.

The Plain Perjury & Great Iniquity of the Seceding Brethren’s New Covenant Discovered,

in a Familiar Dialogue between a Seceder & an Adherer to the Church of Scotland

.

.

[John Currie
Minister of Kinglassie]

.

.

Hos. 10:2 & 4

“Their heart is divided, now shall they be found faulty.
They have spoken words, swearing falsely in making a covenant.”

.

Westminster Confession of Faith, ch. 22, sect. 3

“Whosoever taketh an oath, ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act
and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth.”

.

Edinburgh:
Printed by T. Lumisden & J. Robertson

1744

.

.

[This transcription is public domain.  The outline and subtitles have been added.
Minimal updates of language have been made.]

.

.

.

Outline

To the Reader
Intro
Not Faithful & Free
Not Full
Not Ingenuous
Not Impartial
Falsehoods
More Exceptions:

1. Many things above their reach to judge of
2. Swear against themselves
3. Not a renewing of the National Covenant and SL&C
4. Obscurities
5. Doubtful things
6. Short and prolix; many things cannot be sworn in truth and judgment
7. A false covenant
8. Term of ministerial and Christian communion
9. Blasphemous

Conclusion

.

.

.

Reader,

The publisher of this dialogue, looking on the [Seceder] Brethren’s covenant [of 1743] to be a sinful oath, he judged it duty to bring this conference to the light, that through the divine blessing it might prevent the dreadful sin of perjury in such as are under tentations to swear it, and be a mean of convincing such of their heinous provocation as have already sworn it, that they may repent, fleeing speedily to the atoning blood of the great God our Savior and so find mercy of the Lord in that Day.

I know some are of opinion ’tis not worth the pains of any to write or publish, less or more, against the Brethren or Seceders, who are so blinded with prejudice they will not hearken unto, nor so much as read a sentence of what is written against their conduct; or if any of the Brethren shall but say of any such performance, “Tis stuffed with falsehoods,” ’tis enough to scar[e] them from looking into it.  I am afraid there may be too much truth in this.  If, as some affirm, the Brethren have forbidden their followers to read what is not on their own side of the question, this says they are for being credited with implicit faith, and such as join them may lay aside their reason as a useless thing, though the King of Zion has commanded them to prove all things. [1 Thess. 5:21]  But I would fain hope ’tis yet otherwise with sundry serious Christians among them.

Albeit this dialogue should only prevent the perjury of one soul, ’tis worth all the pains of publishing it unto the world; and, whatever should be the effect, I reckoned it duty thus to exoner myself, hearing of nothing prepared nor preparing for the press upon this present subject, being fully of his opinion who, having read this covenant, said he:

“would not swear it for all between Heaven and earth; and, should he swear it, he could not but fear God would make his earth to open her mouth and swallow him up alive.”

Fearing our land may be made to mourn for such swearing, and knowing the sins of others become our own sins if we do not our utmost to prevent them, these and such like considerations may be an apology for troubling the world with this dialogue at the time.  Because the Brethren say, “No regard is to be had, nor any answer necessary to such papers or performances where people dare not own them by their subscription,” therefore the publisher of this dialogue, contrary to his inclination, affixes his name.

.

John Currie

Kinglassie, May 8, 1744

.

.

.

A Familiar Dialogue

.

Intro

Seceder: Good morrow, neighbor.  Hear you any news this morning?

Adherer: Nothing strange, only that your new covenant is published.

Sec: Have you seen it?

Adh: Yes, and have glanced it over.

Sec: Then you’ll oblige me in telling what are your sentiments thereof, and of the Brethren’s Confession of Public Sins emitted therewith.  I hope you approve their conduct in that affair.

Adh: What conduct do you intend?

Sec: I mean their faithfulness, honesty and true zeal, evidenced in that public acknowledgement of sins, the sins of all ranks in the land both formerly and of late, and their zeal in renewing our covenants National [1638] and Solemn League [1643], with their commendable concern to have all ranks engaged to the Lord by covenant.

Adh: I look on these national engagements to be superadded obligations on these lands to be the Lord’s, and for his glory: And as we ought all to pray for it, so I think it would be the rejoicing of my soul to see the Spirit poured out from on high in such a manner as all ranks might be in a suitable case and frame for joining ourselves to the Lord in an everlasting covenant; and yet I’m far from approving these Brethren in their manner of confessing sins and entering into that covenant.

Sec: What can you quarrel in their Confession of Sins?  You cannot refuse but it has been faithful and free.

Adh. As to their Confession, it has neither been faithful and free, nor full, nor ingenuous [innocent and sincere], nor impartial, nor true.

Sec: Let me know what ground you have for any such allegances: I suppose your sentiments are singular.

Adh: If you please, I’ll give you an instance of each of those.

.

.

Not Faithful & Free

Sec: Then show me wherein they have not been faithful and free.

Adh: That they have not been such in their Confession is manifest from this, that in all their large Confession of Sins they have not one word of what they reckon the king’s sin, and a heinous sin in him, namely his taking upon him to appoint fasts and thanksgivings, which, according to their new principle, belongs only to the Church.  And it may be, yea must be thought they mean themselves alone as being in their esteem the only Church in Scotland at this day.  In their Confession of Sins, p. 102, they profess to mourn and lament that our first General Assembly in 1690:

“did not faithfully and particularly represent unto all ranks of persons through the land their manifold iniquities and backslidings, in order to excite them to mourning and humiliation before the Lord.”

But, if then there was any such sin, have they not been equally guilty here?  Turpe est doctori, etc. [Horace: “It is shameful for the teacher when the fault he criticizes is his own.”]  It was commendable in Moses that he “did not fear the wrath of the king.” [Heb. 11:27]  It has been publicly talked that at approving this covenant, December 23, 1743, the Brethren had resolved to send one or two of their number to wait upon his Majesty [King George II].  Whether ever this was resolved upon, I know not: But as they would exoner themselves and represent unto all ranks their sin, seeing they have not confessed what undoubtedly they reckon the king’s great iniquity in the above-mentioned particular, and also in countenancing the established Church of Scotland, heaping favors upon her, though [it be said to be] no true Church of Christ, but a “synagogue of Satan,” while they [be] the only true Church of Christ in Scotland, and perhaps all the world,¹ are slighted by his Majesty; undoubtedly some way or other they ought faithfully to signify his sin in so doing, showing what favors he shows to our Church should be conferred upon them alone.

¹ [These phrases are not used in the Seceders’ documents, though Currie apparently gleaned, or inferred, these sentiments from the Seceders.]

Till his Majesty be palinly informed of this, it cannot be thought he can amend.  Kings are to be nursing fathers to the Church of Christ [Isa. 49:23], but ’tis surely a heinous sin, of which they are to be told, to befriend her opposites or such as disown all her authority, being desirous to see her unchurched.  And seeing many Seceders think ’tis the king’s great sin that he has not sworn our national covenants, judging this omission is ground sufficient to refuse an Oath of Allegiance to him,¹ surely he ought to be fairly warned of this.  And, seeing they instance some of the sins of the court and parliament, why not of the King’s Majesty also?  They loudly complain of those ministers who had freedom [of conscience] to [publicly] read the Act of Parliament anent Captain Porteous [1736-1737, in churches],² as if thereby the headship and sovereignty of our Lord Jesus had been practically given up; but never a word of the sovereign’s sin in imposing the reading thereof.  That did not blacken the Church, and therefore not a word anent it.

¹ [This is evidence of the sentiments of the Society People, or Reformed Presbyterians (1743), the civil separatists of the day, in the ranks of the Seceders, though Adam Gib and the official documents of the Seceders generally upheld the then civil government.]

² [The act related to riots and included regulations regarding church buildings.]

.

.

Not Full

Sec: What can you say to prove they have not been full in their Confession of Sins?

Adh: That their Confession has not been full is evident that in all that Confession they have not a word of their own sin in that sometime, even since their Secession, they observed such appointments made by the king; nor have they a word of the land’s sin in that they keep such days, which, according to their new principle, is the heinous, open, manifest sin of all ranks, the keeping such fasts and thanksgivings being in their esteem a sinful compliance with gross Erastianism, and so of other sins which may be instanced afterwards.

.

.

Not Ingenuous

Sec: Let me hear what you have to advance against their being ingenuous in their Confession.

Adh: That they have not been ingenuous therein is manifest in that albeit they confess what they reckon was the heinous sin of “many, both ministers and people,” namely their giving a “kind reception to Mr. George Whitefield, a professed member and priest of the superstitious Church of England,” (p. 109) yet they never confess their own sin in commending him so highly in their sermons, as ’tis well known they did.

Sec: Here you are far mistaken, for the Brethren are very particular in acknowledging their own sin in that matter, while, in confessing the sins of the ministry, p. 123, they say:

“We desire to be humbled before the Lord, that some of us were not timeously enough aware of Mr. George Whitefield, a priest of the Church of England, and the danger of his way, nor timeously enough employed in warning the Lord’s people against the same; and that all of us have been too remiss in our endeavors to prevent the sad effects which have attended and followed upon his ministrations.”

Adh: I own they thus express themselves; but had they not dealt disingenuously, they would have acknowledged not only these sins which were only omissions in them, but also and much rather what according to them were their great and heinous sins of commission, as that they were the persons who first commended him in their sermons and most commended him, if not the only persons who did commend and extol him in their sermons from time to time and from place to place.  It cannot be denied they highly magnified and praised him, telling what great things God had done by his ministry abroad in America; telling how everywhere the Lord remarkably countenanced him by blessing the Gospel from his mouth for the conviction, conversion and edification of many souls; telling of the wonderful doings of the Lord, who had taken him a stripling [young man] out of the College of Oxford, the fountain of error, to publish his name and preach the pure doctrines of the Gospel.

Had those Brethren been ingenuous, they had acknowledged there was the justest ground for them and all Seceders to mourn that God was so angry with them as to give some of their number up to such strong delusions as to think and speak well of him as an eminent servant of Christ, who was little better, if not much worse, than a devil.  Had they been ingenuous in their Confession, they had also confessed the sin of some of their number in going to meet him at his first landing in Scotland, sitting with him in [the] pulpit in the Canongate Church, inviting him to his pulpit at Dundee, asserting the power of God was with him in his sermon there.

And whereas they only confess it was their sin that “they had not timeously enough warned the people against the danger of his way,” had they dealt with anything like ingenuity with an omniscient God, they had confessed their sin in that they had impressed their followers with such good thoughts of him as being a singularly eminent minister of Christ, so that some of them said, Come to Scotland when he would, they were sure none of the ministers of this Church [of Scotland] would ever own him, affirming he was such an eminent servant of Christ that they knew not if there had been his equal since the days of the apostles.  And, had they not dealt deceitfully with God in their Confession, they had acknowledged their great sin in that they thus extolled him when they knew he was a member and priest of the “superstitious” Church of England, one that had sworn the Oath of Supremacy,¹ and when, from his Journals, they knew he frequently made use of the English Liturgy, and declared against separation from that “superstitious Church.”  As also, had they been ingenuous, they had acknowledged their sin in that some of their number were left so far of God as to keep communion and correspondence with him by letters.

¹ [The Oath of Supremacy confessed the king to be the “only supreme governor…  in all causes,” including ecclesiastical.  That this oath can be morally taken by non-Erastian, divine-right presbyterians, see ‘On the English Oath of Supremacy, 1534 / 1558 / 1661’.]

.

.

Not Impartial

Sec: I cannot refuse your charge of disingenuity seems to be too just, but I desire you may go on to prove your next accusation, namely that their Confession of Sins is not impartial.

Adh: That they have not been impartial, but very partial in their Confession is evident from this, that albeit they are particular in enumerating the sins of the Church of Scotland, yet they omit the same sins in their own party, or in themselves.

Sec: Let me know what sins in their own party or themselves they have neglected to confess.

Adh: Passing the above particularized sins with respect to Mr. Whitefield, though they confess at large the sin of the Church of Scotland with respect to Professor [John] Simson and others charged with error in not censuring him with an adequate censure, yet there is never a word, they have never one sentence of the errors among themselves, nor a word of their own conduct in not making the least enquiry into these and censuring according to the demerit of their crime.

Sec: What errors can you charge upon any of them?

Adh: Sundry might be particularlized; I mention only two at this time, as:

1. The error which has been advanced or maintained by masters Ralph Erskine and James Fisher, which Mr. [James] Robe in his fourth letter to Mr. Fisher (p. 31 ff. [for the fuller context: pp. 18-64]) has shown to be gross heresy, namely their denying that “the human nature of Christ is any part of the object of faith.”  Surely all that would be saved, they must believe in Him as he is the adorable Immanuel, God-man, in two distinct natures.

2. Nor have they a word of Mr. Gib’s error vented in his Warning against Mr. Whitefield, where he flatly denies any man is or can be a minister of Christ who has only episcopal ordination.

Sec: Surely that is a truth and no error; I own many of us are of his mind in that very point, and could swear he is in the right in that particular; I’m sorry you look upon that as an error.

Adh: Whatever you may think, ’tis an error, and error of consequence, and an error which is directly contrary to our Standards, yea, and to the Brethren’s Act and Testimony, and also to their own new covenant which Mr. Gib and the other Brethren have sworn, and which many of you their followers glory in, and are ready to swear.

Sec: Show wherein that doctrine is contrary to any of our Standards, or any sentence in them; surely Mr. Gib and the other Brethren who saw his Warning before it was published, and have commended it since, are more orthodox and better acquainted with these than to advance any thing that’s opposite to them.

Adh: To prove this doctrine here is contrary to our standards, you may look to our [Westminster] Form of Church Government and there you will see it is affirmed:

“If a minister be designed to a congregation who has been formerly ordained presbyter according to the form of ordination which has been in the Church of England, which we hold for substance to be valid, and not to be disclaimed by any who have received it, then there being a cautious proceeding in matters of examination, let him be admitted without any new ordination.”

These words are so plain a proof that they need no commentary; and Rutherford asserts to that same purpose in the plainest terms in his Due Right, pp. 238-39.

Sec: I must acknowledge by what you have shown from that Form of Church-Government, ’tis manifest Mr. Gib’s doctrine is contrary to our Standards, but how will you make it evident that ’tis against the Brethren’s Act and Testimony, and contrary to their new covenant which they have lately sworn with uplifted hands to the God of Heaven?

Adh: If contrary to our Form of Church-Government, then ’tis clear as a sunbeam ’tis contrary to these, because in their Act and Testimony they declare their adherence to that Form of Church-Government (second impression, p. 101) and, in their new covenant, they solemnly swear “to promote and advance our Form of Church-Government.” I’m as little for prelatic government and as far from approving the manner of episcopal ordination as the Brethren, and yet I dare not deny those ordinations to be “valid as to the substance of them”. And, did I not own this, I should deny that our worthy reformers, as also the generality of the ministers in the Westminster Assembly, and further the generality of the members of our worthy Assembly met at Glasgow 1638, to have been ministers of Christ, because they had no other but only episcopal ordination. And, according to what they say in their Act for Renewing the Covenants, p. 107, till once they censure those Brethren for the above-mentioned errors, their “whole lump is leavened”.

That the Associate Presbytery are partial in their Confession of Sins is further evident that albeit in an act made by them at Edinburgh, February 3rd, 1743, they plainly own that some Seceders have:

“carried their zeal against the defections and evils of the times to the dangerous extreme of espousing principles in favors of propagating religion by offensive arms, quite contrary to that disposition which ought to be in all the professed followers of Christ, ‘who came not to destroy men’s lives, but to save them;'”

Yet as they have never inflicted the least censure upon those who are leavened with such a monstrous dangerous error, so in all their Confession of Sins, there is not the least mention of this sin of which some of their party are guilty; nor is there a word of their own sin in not drawing the sword of discipline and censuring for it.

Again, whereas Mr. Gib in his Warning, p. 53 says:

“The doctrine of grace, as diabolically perverted through Mr. Whitefield, is versant about such a Christ as is merely a Savior; and it hurries men off in quest of such spiritual influences, convictions, conversions, consolations and assurance as are unconcerned with and hostile unto the Mediator’s visible glory.”

This doctrine of his, in my opinion, is unsound, heterodox, yea, and blasphemous doctrine. Who can say but the doctrine of grace concerning Christ as a Savior includes the whole of his mediatory work? All his mediatory offices and all his mediatory relations, his doing and dying, our justification, sanctification and glorification are from Him as a Savior; through Him as our prophet, we have salvation from our blindness, ignorance and errors; we have salvation by Him from the guilt of sin, as our glorious High Priest; and salvation from the power, reign and dominion of sin as a glorious king and sovereign; salvation by Him from all our plagues and maladies, salvation through Him from all our foes, and at length we are saved by Him with an everlasting salvation, so as not to be ashamed and confounded world without end. And ’tis strange, he sets the doctrine of grace, which is versant about Christ as a Savior, in opposition to his visible mediatory glory. His saved ones are his glory, a crown of glory to him, and a royal diadem in his hand; and all the saved of the Lord are concerned to live to his glory, to proclaim his glory, the glory of all his offices, the glory of all his perfections, the glory of all his grace and goodness, being concerned to show forth the glory of his kingdom and greatness; and the consideration of his being their Savior, makes them solicitous, whether living or dying, to live to his glory, and to have a concern for his doctrine, worship, discipline, and government.  And to me ’tis pure nonsense to say, This doctrine of grace, which is versant about such a Christ as is merely a Savior, hurries men off in quest of such spiritual influences, convictions, conversions, consolations and assurance, as are unconcerned with and hostile to the Mediator’s visible glory.

.

.

Falsehoods

Sec: You also charged that Confession of Sins as being a false confession, by which I suppose you mean there are falsehoods in it.

Adh: Yes: and to instance in or two particulars only at the time: 1. ‘Tis false in those Brethren to affirm, as in that Confession of Sins to which they are sworn in their covenant, that professor Simson in 1717, at “the bar of our judicatories, maintained the gross and dangerous errors which were charged upon him.”

Sec: Let me hear their own words.

Adh: Having told what errors the professor held at that time, they say, p. 104:

“And though they were brought before the judicatories of this Church, and likewise though the teacher of them owned and maintained them in his defences at their bar, yet the General Assembly, in the year 1717, dismissed the process without any censure inflictedupon the said teacher, yea, without any particular express testimony against the above gross and dangerous errors.”

Sec: Let me know what you observe upon those words?

Adh: I affirm ’tis a gross falsehood in them to affirm Mr. Simson owned and maintained those errors at the bar of our General Assembly, which is one of our judicatories, our highest judicatory, and the judicatory which dismissed his process; for that Assembly, in their act anent him, assert he:

“declared his adherence to our Confession of Faith, and doctrines therein-contained, as his judgment, and disowned the errors opposite thereto wherewith he was charged.”

I’m sure that was not to maintain them.  Further, ’tis thought another falsehood to say, The process was dismissed without any censure inflicted upon him.  For the Assembly plainly condemned him for having used expressions:

“which tended to attribute too much to natural reason, and the power of corrupt nature; which undue advancement of reason and nature” (says the Assembly) “is alwaysto the disparagement of revelation and free grace.”

And, was Mr. Wilson alive, he would say, “This was indeed a very heavy censure,” as he says of those who were only charged by the first council at Jerusalem with “troubling the Church with words, and subverting souls,” of which we read, Acts 15:24, who had no other censure inflicted upon them.  And further, seeing that Assembly expressly call the positions libelled against professor Simson, “errors,” and errors contrary toour Confession of Faith, that was the plainest condemning of them; as was also their:

“prohibiting and discharging him, and not only him, but all professors of divinity,ministers and preachers, and all others in this Church,”

to vent any such doctrines.

2. ‘Tis also false in those Brethren to assert, as p. 109, the kind reception Mr. Whitefield got from many both of the ministers and people of this Church, or any entertainment his doctrine got, was a denial of any particular form of Church-government to be of divine institution. Where Mr. Ebenezer and Mr. Ralph Erskine’s deniers of any particular form of Church-government to be of divine institution, when they kept communion and correspondence with him by letter, as did Mr. Ralph also with Mr. Wesley another Church of England minister?

Did Mr. Rutherford deny that, when he employed Bishop Ussher to preach in his pulpit at Anwoth? Did Messieurs Blair, Livingston, etc. deny that, when, as Mr. Blair tells in his Life, they invited a clergyman of the episcopal Church of Ireland to assist with them in their solemn fast? Did Mr. Livingston deny that, when in his Life, p. 13, speaking of Ussher, he says, “He was not only learned, but a godly man, though a bishop?” did our General Assembly deny that, when in Mr. Knox’s day, they wrote to the bishops and other clergy in England, calling the bishops “Brethren and fellow-preachers in the Christ Jesus,” Pet. Hist., p. 348? Did our General Assemblies, who sent members to sit with men who had only episcopal ordination in the Westminster Assembly, and the members sent, as Messieurs Henderson, Rutherford, Gillespie, Baillie and Douglas, deny a particular form of Government in the Church to be of divine institution? And other untruths might here be named.

Here also I might have mentioend the lameness of their Confession, in that there is not a word therein of what was the sin of a great many in the land in 1715, in rising against the king and government, which was a sin against both our National Covenant and Solemn League; but though that was a heinous iniquity, rebellion being as the sin of witchcraft, yet, seeing it did not blacken the Chuch of Scotland, it seems it was small fault to pass it by.

Here I might further observe another gross falsehood uttered by the Brethren, namely, that the General Assembly 1717 was guilty, not only of screening the erroneous, but also of “condemning truth.”

Sec: Where is that asserted?

Adh: ‘Tis in the Brethren’s Confession of the Sins of the Ministry, p. 127, which Confession, they tell, underwent “sundry readings, amendments and enlargements,” till approven by an unanimous vote; and that Confession, they tell, was “to be entered into by ministers before their renewing the covenants.”  In p. 107, they accuse the Chuch of Scotland as charging them with:

“casting many groundless and calumnious reflections upon her judicatories, without condescending upon any one of those groundless and calumnious reflections.”

But herer, and many times through their writings, and in their sermons, they are charegable with that unaccountable conduct; and I affirm, a grosser falsehood cannot be uttered than to say, The Church of Scotland in 1717 did :condemn truth.”   Was that to condemn truth, to call the positions libelled against professor Simson “errors,” as that Assembly does?  Was that to condemn truth to tell Mr. Simson had:

“used some expressions that bear, and are used by adversaries in, a bad and unsound sense, though he disowned that unsound sense”?

Was that to condemn truth, to tell that he had:

“adopted some hypotheses different from what are commonly used among orthodox divines, and that are not evidently founded upon Scripture, and tended to attribute too much to natural reason, and the power of corrupt nature;”

affirming also that:

“the undue exalting of reason and nature is always to the disparagement of revelation and efficacious free grace”?

Such assertions were far from condemning truth: If the Brethren think otherwise, then they have adopted Mr. Simson’s errors, which the General Assembly 1717 discharged him and all others to vent or teach.  Such false assertions by the Brethren say plainly, they had it more at heat in their Confession of Sins to blacken the Church of Scotland than to be humbled for them before the Lord.  My soul desires to pity them, and I pray the Lord may pity them, who are ready to believe and swallow down all their confident assertions against the Church of Scotland, or in their own favors, however false; being strong believers with implicit faith.

.

.

Exceptions:

1. Many things above their reach
2. Swear against themelves

Sec: You have instanced sundry things in the Brethren’s Confession of Sins which, I must acknowledge, seem to be justly quarrellable. I now desire to know what you except against that new covenant which the Brethren have sworn, and which we that adhere to them are all to swear in a little time hence.

Adh: I’ll frankly tell what are my sentiments of it, and what are my exceptions against it. And:

1. To me that covenant is a swearing to the substance of the Brethren’s Act and Testimony, which sundry Seceders have never yet had freedom to subscribe and approve, and no wonder, many things in it being above their knowledge and reach to judge of; sundry things which are only asserted in that Testimony are solemnly sworn to in this covenant: However, I own ’tis more cautiously worded than was either their first or second Testimony.

2. ‘Tis a covenant in which the Brethren and other Seceders swear solemnly and plainly against themselves.

Sec: Let me know how you make that affirmation good?

Adh: ‘Tis manifest from this, that in their new covenant they swear against Independency, and yet they themselves declare for and go in with our Brethren the Independents in what is the main thing in controversy between them and presbyterians, as when those Brethren’s doctrine is, That no regard is to be had to the sentences or determinations of Church judicatories, no not of a General Assembly, unless we judge them to be right and agreeable to God’s Word: For our Brethren the Independents will own and do own as much; and sundry of them own much more, as is to be seen in Matther’s History of New England, bk. 5, p. 45. The Brethren have been desired again and again to show wherein they differ from Independents in this particular, yet they have never done it; and they are wise in not attempting it, for they are perfectly one in principle with them in this point, which, as said already, is the main thing presbyterians have in controversy with them.

Again, to gather churches out of churches has always been affirmed by presbyterians to be an Independent principle, and was never practiced by presbyterians formerly; yet here the Brethren agree in all respects with them. Further, they have espoused another Independent principle, in that they affirm, such as have been ordained to the ministry without the people’s call are not ministers of Christ; whereas all presbyterians own such to be ministers, affirming, ‘Tis the presbytery’s ordination which makes them ministers, while the people’s call makes such only pastors to them. If you want proof for this, you may look to Rutherford’s Due Right, pp. 208, 237-38, etc.

Sec: But are not Independents very bad men, and worthless people?

Adh: No doubt there are good and bad among them, as among ourselves; yet I look on them to be the most orthodox in their principles of any in England (excepting some particulars as to the government and discipline of the Church) being sound Calvinists, and, as I’m informed, they are amon the most tender in their walk of any people there, sounder in the doctrines of the Gospel than many presbyterians in England at this day; and, for my part, I would take a sound Independent into my bosom, sooner than an unsound presbyterian.  Rutherford, when speaking of their principle anent excommunication, Due Right, p. 277, says, “I speak with reverence of those godly men;” and, in his Peaceable Plea, he calls them “Brethren, reverend and holy,” even when writing against them.

.

.

3. Not a renewing of the National Covenant & SL&C

Sec: Have you any thing further to except against that covenant?

Adh: Yes, 3. ‘Tis a covenant which is pretended to be “a renewing of our National Covenant and Solemn Leage”; yet it differs vastly from these, as might be shown in many particulars, would it not consume too much of our time.

Sec: I desire you may give at lest one instance of its difference from them.

Adh: If you urge me, I shall instance in one or two particulars, as: 1. Whereas in our National Covenant and also in our Solemn League we swear to defend the king’s majesty; yet in all their new covenant, there is not so much as one word or sentence to that effect.

Sec: Let me know what are the words to that purpose in those national covenants.

Adh: When speaking of the King’s Majesty, the words of our National Covenant are:

“We protest and promise with our hearts, under the same oath, hand-writ and pains, that we shall defend his person and authority, with our goods, bodies and lives, in the defense of Christ his Evangel, liberties of our country, ministration of justice, and punishment of iniquity, against all enemies within this realm or without, as we desire our god to be a strongand merciful defender to us in the day of our death, and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

The words of the Solemn League and Covenant are:

“We shall with the same sincerity, reality and constancy, in our several vocations, endeavor, with out estates and lives, to preserve and defend the King’s Majesty’s person and authority, in the preservation and defense of the true religion and liberties of the kingdom; that the world may bear witness with our consciences of our loyalty, and that we have no thoughts or intentions to diminish his Majesty’s just power and greatness.”

Sec: I own there has been loyalty with a witness in those covenants; but you would remember the Brethren tell us expressly in Introduction to their Confession of Sins and new covenant that they were to renew these covenants “in a way and manner agreeable to their present situation and circumstances in this period.”

Adh: I own they do so; but I hope there is nothing in their situation and circumstances to make it disagreeable for them in a covenant or solemn oath of their own framing to swear to defend the king’s majesty, in defense of the true religion and liberties of the kingdom. Upon the matter, they accuse our national covenants of blending civil and ecclesiastical matters together in the oath of God; yet to have sworn, or to swear, to defend the king’s majesty in defence of our sacred and civil privileges was not sinfully to blend such matters together in a solemn oath; the Scripture expressly requiring us to “keep the king’s commandment, and that in regard of the oath of God;” Eccl. 8:2, which Scripture clearly intimates that as a king is to swear to defend his subjects in their liberties and privileges, so they ought to swear to defend him in the defence of these.

The Brethren in their Confession of Sins, p. 101, complain of our parliament in 1690, that:

“instead of our covenant-allegiance, which was judged a proper badge of loyalty in our reforming periods, a general oath of allegiance to the sovereign was imposed.”

But seeing in this new covenant that commendable covenant-allegiance is dropped, and no proper badge of loyalty given in place thereof, ’tis evident this covenant is not the same with our national engagements, neither as to matter nor form; and ’tis certain, at making and swearing the Solemn League, king Charles had neither sworn nor engaged to swear it, nor yet the National Covenant either.

Sec: I shall not say what are now their own principles as to swearing to defend the King’s Majesty; but you would consider their situation and circumstances with respect to sundry who still adhere to them, is such, that I’m sure, if such clauses as those above-cited from our national engagements ahd been in that covenant, they had turned their back both upon them and their covenant; and were not those straightening circumstances unto the Brethren?

Adh: I suppose you aim aright, but I’m sure ’tis enough to prove their new covenant is not a renewing of our national engagements, while thus disconform unto them.

But I proceed to give a second instance of their new covenant its difference from our national engagements, and ’tis this, namely that in all their new covenant there is not a word of engaging or swearing against the sin of schism, which has always been looked upon by the Church of Christ to be a heinous provocation: Hence, in our Solemn League and Covenant, all are expressly sworn against it. It seems the Brethren saw to have mentioned schism in the new covenant was to condemn themselves and their unprecedented conduct, in separating and making a plain schism from the Church of Scotland, which is yet undoubtedly is a true Church of Christ, whatever her faults be.

Mr. Livingston in his letter from Holland to his parishoners of Ancrum, of the date October 7th, 1671, says:

“To withdraw from the fellowship and meetings of those who in some degree continue in their integrity, is such a gross and direct violation of the oath of God as can proceed from nothing but a fearful deserting from God.”

There, according to him, albeit ministers or private Christians should have fallen in many degrees from their integrity, yet, if they should but in some degree continue therein, ’tis a direct and gross violation of the oath of God, or of our Solemn Covenant to withdraw from them.  Now in my opinion ’tis great dissimulation and a manifest imposing upon people, in these Brethren, to call the swearing of this their covenant a “renewing of our national covenants,” when in those things above-mentioned, and a great many other particulars, it differs so widely from them; and, say what they will, in this particular Mr. Nairn has the better of them.  I may say of their new covenant, ’tis no more to be thought a renewing of our national engagements than Navis Theseus deserved that name, after it had been so often altered and repaired, that scarcely a single plank of it remained.

Further, in those queries published in a letter which was sent to the Associate Presbytery last week, you may see sundry other things confirming this affirmation, namely, That the Brethren’s new covenant is far from being a renewing of our National Covenant and Solemn League.  Did they not think their bare word would be taken for clear proof, they had never pretended it.

.

.

4. Obscurities

Sec: If you have any other exception against that covenant, let me hear it.

Adh: 4. I think ’tis an obscure covenant, I mean, ’tis not easy to tell what is intended by some expressions therein.

Sec: Instance wherein you think it obscure; for I own the words of all oaths ought to be plain, else they cannot be sworn in truth and judgment.

Adh: In that covenant all are sworn against Latitudinarian tenets; but what they intend by these, as they never tell, so I sincerely declare I know not: And I’m sure there are many hundreds among their followers who know not the meaning of these words “Latitudinarian tenets”.  ‘Tis a Latitudinarian tenet to say, People may be saved, whether they be Jews, pagans, Mahometans or Christians; I hope there are none such among us: ‘Tis a Latitudinarian principle to say, People may be saved in any religion, if they be but moral, living up to their principles; I hope there are none such among us: ‘Tis a Latitudinarian tenet to say as some write of the Gnostics of old, That the bare knowledge of the truth will save people, live as they list: ‘Tis a Latitudinarian tenet to say or think if people be Seceders, or if they be presbyterians, that’s enouhg to save them; like the Jews of old, who said, “The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, etc.”  ‘Tis a Latitudinarian tenet to say, The government of the Church, whether it be prelatical, congregational or presbyterial, is a matter of moonshine, or of no moment, or merely indifferent; I know of none such among us: For good government in a Church is much for her benefit.

But to say, think and swear, We may keep and ought to keep communion in religious worship with all that are saints by profession, evidencing themselves to be fearers of God, calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus, evidencing love to Him, whether they be for presbytery, Independency, yea, or for prelacy, is not a sinful latitudinarian tenet, but a plain duty; we may join with them in what is right, and yet oppose that wherein they are in the wrong.

Sec: I’m certain you cannot instance any sound divine of your principle in this point, which is undoubtedly lax and unsound.

Adh: I cannot help your thinking so; but sure it is, I am not a hair’s breadth laxer than all the Brethren you and all Seceders ought to be; and all that have sworn or shall swear the Brethren’s covenant are plainly perjured if they be not of my principle in this particular.

Sec: I desiderate proof for that.

Adh: You shall have it. Look but to the second section of the 26th chapter of our Westminster Confession of Faith, which confession is expressly sworn to in that new covenant, as the Brethren professed to adhere unto it in their Act and Testimony; now in that place you have a clear proof of what I have affirmed.

Sec: Let me hear these words of our Confession of Faith.

Adh: The words of that Confession are:

“Saints by profession are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification; which communion as God offers opportunity, is to be extended to all those who in every place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus.”

Sec: But, by the persons with whom, according to that Confession we are to keep communion in the worship of God, if they call upon the name of the Lord Jesus, are we not to understand those only who are presbyterians?

Adh: Far from it; for, if the words were taken in such a limited sense, then most of the composers of that Confession had excluded themselves from communion with presbyterians: For as many of them were for presbytery, and some of them for Independency, so the largest number of them were for a moderate prelacy [episcopacy], like what was bishop Ussher’s scheme. Now, it cannot be refused but many, both of Independent and prelatic principles, are callers upon and fearers of the name of our Lord Jesus, being real saints, with whom his people shall have ravishing communion while eternity endures, shall we then be Latitudinarians if we keep Christian fellowship with them on earth.

.

.

5. Doubtful Things

Sec. If you have anything else to except against in that covenant, be pleased to instance it.

Adh. 5. As ’tis a sin to swear to anything which is doubtful, so in my opinion many things in that covenant which are dubious and of “doubtful disputation” are solemnly sworn unto as undoubted truth.

Sec: Instance some of those things you allege to be of such doubtful disputation.

Adh: As ’tis of doubtful disputation, and has been disputed with great earnestness by men of learning and great grace, whether the Public Resolutions [in the late-1640’s] were sinful in themselves or not; so the same is the case as to the acceptance of the first and second Indulgence [in 1669 and 1672], which in the Brethren’s Confession of Sins, to which people are sworn in that covenant, this acceptance (p. 100) is affirmed to have been, “a departure from the Word of Christ’s patience, which his servants and people in the land were obliged to hold fast.”

Again, ’tis of doubtful disputation whether the acceptance of the toleration granted by James VII [in 1687] was, as is affimed in that Confession (p. 100), “an involving of the land in the heinous guilt of departing more and more from the Lord.” A little before the Revolution [of 1689], that toleration, only one or two excepted, was accepted by all Christ’s worthy servants, whether Protesters or public Resolutioners, who had been witnessing against a course of backsliding, and who, departing from and opposing evil, “became a prey to the greatest tyranny and cruelty, even” (as the Brethren say in their Confession) “to imprisonment, banishment, spoiling of goods and cruel tortures.” Many have blessed, are blessing, and will eternally praise and bless the Lord in the joyous city above, that ever such a toleration was accepted, so as thereby the glorious gospel, the great mean of conversion and edification, was preached unto them. But now people must swear with uplifted hand to the God of Heaven, that this acceptance was a grievous sin, having heinous guilt therein, condemning all our worthy ancestors at that time as lax, untender, unworthy ministers of the Gospel.

.

.

6. Short and prolix; many things cannot be sworn in truth and judgment

Sec: Is there anything else in that covenant wherewith you are dissatisfied?

Adh: Yes, 6. I except against that short prolix covenant, that it contains a great many things which not one perhaps of an hundred among serious, godly persons can swear “in truth, righteousness and judgment.” [Ps. 45]

Sec: Why call you it a prolix or long covenant, when you own it is but short, as indeed it is, containing little more than a small quarto leaf of large print?

Adh: I call it a prolix covenant because all who swear it are sworn to these eighteen or nineteen pages of a small character which go before that covenant; I mean, they are solemnly sworn to acknowledge that all those things mentioned in that long and large Confession of Sins, are such in truth and reality; anent the truth of which many serious souls are not capable to judge.

Sec: That’s what you’ll never prove; for there is not a word in all that covenant anent the sins mentioned in that Confession, as the Indulgence, toleration, etc.

Adh: I think not much to find you of that opinion: For, at my first reading it over, I saw little to hinder any from swearing it; but, upon narrower inspection, I saw the last line of the second page of that covenant (which is the 116th page of the lately published Acts of the Associate Presbytery) it clearly takes in the whole of their Confession of Sins, while in that covenant people “promise and swear by the great name of the Lord our God” that they shall “contend and testify against Popery, prelacy, Deism, etc. and the other evils named in the above Confession of Sins.” That last mentioned sentence, “and the other evils named, etc.” plainly takes in all and everything which is particularlized or mentioned as a sin, or what in any way can be called evil, in that Confession of theirs.

Sec: What are the sins or evils mentioned in that Confession, anent which you think hundreds of serious godly persons cannot swear “in truth, righteousness and judgment”?

Adh: They are so many, that I cannot stay to name them; but you may read them at your leisure in that Confession prefixed to their new covenant: And I’m confident, upon reading and considering the many particulars mentioned there as heinous sins, you will own that none but people of a great deal of reading and understanding in the history of the Church of Scotland, at least her history since the year 1650, can swear that covenant, unless they swear with the implicit faith of Romanists, which is not to swear in truth and judgment, or with a well-informed judgment as to the truth of what they depone; which is directly contrary to that command of the great God, in whose great name people do swear that covenant, Jer. 4:2. “He that eateth and doubteth is damned if he eat;” [Rom. 14] and much more he that swears and doubts, or is not certain of the truth of what he swears from his own personal knowledge, is damned if he swear. As people would not damn their souls, ruining them eternally, they would beware of swearing that for certain, which is in the least doubtful to them, or that of which they have not the certain knowledge. Our Confession of Faith affirms, ch. 22:

“Whoever taketh an oath, ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth.”

It will not vindicate you at the bar of God to say you were persuaded of the truth of what you swear because the Brethren said it, and also sware it.

Sec: The Brethren being eminently good men in my opinion, and in the opinion of other Seceders also, may we not take their word for it, that there is nothing in that covenant but what we may safely swear unto? Had they no judged all in it to be true, good and lawful, they had never sworn it themselves; and may not we then follow their example?

Adh: They are of poor, silly, mean spirits, wanting the guidance of the Spirit of Christ, who will take things upon trust from the holiest persons. ‘Tis said of the Bereans, that they were noble in that they searched the Scriptures daily, to see if those things which were taught them by Paul and Silas were so, or such as agreed with the written Word of god, Acts 17:11. The best of men are but men, and may err, and therefore are not to believed with implicit faith.  I know, some have said that if the “Brethren would say it,” or say a thing, “they would swear it:” But their affirmation argues a lax, blind, ignorant, erring conscience.  A Peter and Barnabas may err and dissemble, so as to lead many away with their error and dissimulation, as they did in separating from the gentile converts, Gal. 2.

.

.

7. A false covenant

Sec: Have you any more to except against swearing that covenant?

Adh: Yes, 7. It is a false covenant, Hos. 10:4 there says the Lord by the prophet, “They have spoken words, swearing falsely in making a covenant;” and all that have sworn or shall swear this covenant are guilty of the sin of false-swearing, calling the omniscient God of Truth to witness what is false. ‘Tis a swearing falsely to swear a falsehood for truth: And as has been shown already, and may be further made evident, there are falsehoods in their Confession of Sins to which in that covenant they swear as truths; which to me makes it a false covenant, or which makes them guilty of false-swearing who take it.

Sec: Can you instance anything at this time for proving that charge of being a false covenant?

Adh: Yes, I might instance a great many things, as in their Confession of Public Sins, p. 108, the Brethren affirm, The judicatories of this national Church, by their procedure in censuring them with deposition:

“have thereby materially sentenced all such ministers to deposition who shall duly testify against the present course of defection, which, as matters stand, cannot be done in a way of communion with the present judicatories.”

Now, to me, in those words there is a twofold falsehood, which all who swear that covenant assert to be truth, as:

1. ‘Tis a falsehood to swear, say or insinuate that the Church of Scotland deposed these Brethren only for giving a due testimony, or for testifying duly against defections in this Church, because it was not for any such testimony, but for “schism, slander, breach of ordination-engagements, etc.” that they were deposed. And then they had sundry other things to lay to their charge, as you may see in that book published 1741, entitled, Serious Conferences, from p. 37 and downward. So that sentence against the Brethren was far from being a material deposition of such ministers as shall duly testify against defections.

2. ‘Tis a falsehood to say, or own it upon oath or otherwise, that such is the case of the Church of Scotland, or that matters are so with her at this day, that ministers cannot duly testify against her defections in a way of Church-communion with her judicatories. I know of no defections in this Church but what her ministers may duly testify against and that even in open Assembly, without the least of censure.

Sec: What think you of your “violent intrusions,” and settling ministers according to the Act 1732; for testifying against which Mr. Ebenezer Erskine and other Brethren adhering to him were deposed?

Adh: I’m as much against violent intrusions and as far from approving the Act 1732, as any of the Brethren: Yet I affirm to say ministers or others cannot testify duly against such violent intrusions or what else may be thought defections in this Church, is a gross falsehood. Is not the people’s right to elect their own pastors, asserted and pleaded as earnestly by sundry, and violent intrusions as much opposed in presbyteries, synods and Assemblies, as ever they were by any of those Brethren?

And it cannot be denied but settlements according to the Act 1732, when the people are opposite to them, are as plainly condemned by many in our judicatories as ever they were by any.  And are not dissents publicly entered against such things, even in our General Assembly, without the least of censure inflicted, or so much as threatened or spoken of?  And I might give a plain and open defiance to all Seceders to instance any one thing which can justly be reckoned a defection, but what may be openly testified against in communion with all our judicatories.  And to swear this is the sin of the Church of Scotland, that such things cannot be testified against in communion with her, is a great falsehood; and so of many other untruths, which might be instanced here.

.

.

8. Term of ministerial and Christian communion

Sec: Know you anything else which might be a scruple to any against swearing that covenant?

Adh: Yes, 8. It would be a scruple to me, and enough to keep from swearing it, that the Brethren, along with their act for taking that covenant, expressly declare they are to make the swearing thereof not only a term of ministerial, but also of Christian communion. The swearing of that covenant being plainly what may be called a homologation of that sinful act, whereby they have made the swearing of it a term of Christian communion; by that act they have plainly pulled the crown from off the Head of Christ our sovereign Lord, in making laws to his subjects and people which are in direct, plain and manifest contradiction to his Word. The saints of God ought to “forbear one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,” though there should be different sentiments among them as to some thing which are not essential, nor absolutely necessary to be believed or done, in order to salvation.

Monstrous! must they be debarred from a communion table or from having the privilege of baptism to their children, be they never so holy, never so heavenly, if they have not freedom to swear that all Christ’s worthy ministers at the Revolution [of 1689] were guilty of heinous sin, in that they accepted of that liberty to preach the Gospel of Christ which was granted a little before that happy Revolution? Monstrous! must they all be debarred from sealing ordinances who have not freedom to swear that work in the West of Scotland is a “delusion of Satan,” when it has been attended with the clearest evidences of being a real work of the Holy Ghost? Monstrous! must they all be debarred from the seals of God’s covenant, who cannot swear our parliament and General Assembly were so and so guilty at the Revolution in 1690, as is affirmed in their Confession of Sins?

The Brethren in their Confession of public sins, p. 109, affirm, “The penal statutes against witches have been repealed by the parliament, contrary to the express Law of God.” But ’tis monstrous to think a saint of God, whom he has taken within the bond of his covenant, must be forever excluded and debarred from the seals of the Covenant if he will not swear our parliament have been guilty of a heinous provocation, and acted contrary to the express Law of God, in repealing the penal statutes against witches, while he does not know what those penal statutes were, whether just or unjust, whether good or bad statutes, whether agreeable to the Law of God or not; and while he does not know in what terms they are repealed. And to me ’tis a question whether the Brethren themselves, and much more whether one among a thousand of their followers, have any certain knowledge of these particulars; and will they swear with uplifted hands to the God of Heaven that such things are undoubted truths?

The Brethren, by their Act anent Christian Communion, make it essential to being admitted to the seals of God’s Covenant that they swear this covenant of theirs; but in their great prudence, have left a back-door, whenever it suits with their designs, to admit such as shall refuse to swear it, if they shall but say, “they are lying open to light, and minting to come forward in the said cause;” and, albeit this should be to their last breath, no fear of their admission if they be Seceders. And some say this is no more but a continuation of their former laudable practice of debarring such or such solemnly; and yet, when people tell them they have not freedom to go in with such terms, they frankly give them tokens [to the Lord’s Supper]. To make laws for the Church of Christ, which the great God our Savior, Zion’s only King, has not enacted in his Word, but the very reverse, is a pulling the crown from off his royal head with a witness, pretend what zeal they will for his headship and sovereignty.

Further, what they speak of their having:

“many loud calls to state, more expressly, the Terms of Ministerial and Christian Communion, agreeable to the Word of God, the principles of this Church, and the duty of the Lord’s remnant in these lands;”

by which expressions they intimate the above-mentioned term of ministerial and Christian communion is agreeable to these. But I affirm nothing can be further from truth than to say it is agreeable to either of them; and, instead of being agreeable to these, ’tis a term of communion among Christians which is in direct opposition to each of them, contrary to God’s Word, contrary to the principles of this Church, and contrary to the duty of the Lord’s people.

Whereas they tell, they have “agreed, resolved and determined” the swearing of that covenant:

“shall be the term of ministerial communion with their presbytery, and likewise of Christian communion in the admission of people to sealing ordinances;”

it may be thought that henceforth this is all the qualification those Brethren are to require of such as shall join with them in sealing ordinances; for, in all their Act anent the Terms of Ministerial and Christian Communion, they have not a syllable, nor so much as the least insinuation, of any other term that shall be required of them than the swearing of their covenant: And, if this be the case, then they are turned as great Latitudinarians as ever were in the Christian world.  They say this “shall be the term;” and no doubt in time coming this will be the great criterion to try by.  They do not say this shall be “a term” of Christian communion, which might include other terms besides, but “the term,” as if nothing else should henceforth be required.  No matter whether ignorant or knowing, whether professor or profane, whether he evidence he has taken hold of God’s Covenant or not, whether within the bond of the Covenant or not, whether interested in the Messenger, Mediator and Surety of the New Covenant or not, whether it be all his salvation or not, whether he has broken his covenant with death and agreement with Hell or not, whether he has made a Covenant with the Lord by sacrifice or not; little matter henceforth of such things, if people have but freedom to swear their new covenant, all is well: And I dare say, not one of a hundred among Seceders can swear that covenant of theirs in truth and judgment, as, I said, God requires in swearing oaths and covenants, Jer. 4:2.

If they have faith, I mean implicit faith, the covenant will go down, and then welcome to the seals of God’s Covenant; then they are secured tot he Associate Presbytery forever, which many think is the great design of this covenant.  If ever the Brethren, or any for them, make answer to this, I hope they will show how this their Act anent Ministerial and Christian Communion is founded upon the Word of God, and also show how it agrees with our principles, and particularly how agreeable it is to our Confession of Faith, ch. 26, sect. 2.

.

.

9. Blasphemous

Sec: I suppose you have done with all your exceptions against that covenant.

Adh: No: I’ll add a 9th exception, and ’tis this, namely, that I look upon it to be a blasphemous covenant.

Sec: Indeed, neighbor, you ought to beware of such expressions as you would beware of blasphemy yourself; and I dare say your thoughts of that covenant in this particular are altogether groundless, and most unjust.

Adh: To me, and many others far more judicious, the charge is most just, in regard they charge the work which has been in the West of Scotland as being nothing but a delusion sent from God.

Sec: Let me hear their own words to that purpose.

Adh: They say, pp. 109-10:

“Under a pretense of catholic love, a scheme is laid for uniting parties of all denominations in Church-communion, in a way destructive of any testimony for the declarative glory of Immanuel as Head and King of Zion, and for the covenanted reformation of this Church and land; for which a righteous God has justly chosen their delusions and sent forth a spirit of delusion among them, in the present awful work upon the bodies and spirits of men.”

Sec: What can be quarreled in those words?

Adh: I affirm that all who swear them, they swear sundry gross falsehoods, as:

1. ‘Tis such a gross falsehood to say, “A scheme is laid for uniting parties of all denominations in Church-communion.” Jews, pagans, Mahometans, Christians, atheists and Deists are all included in “parties of all denominations;” but the Father of Lies could not utter a greater falsehood than to say a scheme has been laid by any among that people in the West, or, for what I can learn, ever was laid by any in this land, for any such union, or yet for uniting all of the Christian denomination, as are Arians, Socinians, Antinomians, Arminians, Libertines, Quakers, etc. All who swear to this must swear a gross falsehood, and act by implicit faith. The Brethren have adduced no proof for this affirmation, though they use the very same expression again, p. 118, in their Act anent Ministerial and Christian Communion, asserting there is a “dreadful prevalence of Latitudinarian principles for uniting persons of all denominations, to the overthrow of the government of Christ’s House.”

2. Again, I quarrel that by these words all are obliged to swear another gross falsehood, yea, a double gross falsehood, namely that there is a scheme laid, under a pretense of catholic love, which is destructive of any testimony for the declarative glory of Immanuel as Head and King of Zion, or yet which is destructive of a testimony for the covenanted reformation of this Church and land. Till once the Brethren attempt to prove those gross falsehoods, I need not further disprove them: only I affirm it is a downright falsehood in the compilers of this covenant, or any else, to say of that people in the West, or any in this Church who have stood up in their vindication, that they are for any other scheme for uniting parties, or keeping union among Christians, but what all that own our Confession of Faith are bound unto, and what the Brethren, and all that take their covenant are obliged “to promote and advance,” as they would not be guilty of soul-ruining perjury, having sworn to that Confession of Faith.

3. What I quarrel, especially with respect to those words, is that they are blasphemous.  To me it is downright blasphmey to say of that people in the West (for those are surely the persons they intend) that:

“A righteous God has justly chosen their delusions, and sent forth a spirit of delusion among them, in the present awful work upon their bodies and spirits.”

For ’tis manifest from the positive testimonies of such as live in that place, or of such as have been there and discoursed at large with that people, as particularly from the testimonies of Mr. Willison, Mr. M’Laurin and other judicious persons who subscribed the Cambuslang Narrative, Mr. M’Culloch’s own testimony, the testimony of Mr. Robe in his writings, Mr. Webster, and of many others, who are known to be men of as solid judgments, of as untainted characters, of as much ingenuity, of as much experimental knowledge about conversion-work, and under as little bias as Mr. Fisher or any of the Brethren; Is ay, ’tis manifest from their testimonies that if ever there was a real work of the holy, divine Spirit upon a people, there has been such a work upon that people: All testifying that if ever the evidences of a sound work of conversion were to be found among Christians, they have been found among them. And if that work shall be, as I’m confident it is, a work of the Holy Ghost, then ’tis downright blasphemy to impute it to a delusion of Satan, or to say that God has sent the evil spirit to delude that people, as those Brethren do, when in that covenant they affirm, a righteous God “has sent a spirit of delusion among them, in the present awful work upon the bodies and spirits of men;” and those Brethren in their causes of public fasting, published in 1742, expressly call it a “delusion of Satan”.

Sec: But are not such agonies and bodily agitations, as have been among that people sufficient evidence of its being a diabolical delusion? Undoubtedly they are from Satan, who delights to torment people here and hereafter.

Adh: My circumstances require my presence elsewhere, and therefore cannot tarry to answer that objection at any length; yet I answer to it briefly: Though I should grant, which yet I’m far from yielding or granting, that some or sundry of that people had been under fanatical influence, in the bodily agitations wherewith they were siezed, that could never prove the whole work to be a delusion of Satan; for ’tis well known many hundreds of that people have never been under these agitations. Further, I wish you would consider there is such a near intimate union between our souls and bodies, that deep soul concern has often produced strange effects upon the bodies of people, and even sometimes among Seceders.

Sec: To talk of the like among Seceders is surely to tell a falsehood, and gross calumny. Can you prove your allegance by so much as one instance among us? No; I’m sure you cannot.

Adh: Softly, neighbor; I’m able to make my affirmation good: Every your reverend Mr. Gib, who seems to be a man of no crazy bodily constitution, if he speak truth, and has not written what he knew to be a downright falsehood, is a clear instance of such bodily agitations among you; for, in writing his Warning against Mr. Whitefield, once again and a third time, he has been under such bodily seizures or agitations.

Sec: I much desiderate proof of what you affirm anent him, looking on your affirmation to be all romance.

Adh: Be patient and for proof look to the 48th page of his Warning, where, speaking of what he takes to be Mr. Whitefield’s doctrine anent Church-government, he says:

“The horror of this scene strikes me almost quite dumb; I must halt, and give way to some awful ideas that cannot find vent in language. Obstupui steteruntque come, et vox faucibus haesit.”

There you see the man is stricken almost quite dumb; and though his life had been upon it, he could scarcely have spoken one word; he was obliged to halt, he wanted a hand or judgment to write a word or sentence more; he was necesitate [by necessity] to forbear writing, and given vent to some awful ideas for which he could not find vent in language; he turned stupid, the hair of his head stood p, and his tongue clave to his jaws, as his Latin verse intimates: And whether, in having such awful ideas, he had not some frightful representation upon his imagination (which is the only notion of an idea which some Seceders have) I know not.  Now, dear neighbor, tell me ingenuously whether these siezures were not bodily agitations?

Sec: I behoved to speak against my light, if I should not acknowledge that in my opinion they were such: But seeing you say he was under agitations once, again, and a third time, I would hear your second and third proof.

Adh: For a second proof you may look to the 51st page of that Warning, where he says:

“When I offer to continue my thoughts upon the gloomy subject thereof, my spirit is like to freeeze with horror, impotent of speech: I shall then,” adds he, “for my own relief conclude this cold question.”

There you see again he is in a bodily agitation, and filled with such frightful horror, that he was like to faint and give up the ghost; so stricken with horror and dreadful amazement, that he could not utter one word; and, though he had been in the pangs of death, he should not cry for help, being impotent of speech: And, it may be rationally thought, he had actually died, giving up the ghost that moment, had he not been so wise as, for his own relief from that bodily agitation, to break off writing a sentence more at the time upon that gloomy subject.

The third proof of Mr. Gib’s being under such bodily agitations is to be seen in the 60th page of that Warning, where again he tells, that his:

“spirits were like to freeze, or be drunk up, by his awful thoughts anent the nature and danger of Mr. Whitefield’s doctrine, which even reason would not allow him to banish.”

Now for my part, I see not how any can doubt of Mr. Gib’s being under some bodily agitations, and in some terrible, frightful condition, when writing that Warning, seeing he comes so frequently over the melancholoy case in which he was writing thereof.  Now if again and again his spirits were like to freeze, if he was like to faint, swoon away, and in danger of giving up the ghost, at the thoughts of Mr. Whitefield’s doctrine as to the government of the Church; then it had been no great wonder though some of the weaker sex should not only have fainted, but actually given up the ghost, under fearful apprehensions of God’s vindictive wrath due for their iniquity, and fearing lest they should be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and at the thoughts of having their portion with devils and damned sinners in Hell through all eternity: “A wounded spirit who can bear?”

Now the bodily agitations wherewith some few of that people were seized, they were of shorter duration; whereas it may be questioned whether Mr. Gib’s are yet come to an end, seeing he says that “even reason would not allow him to banish” the awful thoughts he had anent the nature and danger of Mr. Whitefield’s doctrine.  Does not his reason still remain with him?  Now, I hope you will either own such agitations are consistent with a work of the Holy Spirit, or own Mr. Gib was acted by the Devil in writing his Warning; choose which of them you please, something will be gained.

Sec: I’m loth to choose any of these, yet I’ll rather choose the last of them.

Adh: If so, then you must acknowledge little regard is to be had to Mr. Gib’s Warning; as also, that people have need take heed and narrowly examine what Seceding Brethren say in their writings, sermons and discourses: For sometimes they may be acted by satanical influence, when appearing zealous and most affected in their affirmations.  And now I hope you’ll own there have been such bodily agitations among you, upon far less weighty grounds than has been for them among that people in the West.

Sec: I own you have advanced more than I imagined you could say, for proof of your affirmation, upon that point: But whereas you call the government of the Church a “less weighty ground,” that puts me in mind of another objection, and it is a strong one, which we Seceders have against that work in the West as being a work of the Holy Spirit, and ’tis this, namely, that those among that people who are said to be converted think light of, and are unconcerned about the government and discipline of Christ’s House; whereas the Spirit of the Lord being a public Spirit, wherever he is among a people, there they are equally concerned for these as for the doctrine and worship thereof: And surely such are very unlike our worthy ancestors.

Adh: I’ve often heard that objection started by Seceders; but to this moment I never saw nor heard of any proof aduced, except this of refusing to join in the Secession, their being against the Brethren’s Act and Testimony, and refusing to tear the commission of all Christ’s ambassadors in this national Church, by withdrawing from their ministry.  The government and discipline of the church of Christ are far from being matters of moonshine or small moment, being undoubtedly affairs of great consequence to the Church of the living God; and such, I know, they are in the esteem of that people, who have a high value for the least hoof of Christ’s truth, though they may look upon them to be of lesser consideration when compared with the doctrine and worship of the House of God.  And whereas you said, Our worthy ancestors had different thoughts from us as to these things; I would gladly know who these worthy ancestors were.

Sec: My memory does not serve me at present to instance; but I doubt not these worthy zealous servants of Christ, Rutherford and Durham were of that number.

Adh: Here you labor under another great mistake, which is manifest from their writings.  As to the government of the Church, Rutherford, discoursing of the doctrine of grace, says (Preface to his Trial and Triumph, p. 8):

“when either grace is turned into painted but rotten nature as Arminians do, or into wontonnness as others [Antinomians] do, the error to me is of a far other and higher elevation than opinions touching Church-government: For it is an opinion not in the margin and borders, but in the page and body, and too near the center and vital part of the Gospel.”

So according to that eminent servant of Christ, errors about Church-government are far from being fundamental errors, or far from coming near to the vital part of the Gospel; and consequently, in his esteem, they were of lesser consideration than the doctrine or worship or Christ’s House.  And as to the Discipline of the church, he says (Due Right, p. 287):

“Right discipline is not necessary to the essence of a visible Church.  All our divines condemn Anabaptists and Pelagians, who plead that righteous men only, and such societies as have right discipline, be true Churches.  Novatians and Donatistscame near to them in this also.  The exercise may be wanting in a Church, a true visible Church, from which we are not to separate.  A Church may retain the essence and being of a visible Chuch, and yet have no discipline in actual use, or little.”

But as to the doctrine or preaching of the Word, he makes that to be necessary to the being of a true Church. (Due Right, p. 303)

Sec: I see I have been in a mistake as to Rutherford; but what can you say asto judicious Durham?

Adh: I see he was of the same sentiments in this particular: For in his elaborate Treatise upon Scandal, when speaking of errors in a Church which may be forborn, he says (pt. 3, ch. 8; paragraph 4, p. 195):

“Thus the difference and errors concerning Church-government by bishops, and in the congregational way, may, we conceive, in themselves be forborn in persons where they are not vented tothe shaking and drawing away of others; but if pressed in practice to the renting of a Church, and preferred or equalled to the true government that is established by the Word, in that case they are not to be forborn.”

And he speaks to that same purpose concerning the discipline of the Church in I know not how many places of that excellent treatise, andalso in his Exposition of the Revelation, p. 99.  But in his writings he expresses himself far otherwise concerning the doctrine and worship of the Church of Christ.

Sec: There is a third objection against that work, and lately our minister in his sermons has insisted upon it once and again, and so I hear the other Brethren have done, namely, That it cannot be a work of the Holy Spirit, because that people are not zealous for a covenanted work of reformation, as were tose who lived about 1638 and 1643, when at renewing the National Covenant, and entering into the Solemn League and Covenant, there was a remarkable pouringout of the Spirit; at which time people were of public spirits, being zealous for entering into Covenant with the Lord: Whereas there is nothing likethat to be found among that people in the West, but rather the contrary, they being against all covenanting with God.

Adh: ‘Tis far from truth to say that people are against all covenanting with God:

1. They are a people who have a deep concern upon their spirits, and that above all things, to be joined to the Lord in an everlasting Covenant; solicitous to be taken within the bond of God’s Covenant, they are concerned to lay hold of his Covenant, fastening dead grips upon Him whom God the Father has “given for a Covenant unto the people.”   They are a people who are concerned to make a Covenant with the Lord by sacrifice, looking to the blood of the Lamb slain and sacrificed for us, and to it only, for mercy and acceptance with God; a people who prsent themselves to the Lord a living sacrifice, studying to have all their lusts sacrificed, resolving in the strength of supernatural grace to be saificed rather than prove unsteadfast in God’s Covenant, studying to walk worthy of their Covenanted God unto all pleasing.

  2. Concerning public covenanting and solemn devotin themselves to the Lord, taking vows of God upon them, engaging in the strength of grace to be the Lord’s, for Him, and never for another: Some of the Brethren have published concerning that people in the West, that they take Mr. Edwards’s writings “for their Bible”. The charge is utterly false; yet, if it were so, then it is a clear proof they are far from being opposite to public covenanting: For in his last performance, entitled, Some Thoughts concerning the Present Revival of Religion in New England, p. 220, he plainly declares for it; and so I doubt not that people in the West (who have, and justly, a high esteem of his writings) are much of his judgment, were there an opportunity and fitness for that work among us.  And as to a work of reformation, ’tis well known they are earnestly desirous of real reformation in all things which may be amiss in this Church, as being in earnest against the Secession, which I’m sure calls as loudly, if not far more loudly, for reformation as anything that’s culpable in her.

3. Though it should be yielded this people are not so zealous for public covenanting, yet that would not prove the work to be a delusion of Satan.  ‘Tis well known, at and after the happy Revolution, the Lord of Sovereign Grace poured out of his Spirit in an observable manner upon the Church of Scotland, when yet there was as little zeal for renewing our national covenants, or for what they call a covenanted reformation, as can be alleged among that people at this day: then many times few dry cheeks among hearers at sermons, or at communion-tables, as sundry old people yet alive can witness.  Further, though it should be yielded this people are under great mistakes as to public covenanting and a covenanted work of reformation, that can never prove the work among them has been a delusion of Satan: For real converts, such as have been reached by the Spirit of God poured out in an extraordinary manner, may yet labor under great mistakes in some things; as in the case of many amon the converted Jews, who yet retained a great zeal for circumcision, and his even after the first general council or Assembly had met at Jerusalem, and, being guided by the Holy Ghost, had determined against the necessity thereof, of which we read, Acts 15, for after that, in the 16th chapter, we read of Paul circumcising Timothy, to prevent such Jews their taking offense at Timothy’s ministry.  All errors are not inconsistent with being in a state of grace.  As Durham affirms, All errors are not destructive unto, nor inconsistent with the Foundation; but such as possibly many true saints may be taken with, and yet have access to God, and may enter Heaven, altough they should die in their erroneous opinion. (On Scandal, p. 191)  As Gillespie says:

“Godly men and true Churches may come to know that to be evil which they sometime thought good, and that to be false which sometime they thought true; or contrariwise.” (Miscellaneous Questions, p. 124)

And now, when upwards of ten years are elapsed since the Secession, the Brethren being importuned to renew the covenants, and teazed from time to time by some of their followers (whom they must please), they seem to be zealous for a new covenant, making the people believe it is the same upon the matter with the old.  The worst I wish them is, that, in entering into that covenant, the glory of God, the Mediator’s praise, the good of Zion, the benefit of immortal souls, and no selfish consideration may bear sway with them as their highest ends.

Sec: What other ends can they have but those which you have now mentioned?

Adh: I will not take upon me to determine what may be their ends; but should they be such as some allege, namely to please some of their followers who have teazed them for neglecting that work so long, or because they see their entering into that covenant (which they make people believe is a renewing our old covenants) and their crying out against the violent intrusions that have been and still are too frequent among us, are the only things they have to support their sinking interest among their followers, engaging those to cleave to them, and others to join them; I say, should these be their highest ends in appearing with so much zeal for that covenant, then tey are mean, unworty, selfish ends.

Sec: I heard with much attention what formerly you said on bodily agitations; but, before we part, I would fain know whether ever they have been looked upon by any orthodox, tender, experienced divine as consistent with a real saving work of the Spirit of God: For these are the only thing which make me question whether that work in the West of Scotland be really a work of the Holy Ghost; and, was I fully convinced of its being a word of the Holy Spirit, I should never doubt more of its being my duty to return to the Church of Scotland, for all her faults.  I durst not entertain a thought of separating from that Church, where the Spirit of the living God is at work in regenerating and renewing souls.

Adh: Have you ever read any of those pieces which have been written in vindication of that work?

Sec: I must own I have read very little of them.

Adh: I judged so; for, if you had read what masters Robe, Webster and others have written in Defense of that work, you would have seen sundry eminent, orthodox, experienced divines cited by them, determining theseto be consistent with a real work of the Holy Spirit; and also seen sundry eminent persons instanced, who have been under such a work, or in much the same circumstances with that people, in the morning of conversion and sometimes afterwards: But, besides all these mentioned in those writings, if you please I shall instance a few others at this time.

Sec: I’m content to hear you.

Adh: If so, then I take [Matthew] Henry to be an orthodox divine; and he, in his commentary upon Acts 5, thinks the sudden death of Ananias might be the effect of:

“his own conscience smiting him with such horror and amazement at the sense of his guilt, that he sunk and died away under the load of it;”

Or, he thinks:

“Perhaps when he was convicted of lying to the Holy Ghost, he remembered the unpardonableness of the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which struck him like a dagger to the heart.”

Now, if horror and amazement under convictions of guilty might occasion even death itself in Henry’s esteem, then he could never think it strange though it should occasion bodily agonies or pains in some for a time among an awakened people.

Again, those worthy servants of Christ, Mr. James Hog, late minister of the Gospel at Carnock, and Mr. Thomas Hog at Kiltearn, orthodox, tender, experienced divines, have thought such things to be very consistent with a work of the Spirit; this appears from the high commendations given by them to Mrs. Ross.  Mr. James, who wrote the preface to her Memoirs, speaking of them, says:

“The matter is excellent, and well deserves a public view…  The eminent Mr. Thomas Hog, minister of the Gospel at Kiltearn in Ross, says, he esteemed her much, and for many years had intimate Christian fellowship with her till very near his demise, and still gave her a great character.”

In that preface he says he “found her to be most judiciou, and distinctly enlightened of much digested experience, etc.”  Now, in these Memoirs, pp. 10-11, she tells that after her soul was drawn to the Lord Jesus, and had a Heaven in her soulfo three days uninterrupted; yet, for the space of two years thereafter, she was tempted of Satan to give over prayer: And then, says she:

“My conflict about it was very great; for there was never a time in all the two years, but in every prayer I either swarft [to swerve or stagger] or was near it before prayer was ended.”

These Memoirs were printed for, and sold by, David Duncan in Edinburgh, who commonly publishes the Brethren’s writings, and A.W. in Kirkaldy, anno 1735, both Seceders, and highly opposite to the work in the West, at least the first of them, as being a delusion of Satan; but had any said to them at that time, to swarf, swoon or faint under soul-concern, was an argument of a delusion of Satan, I doubt not they had said, such language was the dialect of Satan, or of one influenced by him.  Then these memoirs were much in esteem among Seceders, as well as among others; though she speaks not only of her frequent swarfing or fainting under soul-concern, but also again, again and again, as pp. 14, 22, 26, she tells of her having such extraordinary confirmations and manifestations of divine love “as had almost broken her body to pieces;” and such “ravishing joy, that her body was all broken, so that she longed for the time that she should be in a capacity to partake of the fulness of joy.”

Whereas some Seceders also argue that this work must be from Satanical influence, because there sundry young children are helped to pray and speak of spiritual things to admiration; Such would also consider what Mrs. Ross tells (in p. 24 of these Memoirs) of one of her children, who was aged only three years and a half, and the history of young Besse Geddes in Falkland, of whom some of the Brethren before their Secession used sometimes to speak with much pleasure and satisfaction.  Who dare say but the Lord our God can perfect praise to Himself out of the mouths of babes and sucklings?  His Holy Spirit can instruct young ones, so that “the child shall die an hundred years old,” for heavenly wisdom, grace and experience.

I’ll add the jdugment of one orthodox, experienced divine more, and that is the worthy Mr. Boston, for whose judgment once a day some of the Seceding Brethren had justly a high veneration; he, in his Fourfold State, pp. 326-27, says:

“Sin is a sweet morsal that makes God’s elect sick souls ere they get it vomited up; it leaves a sting behind it, which some one time or other will create them no little pain.  Elihu shows us both the case and cure, Job 33.

Behold the case one may be in whom God has thoughts of love to: He darts convictions into his conscience, and makes them stick so fast, that he cannot rid himself of them, v. 16; his very body sickens, v. 19.  He is chastened also with pain upon his bed, and the multitude of his bones with strong pain: He loses his stomach, v. 20.  His life abhors bread, and his soul dainty meat.  His body pines away, so that there is nothing on him but skin and bone;  He is looking every moment when devils, those destroyers, Heb. 9:11, those murderers or manslayers, Jn. 8:44, will comeand carry away his soul to Hell.

O dreadful case! yet there is hope.  Now, see how the sick man is cured: The phsician’s art cannot prevail here; ‘Tis soul-trouble that has brought the body into this disorder.”

And then, having shown what way the physician of value cures the soul, he asks, p. 329:

“But then, what becomes of the body, the weak and weary flesh?  Why, says he, his flesh shall be fresher than a child’s, he shall return to the days of his youth; v. 25, yea, all his bones which were chastened with strong pain, v. 19, shall say, ‘Lord, who is like unto Thee?’ Ps. 35:10”

Mr. Boston, you may see, and, which is of far greater consideration, Elihu, guided bythe unerring Spirit of God, thought soul-trouble may occasion bodily pains, and strong pains in the multitude of one’s bones, or through every one of them.

Sec: I had some other things to propose anent that work, and anent our new covenant; but in regard the day is far spent, and your circumstances requrie your presense elsewhere, I forbear these till another occasion offer.

Adh: As to that work in the West, I cannot but admire the Brethren’s conduct in imputing it to the Devil, when yet they had approved and highly commended that same work, or a work of the very same nature, as long as it remained abroad in Old or New England; and I’m fully persuaded, had not God honored some in the Church of Scotland to be remarkably instrumental in such a work, by the conversion and edification of many souls, that work abroad had still been a glorious work of the Holy Spirit, though now it must be nothing but a delusion of Satan the unclean spirit, “transforming himself into an angel of light.”  Shall a sovereign Lord be confined to work by them, if he work at all?  O how unlike are they to the holy apostle, who rejoiced “that Christ was preached.” and preached I doubt not with some success by men in the Church of Philippi, who were filled with envy against him, and sought to sink his reputation!  The saints at Jerusalem were filled with great joy to hear of the success of the Gospel among the gentiles, Acts 15:3. But I must say, and I desire not to offend, the generality of Seceders carry so as any impartial person may concludeit occasions grief of heart to them, rather than joy, to hear of the Gospel of Christ being blessed with success in any corner of Scotland, unless God will make these Brethren the instruments by whom He will work.

.

.

Conclusion

And to conclude; As to your new covenant, I think I have made it evident that it is a sinful covenant; a covenant which cannot be sworn without the heinous guilt of perjury or false-swearing, seeing all that take that oath, they swear that all those things which are mentioned in their large Confession of Sins, are really sins and evils which they are solemnly sworn, with uplifted hands to the great god, to “contend and testify against” as evils: The last line of the first paragraph of their covenant, which is in page 116, includes all these, though very smoothly, and I think artfully worded, lest people should notice it, as indeed I did not at first reading.  It is not said, And all the other “heinous evils” named in the above Confession of Sins, but softly and smoothly, without a epithet, thus, “And the other evils named in the above Confession of Sins.”

Now praying the great God, in whose great name that covenant is sworn, to magnify his great and glorious grace, in opening the eyes of all who have sworn that covenant, to see their sin in swearing thereof, so as they may speedily repent; and to show such the great iniquity which is in taking thereof to such as are under any tentations to swear it, that so the God-provoking, land-destroying sin of false-swearing may be prevented; And praying you, and all Seceders, may be blessed in time and through eternity, in Him in whom it is that all the nations of the earth are blessed; having not the least of prejudice at any of them: I bid you heartily Adieu.

.

The End

.