A Vindication of the Real Reformation-Principles of the Church of Scotland concerning Separation, etc.,

in which [Currie’s] The Essay on Separation [1738] is vindicated, and the arguments of the Reverend Mr. [William] Wilson for Separation from this Established Church in his Defence are considered, where sundry Anti-Reformation Principles are noticed and many things neither truth, nor matter of fact in the Testimony of the Seceding Brethren are discovered and collected;

To which, in an Appendix, a further argument against separation taken from the conduct of the famous martyr Mr. James Guthrie and other Protesters in his day is largely insisted on

.

John Currie

.

Schismaticos facit non diversa fides, sed disrupta communionis societas.

Augustine, Contra Faust. Manich., bk. 2, ch. 3

.

(Edinburgh: A. Alison, 1740)

.

[This lightly edited, unfinished transcription is public domain.]

.

.

.

Table of Contents

To the Reader
Intro  1

1. General Observations on Wilson’s Defence  3
2. Remarks upon the Preface  11
3. On his Intro  29
4. On ch. 1 & State of the Question  37

Sect. 2, Mistating of the Question & Charge of Lax Principles anent Church-Communion  38
Sect. 3, State of the Question  70

5. On ch. 2, Secession’s Arguments for Separation shown to be Insufficient  82

Sect. 1, That the Church of Scotland is Not the Pillar of Truth  82
Sect. 2, That she is Tyrannical in Administration & Discipline  106
Sect. 3, May be a Minister without being chosen to a Particular Congregation  120
Sect. 4, Charge of Imposing Unwarrantable Terms of Communion on Members  130
Sect. 5, For all the Church’s Faults, Erecting a Distinct Judicatory in Opposition can never be Justified, having no Scripture-Warrant, nor approved by Former Times  137
Sect. 6, Conduct of CoS since 1733: No Just Ground of Secession  156

6. On ch. 3, Arguments against Separation  174

Sect. 1, Scripture Arguments  176
Sect. 2, Human Authorities  185
Sect. 3, Historical, 1597-1638  198

[sic] 6. On ch. 4, Historical, 1638-1650  238

Sect. 1, Differene of Procedure in 1638 vs. 1690  240
Sect. 2, On 1638  252
Sect. 3, On 1638-1650  279

7. On ch. 5, Criticisms of Secession’s Act & Testimony  313
8. Criticisms of Act & Testimony as a Term of Communion  330

Addenda, pp. 161 & 280  341
Advertisement  344

Appendix: Observations on James Guthrie’s Papers: the Protesters were opposite to the Principle & Practice of Seceders  345-60

.

.

.

To the Reader

.

Most of what the reverend Mr. [William] Wilson and other seceding Brethren have advanced for vindicating their conduct in separating from this national Church has been sufficiently answered by the author [John Williamson] of Plain Dealing [or an Essay for the Conviction of the Seceding Brethren, and the Information of Others…, 1739], by the author [William Wishart the younger] of Peace and Truth [or an Essay on the Principles and Conduct of the Seceders], and by [Currie’s] The Essay on Separation [or the Danger and Unlawfulness of Schism: being an Answer to the Apology for the Separation of the Associate Presbytery], yet Mr. Wilson’s pretended Defence of the Reformation Principles of the Church of Scotland, being, in my opinion, a common enemy to the success of the glorious Gospel of Christ, from the mouth of all his sent servants in this Church, having a direct tendency to blast their ministry by making their hearers take offense, desert them, and thereby, what in them lies, to tear their commission, I have thought it duty to make a further reply to what is said in that performance.

As, at writing the Essay, I laid my account with censures from persons of very different sentiments, some being offended at one thing and some at another, so I doubt not it has come to pass, and I apprehend it may be so still.  Here therefore I’ll briefly instance some of those grounds on which sundry have been, or may be stumbled, showing how slender and insufficient they are:

1st, ‘Tis alledged I have written with a design to blacken the General Assembly, 1638, and subsequent period to 1650, in which I owned, and do own, ‘the Lord helped his faithful servants to do much for his glory, for which I desired,’ and still desire, ‘to give praise.’  But of this more afterwards, where the reader may see a fuller vindication from this groundless calumny.

2dly, Because I have shown there are expressions in our national covenants which need to be rectified, therefore it has been alledged by Mr. Wilson and others, I have written as having antipathy at those our solemn engagements, albeit I have owned and do own, in my opinion, it is a glory to these lands that we are a people solemnly devoted unto the Lord, and I have owned the obligation of our covenants, in as far as by them we are sworn against Popery, prelacy, superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness and every thing which is contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness, and said it would be desirable to see us in case for renewing these our engagements by the Lord’s pouring out fo his Spirit upon all ranks.  But of this also more afterwards.

3dly, ‘Tis affirmed by some, I have vindicated all the bad things laid to the charge of the Church of Scotland since the [Glorious] Revolution [of 1689].  And our author alleges I have written the Essay, partly with a design to extenuate the many grievous things he and the Brethren lay to her charge.  But Mr. Wilson himself has vindicated me from the first of these accusations, p. 6, where he says, he has not observed that I:

‘undertake expressly to justify any of the steps of defection, whether in former or present times which are condemned by the [Secession] Presbytery in their Judicial Act and Testimony.’

And again, p. 138, he says I:

‘never attempt absolutely to justify any of the instances of defection and backslidings which he has given.’

By these expressions he frees me from the above charge; yet by them ’tis probable he would have the world believe I could not refuse that he and the other Brethren have had some ground for all they lay to the charge of the Church of Scotland, in their Testimony and other writings. But this is an untruth, for I have expressly and absolutely vindicated the Church of Scotland from many things which he and the other Brethren lay to her charge, as, absolutely and expressly I have vindicated her from the heavy charge of being “erroneous in her doctrine,” or being “corrupt in her worship,” or being “prelatical in her government,” or “tyrannical in her discipline;” though I have not justified her conduct in sundry settlements of ministers, since the act restoring patronages. And I have expressly vindicated her from the charge of guilt in not excommunicating professor Simson and Mr. Nimmo. I have absolutely and expressly vindicated her from the charge of “countenancing erroneous persons,” and from the charge of doing what in “her lay, to pull the crown off Christ’s head,” or studying “to rob Him of the glory of his supreme deity.” I have expressly and absolutely vindicated her from the charge of having any hand in that “erroneous catechism,” entitled, The Assembly’s Shorter Catechism Revised. I have expressly and absolutely vindicated her from the charge of “imposing any sinful terms of communion” upon her members, at this day. I have expressly and absolutely vindicated her from the charge of “restricting ministerial freedom:” And I have vindicated our patriots in the parliament 1690 from the charge of having imposed the Oath of Allegiance in place of our covenants, as well as of other oaths which might have been imposed by law. And there are a great many other things which here I might enumerate: So to use Mr. Wilson’s own words, I might tell him that “he writes at random.”

As to his charge of ‘extenuating the faults of the Church of Scotland,’ this is what I also refuse, though I have endeavored to set things, alleged against her, in a true light, often showing the charge to be altogether groundless, and sometimes showing the same faults, or things of a worse nature, have been found in this Church, in what has been reckoned ‘better times,’ yea, in what has been reckoned her ‘best times,’ and yet never thought to be any ground for secession or separation by the Lord’s worthies in former days.

4thly, I hear some have taken offense because of alleged unfair citations in the Essay, believing with implicit faith, when they have never been at pains to compare such citations with their authors. And it is not very strange, though offense be taken on this account by sundry, considering what the reverend Mr. Ebenezer Erskine says to that purpose, without offering the least proof, in preface to the Ghost of the famous Mr. Guthrie Appearing; and what Mr. Fisher also says in preface to his sermon preached at Finwick, without adducing a single instance to prove his affirmation; and considering how others whom I could name, have forbidden people to read that Essay, as being a book which is stuffed with falsehoods, in regard also of what Mr. Wilson has advanced in his Defence, of my perverting authors and acts of Assemblies. But, as I think ’tis a villainous and wicked thing, designedly to pervert the words of any, or willingly to publish a falsehood; so how unjust this accusation is, the reader may judge, by looking into such charges as are given by Mr. Wilson in that Defence, and the Answers made unto them in this Vindication, as particularly by comparing:

Defence, p. 33 with Vindication p. 19
89 with 94
120 with 122
198 with 194
201 with 195
219 with 228
274 with 255
284 with 269
308 with 294
322 with 323

Now I think these are the main citations from authors and acts of Assemblies which Mr. Wilson could quarrel with any show of reason; and, if I be not mistaken, in the places above-mentioned, they are answered to the satisfaction of every intelligent unprejudiced reader.

There had been more ground to complain, had I done as the Brethren in their Act and Testimony, p. 39, where they add words to an act of parliament; in vindication of which Mr. Wilson has said nothing, though this was quarreled in the Essay: Or, had I added a word to the words of any particular author, to make him serve my purpose, as in appearance he has done, Defence, p. 48, which is noticed in this Vindication, p. 52. Or, had I left out a word on any such design, as in appearance he does, p. 312, which is to be seen in this performance, p. 305, or, had I broken off in the midst of a sentence, to fasten an unjust charge upon my opposite, as Mr. Wilson does, p. 97, which is to be seen in this Vindication, p. 189, or, had I dealt in any citation as our author does in citing Rutherford’s Dying Testimony, Defence, p. 314, anent which the reader may see in this Vindication, p. 309, then I could not have denied there was ground to complain: But there are no such citations in the Essay.

5thly, Mr. Wilson in the Defence has often represented me as being a person of very lax principles as to Church-communion, and as one who has given many evidences of my favoring a sinful latitudinarian freedom that way, and I know not but some may have taken offense upon that head. But all the foundation he has for his false accusation is only a transient expression of mine, from which he draws a strained consequence, which I absolutely refuse, from which charge, the reader may see a full vindication in the 49th page of this book. And I hope my principles here are not an hair’s breadth laxer than the Word of God allows, nor laxer in the least, I dare say, than were Mr. Wilson’s and all the Brethren’s before their secession. Once and again our author professes his sorrow to see one of my character writing so and so (Post., p. 50). But, if I have any character, ’tis obvious to every unprejudiced reader, that the Essay may be disregarded. He has risked his own to blacken mine; and the instances are so many that none who have read his Defence with any consideration can call the truth of this in question.

6thly, albeit I have neither vindicated nor condemned the reading of the act of parliament anent Captain Porteous, and though upon that head, if I be not far mistaken, I have not uttered one word or sentence, but what every minister in Scotland, except the Brethren, if it be not one or two more, will assent unto; nor said a word upon that subject but what the Brethren themselves, according to their former principles and practice, in relation to them that had taken the Abjuration are obliged to own as just and right; yet I lay my account with much obloquy and censure from many, for declaring my sentiments upon this particular. The Seceding Brethren, in their discourses since the reading of that act, having frequently insisted upon it as ground for separation from this national Church.  All ought to beware of uttering falsehoods or walking with slanders.

7thly, because I have opposed the conduct of the Seceding Brethren, with whom I lived in intimacy and familiarity before their Secession, some have taken offense, as if I had altered my sentiments and conduct.  And the reverend Mr. Erskine, in his above mentioned Preface, says, ‘By my Essay on the Separation, in the opinion of many,’ I ‘have destroyed those things which formerly I built up.’  And Mr. Wilson says much the same, without offering the least proof.  But this charge is also utterly groundless; for I have always owned that the Church of Scotland, for all her faults, is one of the purest Churches upon earth, for doctrine, discipline, worship and government. (Jus Pop. Vind., p. 65, published 1720, and Essay, p. 5)  I have always been of the same sentiment; and Mr. Wilson has not attempted to show a purer national Church.

But in this charge, ’tis my comfort I’m joined with such good company, and that is all the faithful ministers and professors of Christ who remain in the Church of Scotland, for Mr. Wilson says (p.30):

‘It is matter of regret that so many, who have sometime appeared against a course of defection, and among others the author of the Essay, are involving themselves in the sins of the judicatories, either by justifying or extinuating their defections, or by continuing in conjunction with them.’

There the ‘many,’ and all the ‘so many,’ as continue in, and dare not separate from the judicatories of this Church, are thus charged: For however faithful they have been, or be, if they cannot join hands with the Seceding Brethren, joining in their Testimony and manner of testifying, they are thus guilty, and apostates upon the matter, whether they be ministers or people, whether they appear for the Brethren or not.

Further, if people are thus unjustly charged, it may be some comfort to consider the best of Christ’s servants have been thus accused, as appears from what the apostle says, 2 Cor. 1:17-18, when it seems such as turned his enemies in that Church had charged him with lightness and changeableness in his doctrine and principles, as well as in his purposes, where, for his own vindication, he is obliged to use a sort of solemn oath, saying, ‘But as God is true, our word,’ or preaching, ‘toward you was not yea and nay.’

And Durham on Scandal (p. 176) instances this as one of the ways whereby the Devil carries on division in the Church, viz. by making people charge ministers with ‘lightness’ and ‘changeableness,’ as if they were of one mind this year and of another the next.  As formerly I endeavored to contribute my mite in opposing what I judged amiss in the Church of Scotland, so, through grace, I hope to continue and cannot see a shadow of reason to imagine but it is as acceptable to God, and much more acceptable to Him to oppose what may be amiss in her conduct, in a way of Church-communion, as in a separate state, ‘Separation’ (as the Protesters say) ‘being highly impedimental to reformation.’ (Rep. to Ass., 1652)

I know every Christian, and ministers of the Gospel, in a special manner, ought to be very cautious, guarding against giving offense to any of Christ’s little ones, but if they will take offense at doing what is plain present duty, though they are to be pitied and used tenderly, yet they are not to be regarded so as to omit duty for fear they take offense.  When the great apostle of the gentiles opposed Peter, and other saints, who pretending greater strictness, did separate from the gentile converts, he knew his conduct in that would offend many who were dear unto the Lord; yet he regarded not their offense, but ‘withstood Peter to the face, because he was to be blamed.’ (Gal. 2:11-14)  Our Lord Jesus knew his healing and curing diseased persons on the Sabbath would occasion such as watched him (Mk. 3:2) to take offense; He also knew his familiar converse with publicans and sinners would be stumbling and offensive to sundry; yet he would not forbear it.

Sometimes we are called to deny ourselves as to our ease, conveniency, pleasure and satisfaction rather than occasion the offending of such as causelessly take offense, but, according to our Lord’s example, commanded present duty is to be done, let never so many stumble or be offended.  Hence [Matthew] Henry says (on Mk. 2:16), ‘Those are too tender of their own good name who, to preserve it with some nice people, will decline a good work; Christ would not do so.’  And tender Christians, who may be ready to take offense, ought to consider what danger there is in being ‘righteous over much.’  If the prophetess Miriam, or Aaron, the saint of God, speak against Moses, his Lord will resent it, asking ‘Wherefore were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?’ (Num. 12:8)

Now, for doing what, in my opinion, is plain present duty in this case, viz. the opposing what I take to be sinful schism, though I should further suffer in my reputation from some, yet ’tis some satisfaction to think in this I’m far from being singular; for here I suffer with a cloud of faithful witnesses, as:

The great Mr. Thomas Hogg of Kiltearn, against whom the bulk of the separating people, for opposing separation in his day, expressed the keenest hatred, as is told more fully in Preface to the Essay;

so that worthy sevant of Christ Mr. Robert Fleming, author of that excellent book, The Fulfilling of the Scriptures, he suffered not a little in his reputation for opposing separation from such ministers as had accepted of the indulgence, for which sundry did cast off his ministry.

So the great Mr. John Welsh, because at Bothwell-Bridge [1679] he opposed division, and would not go in to mention the Indulgence as a cause of public fasting at that time, the opposite party called him the Achan in their camp, being highly incensed against him.

So, in the case of that eminent Christian Mr. Nisbet, in the castle of Edinburgh, who, in the history of his life, written by himself, tells, pp. 68-69, that for opposing the measures of such as separated from the Church of Scotland, at the happy Revolution, they studied by all means to blacken his character, charging him as being erroneous and what not, though he had been most intimate with them before.

And so in the case of that faithful minister of Christ, the reverend Mr. Thomas Boston, to whom the separating people, who followed Mr. M’Millan, did bear a might grudge, for his opposing their separating principles and practice.

Mr. Wilson gives his Answer to the Essay on Separation the title of A Defence of the Reformation-Principles of the Church of Scotland. But to me he seems to have vented sundry anti-Reformation erroneous principles. The reader may be pleased to look into the 4, 32, 69, 121, 250, 270, 275, 321, 333 pages of this Vindication. And now, for the discovery of those anti-reformation principles, I might expect the reverend Mr. Wilson’s grateful acknowledgment: For, in preface to that Defence, he said he would reckon himself obliged to them who should point out such anti-Reformation principles to him.

Though in this performance I’m far from pretending to infallibility, and may labor under some mistakes, for which I will need my reader’s indulgence, yet, as I said of the Essay, so here again, as to that Vindication, I can appeal to the Searcher of Hearts that in it I have said nothing but what I conceive to be truth and matter of fact. And whether Mr. Wilson shall be pleased or displeased, I think I’m warranted by the Apostle’s reiterated practice to make such a declaration, while ‘my conscience bears me witness that I lie not.’ (Rom. 9:1; 2 Cor. 1:23; 11:31) And of all the matters of fact in the Essay, Mr. Wilson has not been able to show any error, except two or three inadvertent inconsiderable ones, from which the reader may see my Vindication in the 216, 271 pages of this performance.

Our author says (Preface, p. 13), “He conceives the Church of Scotland had been at no loss, nor had truth suffered any prejudice, though the Essay on Separation had lain to this day in my closet.” And considering Mr. Wilson’s manner of management in writing, and the many direct untruths contained in that Defence, I dare say, it had been much to the interest of truth and real religion, to the advantage of the Church of Christ in Scotland, to the success of the glorious Gospel therein, and to the credit of presbyterians, that his pretended Defence of our Reformation-principles had remained forever in obscure darkness without seeing the light.

Since I began to publish this Vindication, I find the doing of it, at this juncture, will be excepted against by some, as being unseasonable, and may be constructed to flow from a design to excite the ensuing General Assembly to inflict some heavy censure upon the Brethren: But that was never in my view, in writing nor in publishing this Vindication; and, in my humble opinion, the publication hereof may be as seasonable as before, as it could be after the ensuing General Assembly; for should she pronounce sentence against them, I know not, but it might be constructed a triumphing over the Brethren, and an applauding of what they had done; and should they delay to proceed against them, then the publication would be constructed to flow from displeasure, they had not been censured, or perhaps charged with a design to excite another Assembly to draw the sword of discipline against them. Further, if I be not far mistaken, the members of the ensuing General Assembly, are so fully apprized of the whole of the affair, that before coming up to the Assembly, they are fixed in their purpose of voting for, or against the Brethren; and, as I never designed, so I do not expect that this Vindication shall influence one person to be for or against them in the approaching General Assembly.

There is one thing I cannot but admire, namely, that sundry who still remain in the Church of Scotland themselves are displeased at writing against the conduct of those who have separated, though this be to write in their own defence, while they abide in her. But either they are to be blamed for remaining in this Church, or else the Brethren and their followers are culpable for separating, and continuing in a separate state from her: Both cannot be in the “good and right way of the Lord;” for here surely there is a right and a wrong. If separation from this Church be duty, as they who have separated affirm, then such cannot but “sin against their own souls,” who remain in her; or, if it be our duty to abide in this Church without separation, then such cannot but “sin against the Lord,” who withdraw and separate from her. However, ’tis far from being equitable in any, to allow the Brethren to print and preach daily against the ministers of this Church, as if they were not ministers of Christ and not to allow us to write or speak in our own vindication; to me ’tis as unreasonable as to hold a man’s hands while his enemy is dashing out his brains, seeing our reputation is to be dear unto us as our very life: And no unprejudiced, impartial judge, who has looked but a little into Mr. Wilson’s Defence, compared with the Essay, but must own, had it been for nothing else, but my own vindication from reproaches, I had a good right to reply unto him: For, according to Augustine, Qui fiens conscientiae suae negligit famam suam, crudelis est; he, who trusting to his own innocency, neglects to wipe off reproaches, is cruel to himself… And be who they will that stand up in defence of a bad cause, I think it is God’s command to answer them, ‘lest they be wise in their own conceit.’ ‘The renting of the Body of Christ’ (as Mr. Boston says) ‘has so much horror about it, as may make it frightful to serious members.’ (Of the Unity of the Body, p. 178)

It is to be lamented there are many serious people who have not the least impression of the evil of separation, though, as Durham says, ‘many horrible evils are wrapped up in this evil.’ And considering the lamentable effects of separation, there may be truth in what the reverend Mr. [Robert] M’Ward wrote in a letter to some who inclined to separation in his day, where he says:

‘Consider that 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. 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 not tell you, that withdrawing from hearing such is a tearing their commission, etc.’ (Earnest Contendings, p. 371)

I know ’tis needful to apologize for the length of this Vindication, yet, considering the multiplicity of matters contained in Mr. Wilson’s Defence, and being loath to pass anything which might be judged material, lest it should be thought I had slipped it over, as being unanswerable, the book has swelled beyond my design or expectation. That the answers of authors are larger than the books to which they reply is usual and the less to be admired that frequently they are obliged to resume the arguments of their antagonists. When the Essay was first published, the Brethren usually termed it the “Voluminous Essay”, and “Bulky Performance;” but Mr. Wilson’s Defence, being about a third part larger, for all he has leaped over, we hear no more of such an epithet. In this Vindication, there are some few repetitions, which, I hope, the reader will pardon, being occasioned by Mr. Wilson’s coming over the same things again and again.

Praying that He with whom the residue of the Spirit is, may pour out a spirit of right zeal, truth and peace upon us in the Church of Scotland, and that the reader, by that Spirit which searches all things, may be helped to try all things and then to hold fast that which is good. (1 Thess. 5:21) I am, reader, yours, etc.

John Currie

.

.

.

Introduction

.

Divisions in all ages have proven fatal to States and Churches, according to that hellish maxim, Divide et impera, ‘divide and rule over,’ which some have called the Devil’s motto.  Our divisions in Church and State are threatening at this day.  Alas, iniquity abounds and the love of many is become cold.  Happy were it for us could it be said concerning this land and Church, as the apostle does of the Church of the Thessalonians, ‘Astouching brotherly love, ye need not that I write unto you, for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another.’ (1 Thess. 4:9)

My design in this reply to the reverend Mr. [William] Wilson is not to add oil unto the flame, God forbid, but to vindicate the truth and the Church of Scotland from unjust accusations, to vindicate and confirm such as cleave unto her, to prevent further separation, and, if possible, to convince such as have separated of their error, that they may return to the bosom of their mother Church, which, I dare say, is yet ready to embrace them with outstretched arms, and, in a consistency with those valuable ends, to vindicate my own character from the base aspersions thrown upon it so frequently in Mr. Wilson’s Defence, which have a tendency to mar my usefulness in a ministerial capacity.

Eristic writings have sometimes proven irenic, and, through the divine blessing, the effect of them may be peace, when managed and read with that Spirit of love and meekness which becomes the Gospel.  It is to be lamented our times should be spent in such debates and controversies which might be improven to better purpose; and yet when the writings and conduct of our separating brethren are considered, while they ‘compass sea and land to make proselytes,’ doing all in their power to widen the breach to the further renting of their mother Church, to keep silence after this were in effect to betray the cause and make us accessory to all the lamentable consequences our Seceding Brethren’s writings and practices may produce among people, who are ready to take all their assertions for truth, especially when nothing is written in answer to their reproaches and misrepresentations:

And as all these that separate from us profess much zeal for our national engagements, we are all expressly bound [as it says in the Solemn League and Covenant, 1643], ‘without respect of persons,’ to ‘endeavor the extirpation of schism,’ as well as of ‘Popery, prelacy, etc.’, and this, ‘as we would not partake of other men’s sins, and thereby be in danger to receive of their plagues.’ Are we thus solemnly sworn, and shall it be thought a fault to live up to solemn national engagements? Are we sworn to do this without respect of persons, and shall we fear the displeasure of any mortal, more than the wrath of God, “who is able to destroy both body and soul in Hell.” I think I can say, in some measure of sincerity, I desire to prize, and do prize, the smiles and favor of the meanest saint, and to have a share of their prayers, more than the countenance of the highest sinner breathing; but God forbid I should omit the least commanded present duty, for fear of their displeasure. I’m sensible of my weakness for any such undertaking, and am as ready to acknowledge my inabilities for contending with most of the Brethren, as they may be to object; and far less should I venture with them all, if the goodness of the cause, and a firm persuasion of truth upon my side, did not encourage against the thoughts of an impar congressus.

I have not engaged in this controversy as looking upon myself to be fitter for such an undertaking than others; far from it, for I know there are hundreds in the established Chuch of Scotland far more fit for such a work; yet because in publico discrimine, omnis homo miles, I thought it duty to contribute my mite for defense of the truth, against thus Church ruining evil of separation.

When I wrote the Essay, as I had not the pleasing of any party under heaven in view, as hinted in the Preface to it, so I laid my account with a great deal of censure from most, judging some would be displeased with one thing, and some with another; but nil conscire sibi, the testimony of my own conscience, and that I had no sinister view in writing, was, is, and I hope shall be my comfort.  ‘Who is offended, and I burn not?’ says the apostle. (2 Cor. 2:29)

And I own it has been somewhat afflicting to see myself looked down upon, by some whom I esteem to be serious and truly religious, who, in the simplicity of their hearts, have followed the [Seceding] Brethren; and by others, though still in this Church, because, through misinformation, they imagine I have written designedly against that reforming period from 1638 to 1650, whereas nothing can be further from the truth, though I own I have not spared to tell the faults and blemishes of our Church judicatories in that excessively extolled period, I mean, by those who would have all the acts of Assembly at that time, to be regarded as rules to Church judicatories to the end of the World, as if they were of equal authority with the divine oracles.

In this Vindication, I’ll make some general observations upon Mr. Wilson’s pretended Defence, make remarks upon his Preface, notice some things in his Introduction, then follow him kata podos, through the five chapters of his book, answering what may be thought material  in them, instance sundry things in the Brethren’s Act and Testimony which are neither truth nor matter of fact; and then, in an Appendix, conclude with adducing another argument against separation, taken from the conduct of the Protesters in former days [the 1650’s].

.

.

Chapter 1

In which some general obsevations are made upon Mr. Wilson’s pretended Defence, etc.

.

1st Observation: Our author gives his book a specious title while he terms it A Defence of the Reformation Principles of the Church of Scotland. However, specious titles are no proof. Henry VIII of England had the glorious title of Defender of the Faith conferred upon him, and his successors by Pope Leo X in 1521, for opposing the Reformation in writing against Luther in defense of the Papal authority, etc. If we may judge of men’s designs, it must be to impress his reader with thoughts that his antagonist has written against, or in opposition to, these reformation principles, etc. But I may, and do, defy Mr. Wilson to instance any one principle of the Reformation I have opposed in all that Essay. I hope no body will assert everything affirmed by our Assemblies, from 1638 to 1650, was a reformation principle; but it is an anti-reformation principle to assert with our Brethren that people ought to separate from any Church like the Church of Scotland, not excepting those ministers, whom they cannot deny have been regularly called, nor question their being orthodox in principles, blameless in their conversation, and whose labors have been blessed with success: For in the Book of Common Order, ch. 5, approven at the [Scottish] Reformation [1560], speaking of schism, which is a separation from a Church of Christ without sufficient ground, ’tis affirmed that schism, as well as heresy, blasphemy, perjury, etc. is a fault, which, if it be deprehended in a minister, he ought to be deposed for it. And in the First Book of Discipline, drawn up at the Reformation, and which Mr. Wilson says we are sworn to in our National Covenants, when treating of the admission of ministers, ’tis affirmed (4th Head):

“That as the minister may not leave the flock at his pleasure, so the flock may not reject nor change him at their appetite, unless they be able to convict him of such crimes as deserve deposition.”

That in this our Brethren act in direct opposition to reformation principles, to the principles of the reformed Churches, is further evident to a demonstration, from what is affirmed in the Helvetian Confession of Faith, which was approven by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland which met at Edinburgh, Dec. 25, 1565, and also by most of the reformed Churches, as was told in the Essay (p. 49), which authority it seems Mr. Wilson thought so hot, that he durst not touch it, but slipped it over in deep silence: For in that confession ’tis said:

“We esteem so highly of communion with the true Church of Christ, that we deny they can live before God who do not communicate with the true Church of God, but separate themselves from it, etc.”

Mr. Webster, that valiant champion for truth and reformation principles, in his remarks upon Mr. McMillan’s printed Protestation, Declinature and Appeal, says:

“In general I remark that you would gladly have people believe that the sentences of the Church of Scotland against you are upon account of your adhering to the covenanted work of reformation, and testifying against all sins of the time. But this is the ordinary practice of all schismatics, “by good words and fair speeches, to deceive the hearts of the simple,” Rom. 16:17-18, which portion of Scripture, I earnestly commend to your consideration.”

And the Seceding Brethren have followed him, I mean Mr. M’Millan, in most things.

2nd Observation: This Defence is not an answer, nor so much as an attempt to answer a great part of the Essay: And, if it may be supposed, he yields what he does not contradict, nor attempt to answer, then he has granted a great part, if not the greatest part of those things in controversy between the Brethren and us at this day; and it seems the objections against joining the Church of Scotland are answered in the Essay, so that he has not to reply; for he has not offered the least answer unto the greatest part of what is said against them. And though he complains that the “Essay is swelled with human authorities, every page being filled with quotations from great men;” (Preface, p. 8) yet he has not attempted to take off the force of their authority, except as to a very few in one section, of which afterwards; nor answered to the reasons adduced by such great men, though he was as much obliged to make answer to these as to anything in the Essay, in regard, in preface to it, he was told I had given the words of such authors, as I cited, at large, that so the reader might judge for himself, and that with authority he might have the reasons supporting their sentiments, authority being a weak argument in itself; adding, that had I not thought their arguments against separation would be of more weight in their own words, with these I have to do, than the same arguments, as from me, without any difficulty I could have made them my own, or put them in my own words; and, instead of answering, he is sure to put his thumb upon such citations, flipping over them.

Observation 3. Mr. Wilson has cast his Defence into such a method as few, though they have the Essay by them, can compare it, so as to be able to pass a judgment whether he has give a sufficient answer to what was advanced in the Essay or not, if it be not in what he says in the twelve leaves of the 2nd Section of his 1st Chapter, and in the four leaves of the 1st Section of his 3rd Chapter; and how he has managed these, may be shown when come that length: Here and there he has culled out or selected pieces of the Essay, to answer as he thought meet; and, according to his method, he might pass by everything he saw to be pungent or unanswerable, without being discovered, evidencing, if I might be allowed to use his own expression, ‘more craft than candor,’ through the whole of his Defence.

Observation 4. Mr. Wilson (p. 324), speaking of my alleged “misrepresentations,” says, “They favor much of a spirit disobliged or irritated against the Seceding Brethren, upon some one occasion or another.” Whereby he plainly insinuates that I have written against the Brethren’s conduct from a disobliged or irritated spirit. But, had Mr. Wilson adverted to what I said in preface to the Essay, it might have prevented such a groundless insinuation, where I said:

“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.”

And here I take the opportunity to declare that I have no personal prejudice against, nor quarrel with any one of those Brethren, and that I still entertain a due honor, regard and affection for them all, which is not inconsistent with my differing from them in their present course, which is such that I can never approve of, because I look upon it to be contrary to the divine “Law and Testimony”.

Whereas in the Essay (p. 139) I had said, “The Brethren have made no secession in the sense that Durham gives of that word, seeing they still enjoy the same manses, as well as the same benefices,” Mr. Wilson says:

“It seems the above observe, upon the term ‘secession’ is made that he may vent somewhat of a grudge that we have a peaceable residence in our several congregations, and that we enjoy the benefices, etc.”

This is an unjust reflection and groundless slander; for that they enjoy their benefices and possess their manses is what I never grudged: And the charge is the more unaccountable that I had told in the immediately preceding paragraph, I was “far from grudging” that they enjoyed their benefices. And as an evidence of this, whatever I might think their conduct deserved, yet, at the Commission, Nov. 1738, I voted against libeling them. And I’m so far from having the least grudge or being the least disobliged at anything in their conduct relating to myself, that I could as heartily join in communion with them this day as ever, if something like what the reverend Mr. Boston, in his sermon entitled, The Evil and Danger of Schism, had not weight with me (p. 31), where he expresses himself thus, when speaking to the people who were his ordinary hearers:

“Beware of division yourselves, and give your help to recover, in all tenderness, these that have withdrawn, and encourage them not in their way. I’m persuaded that if they were not so much countenanced and encouraged by these that are hearers, the number of such would not be so great as it is. Let not that itching ear get place with you, so as to run away to their meetings whenever you have opportunity, and so to cast yourselves into a snare, and to do what in you lies to strengthen the division.”

It seems he thought the flocking of people to Mr. McMillan, and other separatists, by such as had not separated themselves, was a thing which could not be justified.

And indeed, as Mr. Boston says, people “cast themselves into a snare” by attending their meetings, where many times they hear what has a direct tendency to alienate their affections from their own pastors, and occasion separation, Scriptures being abused when cited and commented upon, which are nothing to that purpose, as Acts 2:40; 19:9; 1 Cor. 5:6; 2 Cor. 6:17; Col. 2:21. And many serious tender Christians are not able to see the fallacy which is in these arguments that are adduced from such like Scriptures, for separation from all the ministers of this established Church, whom some represent as no ministers of Christ.

I doubt not there may be truth in what Rutherford says (Due Right of Presbytery, p. 253), viz. That “all the faithful do well to separate from the separatists.” But perhaps some will object what he says, p. 255, whose words are cited in the title page of the Defence, namely:

“When the greatest part of a Church makes defection from the truth, the lesser part remaining sound, the greatest part is the Church of the separatists; though the manifest and greatest part in the actual exercise of discipline be the Church, yet in the case of right discipline, the best though fewest is the Church.”

Answer: None can say that the greatest part, yea, I must say, or that any party in the Church of Scotland, have made visible defection from the truth, if our Confession of Faith is to be looked upon as agreeable to the truth of God, contained in his Word. And as all our ministers have subscribed it as the Confession of their Faith, and none of them offer to say they have subscribed it only as a vinculum pacis, so they still profess their adherence unto it. I shall not say what corrupt principles some particular persons may be secretly leavened with; but though it should be granted, that some have made defection from the truth, that will never prove the greatest part have made defection: And to talk with some, that the not censuring of persons charged with error, is an approving of their errors, is strange doctrine. A worthy minister of a very solid judgment, and one who has appeared in most of our assemblies and commissions, in favor of the Brethren, says, “To argue at this rate is stupid nonsense;” and I say, ’tis an unaccountable inference. Can our Brethren think the last Assembly approves of their secession, and of the whole, or any part of their conduct, because they did not censure them when brought to the bar of the Assembly? I shall not say with Rutherford in that same section, of such like inferences, “Men not forsaken of Mother-wit would not love them;” yet I shall say, ’tis strange and unworthy of the weakest to insist upon them, as do the Brethren in all their writings. And further, there are many things in the section whence that citation is taken, which shows to a demonstration, Rutherford there is speaking of defection from the truth in things which are fundamental; where he intimates clearly we are not to forsake a Church which remains pure and sound in professed fundamentals, “though a Church wanting the foundation of the apostles is to be forsaken.”

Observation 5. Mr. Wilson has a dextrous and easy way of answering what is unanswerable, and that is by passing it over in profound silence, as I know not how often; or by telling he is to “consider it afterwards in its proper place,” as p. 110, where treating of tyranny, in the administration of government and discipline, and speaking of the author of the Essay, says:

“He brings in our reforming period s more tyrannyical by far in the administration, and alleges nothing can be laid to the charge of the present judicatories, equal to these acts of tyranny, which he thinks first to condescend upon from the foresaid period: But this,” says Mr. Wilson, “I am afterwards to consider in its proper place.”

Now all that shall look into the Essay and compare it with the Defence must acknowledge this 110th page of the Defence was a proper place, and the most proper place, for considering what there I advanced. But has our author in any part of his Defence, found a more “proper place,” or any proper or unproper place to vindicate those acts, which I had cited, as being in my opinion of a tyrannical nature? Nothing like it; indeed when come to the 3rd Section of his 4th Chapter, he attempts to vindicate the acts of Assemblies in the foresaid period; but does he vindicate, or so much as attempt to vindicate those acts which I had cited in the Essay (pp. 94-95), as being of a tyrannical nature? Far from it.

As to the first of them, which was an act of Assembly 1642, and again, an act of the Assembly 1644, enjoining “the Prosecution of all such, whether Papists or others, as did not communicate with the Church of Scotland, according to the act of parliament made thereanent.”

Now, he cannot pretend his memory failed him as to this; for in the 303rd page of that Defence, when vindicating the acts in that period, he says:

“I shall not insist upon the invidious comparison he makes, p. 168, between the act of Assembly 1642, and the Sacramental Test; the absurdity of it may be obvious to any.”

Now, these are all the words he has in answer to the above-mentioned act; he does not so much as tell his reader the words of it: And was it not Mr. Wilson, I would conclude that there our author had mis-cited the Essay designedly, lest his reader should have seen what that act was, and my expressions anent it; for he cites Essay, p. 168, instead of pp. 94-95.

And there I cited other acts which seem to have a deal of tyranny in them, as that act of Assembly 1648, which ordained that all persons whatsoever should take the Covenant at the first receiving the Lord’s Supper, which surely included every lad and lass. But our author has not a word in answer to this either; and no wonder, for that moment he vindicates it, he gives sentence against himself, and all the Associate Presbytery.

There also I cited other acts, which, to sundry, appear to be of the same nature, to which our author has given no reply; as that act of Assembly 1648, by which:

“If any suspended minister, during his suspension, exercised any part of his ministerial calling, or did intromit with the stipend, he was to be deposed; and, continuing in any of those faults, he was to be processed with excommunication.”

I’m sure, had the Church of Scotland put this act in execution, when the Brethren acted in direct contradiction to it, in 1733 and 1734, all the world had heard of her cruelty and tyranny. But it seems in Mr. Wilson’s opinion, some can do nothing amiss, as others can do nothing but what is quarrellable, at least for one omission or other, in the manner of doing it.

.

.

Chapter 2

Containing remarks upon the Preface to Mr. Wilson’s Defence

.

In this and the following chapers, I’m engaged in a very unpleasant task, where I’ll be under necessity to contradict Mr. Wilson I know not how often. Yet the vindication of truth requiring this, I enter with the less reluctance upon it, amicus Plato, amicus Socrates, sed magis mihi amica veritas. And passing what is said in his Preface anent the Assemblies 1717, 1733 and 1736, because I may have occasion to touch them afterwards, I notice that in his Preface he quarrels the title of the Essay, asking, “How an Essy on separation, and a vindication of the Church of Scotland, are equivalent terms, as” (he says) “the title imports.” This is a matter of small importance, yet there is not the least contradiction here, for a book may be an Essay on the subjection of separation, and yet written so as to vindicate a Church which is accused as giving just ground for separation; or an Essay on the subject may be written so as to vindicate a Church from the many great evils laid to her charge by separatists.

He complains: “That through the whole book I have ranked the Associate Ministers among the most rigid separatists, joining them with the grossest sectarians, laying the charge of schism against them.”

Now here Mr. Wilson should have adduced some proof for what he affirms, for his bare ipse dixit is not sufficient documentation. Indeed I judge, if ever there was a schism in a Church of Christ, the Associate Ministers are guilty of it, and that they have done what they can to rent, ruin and occasion separation from the Church of Scotland, is such an evident truth that it needs not the least proof to any thinking person. And yet in the Essay I was so cautious, as if I be not far mistaken, I never used the word “schismatic” in speaking of them. And though our Brethren be averse from being esteemed schismatics, yet but refused the name, affirming still they were the true Church. And albeit I use the word “separatists,” yet I made an apology even for that in Preface to the Essay, declaring it was not from anything of contempt, but because it was shorter than to say, “such as have separated themselves.”  Neal in his history of the Puritans says:

“The committee of the Assembly of Westminster, in their Reply to the Independents, said, If the Church impose anything that is sinful, we must forbear to comply, yet without separation, as was the practice of the puritans in the late times. As to the charge of schism, they admit that difference in judgment, in some particular points, is not schism; nor does an inconformity to some things enjoined deserve that name. But our [Independent] Brethren 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 a setting up altar against altar, allowing our churches, as Independents do, to be true churches.”

And for his charge of ranking them with the “grossest sectarians,” this is a slander, an untruth and groundless charge; for the “gross sectarians” held many damnable errors, and uttered many dreadful blasphemies: Whereas in all that Essay I never charged the Brethren with anything of that nature.

He asks again (Preface, p. 6): “What now have the associate Presbytery done, for which the charge of renting and ruining the Church is laid against them? They have even done what our author acknowledges the judicatories of the Church should have done, they have judicially condemned some steps of defection and asserted the truths in opposition to many particular errors of the present times, which they have in like manner particularly and expressly condemned; Are they therefore schismatics, renters and ruiners of the Church? Yea, says our author, they are, and that because they testify in a way of secession.”

Here again his bare word must be taken for all; yet this affirmation is another untruth. I never said they were separatists and renters of the Church because they judicially condemned some steps, of what he calls defection, and asserted the truth in opposition to what he calls “the errors of the times,” or because they have testified in a way of secession; and till he prove his allegance, I might slight it without further notice: Yet I think the Brethren are Church-renters for asserting many things noticed in the Essay against the Church of Scotland, which are neither truth nor matter of fact, and for aggravating her faults to blacken her, and erecting themselves into a judicatory, setting up a presbyterian Church within this Church, as if she were no Church of Christ, which is plain positive separation; for teaching, preaching and printing that people ought to separate from this established Church, which is done even by the reverend Mr. Wilson in this Defence, as p. 32, etc. for debarring such from the King of Zion’s Table, as have not freedom to join with them in their Testimony, as some of them have done; and for taking people engaged, at baptizing of their children, to adhere to their testimony, and that they shall hear none but the Seceding Brethren, as has also been done by some of them; for intruding into congregations, where they can lay nothing like intrusion or scandal to the charge of their ministers, as at Logie, West-kirk, etc. for going to places of the kingdom, as to the Shire of Ross, to which they had scarcely a shadow of invitation. Are they not schismatics for declining the authority of the Church of the Church of Scotland, and enticing or receiving the people of other ministers’ charge under their inspection, these reckoned the strictest ministers in Scotland, not excepted, in respect of which they go beyond what, I suppose, many Independents would do.

Calamy in his Account of the ministers ejected or silenced after the Restoration in 1660 tells (p. 444) of Mr. Edward Ryner:

“an eminent servant of Christ, who turned to the congregational way; yet put on that as a fixed resolution never to admit any for members into his congregation who lived in places under godly ministers.”

Our Brethren cry out against intrusions and I’m sorry ever they had any ground to complain on this account; yet I’m far mistaken if the “extrusion” of faithful ministers of Christ, and doing what in them lies “to tear their commission,” be not as heinous a sin before God as any intrusion can be; and while the body of a people cleave to an orthodox minister, who preaches Christ, and has a conversation becoming the Gospel, particular persons in a congregation have no more right to reject him, than ministers have to intrude a pastor contrary to the will of the congregation. Further, what can be more renting and ruining to the established Church of Scotland than to disown her ministers, the tenderest and most zealous among them not excepted; refusing to pray for, or join in prayer with them in their families, as such, while they cannot but own they are saints of God, as some of them have done? What can be more renting than in sermons to charge people, upon utmost peril, to come out from this Church, as some of them have done?

Again our author asks: “What reason can be given why the present judicatories refuse to discharge their duty, in lifting up a judicial testimony for truth?  Or why they refuse to set about reformation-work?”  And then he adds: “There must be one of two; I cannot conceive a mids between either that they will not, or they are hindered to discharge their duty by some outward force and violence upon them; I hope the last cannot be alleged.” The reverend Mr. Erskine, in preface to Mr. Guthrie’s Last Sermon, etc. has a dilemma much to this same purpose, “the horns of which,” he affirms, “are enough to overthrow Mr. Currie’s voluminous Essay upon separation,” affirming: “If judicatories will not reform, they are to be withdrawn from as wicked; or if it be, because they cannot, or want of power, it says the keys of discipline are taken from them, and they are not Christ’s officers and stewards.  The discipline of Christ’s appointment must needs be a sufficient means for the preservation and reformation of his own House; in both these cases,” says he, “the judicious Owen is of opinion, a Church is to be separated from.”

Now, ’tis likely, the Seceding Brethren are much taken with this dilemma, for at the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in Burntisland, anno 1738, before a numerous audience, Mr. Erskine adduced this same argument in favor of separation from this Church, where sundry of his brethren were present. And Mr. Thomson, in his Reasons of Secession, has something to this same purpose.  But I affirm this is corrupt doctrine, and an error of a dangerous nature; for reformation may be refused by Church judicatories when they are neither weak nor wicked, but perhaps blind or ignorant, and cannot see the evil of what is complained of.  As suppose the General Assembly 1650 had been desired to rectify what was established by the preceding General Assembly 1649, in their Directory, anent the call of Gospel ministers, which robbed the people of their right, both as to the nomination and election of pastors, lodging those wholly in the kirk-session. Now, though this piece of reformation had been refused, might not that have flowed from want of conviction of the evil of such a constitution?

Or may not the want of desired reformation sometimes flow from prudential considerations?  As suppose the Assembly 1643 had been desired to rectify that bad act, whereby the former Assembly in 1642 obliged “every presbytery to give a leet [list] of six persons (all willing to accept of a presentation) to every patron, that he might take his choice of the candidates,” (which was a plain homologation of patronages) might not that Assembly have refused this piece of reformation, and neither been weak, nor wicked, nor blind, or ignorant?  But because, perhaps, they judged, with Mr. Wilson, that was the best they could make of it in their present situation?  For my part, I’m convinced such acts should never have been made; and when made, they ought to have been rescinded; however, ’tis possible those Assemblies might have thought otherwise.

Our Brethren thought it duty to excommunicate one of their church members for principles they judged unsound.  Now, if some of their number should reckon all that profess themselves to be of his principles, and who openly adhere unto him, ought to be censured to the same degree, and though urging this in their presbytery, should not be able to carry that censure to be inflicted, and so think the Brethren act by partiality, whether would this be ground for separation, and to make them think the officers in their Church are not “Christ’s officers and stewards,” and that “he has taken the keys of discipline from them”?  I question if our brother would say so. To me the whole force of his reasoning is to this purpose, that when there are things in a Church which stand in need of reformation, that Church is to be forsaken, if those things be not reformed.

But, granting a Church is obstinate, and will not reform some things:

This, in the opinion of sound divines, is not enough to prove she is to be forsaken and deserted, if we be not required to approve of anything amiss in her: Hence, in the time of the Protesters, when the Church of Scotland would not reform what they judged amiss, they continued in the Church contending against what they reckoned culpable, in a way of Church communion. Rutherford, in his Peaceable Plea, again and again asserts to this purpose, affirming:

“That though many of the professors of the truth lead a life contrary to that which they professed, and yet the governors use not the rod of discipline to censure them, the members, notwithstanding, ought not to separate from the Church and worship, but to stay and plead with their mother.”

And there (p. 152), in plainest terms, he refuses, that we are to separate from every Church which is incorrigible in one fault or other; and (p. 155) intimates very clearly, albeit the Church of Corinth, being warned by some of her members to excommunicate the incestuous person, had yet refused to do her duty, such members ought not, for all this, to separate from her. And here he has much more to the same purpose; and also in the 4th Section, 4th Chapter of his Due Right of Presbyteries.

But then, as to the other branch of the dilemma, namely: “That, when a Church is weak, and cannot reform herself, she ought to be withdrawn from; for then the keys of discipline are taken from them, and they are not Christ’s officers and stewards.”

This also would condemn all our worthy ancestors, who stayed in the Church of Scotland from 1597 to 1638; when she had the civil magistrate and a corrupt party to grapple with, and could not get things reformed, as in the case of Messieurs Robert Bruce, Andrew and James Mellvilles, Mr. John Davidson, etc. who all continued in the Church of Scotland, attending her judicatories as long as they had their liberty, and never dreamed of a secession, and far less of erecting themselves into a separate judicatory. The Church of Sardis had but “a few names” in her, “who had not defiled their garments,” and so ’tis like they were “weak,” having but “little strength;” yet it was not duty to separate from her. And, according to this doctrine, our Brethren’s new-erected Church must either be a perfect Church, or else she must be deserted; for if she has any faults, either ’tis because she is wicked, and will not reform; or because she is weak, and cannot reform herself. A Church, as Rutherford says (Peaceable Plea, p. 152), “of white paper, as fair as heaven and the sun, this, on earth, is a city in the moon.” And to me our brother’s position here is a clear proof of the truth of what Mr. James Guthrie says, in the 6th of his Considerations, when speaking of the fatal effects of division in a Church, viz.:

“That it occasions men, in the heat of their debates anent—differences, to run too far upon the asserting and venting of things for the defence of their opinions and judgments, that may prove seeds and inlets to tenets and evils that are of greater and more dangerous consequences.”

If judicatories will not, or cannot reform, Mr. Erskine says, the judicious Owen is of opinion, a Church is to be separated from; and our brother affirms the reason is plain, because she is separate from the Head. Now, though I know not of any human author, for whose opinion and judgment I would have a greater veneration, than for Owen in the matter of doctrine and worship, yet in the matter of discipline and government, and something anent the magistrate’s power to punish erroneous persons, his sentiments are of less consideration with presbyterians; and this might serve for answer to all their citations from Owen: But where does Owen declare his opinion to this purpose? Our brother has not thought meet to tell this. Must we believe with implicit faith? Or shall we be obliged to turn over his seven folio volumes, his twelve quartos, his thirty octavos, etc. But till we have Owen’s own words, and the place where they are to be found, we shall suspend our judgment as to Owen’s opinion.

Whereas he says, Of such Churches as will not, or cannot reform themselves, that they are separated from the Head. This is a heavy charge against all the Churches of Christ under the sun this day; for there are none but stand in need of reformation in some things, from which he may think they will not, or cannot reform themselves, and so it was between 1638 and 1649 inclusive; for then I’m sure she was not faultless: So ’tis evident Mr. Erskine’s dilemma there (and Mr. Wilson’s reasoning here) is a weak thing, Neutro cornupungit. And further, in answer to his and Mr. Wilson’s citation from Dr. Owen, was it not for swelling this Vindication, I might transcribe a leaf of the doctor’s book of Evangelical Love, viz. pp. 76-77, where he asserts, “It is a most perverse imagination, that separation is the only cure for Church-disorders.”

Further, in answer to Mr. Wilson, I may tell him, the reason, sometimes, why judicatories do not lift up a judicial testimony, may be, because they do not see it present duty, or this may flow from some prudential considerations; though positive duties bind semper [always], yet not ad semper [to every time]. The words of the great Mr. Gillespie, in his Aaron’s Rod (p. 287), clearly discover the weakness of what Mr. Wilson and Mr. Erskine say upon this head, where he, viz. Mr. Gillespie, speaking of the apostle’s words, Gal. 5:12, “I would they were even cut off which trouble you,” expresses himself thus:

Mr. Wilson says (p. 8), “Our author is very sparing in Scripture-pleadings, a few pages do his business in the 5th Chapter.”

But for as few as he alleges these arguments are, he has not attempted a distinct answer to sundry of them: As that unanswerable argument taken from the practice of our adorable Lord and Master Christ Jesus, and of his apostles, in attending upon the public worship, without separation in their day; for as corrupt as then the Church of the Jews was, Christ has left us an example that we should follow his steps. Hence the reverend Mr. Boston says:

“I’ll follow Christ to the Synagogue of the Jews, and in so doing I’ll be more strict than those that scruple to follow his example, for fear of being involved in the guilt of the corruptions among them; for the nearer I follow Christ, the stricter I am.”

But of these arguments more afterwards. One Scripture-argument is enough to confirm any point; and arguments taken from the practice of the saints, wherein they have imitated Christ, are Scripture-arguments, seeing we are called to be “Followers of them, who through faith and patience have inherited the promises;” and to be “followers of them, as they are followers of Christ Jesus.”

Whereas he alleges I “have injured the names of great men, in citing their authority,” affirming that “the most part of my quotations are applied in a manner contrary to the intention and design of worthy authors,” asserting also he has “frequently brought some of my authors against myself.”

I affirm these are manifest untruths and slanders; and because there our author has not given any one instance of what he says he has “done frequently,” I shall not insist upon this; only, whereas in the beginning of the Essay, I cited Mr. Shields, saying, “It is ministers’ duty to show people how great a sin schism is.” He says, “Here our author stops; but I hope it will not be impertinent to transcribe what Mr. Shields subjoins to the above words, etc.” But to any unprejudiced reader, ’tis evident his long citation there is most impertinent, for then I was not speaking of the nature of schism; and there is not a sentence, word or syllable, in all his citation, which is opposite to what I had said, namely that “it is ministers’ duty to show people how great a sin schism is.” Again, whereas he says (Preface, p. 9), “If any principles and conclusions he has laid down, are founded only on the authority of men, etc.” I do affirm, sundry of his principles and conclusions have no foundation in the divine Testimony, nor are they supported by sound reason, as is partly evident from what has been advanced in the Essay, and in Answer to his Postscript; and may be further evident from this larger Vindication; nor has he adduced the authority of presbyterian divines supporting them.

Our author (Preface, pp. 9-12) comes to speak of the treatment given in the Essay to the reforming period, from 1638 to 1650. And I must beg the reader’s patience for being some larger here, this being the grand objection of sundry serious people against the Essay.

1. He alleges that the tendency and design of what I have written upon that head is to weaken all the arguments drawn from that period for the purity our reformation.

I humbly think I said enough in preface to the Essay (Preface, p. 10), in reply to what Mr. Wilson advances upon this head here, and in his Short Answer, so that I needed not further insist in reply unto him; yet beause, as I said already, this is the main topic which many insist upon in their complaint of the Essay, and which Mr. Wilson here, as sundry of the Brethren, in their sermons, have frequently insisted upon; I shall not grudge a further reply to all that he advances against my conduct in this particular.

2. Whereas he charges me with speaking diminutively of those times, this is another untruth: For in Preface to the Essay, I own “the Lord honored his servants, in that period, to do much for his glory.” Now to do “much,” and to do “great” things, according to our author in his Defence, is the same; and for those things I told, I desired to give praise. I’m sure that was not to speak diminutively of that period. And I told, “my witness was in Heaven,” I had not “mentioned the faults of the Church of Scotland in that period with a design or desire to blacken her; and I know not if our brother can say the same, for his and his brethren’s mentioning the bad things alleged against the Church of Scotland since the happy Revolution [of 1689].

3. Whereas he complains I have not mentioned the particular steps of reformation attained unto, or maintained in that period. I own I have not mentioned these in particular; yet I have said in general of the Lord’s servants then, they were helped “to do great things,” and that “they were glorious instruments in the hand of providence to deliver this nation from Antichristian bondage.” I ask at him, Whether he has given a particular account of the good things done by the Church of Scotland since the year 1690? He says, “It seems I do not reckon that period the purest times of presbytery,” viz. the period from 1638. I answer: It seems neither does he; for he only says they exceeded any after period of this Church; and indeed, I reckon our first days at the Reformation were our best days, and purer in some respect than in that period from 1638. And as to what he says of these times, being times of power, I have never said anything to contradict that; yea, I doubt not they were “days of the Son of Man”: But also, there have been days of power in after-times, as at the Revolution, which many yet alive can witness. The reverend Mr. Boston, in his Life, written with his own hand, tells, after the Revolution:

“It was easy for people, in the cold winter season, to wade through the River of Blackwater to hear Mr. Henry Erskine at Newton of Whitsum, because of the benefit of the glorious Gospel, which came in power in those days, the success of the Word being great at that time.”

And I remember that saint of great experience, Mr. Nisbet in the castle of Edinburgh, tells in his Life, written with his own hand, that it was the power which he found attending the Gospel after the Revolution which had influence on him to turn from his separating principles, to which he was inclined at that time.

Our author says I “have gathered together through that book whatever” I “can invent or allege against that period.”

But this is another untruth, for at the writing of the Essay I had some things of greater moment to object against things in the conduct of judicatories at that time, than any that I have mentioned; some of which may come to be instanced in this Vindication. And, having mentioned (p. 10) my noticing what I reckoned bad acts of that period, he says:

“Let the unprejudiced world judge if a performance of this kind has not a direct tendency to blacken the above reforming period.”

This puts me in mind of what Scrivener, a presbyter of the Church of England said of the very learned Monseiur [Jean] Daille’s admired book of The Right Use of the Fathers, namely that in it he was a “Ham, taking delight to lay open the nakedness of the fathers.” But Mr. Wilson would remember what he and other Seceding Brethren say when mentioning some of the faults of the Assembly 1734, viz. “That it was not their design thereby to reflect upon that Assembly.” And what the Brethren say in their Testimony (p. 39) where, speaking of the faults of the Church of Scotland in 1690, they express themselves thus:

“It is not here intended to detract from that regard that is due to the memory of those worthy ministers and others who came out of the furnace of a hot persecution, and did bear a part in our first General Assemblies after the Revolution; yet it is necessary, etc.”

Now I ask him if he and his Brethren could mention the bad things done by the Assembly 1690, or 1734, without any design to reflect upon or blacken these Assemblies? Then might not the author of the Essay have as innocent designs in mentioning the faults and failings of the period from 1638. And I may say of my mentioning the fualts of that period, as the Protesters said in Vindication of their Protestation against the Assembly at St. Andrews 1651 (p. 26), namely:

“That my mentioning these is rather a covering of their nakedness, and stopping of the mouths of enemies, when they hear that all are not involved in, nor give they way to these corruptions.”

I humbly think it tends to the vindication of presbyterians to show they are as far from approving of anything that was amiss in that period, as if it had been done at another season. ‘Tis justly complained, of “high Church in England,” that she cannot allow of the least blemish in what was done by those worthies, “Cranmer, Latimer, etc.” at the Reformation; and as little can some among ourselves allow of anything to be rectified or testified against which was done from 1638 to 1649, inclusive. I may say with great and good Mr. [John] Corbet (as Mr. Daniel Burgess calls him):

“Those weaknesses of good men of old times, I observe not to dishonor, but that we may be thereby warned to be more charitable and less censorious towards on another in case of the like weaknesses and disorders, and to be sollicitous to maintain peace.”

Our author enquires (p. 11), “How can any reasonable man imagine that giving instances of the faults, failings or bad acts of a Church in one period can tend to the vindication or justification of the bad acts of a Church in another period? Or how they can tend to prove that, notwithstanding of these bad acts, communion is still to be kept with her?”

I answer, though the bad acts in one period would never excuse the bad acts of another period, yet if we can show as bad acts in such a period, as afterwards, then the instances of those will vindicate that after period from the charge of “dreadful apostasy” from what the Church was in the former period; and be a sufficient proof that if such or such bad acts were not ground of separation formerly, then they cannot be such now, which was the great thing intended by my argument.

Mr. Wilson says, “Let us examine what our author declares to be his own intention and design of his giving so many instances of faults, failings and bad acts of the former assemblies.”

But, has he mentioned these? Has he dealt fairly here? No; he puts his thumb upon [and passes over] sundry of the most material of them: As first, when I say (Preface to the Essay, pp. 5-6):

“Though her failings are not to be instanced as precedents for imitation, nor mentioned as the least excuse for our faults in latter times; yet, may they not be told that we may confess, grieve for and avoid them.”

2ndly, Nor does he make the least mention of what follows:

“‘If,’ as the Brethren affirm, ‘provocations, both of an elder and later date, are to be testified against; and if,’ as they add, ‘this is necessary for the conviction and humiliation of all ranks, necessary to maintain and preserve the truths of God, and an useful mean to transmit them to the following generations in their purity,’ then I hope I shall be excused here.”

3rdly, Nor has he a word of my telling (Preface, p. 6):

“It had weight with me to mention the failings of the Church of Scotland in that period, that sundry of our separatists look upon the acts and determinations of the Church of Scotland in that period, as of little less authority than the Scripture for a rule, complaining that since the Revolution, ‘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.”

And if it might not offend, here I might use his own expression (p. 11):

“He has indeed managed this point with abundance of cunning, but not with that candor that becomes one of his profession and character.”

And I might add his own words there, “If he had dealt honestly,” seeing he pretends to examine my reasons for mentioning those; upon this head he should not have slipped over those most material ones.

4thly, I also adduced arguments from the sacred Scriptures for vindicating my conduct; as that the faults in the Church of God, in the best times, are recorded in Scripture, though then Israel was the only people God had upon earth. But our examiner passes by all these, ’tis likely because he saw it was not easy to answer them. And from this specimen of Mr. Wilson’s conduct, the reader may guess how he has answered the Essay in other places.

Mr. Wilson alleges (p. 12), I ought to have compared the proceedings of judicatories at this day with the faithful contendings of the Church of Scotland for reformation-work from 1638 to 1649, and then I might easily have seen the charge of defection from reformation principles laid against the present judicatories can very well be vindicated; alleging the procedure of judicatories in former times were towards reformation, and that the latter have a manifest tendency towards deformation.

I own the Assembly 1638 was a reforming Assembly, and that they did worthily in condemning the Assemblies at Linlithgow, Glasgow, Aberdeen, St. Andrews and Perth, in declaring against unlawful oaths of entrants, in condemning the Service Book, the Book of Canons, the Book of Ordination, and the High Commission; in deposing some of the prelates, and in suspending others; in declaring against episcopacy and against Perth Articles, in enacting that no person should be intruded into any office of the Kirk contrary to the will of the congregation, in their declaring against the civil places and power of Kirk-men, etc. But then what reformation was in that period was mainly done by that first Assembly: And if I should enumerate the good things done by the General Assembly 1690, appearing particularly in the causes of that solemn fast and humiliation which they appointed at that juncture, and the great things which had been done to their hand by the Convention of Estates, and by the first parliament after the Revolution, they will appear to be great things, if not equal to the former.

And as the Brethren find many things to carp at in the conduct of the latter; so may people see sundry things to complain of in the conduct of the former. And had the Assembly 1690 only declared Episcopacy and the power of Kirk-men “to be still holden unlawful in this Kirk,” without mentioning their being contrary to God’s Word, and as if they might be lawful in other Kirks, the Brethren had made a great noise; yet that did the Assembly 1639, session 8, Aug. 17, which looked rather like a going backward, than forward, in reformation, considering how the Assembly 1638, had expressed themselves upon that head.

Lastly, upon the whole, he says (p. 12): “I cannot conceive he has gained anything by the alleged instances of bad acts of former Assemblies, but the hardening of the present generation in their iniquity, and exposing the Church of Scotland to the ridicule of the common enemy, etc.”

Now if this be a good argument, then the penmen of the Scripture had been culpable, in speaking so often of the sins of the Lord’s people in their fathers’ days. But, as I told him in the Preface to the Essay (pp. 6-7), Whatever the heathen should think of the Jewish religion, the Spirit of God, in Scripture, has recorded at large the faults of his ancient people, for their humiliation, and a caveat to after generations in the best times of the Church, 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 a 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, 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: But if this be “candor and ingenuity,” to pretend to examine what one’s antagonist says in his Vindication, and then to pass over the most material things advanced, I pray the Lord to keep me from it, and from saying anything that is false, to slander my “mother’s son,” come of my own reputation, or any cause I espouse, what will.

Whereas he says he cannot conceive what I have gained by the alleged instances of bad acts in that period, but the exposing of the Church of Scotland to the ridicule of the common enemy.

I obviated this objection in Preface to the Essay (p. 6), where I told him:

As none can plead blamelessness, 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.”

And whereas he had objected, in his short answer, to the same purpose, saying:

“He knew not what cause I had served by my labors this way, unless it is that of the prelatists on the one hand, and the sectarins on the other, who will readily applaud his performance as excellent.”

To this I answered in the Short Vindication (pp. 10-11), where I asked, If all this might not be said on as good, if not on far better ground, in relation to the Brethren’s conduct in ripping up and magnifying the faults of this Church and State since the happy Revolution, laying sundry things to the charge of both, of which they have not been guilty, as is shown in the Essay. Does our brother think it will break the heart of prelatists or those whom he calls sectarians to hear an ill word of the Church of Scotland, since prelacy or diocesan episcopacy was turned out, and presbytery restored in 1690, and yet make their hearts glad to hear of her faults from 1638 to 1650? I suppose tis the very reverse; for could they have had any hopes of seeing prelacy restored, the bad conduct of the Church of Scotland in latter times, will revive their hopes more, than to tell never so many of her faults a hundred years ago. But our author makes not the least reply to this neither.

And let me once more tell my reader and entreat him to advert unto it that as I solemnly declared in Preface to the Essay, I had not mentioned any of the faults, failings or bad acts of our Assemblies in that period, with a desire or design to blacken the Church of Scotland, or such worthy ministers as lived in those times; but for her vindication at this day, and to show that though the chief ground urged by sundry for separation in our times is our alleged, dreadful, scandalous, unparallelled apostasy, from what the church of Scotland was in that period: Yet the practice of judicatories at that time is what can as little be justified in sundry things, as the practice of the Church of Scotland in later times. So also in that Preface, I told it had weight with me, to notice the failings of the Church of Scotland in that period; that sundry of our separatists look upon her acts and determinations at that time, as of little less authority for a rule than the Scriptures, complaining that since the Revolution, she has never “revived and corroborated the registers, acts and constitutions of these Assemblies.” Affirming also, the 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)

Mr. Wilson (pp. 10, 12) quarrels that I made such solemn appeals to Heaven as that “I had said nothing, with a design to blacken the Church of Scotland, and such worthy ministers as lived in that reforming period, from 1638; and that I had appealed to the “Searcher of Hearts,” I had “said nothing,” viz. in the Essay, “but what I looked upon to be truth, and matter of fact.”

As for my conduct here, I had the example of the divinely inspired apostle, recorded, I doubt not, for our imitation in weighty cases, for preventing or removing of such jealousies as some are ready to entertain of us, as when he says, “God is my witness;” (Rom. 1:9) “Moreover I call God for a record upon my soul;” (2 Cor. 1:23) “For God is my record;” (Phil. 1:8) “Neither at any time used we flattering words, God is my witness.” (1 Thess. 2:5) So the holy man Job in the 16th of his book, 19th verse. And here hundreds of instances might be given from eminent human writers, as Preface to the Old Confession, Testimony of the Brethren of Fife and Perth, Mr. Andrew Melville, Gillespie in his Popish Ceremonies (p. 236), Guthrie in his Considerations (p. 28), True Non-Conformist (p. 164), Whitefield’s sermon on John 7:39 (pp. 9, 11); so ’tis evident that there Mr. Wilson carps for carping sake: And as then I spoke what I took to be truth and matter of fact, so I have not seen any just ground for all that Mr. Wilson has said, to alter my sentiments as to anything of moment in the Essay.

What is said of his being moved to write, because I had mistaken the state of the question, may come to be considered afterwards. And whereas there he speaks of my “fair and smooth language,” in the Essay:

He contradicts himself; for instead of fair and smooth, in his Short Vindication (p. 58), he says, “He was heartily sorry for that bitter spirit which he saw breathing through the whole book.” What, is the Essay written with fair and smooth language, and yet with a spirit of bitterness through the whole of it?

He says, had not the “Essay been so much applauded and commended, he had never judged it worth his while to have enquired further into it, beyond what he had done in the Postscript;”

And I can say, had it not been for the reasons already mentioned, I had never attempted a further reply; for I have small hopes of convincing the generality of those that have separated; and I’m of opinion, when division enters into a Church, God only can cure it; for ’tis almost needless to deal with such as pin their faith to any man’s sleeve: As he who said he “could lay down his life for the truth of every article in Mr. Wilson’s book;” and it seems to be in vain to argue with such as told me they “could no more have freedom to hear me preach,” because I had said in my sermon, “I thought the Brethren should come in again. Let God be true, but every man a liar, as it is written, Rom. 3:4.”

What Mr. Wilson says of my “lax principles concerning Church-communion,” which run through the Essay, and his affirming, “That the tendency of the whole performance is not only to defame a reforming period of this Church, but also to cast loose our reformation principles,” are all unaccountable slanders, as may be further evidenced afterwards.

What he says (p. 16) of that eminent martyr Mr. [George] Wishart, his foretelling a little before death, “That this realm should be illuminated with the light of Christ’s Gospel as clearly as ever any realm since the days of the apostle”:

This had its accomplishment before 1597; for in that period, as the protesting brethren of Fife and Perth say in their Testimony (p. 14):

“Then was the Church of Scotland for doctrine shound and lively; for worship, pure and spiritual; for discipline, powerful and impartial; and for government, unity and order, beautiful and comely, and well compact together.”

In the last leaf of his Preface, Mr. Wilson says, “I cannot but take notice of a reflection made by the author of the Essay, p. 25, where, as appears to me, with a sneer at the Seceding Brethren he says, ‘Nor have we heard any extraordinary pouring out of the Spirit attending the ministry of the Brethren more than others; few pricked at the heart, crying out, ‘Men and brethren, what shall we do to be saved.”” And then he adds, “The above reflection is very indecent in one of our author’s character.” And afterwards says, “Though the Seceding Brethren may be upbraided with the above insulting reflection, etc.”

Had Mr. Wilson dealt with that candor and ingenuity he pretends to, he had told upon what occasion I had used these expressions, which was this, namely, when showing that want of “sensible edification” is not enough to occasion separation from ministers “of a becoming conversation [conduct], who preach Jesus,” some pretending want of edification for leaving their ministers and joining the Brethren; and, having owned that the want of edification is much to be lamented in our day; and told how sundry of the Lord’s servants, as Rutherford and Renwick, lamented the same in their day; and told what the author of the Seasonable Testimony declared of some of the followers of the Seceding Brethren, viz. That they confessed that they had not found that composed frame, and solid work of religion which sometimes they observed with comfort; and told how others had heard the same complaint; I then added the words he complains of, as being “a sneer at the Seceding Brethren.” But his conduct here, looks very like what he calls “a jumping into the conscience;” and I never designed these expressions as a “sneer” at the Brethren, nor in the least to insult them upon any such account: God forbid; for who, but a profane wretch, will make a mock at the pouring out of the Spirit? And some here would apply his own soft expressions, telling, this looked like “the spirit of bitterness, blended with a quantity of pride and self-estimation,” seeing he takes it for an “insulting reflection,” to be put upon the same level with other worthy ministers; my expression being, “Nor have we heard of any extraordinary pouring out of the Spirit, attending the ministry of our Brethren, more than others.” And instead of insulting them upon this in the Essay (p. 36), I own we want not ground to lament that for our iniquities the Lord has withdrawn in a great measure from public, private and secret, etc. And I know of nothing more threatening in our case at this day than the lamentable suspension of the Spirit’s influences from Gospel ordinances dispensed among us: And yet at times his people have ground to “speak of his glory in the sanctuary.”

.

.

Chapter 3

In which some things are noticed in the Introduction to Mr. Wilson’s Defence

.

He puts the Chuch of Scotland on the same footing with the Church of England, yea, with the Church of Rome, because she charges the Brethren with schism.

But here there is no comparison, for the Church of England charges the Dissenters unjustly, seeing they will not allow them to remain in their communion, unless upon the sinful terms of assenting and consenting to their uninstituted ceremonies, etc.  And as for the Romish Church, she was corupted both in her standards of doctrine, and idolatrous in worship, and also required all to join in them before the Reformation; whereas no sinful terms of communion are required in any of our separatists by the protestant Church of Scotland.

He alleges testimonies against the backslidings of a Church, given in a way of Church communion can only be given one of three ways, viz. either doctrinally from the pulpit, or by protestations and dissents in judicatories, or by petitions and representations unto them, alleging the Church of Scotland has condemned all these three ways.

But this is not a sufficient enumeration, for a minister may give testimony by arguing and voting in Church judicatories, or sometimes this may be barely by voting against them, if he has no talent of speaking in judicatories, as many have done in our General Assemblies.  And so it seems it was in the case of Joseph of Arimathea, of whom ’tis only said in Scripture, ‘He had not consented to the deed of them,’ (Lk. 23:51) viz. of them that had condemned the Lord of Glory.

And, as I told in the Essay (p. 145), sometimes the Lord approves of his sevants in a declining time, when they only guard against complying with the defections of the day in which they live, telling how Mr. Hog argues from the instance of Joseph of Arimathea.  But our author puts his thumb upon all that, without essaying to give the least answer.  And as Burroughs says in his Irenicum (p. 81):

‘The truth is maintained by forbearing that practice which those opinions of men that are contrary to the truth puts them upon; not doing as they do, is a continual witnessing against them, and so a witnessing for the truth.’

He tells [us] when sundry [Church officers] dissented in the Case of Hutton at the Assembly 1730, and craving that their dissent might be marked, they were refused by a vote of that assembly.  I’m as far from approving this as Mr. Wilson; yet, if he had pleased, he might have told [that] the act of that Assembly 1730 against recording the Reasons of Dissent [of the Seceders] was rescinded by the Assembly 1734.

In Introduction he insists at some length upon intrusions; upon professor Simson’s affair; upon a warning against errors; and upon an Act Assertory of the Truth in opposition to them: But in regard I may have occasion in the subsequent part of this Vindication to touch upon these things, I insist not upon them in this place.

As to the Representations which were given in to the Assembly 1732, by a number of ministers and people, as then, so still I think the Assembly was faulty in that she did not read and consider them. But though Mr. Wilson says the above arbitrary step might have been justly reckoned a ground of secession from such judicatories, etc., yet then neither Mr. Wilson nor any of the seceding ministers had the least thought of its laying a foundation for separation or secession from our judicatories; what then we did was judged to be a sufficient exoneration of ourselves. And having spoken of the Protestation given in to that Assembly in those terms, viz. “That the Church’s continuing still under the grievances specified in our Representation, should no wise be chargeable on us,” he says: “Though the protesting ministers reckoned themselves denied a just right, yet the reverend Mr. Currie, who signed this protestation, has not, in all his Essay, found the present judicatories guilty of one single act of tyranny in the administration.”

Answer: If I mistake not the bare refusing to read and grant the demand of a petition or representation, while no censure ahs been so much as spoken of for presenting of it, though it may be unjust, yet it uses not to be called tyranny. What he says anent the Claim of Right, is not to the purpose; for the Claim of Right only says, “That it is the right of subjects to petition the king; and that all imprisonments and prosecutions for such petitioning is contrary to law.” Tyrannical government is cruel and violent government, I suppose a tyrant is one who acts with outrageous cruelty and oppression.

Now, as one of his three ways in which we can only testify against the backslidings of a Church is by petitions and representations, so it seems he would infer, that all access for a testimony in this way is shut up, because the General Assembly 1732 refused two such representations; but to argue from a particular to a general was never reckoned good logic; though that Assembly was faulty here, yet, I doubt not, we have had assemblies both before and since that time which would have given such representations a hearing.

Next he alleges (p. 29) the door is shut against testifying by our doctrine, against the backslidings of the Church of Scotland, because Mr. Erskine was censured before the synods of Perth and Stirling, and General Assembly for his sermon, in which he had impugned the act of Assembly 1732, and the proceedings of Church judicatories.  But albeit the Assembly 1733 condemned and censured him, yet the Assembly immediately succeeding did materially condemn what the former Assembly had done, giving the synod of Perth and Stirling ‘full power, as they should find most justifiable, etc.,’ which was taken by all, and I doubt not by the Brethren themselves, to be as good as a commission to take off the sentence against them.  Further, because the Assembly 1733 did so and so, it will not follow that other Assemblies have been, or will still be, of the same mind with them.

Further, the members of that Assembly, who voted for censuring Mr. Erskine, have still refused it was in the least for testifying against the act of Assembly 1732, affirming it was only for the manner of doing it, his expressions, according to them, being undecent, asserting that both the synod and members of Assembly told him so much; and Mr. Wilson knows, albeit the Testimony against that act in a synodical sermon preached before another reverend synod, at the same time, was as full and plain against that act as anything in Mr. Erskine’s sermon; yet though the Assembly knew well enough of it, they never took the least notice thereof, albeit, before that Assembly met, the sermon was published; in Preface to which the author owned he had never retracted one word of what he said in that synodical sermon; and ’tis well known, many such doctrinal testimonies were given against that act of Assembly through the land, without the least notice taken of them by any Church judicatory.

Mr. Wilson affirms (p. 32) that the Brethren were cast out merely for contending against a course of defection.

Alas! our backslidings are many, but positive backslidings in our judicatories, except some violent intrusions [of ministers on congregations], as yet, they have not given sufficient evidence of them.  And as for intrusions, ’tis well known many in the Church of Scotland have given as clear evidence of their opposition to them as ever the Brethren did.

The author of the Defence and all the Brethren again and again harp upon this, as a ground of their secession, that the Church of Scotland has kept in ministerial communion with them one who had ‘derogated from the essential glory of the Son of God,’ (p. 31) viz. professor Simson.

But our author has never offered to answer what was objected to that in the Essay, where I told him (p. 118), if I was not far mistaken, the Brethren would be very hard put to it to find a Scripture for founding a sentence of excommunication against him, considering what repentance he professed before the Assembly.  But for all that, he never offers to bring a sentence from the sacred oracles for proof of this.

Now, here the reverend Mr. Wilson, in his pretended Defence of our Reformation Principles, defends another anti-reformation principle, as appears from the First Book of Discipline, 7th Head, which treats of Ecclesiastical Discipline, and was drawn up at the Reformation, where ’tis said:

“For the Kirk ought to be no more severe than God declares Himself to be, who witnesses that in whatsoever hour a sinner unfeignedly repents, and turns from his wicked way, that he will not remember one of his iniquities: And therefore ought the Kirk diligently to advert that it excommunicate not those whom God absolves.”

And in the Second Book of Discipline, drawn up not long after the Reformation, chapter 7, where, treating of the power of eldership and Assemblies as to discipline, ’tis said of such judicatories, “They have power to excommunicate the obstinate,” which expression says, such only are to be excommunicated as are obstinate; so in the Old Confession of Faith, used in the English congregation at Geneva, received and approven by the Church of Scotland at the Reformation, Section 4th, ’tis said, “The final end of Church discipline is excommunication, if the offender be obstinate.”

And as this was the principle of our reformers, so their practice was agreeable to it, as is to be seen in Calderwood (p. 122), in relation to Mr. Robert Montgomery; for when the Assembly 1582 appointed him to be ecommunicated, for a number of heinous transgressions, it was only except he should prevent the sentence by repentance, which when he did, they that had been most fervent against him, came, of their own accord, and embraced him lovingly:

So also our Directory for Church Government and Church Censures, which was drawn up by the Westminster Assembly, in that section which treats of excommunication, though by that Directory, such are to be excommunicated as hold and teach “gross errors, which subvert the Faith” and other errors “which overthrow the power of godliness, and they that are guilty “of such practices, as, in their own nature, manifestly subvert that order, unity and peace which Christ has established in his Church;” yet ’tis only in case such are “obstinate”: And, according to that Directory, in proceeding to excommunication against such as are most guilty, they are to be told “how ready and willing Christ is to forgive them, and how ready the Church is to receive them upon their repentance.”

And even when ’tis come to the last Admonition and Prayer, according to that Directory, if the guilty persons give signs of repentance, they are not to be excommunicated. And this has been the judgment of the most godly and able among the ministers of this Church, as is evident from what Mr. Gillespie says in his Popish Ceremonies (pp. 297-99, 301), particularly p. 303, where he shows that the incestuous person spoken of 1 Cor. 5:4 and 2 Cor. 2:6, was not excommunicated, because “won to repentance, whereby” (says he) “the apostle shows it to be needless, yea, most inconvenient, to proceed against him to the extremity of discipline.” Every excommunicated person is to be held as a heathen man and a publican, as our Lord says, Mt. 18:17, but we are never to hold a person professing repentance as such; that very day in which the sinner “turns from his iniquity,” turning to God in Christ, God graciously receives him into favor, and so ought we, Exe. 33:12. And Burroughs in his Irenicum (p. 156), tells that at the beginning of the parliament, when Mr. [Alexander] Henderson was at London, he, with a reverend brother, asked him, two or three of the ministers of Scotland being with Mr. Henderson, “Whether they might not take that book of Mr. Gillespie’s as the judgment of the most godly and able of the ministers of Scotland for the matter of Church-discipline?” To which he answered, They might. And Mr. Baillie, in his Historical Vindication, published 1646, in answer to bishop Maxwell’s Issachar’s Burden, says:

“That every disobedience brings with it excommunication, is a wide slander; we do not excommunicate but for a grievous transgression, joined with extraordinary obstinancy.”

And that it is only the obstinate who is to be excommunicated, was the opinion of one whom our author cites oftener than any, viz. Dr. [John] Owen, as is evident from his words cited by Mr. Wilson, in the 52nd page of his Defence. Cartwright, and many others, might be cited to this purpose (Neal, vol. 2, p. 68). No excommunication is to be pronounced against such as profess unfeigned repentance. ‘Tis Christ’s statute-rule that such as “will not hear the Church,” and such only, who are to be cast out, and held as publicans. Repentance is ground for taking off the sentence of excommunication from the most flagitous; and therefore it ought to prevent it. And there are other ways in which our abhorrence of gross sins and errors may be testified than by excommunication, though all obstinate transgressors are to be cast out.

After all means that has been used, in vain, to reform this Church, Mr. Wilson thinks they may be excused in their secession.

But he may consider what Rutherford says:

‘If the servants of god must wait upon gainsayers, 2 tim. 2:14-16, should not one wait on a whole Church and keep communion with them till God give them repentance?’ (Peaceable Plea, p. 143)

And Rutherford, answering the objection of separatists, ‘who think they may separate when means have been used for reformation to no purpose,’ says:

‘But why did not then Elijah, Moses, Joshua, Isaiah, Jeremiah, command separation?  And why did they command Church fellowship after all means are used and Israel declared siffnecked, as Sodom and Gomorrha, impudent and hard-hearted, refusing to hearken, pulling away their shoulder, stopping their ears, making their heart as an adamant [stone].’

And he cites Scriptures to prove these; and then adds:

‘After all which, Church communion with them in the Word, Covenant and oath of God, sacraments, passover, circumcision, prayer, hearing of the Word, is commanded.’

In the last place, our Author, at the close of his Introduction, says: ‘But it is matter of regret that so many who some time appeared against a course of defection, and, amongst others, the author of the Essay, are involving themselves in the sins of the judicatories, either by justifying or extenuating their defections, or by their continuing in conjunction with them, though they are still going on in a course of backsliding and refuse to be reclaimed, whereby the door of communion with them is more and more shut.’

Though the Brethren deny that they are guilty of renting this Church, yet surely nothing can be more renting and ruining to a Church; nothing can tend more to tear out her bowels than to print and publish it to the world that such ministers and people ought not to be kept communion with, as remain in our judicatories.  This seems to be the import of what Mr. Wilson says, and is pretty plain dealing; but has he brought any Scripture or reason to prove what he says, or any good authorities for his allegiance?  Nothing like it.

There are three ways in which he says we may be guilty of involving ourselves in the sins of judicatories, as by justifying of them, or by extenuating of them, or by staying in conjunction with them.  Now, as to:

The first of these, to which I would have the reader avert, for as black as he would make the author of the Essay, yet he is forced to own (p. 6 and again p. 138) that I never so much as attempted absolutely to justify any instances of defection or backsliding which he has given: but of this formerly, in the Preface.

2ly, as to the alleged extenuating of the defections and backslidings of the Church of Scotland, Mr. Wilson alleges I have been guilty here: But this I absolutely refuse.  I have given my testimony against her real faults as well as he does, though not in such expressions.  For albeit the faults of a Church are not to be connived at, yet, when we testify against them, it ought ot be in becoming terms; and Burroughs says:

‘So as to manifest all due respect to that Church, and to show them we are sensible there is a distance between us and that whole society against which we do plead.  And this,’ says he, ‘is to be done in a very peaceable way, so as to manifest that we desire peace, and not to be the least disturbance to the peace of the Church: And when we have discharged our conscience, and witnessed the truth, we must then be content to sit down quiet; for so the rule is, ‘The spirits of the prophets must be subject to the spirits of the [rest of the] prophets. [1 Cor. 14:32]” (On Hosea, vol. 1, p. 158)

The Brethren cannot endure to be called separatists or schismatics: But though they had has just cause for separation from the Church of Scotland, which I’m sure they have not, yet their manner of behavior in doing all they can to blacken her, this, in the esteem of most that write upon separation, is enough to denominate them such.  Hence the reverence Mr. Willison, in his Apology for the Church of Scotland, published long before the Brethren’s secession, viz. 1718, says (p.9):

‘I grant that a man may have just cause for his separation, and yet be schismatical in it, insofar as he is bitter, contentious and uncharitable in his separation, and does not carry it with meekness, charity, love and pity towards those he separates from.’

And if this be not the Brethren’s case, let the world judge.  I own ’tis a heinous evil to extenusate the sin of any person; yet ’tis no less a sin to aggravate the faults of any of our neighbors, and far more heinous to aggravate the faults of our mother, the spouse of Christ, to occasion the tearing out of her bowels and make all her children abhor her.

The reverend Mr. Thomson, in his Reasons of Secession given in to the presbytery of Kirkcaldie, p. 33, says, “We countenance the sins of others, “by excusing them when they ought to be aggravated.”  And if by aggravating he means, as I think is the more common acceptation of that word, to make a fault worse than it is, then our Brethren have not failed in this, of aggravating the faults of their mother-Church in which they were born and educated; and I dare say ’tis more hateful and heinous in the sight of God and all thinking persons to aggravate than to lessen faults, though neither of them is to be justified.

3dly, if to continue in conjunction with the Church of Scotland be to involve one in the guilt of her judicatories, if she was as guilty as the Brethren represent, then I should be guilty with many, and a great many, eminent servants of the Lord, ministers and people.  But, as to the sin of our Church judicatories, whatever may be amiss in them, ’tis a wide and wild inference to affirm that all who continue in conjunction with the Church of Scotland are guilty of her faults by remaining in her: It would be blasphemy to say our Lord and his disciples were guilty of the faults of the Jewish Church by remaining and joining in communion with her, whose faults were [an]other sort of faults than can with any shadow of reason be alleged against this national Church; or to say that Joseph or Nicodemus were guilty of the faults of the Jewish Sanhedrin by staying in that judicatory; but of this more afterwards.

.

.

Chapter 4

Containing a reply to the three sections of Mr. Wilson’s first chapter, where the state of the question concerning the Brethren’s secession from this established Church is considered

.

Section 1

What he says in introduction to this section of my citation from Mr. Shiels, I have answered to it already in remarks upon his Preface [above]; and therefore shall not insist upon it here.  I see nothing else in that section which is opposite to anything in the Essay, or which will not come (according to himself) to be considered afterwards; only, whereas he affirms (p. 39):

‘That this national Church is solemnly bound and obliged by our National Covenant, and Solemn League, to abide in that pure doctrine, order of government, worship and discipline which is held forth from the Word of god in our Confession of Faith, Books of Discipline, Form of Church Government and Directory of Worship.’

Our brother in this has asserted what is not matter of fact: I acknowledge we are bound to abide by these; yet here there cannot be an obligation by our National Covenant in regard our Confession of Faith, our Form of Church Government and Directory for Worship, [as they] were not in being at the framing of any of our national engagements.  Our National Covenant was framed in 1643, and enlarged in 1638: the Solemn League was framed in 1643, and the Form of Church Government and Directory for Worship were not framed and received by the Church of Scotland till 1645; and our Confession of Faith not till 1647.

.

Section 2

In which the author of the Essay is vindicated from the alleged mistating the question, and the charge of lax principles anent Church communion

Our author, in the begining of this 2nd section (p. 39) affirms that when the four Brethren were thrust out form communion with the present judicatoriesL

‘The did at the same time declare a secession from them; and that because they were carrying on a course of defection: Therefore,’ says he, ‘it is a very great mistake in the Essay, and a mistaking of the question, when he affirms that violent intrusions were at that time the chief ground of complaint.’

Now, though here the Defence says, I was in a great and ‘very great mistake’ in this, viz. that I asserted ‘violent intrusions were the chief ground of complain at that time,’ but as to the truth of my assertion in this particular, the world may judge from Mr. Ebenezer’s synodical sermon, where the great thing complained of, is the act of Assembly 1732, anent the settling of ministers, and violent intrusions.  And further, that this was the chief ground of complaint to all the seceding Brethren at that time, is evident to a demonstration from what is said in their State of the Process, when speaking of Mr. Erskine’s being censured for what he had said in relation to the act of Assembly 1732; there he and his brethren say (p. 78):

‘Which is the main ground, at present, of his Testimony, as well as of his Brethren’s adherence to him, as is plain from the terms, in which both his Protest and their adherence is conceived.’

Then never a word of professor Simson’s damnable errors, never a sentence in all Mr. Erskine’s synodical sermon anent them, no complaint that he was not excommunicated, no; then the Brethren can make some apology for the Church of Scotland as well as others, as did the reverend Mr. Wilson, in his Discourse of the Prevailing Evils of the Times.  When writing against Professor Campbell, and speking of the Assembly’s Sentence against Professor Simson, he expresses himself thus (p. 12):

‘They that have any regard for the interest of truth cannot but be so far pleased that he is restrained from public venting and teaching gross errors, though it was the judgment of many that the censure inflicted did bear no proportion to the scandal and offense given; and the majority of presbyteries in this national Church were of opinion that he should have been deposed from the ministry; yet for the sake of peace it was thought fit to rest in a suspension, qualified indeed with a clause, pretty strong, against future attempts to repone him.’

Not a word at that time of excommunicating the blasphemer, no: but now our Brethren have other designs to carry on.  Then their impressions as to the evil of professor Simson’s errors were like other folks, never dreaming the conduct of Church judicatories anent them was ground of separation; never alleging the Assembly had countenanced his errors in the least.

But, says our author (pp. 39-40): ‘The blow given to truth when gross errors were brought to the bar of our Church judicatories deserves to be reckoned among the chief grounds of complaint, though, as we shall afterwards see, these, as well as the other steps of defection make but very little impression on the author of the Essay.’

Answer: That any blow was given to truth by the Assembly’s sentence in the affair of professor Simson I have always refused, and do refuse, though I was, and still am of opinion the professor deserved deposition; yet the other, viz. violent settlements was the chief ground of complaint against anything amiss in the judicatories of this Church. And I have always looked upon it as a gross slander upon their mother-Church to say she had countenanced error by anything in her conduct relating to him” And that my mistake was not great in saying violent intrusions were the chief ground of complaint at that time, is further evident beyond all controversy from what Mr. Wilson himself says in Preface to his sermon upon Steadfastness in the Faith, preached at Perth, July 22, 1733, and published in that same year, in which he says:

“The sibboleth of our divided and distracted times is that Act of Assembly 1732, concerning the Settlement of vacant churches.”

And in all that discourse, which I own is a very good sermon, consisting of 60 pages, I find not one word either anent professor Simson’s, or professor Campbell’s errors; no word, neither in preface nor sermon anent lenity shown by our Church judicatories to professor Simson, though his subject gave the fairest occasion for it, had it lain so near his heart as now he professes; though, since their Secession (to make the world believe they have separated from this national Church in a great measure, out of zeal for the truth, because she has countenanced error) having stuffed their Act and Testimony and many times their sermons, and now this Defence, with the dreadful errors which merely to amuse people they allege this Church has countenanced by suffering the erroneous to pass without due censure.

As for his allegance, “That the defection of errors makes but a small impression upon me,” as he is to “show afterwards.”

Mr. Wilson could have sustained no great loss, though he had foreborn “jumping into the conscience,” as he called it, at least till he came to the place in his Defence where he is to show it; and when he is come tither, he may have a sufficient reply: But this could not have answered what seems in a great measure to be the scope of his book, viz. the sullying the character of his opposite.

Where (p. 40), he “leaves it to the reader, who has been at pains to inform himself in this controversy, to judge, whether or not the author of the Essay has ever once entered into the question or argument, as it is more fully stated in the foresaid paper” (viz. their first Testimony):

Speaking as if I had never answered to what they say of the Church of Scotland’s pursuing measures, which actually corrupt, [???] of have the most direct tendency to corrupt, the doctrine contained in our Confession of Faith, nor answered what they say of imposing new terms of communion, etc. Let the reader but look to what is said in the Essay from p. 113 to p. 124, anent erroneous doctrine: And let him look to what is said anent sinful terms of communion, from p. 180 to p. 191, and he cannot but see the utter groundlessness of this accusation.

He asserts that I have not stated the question anent secession, nor given the determinate sense of the terms “true Church”.

But such as consider what is said in the 1st Chapter anent the marks of a true Church, and what is said in the 2nd Chapter in the 12 Propositions anent separation, may see the absolute unjustness of the charge; there being enough said in those chapters to show what I meant by a “true Church,” and by separation or secession from her. And, for all Mr. Wilson has said in his Short Answer, or in this Defence, ’tis evident the marks of a true Church still agree to this national Church of Scotland, and still she may be reckoned not only a true Church, but a pure Church, though she is far from being a perfect Church; and if she be not such, Mr. Wilson will find it difficult to find a Church upon earth that at this day deserves the character of being pure as to doctrine, worship, discipline and government; though, alas! our faults are great and manifold; and the Brethren’s Church, though but of yesterday, or a shorter standing, is far from being faultless.

He speaks of a Church that may be a true Church and yet separation from her be lawful, instancing the Church of England, from which a considerable body of dissenters in England and Ireland have made secession. (p. 42)  But the Defence has never attempted to give the least reply to what was said in the Essay in vindication of the dissenters in England who have separated, viz. that all history gives account they had never separated from the Church of England if they had not been required expressly to give their assent and consent to what is culpable in her constitution, or signify their approbation thereof. (Essay, p. 15)

As to what he says in this paragraph from Pricipal Forrester, the very words of the Essay cited by himself are a sufficient answer to him.  But more of Principal Forrester’s sentiments on the head of separation afterwards; because I had said, 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.

Upon this he complains that though the terms fundamental and not fundamental run through the whole Essay, I have not given a determinate sense of them; asking that I may explain myself about them particularly, ‘Whether I confine them to doctrinal truths only, giving up with the foundations of government and order of the House of God?’  Now, for answer: There is none who write upon the subject but must use these terms of fundamental and not fundamental unless it be such as maintain that unaccountable principle that every difference in judgment in public affairs anent the Church is ground of separation.  Hence says Mr. Shields on Church communion (p. 165):

‘There may be union and communion with ministers or professors with whom we may differ in judgment and practice about many things and they will not acknowledge their mistake; I mean not if their differences be about fundamentals; we are to have no union or communion with these that hold errors, pernicious and damnable, obvious and evident, scandalous and hurtful to edification; but if the difference be consistent with the foundation and edification, doubtful and not of dangerous consequence and not heretical or schismatical, and rather negative (both parties endeavoring the thriving of the work of the Gospel) than positive, in marring and counteracting each other in it, there may be very well union and communion between parties so differing without sin.’

There he distinguishes between errors fundamental and not fundamental, and, according to him, if the difference be consistent with the foundation, not heretical nor schismatical, union and communion with such may be kept without sin.  It seems he thought union and communion is no more to be kept with such as are schismatical than with such as are of heretical principles.  Again, Durham, whom I hope our Brethren will not accuse of pulling out the pinnings of the building of Christ’s House, on Revelation, says (p. 165):

‘It is not intended that magistrates or ministers should account alike of all errors or heretics, much less that indifferently the highest degrees of civil punishment or Church censures should be executed against them, but that according to spiritual prudence…

Christian prudence will make difference between errors that destroy the foundation and are called damnable, and other errors that are consistent with the foundation, although they be as hay or stubble built thereon.  Difference is to be made between errors that are simply doctrinal, such as these that are about the object of predestination, order of God’s decrees or such like, wherein certainly there is a right and wrong; yet they are not so intolerable as errors that imply a schism in practice to the renting of the union of the Church, as these errors of the Novatians and Donatists were.  Difference is also to be made betwixt a man that entertains an erroneous opinion and another who is a heretic, that is, who not only, after admonition, does continue in the same opinion, but also does persist to vent and propagate the same;’

And in other places of his writings.  So Owen in his Enquiry into the Original, etc., pp. 179-80.  And, in other places, they all distinguish between fundamental errors, and other unsound opinions, without spending time in explaining the common and well known terms of ‘fundamental’ and ‘non-fundamental’.

Whereas he asks whether I give up with what he calls the foundations of government and order in the House of God?

Answer: Seeing as he says in the next page, ‘Our reformed divines have justly refused to answer the unreasonable demands of Papists, who have required a list of those truths which we reckon fundamental,’ I might here refuse his demands, at least, till he explain what he means by the terms, ‘foundations of order and government.’

But though I am far from giving up with what he may inend by these, yet, with Calvin and Claude, I think they are of less consideration than the doctrine or worship, though I reckon them to be of wright and worthy to be contended for…  I answer we ought to testify against every thing which is amiss in a Church, whether it respect doctrine or discipline, but not by separation from any Church which is like the Church of Scotland; we are not to testify but in a way of Church-communion, guarding against separation, which is a way of testifying Christ will never approve of and is impedimental to reformation, as the Protesters affirm; of which afterwards.

I had only said, ‘We ought to forbear such as differ from us in things not fundamental.’  Upon this Mr. Wilson says, he humbly judges, ‘It is very dangerous to plead for a forbearance in those things which are not fundamental;’ yet surely, unless we allow of this, we must give up communion with all Churches, unless they be perfect and break up all human society with men who ‘know but in part’ while here; for except there be a reciprocal yielding to the human infirmities that attend the best in this life, society cannot stand.

And our Brethren are not always unanimous, even in matters of importance, in their judicatories, as Mr. Wilson knows: And this is the doctrine which Rutherford teachers in his treatise on conscience (p. 98), though he is very opposite to the forbearance of such opinions and practices as make an evident schism in the Church, and set up two distinct Churches; of which the one, by the nature of their principles, must labor the destruction of the other, affirming, ‘They cannot be tolerated,’ though they should both make an invisile Church, agreeing in all fundamentals.

And whereas in this paragraph he says:

‘If the author of the Essay, or any other, shall be found picking out the pinnings of the building of the Lord’s House, or breaking down the walls thereof, they deserve not to be joined with, etc.’

This is slander indirect, as there is much of it in this Defence, as Sir Peter King, late Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, said, when pleading before the House of Lords in the affair of Dr. Sacheverel, ‘that an oblique defamation may be as criminal as a direct one.’  But I bid him defiance to instance any of the pinnings of the Lord’s House I have picked out or so much as attempted to pick out; and there may be a forbearance where there is not the least shadow of approbation, but a plain condemnation of the thing, anent which forbearance is pleaded, as at the last Assembly amny who condemned all the seceding Brethren did yet plead for forbearance unto them, at least till another Assembly.

Our author slips over the third proposition in the Essay with a bare asserting he had already made an observe upon it (p. 44); but I cannot find where he has made that observe. The proposition is this, ‘That good men have sometimes been guilty of separation from a true Church.’ Indeed he had made an observe upon separation being a great sin, when from a true Church: But that is not the proposition there, as every reader may see; nor has he ever attempted to answer to what is said there, of its being the sin of Peter and Barnabas, with other Jews, to separate from the gentile converts; for which Paul ‘withstood Peter to the face,’ because ‘he was to be blamed.’

As to what he says on the 4th Proposition, were he asks, Whether we are to stay in a Church, which is carrying on a course of defection? And as to what he says of the Scripture examples, I had adduced from the case of the Church of Corinth, etc. because those come to be considered afterwards, I pass them in this place. Whereas there he asserts, the human authorities, which I brought forth upon that proposition, are nothing to the purpose, in my opinion the authority of Mr. Shields, and his arguments there adduced from the Hind let Loose, are very plain and clear to the purpose for what they are adduced, which I leave to the judgment of every unprejudices person.

I had laid it down as a 5th proposition:

‘That 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;’ and said, ‘To separate from corruptions is one thing, and to separate from the corrupted is another thing.’

Upon this he complains of the ambiguity of the proposition, because I have not told what kind of faults and coruptions I mean.  As for the ambiguity of the proposition, I refuse it, and had he pleased to consider what Mr. Shields says in his Hind let Loose (which words were cited to him in that same page) he might see what sort of corruptions may be in a Church with which we ought to keep communion:

‘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, etc.’

But this and the like expressions are nothing to Mr. Wilson.  He can pass them by with a bare telling his reader that the arguments adduced by such authors are ‘nothing to the purpose;’ and it would seem he thought if he should but say it, some would firmly believe it.

Whereas he says:

If by ‘faults and corruptions’ I mean dangerous errors or gross scandals which a Church refuses to purge, after warnings and admonitions given her, or defections and backslidings carried on in her ecclesiastic capacity from points of reformation once attained unto, then this proposition is what we call a begging of the question.’

I say this is a slander upon his mother Church.  And grant, she did [the scan jumps from p. 45 to p. 48]…
…

Our author upon this says:

‘Even so the Seceding Brethren affirm that secession from the present judicatories is lawful, but not from the Church of Scotland.’

Now, had he spoken to the same purpose with Rutherford, as any may clearly see, he should have said:

‘Even so the Seceding Brethren affirm that secession from what is amiss or culpable in the present judicatories or in the Church of Scotland is lawful, but not from the judicatories or from the Church herself.’

And in the place cited Rutherford is arguing for standing or abiding in the parishes of old England and joining in communion with these Churches, though not with their ceremonies.  And for the Brethren to say they separate from the judicatories of the Church of Scotland, but not from the Church herself, is a mere blind or fallacy.  Can she be a presbyterian Church without her judicatories?  According to them the Meletians, Novatians, Donatists, Mr. Hepburn, Mr. Taylor and Mr. M’Millan never made any separation from the Church, for they still adhered to her doctrine, professing greater zeal for her principles.

And whereas he asks, ‘If we can have conjunction with the present judicatories as parts and members of the same ecclesiastic body with them, without personal guilt?’:

I answer: We may very well; and ’tis no strengthening of their hands, but a weakening them to stay and oppose their measures when they are unjustifiable.  Nicodemus and Joseph of Armathea are approven of God in staying in the Jewish Church and in attending judicatories for as corrupt as they were in their day.  But according to Mr. Wilson and the Seceding Brethren they were accessory to their guilt for staying in communion with them and attending upon their judicatories; but had it been so, the evangelist [who wrote the Gospel, would] had never commended them for this.  What there Mr. Wilson says of union and conjunction with the present judicatories, as laying us under a restraining bond inconsistent with present duty, is groundless and may be considered afterwards.

‘I proceed now,’ says Mr. Wilson (p. 47), ‘to the other branch of this 6th proposition, which is, ‘While sinful terms of communion are not required of us, we are never to separate;” and then he after affirms that in the whole of my reasoning I plead there should be no separation where no sinful terms of communion are required, alleging my arguments against secession do frequently turn upon this.

Answer: These are charges which I absolutely refuse, unless it be when speaking of such as be true Churches of Christ.

And for this 6^th Proposition, which he would have to be two, as the other eleven propositions are simple or single, and not complex propositions; so also I intended this for a simple proposition, which is evident from this, partly, that I never offer one sentence, nor word, for confirmation of this last clause, neither in that place, nor in any part of the Essay.  Albeit that has been the sentiment of sundry great divines, yet ’tis clear to a demonstration, from sundry places of the Essay, this was never my opinion, that we may remain in communion with every Church which does not impose sinful terms of communion.  And this is evident, from what I say, p. 15 of the Essay, where I would not so much as declare my opinion as to what I would do if it was come to this, that the Church had constant moderators, vote in parliament, and bishops, as before 1638; nor would I give any opinion as to what I would do was I in the same circumstances with those eminent men who remained in the Church of England while no sinful terms of communion were required.  And when I came to speak of what has been reckoned just causes of separation, in speaking of sinful terms of communion, I said, ‘Some have been of opinion this is the only ground which can justify separation from a Church of Christ;’ from which to every unprejudiced reader, ’tis evident this was not my own opinion.

And though I had owned this for my principle, that we are never to separate from a Church, meaning any Church of Christ, unless she impose sinful terms of communion, I had not been singular.  Mr. Violant, in his Examination of the History of the Indulgence, says (p. 500):

‘It is the common assertion of our divines against separation that where the corruptions of a Church are not made the condition of our communion, it is not lawful to separate.’

So the very learned Chillingworth, in his Vindication of the Church of England from the Charge of Schism, upon the account of her separation from the Church of Rome, says (p. 285):

‘I may, without schism, divide from that Church which errs in any point of faith, fundamental or otherwise, if she requires the profession of this eror among the conditions of her communion.’

And Doctor Rule, in his True Nonconformist, speaking of unlawful terms of communion, says (p. 120):

‘And this I look on, as not only the most colorable plea, but is the causa sine qua non, that without which no separation can be made from a true Church which is sound in the Faith, without sin.’

And so the reverend Mr. Charles Owen, in his Plain Dealing, or Separation without Schism, published 1715, in defence of the English nonconformists, says (p. 8):

‘Those who were once members of a true Church may lawfully separate from her when she imposes unwarrantable terms of communion; for this reason the Church of England separated from that of Rome, and we from that of England.’

And having put the question, ‘When may persons separate from a true Church without the guilt of schism?’ he answers: ‘Separation is in itself morally lawful when terms unwarrantable by the Scriptures are rigorously imposed.’

So albeit I had declared it was my opinion people are never to separate from a Church unless sinful terms of communion be imposed, I had neither been singular, nor of such dreadfully lax and dangerous principles as Mr. Wilson would make his reader believe to blacken my character.

And though I hope I’m as far from being for any profane syncretism, or coalition, as Mr. Wilson, yet, God forbid I should be of such a narrow spirit as to exclude all from communion, or so as to refuse communion with all such as could not approve of the Brethren’s Testimony, or another like it: Let the gates of the Church of Christ be kept as open as He keeps the gates of heaven; and let me never reject any such as ‘fear God and work righteousness,’ seeing He accepts of all such.  And still I think, with Durham on Revelation (p. 680):

‘It is too much nicety not to keep communion with them with whom Christ our Lord keeps communion.’

And when I say in any part of the Essay we are not to separate from a Church which requires no sinful terms of communion, I mean of such a Church or Churches as are the Churches of Christ: and this I sometimes expressly mention, as p. 4, and again, p. 139, where I say:

‘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, etc.’

And so in other places.

An Arian Church, which denies the supreme deity of Christ the Son of God, the sole Head and King of Zion, is rather a Church of the Devil, than a true Church of Christ. I would have full freedom to deliver all obstinate Arians to ‘Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, that they might learn not to blaspheme;’ and do reckon that no communion is to be kept with such a Church as is professedly Arian: And, had Mr. Wilson been of as charitable a disposition here, as he desired the Commission of the General Assembly 1733 to be to him, in his humble Representation to them, when he and the reverend Mr. Moncrief said:

“We may reasonably hope and expect that our reverend brethren according to the laws of our Lord and common Master will make the most favorable construction upon the same,”

viz. Upon what they say his charity would have obliged him to think, I meant this only of a true Church of Christ, which an Arian Church is not: And, had he considered what he and the Seceding brethren have published in their State of the Process (p. 47), viz. “That it is a received maxim that no man ought to be condemned for consequences drawn from his doctrine when he disclaims them,” surely he would rather have spent his time in vindication of their Testimony from the charge of those five or six mistakes which are alleged to be in one paragraph thereof, which he scarcely touches, than enlarged upon this subject.

Whereas he says, The above lax principle is a principal thing which I lay great stress upon through the Essay. This is a slander and untruth: To maintain familiar communion with Arians, whether in worship or judicatories, or any person or people of such abominable principles, is what, with my soul, I desire to abhor, whether they should require it as a term of communion that I own any of their principles or not. But though I had said we are never to separate from a true Church, unless she impose sinful terms of communion; yea, and said also, ’tis not every sinful imposition which will warrant Separation from a true Church, it had not been such gross heresy as it seems Mr. Wilson will have it. The committee of the Westminster Assembly, in their Reply to the Independents, when treating anent an Accommodation (p. 51), say:

“If a Church impose anything which is sinful, we must forbear to comply, yet without separation, as was the practice of the puritans in the late times.”

A Church may make a sinful term of communion and yet connive at such as neglect compliance therewith; and, in such a case, I humbly think separation would not be duty.

Now, after this, I might pass all that he has about communion with Arian Churches: Yet I observe that when he cites the words of Socrates, giving an account of Athanasius’s preaching against the faithful’s having communion with the Arians, he says, He exhorted them only to have fellowship with them that confessed the true Faith. I doubt not but it was so: And I hope there is not a minister in Scotland this day but would do the same, cautioning against Arianism, and all needless communion or society with them; yet our author adds the word “only,” whereas Socrates has nothing for it. In citing authors we ought neither to add or diminish.

Whereas to prove that the faithful would not sit in the same council or synod with the Arians, he tells how:

“Paphnutius the Confessor, when he observed Maximus, a godly and orthodox man, as Ruffinus reports, through too much simplicity, sit in the synod of Tyre, composed of such as were of the Arian side, the said Paphnutius went boldly in to the midst of the synod and said, ‘Te non patiar sedere, etc.’, i.e. O Maximus, I will not suffer thee to sit in a synod of malignants, nor to enter amongst the workers of iniquity.”

Now, here again our author asserts what is not matter of fact, viz. That Ruffinus reports of Maximus, “That he was a godly man and orthodox: I doubt not but he was such; yet Ruffinus gives not such a character of him, though he tells he had been a confessor and sufferer. He might be a confessor and a sufferer, and not be godly nor orthodox: And though Paphnutius and Maximus were both confessors, that will not say their conduct was blameless; for sometimes confessors have gone to extremes in the matter of separation: Hence Cyprian, in his fiftieth epistle, tells of Urbanus Maximus, and others of the Church of Rome, who being confessors, and had been incarcerate in the time of the persecution, that, after being set at liberty, seeing many corrupt members in the Church at that time, they embraced the doctrine of Novatius, and for a time did separate from the communion of Cornelius, and others of the ministry, pretending, there could be no lawful joining in communion with such an evil constituted Church: But afterwards, seeing the great hurt that came thereby to the Church of Christ, they did again unite themselves unto her, which was exceedingly acceptable to all. It would be desirable to see our Separatists write after their example. And from the instance of Maximus’s sitting with the Arians, it seems confessors and sufferers, who were orthodox, thought it to be duty to keep their place in judicatories, albeit Arians came to sit with them; and though Paphnutius, spake only to his intimate associate and fellow-sufferer Maximus in that Council of Tyre, yet there might be, yea doubtless, more of the orthodox were there, else ’tis not probable the confessor Maximus, who was bishop of Jerusalem, would have come thither.

If but the half of a council should be orthodox, stnding up for truth against Arians, I humbly think it would bea minister’s duty to join contending in judicatories.  This I own is my principle, let Mr. Wilson think it never so lax.  But glory to God that is nothing like the case of the Church of Scotland, in which never any has been charged with Arianism, but only one who has still professed his detestation of the abominable doctrines of Arians.

And though I love not to speak with a sneer at any of our seceding Brethren, yet, considering the character Mr. Wilson bears in their new Church, some would make a jest of it for him to allege that the orthodox would not sit in the same judicatories with Arians.  All who are acquainted with anything of Church history cannot but know in councils of old sometimes the Arian doctrine and sometimes the orthodox was condemned, there being often great divisions in them.

And even in the Council of Tyre, which met anno 335, Epiphanius in his History gives account that unless Athanasius, by his severity against the Meletians, had driven them to join with the Arians, they had not been able to gain their point at that time in condemning of him.  The Council of Rome, in or about 337, consisting of 116 bishops, owned the Nicene Creed, and condemned the Arians; and so the next council, which met at Alexandria, vindicated Athanasius from his accusations: But the next council, which was at Antioch, of near 100 bishops, whereof 36 were said to be Arians, they deposed Athansius, and put in his place George, a Cappodocian, who was burnt by the people; and some have said, This was the same George whom the English have so much honored; he was suspected of inclining to Arianism.

So at the Council of Arminum, which consisted of above 400 bishops, ’tis said the most of them were orthodox; yet ’tis evident many of them were Arians, and the Arians of that council were said to have been the better speakers; and hence, through the emperor’s countenance, many of the orthodox were carried off to subscribe unto their principles.  Indeed the people separated from their ministry, for which they suffered great persecution, yet orthodox ministers did not think it a sin to meet in judicatories with them.

And, as for his citation from the learned Dr. Owen, I have answered to that already, namely, that in the business of separation from a Church, his authority is of lesser weight.

He speaks (p. 48) of a considerable body of dissenters in Ireland, of whom he had told in his printed missive, they had rejected “confessions as tests of orthodoxy”; and in their room they only require “the acknowledgement of the truth in express Scripture terms. This,” says he, “cannot be reckoned a sinful term of communion.” And downwards, speaking of non-subscribers, says:

“Therefore our brethren in Ireland have Scripture and reason on their side to support them in their conduct and practice, when they have declared a secession from such as have laid aside confessions of faith, and in their associating together in distinct presbyteries from them.”

But as to this affair of the subscribers and non-subscribers in Ireland, Mr. Wilson makes a very unjust representation thereof, when he says the subscribers declared a secession from the non-subscribers, or “from such as laid aside confessions of faith,” asserting, “they associated themselves together in distinct presbyteries from them;” for all they did was only this, That the subscribers in the synod of Dungannon, in 1726, did eject or thrust out from communion with them in their judicatory, such as would not subscribe confessions of faith as a test of their orthodoxy.

This assertion of Mr. Wilson’s was much as if it should be said, The Church of Scotland has made a secession from the Brethren; for majus et minus non variant speciem. And to me it is a question, Whether it had not been as much for the interest of the Gospel of Christ in Ireland, they had continued to unite, exercising mutual forbearance, considering there was nothing like harmony in this determination, even among the subscribers themselves, some protesting against that deed: Though I am as little against confessions of faith as tests of orthodoxy as our Brethren, albeit sometimes such tests may be very sinful, as in the case of making the Brethren’s Testimony such a test, which I aver no man can approve in every particular without sin against the God of Truth and dishonoring the King of Zion. [p. 54 bot]

Mr. Wilson, speaking of the reverend Mr. Forrester, says:

“Had I previously considered the excellent reasonings of that learned man, and his strong pleadings for separation from a corrupt Church,” he does “not think, I would put pen to paper on the head of separation, affirming the most part of his arguments are laid directly against” my “principles.”

Answer: Was I to argue, as the Defense does, I might tell him, we need not trouble ourselves with anything Principal Forrester says upon the point of separation; for there, in his Rectius instruendum, he is writing against joining with prelates and curates, answering a little book published in 1679, entitled, The Differences of the Times, written against them that separated from the Curates; the principal’s book being published in 1684. And here it would be considered that near the end of his preface (pp. 45-46), when speaking of that performance, he says:

“There is no patrociny intended, nor can be drawn by the most remote consequence, from what is here pleaded upon the point of separation, unto these dreadfully presaging anti-ministerial principles and practices, that several in this land are sadly precipitating themselves into, which, we hope, will be abundantly clear to the understanding peruser of what I have offered upon that head, and the state of the question, as it is exhibited.”

At that time, sundry Church renting principles were espoused by some who pretended greater strictness and set up for separation, not only from the curates, but also from all of honest presbyterian ministers, who would not preach against the Indulged, etc. and were for principles much like what are espoused by our Separatists at this day; and there he cautions against dreaming any patrociny was intended to any of “their dreadfully presaging anti-ministerial principles. And our separatists principles are anti-ministerial principles, unministering all the Lord’s servants in the Church of Scotland. And for that particular position, which Mr. Wilson has cited from Mr. Forrester, which, no doubt, is the clearest he could find in his book for the purpose, I heartily go in with it, viz.:

“That separation is not schism, viz. If it be from those that are drawing back, and insofar as drawing back, from whatever piece of duty or integrity is attained; for this is still to be held fast, according to many Scripture commands.”

Insofar as a Church draws back, we are to separate from her, but as has been told him, to separate from corruptions and defections is one thing, and to separate from the corrupted, or from such as may be guilty of this or the other piece of defection, is another thing.

According to our author, the sense of his position here must be that whenever a Church is drawing back, then people may separate and not be guilty of schism.  But surely many defects and failings in gifts and morals, yea, some in doctrine and worship, will not give just cause for separation; and Forrester (3rd Dialogue, p. 106) disowns that principle which maintains, ‘That such corruptions as may denominate a Church corrupt, in some measure, will warrant a separation;’ yea he says, ‘We acknowledge a Church may be joined with lawfully wherein there are great corruptions.’  And in this he says he ‘is of that mind with Durham and others upon the subject;’ and in that book (p. 186) he shows, ‘That it is one thing to keep separate from a Church which is less pure, of which we never have been members,’ as was the episcopal Church at that time [1661-1688], and another thing to separate from a presbyterian Church of which we have been members, telling that Rutherford lays great weight upon that; and so I see does Dr. Owen in his pleading for separation from impure Churches, as particularly in his Enquiry into the Origin, etc. where he says (p. 285):

“That where men are no otherwise members of any Church but by an inevitable necessity and outward penal laws, preventing their own choice and any act of obedience unto Christ in their joining with such Churches, the case is different from theirs whose relation unto any Church is founded on their own voluntary choice, as submitting themselves unto the laws, institutions and rule of Christ in that Church.’

Our author, having passed by the 1st, 7th, 9th, 10th and 12th propositions of the 2n chapter, comes next to consider the 3rd chapter of the Essay, in which I had instanced some things which are just cause of fasting, mourning and lamentation, though not of separation from a Church of Christ.  And whereas I had said:

‘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.’

Mr. Wilson (p. 51) alleges the above proposition, as laid down by me, is “very lax and dangerous,” in regard:

“If any particular Church shall tolerate, in her bowels, errors of a heinous nature, the House of the living God becomes thereby a Den of notorious thieves and robbers; and the Church may be made up of infidels, who deny the resurrection of the dead, or of Arians, Socinians and the very worst heretics.”

Answer: Had I said a Church ought to tolerate such errors in her bowels, indeed that had been “a lax, and very lax, a dangerous, and very dangerous position.”  But I see no shadow of laxness in the other; for I confirmed it by the Word of God, from instances of true Churches of Christ, in which there were such heinous errors, as particularly in the Church of Corinth, Pergamos and Thyatira; and to the last two instances, he has not offered a shadow of answer. And there I owned, it is a very heinous sin, in any Church, to wink at errors, or not to censure, and be zealous against them. Now, as the only answer Mr. Wilson gives is to the instance I adduced of a fundamental error in the Church of Corinth, some of her members having denied the resurrection of the dead, he says:

“The office-bearers of the Church of Corinth discharged their duty in reclaiming such who denied the resurrection of the dead by a suitable testimony against such obstinate heretics.”

And his argument for proof is this, viz. “That the apostle has not a word of that capital heresy in the second epistle;” though this is not certain, yet I grant it is not improbable those office-bearers did discharge their duty with success. But then, how long it was between his writing of his first and second epistle is uncertain; and how long, before writing his first epistle, that error had been among some in that Church is also uncertain. And although the Church of Corinth had not reclaimed that person, or those erroneous persons, and neglected to draw the sword of discipline against them, though it would have been their sin, and a very heinous sin, yet I do not think, this had been sufficient ground for people to cast off and abandon all the ministers and members thereof. And neither our author, nor any else, can given the least evidence that the apostle intended in all his first or second epistles that it was the people’s duty to separate, in case this should not be done; and in that position I am only speaking of heinous errors, and not of a Church which is overrun with them, and espouses them.

Mr. Wilson says (p. 52), “Our author thinks fit to cite Dr. Owen, I hope he shall not refuse me the same liberty.” But our brother may know that though I may cite Mr. Ebenezer, or Mr. Ralph Erskine, Mr. Moncrief, or Mr. Wilson against himself, he may not have the same liberty.  And however eminent a divine Owen was, his authority for separation from a Church is of no more weight than if he should be cited to prove that presbytery is not the government of Christ’s House or of divine institution.  Bishop Stillingfleet having cited Dr. Owen to confirm his opinion, Dr. Rule, in answer to him, says, ‘No wonder, he’ (viz. Dr. Owen) ‘confess it, seeing he was for that very separation which the Assembly,’ speaking of the Westminster Assembly. (Rational Defence, p. 84)

He affirms, “It deserves to be noticed that in all the instances I give of grounds of mourning and lamentation, we have none from the conduct of the present judicatories of the Church of Scotland.” But this is another untruth, and seeing he has read the Essay frequently, as he tells us, he could not but see that speaking of settlements made, renitente ecclesia, since the act restoring patronages, “I confess we have ground to lament over these,” namely, p. 30; and again, p. 32, I grant: “there is ground to lament over what compliances our judicatories have made with patronages, in former and later times.”

He complains that though I give my opinion of the act 1732, that it was a bad act, yet I have nowhere reckoned it a cause of mourning. Answer: If thus I gave my opinion, it was as much as if I had said, It was a cause of mourning and lamentation; for I know of nothing in a Church which is bad or evil, but it is to be mourned over; I know of no venial sins: And however bad it was, it was as good as some of these acts from 1638 to 1650, which Mr. Wilson has attempted to vindicate. And however bad my opinion was of it, I always saw, that, if presbyteries pleased to do their duty, there never needed been a violent intrusion for all that is said in that act; because presbyteries were still to judge of the reasons of the whole congregation, whether solid and of weight, or not.

And albeit this third chapter of the Essay consists of nine pages, he passes all, without noticing a word in it, except what he says of the first thing instanced therein, “as cause of mourning, though not of separation; saying, “Though that chapter gives occasion for abundance of remarks, yet I shall not trouble the reader with them;” concluding his observes upon it, by affirming in that chapter, “Igave vent to my invectives against our reforming period, particularly against the Assembly 1638.  But has he told what these invectives are?  No, you must take his bare affirmation for proof; and who can think Mr. Wilson, who is so tender, that he would not, for a world, sit in a judicatory of any such Church as the Church of Scotland, will speak anything but what is truth; yet here I affirm, except one act complained of in 1638, there is not one word in all the chapter against that Assembly, or against that reforming period, albeit I affirm, ‘our Assemblies made sundry wrong decisions in that period [1638-1650],’ and say:

‘In my opinion the act of assembly 1732 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 the presbyteries to give a leet [list] of six persons [as ministerial candidates to be installed at a congregation] to every [civil] patron.’

Here again he is guilty of slander; was what I have told of that period to ‘vent my invectives’ against it?  Far from that, seeing I said nothing but truth.

In the 4th chapter of the Essay I instance several things reckoned just cause of separation from a Church, where, in the first place I instance a Church’s turning heretical in her doctrine, maintaining such doctrines in her standardsa as are eversive of the foundation, or denying such truths without the knowledge of which we cannot have life and endless happiness:

‘As if they should deny the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, deny the necessity of supernatural revelation, in order to our attaining to the saving knowledge of the will of God, or deny justification solely by the Surety’s imputed everlasting righteousness, and the like.’

Upon this Mr. Wilson says (p. 53), “He gives an instance in three fundamental truths; I hope he does not pretend to give us a list of such truths as are fundamental.”  But such sarcastic expressions argue a rankled spirit; truth may well be defended without them; and there was never a more groundless sarcasm: For, in mentioning these fundamental truths, I begin my sentence with saying, “As if they should” deny, and having mentioned these three, I conclude to condemn errors striking at the foundation, which came to the bar of our judicatories, will come in upon his first argument for separation; and so may be considered afterwards.

As to what he says of my being so ‘ambiguous, that it is a difficulty where to fix me, I frankly own that to fix the grounds upon which we may separate from a Church of Christ is a very difficult task: For, as I have said once and again, many things are ground of bitter lamentation which are not ground of bitter lamentation, which are not ground of separation from a Church; and I think no shame to own that I have been very loth to determine positively some things anent this subject, knowing that one wrong position may be of very dangerous consequence; yet here I own, I humbly think:

1. The least of errors in a Church is sufficient ground of separation from her, if people be required to approve thereof.

2. Though some in a Church should be guilty of holding gross errors, and remain uncensured for a time, that will not be a sufficient reason for separation from that Church, while her standards, owned by her remain pure. I shall not say, nor am I obliged to say what I would do was I a member of the Church of England, and had liberty to remain in her without approving her hierarchy and ceremonies; yet it may be of weight with our Brethren, who, agian and again, in their sermons, have highly and very justly commended Mr. Whitefield, and spoken of the great success of the Gospel in his hand, that, in the Continuation of his Journal, he says (p. 83):

“I know what dreadful consequences would attend a needless separation from the established Church, however I am treated by the corrupt members and ministers of it; for I judge of the state of a Church, not from the practice of its members, but its primitive and public constitution; and so long as I think the articles of the Church of England are agreeable to Scripture, I’m resolved to preach them up, without either bigotry or party-zeal; for I love all that love the Lord Jesus.”

And what Mr. Whitefield says of the practice of the members of the Church of England, he might, and could have said the same of some of their avowed principles.

3. Yea, I own that though an error should creep into the standards of a Church, and an error of some greater importance, if I be not required to approve of it, I could not think it duty to separate from her. What made me a little more cautious about errors being in the standards of a Church, and our being required to approve them, was this, viz. that, in the standards of the Church of England, there are sundry things which in my opinion, are far from being sound, as Article 20, 35, 36, and yet ’tis a question how far they ought to be condemned who should remain in that Church, if no approbation was required of what is amiss in her standards. The Protesters, as Rutherford, Guthrie, etc. in their Protestation given in to the Assembly at Edinburgh 1652, of which more afterwards, justified such as had remained in that Church. And in our old Confession of Faith, which is sworn to in our National Covenant, ’tis thought there is an expression which is unsound, viz. In the 15th Article, where ’tis said, “God, the Father, beholding us in the Body of his Son Christ Jesus , accepts our imperfect obedience as if it were perfect.” Now, ’tis certain the honest mints of believers are graciously accepted of him through Christ, but not as if they were perfect; for the judgment of “God is still according to truth;” and this expression seems contrary to what is expressed in our Westminster Confession, chapter 16, paragraph 6: Though I do not think our worthy reformers understood the words in an unsound sense, their doctrine, in their other writings, being very opposite to the principles of such, as favor what is called the Baxterian scheme; yet to me, as well as others, it is an expression which is unsound in itself, and I could not subscribe unto it. Mr. Wilson cannot say any expression of mine, upon this head, is unsound, only he would draw an inference from my words, which I never intended; but whether, when a fundamental error shall have place in the public standards of a Church, all are forthwith to separate from that Church, though not required to approve thereof; but instead of this, have liberty to testify against and seek to have it altered is another question.

He says my expressions are ambiguous; and yet, laying aside charity, which thinks no evil, he would force a bad meaning on them, affirming that they establish a profane syncretism with the adversaries of truth.

But here he would consider what formerly I told him, of putting the best construction upon words they will bear. Mr. Hogg, and others, tell us, Our reformers had not separated from the Church of Rome, for as corrupt as she was, had they not been required to approve of what was amiss in her, and been persecuted for non-compliance with their abominations. However, all this has no concern in the present controversy, in regard, our greatest adversaries cannot say, There are any such errors in the standards of this Church; nor are any required to approve of the least error of any person, who may be leavened with unsound doctrine. But though our author has insisted upon an inference drawn from my words in another part of my Essay, yet he has not attempted to answer what I had said in support of my assertion. Never a word in answer to what Turretin says, who affirms:

“That separation is not to be made for any light or smaller error, but for deadly and capital errors, which strike at the heart and foundation of Faith and salvation.”

And for his citation from the Fulfilling of the Scriptures, I heartily go in with it, so as to own, the least of truths is to be contended for, though not in a way of separation. And there that solid author has not a word anent this; and though all truths are not of equal weight, as I think is owned in our Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 1, section 7, yet the least hoof of Christ’s truths is worth our heart’s blood.

And the learned Monsr. Claude, whom Mr. Wilson has cited again and again, when speaking of divisions which may fall out in a Church, in his Defence of the Reformation, says (pp. 8-9):

“Sometimes divisions are founded upon personal accusations, or points of discipline, or light and less important questions, the foundations of the orthodox doctrine, and true worship, remaining entire.”

And he says, “Of this sort were the divisions of the Novatians, Donatists, Luciferians.” And he adds, “If the lesser party in a Church separate upon such points, they cannot be looked upon otherwise, than as schismatical.” I wish the Brethren may weigh this.

My 2nd instance, of what is reckoned ground of separation, is idolatry in worship, and having asserted 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 not sufficient ground of separation. Our author says, “He is at a loss to understand how both parts of my above assertion can hang together.” He says, Here has been given already a sufficient answer to this, and all; only whereas he says, for his part, he thinks:

“that wherever there is any corruption in the worship of God, it is a sufficient ground of separation from communion with the worshippers in their worship, in case they refuse to reform.”

In this his principle, and our Lord’s practice, are in direct oppositino, if he mean and intend this of separation from what is right in their worship, as well as from what is wrong, and contrary to the divine oracles.

My 3rd instance, of what has been reckoned a ground of secession by some is tyranny in government. Our author, upon this (p. 56) quarrels I said it was only reckoned to be such by some, and that I said not by all; and then he cited Mr. Shields as if he contradicted me; whereas, Mr. Shields’s expression is not universal more than mine: He says only, commoly it has been so esteemed by all. A thing may be a more common opinion, and not be the sentiment of all sound divines; and to determine what that tyranny in government is which is sufficient ground of separation, is not so easy. I cited an eminent divine, viz. Turretin, affirming:

“That it is not every disorder in the government of a Church, which is ground of separation, but most cruel tyranny, and untollerable persecution both of soul and body.”

And there Turretin speaks of separation in general, and not only of separation from the Church of Rome.

And whereas Mr. Wilson says, “Mr. Shields explains ‘tyranny,’ of tyranny encroaching upon the right of administration, and the exercise of it then and there;” what he may mean by these encroachings is not so easy to tell.

Whereas Mr. Wilson says, “That episcopacy being a tyrannical form of government, he is to show that faithful eminent ministers stated a secession from that model of government which obtained before 1638.”

Answer: That they did not approve of that model of government is very certain; but that they made a secession from the Church of Scotland when that government came in, and was settled, is another untruth, and not matter of fact, as may be more fully shown hereafter.

He says, according to my way of reasoning: “It appears to him that there was no ground of secession from the prelatic Church of Scotland purely upon her form and model of government; at least, that Church-members might have entertained communion in worship with that Church, especially when it is considered that during the late times of prelacy, the ceremonies of the Church of England had no place in her worship.”

Answer: Albeit I had said so, which I did not, the Protesters would support me in it, by what they say in their Representation and Protestation given in to the Assembly 1652, of which more fully in the Appendix. As for what he says of tyranny in the administration of our government, which he is to make evident afterwards, it will come to be considered when he brings out his evidence.

My 4th instance of things reckoned ground of separation, was violent intrusions, or the thrusting in of pastors upon Christian congregations; where I owned since the Act restoring patronages, this was a thing from which the Church of Scotland could least be vindicated, of any thing laid to her charge; but seeing, as he tells, this, with other acts of tyranny, are to be named afterwards, I might wholly pass it here.

He says (p. 59) I “endeavor to impress my reader with my great zeal against violent intrusions, and yet make an apology for my brethren that are active in carrying on violent settlements.”

Now whereas there he speaks of impressing my reader with my great zeal against violent intrusions, I think, I may pretend to as much zeal in this affair as any of the Brethren, and somewhat more than some of them. Could he say I come and go upon this head, he might thus twit me: Or could he charge me with saying that “I thought one, like my Lord M—n, was more to be regarded in the settlement of a minister than the whole parish of A—-r” (as did one, now appearing with great zeal for the people’s right), there had been something like ground to suspect the reality of my zeal upon that point.

What he says of my making apologies for sundry of my brethren, who have gone lengths in appearing for candidates having presentations, etc.

Answer: My apology for them is much the same with what the great Mr. Henderson made for the ministers of the Church of Scotland, in that reforming time after 1638. His words cited in the Essay, though Mr. Wilson has not taken the least notice of them, run thus:

“This liberty of election is in part prejudged and hindered by patronages and presentations, which are still in use, not by the rules of their discipline, but by the toleration of that which they cannot amend.”

And all my apology for my brethren is barely to tell what they say for themselves. But Mr. Wilson makes a fair apology for the members of the Assembly 1642 who enacted that every presbytery should give a leet of six persons to the patron, all willing to accept of his presentation, that he alone might have the choice of the minister for the parish, which was the plainest homologation of patronages: For in vindication of that assembly, he says (p. 310), “In their act, they did as much as they could, in their present situation.” But of this more afterwards; only, ’tis pretty much confidence, and some would give it a worse name, for him, notwithstanding of this, to tell me:

“It is a very mean apology for them, to tell the world, that the grievance of patronage (that is, the civil law, establishing patronages) has led them to counteract the laws of the only Lord and Lawgiver of Zion. If our author had dealt faithfully with his brethren, and according to the great zeal that he professes, he ought plainly to have told, they ought ‘rather to suffer than sin.'”

Now, the General Assembly 1642, made a formal act, plainly homologating patronages: And Mr. Wilson’s apology for them is, “That they did as much as they could, in their present situation.” But for another barely to tell that others make the same apology for themselves, is a heinous evil, and “dealing unfaithfully” with them. Indeed our author is a faithful dealer, in telling all the faults of the present period, and not failing to aggravate and magnify them, when yet, he can wink at, yea, vindicate these same faults in a former period: But had he dealt faithfully, as he says, he should have told the Assembly 1642, should “rather chosen suffering than sin.” The like of this may tempt people to think all the zeal of some is for nothing but to drive some selfish ends and designs.”

Next Mr. Wilson says of the author of the Essay (p. 59): “But that he may still extenuate their sins, he likewise adds, ‘They affirm the gravaminous laws of patronages, constrained our Church judicatories, even in the best and purest times of reformation, to the like measures;” and then he (to wit, the reverend Mr. Wilson) adds, “Our author must needs have a good deal of assurance when he reports without a just remark upon it, that his intruding brethren affirm that the judicatories in this Church, in her reforming times, pursued the ‘like measures’ with her present judicatories in the settlement of ministers.  This is a most injurious reflection upon them.”

Here again, he “jumps into the conscience,” affirming it was to “extenuate their sin,” that I told, such as have gone in with patronages have affirmed that the gravaminous laws anent them constrained our judicatories to go in with them, in the best and purest times of reformation: But might not his charity allowed him to think I told this with a better design than to extenuate their faults, as that it was to prevent people’s stumbling at their ministry, to the hurt of their own souls; or to prevent separation from this Church, which is a breaking of the royal law of Christ?

Whereas he says, I must have a deal of assurance, in that I tell this without a just remark upon it, affirming, that it is a most injurious reflection, viz. upon that reforming period, for that’s surely what he means: But seeing our brother did not live in that period, we are to give more credit to them who lived at that time, as the reverend Mr. Alexander Henderson, moderator to the General Assembly 1638, who, as told above, owned that the liberty of election was in part hindered by patronages and presentations at that time, making this apology for the Church her going in with them, that then it was what they could not amend, which, according to the Brethren’s above-mentioned “two horned dilemma,” was sufficient ground for all to have separated from the Church of Scotland in that reforming period, seeing, according to them, Christ had taken the keys of discipline out of their hands. Mr. Henderson was not so faithful as to tell, they should rather have suffered than been guilty of sin.

Mr. Wilson says, This is a most injurious reflection, viz. to say the people were robbed of their right in that period, from 1638 to 1650. But let him listen to what the author, or authors, of that approven piece, viz. the Apologetical Relation, say, p. 103, where they express themselves thus:

“But it will be objected, That all the ministers of Scotland, who entered before the year 1649, should by this means be condemned as intruders, entering without a lawful call.

Answer: Though patronages cannot but be condemned as sinful, and tending to ruin the Church, and to defraud her of much advantage, yet such as entered that way, before the year 1649, cannot altogether be condemned; partly, because then the evil of it was not seen and perceived; partly, because that evil had not been reformed, and there was no other way of entry practiced, or practicable by law; and so, though they might groan under that burden, yet they could not get it helped.”

I think the author, or authors, of that book has had no less faithfulness, ingenuity and honesty than the Defence.

But, says he, “Can his brethren give one single instance of their pursuing the like measures with the Assembly 1737, in their Act and Sentence anent the settlement of the parish of Denny?”

As to the affair of Denny, I’m as far from approving that as he is; only I can say, had it not come in at an unseasonable time, when many of the members of the court were absent, probably it had not gone as it did. And whereas he asks, If any such single instance can be given in former times? I answer: No doubt sundry such might have been given, had people then stood up in defence of their right to elect their pastors, as in later times. What is in the records of other presbyteries, I know not; but, in the register of the presbytery of Kirkcaldie, Nov. 13, 1642, ’tis said anent the parish of Portmoak:

“Compeared David Balfour of Ballo, giving in a supplication, craving that the parishoners of Portmoak they might not be altogether excluded from having a vote in the list for a minister to them. The presbytery demanded of sir William Douglas, ruling elder of the said parish, what they meant thereby? Who declared that they might have the nomination of three of the six to be listed, which the presbytery thought not agreeable to the act of the General Assembly; and therefore, according to their former act, presented the list to them, craving their consent thereto.”

Here they would not allow the parishoners so much as the nomination of one of the six which were to be upon the patron’s leet. If this was not a robbing them of their right, let the world judge; the presbytery took this into their own hand allenarly.

“Since our author deals so much in authorities” (says Mr. Wilson), “I shall give him two testimonies upon this head.”

As for my dealing in authorities, I dare say, could our author adduced as many, he would not been so sparing of them” Hence it is, that he cites Dr. Owen again and again, though of smaller weight in this case. And for Mr. Shields’s authority in his Treatise of Church Communion, ’tis only a transient general expression he has upon the subject; for, in the place cited by the Defence, he has not a word more, but only:

“Intrusion, or tyrrany of government, encroaching upon the right of administration, and the exercise of it, then and there, has been commonly allowed by all, to be a ground of separation.”

But he does not explain what he meant by these words. And in his Hind let Loose, he is speaking of withdrawing from hearing the curates, who wanted not only the people’s call, but also, as he tells, the presbytery’s ordination. And I’m apt to think, yea I doubt not, that had that eminent servant of Christ lived in our day, though no doubt he would have been opposite to all violent intrusions; yet he would have thought it a sufficient exoneration of himself to have reasoned, voted and protested against them, without separating from Church judicatories, considering that, in the place cited, he reckons schism as much a ground of separation as intrusion and tyranny. Though I should grant Mr. Shields is on his side of the question, in this particular, of which he has taken no notice, more than of many other things adduced upon this head.

Because I said some particular congregations may have something to say in vindication of their practice, in not attending upon the ministry of such as have been thrust in upon them, he says (p. 61), “Ministers may have as much to say, and more, who refuse communion with such judicatories as obtrude ministers on Christian congregations.”

But the weakness of his reasoning is evident, in regard ’tis owned that it is the people’s call or consent which fixes a pastoral relation; but that ministers shall never make a wrong decision, nor have a hand in a wrong settlement, is far from being the bond of their union or conjunction in Church judicatories. Our author has not made answer to the great part of what I said upon this subject of violent settlements or intrusions; and when he has replied to what I said upon that subject, he may have a larger answer to this.

Section 3

.

[p. 82]

Chapter 5

Section 1

.

[p. 82]

Section 2

.

[p. 106]
…
[p. 120]

Section 3

.

[p. 130]

Section 4

.

[p. 137]

Section 5

.

[p. 156]

Section 6

.

.

[p. 174]

Chapter 6

In which the arguments of the Essay against separation from the Church of Scotland are vindicated from the exceptions of the reverend Mr. Wilson in the three sections of the third chapter of his Defence

.

In the beginning of that chapter he says, ‘My arguments are sometimes levelled against sectarian separatists, sometimes against a book called, Plain Reasons,’ speaking as if some of the did not concern the associate Presbytery. I will not say, ‘Had he understood;’ for I’m certain he understood well enough, I have adduced no argument there against separation but what militates against the associate Presbytery. As for sectarian separatists, I never argue against them in that 5th chapter which our author pretends to consider; and the arguments adduced against separation militate equally against his presbytery, and against Plain Reasons; for both tread in the same steps, and the principles of both are much the same, except as to what concerns the civil magistrate.

In [the] Introduction to this chapter, speaking of the six grounds of separation, I mentioned in the Essay, he says, as he had observed, ‘I’m neither distinct nor plain upon any of them, except upon the fifth.’ But I can adduce the authority of one whose judgment is as much to be regarded as Mr. Wilson’s, who affirms the very reverse, and that is the author of the Defence, who, in the same page, in plain contradiction to himself, when speaking of the sixth ground of separation that I had mentioned, says, ‘The author of the Essay is likewise plain upon his sixth ground of separation:’ and if so, then I have been plain upon more than the fifth.

Because I said, Such as are evidently scandalous may be withdrawn from, albeit, through the iniquity of the times, they should not be censured by the Church judicatories when complained of, he asks, ‘Whether such are evidently scandalous who have an active hand in obtruding ministers upon the Church?’, etc. But our author knows there is a vast difference between scandals in respect of one’s morals, and what may be a scandal in relating to his principles. And it is one thing to separate from the ministry of a particular scandalous person, and another thing to separate from a whole Church; or for one to leave the judicatories of the Church, because such a person, or persons, sit there.

And further, Mr. Wilson has not given a true representation of what I said upon that head; for I did not positively affirm so much as he alleges; I only said I was much of this opinion, or I was much of opinion with those who thought such as are evidently scandalous may be withdrawn from, who, through the iniquity of the times have not been censured by Church judicatories. ‘Tis one thing to say people may do a thing, and another thing to say positively they ought to do it: And there I cited Origen as being of a different sentiment to what I inclined unto. And I might have cited Rutherford, who is of the same mind with him; and because I saw this was Rutherford’s sentiment, therefore I said, ‘I durst not say, with the author of Plain Reasons, no man of sound principles will stand by the other side of the question.’ What else our author says in his preamle to the sections of that chapter, relating to sinful terms of communion in this Church, and of a judicial testimony, etc. I have considered these already.

.

Section 1

In which the Scripture arguments against separation are vindicated from the exceptions of the Defence

The first argument adduced against separation was this, namely, that separation is against the practice of all the saints under the Old Testament, notwithstanding the corruption of priests and people, yet they never separated, so as to erect a new Church or 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’. Upon this our author tells that in his Postscript to the printed Letter, he had observed, That this argument proves too much, even more than I will own; namely:

‘That we ought to submit to Gospel-ordinances dispensed by men grossly immoral in their walk and practice; for such were some of the Jewish priests in these degenerate times, that our author mentions.’

Here says he:

‘I leave it to our author to reconcile what he himself allows to be ground of separation, with his first Scripture argument, according to the way that he thought fit to state it.’

But I’m in no such strait as Mr. Wilson imagines, for, as told already, I only said I am much of this opinion, viz. ‘That such ministers as are evidently scandalous, and of a wicked life, may be withdrawn from;’ now one may be much, and not fully of an opinion; or he may be much of an opinion, and yet not come to a stated judgment as to a particular under consideration. And as said above, ’tis one thing to say a person may withdraw, and another to say he ought to withdraw; one thing to withdraw from a particular minister in a Church, and another thing to withdraw from the Church of which that minister is a member. And Mr. Wilson cannot free himself from the charge of unfair dealing in that he gave not my words as I had expressed them.

He says he humbly judges he has said enough in his Postscript to take off the force of the above argument to which he refers. And what has he said in that place is this, viz. That the force of my reasoning upon that argument was only to this purpose, ‘That if the presence of wicked men had polluted the ordinances, the Lord’s people had been obliged to withdraw from them under the Old Testament, because the priests and others were corrupt men, etc.’ But that was never the force of my argument, what I said of ‘polluting the ordinances,’ was only a word brought in, as it were in the by; my argument was:

‘That for all the corruptions which were among the priests and people under the Old Testament, yet the saints of God never separated from God’s true worship in the Jewish Church, though they separated from the corruptions themselves; 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, till the coming of Christ, we never read of the saints, through all that long period, their separating from the Old Testament Church, nor from the Temple worship, for all the corruptions which were in those days, for as corrupt as magistrates, priests and people were.’

Mr. Wilson says:

‘Our author’s argument must indeed be strong, if he was able to confine the Church and worship of God to the present judicatories of old; the only place of their worship was the temple, and the national Church of the Jews was the only visible Church upon the face of the earth; yea, the Church was confined to that nation, from the time at least, that the Law was given from mount Sinai, to the rearing up of the New Testament Church after the resurrection of our Lord from the dead.’

Answer: As this argument, which is taken from the practice of the saints of God under the Old Testament is pleaded by all, or most, that write upon the subject of separation from a true Church of Christ, so what Mr. Wilson advances here, it is the exception of all separatists, whether Brownists or others, as appears from Baillie’s Dissuasive from the Errors of the Time (p. 158), from Rutherford’s Due Right (p. 66), and from his Peaceable Plea (p. 153), from Dr. Rule’s Rational Defence of the Non-conformists (p. 113), so in Durham’s Treatise of Scandal (p. 122). Now I obviated this objection in the Essay, but our author has not attempted to answer what I said there, but steps over it, as if I had only argued against our being polluted, by joining with such as are corrupt. Though the New Testament Church is not confined to one nation, yet the Church of Christ under the New Testament is but one, though consisting of different parts; yet, according to presbyterian principles, they who separate from a true Church of Christ, erecting a Church within a Church, upon insufficient grounds, are as guilty as if people had separated from the Church of the Jews in Old Testament days. And as our divines argue against separatists:

‘We have no more a liberty now to rent the Church of Christ by separating from her than the saints of God had under the Old Testament to rent her by separating from the ordinance of his appointment in his sanctuary.’

Had there been any sin in joining with such priests as were guilty of many corruptions at that time, our Lord had rather forbidden sacrifices to be offered to him, than that his people should join wtih them in sacrificing; he, that prefers mercy to sacrifice, would never have preferred Temple worship or sacrifice to the eviting of the least sin. As Dr. Rule says (Rational Defence, p. 113):

‘If the hazard of the want of ordinances could infer the necessity of joining with these priests, so may the hazard of a sinful rending of the Church persuade to join in the case in hand.’

Rutherford in answer to this very objection of Mr. Wilson says:

‘Nor do I judge that because there was but one visible Church in Israel, and therefore it was not lawful to separate therefrom; and because under the New Testament there be many visible Churches, and many mount Zions, therefore this abundance does make separation from a true Church lawful to us, which was unlawful to the people of the Jews; for separation lawful is to not partake of other men’s sins, not to converse brotherly with known flagitious men, not to touch any unclean thing, not to have communion with infidels, idols, Belial, etc.

Now this is a moral duty, obliging Jews and gentiles, of perpetual equity, and to adhere to and worship God aright in a true Church, is also a moral branch of the Second Command; and a seeking of Christ and his presence and face in his own ordinances, and what was simply moral and perpetually lawful, the contrary thereof cannot be made lawful by reason of the multitude of congregations.’ (Due Right, p. 72)

Durham on Scandal argues to that same purpose, p. 122. The famous Mr. Gillespie, in his sermon before the House of Commons, March 27, 1644, observes that in Ezekiel’s vision he saw but one temple. And says, ‘The plague of the Church hitherto has been temple against temple, and altar against altar.’

According to our author, Mr. Shields has been a very weak man, in tht he spends no less than four quarto pages of his treatise on Church-communion upon this very argument, going through the sins of Israel in Old Testament days, at which time he shows there were corruptions in doctrine, discipline, worship and government in the Church of the Jews, and yet no separation; he thought that argument was of force against separation from the Church of Scotland now in New Testament days, though many grievous corruptions may be in her; as may be seen at greater length in that treatise (pp. 40-43). And so Calvin has been very weak, in that he could not see the force of Mr. Wilson’s argument; for he argues to the same purpose from the practice of the Old Testament saints.

Our author says (p. 181):

‘The visible Church is not now confined to one nation, but consists of all these, throughout the world, that profess the true religion. Hence it is evident that when we depart from Church-communion with a particular visible Church, whether provincial or national, on account of her corruptions and backsliding, we depart not from the Church, nor from the ordinances of divine institution… It is not a departure from the Church, but from the corrupt and depraved part of the catholic Body.’

And so at this rate there is no fear of renting the Body of Christ, let us separate never so much, or never so often, if we leave a corrupt party, or such as have been guilty of corruptions: And so all our divines that have spoken of the heinous nature of this sin, have labored under sad mistakes; as Mr. Boston, so Mr. Willison in his Apology, p. 63, what he talks of the practice of the seceding ministers, its being:

‘conform to the practice of the prophets and saints under the Old Testament, who separated from the corruptions of the Jewish Church, and at the same time continued steadfast in their observances of the ordinances of divine institution,’

is unworthy of notice; for all those they still continued in the Church without separation from her; they still continued in Church-communion with the Church of the Jews. Hence Mr. Hog says (Letter, p. 13):

‘I know not, nor do I find in the Scriptures of truth, the least mention of any separated society either under the Old or New Testament, who did set up within the Church so long as the standards continued pure.’

According to this way of arguing, let men but cleave to the ordinances of divine institution, and then there is no fear of schism or sinful separation, if there be any corruptions in a Church: and what Church upon earth has been, or shall be, absolutely free from them?

My second argument was from the practice of Christ and his apostles, who never separated from the Church of the Jews, for as corrupt as she was, before the New Testament Church was erected, showing how our Lord enjoined the attending on public worship at that time, not only by his example, but likewise by his commands, Mt. 8:12; Lk. 17:14. But Mr. Wilson passes by this argument entirely, and all I said upon it from Calvin in his Institutions, from Durham on Scandal, from Rutherford in his Peaceable Plea. Our Lord, as the apostle Peter says, ‘Has left us an example, that we should follow his steps.’

The reverened Mr. Boston thought there was weight in this argument against separation from a true Church, even now in New Testament days: Hence, in his excellent sermon against schism, on 1 Cor. 1:10, when arguing against separation from the Church of Scotland in his day (p. 21), he argues from our Lord’s example, Lk. 4:16. And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up for to read. ‘What corruptions,’ says he:

‘were in the Jewish Church in Christ’s day, ye may find by reading of the Gospels, as great I dare say as can be pretended in any measure of modesty, to be in the Church of Scotland, and ye would remember they were a covenanted land, as well as we; yet our Lord keeps Church communion with them in the ordinances of God; though He joined not with them in their corruptions, He joined with them in the ordinances; and consequently it was no sin; and people may keep themselves from the guilt of corruptions in a Church and yet keep communion with a Church wherein these corruptions are.’

We are to follow the adorable forerunner, treading in his steps, in all wherein he is imitable by us.

Upon this argument I said, ‘Our Lord enjoined the people to hear them that sat in Moses’s seat.’ And, of fifty lines I adduced upon the argument, this is the only sentence where he takes notice, on which he spends a whole leaf, giving the reverend Mr. Hog’s commentary upon it at large: But he forgot to tell what Mr. Hog says, p. 30, where he expresses himself thus:

‘Whether the scribes or Pharisees ought, or ought not, to have been heard, nothing follows from thence to instruct the obligation to set up a distinct Church, and distinct judicatories.’

And the reason why Mr. Hog thought the scribes and Pharisees ought not to have been heard, was, because they were heretics; and to any that shall make this good, I’ll yield it to them, that such as are heretical teachers ought not to be heard: But I will not spend the reader’s time with the various glosses which have been given upon that text of Scripture. If messers Shields, Forrester and Hog have been of opinion that Scripture is not meant of an injunction to hear the scribes and Pharisees as they were teachers, others as Rutherford (Due Right, p. 72 and Peaceable Plea, pp. 104, 133, 146, 163), Durham (on Revelation, p. 187; on Scandal, p. 127), Moncrief (Griev., p. 4), yea, and the generality of our divines and commentators, have been of a different opinion from them.

Mr. Wilson says the Papists have stated the argument from the Old Testament as I have done, in pleading against separation from the Church of Rome. I grant they do; but then there is no comparison, because sinful terms of communion were not imposed by the Jewish Church in Old Testament days, as were required by the Church of Rome before the Reformation. And if Turretin answers much to the same purpose in replying to Romanists as our author does, then I have given sundry authors of as great weight that are opposite to him, and who have shown that there is no weight in this exception.

My third Scripture argument was:

‘That albeit, after the days of the apostles, and erecting of the New Testament Church, we read of many things amiss in the Church of Christ, yet we never read of anything enjoined by the apostles like separation, or approved by the practice of any of the most holy and tender among the saints of God at that time,’

instancing the faults in the Church of Corinth, Galatia, Philippi and the Asian Churches; where also I cited the words of Rutherford and Hog for confirmation of my argument. But our author has thought fit to put his thumb upon these, affirming I have laid my conclusion in very deceitful and ambiguous terms, saying:

‘If he would form his argument from the state of the Churches he mentions, against the conduct of the seceding Brethren, his conclusion should run in the following terms, That it is unlawful and unwarrantable for the smaller part of a Church, when the majority are, in their judicative capacity carrying on a course of defection, and refuse to be reclaimed, to exercise the keys of government and discipline for the maintenance of truth.’

But still our author would have us take for granted what he has never proven, viz. That the Church of Scotland, in her judicative capacity, is carrying on a course of defection. Could he said, The Church of Scotland has allowed of seeing presentations, if the candidate have the presbytery’s consent; could he said, They had enacted that every patron should have his choice of six persons, all willing to accept of his presentation, nominate to him by the presbytery; could he said, They had discharged all to speak or write against their acts of Assembly; or could he said, They had consented to constant moderators; consented to have vote in parliament; consented to have diocesian bishops set over them, and the like; that had looked liker a carrying on a course of defection than anything he can allege against the Church of Scotland in our day. And whereas he says, I cannot prove that those Churches despised reproofs and admonitions given them. I dare affirm ’tis very probable there were some in those Churches who complained of these errors and immoralities, for we cannot think they were all so blind or lukewarm as not to see and testify against the evils complained of among them.

I have replied above to what he says he has observed anent the Church of Corinth, and answered what he says, relating to the duty of the smaller part, after admonitions, warnings and directions given in the several epistles: As also what he says anent gross errors, such as denying the resurrection of the dead. Yet, whereas he says:

‘If our author will still push his argument from the state of the Churches of Corinth and Galatia, then he must say, Though the resurrection of the dead should be denied in a Church, and though the Gospel of Christ should be perverted, and the grand article of justification should be overthrown; and though all this should be professed, avowed and tolerated in a Church, yet she is still such a true Church as we must not separate from her,’ etc.

Answer: What is my argument there, if Mr. Wilson had pleased, he might have called it also the argument of Rutherford and Hog, whose words were cited to him in the Essay, though he has taken no notice of them. As also it is the argument of Durham in his Treatise on Scandal (pp. 122, 129), and of Mr. Shields on Church communion (p. 44), and of Boston in his sermon on 1 Cor. 1:10, p. 21. It would be a slander to say there are any such errors avowed in the Church of Scotland at this day. When such errors were in the Church of Corinth, the apostle never drops a word for separation, nor makes the least insinuation that in case error should remain among some particular persons in her, without being censured by Church judicatories, it would be their duty to separate from her; instead of that, he beseeches them, ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus, that there be no division or schism among them,’ 1 Cor. 1:10.

And while a Church has orthodox standards, to which she professes to adhere, and does not restrict her ministers, and other members, from testifying against such errors in judicatories, and in sermons, and does not require our approbation of them, I should think it duty to continue in that Church, guarding against separation; and which I noticed above, as Dr. Owen says, ‘There may be a fundamental error in a Church, for a time, where she does not err fundamentally,’ and for how long a time ’tis not so easy to tell. Rutherford plainly intimates that albeit the Church of Scotland had been incorrigible, refusing to excommunicate the incestuous person, yet it had been the duty of people to continue in that Church without separation (Due right, p. 240. And in the 242nd page, he asserts, ‘The Church of Corinth was not to be separated from, nor Thyatira, where the resurrection was denied and false doctrine maintained.’). And we may suppose his sentiments were the same, as to their not censuring some particular persons who were erroneous in that Church.

I need not notice what he says of separation from the Church of Rome, as her doctrine was dreadfully corrupted at the Reformation, so she required an approbation of what was erroneous in her principles, persecuting all who would not swallow down her damnable doctrines, and approve of her sinful measures. I have already considered what he had said in his printed letter, anent the Churches of Pergamos and Thyatira, to which he here refers.

Speaking of the Asian Churches, he insists more particularly on the Church of Ephesus; and there he affirms two or three things which are not truth nor matter of fact: As, he says…
…

He passes by the seven Scripture arguments on the 62nd, 63rd, 64th, 65th and 66th pages of the Essay, as not being against them, because they are only against union with ‘backsliding judicatories, etc.’ But what he says of backsliding judicatories and the most of what he writes in his 186th and 187th pages have been answered already; and there is nothing hindering him, or any else, to witness to the truth, though they stay in this Church; nor to hinder them from giving testimony to the truth, whether by preaching or printing, and thereby transmitting the same to succeeding generations; and neither I nor my reverend brother, as he calls him, plead for union or conjunction, more than he does, by saying ‘a confederacy’ with any saying ‘a confederacy’.

To say that staying in the Church of Scotland and joining with her judicatories has ‘a tendency to harden them in their sins,’ is a consequence that can never follow. If a husband or wife stay with a wicked, untender yoke-fellow, if a child stay with a wicked parent, that will not say they hardened these in their sins, abiding with them. Who dare say that Christ and his apostles hardened the Jews by staying in communion with them, and joining in public ordinances? Who can say Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea hardened the Jewish Sanhedrin in their sin by staying with them in their judicatory, which Mr. Wilson acknowledges they did, until the condemnation of the Lord of Glory, for all the bad acts they had made? But I touched this already. And as to his commentary upon the ‘unity of the Spirit,’ which we are to pursue, of which in the 188th page of his Defence, and what else he advances there, and in the foregoing pages thereof, ’tis the same with what the Novatians, Donatists and other Separatists of old, and what Mr. M’Millan’s followers and other separatists have pleaded in latter times, still pretending much zeal for truth and against defections.

.

Section 2

In which the human authorities adduced in the Essay are vindicated and shown to be pertinent, affecting the question between the Church of Scotland or judicatories thereof and separatists at this day

.

Our author having stepped over the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th arguments against separation, he comes in this section to the 8th argument, which is the consideration of separation from a true Church of Christ, its being contrary to the sentiments of eminent orthodox divines, where I confined myself to the sentiments of such in the Church of Scotland, as had written anent that subject; but there our author is pleased to bring in two of my citations from Calvin…
…

.

Section 3

In which the argument against separation from the Church of Scotland, or from her present judicatories, taken from the conduct of our ancestors, those worthy ministers of Christ who lived between 1597 to 1638, is vindicated; and many errors in Mr. Wilson’s Defence as to the history of that period are detected

.

In the Essay I had asserted (pp. 12-15) that in the period between 1597 and 1638 our worthy ancestors continued in this Church without secession, without separation and without erecting themselves into different judicatories, though then her defections were far more grievous than can be pretended at this day; yet they continued to struggle against them in a way of Church communion. This, according to Mr. Wilson, is a piece of false history; and, the better to clear up this point, he proposes to enquire into two things (p. 204):

‘1st. Whether or not during the foresaid period, the Church of Scotland did, in her ecclesiastic or judicative capacity, carry on a course of defection? 2ndly. Whether or not, all such as witnessed against a course of backsliding continued to contend in a way of communion with the backsliding party?’

Now, before I enter upon the consideration of what he says upon thse, I may return to his own words, viz. That I am heartily sorry that I shall have so frequent ground upon both these heads to say concerning one of our author’s profession and character, that instead of showing what was our worthy ancestors’ practice during that period mentioned, he has very much misrepresented the same; and, instead of narrating matters of fact, he has advanced several things that are neither truth nor matter of fact.

Some have said of all the liars, lying historians are among the most pernicious to human society; I shall be far from saying Mr. Wilson is such, mentiri, being contra mentem ire: But there are so any untruths uttered by our author in his Defence, as to the history of those times that for this (still to use his own expressions) I might affirm:

‘If he has not written with a design to impose upon the world, he has written at random, without all manner of judgment or consideration.’ (Defence, p. 308)

And, after hearing both parties, I make due question the decision of impartial judges will come out in my favors.

With respect to the first of these enquiries, he says I seem to him:

‘peremptorily to determine that the Chuch of Scotland, in her judicative capacity, carried on a course of defection and backsliding,’

Viz. In the period before 1638. But this I refuse and so I might neglect to give further answer to what he advances upon this head: Here he spends three leaves and upwards of his Defence in fighting with his own shadow. The proof for his allegance was only a transient word, when speaking of that period, I said, Then, or that time, 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. Had there been any deep sorrow at our author’s heart for having me so frequently to contradict as he pretends, he had not forced such a meaning upon my words, which, in fair construction, they cannot bear, especially considering that before, in the same paragraph, I had said that, ‘then constant moderators vote in parliament by the Kirk and bishops were brought in;’ and by ‘taking vote in parliament, and constant moderators,’ he might well have thought I meant no more but that when offered and urged upon the Kirk, she submitted to them, or accepted thereof, Gen. 33:11, ‘And he urged him, and he took it.’

Though I had affirmed as our author alleges, I had not been mistaken. If these incontestible witnesses are to be credited, viz. Messers Guthrie, Rutherford and others of the protesting ministers in the synods of Fife and Perth, to the number of seventeen, who, in their Testimony published 1658 (pp. 14-16), when speaking of the above period, affirm that the beauty of the Church of Scotland was marred, when King James [I]:

‘did, with the unlucky help and mischievous industry of some ambitious and covetous men-pleasing Church-men, in a few years, by politic devices, first overthrow the government of the Church, by presbyteries and synods and obtrude instead thereof a lordly government in the persons of thirteen prelates, and then corrupt the purity of worship by thrusting upon the Church the English, Popish ceremonies; and accordingly did his son, and the prelates, proceed to build, until at last, the doctrine came to be mingled with Arminian and Popish errors, and the worship to be turned over into the English Service-Book, and the discipline and government into a book of prelatical and Popish canons; which course of defection having now continued for the space of near forty years, without interruption; and, being backed with authority, both civil and ecclesiastic, had, no doubt, terminated and resolved in Popery, etc.’

And then, in the next paragraph, these Protesters say:

‘When there was no probably means, and very few instruments, by which these corruptions of the worship and House of God should be resisted, the civil authority being strongly engaged for carrying on thereof; and the greatest part of the ministry being carried away with the course of conformity, and couching, with Issachar, under the burden; it pleased God first to stir up the spirits of a few of his servants and people, to witness against these things, etc.’

And having mentioned the renewal of the covenant in 1638, they say:

‘This was attended with more than ordinary manifestations of his presence and influences of his Spirit in the assemblies of his people, and was in effect to this Church which had in a great measure and for a long time forsaken her first love, and declined from her primitive purity and integrity, as life from the dead.’

Now if the beauty of the Church of Scotland was marred, and her glory eclipsed by the unluckly help and mischievous industry of some ambitious and covetous men-pleasing Church-men…

Further this appears from what the Lord Warriston says to the Assembly met at St. Andrews 1651, viz.:

‘It is most remarkable that the Lord by these legal means of protestations has preserved in all times of defection and hours of darkness (as between 1571 and 1575, between 1582 and 1587, betwixt 1597 and 1638) the Church of Scotland from a total and universal backsliding, etc.’

There the period between 1597 and 1638 is called a time of defection in the Church: For, he says, by protestations at that time, the Church was kept from a total and universal backsliding.
…

And that vote in parliament was granted at the desire of the commissioners of the Church of Scotland in that period, is evident from what Petrie and Calderwood both tell, was done in her 61st General Assembly met at Dundee, March 7, 1598, which Assembly did approve of the conduct of the commissioners of the Kirk in having applied to the parliament, last year, for the Kirk’s having vote in parliament, as the third state of the realm (Petrie, p. 545; Calderwood, History, pp. 412, 419). And Baillie, in his Historical Vindication (vol. 1, p. 49), calls them an ‘unadvised Assembly,’ saying they embraced that power of voting in parliament, but with a number of caveats, which wise men saw would never be kept.

And as to constant moderators, this was caried at the Assembly of Convention in Linlithgow 1606, where 126 ministers were present. I call not that a lawful Assembly, yet what was done there evidenced there was a number of naughty ministers at that time in the Kirk of Scotland; four only of the whole Assembly by their votes dis-assented, and other four refused to vote, because they had not commissions from their presbyteries, and two were non liquets, so 96 of the ministry approved of what was done at this Assembly or Convention anent constant moderators (Calderwood, History, p. 559).
…

[p. 204]

The second enquiry made by our author in this section (p. 210) is, ‘Whether Christ’s faithful witnesses in that period between 1596 and 1638 did continue to witness against the defections in their day in a way of Church communion with a corrupt party; or if they contended in a way of secession from them.’ I had asserted that they continued in the Church struggling against defections, without making any secession, or erecting themselves into a different judicatory. But says he, I have ‘misrepresented their conduct’ and asserted ‘in several instances’ what is ‘neither truth nor matter of fact’ (terming it ‘mere calumny,’ p. 216). ‘It is therefore needful,’ says he:

‘that upon this head I give some particular instances of secession from the corrupt party that were carrying on at this time a course of defection, and from the practice and declared sentiments of some eminent ministers that I shall name; I hope to make it evident that their contending was not always in a way of Church communion with the corrupt party, or with their corrupt judicatories, as the author of the Essay positively determines.’

Now, for confirmation of his allegance, 1st he tells:

‘That many presbyteries as well as particular ministers expressly disowned the authority and constitution of the several pretended Assemblies in that period; as also they refused obedience to their acts.’

Again, 2ndly, he affirms many presbyteries never admitted of constant moderators. And 3rdly, he says the most part of presbyteries never acknowledged the authority of the Assembly at Perth, nor yielded obedience to its acts and constitutions; telling how the most judicious and religious of the ministry did solemnly protest against the ratification of the Perth Articles: But none of these are any proof of honest ministers making a secession or separation from the Church at that time; and far less that they did make a secession or separation so as to erect themselves into a different judicatory, which was the thing Mr. Wilson ought to have proved, else he said little or nothing to the purpose; for a negative separation is one thing, and a positive separation, as the author knows, is another thing.

Now as to the first poof of this, viz. ‘That many presbyteries as well as particular ministers never owned the authority of the several pretended assemblies of that period.

Answer: That might be without secession or separation. As the Protesters never owned the authority of the Assemblies at St. Andrews and Dundee in 1651, nor the authority of the Assembly at Edinburgh in 1652; and yet all own they never made any separation or secession from the Church at that time.

As to his second proof, viz. ‘That many presbyteries never admitted of constant moderators,’ as he says he had narrated above.

Indeed our author says so; but he has given no sufficient proof for his assertion. As for Calderwood’s asserting that ‘some presbyteries refused simpliciter’, and Mr. Shields saying in the Hind let Loose, that ‘many presbyteries refused them resolutely;’ that will indeed prove they did so at first, but it will never prove they continued to oppose them from 1606 to 1638; none of these authors say they never admitted them. And here our author asserts another thing ‘which is not truth, nor matter of fact,’ when he cites Calderwood for his author (p. 569), to prove ‘That as for provincial synods, none of them accepted the constant moderator, except the synod of Angus;’ for Calderwod says only, no synod ‘had accepted as yet the provincial moderator.’ Now, though not ‘as yet,’ they might very soon accept of them after 1607, and that expression seems to say as much as that afterwards they did accept them. And if Spotiswood is to be credited, as I doubt not he is in this, then ‘in end they were forced to obey,’ (p. 503) speaking indefinitely, as if all, both synods and presbyteries obeyed and submitted to such moderators.

As to his third proof, ‘That the most part of presbyteries did not own the authority of Perth Assembly, nor yield obedience to its acts and constitutions.’

Whether this was fact I shall not say; yet Mr. Bailey, in Preface to his Vindication of the Government of the Church of Scotland, or the unloading of Issachar’s Burden, which preface was directed to Mr. Robert Blair, when speaking of conformity in those times, he says, ‘The far most part in the whole isle stumbled upon that block of conformity, in more or less.’ And in a diocesian synod at St. Andrews in 1625, I see they made an act that none should be admitted to the ministry but such as had an inclination to conform (Calderwood’s Manuscript History, vol. 5, p. 208). And notwithstanding of the black articles of that Assembly, honest ministers never made anything like a secession or separation; they never erected themselves into a distinct judicatory, notwithstanding of these, nor did they refuse to sit in judicatories with such as were carrying on a course of defection in this Church at that time: and hence it was that at this Assembly, which was in 1618, there was so much opposition made by honest ministers to these Perth Articles, they did stay in that Assembly though the Archbishop of St. Andrews usurped the chair, taking the moderator’s place, and would not admit of a vote in the affair; yet those faithful servants of Christ attended to such a number that the sincerer sort of ministers had prevailed if none had been allowed to vote but such as had commissions (Calderwood, History, pp. 708, 731); nor did they ever separate and erect themselves into separate judicatories from those that complied with these articles.
…

[p. 216]

As for Mr. John Davidson, he still attended upon Church judicatories, so long as he had his liberty, as did also Messers Andrew and James Melville while in Scotland, which was for sundry years after 1596.

In the 178th page of the Essay, it is said, ‘Messers Robert Bruce, Andrew and James Melville, David Calderwood, Samuel Rutherford, Alexander Henderson, David Dickson’ and others, they remained in the Church from 1610 to 1637. Upon this, our author says he is sorry that he must charge me so often with narrating what is neither truth nor matter of fact.

Now here I own Mr. Wilson has some advantage against me; and it was through a mere mistake, I suppose, either of the printer or of the transcriber, writing from 1610 to 1637, whereas it should have been from 1596 to 1637; and any person may see the period of which I speak in the Essay, in which honest men stayed in the Church without secession, separation or erecting themselves into a separate judicatory, is the period commencing from 1596; as is evident from what I said upon the 10th proposition, on which I insisted in the 12-14th pages of the Essay, where I mention these very men, viz. Messers Andrew Melville, James Melville, David Black, Robert Bruce, John Davidson, John Welsh, David Calderwood, as remaining in the church from that time, viz. from the year 1596…

…
The author of the Defence comes next to speak of the state of presbyteries before the 1638.

I had said in the Essay, ‘That because honest men attended presbyteries, therefore the king came at length to discharge them altogether.’ Upon this he quarrels, saying, ‘Neither is this matter of fact;’ and yet he owns his Majesty’s commissioner, the Earl of Dunbar, produced the king’s warrant to discharge them. But, says he, ‘This warrant was never put in execution.’ But whether executed or not, it cannot be refused the king gave warrant to discharge them. And this is what I said, and also what Calderwood asserts. And that Assembly 1610 did so far comply with the king’s desire, that they changed their designation; and instead of terming them the presbtyeries, they called them ‘the ministers of the bounds.’ Though at this Assembly’s entreaty, the king’s warrant was not put in execution, and I never imagined that it was executed, so that presbyteries did not meet after, as is evident from what I said in that Essay, where I tell how, in 1631, Rutherford and some others in his presbytery struggled against an opposite party: And yet, in that period, if the Protesters in the synod of Perth and Fife, in their Testimony, are to be credited, which I question not they are, then king James VI with the help and industry of some men-pleasing Church-men, did overthrow the government of the Church by presbyteries and synods (pp. 14-15). And it was but little power the presbyteries had in these days, in comparison of what was their right, and of what they had in former times of presbytery, though I own they had more power than they had after prelacy was introduced at the Restoration [in 1660-1661]. Further, Bailie in his Letters, or Historical Collections, vol. 3, p. 12, asserts:

‘That the law, both of our Kirk and State, did abolish all presbyteries, as,’ says he, ‘you may see in the General Assembly of Glasgow 1610, and parliament 1612, where they turn all our presbyteries into ‘Brethren of the exercise.”

The next thing our author quarrels is that I had said before 1638 it seems elders were not allowed to sit in presbyteries with ministers…

…
And 6thly, whereas he says, ‘They will turn to the example and pattern which ‘the faithful and true witness’ has left us, who ‘before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession.”

I would say our Lord’s practice, as has been showed above, is a plain condemnation of their separating practice; for to the time of his offering his soul a sacrifice for his people, he continued to witness in a way of Church communion, having come to Jerusalem to attend on the last Passover which was celebrated while he was upon earth. And there is nothing to hinder them to witness to the truth, in communion with this Church, whether it relate to Christ’s prophetical, sacerdotal or regal office, contributing their mite to make his great and glorious name renowned and ‘remembered to all generations.’

.

.

[sic] Chapter 6

In which the three sections of the fourth chapter of Mr. Wilson’s Defence are answered and the Author of the Essay is vindicated from the charge of casting injurious reflections upon the reforming period from 1638 to 1650

.

Mr. Wilson in introduction to this chapter (p. 226) says he ‘knows of none of the presbyterian denomination who have not both spoken and written honorably of this period between 1638 and 1658, till the author of the Essay upon Separation appeared upon the field, who’ (says he) ‘has loaded the Assembly 1638 and other Assemblies of that period with very unwarrantable and odious proceedings.’

Answer: Whether Mr. Wilson knew of any, yet others have had the same thoughts of that period with the author of the Essay, as is evident from the reverend Mr. Walker’s Letter and Mr. Rutherford’s Testimony, both which are cited in the Essay (pp. 96, 184), from which tis evident, Messiurs Rutherford, Kirktoun and Walker have had much the same sentiments of these Assemblies with that author, and what may be cited afterwards from the Protesters will show they have had the same sentiments of many in that period. And to any unprejudiced person I have said enough for my vindication in that particular in Preface to the Essay, and in my short Remarks, and in this vindication, upon Mr. Wilson’s Preface to his Defence; for I have owned, and do own, it was a reforming period, as well as Mr. Wilson does; and in the Essay I spoke honorably of it also, though it was far from being a sinless period.

And, as I have said formerly, I say it again, I know no imaginable reason, when people extol the acts of the Church in that period, designedly to blacken, depreciate and occasion separation from this national Church in our day, why the blemishes of that time may not be discovered; especially when some separatists esteem the acts of Assembly from 1638 to 1650 to be of little less authority than sacred writ, or at least to be as much binding rules upon this Church at all times, as if they were canonical Scripture: And if the associate Presbytery have kept within due bounds in extolling that period, so have not, and so do not others.
…

For when speaking of the faults of the Church of Scotland from 1638 to 1649, I said:

‘Though her failings are not to be instanced as precedents for imitation, nor mentioned as the least excuse for our faults in latter times, yet, may they not be told that we may confess, grieve for and avoid them , and mentioned to show that if such or such things were not ground of separation or secession then they cannot be such now.’

He concealed my telling that I mentioned those faults or failings that we may avoid them, and to show that if they were not ground of separation then, such things cannot be sufficient ground for separation now.

.

.

Section 1

In which some things are noticed in Mr. Wilson’s observations upon the difference between the procedure of the Church of Scotland in 1638 and the Assembly’s conduct in 1690, etc.

.

In this section, from p. 228 to p. 258, Mr. Wilson gives an account of the great and glorious appearances of God for the Church of Scotland in 1638, and of what was done by that Assembly; anent which I have no controversy with him. I only notice two things:

1st, Whereas, speaking of the National Covenant, p. 238, he asserts…

2ndly, Whereas, p. 256, speaking of the period before 1638, he says:

‘The reader may notice, that the Supremacy, as it was claimed and exercised at this time by the civil powers, did mainly and chiefly respect the king’s sole power of indicting General Assemblies, there was nothing of that power exercised or claimed, which was given unto the king in 1662 and 1663, etc.’

But in this Mr. Wilson asserts what is far from being truth; for in the period from 1596 to 1638 the king claimed and exercised his Supremacy as much in other thing as in indicting General Assemblies, as by that bond, which in 1596 his Majesty and Estates enjoined all ministers to subscribe, under pain of losing their stipends. In the reasons which Calderwood says were current against it at time, it is affirmed, ‘It made in effect the king to be Head of the Kirk.’ (Calderwood, History, pp. 368-69) Again, in 1606 the king and his council proceeded against the honest ministers who went to the Assembly at Aberdeen 1605, and condemned them, notwithstanding of their declinature; whereby a Supremacy was claimed and exercised.  And upon the 5th of February 1606, it was published by sound of trumpet:

‘That none presume publicly or privately, in sermons or private conference, in any wise, to meddle with the proceedings of the king’s council or estates, bygone or to come, under pain of death.’

Thereby it was made criminal to speak a word in favors of such ministers as were imprisoned and condemned for going to keep that Assembly at Aberdeen; and then ministers were judged by the king and his council in matters which were purely ecclesiastical (Ibid., pp. 517, 525, etc.). And, which was the plainest Erastianism, and the clearest claiming of the Supremacy in 1612, the Parliament enjoined that every minister at his admission, in his oath to his ordinary, should swear that the king’s majesty was the only lawful ‘supreme governor’ of this realm, ‘in matters spiritual and ecclesiastical,’ as well as in things ‘temporal’: And in 1615 the king claimed and exercised the Supremacy when he authorized the High Commission, whereby the bishop of St. Andrews or Glasgow, with four officers of State, or four commissaries, or other four laic persons named in the commission, were authorized to summon any minister before them, and censure them with suspension, deposition, yea, and excommunication (Ibid., p. 651). This court of High Commission overruled all ecclesiastical judicatories; and whether the Supremacy was not exercised and claimed, the many honest ministers who were summoned before, censured and punished by the High Commission, could tell from their sad experience. So the world may see Mr. Wilson’s History is not to be credited in all things.
[p. 242]

 

 

.

.

.

Appendix

.

Mr. Guthrie’s papers, published of late by Mr. Erskine, are his last sermon in the church of Stirling, his last speech upon the Scaffold at his martyrdom, his considerations anent the dangers which threatened religion and the work of the reformation in the Church of Scotland in his day. And his account of the occasion of the differences between the town-council and kirk-session of Stirling anent a call to Mr. Robert Rule.

Now, concerning Mr. Erskine’s Preface, I observe:

1st, Our brother tells that the last sermon Mr. Guthrie preached in the pulpit of Stirling lay hid in a closet in the manse for about 70 years till one day Mr. Alexander Hamilton, his worthy and dear colleague, turning over some old papers, fell upon it, etc. And he thinks the manner of conveyance of Mr. Guthrie’s last sermon to public view at this time is ‘one of the curious links of the great chain of divine providence, etc.’

I cannot see anything considerable in the manner of conveyance, but, as the finding and publication of this sermon has occasioned the reprinting the other papers published therewith at this juncture, which are such a clear proof of the famous Mr. Guthrie’s opposition to separation, though he lived in a day in which there were as many bad things, if not much worse, in the Church of Scotland as in our time; I humbly think this is a providence worthy our notice and observation. And in Mr. Guthrie’s last sermon, and the other papers published therewith, from first to last, I cannot see so much as one sentence favoring them that have made a secession in our day; but, as may be shown afterwards, there are many things in them plainly condemning their conduct. Our brother says, ‘Some will wish Mr. Guthrie’s last sermon and the papers which come along with it had been buried in silence forever.’ It may be so, but I am none of them; nay, instead of that, I heartily rejoice at their publication.

Observation 2nd, Whereas Mr. Erskine commends his late colleague Mr. Hamilton, giving him the epithet of ‘worthy,’ I cordially join with him in this; for surely he was a very worthy faithful minister of Christ, ‘a burning and shining light’ in his day, one who lived near his Master, ‘standing in his counsel,’ and ‘feeding in his strength;’

But then, his practice in abiding still in the Church of Scotland, joining with her judicatories, and that after he had met with some things from them, which he might reckon disobligations; and after she had cast out his colleague and the other three Brethren from her communion, against what he thought amiss in her conduct, and dying without any checks of conscience for his adherence to her, to me ’tis plain condemnation of, and a testimony against the conduct of our seceding Brethren, and such as have made a secession with them: For could that great seer in our Israel seen warrant from God’s Word for separation from the Church of Scotland, I dare say, he had made a plain and open secession with the Brethren, whatever the event should prove…

Observation 3rd, As Mr. Erskine says, ‘He makes no doubt to say it was the testimony of Jesus, for which this faithful martyr Mr. Guthrie suffered.’ So I make as little doubt thereof, and I heartily join in desire with him, ‘That the same testimony of Jesus for which Mr. Guthrie suffered unto death may be maintained unto the latest posterity.’

But whereas he says:

‘By the papers of Mr. Guthrie which have been published, and his other papers and contendings, contained in Mr. Wodrow’s History, it will be easy for the judicious and serious reader to discern who are in our day bearing up and who are bearing down and burying the cause for which he contended unto blood.’

This is not so easy to determine… For Mr. Guthrie’s refusing to acknowledge the civil magistrate as the ‘proper, competent, immediate, Judge in causes ecclesiastical,’ which was the principal article in his Libel, and for which he suffered; this is not a controversy in our day; for, praises to God in the Highest, this has never been claimed, nor pretended unto by any of our kings or magistrates since the Revolution [1689], as God forbid it ever should…

In the like case, as to the manner of their contending for Mr. Guthrie, and other Protesters in his day, they still contended in a way of Church-communion, without separation, as may be shown afterwards, though they protested against the Assembly 1651 which met first at St. Andrews; and, because of troubles being in the land, by the English at that time, removed from thence to Dundee, and also against the General Assembly 1652, which met at Edinburgh because they thought those Assemblies wrong, as to their constitution, judging presbyteries were limited in their choice of members to sit in their Assemblies, by the Commission’s letter. And it is observable, Mt. Erskine never offers to say that Mr. Guthrie was for separation, for all the evils he complains of in relation to the Church of Scotland in his day; No, our brother saw this could not be pretended in this case more than in the case of his dear and worthy colleague Mr. Hamilton.

Observation 4th, Mr. Erskine says, ‘There is a loud cry raised against a few ministers, who are associated together for reformation, as if they were schismatics and separatists, though they were at first shut out and separate[d] from their brethren.’

But why should he speak indefinitely, as if all the seceding Brethren had been shut out from the communion of this Church? For he may know that only the half of their number were thus ejected; and I cannot think he takes the denomination a potiori parte, seeing he was one of the four thus shut out: However, this argument says nothing against their being separatists, seeing, though so shut out, they were again brought in by the same authority which ejected them, a door of regress being opened by their synod, clothed with the Assembly’s power.

Observation 5th, He declares, ‘His humble opinion is, such only are to be esteemed separatists who separate from the truth, and do not hold the Head Christ Jesus, and the order he has established in his House.’

But here our brother may be asked whether the Novatians and Donatists of old, who separated from the Church of Christ, were separatists? Whatever he may think, the Church of Christ in all ages since their day has esteemed them such; and yet they did not separate from the truth, at least, at their first separation, nor did they quit their holding of Christ the Head, nor the order he has appointed in his House, except in as far as they separated from the Church: And I may ask whether he esteemed Messers Hepburn, Gilchrist, Taylor, M’Millan, M’Niel and Adamson [who stayed out of the 1690 Church of Scotland] were separatists? I’m pretty sure our Brethren and all the Church of Scotland were once of this mind, whatever his sentiments may now be; and yet these separating Brethren still adhered to the truth, as did also those who sometimes before the Revolution separated from all the presbyterian ministers in Scotland, except Mr. Renwick and a few others; and yet the reverence Mr. James Hog, in his Life, which Mr. Wilson has cited once and again, calls that a ‘dreadful and dangerous schism’ (p. 411).

6th Observation. Our brother says, ‘When the reformation of corruptions and the purging out of evident scandals is the only condition demanded (viz. ‘of a harmonious coalition’), what can be the reason that it is not granted?  One of the two it must needs be, viz. either because the judicatories will not, or else because they cannot reform. If it be because they will not, they are to be withdrawn from as wicked. If it be because they cannot, or want power, it says the keys of discipline is taken from them, and that they are not Christ’s officers and stewards: The discipline of Christ’s appointment must needs be a sufficient means for the preservation and reformation of his own House.’

Here I think Mr. Erskine has been a little too confident when he says, ‘It must needs be’ so and so. But having answered to this dilemma already in the Vindication, I insist no further upon it here. Only it says, ‘If a Church be not absolutely perfect, or, if there be the least fault in a Church, she is to be forsaken, and we are obliged to separate from her, for if there be any thing in her which is culpable, ’tis either because ‘she is wicked and will not reform, or because she is weak and cannot reform herself.’ Strange doctrine!

Lastly, in that Preface, he comes to speak of the Essay on Separation, and its author, where:

First he says, ‘He is apt to think the two horns of the above dilemma are sufficient to overthrow Mr. Currie’s voluminous Essay on Separation.’  But if I be not far mistaken, the horns thereof are so broken by what is said in the Vindication that they can neither pierce, draw blood of, nor do the least hurt unto it.

2ndly, He says, ‘Many are of opinion the author of that Essay has destroyed what he formerly built up.’ But, seeing neither our brother, nor any else, has offered the least reason for such an opinion, therefore it must be reckoned groundless and callumnious till documents be adduced proving his alledgance; for I absolutely deny the charge.

3rdly, He speaks of the ‘Fallacy and weakness of the author’s reasonings, and of the injuries he has done both to acts of Assembly and particular authors.’ But these are only general accusations: and as Mr. Guthrie said in his Defence against such charges before the parliament, generalia non pungunt, nor can they be answered till instanced.

4thly, ‘Tis said, ‘Had he been favored with a sight of the manuscript before publication and a few hours converse with his dear and worthy brother, according to wonted intimacy and freedom, without boasting, he is persuaded it had never seen the light.’

But if Mr. Erskine had such a persuasion, he cannot excuse himself, in that when so frequently within a few miles, he did not attempt this; for, as the apostle says, ‘To him that knoweth to do good, and doth it not, to him it is sin.’  The publication of this Essay could be no surprisal to him, seeing it was talked of a good space before it was put to the press; and I should been as ready to have conversed freely and in a friendly manner with my dear brother, as ever: For, as we lived in the greatest intimacy for about the space of forty years, without so much as one jar, so however widely our sentiments have differed of late, though I cannot help thinking his conduct in respect of separation is what can never be accounted for; yet, constructing this flows only from what I reckon an error in judgment, to which the best are liable; I hope I shall still have the same sincere love and cordial affection for him as formerly.

6thly, Whereas he says he ‘values the man, is sorry for his conduct and prays for his recovery,’ I thank him, and can declare the same in relation to him, judging it would be a mercy to himself, as well as to the Church of Scotland, to see him and the other seceding Brethren recovered from the error of their present ways, and again in statu quo.

I proceed in the second place to make a few observes upon the Papers themselves, I mean Mr. Guthrie’s last sermon and the papers published therewith. And from Mr. Guthrie’s practice pointed forth in these papers, and the practics of the Protesters in his time, we have a clear convincing argument against separation from the Church of Scotland in our day, which I judge may be reckoned a Scripture argument, in regard our Lord commands, ‘To go out by the footsteps of the flock,’ Song 1:8. And we are commanded to be ‘Followers of them who, through faith and patience, have inherited the promises,’ Heb. 6:12, as we are commanded to be followers of them as far as they are followers of Christ, 1 Cor. 11:1. And that our Lord never separated from the Jewish Church for all the corruptions which were in her, while here upon earth, is an undoubted and indisputable truth.

Now, from those papers which Mr. Erskine has published:

First, ‘Tis clear and evident the reverend Mr. Guthrie and all the Protesters in his day were very opposite schism and separation, though highly displeased with many ministers, and with sundry things in Church judicatories at that juncture;

Which is very evident from what he says in his Considerations of the Danger of Religion; particularly in his 6th consideration, where, at length, he shows the evil of division in a Church, instancing no fewer than eleven of its fatal effects. And again ’tis evident from what he owns he was a Protester, saying, ‘I bear my witness to the protestation against the controverted Assemblies, and the public Resolutions.’ Now, in that protestation which was taken against the last of these Assemblies, July 21st, 1652, and which was subscribed as by Mr. Guthrie, so by Messers Andrew Cant, Samuel Rutherford, John Livingston and other ministers, to the number of 67, and by elders, professors and expectants to the number of 95. There the Protesters express themselves thus:

‘We trust all who are acquainted with the principles and practices of our worthy predecessors, and the learned and godly non-conformists in England, will easily see how far we are from their judgments who follow the ways of Separation. We hold it our duty, firmly to adhere to the Church of Scotland, wherein, through the Lord’s goodness, we do this day enjoy the purity of doctrine and worship, and the government which Christ has appointed in his House, though there be corruptions in the constitution of a pretended Assembly.’

In those words of the Protesters there is a plain approbation of the old non-conformists who did not separate from the Church of England for all her corruptions in government and worship, as long as their assent and consent to these were not demanded, nor any sinful term of communion required: And also in them we have the plainest document and clearest proof that our worthy ancestors in former times, before 1638, never separated. Also, in those words we have a plain approbation of those who, without separation continued in the Church of Scotland in former times of great corruptions. And in them we have the plainest declaration against separation in their own day, notwithstanding of the public resolutions and many other things faulty in her at that time.

Again, in their Representation given in by them to the Assembly that same day before they gave in their Protestation, when speaking against the Public Resolutions, whereby those that were called ‘malignants’ were brought into judicatories and places of trust, they say, ‘Sinful mixtures may way for sinful separations;’ which was a plain acknowledgment that, in their judgment, it was sinful in any to separate notwithstanding of those Resolutions. And again, in that Representation, the Protesters say:

‘We beseech you to consider how great a snare your former actings which were not to edification have been to some people, to tempt them to the way of Separation, and to the shaking off the government of this Church; from which, as we desire to be kept free, as from a course highly displeasing to God, and impedimental to reformation, so we desire you may not tempt them further and lay new snares in the way of any, by your not right using of so precious an ordinance of Christ as are the Assemblies of this Church.’

These expressions are the clearest evidence that the famous Guthrie and other Protesters with him, were highly opposite to separation; they reckoned separation to be a course highly displeasing to God, and instead of promoting reformation, as separatists are ready to allege, they reckoned it to be highly impedimental, or a great hindrance thereof.

The great argument adduced by many, in dealing with people to separate from their ministers and join the Brethren is, that surely ’tis the duty of all to join with, and strengthen the hands of such honest ministers as are setting up for reformation, and people cannot but bring a curse upon themselves if they go not forth and help those Brethren ‘against the Mighty’.

Now, I know this specious argument has prevailed with many serious, honest people; but then they ought to consider, that as it is duty to join with and strengthen the hands of such as are setting up for reformation, so this is only to be done in as far as they take God’s way for carrying on thereof, and that is by staying in the Church, and there contending for reformation, opposing what is amiss, which has still been the practice of the saints, and eminent servants of God in former times. The conduct of separatists shall never reform a Church. Could the Protesters [have] seen that separation was God’s way for reformation, none can doubt but they had tried it, being as zealous for reformation and the interest of the Church of Christ as any of our Brethren can pretend to.

Further, as Mr. Guthrie in his speech upon the scaffold gives his witness to the Testimony against the Sectaries, so in that Testimony, which was subscribed by him, by Mr. Rutherford and other Protesters in the Synods of Fife, Perth and Stirling, October 1658, they testiy as against ‘Atheism, Anti-Scripturism, Arianism, etc.’, so also against ‘Separatism’. Though the Protesters were numerous, they never dreamed of erecting a new Church separate from the Church of Scotland, for all the bad things she had done, as their deposing sundry of the worthy Protesters, beside the four mentioned in the Vindication, Messers Hugh Kennedy (who was moderator to our first Assembly after the Revolution [1689]), Robert Stedman, Edward Jamieson, etc. Indeed in the year 1654 Baillie tells us (Historical Collections, vol. 4, pp. 413-14, 436), There was a ‘lamentable rent’ in the Synod of Glasgow, between the Protesters, or Remonstrators, and public Resolutioners, so that they held different synods at the same time in Glasgow: But then, according to Baillie, the Resolutioners were the persons who withdrew from the other party, because the alleged the synod was not rightly constituted, in regard such ministers as had been censured by the General Assembly, and such elders as were notoriously opposite to the last three Assemblies, were allowed to have a voice, whom they alleged should have been excluded from sitting and voting in that judicatory: And, at the same time, there were such rents, or rents on the same accounts in some presbyteries. And for the faults of the Church of Scotland in his day, our worthy martyr declared, in his dying speech, that he died a member and minister of the Church of Scotland, and not a member of any associate[d] presbytery, or newly constituted Church; he died a member of the presbytery of Stirling.

Now, if we ought ‘to go forth by the footsteps of the flock,’ and if we are to be ‘followers of them, who through faith and patience have inherited the promises,’ then, in the practice of the famous martyr Guthrie, and other zealous Protesters, we have an example highly worthy of our imitation; and in this they were followers of our Lord Jesus, who still joined with the Church of the Jews in their Church assemblies, notwithstanding the many corruptions which were in her in his day, Lk. 4:16, as has been noticed above.

But, whereas it may be alleged there was no such cause of separation in that day as in ours, or that then the defections of the Church of Scotland were small and inconsiderable in comparison of what they are at present, therefore:

2ndly, I observe, from Mr. Guthrie’s papers, published or reprinted at this season, that the day in which Mr. Guthrie and the other Protesters lived was a time of as great defection as can be alleged in ours, whatever our faults be; and ’tis matter of lamentation they are so great and many, and God forbid I should ever palliate, or drop a word to lessen them.

Now, that this observation is just, is manifest from many things in Mr. Guthrie’s papers, published by Mr. Erskine of late, as in the last sermon he preached in the pulpit of Stirling, pp. 11-13, where, having enumerated the many heinous sins Israel was guilty of in the wilderness, and after their coming out of Egypt, as unsteadfastness in the Lord’s Covenant, their rebellion against God, their corrupting of the worship and ordinances of God, etc., he says, ‘See if we be not guilty of all those sins.’  And there he shows particularly how, at that time, our land was guilty of breaking our covenants, National and Solemn League, and says:

‘Are we not guilty of corrupting the ordinances of God, and spoiling many of his precious truths? And are not many speaking of making ‘a captain, and returning again to Egypt?’ And there he says, ‘The wind of the Lord’s fan is already begun to blow; severals, who were eminent in the work of the Lord, are imprisoned, several ambassadors of the Lord’s House cast out.’

And again, in his Considerations anent the Danger of Religion, and Work of Reformation in the Church of Scotland in his day, in preface to these Considerations he asserts that the danger at that time was greater, in many respects, than it had been in any time since the reformation, declaring he believed it was greater than in the time of the Spanish Armado in 1588, or than it was under prelacy, when the Service-Book and Book of Canons [1637] were violently obtruded upon this Church.

And in those Considerations he gives many particular instances of things which were sinful and threatening at that day, as then there were ‘errors’ and ‘heresies’ spreading in the Church, and sundry in our Church infected with them: errors that did strike at the chief foundations of the Christian religion. And there he regrates that at that time the precious truths of the Gospel were corrupted, the government and discipline of the kirk, in a great measure overthrown, the power of godliness eaten out, and the whole work of reformation obstructed and in many things overturned. And there he regrates that then ‘Popery, Libertinism, Superstition, Heresy, Schism, Skepticism, Atheism’ and ‘Profaneness,’ and many things contrary to ‘sound doctrine,’ were increased. And there he regrates that then Popery was growing and prevailing from year to year in sundry places in the land. And speaking of covenant-breaking, and particularly of the National Covenant and Solemn League, says:

‘Every tender heart among us will acknowledge that most of us have not only come exceedingly short, but most palpably and grossly transgressed… in so far that the very obligation thereunto is not only forgotten, but trod under foot of many.’

And there he asserts, there were not a few ministers at that time, who:

‘healed the heart of the daughter of the Lord’s people slightly, speaking peace to them to whom the Lord did not speak peace, who thrust with side and shoulder, and did bite with the teeth those who ought to be encouraged.’ And he adds, ”Tis sadly bemoaned by the serious seekers of God in many places of the land that the work of some ministers is not to commend themselves to every man’s conscience, as in the sight of God, but to handle the Word of God deceitfully.’

And there he laments over the neglect of ‘Church-discipline, especially against corrupt and scandalous Church-officers,’ and says, ‘Do we not suffer many to go without trial, who say they are pastors and are not?’ And in his last consideration he shows that at that time, the Lord was in a great measure departed from them in the Church of Scotland, having smitten them with many plagues of heart.  And then, having shown how He was departed, as to the civil administration, he says:

‘Neither is the Lord’s departure small in reference to our Church and Church administrations…  Do we not come together many times for the worse, and not for the better?  Is there not bruising, instead of binding up?  And much bitter contention and strife in many of our meetings?  Instead of the sweet fruits of an edifying union and peace.  Whilst we should draw in the work of the Lord with one shoulder, do not some draw one way, and others another?  Rendering our endeavors almost useless to the Church, comfortless to ourselves and despicable to others.’

And in his last consideration he tells how the Lord, who is the Light, Life and Strength of his people, was departed from them, and had smitten them with many plagues of heart, ‘which for a long time they had found in a continued tract of sad experiences;’ and vastly more there is in those considerations to this purpose. Some are ready to own this or the other thing amiss in the Church of Scotland is not ground of separation; yet, say they, take all her faults together and they lay the justest ground for this: But if so, then let all the faults of the Church be laid together from 1596-1638, or all her faults from 1638 to Mr. Guthrie’s death, and they will find them as great and numerous in these times; and yet neither he, nor the other worthy servants of the Lord in those periods could see them sufficient foundation for separation while they had liberty to testify against these corruptions.

Now, according to our brother Mr. Erskine, ‘either the Church was wicked, and would not reform, or else she was weak and could not reform herself’ in that period; and therefore should have been forsaken: According to him, Christ had taken the keys of discipline from her, and so her ‘officers were not Christ’s officers;’ and if so, it may be thought they were Satan’s officers and stewards. But it seems the famous martyr Mr. Guthrie and other Protesters were of vastly different sentiments from him; for still he continued to attend the judicatories of the Church of Scotland: For, speaking of them, he says, ‘Many times we come together, not for the better, but for the worse.’ It seems he judged there was no force in that argument for separation: ‘What good can you do in Church judicatories?’ If they could do no more, they give their testimony by voting against things conceived to be contrary to the Lord’s Word.

And if it should be said, there were still many worthy ministers in the Church of Scotland even at that time, I frankly own this, and I hope it is so still: Yea, Mr. Erskine himself, in 1733, owned that there as a vast body of such in this Church. But, as then, in Mr. Guthrie’s days, there were many worthy ministers in her, so there were many naughty worthless men in the ministry at that time, as appears from what has been adduced from Mr. Guthrie’s considerations; yea, and even from 1638, there were many such: And, I humbly think, it should not offend any to tell, what the famous Mr. Guthrie and other Protesters published to the world upwards of 80 years ago, namely in their formerly mentioned Protestation against the Assembly 1652, which, as told already, was subscribed by Mr. Guthrie and other 66 ministers, etc. where they say:

‘It is a burden upon our spirits—and with grief of heart we desire to speak it—that although with the renewing of the National Covenant, and with the casting out of prelates and the corruptions introduced by them, the Lord was graciously pleased to give repentance to not a few who were involved in that defection; yet, since that time, there has always remained a corrupt party of insufficient, scandalous and ill-affected ministers in this Kirk, enemies to the power of godliness and obstructers of the work of reformation and purging of the Kirk, whereof many were sworn vassals to the prelates (as we are able to make good, by their subscriptions to horrid oaths). This party complied with the times and pretended reformation, though they were groaning under it as a heavy yoke which they could not endure.’

So also our worthy martyr in his dying speech says, ‘God is wroth with a generation of carnal, corrupt, time-serving ministers;’ yet though they were not a few, but a whole generation of them, he and other Protesters judged it their duty to live in Church communion and to join in Church judicatories without associating themselves into presbyteries, synods or Assemblies distinct from them: And surely, such holy , tender, zealous, judicious and learned men, as Mr. James Guthrie, Mr. William Guthrie, Mr. Samuel Rutherford, Mr. John Livingston, etc. were as capable to understand the import of that Scripture, 2 Thess. 3:6, ‘Withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly,’ and the like texts, as any in our day. They were fully persuaded the public Resolutioners had walked disorderly; but they neither thought it their duty to withdraw from them in Church judicatories, nor yet for the people to desert their ministry; no, for all the bad things which were in the Church, they condemned separation by word, writ and practice. And hence the author of the Review of their Protestation, having accused them, as if they had been guilty of inclining to separation, because some of the people who joined with them, and were for the Protestation, had inclined unto it, or gone far that way, the author, or authors of the Protestation Defended, in answer to the Protestation Reviewed, say, p. 86:

‘This is the old Prelatical song against the non-conformists, because some of their number turned separatists, therefore, to say they were all for separation, though they keeped Christ’s middle way between extremes, and did much more against separation by word, write and print than all the prelatical party.’

And he adds:

‘I may say the like of the Protestors, that they have taken more pains by word and writ to prevent and remedy the declining of some to the ways of separation than all that are for the public Resolutions have done.’

Observation 3rd. Though the worthy Mr. Guthrie was zealous against the public Resolutions, yet he had a very high esteem of many of the Resolutioners:

As appears from what he says in his 9th consideration, where, speaking of the sins of ministers in his day, and intimating that the sins of the pastors spoken of Jer. 6:14; Eze. 13:10, 16, 22; 34:18-19, 21; Mic. 3:5, were then to be found among the ministers of this Church, says:

‘I do not intend the application to any upon the account of the public differences; but, without respect to parties or differences, it can hardly be denied that—blessed by God for it, there be in the land many precious ministers of both judgments who study to divide the Word of God aright, etc.’

And in his dying speech upon the scaffold, after saying there was a ‘generation of carnal, corrupt, time serving ministers’ in the Church, without distinguishing between Protesters and Resolutioners, he says:

‘I know and bear testimony that in the Church of Scotland there is a true and faithful ministry—and I pray you to honor and reverence and esteem much of these for their work’s sake, etc.’

Mr. Guthrie was indeed a great man, great in the sight of the Lord; Mr. Wodrow says of him, that perhaps he had the greatest mixture of fervent zeal and sweet calmness in his temper as any man in his time.

Observation 4th.  As Mr. Guthrie was a true presbyterian, so he was a great loyalist, and that to a non-covenanting king, and worse, being still loyal to one who had perfidiously broken the National Covenant and Solemn League.

Hence, in his speech upon the scaffold, he says:

‘God is my record that in these things for which sentence of death has passed against me, I have a good conscience; 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 and government of his royal father; My heart (I bless God) is conscious to no disloyalty, nay, loyal I have been, and I commend it to you to be loyal and obedient in the Lord; true piety is the foundation of true loyalty; a wicked man may be a flatterer and time-server, but he will never be a loyal subject.’

He suffered not a little for his loyalty to King Charles the II in Cromwell’s time, I have it from good hands, says Wodrow, that Mr. Guthrie ‘defended the king’s right in a public dispute with Hugh Peters,’ Oliver’s chaplain. And from the pulpit he asserted King Charles’s title when the English officers were present; he died a sacrifice to Middletoun’s resentment, who could never forgive him for the hand he had in his excommunication. ‘Tis said, when the king got notice of the parliament’s sentence against him, he was so sensible of the good services Mr. Guthrie had done him, when his interest was at the lowest, that he signified his displeasure therewith.

5thly I observe that the last of Mr. Guthrie’s papers published of late ’tis far from answering what is said thereof in the title page:

For it gives not the least light into that infamous action of stoning Mr. Guthrie out of Stirling; for as in it there is no account whether stoned or not, no account of what gave occasion for it, no account of the place where, nor by whom; whether the inhabitants of Stirling or others; whether by men or women; whether by old or young: So in it there is no account whether by the public Resolution party, or others; however, if it was done by the Fleshers, or their wives only, ’tis not probably they were deeply dipped or engaged in the controversy anent the public Resolutions…

And whereas in the 38th page of that sermon, ’tis said:

‘In a day of general defection, we are to side ourselves by coming out from a corrupt part of a Church, and testify against them; this is the way how the saints in Scripture have overcome their enemies, Rev. 12:11, ‘They overcame by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony.”

But, though there should be many defections in a Church, yet this has never been the way of the saints of God to seek to overcome their enemies by separating from the Church of the living God: And I wonder how our brother could cite that Scripture for any such purpose when there is not a Word in it favoring separation.  And there is nothing to hinder any to give testimony for Christ and his truths while remaining in the Church of Scotland as well as in a separate state.  The martyrs of Christ ‘overcame by faith in the blood of the Lamb,’ and by their stedfast adherence to the word and testimony; to the truth of which they gave testimony by sealing the same with their blood: But ‘manum de tabula.’

.

The End

.

.

.