.
An Essay on Separation: or a Vindication of the Church of Scotland
in which the Chief Things in the Testimonies of these Reverend Brethren
who lately made a Secession from her are considered & shown to be
no Ground of Separation or Secession
.
.
John Currie, A. M.
Minister of the Gospel at Kinglassie
.
.
1 Cor. 1:10
“Now I beseech you, Brethren, by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,
that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you;
but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and judgment.”
.
.
Edinburgh:
Printed by T. Lumisden and J. Robertson:
and sold by G. Crawford in the Parliament-Closs,
by Ja. Currie at his shop in Scot’s Closs;
and by A. Bettesworth and C. Hitch at the Red Lion
in Pater-noster Row, London, and others
1738
.
.
[This transcription is public domain. Minimal updating of language, formatting, etc. has
been made. The table of contents and some subheadings have been added.]
.
.
.
Table of Contents
Intro
1. That the Church of Scotland is a true Church, from which we ought not to separate
2. Propositions about Separation
1. Different sentiments and division are incident to the best men
2. Sentiments may differ without separation
3. Separation from a true Chuch is a great sin, though good men have been guilty of it
4. Communion may be kept with a Church whose corruptions are many
5. We are to separate from all corruptions, though not from a corrupted true Church
6. While sinful terms of communion are not required of us we are never to separate
7. Negative separation (withdrawl) vs. positive separation
8. One might separate from a particular person in the Church
9. Separation from a minister ought to be on weighty grounds
10. Not every wrong, or many wrongs, justify separation, though the Church be declining
11. A Church’s greatest part defecting is not sufficient grounds for separation when no sinful terms of communion are required
12. Where a Church has turned so corrupt we cannot have communion with her without sin, the smaller part separating are the true Church, the others being guilty of schism
13. The party in the truth may be the sinful cause of separation
3. Grievous things which are not sufficient causes of separation
1. Heinous errors
2. Corrupt, scandalous, uncensured members
3. Wrong rulings
4. Ministers’ declining and silence
5. Church falling from former love and zeal
6. Lack of sensible edification
4. Reckoned sufficient causes of separation
1. Heretical in standards [Yes]
2. Idolatry [Yes]
3. Tyranny [Maybe]
4. Intrusion of ministers [No]
5. Scandalous ministers [No]
6. The least sinful term of communion [Yes]
5. Arguments against separation
1. Against the OT
2. Against Christ and the apostles
3. Against the New Testament Church
4. Aainst the Early Church
5. Against the national covenants
6. Against the Church of Scotland, 1638-1649
7. Against other reformed Churches
[sic] 9. Against judicious divines
10. Separatists separate from each other
Many more arguments
6. Separatists’ objections answered
1. Re: Public Resolutions
1. Resolutioners’ explanations
2. Worthy men joined neither side
3. Eminent ministers were Resolutioners
4. Protesters spoke well of Resolutioners
5. Protesters wished the conflict extinguished
6. Difference forgot under prelacy, 1661 ff.
7. Martyrs from 1661-1678 did not mention it
2. Re: The Indulgence
1. Not the controversy of our day
2. The Indulged grant much sin in the magistrate giving it
3. The Indulged were godly and sacrificial men
4. Honest people heard the Indulged through the mid-1670’s without scruple; it then first came to be preached against
5. The division at Bothwell (1679) proved fatal
6. The Indulged’s omission of protest against Erastianism: no ground of separation
7. Indulged denied they accepted the restrictions
8. Indulged did not keep the restrictions
9. Ministry of the Indulged blessed of God
3. Re: Toleration
1. All accepters of it are dead
2. Almost all ministers accepted it
3. Eight falsehoods of separatists about it
4. Re: Sinful Oaths before 1689
Objection 1. Most ministers have taken a sinful oath
2. Revolution constitution [1690] declined from 1649.
3. The Church is Erastian in principle and practice: Magistrate’s calling and dissolving General Assemblies and appointing fasts and thanksgivings
4. The Church inclines to and complies wtih prelacy in principle and practice: She received many curates in 1690 and said she would depose no episcopal incumbents simply for their opinion on Church government
5. This Church is most tyrannical in her government
6. The Church has approven the civil union of Scotland and England (1707), by which England is to remain prelatical, contrary to our national covenants
7. The Chuch is of toleration principles by a civil act of 1712
8. The Church has taken the unlimited, civil Oath of Allegiance
9. Ministers have sworn the Oath of Abjuration
10. The Church since the Revolution has broken our national covenants, denied their obligation and neglected to renew them
11. The Chuch doctrinally errs
12. She is corrupt in worship
13. She has omitted things of vast moment
14. Many of the truly godly separate
15. We do not know how to testify against many things in ministers but by separating
16. We have impressions God is calling us to separate
17. Many ministers condemn our testimony against them
18. 2 Cor. 6:17, “Come out from among them, and be ye separate.”
19. 1 Cor. 5:11, “not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous…”
20. Rom. 16:17, “mark them that cause divisions and offenses… and avoid them:”
21. 2 Thess. 3:6, “withdraw yourselves from every brother that walks disorderly.”
22. The Church since 1690 has disregarded and not approved the testimonies and sufferings of the Lord’s servants under the late persecution
23. Jer. 15:19, “Let them return unto thee, but return not unto them.”
24. The Assembly 1733 should have been more cautious than to cast out the seceding brethren
25. Restraint on protesting (1733) constitutes a sinful term of communion
26.
27. A threat is against those that “come not out to the help of the Lord against the mighty,” especially when they have only seceded, not separated
28. We cannot return until the Church repent of her faults
29. The Church has obtruding pastors on congregations
30. The Chuch owns prelatic kings which have never taken our covenants
Num. 16:26, “Depart… from the tents of these wicked men.”
7. How to carry oneself as to be kept from separation
1. Study to grow in knowledge
2. Don’t be ashamed of truth though contrary to your former profession
3. Beware of admiring men
4. Guard against taking offense on insufficient grounds
5. Study to exercise mutual “forbearance in love,” Eph. 4:1-3
6. Study to esteem Christ’s ministers “highly in love for their work’s sake” (1 Thess. 5:12-13); beware of dictating or being disrespectful to them, though they differ
7. Guard against new principles
8. Guard against being too concerned for your reputation or any other’s
9. Pray God would heal our breeches
.
The Preface to the Reader
.
Reader,
For any to write against separation, when many among us seem so very fond of dividing from the Church of Scotland, ’tis to bring the odium of not a few, and it may [be] feared of some of the truly serious, upon themselves; yet separation from a true Church of Christ, as still the Church of Scotland is, ’tis so great a sin, that I have thought it duty to show the evil thereof, be the event what will. Though we should choose rather to have a millstone hanged about our necks, and be drowned therewith in the depths of the sea, than to give just offense to any of Christ’s little ones, yet, if people take offense for doing present duty, we must not regard it. Hence the apostle Paul withstood Peter to the face, and other Jews no doubt who dissembled with him, condemning them for separating from the gentile converts, for fear of offending those of the circumcision. (Gal. 2:11-14) The command of the great God is more to be regarded than the favor of any worm-creature; and He has said, “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him.” (Lev. 19:17) And, among other things, imported in the apostle’s exhortation, to “mark them that cause divisions;” (Rom. 16:17) a showing the evil thereof may be included. If any serious person take offense, I shall be sorry; for next to a room in Christ’s heart, and being in favor with Him, a room in the heart and esteem of his members is to be prized; However their favor must not be bought at such a costly rate as to omit duty or commit the least sin. If any suffer for declaring against sinful separation, I humbly think he suffers for a good cause, and may suffer with a good conscience, as he suffers with good company. That eminent servant of Christ Mr. Thomas Hog, in the late times of persecution, for endeavoring to prevent separation and reclaim such as had separated, Mr. James Hog, in the Life of that excellent person, says:
“For this the bulk of the separating people in these times were filled with indignation and the keenest hatred against him, which they expressed by names and in ways love not to repeat.”
And it is so to be regreted, sundry in our day seem to be too much of a like disposition. I am credibly informed, the last named author, viz. The reverend Mr. James Hog late minister of the Gospel at Carnock, who sundry times formerly had written against separation, a little before his death began again to write upon the subject, testifying against separation from this established Church; and, had he lived to finish what he intended against what he calls “the dangerous gangrene of schismatical principles and practices,” ’tis like the world had not been troubled with anything from me upon this head.
Many think lightly of division and separation, but as the judicious Durham says:
“If people be not altogether stupid, they cannot but be convinced it is an evil which has many horrible evils in it.”
I have often used the word separatists, not out of contempt or reproach, but as being shorter than to say “they who have separated,” or “who separate themselves.” If what I have written here may be blessed to convert any from the error of their way, or but to confirm others, preventing their separation, I will not think my tavail lost.
Whereas it may be thought strange, I have given so many instances of faults, failings or bad acts of our Assemblies from 1638 to 1649 inclusive, which have been reckoned by some the purest times of presbytery, I own the Lord honored his faithful servants in that period to do much for his glory, for which I desire to give praise; and my witness is in Heaven, I have not mentioned any of those with a desire or design to blacken the Church of Scotland, or such worthy ministers as lived in that period, but for her vindication at this day, and to show, that, though the chief ground urged by sundry for separation in our day, is our alleged dreadful, scandalous, unparalleled apostasy from what the Church of Scotland was in that period, yet the practice of judicatories then is what can as little be justified in sundry things as the practice of the Church of Scotland in our times; which is evident from many instances adduced in this Essay, as also from what Rutherford says in his Dying Testimony, cited afterwards, p. 96. And, seeing such a great man as he thought it duty to give his testimony against the conduct of Church judicatories in that period, it may be some apology for others, being compelled by such as magnify these times, designedly to render the Church of Scotland odious at this juncture; and, as he gives his testimony against the conduct of Church judicatories in that reforming period, so I cannot but think he and other worthy servants of Christ at that time, they argued, reasoned, voted and testified against most of these bad acts which I have noticed, instead of looking on them as precedents worthy of imitation. ‘Tis reckoned the prime law to a historian, Ne quid falsi audeat dicere ne quid veri non audeat, That he should dare, as to deliver any falsehood, so to conceal any truth; and I can see no readon, why the faults of the Church of Scotland in that period, viz. from 1638 to 1649 inclusive, should not be searched out, confessed, mourned over and testified against, as much as her faults in 1650 or 1651 and other times: Her conduct in that period is not to be our rule, but as it agrees with the divine testimony. Though her failings are not to be instanced as precedents for imitation, nor mentioned as the least excuse for our faults in later times; yet, may they not be told, that we may confess, grieve for, and avoid them; and mentioned, to show, if such or such things were not ground of separation or secession then, they cannot be such now? If, as the Brethren affirm (Test. pp. 14-15, 51):
“Provocations both of an older and later date are to be testified against, and if,” as they add, “this is necessary for the conviction and humiliation of all ranks of persons, necessary to maintain and preserve the truths of God, and an useful mean to transmit them to following generations in their purity;”
Then, I hope, I shall be excused here. Pythagoras’s scholars were not to be justified in having such a veneration for him as to lick up his spittle, and as little are many of our separatists, in that they look upon all the acts of Assemblies in that period to be faultless; which is the less to be admired, seeing we find the reverend worthy Mr. Renwick and the Society People [Cameronians], when declaring their principles in the Informatory Vindication (p. 31), expressing themselves thus:
“We sincerely, unanimously and constantly testify and declare our heart embracing of, and adherence unto the written Word of God, together with all the acts and proceedings of our General Assemblies, especially from 1638 to 1649 inclusive.”
And truly this also had some weight with me to notice the failings of the Church of Scotland in that period, that sundry of our separatists, they look upon her acts and determinations at that time as of little less authority for a rule than the Scripture, complaining that
“since the Revolution [1689] she has never revived and corroborated the registers, acts and constitutions of those Assemblies:”
Affirming also, these ancient acts of the Church of Scotland are a part of “the traditions which we have received;” and therefore people ought to withdraw from ministers as guilty of scandalous defections, while they remain so disorderly as not to observe them; according to the solemn charge given by the apostle, 2 Thess. 3:6, 14 (Plain Reasons, p. 173). But, if we be called to testify against the sins of our fathers from 1650, who can be displeased for going back in our enquiry for the space of twelve years further? Nehemiah goes further back, chapter 9.
To speak of the faults of the Church in that period, setting them in a true light, though it may derogate something from her honor at that time, yet, if I mistake not, it cannot harm one soul at this day: Whereas the undue extolling of that period, with a design to depress the Church of Scotland from the happy Revolution, while all her faults ever since are magnified, and she represented as an apostate, whorish Church with which we ought not to keep communion, is highly prejudicial to the interest of religion, to the success of the glorious gospel in the hands of the Lord’s servants, and to the good of immortal souls, especially when there is such a spirit of division and separation entered among people.
Whereas it may be thought, men of different principles will be ready to take advantage from this to think or speak evil of our government. It would be considered, such blemishes are not the faults of the constitution, but of the men in whose hand the administration is: And as none can plead blameless, so it would be easy to show many, and as great, yea far greater faults in the conduct of our opposites, were we to search into them. Whatever the heathen should think of the Jewish religion, the Spirit of God in Scripture has recorded the faults of his ancient people at large, for their humiliation, and for a caveat to after-generations, Isa. 30:9-10. And I cannot think but the edification of the Church of Scotland in our day is to be preferred to her honor and reputation about an hundred years ago. In the best times of the Church, still ’tis told in Scripture, “The high places were not taken away.” The faults of the best, whether kings, priests or prophets, are not covered: As, though Moses was an eminent prophet of the Lord, though Aaron and Eli were eminent high priests, and though David, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah and Josiah were eminent reforming kings, though Peter, James and John, with the other disciples, were the first founders of the Christian Church, and eminent reformers in the world, yet the Spirit of God has recorded their failings in the sacred oracles.
As there have been vulgar errors in philosophy, physic, trade and things relating to the State, so also in things relating to the Church: And if such as have made a discovery of the former, have been esteemed the friends of mankind and human society, I see not how such can be blamed as discover the last, especially at a time when these errors are cried up as patterns worthy of imitation. And if here I have not drawn strained consequences, ripped up or discovered secret faults to blacken her, nor told any thing but the truth, I see not how any should complain; especially being compelled for the vindication of our mother Church from the charge of “scandalous” and “unparalleled apostasy” from what she was in that extolled period between 1638 and 1649. And here I can say with Neal, when speaking of our first reformers (Preface to Neal’s History of Puritans, vol. 3, p. 10):
“I have taken the liberty to point out their mistakes as I passed along, but with no design to blacken their memory; for, with all their foibles, they were glorious instruments in the hand of providence to deliver this nation from Antichristian bondage.”
And as he says, “The actions of our predecessors are to be set in a fair light, to be a warning to posterity.”
As what I have written is backed for the most part with authorities from the most learned, judicious, tender and zealous of our divines in the Church of Scotland, so, which may be some apology for the length of this Essay, I have often given their words at large, that so the reader may judge for himself, and see he is not imposed upon, and that with authority he may have the reasons supporting their sentiments, bare authority being a weak argument in itself.
And whereas some may except against my conduct in adducing so many authorities at large, but as I hope those citations are pertinent, so my apology is, that as in this Essay it was partly my design to show how unlike the sentiments of separatists at this day are to what has been the judgment of our worthies formerly and of late, so I judge I could not do this so well as by giving their own words. And had I not thought their arguments against separation would be of more weight in their own words with those I have to do, than the same arguments as from me, without any great difficulty I could made them my own, or put them in my own words: But though probably this might been more for my praise, yet perhaps it had not been so much for their conviction. And though for the most part I have confined myself to the authorities of tender, zealous, learned men in the Church of Scotland, this was not from penury or want of such in other Churches of Christ, far from it; but because I was persuaded their names would be of greater weight with many, yea, with the most of those who have separated from us.
Though, by the law of God and man also, both parties have a right to be heard, yet the generality of men take far more pleasure to hear reproaches and calumnies than to hear men vindicate themselves or their cause; and perhaps it was never more so than at this day: Yet if it be duty to vindicate our neighbor’s character, albeit a declared enemy, when charged falsely, then surely one may be excused for attempting to vindicate the reputation of his mother Church when loaded unjustly, or made blacker than she is, if he say nothing but truth in her defense. The fire of division being kindled in this Church, especially in the corner of my abode, where many do what in them is to blow the coal, shall any be censured for bringing his bucket to extinguish it?
In this Essay I have endeavored to show, whatever ground our Brethren had for lamentation over sundry things in our case, yet they had nothing like sufficient ground for a secession or separation. And what I have said against their conduct, I snot from the least prejudice at any of their persons: For, in relation to them, here I join with Rutherford, when writing against the Independents, whom he terms “our reverend and dear brethren,” giving them also the epithets of “holy” and “learned,” when he says (Preface to Due Right of Presbytery), “I heartily desire not to appear an adversary unto them.” And as he add:
“There be wide marches betwixt striving and disputing. ‘Why should we strive? For we are brethren,’ the sons of one father, the born citizens of one mother, Jerusalem. To dispute is not to contend; we strive as we are carnal, we dispute as we are men; we war from our lusts, we dispute from diversity of star-light and day-light; weakness is not wickedness.”
I know it has been noised abroad, I have not only preached much against separation from the Church of Scotland, but also expressed myself with great bitterness against those Brethren who have lately made a secession from her. But I defy the world to instance any one bitter expression or disrespectful word I ever used in preaching or private converse against any of them: Far from it. Instead of that, in converse I have sundry times vindicated them from things laid to their charge. Nor did I ever preach against them, if it was not that as I have regreted their being cast out, so I have said, in my humble opinion, the door is so opened that they lawfully might and ought to come in again, joining in communion with their mother Church. Nor have I ever used a bitter expression against separatists; though sometimes, when writing against the author of Plain Reasons, it was not easy to restrain myself, considering the barefacedness of some of his slanders and calumnies upon this national Church, and tartness of his expression; though, when speaking against the evil of separation from a true Church of Christ, I have sometimes told how warmly Messieurs Durham, M’Ward, Shields and others have expressed themselves against that evil: For as I have been intimately acquainted with those reverend Brethren, so I never saw that in their deportment to make me doubt their being men of real religion; only their principles and practice concerning separation are what I cannot approve, nor, in my humbly opinion, can they be justified upon presbyterian principles and Scripture grounds. And I hope they will not complain for writing, seeing in their Testimony ’tis asserted (1st Testimony, p. 83):
“A minister cannot be faithful to his trust, if he can be a silent spectator of the threatened ruin of the Church of which he is a member; for it is the duty of every faithful watchman to give warning of approaching hazard upon his peril, Eze. 3:17-18.”
And I sincerely declare I know not what can threaten the ruin of a Church more than separation. In the esteem of the ancients, this was maximum malum, the greatest evil that could befall a Church. Durham affirms:
“There is no evil that does more inevitably overturn the Church than this;” and says, “‘Tis as pressingly condemned in Scripture as corrupt doctrine and heresy.”
Considering my former intimacy with these Brethren, some say, I ought to be [have] been silent, whatever others might do. But however dear these Brethren have been, and still are to me, as worthy good men; yet I hope none will deny our mother Church, Christ’s spouse in Scotland, may be, and ought to be as dear, yea dearer to us, magis mihi amica veritas. And, I doubt not, the example of the apostle Paul, in withstanding Peter to the face, is recorded in Scripture for our imitation, when he, with the apostle Barnabas, and other Jews, “walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel,” in separating from the gentiles in the Church of Antioch, for fear of suffering in their reputation among the Christian Jews, Gal. 2:11-14.
Some interpreters observe the Greek word antesten, there rendered “withstood,” is a military word, a word of combating as it were hand to hand. Paul was zealous for his Lord and Master’s honor, though his own esteem should sink, and the life of his reputation should go for it among such as had separated, and did set up for greater strictness at that time, which yet, I doubt not, was weight to him. The apostle might think he was not worthy of such a master as Christ his Lord, who would not take a blow for him, and encourage himself with the thoughts of this, that if his adorable Master had use for his name and reputation, he would certainly rub off the dust which might be thrown upon it for doing his duty. When I entered upon the subject of separation, I had not a thought of mentioning our Brethren, as writing against their conduct; but, upon second thoughts, I judged it needful to consider their Testimony, which is so much admired, and taken for a standard by separatists at this day; it being the opinion of many, all that could be said against separation would be of little weight with them if the principal things in the Testimony were not considered. Our sentiments of late have differed vastly, as to the business of separation; but, shall such as continue unchanged, desiring still to make the unchangeable Word of God their rule, because they cannot change their minds and consciences with the ties, be accounted unconstant or changelings, when entirely of the same sentiments as ever formerly? And it gave me the greatest freedom in writing against separation from the Church of Scotland in our day, that I could neither see Scripture precept, promise nor example, nor any approven footsteps of the flock to countenance it in any former age, since Christ had a Church upon earth.
Though here I can appeal to the Searcher of Hearts, I have said nothing with a design to displease any, and said nothing but what I conceive to be truth and matter of fact; yet, as I have not written with a design to please any party, so I lay my account with censure from persons of very different sentiments, some being displeased with one thing, and some another; yet, if any religious person shall take offense, it will be my comfort that, as Rutheford says, “The saints are not Christ, and there is no misjudging in Him.” And though such as have separated should be displeased for writing against separation and the Brethren’s conduct, yet all who remain in the Church of Scotland, countenancing their ministry who abide in her judicatories, they must either excuse writing against separation, or give sentence against themselves: For either those Brethren are to be condemned for keeping separate, and doing what they can to rent, ruin and occasion separation from her; or these are to be condemned, whether ministers or people, who follow not their example, making a cleanly separation with them.
I once designed the publication of this Essay before the last Assembly (I own sundry things are added since that time), but considering the temper of sundry that I doubt not are serious, who are so much under the power of prejudice, that they cannot endure to hear a word against division or separation, I then delayed it; yet weighing what the Commission [of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland] says in their Seasonable Admonition, “We partake with another in his sin, and indirectly consent unto it, if we neglect any duty that lies upon us for the cure thereof,” I have now judged it present duty to publish this Essay. And as the Assembly 1647 says, when speaking of their endeavors to allay the unhappy differences which were at that time:
“If any offend at discharging our consciences, and doing our duty, then we should rather shoose to take our hazard of that, than of displeasing God by neglect of duty.”
Little matter though our honor be laid in the dust, if Christ’s name be renowned. And some being as much disobliged already for not joining the Brethren, and declaring against separation, and perhaps more thn when upon reading, they may see there is a good deal more to be said in vindication of the Church of Scotland, and against separation from her, than they imagined. And, besides the first four [Seceders], considering the late Secession of other Brethren, with sundry of their elders, and hearing of the formal secession of people in sundry congregations; considering also, that some in their sermons, from time to time, are pressing people to separate from this Church and join their Testimony, while ’tis affirmed, as people would have peace in a dying hour, they must adhere to it: Manh also having come to such heights, as to make it a term of Christian communion. Being also credibly informed, this Act, Declaration and Testimony is reprinted at London, and also at Holland, and some say, translated in the Dutch language, which cannot but much expose this Church to other Protestant Churches. Hearing also, some who have lately separated, and others who are upon the rack, halting between two opinions, being much importuned to separate, express their earnest desire to hear what can be advanced against the Brethren, or others, for separating from this Church. Though some have told me, sundry will take offense at publishing anything against separation or the Brethren’s conduct, yet, as I’m convinced no just ground can be given there.
So, from the former considerations, hoping through the divine blessing the book may be of some use, at least to confirm such, whether ministers or people, as may be halting in this unsettled day; being led in providence to write my thoughts upon this subject, seeing I hear of none that are writing upon it, I thought it might be sin to delay its publication any longer, be displeased who will. And if any sustain the apology, that it is conscience with the Brethren to write and preach for separation from this Church, I hope charity will oblige them to think, others may be acted from the same principle in writing and declaring against it. However, events are to be left to Him whose “Kingdom ruleth over all.”
Shall our Brethren be allowed again and again to publish all they can say to blacken the Church of Scotland and all her pastors, frequently citing Judges 5:23, when preaching for separation, which is enough to make some look on us all as a cursed generation who come not out to join with them; and shall we not be allowed to speak a word in our own vindication? If people’s reputation, especially of Gospel ministers, is to be dear to them as their very life, it may be no less unreasonable to hinder them from making a just defense for themselves, than for people to hold a man’s hands when his neighbor is knocking out his brains. “Should not the multitude of words be answered?” (Job 11:12) Surely no man is to be condemned “till he have license to answer for himself,” nor till he be fully heard (Jn. 7:51): Hence, Audi et alteram partem, “Let the opposite party be heard,” was an old proverb among the Romans. Undoubtedly self-defense is lawful and duty, by the Law of God, of nature and nations; and not only fools but wise men are to be answered, if they speak amiss, lest they be too wise “in their own conceit,” looking on what they have advanced to be unanswerable. “He that is first in his own cause seems right,” but the Law of God allows his neighbor to come “and search him out.” (Prov. 18:17) And therefore people ought to have two ears to hear both parties before they pass sentence. The plaintiff having adduced his evidences, all the world must own the defendant ought to be hear and have the last word before the giving of judgment. Has it not been said by sundry separatists, that, if separation form this established Church could justly be condemned, and could Plain Reasons with the Brethren’s Act and Testimony be answered, it had undoubtedly been done by sundry hands before this time? And shall we see the souls of our flocks in danger of being infected with that which is said to be the greatest of plagues, viz. division or separation, and shall we be afraid to use means to prevent it, or for curing it when entered?
If the reverend Messiuers Rutherford, Hog, Webster and others thought it duty to write against separation in their day, when the number of separatists was comparatively small, surely it may be much more a duty at this day, when so many are daily separating and making a formal secession from this Church; and when some are become so unaccountably insolent, as to take himself by the ear and tell his minister he shall lose a piece of it, if he make him not a thin congregation, unless he separate from the established Church and join the Brethren, though that minister has always been esteemed one of the most tender in the ministry. And the Lord’s command, to “prove all things,” lays obligation on us, to help our neighbor in that necessary work.
Some have said, ‘Tis needless to write against separatists; for ’tis impossible to convince them, though every sentence written should be a demonstration, if contrary to their leaders, in regard they believe with implicit faith and credit, without examination, all that’s spoken by them. And it may be too true an observation, When people have drunk in separating principles, though they have neither Scripture nor reason for them, they are hardly recovered; for, as men’s lusts are their idols, so are their errors: Hence Augustine, who wrote a book of retractions, acknowledged, That his error was his God; Error meus erat Deus meus. It may also be too certain, that anything written under the title of an answer, though but half a sheet or but a few notes in a sermon, or but the assertion of some private Christians, will be enough with many to make them believe all that’s said in this Essay is either false or nothing to the purpose, without ever looking into the book themselves, never showing the least regard to the command of the great God, who enjoins us to “prove all things,” and then to “hold fast that which is good,” 1 Thess. 5:21. Yet, I would fain hope, ’tis otherwise with many of them; and, “whether people will hear or forbear,” their duty is to be told them: Who can but approve of the noble Bereans, who would not believe the apostles themselves without searching the Scriptures, and trying if those things which they affirmed were the truths of God founded on his Word or not? (Acts 17:11) ‘Tis given as the character of one that shall dwell with God upon his holy hill that he “takes not up a reproach against his neighbor,” and as little will he take up or give credit to it against his mother, the spouse of Christ, without the clearest evidence and seeing with his own eyes that there is just and sufficient ground for the charge; at least, without a narrow trial, he will not receive the testimony of her opposites in things which she refuses.
Perhaps it will be said, in this Essay I have vindicated all the bad things the Church of Scotland has been guilty of at, or ever since the Revolution [1689]: But I absolutely refuse I have vindicated any one bad thing she has been guilty of; for wherein she is to be blamed I have condemned or given testimony against her. Only, whereas separatists magnify all her failings, I have endeavored to set them in a just light, showing what may be said in her vindication against the aspersions of such as magnify all her faults, to make her odious, and occasion separation from her.
As for that book entitled, Plain Reasons for Presbyterian Dissenting from the Revolution Church in Scotland, which is often cited in this Essay, as most of the things complained of in the Brethren’s Testimony are insisted upon in that performance, and urged as plain grounds for separation or dissenting from the Church, so it has been looked upon as a standard by many of our separatists. The plain scope of it from first to last is to alienate the affections of all from the Church of Scotland, to tear the commission of all her ministers and to occasion a full separation from her. It was published in 1731, a thousand copies of which were cast off, and have been dispersed at home and abroad. I have heard there was a meeting of the principal persons among the dissenters, I mean the followers of Mr. M’Millan, at Edinburgh before it was written, where each gave in what he judged culpable in the Church of Scotland at or since the Revolution; and, after drawn up, it was read over at some other meeting: So, if my information be right, the book may be looked upon as the deed of the whole party, though one or some few persons might have the principal hand in framing thereof. that which occasioned my looking more narrowly into that book, was my being in formed it was in the hands of sundry of my hearers, and highly prized by them. And as the General Assembly 1647 requires all ministers to warn their flocks against books which maintain separation; so I thought it duty to give a caution against it as a book of that nature, being stuffed with slanders and falsehoods, upon which many took offense; and for this some who were my hearers at that time said they should never hear me more if they could have another minister to hear: Yet my sentiments of this book were far from being singular; for I’m credibly informed, the reverend Mr. Thomas Boston, a little before his death, when speaking of it, said. it was a book of which he “would not [have] been the author for the whole world, being stuffed with falsehoods and calumnies, etc.”
The book has carried sundry serious people off their feet; and ’tis to be lamented, some born, and I doubt not born again in the Church of Scotland, have of late concerned themselves in spreading and recommending it; others are blessing the Lord ever they saw it; while some, who wanted not opportunity to know the history of the Church of Scotland in former and later times, have affirmed there are no falsehoods therein; and others assert we may as well deny the Bible as the matters of fact related in that book.
I knew nothing of the author when I wrote this Essay, though now I’m credibly informed, he who was undoubtedly the publisher, and who ’tis commonly reported was the principal author thereof, is upon trials for the ministry; but ’tis much to be questioned, whether such as are about to license him have not been inconsiderate, considering his conduct and declared principles (in Plain Reasons) however fit he may be by bold and groundless assertions for carrying on of schism or separation, to the further renting of this divided Church. And it may be thought strange he has freedom to pass trials in order to be licensed and ordained by any ministers who have no other authority to license and ordain but what they have received from such ministers as were licensed and ordained by this Revolution Church, considering what he says, p. 170, when endeavoring to show that communion is not to be kept with any of her ministers; for he knows not but those that are to license him are such as were licensed and ordained by some that “never had a commission from Christ,” but “assumed” it, or got their commission from those “that had none themselves to give,” or such as “had wholly subjected their commission to strange lords,” or were such as “had changed the holding of their commission, by taking a new grant from the usurper of Christ’s prerogative:” For, according to him, at the Revolution this Church received many such into ministerial communion with her. Yea, he knows not but some of themselves that are to license him, and many in the Church of Scotland at this day, may be little better than unbaptized “pagans,” being baptized by ministers who got their commission from such “as had none themselves to give.”
I request the reader may forbear to censure before reading, and that he believe not with implicit faith, crediting the testimony of such as may condemn what here I have advanced, without looking into the book himself. We are to call none Master or Father but Christ; Jurare in verba magistri, or to pin our faith to any man’s sleeve is irrational: Christ “the Amen, faithful and true Witness,” his autos non, or bare affirmation, is only to be credited. Surely no man’s name ought to bear such sway with us as to make us digest anything without trial because it comes from him. Praying, as the Lord is one, so his name may be one in the Church of Scotland; and that this performance, however weakly handled, may be blessed as a mean to cement his people and heal breaches; I am, reader [??] [?]our, etc.
.
J.C.
.
.
An Essay on Separation
.
Intro
.
Separation from a true Church, being not only a great misery but a grand sin, surely, as Mr. [Alexander] Shields says, “It is ministers duty to show people how great a sin schism is” (Renwick’s Life, p. 107): Therefore, hearing of none engaged in this necessary work, I thought it duty to attempt a discovery of the evil thereof, though sensible of my great unfitness for handling such a subject, in which I have engaged, out of love to such as have lived in a separate state from the Church of Scotland since the happy Revolution [1689], out of regard to some who have lately separated, as also from a concern for others that seem to be on the wing for separation; and to show, that such pastors or people as adhere to the Church of Scotland, have abundance to say for their vindication in cleaving to her: While such evidence the greatest uncharitableness, who say of any ministers:
“‘Tis more out of willfulness or regard to their stipends than want [lack] of light, they have not joined in the late Secession.”
.
Chapter 1
In which ’tis shown the Church of Scotland is a true Church of Christ, from which we ought not to separate
.
As separation from a Church of Christ, requiring no sinful terms of communion, has still been reckoned a heinous sin, so, I humbly thing, it cannot be denied the Church of Scotland is yet a true Church of Christ, for all the marks of a true Church are still to be found in her. Some who write upon that subject made such marks more, and some make them fewer: But, not to trouble you with these, I think, to all who own the obligation of our National Covenant, in which we are sworn to our old Confession of Faith, they must own she is yet a true Church of Christ; for, in the 18th article of that Confession, which treats of the notes or marks whereby the true Kirk of Christ is discerned from the false, ’tis said:
“It is one thing most requisite, that the true Kirk is discerned from the filthy synagogues by clear and perfect notes, lest we, being deceived, receive and embrace to our condmenation the one for the other. The notes therefore of the true Church of God, we believe, confess and avow to be:
First, the true preaching of the Word of God, wherein God has revealed Himself to us, as the writings of the prophets and apostles do declare.
Secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Jesus Christ, which must be annexed unto the Word and promise of God, to seal and confirm the same in our hearts.
Lastly, ecclesiastical discipline uprightly administered as God’s Word prescribes, whereby vice is repressed and virtue nourished.
Wheresoever then these former notes are seen, and of any time continue (be the number never so few, about two or three) there, without all doubt, is the true Church of Christ, who, according to his promise, is in the midst of them.”
Now, as to the first of these marks, to wit, the true preaching of the Word. It cannot be denied, but the gospel of Christ is purely preached in the Church of Scotland; or, if it be not by some, ’tis not her fault; for, as her standards for doctrine are pure, so she allows of no errors in doctrine: And, if some be erroneous, that’s what has been in the purest Churches of Christ upon earth; there were some in the Church of Corinth who denied the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:13); and Rutherford says (Peaceable Plea, p. 141), “There was in that Church a denying of a fundamental point of faith, the resurrection of the dead:” and yet he asserts she was still a true Church, which was not to be separated from. The Church of Pergamos was a true Church of Christ, though she had some of them who held the doctrine of Balaam, and also some who held the abominable doctrine of the Nicolaitans. Mr. Gillespie says (Miscellaneous Questions, p. 136):
“To maintain and profess the true doctrine and the true Faith, is by all protestant orthodox writers made on (yea, the principal) mark of a true visible Church.”
And, as the Assembly 1735 transmitted to all presbyteries an excellent overture anent preaching the glorious Gospel of Christ, so the Assembly 1736 unanimously turned it to an act; which is a further standing testimony of the orthodoxy of this Church, and of her concern to have sound doctrine taught and preached by all her ministers and preachers.
But then, as to the second note of a true Church, to wit, the right administration of sacraments. I think none can object against this, that the seals of God’s Covenant are as purely administered in this Church as ever they were in any. And the judicious Calvin affirms:
“That, wherever there is the pure preaching of the Word, and the pure administration of the sacraments, we may safely embrace that for a true Church.” And he says, “We are never to reject the society thereof as long as these remain, albeit otherwise it abound with many corruptions: Yea,” and adds he, “some corruptions in the administration of doctrine or sacraments may creep in, which ought not to alienate us from her communion.” (Institutes, bk. 4, ch. 1, sect. 12)
Rutherford says:
“Separation from a true Church, where the Word of God orthodox is preached, and the sacraments duly administered, we think unlawful.” (Due Right of Presbytery, p. 232)
As to the third note or mark of a true Church, to wit, the upright administration or exercise of Church discipline. I believe there is no Church that has a more exact Form of Process [1707] for discipline, than now the church of Scotland has. “In which,” says Mr. Hog:
“the substance of presbyterian government is ecclesiastically ratified, which, in my judgment,” adds he, “has carried us a step further that way, than was attained in former and better times.”
And, if sometimes discipline should not be exercised as it ought, that’s not defended by the Church, and the coming short sometimes in this will not make her a false Church. See what neglect of discipline was in the Church of Corinth, when the incestuous person, who justly deserved to have been excommunicated, was not censured according to his crime, nor with any censure at all (1 Cor. 5:1-2); and when such as denied the resurrection were not cast out, as they deserved. See what omissions were in the once famous Asian Churches, Rev. 2-3, and yet were true Churches of Christ. As Durham, commenting on the epistle to Thyatira says:
“Christ does not rigidly cast off Churches for defects in discipline, and grossness of particular members, when in the main the foundation is kept.”
Nor does he allow of separation from a Church because of this.
Again, upon the epistle to Pergamos, he says:
“Men may be very straight and tender in the Word of God, and bold in reference to suffering, and yet fail and be very defective in the prosecution of Church censure against erroneous men.”
The late reverend Mr. James Hog, minister of the gospel at Carnock, in a letter to a friend, containing some notes of a sermon he preached November 12th, 1733, which was a little before his death, affirms:
“That, while a Church is not off from the foundation, but as to the main rests upon it, it must be reputed a true Church, Mt. 16:18; 1 Cor. 3:11. A Church is to be accounted a true Church, and not off from the only foundation, while her standards are pure, and particularly when an adherence to these standards is generally professed.”
And it cannot be refused this is yet the case with us in the Church of Scotland. [Francis] Turretin, having mentioned the above marks of a true Church, speaks to the same purpose (Institutes, locus 18, quest. 12, sect. 7).
And though some among us should be leavened with unsound doctrine, and should vent it in their sermons; and albeit there should be faults both as to the administration of sacraments and exercise of discipline; ’tis far from being enough to unchurch or occasion separation from her, seeing she does not own nor approve of these. And, if a true Church of Christ requires no sinful term of communion, then there can be no separation from her without the heinous sin of schism: And so much Durham asserts near the close of his first lecture upon Rev. 18. And, I humbly think, none who knows what orthodox divines reckon essential to the being of a true Church of Christ, but will readily own all that, and much more, is to be found in the Church of Scotland. Hence, the reverend and worthy Mr. James Webster, in his printed letter to Mr. M’Millan, says:
“Sir, I must tell you in plain terms, you decline the authority of the purest and best constituted Church in the world; and so consequently you must be of opinion, that no Church in the world has authority, and that ll the ministers of the Gospel throughout the world are unfaithful, or be pleased to tell where a better constituted Church is.”
I frankly own there are many things among us calling for reformation, and should be testified against: Yet, notwithstanding of these, she is still a true Church; yea, one of the purest Churches. And when I affirm this, ’tis not altering my sentiments from anything I ever wrote; for formerly, Jus. Pop. Vind., p. 65, I asserted:
“The Church of Scotland has been, and is one of the purest Churches upon earth for doctrine, discipline, worship and government.”
And I never heard of any professed presbyterian that had the confidence to deny this, if it be not the author of Plain Reasons, who, p. 14, charges her as being guilty of such defection and apostasy at the Revolution, as seems without a parallel either in sacred or profane history.
But I think these reverend Brethren, who being ejected of late have made a Secession from her, are, or at least were, of far different sentiments from his author. For the reverend Mr. Ebenezer Erskine, in the beginning of his Answers to the remarks of the Synod of Perth and Stirling, of date October 12th, 1733, says:
“I know there is a great body of faithful ministers in the Church of Scotland, with whom I do not reckon myself worthy to be compared.”
And downward in these Answers, when speaking of the ministers of this Church, says, “I know that a vast many of them have God’s call and the Church’s call.” Now, if there be a “body,” and a “great body,” “many” and a “vast many,” in the Church of Scotland of faithful ministers, having God’s call to the work of the Gospel, I think she is a true Church of Christ; and who can but own her for such? And in his Protestation against the sentence of the Assembly, in his case, May, 1733, to which the reverend Messieurs Wilson and Moncrieff adhered, declares, he had a “very great and dutiful regard to the judicatories of this Church, to whom,” says he, “I owe my subjection in the Lord.” And in the Brethren’s Representation to the Commission of Assembly, 1733, when speaking of their Protest taken against the Commission that year, they say:
“Our Protestation is so far from impugning the just power and authority of the supreme judicatories of this Church, that it plainly acknowledges the same.”
And again, January 8th, 1735, Mr. Erskine, in his letter to the presbytery of Stirling, declares he had:
“all imaginable freedom to join in communion with a good many of the reverend and worthy ministers, who are in communion with this established Church.”
Now, if a true Church, whose authority in her supreme judicatories in 1733 was to be acknowledged and regarded with a very great regard as just, I hope she is not vastly worse since that time; for some stop has been put to what was then the chief ground of complaint, viz. violent intrusions. I conclude this head with the words of Durham on the Revelation, p. 680, where he says:
“There is a schism, that is, a separating from the unity, and from the communion of a true Church, whether more or less pure; if a true Church, this is simply and always sinful.”
.
Chapter 2
In which sundry propositions anent separation are laid down
1st Proposition. Difference of sentiments and division, though sadly to be lamented, are yet incident to the best of men upon earth.
Aaron and Miram, the saints of God, differed from Moses, and spake against the servant of the Lord (Num. 12). There were long and hot disputes between Job and his three friends, though also eminent saints. Paul and Barnabas may fall at variance, and have sharp contention (Acts 15:39), so as to separate an part asunder; and we never hear of their meeting again, though for a long time they had entertained most intimate friendship an familiarity. So in the case of Chrysostom of Constantinople and Epiphanius of Cyprus, of Calvin and Luther, Zwingli and Melanchthon. Some are equally cruel with the giant or robber Procrustes, who would have all men exactly of the length of his bed, chopping them off by the feet if longer, and drawing them out by force if shorter. Some would, and do, excommunicate all that are not exactly of their mind.
.
2nd Proposition. There may be different sentiments without separation.
And hence the apostle exhorts all to “forbear one another in love” (Eph. 4:1-6), and to “walk by the same rule whereunto we have already attained.” [Phil. 3:15-16] If the sentiments of all were the same, there had not been need for any such exhortation. As long as we see but in part, as we think others should allow us to differ from them, we ought to forbear such as differ from us, I mean in things not fundamental: As the reverend Mr. Ebenezer Erskine says (Preface to God’s Little Remnant, p. 26):
“It is the apostolic direction, Rom. 14, that we should not condemn others that have not freedom to come up our length.”
And Mr. Moncrieff of Golfargie, who in 1716 was author of that pamphlet entitled, “The Church of Scotland’s Grievances Considered,” speaks excellently to this purpose, p. 2, where he says:
“It is no new thing to see men (happy in the greatest attainments of human learning, and blessed with the influences and graces of the Spirit of God while in this militant state, where great fogs of ignorance cloud the understandings of the best) differ in their judgments about sin and duty; since one way of thinking, and an entire harmony of judgments is reserved as a valuable jewel of that crown of glory which shall encircle the happy heads of the Church triumphant.”
I have somewhere read of it as the motto Jeremiah Burroughs wrote upon his study door, Opinionum varietas et opinantium unitas non sunt asustata; “Different sentiments and cordial agreement are not inconsistent.”
3rd Proposition. Though separation from a true Church be a great sin, yet here good men have sometimes been guilty (Acts 11:24).
Because such or such persons may be good, and eminently good, that’s no argument to prove them in the right in separation from a Church. Peter and Barnabas, though eminent saints, through the violence of temptation they separated for some time from the gentile converts in the Church of Antioch, Gal. 2:12-13, for which Paul withstood Peter to the face.
In the late times differences came to that height among honest suffering people, that some of them would not join together in family worship; As when about eighty of them were imprisoned in the Canongate Tolbooth, because some of them had heard the indulged. I had this from one of them, who told me he wrote from prison to Mr. Renwick for advice, who in answer condemned them that would not join with others, seeing they were all suffering for the same cause; and unto such a height some seem to be going at this day. The best of men are not infallible; and we must follow no man further than he follows Christ. Few, if any, doubted of the reverend Mr. Hepburn’s being a singularly good man; and I heard one who was intimately acquainted with him affirm, Had he not met with disobligations from some in his presbytery, he had never gone the length he did in separation: And that person declared he heard him say, Had his lot been cast in some other presbytery in Scotland, he had never offered to separate from this Church.
.
4th Proposition. Communion may be kept with a Church though her faults and corruptions be many.
For we are not to expect a perfect or faultless Church here upon earth. As the members of the Body of Christ are not perfect in this life, so neither is the Church herself, which is his Body. Nor is this to be expected “till we come in the unity of the Faith to a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” (Eph. 4:13) Augustine called it, “The perfection of Christians, that they acknowledge themselves never to be perfect in this life.” And Mather, somewhere in his History of New England, says, “This may be called the perfection of churches.” Mr. Shields affirms, in his Hind let Loose, p. 226:
“Though there be many things in a Church to brangle and lessen the comfort of our communion with it, and the ministry thereof, yet we may keep fellowship with a true Church, though in many things faulty and corrupt, as all Churches are in some measure in this militant state. As the Church of Corinth had many corruptions in her practice, yet no separation is enjoined from it: And the Lord did not require separation from the Churches of Pergamos and Thyatira, though they had many corruptions and deficiencies in discipline, in a toleration of heretics; and would lay no other burden upon them, but to hold fast what they had, as Mr. Durham shows on the Revelation, ch. 2, lect. 6, as also ch. 13, lect. 1.”
And our Westminster Confession says (ch. 25, sect. 5), “The purest Churches under Heaven are subject both to mixture and error.”
.
5th Proposition. Though we are not to separate from a true Church of Christ albeit her faults or corruptions be many, yet we are obliged to separate from all the corruptions which may be in a Church.
To separate from corruptions is one thing, and to separate from the corrupted is another thing: One may be a member of that Church in which there are many corruptions, and yet remain uncorrupt, and keep himself pure. We are neither to touch, taste nor handle anything that’s sinful. Though the peace of Jerusalem is to be preferred to the head of all our joy, we must never say “a confederacy” with any that say “a confederacy”: and we must be men of strife and contention to the whole earth, rather than be guilty of the least sinful compliance. Sin is always bad cement for them who are God’s building: We are never to “give place” to any, nay, not “for an hour;” nor to unite so much as for a moment in any corruption. Such as are the Temple of God are never to have agreement with idols, but ought to come out from among them, and be separate; as the apostle exhorts, 2 cor. 6:17, where he is speaking of having fellowship with men in their evil works and corruptions, but not of separation from the Church of Corinth, as may be shown afterwards.
6th Proposition. While we can maintain communion with a Church without sin, and while sinful terms of communion are not required of us, we are never to separate.
Yea, Rutherford, speaking of the Popish ceremonies of the Church of old England, says (Due Right, p. 73): “We teach separation from these ceremonies to be lawful, but not from the churches.” So Durham says (On Scandal, pt. 4, ch. 7, p. 307):
“When men may unite without personal guilt or accession to the defects or guilt of others, there may and ought to be union, even though there be failings and defects of several kinds in a Church; because men are to reckon not for other men’s carriages, but their own: And no such Church-state is to be expected as is free of defects. Beside, can it warrand a man to abstain from his duty because others do not theirs, while as there is no sinful impediment lying in the way of his access thereto?”
.
7th Proposition. There is a separation which is called separation negative, or a non-union, and a separation positive.
Negative separation is, when the person or persons separating only makes a secession from a Church by withdrawing from communion therewith, without making any head against that Church from which they depart or make a secession. Separation positive is, when these who withdraw do not only make a secession, but also associate themselves into a distinct opposite body to that Church from which they have made a secession, setting up a Church against a Church, or “Altar against altar.” And this, says Jenkin on Jude 19, “is that which in a peculiar manner, and by way of eminency, is called schism.” Rutherford, having laid down this distinction says (Due Right, 2nd part, p. 253):
“Though a Church of schismatics retaining the sound Faith, yet separating from others, be deserted by any, it is a negative separation from a true Church, and laudable. As the faithful in Augustine’s time did well in separating from the Donatists; for with them they were never one in that faction, though they separated not from the true Faith holden by Donatists, but kept a positive union with them: So do all the faithful well to separate from the churches of the separatists.”
.
8th Proposition. Separation from a true Church for her corruptions is one thing, and to separate or withdraw from the ministry of a particular person in that Church is another thing.
The last may sometimes be lawful when the first is not, though this is never to be done rashly. Many things, says the reverend Mr. Foster (Rect. Instr. Consul., Dialogue 3, p. 7):
“will warrand separation from such a particular minister or congregation, which will not warrand separation from the Church-national.”
And there he cites Durham on Scandal, acknowledging that, when scandals become excessive, we may depart to another congregation. The learned Principal [Gilbert] Rule, in his Rational Defence of Nonconformity (p. 92), in answer to Stillingfleet, says:
“We assent to all the Thirty-Nine Articles, except these about bishops and ceremonies; and we would not separate from the Church because of doctrinal mistakes in these things, if the owning of them were not imposed as the terms of our communion with her. But,” says he, “It is not so easy to persuade us that there is no just cause to withdraw from the communion of some particular parishes in England, where Arminianism or Socinianism is commonly taught, where the practice of godliness is ridiculed, and principles striking at the root of it are instilled into the hearers, etc.”
Mr. Shields in his Hind let Loose (p. 229), cites the author of the Apologetical Relation [John Brown of Wamphray] saying:
“Separation is one thing, and not hearing such or such a man is a far other thing. There may be many just grounds of exception against a particular person, why people may refuse to countenance him, without any hazard of separation, or joining with separatists in their principles. Separation is one thing, and refusing to attend the ministry of such a man is another thing; for a man may join with ordinances in another congregation, and so testify that he has no prejudice at the ministry, but only against such a man in particular.”
And the Church of Scotland seems to allow this in her Seasonable Admonition published 1698, when in reply to separatists who objected the “untender, light” and “frothy” conversation [conduct] of some ministers, she says:
“But though all this were true of some ministers, does this justify your separation from all? How many worthy ministers are there in the congregations where you dwell, who are grave and edifying, and preach and practice godliness in the power of it, and yet you withdraw from them?”
And I humbly think more may be yielded to a people in this case, in a broken divided state of the church as in our day, than at another time. Extraordinary cases may admit of an unusual cure.
.
9th Proposition. Though there be cases wherein people may lawfully withdraw from the ministry of a particular person, yet this is never to be but upon weighty grounds.
And even when the grounds are weighty, our separating is to be with reluctancy and grief of heart, that we should be obliged in conscience to separate or withdraw. The above-cited author of Hind let Loose speaks well to this purpose saying (p. 228):
“Though in some cases as we are warranted, so we are necessitated to withdraw, yet neither do we allow it upon slight or slender grounds; nor can any tender soul be forced to discountenance the ministers of Christ (I do not speak here of the prelatic curates) without great reluctancy and grief of heart, even when the grounds of it are solid and valid, and the necessity unavoidable: Therefore we reject these as insufficient grounds, besides what are given already:
1. We cannot withdraw from a minister for his infirmities and weaknesses, natural, spiritual or moral.
2. Neither for personal faults and escapes; we expect a faithful but not a sinless ministry.
3. Nor for every defect in faithfulness through ignorance, want of courage, misinformation, or being biased with affection for particular persons. We do not hold that faults in members, or defects in ministers do pollute the ordinances, and so necessitate a separation; but agree with what Mr. Durham says on Revelation, ch. 2, lect. 6, ‘Sincerity discovered will cover many faults.’
4. Nor for every discovery of hypocrisy: Though we may have ground to suspect a man’s principle and motive be not right, yet if he be following duty unblameably, and have a lawful call, what then? “Notwithstanding every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; therein we may rejoice,” Phil. 1:18.
5. Nor yet for real scandals not attended with obstinacy, if ministers will take reproof and admonition, and at least by doctrinal confessing, and practical forsaking them, satisfy the offended, etc.”
And that author in his Treatise of Church-Communion affirms (p. 36), That only can be a ground of withdrawing or separation which is ground of deposition.
10th Proposition. Though some things are more threatening to a Church in a declining day than when that Church is going on in a way of reformation; yet it is not every wrong step, nor many wrong steps, which will justify a separation, albeit a Church should be on the declining hand, going backward instead of forward.
The Church of Corinth, the Church of Galatia, and the seven Asian Churches, were upon the decline when the apostles wrote epistles to them, yet nothing like separation was ever enjoined to any in these Churches for all their corruptions. And hence our worthy ancestors, from 1596, in which year (says Calderwood, History, pp. 519-20) “our sincere General Assemblies ended,” they continued in the Church without making secession or separation, though still they struggled against her defections; as did these worthies, Messieurs Andrew Melville, James Melville, David Black, Robert Bruce, John Davidson, John Welsh, David Calderwood and others. And till King James called up these eminent servants of the Lord to court, viz. Messieurs Andrew Melville, James Melville, James Balfour, William Scot, John Carmichael, Robert Wallace, Adam Coult and William Watson, he could never get his beloved episcopacy settled in Scotland. And the very design of calling those men to court, and detaining them there, was, that in their absence from the judicatories of the Church (on which they still attended), the episcopal course might be advanced, and they were still detained till some advantage was gotten for the course of conformity (Calderwood, History, pp. 519-20). They did not separate, though then constant moderators, vote in parliament by the Kirk and bishops were brought in; still they testified against them. And this defection and backsliding was after the Church of Scotland had attained to a high pitch in reformation, as is evident from our ecclesiastical history before that time. Petrie tells (century 16, p. 517) that in the beginning of 1596:
“the beauty of this Church, both for purity of doctrine, and order of discipline, was become admirable to the best reformed Churches; the Assemblies of the believers were never more glorious and comfortable.”
And Calderwood speaks to the same purpose (p. 311), when speaking of the yer 1596. And before this she was called, “The Morning-Star of the Reformation.” Mr. M’Ward, Author of Naphtali, speaking of the work of God at that time in this Church says (p. 54), “It was almost brought to perfection.” So they are surely in a mistake who say the Church of Scotland was then but in her infancy. Her defections indeed after that, for upwards of forty years, were lamentable, and far more grievous than can be pretended at this day; as is evident from Calderwood’s History, particularly p. 402, where he instances six or seven remarkable differences between our General Assemblies before 1597 and succeeding General Assemblies. And from the 464th page, where he instances fourteen lamentable heavy grievances which were drawn up by the synod of Fife, to be laid before the Assembly in 1602. And for all the corruptions in the Church for upwards of those forty years, and the heavy grievances under which they labored at that time; yet honest men stayed in the Church contending against her defections, without erecting themselves into different judicatories, or anything like separation. There is never a word of that in all the histories of those times, notwithstanding of grievous defections. And as at that time eminent men continued in the Church testifying against defections, so the Lord gave remarkable countenance to them in his work, as the Brethren justly observe (2nd Testimony, p. 17), when they say:
“Which course of defection continued for many years without interruption: Yet, during this period of grievous sinning and backsliding, there were several eminent men who witnessed against the same. Also, the Word of the Gospel was countenanced in several corners of the land, with more than ordinary power and success; particularly in several places of the West of Scotland, anno 1625, and at the kirk of Shots in the year 1630.”
Well, how did these “several eminent men” witness against “the grievous sinning and backsliding” of their day, whom the Lord thus remarkably countenanced? Was it not in a way of Church-communion? though at that time, as noticed above, there was not only the Kirk’s taking vote in parliament, and constant moderators, but also “bishops and archbishops acting frequently in an arbitrary way in the settling of churches;” and though at that time it seems elders were not allowed to sit with ministers in presbytery: For, in the presbytery-register of Kirkaldy, of the date September 13th, 1638, ’tis said:
“The Earl of Rothes and Mr. Robert Douglas show that it was thought meet be the meeting at Coupar, ruling elders should sit with the presbytery.”
And at that time error, particularly Arminianism, was rampant in this Church; and for writing against it in that period, Rutherford was put from his charge, and sent prisoner to Aberdeen where he was confined, as appears from his first letter. Then no separation, though, as the Brethren of Fife and Perth declare in their Testimony (p. 15), prelates were in high power, a:
“Service-book and Book of Canons were obtruded, and the greatest part of the ministry carried away with the course of conformity, and couching with Issachar under the burden.”
Yea, in former times of great defections, worthy ministers were so far from thinking it duty to separate and erect themselves in separate judicatories, that when Court and Kirk would had them forsake these judicatories, they still attended and opposed sinful measures taken in them at that time. Hence, in 1607, when Mr. John Carmichael had obtained license from the king to return to Scotland, it was with this express condition, that “he should not go to presbyteries and synods:” and when Mr. Henry Livingston was summoned before the Council that same year for the proceedings at Perth Synod, and had obtained the favor to be warded or confined in his own parish, it was with an instruction that “he should not repair to presbytery nor synod till his Majesty’s further pleasure was known (Calderwood, History, p. 569). And because honest ministers attended presbyteries, therefore the king came at length to discharge them altogether (Calderwood, p. 625).
In former times of greatest defection in this Church, our worthy ancestors, Christ’s faithful zealous ambassadors, made a noble and resolute stand against all encroachments and corruptions; but still in a way of Church-communion. And the author of the Apologetical Relation, said to have been the reverend Mr. John Brown, author of the History of the Indulgence, with the assistance of Mr. Livingston and Mr. M’Ward, and Mr. James Stewart’s help as to the law-part thereof, vindicates their conduct in this, p. 100, saying:
“When the prelates were brought in upon them, ministers were then bound to keep possession of their rights so long as they could, by meeting in the judicatories, there being no restraint laid upon them by law from speaking their mind freely, and protesting as they saw occasion. they were in a capacity to do some things for vindicating Church-privileges, at least for exonering their own consciences; yea, and for curbing in a great part the prelates’ power.”
And as this was the practice of the Lord’s servants and people in the Church of Scotland in former times, so likewise of his servants in the Church of England: For the dissenters, as all history gives account, had never separated from the Church of England, if they had not been required expressly to declare their assent and consent to what is culpable in her constitution, or signify their approbation thereof. Though in the above proposition I have narrated matter of fact, and shown what was the practice of our worthy ancestors who remained in the Church of Scotland in the midst of most lamentable defections, from 1597 to 1638, and told what were the sentiments of eminent ministers of Christ in the Church of England, yet I have not declared my own opinion in relation to their conduct, nor told what I should reckon duty, were things come to such a pass with us as in their days, which God forbid they ever should; yet it naturally follows, such as remained in judicatories in that period, they could never have entertained a thought of separation from us at this day.
11th Proposition. Though the greatest part of a Church, ministers and people, should make sad defection, that will not be sufficient ground of separation from her, while no sinful terms of communion are required of us.
The Church of Sardis was generally corrupted, Rev. 3:1-4, for there were but “a few names even in Sardis” that had not “defiled their garments;” and, whatever name most of their ministers had to live, yet they were dead, formal and hypocritical, having fallen it seems from their former liveliness, zeal and tenderness; yet, in Christ’s epistle to her, no word of separating from that Church,no precept, no allowance for this, even in Sardis. ‘Tis thought that Sardis had once been one of the most famous Churches of Christ in all Asia, yet only a few names even in Sardis; sad apostasy! Yet God had a true Church there, even in that place, in the time of most lamentable defection; and there is no command given to these few names to separate or make a secession from others, no encouragement given for erecting themselves into another Chuch. And so our worthy ancestors, from 1597 to 1637 or to 1638, the, they continued in the Church of Scotland struggling against defections in a way of Church-communion, when the generality or greatest part of the ministers had defiled their garments: And therefore, in our day, though it should be granted there are only “a few names” in Scotland “that have not defiled their garments,” that will not say we ought to separate or make a secession from her: But, I hope, ’tis far from this; for, as noticed above, the reverend Mr. Ebenezer Erskine owns, in his Answer to the Remarks of the synod of Perth and Stirling, there is yet “a great body of faithful ministers in the Church of Scotland, and “a vast many of them that have had both God’s call and the Church’s call.” And I pray the Lord of the Harvest may increase their number.
.
12th Proposition. Where a Church has turned so corrupt that we cannot have communion with her without sin, in that case, such as separate, though the smaller party by far, they are the true Church; and, though they separate they are not the separatists, for ’tis certain, in such a case, the fault or crime of schism is in these that occasion it.
And no doubt as Rutherford says (Due Right, p. 255):
“When the greatest part of a Church makes defection from the truth, the lesser part remaining sound, the greatest part is the Church of Separatists.”
Surely he means of declared defections from the truth in fundamentals; for, in the immediately preceeding paragraph, he says:
“There is no just cause to leave a less clean Church (if it be a true Chuch) and go to a purer and a cleaner.”
‘Tis certain, defection from the truth in lesser things does not unchurch a people; However, when defection from the truth is made in fundamentals, and her standards of doctrine are corrupted, and we [be] required to approve thereof, that alters the case: As in the case of the Church of Rome before the Reformation, then such as adhered to her were the separatists, and not such as made a secession or separation from her. God’s witnesses may be few, and yet the true Church, as in Elijah’s days, or when one Athanasius with a smaller party opposed the Arian world.
.
I’ll add one proposition more, and ’tis this, That the party having truth upon their side may be the sinful cause of separation, and more to be blamed for the division than that party which was first in fault, and had made the defection
And that part of the wall of the house which stands, may be more to blame than that part which has fallen. Not that it should have fallen with the other, but because in matters of schism or separation it may happen that the defection or error may be in one part, and yet that other part, which makes the rent and separates, may be guilty of the schism: The fault or error for which the rent is made, though really a fault or error, yet not being tanti [“so great”], or such as is relevant to found a schism, or be sufficient ground for separation; or, when the fault may be of greater weight, yet the schism is carried on in a hasty and heady way. And so much Durham on Scandal affirms (pt. 4, ch. 1).
.
Chapter 3
Where some things are instanced, which, though just ground for fasting, mourning and lamentation, yet are not sufficient causes of separation from a Church of Christ
.
And 1st, albeit there be errors, and errors of a heinous nature among some in a Church, this is not sufficient ground of separation from that Church, nay, not though these errors should remain uncensured.
For, as was noticed above, there were some in the Church of Corinth who had drunk in this gross error, “That there is no resurrection of the body;” hence the apostle asks, “How say some among you, there is no resurrection of the dead?” (1 Cor. 15:12) The interrogation plainly intimates there were some among them who denied that great and fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion; and yet this Church of Corinth was a true Church of Christ, from which it was not lawful to separate. So, in the Church of Pergamos, there were some uncensured who held the doctrine of Balaam, and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans; and yet she was a true Church of Christ, right and approven in the main. So, in the Church of Thyatira, “that wicked woman” Jezebel was tolerated without being censured, though she taught the Lord’s servants to commit heinous iniquity. So, though there should be sundry persons leavened with gross errors in the Church of Scotland at this day, this is no sufficient ground for a secession or separation from her. I own it is a sin, and I think a very heinous sin in any Church, to wink at errors, or not to censure for, and be zealous against them, especially if of a heinous nature, as are some of these wherewith some among us have been charged; yet it is unaccountable to charge the Church of Scotland as favorers of these errors, seeing never so much as one person in any of the judicatories of this Church offered to vindicate or plead for any of these. ‘Tis true, there were long debates in some meetings, anent sustaining the relevancy of the articles libeled against professor Simson, but those were from the different glosses put by different persons upon his words and answers; but I never heard of any pleading in vindication of his words, when taken in an unsound erroneous sense. Durham, in commenting upon the epistle to the Church of Pergamos, having asserted:
“Men may be very straight and tender in the work of God, and bold in reference to suffering, and yet be faint and defective in the prosecuting of Church censures against erroneous men;” he puts the question, “What can be the reason, that honest, tender and zealous men should be so often defective in this, who yet may be zealous and fervent against scandalous practices?”
In answer to which he gives sundry reasons as:
“1st, It is more difficult to get the impression of the odiousness of corrupt doctrine on the heart, than of gross outward practices.
2rdly, Pursuing of persons that are erroneous has often little fruit with it as to the persons themselves, there being but few that are recovered out of that snare of the Devil, and to whom God gives repentance, who once deliberately oppose themselves to the truth. This makes that even sometimes good men, out of fear of the inconveniences that may follow, and the difficulties that accompany such a work, may be too prone to oversee and forbear them, etc.”
And in his Treatise on Scandal, he has more to this purpose (pt. 2, ch. 12; pt. 3, ch. 2). And as Owen justly (Exp., p. 174) observes, “There may be a fundamental error in a true Church for a season, where the Church errs not fundamentally,” citing for proof of this, 1 Cor. 15; 2 Tim. 2:18.
2ndly, Though there be many corrupt members, and some who are guilty of open scandalous offences, and these uncensured by Church officers; yet this will not warrand separation.
The Church of Corinth was egregiously faulty here, when some in that Church was guilty of the atrocious crime of incest, and the incestuous person who had his father’s wife was not censured as he deserved, by being excommunicated and “delivered unto Satan;” (1 Cor. 5:1-5) Yea, and some among them, instead of being humbled and lying in the dust for this, were puffed up and boasted perhaps of their attainments, or of their purity, or of having such a person among them; for he might be a man of great parts and the like: Yet the apostle never says, If that incestuous person be not cast out, come out from the communion of that Church; far from it. And though in this Church some also were drunk when they came to the Lord’s Table, yet the apostle beseeches them “in the name of the Lord Jesus, that there be no divisions among them,” (1 Cor. 1:10). He was against separation notwithstanding of these immoralities. It is the sin of Church officers if they neglect to censure the scandalous, and God will require it at their hand; yet their omissions will not justify a separation from the Church, nor from any of the ordinances thereof: And if people have done their duty, endeavoring to have such censured by “telling the Church,” they may safely keep communion, and join with that Church, so as to sit at a Communion table in it. Indeed people ought, as to mourn over, so to testify against the untender immoral walk of others, by private admonitions and exhortations; and, if that prevail not, they may and ought to lay the affair before the office-bearers of Christ’s House; and if that prevail not, as Durham says (On Scandal, pt. 2, ch. 13, p. 134; see also ch. 12, p. 129):
“They may communicate it to other Church officers; and no redress following, it is their duty to follow it before the competent superior judicatories: For Christ’s direction, ‘Tell the Church,’ imports and warrants the same.”
And then he puts the question, “What further is to be done if that fail?” To which he answers:
“We know no other public redress; for Christ has left it there, and so may we also: Neither can it be instructed from Scripture that Christ has appointed separation to be the next step of a private person’s duty for removing of offenses.” And there he shows, “A private person must either acquiesce, as being exonered, when he has followed the action before the Church, or he shall have no ground of peace anywhere till he be out of the world, or out of all visible Churches: And so also there can be no other way of keeping public order and ordinances, and of eviting scandal and confusion. This truth is fully made out,” says he, “by these three worthy and pious divines of New England, [John] Cotton, [Thomas] Hooker and [John] Norton.”
And then he cites Norton saying:
“There was impurity or corruption in worship in the Church of Corinth; for women taught in the Church: There was corrupt doctrine; many denied the resurrection. In manners she was most corrupt, there being so many fornications, sects, palpable love of the world, etc. Yet the apostle did not command those that were worthily prepared to abstain from the Supper, but, rectifying abuses, he did command everyone to try himself, and so eat.”
And he has much to this purpose in his Treatise upon Scandal (pt. 2, ch. 12). Again, on the Revelation he says (ch. 2, p. 99):
“Although a Church be defective in purging out of corrupt members, yet that does not pollute the ordinances to others, or necessitate them to separate from them. These Churches continue to be Churches, and the ordinances to be ordinances of Christ, although such were continued in communion with them; and, notwithstanding thereof, these who were free of those corruptions are approven and commended by Jesus Christ: And if it were not so, that a person’s endeavoring in his station to amend such a fault, and to have such scandals censured, did not exempt him from guiltiness so as to continue in Church communion, although the plurality of officers should be short of their duty in that respect; then there might be still separation after separation in infinitum [to infinity].”
The reverend Mr. Boston speaks to the same purpose in his sermon on 1 Cor. 10:17. And the churches of New England, in their platform of Church Discipline, are large, pointed and particular on this head, whose words may be cited afterwards.
3rdly, Though a Church make sundry wrong decisions in judicatories, that’s not sufficient ground of separation.
The Assemblies of this Church, from 1638 to 1649 inclusive, made sundry such. As the General Assembly 1638 enacted (Session 23, 34):
“That from that time henceforth no sort of person of whatsoever quality or degree be permitted to speak or write against the said [National] Confession, this Assembly, or any act of this Assembly; and that under the pain of incurring the censures of this Kirk.”
Now, though all our separatists wonderfully magnify the acts of Assemblies during that period, yet I dare say, they cannot instance an act since that time which is more unreasonable than this; for hereby, some would say, they act as looking on themselves to be infallible in their decisions, and also bind themselves to act by implicit faith: For after this act, that Assembly made sundry acts, yet not a word was to be spoken nor written against them under the pain of censure, though many of the acts of that Assembly were unjustifiable, as may be shown afterwards. And that act looks very like a restricting of ministerial freedom: And some who mightily extol these acts, would call it downright tyranny if any such act was made at this time. This act might be thought grievous, yet never any dreamed it was ground of separation: And to say with some, that a Church may be excused or born with though she make bad acts and do bad things when going forward, but not when she is declining, in my opinion is of no weight. Again, though the Commission in 1650, and the subsequent Assembly approved by vote of the Public Resolutions, yet the Protesters did not think this a ground of Separation, as all the histories of these times evidence. And Mr. Hog, in his Letters anent separation, p. 7, says, The Protesters were still willing to sit in judicatories with the Resolutioners. The Act of Assembly 1732, in my opinion, was a bad act; but it was not ground of separation from this Church, nor from any minister that voted for it, more than was the act of Assembly 1642, whereby that Assembly obliged all presbyteries to give a leit [list] of six persons to every [civil] patron [for options to present to congregations for the installation of a minister]. And the passing of that Act 1732 was no such evidence of the general corruption of this Church, as is alleged: For, a the Brethren observe in their Representation to the Commission, p. 17, “The far greater part of the presbyteries of this Church who sent up instructions were against that act;” There being only six of all the sixty-eight presbyteries that declared for it in that shape in which it passed. And the Brethren in their first Testimony, p. 50, affirm that this act was:
“so far from being approved by all at home, or from being agreeable to the more general opinion of this Church, that the most part of the presbyteries did declare themselves against it in the terms it now stands.”
4thly, Though the ministers of a Church should be guilty of much fainting, flinching and unworthy declining, or of not giving faithful testimony against that in others, yet this will not be a sufficient ground for separation from them.
Though Peter and Barnabas were thus guilty when they separated from the gentile converts, for fear of offending the Jews, when convinced it was both lawful and duty to eat and to keep fellowship with them, for which the apostle Paul “withstood them to the face, because they were to be blamed:” Yet had these gentiles cast at their ministry, tearing their commission, by refusing to hear or submit to them; this had surely been their sin. A faultless ministry or blameless Church is not to be expected upon earth: And what is cited from the Hind let Loose on the foregoing 9th proposition may be considered here. As also what the reverend Mr. M’Ward says in his Letter from Holland to the Society People in Scotland is of weight (printed at the end of his Earnest Contendings): Where speaking of the faintings and flinchings and unworthy declinings of ministers, in not giving a faithful testimony, he says to that people:
“Ye are to be warry while ye eye these, viz. these faintings and flinchings, and unworthy declinings of ministers, that ye be not thereby drawn: 1. To a contempt of the ministry itself; 2. Into that delusion, to think that it is the only way to testify against what ye judge amiss in the minister, to cast at his ministry, to withdraw from him: Whosoever adopts this principle accordingly, has not the mind of Christ; for there are other patent and obvious ways to witness against all the evils of our ways besides these. Nay, this way of witnessing is such as Christ will witness against it as not the way.”
5thly, Though a Church has fallen in a great measure from her former love and zeal, that’s no sufficient ground of separation, though ’tis the justest ground for lamentation.
The once famous Church of Ephesus, fell from which it was not lawful to separate, Rev. 2:4. So the Church of Laodicea, which was turned lukewarm, and a Church in which we read of nothing commendable, yet Christ was still in treating terms with her, standing at the door and knocking, Rev. 3:20. And while Christ stays and is in treating terms with a Church, we ought not to separate from her, her standards being pure, and no sinful term of communion required. In all the epistles to the Asian Churches, there is not the least word dropped to encourage any in separation from them, for all their faults, which were great and numerous.
6thly, Want [lack] of sensible edification is not enough to occasion separation from ministers of a becoming conversation, and who preach Jesus.
[1.] Some may be ready to think, surely the Lord has forsaken the minister, and therefore they ought to forsake him because they are not so sensibly edified. But it would be considered, people may be edified by the gospel, when yet they are not ravished with joy in hearing: If the judgment be more informed in the doctrines of the gospel; if more sensible of, or more humbled for iniquity; if the heart be more drawn out after an absent Christ; if helped to follow on to know the Lord, there is surely edification reaped, though there be not sensible enlargment in hearing. And here people would try narrowly, whether the fault be not in themselves; God may be contending for misimproving former favors, or perhaps ’tis for the provocations of hearers that ministers are not more enlarged and lively, or want of edification may flow from conceived prejudice at the pastor. Sundry of the people of Geneva conceived such prejudice at Calvin as they would not hear him, so that he was forced to leave them. Perhaps the minister’s light differs in sundry things from them, or from some ministers for whom they have a vast veneration; and, because he goes not along with them in what they reckon a work of reformation, they concluded such a minister has drawn back; whereas perhaps his record is in Heaven, his sentiments are the same they formerly were, and is not conscious of making any visible wrong step to occasion offense, nor can he think but the Lord of sovereign grace is with him in ministerial work still.
2. Whether we be sensibly edified, having communion and fellowship with God in ordinances dispensed by such or such a minister, is not to be our rule for attending upon his ministry: For Mr. Shields says:
“This is a very uncertain rule; for he may give his presence where he does not approve of the minister, and he may approve of the minister where he does not give his presence; and if he be absent, it is uncertain whether it be the minister’s fault or our own. And upon that ground the other party may be justified in dividing from us, because they may miss his presence among us and in our meetings; his presence in communion is the end of our meetings, and not the rule: The meeting is always lawful, and may have the expectation of his presence, that is gathered ‘in his name’; and none can say the meeting of presbyterian ministers in Scotland at this time, in these circumstances, are gathered in any other name. However, if we would expect a blessing, let us endeavor unity; for that is “as the dew of Hermon, and there the Lord commands the blessing,” Ps. 133 last.”
The apostle was not forsaken of his Lord when the Galatians, who had received him “as an angel of God, yea, even as Christ Jesus,” and were ready to have “plucked out their own eyes and given them to him,” because his enemies, and looked upon him as their enemy, because he told them the truth, preaching the truths of Christ contrary to what some who “zealously affected them” did teach: Upon which he asks, “Where is the blessedness you spake of?” Formerly they reckoned themselves blessed in his ministry, looking on him as a most blessed person (Gal. 4:14-17).
Again, even those in the Church of Corinth the apostle had espoused to Christ for a husband, they conceived such prejudice against him, as to think he was scaredly worth the hearing, being so taken with other teachers, as to say of him, “His bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible.” (2 Cor. 10:10) So that, for his own vindication, he was obliged to write at large, as in the 10th-13th chapters of his second epistle to them, “I am become a fool,” says he, “in glorying; but ye have compelled me.” Seeing they had not stood up in his vindication, but instead of that had talked “to his grief,” he saw a necessity of vindicating himself.
3. I own the want of edification is much to be lamented: And as sometimes this may be the people’s fault, so sometimes ministers may have a deep and sinful hand in this. Nor shall I say but at this day there may be much ground to lament over a dead ministry in many places; yet our deadness is not such as can vindicate any in separation from the Church of Scotland, for ’tis God’s preceptive and not his providential will which is to be our rule. Rutherford, in his latter to the parishoners of Kilmacolme, says:
“Whereas ye complain of a dead ministry in your bounds, make Christ your minister, he can woo a soul at a dike-side in the field: He needs not us, howbeit the flock is obliged to seek Him in the shepherd’s tents. Hunger of Christ’s making may thrive, even under stewards who mind not the feeding of the flock, etc.”
4. Ministers and people may be in the way of the Lord, and yet fall under lamentable deadness. Hence Rutherford in 1653, in his 57th letter, part 3rd, to Colonel Ker, says:
“It is the complaint of not a few of such who were in Christ before me, that most of us inhabit and dwell in a parched land; the people of the Lord are like a land not rained upon. Though some dare not deny but this is the garden of the Beloved, and the vineyard which the Lord does keep and water every moment; Yet, O where are the sometimes quickening breathings and influences from Heaven that have refreshed his hidden ones! The causes of his withdrawings are unknown to us.”
And much more he has to the same purpose in that letter. And this was after his joining in the Protestation against the Public Resolutions, the letter being written in 1653. And in his 67th letter, part 2nd, which is to the Lady Kenmure, of the date May 26th 1659, says:
“There is an universal complaint of deadness of spirit on all that know God. He that writes to you, Madam, is as deep in this as any.”
And I think Mr. Renwick, in some of his letters, laments to that same purpose in his day.
The author of the late Seasonable Testimony, speaking to the people, p. 55, says:
“I have heard some of you confess that notwithstanding your following the separating Brethren, particularly at communions, you have not found that composed frame and solid work of religion which sometimes you observed with comfort.”
And others have heard the same complaint from sundry: Nor have we heard of any extraordinary pouring out of the Spirit attending the ministry of our Brethren, more than others; few pricked at the heart, crying out, “Men and Brethren, what shall we do to be saved?”
But to conclude this third head, as Mr. Shields says (On Church-Communion, p. 40):
“It is evident that there may be union and communion with a Church where there are several corruptions neither confessed nor reformed. As for example, there may be difference of judgment about many things, and doctrinal determinations of disputable points exacted by synods, contrary to our sentiments; and yet there may be forbearance with protestations, if we be not constrained to subscribe or homologate the same. In worship there may be many defects and disorders. In discipline and government there may be many dissatisfactions with Church officers, unjust censures, unfit ordinations, erroneous decisions, wrong constitutions of judicatories, dissatisfactions with persons that have the main stroke in the administrations, occasioning jealousies and fears of misgovernment for the time to come, and the like.”
And yet, for all these, there he proves at length, there ought to be union and communion without separation.
.
Chapter 4
In which sundry things, reckoned just and sufficient causes for separation from a Church are instanced
.
And 1st, when a Church turns heretical in her doctrine, maintaining such doctrines in her standards as are eversive of the foundation, utterly inconsistent with salvation; or denies such truths, without the knowledge and faith whereof we cannot have life and endless happiness; as if they should deny the deity of our Lord Jesus, deny the necessity of supernatural revelation in order to our attaining to saving knowledge of the will of God, or deny justification solely by the Surety’s imputed everlasting righteousness, and the like.
But I hope, yea, and am confident, nothing like these is to be found in the Church of Scotland; for she adheres to all the doctrines contained in our excellent Confession of Faith, and her teachers, when licensed to preach the gospel, are solemnly engaged to “Assert, maintain and defend the doctrine contained in the said Confession.” And also, at their ordination, of new they come under the same engagements; and do expressly disown:
“All Popish, Arian, Socinian, Arminian, Bourignion, and other doctrines, tenets and opinions whatsoever, which are contrary to and inconsistent with the foresaid Confession of Faith.”
And, if there be such abominable hypocrites acting below men, as profess, promise and engage contrary to what may be their sentiments, this is to be lamented, but cannot be absolutely prevented in any Church; there was a traitor and vile hypocrite, a Judas, among the twelve apostles whom our Lord sent forth to teach and preach in his name: And yet ’tis not every error in a Church, nor every error which may be more gross in the particular members or ministers thereof, which is ground of separation from a Church. And hence the learned Turretin, when speaking of the causes of separation or secession from a Church, though he makes heresy in doctrine a just cause thereof, yet says:
“Separation is not to be made for any light or smaller error, but for more deadly and capital errors, which strike at the heart and foundation of faith and salvation: Sed plures exitiales et captiales qui cor salutis et fidei fundamentum petant.”
And, I think, we may defy the world to instance any capital error which is maintained by the Church of Scotland. As to what has been laid to the charge of the professors Simson and Campbell, may be noticed afterwards.
2ndly, Idolatry in worship is reckoned a sufficient ground of separation from a Church.
It is sinful to join in any worship which is corrupt. [Francis] Turretin asserts this is just ground of separation, yet he does not reckon everything which is amiss in worship sufficient ground: Hence he says, Non superstitio duntaxat, sed infamis idololatria. And [Jeremiah] Burroughs on Hosea, ch. 2:2, says he does not think that all idolatry (if it be through ignorance) cuts off a Church. I’m of their opinion who think we are to separate from all false and corrupt worship in any Church, though every corruption in worship is no sufficient ground of separation: Yet, where superstition, will-worship or uninstituted ceremonies are enjoined and made necessary to our communicating with a Church, we are rather to separate than join in such worship; for, “In vain,” and sinfully, “do all such worship” the Lord “as teach for doctrines the commandments of men,” Mt. 15:9. But the greatest adversaries of the Church of Scotland cannot charge her as being guilty of guilty of idolatry, nay, not of superstition in her worship;
And if, at times, some of her members be guilty of joining with the Church of England, so as to comply with any of her superstitions and uninstituted ceremonies, that is their sin: Yet the Church of Scotland does not approve of this by any deed of hers; yea, so far from this, that she has formally testified and cautioned against it, the Commission in 1709 having, by an act against Innovations in the worship of God, expressly discharged it; which act was read by their appointment from the several pulpits in this Church: And that Commission was approven by the subsequent Assembly.
3rdly, Tyranny in the government of a Church is reckoned just ground of separation by some.
And as Turretin mentioned only three grounds or causes for separation, viz. heresy in doctrine, and idolatry in worship; so tyranny in government is the third. And it is not every ataxy or disorder in the government of a Church, or exercise of discipline, which according to him is ground of separation; Sed tyrannis durissima et intolerabilis persecutio tum corporalis tum spiritualis; “But most cruel tyranny, and intolerable persecution both of body and soul.” But I hope there is nothing like that to be found in the Church of Scotland.
I know such as separate themselves are ready to object what they call “the bloody cruel sentences” pronounced against Messieurs M’Millan, McNeill, Hepburn, Gilchrist and Taylor: But, as these were pronounced about twenty years ago, so, albeit I should grant they were cruel and unjust, that will not prove the Church of Scotland ought to be separated from at this day. Here I shall not spend time in considering the equity of the sentences passed against these ministers: But if the methods taken by them, as Mr. Webster affirms (Letter to Mr. M’Millan) of the methods taken by Mr. M’Millan, had “a natural tendency to ruin the Church of Scotland entirely;” and if the schism carried on by them was, as he asserts, “one of the most scandalous, pernicious and unaccountable schisms that perhaps ever was known in any age of the Church,” then it was the less to be admired that the Church of Scotland pronounced such sentences against them, lest she should be entirely ruined. And Mr. Webster says of Mr. M’Millan, that it was for his anti-scriptural and anti-covenanted principles, together with his irregular practice, that the Church of Scotland declared him to be none of her communion.
I doubt not it will also be objected, The Church of Scotland of late, namely in 1733, acted tyrannically, in that she cast out the Four Brethren from her communion for their honest testimony against her unjust proceedings.
Answer: I was and am very sorry ever such a sentence was passed, whereby these Brethren were cast out from the communion of this Church; and yet some have thought (how justly I cannot say) their ejection was not a deed of this Church, and that it was only through a mistake they were ejected: For then it was, and still it is the sentiment of sundry, If that commission had done as was done by our Scots Council 1676, when they divided in vote, Whether to press the Declaration against the covenants, or the Bond of Peace? When the rolls, through the importunity of Sir Robert Murray, were called three times upon the same vote, and found at third calling to have carried contrary to what was given out at first and second calling of the rolls to have the majority, then there had not been need of the moderator’s casting vote; though the gentleman who marked the votes at that time in the commission is known by all to be a gentleman of much honor and honesty, and never any had the least suspicion of his fideltiy: But, whatever may be in this, ’tis certain there was an evident majority of ministers in the commission who voted against that deed. But when it is granted that sentence was unjust and tyrannical, it will not prove the Church of Scotland is so tyrannical that she ought to be separated from; for he is not a tyrant who is guilty of a few acts of oppression, but he who is habitually guilty of them in his administration. “A tyrant,” says Rutherford (Lex Rex, p. 217):
“is he who habitually sins against the catholic good of the subjects and state, and subverts law.”
And I think none will say the Church of Scotland is habitually guilty of tyranny and intolerable persecution, whether of soul or body. Now those three, viz. damnable heresy, gross idolatry, and tyranny with intolerable persecution have been esteemed by many to be the only grounds of separation from a Church. And the learned [John] Cameron having mentioned those three as just causes thereof, he adds another cause, namely, when a Church is “the seat of Antichrist”. And the ministers and elders of the provincial synod which met at London in 1649, in their Vindication of Presbyterial Government, p. 114, having instanced those from Cameron as causes of separation, they affirm, “Where none of those are to be found, there the separation is insufficient and schismatical.” And I’m sure none of them is to be found in this Church. Yet sundry are instanced by some, as:
4thly, Some make the intrusion of ministers upon Christian congregations a ground of separation; and sundry of the dissenters from the Church of England have judged the want of a free choice in the election of their own pastors is enough to vindicate them in separating from the communion of that Church, where all are settled by patrons.
But other learned and judicious writers are of a different judgment; as the reverend Principal Rule, who says (Rational Defence, p. 151):
“Depriving people of their right of choosing their own Church officers is matter of complaint; but we must bear it, rather than separate for that from a Church.”
And again (Ibid., p. 197), speaking of the members of the Church of England their being deprived of right to choose their pastors, he says:
“I do not make depriving the people of this power a cause of separating, though I reckon it a notable grievance, and pray the Lord may move the hearts of the rulers to defend the people in this their right against them that take it from them.”
Others, as the author of the Modest Apology in answer to the bishop of [?????], though they do not affirm ’tis ground of separation, yet say:
“It is a great discouragement to be of the communion of that Church where ministers enter not to their charge by the election of the people.”
And no doubt it is so.
Now the charge of violent intrusions, in my opinion, is a charge from which the Church of Scotland can least be vindicated of anything laid to her charge since the Revolution; considering how many settlements have been made renitente et contradicente ecclesia, while congregations were reclaiming since the act restoring patronages in 1712, I confess, we have just ground to lament over these; yet, as there has been a considerable struggle made by many ministers of this Church against them, and a considerable stop has been put to them for some time bygone, so, whatever ground there is for lamentation, there is no sufficient ground of separation from the Church of Scotland notwithstanding of such intrusions; whatever some particular congregations may have to say for vindicating their practice, in not attending upon the ministry of such as have been violently thrust in upon them.
For me, my sentiments are the same as formerly, as to the people’s right to elect their pastors; only I see, as Mr. Burroughs says:
“It is exceeding hard for a people to understand their own liberty without abusing of it, either against a Church, or against the officers of a Church.” (On Hosea 2:2)
And as [I] published formerly (Jus pop. div., p. 81), with our divines who write upon this head, still I humbly think:
“That though a person has been thrust in upon a people in an undue manner, yet their after acceptance, approbation and submission to his ministry, makes him a pstor to them, supplying the want of election at first; as Jacob’s after-consent and acceptance of Leah made her to be his wife, though he was far from choosing her at first. And though it be a sin in ministers of the gospel to settle any pastor contrary to the inclinations of a people, yet in my opinion, though the people are not obliged, they may submit to the ministry of such without sin, declaring their non-approbation of the procedure, and testifying against the manner of settlement.”
Yea, cases may occur wherein I humbly think it will be their duty to submit (Fulfillment of the Scriptures, p. 449):
“as in the case of famous Mr. Alexander Henderson, who, at his first entry to the ministry at Leuchars, was prelatic, and by the bishop of St. Andrews brought in against the parish’s consent, so that, the day of his admission, the Church-doors being shut by the people, they were forced to break in by a window to get him entrance: But a little after, upon the report of a communion where Mr. Bruce was to help, he would needs, from a longing he had for to hear and see such a man, go secretly there, and placed himself in a dark place of the church where he might not be known. When Mr. Bruce was come to the pulpit, he did for a considerable time keep silence, as his manner was; which did some way astonish Mr. Henderson, but much more when he heard the first words wherewith he began, which were these, ‘He that comes not in by the door, but climbs up any other way, the same is a thief and a robber,’ which did, by the Lord’s blessing, at the very present take him by the heart, and had so great an impression on him, that it was the mean of his conversion.”
So in the case the person intruded afterwards evidence himself to be the Lord’s servant, ‘an able minister of the New Testament,’ studying to win souls to Christ, and to advance his glory by a tender heavenly walk, carrying as becomes a minister of Christ, declaring his disapprobation of violent intrusions. And here some difference may be put between an intruder, who has had an active hand in his being intruded, as by accepting a presentation, and sticking to it when the people have declared against him; and between a person intruded by a judicatory, when he had no other hand in the intrusion, but by submitting to the judicatory’s determination.
I’m far from vindicating the Church of Scotland in any violent settlement which has been made since 1712: Yet it may be said of our day, what the reverend Mr. Alexander Henderson says of his day, in that little tractate entitled, The Government and Order of the Church of Scotland, which was first published about 1641, when showing what was the practice of the Church of Scotland in these and former times as to the election of pastors, namely:
“This liberty of election is in part prejudged and hindered by patronages and presentations which are still in use there; not by rules of their discipline, but by the toleration of that which they cannot amen.”
And such as may look upon separation as duty at this day, because this or the other abuse is not rectified by the Church of Scotland, as that solid divine Jenkyn, who was a sufferer for Christ, dying in prison for his cause, says (On Jude, v. 19, p. 261):
“Let them consider whether the want of the exact purging and reforming of these abuses proceed not rather from some unhappy obstructions and political restrictions, in the exercise of discipline, than from the allowance or neglect of the Church itself.”
And though I am not to vindicate them, yet sundry of our Brethren who have gone lengths in appearing for candidates having presentations, which others cannot but condemn, have declared:
“Was it not for the strait the Church is in from the grievance of patronages, which they profess is a grievance to them as well as others, they had been as averse from countenancing such settlements as any.”
And they affirm the gravaminous law of patronages constrained our Church judicatories even in the best and purest times of reformation to the like measures. But though there is ground to lament over what compliances our Church judicatories, inferior and superior, have made with patronages in former and later times; yet it must be told to the praise of the Church of Scotland, as she acted an honest part in opposition to the Patronage-Act when it was framing, by sending commissioners to London to do their utmost against it passing in parliament, so she has done more of late to have patronages abolished, than was done from 1638 to 1649, or I think in any other time since the Reformation: The commission of the General Assembly 1734 having, by that Assembly’s orders, sent brethren to London to address king and parliament for the repeal of the Patronage-Act, testifying and declaring what a grievance patronages are to this Church. And again, the General Assembly 1735, after approving of that commission in sending such commissioners, they did of new send up for that effect. And the compliances made with patronages of late years are not ground of separation more than there was ground to separate from the Church of Scotland in 1642, when the Assembly at St. Andrews enacted:
“That the presbytery should give a leit [list] with a blank presentation to the king, or any other patron, of six persons willing to accept of the presentation, that so the patron might take his choice of any of those, filling up the presentation with the name of any of the six he pleased.”
And as this act was made without the last word of a testimony against patronages, so, instead thereof, the Assembly speaks of it as an act of grace in the king’s majesty that he was pleased to accept of this leit; And again the next Assembly, to wit 1643, petitioned the king’s majesty to accept of a list of three persons for every vacancy, because they found difficulty of getting fixable and well-qualified persons to be put into the list to his majesty for every vacant kirk: And neither of these Assemblies gave the least testimony against patronages.
‘Tis very true, these lists were to be made up with the consent of “the most or best part of the congregation,” and was not so bad as the thrusting in of pastors upon congregations upon little more than a presentation, and the concurrence of some non-residing heritors, or heritors not of our communion, with perhaps a few of their compelled tenants, while the body of congregations have been opposite, utterly refusing their consent: But though the list had been made up with the consent of the whole congregation, it was a plain robbing the people of their right of election; for in that case they might never get the person they most inclined for, and who would have been their choice had they been left to their liberty in the election. And then by that act the congregation had not so much as the nomination of one of the six who were to be upon that leit, for the presbytery had the naming of them all.
Now the Brethren in their Act and Testimony, p. 19, say that:
“From 1641, the building of the House of God went on prosperously and successfully till 1650.”
But, if the robbing of the Christian people thus of their right to elect their pastors, and the many other bad acts made in that period, was a building of the House of God, I’m far mistaken: And that same Assembly 1642 ordains that in the choosing of elders, not the congregation, but the eldership shall have the filling up of vacancies in the session. Some complain much of the Church of Scotland, because she has not declared that it is contrary to her principles to accept of presentations; and, for my part, I wish she would, for I think they are anti-scriptural. But here I may ask such as give this for some reason of their not joining with judicatories at this day, or for separation from her, if they can instance that Assembly from 1638 to 1649 that ever declared so much: For my part, I know of none of them; and I am sure it was neither the Assembly 1638 nor the Assembly 1642, for both these Assemblies approved of the accepting presentations, if the candidate had the consent of presbytery and congregation.
‘Tis a most frivolous exception to say, Then the Church of Scotland had not been reformed from patronages, as she has been since; and therefore it was not such a fault in her to comply with them at that time as in our day: For, I affirm, she was as fully reformed in principle from patronages and violent intrusions at her first reformation, as ever she has been since, or shall be while the world stands, as is evident from her First and Second Books of Discipline.
If here, or anywhere in this performance, I have mentioned some of the actings of the Church of Scotland in former times as unjustifiable, which formerly I vindicated from what was charged upon them by my antagonist, in reply I affirm, It is a mistake to say I altogether vindicated these, or vindicated them so as to approve of and justify them, though I endeavored to vindicate them in as far as they could be vindicated from what was alleged by him, who, in my opinion, pleaded from them as precedents that might be followed; whereas here I mention them as rocks which ought to be avoided, lest we dash upon them.
But, without insisting further upon this head, as the Assembly 1736, among her last acts, unanimously revived the Act 1638, whereby respect is to be had to vacant congregations, so as:
“no person shall be intruded into any office of the Kirk contrary to the will of the congregation to which they are appointed,”
so, I hope, the Church of Scotland in time coming will have such a regard to the law of Christ, and to this recommendation, as to guard against all violent intrusions, whether for the pleasure of high or low; and who can blame her for living up to our declared principles, secured to us by the fundamental laws of the kingdom? And the Assembly 1735 allowed some of those parishes, who had pastors thrust in upon them, a liberty of Church-privileges wherever they might have freedom to ask them, which was a material testimony against intrusions.
5thly, Some affirm ministers’ scandalous in life and conversation may be withdrawn from.
The learned Sir Peter King, late Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, having affirmed (Enquiry into Cons. Dis., etc., p. 163) that:
“An ungrounded and causeless separation from their lawful pastor or parish-church was what the primitive Christians commonly termed schism,”
and speaking of the causes which could justify the people’s desertion of their pastor, says:
“These, I think, were two, or at most three: The first was, apostasy from the Faith; or, when a bishop renounced the Christian Faith, and, through fear of prosecution, embraced the heathenish idolatries; The second was heresy, if they could accuse him of false heretical doctrine.”
And then he adds a third, namely, “A scandalous and wicked life.” That African synod which met anno 258, whereof Cyprian was moderator, asserts, It is the duty of people to separate from the communion of wicked and ungodly ministers. Others are of different sentiments, as Origen, who says:
“He that has a care of his soul, will not be scandalized at my faults who am his bishop, but considering my doctrine, and finding it agreeable to the Church’s Faith, from me indeed shall be averse, but he will indeed receive my doctrine.”
And some, who think this is ground of separation, yet say, Tis not to be done by the people at their own hand, nor till they have the determination of a Church judicatory in their favors: Others are of a different mind, thinking such as are evidently scandalous may be withdrawn from, albeit, through the iniquity of the times, they should not be censured by a Church judicatory (Abjuration no Ground of Separation), when complained of. And I am much of this opinion, yet dare not say with the author of Plain Reasons, that no man of sound principles will stand by the other side of the question.
Now, whatever ground there may be (and alas that there is so much!) to lament over the untender walk of sundry ministers in this Church, and who among us but have ground to lie in the dust for not being more holy and heavenly, more watchful, tender and circumspect, more diligent and faithful? Yet, I hope, yea, I’m sure, the generality of our ministers are far from being chargeable with what is gross and immoral in their walk: And, where it may be evident ’tis otherwise, or where any are going on in such a course, I cannot blame people though they separate from them, if, being told of their faults, they openly continue to walk disorderly, hating to be reformed: And, albeit I’m far from pleading innocent, yet all that have travelled own the ministry of the Church of Scotland are among, if not absolutely, the most tender of any they ever saw.
Some join insufficiency wtih immorality as a ground of separation, though I see not what connection is between them, nor is it easy to determine what insufficiency is; and many times weaker gifts are remarkably blessed of the Lord, where men are honest in their endeavors for him: And yet I doubt not there is truth in what is said in the First Book of Discipline, 4th Head, when some were ready to object, that, in a scarcity of fit and qualified persons for the work of the gospel, a strict examination of candidates was not to be used. To this ’tis answered:
“Let them understand, that it is alike to have no minister at all, and to have an idol in the place of a true minister: Yea, and in some cases, it is worse; for those that be utterly destituted of ministers will be diligent to search for them: But those that have a vain shadow do commonly, without further care, content themselves with the same; and so remain they continually deceived, thinking that they have a minister, when in very deed they have none: For we cannot judge him a dispensator of God’s mysteries, that in no wise can break the Bread of Life to the fainting and hungry souls.”
6thly, Imposing the least sinful term of communion upon us, is just ground of separation from a Church.
Indeed we are to study the peace of Jerusalem, preferring it to the “head of our joy;” but we must never join in anything which is sinful: No, let us be “men of strife and contention to the whole earth,” rather than be guilty of the least violation of the royal law. Some have been of opinion this is the only ground which can justify separation from a Church of Christ (Burnet, in the Conclusion of his History, p. 1255. I think Claude, in his Defence of the Reformation, and others).
And all will own ’tis a just ground, if it be not the apostate Church of Rome, which affirms, “People are obliged to believe,” with the “coalier’s faith,” or “believe as the Church believes,” though they know not what the Church believes; or those who talk with bishops [Matthew] Parker and [John] Spotiswood, namely, “If the Church impose any term that’s sinful, then she only shall answer for it.” But surely the doctrine of implicit faith is damnable doctrine; all ought to “be ready to render a reason of the hope which is in them:” And the sin of superiors in imposing, will never justify inferiors in complying with the least iniquity. And should you ask what terms of communion may be reckoned sinful, then I answer:
1. If a Church should require it as a term of communion of us to condemn any doctrine of the gospel that would be ground of separation for them of whom this was required, be that truth greater or smaller.
2. If required to assert or declare our belief of any doctrine or position which is erroneous.
3. If a Church require us to condemn anything in our former practice which is just and lawful.
4. If they require us to condemn anything in the practice of others which is right and equitable.
5. If they should require us to condemn that as an undoubted sinful practice or deed in others, when we are under doubt at to the reality of the fact: As in the case of worthy Mr. Robert Burce, who chose rather imprisonment and banishment than to keep a fast for Goury’s Conspiracy, as if he had been fully assured of the thing, when yet with many others he entertained doubts as to the reality of the fact. Or,
6. If they should require us to worship God by using such rites and ceremonies in his worship as Christ the King of Zion has not instituted in his Word; as does not only the Church of Rome, but also the Church of England, which will not allow people should have communion with them in God’s ordinances, unless they worship by their stinted Liturgy, nor will they allow of children’s being baptized unless they have godfathers and godmothers, and consent to their being signed with the sing of the cross; nor partake with them in the sacrament of our Lord’s Supper, unless they kneel in the act of receiving, and the like.
7. If they should require us to engage for the future to abstain from what is seasonable duty, and required of us in our station.
Now, these and such like sinful terms, or any the least sinful term of communion, I mean to those of whom such unlawful terms are required, are just ground for separation. But no such sinful terms of communion are required of any minister, elder, deacon or private member of this Church.
Indeed the author of Plain Reasons, who has left no stone unturned to slander the Church of Scotland, he makes the sinfulness of her terms one of his fifteen reasons for declining her communion: But, though he spends almost ten pages of his book upon that topic, yet he could not mention so much as one sinful term of communion required of any of the people of this Church. Indeed he instances the formula imposed by the Assembly 1694 and 1700; and also the formula of the Assembly 1711, which was to be subscribed by all licensed to preach the gospel, and all ministers of this Church: And these formulas he charges as containing sinful terms of ministerial communion, deducing sundry inferences from them, by which according to him she is highly guilty; but then they are so inconsequential and groundless that I will not spend the reader’s time to name them.
.
.
Chapter 5
In which arguments are adduced against separation
.
Separation from a true Church, except in the above or like cases, was always reckoned a heinous sin by the judicious and tender, albeit her faults should be many; though I fear few among us have just impressions of the evil hereof, the subject being so seldom touched in sermons: And ’tis scarcely thought tolerable by sundry at this day to drop a word against it. Eusebius, in The Life of the Emperor Constantine tells:
“That though he was a person full of heroic valor, yet the dissensions of the Church were so afflicting to him as to bring many a tear from his eyes, and rob him of his night’s rest.”
The reverend Mr. John King, in his speech on the scaffold, having said:
“As I ever abhorred division and faction in the Church, as that which tends to its utter ruin if the Lord prevent it not;” he adds (and here I join with him), “I would, in the bowels of my Lord and Master, if such a feckless one as I may presume to persuade and exhort both ministers and professors:
‘If therre by any consolation in Christ, if any comfort in love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, that ye be like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. In lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.’ (Phil. 2:2-3)”
The arguments against separation are weighty, as:
1. Separation is against the practice of all the saints under the Old Testament.
For, notwithstanding the corruption of priests and people, yet they never separated so as to erect a new Church or a new altar: Nor did they ever separate from the worship of the true God, whatever were the corruptions of the Church. They separated indeed from the corruptions themselves, and testified against them, but not from the Church in what was agreeable to the “pattern seen in the mount.” From men’s beginning “to call upon the name of the Lord” in public assemblies, and from the time that God instituted public worship in his Church to the coming of Christ, we never read of thesaints through all that long period their separating from that Old Testament Church for all the corruptions that were in these days, though “the high places were not taken away.” And for as corrupt as magistrates, priests and people were in Old Testament times, yet, says Calvin (Institutes, bk. 4, ch. 1, sect. 18):
“The prophets did neither erect to themselves new Churches, nor build up new altars, on which they might have separate sacrifices.” And he affirms, “Had the prophets thouht they contracted any infection, they would rather have died an hundred times than joined with them.”
They indeed refused to worship Baalim, or the calves at Dan and Bethel; they went not in with idolatry, but they never forsook the temple worship.
Zacharias was a priest of the course of Abia, but he was far from separating from temple worship in his day: For as corrupt as the priesthood was at that time:
“he executed the priest’s office before God in the order of his course, burning incense according to the custom of the priests in the Temple of the Lord;”
and in so doing, he was approven of God: And, while at Temple service, he got a singular revelation about the birth ofthe blessed harbinger, of the adorable Messiah (Lk. 1). And the Spiritof God gives him and his wife a high testimony for “walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless;” had they separated they had not been blameless, this had been their sin: They walked in all the ordinances of the Lord, attending on all public ordinances.
So when our blessed Lord was born, when the days of Mary his mother’s:
“purification were accomplished according to the Law, they brought him to Jerusalem, and presented him to the Lord in the Temple, and offered the sacrifices” (Lk. 2:22)
there which He required. And things were far more out of order in the Church of the Jews at that time than can be alleged against us in our day. So again, ’tis spoken to the commendation of Anna, though she was a prophetess (Lk. 2:36-37), “That she departed not from the Temple;” She separated not from the Temple-worship for all the corruptions which were in the office-bearers and courts of judicature at that time, but “served God with fastings and prayers day and night;” she departed not from the Temple, she was still there, whether it was by day or night, when any temple-service or worship was to be performed.
Here I find ’tis objected, There could be no separation at that time, because the Lord had appointed Jerusalem should be the place of worship, and that the sons of Levi should have the priesthood.
But, if it be a sin to join in communion with a Church having corruptions, or whose pastors are not what they ought to be, then it would follow, that the Lord’s people at that time were under a necessity of sinning, either by forsaking God’s ordinances, or by joining with corrupt men in a Church with many corruptions, or that the same moral action which was lawful then would be sinful in us now, or that God had given his people a dispensation under that economy to do what is sinful in itself, and what may pollute the soul.
If so be the presence of wicked men defile the worship to the godly, then they had been bound to withdraw from the Church, even under the Old Testament, although there had been no other Church to join with: Better be out of the Church-visible than be in it, if we must sin by abiding therein. And, if any please, they may see this argument, which is taken from the Old Testament, handled more largely by Mr. Fergusson in his Separation Refuted, in Mr. Shields his Treatise of Church-Communion, and in Mr. Hog’s Letters, which Letters are truly excellent on this subject of separation; so Rutherford’s Due Right, etc.
2. To separate is contrary to the practice of Crist and his apostles when upon earth.
For as corrupt as the Church of the Jews was in our Lord’s Days, yet he attended upon the public worship without separating. The New Testament Church not being yet constituted, Christ’s enemies watched all occasions to see what faults they could lay to his charge, but they never charged him with separating from or neglecting the public temple worship; and, could they [have] charged him therewith, it had not been neglected, considering what a popular topic this had been against Him, the people being “all zealous for the law.” And as He attended upon that worship, so He enjoined others to do so, not only by his example, but likewise by his command, as he exhorted the leper to go and show himself to the priest, and to offer the gift which Moses had commanded, Mt. 8:12. And at another time He enjoined the ten lepers to “go and show themselves to the priest,” Lk. 17:14. And He enjoined the people to hear them that sat in Moses’s seat.
Then the Church of the Jews was a very corrupt Church, yet Calvin affirms, for as wicked as the age was wherein Christ and his disciples lived, yet:
“neither the desperate impiety of the Pharisees, nor the dissolute licentious way of living which was regnant in those days, could hinder them from using the same ordinances with the people, nor could keep them from convening in one Temple with the rest to public religious exercises: Whence was this,” adds he, “but because they knew that joining with the wicked did not in the least pollute the Lord’s sacred ordinances to them that attended upon them with a pure conscience.” (Institutes, bk. 4, ch. 1, sect. 19)
And Calvin’s arguments against separation in his Institutions are so pungent and of such force, that I know a person of much solidity, who had separated from this Church for a good time after the Revolution, who, upon reading them, saw it his indispensable duty to join with her. Judicious Durham says (On Scandal, pt. 2, ch. 12, p. 127):
“We see in Christ’s time the scribes and Pharisees were pointed out by him as scandalous, Mt. 23:3, yet even there does he require continuance in the ordinances administered by them notwithstanding.”
Rutherford says (Peaceable Plea, pp. 132-33):
“The Church in Christ’s days was a most perverse Church; the rulers perverted the Law, denied that hatred and rash anger was a sin, or that heart-adultery was a sin; polluted the worship with will-worship; the priesthood was kept by moien. Caiaphas was high priest that year, but Christ by practice and precept forbade to separate from this Church.”
And to the same purpose speaks Mr. Shields in his Treatise of Church-Communion, p. 43. However neither this nor the foregoing argument says ought in favors of any Church that requires sinful terms of communion.
[3.] In the days of the apostles, when the New Testament Church was erected and constituted, we read of many things amiss in the Church of Christ, but never read of anything like separation enjoined by the apostles, or approved by the practice of any the most holy or tender among the saints of God all that time.
As there were many faults, and faults of a heinous nature, tolerated, I mean not duly censured, in the Church of Corinth, to which the great apostle of the gentiles writes two large epistles; in which Church, says Rutherford (Peaceable Plea, pp. 141-42):
“There were schisms and contentions, envying and strife, incest and incest tolerated, such as is not named amongst the gentiles; going to law with their brethren for gain before infidels, harlotry, eating at the idol’s table, keeping fellowship with devils, coming to the Lord’s table drunken, eating and drinking damnation, a denying of a fundamental point of faith, the resurrection of the dead, and that with scoffing at it, murdering of weak souls whom Christ had died for, Paul’s name despitefully traduced.”
And he cites Scriptures for proof of all these. Yet, says he:
“The apostle was so far from commanding separation from the Church of Corinth, that he commanded and approved their meeting together, citing 1 Cor. 5:4, 11, 18, 20-22 & 14:16.”
Mr. Hog in his Letters against Separation (p. 17), having particularized sundry fo the faults ofthis Church of Corinth, says, “Nevertheless that Church was a true Church.” And having affirmed the faithful in it kept, through grace, at a distance from the evils of their day, and also from such persons as were grossly corrupt, says:
“But not in a separating way, by erecting themselves into a separated society, with distinct Church judicatories; such apocryphal divinity was unknown to the prophets and apostles of Christ, who gave no such order to these Churches.”
If many of the Church of Galatia, that had “received the Spirit by the hearing of faith,” and which was a rightly constituted Church, had “departed from him who called them to the grace of Christ unto another gospel,” joining circumcision and the works of the Law with faith, and in a great measure had “fallen from Christ;” and if the Church of the Philippians, in which there were some who preached “Christ out of envy and contention, thinking to add affliction” to the apostle’s bonds; and if the Church of the Ephesians, which had “fallen from her first love;” and if the Church of Pergamos, which “held the doctrine of the Nicolaitans and of Balaam,” and if the Church of Thyatira, which suffered the “wicked woman Jezebel to seduce Christ’s servants;” if the Church of Sardis, which had “a name to live,” and yet “was dead;” if the Church of Laodicea, which was turned lukewarm in the matters of God and things of Christ; if all these were true Churches, then may a Church with many faults, or many corruptions, remain a true Church of Christ, with a lawful, visible ministry; and for all these faults and corruptions cannot be separated from, except, as Rutherford says (Peaceable Plea, p. 144):
“We leave the candlestick and Christ walking in the midst of the golden candlesticks.”
No doubt the corruptions which were in these Churches were the burden of the Lord’s own people, and abhorred by them. As likewise, I doubt not they kept at a due distance from all such persons, shunning familiarity with them that were guilty of these gross errors and scandalous practices; notwithstanding there is no ground to think the Lord required the sincere and more tender part to separate themselves from the more slack and lukewarm as a distinct society. And, as Mr. Hog says:
“The Lord walked among the golden candlesticks in these Churches, and guided his people to bearing a testimony for him, without such Church-ruining extremes.” (Letters, p. 18)
4. This is a sin and evil against which the primitive Christians were very zealous: As they laid great weight upon peace and unity among the Lord’s servants and people in these times, so they looked upon division and separation in the Church of Christ as the greatest evil which can befall the Church.
Colforgie, the above-mentioned author of The Church of Scotland’s Grievances Considered, when speaking against the toleration, says:
“It indulges a causeless separation from the established Church, which we find the primitive Christians were very zealous against.”
Dionysius Alexandrinus, when writing to Novatian, who made a lamentable rent in the primitive Church, setting up for greater strictness, being against allowing Church communion or Chuch privileges to any that had fallen after baptism, or that had fallen in times of persecution, whatever their repentance should be, affirms:
“It was better for Novatianto suffer anything than that the Church of Christ should be rent asunder;” asserting, “It is no less glorious to suffer martyrdom to keep division out of the Church, yea, and probably more glorious, than to die a martyr for not sacrificing to idols; for in the first, martyrdom is suffered for one soul, but in the other, for the universal Church.”
Augustine, who by some has been esteemed the eminentest of the fathers, in writing to the Donatists, who were much of the same opinion with the Novatians, and did also separate, making a deplorable schism in the primitive times (because any were received into the Church who had been traditores [“givers-over”], delivering up their Bibles to be burnt to save their lives, under the persecution of Maximinus, rejecting the communion of all the Churches of Christ, confining the whole Church unto their own party, denying salvation to others, rebaptizing all that came unto them from other Churches), he tells those Donatists (Contra Donatists, bk. 2, ch. 6) that “Schism was a greater sin than that of the traditores.” And some of them, I humbly think, went too far in their inveighing against separation, as the famous martyr Cyprian, who lived in the third century and said:
“Whosoever was a schismatic, had no longer God for his Father, nor the Church for his mother, but wasout of the number of the faithful; and though he should die for the Faith, yet could he never be saved.”
5. This seems to be a manifold breach of our national engagements, in which we are solemnly sworn against the heinous sin of schism; which, as Durham described it, is, “A separating from the communion of a true Church, whether more or less pure.” (On Rev. 18:4, p. 680)
And the reverend Mr. Webster, in his letter to Mr. M’Millan, approvesof his description (p. 12), where he says:
“As to the fearful epithets of ‘schismatics’ and ‘separatists,’ wherewith you and your party are branded, and which are so odious to you, let all good men judge whether you may be justly called so. The definition of schism is: A separating from the unity and communion of a true Church. If you doubt this definition, know that it is the definition the learned Mr. Durham gave of it, on Rev. 18:4.”
And the author of Hind let Loose [Alexander Shields] seems to approve this when he says:
“It is indeed ministers’ duty to show people how great a sin schism is, and that the wrath of God is not far off from them who make and cherish sinful separation.”
For there he makes schism and sinful separation the same. And, if I be not far mistaken, the Brethren’s definition of schism in their First Testimony, p. 97, is altogether new, when they say:
“Schism is a causeless separation from a Church, well-constituted, sound in doctrine, pure in worship, impartial in discipline, and acting in the government according to the laws of Christ.”
which looks like a perfect Church. See Durham on Scandal, pt. 4, ch. 1 for a fuller account of the nature of schism. And, while the Church of Scotland remains a true Church of Christ, having pure standards, requiring no sinful terms of communion of us, unless we break we break covenant-engagements, we are obliged to remain in that Church, guarding against the suffering of ourselves to be drawn away to division or separation from her, though we are never to approve of, or join in anything which is sinful: Those we are always to testify against, but still in a way of Church-communion. Mr. Hog says (Letters, p. 7):
“For the erecting of a Church within a presbyterian Church, I must say that it is a novation with a witness. Our friends express much zeal for the obligation of our covenants (which I acknowledge is inviolable) and therefore I would recommend to their serious views that article of our National Covenant, whereby we abjure all novations contrary to our received standards.
Sure I am, our old covenanters were not of their mind. I know no precedent for their way amongst us save this one, of which I think they will not be very fond, namely, that of the Public Resolutioners, who were the first that ever pretended to set up distinct judicatories in this Church: The Protesters sat with them in judicatories without any hesitation, and pressed to continue, and to act a faithful part as it might please the Lord to guide them, they were the separatists.”
Mr. Hog thought the erecting of a Church within a presbyterian Church was a novation with a witness. And Neal, in his History of the Puritans, pt. 3, p. 307, speaking of the debates which were at the Westminster Assembly between the Assembly’s committee and the Independents, says:
“As to the charge of schism, they,” viz. the Assembly’s committee, “admit that difference in judgment in some particular points is no schism, nor does an inconformity to some things enjoined deserve that name; but our Brethren” (says that committee) “desire further to set up separate communions, which is a manifest rupture of our societies into others, and is therefore a schism in the body: This is setting up altar against altar, allowing our Churches to be true Churches, as the Independents do.”
And Mr. Webster, in the end of that Letter of his to Mr. M’Millan, having said:
“As we nor no man of common sense can justify your unrivaled and hateful schism,” a little after says, “A detestable neutrality and indifferency, now-a-days ignorantly called ‘moderation,’ grafted on carnal prudence, and supported by sinful politics, on the one hand, and a scandalous schism on the other, are equally abjured by our covenants, and are two extremes we should equally guard and pray against.”
And as, by our ordination-engagements, ministers are bound and obliged to maintain the unity and peace of this Church against schism, and that they shall follow no divisive course from her present established doctrine, worship, discipline or government, so, for any of her ministers in our day to separate from the Church of Scotland, seems a plain breach of ordination vows.
6. This is a going contrary to the acts of the Church of Scotland in what has been reckoned her best and purest times, and is so by separatists themselves, as to go no further back than between 1638 and 1649.
As then she solemnly swore, so then she made sundry acts against separation, and in faors of union: And in some of her acts at that time for preserving peace and union, she went very far; as the General Assembly, by her act of the date August 9th, 1643, enjoins all ministers, and especially all ministers upon the coasts where there are any harbors and ports, to try and search for all books tending to separation: And, in that act, they recommend it to the civil magistrate to concur with his authority in all things fo the effectual execution of this act. So again, that same Assembly 1643, in another act, which was of the date August 15, 1643, session 12th, says: “The Assembly testify their unanimous consent against all schism” and an act to the same purpose, in which that Assembly inhibited and discharged all the members of this Church and kingdom, in the name of God, to converse with any tainted errors for separation; and that they beware of, and abstain from all books maintaining it. Again, that same year, in her act of the date August 24th, 1647, the title of it is, “The Directions of the General Assembly for secret and private Worship, and mutual Edification, for cherishing Piety, for maintaining Unity, and avoiding Schismand Division;” there, out of zeal for union, that Assembly, in my opinion, declares against fellowship-meetings for prayer and Christian conference: Their words, when speaking of the Lord’s people meeting together for religious worship, are:
“Whatever have been the effects and fruit of meetings of persons of diverse families in times of corruption or trouble (in which cases many things are commendable which otherwise are not tolerable) yet, when God has blessed us with peace and purity of the Gospel, such meetings of persons of diverse families (except in cases mentioned in these Directions)¹ are to be disapproved, as tending to the hindrance of the religious exercise of each family by itself, to the prejudice of the public ministry, to the renting of the families of particular congregations, and (in process of time) of the whole Kirk, besides many offenses which might come thereby, to the hardening ofthe hearts of carnal men, and grief of the godly.”
¹ The cases mentioned in those Directions were, “Those who were lodged with them, or at meal, or otherwise with them upon some lawful occasion.”
I shall be far from condemning such meetings; yet, where the effect of them is the prejudice of the public ministry, and rending of particular families or congregations, and where theytend to the renting of the Kirk of Christ, insofar they cannot be justified. And hence the above act or conclusion, if Guthrie in his Memoirs is to be credited, p. 65, was unanimously gone into by Messieurs Alexander Henderson, Andrew Ramsay, David Dickson, Robert Blair, David Calderwood, Samuel Rutherford, John Livingstone, and many others, who met to confer about that affair at Mr. Alexander Henderson’s chamber in 1639: Surely this was from convictions of the evil of separation. And if, as I hear sundry regret, the effect of such meetings in many places at this day is, the alienation of people’s affections from the ministry, and the encouragement of separation from the Church of Scotland, though the abuse of a duty will not make it unlawful; yet I’m sure, in that case, such meetings are not for the better, but for the worse.
Fellowship meetings, if rightly managed, are profitable; yet there may be truth in what Durham says (On Scandal, pt. 3, ch. 15):
“The pretext of Christian fellowship is abused, to the hatching and propagating of the most absurd opinions, when people turn light and frothy, taking up their time with vain janglings, and diverting from the main scope, to wit, edification: These things are indeed to be shunned; but Christian fellowship is not to be disclaimed, but wisely to be ordered in respect of the persons with whom, and occasions upon which it is used.”
And the General Assembly 1647 was so impressed with the evil and danger of schism and separation, that they unanimously declared:
“The civil magistrate may and ought to suppress by corporal or civil punishment such as, by spreading error or heresy, or by fomenting schism, greatly dishonor God, dangerously hurt religion, and disturb the peace of the Kirk;” declaring they, “firmly believed, owned, maintained and commended to others this head of doctrine, as solid, true, orthodox, grounded upon the Word of God, consonant to the judgment both of the ancient and the best reformed Kirks.” (Act concerning the 3rd Proposition)
7. To separate from a true Church though her faults be many, as this is contrary to the sentiments of the Church of Scotland in what has been esteemed her purest times, so this is contrary to the mind of other reformed Churches.
As to the once famous Protestant Church of France, which says:
“A pastor or elder breaking the Church’s union, or stirring up contention about any point of doctrine, or of the discipline which he had subscribed, and not conforming to the determination of the colloquy” (or presbytery) “he shall be then suspended from his ofice, and be further prosecuted by the provincial or national synod.” (Discipline, ch. 5, article 32)
And such was the care of that Church to prevent schism or separation, that though they were not to have a national synod but once in three years, yet, in case of schism, a national synod was to be called pro re nata [“for the thing of necessity”] (Quick’s Synodicon, vol. 1, p. 191). And in the national synod of Privas in 1612, at which time there were dissenters in that Church, in an Act for Reunion, they express the greatest concern for harmony, peace and union, while they say:
“Moreover this Assembly entreats and exhortsall for God’s sake, and the glory of his great name, and their own salvation,and for the peace and welfare of the nation; yea, it adjures by all that is desirable or commendable, the whole body of our communion in general, and every faitful soul in particular, to divest themselves of all animosities whatsoever, and to lop off immediately all dissolutions and dissensions, lest they should be the causes of the dissipation of the Churches of God in this kingdom.
And all pastors and elders of Churches are enjoined diligently to procure the reunion of the respective members of their flocks, and to lend one another their helping hand to effect so good a work, and mightily to insist upon it in their public sermons, and private exhortations and remonstrances; And in case they should meet with contempt, scorn and reproach in the discharge of this their duty, and that any one, through an obdurate perverseness, should show himself implacable and irreconcilable, this Assembly, according to that authority which the great God gives unto the ministers of his holy Word, denounces to them the dreadful judgments of God, and wishes they may be had in execration” (that is, detestation) “among and by all the faithful; yea, all the censures of the Churchshall be exerted against such refractory persons, and the utmost rigor of our discipline shall be inflicted and executed upon them, lest the good name of God should be blasphemed through our sins, and that we may not contract upon ourselves the guilt of the Church’s desolation.”
Again, the Helvetian Churches in their Confession of Faith (ch. 17, sect. 11, 13-14), which was approven and subscribed by all the protestant ministers in Helvetia, as Zurich, Bern, Glaris, Basil, Schaffhausen, Apenzel, St. Gal, Malhausen, Geneva, etc. and received and approven by the Church of Savoy, Poland and Hungary, and also by the Church of Scotland, having asserted that the marks of a true “Church are the true and sincere preaching of the Word, and right administration of the sacraments,” say:
[sic] 9. Such as have separated, or are tempted to separate from this Church, would seriously weigh the sentiments of eminently holy, zealous, learned and judicious divines in particular, and what a terrible aspect separation has still had in their eyes.
And here I’ll instance some of them, confining myself to the sentiments of eminent divines in our own Church, as Mr. Livingstone, in his letter from Holland to his parishoners of Ancrum 1671 tells though he had no challenges for joining with the Protesters in the beginning, but rather approbation, yet says:
“I withdrew from the meeting of the Protesters when I perceived the matter like to tend to a stated schism.”
And though he condemns the Public Resolutioners, and the courses taken in 1651, yet says he:
“could have wished that more moderation and more real endeavors for union had been used by both parties.”
And in his Life, speaking of the Public Resolutioners, says:
“My light carried me to join with them that protested against these Resolutions, and the Assemblies that followed thereafter; and I was present at the first meeting of some of the Protesters in the West at Kilmarnock, and thereafter at several of their meetings: But indeed I was not satisfied in my mind that the Protesters kept so many meetings, so numerous, and of so long continuance, which I thought made the division wider, and the more conspicuous than otherwise it would have been; and therefore I stayed from many meetings.”
Which shows this servant of Christ was much impressed with the evil of division and separation.
Again, Mr. George Gillespie (Miscellaneous Questions, p. 132), after exhorting to take heed of proud, lofty and self-conceited new lights, and citing 1 Cor. 14:32-33, “The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace,” says:
“Beware of separating new lights; to separate from, or gather Churches out of the true reformed or reforming Churches, has not the least warrant from the Word of God: When we see this or that amiss in a Church we are bidden exhort one another, and provoke one another to good, but not to separate, Heb. 10:24-25.
Zwingli conferred amicably with the Anabaptists in Zurich as with dissenting brethren; and no course was taken to suppress or restrain them by the secular power, till they grew to gather Churches out of the true reformed Churches: But when it came to that, they could not be suffered or forborne, it was thought necessary to restrain them.”
To gather Churches out of Churches has always been condemned by presbyterians as the error of our Brethren the Independents.
Durham says (On Revelation, p. 420):
“Heresies do often more hurt to the Church by their contentions and schisms than by their doctrines.”
And he speaks to the same purpose in many other places of his Commentary on the Revelation, as on the epistle to the Church of Thyatira, where, in his 9th observation upon it, says:
“Our Lord Jesus is no approver nor countenancer of separation from a true Church for the faults of some members in it; neither do faults in some members, and defects in ministers and officers in executing discipline, pollute the ordinances in themselves, or to others who are free of that guilt; and so do not necessitate a separation from such a Church, or any ordinance thereof: For, this and the former epistle being compared together, these things are clear, that there were gross members in the Church, adulterers, Nicolaitans, seducers, etc. that they are continued in Church-communion, ‘thou hast them and sufferest them,’ clearly import this; for that angel no otherwise had them but as Church-members under his charge.
3. That this angel sinfully permitted them to continue Church-members, and therefore is reproved.”
And downwards he adds the words formerly cited:
“Hence also we may see that Christ does not rigidly cast off Churches for defects in discipline and grossness of particular members, when in the main the foundation is kept.”
So in many other places of his Commentary on the Revelation, and also of his Treatise upon Scandal (p. 261), where he says:
“Schism has ever proven exceeding hurtful to the Church, and has been an inlet and nursery to the greatest errors: It is most pressingly condemned in the Scriptures, even with as great weight as corrupt doctrine and heresy are; and it is attributed to that same original, to wit, the flesh, with witchcraft, idolatry, heresy, etc. Gal. 5:20. It has also proven most dangerous to those who have been engaged therein, and often has been a snare to bring on spiritual desertion, deadness of spirit, security, self-confidence, or some other spiritual evils of that kind.”
Now, the words of the judicious Durham are so plain and pointed against separation from any such Church as the Church of Scotland is, and has been since the Revolution, that they are very blind who cannot see what moved that author of Plain Reasons to slander the posthumous writings of the reverend, learned and judicious Durham as being vitiated, inconsistent and opposite to one another, as that author does in the 46th page of his book, to which calumny ans answer may be given afterwards in an appendix.
Mr. Hog says (Casuist. Essay, p. 84):
“Testimonies for the Lord are necessary, lovely and singularly useful, when according to the rule: But, when these prescribed bounds are exceeded, and our misguided zeal for a pretended respect to the Lord’s honor hurries to a taxing the commissions of his choicest ambassadors, and trampling such as are eminently beautified with Christ’s image, who can tell how far this gangrene may reach?
My heart trembles at the mischiefs which any one unsound and unsafe position does lead to, especially in matters of this nature; and have often admired the judicious observe of a great man, against whom our friends, especially the more exercised, are not much, if at all, prejudiced, viz. ‘He that sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; but whoso sheds the blood of Churches, his blood shall be shed by the Lord.’ (These are said to be the words of Mr. Shepherd.)”
And he calls separation from ministers of the Gospel, ‘A tearing of their commissions,’ so far as it lies in the power of such to separate.
Mr. M’Ward, in a Letter printed at the end of his Earnest Contendings (p. 371), where writing I suppose to some of the Society people, says:
“Consider that a separation, when not upon clear and just grounds, is a greater sin before God, and more piercing to the heart of Christ, than either murder or adultery, etc. because this is to dissolve the union of his Church and to divide Christian societies. Whosoever shall be found to plead for this, I dare affirm he blows that fire with his breath, which Christ would quench with his blood. My dear friends, weigh seriously, as before the Lord, how Jesus Christ will take it at any man or woman’s hand to tear the commission of any of his ambassadors, whom he will still own as an ambassador, and as negotiating a peace between God and sinners: Sure I need neither tell you that withdrawing from hearing such is a tearing their commission; nor need I tell you that this will be found a sin more hateful and heinous in the sight of Jesus Christ than many others that appear more black.”
Mr. Shields says, “Division and schism is not only a great misery, but a grand sin.” And afterwards adds:
“Though there be not perfect union, but diversity both of judgments and practices in several cases, there may be communion with a Church in its ordinances and ministry.”
And hence, after giving his testimony against what he thought was amiss at the Revolution, he had full freedom to join with the Church of Scotland; and in so doing he did not see the least sin: For he was convinced there may be a union and love where sentiments about things which are not fundamental are very different, as it was for a long season in the late suffering times among the Protesters and Resolutioners. Whatever different sentiments were among them as to the Public Resolutions, and about paying the cess [tax], and the like, yet says he, viz. Mr. Shields (Hind Let Loose, p. 121):
“All this time” (to wit, from the beginning of their sufferings till long after the Indulgence) “ministers and professors were united, and with one soul and shoulder followed the word of the Lord.”
Again, Mr. Webster, in Preface to his Letter to Mr. M’Millan, after lamenting over the sins of the Church of Scotland, and the calamities brought upon her at that time, says:
“And to complete the dismal scene of our misery, we have had for a long time among us one of the most scandalous, pernicious and most unaccountable schisms that perhaps ever was in any age of the Church; a schism carried on by three weak men, supported by a poor people, and both are equally ignorant of the nature of union with, and separation from, a Church, and of what will justify the one or other; they cannot, in a consistency with their principles, hold communion with any Church this day on earth.
We confess to our shame there are many things wrong with us, and that there are errors in the administration, against which we are, with the help of grace, still struggling and contending; and we resolve ever to plead against such corruptions: But no man of common understanding will think this national Church should be cast off, and that we should separate from her; we have a good constitution; we have a standard of doctrine without error; Westminster Confession of Faith, which we own as the confession of our faith; we have subscribed and preach the doctrine therein contained; our worship is pure, without men’s additions; our discipline and government, in their constitution, are agreeable unto, founded on, and appointed in the Word of God; and there are no sinful terms of communion imposed.
As we cannot, and hope never shall, justify the measures some take, and for which they shall answer to God; so we will not despise the dust of Zion: What of the covenanted work of reformation is remaining among us, we must favor that dust, and look on it as precious, and pray and wrestle, by the help of grace, that our Lord would return to build his own House (for men have not courage to do it) and take a new infeftment[?] thereof by a cloud of his glory. There are a set of faithful ministers in this Church who are troubled for the many offenses that are given, and for laying so many stumbling blocks before the blind: And as they mourn for these in secret, so they give frequent testimony against them.”
Mr. Thomas Hog minister at Kiltearn in Ross, who had much of the Spirit of prophesy, and to whom the Brethren in their State of the Process, page 9th, give the testimony of being ‘an extraordinary man,’ in his Life written by Mr. James God, minister at Carnock, though he owns he was against the Indulgences, and dissatisfied with the management of sundry under the Toleration granted by James VII, disapproving of the flattering addresses which were sent to that prince by some presbyterian ministers in Scotland and England, having mentioned the respect and kindness he had for some desirable persons who went lengths in these matters which he could not allow, says (p. 15):
“But for the separation, or as they would term it, the withdrawing from presbyterian ministers, which was set on foot in the times of persecution, and continues to this day, he was utterly against it.”
And a little after says:
“Touching the principles and practices of sundry, who during the persecution and afterwards did abstract from hearing presbyterian ministers and confined their attendance to some few, though he pitied a poor oppressed and harassed company, considering that oppression will make even a wise man mad, yet he utterly disapproved and detested their singular opinions, and was at pains to reclaim such of them as he had occasion to see. He was then a prisoner, but found favor to get out upon bail at certain times, and had the fairer occasion to commune with several persons of that set, who, by his converse, were brought to a better mind, though some relapsed and smarted for it as he had foretold them.
The bulk of that separating people was filled with indignation and the keenest hatred against him, which they expressed by names and in way I love not to repeat: Many of these went to extravagant heights.
As to the separating principles about hearing, etc. their native tendency to subvert all Church-communion, even in the purest times, was and is manifest to any who with judgment and without bias consider the matter. He took special notice on these occasions of that memorable and awful fence which the Lord Jesus was pleased to set about his servants whom He has sent forth to speak in his name, viz. ‘He that heareth you,’ says He, ‘heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent me,’ Lk. 10:11-16; Mk. 10:11-13, etc. The guilt inwrapped here reaches far. He judiciously remarked that ’tis no small matter at once to despise and reject God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost; and yet a rejecting these whom the Lord has sent imports so much, being upon the matter a tearing the commissions of Christ’s Ambassadors.
I think it most observable, for confirmation of this remark, that the body of these separatists had, and expressed the greatest aversion from the most eminent and faithful ministers of Christ, who were not of their mind, whereas they could have been more easily persuaded to comport with others. All centers here, namely, a sameness of sentiment with them as to the extremes to which they declined, was made the necessary condition of Church-communion.”
And Oh that it was not so in our day!
Mr. Gabriel Sempil, in the History of his own Life, speaking of the differences between the Protesters and Public Resolutioners says (p. 12):
“These differences were a sad trial and temptation to the Church, and occasioned many sad animosities and alienations in affection both amongst ministers and people, obstructed greatly the power of godliness and edification amongst all, and did beget much prejudice, envy and emulation, that many looked more at their own image in others than the image of God in them, and accordingly rejected them; which always falls in in differences amongst the godly. But after king Charles in the 1660 returned from his exile, then their eyes were opened to see the evil of division, etc.”
And, speaking of the Indulgence says:
“Some more zealous than knowing and considerate did aggravate the acceptance of the indulgence to a great height, and ground of separation, and so wrought their enemies’ work for them better than they could do it for themselves: And so that division proved fatal at Bothwell, where they had a fair game, and opportunity to have defeated all their enemies, and brought prelacy down to the dust. It is observable there was this difference in the two appearances: Pentland had love, harmony and sympathy, wanting nothing but men and arms; Bothwell had both, and wanted harmony, but plagued with division.”
And Mr. Boston, later minister of the Gospel at Ettrick, in sermons upon 1 Cor. 10:17 (p. 169), speaking of separation from the men of this world, and showing in what we are not called to separate from them, says:
“Nor are we to separate from them, so as to refuse to serve God and worship Him with them according to his own institutions: This our Savior Himself did, Lk. 4:16. Thus did the apostles also with the Jews.”
And having affirmed that when the worship is pure, but some sinful thing is imposed as a term of communion with the worshippers, we must refuse communion with them: “In this case,” says he (p. 171), “separation is not only lawful, but a necessary duty.” And then he adds:
“Could I perceive either of those this day in our case in the communion of this Church, I should not only think it my duty to separate, but also to press you to it; but, though our mother has gone far back, she is not gone that length.”
And after instancing sundry duties we owe to the body of Christ, he says:
“Be tender of the unity of the body, Eph. 4:3-4; 1 Cor. 12:25. Schisms, rents and divisions are like wounds, cuts and breaking of bones in the natural body, which exceedingly weakens it, and mars its beauty; they are the sin and judgment of a Church, bringing dishonor to the Lord Jesus, marring the success of the Gospel, and ruining the Church at length; they bring much grief to tender souls, and expose religion to the mocking of enemies. The renting of the body of Christ has so much of horror about it, as may make it frightful to serious members: We must separate from none further than they separate from Christ: We must not go in to sin with the members of the mystical body more than with the world, under the pain of the displeasure of the Head; but we may lawfully serve the Lord in his own ordinances with sinful members: Even as, when one foot is in the mire, the other must not go into the mire with it; yet there is no necessity of renting the one leg from the other, but the one must still walk with the other on clean ground.”
Now, from what has been said upon this argument, ’tis pretty evident our Separatists are antipodes in their sentiments and practice to the cloud of witnesses, particularly to our most eminent worthies in former and later times. Hence Mr. Hog says (Letter, p. 5):
“I reckon it uncontested among Christians that there never was, is, nor shall be any state of the Churches of Christ wherein the Scriptures of truth give not sufficient and full direction.”
And then he adds:
“The Scripture gives us no precedent for testifying against a Church, whose received and enacted standards as to doctrine and discipline are pure, by separating from it, and setting up another Church within its bosom and in opposition to it: Nor were these the footsteps of the flock in other Churches, or in our own, until these last and perilous days.”
And again he says (p. 19):
“Thus, dear sir, I have traced your separating project through diverse periods of the Church under the Old and New Testament: And, having given you touches at the good old way of our Lord Himself, the prophets and apostles, I have pondered these matters again and again, and have had the occasion to know the thoughts of the brightest lights of this and other reformed Churches, who all are of the same sentiments on this weighty head, and do jointly express their high detestation of schisms, which yet never came up the length of your new project. Pardon me to say it, I love to live and die with the cloud of witnesses, and especially with such great and eminent worthies; and have often been put to say it solemnly before the Lord, Let not my soul enter into the secret of your schismatical courses.”
But perhaps it will be objected, The Church of Scotland is much worse than at the times in which Mr. Hog or these worthies aforementioned inveighed so much against separation, considering what violent intrusions have been made of late upon congregations, and error manifested in the lenity shown to grossly erroneous men, who have been suffered to pass without due censure; and therefore their authority is of less weight in the present case, whatever they have said against separation. Answer:
1. I shall not say but the Church of Scotland may be worse at this day than sometimes formerly, nor shall I say but she has been upon the decline for some time; yet:
2. I hope she has not declined nor gone back so as any of these things mentioned as grounds of separation are to be found in her. And,
3. These divines which have been cited, as they spoke or wrote against separation from any Church, unless upon sufficient grounds; so all of them, as Messieurs Sempil, Webster, Hog, Boston and others, ’tis well known, were against separation from this Church to the day of their death, and as much against it then as ever. The reverend Mr. James Hog, in a sermon a few months before his death, declared in the plainest terms against separation from the Church of Scotland, or from her judicatories, affirming that (Letter to a Friend in 1733):
“While our standards remain pure, and there is a professed adherence to them, we ought not to separate.”
And, having mentioned sundry of the gross corruptions which were in the Churches of Corinth, Galatia and the Asiatic Churches, said:
“In these events there is no warrant from the Lord to the purer part to sever themselves from the impure, though more numerous, and to constitute a distinct body; nay, they ought to endeavor reformation, continuing in communion, and testifying regularly against what is wrong, without turning aside to any crooked way, Ps. 125:5.”
And the arguments of those worthies militate against separation from her now, as well as in the time in which they lived; and nothing can be instanced since their decease, which would be reckoned sufficient ground of separation by them.
4. As to the violent intrusions, and her being erroneous; beside what has been said already upon those subjects, they may be further considered afterwards.
10. Though providence alone is not to be our rule, yet the Lord’s doings, and the operations of his hand, are to be regarded. And separation being an evil against which God has often testified his displeasure, by separating separatists from one another, and giving them up to gross errors; this, with other arguments, may have weight to make us guard against it.
History gives an account of one Mr. Johnson, who with his two sons was among the first that separated from the churches in England: He and his sons kept together for a while, but ere long the two brothers divided; and, when the father could not reconcile them, he left the one son, adhering to the other: But, after this, differences fell in between that son and the father; So that they all three excommunicated one another for small matters, rejecting the mediation of the presbytery of Amsterdam when offered for reconciliation. They had gone over to Holland in Queen Elisabeth’s time, where they had a congregation (Baillie’s Dissuasive, pp. 14-15; Sheffield on Conscience, p. 229).
Mather in his History of New England (bk. 7, p. 7) gives an account of one Mr. Roger Williams, who, being a preacher coming from Old England to Boston in New England, was one of the first that made separation from their Churches; for he refused to communicate with the Church of Boston, “because they would not make a public and solemn declaration of repentance for their having communicated with the Church of England while they were in the realm thereof.”
“This man being pastor to a church in Salem in New England, though he had formerly bragged or boasted that of all the Churches of the world those of New England were the purest, and of all in New England that whereof he was the teacher; yet there he set up for so much strictness that he told his congregation if they would not separate from all the churches in New England, as well as from the churches of Old England, he would separate from them:
But his congregation in Salem refusing to go in with his proposals, he separated from them, and would never have any communion with any person in it, nay, not with his own wife, that went into their assemblies; keeping a meeting at the same time in his own house, whereto resorted such as he had infected with his extravagancies: And though pains were taken upon this man, yet he went on in his ways, renouncing all the churches of New England.”
Yet after this he acquit himself, so that Mather says, many judged him to have had the root of the matter in him. The best of men are but men; and zealous worthy good men may mistake and go far aside. Again, we had a clear instance of this since the Revolution, in Messieurs John Hepburn, James Gilchrist and John Taylor, who, in the synod of Dumfries, joined together in presbytery after separating from the Church of Scotland, yet soon brake into pieces, dividing among themselves; this was in 1716.
And as for errors, frequently separatists have been left to fall into gross ones. Jerome and Augustine write of Donatus, from whom the Donatists had their name and original, that as he taught such as joined themselves to him were to be rebaptized, so likewise that the Son of God was inferior to the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was inferior to the Son. And for separatists falling from truth to error, we have had some lamentable instances in our own land, particularly in the case of some eminent professors in Aberdeen, as is to be seen in the postscript to Rutherford’s Letters.
And such of our separatists as may be of the same mind with the author of Plain Reasons, seem to have drunk in a very pernicious principle; for, p. 139, having spoken of the Acts, Declaration, Protestations and Remonstrances of the Church of Scotland in former times, and of our covenants and engagements to duties, says he:
“cannot see how any can dispense with any of these things, or live in peace and unity with these who do, without guilt of covenant-breaking, if not apostasy and perjury.”
Strange! not to have freedom to live in peace and unity with such as may differ from us in principle. The apostle’s rule is to ‘follow peace with all men’: Were all the acts for reformation in former times of such indispensable necessity that none of them could be dispensed with? The General Assembly 1648, session 31, enacted:
“That hereafter all persons whatsoever should take the Covenant at the first receiving the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.”
Now, as this act has long been dispensed with since its first enacting, and is dispensed with at this day by all, and that most justly; for I dare say, the King of Zion never designed to make it a term of communion, so as no serious soul, who might scruple to take that solemn oath because of some expression in it, should not be admitted to his Table: So it had surely been much more for the honor of some of our separatists, they had dispensed with that act when they renewed the Covenant at Douglas, I think, in 1712, before partaking of the Lord’s Supper, than to have turned it to an et cetera oath, as they did by their explication sworn to at that time, for after these words in our National Covenant, “or approbation of the corruptions of the public government of the Kirk, or civil places and power of kirkmen,” in the margin they add:
Or any corruptions thereof, prelatic or Erastian, either tried or to be tried; such as the Indulgence, the Toleration, the magistrate’s appointing fasts without advice and consent of the Church, dissolving assemblies, etc.”
This made the covenant an oath which in judgment no person could swear, for by that “et cetera” he swears and he knows not to what. Bishop Hall declares he never had freedom to administer that oath to any in his diocese which was called the Et cetera Oath, and imposed in his time. What man of any conscience will swear blindly? And for such as make the Brethren’s Testimony a term of Christian communion, in my opinion, they have drunk in a very great error, an error which cannot but be condemned by all the Churches of Christ.
Now, besides these arguments, many others may be adduced against division in, or separation from, a true Church (the cases above-narrated being still excepted) though her faults should be many:
[1.] To separate is to act against the command of the great God our Savior, who in his Word commands us to guard against “forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is,” Heb. 10:25.
The differences among the Churches of the Hebrews, anent the meaning and observation of the Ceremonial Law, were many; and it seems their divisions were such that some separated from others, perhaps out of pride or singularity, as Calvin says. Hence the apostle exhorts them to beware of “forsaking the assembling of themselves together, as the manner of some was;” while instead of this, he exhorts them to “provoke one another to love,” v. 24, as the apostle, speaking in the name and authority of his Lord and Master, 1 Cor. 1:10, says:
“Now I beseech you brethren in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment.”
[2.] And separation is a walking in opposition to that command, wherein he has enjoined all his disciples to “love one another”. (Jn. 14:34; Eph. 5:2)
“Men seldom separate,” says judicious Manton:
“but their hearts are much estranged from those from whom they separate; for religious ties, being once broken, are hardly made up again. Civil ruptures are not carried on with such vehemency, and are sooner closed again; But religion, being and ligament, when it is once violated, the breach is the more irreconcilable.”
‘Tis indeed to be lamented that, as he says:
“Many that pretend much to religion make no conscience of schism and offending the brethren, by withdrawing from them, as if Christ’s precepts of love were not to be stood upon.”
Separate practices seldom or never fail to occasion separation or alienation in affections; and where this iniquity abounds, the love of many, to such as are not of their party, often becomes ice-cold.
[3.] Again, ’tis contrary to the design of Christ our Lord’s death.
Angels at his birth sang sweetly, saying, “Glory to God in the highest, on earth peace, goodwill towards men.” He came, as to purchase peace with God, so also that his people might be at peace among themselves. Hence, Eph. 2:14-16, ’tis said, “He is our peace, who has made both one,” speaking of Jews and gentiles. And in the 16th verse ’tis said, “And that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity.” ‘Tis a good note of Mr. Fergusson upon that Scripture:
“Union in the Church of Christ is a thing which ought to be highly prized by us. For so much was it prized by Christ, that He gave his own life to procure it, and did beat down all his own ordinances which stood in the way of it: ‘He even abolished in his flesh the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, for to make of twain one new man.'”
[4.] Further, ’tis a sin which is against the intercession of Christ, as in his last prayer, Jn. 17.
He prayed again and again for unity among his members, and against division or separation, as in the 11th verse, where he says: “Holy Father, keep through thine own name these whom Thou hast given Me, that they may be one as we are one.” And again, in the 21st verse, He prays for all that believe on Him, that they may be one. And the argument that He makes use of in pleading for this is, “That the world may know that Thou hast sent Me.” The argument implies:
“That our divisions and breaking into sects, would breed suspicion of the Gospel in the hearts of men, as if that great mystery of redemption wrought by Him were but a well-devised fable.”
Unity and concord among brethren, this tends to commend Christ for a Lord and Master to others; whereas rents, schisms and a being divided so as to separate, this tends to make the enemies of the Prince of Peace turn atheists.
[5.] Moreover, to separate from the Church of Scotland at this day, ’tis interpretatively a condemning of Christ the Head of the Church, as if He was to be blamed, seeing He yet keeps communion with her.
And as Durham says, “It is too much nicety not to keep communion with them whom He keeps communion.” And though alas we want not ground to lament bitterly because of our iniquities, for which the Lord’s presence is withdrawn in a great measure from public, private, and secret; yet as we are not to despise the day of small things, so the Lord our heavenly Father has not yet given our mother a bill of divorce. We may say as ’tis, Jer. 15:5, “For Israel has not been forsaken, nor Judah of his God, though their land was filled with sin against the Holy One of Israel.” Sons and daughters are yet begotten and born to the Lord by a preached Gospel in this land; ministers and people at times can yet speak of his glory in the sanctuary. And here it may be said to such as separate themselves from us, as Mr. Hog said in his first Letter to separatists in 1717, p. 6:
“Only let our friends know, that, in setting up distinct congregations and judicatories, they not only withdraw from judicious and eminently godly ministers and private Christians, but do also consequentially go far towards a dooming them to Hell, as owning themselves to be in the communion of a Church that is no true Church, and with which (according to their principles) the Lord Jesus entertains no more any communion; for certainly their setting up separated judicatories and Churches will imply so much, or else they must say that they will have no fellowship with Churches with whom the Lord Jesus does entertain communion.”
And again he says:
“Though the whoredoms of a mother-Church have given just cause to the husband to divorce her, yet, while He has not done so, ’tis highly provoking, and a very unkindly office in the children to anticipate.”
Separation from Churches from which Christ does not separate, is schismatical, says Jenkyn. And then he adds:
“Now ’tis clear in the Scripture that Christ owns Churches where faith is found for the substance, and their worship Gospel-worship, though there be many defects and sinful mixtures among them.”
[6.] Consider also how hurtful and fatal division, and much more separation, is to the Church of Christ.
“A kingdom,” says our Lord, “divided against itself is brought to desolation,” Mt. 12:25. There is nothing more ruining to a Church or nation than to be divided; Machiavell’s maxim is too true, “Divid, and then rule over a people.” The intestine broils and divisions which were among the Jews proved ruining when the Romans came against them in the days of Vespasian and Titus, when eleven hundred thousand of them were cut off. Division in, and separation from a Church, is the Devil’s music, in which, says one, “his cloven foot is evident;” as this is also the music of all the Church’s adversaries, who rarely miss to blow this coal.
History gives an account how Julian the Apostate cherished differences between the Catholics and Donatists; and then affirmed no savage beast was more cruel to one another than the Christians. Hence also, in differences between the Protesters and Public Resolutioners, the English, who had the government, took the advantage of these, studying to hold them up rather than remove them: For General Monk seemed to favor the Protesters, and Broghill, who was president of the Council, the Resolutioners. (Sempil’s Life) Romanists have always done their utmost to divide Protestants among themselves, and sometimes by putting on a mask of extraordinary zeal to carry on their designs. And dispensations can be had for the like to this. In 1580, Petrie says (Century 16, p. 406):
“Dispensations were sent from Rome, permitting Papists to promise, swear, subscribe, and to do what other things might be required of them, if in mind they continued firm to the Popish interest.”
And, according to him, those dispensations gave the first rise to our National Covenant, in which Papistry is so pointedly abjured.
[7.] Further, separation is reckoned by the apostle among the works of the flesh, which all ought to beware of; and people may be as much inclined to this from a bad principle, as to gratify a fleshly lust.
And Durham says:
“As there is an itching after new doctrine in some, so is there for division in others. Gal. 5:19-20, ‘Now the works of the flesh are manifest; which are these, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions.’
The Greek word dicostasias [***], there rendered “seditions,” signifies a renting of those who ought to be united in one common society. Jude 19, there says the apostle, ‘These are they who separate themselves, sensual, not having the Spirit.’ Sometimes separatists have made high pretenses to the Spirit, and yet been sensual. And the Assembly 1641, in their act against impiety and schism in meetings for mutual edification, having advised to eschew all such meetings as are apt to bread error, scandal and schism, they expressly say, “These are works of the flesh, but not of the Spirit, and are contrary to truth and peace.”
[8.] As also, this tends vastly to the hurt of religion, eating out the life thereof, exhausting the very vitals of Christianity, worming out the power of godliness; for, when this creeps in, then people are taken up with a public religion.
Hence professor Halyburton (Memoirs, p. 180) in prospect of approaching death, said:
“If ministers go on in separating courses, the result of it will be, people will be taken up with the public, and forget private religion. We shall have people running about seeking to have their ears gratified, that love not the power of godliness.”
And, alas, ’tis to be feared this may be the case of sundry in our day, in which I hear serious people regrete the converse of many professors evidence it is so, being still upon the public, and the conduct of ministers.
[9.] Moreover, to separate from a true Church of Christ, this has a direct tendency to mar the success of the glorious gospel, whether they be ministers or people that separate.
If they be in any reputation for religion, piety or parts, then weak people are ready to think such as they separate from, or refuse to join in communion with, must surely be naughty men, men of lax consciences, men whom God will not own; and this, is ready to beget prejudice, and where once people are prejudiced at a minister, ’tis rare tey get good of his ministry.
Many other arguments might be adduced against this evil of separation as:
[10.] ‘Tis a sin which hinders the great Christian duty of edifying one another in love;
[11.] ‘Tis a staining of Christ our Lord and Master’s livery, which is love. “All men,” says he, “shall know that ye are my disciples, if ye love one another,” Jn. 13:35
[12]. This is commonly said to be a renting of Christ’s seamless coat;
[13.] and sundry other evils are included in, and follow upon separation from a true Church;
And hence the apostle is so pathetic in pressing to keep the unity of the Spirit, Eph. 4:1-6, and again, when writing to the Philippians, ch. 2, verses 1-2.
.
Chapter 6
In which the objections of separatists are answered
.
1st Objection: The Church of Scotland is not to be joined with, in regard the Revolution-Church [1690], to which she has succeeded, was so corupt in her constitution, being made up for the most part of such ministers as had gone in to the Public Resolutions, accepted of the Indulgence, or Toleration, or sworn unlawful oaths, etc.
Answer: Though granted these things might be ground of scruple to some tender persons at the Revolution, when some of those men lived, yet they cannot be ground of separation now, seeing none who had approven the Public Resolutions, accepted the Indulgence or Toleration, or sware those oaths, are alive. Indeed, if the Church of Scotland was requiring it as a term of communion in any of her members that they approve of these, then to such as have scruples anent them this would be ground of separation from her; but this is far from being the case. And albeit I join not with one more than another in these debateable points, yet I humbly think none of them was ground sufficient for separation. And here, I consider each of these in so many sections.
Section 1
In which the objection from the Public Resolutions is considered
.
Concerning those [Public Resolutions], 1st, though I have still inclined to think the Protesters had the best cause in that controversy, yet the Resolutioners wanted not much to say for themselves, as is evident from their writings published in those times: For, that Commission which met at Perth, December 14, 1650, to whom the parliament proposed the question:
“What persons are to be admitted to rise in arms, and to join with the forces of the kingdom, and in what capacity, for defense thereof against the armies of the sectaries, who, contrary to the Solemn League and Covenant [1643] and treaties, have most unjustly invaded, and are destroying the kingdom?”
In answer, though they were not against raising all the sensible men, or all such as were able to bear arms, and permitting them to fight, because of the present necessity, the forces formerly raised being so ruined and scattered, that there was not any considerable power of them remaining; yet they expressly excepted:
“All such as were excommunicated, forfeited, notoriously profane or flagitious, or such as from the beginning had been, and continued still to be obstinate professed enemies and opposers of the covenant and cause of God.”
And for the capacity of acting, in answer to the Estates of Parliament, that Commission says:
“As they ought, so we hope they, viz. the Estates of Parliament, will have special care that, in this so general a concurrence of all the people of the kingdom, none be put in such trust and power as my be prejudicial to the cause of God; and that such officers as are of known integrity and affection to the cause, and particularly such as have suffered in our former armies, may be taken special notice of.”
And in answer to that other question which was proposed by the king and parliament to that Commission, May 24, 1651, namely:
“Whether or no it was sinful and unlawful to admit such to be members of the Committee of Estates who had been debarred from the public trust formerly, they being such as have satisfied the Kirk for the offense for which they were excluded?”
desiring also to know their mind anent rescinding the Act of Classes; The Commission, after declaring it was not competent for them to make or repeal acts of Parliament, nor would they determine the keeping or rescinding of that act, answered:
“They thought such might be admitted to places of trust, provided they whom they admitted be men who have satisfied the Kirk for their former offences, have renewed or taken the Covenant, and be qualified for such places with the qualifications required in the Word of God, and expressed in the solemn acknowledgment and engagement, viz. that they be men of known good affection to the cause of God, and of a blameless and Christian conversation, which ought always carefully to be observed and made conscience of, though there were no such Act of Classes, to the effect that no persons get such power and trust into their hands as may be prejudicial to the cause of God.”¹
¹ See Observations on the Differences of the Kirk, published 1653. Also, The True Representation of the Rise, Progress, and State of the Divisions of the Church of Scotland, published 1657 and Wodrow’s History, vol. 1, Introduction, pp. 3-4.
Now these answers given by that commission were what was called, The Public Resolutions; andhad their advices been strictly followed, as indeed they were not,’tis probable the harm by these Resolutions had not been so great. The Protesters, again, were against taking in any of these to the army or judicatories that had opposed the work of reformation from 1637, who were called “Malignants,” and had been opposite to the liberties of the Kirk and kingdom, though professing repentance; being afraid, lest these coming into places of power and trust, would have the king’s ear, and so be instrumental in overturning the work of reformation attained unto since 1638. And indeed in this they were not far mistaken.
2ndly, Though these Resolutions occasioned a most lamentable rent in the Church, yet some worthy servants of the Lord, who were no Gallios, never had freedom to join with either side; as the learned, tender and judicious Durham, who could not see the matter so clear as to approve of the one and condemn the other: And, seeing he lived in that day, and had occasion to understand the controversy beter than we can atthis distance of time, and yet wanted clearness to join with either part; it may be some excuse for such as are not clear upon that point at this day.
3rdly, As there were sundry worthy eminent men upon the side of the Protesters, as Mr. Samuel Rutherford, professor of divinity in the college of St. Andrews, who was a member of the Westminster Assembly, Mr. James Guthrie, who suffered martyrdom for the cause of Christ, Mr. John Livingstone, Mr. Alexander Moncrieff, Mr. Andrew Cant, and others; so also there were sundry eminent ministers upon the side of the Public Resolutions, as Mr. David Dickson, moderator to the Assembly 1639, Mr. Robert Blair, moderator to the Assemblies 1642, 1645, 1647, 1649, and a member of the Westminster Assembly, Mr. James Wood, professor of divinity in the University of St. Andrews, Mr. Robet Baillie, principal or professor of divinity in the college of Glasgow, and a member to the Westminster Assembly, with others.
4thly, Though some separatists scruple not to brand the Public Resolutioners as men that had “apostatized fouly,” and “very fouly,” calling them perjured (Plain Reasons, p. 2); yet the Protesters themselves were far from this temper: Hence the author or authors of the Review of the Vindiction of the Assembly at St. Andrews 1651, p. 14, when speaking of the Public Resolutioners, says:
“I know none that traduce these godly men as apostates; yea, I know and am persuaded that the Protesters have a high and honorable estimation of them for their piety, parts and for the great things whereof the Lord has made sundry of them instrumental in his House.”
5thly, Concerning these Public Resolutions, Mr. Livingstone, in his letter from Rotterdam to his parishoners of Ancrum, wished that the fire which was kindled by them were extinguished and forgotten: And the author of Jus populi vindicatum, published 1669, a book to which some of the martyrs adhere in their dying testimonies, speaking of that debate between the Protesters and Resolutioners, says, p. 323: “But, as we wish it had never been heard of, so we desire it may be buried in perpetual oblivion.” And a worthy minister in this Church told me, that, sometime after the Revolution, when speaking anent the Public Resolutions to the reverend Mr. Edward Jamieson (who had been deposed by the opposite party for standing up for the Protestation) said:
“I was a Protester, and I never saw cause to repent it; yet, if any minister would now revive that controversy, I would have all freedom to vote his deposition.”
6thly, Some have observed, it was the lamentable division anent the Resolutions which brought in prelacy at the Restoration: However, when they came to the furnace, it seems these differences were forgot; for, at granting the Indulgence, it was offered to Mr. Robert Douglas, minister at Edinburgh, that the Public Resolutioners should only have the favor of being indulged: To which he generously replied:
“We have no differences, and, except it be given without distinction of parties, I shall never accept it;”
adding that the Protesters should be indulged before he was. (Sempel’s Life) Wodrow says, in 1658 they agreed that none of either side should be questioned in their judicatories for their different practices, vol. 1, p. 40. And it was truly lamentable ever they should have divided upon seemingly such narrow points, which some have thought were questions that did not much concern the doctrine, worship, discipline nor government of the Church of Scotland, being practical questions upon State-affairs: But, if the Lord divide in his anger, there is no keeping united, and the smallest things may be a handle to rent and divide a Church. I know ’tis said (Second Testimony, p. 26) the Public Resolutions were a step of defection against which the Church of Scotland was sworn in the Solemn Acknowledgment of Sins and Engagement to Duties: But this is positively denied by the Resolutioners; and hence, in the review of that pamphlet, entitled, Protesters no Subverters, p. 58, they affirm:
“That this paper, viz. The Solemn Engagement, was so contrived of purpose, as it might not condemn these Resolutions, if ever it should be needful to take them.”
And in p. 60, having asserted:
“That in case of common hazard and combustion, it will be hard to persuade rational Christians but that foul water may very lawfully be made use of to quench fire;”
A little after they say:
“We are sure that the Commission shortly after did, upon the debate, word the Solemn Engagement so as it might not precondemn that thesis, as is said before and is elsewhere cleared.”
And 7thly, to conclude this particular, it seems many of God’s dear saints who lived 70 years ago, and had better opportunity to understand that controversy, they either thought it would be a fault to keep up the remembrance of these Public Resolutions, or they had not such deep impressions of the evil of them; for of all the martyrs whose testimonies are recorded in Naphtali, from the Marquis of Argyle, who suffered May 27th, 1661, to the death of James Learmont, who suffered at Edinburgh, September 27th, 1678, I think none of them make the least mention of these Resolutions in their dying testimonies, never a Word of their being “a public national sin,” but only Mr. [James] Guthrie; for the Marquis of Argyle, the Lord Waristoun, Mr. Alexander Robertson, Mr. Hugh M’Kail, Mr. James Mitchel, and others, being 24 in all, never drop a word anent them.
Yet, after all, I have full freedom to condemn the Resolutioners for their suspending, deposing or putting any minister or elder from their charges, or excluding them from sitting in General Assemblies, for protesting against the Public Resolutions: And also, I think, they were to be blamed for obliging entrants to the ministry, and elders before they sat in presbytery, to declare under their hand, that they passed from the Declinature or Protestation against the Assemblies ensuing these Resolutions.
And on the other hand, there were sentences passed by the Protesters in some judicatories against the Resolutioners, which can as little be justified, such as their thrusting in pastors of their own party upon congregations against their will; for which the Resolutioners complain heavily in their Review and Examination of that pamphlet, which was entitled, Protesters no Subverters, printed 1659, where they accuse the Protesters of “misregarding the inclinations of the people,” terming the intruding a minister upon a people, “an usurpation and a wronging of the liberty of the people.” And, in that little piece which was published 1657, entitled, A True Representation of the Rise, Progress and State of the Present Divisions of the Church of Scotland, the Resolutioners, p. 38, say:
“It is a thing most ordinary with our Brethren to obtrude ministers upon congregations, sometimes contrary to the mind of the whole congregation, sometimes of the greater part thereof, upon the call only of some very few and inconsiderable part of that congregation, etc.”
And, particularly in the time of that lamentable difference, I’m credibly informed, the register of the synod of Perth and Stirling bears, that the Protesters settled one of their own party at Dunkeld, when the body of the congregation was entirely opposite. And, from such considerations, the Assembly 1690 saw it needful to declare all sentences past against any ministers by either party hinc inde, to be null and void to all effects and intents.
.
.
Section 2
In which the objection of separatists relating to the Indulgence is considered
.
I proceed now to a second thing complained of in the constitution of this Church at the Revolution [1689], namely, that she was made up in a great measure of such ministers as had accepted the indulgence, which the author of Plain Reasons, in his modest style, p. 3, calls:
“A quitting their holding of Christ, and a most sinful submitting to an exotic head, and receiving a new mission from the then king.”
A heavy charge! And though I’m not to justify nor plead for the Indulgence, yet could those men [have] seen sufficient ground for it [this charge], I’m apt to think, yea persuaded they would sooner parted with life, than been thus guilty. Now, concerning that Indulgence which the civil magistrate granted to some particular ministers to preach the Gospel without disturbance;
1st, The Indulgence not being the controversy of our day, considering what lamentable rents it occasioned in former times among godly minisers and people in this Church, as I said of the Resolutions; so here the reviving debates anent it might be unseasonable at this time.
2ndly, Concerning the Indulgence or Indulgences; It is owned, even by the Indulged themselves, that in the civil magistrate’s actings and behavior concerning them, there wanted [lacked] not much sin.
3rdly, As for the Indulged, ’tis owned by all, if it be not some few like Plain Reasons, that generally they were worthy and godly men, “eminent lights,” who had chosen sufferings rather than sin; Men that had left all, rather than comply with prelacy and the other defections of their day. Mr. Livingstone, in his letter from Holland to his parishoners, though he condemns the Indulged for accepting the Indulgence without a public testimony against the magistrate’s usurpations, yet declared he had “great charity for most of the men” that were indulged. And that zealous martyr, Mr. James Mitchel, who sufered in 1678, in his testimony, though he condemns the Indulgence, yet says:
“I have very much charity, love and affection to many of the ministers who have embraced the same,” saying, “They have not wickedly departed from the Lord.”
4thly, Concerning the Indulgences. though the first was granted July 27th, 1669, and the second in September 1672; yet till 1677 or 1678, which was for eight or nine years after granting that first Indulgence, ’tis said honest people heard the Indulged as well as the field-preachers, as they had occasion, without any scruple. And it was not till the year 1679 that any minister or preacher offered to preach against the Indulgence: And for about ten years the Indulged and Non-indulged lived in peace and love; and the Non-indulged studied by all means to keep up an esteem of the Indulged, albeit sundry of them had never relished the Indulgence.
5thly, The division that arose after that proved fatal at Bothwell. And here indeed it ran so high, that because the famous Mr. John Welch had not then freedom publicly to mention the Indulgence as a step of defection and cause of fasting, the opposite party termed him the “Achan in their camp”. And indeed their divisions and effects following upon them, after some began to preach against the Indulgence, were matter of deep mourning: For though formerly there had been different sentiments as to the Resolutions, as to paying the cess, and as to the Indulgence, yet till this time, viz. the time when these divisions began, as Mr. Shields says (Hind let Loose, p. 121), which I noticed before, “Ministers and professors were united, and with one soul and shoulder followed the word of the Lord.”
6thly, Concerning the Indulgence, I own, considered in its complex acts and circumstances, there were sad evils in it with respect to the civil magistrate: And also, I humbly think it was the fault of the Indulged they were not more express, explicit, full and faithful in their testimony against the Erastian encroachments of the magistrate in that business; yet that omission was not sufficient ground of separation, nor did the Non-indulged ministers think so (Wodrow, History, vol. 1, p. 354).
7thly, But, whereas the great thing complained of in the Indulged is, that they accepted this favor when clogged with many sinful restrictions. The Indulged always refused ever they accepted the Indulgence upon such restrictions or conditions; and when called before the Council, July 8th, 1673, for not observing the twenty-ninth of May, they declared they:
“could not receive any rules or instructions from the magistrate, which were intrinsically ecclesiastical, being the servants of Jesus Christ.”
8thly, As the Indulged refused that ever they accepted the Indulgence upon any such terms, so ’tis pretty evident they did not observe them. And hence from time to time we find the indulged cited before the Council for not observing these instructions, till at length they were all deprived of that liberty or Indulgence which had been granted; as is to be seen in Wodrow’s History (vol. 1, pp. 309, 330, 335-56, 360, 380, 384, 391, 430, 431; vol. 2, pp. 4, 27, 126, 176, 351-54, 359, 412).
And when they were turned out, they gave evidence of being men of conscience, who chose still rather to suffer than knowingly sin: For in 1684, when the Indulged in the shire of Ayr were all turned out upon refusing the Test, and being required to bind themselves to exercise no part of their ministerial function until the king and Council gave them allowance, they all, except one or two, peremptorily refused to come under any such ties or obligations, as being a subjecting their ministry they had received of the Lord to the king: Upon which they were sent to the Bass [Rock], and other prisons, where they endured no small hardships (Wodrow, History, vol. 2, p. 412). And the reverend Mr. Thomas Archer, who was eminent for learning and grace, a worthy minister and martyr for Christ, in his dying Testimony is thought to have spoken solidly, when he said:
“Divisions and contendings have been the undoing of this Church first and last, but I think more of late, and more shamefully than ever, the matter being so small (if wisely considered) about which all this noise has been made. I take not upon me to justify the indulged ministers, neither will I rigidly condemn them: But, if the separating from their ministry and pressing the matter with such heat and violence shall be found to be good service done to Christ, I have read the Scriptures wrong; and the sad consequences of it are convincing enough, if people were humble and convincible. It was this contention which expelled that profitable and most edifying exercise of mutual prayer and Christian conference (that I may say nothing how it drove from the shepherds’ tents) upon which followed a sensible decay in the exercise of godliness.”
And lastly, whatever was amiss or culpable in the Indulgences, yet ’tis evident the ministry of the Indulged was attended with remarkable success. Mr. Wodrow says, p. 309:
“It must be owned the Lord eminently countenanced the labors and ministry of the Indulged; and they could not but acknowledge they had as great and sensible assistance in the work of the Gospel as ever they had formerly known: And the success among their hearers was not small.”
So also that pious gentleman of very good sense whom he cites, p. 532, says:
“God was unquestionably at work upon the hearts of people, and in the churches by the Indulged, and that both in conversion and edification.”
And I have heard sundry eminent Christians speak of this from their own experience. So I humbly think our Brethren are to blame for insinuating, as p. 39 of their second Testimony, that it was only the ministry of some few of them which was attended with success; as also, when there they insinuate, as if the instructions given them had been punctually observed by most, or the generality of the indulged.
At granting the second Indulgence there was an Indulgence granted in England, in which I think there were expressions of as harsh a nature as any thing in the Scottish Indulgence; yet I have not heard of any English dissenter who entertained scruples anent it. I am sure the great doctor Owen, as the author of Plain Reasons justly calls him, had full freedom to accept of it. Hence, in Preface of his Enquiry into the Original Nature, etc. of Evangelical Churches, again and again he speaks of the dissenters:
“Their thankful acceptance of that Indulgence, making use of the king’s royal favor after so many years suffering;” adding, “We were glad to take a little breathing-space from our troubles under his Majesty’s royal protection; and if this were a crime, habetis confitentem reum as to my part.”
Which, upon the matter, was as if he had said, I have not seen the evil of it. And, by what follows in that Preface, it seems he had been consulted by some of the statesmen as to the granting of that Indulgence, though he rejects it as a vile slander, that every any had consulted with him as to any indulgence or toleration unto Papists. And such considerations as this, that Owen approved of such an Indulgence, may make some a little softer in their censure here. And though I have not entered upon any debate as to the lawfulness of accepting the Indulgence, yet such as have read the Answers [by William Vilant] that have been written unto the History [of the Indulgence, by John Brown of Wamphray] thereof, cannot but see the Indulged had not a little to say for themselves: And I know not but the lamentable rents and divisions, which followed upon the Resolutions and Indulgences, might be as much ground of mourning and lamentation as the things themselves.
.
.
Section 3
In which the objection of separatists relating to the Toleration is answered
.
I come now to the third thing complained of in the constitution of the Church of Scotland at the Revolution, particularly by the author of Plain Reasons, p. 4, namely: “that she was crowded by such ministers as had addressed for the Duke of York’s boundless, blasphemous toleration.” And concerning it:
[1.] As on the former heads, it may be said, all the accepters being dead, it can be no ground for separation at this day.
2ndly, Though I am not to plead for that toleration, yet seeing almost all, if not all, and every minister in Scotland, if it was not the reverend Mr. Renwick, had full freedom to accept of it, these not excepted who were suffering by lying in prisons, and under other hardships for Christ and his cause; and most of the presbyterian ministers, who had retired to foreign countries, or had been banished, returning home and accepting thereof, embracing that opportunity of preaching the Gospel: Therefore I dare not take upon me to condemn them, because they might have other and clearer views of things relating to it than I can pretend to. And ’tis known the Lord remarkably blessed the ministry of his servants who at that time accepted the toleration, as in the case of that worthy servant of Christ, the reverend Mr. Henry Erskine, father to the reverend Mr. Ebenezer and Mr. Ralph Erskine, whom sometimes I had occasion to hear at this meeting-house in the Newtoun of Whitsom. And considering what he had suffered for Christ, and the many experiences he had of the Lord’s remarkable appearing for him in straits, if he had not seen this to be his duty, he had never accepted of that toleration.
3rdly, But I and every person else may have full freedom to condemn the author of Plain Reasons for his hateful falsehoods and slanders, to impose upon the world in his account of this matter, they being no fewer than seven or eight in one page or paragraph, namely, the fifth page of that book, where:
1. He affirms of ministers of ministers who accepted this toleration, that they addressed for it: For, having read Wodrow’s History, he could not but know it was absolutely refused that ever they or any friend of theirs made application to king or any courtier for such a favor.
2. ‘Tis false to say that toleration was clogged with a great many sinful restrictions and limitations, and further limitations; though indeed the first toleration, which no presbyterian minister accepted, was.
3rdly, ‘Tis false to say it directed the accepters how to preach; for there is not a word in it directing as to the manner of preaching.
4thly, ‘Tis false to say it directed them what to preach. Though it contained a prohibition against preaching “anything which might anywise tend to alienate the hearts of people from the king and his government;” Yet this was no direction as to what they should preach: For to forbid a person to do this or that, is not to direct him what to do.
5thly, ‘Tis false to say that toleration-act directed ministers to preach nothing which might alienate the hearts of the people “from that tyrant in the execution of his horrid cruelty and tyranny, etc.” for there are no such words in it, though he puts them in italic characters, as if the very words thereof.
6thly, ‘Tis false to say this was not “notour enough from the proclamations establishing the same;” for there was but on proclamation for that toleration; and in it there is not a word of his “exercising horrid cruelty and tyranny.”
7thly, ‘Tis false to say the ministers who accepted that toleration sent up “flattering letters of thanksgiving for it:” For the letter sent was not approven of all, nor was it “letters” in the plural number, but only one letter which they sent; and indeed in my humble opinion it was too much: For a testimony against the restrictions therein, had been more proper. There was indeed another letter, or address of thanks, from the inhabitants of Edinburgh and Canongate; but that was not from ministers who had accepted the toleration.
8thly, ‘Tis false to say, By their letter of thanksgiving, ministers declared themselves the servants of that wicked prince, and not the servants of Christ; for people may be very loyal, faithful and obedience subjects to a wicked prince, guarding against doing what may alienate the hearts of people from him and his government, and yet be the servants of Christ Jesus: As in the case of godly Obadiah in Ahab’s court (1 Kn. 18:3), and in the case of the saints in Caesar’s household (Phil. 4:22); So in the case of the reverend Mr. Fraser of Brea, whom Plain Reasons cites as a person of weight, who, when before a committee of the council of Scotland, in 1677, refused that the subject of his sermons were disloyal or traiterous principles, or that ever he stirred up the people to sedition by preaching; declaring he was indifferent though the principles of his heart were as visible to their lordships as the treats of his face. And for as much as Plain Reasons says against the ministers who accepted thereof, yet Mr. Renwick, when in prison, a little before his death, though he condemned the toleration, yet said he judged them “godly men” who had accepted thereof (Wodrow, History, vol. 2, p. 635).
And though I am far from justifying that Letter or Address of thanks, or anything that looks like flattery in it; yet I cannot see any such flattery in that Address as was the least ground of separation, else there was just ground of separation from the Church of Scotland in what has been reckoned her best times: For in the supplication of the Assembly 1638 to King Charles I, when speaking of his father, namely James VI, they call him a king of “happy memory;” yea, and a king of “everlasting memory.” And what a king he was, if you will take Mr. Shields’s testimony in his Hind let Loose, p. 46, then:
“contrary to the Word of God, he usurped the prerogative of Jesus Christ, and assumed to himself the blasphemous monster of Supremacy over all persons, and in all causes as well ecclesiastical as civil.”
And ’tis known he turned out presbytery, and brought in prelacy: He imprisoned and banished Christ’s faithful servants, as the great Mr. Robert Bruce, etc., brought in Perth Articles, and was one who authorized Sabbath profanation, by his proclamation commonly termed “the Book of Sports”. And if the large account given of him by the author of Plain Reasons himself, pp. 225, 234, is to be credited, then there was never a worse king upon the throne.
What I have said upon the foregoing subjects of Resolutions, Indulgence and Toleration, is not with a design to justify them, but only to show the urging of it as present duty to testify against them as heinous evils, and to urge them as causes of solemn fasting, may be unseasonable at this day; and to show charity and forbearance should be exercised toward them who differ from others in these points, and that the condemning of them is not to be made a term of Christian communion, seeing there have been such different sentiments as to these among men of learning, solid judgment, and real piety, in former times.
.
Section 4
Where the objection of separatists relating to the sinful oaths which were taken by some before the [Glorious] Revolution [1689] is answered
.
I proceed now to a fourth thing complained of in the constitution of this Church at the Revolution [1689], by the author of Plain Reasons, and other separatists, namely:
[Objection 1]
“That she was framed of such ministers and ruling elders as had, for the most part, their consciences sadly stained with sinful oaths (at least with one or more of them), such as: (1) The National Declaration, (2) The Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy, (3) The Bond of Peace, to live peaceably, (4) The Bond of Regularity, (5) Some Bonds and Oaths for Peaceableness and Orderliness, (6) The Oath of Inquisition, or Super-inquirendis, (7) The abominable Test, (8) The Oath of Abjuration.”
Now, concerning these oaths:
1. I own ’tis matter of bitter mourning, even to us at this day, that ever such conscience-debauching oaths were imposed upon any in this land; and being invented by the bishops, and imposed through their influence, some of whom formerly had pressed the covenants with great violence as people’s duty, and a “mode of the Covenant of Grace,” it was no wonder this practice turned many to atheism and profanity.
2. Though I am far from justifying any of those oaths, that I condemn them all, yet, though all the author of Plain Reasons durst affirm anent them had been true, it was no just ground of separation from the Church of Scotland: For he does not say, the bulk of ministers and elders had taken the most of those oaths; No, this was so bare-faced a falsehood that it seems he durst not assert it in positive terms; he only says, “The bulk of them had taken one or more of them.” Now, though the bulk of them had taken the Bond of Peace, which runs thus:
“I A.B. do bind and oblige me to keep the public peace, and if I fail that I shall pay a year’s rent; likewise, that my tenants and men-servants shall keep the public peace, and in case they fail, I oblige myself to pay for every tenant his year’s rent, and for every servant his year’s fee. And, for the more security, I’m content their presents be registrate in the books of Council.”
Now though the bulk of ministers had taken this oath, here had been no ground for separation; some honest people took it, and others refused it, upon different views of its extent and meaning. “Yet,” says Mr. Wodrow, “for anything I can learn, there followed no alienation of affections among presbyterians, but the greatest harmony was kept up.” (vol. 1, p. 279)
3. Though I cannot pretend to tell what of these oaths were taken by ministers and what not; yet, for any thing I can learn, he might as well said, the bulk of ministers of the Church of Scotland had taken that oath which was called “the mark of the Beast,” whereby such in France as apostatized were obliged to renounce the Protestant religion, as to name that abominable self-contradictory oath, the Test, as an oath which presbyterian ministers of this Church had taken. There are some other things relating to the persons constituting the Church of Scotland at the Revolution which are complained of by separatists, but, because I may have occasion to touch these afterwards, I stay not here to mention them.
Objection 2: The Church of Scotland at the Revolution changed her constitution from what it was by law established in 1649, and now, by act of parliament, her government is settled on the inclincations of the people, and only as established in 1592; which settlement, say our separatists, particularly Plain Reasons, p. 13: “was but an infant state of the Church, far incomparable to her advanced state, between 1638 and 1649 inclusive.” The Brethren also complain of the parliament for this, in their 2nd Testimony, p. 49, terming it (as Plain Reasons does) a retrograde motion. The former objection respected the members constituent of the Church of Scotland, this respects her constitution at the Revolution.
Now for answer:
[1.] ‘Tis granted prelacy was turned out by the estates of parliament 1689, “as being contrary to the inclinations of the people;” yet not only for that, but also because it was “a grievance, and an insupportable grievance and trouble to this nation, and that ever since the Reformation.” And surely as that worthy servant of Christ, Principal Foster says, in Answer to Queries put to the Presbyterians in Scotland, p. 187:
“If our parliament found it such an insupportable grievance and burden, it must needs be that they acknowledged it such, upon such solid grounds of reason and law as are of a standing nature. And in this case, the inclination (besides that it is declared general since the Reformation, and this is supposed grounded upon the Gospel’s reforming light) is nothing else than what the Law of God, of Nature and Nations, the love of true national and Christian liberty prompts unto.”
2. And such as make this objection would know, that next year, viz. June 7, 1690, our parliament settled presbyterian government by a special act, wherein, though “the inclinations of the people are mentioned s one ground, yet not the only ground, but other grounds are mentioned for establishing of presbyterian Church-government, viz.:
“Its being agreeable to the Word of God, and most conducive to the advancement of true piety and godliness, and establishing peace and tranquility within this realm.”
3. Whereas ’tis complained of the Church of Scotland, that at the Revolution her government was settled only as by Act of Parliament 1592, and not as in 1649. Answer: Seeing separatists do not particularize wherein the one settlement was inferior to the other, I shall not enquire into it; only, granting it might be inferior to it, yet neither this nor the former were acts of the Church of Scotland, and therefore cannot be laid to her charge.
4. And as for the Act of Parliament 1592, securing the privileges of this Church, it was reckoned a great mercy to the Church of Scotland at that time, and what she long desired. And grant this settlement at the Revolution was inferior to that of 1649, it will not follow because the State gives not all that is desired by the Church, or all that is her due, therefore no favor is to be accepted. Because the glory of the second temple was inferior to that of the first, it was no ground to separate from the Church of the Jews, nor yet to complain of the priests, if they did all in their power to have it equally glorious. And whereas separatists, and particularly the author of Plain Reasons says:
“The settlement made in 1592 was made in an infant state of the Church, about 30 years after her first Reformation from Popery, and before she had got the heavy yoke of the king’s Erastian supremacy and patronages shaken off,”
in this he fairly clashes with, and contradicts Mr. Renwick in his Testimony, who, in the beginning thereof, speaking of the Church of Scotland, says:
“Christ, by his glorious outstretched arm, did emancipate and redeem his inheritance from the bondage of Antichrist, unto such a pitch of reformation in doctrine, worship, discipline and government, that it became a pattern to other Churches, and had this prerogative above them all, that at once, and from the beginning, nothing was left unremoved or unreformed that ever flowed from the Man of Sin.”
And there he positively affirms”
“That as every part of the Reformation was regulated by the measuring line of the sanctuary, so,” he says, “it was established by righteous and laudable laws, ratifying the same.”
Among which, I doubt not, he includes the Act of Parliament 1592. And as there he affirms:
In relation to the constitution of this Church, ’tis complained by separatists: “That she appoints and authorizes, without divine warrant, a delegate court which is no court of Christ, called, “The Commission of the General Assembly,” to whom they intrust the great and weighty affairs of the Church, “from whom there can be no appeal to any other court whatsoever; and which has had many bad effects, instance of old the Public Resolutions, etc.” Now concerning this court:
1. Commissions have been appointed and authorized by councils or general assemblies in former ages, to put an end to such affairs as they could not overtake: Hence, about the beginning of the 5th century, we find an African General Assembly which met at Carthage, after spending much time, some of the brethren complaining of being so long from their charges, that assembly named deputies from each province for putting an end to what remained to be done; and the second council of Milevis did the same, of which commission Augustine was a member.
2. Eminent presbyterians have asserted the commission is a court of Christ: Hence that honest, zealous and faithful commission which met in 1596, hearing King James had thoughts of charging them to depart from Edinburgh, being for the most part present with advice of the council of the brethren, they concluded:
“That, seeing they were convened by the warrant of Christ and his Kirk, to see that it suffered no detriment in so needful and dangerous a time, they should obey God rather than man; and, notwithstanding of any charge, remain at his work so long as it should be found expedient for the well of the Kirk so to do.” (Calderwood, History, p. 340)
Now, it seems, those eminent pastors, Mr. Robert Rollock, Mr. James Melville, who with others were members of that commission, thought it was a court of Christ, seeing ’tis affirmed by them, they were met by warrant from him: And the learned Principal Forrester, in Answers to Queries put to the Presbyterians in Scotland, says (pp. 177-78): “Commissions have the same warrant with synods and Assemblies.” And Rutherford, in Preface to his Lex Rex, p. 13, says, “The Commissioners of General Assemblies have the same warrant of God’s Word that messengers of the Synod have, Acts 15:22, 27.”
3. The Church of Scotland has had commissions ever since the Reformation: Our first General Assembly, which met at Edinburgh 1560, appointed commissioners to attend the parliament, if any should be called, to present the supplications of that Assembly to them (Pet. History, century 16, p. 222): The sixth General Assembly appointed a commission to consider a complaint tabled by the superintendent of Fife against Mr. George Leslie, minister in Strathmiglo, and to decide therein. And that we had commissions from the Reformation, appears in that the 29th Assembly, which met MArch 7th 1575, says:
“Because the long continuance of commissioners might induce some ambition and other inconveniencies, therefore this Assembly appointed that the commissioners should be changed yearly.” (Pet. History, p. 385)
And the Assembly 1638 appointed commissioners, whom they empowered and authorized to depose ministers, and who actually deposed them; in which they were approven by the Assembly 1639, session 19. And the General Assembly 1642, when going to appoint their commission, affirms:
“It has been the laudible custom of this Kirk, to appoint some commissions in the interim between Assemblies.”
4. Whereas ’tis complained that the sentences of commissions are irrevocable, there being no appeal from them, I humbly think, though such as shall appeal from their sentences upon insufficient ground ought to be severely censured, yet, when their sentences are evidently against the Word of God, our constitution and acts of Assembly, they ought to be rescinded by the Assembly; as was done in the affair of Kettle in 1716, and of Lochmaben in 1724, and of Auchtermuchty in 1734, etc.
5. As to the complaint of the bad effects of commissions, I grant, both before and since the Revolution, sometimes they have made bad decisions; but so have kirk- sessions, presbyteries, synods and Assemblies: Yet this will not prove they are evil in themselves; and if sometimes they have done bad things, so also at other times they have been honored of the Lord to do great and good things for his Church, and have made a noble stand against encroachments: And though further limitations may be needful, yet, if I mistake not, in no time since the Reformation were commissions more limited in their instructions by our Assemblies than they have been since the Revolution; though I own ’tis to be lamented that in sundry of their determinations, particularly relating to the settlement of ministers, they cannot be justified.
And to conclude this objection, whatever clamor is raised by separatists at this day against our constitution, I doubt not it was far from being a hyperbole in the reverend Mr. Alexander Moncrieff, minister at Abernethy, when in his dissent given in to the synod of Perth met there October 1732, he gave our constitution, both in Church and State, the epithet of “excellent;” and, if excellent then, it is so still: For since that time there is no alteration of it.
3rdly, ‘Tis objected: The Church of Scotland is Erastian in principle and practice, and therefore ought to be separated from: And the civil magistrate’s calling and dissolving Assemblies, and appointing fasts and thanksgivings, are instances as clear evidences of this (pp. 21-22).
Now as to the magistrate’s calling and dissolving assemblies, the moderator, when the business of our Assemblies is ended, by consent of members, dissolves them, and names the time of their next meeting, in the name of the Lord Jesus the sole Head and King of Zion. This indeed is done in concert with his Majesty’s commissioner; and his after-speech does not invalidate what the moderator said: And is it not desirable when Church and State agree? And I know of none that ever denied it was lawful for the civil magistrate to call Assemblies, appointing time and place, if he take not a privative power to himself in this matter, or if he claim not this as his sole prerogative, denying it to the Church of Christ when she may see it needful. See Rutherford, Preface to Lex Rex, p. 9, where he affirms this. And so much is owned by the Church of Scotland, in her Confession of Faith, ch. 31, sect. 2, where ’tis said:
“Magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers, and other fit persons, to consult and advise about matters of religion.”
Our separatists, particularly Plain Reasons (pp. 28-29), cites the act of Assembly 1647, in which, speaking of our Confession of Faith, ’tis said:
“The Assembly understands some parts of the second article of the 31st chapter only of Kirks not settled or constituted in point of government;”
And so he would understand the second article of that chapter of our Confession of Faith, as if the magistrate could only do this lawfully in a broken state of the Church; yet ’tis evident to a demonstration, all the Assembly meant thereby was only, that in a constituted Church the magistrate has not a power to call Assemblies, so as also to name the members of those Assemblies, which he may do in a broken state of the Church (as the Parliament of England did call and nominate all the members of the Westminster Assembly) for in that very act of Assembly they affirm:
“‘Tis always free to the magistrate to advise with synods of ministers and ruling elders, meeting upon delegation from the churches, either ordinarily, or being indicted by his authority occasionally and pro re nata [for the thing of necessity].”
And the words are so plain, that it would tempt some to think that author could not but see this.
And the Assembly 1638, in their supplication to the king, own they were met by the king’s special indiction, and that they had supplicated his Majesty to appoint that Assembly, as they express the greatest thankfulness to him for appointing thereof.
And whereas some make great clamor against the Church of Scotland as being Erastian because sometimes, as in 1692, when the day was altered for the Assembly’s meeting, the Assembly submitted, and yet gave no testimony against this encroachment: Here I frankly own it was the fault of the civil government, a fault in his Majesty King William, that he by his proclamation did alter the time appointed for the meeting of our General Assembly. And further, I own it was his fault, that by his commissioner in 1692 he raised that Assembly: And also, I humbly think it was the sin of the Church of Scotland she did not adhere to the protest taken by Mr. Crighton her moderator in that Assembly, against what was done in the king’s name by the commissioner at that time; yet this is no ground of separation at this day. The Church of Scotland was thus guilty in what they reckon her best times: For though the Assembly 1638, by their act, session 26, appointed their next meeting to be upon the third Wednesday of July 1639; yet the king altered the day, and they did not meet till the 17th of August that year; and we read of no testimony given by the Church of Scotland against what was done in that affair. Indeed that Assembly 1639, when met, in their supplication to the king, they resent the great dishonor done to God, the king, Kirk and whole kingdom by that book, call “the Large Declaration,” which reflected upon the Church; but they never mentioned the altering of the time for meeting of the Assembly: That Assembly knew that affirmative precepts, though they bind semper, yet not ad semper. “The king may and ought to call Assemblies when he sees necessity,” said that eminent servant of Christ Mr. Andrew Melville, “yet that derogates not from the Church’s power” to call them (Calderwood, History, p. 177).
This no doubt he may do, whether the Church be in a broken state or not. And whereas ’tis said (Plain Reasons), “This Church either cannot or will not sit one hour as an Assembly, unless the king’s commissioner be present with them.” That she cannot is denied; though while the civil magistrate is friendly in countenancing General Assemblies, it would be the height of folly to sit without the king’s commissioner: Yet the Church of Scotland can sit, and readily would sit if she saw an absolute necessity for this; as if she saw the Church of Christ would sustain more harm by not sitting than she could by meeting, sitting and acting as an Assembly. And for the Erastianism of the civil magistrate, in appointing fasts and thanksgivings, this may be answered more fully afterwards.
4thly, ‘Tis objected, This Church inclines to prelacy in principle, and complies therewith in practice. And the great instances of this are her receiving so many curates into her bosom at the Revolution, and then declaring expressly she would depose no episcopal incumbents simply for their judgment anent the government of the Church. And for these and such like things, our separatists say:
“If our worthy reformers from 1638 to 1649 saw such a mungral and prelatic Church, they could not own them to be the heirs and successors to such a noble and glorious cause, work and inheritance.”
And to the same purpose speak the Brethren (2nd Testimony p. 53).
Answer: As to the first of these, namely, her receiving some of the episcopal clergy at the Revolution, this will never prove the charge, else the Assembly 1638 was episcopal in principle and practice: For that Assembly consisted mainly of such as had subjected themselves to prelacy, which was the settled government of the Church from 1606 to that time, and many of them had taken the abominable oaths which were imposed in that period; and then they neither professed repentance for taking such oaths, nor was any confession required of them, though that Assembly declared these oaths unlawful, and no way obligatory, because without pretext of warrant from the Kirk, and contrary to its ancient laudable constitutions. And, for ought I know, there might be twenty in that Assembly that had complied with prelacy, for one such received by the Church of Scotland at the Revolution; and, instead of taking in some of those that had joined with prelacy in that extolled period, every one of them was taken in: So that the Brethren’s clamor of the vast difference between the Church of Scotland at the Revolution, and in the former reforming times, in this particular, seems to be a noise raised to amuse the people, who must believe with implicit faith in many things of this nature. And further, the receiving of some such then, at the urgent desire of king and parliament when they did apply, if free of scandal or error, and being such as could not be charged with supine negligence or insufficiency, upon signing the Confession of Faith as the confession of their faith, owning and acknowledging presbyterian government to be the only government of the Church of Scotland, and that they should submit unto it, and never do anything directly nor indirectly which might tend to the prejudice or subversion thereof; this was no evidence of her inclining to prelacy: And it was upon these terms only any of the episcopal incumbants were received.
But then, as to the other instance adduced for proof of this, that the Church of Scotland incines to prelacy, namely, that she declared at the Revolution she would “not depose any episcopal incumbent simply for their judgment anent the government of the Churcf.” For answer I might say, it cannot be proven this was determined by the General Assembly in 1690, all the proof being these few words in the index to the unprinted acts of that Assembly, namely:
“Declaration by the moderator, that this Assembly would depose no incumbents simply for their judgment anent the government of the Church, nor urge reordination upon them.” (session 6)
And our Brethren, 2nd Testimony, p. 53, give their charitable commentary upon these words thus:
“That is, they declare that the perfidious prelates and their underlings were not to be deposed for their treacherous defection from the covenanted principles of this Church.”
As if that one principle simply, of a man’s being for prelacy, was enough to depose him from the ministry, though as holy as Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, Hall, Ussher or Doctor Twisse the prolocutor or moderator to the Westminster Assembly, and many other ministers members thereof, who refused to abjure all kind[s] of prelacy. A moderator might declare as above, though there had been no small opposition made unto it by the Assembly, and while perhaps the major part was against, though they might see meet to let it pass at that time; or it might be the moderator’s mind this was fact, when yet he labored under a mistake. But grant it was fact (though I look on prelacy, or episcopal government, to be unscriptural, yea, to be antiscriptural) yet, if this was the fault of the General Assembly in 1690, I humble think the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland has been of this same mind in 1638: For though she deposed and also excommunicated some of the diocesan bishops for heinous offenses and enormities proven against them, and deposed others for gross transgressions laid to their charge, yet they only suspended Lindsay, bishop of Dunkeld from the ministerial function, declaring that if he should acknowledge that Assembly, reverence the constitutions thereof, and obey his sentence, and make repentance according to the order prescribed, he was to be continued in the ministry of St. Madoze. So also they did in the case of Abernethy, bishop of Caithness, there being no immoralities laid to their charge, though with the other bishops they were charged by that Assembly, and it was found evident they had broken the cautions agreed upon by the Assembly at Montrose anent voting in parliament, and that they had received consecration to the office of episcopacy, and had oppressed the Kirk with novations in the worship of God; Yet, for all these, that Assembly did not think it their duty to depose them from the function of the ministry, as may be seen in the acts of that Assembly (session 14). So the Brethren in their Testimony, p. 18, and again p. 57, asserting that all the prelates were deposed from the ministry, they assert a thing which is not matter of fact. The Assembly 1638 deposed neither bishop nor any else for being of prelatic principles: And why the bishops were deposed, may be further seen in the Preface to Rutherford’s Lex Rex.
Some separatists speak “of all the hundreds of tested and untested curates which have been welcomed into the bosom of the Revolution Church,” as if there had been a great many hundreds of such.
For answer: ‘Tis denied that any hundreds of curates, whether tested or untested, were received into the bosom of this Church, though many of them were continued in their charges by the civil magistrate, which she could not help; and for such of them as had taken the Test, I suppose few of them ever applied to be received, far less hundreds of them: And whatever can be said against their having received any such, the same may be said against the Assembly 1638, for receiving any who had taken the greater and lesser oaths under prelacy, in which greater oath they swore:
“To be leal and true to the King’s Majesty, and his Highness’s successors, and, to the utmost of their power to maintain his Highness’s right and prerogative in causes ecclesiastical; and that they should be obedient to their ordinary the archbishop, and to all others their superiors in the Church; and that they maintain the present government of the Church and jurisdiction episcopal; and that they should live peaceable ministers in the Church, subjecting themselves to the orders that therein were, or should be established.”
which was a swearing to blind obedience with a witness. And by that oath which was called “the lesser oath,” which was also taken by entrants to the ministry, they sware:
“To be obedient to all the acts and constitutions of the Church, and particularly to the acts concluded at Perth 1618.”
And as the former oath was concluded with swearing they were:
“content to be deprived of their ministry, and to be reputed and held infamous and perjured persons forever if they should contravene;”
so this lesser oath concluded with these words:
“And if I shall fail in the performance of this my oath and promise, I’m content that upon trial thereof I be deposed as perjured and unworthy to bear any function in the Church.” (Protesters Defended, pp. 72-73)
And I suppose the ministers of that Assembly 1638, for a great part were men who had sworn and come under these oaths, which, in my opinion, were far more heinous evils than anything could be laid to the charge of such as were members of our Assembly 1690.
Some separatists ask: “If any instance can be given of the Revolution Church her deposing one curate merely for his being episcopal in his judgment?” And I ask, if one such instance can be given of the Church of Scotland, from 1638 to 1649 inclusive, or in any former time? I see not that ever the Church of Scotland, in that period, required it of such ministers as had been under prelacy, they should so much as profess their sorrow for that sin. Some cite the act of Assembly 1639, “anent receiving deposed ministers,” as if that Assembly had required this; but there is not one word in all that act to this purpose, though such as they received were to profess their repentance for subscribing the Declinature, and for reading the Service-Book.
There are sundry other falsehoods relating to this point advanced by him, as, that they who were sent up to address Queen and parliament against the Patronage Act 1712, in addressing the House of Lords, they gave them their common titles of “Lords Spiritual and Temporal”; and that this was done in “the name and by the appointment of the commission” of the Assembly: For neither that commission, nor any other, ever made such an appointment. But I insist not upon this.
And the Church of Scotland, since the Revolution is so far from being of prelatic principles, that the General Assembly 1701, act 14, did enact and ordain:
“That any who should receive either licence or ordination from any of the late prelates, or any others not allowed by the authority of this Church, should be incapable of ministerial communion for the space of three years simpliciter, and even after that time, aye and while the presbytery to which he should apply was satisfied concerning his repentance.”
But no such repentance was prescribed by any Assembly from 1638 to 1650.
5th Objection: This Church is most tyrannical in her government, therefore, etc.
I might pass this objection, having answered to it already, ch. 4, when speaking of the causes of separation; yet, whereas ’tis given as an instance of her tyranny, that she cast out the four Brethren from her communion, which, say some, is sufficient ground of separation, I shall insist some further upon it. And as I always did, so still I condemn that sentence; but, as I said, one act, or sundry acts of oppression or cruelty will not make a tyrant, nor be sufficient ground of separation from a Church; and their ejection could scarcely be reckoned the deed of the Church of Scotland, considering what has been said anent this sentence already.
But further, granting it was a most tyrannical sentence, yet that is no ground to separate from the Church of Scotland in those times, which all our separatists cry up and extol so highly. The General Assembly 1638, as noticed before, by their act of the date December 17:
“Constitutes and ordains that from henceforth no sort of person, of whatsoever quality or degree, be permitted to speak or write against the said Confession, this Assembly, or any act of this Assembly, and that under the pain of incurring the censures of this Kirk.”
Now, some might think this was an act of the greatest tyranny, and a plain restricting of ministerial freedom, to discharge any minister or preacher to speak one word against that Assembly, or any act thereof, under the pain of censure; and the censure might be, not barely an admonition or a rebuke, but suspension, deposition, yea excommunication, if they refused to confess their fault in speaking or writing against any act of that Assembly; and some tender, serious minister might think themselves obliged in conscience to speak, preach and testify even against this very act itself, as restricting ministerial freedom. And they might speak against that act which condemned these assemblies at Aberdeen and St. Andrews, partly upon such a ground as that the burghs could not be present at those Assemblies. Or, what if they should think it duty to testify against that act, December 5, session 15, which condemned the unlawful oaths of entrants in time of prelacy, because “without any pretext or warrant from the Kirk, etc.” without ever mentioning their being contrary to the Word of God; so also because, when they condemned the Service-Book, the Book of Canons and High Commission, they condemn them upon such like grounds, but never mention their being contrary to the Word of God? Or, what if they should think it duty to testify against them for that expression in their sentence against archbishop Spottiswood and others, where they say, Declining and protesting against the Assembly “is by the acts of this Assembly censurable with summary excommunication”? Or, what if they should think it duty to speak against that Assembly, for showing so much lenity to the bishops of Dunkeld and Caithness, as only to suspend them from the ministry, when it may be thought they deserved deposition, on account of what was found evident against them? Or, what if some should say the sentence of that Assembly against the minister of Tranent seemed somewhat sharp, in that he was suspended for baptizing a child in a private house? Or what if they should think that sentence somewhat severe, which enjoined such ministers to be excommunicated, as, being deposed by that Assembly, did not acquiesce in their sentence, or if they should exercise any part of their ministerial function, which was enacted Session 14th? Or what if some should think it a fault to thank his Majesty for indicting or calling that Assembly, terming it a “royal favor,” when they had all right by their intrinsic power to meet of themselves? Or, what if they should think it duty to testify against these expressions in their Supplication to the King’s Majesty, in which James VI, his Majesty’s father, is terms a king of “happy memory,” and a king of “everlasting memory,” being apprehensive this looked too like flattery, considering what an enemy he had been to the Church of Christ in Scotland? Will not an act of that nature be owned by all to be a most tyrannical act?
Again, I cannot see how any can vindicate our Assemblies in that period from a great deal of tyranny, in that they enjoined the prosecution of all such, whether Papists or others, as did not communicate with the Church of Scotland according to Act of Parliament made thereanent, as did the Assembly 1642, and again the Assembly 1644: This, say some, was too like the English Sacramental Test, tending highly to the profanation of that holy ordinance; and many think there wanted not a great deal of tyranny in that act of Assembly 1647, which obliged “every member in every congregation through Scotland to keep their own parish-kirk, and to communicate there in Word and sacrament.” And further, to me it looked like an act of the greatest spiritual tyranny in the General Assembly 1648 to ordain that all young students at their first entry to the college, and “all persons whatsoever” (which surely included every lad and lass) should take the Covenant at their first receiving the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.
Again, I find sundry think the act of Assembly 1648, anent deposed or sundry suspended ministers, is an act of the same nature, in regard that act ordains:
“That whosoever, after the sentence of deposition pronounced against them, do either exercise any part of their ministerial calling in the places they formerly served in, or do possess, meddle or intromit with the stipends or other benefits whatsoever belonging to these kirks they served, they shall be proceeded against with excommunication: And, if any suspended minister, during his suspension, either exercise any part of their ministerial calling, or intromit with the stipend, that he be deposed, and after deposition continuing in any of those faults, that eh be processed with excommunication.”
What more severe than to depose a minister of the Gospel, and also excommunicate him, if, after suspension and deposition, he should intromit with his stipend? And it can scarcely be thought, that act is intended only of submitting to such sentences as are just in themselves, and in our esteem; else all sentences of Church judicatories might be elided or rendered in vain by persons censured, their saying they looked upon such sentences to be unjust or unwarrantable, and therefore could not submit unto them. And that the Assembly meant their act anent submission to all sentences, even albeit the sentence should be unjust, seems evident from the decision of the General Assembly 1646, session 5, in the case of Mr. James Morison and the presbytery of Kirkwall: The which Assembly declared Mr. Morison censurable for not submitting, but going on to preach, notwithstanding of an unjust sentence; and accordingly rebuked him, and ordered him to profess his repentance for non-submission before the presbytery of Kirkwall which had suspended him unjustly, and declared he was not to be received as a minister or brother by the presbytery of Kirkwall, until he confessed his fault before them in not submitting to their sentence; though, at the same time, they declared the presbytery deserved a rebuke for suspending Mr. Morison unjustly.
Sundry other such acts might be mentioned in those times, which now I stay not to enumerate, but shall conclude this particular with the words of the famous Mr. Rutherford, in his dying Testimony to the Work of Reformation, in which, speaking of the times from 1638 to 1649 says:
“In our Assemblies we were more to set up a state opposite to a state, more upon forms, citations, leading of witnesses, suspensions from benefices, than spiritually to persuade and work upon the conscience, with the meekness and gentleness of Christ; the glory and royalty of our princely Redeemer and King, was trampled on, as any might have seen in our Assemblies. What way the army and the sword, and the countenance of nobles and officers seemed to sway, that way were the censures carried: It had been better had there been more days of humiliation and fastings in Assemblies, synods, presbyteries, congregations, families, and far lass adjourning commissions, new peremptory summonses, and new drawn-up processes, and if the meekness and gentleness of our Master had got so much place in our hearts that we might have waited on gainsayers and parties contrary-minded, and we might have driven gently, as our Master Christ who loves not to overdrive, but carries the lambs in his bosom.”
These words show the judicatories of the Church in that period were as guilty in their decisions as any thing that can be alleged against the Church of Scotland at this day: And perhaps as many, if not more acts were made in these twelve years, which our separatists would call tyrannical in the Church of Scotland at this day, than in all the forty-seven or forty eight years since the happy Revolution.
6th Objection: The Church of Scotland has gone in unto and approven of the incorporating union with England, by which abjured prelacy is to remain the government of that Church, which is a going contrary to our solemn engagements to endeavor the reformation of that kingdom; and therefore, etc.
Now concerning the Union, I have always thought it a fault in our parliament that ever they consented so far as they did to the security of the worship, discipline and government of the Church of England, even albeit there had never been any engagements upon this land to endeavor the reformation of that kingdom: For to me it appears unlawful to consent my neighbor shall do an ill thing.
2ndly, But whatever fault was in this, it can never be laid to the charge of the Church of Scotland, considering how the Commission of the General Assembly, which sat and represented her at that time, did address the parliament against going into such an Union: And, in their address, they testified against the subjecting this nation to a British parliament, whereof twenty six prelates are constituent members and legislators; declaring also in their address:
“That it is contrary to our known principles and covenants that any Churchman should bear civil offices, or have power in the commonwealth;”
Craving in another address that there might be no stipulation or consent for the establishing of the hierarchy and ceremonies, as they would not involve themselves and the nation in guilt, and as they would consult the peace and quiet of this nation, both in Church and State. And the Brethren in their Testimony, p. 55, give witness to this; and this:
“they did in face of strong and keen opposition: For a great number of ruling elders, noblemen and gentlemen, members of Commission, protested against the Commission for so doing.”
And as all their three addresses were presented before the Union was concluded, so they were honest testimonies for presbyterian government and our covenants, and against prelacy; and what this Commission did was approven, and that unanimously, by the ensuing General Assembly 1707, which did commend and thank that Commission for their “great zeal, faithfulness and diligence in their proceedings.”
Though the Brethren could not deny the Church of Scotland by her Commission did declare against the Union, yet in their Act and Testimony, p. 55, they affirm:
“That Assembly only approved of the proceedings of the Commission in common form, without any express approbation of their conduct in this particular, though,” say they, “matters of less moment have sometimes been particularly noticed.”
But in this our Brethren are far mistaken, asserting two or three things which are not matter of fact, for:
[1.] as the Assembly unanimously ratified and approved of that Commission’s actings and proceedings, so they commend and thank them for the great zeal, faithfulness and diligence they had evidenced in their proceedings. Now in giving their zeal and faithfulness the epithet of “great,” this was out of the common form, and more than any of our Assemblies used to do in approving their commissions.
2. As thus it was out of the common form, so surely it was out of the common course that the Assembly 1707 ratified and approved that Commission, so as to make an approbatory act to this purpose, and record it among their printed acts that year; which showed there was a very great inclination in that Assembly to approve of what the former commission had done, in regard this act was a going contrary to an express act or the immediately preceding Assembly, viz. the eighth act thereof, in which the Assembly 1706 appointed and ordained:
“That in all time coming the same formula be observed in the approbation of the registers of the actings and proceedings of the commissions of the Assemblies that is prescribed by the acts of the Assembly to be observed in the attestation of the synod books.”
3. Whereas ’tis said that sometimes matters of less moment have been particularly noticed, surely they mean by our Assemblies in approving of commissions. But this is another mistake: For, in approving the Commission in all our acts since the Revolution, the Assembly has never noticed any affairs in particular; and in all our old acts, from 1638 to 1650, there is but one instance of any particular thus noticed, and that was in 1648, where, approving the Commission 1647, that Assembly particularly ratified and approved of the Commission’s papers relating to the Engagement, and their judgment of the unlawfulness thereof. And for as momentous an affair the Solemn Acknowledgment of Public Sins and Engagement to Duty, drawn up by the Commission of the Assembly 1648 was, yet the Assembly 1649, in approving that Commission, never took the least notice of it.
Our author of Plain Reasons, p. 59, asserts sundry gross falsehoods relating to this Union, as:
1st, ‘Tis a notorious falsehood when he says:
“The Commission in their address mentioned not the topics whence the strongest arguments might have been drawn against it, viz. Our covenants,”
for, as has been shown above, they mentioned them expressly.
2ndly, ‘Tis a falsehood when he says, “The Commission withdrew their representations which they had presented unto the parliament concerning the Union,” after they had obtained what he calls their “Windle-straw Act of Security.” And no doubt our author or authors bring strong proof for this: Well, what is it? “For,” says he, “they had never honesty nor faithfulness to protest against it.” A strange inference!
3rdly, Whereas he says, “That deed of the Commission was amply approven, and they praised them for it.” This is another falsehood and slander. They had them not to thank for this, because it was never done, though they thanked them “for their great zeal and faithfulness” in addressing against it as they did.
Our separatists, as particularly the foresaid author, p. 62, says:
“Nobody, except through ignorance, has the least ground to deny that this present Church did go into and approve the Union-Establishment, seeing the contrary is so evident from their addresses, representations, etc. insert in their public records.”
All his proof is this, the Church of Scotland in her addresses and representators, has pleaded for the security of her privileges from the Act of Security granted at the Union. But, seeing he speaks of ignorance, or something worse, that he argues thus. If a robber at taking my money should engage to give me a part again, might not I mind him of his obligation without approving his unjust action? I suppose the reverend Mr. Ebenezer Erskine was far from approving the Union, when, in his Essay upon the Abjuration, p. 30, in answer to the objection of such as said the government of the Church was precarious unless that oath was taken, he said:
“I cannot see how this piece of policy will hold, seeing the government of our Church as presbyterian is established by a fundamental article of the Treaty of Union, etc.”
And by the same article of the Treaty, we are “exeemed from all oaths inconsistent with our principles, etc.”
And so the above-mentioned author of the Church of Scotland’s Grievances was far from approving the Union, when, in arguing against the Toleration, he expresses himself thus, p. 12:
“I say, it is an infringement of the Church’s liberties. Can anything be a greater encroachment upon her privileges than, contrary to the express articles of the Union, to grant a boundless toleration.”
And even our ingenious author of Plain Reasons himself, p. 75, when speaking against the toleration, he argues to the same purpose. A conquered people takes what privileges or advantages they can have from the conqueror, and, in case they be in danger of being robbed of these, they will plead the conqueror’s engagement to preserve them; But will that infer they approve of the conquest: “Our separatists,” says Mr. Hog:
“are not so simple and stupid, but that without scruple they take all the protections and emoluments they can have by the incorporating Union; and many of them pay cess for supporting the government: Yet they would justly think themselves injured should we from thence conclude that they approved it.”
Some again, as the same author of Plain Reasons, p. 63, says:
“Not a few of the ministers of this Church got money to lend them a lift to this woeful Union.”
What truth there may be in this I know not; but, till he prove it better than by Carnwath’s Memoirs, considering how opposite he was to the Church of Scotland, the truth of it will be questioned by sundry: But, grant there had been a Judas among every twelve ministers in the Scotland, which might amount to between seventy or eighty, that will not prove this was the deed of the Church of Scotland, nor that she should be separated from on that account. But, without insisting further upon this, I conclude with the words of Mr. Hog, when speaking upon this subject (Letters, p. 46):
“The Church gave an honest testimony against the Union, and such as challenges the more tender regard, for that the contrary tides at that time were exceedingly strong: And what though there had been a general faintishness and failure of spirit as to that matter in the hour of temptation, must therefore the whole Church be cast off, and another reared up in opposition to it?”
7th Objection: This Church is of toleration principles; and therefore is not to be joined with. The great argument for proof is that in 1712 there was an almost boundless toleration granted by Queen Anne and her parliament.
But this objection is so frivolous I will not spend time in answer to it; nor can any think it necessary, considering how notour and evident ’tis to all that at the time when this affair was in dependence before the parliament, the Church of Scotland used all her endeavors to have it prevented, by sending up commissioners to address Queen and parliament against it. Though I own ’tis just ground of mourning and lamentation that ever such a boundless toleration was granted, yet I’m far from approving of persecution purely for conscience sake: Only I cannot but notice, that for as bad an act it is, yet our ingenious author of Plain Reasons affirms a falsehood to make it worse when he says, p. 66:
“All sects and sorts of persons, under what mold or shape soever, Antitrinitarians some way excepted, have, by this Toleration-act, a full and ample pass.”
For that act expressly excludes all Papists from the benefit thereof, as much as Antitrinitarians.
8th Objection: The Church of Scotland has taken the unlimited Oath of Allegiance; which, say separatists, is a sinful oath, Plain Reasons, p. 78, in regard:
1st, ‘Tis unlimited, wanting [lacking] these restrictions or limitations which are in our covenants, namely the preserving the king’s Majesty, his person and authority, in “the preservation and defense of the true religion, and liberties of the kingdom.”
2ndly, And ’tis a sinful oath, in regard ’tis imposed in place of all other oaths which might be required by law, whereby the covenants are excluded. Now, for answer to the first of these, the Oath of Allegiance being to a king, who, by his coronation oath has solemnly sworn to defend us in our religion and liberties both civil and ecclesiastic, ’tis evident that our Oath of Allegiance is no more unlimited to him than his coronation oath is unlimited to us. And, was this a fault thus to swear, then it might be objected against our national covenants upon the same ground, namely, that they are not sufficiently limited, in regard, though by them we be obliged to defend the king’s person and authority, only “in defense of our religion and liberties;” yet these oaths are not limited, as they ought to be, with respect to the means which may be sinful, when the thing urged may be good and lawful.
As for instance, if the king should make an act to behead, hang, burn, or but to banish every person that scrupled to swear the covenants, or that should have the least scruple anent any expression in our old Confession of Faith [1560], or Second Book of Discipline, to which all own we are sworn by these covenants; or, what if a part of the nation had declared they could not approve of, nor submit unto presbyterian government, and the king had commanded them, and the king had commanded them to be put to the sword; This was to appear in defense of our religion, but the means had been sinful.
And further, as to the unlimitedness of this oath, that National Covenant might have been objected against upon as good grounds, in regard by it we are sworn to the utmost of our power, with our means and lives, to stand to the defense of our dread sovereign the King’s Majesty, his person and authority, in defense of our religion, liberties and laws of the kingdom; where we are sworn to defend the laws of the kingdom, without mentioning good or bad laws, or laws that had been or should be made. And ’tis known some laws or acts are cited in that same covenant, which are much exclaimed against by separatists at this day; as the 114 Act of the 12th Parliament of James VI, made in 1592; by which act, says Plain Reason, p. 13:
“The Church is considerably restricted in her power of convocating and dissolving her Assemblies, and admission of ministers into parishes.”
2ndly, Whereas ’tis said, The Oath of Allegiance was imposed by the “Claim of Right, in the place of all other oaths which might be required by law,” and so seems to exclude the covenants.
The Brethren also in their Act and Testimony, p. 50, assert the parliament which met immediately after the Revolution, appointed the Oath of Allegiance to be sworn:
“in place of any other oaths imposed by laws and acts of preceding parliaments;” Affirming, “The terms in which that Act is conceived, appear plainly to exclude the Oath of the Covenant, which contained a very solemn test of allegiance to the sovereign.”
Now, concerning their affirmations, here I observe, 1st, Though they say that parliament appointed as above, yet they never tell which of all the nine sessions of that parliament it was which appointed this, nor do they signify in what chapter of these acts ’tis to be found. Are such as adhere to the Testimony to believe with implicit faith?
2ndly, Whereas they cite the words above-narrated with inverted commas, as if they were the very words of that parliament; yet there are no such words to be found in any of the acts of all the nine sessions thereof. But,
3rdly, Whereas the act intended, I doubt not, is the second act of the second session of King William’s and Queen Mary’s first parliament, yet in all that act there is not a word from which any such inference can be justly drawn as this, That the parliament intended thereby to exclude the Oath of the Covenant, or to deny its obligation: And all the words from which they can pretned the least shadow of ground for their assertion, are only these in the close of the act, where, after imposing the Allegiance upon all members and clerks of parliament, etc. ’tis said:
“And do hereby retreat and rescind all preceding laws and acts of parliament, insofar as tehy impose any other oaths of allegiance, supremacy, declarations and tests, excepting the Oath De Fideli.”
Now, that the Covenant could never be in the view of that parliament, is evident, not only from this, that many members thereof were favorers of the Covenant, but also from this, that to have rescinded the Covenant was to have rescinded that which was not in force, I mean by the civil laws of the land: For the covenants had been rescinded in the preceding reign, as is shown at more length afterwards, when speaking of rescinding the Act Rescissory, in answer to the 13th Objection. So by “oaths of allegiance, supremacy, declarations and tests,” the sinful oaths which had been in the former period, and which were still in force by law, were undoubtedly the oaths intended by that worthy parliament.
If the Brethren take such liberty of altering and changing the words of acts of parliament, they may make them speak what they never intended. The words of the Commission in their Seasonable Admonition, published 1698, p. 22 are of weight here: “We are confident,” say they:
“the Covenant was not in the mind of those who made that Act when they made it, nor can the words bear any such sense, but that this should be instead of other oaths of allegiance and supremacy, or which were imposed under the later government, which should commend it; and is it not a pitiful and shameful thing that it should be stumbled at?”
And further, though the acts against the covenants were bad acts, yet I may be allowed to say there was no law at that time when our Claim of Right was formed, or when this act was made, for imposing the covenants; and so they could not be imposed by law, till a new law was made: And therefore the covenants could not be in the view of these patriots at that time when the Oath of Allegiance was imposed in place of all oaths which might be required by law. Surely as no man’s words are to be tortured to a bad sense, so far less are the words of the representatives of a nation; and to take in the Abjuration affirming, as do the Brethren in their Act and Testimony, p. 59, tha the said oath, together with the Oath of Allegiance, is substitute in room of our solemn covenants, is a mistake: The imposers of the Abjuration never gave ground for any to think so.
9th Objection: Ministers have been heinously guilty in swearing the Abjuration, whereby they have homologated and sworn to the united constitution; which is contrary to our covenants, National and Solemn League. Now, concerning this oath, because many separatists make a hideous clamor against it, as if alone it were sufficient ground of separation from all the ministers of this Church; not only from them that have taken it, but also from others for joining with them in judicatories and at sacraments; therefore I shall insist upon it at some more length, and, without entering upon any debate as to the lawfulness or unlawfulness of this oath, concerning it I lay down some proposition:
1st, As there have been very different sentiments and practices anent it among godly and learned men: For as some worthy tender persons, who are known to be cordial friends to a Revolution-interest, have never taken the oath; so others, no less worthy and tender, as the reverend Mr. William Stewart, minister of the Gospel at Kiltearn, who took it in its first, and the reverend Mr. William Moncrieff at Largo, who took it in the last form. Of the lawfulness of which last form, also the reverend Mr. Ebenezer Erskine was so much convinced, that he gave it under his hand to the Laird of Naughtoun, Sheriff-deputy of Fife, that he had clearness to take it, and should take it when required, though there was something peculiar in his circumstances, so as he would not take it that day on which it was taken by other ministers of his presbytery. This is no secret; for his obligation to take it was read openly in the synod of Fife.
2ndly, As there have been different sentiments and practices among Christ’s servants anent this oath, so, as says Colforgie in his Grievances of the Church of Scotland Considered, p. 3:
“The embracing of refusing the Oath of Abjuration, affords not the least ground for separation. This proposition,” adds he, “shines with such a bright and convincing light of truth, that none who can allow themselves, without prejudice, to reflect upon its evidence, will refuse to admit of it as undeniable.”
And, among other things adduced to clear that proposition, he says:
“When I find our blessed Savior enjoining his disciples both to hear and do what the Pharisees, who sat in Moses’s chair, said unto them, notwithstanding that, according to our Lord’s character of them, their works were diametrically opposite to their doctrine; I cannot help thinking it both new and odd divinity that upon my pastor’s differing from me in a disputable point, I’m no more obliged to receive the eucharist from his hands, or the law from his lips.”
And hence says he:
“The laity, who merely upon this account entertain uncharitable thoughts of their ministers and, as a consequence of this unallowable way of thinking, refuse to concur with their lawful pastors in the participation of all the ordinances of Christ, are highly culpable, being disturbers of the Church’s peace and violaters of her unity.”
And if any have impressions, adds he, that it is a sin to concur in divine worship with such ministers, viz. Such as have taken the Abjuration Oath, “certainly Satan is the author of such impressions.” And, when prescribing remedies against division upon the head of the Abjuration, he speaks excellently, saying, p. 5:
“[1.] In order to engage us to this charity, which would issue in an unity of measures, let us consider what melancholy consequences may ensue upon our divisions, if they be not happily removed. ‘Tis notour, they have been fatal to all societies, have tumbled down flourishing monarchies, and laid magnificent cities into ashes; they have rent Churches into pieces, and knocked religion on the head.
2. The enemies of our Zion, whose projects have been baffled of Heaven, and their counsels infatuated of God, will have this piece of satisfaction left them, to rejoice when they see us disagree among ourselves, and be pleased with the agreeable thoughts that we are about to accomplish ourselves what they designed for us.”
And there he has much more to that purpose published in 1716.
3. To say, by taking that oath ministers have sworn to the Union and united constitution, abjured the covenants, approven of bishops’ sitting in parliament, and the like, when there is not a word in that oath to any such purpose, is surely unfair, these being strained consequences, refused by them who have taken the Abjuration. The reverend Mr. James Hog, though he never had freedom to take the Oath of Allegiance nor Abjuration, yet was far from being of their mind who argue at this rate. Hence in his Letters, when speaking of such ministers as had taken the Abjuration in its first form, says (p. 55):
“Though I differ from my reverend Brethren who have taken the oaths, yet I look upon myself as obliged to receive their testimony concerning the principles they adhere to; and few of them I know do approve the incorporating Union, and far less do any of them approve Erastian prelacy, supremacy and the English-Popish ceremonies. I owe them the charity or justice to believe that they sincerely disown these evils.
Touching strainings for extracting perjury, scandal, error, heresy, and other such abominable crimes, from the different sentiments and practices of ministers, who otherwise are one in principle; such measures, I say, tend natively to confound all Christian societies, and are, amongst the inventions of Satan, mostly reserved till these last and perilous days, wherein our lot is fallen. No sound divine, nor any other fair antagonist (for what I know did ever charge his adversary with controverted consequences, as his direct and received opinion.”
So the reverend Mr. Fisher, in his Reasons of Appeal from the Synod of Perth and Stirling, in the affair of Mr. Erskine, speaks to the same prupose, saying:
“Is it not a received maxim, that no man ought to be condemned for consequences drawn from his doctrine, when he disclaims them? Is it not vastly more agreeable to the law of love and charity, which thinks no evil, to put as favorable a construction upon men’s words as they can possibly admit of?”
And ought not we to do the same with respect to their solemn oaths? The Brethren, in their First Testimony, seem to have been of this charitable disposition, for, speaking of the Abjuration in its first form, they say:
“The most part of the ministers of this Church, apprehending it brought them under no other obligation but allegiance to the sovereign, and an engagement against a Popish pretender, and to the succession in the Protestant line, had freedom to take the said oath.”
Though in their Second Testimony it must be testified against, as a public national sin; albeit, as I’m informed, they were not unanimous upon the point, of testifying thus against it.
4thly, As ’tis utterly a fault to charge men’s words, writings, actions or oaths with consequences which they absolutely refuse, so such as have taken that oath affirm and it may be thought:
“The parliament of Britain never designed by the Allegiance or Abjuration to bind the ministers or members of this Church of Scotland to anything contrary to their known principles.”
And as it is a received maxim, That all oaths are to be sworn according to the intention of the imposer, or the imposer’s sense; so, if the words of that oath will bear a better construction, charity obliges to think, the parliament of Britain never designed to bind us thereby to anything contrary to our principles: Seeing by the Act of Security at the Union, the Parliament has expressly exeemed the subjects of Scotland from all oaths inconsistent with their principles; and seeing that parliament, which altered the word “as” into “which,” declared that oath was not meant to oblige his Majesty’s subjects in Scotland to any act or acts inconsistent with the establishment of this Church of Scotland, according to law. And, as Mr. Ebenezer Erskine, in his Essay upon the Abjuration, p. 30, speaks; so, with a little variation, I may say, namely, seeing by the Union we are exeemed from all oaths inconsistent with our principles, ’tis a horrid reflection upon king and parliament to think or say by that oath they designed to bind us to Prelacy, or in the least to approve thereof; for:
“this would make them worse than Papists or pagans, as if no bonds, nor ties, nor covenants, nor compacts, however sacred, could bind them.”
Further, once and again the British parliament has changed that oath, to make such in Scotland as scrupled easy, and, in the last draught thereof, the acts of parliament mentioned in that oath, which were reckoned the chief ground of scruple formerly, are entirely dropped, besides other alterations. And though, as Mr. Hog says, when speaking even of such as took the abjuration in its first form:
“I owe them the charity and justice to believe that they sincerely disowned these evils, viz. the approving of the union, Erastian prelacy, supremacy, and England’s Popish ceremonies;”
so I never did, nor do I question, but many who took the abjuration in its first draught, would rather have chosen death than sworn to defend those evils, or approven of them: Yet, to me, it is unfair in the Brethren, and those who now exclaim against the Abjuration, that they never mention the different forms or draughts thereof, as if there had not been the least appearance of difference between them, though by the last form of the oath, the great and most of the things scrupled at in the former draughts were removed. And for any to affirm, as do the Brethren in their last Testimony, p. 57:
“That this oath was framed at first by the parliament of England, and calculated for the maintenance of their constitution, both in Church and State,”
seems a mistake; for that the parliament of England had no design in imposing this oath to bind any to defend the Church of England, seems evident from what Burnet tells in the History of his Own Times (vol. 5 in 4 to., pp. 547-78), in which he affirms, That when at first imposing there was a clause added to the Abjuration for maintaining the Church of England, that clause was laid aside by the parliament, and he says it was a clause to which the dissenters could not swear; so the dissenters having taken this oath, ’tis an evidence there is nothing in it designed for securing the maintenance of the Church of England, more than for maintenance of the Church of Scotland. This, as noticed above, is manifest from the parliament’s condescending to drop or alter the phrases which were reckoned captious and ensnaring.
And ’tis a question whether the Brethren have acted consistently in publishing it to the world that they look on the Abjuration to be “a public national sin,” which is just cause of fasting and mourning; and yet have daily admitted their magistrates and members of council, who have taken it, to partake of sealing ordinances, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, without professing their sorrow for it, or debarring them in plain terms from a communion table: And ’tis also a question whether at the election of counsellors and magistrates, they ought not publicly to preach against the Abjuration, lest people, according to them, ruin their own souls.
5thly, Though there have been very different sentiments and practices anent the Abjuration among ministers of the gospel in this Church, yet I never heard of any of them, who thought or said the taking thereof was ground of separation, nor yet, if it be not of late, of fasting or for a testimony; but still they thought it was duty to keep united, and exercise mutual forbearance: Which is evident from the 16th Act of Assembly 1712, and from the consideration of what was done by the Commission of that Assembly afterwards. And further, this was very evident from what was done at a meeting in Kinross, November 5th and 6th 1718, by such Brethren of the synods of Fife and Perth as had not taken the Abjuration, where were present the reverend Mr. James Hog, minister of the Gospel at Carnock, Mr. Allan Logan at Culross, Mr. Ebenezer Erskine at Portmoak, Mr. Ralph Erskine and Mr. James Wardlaw at Dunfermline, Mr. Bathgate at Orwel, Mr. Thomas Black, Mr. John Fleming and Mr. William Wilson at Perth, Mr. Andrew Darling at Kinnoul, and others, to the number of thirty, who, in a declaration drawn up by us at that time to be laid before the commission, when speaking of the Commission’s interposing with the government enent such as had not taken the Abjuration, ’tis said:
“Being deeply impressed with the sense of the dismal effects and fatal consequences of division and alienation of mind and affection among the Lord’s servants, and of the indispensable necessity of mutual harmony in the Lord among the ambassadors of the Gospel of peace; and being much weighted with the present situation this Church is now in on many accounts, it was no small satisfaction to us to understand that our worthy and dear Brethren, whom we judge in charity have acted according to their light and conscience in taking the said oath, do evidence such brotherly regard to us, and such tenderness to the peace and welfare of this Church, in expressing their readiness to contribute their best endeavors for removing all differences among such as fear the Lord in this Church, in addressing the government for our relief, etc.”
6thly, Though the taking the Oaths of Allegiance and Abjuration be no ground of separation, yet I own the land has ground to mourn for the dreadful perjury which many in it have been guilty of in taking these oaths, I mean the favorers of the Pretender; many of whom, to bring themselves into places of trust, or to qualify them for voting in the election of members of parliament, and otherwise to do him service, have taken these oaths, while, in the mean time, some of them have openly declared they were not resolved to keep them. Monstrous impiety! thus to juggle with the great God in the matter of a solemn oath. I also own, ’tis just matter of mourning the sacred name of God is so taken in vain by the frequent needless repetition of these solemn oaths, the evil of which has been shown in a pamphlet published 1729, entitled, Britain’s Groans under the Weight of Multiplied Oaths.
10th Objection: The Church of Scotland since the Revolution has broken our covenants, National and Solemn League, denied their obligation, and neglected to renew them; Therefore, etc. Now concerning these national engagements:
1st, I own it was a praise and glory to our land to be a people solemnly devoted unto the Lord, sworn to be for Him, and to live to his praise.
2ndly, I own this land has been heinously guilty many ways, both in former and later times, in breaking our national engagements: This is just ground of lamentation. Some have violated them by turning to Popery and other dreadful errors; some by sinful complying with, and declaring for prelacy; some by schism and sinful division; some by disloyalty to our rightful sovereigns; some, yea the generality, by corruption of manners. Alas! we have sinned with our fathers in this respect, and that grievously.
3rdly, Whereas the Church of Scotland’s alleged complying with prelacy at the Revolution, her alleged going in to the incorporating Union with England, her allowing of the Toleration, and ministers taking the Allegiance and Abjuration, are given by separatists as the great evidences of her breaking our covenant-engagements; I think I have said enough already to vindicate this Church from such a charge, and therefore will not further insist upon answers to them.
4thly, But as to the obligation of these covenants:
1. ‘Tis a falsehood to say the Church of Scotland denies their obligation: This is a calumny; her mentioning the breaches of them as causes of solemn fasting and humiliation since the Revolution has been a clear evidence thereof, of which sundry instances may be given afterwards.
2. That these covenants were treated with so much ignominy, that all their obligation was declared void, and that by law it was made death to own them, is an iniquity for which we ought to mourn.
3. In as far as y them we are sworn against Popery, prelacy, superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness, and every thing that’s contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness, I own they are of inviolable obligation.
5thly, But as to the renovation of our national engagements:
1. It would be a desirable thing to see the land in a fit state and case for such a work, by the Lord’s pouring out of his Holy Spirit upon all ranks.
2. Yet before renewing, some, sundry, yea many among the most judicious are of opinion they ought to be rectified, not only by explications, but by some alterations: And, to name but in one particular, ’tis said, they cannot see how any else but real assured converts or believers can take the National Covenant, none but such as have what is called “sensible reflex assurance,” in regard the takers in swearing say:
“After long and due examination of our consciences in matters of true and false religion, we are now thoroughly resolved in the truth by the Word and Spirit of God.”
And speaking of this true reformed Kirk in swearing, say:
“To which we join ourselves willingly, as lively members of the same in Christ our Head.”
And again in swearing they say:
“We are not moved with any worldly respect” viz. In taking that oath, “but are persuaded only in our consciences, through the knowledge and love of God’s ture religion imprinted in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, as we shall answer to Him in the day when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed.”
Now, though an assured believer may safely swear and subscribe in such terms, yet ’tis thought none else can do it.
3. And though the covenants were to be renewed, yet it would be a sin to enjoin them under any such severe penalties as Church and State enforced them with from 1638 to 1649. And, if we are to give a full, free, faithful testimony against the sins of our forefathers, as well as against the sins of our own day, instancing their iniquities as causes of fasting, then I think we ought to acknowledge the sin of Church and State in that period, in imposing these solemn covenants under such severe penalities, which were a strong temptation to the deadful sin of perjury: As in the case of a gentleman in the parish of Crail, of whom I have heard it credibly reported, that, being urged to take the covenant by the arch-traitor [James] Sharp there before he came to be archbishop of St. Andrews, the gentleman still refusing, Sharp told him, if he persisted in his refusl, he had one argument more, namely, that the censure of the highest excommunication should be pronounced against him, and he knew what the effect of that might be. To which the gentleman answered, “If you be there, Mr. Sharp, I’ll take a cart-load of covenants rather than it come to this.” I am far from thinking the imposing a lawful oath under severe penalty, will make it sinful to take that oath, but it may be, yea, in my opinion, it certainly is, a sin in the imposers to enjoin such a solemn religious oath under severe penalty, especially if in that oath we are obliged to swear that, in taking it, “we are not moved with any worldly respect,” which are the very words of the National Covenant.
Now, for the penalties under which these solemn oaths were imposed by the State, the parliament in King Charles I’s time, viz. In 1640 June 11th, commanded the National Covenant should be taken by all his Majesty’s subjects of “what rank and quality soever,” under “all civil pains,” which might be confiscation of goods, imprisonment, banishment, forfeiting of life and fortune. And, October 12th 1643, the Commissioners of the Convention of Estates ordained the Solemn League and Covenant to be sworn and subscribed by all his Majesty’s subjects in this kingdom:
“Under the pain, to such as shall postpone or refuse, to be esteemed and punished as enemies to religion, his Majesty’s honor and peace of their kingdoms; and to have their goods and rents confiscated for the use of the republic, that they shall not bruik nor enjoy any benefit, place nor office within this kingdom.”
And if any refused to swear and subscribe, then they are:
“to be cited to answer to the next parliament as enemies to religion, king and kingdoms, and receive what further punishment his Majesty and parliament shall inflict upon them.”
Now, if these were not pretty severe laws, I leave to any to judge.
The author or authors of Plain Reasons, p. 87, in answering the objection “of pressing the covenants,” asserts sundry falsehoods, of which I notice only two. And I would have the reader consider, that here I am not speaking against the covenants themselves, but against the manner of imposing them. And:
1st Whereas he says: “It was the civil magistrate, and not the Church, that enjoined the taking of the covenants under civil penalties.” But though ’tis the civil magistrate only which has power to inflict civil punishment, or to enjoin under civil penalties, yet the General Assembly 1640 (which I think was a civil penalty) enjoined that no expectant should have the privilege of being a pedagogue, teach a school, or the liberty to reside in a burgh, university or college, as refused to take the covenant. And further, I think the General Assembly was chargeable with enjoining the covenant under all civil pains, in regard that when, upon their desire, the Lords of his Majesty’s honorable Privy Council had enjoined all the lieges in time coming to subscribe the covenant; Yet not content therewith, having themselves enjoined the subscribing that covenant by “all the members of this Kirk and kingdom, under all ecclesiastical censure,” which might be excommunication; they of new, viz. The Assembly 1639:
“Supplicate his Majesty’s High Commissioner, and the honorable Estates of Parliament, by their authority to ratify and enjoin the same under all civil pains.”
If we desire or entreat another to do what is evil, we are surely as guilty as he who does it at our desire: This, in my humble opinion, is more than a bidding him Godspeed. And this was the more unreasonable, if, as the Brethren affirm in their Act and Testimony, p. 18, a little space before this, viz. about the end of the preceding year:
“Almost the whole land had voluntarily, cheerfully and joyfully come under the oath of God, without any force or compulsion, yea, in the face of great opposition from the civil powers.”
What then could be the necessity of imposing such hard penalties?
2ndly, He calls it a “malignant” objection, and “mere calumny” to say the covenants were imposed under severe penalties. But only let the above-cited acts of parliament 1640 and the acts of Assembly 1639 and 1640 be considered, and then the world will see whether he has not a good stock of confidence who can deny this.
And further, this Church in that period, viz. the Assembly 1648, session 31, required that all young students should take the Covenant at their first entry to the college, and that hereafter all persons whatsoever should take the Covenant at their first receiving the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper; requiring synods, presbyteries and universities to see that act carefully observed. What severer penalties could have been inflicted than this, to deny the seal of God’s Covenant to any that had a scruple to take that Covenant, whether man or woman? for all that came to the Lord’s Table behoved to swear it. And, in my opinion, the first part of that act was a civil punishment, which the Church, according to presbyterian principles, has no power to inflict: For a boy or young man to enter to the college to study humanity, logics, physics or mathematics, was no religious business. Indeed we have sundry instances in Scripture where force was used in taking solemn covenants, as 2 Chron. 15:12-13; 34:31-32; Ezra 10:3, 8; Neh. 13:25. But then it would be considered, those oaths or covenants were wholly and altogether divine, not only as to their matter, but also as to their form, words, and every expression: So that people could not be under the least hesitation, doubt or scruple as to the lawfulness of all contained in them. And there are sundry other considerable differences between these and our national engagements, which here I shall not insist upon.
11th Objection: This Chuch is erroneous in her doctrine, therefore ’tis sinful to keep communion with her. This is a heavy charge indeed; and, if it was true that her declared or professed doctrine is corrupt in fundamental points and we required to approve thereof, I should think it sufficient ground of separation: But though the charge be heavy, I hope, yea, I am persuaded, ’tis utterly false. And what I said in the beginning of the fourth chapter, when speaking of corruption in doctrine its being just ground for separation, might be a sufficient answer. Indeed ’tis affirmed by sundry, there are not a few of our youner clergy who are poisoned with very bad principles. I can say nothing of this from my own knowledge; yet from the accounts I have heard, ’tis to be feared there may be too much truth in this charge with respect to some: And I own ’tis just ground of the deepest humiliation, and a sad prognotstic of approaching desolation to a Church, where gross errors creet in among he pastors, whose “lips should keep knowledge,” contending earnestly for the truth. Yet whatever heterodox or erroneous principles some may be leavened with, they do not, nor dare they, vent and openly avow them; and, while they are not owned and defended, they cannot be charged upon the Church of Scotland. Though there be a Judas among the twelve, that will not prove the eleven to be naughty like him; nor can his faults be charged upon them, especially while latent and hid.
Now, this of the Church of Scotland’s unsoundness in doctrine, being among the chief, if not the greatest objection which sundry make against communion with her, I shall insist at some more length in answering the evidences adduced by such as have separated, or are inclined to separate at this time.
1st, And ’tis given as a clear evidence of her unsoundness in doctrine, that the Assembly 1720 condemned the Marrow of Modern Divinity. In reply, though I am not to dip into that controversy, and am far from vindicating that act which I have heard sundry condemn, who were no friends to what was called the Marrow Doctrine, as particularly that worthy servant of Christ Mr. Allan Logan, who said in my hearing, Woe was his heart for the wording of it; yet I think the Church of Scotland was far from designing the least countenance to error thereby: And this seems evident from her explanation of that act in 1722, at which time I wish it had been formally repealed, because it was not better worded.
2ndly, For evidence of this, the 8th act of Assembly 1720 is adduced, in which ministers are directed to preach “the necessity of a holy life in order to the obtaining of everlasting happiness.” But the exception against that act was fully taken off by the General Assembly 1722, in which ’tis declared the expression is meant of obtaining “enjoyment” and “possession,” but of “right” and title to everlasting happiness, which, that Assembly says, “all justified persons have already attained.” And it looks too like splene in the author of Plain Reasons, that, though he tells what was done by the Assembly 1720, with respect to the Morrow and this act, to reproach the Church of Scotland; yet, though no doubt he knew what was done by the Assembly 1722 for her vindication, he never tells the reader a word of that: And if in this and the former particular the Assembly was unsound in 1720, yet she was orthodox in 1722; so this nor the former instance cannot be the least ground of separation.
3rdly, ‘Tis instanced as an evidence of the Church of Scotland’s unsoundness both in doctrine and discipline, that she has not censured Professor Simson according to the demerit of his crime; and in that he was acquitted by the Assembly 1717, “with a bare admonition and direction to abstain from such ways of teaching for the future; albeit,” say they, “that Assembly found him guilty of teaching many damnable positions.” And in 1728 and 1729, being only suspended from teaching, for as erroneous as they found him to be when his second libel had been under their consideration.
Now, as to his first libel, and what was done upon it in 1717:
[1.] Indeed, in my opinion, he was too easy passed at that time, albeit he declared his adherence to our Confession of Faith and doctrines therein contained, and disowned the errors opposite thereto wherewith he was charged.
2ndly, I think it was the fault of the Church of Scotland, that, to evidence her zeal against error, and for the interest of truth, she did not free that zealous faithful servant of Christ, Mr. James Webster, from the burden of a prosecution by libel, seeing that affair was no personal concern of his own.
3. Yet ’tis a falsehood in the author of Plain Reasons, p. 104, to say the Assembly 1717 did find him guilty of teaching what he calls “damnable positions” which had been libeled against him: For, though the Commission for Purity of Doctrine did find him guilty of these things, yet this was not found in 1717, but eleven years after, namely, in 1728, that year in which he was suspended.
And as to the gross and heinous errors in his second libel, considering what an affront was put upon the great God our Savior by his erroneous doctrine, in my humble opinion, he justly deserved deposition from the holy ministry for:
[1.] what was found proven against him at that time, though:
“he owned the orthodox doctrine concerning the great and fundamental articles of our holy religion, disclaimed and renounced all these errors and erroneous, suspicious ways of speaking he had been charged with, and declared himself exceedingly sorry for the offense he had given by such ways of expressing himself; and though he constantly disowned that ever he held or deliberately taught the gross errors whereof he was accused.”
2. Though he deserved deposition for his venting and teaching the errors proven against him; yet, as was noticed above, the Church of Scotland cannot be charged as adopting any of his errors for their lenity to him, more than the Church of Corinth was chargeable with the dreadful error of denying the resurrection of the dead, which some of her members were leavened with, and for which they had not been censured; or more than that Church could be charged as approving of the horrid sin of the incestuous person, because he was not censured, being delivered unto Satan by the higher excommunication; or than the Church of Pergamos was guilty of holding the doctrine of Balaam and of the Nicolaitans, because she had not censured such as held these abominable doctrines; nor than the Church of Thyatira was guilty of the errors of that wicked woman Jezabel, who “seduced the Lord’s servants, etc.”
3. The Church of Scotland was so far from approving his errors that as she found them relevant to infer censure, which was a plain condemning of them, so, notwithstanding of all said by him for alleviating his offense, the Assembly 1728 censured him with the sentence of suspension; and that not only from the office of a teacher, as Plain Reasons represents the matter, but also that Assembly suspended him:
“from preaching and teaching, and all exercise of any ecclesiastical power or function, until another General Assembly shall think fit to take off this sentence.”
And the next Assembly went further than barely to suspend Professor S. from teaching and preaching, as the Brethren represent it in their Testimonies; for that was done by the Assembly 1728; but the Assembly 1729 not only ratified the sentence of the former Assembly, but also gave it as their judgment:
“It was not fit nor safe he be further employed in teaching divinity, and in instructing youth for the holy ministry in this Church;”
which was a heavier or further censure than only suspension from teaching and preaching as a minister. So it is not matter of fact, when the Brethren say the Assembly 1729 did rest in the above sentence of suspension, first Testimony, p. 71, and second Testimony, p. 104. And ’tis well known there were sundry in the Assembly fully of the mind he deserved deposition, who yet, from apprehensions of as great or greater damage to follow upon this to the Church of Christ in Scotland, they only voted for his suspension; and I apprehend it flowed more from this, than lenity to him, that he was not deposed. And that the judicatories of the Church of Scotland are neither so corrupt in doctrine, nor so lukewarm in the cause of Christ as separatists represent, seems evident from what the Brethren say in their first Testimony, p. 49, namely that it was contrary to the declared mind of most of the presbyteries of this national Church by far, that the Assembly 1729 did rest in the sentence of suspension against Professor Simson.
And to affirm:
“The judicatories of this Church have done what in them lay to pull the crown off from Christ’s head, refusing to give him the glory of his supreme deity,”
Is an unaccountable and groundless charge, unworthy of the weakest. Did it not lie in their power to declare the positions charged against professor Simson are truths and not errors? Did it not lie in their power to censure any that would call them errors? Was it not in their power to assoilzie[?] him without inflicting the least censure? Was it not in their power to commend him as teaching sound doctrine, and one who is fit to be a professor of divinity in any university? Was it not in their power to have put such respect upon him as to choode him for their moderator? Were most of the presbyteries of this national Church not only for suspending professor Simson from teaching and preaching, but also, as the Brethren own, for inflicting a higher censure, which at least behoved to be deposition? And yet is this Church guilty of denying our great and glorious Lord the honor of his supreme deity? or can she be suspected as unsound in that fundamental doctrine of the glorious Trinity? though some have asserted this (Mr. Mair, 2nd Testimony, p. 145), yet her act in suspending professor Simson evidences the contrary, in which she says:
“The General Assembly do observe with great pleasure and thankfulness that God has so happily directed all the judicatories of this Church which have had this process under their consideration, that there has not appeared the least difference of sentiment; but, on the contrary, there has been the most perfect and unanimous agreement among them as to the doctrine of the glorious Trinity, and the proper supreme deity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, according as the same is revealed in the holy Scripture, and contained in our Confession and Catechisms.”
Was not this a plain asserting of our Lord Jesus his proper supreme deity?
There is a great outcry by some against the Church of Scotland because she has not excommunicated professor Simson. But to the best of my remembrance, though Mr. William Stewart did once propose this in the General Assembly, yet, when it was told him the professor did not offer to vindicate any of those errors, neither he nor any in the Assembly did urge it, though many were urgent for his deposition: And at that time some of the four Brethren were so far from thinking this the least ground of separation, that they earnestly dissuaded the reverend Mr. Boston from taking any protestation against the Assembly for not proceeding to a higher censure, lest that should have occasioned division, or a rent in the Church of Scotland. And further, as to the sentence of the higher excommunication, many great and solid divines, yea, I suppose the most of them, have been of opinion that this sentence is never to be pronounced but only in case of obstinacy, which could not be pretended in this case; for professor Simson was so far from being obstinate, or standing up in defence of the errors wherewith he was charged, and had been proven against him, that, as was noticed before, he still denied that ever he taught and held these errors, declaring he was exceedingly sorry for the offense he had given by his way of expressing himself. And, if I mistake not, it will be difficult for the Brethren to find a Scripture for founding a sentence of higher excommunication against either professor Simson or William Nimmo, for not excommunicating of whom they also complain, 2nd Testimony, p. 75, 113, seeing both professed their sorrow and repentance for what they had said. However, though too much lenity was shown to professor Simson, that was no ground of separation or secession. Durham, commenting on the epistle to the Church of Thyatira, says:
“Where Church-members are polluted and suffered notwithstanding by Church officers to remain in Church communion, Christ does not only not condemn the clean for keeping fellowship with them, but expressly requires them to continue as they did, then he allows not separation on that account.”
And there he has much more to the same purpose. And, for further answer to this objection, the reader may consider what I said in the beginning of the third chapter.
Fourth instance of her unsoundness in doctrine is the lenity the Assembly showed to Professor Campbell, notwithstanding of the many errors vented and published in his writings, particularly their adopting his principle of “self-love,” while yet our Assemblies have been severe against honest, sound and orthodox men. Answer:
1. In my opinion, Professor Campbell justly deserved a rebuke from the General Assembly, for the many uncautious expressions in his writings, whereby his reader is in danger of being seduced, however sound and orthodox his explications might be.
2. Whereas the Brethren, in their second Testimony, harp much on this, that the Assembly 1736 adopted Professoer Campbell’s principle of self-love, p. 83, where they say:
“It is very manifest that the Assembly have adopted this proposition of Mr. Campbell’s, as in their opinion sound and orthodox, viz. “That our delight in the glory and honor of God is the chief motive of all virtuous and religious actions;”
affirming, p. 9, “This is a new and strong ground of secession.” But, seeing they own some worthy men in that Assembly did not notice this, it might have been charitably thought this was a mere oversight in the Assembly. And that they had no design of adopting this proposition is evident, in that not so much as one person in all the Assembly did speak a word against it; for it cannot be denied, some in that Assembly had the interest of truth as much at heart as the Brethren themselves; and that they had never suffered it to pass without opposition, had it been noticed by them.
The reverend messieurs Ralph Erskine and Thomas Mair, who have lately made a Secession, joining the four Brethren, as the first of these was a member of that Assembly, so the other also, according to my information, was present at the assoilzieing of the professor; and yet neither of them discovered this at the time, to speak a word themselves, or to excite others, that they might show what a dangerous position they were adopting: Shall a bare oversight be a strong ground of secession? If this was such, then the Brethren ought to separate from themselves, some of them having been art and part in it.
Now, if these Brethren never adverted to this, I say, charity obliged them to think it was pure oversight that occasioned anything like this, and to think the Assembly has not ‘wickedly departed from the Lord’ in this matter, nor adopted this proposition as their principle. And, at first view, the words of that proposition look so like a concern for the honor and glory of God, ’tis the less to be wondered at though the Assembly did not advert to it. And as the Assembly 1736 declared they had not passed a judgment upon his quarreled positions, so, though the following Assembly 1737 did not think the former Assembly had given just ground for that charge, yet they declared their steadfast adherence to the principle of this Church, as contained in our Confession and Catechisms, as to our chief end in everything we do; which was a plain disowning that principle of self-love, whereby the alleged ‘new and strong ground of secession’ is taken away.
3rdly, Whereas it has been complained, he was dismissed upon giving sound explications, because, say they, the most erroneous men may give and have given orthodox explications of the most dangerous errors, when prosecuted before Church judicatories. I grant it has been so, and it may be so still; yet what Festus said to Agrippa was the custom of the Romans (Acts 25:16), I suppose ’tis an approven custom in all the Churches of Christ, namely, That no man is to be condemned, ’till he has license to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him.’ Nicodemus said to the chief priests and Pharisees, ‘Does our law judge any man before it hear him? (Jn. 7:51)
Where words will bear a sound meaning, it is an incontestable rule of justice, that we receive this for a person’s meaning; for we are not to condemn men for their words till we hear what they can say for themselves. And I suppose ’tis a received maxim, ‘Better many guilty should escape, than that one innocent person be condemned and suffer.’ Though people are to be admonished and rebuked for using dubious and uncautious expressions, which may lead others to error, whatever sound meaning they may have, and where a person uses such expressions frequently without caution, it gives no small ground of suspicion, yet judges are not to go upon this ground; for, as says the reverend Mr. Fisher, in his above-cited Reasons of Appeal:
“It is a received maxim that no man ought to be condemned for consequences drawn from his doctrine, when he disclaims them.”
And, as he adds:
“it is agreeable to the law of love and charity, which thinks no evil, to put as favorable a construction upon men’s words as they can admit of.”
4thly, Whereas ’tis complained, with respect to P.C. and P. S., that albeit lenity has been shown to them, yet this Church of late has been harsh, cruel and severe, in censuring sound and orthodox ministers.
Answer: Though I condemn them for too great lenity here, and for severity of late to some worthy brethren, yet all this is no ground for separation. What Mr. Durham says, commenting upon the Epistle to Thyatira, perhaps may be of some weight, when he says, p. 165:
“Difference is to be made betwixt a man who entertains an erroneous opinion, and another who is an heretic; that is, who not only after admonition continues in the same opinion, but also does persist to vent the same, to the hurt and offense of others.”
Now however guilty P.S. And P.C. might be, yet, if I mistake not, neither of them can be called heretics, in the strict sense of the word ‘heretic,’ for none of them offered to defend the erroneous positions as libeled, or in the sense alleged against them. Some separatists say, “The unsound in this Church are so numerous that the erroneous escape just censure.’ But whereas never so much as one person appeared to vindicate any of professor Simson’s errors, when his process was before the judicatories of this Church; so, though now ’tis near ten years since he was suspended for error, yet in our Assemblies none has ever offered to speak a word in his favors, nor sought to have him relaxed from that sentence. And this, in my opinion, says much to confute the above slander, and to evidence the falseness of the heavy charge. And though I should grant what is alleged, it would not be sufficient ground of separation, while our standards, founded on the Word of God, are owned, and no sinful terms of communion required. Hence Durham says (pt. 4, ch. 17, p. 367):
“Union, when it is in competition with the deposing of some unfaithful men, and cannot both be obtained together, it, viz. union, ought to be preferred, as we see the apostle does, 2 Cor. 10:6, who will not censure in such a case, lest he state a schism. etc.”
It is a wide inference, and altogether groundless to say a Church has adopted such or such errors, because they have not censured the erroneous condignly; as if a thief who deserves to be hanged, is only sentenced to be whipped and kept in a correction-house, therefore it should be said the judges have approven of his theft: Because, I suppose, our Brethren have not censured, nor so much as judicially admonished such among themselves or their followers as have made the Testimony a term of Christian communion; I’m apt to think they will not admit this as a sufficient proof they have adopted this principle, that all ought to be debarred from the Lord’s Table and fellowship-meetings who do not adhere to their Testimony. The reverend Mr. Hog in his Letters, pp. 26-27, published 1717[?], speaks exceeding well to this purpose (and as much to the present case as if he had been alive and seen it at this day) when discoursing of the wicked priests Hophni and Phineas, the sons of Eli, in answer to separatists, where he says:
“Their inference then from that text, 1 Sam. 2:17, 24 (if they speak to the purpose) must be this, viz. We ought to separate from a true Church, and set up a distinct Church within it, if but two scandalous ministers be not brought under due censure, though somewhat be done against them, and their wickedness be truly represented; as old Eli the high priest had reproved his sons pertinently and gravely, though I confess he ought to have done more. I shall yet be more liberal: What though not only two, but a great number of scandalous ministers in a true Church do escape condign censure? This affords no ground for relinquishing of them, and setting up a distinct Church: In such a case the scandals are not espoused, nor do even errors and heresies become the sentiments of a Church that professes the truths opposite to them, though erroneous or scandalous persons may have so much countenance as to prove too strong for the sounder part, as the sons of Zeruiah were too strong for David.”
Though Eli did not censure his children as they deserved, yet no man can say Eli adopted or approved of their sins. The not censuring, or the not inflicting of a higher censure upon them, and upon Mr. Nimmo, these, and most of the things laid to the charge of the Church of Scotland at this day, are only omissions; and I never read of any, who thought omissions in a true Church of Christ to be sufficient cause of separation. And, sometime since 1733, I heard a worthy minister (for whom our late separatists have justly much regard) declare he did not think omissions in a Church sufficient ground of separation from her, and I hope he will still be of the same mind; and, had omissions been ground of separation, then the Church of Corinth and Asian Churches should have been forsaken though Christ walked in them.
And further, as to the not censuring P.S. And P.C. According to the demerit of their offense, here can be no such step of defection as is ground of separation, for sometimes the Church of Christ has judged it convenient to pass the erroneous without inflicting any ecclesiastical censure for their offense; as in the first New Testament General Assembly or Council, Acts 15, we read it seemed good to the apostles and elders of the Church, yea, and also to the Holy Ghost, to condemn the corrupt erroneous doctrine of such as believed in Judea, and yet taught the people behoved to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses as ever they would be saved. This was doctrine which subverted precious souls, and overturned the foundation of the Christian religion; and yet, though the Council condemned the doctrine, we read not a word of any censure inflicted upon the preachers or teachers thereof: Nor do we read of any censure inflicted on the false and corrupt teachers which were in the Churches of Pergamos and Thyatira. And it argues great weakness to say with some, that the Church of Christ was only in her infancy in these times, as if the practice of the apostles and of the Church of Christ in their days was not to be argued from, nor regarded as a rule; and, though sometimes censures be not adequate to the crime, that will not say we ought to separate from a Church. I’m apt to think the Brethren and all our separatists think suspension from the exercise of the ministry too gentle a censure for a diocesan bishop (seeing they complain of the Church of Scotland at the Revolution for saying she would not depose any episcopal incumbants simply for their judgment anent the government of the Church) especially if that bishop had received consecration to the office of episcopacy after he was ordained a presbyterian minister, and if he had broken through cautions laid down by a General Assembly in voting in parliament, and especially if these cautions had been laid down with “certification of deposition, infamy and excommunication,” and, by his usurped power, had also oppressed the Kirk of Christ with novations in the worship of God: And yet the General Assembly 1638 was thus guilty in the case of bishops Lindsay and Abernethy; but no man ever dreamed that was ground of anything like separation from the Church of Scotland at that time, though sundry might think they deserved deposition at least, if not excommunication, which were the censures inflicted upon some other bishops: And whatever our defections be, yet, as our pure standards of doctrine are still owned by profession, so, as Mr. Hog says (Letter, p. 4):
“Though doctrinal errors are gradually creeping in among us, yet there is no national or Church deed done or enacted by us hitherto which carry us off from these standards; they have still the authority they ever had, and which any Church can give;”
And therefore, as there he argues, we ought not to separate from her.
5thly, Our Brethren, in their second Testimony, seem to instance the publishing of that little book, entitled, The Assembly’s Shorter Catechism Revised and Rendered Fitter for General Use, as an evidence of the declining and backsliding of this Church and land, p. 100, being compared with p. 114.
Whereas, if I be not misinformed, few in the land, whether ministers or people, have had occasion to see it, nor, for ought I know, can they tell where, nor by whom it was composed, whether in Scotland, England or Ireland; a book, though searched for through most of the Stationers’ shops in Edinburgh, could not be found: And the Church of Scotland had condemned that book before the Brethren’s Testimony was published; for, not only the synod of Lothian, but also the commission of the General Assembly had testified and cautioned against it before that time. So the conduct of our Brethren in this matter has shown too great an inclination to blacked the Church of Scotland, and render her odious upon slender grounds; for such as read that Testimony, must think that Catechism has some way been the deed of the Church of Scotland, though she has given her testimony against it.
And upon the whole, our worthy ancestors, who were valiant for the truth, never dreamed of separation to be their duty because some erroneous men were not censured as they deserved; So far from this, that they stayed still in the Church, even when they were censuring men for preaching and writing against error, and in vindication of the truth; as was noticed in Mr. Rutherford’s case, who was sent to Aberdeen in 1637, and confined there for preaching and writing against Arminianism. Though separatists in the primitive times were never able to prove their charge, yet:
“There was nothing more casten up to the orthodox by the Novations and Donatists than that they were defective in this, in admitting to, and continuing in the ministry men that were corrupt.”
12th Objection: The Church of Scotland is corrupt in her worship. And, among other frivolous evidences of this, the author of Plain Reasons charges her as embracing and complying with a set form of words (enjoined by the Toleration-act) in praying for the supreme authority; and in his modest style says:
“It seems to border upon blasphemy to invocate the Lord to bless what in his Word He condemns, to wit, a prelatic constitution either in Church or State, all very gross corruptions in the worship.”
And again says, “To pray for a prelatic king and parliament, so and so circumstantiated, does evidence no small part of her unsoundness in worship.” (pp. 111-12) Answer:
‘Tis no prescribing a form of prayer to enjoin us to pray nominatim for those in authority; and ’tis well known presbyterian ministers do not confine themselves to a stinted form of words in praying for the public: And to say it borders, or seems to border upon blasphemy, to invocate the Lord to bless a prelatic king, is to accuse the Church of Scotland of blasphemy, or bordering on it in 1638, when that Assembly, in their supplication to the king, tells his majesty, who was a prelatic king under a prelatic constitution:
“That it had been their great care to join with their hearty prayers to God for a blessing upon his Majesty’s person and government, and to beseech Him, by whom kings reign, to add a further luster to his Majesty’s glorious diadem, and that he might make them a blessed people under his long and prosperous reign.”
So again, the Assembly 1639, in their Supplication, and again the Assembly 1641 and 1642, and the Assembly 1647, in their Directions for Secret and Private Worship, says, “We ought to pray for all our superiors, the King’s Majesty, the Queen and children.” And the king at that time was a prelatic king, and had never taken the covenants; yea, in 1642, he told our General Assembly he was designed to govern the Kirk of England by her own canons and constitutions. And he declared after this, that he held himself obliged in conscience to maintain archbishops and bishops, etc. as is evident from the Declaration of the Assembly 1648. And though that Assembly directed to pray for the Queen, yet she was not only of prelatic, but of Popish principles, and an avowed enemy to the truth; of whom the Assembly 1645, in their Seasonable Warning, had said:
“The Queen is most active abroad, using all means for strengthening the Popish, and suppressing the protestant party, etc.”
Will our separatists say those Assemblies were guilty of blasphemy or bordering on it? And to pray for the king’s majesty nominatim, is no praying by a set form. Hence Mr. Ebenezer Erskine, in Preface to God’s Little Remnant, p. 22, says, “I pray duly for his Majesty by name.” ‘Tis the command of the great God, “That prayers, intercessions and giving of thanks be made, as for all men, so for kings and all that are in authority,” in particular, 1 Tim. 2:1-2. But, having insisted upon this of alleged corruption in worship at some greater length upon the fourth chapter, I shall not further enlarge upon it in this place.
13th Objection: This Church is unaccountably defective, having still omitted to do some things of vast moment, some of which ought to [have] been done at her first constitution in 1690, as:
1. Her neglecting by an express particular act to condemn the blasphemous supremacy.
2. To assert the headship of Christ over his Church, against such as have usurped his royal dignity.
3. That they have not by an express act asserted the divine right of presbytery.
4. That they have not asserted by some such act the intrinsic power of the Church.
5. That they have not explicitly approven of the covenanted reformation attained unto from 1638 to 1649 inclusive.
6. That they have not revived and corroborated the acts and constitutions of former General Assemblies; especially between 1638 and 1649.
7. That they did not by an express act assert the obligation of our covenants.
8. And that they have not by an express act condemned the sinful oaths which were under prelacy from 1660.
9. That they have not made a particular confession of the many steps of defection the Church and State were guilty of in the late times before the Revolution.
10. That ministers do not testify against the corruption of the times.
11. ‘Tis complained that the Church of Scotland has not addressed for rescinding the Act Recissory.
12. That due care is not taken in licensing probationers.
And lastly, that though error abounds, yet no faithful testimony has been emitted against it.
Now for answer:
1. I know no Scripture precept, promise nor example obliging Churches to make such particular assertory acts.
2. Such acts could not be of great use, unless backed with clear Scripture-proofs for confirmation of what is asserted, human authority being of small weight in this case.
3. And most of the things complained of in this objection, if culpable omissions, then they are such as the Church of Scotland was guilty of in what are reckoned her best times, viz. from 1638 to 1649.
4. And though the Church of Scotland has not made particular assertory acts anent these things, yet she has plainly and particularly asserted her principle upon most of these points.
5. The Brethren themselves have not made particular acts anent these points, having only made an act for all, without insisting upon arguments for confirming their assertions.
Now I humbly think these might suffice for answer to this objection: Yet all or most of these things being complained of, not only by the author of Plain Reasons, but also by the reverend Mr. Ralph Erskine and Mr. Mair in their Representation and Testimony given in to the Commission in August 1736, and also in the Brethren’s Second Testimony; for convincing the reader of the groundlessness of the charge, I shall consider each of them a little more particularly.
1st, As to her not condemning the supremacy by a formal explicit act:
[1.] If this is a fault, then the Church of Scotland was as guilty from 1638 to 1649: For though, under prelacy, the king’s “supremacy over all persons, and in all causes civil and ecclesiastic,” had been asserted by the parliament; yet neither in 1638 nor in any Assembly afterwards, did they ever explicitly by a formal act condemn it.
2ndly, The first parliament of King William and Queen Mary, in their first act, abrogated the Act of Supremacy in the omst extensive manner.
3rdly, And if the General Assembly that year did not make an express act condemning the supremacy, yet, among other causes of fasting, our first General Assembly after the Revolution mentions the supremacy as one; for speaking of the sins of former times under prelacy, they say:
“The supremacy was advanced in such a way, and to such a height, as never any Christian Church acknowledged:”
And this is more than was done by any Assembly from 1638 to 1649. This was a plain condeming of the king’s supremacy, and a declaring it to be ground of fasting. But some, as the Brethren in their second Testimony, p. 53, will say, This was not an absolute condemning of all supremacy in civil rulers over the Church. I grant the words will scarcely prove that; but ’tis the less to be admired if we consider what Mr. Gillespie says (Miscellaneous Questions, p. 208), viz.:
“There have been great disputes among good and learned men about the Oath of Supremacy.”
And Burroughs says (On Hos. 1:8, 11):
“The king is supreme to govern in a civil way, not only the civil state, but even affairs that belong to the Church.”
And he adduces arguments confirming this. And those valiant champions for presbytery, the ministers and elders of the province of London, in their Vindication of Presbyterial Government, affirm:
“The magistrate is, in a civil notion, the supreme governor in al ecclesiastical causes, the keeper of both Tables, the nursing father of the Church, etc.”
Though they deny that as a magistrate he is any Church-officer, or that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are committed to him. And the reverend Mt. John Livingston, when before the Council of Scotland in 1662 said:
“I have likewise been of that judgment, and am, and will be, that his Majesty is supreme governor in a civil way over all persons, and in all causes.”
And the reverend Mr. James Fraser of Brea, who is cited by the author of Plain Reasons as a person of weight, when sisted before the Council of Scotland in 1681, as then he owned the king’s authority, though a professed Papist, so, as to the king’s power in ecclesiastical matters, he acknowledged the persons of ministers, and other ecclesiastical persons, are subject to him; and that he had a jurisdiction civil, reaching not only to civil things, but likewise to spirituals.
And I think all presbyterian divines own that although the king has not a dogmatic, nor didactic, nor diacritic power, so as to make new articles of Faith, to set up any new kind of worship, to license or ordain men to preach the gospel, nor to preach or administer sacraments himself, nor to exercise Church discipline, nor determine in controversies of religion, nor to make Church canons and constitutions, nor to depose ministers from any part of their office, yet they own he has not only a defensive, but a regulating power, and also a coercive power; having much power circa sacra, though no power in sacris, no power that is properly, formally and intrinsically ecclesiastical, his power being only civil. As though the civil magistrate or Church judicatories have not a marital power as a husband, nor a paternal power as a father, yet they have power to censure either wives or children for their unbecoming carriage; and so of their power to censure husabands and fathers, if they transgress as to relative duties.
2ndly, As to her not asserting the headship of Christ over his Church by a formal act and in express terms:
[1.] If this is a fault, then the Church was as guilty in that reforming period from 1638 to 1649.
2. I affirm the Church of Scotland has owned, yea, asserted this in as plain terms as ever any Church of Christ has done or can do. As the first Assembly after the Revolution, in her 7th act for retaining soundness of doctrine, she obliged all:
“Probationers licensed to preach, all entrants into the ministry, and all other ministers and elders received into communion with us in Church government to subscribe their approbation”
of the Confession of Faith. And in the 25th chapter of that Confession, section 1, ’tis affirmed that “Christ is the head of the universal Church.” And in the last article ’tis affirmed, “There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ.” And in the 30th chapter, article first, ’tis again affirmed, “The Lord Jesus is the head of his Church.” Again, the Commission of the General Assembly, in their Seasonable Admonition, published in 1698, p. 6, says: “We do believe and own that Jesus Christ is the only Head and king of his Church.” And this Commission was approven “in their whole actings” by the next General Assembly. Again, the Assembly 1705, in their 7th act anent Mr. Hepburn, affirms in plain terms that “the Lord Jesus Christ is the alone king and Head of his Church.” So the Brethren in asserting, as p. 52, of their Act and Testimony, that the Church of Scotland, neither in 1690, nor in any of her Assemblies since, has “asserted Christ to be what really He is, the alone supreme Head and King over his Church;” they assert that which is not fact.
3rdly, As to the charge of neglecting at the Revolution, and in all times since, by an Act of Assembly to assert and ratify judicially the jus divinum of presbytery. Answer:
1. The divine right of presbytery was asserted by the parliament 1690, Act 5th, in which act, as was noticed before, they established presbytery as being “agreeable to the Word of God, and most conducive to the advancement of true piety and godliness.”
2. If this omission was a fault in the Church of Scotland at the Revolution, then it was as much her fault in 1638; For though that Assembly condemned Episcopacy as having no foundation in God’s Word, and as being contrary unto it, yet they have no express word of presbytery as being founded upon the Word of God, though I suppose it was their judgment, as ’tis well known it was the judgment of the Church of Scotland at the Revolution: And when by their act restoring the judicatories of this Church to their former privileges, of the date December 17th 1638, according to the printed acts, they restored them only as they were constituted by the Book of Policy, without any express mention of the divine right of presbytery.
3. The General Assembly 1690, in their act for a national fast, after mentioning “the great purity of government which this Church had attained unto through the mercy of God,” they instance it as a cause of fasting:
“That the government of the Church was altered and prelacy introduced, which had always been grievous to this nation, without the Church’s consent, and contrary to the standing acts of our national Assemblies.”
And in that act they bless God that the parliament had found it was so. And that Assembly, in instructions to their commissions, enjoin them to see they be careful:
“to admit none to ministerial communion with this Church, or to share of the government, but such as oblige themselves to own and subscribe the Confession of Faith, and profess their submission and willingness to join and concur with the presbyterian Church government.”
And I think these were as much, yea, more an owning the divine right of presbytery, as what was done by the Assembly 1638. And the Assembly 1694, in their Letter to the king’s majesty, they express their sense of God’s great goodness; for which, say they, “We do bless his holy name in disposing and enabling your majesty to do so great things to this Church.” And, among other things for which they give thanks, they mention the Lord’s disposing his majesty “to give all assurances of his royal resolutions to maintain presbyterian government in the Church of Scotland.” Again, the Commission in 1706, which was approven by the subsequent Assembly, plainly asserted the divine right of presbytery, in their first address to the parliament, where, speaking of our Confession of Faith and presbyterian government, etc., they say, “Which we are persuaded are agreeable to the Word of God, and founded thereon.” And further, her zeal for presbyterian government may be clearly seen in the representations and addresses of the Commission of Assembly 1711, which were unanimously approven by the Assembly 1712, and ordered to be put in Assembly’s register; and also by the Seasonable Warning of the Commission 1713, of the date August 19th that year, in which they assert, “The constitution of this Church is founded upon, and agreeable to, the Word of God.” And as that Seasonable Warning was voted unanimously, so for this they had the thanks of the subsequent General Assembly; and what is founded upon and agreeable to the Word of God, that is undoubtedly of divine right.
Further, the Church of Scotland declared the divine right of presbytery most expressly by her Commission 1698, their Seasonable Admonition, p. 4, published that year, in which they say:
“We do believe and own, that Jesus Christ is the only Head and King of his Church; and that he has instituted in his Church officers and ordinances, order and government, and not left it to the will of man, magistrate or Church to alter at their pleasure; and we believe this government is neither prelatical nor congregational, but presbyterian, which now, through the mercy of God, is established amongst us; and believe we have a better foundation for this our Church government, than the inclination of the people or laws of men, etc.”
And that Commission was approven by the next Assembly: But none can give any such express declaration anent the jus divinum of presbytery by our Assemblies from 1638 to 1650, for all the clamor of separatists.
4thly, Whereas ’tis said this Church has never asserted her “intrinsic power”. I answer:
As the State in 1689, Act 5th, June 7th, ratified the Confession of Faith, which, says Mr. Wodrow (vol. 1, p. 19), was a step of reformation the Church of Scotland had never attained unto since the Reformation, whereby “the Scriptural and pure doctrine of this Church is embodied with the civil liberties,” so the Church of Scotland has declared for it I know not how often, by enjoining all her ministers and elders to subscribe our Confession of Faith, whereby they have asserted the “intrinsic power” of the Church; in regard, ch. 31, art. 2, it is affirmed:
“If magistrates be open enemies to the Church, the ministers of Christ of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they with other fit persons, upon delegation from their Churches, may meet together in such Assemblies.”
If this be not a sufficient asserting hereof, then the Westminster Assembly has been defective. Further, the General Assembly 1707, in the Form of Process, which was approven by the Aseembly that year nemine contradicente, in the first chapter, article one, expressly asserts this “intrinsic power,” while they say:
“Our Lord Jesus Christ has instituted a government and governors ecclesiastical in his House, with power to meet for the order and government thereof; and to that purpose the apostles did immediately receive the keys from the hands of their Lord and Master Jesus Christ, and did use and exercise the same upon all occasions: And Christ has from time to time furnished some in his Church with gifts for government, and with commission to exercise it when called thereunto, and has promised his presence to be with them to the end of the world.”
And further, before that time, viz. 1698, the Church of Scotland asserted the intrinsic power in the most express and positive terms imaginable in her Seasonable Admonition, p. 19, which she printed and published to the world that year.
5thly, As to the complaint “that in no time since the Revolution has the Church of Scotland explicitly approven of the covenanted reformation attained from the year 1638 to 1649, inclusive.”
This is such a general that I know not what is meant thereby, but, as the General Assembly, by their act for a solemn fast, 1690, approved of our Reformation from Popery, so I doubt not by that act they also approved of what real reformation there was from 1638 to 1649: For, after saying:
“Our gracious God showed early kindness to this land, in sending the Gospel among us, and afterwards in our Reformation from Popish superstition and idolatry; and it had the honor beyond many nations, of being, after our first Reformation, solemnly devoted unto God, both prince and people,”
they say (and no doubt they are speaking of the reformation attained unto from 1638 to 1649):
“Through the mercy of God, this Church had attained to great purity of doctrine, worship and government; but this was not accompanied with suitable personal reformation, etc.”
And there was as much ground to condemn the Assembly 1638, and subsequent Assemblies in that period, for not approving explicitly all the steps of reformation attained unto from 1560 to 1596, as there is to condemn Assemblies for this omission. But further, if, by the “covenanted reformation,” they mean the taking and imposing the covenants “upon all the members of this Kirk and kingdom” under severe penalties, and their being so zealous for them, as to debar all from the Lord’s Table that should refuse them; then I think, it has been commendable in this Revolution Church that she has not approven of that conduct.
6thly, As to her not reviving and corroborating the registers, acts and constitutions of former faithful General Assemblies, especially from 1638 to 1649. And I know not how often Plain Reasons cites and extols the Acts of Assemblies in that period, I suppose between thirty and forty times; and particularly p. 200, where he affirms, that, though there were corruptions in the Church between 1638 and 1649, occasioned by the speat[?] of Papists and prelatists, yet the Church lived so near the Lord in those pleasant and covenanting days, “That her officers and members did never sing a requiem unto themselves, until they got all those corruptions purged out.”
But, if he thinks so, then I earnestly desire him to show how the act of Assembly 1649, which gives the decisive vote in the election of pastors to the elders only, is reconcilable with what he says, p. 132, where he affirms:
“The legal vote in calling pastors is purchased with the precious blood of Christ to all the remainder of the parish as well as to elders, etc.”
And, seeing he affirms the Commission of a General Assembly is without divine warrant, and [is] “no court of Christ,” he may be asked how he thinks all corruptions were purged out when that Assembly 1649 appointed a Commission, giving them power to censure and depose ministers, etc. And the Brethren, in their Testimonies, speak much to the same purpose with the author of Plain Reasons in extolling that period, as in p. 19 of their Act and Testimony, where they affirm that from 1640 or 1641 till the year 1650, “the building of the house of God went on prosperously and successfully.” And p. 25 they say, “The judicatories of the Church then were carrying on the work of reformation with a beautiful and pleasant harmony.” And p. 32 of their first Testimony, speaking of the close of that period, they say, “The Lord having performed his work in Zion, he did reign among his ancients gloriously till the public resolutions.” But, from first to last, I think in all their Testimony they never give testimony against, nor so much as mention any one particular in which the Church failed or was faulty in that period.
But passing that, I think this exception against the conduct of the Church of Scotland is much of the same nature with the former, and tis scarcely worth the noticing; for ’tis pretty evident from what has been said already, it had been the sin of the Church of Scotland to have revived all these acts, declaring them obligatory, though none of them are prescribed for their antiquity; and sometimes the Assembly has revived one of these acts, and sometimes another, as the Assembly 1736 revived the act 1638 anent planting vacant congregations: And of what advantage could it be, to revive such acts as that of Assembly 1645, in which ’tis enjoined, “That those who are taught in Aristotle be found well instructed in his text”? Our Brethren declare they receive, acknowledge and approve of all the acts of Assembly from 1638 to 1650, in as far as they were passed for advancing and carrying on a covenanted reformation, etc. And so might they acknowledge all the acts of the Council of Trent, all the acts under prelacy, all that is in the Test, yea, or in the Al-Koran, in as far as they are right, there being some good things in them all: And is it not a commendable term of Christian communion, that people adhere with implicit faith to what they know not? And who can tell what acts or what part of such acts they mean or intend?
7thly, As to her not asserting expressly the obligation of our covenants upon the present and succeeding generations.
‘Tis a mistake to say the Church of Scotland has never declared this: For again and again our General Assemblies since the Revolution have particularized the breach of our covenants among the causes of fasting; which was a declaring to the world they looked upon them as obligatory. And, to name no more here, the Assembly 1701, Act 9th, is very express to this purpose, where they say:
“Our sins are more aggravated that they are against so many solemn repeated vows and engagements unto, and covenants with our God, which have been openly violated and broken by persons of all ranks, and treated with public contempt, indignities and affronts; the particulars are too many to be here insert, etc.”
And the Commission 1698 in their Seasonable Admonition says: “We own it is the mercy of our Lord that we are a land in covenant with God, and we lament for the breaches thereof, etc.” This was a plain owning the obligation thereof.
8thly, Whereas ’tis complained our Assemblies have never by any express act condemned the sinful oaths imposed under prelacy from 1660 to the Revolution, I answer:
Though she has not made any particular act to this purpose, yet all these sinful oaths were condemned by our first General Assembly in 1690, where, in their causes of fasting, they instance:
“The imposing and taking ungodly, unlawful oaths and bonds, whereby the consciences of many have been polluted and feared, and many ruined and oppressed for refusing and not taking them.”
Indeed ’tis to be wished the Assembly had been more particular in mentioning some of those sinful oaths, as that self-contradictory oath, the Test, etc. But yet, as to the sinful oaths in the late times, the Church of Scotland was far more full, free and faithful at the Revolution in confessing them than was the Church in 1642; for, in their causes of fasting, they have not one word of the sinful oaths which had been imposed in the preceding period, and some of them were very heinous, as has been noticed already.
9thly, As to her not making confession of the particular steps of defection the Church and State were guilty of in late times, before the Revolution, as was the practice of former reforming times, I answer:
Some of these things which are reckoned steps of defection were debatable points and much debated among the truly godly, learned and judicious, and therefore they thought it duty to pass them over in silence; but, for other defections in which they were clear, they have not been so silent as is alleged: For in their act of Assembly 1690 for a national fast, they expressly confess:
“The late, great and general defection of this Church and kingdom;” and say, “It is also matter of lamentation that uder this great defection there has been too general a fainting, not only amongst professors of the Gospel, but also among ministers, yea, even amongst such who in the main thing did endeavor to maintain their integrity, in not giving seasonable and necessary testimony against the defections and evils of the time, and keeping a due distance from them.”
And our General Assemblies have seriously recommended it to all ministers to be very explicit and particular in the acknowledgement of national sins; as did the Assembly 1699 and the Assembly 1700 in their causes of fasting that year, they mention the fearful backslidings and persecutions of the late times, which, say they, have not yet been sufficiently mourned over. But, whatever defect has been in this matter, I’m sure they have been ten times more express and particular than was the Assembly 1642 in their causes of fasting at that time, which was their first national fast after that begun reformation [in 1638]; for at that time they make not the least mention or particular acknowledgment of any one of the many heinous backslidings of the former period.
And the author or authors of Plain Reasons, p. 116, complaining of this Church in 1690, for not being so full in the enumeration of the sins of former times as they ought, says, “If this was the way to have the land brought to a humble sense of their sins, I have done with it.” And our Brethren in their Act and Testimony, p. 51, complain of this Church at the Revolution as being very unlike to the Church of Scotland in former reforming times, in that she did not condemn the former steps of defection.
But at the Revolution this Church was far more particular than was the reforming Church in 1642: For, as the Church at that time appointed no fasts for the former sins of the land, neither in their first Assembly 1638, nor in 1639, nor in 1640, nor in 1641; so, when they appointed a national fast in 1642, are they particular in enumerating the sins of former times? Far from this, not one word of covenant-breaking in former times, not a word of the king’s supremacy, which had been established in 1606 by Act of parliament in the plainest terms; Nor have they ever a word of that sinful oath which had been enjoined by the parliament, in which people were to swear:
“That they acknowledged the king to be the only supreme governor in this kingdom, over all persons and in all causes… and that at their utmost power they should defend, assist and maintain his majesty’s jurisdiction foresaid against all deadly, and never to decline his majesty’s power and jurisdiction by this their oath upon the holy evangel.”
Never a word of the evil of prelacy’s being brought in and presbytery overturned; never a word of the cruel persecution, imprisonment and banishment of Christ’s faithful servants in former times; never a word of the sin of bringing in the Service-Book, or Book of Canons [1637]; never a word of the sinful oaths that had been taken by many ministers at their entrance to the ministry under prelacy; never a word of the oath ex officio, which Rutherford calls a “damnable oath,” and says, “The High Commission put it upon innocents to cause them accuse themselves against the laws of nature.” See Preface to Lex Rex. Not was there a word in the causes of that solemn fast of the heinous sins of our Scots nobility, who were at court in 1639, their abjuring the National Covenant and Assembly at Glasgow (Apologetical Relation, p. 53); nor of the innocent blood shed by the governor of the castle of Edinburgh at the king’s command that year (Ibid., p. 56); nor in the causes of that fast was there a word of the Heaven-daring impiety, the sins of the throne in the heinous profanation of the Lord’s Day, which his majesty’s father and himself had been guilty of, by their proclamations, commonly called the Book of Sports; the one in the year 1618, and the other in 1634. And, should you ask, What then were the sins specified in the causes of that fast? I answer:
“Gross ignorance, and all sort of wickedness among the greater part, security, mere formality, unfruitfulness among the best and unthankfulness in all.”
And there is not one word more of any sin in all the causes of that solemn fast.
The Brethren in their Act and Testimony, p. 8, when complaining of the Commissions 1734 and 1735, because when appointing fasts they were not more particular in enumerating the sins of the land, say, “This was a lamentable evidence that a sincere and thorough reformation was neither aimed at nor intended.” And, p. 112, speaking of those fasts, say:
“When the sins of the present times are not particularly mourned over, it cannot be expected that there will be any faithful enquiry into, or acknowledgement of, the defections and backslidings of former priods.”
But, if there was any ground to say so as to our fasts in 1734 and 1735, or at the Revolution, or any time since, then there was far more ground to say so of the Assembly 1642; for these Commissions were far more full and faithful in their enumeration of the sins, both of former and present times, than was that Assembly: And this is evident to a demonstration by comparing the Assembly’s causes of fasting in 1642 with the causes drawn up by our Commissions in these last years. And yet readily our Brethren would call them unjust and uncharitable, who would say the conduct of the Assembly 1642, with respect to their solemn fast, was a lamentable evidence that a thorough reformation was not aimed at, nor intended at that time.
10thly, Whereas ’tis complained of the ministers of this Church, that they have not been faithful, as in former days, in applying their doctrine to, and testifying against, the sins of the times; and separatists cite the act of Assembly 1648, session 26, for proof hereof
Now, however groundless some of the former complaints are, yet I fear there may be too much ground for this; but then it cannot be laid to the door of the Church of Scotland: For again and again she has enjoined that all her ministers should be faithful and free in testifying against the sins of the land and place they live in; as did the Assembly 1699, which recommended it:
“to all the ministers of this Church, to be serious in holding forth to their people the heinous sins of the land, both of the former and present times.”
So did the Assembly 1701, and so of other Assemblies. And as to the act of Assembly 1648, though public sins and defections are to be testified against in sermons, yet, as I humbly think the main current and scope of application in sermons should be how to bring lost sinners to Christ the Savior by unfeigned faith, and to conformity to his image by real sanctification and holiness, so to have the main current of applications still running upon the public, as that act seems to require, might be very unlike such worthy men as Mr. Livingstone, who, in a letter to his parishoners of Ancrum says:
“Now as concerning the condition of the Church and work of God in that land, ye remember that although I shunned not, according to my poor measure, and as occasion offered, and necessity required, to show my mind of public matters, dangers and duties of the time, yet I used not very much to insist upon such things, as not being much inclined or able for disputing: And, having found by frequent experience, that so soon as any were gained to close indeed with Christ, and lay religion to heart in earnest, these generally, out of a native principle, became presently sound in the controversies of the times.”
Further, as here sundry may be guilty in many other respects, so particularly I’m apt to think at this day it may be the fault of the generality, even where there is danger of persons being led aside to separation, that yet ministers testify not against the danger and evil of this sin. Though they own division and separation are threatening, and a just cause of fasting, yet, for fear of displeasing, they never open a mouth to show people the heinous evil thereof, though tis one of the sad defections of our day. And ’tis to be regreted sundry cannot hear a word upon that subject. I could name a minister who, to impress his audience with the evil of this sin, to which some really religious people may be inclined through misinformation, only said:
“However lightly some may think of separation from a true Church of Christ, yet still this has been reckoned a heinous evil in the eyes of the Lord’s servants.”
Citing the words of some he thought would be less exceptionable, viz. The words of the reverend Mr. M’Ward, who says:
“A separation, when not upon clear and just ground, is a greater sin before God, and more wounding to the heart of Christ, than either murder or adultery, etc. And whoever shall be found to plead for this, I dare affirm he blows that fire with his breath, which Christ would quench with his blood.”
And also citing the words of Mr. Alexander Shields, who says:
“It is indeed ministers’ duty to show people how great a sin schism is, and that the wrath of God is not far off from them who make and cherish sinful separation.”
Though he had no eye to any ministers or any particular persons in the world in citing these words, and without speaking one word whether or not he was one in sentiments with those authors upon that head; yet for this he has been heavily complained of by some. The reformed Church of France, as noticed already, seeing the evil and danger of this sin, enjoined her ministers:
“mightily to insist upon the evil hereof in their public sermons and private exhortations, even though they should meet with contempt, scorn and reproach in the discharge of this their duty.”
And if it be “indeed ministers’ duty to show people the evil of this sin,” then I humbly think such ministers as are apprehensive of people’s being in danger, for exoneration of their consciences, are obliged to discover the evil thereof, whether people be pleased or displeased.
11thly, Whereas ’tis complained:
“The Church of Scotland neither at, nor since the Revolution has supplicated the civil powers for having the Act Rescissory, and other acts condemning our covenants rescinded; and ancient laws, approving and enjoining them to be taken by all, restored, though under the ashes of that Act Rescissory our covenants were left buried.”
Answer:
There were two Acts Rescissory, and which of them they mean I cannot tell. The first is the ninth act of Charles II’s first parliament, annulling what was done by the parliament 1649, and Committees of Estates, which were kept thereafter. The second was the fifteenth act of that same parliament, whereby the parliaments held in the year 1640, 1641, 1644, 1645, 1646, 1647 and 1648, and all acts and deeds done in them, were declared void and null.
However neither of these acts rescissory make any express mention of our covenants: And though the deeds done by these parliaments were declared void and null, yet it may be questioned if by these the covenants themsleves were annulled; for these acts might be interpreted, of their acts and deeds relating to the imposing of them.
And as for other acts, as the fifth act of the second session of king Charles II’s first parliament, entitled, Act concerning the Declaration to be Signed by all Persons in Public Trust, by which they were to swear:
“That the covenants are unlawful oaths, and that there lies no obligation upon any of the subjects from the said oaths.”
And also for the third act of the next session of that parliament, entitled, Additional Act concerning the Declaration, etc. which was an act of the same nature with the former in respect of our covenants National and Solemn League; which additional act enjoined, “all magistrates, clerks and members of council in burghs should sign that declaration.” These acts are both expressly rescinded by the twenty-seventh act of King William and Queen Mary’s first parliament. And also the fifth act of James VII’s first parliament, by which it was declared to be treason:
“to give or take the National Covenant as explained in 1638, or the Solemn League, or to write in defense of them, or own them as lawful or obligatory upon themselves or others.”
This act was also rescinded by the twenty-eighth act of that second session of the first parliament of King William and Queen Mary: And many such bad acts made in former times were rescinded by that parliament; as the Act of Supremacy, the Act for Asserting the Royal Prerogative, the Test Act, and the like, which now I shall not insist upon.
And further, as for the Act or Acts Rescissory made in the reign of Charles II, though I’m so far from approving them, yet there are acts in some of these parliaments which those Acts Rescissory rescinded, that many reckon bad acts; as that in particular by which all are obliged to take the Covenant under all civil pains. And from the consideration of the badness of some of those acts, perhaps, the Church of Scotland has not applied for the rescinding the Acts Rescissory; and that our parliament should declare all the acts of those parliaments obligatory, though they are far from approving the Acts Rescissory in general: And another reason for not applying might be they saw not any great probability of getting their petition granted, though it would certainly be very acceptable to them to see every act which may be any way against the covenants themselves rescinded.
12thly, ‘Tis complained the Church of Scotland is defective at this day, in not taking due care that none be licensed to preach the gospel but such as are of orthodox principles, real piety, and a gospel-adorning conversation [conduct], serious and truly religious persons being discouraged, while the less tender are encouraged.
Answer: I own there seems to be too much ground for complaint of many on this account; yet ’tis not so with all: And whatever ground there may be for complaint in this case, yet ’tis not the fault of the Church of Scotland, as if she was defective in not making good acts and regulations anent the licensing of men to preach the gospel; for I suppose neither this, nor any other Church, ever had better and stricter rules as to this, than she has at this day:
And for their soundness in principle and blameless conversation, all who are licensed to preach, they profess to be orthodox. And as all presbyteries in their bounds are asked openly in every synod if they know anything against the candidates to be entered on trials, either in principle or practice, so in some places, after this is proposed, it must be half a year before answer is given by the synod, that all may have full time to enquire anent them. But as here seems to be origo mali[?], the spring of all our evils in the Church of Scotland, so I earnestly pray the Lord may prevent all occasion of complaint in time coming, and give us all to take heed lest we license or lay hands suddenly upon any, a corrupt ministry being the worst of plagues.
And lastly, ’tis complained, albeit of late many dangerous and destructive errors have been broached, and greedily drunk in by not a few, yet no faithful testimony has been emitted against them by the Church of Scotland. Answer:
1. As it cannot be denied many gross errors have been spread of late in this island, so an act assertory of the truths of God, in opposition to these particular errors, and a warning against them by the Church of Scotland, might be very seasonable at this day.
2. Yet, though a more particular condemning of the errors broached, and a particular asserting of the truths controvertedand denied, and also a more full warning against error may be needful, yet the Church of Scotland has not been altogether negligent in these, for the General Assembly 1717 did prohibit and discharge professor Simson, and all professors of divinity, ministers, preachers and all others in this Church, to vent any doctrines not agreeable to our Confession of Faith and Catechisms:
“Especially such as ascribe too much to corrupt nature; asserting that the undue exalting of reason and nature is always to the disparagement of revelation and efficacious free grace.”
And as the errors of his second libel were condemned by the Assembly suspending him, so in 1729, in their act against him they plainly, and in positive terms, assert “the proper supreme Deity of the Son of God,” which was the great thing denied. And, as was hinted before, not only the synod of Lothian, but also the Commission of the General Assembly in 1735, testified against and condemned that little book, entitled, The Assembly’s Shorter Catechism Revised, which favored the Deistical, Arian, Socinian and Arminian schemes; and that Commission was approved by the subsequent Assembly. And it cannot be denied but the Act of Assembly 1736, anent Preaching, is an act assertory of most of the great truths which had been controverted.
3. Though this Church should think an act assertory further needless, this omission can be no sufficient ground of separation, seeing ’tis known the Church of Scotland adheres to her standards, engaging her members to them. Indeed if she should require us, as a term of communion, to profess our belief of any error, that would be ground of separation: For I doubt not the truth of what the learned Chillingworth says in his Vindication of the Church of England from the Charge of Schism, upon the account of her separation from the Church of Rome, pp. 281-82, where he puts the question, “May a Church be left for sin and errors?” To which he answers:
“No, if she don’t impose and enjoin them: But if she do as the Roman does, then we must forsake men rather than God; leave the Church’s communion, rather than commit sin and profess known errors to be divine truths. To say the Lord has said so, when He has not said so, is a great sin, be the matter never so small.”
However, an act assertory might be needful for the further vindication of truth, and stopping the mouths of gainsayers.
14th Objection: Many of the truly godly have separated, or incline to separation; and therefore it must be duty. Can we but think such eminent persons know the mind of God better than others? This is a very frivolous objection, yet I answer:
1. Though it may be true, yea, I doubt not there are sundry really religious who have separated, and others are inclined to separate from the Church of Scotland at this day, yet I hope it will be owned there are others, and I hope a far larger number of really religious, who are of a different mind from them.
2. And ’tis a weak argument to say a number of truly godly are for a cause, therefore it must be right. At a time Joab may look liker to know the mind of God than David, as in the case of numbering the people, 1 Chron. 21:3-6, where ’tis said of Joab, “The king’s word was abominable to him.” All men being liars, ’tis “to the Law and to the Testimony” their walk must be brought and tried thereby.
3. People may be eminent for piety, and have a great deal of experimental knowledge as to practical godliness, and yet be very incompetent judges of sundry controverted points: And the affair of separation from a Church of Christ, is not such an easy business to understand as many fancy. Paul must be followed no further than he follows Christ. Many times serious people have followed others when not able to give a reason of their hope. It is a good saying of the reverend Mr. Halyburton, namely:
“That in consulting with others for light, regard would be had to the different talents of men. In matters of government, most regard should be had to these whom the Lord has fitted that way.”
And surely the judgment of Durham, and other judicious divines which have been mentioned in this Essay, are far more to be regarded than the authority of many who cannot be supposed to be so seen into controversy, be their piety what it will.
Peter and Barnabas, eminent apostles, may sometimes, in direct opposition to their former practice, set up for greater strictness, so as to separate from the gentile converts, contrary to the laws of Christ and love, leading away many with them, Gal. 2. ‘Tis the Lamb of God, the adorable Forerunner whom we are only to “follow withersoever He goes.” As Zanchi said, “Si Luthero vel Calvino, tribuas quod non potuerant errare idola tibi fingis.” ‘Tis an idolizing of men to look on them as infallible.
15th Objection: There are many things in the conduct of ministers we cannot but testify against, and know not how to give testimony but by separating from them.
I frankly own there are many things among us which call for reformation; and O tht He with whom “the residue of the Spirit is,” would pour out of his Holy Spirit for that effect! But separation, as to me ’tis contrary to God’s Word, so it was never the practice of the saints in former days, where the essentials of a true Church were continued, and no sinful term of communion required: So this is what the Lord never required at the hands of his people. And wha the reverend Mr. M’Ward says in his above-cited Letter is of weight here, where he affirms:
“It is a delusion to think that it is the only way to testify against what I judge amiss in the minister, to cast at this ministry, and to withdraw from him. Whosoever adopts this principle and practices it accordingly, has not the mind of Christ; for there are other patent and obvious ways to witness against all the evil of our ways besides these: Nay, this way of witnessing is such as Christ will witness against it, as not the way.”
For people may lay such wrong steps before Church officers, and though they be not heard, this, in my opinion will be a testimony against them, as also an exoneration of themselves; and so they may let the Master rest. And both Durham and Boston speak to this same purpose, as has been shown on the third chapter.
16th Objection: Though separation from a Church is not a light thing, yet, say some, we have impressions the Lord is calling us at this day to separate from this Church. Now, this objection is of so little weight, that ’tis scarcely worth the noticing, yet I answer:
Impressions are not our Bible, and sometimes serious people have been deceived by them; therefore they ought to examine such impressions by the rule and touchstone of God’s infallible Word. Durham, speaking of the strength of a temptation to keep up division says (On Scandal, pt. 4, ch. 5, p. 292):
“Sometimes there may be a persuasion very satisfying to the party, when it is not from God; this was in Galatia, ch. 5, v. 8; it is like on both sides, even when they were biting and devouring one another.”
The above-mentioned author of The Church of Scotland’s Grievances speaks well to this purpose, saying:
“It is the Scriptures of truth, and not our impressions, which are to be the standard of duty; ‘To the Law and to the Testimony, etc.’ And we are to try the spirits, lest Satan” (as certainly he is) be the author of these impressions; who not rarely transforms himself into an angel of light, by which means he presents duty to the soul attired with the ugly dress of sin and impiety, while, at the same he busks up sin with all the baits and enticing allurements of an apparent zeal for God, and a seeming regard to his glory.”
And, as the reverend Mr. Boston says:
“In your waiting for light, whatever the sovereign Lord may do, do not you look for impressions, far less for voices nor extraordinary revelations, any manner of way to discover your duty in particular cases, 2 Pet. 1:18-19.”
17th Objection: Many ministers, instead of testifying against the defections of this apostate Church themselves, and joining the testimony, condemn such as of late [that] by their Act, Declaration and Testimony have given honest testimony against them; and therefore such, at least, ought to be separated from. Answer:
1. I own ’tis duty for ministers to give a faithful and honest testimony against defections; but then they ought to be sure they are really defections they testify against, and to beware lest they charge sin upon a Church of which she is not guilty.
2. though some should not see it duty to join in such or such testimonies, that is not ground of separation: For, as Mr. Shields, in a letter from Holland to a friend anent the Queensferry Paper, says (Wodrow’s History, vol. 2, p. 136):
“I cannot but have exceptions against some parts of the paper,” (the Queensferry Covenant) “particularly the prescribing a form of [civil] government stinted to the [Mosaic] Judicial Law. I do not love to be censorious, especially where the scope is to engage to faithfulness and zeal; but I cannot assent to the end of the sixth paragraph, which to me seems too near separation, declaring that any unsuitable deportment of ministers, or their not joining with their brethren in the public testimony, is a sufficient ground of withdrawing from them: This” (add he) “is not the principle nor practice of the Church of Scotland.”
And in that letter he affirms, The Chuch of Scotland never founded separation on personal misdemeanors or faintings upon a special occurrence.
3. As there are cases in which public testimonies are to be given; so sometimes the Lord may approve of his servants, when they only guard against complying with the defections of the day in which they live: Hence Mr. Hog, in his formerly cited letter to a friend, when giving some notes of a sermon he preached in 1733, says:
“Sundry of the better sort among us are prone to think that testimonies are of no value without that they be carried to great heights. Hence I pointed them to a notable instance we have have upon record concerning Joseph of Arimathea, to whom the Spirit of God has given a great character, Lk. 23:50-51. He was a good man and just, he consented not to the horrid deed of the murderers of our Lord. Some of note in our day would have said, That was not enough, he ought to have made a more resolute appearance; but we read not that the Lord said so. In several cases the current may be so very strong, that there’s access for no more than through grace to guard against the being carried down with it; ‘Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil,” Ex. 23:2.”
4. As public testimonies are to be faithful and free, so likewise they ought to be full, and given against the sins of one period of the Church as well as against another period thereof: And I cannot see how it has consisted with the Brethren’s faithfulness in their testimonies that they have only noticed the faults, failings and transgressions of the Church of Scotland since 1650, and never mention one of the failings of the Church of Scotland from 1638 to that year; her good acts in that reforming time could not make atonement for the bad acts of that period. And, that none may think this a calumny to speak of her bad acts here, I’ll instance some of these which ought to have been testified against: And:
1. Why have they not testified against the Act of Assembly 1638, which approves of the seeking presentations upon supposition of the presbytery’s advice be had?
2. Their act restricting ministerial freedom (Old Acts, p. 51), by charging all under pain of censure to speak or write against that Assembly, or any act of that Assembly.
3. The Act of Assembly 1639 (p. 87), in which, having approven of the National Covenant in all the heads and clauses thereof, and appointed it to be subscribed by all persons suspected of Papistry or any other error, etc. and by all the members of this Kirk and Kingdom, they supplicate his Majesty’s High Commissioner, and the honorable Estates of Parliament, to ratify and enjoin the same under all civil pains, which beyond peradventure occasioned much perjury and false-swearing in this land.
4. The Act of Assembly 1640 (p. 94), which ordained that no expectant should have a liberty to reside within a burgh, university or college, which did not subscribe the Covenant; which was a civil penalty they had no power to inflict.
5. Their Act 1642 (p. 114), robbing the people of all right to elect their elders and deacons.
6. Their act (p. 116) whereby they obliged all presbyteries to give a list of six persons to the patron, who were to be men willing to accept of his presentation, that he might take his choice of them.
7. The act of the same Assembly (pp. 120, 244). And again the Act of Assembly 1644, enjoining presbyteries to proceed against non-communicants, whether Papists or others, according to the Act of Parliament made thereanent; which tended to the profanation of that ordinance.
8. That Act of Assembly 1647, which discharges fellowship-meetings.
9. The Act of that Assembly, which makes the subscribing the Leage and Covenant a term of Christian communion, so that all persons without exception were obliged to subscribe it before their first receiving the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.
10. That Act of Assembly 1648 which obliges all young students at their first entry to the college to take the Covenant, which many young boys were surely unfit for.
11. And the Church of Scotland in that former period appointed no fasts in 1638, 1639, 1640, 1641; and when they appointed one in 1642, instead of searching out and mentioning the sins of former times, in which they supremacy and as many gross abominations had been committed as in any period since, yet in their cause of fasting at that time they mention not so much as one of the sins of former times, and all the sins of their own times which they speak of are contained in less than three lines.
12. And without insisting further on particulars of this kind, there is the act or Directory of Assembly 1649, which robs the people of their right to elect their pastors so far, that they had not the choice of any of the persons to be upon the leit [list] for ministers, in regard by that act the elders only had both the nomination and election: Though the people had a negative upon them, yet they might never have the person they most inclined to have, if but four of seven, give of nine, or six of eleven elders should be against the whole parish.
And so of other acts and decisions in that period which cannot be justified, sundry of which have been mentioned in this performance. And here the words of Rutherford’s Dying Testimony, cited p. 96, may be considered, and let the world see whether their testimony be full or not; and had they given a full testimony, it would have taken away the suspicion I find sundry have, that their design in this Testimony is in a great part to please separatists, and blackedn the present Church of Scotland, occasioning separation from her, as being a vile apostate whorish Church, from what the Church of Scotland was from 1638 to 1649. And surely, if we be called to search out and mourn over all the sins, faults and failings of the Church of Scotland since 1650, then, as hinted formerly, no reason can be given why we search not out, mourn over, and testify against the open sins of the Church of Scotland for twelve years further back.
The Brethren, in their 2nd Testimony, as was noticed already say:
“They receive, acknowledge and approve of all the acts of Assemblies from 1638 to 1650, and since that time, in as far as they were passed for advancing and carrying on a covenanted reformation, agreeable to the Word of God, and the received principles and constitutions of this Church.”
But I cannot think they can approve of all the above-mentioned and sundry other such acts in those times. And it might be the fault even of the Protesters, that in their Propositions for Peace and Agreement with the Resolutioners offered to them, July 21, 1652, that they required of them:
“They give evidence and assurance that they approve of, and will adhere to, all the acts of the uncontroverted Assemblies of this Church concerning the word of reformation, in the literal and genuine sense and meaning thereof.”
Now if it be truth, which is positively asserted by the Brethren in the 10th page of their Reasons of not Acceding to the Judicatories of this Church, when copmlaining, that the Act of Assembly 1733, anent Ministerial Freedom, is not rescinded, namely:
“That nothing less than an explicit formal repeal of an iniquitous statute is necessary for the reparation of the dishonor done to the great Head of the Church by enacting of it.”
And if, as they say in their 2nd Testimony, p. 110:
“Tis not any apology for a sinful act or decision whereby a Church is involved in the guilt of transgressing the ordinances and institutions of the Lord, that there is a connivance at the contrary practice.”
Then the Brethren should consider whether they have been faithful in not complaining of such bad acts between 1638 and 1650, nor lamented that they have not been rescinded. And it may not be improper for them explicitly, and by a formal repeal of such acts, to endeavor the reparation of the dishonor done to the great Head of the Church, though, for so doing, the followers of Mr. M’Millan, and other separatists, should be never so much displeased; the honor of Christ, the Head, is to be consulted before the favor of the whole creation. If, as I am told, the Brethren’s Apology for not going further back in their Testimony more than the public Resolutioners in 1650, is this, that the sins of the nation preceding that time were particularly acknowledged and testified against by the Church in the Public Acknowledgement of Sins and Engagement to Duties, drawn up by the Commission 1648, then this is no excuse at all; for in all that public Acknowledgement of Sins there is no particular mention of the sins preceding 1638, nor of the many faults the Church was guilty of by the bad acts made from that time to the drawing up of this Acknowledgement, nor of the sin of the Church of Scotland, when the Estates of the Kingdom desired the General Assembly 1649 to determine who should be the callers of the Gospel ministers, that they gave the election only to the elders, leaving nothing but consent to the people, which I doubt not the Brethren do condemn.
Again, our Brethren are defective in their Testimony, in regard they never give the least Testimony against division or separation, which has always been reckoned among the heaviest of plagues which can befall the Church of Christ; never one word of testimony against, complaint of, or lamentation over them, who, contrary to the covenants, have lived in a divided and separated State from the Church of Scotland since the Revolution, which Mr. Webster calls “the most scandalous schism that ever perhaps was known;” never a word of these separatists’ disowning the government, whether civil or ecclesiastical. And in this our Brethren are very unlike these worthy protesting brethren in the synod of Fife and Perth, who in their Testimony of the date October 1658, do testify, as against “Atheism, Antiscripturism, Arianism, Skepticism, Socinianism, Popery, Pelagianism, Arminianism, Antinomianism, Libertinism, Anabaptism, Erastianism, Prelacy, Independency;” so also also, once and again, they testify against “Separatism,” pp. [??], 37. And, when testifying against the Toleration in these times, they lament and regrete, p. 36:
“That thereby, instead of reformation, they shall have deformation; instead of the power of godliness, they shall have vain janglings; instead of love, bitter heart-burnings and jealousies; instead of union, schism and division; instead of peace, contention and strife; instead of order and government, anarchy and confusion.”
And surely, the unwarrantable separation of sundry since the Revolution, and in our day, is one of the lamentable defections which ought to be testified against. And if, as I am pretty sure, this was once in the Testimony, but dashed out for fear of offending those separatists, then the Brethren are the more inexcusable, and guilty of acting from what they call “political considerations” in the Assemblies 1734 and 1735, 2 Test. pp. 7-8.
Further, in the esteem of separatists, they must be very defective and unfaithful, in regard they give no testimony against what these call “the sinful unlimited Oath of Allegiance, which was appointed to be taken, say they, instead of all former oaths. (Plain Reasons, p. 77) Again, separatists may think them defective, alleging nothing but the fear of man has kept them from testifying against the non-observance of that act of parliament 1649, whereby the sovereign was obliged, before he could be admitted to the exercise of his royal power, to assure and declare by his solemn oath under his hand and seal his allowance of the National Covenant, and of the Solemn League and Covenant, etc. seeing they transcribe eighteen or nineteen lines of this act in their Testimony, p. 22, giving it the epithet of “laudable,” but instead of being laudable, it seems to be a very bad act, as may be shown afterwards.
5thly, Testimonies are to be plain; so I think our Brethren have been faulty here, seeing it cannot be thought but ’tis partly the design of their Testimony to make ministers and people separate from this National Church, and join them. Why, then, have they not testified against joining with her? and why have they not been so free in their Act, Declaration and Testimony as to tell in plain terms that this is the duty of ministers and people to make a secession with them? Should they not have been as plain, at least, as the reverend Mr. Erskine, in his Letter to the presbytery of Stirling, in which he says: “No doubt worldly interest gives a strong bias against this motion,” viz. the motion of faithful ministers’ coming out to them and leaving the established Church? Or might they not have been as plain as the reverend Mr. Mair, in his Declaration of Secession, in which he says, “The tabernacle is now removed without the camp”? Which is upon the matter to say this national Church is no Church of Christ, no Church that he can own; which seems to be as much as to say her members are in conscience obliged to separate from her and go out to the Brethren who are without the camp. And whereas there he says, “The warning is awful against refusing to come out to the help of the Lord against the mighty,” where surely he has an eye to what is said, Judges 5:23:
“Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of the Lord; curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof, because they came not to the help of the Lord, to the help of the Lord against the mighty.”
Whatever our brother may think, the words of the psalmist, Ps. 125:5, cited by Mr. Hog (in his Letter, of the date March 12, 1733) against Separatists, may be no less pertinent and awful:
“But as for such as turn aside after their crooked ways, the Lord shall lead them forth with the workers of iniquity, but peace shall be upon Israel;”
though I’m far from making application of them to our Brethren. And further, why have they not been as plain for separation in the Testimony as now they are said to be in their sermons? And why have they not told what are the many valuable pieces of reformation this Church and land had once attained, which they affirm, p. 60, “were upon the matter given up at the Revolution”? Here implicit faith must take place; for may part, I cannot guess at them. And why have they not told what are the acts for reformation to which they adhere, and so of many other things of the like nature?
6thly, things disputed among the truly godly, learned and tender, have not been thought so proper matter for a public testimony; and it cannot be refused the Public Resolutions, Indulgence and Toleration were such; and of this nature also was the Abjuration, even in its first draught. And what Colforgie says of this oath, in his grievances of the Church of Scotland Considered, is applicable to all these, when he expresses himself thus:
“Every person who knows what warm reasonings have been advanced pro and con, must own it to be a disputable point… And” adds he, “we find that the primitive Church looked upon the forcing a belief in a point of this nature as cruelty and tyranny, and that the imposers of such an assent were esteemed violators of the Church’s concord.”
7thly, Such as emit public testimonies against a Church, ought to be very sure they say nothing but truth: But our Brethren in their Testimonies have published sundry things which are not matter of fact; as particularly, Second Testimony, p. 51, where, complaining of the Church of Scotland at the Revolution for some omissions, and accusing her as being most unlike to former reforming times; to blacken her, they say:
“It was the laubable practice in reforming times to condemn all steps of defection, and duly to censure such as were guilty of public backslidings. Accordingly, by the Assembly that met anno 1638, all the prelates, being ringleaders in the apostasy, were deposed, and some of them excommunicated: Also, in the said reforming period, they returned to the Lord by a particular acknowledgment and confession of the sins of the ministry and of the whole land. But the General Assembly that met in the year 1690 made no particular acknowledgement of the many heinous backslidings of the former period: But on the contrary when many lamentable steps of defection and apostasy were complained of in a Large Paper offered to the foresaid Assembly 1690 by Mr. Alexander Shields, etc.”
Now, in those few lines five or six things are asserted which are not matter of fact, as:
1. Though ’tis certain all steps of defection ought to be condemned, yet ’tis not fact to say, “In reforming times it has been the laudable practice to condemn all steps of defection; for in 1638, which is granted to be a special reforming time, they do not condemn the supremacy, nor make they any particular confession of many other steps of defection whereof the Church had been guilty in the immediately preceding period, as has been shown already.
2. ‘Tis a mistake to say, “They censured such as were guilty of public backsliding;” for there was no censure inflicted upon any of the clergy for their former complying with prelacy, and taking the oaths, etc. except only [the censuring of] the bishops.
3. ‘Tis a mistake to say, as here and also p. 18, “All the bishops were deposed;” for bishops Lindsay and Abernethy were only suspended from the ministry.
4. ‘Tis a mistake to say, “In that period they returned to the Lord by a particular acknowledgment and confession of the sins of the ministry and of the whole land;” For, as in that period they had no public fast, with particular confession of sins, till 1642; so, even at that time, they were nothing so particular in confessing the sins of the ministry or people as was the Assembly 1690: and, in 1646, when the sins of ministers are mentioned, there is no particular mention of their complying with prelacy, taking of sinful oaths, etc. in former times; and so of many other sins where sundry had been guilty.
And ’tis a 5th mistake to say, “The General Assembly 1690 made no particular acknowledgment of the many heinous backslidings of the former period,” asserting to the same purpose p. 9, for the contrary is evident to a demonstration from looking into their Act for a National Fast, and by considering what is said on the 9th particular in the foregoing 13th Objection. Had the Brethren said that Assembly did not make a full particular acknowledgment of those backslidings, that could not have been quarreled; but to say, “They made no particular acknowledgment of the many heinous backslidings in the former period,” is injurious to the memory of our worthy ancestors who lived at the happy Revolution: For the sins particularized in that Act for a Fast are surely some of the many, yea, the most of the many sins of the former period; and, if I mistake not, never was any at more particular since the Reformation.
6. Again, ’tis a mistake in them to say, as in the same place, that:
“when Mr. Shields and other two ministers offered to that Assembly a Large Paper, complaining of the many lamentable steps of defection and apostasy, the assembly was so far from attempting the redress of the grievances complained of, that they called them unseasonable and impracticable proposals, uncharitable and injurious reflections, tending rather to kindle contentions than to compose divisions;”
For the Assembly, speaking of that paper, only says:
“It contains several peremptory and gross mistakes, unseasonable and impracticable proposals, etc.”
They do not call the several steps of defection mentioned in that paper uncharitable and injurious reflections, etc. No; for sundry things in it are expressly mentioned by that Assembly as causes of fasting: And, in speaking of that paper of complaints, they speak not of it in general, as the Brethren’s Testimony represents; for the Assembly’s Committee in their report anent it, own expressly that it has “several good things in it,” though they affirm it contains several unseasonable and impracticable proposals: They speak not of it indefinitely, as if it had contained nothing but such; for the Assembly might reckon several of the proposals in it unseasonable and impracticable, while yet they approved of other things contained therein.
18th Objection: The apostle expressly requires us to separate from an unclean or impure Church, 2 Cor. 6:17, “Come out from among them, and be ye separate, says the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing.”
This is the great argument in everyone’s mouth almost who plead for separation from the Church of Scotland at this day: But it was not separation from the Church of Corinth the apostle called the believing Corinthians unto, but separation from the idol-tables of the gentiles, at which some of the Church of Corinth, being invited by their gentile neighbors, did eat and feast, to the great offense of others. It is no just inference, because they were to separate from eating at the idols’ table, or from eating meat when told it had been offered to idols, therefore they were to separate from the Church of Corinth.
Rutherford, in answer to the objection, says:
“This separation in Corinth was in a Church from the idolatry in it; which separation we allow, but not a separation out of a Church, else the words would bear that Paul will have them to forsake the Church of Corinth for idolatrous tables in it and set up a new Church of their own, which the Separatists dare not say, and is contrary to other places, 1 Cor. 5:4; chs. 11 & 14, where he commands and allows their meetings and public Church-communion: Therefore this place proves not their point. What logic is this? Separate from idols, therefore separate from a Church where the true worship of God is professed and taught.”
And Mr. Shields, commenting on this Scripture, says:
“It is very much abused, if it be offered to any such thing as that we must come out from among the ministers, and be separated from them, for:
1. This separation here commanded is from infidels, unrighteousness, darkness, Belial, idols. The Corinthians did very ill in eating and sitting at the idols’ tables of the gentiles, which gave great offense to the weak, 1 Cor. 10:17, 20.
2. This was not a separation from the Church of Corinth, nor from the ministers thereof; though there were many corruptions entertained among them, yet they were to have communion in public ordinances, as is proved above: Only it is a separation from the idolatry in it. There may be a separation from the corruptions of a Church, very well consistent with abiding in the communion of that Church.”
And to the same purpose speak Calvin and Durham, and all sound commentators on the place. And indeed, if separation was enjoined from the Church of Corinth in this text, then the apostle would be directly contrary to himself in what he writes to the Corinthians in other places, as 1 Cor. 1:10. And this is evident likewise from what the apostle writes in the same Second Epistle, ch. 12:20 and 13:11-12 in the close of that epistle, where he says:
“Finally brethren, farewell! Be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you. Greet one another with a holy kiss.”
19th Objection: The apostle enjoins separation, 1 Cor. 5:11, saying:
“But now I have written unto you, not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one no not to eat.”
This Scripture, say some, requires us at least to separate in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper from such as are vicious and scandalous:
But I humbly think that Scripture is only meant of a civil eating, or of entertaining intimate familiarity with such as are scandalous in conversation, and not of a sacred religious eating at a communion-table. This appears from the context: The eating there forbidden with a brother, is allowed with a heathen.
I know some solid divines, as the reverend Mr. Gillespie, plead, that this is meant even of a religious eating at a communion-table with persons excommunicated for scandalous practices, as all scandalous persons ought to be from the Lord’s Table; and he cites Beza, Bulliner, and others, as being of this mind: Yet, says he:
“As they” (to wit, these divines) “conceive that text does not at all justify, but rather condemns private Christians’ separating from the Church because of a mixture of scandalous persons.”
The eating here forbidden is for the punishment of the guilty, not of the guiltless; but, if religious eating at the Lord’s Table was forbidden, the greatest punishment would fall upon the innocent. And what Durham speaks, near the close of his first lecture upon Revelation 18 is an answer to this, and also to the foregoing objection, where he says:
“It is one thing to withdraw from civil conversing with particular wicked men, and another thing to separate from God’s Church for its defects. There is therefore this observable in separating and withdrawing, that we are to keep less fellowship in civil things with a brother that is a Church-member and is gross, than with one that is without and not a member; as the apostle writes, 2[?***] Cor. 5:10. But we may and should on the other side keep Church fellowship with a true Church, though in many things faulty and corrupt, whereas we may not at all with an idolatrous company in their worship.
Hence in that same epistle to the Corinthians, going to and eating in idols’ temples or at their feasts was so much condemned; yet communicating with the Church of Corinth or living as a member of it (though corrupt both in doctrine and practice) was never found fault with as to worship: For it is clear that that of not eating with an offending brother looks only to civil fellowship, because it is such a fellowship that is condemned with them, as is allowed to heathens, which certainly is such. If our churches therefore be Christ’s churches, as sometimes the favorers of separation grant, there can be no separation from them without turning to a schism.”
And so, according to Durham, our Brethren are guilty of the sin of schism, which is so plainly condemned in Scripture, and sworn against in our Covenants. Mr. Shields affirms, though the Church of Corinth had many corruptions in their practice, yet no separation is enjoined from it.
20th Objection: The apostle, Rom. 16:17, commands us to “mark them that cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine you have learned; and avoid them:” And, seeing the ministers of the Church of Scotland have caused divisions by their untenderness, therefore they ought to be separated from. And our Brethren having owned their present situation in providence, considered abstractly from the Word, could not be their rule of duty, they adduce a twofold Scripture for proving the lawfulness of their secession: And one would think they should be very plain Scriptures, seeing so much is to be built upon them. Now this, Rom. 16:17, is the first of them; and, having adduced it for that purpose, and instanced sundry things which they affirm they have learned from their forefathers, in a consistency with the Word of God, which being counteracted or denied by the majority of this Church, they say, 1st Testimony, pp. 89, 91, “This we judge warrants us in our secession from ministerial communion with them, which is the only way we have now left us to avoid them.”
But there is one thing, and it is a main thing, they learned from our forefathers, who “counted not their life dear to them, so they might finish their course with joy, and the ministry they had received of the Lord Jesus,” to testify, or give faithful testimony to the grace of God, by their practice and writings: they still condemned separation from a true Church of Christ, though her faults and failings were greater than anything that can be proven against their mother Church at this time. They still taught that testimonies against the defections of the Church, while no sinful terms of communion were required, are to be given in a way of Church-communion, as has been noticed above.
And whereas the Brethren say, p. 92:
“Where a Church declines the pure ways of the Lord, it is the duty of them that would be found faithful, to “stand and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and to walk therein,”
citing Jer. 6:16. So, could they say we have learned from our forefathers that where such and such things are to be found in our mother Church, or in any true Church, we ought to separate from her; indeed that had been to the purpose: But this they could not.
Further, what Mr. Shields says in answer to this objection is of weight, where he expresses himself thus (Church Communion, p. 59):
“That Scripture, Rom. 16:17, does not command us to avoid everyone that causes divisions and offenses occasionally and passively, by giving the first rise to divisions by offensive courses; for that way divisions may be caused by infirmities and a man’s using his own light, and by the offense of others, whom upon that account to avoid, were contrary to the same apostle’s doctrine in that same epistle, chs. 14 and 15. But it commands us to avoid them which cause divisions and offenses actively, designedly and purposely, and do promote and abet a downright schism, and will not be persuaded to let divisions fall, though it may be done without prejudice to truth.
Next, to “avoid,” there is the same with the duty of turning away, 2 Tim. 3:5, extended there to self-lovers, covetous proud, unholy, having a form of godliness without the power. This cannot be interpreted always and only of withdrawing from Church-communion; for then we must withdraw from all that are self-lovers, from all that are unholy, from all that are hypocrites, which none will affirm: But we may avoid men several other ways, by withdrawing from personal communion with them, or familiar converse, and from communion in their corrupt designs and courses.”
And the context shows the apostle is speaking against offenses arising from division and want of brotherly kindness; for in the immediately preceding verse he exhorts to “salute one another with a holy kiss,” to evidence their Christian love and unity, thereby telling the believing Romans the Church of Christ saluted them. And this is manifest from the consideration of the doctrine he had taught them in the foregoing 12-15th chapters, which was the doctrine they had learned.
Further, ’tis evident from the context this Scripture is meant of such as cause divisions, by using arguments, exciting people to separate from the Church, pretending to greater strictness, using “good words and fair speeches to deceive,” and “wherewith they deceive the hearts of simple persons,” as in the following 18th verse, whereby they occasion a causeless separation from the brethren: And indeed we ought to mark such, so as to point out the evil of their practice, and so as to keep a watchful eye upon them and avoid them, lest we or others be seduced or infected by them, while with their good words and fair speeches they pretend great zeal for Christ and his cause. And ’tis said there are some such in our day, who go about seeking with good words and fair speeches, to deceive serious people, who are in danger of believing everything to be right which looks like greater strictness, when urged by such as they reckon good and godly [persons], setting up for reformation.
21st Objection: The apostle commands us to withdraw from every brother that walks disorderly, 2 Thess. 3:6. Now this is the second of these two Scriptures the Brethren insist upon to prove the lawfulness of their secession.
But there is as little weight in this as in the former: For it would be considered the apostle is not speaking of withdrawing from ministers, these are not the persons intended; but that Scripture is meant of a withdrawing from such professors as are of disorderly conversation, and particularly of such as spent their time in idleness, working not at all, but, being busy-bodies, went about from place to place, or from house to house, mispending precious time, to the reproach of religion. These were the persons the apostle exhorts to withdraw from, as is evident from the context. And the learned Voetius thinks this Scripture is meant of a civil and not an ecclesiastical withdrawing; a withdrawing so as to have no familiar converse with them. And the meaning, according to Diodati is:
“To abstain from all voluntary, open and pleasing conversation and communication with scandalous persons, which shows a delight or likeness of behavior, and nourishes and foments vice, and brings danger of contagion.”
And the continuator of Henry’s commentaries says:
“The apostle gives commands and directions, with relation to such as were idle persons and busy-bodies, how they ought to behave, and how the Church should carry it towards them.”
Mr. Shields on Church-Communion, p. 58, in answer to this argument for separation, says:
“The disorderly brethren there spoken of, are the busy-bodies that work not at all, v. 11. So that it is not meant of ministers literally, though it may be transferred to ministers by analogy; where they do not work in preaching, they are to be withdrawn from after the Church’s sentence.”
And afterwards, p. 61, he says: “The place will not prove that we must withdraw from all ministers guilty of offensive disorders, etc.” Now, these two being the only Scriptures our Brethren insist upon, though they say they might adduce many other places of Scripture, as 1 Tim. 6:3-5; 2 Tim. 3:5; Tit. 3:10; 2 Jn. 10, which Scriptures say nothing to the purpose; To me this is a clear evidence of the weakness of their cause, seeing, as was noticed, they own their situation in providence with reference to this Church, considered abstractly from the Word, cannot be the rule of their duty. Surely, could they have adduced a plainer Scripture in all the Word of God than those, they had not omitted it, the Lord’s Word being “the only rule of faith and obedience, the only rule to direct us how to glorify God,” and come to an enjoyment of Him; the “judge to which the Church of Christ is finally to appeal in all controversies of religion.” If people love not to walk by the implicit faith of Romanists, they will require some plainer Scriptures for founding their separating practice upon, than these adduced by our Brethren.
22nd Objection: The Church of Scotland since the Revolution, instead of justifying and approving the testimonies, witnessings, wrestlings and sufferings of the Lord’s servants in the late times of persecution, has been guilty of an unparalleled disregarding, and, as it would seem, of an industrious slighting of them since the Revolution, as is evident, say separatists, from a public history written by Mr. Wodrow, in which he seems to have been an indirect approver and vindicator of the cruel treatment the sufferers met with (Plain Reasons, p. 130).
And also the reverend Messieurs Ralph Erskine and Thomas Mair, in their Representation to the Commission 1736. So the Brethren again and again, in their first Testimony, p. 35, and in their second Testimony, p. 9 and p. 52, they complain of this, viz. that the wrestlings and testimonies of sufferers in the late times have not been justified.
Now, concerning these sufferers, their trials, treatment and witnessings:
1. I own the cruel severities and persecutions they were put to, are just grounds of mourning; alas that our land was thus defiled with blood, and that the precious blood of God’s dear saints!
2. Concerning these sufferers who were enabled to resist unto blood, I doubt not but as they were crowned with martyrdom for Christ upon earth, so now they have received the crown of life; and having washen their robes and made them white, not in their own blood, but in the blood of the Lamb, they are with Him before the throne, and shall reign forever in glory.
3. Though a great regard is due to the dying speeches of Christians, and especially of dying martyrs; yet their dying speeches and testimonies are not our Bible: ‘Tis to the Law and Testimony of the unerring Spirit, speaking in the Scripture, and not to any human testimonies, we are to look for light and direction. For, as that worthy martyr Mr. Walter Smith said in his last speech, and last expression of his dying testimony, “The testimonies of martyrs are not our rule.”
4. If, as some have remarked (Wodrow, History, vol. 2, p. 145, 183), the dying testimonies and last speeches of any of these sufferers, recorded in the Coud of Witnesses, have been corrupted, and additions made to them, then their testimonies are of less weight. And considering what the publisher of the Cloud of Witnesses says of alterations made by him concerning Mr. Wilson, writer in Lanark, his testimony, and what Mr. Wodrow observes on this publisher’s conduct relative to it, there wants not ground to suspect he used more freedom with those testimonies, in making alterations in them, than he ought.
5. And though I doubt not the truth of these testimonies, as to the substance of them; yet unless I saw their originals, or a copy published by some other hand, I could not lawy great stress upon them, in regard the publisher had the confidence to print and publish such a notorious falsehood as he does, p. 358, when giving a relation of the persecution and death of that worthy gentleman, Henry Hall of Haughhead, where giving an account of that paper found on him when taken at or near Queensferry, commonly called Queensferry-paper, or Mr. Cargill’s Declaration, or his Covenant, of which paper probably that publisher knowing some things in it were condemned by Mr. Shields and others, he says: “I shall not pretend to justify every expression in it,” and then affirms:
“The sufferers for the most part did not adhere to it without the limitation, insofar as it was agreeable to the Word of God and our National Covenant.”
A gross falsehood, as is evident from the testimonies of David Hackson of Rathillet, of Archibald Allison, John Malcom, Mr. James Skeen, Isael Alison, Marion Hervie, Laurence Hay, William Thomson, William Cuthil, Robert Carnock, Patrick Foreman, David Ferrie, James Stewart, Robert Gray, James Nisbet, James Lauson, Alexander Wood, James Graham and John Richmond. Yea, I cannot see so much as one person in all the Cloud of Witnesses that owned this Queensferry-paper, but they adhered to it without the least restriction or limitation; only Isabel Alison once, when asked if she would adhere to it, answered she would as it was according to the Scriptures, and said she saw not wherein it did contradict them. Now, a man whose conscience allowed him to publish such a manifest falsehood, what might he not add to their speeches to make them serve his prupose?
6. If this has been the fault of the Church of Scotland since the Revolution, that she has not justified the suffering of the Lord’s servants and people in the former persecuting period, then she was equally guilty from 1638 to 1649: For I see no act of Assembly in that period justifying the wrestlings of the Lord’s servants and people in the foregoing times; in which, as says the author of the preface to the Cloud of Witnesses:
“James VI imprisoned some of the most zealous and faithful ministers, calls them before his council, indites them of treason and lese-Majesty[?], for their making use of their freedom Christ had given them; and after their declining his and his council’s usurped authority in spiritual matters, and for witnessing a good confession for the royal dignity of their Master, banish them [from] their native country.”
7. ‘Tis false to say:
“The Church of Scotland, from the Revolution to this time, has rather slighted, if not condemned, than justified these sufferings and wrestlings.”
For the first General Assembly after the Revolution, in their causes for a national fast, after speaking of the anger of the Lord’s dividing us, and being brought under the feet of strangers, says, “And many of our brethren were killed, and others taken captive and sold as slaves.” And afterwards, speaking of the sinful oaths which were the occasion of much suffering and bloodshed, says: “And many were ruined and oppressed for not taking them.” And downwards in that same act, they instance the sad persecutions that many had been rysted[?] with for their conscience towards God. Further, the Commission of Assembly 1713, in their Seasonable Warning, calls the sufferings of the late times, not only “severities,” but also “unparalleled cruelties”. This was surely a justifying of them in their sufferings, and a condemning their enemies; of whom they say:
“They might reasonably conclude they wanted nothing but power to renew, against the ministers and members of this Church, the foresaid severities and unparalleled cruelties.”
8. As to the not approving and justifying of their testimonies in every particular, I own this; and surely it had been weakness to have justified them all in general, for in some things their testimonies are directly opposite. As, though some of them testify against the king’s authority, yet others, as the Marquis of Argyle, and the reverend Mr. James Guthrie, expressly own it. So, though some of them adhered to the Sanquhair Declaration, yet others, as Mr. John Dick, condemned it. And as some adhered to the Hamilton Declaration, so others, as Mr. James Skeen, disowned it, though they were one as to the substance of their testimonies, holding “the testimony of Jesus”. And I doubt not now they are all perfectly of one mind and judgement in all things, in that city where “the Lord God and the Lamb are the light of it;” yet while here, from different degrees of light, they had very different sentiments in some things, and both were not to be justified in every particular.
But as to the alleged evidence of the Church of Scotland’s “unparalleled disregarding, if not condemning the sufferings and wrestlings of the martyrs, viz. Mr. Wodrow’s printing a public history representing such witnessings, wrestlings and testimony-bearers in a very odious way,” Answer:
1. Whatever expressions may be in Mr. Wodrow’s History which may seem to reflect upon these sufferers, they cannot be laid to the charge of the Church of Scotland, in regard that History was never revised nor approven by any deed of this Church.
2. In my opinion, that faithful servant of Christ the reverend Mr. Wodrow (now I doubt not in glory, resting from his labors, his works following him) deserves highly of all true presbyterians in this Church for his History; and I cannot but think, according to his best information, he acted a fair ingenuous part in his representation of matters of fact narrated by him, though he was not infallible more than other historians.
3. The conduct of some of our separatists, the followers (I suppose) of Mr. M’Millan, by their misrepresentations of Mr. Wodrow’s History, has done no service to religion, while they pretend to so much strictness and tenderness, and yet have acted such a disingenuous part in their representations of his History relating to some of the sufferers in the late times: And, had not this Essay swelled beyond my first intention, in an Appendix I designed a vindication of that worthy author (who was well known to be a person of great integrity, tenderness and piety) from the aspersions which have been cast upon his History by separatists, particularly by the author of Plain Reasons, the author of the Preface to Mr. M’Ward’s Earnest Contendings, the author of the Postscript to his Testimony; where, in transcribing Mr. Wodrow’s words, sometimes a word is left out which is enough to vindicate him from their aspersions, and at other times a word is added here and there to render him odious, and there commentaries are put upon his words which they can never bear: And, instead of being in the least an approver of the treatment they met with, he says much in their vindication; as particularly, vol. 2, p. 180, where, speaking of those sufferers, he says:
“They were found guilty of treason; yet their bloodshed will by after-generations be reckoned innocent blood, and the courses taken with, and inhumanities exercised towards them, must certainly be abominated by all persons.”
23rd Objection: Such as have separated from a corrupt Church are expressly forbidden to return unto it, Jer. 15:19, where the Lord says to the prophet, “Let them return unto thee, but return not unto them.” Answer:
1. I grant, where separation has been made upon sufficient grounds, people ought not to return to that Chuch remaining in her corruptions for which they separated.
2. The thing wherein the prophet was forbidden to return unto them was, their defection and backsliding against which he had faithfully testified; he was forbidden to comply with these: The Lord required priests and people should guard against going on in such courses, and that they should return from them, turning to the prophet, so as to obey his voice and write after his copy; but not as if he or thepeople were to separate and erect another Church.
3. But though at that time priests and people were most corrupt, while the “Prophets prophesied falsely, and the priests have rule by their means, and the people loved to have it so,” Jer. 5:31, and albeit their iniquity was come to a prodigious height, as Jeremiah 9:2-6, which made him with his “head was waters, and his eyes a fountain of tears;” yet there is not one word in all the Scripture of his separating from that Church: The prophet was not bidden separate, or was he forbidden to preach unto that people. Instead of this, we find him in the Temple preaching to them, as in the 28th chapter downward from the 5th verse. Though he was not to return unto the priests or people, so as to join with them in any sinful course, or so as to speak smooth things; yet he was still allowed to have communion with them in their sacrifices, solemn feasts and all instituted Temple-worship: so much Calvin and Mr. Shields affirm (On Church Communion, p. 48).
24th Objection: If division and separation be such an evil, why was not the Assembly 1733 and her commission more tender and cautious than to cast out the four Brethren, whom at that time they ejected from the communion of this Church, which has occasioned so much division and separation? And why has not the Assembly rescinded their sentence against them in a full and ample manner, that so these Brethren might have a fair opened door to come in again to the Church of Scotland, which might be a mean of healing breaches, and preventing further separation in sundry honest people? For, till the door be further opened, and the grounds of their secession removed, we see not how they can come in.
Now, for answer to the first of these questions, as I declared formerly, I’m sorry every such a sentence was pronounced, whereby those Brethren were cast out from communion with this Church: But, albeit I cannot approve of the sentence casting them out, yet I know not but there may be truth in what that worthy servant of Christ, the reverend Mr. David Walker, wrote me from Temple on that subject, May 2nd, 1734; in which letter, after commending Messieurs Erskine and Moncrieff as being godly men, and hoping the same of Messieurs Wilson and Fisher, though not acquainted with them, and after condemning the judicatories for casting them out, says:
“But yet let me freely tell you, that there is one step in Mr. Erskine’s conduct that I am not able to justify; it is, When the synod of Perth and Stirling resolved to give him a modest rebuke, he did not silently receive it. I should never have advised my worthy brother Mr. Erskine to have made any confession of a fault even in his expressions, when his conscience justified him in the same; but I cannot think that his silence at the time that either the synod or General Assembly rebuked him, when they resolved thereby to finish the process, would be construed an acknowledgment of a fault: I am sure that the history of our blessed Lord’s sufferings bears expressly, that, when He was accused of many things before Pilate, He answered nothing; and when he was urged by the self-condemned heathen judge, He still continued silent; and I am persuaded that no good Christian can allege that his silence did import any confession of a fault, yea, it was a fulfilling of the Scripture, Isa. 53:7.”
But then for answer to the other question, Why has not the Assembly rescinded the sentences passed against them in a full and ample manner? For my part, I heartily wish they had: And, being of opinion the acceding of the Brethren to the judicatories of this Church might be a mean through the Lord’s blssing of healing divisions, I shall consider this objection at some more length.
1st, It would be considered, the General Assembly 1734, May 14th, did empower the synod of Perth and Stirling, in which synod those Brethren have their residence, to take their case as it then stood under consideration, giving them:
“Full power to proceed and do therein as they should find most justifiable and expedient for restoring peace and preserving the authority of this Church, and for promoting the edification of the members of the body of Christ; particularly for uniting the said four Brethren to the communion of this Church, and restoring them to their respective ministerial charges.”
2ndly, The synod of Perth and Stirling, being clothed with the power and authority of the General Assembly as to that matter, upon the 2nd of July 1734, did:
“by virtue of the said delegate power and authority, and in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, with one voice and consent, take off the sentences pronounced by the Commission of the General Assembly 1733 against the foresaid four Brethren, Masters Ebenezer Erskine, William Wilson, Alexander Moncrieff and James Fisher, declaring the same of no force or effect; for the future unite and restore them to ministerial communion with this Church, to their several charges, and to the exercise of all parts of the ministerial function therein, as fully and freely as there never had been act, sentence, obstacle or impediment whatsoever in the way thereof in time past; all which are hereby declared sopite[?] and set aside for the future.”
And appointed the names of the four Brethren to be enrolled immediately in the rolls of that synod, appointing intimation hereof should be made in the pulpits of Stirling, Perth, Abernethy and Kinclaven; and recommended it to ministers named by the synod to acquaint these Brethren with what the synod had done in this affair. Now, this being done, many of their well-wishers and good friends thought the door was so opened, that these reverend Brethren might have acceded to the judicatories of this Church, from which they were cast out; and to me this was, if not a formal, yet a material rescinding of the sentences pronounced against them.
Whereas, in vindication of their not acceding upon what was done by that Assembly and the foresaid synod in 1734, ’tis complained (Reasons of not Acceding, p. 23):
“That Assembly did not themselves judge of the legality of the sentences pronounced against the Brethren as they ought, seeing the synod could not do this.”
‘Tis answered, as the Assembly did not see an absolute necessity for this, so, considering what a strong party there was to struggle against, it might have taken the whole time of an Assembly, if not more, before that affair had been brought to a period: For ’tis not so easy to get this or the other thing done in an Assembly, though they should be far supernumerary for votes; for were it but six or seven, as of Independents in the Westminster Assembly, they may keep up an Assembly in arguing for a long time (Dissuasive from Error, pp. 91, 95).
Some say, What has the Assembly more to do but bring the affairs to a vote? But this cannot easily be done, else clamor is raised, that ’tis not a free Assembly; and no doubt the opposite party ought to be fully heard. And the party opposite to these Brethren had an argument, which would not have been so easy to answer, taken from an act of Assembly made in these times which are reckoned times of reformation, namely the above-mentioned act of Assembly 1648, by which it is appointed that:
“If any suspended ministers, during his suspension, either exercise any part of the ministerial calling, or intromit with the stipend, that he be deposed, and after deposition, continuing in either of these faults, that he be processed with excommunication.”
2. Whereas, the Assembly having enjoined the synod of Perth and Stirling to do in the case of the four Brethren, as they should find most justifiable and expedient “for preserving the authority of this Church, etc.” ’tis asserted:
“That no respect is to be paid to authority which is opposite the Word of God, as were the decisions of judicatories in 1733 with respect to these Brethren.” (Reasons of No Acceding, p. 24)
But though no such respect is to be paid to the decrees, sentences or determinations of Church-judicatories; though a General or an Ecumenical Council, as to give the least active obedience to any sinful injunction; Albeit I suspend my judgment in this case; yet many of the learned, judicious and godly have been of opinion, the sentences of Church-judicatories, or the authority of the Church in such sentences, is so far to be regarded that we are to submit, so as to abstain from acting in opposition to them. Mr. M’Millan, in a paper given in to the Commission June 9th 1704, subscribed it with his hand that, “the sentences of the Church judicatories, though unjust ought to be submitted unto.” And Mr. Webster, in his letter to him, affirms, “This has always been the sentiment of orthodox divines.” And the learned author or authors of the Apologetical Relation, p. 307, says:
“A minister who is called of God must not lay aside his office, or the exercise of his office and power, upon every man’s desire; but if he be exauctorated at all, it must be by such as have lawful authority for that effect, unto whom he is bound in conscience to subject himself: And so he shall have peace, though the sentence be passed clave errante unjustly.”
And there he seems to vindicate such Protesters as did not submit to the sentences against them, “Because,” says he:
“they were passed by a controverted Assembly, and which they looked upon as no lawful Assembly, being unlawfully constituted.”
And the Assembly 1638, by her act, session 24, and the Assembly 1648, by her act, session 30, seem to have been of this mind. So Durham on Scandal, pt. 4, ch. 17. And when Mr. Rutherford was suspended by the High Commission, though he declined the court because it was unlawful in its constitution, yet, when they passed a severe censure, depriving him of his ministry, and confining him to Aberdeen, he submitted to the sentence, by leaving his flock, and residing in the place of his confinement, where his silent Sabbaths, having no opportunity to preach Christ, were a heavy burden to him, though he had sweet fellowship with the Lord his God at that time.
Our Brethren condemn that principle of the Independents which says, ‘Ecclesiastical synods our councils have only a consultative power and authority’; affirming this ‘has a native tendency to introduce anarchy and confusion into the House of God.’ (2nd Testimony, p. 128) But I humbly think, if no regard is to be had to the determination of a judicatory unless it be right and just in our own eyes, then it will not be easy to show what more power is given to superior judicatories by them, than is given by Independents, or men of congregational principles; for they own synods ‘are necessary to the well-being of Churches,’ and that their determinations:
“so far as consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement therewith (without which,’ say they, ‘they bind not at all) but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his Word.” (Mather, History of New England, bk. 5, p. 37)
3. I find ’tis argued in Vindication of their not acceding to the judicatories of this Church, that the act of Assembly 1733 against the four Brethren not being rescinded, it may be pleaded and adduced in time coming as a precedent for prosecuting the ministers of this Church before her judicatories, if they shall use their ministerial freedom, as the Brethren did, in testifying against her defections: ‘For,’ say they (pp. 25-26):
“While that act stands unrepealed, or not annulled, it remains an act and rule of this Church still, so far as an act in a particular case is a rule in a way of precedent in cases of the like nature.’
Now, as to the Brethren:
[1] I cannot see any ground to say the sentenced anent them are not materially rescinded, seeing as the Assembly 1733 and their commission did cast them out from this Church, so the Assembly 1734 gave the synod of Perth power and full authority to restore and unite them again to the communion thereof, and to their ministerial charges, which accordingly was done by that synod: And this, in my opinion, was a material condemning of the sentences of the former Assembly and commission that had been pronounced against them.
(2) But, whereas ’tis said the act of Assembly 1733 against them, while unrepealed, ‘It still remains an act and rule of this Church, so far as an act in a particular case is a rule in a way of precedent in cases of the like nature,’ and therefore they cannot accede to the judicatories till that act is rescinded, lest they homologate that sinful deed or sentence.
Now if this argument prove anything, it proves too much; for it says we are never to join with a Church which has made any unjust or sinful act till repealed: And so the Brethren could never be justified for joining formerly with the Church of Scotland when such unaccountable acts as that of the Assembly 1638, sessions 23-24, was unrepealed: which discharges all persons of whatever quality, ministers or others, to speak or write against that Assembly, or any act of that Assembly, under pain of the censures of the Church: A very bad precedent! And so the Assembly 1642, session 7, enjoins that every presbytery proceed against non-communicants, whether Papists or others, according to the act of parliament, which looks too like the English Sacramental Test: And also the above-cited act of Assembly 1648, anent deposing all suspended ministers who do not submit to the sentences of Church judicatories, and so of other bad acts of Assembly from 1638 to 1649 inclusive. And, if an act in a particular case is a rule in a way of precedent in similar cases, or cases of the like nature, then the instance of overturning the settlement made by the Commission at Auchtermuchty, and the repeated instances of our late General Assemblies in allowing the people of Stow, Troqueir, Dennie, etc. the privilege of sealing ordinances, are good precedents to plead in like cases where ministers are intruded upon Christian congregations.
4thly, They say: “Seeing an accession to a Church cannot be made but in the situation in which that Church is when the accession is made unto her; therefore any accession to her in that situation so far approves of her, as to submit it to her authority what is to be counted defections, and what not; and, if that Church maintain not that testimony which they that accede to her maintain, then they fall from their testimony.”
But for my part I cannot see the force of this argument: and the reverend Messieurs Lining, Shields and Boyd, at the Revolution were far from this opinion, else they had not acceded to this Church at that time; but they thought it enough to give in their testimony at that juncture against what they judged amiss in her, and so acceded without falling from their testimony. But what may be said in answer to the 28th objection will be a further answer to this; and I suppose, according to the above principle, there is no Church of Christ upon earth they can join with.
5thly, ‘Tis said, “The Assembly 1734 and judicatories of this Church looked on these Brethren as criminals, seeing that Assembly empowered the synod of Perth and Stirling to take the case of the four Brethren under consideration, only in case such application should be made to them for that effect as they should judge proper.”
But for my part, though I think they might have empowered them to do this whether any such application should be made or not; yet their empowering them under that condition would not prove they looked on them as criminals, seeing they did not enjoin them to ask, nor did ever that synod ask, the least acknowledgment from them as being in an error, or in the least wrong: So their acceding to this Church could never be charged on them as a taking with any guilt, crime or fault in the least.
6thly, ‘Tis said in their Vindication (Reasons of Not Acceding, p. 33), “The synod of Perth and Stirling, by their act receiving the Brethren into communion with this Church, have laid these Brethren under a greater restraint than did the Assembly 1734, seeing they recommended to them to carry towards the Lord’s servants their Brethren, ministers of this Church, their respective flocks and charges, as ministers of Christ and his gospel ought to do in all time coming.”
Now, as we are still to take things by the best handle, and to put the best construction upon our neighbors’ words and actions they can bear; so to me this is a commentary upon the words of that synod which needs not be put upon them, nor I’m apt to think was it ever intended: Here was only a simple recommendation, to carry to the Lord’s servants and their flocks as ministers of Christ and his gospel ought to do; at which I see not how any could take just offense, especially seeing the synod also recommends it to their co-presbyters, “To behave towards them as ministers of Christ in this Church;’ yea, and at the same time, enjoined all the presbyteries and ministers in their bounds, as well as the four Brethren:
“To deman themselves toward each other, as may answer the obligations they came under by their ordination vows in the Lord.”
And whereas it is affirmed (Ibid., p. 34):
“The synod’s meaning may be gathered from the solemn warning they give to all the people in that province, even to the people of Muckhard, etc. ‘To beware of everything that may encourage division from, or weaken the hands of the Lord’s servants set over them;’ that is, say they, that they submit to the ministry even of such intruders, and take sealing ordinances from their hands.”
But surely this is a stretch, or an unjust commentary upon the words of that synod, seeing ’tis well known at that time neither presbytery nor synod had received that person so much as to enroll him, who was intruded by the commission upon that parish of Muckhart.
7thly, Whereas the act of Assembly, May 14th, 1734, anent Ministerial Freedom, declares, “For the satisfaction of all, that due and regular ministerial freedom is still entire to all ministers; and that the same was not, nor shall be held or understood to be anywise impaired or restrained by the late Assembly’s decision in the process of Mr. Erskine, etc.”
Here ’tis complained of that act, as if it justified the act of Assembly 1733 against the four Brethren; for, according to them (Reasons of Not Acceding, p. 35), that act says:
“That due and regular ministerial freedom was not anywise impaired or restrained by the decision of the General Assembly 1733 in this particular process,”
viz. The process of Mr. Erskine, etc. Now, this is not matter of fact; for ’tis a plain misrepresentation of the words of the General Assembly 1734 upon this head: For that Assembly never says, ‘Ministerial freedom was not anywise impaired by that Act 1733;’ for that act of Assembly declares, for the satisfaction of all:
“That due and regular ministerial freedom is still left entire to all ministers, and that the same was not, nor shall be held or understood to be anywise impaired or restrained by the late Assembly’s decision in that particular process,”
viz. of Mr. Ebenezer Erskine’s. And, as that Assembly 1734 declares for ministerial freedom in the plainest terms; so, when they say, ‘Due and regular ministerial freedom was not held or understood to be impaired by that decision,’ that Assembly might mean no more, but only that they judged the Assembly 1733 did not design to restrain due and regular ministerial freedom by that act; and so much the principal men concerned in framing thereof did declare.
And such as were opposite to Mr. Erskine in that Assembly, and they who approve of their conduct in that affair, have always declared they did not condemn him for giving his testimony against the act of Assembly 1732, but for the way and manner of doing it, they having thought his expressions upon that head to be indecent and offensive: And the reverend Mr. Alexander Moncrieff, in his Reasons and Protestation against the sentence of the synod of Perth and Stirling for finding Mr. Erskine censurable, to which Mr. William Wilson and others adhered, says, “We will not pretend to justify every mode of expression used by Mr. Erskine on this head,” viz. in speaking against the act of Assembly 1732. The author or authors of the Trial of the Testimony, pp. 99-100, in Answer to Mr. Erskine’s Letter to the presbytery of Stirling, in which he asserts the Brethren were cast out of the established Church:
“for no other reason, but because they could not find freedom in their conscience to retract the testimony they had been helped to emit against some prevailing defections;”
That author says:
“Whereas, when the matter is searched to the bottom, it will be found that it was not at all (let be only) for emitting your testimony against these alleged defections in that sermon by you preached before the synod October 1732, but it was for several offensive expressions uttered by you in that sermon, as appears from the Assembly’s act thereanent.”
And there he positively asserts:
“Mr. Erskine was never required to retract his testimony emitted in his synodical sermon against defections, nor required to retract his judgment of the act of Assembly 1732, nor the matter of any testimony given by him.”
And the authors of the Narrative and State of the Proceedings of the Judicatories, etc. affirm the same.
And the four Brethren cannot but be convinced whatever might be intended by the Assembly 1733, yet the General Assembly 1734 (being, as themselves acknowledge, “composed of reverend and honorable members, many of them of considerable standing in the ministry, whom they regard as faithful laborers in the Lord’s Vineyard”) never designed to justify the sentence against the Brethren: Far from it, for ’tis well known the major part of that Assembly were opposite to and did condemn that decision. And the sentence of the Commission in 1733, against these reverend Brethren, was in 1734 expressly excepted from being approven, in approving of the Commission-book; nor has it ever yet been approven by the Assembly. And they are most injurious to the Assembly 1734, to the synod of Perth and Stirling, and to the Assembly which approved of what that synod did, who say, These Assemblies and that synod, by their acts restoring the Brethren to communion with this Church:
“have all declared against ministerial freedom in testifying against iniquous acts or decisions of General Assemblies, or other Church judicatories.”
For there is nothing in any of their acts or decisions from which any such harsh conclusion can justly be inferred; instead of that, they declare in the plainest terms that due and regular ministerial freedom is still left entire to all ministers.
But then, as to the removal of the grounds of their secession, in my opinion these grounds were not sufficient to found a separation or a secession from a Church, though they were just ground of complaint and lamentation; and the Brethren formerly never thought them such. And if I be not far mistaken, had they not been ejected or cast out from communion with this Church, they had not separated nor made a secession upon such grounds. And I hope they will think it is of weight what the judicious Durham says, when laying down rules anent union, where he expresses himself thus:
“What cannot warrant a breach where there is union, that cannot warrantably be the ground to keep up a division. Now, there are many miscarriages or defects which are really gross, and yet will not warrant a schism; as all that write thereon do clear, and is obvious to all. The reason of the consequence is, because making up a breach is no less a duty than preventing thereof. And further, if it began upon such a ground, then the continuing thereof upon the same ground, is but the continuing in the same sin; and it cannot be thought that any party, by dividing upon an unjust ground, can afterward be justified upon the same ground. It remains therefore, that if the ground was not sufficient at first to warrant a separation or division, it cannot be sufficient afterward to continue the same.”
But, whereas ’tis said, The grounds of their secession are not yet removed; and, in a consistency with their testimony, they cannot come in to the communion of this Church till those obstacles be taken out of the way. Our Brethren’s principal grounds, summed up in the 40th page of their Reasons of Not Acceding, being four, I shall speak a few words to each of them.
And 1st, Whereas there ’tis affirmed:
“Many of the Lord’s people, who cannot submit to the ministry of intruders, are virtually excommunicated, and ministers who shall adventure to administrate sealing ordinances to them, are obnoxious to the highest censures of the Church, according to the act of Assembly 1733 concerning some ministers in the presbytery of Dunfermline; which act,” say they, “stands yet unrepealed.”
Now for answer:
1. As to the act of Assembly 1733, anent some Brethren in the presbytery of Dunfermline, that act is materially rescinded; in regard the Assembly having left it to the synod of Fife to do in the affair of Kinross (anent which that act was made) as to the admitting of that people to partake of Church privileges as they should think fit. The synod of Fife did upon this allow that people to have the benefit of Church privileges wherever they should think meet to ask them.
2. As to the danger of Church censure for administering Church privileges to any that have not freedom to receive them from such as have been thrust in upon them. Here, if I mistake not, there is no great ground to fear; especially considering those whom they suspect most, seem to be easy upon this head, and seem clear for allowing the privilege of sealing ordinances to all who scruple to receive them from their own parish ministers.
And 3. Though they should suffer upon this head in that case, I think their sufferings would be upon clearer grounds, notwithstanding of the act anent some Brethren in Dunfermline-presbytery, or yet the act of Assembly 1647, which requires every member in every parish to keep their own kirk and partake of Word and sacraments there.
As to their 2nd principal ground, viz.:
“That the acceptance of presentations is not declared to be contrary to the principles of this Church; nor is there an effectual stop put to the intrusion of any into the office of the ministry contrary to the will of the congregation to which they are appointed.”
Answer:
As to the acceptance of presentations, I’m sure the Church of Scotland at this day has declared against them as much, yea more, as did the Assemblies from 1638 to 1649. And had any of our late Assemblies done as much as did the Assembly 1638, it had been the justest ground of complaint; for that Assembly allowed not barely to accept of, but to seek presentations, if the presbytery were advised with, and their advice had to seek them. And so did the Assembly 1642, by their act anent lists to patrons. And though I cannot but condemn their conduct, yet, in that so much magnified period, the seeking of presentations was so little thought of by ministers, that presbytery-records, particularly the presbytery of Kirkaldy, October 1st, 1640, expressly bears their advising one Mr. Robert Bruce to seek a presentation from the Earl of Rothes to the parish of Balingrie.
And as to the putting a bar to violent intrusions, the General Assembly 1736, having revived that old act which declares against settling any Church-officers ‘contrary to the will of the congregation,’ it may be hoped such settlements will be guarded against in time coming.
As to the 3rd principle ground, namely, “That no warning has been emitted against the errors and blasphemous heresies vented among us.”
As for my part, I should be glad to see such a warning emitted by the General Assembly: But the neglect of this is only an ommission, and will not be reckoned a just ground of separation, more than it was for any to separate from the Church of Corinth, Pergamos and Thyatira, because they did not emit such warnings when errors had crept in among them. And further, the General Assembly, by her Act anent the Method of Preaching, has given such a warning, at least to all ministers and preachers of the Gospel.
As the their 4th principal ground, namely, “That the Act restraining Ministerial Freedom has not been repealed.”
As it is denied that ever any such act was made, so I have said enough to that already; and therefore shall not further insist upon it. Only I think there is much, and far more ground for repealing the act of Assembly 1638, which discharges all to speak a word against that Assembly, or any act thereof, as being a bad precedent, as to speak against and cry out for the repealing of this act upon any such account.
But to conclude this point, though none of these grounds were in the least removed, yet ’tis my opinion those reverend Brethren should come in and testify in a way of Church-communion against what they see amiss in their Mother Church.
Perhaps it will be objected, The Brethren were willing to stay in the Church of Scotland, testifying in a way of Church-communion, till she cast them out for testifying against what was wrong in her conduct; and so the blame of the rent, schism, separation or secession is to be laid at their door who ejected them.
I answer to this briefly, That the acts ejecting the four Brethren being materially rescinded, as was said above, and the Assembly 1734 having also by an express act declared:
“Due and regular ministerial fredom is still left entire, and that the same was not, nor shall be held or understood to be anywise impaired or restrained by the late Assembly’s decision in that particular process;”
Therefore I humbly think the door is open for their coming in and testifying in a way of Church-communion against what they judge amiss in the Church of Scotland at this day. And seeing they are invited to return, if they still refuse to come in, some will think they are as much to be blamed as such children who being put to the door by their mother in a fit of passion for doing their Father’s will, in seeking to have the house cleansed (though He keeps house with her, and has not as yet given her a divorce) declare they will never own their mother more, nor have dealing with her, though she has sent an invitation desiring them to come in again, till her fault be amended, and the house be so and so as they would have it: But we yet hope better things of our dear Brethren. And what the judicious Durham said in his Dying Testament to the Church of Scotland, or Treatise on Scandal (pt. 4, ch. 7), is of weight, where he says:
“Union may also be consistent with many particular failings and defects in the exercise of government; and possibly the sparing of so corrupt officers and members, yea, the censuring of some unjustly, or the admission of some that are unfit for the ministry, and such like.
These indeed are faults, but they are not such as make a Church to be no Church. And though these have sometimes been pretended to be the causes of schisms and divisions in the Church in practice, yet were they never defended to be just grounds of schisms and divisions, but were ever condemned by all councils and fathers, and cannot be in reason sustained.
Sure there were such corrupt acts of all kinds among the Jews’ Church officers: Yet is it clear that Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea did continue to govern jointly notwithstanding thereof, who yet cannot be counted accessory to any of their deeds, because (which is a third reason) men in such cases have access, even when they are present, to discountenance such corrupt acts by not consenting thereto, and testifying against the same; yea, they may by so doing stand in the way of many wicked acts, which by dividing they cannot do, which is sufficient for their exoneration both before God and men: As we may see in the instances of Joseph and Nicodemus mentioned, who continued united in the government, kept the meetings even when sentences pass against those who will acknowledge Christ, and orders for persecuting Him and them. And yet they are declared free, because they dissented from, and testified against the same: Yea, their freedom and exoneration, by virtue of their dissent, being present, is more solemnly recorded to their honor in the Gospel, than if they had divided.”
And to suspend Church communion till all grievances be removed, as Mr. Hog says (Letters, p. 20), “is destitute of Scripture-warrant.” And by sundry arguments he shows the unreasonableness of this, as does Durham also on Scandal, pt. 4, ch. 7, where he cites Augustine with approbation, commending the practice of Pretextatus and Felicianus, “who being condemned” (and ’tis like unjustly) says he, by:
“Three hundred and eighteen bishops; yet did, for concord’s sake, return and join with these who did condemn them, and by them were, without all loss or diminution of their honor, received into fellowship.”
And ’tis well known, the four Brethren had not a thought of going out from the Church of Scotland if they had not been cast out: For then they professed that a “regard,” a “great regard,” yea, “a very great regard,” was due to the judicatories of this Church; as in Mr. Erskine’s Protestation given in to the Assembly, May 14th 1733. And so much the reverend Mr. Fisher also hints in his Additional Reasons given in to the General Assembly that year, when he says:
“This sentence of the synod, finding Mr. Erskine censurable, has an evident tendency to throw him and many others out of the communion of this Church, who, in the judgment of charity, I am bound to believe would seal their adherence to the valuable privileges with which the King of Zion has vested her, with the last drop of their blood.”
And, before their ejection, they looked upon it as a great injury and prejudice done them, to be cast out from the communion of this Church. Hence in their Representations to the Commission, pp. 42-43, they say:
“We are not conscious to ourselves of anything done against our brethren that deserves such a severe censure from them; What trespass have we committed against any article of our Confession of Faith? or wherein have we transgressed against any of the received principles or the approven rules of this Church, that our Mother’s sons are so very angry with us as to threaten to cast us out of the Lord’s Vineyard?”
And if in 1733 she was a true Church of Christ, having valuable privileges with which the King of Zion had vested her, which they were ready to seal with the last drop of their blood, I hope she is not so far degenerate since that time, but with a good and safe conscience she may be joined with in her judicatories and all ordinances.
I know ‘its said the Brethren could do little good though come in again, considering what a number there is in judicatories to oppose everything that looks like reformation. But I am sure they may keep their own conscience free, by retaining their judgment till what may be reckoned better times: and they may do as much good in judicatories as Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea could do in the Jewish Sanhedrim in their day; as much as our worthy ancestors from 1610 to 1637 could do, at which time Messieurs Robert Bruce, Andrew and James Melville, David Calderwood, Samuel Rutherford, Alexander Henderson, David Dickson, and others, remained in the Church; at which time Rutherford complains “he was most unkindly handled by his presbytery;” and his presbytery consisted of sixteen ministers. And, in his 35th letter, he says:
“I do every day see the face of my brethren smiling upon me, but their tongues carry reproaches and lies of me a hundred miles off; they have made me odious to the bishop of St. Andrews.”
Had Rutherford been of some people’s mind, he, with those two or three, should have constituted a presbytery.
Was it but one vote, it may do much at a time; as, when the Brethren were ejected, one vote would have prevented it: And when members were electing to the Assembly 1734, in the presbytery where Mr. Fisher has his residence, if his vote had been there, it had sent six commissioners to that Assembly upon what he would have reckoned the right side of the question.
Durham, when speaking of “occasional means” which may have influence upon division (On Scandal, pt. 4, ch. 5), and showing wherein the strength of the temptation to keep up division does lie, and what may have influence, especially upon Churchmen, he instances sundry things, as personal credit and irritating of their followers: But I hope those reverend Brethren are men of more self-denial and religion, than that any such things should have weight with them. And, for my part, as I humbly think they should and might come in with a safe conscience, that so division, which Durham calls the “greatest plague of the Church,” might be prevented and removed; so I heartily wish our Assembly had given them a new formal invitation to come in: For, as Durham says (pt. 4, ch. 7, p. 309):
“To treat with us upon that posture, or upon such terms, is a treatment neither scriptural, reasonable, just nor fair; nor is it the habile way to get grievances redressed. If this be the condition of union, it can never take place in our day, nor in any other period for what I know; at this rate ye proclaim a perpetual war. Nor is there any condescension here; for we might return to the Church of Rome, would they redress just grievances, and return to their happy state wherein they were when the apostle Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans. But, to make Church communion necessarily depend on such a redress in every part, is both destitute of a necessary warrant from the Word, and requires a standing-out until the Churches of Christ be brought to such a state as we are never like to see, nor for what I know is contained within the verge of the Lord’s gracious promises unto his Church.”
And there he says, for the redressing of grievances complained of at this day:
“‘Tis necessary both Church and State be cast into the same mold in which they were between 1638 and 1649, etc.”
But to conclude this objection, as in the entry upon it I said I could not justify the Brethren’s secession upon presbyterian principles, so their practice in receiving so easily such as profess to be discontented with their own ministers, however faithful they be if opposite to their measures, looks very like what has been reckoned the Independent scheme, which they profess to oppose. And hence the London ministers, in Preface to their Jus Divinum Reg. Eccl. When showing the difference between Independents and presbyterians, they place this as one, that Independents:
“their churches are gathered out of other true, visible churches, without any leave or consent of pastor and flock, yea, against their wills, receiving such as tender themselves, yea, too often by themselves or others, directly or indirectly, seducing disciples after them.”
Whereas, according to presbyterian government or principles, they say:
“The gathering of churches out of churches has no footsteps in Scripture, is contrary to apostolic practice, is the scattering of churches, the daughter of schism, the mother of confusion, but the step-mother of edification.”
And Rutherford speaks to the same purpose in his Treatise upon Conscience, p. 99, where he says:
“Paul could not endure the divisions of one and the same Church of Corinth, though they pretended not to be different Churches; for those that said they were of Paul, professed they could not be disciples of Peter: But he sharply rebuked them as carnal men, nd such as divided Christ, and by consequence must say Paul was crucified for them, and was their redeemer: and so, if obstinately they had proceeded in that separation, Paul would have gone on to higher censures of the Church. Far more could he not endure gathering of true Churches out of true Chuches, which is the professed practice of Independents.”
Yea, our Brethren, in their practice, seem contrary both to the presbyterians and Independents in England, in the articles of their agreement entered into a little after the Revolution, where, in the article of the Comunion of Churches, ’tis said:
“We ought not to admit anyone to be a member of our respective congregations that has joined himself to another, without endeavors of mutual satisfaction of the congregations concerned.”
25th Objection: Such terms of communion are required of ministers and people in the Church of Scotland at this day, as cannot be complied with without sin; and therefore separation from her is surely duty. And here sundry such terms are instanced, as in the Brethren’s 1st Testimony, p. 81; 2nd Testimony, p. 109, ’tis said, The judicatories of this Church, by censuring Mr. Erskine, and such as joined with him in the Protestation against the Assembly 1733:
“because they had not freedom to retract their Protestation, and profess their sorrow for it, two sinful terms of ministerial communion have been imposed:
1. That no minister of this Church should testify from the pulpit against acts of Assembly, and proceedings of Church judicatories, even though they were such as had a direct tendency to undermine our constitution.
2. That no minister or member of this Church should protest, for their own exoneration, against acts, sentences, or decisions of the supreme judicatory, even though they should nearly affect the public cause of God and restrain ministerial freedom and faithfulness in testifying against the sins and defections of a backsliding Church.”
Answer: Was it so, that the Church of Scotland requires any sinful terms of communion of her ministers and other members, separatists would have much, yea enough to day for themselves; for we are to separate from all the Churches in the world, rather than be guilty of the least sin. Yet these sentences were not sinful terms of communion to all the ministers of this Church; for they respected the four Brethren allenarly. Had they been in such general terms as is the Act of Assembly 1638, which has never been complained of, testified against, nor sought to be rescinded by the Brethren, nor by any else to this day; then perhapsit might been thought that act respected other ministers and people, as a term of communion, as well as them: for that act, as was said above, did constitute and ordain:
“That from henceforth (which might be from that moment forever) no sort of person, of whatsoever quality and degree, be permitted to speak or write against the said Confession, this Assembly, or any act of this Assembly, and that under the pain of incurring the censures of this Kirk.”
And, according to the Brethren’s arguing here, it was a sin for any to join in communion with the Church of Scotland, from December 18, 1638 to this moment; for, according to them, that Assembly, by their forementioned act, made it a term of ministerial communion:
“That no minister shall, upon any occasion, testify from the pulpit against any act of Assembly, be it never so sinful; or against any of the proceedings of the judicatories, be they never so unwarrantable.” (See 1st Testimony, p. 82)
For there was far more ground to make their inference from the act of Assembly 1638, than from the act of Assembly 1733; and so all our worthy ancestors from that day, and the Brethren themselves, according to their argument, have been living in a Church in which there was a very sinful term of communion required of them; and yet they never complained of it, nor have they given the least testimony against it. But further, the above Act 1733, relating to these Brethren, being materially rescinded, as was shown above, this objection, even as to them, falls to the ground.
But then, as to the second alleged sinful term of communion, viz. “That no minister, or member of this Church shall protest against acts, sentences or decisions of the supreme judicatory, etc.”
Answer: As the act respected only the four Brethren, so that being rescinded materially as to them, the objection is not of force, nor made a term of ministerial or Christian communion to any person in this Church. The General Assembly 1638, in their sentence of deposition against archbishop Spotiswood and others, declares:
“That to decline and protest against a General Assembly, is by the acts of Assembly censurable with no less censure than summar excommunication.”
And, some say, to have no regard unto the decision of a General Assembly, is a material declining the authority thereof; and seems to be as much as to say, No regard is to be had to her decisions, unless we judge them right: which is no more but what all Independents will own.
A 3rd alleged sinful term of communion imposed upon the ministers and members of this Church is, “That the Assembly 1733 discharged the presbytery of Dunfermline to admit any of the parish of Kinross to sealing ordinances, without allowance from him who was thrust in upon them.”
Answer: That was an act I never justified; but as it was only an act in a particular case, and an act which only concerned the presbytery of Dunfermline and parish of Kinross, so it was no term of communion to other ministers and parishes. And further, as already hinted, that act was materially rescinded by the Assembly 1735, when, as was told formerly, they allowed the synod of Fife to do in that affair as they saw meet, or should find most for edification; who, being clothed with power from the Assembly in that matter, allowed that people to ask, and ministers to admit them to Church privileges where they pleased: And there was nothing in that act which looked so like a sinful term of communion to the ministers and members of this Church, as was the act of Assembly 1647, which obliged every member in every congregation to hear and partake of sealing ordinances in their own parish, however naughty the minister might be; for no parish was excepted: And though at that time it was the principle of the Church of Scotland, that the people have right to choose their pastors, yet patronages were then in force, whereby the liberty of election was much hindered, as Mr. Henderson says in his above-cited tractate.
Indeed, if such or such bad acts shall require my approbation of them, that would be a sinful term of communion; but the bare making of such an act will not prove it to be a term of communion: The act of Assembly 1642, whereby presbyteries were obliged to give a leit of six to every patron, was not a term of communion to every minister; nor the Act 1647, whereby all were obliged to partake of the seals of the Covenant in their own parish, which might be more unjust in respect of some ministers in Scotland than the act of Assembly respecting the parish of Kinross; yet, I suppose, none of these, nor such like were ever reckoned sinful terms of Christian communion in these times.
The Brethren, p. 57 of their first Testimony, speaking of that Act 1647, say:
“This act was made with reference to those who were regularly called to the holy ministry by the judgment of the presbytery and consent of the congregation, and who beside had the qualifications mentioned in the same act.”
But in those lines our Brethren have asserted two things which, in my humble opinion, are not matter of fact, for:
1. In these times the call of pastors was not regular, though with the judgment of the presbytery and consent of the congregation; for then the patron was to have his choice of six, and the presbytery and people behoved to be content with any of them he was pleased to pitch upon, though he should be the man of all the six they least desired. And (besides what Mr. Henderson says in his above-cited tractate) in the history of those times many instances are found, which evidence that the people had not always their free choice.
2. And ’tis not fact that at this time all the ministers of the Church of Scotland had the qualifications mentioned in that act, viz.:
“Being diligent in fulfilling their ministry, holy and grave in their conversation, faithful in preaching, declaring the whole counsel of God, etc.”
and our Brethren never offer the least proof for this: The Assembly’s bare charge unto ministers to be such, was not a sufficient evidence hereof, or else it would follow, the ministers of the Church of Scotland have always had such desirable qualifications since she emitted her Seasonable Admonition in 1698; for in it she seriously beseeches all ministers, to approve themselves as the ministers of God, etc. enlarging in pressing their duties upon them. But surely there were many naughty men among the ministers in that period, if we consider what the Assembly 1645 declare in their Solemn and Seasonable Warning, where they own at that time there were diverse in the ministry who were time-servers, and ministers “who strengthened the hearts and hands of the profane more than of the godly,” ministers that “had not taken heed to the ministry which they had received of the Lord, to fulfill it.” And this appears further, if we consider the faults of ministers instanced by the Assembly 1646, where the:
“slighting of God’s worship in their families, corrupt entry to the ministry as to a way of living in the world, their helping in and holding in of insufficient men, partially in favoring and speaking for the scandalous, both ministers and others, idleness, seldom preaching, as once on the Lord’s Day,”
and the like. And even when 1649 was come, there were many in the Church of Scotland who were unworthy the name of Gospel-ministers, as is evident from the causes of fasting, which were drawn up by the commission of that Assembly, and reprinted by the synod of Lothian 1654, and again in 1732 by the reverend Mr. Boston, in which that Commission laments over:
“the great partiality which was in judicatories, by censuring persons of meaner rank, while the like zeal was not shown against the sins of such as were more eminent for wealth, place or dignity in the world,”
where also they lament that then not a few, but many of the ministers in the Church:
“they labored not to set forth the excellency of Christ in his Person, offices and the unsearchable riches of his grace, the New Covenant, and the way of living by faith in Him; nor making this the main and chief theme and matter of their preaching, as did the apostle, 1 Cor. 3:2; 2 Cor. 4:5; Col. 1:28, nor preaching other things with relation to Christ.”
And there they charge many of them with “pressing duties in a mere legal way,” without pointing their hearers to their furniture for duty; and much more have they to that purpose, lamenting also, that, when they preached Christ, “it was not in a Gospel-way.” And further, what I lately saw in a letter from that worthy servant of Christ, the reverend Mr. Daivd Walker, late minister of the Gospel at Temple, seems to confirm it, that in this so much extolled period there were many naughty men for speaking of the Assemblies from 1638 to 1649; he says:
“It is most true, that the former Assemblies had in them a good number of ministers who were eminent for learning, piety and zeal; but, as far as I can understand, the plurality was both weak and worthless.”
And there, I think, he intimates he had this from the reverend Mr. James Kirkton, who says he “had seen sundry of those Assemblies.”
The Brethren though it duty to testify against these above-mentioned acts of Assembly 1733, as containing sinful terms of communion; but ’tis thought there was far clearer ground to testify against the act of Assembly 1648, by which the taking of the Covenant was made a term of Christian communion; so that from that time all persons whatsoever were to take it at their first receiving the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and not so much as a servant lad or lass was to be excused. Now if that be meant of the National Covenant, might not some serious souls, having the truth of grace, but wanting sensible reflex of assurance, had a scruple to swear they had the “knowledge and love of God’s true religion imprinted on their hearts by the Holy Spirit”? Or might not some serious souls, having a full sensible assurance, being persuaded the believer is beyond all danger of Hell, had a scruple to swear to do so and so, “under the danger of both body and soul in the Day of God’s fearful judgment? which are the words of that Covenant: And, if I mistake not, most part of the seven Brethren sometime since 1722 would have had a scruple to swear in the above terms.
And if the Covenant there mentioned is the Solemn League, might not some persons of weaker capacity, having the truth of grace, scrupled to swear, that “with their estates and lives they should defend the rights and privileges of parliaments,” because they did not understand them? And indeed, as the learned, zealous author of the Apologetical Relation, pp. 126-27, when vindicating those that had not taken that oath, which was called the Oath of Allegiance in King Charles II’s time, says:
“These questions concerning the power of princes and parliaments are dark and ticklish; and ministers, not being lawyers by profession, cannot be supposed to be well acquainted with the laws and constitutions of the realms, or with the nature and extent of the same in all points; yet it concerns them to see to this, that they run not themselves upon the rock of contradictory oaths: And having sworn to endeavor in their places and callings the preservation of the rights and privileges of parliament, it concerns them and all not a little, to search so far into the rights and privileges of parliament, as that they may know when an oath is tendered unto them which crosses the same.”
Now, if ministers, because they are not lawyers, might be unacquainted with the laws and constitutions of the realm, this might be, yea, surely was the case of many others: And if they might be in the dark as to the rights of the parliament of Scotland, much more may it be supposed they were ignorant of the rights and privileges of the parliament of England; and the Solemn League includes the rights and privileges of both. And as all oaths are to be taken in righteousness and truth, so also in judgment, Jer. 4:2.
But further, as to sinful terms of communion, if, as it is credibly reported, some of our Brethren make their Act, Declaration and Testimony a term of Christian communion, debarring all from the Table of our Lord, who do not approve of, and adhere to that Testimony, or who are not grieving for the things complained of in it; then I dare affirm, this is a sinful term of communion: For, I am sure, Christ the King of Zion never intended any such term of communion to the members of his body. I know not certainly whether all our Brethren make this a term of Christian communion, but I have conversed with sundry, who, in my opinion, are not only serious, but judicious Christians, and far from being enemies to the Brethren, who affirm at the last sacrament in Ab____y, in the evening of the preparation day, all were debarred from the Lord’s Table who were not grieving for the things complained of in the Testimony; and some of them declared, For this, they had not freedom to join at that occasion, though they had travelled sundry miles in order to partake, not having considered the Testimony fully at that time.
And I know for certain, by a letter under one of the Brethren’s hand, that some of them will not allow their people to partake in the Lord’s Supper with any minister of this established Church, but in a way of testifying against that minister, if he either oppose their Testimony, or be so much as neutral in it. And also I’m credibly informed, at the last sacrament at Ab____ll, all were debarred from the Lord’s Table who did not adhere to that Testimony.
And as some of the Brethren are said to make it a term of Christian communion, so it is very certain sundry of the people are persuaded, the Testimony is so much a term of Christian communion that they refuse to join with any in fellowship meetings who do not approve thereof; though, according to the Law of Christ, “doubtful disputations,” as are many things in the Testimony, are no proper terms of Christian communion, Rom. 14:1. And as sundry things in it are not fact, as has been shown, so many things in it are above the capacity of not a few serious souls. And lately discoursing with one who was zealous for that Testimony, upon my asking, What he thought was meant by the Protestation taken against the Resolutions? He said, It was a protest against everything that’s evil. And asking, What he thought was meant by the Toleration granted a little before the Revolution? He said, It was a license for people to live as they listed.
And ’tis much to be lamented people are running to such extremes at this day, that though such great men as Mr. Robert Blair, Mr. David Dickson, Mr. Robert Douglas, Mr. James Wood, and the like, were alive, none of them, according to those that go to such extremes, could be admitted to the Lord’s Table, nor to a fellowship meeting, seeing all of them approved of the Public Resolutions. Nor could the great Mr. Durham either, seeing he was so unresolved anent them, that he had not freedom to join with one party more than another. Nor could any of those worthy ministers of Christ, who were alive at the Revolution, whether Protesters or Resolutioners, Indulged or not Indulged, who had suffered so much for Christ and his cause, by “taking the spoiling of their goods joyfully,” by lying in prisons and banishment; seeing they preached under king James VII’s Toleration, and seeing they agreed at the Revolution to bury all their former differences in the grave of oblivion. Now, for asserting, as above, in a sermon, some took great offense; but whether there was just ground let others judge, when, at that very time, some separatists were extruding all those from fellowship meetings who did not accede to the Testimony, yea, or should but attend on the ministry of any that did not accede unto it.
The Brethren, in their first Testimony, p. 53, 57, to which they adhere in their 2nd, complain heavily of this Church, for usurping a legislative power in, and authority over the House of God, in making laws and constitutions that not only have no warrant from the Word, but are contrary unto it; and they instance this as a clear evidence thereof, that she has most unwarrantably proceeded “to inflict one of the highest censures of the Church, even excommunication from sealing ordinances,” upon such as have not freedom to submit to the ministry of those that are intruded upon them. But, are they not guilty here of the same crime which they charge upon others, such I mean, as make the Testimony a term of Christian communion, whereby all that cannot approve of the many disputable things therein, have that high sentence of excommunication pronounced against them? Some cry out against ministers for not testifying against the evils of the times; but, if ever evil was to be testified against, this is an evil of that nature, being materially the pronouncing a sentence of excommunication against the subjects of the King of kings without sufficient ground. And some affirm, ’tis a plain robbing Him of his supremacy, a pulling the crown from off his head, for any to make laws and terms of communion to his subjects which are contrary to his statutes: And I dare say, never law was more contrary to them than this, of making the Testimony a term of Christian communion; our sovereign Lord and supreme lawgiver never enacted anything like this. And if some, seeing this cannot be vindicated, do refuse the charge, then there are abundance of habile unexceptionable witnesses, who are friendly to the Brethren, to attest it; and was there but two or three judicious, unprejudiced persons of undoubted credit, to attest this, ’tis proof sufficient, though the person faulty, and many with him, should deny the fact; else it would follow, a certain professor, instead of being excommunicated, deposed or suspended, he should have been assoilzied, however clear the probation was.
The generality of them that join the Brethren in adhering to their Testimony, cannot but sin in acting by the implicit faith of Romanists, believing as the Brethren believe; for many of them own they never read the Testimony; many own they never read it all; and sundry of them own they do not understand many things in it: And neither can they, as p. 73, where on of the propositions of professor Simson’s libel which they condemn is only in Latin. Again, not one of many can tell what the Public Resolutions were; and the Brethren have not given any account of them. Again, though the Abjuration Oath is condemned as a public national sin, homologating the Union-constitution, yet they never tell how nor wherein it homologates that constitution; and it may be not one of an hundred ever read that oath. Again, they must believe the parliament 1690 imposed the “Oath of Allegiance in place of any other oaths imposed by laws and acts of the preceding parliaments, designedly to exclude the oath of the Covenant,” which is not fact; and not one of five hundred maybe ever saw that act. Again, they must believe as the Church believes, when ’tis affirmed in their Testimony, p. 60, “Many valuable pieces of reformation were upon the matter given up at the Revolution.” For the Brethren tell not what these many valuable pieces of reformation were; and for my part I cannot guess at them: So of a great many other things, yea, I may say of the most things in their Testimony, which it is not possible for them to know and understand, having never read anent those disputable points, nor seen such acts of parliaments and Assemblies, nor these oaths which are mentioned therein. But, as all oaths are to be sworn in truth, righteousness and judgment, Her. 4:2, so all that adhere to any such public Testimony, they sin against God, and harm their own souls, if their adherence be not in truth, righteousness and judgment, or with understanding. Besides, as has been shown already, and may be further shown, there are sundry things in the Brethren’s Testimony which are not matter of fact.
They say in their first Testimony, p. 24, “‘Tis very dangerous to depart in the least from a testimony that has been given.”
And people would consider, ’tis as dangerous to adhere or accede to a Testimony which has the least thing in it they do not clearly understand: God never accepted of the blind for sacrifice. And our Brethren would do well seriously to consider what they say of “an unwarrantable narrowing the terms of Christian communion” in another case, 1st Testimony, p. 58, namely that:
“it is a piece of tyranny upon the consciences of men, vastly unbecoming a Church that bears the name of Protestant: And as it is contrary unto the command of the Head of the Church by the apostle, 1 Pet. 5:3, ‘Neither as being lords over God’s heritage;’ so it is cross to one great end and design of Church government and discipline, viz. The edification of the body of Christ.”
The apostle Peter says he perceived “that in every nation he that fears God and works righteousness is accepted of Him,” Acts 10:34-35, and consequently all such should be accepted of his servants, and admitted to his Table. Now, may not one be a fearer of God, and a worker of righteousness, and yet have doubts anent the Public Resolutions, doubts anent the lawfulness of accepting the Indulgence and Toleration, doubts anent the lawfulness of the Abjuration, doubts anent excommunicating such as profess repentance? and is not this an accusing of the King of Zion, for any to refuse communion at his Table, or in any other duty, with such as he allows communion with Himself? And, as all that adhere to the Brethren’s Testimony must approve of their erecting themselves into a presbytery, so, may not one be an eminent servant of Christ, and yet disapprove of this unprecedented step? And further, ’tis affirmed, and I suppose not without sufficient ground, even some of the four Brethren wanted clearness as to this for some time after the other three had constituted themselves into a presbytery. The Protesters never made their Protestation a term of Christian communion; the Brethren of Fife and Perth never made their Testimony a term thereof: Yet now some are for shutting out all from the Table of the Lord, or fellowship with his people in ordinances that do not approve of this Testimony.
And lastly, can our Brethren but think it would be too much for any four men in another Church to take on them to draw up such a system for terms of Christian communion as is their Act and Testimony, allowing none to differ from them? and I dare say, they do not look on themselves to be infallible. As Mr. Mather says in his History of New England, bk. 3, p. 12:
“If any faction of men require the assent and consent of other men to a vast number of disputable and uninstituted things, and it may be a mathematical falsehood among the first of them, and utterly renounce all Christian communion with all that shall not give that assent and consent, we look upon these to be separatists, we dare not be so narrow spirited: The churches of New England profess to make only the substantials of the Christian religion to be the terms of our sacred fellowship.”
Now, if I be not far mistaken, enough has been said and made evident to scare any thinking person from adopting that Testimony, and much more to scare from making it a term of Christian communion to all. And whether all our Brethren make their Testimony a term of Christian communion or not, yet it seems all of them make it a term of ministerial communion; for in their act, receiving Messieurs Ralph Erskine and Thomas Mair, their having declared their adherence to their Act and Testimony, is given as ground why they unanimously received them as members of their presbytery.
Some have exclaimed against the Church of Scotland, because without sufficient evidences of repentance, at the Revolution, she received into ministerial communion some who had conformed to prelacy, and for continuing others in her communion who have taught error: But, can they be justified, who shall receive into ministerial communion one who has published error, eversive not only of the Church, but also of the State, and error which has a direct tendency to involve these lands, and keep them in blood and confusion perhaps from generation to generation? To say a prelatic king or magistrate is but a nominal king or magistrate, Plain Reasons, pp. 120-21, is a gross error, an error contrary to our national covenants, and to both our older and later confessions of faith, to the doctrine of all the reformed Churches, as ’tis contrary to the Word of God. And he who is thus to be received, is one who has been guilty of publishing the vilest slanders upon the national Church, and has never made public profession of repentance for that doctrine or those slanders, whatever his private profession anent that principle has been, though it be doctrine which, I doubt not, is very opposite to their principles who are about to license him: Such a person ought to be summered and wintered, after profession of repentance, before licensing of him. If a deacon’s wife must not be a slanderer, much less ought the meanest office bearer in the Church of Christ to be such: And seeing he is honored so as first of all to be received on trials for the holy ministry, ’tis like the sphalmata[?] or blemishes of their administration who are to license him, may come to be as many as the faults of others ere it belong.
27th Objection: Such Brethren as have gone out to the wilderness, making a stand for reformation, ought to be encouraged by going out unto and joining with them, the threatening being awful against all such “as come not out to the help of the Lord against the mighty;” (2nd Testimony, p. 147) especially, say some, when they have only made a secession and not a separation from this Church. Answer:
1. Before joining them, people ought seriously to weigh the grounds on which those Brethren did make secession, and still continue it when they have an opened door to come in at, trying whether they might not have continued with, or might not come into, the Church of Scotland without sin; for if no sinful term of communion be required, then their secession cannot be justified, nor ought they to be joined with to the renting of the body of Christ, which is judged to be the very case here.
2. As to their making a stand for reformation, I doubt not the Brethren would be glad of reformation, but ’tis a question whether their endeavors for reformation had not been as acceptable to the Lord by staying with or coming in to the Church, appearing for it in a way of Church communion, as by separation. It was a good saying of one who was esteemed among the greatest men in his day, for holiness, learning, wisdom, meekness and other qualities of an excellent spirit, namely the reverend Jonathan Mitchel, pastor in Cambridge of New England, when in a sermon he said to this purpose:
“Separation is a seeming friend, but a secret fatal enemy to reformation: Do not, in pretense of avoiding corruption, run into sinful separation from any of the true Churches of God, and what is good therein.” Mather, History of New England, bk. 4, p. 182
3. As to those Brethren’s “being in the wilderness,” “led to the wilderness,” or “encamped in the wilderness,” as they speak.
What their wilderness is, as yet I know not, seeing still they have access, if they please, to come in to God’s Vineyard, to the Church of the Living God, partaking of all her privileges. And, in 1733, some of them said as much as, her privileges were such, that they were ready to seal them with their blood; and, which I am far from grudging, they still enjoy their benefices, having as numerous and more numerous auditories as ever, without the least molestation: Yes, I may say, such as continue in the Church contending against defections, are rather in the wilderness than they, being frowned upon, if not hated, by sundry who formerly admired them, and would have “plucked out their eyes if possible” to do them service, being reckoned men of lax principles, and what not; and all because they have not freedom to join the Brethren in the separation.
4. But as to the awful threatening and curse denounced against such “as come not out to the help of the Lord against the mighty,” that Scripture, Judg. 5:23, it is not, “Curse ye Meroz, because he came not out to the help of the Lord.” And there the curse is as much against them that come not in to the help of the Lord against the mighty. And for such as have gone out from the Church of Scotland, they have not the mighty to strive against; they may do what they please, enact, declare and testify in what terms they please without control: But for such as continue in the Church, they may stand in need of help, having sometimes a strong party to contend against.
5. Whereas it is said, The Brethren have only made a secession and not a separation from this Church. For my part:
1. I cannot see but the secession they have made is the same with a separation, seeing they have separated from or left the judicatories of this national Church.
2. If the word “secession” be taken in the sense which Durham gives of it (on Rev. 18:4, p. 680), which I take to be the ordinary or common sense thereof, namely for a “local removing upon some urgent, lawful occasion, spiritual or temporal, to another or better constituted Church,” then they have made no secession, for they have not separated locally, as did Lot when he left Sodom, or as Israel when they removed from the tents of Korah, seeing they still inhabit the same manses, as well as enjoy the same benefices.
3. And whereas the word “secession” is sometimes taken for a revolt and mutiny, many think they have made a secession in that respect: But as separation may sometimes be without a secession, so I humbly think this is the Brethren’s case. And, unless they were Independents, ’tis as inconsistent with their principles to sit in sessions, while these sessions have not separated from the Church of Scotland [as in the Brethren’s case], as it is for them to come and sit in presbyteries or other judicatories, for surely kirk sessions are judicatories of this national Church, owning their subjection to her.
If for ministers to withdraw from the judicatories of a Church and constitute themselves into a judicatory be not to separate from that Church from which they withdraw, then I know not what separation is. Separation from a true Church of Christ, requiring no sinful terms of communion, as is the Church of Scotland, has always been and will be reckoned odious, being condemned in the Word of God: It seems therefore, though they are plainly for the thing, yet they cannot endure the name; and as our divines distinguish between negative and positive separation, so this is positive separation, separation in the worst and plainest sense: And if in sermons to tell people that there is a Testimony emitted, which is the Testimony of Jesus, or the Testimony of God, and that people are not to halt between two opinions, but “if the Lord be God” they must “follow Him,” and if “Baal be God then follow him,” telling them also the threatening we have, Judg. 5:23, “is awful against such as come not out to the help of the Lord against the mighty,” be not to preach separation from the ministers of the Church of Scotland who do not approve of their Testimony (and I know of none who approve of the whole of it), then I am much mistaken.
Had the Brethren gone over to the Netherlands, and joined the Church of Christ in Holland, then that had been to make a Secession from the Church of Scotland; or had they gone over to America, to France, Poland or Germany, and erected themselves into a judicatory there, that had been to make a secession from her; but a presbyterian Church within a presbyterian Church, is separation, or nothing can be such: And surely by their conduct they are, at least, as much guilty of separation as Mr. Hepburn or Mr. McMillan and their followers; and yet Mr. Hog and Mr. Webster charge them as guilty of schism and separation. The Brethren in their first Testimony, p. 97, say, “A peaceable departure from, or leaving the communion of a Church, when there is just cause for it, is not schism.” And this I readily grant; but I think their departure from us, as ’tis without a just cause, for it has been far from peaceable: Have they not “whet their tongue like a sword, and bent their bows to shoot their arrows, even bitter words”? And have they not drawn their pen and dipped it in gall, publishing it to the world, that their mother at this day is gone from the foundation; a Church, which countenances gross errors and erroneous persons; a Church whose judicatories have done what in them lawy to pull the crown from Christ’s head, refusing to give Him the glory of his supreme deity; a Church which has a special mark of Antichrist, being sadly involved in the guilty of denying the Son of god; a Church, which for “a long time” has been “deeply engaged in a course of defection from the Lord;” a Church, whose judicatories are the synagogues of Satan, as one lately asserted in his sermon? Have they not done what in them lay by their Testimony, not only to cause separation from her, but also to raise the indignation of all the churches of Christ against her? which is far enough from a peaceable departure.
Indeed, one of our Brethren in his secession from the present judicatories of this Church affirms:
“He has not joined the four Brethren as they are a presbytery or judicatory separate from the Church of Scotland, but as they are a part of the same Church, associated together, distinct form the present judicatories of this Church;” and says, “By joining the Brethren, I intend and understand no withdrawing from ministerial communion with any of the godly ministers of this national Church, that are groaning under, or wrestling against the defections of the times, even though they have not the same light with us in every particular contained in the foresaid testimony:”
So that, adds he (as an eminent light in this Church expresses it on another occasion):
“Here is no separation from the Church of Scotland, either in her doctrine, worship, discipline or government, but rather a cleaving more closely thereto, by departing or going forth from her backslidings and defections, as we are commanded by the Lord, etc.”
But how our brother or anyone else can be a part of the established Church of Scotland, as there he seems to own, who has cast off and disowns her judicatories, erecting himself with others into a distinct judicatory from her, I know not; for, in my humble opinion, this is plainly to separate from her.
And as for that eminent light he speaks of, ’tis strange he neither mentions his name nor the place where these words are to be found, that the reader may see with his own eyes. It would seem he was not so very fond of this; and indeed neither had he any ground, because that eminent light, viz. the reverend Mr. Alexander Shields, in his treatise on Church communion, or Treatise against Separation from the Church of Scotland, from which these words are cited, he is plainly against the Brethren’s secession. And even in page 20, where these words are to be found, he is against it, as is evident from his words when given fully, for Mr. Shields’s words run thus:
“This is no separation from the Church of Scotland, either in her doctrine, worship, discipline or government, but only a departing, or going forth from her sins, backslidings and defections, as we are commanded by the Lord; and for a time only from some congregations, because of these. This is not a positive or active separation form the Church, casting at it as no Church, or defaming the ministry thereof, or gathering new distinct Churches; only a negative and passive separation, refusing to follow the declining part of the Church holding on in their new course, and choosing rather to stand still and cleave to that part, though smaller, endeavoring to retain and maintain the covenanted work of reformation against Popery, prelacy, Erastianism and sectarianism, schism and defection.”
There Mr. Shields seems to speak of withdrawing, not from the Church in general, but from some particular congregations, because of their sins, backslidings and defections, refusing to follow the declining part of the Church, and cleaving to that part, though smaller, which is endeavoring to maintain the covenanted work of reformation, which is surely duty; but still without separation or secession from that Church: Whereas the Brethren’s separation from the Church of Scotland is a positive, active separation from her, “a casting at her as no Church,” attended with a “daily defaming of her ministry, and a gathering of new distinct churches out of her,” or a gathering people from all congregations to their Church, encouraging them to separate from their ministers. A negative separation is one thing, and a positive separation is another, as is shown above, pp. 9-10. Had our brother stood still, without acceding to the Brethren and joining with them in a judicatory, guarding against defaming our ministers, which mars the success of the Gospel in their hands, and had he abstained from having any hand in gathering new distinct churches, or from encouraging people to separate; then his separation might have been constructed to be only a negative separation: But this is not the case.
And as for the above treatise, which was written by that eminent light, Mr. Shields, and I know was recommended by our dear brother, the reverend Mr. Ebenezer Erskine to some of his parishioners, when at Portmoak, I wish all our separatists, and others also, may read it seriously, hearkening to his solid reasons against separation; and, though the divine blessing, our divisions would soon come to a desirable end.
28th Objection: For such as have separated to return to this Church, would be to bury their testimony given against her defections in former times, at least till she confess her faults and grievances be redressed. Answer:
1. As to the Church her making confession, I own ’tis duty, wherein she is convinced she has made defection, to turn from it, and to return unto the Lord, by an ingenuous confession and unfeigned repentance; yet, as that Dutch minister Mr. Brakel, who had been very instrumental in Mr. Renwick’s ordination, said in a letter to him from Holland (Renwick’s Life, p. 106):
“Sometimes circumstances are such that to press confession in such a case were the height of pride, at the least imprudence; and to urge it on innocents, is tyrannical.”
Durham says:
“Repentance implies conviction; How hard is that? And shall the Church never attain to union till this be?”
And he shows, if this had been the mind of the Church and servants of Christ, “there had never been public ecclesiastic, nor private Christian peace in the Church.”
2. But then as to the redressing of grievances, though it is to be wished all our grievances were removed; yet, to delay communion with a Church till all the grievances complained of be redressed, has neither Scripture precept, promise, nor example to support it; this is to make new and unheard of terms of communion, and, as one says, in a little time would multiply terms of communion beyond the capacity of men’s judgment and memory.
Further, this would open a door of perpetual rents and divisions; and, upon this principle, there could never be unity in the Church of Christ, till “we all come in the unity of faith, to the spirits of just men made perfect.” As Durham says (pt. 4, ch. 17):
“Union is not to be suspended upon satisfaction; but it would rather be pressed, that satisfaction may be attained.”
3. But whereas ’tis said, This would be to bury their testimony, should they come in and join the Church of Scotland, while she has not confessed her defections, nor are grievances redressed.
1. If she [the Church of Scotland] require it as a term of communion, that they acknowledge any offense in separating formerly, or that they renounce their judgment, and condemn any part of what they reckon a just testimony, then I own the objection would be of some weight.
2. But I humbly think, instead of requiring any such term of communion, the Church of Scotland will allow that solemnly they declare their acceding to this Church shall not infer anything like a condemning or receding from their former testimony against anything they looked upon as a defection from any piece of attained reformation.
3. And, if willing to return to the Church of Scotland, then I’m apt to think her judicatories, to which they might give such declarations subscribed, would allow the recording them, if in becoming terms or expressions, and also grant extracts in due form, which they might keep to show for their exoneration. And surely, if this would be a burial of their former Testimony, then it would be a very honorable burial of their former Testimony; then it would be a very honorable burial to be laid up in the registers of the Church of Scotland, which posterity, or succeeding generations may see and improve.
29th Objection: The Church of Scotland has been heinously guilty in obtruding pastors upon Christian congregations, and therefore should not be joined with.
I think I said enough for answer to this of obtruding pastors when instancing these things which have been reckoned just and sufficient ground for separation, p. 29 etc. and therefore shall not insist upon it at any length in this place. Yet, as Mr. Hog says (Casuist Essay, p. 60), “It is not everything amiss in those regards that affords ground for dishaunting instituted ordinances.”
When Zecharias executed the priest’s office in the order of his course, and when Christ and his apostles lived and joined with the Jews in public worship, there seems to have been gross abuses in calling and admitting men to the office of the priesthood; particularly as to the chief priest’s office, for that was gotten by moyen [mediation] or bribery. Hence, Luke 3:2, we read of Annas and Caiaphas their being high priests; whereas the Word of God allowed but of one high priest at a time: And Luke 11:49, there ’tis said, “Caiaphas was high priest that year.” ‘Tis thought the Romans had either turned off Annas from the priesthood and set up his son-in-law Caiaphas in his place, or that they exercised that office annually per vices [alternately], one having that high place this year and another the next year: Or some think the one might be deputy to the other, or the office of the high priest might be conferred, just as the Romans pleased, for shorter or longer space. But, whatever was in the case, here was a lamentable corruption in the priest’s office; yet Zacharias is commended for staying in the Church and “executing the priest’s office in the order of his course.”
But I enlarge not further upon this; only, as sometime formerly I affirmed and endeavored to prove that the people’s right of electing their pastors is a presbyterian principle founded upon the Word of God, so, to all the testimonies I then adduced, I add one testimony more to show I have not been singular in what I then advanced; and this is the testimony of bishop Burnet, in the last volume of the History of his own Times, where, speaking of the act restoring patronages in 1712, he says:
“It was set up by the presbyterians, from their first beginning, as a principle, that parishes had from warrants in Scripture a right to choose their ministers, so that they had always looked on the right of patronages as an invasion made on that.”
Once, again, and a third time, I have lately seen it published that the Church of Scotland in general, and the great Mr. Knox and some other of our reformers in particular, affirmed the election of ministers belongs to the pastors or presbytery, because Calderwood, p. 47, says:
“Mr. Knox and others, being appointed to conceive the heads pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Kirk, they affirmed, The Kirk had the election, examination and admission of them that are to be admitted to the ministry, or other functions of the kirk, etc.”
But , as is clearly shown in the search, pp. 92-94, that citation from Calderwood says nothing against the people’s right; for the question at that time was not whether the presbytery or people should have the election of pastors, and of other church-officers? but the question was, Whether the election of pastors and other church-officers belonged to the civil or to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction? And, if any desire to be further informed anent this, they may read the above-cited pages.
Here I might have noticed another mistake of our Brethren in their first Testimony, p. 32, were, speaking of the good laws, civil and ecclesiastic, made in that extolled period between 1638 and 1650, assert what is not matter of fact, when they say:
“The settlement of ministers was appointed with the call and consent of the congregation concerned.”
Though in that period settlements were to be with consent of the congregation, yet ’tis a mistake to say they were appointed to be with the call thereof: For though the Assembly 1638 allowed that no man was to be intruded contrary to the will of the congregation, yet the act of Assembly 1642, whereby the presbytery was obliged to give a leit of six persons to the patron, all willing to accept of his presentation, to which list the most or best part of the congregation was to consent, seems to have been the method of settling ministers from 1642 to 1649, which in a great measure was a robbing the people of their right to call their pastors: And if this was a fault to be testified against in 1732, it could not be a virtue in 1649. And though in that 32nd page they thus assert, yet, p. 57, they call it a regular call to the ministry, when the call is “by the judgment of the presbytery and consent of the congregation.” But according to them, ’tis very uncertain who are to be the callers of Gospel-ministers: For, in the 128th page of their second Testimony, they assert and declare:
“That ministers and other office-bearers in the Church, ought to be set over congregations by the call and consent of the majority of such in these congregations who are admitted to full communion with the Church in all her sealing ordinances; and that there should be no preference of voices in this matter upon the account of any secular consideration.”
For as there callers and consenters seem to be different, so ’tis a question whether by “callers” they mean male communicants, and by “consenters” females; or whether by “callers” they mean the elders, and by “consenters” the rest of the people that have been admitted to sealing ordinances; or whether by “callers” they mean elders and deacons, and by “consenters” all else that have been admitted to the Table of the Lord: For though they do not admit of preference of voices in this matter upon any secular consideration, yet, for anything asserted there, they may admit of preference of voices upon ecclesiastical considerations. And, if this be their opinion, then indeed, as they say their sentiments here are agreeable to the acts of Assembly 1649, so particularly they agree with the act of Assembly 1649; but then I humbly think they are not founded upon the Word in this particular.
Lastly, it is objected by some, This Church ought never to be joined with, in regard she has owned and owns the authority of prelatic kings, and kings who are sworn to maintain prelacy in England; kings that have never taken our covenants, etc. which presbyterians in former times would [have] never done. Once I designed to pass this objection entirely; yet, considering the author of Plain Reasons not only terms a prelatic king or magistrate a “nominal” magistrate, p. 121, but also intimates that no magistrate is to be owned till once he take, swear and subscribe the covenants, National and Solemn League, and be of the communion of this Church as established in 1649, asserting that to own any other magistrate is a downright relinquishing and abandoning reformation principles and fundamental laws, p. 238, spending a great part of his book in pleading that the principles and practice of separatists, the followers of Mr. M’Millan, are here agreeable to the principles and practice of our reformers, and to the judgment of this Church in that reforming period from 1638 to 1649, and also to the sentiments of the martyrs from 1660 to the Revolution, pp. 235-36,238, 241, etc. Considering also the conduct of some others in later times, however opposite our Brethren themselves are to that principle, I humbly think it may not be inexpedient nor unnecessary to insist upon it at some more length, endeavoring to pen the eyes of some honest people who are prejudiced against Church and State upon such accounts. And for answer:
1. From this, that it declares “’tis necessary that king and people be of one perfect religion,” of one true religion, or perfectly of one religion. This, in my opinion, is directly opposite to that article of our Confession, in which ’tis affirmed:
“Infidelity, or difference in religion, does not make void the magistrate’s just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to him.”
No doubt it is desirable that king and people be of one religion; but this is not necessary to constitute the relation of king and subjects.
2. To me it seems a little hard, as by that act, to oblige the king to swear not only for himself, but also for his successors, when none could tell who they might be.
3. That he should swear never to endeavor any alteration of the acts securing our religion: For some of these acts stood very much in need of alteration; as particularly the act of parliament 1592, which, though a good act in the main, yet had sundry things in it ery bad, as has been shown already.
4. That act sems to have been bad, in regard it obliged the king to take a most illimited oath, seeing he is sworn for himself and his successors to agree to all acts of parliament enjoining the covenants, and fully establishing presbyterian government, etc. for that oath tells not whether it was meant of acts already made or to be made. And by the oath administrated to King Charles II at Scon, it seems it included both: for, by his oath at that time, he was obliged to swear, saying:
“I for myself and successors shall consent and agree to all acts of parliament enjoining the National Covenant, and the Solemn League and Covenant; And that I shall give any royal assent to all acts and ordinances of parliament, passed or to be passed, enjoining the same in my other dominions.”
Here the king is sworn to what neither he nor the imposers of that oath could know what.
5. The obliging him to take the National Covenant, in my opinion, was to found dominion upon grace: for as noticed above I see not how any man could swear it but such as had grace, and a full assurance thereof.
And it seems Messieurs Thomas Linning, Alexander Shields and William Boyd, have been of this opinion, “That none but such as have grace should take the Covenant.” For in that large Paper given in to the Assembly 1690, in their proposal for renewing the Covenants, they say:
“Humbly moving that none be forced to swear and subscribe the same, or so much as admitted to it, except they be such as may be judged in charity to have a competent knowledge and sense of the sins and duties thereof.”
Now I think ’tis only gracious persons that have a sense of sin and duty upon their spirits.
6. To me it was a very bad act, seeing though the king had the temptation of a crown and kingdom, yet he behoved to swear, at taking this solemn oath, that he was “not moved with any worldly respect.” Strange, to oblige a king to take that covenant else he shall never be king, and yet oblige him to swear he is not moved “from any worldly respect” in taking thereof! This, in my humble opinion, required the largest measure of grace.
3. As to the Church of Scotland her owning the authority of prelatic kings, and kings who, instead of taking the covenants, have sworn to maintain prelacy in England. I own this is the truth; but ’tis what we cannot help: And ’tis good our kings, by their coronation-oath, are as much obliged to maintain presbytery in Scotland as prelacyin England. And for us to own the authority of such kings, is not in the least contrary to presbyterian principles. Did not the Church of Scotland, in all times since the Union of the Crowns of Scotland and England in 1603, own the authority of such kings?
1st, Now whereas such separatists as object against owning a prelatic king, or such as have not sworn our covenants, boast of having all our reformers upon their side of the question, and the great Mr. Knox in particular; I shall endeavor to show, our reformers’ principles and practice were diametrically opposite to that of our separatists.
And this is evident to a demonstration, from the account we have of these in the History of the Reformation, commonly called Knox’s History; as particularly from that letter of our reformers sent to the Popish Queen Regent from Perth, the 22nd of May 1559, p. 138, in which our reformers promised all due obedience to the authority of the king, queen and regent, though these rulers were Popish as well as prelatic, might they but have the free exercise of the true religion: And when at that time the reformers demand that Perth should be rendered up, p. 146, they cried with one voice:
“Cursed by they that seek effusion of blood; let us possess Christ Jesus and the benefit of his Gospel, and none within Scotland shall be more obedient subjects than we shall be.”
Yea, so loyal were they, that at this very time, though they were convinced the Queen Regent was dealing deceitfully with them, and that she would not keep her engagements, yet then their preachers, as John Willock[?] and John Knox, to stop the mouth of the adversary who charged them with rebellion, most earnestly requested them to accept of the terms offered, and so to suffer her hypocrisy to discover herself. And when Queen Mary and King Francis had sent over letters from France, in which they charged the reformers, as intending not religion but the subversion of their authority, they say, p. 157:
“These letters did not a little grieve us, who most unjustly were accused; for never a sentence of the narrative was true, etc.”
And, in their answer to them, say:
“As to the obedience of our soverereign’s authority in all civil and politic matters, we are and shall be as obedient as any other of your Majesty’s subjects within your realm.”
And, in their agreement at the Links of Leith, July 24th, 1559, p. 163, in one of these articles ’tis said:
“Item, the said Lords of Congregation, and all the members thereof, shall remain obedient to our Lord and Lady’s authority, and to the Queen Regent in their place; and shall obey all laws and laudable customs of this realm, as they were used before the moving of this tumult and controversy, excepting the cause of religion, which shall be hereafter specified.”
And when the Queen Regent had complained of the ministers and preachers, that they spoke irreverently of princes in general, and of her in particular, p. 179, the author of that history says:
“Because thus occasion is laid against God’s true ministers, we cannot but witness what course and order of doctrine they have kept, and yet keep in that point.”
And then he says:
“In public prayers they recommend to God all princes in general, and the magistrates of this our native realm in particular: In open audience they declare the authority of princes and magistrates to be of God; and therefore they affirm, That they ought to be honored, feared and obeyed, even for conscience sake, provided that they command nor require nothing expressly repugning to God’s Commandment and plain will revealed in his holy Word.”
And when (I think in 1559) a proclamation was emitted by the Queen Regent, in which the reformers, or the Lords of the Congregation, were charged with a design of casting off authority, the Lords, in their Declaration against that Proclamation, for their own vindication, say, p. 188:
“We offer and we perform all obedience which God has commanded, and we deny neither toll, tribute nor fear to her nor officers: We only bridle her blind rage, in which she would erect and maintain idolatry, and would murder our brethren who refuse the same.
Neither yet fear we in this present day, that against us she makes a malicious lie, where that she says that it is not religion we go about, but a plain usurpation of authority: God forbid that such impiety should enter into our hearts, that we should make his holy religion a cloak and cover of our iniquity. From the beginning of this controversy ’tis evidently known what have been our requests, which, if the rest of the nobility and commonality of Scotland will cause to be performed unto us, if then in us appear any sign of rebellion, let us be reputed and punished as traitors, etc.”
And, at the time when they disposed or turned the Queen Regent from the administration, it was not in the least because of her being Popish, nor because she would not profess the true religion with her subjects, as the author of Plain Reasons seems to represent the matter, p. 222. No, but because she was an enemy to the commonwealth and an oppressor of the subjects; for still they owned the king and queen’s authority, and they suspended or deposed her in the name of their sovereign Lord and Lady, who were Popish, she having acted contrary to their will.
Further, that our reformers were of as different principles from our separatists upon this point, as the East is opposite to the West, is evident from what they assert in the 24th Article of our old Confession of Faith, which, at the Reformation, was approven and professed by all the Protestants in the land, and ratified both by Church and State; in which article, speaking of civil magistrate, they say:
“We further confess and acknowledge, that such persons as are placed in authority are to be loved, honored, feared, and holden in most reverend estimation, because they are the lieutenants of God, in whose session God Himself does sit and judge.
And further, we affirm that whosoever deny unto them their aid, counsel and comfort, while the princes vigilantly travail in the executing of their office, that the same men deny their help, support and counsel to God, who, by the presence of his lieutenant, craves it of them.”
And when was this confession composed, and thus ratified, but when we had a Popish sovereign upon the throne, viz. July 17, 1560? So our reformers could never dream that a prelatic king is a nominal king, as some separatists talk.
And it concerns them to consider whether it be not downright perjury in them, to deny the authority of such kings as have ruled over us since the Revolution; for this Confession of Faith is sworn to in our National Covenant, as is owned by all; seeing, by that Confession, such as are placed in authority over a people, “are to be loved, honored, feared and to be holden in most reverend estimation, and to be aided while they vigilantly travail in executing their office.” And then Church and State were of the same principle with the Westminster Assembly, which asserts that “Infidelity or difference in religion, etc.” There is not a word indeed in either of these confessions of hereditary right, or of a nation’s being obliged to choose any that are not of their religion; yet, being invested with legal authority, the authority of such is to be owned, and they are to be obeyed, as if they were of the same religion with us in all points, while defending us in our rights and privileges, according to their coronation oath; and even every breach of that will not loose subjects from their obedience.
Again, the Council of Scotland, in answer to Queen Elizabeth, who complained that the peace agreed to at Leith had not been ratified by our Queen, says:
“Our obedience binds us not only reverendly to speak and write of our sovereign, but also to judge and this, etc.”
And Mr. Knox, in his first Reasoning with Queen Mary, after her coming from France, says:
“I think and am surely persuaded that your Majesty has had, and presently has as unfeigned obedience of such as profess Christ Jesus within this realm as ever your father or progenitors had of these that are called bishops.” (p. 311)
And as our reformers in general, so the great Mr. Knox in particular, he was of the same mind in every respect with others in this point, as is evident from his letter to the Queen Regent, dated October 26, 1559, where he says:
“My tongue did both persuade and obtain, that your authority and regimen should be obeyed in all things lawful, till you declare yourself an open enemy to this commonwealth, as now, alas, ye have done.” (p. 192)
Moreover, when the nobility and others were about to suspend the Queen Regent from the exercise of authority, John Knox’s mind being asked, he said:
“First, that the iniquity of the Queen Regent and disorder ought in nowise to withdraw neither our hearts, neither yet the hearts of other subjects, from the obedience due unto our sovereign.
Secondly, that if we deposed the said Queen Regent rather of malic and private envy, than for the preservation of the commonwealth, and for that her sins appeared uncurable, that we should not escape God’s just judgment, howsoever that she had deserved rejection from honors.
And thirdly,” he required, “that no such sentence should be pronounced against her, but that upon known and open repentance, and upon her conversion to the commonwealth, and submission to the nobility, place shall be granted unto her of regress to the same honors from the which, for just causes, she justly might be deprived.”
Indeed he and our other reformers were of this judgment, that if a sovereign break his coronation oath, oppose himself to the true religion, and turn a declared enemy to the commonwealth, in that case the nobility or States, with the people of the realm, may justly oppose themselves to such a sovereign, and deprive them of authority; as is evident from that long conference between Lethington, Mr. Knox and others, at the Aseembly 1564. And as Knox, so likewise Calvin was of the same mind: Hence, Institutes, bk. 4, ch. 20, sect. 25, he says, Verum si in Dei verbum respicimus, etc.:
“But if we look to the Word of God, it will lead us further, that we be subject not only to the government of these princes which execute their office towards us well, and with such faithfulness as they ought, but also of all them who, by what mean soever it be, have the dominion in possession, etc.”
Now, from what has been said, the impartial world may judge whether or not these great “restorers of presbytery,” viz. Calvin and Knox, as the author of Plain Reasons calls them, were upon his side of this question or not. And so much for the inconsistency of the present principles and practice of separatists, with the principles and practice of our reformers.
I do on, secondly, to show how opposite the principle of these separatists is to the principle of the Church of Scotland in that period which they magnify so highly, viz. Between 1638 and 1649 inclusive; for, whatever they pretend during that period, she owned the authority of a prelatic king, and a king who had never taken the covenants:
And this is evident from sundry things, as from the supplication of the Assembly 1638 to the King’s Majesty, and also from the supplication of the Assembly 1639 to the king’s commissioner and Lords of Secret Council; also from their supplication to the King’s Majesty that year: So the answer of the Assembly 1641 to the King’s letter; again the Supplication of the Assembly 1641 to the King’s Majesty. Though the king had told that Assembly, in his letter sent by his Commissioner, the Early of Dunfermline, that, as I noticed formerly, he desired and was designed to govern the Kirk of England by her own canons and constitutions; yet in that Supplication they express the greatest loyalty imaginable. So the Assembly 1643, in answer to the king’s letter. Again, the Assembly 1645, in their humble remonstrance to the King’s most excellent Majesty, in which, though they freely and faithfully tell him of his:
“being guilty of shedding the blood of many thousands of his best subjects, of permitting the mass and other idolatry both in his own family and in his dominions, of profaning the Sabbath by his Book of Sports, of shutting his ears from the just desires of his humble subjects;”
In which also the Assembly tells him of his disregarding their many humble addresses: Yet at the same time, notwithstanding of all these, they assert their “loyalty and faithful subjection” to him, affirming their loyalty was not blotted out of their hearts; with a good deal more to that purpose.
Again, the Assembly 1646, in their letter to the King’s Majesty, tell how they had:
“constantly labored to approve themselves in all loyalty to his Majesty, declaring they were resolved to walk still after the same rule, continuing their prayers for him.”
And the Assembly 1647, in the 11th paragraph of their Declaration to their Brethren of England, say:
“Nor does our zeal for the Covenant and presbyterial government abate or diminish anything at all from our loyalty and duty to the King’s Majesty, although incendiaries and enemies spare not to reproach this Church and kingdom with disloyalty.”
And the Assembly 1648, in their Humble Supplication to the king, of the date, August 12th, as they give him the title of “most excellent Majesty,” so (though they deal freely with him in telling him his sin and duty) they say:
“The Searcher of Hearts knows, and our consciences bear record unto us, that we bear in our spirits these humble and dutiful respects to your Majesty that loyal subjects owe to their native sovereign.”
Indeed at that time, being turned off from the exercise of his kingly power by Cromwell and the sectarians, they were not for restoring him thereto till he should give security for religion; yet at that very time they say:
“We take it as a great mercy, and door of hope, that God still inclines the hearts of all his servants to pray for your Majesty.”
This was when the king was in the hands of those sectaries that took away his life, which the Assembly 1649, in their Seasonable Warning, expressly calls murder: And though the Assembly 1649, in that Seasonable Warning of the date August 27th, declare themselves to be of the same mind with the Assembly 1648 as to the admission of King Charles II to the exercise of the regal government; yet that very Assembly, notwithstanding of all the bad things they laid to his charge, as they begin their letter to him with these words, “Most gracious Sovereign, we your Majesty’s most humble and loyal subjects, etc.” Now, their designing themselves once and again his subjects, his loyal subjects, and most loyal subjects, giving him the epithet of their “Most gracious Sovereign,” was either an owning of this authority, or else it was hateful dissimulation, and a giving flattering titles; condemned, Job 32:21-22. And in that letter they own the authority of his father Charles I, while alive, for all the bad, mischievous things he had done to the Church of Scotland, when they say:
“We do from our hearts abominate and detest that wicked fact of the sectaries against the life of your royal father, our late Sovereign.”
And here I might also notice that the Commission 1648, which was unanimously approven by the Assembly 1649, in their Solemn Acknowledgment of Public Sins and Engagement to Duties, assert their loyalty to the king, saying:
“As we have been always loyal to our king, so we shall still endeavor to give unto God that which is God’s, and unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.”
There they own a prelatic king, calling him “our king,” and profess their loyalty to him.
Now, from these things, ’tis pretty evident the Church of Scotland from 1638 to 1649 was far from being of the same sentiments with our separatists, the followers of Mr. M’Millan, as to the civil government.
I proceed now in the third place to show that the principles of separatists, the followers of Mr. M’Millan, are as inconsistent with the principles of many of the most judicious among the martyrs, who suffered from 1660 to the Revolution, as they are with our reformers and with this Church from 1638 to 1650, in this point of owning the authority of such kings as have swayed the sceptre over us since that time (though they speak as if all the martyrs in that period had been of their mind) as is evident from the testimonies and last speeches of those martyrs.
And to begin with the speech of the first of these, viz. the noble Marquis of Argyle, who suffered May 27th 1661. As in it he vindicates himself from having the least hand in what he called the horrid and execrable murder of King Charles I, so in it he prays for King Charles II, who was then upon the throne, saying:
“I pray the Lord to preserve his Majesty, and pour out his best blessings on his person and government.”
And the reverend Mr. Guthrie, who was the next that suffered, June 1st, 1661, when speaking of the things for which they had sentenced him, says:
“I bless God they are not matters of compliance with sectaries, or designs or practices against his Majesty’s person or government, or the person or government of his royal father; my heart (I bless God) is conscious unto no disloyalty, nay, loyal I have been, and I commend it unto you to be loyal and obedient in the Lord: True piety is the foundation of true loyalty.”
Lord Waristoun was the third, he suffered July 22nd, 1663; and having vindicated himself from having the least access to his late Majesty’s death, or to the change of government, says:
“I pray the Lord to preserve our present King, his Majesty, and to pour out his best blessing upon his royal posterity.”
The next ten persons, who suffered Dec. 7, 1666, viz. John M’Culloch of Barholm, Captain Andrew Arnot, John Gordon of Knockbrex, and Robert Gordon his brother, etc. in their joint testimony say:
“We are condemned by men, and esteemed by many as rebels against the king, whose authority we acknowledge: But this is our rejoicing, the testimony of our consciences, etc.”
All those owned King Charles then reigning for their lawful sovereign, though a prelatic king, and one that had broken the Covenant, and made the Act Rescissory.
Mr. James Robertson, preacher of the Gospel, who suffered Dec. 14, 1666, in his Testimony, he adheres to what the former ten “had left behind them concerning the common cause,” telling:
“That with the same breath he sware to preserve religion, he also sware to defend the king in his authority.”
John Neilson of Corsack says:
“I am condemned, I shall not say how unjustly, as a rebel against man; but the Lord God of Gods knows that it is not for rebellion against God, etc.”
George Crawfurd died that same day with Neilson of Corsack, and he expressly owns the king’s authority. That eminent person Mr. Hugh M’Kail, executed Dec. 22, 1666, he indeed is not so express upon this particular; yet affirms of these then condemned as rebels against the king:
“That they were such as had spent much time in prayer for him, and do more sincerely with his standing, and have endeavored it more by this late action so much condemned, than the prelates by condemning them to death.”
John Wodrow declares he had no intention of wrong to the king’s person or authority in going to Pentland. Ralph Shields owned the king’s authority, wishing his Majesty all Welfare in this life, and that which is to come. Humphry Colquhoun neither owns nor disowns it. John Wilson owns the king’s authority, and exhorted all to stand fast in all the duties they were sworn to in the Covenant, both toward God, their king, and one another. Now, of all these martyrs, whose testimonies are recorded in Naphtali, not one of them denied that king’s authority they suffered under, yea all of them own it in express terms, if it be not three or four.
Mr. James Mitchell suffered June 18, 1678. And in his testimony, as he approves of Lex Rex, The Causes of God’s Wrath, the Apologetical Relation, Jus Populi, etc., “as orthodox and consonant to the received principles and doctrine of the Church of Scotland,” so in these pieces there is much condemning all that reject civil authority barely because the sovereign is of prelatic principles, or not of our religion. Hence the author of the Apologetical Relation says, p. 155:
“There is a great difference between a war raised of purpose to force the supreme magistrate to be of the same religion with the subject, or else to dethrone him, and a war raised to defend that religion which both magistrate and subject owns.”
James Learmont, suffering Sept. 27, 1678, says:
“I give my testimony against that calumny cast upon presbyterians, that they are seditious and disloyal persons; the which aspersion I do abhor: Therefore I exhort all people, that they will show loyalty to the king, and all lawful magistrates, in all their just and lawful commands, insofar as their commands agree with the Word of God.”
Mr. John Kid, preacher of the Gospel, suffering Aug. 14, 1679, says:
“But for our rebellion against his Majesty’s person or lawful authority, the Lord knows my soul abhors it name and thing. Loyal I have been, and wills every Christian to be so; and I was ever of this judgment to give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
Mr. John King, preacher of the Gospel, suffering the same day with Mr. John Kid, says:
“The Lord knows, who is the Searcher of Hearts, that neither my design nor practice was against his Majesty’s person and just government, but I always intended to be loyal to lawful authority in the Lord. I thank God, my heart does not condemn me of any disloyalty; I have been loyal, and do recommend it to all to be obedient to higher powers in the Lord.”
And the last five persons who suffered at Magus-moor, Dec. 25th, 1679, in their last testimony say:
“We give our testimony against that calumny cast upon the presbyterians, that they are not loyal to their king; which aspersion, as false, we abhor: So we desire you all to obey your king in all his lawful commands, according as ye are bound in the Word of God and your covenants.”
And all those declarations of loyalty were to a prelatic king, who did not regard the covenants.
But then, as to the martyrs recorded in the Cloud of Witnesses, who suffered from 1680 to the Revolution [1689], I own indeed generally they denied the king’s authority, but yet in this they were not all of one mind, as that excellent person John Wilson, writer in Lanark, who suffered 1683, said, “He could not see through the denial of it, viz. of the king’s authority,” (Wodrow, History, vol. 2, p. 301) though his words are perverted in the Cloud of Witnesses. Again, Mr. John Dick, suffering 1684, he owned the king’s authority conform to the Word of God, owning he had power to govern for the glory of God and the good of his people. And Captain John Pater[?], who also suffered that year, when asked before the council if he owned the king’s authority, answered he owned all authority according to the Word of God.
And sundry of these who denied the king’s authority, as the reverend Mr. Donald Cargill and others, they qualified their denial thereof, denying it “as it was established in the Supremacy and Explanatory Act;” and MR. Cargill said, “That is the magistracy I have rejected:” He disowned “authority” because the Supremacy was declared to be “an inherent right and essential to the crown.”
And sundry thought the king’s authority could not be owned, because of his perfidy in breaking the covenants which he had taken, and his coronation oath, and because of his persecuting and oppressing the Lord’s people: Some distinguished between authority and the abuse thereof, others did not. And here I might have cited many others, as that eminent servant of the Lord Mr. Robert M’Ward, who, if he was not a martyr, yet suffered much for Christ; who, when sisted before the parliament, July 6, 1661, besought “That he might not be looked upon as a disloyal person, either as to his principles or practice,” declaring how loyal he had been, telling the parliament also, he had:
“not spoken anything unto them to that purpose, if the credit of his ministry had not imposed that necessity, and extorted it from him.”
This worthy minister reckoned it a reproach to his ministry to say he was disloyal, even at a time when the king was not only a prelatic king, but a king who was breaking the Covenant, overturning presbytery, openly declaring against the truth, and shedding the blood of God’s saints: And, in his supplication to the parliament at that time, he has more to the same purpose.
As for the testimonies of martyrs in the Western Martyrology, having never seen that piece, I can say nothing anent them. I add the testimony of an eminent martyr more and that is the testimony of the reverend Mr. Thomas Archer, who came over with Argyle, and suffered that year, viz. In 1685: He was a person of singular learning, judgment and piety; and, in his last words and testimony says (Wodrow, History, vol. 2, p. 555):
“I own the king’s authority, since he has it not only by God’s providence, but by the consent of the Estates of the Land, who have determined that he is the lawful successor: And it is a question if he be worse than those whom the prophets have been subject unto under the Old Testament, and those to whom the apostle commands subjection under the New.”
I have not cited any of our acts of Assembly, nor anything from our reformers, or the testimonies of any of the martyrs, as if I designed to vindicate tyrants or presecutors, or condemn any that have appeared for religion and liberty against them: Far from it; for I think there was truth in what King James is said to have uttered in his parliament, 1609, viz.:
“A king governing in a settled kingdom, ceases to be a king, and degenerates into a tryant, so soon as he leaves to rule by his laws; much more when he begins to invade his subjects’ persons, rights and liberties; to set up an arbitrary power, impose unlawful taxes, raise forces, and make way upon his subjects, whom he should protect and rule in peace; to pillage, plunder, waste and spoil his kingdom, imprison, murder and destroy his people in a hostile manner, to captivate them to his pleasure.” (Apologetical Relation, p. 148)
For in such a case, I humbly think the Primores Regni with the people may dethrone such a tyrant, though, while in the exercise of the government, their authority is to be owned. But I have insisted upon these, to show how unlike our separatists are in principle and practice to our reformers, and to the Church of Scotland from 1638 to 1649, and to the most judicious among our martyrs, as the Noble Marquis of Argyle, Mr. James Guthrie, Lord Waristoun, Mr. James Robertson, M’Culloch of Barholm, Captain Arnot, Gordon of Kneckbrex, and his brother; to Mr. John Kid and Mr. John King, John Wilson, writer in Lanark, Mr. John Dick, and others, whose testimonies in such a point as this are surely more to be regarded than the testimonies of country-people, though real saints and approven of God in the main of their sufferings; and both parties could not be right in this particular: And if our reformers and Assemblies from 1638, and if such judicious persons among our martyrs owned the authority of such prelatic oppressing rulers as they lived under, it can never enter into any man’s head to dream, they would have disowned the authority of our civil rulers since the happy Revolution.
Now let the world judge, whether some separatists have not a good deal of confidence to affirm that our reformers, with the Church from 1638 to 1649, and all the martyrs, or the martyrs all along from 1660 to the Revolution, disowned a prelatic king, or that they were of their principles.
Other objections are raised by separatists against joining in communion with this Church, or other reasons are adduced for separating from her; but I insist no further upon them, in regard they are largely handled by Mr. Shields in his Treatise of Church-Communion, where solid and satisfying answers are given to the reasons advanced for separation in the Informatory Vindication [1687].
I have heard that lately one in a sermon cited Num. 16:26 to prove that people should separate from ministers of the Church of Scotland: But surely, if ever Scripture was wrested and pressed into service to make it speak for a party, this Scripture is; for, if it be applicable to any among us, then it is to them that do not separate from separatists and schismatics; these are the persons that Scripture calls us to separate from: Hence, some have called separation Korahism; and Mr. Shields charges Korah, Dathan and Abiram as guilty of schism saying:
“With their adherents they separated from Moses and the people, murmuring against him; and Aaron took part with the schismatics.” (On Church-Communion, p. 40)
.
Chapter 7
Containing advices how to carry, as people would be kept from the evil of separation
.
I’m now arrived at the last thing intended, namely, to conclude the subject with some advices, how to behave, as we would be kept from the evil of separation from a true Church, though her faults should be many.
1st, We would study to know the truth, and grow in knowledge;
For, alas! many speak evil of the things they understand not, as says the apostle Peter (2 Pet. 2:12) and Jude (v. 10). Ignorance is not the mother of devotion, but of deviation. The affections of many go before their judgment. Ignorance and rash prejudices have often engaged people to oppose the truth. The grounds of separation from a Church lie deep and are beyond the knowledge of many serious people, who want not a good deal of knowledge, and, I doubt not, the sanctified knowledge of the principles of religion contained in our Confession of Faith and Catechisms. Hence the reverend Mr. Webster, in Preface to his Letter to Mr. M’Millan, charged him and such as joined with him as “being equally ignorant of the nature of union with, and separation from a Church, and of what will justify the one or the others.” [Thomas] Manton commenting upon the words of the apostle Jude, “These speak evil of the things they know not,” says:
“Usually we find the weakest spirits are most violent, there being nothing of judgment to counterbalance affliction. Men are all flame and rage. Liquors, when they run low, and are upon the dregs, they grow more tart and sour: So ’tis usually with the dregs of men; for, when they are weak and run low in parts, their opposition is most troublesome. What ado in the ministry have we with young heady professors, that have more heat than light?”
“Separation,” says one, “is usually accounted a sign of a high-grown Christian, but very absurdly.” What the reverend Mr. Ralph Erskine says in his sermon upon the Rent Vail, p. 36, I’m apt to think is very applicable to many separatists in our day, where having given it as a mark of such as have ground to think the vail is rent for their saving good, “That their hearts are rent for the rents of the Church, for the divisions of Reuben,” he expresses himself thus:
“I cannot justify the ignorant zeal of many professors, whose hearts are rent from ministers, and they know not for what; they can give no reasonable account of their separating courses.”
If a Scripture be asked, they can give none, or none to the purpose, warranting their practice.
2nd Advice: When, upon search and enquiry, you are convinced of the truth relating to separation, never think shame to own it, though contrary to what you formerly professed.
Alas! there is too much truth in what Manton says (On Jude, p. 396), viz. “When our affections outstart our judgments, men grow obstinate in their ignorance, and will not know what they have a mind to hate,” citing Tertullian, saying, “Malunt nescire quia[?] jam oderunt.” And then he adds:
“Rash prejudices engaging men in opposition, they will not own the truth when represented to them; having hated it without knowledge, they hate it against knowledge, and so are hardened against the ways of God; which is the case of many, who, in a blind zeal, have appeared against the public ministry and ordinances, and, being engaged, are loth to strike sail and lay down their defiance, when sufficient conviction is offered.”
Augustine was not more famous for anything than for his ingenuity in writing a book of Retractions, in which he frankly acknowledged his former mistakes and errors. Jerome, when writing to Ruffinus, says:
“Never blush to change thy opinion; for neither you nor I, nor any person alive, are of so great authority as to be ashamed to confess we have erred.”
3rd Advice is to beware if man-worship, or of having men’s persons in admiration.
This was the spring of schism in the Church in Corinth, in the apostles’ time; some said they were of Paul, some of Apollos, and some of Cephas, or of Peter (1 Cor. 1:12); they thought of men “above what was meet,” and were “puffed up for one against another, glorying in men;” some setting up for one, and some for another, as if the person they admired had only been worth the hearing, disdaining other faithful servants of the Lord as unworthy to be named with them, though sound preachers of the same gospel of Christ. And to despise these who are of weaker gifts, is in some sort a reproaching the Spirit of the Lord, as if He were defective in his gifts to such; whereas this variety sets forth the freeness and also the fulness of his gifts, who “works all these, dividing to every man severally as He will.” (1 Cor. 12:11) No doubt we may lawfully admire the gifts and graces of God bestowed upon men, but so as to give all the glory to God the Giver, and so as to guard cautiously against despising or undervaluing others of his sent servants, though of weaker parts.
The sinful admiration of men has many fatal consequences. And among others, Jenkyn says:
“Nothing begets so great an aptness in men to receive errors as this sinful admiration. Affection commonly makes men take down falsities; and error is easily received from them whom we much admire; and God does often leave admired teachers to err, for trial of the people, and the punishing of their vanity, in making God’s truth to stand at the devotion of the teacher for its acceptance, and trampling upon the holy, and (perhaps) learned labors of those who are more seeing and faithful than the admired.”
And indeed, if once a person be thus admired, what he writes and says, whether minister or private Christian, ’tis often believed with implicit faith; as if such an one should affirm the Church of Scotland is off the foundation, and consequently ought to be separated from, it would be believed; or if he should insinuate, was it not for their stipends, the honest ministers of this Church would come out from her; or say, she is as corrupt this day as the Church of Rome, or affirm, she has adopted all the errors of such or such persons, because she has not censured them as they deserved; or assert the practice of our Assemblies speaks out a stated design to have a covenanted work of reformation altogether overthrown, and the Church modelled in a conformity to the Church of England, if not worse; or affirm, the very foundations, both of the doctrine and government of the Church of Christ, are overturned by the present judicatories; or say, The Tabernacle is now removed without the camp; or assert, Christ’s standard is not to be found therein, which is to say, the present Church of Scotland is no true Church of Christ; or affirm, there are no falsehoods in Plain Reasons; or affirm, the young generation are altogether destitute of a Gospel-ministry; or affirm, the doctrine, worship, discipline and government of this Church is not only sullied, but overturned by the present judicatories; or should assert that such as stay in communion with this Church of Scotland, have the mark of the Beast on their right-hand, and the like: Though I hope they are all falsehoods, yet all will be swallowed down as solid and certain truths; and indeed, if they were truths, I should think it our indispensable duty to separate from her, as much as it was the duty of our reformers to separate from the apostate idolatrous Church of Rome. And they who use such harsh language, are very opposite to that eminent servant of Christ, Jeremiah Burroughs, when commenting on these words of the prophet Hosea, “Plead with your mother, plead,” where, giving rules how people are to carry in pleading with a Church, says: “They must not plead with her for every light thing, for ‘Love covers a multitude of infirmities.'” Another rule is, “That in pleading, they are to manifest all due respect to that society whereof they are members.” His last rule is:
“You must do it in a peaceable way, so as to manifest that you desire peace, and not to be the least disturbance to the peace of the Church, but that the peace of it is dear and precious to you; therefore, when ye have witnessed the truth, and discharged your conscience in it, you must then be content to sit down quiet: For so the rule is, ‘That the spirits of the prophets must be subject to the prophets,’ in that case. But if it should prove that the Church should continue, if the evil be notorious and great as requires departing, and the Church, after all means used, and all patience, should continue in it; in such a case you may desire to be dismissed from it and depart, but in as peaceable a way as possibly can be; yet continuing in due respect unto the Church for all that, though you should depart, only leaving your witness behind you.”
4th Advice is to guard against taking offense upon slender or insufficient grounds.
Our Lord said, “Woe to the world because of offenses;” (Mt. 18:7) and that woe is not only against them that give just ground of stumbling, but also against all who are guilty of taking offense upon small or no just ground. If once people take offense at ministers, their edification is greatly endangered. Mather in his History of New England, bk. 7, p. 15, tells that the spreaders of Antinomian errors in that country set themselves with a manifold subtilty to undermine the esteem of the ministers: “Whence,” says he:
“it came to pass that even some who had followed ministers three thousand miles, through ten thousand deaths, yet now took up such prejudices not only against their doctrines, but against their persons also that they did never care to hear them, or see them any more.”
‘Tis said of the wicked, “They know not at what they stumble,” Prov. 4:19. And as that is true of the wicked, so ’tis sometimes the weakness of some who are truly godly, to take offense at ministers of the Gospel upon slender and insufficient grounds, as if a minister should go to preach Christ at a sacrament, upon the invitation of a minister whom they reckon less tender, though he should be there only upon the Fast, Preparation or Thanksgiving Day, on which he preached. But as corrupt as the generality of Churchmen were in the days of our Lord, He scrupled not to preach in their synagogues when invited by them, as Lk. 4:16-17, 20. As Rutherford says (Disputation on Scandal and Christian Liberty, p. 81):
“If folk would forbear to condemn the practices of others as scandalous, until they understood the nature of scandal, there would be much less scandal in the world than there is.”
And as people would be kept from taking offense upon slender grounds, they would consider their own personal moral failings, how they are men of like passions themselves. It is a good note of Mr. Boston’s (Sermon on 1 Cor. 10:17):
“Many will tell how Church officers should walk, that never look on themselves as obliged to follow their steps in the way of holiness; yet the way of holiness is but one to ministers and people, though many are ready to make two of them, and take the broadest to themselves.”
5th Advice. Study to exercise mutual “forbearance in love.”
This is the advice of the great apostle of the gentiles, and when he was a prisoner for Christ, and a direction how to carry as we would “walk worthy of the vocation wherewith Christians are called,” Eph. 4:1-3. As long as the saints are here in a militant state they will need to exercise forbearance, because of difference in sentiments, and because of failings. Alas for the want of love, meekness and forbearance! What that worthy martyr Mr. John Kidd said in his last speech is too applicable to the case of many professors in our day:
“What a woeful, cursed spirit of bitterness is predmonin[at]ing in this land and in this age? Ephraim vexing Judah, and Judah Ephraim, Manasseh Ephraim, and Ephraim Manasseh; the growing doggedness of this temper, almost among us all, portends terrible things from the Lord against Scotland.”
6th Advice. As you would be kept from the heinous and horrible evil of separation, study to esteem Christ’s ministers “highly in love for their work’s sake;” and beware of dictating or carrying disrespectfully to them, albeit their sentiments should not jump with yours in some things.
This is the apostle’s exhortation, 1 Thess. 5:12-13. And such as do anything to create differences between a minister of Christ and his people, as by saying, “I wonder you can bear with such a man,” “I wonder how you can hear him or subject yourselves to his ministry,” they play the Devil’s game, and are surely agents for Hell. And what hurt may come to souls by alienating people’s affections from their ministers, or occasioning causeless withdrawing from their ministry, such shall answer for it at the bar of God one day. And people would beware of dictating or carrying disrespectfully to the meanest of Christ’s servants. Mr. Boston, when exhorting people to submit to the instructions, admonitions and exhortations of Church officers, says (Sermon on 1 Cor. 10:17):
“For people to treat their ministers imperiously and disrespectfully, and superciliously to dictate to them how to behave in the exercise of their office, as many do, and value themselves upon it, is an argument of pride and emptiness, of men’s forgetting themselves, and regardlessness of that order which Christ the Head has appointed in his mystical body.”
7th Advice is to guard against drinking in new principles.
Novelties in religion are wild fire, leading to the precipice of schism or separation: The new principles of Novatus and Donatus, who set up for greater strictness in the primitive times, led them to separate from the Church of Christ. ‘Tis a new and unheard of principle in the Church of Christ that:
“we are not to join in the sacrament of our Lord’s Supper, if some persons, whether Church officers or others, be admitted, who, because of their personal miscarriages, ought to have been kept back from that ordinance, or because some minister is employed who we think has made some wrong steps.”
For, granting it be so, this will never pollute the ordinance to us. And this is evidenced at large by Rutherford in his Due Right of Presbytery, p. 233, and in his Peaceable Plea, p. 117, etc.
8th Advice is: Guard against being too much concerned for your own reputation with any person or people upon earth.
This seems to have been the sin of Peter and Barnabas, Gal. 2:12-13. Guard against being too impatient of the frowns, displeasure, censures, reproaches or contempt of any; study to live above those. Though we are highly to prize the love, esteem and favor of those who are the excellent in all the earth, yet we are never to prize it so as to separate with them lest they be offended, without clear Scripture grounds. And here, with a little variance, I may use the words of the reverend Mr. Ebenezer Erskine in another case (Essay on Abjuration, pp. 27-28):
“Are you so much convinced of the necessity of their esteem (he has, ‘of this oath’) as that you shall be in a case afterward to justify your conduct before the bar of God, and to answer the challenges of your own consciences when it shall be laid to your door, that by your separation (he has, ‘of swearing this oath’) you have had an active hand in renting and ruining this national Church? Will regard for their esteem support you in such a case, when you shall see your mother Church wallowing in her blood, and torn in pieces by divisions? Is the dividing and ruining of a national Church such a light thing with you, that it will not serve to preponderate the esteem of men?” (He has ‘the command of the magistrate’.)
Indeed we are to do all we can to ‘please our neighbor to his edification;’ but there is no pleasing of some. Our brethren emitted first one, and then a second Testimony; yet ’tis said, and I know for certain, some of the people threaten, unless there be a fuller and more faithful testimony, they will not be satisfied for all they have testified and declared; affirming they think very little of the former testimonies.
My last advice is to ply God’s throne of grace, pleading that as he has divided us in his anger and just displeasure, so plead that for his name’s sake he may heal our breeches which are wide as the sea; that He may heal the daughter of Zion, broken with a great breach and very grievous blow.
This is the command of Zion’s King, that we pray for the peace of Jerusalem. Surely among the many causes of fasting, our divisions, rents and breaches are not the least; The anger of the Lord having divided us, our divisions may occasion great thoughts and searchings of heart: And were we importunate wrestlers, that the God of peace would send peace with truth and heal our breaches, it would be a token for good. The Psalmist was persuaded ‘the time to favor Zion was come,’ when the Lord’s people ‘took pleasure in the dust of Zion,’ crying to him by prayer and supplication. Durham says (On Rev. 8:8):
“There is a fire that comes from the altar, which has right terrible effects. Contention and strife about spiritual things amongst Churchmen, and flowing from them to others, is a very sad judgment, and has very terrible effects; it most mars the beauty of the Church; it obstructs the spiritual growth of God’s people, and burns up all their spiritual life. Lord save us from this judgment, and make all his servants and people warry of kindling it, and make us more earnest in prayer that God would quench what of it is begun.”
But to conclude, as formerly, so still I acknowledge both among ministers and people in this Church there are many things which call for bitter mourning and lamentation, though they are not sufficient ground of secession or separation from her, more than before 1733.
And though, as then the reverend Mr. Ebenezer Erskine owned, there is a great body of faithful ministers in this Church; yet I fear many, yea most of the sins mentioned by the Assembly 1646, when enumerating the enormities and corruptions of the ministry at that time, are to be found among her ministers at this juncture. And also, ’tis much to be lamented, the sins mentioned by the Commission of the General Assembly 1649, respecting the:
“Word, sacraments, discipline, prayer, and relating more immediately to Christ Himself and the free grace of God in Him, and in relation to the operations of the Holy Spirit, and to ministers’ preaching of the Gospel of Christ,”
are all to be found among ministers and people in our day; in which, alas, symptoms of our dangerous case are such, that they who run may read them. ‘Tis evident God is angry, so that a storm of divine wrath hovers over our heads, and is ready to break upon us, unless sovereign grace, repentance and reformation prevent.
Now, as in this Essay I have testified against sundry things in the conduct of this Church since the Revolution; so, was I here to emit a testimony against the sins of our land in former and present times, I should think myself obliged to testify against many things which were amiss in the Church of Scotland from 1637 to 1650, yea and for sundry years further back, when Church and State were guilty of many heinous sins, which to this day have never yet been acknowledged in particular; and against other things in her conduct in later times: As also, against sundry things in the Brethren’s Testimony as not being matters of fact; and against sundry things in their conduct, which, in my opinion, are very opposite to presbyterian principles and the Lord’s Word, as the making their Testimony a term of ministerial or Christian communion; and against the division, dissension or separation of all such as since the Revolution have never owned the State, nor joined with the Church of Scotland; and against all that have separated or those who now are ready to exclaim against her as being such an apostate Church for many years bygone, as ought not to be joined with; never considering that, if converted, it was in this Church Christ espoused them to Himself by the ministry of his servants, who have had many seals of their ministry, and evidences of Christ’s keeping communion with them during all that time: And against all “Popery, prelacy, superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness, and, in a word, against everything that is contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness.”
And was I here to make a declaration of my principles, I would declare my cheerful and cordial adherence, as to the whole of the testimony of God, the testimony of Jesus, the Divine Law and Testimony; so to everything engaged unto by ministers of this Church at their ordination, and to everything said in my synodical sermon, or in writing for the people’s right to elect their pastors, if it be not a supposition anent the act of Assembly 1646, in reference to the election of kirk-sessions, and an assertion anent the Second Book of Discipline, which, whether it give the election to the people as well as consent, I dare not be so positive. So none have ground to charge me as opposite in this Essay to myself, or anything I ever published formerly, though our Brethren are strangely altered of late; for, till 1733, I never heard any of them drop a word favoring of separation or secession from this national Church.
But without further insisting, after considering all our Brethren have written in their Representations, in the State of the Process, in Answer to the Narrative, in their Reasons of Not Acceding, and in their first and second Testimonies; I’m still of the mind that no sufficient ground has been given for separation or secession from this Church: And, I think, our Brethren and other separatists should not be displeased with them who cannot see things in that same light in which, it seems they view them; and far less ought they to preach for, or encourage people to break, if in their power, the ministry of all such servants of the King of Glory as have not freedom to forsake their heavenly Father’s House and mother Church to join them.
How happy should we be, as our “Lord is one,” if his “Name was one,” and his people in our land were “one,” and if we were all worshipping him, “with one consent, forbearing and forgiving one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,” from such considerations as that “there is one body, one Spirit, even as we are called in one hope of our calling; one Lord, one faith, on baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all, and in all his people”! (Eph. 4:3-6) And it might be a blessed mean of attaining to this, were we all concerned to comply with that good and wholesome counsel given by the reverend Mr. Ralph Erskine (Hap. Cong. p. 196), when he advised to cry unto the Lord:
“That the Devil’s scattering wind, which he has raised in our day for separating and dividing ministers and Christians from one another, may be laid.”
Without doing anything “against the truth,” let us be “of one mind, living in peace;” and then we have the promise that “the God of love and peace shall be with us.” (2 cor. 13:11) “Peace be to the brethren and love. Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen.” (Eph. 6:23-24)
.
Advertisement
.
When the author began to publish this Essay, he was resolved in an appendix to have published a fuller answer to a part of that book entitled, Plain Reasons for Presbyterians Dissenting from the Revolution Church in Scotland, instancing some of the many falsehoods thereof, besides those noticed in the foregoing Essay, and to have published a vindication of Durham’s Treatise on Scandal from the charge of being vitiated, which is of late alleged by some separatists; and also a vindiction of Wodrow’s History from some things alleged against it by them.
Likewise, without making particular enquiry into the act anent Captain Porteous, he designed to have published remarks upon the different sentiments and conduct of ministers and people relating to that affair, whence it would appear, notwithstanding of these, the argument of the foregoing Essay remains the same and equally conclusive. But in regard this book has swelled beyond expectation, the publication of these is delayed at this time.
Also he designed a vindiction of the narrative of the late [ministerial] settlement of the parish of Portmoak, in reply to a pamphlet entitled, The Just Account of that Settlement. But judging impartial readers may easily see the pretended “just account” is no answer to that narrative, which was subscribed by six of the elders of that parish as true and just, nor is it so much as an offer of answer to many material things therein, he has judged this to be needless. And, without noticing the false assertions, base insinuations and scurrilous expressions therein, still he is firmly persuaded that, all things considered, it is a settlement, which in no time since the Reformation but would [have] been approven as just by the Church of Scotland or any other of the reformed Churches; and that they who are most zealous for the people’s right to elect their pastors may, in the greatest consistency with their principle, appear for such settlements as was the last at Portmoak.
Hence the reverend Mr. Thomas Mair, minister of the gospel at Orwel, whose residence is in the confines of that parish, and had the best opportunity to know the state thereof: he appeared in earnest for it, declaring in face of synod, and in hearing of such of that parish as were opposite to this settlement, that, considering the methods taken for sinking the reputation of Mr. D. and to hinder his settlement at Portmoak, it was a wonder so many of that parish did still adhere unto him. This was told in the narrative, though the author of the account had made no answer unto it. The above settlement was made in the reverend synod of Fife, without a contradictory vote, if it was not one or two elders.
.
The End
.