DEFENCE OF THE Reformation-Principles OF THE Churoh of Scotland. WHEREIN The EXCEPTIONS that are laidagainft the Conclu( 5 t of the Associate Prsebytery, as alfo againft their judicial AU and won]\ by the Reverend Mr. Currie in his Effay on Separation-^ are examined ,* and the injurious Reflections caft upon our Re¬ forming Period from 1^38 to 1650, in the forefaid Effay are difcovered. By William Wilson A. M. Minifter of the GoTpei at PERTH. I Bev.- ii. 25. But that which ye have already, hold fajl till 1 come. ( Jude, Ver. ^.-—Earnefily contend for the Faith which was once delivered unto the Saints. “ When the greateft; Part of a Church raaketh Defedlion from “ the Truth, the leffer Part remaining found, the greateffc “ Part is the Church of Separatifts: _Tho’ the manieft and “ greateft Part in the adtual Exercife of Difeipline be the “ Church; yet, in the Cafe of right Difeipline, the beft, tho’ “ feweft, is the Church, &c’^ Rutberfoord’s Due Right, &c. P- 255 - plaufibile qitidem eft nomen Facts : fed maledicla efi Fax qua , tanta jatlura reaimitur, ut nohis pereat Chrijii DoBrina: qua fola, in piam & fanUam TJnitatem coalefcimus. Calvin, in A(fta Apoft. p. 200. ; ~ E D I N B U R G H, Printed by T. Lumi/den and J. Rohertfon, for J. Jaffra^; Boo k-fe 1 1 er i n Stirling . L ^HE Quotations from the judicial Jcl and Tejiimony of the Affociate Presbytery are infert according to the lafl: Edition printed on fine Paper, by Jhomas Ltimifden and John Pobertfon j and thefe that are quoted in the Effay, are mentioned according to the Pages the faid Edition: And fuch as want it, may be furnifhed with it at the Printing-houfe of the faid Perfonsj as alfo, with any of the other Papers publifhed by the Seceding Mi-' nifters. The Author expeds that no Perfon will prefume to reprint this TAefence without fpc; cial Licence from himfelf. PREFACE T he The Reverend Mr. Currie Minifter at Kinglajjie has thought fit to take the Field againft the Affociate Presbytery^ and to condemn them, and their judicial AB and ^ejli^ rnony, in a Book which he intitles. An EJfay on Separation, OR, A Vindication of the Church of Scotland. How an ElTay on Separation, and a Vindication of the Church of ! Scotland^ zrc equivalent Ferms^ as the Vi/Zi? imports, I leave I it to hinifclf, or the Recommenders of his Book to ex¬ plain. That which I here notice is, that, through the Whole of his Book, he ranks the Aflbciate Minifters a- mongft the moft rigid Separatifis ; he joins them with the groffeft Sedarians, and lays the Charge of Schifm againft them. In his Preface, p. 11. he tells his Reader, That thefe Brethren “ are doing what they can, to rent, ruinc, “ and occafion Separation from the Church of Scotland." This is a very grievous Charge indeed : But, does not our Author make fome Acknowledgment {Effay^ p. 59.) that j the Church of Scotland may be worfe at this Day than I fometimes formerly ? Does he not profeis to regretc the i late Omiflions, with refped to a judicial Teftimony for Truth, that have been juftly complained of? Does he not j own that there are many Things both amongft Minifters I and People that call for bitter Mourning and Lamenta¬ tion ? p. 221. tho’he is very fparing in condctcending upon Particulars. I have not obferyed that he undertake* to Vi P R E F A C E, to juftify exprefly any of the Steps of Defection, whether in former or prefent Times, that are condemned by the Presbytery in their judicial AGt andTeftimony; only, he alledges as to fome few of them, that they are controverted Points, and therefore, according to him, not fit Matter for a Teftimony. What now have the Aflbciate Presbytery done, for which the Charge of Renting and Raining the Church is brought againft them ? They have even done what our Author acknowledges the Judicatories of the Church fliould have done; they have judicially condemned fome Steps of Defection, and afl'erted the Truths in Op- pofition unto many particular Errors of the prefent Times, which they have in like Manner particularly and exprefly condemned : Are they therefore Schifmatkks, Renters and Ruiners of the Church ’ Yea, fays our Author, they are, and that becaufe they teftify in a Way of Secejfton. Bur, can a judicial Teftimony for Truth, ami againft a Courfc of Defeifion, be obtained in a Way of Conjun< 5 tion with the prefent Judicatories? He cannot refufe that the Judi¬ catories decline to difeharge this Duty: Ought the Duty therefore to be negleded by the fe‘iu who are grieved with their Management? Is it agreeable cither to the Word of God, or found Reafbn, to fay, Becaufe the Alajority of an Ecclefiaftick Body carry on a Courfe of Defedion, and, inftead of doing Juftice to the Truths of God, do manifeft Injury unto them, that therefore the Minority^ who arc grieved with their Pro¬ ceedings, ought not judicially to witnefs againft a Courfe of Defeftion, and in the fame Manner vindicate and af" lert injured Truth ? or, muft they be reckoned Schifma- ticks and Renters of the Church if they do fo? The I 7 n- juftice of the Charge that is laid againft the feceding Mi- nifters, of Ruining and Renting the Church, will further appear, if we enquire into the Reafons why the prefent Judicatories refufe to condemn fuch Steps of Defeftion, or to purge out Iqch Corruptions, whereby the whole Lump IS in Danger to be leavened. Has not the Wif- dom of the Son of God, the glorious Head of the Church, provided fufficient Remedies in the Church for all her internal Neceflities Is not the Difeipline of Chrift’s Ap¬ pointment a fufficient Mean for the Prefervation and Re¬ formation of his own Houfe ? And, have not the Courts of Chrift Power and Authority from the Lord Jefus to exercife the Keys of Government and Difeipline for the Edification of his Body, and the Advancment of his Ho- PREFACE vii nour and Glory ? What Reafon then can be given, why the prefent Judicatories refufe to difeharge their Duty in lifting up a judicial Teftimony for Truth, or why they fefuie to fet about Reformation-work ? There rauft be one of two, I cannot conceive a Midft betwixt them; cither they ) ber of the Body brings before them. Tho* the above arbitrary Step might have been juftly reckoned a Ground of Secejfion from fach Judicatories, who had fo little Re¬ gard unto, yea, who poured fo much Contempt and Scorn upon, fuch a confiderable Number of the Members of the Ecclefiaftical Body, when they came before them with their mournful Complaints; yet, notwithftanding of this, we continued ftill to contend in a Way of Com¬ munion and Conjunction with them. When Teftimonies by Reprcfenrations and Petitions were fo little regarded, feveral Minifters judged it their Duty to tefiify more plainly from the Pulpit againfl the Courfe that the Judicatories were taking: Accordingly the Reverend Mr. Ebenezer Erskine did at the Opening of the Synod of Perth and Stiylin^^ OBoher 1732, teliify doftrinally againJl: the ACt of Aflemhiy part that Year anent the Method of calling Minifters, as alfo againft the Proceedings of Church-judicatories in impofing Minifters upon dilTenting and reclaiming Congregations; but that Synod condemned his DoCtrine, and appointed him to he rebuked at their Bar, for the faithful Freedom he uled: j Upon which he appealed from them to the General Affem^ ! bly that met at Edinhivgh 1733 ; and that AfTembly a-^r~ I med the Sentence, of the Synod, and appointed him to be rebuked at their Bar for impurigtng^ in his Sermon before the Synod, Alls of AJfembly, and Proceedings of Church^ Judicatories. Now, the Door is (Jjut againft dolirinal Tefti¬ monies, and the Mouths of Minifters are ftopt: If they tefiify from the Pulpit againft the Proceedings of Judica¬ tories however arbitrary they may be, or againft ABs of Aft'emblies however oppofice to our Reformation-princi¬ ples and Purity, they muft lay their Account v/ith Churchm cenfure. When Mr. Erskine and three other Minifters per¬ ceived tliis, they judged it their Duty to protefl^ for their ' own juft and ncccfl'ary Exoneration, againft the forefaid i ACf and Sentence : But this Way of teftifying is imme- i diately condemned in a moft fcverc and arbitrary Manner ; the Aflcmbly appoint their Commiffion to fufpend the four 1 prctejlvg Minifiers, in cafe tltey do not retraB their Pro- teftacioi), and declare their Sorrow for the fame ; and, in cafe the forefaid Minifters a£f contrary to the Sentence I of Sufpenfion, the Commifllon is appointed to proceed to j a higher Cenfure againft them. ! Notwirhftanding of the above unjiift Sentence, the four I proteftiug Minifters continued to ceftify in a Way of Comm union ( 3 ° .) Ccmtnmicn with the Jud'catorics: Therefore, at the Meeting of Commiflion in Augufi forefaid Year, they gave in tvjo Teverai ReprefeTstathns - one of them was read^ but the other was refuied a Reading: The Reprclentations are in Print, and fpeak for themfclves. Only, I muft notice, that^ in both their Reprefentationv, they nor only give the Reafbns why they could nor rerra< World, even fuch Separations which u j commanded from unequally ^ 3^ked Fellowfhipsj and thought it likewife needful to . ^ Ihew, that flanding flil] in an Adherence to the Refor- ^ m^ation and refufing to concur with the backfliding Part of a Church, tho the greateft Part, when Union and ■ ^ t^ommunion with them cannot be kept up without Sin, ‘ being induced or feduced from formerly at- « o Ifitcgnty, when the Separation is in that which 1 ^3th commanded all her Members to i: ^ Adis and Authority, is not ^ 1 m nor flnful Separation: He thought it alfo needful o warn, that the Wrath of God is not far oft' from them finful Communion, and partake o '"’ftccs Sms, which in many Cafes the Scripture fays will bring Wrath upon the People. Lev. x. 6 . ifa. ix. 1(5. Ifa. xlin. 27, 28. y^r. ii. 8,5?. Jer. xiv. 15, ?Re»w/£^’sLife, p. 107.^ ( 34 ) 16, S^r.” If the Author oi the Effay thinks it his Duty to attempt a Difcovery of the Evil of Schifm^ I hope I fhall be excufed, when I give my Rsafons why I think our Secejfion from the prefent Judicatories of the Church is both warrantable and receffary., and confequently why I cannot reckon that to be Schifm which he and many others call by that Name ; bur, unlefs the ^ueflion is clearly ftated, the Reader cannot have a diftinct View of the Cale as it ftands betwixt the prefent Judicatories of the Church and the feceding Minifters: Therefore, in order to this, I fliall firrt offer a few Ohferves concerning the Church and Church-communion ; and then I fhall examine into the Way how the Author of the Effay dates the Que- ftion, and fliew that it is mif-Jlated byhinr, and, under this Head, I may take notice of fome lax Principles with rcfpeci: to Churcli-communion, that are cither direftly affirmed, or by juft and necefl'ary Confequence flow from fome Pofirions laid down in the Ejfay, and, in the laft: Place, I ftiaii endeavour to declare the true State of the prefent Queftion. SECT. I. Some Ohferves concerning the Church and Church- Communion. T he TermsCTttrrf', and Church^communion, do fre¬ quently caft up in the prefent Q^ueftion : I fhall therefore offer a few Ohferves concerning them, which may be neceffary for the Reader to have in his Ey.o, it he would be informed in the Queftion betwixt the prefent fudicatories^ and thofe who have ftated a Se~ ceffton from them ; and I hope T fhall advance nothing upon this Head, '"’t what is agreeable unco our laudable Afts and Conftirur ns, and what found Presbyterians, who know their- own Principles, will readily agree unto. I. When I fpeak of the Church in the prefent Que- flfion I do not mean the Church invifible^ but the vtfihlt I Body of Ghrift; and this may be confidered either as it is Catholt>-k and l/niverfal, or it may be taken for parti- cular Churclics. Z. The Catholick vifthle Church conflfts of all thofe throughout the World that profefs the true Religion, anc of tbeirChildren-, and is the Kingdom jf the Lord Jefu Chrift, the Houle and Family of God, out of which tber if no ordinary Polfililiry of Salvation; according to ou ( 3f ) Corf. Chap. 25. § 2. Unto this Catholick vlfible Church, the Lord Chrift, her only Head, Lord and Lawgiver, hath given the Miniftry, Oracles, and Ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the Saints in this Life to the End of the World; according to the forefaid Chapter of out CorfeJJior^ § 3. and the Scriptures cited. 5. As there is a Catholick vifible Church, fo there are particular vijible Churches ; and thefe are either National^ Provincial, Presbyferial, or Parochial: And tho’ every par¬ ticular Church may be confidered as a vifible Body, in refpeCt of its own Members, Order and Government; yet at the fame Time, if any particular Church, whether National or Presbyterial, is confidered with relation to the whole vifible Body of Chrift, it is only a Member thereof; that is, every particular vifible Church ftands in relation to the Catholick Body, as a Part unto the Whole : This neceflarily flows from the Unity or Onenefs of the whole vifible Body of Chrift. 4. Particular Churches, which are Members of the Ca¬ tholick Church, are merte or lefs pure, according as the Doftrine of the Gofpcl is taught and embraced, Ordi¬ nances adminiftrate, and publick Worfliip performed more or lefs purely in them; according to our Confejfton, Chap. 25. § 4. As in the natural Body a Member may be im¬ potent and inaftive, or may be feized with a dangerous and corrupt Ulcer ; this may be the Cafe likewife of par¬ ticular Churches which are Members of the Catholick ! Body. As for Inftance, A National Church, as fhe is re- i prefented in her Judicatories, may fall into fuch a State of Inactivity, whereby fhe does not at all anfwcr the I Ends and Defigns of her Ereftion into a Church-ftate, t namely, the Glory of God, the Support and Defence of the Truths of the Gofpel, and the Edification of the Bo- idy of Chrift: Yea, a National Church may fo far de¬ cline from that Soundnefs and Purity fhe has once attained : iunto, that Ihe may be juftly reckoned an impure or corrupt ■ 'Member of the Catholick Body. 5. The Divine Warrant for National or Presbyterial * t 'Churches is not difputed by thele with whom I have im¬ mediately to do : The Reader, for his own Satisfadfion J 'Upon the Head of National Churches, may confult the aJ judicious Mr. Durham in his Commentary on Kev. xi. 15. [i where he will find the Queftion handled fuccindtly, and K !with a great deal of Judgment; and, upon the Head of D Presbyterial Churches, he may confider what is faid ia' E 2 our ( 3<5 ) bur J^orm c/" Church’-governmnet, But it may not be amifs here to obferve what is meant by a National Church : A National Church, fays Mr. Durham in the Place above- named, is the Combination of a Nation as one unto God ; and Nations or Kingdoms are faid to become the Lord’s “ upon the Sounding of the fevcnth Trumpet, a.s former- ly they were Antichrift’s.” Formerly they belonged to Antichrift, by an outward vifible Profefuon of the Doctrines of tlie Church of Rome^ the Pra6ticc of her idolatrous Worlbip, and Subjeftion to the Papal Power and Authority ; but now they become tlie Lord’s, “ by “ the publick Profeffion of Truth in its Purity, and by “ having his publick Worlbip and Ordinances in their “ Purity, nationally among them.” The Reverend and "Worthy Nutbor of tho Defence of National Churches, pu- blilhed udnno i^zp. p. 13. deferibes a National Church thus; “ When a Nation with its Rulers and Generality of the People do agree to receive the Gofpel, profefs its “ Truths, and fubjeft themfelves unto its Ordinances ; that is, when they join and unite together in one Eccle- fiaftick Body, for maintaining the fame Syftem of Do- “ btrines, and Rules for Church-government and Wor- Ibip, as they judge moft agreeable to the Word of God.’’ As a National Church refpefts thole who are joined to¬ gether in the lame Civil Society by the Providence of God, who hath lefere determined the Bounds of our Habitation ; fo it includes their Union and Cpnjunbtion together in one Body EccJefiaflick, for the Maintenance of the fame Sy¬ ftem of Doctrines, and Rules for Church-government and Worlbip, or, v/hicb is the fame, their joint ProfelTton and Confelfion of the fame Faith, and embracing the lame Ordinances of Worlbip) and fubmitting to the fame Order and Government. 6. The pthJick Profeffion and ConfelBon of the Truths of God, is one of the peculiar Charafterificks of the Church of the living God ; fhe is defigned the Pillar andi Ground of ^ruth, i Vim, iii. 15. that is, the Church is a| publick Wjtnefs unto the Truth, a publick Keeper and| Notificr of the Truth. In the above Words there is am Allulion unto a Cullom among the Antients, who in theiii publick Places and Courts of Judgment had Pillars un-| to which the Edicts of Magirtrates were fixed, that al; might Ice, read and know them : And by Vruth, in thi I Place, we are not only to underftand the Doftrines whic) ought to be bclicvcdj but like wife the Truth as it con cern ( 37 ) cerns the JVorfbip that ought to be praftifed, and that Order and Government that fliould be exerciled in the Houfe of God ; all the Adis, Statutes, Ordinances and i Inftitutions of the Head and Lord of the Houfe, ought fo be plainly and clearly publifhed, efpecially by the Church-reprelentative, or by the Office-bearers of the Church in their Judicative Capacity, that they may be read, known, and embraced by all the Members of the Body. The Church ought to bear ^efiimony and Witnefs, ip a particular and exprefs Manner^ to thefe ^ruthi that are (ontroverted and oppofed by the Subtilty of Men, or the ‘ Wickednefs of Hell; this is a Debt that 2 vion owes to her God, to make publick Profeffion and Confeflion of him and his Truths, Pfal. cxlvii. iz. Praife thy Gody O Zion\ or, as it is emphatically rendred in our Paraphrafe which 1 we fing, Zion, thy God confe/s. As this is a fpecial Charge : given unto her, fo it is the Church’s greateft Dignity and : Honour to confefs him; if fhe refufes or neglefts to con'^ ‘ fefs his controverted and oppofed Truths, he is exceed,. : ingly difhonouredj and fhe does not anfwer one of the i primary Ends and Defigns of her Erection and Conrtitu- 1 tion upon this Earth. When the Lord did with an out- ' ftretchcd Arm bring the Protefient Churches out of fpiri- i tual Babylon, they came forth with a ^efiimony in their I Hands againft the Abominations of Rome ; the feveral ; Churches emitted their Confejftons of Faith, and in I them the Banner was difplayed for Truth, and the Stan- , dard of a publick Teftimony was lifted up againft the i abominable Doftrines, and the tyrannical Ufurpations of i the Church of Rome. That Harmony is beautiful which 1 v/e may obfervc amongft the feveral ConfeJJions of the re- i formed Churches, and an Evidence that there was a fpe- : cial Prefence of God with them, and alfo of a plentiful I Etfufion of the holy Spirit upon them ; it is likewife a I hopful Prefage, that v/hen the Lord turns again the Cap- i tivity of Zion, and when his holy Arm fhall give the Blow unto the Throne of the Beafl, the feveral Churches and their Watchmen Jball fee Eye to Eye, and that vojth j the Voice together they fiall fing. I conclude this Head with i ob/erving. That the 'National Church of Scotland, in her ;; reforming Times, was a confejfing Church in a peculiar i Manner; JJot only was her firjl Confejfion of Faith recei- I ved and publiflied, as the Confeffion of the Faith of the i States of Scotland, ‘with the Inhabitants of the fame profef- 'i ^ff^ChriftJefus his holy GofpeV, but this Confeffion was fi " ra- ll ( 38 ) ratified with a folemn Oath, frequently renewed, asalCo the AbofBinations of Popery were particularly abjured. Hence all Ranks of Perfbns, and all the Members of this Church come to the Years of Dilcretion, did, by their Hands lifted up to the mod high God, became Confejfors^ in an eminent Way and Manner, of the Lord Jefus, and of his precious Truths: This folemn Profeffion and Con- fellion of the Truth was in reforming Times the out¬ ward Bond of Union and Communion, both unto Church- members among themfelves, and unto the Office-bearers of this Church in her feveral Judicatories; but whether the Church of Scotland at this Day, in her feveral Mem¬ bers, or as fhe is reprefented in her prefent Judicatories, is a ivitnejfing and confejjlng Church, in Oppofition to the Errors and Corruptions of the prefent Age, will afterward fall under our Confideration. 7, There is an Union and Communion CaihoJick and Uni~ verfal amongji all Ckrijlians, confidered as fuch ; and an Ecclejlajlick Union and Communion amongfi Members of one "particular Organical Church, confidered as Members of that Church. This Obferve I take from Mr. Shiells on Church~ communion^ p. 25. a Book frequently cited in the EJfay. The fame worthy Author likewife obferves, that “ Orga~ nick Communion muft be on drifter Terms than Catholick “ Communion with others that are not Members of the fame Organick Church.” He adds, “ If we were in “ Mfrick or MJia, we would join with all Chridians hol- ding the fame fundamental Tedimony againd 'Je’ws^ SUurks and Pagans, tho’ not with Hereticks.” And it is plain, that all Chridians have Union and Communion to¬ gether, in fb far as they hold the fundamental Tedimony of Chridianity againd declared Infidels; in like Manner all Protedaiits, in fo far as they hold the Protedant Tedi¬ mony againd the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome. But tho’ all the Members of thcCatholick vi- fible Church, profefling the true Religion, have Union and Communion among themfelves, in their joint Profef- fion of the fame Lord, and the fame Faith, and in recei¬ ving the fame Raptifm; yet, as a confiderable Divine cx- predes himfelf *, “ The Obligation that lies upon Mem- “ bers of the fame particular vifible Church, to hold “ Communion v/ith thefe with whom they are externally joined, is not v/ithout its Bounds and Meafures; we arc y joined together under certain Conditions.” The Condi- ticnj * Le Clauci'i Hid. Def. Part 3 * p- 9. ( 39 ) \thtis and Means of our Union and Conjunction, in this particular Or^ar/ick Church^ 'dVCy one Confefjion of Faith^ one Form and Order of Church-^overnmeni and Di/ciplinef one DiveBory for lVoyJhip\ or, The outward Ligament and Bond of our Union and Conjunction in this National Church, is that Syflem of pure and found DoCtrine, that Order of Government, Worfhip and Difeipline, held forth from the Word of God, in our Confejfion of Faith^ Bocks of Difeipline, Form of Church-government, and Di- reBory for Vf'orfbip, in the Profeffion and Obedience of which all Ranks of Perfons in this Land have folemnly bound and obliged themfelves to abide, hy the National Covenant of Scotland, and tlie Solemn League and Covenant of the three Nations. Whether this Bond of ourEccIe- fiartical Union is maintained by this National Church in iher prefent Judicatoiies, and confequently whether or not the Conditions of our Union and Conjunftion in oneEc- iclefiaffical Body do now fubfift, will likewife fall after- I wards under our Confideration. SECT. 11. ^hc ^uefiion mif-flated, and fever al I an Prin^ ciples anent Church-communion niaintainedy in the Iffay. W HEN the Commijfion of the General AlTembly did by their Sentence, as is noticed already, thvuft out four Minifters from Communion with the pre¬ fent Judicatories, the faid Minifters did at the fame Time declare a Secejfion from them, and that becaule they were Carrying on a Courfe of Defection from our Reformed and Covenanted Principles. Therefore it is a very great Mi- ftake in the Ejfay, and a mif ftating of theQueftion, when he affirms, that violent Intrufons were at that Time the thief Ground of the Complaint, p. 6. Violent Intrufions were indeed one of the Grounds of Complaint; but many other Steps of Defeftion were likewife complained of, as appears from v/hat has been narrated in the IntroduBion and, amongft others, the Injury that was done to many important doCtrinal Truths by the ConduCt of Judicato¬ ries, when grofs Errors were brought to their Bar: And, I humbly judge, the Blow that was thereby given to the truths, held forth from the Word of God in our Con- fejfion of Faith, deferves to be reckoned amongft the chief Grounds (4® ) Grounds of Complaint; tho’, as we fhall afterwards fee, this, as well as other Steps of Defection, make but very little Impreffion upon the Author of this EJfay. .From what is above oblerved, it is alfo plain, that it was noc violent Intrufions, it was not the Adc. 1732, neither was it any other particular Step of Defection, confidered ab- firaBly and by themfelves, upon which the SeceJJlon was ftated; but a complex Courfe of Defection, both in Do- ftrine, Government and Difeipline, carried on with a high Hand by the prefent Judicatories of this Church, juftifying themfelves in their Procedure, and refufing to Ife reclaimed. Hence in our firji ^efiimony, wherein we give the Reafons at large for our Proteftation, bearing our Seceffion from the prefent Judicatories, we lay the Charge againft them f, “ Of breaking down our beautiful Pref- “ byterian Conftitution, and of purfuing fuch Meafures “ as actually corrupt, or have the moft direct Tendency “ to corrupt, the Doctrine contained in our ConfeJJion of “ Faitbj as alfb of impofing new Terms of Communion;’* and we obferve, “ That all this is done contrary to their fblemn Engagements when ordained to the holy Mini- “ ftry,,notwithftanding that the ordinary Means had been “ ufed to reclaim them, till at length Matters were come " to fuch a Height, that we were excluded from keeping up a ftanding Teftimony againft their Defections in a “ Way of Communion with them.” The above Charge is made good by Arguments taken from Matters of FaCt in the forefaid Paper; I may leave it*to the unprejudifed Reader, who has been at Pains to inform himfclf in this Controverfy, to judge, whether or not the Author of the EJfay has ever once entred into the Queftion or Argument as it is more fully ftated in the forefaid Paper. The Author of the EJfay proceeds in his fifth Chapter to his Arguments againft Separation. Tho’ he has never ftated the Queftion concerning Seceffion, as the Cafe ftands betwixt the prelent Judicatories and the Aflbciate Pref- bytery; yet, left he alledge that this is done in his fitft four Chapters, in the feveral Principles and Propofitions that he has laid down, I lhall briefly examine fome of his leading Principles, which, I hope to make evident, arc partly general and ambiguous, and others of them exceeding lax, and therefore, inftcad of giving us a juft View of the State of the Queftion, have a native Tendency, either to intangle and infhare his Reader, or to amufe and per¬ plex him. The t Firft ^ef imony^ p, The EfTay is begun 41^ with the following AfTertion That Separation from a true Church is not only a great “ Milery, but a grand Sin. ” This is everywhere affir¬ med through the as p. 7, Prop, 3. “ Tho’ Sepa “ ration from a true Church be a great Sin, QPc.'’ and very much Weight and Strefs is laid upon it. But the Author has given no determinate Senfe of the Terms true Churchy nay, they are ufed by our Author in a very general and equivocal Senfe. Our Divines, in fpeaking of the Church, tell us, That a particular vifible Church may be confidered, either as fhe is a true Church, or as fhe is a pure Church ; and, when they fpeak of a pure Church, they do not mean & perfeB Church, but a Church that, thro’ the Goodnels and Mercy of God, has attained to fnch a Meafure of Conformity to the Divine Pattern, in her Doctrine, Worfliip, Government and Difciplinc, that the Denomination of Pure may be juftly given unto her, tho’ fhe has not yet attained unto a State of Perfcdtion. Thus the learned lurretine, in the Place cited by our Author *, EJfay p. 4. diflinguilhes betwixt a true Church and a pure Church; after giving the Marks of a true Church, he obferves, “ That fometimes Hay and Stubble “ may be built upon the Foundation, and yet a Church “ is not thereby immediately deprived of the Dignity of “ being a Church; and, tho’ Ihe cannot be any more “ reckoned a pure Church, fhe does not therefore ceafe “ to be a true Church.” Our Preibyterian Divines have likewife obferved, That tho’ a Church may have all ihefc Things that are effential to the Being of a Church, yec there may be Ground of Seceffion from her. So Mr. Fo~ rejler, in his Book cited by our Author, affirms Jp, Evc- “ ry Separation is not finful, even from a Church which hath the ElTentials, yea, and more than the Eflenti- “ als.” And conftquently, according to this learned Man, what our Author advances, EJJay p. 4. is nowife to “ the Purpofe, when he fays, “ I humbly think, none who knows what orthodox Divines reckon effential to “ the Being of a true Church ofChrift, but will readily ‘ own all that and much more is to be found in the '* Church of Scotland- ” Our Author has never told us what orthodox Divines reckon effential to the Being of a Church ; but tho’ he fhould prove that the Church of Scotland in her prefent Judicatories has the EffesiialSf yea, F more * ^ur, Loc. 1§. Queft, 12, Seft, J, 4 = Dwl. 3. p. 7. ------ ^ ( 4 * ) ,, ■war? than the Enentials, it will not hence follow, according to Mr. Forffflery that there is no Ground of Secejfton from them. If then by a true Churchy and a Church having the Things that are reckoned ejfential to the Being of a true Churchy our Aufhor means a Church wherein fuch Do- ftrines as are abfolutely necefTary to be known and believed in order to Salvation, are held, at leaft by external vifible Profeflton ; then I affirm it isfalfey that a Separation from fuch a Church is always a great hlifcry and grand Sin ; for this Reafoti, That fuch Hay and Stubhle may be built upon the Foundation, and fuch Corruptions both in Government and Difeipline may be introduced, as may make it necef* fary and warrantable to depart from Communion with her. Thus the Church of England holds the Truth in her dcSlrinal Articles; but, befides her Corruptions in Go¬ vernment, Worfhip and Difeipline, ffie has always declined to teflify againft many groft and hainous Errors which have been vented and taught by her Members, and which are directly contrary to her own received and approven Articles : Therefore a Secejjlon has been juftly dated from her by a confiderable Body of Dijfenters in England and Irelandy by fome of them upon all of the Grounds above- mentioned, tho’ by the Generality of them on Account of her Corruption in her Government and Worfhip. But if, by a true Churchy our Author means a Church that has attained to the Purity above-mentioned; As this is the Meaning of the Terms true Kirky in the i8th Article of our firft ConfeJJlon of Faithy as is evident from the Marks and Characiers there given, fo our Author will never be i able to prove that they are to be found in this National Church as (he is now reprefented in her prefent Judica rories. The Characters of a true Church, mentioned in the forefaid Article of our Confeffiony hold forth unto us a pure and found Church ; a Church holding the Head, difplaying the Banner of Truth againft the Adverfaries of Truth ; a Church wherein Ecclefiaftical Difeipline is cxercifed, for the Edification, and not for the DeftruCti- on of the Body of Chrift; and finally, a Church wherein the Seals of the Covenant are difpenfed hy fuch as are lawfully called, and authorifed by the Head and Lord of the Houfe to feed the Sheep of his Pafture. But I have made it already appear in Part, in the Poflfcript to the Letter on Sectjjftony that thefe Charafters do not agree to this National Church in her prefent Situation, and it may be more evident from what is afterwards to be advanced The r f 43 ) . . The Author of the Effay proceeds in his /econd Chapter to lay down fandry Propojttiorn anent Separation. I fliall pafs hisfr[l Propofition juft now. His fecond Propofition runs in the following Terms ; “ ^here maybe different «Se«- “ timenit •without Separation." This is a fair General; Bur, when he comes to the Illuftration of if, he tells us. As long as we fee but in Part, as we think others “ fhould allow us to differ from them, we ought to for- “ bear fuch as differ from us, I mean, in Things not fun- “ damental.” 'Tht’Vcrms fundamental and not fundamen¬ tal likewife run throughout his whole Effay^ as p. i<-’» of notorious ’thieves ind Robbers, and the Church may be a Society made up iof Infidels who deny the Refurredtion of the Dead, or of Brians, Socinianty and the very worft Hereticks. I doubt not but in the pureft Churches Error may fpring up, as alfo the Office-bearers may need to be excited and ftirred ip to their Duty ; this is the Cale with refpedt to the inftance that he gives us from the Church of Corinth : The Apoftle, in his firft Epiftle, ftirs up the Office-bearers of rhat Church to the Exercife of Difeipline againft the in- 'e^tiOHs Perfon; he chargech like wile fome in that Church G 2 with ( IS 5 with denying the RefurreBion of the Dead; But then it deferves our Confideration, that from his fecond Epifile it is evident, that the Presbytery of Corinth had obeyed the j 4 poflolical Admonition^ and had repented of their Negligence ; they cenfttred the inceftuous Perfon, and the Cenfure had its defired EfFeft ; confequently this Church was, in her Ecclefiaftick Capacity, a reforming Church, 2 Cor. ii. 6 ^ 7. Chap. vii. 8, 9. I likewife conclude, that the Of¬ fice-bearers of the Church of Corinth had difeharged their Duty, either in reclaiming fuch who denied the Refur- reftion of the Dead, or by a fuitable Teftimony againft fuch obftinate Hereticks; and that becaufe of their for- rowing after a godly Mannery in the Place cited ; as alfo, be¬ caufe in his fecond Epifile he does not give the leaft Hint, that this capital Herefy which he had condemned, and charged fome of them with, was remaining amongft them j And if the Author of the Effay or any others will affirm that the Herefy remained uncenfured in Corinthy they accufe, not the Apofile Paul only, but a greatery even our Lord Jefus Chrift himfelf, who, by his Spirit (peaking in the Apoftle, gives not the leaft Reproof or Admonition on that Head in the fecond Epiftle, when they are fuppofed to flight the Warning that was given them in the frfl. From what is obferved it is evident, that our Author’s Inftance of the Church of Corinth does not prove his Pro- pofition. Our Author thinks fit (bmetimes to cite Doftor Owen : I hope he cannot juftly refufe me the fame Liber¬ ty ; and therefore I lhall fubjoin the DoBors Anfwer to the Ohjeftion againft Separation from a corrupt Church, from the Cafe of the Church of Corinthy in his Piece on Schifmy p. 265. He grants, that many Abufes may enter into the beft Churches, and that Seceffion is not to be immediately ftated without Attempts for Remedy unto fuch Dilbrders; and this the feceding Minifters likewife yield : “ But (fays the Doctor) had the Church of Corinth con- “ tinned in the Condition before-deferibed, that notori- “ ous (candalous Sins had went unpuniflied, unreproved, Drunkennefs continued and praftifed in the Aflemblies, “ Men abiding by the Denial of the Refurredtion, fo overturning the whole Gofpel, and the Church refufing “ to do her Duty, and exercife her Authority, to caft all “ thefc diforderly Perfons, upon their Obftinacy, out of her Communion ; it had been the Duty of every Saint of God in that Church to have withdrawn from it, to ** come out from among them, and not to have been Par- taker '* taker of their Sins, unlels they were willing to partake '* of their Plague alfo, which upon fuch an Apoftafy “ would certainly enfue.’* Tho’the Chapter above-men¬ tioned gives Occafion for Abundance of Remarks, yet I lhall not trouble the Reader with them ; only it deierves to be noticed, that, in all the Inftances he gives us of Grounds of Mourning and Lamentation, we have none from the Conduit of the pre/ent JudkatoYies of the Church of Scotland ; He gives his Opinion, that the A 6 t of AH. fembly 1732 was a bad A&, p. 21. but he nowhere rec¬ kons it a Caufe of Mournings even tho’ this A6t, albeit it is repealed, is to this very Day juftificd praftically, by the Procedure of Judicatories in this Settlement of Mini- ftcrs; and likewife he makes fome faint Accknowledg- ment, that there may be much Ground at this Day to la¬ ment over a dead Miniftry in many Places, p. 24. but he gives Vent to his Inveftives againft our reforming Pe¬ riod, particularly againft the Aflembly 1638, as p. 20, 21, The Author of the E(fay goes on, in his fourth Chapter, to inifance feveral Things reckoned juft and fufficicnt Caufes for Separation from a Church. The frft is, “ When a Church turns heretical in her Doctrine, main- “ taining fuch Do 3 ;rines in her Standards as are everfive “ of the Foundation, utterly inconfiftent with Salvation; or denies fuch Truths, without the Knowledge and “ Faith whereof we cannot have Life and endlefs Happi- ‘‘ nefs. ” He gives an Inftance in three fundamental Truths; I hope he does not pretend to give us a Lift of fuch Truths as are fundamental. I have already obferved, that the Queftion about Foundation-truths is a very im¬ portant one : All Divine Truths arc fo clofly linked to¬ gether, that it is not eafy to determine the Queftion about Doftrines everfive of the Foundation. I may tranfcribe, to this Purpofe, fome emphatick Words of the Author of the Fulfilling of the Scriptures, Append, p. 511, 512. Truths, comparatively fmall, may be great in their “ Scafon, when they are the Word of His Patience; yea, “ we may fay, the lefler it feems, and of mean Value “ with many, it makes the Chriftian’s Adherence thereto “ a greater Teftimony. It is clear what a clofe Concate- “ nation there is amongft the Truths of God held forth in the Scripture, that one Part thereof cannot be reached ** without a fpecial Prejudice to the Whole; yea, it may be faid, every Corruption of the Truth hath an Aim ‘‘ at the very Soul of Religion, by a direft Tendency thereto.**. 4 ( ( 54 ) thereto.*' But whereas our Author affirms in his above Propofition, that there is Ground of Separation from a Church, w'hen fhe maintains fuch Doilrines in her Stan¬ dards as are everfivc of the Foundation ; There is a fiion that comes UjX)n the Field in the prefent Difpute, and that is, When the publick Standards of a Church are found, yet Errors ftriking at the Foundation, and everfive of that Scheme of Dodfrmc contained in her Cotifejpon of Faith^ are brought to the Bar of her fudicatoriesy but they refufe to cozdemti them as contrary to her Standards, and give no fuitable Feflimsriy againft them ; W'^hether or not, in this Cafe, that Church is holding the P'oundation ? And, I am afraid, this will be found to be the State of Matters with the Judicatories of this Church; and, if this is the Cafe, there is as much Ground for Scceflon from them, as if Doftrines everfivc of the Foundation were maintained in her Standards. A Confeffion of Faith is of no more Ufe as a Teft of Soundnefs in tfic Faith in any Church, yea, it is ftript of its principal Ufe and Dcfign, if Errors are vented and maintained everfivc of the Scripture-do-’ fl:rines contained therein, and if the Judicatories of a Church refufe to declare fo much. But tho’the Author of the EJfay lays down the above Propofition, That there is Ground of Separation from 3' Church, when Ihe maintains fuch Dodtrines in her Stan¬ dards as are everfivc of the Foundation ; yet we are at a ‘ Lofs to know what his real Sentiments upon this Head are. As the Title of his Chapter runs, he may be conftrud:cd to be taking upon him the Parc of an Htfioriarty reporting feveral Things which are reckoned juft and fufficient Caufcs for Separation. They arc reckoned^ fays he; But, by whom;’ He does not fay exprefly that he himfelf reckons them; and accordingly I find him once and again limiting and reftridfing the above Propofition, as p. i6. “ When “ Defedtion from the Truth is made in Fundamentals, and “ the Church’s Standards of Dodfrine are corrupted, and “ - port the fame; for it is Truth, that the Church of Rome ■was guilty of cruel Tyranny, and intolerable Perfecution. But, to fpeak plain upon this Head, our reformed Divines allow Tyranny in Government to be a Ground of Seceflion from a Church, tho’ fhe has not arrived at the Height of Roman Cruelty and Perfecution j therefore Mr. Shielh in the Place cited, when he mentions Tyranny of Govern¬ ment, which he fays is commonly allowed by all to be one of ■f On Church-communiony p. 18. 11 Difput. ^ Nsceff. Secejf. Queft, i. Sed. 12, ( >7 ) . . oF tFie Grounds of Separarion, he explains it 'oF ^yranfifi encroaching upon the Right of AdminilFration, and the Exercife of it then and there.” Bur, that the Queftioti upon the fdcad of Tyranny may he more clearly ftated, I muft obferve, That a Church may be faid to be tyrannical in her Government, either when the Form and Model of her Government is tyrannical, or when flie is tyrannical in the Jdminifiration of her Government. Our Presbyte¬ rian Divines do generally affirm, that Dioceftan Epifcopacy is a tyrannical Form and Model of Government: And rho’ Prelacy was not fo tyrannical in its Form and Model before the Year 1638, as when it was re-introduced into this Church in the Year 1662, as I fhall afterwards fhew ; yet a SecefRon was ftated by faithful and eminent Minifters, , even from that Form and Model of Prelacy that obtained : before the Year i6;8. And it is what cannot be refufed, that the Bulk and Body of Presbyterians in Scotland did Ifate a Seceflton upon that Form and Model of Prelatick Government that was eftablifhed in the Year 1662; and their refufing Communion with the Prelatick Church of Scotland^ was made a Handle of for that violent Perlecu- ; tion that was railed againft them. But, according to our I Author’s Way of ftattng the Cafe anent Tyranny in Go- • vernment, unlcfs there is mojl cruel and habitual Tyrannyi with intolerable Perfecution of Soul or Body, there is no ' Ground of Seceffion from a Church on the Head of Ty- 5 fanny; yea further, according to our Author’s Way of I reafoning, it appears to me, that there was no Ground of : Seceffion from the Prelatick Church of Scotland purely ■ upon her Form and Model of Government; at leaft, that i Church-members might have entertained Communion irt I Worfhip v/ith that Church: Efpecially when it is confi- f dered, that, during the late Times of Prelacy, the Cere- : monies of the Church of England had no Place in her Worfhip. Again, a Church may be faid to be tyrannical in her i Government, when the j 4 dminifivation of her Government 1 is tyrannical: As for Inftance, Tho’ Presbyterian Church- .'government, as to its Form and Model, is Divine', yet ifj I under the Shadow of the faid Government, a lordly and rnagifierial Power is exercifed over the Heritage of God, if the Flock of Chrift are ruled with Rigour, if the Keys of Government and Difeipline arc perverted; in theft; Cafes the Adminifiration is tyrannical, and the Government i is not a Whit better than if its Form and Model were H Pr*- I ( 58 ^ Prelatkal. We ufe to fay, Corrupth optimi pejfima. This tyrannical Adminiftration of the Government lays a juft Foundation for Seceflion from Church-judi¬ catories, who are walking quire contrary to the End and Defign of their Erection and Conftitution in the Church, and who thereby forfeit their Claim to the Exercife of the Keys of Government and Difeipline in the Houfe of God ; And that this is the State of Matters in the prefent Judicatories, may be made evident afterwards. I fliall only add further, for clearing this Head, That it is not Sejfionsy PresbyterieSy Synods and General Jjfembliesy that make us truly a Presbyterian Churchy but the free Jccefs of Church-members with their Grievances unto thefe Courts; and i\i^Exercife of Adinijlerial Power a.nd Authority in them, for the Edification of the Body of Chrift, for the Redrefs of their Grievances, for the Removal of Offences whereby the Flock of Chrift may be hurt or ftumbled, for pre~ ferving the Inftiturions of Chrift in their Purity, for main¬ taining that Liberty wherewith Chrift hath made his Peo¬ ple free, and for purging the Church of fuch Errors or erroneous Perfons whereby the whole Body is in Danger to be leavened. If Power and Authority is not exercifed in the faid Judicatories, for thefe and the like valuable Ends, to the Honour and Glory of the Head of the Church; or if it is exercifed by the Judicatories of a Church unto quite contrary Ends and Purpofes; What remains but a Prelatick Government, under a Presbyterian Name and Shadow ? The fourth Inftance given in the Ejfay is concerning the Intrufon of Minifters, p. 29. “ Some, fays hey make •* the Intrufion of Minifters upon Chriftian Congregations •* a Ground of Separation.” He owns, that the Charge of violent Intrufions “ is a Charge from which the Church of Scotland can leaft be vindicated of any Thing laid to her Charge fince the Revolution, confidering how many “ Settlements have been made when Congregations “ were reclaiming fince the Aft reftoring Patronages Anno 1712.” p. 30, What he adds concerning the Stop that has been put to fuch violent Settlements, 1 fhall af¬ terwards confider. But he further adds, “ Whatever “ Ground there is for Lamentation, there is no fufficienc •* Ground for Separation from the Church of Scotland ** Qotwithftanding of fuch Intrufions, whatever fbme par- ** dcular Congregations may have to fay for vindicating ^ their Praftice in not attending upon the Miniftry of “ fuch . ( 59 .) ** fuch as are violently thruft in upon them.” Here a* gain our Author perverts the true State of the Queftion, in regard the prefent Judicatories of this National Church muft be confidered as carrying on, authorifing and fup- porting violent Settlements, notwithlfanding of manifold : Remonftrances againft their Conduft and Practice, both by Miniftcrs and other Church-members: And confe- qucntly the Queftion is, Whether or not this, with other ■ Adts of Tyranny in the Adminiftration that may be af¬ terwards named, juftly infer that the prefent Judicatories : are fo tyrannical in their Government, that our Seceflion from them is neceflary and warrantable ? Our Author en- [ dcavours to imprefs his Readers with his great Zeal a- I gainft violent Intrufions; yet he thinks fit to make an Jpology for his Brethren that are aftive in carrying on vio- , lent Settlements, when he tells us, p. 32. “Tho’I am not ' “ to vindicate them, yet fundry of our Brethren who have I ‘‘ gone Lengths in appearing for Candidates having Pre- “ ientations, which others cannot but condemn, have > “ declared. Was it not for the Strait the Church is in from I “ the Grievance of Patronage, which they profefs is a I “ Grievance to them as well as others, they had been as ' “ averfe from countenancing fuch Settlements as any.” It I is a very mean Jpology for them, to tell the World that I the Grievance of Patronage {that is, the Civil Law eftabli- ’ fhing Patronages) has led them to counteraH the Laws of I the only Lord and Lawgiver of Zion. If our Author I had dealt faithfully with his Brethren, and according to : the great Zeal that he profefl'es, he ought plainly to have I told them that they fhould rather fttffer than Jin; But, that 1 he may dill extenuate their Sin, he likewife adds, “ They “ affirm, the gravaminous Law of Patronages conftrained “ our Church-judicatories, even in the beft and pureft Times of Reformation, to the like Meafures.” Our Author muft needs have a good deal of Affurance, when he reports, without a juft Remark upon it, that his intru¬ ding Brethren affirm, that the Judicatories of this Church in her reforming Times purfued the like Meafures with the I prefent Judicatories in the Settlement of Minifters. This 1 is a molt injurious Refleftion upon them. Can bis Bre¬ thren give one Angle Inftance of their purfuing the like Meafures with the Affembly 1737, in their Ad: and Sen¬ tence anent the Settlement of the Parifh of Denny ? befides many other particular Inftances that might be given. Or, can our Author or his Brethren give any Inftance of ag- H z grieved ( ■' 5 ° ) . grieved and opprefled Congregations coming before mif General Aflemblies in our reforming Times, with a loud Cry of Oppreflion on the account of the violent Settle¬ ment of Minifters amongft them? But, how many Inftan- ces have we bad of this kind before our National Affera- blies within thefe tv/enty Years bypaft ? Yet he tells us. They affirm, that our Church-judicatories in our pureft Times of Reformation took the like Meafures with the prefent; and, if it is not Truth which they affirmj what End can our Author propofe to himfelf by reporting it in his EBay without a jull Remark upon it, unlefs it is that he may extenuate their Sin ? Upon this Head of the Intrufion of Minifters, the Bffiay obferves, p. 29. “ That fundry of the Diflenters ** from the Church of England have judged the Want of ‘‘ a free Choice in the Eleftion of their own Paftors, is enough to vindicate them in feparating from the Com- munion of that Church.” But it feems he has not found a Scots Presbyterian Divine that makes the Intrufion of Minifters a Ground of Separation. Since our Author thinks fit to deal fo much in Authorities, I fhall give him two Teftimonies, upon this Head, from an Author whom be juflly commends, i/iz. Mr. Shiells on Church-communion^ who, p. 18. mentions “ four general Grounds of Separa- ®‘ ration commonly allowed by all, Here/y in DoHrine, Ido- latry or Breach of the Second Command in the Matter and Manner of Worlhip, 7 Ktr«j?oM or Tyranny of Govern- “ ment, and Schifm or a divided Government.” This wor¬ thy Author is pleading for Communion with the Miniftry about the Time of the Revolution^ and he applies the four general Grounds in the following Manner; Speaking of the Minifters at that Time, he fays, “ For as none can “ doubt their Right to adminiftrate all Ordinances, fb there is none of thefe Ordinances perverted by them ei- ther in Matter or Manner, fince they are not erroneous in Doftrinc, nor do break the Second Commandment in Worfhip, nor Intruders or ^yrartnicaly nor fehifma- tical in Difeipline or Government.” I heartily wifti that we could fay as much concerning the prefent Miniftry and Judicatories of this Church. From the above Words it is plain, that Intruders^ and Tyrannical, are one and the fame with Mr. Shiells ; as alfb, that Intrufion, or Tyranny in Government, when it prevails in a Church, is a Ground of Sefaration commonly allowed by all. Likewife, the In- insfioa of Minifters was one of the Grounds upon which a ( 6i ) SeceJJtofj was dated from the PreJatick Church of Scotland by the Body of Presbyterians^ as the fame Author fhews at Length, Hind-let-loofey p. 256, 237, &Pc. to which I refer the Reader, When the Author of the EJfay^ in the Words cited above, teems to allow that particular Congregations have fomerhing to fay for refufing to fubmit to the Mini- ftry of fuch as are intruded upon them, I humbly judge Minifters may have as much to fay, who refufe Commu¬ nion with fuch Judicatories as obtrude Minifters upon Chriftian Congregations; thiere is as much Reafon on the one Side, as the other; Yea, there may be more Reafon for refufing Communion with the Judicatories, if there is any Weight in what our Author very well knows. In¬ truders have fometimes pled in their own Defence, that they muft fubmit to the Authority, and obey the Sentences of Judicatories; and, if the Judicatories did not intrude Minifters upon Congregations, Intrufions could not take Place by any other Means whatfoever. His next Inftance of a Ground of Separation is. When Minifters are fcandalcus in Life and Converfation. And here I have no Difference with him; For he not only tells us what fame affirm^ and what fame think y but declares plainly, that he is much of their Opinion, who think, ‘‘ fuch as are evidently Icandalous may be withdrawn from, “ albeit, through the Iniquity of the Times, they fhould “ not be cenfured by a Church-judicatory when com- “ plained of.” The laft Inftance he gives, of what is reckoned Ground of Separation, is, “ The impofing the leaft finful Term of Communion upon us.” Here again he delivers himfelf plainly; for he owns, that this is Ground of Separation from a Church. He adds, “ Some have been of Opinion, “ that this is the only Ground that can juftify Separation “ from a Church of Chrift.” And here, at the Foot of the Page, he cites Claud's Defence of the Reformation^ but he cites no Place of that Book ; And, if he pleafes to con- fult it, he will find other Grounds of Separation advan¬ ced ; as for Inftance, Claud affirms, “That when Cor- “ ruprion fpreads over all the Body {viz. of the Mkii- “ ftry) in fuch a Manner, and to that Degree, that the “ Safety of the Faithful cannot longer fubfift under the “ Conduct of thefe Perfons, and that there is no Hope among them of any Amendment, then the only Reme- “ dy that remains is to feparate from them ; and it would “ be fo far from either violating the Order of God, or oppo- ( ) oppofing the Miniftry that he had ict up, that it would be on the contrary to deliver it, as much as in us lay, “ out of the Hands of thofe who have invaded it, and to draw it out of that Opprcffton to which they have rc- “ duced it: This Separation therefore only regards thofe “ Perfons who were unlawfully called to the Miniftry, and who abufod it againft God and his Church And here, by the by, our Author may obforve a famous re¬ formed Divine acknowledging the Juftice of Separation from thofe who are unla^wfully called to the Miniftry ; And I leave it to himfelf to judge, if Intruders are lav;^ fully called to the Miniftry ; as alfo, whether or not the Minifterial Power is abufed againft God and his Church, when Men are intruded upon diftenting and reclaiming Congregations, who are willing to have a Gofpel-minifter fettled amongft them. He cites alfo, at the Foot of his Page, Bifhop Burnetts Hiftory of his own Time : Bur he might have been afhamed to have mentioned one who is known to be abundantly lax in his Principles about Church- communion; and efpecially, when, in the Place to which our Author direfts us, the Bifhop is reafoning againft Se¬ paration from the Church of Ersgtand. Our Author pro¬ ceeds, p. 57, to give fome particular Inftances of finful Terms of Communion : He names feven^ wherein I agree with him ; only I crave Leave to exprefs his Seventh in the following Manner, namely. If cur Communion or Con" junBion with any particular Church binds us up or refrains Sts from the Difeharge of any Duty which our Station^ Office and Charadery by the Command of God^ does oblige us untOf whether the Refraint that is laid upon us be explicite or mare implicite. This 1 have illuftrate already; and I hope our Author cannot reafonably refufe that it makes Conjunction with any particular Church equally finful with thefo In¬ ftances that are given by himfelf of finful Terms of Com^ munion. 1 proceed now to SECT. * •/ft/?. Def. Part 3. p. 17, 18. Engl Tranfl. ( ^3 ) SECT. III. Wherein the State cf the ^lefilon concerning Secefjion from the prcfent judicatories is de¬ clared. T H E Author of the EfTay diverts himfelf a little with his Criticifms upon the Secejftoriy p. 193. when he tells us, The ordinary and common Senfe thereof is “ a local Removing^ upon lome urgent law- ‘‘ ful Occafion, Spiritual or Temporal, to another or bet- “ tcr-conftitute Church.” Tho’ the worthy Divine whom he cites tells us, That the Word Secejfion may be taken in this Senfe; yet he cannot but know, that our Divines have made ufe of this Term to exprefs a Departure from Com¬ munion with a particular vifible Church, either in Whole or in Parr, upon juft and weighty Grounds, even when there is no local Removing^ or Changing of one’s Habitation: Hence ^mretine^ in his Dijfertation concerning the Ne- ceffity of Separation from the Church of Romcy makes ftill ule of the Term Secejfion^ tho’ he knew very well that the Protcftants in France and Germany^ and other Popilh Countries, never removed from their Habitations, except when Force and Violence drove them from them. Our Au« thor adds, “ They (the feceding Minifters) have not fepa- “ rated locally, feeing they ftill inhabit the fame Manlcs, “ as well as enjoy the fame Benefices.” It (eems the above Obferve upon the Term Secejfiori is made, that he may vent (bmewhat of a Grudge that we have a peaceable Re- fidence in our fcveral Congregations to which we bear a paftoral Relation, and that we enjoy the Benefices to which we have a juft Claim by vertue of our Office and Relation to them. Next, he tells us. The Word Secejpon is ibme- times taken for a Revolt and Mutiny. He does not alledge any Authority for this Senfe and Meaning of the Word, and I do not know if he can ; but he is pleafed to add^ “ Many think they have made a Seceffion in that Refped.** Here he difeovers a Difpofition to hold and treat us as Re* voJters and Mutineer!; but I lhall not trouble the Reader further with his idle Criticifms in handling fuch an im¬ portant Subject. Only I cannot but here oblcrve, that it may be reafonably prefumed that our Author has learned the above Criticifm from fbme DoSor of the Church of or at leaft from fome Author whole Name for Shame f ^4 ) Shame he behoved to conceal; and what makes this Con- jefture more probable is, that Mr. Claud reports, that the Doctors of the Church of Rome treated our worthy Re¬ formers after the fame Manner: His Words are, “They accufe them (jviz. our Reformers) to have been Rebels “ and Schifmaticks, who lifted themfelves up againft the “ Authority of their Mother the Church, and broke the “ facred Bond of the Chriftian Communion*.” Which is the fame upon the Matter with what our Author has ad¬ vanced as above. Bur, whatever be in this, fare it was fome urgent Neceflity that brought him upon the Field, without a ‘uijihle Second^ if not two to fupport him, feeing he feldom takes the Field without two or three fuch y 4 t~ tendatJts, tho’ frequently prejfed into his Service. But I proceed to lay down Ibme neceflary Ob/erves and Di(lin» Hions, for laying open the true State of the Queftion. ifty There is a Difference betwixt different Sentiments amongft the Members of a Church, upon fome particular Points that have never been a Part or Branch of Tefti- mony in that Church, or that were never adopted in any of her publick Acts and Conftitutions; and fuch Princi¬ ples and Praffices maintained and juftified, which are in themfelves a Departure or Backfliding from fome Part or Branch of what has been received and adopted as a Point of Confeflion and Teftimony in a Church. The feceding Brethren are far from (fating their SeceflSon upon every Difference of Sentiments. He tells us upon his firft Pro- pofition, “ That fome would, and do, excommunicate all that are not exactly of their Mind.” Who thefe fome are, our Author belt knows. The Inlfance that he gives of the Giant Procrujles^ p. 6 . has more Levity in it than becomes the Gravity of the Subject. But as the above is none of the Principles of the feceding Minifters (for they know very well that the beft of Men may have different Sentiments) fo the Queftion before us is concerning fucb Principles or PraBices as may be juftly reckoned a Depar¬ ture from what has been Matter of Confeflion and Tefti¬ mony in this particular National Church. zdly. There is a vaft Difference betwixt Evils and Er¬ rors that a Church mzy fall into, and thefe Evils jufiifiedy and continued in, after the ordinary Means have been ufed to reclaim a Church or the Judicatories thereof. The feceding Minifters have not ftated their Scceflion upon any particular Evils lately fprung up in this National Churefr * C/afiffs Hill. Dcf. Part i. p. 2. ChOrch, and which the Judicatories Hiew a Willingnefs to reform, or bear Teirimony againft, in tiicir judicaxive Capacity ; but upon fuch Kvils as have been oftev com¬ plained of, and remonftrare againft; yea, and after all the ordinary Means have been uled to bring the Judicatories to the faithful Dilcharge of their Duty, till at length feme Minifters were thruft out from the prefent Judicatories, merely on account of their contending in a Way of Com¬ munion againft the forefaid Evils, as is more fully fliown ,a the htroduBion. It is one Thing to depart from the Comrnitnim of a CLunby and another Thing to depart from Communion With a Party in that Church, tho’ the greateft Number, who are carrying on a Courfe of Defcdlion and Back- Hiding. The feceding Brethren have always refufed, and i hey do upon good Grounds refufe, that they have made my Secejfion from the Church of Scotland. If the Church Df Scotland is confidered as her Principles are held forth roni the Word of God, in her Confeffton of Faithy Lar- rer at)d Shorter CatechifmSy Form of Church-gevernment^ DireBory for Ji^orjhipy and other laudable Adts and Con- b’tutions of this National Church; the feceding Minifters rave openly declared and acknowledged their j^dhe^ \''tnce to all thefe, in their judicial ASl and Tefiimony ; pr, if her Principles are confidered, as they are folemnly ♦vouched and fworn to the National Covenant of Scotland^ i'md the Solemn League and Covenant of the three Nati- pns, they have alfb in like Manner, in their forefaid hdL ind Teftimony, acknowledged the inviolable Obligation )f thefe folemn Oaths and Covenants: Bur, if the Church i )f Scotland is confidered as reprefented in her prefent Judi- atoriejy they own that they have declared a Scceflion from hem, and that they cannot now adt in Conjundtion with hem, as Members of the fame Ecclefiafticai Body; and that recaule they are carrying on a Courfe of Defedtion and Backfliding from our covenanted Uniformity in Dodtrine, Worfhip, Government and Diftipline, notwithftanding tf manifold Reprefentations and Remonftrances made be- iibre them unto the contrary. Therefore the Queftion ; tnder our Confideration is not concerning Secejfion from ! be Church of Scctlandy but concerning Secejfion from the • refent Judicatories of this National Church. t^tblyy There is a vaft Difference betwixt a Church pur- uing after ReformattoHy and a Church declining and back- f ^iding from her Reformation-purity. In the former Cafe, I when ( ) when a Church is uhng her Endeavours to reform what is wrong, and to redrel's what is gravaminous, tho* through Miftake (he may take fome wrong Steps in her Adminiftration, yet it would be very unreafbnable to de¬ part from her Communion; but in theCafe, when- thc prevailing Courfe and Management of the Judicatories of a Church is towards Backjliding from Reformation-pu¬ rity once attained unto, every wrong Step that is taken has a native Tendency towards ftrengthning and accele- rarting the general Courfe of Apoftafy and Backfliding. Tho’ the EfTay looks upon this Diftinftion as of no Weight, yet I find Mr. Shiells^ in his ^reatife on Church^ communion, lays very much Strefs upon it: Therefore, p, 25, 24. of that Book, he lays down the very fame Di- ftinftion; and when he comes to ftate the Queftion, p. 27. he ffates it in the following Manner, according to his Views of the Church of Scotland at that Time; “ The Queftion (fays he) is nor. Whether we can hold Uni- “ on or Communion with thole Minifters, tho’ found in “ Principles, who yet are carrying on Courfes of Com- “ pliances and Defections, involving all in Sin that have “ Communion with them, in a broken and declining Stare “ of the Church ? but the Queftion is. Whether we can “ have Communion and Union with thefe that did indeed ** comply with the wicked Eftablifhments of the Time, ' “ and were involved in the Defections of the Church, I “ but nom are carrying on Reformation in DoCtrine, Wor- fhip, Difcipline and Government, according to the ** Inftitutions of Chrift, and the Conftitutions of this “ Church in former Times? “ The fame excellent Perfon “ is yet more plain, when he tells us, p. 15. Only we “ plead for Union with Presbyterian Minifters promoting Reformation in DoCtrine, Worfliip, Difcipline and “ Government, and oppofing Popery, Prelacy, Eraftia- ** nifm, SeCtarianifm, and whatfoever is contrary to (bund “ Doctrine and the Power of Godlinefs, according to the Word of God, our Confejjlon of Faith, and Cove* “ nants.” I humbly judge, the feceding Minifters may be fatisfied to have their Caufe examined and tried accor¬ ding to the above Way and Manner in which Mr. ShielU ffates the Queftion. Our Author thinks fit to tell us, p. 195. “ That he knows the above Treatife was recommended bj our dear Brother the Reverend Mr. Ebenez^er Erskint ** to fome of his Parifhoners when at Portmoak; and (fayi ** he) 1 wilh all our Separarifts and others alfo may rear c< 4 ( / <57 > It ferioufly, licarkning to his folid Reafbns againft Sepa¬ ration. ” Whether our Author fpeaks of the Reve¬ rend Mr. Erskire in the above Manner, in a Way of Jeft, or out of true Regard unto him, I fliall leave it to the Reader to judge ; only I muft obferve, that he had good Reafon to recommend Mr. on Church-communion, and I wifh our Author and others would fcrioufly confider his folid Reafons and Conclufions againft Union and Con¬ junction with fuch as are carrying on a Courfe of Defecti¬ on from our reformed and covenanted Principles. It is one Thing to date a Seceflion from a Church on account of perfonal Blem/Jhej and DefeCtsin the Walk and Converfation of her Members, and another Thing to ftate Seceflion from a Church on account of a Courfe of DtfeBion from Steps of Reformation once attained un¬ to, carried on by her Judicatories in their judicative Ca¬ pacity, notwithftanding of Remonftrances againft fuch Backflidings and Declinings: The feceding Miniflers have never ftated their Seceflion upon the formety but they do it upon the latter. The Effay^ p. \ 6 . gives us the fol¬ lowing Propofition out of Mr. Rutherfoord'a Due Eighty p. 25?. “ There is no juft Caufe to leave a lefs clean Church, “ if it be a true Church, and go to a purer and cleaner.” And he apprehends that this makes fb much for him, that he puts it in the Front of the Paper which he calls his Jbort Vindication ; but any who have read that Book of Mr. Rutherfoord'Sy will eafily fee, that he reafons againft fuch who plead for the Neceflity of pojltive Evidema and Signs of Regeneration in order to Church-communion, and who ftate Seceflion from a Church on account of perfonal De« fedfs and Blemifhes in the Walk and Converfation of Church-members: But as our Seceflion is not ftated upon any fuch Principles, fo this Propofition of Mr. Ruther^ foord's is not at* all to the Purpofe. As for Inftance, If any fhould feparate from the Parochial Church of Kinglaffte^ and join themfelves unto another which they apprehended if( to be more pure and clean, merely becaufe the moft Part iji of the Members of the laid Church may want pojitive E- of 'vidences and Signs of Regeneration, I doubt not but all the ;j| ifeceding Brethren would condemn them, and would readi- ^ ily declare themfelves of the fame Mind with Mr. Rutber- il) foord in his Due Right. And as it is well exprefled by him,in J his laft printed Letter diredted to fbme Profeflors in Jher- [fdeeny who were carried away into fuch Extremes; “ If you 4 “ exclude all Non-converts from the vifible City of God,in I z ‘‘ which 1 . ) which daily,Multitudes in Scotland^m all the fourQuarterj of the Laud, above whatever our Fathers faw, throng into Ghrift; fhall they not be left to the Lions and wild “ Beads of the Foreft, even to Jefuites, feminary Prielis, and other Seducers?-Nor can it be a Way appro- “ ven of the Lord in Scripture, to excommunicate from the vifible Church (which is the Office-houfe of the free Grace of Chrift, and his Draw-net) all the Multitudes of Non-converts, baptiftd, and vifibly with- in the Covenant of Grace, wiiich are in Great Britain and all the reformed Churches, and fo to fhut the “ Gates of the Lord’s gracious Calling upon all thefe, becaufe they are not in your Judgment chofen to Salva- tion, when once you are within yourfclves.” I wifh fuch 0S are in Danger of thefe Extremes would ferioufly con- fidcr thefe and the like ftrong Scripture-reafonings con¬ tain’d in the forefaid Letter : But tho’ the feceding Bre¬ thren do not date Church-communion or Seceflion upon the above-mentioned Principles; yet they may very well affirm, with the whole Stream of reformed Divines, that A vijihle Prtfejjlon and Confejficn of the Truth is necejfary to the Confitution of fuch a particular vijible Church., unto which we may fafely join in Communion : Or according to Mr. Gilkfpie, as he is cited, EJfay, p. 5. “To maintain and profefs the true Doctrine, and the true Faith, is by ali Protedant orthodox Writers made one, yea, the “ principal Mark of a true vifible Cliurch,” They may likewife fafely affirm with Mr. Rutherfoord in the Page above cited, “When the greated Part of a Church maketh “ Defection from the Truth, the lefler Parf remaining “ found, the greated Parr is the Church of Separatids; “ Tho’ the manied and greated Part in the actual Exer- “ cife of Difeipiine be the Church, yet, in tlie Cafe of “ right Difeipiine, the bed, tho’ fewed, is the Cliurch; “ for Truth is like Life, that retireth from the manied “ Members unto the Heart, and there remaineth in its Fountain, in cafe of Danger.” Here Mr. Rutherfoord writes very plainly : In the former Propofition, be tells 1 tis what is not'Ground of Separation from a true Church*; 1 in this, he tells us what is Ground of Separation from a ; Church, even wlien the greated Part make Defeflior I from the Truth. The Effay but clouds and darkens the Matt'*!', when he tells us, that furely Mr. Rutherfoorc means “ of declared Defediion from the Truth in Fun- “ damentals.” 1 havefaid enough upon the Point of Furr damenial : ( ). y^amentnjs already; I fhall only fubjoin the following Pro- || podtion concerning Fundamentals, advanced by Mr, Ku- ^tberfoord in the fame Scdtion, p. 229. “ Tho’ the Know'* I “ ledge of Fundamentals be neceflary unto Salvation, yec 1 “ it cannot eafily be defined what Meafure of Knowledge, of Fundamentals, and what determinate Number of Fun- damentals, doth conliitute a true vifible Church, and a “ found Believer,” 6 tbly^ It is one Thing to depart from Communion with a particular Church on account of her Corruptions, and another Thing to unchurch that fame particular Church : I find thefe two frequently confounded, or reckoned one jjl and the fame Thing in the Ejfay, as p, 4. “ Tho’ fbme “ among us Ihould be leavened with unfound Doctrine, “ and albeit there Ihould be Faults both as to the Admi- niftration of Sacraments and Exercife of Difcipiinc, it “ is far from being enough to unchurch, or occajion Sepa- ration from the Church of Scotland, feeing fhe doth not “ own nor approve of thefe,” A Seceflion may be war- rantably declared from a Church on account of her Cor¬ ruptions and Backflidings, when yet fhe is not unchurched ; It is hard to determine what Length a Church may go in Apoftafy and Backfliding, before fbe is altogether un¬ churched ; the Author, if he pleafes, may read to this Purpofe one of his own Books, Mr. Rutherfoord's Peaceable Plea, Chapter 10, Tho’ the Diflenters in England and Ireland have dated a Seceflion from the Church of England^ on account of her Corruptions in Worlbip, Government and Dilcipline; they do not therefore unchurch her: They do not refufe her the Charader and Denomination of a Protefiant Chmch •, nay, they do not difpute, that many .have lived and died in Communion with the Church of ! England, thro’ Ignorance of her Corruptions and the Sin- fulnefs thereof, who have had Communion with Chrift. ! And this leads me to take Notice of one of our Author’s ! Arguments againft Seceflion from the Church of Scotland ! in her prefent Conftitqtion, on account of its Affinity with I W'hat is oblerved on this Head; “ Moreover (fays he, “ P-6?.) to feparate from the Church of at this “ Day, ’fis interpretatively a Condemning of Chrift the “ Head of tiie Church, as if he was to be blamed, feeing he yet keeps Communion with her,” All the Proof he brings, for the Support of his Argument, is fome Words aliedged from Mr. Durham -, but he has nor thought fit to tell us in which of Mr. Durham^ Works the Words are to ( '70 ) to be found ; I cannot therefore pals any Judgment about them. J have given Tome Inftances already, and I lhall give mo ere I have done, that our Author’s Citations do not always fupport his Arguments, efpecially if they are taken in Connexion with other Parrs of the Subjeft out of which they are excerpted: But, with refpedt unto his above Argument againft Seceflion, it leans evidently upon the following Propofiiion, H’hen tue feparaie from a Church, we interpret at ively condemn Chrifi, as if he was to he blamed for keeping Communion with any of her Adembers. But I do not think that our Author will get any of our ■ Presbyterian or Reformed Divines that will jullify his > Affertion ; they are all very cautious in determining what : Length a Church may go in Defeftion or Corruption, be¬ fore Communion is wholly cut off betwixt the Head and , all the Members thereof: Tho’Corruption and Superfti- tion can never have the Approbation and Countenance of Heaven, will it therefore follow, that, when we depart from Communion with a particular vifible Church on ac¬ count of her Corruptions, our Seceflion is “ interpreta- . “ tively a Condemning of Chrift the Head of the Church, “ as if he were to be blamed," if be in his adorable So¬ vereignty communicate himfelf and his Grace even to thelc , who remain in Communion with a corrupt and degenerate Church? The Sovereignty of Grace may be glorified i amongft thefe, whom it is not fate nor warrantable for : Us to hold Comimunion with as Members of the fame Ec- •lefiaftick Body. The hidden and fccret Communications i of the Grace of the Redeemer, are neither the Standard I nor Rule of our Duty ; therefore, tho’ we have declared a Sect flion from the prefent Judicatories, it does not fol¬ low that we have unchurched them. Neither will it follow ■ that we alledge, that none of the Members of this Natio¬ nal Church, who are in Conjunction with the prelcnt Ju- i dicatories, have Communion with the Lord Jefus; and far Icfs will it follow, that our Seceflion is to be interpreted in the Manner abovc-exprefltd by our Author, which I ihall not repeat. Ithly, Some are pleafed to diftipguifh betwixt a negative end pofitive Seceflion from a Church, particularly the Author of the Ejfay, p. 9. with a manifeft Dtfign to fix a pofitive Seceflion (according to his Senfe and Meaning of i it) from the Church of Scotland upon the leceding Mini-i fters ; and therefore it will be recefl'ary that 1 explain whac is commonly meant by the above Terms, as alfo that I con* i f 71, ) " confider how far they are applicable to the Secefflon as it is ftated at prefent by the Ajfociate Presbytery. Nreative Se» cejfion is, when a Perfon or Pcrfons withdraw from Com¬ munion with a particular Church on account of fome Cor¬ ruptions that have taken Place, but have not Freedom as yet to meet together in diftinft Aflemblies for Worlhip and Government, in Expeftation that the Corruptions com¬ plained of may be fliortly amended by that particu¬ lar Church from whom they have, in fo far, fcceded, ^ Again, pofitive Secejfton is, when fuch as depart from Com- I munion with a particular Church upon juft and warran- ■ table Grounds, do likewife meet together in diftinQ: AC- I fcmblies for Worlhip and Government, after they have ii tried all the ordinary Means for removing of the Corrup¬ tions, or for Remedy of the Evils complained of; and yeC iin the mean Time the Means that they have ufed are fo [•far defpifed, that the Corruptions and Evils complained of • are perfifted in and juftified, and thereby all realbnable Expeftation of reforming the faid Corruptions and Evils is loft. The feceding Minifters will readily grant that they have upon the forefaid Grounds made a Seceflion both ne¬ gative and pofitive from this National Church as fhe is now reprefenled in her prefent Judicatories; but then they have always refuled that they have made a Seceffion in I either of the above Senfes from the National Church of 1 Scotlandy when Ihe is confidered in. her reformed Prin- i ciples, with refpeft to Doftrine, Worlhip, Government I and Dilcipline, as they have been laid down from thfi I Word of God in her approven Standards, unto which all ; Ranks of Perfons in the Land have bound and engaged 1 themfelves by folemn Covenant conftantly and ftedfaftly i to adhere. And here I would have the Reader carefully i to obferve the Difference between the National Church of i Scotland in her excellent Conftitution agreeable unto the I Word of God, and as Ihe is at prefent reprefented in her Judicatories, who are carrying on a Courfe of Defe( 9 :ion, in letting Jlip, or departing from, fuch Reformation-prin¬ ciples as we in this organick Church have once profefled, acknowledged, and fworn to maintain. I hope I may af¬ firm in Behalf of the Members of the Jjfociate Presbytery, that they defire thro’ Grace never to fecede from the Con¬ ftitution and Principles of the National Church of Scot* landy but to contribute their Endeavours for the Support and Defence of the fame: And therefore they are not conftituting a dijlind Church from the National Church of Scot* ( li ■) Stetlardy but only, as a Part of that NTational Clmrcb, are endeavouring, in the Situation wherein adorable Provi¬ dence has placed them, to cleave to Reformation-purity once attained unto in this Church, and to teftify againft a Courfe of Defeflion from the lame, carried on by the Ma¬ jority at this Day. For I have already obferved, that e- very particular vifible Church is related to the Catholick Body, as a Part unto the Whole; Hence it follows, that, in a Xational Church, every particular Parochial or Pref- byteiial Church ftands in the fame Relation to the Natio¬ nal; confequcnrly, when thegreateft Part of theReprefenta- tives of a National Church are involved in a Gout • by the true Deity of the Son and Holy Ghoft was denied, or the two Natures of the Redeemer confounded, or whereby the Unity of his Pcrfbn was overthrown : and I they alio aflerted the Truth in Oppofltion to the Terms in which it was either impugned or denied by the fcvcial Adverfaries. Likewife the famous Synod of Dort did the : fame, with the feveral Arminan Errors that were brm’ghc I to their Bar. Likewife the famous Churches of France^ ?| when Pifcator^ a very confiderable Divine, publifhed his : peculiar Opinion concerning the Obedience oi Chrift, tho’ he was not a Member of that Church of France, vet _ they did, in their National Alfembly at Gap, condemn pa'-- I ticularly Pifcator’s Error, as contrary to their Confeffion of Faith; and warn’d Synods, Presbyteries and Seffions, to - have a particular Eye upon Perlons tainted with his Er- <; ror, be they Minifters or private Chriflians: And, in their - National Aflembly held at Rochelle, they aflert the Truth in exprefs Terms, in Oppofltion unto Pifcator s Error, who • denied the Imputation of the adfive Obedience of Chrifl; the Words of that Synod are, “ The whole Obedience of , Chrift, both in his Life and Death, is imputed unto us, ■ “ for the full Remiflion of our Sins, and Acceptance un- “ to eternal Life The National Church of France li did teftify in the fame Manner, not only againft Errors vented amongft themfelvcs, but againft Errors vented in neighbouring Churches, whereby they might be in Danger of being tainted ; till they began to decline from their } Reformation-purity, as in the Calc of the Univerfalilis, i which was brought before the National Synods at Alanfon ' and Charenton\ and their Declining did gradually incrcafe till Defplatipn came upon them. ' And, fince our Author has perufed the ABs^nA Dedjlons of the National Synods of France, he could nor but ob- ferve an agreeable Harmony between the Methods taken in reforming Times, by the Churches of France Scot¬ land, for preferving the Purity of Dodlrine, by an exadl: and impartial Exercife of Difcipline, in condemning all Errors whatfbever. Likewife he could not bur obferve, that the prefent State of the Cliurch of Scotland in a great Meafurc * ^.'ck'sSvn. Vpl i.p, 2J7, ( 85 ) Mcarure rcfemWcs that of the Church of France when upon the Decline; and that the Meafures taken hy their National Synods, when Errors and erroneous Perfons were brought before them, exaft'y corrciponds with thefe ta¬ ken by our prefent Aflemblies, of wliich we have a clear Evidence in the above Inflance. And as this was a Fore¬ runner of their Ruin, fo while we follow their Example, which, {landing upon Record, Ihould be a Warning to future Generations, ’tis to be fear’d that, in the righteous Judgment of God, fometime hence Strangers may have Occafion to fay of us, as the Colle6lor of thefe Monu¬ ments fays of them, “ O that the Generation which fuc- “ ceeded the firft Reformers, had not lax’d the Reins! “ Hov/ happy might they have been ! In the Morning of “ the Reformation they were fair as the Moon, clear as the Sun, and terrible as an Army with Banners. The “ greatdl Princes of fubmitted their Necks to this “ golden Yoke of Chrid. A National Synod was for- “ midable to the molt daring Sinner, Their Difcipline, “ duly and prudently managed, preferved the Purity of Doftrine, Worfhip and Morals amonglt them Had our Author duly attended to thefe Things, I am perfwa- ded he had not been fo forward to acquit the Church of Scotland^ and condemn thofe who oppofe the Meafures taken by her prefent Judicatories, with refpeft to Errors and erroneous Perfons brought before them. From the whole of what has been faid. Since Mailers Simfon and Campbell have pled at the Bar of the Judica¬ tories, that their Principles w'cre nowife contrary to our Confeffion of Faith, and lince the Judicatories have not declared their feveral Errors to be contrary to the fame, tho’ the above-mentioned and other grof. Errors have been vented by them ; hence it is plain, that our ConfelTion of Faith cannot any more be judged a fixed Standard of Or¬ thodoxy or Soundnefs in the Faith, at lead with refpeft to thefe important Points that have been brought to the Bar of the Judicatories. And, from what has been faid, I may likewife draw the following Concluilon, That this National Church, as fhe is reprclented in her prefent Ju¬ dicatories, has not the CkaraHer I have mentioned of the I Church of the Living God, in regard fhe does nor uphold I and maintain, ajfert and confefs the Truth, in Oppolition i unto the many dangerous Errors that have been vented ; amongd us, which are either everfive of, or very nearly j aOect ! syn. Vol. I. Intro, p. i 6 , . f S7 ■) aTefl:, the Foundation of our Chriftian Faith and PratSice; and conrequenciy we cannot have Union, ConjuuiSion or Coaiefcencc with them, as Parts and Members of that fame Ecclenaftick Body; efpecially when it is confidered, that, by their above Condudland Management, they have broke and difTolved that Bond of our Ecclefiaftical Union and Communion, v/hich conlifts in our common oiAthoytat or joint external Profeffion of the fame Faith. I reckon the Argument for Seceffion, as it is ftated u- pon the Head of Doftrine, to be of confiderable Weight; and therefore I fhall briefly take notice'of fome Things alledged by the Author of the EJfay, to take of the Force thereof: And I muft judge, from the high Commendations that have been given to tliis Performance, he has offered the Force and Strength of what thefe who warmly con¬ demn our Seceflion, have to fay for themfelves on this as well as one other Heads. Our Author, p. 113. ftates the Objedtion of Separatijliy as he calls them, upon tlie Head of DoBrine after his own IJ^ayy and fpends fevcral Pages in his Anfwers unto it; but the Reader may cafily (ec, that he has never dated the Argument in its true Light and due Force, and therefore his Anfwer unto it is only accor¬ ding to his Way and Manner of ftating it. I lhall not weary the Reader with every Thing that might be noticed upon this Head ; I fhall only take notice offbme Things, on which the Author Teems to lay the greateft Streisand Weight. He refers to what he had laid in the Beginning of h\s, fourth Chapter, which he reckons may be a fuffici- ent Anfwer to the Objection. I have already confidered what he has offered in the Paid Place, and therefore lhall not infift further upon it. He adds, p. 114. “ That, “ whatever heterodox or erroneous Principles fome may be leavened with, they do not, nor dare they vent and ** openly avow themand concludes, “ While they arc “ not ov/ned and defended, they cannot be charged upon the Church of Scotland." But, have not Mailers I and Campbell openly avowed their Principles ? have they i not owned and defended them at the Bar ’ and have not the Judicatories refjfed exprefly to condemn their Er¬ rors ? Therefore, according to our Author’s own Reafb- ning, their erroneous Principles may juftly be charged ! upon the Judicatories of this National Church, The Author of the EJfay proceeds to give Ibme more particular Anfwers to the Obje( 9 :ion, as he ftates it: He owns, p. 115. that Mr. “ was too eafy paft, ( 88 ) 1717-”-And, “ Tliar if was the Fault of the Church “ of Scoilandf that fhe did not free that zealous faithful “ Servant of Chrift, M.v. y^ameslf'’^ehfier^ from the Burden “ of a Profecution by Libel; feeing that Affair was no I perfonal Concern of his own.” But if our Author had I faid that it was the Sin of this Church,and that it is a Ground ! of Mourning to this Day, that Mf. Simfons Errors were paft in genera! Terms at that Time, without any particu¬ lar exprefs Tcftimony againft any of his grofs Propofitions, he had fpoke more to the Purpofe. Our Author adds, that” Mr. (upon the fir'll Libel) declared his Ad- ” herence to our Confellion of Faith and Do(ftrines therc- ‘‘ in contained, and dilbwned the Errors oppofite thereto “ wherewith he was charged.” Who doubts of Mr, ” Simfons declaring his adherence to our Confeffion ? This both he and Mr. Campbell always did ; they Hill pled the Doftrines they taught were agreeable to the Doftrines contained in the Confeflion: And this is what wasthcA‘» of the Judicatories, that they did not declare their pecu- ' liar Dodlrincs to be what in very deed they are, viz. Er¬ rors, and contrary to our Confeflion of Faith. As for what is faid of Mr. 5 /ot/ow’s difowning the Errors oppo¬ fite to our Confeflion, tho* our Author mentions this once and again, yet he clouds and darkens the Matter after his ordinary Manner. If he means that Mr. Simfon refufed that he had taught any Errors oppofite to the Dodlrine contained in our Confeflion, this is very true; for Mr. i Simfon always refufed this Chargp : But if, by difowning Errors, is meant his difowning the erroneous Proportions which in his j^nfwers to his firfl Libel he afferts and de¬ fends as fTruthsy agreeable to the Word of God and our Confeflion of Faith, and which the Committee of Affem- bly 1727 found he continued to teach, it is, if I may ufc one of our Author’s Phrafes, an Tmpofinp upon the World, when our Author affirm.s, he has difowned the Errors wherewith he was charged ; and I may challenge the Au¬ thor of the EJfay to point me out any of his faid Errors which he has difowned The Author of the Effay gives it as his lumlle Opinion^ anent the grofs and damnable Errors in Mr. Simfons fecond Libel, that, ” confidering what an Affront was put upon ” the great God our Saviour by his erroneous Dodlrine, “ he juftly deferved Depefition from the holy Miniftry for ” what was found proven againft hi.m at that Tim.c ” But yet, to extenuate the Matter, he fubjoins fojne Declarati- on| t)hs and Acknowledgments which he alledges Mr, ^imfon made ; and thele are fee down with the ordinary Markt of a Citation^ but he has not direfted us to the Place tvhere they are to be found ; and the Truth is, they are I rotvhere to he found in any of his Acknowledgments, recor* I ded in the State of the Procefs, according to the Terms in ( which they are laid by our Author: And yet I find the ; A6t of Affembly, difinifling the Procefi, makes ufe of 1 the fame Expreflions with our Author, whereby Mr, Sim* fons Acknowledgments are reprefented \n fuller ^erms than ' what we have from himfelf in the faid State of the Procels. But yet, after all thefe Endeavours to drefs up his Acknow¬ ledgments in the moft favourable Manner, it is certain thaC he never made any till he was brought unto a Pineb^ and : then his Acknowledgments are in very general Terms, 1 Tho* in his firfl Letter to the Presbytery of Glafgow he ' vents fuch Exprellions as plainly derogate from the eflen- 1 tial Glory of the moft high God our Saviour, and tho’ in his other Papers in Procefs he alfo fubverts the Scripture- doitrine of the Trinity, yet he never makes any Acknow¬ ledgment of the Indignity that he has done to our glori¬ ous Redeemer ; he never makes the leaft Acknowledgment* that ever he vented any Thing contrary to the Dottrinc concerning the adorable Trinity, as it is held forth from the Word of God in our Cojifeffion of Faith: And there¬ fore the Reverend and Worthy Author of the Enquiry, formerly mentioned, had juft Ground for the following judicious Ohferve on Mr. Simfons Declarations^ “ Which “ i’^)in Words may bear a (bundSenfe, but in ray ‘‘ C^inion are very little to be regarded, while he under- “ ftands them in a Senfe confiftent with his former Pa- “ pers, and does not ingenucufly retraft.his Arian Tenets therein vented It isalledgcd by the That the Church “ of Scotland was fo far from approving his Errors, that as fhe found them relevant to infer Cenfure, which was “ a plain Condemning of them ; fo, notwithftanding of all “ laid by him for alleviating of his Offence, the Affem- “ hly i728cenfurcd him with the Sentence of Sufpenfion, ** &Pc.” To which it is anfwered, That it cannot be al* ledged that the Judicatories have ever found any of the Errors containted in the firfl Procefs againft Mc. Simfon relevant to infer Cenfure^ and confequently they have never plainly condemned them; and the like may be faid of (he M Errors * Eref. p. y. ( 90 ) Errors vented by Campbell: And tbercfore tbe Ar¬ gument for Scceilion, as it is ftated upon the Head oi do- ftrinal Errors, (lands (lill in its Force. And as to the Relevancy that was found in the Articles of Mr. Si m/un i fecund Libel, it is only a general Relevancy, and none of them are particularly declared to be contrary to the Word of God or our Gonfedion of Faith And here it mud be obferved, that, as the Libel is laid, Propofitions not necef- fary to be taught in Divinity, and which gyve more Occajton to Strife than to promote Edification^ are relevant to infer Cenfure, as well as thofe that are exprefly contrary to the IVord of God and our Confeflflon of Faith. Now, in de¬ termining the Relevancy of the (everal Articles of Libel againfl Mr. Simfon^ the Afiembly do not determine whe¬ ther the Proportions libelled are fuch as are exprejly con~ trary to the Word of God and our ConfelTion of Faith, or if they are only fuch as are not necejfary to he taught m | Divinity: lienee, notwithllanding of what is alledgcd by I our Author about finding the Articles of Libel relevant to infer Cenfure, the Judicatories have never yet declared them to be contrary to the Word of God and our Confef- fion of Faith ; and confequently the 'Truth in thefe i.m- portant Points has never yet been exprejly afferted, in Op- pofition to the Terms in which it has been oppofed and fubverted. With refpe^t to the Cenfure infliiled upon Mr. Simfon, tho’ our Author declares that he juflly deier- ved Depofition, on account of the Affront he had put upon the great God our Saviour by his erroneous Do- ftrine ; yet he thinks fit to make an Apologyy in the Page lad cited, for fuch as voted only for his Sufpenfion, and confequently for the Conduft of the Judicatories of this Church in paffing him with a Cenfure nowife adequate to his Crime and Offence : “ And {fay$ he) 'tis well known “ there were fundry in the Affembly flilly of the Mind “ he deferved Depofition, who yet, from Apprehenfions ** of as great or greater Damage to follow upon this to the Church of Chrifi in Scotland, they only voted fot “ his Sufpenfion; and I apprehend it flowed more from this, than Lenity to him, that he was not depofed.” And here, by the by, I may remark, that, if forac others had u(ed the Terms of tbe Church of Chrijl in Scotland, a grievous Charge had been brought againfl them ; bur, in regard I judge they may be ufed without any Derogation ftom the Divine Warrant and Authority for National ^hurches, therefore I (hail pa(s them. In the above Words Word.< oF oL’f Author, rhe Reader is airiufed vrirh feme general and dark Exprefiions about ^re 4 ii or g^ye/iter Da¬ mage to follow to the Church upon the Depofitior, of an yJriatty than if he was only fufpendei ; he Ihould have told us plainly, what tlicfe great or greater apprehended Damages were: Would the Depofitiou of one, who, as Qur Author acknowledges, had put an affront upot the preat God cur Saviour^ occafioned a Divifton in the Affem- hly, or a Rent in the Church of Scotland^ Or, was the I Sentence of Sufpenfion agreed upon, to compromife the Matter betwixt fuch as were for depofing him, and fuch as were for no Cenfure at all, or, as it is exprefled in the Aft concluding the Procefs, with fuch as give it as their Opinion, that he ought to be treated with more ^endernefSf in refpeft of the Declarations he had made, and the Al- Jeviatidns that are faid to be found in the Courfe of the Procefs 1 If this is our Author’s Meaning, it is Ground of Lamentation that Matters were come to fuch a Pafs in , a National AfTembly of the once famous reformed Church of Scotland, that there Ihould be any Difpute or Ilefita- ' tion about holding in Minifterial Communion one who had endeavoured to rob the Son of God of his true Deity ; cfpecially when it isconfidered what other dangerous Er- i rors he had obftinately taught. Our Author makes liberal ' Acknowledgments that Mr. Simfon deferved Depofition, and yet he makes ufe of ail his Jrt and Skill to extenuate the Sin of the Judicatories; but I humbly judge they ' have a very had j 4 pologipi for them, when he tells us of I great or greater Damage to follow upon their calling out an Arian from Miniflerial Communion with them. If a proper and due Teftimony againft an open Affront put u- pon the Son of God was neglefted, in order to compro¬ mife Differences among themfelves, it is a Sin that lies at the Door of this National Church, and for which we have Ground to fear that the Son cf God, who hath faid. All the Churches fijall know that lam he which fearchetb the Reins and Hearts, may yet plead a Centroverfy againff us. Our Author fubjoins an Evidence “that thejudica- “ tones of the Church of Scotland ars neither Co corrupt in Doftrine, nor fo lukewarm in the Caufe of Chrift, ‘‘ as Separatifls reprefentnamely, that, “ According ' “ to the Brethrens firft Teftimony, p. 4p. it was contrary j “ to the declared Mind of moft of the Presbyteries of ( “ this National Church by far, that the Afl’cmbly 1729 , 4 id reft in the Sentence of Sufpenfion againft Mr. Sim- I , ■ Ma r ) /)».** But then, how comes it to pafs that there was fuch an univerfal filent Submiflion to the above Sentence i of that AlTembly ? How comes it to pafs that there was rot a Presbytery in all the Church of Sailavd remonftra-* ting, before the Aflembly 1730, againlf a Deed that was done contrary to the declared blind of moft Part of Pref- byreries? Ah f how Toon was this Concern for Truth, which our Author infinuates, and this Zeal for the Caufe of Chrift cooled ! Yea, fo very low did it turn of a fud- den, that, at the Aflemblics 1750 and 1751, very few Synods and Presbyteries fent Inflruftions, Reprefentations or Petitions for an Jii ajffrtory of the Truth, and a fear fbnahle Warning againft the Errors of the Time ; any Goodnefs that appeared amongft us was like the Morning- tloud and lite early Detv that foon paffeth away. With refpeft to Mr. Campbell's Errors, the Author of the EfFay reckons that his erroneous Propofitions thac were under the Confrdcration cf the Judicatories were ; only “ uncautious Exprclltons,” and thac “ his Explica- ij tions mdght be found and orthodox," p. 119. and he pro¬ ceeds, p izi. to purge Matters Simfon and Campbell of Hcrefy, if the Word Hcretick is taken in its ft rift Senfe. And here it is proper to notice the Rcafbn given by our ' Author, why neither of them can be called Hereticks, when the Word is taken in the ftrift Senle ; “ For {fays < “ ha) none of them offered to defend the erroneous Pofi- tions as libelled, or in the Senfe alledged againft them,’* Their feveral Poficions were laid in their Libels as Er- ' rors ; and it is very true, that none of them were fb weak ' as to defend their Pofitions under the Notion of Errors. As for what our Author adds, or in the Senfe alledged a-* gainfi them; our Author does not alledge that they re- ■ trafted any of their Propofitions, bur only that they did ' not own them in the Senfe alledged againfl them ; There¬ fore, according to him. they gave a found Senfe and Meaning unto the feveral Propofitions that were libelled againft them, I hope it will be allowed, that a Senfe and ' Meaning, oppofed to our received and approven Princi- ' pies,was the Senfe in w'hich Mafters -S/w/tJw’s and Campbell's ' Pofitio"s were libelled againft them; and it i.s very evi- .hat they have all along defended their Opinions in : a ‘ienfe direftly oppefire to the received Principles of the Church of Scotland j Therefore, whatever Art they have ufed, now and then, in colouring their Errors with fly Piftiuftions; yet it mutt be owned by ail who underftand their I ( 93 ) tlicir Scheme, that they 'have , defended their erroneous > Pofitions as libelled, or in the Senfe alledged againfi them : I, And, if our Author refufe this, let him give an Inftancc i of fuch erroneous Propofitions as Mafters Simfon and I Campbell have explained into a found Senfe, and fuch as I he will venture his own Charafter upon, that they arc found and orthodox ; and, until he do this, I muft I cither hold him as giving up the Qutftion as he himlelf ^ has dated it upon the Head of Doctrine, or that he has not underdood their Principles: For when he fays that I Mr. C«« 7 pie/fs Explications found and orthodox, i to ufe one of his own Phrafes, /ome may allcdge that it is as much as if he had faid he docs not know whether they were fo or not. The Author of the Elfay obferves, from the Preshyte- ry’s and ^ejlimony, p. 66 . that they affirm, “ That ( ‘‘ the Aflcfnbly 17^6 adoptedProrefrorGtJwjftWfsPrinciple [; concerning Self-love,” And this they had good Reafon I to affirm ; and our Author has never attempted todifprove I any of the Reafons and Grounds that they have offered, I why they judge it fo raanifeff and plain. “ But ( fays our J /Author') feeing they own fame worthy Men in that j^Jfem- ' hly did not notice this^ it might been charitably thought f- “ this was a mere Overfight in the Affembly.’' But he f does not fairly report the Words of the Presbytery’s I and ^ejlimony ; their Words are “ The Cafe is fb plain f ** of irfelf, and from what has been obferved, that no- » thing is neceffary to be added, except to lament that { God has left this Church fo far as to adopt this Error, i “ and that he fo far deferred fome worthy Men as not to r ** notice it, and tedify againd it;” and this they had juft ! Ground to fay. Our Author adds, “ And that they had “ no Defign of adopting this Propodtion is evident, in “ that not fb much as one Perfon in all the Affembly did ' fpeak a Word againd it; for it cannot be denied, fbme in that Affembly had the Intered of Truth as much at “ Heart as the Brethren thcmfelves, ©“c.” But this is fo f far from being an Evidence that the Affembly had no De- if, fign of adopting Mr. Campbell's Proportion concerning 1 Self love according to his Senfe and Explication of it, that li it is an Evidence to the contrary. And what tho’ there were worthy Men in that Affembly, that had the intereft :j of Truth at Heart, who fuft'ered it to pafs without Oppo- i> fition ? This was indeed an Evidence that they were in this ' Mat*; * ♦ and Teflimony^ p. ( 94 ) , . Matrsr, as the Preshyrery fpealc, fo far deferred of God, as nor to notice it and tefiify a^ainrt it; but it is far from being an Kvidence that the Bulk of that AflTerrbly did rot take up Mr. Propofition in the Senfe in which be underftood it, neirlier was it an Evidence that the Affembly’s Condud: in this Matter was a hare Overji^ht, as our Author fpeaks. And when be adds, “ That Cha- “ rity obliged to think that the Aflembly hath not uickedly departed from the Lord in this Matter, nor adopted “ this Propofition as their Principle;" Tho’ none vill afF.rm that the Afiembly adopted any Propofition under the Notion of Error, yet it is a i the feveral Ecclefiaftical Courts above-mentioned; tho* the ^ Power of Cenfure is very ncceflary for prelerving Sound- ■ nefs in the Faith, and Purity in the Walk and Converla- t tion of Church- members. But yet, tho’ Ecclefiaftical b Courts may proceed in an authoritative Manner, in the »v Name of the Head and King of Zdon, their Power and C Authority is limited, it is a Power for Edification ; they I. have not a Lordly and Magijierial, but a Minifierial ana Stewardly Authority ; they have not a Legijlative Autho- \ rity, tho’ they have a Power to declare and publiffi the : genuine Senfe and Meaning of the Laws of Chrift’s fpi- i ritual Kingdom, in Oppofition to Corrupters and Subver- ters of the fame ; they have a Power to apply the Doctrines of Faith, or the Truths of God declared and laid down in his Word, againft emergent Herefies and Errors; they ' have allb a Power to apply the Cenfures of Chrift’s Houfe to the Erroneous and Scandalous: They are not Lords over our Faith and Conlcience, nor the Rule of our Faith and PraBice, but Helps to both ; all the Office-bearers in the f Jus Div. Reg. EceJef p. 187. ( '04 ) the Chnrch are ^ivsn her, and conlcqucnrly all Ecclefi- aftical Courts are inftituted and appointed, for the per¬ fecting of the Satrts, for the iVork of the Mintjtry ^ for the edi- fying of the Body of Ckrilly Eph. iv. 1 2. and according to our Confejft 'n^ Chap. xxxi. § 2, 5, 4. But if Ecclefi- aftical Courts rule over the Flock of Chrift with Rigour, if they refufe to publifh and declare the Laws and Ordi- ; nances of the Lord Jefus in Oppofition to Gainfayers; if they walk contrary to the Laws of Chrift'slpirirual King¬ dom, or the Inftruclionsthat they have received from him ; if they wound, Icatter and break the Heritage of God; , if they fereen and proredt the Erroneous or Scandalous ; if they turn the Edge of Difeipline againft fuch as cleave , to the Truth, and reftify againft Iniquity; then they arc unfaithful to their 7 r«y?, and pervert the Keys of Govern¬ ment and Difeipline, and they thereby forfeit their Claim to the Exercife of the Keys, till they repent and return to their Duty : And, in this Cafe, their Power and Autho¬ rity may juftly be rejefted, as tyrannical in its Exercife, by the Subjects of Chrift’s fpiritual Kingdom. And that this is the State of Matters with refpedt to this National Church, as fhe is reprefented in her prefent Judicatories, . is what I am now to evince; and I hope the fhort Account . that is given above of our Presbyterian Principles will not be judged foreign to the Purpofe in Hand, efpecially - when they are fb much oppofed even by fome who not many Years ago diftinguifhed themfelves by a zealous : Appearance for them ; whereby fome are in Danger to be carried away unto the Sectarian Extremes on the one Hand, and one the other Hand many are lofing Sight of our Presbyterian Principles, by reafbn of the Conduft of the Judicatories, who, tho’ they bear the Name and Cha¬ racter of Presbyterian Courts, yet, ip the prefent Exer¬ cife and Adminiftration of the Government and Difei¬ pline, do in their judicative Capacity oppofe themfelves •' unto our Presbyterian Form and Order, and walk contra- ■ ry unto the fpecial End and Defign of the Ordinances of ^ Government and Difeipline in the Houfe of God, as may evidently appear from the following particular Inftances. . ly?. That the prefent judicatories of this Church arc 1 tyrannical in the Adminiftration, may appear from their . Conduct in the Settlement of Minifiers in vacant Congrega- I tions. There has been for about Twenty Years bypaft, \ and upwards, a continued Series and TraCt of violent Set- < elements, whereby Minifters have been intruded upon dif- fenting fentipg; and reclaiming Congregations; As thefe violent Secrlcrnenrs have been countenanced and fupporred by the Authority of the Supreme Judicatory of this National Churcli, fo they have taken Place many of them upon thd Footing of Vrefevtations in confequence of the reJ}o~ rini> Patronages, and others upon the Footing of the pad by the Jjfembly 1732 anenC the Settlement of vacant Congregations. It is plain that a Legiflative Power and j Authority was exercifed over the Houfe of God in the pairing of the forelaid A6t, whereby the Flock and He- I ritage of God were fpoiled and robbed of the Power of I Choohng and Calling their own Minifters; and this Power was given up to Heritors under the general Denomination of Protefiants^ by which Means fuch as declare them- i felves oppofite unto our Presbyterian Conliitution wercin- I Veiled with the Power of giving Minifters to Presbyterian I Churches. The forefaid ASi was indeed repealed by the Aflembly 1734 ; Bur, how was it repealed ? Was it de- I dared to be ftnful or contrary unto our Presbyterian Prin- i ciples and Conllitutions, as they are aflerted in our Books of Difcipline, or other laudable A6ts of this National Church ? or, was the above Aft declared to be a Viola¬ tion of the Rights and Privileges of the Subjefls of the King of Zion ? No, by no Means; it was only repealed^ hccaufe it was part contrary to fome Forms appointed to be obferved in the palling of Afts of Aflembly : And therefore the Settlement of Minifters is to this very Day carried on, either upon the Footing of Prefentations, or after the Manner prelcribed in the repealed AB and con- : fequently the Judicatories of this Church, not onlyjuftify i that A< 5 t in their PraftiCe, bur, by their habitual Procc- ■ dure in the Settlement of Minifters, counterad: the Ordi- ■ nances and Inftitutions of Chrift, and exercife a Lordly . Dominion over the Heritage of God, whereby they are ; Wounded, feattered and broken ; and this is done not-* • W'ithftanding of manifold Reprefentations and Remon-* f ftrances to tne contrary. I The Author of the Hjfay owns, that the Charge of vio- lent Intrufions is what the Church of Scotland can leaft be ! vindicated from, p. 30. he likewife acknowledges that wd r have juft Ground to lament the many violent Settlements . that have taken Place; “ But, fays he^ as there hath been I, “ a confiderable Struggle made by many Minifters of this :• Church againft them, a confiderable Stop hath been put i- ‘‘ to them for fome Time bygone,** It is true, that both 5, ■' O Mini^ ( 'io5 ) Ml'niftcrs and many other Church-members have made a confiderable Struggle againft them, as may appear from the Narrative I have given in the Introduftion; but then fuch as are Strangers to Affairs amongft us in Scotland^ and who read the above Words of our Author, may readily apprehend, that the Struggles he mentions have had fuch , dcfirable Surcefs, that the prefent Judicatories are repen¬ ting and reforming that Courfe of' Violence which they have praftifed againft the Lord’s Heritage and Flock in Scotland: But I appeal to our Author himfelf, if he can honeftly fay, that the Judicatories arc either repenting or reforming their Violence. Whether our Author’s Words may be reckoned an Extenuating of the Sin of the Judica¬ tories, or whether or not, as they are laid, they have an ; evident Tendency to impofe upon the Worltf, I leave it ■ to the Reader^ who knows the State of Matters with us in , Scotland^ to judge for himfelf: Only I may ask our Author^- Can he give me an inftance in any of the General AiTem- blies for feveral Years bygone, wherein violent Settle¬ ments one or mo have not been either countenanced, fup- ported, or expredy enafted ? Before I have done, I fhall , give him particular Inftances to the contrary. Here I fhall only obferve, that the Aflembly 1754, whofe Con- i duft and Management was much better than that of feve- | ral Affemblies before, or of any that have followed, yen i when the Cafe of the Parifh of Cambufnethan was brought before them by an Appeal from a Sentence of the Presby~ tery of Hamiltoun^ which had an evident Tendency to¬ wards a violent Settlement in the faid Parifh, even the forefaid AfTembly remit to the Presbytery of Hamiltoun to proceed towards the Settlement of the laid Parifh as they fhall judge beft for the Edification of that Congregation: This was a Delivering-up of the Opprefled into their Hands who had given Sentence againft them; for, who could doubt but that Presbytery would think it necefTary to fee to the Execution of their own Sentence ? I fhould not have upbraided that Ajfembly with this particular In¬ ftance, if the Judicatories had been indeed reforming their 1 violent Mcafures; but the following Aflemblics one after 1 another countenanced or fupported, as I have faid, the ' Settlement of Minifters over diffenting and reclaiming 1 Congregations, tho’ the Author of the Ejfay would have the World believe that a confiderablc Stop has been put to fuch finful PraQrices for fbme Time bypaft. That the Settlement of Minifters over diffenting and rc- I ; ( 107 ) > reclaiming Congregations is tyrannyy I need only appeal to the Reverend Mr. Cunie in his Jm Pop. Div. Pref, p. 4. where he gives it as a Reformation-principle from { Calvin and Calder | j^ilfrates or fuch like Officers ; and our Reformed Divines | have reckoned it of as great Importance and Moment to the Church, who lhail cimfc her Pallors and Overfeers. i And here I ffiall give him the Words of a confiderable i Divine, for whom our Author doth fometimes exprefs a j very great Regard, viz. Doftor Owen., in his Enquiry into i the Original, &c. p. iSi. fpeaking of the Things that are I vecejfary Fur.damentals unto the Order of the Ch\irch, on the Part of the Miniflry, fays he, “ That all the Mini- fters or Officers of the Church be duly chofen by the Church itfelf, and folemnly let apart in the Church i “ unto their Office, according unto the Rule and Law ' of Chrift; this is fundamental unto Church-order, the ' Root of it, from whence all other Parts of it do fpring- “ and it is that which is exprefly provided for in the Scrip- cure: If there be a NegleQ: herein, and no other Re- lation required Ixrtween Minifters, Elders, Rulers, Bi- ffiops, and the Church, but what is railed and created by Ways and Rules of Mens Appointment,—the Law of Chrid is violated, and the Order of the Church is difturbed in its Foundation.” And, if our Author is confiftent with himfelf in his other Writings, I do not fee how he can refufe that the prefent Judicatories in their Settlement of Minifters are guilty of habitual Sinning ar gainft the Catholick Good of the Subjefts of Chrift, and of fubverting the Lav/s of his fpiritual Kingdom ; and, if he continues to own that the Intrufion of Minifters is impiors Robbery, Sacrilege and Rapine, how comes he to give the right Hand of Fellowffiip to fuch, by fitting in Judicatories witli them ? Can we have a Conjundlion, as parts and Members of the fame one Ecclefiaftical Body, with impious Robbers, and fuch as are guilty of Sacrilege and Rapine^ ^nd who refufe to repent and reform ; and yet hex Rexf p. 2,1), ( 109 ) • yet at the fame Time fay, We are not Partakers of their '! Sins? I ask our Author again, Whether or not impious •' Robbers, and fuch as are guilty of Sacrilege, 8cc. delervc I that the Cenfures of the Houie of God fhould 'be infli< 5 hed ; upon them f And, if fo, then, according to our Author’s declared Principles *, they ought to be Icparated from. zdly, A fecond Inllance that I give of Tyranny in the . Adminifiration, is the ConduB of the prefent Judicatories V with refpe^t to fuch as have endeavoured to tefiify dcBrinal- ^ ly againlt the prefent Courfe of Defection. Tho’ Mini¬ mi fters of the Gofpel have it in Commiflion to teach all J Things nvhatfoever the Lord Jefus hath commanded, and tho’ h they are obliged under their higheft Peril to teftify doftri- jl Dally againft every publick Sin, Iviii. i. Ezek. xxxiii, , 7> 8. yet, as I have noticed in the Introduction, when the i Reverend Mr. Erskine Minifter at Stirling did teftify do- i ftrinally from the Word of God againft fome of our Steps of Defection, he is brought to the Bar of the Judicatories, and the Aflembly 1755 appoint him to be rebuked at their Bar, for impugning JBs of j^ffembly and the Proceedings of i the Judicatories, in a Sermon at the Opening of the Synod ( of Perth and Stirling : And what were thefe Proceedings of 1 the Judicatories which he impugned ? Even the above- 1 mentioned and the like, viz. the Impofing of Minifters upon diflenting and reclaiming Congregations. ^dly, A third Inftance of Tyranny in the Adminiftra- tion is the ConduCt of the prefent Judicatories, in thrujling out from Minijierial Communion •with them fome Minifters . who have refufed to fubmit to the above unjuft ACf and ' Sentence, whereby they judged their Minifterial Freedom . was reftrained, and who therefore protefted for Liberty to teftify on all proper Occafions againft the Courfe of De- feCfion carried on by the Judicatories: This was done by the forefaid Aftembly 1753 their Aft and Sentence paft againft Mr. Erskine and three other Minifters, as I have alfo narrated in the Introduftion. They were every one, in confequence of the forefaid Aft and Sentence, firii fufpended from the Exercife of their Miniftry, becaufe • they would not retraft their above Proteftation; this was done by the Commiffion of the forefaid Aflembly: And afterwards, at another Meeting, of the fame Commiffion, they were declared to be no longer Minifters of the eftablijbed Church, becaufe they refqfed to fubmit to the Cenfure of Sufpenfion, and continued to refufe to retract their Pro- tft4tiQu. The * P- 35 * ( 110 ) The Author of the EJf/iy does not pretend fo juftify the above Sentence of the Aflembly 1755 : He tells us, p. 28. “ I was and am forry ever fuch a Sentence was paft, whcrc- “ by thete Brethren were caft out from the Communion of “ this Church/’ I have no Ground to queftion our Au¬ thor’s Ingenuity, efpecially when he gave fuch a publick and folemn Evidence of what he affirms above, in a Ser¬ mon preached in the ^olbooth-chunh in Edinburgh fame Year, on the Faft-day before the Celebration of the Lord’s Supper there, when, fpeaking of theCondudt of the Ju¬ dicatories towards the protefting Minifters, he expreffied himfelf in the following Terms;” Thar, tho’ they fhould “ fuffer Sufpenfion, Depofition, Imprifonment, Baniffi- “ ment. Heading or Hanging, I am convinced in my Con- ** fcience they fuffer for a good Caufe, and the Lord will “ own and honour them in it.” I hope I ffiall be excufed if I have for once reported a Hearfayy a Praftice very frequent with our Author, and for which I have elfewhere condemned him: I fhould not have done it, if I had not very good Authority for it; and befides, I do not reckon it any way prejudicial onto our Author’s Charader. But I muft be allowed to add, that I am alfo forry, that, not- ivithftanding of his large Profeffions of Zeal againft the Conduct of the Judicatories, he has not found them guilty of Tyranny in the Adminiftration, neither in this Parti- * cular, nor in any other inftance whatfoever; yea, he does : what he can to extenuate the Sin of the Judicatories, and I for this End he brings in our reforming Period as more ty- 1 rannical by far in the Adminiftration, and alledges. No¬ thing can be laid to the Charge of the prclent Judicato¬ ries, equal to thefc Afts of Tyranny which he thinks fit fo condefeend upon from the forefaid Period : But this I am afterwards to conftdcr in its proper Place. Here I ffiall briefly notice a few Things that our Author offers for taking off the Force of our Argument as it is laid upon Tyranny in the Adminiftration, in the particular Inftance now be¬ fore me: He allcdges, in the firft Place, That the Aft and Deed of the Synod of Perth and Stirlingy reftoring the fc- ceding Minifters to Minifterial Communion with this Church, to their feveral Charges, and to the Exercife of all Parts of the Minifterial Funftion tlierein, in confe- qucnce of the Power and Authority given the faid Synod by tlie General Aflembly 17:^4, ‘‘ was, if not a formal, “ vet a material Kcicinding of the Sentences pronounced agaicft them,” Ej[ay^ p. \ Cy In Oppofition to this. ( III the receding Miniftcrs affirm, That the Aft and Sentence part by the AlTembly 17^5 is never to this Day either formally or materially refcinded\ and they have given their Reafons for this, in their Paper intituled, Reafom by., &c. •why they have not acceded to the Judicatories., &c. The Au¬ thor of the Effay has never fo much as attempted to enter into the Argument as it is laid in that Paper, nay, he has induftrioufly ffiifted the fame: As for Inftance, he tells us, p. 165. “ Whereas in Vindication of their not acceding, “ upon what was done by that Aflembly and the forefaid “ Synod 1734, it is complained, ^hat JJfembly did not ' “ themfelves judge of the Legality of the Sentences pronounced 1 againfl the Brethren as they ought, feeing the Synod could ‘‘ not do this ; ’* and for this he cites Reafons not acced. p. 23. I obferved in my Pofifcript to the Letter mentioned above, that the Author of the Effay perverts our Words, and that as they are cited by him they are unintelligible, and that "' he appears to me not to have underftood what he was at¬ tempting to anfwer. Upon this our Author, in a Paper he calls his Short Vindication, after,fome frivolous Criti- cifms, fuch as, ‘‘ Whereas it is faid, I pretend to give one “ of their Reafons, &c. this I refu^; 1 only fay, ’Tis complained that Aflembly did not, &c." Under what- . ever Shape he may think fit to take up our Words in the Page from which he pretends to cite them, they are laid as a Reafbn why the fcceding Minifters judged the Aft and I Sentence paft againfl them was neither materially nor for- , mally refeinded. But I fay. After two fuch infignificanc ( Criticifms, and an Alledgance againfl fbme Words in ouc ' and ^efiimony, which I fhall afterwards confider, he tells us, p. 8. Short Rind. “ I gave what I took to be the Subftance of that G>mplaint, tho’not precifely in their “ Words, nor did I fay they were their Expreffions. ’* I How comes he then to mark them with the ordinary Marks of a Citation, as if they had been our precife Words? Ic I had been more fair if he had told his Reader, that he did I not give our precife Words, but what he took to be the Subflance of what he calls our Complaint. He tranferibes in the Page laft cited fbme Sentences out of which he had gathered what he calls our Complaint; but flill they are unintelligible as he lays them, neither can they convey unto any that read his Book a juft View of the Argument or Reafbn why the feceding Brethren judge the Aft and Sen¬ tence paft againfl: them is neither formally nor materially repealed : And I doubt not to affirm, that the Rcafon as ( II2 ) ' it IS there laid is fuch, as neither he nor any other Can give a fatisfying Anfwer unto. The feceding Brethren juHly obferve That the Aflembly I754i in their A(ft anent them, give full Power to the Synod of Perth to take the Cafe of the four Brethren, as it then flood, under their Confidcration, and to proceed and do therein as they fliall find mofl juflifiable and expedient for refloring the Peace and preferving the Authority of this Church, “ But “ with this exprefs Direftion, That the faid Synod^ fliall “ not take upon them to judge of the Legality or Formality “ of the former Proceedings of the Church-judicatories “ in relation to this Affair, or either to approve or cevfure the fame.” The Brethren juflly argue, That, from the : above exprefs Direction of the Aflembly to the Synod of Perth and Stirling, it is plain, that the Aft of Aflembly 1755, and the Proceedings of their Commiffion thereupon, are nowife affefted by the Aft of AflTembly 1734, either as to their Legality or Formality ; that is, they are held and repute to be formal and legal Deeds by the faid Aflembly, and the Synod of Perth is bound up from difapproving or cenfuring them. And, when the Aflembly 1734 did nei¬ ther difapprove nor condemn the forefaid Proceedings againfl the Brethren, it is plain the Synod could nor: And tho’ the Synod had difapproven and condemned them, v/hen they are exprefly difeharged by the Aflembly fo to > do, yet the Aft of Aflembly 1733 muft flill be reckoned : a Deed of this Church, neither materially nor formally refeinded to this Day ; for an inferior Judicatory can never repeal an Aft and Sentence paft by a fuperior, while they continue in Conjunftion with and Subordination to them. If it is then enquired, What are the Powers given by the ' Aflembly 1734 to the Synod of Perthl I anfwer, The Synod of Perth are only impowered to relax the four Bre¬ thren, upon fome political Confiderations, from the Sen¬ tences that were pafled againfl them, viz, for preventing the “ lamentable Confequences that have followed and : may yet follow upon their Separation from this Church, “ and the Judicatories thereof” And, in the mcau j Time, the Aft and Deed of the Aflembly 1733 againfl: i them is held and repute to be legal and formal, and is no¬ wife to be cenfured by the Synod; and the Synod have 1 accordingly relaxed them from the Sentences pronounced ; and execute againfl them, and this was all that was done, ' or could be done by the Synod, in confcquence of the ! Powers I * Reafons not acetd. p. 23, J I Powers crttnrnttfecl fo rhem. 1 may here likewifc ohferv’C’j that the laft Alfcmbly 1758 give us the Senfe tliat the pre* fcnt Judicatories have of the Adt of Aflembly 1754, wherl they mention it in the Preamble to their Adf anent the fs- ceding Minifters, as an aggravating Circumftance of their ( continued Sccellton, that this is done notwithftanding of \ the Clemency fhewed to feme of them in the Year 1754, I The receding Minifters have always pled for the Repeal of the Deed 1735 agaitift them, not as an Adt of Favour or Pity unto them, as ftraying Brethren, who deferved fuch a Sentence, but as an Adt of Juftice ; and they have pled the Repeal of the faid Deed, not merely as an Adfc I of Juftice to themfclves, but as a Piece of Juftice that ; fhould be done to injured Truth, namely, that an Adt and j Sentence condemning a faithful dodfrinal Teftimony againft: Steps of Defedfion, and likewife condemning a Protefta- tion againft the unwarrantable Exercife of the Key of Dift ciplinc, might not remain to future Generations as a ftan- ding Adt and Deed of this National Church, When the Author of the Ejfay cites fome of our Words, but yet ! never touches the above Reafon why we judge the A( 9 : of Aftembly 1735 was never yet repealed either materially or formally, the moft favourable Conftrudtion that I could put upon his Condufi: was, that he appeared to me not to have underftood the Argument. He feems to be offen¬ ded at this, and infinuates in his Short VindicatioVy that it I is a bringing into Queftion his Intelledluals: But if he 1 took up the Force of our Reafoning, and took no Manner ' af Notice of the fame, which 1 have fhown he has not, ,j :hen he waved it induftrioufly and with Defign, and there- by impofes upon his credulous Reader, when he conceals : the Weight and Strength of our Reafon from him; and . this was what 1 was very loth to impute unto him. •; From what is above obferved it is evident, that the Aft ♦ jf Aflembly 1735 is a fianding and Deed of this Na- i tonal Church, never yet refetnded nor repealed; therefore ,| [ fliall not weary the Reader with tracing our Author 111 urther in the Anfwers he makes to the feveral Citations, I ivhich after his own Way he tranferibes from our Reafons . >f Not-acceJJiony in regard he never once touches the Ar- { jument, as the Reader may find, if he thinks it worth hrs (j; while to compare with the forefaid Reafons, the Citations I I aken from them, Ejfay p. 168, 169, 170, If I Ibould f ell our Author, that in fome of thefe he has perverted nl )ur Words as much as in the above Citation which I have, ! P examineda ♦ ( II4 ) examined, or that he has concealed the Force of ourRes- loning in every one of them, I expert no other Anfwer from him, but that he has given nhat he takes to he the Subfiance of cur Complaintj tho’not precifely incur fVords, it is like fome may judge, that it is not of any great | Importance in the prelent Queftion, whether the Ad: of Aflembly 1735 againft the four Brethren was refeinded or 1 nor, when the Execution of the Sentence againft them was diverted : But it will be found to be of confiderable Moment and Importance, when it is obferved, that, by the Aft and Deed of the laid Aflembly, a doHrinal Tejli- many againft the finful Proceedings of the Judicatories is cenfured, and thereby faithful Minifterial Freedom againft a Courfe of Defeftion, as allb a Protejlation for Exonera¬ tion againft fuch a grofs Perverting of the Key of Difci- plinc, are both condemned; by which Procedure I hum¬ bly judge, that not only our Principles as Presbyterians, but alfo as Proteftants, are attacked, and a blind Submif- fion and Subjeftion unto Judicatories, even when walking contrary to our laudable Afts and Conftitutions, is efta- blifhed : And as this is a Piece of manifeft Tyranny in the Adminiftration, fo it has a native Tendency to fubvert our Confiitution. With refpeft to Minifterial Freedom in teftifying do- 1 ftrinally againft the finful Proceedings of Church-judica¬ tories, it is plainly'condemned by the Aft of Aflembly 1733, appointing Mr. Erskine to be rebuked at their Bir, for impugning, in his Sermon, Afts of Aflembly and Proceedings of Church-judicatories: And, what were thele Afts or Deeds of Aflembly and Proceedings of the Judicatories which he impugned ? Only fuch as con¬ cerned the violent Settlements of Minifters in vacant Congregations, in direft Oppofltion to our received and known Principles. But it is alledged, that the Aflfembly 1734 have declared for Minifterial Freedom in the plain- eft Terms, wrhen, in their Aft relative to the fame, “ they ** do, for the Satisfaftion of all, hereby declare, that due and regular Minifterial Freedom is ftill left entire to all Minifters; and that the fame Sacraments; “ That Sacraments be rightly minilfred, wc “ judge two Things are requifite: The one, Thar they ■ “ be minilfred by lawful Minifters, whom we affirm to “ be only they that are appointed to the Preaching of the , “ Word, into whofe Mouth God hath put feme Sermoa “ of Exhortation, they being Men lawfully chofen thereto ‘ by fame Church : The other, That they be miniftrate in “ fuch Elements, and in fuch Sort, as God hath appoin- 1 ' ted ; elfe we affirm, that they ceafe to be the right Sa- ’• “ craments of Chrift Jefus.” And what they mean by Men lawfully chofen to the Work of the Miniftry, we may p learn from the firTf Book of Difeipline, Head 4, where f they tell us, “ That ordinary Vocation {-viz. to the Mini- “ ftry) confifteth in Election, Examination and Admiffi- ■ on.” And concerning EleWon they fay, “ It appertain- ^ “ eth to the People, and to every leveral Congregation, i “ to eleft their Minifter.” Compared with Head 20. of it the faid Book, where they affirm, “ That the Spirit of God “ inwardly firft moving the Hearts to feek Chrift’s Glory “ and the Profit of his Kirk, and thereafter the Nomina- l “ tion of the People, the Examination of the Learned, ; and publick Admiffion (as before is (aid) make Men “ lawful Minifters of the Word and Sacraments, We I “ fpeak of an ordinary Vocation, &cf* From the above '< Words in the forefaid Article of our Confeffion, I obfer- )' ved, in my Poftfeript to the Letter on Seceffion, “ That “ Mr. Currh cannot refufe that there are many who have “ been intruded into the holy Miniftry, being Men that ’ “ were never lawfully chofen thereto by any Church; . and, according to the forefaid Confeffion, they are not lawful Minifters, neither arc the Sacraments ** difpenfed by them right miniftrate; yea, according ** to the faid Confeffion, they are no: right Sacraments “of •• ^ ( 120 ** of Chrifl Jefus:*’ As alfo, ‘‘Thar Mr. Cttnre cnn* . “ not refufe that the prcfent Judicatories fupport, : proteft and countenance fuch Men, in the Exercife of “ their Miniftry, and in the Difpenfation of the Sacra- ments, whom the Confejjton declares to be no lawful Mi- i “ niftcrs of Chrift.’* I add, That it may be furprifing, that when Mr. Currie, EJfay, p. 5. fpeaks of the lecond Note of a true Church, he fhould without the lead Li¬ mitation or Reftrittion affirm, “ I think none can objeft a- i “ gainft this, that the Seals of God’s Covenant arezspurely 1 ‘‘ adminiftrate in this Church as ever they were in any.” Having made the above ffiort Obferves in my Poflfcript to the printed Letter, p. 59, 40, the Reverend Mr. Currie in his Short Vindication, p. 5. refledts upon them in the fol- ! lowing Manner; “ I mull: tell our Brother, It is an unac- countable Impofing upon the World, to fay. Our jirjl “ Confejpon of Faith denies that the Sacraments can be j “ rightly adminiftred by fuch as have been intruded upon “ Chriftian Congregations; or to fay. The Sacraments .1 “ are not right Sacraments of Jefus Chrift, which are ad- I “ miniftrate by fuch Men.” He adds, “ This Dodtrine “ is enough to beget perplexing Scruples in the Confeien- > CCS of poor ferious People, To as to queftion whether or 1 “ not ever they have been baptifed.” He compares it to Dodwell's wild Dodtrine, of the abfolute Neceffity of E- pifcopal Baptifm ; and he fears not to fay, It is oppofiteto the Dodtrine of all the Proteftant Churches. Mr. Currie ■< leems to have been in a more than ordinary Ferment when he writes at this Rate : I perfwade rayfelf, that, when he h is in calm Blood, he will not juftify himfelf in the above ' confident Aflertions, that have more of Banter than of Argument or Reafon. As to oi zw unacccuntnhle lm~ .1 pojing upon thelVorld, I fhall briefly notice what Mr. C«r- ' tie has advanced to deliver the World from this great Im- I f ofitioo upon them; and, in order to this, he affirms, that j labour under a Miftake; For the above Confefllon (fays 1 he) “ makes only two Things requifite to the right Ad- I ‘‘ miniftration of Sacrament: The firft is. That Men be ;i “ lawfully chofen to the Work of the (jofpel by fbme “ Church or “Judicatory thereof ; for by Church a Presbytery^ . i ** or Minifters the Church-reprefentative, who, according- “ to the conftant Doftrine of this Church, are only do- ; “ thed with Authority to ordain Men to the Work of the 1 “ Gofpel, is meant.” But here Mr. Currie makes an Ad- 1 dition to the Confejpon of Fu/th .* Whereas the Confejpon^ \ f til ) {n giving the Charsfters cf lawful MiniflerS, makes this oae, they being Men laiufuUy chojcn to the H^ork of the Minh I pry by fame Chureh ; Mr. Currie thinks fit to add, or Judl-' [ catory thereof -, but the Gonfcflion has no fuch Thing. And I whereas Mr. Came affirmS) that by Church h there hleant i a Presbytery, or Minifiers the' Church-Keprefentatlve ; 1 muft t tell him, that the Word Church is nowhere taken in this i Senfe in the faid Confeflion : And befides, the Word t Church, in the Piace cited, cannot he taken in Mr. Currie’s I Senfe; becaufe the ConfeiTion fpeaks of EleHiov, and not ! of the Orcitnatien of Minilfers: ’Tes Ckcofe, and to Ordaitr^ ate quite different Things,and they have as different Mean- 1 ings as they have different Letters., Syllables and Sounds. ! 4 have made it evident from rhe Words of the Book of ! Difcipline above cited, what our Reformers mean by /aai- I fu//y clofen to rhe Minidry ; and Mr. Currie knew fome- i time ago very weii ho'v to diftinguilli betwixt Chocjlng and , Ordaining, when he tells us in his J^us Pop. DiVi p. 131, ! 152. that Eledtion belongs to rhe People, and Ordination to the Presbytery. If the Confeffion had faid they muff be lawfully ordained by fame Church, his Reafbning had been good Senlc. I muft alfb here obferve, that accor- ' ding to our Author’s Jus Div. Chap. 4. it is a ProteftanC I Principle, afferted at the Reformation, That it belongs to ■ the People to choofe their own Mii^ifters: And it is this I very Principle chat is afferted in the above Paffage of the f Confeffion ; and it is the very fame with that which is af- 1 ferted in the 4th Head of the firft Book of Difcipline,which, : Mr. Currie, in his 'fus Pop. Div. p. 8i. tells us, treats of : Minifters, and their lawful Election. I fhall only add, f that when Mr Currie, by the Church chooling a Minifter, ■ ; mderftands a Presbytery ; he is now in fb far agreed with • he Humble and modefi Enquirer : And I doubt not but this *; \uthor and his Followers will judge it their Duty to make ft heir Compliments unto him for this liberal Conceffion j! hat he has made them. •I Mr. Currie alleciges, as above, That what I have inferred «i rom ourfirft Confeffion of Faith, “ is enough to beget per- 5 , plexing Scruples in theConfciences of poor ferrousPeoplcj) f, ■ fo as to queliion whether or not ever they have been bap- fj’ tifed.” To which I anfwer, That he himfclf has given rj eal Ground and Occafion for fuch perplexing Scruples, a ,y confounding two Queftions that are quite diftin^, 1 * amely, that about the right Miniftratfon of the Sa¬ lt raments, and the other about their YaUdity. Cur Con- 3 Q_ . ' leffioHj, ( 122 ) felTton, in the above-cited Article, aflerts, “ We flee the “ Doftrine of the Papiftical Church, in Participation of their Sacraments; Becaufe their Minifters are no Minirters of Chrift Jefus. Secondly^ Becaufe they “ have fo adulterated, both the one Sacrament and the other, with their own Inventions, that no Part of “ Chrift’s Adtion abides in the original Purity.** Yet e- very Body knows, that the Compilers of our Confeffion, and other Reformers, never rebaptifed any that were bap- tifed in the Church cf Rome, and that becaufe fhc profef-* fed the Doftrine of the Holy Trinity, and becaufe Bap- tifm is adminiftrate by her Minifters in that adorable Name; as alfo, becaufe fome other eflential Articles of Chriftia- nity, fuch as the Deity of the Son and Holy Ghoft, the Incarnation of the Son, the Unity of his Perfbn, and the true and real Diftindtion of his Natures, are held in that Church by outward vifible Profeflion, conform to the De- cifions of the firft four general Councils, againft fuch as ftated themfelves Adverfaries unto thefe important Points of our Chriftian Faith: For thefe and the like weighty Realbns, our Reformers acknowledge the Validity of the Sacrament of Baptifm, tho* difpenfed in the Popifh Church;, and yet, at the lame Time, all the reformed Churches a- gree with our Confefllon of Faith, that the Sacraments had not that Rectitude and Purity which is required ac¬ cording to the Divine Inftitution, when adminiftrate in the Church of Rome ; not only becaufe they are adulte¬ rate in the faid Church by a corrupt Mixture of their own Inventions, but allb becaufe the Popifh Minirters are not Minifters of Jefus Chrift. In like Manner, all Pref. byterian Diflenters from the Church of England do juftly maintain, that the Sacraments are not rightly adminiftrate in that Church, by Reafbn of the Additions of Men unto the Divine Inftitutions; yet at the lame Time they ac¬ knowledge their Validity, and never pled for the rebapti- iing of any that are baptiled in the Church of England, Alfo in the late Times of Prelacy, tho’ the Prelatick In¬ cumbents adminiftrate the Sacraments in the fame Plan¬ ner as we do, without the fuperftirious Additions either of the Popifh or Englijh Church ; yet the Presbyterian Church of refufed to receiveGofpel-ordinances from them, for lifts Reafon, amongft others, Becaufe they did not look upon the Bifhops Underlings to be lawful Minifters of Jefus Chrift ; yet they never made a Qiieftion about the Validity of Ordinances dilpenfed by rhera. From whal " ( ^^ 3 . ) what I have obferved, I hope it is plain, that the C^uc* tt ftion about the right or pure Adminiftration of the Sacra- pments is quite diftinft from the other, about their Validi- 1; ry ; and I cannot conceive how it entred into Mr. Curries 1 Head, or what good End and Purpofe he intended to pro- ! mote thereby, when he threw up Dadwellh Scheme in the i prefent Difpute. The Doftrine advanced by himfelf, I Effay p. 6^. is more like unto Dod-zuell’s wild Doftrinc than any Thing 1 have advanced: If it is true that Sc- ceffion from a Church is, according to our Author, a Con- 1 demning of the Lord Jefus if he keeps Communion with ^any of her Members; then, if our Author owns that y Seceflion from the Church of England is warrantable and j. neceflary, he muft condemn the Head of the Church, if ii he communicate himfelf and his faving Grace to any who live and die Members of that corrupt Church : But our b Author may find this Dodirine juftly exploded by the Or¬ thodox; and, to ufe his own Words, “ I fear not to lay, ’tis a Doftrine which is oppofite to the Dodtrine of all '5 the Proteftant Churches.” From what I havefaid, ’tis plain, that, according to the Doftrine delivered in our firft Confeflion of Faith, two Things are requifice in order to the right Adminiftration of the Sacraments according to the Divine Inllitution ; Dry?, That they be miniftrate by lawful Minifters; and one of the Charadters given us of lawful Miniilers, is, ■heir being lawfully chefen to the Miniftry by fome Church, The fecond Requifite is, That they be minillrate in fuch Elements, and in fuch Sort as God hath appointed : Hence I juftly conclude, that fuch as are intruded upon the Church, or impoied upon Chriftian Congregations without their Call and Confent, as they run unto the Work of the Lord unfent, lb they are not lawful Minifters of Chrift ; ind confcqucntly, that the Adminiftration of Gofpel-ordi- lances by fuch Intruders wants that Purity and Redtitude t which the Divine Inftitution requires. Our Author in his I Short Vindication^ p. 6. propofes the following Queftion ; i ‘ Such Men as going to the Plantations are ordained, t ' could they not rightly adminifter the Sacraments, tho‘ ‘ as yet they have not been chofen by any particular ‘ Church?” To which I anfwer. If they are not chofen jy any particular Church, yet neither are fuch Men in- - ruded upon any particular Church; and this does very i nuch alter the Cafe. But further, extraordinary Cafes, iich as the above Cafe fuppofed is, tall not under the pre- a fenr i ( JH ) fent Qiieftlon: Oar Author knew loirfetime ap;o howto diftinguifli betwixt ordinary and extraordinar'y Cafes; for he tells us, in his Pep. Div. p. 162 . “ 7’hat fuch is the Peoples Inrereft in the Eleftioft'of their Pallors, that “ their bare Eleftion is enough to make one aMinifter ** of Chrift, AVliere Ordination cannot be had according “ to his Inllitution.” Yet he very wcli knows, that, ac«« cording to the Sentiments of Presbytetifin Divines, the bare Election of tlie People in ordinary Cafes will not conftitute one a lawful Minifter of Ghrili without Ordina¬ tion. In like Manner, tho’, in fome extraordinary Cafes^ indefinite Ordination (as they term it) may he neceflary and fufficient to denominate one a lawdul Miniller of Chrift; yet in ordinary Cafes, when one is appointed a Minifter unto a particular Congregation, Ordination with¬ out lawful Eledlion does nor conftiture him a lawful Mi- rifter of Chrift. And if it is true, as Mr. Currie affirms in his Preface to the forefaid Book, p, 4 . “ It is an impious “ Robbing of the Church, Rapine and Sacrilege, to fettle any Minifter whether the People call and confent or not;-- How can the Church be obliged to receive and acknowledge fuch as her lawful Pallors, who are impious Robbers, and who are guilty of Rapine and Sacrilege? Upon the Whole, it is evident, that the prefent Queftion is not about the Validity of the Sacraments difpenfed by Intruders, bur, Whether or not fuch fiiould he held and repute as lawful and fent Minifters of Chrift, who have not been chofen by any Church whatfoever, but who are impefed upon the Church while difl’entingand reclaiming? And, if fuch are not to be held and repute as lawful and fent Minifters of Chrift, whether or not the Adminiftra- ticn of Gofpel-ordinances by fucb has that Purity and Reftitude which the Divine Inftitution requires? And I humbly judge, that the above-cited Article of our firft ConfefHon of Faith decides both the Quellions in the Man¬ ner I have already obferved in my Pollfcript: And there¬ fore, when Men arc intruded upon the Church by the prefent Judicatories, and alfo countenanced and fupported by them in their Minifterial Adminillrations, our Author might have fpared, or at leaft he ought to have qualified, Jits confident Boaft, EJftiy p. 5 . “ 1 rhink none can objeci againft this, that the Seals nf God’s Covenant are as purely adminifirace in this Church as ever they were in anv. Qur .^uchorj in his Jhrt Vindication^ p. 6. puts another (^ueftioa ] c ) Qucfiion unfo me, which I fhall not decline to anfwer; VVill our Brother (fays he) deny that the Sacraments could he riglitly adminiftratc by the great Mr, Hen^cr- “ fon when in Leuchars^ albeit he was thrud in upon them “ at firft To which I anfwer, There was a vail Diiie- rence betwixt Luther a poor blind Friar (as he fpeaks con¬ cerning himfelf) and the fame Luther when cnlightned in the Knowledge of the Truth: In the former Cafe, he was neither a lawful nor lent Minifter of Chrift according to our ConfefTion ; yet, for the Re&fons I have given, the Sacraments difpenfed by him were valid. In like Manner, there was a great Diflerence betwixt Mr. Hen^ devfan the Prelatick Incumbent and Intruder in the Parilli of Leuchavsy and the fame Mr. Hsvdevfon when conver¬ ted by the Mmiftry of the famous \Ar. Kohevt Bntce : In the former Cufe, according to our faid Gonfeirion, he was not a lawful Minifter of Chrift; yet, for the fame Reafons, the Sacraments difpenfed by him were valid. The Effay obferves, p. 5 . from the Fuljillin^ of the Serif turef^ That Mr. Henderfon having gone out of Curiofity to hear Mr. Bruce preach, the Words he firft uttered from the Pulpit were, FJe that cometh not in hy the Door^ but chmheth up any other U'ayy the fame is a ^hief and a Robber. Thefe Words were very clofe to the Cafe of Mr, Henderfon the Intruder, and, as the E^ay tells us, “ did, by the Lord’s “ Blelling, at the very prelent take him by the Heart, and had fo great an Impreflionon him, that they were “ the Mean of his Converfion. ” If the prefent Intruders in the Church of Scotland would give the lame Evidences of their lincere Repentance and Converfion which the great Mr. Henderfon gave, I doubt not but all the Lord’s People through the Land would cheerfully embrace them as lawful Minifters ot Chrift; and, if the prefent Judi¬ catories of the Church would give the like Evidences of their Repentance for the Violence they have done to the Heritage of God, and their otfier Steps of Defeftion from I our Reformation-'principlcs, our Seceffion from them would fjon be at an End: But it is to be regreted, that the quite contrary PraiSlice is pu»'fued; the Judicatories , juftify themfcives in their finful Proceedings, and Intru- ' ders hold thcmfelves as lawful and lent Minifters of Chrift: The Lord may juftiy fay of us, as he fpeaks of fudab by ' the Prophet fer. viii. 6 . I hearkried and heard, hut they fpahe not aright] no Man repetUed him of his hf'^ickednefs^ fayingy Ifhat have i done ? I ( riS ) I have not d^Hned to make Anfwer to fach Queftlons as the Author of the in hhjhort Vindication has thought fit to propofe upon this Head unto me; and therefore I may expcdt that he will not refufe to give me an Anfwer to the two following: The firft is, Whether or not fuch as are intruded info the Office of the Miniftry, or who are appointed Minifters over diflenting and reclaiming Con¬ gregations, fhould be received and acknowledged by the Church as lawful and fent Minifters of Chrift, while they juftify their Intrufions, and give no Evidence of fincere Repentance for the fame ’The fecond Queftion that I pro- pofe is, Whether or not Goijjel-ordinances difpenfed by luch as are neither lawful nor fent Minifters of Chrift, have that Reftitude or Purity in their Adminiftration ivhich the Divine Inftitution requires ’As I have given my Judgment plainly upon both thefe Queftions, and I hope according to the genuine Senfe and Meaning of the abovc'cited Articles of our Confeffion of Faith j lb I wifh. our Author would give a plain and direft Anfwer unto them, without amufing his Reader with Dodwell's wild DoSriney and an extraneous Queftion about the Validity of Baptifm. I fhall conclude this Sedtion with a Citation from a Judicious Divine, for whom our Author profefleth a very great Regard, and which I think very applicable to the Cafe now before us, viz. Mr. Durham on the Revelation^ in his Digreffion upon Reading znd Hearing’, “In Matter' i of Hearing (fays he) it is not fo hard to difeern who ' “ are to be accounted to fpeak without God’s Commiffion, becaufe ordinarily fuch have either no warrantable Call at “ all (no, notin the outward Form, and fo cannot be ac- “ counted but to run unfent) or, by palpable Defedtion from the Truth and Commiffion given them in that Call, “ they have forfeited their Commiffion, and fo no m.ore are to be accounted AmbalTadors to Chrift, or Warch- ** men of his Flock, than a Watchman of the City is to “ be accounted an Obferver thereof, when he hath pu- “ blickly made Defedtion to the Enemy, and taken on with him.” SECT. ( 'IS7 ) SECT. IV. Wherein it is jhoivrh that, hy fotne Ahfs and Deeds of the prefent Judicatories, jinful and unwarrantable ‘Terms of Communion are im- pofcd upon the Members of this Church. T he Author of the Effay grants, p. 56. that, when the leaft finful Term of Communion is impofed upon Church-members, it is a juft Ground of Se¬ paration from that Church ; And the Affociate Presbytery have affirmed in their JR and Tefiimony, That by ibme {landing A< 5 ts and Deeds of this National Church, as (he is reprelenred in her prefent Judicatories, feveral unwar¬ rantable Terms of Communion are impofed upon Mini- llers and other Members of the Church. Tho’ I judge that I have evinced in the preceeding Seftions, that the prefent Judicatories, in their Management with refpeft to the Doftrine, Government and Dilcipline, have broke the Bonds of our Ecclefiaftical Unity ; as allb, that they have forfeit their Claim to the Charafters given us in the 18th Article of ourConfeffion of a irtte Church, that is, of a Church which has attained fuch a Meafure of Puri¬ ty, that we may fafely join ourfelves unto her as Members of the fame Eccleliallick Body; and tho’, from what is al¬ ready ohlerved, ir may clearly appear that Seceffion from the prefent Judicatories is lawful and warrantable ; yet I {hall briefly notice what thele finful and unwarrantable Terms of Communion are, which the Presbytery affirm are impofed upon the Members of this Church; and I {hall alfo confider what the Author of the Effay has ad¬ vanced, to take oft' the Force of the Argument for Secef^ fion, as it is ftated upon finful Terms of Communion. The AfTociate Presbytery in their judicial JB and 'lefit- mony, p. 85, obferve, That, by the Aft of Afl'embly 1755, againft Mr. Erskine and the other protefting Minifters, two finful Terms of Communion were impofed; Fir ft. That no Minifier of this Church Ihould teftify from the “ Pulpit againft Afts of Affembly and Proceedings of Church-judicatories, even tho’ they were fuch as had a “ direft Tendency to undermine our Conftifution. Second- “ ly. That no Minifter or Member of this Church fhould protefi, for their own Exoneration, againft Afts, Sen- r “ tences ( T:8 •) fences or Decifions of tlie Supreme Judicatory, even “ tho’ they fhould nearly afte< 9 : rhe publick Caufe of God, and rcllrain Miniftertal Freedom and Faithfulnefs in tertifying againft rhe Sins and Defeftions of a backfli- ding Church.” The Presbytery do juftly conclude, that the Sentence of Rebuke and Admonition paft a- gainft Mr. Erskine, on account of his dodtrinal Freedom in teftifying againft the Hnful Proceedings of the Jadica-» tories, was an h€t and Deed of the Supreme Judicatory, making all the Minifters of this Church liable to CenfurC, if they Ihould teftify dodtrinally againft the fame or the like Proceedings of the Judicatories; As alfo, they judge *tis plain, that the fevere Sentence palled againft rhe four protefting Minifters, on account of their Proteftation, was an Aft and Deed of the Supreme Judicatory, finding and declaring any Miuifter or Memfcr of this Church i obnoxious to Cenfure, if they fiiould proteft for theif i own Exoneration againft finful Afts, Sentences or Deci¬ fions of the Supreme Judicatory, reftraining Minifterial Freedom and Faithfulnels. The Presbytery likewile judge, that by the Aft and Sentence of the Afletpbly 1755, difeharging the Mini- fiersof the Presbytery of Dunfermline^ under Pain of the higheft Cenfure, to admit any of the Parifh of Kinrofi to fealing Ordinances without PermilTion of the intruded In¬ cumbent, two other unwarrantable Terms of Communion are impefed ; the Jirfl whereof is, That, by the forefaid Aft, Minifters are bound up from difpenfing fealing Or¬ dinances to fuch of the Lord’s People as have not Free- ‘ I confidercd. As our Author grants that the impofing the leaft finful Term of Communion upon us is juft Ground of Separati- 4 : on from a Church, fo, amongft the finful Terms of Com- I munion required by a Church, the laft which our Author mentipns, p. 57. is, “ If they fhould requir R 2 us to engage for ( . 13 ? ) for the future to abftain from what is (eafonabic Duty, “ and required of us in our Station." And here I agree with our Author, providing he does not confine the Engage- | ment he fpeaks of to an expreft form.il Promife. I hunt' bly judge that it is a finful Term of Communion, when Conjunrtion with tlie Judicatories of a Church dees in its own Nature involve Minifters in the Omiffion of fuch j Duties as their Office and Station does oblige them to,^ and which the Providences of their Day and the Circum- ftances of the Church require from them ; Or, the Con- jundtion mentioned is finful, when it reftrains the Office-, bearers of the Church from the Difcharge of any of the Duties of their Office. And, if this is the Cafe with us at prefenr, then a Seceffion from the prefent Judicatories is , iieceffary and warrantable, in regard we cannot continue in Conjunftion with them, without ahftaining from what is fcafonable Duty, and what both our Station and the Gtrcumftances of the Church require from us; and con- fequently the Union with the prefent Judicatories, that is pled for, muff be under fuch Terms as are finful and un¬ lawful ; And that this is the Cafe at prefent, may appear from the two following Inftanccs I give. ifit A judicial Tefiimony for Truth, when oppofed or controverted, is a Debt that the Office-bearers of the Church owe both to prefent and fucceeding Generations: But the prefent Judicatories of this National Church re- fufe to afiert the Truths of Chrift, in Opppofition to the Errors that have been vented in our Day ; they refufe to condemn feveral Errors, by which many important Truths, held forth from the Word of God in our Confeffion of Faith, are oppofed and alTaulted: How then fhall the Du¬ ty we owe to the Head of the Church, or the Debt that we owe to prefent and fucceeding Generations, be difehar- ged ? If the minor Part, who are fenfible of their Duty, continue in Conjunftion w’ith the Judicatories, they cannot lift up a judicial Teftimony for Truth; they cannot by any judicial Aft or Deed condemn the particular Errors that are vented, or teflify particularly againft former and prefent “^ins: The Majority hear the Keys of Government and Difeipline, and the hlinoriry cannot exercife them while they remain in Conjunftion with them ; and there¬ fore, fince the ordinary Means have been ufed with the prefent Judicatories to engage them to their Duty, but without any Succefc, the Minority, tho* few in Number, who are fcnhblc of their Duty, ought to mahe a Seceffion from ' .( 133 ) j from thetn^ and afTociate togerher, that they may endea¬ vour to difcharge that Duty which their Office and the prefent Circumftances of the Church, thrcatnrd with an In¬ undation of pernicious Errors, does oblige them unto. idly., Many Congregations in Scotland are groning un¬ der the Load and Weight of IntruCons ; they want faith¬ ful Gofpel-Minifters: But, how can fuch Minifters as pi- ' ty their Ca(e, rake the proper Steps toward their Help and Kelief ? How fhall they licenfe proper Perfons as Proba¬ tioners for the holy Miniftry ? or, how fhall they ordain and appoint Minifters over the opprefled Heritage of God, to labour among them in the Work of the Gofpel ? There is no doing of this, while they continue in Conjunction with the prefent Judicatories. Thefe, and feveral other Jnltances of this Kind, might be offered, to prove that a Conjunction with the Judicatories involves us in the O- miflion of fuch Duties as our Station and Charafter o- blige us unto. But this leads me to enquire into the Right and Warrant that the Minority (rho’ few in Num¬ ber) in a Church have to alTociate together for the Excr- cife of the Keys of Government and Difcipline, when the Majority are carrying on a Courfe of Defection from re¬ ceived Principles, and will not be reclaimed; or, when they refufe to difcharge their Duty, and cannot be pre¬ vailed upon to do it. I proceed then to SECT. V. Wherein it is proven^ that when the Majority of the Office-bearers of a Church do ohfiinate^ ly carry on a Courfe of Defebiion from Reform rnatioH-principles once attained iintOy that the Minority in this Cafe, thd* very few in Num¬ ber, have Divine Right and Warrant to ex- ercife the Keys of Government and Dijeipline in a diflinbi Capacity from them. I Have in the preceeding SeCtions made good the Charge rliat was laid againft the prefent Judicatories of this National Church, when I ftaced the Queftion : Parti¬ cularly, I have made it evident, that the ConduCt of the prefent Judicatories, in tlie many important doCtrinal Points that have been brought to their Bar, is fuch, that this Church, as llie is reprefented in them, is not the P.'/A-n* or I - c *34 ) 6 v Ground of uruih'i and that our excellent Confeflion of Faith, thro* the Countenance and Support that has been given to many grofs and pernicious Errors that have been under their Confideration, cannot any more be look’d upon as a fixed Standard of Truth, or of Soundnefs in the Faith, either in the faid Judicatories, or amongft fuch as are in Conjunftion with them, I have likewiie evinced, that the prelent Judicatories are tyrannical in the Adminiftration of the Government; and that not in Tome few particular Inftances only, but in a Series and Traft of Oppreflion and Violence done to the Flock and Heritage of God, whereby the Keys of Government and Difeipline are per¬ verted, and a lordly magifterial Power is exerciftd over the Subjects of the King of Zw», everfive of the great End and Defign of that Order and Government which he hath inftituted and appointed in his fpiriiual Kingdom, viZ., the perfeBirg of the Saints^ and the edifyinfr of the Body of Chrif, Eph. iv. I2. Alfb, from what has been obferved it evidently appears, that fuch are fupported, encouraged and countenanced in Ecclefiaftical and Spiri¬ tual Functions and Adminiftrations, who are not lawfully chofen to the Work of the Minifiry, but obtruded upon the Church, or impofed upon dilTenting and reclaiming Congregations: And all this is done, yea, perfifted in, notwichftanding of Petitions and Reprefentations, and re¬ peated Remonftrances from Minifters and other Church- members againft their Proceedings. From all which it is plain, that this National Church, as fhe is reprefented in her prelbnt Judicatories, has not only broke the Bonds of our Ecclefiattical Union and Conjundtion as a vifible orga- nick Body ; but alfo, that flie has not thefe Characters of a true Church, unto which we may and ought to join ourfelves, as they are laid down by our Reformers in the iSth Article of our firfl Confeflion of Faith: And conle- quently our Seceffion from the prefent Judicatories is jufl, warrantable and neceflary, ay and until they return to our Reformation-ftandards, agreeable to the holy Scri¬ ptures, the primary Rule and Standard, unto which all the Churches of Chrift ought to conform themfelves. Gal. vi. i 6 . I proceed now to prove, that all fuch as defire to ftand faft to our Reformation-principles, and to keep the Word of the Lord’s Patience, have Right on their Side from the Word of God, and likewife from the A6ts and Conftitu- tions oj this Church agreeable thereto, tho’ few in Num¬ ber, „ ber, to afTodatc togetlier, or to ccniHtute themlelves into I diftiiid Judicatories, for the Exercile of the Keys of Go- Y vernmetir and Dilcipline, that they may in a judicative t Capacity bear Teffimony to the Truths of Chrift, againft i the manifold Injuries that are done to the fame, in this Day ^ of Defedtion and Backfliding; and that they may, in the i faid Capacity, affert the Rights of Chrift’s fpiritual King- t dom, and the Liberties of his Subjedts; and that they may contribute their Endeavours for their Help and Relief, in their prefent opprefled and broken Gircumftances through the Land. If we confider the primary End and Defign, next unto the Glory of God and the Honour of our exalted Re¬ deemer, of all Church Order, Government and Difcipline, L which is the Edification of the Body of Chrift ; and if we likewifc confider for what End Paftors or Teachers arc given unto the Church, namely, that they are fet for the Defence of the Gofpel of Chrift, Philip, i. 7, 17. that they are particularly inftrudfed, to teach the Obfervance of all Things whatfoever Chrift hath commanded, Matth.xyisriii. 20. that they are appointed to publifli and declare, to up¬ hold and maintain the Truths of God, which are either controverted or oppofed, i Tim. iii. 15. that they arc commanded to feed the Flock of God, i Pet.v.z. Ah:$xx. 28. and to commit the Minifterial Truft unto faithful Men, 2. Tim. ii. 2. When thefe Things, I fay, are duly con- fidered, it appears to me to ftiine with bright Evidence from the holy Scriptures, that when the Judicatories of a particular vifible Church (which I have proven is the Cafe at this Day) do not ftand for the Defence of the Gofpel of Chrift; or, when Error is fo far fupported and coun¬ tenanced, that it is difmifled from their Bar either with a flight Cenfure or with no Cenfure at all; and likewife, when they exercife a lordly and magifterial Power over the Heritage of God, when they rule over them with Ri¬ gour; and when the Sword of Difcipline is turned againft i fuch as are cleaving to Truth, and who endeavour to bear Teftimony againft a Courfe of Defe( 5 Hon; and v/hen fuch Judicatories refufe to return to their Duty ; Then, and in this Cafe, the minor Part, tho’ few in Number, may and L' ought to leave the backfliding Part, and have Divine Right !t and Warrant to aflbciate together for the Exercife of the 1 ) Keys of Government and Difcipline, in the Defence of the Gofpel of Chrift, and for the Relief and Support of ’! his Flock and the Sheep of hisPafture. This I have en¬ deavoured 1 ( ) deavourcd to prove from (evera! Places of Scripture, par« ticularly from and Philip, i, 27. in the printed Let¬ ter, to which I refer. Bur, in regard I judge that the Controverfy betwixt the AfTociate Presbytery anil the pre- fenr Judicatories turns very much upon this Point, I fhall endeavour further to confirm and illuftrate the fame from the holy Scriptures, as alfo from the laudable Ad:s and Conftirution'^ of this National Church agreeable thereto. ift. As the Key of Doftrine is given by the Head of the Church to every Minifter who has a Commiflion from him, fo the Keys of Government and Difeipline are given to the Office-bearers of the Church, two or mo afting conjunftly, Matth xviii. 19, 20. The Right to exercife the Keys of Government and Difeipline, in the Manner appointed by the Head of the Church, belongs to the Pa- fioral Office, as well as the Key of Do6lrinc: And that folemn Command given to the Office-bearers of the Church, ABs xx. 28. I^eed the Church of God, includes the Paftoral Rule and Government; fo much the original Word imports, as is very well known. Hence I argue. If the Majority in the Judicatories of a particular viable Church carry on a Courfe of Defection from received Principles, in the Manner I have proven the prefent Judi¬ catories are doing, then the minor Part, who are grieved with their Proceedings, ought to leave them, and aflociate together for the Exercife of the Keys of Government and Difeipline; otherwife they give up with the Exercife of the Keys to the Majority who are carrying on the Courfe of Defeftion. That they give^ up with the Keys, in this Cafe, is evident and plain; fot the Majority muft (fill be reckoned the Court, and they only have the Keys of Go¬ vernment in their Hand; And, when the Minority give up with the Keys to the Majority in the Cafe mentioned, many grofs Abfurdities follow; as for Inftance, they give up the Exercife of the Keys to fuch as are perverting the Keys of Government and Difeipline, and making ufe of them to Ends and Purpofes quite contrary to thefe for which they are appointed by the Head of the Church; yea, the minor Part, who have not forfeit their Claims give up the Government and Difeipline to fuch who by their hlal-admlniftration have hicQP nunc, or in the, pre¬ fent circumftanriate Cafe, forfeit their Right to the fame; and confequently, by their continued Conjunction with them in the Judicatories, they fupport them, and ftrengthen their Hands in ruling over the Flock of Cbrift withRi- gour, i!ll| |»our, and in {iiflTering Truth ro !y wounded and bleeding in rhe Streets, witfiout a fuitable Teftimony unto it; Ycaj further, the Minority, while they continue in Conjunftion with fuch Judicatories as are obftinately carrying on a Couife of Defeftion, unwarrantably divert themfclves of the above Grant of the Keys, which the Head of the Church has made unto all fuch as bear his Commirtion; and they leave the Government in the Hands of thofe who are fpoiling the Vines, and who are wounding and fcattering the Heritage of God; and at the fame Time they leave the Lord’s Flock and People, without fielp and Relief, under the Oppreffion and Violence that is done them • and Truth remains injured and wounded without a judi¬ cial Teftimony unto it: And confequently, by the faid Conjunction, they ftrengthen the Eiands of fuch as are carrying on a Courfe of Backfliding, and thereby become acceflbry to the Guilt that is contracted in the Judicato¬ ries. The only plaufible Exception that can be laid a- gainrt the forefaid Argument is. That if two or three may, upon alledged DefetSions and Backflidings, depart from Communion with the Judicatories of a Church, and ereCt themfelves into a diftinCt Judicatory, then Order cannot be maintained, and the Unity of the Church cannot be preferved. To which I reply. That the Seceffion as it is ftated atprefent from the Judicatories is not upon merely alledged DeleCfions and Backflidings, but upon fuch Back¬ flidings and Defections as are juftly charged againft them, as I have proven in the former SeCtions. If it is urged. Who fliall be Judge in the Juftnefs of the Charge? or, who fliall decide the prefent Queftion betwixt the aflbeiate Presbytery and the J^udicatories ? I anfwer. That we may appeal unto the Word of God the primary Rule and Standard, and to our other received fubordinate Standards of DoCtrinc, Worfliip, Government and Difeipline; let thefe be Judge in the Cafe betwixt the prefent Judicatories and the aflbeiate Presbytery; let thefe be Judge in the Charge that is laid againft the Judicatories: Let theic Proceedings and Managements, in the many parti¬ cular Inftances I have given, be weighed in the Balance of the Sanctuary; let them be tried according to the Acts and Conrtitmions of the Church of Scotland agree¬ able to the holy Scriptures. The Author of the Ef’- fay^ who has undertaken the Management of their Caqfe againfl; Seceflion from {hem, never attempts S abfo- ( ) abfolutely to judify any of the Inftances of Defeftion and •Backfliding t have given; tho’ he does what he can to ex¬ tenuate their Sin, as 1 have already obferved : I leave tr then with the Judicatories themfelves. to judge how well he has acquit himfelf in their Defence, and how far they are obliged unto him for the Service he has done them. With reipeft to the alTociate Presbytery, if they were a- ■dopring any Thing as a Point of Teftimony, which is not founded upon the Word of God, and agreeable to our approven Acts and Conftitutions; if they had cl'poufed any 7 ’hing in their Teftimony as a Principle, that was never efpoufed in this National Church in her reforming Times; the above Exception would be of Force againft the Argument which I have brought for the Defence of their Presbyterial AlTociation: But let all their printed Papers, particularly their judicial AB and ^ejiimony^ be fearched, it will be found that they have afTerted our Presbyterian Principles in a full and plain Manner; they bave likewife aft'erted the Truths from the Word of God and our Confeflion of Faith, in Oppofition unto many dangerous and pernicious Errors of the prefent Times; and the Steps of Defedfion which they have condemned, | they have found them to be fuch as are contrary to the Word of God, our folemn Covenant-engagements, and our j laudable Acts and ConlHtutions. Tho’ the Author of the EJfay difeovers his critical Talent with Abundance of ill Humour againft the fcceding Brethren, and tho* he has ifretched himfelf, as we fhall afterwards lee, in order to defame and diferedit their A6t and Teftimony ; yet he has nor, neither can he charge them with any Principle adop¬ ted therein, but what has been received and confefled by this Church in her reforming Times. There are indeed fome few Particulars, which our Author reckons contro¬ verted Points, and which the Presbytery have judicially declared to be Steps of Defection ; but our Author has nor j neither can he plead from any of thefe which he calls con- 1 troverted Things, that the Presbytery have adopted anj| Thing contrary to our received and approven Standards | If it is ftill urged, Shall a few depart from a great anc j confiderable Body? and, fhall they take it upon them t(i emit a judicial Act and Teftimony ? Then let our Author I and all whole Caule he pleads, know, that Numbers givi not Authority nor Weight to aCaufe of this Nature; iti only Truth that fupports a religious Caufe: And therefore |ho 3 Teftimony may be defpifed on account of the Pau ' ( . t39 ) . city of fuch as manage it, and tho’ it may prove a very popular and amufing Argument to difregard a few depart- j ing from Ecclefiaftick Communion witli Judicatories con- a fifting of great Numbers; yet Numbers have not always a h Teftimony for Truth on their Side. This was indeed one t of the Arguments that the Church of Rome improved a- f gainft our Reformers; but they were told, That a Tefti- K mony for Truth may be in the Hands of a few, even of » two WitnefTes, Rev. ii. 5. againfta very numerous Body I who had departed from the Truth and Simplicity of the I Gofpel. \ 2(lfyy All the Minifters of the Gofpel are commanded to I take heed to the Miniflry which they have received in the Lord, I that they fulfil it. Col. iv. 16. They muft likewife teach ^ the Church to oblerve all Things whatfoever her exalted Head hath commanded^ Mat. xxviii. 19. They are allb charged to commit the Minifterial Truft unto faithful Men^ 2 Tim. ii. 2. Hence I argue. That fuch is the State of Matters in the prefent Judicatories, that all who would .make Conlcience of the Duties unto which they are obli¬ ged by the above and the like Scripture-commands that might be mentioned, ought to depart from Communion Jwith them, and alTociate themfelves in a diftinft Capacity Trom them, in order to the Exercife of the Keys of Go¬ vernment and Difeipline ; in regard they cannot, while ^ hey continue in a Conjunftion with them, difeharge many of the Duties they are called unto, and which the State of Matters in the Church of Scotland at prefent requires. I gave fome Inftances in the Clofe of the preceeding Seftion, to evince that a Conjunftion with the prefent Judicatories [reftrains and binds up fuch Minifters as are (enfible of their Duty, and defire to difeharge the fame, from the Perfor- 'mance of fome particular Duties, which the Command of ::he Head of the Church, their Paftoral Office, and the iprefent State of the Heritage and Flock of Chrift, do all |Dblige them unto. I fhall here give fome Inftances of fome particular Duties that ought to be difeharged, and which ':annot be done, unleft fuch who are fenfible of their Duty, ind who are grieved with the prefent Proceedings of the ’’ Judicatories, afTociate together for the Exercife of Govern- nent and Difeipline in a diftind: Capacity from them. (/?, If the Office-bearers of the Church, particularly the Minifters of the Gofpel, would fulfil that Miniflry which I hey have received of the Lord, they ought not only do- 1 Strinally to declare the Truths of Chrift, but alfo judicial- f ' S ^ ly ■ 1 i ( 14 ® > ly aflert rliem, in Opjjdfition unto the particular Errors by which they are fubverted in the Times and Places where¬ in they live; This I hope I have fully proven already, and I do not think the Author of the EJftty will refufe it. But the prefent Judicatories of this National Church do ob- ftinately decline judicially to aflert the 'Pruths, in direct and exprefs Oppofition unto many dangerous and pernici' dus Errors that have been vented among us; and confe- quently they refufe to fulfil that Miniflry which they have received of the Lord; d'herefore I conclude, that fuch who are fenfihle of their Duty, and who are grieved with the Injury that is done to Truth, ought to aflTociate toge¬ ther, and, in the Name and Authority of the Head of the Church, difplay the Banner of a judicial Telfirnony for injured Truth, by condemning particularly and exprefly fuch erroneous Propofitions or Principles whereby the Truths of God have been openly and wickedly oppofed and undermined, and by aflertingthe Truth in diretlt Op- gofition unto fuch grofs and dangerous Errors whereby the 1 ruths of God have been fubverted amongfl us. The Author of the EJfay cannot refufe that the Judicatories have declined a fuitablc Teftimony for Truth ; for he wiflies there were an affertory Aft, and profefles to regrete the Omiflions of Judicatories in this Matter: Tho’, as we have already ob- lerved, he extenuates their Sin, and makes but a very fmall Account of fuch Omiflions, tho’ yet they are fuch as involve the Judicatories in the Guilt of fupportlng artd countenancing many dangerous Errors; yCa, they are fuch as are not only prejudicial to the prefent Generation, but alfo to the Souls of Pollerity. If then theft culpable and dangerous Omillions of the Judicatories are duly Confidcred, how fhall Juftice bt done to Truth ? how fhall the Banner of a judicial Teftimony againfl Error be difplayed ? how ftiall the Redeemer have that Revenue of Honour and Glory which all the Churches owe unto him, namely, a publick and judicial Confeffinn of hfs Truths, in Oppofition to the Injuries and Indignities that are done them ? how fhall Minifters fulfil their Minlftry, unlefs they lepart from ConjUnftion with fuch Judicato¬ ries as decline to difeharge this Duty, and alTbciate to¬ gether that they may make a joint, publick and judicial Confeflion of the Truth, in Oppofition unto dangerous and pernicious Errors whereby the Truth is oppofed or fubverted ? zd/v. If Minifters would fulfil their Miniftry, they ought to fee the Trumpet to their Mouths, and to Jbew r ( 141 ) Jhfiv unto the Lord s profeffing People their Tranfgrejjtort^ and the Houfe of Jacob their Striy Ifa. Iviii. i. It is not * enough that Sin is doftrinally declared, it ought alio to be H judicially condemned: But we cannot expect that the I prefent Judicatories will condemn particularly the Back- ii flidings and Defections of former Times, when they re- b fufe to acknowledge and condemn the finful Steps that If they themlelves have taken ; as for Inftance, that ACt \ of AlTembly 1752, whereby the Rights and Privileges of Chrift’s Subjects, in chafing and calling of their own Minifters, were delivered up even to the declared Enemies i of our Presbyterian Gonftitution. It was repealed, be- caufe it was part contrary to fome Rules directing after what Manner ACts of general Concern fhould be con¬ cluded ; but it was never condemned as contrary to the Word of God, and the laudable ACts and Gonftitutions of this Church, directing how Minifters ought to be cal¬ led and chofen; \ ea, the prefent Judicatories are fo far 1 from acknowledging and condemning violent Inrrufions, ' that they are carried on with an high Hand to this very Day. Likewife, of late, the Sabbath of the Lord was profaned, and the immediate Subordination of the Courts of Chrirt’s fpirirual Kingdom to the Lord Jefus the alone Head and King of Zion, was praCtically given up, by Minifters their reading from the Pulpit the ACt of Par¬ liament anent Captain yobn Porteous. It cannot be expe¬ cted that the prefent Judicatories will condemn this Deed, whereby the Headfliip and Sovereignty of Ghrift over the Courts of his ow;a Houfe was invaded, and his holy Day profaned ; when the moft Part of the Minifters of this Church have read the faid ACt in one Shape or another. Therefore, fince a judicial Teftimony againft: publick Sins and Steps of Defeftion cannot be obtained from the pre- : fent Judicatories, it is neceffary that fuch Minifters who are grieved with their Proceedings, and who defire to i difeharge the Duties of their Minifterial Office, fliould : come out from among them, and afidciate together in di- 1 ftinCt Judicatories, that they may, according to the Power I and Authority which they have received from the Lord I Jefus, condemn particularly our publick Sins and Back- I' Hidings from the Lord, and that they may humble ! themlelves for thefe before him; and alfo, that they I may call all Ranks of Perldns in the Land- to Repentance and Humiliation for the Iniquities of the prefent Genera¬ tion, tion, and for the Sins of our Fathers, conform fo Scripture Pattern and Example, P/al. cvi. Pfal. Ixxviii. ^dly^ Ie is the Duty of the Minifters of the Gofpel to feed the Church of God which he hath purchafed with his own Blood, and to commit the Minifterial Truft to faithful Men, according to the Lord’s exprefs Command in his own Word, xx. 28. John xxi. 15, 16. 2 ^im. ii. 2, j But fuch is the Conduft of the prelent Judicatories, and \ fuch is the State and Situation of many Congregations in ; Scotland at this Day, that they cannot have faithful Mini- flers fet over them, unlefs fuch as arc grieved with the prclent Proceedings of the Judicatories afibciate together in a diftinft Capacity from them, in order to the Relief ' of fuch Congregations as are groning under the Weight of violent Settlements. I hope the Author of the Ejfay will not refule that this is the State and Condition of many Congregations in Scotland; the Judicatories have obtruded Minifters upon them, they are thereby fcattered and broken, and want the Food of their Souls: They muft therefore either fubmit to the Miniftry of Intru¬ ders, and acknowledge their Paftoral Authority over them, or be deftitute of Golpcl-miniftcrs, unto whole Paftoral Care and Infpeftion they can warrantably fubmit; but the former they cannot do, without betraying their Principles and wounding their Conlciences: Therefore, unlefs they have Minifters appointed over them according to the Divine Rule and Inflitution, they muft remain like Sheep without a Shepherd, But, how lhall they obtain fuch Minifters? If the fmaller Part in the Judicatories, who are grieved and affected with the above violent Set- - tlements, continue ftill in their Conjunction with them, they cannot relieve the opprelfed Flock and Heritage of God, as I have already obferved: And I add. That thereby they involve themlclves in pcrfonal Guilt; in regard that, by this Means, they not only refule Obedi- ■ enre to the above pofitive and exprefs Command of the Head of the Church, but alfo become acceflbry unto the , Continued Mileries and Bondage under which many of the | ^-.ord's People do labour and grone through the Land ; they have a Hand, either in the Perilhing or Starving of many Souls, through a Famine of the Word of the Lord. Wherefore it is neceftary, that fuch Minifters, tho’ few i in Number, w'ho pity the grieved and opprefied Heri¬ tage of God, Ihould affociate together, that they may ap-, point Minifters over them according to the Divine Pattern an4 H and Ru’e; To this they are obliged by their Office, as I aIf Argument, as I have laid it, is, That Minifters may fully ' ! difeharge their Doty, and exoner themfelves, by Diflents ' I or Proteftations againft the bad A 61 :s and wrong Decifions ' of the Judicatories. I have already obferved in the Intro- duftion, that Proteftations of this Kind, againft the fu- 5 preme Judicatory, ftand judiciallyicondemned by the Gene- J ; ral AfTembly 1755. But tho’ Proteftations may in fome ‘ i particular Inftances be fufficient Means of Exoneration, ’ j when they are allowed, together with their Reafons, to ! be marked in the Records of the Court; yet I humbly ® I judge, that Diflents and Proteftations cannot in every Cafe 'ij be reckoned a fufficient Teftimony for Truth; and parti- M cularly, that they cannot, in the prefent Situation of the (I Judicatories, be reckoned a fufficient Difeharge of the f ! Duty that is incumbent on the Office-bearers of the Church, who defire to be found faithful to the Lord in ’ i this Day of Declining and Backfliding, and that for the ■j following Reafons; A continuing in Communion with 'I the Judicatories of a backfliding Church, under the Co- I [ ¥crc of fuch Diflents and Proteftations, opens a Door for a ( 144 ) corrupt Mixture in the Houfe of God : At this Rate, tians, Soctnians, Arminians and Cahinip$ may fit down together as Members of the lame Ecclefiaftical Body ; and I know not but the right Hand of Fellowfliip may after i the lame Manner be given to Deijls, who run down re¬ vealed Religion, if they can conform themlelves to the Re¬ ligion that has the legal Countenance in the Society where¬ in they live. And if we confider the Management of the prefent Judicatories, in the many important doftrinal Er¬ rors that have been brought to their Bar, which I have al- i ready examined ; however lome may pleale themlelves i with what they call Teftimonies in Judicatories, yet, while no joint and judicial Teftimony is given to Truth, the Lord Jcfus and his Truths are not confefled by that Ecclefiaftick ^dy : And therefore I fay, However Ibme may pleale themlelves with fuch Teftimonies, yet they have Ground to fear that the Covering will be found narrower than that they can wrap themfclves in it, and the Bed lliortcr than that they can ftretch themfelves upon it. 2rf/y, Tho* a Dif- , fent or Proteftation, with the Reafons thereof, Ihould be recorded in the fupreme Judicatory, when Truth lies woun¬ ded and bleeding in our Streets; yet this is not a faithful Difcharge of the Truft committed unto Minifters, it is not a fulfilling of their Miniftry, it is not a doing the whole of what their Office obliges them unto, and what they have a Right and Warrant to do ; in regard a judicial Teftimo¬ ny to Truth is ftill wanting. A Proteftation in the Court may be the Deed of fome few in the Court, teftifying againft the Proceedings of the Court as wrong, and giving their i Reafons why they judge lb ; but yet, in the mean Time, they give up with the Government and Difcipline unto iuch as are fupprefling and bearing down the Truth, or who are proteftingand fcreening the Erroneous from Cen- fure, and thereby fupporting and countenancing Error. I have ellewherc * Ihown that in this Cafe a Proteftation or Diffent bears no Proportion at all unto the Injury that is done to Truth, and therefore lhall not here infift upon . it: I fhall only add, That as the Support and Maintenance ; I of Divine Truth is one of the great Ends and Defigns of, the Inftitution of Ecclefiafttcal Courts in the Church of i Chrift, fo, if the Church-reprelcntarive makes not a publick and judicial Confeflion and Acknowledgment of the Truth, in Oppofition unto the Errors that are vented unto the Prejudice and Subverfion of the fame, fhe refu- * Letter p. 6, i]. I ^45 ) les to give tlie Redeemer thar Revenue of Glory, Honour and Praile that oui»hc to be given him before a wicked and pcrverle Generation, yjy ftency with our Covenant Union and Conjunftion, maintain t a Conjunction with the prefenr Judicatories, who are car- < rying on a Courfe of Defection to the contrary Part ? Can || we, without giving up ourlelves to a deteftable Indifferency ^ and Neutrality in the Caufe of God, fee Error lifting up | its.Hea 6 . viz. Thar Mr. Ershne in his Proteftation againft the Sentence of the AlTembly Anno. 1753, to which the ,.( 158 ) die other three Minifters adhered, declares, “ Thar he had “ a very great and dmvful Regard to the Judicatories of this Church, to whom {fays he') I owe my Suhjedtion in '* the Lord.” He adds, That the Brethren in their Re- prelentation given in to the Commiflion of the Aflembly 1755, ‘‘when fpeaking oi their Proteftation taken againft “ the Coinmiffion that Year,” (he lliould have faid, a- I gainft the Aflembly that Year) “ they fay. Our Protefta- “ tion is ib far from impugning the juft Power and Autho- “ rity of the fupreme Judicatories of this Church, that it 1 “ plainly acknowledges the fame.” From the above Ex- prefflons our Author argues, “Now, if a true Church, whole “ Authority in her fupreme Judicatories in 1755 was to “ be acknowledged and regarded with a very great Regard “ as juft, I hope fhe is not vafliy worfe fince that Time; i for fome Stop hath been put to what was then the chief 1 “ Ground of Complaint, viz. violent Intrufions.” I have ; already obferved, that it is not Matter of Fadl that violent I Intrufions were the chief Ground of Complaint: There j are two other Things advanced by our Author in his two | laft Lines above-cited ; the one is, when he tells us. That j he hopes that this Church is not vaPlywofe fince the fore.r i faid Time; and the other is, the Ground he gives us for : this his Hope, wherein, after liis ordinary Way, he ex- < tenuates our publick Sins, by infinuating in his fmooth ( Manner that this Churcli is fomewhat amended : “ For, , “ fays hey fome Stop hath been put-to violent Intru- • fions.” But, as this is the Ground of our Author’s ! Hope, I humbly judge it will be found as weak as his 1 Superftrudfure is imaginary. 1 might here obferve, that i the above Proteftation mentioticd by our Author was en- tred, while we were contending in a way of Church-com¬ munion with the Judicatories, before the Scccfiion was de¬ clared and ftated, and ccnfequently vthilc we were ufing , the ordinary Means of dealing with them for their Repen- • tance and Reformation; of this I have given fome ftiort ' Account already in the Introduction, and therefore fball not now infift upon it. What I here intend is, to fhew that ■ the prefent Judicatories of thisNational Church are worfe, , or, toufe our Author’s own W'^ords, they are vafily nvorfey fince the above Proteftation was entred againft the Adt ard Sentence of the Aflembly 1755. And, for the Proof of this, 1 oft'er the following particular Inftanccs of their Procedur e and Conduct. 1/, After the entring of the above Proteftation, the fore^ \ ^59 n forefiid AfTembly pafiM an A6t and Sentence againft rfie 9 protefting Miniliers,appointing their Gommiffion to fufpend ) them in cafe they fhould not letraft their Proteftacion, ^ and to lay them under an liigher Cenfure if they fhould not I'ubmit to tlie Sentence of Sufpenfion: This was a Step I vahly worfe than any Step the Judicatories had yet taken, f when it is confidered, that, by the faid Aft and Sentence, ' new and unwarrantable Terms of Minifterial Communion were impofed, as I have already obferved. Our Author k could not but very well know that this Sentence W'as po¬ ll fterior to the Proteftation; and as he never profeflfes to ^ juhify, but rather feems to condemn the above Sentence, fo he cannot refufe that the Judicatories may be at leaft fomcwhac worfe: And, if he had underftood the prefenc f^ueftion and Argument, he might have known that the r Point upon which the SecefTion was at firft (fated, was the I above-mentioned Aft and Deed of the Aflembly, where¬ by Miniffers were deprived of their Freedom and Liber¬ ty of teffifying doflrinally from the Pulpit, and by Pro- teffation in the fupretne Judicatory, againft a Courle of Defeftion, If notwithffanding of this Sentence of the Af* fembly, pofterior to the entring of the Proteflation, our Author dees not reckon the Judicatories vaftly worfe, yet I doubt if he (hall find a Parallel unto this extraordinary Sentence, fince our Reformation from Popery, whereby four Miniffers were thruff cut from Communion with the Judicatories, on account of a Protelfation for their juft and necelfary Exoneration. 2(//y, The above arbitrary Sentence was execute in a very arbitrary Manner by the Commiflion of the forefaid Aflembly : They refufed to confider what the protefting Miniffers had to offer for their juft and neceflary Vindi¬ cation, they refufed the Reprefentation above-mentioned a Reading; the faid Miniffers behoved to retract their Proteftation, otherwife nothing could fatisfy the Commif- fion, or fave them from Cenfure. As the arbitrary Exe¬ cution of the above e.xtraordinary Sentence was a Step vaft¬ ly worfe than any Thing the Judicatories had formerly done, fo the Proceedings of that Commiflion were nei¬ ther difapproven nor condemned by the fubfequent Aflem¬ bly, bur held and repute to be forma! and legal Deeds, as 1 have already fhown from the AA of the laid Aflembly with Reference to the feceding Miniffers. 3 . ftance and Soul of the Eraftian Supremacyy as it was afl'er- ted and declared by our Scots Parliament when it v/as ferewed up to its higheft Pitch, particularly by the firfi: Aft of that Seffion of Parliament that met OHober i9tli 1 1669, where, amongft other Things, it is declared anti enafted, “That the King and his Succeffors have the Supreme Authority and Supremacy over all Perfons, and in all Cattles Ecclcfiaftidc within this Kingdom;—and that they may fettle, enaft and emit fuch Gonftitutions, Afts and Orders, concerning the Adminiftration of the external I ( ) ** external Government of the Church and the Perfbns “ employed in the fame, and concerning all Ecclehaftical “ Meetings and Matters to he propofed and determined “ therein, as they in their Royal Wifdom ihall think fir.” From what has been oblerved it may be evident, that the very fame Supremacy over the Judicatories is upon the Matter claimed by the forefaid Penalty, which our Scots Parliament declared and aflerted to be in the Perfon of the King and his Succeflbrs ; and this very Supremacy W'as witneffed againft by the Presbyterian Church of Scot¬ land in the Face of the greateft Tyranny and Violence, in the late Times of cruel Pcrf'rcntion, Her known Prin¬ ciples arc, That the Lord Jefus Chrift alone, as Media¬ tor, is Head, Lord and Lawgiver unto his Church ; and that to him alone it belongs to give Laws, Ordinances and Statutes unto the Office-bearers of his Houfe, in their feveral Spiritual and Lcclcfiaftical Functions and Admi- niftrations ; and that all the Courts and Judicatories of his Houfe are fuhordinate to him alone in their kcclefiaftical Fundfions and Adminiffrations; and that unto the Lord Jefus alone it appertains to give luftruftions unto his Mi- nifters, to regulate them in the Excrcife of their Mini- ftry, and to preferibe Laws and Rules concerning the Meetings of his own Courts and their conftituent Mem« bers, as alfo to determine the Qiialificationsof the Office¬ bearers of his Houfe who have Right to fit and vote in his own Courts. If the Courts of Chrift’s Houfe are framed and modelled according to the Laws, Adis and Conftitu- tions of Men, as is done by the forefaid Penalty, then they are no more the Courts of Chrift, their Conllitution is changed, they hold not of Chrift the Head alone in their Ecclefiaftical Meetings and Adminiffrations; and, as they are thereby fubordinated unto the Civil Powers, they arc not to be reckoned Ecclefiaftick but Civil Courts. The grand Defence that is made againft the Eraftian Penalty Annexed to the above Adi is. That no more is intended by it, but that fuch as fhould neglcdl to read the Adi cannot Jit and vote in Judicatories that have the legal Efiablrjhment; or, that they thereby forfeit the legal Countenance and Protcdiicn ; and that it is only Minifters Power and Right of fitting and voting in Church-judicatories, as they enjoy it in verrue of Civil Statutes, that can juftly be under- ftcod. Tlius feme Writers upon this Subjedl have thought fir to exprefs themfelvcs ; And, what is the Amount of this Reafoning I It appears to me to be juft as much as ( ’*^ 7 . 1 . . if it were faid, That EcclehatHcal Judicatories, which have the legal Ertablintmenc, may and ought to Receive Afts, Orders and Statutes from the Civil Powers concer¬ ning their Meetings and conftituent Members; and con- fequently, that Ecclefiaflical Judicatories, in fo far as they have the legal Eftablifliment, or the Authority of Civil Statutes on their Side, are fubordinate to the Civil Powers : And this is nothing eife but to plead the legal EftabliHiment for giving up with the Sovereignty and Headlliip of tha Lord Jefus over his own Houle, and for fubjedling the Courts of his Spiritual Kingdom unto the Authority and Commands of Men; and in this Cafe it were far better that the Church wanted the legal Eftablifh. ment, than to enjoy it at fuch a coftly Rate. The Coun¬ tenance of Civil Authority is not neceffary to the Being of the Church, tho‘ it is indeed very profitable and ufeful un¬ to her outward peaceable Being, and is promifed as a great outward Blefiing unto the Church in New-Teftament Times, Ifa. xlix. 23. and lx. 5, 10. Rev. xvii. 16. But, when is it that the Countenance of Civil Authority is a Blefllng unto the Church of Chrift ? It is when the Civil Power is employed for the Support and Defence of the Office-bearers of the Church in the faithful Difcharge of their Duty, and for the Protection of the Courts of his Kingdom in all their feveral juft Rights and Privileges. As the Magiftrate’s Power over the Church is not priva¬ tive or deftruCtive, fb, if the Countenance of Civil Au¬ thority is pled for depriving her of the leaft of thefe Rights and Privileges that are given her by her exalted Head, the legal Eftablifhment becomes in this Cafe a Snare and a Judgment unto the Church ; and it is none of the leaft of the Rights and Privileges of Chrift’s Spi¬ ritual Kingdom, that the Office-bearers of his Houfe have a Claim to the Exercife of the Keys in the Name of the King of Zion, and in Subordination to him alone, as the only Lord and Lawgiver unto his Church and People. From what is above obfervcd, concerning the late A( 9 : of Parliament anent Captain John Porteous, it is evident, ! that the Civil Powers have claimed to themfelves fuch a i Superiority over the Office-bearers of the Houfe of God, ! in their Spiritual and Ecclefiaftical Functions and Admini- I ftrations, as they have thereby declared them to be fubor¬ dinate unto the Civil Authority in their faid Functions and Adminiftrations: And therefore the Submilfion that has beep given by the moft Part of the Miniftry to the faid EraftL { ifiS ) Itrattian Ufurpation, muft needs be con{lrn£ted a ruhmit- ting thcmfelves in the Ejrercife of their Miniftry to Men, and a taking their Holding for the Ejtercife of the Keys of Government and Difcipline from the Civil Powers; whereby they have praftically given up with the foie Head - fhipand Sovereignty ofChriftover his Spiritual Kingdom, and acknowlegcd that the Judicatories,as they enjoy theCi- vil or Legal Eftablifbment, are immediately fubordinare unto the Civil Powers, and may and ought to receive A(fts andOrders from them concerning their Ecclefiaftical Meet¬ ings,their conftituent Members, together with the Qualifi¬ cations of fuch Members. Let us here alfb confider what has been the Condu£i: of the Judicatories of this Church fince the above A£l of Parliament did take Place : When, by the Penalty annexed to the faid A6t of Parliament, the Civil Powers have plainly and exprefly declared that the Ecclcfiaftick Judicatories in Scotlandy by vertue of the Ci¬ vil or Legal Eftablilbment granted unto them, are fubordi- nate unto the Civil Magiftrate, this was a loud Call unto the Judicatories to bear plain and exprefs Teftimony unto the alone Sovereignty and HeadlTiip of Chrift over his own Houfe, and for aflerting the juft Rights and Privileges of his Spiritual Kingdom, in Oppofition unto the above Encroachment made thereupon ; now was the Seafon for luch a Teftimony, now was the Seafon for difehar- ging a Duty, the Omiflion of which was juftly complain'd of and regreted by many, at our wonderful Deliverance from Popery, Tyranny and Slavery Anno 1688. But it is to be regreted that no Teftimony of this Kind has been given by any of the prefent Judicatories of this National Church; yea, fbme Synods, particularly the Synod of Perth zr\d Stirling y did, at their Meeting 17^7, givo an ample Teftimony to the Readers of the above Aft as irue PreshyterianSy and that they did it from a Senfe of Duty: This was a faying A Confederacy unto them in their Sin, and a hardning of them in their Iniquity. And the laft General Aflcmbly of this National Church, which was the firft that met after the Impofing and Reading of the faid Aft, gave no Manner of Teftimony againft the Diflionour done to the King of Zion, and the Encroachment that was made upon his Spiritual Kingdom by the Enafting and Reading of the fame: Neither could any other Thing be expefted from them, when the moft Part of the conftitu¬ ent Members of that Aflembly were involved in this grie¬ vous Sin and Scandal. Upon f 169 ) tJpon the Whole, Since by the above-rrienrioned A^o? Farliament, and the Reading thereof, the prelent Judica¬ tories of this National Church, as they enjoy the Civil of Legal Eftablifhment, arc declared and acknowleged to be fubordinate unto the Civil Powers, and iir.ee no Teftitnony has been offered by any ol’ the faid judicatories againft this grievous Encroachment upon the Power and Authority of the King of Zion over his own Spiritual Kingdom, ic plainly follows, that this Ufurpation is fubmitted unto by the Judicatories of this National Church ; and therefore, by their SubmilTion unto the fame, their Conftitution is fb far altered and changed, that they cannot be held and efiee- med as Courts that are immediately fubordinate unto thb King of Zion, but as Courts that have changed their Hol¬ ding, and who have fubordinated themfelvesuntbtheCivil Powers: Hence it is evident that they are vaftly worfe than when the Proteftation was entred j 4 »no 1755. A 6th Inftance I give is the hdi of the laft Affembly gainft the feceding Brethren. This is an Aft of a very extraordinary Nature; it is an Aft that loads the lecediirg Brethren in a very grievous Manner, without any fufficicnc Evidence brought againft them ; ’tis an Aft that condemns their judicial Ati atid ^efiimony : And yet there is not one Particular in it that is found or alledged to be contrary to the Word of God, or the received and acknowleged Prin'=‘ ciples of the Church of Scotland. The Charge that is laid by the faid Aft againft the feceding Minifters is, That they have “ feceded from the Communion of this Church, and made a pofirive Separation therefrom.’* The Evi* dence that is brought for the Notoriety of thefe Fafts is, That Reprefentations and Complaints have been laid before them concerning the faid Conduft of thefe Minifters, as alfo “ the perfonal Knowlege of many of the Minifters of the faid Aftembly.” The feceding Minifters are neither afraid nor afhamed to own that they have made a Seceffioa from the prefent Judicatories of this National Church; but they refufe that they have ever feceded from the Commu¬ nion of the Church of Scotland^ or that they have made any Kind of Separation from her. The Aftembly further add, ** That the faid Minifters have feceded from this ‘‘ Church without any juftifiahle Grounds; and that they “ continue in their unwarrantable Seceffion, notwithftand* “ ing of their own fblemn Engagements to the contrary at “ their Ordination, &*c.’* And further, their Scceflion is declared to be a 5cit//»7,yea, a dan^erotti SsUffn i And, in the y Clolb ( lyo ) Clofe of the AS:, it is declared to be “ dangerous to the “ Peace of this Church, contrary to the Spirit of the Gof* “ pel, very hurtful to Religion and ferious Godlinefs, to “ Chriftian Charity and brotherly Love and fuch as ad- . here to the feceding Brethren and their judicial anti ^eftimony, are declared to be a Company of poor deluded People. One would think that fuch a Sentence, pad by a National Affembly againfl: feveral Minifters of the Go- fpel, fhould be founded upon very clear and convincing Grounds and Evidences. When they declare that the pre- ient Seceflion is without any juftifiable Grounds, and that the feceding Minifters are Cteluders of the People, have they ever examined the Grounds upon which the Seceflion is ftated ? Either they knew them, or not. If they knew them, ought they not to have confidered them and weigh¬ ed them in the Balances of the Sanftuary ? and was it not their Duty to have compared them with our received and approven Standards, before they had condemned the fece- «iing Minifters as councerafting their Ordination-engage¬ ments, and as dangerous Schifmaticks and Deludersot the People? But to condemn them in the Manner forefaid,mere¬ ly becaufe they have feceded, and without enquiring into their Principles, or examiningthe Grounds of their Seceflion according to the Word of God and our approven Stan¬ dards, is a dealing with them by mere Authority ; kis a dealing with them in a Manner that can neither convince nor perfwade the Confciences of Men. The Council of ^renty before they condemned the Protejlants as Schifmaticks excerpted out of their Teftimonies and Writings feveral, 1 of their dodtrinal Propofitions, and made fome Shew of ; examining of them ; but a National Aflembly of the Church I of Scotland^ by a folemn Adt and Sentence, condemn eight ‘ Minifters as dangerous without condefeending upon any erroneous Principle maintained by them : They . declare the Grounds of their Seceflion to be unjuftifiable ; • but what thefe Grounds are, they have not told. They cannot alledge, that they did not know the Grounds upon ■which the Seceflion is ftated ; for the Adt of Aflembly bears, That the .^( 3 , Declaration and ^efiimony of the fe¬ ceding Minifters, and their other Papers, afllgn the Grounds of their unrealbnable and irregular Condudt. And they further add. That the feceding Minifters, in their faid ^eflimony zx\d Papers, do, “ with the Air of a “ paramount Power and Authority, condemn this Church and the Judicatories for their Proceedings, and caft ma- ; ny I ( 17 * ) . ** ny groundlels and calumnious Refle^lions upon her and “ them ” If a general Council fhould let go a Teftimony for Truth, why may not a Presbytery, conftitute in the Name of the Lord Jefus, judicially aflert the Truth, without alfuming to themfelves a paramount Power and Authority 1 The Councils of Ariminum and Conjlantiano- polcj which comprehended both the Eaflern and Weftern Churches, did, in the Years 359 and 360, let flip the true Faith concerning the Deity of Chrift, as it was af- iertcd and held forth by the Council of Nice: But, in the Year 56Z, an AlTcmbly of Confejfors being met at Alexan- \ dria^{(o Ruffin in his Hiftory defigns them, Pauci Numero^ &c. i that is, feiv in Number^ but many on account of their ! Soundnefs of the Faith') decreed, that the Ringleaders of the Apoftafy fhould be cut off from the Church; and that others, who renounced their Error, and returned unto the Faith, fhould be received again into the Bofom of the Church *. Did thefe few Confelfors aflame to themfelves a paramount Power over all the Churches of the then I known World ? or, were they in the Wrong in their ho- \ reft and faithful judicial Determination ? If an Oecume- i nick Council fhould fwerve from the Faith, may not one I Minifler doftrinaliy bear Teftimony to the Truth ? And, if one may do it doftrinally, why may not feveral Mini- fters, aflociate together, emit a judicial Teftimony for Truth, when the Judicatories of a particular vifibic i Church either depart from the Truth, or negleft a judici¬ al Teftimony for the Support of the fame ? I fay. Why I may not this be done, without afluming a paramount Power ? 1 ’Tis no other Power but what the Lord Jefus has given « to the Office-bearers of his Houfe, and it is no other Power but what they are warranted by him in the Cale mentioned to exercife. If the Judicatories of this Natio- ' nal Church had done their Duty, the feceding Brethren would not have had Ground either for their Aflbeiation or for fuch a Procedure. The Aflembly having declared the feceding Brethren dangerous Schifmaticks, &c. they conclude, “ That they “ might proceed upon thefe Accounts in the due Excrcifc of Difeipline, to appoint thefe feparating Brethren and “ their Followers to be proceeded againft and cenfured “ according to the Demerit of their Faults; yet, chufir^ “ rather ftill to treat them in the Spirit of Meeknef^ ‘‘ brotherly Love and Forbearance, they injoin all the Mi- Y 2 “ nifters ^ Hif, Ecclejtafl. Lib. 1. Chap. 28. ( ^72 ) I nifiers of this National Church as they lhall have Ac« , cefs, and efpeciaily the Minifters of the Synods and “ Presbyteries within which thefe feceding Brethren refide, to be at all Pains, by Conference and other gentle j Means of Perfwafion, to reclaim and reduce them to . their Duty, and the Communion of this Church, 6 Pc.’‘ The Aifembly think fit to fpeak of treating the Brethren in the Spirit of MeekneCs, brotherly Love, QPc. and yet at the fame Time they are condemned as dangerous Schif- maticks, before the Grounds of rheir SecefiTion are either enquired into or examined: And therefore the Conferen-' CCS appointed with them, upon the fpecious Pretexts of brotherly Love, and gentle Means of Pcifwafion, muff be to this Effcdt; ^he General yijfemhly of the Church of Scot¬ land have founds that you are Separatiflj from this Church ; that your Seceffion is unwarrantable ; that it is without any juftjiable Grounds’, and that you have ajfumed a paramount Power and Authority to you^felves, and are promoting a dan¬ gerous Sebifm ; that you are feducing and deluding the People : therefore they have appointed us to commune with you, in erder to reclaim and reduce you to your Duty, and, if ycui will not be reclaimed and reduced unto your Duty, the Com- sni£ion are impowered to take all proper Steps and Methods for duly Jifiing you before the next /djfembly, there to anfwer for your irregular ConduSi and all the Parts thereof. Is this to treat them in the Spirit of Meeknefs ? Are thefe the gentle Means of Perfwafion ? Who could expert that the rece¬ ding Brethren would enter into Conferences with any u- pon the above Terms, whereby their Teftimouy and the •whole of their Condu(St is condemned as a dangerous Schifm, and that without any Regard to what they might offer tor their own Vindication ? I hope they are ready to give a Reafon of that Hope that is in them to any that ask it; but, in the mean Time, it cannot be expected that they fhould a6t an inconfiftent Part with the Teftimony \vhich they are bound in Duty to hold. I further obferve, That the forefaid Aft againft the receding Brethren reilcfts upon their appointing Faffs in i difirerent Corners of the Country ; and the Refleftion l contains an indecent Infinuation, unworthy of fuch a Re¬ verend Body; “ To which Falls [^fay they) there is a Rc- fort of fcveral Thoufands of Pcifonsof both Sexes; and “ too many of them, as there is good Ground to think, V come there with other Views than to promote Religi- !f pn. ” Are not all pur publick Afl'emblics for Vvorfhip. * piadc made up of Perfons of both Sexes? and is it not their Dury to refort unto them ? Gan any of our pubiick AU femblies for Worfhip be purged of fuch Perfons, of whom there is too much Ground to think that they come there with other Views than to promote Religion ? Yet, even many fuch have been eft'edtually called by the Word of the Gofpel, and made Monuments of the rich and Ib- vereign Grace of God in Chrift Jefus. As for the Falls appointed by the Aflbciate Presbytery, there is no Doubt but that too many relbrt unto them with other Views than to promote Religion; bur I hope that there are o- thers that frequent them for their fpiritual Edification^ and who have Reafon apd Ground to blefs the Lord foe fuch folemn Meetings. From what I have obferved upon the PiA of the laft Aflcmbiy againft the feceding Brethren, it is evident, that it contains a general Condemnation of their Teftimony, •without condefeending upon any particular Inftances of any Thing adopted by them contrary to the Word of God, or the laudable Acts and Conftitutions of the Church of Scotland', yea, by the faid A6l of Affembly, all the Proceedings of the prefent Judicatories are ju(lifi>- cd, and the feceding Minifters are condemned as cafting many groundlefs and calumnious KejicHwns upon them in their faid ^(5 and ^efiimeny, and in other Papers emii;- ted by them: Hence 'tis aifo plain, that the particular Steps of Dcfedlion both of prefent and former Times, contained in the Presbytery’s jdB and Tefiimony, are rec¬ koned injurious and calumnious Refledlions. The prefen^ Judicatories then are fo far from acknowledging their Ini¬ quity, and returning to the Lord, that they condemn the leceding Minifters for bearing Teftimony unto the Truth; they not only refufe to lift up a judicial Teftimony for Truth themfelvcs, but they condemn others who are en-* deavouring to do it: Therefore I cannot but look upon this Procedure as an Inftance that they are 74 has been fuch, as not only gives juft Ground for the re¬ ceding Brethren to continue in their Seceflion, but alfb to enlaij;e the fame further than it was ftated before the Gommilfion of the General Aflembly Anno 1735. I fhall only further oblerve upon the prefent Proceed¬ ings of the Judicatories, That having thruft out from Communion with themfome Minifters, becaufe they were contending within the faid Judicatories againft leveral Steps of Defection ; thefe Mtnifters judged it their Duty to afl'oeiate together, that they miglit teltify in a judicial Capacity for the Truths of God, as alfo, that they might contribute their Endeavours, in the fame Capacity, for the Help and Relief of the Lord’s oppreffed Heritage through the Land; And now the Judicatories will have them to return again to their Communion; and, if they will nor, they threaten to procefs and libel them, that is, they will have them forced back again into their Communion, even tho’ the Grounds of their Scceffion are fo far from being removed, that, in all the above particular Inftances named, the faid Grounds are ftrengthned and increafed. I may therefore leave it to any unbiafted Perfon to judge if this is either a confiftent or realbnable Procedure. I fhall now conclude this Section with laying before the Reader a fhort Sum of the Argument for Seceflion from the prefent Judicatories, and for the Exercife of the Keys in a diftindi Capacity from them, as I have ftated and laid the fame in this Chapter, viz.. This National Church, as fhe is reprefented in her prefent Judicatories, is not a confeflTing Church ; fhe has not the Scripture-cha- radter of the Church of the living God; in regard her Judicatories refufe to do Juftice to Truth, in condem¬ ning particularly and exprefly many grofs and pernicious Errors that have been brought to their Bar, whereby the Scheme of Divine Truth laid down from the Word of God in our ConfefUon of Faith is fubverted; as alfo, in regard the Erroneous have been difmifted from their Bar, either without Cenfure, or with no Cenfure proportioned to the Scandal and OtFcnce they have given. In like Manner, the faid Judicatories are Tyrannical in their Ad- miniftration, and that not in a few lingle Inftances only, but in a Series and Tradt of Violence done unto ibc Heritage of God; whereby they not only obtrude Mini- fiers upon the Church, but even appoint the right Hand of Fellowfiiip to be given to Intruders, by fuch Sy- tiods and Presbyteries as have b?cn reclaiming againft ( 'ijS ) Cudi Violence; and likewife they appoint and ofdait^i that the Members of the Church fhould fubmit to the f Miniftry of thofe that are impofed upon them, as i-f they were lawful and fent Miniffers of Chrift, or other- v/ife be deprived of the Seals of the Covenant, And further, this Tyranny in the Adminiftration is mani- fefted in feveral A6fs and Deeds, whereby finful and tm- warrantable Terms of Minifterial and Chriftian Commu¬ nion have been laid down, and the Judicatories of the Church do ftill perfift in refufing to do Juftice to injured Truth, as aUb in their Tyranny in the Adminiftrution; And, of late, the moft Part of Minifters having atfually fubmitted unto fuch Ufurpations of the Civil Powers, whereby the Courts and Judicatories of the Lord’s Houfe I are held and declared to iubfift and ftand in a direft Subor- i dination unto the faid Powers; and the prefent Judica¬ tories having given no Manner of Teftimony at all againft the faid grievous Ufurpation, but having continued with a filent SubmifTion under the fame, their Conftitution is I thereby changed, and they have virtually confented to i take their Holding, with refpe 61 : to the Difpofal and Or- I dering of their conftituent Members and their Qualifica- I tions, direftly and immediately of the Civil Powers : And further, the faid Judicatories have and do perfift and con¬ tinue in the above and the like finful Praftices, notwith- ftanding the ordinary Means have been ufed to reclaim them, particularly by Petitions, Rcprefentations, Diflents and Proteftations againft many of the above Practices com¬ plained of; by all which they have departed from our received and approven Standards of Doctrine, Worfliip, Government and Difcipline, and confequently have broke the Bond of Ecclefiaftical Union in this particular vifible Church: Therefore a Secellion from Ecclefiaftical Con- junftion and Communion with the prelent Judicatories is necelTary Duty, ay and until they return to our Reforma- { tion-ftandards; and fuch as are fenfible of their Duty, and 1 who defire to be found faithful to the Lord in this Day of Degeneracy and Backfliding, have Right on their Side, both from the Word of God and from the A£ts and Gon- j ftiiutions of this Church, from our folemn Covenant-en- gagements, and from the Engagements that each Miniftee comes under at his Ordination to the Miniftry, by all which they are bound to hold faft what we in this reformed Church and Land have received; as alfo, in regard they cannot otherwife difeharge feveral Duties that their Station ( 175 ) and Office oVdige them unro, and which the prefent Sratn of the Church of Chrift in this Land requires, they have Right, I fay, to aflbeiare together in a difiinft judicative Capacity from the prefent Judicatories, that they may difplay the Banner of a Teftimony for tfie Truths of Chrirt, for tiae Freedom of his Spiritual Kingdom, and the Rights of his Subjects, in Oppofiticn to the Injury that is done to Truth, to the Invafions that are made upon his Spiritual Kingdom, and the Violence that is done to his Subjects; and this, as a Debt that Z/on owes to her Goti, and as a Branch of that Revenue of Glory and Praife that is due from the Church unto her exalted Head, and as a publick Debt that Ihe ought to difeharge for the Sake of the prefent and fuccceding Generations. It is to be regreted, that fuch is the State of Matters in the Judicatories of this National Church, that I have Co much Ground for laying my Argument in the above Man¬ ner againft them ; I have been obliged unto it, for the De¬ fence of that Caule which I doubt not is the Caufe of Truth, and which the Aflociate Presbytery, whereof I am a Member, have by their judicial and CCejlimony cfpoufed. I have in this, and in the preceeding Seflions, endeavoured to explain and give my Reafons for the Ve¬ rity and Truth of tlie feveral Particulars contained in the above Charge: And it is with fome Meafure of Concern that I find tite Conclufion which comes out from the fe- X'eral Premiffes that I have laid down may be exprefled in the following Terms, viz» Since the prefent Judicatories of this National Church refufe to confefs the Truths of God in direct Oppofition unto fuch dangerous Errors whereby they have been fubverted; and fince, by feveral particular Afts and Deeds, they are tyrannical in their Ad- minirtration ; and fince they are conifitute of fuch Mem¬ bers as are obtruded upon the Church, and therefore have ro Right nor Warrant from the Head of the Church to fit in his Courts, nor to rule and govern his Flock, yea, conftitute of fuch Members who are fcattering the Flock of Chrift, and ruling over them with Force and Rigour, by which and the like Practices they have given Scandal and Offence to the Church of God; as alfo, fince the laid Judi¬ catories have, by their filent Submiffion unto the Ufurpa- tions that have been made upon the Kingdom of Chrift and the Courts thereof, virtually and practically given up with their Holding of the King of Zww, whereby the Conftitution of the feveral Judicatories of this National Church ( 177 ) Church is changed ; and finally, fince they continue to ]tl» flify thcmfelves in thefc and the like Praftices: There¬ fore, for the above, and for all the ocher Reafons that have been more particularly fpecified and exprefied, the pre- fent Judicatories of this National Church cannot be held nor repute as Li'Xvful or right-conf}itute Courts of Chrift; and confequentiy it is the Duty of fuch as defire to be found faithful to the Lord to come out from among them, I and to make ufe of the Keys of Government and Dilci“ 1 pline for the Ends and Purpofes.for which they are given i unto the Oifice-bearers of the Church by her glorious and exalted Head. And, in like Manner, it is the Duty of all ! who fear the Lord through the Land, and who defire to I hold faft that Reformation-purity once attained unto, fted- ! faltly to adhere unto any Teftimony emitted by fuch Of¬ fice-bearers, for the Truths of God, and againtl a Courfe j of Defection and Deviation from them, whether in pre- fent or former Times; the Command being given to all ' the Members of the Church, according to their different Spheres and Stations, to fiand fafi in one Spirit, with one Mind, firiving together fur the Faith of the Gofpel, Philip, i i. ly CHAP. III. Wherein the Arguments advanced by the Author of the EfTay, againji SeceJJwn from the prefent Judicatories^ are ex^ amined* T he Author of the Effay proceeds in his fifth Chap¬ ter to give us what he calls his weighty Argumentt againft Separation ; bur, fince he has never di- ftinflly ftated the Queftion, I cannot expeft to find that his Arguments fhall be laid in a fair or plain Manner: Sometimes they appear to be levelled againft the Sectarian Separatifts, fometimes againft a Book called Plain Reafons, &c. But, fince in his Title-page he ftates the feceding Brethren as his only Adverfaries, I fhall confider his Ar¬ guments as diredfed againft the Conduct of the Affociate Presbytery, whom he think fit to dais with the worft Schif- maticks and Separatifts. In his Preamble to his Argu- 2 i ments . ( *7S ) ment.«, in the Beginning of the fifth Chapter, Separation “ {fays he ) from a true Church, except in the above or “ like Cafes, was always reckoned a hainous Sin by the Ja- “ dicious and Tender, albeit her Faults fhould be many.” I have already noticed the Ambiguity in the Terms, true Churchy as ufed by him. By the above and like CafeSy he means the Caies mentioned in his- fourth Chapter, where he mentions fix general Grounds of Separation: And I have likewife obferved, that he is neither diftin6t nor plain •upon any of them, except upon the when he tells us, p, 55. “That fuch Minifters as are evidently fcandalous “ may be withdrawn from, albeit, thro’ the Iniquity of the “ Times, they (hould not be cenfured by a Church-judica- tory, when complained of.” And here I might ask our Author, Whether or not fuch are evidently fcandalous, •who have an aftive Hand in obtruding Miniilers upon the Church, or who have praftically given up with the foie Headlbip and Sovereignty of Chrilt over his Spiritual King¬ dom, or who have pled that Self-intereft muft bear the Sway in all our Aftions whatfoever; Whether or not, I fay, fuch Perfons are evidently fcandalous, or if they have given juft Ground of Oftence unto the Church and People God? If our Author will grant that they are fcandalous, then, how is he confiftent with himfelf, in continuing to maintain Eccleftaftical Communion with them, when, thro’ the Iniquity of the Times, they are not cenfured by a Church-judicatory, tho’ they have been often complain¬ ed of ? I know not what our Author reckons evidently fcandalous', but I doubt not to affirm, that fuch as are guilty of an open and publick Violation of feveral exprefs Com¬ mands of the firft Table of the Moral Law, and who ju- ftify themfelves in the fame, are equally fcandalous, and more dangerous to the Church, as thefe, who may be guilty of the open Violation of the exprefs Commands of the fecond Table of the fame Law, tlio* the latter ought likewife to be cenfured by every Cburch-judicarory. The Author of the EJfay is likewife plain upon his fixtb general Ground of Separation, viz.. “ That the impofing “ the Icaft finful Term of Communion is juft Ground of “ Separation from a Church.” I have already evinced, that unwarrantable and finful Terms of Communion arc by feveral Afts and Deeds impofed upon the Minifters and Members of this Church; as alfo, that our Conjun¬ ction with the prefent Judicatories does in itlelf bind us up fr 9 n) the Difcharge of feveral Duties wbicli our Mini- fterial I ( J7P ) fterial Office and our Ordination Vows and Engagements I do oblige us unto, in the prefent State of Matters in this National Church, I might therefore pals over all oUc Author’s Arguments, as nowife affedting the prefent Que« 1 ftioii betwixt the prefent Judicatories and the feceding Mi- nifters; but in regard his Divine and human Authorities, tho’ very much mifapplied, are yet induftrioufly managed to I the Prejudice of the Caule of Truth, I fhall briefly confider 1 them, alter I have noticed what he mentions in his Pre¬ amble, concerning the Emperor who (he tells us) was fo afflifted with the Diflentions of the Church in his Day, that they brought many a Tear from his Eyes, and robbed him of his Night’s Reft. As the Anan Herefy was the Occafion of thefe great Diflentions of the Church in Con^antine's Time, fo, if the Indignities that have been done to the Perfbn of Chrift in our Day, and the Injuries that have been done to many important and precious Truths, had drawn Tears from the Eyes of Minifters and other Church-members, the Banner of a judicial Tefti- mony had been difplayed long ere now by the Judicato¬ ries, for injured and wounded Truth, after the Example of the Council of Nice^ which was afilfted and countenan¬ ced by that great Emperor, As for Mr. Kings dying Ex¬ hortation in the Words of the Apoftlc, Philip, ii. 3. as our Author joins him in it, fo I hope all the feceding Mini¬ fters do in like Manner cordially join the fame. I proceed now to confider our Author’s Arguments againft Seceflion in the following Set^lions, S E C T. I. Wherein the Scripture-arguments againfi Secef- fion from the prefent Judicatories are confi- dered, T H E firft Argument advanced by the Author of the P* 39 ’ to prove the Unwarrantablenefs of Separation from what he reckons a true Church, is, “ That it is againft the Praftice of all the Saints under “ the Old Teftament, who, notwithftanding theCorrup- tions of Priefts and People, never feparated, fo as to “ eredt a new Church, or a new Altar • and who never i feparated from the Worfliip of the true God, whatever were the Corruptions of the Church.” And he pro- I cceds CO give Inftanccs of Zachariai the Prieft, Alaryy An- Z z na >J4 thi Prophetefs, gs alfo of our blcfted Lord, and his Apoftles, who all continued in Communion with the ye/b Church, notwithitanding of her Corruptions. I have ob- ferved in my Pojlfcript to the printed Letter, that this Ar¬ gument proves coo much, even more than our Author himfelf will own; namely, That we ought to I'ubmit to Gofpel-ordinances dilpenfed by JSIcn grofly immoral irt their Walk and Praftice ; for fuch were fome of the ’Jemjb Pi iefts, in thefe degenerate Times chat our Author mentions. But the Author of the Effay delivers his Opi¬ nion very plainly upon this Head, when he tells us, as I have noticed above, Ejfay, p. 55. That “ fuch as are evi- dently fcandalous may be withdrawn from, albeit, thro* the Iniquity of the Times, they fhould not be cenfured by a Church-judicatory when complained of,” And here I may leave it to our Author, to reconcile v/har he himfelf allows to be a Ground of Separation, with his firft Scripture-argument according to the Way that he has thought fit to ftate it. Tho’ I humbly judge I have faid enough, to take off the Force of the above Argumenr, in my Pofifeript to which I refer, yet I fliall add. That, if the laid Argument is laid againft our Seceffion from the prefent Judicatories, his Reafonings as he lays them amount to this ; All the Saints under the Old Teftament, notwith- ffanding of the Corruptions of the Jewifi Church, never leparated, fb as to eredt a new Church, or a nev/ Altar, or to worfliip any other than the true God ; therefore, if we depart from Communion with the prefent Judica¬ tories, we ere ft a new Church, or a new Altar, and fepa- rate from the Worlhip of the true God. Bur, who may not fee the Abfurdity of this Rcafoning ?’ Our Author’s Argument would indeed he ftrong, if he was able to con¬ fine the Church and Worfhipof God to the prefent Ju¬ dicatories, as of old the only Place of their folemu Wor¬ ship was the T'emple^ and the National Church of the J^ews was the only vifibleChurch upon the Face of the Earth; yea, the Church was confined to that Nation, from the Time at leaft that the Law was given from Mount Sinai^ to the Rearing up of the New-Teftament Church, after the Refurredtion of our Lord from the Dead; and ^eru- falem^ or the Temple, was the iiiftiruted and appointed Place of folcmn Worfnip unto the whole Church : But row it is no more tlie Seat or Place of Worfhip ; the Prophecy has long ago taken Accomplifhmenr, Mai. i. ir, ^ ration, from the State of feveral eminent Churches erefted ! by the Apoflles: He obferves, p. 41, 42. That many 1 Things were amifis in thefe Churches, yet that we never read of any Thing like Separation injoined; particularly, that in the Church of Corinth many Faults of a hainous Nature were tolerated, or not duly cenfured ; and that in the Church of Galatia many had departed from him who had called them to the Grace of Chrift, unto another Go- fpel; that Ephefus had fallen from her firft Love ; and that Pergamos had fuch in her Communion, that held the Do¬ ctrine of Balaam^ &c. and that the Church of ^hyatira fufFered the wicked Woman 'jezebel to feduce Chrift’s Servants, &c. From all the above Inftances, our Author concludes, p. 43. “ If all thefe were true Churches, then “ may a Church with many Faults and many Corruptions “ remain a true Church of Chrift, with a lawful and vi- “ fible Miniftry, and for all thefe Faults and Corruptions cannot be feparated from.” But, if the Reader will confidcr what I have already obfierved, he will find that our Author’s above Conclufion is laid in very deceitful and ambiguous Terms. If he would form the Argument, from the State of the Churches he mentions, againft the Conduft of the feceding Brethren, his Conclufion fhould , run in the following Terms; That it is unlawful and un¬ warrantable for the fmaller Part of a Church, when the Majority are in their judicative Capacity carrying on a Courfe of Defe 61 :ion, and refufe to be reclaimed, to exer- cife the Keys of Government and Difeipline for the Main¬ tenance of Truth : But none of the Inftances that our Au¬ thor gives, can fupport him in this Conclufion, in regard he cannot prove that any of the Churches he mentions carried on a Courfe of DefeAion in their judicative Ca¬ pacity, neither can he prove that they defpifed the Reproofs ( i8y 5 and Admonitions that were given them. I have already oblerved, that the Church of Corinth had fubmitted to Reproofs and Admonitions given her by the Apoftle in his fir ft Epiftle, and that they had farrowed after a godly Sori^ and therefore were a reforming Church ; and t have like* wife evinced, that the Admonitions, Warnings and Directi¬ ons, given in the feveral Epiftles direfted to the Churches, do clearly point out the Duty of the fmaller Part of the Office-bearers of a Church, if we ffiall fuppofc the Majo¬ rity of the Office-bearers fhould decline, or obftinately reffife to difeharge their Duty. But, if our Author will ftill pufh his Argument from the State of the Churches of Corinth and Galatia^ then he muft fay, Tho* the Refur- reCtion o'f the Dead fhould be denied in a Church, an Er¬ ror which, the Apoftle declares, fubverts the whole Do¬ ctrine of Chriftianity, i Cor, xv. 13, 14. and tho’ the Go- fpel of Chrift fhould be perverted, and the grand Arti¬ cle of Juftification ftiodld be overthrown, and tho* all this fhould be profefled, avowed and tolerate in a Church, yeC file is ftill fuch a true Church, as we muft not feparate from her, and are obliged to hold Ecclefiaftical Communion therewith,even when flie declines or refufes toteftify parti¬ cularly orexprcfly againft fuchgrofs anddangerous Errors* At this Rate ofReafoning, our Seceffion from the Church of Rome, as it was ftated upon her doCtrinal Articles, andl efpecially upon the Article of Juftification, which was rec¬ koned the principal doCtrinal Point upon which our Re¬ formers ftated their Seceffion ; at this Rate, I lay, it muft be condemned. And, if our Author thinks fit to confule ^urretine on the Head of Seceffion, he will likewife find# that the Popifh DoCtors have argued from the State of the Churches of Corinth and Galatia, againft the Seceffion of the reformed Churches from them ; and, I humbly judge, it may be evident from what is above obferved, that, according to our Author*s Way of Realbning againft his Separatifts, the Argument, as it is managed by the Church of Rome, ftands in its full Force and Strength againft all the Proteftant Churches. As for the Churches of ,Afa, particularly Pergamoi and Thyatira, I have fully examined the Argument, as it is laid againft the ConduCt of the feceding Brethren, from the State of thefe Churches in the printed Letter, to which I refer. Since our Author has mentioned the Church of Epbefus as a Church that had many Corrupti¬ ons, I muft obferve, that this Church did hold faft, by A a external ( i85 ) external vifible Profedion, the Purity fhe had once at- rain’d ; yea, Ihe was faithful in her judicative Capacity; Ihe tried and cenfurcd the Erroneous, ^hou canft not bear i them •which are evily and thou hafi tried them which fay they are j 4 poflles, and are noty and haft found them LiarSy Rev. ii. 5, 4. This is a Com.Tiendation that this National Church, as fhe is reprelented in her prefcnt Judicatories, , has not any Claim or Title unto. That for which Ephefus \ is condemned and threarned, v. 4, 5. is, that the Grace of Lovoy that inward animating and influencing Principle, which powerfully and fweetly conftrains unto Obedience, was more cool and languid than at her firft Converfioii from Paganifm to Chriftianity. The Author of the Ejfayy p. 62, 65, ^c. argues a- gainft Separation, according to his Way of dating the (^eftion, as a Sin againft the Command of the great God our Saviour, Heb. x. 25. as oppofire to the Commands of Union and brotherly^Love, i Cor. i. 10. fohn xiv. 34. as contrary to the Defign of Chrift’s Death, Epb. ii. 14,— 16. as a Sin againft the InterceflTion of Chrift, John xvii. 31 . as that which is hurtful and fatal to the Church, which tends vaftly to the Hurt of Religion, and which hath a direci: Tendency to mar the Succefs of the glorious Gofpel: He concludes, That Separation is commonly faid to be a Renting of Chrift’s feamlefs Coat, and includes fun- dry other Evils in it; and therefore the Apoftle isfopa- thetick in prefTing Unity, Eph. iv. i, 2, 3, &c. Philip. ii. I, 2. The Author may enlarge as much as he pleafes in condemning Separation, and in commendng Union, as his Reverend flrother the Author of a Paper called the Seafonable ^eflimony has done before him, in a Flow of Words, without ever ftating the Queftioo or Argument. I humbly judge, I have equal Reafon to fay. That Union and Conjunftion with declining and backfliding Judica¬ tories, to the Prejudice of a fuitable and neceffary Tefti- mony for Truth and againft dangerous Errors and publick National Steps of Defection, or which involves the Of¬ fice-bearers of the Church in the Omifllon or Negledt of any Duties that their Office does oblige them unto, and J which I have proven to be the Union and Conjunction j that our Author pleads for with the prefent Judicatories 2 of this National Church; an Union and Conjunction of ’ this Kind, I fay, is contrary unto the exprefs Com¬ mand of the great Head of the Church, Jude^ v. 3.— Corf ( i87 ) CeitffXii earnejlly for the Faith cnee de]i Again, the above Union and Conjundtion that is pled for is contrary unto our blef. fed Lord’s interceflory Prayer, John xvii. The Chara- dcr that he there gives of his Difciplcs is, that they have kept his Father’s Word, v 6. He prays that they might be fandfified through the Truth, e;. 17. fie prays for their Union and Conjunftion in the Truth, v. 2.1. that they all may he one in us, Likewife, the Union and Conjunftion pled- for is a faying A Confederacy with thcfe who are car¬ rying on a Courfe of Defedfion ; if has a native Tenden¬ cy to harden them in their Sin, in regard they may there¬ by juftly conclude, that the Offence or Scandal which they give is not of fuch Moment as to make us depart from Minifterial Communion v;ith them. Alfo, the above Union is hurtful to the Souls of Men ; it is hurtful to thefe with, whom we unite, in fb far as it is hardning un¬ to them in their Sin; It leaves fuch as are groning under the Burden of unfent Minifters, without fuitable Help and Relief; in regard it puts us out of Capacity of gi¬ ving Minifters unto them v/ith their own Call and Con- fent, according to the Divine Pattern and Inftitution; and thereby many through the Land have a Famine of the Word of the Lord. Finally, fuch an Union and Cou- jundfion as is pled for is prejudicial to Pofterity; it binds us up from tranfmitting unto them fuch a Teftimony as is ncceftary unto the Dodtrine, Worlhip, Government A a z and (. *S8 ) Difcipline of our Lord’s Houfe, in a 'Day of Defeftion f and Backfliding. It is true, Peace^ Union^ Harmony.^ arc all pleafant Words; DiHiifion^ Separatiojjy &c. have a hateful and frightful Sound': Bur, what is the Unity that we ought to purfue after? Is it not the Unity of the Spi¬ rit ? Epb. iv. 3. And, what is the Unity of the Spirit ? The holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, he is not^a Spirit of ci Error; he is the Spirit of Wifdom and Underftanding in i the Fear of the Lord, and not of carnal Prudence nor carnal Policy ; he is a Spirit of Counfel and Might, he 1 is not a Spirit of flavifh Fear or Cowardice ; he infpires with a holy Refolution and Courage for God, and the Things of Chriff, for the Honour of the Redeemer’s Per- . Ion, and for the Glory of all his iOfitces, for the Rights of his Royal Crown, and the Privileges of his Spiritual . Kingdom. And in tliefe Things we ought to be of one ; Accord, and of one Mind, namely, in feeking the Things of Chriff, even the Honour and Glory of him whom God hath highly exalted, and to whom he hath given a Name which is above every Name, that at the Name of jefus every Knee Ihould bow, Philip, ii. 2, 9, 10. SECT. n. JVherein the humm Authcrities advanced by the Author of the Effay, againji SeceJJion from the prefent Judicatories, are examined. 1 Proceed now to fake under Confideration the human Authorities, or the Tellimonies of great and eminent Divines, adduced by the Author of the Effay^ againft what he calls Separation. It is needful that I Ihould here acquaint the Reader, that he may be able to form a juft Judgment upon the moft Part of our Author’s Teftimo- nies, vdth an Obferve that Mr. Baillie makes, in his Dif- fwafive from the Errors of the ^ime, p. 10. When the Work of Reformation was goitig on fuccefsfully, by the Miniftry of thefe eminent Inftruments whom the Lord railed up to bring the Churches out of Antichriftian Baby¬ lon ; amongft the many Stratagems whereby Satan diverted the Progrefs of Reformation-work, there were two con- Jiderable ones. “ In our Flight {.fays be ) from Kome^ he “ got fome perfwaded to ftand too foon, before they had pafTed the Territories of the Whore, and the Line of (189 ) i her Communication: Others he wrought to the contrary Perfwafion, he made them run on too long, not only to ^ “ the utmoft Line of Error, but allb far beyond all the I ** Bounds both of Charity and Truth; hence our grea- “ teft Woes: All our Difcords and mutual Wounds hive fprung from thefe two Fountains.” Amongft the fir!?; he reckons Luther and his Followers, as allb the firft Ir ftruments of Reformation in England^ who, he obferveSj kept more Correfpondence with their Acquaintance in higher Germany^ than with Calvin and the French Divines* and, tho’ they did not follow Luther in the Do6lr ne of the Sacrament, yet retained fo much of Rome in their Worfhip and Difcipline, as has been the Occafion of all the woful Divilions which have rent our Bowels, and of grievous Perfecutions which have undone many. As for the other Sort, who hindered the Progrefs of Reforma¬ tion by running on too far; thefe were the German Ana- baptifts, who at their firft Appearance had a very great Shew of Piety and Devotion, but in a Ihort Time they proceeded to the greateft Extravagancies; However, fome of their peculiar and diftinguifhing Principles were em¬ braced in England by one Robert Brown^ firft a School- mafter, and afterward a Preacher near London : He wrote in Defence of the Principles he efpoufed, yet he after¬ wards recanted them, and received a Parfonage at the fiand of a Bifhop; but fuch as adopted his Principles were ordinarily after him called Brownifis. The Learned Writer I have mentioned, gives in his fecond Chapter a large Account of their Doftrines and Principles, I fhall only mention feme few of them. They affirmed, That, in order toAdmiffion unto Ghurch-memberfhip, it was ne- ceflary that one fhould give Satisfaftion to the wholeChurch of his real San6tification and true Regeneration; and that not only theOffice-bcarers,but that all and every Member of the Church, was a Judge of the Qualifications of fuch as fhould be admitted (Ilhurch-membefs. They likewife af¬ firmed, That if any who wanted the above Qualifications fhould be admitted to Church.fellowlhip, or to partake in the Sacraments, he fhould quickly fo far pollute the whole Church, that every Member thereof mu'ft needs become Partaker of his Sin; and if, upon Admonition, the Church did not excommunicate him, they ought to be feparated from, as an infefted or leprous Society. They acknow¬ ledged no Power of Jurifdiftion in any Ecclefiaftical Ju¬ dicatory, above a. Congregational Church. They rejected Cate- ( ipo ) Catechifms, as (et and unlawful Forms of Tnftruftlon. They affirmed, That the Chriftian Magifirate had no Right to meddle at at all with any Matters of Religion; and they pled for an univerfal ’Tolerat'wn^ under the fpe- cious Pretence of Liberty cf Ccnfcience. And leverals of the Followers of the firft Bronunifis came the Length to run down the Ordinance of Preaching, and to cry down the Office of the holy Miniftry ; and it is very well known to what Heights they proceeded, and into how many dif¬ ferent Se£ts they were divided, in the Time of CromiveTs Ulurpation. Againft the above extravagant Principles our reformed Divines imployed their Pens, and difeovered the Contrariety of them to the holy Scriptures, and their Af¬ finity to leveral of the grols Principles of the antient Dona- tifls and Novaiians. The above are the Principles that the moft Part of our Divines, cited by the Author of the Effay, do reafon againft; and the Principles of the lece- ding Minifters are as far diftant from them as Eaft from Weft. They never reckoned that the per Tonal Defefts, Blemiffies or Sins of Fellow-worfhippers did pollute the Or¬ dinances to others, or render them Partakers in their Sins; neither have they ftated their Seceffion upon any fuch Bottom: But they have juftly ftated their Seceffion upon a Courfe of Defedtion, carried on by a Church in her Eccle- iiaftick Capacity, from Steps of Reformation once attained unto. They do not plead for pofitive Signs of Regenera¬ tion, as a neceflary Qualification of Church-mcmbcrfhip; they agree with the reformed Churches, that a credible Profeffion of the Faith, with an outward Subjedfion unto the Ordinances of the Gofpel, is all that the holy Scrip¬ tures require in order umo Church-memberfhip. They alfo agree with all our reformed Divines, and regard the Adts and Conftitutions of the Church of Scotlarid^ which require, in order to full Communion with the Church in all her fcaling Ordinances,the three followingQualifications as neceflary, A Profeffion of the Truth, with a com¬ petent Meafurc of Knowledge ; a Life and Converfation without Scandal; and Subjedtion unto the Order and Dis¬ cipline of the Church. Again, the feceding Miniflers do not unchurch any of the Proteflant Churches, they do not reckon them Antichriftian Synagogues; yet I hope the Author of the FJfay^ if he is confident with his Presbyte¬ rian CharaSer and Profeffion, will nor differ from them when they lay, That there are forae Proteftant Churches fo corrupt both in their Government, Worfhip and Dif- cipline. ( I9I ) cjpHne, that they cannot hold Communion with them. Upon the Whole, As the Secellion from the prefent Ju¬ dicatories proceeds upon none of the above mentioned Principles, but upon quite different Grounds, I might here leave our Author to boaft of his Teftimonies from great JMen as much as he pleafes ; but I fiiall inftance a few of them, and fhew that they noway affect the Queftion, iti its true State, betwixt the prefent Judicatories and the receding Minifters. Tiie great Calvin is amongft the firfl who is adduced by our Author, E£'ay p 3, as alfb he is cited, p.41. The lirft Quotation from Calvin is, “ Thar v/herever there is “ the pure Preaching of the Word, and the pure Admi- “ niftration of the Sacraments, we may lafely embrace “ that for a true Church; md{fays he') we are never to “ rejeft the Society thereof as long as thefe remain, albeit “ otherwife it abound with many Corruptions. Yea (^adds “ he) fome Corruptions in the Adminiftration of Doftrine “ or Sacraments may creep in, which ought not to alie- “ nate us from her Communion The Latin Word 1 which Calvin makes Ufe of, and which our Author ren¬ ders Corruptions^ is Vitium\ and I humbly judge our Au¬ thor’s Tranflation is too ftrong: The Word properly fig- nifies Faults^ Defe&s or Blemijbes ; accordingly I find that Mr. AWcff, in his Tranflation of CalvitSy readers it FaultSt and Faultine/s. Bur, pafling this, the very fame Tefti- mony from Calvin is olue^led unto the Diffenters from the Church of England by Doftor Stillingfieef, and I may make the fame Obferve upon it, which Doftor Owen makes in his Reply to Stillingfeet, Enq. p. 287. “ There is a great “ deal more belongs unto the pure Preaching of the Word, and the Adminiftration of the Sacraments according un- “ to Chrift’s Inftitution, than fome feem to apprehend; “ they may, they ought to be fo explained, as that, from “ the Confideration of them, we may juftify our whole Caufe: Both thefe may be wanting in a Church which is “ not guilty of fuch hainous Errors in Doftrine, or Ido- latryin Worfhip, as fhould deftroy its Being.” I have faid what I reckon fufficient concerning the above Cha¬ racters which Calvin gives of a true Church, and there¬ fore fhall not here infift upon them. But whereas our Author tells us from Calvin^ That we are never to rejeCt the Society of the Church as long as thefe remain, albeit otherwife it abound with many Corruptions^ or rather, as the * CaJv. Inft, Lib. 4, Cap. i. § I2» ( ) the Word fliould be rendered, with many FauUt or 5 /e- I fnijhes : Since Calvin explains himfelf in that fame Place, I in the Caution which he fubjoins, and which our Author ! does not think fit to notice, I judge it deferves a Room ■■ here; Hie autem patroctnarf,&:c. i. e. “I would not have ‘‘ it thought that I here intend to patronize Errors, even “ the moft minute, as if I judged that they fhould be che- ; “ rifhed, either by Flattery or Connivance ; but I fay, ** A Church is not to be rafhly forfaken for any trifling “ Differences, in which only that Doftrine is retained fafe and incorrupted, wherein the Safety of Godlinefs con- i “ fifts, and the Ufe of Sacraments as appointed of the Lord 1 “ is preferved.” And in this all the feceding Minifters i will readily join him. This eminent Divine proceeds to lay the Argument in his following Sections againft the Ana» haptifis in his Time, whom he compares to the antient Ca» ihari and Donatifis ; and he charges them with inconfide- rate Zeal, who departed from the Communion of the Church, and reckoned fuch to be no Churches at all, I where they obferved fuch Blemifhes in the Walk and Con* i verfation of Profelfors unfuitable unto their Chriftian Pro- i feflion ; and, having in very pathetick Terms bewailed ii the Unholinefs of Profeflbrs, he adds, Jillegant Ecclefiam i Cbrifti fanBam eJfe^SiZc. i. e. “ They alledge that the Church I “ of Chrift is holy; but, that they may alfb know that it i» ij mingled of good and evil Men, let them hear this Pa- i “ rable from the Mouth of Chrift, wherein the Church is compared to a Net, wherein Fifhes of all Kinds are 1 “ gathered, and the Separation is not made till they are 1 “ brought unto the Shore; let them alfo hear, that the i “ Church is like a Field, wherein good Seed is fown, ; “ but thro* the Fraud of the Enemy it is mixed with •; Tares, from which it is not purged till at Harveft it is i “ brought into the Barn-floor, Finally, let them hear, , “ that it is like unto a Floor,wherein the Wheat is fo ga- ' thered together, that it lies hid under the Chaff, till it '' “ is cleanled with Fan and Sive, and at length laid up in *' “ the Garner.” Likewife, in the other Citation given ' ** us from Calvin^ EJfayy p. 41. He argues againft the fame - Principles of the Anabaptijlsy and improves fomc Words , from Cyprijin againft them, viz. “ Let no Man challenge to “ himfelf that which belongs to the Son of God only, to “ be able alone to fan the Floor, ^nd cleanfe che ChaET, « epr.” ( iP3 ) As for our worthy CoUnrrymen, Makers Rutherfoorify Gillefpie and Durham^ who wrote at the Time when the above Seftarian Principles were prevailing in Englandy and forcing a Way for themfelves into Scotland ; All the Reafonings of thefe eminent Men, in the Places alledged by our Author, are exprefly laid againff the above extra¬ vagant Principles. As for Inftance, Mr. Rutherfoord’s Peace¬ able Pleay cited Ejjay, p. 5, 41, 42, &c. This Book was wrote in Defence of the Doctrine of our reformed Di¬ vines anent Church-communion : And the Argument as it is managed by Mr. Rutherfoord^ from the State of the Church of Corinth^ cited EJfay^ p. 42. concludes in the following exprefs Terms ; ‘‘ Then it is unlawful rb fepa-- “ rate from the pure Worfhip of God, becaule a Church “ is not conftitute of vifible Saints and a People all taught of God As Mr. Rutberfoord is here pleading againft pofitive Signs of Regeneration as a neceflary Qualification of Church-memberlhip, fo all the feceding Minifters join with him; but our Author thinks fit to fct his Thumb u- pon the above Conclufion of Mr, Rutherfoord's Argument, other wife his Reader might have eafily perceived that Mr. Rutherfoord's Teftimony is not in the leaf! againft the Principles or Conduct of the feceding Minifters. As for Mr. Rutherfoord's Due Right, chcd Ejfay, p, 3, 9, 10, &c. Tliis excellent Book (as our Author acknowledges, Pref. p. 8.) is writ againft the Independents • and the Separation that Mr. Rutherfoord argues againft, through that Book, is a Separation ftared from Churches that are not conftitute in the Manner I have juft now mentioned ; And therefore all our Author’s Citations from that Book are nowife to the Purpofe. The judicious Mr. Durham upon Scandal is likewife frequently cited, as Ejfay p, 19,41, &^c. particu¬ larly Part 2. Chap. 12. But in the Beginning of the faidl Chapter, when he ftates the Queftion, he tells us. That it is the fame upon the Matter with that betwixt the an- tient Church and the Novatians and Donatijls', and all his Reafonings are againft Separation on account of the per- fonal Defefts and Blemifhes of Church-members, or upon a Suppofition that fuch Perfoos as deferve Cenfure pollute the Ordinances to others: But in his third Jjfertlon, in the Chapter cited, he acknowledges, that if the Office-bearers of the Church be defective in the Exercife of Difcipline, and if this Defeat “ become fcandaloufly exceflive, it may “ give Occafion to them that are tender, to depart, and B b “go *feac.I>Jea, p. 142, ( 194 ) **go where that Ordinance of Difciplinc is more vigo- | “ rous.” And certainly, where the Defetf is only in a i particular Congregation, this may be a fufficient Relief j for a render Confcience : But, what fhall be done when the Defedt is fcandaloully exceflive in a National Church ? And that this is the State of Matters in the prefent Judi¬ catories, I have already evinced: Therefore, according to the judicious Mr. Durham^ we may dejaart from Com¬ munion with them; and, in this Cafe, we depart not from the Ordinances of Chrift, but endeavour, in that Station wherein the Lord has placed us as Office-bearers in his Houfe, to cleave to his Ordinances and inftitutions, both Word, Sacraments and Difeipline. The Author of the EJfay gives us lilcewife fome Paffia- gesoutof the Commentaries of the fame judicious Divine ox\ih^ Revelation^ p. 4, 52, particularly from his Ob- fervations upon the Church of ^hyatira. From the very Words, as they are cited by our Author, it is plain that Mr. Durham's Argument is laid againlf the Sedtarian Se- paratifts, viz. “ Our Lord Jefus is no Approver nor Coun- “ tenancer of Separation from a true Church, for the Faults of fome Members in it; neither do Faults in “ fome Members, and Defedfs in Minifters and Officers “ in executing Difeipline, pollute the Ordinances in tbem- felves^ or to others^ who are free of that Guilt.” And, after he has reafoned to good Purpofe on this Head, he obferves, ‘‘ It muft therefore be an untender Thing, to “ burden honed Souls with the Apprehenfion of being “ polluted from the perfbnal Faults of joint Worfhippers “ or Communicants.” And he fuWoins feveral weighty Reafons and (irounds for the Proof of this. Our Author i concludes from Mr. Durham's Reafonings in this Part of > his Commentaries, that “ the Words of the judicious Dur- “ ham are plain and pointed againd Separation from any “ fuch Church as the Church of Scotland is, and hath been “ fince the Revolution.” I mud own, that I cannot fee that the Words of the judicious Durham are either plain or pointed againd Seceffinn from the prefent Judicatories of this National Church: They are indeed plain and poin¬ ted againd fuch who affirm that the jxrfonal Faults of joint W^orfhippers pollute the Ordinances in themfelves and to ethers; and, as he manages the Argument from the Stare of rhe Church of ^hyatha to excellent Purpofe againd thefe Principles, fb he had good Reafon to be plain and pointed againd them, when Efforts were made, about the Time J Time when his Leftures were delivered, to introduce thefe Principles into the Church of Scotland ; and when feveral Profcffors in jiberdeen did in a fliort Time declare themfelves for them: Bur, tho’ he is plain againft thefe unfcriptural Principles, yet his Argument is nowife di- I reftcd againft fuch who affirm, that Seceffion is warran¬ table and neceflary from a particular vifible Church, when in her Ecclefiaftical Capacity fhe is carrying on a Courfe of Defection from Steps of Reformation once attained un¬ to, and at the lame Time refufing to be reclaimed. As I have laid the Argument for Seceffion from the prefent Judicatories, and for a Presbyterial Aflociation for the Support and Defence of Truth, from the pofitive and par¬ ticular Commands given to the Office-bearers of the Church of Pergamos and Tbyatira, in the Letter on Sece£lon\ fo tile Reafonings of the judicious Durham are not in the Icaft againft the Argument as I have ftated it; And, if I was to deal with the Seftarian Separatifts, I would reafbn from the fame Scriptures and in the very fame Manner againft them ; and I wifli that fuch who in our Day are in Danger of being enfiiared into fuch Extremes, would ferioufly confider the weighty Reafonings of the forefaid eminent Divine. Our Author, Effay p. 51. gives us a Citation from Mr. Gillefpie *, vii. “ Beware of feparating new Lights; to feparate from, or gather Churches out of tlie true reformed or reforming Churches, hath not the leaft “ Warrant from the Word of God, &‘c." I heartily join with Mr. Gillefpie. I do think it very unwarrantable to de¬ part from Communion with true reformed or reforming Churches; but furely our Author cannot reckon this Na¬ tional Church as fhe is reprefented in her prefent Judica¬ tories a reforming Church, when he tells us, EJfay p. 59, I fhall not fay but the Church of Scotland may btwcrfe “ at this Day than fometimes formerly, nor fhall I fay “ but that fhe hath been upon the Decline for fbme Time.” If fhe is worfey if ffie is on the Decliney then furely fhe is not a reforming Church ; But befides, if our Author had dealt fairly and plainly, he ought to have told his Reader who thefe new Lights are, that Mr. Gillefpie cau¬ tions againft; and, if we look to the Beginning of that Chapter whence the above Citation is taken, Mr. Gillefpie obferves, that “ 'Tis pleaded by fome, who pretend to more Tendernefs of Confcience than others, that to c- B b 2 “ ftablifl^ * MJeel ^ejl, p. 123, 132, ( i$6 ) ** ftablifli by the Law of the Land, a Confeflion of Faith, “ or a Direftory of the Worfhip of God and of the Go- “ vernment of the Church, and to appoint Penalties or “ Punifhments upon fuch as maintain the contrary Do- “ ftrines or Praftices, is to hold out and fhut the Door “ upon new Light.” And, having likewife obferved that the greatelf Deceits have been brought into the World, under the Name or Notion of new Lights, he gives Ten excellent Directions and Cautions concerning thefe new Lights, amongft others the above Caution cited by our Author. ’Tis to be regreted, that fuch new Lights have of late appeared in our Horizon, who plead againft the Eftablifliment of Confeflions of Faith, &c. by the Laws of the Land; If our Author hadimployed his Penagainft fuch fiev; Lights^ providing he had done it to purpofe, he had thereby done more Service to our Reformation-rights, and our Presbyterian Intereft, than he has done by his Ejfay on Separation, We have a large Quotation out of a Letter of Mr. M'^lVarSi, to fbme of his Friends, EJfay p. 53. wherein he warns them in pathetick Terms againft Separation, as alfo another Quotation from the Htnd-let-loofe ; but I am wea¬ ried with purfuing our Author’s Qiiotations which are no¬ wife to the Purpofe, and I fear I may weary my Reader likewife; If he will take the Trouble to read Mr. M'lVard’s Earnrji Cent endings ^ with his Letter cited by cur Author which is fubjoined to the faid Book, or the Uind'lst-lopfe, he will fee with his own Eyes that they all militate againft our Author; particularly, Mr, M'^lVard in his Letter is exprefly for Separation from the indulged Minifters, and, fpeaking of them, he faith, “ For all of us will grant that many of them are godly Men; bur, “ alas I their Godlinefs, as it hath been pleaded, hath “ been of more Prejudice to the Work and Intereft of of Chrift, than the Ungodlinels of all the Prelates and Curates.” And the Separation that Mr, con¬ demns is a Separation that is not ftated upon clear and iuft Grounds, and every fuch Separation ought to be con¬ demned. As for rhefe worthy and great Men, Mafters KVebfier^ Hog and Boflon ; the firft two are very often men¬ tioned in the ; they all contended againft the Defe¬ ctions of the Church-judicatories in a Way of Communion with them, and fo did the feceding Brethren at the fame Time, as I have obferved in the introduction: And I humbJy ({ ( 197 ^ liumbly judge that the Author of the EJfay is too bold, if he intends, by the Quotations he brings from their Writings, to determine what their Conduft and Pra6tice would have been, if they had lived till the prefent Times. I have already confidered, in my printed Letter, his Quo¬ tation from Mr. Bofion^ EJfay p. 57. As for that excellent Man Mr. iVekfier^ it is well known how deeply he was affefted with the Proceedings of the Judicatories in his own Time, efpecially with the Injury that Truth received by the flight Manner in which ^'ir. Sirnfon was part by the Aflembly 1717 : But the Lord did in a fhort Time there¬ after fliut his Eyes, that he did not fee the greater Evils that were a-coming. As for Mr. Hog^ whofe Letters are frequently mentioned by our Author, the laft of them bears Date 16th 1717; and his Poftfcript to this Letter is a fufficient Anfwer to all the Quotations that our Author brings from them, viz. “ The preceeding Re- “ marks relate to the circumftantiated Cafe of this Church, both now and before this Time, as it is formerlv de- “ fcnbcd.” Therefore his Letters do not relate to the prefent circumftantiated Cale of this National Church as I have already delcribed it. He adds, May we defire and hope, that a merciful Retrival lliall further encou- rage Minifters and Members thereof to contend for the Faith in a regular and refpedlful Way without any fur- “ rher Breach, and that the prefent may at length be “ healed." Bur, alas! we have contended in a regular and refpeflful Way, by Petitions, Reprefentations and otherwife ; yet thefe regular Contendings have been de- fpifed by the Judicatories, and they have been fo far from returning to the Lord, thatfomeof the leceding Minifters have been rhruft out from among them, merely on account of fuch regular Contendings; and others became fenfible that they could not fafely nor warrantably continue any longer in Communion with them. The Author of the EJj'ay reafbns againft what he calls Separation, from the A(tts of the Church of Scotland in what {fays he) hath been reckoned her beft and pureft Times, and from the A6ts and Conftitutions of foreign Churches; particularly, from the Adt of Aifembly y^uguji 9th 164.5, whereby Minifters upon the Coaft are injoined to try and fearch for all Books tending to Separation : This Adi did relate to the Books of Sedfarian Separatifts, who at this Time were very induftrious in fpreading their Writings. Likcwifcj our Author mentions another A< 9 : ( 198 ) that fame Year, of Date Auguft 1 5 th, In which {fays “ cur Author) the Aflembly leftify their unanimous Con- “ fent againft all Schifm and Divifion, unto which thele Times, thro’the Working of Satan and his Inftruments “ againft the Propagation of the Gofpel of Peace, are fo “ inclined, QPc." This A( 5 i: of AlTembly was an A£l for preparing a Diredtory for the publick Worftiip of God, and for Unity and Uniformity in the fame : Any who read that Adt of Affembly, and who fhall compare it with our Author’s Quotation, will fee that he has curtailed it infuch a Manner, that his Reader cannot perceive the genuine Senfe, Import and Defign of it. The Adt is laid againft fiicli Scandals and Divifions, and the very Beginnings of them, which were contrary to the Work of Reformation; and therefore, till a Diredlory for Worftiip , fttould be prepared, the Aflembly prohibites and difeharges the condemning one of another in fuch lawful Things as have been univer Tally received, and by perpetual Cuttom “ pradtifed, by the moft faitliful Minifters of the GofpcI andOppofers of Corruptions in this Kirk, fince the firrt “ Beginning of Reformation to thefe Times.” If the prefent Judicatories had followed the Example of this and other Auerablies of that Period, the lamentable Grounds of our Seceffion from them had never taken Place. Our Author likewife, p. 46. mentions the Adi of Aflem- bly 1647, intituled, yfdf againji juch as •withdraio tbem~ fives from the publick If or ftp in their own Congregations. “ Xn this Adt {fays he) for preferving Order, Ihiity and Peace in the Kirk, and for preventing of Schifm, they injoined every dIember in every Congregation to keep their own Parifh-kirk, communicating there in W’ord and ‘f Sacrament.” This Ad: is frequently thrown up by our Author, with very indecent Infinuations againft it. I fhall in this Place ofter what I intend for the vindicating and clearing of if. The Preamble to the Adt declares the End and Defign of it, viz. for preferving Order, Unity, EPc. and for preventing Schifm. I once defigned to have given a more large Account of the Nature of Schifm in a Sedlion by itfelf; but, finding that this Book fwells upon my Hand, I fhall forbear it; Only, I muft here obferve, that we find the Word Schifm ufed feveral Times by the Apoftle in his firft Epiftle to the CorinthianSy as Chap. i. JO. Now I hefeech you. Brethren, - and that there be no Div'fior.s among you. The Word Divijions is in the Ori¬ ginal SchifmSf Chap, xi. i8. I hear 'that there be Divifiom mjing ( 199 ) amofig you, or SCHISMS. And if we enquire, What ■were thefe Schifms that were in the Church of Corinth } I anfwer, They were Divifions, Differences and Jan^jlings arnongft the Members of that Church, who ftill remained joined together in external Church~communion, or in the fame Church Order, Difeipline and Worfhip; TheApoftic gives a particular Inftance of their Divifions and Janglings, 1 CV, i 12. and iii. 4. One faid, / <7W7 o/" Paul; another^ I am of Apollos. There was a Siding amongft them about their Minifters and Teachers, who held the fame Tefti- mony of jefus. And here I ohferve, that the Spirit of God in the holy Scriptures calls it Schifm, when the Mem¬ bers of a particular organical Church pur a Difference amongft their faithful Minifters and Teachers, who are bolding the fameTeftimony of the Lord Jefus : As this is Schifm in the Scripture-fenfe of the Word, fo it ought to be condemned in all the Churches of Chrift; and this is that Schifm and Separation teftified againft by the above A6t of the Affembly 1647. Our Author, when fpeaking of it, p. 95. tells us, “ That many think there wanted not “ a great deal of Tyranny in that A6l of Affembly 1647, “ &c." But, whatever he or others may think, there wanted not a great deal of Scripture-reafbn in it; in regard that all the Minifters of the Church of Scotland were at that Time holding the fame Teftimony againft Popery, Prelacy, Eraftianifm and Seftarianifm: They were, in their judicative Capacity, aflerting and maintaining the covenanted Doftrine, Worfhip, Government and Difci- pline of the Houfe ot God in this Land, in Oppofition to every Thing contrary to found Doftrine and the Power of Godlinefs; the Confeffion of Faith compiled at Wefiminfter was received and approven by this Affembly : And the In* troduftion to the kSt our Author inveighs againft runs in the following Manner ; “ Since it hath pleafed God of his “ infinite Goodnefs to blefs his Kirk within this Nation “ with the Riches of the Gofpel, io giving to us his Or- “ dinances in great Purity, Liberty, and withal a comely “ and well-eftabliflied Order.” If thefe Things are con- fidered, it is plain that the Schijm condemned by this AC« fembly is that which the Scripture cdXh Schijm, namely, a leparating from fuch Minifters as are holding the fame Teftimony of Jefus. But this will further appear, if we confider the Means that are injoined by this Alfembly for preventing Schifm-, and thefe are of two Sorts, the firfl* concerns Minifters themfelves, and the other concerns the People. ( 2 00 ) People, Oar Author thinks fit to report what concerns the People, and, after his partial Manner, he conceals the firft Mean that is laid down by this faithful Aflemhly, “ for prelerving Order, Unity and Peace in the Kirk, “ and for maintaining that Refpedt which is due to the Ordinances and Minifters of Jefus Chrift, for preven- “ ting Schifm, noifom Errors, &c.” Bat, tho’ he thinks fit to omit what is injoined Minifters for attaining the above valuable Ends, I think it very neceflary to tranferibe it, v/z. The Aftembly “ doth charge every Minifter to be “ diligent in fulfilling his Miniftry, to be holy and grave “ in his Converiation, to be faithful in Preaching, de- “ daring the whole Counfcl of God, and, as he hath Oc- “ cafion from the Text of Scripture, to reprove the Sins “ and Errors, and prefs the Duties of the Time; and in all thefe to obferve the Rules preferibed by the Aflem- bly: Wherein if he be negligent, he is to be cenfured. “ by his own Presbytery. ” Therefore this Aft of Afi« fembly obliges Minifters and People to their mutual rela¬ tive Duties; and, in order to prevent Sebi/m, it injoins not only every Member in every Congregation to attend the Miniftry of his own Paftor, but it likewife injoins every Minifler in every Congregation to be a faithful Steward of the Myfteries of God. Hence I think it very evident, that the Separation condemned by this faithful Aftembly, is a Separation from fuch Minifters who are holding the Teftimony of Jefus delivered to his Church and People in this Land. As for his Quotations from the Difcipline of the famous Church of France, and from the Confeffion of Faith of the Churches of Helvetia, the Reader may fee, from what I have faid, how little they make for his Purpofe. As for that Aft of Union paft in the National Synod of Privas in the Year 1612, the lon^ Quotation which our Author gives from that Aft contains many pathetick Expreflions for Union ; and the Occafion of palling this Aft, according to our Author, was. That at this Time there were Diftcn- ters in that Church ; but he has not told us who thefe Dif- lenters were, nor upon what Principles they diftented: But, if the Reader would be fatisfied about thefe, he may fee what the Publifher of the Afts, &>c. of the famous Church of France, in his Introduftion, § 14. fays upon this Head, viz. “ There arofc a Combination of Men, fuch as Morlas, &c. who were for accommoding and reconciling the two Religions, (i, c. the Popijb and Pro^ ‘‘ tepanty ( iot ) ” iefiant) and tliefe were put upon it by tbe Bribes and “ Penfions of tbe Romift} Clergy, and Promif'es of gteat Preferment.-The National Synods of Saumur and Privasy &c. did what they could to ftem the Current.’* Such as were promoting a Syncretifm or Coalition with Romfy were tbe Perfons againft whom the forefaid Synod of Privas exprefs themfclves in fuch a pathetick Manner, in the Quotation given us by our Author. I lhall only further notice his Quotation from the Plat¬ form of Church-difcipline of the Churches of New-Englantf. Here he gives us a long Quotation from Chap. 14. § 8, 9. but it is after our Author’s partial Manner, he flops when he comes to any Thing that he thinks may make againft him : And therefore, after our Author’s long Citation concerning maintaining Communion with a Church in the Participation of the Sacraments when fcandalous Perfons are tolerate in the Church, it is added, “ If the Church “ cannot he reformed, they (wz. fuch as are grieved with “ the tolerating of fcandalous Perfons') may ufe their Liber- “ ty, as isfpecified. Chap. 13. § 4.” I know not if our Author does approve of every Thing that is contained in the above Platform; but, if he does, he cannot condemn our Seceflion from the prefent Judicatories upon the Prin¬ ciples that are laid down in the faid Platform, Our Author proceeds, p. 59. to tell his Reader, that “ Separation is an Evil againft which God hath often tefti- fied his Difpleafure, by feparating S^aratifts from one “ another, and giving them up to grofs Errors : This (fays “ he) with other Arguments, may have Weight to make us “ guard againft it.” The Inftances that he gives us are, one iSir. Johnf on a rigid Brov!;nifly and one Mr. Roger Wil¬ liam Sy who difturbed tbe Churches in Neiv-England. He mentions one of Mr. Williamses Principles, viz. That he re- fufed to communicate with the Church of BofiorSy becaufe they would not make a publick and folemn Declaration of Repentance for their having communicated with the Church of Englandy while they were in the Realm thereof; But, how comes our Author to conceal his other Principle men¬ tioned by Mr. Mather in the Place quoted by him, viz. his violent urging, that the Civil Magifirate might not punijb Breaches of the firfl ^ahle in the Laws of the fen Command¬ ments ? Our Author has no doubt his own Reafons for not mentioning this Seftarian Principle, maintained by the faid Williams', however, according to Mr. Mather in his C c Hifto- ( 202 ) Hiftory the above Principle bred as much Difturbance in New-England as that which our Author mentions. Our Author likewife gives us an Example in our own Land, p, 6 i. of Separatilh falling from Truth to Error, “ par- “ ticularly in the Gale of fome eminent Profeflbrs in betrdeen\ as {/ays ke) is to be feen in the Pofticript to Mr. Rutherfoord's Letters.’* Bur, why does not our Author give us Ibme Inflances of the Lord’s teftifying his Difplea- fure againrt fuch as have run into the other Extreme ; namely, fuch who have once made a fair Profeflion of Kegard unto the Order, Government and Dilcipline of the covenanted Church of \otlandj and who have after¬ wards apoffatized from the fame; or, who have put to their Hands to pull down and deffroy what once they feemed to be building ? I join with our Author when he fays, “ Tho’ Providence alone is not to be our Rule, yet the “ Lord’s Doings and the Operations of his Hands are to be regarded.” And I add, We ought to be very cauti¬ ous and tender in making particular Applicatiop of Di¬ vine Providences: But fince the grave Author of the Fu[~ filling of the S-riptures has given lome particular Inflances of fuch in our own Land,who have turned Oppofers of the Truth which once they profeffed, and againft whom a Righteous Lord has teftified has Difpleafure I may venture to report them. The Inftances he gives are of Maflers 'James NicoIforSy iVilliam Couper^ Andrew Forefler and Mr. Patrick Adamfon^ with others, fome of whom died in great Horror of Confcicnce : And, concerning the lad I have named, he tells us. He “ was once a Preacher “ of great Repute ; but, being fwayed by Ambition and i “ private Intered, he infinuated himfelfinto King James'^ , “ Favour, and made it his Work to overturn the edabli. ** fhcd Government and Difcipline of the Church : At r “ length, he got himfelf into the Archbifhoprick of St. ‘‘ Andrews ; and, in the Height of his Power, he ufed to j “ boad of three Things, that he faid could not fail him; “ his Riches, the King’s Favour, and his Learning: But, ** a fhort Time thereafter, he was forced to get Charity ** from thefe Minidcrs whom he had perfecuted; and, as ‘‘ for the King’s Favour, he was defpiled and abhorred by him ; and, with refpeft to his Learning in which he I “ did alfo boad, his Parts did fo far wither and dry up,: ** that, in feeking a Blefling on his Meat, he could fcarcc fpeak . * Book 7. p. 7, ^ Fulfil. Script, p. m. 40^, 407, &c. ( 20J ) ** fpeak a few Words to Senfe, tho* once admired for his E- “ loqucnce.’* Thele, and the like Inftances, may be War¬ nings both to our Author and to us eyery one, mt to be high*' mirded^ but to fear ; and to remember that Word of the Lord, Let him that tbinketh he fiandethf take heed lefi he fall, SECT. III. Wherein the Argument againfi Seceffton from the prefent Judicatories^ from the ConduA of faithful Minijiers hetwixt and 1538, is examined. A S the Author of the Eifay acculcs the feceding Bre¬ thren of unwarrantable Separation, and of a dan¬ gerous Schifm; lo he fpends fome Pages in per- fwading his Reader that their Condudt is unprecedented, and that they follow not the Footfteps of our worthy An- ceftors betwixt 1596 and 1658. I cannot propofe to tranferibe his long Reafijnings upon this Head, p, 12, 13, I 4 > 15. and what is thrown up upon the Subject frequent¬ ly through the Effay : I fliall endeavour to lay down his Argument in its full Force and Strength, and I have no Iirclination or Defign to overlook any Thing of Weight that is offered by our Author. The Subftance of his Reafoning is as follows; “ A Courfe of Defection and “ Backfliding was carried on betwixt 1596 and 1638, “ after that the Church of SotJand had attained to a high Pitch in Reformation; yet, tho’ for upwards of forty “ Years her Defections were lamentable, and far more “ grievous than can be pretended at this Day, our worthy Anceftors continued in the Church, ftruggling againil her Defections, without making Seceflion or Separari- “ on ; they contended againft the laid Defections, with- “ out erecting themfelves into different Judicatories, or “ any Thing like Separation. He obferves, that in their “ and ^ejiimonyy p. 13. the feceding hliniffers affirm, “ That, during this Period of grievous Sinning and Back- “ Aiding, there were fcveral eminent Men who witneffed “ againft the fame, &Pc. ” Upon this fays our Author, p. 15 “ How did thefefeveral eminent Men witnefs againft “ the grievous Sinning and Backfliding of their Day ? ” He fubjoins, “ Was it not in a Way of Church-commu- ‘‘ nion ] ” As the above is the Subftance of our Author’s C c a Argu, ( *°4, ) Argiimenf, (b I fhall now examine how he confirms and illuftrates the fame. And here I humbly judge two Things muft be enquired into ; Ftrjly Whether or not, during the forefaid Period, the Church of Scotland did in her Eccle- fiafiicai or Judicative Capacity carry on a Courfe of Defection and Sackfliding ? Secondly, Whether or not all fuch as witnefied againft the Courfe of Backfliding continu¬ ed to contend in a Way of Communion with the back¬ fliding Parry? I am heartily forry that 1 fliall have fo fre¬ quent Ground, upon both thefe Heads, to fay concerning one of our Author’s Profeflion and Character, That, in- ftead of (hewing what was the Practice of our worthy An- ceftors during the Period mentioned, he has very much mifreprefented the fame; and, inftead of narrating Mat¬ ters of Fad:, he has advanced feveral Things that arc neither Truth nor Matter of Fad; I (hall be far from faying he has done this deliberately, but I humbly judge he has not duly confidcred the lliUory of this Period of our Church. With refped to the firft of thefe, our Author feems to me peremptorily to determine, tliat the Church of Scot-- land in her judicative Capacity carried on a Courfe of Defedion and Backfliding; He aflerts, p. 14. “ That “ the Kirk took Vote in Parliament, and conftant Mcde- rators. ” But, before I proceed upon this Head, it is necefl'ary to acquaint the Reader, that when our Author writes, p. 12. in Jralick, That in the Tear 1596, according /o Calderwood, our fincere General j^Jfembltes ended', I fay, it is needful that the Reader fhould knov/, that, from the Year 1602 to 1658, there was not a General J^embly of the Church of Scotland, except one at Aberdeen Anno 1605; There were indeed fix pack’d Meetings of Mi- nifters. Noblemen and Gentlemen, viz- two at Linlith¬ gow, and four at Aberdeen, Glafgovj, St. Andrews and Perth, who afl'umed to thcmfelves the Name and Autho¬ rity of General Aflemblies, and under that Name carried on a Courfe of Defedion; but thele Meetings were never acknowledged as General Aflemblies of the Church of Scotland, by the faithful Miniflers of that Period ; and they were all condemned as pretended Aflemblies, by the firft free and lawful General A»flbmbly that met at Glaf- gew Anno i6;8 : Neither was rhe Authority or Conftiru- rion of thefe Aflemblies ever ackowledged by the moft Part of Presbyteries in Scotland, as we may afterwards fee. As far the Ailembly at Aherdan Anno 1605, tho’ the Miuiflcrs ^ .'f . Mlnlfters that met there did nothing but conftitute and appoint the Diet of another Affembly, yet it was ac¬ knowledged and defended as a lawful Alfembly by the honeft Minifters in that Period, and Mr. James Melvill wrote an excellent Apology for the faid Ailembly *. It is alfo well known what Hardfhips feveral great Men who were Members of that Aflembly fuffered on account of the Teftimony they gave when they conftitute the laid Aflembly in Name of the Lord Jefus, and appointed the Diet of the next Aflembly, notwithftanding of the Op- pofition that was made unto them by the Laird of Law- tifoun the King's Commiflloner. Mafters Forbet and others were impnlbned, profecure as Criminals, and fix of them were banilhed; and befides, from the Year 1596 to 1602, the Church of Scotland had not any Af- fembly which was accounted a free and lawful Aflembly by the honeft Minifters of that Period ; Therefore, when our Author tells his Reader, that in the Year 1595 cur Jtncere General y^Jfembles ended^ if he had dealt in a fair and candid Manner, he ought alfo to have told us, that from the Year 1602 to 1658, that is, for about the Space of 56 Years, tbe Church of Scotland had not a General Aflembly whofc Authority and Conftitution was owned by honeft Minifters and Presbyteries in that Peri¬ od, except the AflTembly of Aberdeen 1605; he ought likewife to have told, that from the Year 1596 to 1658, that is, about the Space of 41 Years, the Church of Scot¬ land had not a General Aflembly which was reckoned by tbe witnefling Minifters in that Period to be a free and lawful Aflembly. Bat it is needful that I give fome mo particular Evidences, that the Courfe of Defection du¬ ring this Period was not carried on by the Church of Scotland in her judicative Capacity. King James VI. having formed a Dcfign to introduce Prelacy into the Church of Scotlandy he gained fome cor¬ rupt Churchmen to his Side, whom he made ufe of as Tools for promoting his Defigns. And the fir ft dire, all the Members are nominate by the King; at this pretended Alfembly the Bifhops are appointed conftant Moderators of Synods, and a Negative was given them over Synods and Presbyteries. Calderwood makes the following Obfervation concerning Epifcopacy as it was introduced by the forefaid Affembly f; “ There was no Mention made in the Aflembly of Glafgovs “ of the Confccration of Bilbops: For, howbeit the un- “ happy Pack there conveened tied Presbyteries and Sy- nods unto them in the Cafes expreffed ; yet meant they “ not to determine, that there was a diftin£t Office in the “ Word, differing from the Office of a Minifter ; For by the Bifhop of the Diocefe, in the A 6 t of Glafgo’Wy is “ not meant a Bifhop by Office, but only a fimple Mini- “ fter, fo ftiled in the preceeding Alfembly, and that vul- garly, in refpeft of his great Benefice of Bifhoprick.’* As the Members of the forefaid pretended Affembly were all nominate by the King, fo there were none of the ho- neftPartof the Miniftry prefent; and, zs CaJdenwood rC" ports, neither was it convenient that they Jhould mix with them^ Idift. p. 625. Again, the five Articles of Pertb^ whereby fome of the Englijh Ceremonies were brought into Scotland^ were concluded by a Meeting at Perth ufurping the Name and Authority of a General Affembly, but tefti- fied againft by the Bulk and Body of Minifters and Pro- feffors through the Land. From what is above obferved, we may fee a vaft Difference betwixt the Conduct of Ju¬ dicatories during the Period before 1658, and thePraftice of the prefent Judicatories: As for Inftance, The Courfe of Defection, from the Year 1596 and downward, was carried on by Threatnings, and manifold A< 9 :s of Force and Violence from the Civil Powers; but the Courfe of D d De- * CalderwootTs Elift. p. 6ia, t P* ( 210 ) Pefeftion carried on at prefcnt by the Judicatorlc; them- felves, our Ruin is from ourklves; there is no Violence nor Force done the Judicatories, they are nor terrified with Threatnings, they walk readily and willingly in their prefent backfliding Courle and Way. Again, the above- mentioned Courfe of Defection was carried on by packed Meetings of fome corrupt Miniflers, with Noblemen and Gentlemen, who ufurped the Name and Authority of a General AfiTembly; when, as Mr. obferves ||, the true Reprelentatives or lawful Aflemblies of the Church of Scotland never confented to the faid Courfe of Defe¬ ction : The Cry of Minifters and Presbyteries during that Period was for a free and lawful General Aflembly, confi¬ ning of Members chofen according to the Form and Order preferibed by the Church of Scotland ; but this they could not obtain till the memorable 1658, when the Lord turned back the Captivity of his People : But the prefent Courfe of Defection is carried on by General Affemblies, confifting of Members chofen after the ufual Manner by Presbyteries. From all which it is evident, that the pre- Icnt Courfe of Defection is carried on by the prefent Ju¬ dicatories of this National Church in their Ecclefiaftical or Judicative Capacity, and who in the fame Capacity are ^willingly ‘walking after the Commandments of Men ; where¬ as the Courfe of Defection, from 1596 101638, was car¬ ried on by outward Violence and Force from the fecular Powers, and by pretended Aflemblies, in Oppofition unto the Contendings, not of Minifters only, but alfb of the proper Judicatories of the Church of Scotland, The next Thing that I am to enquire into is. If fuch as faithfully witnefled againft the Courfe of Defection, during the above-mentioned Period, did contend in a Way of Church-communion with the corrupt Party ; or, if they contended in a Way of Seceflion from them ? The Author of the EJfay is very peremptory and pofitive, as we have heard, that they all contended in a Way of Church-com¬ munion ; but in this he mifreprefenls their ConduCt and Procedure, and in feveral particular Inftances he aflerts ■what is neither Truth nor Matter of FaCtTlt is therefore recdful, that upon this Head I give fome particular In¬ ftances of Seceflion from the corrupt Party that were car¬ rying on at this Time a Courfe of Defection; and, from the Practice and declared Sentiments of fome eminent Minifters that 1 lhall name, 1 hope to make it evident, that (I Confut, 3 d Dial, p, 6. ( 2II ) that their Contending was not always in a Way of Church- f communion with the corrupt Party, or with their corrupt Judicatories, as the Author of the EJfay pofitively deter¬ mines. And, for clearing this Head, I may obferve in the 1 ^rji Place, That many Presbyteries, as well as particular I Minifters, exprefly dilowned the Authority and Conftitu- tion of the feveral pretended Aflemblics in that Period, as alfo they refufed Obedience to their Adis: Many Pref- byteries, as I have narrated above, never admitted of the conftant Moderators appointed by the pretended Affembly at Linlithgow 1606 ; and, when the five Articles were paft by the pretended Afiembly at Perth, the moft Parc of Presbyteries, as well as particular Miniflers, refufed to acknowledge the Authority of that Affembly, or to yield Obedience to its A-ael in the Straits of Pibahirotb be¬ twixt Migdol and the Sea, an unexpected Deliverance v/as given her in the Year 1658: And, for fome Years there¬ after, the Glory of the Lord did Ihine upon this Church; Shu look'd forth as the Mornings fair as the Moon^ clear as the SuMy and terrible as an Army with Banners. I know none of the Presbyterian Denomination in Scotland, that have not both writ and fpoke honourably of this Period, till the Author of the Ejfay on Separation appeared upon the Field, who under a Pretence (Pref p. 5.) that the Faults of the Church of Scotland from 1658 to 1649 Ihould be Icarched out, confeffed, mourned over, and teftified againft, as much as her Faults 1650 or 1651, and other Times; under this Pretence, I fay, he loads the Aflcmbly 1638, and other Affemblies of that Period, with very unwarrantable and odious Proceedings: He fpeaks frequently in a very diminutive Manner of that reforming Period; he tells us, That fome do reckon it the purefl 'Times of Presbytery, he Calls it an extolled Period, Effay p. 199, and, p. 21. fays he, ‘‘ All our Separatifts wonderfully magnify the ACfs “ of Aflemblies during that Period.” Tho’I judge it jny Duty to make honourable Mention of the forelaid Pe¬ riod, and to edeem it as a reforming Period of this Church ; yet, if any reckon it faultlefs, or extol it above Meafure, I fhall not vindicate them; But I may fafely fay, that the AfTociare Presbytery, who are reckoned by our Author amongll: the Separatifts, have kept within jud Bounds, when they exprefs themfelves in the following Manner, in their judicial AB and Tejiimony, p. 18. “ But, fince the “ Church while militant is in an imperfeft State, it is not “ hereby intended to affirm, that under the above men- “ tioned Period there was nothing defective or wanting as to the Beauty and Order of the Houfe of God, or that “ there was nothing culpable in the Adminiftration; All “ that is defigned by the above particular Deduction is, “ to declare that this Church endeavoured, and merci- fully attained, a confiderablc Pitch of Reformation du- r:nf the forefnd Per'od ; towards this their feveral Con- “ t< dings and Wrcfllings, their folemn Vows and En- gagements, ’heir Declarations and Tclfimonies, all pointed. ” In the above Words, tlic Presbytery affirm, that ( S27 ) that the Judicatories of this Church endeavoured, and mercifully attained, a confidcrable Pitch of Reformation during the Period mentioned ; and they give I'everal par¬ ticular Inffances of this: I find none of them controverted by onr Author, except the laft, viz* an Ad: paft in Par¬ liament 1649, which I fhall confider in its proper Place. The Presbytery likewife affirm. That the fevcral Conten- dings and Wreltlings, the fblemn Vows and Engagements, the Declarations and Teftimonies of this Church during that Period, all pointed towards Reformation : And this is what our Author cannot refufe, tho* he has not done that Juliice to this reforming Period as to acknowledge fo much. And, from what I have obferved in the preceeding Chap¬ ters, I hope the unprejudifed Reader may fee, that the general Tendency of the Judicatories in the prefent Period is tov/ards Deformation : They are Co far from holding faft v/hat we have received, and from contending towards further Reformation, that they are letting Jlip thefe Things that we have attained, and are juftifying them- felves in their feveral Defedtions and Backflidings. This one Obfervation is alone fufficient for the Vindica¬ tion of what is aflerted with rcfpedl: to our reforming Period, in the Presbytery’s Act and Tefitmony. But I judge it my Duty to endeavour to do Julfice to that de- fpifed Period of our Reformation, by confidering more particularly the Treatment that the Author of ihc EJfay has given the AfTembly 1658, and other famous Afl'em* blies ; And, in order to this, I fliall premife a fliort hifto- rical Account of that wonderful Turn the forefaid Year, *Tis, as I have already obferved, a confidcrable Lefs un¬ to this Church, that we have not a full and compleat Hi- ftory of that Period : However I fhall make ufe of fuch Helps as I have at Hand, and, amongft others, of the tin Hiftory, intituled, Hifioria Motuum in Regno Scotite, or, Yi&e Htfiory of the Commotions in the Kingdom of Scotland^ &c. This Hiftory was writ, according to feme, by Mr. Spang ; bur, according to others, by Mr. Baillie, who was firft Minifter at Kilwinning^ and a Member of the Afiem- bly 163S, and afterwards Principal of the College of G;4/^ gow, and one of the Commlffioners of this Church to the Aftembly at IVeJlminfler: The Latin Stile of the faid Hi¬ ftory is agreeable to that of Mr. Baillie's in his other WTirings, and, if need were, other Evidences of his be¬ ing the Author of that Hiftory might even at this Diftancq of Time be produced. I likewife make ufe of d Manu- F f 2 ( 428 ) fcvipt youvnal of the Proceedings of the AfTemhlies and 1639, which I know is in the Hands of feverals; and it agrees everywhere with the Latin Hiftory, and may juftly be reckoned of equal Authority with any Manu- feript of this Kind; Only the Reader may notice, that the Speeches of the Members of Aflembly which are re¬ corded in the Journal, fome of which I have tranferibed, Teem to have been taken in fhnrt Hand when they v/cre delivered, and therefore muff needs labour under Ibmc Difadvantage; yet I thought it might give fome Light in¬ to the Proceedings of the AlTembiy 1638, and I hope it will not be difagreeahle to the Reader that I have trail'# feribed a few of them. And what 1 intend for the Vin¬ dication of our reforming Period from 163S to 1649, I fhall cafl into the following Se£tions. SECT. I. A Jkort hijior'ical Account of that glorious Ap^ pearance of God for the Church of Scotland in the Tear 1638. B efore Iglve a particular Account of that re¬ markable Turn of Affairs in this Church and Land in the Year 1637 and 1638, I do nor reckon it a- mifs to take notice of Ibme Things by which the Lord paved a Way for this great and glorious Revolution. Tho’ the Perfecuticn was hot againft fome eminent Mi- nifters, yet many, by the fpecial Providence of God, had a peaceable Refidence at their Several Paftoral Charges: Some of them were proteffed by Perfons of confiderahle Diffinffion; not a few of the firft Rank in Scotland did diftinguifh themfelvesby a Concern for the Purity of Go- fpel-ord'nances; even before the Year 1^)38, the Pride and Ambition of the Prelates rendered them odious to many of the firft Rank and Quality in Scotland, And, be- fides, feverals both of the Nobility and Gentry retained a Love and Reg.ird to our Reformarinn-purity ; and there¬ fore many eminent Nfinifters were countenanced and pro¬ tected in the peaceable Excrcifc of their Miniftry : A- mongft others, Mr. Datjid Dkhfcn Minifter at Irvine, after Ihe was deprived hv the f-ligh CommilTion Court, and con¬ fined to Jurrijf in the North, was, thro’ the Earl of E’glirifoun's Influence, liberate from his Coufinemcnr, and ftftQrcd wnio the Excrcifc pf his Miniftry at Jrv-ne. Like- ( 229 ) wife, tlio’ the Violence of the Bifhops before the Year 1658 was great, yet it was nothing like the Tyranny and Fury of the Prelates in the late Times of Prelacy, as the Reader may fee from Mr. If'^oodrow's Hiftory, where, fta- ting the Difference betwixt the Prelates in the late Times and the former Bifhops, he oblerves :f:, “ That the old “ Sett of Bifliops made by the Parliament 1612. were buc “ Pigmies to the prefent high and mighty Lords.” Hence, many faithful Miniflers, who did not countenance the Dio- cefian Synods, had yet peaceable Refidence in their own Parifhes ; the Lord made the If rath of Man to praife h'tm^ and the Remainder of IVrath he did refrain. And here I cannot but notice one Thing which paved a Way for the above great Turn of Affairs, and by which the Lord pre¬ pared a People for himfelf; namely, The remarkable Sue- cefs that did attend Gofpel-ordinances under the Miniftry of fuch faithful Gofpei-minifters at this Time, who had nor conformed to Prelacy, The Author of the Fulfilling^ of the Scriptures, p. 416. reports, “ That there was a very “ fblemn and extraordinary Out-letting of the Spirit about “ the Year 1625 and thereafter in the Weft of Scotland,, and particularly under the Miniftry of Mr. Dickfon at “ [rvine." As alfo, he mentions that folemn Communion at the Kirk of Shots, “ At which Time {fays he') there was fo convincing an Appearance of God, and Down-pour- “ ing of the Spirit, even in an extraordinary Way, that did follow the Ordinances, efpecially the Sermon on “ Monday, with a ftrange unufual Morion on the Hearers, who in a great Multitude were there conveened of dim, verfe Ranks, that it was known (which, adds he, I can “ fpeak on fure Ground) near Five hundred had at that Time a difcernible Change wrought on them, of whom moft proved lively Chriftians afterwards, Likewife, about this Time folemn Fafts were obferved through the Land, on account of the prefent difmal and deplorable Stare of the Church of Scotland. Here I fhall tranferibe the Teftimony of an Adverfary, viz. Bifhop Guthrie, who in his Memoirs, p. 8. fpeaking of the honeft Minifters of that Period, he tells us, “ They laboured to “ increafe the Number of their Profelytes everywhere, “ and that not without Succefs, efpecially in Ffe, and in the weftern Parts. Whereunto {fays he) a W'ay, which “ they then begun, proved very conducible ; and this it “ w'as: They kept foraetimes every Year a Faft in every ‘‘ Kirk ^ VoJ. i. p. up f *3° ) “ Kirk throughout the Kingdom, where the Minifters “ were rf their Stamp, •l-.z.. upon the firft Sabbath of « every Quarter; whereof there was no publick Intima- “ tion, fave that the Minifters did privately define fo many of their Flock, as from Time to Time they could draw “ over to their Parry, to join in it: And, upon rhofe “ Days of Fafting, they ufed in their Dodlrine to hint at “ the Danger of Religion by Prelacy, and the Depen- “ dencies thereof; and in their Prayers to fupplicate for Remedy, with a BlefTing upon all good Means which Providence fhould atford for that End ; by which Courfc they prevailed much upon the Commons.’* This perfi¬ dious and apoftate Prelate does everywhere in his Me¬ moirs mifreprefent the Proceedings of faithful Minifters both before and after the Year 1658 ; bur from bis above W'ords we may gather what was true Matter of Fa6t, Viz. That the honeft Minifters at that Time kept folemn Fafts, for mourning over the Sins and Backflidings of the Land, and for Prayer unto the Lord for a Revival unto his Work in Scotland ; and the Lord was pleafed to give a gracious Return unto their Prayers in the Year 1638. I proceed now to give as fhort an Account as I can of the Beginning and Progrefs of that remarkable Appearance of the Lord in the forefaid Year. In the Year 1637, a Liturgy with a Book of Canons be¬ ing framed by the Bifhops for Scotland., King Charles I. refolved, however difagreeable they were unto a great many in the Church of Scotland., to impofe the fame upon that Church His Defign is now open and declared, to bring the Church of Scotland unto a full Conformity with the Church of England. The Liturgy deviled for ScoU land was in feveral Particulars worfe than the Ene^lip Li- turgy, and more agreeable to that of the Church of Romez The Latin Hiftorian gives fome Inftances to this Pur- pofe f. And, by the Book of Canons defigned to be imr pofed upon the Church of Scotland, Presbyteries and Sef- rons which yet lubfifted were wholly fuppreffed But, when cur Night was moft dark, behold, the Day breaks; when our Strength Teemed to be quite gone, the Lord of Hofts awoke for his opprefled Heritage, his right Hand and his holy Arm did work Deliverance for them: When the Liturgy is at firft impofed upon Scotland, a Shaking began amongft the dry Bones; this Shaking did wax louder and louder, and the Bones came together Bone unto Bene, and /c, the t riift. Mor. p. zS, ( S31 ) the Sinews tame up upon them, and the ^hin covered them above ; and the Spirit of Life from the Lord did enter into Miniders and Profeflors, yea, into all Ranks of Per- fons through the Land. According to King Charles I. his exprefs Orders, the Liturgy is firll opened in the great Church of Edinburgh by the Dean, with the Affiftance of the Biihop of that Diocefe, upon the 23^ of ^uly 1637: Bur, the moft Part of the People rifing at that Inftanr, the Reading was ftopr, and in like Manner in another of the Churches, where the Bifhop oiJrgyll was attempting to read it. Within a fliorc Time Supplications were given in to the Council, againtt the Liturgy and Book of Canons, by leveral Minifters and ProfelTbrs through the Land; and in a few Weeks the moft Parr of the N^obility and Gentry, and the moft Parr of the Royal Boroughs, declared themlelvcs againft the above Impofitions upon the Church of Scotland. In the Month of September the forefaid Year, a great Num¬ ber of Minifters with Elders conveen at Edinburgh, and fupplicate the Council againft the fame: Likcwife feveral Petitions figned by Perfons of all Ranks, againft the Service- book and the Book of Canons, were put into the Hands of the Duke of Lennox, who was then going to the Court, that he might prefent them to the King ; and in the mean Time the Privy Council difcharged the Biftiops to prefs the Liturgy, till the King fhould be informed about the prefent State of Matters in Scotland: Upon which, the Minifters and Elders that were met at Edinburgh retired unto their feveral Dwellings. The Elders, who upon this Occaflon came with the Minifters to Edinburgh, confifted (according to the Latin Hiftorian) of the Nobility, and of the chief Magiftratcs of the Burghs ; and he reports*, that, upon their return Home, “ publick Fafts were kept, that “ the Lord might turn the Counfels of the King unto the publick Good of this Church and Kingdom, and that “ he might difappoint the Projects then on Foot againft “ the Church of Scotland^ fo much fhaken already by the “ fubtile Devices of her Adverfaries.” The Return to the above Supplications, and Informati¬ ons from the Privy Council, came down from the King in the Month of OHober. Upon this Occafion there was a vaft Confluence from all Parts of the Country to Edin' burgh; according to the Bifhop in his Memoirs, p. 24. Multitudes of People from feveral Parts of the Land “ fiock- * Hift. Mot. p. 35. ( ® , ) “ flocked to EdiKhur^h, to join in lupplicatin^; and tkaf fo generally, that befides the Increal'e of Noblemen, “ who had not been formerly there, there were few or “ no Shires on the South of the Grampian tiills from which came not Gentlemen, Burghers, Minifters and Commons.” But no favourable Anfwer was given to the Supplications that had been fent up to the King ; and a Proclamation was iffued forth, charging all the Suppli¬ cants to depart out of the Tov/n within Twenty four Hours under the Pain of Rebellion : As alfo, the Court of Seffion and the Privy Council were ordered within a a fet Time to remove from Edrnhurgh. But, notvvithftand- ing of the above Proclamation, the Petitioners continued in the Town, their Numbers did daily incrcafe, and by this Time all the Burghs except Aberdeen had declared themfelves againft the above Innovations in the Worfhip of God : And when the Petitioners faw that their formef Supplications were not regarded, and when they confide- red that theCaufe in which they had inrercfted themfelves was a publick and common Caufe, they refblved that they would ad: DO more in a feparate Capacity as hitherto they had done, but in a more unite and joint Capacity. And, about this Time, thefe Meetings were formed which were commonly called the tables) they confided of the Nobility, of the Gentlemen from the Shires, and of Ma- giftrates from the Burghs, and of Miniftcrs from all Corners of the Land. Thefe Meetings did nor aflume to them¬ felves any juridical Power, but were held for Confultation and mutual Advice, with refped to the proper Meafures that fhould be taken for the Redrefs of their prefent Grievances. After the above Proclamations were made, a Petition was agreed upon to be given in to the Privy Council, containing a Complaint againft the Bifhops as Authors of the Liturgy and of the Book of Canons, as Renters of the Church, and Underminers of Religion, as Movers of Difeontent between the King and his Subjeds, and of Difeord between Subjed and Subjed : And, in regard the moft Part of the Bifhops were Members of the Privy Council, they not only craved that the above Charge a- gainft them might be pur to the Trial, but alfo they ftate them as Parties, and crave that they be not fuffered to fit any more as Judges until the Caufe is tried and decided according to Juftice The Latin Hiftorian reports, * RfJl'Worth'i Colled. that a va(^ Number of all Ranks fublbribcd the above Pe» ticion and Complaint, and that it was adhered to by all who had it at Heart to aflert the Liberties of the Church, and the Purity of Divine Worfliip, in Oppofition to the Tyranny of Bifhopsand Superftition Ij. The Number of the Petitioners did daily increafe aC Edinburgh, and the Privy Council had none to fupport their Authority; all Scotland almoft being now engaged on the Side of the Petitioners, the Bifhops and their Ad¬ herents were become a defpicable Party : But, in regard it was judged inexpedient that fuch Numbers fhould con¬ tinue in Edinburgh, as alfo becaufe the Council were of¬ fended at fuch numerous Meetings, therefore it was agreed betwixt the Privy Council and the Petitioners, that fome few Hiould be chofen by the Petitioners themfelves out of their own Number, to remain at Edinburgh, there to attend upon an Anfwer to their (cveral Petitions, Suppli¬ cations and Complaints. In Confequence of this Agree¬ ment and Rciblution, the Nobility chofe four out of their Number ; the Shires, the Burghs and the Minifters did in like Manner each of them choole four to remain at Edin^ burgh for the End above-mentioned, as alfo to give Intel¬ ligence through the Country as fhould be found necefl’ary from Time to Time. I judge it not improper that I here narrate what is reported by the Latin Hijiorian 4 ^, i>iz. Thar, before they parted from Edinburgh, “ they came “ under folemn Promifes and Engagements each of them “ for perfonal Reformation, as alfo that they would be infiant in Faffing and Prayer, that the Lord would turn “ away his Anger from his People, and that he would be “ gracioufly pleafed to turn the Heart of the King to “ fuch Counfels as might be for the Glory of God, the Honour of the Crown, and the Peace and Safety of his “ Subjefts,” The Privy Council informed the King concerning the Petition and Complaint againft the Bifhops; and, by an Exprefs fent down in the Beginning of December,the King difeharges the Council to meddle any more in that Mat¬ ter: Whereupon, the Deputies from the Petitioners refbl- ved upon a Proreftation to be given in to the Council, bearing that they had tried all peaceable Mcafures without Succefs, and that it might be warrantable for them to ufe their Endeavours for the Prefervation of the Liberties of G g ths 11 Hift. Mot. p. 35. ^ p. 38. ( *54 )„ , the Church; as alfo, declaring, that if any Tumult arofe, thro’ their Profecution of the Caufe, the Council only might be blamed, as refufing Juftice. When the Privy Council heard of the above Protellation, they agreed to give the Deputies a Hearing, and in the mean Time adviie the Bilhops to withdraw from the Council. The Privy Council being met at Dalkeith on 2ift of December^ the Deputies from the fevcral Petitioners com¬ peared before them : And that religious and truly noble Patriot, the Lord Lowdoriy did, in a very eloquent Speech, juftify the Proceedings of the Petitioners, and infifted that the Bifhops might be tried according to Law and Juftice, and offered to prove them guilty of grievous Crimes, in name of the faid Petitioners, under their high- eft Peril; he likewife obtefted the Privy Council, that without further Delay they would evidence to the whole Nation their Regard to Juftice and the Purity of Religi¬ on. The Speech of this noble Lord is followed by ano¬ ther from one of the Minifters, who put them in Mind of the Curfe that is pronounced upon MeroZy if they fhould withdraw their helping Hand from the Church in her prefent Situation; as alfo, that the Lord hath laid. Him that honoureth me I ‘Will honour, and tbofe that defpife me /halt he lightly efteemed: He likewife told them, That, •if in this perillous Time they Ihould hold their Peace, Deliverance and Enlargement would come to the Church from Ibme other Airth. The Latin Hiftorian adds That the Minifter infifted upon the above Places of Scrip¬ ture, and applied them in fuch a pathetick Manner, as drew Tears from feveral Members of Council. The An- fwer which the Privy Council gave to the laid Deputies or Commiflioners was. That they were bound up by the King’s exprefs Orders from mecidling in thefe Matters; and they likewife exprelTed their Grief and Sorrow that they could not fatisfy the Defires of the Petitioners, and therefore told them to w'ait yet patiently for a fhort Time, till they fhould again inform the King about the prefent Pofture of Affairs. Accordingly the Privy Council wrote unto the King; and the King fent for the Earl of 7 ra- ^uair, that he might have a more particular Information from him concerning the State of Matters in Scotland. In the Month of February 1658 the Earl of Iraquair returned from Court, and he went to Stirling, where the Privy Council was fitting, where a Proclamation was pu- blifhcd f Hift. Mot. p. 40r , ( *35 ) bliHied in the King’s Name, wherein the King owned the Liturgy and the Book of Canons, and declared they were nor contrary to the Laws of the Land; as alfo, that the Liturgy was a ready Mean to maintain the true Religion already profefled ; Likewife, the faid Proclamation con¬ demned the Meetings of the Supplicants as Confpiracies contrary to the Laws of the Land, and difeharged all fuch Meetings of the Subjefts to be held either in Stirlings or in any other Burgh where the Privy Council or Court of SefTioJi fhould fir. The Petitioners prepared a Prote- ftation againft the above Proclamation, which was read by the Karl of Home and Lord Lindfay^ accompanied with a great Croud of Nobles and People, and affixed on the Croft of Stirling', and Inftruments were taken thereupon in the Hands of a publick Notar *. In the faid Proteftation, they protefted againft the Books of Liturgy and Canons, as manifeft Innovations, and full of Errors and Superfti- tion; and likewife againft the Privy Council’s refufing to receive Libels againft the Bifhops: They protefted like- wife againft the High Commiffion Court, as a Court ob¬ truded on Scotland contrary to the fundamental Laws of the Land ; as alfo, that the Bifhops fhould not be Judges in their own Caufe: And they further protefted, that their Meetings and Supplications were lawful and warrantable, being only intended againft the Tyranny of the Bifhops, and for the juft Rights and Liberties of the Church, and againft the Novations lately obtruded upon her; and there¬ fore, that it fhould be warrantable for them to continue thefe Meetings for the above Ends and Purpofes. And finally, they protefted, that they could not with a good Confcicnce forbear the faid Meetings, unlefs they fhould wrong the Glory of God, and betray the Honour of the King, and the Liberties of Church and Kingdom. The Deputies at Edinburgh had fent Intelligence unto the Petitioners through the Nation, concerning the prefenc State of Matters: And,' upon this Occafion, a great Num¬ ber of Noblemen, Gentlemen, Minifters and others con- veen at Stirling ; according to Bifliop Guthrie in his d/e- mcirsy they w'ere reckoned above Two thoufand in Num¬ ber. They refblved, upon the above Proclamation that was made dilcharging them to continue in Stirling under Pain of Rebellion, to depart peaceably to Edinburgh. And here I muft inform the Reader, that they began now to teftify in a more plain and more folcmn Manner for the G g 2 Li- Rapine's Hift. Vol, 2. p. 302. Folio. I ( 1^6 ) Liberties of the Church of Stotlandf and our Reformation- purity. The Proclamation that I have mentioned bad a quite contrary EfLdt to what was intended and defigned by the King and the Prelatick Party: It iffned in a pu- blick Acknowledgment of their Breach of Covenant, and in the Return of all Ranks of Pcrfons through the Land unto the Lord, by the Renovation of their folemn Natio¬ nal Engagements; and this was done, both with deep Mourning, and with great Joy. I fhall here tranfcribe what the feveral Writers 1 have before me report upon this extraordinary Occafion. The Paper I have formerly mentioned, intituled, A Jhort Relation of the State of the Kiik of Scotland, publifhed Anno 1658, narrates, That “ the whole Nobility, Gentry, “ Boroughs, Minifters and Commons, who had now lb often fupplicate, and fo long attended, were caft into ‘‘ great Difficulties ; confidering their Religion, fo well “ warranted by God’s Word, and eftabliffied by the Laws of the Kirk and Kingdom, was now' begun to be changed, “ both in Doctrine and Difeipline, at the PJeafurc of the “ Fourteen Bifliops, and the Liberties of the Country like to be infringed by their Ufurpation; and, having com- “ plained often upon them to his Majefty by his Council, were anfwered by the former Declaration, viz. at Sth~ “ ling,- -All thefc did move the Supplicants to bethink the renewing of the National Covenant of this Kirk and “ Kitigdom (the Breach whereof hath been a fpecial “ Caufe to bring thele Evils upon them) as a good Mean “ for obtaining the Lord’s wonted Favour, having many “ Examples in holy Scripture, that the People of God “ have happily renewed their Covenant with God.” The ApoJo^etick Relation^ p. 47. reports, Thar, being “ com- “ manded to depart forth of the Town of Stirlings they go together towards Edinburgh) and there, after ferious Thoughts, they find the main procuring Caule of all “ thele Calamities to be the Violation of the National Co- “ venanr, ai d therefore they unanimoufly refolved to re- “ new that Covenant. ” The Latin Hiftofian reports f, “ That a numerous Company went from Stirling to Edin- “ burgh, adverdfing their AlTociates, that they fhould come quickly thither, in order to deliberate on fuch Things as might make for their common Safety : And when “ they called to Mind, that the chief Caufe of all their Calamities, both of old and of late, was the Breach of “ the t Hift. Mot. p. 45. “ the National Covenant that had been made with God, “ they unanimoufly conclude upon a folemn Rcnovatioa “ of the fame.” But the Account that is given by the Church of Scot* in their Letter to the Churches of Helvetia in the Year 1640, concerning this important Matter, deferves to be noticed. This excellent Letter contains a fuccinft Account of the State of the Church of Scotland from her Reformation till the Year 1640 ; and, concerning this re¬ markable Turn in the Year 1638, they exprefs- them- felves in the following Manner: “ For when, by the “ King’s Proclamation, Minifters and People were caft “ into fuch Straits, that they-were forced either to ly un- “ der the Charge of Rebellion, or to embrace that Litur- gy, contrary to the Oath, Faith, and Laws of Church “ and Country ; it came to pafs, that the Eftates of the Kingdom, whofe Patience was for along Time benum- ** med in bearing with the Bifhops, being awakned with “ the News of this Liturgy, did take Counfel concerning; “ extirpating Corruptions, and refforing their antient “ Purity. Therefore they infilled by many Suplications, intreating, belceching, and exhorting his moft Serene Highnefs the and his honourable Council^ that “ they would fuccour the afflidted Church, and call the “ Bifhops to an Account, who were the Authors of fo “ great Mifehiefs: But while they perceived that no Re- “ drefs was given them, and that no Anfwer was retur- “ ned unto their Petitions, and that their Demands were “ nor regarded, they entred more deep tivitbin their own “ Breafts^ fearching into the Recejfes of their Souls', and the Remembrance of their Breach of Covenant did flings wound and pierce through their Confciences : Wherefore,, being moved with ferious Repentance, they refolved to re- new their Covenant or National Confejfion, which was at frfl figned with all their Hands, ( vix.. of the General “ Meetings or Eftates of the Kingdom; ) then, a folemn Fajl being appointed, it was puhlickly ratified in the Chur- “ ches, by (wearing with their ripjot Hands lifted up, with deep Grones and Fears ||. ” Here the Reader may fee the Eftates of the Kingdom ordines regni, fb they are defigned in the Letter, as alfo the whole Nation, under ftrong Conviftions and deep Sorrow and Mourning. What was the Ground and Reafon of all this Sorrow and Mour¬ ning ? It was even their Breach of Covenant. Bur, where- 11 Hift Mot. ad fioj ( 238 ) ivherein were they guilty of Breach of Covenant? They had never fubmittcd to the Liturgy, nor to the Book of Canons, they had always oppofed them, and teftified againft them; Therefore this Sorrow for the Breach of their Covenant was on Account of the Courfe of Defection that had been carried on for above thirty Years bypaft, by the rearing up of Prelacy, and by the five Articles of Perthy and what Compliances there had been with the fame When the Petitioners had met at EMnhurghy and bad rcfolved to renew the Covenant as is above declared ; the Covenant, as it was framed by the General Meetings, con- three Parts. They firft inferted the National ConrelTion of Faith without any Alteration, as it was com- fworn in the Year 1580 by the King and his Houfhold, and thereafter by Perfons of all Ranks in the Year 1581, according to an Ordinance of the Privy Council, and an Adt of the General AfTembly; and again by all Sorts of Perfons in the Year 1590 Immediately after the above National Confeflion, the General Meetings did infert a great many Afts of Parlia- of the reformed Religion, in Dodtrine, Worfhip and Difcipline: Thefe Adts of Parliament were infert at ^at Time by the Meetings at Edinburgh, to jufti- ly their Proceedings before the World , and to fhew, that they were not adting contrary to the laudable Laws of the Land, but that they had Law on their Side, even tho* the Court was oppofing their prefent Proceedings. And here I rouft obferve, that it is a Miftake that many are un¬ der, when they affirm. That the feveral Adis of Parliament mentioned are a Part of the Oath of the Covenant; for all that IS mtended by them is to prove the legal V\'arrant t at the Covenanters had for their prefent Proceedings. As the King’s Coronaticn-oath is infert among the reft, lo u would be ridiculous to fay that the Subiedfs fwore the Coronation-oath. After the above Adfs of Parliament, inftead of the ge- ^ral Bond which was fubjoined to the Covenant in the year 1590, the Meetings at Edinburgh Bond, whereby the National Confejfton of Faith or Covenant is ac¬ commodated to their Circumftances at that Time. This was done after the Example of their worthy and religious Progenitors, who in the faid i 590 had figned the Cove¬ nant, w ith a Bondagrcc-dbkto their Situation and Circum- nances in the forefaid Year. In the Bend that was agreed upon ( 239 ) upon in the Year 1658, they condemn the Innovation!? and Kvils contained and particularly mentioned in their late Supplications, Complaints and Proteftations; as having no Warrant of the Word of God, and alfo as contrary to the Articles both of the large ConfelTion of Faith, and of the National Confefiion or Covenant. With refpeft to the Innovations in the Worfhip of God, •viz. by the five Ar¬ ticles of Perth, and the Corruption of the publick Govern¬ ment of the Kirk, and the Civil Places and Power of Kirkmen, they bind themfelves to forbear the Praftice of all fuch Novations, till they be tried and allowed in free Aflemblies and in Parliaments. And they further en¬ gage “ to labour, by all Means lawful, to recover the Pu- “ rity and Liberty of the Gofpel, as it was eftablifiied and “ profeffed before the forefaid Novations.” ’Tis plain, that, by the above Words of the Bond^ the five Articles of Perth, the Government of the Kirk by Bifhops, QPc* are virtually condemned; in regard they are called Nova¬ tions, and under the forefaid Novations that Purity and Liberty of the Gofpel, as it was formerly eftablifhed and profelTed, was wanting. But yet the General Meetings do not exprefly condemn the above Novations as contrary to the Confeflion of Faith, but refer the Queftion to the De» termination of a free and lawful General Aflembly; in re¬ gard feverals doubted if the Novations mentioned were contrary to our National Confeflion of Faith: And as the General Meetings did not aft in a judicative Capacity, £b they thought it proper to refer the Queftion to the De¬ termination of an Aflembly, efpecially when they had now the Hopes of having fuch a free and lawful Aflembly, to whom they might fafely refer a Queftion of this Na¬ ture. But it is here to be noticed, that fuch as were in the Dark upon this Queftion, were willing tofubmit the fame to the Trial and Determination of a free and lawful Aflem¬ bly ; and hereby they likewife declared themfelves wil¬ ling to ly open unto Light upon the above importan tQue- ftion. The Latin Hiftorian * mentions them as a confi- derable Number, who either reckoned the aforefaid No¬ vations indift'erent, or who doubted if they were condem¬ ned by our National Confeflion of Faith : But, as that learned Author was the only Member of the Aflembly at Glafgow who did hefitate when the Queftions were deter¬ mined concerning the Government of the Kirk by Bifhops, and the five Articles of Perth', Co he feems to magnify the Num- f Hift. Mot. p. ( 240 ) Numbers, as Is evident from what is already obferved con¬ cerning the Proceedings of the General Meetings, and may yet more fully appear from what I am further to offer upon what paft this Year, Befides what concerned the above-mentioned Novations, the Bond fubjoined to the Covenant contains a qualified Allegiance to the King, viz. an Engagement, to “ fiand “ to the Defence of our dread Sovereign the King’s Ma- “ jefty his Perfon and Authority, in the Defence and Pre- fervation of the forefaid true Religion, Liberties and “ Laws of the Kingdom As alfo, they bind themfelves to the mutual Defence and Afllftance one of another, in the fame Caufe of maintaining the true Religion and his Majefty’s Authority. They likewife “ fwear, by the great Name of the Lord their God, to continue in the Pro- “ fefiion and Obedience of the forefaid Religion; and “ that they fhall defend the fame, and refift all the con- “ trary Errors and Corruptions fpecified, according to “ their Vocation, and to the utmoft of that Power that “ God hath put in their Hands, all the Days of their Life.” In like Manner, they bind themfelves to a Life and Con- verfation as befeemeth Chriftians who have renewed their Covenant with God ; and that both in pubfick, and in their particular Families andperfonal Carriage, they fhall endeavour to keep themfelves within the Bounds of their Chriftian Liberty; and alfo to be good Examples to o- thers, of all Godlinels, Sobernefs and Righteoufhefs, and of every Duty to God and Man. As the above is the Sum and Subftance of the Bond which the General Meetings at Edinburgh fubjoined, fo the Covenant with the faid Bond was fworn with great Solem¬ nity on the firftof March 1658, in the Gray~friarsQ\\UTch of Edinburgh. The Flower of the Nation were prefent; this fblemn Meeting confifted of the Nobility, of the Ba¬ rons and Gentlemen from the feveral Shires, of Burgefles from the Burghs, with Minifters and others; and thereaf¬ ter Copies of the Covenant were fent through the whole Nation, According to the Hiflorian *, it was fworn through the whole Land before the End of Afril^ except by F«/>;^j,who were then but a very inconfiderable Party ; as alfo excepting fuch who were addifted to the Enghjb Ceremonies, and w ho favoured the Book of Canons and Liturgy, amongft w hom he reckons the Aberdeen Dodtors and Minifters: He mentions alfo others who at their En¬ trance * Hift, Mot. p. 60. ( 241 ) tfaiice into the Miniftry had engaged to the OhlervanCe of the Articles of Perth. But the Apologetical Relation re-* ports, p, 48. “ Thai in a fliort Time few in all the Land “ did refufc, except fome Papifis^ fome afpiring Courtiers “ who had no Will to difpleafe the King, fome who were “ addifted unto the Englijb Rites and Ceremonies, and “ fome fevj Minifters who had fworn the Oath at their Entry appointed by the Parliament Anr.o 1612.” Mn Rapine informs us t» “ That the Innovations introduced “ into the Church for thirty or forty Years part, were difapproven by almoft the whole Kingdom/’ And,ha¬ ving infcrt the above-mentioned Bond, he adds, “ This Covenant, like an Alarm-bell, brought all the Scots to** “ gether that were diflfatisfied with the Government, that “ is,almoft the whole Nation ! It was fubfcribed by the great Men and the People, except the Privy Coun- fellers, the Judges, the Bifhops, and fuch Minifters as were Dignitaries in the Church/’ I have already given an Account, from the Letter to the Churches in Helvetia^ after what Manner the Covenant was fworn at this Time, Tho* the faidTeftimony is fuffici- ent, yet I ftiall fubjoin a few mo, who take notice, noC only of Mourning, but alfo of great Joy through the Land upon this folemn Occafion, with great Readinefs and Wil- lingnefs in coming under the Oath of God. The firjl I Ihall mention is Bifhop Guthrie in his Me* moirs, p. 50, where he tells us, That ‘‘upon thefirftof “ March 1638, they being all aflembled in the Gray-friars ** Church and Church-yard, the Covenant was publickly “ read, and fubfcribed by them all with much Joy and Shouting. He addsfVhQ Archbifhop of 'St. Andrews being “ then return’d from Stirling to Edinburgh, when he heard “ what was done, laid, Elow all that we have been doing “ thefe thirty Tears pafl is thrown down at once." The Apologetick Relation, p. 48, informs us, “ That “ the Covenant, being read in the Churches, was heartily “ embraced and fworn, and fubfcribed with Tears, and “ great Joy.” “ He adds^ Great was this Day of the. “ Lord’s Power; for much Willingnefs and Cheerfuincfa “ was among the People.” Likewife, Matters Alexander Henderfon and David Dickfon, in their firft Anfwer to the Replies of the Aberdeen Doctors and Minifters, fay, “ And “ for that which difpleafeth you. in our Way, that wc “ deal after fuch a Manner with People to come in {viz. to H h the f Hift. Vol. 1, Fol. p. 303. ( Hi ) the Covenant): We anfwcr, That we have feen in this “ Land the D.ty of the Lord's Po’iver^ wherein his People “ have moft willingly offered rhemfelves in Multitudes, like the Dew of the Morning : That others of no fmall Note “ have offered their Sishfcripthns, and have been refuted, “ till Time fhould try that they join in Sincerity; from “ Love to the Carsfe, and not from the Fear of Men : ‘‘ And that no ^kreafnint’s have been ufed, except of the “ deferved Judgment of God; nor Force, except the ** Force of Reafon, from the high Refpefts which we owe “ to ReligioTt^ to onrKiftg, to our native Country, to our- felves, and to the Pofterity ; which hath been to fome a greater Conftraint than any external Violence, and we i v/ilh may alfo prevail with you.” And from the fore- i ftid Anfwers we may alfo fee, that this fblemn Work was carried on w ith Farting and Edumiliation through the Land ; In the firrt and Eleventh Anfwers ’tis faid,That the Aber¬ deen Minirters declined to concur with the reft of the Kirks oi the Kingdom in publick fJumiliatioH and Farting. I fhall only add the Teftimony of that eminent Minirter, Mr. Livin^fion, who in his Life writ by himfelf, p. 22. reports, ‘‘ I was prefent at Lanark^ and at feveral other “ Parifhes, when, on a Sabbath after the Forenoon’s Ser- •* nion, the Covenant was read and fworn; and may tru- “ ly fay, that in all my Lifetime, except one Day at the Ktrk of Shots, I never faw fuch Motions from the Spirit “ of God; all the People generally, and moft willingly concurring : I have feen more than a Thoufand Perfons “ all at once lifting up their Hands, and the Tears falling “ down from their Eyes; fb that through the whole Land, ** except the profeffed Papi/fs, and fome few who for bafe “ Ends adhered to the Prelates, the People univerfally entred into the Covenant of God, for Reformation of Religion, againft Prelates and the Ceremonies," Reader, ftop here, and behold the Nobility, the Barons, the Burghers, the Minirters and Commons of all Sorts in Scotland, all in Tears for their Breach of Covenant, and for 4 heir Backfliding and Defection from the Lord, and at the fame Time returning with great Joy unto their God, by fwearing cheerfully and willingly to be the Lord’s. It may well be faid of this Day, Great was the Day of JeZ' reel: It was a Day wherein the Arm of the Lord was revealed, a Day wherein the Princes of the People were aflembled, to fwear F?alry and Allegiance to that great King whole Name is the Lord of Hofisx It was the Day ^ ^43 . ), of the Redeemer’s Power, wherein his Volunteers flowed imto him; even the Day wherein his Youth were like the Dew from the Womb of the Morning. If we compare our prefent Times with the above Day of the right Band of the moft High, may we not take up a Lamentation o- ver our Land, and cry, Ah Scotlandy ScotJmdy how is thy. Gold become dim ! how is thy mofl fine Gold changed! Where is that Zical for the Redeemer’s Honour and Glory, that was once warm in the Breads of thy Nobility, thy Barons,, thy Miniftersand Commons? Where is that heroickCou¬ rage and Refolution for the Caufe of Chrift, as well aa for the Liberties of the Nation, that did at this Time a- nimare all Ranks of Perfbns through the Land? Where art thou now ? Ah ! how much funk in great Degeneracy and Defedlion from the Lord ! Can thefe dry Bones in Scotland live ? The Lord only knoweth, the Refidue of the Spirit is with him. It becomes us to acknowledge that we have finned, and that we have dealt treacheroufly in his Cove- vant, and that he is righteous and holy in reffraining his Spirit from us; it is likewife our Duty to wait upon thi^ Lcrdy who hideth his Face from the Houfe of Jacob. The Town of Aberdeen was the only Place of any Cenfideration in Scotland that declined to join in the Cove-n nant, being very much under the Influence of their Mini¬ fters, who all adhered to the Prelatick Intereft : Therefora tite General Meetings at Edinburgh fent Mafters Alexander* Ilenderfon^ David Dickfon and Andrew Cant to that Town^ to deal with Minifters and People in a brotherly and friend¬ ly Manner, to join with the Church and Kingdom in the Covenant lately fworn. And when the faid Minifters came to Aberdeen^ as they report in the Preface to their Anfwers to the Aberdeen Doctors and Minifters, they were altogether refufed the Pulpits and Kirks; and there¬ fore they preached in a convenient Place for two Sabbaths, and delivered their Mcflage in the Audience of many, and they found that their Labour was not in vain in the Lord : “ For, fay they^ diverle Perfbns, of fjjecial Note “ both for Place and Wifdom, with willing Heart and great Readinefs of Mind, did publickly put their Hands “ to the Covenant.” The King being informed of the Proceedings at Edin- lurgb, and of the Renovation of the National Covenant through the Land, he fent down the Marc^uis of Hamiltoun as his High Cornmiffioner to Scotland. The Marc^uis was sovcfted with this eminent Charafter, as Mr. Rapine re- H h 2 poics f 444 ) ports becaufe the King irtiagined he would hy hCs ‘ Credit and Induftry reduce the People of Scotland to his “ Obedience, without giving them any real Satisfad:ion, being ftilj very unwilling to defift from his Projects.” When the Marqms came down to Scotland, he demanded, that they fhould deliver up and renounce their fubferibed Covenant: This they all honcilly and boldly refufed to do. Then the Marquis demanded, What might be ex¬ pected from them for returning to their former Obedience lo the King? They replied, That they could not return to his Majefty’s Obedience, in regard they had never de¬ parted from it; and in the mean Time they infilled for 3 free Affembly and Parliament. When the Marquis could not prevail upon the General Meetings to give up with their fublcribed Covenant, he did, before he returned to Court, publifh a Declaration from the King, bearing Date at Qreennvich the zSth of June this *Vear : This Declaration was defigned more to amufe than to give any re^l Satisf^Clion. By it, the Proceedings of the Meetings at Edinburgh are condemned, under the Name of Diforders and great Diforders; and the King’s IMind with refpeCt lo the Book of Canons, the Liturgy and High Commifiion Court, is declared in very doubtful and general Terms. Upon the publifhing of the above Declaration, a Proteflation is read againfl it at the Crofs of Edinburgh, in the Name of the Noblemen, Barons, &'c. I find, from a Copy of this Protdlation before me printed in the Year 1638, that Inflruments were taken ihcreupon in the Hands of three Notars, by the Earl of Cajpls in Name of the Noblemen, by Mr. Giffon of Dury jn Name of the Barons, by the Provoll of Dundee in Name of the Burrows, and by Mr Kerat Salt-Prefigun in Name pf the Minillcrs, and by Mr. jlrchibald Johnson (after¬ wards Lord Wanjoun') in Name of all who adhered to che Confeliion of Faith and Covenant, lately renewed within this Kingdom, In the above Protdlation, after feyeral weighty Grounds and Reafons laid down againfl the King’s Declaration, they declare their Adherence to the Whole of our Reformation, notwithftanding of any Inno¬ vations introduced, cither of old or of late-. As alfb their Adherence to the Grievances, Supplications, and Protefta- tions given in at AlTemhIies and Parliaments; and to their late Complaints, Supplications, Protdlations, P^c. And likswife their hearty Adherence to their Oath ^nd Subferip- ticq fliH. VqI I. p. |P 2 » ( HS ) tion of tlie Confeflton of Faith, the Solemn Covenant bel tween God and this Church and Kingdom; And, in like Manner, they juffify all their former Proceedings, and pro- left againft any Alitor Deed of rhe Privy Council, carry¬ ing an Approbation of the King’s Declaration, as unjuft, illegal and null ; and offer to fubmit their Caufe to the firft free General Aflembly of the Church, and Parliament of the Eftates. The curious Reader may fee this Pro- teftation, at full Length, together with the King’s Decla¬ ration in Rufhworth's Colle^fions for the Year 1638. After the Return of the Marquis of Hamihoun to the Court, folemn Fafts were obferved through Scotland on Account of the prefent State and Situation of Affairs, and efpecially upon thefe Days wherein the King’s Cabinet Council at London met upon the Affairs of Scotland In the mean Time, the General Meetings^ fearing Delays, agreed to publifh a Paper, intituled, Reaforis for a Gene^ ral JJfernhly ; wherein they prove the Neceflity of a ( 7 ^- neral Jffemhly, from the prefent Stare of the Church of Scotland', and that this is one of the Rights and Privileges that belongs to rhe Church, from the Word of God, to hold fuch Affemblies; as alfo, that the Church of Scot-^ land L warranted to hold her General Affemblies, by fuch Laws of the Land as had never been repealed. And they likewile argue. That when the Chriftian Magiftrate either forbiddeth, or in the urgent Neceffities of the Church forbeareth to conveen Affemblies; thar,in thisCafe, the Church is left to her own Liberty, and muft provide for her own Safety: And for this they give the following Reafbn, which deferves to be noticed; “ The great Wil- dom of Jefus Chrift, the King of the Kirk, hath pro- “ vided fumcient Supplies for all her Neceffities, and fit- “ ting Remedies for all her Evils, of which there be ‘‘ many that cannot be helped without General Affem- blies; and therefore, not only the Chriftian Prince, but the Paftors of the Kirk, efpecially when the In- diftion cannot be obtained of the Prince, are bound, “ as they will anfwer to Chrift, to provide that the Ec- “ clefiaftiek Republick receive no Detriment, and to efteem the Safety of the Kirk to be the fupreme Law’. ” The above Paper is Ihort, but very nervous and ftrong; and about this Time the General Meetings came to a Re- folution, that in cafe the King fhould refufe or delay to call f Hift. Mot. p. jQ. ( ) call a General Affembly, that they would fall upon the moft proper Meafures themfelves, for conveening a free National Afl'embly of the Church of Scotland. The Marquis of Hamiltoun returned again to Scotland about the 12th of Jugufi^ and propofed from the King the granting of an Affembly, but upon fuch Conditions as had an evident Tendency to difapf)oint the Defign of a free General Aflembly. Mr. Rapine reports *, “ That “ the high Commiffioner perceiving he had to deal with “ Men who were upon their Guard, and that it would “ be difficult to furprife them, refblved to take a fecond “ Journey to England, to inform the King of the State of Affairs. By putting the Maheontents (^as Rapine thinks Jit to call our Covenanters') in Hopes the King would grant fuch a General Alfcmbly as they defired, he ob- “ tained with great Difficulty, that the Eleftion of “ CommifTioners Ihould be delayed till his Return, which “ was fixed to the 21ft of September.” Likewife the “ Latin Hiftorian reports j|, That it was with great Dif¬ ficulty that many agreed to the Delay, on account of the f )relcnt Neceffity of a General Affembly : But it was at ength concluded, that, if the Marquis did not return againft the 22d of September, they fhouM proceed in the Election of Commiflioners for a General Affembly. The Marquis returned from London before the Day ap¬ pointed ; and, on the 22d of September, a Proclamation was made for a General Afl'embly to be held and kept at Glafgow upon the 2iff of November, as alfo another Proclamation for a Parliament to meet at Edinburgh on the 15th of May 1659 : Together with the above Proclama¬ tions an Aft of Privy Council was publifhed, comman¬ ding all to flgn the National Covenant or ConfeATion of Faith, with the general Bond lubjoined Jnno 1589. But the General Meetings at Edinburgh perceiving, that, by the above Proclamation for an Aflembly, a free General Aflembly was not intended, for this Reafon amongft o- thers, becaufc Archbifliops and Bifhops, as well as other Commiflioners, were warned to repair to the faid Affem- bly as Members thereof; Alfo, they perceiving that by the Aft of the Privy Council, appointing the Covenant to he fworn and fubferibed with the Bond annexed Mnna J589, the Covenant as it was lately fworn, with the Bond wliich the faid Meetings had fubjoin’d thereto, was upi- on the Matter condemned ; Therefore they prepare a Pro- * Vol.i. p. 306. II Hift. Mot. p. 72. ( 247 ■) Proteftation, ■which was read ar rhe Crofs of Ed'mhtYph^ immediately after the above Proclamations, in the midft of many Noblemen, Barons, Gentlemen, &c. adhering to the fame. The above Proteftation is long, and well drawn. They firft give Thanks unto the King for indidting a General AflTembly, and declare their Refolurion to hold the Af- fembly at the Time appointed; then they pray, that the Lord may inlarge the King s Heart, to give full Satisfa- ftion to all their Grieves and Complaints: After this, they declare the Reafons that moved them to this Proteftation, and amongft others, fay they, “ That Chrift our Lord, “ the King of Kings, thro’ our Negleft or Lukewarm- “ nefs, may want no Parr of his Sovereignty and Domi* “ nion; and that in our Religion, which is more dear unto *' us than our Lives, we deceive not ourielves with that which cannot fari.^fy, Then they take Notice of fome Things in the Preamble to the King’s Proclamation, as prejudicial to the Freedom of the intended Affembly ; and they proteft exprefly againft that Claufe in the Procla¬ mation, warning Archbifhops and Bifhops to be prefent as if they had Place and Voice there. They likewife proteft againft the Aft and Proclamation, commanding the Bond framed in the Year 1589 to be figned: Amongft other weighty Reafons, they obferve. That, by the fubferibing of the faid Bond, the Land would be involved in Perju¬ ry ; in regard it wodd be a Departing from their Tefti- mony lately given in the Bond that they had fworn and figned, whereby the National Covenant was accommodate to their preftnt Circumftances, and wherein the Liturgy and Book of Canons were exprefly condemned: They likewife obferve. That the Bond 15S9 was general, and nowife adapted to their prefent Circumlfances. And here they have fome beautiful Expreffions upon the Ufe and Defign of Confefltons of Faith, which well deferve a Room here, viz. ‘‘ What is the Ufe of March-ftones upon Bor- “ ders of Lands, the like Ufe hath Confejjions of Faith in “ the Kirk, to difterminate and divide betwixt Truth and “ Error; and the renewing and applying of Confejjlons of “ Faith to the prefent Errors and Corruptions, are not un** “ like ridding of Marche.s: And therefore, to content “ ourfelves with the general, and to return to it, from the “ particular Application of the Confeffion, neceffarily “ made, upon the Invafion, or creeping-in of Errors ** within the Borders of the Kirk, if it be not a Removing of ( 'h8 ) of the Mar^h-ftone from the own Place, it is at leaf! the ** Hiding of the March in the Ground that it be nor fcen, “ which at this Time were very unrcafonable, &£■. ” After the faid Proteftation was read by Mr, Archibald J^ohn~ fioTiy according to the printed Copy before me, Inftru- ments were taken thereupon in the Hands of three publick Notars, and an Extraft craved by the Earl of Montrofe in Name of the Noblemen, by Mr. Gihfon of Durie in Name of the Barons, by George Porterjield Burgefs of Glafgoc. rtatcd thetnfelvcs Purfucrs of the Bifliops; and the Presbyteries, taking the Matter into their Gonlidera- tion, referred the whole Caufe unto the General AfTem- bly, and in the mean Time agreed to cite the Bifhops to the faid AflTembly. Such of them as were in the Country had their Libels put into their Hands; but in regard the mod Part of them had fled the Country, and retired into England, the Libels were appointed to be read publickly on the Lord’s Day in the Churches, and they were cited from the Pulpits to the AlTembly that was to meet at G/^/- go'vt} : and, according to Rujhworth, the Libels were read in all the Cliurches of Scotland. In like Manner, leveral Presbyteries prepared Libels againfl: fuch Minifters as bad been fcandalous in their Walk, or who had vented Avmi- Tiian or Popiih Do(ftrines, or who had read the Liturgy; and thefc were alfo cited to the General AfTembly *• Upon this remarkable Turn of Affairs, M.v. Rutherfoord was liberate from his Confinement at Aberdeen, and was chofen a Member of the Aflembly at Glafgow : Likewife# feveral of the Prelatick Miniflers having left their Charges and retired into England, fome eminent Minifters, who had come over from Ireland, were immediately fettled in their Pariflies; fuch as Mr. Blair, Mr. Livingjlone and others, who were alfo chofen Members of the faid ACf fembly. The General Aflembly was opened at Glafgaw on the 21 ft of November. That great Man, Mr. Henderfon Mi- nifter at Leuchars, was chofen their Moderator, The Alarquis of Hamiltom prefented the King’s Commiflion, whereby he was appointed his Majefty’s Commiflloncr to that Aflembly, which was read, together with a Letter direfted to them from the King. The firft Six Seflions of the Aflembly there was nothing done, but the Choice of their Moderator and Clerk, and the examining of the Commifllons from the feveral Presbyteries and Burghs. The Commiffloner endeavoured to embarrafs them in all I i thsir * Hift.MoC. p. 78, 79, 80. . ( ^ 5 ° ). ^heir Proceedings, and protelled againft every Step of the fame. In the fixth Sefiion of the AfTembly, Doftor Hamilton^ as their Procurator, gave in a Proreftarion againft and De¬ clinature of the AlTembly, figned by Six of the Bifhops, to which a few Miniffers that were of their Party adhered. 'Xhis Declinature, with the Reafbns thereof, the Reader may fee in Rulhwortb’s Colleftions. I have not feen any Copy of the AfTembly’s Anfwers, but that which is in the Latin Hiftory, and there the curious Reader may find it. At the following (eventh Sefllon, the AlTembly approved the Regifters of former free and lawful General AlTemblies fince the Reformation: Then they entred upon theConli- deration of the Bifhops ; and after Deliberation on the fame, and feveral Reafons offered to take off any Thing in their Declinature that could be alledged to have any Force or Weight, the Queftion was ftated. Whether or nor, notwirhftanding of the faid Declinature and Pro- teftation, this AlTembly was a free, lawful and right-con- fiitute AlTembly ? And, when they were about to vote the laid Queftion, the King’s Commiflioner, after a long Speech, told them rhat he could not any longer, in a Con- fiftencv with his Duty to his Majier^ countenance them; and therefore dilcharged them in the King’s Name to fit any longer, and declared that any Thing done in the Af- lembly fhould be of no Force, and fhould not bind any of his Majefty’s Subjefts. The Affembly knowing very '•well rhat the Commijftoner had a Defign to diflblve their .Meeting, a Proteftation was prepared and in Readinels againft this Event, which was now put into the Hands of the Clerk to be read; and, while this Proteftation was reading, the Commiflioner removed: And the next Day, November 29th, a Proclamation was made over the Crols of GlafffoiVj inhibiting and difcharging the AlTembly, under the Pain of Treafbn, to continue their Meeting; and alfo declaring all and whatfoever they fhould happen to do, to be null, and of no Force, Strength or Effeft. After the above Proclamation was made, the Proteftation which was read in the AlTembly, and which they had approven, was likewile read at the Croft of Glafgoiv in Name of the Church of Scotland^ and of all the Subferibers of the Co¬ venant. The Reader will find both the Proclamation, and the Aflembly’s Proteftation, in Rufi. Aft !• t liift. Mot. p. ( jj8 ) who were guilry of Error, or who had fubmitted to the Liturgy, and who refufed to fubmit to the A6ts and Con- ftitutions of chi') Aflembly, or who were orherwife I'canda- lous in their Practice. And, among the laft Things done by this Afl'embly, a fblemn Thankfgiving was appointed to be obferved through all the Churches in this Land, for the Succefs that the Lord had given unto them. There are two excellent Speeches at the Conclufion of this Af- lembly, the one by the Moderator, the other by Mr. David Dickfony wherein the Rile and Progrefs of this great Work of God are mentioned with Thankfultiefs to the Lord; I dare not fwell this Book with giving even the Heads of them. Likewife, at the Moderator's Defire, the Earl of Argyll fpoke to excellent Purpole. Then the Aflembly was concluded with Prayer and Singing of the 153d Pfalm ; and they all parted with the greateft Har¬ mony and Joy. I have now given an Account, tho’ but a very fhort and imoerfedt one, of that glorious Appearance of the Lord for this Church in the Year 1658. The want of a full and faithful Hiftory of this wonderful Turn, is a very confiderable Lofs unto this Church ; and I am perfwaded, that the Author of the EJfay^ if he had been acquainted with the Hiftory of this Period, would not have treated the Aflembly 1638 in the Manner he has done. Before I clofe this Seftion, I fliall, to prevent Repetition, take notice of fame confiderable Differences betwixt the Pro¬ ceedings of this Church in the Year 1658, and the Ma¬ nagements of all Ranks of Perfons, and particularly of the General Aflembly 1690 ; and that becaufe the JjJ'odate Presbytery in their judicial and Te^imonyy p. 38, 39, &c. make mention of fome confiderable Omiflions at the Revolution; as alfo becaufe the Author of the Effavy p, 326, 127, ^c. endeavours to vindicate thefe Omiflions, and reprefents this Church as more faithful at the Revolu¬ tion than in her former Period. I do not judge it needful to purfue our Author in all the Particulars that he alled¬ ges againlfthe Aflembly 1638, fome of which he repeats over and over again, and always in a Manner very dimi¬ nutive of our reforming Period. And, before I enter u- jMn Particulars, I muft obferve. That when the ^Jfociate Freshyteryy in their and ^ejlimonyy p. 37. make men¬ tion of the Year 1688, they fpeak of the Revolution that Year as a glorious and furprijing appearance of God for us^ and they bad good Reafon to do fo; as likewife, they judge judge it their Duty to commemorate with ^hanJifuVnefs the Divine Power and Goodnefs manifefied in this wonderful IVork : It was a Work of God, which ought to be remembred to the lateft Pofterity ; it was a Work, whereby Deliverance was given us from Tyranny and Slavery, and whereby a Stop was put to an Inundation of Popijh Idolatry and Su- perftition ; Yet the Presbytery do juftly obferve, that it is to be regreted that this valuable Seafbn was neglected, and that the Deliverance that was given us was not fuitably improven. ^ho' he faved us for his Name's Sake^ yet we provoked him at the Sea, even at the Red-Sea : we forgot his ■ff^orkst and wafted not for his Counfel, From the hiftorical Account I have given, the Reader may obferve the follow¬ ing Things; i/, The Lord’s Work, in the Year 1638, was carried on with Falling, deep Humiliation and Mourning, and Acknowledgments made by all Ranks of Perlbns of the Breach of our National Covenant: Scotland at that Time nvght be called Bochim^ or a Place of Mourners; the Voice of Weeping and Supplication was heard amongft us, becaufe we had perverted our Way, and forgotten the Lord our God. But, in the Year 1688, the Efates of the Nation were more concerned in fecuring their Civil Liberties, than in appearing for the Rights and Liberties of the Kingdom of Chrilf, or in laying lerioufly to Heart their hainous Perfidy and Treachery in Breach of Cove¬ nant, tho’ this was highly aggravate above what it was in the Period before 1638: Neither did the Miniftry of the Church, in their judicative Capacity, lay home the parti¬ cular Inftances of their Perfidy and Treachery unto the Efates of the Kingdom, in order to ftir them up to Humi¬ liation and Mourning before the Lord. zdlyy As all Ranks of Perfons in the Land were fenfible of their hainous Defebtions and Backflidings, in the Year 163S; fb the Reprefentatives of this Church, when they met in the General Affembly the faid Year, they came to¬ gether under a Scnfe of the fame: And, when fbrae doubted if Ep’fcopacy and the five i\rticles of Perth were abjured by our National Confeffion as it was fworn in the Year ] 581, the Allembly fully fatisficd many that were in the Dark upon this important Queftion, and a general Submif* fion through the Land was given unto the Determinations of the General Affembly in this Point. Further, Were not all the Proceedings of tliis Affembly, with refpeft to Epif- copacy, the five Articles of Perth the Oaths of Intrants^ K k a with { 266 ) Viith others that I have mentioned^ a particular and exprefs Condemning of their National Steps of Dcfedlion ? As for what is affirmed by our Author, that there were no Fafts appointed in the Years 1658 or 1639; he ought to have known, that the Work was carried on with Fafting and Humiliation, and that the AfTembly 1638 had Ground for appointing a folemn Thankfgiving for the great Things the Lord had done for them. And whereas he aFerts, p. 136. That, when a National Faft is appointed in the Year 1642, they were far from being fo particular as the Affembly 1690; He might likewilc have known, that the AFcmbly 1638 did particularly and exprefly condemn, as is above oblbrved, the Steps of Defeftion and Backfiiding that had taken Place before that Time; Bur, in the Act appointing the Faff 1690, there is no particular nor exprefs Mention of any Sieps of Defection as contrary to our National Confeffion of Faith, or our Solemn League and Covenant. When they mention the Alteration of the Government of the Church, they fay, That “ Prelacy was introduced “ without the Church’s Conlenr, and contrary to ftanding A6fs of our National AlTcmblies;” but do not declare that it ought to be mourned over, as contrary to our Na¬ tional Oath and Confefficn of Faith. But it is declared by the Mouth of the Alfembly 1638 to be aTranfgreffing of the Covenant of the Lord, and acknowledged as a Courfe of Defeftion from him. It is likewife told in the laid Act 1690, that much innocent Blood had been flied; but they never tell that it w^as the Blood of Witnefles for the Tellimony of Jelbs that was flied. Innocent Blood may be fhed in a Land by Tumults, in Robberies, and in Quarrels, and many ether Ways: Therefore Pofterity can never know what innocent Blood is intended by the faid A6t of Affembly. If our .Author would give Credit unto the late Reverend Mr, ffogy to whole Authority he fre¬ quently appeals, he tells us in his Life writ by bimfelf, That after the happy Revolution,under the fjxcious Names of Prudence and juft Moderation, the Teftimony of former Times was fupprefied; and that it was not th.oughr a proper Seafbn to intermeddle with our Covenants, or Defections from them, that we might not give the leaft Umbrage to thole that were in the Government, many of whom were not of our Principles, and fome had been amongft the Leaders in the former Perfecurion. Our Author, p. 135. v.'hen he fpeaks concerning the Complaint made againft the Church a: the Kcvolution, for not being more particular in acknowledging Steps of Dcfedtion in Church and State he anlwcrs, Fhac fome Things reckoned Steps of D=f<; ftion were debatable Points ; “ but, for other Detc^tt'on “ in which they were clear, they have not been fo lilci as is alledged. ” And, for Proof of this, he tells c That in the Att of Affembly 1690 they exprefly confe ‘‘ the late great and general Dtfettion of this Church an ‘‘ Kingdonj;” alfo “ too general a Fainting under th great Defeflion, not only amongft Profeflbrs, but al ‘‘ amongft Minilters, yea, even amongft fuch who in tl “ main Thing did endeavour to maintain their Integrit; “ in not giving feafonable and neceflary Teftimony again “ the Defections and Evils of the Time, and keeping due Dilfance from them.” Bur, why does not our Ai thor add what follows? viz. “ And Ibme on the oth( Hand managed their Zeal with too little Diferetion an “ Meekiiefs. ” But what is in all this exprefs Confefllo that our Author Ipeaksof? We are told of Defedrion great and general Defections, Fainting, indifereet bur what thelc Defedtions v.'ere, we are not told. Mr. Ho, in his Life tells us, when fpeaking of the above-mentionei Complaint, ‘‘ ft is true, feveral publick Sins were thei “ controverted; yet fure there were many Sins beyoni “ Dilpufe, and the Confeflion of thefe was neglected thre “ carnal Prudence and Man-plea/ing.” Tins whole Church and Land returned unto th' Lord in the Year 1658, by a folemn Renovation of thei National Covenant accommodated to their Situation and Circumftances at that Time; Thereby flie not only madi a folemn Profeflien and Confeflion of her God, in Oppoi fltion unto the Difhonours that were done him, and the in. dignities that were oifered unto the Ordinances of his In* ftitution, with refpeCf; to the Government, Difeiphne and Worfhip of his Houle; but alfo flic did, with the fame Solemnity, acknowledge and avouch the feveral Articles of Faith laid down from the Word of God in our Con- fcflions of Faith. But, at the Revolution, the National Church of Scotland was not a Covenanting Church; flie made no luch Iblemn ProfefTion or Confeflion of the Truths and Ordinances of her God, in Oppofition unto a highly aggravated Violation and Profanation of them for the Spsce of Twentyfeight Years of unparalleled Apolfafy and Defcd^fion. 4 ^ 1 -iyy The Afl'emhiy 1658, in their fixteenth Seflon, exprefly condemn Epifcopacy, as contrary co the Ward of ( 262 ) f God and our National Gjtireflion of Faith: But nothing ke this was done by the Affembly 1690. This Omiffion fas attended with (everal Ipecial Aggravations; As for In- ance, The Teftimony of the Church of Scotland had been ated more particularly and exprefly againft Prelacy in ie Year 16^8 than formerly, when the laid Affembly de¬ lated Prelacy rn be abjured by our National Covenant, ad when the Covenant, according to this cxprefs Decla- ation, was aferwards fworn and fubfcribed by all Ranks f Perfons through the Land; hence the above Omiflion 1 1690 was a Dropping a material Part of theTeftimony f this Church, which had been Rated in fuch a panicu- ir and exprefs Manner. Likewife, Epifcopacy in its 'orm and Model was far more tyrannical as it was reared p by our Scots Parliament in the Year 1662, than it was 1 the Period before the Year 1658: For, as I have al- cady obferved, the Affembly at Glafgozv 1610, which irought in Epifcopacy into the Church, did not allow of he Bifliop as a diftinft Officer from preaching Elders ; leither did the Prmliament 1612, which ratified the Pro- leedings of Glaficw Affembly, confider the Bifhop as a [iflint^ Office from Presbyters: But when Prelacy is reared ip in the Year 1662, as Mr. lf'\odro fome Things that were controverted, and appointed it to be fubfcribcd according to its genuine Senie and Meaning ia all Time coming, as 1 have narrated in the preceeding Sedtion. With refpcfSt to the National Covenant^ our Author gives us an Account of its Rife, from Petrie's Hjdory, Ef- f‘ty p. 65. where he tells us, “ In 1580, (^Petrie fays) Dif- ** penfations were fent from Rome, permitting Papijis to “ promile, fwear, fubferibe, and to do what other Things “ might be required of them, if in Mind they continued “ firm to the Popijh Intereft ” Our Author adds, “ And “ according to him (viz Petrie) thele Difpenfations gave “ the firft Rile to our National Covenant, in which Papi~ firy is fo pointedly abjured.” Bur, according to our Au¬ thor’s indilHndk Way of exprefling himfelf, fome of his Readers have imagined that Petrie affirms our National Covenant had its Rife from Rome : Therefore, to clear the Matter, I lhail give the Reader the exprefs Words as they ly in Petrie's Hiftory *, in regard his Words are both altered and very much curtailed by our Author. “ Ac that Time, fiys Petrie^ viz. 15S0, were found Ibme “ Dilpenfations lent from Rome, permitting Papifis to pro- mile, fwear and fubferibe, and do what other Thing might be required of them, fo that in Mind they con- “ tinue firm and ufe Diligence to advance privily the Rc- man Faith. Thele Dilpenfations were fhewed unto the ‘‘ King; For Remedy, at firff he gives Order to one of his Minifters, yohn Craigs to writ a Form of Abjuration “ of Papijiry, in Obedience, Craig writes a Confef- lion, relative unto the former Confeffion (which was “ wholly po(itive)and abjuring all theCorruptions of “ both in Dodtrine and fuperftitious Rites and whole “ Hierarchy ; together with a Promile to continue in the “ Obedience of the Dodtrine and Difeipline of this Church, “ and to defend the fame to our Vocation and Power all the Days of our Lives, under the Pains contained in the Law, and Danger both of Body and Soul : And “ feeing many are ftirred up by Satan, and that Roman, Antichrift, to promife, fwear, fubferibe, and for a Time ule the holy Sacraments in the Church deceitful- ly, againft their own Confcicnce, QPc." as follows in the National Covenant. From the above Words of Petrie, we may clearly fee what gave Rife to the National Cove¬ nant, viz. Under the Covert of the above-mentioned Dif. * Hill p. 405, ^ ) Dlfpentations from Rome, Icveralsof the Popijb Party fliel- ,tered and thoughr rhemfelves fafe, both in figning our large Confejfion of Faith, and in joining deceitfully in the Ufe of the holy Sacraments ; therefore the fltort Confefl. lion of Faith or National Covenant was framed, wherein the Abominations of Rome, and amongft others the above Difpenfations, are particularly and exprefly abjured \ and wherein likewifc the fincere Intention of the Swearer is declared in the ftrongeft Terms. And as for the ftrong Expreflions that are made Ufe of in the National Cove¬ nant, ’tis plain that they were defigned by the Framets of it, as a Rail to debar fuch as they lay were ftirred up by Satan and that Roman Antkhrifi, to promife, fwear, &C. and for a Fime to ufe the holy Sacraments in the Kirk deceitfully ; minding thereby, under the external Cloke of Re¬ ligion, to corrupt and fubvert fecretly G.d’j true Religion ‘With¬ in the Kirk, &c. And if, after all, any fliould wickedly prefume to break in over the Rail, the Sin fhould ly at their Door, and this bold Prefumption fliould be an Ag¬ gravation of their hainous Guilt, or, as it is exprefled in . the Covenant, their double Condemnation in the Day of the Lord Jefus. The above Oblervation, taken from Petrie’s Hiftory, may help to take oft' the Force of fome other Exceptions that are laid by our Author againft the National Covenant; As for Inftance, EJfay p. no. he tells us, “That fome, “ fundry, yea, many among the moft judicious, are of O- “ pinion the National Covenant ought to be rectified, not only by Explications, but by fome Alterations: And, ‘‘ to name but in one Particular, ’tis faid. They cannot fee “ how any elfe but real afl'ured Converts or Believers'Caii “ take the National Covenant, none but fuch as have whan is called fenfible refex AJfurance.” ’Tis plain, that ouc Author is amongft the fome or many who Hart the above Difficulty againft the National Covenant; otherwile, when he mentions the faid Difficulty, he fliould have been at Pains to fatisfy thefe mof judicious Perfons who have mo- - ved it. The Objeftion then that our Author makes a- gainft the National Covenant is. That none but aflured Converts or Believers, and fuch who have Jenfihle reflex AJfurance, can take the National Covenant, Here I mighc ask our Author, May not a true Believer be allured and perfwaded of the Truths of the Gofpel, and yet at the fame Time be in the Dark about his own Intereft in Chrift, or want what he calls fenflble reflex Jjfurance ? As alfo, it M m a ~ ■ might ( * 7 '^ ) might be enquired, If there can be any reflex Afliirance, bur what is in fonje Degree or other fenjihle ? But, not to inlift upon this, I lhall confider what is ofl'ered by our Author, to prove that “ none but fuch as have what is cal- led fenfible reflex Affurance can take the National Co- venant.” This he') they could nor do, “ In re- ^ gard the Takers in fwearing fay. After long and due “ Examination of our Confcienccs in Matters of true and ** fal/'e Religion, we are now thorowly refolved in the ** Truth by the and Spirit of God." But there is no¬ thing inthefc Exprcllions which are contained in the Pre¬ amble to our National Covenant, that gives the leaft Ground for the Difficulty above-mentioned: The Subjed: of the thorow Refolution, mentioned in the above Words of the Covenant, is not one’s particular per/onai fnterefi in Chrifiy ht 4 t Matters of true andfalfe Religion', and, may not one be fully aflured, or thorowly perfwaded, with refped: to the Truth in Matters of true and falfe Religi¬ on, tho’ they have not a fenfible reflex Aflurance concer¬ ning their own perfonal Intereft in Chrift ? for it is this Aflurance I fuppofe is meant by fuch who move the Dif¬ ficulty. And f judge that thefe fundry or many judicious Perfons, who have moved the above Objection againft the Covenant, have not duly confidered the above Words of our National Covenant on which their Difficulty is groun¬ ded, in regard the Objedtion that they move upon this Head, againft our National Covenant, amounts to this. That none can be thorowly refolded in their own Cor.fcien- ces in Matters of true and falfe Religion, if they have not an Aflurance of their perfonal Intcrefl in Chrift : And I fuppofe this will he looked upon as a dangerous as well as erroneous Conclufion, in regard it would make true Believers, while they w'ant fenfible reflex Aflurance, Scepticks in Matters of true and falfe Religion. When it is added in the Preamble to the Covenant, “ That they are thorowly refolved in the Truth by the iVord and Spirit of God;" Neither does this infer the Neceffity of what our Author calls fenfible reflex /IJfurance; and that becaufe fuch as are only temporary Believers mav he rc- fblvcd in the Truth of Matters of true and falfe Relt- f ion, by the Word and the common Operations of the pirit of God. I doubt nor but it may be faid of thofe mentioned in the Parable, Mat. xiii. 20. who heard the f^'ord, and anon with foy received it, and yet fell away; tha: they were refolved in tiic Trmh with refpedt to Mat- icrt ( .277 ) tcrs of true and falfe Religion ; And therefore even fuch who are neither Convtrrs, nor aflured Converts and Be¬ lievers, may exprefs themfelves in the above Words of our National Covenant. Yea, further, fuch as have only what is called a mere hiftorical Faith, may be refolvcd ia their own Confcicnces in the Truth, with reljoed: to Mat¬ ters of true and falfe Religion, both by the Word, and the common Strivings oi the Spirit of God with their own Confciences ; and therefore might take the National Covenant, and warrantably expreis themfelves in the a- bove Manner. ’Tis here likewife to be obferved, that, after the Truth had been overclouded with Antichriftiaa Darknefs, it did break forth with a beaming and radiant Lufire in reforming Times; there was a very plentiful R£- fufion of the Spirit, when the Lord brought his Church, and People in this Land our of Antichriftian Darknefs; a? alfo, there was in the Year 1658 a more than ordinary EiFafion of the Spirit upon all Ranks of Perfotis in this Land, as I have already obierved. Under this plentiful Etfufion of the Spirit, many were favingly inlightned ; others had a common inlightning Work of the Spirit of God, in Matters that concerned the Difference betwixt true and falfe Religion ; and therefore might warrantably fvvear, not only in the above Terms contained in the Pre¬ amble, but might alfo fay, “That they were perfwaded in their Confciences, thro’ the Knowledge and Love of God’s true Religion^ imprinted in their Hearts by the “ Holy Spirit.” And tho’ many at this Time were faving¬ ly inlightned, yet there is no Doubt that others were on¬ ly under a common inlightning Work of the Spirit, and therefore fell away; they proved unftedfaft and psrfidous in his Covenant ; And this was likewife the Cafe with Is¬ rael in the Wildernefs, who fwore with as great Solemnity to the Lord as ever Scotland did, and yet with many of them God was not well pleafed, i Cor. x. 5. I mulf further obferve, with refped: to the above ftrong Exprcllions con¬ tained in the Covenant, that they are agreeable to the Scripture-rule for fuch folemn A(&ions; fuch as, Jer. iv. 2. And thou Jbalt fwear^ ^he Lord Uveth^ in ^ruth, in 'J^dg-m tnenty andin Righteoufnefs \ and the Nations Jball hiefs them- felves in himy and in him Jhall they glory. Thefe Words of the Prophet do plainly point at the Swearing or Cove¬ nanting of Nations unto the Lord ; and the above Ex- prefTions in our National Covenant are exprefly laid a- gaioil thefe who Ihclcered themfelves under Difnenfations from { 278 , ) from Romey and who dealt deceitfully and againft their own Confciences in the Matters of God: Therefore our Covenanting Fathers declare, That they fwear in Truth, or in Sincerity, being refolved in their own Confciences in the Truth, with relpedt to Matters of true and faife Re^ ligioKy by the Word and Spirit of God : This is faid, in Oppofition to the above hypocritical Deceivers. Again, they declare they fwear in Righteoufnefs and Judgment, being perfwaded in their own Confciences, ‘‘through the “ Knowledge and Love of God’s true Religion imprinted “ in their Hearts by the fioly Spirit.” This is faid like- wife in Oppofition to fuch as were guilty of Uypocrify and Double-dealing with God and his Kirk ; as alfb, a blind implicite Faith, or the general doubtfom Faith of the Church of Romoy is hereby condemned. As for the other ExprefTions of our National Covenant, from which our Author likewife argues, that a fenfthle rejlex ^Jfurance is needfn\ in fuch as would fwear tiie Na¬ tional Covenant, viz. “ To this true reformed Kirk we join ourfelves willingly, in Dotdrine, Faith, Religion, Dif- “ cipline, and life of the holy Sacraments, as lively Mem.. “ hers of the fame in Chriji our Head." The Difficulty is chiefly founded upon the laft Words, as lively Members^ ■ &c. And, for clearing of this Difficulty, lobferve, That as the Lord Jefusis given to be Head over all Things unto the Church which is his Body, fb this glorious and exalted Head may be viewed under a double Confideration, and fo may his Body the Church, ijly The Church may be confidered as it is his believing and myfiical Body ; zdly^ As it is a vifihle profejpng Body. To the Church confi¬ dered as his believing myfiical Body, the Lord jefus Chrift is not only the Head of Rule and Government, but he is in a fpecial Manner the Head of all gracious, faving and fpiritual Influences, whereby they are quickned andfan- ftified, and preferved unto his heavenly Kingdom ; their Unction is from this holy One, who communicates his Spi¬ rit unto all the Members of his myftical Body, according to their different Meafurcs. Again, if the Church is con¬ fidered as a vifihleprofejftng Body, he is both a Head of Rule and Government, and alfo of the Communication of all thefe fpiritual Gifts, not only fuch as arc faving, but alfo of all thefe common Gifts and Graces, whereby all the Members of the vifihle Body are, in their feveral Spheres and Stations, adapted and made ferviccable unto the Good of the whole Body, 1 Cor. xii. 14,- Z3. Further, when f 27P V the Church is viewed as the believing myftical Body of- Chrilt, fhc is then confidered as under the internal Dif- pcnlation of the Grace of tiie Covenant. Again, when the Church is viewed as a vifibie profeliing Body, fhe is then confidered as under the external Adminiftration of the Covenant of Grace, making an outward credible Profef- fion of the Truths of the Gofpel, and giving an outward Subjeftion unto the Ordinances of Ghriif, particularly the Government and Difeipline of his Houfe. I obferved in the firft Section of the firft Chapter, That tho’every par¬ ticular Church (lands in Relation unto theCatholick Body as a Payt unto the Wkole^ yet every particular Church, whether National or Presbyterial, may be confidered as a vifibie Body, in refpeftof its own Members, Order and Government. And it is very obvious and plain, that when our reforming P'arhers declare their Conjundtion with this true reformed Kirk in Dodlrine, P'aith, Religion, Difei¬ pline, B’c. no more can be meant but their Conjundtion with this reformed Church as an outward vifibie organi- cal Body, making an outward Profeflion of the true Faith, and profefiing Subjection unto the Ordinances of Divine Inflicution and Appointment : And, when they declare themfelves lively Members of the prcfefiing vifibie Body in Chrift their Head, no more can be intended than the Sincerity of their Profefiion, in Oppofition unto the dead and corrupt Members of jdntichrifi their Heady who were only moved from worldly Refpefts, as it is exprefl'ed in our Confeffion of Faith; and who under the external Cloke of Religion, by vertue of the Pope’s Difpenfations,. fubverted fecretly God’s true Religion, and, when their Time did fervethem, became open Enemies and Perfecu-^ ters of the fame, under the vain Hope of the faid Dif- penfations, devifed (as is likewife exprefl'ed in the Na¬ tional Covenant) againft the Word of God, to the Pope’s greater Confufion, and the double Condemnation of all luch his Followers, in the Day of the Lord Jefus. Hence the Reader may fee, that when our Covenanters fwear, as ' lively Members of this reformed Church in Chrift their (; Head, it is not that vital Union betwixt Chrift the Head t and the myftical Body, that is here mainly intended; but I it is that outward vifibie Conjunftion, as Members of the 1 fame vifibie organick Body, under Chrift the Head of the Church, that is here principally intended : And therefore; I when they declare themfelves lively Mernbers of the faid Body, no more can be meant bur that their Profefiton was ■ not ( sSo ^ not that deac^, rotten, hypocritical and deceitful Profef^ jflon, with a Defign to fubvert the true Religion, v/hich feverals of the Popijh Parry made. Hence they add, ‘‘We therefore, willing to take away all Sufpicion of Hypo- “ crify, and of fuch Double-dealing with God and his Kirk, call the Searcher of all Hearts for Witnefs, that our Minds and Hearts do fully agree with this our Gnn- “ feffion, Promile, Oath and Subfcription, &c’' From •what is above obferved, I hope the Reader may fee, that there is no Ground for that Objeftion which our Author tells us many among the moft judicious make againft the National Covenant; as alfo, that the Covenant may be fworn in its genuine Senfe and Meaning, even by fuch who have not what our Author calls fcnfible reflex AlTu- rance. Our Author makes another Objedtion againft the Natio¬ nal Covenant, p. 185. viz. “ Might not fome ferious Souls, having a full fenfible Afliirance, being perfwaded the “ Believer is beyond all Danger of Hell, had a Scruple “ to fwear to do fb and fo, under the Danger of both Body “ and Soul in the Day of God's fearful J^udgment ? which “ are the Words of that Covenant. He adds, If I mi- “ ftake not, moft Part of the feven Brethren, fometime “ fince 1722, would had a Scruple to fwear in the above Terms.” To which I anfwer,Our Author is very much miftaken ; for all the feceding Brethren may fafely fwear the Covenant in the above Terms without any Scruple I hope our Author will not alledge againft any of them, ^ that they have departed from the Doftrine laid down in our Confeffion of Faith ; and they cheerfully own the fixth Article of the 19th Chapter of our Confefllon of Faith (as well as the other Articles of that Confellion) viz. “ Altho* “ true Believers be not under the Law as a Covenant of “ Works, to be thereby juftified or condemned; yet it is of great Ufe to them, as well as others,-and the “ Threatnings of it ferve to fhew what even their Sins “ deferve, &c." Does not every Oath contain, either ex- plicitely or implicitely, a folemn Appeal to God, not only as the Witnefs, but alfb as the Judge and Avenger in cafe of Perfidy or Falfe-fwearing? If our Author is amongft the fame who fcruple at the National Covenant on account of the above awful Certification in its Bofom, he is not far from the Principles of the fakers and German Anabap.. tifis, who affirm, that it is not lawful to fwear any Oaths whatfoever. I pro- ( 2 I proceed now to confider what is advanced by our Au® thor againft the conftituent Members of the AfTembly 1638. He makes mention of a great many Oaths that were impo- fed before 1638, tho’ I have not oblerved that any of tbern Were impofed either by Civil or Ecclefiaffick Authority, nay, not by the pretended AfTemblies of that Period ; I do not pretend to know what the lawlcfs High Commijfion did. And, after he has reckoned up his Oaths, he tells us, EJfay p. 92. I fuppofe the Minillers of that Aflem- bly 1638, for a great Part, were Men who had fworn and come under thefe Oaths.” And, p. 89. he tells us* “ That AfTembly confifled mainly of fuch as had fubjefted. “ themfelves to Prelacy, which, fays j&e, was the lettled Government of the Church from 1606 to that Time j “ and many of them had taken the abominable O^ths ** which were impofed in that Period: And then tney “ neither profefled Repentence for complying with Prela- “ cy, nor profeffed Repentance for taking fuch Oaths, nor was any Confeffion required of them, He fub- joins, “ And,, for ought I know, there might be Twenty in that AfTembly that had complied with Prelacy, for one fuch received by the Church of Scotland at the Re- volution." The above Charge againft the Members of that famous Afl’embly is laid in a very invidious Manner, and with an evident Defign to expofe and defame them;, I hope, from the Narrative that I have given in the pro¬ ceeding Part of this Chapter, the Reader will fee that there is no Truth in what our Author advances, when he affirms, That fuch as had complied with Prelacy, and had taken the Oaths he mentions, did not profefs Repen¬ tance for the fame. The whole Proceedings of the Land at that Time, as alfo of the AfTembly 1638, were one Continued Series and Trait of a, publick ConfefTion of the Backflidings of this Church and Land from the Lord, and of a publick ProfefTion of Repentance for the fame ♦ Therefore, upon Suppofition that it was true that the moft Part of that AfTembly had fubjeited to Prelacy, it is very indecent in our Author to throw up the fame: The Lord hath faid that he will not remember the Sins of his People, who acknowledge their Iniquities and return unto him, and that he will caft all their Sins into the Depths of the Sea; ’tis then very much Prefumption in others to upbraid them with thefe, much more when it is done with a De« fign to extenuate the Sins of others. And it is obvious, thatour Author miffeprcfents the Aflemby 1638, that he N n *nay ( 282 ) may extenuate the Conduct of the AlTembly 1^90, with refpeft to the Prelatick Clergy, and ether Steps of De- feftion. But when our Author affirms fo confidently, that the Affemhly 165S confided mainly of fuch as had fubjedted themfelves to Prelacy, and that the Minillers of that Af- fembly were for a great Parr Men who had fworn the Oaths he mentions, 1 want his Vouchers to fupport this Charge. Tho’ he abounds in his Authorities, yet he has not given us one Authority to fupport the Charge he has laid againft fuch a reverend and faithful Body of Men. Docs he think that we mufti fuftain his invidious Accufa- tions as true, upon his foie Authority ? Therefore I de¬ mand of him a Proof of the Charge; and I may juftly crave that the World may hold him as a Slanderer, unlefs by good and fufficient Vouchers he prove the Accufations that he has laid againft an Aflembly, concerning which I may fay, without Difparagement unto any others, that the Church of ScotUnd has never feen a more faithful Body of Men reprefenting her in the Capacity of a National Afl fembly, I do not refufe that fome of the Minifters who were Members of the Aflembly 1638 had complied with Prelacy, and alfo taken the Oaths required of Intrants in¬ to the Miniftry: That great Man, Mr. Henderfonl\\t\T Moderator, was Prelatick in his Judgment at firft, as I have reported already ; and likewile I have obferved, that he gave abundant Evidences of Repentance for hia^Coro-^ pliance with the fame. But that which I demand our Au¬ thor may prove, is, that the AflTembly 1638 confifted mainly of fuch as had fubje^ted themfelves to Prelacy, as he affirms p. 89. and that the blinifters of that Aflembly, for a great Parr, were Men v;ho had fworn and come un¬ der the Oaths which he mentions p. 92. I am not obli¬ ged to prove a Negative ; yet I might give as ftrong Evi¬ dences to the contrary, as a Proof of this Nature can ad¬ mit: But I fliall give one Evidence at the Time; and, if our Author Iball upon any fufficient Grounds and Rcafbns difprove it, I may afterwards give him others. The E- vidence I give, againft our Author’s AflTertions, is. The King’s Proclamation made at the Crofs of Edinburgh^ De¬ cember i8th 1638, in the Time of the fitting of the faid Affembly: In the faid Proclamathny their Proceedings are condemned as illegal and unwarrantable, and all their Afts and Deeds are declared to be null and void, and the for¬ mer Prohibition given them by the King’s Commiffionce ( iSj ) is juftified, amongft other Reafons, for the following, That the Commiflioners for the Aflembly, fotne of them were “ under the Cenfure of this Church, fome of them un- “ der the Cenfure of the Church of Ireland^ fbme long “ fince banifiied for open and avowed Teaching againft “ Monarchy, others of them fufpended, and fbme ad- “ mitred to the Miniftry contrary to the Form preferibed by the Laws of this Kingdom, others of them Rebels “ and at the Horn, fome of them confined, and all of “ them by Oath and Subfeription bound to the Overthrow “ Epifcopal Government.’* By the Cenfures of this Church, and the Cenfures of the Church of Ireland in the Proclamation, are meant the Sentences of Deprivation, Sufpenfion and the like, which were pafled by the High Commijfion Courts^ on account of the Nonconformity of feveral worthy Minifters to Prelacy : By thefe who were admitted to the Miniftry contrary to the Laws of the Kingdom, are meant fuch Minifters who were ordained by Presbyteries, and who had not complied with the Oaths required of Intrants at that Time. Look now. Reader, and fee what Truth there is in the Charge that is laid againft the conftituent Members of this Aftembly by the Author of the EJfay ; they are indeed treated after a very hard Manner: The King by his Proclamation con¬ demns them all, as fuch who had been one Way or other witneffing againft Prelacy, and a Courfe erf Conformity to the fame; and now, in this Age, a profejjed Son of the Church of Scotland accufes the Bulk and Body of them as Compliers with Prelacy, and as a Sett of Men who had fworn all the abominable Oaths he mentions. I lhall proceed now to confidcr the Treatment our Au-* thor gives to the Adts and Proceedings of this Aflembly; and particularly, to an Article pafi'ed amongft feveral o- thers into an Aft, on the 17th and 18th of December-, ic is the 17th Article in Order: I know not how often ic is thrown up by our Author, and always in a very invidious Manner, as p. 20, 95, 94, 146, 168,175, 181, ^c. This Aft is one of his common Topicks, it runs through his whole EJfay, unto it he makes his Retreat when he is brought to any Pinch; He reprefents it as a bad Aft, as fuch an unveafonable Adc, that it has not a Parallel from that T'ime to this; as an Aft of the greatefi tyranny, as an un~ accountable Aft, as an Aft reftriBing Minifierial Freedom,, etc. I fhall now tranferibe this Aft, againft which our Author brings fo many and fuch grievous Charges; and, N n 2 ( .'284 ) Jn regard he always mentions fcarce the one Half of if, t ^hall tranferibe in Italick that Part upon which he thinks fit to fet his Thumb, that the Reader may fee that Part 'which is ftill left out of the EJfay. “ Whereas the Con~ ** of Faith of this Kirk, concerving both DoBrwe and S* DifeipUne^ fo often called in ^uefiion by the corrupt Judg- ‘‘ ment and tyrannous Authority of the pretended Prelates^ it now clearly explained, and by this whole Kirk reprefenied by “ this General j 4 Jfembly concluded, ordained alfo to be fubferibed by all Sorts of Perfons within the faid Kirk and Kingdom ^ The Aflembly conftitutes and ordains, that from hence- forth no Sort of Perfon, of whatfoever Quality and Degree, be permitted to fpeak or write againft the faid Confeffion, this Aflembly or any Aft of this Aflembly, V and that under the Pain of incurring the Cenfures of this Kirk, ” Is it without Defign that our Author leaves out the firft and the greateft Part of the above Aft ? Is it fair Dealing to treat fuch a Body of Men after this Manner, by gi¬ ving fcarce the one Half of their Meaning? Does not the Ratio Legis, or the Reafon of Law, tend much to explain the fame ’ And the Part of the above Aft which is o- mitted by qup Author, contains plainly the Reafons and Grounds of their Aft, viz. That the Confeflion of Faith, pr the National Covenant of this Kirk, concerning both ^ Doftrine and Difeipline, which had been called ir4-Q4i6- Ifion by the Prelates, was now clearly explained ; as mfb, ihat this was done by this whole Kirk, reprefented in Jchat General Aflembly • and likewife, becaufe the faid Aflembly had ordained the National Covenant to be fub- Icribed by 3^1 Sorts of Perfons within this Kirk and King¬ dom : Thefe are the Grounds upon which they enaft and prdain as follows in the Aft. And the above Pajrt of the Aft, which our Authpr always cites, contains three Things; The one is. That henceforth no Perfon, of whatever equality or Degree, fliould fpeak or write againft the Con- fellion of F’aith or National Covenant, viz. as it was clear¬ ly explained by this Aflembly, as is evident from the a- bove Preamble to their Aft. The fecond Particular e- jnafted is, That none fhould fpeak or write againft this Af¬ lembly, viz- againft the Conffitution of this Aflembly, as a free and lawful Reprefentative of the whole Church of Scotland. And a third Particular enafted is, That none ^ak or write againft any kSt of this Aflembly ; and ail, there ( *8y ) tbefe are prohibit under the Pain of the Cenfures of this Kirk. From the hiftorical Account that I have given, it is evi¬ dent, that the Particulars above-mentioned were oppofed by the Prelates and their Adherents; they had protelled againft the Conftitution of this Alfembly, and declined their Authority} they condemned the Explication that was given of the National Covenant or Confeflion of Faith; yea, by publkk Proclamations made both at Glafgow and Edinburgh^ their Meetings were condemned as unlawful, after they were difcharged by the King’s Commiffioner; likewife, all their A£ts and Proceedings were declared to be null and void, and the SubjeiSs were difcharged to yield any Obedience unto them: Therefore it was ne- cefTary for the Alfembly to alfert their own Conftitution, and to juftify their own Afts and Proceedings, as alfo to declare all fuch cenfurable who fhould impugn their Con¬ ftitution, or refufe Obedience unto their Afts and Pro¬ ceedings. As this is all that is done in the A 61 : about which our Author makes fo much Noife, fb the Alfembly could do no lefs; for, if they had done otherwife, they had not alferted the juft Rights and Privileges of Chrift’s Spiritual Kingdom, which was the Quefiion now upon the Field ; they had departed from the Teftimony that they gave, when theBilhops protefted againft their Conftitution, and when the King’s Commiffioner difcharged their Meeting; and the World might juftly have looked upon them as Men who had given up with that Caufe, which they had efpoufed with the greateft Solemnity; yea, if they had done fo, they had well dclerved all the unfair Characters that the Author of the EJfay gives them. But fince the Author of the Ejfayy to fupport his Charge againft this famous Alfembly, mufters up a great many of their particular ACts and Proceedings, which he likewife brings as fo many Accufations againft them ; I ftiall briefly confider them. The Accufations that are brought by our Author are for the moft Part laid by way of ^uery^ and they are introduced after his ufual ambiguous Manner of dealing, Effay p. 95. “ Now (fays he) Jome might think this (v/z. the above ACl:) was an ACt of the greateft Tyranny, and a plain Reftrifting of Mihifterial Free- dom, And afterwards he fays, “ Some tender *“ ferious Minifters might think themlelves obliged in Con- fcience to fpcak, preach, and teftify even againft this very Act itlelf, as reftriCting Minipetial JFi eedom: And they ( ) they might fpeak againft that Afl: whicii condemned ‘‘ rhefe Aflemblies at Aberdeen and St. Andrews^ partly “ upon fuch a Ground as that the Burghs could not be prefent at thefe Aflemblies. ” To which I anfwer, It would have been no great Evidence, either of Tendernefs or Serioufnefs, if they had fpoke againft the Aflembly i6;8 on this Account; and that becaufe the forefaid Aflemblies were condemned upon other good and weighty Grounds; as alfo, bccaufe the Indidtion of thefe pretended Aflemblies was fo fhort before the Time of holding of them, that Burghs could not fend up their Commiflioners, as the Afl of the Aflembly at Glaf^ow con¬ demning the faid pretended Affemblies bears. And tho’ I lhall not enter into the Queftion, Whether this Part of our Conftitution is right or wrong 1 yet it is certain that Burghs have had their Commiflioners to our Aflemblies from the Reformation to this very Day; and therefore they may reckon that they have a Right to fend their Commiflioners, ay and until fome General Aflembly enquire into their Right, and difeharge this Pradfice: And befides, 'tis plain, that it was with Dcfign that fo fhort Advertifement was given of the Meeting of thefe pretended Aflemblies, that the Burghs might not be prefent; it leems they were not very pliable at that Time to the Court-meafures fur" fupporting Prelacy; And therefore the Aflcmbty -at^T^/- gtiv had good Ground to fubjoin the above to the other weighty Reafbns they give for the Nullity of thefe pre¬ tended Aflemblies. Our Author adds, “ What if they (viz. ferious and tender Minifters) fhould thought it Duty to teftify againft that Adt December 5th, Seflion i 5. which condemned the unlac." I fhall only take notice of another Aft of which our Author very much mifreprefents, viz. the Di~ reBory of Alfembly 1649, which f fays he., p. 135.) ‘‘ gives “ the dccifive Vote in the Eleftion of Pallors to the El- “ ders only.” And, p. 147. “ It robs the People of theic “ Right to eleft their Padors fo far, that they had not the Choice of any of the Perfons to be upon the Lcit foe “ Minifters, in regard by that Aft the Elders only had “ both the Nomination and Eleftion.” Our Author adds, “ Tho’ the People had a Negative upon them, yet they might never have the Perfbn they mod inclined to have, “ if but four of feven Elders, fhould be againft the whole Parifb.” Our Author cannot refufe that the People had a Negative over their Elders by the DireBory 1649; and, if fo, then it is plain that the People were fb far from being robbed of their Right to chufe their own Miniders, that the Seffion could not impofe a Minider u- pon them, if the Majority of the Congregation diflented ; efpecially when it is conudered, that according to the Di- reBory,> when the faid Majority diflented, they were no more obliged to give their Reafbns for their Diflent than the Sefllion for their Eleftion, as our Author pleads in his Populi, p. 125, 12(5. And in the fame Place, when i^caking of the Affair of Aberdeen in the Year I72(S, he reports, That, when fuch as oppofed the Peoples being called as Confenters in the faid Affair of Aberdeen^ they ( 3 ’^ ) fau-^, could fee no Difference at all hetiveen calling them as decijive VoterSy and making an exaB Enquiry into their Sentiments as Con/enicrs. Our Author adds, “ And indeed I own the Difference is but finally while as the Church “ of Scotland required their Confent to be enquired into, “ and People were not obliged to objetff againll the Man’s Life or DoBrine." Our Author, if he had pleafed, might have faid, *Tis but a Strife about Words, to que- ftion whether the People ffiould be called dedfive VottrSy or only ConfenterSy when the Presbytery mud flop further Procedure, and when the Seflion muft proceed to a new Eleftion, if the Majority of the Congregation diffcnt, with¬ out being obliged to give any Reafon for the fame. A confiderable Divine, who is fometimes quoted by our Author *, affirms, “ That the Right of Calling Mini- “ fters does not belong to the Church-reprefentative, but “ originally and radically {-primario & radicaliter) to the “ Society of the Faithful, or the colleftive Church, who, “ for Order’s Sake, may transfer it upon the Church- reprefentative; and yet in the mean Time do not alto- gether give up with their Right, but allow it to be ex- ** ercifcd in their Name, aixi by their Authority, fo that “ they may exercife it themfelves, when they, to whom “ they have committed this Power, do bafely abufe it “ ad Mendacii propagationem,* i. e. by fpreading a Lie, or by giving out that the Chriftian People are for a Man to be their Minifter, when in the mean Time there is no Truth in it. And I find our Author, Full Vindicationy p. 206. in his Difpute with his Adverfary, who alledged that by the Affembly 1649 the Elders were confidered as the Peoples Reprefentatives; from this, I fay, our Author juftly concludes. That his Antagonift had yielded it unto him, “ That the Affembly 1649 were of the Mind, that “ it is the Peoples Right originally to ele6t their own Pa- ffors.” Our Author adds, “ If the Elders chufe for “ and in Name of the People, I think no Man of com- ** mon Underflanding can deny but it is the Peoples Right; “ and, if their Right, I fee not but they muft have a “ Right to exercife it, unlefs they have rendered thcm- “ felves unworthy of it, or unfit for exercifing thereof.’* From our. Author’s oWn Acknowledgment, as well as from the ample Negative that the Direftory 1649 gives to the People over the Seflion, ’tis plain, that the faid DircBcry is fo far from denuding the People of their Right, that it * ffurret. dc Neccff. Scceff. p. 227. i* does acknowledge (as is well ex'prcfTed by ^urretir.e) that the Pvight of Election of Miniltcrs is originally and radically in the whole Body of tlie Faithful; and, if lb, then [he EleiVion which the DireHory gives to the Sellion amounts to no more than a Nomination of one to be Mi- rifter of the Congregation. Tlierefore our Author mifre- prefents the DireBory, when he affirms, that, according to it, the People might never have the Pcrfou they moft in¬ clined to have : For, from the Negative, which our Au¬ thor in his FtiH Ftndicaiion proves to be given to the People over the Seffion, it rather follows, that the Elders or Sel¬ fion can never have the Man they moft incline to have; yea, it follow's, that they can never chufe any, with Hopes of having him fettled to be their Minifter, but the Man whom the Majority of the Congregation incline to have. And confequently, notvvithftanding of the Noife our Au¬ thor has made againft the Dire6tory 1649, as robbing in Part at leaft the People of their Right, Ido not fee that tliere is any Prejudice done to the Rights of theChriftian People in calling their own Minifters thereby : And I doubt not to fay, that if iht Directory 1649 were revived, and the Method of fettling Minifters therein preferibed were faithfully obferved, vve fliould have no Complaints thro’ the Church of Scotland of the violent Settlement of Minifters. The Author of the Ejfay cannot alledge, thac the Formality of making up a Leit, and of calling every one of the Congregation, Man by Man, is ell'ential to the Calling of a Minifter. According to the Cuftom of the primitive Church, the People fignified their Choice by lifting up their Hands, as the original Word (^NBsxiv. 2.5.) imports: And therefore I judge, that our Author gives a very good Anfwer unto an ObjeiSion that is fre¬ quently made againft popular Eleifions, viz. the Confu- fjon which muft attend them, in his Preface to his Jus Div. p. 6. “ I do not think the Votes of all, nor the Vote of “ any at all, eftential to the Calling of aGofpel-minifter; “ for if, at the Moderation, all agree upon a Perfon, I fee no Neceffiry for a Vote in the Attair: Or the Elder* fhip may be allowed to vote firft ; and, if all agree* to • the Perffin voted for, I fee no Need of calling more, B’c.” He likewife juftly obferves, That it is the ob¬ truding a Perfon upon a People, which only occafions Confufions at Moderations and Ordinations. I alfb join with him, when he fays, That, if the People demand a Suffrage, it onghr not to be refufed ; or, “ If the People R r “ differ ( 3>,4 ) . ** differ as to the Perfon nominate, there is no coming to “ the certain Knowledge of their Inclinations, but by ** calling them Man by Man.” And I humbly judge, if the Direftory 1649 is underftood in its genuine Senfe and JMeaning, it grants all that our Author pleads for; and all this is likewife afl'erted upon the Matter by the Presby¬ tery in their judicial Ail and ^eftimony^ p. 100. tho’ our i^uthor has feveral critical Queftions upon their Affertion, Ejfay p. 199. with which I fliall not trouble the Reader, in regard I do not fee any Difference betwixt him and them upon this Head. Our Author frequently appeals unto a fhort Paper, cal¬ led, Air. RutherfoordV Dying ^eflimony. He quotes i*", p. 96. and gives us a long Citation from it; and concludes, that Mr. Rutherfoord’s Words fliov.r, “ That the Judica- ‘‘ tones of the Church were as guilty in the Period before *’ 1650 in their Decifions, as any Thing that can be al- ‘‘ ledged againff the Church of Scotland at this Day.” As for this Paper called Mr. Rutherfoord’i Dying ^ejlimcnyy it was publiflied in the Year 1715, and recommended to the World by an anonymous Author, whofe Preface Unto it contains a Variety of excellent Things; but fince the faid Teftimony had not been heard of till the forefaid Year, and fince it came abroad not fubferibed by Mr. Ruther- foordy nor attefted by any Perfon who was acquainted with Air. Rutherfoord, or who was with him when on his Death¬ bed, this may give Ground to fufpedf: if it is altogether genuine: But, upon Suppofition that all that Teftimony contains Mr. Rutherfoord's own Words, the Words quoted fay our Author cannot be applied to the Period before 1650, but feem to be plainly intended of the Period after 1650, when the Church was divided by the publick Refolu- tions that were then taken; for, immediately after the above Words quoted by onr Author, ’tis added, “ If the Word “ of Truth in the Old and New Teffament be a fufficient Rule, holding forth what is a Chriftian Army, whether oft'enfive or defenfive ; whether clean, or finfully mixed; “ then muft we leave the Queftion, betwixt our publick ** Brethren and us, to be determined by that Rule.” And I’m more confirmed that the Words in 'is\.r.Rutherfcord'’i ^efiimony ^ioint at the Year 1650 and following Years, when I confider the ample ^eflimony he gives to the Pro¬ ceedings of the Year 1698 in his Letter to the Profeffors in Ireland, which I have noticed already; as alfb, the large Commendation that is given to the Work of Refor¬ mation, ( ) ination, as it was carried on from i()5Sto 1(^49, in the Tcltimony of tlie Minirters of Perth and Fife^ whicii ^Jr. like wife figns. , I have now done with examining our Author’s invidious Kefledtions upon a famous reforming Period of this Church: I hope the Reader will fee, that there is not the leaft Ground for the Charge that he lays againft them of Ty¬ ranny in the Adminillration ; and far lels for his fetting the Aflembly 1755 and other Aflemblies of this Period on a Level v/ith them, as if they were as faithful in the Ad- mtnifiration. I’m forry that one of his Charader and Profeflion has done fo much towards weakning tlie Argu¬ ments that are taken for the Purity of our Reformation from that Period ; and that he has never taken particular Notice of the feveral Proceedings of our Aflemblies at that Time, for advancing the Kingdom of Chrift, not on¬ ly ii5 this, but in all the three Nations, which the Mini- flei's of Perth and Fife in their forefaid ‘Tejiimor.y did bear particular Witnefs unto. And, notvvithflanding of all that our Author has laid, it will be found that there is juft Ground for complaining, that the Judicatories of this Church did neither at the Refolution, nor fince that Time, hear ex- prefs Witnefs and Teftimony unto the faithful Proceedings of tlie former Period, for carrying on a Work of Refor¬ mation. Our Author thinks fit with a Sneer to tell us, p. 193. “ Of what Advantage could it be, to revive fuch “ Acts as that of the AfTembly 1645, in which itisinjoi- ned, that thefe Ijis leading Arguments from Authority. But, for further clearing of Mr. Muir's ExprelTions, let me fuppofe that I fhould lay, that the Reverend Mr. Currie, Author of the E(fay, has done what lay in his Power to weaken the Au¬ thority and Reputation of the Alfembly 1638, as well as the Authority of the other Aflemblies of that Period; our Author according to his above Way of Reafoning might reply, Did it not ly in my Power to defend the Caufe of the Prelates ? Did it not ly in my Power to ap¬ prove of their Declinature oi the Alfembly 1638? Did it not ly in my Power to declare them a treafonable and fe- ditious Meeting, as King Charles I. by his Proclamation did ? But if our Author, or if any who has writ againlf the Allembly 1638 as he has done, fhould fpeak after this Manner ; it might be fafely told them, that they had now taken off the Mask, and that they had now declared them- felves openly to be, what really they were, even Enemies to the Work and Intereft of Chrift in Scotland; and it might be likewife told them, that they fpoke in an arro¬ gant Manner, as if they were independent on God, or without the Reftraints of his adorable Providence : And this I rake to be imported in the above Qiicries propofed by our Author. And as for the Reverend Mr. Adair s Ex- preflions, they only import, that when the Judicatories did not particularly and exprefly condemn the feveral er¬ roneous Propofitions vented by Mr. Simfon, and when they did not fuitably refent the blalphemous Denial of the true Deity of the ‘^on of God, but fcreened and prote(Sed Mr. Simfon from the Cenfure he delerved, and, inftead thereof, kept him in full Communion with the Church; they could not have done a greater Injury to the Deity of hi', •’erfon, in a Confiftency with that Profcflion which they continued to make. As for what our Author fubjoins, That the Alfembly, in their Att fulpending Mr. Simfon, have plainly aflerted the -proper Supreme Deity of our Lord Jefus. I have already obferved in the Vojlfcript to the printed Letter, p. 37. That our modern Arians will ac¬ knowledge a proper Supreme Deity in the Perfon of the Son, in a Confiftency with their own Scheme; as alfo, that Jvlr. Simfon will fublcribe to the Words of the above Aft of Alfembly according to his own Scnlc and Meaning of them, without difclaiming his darling Propofition, that the Terms, Necejfary Exigence, Supreme Deity, and Istle of ( 5^7 ) of ^be only true God, may be taken^ and are by fame Au¬ thors taken^ in a Senfe that includes the perjonal Property of the Father^ and fo not belonging to the Son ; and therefore I fhall nor further infill upon it in this Place. Our Author lays Tome general Exceptions againft the judicial AB and Fefiimony ; as for Inftance, he alledges. That Separatifts may complain that it is very defeftive and unfaithful, p. 149. I anfwer, The feceding Brethren did never pretend to emit a perfect Teftimony, and I doubt not but they will readily acknowledge that their Teftimo¬ ny may have manyDcfeifts: And if any, whether they are Separatifts or not, (hall difeover unto them any publick Steps of Defeftion which ought to be teftified againft, and. which they have omitted, I know nothing to hinder them from enlarging their Teftimony upon a proper Occafion. As for the Defeats tjiat are alledged by our Author, I have already taken notice of feme of them; and, as for others of them, it does not appear to me that they deferve any Regard, Our Author alfo alledges, Th^x. the judicial AB and teftimony is not plain, p. 150. But I ftill judged, ' that it was more plain than pleafant to many. As for the Inftances that our Author gives, I fhall leave it to the Rea¬ der to judge whether they amount to a Proof, that the Teftimony of the feceding Brethren wants any Thing of that Plainnefs that is neceflary for a Teftimony of this Kind. Our Author further alledges, p, 151. “ Things difputed “ among the truly godly, learned and tender, have not “ been thought fo proper Matter for a publick Teftimony.” But I muft ask our Author, Has not our Presbyterian Church-government and Difeipline been difputed even by fbme who were learned and godly? Muft we therefore give up with our Government as improper Matter for a publick Teftimony ? Yea, I could give Inftances unto him in feveral Articles of our Confellion of Faith, that have been difputed by fome who have been reckoned godly and learned; Shall we therefore, upon the Account of the Er¬ rors and Corruptions of godly and learned Men, give up with our Confellion of faith ? Our Author's Reafonings, as I have frequently obferved, are laid againft all Confef. (ions of Faith, as a Bond of Ecclefiaftical Union and Com¬ munion. The Effay on Separation is filled with Inveftives againft the feceding Brethren, and againft luch as declare their Ada . f 3=8 ) Adherence to their AB and Tefiimony : But whoever they are, that have declared their Adherence unto the AJfociate Presbytery and their AB and ^eflimonyy they have neither been forced nor compelled to this, they are all Volunteers in the Caufe And I have good Ground to believe, that a confiderable Number in Scotland are moved from a Prin¬ ciple of Confcience in their declared Adherence to the AB and tefiimony ; and that they are not led by an im- plicite Faith, bur by Knowledge and Judgment in this Matter. When our Author alledges, That there are ma¬ ny Things in the Teftimony above the Capacity of not a few ferious Souls, p. 167. This is the very fame Thing that is alledged againft all Creeds and Confe£lons of Faith : Yet, if any come in to the Aflbciate Presbytery, and'de¬ clare their Adherence to their Teftimony, who have nei¬ ther read nor confidered it, I fhall condemn them as afting without Knowledge and Judgment; but I cannot con¬ demn any of the Adherers to the judicial Aft and Tefti¬ mony, as if they were led by implicite Faith, from fuch Reafons as our Author gives : As for Inftance, when he tells us, p. 151. That the feceding Minifters “ have not “ told what are the many valuable Pieces of Reformation “ this Church and Land had once attained, which they “ affirm, AB and B^ejlimony p. 47. were upon the Matter “ given up at the Revolution.” But here there is no Ground for the Charge of implicite Faith; for the Pref* bytery, p. 58, 59, 40, 41, 4z. do plainly declare what thefe valuable Pieces of Reformation were, which, they fay, were not only ncglefted, but alfo materially given up at the Revolution. Another Inftance that he gives of adhering to the Teftimony by implicite Faith, is -a. Latin Sentence infert in the Teftimony, p. 57. But, when the Reader looks into the preceeding Page, he fees that Latin Propofition Word for Word in Englijb. However,it is not ftrange to fee honeft People run down as afting by impli¬ cite Faith, and dealing in Matters above their Capacity ; for ’tis long fince it was faid, John vii. 48, 49. Have any of the RulerSt or of the Pharifees believed on him f but this Peoplej who know not the Law^ are curfed. The Conclusion. I Have now confidered what I judged itioft material in the EJJ'ity againft the Conduct of the j^jforiate Pref- bytery, their Judicial and ^efJmor.\y and the Pro- ceedtngi of our reforming Period. If I Jiad noticed every Thing that delerved Animadverfion, I had found enough in every Page of our Author’s Performance to have fwel- led this Book to a much greater Bulk. I have Ground to make an Apology for v/riting fo much upon the Subject, and yet I could not do left in order to vindicate the Con- duft of the AlTociate Presbytery, and for clearing the Proceedings of our reforming Period, as al(b for dilcove- ring our Author’s groft Mifreprefentations of both. Tho” I have frequently read over the EJfay on Separation ; yer, *tis like, fome Things may haveefcaped my Notice, which others may reckon material: And therefore, if there is need for it, I may afterwards publifh an Appendix to this Book. I have not judged it worth while to enquire into his Hearfayt or private Storiesy as I obferved in my Poji- feript; however frequent thefe are with the Author of the Ejfayy yet it is neither a manly nor decent.Way of mana¬ ging a Caufe. And befides, if I bad dipt into them, it mull have ilTued in flat Contradidlions unto the moft if not all of them; and, after all, the Caufe in Queftioii would have got no Advantage on either Side. But, in regard the Author of the Ejfayy p. 104. with Defign (as appears) to throw a 'Refleilion upon my Reve¬ rend Brother ^Ir.Ebenezcr Erjkine; when fpeaking of the laft Form of the Oath of Abjarationy\\t{zySy “Of the Lawfulneft “ of which laft Form, the Reverend Mr. EbeneZer Ershine “ was fb much convinced, that he gave it under his Hand to the Laird of Naughtouny SherifF-depute of Ftfey thac “ he had Clearneft to take it, and fhould take it when re- “ quired, tho’ there was lomething peculiar in his Cir- “ cumftances, fo as he would not take it that Day on which it was taken by other Minifters of his Presbytery. This is no Secret; for his Obligation to take it was read “ openly in the Synod of Fife.'" Upon the above Storyj reported by the Author of the Ejfay, I wrote the Revs-’ tend Mr. Ershine ; and he gave me a Return, wherein he T t ex- . ^ . ' 33 ° ) exprefTes himfelf with his ordinary Candor and Ingenuity, and I thinJc it not improper to inlcrt it here: It is as fol¬ lows. K & D. B. I N Anfwer to yours, relating to that Paragraph in Mr. Currie s EJfay v/hich concerns me in particular,! have “ nothing to lay, but only, without Irritation of Mind, ** to acknowledge, that I was fo far overcome with the “ fubtile Arguings of Brethren, who were clear about “ the Oath in its fccond Edition, as to declare that I had Freedom allb: But as I did not take it at that Time, fo, upon after Thought and Confideration, I Taw juft “ Caufe to alter my Judgment, and declared fo much in “ a Letter to the Laird of Nau^btounj which was read, “ as I heard, before the Synod of Fife. I fhall only add, “ That I blefs the Lord, that, when my Foot had well “ nigh flipt, his Mercy held me up, and I hope lhall help and uphold me to the End. I am HurSy See. Ebenezer Erskine. From the above Letter the Reader may fee, that Mr.’ Erskine ingenuoufly acknowledges v/hat the Author of rhe EJfay alledges, that he had once Clearnels to take the Oath, but notwithftanding of this he faw juft Caufe after¬ wards to alter his Judgment; and I think this is no Dif- paragement to the Reverend Mr.£riA/»e’s Chara( 51 :er. And the Author of the Efay could not but know that he had writ as above to the Laird of Naugbtoun^ efpecially if the Letter was read before the Synod ; therefore it is not very fair in our Author to conceal that Part of the Story, and it alfo argues an Intention and Defign of defaming his Bro¬ ther. I lhall part at the Time with the Reverend Mr. Currie^ when I have obferved, That he fronts his Jhort Vindication with a Sentence from y^ugujiine, pointing at the great Re¬ gard he has for his own Chara^er and Reputation: But, as that great Light of the primitive Church was in his - - young- ( 33 *) younger Years dipt in very grofs Errors, fo lie was not afhamed to write a particular and honeft Retraftation of them. And as our Reverend Author obferves, Ejfayy p, a 16. “ j^ugufiitJe was not more famous for any Thing,than “ for his Ingenuity in writing a Book of Retraftations, ** in which he frankly acknowledged his former Miftakes •* and Errors;” I wifh the Reverend Mr. Currie would follow the Pattern and Example call before him by this great Man, and that he would refledf, with ferious Sobrir ety andCalmncfs,upon the lax Principles that he has vented concerning Church-communion, as alfb upon the Injuries Jhe has has done to a reforming Period of this Church, whereby the Mouths of many of our Enemies are opened, and the prefent Generation are hardned in their Backfli- ding from the Lord. I conclude with the Advice which he reports 'Jerome gave to Rufinusy “ Never blufli to change “ thy Opinion; for neither you nor I, nor any Perfon alive, are of lb great Authority, as to be afhamed to confefs we have erred.” FINIS. cdf» .ViO A The CONTENTS. INTRODUCTION. '^^Ontainipg a port Narrative of fome Contendings in 4 Ji''ay of Church-communion., jor fome Tears imme~‘ diately before the Secejjton from the prefent Judica¬ tories ■X.