Skip to main content

Full text of "Defence of the reformation-principles of the Church of Scotland : wherein the exceptions that are laid against the conduct of the Associate Presbytery"

See other formats 


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.