.
Part 1, containing reflections on the reply to the Preface.
Wherein the Preface prefixed to the printed letter is defended against the unreasonable clamor of the Adversary; The original and progress of the present schism is deduced; The constitution of this present Church [of Scotland] is vindicated; The duty of communion with Her, and sin of separation from Her is demonstrated; and objections, particularly that of our [Scottish National] Covenants not being the terms of our communion, answered.
And in the Postscript, the calumnies on the Assemblies since the latter happy [Glorious] Revolution [of 1689], their not acting by their intrinsic power, and having lost their power, are refuted.
To which is usbjoined a copy of a letter confirming the account given of the rise and progress of this Schism.
.
.
By one of the Ministers of this present Church
[Gavin Hamilton]
.
[Edinburgh?] 1712
.
.
Song 1:5-8
“I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon. Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother’s children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept.
Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest, where thou makest thy flock to rest at noon: for why should I be as one that turneth aside by the flocks of thy companions? If thou know not, O thou fairest among women, go thy way forth by the footsteps of the flock, and feed thy kids beside the shepherds’ tents.”
.
William Ames
On Conscience [d. 1633; 1639], bk. 1, ch. 4, last section:
“If any man through errour of conscience should hold it to be an unlawful thing to go to the Church and serve God there (which otherwise he is tied to do) because he knows the preacher to be a lewd and naughty man, and thinks that he shall be partaker with him in his wickedness, his sin is greater in staying away than if he were present there: because it is a greater sin to neglect God’s service than to communicate with an others’ personal wickedness in that service.
But if he should think it unlawful to be present at holy duties for idolatry which he judges will be committed there, he should sin more heinously if he should be present there: because the sin of idolatry is greater than a neglect of true worship. In the first instance he sins more that follows his conscience than he that does against it; but in this [latter case], his sin is greater that does contrary to it.”
.
.
[The transcription is unfinished. It is public domain.]
.
.
.
To the Reader
.
[p. 2] Candid Reader,
Lest you should look upon me as one that passes by and meddles with strife belonging not to him (the folly and danger of which meddling, and the honor, and consequently wisdom, of forbearing, Solomon shows, Prov. 20:3 & 26:17), I find myself obliged to give you some acount of my undertaking, though I think I have left myself little of that to do, having done it already in the designation I take to myself in the title page.
The matter is thus, in short: finding that in the Replyer’s Pamphlet, the whole of the ministers of this present Church are alleged (for ’tis not proven) to be justly chargeable with all the defections mentioned therein; and I being one of those, how unworthy soever; I judged myself concerned to say something (though but little of what might be said for my own defense, and the vindication of my brethren in the ministry; and a defender needs no commission. I thought also I might be in some better capacity to give some information of the rise and progress of the present schism, seeing it was desired; having lived in those times when this bad cropt was in the blade, and on that ground where this evil plant grew, than some others, who have lived at greater distance of time or place:
And the matter being of public concern, respecting the whole of the ministers of this present Church; everyone of these, or of those who find themselves concerned in them, are concerned to put to their helping hand to quench a public fire, the tendency of which is to burn up and consume the Church of God, that she may be, at least, as a brand plucked out of the fire, before she be wholly consumed into ashes. If any, especially the two brethren particularly concerned, would have had it better done, this is not to prejudge them.
I may also say with my Adversary, there is nothing here new contended for, but what has been held by, not only a party or part of this Church, but the whole of this national Church, and sound divines, not only in this, but all other Churches of Christ, ever since Christ had a Church upon earth; and those that have taken such separate courses, upon such slender or no grounds as this set of people do, have always been looked upon as schismatics, by all the Churches in the world…
Whereas our Adversaries lay many and grievous complaints against us, which they cannot prove. I judge it needless to make any apology for the rudeness and unpolished of my language. That which my Adversary makes for himself will serve for me as well as him. I may no less truly, and can no less confidently say, it is not the ornaments of oratory, but the instruction and edification of the weak, which, next to the glory of God and vindication of his truth, is here intended, and so much more, as I am firmly persuaded what is herein contained does really tend to the instruction and edification, and not the destruction and subversion of souls. I second my Adversary in one thing, to desire all to beware lest they despise the truths herein treated of because they are questioned and debated between or among differing parties. The truths are precious, necessary and useful.
Farewell.
.
.
To the Author of the Preface
.
[p. 3] Sir,
I have desired the bearer to communicate to you a vindication of a Preface which goes under your name, though you have not affixed it, bearing the title of, Just Reflections upon a Pretended Modest Reply, etc. which I desire you to peruse and to give your judgment of it. You may think strange to receive any such thing from me, as it is indeed a surprise to myself: but si natura negat, facit indignatio versum. I was filled with indignation, first to hear such stories of that pamphlet, as not only, that he had said all that could be said: I could have born with that. But that some of whom I did not expect it had said they did not think so much could have been brought upon the cause; and withal it was said, it would be hard (forsooth) to answer, though we should lay our heads together. What? say I, has he brought any solid proof for separation from this Church? If he bring but one such from Scripture, I shall be as bigot a separatist as he. I had desire to see it; but, when I read it, minuit praesentia famam. I found nothing new in it, except some improvement of some new occurrence of providence: and I think there was but one of these, viz. the Abjuration. As for the Union [between Scotland and England in 1707], I had read of it in the Protestation, etc. And as for his arguments, I found (what I expected) all of them unsound in the matter; but (which was surprising) I found many of them no better in the form: not only sophisms, but paralogisms. This provoked me to think of essaying to answer that which, it was said, nobody could answer. Yet all this (together with the presumptuous insolency of expression, which increased my indignation) would not have done it, if I had not heart that the author of the Preface had said he would meddle no more with it, but leave it to the author of the Letter. This I was not pleased with, that the whole burden of the cause of the Church of Scotland should be left upon a young man’s shoulders; therefore I resolved to put to a helping hand, which was all that I designed at first…
I have concealed my name, fearing lest a name so obscure should rather obscure or prejudge than illustrate or advantage so illustrious a cause, only I subscribe myself sincerely,
Reverend sir, your affectionate brother, and fellow-laborer in the work of the Lord, for the sake of his Body the Church.
.
.
Postscript
.
[p. 4] I hear some are dissatisfied with my papers, as having a tendency to stir up again the controversy about the Indulgence. For this I have much to say:
1st, It is not I, but the Adversary, that stirs up this controversy, partly by chargin the ministers of this Church at that time, with subjecting their ministry to the exorbitant will and arbitriment of the then [??????]; partly, by putting us to tell when the schism began; what were the originals of it, which supposing we cannot do, he concludes that Mr. [John] M’Millan espouses the principles and practices of the Church of Scotland, p. 5. Partly by asserting this present Church to be chargeable with all the backslidings, etc. committed in the late times of persecution; upon this account among others, that the ministers guilty of conniving at, or acceptance of indulgences, etc. were never called to an account, etc. pp. 22-23.
2dly, I approve nothing in matter of right that can justly or rationaly be condemned, even by the strictest who do not adopt these men’s principle, of refusing a grant because of the granter, how innocent soever that grant be; only in matter of fact, I endeavor to vindicate these honest ministers from things unjustly laid to their charge. This, both justice and charity, particularly the 9th Command, obliges to: and none can oppose me in this, btu he must makehimself an uncharitable accuser of the brethren. Beside, it is hard, if others shall have liberty to accuse innocent men (not to say ministers) and I not have liberty to defend them… I plead only for a fair hearing to them, which in common justice cannot be denied to the greatest of malefactors.
3ly, All other ways, that I know, have been tried with that people. The Commission of the General Assembly, in their Seasonable Admonition, anno 1698, ahve in their wisdom waved the controversies of former times. Mr. [Alexander] Shields, in his Teatise of Church Communion, has yielded all, denying the consequence as to the present separation; only this way remains, which is the more direct way, and in my jdugment is according to truth, to show the groundlessness of their first separation…
.
.
.
Just Reflections upon a Pretended Modest Reply to a Letter from a Friend to Mr. John M’Millan
.
[p. 5] 1. How the Author’s calling his pamphlet “A Modest Reply” does agree with Solomon’s advice, ‘Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth,’ Prov. 27:2, how it deserves the name, or how he performes his undertaking in the title page, I shall not preoccupy, but leave it to the judgment of the reader, when he has considered the Author’s Reply and my Reflections thereupon, which I design shall be just and sober also…
2. The party which he undertakes to vindicate are indeed ‘contenders’ and lovers of contention, ‘contentious,’ but how suffering? if not that they expose themselves to sufferings by their contentions, both with Church and State. They cannot complain of persecution now [after 1689]. As for the scourge of the tongue, they will be behind [in this striving] with none. Their hand is against every man; so they do what they can to set every man’s hand against them… He calls them, ‘the Remnant of the true Covenanterd Presbyterians of the Church of Scotland’; as if there were no remnant of the true presbyterians but they, or that own and adhere to the Covenants National and Solemn League. But true Presbyterians they are not, who disown subjection to Presbyterian government, and set up an independant form, exercised by one pretended (though deposed) minister [John M’Millan], and an eldership without dependance on , or subordination to a superior judicatory. Hence, they are Covenant Breakers, both by reason of their rejecting and contemning of presbyterian government and discipline, and by reason of schism and separation from a true Church; yea, even from the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, enjoying and exercising that government and discipline to which they are bound by these covenants according to the Word of God, to adhere; schism being as expressly abjured in the Solemn League and Covenant as either Popery or Prelacy…
So that they have nothing to do with the Church of Scotland, but follow the paths of the rigid Separatists in England, against whom the presbyterian ministers and eminent divines of the Church of Scotland have written; as Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Durham and others. They are not desired to concur with the present Church and State in any backsliding course, but in submitting to the Lord’s ordinances of magistracy and ministry, not to resist the ordinance of God and receive to themselves damnation. To receive whom Christ sends in his name, in receiving whom they receive Him; in despising whom, they despise Him, and the Father that sent Him, Mt. 10:40; Lk. 10:16; Jn. 13:20. [p. 6]
[p. 6] 3. The times are indeed perilous. Self-love, undue and immoderate respect to ourselves, as a corrupt root bringing forth not only those evils he mentions, but many more. This is indeed the cardinal evil, the foundation of all sins, which abound and procure plagues and bring on misery, both upon the land in general and upon particular persons, families, cities, incorporations and societies; wherever it prevails and where it is entertained and not denied and mortified, it still takes deeper root, and grows stronger and brings forth more fruit unto death.
…
[p. 7] 4. He tells us the matter herein treated of, is of public concern, respecting the whole of the ministers of this present Church. Answer: Then how modest soever he may think his Reply, I think he is very immodest, who being a private person (for he tells us he is neither Mr. M;m nor Mr. M’n (who are all the pretended ministers or preachers they have) but has written this without their knowledge) does meddle so far in a matter of so public concern as to charge the whole of the ministers of this present Church, or to judge and pronounce them justly chargeable with the defections herein testified against: If this be not to dishonor the ministry, I am yet to learn what is so.
…
5. He seems to quarrel the Author of the Letter because he sent it not to Mr. M’m before he published it. Answer: There was so much proposed to him both by word and letter, to which he returned to no answer, that it was in vain to deal more with a man who sinned, ‘being condemned of himself’, Tit. 3:11, and appeared more necessary to publish somewhat for information of the people, that they might not be seduced by one who by ‘good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple;’ to discover the falsehood of those fair speeches, to set him forth in his own colors that he might be known to be a deceiver, Rom. 16:17-18.
…
[p. 8] 6. He prays the Prefacer to reconcile his complaint of abounding sins with his assertions of this Church’s faithfulness, purity, zeal and reformation, and these bold brags and asseverations of it that his brethren on all occasions clamor people’s ears with. Answer: As for bold brags of our faithfulness and zeal, I have already disclaimed them in the apostle’s words, who says, ‘I judge not my own self, etc.’ We leave these to you, who appropriate faithfulness and zeal to yourselves, trusting in yourselves that ye are righteous, and despising others. We assert indeed the purity of Gospel-ordinances in this Church; and boast in the Lord of the great and glorious deliverance and reformation which his hand has wrought for us…
[p. 9] …He has now had pity upon us for his name’s sake, when he saw that our power was gone, and there was none shut up or left; and has restored us both to our religious and civil liberties…
7. The Prefacer says Scotland has lost much of her ancient glory and beauty. The Replyer asks when had she that glory? Not, says he, in the dawning of the Reformaion when yet she was but on the ascendant. Answer: Yes, sir, even then; have ye never read, ‘The path of the just is as the shining light, which shines more and more unto the perfect Day?’ Has that shining, growing light no glory?…
…binding us by solemn oath in the National Covenant to the true religion, expressed in the [Westminster] Confession of Faith, established and professed in this land…
[p. 10] 8. We do not talk much, to make the world believe, we are making progress in reformation since the late Revolution [1689]. We have cause to bless the Lord for the progress made in it to our hand, by the powerful hand of divine providence, at that time. We are still labouring to keep our ground, to improve what opportunities are put in our hand for advancement, and to observe and discover what is opposite and contrary or obstructive thereto; and to purge out, or resist it: And, as the Prefacer tells you, to give testimony against these things. At least, such as are faithful, do and resolve that the Lord, the righteous Judge, will accept our endeavors and hear our morning in secret, which ye despise and mock at; and will not judge as you do, who impute the sins and failings of some to all.
You say, we rejected that part of the Church’s attainment in reformation from the year [16]38 to 50, as not meet to be put into our constitution. But what piece of the Church’s constitution at that time left we out? or wherein is our model of government new? Was not the same Act of Parliament 1592 revived in the year 1640, which was again revived anno 1690? Is not the mode or form of presbyterian government still the same, by kirk-sessions, presbyteries, synods and general assemblies, with a due subordination of the lesser court to the greater? Again, that act, in our constitution, was not renewed simpliciter, but with a reservation of that part which concerned patronages, to be further considered by the parliament, which afterward they did, and removed them, insofar as they obstructed the free call of ministers by the people…
You charge most, if not all, with manifest compliance with, or sinful connivance at the abominations of the persecuting times. You know, there was a party that suffered in those times for non-compliance; and as for connivance, they did not so much wink at the abominations of these times, as they saw, but could not help them. so that your insinuation, that they were liable to censure on these accounts, is injurious to them, as well as immodest and presumptuous in you.
When he says we were obliged to be content with the Claim of Right, instead of the divine right of presbytery, he understands not what he says. The Claim of Right does not set up presbytery at all; but abolish and hold out prelacy: It is the act of parliament does that, wherein presbyterian [p. 11] government is owned to be most agreeable to the Word of God [in ministers’ subscription in ordination], and most conducible to the advancement of true piety and godliness, as well as to the establishment of peace and transquility within this realm…
Neither knows he what he says when he adds, ‘You sovereign’s royal will and pleasure to corroborate your acts instead of the intrinsic power of the Church.’ Knows he how far the intrinsic power of the Church reaches? Only to bind in foro ecclesiastico, under pain of censure, not in foro civili, under a civil or pecuniary mulct [fine], or corporal punishment. Now the Church can censure delinquents that transgress acts made without consent of the sovereign had or sought thereto, as appears in execution of the acts of inferior judicatories, as in case of a presbyterial fast…
He adds, ‘And the oath of allegiance, etc. instead of the oath and bond of the covenants.’ But he understands this no better. The oath of allegiance was before the covenants, and the covenants could [not] make it void, but were for the corroboration of it. Before the National Covenant was framed and sworn anno 1581, and the general bond for maintenance of the true religion and the king’s person added to it, anno 1590, the subjects, or so many of tem as were required according to law, had sworn allegiance to king James VI…
[p. 12] As to absolute obedience, or doing that which is unlawful, which is no ways included in ‘allegiance,’ nor can be understood in an oath of allegiance, except it be expressed, as in the late oath of supremacy, and oath of absolute obedience” and in this case the oath is manifestly sinful…
But the printed acts of assemblies in those times are extant, and are almost the only ecclesiastic acts we have, or these that are most in use; acts of former assemblies being to be found only in Church-history, what more he would have done, I know not: If he would have them revived, that is done as to some of them, now and then as occasion serves. There is no occasion to revivie them all, or such of them as were accomodated to those times, and are not so to ours; others are of force without reviving.
9. How prelacy, Erastianism and tyrrany are submitted to, now when the laws establishing them are rescinded, I do not understand… For when they who call themselves presbyterians will not subject themselves to presbyterian government, how shall it be expected that others will? And he knows that Church government and discipline can exerce no force upon the outward man: If it have no weight upon the conscience, or to make men ashamed, it has none at all. Now these that live in error, till they be convinced of their error, censure can have no weight upon their conscience. As for shame, that is avoided by the multitude of complices. Therefore the apostle says to the Corinthians he has ‘in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when their obedience is fulfilled.’ [2 Cor. 10:6] As for the magistrate’s taking course with those, it is not in the Church’s power…
[p. 13] For if a man [according to their notions] have the least fear that matters be not right with us, he must bethink himself of any way of departing from us; and you know no other way to escape sin and danger: and you make your Antagonists’ acknowledgment that we are now involved in all circumstances of sinfulness and danger a sufficient ground to make out this, tanquam ex confesso [so far out of confession], that this is our case: This would be an argument to break off communion with all the world, except Quakers and other Perfectionists, that have no sense of sin, nor fear of wrath.
But, sir, because ye must depart from us involving ourselves in sins, and join with us in no sin; must you also depart from us when exercising ourselves in duty, and join with us in no duty? Then you must join with none in duty, but those that are free of sin, involved in no sin, for ‘involving’ is your own word, foisted into the argument. Moreover, none that have sin, but will sometimes involve themselves in sin; and in this, must be departed from, and not joined with. Therefore by this argument, all that have sin must be departed from, and not joined with in duty. All these sins and dangers notwithstanding, he is obliged to go on with us, not in sin, but in duty, and that is indeed the best means to help the case. James 5:16, ‘Confess your faults one to another, and pray for another; that ye may be healed; the effectual fervent prayer of a rigteous man availeth much.’ If ye be more righteous than we, we may be bettered by your prayers. A promise is made to joint prayer, Mt. 18:19…
The great difficulty will be to please with a confession. No sincere penitent, but will confess all his known sins. But if it be a sin of ignorance that he is not convinced of, or knows not to be a sin, God accepts an implicit repentance, Ps. 19:12… and so should his people, Rom. 15:7, ‘Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ received us to the glory of God.’ Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13…
Men may appear zealously and faithfully against indignities done to Christ, and yet not separate from Church-communion. This were to run to an extreme. Neither need they take the same measures with others to involve themselves in defection. They may testify against what they judge defection, and so exoner themselves. Joseph of Arimathea was a counselor when the council condemned Christ, but he did not consent to their counsel and deed. (Lk. 23:50-51; Jn. 7:50-51) Nicodemus was one of them, when the Pharisees and chief priests sent officers to take Him: but he spake a good word for Christ, and this is recorded more for his commendation than if he had been absent. That the present quiet of [p. 14] the Church is bought at so dear a rate as he alleges, is said but not proven. It is given us freely of God, for which we ought to be thankful. That the inclincation of the people is the sole pillar of our present constitution: The falsehood of this has been showed above…
[p. 16] 14. As for what he says of the next three [persons] whom he brings upon the stage, where, with the crow, he thinks his own bird fairest, miscalling schism by the name of faithfulness… It is no privilege of the Church to be broken in pieces at the pleasure of any one, two or three men running to the fields with their private opinion or judgment (not to say, wild fancies and conceits) and spreading these like mure-burn among the people, to raise a fire to burn up and consume the Church of God…
It is injustice to condemn any man unheard; much more so many ministers…
The indulged ministers exercised their ministry (which they declared they had from Jesus Christ) by, or with (or upon occasion of the liberty granted by) the magistrate’s indulgence, favor, permission or allowance. This favor the magistrate was bound by his office to grant, and the ministers were bound by their office to improve it to the edification [p. 17] of the Church. The other ministers, who were outed, and suffering by the magistrate for their faithfulness, did first admonish and afterwards censure some rash heady youths [e.g. John Welwood, Richard Cameron, Robert Hamilton], for that I have pointed at before; namely, their [doctrine of the] unlawfulness of ministers, their accepting of the magistrate’s indulgence, and the unlawfulness of people’s hearing them that had accepted the same. They, instead of submitting themselves to their admonition or censure, who had licensed them to preach; or (by a new practice in this Church, upon a supposed necessity, of indefinite ordination) admitted some of them to the ministry; did further take upon them, not only to preach against those to whom they ought to have submitted: condemning the whole presbyterian ministers of the Church of Scotland, for either accepting the indulgence, and so, say they, homologating an ecclesiastic supremacy in the magistrate, or conniving at them that had accepted, and so homologating the indulgence, and consequently the Supremacy.
Whereas, what the indulged ministers accepted, was the effect of the magistrate’s lawful and civil power, in taking off unjust or undue, though legal, restraints upon their ministry: not of any sinful or ecclesiastic supremacy. With these unruly youths Mr. Donald Cargill associate[d] himself, which was his weakness, and he was the only minister of the Church of Scotland that did so. The rest were all novices, of whom the apostle admonishes Timothy to beware in the admitting of ministers: 1 Tim. 3:6, ‘Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride, etc.’ So they being proud, ‘presumptuous,’ 2 Pet. 2:10 and he ‘self-willed,’ Tit. 1:7, matters were carried to the height they came to…
15… As for the differences which arose about the public resolutions [in the late-1640’s], they made a division indeed in the Church, but no schism, at lest in worship (of which we speak), but only in government, except by accident in some places where presbyteries divided themselves, whereupon followed opposite ordinations, which brought in division among the people, some adhering to one minister, some to another. But I never heard that any held it unlawful to hear ministers on either side, though comparatively they judged it duty rather to hear others. By the way I wish the question about hearing of curates had never come a greater length. See below.
However (as dogs, they say, gars swine ‘gree (make to agree)) by the reintroduction of prelacy [in 1661] this difference was buried, as fire under ashes.” Ministers, who had before been putting and thrusting at one another, being, by this, put all an one condition, that is, thrust all out together [in 1662, for 30% of the ministry], except those who complied with Prelacy [or rather a relatively low form of episcopacy]. These, and others whom the prelates and tey put in, occupying the room of pastors, debates arose among presbyterians, ministers and others, anent the lawfulness or unlawfulness, duty or sin of hearing them. Some pleading compliance in hearing, to prove it sinful; some pleading separation in withdrawing to prove hearing to be duty: Some pleading soundness in doctrine to prove it lawful and duty to hear, some pleading corruption in government to prove it unlawful and sinful. And though these different pleadings, accompanied with different practices, in hearing or not hearing curates, as they were called, made no schism among presbyterians. In regard, ministers, who heard and who heard not, preached sometimes privately; and people of either practice heard any of them indifferently. Yet, in these debates, some laid down principles, which, if followed out, would oblige them to hear none that were not of their mind or way, in all matters whether of judgment or practice, which were too much improven afterward. (See Dr. [Gilbert] Rule’s Rational Defence of Non-Conformity, and Mene Tekel)
The next debate of this nature and kind that fell in was, first, about accepting the [civil] indulgence, then about hearing indulged ministers. As to the first, this made no schism, so long as ministers held [p. 18] their debates among themselves. Some accepted, some not. Those who accepted preached in those parishes where they were indulged; others elsewhere, and sometimes there with them. The indulged ministers also preached elsewhere as they had occasion and access, but thought it not duty to offend the magistrate in breaking confinement to go unnecessarily elsewhere to preach, and thereby hazard the peaceable public exercise of their ministry, which was all they acknowledged they held of the magistrate, which others, said they, have not, and therefore cannot lose; neither thought they the keeping of their confinement, though unjustly imposed, a sin, but rather suffering on their part.
As for other instructions, the magistrate enacted some, but never imposed them (as neither this) as conditions, but as statutes, which they were to observe upon their hazard. Accordingly they never received them, that is, consented to them, or promised to obey them (as to keep their confinement). This consent or promise was not required of them, but declared against them when imposed, for which one of them was imprisoned and kept till death. The rest either expressly adhered to what he [George Hutcheson] said, or said the same upon the matter, as is acknowledged in [John Brown of Wamphray’s] The History of the Indulgence, which I desire may be compared with the Review thereof [by William Vilant], both in this and all the parts of that debate, that the reader may be well advised and just in passing sentence. [Hamilton goes on to describe more the indulgence issues]…
Thus, sir, I have, according to your desire, candidly told you wha schism I mean, when it began, what were the originals of it, what the time, causes or occasion of the rise and progress of it. One thing further is, that they [the schismatics] either did, or were about to do it: viz. to bind themselves by a solemn oath and bond to all this and much more, even to overturn monarchy [in the Queensferry Paper, 1680], and, after they had killed or executed judgment on all the then rulers or magistrates, to set up the Judicial Law given to Israel, and turn the kingdom into a commonwealth: Also to oblige all [p. 19] the ministry of this Church to stand before these two or three weak men we heard of, whom they designed ‘those who had followed the Lord’. This was to set up prelacy and oblige minisers to submit to it under pain of deposition, in the mean time suspending them. All this and more you will find in that solemn and sacred bond seized at Queensferry [1680]: a monstrous piece; compare it with the survey of it subjoined to the History of the Indulgence where the absurdities of it are clearly discovered and solidly refuted.
After this, being deprived, one way or other, of their teachers, one after another, they erested themselves in societies, where, besides their using private exercises of religion to supply the want of preaching and keeping correspondence among themselves, they incroached upon the ministerial function in interpreting or misinterpreting Scripture, did meet together, consult and determine affairs, ecclesiastic, civil and military, which they did not understand, being generally ignorant or illiterate and mostly young people, and had no call to meddle with, being private persons, especially in their circumstances, as was remonstrated to one of their teachers afterwards by an intimate friend of his in a letter from Holland; a copy whereof I have ready to produce (to pass [over], says he, the monstrousness of the judicatory).
Wherein, to wit, they set up an independent government, both civil and ecclesiastic, which they continue to this day, looking upon themselves as reduced by constant and habitual tyranny to their native and radical liberty. Informatory Vindication [1687], Head 1.
Hence they issued out declarations, in stylo curiae, disowning, disclaiming and casting off the authority, first of King Charles, then of King James [II], revolting from them and declaring war against them and against all such as had acknowledged or should acknowledge them; and taking to themselves the title of a representative of the nation, better than ever these tyrants could pretend to, rescind, annul and make void acts of parliament made by them. These declarations they will have to bind the whole land, though not formally as an authoritative act, yet materially by an antecedent moral obligation. Informatory Vindication, Head 2.
Hence they issued out a warning to indulged ministers (and others) calling and inviting them to leave the kirks and come out to them in the fields, with certification they would take another course to provide themselves of ministers, though these ministers saw none of their faces, nor knew whence this paper came…
16. Hence it will appear, if it be the principles and practices of the Church of Scotland, which these men espouse, and Mr. M’m being now associated with them, must be understood to espouse the same with them. What of those we have banished from our public registers, and what registers he means, I know not: The registers of parliament (including the rescinded acts [in 1661]) are none of the registers of the Church. And as to the acts of [the General] Assembly [of the Church of Scotland], we have them all to the [year] 1650 exclusive. I hope he is not offended that we have banished the acts of the controverted assemblies [during the Protester-Resolutioner controversy during the late-1640’s and 1650’s] from our registers, [p. 20] if it be not that he wants thereby a necessary evidence to involve us in the guilt of the public resolutions. ‘Tis true the assembly of 1650 is none of those, but I cannot learn that ever the acts of it were printed.
17. The charge, ‘that they cannot, in a consistency with their principles, hold communion with any Church this day upon earth,’ he first aggravates, then alleviates, finally denies. It had been a shame for the 7,000 who had not bowed their knees to Baal, if they could not, in a consistency with their principles, hold communion with the Church at Jerusalem in the temple of God…
…she [the Church of Scotland] is a pure Church in her constitution, as pure, at least, as any Church on earth at this day, whatever she or they have been; if they deny this, they deceive some that know them better than I. (See Preface to Mr. [Alexander] Shields’s Treatise against Separation, p. 1, where are these words, ‘And some on the other hand, who profess themselves presbyterians, are continuing in a stated schism from this Church, which yet is the purest in the world for doctrine, worship, discipline and government, even those [contrary] people themselves being judges.)
As to what he speaks of imposing on ministers of this Church, to make acknowledgement of steps of defection: I ask, what acknowledgement was impose anno 1638 upon those that had taken canonical oaths and made other steps of defection under the then prelacy? And yet never one of them was cast out merely for compliance, except it were for the [Scottish] Service-Book [of 1637], which was resisted in the beginning. There is difference between defections and scandals fallen into in a constituted and in a lapsed state of the Church. As civil laws, so ecclesiastic canons cannot look back, nor be well executed with respect to those times wherein they were absolute.
Moreover you call things evil which are not so, as I have showed. The sense of the evil of many wrong courses has been declared publicly in national fasts by acts of Assembly. As for forsaking, he tells us they have forsaken us. For want [lack] of a tentation [trial], we are not in the practice of these evils. As for other things that ye call wrong, ye would consider the importance of them before ye make them grounds of separation.
By ‘this national Church’, we mean not the doctrine, worship, discipline and government, etc.’ Those differ as accident and subject. But, the national Christian society adhering to the doctrine, worship, discipline and government, anciently received, maintained and sworn to, in our covenants, National and Solemn League.
Sir, what think ye now? Do ye think now that all such as are the true lovers of Zion, and desire their Lord’s approbation, will be most loth to cast off or separate from this national Church? Then we are agreed, come let us strike [shake] hands…
18. ‘We have a good constitution.’ This he calls a mere assertion. Why so?…
[p. 21] …That church which has a standard of doctrine without error, worship pure without men’s additions, discipline and government, in their constitution agreeable to, founded on, and appointed in the Word of God, and no sinful terms of communion imposed: that Church, I say, has a good constitution… Therefore we have a good constitution… Westminster Confession of Faith is a standard of doctrine without error…
19. He enquires what we mean by our good constitution. Answer:…
[p. 22] …and have bound ourselves by covenant to endeavor it in our places and stations; which covenant we still hold binding accordingly. Now, they would show they [the Scottish civil Estates at the Glorious Revolution] had no such design: as indeed they had no call or access to, or occasion for it at that time. By all this we may see how foolish and rash they are who still urge the renewing of the Solemn League and Covenant [of 1643]. Solomon has said, Prov. 20:18, “With good advice make war.’…
He adds, ‘there is never a word of its divine right nere, nor (of the obligation) of ‘our covenants, binding us to own it with our lives and estates, etc.’ Answer: I suppose many members of that meeting of Estates were not for these. But will he not let the earth help the Woman? Rev. 12:16,
20. How says he this act is comprehensive of all? The abolishing of prelacy is not comprehensive of the establishment of presbytery. Any other government, in which there is no prelacy or superiority of any office in the Church above presbytyrs, as Independency, Brownism, Erastianism, might have been settled after that act, as well as presbytery. And it is known there were debates in the parliament about different forms and different draughts brought in, before presbytery was settled. Neither is it true that there was no other reason given in any other act than in this, as I have showed above.
Though that [which] we are chiefly to look to is what was established, what form of Church government was settled or constituted, and not what reasons or motives the Parliament were swayed by in settling it. If that which they allowed us to do was our duty, we ought to do it, and others, and ye among others ought to join with us in it and see our motives be right and sincerely good. We are not to answer for the reasnos and motives of other men’s actions, but our own, Gal. 6:4-5, ‘But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another, for every man shall bear his own burden.’
21. Yet for further satisfaction he will transcribe a part of another act, but he could not have transcribed anything more impertinent…
[p. 23] There are two parts of this [civil] act prior to this he transcribes. The first, securing episcopal incumbents in their kirks, manses, etc. upon their taking the Oath of Allegiance [to King William at the Glorious Revolution] before such a day. this is it, I call a grievance or burden to the Church, being an ease to an opposite party without her [the Church’s] consent. Yet it does not hinder the Church to meddle with them, if they be found insufficient, erroneous, scandalous or supinely negligent. It only secures them that neither the king will, nor the Church may cast them out merely for their judgment or profession as being episcopal, or not qualified by law.
…
22. Now, what are his remarks? First, what are the new ministerial qualifications, required by the magistrate, and the terms of ministerial communion in this present Church: viz. the Oath of Allegiance and Assurance. Answer: Allegiance is very improperly called a ministerial qualification. You may as well call it a ministerial qualification to be a man and not a woman, because the apostle has said, ‘I suffer not a woman to teach.’ Allegiance is the duty of a subject, and the quality of a good subject, a necessary qualification of a Christian subject, and so may be called a ministerial qualification in a large sense, a qualification sine qua non [without which nothing], as to be blameless, etc., which are the common duties of all Christians, but ought to be eminent in a minister who is to be exemplary.
…
As to what he speaks of terms of ministerial communion: The magistrate receives none to ministerial communion, neither prescribes rules in it to the Church. Such a thing indeed was once attempted in the year 1692 in obtruding the formula upon the General Assembly, as the terms of ministerial communion, for the episcopal [party] to be received upon. But this was rejected, and the importunity of the episcopal, whereby it was procured, resisted; and thereupon the Assembly dissolved: Of which this act was the result, to secure these episcopal in their possessions when they could not be received into ministerial communion.
…
[p. 24] 3dly, says he, ‘This constitution carries in its bosom the highest degree of Erastianism.’ Why so? This is surprising, for (says he) ‘the ministers power depends solely upon their sovereign’s allowance with consent of parliament.’ Answer: This is the perversion of the act I was complaining of, from which I said the perverseness of his design does appear. Was there ever? can there ever be a more gross perversion?
‘Their Majesty etc. statute, etc. that uniformity of worship and of the administration of all public ordinances within this Church be observed by all the saids ministers and preachers, as the same are at present performed and allowed by them, or shall be hereafter declared by the authority of the same.’
In a word, the act speaks of the authority of this Church, which the relative ‘the same’ respects, as is evident to all that will understand sense. He will have it [refer to] ‘their Majesty and the parliament’. But besides that the Church is the nearest, yea, I may say, the only antecedent, and plainly understood in the reading, how can that complex, ‘Their Majesty with advice and consent, etc.’ be comprehended in ‘the same’?…
I add, the king and parliament never took upon them to declare any such thing, as how the worship and public ordinances within the Church are to be performed, but always left it to the Church herself, whose authority for that effect is plainly here acknowledged. This man can make Candida de nigris, et de candentibus atra [white things of black things and of coals things shining brilliantly], change things into their contraries and work wonders in his own imagination.
His last consequence, ‘and so have made themselves the vassals of men, not the ministers of Jesus Christ’ follows very natively by the rule, posito quolibet, sequitur quodlibet [whatever one pleases being posited, whatever one pleases follows], and is as well founded upon this act as upon any ground that I know.
…
[p. 25] 23. What more? A third act (but I told him he left out the most considerale, which should have been his second), ‘Act for securing, etc. Now your strong tower, etc. As is evident from the Commission’s act against Innovations, etc. what of all this? By which act of parliament ye are involved into all the guilt of that union.’ Answer: Sir, you should remember what you said even now. It’s an act of parliament, not of the Church…
He proceeds, ‘Is it the Assembly’s settling themselves according to the Act anno 1592?’ Sir, it was the parliament that settled presbyterian government according to the Act 1592, as had been done before, anno 1640 in the like case. The reason, because there is no other act of parliament that particularly defines the several kinds of Church judicatories. Therefore it is as our bounding charter in law, the standard of presbyterian government, to which subsequent parliaments must always have recourse, unless they will set up a new model of government, which is the thing you unjustly charge upon us, but had more just cause if we had taken another course than to recur to the ancient standard of that government which had been aimed at from the beginning of our first Reformation from Popery, had been in practice before the time of that act, and was confirmed by law and act of parliament 100 years ago.
You add, ‘Industriously passing over our best times.’ Answer: I thought these were not industriously passed over, when I read the Act 1690, and found, that the parliament had reserved the clause anent patronages to further consideration…
As for looking upon the civil sanction as absolutely necessary, not to the well-being only, but also to the being of a Church constitution, he has no reason to charge it upon us; but rather we have reason to charge it upon him, who makes so much work about acts of parliament, settling the Church government and the motives which induced members of parliament to make these acts. Whereas we hold that if we enjoy all the ordinances of Christ in purity, the Church is rightly constituted as to her intrinsic constitution, whether she have the civil sanction and countenance of civil authority or not, or from whatever motive the [p. 27] magistrate be induced to grant it, she has the same authority from Christ, and the same communion and subjection is due to Her, as appears from the state of the Church in the times of the apostles and afterward till Constantine’s time, and in the time of Julian the apostate.
24. You end your paragraph, so much for your first assertion: we have a good constitution…
25. To the first member of the argument (which is to you the second assertion) concerning the [Church’s] doctrine, you answer, ‘So have the Church of England, and so have the Independents, a doctrine without error: Are they not therefore to be separated from?’ I reply: Not upon account of their doctrine…
[p. 28] 26. Next, he attacks our worship. And after he has granted what he cannot deny (but he does it with a mock) that our worship is so far pure as that in the form thereof we do not mix with it those Popish ceremonies of crossings, etc. And the like he adds: ‘But shall your worship be accounted pure because not chargeable with these gross perversions, when you have other corruptions no less dangerous, though not so palpable and easy to be discovered?’ Let us hear his discovery…
[p. 31] 27. Now we are arrived at the discipline and government. And because this is the great knot of the controversy between us and our adversaries, both on the right and left hand, we must walk warrily.
…
[p. 34] …He adds, ‘[The Church is subject to the Erastian State] In making your [Church] acts valid.’ I remember I answered this before by a distinction. The acts of Church-judicatories are valid in foro eclesiastico, by her own intrinsic ecclesiastic authority, which she has from Christ her Head. But they need the extrinsic civil authority of the magistrate (which he has from God the Father, Lord of Heaven and Earth, Governor and King of the whole world) to be interposed, to make them valid, to give them the value and force of a law in foro civili. It is the civil sanction [which] is added by the magistrate which makes the transgressors liable to civil punishment. Without which many would care even as little for the acts of the Church with all their validity as Mr. John M’millan cares for the sentence of deposition passed against him when the law is not executed upon him.
28. ‘And even in the exercise of your ministry.’ This is a terrible thrust. It if hit, it will unminister us all at one dash… As is evident, says he. Whence I pray you? Why! from the act of parliament above quoted. What says it? Making it an essential requisite to any who would be a minister of this national Church that he swear and subscribe the Allegiance and Assurance. The argument is even this: He is a subject, and hard and fast bound to the duty of a subject, and acknowldgement of a sovereign. Therefore, he is no minister, no minister of Christ, or at least he subjects his ministry, which he has of Christ, to the magistrate, so as he cannot exercise it except the magistrate please. I know no principle can make this demonstration concludent, or, as they speak, scientific, but that Popish one, that ministers (or Kirk-men, as they call them) are not subject, a principle disowned in our Confession of Faith, ch. 23, sect. 4, ‘from which’ (viz. due obedience to the magistrate) ‘ecclesiastical persons are not exempted.’…
[p. 35] …But how does this oath, or the act of parliament requiring ministers to take this oath, make ministers dependent on the magistrate in the exercise of their ministry, when the oath only contains the duty of a subject, and speaks nothing either of the ministry or exercise of the ministry?
‘Yea, but the act enjoining it, makes it an essential requisite to a minister of this national Church.’ Answer: There is no such metaphysical term in the act as essential, but only that ministers of this national Church shall take it. The Church is considered not simply as a Church, but as national, having national and legal privileges, which they are deprived of that refuse this oath. It does not say he shall not be a minister if he take it not, but he shall not have the countenance and protection of civil authority, he shall not enjoy his benefice, shall not have allowance form the magistrate for, and encouragement in the exercise of his ministry. He shall not enjoy the peaceable public exercise of his ministry. And what wonder that the magistrate will not countenance them as ministers who will not bind themselves to him as subjects? that he will not let them preach to his subjects if he can hinder them, who will not promise and swear when required that they will not preach treason and rebellion against him, when they should teach them subjection and obedience to Christ? that he will not let them teach others what they call their duty to God who will not do their duty to their sovereign, but separate these things which God has conjoined, ‘Fear God, honor the king’? See more of this in the Seasonable Admonition and Exhortation of the Commission of the General Assembly, anno 1698, which you have neither obeyed neither yet given a reason of your disobedience; and in a Treatise against Separation, by Mr. Alexander Shields, one of your teachers, to whom you became his enemy, because he told you the truth…
…But [the magistrate] shows by this act whom he will countenance and protect in the exercise of the ministry, to whom he will give or allow the stipends and legal maintenance to encourage them in the exercise of the ministry, whom he will suffer to pass and repass, and exercise their ministry without hazard or molestation…
29. As for his questions and arguing to the end of this paragraph, seeing they do not concern the question in hand, I am no further concerned in them here than to recommend it seriously to mine own conscience and the consciences of my brethren to examine ourselves thoroughly and impartially, as in the presence of God, how far we are guilty of these things which this man so frequently and bitterly upbraids us withal: to humble ourselves before the Lord, for what we find upon search, to seek [p. 36] his reconciled face in Christ Jesus…
30. But I find I lose my labor in this last suit. He is not satisfied with the terms of our communion. What’s the matter? Finds he anything unlawful in them? One would think so: For he is not pleased that we assert them lawful. Does he assert them unlawful? I find not that either. Wherein lies the difference then? It seems he has nothing to say against the terms of our communion. Only he is dissatisfied that they are too few. He misses the covenants among them…
…that proposed by the Prefacer, viz. There are no sinful terms of communion imposed. Now he lays that quite by, never minds it. But I think it be not mere forgetfulness, for I remember he was coming to consider the terms of our communion which we assert lawful. And yet he never so much as asserts, far less proves them unlawful…
If he judge the terms of our communion lawful, then he must either join and keep communion with us, or maintain that a Church, the terms of whose communion are lawful, or, to keep to our these, in which there are no sinful terms of communion imposed, is yet to be separated from. This is a new tenet, never known before among men that called themselves presbyterians. I think they had reason, who, when these men began to call themselves ‘the true presbyterians of the Chuch of Scotland’, they called them ‘the new presbyterians’.
31. Before I leave this forecasten these, I shall improve it a little and show it is worth the taking up again. And that I may hold to my scope, I shall form it into an argument thus: That Church, which having sound doctrine, pure worship and discipline of divine institution, imposes no sinful terms of communion, is to be kept communion with, and not to be separated from. But this present national Church of Scotland is such, therefore, etc….
[p. 37] 32. Sinful terms or conditions I call:
1. If a person be put to condemn any thing he thinks lawful in his own former practice, or the practice of others, or in some point of doctrine, that is to him a point of truth. Now though there be some things in your practice and way that we are dissatisfied with, as ye are with some things in ours, though also there are some differences between us in opinion or judgment about some things, yet we do not require of you, or impose upon you to condemn those other opinions or practices if you think them right, though we think otherwise.
Now, can you not unite with us on these terms unless we be of your mind and follow your way in all things? On these terms there can never be union or communion on earth til all come to a perfect man; till we come to Heaven, where that which is perfect is come, and that which is in part is done away. Must we defer union till then? Does not the Scripture recommend Christian forbearance, that whereto we have attained, we walk by the same rule, mind the same things; and if in any thing any of us be otherwise minded, we should wait one upon another, till God reveal even these things unto us, Phil. 3:15-16.
2. If he be put to approve the deed and practice of others, which he accounts sinful, or to affirm somewhat as a truth, which he accounts error. Now we do not impose upon you to approve us wherein we differ from you either in judgment or practice. As we desire you to forbear us, bear with us wherein we differ from you, so we are willing to do the same to you. And if you be not willing upon these terms to unite, you must look upon all the precepts given of forbearance as no part of your rule.
3. When some engagement is required for the future, which does restrain from any duty called for, or that may afterward be called for. Now as we require no acknowledgment of you for time past, of what you are not convinced to be evil, so we seek no engagement for time to come that may hinder or restrain you from necessary duty. We hope you and we are agreed in necessary and fundamental points of truth and duty. Let us bear with one another in other things and live together in unity; there God commands the blessing.
…
33. Having thus strengthened my minor proposition, I crave liberty now, to return to the major; or, which is all one, to lay down some grounds and principles, proving and concluding that such a Church as is there described, and in particular [p. 38] this Church, being (as has been proven) so qualified, ought to be kept communion with, and not separated from:
1. It is a duty to maintain and entertain union and comunion with a Church where it can be done without sin. It is not a matter indifferent. It is a commanded duty, 1 Cor. 1:10, ‘Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same things, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment.’ 2 Cor. 13:11, ‘Be of one mind, live in peace, and the God of love and peace shall be with you.’… Now this being a duty so earnestly and frequently recommended, who dare disobey, and his heart not condemn him, and marr his confidence before God? 1 Jn. 3:20-21. See Ps. 50:16-17. No exception from this rule, no excuse from this duty but one, Acts 5:29, ‘We ought to obey God rather than man.’ And this is so clear that it makes the equity of the cause appear even to adversaries. Acts 4:19, ‘Whether it be right in the sight of God, to hearken unto you, more than unto God, judge ye.’
Then they do not separate themselves, Jud. 19, but are separated, Lk. 6:22. Do not therefore say, ye do such thing which we do not approve; therefore we cannot join with you. This cannot justify your separation, seeing we do not require your consent to, or approbation of those things, or impose this as the terms of Chuch communion, or require anything of you which is inconsistent with obedience to God.
2. A Church having and owning sound doctrine without error, pure worship, without superstitious mixtures, Christ’s discipline, without offices or officers of human institution, or ordinances and observances contrary to or not warranted by the Word of God, and imposing no sinful terms of communion, may be kept communion with, without sin. For where is the sin of it? What wants [lacks] it to be a completely qualified Church for communion? Sound doctrine, pure worship, and divinely instituted government are the integral parts of a Church-constitution. Where these are entire, there is nothing lacking in the constitution. (as where they are pure there is nothing redundant; human inventions, added to divine institutions, in religious matters and actions, in order to supernatural ends, being rejected.)
And where no sinful terms of communion are imposed, there is nothing extrinsic to the constitution that should hinder communion. The former three complete a Church (make her entire and sound) in her intrinsic constitution. This last removes all external, moral impediments of communion, so as there is nothing that should hinder a minister, or private Christian, to join in communion with a Church so constituted. His Christian calling leads him thereto, upon the one side, and he has access to the same upon the other. No moral impediment bars him from it: for personal faults in pastors or members do not make communion unlawful, and do not warrant separation. Others being defective in their duty will not absolve him from his, which he owes, by virtue of his station. (For this and te former proposition, see Durham, On Scandal, pt. 4, ch. 7, rules 2-3)
3. Hence it clearly follows that such a Church so qualified, and so this Church now so qualified (as has been shown, sect. 31-32), ought to be kept communion with, and not to be separated from.
Lest you say these are mere assertions, I argue thus: That Church which may be kept communion with, without sin, ought to be kept communion with, and not to be separated from, Proposition 1. But this present Church may be kept communion with, without sin, Proposition 2. Therefore, this present Church ought to be kept communion with, and not to be separated from, Proposition 3. Now I have done with my probation. Let me hear your objections.
34. I come now to consider how he has considered the terms of our communion, which we assert lawful, or what he says against them. Remember now the thing he should do, is to say something against the lawfulness of them, else he says nothing to the purpose…
He should therefore go to the Scriptures, which are the laws of Christ, else he can never prove the terms of our communion unlawful. ‘To the law and the to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them,’ Isa. 8:20. Acts of Assembly and parliament are but human acts, which can never satisfy the conscience, without divine authority. And they may be removed by the same authority whereby they were fixed.
The boundaries of the communion of Christ’s Church are more firm. She is built, He has built her, upon the Rock, even Himself, the doctrine of his Word, this Word, that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and has promised the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her, Mt. 16:18.
Hence I argue: That society which is built upon and adheres to the truth of God I summed up in this fundamental Gospel-truth, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, that is Christ’s Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. But the present national Church of Scotland is built upon and adheres to this truth. Therefore, the present national Church of Scotland is Christ’s Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her, come of acts of Assemblies or parliaments what may.
When Assemblies repeal their acts, their civil sanction falls with them. This they may do if they see cause. When parliament rescind the acts establishing a national Church, acts of assemblies cannot be put in execution, and so fall in desuetude. This was our case. We were many years, we had no use or benefit, either of these acts of Assemblies or of the civil sanction of parliamentary authority ratifying them. Where were then the boundaries of the Church of Scotland’s communion? Was there no Church in Scotland then? Had that Church no communion? Or that communion no boundaries? What then became of the promise made by Christ to his Church, that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it? Were none then members of the Church of Scotland but those who took the covenants? They behoved either to have the covenant administered unto them, but by whom was or could this be done? or they behoved to be excluded from the communion of the Church.
I do not hear that the covenants were administered since the year 1649. What were the boundaries of the communion of the Church of Scotland from that to the year 1662, when presbyterian ministers were turned out? ‘Tis true, in much of that time, the government of the kingdom was broken and the government of the Church divided. But I do not hear that either of these divided parties administered the covenants to those under their government. If it was lawful then to keep communion with the Church of Scotland (and I suppose, he will say, it was so with the one party at least) when the Covenants were not the boundaries of her communion, why is it not so now? Church communion is a perpetual binding duty, whatever changes and alterations be in times and states, and therefore has a surer warrant than those changeable acts, either of Assemblies or parliaments, both which may be and have been dissolved and removed, not only the acts, but the judicatories from which they have their authority.
[p. 40] 35. The act of Assembly, anno 1639, bears no certification of summary excommunication or any particular censure, but in general under all ecclesiastical censures, which censure certainly was to be carried on by due form of ecclesiastical process. And what wonder they were liable to censure who refused to give a confession of their faith when asked of them? (1 Pet. 3:15) Yea, and to confirm it by oath when required by lawful authority, Mt. 26:63-63.
The act, anno 1640, sect. 5, is against such [persons], as having taken the covenant, speak against it, which involves perjury. If he be a minister, he is at first to be deprived only of ministerial communion, and to be excommunicated only if he continue so being deprived. If her be any other man, he is not instanter to be excommunicated, but to be dealt with as perjured, and satisfy publicly for his perjury. The other [part], sect. 10, concerns only expectants [those in training for the ministry], who are to be processed only in case of obstinacy. None of those prove that refusing to take the covenant deprived [persons] of Church communion simpliciter.
As for the ratification by civil authority which he subjoins: If he can procure us such a ratification now, or show us how an act of the General Assembly, or of inferior Church judicatories to this effect can be made effectual without it, we shall be ready to go in with him to the renewing of the National Covenant [of 1638]. After which it will be time to consider these acts against secret disaffecters of the Covenant, for censuring speakers against the Covenant, and against expectants (or others) refusing to subscribe the same.
In the act of Assembly, July 1648, I find only mention of the ‘Covenant’, not the ‘Covenants’: and the act of Commission in October thereafter, bound in with the [Westminster] Confession of Faith, is only for renewing of the Solemn League and Covenant [1643]. So that he cannot show from the records of the Church of Scotland that our covenants, National and Solemn League, were the terms of her communion, even at that time.
If he say the National Covenant was upon the matter comprehended in the Solemn League and Covenant, in respect it bound to the maintenance of the same religion: We may say the same of our [Westminster] Confession of Faith, which we subscribe. Moreover I do not understand how the Solemn League and Covenant, being a league with England, could be the boundary of our communion, or the terms of it, or to have anything to do with our communion at all, except insofar as it concerns religion. It obliges to endeavor the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government; but it sets no bounds to these. Why a civil league with another kingdom should be imposed as a condition of Church communion, I do not comprehend. All that he can show from these records is that it was thought fit to put through that covenant at that time.
There is not the same occasion for it now. There was then, it seems, a common enemy seeking the destruction of religion in all the three kingdoms, which made it necessary to them to league together for the preservation of it against the common enemy, as they there express it.
He comes to enquire, ‘If these same Covenants be the terms of communion with the now established Church.’ I answer: Owning and adhering to the true reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government, is the terms of our communion, or, as it is in the National Covenant:
‘the joining of ourselves willingly to this true reformed Kirk in doctrine, faith, religion, discipline and use of the holy sacraments.’
If an oath or covenant were thought fit to be administered as the terms of communion, I think it should be rather the National Covenant, or such an oath which is wholly religious, than one made up of matters religious and civil. Why should it be the terms of our communion in Scotland, especially when we were a distinct kingdom [before 1707], to maintain the privileges of the parliament of England and the liberties of the subjects there? These are civil matters, of which it is not proper for Church judicatories to cognosce, far less to impose them upon all Church members, as terms of Church [p. 41] communion. Civil oaths are to be administered by civil rulers, to whom it does not belong to make or impose terms of Church-communion.
36. He needed not be at pains to prove that the taking of the covenants is not the terms of our communion, if it were not to make a quarrel with us. He quarrels:
First, ‘Our never making them of force in our acts of Assemblies [after the Glorious Revolution].’ Answer: We acknowledge them to be of real force, without an act to make them so. That would be but a borrowed force, and might as easily be taken away as given. The force of an oath is more intrinsic. The General Assembly anno 1690, in the Causes of Solemn Humiliation, acknowledged the force of them, in aggravating our other sins from the breach of them.
2. ‘Not imposing them upon entrants [to the ministry].’ Answer: Why upon entrants more than others? Would he have entrants to reform England their alone? entrants are required to subscribe the Confession of Faith and engage to submit to and own presbyterian Church government, and observe uniformity in worship. What would he have more? We look upon this as a test of faithfulness to the Church of Scotland.
He adds, 3. ‘Your not preaching up their obligation’ Answer: This is false.
4. ‘Nor moving their renovation.’ Answer: Several Church judicatories have moved for renewing the National Covenant, but these men deal with all alike. As for renewing the Solemn League and Covenant at this time, when we have no call or access to, or occasion for the duties contained in it, it were a taking of the name of the Lord in vain.
As to what he speaks of the Oath of Allegiance and Assurance, and the act enjoining them: these things were spoken to before. The imposition of the State, whether injurious or not, is not to be imputed to the Church, it not being the Church’s act, but the State’s. As for our not opposing the State in it, if he mean in making of the act they never sought our consent: as to what he says of ‘heartily embracing’ (he should rather say we submitted; he will judge men’s hearts), our practice I justified before from the Confession of Faith. I know no Church judicatory that excluded any of their members for not being thus qualified. I told him before, it belongs to civil rulers to administer civil oaths, not to Church judicatories.
He asks, ‘What are the terms of our communion?’ I answered that already.
‘Is it subjection to your judicatories?’ answer: That and more, as I showed.
He says, ‘Subjection to our judicatories is unlawful.’ Why? ‘If unlawfully constituted.’ Answer: That has not been proved. ‘And carrying on unlawful courses.’ What unlawful courses? ‘To the subversion of the ancient acts and laws of the Church of Scotland.’ How is this evident? From the consideration of their contrariety to her ancient practices. But he has not made this contrariety appear.
‘Then,’ says he, ‘subjection to your judicatories does necessarily involve the persons subjecting themselves into these courses.’ Answer: This may be true of a judicatory unlawfully constituted. But where a person has liberty to dissent, and has a free vote, their dissent frees them from the guilt of these unlawful courses that are carried on, otherwise none could with a safe conscience be a member of any judicatory. And consequently in this case, or under this constitution, subjection is not unlawful.
37. But after all, how does this meet with the question in hand? To prove the terms of our communion unlawful because the covenants are not the terms of our communion, this will be an argument to disprove communion with any Church in the world. For no Church in the world has these covenants for the terms of their communion more than we. Some episcopal men say they cannot keep communion with us because we do not repeat the Lord’s Prayer. Some have answered them, the repeating of the Lord’s Prayer is nowhere in Scripture made a necessary condition of Church communion. So say we of renewing the Covenant. Though the obligation of it be perpetual, yet the renewing of it is a duty to be performed only in its season. Reformations have been without renewing of a national covenant, as well as with it, by several reforming kings of Judah. Mr. Rutherford in his Letters, pt. 2, last epistle [1661, Letter 363, to Robert Campbell], has these words:
‘I believe he comes quickly who will remove our darkness, and will shine gloriously in the isle of Britain as a crowned King, either in a formally sworn covenant, or in his own glorious way, which I leave to the determination of his infinite wisdom and goodness.’
.
.
.