confellion of faith ? Our Author's Reafonings, as I have frequently obferved, are laid againft all Confef. (ions of Faith, as a Bond of Ecclefiaftical Union and Com¬ munion.

The Effay on Separation is filled with Inveftives againft the feceding Brethren, and againft luch as declare their

Ada

. f 3=8 )

Adherence to their AB and Tefiimony : But whoever they are, that have declared their Adherence unto the AJfociate Presbytery and their AB and ^eflimonyy they have neither been forced nor compelled to this, they are all Volunteers in the Caufe And I have good Ground to believe, that a confiderable Number in Scotland are moved from a Prin¬ ciple of Confcience in their declared Adherence to the AB and tefiimony ; and that they are not led by an im- plicite Faith, bur by Knowledge and Judgment in this Matter. When our Author alledges, That there are ma¬ ny Things in the Teftimony above the Capacity of not a few ferious Souls, p. 167. This is the very fame Thing that is alledged againft all Creeds and Confe£lons of Faith : Yet, if any come in to the Aflbciate Presbytery, and' de¬ clare their Adherence to their Teftimony, who have nei¬ ther read nor confidered it, I fhall condemn them as afting without Knowledge and Judgment ; but I cannot con¬ demn any of the Adherers to the judicial Aft and Tefti¬ mony, as if they were led by implicite Faith, from fuch Reafons as our Author gives : As for Inftance, when he tells us, p. 151. That the feceding Minifters “ have not “ told what are the many valuable Pieces of Reformation “ this Church and Land had once attained, which they “ affirm, AB and B^ejlimony p. 47. were upon the Matter “ given up at the Revolution.” But here there is no Ground for the Charge of implicite Faith; for the Pref* bytery, p. 58, 59, 40, 41, 4z. do plainly declare what thefe valuable Pieces of Reformation were, which, they fay, were not only ncglefted, but alfo materially given up at the Revolution. Another Inftance that he gives of adhering to the Teftimony by implicite Faith, is -a. Latin Sentence infert in the Teftimony, p. 57. But, when the Reader looks into the preceeding Page, he fees that Latin Propofition Word for Word in Englijb. However, it is not ftrange to fee honeft People run down as afting by impli¬ cite Faith, and dealing in Matters above their Capacity ; for ’tis long fince it was faid, John vii. 48, 49. Have any of the RulerSt or of the Pharifees believed on him f but this People j who know not the Law^ are curfed.

The Conclusion.

IHave now confidered what I judged itioft material in the EJJ'ity againft the Conduct of the j^jforiate Pref- bytery, their Judicial and ^efJmor.\y and the Pro- ceedtngi of our reforming Period. If I Jiad noticed every Thing that delerved Animadverfion, I had found enough in every Page of our Author’s Performance to have fwel- led this Book to a much greater Bulk. I have Ground to make an Apology for v/riting fo much upon the Subject, and yet I could not do left in order to vindicate the Con- duft of the AlTociate Presbytery, and for clearing the Proceedings of our reforming Period, as al(b for dilcove- ring our Author’s groft Mifreprefentations of both. Tho” I have frequently read over the EJfay on Separation ; yer, *tis like, fome Things may haveefcaped my Notice, which others may reckon material: And therefore, if there is need for it, I may afterwards publifh an Appendix to this Book. I have not judged it worth while to enquire into his Hearfayt or private Storiesy as I obferved in my Poji- feript ; however frequent thefe are with the Author of the Ejfayy yet it is neither a manly nor decent.Way of mana¬ ging a Caufe. And befides, if I bad dipt into them, it mull have ilTued in flat Contradidlions unto the moft if not all of them ; and, after all, the Caufe in Queftioii would have got no Advantage on either Side.

But, in regard the Author of the Ejfayy p. 104. with Defign (as appears) to throw a 'Refleilion upon my Reve¬ rend Brother ^Ir.Ebenezcr Erjkine; when fpeaking of the laft Form of the Oath of Abjarationy\\t{zySy “Of the Lawfulneft “ of which laft Form, the Reverend Mr. EbeneZer Ershine “ was fb much convinced, that he gave it under his Hand to the Laird of Naughtouny SherifF-depute of Ftfey thac “ he had Clearneft to take it, and fhould take it when re- “ quired, tho’ there was lomething peculiar in his Cir- “ cumftances, fo as he would not take it that Day on which it was taken by other Minifters of his Presbytery. This is no Secret; for his Obligation to take it was read “ openly in the Synod of Fife.'" Upon the above Storyj reported by the Author of the Ejfay, I wrote the Revs-’ tend Mr. Ershine ; and he gave me a Return, wherein he

T t ex-

. ^ . '33° )

exprefTes himfelf with his ordinary Candor and Ingenuity, and I thinJc it not improper to inlcrt it here : It is as fol¬ lows.

K & D. B.

IN Anfwer to yours, relating to that Paragraph in Mr. Currie s EJfay v/hich concerns me in particular,! have “ nothing to lay, but only, without Irritation of Mind, ** to acknowledge, that I was fo far overcome with the “ fubtile Arguings of Brethren, who were clear about “ the Oath in its fccond Edition, as to declare that I had Freedom allb : But as I did not take it at that Time, fo, upon after Thought and Confideration, I Taw juft “ Caufe to alter my Judgment, and declared fo much in “ a Letter to the Laird of Nau^btounj which was read, “ as I heard, before the Synod of Fife. I fhall only add, “ That I blefs the Lord, that, when my Foot had well “ nigh flipt, his Mercy held me up, and I hope lhall help and uphold me to the End. I am

HurSy See.

Ebenezer Erskine.

From the above Letter the Reader may fee, that Mr.’ Erskine ingenuoufly acknowledges v/hat the Author of rhe EJfay alledges, that he had once Clearnels to take the Oath, but notwithftanding of this he faw juft Caufe after¬ wards to alter his Judgment ; and I think this is no Dif- paragement to the Reverend Mr.£riA/»e’s Chara(51:er. And the Author of the Efay could not but know that he had writ as above to the Laird of Naugbtoun^ efpecially if the Letter was read before the Synod ; therefore it is not very fair in our Author to conceal that Part of the Story, and it alfo argues an Intention and Defign of defaming his Bro¬ ther.

I lhall part at the Time with the Reverend Mr. Currie^ when I have obferved, That he fronts his Jhort Vindication with a Sentence from y^ugujiine, pointing at the great Re¬ gard he has for his own Chara^er and Reputation : But, as that great Light of the primitive Church was in his

- - young-

(33*)

younger Years dipt in very grofs Errors, fo lie was not afhamed to write a particular and honeft Retraftation of them. And as our Reverend Author obferves, Ejfayy p, a 1 6. “ j^ugufiitJe was not more famous for any Thing, than “ for his Ingenuity in writing a Book of Retraftations, ** in which he frankly acknowledged his former Miftakes •* and Errors;” I wifh the Reverend Mr. Currie would follow the Pattern and Example call before him by this great Man, and that he would refledf, with ferious Sobrir ety andCalmncfs,upon the lax Principles that he has vented concerning Church-communion, as alfb upon the Injuries Jhe has has done to a reforming Period of this Church, whereby the Mouths of many of our Enemies are opened, and the prefent Generation are hardned in their Backfli- ding from the Lord. I conclude with the Advice which he reports 'Jerome gave to Rufinusy “ Never blufli to change “ thy Opinion ; for neither you nor I, nor any Perfon alive, are of lb great Authority, as to be afhamed to confefs we have erred.”

FINIS.

cdf»

.ViO A

The CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION.

'^^Ontainipg a port Narrative of fome Contendings in 4 Ji''ay of Church-communion., jor fome Tears imme~‘ diately before the Secejjton from the prefent Judica¬ tories <was fated. J9

CHAP. I.

^herein the true State of the ^ueflion concerning Se- ceffion from the frejent Judicatories is enquired into,

SECT. I.

Some Obferves concerning the Church, and Church- communion.

SECT. II.

^he ^ejlipn tnif-fafed, and feveral lax Principles anenf Church-cotnmumcn maintained, in the Eflay.

SECT. Ill,

Jf herein the State of the ^uejlion concerning Seceffion from the prefent Judicatories is declared.

3S

34

39

<53

CHAP. II.

ff^herein the Argument for Seceffion from the prefent fu» dicatories is fated, and alfo vindicated from the Ex¬ ceptions laid againf the fame by the Author of the EiTay, 75

SECT. I.

ff'herein it is proven, that this National Church, as Jhe is reprefented in her prefent Judicatories, has not the Scripture-char aHer cf the Church of the living God,

I Tim. iii. 15. •j6

SECT. II.

^Plberein it is proven, that the prefent Judicatories of this National Church are tyrannical in the Adrninif ration of Government and DifcipUne. 1 00

SECT. III.

Concerning the Adminiftration of Gofpel-ordinar.ces by fitch as are inipcfed upon dijenting and reclaiming Congregations. 118

SECT.

The CONTENTS;

SECT. IV.

herein it it fiowny thatj by fame AEit and Heeds of the prefent JudicatorieSy finful and unwarrantable ^errns of Communion are impofed upon the Members of this Church,

SECT. V.

jVherein it is proveuy that when the Majority of the Office-bearers of a Church do obfiinately carry on a Courfe of DefeBion from Reformation-principles once attained untOy that the Minority in this Cafe^ tho very few in Number f have Divine Right and fVarrant to exercife the Keys of Government and Difcipline in a diftinii Capacity from them,

SECT. VI.

Page

135

Jf' herein the ConduB of the Judicatories is conjldered, jtnee the ‘Time that the Seceffiion from them was fir ji fated and declared’, and particularly the ConduB of Alin fers and Jssdicatories with refpeB unto the late AB of Parliament anent Captain John Porteous, as alfo the AB of Affiemhly l/jS againfi the feceding MiniferSy are enquired into. 1

CHAP. III.

jVherein the Arguments advanced by the Author of the Eflay, againfi Seceffion from the prefent Judicatoriesy are examined. 1 77

SECT. I,

Jf’herein the Scripture-argumentSy againfi Seceffion from the prefent Judicatories, are confidered. lyp

SECT. II.

Jf'herein the human Authorities advanced by the Author of the Eilay, againfi Seceffion from the prefent Judi¬ catories y are examined. 188

SECT. III.

Ji^herein the Argument againfi Seceffion from the prefent Judicatories, from the ConduB of the faithful Mini~ fiers betwixt 1596 and 1638, is examined. 2oj

CHAP. IV.

Wherein the injurious RefieBions cafi upon the reforming Period of this Church, betwixt \6\'Si and l6^0y by the Author of the Effay, are confidered. 2.25

SECT.

Page

zzS

273

/ THs CONTENTS^

SECT I

hijorical Recount of that ghrious Jppearm'ce of God for the Church of Scotland in the Tear 162$^ SECT II ^

tie inju^om Ref., aim th^, ,re eaft by the

c,“fZef •‘'35-

SECT. Iir.

If W, the Ey,ipiic„, that ate laid by tie AatU. ,f the bJhy agamft the Aa, aad Preceding, ef feveral Afemblte, ef j, refetm,^ Peeted after \i Tea,

are conudered.

2p2

try, . a C H A P. V,

Wherem forne Exceptions laid by the Author of the EfTay, agatnft tie Aft W Tdtimony ./ the Affeciate Pef byteryy are conjidered. j jj j

* 310

ConcJuflon,

325>

■X.