IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 1.25 ^ m ^ us, 1. ,. WUi. 1.4 |2.2 !ii6_ V <^ /i Photographic Sciences Corporalion 33 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14S80 (716) 873-4303 \ iV ^^ <^ %. '"f^. % ^ ^mP MP 4ip f CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ D D D D D Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurie et/ou pellicul6e □ Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque □ Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents r~7\ Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ Lareliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6td filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mentaires: L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. j I Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Pages restored and/oi Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes I I Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ D Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d6color6es, tachet^es ou piqu^es I I Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es Showthroughy Transparence Quality of prir Quality inigale de rir>' pression Includes supplementary materia Comprend du matdriel suppldmentaire r~> Showthrough/ r^ Quality of print varies/ r~~| Includes supplementary material/ n Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 film6es A nouveau de facon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est iWmi au taux de reduction indiquy errata ed to mt me pelure, aeon d 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: IVIetropolitan Toronto Library Social Sciences Department The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -^(meaning "CON- TINUED "). or the symbol V (meaning END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: 1 t 3 L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce d la g6n6rosit6 de: Metropolitan Toronto Library Social Sciences Department Les images suivantes ont 6X6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim^e sont film^s en commenqant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmds en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ► signif ie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est filmd d partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombra d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 4 5 6 a %iii lta^W%^'Wn^W«^V«»*^f^W%^'W%^- IPOLITAN INTO THE ySP O IA L POSITION 1 locial Sciences OF ^^ REFORMED Biiltmm If C E« ft lisii jT BY THE REV. WILLIAM SOMMERVILLE, NOVA SCOTIA. \ 1 w^ 285.271 S5B -<- londOnderey : t;*RI«rf1it) BY JAMES MAOPHEESON, AT THE STANDARD STEAM BOOK PRINTING HOU^E, FUMP-ST. METROPOLITAN TORONTO CENTRAL LIBRARY Social Sciences jj"iiw.jj«W SS'6 hak 17 m I i¥E*»i^->Ar #W 1 AiKa^ ^ ' 'V' ,-.. THE SOCIAL POSITION OF .'^11 ■/■J ;,■;.; ;r:„; ^reslrgtmans 0r Cameranianis. ■f:Ji ■' '> .::.';;-. f. "What! Another Essay on the Principles and standing of Cameronians ! Are we never to have done with their high claims and assumption?" We want to have our principles known, examined, subjected to the most severe comparison with the living oracles of God. Our historical position is strong, but we attach more importance to our Scriptural position. For nearly two hundred years our distinctive principles have been before the public, yet very generally they are not understood. It is only yesterday that Dr. Begg, a talented and usually well-in- formed minister of the Free Church, represented Cameronians as holding that Magistracy is founded in ffrace ; and the Eev. T. M'Kenzie Frazer, Professor of Theology in Australia, describes them as "Montanists of modern times — gloomy ascetics — ferocious fanatics — who represent a life of holiness as synony- mous with a life of austerity and gloom, deter men from Christ, and frighten men from salvation, and make the already * strait gate' still narrower than it is.'' When such men discover so much ignorance, is it to be expected that the common peoplo should be better informed ? The fact seems to be that our Presbyterian brethren of other denominations do not desire to know, or to havp others to know, what our principles are, and give practical evidence that it ia with reluctance they acknowledge our existence at all. Our views are not unworthy of a, fireside exposition ; but public dis- cussion is carefully avoided when possible. Dr. A. King, of Halifax, N.8., Professor of Theology for tho Presbyterian Church 2 of the Lower Provinces of British North America, condescended to point out, at least on two occasions, to his students in the lecture-room, the unfounded claims of Reformed Presbyterians. Dr. Clarke, of Amherst, published a reply to his first attack, but the Professor is silent. What his motives were I know not. One thing I know, that, respecting our historical position, he would not have been able to explain away the hard facts brought forward by Dr. Clarke ; and a protracted discussion might have excited the interest of the people, brought Beformed Presby- terian claims into more general notice, and led to a result very different from what th(^ Professor contemplated. Dr. King is a strong assertor that the Free Church has put on the mantle which fell from the departed actors in the Second Reformation, and, I believe, claims for that Church to be the children of the Solemn League and Covenant. I would not be less rejoiced than Dr. King himself to know the claim to be in aof ordance with the facts. As an individual, he holds the Solemn League and Covenant to be still binding on Britain and aU her depen- dencies. The existence of Dr. K., and of men of a kindred spirit in the Free Church is full of promise to that active and influential body. Our presence is an offence to the ministers of other Presby- terian denominations. Only a few years have passed since the late Dr. J. Edgar, in the General Assembly of L*eland, said — ** My Covenanting brethren have served their generation very well, and as to continuing the Co\renanting Church any longer in Lreland, in our presence, it is not necessary." At the same time, he claims for the Assembly to be " bearing the same testi- mony for truth before the world as our Covenanting brethren." Professor Prazer, on the other side of the globe, is quite indig- nant that the Eev. A. M. Moore " must needs pitch his taber- nacle in Geolong," where, in his judgment, there is "enough of Churches already." With the exception of the Eev. A. M; Stavely, located in St. John, New Brunswick, there is not a Reformed Presbyterian minister in Nova Scotia or New Bruns- wick, who pitched his tabernacle in any place where the Gospel was preached by a Presbyterian minister of any denomination. This is the simple fact, without conceding that any apology is needed for entering any locality where we find Covenanters, no matter who have been before us. Cumberland, in Nova Scotia, had, I think, been twice entered and twice abandoned by the Presbyterians of that Province. Mr., now Dr., Clarke, with no better encourageinGnt from one, who afterwards and always proved a constant friend, than that he might come and settle if he could live on marsh hay and potatoes — fare on which, I do not say, better men — for on that point different individuals will take the liberty oi' forming their own judgment; I do not say better scholars — ^for Cameronian coui Preg popi tice,| thei are has Thej •aid] icended in the ;erian8. ck, but 3W not. ion, he )rought ht have Presby- ult very ing is a mantle niation, n of the rejoiced 'ordance . League : depen- kindred itive and Presby- since the d, said — bion very ly longer the same ime testi- rethren." ite indig- his taber- enough of v. A. M. I is not a ;w Bruns- he Gospel >mination. apology is inters, no CO entered Province, from one, than that 1 hay and or on that ining their ameronian • 3 ministers are as T^ell educated as those of other denominationr. Edgar, ''Our brother. Dr. Clarke, has served his generation well, and as to his continuing the Covenanting minister any longer, in our presence, it is not necessary. We bear the same testimony for truth before the world as our Cove- nanting brethren." When I came to King's County, the Presbyterian minister was superannuated in mind and body. He had been educated and licensed in connection with the Established Church of Scot- land, but ordained in the United States, and never had any Pres- byterial connection with the Established or any other Church. He was simp.y the minister of the Presbyterians of Comwaliis, who, as thosn of Horton, knew no more of one Presbyterian body than aaother. The Presbyterian Church of Nova Scotia was not kno\^n in the county, and the Free Church had no existence. The Rev. Geo. Struthers, who succeeded the aged minister of Cornwallis, beginning his ministay in the Estab- lished Church, declared, aft yr the disruption, in favour of the Free Church ; and as he made no public intimation of the step he had taken, but continued to minister to the people, without^ asking whether they approved the change and were still disposed to retain him ; from being, in opposition to Covenanters, ardent Establishment men, they became members of the Free Church by an almost imperceptible process; and, after the union of the ■Free Church and the Presbyterian Church of Novt* Scotia, mem- bers of the united body, with the same facility. In the mean- time, I am labouring in Horton, West Cornwallis, and the county of Annapolis, aad gathering the scattered and destitute Presbyterians. But the improved state of the country, increased population, and more geaoral intercourse, brings places into no- tice, beforeonly heard of; the great body of Presbyterians feel themselves competent to take charge of the whole field ; and we are in tlie way. During thirty-five years, the Head of the Church has sustained me, and, in later times, my fellow-labourers. There is no ground of charge to bring against us ; it viU not be itaid we do not preach the gospel ; there i^ no disposition openly to impugn our distinctive position ; but we are in the tcay» I had to contradict a statement made in the public prints, which ig- nored the existence of my brother Stewart, and claimed for another minister, settled in Annapolis, the whole county. I heard a member of the Halifax Presbytery, in open court, assign, as a fieldof labour to one of their ministers, expressly the ground I occupy, and had occupied, before the body to which they be- longed had an existence, and Horton, and, with strong emphasis, Lower ffortony where my son labours. The interpretation is easy — «?« are in the wcy — and must be exterminated or driven out. This representation may be met by a denial, perhaps an in- dignant denial, and, in some cases, an honest denial. It is probable that, frequently, self-decoption goes before the de- ception of others. If our Presbyterian brethren of other deno- minations, (I might say brethren of any denomination), desire to cherish Christian affection. Christian intercourse; and to secure Christian co-operation with Reformed Presbyterians, we are pre- pared to reciprocate their advances, or to make advances to them, BO far as no compromise is involved. If they see no necessity for a divided Presbyterian Church, and desire the union of all its sec- tions, we are as ardently devoted to union as they are, and are under Covenant bonds to promote it. Let them come and accept the Reformed testimony, and identify themselves with us. " What ! Join the Cameronians ! What an absurd proposal ! Rather than be deprived of religious privileges, I would unite with Methodists, or Congregationalistj, or Episcopalians, but with Cameronians, never." Why not? It is precisely as far from Halifax to Liverpool, as from Liverpool to Halifax ; and their sacrifice in joining us, to take the lowest view of it, would not be greater than ours in joining them. Union with us is not Bought, but we are expected to lay down our convictions, our conscience, our profession, at the feet of the Free Church, the Irish Assembly, Presbyterian Church of the Lower Provinces of British North America, or &c. ; and if we are not prepared to do this, mining processes must be adopted which are calculated, if not intended, to sap the foundations of the fortress, which can- not be" taken by assault. By a hug or by a blow, Cameroniai5 ism must be crushed in Ireland, in Australia, in the British Pro- vinces of North America. Now, abstractly, I have no objection whatever to this attempt at extermination. Let our Presbyterian friends show that we are opposed to the doctrine of Christ, to the ordinances of Christ, to the laws of Christ, or, in general, that we occupy a ground inimical to the Kingdom of Q-od ; in these things there is a legitimate ground of action and of opposition ; but the protest of the Lord is lodged against the Romish attempt at extermi~ nation, by art or arms, simply because we do not follow with ihtm. That the Reformed Presbyterian Church has an impor- ■' ■« tant mission to fulfil, and that the state of religion of the Churches and of the nations, at the present moment, make it all the more important, I am fully convinced. Let those who would represent us as contemptible and base, and desire our removal to give place to better men, show cause. Let them not copy the example of those who, when asked, "Why, what evil hath ho done ?" had no answer to give, yet still reiterated the demand of crucifixion. Let those who desire to rejoice in simplicity and godly sincerity examine what we have to say in vindication of our "Social position," and the reason why we must still stand alone, and resist the current which is carrying the Churches on to organic union, with a rapidity that allows no time to think whether such union may not involve large sacrifices of faith and of a good conscience. We are not afraid of the result. I do not say I -^ould be glad that the exposition of our distinctive principles had fallen upon an abler advocate, because, commou as such an introductory statement is, it is as commonly referred to " voluntary humility." I have assumed the respon- sibility, and I shall execute the task as well as I can. There shall be no trimming, no evasion, no concealment. I glory in Reformed Presbyterian principles, believing them to be *' the word of the kingdom:" not less that, occasionally, some persons would turn my glory into shame. The reader will have observed that, in stating the subject of this Essay, Reformed Presbyterians are identified with Came- romans. We are sometimes called by the latter name ; in particular, when it is intended to utter a reproach, or to direct the finger of scorn. If there is anything reproachful or con- temptible in Reformed Presbyterianism, it is certainly not in the name. It is no reproach to be called a Cameronian. Wherever Britain's superiority is felt, the name of Cameronian is had in honour. The British soldier would not understand the man who affected to make Cameronian a term of reproach. I have always understood that, in the military history of Britain, honourable mention is made of the 26th Regiment of Infantry — that, for courage and conduct, it has shared a full proportion of the honours of the field. The 26th is the Cameronian Eegiment. The origin of the Cameronian Regiment is curious ; as ro- mantic as it is curious ; and interesting as it is romantic, to every man who is capable of appreciating lofty principle, reso- lute attachment to personal and political liberty, and victorious integrity. The Church of Scotland had been organized and established on the basis of the Solemn League and Covenant — an instrument which had been approved by the General Assembly, and ratified by the Parliament of Scotland, sworn and subscribed by the members of the Westminster Assembly, and of the Parliament of England, sworn and subscribed by Chaj:les II., on his eleva- e tion to tlio llirono of Scotland. Charles was dostitute of in- tegrity and truth, and oaths cannot hold men bound who are destitute of principle. He had no sooner been seated on the throne of England, without conditions, than he connnenced to overthrow the ecclesiastical constitution wliioh he had sworn to support ; and he found, in the land of his fathors, instruments willing, at the cost of the lilce perjury, to second his projects. An Act was passed in 16G1, lor " securing what was termed the Royal prerogative — inothor words, for making tlie King supreme judge in all matters civil and ecclesiastical. To this was after- wards added the Oath of Allegiance, which bound the subject to acknowledge the supreme power of the King in all matters civil and religious, and made it high treason to deny it." These and other laws are framed which make it criminal to have more of Presbyterianism than the name. Banishment, imprisonment, torture, and death are the portion of ministers and people, who have regard to their solemn convictions and their oaths. But the Devil and his children have often found that form fails to accomplish its object against conscience, and allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ. The api)le of discord is thrown among the ministers in the form of indulgences. They are permitted to exercise their ministry under conditions, but such as no Presby- terian, even less high-toned than sworn adherents of the Solemn League could consistently and cheerfully accept. This led to division among Presbyterian ministers, which culminated, upon the part ot Cargill, Cameron, and their followers, in wide sepa- ration and estrangement from their less consistent and reso- lute brethren. Convinced that the course pursued by Charles and his supporters tended to, if it did not, involve the sub- version of all liberiy, and must ultimately place the nation under the feet of the despot, they boldly refused to own him as sovereign, and proclaimed war against him. They did right. To that daring step we are indebted for the Eevolution of 1688, and the advantages growing out of it. The men who could tamely, or even restively, subnrlt their consciences to human dictation, and accept of an indulgence which implied the right of the ruler to say upon w hat terms they are to preach, and where, and the out-spoken advocates of passive obedience, could afford no hope of an effective opposition to the encroachments of power, still less of the subversion of the government of the oppressor. The attitude assumed by the Cameronians antici- pated the Eevolution, and constituted the only intelligible index that a change must come, and soon. They could not have occupied their place for a year had they not been sustained by a wide-spread, though latent, and perhaps, in some cases, uncon- scious sympathy. I am not alone in this judgment. I quote the words of Dr. Charters, as they are reported in a review of the *' Tales of my Landlord," Christian, Instructor, 1817. They i fi titiite of in- iind who are ated on the minionced to lad sworn to instruments his projects. 8 termed the lijxg supreme is was after- the subject n all matters yit." These to have more nprisonment, people, who oaths. But form fails to i'iance to the 'n among the permitted to 18 no Presby- )f the Solemn This led to linated, upon n wide sepa- nt and reso- d by Charles >lve the sub- 9 the nation ) own him as ley did right. :tion of 1688, en who could es to human, lied the right preach, and dience, could oachments of Qment of the nians antici- ligible index uld not have istained by a ^ases, uncon- )nt. I quote . a review of 817. They have been often quoted, but they are so eloquent, so expressive of genuine sympathy with the oppressed, and of a generous appreciation of patriotic and Christian self-devotion, they deserve to be repeated. *' Their stand: iid on the mountains of Scotland indicated to the vigilant eye of William that tlie nation was ripening for a change. They expressed wliat others tliought, uttering the ii;idignation and tlio j^roans of a spirited and oppressed people. They investigated and taught under tlie guidance of feeling the reciprocal obligatit)ns of kings and subjects, the duty of self-defence and of resisting tyrants, tlie generous principle of assisting the oppressed, or in their language, helping the Lord against the mighty. These subject.s, which liad been investigated by philosophers in the closet, and adcwned with eloquence in the senate, were then illustrated by men of feeling in tlie Held. While Eussel and Sydney, and other enlighteneTl patriots in England, were plotting against Charles, from a conviction that his right was forfeited, the Cameronians, in Scotland, under the same conviction, had the courage to declare war against him. Both the plotters and the warriors fell ; but their blood watered the plant of renown, and succeeding ages have eaten the pleasant fruit." Hethorington, the Free Church his- torian, says — " When we read these papers, (Queensferry paper and Sanguhar Declaration), and compare them with the great national declarations which form the basis of the Revolution, we cannot resist the conviction that, in the former, we perceive the small germ out of which arose British Liberty, that plant of re- nown, under the world-wide branches of which all tribes and kindreds of mankind rejoice. Almost the only real difference between the Declaration of the Cameronians, or rather the true Presbyterians, and that of the Convention of Estates at the Re- volution, consisted in the former being the act of a small band of enlightened and determined patriots, the latter that of the nation. While, therefore, none who approve the latter can con- sistently condemn the former, every generous heart will bestow the meed of warmest approbation upon those who, in the midst of reproach, danger, and death, laid the foundation-stone and began the structure, cemented with their blood of civil and re- ligious liberty, which men of less heroic mould were permitted in calmer and brighter days to rear." The Cameronians were no ignorant fanatics ; they wore no savage monsters of the moun- tain and the moor, (though often obliged there to find a hiding- place from the ruthless hunter), whom no argument could con- vince, no discipline tame, and no kindness mollify. They were no enemies of government. When the Revolution dawned on Britain, the convention of Estates had no confidence of protec- tion, during their deliberations, from the soldiers who, at the bidding of godless, drunken, and selfish minions of despotism, (some of whom were in the Convention), hunted the Camero- nians li) cartridges on the hills, shot them down without trial or ev vccu, aticn, tortured children to compel them to discover their < larent , and exerted their bravery in enforcing a law, which .'.m. it criminal in a father to give shelter and bread to his 6* '*- son to perform the like offices of humanity to his fath i'he Cameronians offered their services (some say they were applied to), to guard the Convention, and they were ac- cepted. Scotland's legislator? were not afraid of the men who had learned to endure hardness, even under their own hard re- gimen, who had kept a good conscience towards God, in the day of cruel suffering, and who could not but be faithful to the in- terests of trath, of liberty, of man. Cla^erhouse ** pretended that he was in daily danger of his life, and insisted on the Came- ronians being dismissed," but found no sympathy in the Con- vention, whonad a reasonable share of worldly wisdom and knew their men. When afterwards, his mercenary sword having been laid at the feet of William and refused, he raised the standard of James and threatened to obstruct the Revolution then in pro- gress, the Cameronians " raised a regiment of eight hundred (800) men, without beat of drum or expense of levy, under the command of the Earl of Angus, a nobleman hardly twenty years of age, and only son of the Marquis of Douglass. Such was the origin of the Cameronian Regiment,^'' in the beginning "composed of those holding the extreme views of the Covenanters, who had disowned the tyrannical government of James, and who were al- most alike inimical to the Prelatical and the Indulged clergy. Every man in the ranke was a religious enthusiast, in the best sense of that term, fired with zeal, based on stern and uncompro- mising principle, and aiming not merely to free his country from civil thraldom, but mainly to restore the reign of Presbytery and the Covenant, and put down aU opposers." The existence of the Cameronian regiment is associated with an unanswerable refutation of the representations of ignorance and prejudice, that the Cameronians of the times of Charles and of James were ignorant, fanatical, unsocial, enemies of all order and good government, and that their principles were anarchical and mischievous. No man who is acquainted with the history of Cameronianism is ashamed of the name. It is the history of political and moral health. I am not ashamed of it. lam a Cameronian. But a victory obtained by the Cameronian regiment, single- handed, and which " may be said to have secured the success of the Revolution in Scotland," may not be unnoticed. It is re- presented by Chambers as "one of the most unexceptionably bril- liant exploits which occurred throughout the whole of this war" of the Revolution ; and when JV. Chambers testifies in favour of a Cameronian, the testimony may be safely accepted. After the victory of Claverhouse over M'Kay, at Killicrankie, which was neutralii meronia were lef they we an attac were fui not tell when th or to wl attribut( while th dipped i meronia took up, down b; recollect kie. T] lets wer convert€ fully res to themf enemy, tations c to perse but not from 7 c and offei ascribed TheC profess 1 willing i Estates, cal and ( afterwai two or t" King. principL store th( Solemn '. would c " Devils to accej not obta The tem A motle; and retu who, in 9 thout trial to discover ng a law, d bread to nity to his :e say they were ac- 3 men who n hard re- in the day [ to the in- pretended the Came- 1 the Con- L and knew iving been e standard len in pro- t hundred under the '^enty years ch was the "composed 1, who had 10 were al- ed clergy, in the best uncompro- intry from jytery and lated with ignorance harles and f all order anarchical he history history of t. lam a nt, single- success of It is re- nably bril- ' this war" favour of After the which waa neutralised by the death of the victorious commander, the Ca- meronians, to the number of seven or eight hundred (700 or 800) were left in the heart of the Highlands, we cannot tell how, but they were left ; they were denied succours, when apprehending an attack, we cannot tell by whom, but they were denied ; they were furnished with a barrel of figs instead of powder, we can- not tell how, but the mistake was made ; a troop was withdrawn when the attack was made on them : we know no more to whom or to what this untoward combination of circumstances is to be attributed than to whom to refer the massacre of Glencoe. But while the gray hairs of the old and confiding M 'Donald were dipped in the blood of his sons, a happier issue awaited the Ca- meronians at Dunkeld. The seven or eight hundred boldly took up, in favour of William and Mary, the gauntlet thrown down by four or five thousand Highlanders, animated by the recollection of their victory over superior numbers at Killicran- kie. They husbanded their small stock of powder. When bul- lets were exhausted, they melted the lead of Dunkeld house and converted it into slugs to meet the lack of balls. They success- fully resisted the repeated assaults of the enemy, with small loss to themselves, but with so much slaughter in the ranks of the enemy, that neither the taunts of the Cameronians nor the solici- tations of their own officers could prevail upon the Highlanders to persevere, as they said " they were willing to fight with men, but not with Devils :" and after a struggle, which was protracted from 7 o'clock, a.m., till 11 p.m., " the conquerors sung Psalms, and offered thankgivings to the Almighty, to whom alone they ascribed their deliverance." Tlie Cameronians, at the Eevolution, in addressing William, profess themselves as willing to be his subjects as they were un- wilhng to be the slaves of James ; and, in their petition to the Estates, ask simply the redintegration of the constitution, politi- cal and ecclesiastical, which had been ratified by Charles, and afterwards disowned and violated. They offered also to raise two or three other regiments to be placed at the service of the King. The offer was declined. It neither consisted with the principles, the policy, nor the circumstances of William, to re- store the Constitution based on the National Covenant and the Solemn League ; and one possessing less discernment than he would clearly see that, with three or four regiments of such " Devils" as had fought at Dunkeld, he was far more likely to accept than to dictate terms. The Cameronians could not obtain a recognition of their beloved covenanted constitution. The temple wliicli Charles had overturned was not to be restored. A motley combination of men who had fled or been banished, and returned when the battle had been fought and won — of men who, in violation of their solemn vows, had accepted the ludul- 10 gences of Charles and of James, and now crept forth from th* limits within which they had been placed ; of young ministers, who had been educated under Prelacy, and would have acquiesced in an Episcopal regimen, to whom were afterwards added hun- dreds of Episcopal curates, who had occupied the places of Scotland's outed ministers, and were willing to be Presbyterians, upon Royal terms, for a morsel of bread — quietly stepped in to occupy the fields which Cameronians had cultivated in privation and reproach — an example which their successors are very willing to copy. Men who had not piety enough to confess in what they had evei sinned, acted as if they were ashamed to think, or to have it known, that they had ever owned, or would own, the Covenants ; and when the only remaining three, who had never directly violated solemn engagements, sought admission into the new organization, their declaration of principles could not be read in the Assembly. It was calculated to revive unpleasant and unwelcome memories. Shields, the only one who had much to lose, succumbs to the pressure of the time, and enters the charmed circle. The author of the " Hind Lot Loose" is not likely to be a silent member of Assembly, nor likely to forget the vows and labours of other days. He is honoured with a chaplaincy on board a man of war. One honest dupe is dis- posed of. It is an interesting inquiry, and of no small importance, how the heterogeneous materials which constituted the General Assembly, after the Revolution, were brought together and organized. Pending the discussions which issued in the Dis- ruption of 1843, the ecclesiastical constitution of the Revolution was prett} fully canvassed. The friends of the Church's inde- pendence, unwilling to admit that it was not secured in the Revolution Settlement, exhibit the Church, during the gloomy times of the Royal Brothers, as stiU having an organic existence, pressed into the dust under the iron heel of the oppressor, and, when the tyrannical and unconstitujtional enactments of Charles and James were repealed, rising in her might, walking forth in her own domain, and discharging hor proper functions. To find this to be the case would delight every Reformed Presbyterian. But, unhappily, it is a more fancy sketch. The Presbyterian Church of Scotland, at the Revolution, was in ruins. Order and organization had passed away. The knees of her sorrowful sons were feeble, and their hands hanging down. Rising in might ! The^ were not able to rise. Of the sixty, or, according to some, ninety ministers who survived the twenty-eight years of grinding oppression, there were a very few, so few as not to be felt, wlio had not given the hand to the Egyptians to be satisfied with bread, and delivered their glory into the power of the enemy. According to Wodrow — " Tliis liberty (James' toleration) was << brth from th^ ing ministers, i\e acquiesced is added hun- the places of Presbyterians, r stepped in to sd in privation re very willing 8 in what they to think, or to ^ould own, the rho had never ission into the 3 could not be ive unpleasant who had much ,nd enters the Loose" is not kely to forget noured with a it dupe is dis- portance, how the General together and ed in the Dis- le Eevolution lurch's inde- iiecured in the ig the gloomy anic existence, ppressor, and, ts of Charles king forth in tions. To find Presbyterian. Presbyterian s. Order and sorrowful sons ing in might ! ding to some, rs of grinding be felt, who satisfied with of the enemy. ileration) v\'as 11 fallen in with by almost all the Presbyterian ministers in the kingdom. And most part of the Presljyterian ministers, who had retired to other countries, or were banished, in a little time returned to Scotland. I know of no Presbyterians declined the benefit of this liberty, save Eenwick and his followers." A more abject and sad spectacle could not be presented to the Christian observer than the Presbyterian ministers, on their knees in the dust, thanking James for " the gracious and sur- prising favour of liberty of the public and peaceable exercise of their ministerial function without hazard,^'' aai4-46a tea'tgg " that their loy- alty is not to be questioned upon account of their beingP;'(3s%^maw«/' ' making the Confession of Faith responsible for the doctrine and life which shall consist with James' notion of ^' entire loyalty;" promising " so to demean themselves as his Majesty (a resolute Papist) may find cause rather to enlarge than diminish his favours toward them ;" and " humbly beseeching that those who promote any disloyal principles and practices (as we do disown them), may be looked upon as none of ours, whatsoever name they may assume to themselves." The indignation which rises from contemplating the cool and heartless manner in which, in the last statement, Penwick and his adherents are abandoned to the tender mercies of James, is mitigated by the acknowledgment — for which every Cameronian ought to be grateful — " they are none of ours." A thousand thanks to you, who constituted the bone and muscle, the head and heart, of the General Assembly of the Revolution, for this confession! Penwick and his followers did not belong to you. Tliey belonged to a very different class ; and it is a fond imagination of Wodrow, that, if Penwick had survived, " he would have come in with Shiels, Linning, and Boyd, to join the establishment of the Church, and might have been a very useful instrument in it," His contemporaries knew him better. " J5"e is none of ours ^ How often do men speak more truth than they intend ! Let it be remembered that "the gracious and surprising favour" for which they are so ardently thankful was granted expressly in the exercise of ''sovereign authority, prerogative royal, and absolute power," with an explicit charge to take ** care that nothing be preached or taught among them which may in any ways tend to alienate the hearts ot our people from us or our government," and that they keep within doors. In their address of thanks they implicitly engage not to offer any objection to James's " sovereign authority, prerogative royal, and absolute power ;" not to preach against Popery; and expressly not to have anything to do with Penwick and his followers. Folly itself could hardly hope that these men should " revive the stones out of the rubbish" of the temple of the second Ptforma- tion. The iron had entered into their souls. They did, indeed, 12 subsequently, when danger was past, like Samson after he had been shorn of his locks, shake themselves as at other times, but they did not know that God had departed from them. Their shaking did not save them out of the hands of the Philistines, and error, infidelity, and clerical profligacy, set in upon Scotland like an irresistible tide, and occupied the whole land for nearly a century, with the exception of a few mountain summits, of which Cameronians and Seceders had obtained possession. Towards the end of the eighteenth century Samson's hair began to grow, and in the Free Church we see him coming out of the grinding-house, still in fetters however, and allowed to lay his hands on the two pillars of Prelacy and the Ecclesiastical supre- macy ; but as yet no attempt has been made to pull them down, and there is reason to fear the friends of the second Reformation may have to give themselves a sacrifice to secure their overthrow. But if the Presbjrterian ministers, who lived to see the Revo- lution, were so utterly prostrate, and helpless, and heartless, how did they succeed in taking a position as the Established Church of Scotland? William and the Parliament of Scotland lifted them up, and set them in their places — not the places which Scotland's worthy sons had occupied from 1638 to 1649 and onwards — her Hendersons, her Rutherfords, her Guthries, her Cargils, and her Renwicks. The Revolution Church of Scotland is as truly, though not so absolutely, a creature of the State as the Church of England. The instrument by which the ministers at the Revolution were taken up and located is a curiosity. It is the Act of June 7th, 1690. The Parliament had a difticult task to perform, and in a masterly manner did they execute it. They must not come into collision with William ; the Episcopalians must not be pressed too hardly ; Polwait and the club, or the more rigid Presby- terians, must be conciliated ; and care must be taken lest, by striking too sharply, a spark of manhood might be excited in the Indulged. The Act opens with the acknowledgment of the " bound duty, after the great deliverance that God hath lately wrought for this Church (what Church?— of 1638-1649 ?— the Church crippled by Cromwell ? — the Church established by Charles after the Restoration ?) and kingdom, to settle and secure therein the true Protestant religion, according to the truth of God's Word." This will satisfy the more decided Presbyterians, would have satisfied Ren wick and his followers, and ought to satisfy all to whom the Word of God is precious. But the hopes which such a preamble is calculated to excite are doomed to an early disappointment, and the legislators descend to a lower platform. *' Church Government shall he established in the hands of, and exercised by, these Presbyterian ministers who were outed since the first of January, 1661, for noncon- i ' of" 13 fter he had r times, but )m. Their Philistines, )n Scotland L for nearly summits, of possession, hair began ^ out of the i to lay his itical supre- them down, reformation • overthrow. e the Eevo- i heartless. Established of Scotland the places 638 to lfi49 r Guthries, Church of itui'e of the lution were June 7th, and in a come into be pressed jid Presby- en lest, by excited in aent of the hath lately 649 ?— the )lished by settle and ing to the re decided followers, s precious. excite are ■rs descend stablished ministers or noncon- formity to Prelacy, or not complying with the courses of the time, and are now restored by the late Act of Parliament, and such ministers and elders only as they have admitted, or re- ceived, or shall hereafter admit or receive." They may have learned by the hard experience of a quarter of a century to dislike all establishments ; but, without being consulted, they are established. They may have acted very inconsistently, im- morally, corruptly ; they have " disowned" the Cameronians ; there are none others likely to call them to account, and William has restored them, but they ^^ accept the situation." By letter from time to time to the Assembly, or its Commission, "William gives instructions respecting the terms on which the curates are to be admitted ; in particular, that they *' should not only retain their Churches, but also be admitted to sit and act in Church judicatories, and that the Commission of Assembly should be composed of one-half Presbyterians, and the other half of these admitted Prelatists." The Assembly resist. But the hook is in their nose, and for a little they are allowed line. " Another Act was passed on 12th of June, 1693, 'for settling the quiet and peace of the Church,' the object of which was to promote tlie admission of the Prelatic clergy to the full enjoyment of all the privileges of the Pres^ yterian Church," on terms prescribed by the Act. The Church is not consulted, but they ^^ accept the situation ;^^ and when, says Hetherington, "The Assembly met, in the full enjoyment of its spiritual independence, on the 29th of March, 1694, grateful for the victory which God had granted to their firm adherence to their principles, they passed an act respecting the instructions to be given to the Commission for receiving the ministers who had conformed to Prelacy into ministerial communion, granting very nearly all that the king had required for giving facility to the admission of these ministers ;" and they are able, in 1 7 1 2, to report in their address to Queen Anne, *' that, since the Revolution, there had been taken in, and continued, hundreds of the Episcopal curates on the easiest terms y The Act (1690) also settles the "government of Christ's Church within this nation agreeable to the Word of God." This form of expression ignores the Divine right of Presbytery, and will be accepted by all Erastians. The United Secession Synod, in 1840, laid aside the usual question in their formula, respecting Church government, and adopted the following : — " Do you believe the Presbyterian form of government, &c., to be agree- able to and founded on the Word of God? " to meet the scruples of " good men who approved of Presbyterianism, but were not disposed or prepared to pass a judgment on other forms of go- vernment. The Assembly ** accepted the situation^ The present Established Church of Scotland, and the Free Church, which 14 recognises her constitution, are not pledged to the Divine right of Presbytery. Had i-hat been definitely stated, the King, who had recognized the Episcopal Church of England, would not have stultified himself by ratifying the Act. Besides, the King and his ecclesiastical counsellor, Ca^stares, were both, in principle, Erastians. Thus Episcopacy is repudiated, not because it is contrary to the Word of God, but because it ** is and hL^ been a great and insupportable grievance to the nation ; and Pres- bytery is accepted, not because it is the doctrine of the Word, but because it is agreeable to the inclinations of the generality of the people." The door stands open to all Erastians, and every facility is afforded for futuro union or co-operation with Christians under another regimer. Incorporation with the Church of England would involve i o violation of her constitu- tion, upon the part of either the Established or the Free Church. The change involved would be one of order ^ not principle. When the Established and Free Churches, respectively, plead for the scriptural character of their Constitution, their able and excellent sons are entitled to a grave and deferential attention ; but it is a subject of surprise that they should claim to be the successors of the Church of the Second Reformation. Had the Parliament of 1690 simply repealed the Act Eescissory by which " all that had been done for religion and the reforjnation of the Church during the Second Reformation, was completely annul- led," the Presbyterian Church had stood forth, established ac- cording to the platform of that period, as the Acts in favour of Reformation, down to 1649, would have been revived. But that repeal would have brought back the spiritual independence of the Church, the divine right of Presbytery, the National Cove- nant, and the Solemn League, and it was no part of the policy of the statesmen at the Revolution to restore the status of the Church in 1649. It was the deliberate purpose of the loaders to shelve the Covenunts which constituted the ground- work of Scot- land's most mature reform. The whole is left under the ban of the Act Rescissory, still unrepealed, and they recur to the Act of 1592, as the foundation on which to build, when the indepen- dence of the Church had not been fully secured, and the Solemn League and the several parts of the Covenanted Reformation had no existence. Nevertheless the Church accepted the situation. The silence of the Assembly is a/w// acquiescense in the deed of the Parliament in leaving the Covenants under the sentence of condemnation, as unlawful oaths, pronounced by the Act Res- cissory. The Covenants are not documents which the Church is competent either to enact or repeal. They are not ecclesiastical documents, as a Creed or Confession, but National, which she might approve and recommend or condemn merely ; and the i 4 15 1 Church is held bound by the action of the State in enacting or repealing them, except it is met by a' solemn declaration of dis- sent. The Covenants may serve to enrich the museum of the Established or Free Church, but they belong to a Church she has repudiated. It may serve the purpose of a rhetorical flourish, and to amuse or delude the populace, to declaim about the Co- venants and our Covenant-fathers. Introduce the Covenants into the General Assembly of the Established, the Free, or the Irish Church, into the Synods of affiliated Churches in the Colo- nies, and put to the vote the (question of the permanent obliga- tion of those Covenants : the advocates of their permanent obli- gation would find themselves w^th a minority so small as to make them blush, if in such a case they did not rejoice, to be counted worthy to suffer shame. They might hardly escape jeers instead of suffrages. The mastery of the politician appears most prominently in the enactment of the Confession of Faith. Where did they get it ? Not from the Church of 1(347, for they had blotted out nearly a century of the Church's history, and are living among the men of 1592. As & parliament they could not recognise the acts, ec- clesiastical or parliamentary, which had been swept away by the Act Bescissory. If it had been stolen or borrowed from one of the Cameronians who guarded the Convention, they would have found it sustained in all its parts by an appeal to the Scripture, approved by the Church, and accepted and ratified by the par- liament, as a principal part of the Covenanted uniformity con- templated in the Solemn League and Covenant. This could not be received ; neither could it be refused. They had predeter- mined to say nothing about the Covenants, and the long afflicted people of Scotland must not know that they cannot have the Confession of Faith which had been violently wrested out of their hands. They must have and not have the Westminster Con- fession of Faith. A mutilated copy, noi; approved by any As- sembly, not ratified by any Parliament, which may have been picked up by Carstares, out of the rubbish of Scotland's Cove- nanted Church, is introduced and "ratified and established," in terms more ingenious than honest. It is set forth as ** the public and avowed confession of this Church;" but whether it is to be understood as " the pubKc and avowed Confession," be- cause it had been ** voted and approven" by that Parliament, or " voted and approven," because it is " the public and avowed Confession of the Church," is left to exercise the critical powers of such as have faith in all politicians. Those of the Established and ^ree Churches, who would be considered the successors of the Covenanters, will, of course, adopt the latter view ; those who have Erastian leanings, will be content with the former ; and those ,1 I J ;< ! 16 who deny the legitimacy oi the claims of the Established aud Free Churches, will plead for the former. I do not pretend to say which interpretation is right ; as I do not think it was in- tended to be more definite than to allow all parties to believe the Parliament on their side. At all events, the Confession of the Ecclesiastical Establishment of Scotland, not professing to found on the divine word, not approved by any previous Assembly of the Church, nor accepted as a part of the Covenanted uniformity, is not the Confession approved and accepted by the Assembly of 1647, but the Confession of the Parliament of 1690, given to a Church, which it had founded, for which it enacted Laws, and the Church accepts the situation. The Revolution Church of Scotland is a new erection, owes its hold upon the affections of Scotland's people, and has its highest recommendations in the large proportion of materials, recovered from the ruins of the dilapidated Church of the Cove- nants, which enter into its structure. The Cameronians, deserted by Shields, Linning and Boyd, were left without a minister, for sixteen weary years of faith and patience, till the Revol atlon Church sealed their hostility to the principles of the Second Reformation, fidelity to which their suc- cessors fondly claim f jr them by expelling M'Millan from among them. He has been represented as cast out because of following divisive courses. This may be a just charge, but only on the as- sumption that the Church was a different organization from that of the Second Reformation ; for his only crime was presenting to his Presbytery " a paper of grievances — craving, among other things, that some effectual measures should be taken for reviving the remembrance of the National Covenant of Scotland and the Solemn League and Covenant of the three Kingdoms ; explicitly asserting the divine right of Presbytery — openly avowing the sole headship of Christ over His Church, together with her ia- trinsic liberties — and for impartially stating and mourning over the many sins of the land." The reflections of Hetherington, with respecl; to the treatment of M'Millan, and some others who discovered a partiality to the Covenanters are suggestive, and not without interest and point at the present time. *• The records of the proceedings which led to his deposition reflect little credit on the Church of Scotland either with regard to ^jrinciple or pru- dence. * * * * It is painful to have to record, that the Church of Scotland had exhibited a more intolerant spirit in its treatment of its own bctte • children, the remnant of the Covenan- ters, and those who were disposed to favour them, than it did towards the persecuting; and rebellious Prelatists. It suggests too strongly the idea of severity against the weak, and a mean and timid compromise with the strong.^' 17 ;f The advocates o^ the integrity of the Revohition settlement of the Church of Scotland sometimes boast that all the ministers were with them ; as i^ history was good-naturedly forgetful that, excej)t those whom uod had mercifully removed by a natural death, the uncompromising adherents of the " old paths" had died in the field, or in the prison, or under the hand of the executioner. The rest — we have looked at them through their address of thanks to James, for his "gracious and surprising favour." "Wodrow would have us believe that, in signing that address, every one acted on his own responsibility ; and, good innocent man ! he thinks " that it is not worth while to dip into the dust raised against these addresses, (he refers to the address of the inhabitants of Edinburgh also,) by Kenwick and his party." He tells us that the ministers signed their address in their own names, and of the rest of the brethren of the same persuasion, at their desire. To the admirers of the ecclesiastical settlement of the Eevolution, without reluctance or envy, we say — "you may have them." The Cameronians are not without high and honorable testi- monies from men who are not of them. Far away from Britain, in Australia, in the British North American Colonies, among a people, who have not made the ecclesiastical history of the times referred to a subject of particular attention, self-appointed directors of public sentiment, whom religious bodies will not accept and cannot afford to repudiate, think they can safely treat with contempt the claims of Reformed Presbyterians, and are more liberal of sneers than of arguments. However, " a man is accepted according to that he hath, not according to that he hath not." Hetherington, in a citation already made, testifies that the Cameronians, at the time of the Eevolution, were " the true Fresbyterions." This is not the only testimony from the same respectable source. "The Cameronian Covenanters alone dis- dained to stoop to compromise or concealment, boldly avowed their principles, and loudly censured the Church for want of faithfulness and zeal, especially, because in the Eevolution Settlement no direct recognition had been made of the National Covenants, and of the Eeformation which these solemn bonds had been instrumental in effecting : but while they deserve the praise due to courage and consistency, it may be doubted whether their own conduct did not tend to injure the very cause they wished to promote. Had they joined the Church in a body, without any compromise, recording their protests against these omissions of which they complained, they might have contributed powerfully to counteract the pernicious influence of those men of lax prin- ciples and prelatic tendencies who were but too willing to enter." Again, referring to the renovation of the Covenants in 1712, he says, " There could be no impropriety in this act, viewed in itself; indeed it was one in which it would have been well if the 3 ■i I 18 whole body of Scottish Presbyterians had joined." The former statement is strange but suggestive. The historian tells us that the Cameronians " deserve the praise due to courage and consistency," but at the same time expresses the opinion that their conduct tended " to injure the very cause which they wished to promote ;" that is, it would have been better for the cause of Presbyterianism if they had been less consistent. There have been many in every age, who have given practical evidence that they consider consistency a small virtue, and that a little season- able compromise is sometimes very useful. " Joined the Church in a body, without any compromise !" They knew their men, and that they would not have been accepted without, at least practically, endorsing the shameful tergiversation of their brethren " Eecording their protests against those omissions of which they complained!" Their protests would not have been heard, much less recorded, as the treatment of Shields and his fellows amply proves. Indeed the prudent ministers of the Reformation establishment have been particularly careful to keep the Cove- nants out of sight. " Although, in some acts for fasting, the Assembly (1690) acknowledged that our sins are aggravated by breach of solemn vows ; yet notwithstanding the indignities which had been done to our National Covenants, they never ex- pressly asserted their obligation : nor does the name of the Solemn League so much as apj^ear in any of their acts since the devolution." The words in inverted commas were written in 1827. The great glory or the crime of Cameronians has been their consistency. Aikman, the historian, says — " True to their Cove- nants, while all else was sullen discontent, and heartless im- patience, the Cameronians, or Society-men, alone refused to do nomage to the wasting scourge that desolated the land." Burns, the Editor of Wodrow, in a Note — " We cannot but admire the consistent heroism of these men, however we may lament their occasional excesses." Cooke, cited by Burns in the same note — " The Cameronians who had renounced their allegiance to a tyrannical sovereign, acted consistently, when the Indulgence was offered to them, and they boldly refused to take advantage of what had flowed from so polluted a source." The vindication of the position which the Cameronians as- sumed before and at the Eevolution is triumphant : the apology set up in favour of their "less heroic" brethren is plausible. At a later period, the present century. Dr. Ely, of Philadel- phia, would have cherished a hope of inducing the Reiormed Presbyterians of the United States to coalesce with the General Assembly, if they were once emancipated from " Covenants, Testimonies, and the pride of consistency." Within the last forty years, some of our brethren have been brought to a state of wonderful humility. In 1833, a large number in the United States, weary of consistency, separated themselves. In 1840, a 19 Qieroniaiis as- whole Presbytery in Ireland, weary of consistency, left the Church. In Scotland, in 1863, after having staved off discussion, from year to year, till a new race of ministers, who received their theological education, not under Dr. Andrew Symington, of Paisley, arose, the Eeformed Presbyterian Synod abandoned the ancient landmarks, leaving only as many as lifted up the Secession testimony in 1733; as constituted the seed of the original Seceders in 1806 ; nearly as many as were repudiated by the Free Church in 1860, for adhering to her own Testimony m Australia, (the number was five) in opposition to the mania for union, not knowing that a Testimony for the independence of the Church, and the obligation of Rulers to recognize and give civil effect to the institutions of their Master, is of no use any where but in Scotland : and their deliverance from the ^^ pride of con- sistency" has aflforded to our Presbyterian brethren outside so much " comfort" that they condescend to own them, and have lavished on them as much praise, as they have indulged in vitu- peration, because of the rising "pride of consistency," displayed in casting out George H. Stewart, for his defiant violation of his vow to God. There is still a remnant who have not been yet delivered from the "pride of consistency;" and, in a few particulars, I shall endeavour to exhibit their " Social Position." Some readers may be disappointed, as they may be expecting to find some- thing so strange, so extravagant, so outr^, as only to excite sur- prise or laughter. In the statement or defence of our principles, we have a moral advantage over all who differ from us. We are pleading against our own social elevation, our own popularity, and our own temporal interests. "We cannot, consistently with our profession, hold any office under the Crown, have a place among the Nobles of the Empire, a seat in the Senate or the Commons, on the Bench, or at the Bar, or among the Magistrates of the land, or record our vote for the Eepresentatives of the people. Serious reflection must lead any one to the conclusion that we are thoroughly in earnest, and must have what appear to us com- manding reasons, for holding a position in society which involves so much self denial. We claim — we think we have a right to claim — a large measure of confidence from the members of the community, and from those who rule over us. No person is admitted into our fellowship, who is known still to belong to anj Secret Association. We have among us neither Freemasons nor Ku Klux, Orangeman or Fenian, Odd Fellow or Templar. We stand before Him, whose Church is a city set upon a hill, whose followers are lights set on a candlestick, and are commanded to let their light shine before men, and who coidd defiantly proclaim in the presence of his accusers : — "I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue and in the temple, whither the so ■'li i! Jews always resort ; and in secret have I said nothing." I. "We accept the Scriptures as the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and morals, and a perfect rule : not the Old Testament to the exclusion of the New ; not the New Testa- ment to the exclusion of the Old. Vo man, who refuses the Old Testament, as an authoritative exposition of the mind of God, believes the New Testament, in which we are commanded to be mindful of the words spoken by the holy prophets. Nor do we claim a right to treat any part of the Divine testimony as use- less or unimportant. The arm or the leg of the human body may be amputated without destroying life, yet no man would, therefore, think or say the member was of no importance, or that the functions of the body might be as fully and perfectly perfvjrmec! without it as with it. The salvation of that man is secured who builds on Christ — ihat sure foundation — but it is no matter of indifference whether he build wood, hay, and stubble, or gold, silver, and precious stones, as the fire shall tiy every man's work. There is an essential difference between ignorance or error and the neglect or abandonment of what is known to be a part of the truth of God. We may accept with all confidence one of very limited information and of a very defective judgment, but not one who, knowing the mind of the Lord in a particular case, is prepared to class it with unimportant things and neglect it. The following words of Robert Haldane, written with refer- ence to a special case, are replete with just ideas of the place the Divine Word should occupy in the Christian heart. ** Every thing ought to have its proper place in our esteem. But is it reverential to God to suppose that He has enjoined some things which have a tendency to lead us away from heaven, or that every thing He has revealed is not in itself directly subservient to His glory and our salvation ? Are the things spoken of not a part of revelation ? Then let them not be called small things and non-eesentials. Let them be called nothing, and then we ought decidedly to oppose them, as forming no part of our duty. But, if they are a part of it, then it is surely both irreverent and unwise to set them aside under any name whatever. This is chang- ing times and laws. It is taking too much upon us." II. We accept the Westminster Confession of Faith as a correct exponent of the doctrines of the Divine Word, with no other limitation than is found in the Act of Assembly approving it. Creeds and confessions are becoming more than usually un- popular. They are sometimes subscribed without being believed. They are, in some cases, accepted standards for ministers and not for the Church. They are often represented as implying a deficiency in the Divine Word, which they are intended to sup- plement, as a Procrustean bed calculated to repress expansion of mind, and better fitted to make hypocrites than to promote or conserve truth. The place they occupy is misunderstood and 21 misrepresented. It is very plausible to reeson thus — " If the Scriptures are a perfect rule, yrhat need of a Confession or a Creed ?" The Scriptures and Confessions occupy entirely distinct departments. If I am asked, " What is the standard of revealed truth?" I answer, " the Bible— the whole Bible — nothing but the Bible." To no Confession or Creed can an appeal be made, in answer to the question, ** What is truth, the truth in Jesus ?" If I am asked, "By what standard am I to ascertain what the denomination to which you belong accepts as th« doctrine of the Word — the truth in Jesus?" I answer, "By the creed, confes- sion, or testimony which the Church recognises." A Confession invades not the province of the Scriptures at all, nor can the Scriptures supply its place. But what is the "Westminster Con- fession of Faith ?" I fear, though it is easy of access, there are many ignorant of it ; and some take no interest in it, because they view it as something exclusively Preshyterian and Scottish. It is not a Scottish document. It is British. The Assembly which met in the chapel of Henry VII., Westminster, was called by an English Parliament, and its members were almost all Englishmen. There were four ministers and three laymen from Scotland, and, I think, only one from Ireland. The whole number would be over a hundred. '.?he Confession was per- fected in England before it came officially before either the Assembly or Parliament of Scotland, and it is approved and published as a principal part of the contemplated uniformity of religion. Englishmen are not entitled to look down on the Westminster Confession of Faith. The Westminster Confession is not even a Preslyterian docu- ment, in the strictly technical sense of the term Presbyterian. There is nothing in it that an Episcopalian, or an Independent, may not accept, without any compromise of his distinctive prin- ciples. For lucid, full, and accurate statement of Scriptural truth, I know of no doctrinal articles which make any approach to the Westminster Confession ; and I would be heartily delighted that all would thoroughly examine it, if only to detect its errors and blemishes. Of course, I am not expected, in this essay, to expound its doctrines. It is strictly Calvinistic. It has been charged with inculcating persecuting principles ; and it is to be regretted that some of our Presbyterian brethren have agreed to receive certain parts of it with such explanations as would seem to admit that there are grounds for the charge. In the hands of those who ferret out persecution in the Westminster Confession, Paul, who says, " I would they were cut off who trouble you," and John, who says, " If there come any unto you, and bring not this doc- trine, receive him not inio your house, neither bid him Glod speed," would hardly escape severe animadversion. The doctrine of the Confession and of Beformed PresbyterianB 22 is that the religion of Jesus is not, and cannot be, propagated by force. " Unto the catholic visible Church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting the saints in this life to the end of the world, and doth by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them eflPectual thereto." You can no more convert or re- form a man by sword, or fire, or instruments of torture, or other pains and penalties, than you can take his life by a syllogism. The attempt is absurd as it is unscriptural and tmholy. Ear- nestly as we desire to see the British Empire reformed in all its departments, according to Reformed Presbyterian principles, in the name of every Reformed Presbyterian minister in the uni- verse, in the name of every intelligent member of the Church, if any party should spring up in Britain or its dependencies, if an invading army should enter British territory and say, " Come, Cameronians, and help us. We will settle the constitution on your principles, we will provide for the erection of Churches upon the Presbyterian platform," we would reply, " No, we cannot be estabhshed by force. The foundation is evil, and the structure must be evil, and the topstone evil." Sin is sin, no matter how prosperous it is, how old it is. The building of mercy cannot stand on a sinful basis. The whole nation of Israel was brought under God's Cove- nant, before entering the promised land ; but they had been brought together, every one of them, under the Seal of the Abra- hamic covenant. Christ came to reform, and at once threw Him- self among the masses. And every healthy and stable govern- ment must take form from the well defined wishes of the people. When the Kings of the earth see the glory of the Lord, all the nations shall fear His name. When Kings are nursing-fathers to Zion, and their Queens nursing- mothers, her children shall say, " The place is too strait for me, give place to me that I may dwell." The constitution of Israel recognized not coercion as a means of reform. It is in perfect harmony with the New Testa- ment, which represents rulers as a terror to evil doers, and upraise to them that do well. A stranger might live undisturbed as long as he pleased in Isr el. He is not compelled to be circum- cised, to offer gifts and sacrifices, to support the priesthood. The Judges and Kings of Israel had no legal power, under penalties, to obfige their own people to pay tithes, to attend the festivals, to offer sacrifice. God, Lord of Conscience," according to the Confession, took upon Himself to punish delinquents : but, as Zord of Conscience, He enjoined upon the Ruler not to allow the introduction of a false god, to set up an image, to blaspheme the Name of God, or to treat the Sabbath with contempt. Is it wrong for a magistrate to do as the Lord of Conscience commands ? To find fault is to deny that God is Lord. The fact appears to be, that the modern doctrine of Liberty of Conscience, when analysed, 23 propagated hath given ) gathering world, and is promise, ivert or re- :e, or other L syllogism, loly. Ear- id in all its inciples, in in the uni- the Church, ndencies, if lay, "Come, stitution on of Churches r, "No, we 3vil, and the lin is sin, no building of God's Cove- ley had been of the Abra- > threw Him- ible govern- f the people. Lord, all the rsing-fathers lildren shall le that I may coercion as a 3 New Testa- i, and a praise idisturbed as to be circum- le priesthood. }ower, under to attend the e," according iquents : but, >t to allow the )laspheme the empt. Is it ^e commands ? appears to be, hen analysed. is that God has no more right to give law to conscience than man has. To vindicate the maligned constitution of Israel, I may add that, beyond the limits of Israel, the conquered nations might worship as many gods as they pleased, and paid no tithes. Israel affords no support to the tithe system of England and Ireland. Israel asked tithes only of such as worshipped at the altar. They enjoyed as much liberty of conscience in Israel, as any nation, calling itseK Christian, has any right to ask. Strangers had more liberty in Israel than Dissenters have in Britain. The preceding remarks may help to cast light on the 20th Chapter of the Confession, which has been considered the weak point of our lines, and has been the object of many a furious assault. Who wiU say, that " to oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, upon pretence of Christian liberty," or any other pretence, is not to "resist the ordinance of God?" Who will say that, if a man has adopted the opinion that the Lord's day is of no moral obligation, and opens his store or his workshop, or enters into his husbandry on that day, the magis- trate has not a perfect right to compel the closing of the store or the shop, and to order the farmer out of his fields ? Who will say that the magistrate must defer to the conscience of a com- pany of Mormons, who might choose to establish a colony of debauchery and murder, in the environs of London or Belfast? Who will say that, if the Eomanists of Halifax should march through the streets, preceded by the host, and one of my zealous and conscientious countrymen would knock off my hat or other- wise abuse me, because I would not bow to the idol, I have no right to appeal to the magistrate to protect me, and to punish the offender ? Who will say that the authorities of New York should not interfere to secure to the Churches liberty to meet and worship in peace on the Lord's day, against thousands parading the streets with drums, and fifes and shouts, and revelry ? Look at the 20th Chaper, in the light of these ques- tions. There is no time, in the present connexion, for more extended discussion. No Presbyterian, no Christian ought to be, no Cameronian is, ashamed of it. There is no persecution in it. The opposition to it has its origin in the assumption that the Scriptures are unintelligible^ or that they mean nothing, or that they mean jmt what any one chooses to believe or practise. Latent or conscious infidelity is mixed up with our religious difficulties very generally. Easeals don't like gaols, nor mur- derers, gibbets. The 20th chapter simply assumes that, as the Lord Jesus Christ is, by the Father's designation, "King of Kings and Lord of Lords," it is the imperative duty of Eulers, supreme and subordinate, to guarantee the integrity of Christ's institutions, to protect the Christian people in +lie enjoyment of the privileges which Christ has conferred on them, and to make 24 the law of Christ the rule of their administration. Popery claims for the Man of Sin the right to absolve subjects from Allegiance to a temporal prince : and voluntaryism takes a bolder step, and v ould absolve rulers from their Allegiance to the Lord Jesus Chr. , the Prince of the Kings of the earth. The Westminster Confession also tepches that " There is no other Head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ." The dis- tinction between a Head in Heaven and a temporal Head is futile, as His place claims homage equally of things in heaven and things in earth, and by Him things, alike visible and in- visible, consist. This doctrine has a large, though not exclusive, influence in fixing the position of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. The Pope of Pome, in claiming to be in any sense the Church's Head, is pronounced to be " that Antichrist, that man of sin, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ." When Henry 8th wrested from the Poi)e the ecclesiastical supremacy, he placed the Crown upon his own head ; and claimed for him- selt a power as ample as any Pope could desire, a power, in all its plenitude, still claimed, as an ** inherent prerogative of the Crown" according to statute ; more leniently exercised than by that self willed and capricious sovereign, but unmodified by any subsequent legislation, by the Head of the British Empire, to the present hour. If the Pope be Antichrist, the Ecclesiastical Supremacy of the British Crown must be Antickristian. When the Reformation took place in England, that was acted which Nebuchadnezzar saw in a dream. The tree was hewn down, the branches were lopped ofi*, and the fruit was scattered ; but, in the ecclesi-'stical supremacy, the stump of the roots was left in the earth, with a band of iron and brass, and is now sending out its shoots with uncommon vigour. To this unhappy supre- j macy maybe traced the growth and spread of Infidelity and Romanism in the Church of England, which her own exceUent sons can neither prevent nor correct. To this, that the Kirk of Scotland has ceased to be the Church of the people and different | forms of Dissent pervade every part of the land. It is generally known tliat Reformed Presbyterians cannot,] consistently with their profession, swear the oath of Allegiance, and, therefore, cannot hold offices under the Crown, nor vote for] Representatives, as we cannot depute others ^o act for us, when, in entering on their official duties, they must do what we cannot] do in our own persons. I am now prepared to assign a leading reason. It is not be- cause we do not take a deep and affectionate interest in the land! of our nativity or of our adoption ; it is not because we are op- posed to Monarchy, for, although our brethren in the United I States have their Republican predilections, I believe Reformed I Presbyterians in the British Dominions would generally prefer! Monarchy; it is not because we consider any of the Governmentjl S5 Christ." When of the surrounding nations preferable to ours, for we are fully persuaded there is no country where life and liberty, human rights and property are more secure, or where just laws are more righteously administered ; it is not from disrespect to the Sove- reign, for I do not think there is a Reformed Presbyterian who has not the personal character of our accomplished and excellent Queen in profound veneration ; but because the Oath of Alle- giance involves a recognition of the Ecclesiastical Headship, as full, as absolute, as of the Political Sovereignty. I speak not of any declarations that may be made to satisfy scruples, nor of the intentions of those who take that Oath, but of a matter of fact : and I repeat that it is impossible, politically and morally, to take the Oath of Allegiance, and not swear to support the Sove- reign's Headship over tlie Church. We are not asked to pledge our allegiance to Alexandrina Victoria, daughter of the Duke of Kent, but to her ** Majesty Victoria, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith, and of the United Church of Eng- land and Ireland, on earth the Supreme ITead ;'* it is to apoliti- cal person the impersonation of the Constitution. Again, it is only in being invested with the sovereignty that her Majesty can be Head of the Church ; and, invested with the sovereignty, she cannot but be Head of the Church. The two things, as the law stands, are inseparable. The Ecclesiasti- cal Headship is an •* inherent prerogative of the Crown ;" and a man, in taking the Oath of Allegiance, might just as well say, he did not mean to acknowledge the Political Head as the Ecclesiastical Head. An argument, that might be very forcibly urged in support of our position upon such as recognise the continued obligation of our National Covenants, shall be passed over, to present one adapted to all classes of Christians, founded on a lucid and com- prehensive Scripture statement — the words of Him "in Whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." The Jews, in the time of our Saviour's humiliation, could make convenient distinctions as well as we can. They thought they could swear by the altar, without swearing by the gift upon it. They thought they could swear by the temple, without swearing by the gold by which it was adorned and enriched. Ambition, covetousness, and sensuality, make men, whether of old or modern times, very ingenious. Hear how our Lord discourses with them. " Woe unto blind guides, which say, whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing ; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor ! Fools and blind, for whether is greater the gold or the temple that sanctifioth the gold? And whosoever shall swear by tlio altar, it is nothing ; but whosoever swearetli by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. Fools and blind; for whether is greater, the gift or the altar that eanctifieth. ^6 the gift ? Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. And he that sweareth by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon." Here is a broad principle established, that whatever object an oath contemplates must be accepted with all its accessories. "WTiether you swear by or to a person or thing, the oath must be understocl to contemplate all that the person or thing compre- hends. The Lord calls them **/oo/»," "blind guides," who tiiink they can swear by the altar, and not at the same time and in that actf swear by the gift on it— who think they can swear by the temple, and leave out of consideration the gold of the temple. What would He say to those who think they can swear fealty to the Crown without swearing like fealty to an inherent prerogative of the Crown ? I leave my Presbyterian brethren to settle the question with the Lord Jesus. They are certainly as inconsistent as I would be in taking the oath of allegiance, for they enter- tain no better ideas of the Ecclesiastical Headship than I do, although they are not so guilty before God as I would be. The olasphemous claims of Home have brought great guilt, and will yet bring heavy judgments upon Europe : and as I de- sire that Britain may not share in Home's plagues, my earnest prayer is, that the Lord would, by his Spirit, illuminate the Sovereign, the Nobles, and the Commons of Britain, that, con- vinced of the great sin of assuming the titles and province of the Saviour, her Majesty would, as Gideon said to the Israelites, **I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you," say to the Churches of Britain, " I will not be your Head. The Lord Jesus Christ shall be both your Head and mine " III. Reformed Presbyterians hold the permanent obligation of the Solemn League and Covenant on the British Crown and Empire. Now, as I have not once or twice heard, I can fancy I hear now some readers exclaim — " What have we to do with that old Covenant? — ^we never consented to it — such nonsense is too egregious to be listened to — the absurdity of holding that Solemn League still binding is too great to be entitled to an examina- tion." All this looks very wise and very lofty. There are men, whose intellects are vigorous and apt, who acquire knowledge so much by intuition — I mean Theological knowledge, for in other departments they are not always so expert — that they can afford to treat lightly of subjects, that appear to smaller minds important and abstruse. It is, however, to be kept in mind that Eelormed Presbyterians are not the only advocates of the con- tinued obligation of the Solemn League. The primitive Seceders wore all advocates of the doctrine. Dr. M'Crie, the historian ot John Knox, was an advocate of the doctrine, as are the 21 Original Seceders. There is a very respectable minority in the Free Church who adhere to it ; and there exists an " Association in connection with the Free Church for promoting the principles of the Covenanted Reformation." There are ministers of the General Assembly in Ireland who hold the doctrine, and of the Presbyterian Church of the Lower Provinces of British North America who adhere to it as firmly as I do. It is a singular but suggestive circumstance that there is not in Britain, known to me, a Presbyterian body which does not claim to be the legiti- mate sons of the men who entered into the Solemn League, and intended it to be a perpetual bond among the Presbyterians of Britain and Ireland. The united Presbyterians claim, I think, as it becomes modem children, to be far ahead of their parents, and are fairly out of sight of the position occupied by them. We are so familiar with progress in science and art that we are hardly prepared to acknowledge the Bible to be a fixed fact. 1 have a (question or two to put to those who think they are entitled to sneor at the old and musty Solemn League and Cove- nant. What do you think of the "Act of Succession" which fixes the title of her Majesty to the British throne? You never gave your consent to it. It is 168 years old. What think you of the Kevolution Settlement? It is 180 years old. What think you of Magna Charta, out of which have grown progressive securities for British liberty? It is 650 years old, nearly three times as old as the Solemn League ; very reluctantly granted by John, as reluctantly as the latter was subscribed by the ''Merrie Monarch ;" and very reluctantly confirmed by subsequent Sovereigns. 0, you will say, these are different matters. Why, yes, there is a difference. In the one case we speak of the claims of Christ, in the other oi the claims of temporal rulers. When we treat of the claims of Christ we are allowed to talk nonsense that would not be tolerated five minutes if uttered with reference to earth Iv rulers. But perhaps ic is not the age, but the matter, of the Covenant to which an objection is raised. We are quite willing to have it subjected to the touchstone of the Divine Word, and loudly object to have it shelved by those who know nothing of it but by rumour. Let it be thoroughly canvassed. There cannot be an objection to the Sovereign being under any covenant, for this would be to plead for Absolutism. Our present Quoen is a Covenanted Sovereign. She must be a Protestant, and swear to maintain Episcopacy in England, Presbytery in Scotland, and, in general, to govern the several parts of the empire according to their peculiar laws and customs. The question is whether the Covenant under which the Sovereign reigns, or the Solemn League and Covenant is more Scriptural. Revolutionary changes are going on both in the Old World and the New, and greater are anticipated or apprehended, for which the nations are pre- i:i 38 paring. A heavy pressure is being brought to bear upon rulers, and Reformed Presbyterians have a strong opinion that the Solemn League will yet rise to the surface, and exercise an in- fluence in stilling the noise of the seas, the noise of their waves, and the tumult of the people. We would not discharge a gun or draw a sword to secure the result. We look not to might or power, but to the Spirit of the Lord. In the meantime, I submit one great principle involved in the doctriae of the permanent obligation of national deeds, and advert to two popular objections to the Solemn League. The principle is this — That a nation is a person, morally and politically ; that successive generations are as the successive years of the life of an individual, and the obligations incurred and the crimes committed are no more cancelled by the lapse of time ihan the individual is absolved from the responsibilities of his youth by becoming an old man ; that the identity is complete, and that the ruler is no more one thing and the several departments of the State are other things, than the head, hands, and other members of the body are independent agents who have separate and independent functions and liabilities. Without being for- mally stated, the principle is universally assumed in the perpe- luity of national treaties, in the liability of nations for debts contracted in ages long past, and in the constant appeal to the governments of nations against the irregularity or injustice of subjects of the State, as if the governments were the guilty parties. But our present object is to show that this principle is lully recognised in the Divine Word. The Covenant which God entered into with Israel in the land of Moab, on the eve of their entering into the land of Canaan, was prospective, and held bound that people, individually and collectively, from the ruler to the lowest menial. ** I make this Covenant and this oath with Him that standeth here with us this day before the Lord our God, and also with Him that is not here with us this day, lest there should be among you man, or woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart turneth away this day from the Lord our God." The breach ol this Covenant in after ages was the aggravated crime for which the judgments of God fell upou them. Jeremiah addresses his contemporaries as the identical people who came out of Egypt. ** Thus saith the Lord, I remember thee, the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, when thou wentest after me in the wilderness." Joshua and the elders of Israel, influenced by false representa- tions, confirmed by an oath a Covenant with the Gibeonites. They had been, deceived, the people were very much displeased, but the oath n^ay not be violated ; and God held the whole nation, through all generations, bound by that oath. Saul, hun- dreds of years after, in his zeal for Israel and Judah, slow of tliQse Gibeonit 'S. The mutter seems to hivve n'truetud so little ! 29 attention that not a passing allusion is made to it in the records of Saul's reign. But God is not unobservant or forgetful. Saul has died. A revolution, which set aside his family and placed David, of another tribe, on the throne, does not cancel the guilt of that massacre. In God's estimation the guilt rests upon the nation, is avenged by a famine, in the days of David, for three successive years, and is removed by the act of the Sovereign in ordering meet satisfaction. David numbered the people. It was his own act, against tho remonstrance of Joab. God is displeased, and He sends a pesti- lence which carries off seventy thousand (70,000) of the people. It does not appear that David or any member of his family was personally a sufferer in that calamity. Why God was angry with Israel, that He should leave David to fall by temptation and number the people, we know not ; but from the whole trans- action we learn that it is full of peril before God for rulers to connive at the sins of the people, and for people to connive at the sins of the rulers. Neither the one nor the other can lay the flattering unction to their souls that they have not to answer to God in such cases. As God dealt with Israel He deals with other nations. God commanded Saul — " Go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy aU that they have, and spare them not ; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." Why are they to be exterminated ? Because they met Israel in the wilderness, as they journeyed from Egypt to Canaan, and smote the hindmost of them, all that were feeble — tho faint and weary. There was not an individual living that had taken part in that transaction, nor had been for hundreds of years. What had the women done ? What sin had the infants and sucklings committed against Israel ? What the flocks and herds ? The whole order recognised the unity and permanence of the nation, supplies a solemn lesson to Israel, and teaches that national vindication must be free from suspicion of rapacity or spoil. Tyre was desolated, first by Nebuchadnezzar and afterwards by Alexander, to atone for injustice and cruelty to Israel, in violation of the Covenant of affection and commerce between Solomon, King of Israel, and Hiram, King of Tyre. "Is it for three transgressions of Tyre or for four ? I will not revoke my purpose, because they delivered up the whole captivity to Edom, and remembered not the brotherly covenant." That covenant was at least four hundred years old. Babylon is delivered into the hands of the Modes and Persians, to punish the proud king of the empire for cruelty to Israel. God had delivered His people, on account of their sins, into the power of the heathen. Ho " was a little displeased, and they helped forward the afflic- tion." But Nebucliaduezzar, the prime mover, had long since passed away. 30 There are two popular oljectiom to the Solemn League and Qovenant, to which we would now invite the reader's attention. 1. One is grounded on the second article: — " that we shall, without respect of persons, endeavour the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, (that is, church-government by Archbishops, Bishops, their Chancellors and Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Archdeacons, and all other Ecclesiastical oiRcers depending on that Hierarchy), superstition, &c., &c. — found to be contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness." This has supplied material for an incalculable amount of learned, spleiiUid, and indignant declamation ; all, however, founded on gross ignorance and inattention to the statement. Papists and Prelatists have been so much in the habit of pursuing opponents by fire and Bword, that imagination gets the mastery of judgment, and when Presbyterians talk of the vindication or advancement of their cause, they think they see a whole army of fierce crusaders or of scowling Oameronians ready to fall on them and cut off "man and woman, infant and suckling." They may dismiss their fears. There is not a Presbyterian, not of the Cameronian school even, who would shed the blood of one of them to see his cause established over all the earth. The word " extirpate'^ seems to frighten them. It simply means to root out ; and our Saviour, with whom most people would hesitate to find fault, says — " Every plant, which my heavenly father hath not planted, shall be rooted wp ;" and this with special reference to the views of a class of persons who made lofty pretensions to religion, and despised others. The thing to be extirpated has been sadly mis- understood. It is not Archbishops, Bishops, &c., but Church- government by these ; for the extirpation of which there is no means adapted but the Word of God : and the fiercest advocate of Prelacy will hesitate to say, that if the Word of God prove an instrument fitted to root up Prelacy, it ought to be rooted up. If the Bible is with him he is all safe in his position. But the Covenant does not bind to the extirpation of J£pucopacy. There is no doubt the original perfecters of the Covenant be- lieved that every form of Diocesan Episcopacy was unscriptural, but that instrument limits those who adopt it to the eradication of Episcopacy putting on a particular form. An Episcopalian who adopts the views of Archbishop Usher, who could unhesitatingly recognise Presbyterian ordination, and give his hand to a Pres- byterian or any Independent minister as a brother in the Lord, might have little objection to accept this section of the Solemn League. 2. But ihe fourth section has been the occasion of the heavy charge of persecution against the Covenanters. Let us look at it. *' We shall with all faitlifulness, endeavour the discovery of all such as have been or shall be incendiaries, malignants, or evil instruments, by hindering the Eeformation of religion, 31 dividing the King from his people, or one of the kingdoms from another, or making any faction or parties among the people, contrary to this League and Covenant." That there is nothing alarming in all this will appear from a simple comparison. There used to be administered to the members of the House of Com- mons, in England, three oaths. In, I think, 1858, LordEussell obtained leave to bring in a bill to abrogate these oaths, and substitute a form of oath comprehending all three, a part of wbich reads thus : — *' I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to her Majesty, Queen Victoria, and will de- fend her to the utmost of my power against aU conspiracies and attempts whatever, which shall be made against her person, crown, or dignity ; and I will do my utmost endeavour to disclose and make known to her Majesty, her heirs, and successors, all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which may be formed against her or them." There is nothing more stringent or inquisitorial in the Solemn League, to which we are pledged, if the Govern- ment were constituted and administered upon its principles, than that to which one is bound according to this oath. Who finds fault with the government for endeavouring to discover the haunts of Fenians, or of others who would overthrow or em- barrass it ? Who finds fault, because the promoters of insurrec- tion and rebellion are brought to punishment ! Is it not con- sidered meritorious to assist in detecting conspiracies, and in bringing to justice those who are parties to them? Why the difference? We are all alive to the duty of sustain- ing the Constitution and laws of Britain, say, but to plead for the integrity of the Solemn League is infamous. The Consti- tution of Britain secures subjection to Q,ueen Victoria. The League and Covenant requires the subordination of the nation to the Son of God. If anything should disturb the Constitution of Britain, and interfere with the administration of its laws, the foundations are loosed, and disorder and desolation must follow: but men may pour contempt upon the Son of God, disregard His word, trample His laws under their feet, and propagate ungodliness, and society has nothing to fear. Put a rebel against her Majesty into office, it would be madness. Put into the highest offices of trust an infidel, a profligate, an enemy of God, and he is expected to be an excellent member of the State, and to strengthen the bands of society. Should a person appointed to the office of Lord Lieutenant in Ireland, or of Lieutenant-Governor in Nova Scotia, refuse, in entering on the administration of the Government, to swear the oath of Allegi- ance, he would be peremptorily set aside. Neither Sovereign nor people would own him. If it should be made the condition of holding the place of the first Magistrate in the land, to swear to rule in subordination to Christ, and to administer the govern- ment according to His laws, there would be a very general 32 shout of execration, while we are expected to vow subjection to him as the minister of God. I would be glad, when men de- nounce the Solemn League, they would introduce a modicum of common sense into their reasonings. I fear nothing for the Solemn League but that it should never be investigated. IV. We are Presbyterians. We read of the Heformed Churches of Europe, as distinguished from the Lutheran ; of the Reformed Dutch Church; without the title being otherwise marked, than as an indication of a claim to adhere to the doctrines of the Eeformation. But with the courtesy that has usually characterised the treatment of Cameronians, the title, Reformed Presbyterians, by which we are known, has afforded some of those, who condescend to know that we exist, quite a fund of amusbiiient. Be it so. The Master was sometimes laughed to Bcorn, because He laid claim to an honour which His enemies were not willing to accord, and to be made partakers with Him is quite a compliment. In professing to be Presbyterians, we do not wish to be un- derstood as merely holding, that Presbyterian Church Govern- ment is " agreeable to the Word of God," which some Episco- palians would admit, and which is all for which some Presby- terians contend ; but that it is the only regimen which has the support of the Scriptures. Neither do we assert that the New Testament furnishes a systematic platform of Presbyterianism, more than the heavens exhibit a formal chart of the stellar system; but that there are certain well defined facts stated which any form of Church government that claims Divine autho- rity must recognise. There may be considerable diversity in point of order, and the object to be secured is that order which most definitely and fully embraces the facts. There are, for instance, the perfect official parity of all ministers of the gospel — that not only are all Bishops, Presbyters, but all Presbyters are Bishops — the co-operation of elders who rule merely, with those who labour in word and doctrine — the principle of representa- tion, implied in the distinction between rulers and ruled — and the subordination, to conserve the unity and purity of the Church, of its several sections to classical Assemblies. These things are, we think, demonstrable from the Word of God. V. We claim to be more free from Sectarianism than any other Denomination of Christians. I am aware that this claim will surprise many, as we are usually held up as most bigoted and illiberal, or, in modern phrase, of narrow and contracted views. We are not so anxious to multiply and increase con- gregations as to promote the adoption of sound and definite doctrine. Our organization exists for that end. There is an indissoluble connexion between sound sp ch and the power of godliness. We are horn again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God; not otherwise. Faith comes 88 jubjection to len men de- , modicum of liing for the ated. le lieformed Liuthoran ; of [ng otherwise the doctrine a t htts usually itlo, Reformed 3rded some of uite a fund of es laughed to 1 His enemies :ers with Him w^ish to be un- lurch Govern- some Episco- L some Presby- which has the t that the New 'esbyterianism, of the stellar d facts stated Divine autho- lo diversity in U order which Inhere are, for 3f the gospel — Presbyters are Jely, with those of representa- id ruled — and purity of the nblios. These [d of God. ^ism than any ;hat this claim , most bigoted ^nd contracted increase con- Id and definite There is an ^ the power of do seed, but of Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the loord of Ood; not otherwise. Christ aanctifiea His church by the word. The word of God is truth, and truth makeBfree. In one word God hath chosen men to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. Desiring the salvation of men, we can have no sympathy with those who " agree to differ," as we do not believe the word of God differs from itself. It is charity which rejoices in the truth. I can hardly call it charitable to make light of the difference between truth and error. We are advocates, therefore, of close communion. Some will be ready to ask, ** la this the extent of your liberality? Does not this fix on you the charge of Sectarianism hopelessly?" Beader, a little patience. You may think differently before you and I part company, and think more favourably of close com- munion. I speak as unto wise men, whose privilege it is to judge ; and who are capable of judging of what I say. The advocate of open feUowship takes you as you are, because he has no hope that you are ever to learn anything more or to correct anything ; that you either want the power or want the will. In the face of the declaration that the Spirit teaches all things, yea, the deep things of God, he will go on to assert that, as we have differed, so we will differ till the last sun shall shine upon the earth. It would be hard to tell whether he treats the judgment of man or the power of the Spirit with less respect. All uncon- scious of a position, which long established habits of thought have made easy, he goes on reciting the old lesson. How often have I heard, how often have I read, some such language aa this : — " Who can forbid a child of God to come to his Father's table ? Who dare stand between the child and the Father's table ?" All this seems, I have no doubt, to those who utter it, very conclusive, and, often to others, very devout and very charitable ; yet it is in reality very shallow and deceptive. It is, however, so often and so confidently uttered, and is withal 80 plausible, that good men and good minds are carried away. We do not always think; the sensibilities obtain the mastery, and in very simplicity we are deceived. The doctrine of open com- munion is popular, and if our sole object were to add to our numbers, we would of course adopt it. To our own table we have a right to invite whom we please, but not to a friend? &. In that case we do not consult our own feeling^, but what may be agreeable to the host. When we invite to the table of the Lord we are to be regulated by what may be accept- able to Him. This is triumphantly met by — "We invite a chili of the Lord J** 1. Friend, how do you know this? The Lord alone searches the heart. Open communion, at the very outset, invades God*s province. We may believe a man to be a Christian, but we do not know it, so as to make that knowledge the ground of action 5 84 III Hypocrisy is often more flashy and imposing' ;y. Jehu is ostentatious of "zeal for the Lord," hi in the Church. than humble piety. and Judas of care for the poor. There is no Presbyterian, who knows his own principles, who ever thinks of making regeneration the condition of membership in the Church. He accepts him who witnesses a good confession, sustained by a corresponding practice, and treats him as a child of God, till by transgression he falls from his place. 2. If we know a man to be a child of God, it does not follow that he is to be admitted to fellowship in the Church. Paul in- structs the Thessalonians, " If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but ad- monish him as a brother." Here is one whom Paul will own as a brother, and will have the Church to own, and yet his present conduct, his refusal to submit to inspired counsels, excludes him from fellowship. The open communionist, to be consistent with himself, would stand up before Paul and demand, "Mow dare you forbid GodU child access to his Father^ a table!" Close communion, in excluding from the fellowship in the Church and in breaking of bread, does not deny a spiritual re- lationship to Christ ; but c ' n communion, in making regenera- tion the condition of fello^vship, pronounces a very unwarrant- able and uncharitable sentence on such as are excluded. God's strokes are safer than man's kisses. 3. K we have strong reason to doubt a man's piety, if we know him to be ungodly, and are not able to give definite evi- dence of breach of vows and insubordination to the law of Christ, we would not be justified in excluding him from the Lord's table. The Saviour knew from the beginning what Judas was, and yet, with the Saviour's full concurrence, he holds his place among the Apostles, till by transgression he fell. Caiaphas was high priest, according to a divine ordinance. He was a very bad man, and an enemy of Christ. Yet being in a divine office, from which there was no law to exclude him, God vouchsafes to him the gift of the Spirit. He utters a remarkable prophecy, and that utterance is expressly connected with the Priesthood. ** He spake not of himself, but being high priest that year, he prophesied." 4. Exclusion from the Lord's table, then, does not imply a condemnation of a man's character, but of his principles or his course. " If any man obey not our word by this epistle." " Who concerning the truth have erred." ** Having ei.form of godliness, but denying the power thereof." 5. Open communion discourages self-examination. The Churches have pronounced on our spiritual state. We are accepted as regenerate. Open communion is, in this aspect of it, better adapted to promote spiritual pride and carnal securil^ 35 than the " feax and trembling" of humble piety. In the super- cilious contempt with which its advocates speak of those who diflter from them, and in the assumption of more advanced spirituality and freedom, we discover the fruits matui'ing. 6. It discourages the study of the divine word. If I may eni'oy the highest privileges of the Church, no matter what I believe within the range of Evangelicalism, or what I do within the limits of common morality, there is no very pressing necessity to apply myself to a close and searching examination of the word, tiiat I may know the doctrines and laws of Christ. I am well enough as I am. Exhortations, prayers as little secret as possible, and singing of hymns as exciting as may be, are the elements of enjoyment. 7. Open communion leaves false impressions with regard to the importance of the truth of the gospel. By inviting Metho- dists and Baptists to the Lord's table, we teach them that we make little account of what we profess, and that it has little hold of the heart. We are teaching in the most eflPectual manner our own people, that it is no matter whether we believe that Christ's death secures the salvation of those for whom He died, or that many for whom He died suffer the vengeance of eternal fire ; whether that God chooses men because He foresaw their faith, or that their faith is the result of God's election ; that it is no matter whether our children are baptized or not. 8. "While open communion professes a desire to promote union, it tends to perpetuate disunion to the end. There is the appearance of harmony, and there remains the same contrariety oi judgment, which there is no attempt to correct. It is not because we are enemies of union that we advocate close com- munion, but because we love it. It is not because we are enemies of our brethren who differ from us, but because we love them. We are looking forward to union in all the Churches of the Saints ; we are praying for it, we labour for it — that all may be one as the Father and Son are one, with whom there is no com- promise, no agreement to differ, no open question. We are con- fident of the issue. We are commanded to " speak the same thing," to "be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." We have the promise that the watch- men of Zion shall see eye to eye and sing together. The Spirit, who is given to them that believe, who guides into aU truth, is able to accomplish this, and to teach the members of Christ to speak the same thing. We do not claim for ourselves to have anticipated the time when the Lord shall bind up the breach of his people, and "the light of the moon ehall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days." We desire, we pray, we hope, that, if we be otherwise minded than 36 11 the Record teaches, God will shew it unto us ; and, in the mean time, we recognise the obligation, whereto we have already attained, to walk by the same rule, to mind the same thing ; while we are prepared to honour the servants of the Lord every- where, though in some or many things we consider them in error, or in a false position. What man who loves Christ can banish from his affections the Grostetes, the Amours, the Wes- eels, and the Pascals, of the Church of Eome ? We hold in dis- tinguished honour the Ushers, the Eomaines, the Newtons, the M'Neiles, and the Uniacks, of the Church of England. The names of the Bostons and Thomsons, the M'Cries and Chal- merses, the Cunnyighams and Cookes, of the Established and Dissenting Churches of Scotland and Ireland, are not less revered and loved by Reformed Presbyterians than by their own eccle- siastical brethren. Some may say, " All these honeyed words only shew that Cameronianism itself cannot resist the influence of the expanding and liberalising tendencies of modern illumina- tion." On the contrary, this is its very spirit from tlie beginning — the spirit of true piety and love of the truth, in every place and in every age. We will find the most rigid exclusiveness and severest denunciations of apostacy, of error, and of immorality, bound up with the most ardent Christian affection, yearnings after the spiritual interests of those from whom a separation is maintained, and self-condemnation because of the want of more earnest efforts for their sanctification and salvation. Nor is there any inconsistency in all this. All will acknowledge that there was more of t^te Spirit of Christ in Paul's delivering the transgressor to Sat a, than in the Corinthians' allowance of his presence in the (, iiurch. Paul's severity contemplated his re- formation and salvation, while the liberality and indulgence of the Corinthians tended to his eternal ruin. It is with no com- mon pleasure that I copy another statement from that well in- formed and accurate scholar. Dr. W. H. Goold. " The private sentiments of the men (the Society people,) too, amply show the real generosity which glowed within them. On an inspection of their proceedings and sentiments, so far as they can be now gathered, it is an infamous perversion of all truth to represent them as sour, bigoted, and intolerant. Many hearts would respond with deep sincerity to the noble saying of Ronwick, * when shall those I5e agreed on earth that shall be agreed in heaven. Methinks if my blood were a means to procure that end, I could willingly offer it.' And it is, finally, an in foresting illustration of the comprehensive views and brotherly kindness for which the men of these societies were remarkable, when wo find them specifying among their causes of fasting, a sin, which, in this professedly liberal age, we fear is almost totally over- looked. ' And in a special manner,' to quote their own emphatic words, ' the little extent of our zeal, little minding the dark n tKe mean ,ve already Line thing ; Lord every- !r them in Christ can J, the Wes- tiold in dis- ewtons, the land. The and Chal- tlished and [ess revered ' own eccle- Byed word8 le influence •n illumina- 9 beginning •y place and iveness and immorality, I, yearnings eparation is ant of more n. Nor is v^ledge that Livering the ance of his ited his re- dulgence of th no com- liat well in- ?he private show the inspection can be now o represent arts would onwick, * agreed in ocure that in^oresting y kindness B, when we sin, which, tally over- n emphatic the dark ' 37 places of the land; little concemedness with the case of England or Ireland, though they be in the same covenant with ourselves; little sympathy with the sufferings of other Churches, as France, Hungary, and Piedmont, for which cause we are justly punished with the same extent of sympathy from all.' The men who could speak in this strain, when there was so much to draw and concentrate their undivided regards and attention upon their own case, cannot be called narrow-minded, unless you choose to violate all the proprieties of language. We might challenge the records of all Churches since the Revolution to produce sentiments of such fraternal affection to the Churches of the Reformation as are here strikingly indicated, when coldness, in this respect, is made a special cause of humiliation before God." This is not all. We are prepared to go farther than to love in word and in tongue. There is not one who is called to advo- cate any article of revealed truth, who will not find a Reformed Presbyterian ready to stand by him and support him, though he may have been in keen controversy with him yesterday, and may be to-morrow. No denominational jealousy shall ever come over the spirit of a true Covenanter, to blind him to the pre- eminent claims of truth over all sectional interests. About forty years ago, there was a public, a protracted, and an ardent con- troversy, between the priests of Rome, and the ministers of the Irish Episcopal Church. In conversation with an Episcopal Clergyman, who complained of other Protestant bodies giving them the cold shoulder, I said, we are strongly attached to our own distinguishing profession, but I do not think any of our ministers are capable of looking, without interest, on your argument. He turned full before me and replied, " We never meet with a Covenanter but we meet with a friend." I would not own for a leal-hearted Cameronian one who, in like circum- stances, could not extort a like testimony. I don't know which is more contemptible, the man who would turn away from even an enemy in difiiculties, and the man who could forfeit his own good opinion for the sake of any man's friendship. In Cv^nclusion, we have to say of Reformed Presbyterians that, in poverty and contempt, we have endeavoured to hold up a testimony for the Crown and Dignity of Immaruel, in times of old Moderatism and ungodliness, and in modem times of Infi- delity and Latitudinarianism. This is no small honour, as it is an imperative duty. When the time has come — and come it soon shall — that God shall visit Zicn in His glory, He will raise up, in the midst of apostacy and worldliness, another Luther or Henderson, whose feet shall be like hind's feet, who shall over- leap a wall, and break bows of steel in pieces. Christ must reign till all enemies are under His feet. He is shaking both the Heavans and the Earth, for the removal of things that are unstable, that things which cannot be shaken may be discovered. 38 Darkness may cover the land and gross darkness the people, « hut the Lord shall arise upon Zion, and His glory shall he seen upon her. And the Gentiles shall come to her light and kings to the brightness of her rising." If, in that day, Camer- onianism he found a hlimder and a fable. — Amen. *^ Let God he true J and every man a liar*** 1 s the people, glory snail be her light and day, Camer- Pf. ''Let God ADDENDA. *^* The following sentences were suppHed by the Author, after the first sheet had gone through the press. The first is intended to follow the word principle^ at the close of the first paragraph of page 14. The second portion is to be regarded as a foot-note after the word Reformation^ first sentence of next paragraph, same page : — Dr. Begg, therefore, is not so guilty of professional inconsistency, in defending Irish Prelacy, as some might suppose. He is too well acquainted with the constitution of the Free Church to be guilty of so great a blunder as to plead for a Prelatic establishment, in opposition to the principles of his own denomination. It is no small gratification to be able to add the following oorroborative statement of the Bev. Mr., now Dr. W. H. Goold, whose exact acquaintance with Eoolesiastioal History, and, in particular, the history of the British Churches, few will question: — " The Covenant, so far from being adopted either in the letter or in the spirit by the State, was not even owned by the Church. The monarch took oaths in express contradiction to it. Fresby- terianism, so far from being established * in all his Majesty's (King William's) dominions,' was only established, and that under erastian conditions, in Scotland, while Prelacy reared its head, with lordly arrogance, in England and Ireland. The monarch became an Episcopalian, and by a bond so strict, too, that recently it has been deemed a monstrous inconsistency for royalty to enter a Presbyterian Church. Who but the Society People r>j- monstrated against this torrent of public defection, and, by faithful protest, washed themselves free from national sin. We confess ourselves lost in amazement, that a single man conversant with the history of the period in the slightest degree, can hesitate for a moment in pronouncing their claims to be the true and only representatives ef the Church of the Beformauon, solid beyond the possibility of contradiction. What were the Covenanters without the Covenants, and what were the Covenant unless applied, and applied also to all the purposes for which it was designed?"